*** NEW POWERMACS*** top of the line = Dual G4 1.25GHZ, 4 megs Cache, DDR, +

[SerraYX]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
I'm thinking of getting the 800MHz Ti Powerbook. I have a friend that works at Apple that can get me the powebook that normally retails for $3200 for only $2400!

I would like to run OS X, and with 10.2 (jaguar) about to come out it might be worth it. I would still keep a PC for file sharing/serving, but one of the Ti laptops would be killer...

You guys think I should go for that Ti book?

Sounds like a good deal. Apple laptops (unlike the desktops) are pretty nice if you can get em for a deal. Well, for web browsing anyway.

Macs are like the SNL computer buying joke:
Salesman: "Okay, we have this basic model Mac here, starts at $1700"
Customer: "And this one will surf the internet and word process?"
Salesman: "Whoa whoa whoa! You want to SURF the INTERNET? Well then..you'll need at least 2mb of L3 cache, 512mb of DDR SDRAM, and this SuperDrive thingy. This model's only $3299."
Customer: "And I guess gaming's out of the question..."
Salesman: "Either fork over the $5000 or fuggedaboudit"

Yeah.. my friend's brother tried justifying his G4 purchase...until he mentioned that he's still paying for it and will be for a long time. I asked if it was worth his soul, he said all his web designing friends used em, so he tried one. I asked if all his friends were still paying for them too

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: B00ne
dunno if a "top of the line" mac should excite me, last time apple quoted performance figures on their "top of the line" dual G4 800Mhz with gef4MX i was more than surprised to see the fps in quake3 to be quite equal to the ones of my single p3- 800/gef1ddr. difference: their offer was like $3000 mine was $300 - Sound pretty competitive to me

Yup.

Their "top of the line" is pretty crappy if you ask me. Who wants to spend that kind of money only to get a gforce4 MX card or a Radeon 9000? If I spend that kind of money on a system I want a high end video card, not a "bargian" card, which is exactly what the MX and 9000 line of cards are.

 

[MazerRackham]

Haters.

 

[Draco]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham

lucky SOB. I want a iBook.

Haha, well all I can say is make friends with someone at Apple. They have quarterly promos all the time on most of their systems. I just got a friend of mine $400 off of the 12" screen iBook 700MHz

The deal on the Ti 'book won't last long. What should I do!!?! $2400 is still a lot, but it's better than $3200

I'd buy that bitch! A brand new 800MHz TiBook for $2400? That's the best laptop. The iBooks are sweet too, and so are these new Dual-G4 PowerMac's. If I had 6 or 7 grand to blow I'd get one with their beautiful 23" display... *Drool*

 

[Adul]

For 5k I would have a real PC that I can do even more real work on then I would be able to on a dual 1.25 g4. Mm triple monitor support, parhelia, raid 5 (4 120 GB diskls) DvD-R, CD-RW, 3 19" monitors, kick ass speakers, etc

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: LaBang
Just a bit of information. Buying a top of the line Apple is a bad investment. You can get it more barebones for much cheaper. Apple charges huge market on most of the "extras". So the 5k computer is just for show.

Exactly right. Every computer company rapes you on the upgrades and Apple is obviously not an exception. It's better to just buy the low-end system and buy the upgrades yourself.

Desslock you're an idiot. You speak as if it's not possible to connect a multi-button mouse to a Mac..

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever

Originally posted by: LaBang
Just a bit of information. Buying a top of the line Apple is a bad investment. You can get it more barebones for much cheaper. Apple charges huge market on most of the "extras". So the 5k computer is just for show.

Exactly right. Every computer company rapes you on the upgrades and Apple is obviously not an exception. It's better to just buy the low-end system and buy the upgrades yourself.

Desslock you're an idiot. You speak as if it's not possible to connect a multi-button mouse to a Mac..

Good point. However, I did notice one thing: The "Fastest" version, the one with dual 1.25GHz G4s, has 2MB L3 cache, whereas the others have 1MB L3 cache. I'm wondering if that makes a difference. Come to think of it, does the x86 architecture even have L3 cache? Let's see some PC vs Mac benchmarks on something other than Photoshop (heavily optimized for Alti-Vec)...

 

[MazerRackham]

For me, the appeal is OS X. I have seen the new version (10.2), and it's very nice. Even their version of AIM is pretty tight (iChat).

The kicker for me is that I used to be a mac-addict, and I switched to windows boxes like 2 years ago. Now I want to go back. I would be a great candidate for their "Switch" ads

Anyway, OS X has built-in support for multiple button mice, so all you have to do is plug one in. I also wish apple would go with a two button setup, but it's easy enough to plug in one of your own.

Have any of you guys seen MS Office v.X? It puts Offfice XP to shame. Really.

 

[mpitts]

I have a G4/350 right now, and am just getting aquainted with OS X. I really like it, but I don't see it becoming my main rig. I am a PC guy at heart, and don't ever see that happening.

On the other hand, I do find myself wanting to sell the G4 PowerMac and picking up one of the new Dual 1Ghz's. My main problem with Apple is that their hardware is greatly underpowered for what you pay. I may go the used route and pick up a nice Quiksilver model.

 

[MazerRackham]

I think if you saw 10.2 in action you would want a new G4 even more. Very very nice.

I still need to figure out a way to buy the Ti 800 before the deal ends....

 

[geno]

Desslock you're an idiot. You speak as if it's not possible to connect a multi-button mouse to a Mac..

IMO that should be a standard feature and not something you have to pay extra for. It's a small gripe, but it's really just an industry standard, and has been that way for years.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Come to think of it, does the x86 architecture even have L3 cache?

There's nothing in x86 that stops chip-companies from implementing L3-cache. K6-III had L3 cache and it was x86 CPU.

 

[jthsmak]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: RGN

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: RSI
What kind of a PC could we build for $5k?

Quad proc xeon

But you couldn't run OSX on it.

You couldn't even run Win2K on it unless you went with Advanced Server.

Viper GTS

I've heard of someone using professional with quads, not sure if its true though.

 

[Killbat]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
For me, the appeal is OS X. I have seen the new version (10.2), and it's very nice. Even their version of AIM is pretty tight (iChat).

The kicker for me is that I used to be a mac-addict, and I switched to windows boxes like 2 years ago. Now I want to go back. I would be a great candidate for their "Switch" ads

Anyway, OS X has built-in support for multiple button mice, so all you have to do is plug one in. I also wish apple would go with a two button setup, but it's easy enough to plug in one of your own.

Have any of you guys seen MS Office v.X? It puts Offfice XP to shame. Really.

Oh dear GOD, that is one heinous chat interface. I need my desktop space for other things; if it's not absolutely minimalist and translucent, it's not a chat window worth the space it consumes.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
For me, the appeal is OS X. I have seen the new version (10.2), and it's very nice. Even their version of AIM is pretty tight (iChat).

"Hey, are you ready for lunch?"
"Yes - what do you have in mind"
"How about that new McDonalds in the mall. Afterwards we could go back to my place and have sex"
"Sounds good - You pay for my "happymeal" this time.... "
"See you there in 15 minutes!"

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: jthsmak

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: RGN

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: RSI
What kind of a PC could we build for $5k?

Quad proc xeon

But you couldn't run OSX on it.

You couldn't even run Win2K on it unless you went with Advanced Server.

Viper GTS

I've heard of someone using professional with quads, not sure if its true though.

I am sure it would work, but it would only utilize two of the CPUs.

 

[jthsmak]

No, but with all 4 working. Again, I haven't seen it so I don't know for sure.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: jthsmak
No, but with all 4 working. Again, I haven't seen it so I don't know for sure.

Doubtful. It goes:

Win2K Pro - 2 CPU
Win2K Server - 4 CPU
Win2K Advanced Server - 8 CPU
Win2K Datacenter - between 16 and 32 CPU

 

[Czar]

and aparently these new macs SUCK!

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1545

BareFeats has a benchmark, testing the SDRAM-based dual G4 at 1Ghz with the new DDR PC2100 ones. The new PowerMacs are the same or slower than their previous models, the test reveals. The Mac community got a bit dissapointed (judging from the forums). The author says that the slowdown is because the two processors share a 1GB/s pipe to Apple's custom AGP/Memory controller. While the shared bandwidth is a factor, it is not the reason that makes the new Macs slower. Having a better look at the specs, show that the author have forgot a very important detail

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
At least this machine is faster than the average PC

If I remember correctly this is the second thread you have posted that link in to. I hereby deny you the right to post that link in to any discussion taking place in Anandtech Forums

besides, we all know that IBM and SGI 0wns Sun.

We all know the new Itanium II's will 0wn

You can't build a Quad Xeon for $5000. Only XeonMPs scale up to 8 processors, the regular socket603 Xeons only do SMP. Quad XeonMP 1.4Ghz with 2MB cache will cost more than $5000 (although I suppose you could get the 512K cache derivative for a lot less).

Also DDR memory is useless to a Mac because it only has an SDR FSB operating at 166Mhz. Approximately half the DDR bandwidth is going to waste (imagine an Athlon XP/Pentium4 with SDR ram). Not to mention that the 2 procs shares its FSB, so memory intensive apps are going to beat the crap out of a Mac, unless with optimizations.

 

[mpitts]

Yeah, the performance increase is minimal.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Czar
and aparently these new macs SUCK!

Well duh!

 

[stev0]

You guys think I should go for that Ti book?

how about you just give me the 2400 bucks and i'll come and hit you in the head with a ball pein hammer

 

[Mrburns2007]

In other Mac news, Apple will coincide with next week's release of Mac OS X version 10.2 (also known as Jaguar), consumers can buy a $199 a copy of the operating system and install it on up to five Macs in a single household

To bad Windows XP doesn't allow this....

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

In other Mac news, Apple will coincide with next week's release of Mac OS X version 10.2 (also known as Jaguar), consumers can buy a $199 a copy of the operating system and install it on up to five Macs in a single household

To bad Windows XP doesn't allow this....

Sure you can do it. You just can't use those computers simultaneously