Slashdot Mirror
Apple Marketing Hypes New PowerMacs
Wacky_Wookie was only one of many who wrote in with a mention of Apple's "leak" of specifications for a new line of PowerMacs to be dubbed "G5", apparently running the new PowerPC 970 CPUs. No offense, but anyone who thinks it was a mistake or leak doesn't understand marketing. :) Update by J : In case those linked sites get taken down too, try
MacNN.
you've forgotten the eternal maxim of michael's posts: michael = asshat, therefore everything he says is irrelevant.
of configuring and building a PC with the money these Macs will cost. The specs sure sound great, too bad that I cannot get warm with Jaguar/Macs (and lack the money for such a machine).
Let's see how Apple's stock performs today. Then when they deliver on Monday, they get a strong buy rating because confidence in them goes up.
:) And this week, someone did upgrade their rating to buy, and the stock failed to take off, so here's hoping that an actual announcement will help the price.
As of this posting, AAPL is up +.10 on the day. I'm bummed, because I'm still looking at selling off my AAPL stock to be able to afford a new system
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Competitive? Not in terms of price:performance. You could get a G3 system for a fairly reasonable price, but you could always get a faster PC for less, especially since the speed of the 603e never really got very high.
Macs have always had a lesser price:performance ratio than PCs. The only time they really had a leg up was during the System 6.0.7 days, when you had a stable GUI OS when the competition was still playing with Windows 3.1, which we all know was the crappiest crap that ever crapped all over your computer. Give me PC-GEOS over Win 3.11 any day, even given the relative paucity of applications. But by the time System 7 came out, Apple managed to lose its focus on stability (System 7 was horribly crashy, as you should know) and Windows 95 was making its appearance, and definitely making itself felt. Of course, it wasn't real stable either, and MacOS had a superior filesystem, but that didn't affect people all that much anyway, and I'd say the stability was comparable or superior to System 7, given decent PC hardware.
When a 386DX still cost $3k over at Tandy, it cost $5k to get a Mac IIci. I'd say those are quite comparable systems in terms of power, though the Mac certainly had higher build quality. At the time, the thing that kept Apple in the game was the collection of applications which were not available on PC. Then Adobe brought its library to Windows and we came to our current situation, which you may feel to read however you see fit, but which has remained fairly constant - PCs have a better price:performance ratio.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Please. Lets not stumble over ourselves as we fawn over more vapor Mac hardware. Mac people love benchmarks but only the ones that favor them. Where is the link to this 3rd party benchmark that shows this performance?
I can recall John Carmack in an interview with a Mac magazine. They asked him what he thought of the uber G3's(or maybe it was G4's) and he responded by saying that unlike the propaganda, they aren't actually that fast compared to todays x86 cpu's.
All of the benchmarks I've seen where Apple's PCs blow away x86's are all with Photoshop and with filters tweaked for the PPC cpu's. The x86 Photoshop filters weren't even using SIMD or other equivalent technologies. So again, lets see how REAL applications run on these machines and lets see the sticker price.
Chris