Don’t Buy A Quad G5
Back in the pre-Intel days I must confess there would have been some drool hitting the keyboard as I write this right now. Quad G5s?! Holy moly! It sounds to good be true. You mean not only do I get one blazing fast Intel-snail-crushing G5 chip, but I get it by the factor of 4?
Oh, except for the Intel-snail-crushing part. Which is why Steve Jobs was absent when the announcement was made. All this was was a speed bump for a dead chip. Yes, folks, a chip that is dead, as in end-of-the-line. Cancelled. Irrelevant.
What was most curious to watch was the Apple hype-marketing machine turned off. Sure you can see a hint of it on the copy describing the new G5s. But the comparisons we have seen in the past have gone.
The G5 no longer matters to Apple. And that is why, unless I had some very pressing high-end video project over the next six to twelve months I wouldn’t even consider buying the new G5. It is simply a waste of money. And something that in short order, I’d want to replace with not only a new chip, but also a new architecture (and hopefully, given my thoughts of the G5 design) a new form factor.
It will be interesting to see how sales of this new G5 are. I do suspect that Apple knows they will be mediocre at best. This, along with the powerbook update was just an update; something to keep the current line-up alive while the real deal gets worked on inside Cupertino.
I, for one, can’t wait to see what that real deal is. Whatever it is, I can guarantee you one thing, Steve will present it himself, and he’ll have a few Keynote slides about how it kicks the Quad G5’s butt.
What do you think? Would you consider buying a new G5?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I just bought a dual 2.5 in April and I’d totally buy a Quad had I the deposible cash.
Saying it’s a waste of money is idiocy. I encourage you to check out the following article:
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/2005/10/quad-power-mac-g5-is-bargain.html
To second jbelkin’s and waa’s comments, I’ll utter that in addition to the uncertainty of when Intel PowerMacs (or whatever they’ll be called) will realistically appear, the relatively small adoption rate of those after their introduction (a Mac user registration plate template is usually “OUTVMYDEDFNGRZ”) and the irrevocable law of computer acquisition (namely don’t ever, EVER, buy rev.A products,) I’m adamant that the dual-dual G5 is a viable choice and more-than-reasonable investment for those in need of serious number-crunching goodness.
Universal Binaries are here (or soon here) to stay, because the majority of Mac users will own a PPC machine for years to come. Suicidal tendencies aside, there is no way in hell that software developers would issue Intel-only code until after 2010-2012
Rough guesstimate time-line:
Intro of Intel-powered Apple dual & dual-dual workstations:
-> in or after 2007
Intel porting of ALL mission-critical applications:
-> in or after 2008
Hardware debugging (maturity, stability, customers stop waving class action suites) of MacTel power-horses:
-> in or after 2008
Major in-field debugging (end-users cease to complain) of Universal Binary versions of major application suites:
-> in or after 2009
Therefore:
Half-life of the last PPC PowerMacs:
-in or after 2010
Your perception may vary…
I’d be more worried about purchasing a spanking-new PowerBook… Apple’s laptop line is the prime target for Centrino-derived goodness, so I expect that it’ll get the Intel treatment before desktops, with maybe, just maybe, the Mac mini and/or iMac in the same batch.
Nevertheless, the sweetest Mac ever (price point/performance/features) is the latest 17” iMac G5; I expect Apple to sell them by the ton. I want one. Now.
Studios, offices, institutions and individuals needing the ultimate performance for running work-flows in Mac OS X are VERY interested in the Quad. Now. No yelling in the desert about the day after tomorrow will prove otherwise.
PPC is here for a while, at least as an unavoidable legacy. Mark my words.
For 5 years I was an Apple Rep for several major stores in Southern California. During the end of the time I worked for Apple Computer the G4 towers were at the top of Apple’s pro computer offerings. These high powered, high end systems were considerably more expensive then todays G5’s. The top model had a MSRP of $4999.00. And of course in these stores every system sold for that price. Several times while making a store vist I had a professional photographer’s come in and buy the most expensive system for $4999.00. That’s not all they also maxed out the memory for their new system, which was also very expensive. The price for this memory was another $4999.00. For a total sale of over $10,000 before tax! One of these photographer’s when I discussed the cost of the system stated “one good job will pay for this purchase.” Showing when time is big money speed really does matter. These high end muli-processor system are designed for them (Professiona photographer’s. Not for the rest of us!
Glenn
Strange article. When did the PowerPC 970 (aka the G5) become such a poor chip relative to a Pentium 4 ???!!!
I think its designers would be very disappointed that such poorly informed FUD was being propagated by a Power Mac user of all people. Hmm.
Clock for clock, particularly with Altivec optimized and multi-threaded software, a G5 smokes a Pentium. Yes, Pentiums go to 3.6 GHz, but in a system with four effective processors, it’s still competitive.
I bought one of the first batches of Ford Focus hatchbacks. It had 14 recalls. I also bought one of the first 12” Aluminum PowerBooks. It didn’t have 14 recalls, but it had its share of bugs to shake out.
The first Intel machines will be an experiment. And, at that, I thought I heard they’d be replacing the low-end machines first. So where’s this G5 come out as obsolete?
Although I have high hopes for the Intel transition for Apple, and I plan to own one in a few years, my next upgrade will be to a 15” PowerBook G4 in the next few months. I’ll expect it to be a mature product, and I expect it’ll age well while developers make the jump to Intel binaries. By 2008 or so, I might just be ready to hop on over to the new machines.
I refreshed Apple Store wed. Every ten minutes to get my order in ASAP. Not out of sheer glee at the new chips, but sheer desperation. Working off a 1GB G4 PB isn’t cutting it. Point is many need a power boost now, and the several improvements really help and keep the PowerPC at a relatively good stance. Next system purchased will see mature Pentiums and compatible Apps. Computers are the most expensive disposable item I know at $2-3k every two years.
Well, if you are a hobbiest and are buying a Pro machine for the heck of it, your advice is probably good. Hang on if you can.
A friend of mine does scientific analysis of MRI data and considering it costs thousands of dollars for an hour of MR time, spending a few grand to speed up the analysis is worth it. After the release of the Intel based machines, it will be some time before the imporant (and somewhat obsure) apps are made stable enough for prime time. So, you see, we are still quite a ways off from Intel machines.
In the big picture, $3k isn’t that much if you have something important to do.
Right On, flyermoney!!!
And WHY are G5’s suddenly crappy processors in some people’s minds? I don’t get it. Maybe it’s the same way we can vilify old girlfriends after we’ve moved on?
Personally, I think you’d be NUTS to buy a Rev. A or even a Rev. B of a MacTel machine.
WHY, you ask? They’ll be NEW! (meaning BEST?)
1.) NEW hardware configurations ALWAYS have problems. I can’t imagine what problems an entirely NEW system architecture will have. I’ve impatiently (foolishly) bought Rev. A machines (Mac IIcx [the IIci was better], PowerMac 8500, PowerBook G3 Lombard, PowerBook G4) and would never do it again!
We’re not talking about some skunk-works lab created and tested MacTel box. We’re talking full-blown, tens and hundreds of thousands production machines that people and businesses will PAY for and assume that they can run their lives and businesses with RELIABILITY…. which, oddly, is exactly why many people choose Macs over Windows boxes.
2.) SOFTWARE!. If we’re talking an entirely new hardware architecture, we’re also talking about software that runs on this new hardware. Again, this isn’t a skunk-works geek driven secret project, but millions of machines sold to consumers and businesses who EXPECT and are PAYING for, Macintosh stability and reliability.
Expecting ALL your software to run with stability and reliability on an entirely new hardware architecture is foolhardy. I’m not talking emulation, as others have mentioned. I’m not talking Office or Safari or Mail, but the dozens of little applications, utilities and system enhancements which we grow to rely upon, but tend to forget about. Will ALL of them run on a spanky new Intel Mac on day ONE? Day 301? I seriously doubt it.
Apple a has a LONG history of PROMISING smooth transitions, whether it be System software or hardware transitions. In my experience (Mac user since 1985) those transitions have NEVER been as smooth as advertised. That’s the key term: ADVERTISED!
Would Apple PROMISE a miserable hardware/software transition and expect to stay in business? I think not.
Here are some serial transition examples (all based on personal experience, BTW):
A: System 6 to System 7 to System 8 to OS 9 to Mac OS X
B: Motorola 68000 to 68030 to 68040 to PowerPC… then 600 to 604 to G3. Once we hit the G3’s, it’s been smooth as silk!
Then there were some major hardware changes and additions:
Nu-Bus to PCI slots
ADB to USB
SCSI to FireWire
CD-ROM, CD-R, DVD, et al
There were myriad troubles and delays with ALL those transitions, especially for those of us who wanted to ride the first car of the MacTrain. I learned a lot (certainly there’s much value in that), but there was pain involved too. We waited several YEARS for Mac OS 9 software to be ported to and run reliably on Mac OS X. Some software just plain disappeared. THAT has happened with just about every transition I can think of as well. Luckily file formats are more universal these days, so transitioning to new applications and file formats can be less of a headache.
I don’t want to sound like a nay sayer, but we’ve all got to be prepared for a less than glass-smooth transition to Intel. MacUsers LOVE to complain (obviously, this one included) just don’t jump into this one blind and expect to come out without a few bruises and shattered illusions.
THAT said… I JUST ordered a new 15” PowerBook G4 with a 100GB x 7200 rpm hard drive and 1GB of RAM (I’ll bump it to 2 GB when the new RAM is available from third parties). I could quibble about some of the specs… GPU especially… but my 3 year old Giga TiBook has been fading fast and with AppleCare due to run out, I’ll get it completely overhauled, sell it on eBay and pay for 1/3 to 1/2 my new rig. I figure I’ll get enough milage out of the new machine to carry me to the Rev. B or Rev. C dual-core MacTel PowerBooks and all the hardware and software crap has settled down.
Gotta love Macs!
I thought I saw Crucial selling 2GB RAM modules for Macs, but I could’ve been mistaken. I usually use ramseeker.com as my indicator that Apple’s unfortunately locked into too high of a price on RAM upgrades (which probably include installation fees). But, yeah, a 2GB RAM module (especially 533MHz DDR2 with or without ECC) is EXPENSIVE.
I thought I saw Crucial selling 2GB RAM modules for Macs
I checked Crucial yesterday and only saw a 2GB ECC DIMM for ~$1K. A non-ECC 2GB PC4200 DDR2 533MHz DIMM from OWC is $400.
Even if I wanted and could afford a PM G5 Quad the thought of my electricity bill possibly doubling to keep it running cool here in Hawaii would be reason enough not to personally consider one. Being practical and conservative at home, I bought a 20” rev. B iMac G5 in May with the intention of keeping it at least until its AppleCare coverage runs out in 2008, around the time when rev. B Intel-based systems may be a viable replacement. My heavily-used 4-year-old iBook G3 will need replacing sooner, which may be a hopefully well timed and reasonably priced PPC purchase sometimes next year after the first Intel-based systems arrive.
http://www.applesaucy.com
—but I think you’re reasoning is flawed here. Simply put, the reasons you offer for not buying the new G5 can be applied product wide on Apple’s computing hardware. You think the G5 is toast? Apple still pushes G4s! In fact, using your reasoning, you’d have to be an even bigger sucker to buy a Powerbook.
Which, by the way, may be true…
Whoops—that was supposed to start as:
Believe me, I’m the last one to be an Apple Apologist—-
I think buyers are capable of determining whether or not it would benefit them to buy the quad G5 now. Like everyone knows, the next technological release will be faster than the previous but will likely have some issues that almost always accompany new technology. The G5 isn’t dead. I bought a 400 MHz G3 iMac DV in 2000 because it was out and it’s when I needed it. Yes, the G4 and G5 were right around the corner, but I still ran that iMac for 5 years before replacing it with my iBook G4.
Speaking purely as someone with a small A/V production studio that does a lot of work with Final Cut Pro 5 and Motion 2, and with them both, Compressor - I’d have to say that the prospect of this large a speed increase is just too hard to pass up. This may not be a milestone for the common user but for those of us with specific needs it’s no less than a godsend (assuming of course that the Apple rep I’ve talked with about the quad G5 is even half as knowledgeable as he comes off).
Your basic Mac home user has never really been interested in the PowerMac line anyway - the iMac G5 hitting it’s most recent sales mark is testament to that - and though I’m pretty unimpressed with the updates that the PowerBooks received I can’t get over just how poorly the PowerMac updates have been treated.
One of the great things about Apple as a company is that they cater to so many different types of user, and they do it very well. I don’t expect Steve Jobs to rant and rave about the PowerMac/PowerBook lines because neither one of them are particularly “sexy” as far as the average consumer is concerned, you simply don’t see folks huddled around them at the Apple stores like you would the iMac or the iPod. But for those of us on a “time is money” basis, the faster we can produce the content - the most apt we are to land the contract. In that regard any update as significant as this is very useful because sometimes it’s all you have over your competitors.
I’m a bit new to the Mac world, having only started using them at the beginning of the year, but for my particular industry they are already leaps and bounds more useful and reliable than their Windows-based counterparts. Whether the addition of Intel CPU’s makes them that much better is a question that won’t likely be answered for at least two years to come when BOTH the hardware and software are available. Until then, everyone working with OS X and Apple’s Pro Applications needs as much horsepower as they can get their hands on and this is, in my opinion, a good step in the right direction.
I’d guess the first mac getting the intel chip (exepct the already released prototypes) will be the mini. Since it’s currently equipt with a G4.