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 G5s - on or around Jan 20th?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
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.
But what does this matter... I need to find some money first so I can buy a G5
.
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>
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.
I've been saying the same thing for months now. The iMac will not see a G5 until the PowerBooks either get a G5, or are very close to getting a G5 - you cannot release a new, top-of-the-line chip in a consumer model before a pro model gets it, or else people will start complaining. There is also the aspect of product differentiation as well - there has to be a substantial difference between the PMs and the iMacs. I'm not saying Apple should cripple the iMacs, I''m just saying they should be noticeably less powerful than the PMs. But, if the PM updates come in the next 2 weeks, as predicted, and the line goes to 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4, for example, I think a single 1.6 G5 would make sense, depending on the other components.
I think the iMacs will see a redesign for sure. But perhaps it will go beyond that - perhaps the iMac line will even be re-invented. Perhaps the iMac will move from the consumer level to more of a mid-grade level, between the eMac and the PM, become more powerful, but as a result, also more expensive - say $3000 or higher. (Just wild speculation here!) The eMac would still be a consumer machine, as would the G4 iMacs, which they would keep around, and then the new G5 iMacs would act as a middle ground to the PMs.
Who knows - only time will tell!
I wouldn't worry at all, even if the PMs do get upated in 2 weeks. The current PMs are amazing machines, and just because new ones will be announced in a couple weeks does not magically make your machine garbage, slow and useless. Pick up your PM and start enjoying it! If you keep waiting for the next best thing, you'll always be waiting!
Still waiting
do you think they still have a lot of 1.8 cpus in depot?
if that is the case we ll either have to wait until all of them are sold or the 1.8 dual will be the bottom line?
does it make sense to only have duals?
1.8, 2.0, 2.2 for example?
different configuration would be
2.0 single
2.2-2.3 dual
2.4-2.6 dual
what do you think will happen?
will the prices stay about the same (for the low, mid and high end model)?
do you think they still have a lot of 1.8 cpus in depot?
if that is the case we ll either have to wait until all of them are sold or the 1.8 dual will be the bottom line?
does it make sense to only have duals?
1.8, 2.0, 2.2 for example?
different configuration would be
2.0 single
2.2-2.3 dual
2.4-2.6 dual
what do you think will happen?
will the prices stay about the same (for the low, mid and high end model)?
I agree with most of the speculation here but the details of the upgrades on some ideas don't make sense and don't follow Apple's branding strategy.
Here's how I see it if they update this month:
I think the update announcement will come in the SuperBowl (which is how they did it 20 years ago; hence the "anniversary")
The "new Mac" introduced probably won't be an iMac replacement because they just introduced the 20" iMac and Apple typically leaves a machine on the market for 6 months before a major update (re: original flat-panel iMac). They would have to sell their inventory of the 20" iMac before replacing it with a whole new iMac (although I'm sure they don't have a huge inventory because this is such a niche machine).
I see Apple releasing a "20th Anniversary Macintosh" with a G5 1.6 or 1.8 ghz with all the trimmings: 8x superdrive, Radeon 9600, integrated Airport, and 512mb memory (non-ECC). The design will have to be all-in-one to stay with the original "Mac" and the 10th anniversary Mac. It may even be only as thick as the 17" widescreen flat-panel (this design has been done before although not by Apple). I also see a dock for the new iPod mini integrated into the chassis somehow. A great way to increase popularity because you don't have to purchase a seperate dock. Pricing will most likely inhibit its popularity because thats Apple's trademark, great products, too much for the average Joe to purchase let alone switch from a cheaper Dell.
I see the price around $1999.
I don't see an update to the PM during the SuperBowl, so maybe that will come on the 20th much like last years PM update. Speeds will probably move forward 400Mhz for each grade (2, 2.2 dual, 2.4 dual) but I see Apple shedding the non PCI-X motherboard in the lower model. Pricing should follow the current setup, $1799, $2399,$2999.
As for the PB, the G5 model is coming but it makes sense to wait for the commotion of the late Jan releases to die down a bit, probably early March. To keep heat down the entry level will most likely be the 1.6 Ghz with the 1.8 being the top model. This is similar to the speed bumps in the current PB. Pricing should stay the same because there is no reason a G4 PB should cost over $1999 but a G5 easily could.
The displays should see a change soon because the design is completely different that the current PM's. An all aluminum thin from should be the logical choice with a 17" widescreen for the low end and a new 30-32" widescreen made for replacing your TV. The middle 20" and 23"models will just change packaging with the price dropping $100. I see pricing on the low end to drop to $399 but the new high end to be $2999.
Anyway, this is just my take on the whole situation, which most obviously will be way off base.
Here's how I see it if they update this month:
I think the update announcement will come in the SuperBowl (which is how they did it 20 years ago; hence the "anniversary")
The "new Mac" introduced probably won't be an iMac replacement because they just introduced the 20" iMac and Apple typically leaves a machine on the market for 6 months before a major update (re: original flat-panel iMac). They would have to sell their inventory of the 20" iMac before replacing it with a whole new iMac (although I'm sure they don't have a huge inventory because this is such a niche machine).
I see Apple releasing a "20th Anniversary Macintosh" with a G5 1.6 or 1.8 ghz with all the trimmings: 8x superdrive, Radeon 9600, integrated Airport, and 512mb memory (non-ECC). The design will have to be all-in-one to stay with the original "Mac" and the 10th anniversary Mac. It may even be only as thick as the 17" widescreen flat-panel (this design has been done before although not by Apple). I also see a dock for the new iPod mini integrated into the chassis somehow. A great way to increase popularity because you don't have to purchase a seperate dock. Pricing will most likely inhibit its popularity because thats Apple's trademark, great products, too much for the average Joe to purchase let alone switch from a cheaper Dell.
I see the price around $1999.
I don't see an update to the PM during the SuperBowl, so maybe that will come on the 20th much like last years PM update. Speeds will probably move forward 400Mhz for each grade (2, 2.2 dual, 2.4 dual) but I see Apple shedding the non PCI-X motherboard in the lower model. Pricing should follow the current setup, $1799, $2399,$2999.
As for the PB, the G5 model is coming but it makes sense to wait for the commotion of the late Jan releases to die down a bit, probably early March. To keep heat down the entry level will most likely be the 1.6 Ghz with the 1.8 being the top model. This is similar to the speed bumps in the current PB. Pricing should stay the same because there is no reason a G4 PB should cost over $1999 but a G5 easily could.
The displays should see a change soon because the design is completely different that the current PM's. An all aluminum thin from should be the logical choice with a 17" widescreen for the low end and a new 30-32" widescreen made for replacing your TV. The middle 20" and 23"models will just change packaging with the price dropping $100. I see pricing on the low end to drop to $399 but the new high end to be $2999.
Anyway, this is just my take on the whole situation, which most obviously will be way off base.
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?
Also, Apple has a long record of product delays upon announcements... and since the 2.0 GHz chip is already been in production for awhile, of course you can see it shipping sooner. Unless they do switch to 90 nm across the board... 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.
My previous post was stated as my opinion, and try not to be too pissed when I'm right. 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.
New G5's coming.....
just a guess, but i think it might make sense that Apple will release these new generation g5's, along perhaps with the rumored revised G5 iMac on January 24th, as that is their celebration date, 20 years of macintosh! Now what better way than celebrate it with some special releases. An Alu iMac perhaps, with integrated iSight camera in it's display...
I couldn't help dreaming a bit....
just a guess, but i think it might make sense that Apple will release these new generation g5's, along perhaps with the rumored revised G5 iMac on January 24th, as that is their celebration date, 20 years of macintosh! Now what better way than celebrate it with some special releases. An Alu iMac perhaps, with integrated iSight camera in it's display...
I couldn't help dreaming a bit....
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 ~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.
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?
Umm... I don't recall saying that there would be a 5 month wait for the Rev Bs... nor do I recall saying that you were pissed by my post...
Nor did I pronounce that "I am right, everyone else is wrong..." Your posts may lead one to believe that that is how you feel... I just have a pretty good educated guess.
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".
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..."
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?
Did any of you read the Apple Insider article?
According to Apple Insider, IBM is producing 2.2 and 2.4 ghz chips in volume, and are at the edge of testing a 2.6 ghz chip. Why would they produce and test these chips if they don't intend to use them? We will see siingle 2.2 ghz and dual 2.4 ghz powermacs shipping immediately or early february and we will see dual 2.6 ghz powermacs shipping late february/ early march. That would put Apple in the right spot to hit 3 ghz with the 980 in July. Doesn't that make sense?
According to Apple Insider, IBM is producing 2.2 and 2.4 ghz chips in volume, and are at the edge of testing a 2.6 ghz chip. Why would they produce and test these chips if they don't intend to use them? We will see siingle 2.2 ghz and dual 2.4 ghz powermacs shipping immediately or early february and we will see dual 2.6 ghz powermacs shipping late february/ early march. That would put Apple in the right spot to hit 3 ghz with the 980 in July. Doesn't that make sense?
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!
By the time they come out, I might actually be able to afford one. It sucks being a poor college student!
Imac G5
Well a 1.6ghz upwards G5 imac would certainly persuade me to dust off my credit card and head for the nearest Apple store.
The Imacs are seriously underpowered.
Home users who are into the whole"ilife"
thing and like to play games won't be satisfied with a G4 and an underpowered graphics card for much longer.
I came close to buying one as I still find the G5 towers pretty ugly, but I've held back in hope of seeing Apple take the initiative and stop shortchanging us non pros.
Well a 1.6ghz upwards G5 imac would certainly persuade me to dust off my credit card and head for the nearest Apple store.
The Imacs are seriously underpowered.
Home users who are into the whole"ilife"
thing and like to play games won't be satisfied with a G4 and an underpowered graphics card for much longer.
I came close to buying one as I still find the G5 towers pretty ugly, but I've held back in hope of seeing Apple take the initiative and stop shortchanging us non pros.
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.
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.
How can there be a 2.3 dual if there are no reports ANYWHERE of such a processor in production at IBM? All reports point to 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and maybe 2.6 GHz processors as next in the line for use in the PowerMac G5.
Well, I said don't be pissed later
If I said "as before" on the delays, I just meant there are going to be delays like before, but I didn't mean to come across that they would be as drastic, my apologies.
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.
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.
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 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.
About the second part of my comment, I meant that they didn't care how the SP owners felt when they upgraded the systems and the price got lowered... where as the DP 2.0 owners consist of what I've heard to be around 80% of the G5s purchased... so they'd be PO'ing a lot more mac owners with a 33% drop in price, especially the people who bought the systems around 2 weeks before they came out... that's all I meant.
Edit - If anything, I think Apple should be pushing for more than a DP 3.0 by the end of 2004... I was hoping for more like 3.5 GHz... (not to get into Moore's law, which really has more to do with die size anyways)
Heh heh - sucker - I'm waiting for the quad 12 GHz G7. Only a few more years... <rubs hands together in anticipation>
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."
- Status