Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: mac
That’s…disappointing.
Apple's high-end hardware is essentially stagnant--again.
When rumors of 2.7 GHz Power Macs first hit, there was some speculation that they would be the dual-core PowerPC 970 MP. We all know by now that wasn’t what happened. Instead we get a rather disappointing, weak 200 MHz speed bump. In a year. With essentially the same G5 chip as before. And the low-end G5 still has a relatively weak graphics card, a throttled-back system bus, and a meager 256 MB of RAM. Come on now, Apple! RAM is cheap! Another 256 MB stick isn’t going to break the bank! You can find PCs out there that cost half the price with twice the RAM. And the Power Mac is a pro machine? I know none of us are going to trade in our Macs over this (after all, the deep hardware-OS integration found on the Mac is nonexistent on a Windows PC), but it is still absurd. The $1499 PowerBook comes with 512 MB; why doesn’t the entry-level PowerMac? I don’t get it. On top of all this, the slowed system bus (600 MHz; the normal bus speed for the 1.8 GHz G5 is 900 MHz) makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering the higher specs of the other three models. A lot of my complaints here are about the entry-level model in particular, but the overall lack of advancement is disappointing.
It would have been a major coup on Apple’s part if they went with the 970MP. In fact, Apple would have been one of the first to ship a dual-core machine. And compared to Dell’s $4000 dual-core PC (which has been announced, but I am not certain if it is actually shipping), the Power Mac G5 would have been a steal, and Apple would have a chance to legitimately gloat in the face of PC makers.
But here we stand in 2005. 3 GHz is a year overdue, and we are still a good deal short. And while the faster dual-layer DVD burners are a nice addition, Apple’s high-end hardware is essentially stagnant--again. The similarities to Motorola’s G4 disaster (where processor speeds were stuck at 500 MHz for nearly two years; at least we’re seeing some sort of clock speed increases) are striking, but fortunately there isn’t a complete lockup in clock speed. Yet. However, the fact that the G5 was only able to muster a 200 MHz increase in one year is rather troubling. The shift to a different fabrication process is an excuse that doesn’t hold water this time. The PowerPC was far outstripped by x86 PCs prior to the G5. The G5 put the Mac back on the map, performance-wise, but unless Apple and IBM do something soon, Apple’s high-end could be in serious trouble again.
Here’s hoping for 3 GHz next year.
 |
2 | 656 |
| Nick | comments | views |
thinkback
Well, this makes up for buying my Blue & White G3…
I always hate buying a new Mac because you know something better and faster is right around the corner. Even if you jump in at the beginning of the production run, you know you’re only going to have bragging rights for a short time. This is true with PCs as well, so…
Way back when, I bought a Blue & White G3 when they first came out. I always buy whatever the top-end machine is because it will “last” longer. So I had a 400MHz G3, Firewire, USB, SCSI, the works.
Four months later, my high-end G3 was now the low-end G3. Well, it’s to be expected. I’m still glad I bought it when I did and it’s still a mighty fast machine. I figured by next year, sure, I’ll have fallen off the map. But I’ll at least have the year…
Three months later, Apple introduces the G4s. *Poof* In seven months, my machine--a top of the line G3--is a total has-been. To add insult to injury, Apple shortly came out with an iMac that had everything my G3 had (well, okay, no slots) for $1299--a bit less than half of what I paid for my G3.
Well, in September of 2003, I retired the Blue & White G3 and got a brand-spankin’ new G5. Dual 2 GHz, SuperDrive, USB 2.0, the works. And today, about a year-and-a-half later, I’m still on the books! This certainly makes up for the quick obsolescence of my G3.
Thank you, Apple.
---
To be serious now, I’m beginning to wonder. We hear about these great new processors from IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola). We hear about the dual-core machines from Intel and the planned marketing assault to convince people that they really need this. This would seem to be a perfect opportunity for Apple to jump in and ride this promotional wave.
For example, imagine Dual 970MPs--if you will, four processors. While, yeah, it may not make a real speed difference, when Intel comes out with their eventual “Two heads are better than one” type of ads, Apple can respond with “Four heads are better than two.” And a Dual 970MP in an iMac G5 can help shore up the consumer line when the “Consumer” Centrinos come along later this year.
If the dual-core G4s come along from Freescale, Apple can put them into PowerBooks and trump everybody and use Intel’s advertising against it again--"The First Dual CPU Laptop.”
Instead, what are we seeing? 200MHz bumps on the desktops, 167MHz bumps in laptops.
This worries me because either (a) Apple is not interested in shipping dual-core machines (a mistake, in my opinion), (b) IBM & Freescale are screwing up--which means a situation similar to when the G4s were stuck at 500MHz, or (c) like the above example with my G3, there will be a sudden “YIKES!” moment and Apple will ship the MP machines and look like they’re playing catch-up.
1.
I’m really looking forward to MacWorld in January when Apple may release a 2.85 GHz twin :-[