Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
I watched a little of Steve's talk today about the new Intel based machines. Be careful of the RDF(R). He compared a single-processor iMac G5 to a dual-core Duo and showed the results of the multiprocessor SPEC benchmarks. He also used the Intel compiler. There have been a lot of questions raised about what the Intel compiler does to create better scores on the SPEC marks. More importantly, nearly all apps will be compiled with GCC 4.0, not ICC. So I doubt the Core Duo iMac is 2-3x faster than the iMacG5. I'm betting it will be more like 1.5x-2x on many things... but when it comes to anything graphics related, it might not be faster at all, especially considering it lacks a dedicated vector unit.
All that said, the machine is dual core now, and that's good. But what about price? These things are the same price as the old ones. Are Intel's processors just as expensive as IBM's? Or is Apple's gross margin going to go up? Now that Apple's machines have the exact same processor and chipset as Dell's, it's much easier to compare the two and see how much more Apple's stuff costs for the same performance as Dell. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
Keeping them both at the same price gives people a choice. Those that still want a G5 can get one. Those that want a Dual Core..can get that. Either way, your paying the same, so there isn't any pressure or conflict there.
Of course the G5s will only be there till the supply runs out(Speculation)...Whenever that is only Apple(and IBM) knows.. The real question is what will sell more next quarter... Jebus Google, just buy Apple already... |
quote |
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Do you expect that a single core machine would cost more than a dual core machine?
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Siloam Springs, AR
|
Well, it's no lie that the 970fx isn't exactly cheap... Wouldn't be surprised if it WAS more, especially if you add in cost of motherboard etc, which I would think costs at least a bit less now now that it has more standard parts.
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Why does everyone think that intel's processors are cheaper? Is there actual numbers to back this up (I mean prices at the quantity Apple would be buying them, not just by the thousand or whatever some people have quoted).
|
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
I am very unhappy with what went down today. Apple is demonstrating an unwillingness to give up the exorbitant "Mac tax," but at the same time they're sticking more and more generic hardware into their pretty cases.
Now, the cases are pretty. But that's not worth the expense. The OS itself was partial justification, but the other part of that justification was that Mac users were somehow getting "superior" hardware, at least in theory. PPC is a better architecture than x86, plain and simple. The only reason it's not so good at the moment is because x86 has had trillions of dollars in R&D thrown into it over the decades (yes, decades). If the same money were spent on developing newer, better processor architectures like PPC and others, we'd all have much faster computers right now. So as some have said, PPC was better in theory and x86 was better in practice. With the new x86 Macs, we're losing that. We don't even get AMD processors. AMD has proven itself to be capable of innovation and competition even within the confines of x86, and even when pitted against the titanic force that is Intel. But at least everything's cheaper, right? Oh wait. No, it's not any cheaper. We're still paying the Mac tax, but more and more benefits of said tax are being stripped away. Before long, we'll basically be paying hundreds, even thousands of dollars extra for the sole privilege of being allowed to boot into the Mac OS. It's a disturbing trend. Macs are getting cheaper, but they're not getting any less expensive, and they're not getting any better either. With fewer and fewer benefits to being a Mac user, I have to say that I will not be buying any new Macs. I'll keep the ones I have or possibly replace them with other PPC Macs, but I will definitely not pander to Apple's desires and spend hundreds more just so I can run a particular operating system. Once my current Macs are no longer able to serve me, I'll just start using Linux. Oh well. Oh, and thanks for calling it the "MacBook Pro" Apple. You've guaranteed that I will NEVER buy one of those, EVER. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Obviously I would rather have a functional piece of technology than a nice name, but as the rest of my post was trying to explain, I don't think the MacBook Pro is an especially great piece of technology. More like a rehash of generic PC crap.
The PowerBook brand name was extremely well recognized and even well-loved. It has been around since Apple started making laptops (not counting the Portable, which wouldn't really fit on the average person's lap anyway). Doing away with the PowerBook name is akin to IBM (now Lenovo) changing the name of the ThinkPad to something much stupider. If I thought the MacBook Pro was a worthwhile piece of technology, I might be more supportive of it, but I can't see myself encouraging Apple by actually spending money for a product called a "MacBook Pro." The very thought makes me feel dirty. PowerBooks are awesome. MacBooks are not. And I'm not just talking about the names. |
quote |
Right Honourable Member
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Oh, stop it, Luca. You're making me scared that Apple will start going downhill
But you have some points. As much as I'd like to think that the "MacBook Pro" is merely a stop-gap solution to appease the fans that demanded an Intel Mac at Macworld - as much as I'd like to believe that at Paris Apple will knock our socks off with an all-new Merom-based Powerbook - I can't. But at the same time, it's hard to imagine Apple without the Powerbook, either... and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
quote |
Liar. Ignore me.
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Quote:
It's all about making money. They could call it the gimme_ur_money_bitch mac pro and it would still be a great machine. Grow up, dude ! |
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like using a Mac because of the software, both the OS and the available apps. I like the GUI better and I like the approach better. Isn't that the important distinction? |
|||
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
As bad as I have to say, I agree with you Luca.
I really don't care if they call it "Little Stevie's Typewriter" or whatever. Quote:
|
|
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Skaffen, what I'm getting at is that during the PPC era, Macs at least had an excuse for costing more. Now maybe some people disagreed with that, but at least you could say that part of the reason Macs were so expensive was because they were using more specialized components. Another part of the reason is because of the expected quality of the products Apple made back then.
But what I'm saying is that now, we don't have the first excuse. Once Macs start using Intel processors, the guts become even more generic than they already are. More PC-like. That's not a bad thing, but it removes one of Apple's excuses for charging so much. When Apple's using all the same parts that Toshiba and Sony are using in their notebooks, what reason do they have to charge more than their competitors. Even Apple's overall quality has dipped significantly in recent years, so you can't point to that so much anymore. That leaves the software as the main factor. And while I love the Mac OS and recognize it as being probably the best consumer OS in the world, it's also not worth the full brunt of the Mac Tax. PCs are just so much cheaper for the same things that Apple is essentially charging an extra 50% for pretty cases and a very good OS. To me, it's simply not worth it. |
quote |
Not sayin', just sayin'
|
Cost relates more to volume of supply, I doubt that these newfangled duo core Intel chips are cheap/generic. They're not so much generic as they are ubiquitous, but those are two different things really. I don't think it's fair to Intel to think of them as the TJ Maxx of processors. They're not at all. And it's only one part of a whole design, very reductive to put it in those terms.
Still, I'm so not surprised in the least that people are disappointed and fooled themselves into thinking these machines would be much cheaper. Frankly, it was foolish to htink that from day one. but people manage to convince themselves anyway and this is what comes of it. |
quote |
New Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Just posted this in another thread but it's more releveant here, macBook pro sounds so bad, why on earth call it that? sure i understand that having "mac" in the name is a bonus but they could have been a bit more creative.
How about this for a product line... iMac proMac (instead of powermac) iMac nano (instead of ibook) proMac nano (instead of powerbook / macBook pro *shudder*) iPod IPod nano proPod (some kind of uber tablet pda media device) not sure where to place the mac mini in all that though |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
I can agree with you Luca - we'll see what dirty little Mike offers next month with his versions and see where the prices are. Apples with Dells - yeah i know - but we'll see how he specs them out.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
I may pick up an end of line PowerBook first though... Although I have to admit I am currently developing for the Mac so I may well have to bite the bullet and pick up one of the Intel based machines... When that happens I will go into the store and look at the salesman and say "I'd like a new Intel Powerbook, please... Model x y z". I will give him a look that makes it very clear that I want an Intel Powerbook very clearly so that he get's the gist of why I am saying Intel Powerbook. Assuming he gives me what I want without saying anything else I'll pay and leave the store happy. If the tries to correct me and mentions the *other* name at any point I will beat the crap out of him until he is dead, and then move on to the next store and try again, until I get what I want... 'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take' Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
"If the tries to correct me and mentions the *other* name at any point I will beat the crap out of him until he is dead, and then move on to the next store and try again, until I get what I want..."
rotflmao |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
quote |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Let's see, we get 4x the CPU performance, vastly improved display, the next generation of graphics card...for the same price as we were paying for the old model yesterday, and you see that as a negative step? As a fairly large volume PC hardware buyer I can assure you that the new dual core based machines I'm getting quotes on are not cheap either. ALL systems equipped with the latest CPUs command a significant premium for the first leg of their life cycle.
Apple has finally brought their Pro laptop into a range where it's not an embarassment, and it's a good thing. Embrace it. |
quote |
snail herder
|
The new name still stinks!
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
|
The Acer 8200 (http://news.designtechnica.com/article9232.html) described here is very, very similar to the new Mac notebook introduced today. (As pointed out by Wrao over in a General Discussion thread)
The article states that "pricing starts at $1999," so it does not seem that Apple is overpricing the MacBook Pro at all. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: H-Town
|
Luca I think its awesome that you aren't drinking the Kool-Aid. Like they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I don't see how people can eat up the Mac tax with out so much as batting an eyelash. I love Mac OS X but if prices are more that 10% of their competitors then I will be switching back to windows. John Coltrane's 'Giant Steps' |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
Luca, no offence, but I've always wondered why you (and certain others on this forum) use Macs. Your aesthetic tastes seem to be a bit at odds with Apple's, you don't place a lot of value on the last one-tenth of an inch that Apple shaved off the MacBook's thickness, you actually think Linux is a usable OS. Why bother with a Mac in the first place? Get a hideous fat piece of grey plastic, complete with mismatched panels, recessed touch-pad, 1 cm rubber feet, shitty keyboard with small key-surfaces and trenches between the keys, blue (blue!!!) LEDs to tell you your computer is switched on, and all the latest and best part numbers, then install a Linux distro of your choice. Why pay what you perceive to be an unwarranted tax for little things like MagSafe?
As for me, the MagSafe feature and 0.1 inch less thickness is why I love Apple products, as well as things such as what I think is an incomparable OS, incomparable industrial design and incomparable user satisfaction. I would pay a £100 premium just for that aluminium case. If you on the other hand attach zero value to the aluminium case, why are you using Apple in the first place? I'm curious! Quote:
|
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
But in the end, I ordered mine today. Guess I am happy paying the premium, and getting taken advantage of. Someone hacked my signature. I demand an investigation. |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Also check out the Dell M70. It's only a single core Pentium M, but it's the closest they have, so it will have to do for the comparison. The base price for this 15" laptop is $2,520 with 512MB ram, 15" display, 80 HD, etc.
People are worried about being taken now, when Apple was bending you over for third world technology (G4) for the same price? I think you have it backwards. lol |
quote |
Veteran Member
|
So what will the PowerMac be renamed to?
PowerBook = MacBook (ugh!) PowerMac = MacMac !?!??! |
quote |
Fishhead Family Reunited
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
|
Luca, I think the polarity of your RDF Filter needs to be reversed.
Seriously, I understand why you are upset at the moment, but I think this new hardware will grow on you eventually. The performance has increased substantially. The RAM is faster - the video is better - the bus speed is faster - the processor is faster AND it's dual-core. What, besides the lack of it being a proprietary chipset instead of a commodity one, is the problem? Now, the name "MacBook Pro" I'm not so sure about. I have been in the Mac business since before the first PowerBooks came out, and I've owned a lot of them myself, starting with the 540c which did not have a PowerPC chip. "PowerBook" has been the name for every Mac notebook ever made, and it's sad to see it go. However, if this is a sacrifice needed to get cutting-edge performance in a notebook, I'm on board 100%. It is quite gratifying to see the emotion brought out by the name change. What Dell or Sony or Toshiba user has ever given a shit whether their notebook is called an Inspiron or a Satellite.... |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next Last |
Thread Tools | |