hvfsl said:
Not by the 23rd, ATI and NVIDIA will announce MARCH/APRIL with availability in MAY/JUNE, this is how its allways been, the ultra versions come EXACTLY 6 months later just in time for availability in xmass.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PowerMac G5 Updates - March 23rd?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Not by the 23rd, ATI and NVIDIA will announce MARCH/APRIL with availability in MAY/JUNE, this is how its allways been, the ultra versions come EXACTLY 6 months later just in time for availability in xmass.
michaelal said:We sure have come to expect very little from Apple. I really believe this latest powermac update should be at least 3.0 Gig with high end video that is equal to the task of the PC market. Why is it that we have to settle for 2nd best. Sometimes being a MAC person really feels like I'm getting screwed.
So, what's the difference between waiting until the end of the year for the 3ghz machines to come out with no speed bump in between, and getting a speed bump in the middle of the year with those 3ghz machines still coming out at the same time?
I don't really see what the big deal is. It's not like there's any real competition on the PC side -- everyone is still selling basic word processing machines, and the high end machines (look at Alienware's video machines) are significantly more expensive than Apple's machines (and still run Windows).
I tell you one thin g -- the people waiting for 3ghz dual G5s aren't going to be buying anything from this speed bump. People who are looking to buy a mac NOW, though, and don't really care about future developments, will be quite pleased to see new models come out. You can't possibly be saying it's better for Apple to simply continue selling the exact same line they have now until 3 ghz G5s are available, are you?
JamesDPS said:Is it just me, or is the macplus.org site down right now? (pls note date and time as of this post)... are they suddenly getting bombarded because of these kinds of "news" posts? if something like this can generate this much network traffic, maybe we shouldn't give it as much credence...
Hmmm, I smell conspiracy theory, a bunch of Job's hit people were sent for a snuff job.
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing!
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing, besides prices.
Is the 1.8 dual the actual 1.8 dual but with crappier RAM/GFX?
Or is it also a Rev. B.
I don't want blank screens, fan noise, power supply noise, crappy audio sound noise overlay by power supply and all that sh**.
So if the 1.8ers are normal Rev. A, I wont get why people will buy them; further if the prices stay ther same (or at least the rations stay the same) the middle model will about the same bang for the buck with all products (relative to what you spend)
so what do you say; rev a? rev b?
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing, besides prices.
Is the 1.8 dual the actual 1.8 dual but with crappier RAM/GFX?
Or is it also a Rev. B.
I don't want blank screens, fan noise, power supply noise, crappy audio sound noise overlay by power supply and all that sh**
.So if the 1.8ers are normal Rev. A, I wont get why people will buy them; further if the prices stay ther same (or at least the rations stay the same) the middle model will about the same bang for the buck with all products (relative to what you spend)
so what do you say; rev a? rev b?
Come on Dude
That is absurd. What are you thinking... This is more realalistic but still not right
March 23rd-ish
Dual 1.8 GHZ G5 super drive Powermacs
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs
May -ish
Single 1.25 GHZ G5 15 " iMac
Single 1.4 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive iMac
Single 1.6 GHZ G5 20 " Superdrive iMac
September-ish
Single 1 GHZ G4 12 " iBook
Single 1 GHZ G4 14 " iBook
Single 1.3 GHZ G4 14 " iBook
September -ish
Single 1.2 GHZ G5 12 " Combo drive Powerbook
Single 1.6 GHZ G5 15 " Superdrive Powerbook
Single 1.8 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive Powerbook
July ish
Single 1.25 GHZ G4 17 " Combo drive eMac
Single 1.4 GHZ G4 17 " Superdrive eMac
May-ish
g4 (generation not processor) iPod
25-30GB
40GB
60GB
With iPod Mini's Click wheel but slightly larger.
RichardCarletta said:
That is absurd. What are you thinking... This is more realalistic but still not right
March 23rd-ish
Dual 1.8 GHZ G5 super drive Powermacs
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs
May -ish
Single 1.25 GHZ G5 15 " iMac
Single 1.4 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive iMac
Single 1.6 GHZ G5 20 " Superdrive iMac
September-ish
Single 1 GHZ G4 12 " iBook
Single 1 GHZ G4 14 " iBook
Single 1.3 GHZ G4 14 " iBook
September -ish
Single 1.2 GHZ G5 12 " Combo drive Powerbook
Single 1.6 GHZ G5 15 " Superdrive Powerbook
Single 1.8 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive Powerbook
July ish
Single 1.25 GHZ G4 17 " Combo drive eMac
Single 1.4 GHZ G4 17 " Superdrive eMac
May-ish
g4 (generation not processor) iPod
25-30GB
40GB
60GB
With iPod Mini's Click wheel but slightly larger.
a17inchFuture said:
There is the big problem of stuff falling into the powerbook. That is less of a concern on a desktop. It would destroy a laptop in a month.
MrToast said:
So where would the profit margins be if Apple sold the system without memory, super-drive/cd-rw, video card and RAM?
My Ideal PowerMac G5 update
I would like to see the Rev. B PowerMac G5s at 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 GHz, and the Rev. C PowerMac G5s at 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 GHz. If Apple could pull this off, I'd be very happy (not happy enough to buy a G5, though, since I got a 17" iMac in late January and received it in early February).
I would like to see the Rev. B PowerMac G5s at 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 GHz, and the Rev. C PowerMac G5s at 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 GHz. If Apple could pull this off, I'd be very happy (not happy enough to buy a G5, though, since I got a 17" iMac in late January and received it in early February).
wow i'm impressed that anyone read my earlier hella-long post in any detail.... (regarding "rumor" vs. "common sense" )
)( \ / )MattG said:
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ /´¯ | ¯`\ /
/ | | (¯ \
I | | \ \
| I´¯ |´¯ |\ \
\ ` ¯ ¯ ´ /
\ rock on /
hell f#%!ng yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing!
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing, besides prices.
Is the 1.8 dual the actual 1.8 dual but with crappier RAM/GFX?
Or is it also a Rev. B.
I don't want blank screens, fan noise, power supply noise, crappy audio sound noise overlay by power supply and all that sh** .
So if the 1.8ers are normal Rev. A, I wont get why people will buy them; further if the prices stay ther same (or at least the price rations stay the same), all models will have about the same price/value relation.
so what do you say about the 1.8;
rev a? rev b?
If this is true, many of us should be interested in just one thing, besides prices.
Is the 1.8 dual the actual 1.8 dual but with crappier RAM/GFX?
Or is it also a Rev. B.
I don't want blank screens, fan noise, power supply noise, crappy audio sound noise overlay by power supply and all that sh** .
So if the 1.8ers are normal Rev. A, I wont get why people will buy them; further if the prices stay ther same (or at least the price rations stay the same), all models will have about the same price/value relation.
so what do you say about the 1.8;
rev a? rev b?
I'd Really Like to see The Radeon 9800XT in the G5. I'd also like to see much lower latency RAM used. RAM is meant to have a good balance of latency and clock speed. G5 RAM's CAS latency is at either 2.5 or 3 but 5 years ago, I had SDRAM with a CAS latency of 2. Recently I bought a PC with DDR500 running at full speed and CL3. It sucked! Next time, I got DDR400 running at CL2 and it WAY outperformed the DDR500!
1.8s are probably rev a dual or single. the bottom line is every darn product they make needs help except the pods. everything is due for a update but I wonder how many fools will keep paying extreme prices for outdated technology.How old are the monitors? seems they were using those when the cube came out. Steve is probably just milking more users. G5 should have been introduced 2 years ago and it wasnt. Im sorry but iam not going to pay a arm and a leg for last years technology or even older. Pods and dual g5s are the only items that warrant the prices. I like Emac but come on they were selling g4s at 1 gig 3 years ago. Hardware still sucks and is still dated and overpriced. I wish they would just sell software that i could stick on some fast Intel machine. They should take all the bonus money from the Hardware guys and give it to the Software guys. Software is the only thing that keeps me a Mac user.
Dont Hurt Me said:
Sheesh! You're awfully negative. First of all, the PowerPC G4 is not as 'sucky' as you make it out to be. My 17" iMac boots in just 30 seconds; it's got one of those PowerPC G4s in it. Sure, Macs are expensive. I think they're MORE than worth it since they come with Apple's high quality software. Secondly, I don't think Apple ever will or even wants to target the extreme low-end market. The eMac is pretty much at the bottom of their price range. Oh, and regarding Intel hardware? Apple would be out of business quickly if that happened.
MacPlus.org article on March 23rd G5 releas is GONE!
FORGET ABOUT LOOKING At THE ARTICLE
(besides it was in French)
[however, we always have Translation in Sherlock]
It had been Temporarily Missing ! ! !
(But it is back. Probably hard to load, too much traffic initially.)
** See good English Translation from French at post #83 **
Look inside Quote Box, not in Post Itself
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/63427/
If you just bought a G5 - it may be time to TAKE IT BACK for a refund.
NOTE: price of 3 new models is purely speculative, even "release" info is pure rumor.
But, it may soon be an EARLY
G 5 PowerMac 2.4GHz
C H R I S T M A S
o n
M a r c h 2 3 r d, 2 0 0 4
For all good little
MacGIRLS & MacBOYS
If this link does NOT work for you:
http://www.macplus.org
Try this: (compliments of arn; he is a god, knows everything!)
http://62.233.44.223/ or
http://62.233.44.223/magplus/sommaire.php
arn says it is a DNS problem with our ISP (whatever that REALLY means ) He also, later told me the Article has been "pulled".
NO, it is NOT just you, JamesDPS. You're in California and I'm in Arizona and I have the same problem. Yes, definately a conspiracy because they are not having problems in UK or SC (no, "Carolina" not Southern California)JamesDPS said:Is it just me, or is the http://www.macplus.org site down right now? (pls note date and time as of this post)... are they suddenly getting bombarded because of these kinds of "news" posts? if something like this can generate this much network traffic, maybe we shouldn't give it as much credence...
FORGET ABOUT LOOKING At THE ARTICLE
(besides it was in French)
[however, we always have Translation in Sherlock]
It had been Temporarily Missing ! ! !
(But it is back. Probably hard to load, too much traffic initially.)
** See good English Translation from French at post #83 **
Look inside Quote Box, not in Post Itself
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/63427/
If you just bought a G5 - it may be time to TAKE IT BACK for a refund.
NOTE: price of 3 new models is purely speculative, even "release" info is pure rumor.
But, it may soon be an EARLY
G 5 PowerMac 2.4GHz
C H R I S T M A S
o n
M a r c h 2 3 r d, 2 0 0 4
For all good little
MacGIRLS & MacBOYS
If this link does NOT work for you:
http://www.macplus.org
Try this: (compliments of arn; he is a god, knows everything!
)http://62.233.44.223/ or
http://62.233.44.223/magplus/sommaire.php
arn says it is a DNS problem with our ISP (whatever that REALLY means
) He also, later told me the Article has been "pulled".
wizard said:
Well if you are into low profits high turnover, that is correct. Unfortunately it is a stupid self destruct policy for a company with a bomb-proof niche market.
Work out what market your company is in, their share of the market, who is running the company, prospects for future growth, profit margins, and assorted financial indicators, and then invest accordingly. Apple scores quite well on many points these days.
Dont Hurt Me said:
You have to remember: Apple is fundamentally a hardware company. It just so happens that their Macintosh operating system only runs on Apple computers (and, for a short period of time, some clones like my PowerCenter), and that OSX is one of the best OS's ever put together, so you need to buy Apple hardware to run it and the applications designed for it. Apple is NOT primarily a software company, it just happens that the design of their OS has led to some of the best software innovations ever made, which everyone on the wintel side tries to copy a little while later
. I think to call the hardware "sucky" is pretty severe, and on that note it's probably largely due to the "non-sucky-ness" of the iPod that wintel types are suddenly looking at Apple as a contender for their hardware needs. I understand what you mean about taking time bringing new hardware to the users (I'm still waiting for a new G5, and using a Pismo in the mean time!) but when it IS available, it's solid on reliability (and long-lasting), amazingly designed from practical and aesthetic points of view, etc. etc. This is a mac site so I'm preaching to the choir, obviously johnnyjibbs said:
What are you planning to update the graphics cards with?
PCI-Express is not due for release until mid to late april.
btw looks like the macplus.org site is (at least sort of) back up -- i wonder if they're recovering from the secret attack...?
iMac G5 & mHz myths
Two points, in an already overcrowded discussion:
(1) The iMac G5 would seem to be very unlikely anytime soon. If you look at the cooling system required for the powermacs, it's obvious you could never use the original G5 chips in an iMac. And I, for one, wouldn't expect them to debut what are bound to be limited supplies of the 970FX in the supposedly consumer-level iMac.
(2) A 20% increase in clock speed does not equal a 20% increase in performance. Rather, performance tends to scale faster than processor speed. This is easily verifiable on speed tests previously published.
Dave
Two points, in an already overcrowded discussion:
(1) The iMac G5 would seem to be very unlikely anytime soon. If you look at the cooling system required for the powermacs, it's obvious you could never use the original G5 chips in an iMac. And I, for one, wouldn't expect them to debut what are bound to be limited supplies of the 970FX in the supposedly consumer-level iMac.
(2) A 20% increase in clock speed does not equal a 20% increase in performance. Rather, performance tends to scale faster than processor speed. This is easily verifiable on speed tests previously published.
Dave
G4 is sucky in any product sitting on a desk, its ok for laps but it gets its butt handed to it by all kinds of cpu's that cost half as much. This is fact. Name one bench were a G4 1.25 can keep up with a P4 2.2,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.8,3.0,3.2,3.4 G4s suck ,they are old,they suck at gaming,the FSB is hindered to a 167 mhz while cheapo Pcs at $500 have them 3 or 4 times as fast. DDR is half used I still dont know why they even bothered with DDR in G4s. might as well kept using Sdram. G4 does suck yet they are still pushing these old and slow obsolete cpus in every darn product but Powermacs and then charging twice what they are worth. Motorolas G4 SUCKS and we all KNOW it. They are fine for web surfing and getting grandmas Email but so is a G3 for that matter.
I have to agree that Apple aren't doing themselves any favours with the RAM they're supplying as well as in other areas. I've been "evangelising" Macs for 15 years - but it gets hard when a friend is faced with the option to get a PC with XP Pro, a 1.8 Ghz processor Combo drive and 512MB of RAM for as little as £350 to tell them they should spend twice or three times that much to buy a Mac... normally the comparison is with iMacs not G5 towers here but its the same dilemma to the punter faced with confusing numbers...bigger MUST be better in their eyes and most of the time they're not wrong!
and YES YES YES I have ALL the counter-arguments at my finger tips and I often succeed despite this... most often because (feeling smug that I won't have to do much) I'm happy to say I'll hold their hands and help out IF they buy a Mac.
But these are NOT people who can or even want to deal with objective information about relative processor speeds...you try telling anyone that a smaller number is *really* better than a bigger one and you have a tough time. It doesn't matter whether the potential buyer is wondering why they only have one mouse button when all their friends computers have (at least) two or why as soon as they take delivery of their new Mac I'm insisting that they spend a bit more money and get some extra RAM.
Apple have to realise that the vast majority of people out there are NOT the kinds of people who read these forums, they're the kind of people who look at a Mac, think "wow that's cool" and then walk over and compare NUMBERS not having the first clue what those numbers mean except bigger is better than small...that's what they're bombarded with day in day out in advertising and marketing in all areas of life as consumers. Does Apple really think that they're suddenly going to stop thinking that way just cos they're looking at a Mac???
So if Apple only want to sell their machines to technical savvy "pro" users who know how to add additional RAM then they're going the right way... and yes I know how ridiculous it is to say that adding more RAM is 'technical', but for most people out there its just WAY to scary to undo the lid on their Mac. They just assume they'll fry something... and hey they don't have to take the back off their TV or DVD so why should they with their new computer?
What infuriates me is that the things that would make that point of sale decision go Apple's way time and again ARE so damn cheap to sort out! Even at RETAIL prices an extra 256 of RAM and a two button mouse with a scroll wheel are less than £50 for the RAM ... AND a useable two button mouse!
It just doesn't make sense... it cannot be justified and its ultimately DUMB for Apple to continue with this policy. I accept that most people buying G5's are shelling out for a top spec machine and probably DO know what they want and why they're buying it... but this kind of change in marketing has to happen from the bottom of a companies range of products up. How absurd would it be for an iMac to come with 512 or even better a GB of RAM as standard but not a G5?
ok rant over... it just hurts when I see a company doing stupid things for absolutely no good reason. I want to evangelise not apologise and 95% of the time Apple have made doing that pretty damn easy with their superb machines, such a shame to see it spoilt for so little.
C
and YES YES YES I have ALL the counter-arguments at my finger tips and I often succeed despite this... most often because (feeling smug that I won't have to do much) I'm happy to say I'll hold their hands and help out IF they buy a Mac.
But these are NOT people who can or even want to deal with objective information about relative processor speeds...you try telling anyone that a smaller number is *really* better than a bigger one and you have a tough time. It doesn't matter whether the potential buyer is wondering why they only have one mouse button when all their friends computers have (at least) two or why as soon as they take delivery of their new Mac I'm insisting that they spend a bit more money and get some extra RAM.
Apple have to realise that the vast majority of people out there are NOT the kinds of people who read these forums, they're the kind of people who look at a Mac, think "wow that's cool" and then walk over and compare NUMBERS not having the first clue what those numbers mean except bigger is better than small...that's what they're bombarded with day in day out in advertising and marketing in all areas of life as consumers. Does Apple really think that they're suddenly going to stop thinking that way just cos they're looking at a Mac???
So if Apple only want to sell their machines to technical savvy "pro" users who know how to add additional RAM then they're going the right way... and yes I know how ridiculous it is to say that adding more RAM is 'technical', but for most people out there its just WAY to scary to undo the lid on their Mac. They just assume they'll fry something... and hey they don't have to take the back off their TV or DVD so why should they with their new computer?
What infuriates me is that the things that would make that point of sale decision go Apple's way time and again ARE so damn cheap to sort out! Even at RETAIL prices an extra 256 of RAM and a two button mouse with a scroll wheel are less than £50 for the RAM ... AND a useable two button mouse!
It just doesn't make sense... it cannot be justified and its ultimately DUMB for Apple to continue with this policy. I accept that most people buying G5's are shelling out for a top spec machine and probably DO know what they want and why they're buying it... but this kind of change in marketing has to happen from the bottom of a companies range of products up. How absurd would it be for an iMac to come with 512 or even better a GB of RAM as standard but not a G5?
ok rant over... it just hurts when I see a company doing stupid things for absolutely no good reason. I want to evangelise not apologise and 95% of the time Apple have made doing that pretty damn easy with their superb machines, such a shame to see it spoilt for so little.
C
Dont Hurt Me said:
What?!
Yeah, it's outdated, somewhat slow sometimes, but in general the G4 is nice. You can't live on this one track mind, the g4 is not the only thing in Apple computers, right now I would take a 1.25 pbook over ANY LAPTOP PC IN THE WORLD. It runs fast enough to get work done, and with the other compliments it's still the best machine. Yeah, it's not the fastest chip in the world anymore but it works just fine, it's not a like g4 crawls. You have to look at other things.
I guess maybe if you just compared pure CPU power the g4 is the worst, but if you did that then you are throwing out everything. Other hardware, casing, cooling, looks, functionality, price, software, and OS. And guess what, when it comes to Apple, all those things are easily as important, if not MORE important than processor. Yes, I want to see g5's all around, but don't make rash comments that aren't ligament.
Interesting
I just went to their website and it seems they've removed the info. Well on my browser anyway....
False alarm my browsers just being gay.
I just went to their website and it seems they've removed the info. Well on my browser anyway....
False alarm my browsers just being gay.
- Status