A number of web sites reported that the database that holds the Apple Store data has been accidentally updated (and later its webmaster took down the whole Store website). While the headline in the final rendered web page is still calling it a “G4”, the specs are mentioning the following:1.6GHz, 1.8GHz, or Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 Processors
Up to 1 GHz processor bus
Up to 8GB of DDR SDRAM
Fast Serial ATA hard drives
AGP 8x Pro (ATI/Nvidia)
Three USB 2.0 ports
3 PCI or PCI-X expansion slots
One FireWire 800, two FireWie 400 ports
Bluetooth & Airport Extreme ready
Optical and analog audio in and out.
Apple Store Accidentally Updated Early – PowerMac G5 Specs Unveiled
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
You’re best off if you’re a version behind, as that way, it’s not even an additional penalty, it is just the upgrade fee alone.
what I meant by ‘additional penalty’ is that if you’re up to date version-wise you pay the upgrade fee to just switch … whereas if you’re a version behind, paying the upgrade fee switches AND upgrades you at the same time. (Figuring you’d be paying the upgrade fee on your own platform anyway)
After I typed it, I realized it sounded like there was an additional fee (above the upgrade) but there isn’t. I just meant that you got more for your dollar if you were switching and upgrading for the same fee.
Well, they sound very nice, but I wonder how they perform? In comparison with exisitng macs and pcs about the same price.
Well, they sound very nice, but I wonder how they perform? In comparison with exisitng macs and pcs about the same price.
Here’s how the 1.8GHz version stacks up to various x86 processors. Scale the scores for the 2GHz version in your head accordingly:
Dhrystone
PPC970 1.8GHz 5220
Pentium-4 3.06GHz 7724 (Hyperthreaded), 7009 (without HT)
Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz) 6406
Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz) 5125
Pentium-4 1.8GHz 4119
SPECint2000
PPC970 1.8GHz 937
Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1130
Athlon XP 2800+ 933
Athlon XP 2200+ 765
Pentium-4 1.8GHz 612
SPECfp2000
PPC970 1.8GHz 1051
Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1103
Athlon XP 2800+ 843
Athlon XP 2200+ 671
Pentium-4 1.8GHz 678
I’ve also noticed that the comments saying Apple needs to switch to x86 have (finally) disappeared… I’m glad to see that dead horse has been put to rest
with mac prices, systems like that will cost $18,000
How do you figure you can buy a faster PC for less?
I was just out at the Dell site pricing PCs and if you price a 3GHz P4 with XP Pro and the additional software offered to match Mac OS X’s offering, then the price is around $1,600 with out a monitor and missing FireWire.
If the 1.6GHz G5 is sold in the $1,600 range, then the Dell will be about 5-10% faster. The 1.8GHz G5 should be faster then the 3GHz P4 and I haven’t seen a faster P4 offered lately. The Dual 2GHz G5 will need a 4-way 2GHz Zeon MP to keep up.
If you want to find computers compable, you’ll have to use a AMD Operton; and the price will still be about equal to the Apples. The Althon64 is noticable slower then the Opertons.
If you can get me a faster PC then the Dual 2GHz G5 for less money, please tell me where.
…that there are so many PC trolls on this and other PC centric boards trying DESPERATELY to find something ANYTHING they can cling to which suggests that these systems are somehow inferior…
You people are rediculious, Apple has maintained the speed lead throughout desktop computing’s history… (asside from all computers after the G4 500 and nearly all Macs at the tail-end of their revamp cycle)
To think that the trend would be any different is simply an individual grasping at straws.
“All I can see is the opening of the opteron vs Mac duel.
Before the G6 trashes that. ”
It will be 2010 before a G6 makes it out if the developement time of the G5 is any basis
By then everyone will have 256bit AMD’s running at 1.4 terahtz 
If software is holding you back from switching,
you can always feed the Beast: Microsoft and Virtual PC
should allow you to use your old software stack till you can afford to upgrade to OSX software.
So this means Apple will be a leader in the 64 bit realm, cool. Here I was thinking about getting a cheap pc, not a chance anymore! Screw windows!
You people are rediculious, Apple has maintained the speed lead throughout desktop computing’s history… (asside from all computers after the G4 500 and nearly all Macs at the tail-end of their revamp cycle)
While the new IBM 970 chip is by no means slow, it is nowhere near as fast as as the Opteron or the current line of Pentium 4’s with hyperthreading. However, the fact that you can get dual-CPU machines from a consumer desktop maker more than makes up for it.
If Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway and friends, saw Apple as any kind of real threat, I’m sure you’d see dual AMD Opterons or Athlon64s in a consumer profile in a heartbeat. Alas, motherboard makers are evil and want to charge a premium for all that extra circuitry required for dual CPUs.
It will be 2010 before a G6 makes it out if the developement time of the G5 is any basis
“G5” is just a marketing name… don’t try to pin Motorola’s failures on IBM. The PPC970’s development was extremely rapid, and a Power5-derived (PPC980?) successor to the chip should be available in 2005, or the way PPC970 production seems to have gone, breaking everyone’s expectations including Apple’s and IBM’s, maybe even 2004.
I reckon whatever version of OSX runs on these processors, they are hardly likely to port the Classic environment to 64-bit as well….
“It will be 2010 before a G6 makes it out if the developement time of the G5 is any basis
By then everyone will have 256bit AMD’s running at 1.4 terahtz 
“
Ahhhh… there it is, the “but by this time we’ll be at such and such” argument that the Wintel community lambasted Mac users for doing and claimed that they themselves would never be in a situation of having to do.
With the way it appears that IBM is ramping up the 970, 980 etc… it looks like Mac users will reclaim the speed crown they lost the past 1.5 years.
and keep it for many years to come…
i can’t wait to see the keynote live! i will post anything i hear as fast as possible to the web. that way, those who can’t see it before the re-broadcast on the web can still be in the current.
does that last sentence make sense? i hope so. damn allergy medicine!
I reckon whatever version of OSX runs on these processors, they are hardly likely to port the Classic environment to 64-bit as well….
They… don’t have to. The PPC970 can natively execute 32-bit applications, including Classic…
Dual procs will always be noisier than single. Duh. Try listening to a dual or quad proc Dell server sometime.
One of the companies apparently planning on making northbridges for the 970 is Marvell, who supply the northbridge found in the motherboard my company makes. I juct can’t wait till we can make a board w/ 970 support. (sure, it’ll take awhile till Apple’s not buying all of them up as they did the G4, but still, vrooom!)
Not sure if the posting was a mistake or to add fuel to the marketing fire, but whatever it was, with specs like these probably my next comp will be a Mac G5. 8GB Ram?!? 1GHz system bus and 64-bit multi-CPU!?! That’s so sweet my teeth hurt.
Dual procs will always be noisier than single. Duh. Try listening to a dual or quad proc Dell server sometime.
Dell uses a “heat pipe” which is essentially a large duct that pulls air across heat sinks of both CPUs at once, cooling them both simultaneously with a single 80mm fan. They use approach for uniprocessor desktops. I can also assure you this 80mm fan runs virtually silent.
I’m afraid you’re wrong on all accounts here…
“While the new IBM 970 chip is by no means slow, it is nowhere near as fast as as the Opteron or the current line of Pentium 4’s with hyperthreading”
Really? And you are basing this on what exactly? Do you have some specs that show that the P4 is faster?
Didn’t think so.
And I bet you are dead wrong.
Steve’s gonna be pissed about this one slipping out!
http://homepage.mac.com/gravity/
With these new offerings, Apple is catching up with the high-end x86 offerings. Thing is, Intel is preparing a new CPU for the 3rd quarter of 2003 and it will up its clock up to 3.4 GHz around the end of the year. At that point, Apple should also be able to offer 2.4 GHz, or in a year from now, Apple will still be in the same position it is today with its G4s not keeping up to the x86 offerings.
Let’s see what both Intel and Apple can do…. I for one, will be watching closely the whole thing.
Really? And you are basing this on what exactly? Do you have some specs that show that the P4 is faster?
Didn’t think so.
And I bet you are dead wrong.
Uh, yeah… both SpecINT and SpecFP scores from IBM show that the 970 processor is equivilent to about a P4 2.8 GHz processor. On SPECint the 970 is over 200 points lower than the state-of-the-art x86 chips. Since most desktop apps are exclusively integer math oriented, this benchmark is indicative of what we can expect.
SPECint2000
937 – IBM 970 1.8 GHz
1130 – Intel P4 3.06 GHz
1170 – AMD Opteron 2 GHz
SPECfp2000
1051 – IBM 970 1.8 GHz
1103 – Intel P4 3.06 GHz
1219 – AMD Opteron 2 GHz
The Opteron is a bit faster than the 3.06 GHz P4. Given Intel just started shipping the 3.2 GHz processors today, the 2 GHz 970 is roughly 8 months behind both AMD and Intel in terms of performance.
However, the Opteron is a server version of the Athlon64, so we don’t know what the performance of the Athlon64 itself will be since it is comparable to the 970 (both desktop/mobile chips).
We also don’t know the performance of the 2 GHz chips nor real-world benchmarks with all the Altivec enhancements. SPECint doesn’t take into account Intel’s hyperthreading (18% performance boost with no code changes on average desktop apps) nor AMD/Intel’s SSE2 instructions, but it is very useful for a ballpark figure.
The Opteron is a bit faster than the 3.06 GHz P4. Given Intel just started shipping the 3.2 GHz processors today, the 2 GHz 970 is roughly 8 months behind both AMD and Intel in terms of performance.
Only if you look at pure theoretical horsepower. Now, continuing the car analogy, the PPC has a much better fuel pump. A 970 with TWO 1GHz memory buses (instead of a single 800MHz bidirectional bus like on the P4) is going to be able to throw around a lot more data.
This, and the killer vector unit, is why a single 1.8GHz 970 smoked the P4 3GHz in the early (leaked – maybe faked) photoshop tests. Now, we’ll have to see what the final numbers are but I bet even a single 2GHz 970 would run circles around a P4 at anything data-intensive, especially if Altivec comes into play.
By the way, if we extrapolate SPEC by pure GHz (yes, bad, I know, but I was curious) we get:
int:
1041 – 2.0GHz 970
1181 – 3.2GHz P4
float:
1167 – 2.0GHz 970
1153 – 3.2GHz P4
But given the vastly different architectures of these chips the real world app numbers could be massively different. SPECs need a major pile of salt here.
I also disagree with the “8 months behind” thing because of the heat dissipation. P4s are simply too hot to do serious multi-processor systems. The 970s are just plain designed for it. And, apparently, they are pretty cheap too. A cheap simple solution that can be mass produced is sometimes better than a complicated one (ie. T-34 vs Panther/Tiger
I also disagree with the “8 months behind” thing because of the heat dissipation. P4s are simply too hot to do serious multi-processor systems. The 970s are just plain designed for it. And, apparently, they are pretty cheap too. A cheap simple solution that can be mass produced is sometimes better than a complicated one (ie. T-34 vs Panther/Tiger
Yes, but you are ignoring AMD. The Athlon-64 coming out in September not only has a HyperTransport Northbridge controller on chip, but has already be demonstrated in a laptop.
The Opteron already out has three HyperTransport controllers per chip each with 6.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Athlon64 only has one, but it still comparable to the 970.
Bet there are some already built.
> I can also assure you this 80mm fan runs virtually silent.
Obviously you don’t have Dell SERVERS. Try a turning on a PowerEdge in your office….I had to build a wall on mine to reduce the noise…
The intial 970s are apparently made using IBM’s 0.13 micron technology. One of their roadmaps show this going to 0.09 in early 2004. Also one should note the 970 is a Power4 offshoot and IBM is moving to the Power5 (which is a very serious/modern processor) … within 18 months or so one might expect another major upgrade in the desktop/laptop end.
This could get very interesting – this is clearly just the beginning.
I’m hoping for a 4 processor box (eventually) to build clusters around. The architecture is there and the heat loads should be OK.
It doesn’t matter which processor is objectively faster. What is important to Apple and Mac users is that there is now a processor that can run OS X and its applications in a way they’ve never been run before.
I’ve been saying all year that this is the “Year Of OS X”. And, I think with panther coming out that is still true. But, in a broader sense, this may be the “Year Of Apple”.
The Opteron is a bit faster than the 3.06 GHz P4. Given Intel just started shipping the 3.2 GHz processors today, the 2 GHz 970 is roughly 8 months behind both AMD and Intel in terms of performance.
The 2GHz 970 is? I don’t follow your math here, nor have you provided a timeline to show the SPEC scores of the x86 offerings 8 months ago.
I think Apple is correct in its boast that the dual 2GHz PPC970 as “The world’s fastest personal computer”.
As has already been mentioned, you’re also comparing only the raw integer/fp performance. This does not take into account the increased bus performance and superior memory architecture the 970 will be coupled with.
Furthermore, we’re talking about a processor for an OS where the majority of applications have been highly optimized for a vector unit, one whose full potential could not be realized until this time.
It will be very interesting to see the same application performance benchmarks used to show the gap between Macs and x86 run again on PPC970 systems. I would be quite surprised if the fastest x86 offerings could beat a Mac in application performance now.
Obviously you don’t have Dell SERVERS. Try a turning on a PowerEdge in your office….I had to build a wall on mine to reduce the noise…
I have a PowerEdge 1400SC right next to me, and it runs virtually silent.
Thank you, come again.
“With these new offerings, Apple is catching up with the high-end x86 offerings.”
Catching up? I would say surpassed… and by a large margin.
Had they released a single processor 1.8 as their high-end, they would have “caught up”, by the dual 2Ghz jumps WAY behond x86’s current and near-term (next 6 months) best efforts.
“Thing is, Intel is preparing a new CPU for the 3rd quarter of 2003 and it will up its clock up to 3.4 GHz around the end of the year. At that point, Apple should also be able to offer 2.4 GHz”
2.4 Ghz Dual processor 970. If x86 has a chance of catching up, it will probably be x86 is, well, no longer x86. THAT is thing thing that is and will hold back the plaform more than anything else.
“or in a year from now, Apple will still be in the same position it is today with its G4s not keeping up to the x86 offerings.”
or (more likely) IBM will release hardware based on the power 5 (980?) which will take Apple’s dramatic speed lead THAT much further. Remember, IBM announced that the Power 5 was 400% faster than the 970 hence the 980 being 400% faster than the 970. Considering the fact that IBM has said that production of Power-series derivitives was above schedule, we may see 980s for the pro line in as little as 6 months and 970s being transitioned to the low-end consumer line.
Remember, IBM announced that the Power 5 was 400% faster than the 970 hence the 980 being 400% faster than the 970.
Keep in mind that that “4 times faster than Power4” comes primarily from the introduction of SMT in the Power5. However, with SMT being “the next big thing” in processors, it would be very interesting if IBM were to release a dual core Power5-derived PPC970 successor processor that supported SMT.
Bascule,
I know this, I was joking. I’m just glad to see these machines coming out. Hopefully by spring they will have G5 powerbooks out for me to snap up.
Mooshoo,
You’re a troll. I was joking!! It was pretty obvious to. I don’t see anyone here trying to cut down apple on this. I think everyone is glad to see them getting new cpu out the door. The CPU has been a complaint of many people. It’s not people trying to find something to attack apple on, it’s simple a reason they were not going to go for an apple at the time. Now one block to people buying macs is done.
Also as others pointed out this machine is not the end all be all killer of x86 or amd64 computers. More like they are all on par with each other now. You and many like you were probably the same ones saying for years that the cpu didn’t matter with apples, they were plenty powerful bla bla who cares about how fast P4’s and Athlons are Bla bla. Now people like yourself are going to be going on and on about how much faster macs are and how you would be stupid to buy a slow x86 machine.
I could care less about these things either way. I have a nothing special athlon 2100 and run winXP mainly. I have never owned a mac and there is stuff about them i don’t like, one such problem appears to be over come monday. But I don’t attack mac’s either, within a year i will probably own one. Myself and others here just look at things rationaly. Many that come here do not, from all sides. You in your few post showed to be an extremist. I can’t say i saw a single other person trolling and such in this forum on this anouncement before you.
“This machine is not the end all be all killer of x86 or amd64 computers. More like they are all on par with each other now.”
Um, no…this announcement gives Apple a relatively significant lead. However, if we’re going to say that they are “on par” then with that reasoning, I’d have to believe that you will allow me to say that the G4s and x86 chips were “on par” with each other.
“You and many like you were probably the same ones saying for years that the cpu didn’t matter with apples, they were plenty powerful bla bla who cares about how fast P4’s and Athlons are Bla bla.”
No, I have never said that, and those that did were wrong. Motorola’s processors have caused Apple computers to be behind, but nowhere near as much as the perceived amount that was so often touted on these and many other bulletin boards.
“Now people like yourself are going to be going on and on about how much faster macs are and how you would be stupid to buy a slow x86 machine.”
Like I said, i never said such things, but your argument is very telling. I bet you were in fact one of those individuals that went around telling everyone that they should not buy a Macintosh because “they are so much slower than PCs”. Now its come back to haunt you.
“I could care less about these things either way.
I agree. I simply believe that its simply important to give credit where credit is due. Apple suffered throughout much of the 90s due to a perceived slower processor, this despite being relatively faster. Thery would have maintained that momentum had it not been for a 1.5-2 year stint where Moto screwed the platform, but thankfully, things are back on track and now with a greater public awareness about processor speed.
“Myself and others here just look at things rationaly.”
I don’t know you, nor am i familiar with your postings so i wont pass judgement on that statement, but there are a LARGE number of people on this board that have never truly looked at platform differences rationally. I know this because I have probably lurked on this board longer than most that visit it.
“You in your few post showed to be an extremist. I can’t say i saw a single other person trolling and such in this forum on this anouncement before you.”
That statement assumes that i was trolling. Rather, i was correcting the MANY trolls that I found in this thread. If you perceive the correction of a troll to be a troll, then that shows where your extremist viewpoint probably lies.
Motorola’s processors have caused Apple computers to be behind, but nowhere near as much as the perceived amount that was so often touted on these and many other bulletin boards.
Yup. I’m fed up with idiots who hype up differences of single digit framerates between games and extrapolate that towards whole systems geared at different task domains, forgetting that some people would rather throw away a near invisible performance advantage for something that works, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
… G550 from Matrox with Linux installed. Anything over 800Mhz P-III is just enough, running a P4-2.4/1GB now.
Motorola dies when Amiga dies.
I have fun playing with OSX at my computer shop for some hours on a new iMac.
But the first minute on (only) a X86-Sub-Notebook (800Mhz) with WinXP showed me how fast OSX really is: slow
Nice GUI & concept, but, sorry, to slow… 🙁
“The first minute on (only) a X86-Sub-Notebook (800Mhz) with WinXP showed me how fast OSX really is: slow”
I agree. although Apple’s laptops are exceptionally fast, there is a big perception that they are slow because they user interface can be, at times not as snappy as it could be.
Thankfully, Panther is right around the corner. Considering how dramatic Apple has improved the perceived speed with each sucessive release of OS X (UI improvements) I strongly believe that this minor issue will be resolved.
Additionally, when the 970 is incorporated in laptop hardware along with Panther, I can only believe that not only will that lack of snappyness be a thing of the past, but that it will be snappier than anything we’ve ever used.
I can’t wait. Thankfully, we wont be waiting long at all. ; )
You don’t understand architecture as well as you think. The PPC 970 bus is a point to point link between CPU and the northbridge. Memory, PCI, and AGP are multiplex at the Northbridge. It might be very possible that IBM managed to get a hold of DDR 500 RAM. It’d be expensive, but not out of the question given that generic PC466 is readily available. More likely is that the system has a dual-channel DDR400 memory bus to the northbridge, for a total of 6.4 GB/sec of memory bandwidth. The PPC 970 uses a packet-based architecture for the main bus, so I have a feeling that pairing a 400 MHz memory clock with a 500MHz bus clock might not make much of a difference. Given all this, I doubt this is a hoax. We had already heard a lot about how the PPC 970 was coming along much faster than expected, and many people speculated that IBM might hit higher than the proposed 1.8GHz in their first release. If Apple can bring out these dual 2GHz machines in the next few months, and IBM can succeed in ramping up clock speed to keep up with Intel, then there might finally be a non-x86 chip with a good price-performance ratio.
I think that Apple will really have something when they move to GCC >= 3.2. Does Panther do this? Also when GCC become better optimized for the PPC architecure.
I Would like to hear Bascule thoughts on these items.
While I think this is great news I don’t see how these machines won’t cost 3,500 and up. Hell a loaded G4 with a monitor costs about 4-5 grand !! For half that price I can build or buy a PC completely load with latest and fastest hardware and with a nice 19 inch monitor or 17 inch LCD screen along with money left over for any games or software that I could not get find OSS version of etc…
I think the move to 64 bits will be more significant than any increase in clock speed. Put a G5 Mac loaded with 8 GB of RAM next to a 3.2 GHz P4 PC with just 2 GB and suddenly gigahertz will become pretty insignificant. There are a lot of graphics professions, video editors, database programmers who would very easily choose a machine where they can run the entire project in RAM rather than having to hit the scratch disk all the time. Ever seen a 3 GHz WinXP machine choke big time on 1-2 GB Photoshop file? Happens all the time because the processor does nothing to speed up the relatively slow disk when Photoshop has to swap out stuff from RAM.
With a 970-based G5, 8 GB of RAM is just the beginning. The machines are going to sell simply because there literally will be nothing on the Wintel side that can compete with a consumer level machine loaded with 8 GB of RAM that also happens to have a fast CPU and a modern subsystem.
@Anonymous
But, will it be snappy?
Job is a master at marketing, probably you failed to see this, or that you don’t know what’s marketing, but he is an master. Take BMW for example – they are masters at marketing, yet yearly their profits increase while market share reduces. This is what happens when you join the high end niche while low end players are opening up new markets.
Super profitable, but not much market share in that. Which I prefer – having a market share that grows (e.g. Gateway) and having close to zero profit? Or having a market share that shrinks but tonnes of profit? the later sounds better.
http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-05
Those benchmarks are probably fake. Check out the MacRumors thread here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=26212
The gist of it is that:
A) The P4 results seem to be directly copied from another site.
B) The dual process Bryce benchmarks show an improvement over the single processor case, but Bryce does’t take advantage of SMP.
A) MacBidoulle later admitted that their source got the P4 results directly from that other site
B) A beta version of Bryce was used that supported SMP
This was all discussed in the thread if you had bothered to read all of it.
But no one should spend too much time analyzing rumored pre-release benchmarks anyway
🙂
While I think this is great news I don’t see how these machines won’t cost 3,500 and up. Hell a loaded G4 with a monitor costs about 4-5 grand !! For half that price I can build or buy a PC completely load with latest and fastest hardware and with a nice 19 inch monitor or 17 inch LCD screen along with money left over for any games or software that I could not get find OSS version of etc…
You should start your own business. A loaded Dell costs about $4000 (2 GB Ram, 120 GB HD) without a monitor.
Right now, in fact. It’s called a loaded Dual 1.25 with a third party monitor. All you have to do is NOT buy it from the Apple Store. The fact that the Power Mac systems use pretty much the same expansion hardware (IDE, DDR SDRAM, PCI etc), means that you can customize your Mac with parts from any CompUSA, Fry’s, etc. And please don’t complain that you wouldn’t get a digital Apple display for that price, because I can assure you that you won’t be getting a digital panel with that Dell, either. I love when people don’t bother to do enough research before they post stupid sh*t, but then again, who else would I laugh at?
Better yet, why do these bloody idiots think they need to get a PowerMac for their pathetic little computer experience?
Lets learn and repeat:
1) eMacs and iMacs for end users
2) PowerMacs for professionals/users who require the extra kick for their high end, number crunching work like real time video editing
Please can people learn these concepts. As for people who say, “ooooo, but I can’t upgrade an iMac/eMac”, well sonny, you’re in the small 5% of users who actually open their case and upgrade. 95% of people may at the very max upgrade their memory but that is it. As for speed, most users I come accross don’t complain about speed, they see it as just another fact of life.
As for the extra .0000000001 second you may save, what were you going to do with it anyway?
“Please can people learn these concepts. As for people who say, “ooooo, but I can’t upgrade an iMac/eMac”, well sonny, you’re in the small 5% of users who actually open their case and upgrade. 95% of people may at the very max upgrade their memory but that is it. As for speed, most users I come accross don’t complain about speed, they see it as just another fact of life.
As for the extra .0000000001 second you may save, what were you going to do with it anyway?”
A fast machine doesn’t just save fractions of seconds it can save hours. Try ripping a DVD to DivX on a 800Mhz P3 and again on a 3GHz P4. You won’t save just 0.0001 seconds – more like half a day. The point is that your computer is practically unusable during the rip as the CPU is 100% utilised. So you have a choice of ripping overnight or not using your machine while the task is being peformed.
An eMac is simply unsuitable for many purposes that many ordinary home users wants,such as editing home movies and playing high end 3D games.
I always get a kick out of PC people whoc complain that Macs are WAY too expensive (or some other more extreme hyperbole). “I can build a loaded pc for half the price!!!!”
Yeah whatever. Show me your facts. What features are you leaving out that the mac has? (e.g. the top notch digital lcd which is a good chunk of the loaded mac’s price) I’ve seen comparison after comparison, point by point and a name brand PC loaded to the extent possible to match what the mac has (FW 800, gigabit ethernet, superdrive, etc, etc) and price is always approximately the same (w/in 10%). Sometimes a little cheaper, sometimes a little more expensive.
Yes, you can BUILD YOUR OWN, but you don’t need to build a mac, and you have much fewer problems with one than a build your own pc (and someone else will back it up). Obviously, the overwhelming majority of computer users don’t build their own.
Yes, you can get more variety of options from pcs, because there are that many more companies making them. With a mac, you can customize it to an extent, but obviously not to the same extent as the hundreds of pc companies offer…. But then Apple and apple dealers are generally far more motivated to make their customers happy than the vast majority of pc companies. (not many gateway zealots out there….pcs are commodities).
And of course, with a mac you get a rock solid, stable, and secure system that is easier to work with, is more standards compliant, and doesn’t require constant vigilance to avoid viruses knocking it down.
Yes, some people would happily pay 10% for that piece of mind and user experience. Some would rather save the 10% and claim it’s 50% without bothering to look.
I can get a PC built to order in 1-2 hrs to any specification I want for the price of the parts alone from a number of local PC dealers. If something goes wrong I know I can get it repaired the same day (or fix it myself).
Why would anyone buy a Dell or any other branded PC. They are all cheap, nasty and non-standard.
A good clone PC is FAR BETTER than any any brand name computer including Mac. Why? Because a good clone uses high quality branded parts like Corsair RAM, Asus motherboards and Sony CRTs. Apple (and Dell, Compaq) components are inexpensive generic parts sourced in China.
I don’t know what the Mac dealership situation is like in the US but in Australia it is pathetic. Tiny stores with little stock and arrogant staff. In my home state of Queensland we have about 6 Apple centres in a geographical area the size of the entire US South West.
Apple prices are also ludicrous (20-30%) higher than the US.
PC clones are also very cheap here because many of the computer stores are owned by Chinese speakers who source components directly from Asia.
Outside the US Macs are little more than expensive novelties.
I admire people who have built their own PC’s. That is something I really want to try doing sometime. But, of course, most people can’t even imagine doing that. So, branded computers hold sway, although white box sales are huge too.
It seems we are heading into a new phase of personal computing: 64 bit processors, tremendously fast front side buses and RAM, hypertransport, etc. These are all very exciting things. And whether it’s Mac or Dell or build-your-own, I think it’s going to be very exciting.
Who cares if can build or buy a cheap chop shop computer, are those chinese speakers going to give you good service or quality software in the deal (non pirated software)? in the and you get what you pay for.
I know how to fix and replace parts on pc since I installed it to begin with and put it all together. As the person above stated in the original $2500 post. A person who rolls their own pc can pick and choose which quality parts to use with ease and rest assured that they got what they wanted in the end. It’s as simple as going to http://www.pricewatch.com or going to your local PC hardware shop and telling them what you want. As for software that is not an issue with me or most people who roll their own. I usually use what I have on my previous machines already and if I need an updated version of a piece of comercial software then I buy it with the cash left over from not wasting my money on a $5,000 Mac.
Now as far as the mom and pop stores. Well if they want to stay around for the long haul they are going to provide you with good service and quality parts. In my experience these stores usually are a lot better at customer service then the impersonal relationship you get at big name brand stores like CompUSA, Fry’s or from online PC dealers like DELL, HP, etc… They cannot afford to have a bad rep if they are a mom and pop store and thus in my own experience they go the extra mile to please you in most cases, because a good rep means a lot for them and a lot money coming in the door.
I would also like to mention that that they usually do not and cannot have the luxury of having silly return policies like like the stores mentioned above. If something does not work then for me it’s no problem returning it and getting a new part or exchanging that part for another item of equal value with this stores . Of course this is only my experince but I have had years of experince buying my own parts and building my own PC’s. Other peoples experince my vary but for me I know where, when, how and why to spend my money when it comes to moving up to a new computer.
This is not relevant. Apple isn’t competing for the money of people wanting to build their own.
The time needed to research, put together, install, troubleshoot, etc. is ignored. You need to do none of this for a mac or a dell box. If your time is worthless, then yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to build your own. If your time is worth a reasonable amount, then no.
That of course, and the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of computer users don’t WANT to spend all that effort. They’d rather get a known quantity. Nothing wrong with building your own, but it’s not relevant. Those people won’t buy a dell box either. There are a lot of advantages to buying a name brand, and some for building your own, but they are different markets.
Oh, and you are insane if you think it’s as simple as ” a GOOD mom and pop will stick around. Garbage. They may, they may not. One person may be happy with them, another may not (perhaps without reason). Most of these places have decent service, but most die. It’s a cut throat business. Oh….and most such places don’t tend to sell their stuff at the cost of the parts (wonder why THAT is???)….so you’re back to the original point anyway.
>>>>>>”This is not relevant. Apple isn’t competing for the money of people wanting to build their own.”<<<<<<
Thats why Apple will always remain a niche market.
>>>>>”The time needed to research, put together, install, troubleshoot, etc. is ignored. You need to do none of this for a mac or a dell box. If your time is worthless, then yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to build your own. If your time is worth a reasonable amount, then no.”<<<<<<
LoL – It’s not worthless if you enjoy doing it. I’d bet you think building custom racing cars or motorcycles is worthless too ! Most people like me who build our own PC’s find enjoyment in building and adding in high quality parts WE want. Then seeing the final product boot up to BIOS screen and loading in the OS of our choosing is something that fills us with joy and the feeling of accomplishment also awesome. Not to mention the joy of not over paying for cheap parts or other stuff we don’t need or want.
>>>>>>”That of course, and the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of computer users don’t WANT to spend all that effort. They’d rather get a known quantity. Nothing wrong with building your own, but it’s not relevant. Those people won’t buy a dell box either. There are a lot of advantages to buying a name brand, and some for building your own, but they are different markets.”<<<<<<<<
Sure if you are not very skilled in computer knowledge and do not know the differrence between USB 1 and a USB 2 then I would guess that a DELL PC vendor is the way to go. Yet even there you still can get a better deal then what Apple could ever provide. In terms of speed and preformance and including overall price PC’s have Mac’s beat hands down.
>>>>>Oh, and you are insane if you think it’s as simple as ” a GOOD mom and pop will stick around. Garbage. They may, they may not. One person may be happy with them, another may not (perhaps without reason). Most of these places have decent service, but most die. It’s a cut throat business. Oh….and most such places don’t tend to sell their stuff at the cost of the parts (wonder why THAT is???)….so you’re back to the original point anyway.<<<<<<
LoL – Love how you took that out of context. I was using my own experince in dealing with Mom and Pop stores. Other experince may vary but I have a good network of places that I can shop at instead of for example FRY’s. In fact anyone who has shopped at FRY’s knows what am talking about.
Again, you miss the point. If you LIKE building your own, and want to do it, good for you! That’s not the market any of these companies is in. Dell, HP, Apple, etc. Hardly niche markets…so no, your statement “that’s why apple will always be a niche market” is idiotic. There may be other reasons, but that’s not one of them. The roll your own market will always be a niche market.
Joe (or Josephine) Blow (who isn’t in love with building his own machine) is not going to do it. HIS time (to him) is better spent doing other things. What is unclear about this? If you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see I did NOT say that someone who build’s his own machine is worthless, I said simply comparing the cost of the parts to justify your “Mac’s are twice as expensive” argument is ludicrous.
Many people don’t feel they can trust a mom and pop, either because they don’t know it’ll be around next week, or because they move a lot, and it’s much easier to find a local dealer for a major brand than to get back to the original mom and pop. When you add the fact that mom and pop’s are not generally significantly cheaper (because they, of couse, like to be able to be paid for the work they do….unlike the build your own for the love of it types). Thus, many people buy name brands.
Now back to the show. Perhaps you actually can back up your statement that dells are much cheaper (or other brands) rather than just baldly saying so?
If you look at my original post, you’ll see that I was pointing out how feature for feature most of these comparisons end up in the same ballpark. Again, as I said, I think it’s funny the way pc people make bald statements like PCs are half the price….often pricing parts only, without adding the value of the time and effort. Show me how a dell with the same feature set is SOOOO much cheaper.
In Australia the ‘roll your own’ PC rules. Nearly every suburb has several small PC builders. Pirated software is almost non-existant – a few high profile court cases have eliminated any temptation for PC shops to sell pirated software.
Even if the PC builder goes out of business it is almost irrelevant as any technician can repair any desktop PC. The components have a manufacturers warranty.
Why do you need to do extensive research? You simply tell the salesperson your needs and budget and they will recommend a suitable preconfigured system.
In Australia you will rarely see a modern Mac outside a graphics shop. You also will rarely see a Dell, Compaq or HP outside a big accounting firm.
Can’t speak for OZ, though it seems odd that it would be that different. If you buy a custom built PC at Ed’s Computer Shop, then move 100 km away, and take to Eunice’s PC store, Eunice will diagnose and replace the components for free? Strange business model. Dell and Apple will of course, during the warranty period.
Whether the components are under warranty or not doesn’t make that much difference. Some one must figure out what is wrong (which is generally much more difficulty on PCs, especially on build your own PCs as every will point a finger at someone else).
There is nothing wrong with build your own pcs. Maybe they make more sense in Australia than anywhere else due to economies of scale, the sheer distances involved, etc. I dunno. But regardless, people that want these things are not going to buy any name brand pc. They are not the market that apple, dell, etc. are after. You are comparing apples to…er….nevermind.