PDA

View Full Version : Offical: Macs Faster Than PCs


hvfsl
Jun 20, 2003, 06:58 AM
Now that we all know the specs of the new PowerMac G5s, it is clear that Macs have once again taken the performace crown from Intel/AMD. In benchmarking a 1.8Ghz PPC970 was faster than a 3Ghz P4, so I can only imagine how fast a dual 2Ghz that will be released on Monday will be. Apple said on their website before the info got pulled that the new Macs are the fastest Personal Computers ever. I expect SJ will show of some benchmarks of the new Macs on Monday.

The only thing left is to find out the prices. These new Macs should cost less than the G4s, but how much less.

For those who missed the specs, get them here http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=35700&size=big&papass=&sort=1&thecat=

The picture of the Mac there is a G4 for Mac, Apple put the G5 specs on the G4 Macs bit of the Apple Store.

mac15
Jun 20, 2003, 07:52 AM
remember the days of jobs showing that macs are faster by bringing PCs to macworld and demoing them and showing mac rip em apart :)

Now we can do it again! Now we have the best Hardware and software. hands down

jxyama
Jun 20, 2003, 12:13 PM
let's wait and see... i don't know if the new power macs will be any cheaper. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were priced higher. sure, they are still power macs, but they will be called G5 power macs...

does anyone know what the prices of G4 power macs were when they first came out compared to the G3 power macs?

hvfsl
Jun 20, 2003, 01:00 PM
The only reason the G5 macs would be more expensive than current Macs is if Apple makes the prices artifically high. The PPC970 is a lot cheaper than the G4 and the new componants Apple is using do not cost any more than the old parts.

jxyama
Jun 20, 2003, 01:08 PM
i wouldn't say artificial... computer's total price needs not be the sum of components. there are other factors involved such as r&d, new case fabs (even if apple doesn't make the case, they need to find someone who can supply), marketing, etc. those are real costs...

would anyone say the entire restaurant business is inflating the prices artificially high since price of any given dish is higher than the cost of ingredients? i think not...

i guess i'd rather err on the high side and not get my hopes up. the new machines do seem absolutely fantastic and i don't want to get my hopes waaay up and be tremendously dissappointed when the prices are equally "fantastic" in the wrong direction.

not that i'd be buying one anyway... my lovely 12" is less than 6 months old... the new machines, however, will give me plenty of reasons to wanting to go by the apple store and play with them for hours and hours and hours... :cool:

Zeke
Jun 20, 2003, 01:09 PM
Even though the processor cost could be less what about the motherboard and RAM? 1Ghz system bus seems like the MOBO would be pretty pricey and the RAM could be kinda expensive as well. Hopefully they'll be the same price or cheaper but you never know...

Abstract
Jun 20, 2003, 01:51 PM
Ahhhh, so that's what everyone is talking about. I don't understand the first line, though: "1.6GHz, 1.8GHz, or Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 processors." Does this mean that ALL the new PM's are dual, or just the 2GHz model?

bennetsaysargh
Jun 20, 2003, 02:21 PM
i think they'll be a little cheaper, justb to add on another selling point. they want to kick the **** out of the G and they'll definatly do just that.,

jxyama
Jun 20, 2003, 02:21 PM
i think only the 2GHz is a dual...

pgwalsh
Jun 20, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
The only reason the G5 macs would be more expensive than current Macs is if Apple makes the prices artifically high. The PPC970 is a lot cheaper than the G4 and the new componants Apple is using do not cost any more than the old parts. Well that's not entirely true... The cost of a new redesign and SATA drive s are more expensive. There's all new technology going into these PM and I expect the price to be higher, but I hope it's not.

Cubeboy
Jun 20, 2003, 02:57 PM
Anyone have a link for the benchmarks? I was never aware that a PPC 970 machine was already benched. Thanks :)

dongmin
Jun 20, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Now that we all know the specs of the new PowerMac G5s, it is clear that Macs have once again taken the performace crown from Intel/AMD. In benchmarking a 1.8Ghz PPC970 was faster than a 3Ghz P4, so I can only imagine how fast a dual 2Ghz that will be released on Monday will be.

I don't know where you got that a 1.8 ghz 970 is faster than a 3 ghz P4. It's not, at least according to SPEC scores. The P4 3 ghz edges out the 1.8ghz 970 by 5-10%. The MacBidouille benchmarks, which claimed some truly incredible performances, are highly dubious. Also remember that dual Xeons are the fastest PCs out there. The dual 2.0 ghz will no doubt give the Xeons a run for their money but we'll have to wait and see.

Also there were some reports recently that suggested only modestly faster performances than current G4s'. At least until they get the bugs out and optimize the OS for the new hardware.

Of course, I generally don't care about comparing Macs to PCs. What's truly remarkable is that the new top model should more than double the performance of the old top of the line. Amazing. When's the last time THAT happened? Another thing that's amazing: Apple has managed to upgrade EVERY aspect of the machine.

iJon
Jun 20, 2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Well that's not entirely true... The cost of a new redesign and SATA drive s are more expensive. There's all new technology going into these PM and I expect the price to be higher, but I hope it's not.
well i look at it like this, since the processor part of the computer are suppose to be cheaper, maybe they are making the price even by adding better hard drives, little bit better video cards, pcix and all that stuff. but will we find out monday iguess if its all true or not.

iJon

daveg5
Jun 20, 2003, 04:53 PM
it will all depends on what benchmarks are used, 32-64bit, if there are any altivec enhancements, dual processor enhancements, hard drive model, video card drivers, and who is doing the benchmarks.
in games pcs may have the lead because of raw ghz unless they are 64 bit, ativec or dual optimized.
but even if the macs are slower it wont be by much, so i am still happy to say by to the G$!

daveg5
Jun 20, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Anyone have a link for the benchmarks? I was never aware that a PPC 970 machine was already benched. Thanks :) http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-05#5440

mislabeledstar
Jun 20, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Anyone have a link for the benchmarks? I was never aware that a PPC 970 machine was already benched. Thanks :)

i wouldn't put too much faith on those benchmarks, alot of people tend to feel they are fake for mutiple reasons including many or thos numbers copied from elsewhere, the version of bryce used and the fact that are dramatic increases on certain programs with dual processors that can take no advantage of a dual processor

sparkleytone
Jun 20, 2003, 06:27 PM
i just really really hope that if and when the new powermacs are announced on monday, the stores will have at least a demo model or two in stock. i really just wanna feel OS X on a 970. and run xbench too :D

Daveman Deluxe
Jun 20, 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by mislabeledstar
i wouldn't put too much faith on those benchmarks, alot of people tend to feel they are fake for mutiple reasons including many or thos numbers copied from elsewhere, the version of bryce used and the fact that are dramatic increases on certain programs with dual processors that can take no advantage of a dual processor

I don't put faith in benchmarks in general and particularly in SPEC scores because a good programmer can artificially inflate the score. You see, SPEC benchmarks allow you to use your own compiler when benchmarking your product, and doing compiler gymnastics works wonders on the performance of your chip. Furthermore, there are a lot of benchmarks in the suite that mean nothing to the rest of us--things like simulations of weather patterns and simulations of a part in a nuclear power plant. SPEC benchmarks are typically useful for people investing tens of thousands or millions of dollars on high-end workstations. That's why the SPEC benchmark is normalized to a Sparc workstation--a computer none of us will ever own.

Cubeboy
Jun 20, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
I don't put faith in benchmarks in general and particularly in SPEC scores because a good programmer can artificially inflate the score. You see, SPEC benchmarks allow you to use your own compiler when benchmarking your product, and doing compiler gymnastics works wonders on the performance of your chip. Furthermore, there are a lot of benchmarks in the suite that mean nothing to the rest of us--things like simulations of weather patterns and simulations of a part in a nuclear power plant. SPEC benchmarks are typically useful for people investing tens of thousands or millions of dollars on high-end workstations. That's why the SPEC benchmark is normalized to a Sparc workstation--a computer none of us will ever own.

A faulty and commonly mistaken assumption, the SPEC benchmark suites have two scores, a base score and a peak score differing in that the base score allows for no compiler optimizations whereas the peak score allows for moderate compiler optimizations as long as they can be reflected in real world applications. All submitted SPEC results are carefully analyzed to ensure that they follow these rules and others in order to be a official SPEC result. Considering that most chip makers use the same or similar level compilers, I consider SPEC a most accurate method of measuring pure processing power and most people in the industry agree. That SPEC cannot be hand optimized (like so many Altivec, SSE2 optimized benchmarks commonly used today) puts it in a different class altogether.

Also, perhaps you should take a look at the kernels used in each SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suite, it is quite widely accepted that the various kernels used to bench are very accurate at reflecting the performance of a processor in integer code and floating point code. The Nuclear Reactor/Weather kernels you were referring to was from the SPECfp suite which reflects a CPU's performance in floating point code. As many of you may or may not know, floating point code is primarily useful in scientific and engineering programs.

Freg3000
Jun 20, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
i just really really hope that if and when the new powermacs are announced on monday, the stores will have at least a demo model or two in stock. i really just wanna feel OS X on a 970. and run xbench too :D

xBench.....mmmmmmm

Does the app have the ability to display results in the ten thousands? :)

Catfish_Man
Jun 20, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
The only reason the G5 macs would be more expensive than current Macs is if Apple makes the prices artifically high. The PPC970 is a lot cheaper than the G4 and the new componants Apple is using do not cost any more than the old parts.

Bull. Bull. No freakin' way can you get a dual ported 1GHz memory controller, fast DDR ram (probably dual channel), SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP Pro, and a bigger, newer processor made on a more advanced manufacturing process for less money. That would be like someone saying Ferraris are cheaper to make than VW Bugs.

AFAICT there are three options:
1) Moto was MASSIVELY overcharging for the G4 + associated parts
2) You're making things up
3) You're taking rumors as fact

Given that Moto doesn't make the associated parts for the G4 (Apple does), how likely do you think option 1 is? Not very.

ZildjianKX
Jun 20, 2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Bull. Bull. No freakin' way can you get a dual ported 1GHz memory controller, fast DDR ram (probably dual channel), SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP Pro, and a bigger, newer processor made on a more advanced manufacturing process for less money. That would be like someone saying Ferraris are cheaper to make than VW Bugs.

AFAICT there are three options:
1) Moto was MASSIVELY overcharging for the G4 + associated parts
2) You're making things up
3) You're taking rumors as fact

Given that Moto doesn't make the associated parts for the G4 (Apple does), how likely do you think option 1 is? Not very.

Sure you can, its called a PC, lol... but seriously though, I bet they'll keep prices the same... jeez, you really can't raise the price on a mac, can you?

MorganX
Jun 20, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Bull. Bull. No freakin' way can you get a dual ported 1GHz memory controller, fast DDR ram (probably dual channel), SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP Pro, and a bigger, newer processor made on a more advanced manufacturing process for less money.

I don't know. Canterwood and Springdale mobos have an 800MHz FSB overclockable to 1GHz with all that including Serial ATA Raid for about $120 retail. Along with USB2 and FW400. Of course, I doubt anyone can produce chipsets in mass quantity as cheaply as Intel at the moment.

iJon
Jun 20, 2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Bull. Bull. No freakin' way can you get a dual ported 1GHz memory controller, fast DDR ram (probably dual channel), SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP Pro, and a bigger, newer processor made on a more advanced manufacturing process for less money. That would be like someone saying Ferraris are cheaper to make than VW Bugs.

AFAICT there are three options:
1) Moto was MASSIVELY overcharging for the G4 + associated parts
2) You're making things up
3) You're taking rumors as fact

Given that Moto doesn't make the associated parts for the G4 (Apple does), how likely do you think option 1 is? Not very.
I doubt SATA will be that much more then what we have now, cant be to drastic. i would assume 8x agp is the same price as 4x, kind of like usb 2 and 1. i dont think lower prices will come, i just have a feeling they will make the powermac worth the money.

iJon

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 12:44 AM
Not to be a downer... but even if its snowing in hell right now and Macs are faster than PCs... its not going to last.

What competition does Apple have to keep making processors faster? PCs have AMD vs Intel... and that's why the G4s of today are so slow. Apple just has to keep processors relatively fast... or keep optimizing operating systems to make the systems appear faster.

hacurio1
Jun 21, 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by dongmin
I don't know where you got that a 1.8 ghz 970 is faster than a 3 ghz P4. It's not, at least according to SPEC scores. The P4 3 ghz edges out the 1.8ghz 970 by 5-10%. The MacBidouille benchmarks, which claimed some truly incredible performances, are highly dubious. Also remember that dual Xeons are the fastest PCs out there. The dual 2.0 ghz will no doubt give the Xeons a run for their money but we'll have to wait and see.

Also there were some reports recently that suggested only modestly faster performances than current G4s'. At least until they get the bugs out and optimize the OS for the new hardware.

Of course, I generally don't care about comparing Macs to PCs. What's truly remarkable is that the new top model should more than double the performance of the old top of the line. Amazing. When's the last time THAT happened? Another thing that's amazing: Apple has managed to upgrade EVERY aspect of the machine.

IMHO, I think that as of Monday, Macs once again will be the fastest PCs. The 3GHz P4 where only 5% faster on SPEC benchmarks than a 1.8GHz 970. The new PMs are up to 2GHz, not 1.8, and most important of all, they are dual. Add the possibility of up to 8Gb of memory, an you have the fastest personal computer ever! I know you can make quad Xeons, but they are on a different league (servers). Now as far as dual Xeons, I thin the dual 2Ghz will definitely give some good competition. Also, add into the mix the 1Ghz bus! Plus Altivec, and I think we have a winner. What I love is the fact that Mac won on the 64bit competition (not servers) in the personal computer segment; not even AMD, as was expected, won this race! Lets see what Intel comes up with. They will probably have to modify their roadmap after everything that is happening. I have read about Intel’s roadmap several times, but after all this, I'm not impressed anymore. Besides, did anybody saw the preview of panther? It looks awesome. I can't wait. We have the best OS, and now the best hardware (PowerMacs), and most of our programs (the important ones) are optimized for Altivec. This year looks like it's going to be a killer. Pentium.....toasted...LOL

MacBandit
Jun 21, 2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Not to be a downer... but even if its snowing in hell right now and Macs are faster than PCs... its not going to last.

What competition does Apple have to keep making processors faster? PCs have AMD vs Intel... and that's why the G4s of today are so slow. Apple just has to keep processors relatively fast... or keep optimizing operating systems to make the systems appear faster.

Apple has competition with the other 80% of the market. They have to compete with PCs because the people who buy render farms are the ones who care about a 5% speed advantage which can come out to saving a day on a larger render. Imagine a rack of dual GHz/970 xserves all clustered. Now imagine a room full of these racks. That could easily compete with any computer system on the planet if not pound it into dust.

Also the PPC970 is set for growth. IBM is on the verge if not already in the process of moving to a 90nm die. The industry buzz I have heard says this could easily jump MHz speed up 50%. If it truly turns out that IBM was cautious about their original estimage of 1.2-1.8GHz and has succeded in achieving 2GHz from the initial batches (early I might add) then that means we could easily be at 3GHz before years end.

It finally looks like Apple is rising off the bottom and instead of making a steady climb back into the light is going full throttle at the sun and there is no end in site. This could truly be another golden age for us Mac users.

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
It finally looks like Apple is rising off the bottom and instead of making a steady climb back into the light is going full throttle at the sun and there is no end in site. This could truly be another golden age for us Mac users.

I hope you're right.

Just for the record... when the 970 benchmarks come out and if they really blow away the G4... all the people who constantly bickered about G4s vs P4s and that G4s weren't dated have to admit they were wrong... :)

RandomDeadHead
Jun 21, 2003, 03:55 AM
It finally looks like Apple is rising off the bottom and instead of making a steady climb back into the light is going full throttle at the sun and there is no end in site. This could truly be another golden age for us Mac users.



God I hope so!:)

ddtlm
Jun 21, 2003, 03:55 AM
hacurio1:

IMHO, I think that as of Monday, Macs once again will be the fastest PCs.
Yeah cause your trying to pit two 2.0ghz PPC970's against one Pentium 4. Prices are not yet known, and in fact I guess we don't even know that Apple is releasing what they seem to be releasing, but anyway I bet you can bring a dual Xeon or dual Opteron to the party for the same money as a dual PPC970.

Now as far as dual Xeons, I thin the dual 2Ghz will definitely give some good competition. Also, add into the mix the 1Ghz bus!
A dual Opteron typically would have no external FSB and sport quad-channel DDR, which crushes the 1ghz bus and currently unknown RAM setup. Apple is more compeditive, and maybe the fastest, but lets remember that this is a very compeditive field.

What I love is the fact that Mac won on the 64bit competition (not servers) in the personal computer segment; not even AMD, as was expected, won this race!
Heh, lets wait and see what S.J. has to say monday before concluding this. :) Anyway, some of us could have already gone for Linux Opteron desktops if we'd wanted, or gotten a low-end Sun. But yeah it appears that Apple will be the first to the mass market with 64 bits, whatever good that does them.

This year looks like it's going to be a killer. Pentium.....toasted...LOL
It is very shortsighted to discount Intel. So their 18-month old Pentium 4 might be slower than Apple's not released G5... Intel has plans.

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 04:28 AM
Lots not forget to mention price. I just built my GF a new computer this week...

2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 (800 MHz FSB)
WD 36.7 GB 10,000 RPM 8MB Buffer SATA Raptor Hard Drive
Corsair 512MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz
ATI Radeon 9000 PRO AGP 4X 128MB DDR
Liteon 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
+case, ergo keyboard, LAN card, sound card, laser mouse and $50 speakers

All for $1,600... not to mention that includes a top of the line 17" Samsung LCD.

So a $3,000 Mac, not including a monitor, better beat a Pentium 4. And for all the people saying the new components will cost Apple too much money, rubbish.

Edit- and before I get flamed, this was a pro mac post, just saying that computer components and technology isn't as expensive as some of you think.

dongmin
Jun 21, 2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Lots not forget to mention price. I just built my GF a new computer this week...

2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 (800 MHz FSB)
WD 36.7 GB 10,000 RPM 8MB Buffer SATA Raptor Hard Drive
Corsair 512MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz
ATI Radeon 9000 PRO AGP 4X 128MB DDR
Liteon 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
+case, ergo keyboard, LAN card, sound card, laser mouse and $50 speakers

All for $1,600... not to mention that includes a top of the line 17" Samsung LCD.

So a $3,000 Mac, not including a monitor, better beat a Pentium 4. And for all the people saying the new components will cost Apple too much money, rubbish.

Edit- and before I get flamed, this was a pro mac post, just saying that computer components and technology isn't as expensive as some of you think.

I'm not gonna flame you b/c this is such a tired old issue and people have been flamed plenty of times, on both sides. But if you're gonna compare PCs to Macs, at least compare a reputed manufacturer like Dell to Apple, not some home-made PC. Then add all the goodies that the new PM will come pre-loaded with, like Gigabit Ethernet, 4x Superdrives, Airport and Bluetooth ready, Firewire 800 + FW 400, 3 USB 2.0, optical audio, PCI-X, and AGP 8x. Not to mention all the great software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc.

Considering that the dual 2 ghz 970 will be at comparable performance levels as a dual Xeon 3 ghz (which cost a pretty penny), I think the Macs will actually be very price competitive again. Finally. Right now the 'Fastest' PMs go for $2700. If they can keep the dual 2 ghz 970 for under 3 grand, I think we'll have some massive massive backorders.

Cubeboy
Jun 21, 2003, 08:39 AM
Considering that the PPC970 is about the equal of the Pentium 4 on the core level (from the SPECmarks), I would expect it to be significantly faster than the Pentium 4 in Altivec optimized programs which is really what's important since most rendering/video editing programs used by Powermac users take advantage of Altivec.

Regarding cost, how much does SRAM cost these days?
2.6 megs of SRAM on .18 micron process in the current Powermacs has to increase it's cost by a substantial amount.

hacurio1
Jun 21, 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
hacurio1:


Yeah cause your trying to pit two 2.0ghz PPC970's against one Pentium 4. Prices are not yet known, and in fact I guess we don't even know that Apple is releasing what they seem to be releasing, but anyway I bet you can bring a dual Xeon or dual Opteron to the party for the same money as a dual PPC970.


A dual Opteron typically would have no external FSB and sport quad-channel DDR, which crushes the 1ghz bus and currently unknown RAM setup. Apple is more compeditive, and maybe the fastest, but lets remember that this is a very compeditive field.


Heh, lets wait and see what S.J. has to say monday before concluding this. :) Anyway, some of us could have already gone for Linux Opteron desktops if we'd wanted, or gotten a low-end Sun. But yeah it appears that Apple will be the first to the mass market with 64 bits, whatever good that does them.


It is very shortsighted to discount Intel. So their 18-month old Pentium 4 might be slower than Apple's not released G5... Intel has plans.

Yeah….. yeah, I know next year (Q1) Intel will be coming out with the PV, which is supposed to have a 1024Mhz bus, but it doesn’t impress me as much as it did before. It doesn’t matter if I put a dual PM against a single PIV, both of them are the fastest in their categories (PCs). Many, of course, will argue that the PM will finally have work station performance and that it shall be compared to Xeons, not PIV, but the fact is that which ever way you see it, On Monday the PM will be one of the faster PCs, and a very competitive workstation (performance wise, because price we don’t know). And I know about the Operton workstations, but please compare them with the power4+/power5, not a PowerMac 970. If you want to compare the 970s to AMDs, use the upcoming 1.8Ghz Athlons 64 3400, not the Opertons. Give credit were credit is due! :cool:

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 09:17 AM
"But if you're gonna compare PCs to Macs, at least compare a reputed manufacturer like Dell to Apple, not some home-made PC. Then add all the goodies that the new PM will come pre-loaded with, like Gigabit Ethernet, 4x Superdrives, Airport and Bluetooth ready, Firewire 800 + FW 400, 3 USB 2.0, optical audio, PCI-X, and AGP 8x. Not to mention all the great software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc."

ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up. Secondly, if you idiots knew anything you would not make any claims without multiple reputable independent benchmarking. Thirdly, oops! i cant seem to find one of these power macs for sale? LOL
You idiots are in dreamland. At least wait till the friggin thing comes out. Oh, some idiot(s) claim that macs have the best software and now the best hardware.
1. i didnt know 3dmax runs on the mac? I remember using photoshop yesterday on my pc. hmmmm. I always get a laugh when im in the crapper browsing through Macaddict mag (fyi- my gf is a mac-ster) and laughing at how backwards the software is. ie: "UNREAL TOURNAMENT HAS ARRIVED" LOL - ive had it since september. its the may issue!
2. lets see ive been using a radeon 9700 pro since LAST november. Last i checked theres a 9800 pro out. Yeah macs have the best hardware.... FROM 9 MONTHS AGO!

Keep dreaming mac-sters. Fact is, until (whenever that is) the new power macs ship, you're stuck with an ultra inferior $4000 machine. When these overpriced macs finally do come out do you think intel (im a amd person) will be sitting at 3ghz? 3ghz is already kinda old news already. AND WHEN THIS DAY ARRIVES we compare to see whos top dog. Id bet the house on intel/amd. "PENTIUM CRUSHING G4" LOL remember that?

btw- i own an ipod 20 gb- great great product. im also an established graphic designer in nyc (who cares, right!?)

hvfsl
Jun 21, 2003, 10:18 AM
The reason I say that the new PMs should be cheaper is that in the UK new componants are cheaper than old. For example DDR333 RAM is cheaper than PC133. Also the G4 PMs have two chips in them where as the first two PMs in the new G5 range have only one. While some of the newer componants may be more expensive than the old, the most it will increase costs by is $180 (going by the differences in prices at www.ebuyer.com). The fact that the the PPC970 costs less than the G4 and that only one PPC970 is being used per machine (expect the high end), the price of a G5 Mac should be less than a G4.

Also about PPC970 versus P4, the benchmarks I saw showed the PPC970 being a lot faster than the P4 3Ghz in 3D and fpu operations.

Also about the previous post, I said that Macs have the best OS, not software. Although all the programs I need are on the Mac. I prefer Maya to studio max.

hacurio1
Jun 21, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by ipodonly
"But if you're gonna compare PCs to Macs, at least compare a reputed manufacturer like Dell to Apple, not some home-made PC. Then add all the goodies that the new PM will come pre-loaded with, like Gigabit Ethernet, 4x Superdrives, Airport and Bluetooth ready, Firewire 800 + FW 400, 3 USB 2.0, optical audio, PCI-X, and AGP 8x. Not to mention all the great software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc."

ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up. Secondly, if you idiots knew anything you would not make any claims without multiple reputable independent benchmarking. Thirdly, oops! i cant seem to find one of these power macs for sale? LOL
You idiots are in dreamland. At least wait till the friggin thing comes out. Oh, some idiot(s) claim that macs have the best software and now the best hardware.
1. i didnt know 3dmax runs on the mac? I remember using photoshop yesterday on my pc. hmmmm. I always get a laugh when im in the crapper browsing through Macaddict mag (fyi- my gf is a mac-ster) and laughing at how backwards the software is. ie: "UNREAL TOURNAMENT HAS ARRIVED" LOL - ive had it since september. its the may issue!
2. lets see ive been using a radeon 9700 pro since LAST november. Last i checked theres a 9800 pro out. Yeah macs have the best hardware.... FROM 9 MONTHS AGO!

Keep dreaming mac-sters. Fact is, until (whenever that is) the new power macs ship, you're stuck with an ultra inferior $4000 machine. When these overpriced macs finally do come out do you think intel (im a amd person) will be sitting at 3ghz? 3ghz is already kinda old news already. AND WHEN THIS DAY ARRIVES we compare to see whos top dog. Id bet the house on intel/amd. "PENTIUM CRUSHING G4" LOL remember that?

btw- i own an ipod 20 gb- great great product. im also an established graphic designer in nyc (who cares, right!?)

hey newbie, since when was 3dmax the best 3D software? LOL, you are just upset arn't you? How About Shake, Finalcutpro, DVD studio pro, audio software like logic (I Know there are some PC versions, but the mac ones are better). Last time I heard, high end render farms use linix, not windows, oh well. Ask Pixar?

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by hacurio1
hey newbie, since when was 3dmax the best 3D software? LOL, you are just upset arn't you? How About Shake, Finalcutpro, DVD studio pro, audio software like logic (I Know there are some PC versions, but the mac ones are better). Last time I heard, high end render farms use linix, not windows, oh well. Ask Pixar?

whos getting upset? im just responding to idiots like you who make claims based on rumours. Claims like having the BEST software and now the BEST hardware. Theres no BEST 3d software. Different situations (functionality/money etc etc) call for different solutions. 3dmax is one of the best 3d packages out there (try a google search to learn something about it newbie) for various reasons. Fact is, 3d max is not avail on mac.

Fact is, im a power user and i want the best performing machine i can get my hands on. Fact is, that platform is based on intel/amd.
Fact is, its not even close. Fact is, a lot of hardware and software, if they're ever released on mac platform, gets released much later. Fact is, you idiots cant let go of that pretty little toy no matter how far it lags behind.

ibookin'
Jun 21, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by ipodonly
Fact is, im a power user and i want the best performing machine i can get my hands on. Fact is, that platform is based on intel/amd.
Fact is, its not even close. Fact is, a lot of hardware and software, if they're ever released on mac platform, gets released much later. Fact is, you idiots cant let go of that pretty little toy no matter how far it lags behind.

You make a good point about why the Mac is lagging on professional arenas such a 3D.

However, the point of this thread is that Intel/AMD being the speed kings is now not the case. Should most of the reports on the PPC 970 chip be true, the machine Apple is almost certain to introduce on Monday will indeed be the fastest personal computer in the world.

Your statement that "its not even close" does not take into consideration what is coming down the pipe. While Macs are lagging significantly at this point, come Monday this will change dramatically, as I said before. Again, the point of this thread.

Furthermore, I do not like being called an "idiot who can't let go of that pretty little toy". My "pretty little toys" serve my computing needs well. I don't do 3D work, but then again I don't want/need to. Sure it may run Photoshop a little slower than my Athlon, sure it may not be able to run 3DMax, but it gets the job done better than my Athlon does for coding, browsing the web, working with photos, writing papers, etc.

I don't feel like trading OS X for a small performance gain. And yes, I am a switcher. And now, I don't have to choose. I can have the fastest hardware and OS X at the same time. This thread is not referring to any 3D package being the "best", as it shouldn't, rather that we have the best desktop OS, and now the best desktop hardware too.

On a side note: My 1000th post. Let the congratulatory congratulations roll in!

Rower_CPU
Jun 21, 2003, 12:18 PM
ipodonly, stop with the insults. It will get you banned in a hurry.

1st warning.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by ibookin'
However, the point of this thread is that Intel/AMD being the speed kings is now not the case. Should most of the reports on the PPC 970 chip be true, the machine Apple is almost certain to introduce on Monday will indeed be the fastest personal computer in the world.

Your statement that "its not even close" does not take into consideration what is coming down the pipe. While Macs are lagging significantly at this point, come Monday this will change dramatically, as I said before. Again, the point of this thread.


ATI "introduced" the much anticipated Radeon 8500 with incredible specs and "benchmarks" to back it up. When it hit the shelves it was "exposed" and was a major disappointment. Marketing hype/paper releases always look great. Photoshop demos at apple conferences are always impressive. AMD opteron was supposed to have arrived last year. Until we get the product in our hands, its all heresay.

What i know is that im in front of a screen 8+ hours/day. My main rig is an amd xp 2400/creative audigy sound/Klipsch 5.1 promedia speakers/Radeon 9700 pro/1gb ddr333 memory/20 inch viewsonic pro series lcd and a iiyama pro 454 19in crt hookup.
I also have a g4 700 mhz and a last generation g3 powerbook. I use these to check for compatibility issues - i do a lot of web work
(these were given to me when an internet-era agency i worked for closed down)
My gf has dual g4 700.
We both work from home and all i know is my machine is much faster, sounds better, and has a lot less problems. I also know she paid a lot more for her system (minus my 20 inch lcd)

Macs look great and they're all over museums and other trendy places. Mac osX is great. These might be enough for people to buy macs. Here in the nyc its probably the biggest reason. But please dont bring up performance claims with nothing to back it up besides paper.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 01:31 PM
QuoteUnquote

Tomorrow AMD will change the world and I'm not Steve Jobs, so we're going to change the real world.

- AMD founder and chairman Jerry Sanders, the day before the Opteron launch

Rower_CPU
Jun 21, 2003, 01:34 PM
Really? A 2.4 GHz system is faster than a dual 700Mhz?!?!? No way! ;)

Realize you're not comparing equivalent systems, and don't base your entire opinion of Macs on the few machines you've come into contact with.

Cubeboy
Jun 21, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by hacurio1
Yeah….. yeah, I know next year (Q1) Intel will be coming out with the PV, which is supposed to have a 1024Mhz bus, but it doesn’t impress me as much as it did before. It doesn’t matter if I put a dual PM against a single PIV, both of them are the fastest in their categories (PCs). Many, of course, will argue that the PM will finally have work station performance and that it shall be compared to Xeons, not PIV, but the fact is that which ever way you see it, On Monday the PM will be one of the faster PCs, and a very competitive workstation (performance wise, because price we don’t know). And I know about the Operton workstations, but please compare them with the power4+/power5, not a PowerMac 970. If you want to compare the 970s to AMDs, use the upcoming 1.8Ghz Athlons 64 3400, not the Opertons. Give credit were credit is due! :cool:

Not just a faster FSB, twice the L2 cache, twice the L1 cache, larger trace cache, lower latency, better branch prediction, additional write buffers, more efficient hyperthreading (expect around a 40% boost in multitheaded apps this time around), SSE3, higher physical address (2^40), higher trace cache bandwidth, more instructions in flight, and nearly every other aspect of the processor is improved (load and store buffers, integer and floating point register files). All in all, I'm expecting at least a 25% increase in core clock to clock performance and that's a conservative estimate not including SSE3 and Hyperthreading. Meaning that a 3.2 GHz Prescott will be the equivalent of a 4 GHz Pentium 4. Not only that, Prescott is expected to scale to at least 5 GHz. Also, it's scheduled to launch 4Q this year.

Faster/ More Efficient FSB: +5%
Larger L2 Cache: +5%
Larger Data Cache: +5%
Larger Trace Cache+Better Prefetch:+5%
Lower Latency+Architectural Improvements:+5%
Total Clock to Clock Improvement: +25%

BaghdadBob
Jun 21, 2003, 01:41 PM
OK, first off of course we are "responding to rumors." It's a rumor site! Duh!

Secondly...uhh...the G4 WAS faster than the Pentium. If you had been following the action with the AIM deal you would know why things are where they are today, and you wouldn't be laughing, because it's not going down like that again. You PC weenies (Rower, can I get an insult in here? It's only fair) always react like this when something good is coming for the Mac.

Thirdly, you're right, no one does care what you do for a living. Or where you live. Lots of people live and work in NYC, and frankly, I don't give much more of a crap about their opinions than ones I can get in Chattanooga, TN about what the best computers are. Because they use them out there, too. Many, if not most of us here have sat in front of a computer for 8+ hours a day for a living. I've been in front of a computer for 10-12 hours a day for weeks on end at times, and there are folks here who would laugh at that. Heartily.

Don't walk in here and think anyone is impressed. We're not. And believe me, we're the ones doing the laughing, because good things are coming along, and you PC snobs just can't stand it. You never can.

Oh, and calling it a $4000 "ultra-inferior" computer tips your hand a little bit. They may have been inferior in speed, but no one coming from an objective standpoint would ever call them "ultra-inferior" because its quite simply false.

We'll see how it goes down. But don't be an idiot (in writing, anyway).

ibookin'
Jun 21, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ATI "introduced" the much anticipated Radeon 8500 with incredible specs and "benchmarks" to back it up. When it hit the shelves it was "exposed" and was a major disappointment. Marketing hype/paper releases always look great. Photoshop demos at apple conferences are always impressive. AMD opteron was supposed to have arrived last year. Until we get the product in our hands, its all heresay.

Point taken, though there are differences here. The fact that ATI and AMD can't seem to get their crap together does not change the fact that IBM has a history of making chips that work as promised. But, yes, I was just a little bit skeptical of everything having to do with the 970 until I saw the specs on apple.com. Why would they be up there if the machine didn't exist? Why should Apple ruin their credibility, and their stock price?

What i know is that im in front of a screen 8+ hours/day. My main rig is an amd xp 2400/creative audigy sound/Klipsch 5.1 promedia speakers/Radeon 9700 pro/1gb ddr333 memory/20 inch viewsonic pro series lcd and a iiyama pro 454 19in crt hookup.
I also have a g4 700 mhz and a last generation g3 powerbook. I use these to check for compatibility issues - i do a lot of web work
(these were given to me when an internet-era agency i worked for closed down)
My gf has dual g4 700.
We both work from home and all i know is my machine is much faster, sounds better, and has a lot less problems. I also know she paid a lot more for her system (minus my 20 inch lcd)

That's nice. I also know quite a few creative professionals on and off this site who use Macs as their daily design machines, and wouldn't want to use anything else.


Macs look great and they're all over museums and other trendy places. Mac osX is great. These might be enough for people to buy macs. Here in the nyc its probably the biggest reason. But please dont bring up performance claims with nothing to back it up besides paper.

I resent your continued implications that the Mac is just some pretty toy, and real work is done on other kinds of computers. Also, as a designer, you should know that aesthetics are of great importance. My PC has an ugly case, ugly OS, and ugly software for the most part. It is sitting under my desk headless right now, controlled via a RDC on my iMac.

Here in L.A., go to a top-end recording studio (and I have been in a few, my dads company builds them), and you will find (surprise, surprise) G4 towers in the edit rooms. Having Windows machines would probably give one studio I've been in less of a high-end appeal. My PC using dad says that nearly every studio owner he talks to standardizes on Macs because they are the "cool" computers, and they get the job done to boot.

Macs are not just toys. If you want me to elaborate on the studio I talked about briefly say so.

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
But if you're gonna compare PCs to Macs, at least compare a reputed manufacturer like Dell to Apple, not some home-made PC.

Hehe, that made me laugh, lol. :D

Catfish_Man
Jun 21, 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by iJon
I doubt SATA will be that much more then what we have now, cant be to drastic. i would assume 8x agp is the same price as 4x, kind of like usb 2 and 1. i dont think lower prices will come, i just have a feeling they will make the powermac worth the money.

iJon

SATA is already out for PCs, and it's more expensive.

ddtlm
Jun 21, 2003, 03:17 PM
Catfish_Man:

Yeah but thats just cause its new and low production. If Apple signs up to buy tens of thousands of SATA components I'm sure their cost overhead is minimal, and decreasing all the time.

Adobe75
Jun 21, 2003, 03:17 PM
Well, if we see a few macs as well as a PC-looking creature on stage on Monday, we can be certain that there will be G5s, and the long-awaited BAKE-OFF!!!
It seems that over the last few macworlds the number of CPUs on stage has decreased dramatically. I remember MWNY 2001 they had like ten computers on stage; that's where rubenstien did his little presentation on clock speed and they did the last bake-off I can remember with the Quicksilvers and the Spiderman trailer encoding.... i wonder what they will test this time :-D

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by ibookin'

That's nice. I also know quite a few creative professionals on and off this site who use Macs as their daily design machines, and wouldn't want to use anything else.

I resent your continued implications that the Mac is just some pretty toy, and real work is done on other kinds of computers. Also, as a designer, you should know that aesthetics are of great importance. My PC has an ugly case, ugly OS, and ugly software for the most part. It is sitting under my desk headless right now, controlled via a RDC on my iMac.

Here in L.A., go to a top-end recording studio (and I have been in a few, my dads company builds them), and you will find (surprise, surprise) G4 towers in the edit rooms. Having Windows machines would probably give one studio I've been in less of a high-end appeal. My PC using dad says that nearly every studio owner he talks to standardizes on Macs because they are the "cool" computers, and they get the job done to boot.

Macs are not just toys. If you want me to elaborate on the studio I talked about briefly say so.

thanks for reitirating what ive been trying to get through your thick heads. you can justify buying a mac for its appearance BUT NOT FOR ITS PERFORMANCE.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob

You PC weenies (Rower, can I get an insult in here? It's only fair) always react like this when something good is coming for the Mac.

Don't walk in here and think anyone is impressed. We're not. And believe me, we're the ones doing the laughing, because good things are coming along, and you PC snobs just can't stand it. You never can.

Oh, and calling it a $4000 "ultra-inferior" computer tips your hand a little bit. They may have been inferior in speed, but no one coming from an objective standpoint would ever call them "ultra-inferior" because its quite simply false.



hey you mustve missed my sarcastic "Pentium crushing g4"
you fools have been paying for the same chip for what 4 years straight now? You probably THINK that an airport hub which you paid 3 times the price vs. a non-apple wireless hub actually works better. Once again, argue that it might look better but not that it performs better.

Daveman Deluxe
Jun 21, 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
thanks for reitirating what ive been trying to get through your thick heads. you can justify buying a mac for its appearance BUT NOT FOR ITS PERFORMANCE.

Aparrently you missed something.

Originally posted by ibookin'
they are the "cool" computers, and they get the job done to boot.

If there is one thing I know about people involved in any media, it's that they don't buy anything without knowing it's the best system for their purposes. Time spent waiting to encode/render/process a file is far too valuable to throw money at a system that is "cool" but can't do the job well.

Furthermore, I question the validity of the studio example to begin with because it's not uncommon for ALL studio work to be done on PCI cards and not on the main processor (which is why so many PM 9600s are still in service--the old 604 processor is not a liability and there are six PCI slots). If that is the case, all that is left to compare is the percieved "coolness" of the machine.

Either way, it hardly matters. People buying computers for professional reasons will buy the system that suits their purposes the best.

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
thanks for reitirating what ive been trying to get through your thick heads. you can justify buying a mac for its appearance BUT NOT FOR ITS PERFORMANCE.

-ipodonly

True today Saturday June 21, and tomorrow, Sunday June 22, but come Monday Affternoon - If Steve's announcement meets or exceeds rumors, performance would be a justification too.

Remember, Macs were undisputedly the fastest personal computers on th planet from about 1996 through 2000 when the P4 got close enough in peformance to create arguments such as these.

It's an eternal battle. It will flip again, and again, and again.

Sun Baked
Jun 21, 2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
hey you mustve missed my sarcastic "Pentium crushing g4"
you fools have been paying for the same chip for what 4 years straight now? You probably THINK that an airport hub which you paid 3 times the price vs. a non-apple wireless hub actually works better. Once again, argue that it might look better but not that it performs better. It's not the hardware, it's the software...

And it's not just the coolness of the software, it's the software with the lowest installed base of bugs and virii.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Really? A 2.4 GHz system is faster than a dual 700Mhz?!?!? No way! ;)

Realize you're not comparing equivalent systems, and don't base your entire opinion of Macs on the few machines you've come into contact with.

ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel. first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system.
its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly! secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music. Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.

Coca-Cola
Jun 21, 2003, 05:51 PM
Things change. I am not going to buy Walmart stock. They are the number 1 retailer now. But things change and you can't be number one forever. I am sure Woolworths was a number one retailer at some point. Are they still around? Kmart? The same situation applies to M$, Dell, and Intel. Things change. Just like things changed for Nintendo (playstation). Things changed for Apple in the past certainly with the introduction of Windows. Flux.

MacBandit
Jun 21, 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel. first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system.
its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly! secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music. Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.

Any USB mouse and any speaker system can work with any modern Apple machine. If you the speaker system requires digital output you can get the hardware from M-Audio. USB mice just work plug them in and go. If it has more then 2 buttons and a scroll wheel then you will have to get a cheap 3rd party program called USB overdrive if the manufacturor doesn't already support the Mac.

Freg3000
Jun 21, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up.

The reason you can't compare a home-built PC to a Mac is NOT because a home built one is inferior to a Dell or a Gateway in performance.

Rather, the fault in that analysis is the fact that there is no Mac equivalent to a home built PC. I bet that if I could go to Newegg.com or googlegear.com and buy a 1.25 G4 and a compatible motherboard, I could cut several hundred dollars off the price of a similarly equipped Apple branded machine.

So don't go around saying how cheap your home built PC is compared to Apple's machines. It is an invalid comparison.

P.S. ipodonly......I'd love to see the look on your face on Monday. I am sure Steve will find a way to prove how fast the new Power Macs truly are. :)

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel. first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system.
its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly! secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music. Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.


The term "better" soley depends on one's needs and perceptions. I don't think you can say one platform is better than the other "overall" because there are so many different tasks that computers are used for. Since you do 3D then a PC is a better choice because they, PCs, currently have a leg up in that field. I cut video and, unless things change drastically, would never again choose to use a PC based NLE. Even if someone offered me an Avid Media Composser I'd ask if I could get the Mac version and not the PC version. The PC version would be faster (although that might change Monday) I've talked to other editors and the PC versions, while not really problematic, seem to have more problems than their Mac counter parts. As my work machine I'd rather have something that is slower and more dependable than something that is faster but more error prone.

And as MacBandit said any USB mouse and any stereo speaking using the standard 1/8" jack can be plugged into any relatively recent Mac.


Lethal

EDIT: helps to proof read. :)

BaghdadBob
Jun 21, 2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
hey you mustve missed my sarcastic "Pentium crushing g4"

And, apparently, you missed the entire first full paragraph of my post, as well as the late 90's, Mr. Van Winkle.
ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel.
Wow...you're so totally right! Which is what everyone is trying to tell your dumb ass. Good boy!
first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system. its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly!
Why do you keep telling everyone to do Google searches? I know you're new around here but, we're not idiots. All Mac users are fairly familiar with the "Mac vs. PC" infinite debate. We know where we stand, and we know how we stood in those comparisons even when Macs were ahead in performance (It's true! Just do a Google search on it)
secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
You are so condescending. "What about iTunes"? What about iTunes??? What kind of users do you think you're trolling here? iTunes does not justify an entire SW/HW set even in our feeble distorted minds which do nothing but rip/mix/burn all day.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music.
All apologies to your GF for getting dragged into this, I feel sorry for her already.
Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.
GAH!! We know what's in the freaking news already! Go home to your Troll cave and do some Google searches!

And did you know what the analysts have been saying about Apple for the last 20 years? Do some Google searches! I'm not making this stuff up!

I know, I know, I should be less bothered by this idiot, I really just feel bad for people who live in total ignorance and am also the confrontational type.

They will certainly feel stupid when the 970 picks up steam. Having the fruity computers holding more hardcore hardware is always embarrasing to the loyalists.

ibookin'
Jun 21, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons?

The fact that you don't know these things exist for the Mac leads me to believe you don't have as much experience with Macs as you say you do... My Mac has a minijack out and a USB port. :rolleyes: The Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 that you have will most certainly work on a Mac, either in true 5.1 with an extra sound card or in stereo with the built-in audio.

The studio example was just something I used to illustrate the point that this place, which is a professional outfit, obviously thought that Macs were the best option for their purposes, factoring in the performance and the "coolness". They are not entirely Mac, though. Their receptionist uses a Vaio and they have a Compaq server. ipodonly seemed to imply that Macs were not professional computers, and I wanted to give him an example of Macs in a professional scenario. I know that studios are not the best example, but I know that most of the recording studios I've been in had Macs running Pro Tools along with their big boards.

jxyama
Jun 21, 2003, 06:42 PM
yikes! it's been kinda fun following /. and seeing how they cover the same stuff covered here... (meaning apple's been involved with some headline news material)

but if that means MR site will be slashdotted for hours on end and some flaming idiot would come here and disrupt out giddy fun, no good...

let's get one thing straight. if the new PM specs come anywhere near the leak, then macs will have significantly improved hardware. it doesn't really matter how good they are compared to PCs, we don't really care. we are having an early chrismas... :D

if you like PCs, good. go have fun with your machine. you can't spoil our fun.

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac?
Yep! Next silly question...

My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music.
Have her turn it up. It does have an external dial - and it is a bit hidden.

Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip"
How old are you? The analysts have alway said these things. They're trying to understand Apple in the context of most other bisinesses, unfortunately, they've never fit the mold. So the analysts miss.

If the analysts were right, Apple would have closed their doors in 1983 at the faliure of the Apple ///

Don't listen to the analysts. They don't apply here.

you fools
Terrible diplomacy. You deserve every lick of flame you get here. I strongly doubt you're really a Mac user. We've seen fakers here before.

MacAztec
Jun 21, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
hey you mustve missed my sarcastic "Pentium crushing g4"
you fools have been paying for the same chip for what 4 years straight now? You probably THINK that an airport hub which you paid 3 times the price vs. a non-apple wireless hub actually works better. Once again, argue that it might look better but not that it performs better.

Ok, look. By the time the P5 is out, I am expecting a PPC 980 to come out somewhere around that time, probly a few months later. That will easily stick with the P5.

I think that a Dual 2.2 or 2.4GHz 970 will be as fast or faster then a P5.

And actually, I have an Airport and a Linksys Wireless Router. The Linksys has better range, but it was an ass to configure.

I was wondering also, whats the oldest PC you use? I know that PCs are built like crap. My G4 is 3 years old, and running like a champ. I play Quake and Warcraft and stuff all the time.

I also have a home built PC. Its 2.66GHz P4 (533 FSB) with Radeon 9500 Pro, and 512MB Dual Channel DDR, etc.

Pros: Fast, runs games good

Cons: Loud, OS Sucks, impossible to configure, hardware incompatibilities, no value, can't work on it.

You can't work on it...because its windows. I installed Kazaa Lite, and somehow, 3 other programs got installed with it. Whatever.

I am looking forward to the 970/980 chips. The 970 will last into next easily for the pro line, and will be running at 2.4GHz (i bet). That will be one helluva chip. 1.2GHz Bus!

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 07:13 PM
DFTT

Groovsonic
Jun 21, 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly

ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up. Secondly, if you idiots knew anything you would not make any claims without multiple reputable independent benchmarking. Thirdly, oops! i cant seem to find one of these power macs for sale? LOL
You idiots are in dreamland.

I don't think you are a very nice person...

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
I don't think you are a very nice person...

I just looked him up. At this point he's only posted 7 times. All here. And he registered today. Oh, and there is no other info in his profile.

Dedicated troll, nothing more. He's probably laughing his ass of as us for falling for his bait. He's already been warned once.

It was interesting though :D

MacSlut
Jun 21, 2003, 07:46 PM
They're just so darn slooow!

Hehehe...just practicing for Monday.

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by MacSlut
They're just so darn slooow!

Hehehe...just practicing for Monday.

-MacSlut

Here's one for you now :D

My father has a 1 year old IBM NetVista P4 2.2GHz.

It's so haystacked it's slower than my brother's 120mhz 7200.

There's a point we rarely hear discussed, the eventual slowdown from registry haystacking.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
Yep! Next silly question...

My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music.
Have her turn it up. It does have an external dial - and it is a bit hidden.

Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip"
How old are you? The analysts have alway said these things. They're trying to understand Apple in the context of most other bisinesses, unfortunately, they've never fit the mold. So the analysts miss.

If the analysts were right, Apple would have closed their doors in 1983 at the faliure of the Apple ///

Don't listen to the analysts. They don't apply here.

you fools
Terrible diplomacy. You deserve every lick of flame you get here. I strongly doubt you're really a Mac user. We've seen fakers here before.

LOL@you fools
ok folks, give me the OFFICIAL reason why mac users comprise south of 2% of all pc users. I cant wait for the responses.
Cant wait till monday huh? To confirm that you spent $4000
on an underachieving machine and must spend another $4000 to hypothetically "catch up?" yeah baby!

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
The reason you can't compare a home-built PC to a Mac is NOT because a home built one is inferior to a Dell or a Gateway in performance.

Rather, the fault in that analysis is the fact that there is no Mac equivalent to a home built PC. I bet that if I could go to Newegg.com or googlegear.com and buy a 1.25 G4 and a compatible motherboard, I could cut several hundred dollars off the price of a similarly equipped Apple branded machine.

So don't go around saying how cheap your home built PC is compared to Apple's machines. It is an invalid comparison.

P.S. ipodonly......I'd love to see the look on your face on Monday. I am sure Steve will find a way to prove how fast the new Power Macs truly are. :)

Uggg... you're so wrong. Home-built PCs are no longer vastly cheaper than pre-builts. The only difference is you get better performance and higher quality parts. I just customized a 2.8 Ghz 800 MHz FSB Dell with a 17" LCD for $100 less than my home-built... same RAM, et cetera... so my comparison is very just.

Cubeboy
Jun 21, 2003, 08:08 PM
ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up. Secondly, if you idiots knew anything you would not make any claims without multiple reputable independent benchmarking. Thirdly, oops! i cant seem to find one of these power macs for sale? LOL
You idiots are in dreamland.

OMG, MY PEECEE CAN RUN QUAKEIII AT 300 FPS, YOUR STOOPID MACS CAN RUN IT ONLY AT 250 FPS, MY PEECEE CAN RUN IT SO FAST THAT MY EYES BLEED WHEN I WATCH IT MY PEECEE IS BETTER THAN YOUR MAC, MACS SUXX AND PEECEES RULZ ONLY LOOSERS USE MACS.

Honestly, I can't comprehend your logic, for some convoluted and purely moronic reason, you believe that PCs are superior to macs solely because it can run some program fast enough to make your eyes bleed. It's just one of those dillemas that boggles my mind. I mean if you really want to make your eyes bleed, why don't you just take a stick and poke at it a couple times? It'll probably cost a couple thousand dollars less and you won't ever have to worry about the PC crashing during the process. :confused:

Groovsonic
Jun 21, 2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
LOL@you fools
ok folks, give me the OFFICIAL reason why mac users comprise south of 2% of all pc users. I cant wait for the responses.


Hey! What is Rolls Royces marketshare? I bet it's less than 2%. They certianly aren't the fastest cars around... I guess only "idiots" would want one, right?

Secondly, you live in New York. According to your logic, New York is lousy and unimportant, and only idiots live there. After all, NYC is only 2/10 of 1% of the worlds population. Why would anyone care about what happens there? After all, it certianly dosen't have the highest standard of living or the lowest crime or the least pollution in the world..


(no offense intended to NYers, just making a point)

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Translation:

OMG, MY PEECEE CAN RUN QUAKEIII AT 300 FPS, YOUR STOOPID MACS CAN RUN IT ONLY AT 250 FPS, MY PEECEE CAN RUN IT SO FAST THAT MY EYES BLEED WHEN I WATCH IT MY PEECEE IS BETTER THAN YOUR MAC, MACS SUXX AND PEECEES RULZ ONLY LOOSERS USE MACS.

Honestly, I can't comprehend your logic, for some purely idiotic reason, you believe that PCs are superior to macs solely because it can run some program fast enough to make your eyes bleed. It's just one of those dillemas that boggles my mind. I mean if you really want to make your eyes bleed, why don't you just take a stick and poke at it a couple times? It'll probably cost a couple thousand dollars less and you won't ever have to worry about the PC crashing during the process. :confused:

ummmm. quake3 is a 5 year old game. try playing a more up to date game. lol

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
LOL@you fools
ok folks, give me the OFFICIAL reason why mac users comprise south of 2% of all pc users.

-ipodonly

Now I know you're not really a Mac user. There is a big difference between Market Share and Installled Base.

Apple users comprise a bit over 11% of all computers being used.

I cant wait for the responses.
Cant wait till monday huh? To confirm that you spent $4000
on an underachieving machine and must spend another $4000 to hypothetically "catch up?" yeah baby!

:rolleyes:

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Groovsonic
Hey! What is Rolls Royces marketshare? I bet it's less than 2%. They certianly aren't the fastest cars around... I guess only "idiots" would want one, right?

Secondly, you live in New York. According to your logic, New York is lousy and unimportant, and only idiots live there. After all, NYC is only 2/10 of 1% of the worlds population. Why would anyone care about what happens there? After all, it certianly dosen't have the highest standard of living or the lowest crime or the least pollution in the world..


(no offense intended to NYers, just making a point)

i didnt know a rolls royce had a lagging underachieving engine.
help me out here.

as for ny reference, i was just making a point as to why many people here buy macs. its the way it looks rather than the way it performs. why cant you comprehend that? there is nothing wrong with buying something that looks good. fact is, macs performance (for the nth time) is crap compared to whats avail on a pc platform.

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 08:30 PM
-ipodonly

You sure have spent a lot of time telling us what fools we are.

Do you have anything constructive to contribute?

iJon
Jun 21, 2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
SATA is already out for PCs, and it's more expensive.
I know sata is out, im just saying i dont think it will be so expensive over ATA 100 to justify a 1000-2000 dollar price increase like some people are expecting.

iJon

iJon
Jun 21, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
as for ny reference, i was just making a point as to why many people here buy macs. its the way it looks rather than the way it performs.
HAHA that was a good one. its how it works, not how it looks. Us mac users just get the benifit of having a computer that actually looks like something to be proud off. trust me, i work with people everyday and there decisions on buying macs, and they dont say I want that iMac because it looks cool, that is one thing, but one of the many things. I smell a troll.

iJon

Freg3000
Jun 21, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Uggg... you're so wrong. Home-built PCs are no longer vastly cheaper than pre-builts. The only difference is you get better performance and higher quality parts. I just customized a 2.8 Ghz 800 MHz FSB Dell with a 17" LCD for $100 less than my home-built... same RAM, et cetera... so my comparison is very just.

Sorry, you are so wrong my friend. While it is true that home built PCs are no longer that much cheaper than a pre built machine, they still are cheaper. Case-in-point: you and other people here telling us how great of a PC system you built, and then giving the low price. If it weren't lower than what Dell or Gateway sells it for, you wouldn't have made it yourself.

The whole point to my post was that you simply can't do this with Macs. I can't build my own Mac for any amount of money. If I could, I am sure the price would be lower (probably much lower), just like home built PCs are still cheaper to make than pre built ones.

And about your home built vs. the Dell you configured. Needless to say that we all know how fast PC prices drop. Unless you built your PC within the last month, you probably bought the parts at much higher prices, which have since dropped. So even a newer, faster machine is cheaper than your older one. Such is the beast of technology.

Invalid comparison. :)

Cubeboy
Jun 21, 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ummmm. quake3 is a 5 year old game. try playing a more up to date game. lol

Actually the commercial version of Quake 3 Arena was released on December 12 1999, making it little less than 3.5 years old, if your going to attempt to flame me with something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, at least get it close to being right.

It seems that you can't comprehend the logic behind using a well known benchmark and game to drive home the point I made.

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
LOL@you fools
ok folks, give me the OFFICIAL reason why mac users comprise south of 2% of all pc users. I cant wait for the responses.
Cant wait till monday huh? To confirm that you spent $4000
on an underachieving machine and must spend another $4000 to hypothetically "catch up?" yeah baby!


Less than 2% of all users huh? Apple's market share as of Jan '03 was 3% in the US and world wide the total percent of Mac users is around 11%.


Lethal

LethalWolfe
Jun 21, 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
i didnt know a rolls royce had a lagging underachieving engine.
help me out here.

as for ny reference, i was just making a point as to why many people here buy macs. its the way it looks rather than the way it performs. why cant you comprehend that? there is nothing wrong with buying something that looks good. fact is, macs performance (for the nth time) is crap compared to whats avail on a pc platform.


If by "performance" you mean raw speed then I agree w/you. But if by "performance" you mean how well it performs then that is debatable and, like I mentioned in a previous post, is dependent on what you need to do w/your computer.


Lethal

Edited for clarity.

ZildjianKX
Jun 21, 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
Case-in-point: you and other people here telling us how great of a PC system you built, and then giving the low price. If it weren't lower than what Dell or Gateway sells it for, you wouldn't have made it yourself.

Ummm... I just said I built the computer and the Dell is cheaper. I ordered the parts for the PC 2 days ago... and as I pointed out the parts I'm using are much better and I'll have a much greater performance gain. Not all PC users are cheap :)

And I'm not telling people how great PCs are (I'm going to buy a PPC 970 powerbook the day it comes out). I'm just saying Apple has no excuse to jack up the prices for the new PPC 970s...

P.S. Valid Comparison :)

Freg3000
Jun 21, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I just said I built the computer and the Dell is cheaper. I ordered the parts for the PC 2 days ago... and as I pointed out the parts I'm using are much better and I'll have a much greater performance gain. Not all PC users are cheap :)

And I'm not telling people how great PCs are (I'm going to buy a PPC 970 powerbook the day it comes out). I'm just saying Apple has no excuse to jack up the prices for the new PPC 970s...

P.S. Valid Comparison :)

Well, if you are using better parts that will yield a performance gain, of course they will be more expensive. The PC you built will obviously be more expensive. I suppose I am missing something that you are saying because you seem very intelligent.

I agree with you about the PPC 970, Apple should NOT jack up the prices.

Undetermined Validity :)

MacBandit
Jun 21, 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Less than 2% of all users huh? Apple's market share as of Jan '03 was 3% in the US and world wide the total percent of Mac users is around 11%.


Lethal

Also windows PCs only make up about 80% of all computers used or sold. So saying that macs are only 2% of all PC users would be totally incorect. You would have to compare the 11% installed Mac base to the 80% installed winpc base and illiminate all other personal computers you get a total of Macs making up nearly 14% of all personal computers. If ipodonly is going to be an idiot he should at least do his friggin research first. Also if he hates macs so much for being different and useless he should get rid of his ipod as it would have never spawned from a windows based mac world. Also there is a terrific article in the back of the current MacWorld explaining how an Intel based Mac would be the downfall of Apple altogether. Mac computer hardware makes up 75% of there multi-billion dollar revenue and if they went Intel it would be very hard to prevent people from hacking OSX since it's based on opensource software and making it run on any Intel hardware.

Haberdasher
Jun 21, 2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Any USB mouse and any speaker system can work with any modern Apple machine. If you the speaker system requires digital output you can get the hardware from M-Audio. USB mice just work plug them in and go. If it has more then 2 buttons and a scroll wheel then you will have to get a cheap 3rd party program called USB overdrive if the manufacturor doesn't already support the Mac.

I have a five button mouse and scroll wheel, and I don't use USB overdrive. Works just fine, 0 extra dollars. :D

VIREBEL661
Jun 21, 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel. first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system.
its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly! secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music. Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.

SCREW INTEL.... I wouldn't buy a Mac with an Intel... People that say this don't know what they're talking about... Why the hell are you on a Mac board if you're such a PC fan??? And, DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE CRAP THAT IS WINDOZE.... The most UNSTABLE (from personal experience with NT, etc) OS on the fricking world... Games? BUY AN XBOX...

VIREBEL661
Jun 21, 2003, 10:21 PM
ALSO... Don't you know anything about USB??? I'm using a three button optical mouse right now... Jeeeeesh...

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
SCREW INTEL.... I wouldn't buy a Mac with an Intel... People that say this don't know what they're talking about... Why the hell are you on a Mac board if you're such a PC fan??? And, DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE CRAP THAT IS WINDOZE.... The most UNSTABLE (from personal experience with NT, etc) OS on the fricking world... Games? BUY AN XBOX...

for the record, i was doing some research for my gf because she was fed up having to go on my pc rig applying PS filters/feathering to save time. shes got a dual g4 700 w/ith a gig of ram. i came across article re: NEW POWER MACS.... and she got excited. Shes not much of a hardware/specs person. Thats how i came across this board. Immediately catching my eye was "Macs faster than Pcs" - Macs are MUCH SLOWER than Pcs people. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. of course regulars here responded with everything from better software to apples being equivalent to rolls royces etc etc. Before all you surrealists bring up the "wait till monday" crap- please remember, paper releases are for you suckers to get excited and to start saving your money.

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Actually the commercial version of Quake 3 Arena was released on December 12 1999, making it little less than 3.5 years old, if your going to attempt to flame me with something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, at least get it close to being right.

It seems that you can't comprehend the logic behind using a well known benchmark and game to drive home the point I made.

sorry about that. its hard to remember dates for ancient games.
lets see if you can back up your "logic".
give me benchmarks for unreal tournament 2003 at 1280x1024 w/AA and Anisotropic Filtering on

thank you. next!
wait. did you get a chance to buy the game yet since it just came out for the mac?

ipodonly
Jun 21, 2003, 11:06 PM
macs are good looking machines. i prefer alienware (http://www.alienware.com/workstations_main_dv.aspx) rigs but im not even going to get into that.
in any case, is it really worth it to sit there for 2 hours in after effects when you can do it in 1? they better look good because you got all that time just sitting there looking at that status bar!

iJon
Jun 21, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
macs are good looking machines. i prefer alienware (http://www.alienware.com/workstations_main_dv.aspx) rigs but im not even going to get into that.
in any case, is it really worth it to sit there for 2 hours in after effects when you can do it in 1? they better look good because you got all that time just sitting there looking at that status bar!
can i ask why you are here, you are obviously trolling and no one cares. your name says it all. i do agree with you one thing, the car analogies are really stupid and never make sense. we already know your knowledge on macs because you say people buy them for looks, that already shows me how much you know. im gonna advise everyone else on this thread that this is the last post we say something to you. see you later and let us know how many extra numbers your pull in 3d mark 2001.

iJon

patrick0brien
Jun 21, 2003, 11:29 PM
-ipodonly

Constructive.

You've done nothing but be rude.

Rower_CPU
Jun 21, 2003, 11:37 PM
The troll has been dealt with, but not because he thinks PCs are better than Macs. Let this be a lesson to people who think they can get away with insulting others on the forums.

Freg3000
Jun 21, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The troll has been dealt with, but not because he thinks PCs are better than Macs. Let this be a lesson to people who think they can get away with insulting others on the forums.

Yes, calling people idiots is very immature and is not needed in the MacRumors forums.

VIREBEL661
Jun 21, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
for the record, i was doing some research for my gf because she was fed up having to go on my pc rig applying PS filters/feathering to save time. shes got a dual g4 700 w/ith a gig of ram. i came across article re: NEW POWER MACS.... and she got excited. Shes not much of a hardware/specs person. Thats how i came across this board. Immediately catching my eye was "Macs faster than Pcs" - Macs are MUCH SLOWER than Pcs people. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. of course regulars here responded with everything from better software to apples being equivalent to rolls royces etc etc. Before all you surrealists bring up the "wait till monday" crap- please remember, paper releases are for you suckers to get excited and to start saving your money.

AGAIN, as pointed out by another poster - YES, Mac's are currently 'slower' than PC's, but this will flip the other way soon - just as it did when the 604 and the G3 came out (remember the Apple commercials with the pentium ii on the snail?)... ALSO - these processors perform better than Intel at half the speed in some cases.... And, WHAT ABOUT THE OS???? Jeeeesh.... Windoze can't hold a candle to X, not even in the same building... If you dispute the power of Unix, then you're really smoking something....

Apple //e
Jun 21, 2003, 11:49 PM
its a computer. i dont brag about spending 8+ hrs in front of a monitor. i brag about finding free time in the woods away from it all. mac, wintel, sun, they all suck.

ok, we all must have our toys....

iJon
Jun 21, 2003, 11:50 PM
thanks rower, he needed to be dealt with. he brought nothing but trouble.

iJon

VIREBEL661
Jun 21, 2003, 11:53 PM
AND AGAIN, to quote other Mac fans on this MAC board, if you don't have anything positive to say about the Mac, why again, are you here? Something I never understood about PC weenies... They are ALWAYS slamming Macs without ANY justification whatsoever - 'they suck'.... whatever.. That's why Mac users become such zealots... To quote a friend of mine that recently switched to Mac, reluctantly even 'Now I understand why Mac users get so upset with PC users... You can get so much more WORK done on a Mac... I'll never switch back..' He does video editing by the way... Have you ever been to a major recording studio in Hollywood??? Know what they use for ProTools? MACS.... Have you ever been to a television network??? Wanna know what they use? Hazard a guess? Buy a Dell - you deserve it....

VIREBEL661
Jun 21, 2003, 11:58 PM
2% market share???? DO YOU REALIZE THIS IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE MAC'S FOR FREAKING CASH REGISTERS AT WAL-MART.... Mac's are used by CREATIVE PEOPLE, and others.... Don't forget that the majority of PC installed base are NOT in homes..... They run the most MUNDANE tasks, where it simply doesn't matter what the hell they do with them - cheaper is better... Junk is better.... And they STILL crash all the time.... Next time you have to wait extra long at a cash register because they're 'rebooting the computer', just like I did yesterday, you now know why! BAH!!!

patrick0brien
Jun 22, 2003, 12:00 AM
-Rower

Thank you.

You are absolutely correct. Regardless of the subject, or the interests of the audience, breaching simple common courtesy - as done repeadedly as ipodonly, is simply not called for.

Though I have to admit, 13 posts from registration to banning is darn quick.

Ok then, anyone want to take a shot on getting us back on topic? :D

Rower_CPU
Jun 22, 2003, 12:07 AM
Let's settle back down a bit VIREBEL, no need to shout.

Back OT:
I believe the leaked specs would put Macs at least on par w/ top of the line PCs. The key will be the long term performance gains, and if IBM can provide new chips regularly enough for Apple to maintain their performance position.

oomega1
Jun 22, 2003, 12:18 AM
you can't compare dell to apple, try ibm(rocksolid machines). dell really sucks when it comes to motherboard and thats like the main component to a computer. no offense but put as much money as you would into an apple and you'd see the benchmarks fly a lot higher then expected. Plus most of you haters hating PC, thinks winblows. Linux is really good and win2k is really not as bad as people think, why dont you guys just put more compatible hardware then buying other oem third party hardware +software. . Using xp and 98 lolz is like making the impossible work with the cheapo hardware you buy that you can probably make yourselves and solder on. But buying more supported hardware is probably just buying a mac. So in my terms spending more money defnitely a mac is nicer as well as the support they will give. gaming suxs, apple may be in the worse spot in this case for the most expensive machine you still can't play games well and i think that will change. Can't wait for june 23rd, i may actually switch. positive results finally =) waiting for the new pb.

There are some reasons i think mac is better, os being one of them, and video being another. And most software are built specificly to your mac(less crashes=more time more $$$). i think they have also have a better price then as if i was to put a PC with the same specs together. Monitors being one of the high costs. Very PRETTY.... whoo hehe. You get what you pay for heh. Today being my b-day i wish for mac to let me open one of those boxes today that marks do not open till june23rd. ^^ hehe i'm just dreaming now ain't i?

Apple //e
Jun 22, 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
2% market share???? DO YOU REALIZE THIS IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE MAC'S FOR FREAKING CASH REGISTERS AT WAL-MART.... Mac's are used by CREATIVE PEOPLE, and others.... Don't forget that the majority of PC installed base are NOT in homes..... They run the most MUNDANE tasks, where it simply doesn't matter what the hell they do with them - cheaper is better... Junk is better.... And they STILL crash all the time.... Next time you have to wait extra long at a cash register because they're 'rebooting the computer', just like I did yesterday, you now know why! BAH!!!

well...thats what you get with 85+% market share, or whatever the number is

most architects i know use pcs. is architecture not creative?

van gogh, with broken crayolas would´ve still created better still lifes than i, with grumbacher oils and sable brushes

edit: grammar

BaghdadBob
Jun 22, 2003, 12:37 AM
I think the point for most of us is to prove to the Trolls that we're not stupid enough to believe what they have to say, because we know our subject better than that. The sad thing is that most well informed mac users are better informed about the PC world than the mac bashers who come in and troll like that.

You should have seen one of the threads on iTMS right after it came out somewhere else...some dork going

"Do you really think Microsoft is going to let them have all the business? Well, celebrate while you can, mac-heads, they've got something coming...I wish I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me anyway!"

Or something like that. :rolleyes:

oomega1, please try to do some reasonable proofreading, I like to read what others have to say when they are reasonable length posts, but it's hard when it's all kinda clumped and jumbled. No offense.

Apple //e, that's a software issue. There are rumblings about some major architectural SW coming to the mac, and that would be great. Most architects are real artists, and I'm sure they'd like to join their kin on the side of light.


And....egad...Alienware? Good for a PC case, but...have some taste. We all know mac cases look better than that.

BaghdadBob
Jun 22, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Let's settle back down a bit VIREBEL, no need to shout.

Back OT:
I believe the leaked specs would put Macs at least on par w/ top of the line PCs. The key will be the long term performance gains, and if IBM can provide new chips regularly enough for Apple to maintain their performance position.
Yes, what he said.

What I think is obvious, and the thing that the thinking PC loyalist should know, is that IBM will not let Apple down in the manner that Moto did.

The Ars Technica article, to me, pointed to some very quick growth potential in the chip as far as performance, because it's not even quite flushed out yet -- no on-die memory controller, "tacked on" AltiVec, and of course, it's rev 1.

The next round of 970s should rock.

As long as Apple is good to IBM, I think they are going to be a very dangerous pair.

This is my attempt to be OT. Hope it worked.

MacSlut
Jun 22, 2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-MacSlut

Here's one for you now :D

My father has a 1 year old IBM NetVista P4 2.2GHz.

It's so haystacked it's slower than my brother's 120mhz 7200.

There's a point we rarely hear discussed, the eventual slowdown from registry haystacking.

Hey...I've been trying to figure this out for a long time now. What exactly is "registry haystacking"?

I've had to use PCs and Macs for years now. My Macs remain the same speed, or get faster with upgrades, but for some reason my PCs get slower...One of the reasons why my Macs last at least 2-3 times longer than my PCs is because my PCs just seem to slow down over time.

Of course I do routine maintenance on my PC like defrag and always check for viruses, but the PCs always seem to slow down over time.

Huked on Fonick
Jun 22, 2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by MacSlut
Hey...I've been trying to figure this out for a long time now. What exactly is "registry haystacking"?

I've had to use PCs and Macs for years now. My Macs remain the same speed, or get faster with upgrades, but for some reason my PCs get slower...One of the reasons why my Macs last at least 2-3 times longer than my PCs is because my PCs just seem to slow down over time.

Of course I do routine maintenance on my PC like defrag and always check for viruses, but the PCs always seem to slow down over time.

PCS have a registary which logs everything on ur computer, as u do things install programs etc unistall blah blah this registary goes to hell and gets really mumbled and clogged and since its pretty much the center of the computer u computer slows down,,, and the more jumbled it is the slower it gets. Try doing a clean install of windows this will speed things up alot..

solvs
Jun 22, 2003, 01:29 AM
Well, now that that has been taken care of...

I too think this is only the beginning. Now when we say things like "just wait until the G6", we won't be complaining about todays speed. Just anxious for even more. No, Intel and AMD won't just be sitting around. But ipodonly doesn't seem to be aware of the benefits of the G5, coming Monday (we hope). Maybe he doesn't know anything about it.

If the dual 2 GHz G5s are available, in a few months even, they'll be competing against 3.2 GHz P4s and 3400 AMDs. Opterons and Xeons, maybe. Other high-end (and expensive) specs to contend with. But now everything can be equal spec-wise. And equal is very good. If price stays within the bounds of us mortals.

- I try not to respond to people calling me an idiot, especially when they don't know about USB mice and claim to use a Dual 700 MHz Mac. Huh?

Abstract
Jun 22, 2003, 02:40 AM
Its nice for you to fantasize of a dual 2.0GHz Mac being as fast as a dual Xeon, but I think so. ;)

However, here's the thing: I don't care. I don't care because I know that there will be a 2.5GHz out in a year that only will probably be as good as a 3.06GHz dual proc Xeon is now, and in 2-3 years, there will be a dual 3.5GHz 980 that will kick the crap out of the top Xeon machine.

Its the prospect and inevitability of Apple being the fastest in the future that excites me. The 970 means good things for Apple, but only in the long run, only by what it represents ---- a turn of the tide. But I'd rather lead the race over the long haul rather than lead or tie Intel at this very moment.

VIREBEL661
Jun 22, 2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Let's settle back down a bit VIREBEL, no need to shout.

Back OT:
I believe the leaked specs would put Macs at least on par w/ top of the line PCs. The key will be the long term performance gains, and if IBM can provide new chips regularly enough for Apple to maintain their performance position.

My apologies to everyone... I get riled up easily...

peace....:)

Daveman Deluxe
Jun 22, 2003, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Apple //e
most architects i know use pcs. is architecture not creative?

That's because AutoCAD is not out for Macintosh, and it is the most popular CAD program out there. Autodesk is considering releasing AutoCAD for Mac OS X though.

I know a guy at college that wanted to get a Mac but needed AutoCAD, so he got a PC. In the end, he's decided not to switch because he's planning on running Pro Tools on a rackmount solution, so he has little incentive to switch.

Never have figured out why he needs AutoCAD though, as he's a music/business major...

VIREBEL661
Jun 22, 2003, 04:50 AM
And also, the promise of the 980's in the future is very encouraging... Then again, we could all be wrong, but there's too much evidence to the contrary...

And YES - of course architects are very creative - and again - my apologies to any of them I may have offended... When it comes to Mac's, I'm like an example of the 'far left', or 'far right', or whatever:D!

MacBandit
Jun 22, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Abstract
Its nice for you to fantasize of a dual 2.0GHz Mac being as fast as a dual Xeon, but I think so. ;)

However, here's the thing: I don't care. I don't care because I know that there will be a 2.5GHz out in a year that only will probably be as good as a 3.06GHz dual proc Xeon is now, and in 2-3 years, there will be a dual 3.5GHz 980 that will kick the crap out of the top Xeon machine.

Its the prospect and inevitability of Apple being the fastest in the future that excites me. The 970 means good things for Apple, but only in the long run, only by what it represents ---- a turn of the tide. But I'd rather lead the race over the long haul rather than lead or tie Intel at this very moment.

Actually if IBM holds to it's current plans the PPC970 will reach 3GHz in 6 months and in a year the PPC980 will be debuted at around 4GHz. We are going to catch up on clock speed but greatly surpass them on overall processing power if Apple is indeed going with IBMs PPC line which is yet to be actually proven. Monday can't come soon enough.

BaghdadBob
Jun 22, 2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Actually if IBM holds to it's current plans the PPC970 will reach 3GHz in 6 months and in a year the PPC980 will be debuted at around 4GHz. We are going to catch up on clock speed but greatly surpass them on overall processing power if Apple is indeed going with IBMs PPC line which is yet to be actually proven. Monday can't come soon enough.
There goes bandit again, putting the best of all practically established scenarios together in one enticing paragraph. Works for me! I figured it would take a few months to truly take the speed crown back anyway, for the very reason that the 970 hasn't reached its architectural potential yet. Good things are coming...doo doo doo...

MacBandit
Jun 22, 2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
There goes bandit again, putting the best of all practically established scenarios together in one enticing paragraph. Works for me! I figured it would take a few months to truly take the speed crown back anyway, for the very reason that the 970 hasn't reached its architectural potential yet. Good things are coming...doo doo doo...

Yeah now that you mention it it really is based on IBM delivering as promised which in the world of Motorola is unheard of. Though this is IBM and IBM has a habit of not only delivering as promised but actually exceeding early estimates. I truly think we will soon be ahead of the game if in fact Apple uses the 970. IBM will be moving to 90nm soon which will give us at least a 50% boost and the 980 is already in devolpement and if everything goes as it did with the 970 will be debuted at 4GHz in just over a year with more processing power per clock cycle to boot.

rjstanford
Jun 22, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
That's because AutoCAD is not out for Macintosh, and it is the most popular CAD program out there. Autodesk is considering releasing AutoCAD for Mac OS X though.This is an important point, and why its fantastic to see Apple at least talking to the Enterprise/Workstation software developers about porting product.

And, for the record, when you work in an industry where there's an established standard, its no use saying that some other program is better. First, it probably isn't (realistically, even the quirks of most of this class of software are there for a historical reason), even if it seems that way to a casual user. Second, people have years of experience in working with a particular package and its not worth the expense of retraining (could easily be $25-50k for something like AutoCAD if you include lost productivity -- maybe more).

That's the same reason that I was very happy to see Oracle for OS X. It may not be all that good, but its remarkably predictable and our customers often demand it. Add in a DB2 option, a couple of XServe RAIDs, and some good fast server processors (even a dual 970 would work for smaller sites), and you're looking at some mightily appealing hardware at a very reasonable price point.

-Richard

Disclaimer: I write enterprise logistics software (mostly serverside) for a living, and have done AutoCAD integrations, etc.

Cubeboy
Jun 22, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Actually if IBM holds to it's current plans the PPC970 will reach 3GHz in 6 months and in a year the PPC980 will be debuted at around 4GHz. We are going to catch up on clock speed but greatly surpass them on overall processing power if Apple is indeed going with IBMs PPC line which is yet to be actually proven. Monday can't come soon enough.

Definitely a possible scenario and theirs no doubt that at 90nm process and 3 GHz, the PPC970 will definitely surpass the Xeon. However, Xeon won't be the threat, Noconas, the next Xeon is set to be released before the Prescott which is soon considering that Prescott will be released 4Q this year. It will be the equivalent of Prescott in every aspect (at least a 25% increase in clock to clock performance, scale to at least 5 GHz) except that it will have a larger trace cache (probably a 3% increase in performance) and more importantly will feature 4x hyperthreading meaning that instead of simulating 2 cores like the current hyperthreading, the Noconas will simulate 4 cores, greatly boosting performance in multithreaded applications. Thus, a dual Noconas system will have the equivalent of eight cores. Of course, we'll have to see how good second generation hyperthreading really is, first generation hyperthreading gives about 25% the performance of dual processors.

2 GHz PPC970---3+ GHz Prescot---2+ GHz Athlon 64
3 GHz PPC970---5 GHz Prescott---??? GHz Athlon 64
Dual 3 GHz PPC970---Single/Dual Noconas---Deerfield Itanium 3
4 GHz PPC980---5+ GHz Tejas

daveg5
Jun 22, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
There goes bandit again, putting the best of all practically established scenarios together in one enticing paragraph. Works for me! I figured it would take a few months to truly take the speed crown back anyway, for the very reason that the 970 hasn't reached its architectural potential yet. Good things are coming...doo doo doo...
lets also give credit to apple for mother board design serial ata, dual banks ddr for dual cpu, usb2 etc. as they could haqve simply put the 970 in the mdd towers and called it a day even a g4 would be respectable if it had the 970s memory controller, ddr 400 1000 mhz buss serial ata, usb 2 etc alsas but we would be stuck at 1.4 forever,
so to everyone involved in the 970 chip and motherboard design thanks,
but dont dom a moto and rest keep advancing at the best rate you can.

m_gerbik
Jun 22, 2003, 02:27 PM
I love it when a PC user joins a mac forum simply to annoy people and stray from the topic. If you don't understand why some people love their computing experience of choice, why bother spewing facts about your choice? Nothing better to do. Why do you need such vastly superior computing power if you spend your time trying to piss people off?

I like that my DP 450 G4 (OS 10.2) system has been running for about three weeks without needing a restart. I play some games like Unreal Tournament, but if I was obsessed with gaming I would build a PC system just for that purpose. I'm satisfied with what I have now. I use photoshop and illustrator as a web designer. I like the BSD foundation for web development. I have Apache and MySQL running which I use for that purpose. iTunes is a great product. I rip full length CDs in less time than it takes to play the first song. I burn CDs at almost the same rate. I have an enormous number of applications installed and my system doesn't get bogged down. Plus it all works great together and it looks fantastic.

I built a PC system for my sister a few years ago when I already had a G3 Powerbook for a year. Guess what. The PC is nearly useless now and the powerbook runs OS X and all of my software still. I can still use it for development and iTunes and internet even better than i could back then. The PC s l o w s to a grinding halt by installing simple software, that secretly installs other software, that is not so secretly popping up windows all over the place, for which you install a pop up blocker which further bogs it down. It's a paper weight. I had to install Linux get any use out of it.

I'm really excited about the new hardware, but realistically I will get another few years of great use out of this machine which cost me $2000 about two years ago. I will probably upgrade the video card to take advantage of Quartz Extreme, but aside from that I've only addes about $80 worth of RAM.

It's preference, and Mac users have higher standards for things that may seem trivial to you. I'm a fan of the complete user experience. I've used a lot of PCs for work and never felt like I was missing out on anything including performance gains. So to speak your lanuage iPodonly... shut up stoopid.

Ensoniq
Jun 22, 2003, 02:49 PM
I agree with the points of m_gerbik and many others who've indicated that having the fastest possible computer doesn't make it the best computer.

I'm sitting here typing this in on a Grape iMac DV 400. It's nearly 4 years old, and though it has 512 MB of RAM, it has an old AGI Rage 128 Pro graphics card with 8 MB of VRAM and a lowly G3 processor.

Guess what...because I am not a game player, this machine works perfectly fine for what I use it for. It runs 10.2 very smoothly. It has no trouble with the entire line of iApps, photos, videos, music, etc. And in 4 years, I've never ONCE had any single problem with the hardware. No repairs needed, it's working just as well as the day I bought it. Even the hockey puck mouse. :)

Do I want something better? Yes...but unlike most, I admit that my desire for a newer machine is more out of envy, not out of necessity. No one needs a dual processor 2.0 GHz G5 for word processing, internet, and managing their music and photo collections. But we all want one, simply because it's cool. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But ask a PC user how well their doing with their 4 year old machine, like mine. Does it run XP smoothly? Is it a true digital hub, with seamless integration between the applications? And does it still look just as lovely to the eye today, still seeming like a work of art ahead of its time? My Grape iMac DV does.

And THAT is why you can't express the price of the "Apple Experience" in dollars alone. Especially over a $300 price margin for a machine that lasts as long as a Macintosh does. It's just silly.

-- Ensoniq

patrick0brien
Jun 22, 2003, 02:56 PM
-Ensoniq, m_gerbik

Thaaaank you!

If one was interested in speed, I suspect one would buy a slew of headless, specialized nodes.

Not a full-featured machine.

It's about the experience, machines are fast enough now to give it to us.

Back in the 80's, speed was an issue, but now...

ZildjianKX
Jun 22, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by oomega1
you can't compare dell to apple, try ibm(rocksolid machines). dell really sucks when it comes to motherboard and thats like the main component to a computer. no offense but put as much money as you would into an apple and you'd see the benchmarks fly a lot higher then expected. Plus most of you haters hating PC, thinks winblows. Linux is really good and win2k is really not as bad as people think, why dont you guys just put more compatible hardware then buying other oem third party hardware +software. .

Couldn't agree with you more. Most PCs blow simply because PC manufacturers are incredibly cheap...

Just a note about what a lot of people are saying about macs being pretty... really, the only part of your computer you should care about that is pretty is your monitor... its what you're going to be staring at. As for towers... most people have them under the desk or hidden away anyways. As for laptops... I really like powerbooks because they're damn nice to look at :)

patrick0brien
Jun 22, 2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by MacSlut
Hey...I've been trying to figure this out for a long time now. What exactly is "registry haystacking"?

-MacSlut

I know Huked answered it here, but I though I'd post my reply...

When you buy a new PC, it's as fast as it can be, and as you add programs, delete apps and utilities, and make performance adjustments to the system, entries and changes are made to your registry. What should happen is that the registry adjusts perfectly to what you are doing, and be representative of your machine's program state at any given time. Unfortunately, developers can write sloppy <installshield> code to manage this, unfortunately, it's very common to be sloppy, MS is even guilty of this.

So what happens is your registry eventually gets filled with processes - things for the computer to pay attention to that may no longer exist on the computer. It's analogous with we humans holding open the fridge door and forgetting what we're there to get.

Now multiply that by several hundred fridges, and you see that'll slow you machine down. These are called "defunct processes".

<Another would be like a single street with thousands of side streets ending in cul-de-sacs - awful waste of pavement.>

I think the word "haystacking" comes from what such a polluted registry looks like. A bunch of straw lying in every which way - chaos.

Now, PC's are subject to spyware that happily installs itself in your registry and you are soon dealing with an explosion of hay- and it's not even the cause of the user!

form
Jun 22, 2003, 03:16 PM
Macs faster than the fastest PCs? Tear PCs apart? To this, I have to say Bull Dookie. 3.06 P4 is not the fastest PC processor, beyond the fact that they have dual processor Xeons as well. Furthermore, according to what I read about processor design, the 970 is still not as good at hard number crunching (it has no clear advantages like it does with floating point, so raw speed matters more here), and as long as the mhz is so much lower than Wintels, this will probably remain true. Faster than most consumer PCs? Possibly. The fastest personal computer period? Nah.

That power mac image that everybody saw on Apple's store page...don't trust it for a second. Certain hardware updates in that image simply aren't feasible at all, insofar as they would hold no real benefit (not that it was much different when Apple announced DDR in their computers, but in that case it wasn't such new technology that there were no products to take advantage of it). Apple doesn't do that stuff; they still like to lag behind in hardware advancement. Serial ATA, PCI-X, Dual 2ghz G5s? Unless it's not the 970, I doubt it.

patrick0brien
Jun 22, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by form
they still like to lag behind in hardware advancement.

-form

I'm not sure how to react to this, but I think the closest is disbelief.

You are correct in that a company will lag behind in certain areas of personal computing. There is no manufacturer of hardware or software that has the latest - state-of-the art stuff. Apple tried this with ADB, the 25-pin monitor cable and all of the old legacy ports.

To have the most bleeding edge in anything, is a risk - is it going to become an accepted standard? If this bleeding edge stuff winds up being left behind, it can be called proprietary.

Well Apple has backed off of this philosophy a little bit. They however have lead the Personal Computing industry in hardware and software designs since the beginning - with them introducing the first personal computer.

Other items of note that Apple gave us (by introduction or invention)
The GUI
The mouse
CD ROM Drives
FireWire
First Built-In Video In-Out
First Mainstream Voice Recognition (Standard in OS)
First Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)
First Mainstream/Consumer RISC chipset
First Mainstream Use of Wireless Networking using 802.11 ("b" specifically)
Video Editing Becomes Basic Available Feature
First Built-In Consumer DVD Burning Capability
USB
First Mainstream Use of Wireless Networking using 802.11g

Oh, and the Apple Key (soory, couldn't resist :D )


The last bleeding edge thing they did was the AirPort Extreme - the first Wireless G access point available. Thank goodnees they left it flexible for formal ratification.

Sure Apple has lagged in raw processor speed, but that's not by choice - and that's relatively recent. They were the speed kinds for years leading up to 2000.

With IBMs rapid fabrication plants that rival Intel's. This shortcoming of processor speed will end in a hurry. Perhapse we'll only be pulling even tomorrow, but due to the fact that that would erase three years of lagging - that alone, says a great deal.

Next year, I doubt there will be a doubt that Apple's personal computers are the fastest on the planet.

Cubeboy
Jun 22, 2003, 04:18 PM
How long a PC lasts you all depends on how well you manage it, I've got a old CTX with a Pentium 150 MHz. a slightly newer HP PC with a Celeron 733 as well as the original Cube and all of these systems are still running nearly as fast as when I first bought them. My HP PC is usually running with only audio, and internet connection processes turned on so it's probably actually running faster than when it first shipped in the stock configuration. Still, it takes a lot more to maintain a pc than a mac, you have to frequently defragment it and make sure nearly all unnecessary threads and processes are turned off which can be time consuming.

Source
Jun 22, 2003, 05:42 PM
You Mac owners are hilarious hypocrits.

The whole time that PCs have been faster than Macs, you all say "I don't really care about the speed anyway." and as soon as there's any hint that new Macs might be faster than PCs and you throw a fiesta! :) It's a bit rediculous.

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Source
You Mac owners are hilarious hypocrits.

The whole time that PCs have been faster than Macs, you all say "I don't really care about the speed anyway." and as soon as there's any hint that new Macs might be faster than PCs and you throw a fiesta! :) It's a bit rediculous.


I think the fiesta comes from relief. Relief from, hopefully, not having to the same, tired, inaccurate chant "Macs are slow therefore they suck" from Mac haters. Most PC zealots seem overly obsessed w/speed (screw functionality they just want it to be fast :p) and if Macs are as fast, or almost as fast, as PC's then that make most of them ****. ;)

I think we all care about speed, but it's not highest item on our list of what we want in computers. If it was we'd all probably own an x86 machines.


Lethal

Ryan1524
Jun 22, 2003, 06:29 PM
i agree. it's just their sense of loyalty and pride towards macs and the idea of finally being able to shut up mac haters is what's driving the joy.

BaghdadBob
Jun 22, 2003, 07:14 PM
I have to chime in here too. I've never heard anyone say they "don't care about speed."

But I have heard a lot of Mac users say they'd rather have a computer with a smooth, stable, virtually virus free (Mac user for 15+ years and one single lamo virus that didn't even do anything...12 years ago or so) hardware that doesn't constantly fail (one time having to format my HD in as much time)....basically being able to actually get something done with your computer...is more important than how many games you can play with it.

Speed IS important, and when it belongs to the superior platform, instead of having a win-lose (I have speed but it's Windows/I have a Mac but it's 15% slower) you have a win-win (I have a Mac and it's faster than your WeenieMobile).

Why are you termites flooding the forums right now anyway, don't you have some celebrating of the upcoming Prescotts to do in your own forums instead of wasting our time trying to tell us things we know are not true?

Geez, get a freaking life.

hacurio1
Jun 22, 2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok, we can never have "equivalent" comparisons like we can have amd vs intel. first off, an amd 2400+ is not a 2.4 ghz system.
its actually less (google search for more info on nomenclature). Dont take my words for it- do a simple "mac vs pc search." The results are ugly! secondly, i have quite a bit of experience with macs and have a lot of communication with mac users. Ive worked in agencies and almost all its designers are on macs. I have a lot of friends who use macs. I have 2 macs of my own for christ sakes! Point is, i choose to use a PC because its a better overall machine. PC platform simply has better hardware and better overall software. Im talking "overall" so dont start spewing out "what about itunes?!" etc. etc. This is the reality.
Can you even get a dual optical mouse for the mac? what about a pair of speakers that are a step up from those bland Harmon Kardons? My gf has the subwoofer set and she comes over to my computer when she wants to play music. Btw- you fools dont realize what the analysts are saying/recommending: "apple will benefit by eventually going to an amd/intel chip" -- enough said.

Jejeje, I'm sorry I haven't posted before Pro, but I went out on vacations. Well, no wonder you have had bad experiences with Macs, you don't even know how plug ----->*A*N*Y*!!!!!<----- USB mouse into the Mac LOL. I won't even comment about the speakers. In contrast to many PC users, who have no clue about Macs, most Mac users have a big understanding on what is going on the PC world. Of course I know about AMD's nomenclature. The upcoming Athlon 64 will only be at 1.8GHz, I believe. They started to use a nomenclature because they could not compete against Intel's high clocks and people's ignorance, so instead of using the clock, they used an equivalent of performance compared to the PIV. The PIV is such a bad performer, in a clock per clock basis, that even tough AMD was producing similar or better performing chips at lower frequencies, people was buying Intel because of the wrong illusion of Speed that raw GHz give.

hacurio1
Jun 22, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
for the record, i was doing some research for my gf because she was fed up having to go on my pc rig applying PS filters/feathering to save time. shes got a dual g4 700 w/ith a gig of ram. i came across article re: NEW POWER MACS.... and she got excited. Shes not much of a hardware/specs person. Thats how i came across this board. Immediately catching my eye was "Macs faster than Pcs" - Macs are MUCH SLOWER than Pcs people. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. of course regulars here responded with everything from better software to apples being equivalent to rolls royces etc etc. Before all you surrealists bring up the "wait till monday" crap- please remember, paper releases are for you suckers to get excited and to start saving your money.

I don't recall a Dual 700 G4, LOL. Please don't tell me you are making it up! LOL!
Perhaps your GF has a 733 G4, or a dual 800 G4.

hacurio1
Jun 22, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly
macs are good looking machines. i prefer alienware (http://www.alienware.com/workstations_main_dv.aspx) rigs but im not even going to get into that.
in any case, is it really worth it to sit there for 2 hours in after effects when you can do it in 1? they better look good because you got all that time just sitting there looking at that status bar!


Yes, specially their 20 pound red portable, LOL.

J/k Seriously..….I do like their towers, I really think they are serious gaming monsters.

gopher
Jun 22, 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I think the fiesta comes from relief. Relief from, hopefully, not having to the same, tired, inaccurate chant "Macs are slow therefore they suck" from Mac haters. Most PC zealots seem overly obsessed w/speed (screw functionality they just want it to be fast :p) and if Macs are as fast, or almost as fast, as PC's then that make most of them ****. ;)

I think we all care about speed, but it's not highest item on our list of what we want in computers. If it was we'd all probably own an x86 machines.


Lethal
Not me, I already am convinced simplicity of operation, Altivec and RISC make my iMac faster than any PC out there. If you don't believe me, visit

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

There is something to be said about having a machine that is easier to use and easier to learn. You get things done faster. That kind of speed can't be measured by the processor speed at all!

ColdZero
Jun 22, 2003, 11:33 PM
I'll try to put this as nicely as I can.......that site sucks. It has no real world benchmarks...mearly "MTOPS (Millions of Theoretical Operations Per Second)" which means absolutly nothing, its theoretical. Every benchmark in the world shows that PCs right now are way ahead in Macs in speed for the majority of apps, if you say otherwise....I'm sorry you're wrong. Sure there are some, if I write a program that utilizes Altivec and compile it nice nice and then use some crappy compiler without SSE2 for the P4, then the Mac is gonna be faster. Also about the "Megahertz Myth" on that page, things people always seem to "forget" about in the whole 7 stages vs 21 stages thing is that 1. The P4 is doing its stages a whole lot faster than the G4 is. A 3ghz p4 is doing 3 times the "ticking" of a 1ghz G4 it can clear its pipeline 3 times faster. 21/3 = 7....whoops we forgot to mention that. 2. HyperThreading utilizes the stages of the pipeline in a way to reduce the effect of flushes on the processor. Everybody always leaves out the little things...on both sides.

I have a 3.06 P4 that I have built myself, it never crashes...why? I don't use crap components. I'll also put it up against any G4 out there with confidence that it will spank it. I also own a 600Mhz iBook, which I really really like. The only thing I'd trade it in for is a 15" AlBook. And if the rumors are true, maybe I'll starve myself for a while and buy a G5 desktop, you can never have too many desktops.

I think people need to realize the benefits of both platforms rather than just say "PCs Crash...WinBlowz Sucks"....."Macs are a $3000 lolipop frozen in molasses" When the truth is, the people saying those things have most likely never touched the other platform.

iJon
Jun 22, 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
I'll try to put this as nicely as I can.......that site sucks. It has no real world benchmarks...mearly "MTOPS (Millions of Theoretical Operations Per Second)" which means absolutly nothing, its theoretical. Every benchmark in the world shows that PCs right now are way ahead in Macs in speed for the majority of apps, if you say otherwise....I'm sorry you're wrong. Sure there are some, if I write a program that utilizes Altivec and compile it nice nice and then use some crappy compiler without SSE2 for the P4, then the Mac is gonna be faster. Also about the "Megahertz Myth" on that page, things people always seem to "forget" about in the whole 7 stages vs 21 stages thing is that 1. The P4 is doing its stages a whole lot faster than the G4 is. A 3ghz p4 is doing 3 times the "ticking" of a 1ghz G4 it can clear its pipeline 3 times faster. 21/3 = 7....whoops we forgot to mention that. 2. HyperThreading utilizes the stages of the pipeline in a way to reduce the effect of flushes on the processor. Everybody always leaves out the little things...on both sides.

I have a 3.06 P4 that I have built myself, it never crashes...why? I don't use crap components. I'll also put it up against any G4 out there with confidence that it will spank it. I also own a 600Mhz iBook, which I really really like. The only thing I'd trade it in for is a 15" AlBook. And if the rumors are true, maybe I'll starve myself for a while and buy a G5 desktop, you can never have too many desktops.

I think people need to realize the benefits of both platforms rather than just say "PCs Crash...WinBlowz Sucks"....."Macs are a $3000 lolipop frozen in molasses" When the truth is, the people saying those things have most likely never touched the other platform.
you sound just like ipodonly. and that cant be good. we will see how fast that 3.06 is tomorrow if those dual 2ghz come out.

iJon

patrick0brien
Jun 22, 2003, 11:51 PM
-iJon

Actually ColdZero seems to have some perspective. Blind loyalty never serves evolution - of either platform.

Let's give him some space and see what he can contribute.

Though, I agree with you, with a 2x2ghz G5 would clearly be in the lead...

iJon
Jun 23, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-iJon

Actually ColdZero seems to have some perspective. Blind loyalty never serves evolution - of either platform.

Let's give him some space and see what he can contribute.

Though, I agree with you, with a 2x2ghz G5 would clearly be in the lead...
yeah i do take back what i say, its late and ive been doing stuff all day, so i just skimmed through it and wrote it. then i read it some more and realized what he was saying, and i do agree, but my statement still stands, tomorrow hopefully it will be truth.

iJon

hacurio1
Jun 23, 2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-iJon

Actually ColdZero seems to have some perspective. Blind loyalty never serves evolution - of either platform.

Let's give him some space and see what he can contribute.

Though, I agree with you, with a 2x2ghz G5 would clearly be in the lead...

I agree as well. The G4s are good, but for the last 3 years (give or take) we have been behind. I blame it on Moto, but nobody really knows. Oh well, All this will change today. It's just hours away, can't wait.:cool:

MacBandit
Jun 23, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by hacurio1
I don't recall a Dual 700 G4, LOL. Please don't tell me you are making it up! LOL!
Perhaps your GF has a 733 G4, or a dual 800 G4.

Haha, to bad he was banned already. I don't know why I missed that one but it's true.

solvs
Jun 23, 2003, 12:43 AM
... but I feel the need to re-iterate. And no, blind faith isn't a good thing.

Some people like Apples, some people like Wintels. Some people are happy with the computer they have because it does everything they need it to do. Some people are willing to pay more for what they want. Whether you get more, or less, it doesn't matter. I have complained about the speed and cost of Apples in the past. I merely wanted parity.

Hopefully, tomorrow, I'll get my wish.

There will always be people who like Apples, and people who like PCs. Personnaly I use both. I prefer Apple because I do. I don't like Windows, and Linux frustrated me and wasn't worth the trouble. I don't play games. I do web development, audio/video/image editing, etc. Apples are a lot better for this - IN MY OPINION. I want to work on my Apple.

Before you ask, I am proficient in both. I still prefer Apples. You can choose whatever you want, we don't care. It's one thing to b*tch about wanting Apples to be faster, or cheaper, or have more features. But if you come here just to stir up trouble and tell us what you like, you can go away. We come here because we like the Mac OS, and want to know more about it, and what's coming next.

If you don't like it, you don't have to come here.

I for one can't wait for tomorrow. :D

beatle888
Jun 23, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by ipodonly
for the record, i was doing some research for my gf because she was fed up having to go on my pc rig applying PS filters/feathering to save time. shes got a dual g4 700 w/ith a gig of ram.

BS, i work on very large files in photoshop with a freaken 400mhz G4, under 512 of ram...with a fast fire wire scratch disk. i can even push the system to manipulate gig files. can you imagine if i had a dual gig system with loaded ram? and i nice fast raid system for a scratch disk? you shouldnt use photoshop in your argument....current macs are fine for gig files and under.

iJon
Jun 23, 2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by beatle888
BS, i work on very large files in photoshop with a freaken 400mhz G4, under 512 of ram...with a fast fire wire scratch disk. i can even push the system to manipulate gig files. can you imagine if i had a dual gig system with loaded ram? and i nice fast raid system for a scratch disk? you shouldnt use photoshop in your argument....current macs are fine for gig files and under.
haha, he has been banned my friend, but hell, tell it to him anyways, haha.

iJon

MacBandit
Jun 23, 2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by iJon
haha, he has been banned my friend, but hell, tell it to him anyways, haha.

iJon

Yeah you never know he may be reading this thread right now and see how thoroughly he was picked apart and decide it woudn't be worth joining again under another name.

[mod. edit - No need for that.]

Belly-laughs
Jun 23, 2003, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by ipodonly
ok this post is in response to all the idiots claiming "performance" leadership. First off, to the idiot above, anybody who knows anything knows that a well built "home-pc" is better than anything that the big vendors can serve up.


And you of all should know that a well built operating system made by the greatest vendor of them all is far superior to an operating system that appears home made.

You´re envious. I can tell. Shame you can only afford the iPod.

Sorry - off topic!

PaisanoMan
Jun 23, 2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Although all the programs I need are on the Mac. I prefer Maya to studio max.

I do, too, personally. It's too bad high-end graphics performance is terrible on the (current) Mac -- let's hope this changes come 10:00 PST. :)

ipodonly.V2
Jun 23, 2003, 09:13 AM
edited

ipodonly.V2
Jun 23, 2003, 09:15 AM
edited

ipodonly.V2
Jun 23, 2003, 09:19 AM
edited

ipodonly.V2
Jun 23, 2003, 09:29 AM
u have already been banned once...this is the second time...

my suggestion....get a life... :rolleyes:

yzedf
Jun 23, 2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Apple has competition with the other 80% of the market. They have to compete with PCs because the people who buy render farms are the ones who care about a 5% speed advantage which can come out to saving a day on a larger render. Imagine a rack of dual GHz/970 xserves all clustered. Now imagine a room full of these racks. That could easily compete with any computer system on the planet if not pound it into dust.
I doubt that very much:

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/Hardware/system.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/biztech/11/15/fastest.computer.ap/

http://www.top500.org

MacBandit
Jun 23, 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
I doubt that very much:

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/Hardware/system.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/biztech/11/15/fastest.computer.ap/

http://www.top500.org

Well I guess I should have reworded that a bit I wasn't exactly thinking about a room full of Crays.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 23, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Well I guess I should have reworded that a bit I wasn't exactly thinking about a room full of Crays.

Well, according to the second link, the number 5 machine/system is a cluster of Linux boxes.

Given that, *any* cluster of decent machines could probably gain the #1 spot - it would just take a lot to get there.

D

daveg5
Jun 23, 2003, 04:21 PM
looks like only the dual can beat the p4
at least the singles are alot closer though

patrick0brien
Jun 23, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by ipodonly.V2
u have already been banned once...this is the second time...

my suggestion....get a life... :rolleyes:

-Aww Damn.

Part of me wanted to hear his remarks to Steve Jobs stuffing his words right back down his troublemaking throat.

Can ya let on what he tried to say? :D

MacBandit
Jun 24, 2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Well, according to the second link, the number 5 machine/system is a cluster of Linux boxes.

Given that, *any* cluster of decent machines could probably gain the #1 spot - it would just take a lot to get there.

D

Okay let me reword it again I didn't mean a clustered computing system of any sort also including super computers.

Can you imagine a rack stuffed full of 1U XServe Dual/2GHz/PPC970s that were all clustered?

MacBandit
Jun 24, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Aww Damn.

Part of me wanted to hear his remarks to Steve Jobs stuffing his words right back down his troublemaking throat.

Can ya let on what he tried to say? :D

iPodOnly tried to troll the second time last night not today after the WWDC keynote so he's probably choking on a big turd right now either that or denying that Macs are faster or saying they are overpriced even though they are a Pro computer.

ColdZero
Jun 24, 2003, 08:41 AM
There aren't super computers that aren't clustered, at least I don't think so. All that I've all seen are huge rooms filled with racks of processors and memory. Maybe not clustered in the way the linux boxes are, but there aren't any supercomputers that are gonna sit on your desk or even fit in your garage.

Edit: word order

MacBandit
Jun 24, 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
There aren't super computers that aren't clustered, at least I don't think so. All that I've all seen are huge rooms filled with racks of processors and memory. Maybe not clustered in the way the linux boxes are, but there aren't any supercomputers that are gonna sit on your desk or even fit in your garage.

Edit: word order

No I understand the supercomputer cluster thing I was just being specific this time.

Supa_Fly
Jun 25, 2003, 09:13 AM
Now the True Power is in a PowerMac!!!

Cant wait till September when I got the cash! This is EXACTLY what I expected in a PowerMac!

Bon Voyage PC's
Bon Voyage Microsoft
Bon Voyage Intel & AMD

Who here is selling their Dual Mirror Doors to buy one of these Puppies!!!!!
hey maybe some PC users would be interested in these new PowerMacs!!


Exellent work Apple, and Mr. Jobs!

Supa_Fly
Jun 28, 2003, 05:10 PM
Next month the G5 will be the faster consumer computer that the public can buy.

ddtlm: "A dual Opteron typically would have no external FSB and sport quad-channel DDR, which crushes the 1ghz bus and currently unknown RAM setup" I'm not sure where anyone can go and configure nor buy from a major manufacture/retailer (Dell, HP), nor on the aftermarket. Then again I went to all the computer stores in the College/Spadina downtown Toronto area and non were able to have any Athlon64 or Opteron64's in stock nor order them. A linux server on the market that contains them, I'm unaware of.

This ipodnly person posted in this thread that his girlfriend has a Dual G4 700Mhz: didn't anyone else notice this and realize that Apple never made a dual 700Mhz G4? it was a Dual 500 & 800Mhz. anyway.

Why do pple defend a platform so much?
I guess its because they spent their hard earned dollar on it and how others in this world respond to them (i.e. How many of you told a long time diehard PC user that your going to buy a Mac for the first time and so their eyes roll and the conversation with non others to follow die!?). Also the majority of computer users, PC, in this world have an adverse affect on the Mac users at work, home, and roaming about. Then again I do remember Airport having a huge affect on the PC world, so do I got that last point backwards?

ZildjianKX
Jun 28, 2003, 05:13 PM
If the G5 is the fasted consumer tower that the public can buy, why isn't the powerbook the fastest consumer laptop that the consumer can buy? :mad: :mad: :mad: