Article:
  Confessions of the World's Largest Switcher
Subject:   Why the G5?
Date:   2003-11-01 07:02:43
From:   anonymous2
I can't believe that people don't understand this. Everyone is commenting about how they bought the G5s "sight unseen." According to the article, "An IBM with the PowerPC 970 would have been the first choice, but the earliest delivery date would have been January 2004." So, they had their hopes pinned on a single processor IBM 970 based machine, but IBM couldn't deliver in time. One week later, Apple announces a DUAL processor machine using the same chip, available in a 60 day timeframe. Seems to me that the choice of the G5 was a complete and total no-brainer. They had already specced the 970 as having the capabilities they wanted, and now Apple was offering a consumer version with two of them. It was no reach at all for them to decide to grab those and run with them, it seems to me. Probably the only real issues were converting what was undoubtedly plans for a rack based facility into one that could handle the G5s larger form factor.
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • Why the G5?
    2003-11-04 20:58:48  anonymous2 [View]

    There's one small difference though. The G5 produced for apple is actually a slightly crippled PPC970. It's lacking a co-processing unit that isn't useful for desktop users, but in this case is a loss for them.... In choosing G5's they decided that the sacrifice was worth their time.
    • Why the G5?
      2003-12-29 23:32:33  anonymous2 [View]

      the sacrifice was worth their TIME??? what about money? wouldn't they have had to buy more IBMs to get the same power, given that the IBMs are single processor units? And how does the price compare even so?

      Given their results, it's hard to say the made a terribly large sacrifice. *Maybe* they could have gotten better results for the same money by waiting, but that's always true in this world: if you wait long enough, the power you want will come down and down and down, all depending on how long you're willing to wait. Time was not an option for them, therefore they got the best possible choice. To say they sacrificed seems a distortion of the truth, unless you think they also sacrificed by not waiting until 2010, when something much more powerful might be a tenth the price.