PDA

View Full Version : G5


macaddict123k
Aug 21, 2001, 07:34 PM
I found some intresting info on the G5 and the 1 and 1.1 ghz g4@ http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm

It says the 1GHZ g4 is expected sometime in Q1, and the G5 sometime in Q3, starting @speeds of 2GHZ.

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 21, 2001, 08:47 PM
That is interesting but I'd like to know the source on this one. They say it like fact, but as far as I know it's all rumor at this point. The 2 Ghz speed is surprising. Doesn't really give much new information, except time frame. I hope they're wrong, I don't want to wait a whole year for the g5!

Kela
Aug 22, 2001, 02:22 AM
Noo please! This cant be true. Why would apple divulge such info!! 1 year for the G5!! I wanted to skip generations, as in, I bought the G3, I wannto skip the G4 and get the g5 but I cannot wait till 2003 Jan!! AAARGHHHHHHH!. 2002 Feb should be the release date. Or get the G4s upto 1.4 Ghz and stuff.

mnkeybsness
Aug 22, 2001, 10:16 PM
why would they move the chip down to 64 bit?? that would be dumb-might as well buy a pentium

john123
Aug 23, 2001, 12:12 AM
1) They are not moving "the chip down to 64 bit." The G4 is a 32 bit chip. Before you start flaming me and talking about 128 bit and all that nonsense, go check your information (or rather, your misinformation). What is 128 bit on the G4 are its vector registers; its addresses and integer registers are 32 bits. By contrast, those numbers are 128, 64, and 64 on the G5. The bigger marketing ploy on the "G4 is 128 bit" has to do with AltiVec -- but what AltiVec really does is run data in 4 32-bit streams simultaneously.

2) You won't see a G5 in February. No one expects a release date that soon; right now, it's still experimental, so there's absolutely no way it's going to come out that soon. A year from now would be a somewhat optimistic forecast.

evildead
Aug 23, 2001, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by john123
..... A year from now would be a somewhat optimistic forecast. [/B]


unfortunatly i am with johh123. I would like them to be comming sooner but It's not going to happen.

Kela
Aug 23, 2001, 04:49 AM
Is it feasable to say that Apple should work on a windows emulation program like for example, "eMulation" or "iMulator" which is as good or better than VPC but actually uses the GeForce Cards for graphic acceleration. By this move, it could gain more market share as all PC programs including high end games can work nice on the new G4s. Just imagine, all macs could be PCs (if some freak wanted to do that) but not a single PC could be a mac.

---------------------
"Don't innovate, immitate"
-Bill Gates

JoyBoy
Aug 23, 2001, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Kela
Is it feasable to say that Apple should work on a windows emulation program like for example, "eMulation" or "iMulator" which is as good or better than VPC but actually uses the GeForce Cards for graphic acceleration. By this move, it could gain more market share as all PC programs including high end games can work nice on the new G4s. Just imagine, all macs could be PCs (if some freak wanted to do that) but not a single PC could be a mac.

---------------------
"Don't innovate, immitate"
-Bill Gates


No. That isn't even logical. Say they did implement some way to use the GeForce cards through VPC or your Apple windows emulator, how could that run high end PC games? You're still using software to emulate hardware. And why would a PC want to be a Mac? So it can play games at lower framerates, have less overall software, or slower clock speeds?

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 23, 2001, 12:13 PM
Less overall software? What are you talking about? There's a lot more software for PCs than for Macs. I know, it sucks, but that's what we have to live with.

JoyBoy
Aug 23, 2001, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by ThlayliTheFierce
Less overall software? What are you talking about? There's a lot more software for PCs than for Macs. I know, it sucks, but that's what we have to live with.

You obviously didn't understand my post. I shall break it down for you. First I asked "Why would a PC want to be a Mac?" I then answered by saying "So it can play games at lower framerates, have less overall software, or slower clock speeds?" What I was saying is that why on earth would a PC want to be a Mac because Macs have lower framerates, LESS OVERALL SOFTWARE, and slower clock speeds.
You do realize that Macs don't get the framerates PCs do and also that a 1.8Ghz is a higher clock speed than 867mhz. So by that knowledge alone, you easily could have figured out I wasn't talking about PCs, or you could have just read my post correctly.
But thanks for restating what I already said.

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 23, 2001, 02:19 PM
I assume you are taking Joe Windows User's point of view. In actuality, you would have MORE software, because you could run both Mac and PC software on the same machine. However, I believe that Kela was trying to make the point that Mac users would have access to all software and games, while PC users would become limited. As far as frame rates, from what I'm reading newer games, optimized for OS X, are getting much higher framerates than on Windows. And of course Joe Windows thinks that Macs are slower because they have lower clocks. So why would a PC want to be a Mac? So it COULD have more software! We're talking about emulation, not turning one machine into another. I guess that's where you lost me. Wasn't this thread about the G5?

JoyBoy
Aug 23, 2001, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ThlayliTheFierce
I assume you are taking Joe Windows User's point of view. In actuality, you would have MORE software, because you could run both Mac and PC software on the same machine. However, I believe that Kela was trying to make the point that Mac users would have access to all software and games, while PC users would become limited. As far as frame rates, from what I'm reading newer games, optimized for OS X, are getting much higher framerates than on Windows. And of course Joe Windows thinks that Macs are slower because they have lower clocks. So why would a PC want to be a Mac? So it COULD have more software! We're talking about emulation, not turning one machine into another. I guess that's where you lost me. Wasn't this thread about the G5?

First, Kela's supposed point has no value. There is no way that an emulator such as VPC could run high end PC games or software at usable rates or at all. I'm not taking "Joe WIndows User's point of view", I'm taking the if you want to run PC software buy a PC and if not stick to your Mac. All this "would" and "could" let's look at what IS. PC software isn't going to become limited just because of software emulation on a Platform PC users could give a damn about, realize the fact that 90% of the industry is PC and sadly that isn't going to change anytime soon. I never said Macs were slower, just that they had lower clock speeds. And I wasn't talking literally turning one into the other, I DID lose you there I suppose. I just mean a PC user has no need or want to use Mac software. Kela's idea is illogical and just plain stupid. Read some of that individuals other posts, you'll begin to notice a pattern of idiocy.
It is about the G5...I have a problem of not holding back when I read a post such as Kela's.

spikey
Aug 23, 2001, 02:56 PM
stop talking out your ass u ****ing zealot.
What the **** do u mean "run both PC and mac software on the same machine"? If you are on bout emulators then, a) they r **** and slow. b) there are mac emulators for the PC too.
No the new games on OSX are not getting higher frame rates than blah PC. PC's are hitting over 200 fps right now. last time i looked macs were not near that. You got your info of a ****ing mac zealot site that kisses Jobs's ass.
However after all ur **** ups u r right about this thread being on about the G5.
And i dont give a flying **** if i am wrong about blah this and blah that, so piss off u bastard i dont care if u ****ing respond to this message ***** and try to prove me wrong.
Stop being such a ****ing mac-suck up and find out sum un-adulterated info your ****ing self.

(i dont give a **** if this message gets me banned, infact i will laugh if it doesnt)

Go and think for yourself u dickhead and dont believe ***** from either apple or windows or any ****ing company u seem to want to shag.

Im off to browns to get pissed now, see u when u stop believing this ***** u take in...and maybe when they stop banning me rfom coming here (if they can)

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 23, 2001, 03:21 PM
Now that's funny, I've never seen someone get so pissed off over something this minor. Joyboy, I see what you mean and I agree with most of it. But no need to bash Kela, he was just supposing. Maybe one day in the future...

mnkeybsness
Aug 23, 2001, 03:55 PM
i thought this thread was about a G5 chip?????

JoyBoy
Aug 23, 2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by ThlayliTheFierce
Now that's funny, I've never seen someone get so pissed off over something this minor. Joyboy, I see what you mean and I agree with most of it. But no need to bash Kela, he was just supposing. Maybe one day in the future...


You're right, bashing is just a waste of time. I don't want to end up like spikey over there.
It's just a forum.

Back to the subject.
I'll be really surprised if we see the G5 before MWSF '03.

mymemory
Aug 23, 2001, 06:43 PM
You gringos are crazy!

Kela
Aug 24, 2001, 02:00 AM
Thanks ThlayliTheFierce for your support. If the SYSOPS saw this kind of bashing they would ban spikey. First of all I was only hypothesizing. Secondly, SPIKEY YOU STUPID )&/"%&"!!, you are a PC fan! I can tell by your talk. AND ALSO YOU JOyboy, you are clearly a PC fan. OS X with its multiporocessor is gettin g the HIGHEST FRAME RATES EVER for QUake 3. Faster than PCs. Secondly, I HAVE LOST ALL MY FREAKIN RESPECT FOR YOU JOYBOY after you said, "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"" OH MY GOD!! HAve you recently been hearing these key phrases, "Intel is painting them selves in a corner and their new itanium will be runing at 6oo MHz" or "THE MEGAHERTZ Myth??"


- Kela is angry

p.s dont use such obscene language spikey, I know it hurts that you cant afford a mac.

john123
Aug 24, 2001, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Kela
Thanks ThlayliTheFierce for your support. If the SYSOPS saw this kind of bashing they would ban spikey. First of all I was only hypothesizing. Secondly, SPIKEY YOU STUPID )&/"%&"!!, you are a PC fan! I can tell by your talk. AND ALSO YOU JOyboy, you are clearly a PC fan. OS X with its multiporocessor is gettin g the HIGHEST FRAME RATES EVER for QUake 3. Faster than PCs. Secondly, I HAVE LOST ALL MY FREAKIN RESPECT FOR YOU JOYBOY after you said, "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"" OH MY GOD!! HAve you recently been hearing these key phrases, "Intel is painting them selves in a corner and their new itanium will be runing at 6oo MHz" or "THE MEGAHERTZ Myth??"


This isn't right on two key levels. First off, I don't know how much opportunity you have to use lots of machines, Kela, but a 1.8 Ghz Pentium really *is* faster than an 867 Mac on a whole lot of things and most practical computer uses. Sad, but true. Second, even using a dual 533 with Quake 3's latest beta for OS X, you still aren't getting the FPS ratings you do on the PC.

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 24, 2001, 11:41 AM
How's about some details about WHAT it's actually faster at doing? I'd be interested to know. Good god, the Athlon 4 1.4 ghz beats the P4 1.7 at a whole bunch of stuff, only losing in some multimedia tasks and programs optimized for the P4. Also, why are Quake 3 framerates higher on PCs? Keyword - BETA! There are few games out there which take full advantage of the Mac's immense processing power. If the apparent upswing in Mac gaming continues, maybe this will change. Quake, B&W, Warcraft 3, who knows what's next? The Mac certainly is capable of framerates a PC couldn't even hope to reach.

Kela - no prob

[Edited by ThlayliTheFierce on 08-24-2001 at 12:48 PM]

john123
Aug 24, 2001, 12:17 PM
Open MS Excel on a PC. Then open it on the Mac. Much faster on the PC. Same for running calculations (e.g., using the built-in Solver function in Excel). Up to 10x faster on the PC.

Sure, you're right, lots of stuff isn't Mac-optimized...but that's a specious argument. Theoretical performance is a stupid thing to examine -- what really matters is both present and future *actual* performance. I don't care how many gigaflops I can churn out theoretically, etc. etc. RESULTS MATTER.

JoyBoy
Aug 24, 2001, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Kela
Thanks ThlayliTheFierce for your support. If the SYSOPS saw this kind of bashing they would ban spikey. First of all I was only hypothesizing. Secondly, SPIKEY YOU STUPID )&/"%&"!!, you are a PC fan! I can tell by your talk. AND ALSO YOU JOyboy, you are clearly a PC fan. OS X with its multiporocessor is gettin g the HIGHEST FRAME RATES EVER for QUake 3. Faster than PCs. Secondly, I HAVE LOST ALL MY FREAKIN RESPECT FOR YOU JOYBOY after you said, "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"" OH MY GOD!! HAve you recently been hearing these key phrases, "Intel is painting them selves in a corner and their new itanium will be runing at 6oo MHz" or "THE MEGAHERTZ Myth??"


- Kela is angry

p.s dont use such obscene language spikey, I know it hurts that you cant afford a mac.

Okay. I took it back, but then you had to go and say that.
1) 1.8Ghz P4 beats a 867 G4 in pretty much everything but Photoshop(according to Apple's tests). PCs are getting over 200fps in Quake3, Macs aren't.
2) If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. I said "You do realize that Macs don't get the framerates PCs do and also that a 1.8Ghz is a higher clock speed than 867mhz. " That IS NOT the same as "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"
3) Finally, I ask you this...If I am so obviously a PC fan, why don't I own a PC? Also, why did I just spend a good chunk of money on a new Dual 800mhz G4 and not a PC?

spikey
Aug 24, 2001, 03:01 PM
(looks back at thread)
holy ****, i didnt think i had it in me to use such ****ing language.
Ok, enough swearing. i was pissed off, and drunk.
I aint a PC fan, i am impartial.
Macs do things PC's cant do, PCs do things macs cant do.
But, it is true about PCs having better framerates than macs. It is also true about u lot being zealots (bar a few). It is also true about u lot believing anything apple says. It is also true that none of you know anything about PCs, otherwise you wouldnt compare ****** Pentiums to macs, instead of Athlons to macs.
Athlons are by far the superior chip.
But no, obviously u lot have to take in whatever hype apple sends you about "burning Pentiums", what bollocks.
Athlons are the best overall chips around right now, which is why all the tests at Mac expo's are G4 Vs Pentium, instead of G4 Vs Athlon.
All i am going to say to u right wing **** ups is this
PC= over 200 fps
Mac= below 200 fps

right now gaming aint apples forte, it doesnt mean they r *****.

john123
Aug 24, 2001, 03:53 PM
I grew up on Apples...first computers were a IIe by day and a IIc by night. Used the Mac Plus, Classic, SE, LC, LCII, LCIII, IIci, IIvx, Centrises, Quadras, PowerMacs, blah...you know the rest.

But Spikey is right. If you wanna play games, the Mac just isn't your *best* machine to do it -- especially for FPS-intensive programs like Quake 3. It's getting better, but they aren't equal, and because there are more PCs than Macs, they simply won't ever *be* equal.

menoinjun
Aug 25, 2001, 02:11 AM
i hate to get involved in this crap, but I do have something to say about Spikey's last post. The reason we don't see any G4 v. Athlon tests is because people think that the P4 1.8 is the fastest chip out there because of the 1800mhz it runs at. Therefore Apple uses them in their tests. Although it may be a better comparison (and I still think the g4 would win) Stevie J doesnt use an Athlon because most people dont realize that it is faster than the P4, and they would consider that Apple was "rigging" the test by using a "slower" chip. The fact is that the public is dumb, and sometimes using their stupidity on chip speeds can lead to Apple's advantage. It is not underhanded, but appealing to the weak-minded public on their level.

-Pete

BTW. Dont you guys ever have anything to do better than play games? I have one game for my mac...Rogue Spear. It works great even at the 50 or so fps slower it is on my mac then a Athlon 1.21gigawatts yadda yadda yadda... I understand that games are fun and even necessary sometimes...but they are NOT what computer should be benchmarked on. A video card yes...but NOT the entire system. If a game is written fairly for both mac and pc...and the video cards are the same...then that would be a fair comparison. You can't compare games if they aren't written exactly for both platforms. Photoshop is a good test because it is written specifically for the P3/4 and the G4. Not freakin "Kill ugly dumb monsters with bad AI with big stupid looking guns to free retarded naked princess in a poorly written game" game. <<whew!>>

[Edited by ptrauber on 08-25-2001 at 03:17 AM]

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 25, 2001, 03:48 AM
Ok, there's no need to say that "we lot" know nothing about PCs. I do my research. I refer you to a previous post in which I stated as well that Athlons are superior to Pentiums. I don't think you'll find anyone who knows what they are talking about who will disagree. However, the G4 is more advanced than that. The x86 architecture is not as efficient as the RISC architecture. The G4 is the most advanced chip in a PC today. This is NOT accepted blindly because Jobs said so. Even the Itanium uses a RISC-like architecture. Yeah, PCs and Macs both have things that they do better, but from where I sit as a student (and a developer), the only thing that PCs do better is gaming. Which is only a very small part of a computer's usefulness. I suppose I could have said as a developement platform, but now with OS X you get the mainstream languages: C, C++, and Java to name a few. So, getting back on topic, when the G5 comes out, which if the rumors are right will demolish the Itanic, perhaps poeple will begin to see more accurately that the Mac is a serious platform with a lot to offer, to more than just graphic designers.

Megaquad
Aug 25, 2001, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
why would they move the chip down to 64 bit?? that would be dumb-might as well buy a pentium
you are wrong,G4 is a 32 bit processort in all apps which doesn't use altivec
g4 is actually a stupid thing,i think they should make .if possible processor faster in all applications,g4 867 is in normal life slower then pentium on the same frequency

Megaquad
Aug 25, 2001, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
why would they move the chip down to 64 bit?? that would be dumb-might as well buy a pentium
you are wrong,G4 is a 32 bit processort in all apps which doesn't use altivec
g4 is actually a stupid thing,i think they should make .if possible processor faster in all applications,g4 867 is in normal life slower then pentium on the same frequency

spikey
Aug 25, 2001, 08:11 AM
Agreed the G4 is better at alot of things like graphic design, but firstly it is not as good at it as steve jobs makes it out to be at expos.... and secondly gaming is not just a small part of what people use computers for, infact it is one of the biggest selling points of a computer to any dumbass member of the ****ing public.
Ok, sum of you lot know a bit about PCs. ;) ........but dont get all cocky, i still have a nicer penis than you.
Another thing is the deal with you zealots who review Mac Vs Pentium arse on geek sites like ZDnet. The average mac user knows nothing about PCs because they are closed minded pig-****ers.
The reason Macs arent compared to Athlons is not because of the average PC user ****ing Pentiums up th arse. Dont you think there would be 3 way battles at mac expos (mac, pentium, athlon) if that were true. It is infact because Athlons are overall better chips than the G4.
In any case i would like to know which knobhead zealots of you actually believe G4=2.x Ghz P4 arse.
Come off it people think for yourselves for once in your sad lives.
The simple fact is PCs are better at gaming than Macs, and its not like Macs dont have potential because they do. Their chips could be great at fps in quake (the gamecube uses a powerpc based architecture).
But the simple fact is, there arent enough games available for the mac, they dont come soon enough after the PC launch. And it is infact no wonder when you see the fps ratings of a G4.

Megaquad
Aug 25, 2001, 09:16 AM
i agree with spikey,but i think he should come down,some day,maybe,the macs we'll be equal or better from pc's,dont get me wrong,but right now i am feeling like a user of retarded computer

spikey
Aug 25, 2001, 09:40 AM
Thank u megaquad u have sum sense.
infact u r sligtly intelligent and think for yourself
it is nice to see
i am not trying to say macs are *****, just that right now they aint the best value for money.
however i have a feeling the G5 might change all that.

JoyBoy
Aug 25, 2001, 03:06 PM
Anyone else find it difficult to take some of these posts seriously? I find the lack of any grammatical skills makes it rather difficult. My grammar is not flawless, but I give it a try. It isn't that hard.

john123
Aug 25, 2001, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by JoyBoy
Anyone else find it difficult to take some of these posts seriously? I find the lack of any grammatical skills makes it rather difficult. My grammar is not flawless, but I give it a try. It isn't that hard.

my gramer and spelung are impekibel

JoyBoy
Aug 25, 2001, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by john123
Originally posted by JoyBoy
Anyone else find it difficult to take some of these posts seriously? I find the lack of any grammatical skills makes it rather difficult. My grammar is not flawless, but I give it a try. It isn't that hard.

my gramer and spelung are impekibel

"me fail engulush...that's unpossible"

WindexMonkey
Aug 25, 2001, 11:27 PM
Now if you want the GREASTEST performance from a gaming machine get a Dreamcast or a GameCube in November.........You don't need to worry about framerates or slowdown.(And the Game Cube even has a bit of Mac in it)

And Finally look at your G4 or other Mac and be just be glad its a Mac.

menoinjun
Aug 26, 2001, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by spikey
Thank u megaquad u have sum sense.
infact u r sligtly intelligent and think for yourself
it is nice to see
i am not trying to say macs are *****, just that right now they aint the best value for money.
however i have a feeling the G5 might change all that.


I would disagree about the best machine for the money, because the lack of hassle that my mac has put me through compared to my old PC's is worth the extra dough. So is a better, more efficient OS, and everything else that makes a mac better that doesn't have to do with performance. (ie...design, looks, features(adc, firewire)) It's not that I don't know enough to solve my problems with my PC, it's just that they are there in the first place.



-Pete

Megaquad
Aug 26, 2001, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by spikey
Thank u megaquad u have sum sense.
infact u r sligtly intelligent and think for yourself
it is nice to see
i am not trying to say macs are *****, just that right now they aint the best value for money.
however i have a feeling the G5 might change all that.
yeah... i hope.. maybe.. some day.. but i dont se how..
if this situation continues for a next few years I'll considerate buying of pc :(
but,in my heart,i'll always be an mac user

Megaquad
Aug 26, 2001, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by ptrauber
Originally posted by spikey
Thank u megaquad u have sum sense.
infact u r sligtly intelligent and think for yourself
it is nice to see
i am not trying to say macs are *****, just that right now they aint the best value for money.
however i have a feeling the G5 might change all that.


I would disagree about the best machine for the money, because the lack of hassle that my mac has put me through compared to my old PC's is worth the extra dough. So is a better, more efficient OS, and everything else that makes a mac better that doesn't have to do with performance. (ie...design, looks, features(adc, firewire)) It's not that I don't know enough to solve my problems with my PC, it's just that they are there in the first place.

-Pete
yeah,i hate windows,but windows xp might change all that,design,ok,but xp aint that bad,features? what damn features has mac and win's doesn't?
firewire? what about internal space for cdrw etc.?
what about pci and agp ports? (g4 has them,imac dont)
problems,it seems to me that win xp will be okay

what i hate in my g3 350 mhz iMac:
-when i come home with cd audio from my frend it encodes at 0.6-2.4x speed,that is sad..
-i cant put fullscreen visualization of music in high fps's
-i cant come home and watch an DivX movie,i have some 320x240 star trek voyager episodes and i barely can view them
-i cant play new games well... (yeah,my freakin' rage 128) and there isnt enough mac games anyway... :(
-mac os 9 is 10 times slower then win's
-and many other things.

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Megaquad
Originally posted by ptrauber
Originally posted by spikey
Thank u megaquad u have sum sense.
infact u r sligtly intelligent and think for yourself
it is nice to see
i am not trying to say macs are *****, just that right now they aint the best value for money.
however i have a feeling the G5 might change all that.


I would disagree about the best machine for the money, because the lack of hassle that my mac has put me through compared to my old PC's is worth the extra dough. So is a better, more efficient OS, and everything else that makes a mac better that doesn't have to do with performance. (ie...design, looks, features(adc, firewire)) It's not that I don't know enough to solve my problems with my PC, it's just that they are there in the first place.

-Pete
yeah,i hate windows,but windows xp might change all that,design,ok,but xp aint that bad,features? what damn features has mac and win's doesn't?
firewire? what about internal space for cdrw etc.?
what about pci and agp ports? (g4 has them,imac dont)
problems,it seems to me that win xp will be okay

what i hate in my g3 350 mhz iMac:
-when i come home with cd audio from my frend it encodes at 0.6-2.4x speed,that is sad..
-i cant put fullscreen visualization of music in high fps's
-i cant come home and watch an DivX movie,i have some 320x240 star trek voyager episodes and i barely can view them
-i cant play new games well... (yeah,my freakin' rage 128) and there isnt enough mac games anyway... :(
-mac os 9 is 10 times slower then win's
-and many other things.

1) How do you know WIndows XP "aint that bad", it isn't even out yet. What makes you think Microsoft is suddenly going to make an outstanding OS? They don't need to, they already make the crappiest OS out there and still at the end of the day they do control 90% of the market. You want a feature that Mac OS has Windows doesn't? How about some ****ing usability. Knowing everytime I use my computer it is a friendly experience not one filled with fear of crash, vomit inducing GUI and overall shittyness. There's a damn feature for you.
2) The iMac will never have any PCI slots, it's a consumer machine...you want expandability, get a G4, it is that simple.
3) If you want to do things faster, play new games well, GET A FASTER COMPUTER. You can't expect a 350mhz G3 with a outdated Rage128 w/ a skimpy 8mb of VRAM to play games at high framerates.
4) Mac OS 9 for one is not slower than Windows, the hardware is. Besides, Mac OS 9 isn't the future of the platform anyways.

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 11:48 AM
A mate of mine has ot a Beta or "test" of XP. He says it is great, and yes he has tried linux, OS9, windows, and i think also some kind of RISC OS....so he aint dumb. And anyway, who are you to say XP wont be any good? cos stranger things have happened than microsoft building a good OS.
In comparison to windows, OS9 is ****, it is underpowered and delivers hardly any perfomance. but as you say OSX is the future platform and it will be great v.soon.
As for pci slots, even on a consumer machine upgradability is essential, and you dont get that in an imac. However in consumer PCs you do get huge upgradability and for a cheaper price.
What you do pay for in a G4, is a better processor. You should not have to pay for upgradability because it costs apple virtually nothing to put it in a machine.
The reason why i think the G5 will change everything is because every pc manufacturer is going 64 bit with a processor of theirs, however windows XP 64 bit is not fully backwards compatible with 32 bit apps.
This, my macintosh mates, is where the compatibility of the mac platform will mean that the G5 will get the most out of OSX, while a 64 bit PC chip will get **** all out of XP.
Another thing is intel released their itanium at 800Mhz and they are being caught out by their own marketing Mhz myth.
But the most important thing is that PC 64 bit chips are gonna be aimed at servers and not consumers, while the G5 will be aimed at high end consumers or professionals. so apple is bringing a better chip to a wider market.
and so concludes my explanation on why the sky isnt red and we are all colour blind, life is however like a used condom because its ****ed up.

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by spikey
A mate of mine has ot a Beta or "test" of XP. He says it is great, and yes he has tried linux, OS9, windows, and i think also some kind of RISC OS....so he aint dumb. And anyway, who are you to say XP wont be any good? cos stranger things have happened than microsoft building a good OS.
In comparison to windows, OS9 is ****, it is underpowered and delivers hardly any perfomance. but as you say OSX is the future platform and it will be great v.soon.
As for pci slots, even on a consumer machine upgradability is essential, and you dont get that in an imac. However in consumer PCs you do get huge upgradability and for a cheaper price.
What you do pay for in a G4, is a better processor. You should not have to pay for upgradability because it costs apple virtually nothing to put it in a machine.
The reason why i think the G5 will change everything is because every pc manufacturer is going 64 bit with a processor of theirs, however windows XP 64 bit is not fully backwards compatible with 32 bit apps.
This, my macintosh mates, is where the compatibility of the mac platform will mean that the G5 will get the most out of OSX, while a 64 bit PC chip will get **** all out of XP.
Another thing is intel released their itanium at 800Mhz and they are being caught out by their own marketing Mhz myth.
But the most important thing is that PC 64 bit chips are gonna be aimed at servers and not consumers, while the G5 will be aimed at high end consumers or professionals. so apple is bringing a better chip to a wider market.
and so concludes my explanation on why the sky isnt red and we are all colour blind, life is however like a used condom because its ****ed up.

Titling your reply "u r stupid" is similar to the way my 13 year old brother types and well doesn't make a lot of sense...which kind of goes a long with your posts.

Well, stranger things may have happened, but so far MS building a good OS hasn't and with good reason. They have no need to improve on their products because their user base will settle for mediocre, I'll wait til' I use XP before I take your "mate's" word for it...even though he "aint dumb". Notice how MS products for the Mac don't suck...because we won't settle for ****. Which I like.
Also, I don't really believe consumer machines need lots of upgradibility. I bought my parents an iMac and it works great for them. They have no use for PCI cards or internal drives of any kind. They're perfect examples of "Joe Consumer".
With that said, I do think you were somewhat on the right track though...at least with the pricing. Apple doesn't offer a low priced upgradable machine. I guess the G4's aren't that expensive, but like you said an upgradable PC is much much cheaper than an upgradable Mac. I'm not so sure the iMac needs any expandability...that doesn't mean the platform doesn't need a low priced expandable computer though.
I hope Microsoft does dig themselves a hole such as the one you attempted to describe.

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 12:34 PM
ok gayboy, dont get all excited about it. no need for a hardon now is there?
The reason why the mac MS products dont suck is not because we dont put up with it. It is because a) they have a seperate team for mac products who know something about computers.......and b) it is not all microsoft products that suck, it is the windows platform that does. Which is why the products like MS office are ok but windows crashes while you use it.
Also consumer products do need upgradability because the consumer doesnt want to pay out money for a whole new computer when only their sound or graphics cards need updating. which is the problem with the imac.
I am waiting to reserve judgement on XP myself, but without doubt, the PC 64 bit chip with XP, will not be as good as G5 with OSX.
As a 32 bit OS, XP might be fine though.

by the way, i take it u dont really appreciate my comments joyboy? ;)

menoinjun
Aug 26, 2001, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by spikey
ok gayboy, dont get all excited about it. no need for a hardon now is there?
The reason why the mac MS products dont suck is not because we dont put up with it. It is because a) they have a seperate team for mac products who know something about computers.......and b) it is not all microsoft products that suck, it is the windows platform that does. Which is why the products like MS office are ok but windows crashes while you use it.
Also consumer products do need upgradability because the consumer doesnt want to pay out money for a whole new computer when only their sound or graphics cards need updating. which is the problem with the imac.
I am waiting to reserve judgement on XP myself, but without doubt, the PC 64 bit chip with XP, will not be as good as G5 with OSX.
As a 32 bit OS, XP might be fine though.
by the way, i take it u dont really appreciate my comments joyboy? ;)

Ok guys, stop the personal attacks. They're getting old. I don't have real beef with MS products other than windows, but I do have a problem with paying 500+ for Office. I know that most of you pirate it, so this doesn't effect you, but paying that much is outrageous for a mediocre group of programs. I have yet to see Office X, and I just hope that it wont be that expensive. (fat chance)

Consumer products DON'T need huge amounts of upgradeability because you, myself and most of the people on this forum aren't average consumers. Working in a computer store, you come to realize that the average consumer knows NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS, and would rather get a new one in 3 years than replace a video or sound card. Most of the time they don't realize the advantages that replaceing those components will have, so they just wait until the computer is not usable and go get a new one. That is why the iMac is so nice. You could always get an external DVD or CDRW to expand when needed, but since most people dont care about excellent video or sound...they dont need PCI slots or AGP ports to confuse them. The iMac defined what a consumer computer should be. Small, compact, simple, excellent out of the box for a couple of years, and nice looking.

-Pete

P.S. The Itanium with XP won't even be as good as a G4 with X. I still can't believe that you're defending PC's against macs like this. What about Sony offering only one RAM slot in some of their computers? Even an iMac has two. What about the smaller HP's that have only 1 or 2 free PCI slots instead of the G4's 4? What about the quality of compaq-made components that fizzle out after the warrantee expires, while most mac users hav their original equipped computers for more than 3 years? Try to find a PC that comes standard with a digital display out as compared to a G4 that comes with ADC standard.

[Edited by ptrauber on 08-26-2001 at 02:13 PM]

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 01:12 PM
although i am not an average consumer i still use a consumer mac, an imac.Because alot of geeks like me cant always afford a G4 and have to settle with an imac. another thing is i know tutors and lecturers that know nothing about PCs and yet they still look for upgradability in a computer. The point is u can still make an imac upgradable and give the consumer the choice whether they want to upgrade or not.
Although the imac doesnt need 4 pci slots,AGP blah, etc, it does need like a few more than it has. so while it can remain small and compact it can also have a bit of upgradability to attract the consumer.
The reason the imac is not upgradable is not because of consumer being dumb it is because it is meant to be small,compact, simple, easy to use (the whole idea of an all in one).....the more upgrade slots u have means the more space you need for them. And also the more cards you have means the more heat given off, and that means the better ventilation you need, which is hard to achieve in an all-in-one.
I say make the imac upgradable, then if u want to upgrade u can. and if u dont know how to then u carry on buying a whole new one as u used to do. as long as the imac remains compact
However u r right about office being way too expensive.


[Edited by spikey on 08-26-2001 at 02:19 PM]

mnkeybsness
Aug 26, 2001, 01:13 PM
i'm getting really annoyed by this thread-the way everyone gets so pissed off and the way everyone needs to quote what another person said.

just my 2 cents

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 01:21 PM
i suppose u r right, i have been getting pissed off lately.
so i apologize.

menoinjun
Aug 26, 2001, 01:22 PM
Re-read my last post...I was editing it while you replied Spikey. It sounds like someone here has a case of the "I'm always right" syndrome. Well Spikey, I don't care who you might know, but after spending a year in the computer retail business, I think that I know what the average consumer is and what they want. So please don't just come out and say that I'm wrong when you only believe that I am without any proof or major experience whatsoever. It comes down to Macs are better at Graphics, Sound, Video, advanced calculations and computations(same thing?), and overall ease of use. PC's can play games at marginally higher frame rates, and can open excel faster. I'll choose the mac...spikey, have fun with your PC's and thier inferior OS and that damn registry.

-Pete

john123
Aug 26, 2001, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by ptrauber
Re-read my last post...I was editing it while you replied Spikey. It sounds like someone here has a case of the "I'm always right" syndrome. Well Spikey, I don't care who you might know, but after spending a year in the computer retail business, I think that I know what the average consumer is and what they want. So please don't just come out and say that I'm wrong when you only believe that I am without any proof or major experience whatsoever. It comes down to Macs are better at Graphics, Sound, Video, advanced calculations and computations(same thing?), and overall ease of use. PC's can play games at marginally higher frame rates, and can open excel faster. I'll choose the mac...spikey, have fun with your PC's and thier inferior OS and that damn registry.

-Pete

I, too, logged my own one year in retail selling computers (not Macs though), so I'll agree with your sentiments regarding the average consumer and their lack of knowledge.

But, you're not entirely correct on what Macs are better at. For professionals who are interested in "advanced calculations and computations," the Mac pretty much loses compared to your average PC -- which is why my department went and bought a dual processor PC. Granted, that's a function of the quality of the programming, but your "number crunchers" have grown up on UNIX workstations and then went on to buy personal PCs. The quality of the stuff for, say, nonlinear optimization problems, is just 200% better for the PC than the Mac.

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by spikey
ok gayboy, dont get all excited about it. no need for a hardon now is there?
The reason why the mac MS products dont suck is not because we dont put up with it. It is because a) they have a seperate team for mac products who know something about computers.......and b) it is not all microsoft products that suck, it is the windows platform that does. Which is why the products like MS office are ok but windows crashes while you use it.
Also consumer products do need upgradability because the consumer doesnt want to pay out money for a whole new computer when only their sound or graphics cards need updating. which is the problem with the imac.
I am waiting to reserve judgement on XP myself, but without doubt, the PC 64 bit chip with XP, will not be as good as G5 with OSX.
As a 32 bit OS, XP might be fine though.

by the way, i take it u dont really appreciate my comments joyboy? ;)

What I don't appreciate is your inability to discuss/debate things without bringing in personal attacks. That's just plain immature. When I filter out the bad language and immaturity, you have some valid points. But they don't help your case. I see you are able to type normally when you chose to. If you're going to attack me, at least be creative at it. . I mean "gayboy", come on, how lame is that. :)
Whether you think consumer machines need upgradability or not, the iMac will not have PCI slots or an AGP port anytime soon, if ever I'd bet.
I know MS has a separate Dev house for Mac products, the best from what I hear. They have the money to back it of course.
Hopefully nothing will be as good as anything on OSX.

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 03:20 PM
Ugh, retail store employment...that is the worst job in the industry besides tech support.

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 03:46 PM
Hell.... i got flamed

hockey6773
Aug 26, 2001, 03:55 PM
I dont understand all u people all this whole thing (meaning these forums) is so u can give your point of veiw on a subject and so u can lern stuff from it but all you people use it for is to fight i dont get it

and 1 more thing is this thread ever going to be about the g5 coming out

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 04:06 PM
Look at what i am writing and you will notice mr ptrauber that i am not defending PCs and at the same time i am not defending macs.... i am pointing out what does what better.
I am saying the G5 with OSX will be better than PC with XP. not the otherway round.
PCs have hugely faster frame rates (not just marginally faster ones, mr ptrauber!) compared to macs right now, and they are more versatile as a whole. and also that the 32 bit XP might be ok.Also i say wow to the G4s 4 pci slots when PCs can have up to 6.
Macs right now have potential for fast frame rates but are not quite there. they do not crash like windows, easier to use. and their future looks alot more promising than the PCs.
i will repeat what i have said b4 and apologize for insulting ppl, sometimes i get pissed off at zealots, and other stuff that goes on.
And by the way Mr ptrauber, i did not say u knew nothing. i spoke from my experience of what ppl know.
Again ptrauber i might insult ppl, but atleast i look at what they say properly. do the same to mine and u will notice that i aint backing PCs, i am merely pointing out the good and bad points. Why cant you accept that at some things Macs are that much inferior to PCs?

i dont know about retail store employment, infact i dunno what it means. but i will take joyboys word for it.

(no hockey, we will get to that once i have established that i am still a mac fan)

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by hockey6773
I dont understand all u people all this whole thing (meaning these forums) is so u can give your point of veiw on a subject and so u can lern stuff from it but all you people use it for is to fight i dont get it

and 1 more thing is this thread ever going to be about the g5 coming out

See...when people feel strongly about certain things they get angry. It comes with the knowledge that others will disagree with your opinion and you may post back to stand up for your previous opinion. Some people go overboard(I know I do sometimes), but if you do not like that don't come around here. Learn(yes L-E-A-R-N) to deal with conflicting opinions and the sometimes emotions that come with them and the way others show their emotions. Personally, this is fun for me, reminds me of the days of the debate team. I have the feeling spikey is enjoying it as well, SO BACK OFF. ;)

It was about the G5 coming out, but got sidetracked, which happens. Something people on this forum seem to be unable to deal with.
But alas, the G5 will not be here that soon I fear, don't wait for it my dear. It will be grand I bet, so do not fret.

john123
Aug 26, 2001, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by JoyBoy
Ugh, retail store employment...that is the worst job in the industry besides tech support.

Retail actually wasn't so bad. It was the year before I went to college, and back when the economy wasn't going at a snail's pace. It was kind of fun, and with commissioned sales, I was on a pace to make about 50K per year. Not shabby for a kid with no college education!

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by spikey
Look at what i am writing and you will notice mr ptrauber that i am not defending PCs and at the same time i am not defending macs.... i am pointing out what does what better.
I am saying the G5 with OSX will be better than PC with XP. not the otherway round.
PCs have hugely faster frame rates (not just marginally faster ones, mr ptrauber!) compared to macs right now, and they are more versatile as a whole. and also that the 32 bit XP might be ok.Also i say wow to the G4s 4 pci slots when PCs can have up to 6.
Macs right now have potential for fast frame rates but are not quite there. they do not crash like windows, easier to use. and their future looks alot more promising than the PCs.
i will repeat what i have said b4 and apologize for insulting ppl, sometimes i get pissed off at zealots, and other stuff that goes on.
And by the way Mr ptrauber, i did not say u knew nothing. i spoke from my experience of what ppl know.
Again ptrauber i might insult ppl, but atleast i look at what they say properly. do the same to mine and u will notice that i aint backing PCs, i am merely pointing out the good and bad points. Why cant you accept that at some things Macs are that much inferior to PCs?

i dont know about retail store employment, infact i dunno what it means. but i will take joyboys word for it.

(no hockey, we will get to that once i have established that i am still a mac fan)

Retail Store Employment such as Staples, Best Buy...large stores with computer departments. It can be incredibly annoying to work at...it can be made fun too though, if you take it as "People are just morons." :D

Very impressive John. My experience here was no long ago, good pay no doubt...I just get frustrated with dumb people way too fast. :)

spikey
Aug 26, 2001, 04:27 PM
I dont think i really get pissed off at ppl when they get something wrong. but i do when they refuse to realise that sometimes what they love (macintosh) is not always good at everything, because they are ****ing zealots. i also get pissed off when ppl believe the ***** given by apple at expos about the G4 being 200 times faster than blah PC.... or woteva.
i enjoy it though.
i reckon the G5 will be out early next year, probably at 1Ghz. by then the G4 would be at around 1Ghz i hope, and also it should move into the imac. keeping the G4 in their product line at that point means it still has room to grow (to around 1.4 Ghz i believe)
And even if the G5 starts at 800Mhz it would kick ass with OSX.


[Edited by spikey on 08-26-2001 at 05:31 PM]

JoyBoy
Aug 26, 2001, 05:18 PM
I'm sure the G4 will be put to the same fate as the G3. It shall become the lesser and cheaper chip, but still a good one in it's age. It will be moved to the consumer machines and the G5 will become the pro model.
I do think early next year for the G5 is a bit optimistic, but I hope you're right spikey. I was thinking more of a MWNY in July release though. We'll see I suppose.

WindexMonkey
Aug 26, 2001, 07:22 PM
This is just an Opinion!!

spikey putting PCI or AGP in an iMac would defeat it's purpose..Simplicity. And that is all regular people need.
And what would be so hard to save up an extra $500 dollars for a G4? unless u have a LOW end iMac. And what I am saving up to do... Get a mac clonce (s900) it had space for 2 processors get dual g3 500's running and it has 8 ram slots 6 pci that is EXPANDABILITY :) and they go for $200 dollars on eBay.


Not singling any one but its healthy arguement on this thread

WindexMonkey
Aug 26, 2001, 07:29 PM
i just remembered something my dad purchased a IIci and some extras for $2500 about 15 years ago and that is damned near a rip off consiering on eBay they can ce picked up for $25-50 now that makes $1700 for a 733MHz G4 seem not too bad huh?

menoinjun
Aug 26, 2001, 08:42 PM
You have to realize...when the g5 comes out...Apple HAS to make it at least 300,hz faster than the G4 that is out at the time. Otherwise most people wont understand how much faster it is. If the G4 is at 1 ghz, then the G5 should be arount 1.2-1.5ghz. If they are at 800 right now...then in a year they should be close to that mark.

There has to be a large difference in mhz to make dumb people realize how much faster it is. I;m suprised at how similar the clock speeds are in the G3's and G4's, but I guess Apple has things figured out.

-Pete

spikey
Aug 27, 2001, 10:00 AM
well, from what i know of the G5, it should scale the Mhz quite quickly. So if they did enter it at the same Mhz as the G4 it should quickly overtake it in Mhz.
another thing is that, if they are going to keep the G4 in an imac then they would still want to be able to improve its Mhz, im not sure but i think the G4 is meant to max out at around 1.4ghz. If they moved the G4 to the imac and left it room to grow it would make alot of sense.

opuscroakus
Aug 27, 2001, 02:30 PM
Does anyone know the power consumption and temperature specs of the G5? Are they more or less than the G4.

As far as the iMac is concerned, I don't see Apple putting a G4 in the iMac that has a slower clock speed than the G3's they have been using, and I don't think Apple would be wise to wait until they can put out an LCD iMac to put a G4 in it. If the current top G3 iMac is at 700Mhz, and the G4 (at 867Mhz) is coming close to hitting it's supposed ceiling of 1~Ghz, how is Apple going to transition the iMac from G3-G4-G5? Are they going to start a G4 iMac at 733/800/867 (no duals) and have a couple speed bumps before they are have to go G5 in the iMac? How are they going to convection cool a new G4 without the bigass HS they are using now?

mnkeybsness
Aug 27, 2001, 10:56 PM
you gotta realize no one actually knows any REAL information about a G5, it's all just speculation, so you aren't gonna get any hard facts.

Kela
Aug 28, 2001, 04:16 AM
Knowing apple and their laziness, well probably see the G5 come out same time next year. WHICH IS TOO LATE! (for me atleast)

- Kela

spikey
Aug 28, 2001, 10:46 AM
Well i think if IBM or apple are making the G5 then it will come out alot sooner than if Motorola made it.
Motorola has pretty much ****ed up Macs in recent times. Especially that "stuck at 500Mhz" bollocks.

mnkeybsness
Aug 28, 2001, 10:50 AM
yah, motorola likes guys......but they still have done a nice job with the processors.

john123
Aug 28, 2001, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Kela
Knowing apple and their laziness, well probably see the G5 come out same time next year. WHICH IS TOO LATE! (for me atleast)

- Kela

This statement is really absurd. Do you think new processors fall out of the sky, or grow on trees? Newer, faster processors require some pretty impressive feats of engineering. Lemme guess -- in college, you were an accounting major or something, yes?

evildead
Aug 28, 2001, 06:12 PM
They take their time in devloping Chips because they have a certain level of quality control. PC users/retailers dont seem to mind the heat, proformance, and reliability of proformance and overall stability of their CPU's Apple/Morotola had a Dual 966Mhz prototype in the works like 6 months ago. It was a power hog and it had heet problems. It was not a reliable 966Mhz ether. So it was not released. Remeber when the 1Ghz PIII was first shipped. Production was stopped for a while so they could fix it before releasing it again. I have heard of PIII melting from normal use!

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 28, 2001, 06:20 PM
I agree with evildead. Note the speed at which Intel churns out faster and faster chips. Note also how Motorolla/IBM/Apple and AMD are slower moving. Note once more how Intel makes the crappiest chips of all, and has often had problems that needed fixing after releasing a chip. The PPC makers (and AMD) definitely have quality in mind.

Kela
Aug 29, 2001, 02:37 AM
JOhn123, why do you keep talking about education? I am still in university and am studying economics. And not accounting...LOL!! Idiot. Secondly, I assume you are out of university and are in your 30s which makes it even worse since you act so damn childish in these posts. I can understand that you are undergoing some serious financial stress but just chill.

Megaquad
Aug 29, 2001, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Kela
JOhn123, why do you keep talking about education? I am still in university and am studying economics. And not accounting...LOL!! Idiot. Secondly, I assume you are out of university and are in your 30s which makes it even worse since you act so damn childish in these posts. I can understand that you are undergoing some serious financial stress but just chill.
i cant beauleave this... HE,HE is childish?
you look like 14-15 yrs old!

Kela
Aug 29, 2001, 06:34 AM
and what was childish about my previous post?

...if i may ask that is.

spikey
Aug 29, 2001, 08:23 AM
i think acting pre-pubescent is just an excuse to masturbate.

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 29, 2001, 12:59 PM
Spikey, that is the most sensless thing you've ever posted.

spikey
Aug 29, 2001, 03:05 PM
i take that as a compliment