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 > The Dual 2GHz G5 -- Announced By Apple

The Dual 2GHz G5 -- Announced By Apple (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Un-Inferior
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: California, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by stevesnj:
Also from what I understand serial ATA is better than standard so this would be a selling point to me, so once again Apple will lead while others follow.
uhh, when it comes to serial ATA how is apple 'in the lead?'
     
Metzen
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 03:37 PM
 
Originally posted by TheMosco:
Did anyone see this? I am not sure if it was already posted.

https://jobs.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebOb...tionID=1978437

"Title: Web Publishing Manager WW Apple Store"
Best line from said job description:

Function supports the World Wide Store management team and the 2+Billion online business. The position manages day to day publishing requirements such as image updates...
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Commodus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 04:25 PM
 
un-inferior:

Apple would be in the lead in that they'd be making Serial ATA hard disks par for the course on their systems; few pre-assembled-computer manufacturers even offer Serial ATA as an option, let alone standard.

It remains to be seen how this affects the cost, but it probably won't be too significant. A lot of newer mainboards (such as nForce 2-based boards) come with Serial ATA controllers onboard and maintain reasonable costs. The drives themselves aren't that much more expensive than standard ATA133 drives.
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 07:00 PM
 
> Apple isn't first with Serial ATA

Alienware (scroll down to the hard drive section) has been offering it for quite some time now. The reason Serial ATA is not a standard feature in the PC arena yet is the fact that the Serial ATA controller is not built into any chipset maker's, well, chipset. Weather that's VIA, NVIDIA, SIS, or Intel, it doesn't matter because none of their chipsets currently have Serial ATA capability built into them. Motherboard manufactures are able to offer Serial ATA through a seperate controller chip built *onto* the motherboard. For example, that Alienware machine uses this Asus motherboard, and if you notice on that page it says it uses a Serial ATA controller made by Silicon Image. It's because of this, Serial ATA not being built into the chipset, that major PC makers won't offer it as a standard feature. When NVIDIA's nForce3 comes out with Serial ATA built-in, they'll run with it, but not until a major chipset maker offers it.

So, Apple may not be the first to "offer" Serial ATA, but they may be first to market with Serial ATA built into the motherboard's chipset. Just something to think about until Monday.
     
BurpetheadX
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 08:07 PM
 
Imagine how disappointed Apple fans will be if Apple releases no new hardware period at the WWDC. Or if they release speed-bumped G4 towers.

Hahahahaha.
Haha, nice,
I think this is perfectly plausable. People reported the Apple store being down for upgrades. Everyone makes mistakes, and as Apple was moving the files to thier webserver needed for the G5 introduction, the guy obviously made a mistake somewhere and it showed up on the current page. Makes perfect sence. I believe it will be here this week.
     
JohnM15141
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 09:54 PM
 
It would be great if the PM with 970 chips are released tomorrow as "leaked" on Thursday but what would be INCREDIBLE is if the price structure stays the same. That is what would really make the Mac much more competitive and sway more switchers!

The G4 PM's are currently priced [email protected]$1499, [email protected]$1999, [email protected]$2699, and [email protected]$3799.

This is where I've heard the most common reason for PC Users to avoid the Mac..."I sure like those Mac's but they're too expensive" is what I've heard in the past and it's only recently that that has changed to..."Mac's are slower than PC's" The G5 as we've heard would eliminate that reason and the current price structure will negate the previous and most common excuse.

Time will tell, and it's almost time!
     
Centris650
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heart O' Dixie
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:16 PM
 
Originally posted by JohnM15141:
It would be great if the PM with 970 chips are released tomorrow as "leaked" on Thursday but what would be INCREDIBLE is if the price structure stays the same. That is what would really make the Mac much more competitive and sway more switchers!

The G4 PM's are currently priced [email protected]$1499, [email protected]$1999, [email protected]$2699, and [email protected]$3799.

This is where I've heard the most common reason for PC Users to avoid the Mac..."I sure like those Mac's but they're too expensive" is what I've heard in the past and it's only recently that that has changed to..."Mac's are slower than PC's" The G5 as we've heard would eliminate that reason and the current price structure will negate the previous and most common excuse.

Time will tell, and it's almost time!
Rumor has it we will see a price increase. I wouldn't be surprised if we see powermacs go back to what they were before the last price drop if not more. Personally I think Apple needs to keep their prices reasonable and try to keep inflating them too much.
     
newportnews
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NN, VA, 23602
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:22 PM
 
I think it would be crazy for Apple to raise prices too much in a down economy... People are waiting and want to buy but I think a high-end at $3499 -$3999 prices alot fo people out of the game.

I'm expecting that if prices don't stay the same that there will be nominal increases across the board.

My prediction:

1.6 Ghz $1699

1.8 Ghz $2399

Dual 2.0 Ghz $2999


It used to be that the high-end of the pro-lines were over $3000 but now pretty much everythign in the line-up (except ultimate configs) are sub-$3000... I think they'll stick with that logic.

BTW, I do have some selfish reasons here as I WANT a dual 2.0 Ghz but can;t spend more than $2999
iMac Core 2 Duo 20" 2.16 Ghz //1.5 GB RAM // 250 GB HD
Powerbook G4 1.25 Ghz // 1 GB RAM // 80 GB HD // Backlit Keyboard
iPod Video 30 GB / White
     
tikki
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Evansville, IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:27 PM
 
I would pay $2999 for a Dual 2Ghz, but nothing more. I'd like it to be less since I want to get a 17" LCD with it as well.

work: maczealots blog: carpeaqua
     
superfula
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:29 PM
 
Originally posted by newportnews:
I think it would be crazy for Apple to raise prices too much in a down economy... People are waiting and want to buy but I think a high-end at $3499 -$3999 prices alot fo people out of the game.

I'm expecting that if prices don't stay the same that there will be nominal increases across the board.

My prediction:

1.6 Ghz $1699

1.8 Ghz $2399

Dual 2.0 Ghz $2999


It used to be that the high-end of the pro-lines were over $3000 but now pretty much everythign in the line-up (except ultimate configs) are sub-$3000... I think they'll stick with that logic.

BTW, I do have some selfish reasons here as I WANT a dual 2.0 Ghz but can;t spend more than $2999
Holy geez! Why the 700 dollar difference between the 1.6 and 1.8? A superdrive is only 200ish. Not really sure what else would separate the two. I think a 4-machine selection is more likely. 1500ish, 1750ish, and then a large jump to the dual machines at 2300 and 2800ish.
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:37 PM
 
Yeah, I have to agree. If the prices go up too much, we'll know that Apple is going for the jugular...of its own customer base as opposed to the potential switchers.

Thing is, I think Apple views its other products as "switch" products and the Pro line as the line it sells to people in industries so dominated by Macs that essentially it's a fait accompli that we'll buy. That view, however, is obsolete. Apple has lost its lead in just about every pro-area, and there's no doubt that it's been both performance issues and the Apple premium that have funked it in said arenas.

Apple should keep the prices right where they are. In fact, I can just about hear Jobs saying this tomorrow and the crowd erupting in applause. He should know that Apple is going to make the money on volume, given the pent up demand lackluster upgrades have created over the last few <gulp> YEARS! Of course, Apple will probably hike the prices a couple of hundred dollars, if you go by its history. We'll know in about 15 hours.

I will spend the $2999 for a Dual 2GHz, but no more than that (given we're going to have to add RAM to it ... +$250). At that price, this won't be an impulse buy either. Only after the thing has been reviewed and proves to be a stable video-editing platform. Not buying this to be a lab rat.

Still, I'm optimistic and psyched about this development. Jobs is going to release new Macs tomorrow, right?

It's .... all....most.....time....
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:40 PM
 
I'll say:

1.6 at $1499
1.8 at $1999
Dual 1.8 at $2499
Dual 2 at $2999

C'mon guys. You don't think that GIF was actually finished, do you?
     
SciFrog
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:47 PM
 
I would love these specs...

Here is an intersting picture, don't know what to make of it...

http://www.mts.net/~coinz123/crud/PowerMacG5.jpg
     
superfula
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:51 PM
 
Originally posted by awcopus:
I'll say:

1.6 at $1499
1.8 at $1999
Dual 1.8 at $2499
Dual 2 at $2999

C'mon guys. You don't think that GIF was actually finished, do you?
Again, why such a jump in price from the low to the lower-middle. 500 is a lot of money for just a .2gig difference. Apple's current jump from a single 1gig to a dual 1.25 (includes better video card and 20gig more hd space) is only 500. I can't imagine the 1.6 and 1.8 being that far apart in price. Unless of course there is a superdrive, more ram, more hd space and a better video card...but that's quite a bit of stuff

Also, my budget for this new machine is 1700, so I'm REALLY hoping that low-middle, or middle will be right around there
     
mac freak
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Highland Park, IL / Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 11:11 PM
 
SciFrog --

That pic is vomit-o-licious.
Be happy.
     
SciFrog
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 11:22 PM
 
Looks kinda fake, a grill placed on a MDD case. But there has been so much rumors about that "grill".
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 11:25 PM
 
Originally posted by superfula:
Again, why such a jump in price from the low to the lower-middle. 500 is a lot of money for just a .2gig difference. Apple's current jump from a single 1gig to a dual 1.25 (includes better video card and 20gig more hd space) is only 500. I can't imagine the 1.6 and 1.8 being that far apart in price.
I agree with you.

1.6 $1499
1.8 $1799
Dual 1.8 $2300
Dual 2 $2800



No way in hell is that going to happen. But we may as well dream while we can, because by this time tomorrow....
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 11:28 PM
 
The grill is hideous, but I'll take it IF it means that the computer is fanless.

Silent and crazy fast new Macs...a little ugly....but dead quiet....okay, I'll buy it.
     
Eugene Fields
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hampton Bays, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 11:31 PM
 
Originally posted by awcopus:
The grill is hideous, but I'll take it IF it means that the computer is fanless.

Silent and crazy fast new Macs...a little ugly....but dead quiet....okay, I'll buy it.
CHECK THIS WORK OUT Outrageaus!!!

http://digitalstudios.geneva-link.com/index2.html

Check the movies!!!
"Recent history is the record of a vast conspiracy to
impose one level of mechanical consciousness on mankind."
Allen Ginsberg
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 12:22 AM
 
That is called having a whole helluvalotta time on your hands. Very impressive.

Eugene, my comments about a hideous grill were about http://www.mts.net/~coinz123/crud/PowerMacG5.jpg .

Anyhoo, time to go to bed...count Macs jumping over PCs. Got to rest up before the big phat nerd day. Going to SOHO for 11:30PM. WOOOO HOOOO!

please please please let there be new Macs to actually play with please please please
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 12:24 AM
 
Originally posted by awcopus:
He should know that Apple is going to make the money on volume
Umm, no. "Making it on volume" is something Apple has never done. That's the way Dell does business.

I'd like cheap G5s, but I can't see Apple selling them for nothing.

IMHO they should place the low-end 1.6GHz at a competitive 1499. Then 1699 for the 1.8GHz or maybe 1799 (but actually it's only 200MHz so the difference should stay moderate). But then ask for 2799 for the dual 2GHz. I think they should get it form the guys going for the biggest in the line.

Start low to attract and make those pay who think they need the ultimate.
     
The Jackalope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a Jackalope space, I'm the Jackalope guy...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 12:51 AM
 
If the low end is $1499, I might just get one immediately and worry about how to pay my rent later.
     
DeathMan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Capitol City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 01:07 AM
 
Simon: I think you're on the right track for the low end, but I think that it would be smarter not to have such a big leap between the middle and the top ($1000 leap is huge). What I think they should do is offer the low end at the current low end price, but keep things pretty bare bones, low ram, small hard drive, stuff like that, the middle machine closer to $2000, the radeon 9000 (or hopefully better) A nice fast 80 Gig HD. But lacking some key features for certain people. No superdrive.

Then go somerwhere between $2,500-$3,000 for the Fastest, since by the time you've added a superdrive to the Faster model, and upgraded your video card (like any self respecting technophile), you're almost there anyway. $3,000 is a lot to spend on a computer though. Even if it turns out to be the fastest consumer box you can get.

The Ultimate jump it to $5,000 with 4 gigs of RAM (About a grand per 2gig dimm from crucial), the Radeon 9700, A bunch of fast HDs (possible raid?) or those who just like to spend money.

The idea is to ease us into the box we like at a low price, but lacking some of the key features (no dual proc. slower video card, no bluetooth, whatever), and give us the options to build to order. BUT, by the time we've got it configured the way we want, we're almost at the next level. So we jump the next level, and have to add the warranty, and maybe since now I'm breaking the bank anyway, might as well get a display, or at the very least an ipod.

So its sort of a frog in a pot of warm water. Just slowly turn op the heat. And we'll all be drowning in dual processors. Apple's marketing team has us eating from their hands. And loving it.

Edit: Clarify a bit
( Last edited by DeathMan; Jun 23, 2003 at 01:50 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 01:16 AM
 
Deathman, I like that.

Sounds like Apple-style.
     
PB2K
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 03:53 AM
 
Lets all live together so we can save up our salaries and welfarechecks to buy 1 dual g5.
     
tikki
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Evansville, IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 04:01 AM
 
Originally posted by PB2K:
Lets all live together so we can save up our salaries and welfarechecks to buy 1 dual g5.
Yeah, imagine a bunch of mac geeks sharing ` computer

work: maczealots blog: carpeaqua
     
eddiecatflap
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 04:07 AM
 
..my brother is on holiday and wants me to kepp him updated as we speak , he's got 3k burnin' a hole in his pocket and NEEDS a new mac asap..

..poor chap..
     
slider
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: No frelling idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 06:10 AM
 
Originally posted by Eugene Fields:
CHECK THIS WORK OUT Outrageaus!!!

http://digitalstudios.geneva-link.com/index2.html

Check the movies!!!
Um, the brand new G5 woodstove, um, burn baby burn?

Edit: Yeah actually watching the movie, it's not a bad concept. It would certainly break the mold.
( Last edited by slider; Jun 23, 2003 at 06:15 AM. )
     
jamesa
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: .au
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 10:06 AM
 
Originally posted by jamesa:
I'd hate to see Steve's "sense of humour" in action when he finds out about this.

Somebody's not just going to lose their job. They're going to have their still-beating heart ripped out.

-- james
     
TC
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Milan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 11:11 AM
 
Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..my brother is on holiday and wants me to kepp him updated as we speak , he's got 3k burnin' a hole in his pocket and NEEDS a new mac asap..

..poor chap..
If he's on holidays in Taiwan he'll come back minus the $3k but with a burning hole!
Nothing to see, move along.
     
hammered
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 05:05 PM
 
hey, hey. it's official with the g5s and i'll admit apple has exceeded my expectations. the apple store still won't load for me, but so far it seems like they aren't charging an arm and leg for the new hardware.

one complaint i have though is the benchmarks apple likes to brag about. in the past few years apple marketing has got the reputation to be the "best in the business" and it's no surprise with inflated hype and numbers (cough, cough, g4). cmon...do people still believe photoshop is the only thing macs are good for?

ok, back to the benchmarks issue. the g5 is a very impressive cpu in many regards, 64 bit, made by ibm, fully incorporates "altivec" and etc...but i noticed that the spec benchmarks apple uses on their site are a bit misleading. i dunno about you guys, but ever since apple started posting misleading data on the g4 cause motorola screwed up, my respect for the company has dropped because it means to me they are lying to consumers. they have a great OS, design, and now a fantastic cpu, but they still have to mislead the public and lose more of my respect. maybe next time.

points.
1. www.spec.org. it's a public benchmark that tells fancy cpu ya-da, ya-da and over the past several years they have accumliated data on pretty much every cpu/system known to man. look up the data on cpu2000 scores. the public data on p4 xeons is much, much lower than apple advertises averaging 30 to 50% lower in actual scores.

2. how can point 1 be true? the pentium4/g5 comparisons apple uses on their website were conducted through veritest so i decided to see what was with the discrepency in scores.
a. apple is using ddr400 ram (impressive!), the dells are using
ddr266 (say, what?!)
b. apple is using serial ata drive (impressive!), the dells are using standard ata100 drives (um...ok)
c. apple is using their own compiler, while the dells are using a compiler downloaded from the web.
d. if you check the scores posted on www.spec.org, the scores apple claims and the public scores are very different because of the above 3 claims. almost every machine uses compilers created by the cpu manufacturerer. amd cpu uses amd compilers, intel cpu uses intel compilers. the intel boxes also didn't use ddr266, instead they were using higherend ddr400 or whatever highest RDRAM is. finally, these boxes also used scsi drives and in tests scsi and serial ata are more similiar than serial ata vs ata100.

3. cmon people...if doing a benchmark, especially on cpu performance, try to keep every other factor constant. same harddrive, same ram, same gfx card, etc...formatting for different operating systems is a pain, but it's respectable data. or if comparing the "best" like what apple configured, an above average dell configuration won't do. what's the point about bragging about your best hardware if it's not compared with the best hardware of competitors?

sources:
www.apple.com
www.spec.org
http://www.veritest.com/clients/repo....asp?visitor=X
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 05:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
Um... No.

Published specs as in SPECInt don't mean didly squat in real life. This has already been discussed countless times on this board.

If these numbers are to be believed, even a 1.4GHz 970 will manage the P4 running at 3GHz in stuff like Brye, Cinema 4D and Photoshop. So imagine what the 1.8GHz, 2GHz and then even the dual 2GHz will do to any existing P4. Titanic. Ha.

This week will be great.

I can't wait for the good old Pentium-crushing business to get back up and going.
Originally posted by Eug:
Errr... Just about everyone thinks those numbers are a hoax.


So I would just like to use this occasion to remind Eug and others that judged the 970 prematurely based only on SPEC numbers that it really does pay off to wait and look at the chip in a finished box and see how it performs in real life.

The SPECint values of the 970 are lower than the P4's and the Xeon's and its SPECfp isn't much better, but look at the real-world bake-offs done at WWDC.

The G5 beat DUAL XEONs by at least 100% on all four tests (graphical stuff, 3D stuff, audio and mathematical/numerical).

So, take these prelimenary SPEC numbers with a grain of salt next time. You can be surprized rather quickly by the real product when it finally arrives. Don't forget what you just experienced.
( Last edited by Simon; Jun 27, 2003 at 05:31 AM. )
     
 
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 03:51 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.,