Slashdot Mirror
Apple Moves to All Dual-Processor Power Mac Lineup
Jason Siegel writes "Apple will no longer be selling single-processor Power Mac computers, according to GeekInformed. The company has officially dropped 1.8 GHz G5s from their lineup to pave the way for exclusively dual-processor Power Macs. The systems will range from dual 2 to 2.7 GHz G5s. This is the first significant announcement since the Worldwide Developers Conference declaration that Apple will transition away from PowerPC to Intel chips."
Apple released a statement last month that the company would be transitioning away from IBM's PowerPC CPU's in favor of Intel's microprocessors. The shift to the new processors, however, will not begin until the first part of next year.
So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I don't know how much G5 parts Apple's got in their warehouse, but surely this move is to clear their existing inventory to make way for x86?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Then again, who knows where desktop Linux will be in 16 months with the Mandrake/Connectiva/Lycoris mergers, the rise of Ubuntu... And think of that on dual core, dual processor... ohhh... Someone get me a tissue!
Regardless, next year's going to be interesting if you're in the market for a new box. :-)
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Is this how it is going to be from now on? Any time Apple changes a model, drops a speed, or something it's going to be attributed to Intel?
The 1.8GHz was an expensive system for no more than it offered, especially compared to an iMac. You started around $1899 and then had to buy a monitor and it wasn't any faster than an iMac based on reader reports.
So it makes sense to remove single proc models from the lineup with dual proc models available.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
OK. I love Macs. I'm terribly interested in the future of the platform. But come on. Half the Apple stories the last few months haven't been news at all. This one certainly isn't. I bring this up because I kind of worry about the Mac losing it's nice Karma due to some of the silly hyping of the platform.
This move is good for more clearly differentiating Apple's product lines. Now there's a clear difference between a PowerMac and an iMac: the former have two processors. (And the clear difference between a PowerBook and an iBook is that the former are silver-colored.)
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Nope. There was a single 1.8 that was (IIRC) available, then unavailable, then available again.
you buy a mini or an iMac.
You're new to computer purchasing, aren't you? Any machine bought today can be considered obsolete in 9 months by someones standards.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Why would Apple be so focused on only selling uberpowerful models? Not to ruffle any feathers, but isn't the primary audience Apple's trying to grab onto right now the average user?
The powermacs are their professional towers. imacs and mac minis are aimed at non-power users.
If you use Photoshop: G5
If you use anything else: P4
If you run spyware: G5
Surely not, given that the first Intel Macintosh won't be released until mid-2006.
With the impending move to x86 architecture, this could be Apple posturing to encourage developers to work on the SMP capabilities of their programs. Intel's chips obviously feature things like HyperThreading and dual cores, making extracting the best possible performance require good SMP code. Obviously by phasing out the idea of a non-SMP 'Power' mac, Apple can encourage developers of scientific, processing and even mainstream applications (to an extent) to take better notice and make better use of SMP capable systems.
Business Voyeur
That was in the online store. The 1.8 GHZ has been available at Apple retail stores pretty consistently.
Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they? Will Apple provide an emulator so you can run X86 binaries on that spiffy PPC Mac you bought today? Wouldn't it be a performance hit to run programs that way?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
My guess is that the single processor G5 had a similar price point to the iMac, which has similar specs, plus a built in LCD. MacMall lists the 1.8 Ghz power mac at $1495 and for the same price they offer a 2 Ghz iMac. My feeling is that they want to keep the lines between the iMac and the Power Mac pretty clear to eliminate customer confusion. Plus, dual processor Power Macs have been available for about 4 years and there have been several times that they've only been available in dual processor configurations. I wouldn't read much into it and I think its too early to start thinking about clearing inventory of Power PC chips. Remember that the high end chips are rumored to be transititioned in late 06.
I think my biggest concern is that Apple will make the shift to Intel and then shortly after IBM gets their productions ramped up. Apple decides to continue to produce G5 Macs and then after 6 months or so drops Intel altogether. Then those few that bought x86 systems become the bastard children that Apple wants to forget.
I just don't see what would keep them on Intel if IBM could start performing. They have always seemed to like to have the niche of a different architecture. I'm a little wary of the whole thing.
"Luke, I am your node.parent();"
I'll be sure to upgrade with the last PowerMac PPC's sold because I know all my Mac apps will still run on it. Contrary to Apple's claims of a simply recompile, many software packages are going to need a lot of rework to run on Mac Intel boxes.
We're still waiting on that dual-button mouse.
The opteron would be faster in about everything. Cheaper too.
clicky
I am almost tempted to wonder if this is a troll. Is there really anybody left who doesn't understand that this isn't a useful question?
What do you want to do? The G5 will be excellent at some things. The P4 at others. Some server apps which use lots of system calls, thread management, and such will be hampered by the architecture of Mac OS X. Some compute intensive apps will run incredibly well on the G5 compared to the P4. If you want to use Final Cut Pro, the G5 will run it faster, and if you want to run XSI, the P4 will be faster, because you would have to run under emulation to try and run FCP on a P4 or XSI on a G5.
Anand Tech recently did some benchmarks, which you may find interesting.
Are you planning on running your own code? I quite like the XCode IDE because it uses gcc as a backend. Is all your legacy code MSVCPP MFC projects? Then it will be more hassle to get it running on the G5.
So, yeah, it all depends. I use an iBookG4 as my primary system, because it is fast enough for 90% f what I do. It's light, it's portable, it has UNIX guts and a top notch UI. My secondary system is my Athlon64 with Nvidia GFX. It's big, it's fast, I have to turn it on with my car key, the GUI is adequate, and it runs lightwave almost fast enough. (Just need it to be about 10-100 times faster, like always). It's got four fans, and it is noisy. I wouldn't dream of getting rid of either.
Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they?
:-)
Well I don't know, if you were writing software would you prefer to sell to 10 million people or one million? That's the kind of question you are asking.
Furthermore the dev tool (XCode) makes it super-easy to build universal binaries - it's not like you have to ship an Intel version and a PPC version. They are all bundled as one "App". That's the handy thing abou tmaking applications really directories in hiding. So if you have something that works now you just need to make sure it can also work on Intel and then you can ship universal binaries in perpituity.
It's the new Intel macs where the situation will look a little sketchy the first year or so. The current PPC macs are going to see universal binaries for something like 99% of apps for several years just for marketshare reasons alone. I do think that after a short time some games may be Intel only, but since when have you bought a Mac because of game support?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
now have the choices of Cheap (MiniMac) or Expensive
do you feel silly once you realise there's the eMac and iMac in between?
According to CNET, the transition will begin with the low end in 2006.
;)
My assumption is that small form factor systems like the Mac Mini, and the laptops that are stuck with G4's, will go with Pentium M processors.
After all, Apple said they are going with Intel for performance per watt, and the only current Intel processor that gets that is the Pentium M.
The PowerMacs will stay with PowerPC processors for a while and will probably be the last to switch, because you don't really care about the performance per watt on a watercooled monster like the PowerMac unless you're an overclocker
Microsoft Intellimice work right out of the box. OS X support two button mice natively.
Building universal binaries takes only a checkbox. Only the insane would drop support for PPC when it's so easy to support it.
diegoT
I'd love to see OSX become a *nix that takes advantage of any of a number of CPU configs. PPC/Intel, single/multi CPU... How about a multiCPU with both PPC and x86, that can run either instruction set's binaries natively? Put a 4PPC/4x86 headless VNC server in the rack, and never say "no" again to "does that app run on our machines?" As long as it's a *nix app, of course.
--
make install -not war
So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?
Someone who wanted software stability for the next few years? The new Intel boxes are not magically going to run all current software with 100% success. Universal binaries will be shipped by 99% of the Mac software vendors for years to come as only an idiot would cut off half his customers for no reason. It's not like they have to ship an Intel and a PPC version apart, it's all bundled as one.
Furthermore the current PPC Powermacs are really, really fast. They are plenty fast for just about anything you'd want to do with them. So why would you not buy one now to have a fast computer to get work done? In fact a lot of the people buying Powermacs need as fast a computer as they can get so they might buy another one in a year anyway.
I think though the Powermac line might be the last line to get Intel chips, I'd think they would update iMacs and minis first.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From here: 2-way SPEC systems
SPECint_rate2000
2200 Opteron 68.1 64.2
2200 PowerPC 970 21.5 20.2
SPECfp_rate2000
2200 Opteron 69.1 63.9
2200 PowerPC 970 20 19.2
I see, if by smoke, you mean have 1/3 the performance of an Opteron. And for Pentium M, SPECint2000, since they don't make dual PMs
2000 Pentium M 1541 1528
2200 PowerPC 970 1040 986
SPECfp2000
2000 Pentium M 1088 1087
PowerPC 970 not on chart or not tested.
From the data, its clear that the G5 sucks ass, and that the superior performance of the x86 is the reason behind Apple finally switching. I can't wait for the day that the Apple uses Intel, so I don't have to hear any more morons that know nothing about processors or performance, and are so obsessed with Apple produced they'd buy a freakin iProduct
A summary of what processor to buy: Raw throughput, POWER5, poor man POWER5, Opteron, shiny case, G5.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Satan chances his guise often during the IT world , IBM was the great Satan at one point. .
Its business , And Intel can Supply the Mobile and Desktop chips needed to power the systems at a good rate and a reasonable price.
In the IT business , you go with what can most effectively get the job done for you company , and from the looks of it Apple believe Intel are the way forward.
looking at the current share prices i would say they have a good amount of agreement
Apple and IBM were at a time business rivals , However Apple and Intel have never had any real problems with each other.
I am sure Apple would have loved to be using AMD tech , but AMD just couldn't handle Apples needs whilst satisfactory handling the needs of the grey box producers and end users.
So the only real choice for chips was Intel, No other company has the Fabrication Capacity.
Plus the P4 may not be a great chip , but the Pentium M is certainly a pocket rocket
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Do you realize that the only important differences between the discontinued single-processor PowerMac and the iMac G5 are that the iMac is faster, has a screen, and costs less? No one in their right mind would pick that PowerMac over the iMac anyway, so it was redundant.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's not compiling for PPC that will be difficult. It's testing it sufficiently to achieve release quality that is expensive. Very small vendors might just make a build and have users test it for them, but vendors with reputations usually need more assurance than "it compiles". I don't think Photoshop or Word will ever ship with "use at your own risk" PPC binaries.
But as you said, it's not at all stupid to support the PPC. This is because even when the number of PPC Macs sold drops to zero, there is still a big installed base of PPC Macs to sell to. If you look at the MacOS 8/9 section of versiontracker.com, you'll see that there are at least five (on a Sunday!) software updates a day for the past five days, when MacOS 9 was discontinued in 2002 and and the last Mac that could boot MacOS 9 was discontinued in June 2004.
On a side note, the whole Macintel deal looks pretty interesting, we'll just have to wait and see what happens...
So the Opteron trades FP for int. hmmm, not very exciting.
I'd suggest something different. The only Apps these days that don't use FP are the programs where you can't tell the difference between 1GHz and 4GHz (ie. word processing). FP is used intensivly thoughout a modern computer experience (graphics/sound/media/video/MP3s/games/3D).