Apple Rumors - WWDC Thread - Panther/G5 (1 Viewer)

[Eric_E]

So what do you guys think of the design of the G5? I personally don't like it at all. I really liked the graceful lines of the different versions of the G4 but I think the G5 is just ugly... so plain looking. It looks okay in profile but the front view is just... blah. :frowning:

 

[Michael*K]

I'm not fond of the case. The mesh makes it look like it morphed from the lint filter in my clothes dryer. Ultimately though I could care less what it looks like if it performs well under the hood.

 

[Joseph S]

I didn't like the case at first, but after watching the 5 minute puff piece I found it looks much better than those photos. My wish would be for an 8600 or 9600 sized case holding up to 4 opticals and 5 HD or the 9 HDs I had in my 8600. Then again, I like these hotswapable Granite Digital firewire enclosures. The X Serve is too loud for my purposes.

As for the G5 speed, the only reason people are making this fuss is because they know it's equivalent or better to what is available on the PC side and for some unknown reason they take it personally. My dual G4 will easily serve someone well for probably 3.5 more years+ of crashless computer use for a total of 6.5-7 years.

The G5 will serve almost anyone for 7 more. It used to be that a new computer was required every 2 years, now we're now getting to the point that chip upgrades are not needed unless you want to push the envelope and even that takes 4 years for the most part. I don't care if it is faster than the top x86 chip, I care that it is more than up to the task I need it for and that it runs OS X. (We'll maybe not until Rev. 2)

 

[Patrick Larkin]

MacSlash dubbed the G5 the "Cheese Grater."

I'm reserving judgement until we get a few in and I take a look. I'm glad they retained the handles. I have 8 G4's used for various tasks at work and the handles make it really easy to swap machines around. I know 'll miss the swinging door of the G4. It was the best designed case I have ever seen.

 

[EdR]

I had a similar reaction initially, I thought it was ugly. But after seeing close-up shots, I feel the opposite. I like all the attention to detail, the machined look. I do think it was a bad idea to only allow a single CDR/DVD space, but it looks like it will be easy to stack on top of this case.

I won't really know about it until I see it in person, but my sense from looking at the photos is that it will be impressive.

BTW, I'm posting this from the Panther preview, and it's very, very nice. A leap in usability, noticeably quicker in many areas.

 

[Christian Behrens]

Vince said:

(and Gates said we'd never need more than 64k of ram)

Actually, he said 640k of ram. Last time I checked, he did NOT have his hands in the C-64

But I agree with the point made earlier: machines made these days have plenty of power for the average user. Granted, those G5s are NOT for the average user, but a lot of people will want one, even though they really don't need that much power.

For the stuff I do at home with my trusty old Pismo, it does the job admirably, thank you very much. Plenty of RAM will do that. Heck, that airport card in it with it's "low" bandwidth couldn't get filled by my DSL connection anyway.

-Christian

 

[Camp]

I do think it was a bad idea to only allow a single CDR/DVD space, but it looks like it will be easy to stack on top of this case.

My guess is this was done because FireWire 800 optical writers will perform just as well.

 

[Ted Todorov]

My guess is this was done because FireWire 800 optical writers will perform just as well.

Frankly I think that FW 400 burners will perform as well too, but so what? The one thing that keeps me from being upset that I have a DP 1.2Ghz G4, is my dual optical drives (and the ability to have up to 4 HDs in the case). There are plenty of great reasons to have multiple disks --
disk to disk backups, dual or more boot (Jaguar/ D.P. Panther / Linux), etc.

My desk is WAY too cluttered as is. I hope that by the time they get to the 3 to 4 Ghz G5, Jobs changes his mind about the inards of the new case...

Ted

 

[MikeAlletto]

The G5 merely brought Apple up to parity levels.

If they are on the same level now as other PC makers then why are they still charging a premium price? These new G5 machines may be really fast and really nice and all but geez, 2 grand for entry level. I mean who is apples prime market these days? It can't be college kids, they don't have that kind of cash. Schools are moving away from them because of cost. Businesses don't want to migrate away from windows because of compatibility fears. Is it still just marketing, video and sound? Every few 6 months or so they revamp their hardware will all this hoopla and show and yet don't change their prices to compete with the other companies. You could say "well you get OSX". Well ok. Fine. Is OSX worth a $500 or so premium? I'd say no. You could say you get a stylish box. If it meant I could only pay 1 grand for a middle level g5 then they can keep the stylish box. My computer is to be used, not to be on display. I used a mac all through high school and college and for 2 years outside of college before I got tired of paying jacked up prices for mac stuff so its not like I never used it (mac classic, centris 650, power computer powertower 180e).

I'm not meaning to egg people on, I'm really curious as to who these macs are being marketed to. Everyone gets caught up in the Jobs reality distortion field for the weeks up to and surrounding the event. But I mean is a new bare bones G5 really worth 2 grand compared to what 2 grand can buy you in the windows pc arena?

Apple will be around for ever. They'll continue to make niche products and manage to sell enough to stay around and innovate, but the distorted reality of some mac people these days is really strange.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Every few 6 months or so they revamp their hardware will all this hoopla and show and yet don't change their prices to compete with the other companies.

The Mac 128K went for $2,500. The early color Macs went for something like $5,000 even WITH discounts; one of them listed for $10,000. Are you seriously going to argue that a $2,000 G5 isn't any cheaper than a $5,000 Mac IIci?

 

[MikeAlletto]

The Mac 128K went for $2,500. The early color Macs went for something like $5,000 even WITH discounts; one of them listed for $10,000. Are you seriously going to argue that a $2,000 G5 isn't any cheaper than a $5,000 Mac IIci?

No but I will argue that when the G4's came out they were around the exact same price as a base G5 meanwhile comparably spec'd windows based pc's were much cheaper. The very early macs were expensive for a very good reason. Higher res graphics. Better OS. Much better sound. SCSI. Those were reasons to pay the premium back then, but now with everyone using IDE (or sata), everyone basically has the same sound, same graphics abilities, same mb designs (yeah yeah yeah, chipsets are different but basics are all the same across platforms), you would think that price would also be the same. Which, no matter how you try and reason it, they aren't.

I have been thinking for years that apple should get out of the hardware business. Design mb designs and let clones back in. There is a huge market for it. People bought power computing machines when they were available and then Jobs came in and shut the door. They should port OSX to run on intel/amd hardware also. There are millions of people who would love to run OSX but don't want to pay the premium for the mac hardware to do so. When properly planned out people are extremely surprised at how much PC you can get for around $1000.

But who knows...thats just my opinions. This isn't doom and gloom...like I said before Apple isn't going anywhere. I would love to buy a middle of the line G5 but not at those prices. I would love to buy an apple powerbook, but not at those prices. So again I say why the excitement? Yeah new hardware is always exciting the day it comes out but after the distortion field disappears and people can sit down and look at all the pages it really doesn't look like much. I think the only thing that is at all cool about the new G5 machines is the new processor, but its not battle tested so it'll be interesting to see how well it really performs once people start using it.

 

[gregstaten]

Mike - you hit on something there in your second to last paragraph that bears noting. I used to be a huge Mac fanatic. Now I'm pure PC. Over the years (starting with a Mac 128 purchased on Day 1, 1984) I owned five different Macs. The last Mac I purchased was from Power Computing. I think I went with the PowerTowerPro because I wanted to support the growth of the Mac market through clones -- I believed the hype. And, Power Computing was staffed with a bunch of very talented people - many of whom were ex-Apple. (Of course, the fact they were a Texas company didn't hurt either!)

When Apple closed the doors on the clones refused to support them in future OS releases and, in essence, called me a traitor for buying one in the first place, I knew my days as an Apple supporter and purchaser were numbered. Sure enough, when the time came to upgrade, I didn't look at Macs - I looked to Windows. I haven't looked back.

-greg

 

[Ted Todorov]

Yeah gigabit is nice but then again I can build a pc based on the new intel chipsets with gigabit ethernet and still come out at a grand total.

It never fails -- when trying to argue that PCs are cheaper, people start comparing homebrew PCs to Apples. Show me a Dell which can match every single feature of a G5 Mac for less money and then we'll talk. Not likely -- when Jobs was doing his benchmark comparisons, at the top end he was up against a dual processor machine which Dell was selling for over $4000, more than $1000 over the Mac price.

I won't even go into the greater usability and longer life of Macs. Yes, Apple does not compete at the low end market, but it is a myth that it's machines are overpriced. The PC industry has yet to produce anything that comes close to the flat panel iMac in terms of design and screen ergonomics. Apple's PowerBooks are consistently superior to their PC equivalent.

Unless you can only afford a sub $500 machine, the real choice being made here is between Mac OS X and Windows. Many people choose Windows for legitimate reasons -- they are gamers, they need good small business accounting software, they will be ostracized by their super conservative office for not using a windows machine. But for the most part it is a question of following the masses and not asking too many questions.

My main reason for buying Macs is that I firmly believe that time is money. At home I don't have an IT department to fix my PC the way I do at work, so I use a computer that doesn't get incapacitated by viruses or start crashing twice a day, or run applications that are very time consuming to learn or otherwise interfere with my ability to use it as a tool to get something done. The Mac's beautiful design adds to my enjoyment having it in my home and working on it.

Ted

 

[Ted Todorov]

When Apple closed the doors on the clones refused to support them in future OS releases and, in essence, called me a traitor for buying one in the first place, I knew my days as an Apple supporter and purchaser were numbered. Sure enough, when the time came to upgrade, I didn't look at Macs - I looked to Windows. I haven't looked back.

If Apple (read Steve Jobs) hadn't pulled the plug on the clones they would be out of business right now, and no matter how much you wanted to buy another MacOS machine, you couldn't. It amazes me that the same long debunked arguments keep getting repeated.

Yes, if Apple had decided to become a software company back in 85 - 86 and encourage clones, they could have been today's Microsoft, but by the time they started cloning it was way too late -- the clones did nothing to expand market share, they just cannibalized the high end, and not pulling the plug would have been suicide (not that Gil Amelio didn't almost succeed in running Apple into the ground).

Ted

 

[Scott H]

Mike Alletto,

This is not antagonistic, but a sincere response to your asserted point of cost.

Show us a PC configured roughly equal to the G5 DP machine for equal or less than $3000 from any consumer level or pro workstation maker. I don't think you can. Note that there is no applicable analogy to build-your-own systems, so, as I said, from a maker.

Sans Serial ATA and Firewire, the Boxx Dual Opteron Model 240 is hardly comparable, and is $3100. Your not going to find a lot of 64-bit DP offerings near this price point right now.

Additionally, I think countless people would and do view the software suite that is part and parcel of using OS X these days as part of the whole package that you get for your dollar with current Apple hardware - X, Safari, Mail, iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, et al. Then of course there's the connectivity and functionality which is definitely a cost issue for many of us, and why we only use OS X or Linux distros, but that's another thread

 

[gregstaten]

Sigh... Ted, I have no problem with the *fact* that Apple pulled the plug on the clone manufacturers. What irked me was how they treated the *purchasers* of clone systems. Hell, the PowerMac 8100 I had before I purchased the PowerTowerPro was supported longer than the PowerTower!

Apple basically said, "screw you, you traitor." And I answered, "adios jerks."

-greg

 

[Camp]

Go configure a serious gaming PC at the retailer of your choice. That's going to cost you $4k and up. Dell's new gaming systems start at $1900...just for kicks I configured one to similar feature set as the G5 and it came to $2900. Granted, the hardware doesn't match up identically but it's pretty close.

The only real difference is the Dell actually has games available to play

 

[Scott H]

just for kicks I configured one to similar feature set as the G5 and it came to $2900.

How similar could it be? Dell offers no consumer machines with dual processors (much less 64-bit).

To get into a Dell dual proc machine you have to purchase a Precision Workstation. I just configured one to be remotely similar (but using only Xeon 2GHz procs and no Serial ATA HD) and the price on the webpage is $4501.

Also, I think the gaming analogies are misdirected. I've never personally met anyone who bought a Mac for games, no matter the quality titles available.

 

[Camp]

Also, I think the gaming analogies are misdirected. I've never personally met anyone who bought a Mac for games, no matter the quality titles available.

I don't think you're getting the analogy I'm making.

What consumer grade PCs are the most powerful? Gaming PCs.

The decision to compare it to a gaming PC is only to put the best and fastest PC up against the G5 line. It has nothing to do with actual games. The prices are a bit more in line when you compare a gaming PC rather than a $1200 made-for-grandma-to-surf-the-internet HP PC.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Only one of the G5's is a dual processor configuration. Who says the competitor needs to be a dualy? We're talking pricing here, not performance.

If we are not talking performance, Apple is selling G4 PowerMacs for $1299. Let me repeat:

1) Apple does not compete at the low end.

2) When doing a feature for feature comparison Apples are not more expensive (and often quite a bit less expensive) than brand name PCs.

Ted