Slashdot Mirror
Apple Previewing New Power Mac?
dunric writes "CNET.com reports that Apple Computer may be previewing a new Power Mac, complete with dual G5 processors and a more advanced memory configuration." The "previewing" isn't intentional, though -- the report is based on service and repair documents distributed last month and reported on AppleInsider.com. AppleInsider has taken down at least one image from their report, but have added an artist's rendering.
why wouldn't apple want the previewing?
to me, it seems like good advertising... for free, and you know how companies like free adverts
And how many people do you see driving old BMWs compared to Toyotas? Which looks better?
Except that while the Toyata might look like a pile of shit, its engine will keep running perfectly for hundreds of thousands of miles needing nothing but regular spark plug and oil changes.
Meanwhile, while the BMW may look nicer, it's going to need costly repairs and engine overhauls every 50,000 miles or so.
With WWDC coming up, isn't it somewhat obvious that apple is preparing a new PowerMac? Most likely a new revision of most of there stuff.
I mean, they are coming out with 10.4 at the WWDC, why not new hardware to run it on?
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Not saying it isn't fast, but why all the fuss over pictures?
... to many Apple fans, this is a simple way of gauging Apples' intentions for the future... if they make major exterior design changes, it usually indicates a change in architecture.
...
The design of Apple computers is one of the things, small and insignificant though it is, that differentiates Apple from its competition.
Like it or not, people do have an affinity for aesthetic design. Compare your average Dell to a G5, and you'll see the difference.
There are some that assume that any 'major change in industrial design' which Apple introduces to its product line will signify a shift in direction for the company. When the tiBooks came out, for example, it was clear that Apple was 'rejuvenating its purpose as a computer designer/manufacturer'
Strange, perhaps, but I believe this has something to do with marketing, not technology. Many computer geeks forget that marketing is the only thing that truly counts in computers these days
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why do people prefer good-looking cars over jalopies?
Do you really need to ask this question? Apple is one of the few companies that actually treats computers like a home appliance. You want a home appliance that looks good in addition to running well.
"Sufferin' succotash."
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
You forget fans of automobiles, they obviously care how their products look!
GPL Deconstructed
Honestly, the life of an Apple product is a lot longer than a typical windows PC. I still use my Powermac 9500 (running 10.3.4) but I have retired my 600Mhz Pentium III.
So what? I still use my pentium 200, and I'm fixing up a pentum 90 to use as a firewall. I will admit my computer use habits are not typical, but how many people still use their Powermac 9500s? Maybe you're not a typical user either.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
Like many things, you can get as much out of it as you are willing to.
But in general, it seems that Apple's hardware has a longer life than your typical Windows PC.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Got to argue against you here. PIII 500mhz, running Windows 2000 Server at home as we speak. Got 4 40 gig drives in it and it supports all of my ftp needs.
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
That's funny, because I have a 2.8 GHz machine with 1 GB of DDR and a nice, big 120 ultra scsi that I paid 1.2K for the parts on, and run Windows XP on, and my 1.8 G5 (which I paid 2.5K for) blows it away on every program they have in common: Photoshop, Celestia, SETI@Home, Word (yes, Word on a Mac blows away Word on a Windows computer - me thinks Microsoft should look into going PowerPC), iTunes, VNC, any kind of number crunching. Meanwhile, OS X is twice as stable (i.e., crashes half as often); and that 2.8 GHz P4 is a replacement for a 2.6 GHz P4 processor that only lasted a year, as did the mother board; can't say that there's any proof yet that the 8 month old G5 is more reliable hardware, but my 2001 iBook is still running strong, and still gets 2h/battery charge (with WiFi running, processor on full speed, and screen up to full brightness). I'm guessing that you're comparing a tricked out p4 that actually cost a lot more than half a grand if you count all the real expenses (like the video card - a video card comparable to the 1.6 GHz G5's would be $150; add 512 MB of memory, a gigabit ethernet card, and a DVD-R and you're already over half a grand. Toss in Firewire 800 (oh, yeah, there isn't any interface at that speed on a wintel, is there?), dual FW 400 and Dual USB2, another 3 USBs and 5.1 audio . . . then keep in mind that the 1.6 GHz PowerPC is using a very different architecture and so can't be compared to a P4 by clock speed ... and I'd say you're talking out your ass, blizzy83. (Is that your Mom's date of birth, 1983?)
A slightly smaller motherboard is "mindblowing"? WTF? The current G5 motherboard is relatively big; reducing the size a bit would be more of a logical cost-saving move, not a bold one.
Right, because I've noticed a serious lag between when I make a keystroke and when it appears onscreen.
Computers are no longer a luxury, they are a commodity. And once something becomes a commodity, appearance becomes important. Mankind is vain.
Besides, speed is irrelevant. Computational ability is much more important. To use the beaten-to-death car anology, I have a 6-cylinder Explorer, my brother has a 6-cylinder Dodge Cummins diesel. His Dodge runs at almost 1/3 less RPMs, yet has significantly more towing ability.
The speed masters themselves at Intel have begun de-stressing MHz with their Pentium M proc.
What matters is how well the computer does what you need it to do, not how fast and hot the proc runs, unless thats what you need.
Me, I'm typing this on a 6-yr-old powerbook. Do I want the latest and greatest? Hell yes! But in the meantime I'll still get done what I need on this ol' workhorse.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Because seeing is believing? Of course, photos can be doctored, too, but there's a certain reassurance in seeing a product, rather than a list of imaginary numbers somebody typed up in five minutes.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
They're PREVIEWING MacOS 10.4 Tiger, not releasing it, supposedly. Also, their G5s are seriously due for an update, after almost a year (if you don't count the change to the 1.8 GHz model). This would have happened sooner if IBM could produce the 90 nm chips faster, but c'est la vie...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Excuse me? Who puts graphics cards with blinkenlights an colorful fans on them into their computers? Mac users?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The significance here is that the new motherboard is smaller.
Because Apple doesn't have to create motherboards that fit some standard size and fastener layout, they're free to adjust their designs as parts change, which makes them free to adjust the external design of the machine as the motherboard shrinks.
They also have a strong desire to be able to reuse a motherboard design across multiple products.
In other words, the smaller that G5 motherboard gets, the closer we are to seeing it in a consumer iMac, or even a PowerBook.
Innovation doesn't just grow on trees, and Apple's proprietary designs give them the flexibility needed to produce unique computers.
By contrast, there have been around, what, five? standard PC motherboard sizes since the 386. Commodity parts are great for end user prices, but commodity means "same", and it shows in the final product.
I'd like to see some benchmarks on performance there...
... $54
... $70
... $138
...$87
... $59
... $72
... $40
Here's what you're paying for on the mac:
mobo
The Mac mobo supports pci-x, serial ata and up to 1ghz fsb. It can also take up to 8 gigs of DDR-400 RAM if you want/need it. Also, what about the gigabit ethernet, optical spdif audio, bluetooth, etc?
Entry level gamers video card
The Mac video card, a GeForce FX 5200, supports two monitors and is rather faster than that entry level card. Still, it's not that much more expensive.
cpu
The G5 is probably not as fast, but it has a faster fsb and a comparable vector processing unit. I don't know about you, but in most of the stuff I do, the fsb and vector unit are more important than raw crunching here (not to mention the video card). For compilation, the Athlon would probably win.
Ram
Same as you get through Apple, but they mark it up.
hard drive
Apple is using larger drives (yours is only 40gb) and they're SATA rather than IDE... should give you a faster transfer rate there.
DVD-CDRW thingie
Yep, can't beat you there, I have one of those and it's quite a nice drive. Apple is using an older Pioneer drive, which is also unfortunately more expensive.
Case
The G5 case has you beat pretty soundly. It's higher quality if heavier material. It's extremely quiet (to people with a normal hearing range, it's a bit leaky in the 19k area). It's trivial to install drives: open the case door, slide the drive in, fold in the connectors (no cables to mess with). Similarly with RAM. There aren't as many drive bays, though, but Apple is supposedly going to address this in the next revision.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I'm probably not the only one who feels Apple has a glaring hole in it's current product line: the small form factor desktop. At the moment, the choices are the HUGE G5 tower (clearly designed to be placed on the floor rather than on a desk), or the all-in-ones e/iMac. Personally, I don't find any of the desktop designs particularly attractive. The iMac design is really an acquired taste, while the eMac somehow manages to be uglier than the old CRT iMacs. Many people are moving to LCD screens, and Apple selection is a bit lacking.
I really wished Apple would release something like the Dell SX270 with a G4 at a low price, basically an e/iMac sans monitor. I know last time Apple tried something in this direction didn't work too well, but the Cube was just too expensive for what it offered.
Apple's design goes beyond aesthetics. For example, the new keyboard's don't have a "scroll lock" or "num lock" keyes. The reason for this is not just so that they can eliminate a few keys, but because they're not needed.
If I have a full size number keypad, why would I want to switch it off and on? (and for those 12 of you that actually use the diagonal arrows instead of arrows, I don't really care to hear the explanation)
And WTF is "scroll lock" again?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
generally Apple get's very good points from analysts when they see how small Apple's inventory is... hrm i can't think of the term but generally Apple does not have more than a few weeks of products in limbo. they have an issue with iPod minis and that's the hard drive manufacturer. while it isn't great to have demand outpace supply, it's better than having mountians of devices nobody will buy. some companies live by that motto..... Minui Coopers, Harley Davidsons and Triumph motorcycles for example. they take it to an extreme (somepared to Apple), but they know every vehicle they make will be sold right off. that's a nice place to be.
the delay on the new powermacs has def been processors. it's possible there are other components, but Apple and IBM admitted there were issues at the IBM chipmaking plant that caused problems for supplies getting to Apple. it was the chip that is in the current Xserves and rumored to have been in the G5 tower revision. now the speculation is that the G5 tower may hop right up to the next chip revision alltogether.
Hence the popularity of case modding.
Oh, by the way:Not necessarily, because MS got it's monopoly before they became the best.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How many of those people are using the current Windows version? Yeah. That's what I thought.
Windows gets slower and more loaded every release. MacOS tends to get faster, leaner. With the exception of the OS 9-> OS 10 move--which was a huge discontunity in the large scheme of things (like Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 in the PC world). Still, 10.3 is hugely faster than 10.1, many legacy Macs are supported still, and you can bank on the probability that 10.4 is going to be faster and more feature filled than 10.3
The next Windows will be 50% slower, and require a 50% larger computer (but will reccomed a 200% larger machine), and will provide about 5% more functionality, with a really cool new cotton-candy sweet theme. Wow. Talk about progress.
What do you do, then?
Gaming & programming primarily.
The Mac is the best machine for what my girlfriend does (she's an art student majoring in animation)
No question about it.
and for what I do (computer science student).
That's a bit of a stretch.
IMHO, it's also the best machine for what casual computer users (read: n00bs) would do (i.e. email, web browsing etc) just because it's easier to avoid viruses and malware.
In a vacume that would be correct, but in this world n00bs need to rely on their friends and relatives who have more experience than they do. Most of the people out here know about Windows. Have a problem with your machine, you'll have less trouble getting help with a Windows setup.
Not necessarily, because MS got it's monopoly before they became the best.
I disagree. Mac OS 7 was superior to Win 3.1 in many ways even System 6 was on par with Windows 3.1 but MS dominated the marketplace anyway.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'd love to see a small box instead of a tower. Worked great for Sun's "pizza box" and "lunch box" server models, and those are even stackable.
It sounds like your want a mini XServe on your desk.
Hate to say it, but I seriously doubt that'll happen. It wouldn't work well with any of the current Apple monitors - namely, LCD's - unless they made it shallow as well. (And isn't the main reason of having a pizza box form factor to put the monitor on top of it?)
And what does making it stackable do for home users? Absolutely nothing - if someone has more than one Mac in their home, it won't be in the same place.
The eMac works out better than the pizzabox-plus-monitor setup, anyway. There wouldn't be any place for such a computer.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Fine, then compare resale value. 333 Mhz iMac vs. 350 Mhz PII Compaq.
That's $330 vs. $59 for machines that are about the same age. Given, the Compaq doesn't have a monitor or modem like the iMac. Those two things can hardly make up for that much price difference though. It's simple. A four year old PC is crap. A four year old Mac is still useful. Remember that the next time you bemoan how expensive Macs are ;-)
No. It means that on both sides of the fence, there is some crap and some gold. And that even though they present themselves well and have a loyal customer base, Apple can shovel crap with the best of them.
I've got a Pentium 2 400. I believe it's about 7-8 years old. It started out running NT, but then I moved to Linux and now it's OpenBSD. I have yet to see it crash, though to be fair I lived in Houston when it ran NT and the power there was way to unreliable to give me a good idea of how long it could have gone without a reboot.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
The only stretch is whether it's better than a Linux computer, which has the advantage of coming with GCC and Emacs by default, and being the turn-in platform for my homework (we can write it on whatever we want, but it has to compile on RedHat9/x86). However, my Mac's user interface is enough better than Linux's to compensate.
Okay, I have to admit that back then I didn't use OS 7 enough, or understand enough about computers, to know whether it was better or not. However, by that time they had already lost because they wouldn't allow clones, and IBM did. The fact that all the clones could run Windows (and MS-DOS, for that matter) was what allowed MS to get their monopoly in the first place.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
2) You forgot to add in your expenses for warranty & support.
3) Your base price is wrong - the G5 is $1800, not $1900.
4) Drop the DVD burner & modem from the G5 & it's $1570 - with an OS, AppleWorks, iLife, et. al. Of course, you can always nuke it & run Darwin or Linux.
So, for an extra $275 you get an engineered, warrantied, professionally manufactured machine that you can easily upgrade to dual CPU in the future. Just my 16#0000_0000_0000_0002# cents worth.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
well, not exactly. A 4-year-old PC will be dog-slow with the latest Windows. A 4-years-old Mac will be faster with the latest OSX (not by a whole lot, mind you). On the other hand, you can do a minimal Linux install on both and compare - but that's an unusual case even for the PC.
Long story short - the value of the default OS has a huge impact. And 'still useful' depends on what you need to use it for - neither will be good at playing high-res mpeg4 movies, for instance.
My time is worth enough to me that I don't want to spend it pricing every component of my computer. Am I paying more than some other comparable machine? Probably. Do I regret not saving a few bucks in exchange for having the opportunty to discover that an Abit KV8-MAX3 motherboard works fine with a Antec TruePower 480W power supply UNLESS one uses Corsair's XMS PC4200 RAM? Yeah, not so much.
Also, and I realize that there is a large crowd for which this is laughable, but I use a Mac for the same reason I drive an automatic. I've got better things to do than telling the computers in my life how to do their job.
Doesn't it make sense to spend the $50 and get a Linksys or something firewall/router???
1. Because he already owns the P90 and doesn't have to go out and buy it.
2. A P90 running Linux is far more configurable than a Linksys.
3. A P90 is far more robust than a Linksys. LS routers lock up. Often. Yes, newest firmware, bla bla bla, too late to fuck with it anymore, I gave it away under the condition that noone asks me for support.
4. There's at least 3 different Linux distros made specifically for home gateway/routers, and at least one is as easy to use as a Linksys router.
5. It's nice to have a spare machine for emergencies.
6. Old Pentium machine can run with 200W power supplies or less, and you don't need a monitor for a router. I use ssh or Putty to administer mine.
OS X is the best for what I do for a living (Solaris, RedHat admin) and personally - e-mail, web , games (not many but UT2004, and C&C Generals), MAME.
Throw in the free dev tools, and iLife, Macromedia, and Adobe product suites.
I don't need to go anywhere else thankyou.
The last time Apple announced a top-end speed bump was when they announced the G5, a year ago. Since then, AMD and Intel have announced a plethora of new chips. The average (not always on schedule, but usually) is 3-4 months between top-end speed bumps for the x86/Wintel crowd. There's a constant perception that they're making the fastest faster and they keep inertia from setting in with the regular bumps. Look at how much delaying Prescott and going with the EE chip hurt Intel vs. AMD.
For all Apple tries to claim "FAST", their speed bumps come at a snail's pace. And then, when they announce it, it's still 4-6 weeks (or more) until the first ships to consumers. On top of that, because it's so far between bumps, you're dealing with huge pent-up demand by the time they finally announce a bump. It ensures the newest hot Apple processor will be so backordered, you'll wait another 6-8 weeks for it.
By the time it's on your desk, whatever was the hot new Pentium when you ordered your hot new Apple will already be a generation old. Plus you'll have to show a LOT of patience, waiting 12-14 weeks for your new Mac, when Dell can get you the best Pentium possible in 12-14 days.
Forget about pricing and relative tech merits, Microsoft vs. the world, whatever. If Apple wants to compete with Wintel, IMO, Apple needs to update their top-of-the-line hardware more often, announce it closer to the ship date, and get it out the door in a reasonable time.
Start a happiness pandemic