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]

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?

Clearing existing component inventory?

[Lead Butthead]

I don't know how much G5 parts Apple's got in their warehouse, but surely this move is to clear their existing inventory to make way for x86?

This has nothing to do with the Intel announcement

[OS24Ever]

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]

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.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

product line differentiation

[tverbeek]

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.)

If thats all you need to do...

[manonthemoon]

you buy a mini or an iMac.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[piecewise]

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]

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]

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]

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.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely not, given that the first Intel Macintosh won't be released until mid-2006.

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[gbulmash]

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:Why upgrade now?

[TrippTDF]

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.

Doubt it

[Joshua53077]

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:Why upgrade now?

[Leroy_Brown242]

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:G5 vs P4 ?

[fimbulvetr]

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

clicky [anandtech.com]

Re:G5 vs P4 ?

[forkazoo]

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:Why upgrade now?

[phlyingpenguin]

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.

Depends if they are idiots or not

[SuperKendall]

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:Why upgrade now?

[amichalo]

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

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[Jozer99]

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:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[snuf23]

"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 Windows can do. My gut feeling is that the "quad Pentium" theory is just put out there by fanboys not wanting to give up there "Pentiums suck versus the G5" line.

Re:The real question is...

[Decameron81]

"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.

Strike that, reverse it.

[SuperKendall]

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.

Furthermore the current PPC Powermacs are really, really fast. They are plenty fast for just about anything you'd want to do with them. So why would you not buy one now to have a fast computer to get work done? In fact a lot of the people buying Powermacs need as fast a computer as they can get so they might buy another one in a year anyway.

I think though the Powermac line might be the last line to get Intel chips, I'd think they would update iMacs and minis first.

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[Tumbleweed]

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:G5 vs P4 ?

[FidelCatsro]

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 , However Apple and Intel have never had any real problems with each other.
I am sure Apple would have loved to be using AMD tech , but AMD just couldn't handle Apples needs whilst satisfactory handling the needs of the grey box producers and end users.
So the only real choice for chips was Intel, No other company has the Fabrication Capacity.

Plus the P4 may not be a great chip , but the Pentium M is certainly a pocket rocket

Re:The real question is...

[GlassHeart]

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 the number of PPC Macs sold drops to zero, there is still a big installed base of PPC Macs to sell to. If you look at the MacOS 8/9 section of versiontracker.com, you'll see that there are at least five (on a Sunday!) software updates a day for the past five days, when MacOS 9 was discontinued in 2002 and and the last Mac that could boot MacOS 9 was discontinued in June 2004.

It took /. almost a week to post this??

[Yahol]

This information about Apple dropping the single G5 processor for its PowerMac line has been on Appleinsider and Macrumors since June 15. Being an avid Mac user (and constant /. reader), I'm kind of ashamed that it took /. so long to pick this up.

On a side note, the whole Macintel deal looks pretty interesting, we'll just have to wait and see what happens...

Re:Why upgrade now?

[fr0dicus]

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.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[iPod is UNIX]

I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.

Apple products and Apple users arguments:

• The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
• The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. Try finding a Mac user argumenting cooperative multitasking today.
• The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
• The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
• The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
• Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-10 years of support contracts, Apple has already retired support for OS X 10.2 after just a few years from release making costly unneeded upgrades nessecary. In short, for Apple users Unix is a mark