[ib2yz4u2c]

The fine people at MacPrices made me aware of Apple "quietly" dropping the $1499 1.8 GHz G5 single-processor PowerMac. I'm sad to see it go... but anxious to see what may replace it. Or will it be replaced? Now the lowest price on a PowerMac is $1999, however, it is an awesome machine for those who have the cha-ching.

The Apple Store Online

[schokid02]

Here's a thought. The top end iMac is 1799. That would seem to complete the price continuum for the desktop lineups, all the way from 499 to 2999. Mac Mini starts at 499, eMac at 799, iMac at 1299, and Power Mac at 1999. Seems like they've covered all the price options in between.

[Nobody]

not sure if it is a good or bad thing.
i am on my second DP model. i did see a boost in performance from my old single processor model, but hear is the funny part. my first DP was a 533; when i got my G4 PB single processor 1 gig, it was still a good deal faster than the DP 533, at least at booting and many of the tings i did. i don't think we truely tap the DP potential.
now i just really went big time and bought the top of the line G5 2.7. Haven't done top of the line since the 7200. i'm still trying to migrate my stuff over and work out the kinks (now just speach command issue-see post). the G5 seems faster, but i don't know if it will make that much differnce for me. i really just wanted the liquid cooled model for noise issues. i heard the other G5s were pretty load.
by the way the G5 most be the kid brother of R2D2 cause it stand about 4" taller and 2" longer and maybe 1" wider than the G4.
i think covering all the price ranges is a good thing; that way you get a better shot at the market. I don't think most people need the high end model. i use if for my buisness..... i do believe they were designed for buisness machines.
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[schokid02]

Exactly. Apple has covered their market quite well.
I've got several single and dual G4s here at work and I find there is a substantial difference in speed. When I was transfering some backups from CD to DVD, I first copied the CDs to the hard drive to then burn. Just copying a full CD (~700MB) took a couple of minutes on a dual 500MHz G4. On a single 933MHz G4 it took about 5 minutes. On a dual 1GHz G4 it took about a minute. Don't take these figures as benchmarks, because I'm using the estimated time--I didn't actually clock it. But I would make a strong case for DP machines being much, much faster than SP models.

[mdawson]

Apple has covered their desktop line well in terms of the price spread but there is still a gaping hole in terms of user types. The consumer desktop line if fully covered from the entry-level Mac mini to the mid-level eMac and high-end iMac. On the professional front the choices are rather limited to a tower, a tower or a tower.
I have posted several times on the MacCentral forums on this point and there are other pro users that have agreed with me that Apple is sorely lacking in the desktop/small-form factor pro system. There are a number of Wintel OEMs that create slightly larger than a tissue box PCs that are powerful enough to satisfy the needs of pro users, but no such Mac. There has not been an expandable PowerMac in the desktop line since the days of the beige G3.
The G4 Cube had the pro line moniker of PowerMac, but aside from sharing the same CPU as the G4 mini towersrecall that the iMac was still a G3 system when the Cube was first introducedthe G4 Cube lacked the types of features that would have truly made it a professional system. The Cube had the processing power, but it truly lacked in the expandability department. The graphics card used a standard AGP slot, but the size of the Cube required a special graphics card. Cube owners have creatively found ways to add more advanced cards than the original Apple offerings in their Cubes but ultimately, Apple did not intend for people to swap out the GPU in the Cube. Also, without at least one PCI slot, the Cube was limited in terms of hardware upgrades.
It is a simple matter of fact that the need for processing power does not translate into the need for extensive expansion capabilities, though the option to do so should be present. Apparently the G5 ran so hot that creating a desktop/SFF PowerMac G5 was a challenge. I find that reasoning a little flawed though, as Apple did mange to get the G5 into the new line of iMacs. A desktop Mac with dimensions of approximately 8x10x12 (whd) would have far more internal volume than a G5 iMac and enough room for the expansion options the G4 Cube lacked. The key here is that such a system would take up little desktop space, provide some degree of hardware expansionAGP slot, at least one PCI-X slot and easy access to internal drives and RAMand still provide the power user with the processing power provided by the full-sized tower systems.
With the switch to Intel processors we shall see what happens.

[Nobody]

it is good to know that in real life they are faster. As much as i read my Macworld and look at tests. they always seem to use programs i never use. i am not a "gamer" and i don't use some of the high end programs either.
I do use excel, Powerpoint, Canvas and they are my workhorses. i do note that i can do more and have more running at the same time with the faster machines. I also noted that graphic rendering was quicker, but i couldn't tell you iv it was 5.3 sec or 3.5 sec. to me thats fast. i still remember when it would take a minute.
i think your tests are more realistic. i do bur CDs and use retrospect to backup to CD. i noticed that now it takes 14 CDs to back up and takes hours to do it, so needless to say it happens very infrequently. that was under the G4 DP 533, we will see how it is under the G5 DP 2.7 when i do it. the media will change to DVD too which should cut down on the number of disks too. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Nobody]

very well stated. As a note on size. My new G5 shocked me when i took it out of the box. My wife was joking with me about the size of the box and asked if i had ordered R2D2. I said, yes and C3PO is coming next week. i assumed it was mainly the packing and the other things that come with it like the keyboard.
I could not believe my i-eyes when i opened the thing up a couple of days later to start the transfer over. Compared to my G4, which i thougth was big, thing stands about 4" taller, 1 " wider and about 2" longer. it is the biggest computer i have seen since the old main frames.
What i don't under stand is why? my local just purchased a computer for the officers to use and it is roughly the same in expandability and so on, smaller int HD and it is about 1/3 the size smaller. i wouldn't put this on my desk if my life depended on it; it might collapse the desk with the weight of the metal housing.

[kerby74]

On the single processor issue... What are people's thoughts on how this will work out with the Intel switch? Will the Power Mac's with say 3.6 GHz Pentiums and the like be single processor or will we see the DP systems in that configuation? A DP of possibly 4.0 GHz by the time Apple gets these to market would be truly an awesome machine!

[schokid02]

mdawson: I'm with you fully on the lack of expandability of the desktop macs. I gave a couple rants on USB and PCI in a couple other posts not too long ago. To sum up, I was shocked at how Apple touted USB in its early days, saying you could use hundreds of items at once, and how now they offer too few ports for everyday use. Also, I've got an old Motorola G3 sitting at home that has 9 PCI slots. The G4s dropped down to a 5 max, and now you're getting about 2 usable slots on the G5s. It is truly ridiculous. I guess the pro lineup could benefit from a more expandable computer, but I think the price ranges are covered for the pro lineup. A pro user shouldn't be upset at paying $2000 for the entry level G5.
on to kerby74's question: I really hope that the switch to Intel processors will allow for a great increase in speed across the entire mac lineup. I don't see why Apple would stop it's migration to multiprocessor machines, so I expect that the first models will be atleast dual-3.0GH machines. If they can't reach the 3GHz mark then Apple would look ridiculous, especially since Jobs already had that as his goal for way back when. I think by the time they are ready to ship we'll have dual-4.0 options, but if it's not atleast dual-3.0 then I think Apple will have a riot on it's hands.

[ib2yz4u2c]

Well, as a recent graduate aiming to become a part-time freelance graphic designer at home, price is a big selling point for me. No, I don't necessarily want a computer that can make Eggs Benedict for me in the morning, I'm just hoping this Intel switch will bring the possibility of an affordable, expandable desktop that won't take up excessive space above or below the desk.
I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting a professional-caliber, iMac-like machine with the ability to [easily] upgrade such things as the RAM, hard drive, optical drive and graphics card, for a price in the $1000-1500 range. But then again, it's easy to want things, a bit harder to produce them.
However, I am anticipating a notable drop in price with Apple's Intel conversion, and that, more than performance hikes, makes me excited. With that, the PowerMac's price will drop to a more comfortable level where someone in my situation will be able to afford it and a decent monitor.

[VeggieBeefcake]

I say it now with certainty; Apple will NOT be using Pentium 4's in their desktop. They will use a more efficient variant of their current P-M processors. These CPUs will NOT have high clock speeds (no where near 4 ghz) but will very likely be dual core (two cpu cores per die). Most importantly, these cpus will be quite a bit faster than the G5.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

I'm with you fully on the lack of expandability of the desktop macs. I gave a couple rants on USB and PCI in a couple other posts not too long ago. To sum up, I was shocked at how Apple touted USB in its early days, saying you could use hundreds of items at once, and how now they offer too few ports for everyday use. Also, I've got an old Motorola G3 sitting at home that has 9 PCI slots. The G4s dropped down to a 5 max, and now you're getting about 2 usable slots on the G5s. It is truly ridiculous. I guess the pro lineup could benefit from a more expandable computer, but I think the price ranges are covered for the pro lineup. A pro user shouldn't be upset at paying $2000 for the entry level G5.

---

Apple definitely lacks in the USB ports area. Of course, if one buys a PowerMac G5 and an Apple Display, they will have 6 open ports available to them (1 USB 2.0 on the front, 1 USB 2.0 on the back, two USB 2.0 via the display attached to the second USB port on the rear of the computer, and 2 USB 1.1 ports on the keyboard). Why Apple has not upgraded the USB ports on the keyboard to USB 2.0 is beyond me especially now that USB flash drives are becoming commonplace and the keyboard ports are conveniently accessible.
In terms of PCI, I remember the days when Mac had fields of expansion slots internally, but currently that is unnecessary. Unlike Wintel systems, Macs have many hardware features built-in thus relegating the PCI slots almost (strictly) as a means to attach exotic hardware. We have four Gateway towers in this lab that each have 7 PCU slots. The thing is the average PC needs this many slots because things such as audio in/out, gigabit Ethernet, etc., are not standard features on most PC motherboards. Remember that most PC OEM buy prefabricated motherboards, slap them in a generic beige or black box, add a little plastic faade to give the system a branded look and then slap on a label with their companys name. Depending on the configuration at time of purchase, not too many of the PCI slots will be left free.
Macs typically adopt new technologies faster than their PC counterparts and as Apple designs and manufactures its own motherboards, they have the ability to add interfaces and ports as they wish. This is why the need for a plethora of PCI slots has become less of an issue for the Mac. I work in an instrumentation lab, and I can attest that having 7 PCI slots is overkill. The three PCI-X slots in the PowerMacs is enough for the vast majority of power users that have above average expansion/custom interfacing needs and for those pro users that are less demanding in that area, a smaller Mac, at least one just in case PCI-X slot will typically suffice.
As to the prices of the PowerMacs, I have no complaints. As you stated, one should not have issue with a full-sized professional tower system starting at $2000.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

However, I am anticipating a notable drop in price with Apple's Intel conversion, and that, more than performance hikes, makes me excited. With that, the PowerMac's price will drop to a more comfortable level where someone in my situation will be able to afford it and a decent monitor.

---

It is unlikely that the switch to Intel processors will have any real impact on the price of Macs. It is well documented that Intels CPUs are substantially more expensive than PowerPC processors. Aside from that the bulk of the price of the Mac comes from the R&D that Mac sales support. Apple designs and builds its own motherboards and there is no reason to believe that they will discontinue doing so. Apple designed the Mac OS and pays an army of software engineers to keep it current. Again, this is unlikely to change. Lastly, Apple developed and continues to maintain much of the pre-bundled software that comes with every Mac. These apps have been lauded by both the Mac and PC press as being orders of magnitude better than other pre-installed offerings; read: that which comes with any given Wintel PC.
As long as the Mac is and has everything associated with it that makes it a Mac, it will have a price premium over Wintel systems regardless of what CPU is at its heart. HP, Gateway, Dell, et al, do not have these overhead expenditures and they build machines from prefab parts. This is why they can offer dirt cheap computers, but unlike Apple they cannot offer a seamless interaction between the hardware and the OS.

[ib2yz4u2c]

Yeah, I guess you are right. Maybe I should have said "hope for" rather than "anticipate." To have a computer that is both spectacular AND inexpensive is only worth hoping for.
By the way, I had a dream last night that I bought an Apple iMac G5 from the Home Shopping Network /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif... shudders Let's pray Apple never even thinks about selling on QVC/HSN in real life...