Good Bye ASUS Hello Apple G5 WoW!

http://www.apple.com/powermac/video/

In article ,
says...
http://www.apple.com/powermac/video/






Buh,bye.

Bill

In article ,
says...
Man I can't believe how freaking expensive it will be though:

snip



Back already? That was a short trip! Enjoy the ride?

Bill

I for one am not convinced. There have been many articles that
demonstrate how the benchmark results obtained by Apple are highly suspect.
This is no doubt a decent fast architecture, but to say it's faster than
anything put out by Intel and AMD is simply incorrect according to the most
recent information. Further, it's not even the first 64-bit PC as claimed in
the advertisements.

Apple is very good with marketing however, I will grant them that.

John

"Art C." wrote in message
...
Man I can't believe how freaking expensive it will be though:

. Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
. 8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
. 2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
. ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
. Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
. Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel) + Apple DVI to ADC
Adapter
. AirPort Extreme Card
. Bluetooth Module
. 56k V.92 internal modem
. SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
. Fibre Channel PCI Card
. Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
. Mac OS X - U.S. English
. iPod - 30GB
. Logitech Z-680 THX 5.1 Speakers & Monster 2-meter Cable
. AirPort Extreme Base Station (with modem and antenna port)
. .Mac Promotional Bundle
. APP for Power Mac (w/ or w/o display) - Enrollment Kit



Subtotal $13,730.90

I think Apple products tend to be of a price point that most people
don't feel to comfortable with, hence the low sales. Price is at least part
of their problem. You're definitely paying for the name. Too bad the name
doesn't stand for honesty.

John

"Ed" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:45 -0700, "John Maynard Keynes"
wrote:

Apple is very good with marketing however, I will grant them that.

John

If they were very good their market share wouldn't be so pathetic. ;p

And what would have been the first 64 bit PC if this is not the one?? They
are not talking about processor here but 'Persona Computer'.

R.
"John Maynard Keynes" wrote in message
...
I for one am not convinced. There have been many articles that
demonstrate how the benchmark results obtained by Apple are highly
suspect.
This is no doubt a decent fast architecture, but to say it's faster than
anything put out by Intel and AMD is simply incorrect according to the
most
recent information. Further, it's not even the first 64-bit PC as claimed
in
the advertisements.

Apple is very good with marketing however, I will grant them that.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:45 -0700, "John Maynard Keynes"
wrote:

I for one am not convinced. There have been many articles that
demonstrate how the benchmark results obtained by Apple are highly suspect.

Heh yes

The latest I hear is that they built a custom MB /without audio/ for
their 2 GHz Power PC vs. P4 shootout.

Josh

They all Fear something they dont understand .. I have only ever used a
mac to print some pictures off (sucks when your working in the printshop at
like 11:30pm and the seperations dont work cause the origitnal prints were
done wrong) err back to the point..
They just fear it
It's probably spooky as hell to them too that a MAC system has been able to
read fat32, and fat16....
as for the software, yea your right.. most games release for mac's these
days.. and there are just as many applications as any ibm can have, Most
people dont realise that a mac has been one of the better systems for using
on the net too, It's so unrestricted (compared to windows) for the basic
user.. or it was back in the day (from what I remember reading back in the
day)


now
one other thing
Price up a Dual Opteron server from a good company
2 x 240 = 520
msi mobo = 450
not having Intel Inside = Priceless


Hmm....First let me say I am not a Mac user and I am currently typing this
from a PC...But....

With Mac OS X, Macs now can run more software than Windows...Why? Because
it
is Unix...Now, you can
argue if you'd like that you can't get the specific program you want but
there is a lot of stuff available..

Second, the whole software thing tends to be pretty bogus for most users
who
want email/web/image/document editing..pretty much covered....Add in video
editing..Again covered.... Game selection...You have a point.


Now the original poster came back a minute later and said..Oh no it is
13K....
Of course...He posted the price for an insane configuration including an
IPOD for crying out loud...Price a PC with that much
stuff...The true price difference is no where near as big as that post
would
lead you to believe.



I just went on dell and configured a dual processor Xeon, with less hard
drive space, SCSI card (no fibre channel)...No IPOD,No wireless, No
wireless
basestation..Less RAM ...Came out to $14,313.00

Oh my god PC's are expensive

And before someone points out the stupid $500 PCs that you can get...You
can
get a Very decent Imac foor

$1,299.00
Including DVD writer...

So, I am not trying to say that Macs or Cheaper or better or any of those
stupid arguments but please people...Be real.

"Jeffrey Creem" wrote in message
t...
"Ed" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:40:21 -0400, "Art C."
wrote:

Not enough software on MAC for my tastes.
Enjoy!



Hmm....First let me say I am not a Mac user and I am currently typing this
from a PC...But....

With Mac OS X, Macs now can run more software than Windows...Why? Because
it
is Unix...

I'm sorry, but unless you are going to be running some sort of server there
is far more software available for Windows. It's been the most used
operating system for the last 10 years. 90% of the world is using
Windows... the vast majority of consumer software is written for Windows.

Now, you can
argue if you'd like that you can't get the specific program you want but
there is a lot of stuff available..

Second, the whole software thing tends to be pretty bogus for most users
who
want email/web/image/document editing..pretty much covered....Add in video
editing..Again covered.... Game selection...You have a point.


Yes, but when you use a Macintosh you are limiting your choices. Instead of
having maybe 20 different choices in software in Windows, you have maybe 2
on the Mac, or in some cases even 1. The Mac is very encapsulated, it is
intended to be a black box that sits there, with the hardware that Apple
wants it to run (doesn't upgrade like a PC) and the software that Apple
wants it to run (limited choices.) When you get a PC, 1 year later you
might want to swap in a faster processor for $100. On a Mac? Forget it!
You have to wait 3 years for their next product or buy a complete new system
for $3000


Now the original poster came back a minute later and said..Oh no it is
13K....
Of course...He posted the price for an insane configuration including an
IPOD for crying out loud...Price a PC with that much
stuff...The true price difference is no where near as big as that post
would
lead you to believe.

I just went on dell and configured a dual processor Xeon, with less hard
drive space, SCSI card (no fibre channel)...No IPOD,No wireless, No
wireless
basestation..Less RAM ...Came out to $14,313.00

Oh my god PC's are expensive


The dual 2Ghz G5, the one they advertise as fastest PC on the planet, is
$3000 base. My PC, a 2.4ghz P4C overclocked to 3.1ghz, cost under $750.
And in tests done by Dell with the P4 3.0ghz with the same benchmark that
Apple uses to make its claim at being the fastest PC on the planet, Dell
scored better! Why? Because Apple turned OFF hyper-threading, PAT, and
basically everything else that makes a P4C what it is!

And before someone points out the stupid $500 PCs that you can get...You
can
get a Very decent Imac foor

$1,299.00
Including DVD writer...

So, I am not trying to say that Macs or Cheaper or better or any of those
stupid arguments but please people...Be real.

How about just port OSX to run PC hardware? Id be happy to give em a
sawbuck for the OS, scrap the rest of the proprietary crap.

Mitch


"rstlne" wrote in message
...
I think that the big flag for this was raised when their published test
results didnt meet with the ones that they used in their "release demo"..
All companys do it to an extent really.. MSI added their overclocking
utility and tested the speed of the boards with it turned on, so it was
overclocking itself when put under a heavy load by the benchmark test..
This
was really underhanded and nothing big game out of it.. Apple has it's
market of users, those who seek a great system for doing graphics is the
big
thing.. They have so much to offer but I doubt we'll see them do "Great"
in
the home pc market until we see the fully hybrid processor systems being
called "AppleIBM" or something ;P..


I for one am not convinced. There have been many articles that
demonstrate how the benchmark results obtained by Apple are highly
suspect.