Quad PowerMacs?

[mcdawson]

re:Need for more power from typical user

I agree that we would all benefit from faster machines, though I have to point out that for the typical user the current machines are currently FASTER than what is required by most people. Do you think that having 4GHz P4s or 3GHz G5s today would significanlty change most people's computing experience? Would they read their email faster or even browse the web faster? Would they type their Word docs faster?

There are lots of people that use Apple's iLife, especially iMovie and iDVD. While I don't know how many are considered "typical", most users of iMovie and ESPECIALLY iDVD would love a machine a lot faster! It easily takes 4-6 hours to encode a 2 hr DVD and many minutes to add 30-40 iMovie transitions on my dual 1 GHz G4. Being able to to have instant transitions and say 30 min DVD encoding would be wonderful (esp if you're trying to convert your tape library to DVD, and have a lot of tapes!). So the typical user doesn't need extra power for Photoshop--they need even MORE power for iDVD and iMovie--programs that now consume (it sounds like) even more processing power than many professional apps.

 

[Mr Maui]

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

Hate to disagree ... but ...

Check out the Federal Government.

All it really requires is someone, somewhere willing to keep investing capital in your losing venture.

 

[tibor]

Hate to disagree ... but ...

Check out the Federal Government.

Maybe (hopefully) you're not serious, but in case you are:

-the government is not primarily in place to make a profit. Corporations are.

-the government is not a corporation, nor is it run like one. Know anyone who works for a large government organization? Then you know horror stories of bureaucracy and incompetence.

I think in some ways, government should be run more like corporations. But overall, I'm very happy they're not. I don't want to get in a bidding war for better garbage or police service than my neighbors. That goes against what my country stands for.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-d

 

[ffakr]

There are lots of people that use Apple's iLife, especially iMovie and iDVD. While I don't know how many are considered "typical", most users of iMovie and ESPECIALLY iDVD would love a machine a lot faster! It easily takes 4-6 hours to encode a 2 hr DVD and many minutes to add 30-40 iMovie transitions on my dual 1 GHz G4. Being able to to have instant transitions and say 30 min DVD encoding would be wonderful (esp if you're trying to convert your tape library to DVD, and have a lot of tapes!). So the typical user doesn't need extra power for Photoshop--they need even MORE power for iDVD and iMovie--programs that now consume (it sounds like) even more processing power than many professional apps.

I don't disagree with this at all, but my posts are about balance. A dual 2GHz G5 tears ass through things like rendering keynote output to high quality Quicktime (I haven't actually ripped a DVD on ours, but I'd hazard that it would fall into your requirements.

The original discussion I was commenting on, however, was mainly about two points. The first was that, with very fast dual G5s and the prospect of much faster dual G5s right around the corner.. there is already a LOT of horsepower available to typical home users (even recreational video editors). So much so that, in fact, it wouldn't make sense to expect that consumers would pay significantly more for a quad processor Mac than a Dual G5. The other main point was that it wouldn't make sense for Apple to release bumped dual G5s and a lower clocked quad since the performance advantage of a slower clocked quad wouldn't justify the price increase over a very fast dual G5 (there was a post about Apple maybe releasing dual 2.5GHz vs. a quad 2GHz).

It's not entirely fair to look at the performance of a dual 1GHz G4 and deduce that the current or Next Gen dual G5s don't have enough horsepower to render home DVDs.

just my 2 cents.
Ffakr.

 

[Mr Maui]

Maybe (hopefully) you're not serious, but in case you are:

-the government is not primarily in place to make a profit. Corporations are.

-the government is not a corporation, nor is it run like one. Know anyone who works for a large government organization? Then you know horror stories of bureaucracy and incompetence.

I think in some ways, government should be run more like corporations. But overall, I'm very happy they're not. I don't want to get in a bidding war for better garbage or police service than my neighbors. That goes against what my country stands for.

Actually, though I hate to disagree with people when possible, our Government IS a corporation, like most Cities, Townships, etc., but I concur that they are not run like one (at least not a functional one). I further absolutely agree with your quote from TJ, and hope one day that our government will recognize, respect, and acknowledge the truths in that statement.

 

[Viv]

Ok I have only skimed the tread but the main arguments seems to be we dont need quads or duels that much as most users dont use the power, the power they do have is used for reading emails and browsing the web with a small percentage using the power to do video editing etc.

But its a model based on one user one machine, so lets look at a differant model, lets have a university, every one needs a a computer so lets give them all duel or qaud machines, basically good machines rather than ones that will do!

That does not benefit the users that much by the above argument but now lets add Apples XGrid to the mix.

http://www.apple.com/acg/xgrid/

So now every machine is being used to the maximum by every one and the researchers have a new supercomputer on the cheap! basically for only a bit more as they were going to pay out to fill the campus with desktops any way.

That is a powerfull sales model, a good sales man could make a lot of money out of that.

Viv

 

[ffakr]

Ok I have only skimed the tread but the main arguments seems to be we dont need quads or duels that much as most users dont use the power, the power they do have is used for reading emails and browsing the web with a small percentage using the power to do video editing etc.

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

 

[Viv]

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

$5K for a high end desktop for a researcher is pretty small bear so yes i would agree with you, throw exgrid in and its a good budget argument for any one in that line of work.

Viv

 

[jsw]

$5K for a high end desktop for a researcher is pretty small bear so yes i would agree with you, throw exgrid in and its a good budget argument for any one in that line of work.

Viv

Well, I sort of agree. Xgrid is a good argument in favor of that (though, side topic: the Xgrid Mandlebrot demo is god-awful slow...).

But...would there not be a better argument for a quad-processor Xserve? It seems to me that a quad-processor G5 desktop would be harder to justify - unless you're using it nearly full-time for Xgrid, you're wasting a lot of potential CPU cycles. So, to me, a quad-processor, headless (i.e., no graphics card), single disk (meant for calculation, not storage), number-crunching menace in a 1U or 2U size factor would sell quite well.

I'm just not sure a quad G5 desktop would sell many units - compared to the headless option that would let research teams more easily pool their resources. I'd love to see one, though, of course!

 

[ffakr]

Well, I sort of agree. Xgrid is a good argument in favor of that (though, side topic: the Xgrid Mandlebrot demo is god-awful slow...).

But...would there not be a better argument for a quad-processor Xserve? It seems to me that a quad-processor G5 desktop would be harder to justify - unless you're using it nearly full-time for Xgrid, you're wasting a lot of potential CPU cycles. So, to me, a quad-processor, headless (i.e., no graphics card), single disk (meant for calculation, not storage), number-crunching menace in a 1U or 2U size factor would sell quite well.

I'm just not sure a quad G5 desktop would sell many units - compared to the headless option that would let research teams more easily pool their resources. I'd love to see one, though, of course!

xgrid is cool, and the latest preview release (still only days old) supports MPI..
Unfortunately, xgrid is being designed for loosely coupled networks (a grid) with high latency. It's a solution for massively parallel tasks, not for tightly coupled - parallel tasks. A quad processor machine would fill a research, cad, video market where you want a lot of CPU power and a fairly low latency between processing units [CPUs]. I'm not saying that xgrid won't be fabulous in a lab full of quad processor macs, just that it's designed for situtations where you don't need to buy a pallette of quad G5s to get a lot of work done.

 

[wdlove]

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

I don't use iDVD or iMovie. Though happily for the first time, I feel that I'm using the full processor power of my dual 450 G4. I doing good for humanity by protein folding. So if I had more processor power, then I would just increase my capacity.

 

[jsw]

I don't use iDVD or iMovie. Though happily for the first time, I feel that I'm using the full processor power of my dual 450 G4. I doing good for humanity by protein folding. So if I had more processor power, then I would just increase my capacity.

There you go! Multi-processor Macs let us serve humanity while still giving us a processor's worth of capacity to, say, browse the web and complain about why the new computers aren't out yet!

 

[Bear]

Tuesday the 23rd.!!!!!

The 23rd of what month and year?

 

[jsw]

The 23rd of what month and year?

The next Tuesday the 23rd is in November. Sounds about right for G5 laptops....

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

"Nobody needs that kind of speed"

Let me just go on record that anybody who says, "nobody needs a computer that fast" is a knucklehead.

The sad status-quo of computing is largely bound by slow hardware speed. If hardware was faster we could use more reliable technologies, making computing more reliable and occasionally less infurating.

Just like the Macintosh 128k didn't run an OS like Mac OS X, the OS we're going to run on faster machiines will seem that much better.

I remember when the 386/33 came out - "Only scientists and architects will ever need that much power" was PC Magazine's take. And 640k of RAM will be enough for anybody. And nobody needs a computer in their home. Get in line, knuckleheads.

 

[aswitcher]

Let me just go on record that anybody who says, "nobody needs a computer that fast" is a knucklehead.

SNIP

I remember when the 386/33 came out - "Only scientists and architects will ever need that much power" was PC Magazine's take. And 640k of RAM will be enough for anybody. And nobody needs a computer in their home. Get in line, knuckleheads.

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right!

 

[jsw]

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right!

Agreed. Few people need more than 100HP, and few people need anything faster i.t.o. computers than what was available 4-5 years ago.

But, man, oh man, people will buy what they want, not just what they need. And people will always want something faster.

It's kind of like when you're cruising along in the fast lane, thinking you're going plenty fast enough. Then someone gets in front of you, going the same speed. Suddenly, you need to go faster. Because it's no fun going as fast as everyone else....

 

[Viv]

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/29/moe/index.php?redirect=1080560731000

well they seem to thinka big Mac on every desk is fine, sounds like a nice product and designed to make use of the new Macs.

Viv

 

[j_maddison]

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right!

The reality is that consumes do need faster machines. I'll agree that browsing the net is fine on even my modest Rev A 12" Powerbook, but lets be honest any gains in speed while using imovie or idvd have major benefits when winning the consumer market. Apple know their faithful consumers are the prosumers, but the consumer (imac / emac / ibook) market is much much bigger. Even prosumers would benefit from economies of scale if apple gains a few more % in the consumre market. The reality is i think (gamers aside) that Apple products would add more to the consumer market than people realise. I wish id discoved macs sooner (four year user), i wouldnt have lost half as much work while i was at univrsity. Its your average consumer that gets hit with viruses becuse quite frankly we know less, were the ones who need the simplicity of imovie and idvd, and the whole mac experience makes me enjoy using a computer as opposed to using it because i have to.

anyway apple marketing, like most marketing departments wont listen because in reality there are alot of people in marketing departments who know nothing about marketing. I work for a bluechip company and to say that marketeers and management and directors know very little about marketing and strategy is an understatment. If it doesnt fit into basic Porter or a basic swat or pestel analysis then they havent a clue.

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

jay

 

[aswitcher]

CHANGABLE METAL PANELS

The reality is that consumes do need faster machines. SNIP

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

jay

G5 will go to iBook, but no time soon.

Colour is a big issue I think if they follow the Mini iPod schemes in metal not plastic. Not sure about gold but silver, blue, green and pink would work for eMacs and ibooks for consumers IMNSHO. Kids go to school with ibooks these days and most kids will have a home eMac or iBook if they have their own mac at home, so colours would appeal. It worked a number of years back and you know what the KILLER APPLICATION WOULD BE FOR COLOURED eMACS and IBOOKS - CHANGABLE PANELS!!! Just like mobile phones, but obviously afixed far more securely. I think a whole industry would spring up like it has for mobile phones doing customs panels for people...

Dual for power line makes sense once iMacs get a G5 and decent specs.

I agree PB line could do with the same chip BUT I think you;ll find that they dont do that because of battery life due to larger space in larger machines.

Superdrives will become standard...maybe end of 2005

What this has to do with Quad Processes I cannot say...

 

[Viv]

"Snip"

What this has to do with Quad Processes I cannot say...

Welll! I was just arguing against the idea that you did not need a super fast machine to read this post, I think you do becouse Apple have a way to use that spare power to form clusters and groups of CPU power in companys.

imagine building full of computers, nowadays you would have to put one on each desk any way just to run your business.

Now Apple have given you the ability to use all the spare CPU power in the building to run applications as well.

How cool is that! buy our Macs and get a super computer thrown in for free!

So the users win becouse now the better their desktop machine is the better the companys computing resources are.

That software link I posted earlyer uses this capacity.

Am i selling new lamps for old here or what!

Viv

 

[Frohickey]

How cool is that! buy our Macs and get a super computer thrown in for free!

So the users win becouse now the better their desktop machine is the better the companys computing resources are.

That software link I posted earlyer uses this capacity.

Yeah. But I think its a bad idea. I could see biotech firms buying a lot of Macs for their employees and researchers to use, and then at quitting time all of the Macs are clustered and go and churn on the batch jobs... but it only takes a few engineers playing net Unreal Tournament to hose that idea.

 

[Viv]

Yeah. But I think its a bad idea. I could see biotech firms buying a lot of Macs for their employees and researchers to use, and then at quitting time all of the Macs are clustered and go and churn on the batch jobs... but it only takes a few engineers playing net Unreal Tournament to hose that idea.

Well they just posted the new version of UT2K4 so it seems a real danger! so we do need faster Macs to stop it happening

Viv

 

[aswitcher]

Well they just posted the new version of UT2K4 so it seems a real danger! so we do need faster Macs to stop it happening

Viv

I saw the minimum specs, 933Mhz, 6 gig HD, 64Vid AGP ram, 256RAM, DVD, OSX 10.2.8...

Does anyone know what the recommended is for decent performance?

 

[thatwendigo]

Even prosumers would benefit from economies of scale if apple gains a few more % in the consumre market. The reality is i think (gamers aside) that Apple products would add more to the consumer market than people realise.

Actually, I think you're dead wrong in a number of ways. The prosumer and professional macs are an order of magnitude more complex than the consumer boxes, and use parts that are wholly more expensive than the lower end machines. As such, it doesn't benefit them for there to be a greater availability of components that would be of no use.

That's akin to arguing that the mac market benefits because the sub-$500 market prospers, just because small hard drives are being produced.

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

Sorry, but you're not going to see it, short of some kind of hardware miracle. For one thing, IBM needs to supply the chips, just to begin with. There's the issues that have been talked to death, too, like heat, redesigned systems, and the expense of the parts needed to keep the G5 fed. The G4 is not a whole lot slower, unless you pay the premium for better FSB, better I/O, better drives, better motherboards, and so on... It doesn't lend itself to cheap systems, period.

Keep this in mind: To cool the tower effectively and quietly, Apple uses nine fans in a full enclosure. The Xserves manage it with something like four, but they're loud, loud, loud. Apply that as you wish.