Originally posted by beatle888
1.8 will be the base model 2.0 in the middle and 2.4 at the top. we might even see the imac at 1.8. the imac being the same processor speed as the low end powermac still wont be upgradeable so it is possible.
I don't see the iMac getting a G5 processor until the Powerbooks go G5 also, which is not expected to happen until the summer of 2004 at the earliest. However, there is another possibility for the iMac G5: a total case redesign. I see this being more likely since I don't know of any PowerPC G5's manufactured at speeds of less than 1.6 GHz. In fact, a redesign might be necessary just because of the heat production problem. <edit> I also see the G5 going up at least 400 MHz, possibly 600 MHz! I'm even expecting the exact same thing from the Rev. C PowerMac G5's (the one that takes us to 3.0 GHz at least).</edit>Originally posted by Rincewind42
Somehow I just can't see the iMac going over 1.6 Ghz, just due to trying to keep the iMac fanless (or as close to fanless as possible). But I'm betting on the PowerMac going up at least a full 400Mhz across the line, so I'm still hoping for a 2Ghz lowend.
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I don't see the iMac getting a G5 processor until the Powerbooks go G5 also, which is not expected to happen until the summer of 2004 at the earliest. However, there is another possibility for the iMac G5: a total case redesign. I see this being more likely since I don't know of any PowerPC G5's manufactured at speeds of less than 1.6 GHz. In fact, a redesign might be necessary just because of the heat production problem. <edit> I also see the G5 going up at least 400 MHz, possibly 600 MHz! I'm even expecting the exact same thing from the Rev. C PowerMac G5's (the one that takes us to 3.0 GHz at least).</edit>
Originally posted by MattG
I had my boss wait until at least afte the keynote before she wrote up the order for my new G5. I'm tired of waiting...I'm placing the order this week, new G5's soon or not.
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Why does that mean Apple sucks? I agree with Dont Hurt Me, that's a jump in 400 MHz, far more of a speed boost than we ever saw out of Moto!
Why would this suck? The 2.0 GHz machine are screamingly fast, and as a low-end machine would be amazing!
And as for being "too cheap" to make them all duals, that makes no sense at all. These new processor speeds are going to be great as it is, without the need for duals across the board. This does not make Apple cheap - they're upgrading their products - do you want them to upgrade more? So what you're saying then is that you're never satisfied and want more, more more? Okay, I know what people like you are like, I've run into them many times before....
What are you basing this on? The extraordinarily long shipping delays on the initial batch of G5s was due to a vareity of factors, in case you didn't know that, including Virginia Tech getting the first 1100, and also the simple fact that this was a brand new system, brand new chip, brand new everything! Since these are just speed bumps with relatively minor hardware updates compared to the initial required updates and redesign of the G5 system, I don't see why there would be long delays. Please back up your claim with some facts and a constrcutive argument and I will gladly listen.
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Sigh, they are being cheap since they could easily include a second processor for the price they are charging consumers for the models. The bump from a SP 1.8 to a DP processor 1.8 when there was a 4% price increase ring a bell?
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Also I wouldn't be so naive to believe all of Apple's propaganda about the initial G5 delays. Believing the Virginia tech 1,100 units caused signifigant delays is simply bunk. 1,100 units out of the 100,000 computers shipped sure is signifigant (sarcasm). A lame excuse indeed to cover up their premature product announcement of the G5.
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
My previous post was stated as my opinion, and try not to be too pissed when I'm right.
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
And there is absolutely no reason they couldn't make the bottom model a dual other than trying to milk the consumer for that extra bit of profit.
Originally posted by ~Shard~
I think you need a basic course in topics such as profit margins, pricing structures, manufacturing costs and overall marketing strategy. It is not as simple as "since we can, we might as well!". If Apple put dual processors in it would alter their profit structure, and as I said in my initial post, it is not necessary - the G5s are amazingly fast, and duals aren't absolutely required - or if nothing else, the exclusion of duals ascross the board does not equate to Apple "cheaping out" as you would put it. Those little G5 chips cost money, and although Apple doubled up the 1.8 systems, there were many factors at play in that situation. There is also the fact that by then, the G5s were in mass production and it was more feasible to proceed with the DP 1.8 system. Now, with brand new chip speeds, and the new chips being more expensive since they are new, and in more limited quantities, it would cost Apple much more to double up with these new processors and keep the prices the same as a single processor system.
I never said the VA Tech computers were the sole and legitimate reason for the G5 shipping delays. I also noted the fact that it was a new system, meaning production quantities were limited, and I never for one second said that Apple didn't jump the gun on announcing the new G5. They most certainly did, and the lengthy shipping delays resulted from this.
So, if you think we'll see the same type of shipping delays on the Rev Bs that we did for the Rev As, that's your opinion, but my opinion is that shipping delays will NOT be 5 months on the Rev Bs and, assuming a late-January release date, they will be shipping before the end of June.
<chuckle> I always like reading posts from open-minded individuals.You say the post was your opinion, yet you then essentially say "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", so my opinion is always right - nice attitude. Now, back to the point at hand...
What makes you think I was pissed in my original post? Did I specifically state that? Nope. Just constructing an intelligent argument to your post. Relax a little bit and don't take things personally.
Yah, heaven forbid Apple trying to make a profit. Who do they think are they, a successful company?Yes, Apple could make the bottom model a dual, especially if it is a 2.0 GHz, but again, I don't know if they will - it would alter their product/pricing structure and price points.
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Umm... I don't recall saying that there would be a 5 month wait for the Rev Bs...
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Also, as before, be prepared to wait a hell of a long time for the top model...
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
nor do I recall saying that you were pissed by my post...![]()
Nor did I pronounce that "I am right, everyone else is wrong..."
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
My previous post was stated as my opinion, and try not to be too pissed when I'm right.
Originally posted by cubist
You guys are making this way too difficult. Apple doesn't care if the iMac is as fast as the PowerMac, and the iMac already has a fan. They aren't going to stick some left-over, low-clocked CPU, with a crappy video chipset, in a new iMac. When the iMac hit 1.25GHz, the tower was only slightly faster at 1.42 - but it was a dual.
I'm with Don'tHurtMe. I expect a 1.8GHz iMac with a built-in Radeon 9600 chipset. The PowerMacs will be 1.8 dual, 2.0 dual, and 2.3 dual. Around August, a 2.6 dual will be introduced. We won't see a 3.0 this calendar year, sorry.
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Okay, so what did you mean by your above comment? You say "as before", referring to the shipping delays (5 months) of the initial G5s, and then you use the phrase "hell of a long time".
Alright, then let me refresh your memory since you apparently can't recall what you have typed in previous posts.
"try not to be too pissed when I'm right"
read: "Since I'm right, don't be pissed off."
And as I said, I was not pissed off.
Coupling the above phrase with the fact that you are stating your opinion comes across as though you are saying your opinion is right.
If I have misunderstood you, I apologize, however you should make yourself a little more clear if this is the case.
Now that you've commented on the most minor, insignificant segments of my post, are you planning on replying to the main points I have stated in my reply? Or do you now agree that Apple isn't "being cheap" and that Apple doesn't "suck" as you stated in your previous post?
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I still think Apple is skimping on the line by not going duals across... but if they did make the bottom line a DP 2.0 GHz for $2,000, I'm sure they'd have a lot of PO'ed customers who just bought it for a cool $3,000... but then again they didn't care about the SP 1.8 GHz customers.
Originally posted by thatwendigo
Ah, lovely... Thanks for the heads-up, oh anonymous benefactor.
Shard's covered a number of points that I think are entirely relevant to this discussion, and which will carry over well from what I've been saying in numerous discussions about the supposed G5 iMac. In essence, it is pro-level suicide for Apple to ignore the PowerBooks without making some kind of statement, only to put the newest processor into the consumer-level machine. Performance is strongly correlated with price, even in the PC world, and you're not going to see something as blazingly fast and newly designed as the G5 architecture just suddenly drop to some ridiculous price point. No matter how many times DHM and his cronies repeat that the G4 is slow, it's not going to change that Apple is probably still recouping losses for the research involved in supporting the new chips. In other words, keep dreaming on the G5 iMac, because it's either going to be a slow, slow, slow implementation of the chip (and thus not much faster than the G4), or it's going to cost a lot more than most of you are hoping for.
Ah, and now there's a little meat that hasn't been picked already.
Wasn't there a time, once, when Apple did have all-duals across the line? As much as I think that would rock, I don't know just how feasible it would be for them from a marketing and supply standpoint.
The second half of your comment is ridiculous, though. Of course Apple has to draw a line somewhere, or they'd be offering free processor upgrades to anyone who bought an LC ten years ago. Hate it all you want, but companies do have to set boundaries and follow those, or there's no end to how much the money leaks out drains them... That's just reality, cold and bitter as it always is.
Didn't care? More like behaving realisitically in a market that's already volatile and unprofitable for most of their competitors.![]()
Originally posted by Dippo
2.6Ghz just wouldn't be enought for me. I am waiting for nothing less than 5.0Ghz Dual.
By the time they come out, I might actually be able to afford one. It sucks being a poor college student!
Back when Mac's were all G4s, we were lucky, as our Laptops were very good value for money. On the Intel side, Laptops were a bigger drop in performance than we had.Originally posted by thatwendigo
In essence, it is pro-level suicide for Apple to ignore the PowerBooks without making some kind of statement, only to put the newest processor into the consumer-level machine. Performance is strongly correlated with price, even in the PC world, and you're not going to see something as blazingly fast and newly designed as the G5 architecture just suddenly drop to some ridiculous price point.
Originally posted by GregAussie
Back when Mac's were all G4s, we were lucky, as our Laptops were very good value for money. On the Intel side, Laptops were a bigger drop in performance than we had.
It appears that we are in that situation now, with the Laptops not being ready for the big chips as available in desktops. It's actually kinda normal - new chips are hotter, takes a while to bring them to a laptop.
If Apple chooses NOT to release a G5 iMac when the chip price and design is ready, simply because of the laptops, then THAT is commercial suicide.
Take it one step further - "Sorry, we have an amazing machine ready to go, but unfortunately it's too good, makes our other products look bad, so management has decided to kill this one."