Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Businesses Hardware Apple

Apple Updates Power Mac Line 686

Posted by CmdrTaco from the but-i-want-it-now dept.
Phreck writes "Apple has announced an upgrade to its Power Mac line today. The new Power Macs all feature dual G5 processors, 512 MB RAM, and dual-layer 16x SuperDrives. On the low end is the dual 2.0GHz with 160GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The mid-range includes dual 2.3GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The top-end system has dual 2.7GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9650. The processors are not the dual-core variety as has been rumored for weeks now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Updates Power Mac Line More

Apple Updates Power Mac Line

Comments Filter:

  • Not a very large update... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thijs van As ( 826224 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:16AM (#12359456) Journal
    Just a small speed bump. And no dual core G5 yet unfortunally.
    • Um...says whom? I'm not arguing, but I haven't seen the specs on these G5 chips. I would need to match up a part number to know if these are the dual core POWER chips we've heard about or not. :\
    • Its more then just a 'small' speed jump.

      Id take a true dual cpu machine over dual 'core' any day.
      • It's an 8% CPU clock bump... 2.5GHz -> 2.7GHz and a new DVDR (DVDRW?). 8% is small.

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

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

    • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:29AM (#12359661)
      Is anybody still wondering why the rumor mill is so damaging to Apple? This is a solid upgrade: faster CPUs, dual-layer 16X Superdrives, higher base RAM, same prices. But what does everybody say? "They're not dual core."

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

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

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:11AM (#12360263)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Frank Palermo ( 846883 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:23AM (#12360400)
        Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup. To an outsider (like a consumer in the market for a machine), what has changed in the G5 in nearly two years since its introduction?

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

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

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

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

        -Frank

        • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:55AM (#12360822)
          Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Durindana ( 442090 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @02:14PM (#12362683)

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

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

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

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

        • What would entice one of those owners to buy a new G5? Perhaps moving to PCI-Express graphics. Perhaps moving to DDR2 RAM

          PCI-E isn't really necessary - you'd be hard-pressed to fully use the available bandwidth on graphics cards - AGP 8x is damn fast. As for memory, the G5 can fully saturate both CPUs - what more do you want? Seriously, what would you add to make the G5 more enticing? it's arguably faster than any dell available, and will likely last 5+ years, so what's missing?

    • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jest3r ( 458429 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:54AM (#12360032)
      Apple seems to be slacking on their PowerMac product line. This is their most expensive product, supposedly high-end .. they are charging premium 2005 dollar for 2003 hardware.

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

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

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

      • Re:Not a very large update... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cyngus ( 753668 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:34AM (#12360551)
        - The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        - Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?

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

        Since most creative apps won't support clustering, no, six mac minis are not as fast.
        • The "Radeon 9650" is the highest upgrade option .. also an old card. There are no options for current graphics cards.

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

          So where is the dual-core??

          Why would I want another?

          Why wouldnt you. CD to CD or DVD to DVD copying is much easier with 2 drives. Why not give the user options?

          it could be four feet tall for all I care

          Alot of people care. I personally don't

          • The "Radeon 9650" is the highest upgrade option .. also an old card. There are no options for current graphics cards.

            Other people do sell Macintosh graphics cards.

            So where is the dual-core??

            Ask IBM, Apple doesn't make the G5 processor. That's like asking Dell where the 4.0Ghz P4 is. Furthermore, dual core chips from AMD and Intel are only appearing this week, if we don't see dual core G5's in six months or so, then that's reason for alarm.

            Alot of people care. I personally don't want a 4+ foot t
          • "The "Radeon 9650" is the highest upgrade option .. also an old card. There are no options for current graphics cards."

            True, but you can sell the stock card (quite a few earlier G5 users would glady take it off your hands) and just purchase an X800 [ati.com], but you aren't going to get $499 for that 9650. So, while Apple doesn't offer it as an option, it certainly is still an option to be had if wanted/needed.

            "So where is the dual-core??".

            We'll have them, just not quite yet. My Dual 2.5 is plenty fast.

            Why wou
      • The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??

        Apple is more about balance than most PC manufacturers are. You need a big power supply for the X800, plus it puts out tons of heat. It costs more, too. If you consider that the majority of G5 owners aren't anywhere near close to pushing a 9600 to its limits, then it makes sense.

        Truthfully, the features of the highest end video cards are being ignored by just about all developers, except for a handful of game companies. Even game companies ar
      • "Actually $3000 gets you 6 Mac Minis ... cluster those together and you've got more juice than the PowerMac."

        Eh, not really...

        $3000 in Minis gets you 6 x 1.25 GHz G4 = 7.5 GHz worth of G4, bound together by 10/100 Ethernet, 1.5 GB RAM, 6 GB max; or 5.4 GHz of G5, bound together by all those fast internal buses with 512 MB RAM, 8 GB max. Despite the lower overall speed, the fact that it's a generation-newer chip with much better interconnect means there's probably nothing a cluster of 6 minis could do bett

  • how does it compare? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:17AM (#12359463)
    How does a dual-processor compare to a dual-core processor? How do these powermacs compare to the latest AMD?

    • Re:how does it compare? (Score:5, Informative)

      by am46n ( 615794 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:27AM (#12359635)
      Put simply, dual core means that both CPUs are on the same piece of silicon. They can share a unified cache, access it faster, and resolve deadlocks & invalidates etc much faster.
      A dual core processor will also run cooler than two single cores, and the reduced number of external interconnects means that the whole thing can be clocked faster.

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

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

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

      • Re:how does it compare? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Pulzar ( 81031 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:30PM (#12361253)
        Put simply, dual core means that both CPUs are on the same piece of silicon. They can share a unified cache, access it faster, and resolve deadlocks...

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

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

    • Re:how does it compare? (Score:4, Informative)

      by selectspec ( 74651 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:29AM (#12359663)
      Dual core should be more efficient as the system bus between the processor cores are much faster and wider than the external buses. Dual processor systems must leverage off-chip caches (if any) which are generally slower as they rely on the external system bus for cache coherency.

      • Re:how does it compare? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jaoswald ( 63789 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:37AM (#12359812) Homepage
        Dual core being "more efficient" depends very much on the task being considered.

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

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

    • Powermacs vs. Intel & AMD (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheWama ( 793038 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:58AM (#12360093)

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

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

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

  • Fuck (Score:4, Funny)

    by jargoone ( 166102 ) * on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:18AM (#12359482)
    Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

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

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

    In summary: FUCK!

  • As our own CmdrTaco Would Say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:19AM (#12359501)
    No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

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

  • Low end not dual processor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LiENUS ( 207736 ) <slashdot AT vetmanage DOT com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:19AM (#12359502) Homepage
    The new dual Power Mac G5 models complement the existing 1.8 GHz single processor Power Mac G5, providing customers with an affordable entry-level system priced at just $1,499 (US).

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

    • Re:Low end not dual processor (Score:4, Interesting)

      by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:32AM (#12359742)
      We actually have two low-end machines now. The low-end G5 is defined by the fact that it only has room for 4 GB of RAM and the absence of PCI-X. We ship a 1.8 GHz version for $1,499 and a dual 2.0 GHz version for $1,999.

      The 1.8 GHz version is what we refer to as the "Power Mac mini."
      • What I don't understand is why the single 1.8 Powermac is $1499.

        The base iMac, with a 1.6G5 and *screen* is $1299.

        So because I

        1) don't need a brand new LCD screen
        2) need gigabit ethernet
        3) want a few ram slots
        4) want a few pci slots

        I have to *pay* $200 more?

        It seems to me that the 1.8 Powermac should start at $999 w/ 512MB ram in it.

        • The 1.8 GHz Power Mac G5 is $1,499 because that is the price that we choose to charge for it.

          Any other answer would be just a load of bullshit. Prices aren't rational. They're set entirely arbitrarily. Why beat around the bush about it?
          • And with this comment (unless you intended some sort of strange, imperceptible irony), your assertion that you work for Apple is blown to smithereens. Prices are NOT arbitrary. Prices are always based on market demand and profit margin. Lower priced items, like a Mac mini, have a lower profit margin because they are gateway Macs. Today's Mac mini buyer will hopefully be tomorrow's 20" iMac buyer (or better). The PMG5 is a more luxurious, more professional item, and Apple's research would indeed tell them th

  • How does it compare? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:19AM (#12359509)
    What sort of performance improvements will I see over my Apple II?
    • Due to OS and application bloat, it will take longer for the G5 machines to boot and to load a word processor. Also, you will not be able to expand the RAM from 12x the size of the smallest workable configuration as with the II. Also, there are less than the eight expansion slots you are accustomed to. There is not an additional empty ROM socket for 3rd party custom ROMS. In short, these new machines are quite a step down from your machine's existing capabilities and are not worthy of your attention.

  • Apple? (Score:4, Funny)

    by cablepokerface ( 718716 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:21AM (#12359528)
    So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??

    * Clicks 'Post Anonymously'
    * Submit

    * ducks

    • Re:Apple? (Score:4, Funny)

      by cablepokerface ( 718716 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:23AM (#12359574)
      Relizes 'Post Anonymously' failed

      No karma noooooo ...

    • Re:Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pebs ( 654334 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:48AM (#12359955) Homepage
      So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??

      Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware. This is due to the lack of variation in hardware compared to PC's, resulting in more solid drivers. Linux driver developers simply have less combinations to worry about. And Apple hardware engineers also have to worry about less combinations. Thus, with a Power Mac, you end up with a stable, powerful, quiet, high-quality Linux machine.

      Other than that, I don't really know :P

      • Re:Apple? (Score:4, Informative)

        by j-turkey ( 187775 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:20AM (#12360361) Homepage
        Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware.

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

  • They also dropped Cinema Display prices... (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:21AM (#12359535) Homepage
    20" now $799

    23" now $1,499

    30" same $2,999

  • Why 9600 series cards? why not 9800s or X800s? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:22AM (#12359563) Homepage Journal
    I do not understand their choice of base video card. Why would they use a 9600 series when the 9800s and X series are available? From a price concious view I can see it however the top end is Nvidia.

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

    • Re:Why 9600 series cards? why not 9800s or X800s? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Queer Boy ( 451309 ) * <dragon.76@ma c . com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:08AM (#12360225)
      Also, are they still stuck on PCI-X? Is Apple going to move to PCI-Express anytime soon or will they be left behind for the time being?

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

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

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

  • 3.0G in Aug '04? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SamSeaborn ( 724276 )
    Just FYI,

    When Steve Jobs first announced the G5 chip, Jobs said they'd be at 3GHz by August 2004.

    Where's the Gigs?

    Sam

    • Re:3.0G in Aug '04? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:38AM (#12359835)
      IBM had trouble going from 180 nm fabrication to 90 nm fabrication. We announced 3 GHz by 2004, but internally we were predicting 5 GHz by this summer, based on IBM's projections.

      They didn't pan out.

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

  • I'd like... (Score:3, Funny)

    by AxsDeny ( 152142 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:23AM (#12359570) Homepage Journal
    ...my boss to announce an update to my salary. Until then my old school G4 will have to do.

  • modems now optional (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:25AM (#12359606)
    I noticed an oddity on the linked page [apple.com] to Apple's store: the older 1.8 GHz dual had a built-in modem, but the new ones did not. Sure enough, if you actually order one of the newer PowerMacs you find that built-in modems are now a $29 option.

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

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

    • Re:modems now optional (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Queer Boy ( 451309 ) * <dragon.76@ma c . com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:19AM (#12360348)
      Like the floppy disk, Apple's opinion now is that the POTS modem is sufficiently obsolete to remove it entirely and free up space inside the box, rather than leave it in and lose the $10 OEM or whatever it actually costs them.

      Clearly you're used to the PC world where they send you off into the wilds of the internet with only a "Beware of the Malware!"

      Not only is it the possibly $10 OEM that they are deducting from a million machines, it's the thousands of dollars in support they will spend not only repairing potentially wonky modems but also fielding tech support calls over dialing into the internet, connection issues once dialed-in, etc. The simpler you can make a machine the fewer dollars spent on tech support.

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoo. c o m> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:01AM (#12360131) Journal
    I just ran Hardware Update, and everything is much snappier!

  • performance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tf23 ( 27474 ) <tf23&lottadot,com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:03AM (#12360158) Homepage Journal
    Apple's performance page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/ [apple.com]

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

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

  • Apple has a different perspective... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nokiator ( 781573 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:51AM (#12360776) Journal
    This PowerMac revision is obviously not a major upgrade and Apple treated it as such. Apple's home page [apple.com], is mostly full of Tiger stuff and the new PowerMac intro is just a small image on the lower left corner.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2.7Ghz model is liquid cooled! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GraZZ ( 9716 ) <jack.jackmaninov@ca> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:13PM (#12361054) Homepage Journal
    I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up, but Apple is using a liquid cooling system on the 2.7Ghz model.

    Details (including a cutsie animation) here [apple.com].

  • Why does the 2.7 have such a shitty graphics card? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chiisu ( 462604 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:20PM (#12361878)
    oh wait, no games....... :P

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

  • 970 MP (Score:3, Informative)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @01:28PM (#12362009) Homepage
    The processors are not the dual-core variety as has been rumored for weeks now.
    Is the PowerPC 970MP even out yet? This will be the basis for a dual-core G5 & IBM has been tight-lipped. Do we really expect the announcement of the chip to wait until the announcement of the dual-core G5?

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close