New Apple PowerMac's @ 1.42 Ghz

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: majewski9
IS the 1.42 ghz model even available? Shouldnt Apple release OS 10 for X86? That would be a whole heck of a lot better!
Well, you can get Darwin for x86. It's the core of Mac OS X. It doesn't include the Aqua GUI though.
 

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
1.42GHz? I remember when I bought my 1.33 Athlon like 2 years ago..

Well, they probably need to do a PR Rating of their own. The 1600+ XP does run at 1.4ghz and it was only recently that AMD was able to crack the 2ghz barrier. And the Apple CPU does have 1MB of L3 cache so I'll guess its pretty decent speed-wise.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: RanDum72
1.42GHz? I remember when I bought my 1.33 Athlon like 2 years ago..

Well, they probably need to do a PR Rating of their own. The 1600+ XP does run at 1.4ghz and it was only recently that AMD was able to crack the 2ghz barrier. And the Apple CPU does have 1MB of L3 cache so I'll guess its pretty decent speed-wise.
Well, here a PR rating would be less useful because the chips run different OSes and different software. Some software flies on the Mac (esp. if it's Altivec-enabled and SMP-aware), but other software is slow on the Mac (esp. games written primarily for the PC platforms, which is nearly all of the good ones).

Nonetheless, a dual 1.42 GHz would be pretty nice for most people (but not gamers).
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
I can't even fathom how they justify their prices !

EXAMPLE:

$1,499.00
1GHz PowerPC G4 1MB L3 cache 1 GHz? You gotta be kidding me, right?
256MB DDR266 SDRAM a WHOLE 256MB...whew!
60GB Ultra ATA/100 WOW, ATA 100...cutting edge
Combo drive Well, this makes up for EVERYTHING...NOT!
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX Sweeet, I can finally run the ORIGINAL Doom
64MB DDR video memory See above
FireWire 800 Ok, this is actually nice
56K internal modem Yawn
Bluetooth Ready Nice. It's Bluetooth READY...Only cost me my other arm to make it work

This is about +/- $500 in PC parts IF you could even still find a 1Ghz CPU.

What a JOKE!

Yawn.... Computer in my Sig cost about the same as this piece of Cr@p. Don't think I would be trading anytime soon....
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Bluetooth Ready Nice. It's Bluetooth READY...Only cost me my other arm to make it work

How so? Just buy a cell-phone with Bluetooth (I have one). Or a Bluetooth-peripheral. Shouldn't be THAT expensive.
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Bluetooth Ready Nice. It's Bluetooth READY...Only cost me my other arm to make it work

How so? Just buy a cell-phone with Bluetooth (I have one). Or a Bluetooth-peripheral. Shouldn't be THAT expensive.

The point is, for that price couldn't they have included it? I just hate when companies say " so and so READY".. It's like when I was shopping for a new TV and they sales guy kept saying that they were High Definition READY...so I ask him how much to make it actually recieve the HD signal and it was like $300 for the decoder box....WTF?

Also, just guessing that the bluetooth units might have to be Apple specific and knowing Apple's HW price structure I assume that the cost will be higher than normal.

Apple price structure = Normal price of PC version + overcharge to make it Apple specific = 2x Normal price :(

But overall, my point is that the price of this and ALL of their systems are WAY overpriced for what you actually get. You would have to REALLY be fond of the styling to make up for the lack of decent hardware.

I am consistantly stunned by the people who buy these computers. I can't think of any logical reason to do so. Yes I have heard the arguments about video encoding blah, blah, blah (as if any decent PC can't do the same without a REAL WORLD performance decline)...but if I were to try and sell you a car that was $10,000 more expensive than a comperable model and it had far fewer features, less horse power (by 1/2) and inferior parts BUT it drove REALLY well in reverse (my analogy to Video encoding PC vs. Mac) you would laugh me off the car lot!

ps. Oh, and don't forget the *fun* of buying Apple specific (OSX) software..when you can find it. Pretty sure that runs a bit more $$ too...


 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Oh, and don't forget the *fun* of buying Apple specific (OSX) software..when you can find it. Pretty sure that runs a bit more $$ too...
The consumer video editing and DVD authoring software (which is way better than any consumer level non-free Windows software), as well as a ton of other programs, come free with the machine with with the OS.

One of the reasons I got my TiBook was for the software. Even if spent $400 on the Windows side, the software would not have been as good. If I had spent say $1600 I'd get ultra high end Windows software, but it would have been too damn complicated for me. And I'd get better software for $1000 on the Mac side anyways.

But I forget, everyone pirates all of their software... ;)
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
The point is, for that price couldn't they have included it?

Included what? A cell-phone???

I just hate when companies say " so and so READY".. It's like when I was shopping for a new TV and they sales guy kept saying that they were High Definition READY...so I ask him how much to make it actually recieve the HD signal and it was like $300 for the decoder box....WTF?

I'm not sure that does "Bluetooth-ready" mean that "We will support Bluetooth, but we don't ship it with the box". I mean, PC's are "bluetooth-ready", so is Linux. So I don't think that "Bluetooth-ready" in this case means that they are ready to support it, but the product doesn't really have the capability.

Also, just guessing that the bluetooth units might have to be Apple specific and knowing Apple's HW price structure I assume that the cost will be higher than normal.

Not necessarily. I have Compaq-bluetooth in my Laptop, and it works flawlessly with my Nokia phone. It also works flawlessly with out Bluetooth base-station (made by yet another company)

But overall, my point is that the price of this and ALL of their systems are WAY overpriced for what you actually get. You would have to REALLY be fond of the styling to make up for the lack of decent hardware.

your main concern seemed to be the CPU. PowerPC's are sucky CPU's. Sure they don't get the MHz, but MHz isn't everything. For starters, they have smarter design and they run cool. Smart design wins over raw MHz IMO.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
I'm not sure that does "Bluetooth-ready" mean that "We will support Bluetooth, but we don't ship it with the box". I mean, PC's are "bluetooth-ready", so is Linux. So I don't think that "Bluetooth-ready" in this case means that they are ready to support it, but the product doesn't really have the capability.
The "ready" part just means that the OS supports it natively already. ie. Pop in a dongle and go. No drivers to load. This is not true on the Windows/Linux side though. You need extra drivers with Windows, etc.

The lower end Mac machines do not have a BlueTooth dongle. They cost $50 extra. It's included in the high-end models.

I ask him how much to make it actually recieve the HD signal and it was like $300 for the decoder box.... WTF?
I think that makes a lot of sense. I have an HD-ready widescreen TV, and after 2 years I still haven't felt the need to get a HD receiver. There is all of ONE channel in my neighbourhood, with limited HD programming. ie. I'd rather pay for it when the technology matures and becomes cheaper.
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
your main concern seemed to be the CPU. PowerPC's are sucky CPU's. Sure they don't get the MHz, but MHz isn't everything. For starters, they have smarter design and they run cool. Smart design wins over raw MHz IMO.

Ok, so I'll give up on the Blue Tooth argument. My point was WHY BOTHER to say that. Let's focus on the rest. Although MHz isn't everything, at some point a VAST difference in performance rating will be noticeable. 1.4GHZ on a 1XX FSB will perform worse than any current AMD / Intel offering at a much higher MHz rating and FSB speeds. Yet the prices are cheaper for the AMD / Intel solution.

Tell me that the fastest Motorola chip will operate comperably to even Mid Level AMD / Intel chips. Let alone unleashing an XP2600+ or a Intel P4 on the poor Motorola chip. Not even a fair fight.

Also am looking at the hardware that comprises this $1,499 wonder system and I see all kinds of skimping and poor performance parts.

1. an MX video card...jeez, can't wait to fire up any game made this decade and watch it crawl along!
2. 256 MB of SLOW ram...I guess for $1,400 we couldn't expect at LEAST 512MB of their crappy memory!
3. a whole 60GB ATA 100 HDD (did I miss the dynamic shift where HDD's are all of the sudden EXPENSIVE?)

C'mon! What's the justification of that price for this junk?

Again, Logically there is no reasonable argument to be made to buy this vs. a PC product.
I reference my system (again) and ask "For the SAME price which would you rather have?"

 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
your main concern seemed to be the CPU. PowerPC's are sucky CPU's. Sure they don't get the MHz, but MHz isn't everything. For starters, they have smarter design and they run cool. Smart design wins over raw MHz IMO.

Ok, so I'll give up on the Blue Tooth argument. My point was WHY BOTHER to say that. Let's focus on the rest. Although MHz isn't everything, at some point a VAST difference in performance rating will be noticeable. 1.4GHZ on a 1XX FSB will perform worse than any current AMD / Intel offering at a much higher MHz rating and FSB speeds. Yet the prices are cheaper for the AMD / Intel solution.

Tell me that the fastest Motorola chip will operate comperably to even Mid Level AMD / Intel chips. Let alone unleashing an XP2600+ or a Intel P4 on the poor Motorola chip. Not even a fair fight.

Also am looking at the hardware that comprises this $1,499 wonder system and I see all kinds of skimping and poor performance parts.

1. an MX video card...jeez, can't wait to fire up any game made this decade and watch it crawl along!
2. 256 MB of SLOW ram...I guess for $1,400 we couldn't expect at LEAST 512MB of their crappy memory!
3. a whole 60GB ATA 100 HDD (did I miss the dynamic shift where HDD's are all of the sudden EXPENSIVE?)

C'mon! What's the justification of that price for this junk?

Again, Logically there is no reasonable argument to be made to buy this vs. a PC product.
I reference my system (again) and ask "For the SAME price which would you rather have?"

the only thing you seem to care about is games. You don't buy a Mac to play games. No matter how to construe it the mac is made to work for you not for you to work with it.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Again, Logically there is no reasonable argument to be made to buy this vs. a PC product. I reference my system (again) and ask "For the SAME price which would you rather have?"


If anything is illogical in this thread it's you ASSuming you know what everyone else's computing needs and preferences are.
Both platforms have their pro's and con's.

And to answer yer Q, neither your rig nor an iMac meets my needs.


Lethal

EDIT: fixed tag
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
If anything is illogical in this thread it's you ASSuming you know what everyone else's computing needs and preferences are.
Both platforms have their pro's and con's.

And to answer yer Q, neither your rig nor an iMac meets my needs.

-Lethal


I Don't ASSUME to know everyone's computer needs, but I DO KNOW that a 64 MB GeForce MX, 256MB of memory and a 60GB HDD teamed up with a 1.42GHz CPU is about $250 worth of Parts !

So when you consider that the system is $1,499 it had better be one HELL of an attractive box!

And NO I don't just use my computer for games (although, it certainly is nice to be ABLE to play them should I choose to). I also use CAD / Visio and Photoshop. This means the Memory / CPU / HDD and Video card are integral parts of my system. If the assertion here is that these don't matter (Hey, that MX card is MORE than powerful enough to use Word, and surf the web), then please continue to purchase overpriced / overhyped / outdated technology and chide the rest of us for not "getting" it.

Me, I'll stick with what I got and leave the pretty colored baubles to the Apple fanboys.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
If anything is illogical in this thread it's you ASSuming you know what everyone else's computing needs and preferences are.
Both platforms have their pro's and con's.

And to answer yer Q, neither your rig nor an iMac meets my needs.

-Lethal


I Don't ASSUME to know everyone's computer needs, but I DO KNOW that a 64 MB GeForce MX, 256MB of memory and a 60GB HDD teamed up with a 1.42GHz CPU is about $250 worth of Parts !


If you don't assume to know what everyone wants then why are you pushing your rig in everyone's face (you've pointed to it in 2 outta yer 4 posts)?

You keep yapping about "hardware this" and "hardware that", but, OMG, some people actually want or need software and/or hardware that's not avaible on x86 machines. :Q And some people might actually enjoy getting free, quality apps bundled w/their computer. :Q

You primarily use CAD / Visio, Photoshop and run games. So you've built (purchased?) a rig that meets your needs. That's great. I wanted a rig for video editing so, like you, I choose something that fit my needs. Do you see me telling you yer rig is sh*t because it can't fulfill my needs? No. Because it's your rig and it does what you need it to do, and that's what matters.

I don't know what you feel you need to prove or defend, but this thread was pretty flame free until you came charging in like a bat outta hell. As a final note, I'd just like to mention I love the irony of AMD users citing clockspeed.


Lethal
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
I Don't ASSUME to know everyone's computer needs, but I DO KNOW that a 64 MB GeForce MX, 256MB of memory and a 60GB HDD teamed up with a 1.42GHz CPU is about $250 worth of Parts !
I bought an Asus Geforce4 MX 440 dual head for my XP box. It was completely unusable, the VGA 2D quality was so bad. I took it out after a few hours. So now I run an a Radeon 7200 because it has great 2D quality.

And you forgot the include the case (and all the other hardware it takes to make a computer), as well as the OS and the software.

You can't build a computer on specs alone. You can't run a computer without software either.
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
I pointed out my rig as an example of a budget system. I could just have easily pointed out any rig on this board. I am just trying to explain my point of view that you can build a better (subjective) rig for a LOT less.

Yes I understand that there needs to be software etc. to make the magic box run, but all I am trying to say is that Apple's pricing seems to be out of whack for what they are providing. You can always swap software, but you are limited by your Hardware which is the foundation of your system. The extra $1150 would buy a LOT of software.

I did not intend to be the bearer of a flame war...I just fail to recognize how normally logical people can rationalize spending that kind of money on what appears to be an inferior machine. Or how apple can put the MX card and 256MB of RAM in a $1,400 rig. Check out any off the shelf rig from Dell / Compaq and you will see top of the line cards and 512MB memory at least...Nevermind the $3k+ rig that apple sells (Gimme a "Falcon" for that kind of ching)

You keep mentioning that they don't suit your needs. that is fine as i am not sure what needs would not be met by either system mentioned, but my original point was and still is that the apple systems are overpriced. Do they work..YES, do they look cool..YES, is the componentry worth the extra cost...NO it just isn't. <---(my opinion).

No flames intended. Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they usually stink.

I have used Mac's and my company still has 1 or 2 kicking around, but for me and the designers it is the PC that gets the usage. The Mac's are good conversation pieces.

Fact of the matter is..it's your money and you earned it. Ie..spend it how you choose.

Peace!
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
mjolnir2k,

You're right, you just don't get it. Good specs and features don't make a good product. I have used many PCs, and I can tell you that on-paper specs mean squat, unless all you want to do is crunch numbers.

For instance I brought up the issue of my not-so-cheap Geforce4 MX dual head card because it should by your criteria be way better than my single head Radeon 7200. Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap by my standards, and I'd gladly take any Matrox over it even though Matrox cards are crap gaming cards.

Furthermore, your $250 would not build you a passable computer at all, for just about any purpose. So don't give us this baloney of $250 hardware and $1150 software.

Yes, I'm the first the admit that PowerMacs are underpowered. However, that by no means that any old crap PC will be a better machine, especially when one considers specific needs for specific individuals.

Indeed, in my particular case for what I NEED TO DO WITH IT, even a $2000 PC would be inferior to a $1700 Mac.

However, I have not only this single set of requirements and thus I have BOTH Windows PCs and a Mac.

Once you actually use the hardware and software together for these purposes, then maybe you'll figure out what the rest of us are talking about. And I'm not talking about 3 year-old hardware running OS 9. I'm talking current Macs running OS X.2 Jaguar.
 

imgod2u

Senior member
Sep 16, 2000
993
0
0
Originally posted by: ed21x
a ton of people are prolly gearing up to bash the mac in this thread, but let me be the first to mention that those systems prolly get more girls cuz they're so d@mn sexy :)

You could just buy a Corvette like all the other insecure people with SDS.
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
Originally posted by: Eug
mjolnir2k,

You're right, you just don't get it. Good specs and features don't make a good product. I have used many PCs, and I can tell you that on-paper specs mean squat, unless all you want to do is crunch numbers.

For instance I brought up the issue of my not-so-cheap Geforce4 MX dual head card because it should by your criteria be way better than my single head Radeon 7200. Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap by my standards, and I'd gladly take any Matrox over it even though Matrox cards are crap gaming cards.

Furthermore, your $250 would not build you a passable computer at all, for just about any purpose. So don't give us this baloney of $250 hardware and $1150 software.

Yes, I'm the first the admit that PowerMacs are underpowered. However, that by no means that any old crap PC will be a better machine, especially when one considers specific needs for specific individuals.

Indeed, in my particular case for what I NEED TO DO WITH IT, even a $2000 PC would be inferior to a $1700 Mac.

However, I have not only this single set of requirements and thus I have BOTH Windows PCs and a Mac.

Once you actually use the hardware and software together for these purposes, then maybe you'll figure out what the rest of us are talking about. And I'm not talking about 3 year-old hardware running OS 9. I'm talking current Macs running OS X.2 Jaguar.

Have fun with your Mac...as I have stated "It's YOUR money". I am certain Apple will send you a "thank you" card for supporting their 30-60% gross margins.

If it works for you, great! (keep shining those rose colored glasses...or is it "berry"?) and you are right..I don't get it and wouldn't waste the money to do so, because it wouldn't work for me or my wallet.

Too bad I can't have the "opinion" that they are overpriced (which they ARE) without getting killed for it. I guess apple slashing their prices on some proprietary HW like their Cinema display (now $2k down from $3,500) just says to you that they are consumer friendly, NOT that they were overpriced to begin with! How can you explain such a DRAMATIC price cut without understanding the concept of a DRAMATIC overprice to begin with...maybe it's YOU who "doesn't get it"?

Last time: My point is Apple's are overpriced. Period! That's it, nothing else.
enjoy!

 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
$1,499.00
1GHz PowerPC G4 1MB L3 cache
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA/100
Combo drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
64MB DDR video memory
FireWire 800
56K internal modem
Bluetooth Ready

Yes, you're right, somebody has to say it so it might as well be me. Do you have any idea how much faster a PC I could make for that price? Ridiculous.
 

vegetation

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
4,270
2
0
Sure there is. Why do you think people are constantly comparing benchmarks between the two platforms?

there is no CPU war between Apple since Apple uses a different OS and is RISC and oh...Motorola makes the PPC not Apple anyway