Slashdot Mirror
Apple Updates Power Mac Line
Phreck writes "Apple has announced an upgrade to its Power Mac line today. The new Power Macs all feature dual G5 processors, 512 MB RAM, and dual-layer 16x SuperDrives. On the low end is the dual 2.0GHz with 160GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The mid-range includes dual 2.3GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The top-end system has dual 2.7GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9650. The processors are not the dual-core variety as has been rumored for weeks now."
Just a small speed bump. And no dual core G5 yet unfortunally.
Does anyone think this amount of RAM is ridiculously low, especially for a high-end system? RAM ain't that expensive these days, especially for 2x512MB ... *sigh*.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
When Steve Jobs first announced the G5 chip, Jobs said they'd be at 3GHz by August 2004.
Where's the Gigs?
Sam
Tell AMD that 2.7 GHz is "5 years ago", then.
Even Intel is finally figuring out that pushing the whole clock speed = performance myth is starting to cause problems.
I realize you have an irrational need to bash Apple products, but please, try to do so in an informed fashion.
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
So buy the RAM from a third party and install it yourself.
If you throwing $2000-3000 into a computer, I somehow doubt $65 bucks to upgrade it by a gig of RAM is going to break the bank.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
On the one side we've got the Apple XServe servers which are absolutely awesome. On the other we've got client computers in the G5 towers and the iMac series. In our pockets, we've even got the amazing iPod. So where does this Powermac fit?
What if you're a Photoshop guy and you need loads of power and RAM? What if you're a serious developer? Isn't that what PowerMacs are for?
Wait until the new revisions come out, then buy whatever you can afford. This allows you the maximum time to enjoy the "best your money could buy." Don't wait on rumours.
If you can't wait, you'll pay the cost of impatience.
So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??
:P
Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware. This is due to the lack of variation in hardware compared to PC's, resulting in more solid drivers. Linux driver developers simply have less combinations to worry about. And Apple hardware engineers also have to worry about less combinations. Thus, with a Power Mac, you end up with a stable, powerful, quiet, high-quality Linux machine.
Other than that, I don't really know
#!/
The price drop is nice, but I still want a 17" Cinema Display.
I'd have thought that with the Mini being hailed as the "most affodable mac ever" SOMEONE at apple would have come up with the idea of selling a monitor that didn't cost as much as the mini. A 17" at around $300-400 would seem to fit into the current line nicely, hell they could even use the same panel as in the iMac.
Apple also doesn't make umpteen models of their computers like Dell/Gateway/HP. They have four. Ever tried to shop for a PC laptop? It's confusing enough looking at one vendor's stable, let alone multiple. Then there's Apple:
PC or Laptop?
How much do you want to spend?
That's all you need ask.
Yeah, and this is this year. Now that isn't good enough. Welcome to computers. I bet 5 years from now 1GB won't be enough either, huh?
For this specific example, 256MB running Mac OSX is damn near a joke. 512MB is fairly adequate - that's what I have, but I run a fair amount of stuff, and I get the beachball more often than I'd like. 1 GB is the "transparency point" for Mac OSX, so a good desktop priced over $1500 should come with that standard.
I've never understood why Apple skimps on RAM - I know the idea is to sell you an upgrade, but magazine articles usually compare machines "stock," and we don't want Mac OSX, a very nice operating system, to seem klunky because it doesn't have enough RAM do we?
This is only true to a limited extent. Because of the low market share of PowerPC desktops, some binary drivers neccessary for the use of the hardware selected by Apple are not available from the manufacturers. Most notable in this category are nVidia, ATI, and Broadcom, who do not provide binary drivers for PPC Linux for their video and wireless chipsets. This means that, in general, you will have a tough time getting decent video performance out of your Mac running Linux, and you certainly won't get your integrated Airport Extreme card running.
Clearly you're used to the PC world where they send you off into the wilds of the internet with only a "Beware of the Malware!"
Not only is it the possibly $10 OEM that they are deducting from a million machines, it's the thousands of dollars in support they will spend not only repairing potentially wonky modems but also fielding tech support calls over dialing into the internet, connection issues once dialed-in, etc. The simpler you can make a machine the fewer dollars spent on tech support.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
The 1.8 GHz Power Mac G5 is $1,499 because that is the price that we choose to charge for it.
Any other answer would be just a load of bullshit. Prices aren't rational. They're set entirely arbitrarily. Why beat around the bush about it?
Maybe the grandparent post was referring to the use of the Alivec? You can do lots of single-precision floating point operations at once.
I don't think there is anything more you can do, but you can't deny the amazing speed with which the Altivec can get certain operations accomplished. I've personally experience a scenario in which it was feasible to do a more accurate approximation because the Altivec made it easy and fast.
So, maybe speed can translate into ability when you look over a given unit of time? I dunno.
Oh, and the 970fx has about a hojillion registers when compared to the x86 world. The grandparent was right about that. I'm hoping that the GCC4.0 optimizations that Apple and the GNU teams have been working on will better leverage an architecture with strict alignment rules, more registers and a powerful vector unit.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
The problem with blogs is that anything can publish anything. It doesn't have to be true.
Apple is not going to use Intel compatible chips anytime soon.
.. or at least that it's now sufficiently obsolete for the PowerMac target audience. It seems that Apple still considers the modem important enough in the consumer space to put that one in every iMac and even every Mac Mini that leaves the factory, as well as in all the portables of course. With the limited space in such machines requiring more careful consideration of any features that might be dropped that's probably more telling.
And with this comment (unless you intended some sort of strange, imperceptible irony), your assertion that you work for Apple is blown to smithereens. Prices are NOT arbitrary. Prices are always based on market demand and profit margin. Lower priced items, like a Mac mini, have a lower profit margin because they are gateway Macs. Today's Mac mini buyer will hopefully be tomorrow's 20" iMac buyer (or better). The PMG5 is a more luxurious, more professional item, and Apple's research would indeed tell them that to a professional Mac user, PCI slots, faster FSB, and gigabit ethernet are worth the extra dough over a consumer-grade (though, IMHO, entirely kick-ass) machine like the iMac G5. Sure, Apple's made pricing mistakes (PMG4 Cube, anyone? Who exactly was the market for that thing?), and sure, Apple's prices are higher than other PC manufacturers, but Apple charges what the market will endure, and when it can't endure it, they cut prices. For you to espouse all of this insider knowledge about Apple and then to say that Apple chooses prices arbitrarily is ridiculous, and I call shenanigans on your ass. SHENANIGANS!
----------
Cheese it! It's the FEDS!
I didn't go through the full list of options in excruciating detail, but by "slightly less" I meant that I noticed some minor changes in BTO configs.
Apple doesn't change their major pricepoints often, particularly in the Pro line - they don't have to. In the consumer lines, there's been a slow, steady lowering of price levels over the last few years as Apple's nosed their way down-market. But the major thing here is that (right or wrong) Apple has a market that craves their high-end gear, even if it doesn't provide the same raw horsepower as a nicely tweaked PC can. It just doesn't matter to them at all, and they've shown it consistently.
Mac users don't buy them (generally) for the raw performance, they buy them because they fill a need better - real or perceived. Sure, they market image in a way Dell and the like can only dream of, there's more to it. Apple doesn't really want the Slashdot crowd as their customers (and they don't have them) - the Apple market is still the graphics person, the end users who are sick of dealing with Windows, the science community, and the alpha geeks (just count the PowerBooks at a Unix conference).
They aren't pure enough for the Free Software diehards, but they provide a slick, functional Unix that adheres to most standards that matter, can do all the day-to-day tasks that most users would ever want, interoperate well with other systems, and are immune to pretty much all the woes that plague the Windows world. They don't build a slick bare-bones box that you can buy cheaply and tweak to your hearts' desire, but they do have complete systems that are clearly differentiated across the full spectrum of top-tier pricepoints.
For your purposes, a PowerMac would be great, but you don't need all that expansion to develop Java apps. If a mini doesn't float your boat, try an iMac G5, for instance - maybe it's still above your target price but you can get a nice one for under $1500, and then you get G5 goodness for your Java wants. Heck, I'd like a PowerMac too, but since I didn't win the lotto this week I'll just stick with my iMac G5 for now.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Somebody with no connection to Apple speculating about what Apple might do someday is not news, even if he does his speculation for a Windows publication.
Nor is it worthy of much discussion.