Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Why not buy a new Quad G5?

Why not buy a new Quad G5? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 08:38 PM
 
bonkers is referring to PPC optimization, not compilation. We have to hope that applications will continue to be compiled for the PPC for a long time to come, at the very least. Apple has neither announced nor intimated any plan to create Rosetta x86 -> PPC.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 08:56 PM
 
Ok, you're all wrong...

The reason for the Intel switch has nothing to do with IBM or with chip speeds. Jobs wants to do for movies what Apple has done for music. Intel has the "roadmap" that will make that secure.

The Video iPod and FrontRow are only the opening salvo in Jobs's war to control mass media via the web--the next big revolution.

You guys think he wants to take on Microsoft? He's being 20 times more ambitious than that.

Oh, and if I had $3,500 you'd better believe I'd buy that machine. I worked up my dream profile of the Quad, which clocked in at $23,000. I, for one, wish I could buy one of everything before the end of the PPC comes. It will always be a more advanced chip, but in the grand scheme of things we probably won't know the difference. Still, for the sake of aesthetics alone, I will always regard the G5 as the highwater mark from Apple.
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Apple has neither announced nor intimated any plan to create Rosetta x86 -> PPC.
I figured so, but wasn't sure.
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
Ok, you're all wrong...

The reason for the Intel switch has nothing to do with IBM or with chip speeds. Jobs wants to do for movies what Apple has done for music. Intel has the "roadmap" that will make that secure.

The Video iPod and FrontRow are only the opening salvo in Jobs's war to control mass media via the web--the next big revolution.

You guys think he wants to take on Microsoft? He's being 20 times more ambitious than that.

Oh, and if I had $3,500 you'd better believe I'd buy that machine. I worked up my dream profile of the Quad, which clocked in at $23,000. I, for one, wish I could buy one of everything before the end of the PPC comes. It will always be a more advanced chip, but in the grand scheme of things we probably won't know the difference. Still, for the sake of aesthetics alone, I will always regard the G5 as the highwater mark from Apple.
Apple wouldn't need to switch to Intel just for that. Besides, from what I understand, none of Intel's chips have any embedded DRM technology. In fact, Apple has employed this DRM technology right now, on the developer Intel macs in the form of a separate chip. Also, IBM is a member of the consortium that manages this DRM technology, and IBM plans on actually embedding this technology in their products, from reports I've seen.

So, if DRM were Apple's primary motivation, they would do just as well sticking with IBM. There are other (dare I say, bigger) issues involved with this switch.
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by bonkers
bleee - it seems like you have listed the first real possible drawback --> os x & apps not being optimized for PPC quad g5's in 2-4 years. i guess you have to hope for the best...
Support will be around for quite some time, since Apple likes supporting hardware in OS X that's about 5+ years old.

But yeah, PowerPC speed optimization will start to suffer at I'm guessing 2 years after the switch is done, which makes it 4 years from now. However, if you're running a hardcore app which demands the utmost in speed, then you probably shouldn't be running a 4 year old computer anyway.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2005, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by jamil5454
That is really a great price for a quad machine. To build a comparable PC like that, two Dual-Core Opterons at 2.4Ghz would set you back over $2,400 alone. Then you'd need the motherboard, hard drive, optical drive, etc...
You're assuming PPC970 and AMD64 are comparable clock-for-clock. They're not.

Originally Posted by jcadam
The switch is just plain asinine. We are switching from a modern ISA to one that is ANCIENT. I roll my eyes when I think of all the R&D dollars that were spent on finding workarounds for all of x86's flaws that could have been spent making real advances in microprocessor technology.
<snip>
Hey, at least the world is standardizing on one microprocessor ISA, too bad we seemed to make the absolute worst choice possible (wouldn't be the first time, Beta was superior to VHS, after all). I'm not calling intel engineers stupid, they have done amazing things eeking performance out of x86 (polishing the turd). It's just that x86 was one of the first attempts at a microprocessor architecture, and it shows (sort of like the difference between a Model T and a Ford Mustang).
Apple already switched from a "newer" OS to an "older" OS. Unix is "ancient", but I'd say Apple did a pretty good job switching to that.
If PPC is so great and x86 is so bad then why isn't PPC kicking the crap out of x86 in price, performance, and power?
The backend on x86 is very efficient and fast; the front end has a bit of kludge, but some people like backward compatability.

Originally Posted by Helmling
Ok, you're all wrong...

The reason for the Intel switch has nothing to do with IBM or with chip speeds. Jobs wants to do for movies what Apple has done for music. Intel has the "roadmap" that will make that secure.

The Video iPod and FrontRow are only the opening salvo in Jobs's war to control mass media via the web--the next big revolution.
IBM is in the TPM crowd too. But perhaps LaGrande will bring more than TPM.
     
zubro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:17 AM
 
Jeez, dude, the world doesn't revolve around you.

hum... never thought so, but now that you re talking about it.
Most of the messages I see on the forums are written from a personal point of view. Why would I suddenly become sefl centered prick by expressing MY needs?

3. DVD+R DL is more or less easy to find now.

In my self centered world (Copenhagen - Denmark) it is in all the IT stores.

DVD-R DL on the other hand is, plain and simply, not widely available.

I agree, there is only one "physical" shop that has them.
BUT, on the internet (remember? the internet? Not only macnn, but the rest out there like this site:
http://www.nierle.com/
where you can buy things like, OMG! a DVD-R dual layer!) it is quite easy to find. Of course, if you refuse to use this technology...

It JUST came on the market (DVD-R DL was announced less than 6 months ago!)

But still it DOES exist. How the hell would I have this:
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10469

, and most stores have NOT started carrying it yet.
I assume you are confusing DVD+R DL (which is not toooo hard to find) with DVD-R DL, which is effectively impossible to find right now.

And now they are "imposible to find"... what are you on "dude"?

4. No, I don't read every one of your posts all over the forums. There are thousands of members here, and I can't read and remember every of the thousands of threads, never mind remember what each person said. You expect me to remember your occupation? In THIS thread, I already acknowledged that FOR YOU (but NOT for most people!!), DVD+R DL might be cheaper. Most people are using recordable DVDs to burn home movies and data, and either one of those can be done for far cheaper onto single-layer media.

Agree.

I stand by my assertion that double-layer blank DVD media is FAR more expensive than standard single layer, and anyone can verify that by checking prices online. Double-layer media costs at least six times as much, for less than double the capacity. The per-MB price is, therefore, far higher.

I agree, but they are not the same thing.
Would you compare a Fiat and a Ferrari?
(If you do not understand this, do not comment on it)

5. Well, it is relevant to your assertion that it's commonplace -- it's only beginning to be. Until recently, stores didn't carry DL media. What good is the DL drive if there's no media for you to write on?!?

I will not comment on this.

6. It's "Core Image", not "Image Core".

Sorry I am French native, you know, we have a tendency to be dyslexic in Royal English.

Motion uses the same fundamental technology as "Core Video", but Motion does NOT use Core Video itself, since Motion can run in Panther, while Core Video is new to Tiger only. It's hardly mature, it's recent. I repeat: it's just beginning to be used in pro apps. So far, all the pro apps have brought along all their imaging technology, not used that provided by the OS. Aperture will be the first major application to use Core Image.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/motion/
I believe the behaviors use direcly the Core Video.
When a product does not crash, I say, in my self centered world, that it is mature.

tooki

PS: I have a LOT of respect for you tooki and macnn, I just wonder if you really read carefully my posts before aswering them. I understand that you are busy, and do not want to build a stupid confrontation here.
Just giving my point of view, like Lionel does on macbidouille:
http://www.macbidouille.com/news/2005-10-21/#11763

Peace.
Dude.
     
Taipan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:28 AM
 
Hi!

According to www.macgadget.de, there's no water cooling anymore in the line.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by jamil5454
Apple has a huge opportunity in the move Intel. If they play their cards right, they'll start taking more and more of the market from Microsoft. Since Windows and OS X will both be running on similar hardware, most developers shouldn't have to do much more than porting the code to a different IDE. Hopefully this means a larger software base, and especially more games brought to OS X (did that make sense?).
Two things; first, you're not just porting between compilers, you're porting between Win32 and (Cocoa or Carbon). Second, games coded for DirectX will never be available on OS X unless Microsoft ports DirectX or Apple creates a DirectX emulation layer.

Current Cocoa OS X programs can be ported easier since you can select whether you want to generate universal binaries. That is, unless you use Altivec functions or your code is depend on the endianness of the data to function properly. Intel & PPC have their data bytes stored in opposite order in memory. There are C functions to convert data to an IEEE recognized format but if you haven't used these libraries you have some coding work ahead of you.

Regardless of what el-Steveo says, non-trivial Carbon/legacy programs will require more than checking a "generate universal binary" checkbox. Most of the big packages like Office and Adobe apps are going to require some serious development time to move the projects into XCode in order to generate universal binaries. As such, don't expect a free update to an Intel compatible package from companies like MS, Adobe, Quark, Maxon, Newtek, etc.

The plus side is that by forcing all these companies to work in XCode and using the Accelerate libraries (vs. Altivec or SSE3) the underlying CPU becomes much less important going forward. The minus side is how many companies after pouring so much effort into porting from OS 9 to OS X are willing to pour this effort into OS X - Intel. Look at how many programs never made it to OS X or have taken years (think graphing calculator) to make it, this is what we could be looking at again for the Intel move.
20" iMac G5! :D AND MacBook 1.83GHz!
Canon Digital Rebel Kit + 75 - 300mm lens. Yum Yum! :D
Check out my OS X Musical Scales program
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by bonkers
Assuming that you have $3500 sitting in your pocket, are there any good reasons (regarding the technology) not to buy the new quad?
For home use, and if what I hear is correct (power consumption at full throttle more than 1000 Watts), I would never buy such a machine.
     
crooner
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sin City™, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 09:23 AM
 
Just thinking out loud here, but it seems odd that no one has brought up the point that these new Macs are, in a sense, rev A machines unto themselves due to the PCIe slots, the dual core CPU, the RAM, etc.
There exists the very real possibility that many bugs and incompatibilities could arise due to the new architecture these Macs feature. Meanwhile, the Dual CPU 2.7 is a proven, solid Mac. And it still is fast, ya know...

Not trying to start an argument here... on the contrary... I would really like to hear what you all think about this concept.

To dislike Sinatra is a sign of highly questionable taste. To dislike the Beatles is a serious character flaw.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
The predictions of doom are at best hysterics, because they have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.
Unfortunately there is a particularly solid basis. It is Apple's own statement that they will do nothing special to prevent users from installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. If indeed this is proved to be simple to do that, then the Apple world better be prepared for massive exodus of developers, with whatever this implies.

I just hope Apple is more careful about this. If they conciously start to put obstructions to Windows installation (not necessarily trying to do it impossible, just too hard), then yes, the predictions of doom could be hysterics.
     
bonkers  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 10:01 AM
 
1000W!!!! That is a more than my space heater. The current Dual g5 uses only 180W at max draw.

As far as considering the dual cores rev A... I disagree. I don't think adding new technology justifies that classification only major modfications to the line should (e.g., the upcoming mactels).
Dual G4 533MHz
1.2GB RAM
GeForce3
Mac OS X 10.3
     
voo
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Way up there!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B.
Unfortunately there is a particularly solid basis. It is Apple's own statement that they will do nothing special to prevent users from installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. If indeed this is proved to be simple to do that, then the Apple world better be prepared for massive exodus of developers, with whatever this implies.

I just hope Apple is more careful about this. If they conciously start to put obstructions to Windows installation (not necessarily trying to do it impossible, just too hard), then yes, the predictions of doom could be hysterics.

Even if people did manage to install Windows on the Intel machines, getting drivers to work won't be much of a success with the motherboard, not too sure about the graphics card as we don't even know whats in store yet... but I'm sure there will be alot Windows will whine it can't get the drivers or none available.

I do hope Apple make that impossible to work, I just don't know.
     
crooner
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sin City™, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by bonkers
1000W!!!! That is a more than my space heater. The current Dual g5 uses only 180W at max draw.

As far as considering the dual cores rev A... I disagree. I don't think adding new technology justifies that classification only major modfications to the line should (e.g., the upcoming mactels).

Bonkers, wouldn't you consider the switch from AGP and PCI-x to PCI-e a major modification? I think it is.

To dislike Sinatra is a sign of highly questionable taste. To dislike the Beatles is a serious character flaw.
     
voo
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Way up there!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by crooner
Bonkers, wouldn't you consider the switch from AGP and PCI-x to PCI-e a major modification? I think it is.
It's not, not even on the PC's its not. Not yet atleast. I remember all the hype when AGP4x to 8x and there wasn't much of a difference then.

I know some friends that had a top end AGP system then moved over to Athlon64 with PCI-E and there was a speed bump but nothing major like all this marketing hype that makes it all sound like it'll fly to the moon.
     
bonkers  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 10:28 AM
 
I don't, but then I'm not an engineer... ;-)
Dual G4 533MHz
1.2GB RAM
GeForce3
Mac OS X 10.3
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell
You're assuming PPC970 and AMD64 are comparable clock-for-clock. They're not.
I would hope not since they are completely different architectures. But since the Athlon X2 isn't multiprocessor-capable, I chose the fastest Opteron available from Newegg and called it a day.
     
Bwa
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somerville, MA and San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 11:58 AM
 
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html implies a max draw of 1200 Watts. Using archive.org, it looks like the Nov 2004 G5s had a maximum of 780 Watts (for 120 V customers).
     
bonkers  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 12:32 PM
 
"implies"...?

maybe i'm silly, but http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html has docs that let you see exact power usage + other good stuff. xservers are drawing a max of 400W
Dual G4 533MHz
1.2GB RAM
GeForce3
Mac OS X 10.3
     
freakboy2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus
The general concensus is that the Intel switch is happening because of the following two reasons;

1) With Freescale/Motorola out of the picture as a serious provider of PowerPCs for Macs, Apple felt boxed in as far as notebooks and small form factor machines go since neither of these types of machines have really been a concern of IBM's when designing processors. IBM's bread and butter is mainframes and servers, which only benefits Apple on the Power Mac front. But with notebooks now outselling desktops, notebooks have become a larger focus for Apple than ever.

2) Steve threw a fit because IBM isn't super-motivated to crank out the custom-tailored 'best processors in the world' that Apple wants. Reason being that as large of a company as Apple is, they still only account for around 5% of IBM's total microprocessor sales. However, development of processors for Apple accounts for a significantly larger percentage of IBM's total R&D for microprocessors (I've heard more than 20%).

I'm opposed to the switch. IBM, on the whole, has had better offerings than Intel across the board on the desktop/server front for years and the PowerPC ISA is far and away a better architecture than x86 is. And with the foundation of OS X being as 'portable' as it is, there's no reason why Apple couldn't continue using IBM's PowerPCs for Xserves and Power Macs and reserve the Intel switch for the only lines that actually need it; the portables.

In fact, I'm hoping they will do so.
at the high end, g5s are still slower than the latest amd procs, although they have some advantages. however, at the low end, ibm and moto are getting annihillated by intel and amd. it's performance/cost which is why they are switching.

and, intel's volume is so much bigger than moto or ibm that you get better economies of scale, less supply problems, etc.

imagine being able to buy a mini that has a proc in it that's as fast as the dual g5s for 500$. that's what intel brings to the table.
     
turtlebud
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by voo
I don't see it listed no more... Dual 2Ghz, Dual 2.3Ghz and Quad 2.5 is listed.
Maybe its because people would see the higher number and think the 2.7 was faster over the Quad 2.5 if it was listed?
In the upper right hand corner, it says "Need Pci-x, click here" - that'll bring you to a page where they have the dual 2.7
     
wings_rfs
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:13 PM
 
One of the advantages of being single:

Dear Apple Customer,

Thank you for shopping with Apple!

Here are the details of your order:

Web Order Number: W*********
PO Number: ***********
Apple Sales Order Number: ***********
Apple Customer Number: **********
Shipping Method: Parcel/Ground


Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
M8850LL/A APP FOR PM W/ OR W/O DSP-E/K-U 1 249.00 249.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
Z0AW PMG5 QUAD 2.5 CTO 1 3,398.00 3,398.00

With the following configuration:

Processor 065-5183 2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
Memory 065-5184 512 MB DDR533 NON ECC 2X256
Hard Drive 065-5177 250GB Serial ATA-7200rpm
Optical Drive 065-5180 16x SD DL(DVD-R/CD-RW)
Graphic Support 065-5181 NVIDIA GF 6600 256 SDRAM
Fibre Chl PCI 065-5986 None
Wireless Option 065-6141 AirPort Extreme + Bluetooth
Modem 065-6049 None
Keyboard Language 065-5178 Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mse
Mac OS Language 065-5187 Mac OS X-Multilingual
Server Mac OS Language 065-5988 None
Apple Software Applications 065-5991None
Country Kit 065-5185 Country Kit
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
TE762LL/A CANON PHOTO LAB DS810-USA 1 149.00 149.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
M8661LL/B DVI-I TO ADC ADAPTER-USA 1 99.00 99.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________




Promotion Savings $ 100.00-

Subtotal: $ 3,795.00
Sales Tax: $ 248.24
Total price for your order: $ 4,043.24
     
voo
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Way up there!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtlebud
In the upper right hand corner, it says "Need Pci-x, click here" - that'll bring you to a page where they have the dual 2.7
ty, silly me to this day I still get lost on Apple's site at times

They are like supermarkets changing the isles all the time.
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by wings_rfs
One of the advantages of being single:

Dear Apple Customer,

Thank you for shopping with Apple!

Here are the details of your order:

Web Order Number: W*********
PO Number: ***********
Apple Sales Order Number: ***********
Apple Customer Number: **********
Shipping Method: Parcel/Ground


Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
M8850LL/A APP FOR PM W/ OR W/O DSP-E/K-U 1 249.00 249.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
Z0AW PMG5 QUAD 2.5 CTO 1 3,398.00 3,398.00

With the following configuration:

Processor 065-5183 2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
Memory 065-5184 512 MB DDR533 NON ECC 2X256
Hard Drive 065-5177 250GB Serial ATA-7200rpm
Optical Drive 065-5180 16x SD DL(DVD-R/CD-RW)
Graphic Support 065-5181 NVIDIA GF 6600 256 SDRAM
Fibre Chl PCI 065-5986 None
Wireless Option 065-6141 AirPort Extreme + Bluetooth
Modem 065-6049 None
Keyboard Language 065-5178 Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mse
Mac OS Language 065-5187 Mac OS X-Multilingual
Server Mac OS Language 065-5988 None
Apple Software Applications 065-5991None
Country Kit 065-5185 Country Kit
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
TE762LL/A CANON PHOTO LAB DS810-USA 1 149.00 149.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Product # Product Description Qty Price Ext Price
__________ ______________________________ ______ ________ __________
M8661LL/B DVI-I TO ADC ADAPTER-USA 1 99.00 99.00
__________________________________________________ _____________________________




Promotion Savings $ 100.00-

Subtotal: $ 3,795.00
Sales Tax: $ 248.24
Total price for your order: $ 4,043.24
Let us know when it ships.
     
KeyLimePi
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Baltimore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:40 PM
 
Congrats wings_rfs. I, too, bit the bullet and ordered a Quad. Plus a 23" display (and although I'm only semi-single, it was my girlfriend who encouraged me to get the high-end machine...she's good like that).

Right now the Apple store is showing an estimated ship date of 11/18, which gives me plenty of time to get stuff off my old Quicksilver.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:43 PM
 
Reviews of Intel Paxville say it sucks compared to the Opteron. G5 is a safe buy for a long time.
     
bonkers  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:46 PM
 
i'll be right behind wings once they get the 7800 bto option up!!!
Dual G4 533MHz
1.2GB RAM
GeForce3
Mac OS X 10.3
     
CIA
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 01:46 PM
 
Well, I bit the bullet and ordered a stock quad to replace my Quicksilver Dual 800. Only extras I got was the Airport + Bluetooth option (Why is this not standard on a $3,200 machine?) and the Applecare (as it's a new machine)
Given Apple's shipping track record I will see it in Late December. Where's the 7800? I would have got one if it was available.
Work: 2008 8x3.2 MacPro, 8800GT, 16GB ram, zillions of HDs. (video editing)
Home: 2008 24" 2.8 iMac, 2TB Int, 4GB ram.
Road: 2009 13" 2.26 Macbook Pro, 8GB ram & 640GB WD blue internal
Retired to BOINC only: My trusty never-gonna-die 12" iBook G4 1.25
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by freakboy2

and, intel's volume is so much bigger than moto or ibm that you get better economies of scale, less supply problems, etc.

imagine being able to buy a mini that has a proc in it that's as fast as the dual g5s for 500$. that's what intel brings to the table.
Intel's ability to churn out massive numbers of chips is an advantage, for sure.
Lower priced Macs would be great, esp. if they have more powerful components too.

Alot of people (myself included) prefer the PPC architecturally. I just know more about them too. But over the years IBM and Motorola have not been able to produce enough chips consistently and their production and even tech roadmaps have not been reliable. This has cost Apple plenty.
That year or so where PPC was getting hammered by Intel and AMD and Apple was waiting for the G5 systems, and meanwhile getting beat over the head by Pentiums, comes to mind. That can never happen again.

Superior chips don't do you much good if there aren't enough to go around and the gap between generations freezes new product rollouts. Like now with the G5 powerbook!
i look in your general direction
     
MOTHERWELL
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 02:13 PM
 
So when do they plan on adding the 7800 as a BTO option? I just placed an order for my quad, but I will wait if the 7800 will be available soon...
     
Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by KeyLimePi
Congrats wings_rfs. I, too, bit the bullet and ordered a Quad. Plus a 23" display (and although I'm only semi-single, it was my girlfriend who encouraged me to get the high-end machine...she's good like that)..
Congratulations on the machine, but I think the advantage to being single, is that you have money to spend on a computer, rather than having a family to support.

I don't think it was implied the advantage was you don't have to obtain 'permission' presumably from your amazonian mistriss, to purchase the machine.

LOL

well I'm glad she gave you some encouragement to buy the machine, maybe for Christmas she'll buy you some pants too.

awwwriight awriiight, yes I made a lot out of an innocent comment. I still have a PowerMac AGP Sawtooth with a Mercury 1.5ghz G4 upgrade card. I do have a family to support, and I won't be buying a Power Mac Quad, so let a man have some fun.

see ya!
     
PerfectlyNormalBeast
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 02:58 PM
 
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the intel switch. There are three big reasons why this switch is a good thing. The first is notebook chips that aren't laughable (I'm a 1.5G4-book owner), but the others have been mostly ignored.

2. Porting X86 code will be easier, especially drivers. Simply using the same endian-ness as everyone else will make interfacing with hardware easier, but plenty of software packages will suddenly become much easier to port. Most app's like Photoshop are 10% GUI code/platform and 90% other code. Now the other code will "just work." Also, we may finally be able to use stock PC video cards and other hardware.

3. Intel's desktop/server chips are hot and slow right now, HOWEVER, all signs point to a complete turnaround in 2006. The stuff they talked about at IDC sounds great. Nobody else is talking about doing what they're talking about doing in terms of performance/watt. I want a quad G5 as much as the next guy, but I'm nervous about it costing $50 a month to use (not including the AC unit I'll need in January to use it.)

The idea that X86 is old and crappy is not entirely valid when the compilers hide so much of that these days. If they performance is better and <<cooler>> then I say go.
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 04:00 PM
 
All i have to say is i'm buying a new one,but not before march...still have to save a lot of money for it.Quads are my dream come true,and it will be my last mac for a very long time.....
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
themrlee
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 05:18 PM
 
Ars Techica had a good article right after the Intel plan was made public. The author had several inside sources which appeared to have good information. According to the article, the switch was motivated entirely by the iPod business. But from a Mac basis, it seems like a smart move. While the G5 or cell has the potential to be as good or better than any '086 on the high end, being stuck with the G4 for the Mac Mini and mobile solutions is almost certainly going to be limiting. The Mac market is growing, but it can only continue to do so if the low-end processors are competitive. As well, an Intel (and assumably, later, AMD) chip will make it Windows on Mac solutions fast enough that people who want a Mac for most things but still want Windows for games, legacy or niche apps will be able to run them at reasonable speeds.

For me, the addition of PCIe is a huge win. Workstation class cards and twin dual-core processors make Macs a serious 3D platform. Color me incredibly excited about the future of the Mac (and mine, too)
     
Colonel Panic
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 05:59 PM
 
Did the Arstechnica quantify the volume discount Apple would get for chips? I don't recall that it did. Without this information its hard to come to any meaningful conclusion concerning Apple's motivations. Apple is not as dependent as Dell, in theory, for these discounts since Apple is not competing directly with other manufactures making compatible systems. Dell needs these to undercut HP; every dollar counts. Being a maker of less of commoditized widgets, Apple has more flexibility and pricing and is less reliant on a discount. I tend to believe that the primary motivator was in fact perceived product pipelines and other benefits for the Mac by moving to Intel instead of this. I'd need more data on the size of the discount and the expected impact on Apple marginal sales that this discount would generate to change my mind.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 06:06 PM
 
There was a lot of conjecture in that Ars article, IIRC.
     
PerfectlyNormalBeast
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by themrlee
According to the article, the switch was motivated entirely by the iPod business.
So if we never had the iPod, we'd be happy with lousy laptops indefinitely? Seriously, what other options besides switching did we have?

Also, It's hard to predict whether the G5 will compete with Intel's 2006/2007 lineup. If I were a betting company, (like apple is forced to be), I would follow the R&D dollars. And Intel trumps everyone when it comes to chip R&D.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2005, 08:19 PM
 
Dell says here: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...redicts_1.html

that Intel's chips will beat AMDs next year. Steve Jobs said Intel's roadmap showed that Intel was the way to go. Maybe the switch is just down to Intel's offerings being better and there being a lack of competive PowerPC chips on the laptop front and that may begin to affect the desktop front as well.

As to a Qual G5, if you need it, get it

If you're doing the kind of work that requires that kind of power, you'll have recouped the cost many, many times over by the time its seriously outclassed.

On a side note, I wonder if the dual ethernet ports would be benefical to xGrid - I don't know anything about distributed computing, but would be cool.

one more thing - don't buy memory from Apple, bascially double normal price. Crucial are a good alternative - lifetime guarantee as well.
     
heavyboots
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B.
For home use, and if what I hear is correct (power consumption at full throttle more than 1000 Watts), I would never buy such a machine.
Well, a 2.3ghz we ordered last week got bumped to a quad, so I'm staring at one right now (which is busily copying all my files from the olde skoole single core 2.3ghz I'm running currently). On the power issue, I have no clue what it's sucking down, but the power cord is HUGE. It's literally as thick as the monitor cable! And the female end has all the flat connecter rotated 90 degrees to a normal power cable. Grrrr.

Other notes: Say goodbye to Panther forever. All your reboots are belong to Tiger from now on. I tried (for fun) to boot off a Panther firewire drive install. The computer and I had a good laugh and I got the happy slash circle of negativity.

Oh, and they reversed the connectors. Ethernet is now at the top, audio and USB are at the bottom of the panel. And I have no clue what the extra plastic panel on the left side under the lock is for. Looks like it unscrews--does this mean they are anticipating cards or peripherals that might need "out" connectors over there? Hmmmm.

As IT monkey, I'm quite excited about the dual ethernet ports. Being able to string that "one last device" off the chain will be wonderful, not to mention things like breathing life back into a router that tried to take the .1 address (which belongs to the fileserver).
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 12:58 AM
 
^^ Wow! That was fast. Quad already???

Re: Cable - It's a ton of power needed to power that thing. I guess Apple doesn't want el cheapo power cables hooked up to it.

When you get the chance, please run Cinebench (the G5 optimized version): www.cinebench.com
     
heavyboots
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 01:02 AM
 
.... And there was much cursing as I accidentally jiggled the firewire cable loose while comparing the size of the monitor cable and the power cable, thereby hosing my psync copy!
     
havocidal
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by bleee
I'm quite torn between buying a PowerMac with a G5 or wait for the Intel PowerMacs, reasong being is becuase I don't want to blow $3400 and have to worry that Apple will not optimize/stop supporting the PPC based mac even though it wiill still be their biggest user base for a while after Intel PowerMacs come out. My Palm OS Treo smart phone is already in this boat since Palm decided to move to windows mobile and palm os was recently bought out by another company. From a business point of view is it viable to optimize for G5's after Intel's PowerMacs have been released? as opposed to just throw something out that "works" on G5 and is optimized for Intel? Its the same situation for Mac games sure they work on Macs but they don't run anywhere as smoothly or receive as much attention as their PC coutner parts.

i don't know if there are any intel chips that can blow the current quad config away and still mantain its price...
     
rambo47
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Denville, NJ.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 08:39 AM
 
The QUADRO FX 4500 graphics card is a $1600 upgrade?!!
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
^^ Wow! That was fast. Quad already???

Re: Cable - It's a ton of power needed to power that thing. I guess Apple doesn't want el cheapo power cables hooked up to it.

When you get the chance, please run Cinebench (the G5 optimized version): www.cinebench.com
BTW, it has been pointed out to me that Apple says the quad G5 gets a 55% higher score than the dual 2.7, which means that the quad G5 should probably be over 1050 (which is screaming fast, and faster than a quad 2.2 GHz Opteron, which at boxxtech.com costs significantly more than a quad G5 2.5).
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by heavyboots
And I have no clue what the extra plastic panel on the left side under the lock is for. Looks like it unscrews--does this mean they are anticipating cards or peripherals that might need "out" connectors over there? Hmmmm.
Its the Airport and Bluetooth antennae.

     
davidahn
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 11:23 AM
 
It's like double dutch (a form of jumproping); there are good times to jump in, and bad times to do so (thwack!). I always try to jump in at major jumps in power, since there are never major jumps in price, those are the best times to squeeze maximum power per dollar. I missed the dual 2.0 & dual 2.5 boats, but I'm definitely making the jump now. It's very likely quad Yonah or whatever Intel's got planned won't happen for 1-1.5 years, with one speed-bump to the quad G5 to maybe dual 2.7/2.8. So until the quad MacTel happens, you'll have a screaming fast machine.

Likewise akin to double dutch, there are good times to get out, and bad times to do so (thwack!). That would be 1-2 weeks before major speed bumps. It's good to have a spare Mac (mini or PowerBook) to use between the sale of your old Mac and the arrival of your new one. If you do the math, it doesn't cost much more per month to swap computers every year or two versus waiting for it to become worthless, then ponying up major bucks to upgrade. Imagine two scenarios: A) buy $3000 PMG5, sell in 1 yr at $2200; B) buy $3000 PMG5, sell in 4 yrs at $500. Cost per month = A) $67, B) $52. So for an extra $15/mo, you can ALWAYS have the most powerful Mac around rather than spending 2-5 years limping along with a glacial computer. (If you make money with your Mac, lost productivity FAR outweighs the $15-20/mo extra it costs to have the latest and greatest.) And if you budget right (put $100/mo aside), you can spend $800-1000 a year rather than have to pony up $2500 to upgrade from a dinosaur to the next flagship.

Bottom line: DO IT NOW, not in 6-9 months when the next speed bump is imminent.

David
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 11:25 AM
 
heavyboots, does your machine "chirp"?

A good test is the RSS Visualizer screen saver. Preview that and listen for a slight chirping noise.

Do it now.
     
davidahn
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 11:26 AM
 
Heavyboots, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you're making us wade in some heavy CRAP. Maybe dual 2.7s might get bumped to quad 2.5's; but receiving it already, 2 days after announcement... please! Give us a break!

David
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2005, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by davidahn
Heavyboots, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you're making us wade in some heavy CRAP. Maybe dual 2.7s might get bumped to quad 2.5's; but receiving it already, 2 days after announcement... please! Give us a break!
I gave him the benefit of the doubt. A few labs and stuff already have it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,