Apple Set To Launch $500 Mac

3 Jan, 2005 at 10:05pm ET Article published in Tech

In a bid to take advantage of the success of the iPod music player, Apple Computer Inc. is set to release a Mac retailing at under $500.

A report on Mac news site Think Secret claimed that the product, code-named Q88, is expected to be announced on January 11 during Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote speech at Macworld Expo in San Francisco. The new Mac will utilize a 1.25GHz G4 processor and will come in a small, flat enclosure similar to that of the popular LC series of Macs from the 1990s. Although the product will be priced at under $500, this will not include a monitor or DVD-R drive, and hard drive capacity will be between 40GB and 80GB.

Apple has traditionally eschewed the low-end PC market in favor of high-margin, higher-priced computers. However, according to sources cited by Think Secret, the runaway success of the iPod has persuaded the company that a low-cost Mac could be a winner—a view supported by some analysts.

Source: eWeek

Comments

3 Jan 2005 ~ 11:02pm GnomeWizardd wow my k6-3 450 will out perfome it!
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:39am MountainDew

...this will not include a monitor or DVD-R drive...

hahaha this is just ridiculous, I bought and built my first computer last year for under 500 and was twice the speed at least!
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:42am Thrax EL OH EL. Apple is retarded.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:49am Sputnik why do you guys always beat on apple? they simply use an architecture that has much more in common with athlons whether you'd like to admit it (or just are ignorant to that fact) and have a much cleaner OS.

put up a 1.25ghz G4 against a 2.5 ghz P4 (or a 2.0ghz athlon) and let them take a whack at some floating point and that G4 will trounce either PC processor.

and for the record, this is a just a highly verified rumor, not a garantee.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:52am primesuspect dude, if I can get a mac for $500, I am SO in.

OS X, for all you whiners, is just simply a better OS than windows. Sorry, it's true
4 Jan 2005 ~ 1:11am Sputnik thank you! at least one respected voice of reason!

I'm thinkging about it too prime, but rather hold out till i could afford a ibook... strongly reconsidering....
4 Jan 2005 ~ 1:32am Thrax We beat on Mac because the computing world doesn't work in floating point. Just about the only thing that does for an enterprise/important task is raytracing/rendering, and the existing Xeon/Athlon CPUs are so much faster in raw CPU speed that any technical advantage Apple has is wasted on ****ty clock scaling.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 11:38am GnomeWizardd mac osx maybe better but it isnt worth losing the computing power
4 Jan 2005 ~ 11:50am primesuspect Yes, since we all do so much "computing"

/me goes back to his ocean current vector plotting program
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:06pm muddocktor

primesuspect wrote:

dude, if I can get a mac for $500, I am SO in.

OS X, for all you whiners, is just simply a better OS than windows. Sorry, it's true

Maybe so, but if Microsoft was also the sole source supplier of all the ****ing x86 hardware just like Apple is with their hardware, I'd bet that XP would rule the roost anyways! That's why you'll never see OSX ported over to x86; they would have the same problems and issues as Microsoft. It's a lot easier to write code for a definite, finite set of hardware to handle like Apple does.

I wouldn't mind messing with OSX at all, but I'll never again get stuck buying a system from someone who controls both hardware and software and is the sole-source supplier of said hardware and software. I'm talking about core components, not hard drives and memory and ****. I went that route with my old Amiga machine and it was very advanced for it's day (a lot better than both x86 and Mac), but Commodore screwed the pooch on it by being sole-source for it.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 12:57pm Medlock I like Mac OSX but I hate the hardware it runs on. (from my experiences with a G4 iBook) My P4 generally beat the G4 to sh!t. Let's not get started with the video capabilities...
4 Jan 2005 ~ 1:36pm RWB I've had to work on G3's, G4's and G5's I hate the totally opposite views it has on Windows. Everything is ass backwards. You can't click on menu's, if you do... they close(perhaps a setting), you can't double click on the header of an application to maximize it, becuase that minumizes it. The close, min, and max buttons are on the opposite side, and the task bar is on the top of the screen instead of the bottom.

I even did a test when I first got my A64 3000+, my school got some G5's in, clocked at 1.8GHz I believe, and only single CPU. While it may not be a fair test to compair a A64 2GHz with a G5 1.GHz, the test I ran was with Adobe software which is BUILT for the MAC user then ported to Windows. The test was rather simple, After Effects was the main test, I made a project file at home on my system, rendered it out I believe it was 1 hour to do becuase I added tons of effects. Took it to the G5 lab and rendered the SAME file out again, it was considerably longer. I don't recall all the tests or the times, but I do remember after that point I didn't think of Mac's in the highest regaurd.

My problem is that I HAVE to work on them becuase that is where most of my industry is... I'll probably be buying a high end mac sometime this year, or perhaps one of their notebooks.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 5:49pm Unregistered Well I don't think apples are very user friendly (i.e. menues, windows, moving things, that annoying set of stuff on the bottom, left, or right that gets in the way, programs not being able to use, etc.) But, I know for a fact that 1.25ghz will run great.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 5:51pm yagga

Unregistered (Guest) wrote:

Well I don't think apples are very user friendly (i.e. menues, windows, moving things, that annoying set of stuff on the bottom, left, or right that gets in the way, programs not being able to use, etc.) But, I know for a fact that 1.25ghz will run great.

Oops, wasn't logged in, that was mine, if it matters any.
4 Jan 2005 ~ 6:54pm FormFactor Ill buy one if only to use OSX!

Providing CherryOS doesnt work out.
18 Nov 2005 ~ 3:26am trilinium

MountainDew wrote:

hahaha this is just ridiculous, I bought and built my first computer last year for under 500 and was twice the speed at least!

Oh dear, i hate having to explain this... Macs and PC's do not share the same speed ratio... like the guy said a 1.25Ghz G4 would waste a P4 at around 2.0-2.5ghz if they had the same RAM etc.
18 Nov 2005 ~ 3:33am Thrax Sure, at one or two altivec-optimised applications.. Shall we discuss SpecView PERF rigging?
18 Nov 2005 ~ 3:33am trilinium

RWB wrote:

I've had to work on G3's, G4's and G5's I hate the totally opposite views it has on Windows. Everything is ass backwards..

While Apple had Mac OS 7 which had menus icons everything that Windows has today, Microsoft was messing around with DOS and Windows 3.1. So if you think its backwards its not - its the right way round. Windows is a patched messed up copy of Mac OS
18 Nov 2005 ~ 3:49am Linc Oh goody, a hackneyed debate in a dead thread. What more could a supermod ask for at 4am?