Updates from New York Media Event

[deanwaterman]

am i just reading this system requirements list wrong or am i actually not able to use Aperture on my Dual 1.8 G5 w/GeForce FX 5200?!?

check the minimum requirements... it will work.. Recommended system is 2.0 or higher...

 

[vitrector]

No Front Row software!?

Interestingly, there is no Front Row software on the Powermacs or Powerbooks, too bad. Some may want to use their Powermac/book like others would use an iMac...

(didn't read all posts, so someone may have noted this already)

 

[bretm]

Apple doesn't care in the long run. Apple can always start making software for windows platform and basically put premiere, photoshop, etc. completely in the ditch. I really don't know how a company that calls itself a hardware company is far superior to just about any software company out there. They've already started to test the waters with iTunes and a few apps. What if they release iLife of PC? $75 gets you the easiest iphoto and idvd software out there, plus garage band, imovie, etc. Sony, adobe, couldn't touch them. This whole intel thing is their last chance to make it big AND control hardware and software. If they don't pull it off, I completely believe their next choice is OSX opened up for all platforms. Their next choice is being one of the largest software companies out there. They have so man options. Adobe has 1 option. Make the best software they can. And they still can't compete with stuff like Aperture or FCP. What gives?

The G4 is a chip which has passed its useful life. We're talking about a architecture which is limited to SDR RAM speeds (DDR is used to ensure they have a supply of memory) and 4x AGP. The 9700 in there now is about as fast as your going to get on that bus. X800 would be bottlenecked not to mention that is a DESKTOP REPLACEMENT chip and would probably melt a 1" powerbook. Until the G4 is replaced, Apple can only move at the pace of freescale whose man concern is making the best ebedded CPU they can make.

The new G5 finally becomes the workstation is was designed to be. It's about time we got a pro card. However, Apple probably should have given pro users the option of the FX540 in place of the 6600LE and the 1400 and 3450 for an additonal fee. Not all pros will be able to mortgage thier house for the 4500. Going to all PCI Express was a nice touch even though I think it was necessary. I don't believe we'll see anything but speedbumps for the best of the G5's life. Compared to Dual core PC workstations, the prices are hard to beat.

Aperture scares be though. It might cross into Photoshop's territory a little too much. Do I need to remind people what would happen to the pro Mac sector if Adobe cesed Mac development?

I have one last note here. Apple you have given the consumers a home run with the iMac and gave the Pro users exactly what they want with the new PowerMac. For God's sake throw us prosumers a bone here!

 

[nagromme]

You can get a Dell with a 1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4" screen for £738. Its a £94 upgrade over the default spec of 1280x800.

If Dell can do it, why can't Apple?? I really want to go the whole hog and switch over to Macs in every aspect next year when they go Intel but the low resolutions are putting me off.

Apple CAN, but they don't because they know it wouldn't sell enough to be worth their while.

Very few people could tolerate the microscopic user interface you'd get at 1920 pixels in 15 inches.

1440x900 is hardly "low resolution." In fact, I'd find 1280x854 more readable.

You have an unusual need, and Apple doesn't meet it right now. Unfortunately, you have little choice but to use Windows or use an external display.

 

[jiv3turkey748]

the powerbook updates are sorry.. i cant wait for intel
the powermacs need to come with a gig of ram

 

[Hattig]

Those are supposed to be High Definition displays??

I'm so disappointed with Apple with this upgrade to the screen resolutions. Its still pretty poor. At the very least there should be the ability to custom spec a 15" or 17" powerbook to have a 1920x1200 screen. If I could buy a Dell 15.4" screened laptop over two years ago that has a resolution of 1920x1200 then I really don't see why Apple, who are meant to be HD this, HD that, cannot manage to make a laptop that can actually display 1080i HD video. You can get a Dell with a 1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4" screen for £738. Its a £94 upgrade over the default spec of 1280x800.

If Dell can do it, why can't Apple?? I really want to go the whole hog and switch over to Macs in every aspect next year when they go Intel but the low resolutions are putting me off.

When it comes to laptops, resolution isn't everything. Ultra high resolutions in laptops sometimes mean 18-bit panels with temporal based dithering to simulate a 24-bit display.

Something in me doesn't think that Apple wanted to take that route. And I would have hated to use Windows on a 1920x1200 15.4" display, it would have been a nightmare.

I was hoping that the 17" would have had a 1920x1200 option however, still at least there is an increase - there are plenty of pixels at 1650x1050 - I have a 20" Cinema Display at work, and it is pretty damn good - I don't know if I'd really want to shrink the pixel size too much more - it sounds like a good resolution at 17" to me, at least for the next year until resolution independent displays are an end-user option in Mac OS X. I'd rather have a good all round display than an excellent-resolution, poor otherwise display. It's all about balance.

However, Apple, please can you now start selling a 17" Cinema display at 1650x1050 - we know you can get the panels!

As for the 15" ... 1440x960 isn't too bad. It's better than 1280x800.

The processor upgrade is a bit underwhelming however. I.e., none. And if the chipset supports DDR2 now, then why the hell didn't they at least put PCIe into it, or up the FSB, ...?

I think there'll be another PowerBook upgrade before Intel. March/April 2006, we'll finally get the 7448, at a whopping 1.8GHz in the 17". Yeah. There will probably be another PowerMac upgrade too, as I believe that the PowerMac will be one of the last Macs to 'go Intel', and they won't be keeping this specification going for another 18 months, not even 12. However it will probably be more along the lines of HD, Graphics Card, Memory updates, possibly 200MHz here or there, nothing groundbreaking.

 

[Lord Kythe]

Glad, you say?

Glad I bought my revB 2.0 dualie a few months ago. Still a much better deal at $1699 and there was no way I was ever going to pay $1999 when extra $ also had to be spent on more RAM and a usable sized hard drive. For most routine, non-MP optimized tasks it will continue to be indistinguishable in performance from the new Quad 2.5.

Let me get this straight: you are glad that you paid $300 less because, most importantly, you don't get PCIe (and you don't even have PCI-X to start with...), you have slower RAM and half the RAM slots (your max is 4 gbs compared to 16 GBs), your Video Card... let's not even go there, your processors are slower (512 L2 instead of 1024), your RAM does not support ECC and you have only one Gigabit ethernet ports (not sure about this one, but I think you have one less USB2 port as well... Did the initial PM have 3 or 4 USB2 ports?).

From where I stand, missing on all this for $300 is nothing to be glad about...

Then again one could argue you have a DP PowerMac G5 and I'm still stuck with a crappy DP PowerMac G4...

Oh well, if it makes you happy to think you're happy, that's good!

 

[wildmac]

F-

Lame and overpriced all the way around. $3300 for a powermac with a dead end chip? No thanks.

Umm... can you wait until the performance ratings come in?... Nahh... go ahead and buy a PC, the'yre waiting for you...

 

[greenstork]

Another SERIOUSLY dissapointed low-end PowerMac user here. The Dual 2.0 PowerMac was introduced in June 2003 at $3000 list. It's still in the lineup (though as a dual core) 28 months later, at $2000. While the specs have evolved somewhat, it's been a core part of the lineup for more than two years, and is still over $2K.

I'm just intensely frustrated that if I want to use my own monitor, which I've already paid for, I can have a $600 Mini, or a $2000-$3400 PowerMac. I'm a light user of CS apps, need more than the Mini can offer, and would love to have a $1100-$1600 option for a headless Mac. But instead, I'm out of luck - I suppose I could get a refurb single 1.8 Powermac, but that's the same price as a full-on 2.0 iMac with a 20" screen, which I've already got one of, thank you very much.

I've been using Macs since my Mac LC in 1991, with a few forays into the Windows world. I LOVE the MacOS, but I HATE HATE HATE having to live with such limited hardware options. I literally can't imagine Dell deciding to sell nothing without a built-in monitor between $600 and $2000 - that's the core of the PC market, folks...

The Dual-Dual looks like a monster, but the pricing is... WOW.

This is complete BS. You can find older systems still available new (or refurbished) and this is exactly what you're looking for. It's not the latest cutting edge technology, which you don't really want or can afford. But it's a G5, decent video card, and I hate to break it to you but that is all that exists in your price range. That's not Apple's fault. Cutting edge tech costs $$$. Here is a whole range of older machines, being sold new, in the box, over at Small Dog electronics:

http://www.smalldog.com/category/x/x/G5+Minitowers/G5+Minitowers/wag100/wag10000

 

[vassillios]

ok, so before i request the return of my dual 2.3, is there any documentation out there that shows the performance differences between a dual processor setup and a dual core set up for the 2.3? thanks

 

[DrGruv1]

prices are out of line...

$3299

someone fill me in on why?

 

[Evangelion]

Is this new? Looks neat.

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/images/portables_comparison_chart_con.html

14" iBook is at 1.33GHz??? I thought it ran at 1.42Ghz and had a 142Mhz bus?

 

[Whyren]

Just to clarify my earlier comments - I think the PowerMac upgrade is a huge win for true pro users who are buying on major technology budgets. If you're in scientific applications, pre-press, imaging, etc., the new PM's are seriously outstanding.

Similarly, the iMacs are great for consumer use.

As someone said a few posts ago, it's us pro-sumers who are left in a quandry. What I really need is all the basic speed I can buy for $1500 - I don't need super-capable video, I don't need 16GB of RAM, I don't need optical audio out, etc.

I just need a moderately fast-bus, fast-proc, fast-hd (1G bus, 2x2.0 proc, 7200HD would be fine) machine to support my 20" dell monitor and 17" Samsung monitor. I don't feel like I'm some barking mad user in the woods - I need more oomph than a slow-bus G4 can provide, and I don't need a screen.

I just need a moderately fast Mac CPU at a mid-range price, and they don't exist.

Perhaps something next Wed.? 12-Consumer, 19-Pro, 26-New Prosumer stuff.

 

[blybug]

lol @ a fully tricked out PowerMac costing you $18,000 on the Apple store, SANS monitor.

Im in love with this black theme though that Apple is integrating into its product lines. The site page for aperture is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.

Agreed. I wish they'd finally update the tabs at the top, they look so 2001, especially as more and more of the content beneath them is updated to the crisper, squarer blackish look.

 

[bretm]

Interestingluy, there is no Front Row software on the Powermacs or Powerbooks, too bad. Some may want to use their Powermac/book like others would use an iMac...

(didn't read all posts, so someone may have noted this already)

Nobody noticed and nobody expected it. 1. It's a pro event. 2. Jobs announced about 10 days ago that it would ONLY be on the iMac. Give him at least 6 months to change his mind.

But I'd also look at the mini becoming the media center. iMac was a sort of testing ground where Jobs could claim it only occurs on the iMac screen, etc. On the mini he'd have to output it to a monitor or TV.

I believe the mini was created to be the media center eventually. Totally explains the whole machine. It's size, it's unexpandability and general unuseability for computing. Sell a bunch of them. Then announce a simple software update along with a hardware adapter that enables video out and rf in. Or maybe just a whole new model with front row and the appropriate connectors to make it the mediacenter.

 

[Talcott]

Just to clarify my earlier comments - I think the PowerMac upgrade is a huge win for true pro users who are buying on major technology budgets. If you're in scientific applications, pre-press, imaging, etc., the new PM's are seriously outstanding.
What I really need is all the basic speed I can buy for $1500 - I don't need super-capable video, I don't need 16GB of RAM, I don't need optical audio out, etc.

I just need a moderately fast-bus, fast-proc, fast-hd (1G bus, 2x2.0 proc, 7200HD would be fine) machine to support my 20" dell monitor and 17" Samsung monitor. I don't feel like I'm some barking mad user in the woods - I need more oomph than a slow-bus G4 can provide, and I don't need a screen.

I just need a moderately fast Mac CPU at a mid-range price, and they don't exist.

I agree and as a pro musician akaoor musician I need power, but not focused on video.

Where is the middle way?

"caught in the middle with you:" -Bob Dylan

 

[dbauer]

Question

Ok, so now we finally have dual core processors on the PM. So the big question is 'are they pin compatible with the old G5 system boards?'. If so, I can see the upgrade vendors releasing dual G5 upgrades real soon. Maybe you can take your dual 1.8 G5 and upgrade to a quad 2.0 (or higher) just by replacing the processors. Hmmmm....

 

[Renegate]

What a lack of information on "Aperture"... this program is going to have to be really dern good to compete with Photoshop. I really don't understand why Apple just jumped into the photo/imaging market like this; there's just no hole for them to fill at the moment.

Its about workflow,look at the description,this is awesome for professional users

 

[AidenShaw]

Theoretical peak vs. delivered

The Quad has a total of 21 double precision gigaflops via the G5's FPU (8 in total) and 76 single precision gigaflops via Altivec.

Theoretical peak (8*2*2.5) vs. delivered FLOPs is a big difference.... If you look at actual benchmarks, SSE and x86 aren't too bad....

(And how'd you get 21 - 8*2*2.5=40 GFLOPS for me...)

Also, realize that AltiVec isn't IEEE-compliant....

"When it comes to other aspects of IEEE-754 compliance, SSE is a bit of a step up. While AltiVec delivers the Java subset of IEEE-754, the Intel vector unit is a fully IEEE-754 compliant machine, delivering full rounding modes, exceptions and flags.

 

[Whyren]

What kind of apps/usage can/will take advantage of dual dual hardware and what stuff can do this now? Just curious.

 

[Frobozz]

No 12" powerbook support for Aperture?!!?!?

Sure, it's a small screen, but I am GUTTED. Simply GUTTED about this.

The only way the interface would be usable is on an extrnal monitor. The only way to do that with the graphics chip required would be with a 128mb card. They didn't update (maybe they couldn't) to a 128mb card.

It sucks but the 12" PB is a bastard child anyway. I'm interested in the new 15", though.

 

[baleensavage]

I am very impressed with Apple to see this specific need and dive right in.
JT

Among the updates today this was the most suprising. As a photographer who has tried to manage my photos using iPhoto and run away screaming at how terribly slow it is, I hope this is better. I would have to see this app in action before I pulnked down a cent on it. Apple's photo track record is pretty weak.

It will be interesting to see if this app survives in the highly competitive photo market. With a price point of $500 and system requirements that rule out any computer less than 6 months old, they are really aiming at a very small market. And even though it does different things than Photoshop, for cost conscious consumers who need Photoshop's advanced editing, justifying another $500 is going to be really hard.

Also, did anyone else notice the small print about native PSD support... no layers or alpha channels. In other words, no PSD support. Why bother, since a PSD without layers might as well be a TIFF.

 

[Renegate]

Nobody noticed and nobody expected it. 1. It's a pro event. 2. Jobs announced about 10 days ago that it would ONLY be on the iMac. Give him at least 6 months to change his mind.

But I'd also look at the mini becoming the media center. iMac was a sort of testing ground where Jobs could claim it only occurs on the iMac screen, etc. On the mini he'd have to output it to a monitor or TV.

I believe the mini was created to be the media center eventually. Totally explains the whole machine. It's size, it's unexpandability and general unuseability for computing. Sell a bunch of them. Then announce a simple software update along with a hardware adapter that enables video out and rf in. Or maybe just a whole new model with front row and the appropriate connectors to make it the mediacenter.

Agree it is a Pro event,no place for media center which is a consumer product

 

[shoffmueller]

Because they're morons

Why are people saying this is a bad update?

Don't listen to them - they're just a bunch of complainers who wouldn't be happy with anything. After every product announcement, this macrumors forum is filled with a all these losers who feel they should have been consulted by Apple prior to the product launch. Never mind that a kazillion of these powerbooks will be sold the first month.

 

[Nutter]

Not faster enough. I don't think 60% Faster Encoding of SD Video is anything to get excited about. I expected it to be more than 100% faster. Man there must be some serious overhead in that architechture.

Yeah, I know! I was expecting it to be at least four times faster than the old PowerMacs. I mean, it is a quad PowerMac, after all.

Damn Apple, with their bloody misleading product names.