Apple Moves to All Dual-Processor Power Mac Lineup

Jason Siegel writes "Apple will no longer be selling single-processor Power Mac computers, according to GeekInformed. The company has officially dropped 1.8 GHz G5s from their lineup to pave the way for exclusively dual-processor Power Macs. The systems will range from dual 2 to 2.7 GHz G5s. This is the first significant announcement since the Worldwide Developers Conference declaration that Apple will transition away from PowerPC to Intel chips."

Why upgrade now?

[fembots (753724)]

Apple released a statement last month that the company would be transitioning away from IBM's PowerPC CPU's in favor of Intel's microprocessors. The shift to the new processors, however, will not begin until the first part of next year.

So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?

Re:Why upgrade now?

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

People who need a mac will buy a mac.

It doesn't matter about the innards changing any more than it matters whether McDonalds uses fresh chicken nowadays.
If people want it, they will buy it.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[TrippTDF (513419)]

To elaborate:

The idea that people will wait for the next, better model that is right around the corner is outdated at this point. A speed boost to a computer means less today (in my opinion) than it did 5 or 10 years ago.

The transition to Intel is going to rock the Industry, but is it going to mean all that much in terms of the actual computers? I don't think so. Yes, it will mean they will get faster proscessors , but I don't think it will be so significant that holding out for a year on old hardware makes a good business descion.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[phlyingpenguin (466669)]

Faster? Dual G5s are going to smoke any Intel Apple releases from what I'm seeing. If folks want power, go ahead and get it. G5s aren't going to be completely phased out even after they release and I suspect all of the high powered machines will stay G5 for a while. People that want/need a dual processor 64bit solution, will buy a G5 dual processor 64bit solution.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Nexx (75873)]

Sods like me who waited too long? :)

Re:Why upgrade now?

[piecewise (169377)]

Uh... Because most people, especially professionals (and more so professionals whose companies pay for the equipment), don't like waiting an additional YEAR for a product they use every day, most notably when a lease term says you can have new equipment anyway.

The whole idea that announcing a transition will destroy Apple's market share is just stupid.

I won't be eating crow in a year, either.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Zo0ok (209803)]

iBooks and PowerBooks will come within a year. The G5:s will be substituted in two years. If you want a PowerMac isn't a bit tough to wait two years?

This is of course just me guessing, but naturally they will start switch the G4s to Intel.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Mistah Blue (519779)]

Because they are still good machines and will be supported for a long time. Why hold your needs hostage if those machines solve them now? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to make a switch to the Mac line on rev 1 of the Macintel machines. I just switched to a PB 15" in Feb. and am actually pleased that I just did it as opposed to a year or two ago.

Had I switched a year or two ago, I would be at my normal refresh point when the new Macintel machines start coming out and would feel a little internal pressure that might cause me to blaze a trail on the first rev of the new line. Having just switched, that isn't going to be a problem for me.

I find it interesting that people allow things like this to hold up buying decisions. The fact is there are always technology shifts going on. Why not get a PowerPC now if you need it, and then you can jump in to the Macintel waters on your own timescale?

Re:Why upgrade now?

[MustardMan (52102)]

Who would buy a Dell computer now, knowing much faster systems will be available in less than a year's time?

This question has really bugged me every time I have heard it since the announcement. I just bought a dual G5 machine and don't regret it at all. I needed a new computer, picked out the one that best suited my needs, and brought it home. It's one thing to wait for a month or two if there's a major revision around the corner, but I see no reason at all to change your purchase decisions based on something that's going to START coming out in a year.

With the ease of x-code's fat binaries, there's very little incentive for a developer to write programs that will only run on intel macs, so why get all bent out of shape about buying a machine now?

Wait, now that you mention it, I'm not going to buy any machine right now, because I'm afraid it might not run Duke Nukem: Forever when it comes out.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Golias (176380)]

perhaps the odd app here and there will be incompatible, but at the same time, there does exist a very wide range of unique PPC apps currently that likely will never make their way to Intel.

I'll even put on my Carnac hat and break it down for you:

1. There will probably be a native WINE port for OS X within months of the first Mac-on-Intel release which will not run on the G5. This will allow the running of various Windows apps without rebooting or even leaving the OS X desktop. Geeks will love the fact that damn near all Windows and Linux software will in CPU-native mode within OS X, but old-school Mac heads probably won't care much.

2. It has already been announced that the Intel Macs will never be capable of running "Classic" applications. Fans of old Mac programs like Quark will be all a-tizzy about squeezing maximum life out of the remaining G5 systems, but nobody else will care.

Pretty much everything else is likely to work just fine on either platform.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[MustardMan (52102)]

Take a look at the ended auction prices of old macs on ebay. You will most likely be surprised at how well macs hold their value. Yes, the apple pricing structure is a bit screwed up, but from an economical standpoint it can make a LOT of sense to buy a mac at a random point in time. Dells drop their value ten seconds after you click the "order" button. Macs can be resold for a decent amount of cash sometimes a couple of YEARS after release. In my opinion, economically it makes a lot more sense to buy a new mac whenever you need one. The money you will lose reselling it is well worth it to have the computer you need at the moment.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Princeofcups (150855)]

Me, in about a half hour. I'm picking up a dual 2.7GHz and 23" display at the Apple Store.

1 - I'll be able to resell it for 50%+ of the cost.

2 - I can keep the monitor when I get a new Intel system.

3 - Although many apps will be fat by the rollout of the new machines, many will only work on the PPC.

I figure an upgrade to Intel in about three years. I see no hurry to rush onto the bleeding edge of new technology.

jfs

Re:Why upgrade now?

[MoonBuggy (611105)]

I may be mistaken, but didn't they announce they were switching the low end manchines first? They also said the switch would be completed by 2007, which means there won't be a machine to match a dual 2.7GHz G5 for a good two years yet (assuming they _do_ complete on time). While Macs do tend to outlive PCs, two years of use minimum plus a decent resale value isn't too bad a deal if you need a machine any time soon, and it will be supported for longer if you don't feel a need for the latest and greatest. Not a great deal, but not too bad.

Also it's a nice number cruncher in its own right - Linux PPC will be around for a long time yet so it's not like the machine dies when OSX support drops. Like I said, you won't get the greatest value by buying now but it's not an all round bad idea either.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Leroy_Brown242 (683141)]

Insurance.

If the next stuff sucks, or is lacking in any way, it'll be nice to have the last of the good stuff.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[amichalo (132545)]

I just bought a new iMac on Saturday for the following reasons:
(1) I needed to upgrade
(2) The iMac line was just upgraded last month
(3) PowerPC software will continue to be produced for years
(4) The first Intel boxes from Apple will be 12 months from now
(5) The first Intel boxed from Apple will not be iMacs (for a variety of reasons)
(6) I would rather be the last to own the PowerPC iMac than the first to own the Intel one.
(7) After using Macs for four years, I have never been disatisfied and don't see any reason I would be with the iMac G5

Strike that, reverse it.

[SuperKendall (25149)]

So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?

Someone who wanted software stability for the next few years? The new Intel boxes are not magically going to run all current software with 100% success. Universal binaries will be shipped by 99% of the Mac software vendors for years to come as only an idiot would cut off half his customers for no reason. It's not like they have to ship an Intel and a PPC version apart, it's all bundled as one.

Furthermo

Re:Why upgrade now?

[clarkcox3 (194009)]

You don't understand what Universal Binaries are. They are simply a renaming of the old Next "fat" binaries. That is, they contain *completely native* code for two or more platforms. This is completely separate from Rosetta, and has nothing to do with emulation in any form. Please get your facts straight.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[fr0dicus (641320)]

What return? Computers purchased to generate revenue in a business will do just that. If you need a Mac

• now then clearly a G5 Powermac will be more than adequate to replace and vastly outperform some old sub 1Ghz G4 system.

• The Intel switch is not about the high end systems, it's about the lack of suitable mobile parts. Not sure if you've noticed but the Powermac line is the last to switch, because there's no advantage to be gained on it switching early.

  The current Xcode will compile for both architectures, so of course there will be support. The 'n' hundred million Macs currently out in the world aren't going to disappear overnight, and only an idiot would ignore such a huge installed userbase.

Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[gbulmash (688770)]

Here's a question, and my apologies if it's been asked and answered before. Will Apple stay the dual-processor course when they move to Intel? I don't mean dual core Pentiums. I mean two slabs of silicon, like a dual Xeon setup. And with Intel moving more and more to dual-core across the lines... Dual core, dual processor, OS/X... Dang.

Then again, who knows where desktop Linux will be in 16 months with the Mandrake/Connectiva/Lycoris mergers, the rise of Ubuntu... And think of that on dual core, dual processor... ohhh... Someone get me a tissue!

Regardless, next year's going to be interesting if you're in the market for a new box. :-)

- Greg

They'll stay PowerPC for a while.

[GFLPraxis (745118)]

According to CNET, the transition will begin with the low end in 2006.

My assumption is that small form factor systems like the Mac Mini, and the laptops that are stuck with G4's, will go with Pentium M processors.

After all, Apple said they are going with Intel for performance per watt, and the only current Intel processor that gets that is the Pentium M.

The PowerMacs will stay with PowerPC processors for a while and will probably be the last to switch, because you don't really care about the performance

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[gbulmash (688770)]

Yes, but they specifically said "Intel"... not "x86"... "Intel".

OS/X on a top-of-the-line dual Opteron. I think many geeks cry at night at the thought of this child of imagination that may never be born. I've had to hold back a tear.

But they said "Intel".

- Greg

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[Ath (643782)]

Yes, but they specifically said "Intel"... not "x86"... "Intel".

No, they said Intel on the IA32 platform. That is x86. Phil Shindler said it and explicitly used the example of whether Apple would do anything to prevent people from running Windows on Apple machines. He said no, but that it would not be permitted to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

For once and all, Apple is moving to Intel chips using the x86 architecture. Want to know which ones? They said to look at Intel's roadmap for mid 2006 to see the likely chips they will use.

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[snuf23 (182335)]

"Still, there were rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box. Were these the musings of a frantic fanbase or real facts? Impossible for me to say."

I really doubt this. Most of the demo things that Steve Jobs showed on the Pentium were things that wouldn't necessarily have benefitted much from multiple CPUs. The execution speed for the tasks he did certainly seems in line with what a Pentium 4 3.6GHz running Wind

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[Skirwan (244615)]

...rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box.

The 'about' window was trying to say that it was a Pentium 4, not there were four Pentiums. The formatting may have been a bit confusing for some folks.

This has nothing to do with the Intel announcement

[OS24Ever (245667)]

Is this how it is going to be from now on? Any time Apple changes a model, drops a speed, or something it's going to be attributed to Intel?

The 1.8GHz was an expensive system for no more than it offered, especially compared to an iMac. You started around $1899 and then had to buy a monitor and it wasn't any faster than an iMac based on reader reports.

So it makes sense to remove single proc models from the lineup with dual proc models available.

Questionable Apple News

[WatertonMan (550706)]

OK. I love Macs. I'm terribly interested in the future of the platform. But come on. Half the Apple stories the last few months haven't been news at all. This one certainly isn't. I bring this up because I kind of worry about the Mac losing it's nice Karma due to some of the silly hyping of the platform.

product line differentiation

[tverbeek (457094)]

This move is good for more clearly differentiating Apple's product lines. Now there's a clear difference between a PowerMac and an iMac: the former have two processors. (And the clear difference between a PowerBook and an iBook is that the former are silver-colored.)

Encouragement for good SMP support?

[Sv-Manowar (772313)]

With the impending move to x86 architecture, this could be Apple posturing to encourage developers to work on the SMP capabilities of their programs. Intel's chips obviously feature things like HyperThreading and dual cores, making extracting the best possible performance require good SMP code. Obviously by phasing out the idea of a non-SMP 'Power' mac, Apple can encourage developers of scientific, processing and even mainstream applications (to an extent) to take better notice and make better use of SMP capable systems.

Orphan Machines?

[Greyfox (87712)]

Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they? Will Apple provide an emulator so you can run X86 binaries on that spiffy PPC Mac you bought today? Wouldn't it be a performance hit to run programs that way?

Depends if they are idiots or not

[SuperKendall (25149)]

Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they?

Well I don't know, if you were writing software would you prefer to sell to 10 million people or one million? That's the kind of question you are asking.

Furthermore the dev tool (XCode) makes it super-easy to build universal binaries - it's not like you have to ship an Intel version and a PPC version. They are all bundled as one "App". That's the handy thing abou tmaking applications really directories in hiding. So if you have something that works now you just need to make sure it can also work on Intel and then you can ship universal binaries in perpituity.

It's the new Intel macs where the situation will look a little sketchy the first year or so. The current PPC macs are going to see universal binaries for something like 99% of apps for several years just for marketshare reasons alone. I do think that after a short time some games may be Intel only, but since when have you bought a Mac because of game support? :-)

Re:Depends if they are idiots or not

[SteeldrivingJon (842919)]

1. You can use the commandline tool 'lipo' to glue an Intel binary segment compiled with gcc 4 onto a PPC segment that will run on 10.3.x.

This would also be a method to support ppc64. Compile with an older SDK/compiler combo, and hand-lipo the ppc64 binary segment into the executable.

2. Universal binaries are *not* twice as big. Interfaces, documentation, and other accessory files are not duplicated. Those often take up as much space, or more, than the binary. (Especially apps which include localized inte

Worry

[renelicious (450403)]

I think my biggest concern is that Apple will make the shift to Intel and then shortly after IBM gets their productions ramped up. Apple decides to continue to produce G5 Macs and then after 6 months or so drops Intel altogether. Then those few that bought x86 systems become the bastard children that Apple wants to forget.

I just don't see what would keep them on Intel if IBM could start performing. They have always seemed to like to have the niche of a different architecture. I'm a little wary of the whole thing.

Re:Worry

[narratorDan (137402)]

Thought game, how many chips can you run Linux on? How much difference is there between ports of the same distro targeting different chips?
As one who lived through the shift from the 680x0 line to the PPC line, I remember the many headaches but I also remember how surprisingly smooth the shift was once all the developers were on the same game plan. I figure that IF IBM gets it's act together and is able to supply both the quantity and quality (read: chips faster than 2.5gHz ) of PPC chips that Apple wants

Going Dual

[WindFish (812433)]

We're still waiting on that dual-button mouse.

Uhhh, so buy one and plug it in.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Intellimice work right out of the box. OS X support two button mice natively.

Re:Going Dual

[DrWhizBang (5333)]

I need to write a bot that will auto respond to this stupid statement.

This is the Slashdot [slashdot.org] Humour-Impairment (TM) automated reply system. Thank you for posting your comment on Slashdot [slashdot.org] - however it has been detected that you may may have missed the joke in the parent posting. Please re-read the post located here [slashdot.org], keeping in mind that many slashdot posters that complain are in fact only trying to be humourous, used devices such as "sarcasm [wikipedia.org]" and sometimes even "wit [wikipedia.org]".

Please do not post again, but instead wait for one of our Technical Reply on Laughless Larts (T.R.O.L.L.s) will reply to your posting within 2 business hours.

Thank you again, and have a nice day.

platform cross

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I'd love to see OSX become a *nix that takes advantage of any of a number of CPU configs. PPC/Intel, single/multi CPU... How about a multiCPU with both PPC and x86, that can run either instruction set's binaries natively? Put a 4PPC/4x86 headless VNC server in the rack, and never say "no" again to "does that app run on our machines?" As long as it's a *nix app, of course.

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[sH4RD (749216)]

Hey, if they're dropping prices, I'm dropped Benjamins.

Doubt it

[Joshua53077 (849570)]

My guess is that the single processor G5 had a similar price point to the iMac, which has similar specs, plus a built in LCD. MacMall lists the 1.8 Ghz power mac at $1495 and for the same price they offer a 2 Ghz iMac. My feeling is that they want to keep the lines between the iMac and the Power Mac pretty clear to eliminate customer confusion. Plus, dual processor Power Macs have been available for about 4 years and there have been several times that they've only been available in dual processor configurations. I wouldn't read much into it and I think its too early to start thinking about clearing inventory of Power PC chips. Remember that the high end chips are rumored to be transititioned in late 06.

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[Jozer99 (693146)]

G5 to x86 converstion will begin in the middle of 2006, and end in 2008. Somehow I doubt Apple keeps a three year supply of processors on hand. The Powermac series will be one of the last to go x86. One of the main reasons for the switch was because Apple was frustrated with a lack of a G5 for notebooks. The G4 processor is now quite outdated. First the notebooks will go x86, then the budget desktops; Mac Mini and iMac, and lastly the Powermac and XServe. The computers that already have G5s are not in desparate need of a new processor, unlike the lower end stuff and portable equiptment.

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[Tumbleweed (3706)]

The PowerMac won't be moving to Intel until 2007, so it's unlikely this has anything to do with the Intel move. Also, to clear existing inventory, you don't drop the product, you make the product cheaper, so either way, I doubt it.

Re:The real question is...

[OS24Ever (245667)]

You're new to computer purchasing, aren't you? Any machine bought today can be considered obsolete in 9 months by someones standards.

Re:The real question is...

[Decameron81 (628548)]

"Good point. Only the stupid, it would be insane.
Developers will not care about the PPC, it'll be too much hassle. It's a lot easier to just get an Intel dev kit and in one year all the new computers are Intel so just produce Intel only binaries."

Building universal binaries takes only a checkbox. Only the insane would drop support for PPC when it's so easy to support it.

Re:The real question is...

[GlassHeart (579618)]

I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.

It's not compiling for PPC that will be difficult. It's testing it sufficiently to achieve release quality that is expensive. Very small vendors might just make a build and have users test it for them, but vendors with reputations usually need more assurance than "it compiles". I don't think Photoshop or Word will ever ship with "use at your own risk" PPC binaries.

But as you said, it's not at all stupid to support the PPC. This is because even when

Re:Why such a focus on power?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

Why would Apple be so focused on only selling uberpowerful models? Not to ruffle any feathers, but isn't the primary audience Apple's trying to grab onto right now the average user?

The powermacs are their professional towers. imacs and mac minis are aimed at non-power users.

Re:G5 vs P4 ?

[by Anonymous Coward]

If you use Photoshop: G5
If you use anything else: P4
If you run spyware: G5

Re:G5 vs P4 ?

[fimbulvetr (598306)]

The opteron would be faster in about everything. Cheaper too.

clicky [anandtech.com]

Re:G5 vs P4 ?

[FidelCatsro (861135)]

Satan chances his guise often during the IT world , IBM was the great Satan at one point.
Its business , And Intel can Supply the Mobile and Desktop chips needed to power the systems at a good rate and a reasonable price.
In the IT business , you go with what can most effectively get the job done for you company , and from the looks of it Apple believe Intel are the way forward.
looking at the current share prices i would say they have a good amount of agreement .
Apple and IBM were at a time business rivals ,

Re:G5 vs P4 ?

[forkazoo (138186)]

I am almost tempted to wonder if this is a troll. Is there really anybody left who doesn't understand that this isn't a useful question?

What do you want to do? The G5 will be excellent at some things. The P4 at others. Some server apps which use lots of system calls, thread management, and such will be hampered by the architecture of Mac OS X. Some compute intensive apps will run incredibly well on the G5 compared to the P4. If you want to use Final Cut Pro, the G5 will run it faster, and if you want to run XSI, the P4 will be faster, because you would have to run under emulation to try and run FCP on a P4 or XSI on a G5.

Anand Tech recently did some benchmarks, which you may find interesting.

Are you planning on running your own code? I quite like the XCode IDE because it uses gcc as a backend. Is all your legacy code MSVCPP MFC projects? Then it will be more hassle to get it running on the G5.

So, yeah, it all depends. I use an iBookG4 as my primary system, because it is fast enough for 90% f what I do. It's light, it's portable, it has UNIX guts and a top notch UI. My secondary system is my Athlon64 with Nvidia GFX. It's big, it's fast, I have to turn it on with my car key, the GUI is adequate, and it runs lightwave almost fast enough. (Just need it to be about 10-100 times faster, like always). It's got four fans, and it is noisy. I wouldn't dream of getting rid of either.

Re:Apple Reducing Choice

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Do you realize that the only important differences between the discontinued single-processor PowerMac and the iMac G5 are that the iMac is faster, has a screen, and costs less? No one in their right mind would pick that PowerMac over the iMac anyway, so it was redundant.