The G5 4 Ghz Apple Computer is a reality!

$1999 is too much money to spend considering I can get just as powerful a PC for a lot less.

Convert that to roughly A$4000.00 and it's way too much for a fixed path system.

If you want an alternative to a Windows box, the most affordable way to go is to either purchase or build a Linux PC.

$1999 is too much money to spend considering I can get just as powerful a PC for a lot less.

Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one. The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.) And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4.

Oh joy! 64 bit processors. Yay! Hmm,
Where's all the 64 bit software?

Not worth the money.

For a reality check, look here:

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

Also...Kona, you may want to educate yourself BEFORE making statements like that.


[Message Edited]

Benchmark results cited by Apple at the launch of its Power Mac G5 desktops yesterday have already come under fire for seeming to not only tweak the Mac test system to improve its performance beyond anything an ordinary user might experience, but crippling rival systems to deliver below-par average user performance.

The tests described by Apple CEO Steve Jobs were conducted on the company's behalf ("under contract") by VeriTest. The benchmarks used are SPEC CPU 2000 integer and floating-point tests. Apple asked VeriTest to compare a pre-release a dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with a Dell Precision 650 workstation based on twin 3.06GHz Intel Xeon CPUs and a Dell Dimension 8300 based on a 3GHz Pentium 4.

The Dell's were running Red Hat Linux 9.0, the G5 Mac OS X 10.2.7. The test software was compiled using GCC 3.3 and NAGware Fortran 95.


VeriTest recorded SPECint base score of 800, 889 and 836 for the G5, 8300 and 650, respectively. The equivalent SPECfp base scores were 840, 693 and 646. So the G5 out-performs the other machines, yes?

Well, so says Apple, but a closer look at VeriTest's documentation, freely available from its web site, suggests otherwise.

VeriTest's Results...
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/apple/apple_performance.pdf

A Linux system running on Athlon makes the most economical sense for us poor people. Macs are for rich people.



[Message Edited]

"The 970, which Apple is marketing as the G5, as per last week's web site cock-up in which specs. for new Power Macs based on the chip were revealed, is a 64-bit chip that runs 32-bit apps natively, said Jobs. IBM will fab the 58 million transistor chip at 0.13 micron using silicon-on-insulator technology and punch them out on 300mm wafers. The ill-posted specs. proved correct: the 970 will run at up to 2GHz with a 1GHz frontside bus. Describing its "new architecture", Jobs said it has been designed from the ground up for SMP - Apple will offer single and dual-processor systems, he added, with both chips connected to the system controller chip across independent buses. The chip can handle up to 215 in-flight instructions. It has 512KB of L2 cache, but no L3 cache support. He also called the 970 the "first 64-bit desktop processor", which may gall AMD fans, though then Opteron was designed for servers and workstations, not desktop PCs. "

I dunno, seems Intel and AMD are playing catch up...

oops, #8 should have been quoted also...
darn fingers typing inside out again...

Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one. The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.) And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4.

Bah,


http://909.bz/images/macvsdell.jpg



and @ almost a grand less.

And models start at just $1999

I have a hard time seeing "just" and "$1999" together in a sentence about computers.  (Especially considering that you will have to pay more for features like...say...a monitor!)

*AND* the model that is $1999 is *not* the one that has dual 2ghz processors!  That one starts at $2999 (still doesn't have a monitor, speakers, or more than 512 megs of ram, etc.).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html

they are having a laugh at that price......are'nt they - still some rich person will buy one

The very reason I never bought a G-3 or a G-4, couldn't afford them then, so what does all that G-5 power matter to me.
And all too often the "rich" buy them for show, desk ornaments, too many just sit around gathering dust...what a waste.

The price is exactly why they will stick with 5% of the market (that is a number published by Apple, btw.) 

Why would a company pay $3,000 per desktop when they can get Dell's (with monitors and everything they need) for half the cost?  Sure, they might not be *as* fast (if you rust the data that Apple published) but they will more than adequately do the job.

They will stay a little niche market until they can make products that compete both technologically and monetarily with PCs.

I had a good laugh when reading this 'exiting' news and the 'low' price... And moved on.

The price is exactly why they will stick with 5% of the market (that is a number published by Apple, BTW.)

Oh I dunno, unless your looking at a low end VAR system or clone/home built, you are looking at the same pricing for MAC's and PC's.

Yes Apple published the findings of the results of the market share research; funded by Apple. Just as Intel, AMD, Microsoft, AutoDesk (Discreet), USG, IBM, etc as everyone that has a product to sell ( including political, social goals )and wishes to present positive numbers to possible consumers. Kind of like the Bar fly Hair flip of the 70's/80's or the "I drive a ( fill in blank )" of, well, guys have used that one forever I guess

Business pratices aside MAC's are solid, fast and stable.

Price seems to be the most common indicator which is presented with all other reasons for MACphobia and or disdain.

But even that is questionable (the price) when all you have to do is search the web and you can find them at prices no higher than comprable PC systems.

They will stay a little niche market until they can make products that compete both technologically and monetarily with PCs.

Apple isn't a driving force of Technology?

oh and low end ( so called Home/Small Business ) OEM systems are priced from the dealer at lower prices.

I have read a lot of data on comparing schools that standardized on Macs over PCs.  Schools have to buy directly through Apple and get a lower price than anyone else.  On the average, hardware (we won't even talk about software) cost 5 to 15% more than if they would have standardized on PCs.  5% might not sound like a lot, but when you are talking 2,000+ machines, it ends up being *a lot* of money.

People can debate the "technology" side of Macs until they are blue in the face.  But, the price of an Apple is higher than a PC. 

I bought a Dell.  2ghz processor, 512 ram, Geforce 4 video card, Cd-RW, 60 gig hard drive (with speakers, keyboard, mouse...).  i paid (delivered to my door) less than $550.  Are you saying that I can get a 2 ghz Mac with 512 Ram for the same amount of money?  (I'd like to know where...)

No, but the systems do not compair either.

Yes I know exactly how it works with the schools here in FLorida also, and when pressed as a technology volenteer working on deciding between MAC and PC, the choice was made to purchase Dell's. Because PC is the standard and kids need to learn them from the begining without having to unlearn or relearn when faced with a PC after 2 - 7 year of MAC use in heading into 8th - Graduation.

Again, if you compare matching systems, you are going to be looking at prices so close to being equal you could spit betten them.

Your 2gtz Dell isn't equal to the base G5 2gtz that comes with a 1gtz FSB for starters.

Now a 3 or 3.2 gtz based PC with a faster FSB would be close, or a work station...

Did you know that the G4 cpu is classified as a Super Computer?

Oh joy! 64 bit processors. Yay! Hmm,Where's all the 64 bit software?

OS 10.3. nuff said

Also...Kona, you may want to educate yourself BEFORE making statements like that.

the only staement I made was quoted from apple themselves.

I bought a Dell

I fell sorry for you. I will NEVER buy a P4 system.
I have a AMD system right now, and even it out performs a p4

Seems there was some 'creative accounting' in the benchmark tests...