Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Updates Power Mac Line

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-i-want-it-now dept.

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."

64 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Not a very large update... by Thijs+van+As · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just a small speed bump. And no dual core G5 yet unfortunally.

    1. Re:Not a very large update... by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      something? If you really, really reach.

      Apple has tended to really whiz-bang their new products, and this was really simply incremental in nature.

      Reminds me of when companies meet analyst estimates and their stock drops for not having exceeded expectations. Lack of awesomeness becomes a real downer.

      --
      500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    2. Re:Not a very large update... by numbski · · Score: 4, Informative

      *shrugs*

      Here's the latest info from apple regarding the G5. It mentions "two double-precision floating-point units", but I don't think that's marketing-speak for cpu cores. :\

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    3. Re:Not a very large update... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is anybody still wondering why the rumor mill is so damaging to Apple? This is a solid upgrade: faster CPUs, dual-layer 16X Superdrives, higher base RAM, same prices. But what does everybody say? "They're not dual core."

      Guys, the dual-core CPUs are a myth. They exist only as prototypes. Apple has never even so much as implied that we plan to use them for anything, ever. Being disappointed when a product we never announced fails to materialize is, frankly, pretty bizarre.

      (Incidentally, I don't know how wide-spread it was, but the dual-layer Superdrives were referred to by at least a few people internally as "Superduperdrives." I thought that was pretty funny.)

    4. Re:Not a very large update... by jest3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple seems to be slacking on their PowerMac product line. This is their most expensive product, supposedly high-end .. they are charging premium 2005 dollar for 2003 hardware.

      - The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??
      - Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)
      - The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay
      - Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)
      - Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?

      If you spend $2000 - $3000 for a workstation you should at least get specifications to match.

      Actually $3000 gets you 6 Mac Minis ... cluster those together and you've got more juice than the PowerMac.

    5. Re:Not a very large update... by slantyyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, when the G5 was released, The Steve said that 3GHZ chips would be available within 12 months. It's been almost 24 months, and we're still < 3.0 GHz. Close, but I don't get why the Mac Faithful are defending this modest speed jump, when we should have been there last year.

    6. Re:Not a very large update... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AMD and Intel both rushed dual core to market for bragging rights. Both companies are using a design that's really not much more than two dies on the same wafer with a little interconnect circuitry. I think the *most* optimistic estimate I've heard for a clean, shared cache design is 12-18 months away still. This is very new stuff for both companies.

      IBM, on the other hand, has been building dual core for several *years* now with the POWER series now. And not just single core - we're talking eight cores on the same wafer last I'd heard.

      So no, the PPC970 hasn't received dual core yet, but claiming that IBM 'can't keep up' from a technological standpoint is absolutely ridiculous, and suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about.

    7. Re:Not a very large update... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      The reason for the dual core rumours being taken seriously originated at Apple. Apple released a new version of "CHUD", a "How well will my app work on an X processor running at Y GHz" tool. The new version differed only slightly from the former, suddenly supporting four CPUs instead of two.

      There are no Macs with four CPUs, or even ones that can be upgraded to have four CPUs. You can't blame people for assuming that Apple wouldn't make a completely spurious upgrade to their developer tools on this kind of scale.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Not a very large update... by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Informative
      AMD and Intel both rushed dual core to market for bragging rights. Both companies are using a design that's really not much more than two dies on the same wafer with a little interconnect circuitry.

      True for Intel, not so for AMD.

      So no, the PPC970 hasn't received dual core yet, but claiming that IBM 'can't keep up' from a technological standpoint is absolutely ridiculous, and suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about.

      Granted, IBM knows what it's doing. It should make a dual core annoucement soon for the PPC970 (if it has such plans) soon though, just for bragging rights.

      Quad-core Power Macs would be sweet, especially at the same price point! =)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    9. Re:Not a very large update... by bnenning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's been almost 24 months, and we're still < 3.0 GHz.

      Which sucks, but the entire industry hit a wall at 90nm, not just Apple and IBM. Sure the G5 has only gotten a 35% increase, but that's still better than Intel.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    10. Re:Not a very large update... by Frank+Palermo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup. To an outsider (like a consumer in the market for a machine), what has changed in the G5 in nearly two years since its introduction?

      1.CPU and FSB speeds have increased.
      2.Bigger hard drives.
      3.Faster Superdrives.
      4.Faster video cards.

      I've left out some details obviously, but those are a few major features someone might look at when considering a G5. Of the things I've listed, only the first item (faster CPUs) can't be readily added to either of the two previous generations of G5 at a very nominal cost and with little effort. So while the new PowerMacs are quite impressive machines and are certainly great for first-time buyers, what they may fail to do is to entice any current G5 owners to upgrade to a newer model. And considering that the first G5s appeared nearly two years ago now, that current-owner-looking-to-upgrade-soon market is going to be sizeable in the relatively near future.

      What would entice one of those owners to buy a new G5? Perhaps moving to PCI-Express graphics. Perhaps moving to DDR2 RAM. Adopting any of those technologies that 1) the PC market already has, and thus yields a performance gap (real or perceived, it matters not in the marketplace), and 2) that can't be retrofitted onto an older G5 logic board for low cost and effort. Lacking dual-core CPUs wouldn't even be very disappointing if the rest of the architecture surrounding single-core chips got a bit of a revamp.

      In short, *that* is the sort of upgrade that will capture both new and existing Mac users to buy a new G5, and the lack of such an upgrade is probably as big of an influence as the "rumor mill" you blamed in damaging Apple and keeping PowerMac sales a bit low. As a current G5 user, I for one hope such an update comes soon. My checkbook will be ready.

      -Frank

    11. Re:Not a very large update... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A Power5 MCM is not exactly 8 cores on the same die, it's actually 2 dies (plus another 2 for the huge shared L3 cache), with 2 cores pre die, with 2 SMT threads per core.
      They share 2MB of L2 for both processors on a die, and 144MB of L3 for all processors on the MCM.

      But yes, IBM has been doing multicore processors since the Power4, and is using shared caches, which Intel and AMD are still working on.

    12. Re:Not a very large update... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Each refresh is the greatest thing ever and will change everything!

      Which explains why our announcement of the new G5s is in a tiny corner on the bottom of our home page.

      Sigh.

    13. Re:Not a very large update... by cyngus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??

      My guess is that Apple couldn't secure enough supply from ATI to include it. Rather than risk huge shipping delays (like with the GeForce Ultra DDL) they left it to you to upgrade if you want it.

      - Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)

      Let remind you that no one has really moved their processor performance much in the last two years, until just recently with dual core designs.

      - The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay

      As to size, I have one and its just fine by me. It sits on the floor, it could be four feet tall for all I care. So, one external drive bay, with an optical drive that supports reading and writing just about every format under the sun. Why would I want another? To duplicate disks? I can rip a disk and burn it so fast that this is really a moot point.

      - Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)

      And what would most people use more slots for? Nothing. So much is included on the motherboard these days that six slots really doesn't make sense for the vast majority. If you need more, you'll probably get a PCI expansion chasis and stop whinning.

      - Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?

      Fine by me, I never buy RAM from the box makers. It can be had much more cheaply (particularly vs Apple RAM) from elsewhere.

      Since most creative apps won't support clustering, no, six mac minis are not as fast.

    14. Re:Not a very large update... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup.

      We refresh our product lines roughly once every nine months. We've been doing it that way for years now. Why is this a surprise?

      To an outsider (like a consumer in the market for a machine), what has changed in the G5 in nearly two years since its introduction?

      Hopefully nothing. "Power Macintosh G5" is a brand item for us. We don't want to release a product and then suddenly drop it. Instead, we want to release a product and maintain it for several years, building brand recognition.

      I guess we're just running up against a difference in business philosophies here. Companies like Dell (just to pick a well-known example) have vast product lines with hundreds of products. We sell about a dozen, and frankly that's a lot for us. Our approach goes like this: At any point in time, somebody can go into an Apple store (or online) and say, "I want a Power Mac G5." (Or iMac, or Mac mini, or whatever product.) From there, the customer will be given a few choices about how much they want to spend -- small, medium or large, basically. At that point, they walk out with a product that gives them good value and a good experience for the money they spent.

      I understand that there are people out there who wish we did it another way. I understand that there are people out there who basically wish we just sold parts from a catalogue. But that's not our business model. Arguments of the form "But I'd buy one if so-n-so" don't really touch anybody here, because that's just not the way we want to do things. Other companies already to things that way. That's fine for them. We do things our way.

      what they may fail to do is to entice any current G5 owners to upgrade to a newer model

      According to market research, Mac owners buy a new computer about once every five years on average. We're a long way from expecting our Power Mac G5 owners to want to trade up.

      Bottom line: We don't just roll out whole new products willy-nilly. Part of what we sell our customers is stability. One of the things you know when you buy a Mac -- most of the time -- is that the thing you buy isn't going to be just totally lame next month. The products we ship subsequently are going to be incremental improvements, not complete new things. That means that you can feel comfortable when you buy a Mac that your purchase isn't going to totally lose all its value in ninety days. It's one way we've engendered brand loyalty. Haven't you noticed that used Macs retain their value way better than used PCs? There's a reason for that.

    15. Re:Not a very large update... by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not an astroturfer if you tell people you work for the company.

      An "astroturfer" is an employee or executive who is paid by the company to pretend he's just an ordinary schmuck who just happens to be really, really impressed with the company or their products, creating the artificial impression of strong grassroots support, hence: astroturf (meaning, fake grass.)

      The word was coined when Microsoft was caught doing exactly that on various newsgroups back in the 90s.

      This guy is either an Apple employee who is being very straight up about who he works for and what his bias and perspective is, or else he's a loser troll who gets off on pretending he's an Apple employee so people will consider his opinion on Apple stories to carry more weight.

      Based on the nature of the things he's commented on in the past, my suspicion is that he's probably an Apple guy, though perhaps not nearly as close to the development teams as he likes to imply. His answers to people's questions seem to be rather long on design opinion, and rather short on technical details... and more than a little snippy at times.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    16. Re:Not a very large update... by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...he's probably an Apple guy, though perhaps not nearly as close to the development teams as he likes to imply. His answers to people's questions seem to be rather long on design opinion, and rather short on technical details... and more than a little snippy at times.

      Oh... Wait... It's so obvious, I'm surprised I didn't spot it sooner.

      Mister Jobs, is that you?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    17. Re:Not a very large update... by RevDobbs · · Score: 3, Funny
      Of course, they don't have any computers. Just yaks.

      Oh, the injustice... someone ring up RMS, I'm sure he'll swap some gnus for their yaks.

    18. Re:Not a very large update... by Durindana · · Score: 4, Insightful


      I honestly don't mean to be a flame/troll, but I have to ask:

      Since you obviously hold yourself out to be an Apple employee, and I'm assuming you are one, is it wise to be posting this sort of thing?

      I mean, I certainly have not seen you post anything inflammatory or detrimental to Apple - in fact, your posts strike me as reasonable and informative - but I know many organizations emphatically do not like non-PR or non-HR employees engaging in public communication, of any kind or tenor, for liability reasons.

      Are you doing so anonymously? Again, no offense, I'm just surprised and curious.

  2. how does it compare? by johansalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does a dual-processor compare to a dual-core processor? How do these powermacs compare to the latest AMD?

    1. Re:how does it compare? by am46n · · Score: 5, Informative

      Put simply, dual core means that both CPUs are on the same piece of silicon. They can share a unified cache, access it faster, and resolve deadlocks & invalidates etc much faster.
      A dual core processor will also run cooler than two single cores, and the reduced number of external interconnects means that the whole thing can be clocked faster.

      Since you are using up to twice the wafer size, you need to have a high yield rate of you're going to keep costs down: Yield decreases in proportion to wafer area.

      It's worth reading up on System On Chip design - see how you can put the graphics controller, DSP, and USB controller on the same wafer. Furber's ARM SoC book is slightly dated but nevertheless a good read.

      Relative to the latest AMD etc depends on the code you're running. PowerPC has a lot of registers, can do much more complicated floating point arithmetic, and has a fused multiply-add instruction (good for FFTs) but in pure integer throughput the latest AMD etc will probably triumph.

    2. Re:how does it compare? by selectspec · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dual core should be more efficient as the system bus between the processor cores are much faster and wider than the external buses. Dual processor systems must leverage off-chip caches (if any) which are generally slower as they rely on the external system bus for cache coherency.

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    3. Re:how does it compare? by jaoswald · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dual core being "more efficient" depends very much on the task being considered.

      For any sufficiently large task, the bottleneck is the path to main memory. For a given level of package & bus limitations, dual-core must use an amount of bandwidth to main memory to feed two processing units rather than one.

      For tasks that fit in on-chip cache, of course, the bottleneck is processing, and dual-core can be a huge improvement, especially where the synchronization overhead would have to go off-chip in the case of dual processors, as you mention.

    4. Re:how does it compare? by Pulzar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Put simply, dual core means that both CPUs are on the same piece of silicon. They can share a unified cache, access it faster, and resolve deadlocks...

      Actually, the Intel dual-core CPUs are simply two core dies in the same package, not two cores on the same die. So, they do not share cache and resolve deadlocks in any faster way than two separate CPUs.

      It's quite a bit different than a SoC design where you put a large number of components onto the same die. While SoC will suffer from yield rates because of a larger die, the dual-core strategy will not, because each die is still as small as the original single-cpu solution.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  3. Fuck by jargoone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

    I just bought a Dual 1.8 on eBay a week and a half ago, and the bum took a week to send it out. I just got it last night. Now this news. Nearly the same damn machine is $1499 refurbished, and I paid $300 more than that, and didn't even get Tiger.

    Word for the wise: listen to everyone and WAIT when you hear something will be updated soon!

    In summary: FUCK!

    1. Re:Fuck by Gannoc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just bought a Dual 1.8 on eBay a week and a half ago, and the bum took a week to send it out. I just got it last night.

      How wierd! I sold a Dual 1.8 on ebay a couple of weeks ago and the DAY after I sent it out, they updated the powermacs! Now I can get a brand new one with a FREE copy of Tiger! Its like I got paid to accept a new computer!

  4. As our own CmdrTaco Would Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

    (no, Taco, you'll never live that one down).

  5. Low end not dual processor by LiENUS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The new dual Power Mac G5 models complement the existing 1.8 GHz single processor Power Mac G5, providing customers with an affordable entry-level system priced at just $1,499 (US).

    According to this the low end Power Mac is still the old 1.8 GHz single processor Power Mac, the summary indeicates that the lowest end Power Mac is 2.0 GHz dual processor. However asside from that one slip-up the Power Mac line is shaping up to be incredibly fast.

    1. Re:Low end not dual processor by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We actually have two low-end machines now. The low-end G5 is defined by the fact that it only has room for 4 GB of RAM and the absence of PCI-X. We ship a 1.8 GHz version for $1,499 and a dual 2.0 GHz version for $1,999.

      The 1.8 GHz version is what we refer to as the "Power Mac mini."

    2. Re:Low end not dual processor by arloguthrie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!
  6. How does it compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What sort of performance improvements will I see over my Apple II?

  7. Re:Still costs 6 times what a dual opteron costs by weg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've heard Apple will come up with a new one button keyboard, soon. Because it's so much easier to use.

    --
    Georg
  8. Apple? by cablepokerface · · Score: 4, Funny

    So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??

    * Clicks 'Post Anonymously'
    * Submit

    * ducks

    1. Re:Apple? by cablepokerface · · Score: 4, Funny

      Relizes 'Post Anonymously' failed

      No karma noooooo ...

    2. Re:Apple? by pebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??

      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 :P

      --
      #!/
    3. Re:Apple? by j-turkey · · Score: 3, Informative
      Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware.

      I haven't run any Mac Linuxes for a long time, so my knowledge on this could easily be dated, but IIRC, Apple hardware is not better supported for Linux use than Wintel hardware. It could be better supported (due to the common hardware that you pointed out earlier), but due to the cost and wide availability of commodity X86 hardware, it's historically been the best supported hardware on the market for Linux.

      --

      -Turkey

  9. Re:Fuck - er no sh*t sherlock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps you should start visiting the rumor sites. this powermac update was not a surprise

    MacRumors.com

    MacRumors' Buyer's Guide also keeps track of time since last release and a summary of recent rumors, and a buy or not-buy recommendation.

  10. They also dropped Cinema Display prices... by mcwop · · Score: 4, Informative
    20" now $799

    23" now $1,499

    30" same $2,999

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    1. Re:They also dropped Cinema Display prices... by angrist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  11. Why 9600 series cards? why not 9800s or X800s? by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do not understand their choice of base video card. Why would they use a 9600 series when the 9800s and X series are available? From a price concious view I can see it however the top end is Nvidia.

    Also, are they still stuck on PCI-X? Is Apple going to move to PCI-Express anytime soon or will they be left behind for the time being?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Why 9600 series cards? why not 9800s or X800s? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Also, are they still stuck on PCI-X? Is Apple going to move to PCI-Express anytime soon or will they be left behind for the time being?

      PCI-X and PCI express are targeted to different markets. PCI-X is seeing a lot of use in servers and workstations which is where Apple wants to be hardware-wise with it's pro machines. PCI express is being pushed as a replacement for AGP and has not found much support outside of that. The 8x AGP slot on the G5s is more than sufficient for today's and tomorrow's graphics cards.

      Apple will go where the cards are. When they introduced the Blue & White G3 they used a 66MHz PCI graphics card which was faster than AGP 2x. When AGP 4x came out and ATI and Nvidia were not making all their cards for 66MHz PCI, Apple added AGP.

      The travesty is that Apple has not gone to PCI-X 2. Oh well, I've had a G5 for over a year and I have yet to find anything for PCI-X but fibre channel cards.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  12. I'd like... by AxsDeny · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...my boss to announce an update to my salary. Until then my old school G4 will have to do.

    --

    zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
    283 files eaten by a grue
  13. Re:Slashdot.. by caerwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. modems now optional by mblase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I noticed an oddity on the linked page to Apple's store: the older 1.8 GHz dual had a built-in modem, but the new ones did not. Sure enough, if you actually order one of the newer PowerMacs you find that built-in modems are now a $29 option.

    I suppose nearly everyone who buys these machines is using them in a networked office or can afford broadband at home, and the not-so-recent advent of internet faxing has made the other role of the built-in modem obsolete.

    Still, it's an interesting omission. Like the floppy disk, Apple's opinion now is that the POTS modem is sufficiently obsolete to remove it entirely and free up space inside the box, rather than leave it in and lose the $10 OEM or whatever it actually costs them.

    1. Re:modems now optional by Queer+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Like the floppy disk, Apple's opinion now is that the POTS modem is sufficiently obsolete to remove it entirely and free up space inside the box, rather than leave it in and lose the $10 OEM or whatever it actually costs them.

      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.
  15. A word to the wise... by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never buy a computer when it's TODAY.

    Always wait until it's TOMORROW, because something better may come out.

  16. Re:Only 512MB RAM? by CrackedButter · · Score: 4, Insightful


    God Damn! Last year they were saying 256mb wasn't enough and people complained, now Apple doubles it and the trolls are out again. Next year when they hit a 1GB for a machine, people are gonna bitch again and comment on how cheap 2GB of RAM is!
    I prefer it (just like other people have said) to get my memory elsewhere and cheaper than Apple provides. I'd be pissed if they gave to much RAM and then overcharged on the entire system.

    --
    Jonathanjk.com
  17. Re:Missing their core audience by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhh, these PowerMacs ARE the G5 towers. You can't reasonably like one and dislike the other. Apple has 5 computer lines:

    Server: XServe
    Professional "Desktop": PowerMac
    Professional Notebook: PowerBook
    Consumer Notebook: iBook
    Consumer desktop: iMac, eMac and Mac Mini

    Which division is redundant?

  18. Re:Slashdot.. by Zemrec · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I had mod points, I'd mod you a troll.

    I know a million other people are going to say this, but...

    The G5 at 2.7 GHz is significantly more powerful than a P4 at 3.8. The best comparison is to the Athlon64 or Opteron (also a 64-bit cpu.) And as has been said before, 2.7 is actually higher than the fastest current A64 (which appears to be the 4000+ at 2.4 GHz.)

    And don't forget the whole apples to oranges deal.

    http://www.barefeats.com/g5op.html

    Thats for the 2.0 GHz chips, but you get the idea. Thats been posted before too. Go ahead mod me redundant. Does it show the G5 is always faster than an Opteron. No. So what? Pick the tool you like/that does the job you need. If you like OS X, doesn't get better than that. If not, you can still get your x86-64 box for less.

    Am I totally impressed by the G5? No. Too much money, and I don't need that much power anyway. I recently replaced my Powerbook G4 with a Mini. 80-90% of the capabilities but at 20% the price.

    I'd love to have a G5 dual-core Mini with a Geforce 6800GT, but that just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

  19. Re:Dual Processor isnt to sneeze at by fitten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's an 8% CPU clock bump... 2.5GHz -> 2.7GHz and a new DVDR (DVDRW?). 8% is small.

    Id take a true dual cpu machine over dual 'core' any day.

    Good thing you can have both or either in the x86 world (even a true dual CPU machine where each CPU is dual core even :)) There are cases where dual-core will be faster than dual-chip (see the recent benchmarks of the AMD Opterons published in the last week or so). There are times when dual-chip is faster, for example: if each chip has its own memory bank and a NUMA aware OS and you put the data in the right banks.

    Not wanting dual-cores simply sounds like sour grapes.

  20. Re:3.0G in Aug '04? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM had trouble going from 180 nm fabrication to 90 nm fabrication. We announced 3 GHz by 2004, but internally we were predicting 5 GHz by this summer, based on IBM's projections.

    They didn't pan out.

    For the record, Steve Jobs copped to this publicly during one of his keynote addresses. WWDC 2004, I think it was. Funnily enough, though, it seems like Slashdotters like to remember the initial projection, not the retraction, which is strange because they happened in exactly the same forum attended by exactly the same group of people. It almost seems like ... Slashdotters are less interested in the truth than they are in making a big stink! But surely that's not possible ...

  21. Re:Enough !!! by delta_avi_delta · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would be around the time you could get a bash terminal on apple machines...

  22. Powermacs vs. Intel & AMD by TheWama · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not that you should ever put too much stock in any vendors quoted ads, and bearing in mind all the inherant problems with benchmarking as a figure of merit:

    Apple has some benchmarks up that show a pretty significant relative performance advantage on Apple's side. This particularly on compute-intensive work such as rendering and scientific work. Makes sense considering where the chips comes from(IBM) and where they're being used (Virginia Tech's cluster, for one).

    Not that you should use this to make a buying decision or anything, but it's probably better than MHZ at telling you what is what.

  23. Wow! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just ran Hardware Update, and everything is much snappier!

  24. performance by tf23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple's performance page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

    What would be interesting is if someone took that page and listed the total cost of each system next to each machine type.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal
  25. Promises...Promises..Where the hell is my Holy G5? by pretentiousPPC · · Score: 3, Funny
    I wrote this in to Wired's Vaporware awards this year to Steve's promising 3Ghz G5s for Last Summer.
    • Then did St. Steve raise on high the Holy G5 of Cupertino, saying, 'Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine Dell enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the renderings of lambs and toads and tree sloths and fruit bats and orangutans and lickable icons.... Now did the Lord say, 'Thou in 12 months, thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the GHz and the number of the GHz shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two-point-five, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the GHz, be reached, then thine will be great and powerful in my sight, however if thou shall have more than one button on thou mouse, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff thine's life.
    Now has thy Matriarch of the Macintosh forsaken us or what here?
    --
    Artist will always make art.
  26. OhMyGawd by wiredog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple makes CHUDs? We're all doomed.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  27. Apple has a different perspective... by nokiator · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This PowerMac revision is obviously not a major upgrade and Apple treated it as such. Apple's home page, is mostly full of Tiger stuff and the new PowerMac intro is just a small image on the lower left corner.

    Lot of people are complaining about the "just 200MHz" speed bump for the high end model. 8% may not be that much of a speed bump, but neither Intel or AMD has been able to pull off dramatic clock frequency jumps lately. Clock speed stagnation seem to be a general problem in the processor design industry.

    As for the dual cores, obviously AMD and Intel have much more incentive. The entire PC world is built around a standard form factors: ATX motherboards and ATX cases. Intel's efforts to move to a new form factor (BTX) has been quite unsuccessful so far. It is very hard to put two "hot" processors on an ATX motherboard in an ATX case. PC market is also driven by cut throat price pressure and low margins. There is a huge price difference between the prices of single processor motherboards and dual processor motherboards. Given the stagnation in the clock frequency, the only practical way for Intel and AMD to drive the mainstream PC to higher performance is the SMP model through dual-core chips. This way, all of the rest of the system components (motherboard, chipset, case, cooling system) can stay the same.

    Apple does not have this constraint. Apple has been manufacturing mainstream multiprocessor desktops for manty years. Overall, it may actually be more cost effective for Apple to ship multiprocessor system. It may be a lot cheaper for IBM to manufacture two instances of a small die like the PPC970 FX (less than 60mm2) than a larger dual core die. As for Apple, having the source of the heat distributed accross two chips makes thermal management somewhat easier than dealing with one extremely hot dual core chip.

    I am sure Apple will eventually move to dual core PPC970MP chips, potentially later this year, but this will most likely be in the context of being able to offer quad systems (two dual-core processors) for higher performance.

    As for the choice of the base graphics card, the 9600 or 9650 is a perfectly reasonable choice. The primary driving force behind high end graphics cards in the PC world are 3D games. PowerMac G5 is obviously not the best 3D game platform. Most people buy PowerMacs to use in professional applications. Many pro applications do not require super-duper 3D performance. For those who are planning to do serious 3D work, the 6800 Ultra upgrade is the reasonable choice. There is no reason to burden all customers with an expensive (and potentially loud) graphics card.

  28. Re:Honest question for Slashdot: by multiplexo · · Score: 4, Informative
    *This is an honest question, this is not a troll*

    Why is it front-page-newsworthy when Apple updates their product line, but it is not newsworthy when Dell, Microsoft, or Intel updates theirs?

    Well Microsoft and Intel (and AMD) get quite a bit of coverage when they release new products, even if they're just collections of bug fixes (Windows XP SP2) or minor speed bumps in their chips. Dell generally doesn't get coverage when they release a new product for the same reason that your local whitebox clone shop doesn't get coverage, it's just not that interesting to read about slightly faster PCs built around generic hardware components.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  29. 2.7Ghz model is liquid cooled! by GraZZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up, but Apple is using a liquid cooling system on the 2.7Ghz model.

    Details (including a cutsie animation) here.

  30. Re:250GB? by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's much cheaper to buy the memory elsewhere, like 50% cheaper, and dead easy to install if you aren't stoned

    The point is, that you shouldn't have to. You are buying a very high-end 3000$ machine, and it comes with the same size of RAM 1000$ PC's do. You are also getting a 2 year old video card.

    IMHO only the bottom line power mac should come with 512MB, the middle one perhaps 768 or more and so on, and they should come with GF6800 Ultras.

    --
    Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
  31. Why does the 2.7 have such a shitty graphics card? by Chiisu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    oh wait, no games....... :P

    j/k, but seriously they can't even include the 9800 Pro if not the X800? For $3K+ I want a damn good card in there.....

  32. Re:BREAKING NEWS:APPLE SWITCHING TO INTEL AT YEAR by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. ...seriously"

    Actually, it was "Yeah, seriously," which makes the sarcasm more obvious.

    At this point, it seems like nobody is using Intel compatible chips except people who are tied into Windows legacy code.

    GameCube: PowerPC
    Playstation3: fancy multicore PowerPC
    TiVo: PowerPC
    XBox2 (or is it XBox360?) PowerPC

    I'd find it easier to believe a rumor that Microsoft was releasing a version of Windows for PowerPC, especially in the wake of XBox2.

  33. Well, considering his UID... by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's probably a college student working at an Apple store who somehow feels qualified to outline the entire business strategy of the company.