not looking good for powermac updates at MWSF

[Bhennies]

well...on the same lines as that "not looking good for powerbook updates" thread, I'm getting that feeling that once again the ipod has hijacked the focus of apple. where the hell are new g5's? This is getting quite ridiculous. Am I the only one who remembers the dual 3ghz by LAST summer promise?

[Capt Underpants]

I had certainly forgotten about the 3 GHz promise, until you reminded me. It sucks that IBM is having fab problems, but it really isn't Apple's fault (atleast I don't think it is). As soon as IBM can make a 3 GHz 970, Apple will have it in their powermacs.

[Mertzen]

I feel the same way .. one too many announcement with iPods and U2 .. but no new powermac, bug ridden ones at it .. sad situation ..

[Sun Baked]

It's doubtful that we'll ever see a 3GHz PowerPC970FX...

It has some process problems that probably won't be corrected until the next generation chip arrives.

So it'll most likely be a 3GHz PPC 970GX...

And hopefully it'll also bring PCI Express Video, DDR2, and maybe PCI X 2.0 (200 and 266MHz PCI)...

[DrBoar]

The 970 also need a Integrated Memory controller and perhaps having the L2 upped to 1 MB before it really shines. Despite its high MHz bus and other stuff it really do not spank the G4 that much MHz for MHz. :rolleyes:

[Falleron]

Well, I know the usual remarks about MacOSRumors. Take a look at:

http://www.macosrumors.com/20050102.php

Especially: "Quote"

Whatever it is, we're tracking strong confidence spreading through the grapevine that at least one significant Pro-related announcement will come before Macworld -- in fact it could come by the end of this week.

At least this could be taken as a bit of optimism. Even if they queeze another couple hundred of mhz out of it.

[Mantat]

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?
You know that sorfware optimisation give better wield than Mhz increasement?
What so you do with your system that make it top priority to get a faster CPU compared to simply getting new powerfull software?

One the other hand, if they spend another 30mins talking about the iPod I think I will go on a killing sprea. iPod are just an entertainement gadget, they need to focus on production tools!

[Falleron]

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?
You know that sorfware optimisation give better wield than Mhz increasement?
What so you do with your system that make it top priority to get a faster CPU compared to simply getting new powerfull software?

One the other hand, if they spend another 30mins talking about the iPod I think I will go on a killing sprea. iPod are just an entertainement gadget, they need to focus on production tools!
Personally, I would buy a 3Ghz machine. If the top of the line becomes a 2.8Ghz machine then I would have to have a think about it.

I will be honest, I dont need a top of the range computer now. However, I do keep them a long time + have always gone for the top range machine.

[DrBoar]

A computer is never to fast /fast enogh in some apps :eek:
Take the original Unreal minmum hardware is something like 132 MHz 604 CPU and software rendering, a 300 MHz G3 is "awesome". So my G4/400 and ATI 128 was more than that and it still feels like a new game with G4/1200 MHz and ATI 8500. And it still look amazingly well compared with current games like COD.

With DOOM III I am sure that a 8 GHz G5 would be notisable faster than a "mere" 3 GHz and especially a 1.8 GHz for video coding and such speed is also a good thing.

For more mundane apps a 1.x GHz CPU will last for years :D

[HiRez]

MWSF is turning more and more into a consumer-oriented show each year, as WWDC both takes over for MWNY as the summer filler and provides a place for Apple to focus more on pro gear (PowerMacs and Cinema Displays). NAB in Las Vegas appears to be the stage where Apple is now showing off their pro software (FCP, Shake, Logic, Motion) the most.

[Mertzen]

It hasn't been looking good for the powermac since about 1 month after they introduced them ... delays, delays, bugs, delays, not up to promise, delays, bugs, ..

[switchedanhappy]

I'm just hoping that they have any good computer announcements. (I'm sure they will.) All this about iPods is really getting on my nerves. isn't it apple computer company? I really think that they may be losing focus in cupertino, but hopefully apples latest showing will be more than an ipod/itunes numberfest.

[Capt Underpants]

I'm just hoping that they have any good computer announcements. (I'm sure they will.) All this about iPods is really getting on my nerves. isn't it apple computer company? I really think that they may be losing focus in cupertino, but hopefully apples latest showing will be more than an ipod/itunes numberfest.

I'm pretty sure that the iPod and computer divisions of Apple are seperated. Apple is still working on great computers, and the iPod isn't in their way. If anything, the iPod helps get Apple $, which can help them make better hardware (and software).

[Chaszmyr]

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?

A computer can never be fast enough.
Absolutely.
Virtually no one really NEEDS such a powerful system, but virtually everyone can make use of one and enjoy one nonetheless. Really, the argument of "what do you need such a powerful system for anyway?" is getting old... People said it back when 1ghz Pentium 3s came out too, but now people have wisened up, and no one wants to use a lowsy 1ghz Pentium 3 anymore if they can avoid it.

[Sir_Giggles]

I had certainly forgotten about the 3 GHz promise, until you reminded me. It sucks that IBM is having fab problems, but it really isn't Apple's fault

Its funny how Steve Jobs was able to turn the bad news into a positive spin at last years WWDC.

[morkintosh]

One the other hand, if they spend another 30mins talking about the iPod I think I will go on a killing sprea. iPod are just an entertainement gadget, they need to focus on production tools!

I think I am as tired of the constant iPod talk as the next guy, but you Apple zealots can't have it both ways. You want Apple to be a market dominating company but get upset when they put the full force of their R&D behind the product that is spear heading their run on the stock market and allowing them to cross the gaps between market segments?

Which is it? The 3% Apple, dominating the niche market, or a company that is going up against the industry leaders?

[Bhennies]

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?
You know that sorfware optimisation give better wield than Mhz increasement?
What so you do with your system that make it top priority to get a faster CPU compared to simply getting new powerfull software?
Try running 50 tracks in digital performer with trilogy bass synth and battery with about 15-20 waves plug ins. Or 32 tracks in Pro Tools with a waves L2, a C4 and a couple altiverbs. Even a dual 3.0 ghz would start to huff a little with that. Or try working with a couple hundred MB file in photoshop (4x5 negative scanned in at 4800 dpi). Both of these I do on a somewhat regular basis, my powerbook will not handle the audio sessions at all, and the photoshop file causes the spinning beach ball for 2 minutes. I NEED a good powermac and a dual 1.8 may not be fast enough...the dual 2.0 is only marginally faster, and the 2.5 may be updated very soon and is quite expensive. I could get a dual 2.2 or above for what I'm doing, so hopefully they'll update and bump the 2.5 at least to the middle if not the bottom.

Until I can run whatever I want and it will work instantly, I'll never have a fast enough computer.

[Music_Producer]

Bhennies, I hope you're not recording those performer and pro tools projects on your internal hard drive, are you? When I had a 500 mhz pb G4 with 1 GB RAM, I used to work with 64 tracks in digital performer, all stacked with a LOt of plug-ins..sure it would be a bit slow but nevertheless, it would work great. The data was all on a 10 k rpm SCSI drive using a magma pci expansion chassis. The internal drive will crap out at probably 6 tracks!

[morkintosh]

Bhennies, I hope you're not recording those performer and pro tools projects on your internal hard drive, are you? When I had a 500 mhz pb G4 with 1 GB RAM, I used to work with 64 tracks in digital performer, all stacked with a LOt of plug-ins..sure it would be a bit slow but nevertheless, it would work great. The data was all on a 10 k rpm SCSI drive using a magma pci expansion chassis. The internal drive will crap out at probably 6 tracks!

come on! every one knows that it is all about how many mhz you have, disk IO is a non-issue. We all need to get more mhz on our computerz yo! then we'll roxor with fast mhz.

Actually understanding computer hardware would be a lot of work, it's so much easier to cry about a single variable for performance.

[wdlove]

I wasn't expecting the Power Mac to be updated at MWSF. So I'm not at all disappointed. It would seem that a February/March time frame might be more likely.

[HiRez]

Or try working with a couple hundred MB file in photoshop (4x5 negative scanned in at 4800 dpi). Both of these I do on a somewhat regular basis, my powerbook will not handle the audio sessions at all, and the photoshop file causes the spinning beach ball for 2 minutes. I NEED a good powermac and a dual 1.8 may not be fast enough...the dual 2.0 is only marginally faster, and the 2.5 may be updated very soon and is quite expensive.
I can't believe you're whining about how lame the G5s are when Photoshopping 4x5 scans when you're basing everything you say on performance on a PowerBook. Please. Get a dual G5 with 4+GB RAM and a proper RAID array and then come back and complain if it's not cutting it. When I was rendering 3D animation on my PowerBook, I wasn't complaining about how lame a dual G5 would be...I desired one and now I have it! Of course it's never as fast as you want it to be but it's one hell of a lot faster than the PowerBook was.

[Mertzen]

Its funny how Steve Jobs was able to turn the bad news into a positive spin at last years WWDC.

I think it was even more funny how he said .. we suck at this right now .. but hey Intel sucked even worse then us at sucking .. come on ..

[Mertzen]

Get a dual G5 with 4+GB RAM and a proper RAID array and then come back and complain if it's not cutting it.

Funny thing is that PS will only support 2GB .. but more important for Apple is that the RAID array won't be as fast as it can be because of PCI-X bandwidth bugs in the G5 ..

[Kwyjibo]

Am I the only one who remembers the dual 3ghz by LAST summer promise?

your not the victim, apple was being optimistic, clearly over optimistic but i'd rather have them reaching than when they had that crappy contract with moto and little to no growth / development.

[Bhennies]

I can't believe you're whining about how lame the G5s are when Photoshopping 4x5 scans when you're basing everything you say on performance on a PowerBook. Please. Get a dual G5 with 4+GB RAM and a proper RAID array and then come back and complain if it's not cutting it. When I was rendering 3D animation on my PowerBook, I wasn't complaining about how lame a dual G5 would be...I desired one and now I have it! Of course it's never as fast as you want it to be but it's one hell of a lot faster than the PowerBook was. well, I use g5's often and I never said they are lame. If I'm going to spend my cash I would like to get the best bang for the buck and not buy outdated tech (I'd be looking at the 1.8, the 2.5 is overpriced). I just finished working on a 3x5 foot digital composite with 60 layers at 300 dpi on a dual 2.0 g5. It worked ok, but wasn't the lightning quick workhorse you seem to suggest. The powerbook on that file...forget it..it took forever to do anything.

If the g5's are powerful enough to handle anything, why did apple design logic with distributive processing? So people could off load CPU onto another computer. The moral of this story- one computer (yes...even a dual 2.5 with 8 gigs of ram if you want) is not even enough for some people. I am not one of those people- and in fact could probably work for now on a dual 1.8, but that's the same thing I thought when I bought my powerbook as I wasn't working with MIDI at the time....workflows change and CPU usage changes. NOw I'm using virtual instruments and I've sold a lot of my outboard gear so my CPU usage is 5 fold over what it used to be 1 year ago. I like to make an investment when I buy a computer 'cause I keep em for a long time- and the dual 1.8 and 2.0 are right on the border of being just enough CPU (not a good investment).


Bhennies, I hope you're not recording those performer and pro tools projects on your internal hard drive, are you? nah. I have two 120 gig seagate 8 MB cahce FW800 drives. It's a CPU thing. I use lots of real time plugs- reverbs, delays, ring modulators etc. and they eat CPU. PLus I use a good bit of MIDI which on a native system needs low buffer which in turn needs more CPU. Thank god at least the spectrasonics stuff is more ram-based than CPU.

[Bhennies]

...

[Bhennies]

come on! every one knows that it is all about how many mhz you have, disk IO is a non-issue. We all need to get more mhz on our computerz yo! then we'll roxor with fast mhz.

Actually understanding computer hardware would be a lot of work, it's so much easier to cry about a single variable for performance.if this is directed at me...maybe you should read up on what variable is most important for music production before you mock.

there's a meter in both PT and DP that says "CPU performance". It has a little green bar that turns red when the CPU spikes. The audio file stops playing and you get an error message. OVer 70 percent puts it in "CPU spike territory". A low buffer setting (essential to reduce latency for live audio or midi tracking) increases CPU strain. As do real time plug ins.

There's another green bar that says "disk". This one turns red when the disk bandwidth is used up. I never have more than 1/4 used.

RAM is not an issue for me.

don't patronize me. I know what I'm talking about here.

[Mantat]

First of all, when I ask people why they need so much power in a computer, its to point out if they are pro or just home user.

And I agree totaly that people refer to Ghz at the sole and only performance scale on a computer while it basicaly mean nothing compared to fast I/O, dedicated processing units, RAID, etc.. Which in turn means nothing compared to good programing. This is why Apple wants to implement Core Graphic so much. It would mean instant rendering of most video and still images filters WITH THE SAME HARDWARE. See? You dont need a faster CPU, you just need better library. Software libs are the single most important thing. I am a programmer, you are an artist, I dont expect you to know/ understand all the intricated work related to software developpement but trust me on this, the improvement on performance of core graphic will be higher than any Ghz gain you can hope for! I just hope it can be exploited in some way for 3D so we could get some blazing fast games too!

As for PCI-X card bug, I know a few people who use them to have SATA RAID and none had any problems so the bug you talk about might be affecting only some units or be card related.

Finaly, if you are a pro, it is totaly stupid to keep a computer for more than a year. The taxes advantages and high resale value of a mac allow you to make a profit by changing computer every year! You should talk to you accountant about it and tell him that mac resale value isnt the same as for pc (fiscal laws are made for pc that lose 60% of their value in a year).

[Bhennies]

First of all, when I ask people why they need so much power in a computer, its to point out if they are pro or just home user.

And I agree totaly that people refer to Ghz at the sole and only performance scale on a computer while it basicaly mean nothing compared to fast I/O, dedicated processing units, RAID, etc.. Which in turn means nothing compared to good programing. I agree with you here. I'm just saying that that's not the case for me. PT is not optimized for OSX and probably won't be for some time, and while I hear you on the 3-D graphics and even core image optimization as far as software is concerned...you're talking about apple and oranges...it's not going to be relevant for pro tools...at least not at first. I most likely won't be able to upgrade to tiger for some time anyway, as digidesign is extremely slow to certify anything (they just apporved the new g5's a couple months ago). performance in pro tools was stronger under os 9.

And while it may be ok to sell a computer every year- it's not "stupid" to keep one for longer than a year. In fact I would say the opposite. I asked my accountant and the recommendation is to make a smart investment up front and run it till it starts to stifle your creativity performance-wise. I kept my last g4 tower for four years. I plan to keep this one 3-4 years (as well as my powerbook). Same as an automobile- it's not smart to lease or flip cars all the time...always pay cash and run it until it's no longer useable.

and finally, i have no problem with people suggesting that there may be other factors besides CPU I should look into (even though I know this already). It's just the derogatory way way he said it that makes it patronizing.

If you can convince digidesign to optimize their software, I'll buy a dual 1.8 refurb. Until then, I'll wait for my dual 2.5 for 1999.:)

ok, Later....

p.s. what pci-x card bug? I don't think I mentioned that??? how about the fw800 bug...has that been fixed yet?

[Mantat]

And while it may be ok to sell a computer every year- it's not "stupid" to keep one for longer than a year. In fact I would say the opposite. I asked my accountant and the recommendation is to make a smart investment up front and run it till it starts to stifle your creativity performance-wise. I kept my last g4 tower for four years. I plan to keep this one 3-4 years (as well as my powerbook). Same as an automobile- it's not smart to lease or flip cars all the time...always pay cash and run it until it's no longer useable.

and finally, i have no problem with people suggesting that there may be other factors besides CPU I should look into (even though I know this already). It's just the derogatory way way he said it that makes it patronizing.


p.s. what pci-x card bug? I don't think I mentioned that??? how about the fw800 bug...has that been fixed yet?

Here is why you should replace your computer every years. Of course, fiscal laws change between countries / region so it might not be relevant to you but here is my situation in Canada.
let say I buy a 4000$, taxes arent relevant because I get them back.
The depreciation of the computer is 125% on the first year for the provincial gov and 30% for the federal gov. That mean that I I reduce my taxable income on the provincial level by 5000$ and 1333$ on the federal.
I dont have the charts in front of me but let suppose both gov take an equal share of my income, and I am taxed at 50% (yes, thats the joy of taxation in canada). The computer decrease my taxable revenue for a total of 6333$ before taxes which translate to a return of 3166$. so the computer only costed me 4000$-3166$ = 834$. Now you sell the computer for let say 3000$ which is a very decent and realistic amount. You make a profit (in book) of 3000 - (4000 - (4000 x 30%))= 200$ which will be taxable at 50% so you will finaly turn out a profit of 100$.

Btw, these numbers are bogus because I dont have all the charts in front of me but the point is that the depreciation allowed by the gov is much higher than in the 'real world' for mac so you basicaly can sell computers for more than their book value so you are making money changing your computer!

When you talked to your accountant, did you tell him that you can sell your computer at the end of the year for probably over 80% of its cost? Also, looking at my calculation, the big part of the benefit comes from the fact that we are taxed there for 50% over 50k$ so if this is less for you the impact will be lower.

I am planning to one day start a business selling mac while my sole selling pitch would be to show them how cheap these computers can be by showing real numbers.

[aussie_geek]

Why do you want a 3Ghz PM?
Would you buy one? (really?)
Do you need such a powerfull system?
You know that sorfware optimisation give better wield than Mhz increasement?
What so you do with your system that make it top priority to get a faster CPU compared to simply getting new powerfull software?

One the other hand, if they spend another 30mins talking about the iPod I think I will go on a killing sprea. iPod are just an entertainement gadget, they need to focus on production tools!

Bring the the 3Ghz firecracker I say. The sooner they bring out the 3Ghz, it will push the prices of the 2.5Ghz and 2Ghz down and make them more financially attainable!!

aussie_geek

[morkintosh]

don't patronize me. I know what I'm talking about here.

well I'm sorry but you really don't. I'm sure that you could benefit from a faster clock speed, but you act like a 3.0 ghz G5 would solve your problem, you say nothing of an L2 (or really an L1) cache increase, the use of a faster bus, better chipset etc. There are lots of factors that contribute your your magical green bar, the clock speed is only one. If you really need so much horse power why don't build yourself a cluster, would a 200 node G5 2.3 ghz XServe cluster cut it for you?

[Bhennies]

well I'm sorry but you really don't. I'm sure that you could benefit from a faster clock speed, but you act like a 3.0 ghz G5 would solve your problem, you say nothing of an L2 (or really an L1) cache increase, the use of a faster bus, better chipset etc. I just typed a long point for point response...but the server ***** up and erased it so I'll keep it short.

obviously all these things contribute to CPU speed and overall computer performance. You seem to suggest that clock cycle adds less to performance than the sum of the other factors. But, lemme ask you this...why then does the g4 stand up so well against the g5? we're talking a 167 mhz system bus versus 600-1.25 ghz? Not to mention ATA versus s-ata, less backside cache etc.
There are lots of factors that contribute your your magical green bar, the clock speed is only one.
this thread wasn't titled..."please xplain to me how computers work". everything you're saying is completely irrelevant to the topic. It doesn't matter WHY the "magical green bar" is at 70 percent...it just matters that it IS, and if a faster, newer computer can fix that...I will buy it.

Here's the deal, you're not going to convince me to go buy a g5 just because you say it's enough power for me. I work with these things in the real world, and I know what I need and will need.

What woud you have me do...buy a dual 1.8 and magically increase the FSB, cache, and somehow eliminate the disk bottleneck (because according to you the 1.8 is enough processor)? I'm also not able to program a new os or Pro tools to fully take advantage of the current offerings so there goes the other suggestion. If you really need so much horse power why don't build yourself a cluster, would a 200 node G5 2.3 ghz XServe cluster cut it for you?If I needed it and could justify it financially I would. What the hell is your problem anyway? Why do you care what I want to buy? Why do you care how much horsepower I need?

If you don't have anything constructive to say, go piss on another thread.

[Mantat]

obviously all these things contribute to CPU speed and overall computer performance. You seem to suggest that clock cycle adds less to performance than the sum of the other factors. But, lemme ask you this...why then does the g4 stand up so well against the g5? we're talking a 167 mhz system bus versus 600-1.25 ghz? Not to mention ATA versus s-ata, less backside cache etc.


I think you try to generalize your special case to all G4 vs G5. Maybe ProTools doesnt see a big improvement going G5 but saying that a G4 stad well vs a G5 is untrue. Your system bus argument isnt valid because bus is only used to transfer data from the ram to the cpu, as big as the G5 improvement in bus speed of the G5, its nothing compared to the large amount of L2 et L3 cache of some G4. These cache are right on the CPU which make them much faster but they have small amount of memory so they cant hold much. This is why, depending of the type of task, the G4 might be as good as a G5. But when you talk about large amount of data passing thru the CPU the G5 will blow away G4 and benchmarks clearly illustrate this.

As for ATA vs SATA, again, this is a common misconception. The difference isnt that big because the limiting factor in a single disk setup isnt as much the connection than the drive itself! So plugging a 50mb/s drive on ATA or SATA would provide the same performance. The advantages of the SATA pop in when you are doing RAID or using fast drives, other than that, the difference is minimal. Also, SATA is way easier to setup than ATA.

Anyways, I dont know the type of processing algo type of Protools so I cant comment on your situation but statement like you did might confuse some reader in thinking that G5 arent fast while they are ridiculously high improvement in, for exemple, my case... So here we go again in the all mighty and important software optimisation job that each developper should do!

[morkintosh]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, go piss on another thread.

Since I see that someone has already point out that what you are saying is still flawed I won't take the time to do so myself. I am merely stating that, particularly in your case, even with a 3.0 ghz G5 you will still spike the CPU at 70% or more, the amount of time that this happens my decrease a little, but it's not the silver bullet that you seem to suggest. It is fairly constructive in that perhaps some reader who is willing to admit that they don't know dick-all about these sorts of things can learn something and make more informed decisions about future purchases. Sadly I can only place you in half of that previous equivalency class; as such you should ignore this as it wasn't directed at you ;)

[Bhennies]

Since I see that someone has already point out that what you are saying is still flawed I won't take the time to do so myself. I am merely stating that, particularly in your case, even with a 3.0 ghz G5 you will still spike the CPU at 70% or more, the amount of time that this happens my decrease a little, but it's not the silver bullet that you seem to suggest. It is fairly constructive in that perhaps some reader who is willing to admit that they don't know dick-all about these sorts of things can learn something and make more informed decisions about future purchases. Sadly I can only place you in half of that previous equivalency class; as such you should ignore this as it wasn't directed at you ;)OK so now you're saying that even a 3.0 ghz g5 won't be fast enough for me after you just mocked me in the last post for wanting more horsepower? your logic is impossible to follow.
...The difference isnt that big...Exactly what I've been saying...my point has been that the CPU is a big factor in performance...especially after hearing a complaint about disk i/o....

Your system bus argument isnt valid because bus is only used to transfer data from the ram to the cpu, as big as the G5 improvement in bus speed of the G5, its nothing compared to the large amount of L2 et L3 cache of some G4
As far as the g4 versus g5 comment...I was referring to a bare feats test sometime back where they stacked the 1.6 g5 against the 1.5 powerbook. The powerbook fared very well against the g5 in all sorts of operations. NOt to mention the rumor of the freescale chip...people have been syaing on these boards for a long time that the g4 "clock for clock" stacks well against the g5. I never said it would beat it hands down...I just said it will stack favorably. I also never said that the g5 is a slow chip- that's a misrepresentation of my argument. I don't really know enough about the innerworkings to make a blanket statment like that. But I've worked with lots of these computers (owned a dual g4, powerbook and work with g5's) and I'm making real world comments based on performance and the decent bit of computer knowledge I have. I was merely stating the differences between the setups and asking you all to explain the performance differences (or similarities). You can draw your own conclusions as to why the results stack like they do.


I think what you guys have failed to understand about why I want new updates, is that apple doesn't just update the CPU and then leave everything else alone. Usually, a clock speed update comes hand in hand with updated hardware across the board (look at the dual 2.5- with an increase to 1.25 ghz fsb etc.). PLus there are bugs that apple still has yet to work out (according to barefeats...the FW800 bug is still around even in the 2.5's)

so let's just leave it at that. I'll reiterate...I didn't start this thread to find out about the inner workings of computers. I started it because i've been waiting since last february for g5 updates that still haven't come and it's kind of annoying. The reasoning honestly shouldn't matter- even though I think I stated my defense pretty well.

p.s. and maybe finally airport and bluetooth will come standard. ;)

[morkintosh]

OK so now you're saying that even a 3.0 ghz g5 won't be fast enough for me after you just mocked me in the last post for wanting more horsepower? your logic is impossible to follow.
Exactly what I've been saying...my point has been that the CPU is a big factor in performance...especially after hearing a complaint about disk i/o....


I haven't ever said anything about "fast enough", as I make no particular assumptions about what is / isn't fast enough for you. All I am saying is that you can wait until hell freezes over for updates and it will likely not matter, so stop crying about CPU speed. I am mocking you because you deserved to be mocked, not because you want more horsepower. What's so hard to follow about that?

[Bhennies]

I am mocking you because you deserved to be mocked, not because you want more horsepower. What's so hard to follow about that?honestly, I can't believe I got caught up in your little arguing game. I should have kept my mouth shut...there are always a few trolls like you who like to pick fights. Judging by your attitude and irrational logic (not to mention your syntax and grammar), you are probably some kid who spends all his time starting **** on forums and really never has anything constructive to say. Are you even a pro user?

This thread never even MENTIONED a question about the specs of the current g5's...just updates. IN fact...if you read my original post, I never even said I wanted an update exclusively for a faster CPU- I simply pointed out that steve jobs annouced that we'd have 3.0 ghz g5's by LAST summer and that updates were way behind schedule. There are MANY things I'd like to see updated.

Honestly man, you have the wrong attitude for this forum...i've rarely seen a post in the past year since I've visited where someone "deserved to be mocked". And it certainly wasn't warranted in this case...that's for sure. If you'll remember correctly, you stated out of the blue "Actually understanding computer hardware would be a lot of work, it's so much easier to cry about a single variable for performance." What a childish and immature way to enter a discussion. Listen, it's not even worth me typing any longer, so grow up and come correct or don't come at all. Don't even bother responding 'cause I already know what you're gonna say and I'm done with you. I'll say it again..."go piss on another thread".