Opinions: Apple G5

IBM PPC 370. How long is it going to take Apple to just bite the bullet and go Intel? They''re staking the existence of their entire company (consider that PowerMacs provide over 30% of profits/revenue) on a single product from another company! What if IBM decides the returns on the chip aren''t good enough? What if IBM pulls the plug on the chip?

It also doesn''t help that PPC chips lose the "Gigahertz war" (nee "Megahertz war"); yes, "informed" consumers like you or me know that GHz aren''t everything in determining a computer''s performance, but does the average computer buyer? This could be a factor in a lot of potential sales losses for Apple: "Hmm, looks great, performs decently... a bit expensive - how fast is it? 1.4GHz! Tommy''s computer costs less and is about twice as fast! No way, dude!"

The problem is the fact that most users don''t consider the premium for an Apple computer worth it. Right now, computers are purchased as cheap as possible while satisfying major needs. Yes, a Mac is "easier" to use (subjective opinion), more aesthetic (objective), better integrated with its system software (objective), but so what?

Despite the tone of this post, this is not a rant. I''ve had Mac Envy since the Titanium PowerBook and new iMac debuted, and the complement of components - and OS X - have done nothing to alleviate it. I want a Mac, badly, but I can''t afford somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for a PC (please don''t bring up the eMac as an alternative, or iMacs with less than 17 inches of viewspace), and even if I could afford it, it''s hard to justify.

Apple are painting themselves into a corner as far as their computer hardware business is concerned, and that concerns me. I love what they''ve been doing with the industrial designs of their machines for a while now; I absolutely love the iPod! The Pixlet codec is impressive according to spec, and may help to make interactive video-on-demand applications a reality in the very near future, for which I will eternally be grateful. But I think that moving to the Intel platform would be better for both Apple and consumers in general in the long run. Apple would bring their attention to detail and finish to the Intel-based product arena, where boring PC manufacturers definitely need a shot of imagination in the arm, and Apple products would be available to a much broader spectrum of users - from those who would run OS X on Dells, Sony VAIOs and beige boxes to those who would insist on quad-Xeon Apple PowerMac P4s. Or whatever.

Porting OS X to Intel would also bring a legitimate contender into the desktop OS space, which is good for consumers - and even for Microsoft, as it would quickly eliminate the accusations of monopoly.

Of course, such a move would have incredible technical issues to overcome, due to the nature of the IBM PC/Intel-compatible hardware space, but I''m confident it would be worth it in the long run.

Well, I can dream.

Definitely, $3,000 is way too much...

I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?

Victor.

quote:

---

Original post by -vic-
I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?

---

Ego. Inability to concede defeat. Monopolistic practices and tendencies. Did you know that Apple at one time allowed other companies to manufacture compatible hardware? For some reason, they then muscled those companies back out of the market (I forget the details, but you can find them easily).

For all the wrong Microsoft may have done, one thing I will always respect the company for is their ability to capitulate - such as in the case of the Internet. Apple would do well to understudy them.

Cross-pollination.

Well, as for why not Intel, that''s easy.

You go Intel. To get to the cheap Intel base, you need to have wide driver and vendor support almost immediately. Otherwise, what''s different? Besides the Motherboards and Processors, Apple at this point is pretty much industry standard x86 hardware:

ATI, nVidia, DDR SDRAM, Serial ATA.

They just stick to a select few manufacturers and guarantee tight hardware integration into the OS. It gives that "It just works" feeling. Of course, this means that you and I can''t always put in the cool hardware devices we find floating around in the Windows world and are forced to stick with equipment with Mac OS support from vendors (which isn''t many). One thing I do find annoying, since I work with routers and firewalls, is the lack of a serial port on my Powerbook Ti 15". I recently found a USB-Serial converter though, which I may buy soon.

Also, some of the other cool features that Apple has such as their heat control on the laptops, noise control on the G4 Towers, all comes from that hardware integrated into the OS. I think the new G5 fans (9 of them) are controlled by the OS and the hardware to keep the system cool and run quiet. (1/2 as quiet as the G4 according to Jobs, so probably 1/3 quieter in reality)

Apple does have their core OS, Darwin as an open source release on x86 (limited hardware support). Rumors have it they have an x86 version of OS X as well, ready to go should they want to go that way (loose chip support, etc). But with the IBM deal for the PowerPC 970 and if the new stats on the performance are true, they''ll probably retake some of their core markets in desktop publishing as well as video/audio editing.

Int

Oluseyi:
I am typing this right now on one of those "clone" Mac-compatibles. Great machine. Love it to death. Apple should allow more cloning.

As for your comments on the Intel chip: No. Just no.

Apple can afford to make innovations like FireWire 800 and the like because they own the entire market of machines. This limited amount of machines also allows them to put OS versions out with less money in testing. Apple is primarily a hardware company (75% of their money last quarter came from hardware: $1.1B), and always has been. The concept of a bunch of dumbass Windows users making the leap to an OS X-based OS just because it''s free is stupid.

If Apple switched their OS to run on Intel-based machines right this very moment, there would be little or no difference in the market share. However, their hardware market would fall right out, and they''d be bankrupt. Hope is not a very good strategy for this kind of thing. Remember what happened to Amiga''s hardware profits the nanosecond some idiot released a way to run the OS on cheap commodity hardware.

You want a stable, mature, UNIX-ish OS on your x86 machine, download Darwin, Apple''s open-source core to OS X, and install that.

Resist everyone
Talk on RavForum(tm)

quote:

---

You want a stable, mature, UNIX-ish OS on your x86 machine, download Darwin, Apple''s open-source core to OS X, and install that.

---

Wrong... download FreeBSD because that is what Darwin was based off of. =)

quote:

---

Original post by -vic-
Definitely, $3,000 is way too much...

I don''t know much about Apple and/or Mac, but if they haven''t gone Intel in all these years, maybe they have a reason... what would that be?

Victor.

---

The G5 is a 64-bit processor, while a Pentium 4 or Xeon is 32-bit. GO to http://www.apple.com/g5/ to find a CPU benchmark chart, plus some other info.

I mainly used Powermacs through college and I loved the UI. I hated the OS until OS X. Barely passed as a modern OS.

My PowerBook is a little slower than some nicer Intel laptops, but I don''t mind a little speed loss (which I can only notice when compiling) for the size, screen quality, Unix-UI interop, and general cool factor (yes, I love the hype).

I think the 970 chips from IBM might redefine the old Apple complaints in Processor Wars. Not many people say, "God, that Apple OS sucks." It''s always, "Damn, it''s expensive." or "Damn, their hardware is slow." If the 970 holds true to the hype or close to it, that hardware argument dries up. Then its cost.

The cost will never change, but you get a lot of value for what you pay for, just not everyone finds that value worth the premium. But if you usually compare what you get for that 3K to something from Dell, you''ll find the price is quite comparable (You get OS X, iLife, and some great hardware + sleek factor). Getting something similar with x86 runs about the same price in most cases (get a nice case + hardware + OS license + similar software).

I''m not an Apple zealout, but I found the the 970 specs quite promising. I love the UI, love the Unix foundation and screen quality. I only saw the PowerBook worth the price (G4 didn''t impress me outside of "that''s cool" and how quiet it runs). But, I have to admit, I will probably buy the G5 dual and super-geek it out (being that I got stock money coming soon). Though I will probably wait for a few reviews, Apple tends to release their new platforms with some minor defects that need correction the first few months after release.

Outside of games (which I play less of now, and find I may just buy a console at this point) all my interests fall under Unix or things I can do on any platform (except for LAN Sys Admin chores, Windows is still the king with Group Policies and WMI)--makes OS X a great option for me. I get the "oooo-aaahs", Unix, and a very nice UI. Better than running 4 machines like I used to. =)

Int.

quote:

---

Original post by Interim
Apple does have their core OS, Darwin as an open source release on x86 (limited hardware support). Rumors have it they have an x86 version of OS X as well, ready to go should they want to go that way (loose chip support, etc). But with the IBM deal for the PowerPC 970 and if the new stats on the performance are true, they''ll probably retake some of their core markets in desktop publishing as well as video/audio editing.

---

I was aware of the Darwin port and the OS X-x86 rumors. I guess it boils down to what segment of the market exactly Apple is interested in capturing. With their recent "switch" campaign it seemed as though they were targeting average desktop users, for whom premiums are a big negative. Unfortunately, Apple doesn''t have the kind of performance and title library to attract serious gamers either, people for whom cost is often no object in the search for the killer performance/appearance machine.

That''s another thing, though: PCs are sufficiently customizable that a user can easily imprint their personality on the machine - case mods, paint jobs, etc. Apples are more like status symbols in that you derive a certain amount of personality perception from the possession of one.

Frankly, I don''t care either way. When I can afford one, I''ll pick one up, but I''ll probably continue to purchase and own PCs for a long time to come.

quote:

---

Original post by Ravuya
The concept of a bunch of dumbass Windows users making the leap to an OS X-based OS just because it''s free is stupid.

---

Them''s fighting words. In any case, it''s not my idea; Apple was really pushing the "switch" concept for a good while there.

quote:

---

If Apple switched their OS to run on Intel-based machines right this very moment, there would be little or no difference in the market share.

---

Naturally, because there would need to be a migration of software to the platform. However, if they can maintain the kind of quality guarantees they currently possess after the switch, a lot of developers would port their software over. The stability guarantees coupled with Apple intuitiveness would make it appealing to home users irritated with the ocassional failure of Windows PCs. I happen to believe that Mac-esque levels of system integration and reliability are possible, with a little work, in the Intel PC market.

I''m not waiting for it, though.

quote:

---

However, their hardware market would fall right out, and they''d be bankrupt.

---

Not really. People who have traditionally bought Mac will continue to buy Mac. Most of us can admit that such people don''t buy Macs just for their raw functionality or technical prowess; a lot of it has to do with cultures/habits, aesthetic preferences and "higher sensibilities." Thus, Mac market share can only go up from there since traditional Mac users are extremely loyal (there''s no PC Addict Magazine AFAIK).

quote:

---

Original post by Interim
Outside of games (which I play less of now, and find I may just buy a console at this point) all my interests fall under Unix or things I can do on any platform (except for LAN Sys Admin chores, Windows is still the king with Group Policies and WMI)--makes OS X a great option for me. I get the "oooo-aaahs", Unix, and a very nice UI. Better than running 4 machines like I used to. =)

---

Ditto here. I''ve decided that I''ll pick up a GameCube (I''m all about party games + Metroid Prime) and perhaps a Powerbook G5 in due time, but I''ll probably also get an Intel-compatible laptop for "tinkerwork" (Linux-based OS ideas, ocassional Windows session, etc).

I disagree on the Mac user community. They''re as much intwined in their religion with the Apple hardware as the software. Its Apple, its goooood. *grin*

I think the Switch campaign was definitely what you say it is. But its not like the difference between a Ford or a BMW where the price is 2-3x for that "cooler" car. That premium is usually a few hundred more bucks if you don''t go for the top of the line hardware. Most people compare a standard Dell package to the top of the line G4 or now, the G5, which isn''t the best comparison.

I think Apple would take some serious steps back to get to generic x86 support. I also wish they would do it, but I believe it would hurt them now. If they didn''t announce the 970, I''d say they might be in trouble without an x86 offering, but now, who cares?

They''re a niche market, not a mass market. OS hits everyone, Bill states his goal is to own the home (hence the Xbox, since his little MSN boxes failed). They want Microsoft everywhere. I think Apple would like to have that, but I think they realize they would loose unless they got critical mass quietly, and no way MS will miss that change in the market (look how they''re after Linux and Linux just made a dent in the server market).

I think the interesting result will be if the new 970 restores the Apple as the platform of choice for publishing, video and audio professionals. Apple was starting to loose this niche to Linux + high end x86 hardware.

And you know Jobs knows this. If you watch the WWDC Keynote, every performance example and comparison hits three areas: Development, Video, and Desktop Publishing (Adope Photoshop). Development is key since most of the Video editing shops are using custom software now. Video is big industry + home video growth. Desktop Publishing is what Apple needs to pull back their users to (All the performance runs with Photoshop on P4s beating Apple G4 Duals wasn''t helping)

Int

I have always loved Macs, even more so now with OS X. However, the price is a severely limiting factor. If I had the money, my next computer would probably be a Mac. But, since I don''t have the money, I''m going to have to stick with standard Intel-based hardware.

quote:

---

Original post by CmndrM
I have always loved Macs, even more so now with OS X. However, the price is a severely limiting factor. If I had the money, my next computer would probably be a Mac. But, since I don''t have the money, I''m going to have to stick with standard Intel-based hardware.

---

My favorite part about the G5: G4 Macs might finally go down in price a bit!

They already have. The top of the line was nerfed, it''s now a dual 1.25 GHz for $1599. The single is $1299, and the old low-end is gone.

They''re going to have to price drop the iMacs soon, too- a 15 inch monitor and a nice design is not worth 400 mHz and a pitiful graphics card.

If I had the kind of money that it cost to get a DECENT Mac (emphasis on DECENT), I''d just buy a dual Xeon 3.06GHz, a dual Athlon MP 3200+, or a dual Opteron instead.

quote:

---

Original post by Oluseyi
I''ve decided that I''ll pick up a GameCube (I''m all about party games + Metroid Prime).

---

You won''t regret it Good mutliplayer games i can recommend:
Monkey Ball (the sequal has more multiplayer games, the original has better single player levels).
Phantasy Star Online is a total blast offline as well 4 player split screen is frantic and is one of the few co-op mulitiplayer games in existance.
Ikaruga hardcore old school 2d shooter. Classic Treasure doing what they do best.
Sonic Mega Collection tons of classic games, several with good split screen 2 player. Worth it for Mean Bean Machine alone

</thread_hijack>

On topic: as much as id like to experiment with a mac, they''re just too damn pricy. That and the whole elitism that surronds them which looks down on all lower forms of life (insert PA link here..)

quote:

---

Original post by OrangyTang
You won''t regret it

---

Yeah. I had planned to pick up Monkey Ball from the very first time I saw it, Mario Party 4, a couple of sports titles and Sonic Adventure 2 or some other Sonic game. Thanks for the other two recommendations, though. There''s also those WWE games... (hey, I said party games!)

quote:

---

On topic: as much as id like to experiment with a mac, they''re just too damn pricy. That and the whole elitism that surronds them which looks down on all lower forms of life (insert PA link here..)

---

Yeah, there is a certain snobbery among Mac users, isn''t there?

Yeah. Same goes for Windows users.