After all the calls for a "headless iMac" will people be happy with this? It's not a cute new box, nor is it $999.

It IS a $500 price cut in the PM line and offers all the expansion/upgrade potential people think they want. You can even order it with the 30" display.

It's a solid option for those that want to keep the display independent of the computer and or be able to upgrade easier in the future. It also comes in the most impressive computer tower in the industry. And has an education price around $1,350.

Pretty good offering in my books, for both the consumers and shareholders.

It's great that Apple is offering the G5 tower at a better price, but it's not nearly enough. I know Apple says they don't want to compete on the low end, but when Dell can offer a tower for $400 (including the monitor), this isn't even close. If Apple ever wants to really sell computers in volume, they need to get more aggressive on price.

I'm pretty tempted by this one - with educational pricing, if you swap the super drive for a combo, you can drop the price to $1259. That was roughly the price of the last G4 1.25 sp tower they were selling. If you swap the 5200 for a Radeon 9600 w/ 128 mb ram, the price goes up to $1304. I'd prefer cheaper and faster, who wouldn't, but realistically this comes close to filling the massive hole in Apple's lineup, ie the consumer level tower. Granted, without educational pricing, $1500 is still a buttload of cash for what appears to be a somewhat dumbed down computer.

If I was going to spring for $1500 for a G5, I'd beg, borrow, or steal another $500 and get a dual with a 50% faster bus. Something like this should be priced at $999 and in a smaller enclosure.

"Can't compete! Too expensive! Quick... let's burn em' in front of the Michael Dell statue!" Of course the new PMG5 isn't going to compete with any Win-doze box offered at $400. Apple is comfortable catering the higher-end of users. Not to mention the fact that you can pick up a brand new eMac for $800, which to me is a bargain.

There is a simple fact that alot of people need to understand, Apple will not lower itself to compete with ugly little gray boxes that can be bought in Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or even Dell Online. It doesn't need to, and it doesn't want to. And I'm sure that anyone who really took the time to try out Apple's new computers, they would have no objection to paying $800 for a new.

I guess some people just need an Apple reality check.

Meant to say... a 50% faster bus FOR EACH PROCESSOR

And I'm very grateful that it isn't. I've had Dulls and, after using a PB for 2+ years, have converted everything to a Mac.

You can get a $400 Dull, but it won't have anything close to a 64 bit processor, 5200 GPU, DVD burner, etc. There is a reason why the reviews of the iMac indicate it that it is cheaper than a "comparable" Dull or Gateway - you have to upgrade that $400 Dull a lot in order to get it close to the iMac, or the new PM.

For people who wanted a "headless" Mac at a price cheaper than a Dual PM the new PM provides a pretty good option. It's not in a cheapo case, it does have a G5 chip (not a cheaper chip that would be in a $400 Mac), you can stay with your 5 year old monitor or move now (or later) to anything up to the 30" display. There is the expandability that people have wanted and you get Apple's quality. (Do you really thing you are getting the same quality with a $400 Dull?)

As with other Macs, you get what you pay for, but you have to pay for what you get.

Sorry, this is awsome. Dual processors are great, but not everyone needs them. It's great that they have an option for people who don't run programs that really take advantage of dual processors.

I don't know why this brought on a bunch of "headless-iMac" - "Cube" - "$499 Dell" arguments. All they did is bring back a single chip G5. Hardly a massive undertaking that took lots of effort. You act like they spent millions of dollars developing some new Mac but somehow got it wrong. Uhh, no...they just decided to bring back something they dropped a while back. All those arguments have their place, but they really don't have anything to do with this.

I think it's great.

This is going to revolutionize the computing world. Market share is going to skyrocket, and this model is going to save the world from the Windows Hell.

This will trump any windows configuration hands down no contest dollar for dollar feature for feature.

Has apple FINALLY figured out that "Good, Better, Best" doesn't cut it any more? That people want OPTIONS? One would hope so. I seriously hope apple takes this to heart and stops trying to put all mac users into three little boxes. At least this is a start towards increased flexibility in the mac product line.

On the technological side, this is a decent offering, but I'm still not terribly impressed. The general reaction is that this is an appeasement attempt for the people that are desperately crying for a cheap, upgradable mac. It's sad really, that apple constantly underwhelms with specs. The gaping hole in this offering is once again, the underpowered graphics card. (Apple still wants you to pay $3000 for a mac with a decent 128MB graphics card.) 256MB of RAM is nice, at least apple finally understands that people need at a bare minimum 256MB for OS X and not 128. 80 Gigs of HD space is pathetic compared to the average PC which is putting in 120. The Superdrive (8/2/10/24/10/32X) is becoming a dog compared to the newer DVD burners which do DVD burning at 16X on duel layer disks, as well as "+" media, DVD-RW burning, and CD burning at 40X (all in the same drive). So the Superdrive is no longer the big selling point that it once was. Three slots is nice, but newer PCs have cases which can do more. Etc.

My problem this time is not so much of all of this, but the fact that none of the specs impress in the least compared with what is offered on the PC side. There's nothing that apple put in that makes me think "wow- how cool that I would get that for such a cheap price!" I don't think it's a case of people having over-hyped expectations of what apple can do, either. When you look at the market and see a million PC venders able to keep prices down and still delight consumers with the most important features, you start to wonder why the hell apple can't do that too. Other then getting OS X and a G5 processor, what exactly is it about this computer that makes it better then a PC? Hardly anything. Quite bluntly, if apple sold this machine running windows, it would be totally killed in the marketplace. OS X is the shoehorn that keeps this machine barable. And only because the next mac is $2000, so this mac looks good in comparision.

I feel embarrassed for apple. Here is a company that I love, but it's hard to love someone who constantly shoots themselves in the foot with what they do. It would be SO EASY for apple to gain marketshare if they would just do a few simple things. But I guess they've given up on marketshare. Let the iPod fill the gap the mac has lost.

Everyone wants cheaper and better...

I'm all for a $1,000 tower, but the way people are complaining about the specs on THIS one, I'm not sure what they'll be able to do to make them happy.

Take a look at the new $999 iBook. I'd say that making it larger (saving money), taking away the monitor (saving money) and adding a G5 (costing money) would mean that a $1,000 tower would have specs a LOT like the iBook, but with a SLIGHTLY faster bus and an 80 GB hard drive. Otherwise, pretty much the same specs.

Would you guys be happy with that, or would that not be good enough?

Quote

z10n wrote:
......... There's nothing that apple put in that makes me think "wow- how cool that I would get that for such a cheap price!" .....

The first thing every PC user I meet tells me is how cheap their new machine was, and "it's got this and that etc etc" The first thing a Mac user does is show me something they have done with their new machine and then tells me how easy it was.

Even if Apple sold machines for $100, PC users would be complaining that it didn't come with the latest super whizzy graphics card or that it was no good for gaming.

Tacitus

Quote

z10n wrote:
Has apple FINALLY figured out that "Good, Better, Best" doesn't cut it any more? That people want OPTIONS? One would hope so. I seriously hope apple takes this to heart and stops trying to put all mac users into three little boxes. At least this is a start towards increased flexibility in the mac product line.

On the technological side, this is a decent offering, but I'm still not terribly impressed. The general reaction is that this is an appeasement attempt for the people that are desperately crying for a cheap, upgradable mac. It's sad really, that apple constantly underwhelms with specs. The gaping hole in this offering is once again, the underpowered graphics card. (Apple still wants you to pay $3000 for a mac with a decent 128MB graphics card.) 256MB of RAM is nice, at least apple finally understands that people need at a bare minimum 256MB for OS X and not 128. 80 Gigs of HD space is pathetic compared to the average PC which is putting in 120. The Superdrive (8/2/10/24/10/32X) is becoming a dog compared to the newer DVD burners which do DVD burning at 16X on duel layer disks, as well as "+" media, DVD-RW burning, and CD burning at 40X (all in the same drive). So the Superdrive is no longer the big selling point that it once was. Three slots is nice, but newer PCs have cases which can do more. Etc.

My problem this time is not so much of all of this, but the fact that none of the specs impress in the least compared with what is offered on the PC side. There's nothing that apple put in that makes me think "wow- how cool that I would get that for such a cheap price!" I don't think it's a case of people having over-hyped expectations of what apple can do, either. When you look at the market and see a million PC venders able to keep prices down and still delight consumers with the most important features, you start to wonder why the hell apple can't do that too. Other then getting OS X and a G5 processor, what exactly is it about this computer that makes it better then a PC? Hardly anything. Quite bluntly, if apple sold this machine running windows, it would be totally killed in the marketplace. OS X is the shoehorn that keeps this machine barable. And only because the next mac is $2000, so this mac looks good in comparision.

I feel embarrassed for apple. Here is a company that I love, but it's hard to love someone who constantly shoots themselves in the foot with what they do. It would be SO EASY for apple to gain marketshare if they would just do a few simple things. But I guess they've given up on marketshare. Let the iPod fill the gap the mac has lost.

Well stated

Based on the interview Steve Jobs gave last week, marketshare isn't that big a deal for Apple. Nor is having a low cost computer. He indicated Apple wants to do two things (at least on the computer side of the company)--build the world's best PC and make a profit for the company Seems to me like they are doing a pretty good job at both. Wishing for a Dell priced Mac is a waste of time--won't happen.

I would be happy if this machine included:

-Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB (3X faster then FX 5200U)
-Basic 5.1 sound card (they only cost like $50, come on apple)
-Upgraded Superdrive that burns CDs at 40X or 52X, DVD-RW burning, and "+" disk compatablity
-Ability to install any off-the-shelf 2nd optical drive or internal zip drive in the 2nd bay
-Bundled Appleworks, Quicken, and a GOOD game or two (Doom 3 or War 3 fits the bill)
-SAME PRICE

That, or something similar, would impress me and lead me to believe apple seriously cares about gaining customers. Even all of that for $1600-$1700 would be pretty close to the right price point for most people.

I'm not really asking all that much. Just a computer in the $1500 range speced out similar to PCs in that range. Or something a little bit better to show people that apple is serious about getting people to switch to macs. The WORST thing apple can do is just go on putting in the worst components, assuming their customers don't know anything about specs. (According to Tom's Hardware, the fastest GPU made gets a 12204 in 3DMark 2003. The FX 5200U gets a 2065, worse then like 35 other GPUs.) Maybe most mac users don't care about specs, but PC users DO.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The first thing every PC user I meet tells me is how cheap their new machine was, and "it's got this and that etc etc" The first thing a Mac user does is show me something they have done with their new machine and then tells me how easy it was.

OS X should not be used as a hoodwink for apple charging more for their hardware. Not when PearPC can emulate OS X and you can get that in a $1000 computer.

It may also mean IBM is delivering 1.8 GHz G5 chips in enough quantity for Apple to broaden its product line.

Further, the increasing demand for the G5 chips means both Apple and IBM are reaching economies of scale helping to reduce chip costs.

Quote

z10n wrote:

OS X should not be used as a hoodwink for apple charging more for their hardware. Not when PearPC can emulate OS X and you can get that in a $1000 computer.

Check out this thread over at MacAddict for an evaluation of Pear PC performance. Nice curiosity, but you wouldn't want to work there.

http://www.macaddict.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=69713

z10n

You should apply to Apple's marketing/product planning department.
You're so clever!

Cherry who?
Whoops

Has anybody priced the 9800 Pro graphics card? At $399 retail, you figure they're still charging $250 wholesale. Is it any wonder Apple's not putting it into the bottom margin machine? Get real. Does anybody think a $400 PC from Dell has any sort of whiz bang techy equipment in it either? The closest thing they have comparable to a G5 comes in starting at $1,700 and if you add options to make it have any parity, you're closer to $2,300.

Ram is an issue. Their add on prices are 3x and 4x the market rate depending on the machine. That's steep.

And for the person complaining about the 80G v 120G drive, check your own usage of your HD. I have a 120 G drive in a workhorse machine used for website design, presentation preparation, system administration, etc.. I've now used 12G. Do I really need 120G drive? Hell no. It came with it. This is a non-issue.

Hmmm... just looked at the specs and lo and frelling behold the darn thing COMES with optical audio out. Think that might be in 5.1?

As for all the other whiners out there...

Apple obviously didn't make this G5 for you. Here's a clue: They can't build the perfect computer for everybody, that's why they have the Apple Store Online with BTO options. Want 128 MB VRAM, BTO a better video card.

You freak cry babies. There's nothing wrong with this great new option. except they could have kept the faster bus!!! Otherwise quite nice.
z10n, OSX emulation SUCKS and is NOT OSX. You fruit loops should go back to your Winblows fansites if you love them so much, but remember, APPLE RULES YOU WHEREVER YOU MAY BE

PearPC is an EMULATOR, it has to run on top of that crappy OS known as Windows (or DOS). OS X on top of Windows still means you have to battle Windows. No thanks.

The QTVR presentation... shows a monitor (with the OSX desktop) attached to a G5... BUT... the G5... isn't plugged in... LOL!

http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/pmac_g5all_june2004_480.html

Want a cheaper Mac tower - look to Dull. Start with a cheap plastic case - the cheaper the better. I have a Dull in the office gathering dust and I gotta tell you - my grandkids have toys that use better plastic. If the case is cheap might as well start cutting costs inside. Graphics chip using shared memory with the processor. Hey, maybe a G3 - that would cut costs. Starting price would have a CD-R/DVD and the customer can spend money to get a SuperDrive.

Now that we have started on cheap, lets move customer support to India, or another country if you can find one cheaper. No Apple employees here, use other companies whose employees have one desire - get you off the phone as fast as possible as that makes them the most money.

Lets also cut money from the R & D budget as Tiger is almost done. That 10% increase for this year isn't that important.

It's like buying oats. You gotta pay for good quality oats, but you can get them cheaper if you don't mind them being processed through the horse once.

This is not a headless iMac. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not whining. It's not SUPPOSED to be. It's a new pro tower, plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. It fills a gap, but it's a different gap than the "headless iMac" gap everyone (myself included) has been whining about.

The reason this doesn't fit that gap is simple: It's not cheaper than the iMac. Apple needs to make a headless machine that is comparable stat-wise to the iMac (maybe a little weaker), and when you add your OWN monitor of choice, is cheaper than the iMac. Simple. I can't imagine this would be really hard, considering the iMac comes with an obscenely nice (and surely expensive) monitor.

I love the iMac. I like its specs. I WANT one. But I can't bring myself to buy another all-in-one. I've been burned too much in the past with iMacs whose monitors died a few days after warranty. If the monitor breaks, I don't want to scrap my whole machine. If something else breaks (or simply becomes outdated), I don't want to scrap a 20" LCD. It's just common sense.

I just want a consumer-priced (preferably somewhat-upgradeable) machine that lets me pick my own monitor. At $1499, this new G5 is too expensive. But again, that's not what Apple is going for. I think this new offering is good. It's just not what I'm looking for.

This Mac or any other Mac in Apples range does not fill a massive hole in the potential Mac market. I'm a Mac reseller and I'd love to switch some of my business customers to Apple. Currently they just have standard PCs running XP and Office with LCD displays on most.
An iMac is no good as they already have a good LCD display they own, ditto the eMac and a G5 is just way too expensive for their needs as well as being too bulky for the average office space. Bear in mind it's bigger than most PC boxes which are shoehorned into a narrow shelf.

They need a headless basic G5 Mac with say one PCI slot and the specs of the 1.6GHz iMac. Bear in mind the iMac without the LCD cost is coming pretty close in cost to what is needed here. Just need to box it well and make it modular inside so can easily have the internal components upgraded.

I don't think people realise the volume of PCs sold just to do menial office tasks, it's massive and sometimes just getting a virus or having the PC run slow with spyware is all that is needed as an excuse for the office worker to ask for a new PC. Now this could be a Mac but not if the business is going to throw out its investment in LCD screens which sometimes are more expensive than the computer.

Think about it Steve. Once people work on Macs in the office they'll want them at home. Currently they buy PCs for home because they work on them in the office. Gotta change this mindset!

I still think the jump from iMac to PowerMac is too big - physically in terms of size. The iMac is a great machine. The PowerMac is a great machine. But if I want a small server it is wasting the iMac screen and form factor, and the PowerMac is just too big to sit in a small office (or on a shelf .

There's room in the product line for a new Cube. Give it some options so you can go with a slower processor (servers don't need fast processors) if you want, and for a cheaper headless consumer box, or a faster processor (for a price) as a higher end desktop solution (matched with a nice Apple screen).

If you make a nice enough box the high-end people will choose the Apple displays just to go with a matching pair. The dilemma for me is that because this box straddles consumer and lower-end professional what style will it be (white or aluminium). Oh the problems we face

Cheers,
Ashely.

Like MS, Apple is a monopoly. Getting Apple to produce a headless Mac for the masses is like MS producing a quality user friendly product. You get what you get and thats it!

To those complaining about 5.1 sound:

Each G5 made has had 5.1 Digital Audio in and out. Apple is pushing the G5 as the new movie production workhorse. With the HD line of software, HD LCDs, and the 5.1 sound in and out of the G5 this fits their bill perfectly.

Please read the specs before posting, otherwise you make yourself look like a complete idiot.

Quote

jecrawford wrote:
z10n

You should apply to Apple's marketing/product planning department.
You're so clever!

lol. While you're probably mocking me, I've actually thought a few times that maybe I should work for apple. Though I doubt I could really change anything. Apple's culture seems so one-sided, they'd probably take me out and shoot me after the first day for my "sacrilege".

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Has anybody priced the 9800 Pro graphics card? At $399 retail, you figure they're still charging $250 wholesale.

This is a different issue. A PC 9800 Pro runs somewhere around $150. With a few solder changes, it can be made into a mac card.

Apple needs to work more closely with hardware vendors to make it easier to convert stock PC cards into mac cards without the need to jack up the price.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
And for the person complaining about the 80G v 120G drive, check your own usage of your HD. Do I really need 120G drive?

I have a major problem with this sediment. Let me ask you a question. Do you use all the features of your computer? Do you use every port, every program, every feature to maximum potential? No, you don't. Nobody does. Then why do PC makers put all this stuff in?

I'll tell you why. Because it delights the customer. They are getting "extras". They are getting features that they may not need right now, but they might to use someday, and so those features add value to the product. How many of you didn't care in the least about playing music on your mac until garageband came along? Do you really NEED to play music on your mac? No. Do you NEED to play games on your computer, when you can buy a $150 X-box? No. Hell, do you even NEED to do any work on your computer, when you can do a lot of things with paper and pencil? No. You WANT to work on your computer, and that's the difference. After you starting working on your computer, you realized how powerful a tool the computer is. You gained features you never even imagined you might need back when you were just using paper. And as you discovered those features, you started to find a use for them in ways you hadn't imagined before. As programs become more powerful, and as more functionality is created for newer and better ways of doing things, you increase your knowledge and awareness, and your pleasure in owning a computer increases.

So the thing I would like to say to the "I already have all that I need" segment is, how do you know? Did you know you were going to have a use for a web browser when you first starting using it? I'll wager that you didn't. You had no idea when you first started doing it how important the web would be to you today. Over time, you found out how powerful it is. Same thing with more space on your HD, or any other "more" feature.

Will you ever use all that space? Maybe not. But you might. Maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow. But someday you might. Otherwise, companies wouldn't bother to put it in there. Do you think a company in their right might is going to spend a whole lot of extra money giving people what they don't need? No. So why do they do it? Because it makes them look progressive. They are preparing their users for the future by giving them a bit more then they might need right now.

The same thing works in the opposite direction for apple. By apple NOT including it, apple looks backward, since other companies are. So the problem is mainly perception. Why would apple want to create the perception that they are backward? Why would apple want it's users to think that apple is trying to limit their capablities compared to other vendors? That isn't the way you gain customers. You gain customers by meeting and EXCEEDING their expectations. Other companies know this, but it seems apple doesn't.

Last two "guest" posts were me. I wasn't logged in.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
Want a cheaper Mac tower - look to Dull.

You might hate Dell (I don't like them much myself), but you just sound silly calling them "Dull". Grow up and call the company by it's name.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
Start with a cheap plastic case - the cheaper the better. I have a Dull in the office gathering dust and I gotta tell you - my grandkids have toys that use better plastic. If the case is cheap might as well start cutting costs inside.

What a gross and unwise assumption to make. I suppose the converse is true then- because apple's computers have better cases, they must have better components on the inside, right? Wrong. Top of the line macs have a pathetically crappy GeForce FX 5200U, a GPU that's three or four generations older then the top of the line GPUs sold today.

Looks can be deceiving.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
It's like buying oats. You gotta pay for good quality oats, but you can get them cheaper if you don't mind them being processed through the horse once.

Terrible analogy. Expensive does not always equal better. Example: how much better is a $600 pair of shoes then a $200 pair? Not a whole lot, except the status that you get for owning something outrageously expensive.

The "you get what you pay for" idea breaks when you consider that apple is putting crappy components (i.e. the GPU) in their top of the line computers. How is paying more for less getting what I pay for?

Why didn't Apple keep the 900MHz bus with the new single 1.8 G5? It's simple, most applications don't use dual processors and Apple didn't want the new single 1.8 G5 to benchmark about the same as the dual 1.8 G5. So you have to pay $500 dollars more to get back 900MHz bus. Now we know why Mac idolators are called iLemmings.

First RC whines about Apple's entry price into the PowerMac club being too high. So Apple releases a lower priced model, now he whines about the bus speed.

A few factual errors. RC is right in that most applications don't use a dual processor. Under OS X, ALL applications use both processors. And the only person that uses the term iLemmings is RC. Do a Google on the term and you'll see.

It's amazing how much we go on and on anon about "Apple needs to do this," and "Apple needs to do that." Meanwhile, Mr. Jobs ignores all this armchair (deskchair?) advice and, even though the Mac has only 5% of the PC market, Apple continues to make a nice tidy profit.

In my opinion, Apple is trying to put out a high-quality product and balance that with making it affordable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But overall, the Mac is still superior to anything Wintel puts out. (I DID say "overall.")