[The Placid Casual]

No PCI-X,
4 Gig RAM max,
256MB RAM as standard,
Reduced HD capacity from 160Gig to 80Gig.

It is basically a 1.6 Ghz G5 with another processor.

What a joke.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
It is basically a 1.6 Ghz G5 with another processor.

What's lame about that? Sounds better to me.

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
What's lame about that? Sounds better to me.

Same here,
If you really want a 1.8 I'm sure compusa still has the old ones perhaps with the new price.

I don't see anything lame about this latest offering by apple.

Mike

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
What's lame about that? Sounds better to me.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
No PCI-X,
4 Gig RAM max,
256MB RAM as standard,
Reduced HD capacity from 160Gig to 80Gig.

It is basically a 1.6 Ghz G5 with another processor.

What a joke.

Hey jerko, there need to be a bottom line Powermac! And this one just got better ram and another processor, so basicly it isnt crippled anymore.
Whos gonna use 8 Gb ram on a low end model anyway?

Moron.

[The Placid Casual]

Um, no. I am not comparing the old bottom line to the new bottom line. If you do that, yes there is obviously an increase in spec.

I am comparing the 2 Dual 1.8 models only.

Apple will obviously want people to compare the two and think WOW! The 'dual 1.8' is now cheaper and a great deal... When in reality when comparing the two machines it is not.

256MB on a 'Pro' machine? That is JOKE.

They had no need to drop PCI-X.

The machine is NOT as good.

Where is the problem is saying that? It i lame compared to the 1st generation Dual 1.8.

[booboo]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch:
Hey jerko, there need to be a bottom line Powermac! And this one just got better ram and another processor, so basicly it isnt crippled anymore.
Whos gonna use 8 Gb ram on a low end model anyway?

Moron.

I don't think that's fair.

It's about flexibility.

4 RAM slots = 1 RAM upgrade which is required immediately because 256MB is not enough. The next RAM upgrade will mean replacing RAM already in use.

People who buy G5's aren't just looking for a fast typewriter.

Anyway, I guess Apple are getting rid of the low-end mobo's, and then we'll have 8 slots across the range, probably in Summer, or when we finally hit 3GHz.

PS: I hate the business-model of making a crippled version to sell at a slightly reduced price, when really it doesn't cost any less to make. Less RAM, no SuperDrive, low-end graphics card, are all things I'm happy to put up with on a low-end machine, but not less flexibility.

But spending money on creating crippled versions, rather than on making the best models better, is responsible for the mess that Apple got into before our Steve came back.

[awcopus]

The bottomline dual 1.8GHz processor G5 now costs what my 12" Combo drive iBook 600 MHz G3 cost a few years ago... what my 450 MHz Cube cost me back in 2000....

The fact that the machines are all duals is simply terrific for pros. I'm sitting pretty with a dual 1.42 right now, and will not need to upgrade for at least another year. But I would be happy with these machines if I were in the market. I would consider the dual 1.8 the real value because its price frees up dough for tons of RAM and HDs and makes it possible to get a high performance rig for under $3000 wherase both the medium and the high end machines still push you over $3000 for an industrial outcome.

[eddiecatflap]

..he's right , it IS lame

..the 'current' 1.8 is arguably the best vfm mac in a LONG time , the new one is a crippled joke

..my advice , get the current end of line 1.8 or 2.0 - with $$$/��� off or wait for rev c.

..that's what I'm doing

[booboo]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Um, no. I am not comparing the old bottom line to the new bottom line. If you do that, yes there is obviously an increase in spec.

I am comparing the 2 Dual 1.8 models only.

Apple will obviously want people to compare the two and think WOW! The 'dual 1.8' is now cheaper and a great deal... When in reality when comparing the two machines it is not.

256MB on a 'Pro' machine? That is JOKE.

They had no need to drop PCI-X.

The machine is NOT as good.

Where is the problem is saying that? It i lame compared to the 1st generation Dual 1.8.

I agree. This 'new' bottom end machine is the old one, with an extra processor. look at it like that and it doesn't seem as bad.

However, like me, your reasons for passing on the low-end model remain, despite the extra processor. I just hope Apple aren't actively manufacturing these 4-slot boards and instead are using up old stock.

[SciFrog]

These updates are a stop gap until we get the 975 PowerPC chips, probably all with water cooling in a 4/5 months time frame.

I would skip this one and wait for the next update which will be more dramatic for high end model but also for the low end side (ie 1.8 to 2.3 ish). That is of course if you don't need a machine right now.

If you need something, the low end or the high end are the only machine that make sense, no appeal for the mid range dual 2Ghz.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Um, no. I am not comparing the old bottom line to the new bottom line. If you do that, yes there is obviously an increase in spec.

I am comparing the 2 Dual 1.8 models only.

Apple will obviously want people to compare the two and think WOW! The 'dual 1.8' is now cheaper and a great deal... When in reality when comparing the two machines it is not.

256MB on a 'Pro' machine? That is JOKE.

They had no need to drop PCI-X.

The machine is NOT as good.

Where is the problem is saying that? It i lame compared to the 1st generation Dual 1.8.

Oh so you are comparing a low-end to a mid-end model. That makes sense whining over. You should compare the mid-end to the mid-end stupid.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch:
Oh so you are comparing a low-end to a mid-end model. That makes sense whining over. You should compare the mid-end to the mid-end stupid.

Point = Missed.

Whatever.

[Turias]

Did all of the original G5s have PCI-X slots?

Also, how long do you guys suspect PCI-X will be the high-end configuration? Is there anything else that is expected to start shipping soon for newer high-end graphics cards?

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Point = Missed.

Whatever.

i think you missed the point.

by your thinking, why not compare the new 1.8 with the old dual 2.0? or a cray supercomputer?

the point is the low-end model just got vastly upgraded from it's current form and so did the high and mid range machines.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Turias:
Did all of the original G5s have PCI-X slots?

Also, how long do you guys suspect PCI-X will be the high-end configuration? Is there anything else that is expected to start shipping soon for newer high-end graphics cards?

Well we should have had PCIe in this revision... But then we 'should' have had 3 ghz as well....

I just like to see evolution and innovation in an upgrade, not stagnation.

It just seems that instead of making strides forward and getting rid of the 1.6 board etc etc, they have rehashed the 'same old, same old' and are hawking it yet again at high 'Pro' prices.

Yet this time with an element of deceit about the low end machines.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Turias:
Did all of the original G5s have PCI-X slots?

Also, how long do you guys suspect PCI-X will be the high-end configuration? Is there anything else that is expected to start shipping soon for newer high-end graphics cards?

Well we should have had PCIe in this revision... But then we 'should' have had 3 ghz as well....

I just like to see evolution and innovation in an upgrade, not stagnation.

It just seems that instead of making strides forward and getting rid of the 1.6 board etc etc, they have rehashed the 'same old, same old' and are hawking it yet again at high 'Pro' prices.

Yet this time with an element of deceit about the low end machines.

I mean I just found this:

"Special note on the ATI Radeon 9800 XT: due to size of this advanced graphics card, the adjacent PCI or PCI-X slot will be blocked and cannot be used. This reduces the number of available PCI or PCI-X slots from three to two."

[eddiecatflap]

..we wait a year , for this?


..i'm VERY disappointed

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..we wait a year , for this?


..i'm VERY disappointed

Maybe you shouldn't have waited. I bought the -lowly- 1.6 shortly after the G5s were released and I haven't been disappointed yet.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Apple will obviously want people to compare the two and think WOW! The 'dual 1.8' is now cheaper and a great deal... When in reality when comparing the two machines it is not.

You're working from a false premise. People compare the PRICE POINT, not the processor.

[driven]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:

It is basically a 1.6 Ghz G5 with another processor.

What a joke. [/B]

Oh THAT'S all ....

[BurpetheadX]

All you Apple lovers and worshipers need to just sit back and stop defending everything Apple does even if it's dissapointing. I myself am an Apple support specialist, and say that the low end 1.8 sucks.

256 MB RAM? hahaha
Same board as before? hahaha
$200 more for an extra proccessor? hahahaha

Oh sure, its only $200 more for a whole 'nother processor, but its been a year now, production costs should have come down, not UP for the same material. I've been waiting to buy a Rev. 2 because the price should have come down, but now I can't afford one, and I don't see the first rev's on sale at Apple's site anywhere. Crap.

[Lateralus]

Before we all drown in pessimism here, lets remember one thing; 2.5GHz means that Apple is again offering the fastest 64bit processor on the market. And the Power Mac G5 is still the finest piece of personal computing hardware on the market. I don't think that there is anything to be pessimistic about.

Apple has made a lot of progress with the Power Mac line in the past 18 months. Additionally, AMD and Intel are stalling on the clock speed ramp up as well, Intel more so. Apple is getting some crucial catch up time here. So what if IBM is having the exact same unforseen problems with the move to 90nm that everybody else is? 500MHz is nothing to sneeze at.

Though, I admit a price drop across the line would have been nice.

[AppleCello]

Originally posted by BurpetheadX:
All you Apple lovers and worshipers need to just sit back and stop defending everything Apple does even if it's dissapointing. I myself am an Apple support specialist, and say that the low end 1.8 sucks.

256 MB RAM? hahaha
Same board as before? hahaha
$200 more for an extra proccessor? hahahaha

Oh sure, its only $200 more for a whole 'nother processor, but its been a year now, production costs should have come down, not UP for the same material. I've been waiting to buy a Rev. 2 because the price should have come down, but now I can't afford one, and I don't see the first rev's on sale at Apple's site anywhere. Crap.

hes right...

P

[AppleCello]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Before we all drown in pessimism here, lets remember one thing; 2.5GHz means that Apple is again offering the fastest 64bit processor on the market. And the Power Mac G5 is still the finest piece of personal computing hardware on the market. I don't think that there is anything to be pessimistic about.

Apple has made a lot of progress with the Power Mac line in the past 18 months. Additionally, AMD and Intel are stalling on the clock speed ramp up as well, Intel more so. Apple is getting some crucial catch up time here. So what if IBM is having the exact same unforseen problems with the move to 90nm that everybody else is? 500MHz is nothing to sneeze at.

Though, I admit a price drop across the line would have been nice.

you're right too. the high end is awsome.

P

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
You're working from a false premise. People compare the PRICE POINT, not the processor.

Yes.

The price point of the new d1.8 is higher than the old 1.6.

Please don't tell me they cut features to make things cheaper...

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Yes.

The price point of the new d1.8 is higher than the old 1.6.

Please don't tell me they cut features to make things cheaper...

Thanks for twisting my words.
They didn't cut features from the old 1.6, they added. Yes, it would have been nice if they kept it at $1,799, but I wish I was 10lbs lighter and we had world peace too.

[Busemann]

This discussion is pretty funny, considering we had 1.42Ghz as the HIGH END just a year ago..

[Turias]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Before we all drown in pessimism here, lets remember one thing; 2.5GHz means that Apple is again offering the fastest 64bit processor on the market. And the Power Mac G5 is still the finest piece of personal computing hardware on the market. I don't think that there is anything to be pessimistic about.

Apple has made a lot of progress with the Power Mac line in the past 18 months. Additionally, AMD and Intel are stalling on the clock speed ramp up as well, Intel more so. Apple is getting some crucial catch up time here. So what if IBM is having the exact same unforseen problems with the move to 90nm that everybody else is? 500MHz is nothing to sneeze at.

Though, I admit a price drop across the line would have been nice.

Am I going to be disappointed, though, if I buy a 2.5GHz machine? I'm worried about the lack of PCIe and the poor graphics cards. I am a hardcore gamer, so yes, the graphics card does matter.

I'm afraid that the next graphics cards are all going to be PCIe and that my machine will stagnate faster because I won't be able to upgrade the graphics cards. This is the exact same thing that happened to me when I bought my G4/400 with PCI. Everything went AGP and I was SOL.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Turias:
Am I going to be disappointed, though, if I buy a 2.5GHz machine? I'm worried about the lack of PCIe and the poor graphics cards. I am a hardcore gamer, so yes, the graphics card does matter.

I'm afraid that the next graphics cards are all going to be PCIe and that my machine will stagnate faster because I won't be able to upgrade the graphics cards. This is the exact same thing that happened to me when I bought my G4/400 with PCI. Everything went AGP and I was SOL.

Hardcore gamer & Mac

[Turias]

Originally posted by Busemann:
Hardcore gamer & Mac

I just have a slightly smaller selection. What's a guy to do?

And heck, it's not like I have enough time to finish the games I do get. Full-time jobs do that to people...

[Cadaver]

Either the new dual 1.8 should have been $1799, or they should release a single 1.8 at $1799. But to not have a sub-two grand tower is not right.

While I think the new machines are nice (dual 2.0's at the midline I think isn't too bad), they're too expensive. While the high-end can remain at $2999, the bottom end costs too much.

One can still hope for the (mythical) headless iMac...

[greenamp]

I'm glad I bought my gen.1 dual 1.8 when I did

I have to admit when I first saw the new prices I got sick to my stomach, until I read the specs on the current dp 1.8. Not that I think the new ones are all that shabby.

[SciFrog]

Just buy an old of refurb PM G4 or the old G5 1.6 or 1.8...

[legacyb4]

This is pretty much the same thing that they did a while back when they momentarily went dual-cpu across the G4 line (remember the dual 800 which was the "bottom end" machine) which lasted for only a short while.

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Either the new dual 1.8 should have been $1799, or they should release a single 1.8 at $1799. But to not have a sub-two grand tower is not right.

While I think the new machines are nice (dual 2.0's at the midline I think isn't too bad), they're too expensive. While the high-end can remain at $2999, the bottom end costs too much.

One can still hope for the (mythical) headless iMac...

[swimfan]

i would have to agree that the new dual 1.8 is pretty bad. i bought a dual 1.8 six months ago and the specs are better all across the board. anyone notice that the dual 2.0's only have 64 megs of video ram. my 1.8 came stock with 128! it actually seems like a step backwards. if you add the extra ram(apple charges more for ram than any company in the world), better video card, bigger hard-drive and the unavailable option of PCI-X you've got a computer that costs almost as much as $2500 (the price of the old dual 1.8's). if you are in the market for a new dual, you have to buy at least the dual 2.0's. the dual 1.8's shouldn't even be an option.

[Simon]

It's official this thread is lame.

The problem is not at all the new dual 1.8GHz for $1999. The actual problem is that there's no single 1.8GHz machine for $1799 or lower. I'm pretty confident they'll change this in the close future.

BTW, what makes this "official"? Since when is a whiny rant official?

[Arkham_c]

Last October I bought a dual 2Ghz wirh a Radeon 9800 from MacMall for $2599. Now, 8 months later, my machine is still worth more than I paid for it. What a deal I got.

These new machines are really one new machine, one old machine, and a speed bumped machine.

[legacyb4]

This is pretty much the same thing that they did a while back when they momentarily went dual-cpu across the G4 line (remember the dual 800 which was the "bottom end" machine) which lasted for only a short while.

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Either the new dual 1.8 should have been $1799, or they should release a single 1.8 at $1799. But to not have a sub-two grand tower is not right.

While I think the new machines are nice (dual 2.0's at the midline I think isn't too bad), they're too expensive. While the high-end can remain at $2999, the bottom end costs too much.

One can still hope for the (mythical) headless iMac...

[velodev]

Originally posted by Turias:
I am a hardcore gamer, so yes, the graphics card does matter.

If that's the case... my recommendation would be to buy a PC. Not to be insulting but please... this isn't much of a gaming platform and I don't think Apple keeps gamers in mind when planning architecture. I figure their pro video customers are their key target when planning performance capabilities.

[Anand]

Originally posted by SciFrog:
These updates are a stop gap until we get the 975 PowerPC chips, probably all with water cooling in a 4/5 months time frame.

I would skip this one and wait for the next update which will be more dramatic for high end model but also for the low end side (ie 1.8 to 2.3 ish). That is of course if you don't need a machine right now.

If you need something, the low end or the high end are the only machine that make sense, no appeal for the mid range dual 2Ghz.

Everything for apple is a stop gap. We have been saying the same darn thing since 1997. Apple is a software company and should take on MS directly.

[velodev]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Either the new dual 1.8 should have been $1799, or they should release a single 1.8 at $1799. But to not have a sub-two grand tower is not right.

I'm not so displeased with that as I am with releasing a $1999 machine with only 256MB of RAM. That's insulting... both we and Apple know that you can't run apps that benefit from dual processor on anything as minimal as 256MB of RAM. 512 should be the least amout of RAM especially when charging $1999.

[freakboy2]

i think the problem is that the old low end g5 sucked and the new low end g5 sucks, and it's more expensive.

i think the thing that sucks the worst for me is that it comes with 256 megs of ram.. so you're basically forced to fork over 300? bucks to apple to get it up to 512, so you can fill it up to get to 1.5 gigs. So figure on adding 300$ to the purchase cost right off the bat.

so it's really a watered down mid-level box (slower procs, absolutely worthless pos video card, less ram, no pci-x) for about 200 bucks less.

uh.. who ever would buy one of those is a complete and utter CFN tool.

thus apple has just left itself with no viable low end machine.

that sucks.

[Chinasaur]

Think it will be a future Road Apple on lowendmac?

[SLam]

Didn't Apple did this when the G4s were first released? They used the old Blue & White motherboards, hacked it with a G4 and offered it as the lowend. While the mid-range and upper had new motherboards with AGP.

With the G5s, wouldn't it save them manufacturing costs to just use the same motherboards across the line?

[freakboy2]

Originally posted by SLam:
Didn't Apple did this when the G4s were first released? They used the old Blue & White motherboards, hacked it with a G4 and offered it as the lowend. While the mid-range and upper had new motherboards with AGP.

With the G5s, wouldn't it save them manufacturing costs to just use the same motherboards across the line?

maybe not if they still had 80,000 of them lying around or they had contracts for a lot more of them. their sales have been pretty poor. maybe this is a pipeline issue.

fb

[TiDual]

Originally posted by velodev:
I'm not so displeased with that as I am with releasing a $1999 machine with only 256MB of RAM. That's insulting... both we and Apple know that you can't run apps that benefit from dual processor on anything as minimal as 256MB of RAM. 512 should be the least amout of RAM especially when charging $1999.

I think this is actually not a bad upgrade, given that Apple clearly can't get their hands on faster CPUs (even the 2.5s are 6-8 weeks off).

I've been waiting to buy some machines for my group, until the bottom-end went dual which it now is (yes, I was hoping the bottom would be dual 2 GHz ... that's my biggest complaint).

In my group (academic research lab) we never need anything better than the defaul graphics card, so PCIx won't be missed (in fact, I've never put a PCI card in any of the 15 or so G4/G5s in my group). Our only real requirement is that they can comfortably drive dual displays.

As for 256MB Ram, actually it's not much different from it they'd put in 512. Neither is enough, and given only 4 slots, and the fact the RAM goes in pairs, most people would ultimately have to throw away the installed RAM. E.g. put in 2x.5MB chips now, then maybe 2x1GB later. Either way the original ram goes (2x128 or 2x256).

For me, dual 1.8 for an additional 200 $/� is a serious improvement (I simple won't waste money on another single CPU machine ... there's no going back!). The dual 2GHz isn't worth it (500 for a 10% CPU advantage, some disk space, and PCIx I'll never use? ...nope).

So yes, if you need PCI-X, I guess it's disappointing, but for the rest, I don't think 4 RAM slots is a major limit: all machines in the line-up need RAM, I would suggest 2x512MB, which makes the difference between 256 vs 512 less important (i.e. since people will have either 1.25GB ot 1.5GB RAM).

[DaveNinja]

I ordered one of these "lame" dual G5 1.8s today. I'm not into upgrading much, maybe a graphics card or something, nothing where i would care about the logic board, though. Also, 4 gigs of ram is probably more than i'd ever buy. I can also buy more ram to upgrade from the weak 256MB thats installed and can add a second SATA harddrive later on when i want more than 80 gigs. I spent an extra 43 bucks to get the ATI 9600 graphics card.

My upgrade is from a 350 MHz B&W G3 so it should be a big jump. I still use the G3 for Warcraft 3 (the only games i ever seem to play on the computer are the blizzard ones). Its probably the most 'intensive work' that i do. Maybe i'll do some video editing now i'll have some hard drive space.

The lowest in the line may be weak but i'm sure there are lots of people out there that its perfectly fine for. plus i got it for $1699 (plus $43 for ATI upgrade).

[365]

Originally posted by Anand:
Everything for apple is a stop gap. We have been saying the same darn thing since 1997. Apple is a software company and should take on MS directly.

They couldn't do that becuase they might become mainstream and that would be no good for the many Apple eliteists and Steve Jobs' ego.

Apple excel at software but just don't have the financial muscle to be a successful hardware company, they have to rely on too many companies who seem to constantly treat them with contempt.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by 365:
They couldn't do that becuase they might become mainstream and that would be no good for the many Apple eliteists and Steve Jobs' ego.

Apple excel at software but just don't have the financial muscle to be a successful hardware company, they have to rely on too many companies who seem to constantly treat them with contempt.

I think the problem is that they just don't have the balls to sort things out and make the big decisions.

And why not have even a really basic a road map to avoid this whole **** storm every 6 months? is it too much to ask? is it?