PDA

View Full Version : 1.2GHz G4s


arn
May 28, 2002, 04:02 PM
Spymac reports (http://www.spymac.com) that the 1.5GHz claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020524080730.shtml) may be unrealistic:

"[At this point] don't expect anything much higher than 1.2GHz."

It should be noted that over the past few updates, G4 Mhz has only increased by 133mhz in each 6 month time-frame. To expect 50% pure-MHz jumps would be very optimisitic.

Rower_CPU
May 28, 2002, 04:06 PM
This has been commented on in other threads as well...

I would be pleasantly surprised to see a 1.5 GHz CPU from Moto. DDR may be the main push right now, so clock speed will probably take a back seat.

However, it's worthwhile to note that Apple and Moto are falling further and further behind AMD and Intel in terms of pure clock speed, which is unfortunately still a marketable feature of computers today. Feeling this pressure, they may stun us all...

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 04:11 PM
I personally think the 1.5 is too high. I am more inclined to say that the 1.4 is very accurate. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. One thing is certain. and that is DDR.

esome
May 28, 2002, 04:13 PM
the rumors sites just get us all drooling only for us to be let down when the real apple product updates appear. all the people who whine "where's my quad processor 1.5gHz G5?" are the products of the rumor mill.

1.2gHz will be fine with me since the faster bus and RAM are also coming.

arn
May 28, 2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by esome
the rumors sites just get us all drooling only for us to be let down when the real apple product updates appear. all the people who whine "where's my quad processor 1.5gHz G5?" are the products of the rumor mill.

Actually, I don't think that's true... in some ways those people are part of the rumor mill.

I can't tell you how many times i've seen this situation happen:

MacWorld happens, PowerMacs are updated... then in 4-6 weeks, there might be another event... such as Seybold, or something... and people are talking like Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again... and the last speed bumps aren't even shipping. These people aren't the product of any rumor-site reports... but simply their own misguided optimism.

We've always tried to temper the hype (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/01/20020106151501.shtml) - but people only hear what they want to hear.

arn

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 04:26 PM
Judging by what Apple tends to do for speed bumps in the towers I would guestimate that we will see single processor systems in 1GHz and 1.13GHz and a dual 1.2GHz system. Typically, they take the top end speed system, move it to the bottom speed, and do two bumps above it (as mentioned above ~133MHz between them).

If they also include DDR memory (PC2100) and an ATA133 controller on the motherboard (supporting 160GB+ drives) then it will all be good. The current 120GB cap from the motherboard is a bit of a hamstringing affair for Apple. Especially since most other non-Mac's can use the 160GB drives (with the right updates, and current systems, not legacy systems).

Something that would really surprise us, would be if Apple included another ATA bus on the motherboard. That would allow you to put four drives inside without having to go out and get an ATA controller card.

firewire2001
May 28, 2002, 04:45 PM
moores law anyone?

i know with motorola and ibm that speed jumps are different... but realistically, it doesnt cost apple too much more to make a processor that is a lot more expensive than a slower one.. remember way back when when apple used to make speed increases of only like 10 mhz?...

also.. apple has really gotten into the idea of market share.. there are many factors in deciding this based on peoples opinions.. there are many pc users that just wont buy a mac cause there isnt enough software, since everyone else has em, or because of their speed.. or because of a combo of reasons, which are legitimate to some point... but not really.. someone can legitimately say that the macs clock speed is slower than a pc's, while a macs clock speed is only a small factor in the data it processes (like the tunnel length, bus speed, cache, etc.)

i think that speed is one thing that a lot of professionals (like ps professionals) dont realize is evened out with a mac with a slower bus speed. i think that if apple made processors as fast as pentium or amd did, many people would buy them because of just the bus speed, while people that already know macs were good, but didnt want to buy one, may be convinced further because of the fact that macs are waaaaay faster than pcs, rather than about equal...

i meant well in this post.. so dont get me the wrong way... :(

new2macs
May 28, 2002, 04:58 PM
I have periodically been reading this website and i am glad to see macusers becoming united. I am writing in hope of some honest advice from tha mac community.

I am planning on purchasing a new computer in the following months and seriously considering a mac. Microsoft's coorporate practices have turned me off and i do not wish to support them by buying another windows computer. I do not have a preference in which model to buy, as long as it is faster than my current system.

My current machine is a 700MHZ toshiba notebook that has served me well for the past year, but now want something faster. I am a med student and use programs like MS Office, Medical Programs, Internet, Photoshop, MP3, DVD Playback.

On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.
thanks and hope for some responces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dephex Twin
May 28, 2002, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by arn

I can... tell you... i've seen this... :

...Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again...


Alright! Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again!

Thanks for the info. I'll spread the word.

:D

mark

TyleRomeo
May 28, 2002, 05:24 PM
On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.

new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.

but im not sure if what kind of mac youre looking for, i'm guessing a labtop since you only mentioned them so far. try giving the iBook another chance. My friend has a 1GHZ AMD Athon and he wishes he went with an iBook instead.

I'm can relate your journey to become a mac user instead of a PC one. That where I am, still stuck with my P1 200MHZ and can't wait to upgrade to a dual G4 PM. Don't think of MHZs and GHZ as speed markings but rather as power ratings.

You can easily compare a computer to a car.

GHZ=horsepower

horsepower doesnt always equal speed
there are other factors involved such as the weight of the car, it's transmition, clutch, intake system ect....

with macs you have to look at pipeline stages, L2 and L3 caches, Antivec and so on.

feel free to respond, there boards are here to educate and inform while having fun at the same time

barkmonster
May 28, 2002, 05:30 PM
First we had the 733Mhz G4

Within a month someone had taken it to 867Mhz with overclocking.

Next macworld, it's 867Mhz!

Then the same guy takes his new 867Mhz G4 to 1Ghz

wow, another macworld another predictable clockspeed, 1Ghz

Within weeks of the Ghz G4s being out the same guy took it upto 1.2Ghz

so we know for a fact that MWNY will have several things to definately look forward to:

1. 1.2Ghz G4s (I'd say that's at the very least)

2. DDR Ram

3. laughing at steve doing a photoshop bake off against a 2.5Ghz Pentium 4 and then inviting Paul Daniels* to come on stage to say "Every Second Counts" and then do a few lame magic tricks to distract everyone from the fact the speed difference would be insignificant.

At this point apple would get some developers to come on stage and demostrate their new OS X native software, at least one of them will pronounce it "OS X" not "OS 10".

Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic/realistic here but we're only getting 1 measly multiplier every 6 months off the 7450 and 7455 G4s, If these 7470 CPUs are in the new macs, maybe we'll see a 2 multiplier increase this time.

I'd still be satisfied if apple only managed to get enough chips over 1.2Ghz to put on the mid range, at least then we'd definately be able to bank on the low end model being the same as the current high end one, minus L3 cache and the second CPU.

If we get this:

fast : 1Ghz with L3
faster: 1.3 or 1.4Ghz
fastest : 1.2Ghz (dual)

or this:

fast : 1Ghz with L3
faster : 1.2Ghz
fastest : 1.4Ghz (dual)

I'll be pretty happy personally.

* host of an old Quiz show in the UK who also happened to be a magician.

TyleRomeo
May 28, 2002, 05:37 PM
don't listen to what spymac says anyway.

dual 1.4s G4s make sense

dual 1.2s G4s would be a disapointment.

last july steve wasn't happy about the reaction his dual 800s and 867 G4 got.

only upgrading 200MHZ on the top of the line machine seems silly after clearancing the dual 1GHZ g4s to $2700.

steve knows that we know that DDR will be included, the Xserve gave that away.

we are getting at least ATA 100 drives since ATA 66 has been included for far too long

if he throws in the Ti Nvidia card for the top machine, then that still wont turn heads sinse Geforce 5s are rumored for the fall and the Ti Nvidia cards were held back for so long

so whats left? a faster superdrive?

that would be a pleasant surprise, sinse the $1800 iMac has the same one thats found in flagship dual G4 PM. but i haven't heard any rumors about this besides a small blurb from macosrumors.com

so if everything that i said is included and steve want to raise the price of the top of line dual G4 back to $3500 then he would be crazy, the only thing thats going to allow that to happen is dual 1.4 G4s.

Dr. Distortion
May 28, 2002, 05:37 PM
Well, I'm quite sure that any iBook apple sells right now will be faster than a Celeron equipped pc laptop. Also, the Apple portables are generally far more rigid and components won't fail as easily as in pc laptops. I speak out of my own experience, since I unfortunately had to buy a Toshiba Satellite pro 4600 for my study (haven't seen a mac running Solid Works yet...).

The biggest problem with laptops nowadays isn't processor speed. It's also not the video speed. What really counts is your harddisk speed. Since osX does multitasking, it can be quite demanding on your harddisk from time to time. At such moments you want to have a fast disk, or the entire computer will slow down.

arn
May 28, 2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
don't listen to what spymac says anyway.

dual 1.4s G4s make sense

dual 1.2s G4s would be a disapointment.


How does 1.4 make more sense than 1.2?

If anything, 1.2 (or 1.13) makes more sense than 1.4...

Jan, 2001. 733mhz G4
July, 2001. 867mhz G4 (733->867 134mhz jump)
Jan, 2002. 1GHz G4 (867->1Ghz 133mhz jump)

July 2002...??? So, you're saying 400mhz jump is more likely?

arn

me hate windows
May 28, 2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by esome


since the faster bus and RAM are also coming.
And how do you know that? Saying that there will be a faster bus and faster ram is just like saying that there will be 1.5Ghz G4's.

eyelikeart
May 28, 2002, 06:01 PM
I think 1.2 is reasonable to wish for...

it would make sense...I don't think we'll see a 1.13 Ghz..according to the 133 Mhz increases that Alpha pointed out...Apple may do some strange things...but I do not think that will be one...

I'm banking on 1.2 at least...maybe a 1.4 down the line...

TyleRomeo
May 28, 2002, 06:02 PM
How does 1.4 make more sense than 1.2?

If anything, 1.2 (or 1.13) makes more sense than 1.4...

Jan, 2001. 733mhz G4
July, 2001. 867mhz G4 (733->867 134mhz jump)
Jan, 2002. 1GHz G4 (867->1Ghz 133mhz jump)

July 2002...??? So, you're saying 400mhz jump is more likely?


yes yes i am Arn

Macs can't keep going up by 133MHZ or 200MHZ on each upgrade or they will get killed. eventually they have to make a leap.

the dual 800s sold for $3500
when the dual 1000s came out apple dropped the price $500
hmmm why would apple do that?

ohh i know becuase the machines were not up to par, so they went down to $3000 and now $2700.

this alone is evidence that a major speed increase is in order. the dual 1000s will be down to $2500 or less this summer and please dont tell me that 100GB or 120 GB HD and 512 DDR ram packed with a dual 1.2 is going to drive the price back up to $3500

actually if apple were to release this then id be surprized if it went above 3 grand.

now add 1.4s instead of 1.2s and a price of $3300 or even $3500 look a lot clearer.

me hate windows
May 28, 2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.


Don't forget the battery life and heat on a P4 laptop. The battery is horrible, somewhere around 3 hours. And with the heat, you could almost cook something on it.

arn
May 28, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo

this alone is evidence that a major speed increase is in order. the dual 1000s will be down to $2500 or less this summer and please dont tell me that 100GB or 120 GB HD and 512 DDR ram packed with a dual 1.2 is going to drive the price back up to $3500


But, you're assuming Apple will raise the price back to $3500... why won't it just keep it at $3000 with 1.2GHz G4's?

arn

new2macs
May 28, 2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.

but im not sure if what kind of mac youre looking for, i'm guessing a labtop since you only mentioned them so far. try giving the iBook another chance. My friend has a 1GHZ AMD Athon and he wishes he went with an iBook instead.

I'm can relate your journey to become a mac user instead of a PC one. That where I am, still stuck with my P1 200MHZ and can't wait to upgrade to a dual G4 PM. Don't think of MHZs and GHZ as speed markings but rather as power ratings.

You can easily compare a computer to a car.

GHZ=horsepower

horsepower doesnt always equal speed
there are other factors involved such as the weight of the car, it's transmition, clutch, intake system ect....

with macs you have to look at pipeline stages, L2 and L3 caches, Antivec and so on.

feel free to respond, there boards are here to educate and inform while having fun at the same time


Thanks for the responce,
I will probably be making my purchase in aug-sept and will probably go with one of apples desktops, because i think i can get more machine for my money. I am trying to my my homework before purchasing.
I have had mac users tell me i will never need the power of a 1Ghz Powermac but i always thought faster was better ;) . Or would an G4 imac serve me well?
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.
I guess i am just a little nervous about laying out a few Grand on a computer i am unfamiliar with.
thanks

Falleron
May 28, 2002, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by new2macs
On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.
thanks and hope for some responces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are wrong by saying this! The ibook 700Mhz is easily equivalent in speed with the fastest mobile P3 chips (1.2Ghz I think). The G4 (Tibook) is the equivalent to the P4 chips.

new2macs
May 28, 2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Falleron


I think you are wrong by saying this! The ibook 700Mhz is easily equivalent in speed with the fastest mobile P3 chips (1.2Ghz I think). The G4 (Tibook) is the equivalent to the P4 chips.

My mistake, apple did release an 700Mhz ibook. Anyone got one out there, i would like to hear from you. Or does someone have a link where these new ibooks were reviewed?

TyleRomeo
May 28, 2002, 06:46 PM
My mistake, apple did release an 700Mhz ibook.

yes they have, check out apple.com for more details and im sure real world speed results will be posted shortly at barefeats.com

i suggest you add them to your hotlist and check up on their mac performance results.

if youre doing very simple apps and aren't doing any profesional editing with video, audio, or images then i think an iMac would suit you well. with the 3 choices with the iMac for you to make, i'd go with the 800MHZ 60GB with superdrive, you will get more life out of this computer then the other two iMacs.

and also if you can wait until late august or even september then look forward to a slight iMac upgrade.

my 2 cents

TyleRomeo
May 28, 2002, 06:50 PM
ok arn i know you want the dual 1.4s and are saying 1.2s becuase its the safe bet.

everyone who follows apple knows that 1.2s will be out.

most of us here see apples drastic discounts as a sign of something big coming this July (ex. 1.4s) so lets be optimistic and not so damn practical here.

Curiousstrngmint
May 28, 2002, 07:21 PM
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."

billiam0878
May 28, 2002, 07:41 PM
I haven't really noticed, but does Apple typically discount the prices of their desktops before a routine update (133-200MHz) or are the current rebates unique? Thanks


Bill

arn
May 28, 2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
ok arn i know you want the dual 1.4s and are saying 1.2s becuase its the safe bet.

I'm not saying anything.... :) I'm not saying 1.2 or 1.4 or 2.0...

I have nothing riding on anything.... the "rumors" that link from the main site are generally from third parties... I don't pass my own predictions off as rumors on the main page.

But yes, I think 1.2ghz is more _realistic_ than 1.4 based on past advancements by Motorola.

arn

King Cobra
May 28, 2002, 08:11 PM
Personally, here is how I feel about the current options for top of the line PowerMac updates:
1.2GHz: Reasonable, but not impressive.
1.4GHz: Arguable, but rather impressive.
1.5GHz: Not likely, so no need for an impressive comment.

So I am stuck between there being a 1.2GHz and 1.4GHz PowerMac. If I had to guess which one would be the new top of the line, just like in a 50:50 deal, I am usually wrong. So I am going to guess 1.2GHz. :)
__________________

Fear the King.

britboy
May 28, 2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by billiam0878
I haven't really noticed, but does Apple typically discount the prices of their desktops before a routine update (133-200MHz) or are the current rebates unique? Thanks


Bill


It's pretty standard practice for apple to offer incentives. That way they can clear the lines for an updated product.

I'm not expecting anything above a 1.2GHz update. Even 200MHz is slightly above the normal increase apple introduces every 6 months.

matznentosh
May 28, 2002, 08:47 PM
I don't get it. Why is 1.5 great, and 1.4 terrible? We're talking a 6 or 7% difference here. I think 1.4 is significantly faster than 1.0 and would be great - IF it used a chip equivalent to current models. Every time Moto increases the speed, it does it in part by increasing the pipeline, with corresponding drop in processing power. The 667 Tibooks weren't really faster than the 500 models, for example.

As for how big a jump, everyone is extrapolating from past experience that Apple only increases speed by 100-200 mhz. But really, that has been because of Motorola's poor production. I can't imagine Steve Jobs hiding a fast chip if it can be delivered in high quantities. Always, in fact, he has announced a faster chip and then had to wait for it to be delivered (new tibooks excepted) - and once had to actually roll back the chip speeds because the faster ones were not going to be available.

So I think Apple will roll out whatever speed computer it can reliably deliver, not keep to some arbitrary incremental increase for the sake of consistency.

jelloshotsrule
May 28, 2002, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by new2macs
Thanks for the responce,
I will probably be making my purchase in aug-sept and will probably go with one of apples desktops, because i think i can get more machine for my money. I am trying to my my homework before purchasing.
I have had mac users tell me i will never need the power of a 1Ghz Powermac but i always thought faster was better ;) . Or would an G4 imac serve me well?
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.
I guess i am just a little nervous about laying out a few Grand on a computer i am unfamiliar with.
thanks

here's where i'm coming from so you can decide how to take my comments...

i have a dual 800 with 1.1 gig of ram and my parents have an imac 700 with about 384 of ram.

with photoshop as your most intense app (the med ones might be more, i'm not familiar with such apps).... i think the imac will be fine/perfect. the speed difference won't be vital in those apps especially if you want to save some money... the only thing i'd recommend is to get a lot of ram. 512+ for sure...

as for them being competitive with windows... yes. very much so. the OS is where you'll see the best difference (ie, os x is much better than windows). it's more stable and with the coming of 10.2, will be quite powerful (it is already, but will be moreso).

photoshop should run better on the mac. and probably most other things will run specifically better. but not all. it depends a lot on the apps themselves (like the medicine ones). i know apple had been pushing their bio related stuff lately so i'd guess the med side would also be quite good on mac...

so in closing. most folks here will say that macs are better. of course. so i'm just thinking that an imac should be adequate for you...

if you have lots of money though, buy the dual gig!

jelloshotsrule
May 28, 2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by matznentosh
I don't get it. Why is 1.5 great, and 1.4 terrible? We're talking a 6 or 7% difference here. I think 1.4 is significantly faster than 1.0 and would be great - IF it used a chip equivalent to current models.

if i'm not mistaken, most folks are more concerned over the 1.2/1.4 question than the 1.4/1.5 question.... so it's a bit more of an issue.

though mostly it'll be ddr and what graphics card and any other redesigns to the case or motherboard.....

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 09:20 PM
Arn,
Do you remember like three months ago, I e-mailed you specs on the MWNY macs. Look for the following.

1.0, 1.2, and Dual 1.4

That is what I have said since February. They will be DDR, and have either a 133 or 266 Bus.

gbojim
May 28, 2002, 09:20 PM
...Every time Moto increases the speed, it does it in part by increasing the pipeline, with corresponding drop in processing power. The 667 Tibooks weren't really faster than the 500 models, for example.


Just a note that within the G4 family, all processors released to date have a 7 stage pipeline.

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Arn,
Do you remember like three months ago, I e-mailed you specs on the MWNY macs. Look for the following.

1.0, 1.2, and Dual 1.4

That is what I have said since February. They will be DDR, and have either a 133 or 266 Bus.

What do you have to back that statement up with???

Catfish_Man
May 28, 2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Curiousstrngmint
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."

Figure on G3s equaling a P3 of 1.25-1.5x the clockspeed (this is a very rough guess), so the 700 ibooks are in the 750-1000 MHz P3 range (that's the mobile P3s), faster on a few tasks (floating point heavy ones). G4s are moderately better than G3s, except that on certain very specific tasks they can be anywhere from 2 to 10 times as fast. Figure a dual GHz is about equal to a P4A 1.6-1.8GHz when it isn't using Altivec much, and maybe a P4A 2-2.2GHz when it is (this assumes a well threaded program, and is a very rough guess). It's mainly memory limited, so DDR should help a LOT. Currently, for most tasks, the P4B 2.53GHz is the fastest desktop chip (fast ram, high clockspeed, crappy design), and the AthlonXP 2200+ is the second (good design, moderate clockspeed and ram). G4s and G3s are slower (low clockspeed, slow ram, but awesome design [Altivec specifically]), just not by nearly as much as it seems (they're low clockspeed and have slow ram, so it's amazing they do as well as they do).

OS wise, the Mac wins hands down. XP is a joke. It's ugly, clunky, insecure, included programs are much worse, doesn't support Java without a patch, and misuses eye candy even more than aqua (in OSX menus fade out, in XP they fade in, see the problem?). OSX is awesome, it just needs the hardware to back it up.

Basically here's how it matches up:
Speed: PC
Hard Drive: PC
Optical Drive: Mac
Networking: Mac
Ports: mixed
Stability: Mac
Appearance: Mac
Usability: Mac
Programs: PC (although their are a few great mac only programs)
Lifespan: Mac
Price: PC
Peripherals: PC
Customizability: PC (it's easier on a mac, but there's less you can do)


My recommendation would be to wait and see if Apple gets it's hardware back up to date. If they don't go build yourself a Hammer system, if they do, get a PowerMac.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech


What do you have to back that statement up with???

Well, I could tell you, but.. yea you know the rest :D

Personal insight into the reality destortion field. A contact. We have had this conversation before remember. Just trust me. You will not be disappointed.

Catfish_Man
May 28, 2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by gbojim


Just a note that within the G4 family, all processors released to date have a 7 stage pipeline.

All processors in the G4+ family have 7 stage pipelines. The original 7400/7410 (G4) had 4 stage pipelines. However they also had two less pipelines, slower buses, and didn't support L3 cache. TiBook 667s will be faster at almost everything, the 7450/7451/7455 is just a better chip.

alex_ant
May 28, 2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by new2macs
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.
Keep in mind you are asking this question to members of a strongly pro-Mac forum. A few people here, I kid you not, will in all seriousness pit their 300MHz iMac against a 1GHz PIII and say that their iMac wins hands down, even running OS X. If you thought the 700MHz iBook was a bit of a dog, your eyes were probably not deceiving you. My recommendation would be to try out the computers you are considering before you buy them. Personally, I like the iBook a lot, but if the price/performance ratio is all you're looking at, I think a PC laptop will win hands down. (As an aside, I do not believe price/performance should be the sole purchasing criteria, but perhaps you do.)

Alex

alex_ant
May 28, 2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Curiousstrngmint
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."
I agree completely. I don't think it's possible to equate, for example, the 700MHz iBook with an equivalently-priced 1.5GHz P4 laptop in terms of speed without making a fool of one's self. I would recommend emphasizing those characteristics of the Macs that don't show up so well on spec sheets: The way all their parts work seamlessly. The way it's virtually guaranteed that software intended to run on them will. The way they are less problematic. The way they are worth more and have a higher resale value. The way they have better battery life, a better OS, better design, etc.

Alex

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Basically here's how it matches up:
Speed: PC
Hard Drive: PC
Optical Drive: Mac
Networking: Mac
Ports: mixed
Stability: Mac
Appearance: Mac
Usability: Mac
Programs: PC (although their are a few great mac only programs)
Lifespan: Mac
Price: PC
Peripherals: PC
Customizability: PC (it's easier on a mac, but there's less you can do)


I have a few points to contest with you on the above list... One, for hard drives... are you going by size alone??? IF that is the case, then that only applies with the system being able to access the 160GB drives. Otherwise they are a dead match. Even then, you add an ATA card (to either) and they are 100% even.

Ports... peecee's have legacy ports on them. If you go with Modern/current tech ports, then I say the Mac wins, since ALL Mac's have USB and Firewire in them. Most peecee's do NOT have firewire, but some offer USB 2 (I'd still rather use Firewire any day over usb2).

For programs, just about all programs, for business/corporate use are available on both platforms, with only a few finance/buisiness office only applications being only on the peecee. Peecee's really only outshine the Mac in games. Even there, the gap is closing as more games come out for both platforms, or get ported over to the Mac shortly after being released for the peecee. Take Deus Ex for one... with more current cutting edge games being on both.

For preipherals, just about all periferals being offered today work on BOTH platforms. Only a few stubborn items/companies are only on the peecee.

As for customizability, have you ever looked at a peecee from hp or compaq??? They are not any more customizable then a Mac. If you mean the raw number of items that you can toss into the computer, then it could be the peecee. In general, you don't need a ton of customization inside a Mac. I can see people wanting better audio cards, but just about everything else you could care about is available for the Mac. You can get ATA133 cards, RAID cards (ATA, and I believe even some SCSI ones), USB (1.1 and 2.0) cards too.

I think it is even closer then you implied with your list. In the area's that most Mac users care about, the Mac beats the peecee into a pulp.

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well, I could tell you, but.. yea you know the rest :D

Personal insight into the reality destortion field. A contact. We have had this conversation before remember. Just trust me. You will not be disappointed.

Better men (and women) then you have tried and failed. :D

I put about as much weight behind the 'A contact' for sources as the person would have in zero G.

The point is moot until MWNY anyway.

iapple
May 28, 2002, 10:29 PM
Coming BACK to the 1.2/1.4 GHz G4 deal at MWNY, let me show you how see the increase in MHz...

733-867 is a 134MHz increase, 134/733 is a 18 per cent increase in MHz.

a DUAL 800--a DUAL 1000 is a 200MHz increase, 200/800 is a 25 per cent increase...

the 867--1000 is 133MHz increase, 133/867 is a 15 per cent increase...


As far as I see it, they will probably increase the mhz, somewhere around 15 to 25 per cent, therefore, my prediction would be 1.15MHz to 1.25 mhz.

If I see where that fits in with the rumors flying around, I'm afraid 1.2GHz G4s at MWNY seem like what's going to happen. But with the latest SJ's "we are going to double our market share" speech at the design award, maybe... just maybe...

AlphaTech
May 28, 2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I agree completely. I don't think it's possible to equate, for example, the 700MHz iBook with an equivalently-priced 1.5GHz P4 laptop in terms of speed without making a fool of one's self. I would recommend emphasizing those characteristics of the Macs that don't show up so well on spec sheets: The way all their parts work seamlessly. The way it's virtually guaranteed that software intended to run on them will. The way they are less problematic. The way they are worth more and have a higher resale value. The way they have better battery life, a better OS, better design, etc.

Alex

Don't forget to include how infrequently the Mac will crash and burn on you. If you delete one dll file from the windows directory/folder on your peecee you basically have a nice door stop until you wipe it and reinstall the OS. Get a BSOD (blue screen of death) and you can forget about running the 'repair' feature form a windblows cd. Get winxp home edition and decide to keep your information private from m$ and you can forget about having a computer 31 days later (it will stop working after 30 days).

Just a couple of 'minor' points *cough***********cough*. :D

Choppaface
May 29, 2002, 01:06 AM
well i have a PC and all i can say is that it does not crash more frequently than my mac..and i do indeed treat them the same. I don't see why some people have to have the prejudice that if a non-mac is presented to them that it will crash the second they lay their eyes on it. I've certainy had problems with my XP box, but I've also had problems with my OS X box. I think it's a tad foolish that people often overemphasize what is, at least in my experience, a minor, if even apparent, difference. take that competative energy and do something creative with it :D :D

Matt_d
May 29, 2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by firewire2001
moores law anyone?


also.. apple has really gotten into the idea of market share.. there are many factors in deciding this based on peoples opinions..
(

Not to mention PRICE. That made me thing twice.:(

Marianco
May 29, 2002, 01:24 AM
I would be very bitterly disappointed if Apple came out with 1.2 GHz Dual PowerPC Macs as their top end in MWNY. When the Pentium 2.5 GHz is outrunning the Athlon, and the Athlon far-and-away blows away the current Macs at Photoshop at 1.7 GHz, the Mac has to catch up.

If you look at Apple's own stats, the 1 GHz Dual G4 PowerMac, despite its 2 MB L3 Cache with DDR memory, only renders Final Cut Pro movies twice as fast as the original 500 MHz G4 PowerMac, which was introduced in 1999.

Doubling the speed took Apple 3 years to accomplish. Much of the fault lies with Motorola's ability to develop faster chips. But Apple also has a hand in helping Motorola design the G4 and G5.

A true next generation Powermac is about 4 times faster than the original generation. Then the speed difference is noticeable in everyday use. It lends a feeling of exhiliration.

Since the latest 1 GHz Dual G4s are only twice as fast, the difference in speed is not as noticeable enough to upgrade. Just look at Barefeats.com and their comparison of the 1 GHz Dual G4s to the 533 MHz Dual G4s. The increase in speed is not that great.

If the next model is a 1.2 GHz Dual G4, then I'm not upgrading. It will be so disappointing. I'll have to wait until 2003. Another year to wait. Hopefully the G5 is out by then.

Hopefully Apple/Steve Jobs has listened to the Movie Mogul bigwigs who want only Dual and Quad processor Macs, who want power that the current 1 GHz G4 does not offer.

A 1.5 GHz Dual G4 is still only three times faster than the original 533 MHz G4 1999 Powermac. But with DDR RAM, hopefully the speed will be closer to 4 Times faster.

The only way I'm going to buy a 1.2 GHz G4 is if it was a Quad Processor Mac.

Apple, are you listening? You may lose a lot of sales this year if you disappoint.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Choppaface
well i have a PC and all i can say is that it does not crash more frequently than my mac..and i do indeed treat them the same. I don't see why some people have to have the prejudice that if a non-mac is presented to them that it will crash the second they lay their eyes on it. I've certainy had problems with my XP box, but I've also had problems with my OS X box. I think it's a tad foolish that people often overemphasize what is, at least in my experience, a minor, if even apparent, difference. take that competative energy and do something creative with it :D :D

Have you ever attempted to repair an installation of windblows that has gone bad? Compare that to if you get a system file that has gone bad under the Mac OS. Under OS 9.x it takes under 15 minutes to fix it completely and be back up and running. With windblows, there is no way to know how long it will take to fix it. Chances are, you will have to completely reinstall the OS, which has the potential to cause even more issues.

Before you go off halfcocked, I have encountered BOTH issues. It took the better part of the day to get the peecee back up and running. In the end, I had to get rid of the old OS and install a brand new one. Talk about MAJOR pain in the a$$. I was lucky that I had a spare ATA hard drive that I was able to move the user's files to. That way, I didn't loose too much. As it happens, they had stored files in places that were not there after the reinstall. That is something else where the peecee sucks... Put files onto the desktop, have something go wrong, log in as a different user, and the chances of the files being there is virtually zero. When logged in as an admin, you won't know that the files are there unless you saw them earlier. Under the Mac OS, the files are easy to find (they show up no matter what under OS 9). Add to that the fact that you can connect to servers even when booting from a cd (unless the NIC part of the motherboard has gone bad). Try and do that when booting up a peecee (from either a cd or boot floppy) and it's no where near as easy (if possible at all).

From a tech standpoint, Mac's are many, many times easier to fix. Peecee's on the other hand can be complete pains in the a$$.

I have plenty of horror stories when it comes to the peecee's at work, but only a few about the Mac's. Considering the ratio of Mac to peecee (240-250 Mac's and about 40 peecee's) that shows how bad peecee's are, or can be.

Choppaface
May 29, 2002, 01:35 AM
thank you for attacking me for a comment made to the forum in general. i guess i should have stayed off the board the last time i decided to leave...... :|

Rower_CPU
May 29, 2002, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Choppaface
thank you for attacking me for a comment made to the forum in general. i guess i should have stayed off the board the last time i decided to leave...... :|

I would hardly call that an attack...especially considering the source. :p

If you can't take someone disagreeing with your post, then you have some serious issues you need to work on.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Marianco
I would be very bitterly disappointed if Apple came out with 1.2 GHz Dual PowerPC Macs as their top end in MWNY. When the Pentium 2.5 GHz is outrunning the Athlon, and the Athlon far-and-away blows away the current Macs at Photoshop at 1.7 GHz, the Mac has to catch up.

Doubling the speed took Apple 3 years to accomplish. Much of the fault lies with Motorola's ability to develop faster chips. But Apple also has a hand in helping Motorola design the G4 and G5.

If the next model is a 1.2 GHz Dual G4, then I'm not upgrading. It will be so disappointing. I'll have to wait until 2003. Another year to wait. Hopefully the G5 is out by then.

The only way I'm going to buy a 1.2 GHz G4 is if it was a Quad Processor Mac.


Go ahead, hold your breath for a quad processor Mac... :rolleyes:

Do you think we care what the pentiums are at for speeds??? Personally, intel could put out a 5GHz processor and I wouldn't care.

Motorola is the one holding up the advancements in the G4 and release of the G5 processors, Apple has very, very little to do with that. Apple helped with the design of the chips, but has too little control over what moto does when it comes to production of the chips.

I guess you haven't really thought about what the L3 cache does for the system. I went from the rev. a TiBook (500MHz no L3) to the 800MHz TiBook (rev. c) with 1MB L3 cache. That 1MB L3 makes a HUGE difference. I'd say the new TiBook is at LEAST twice as fast as the Rev. A. My rev. a had more memory (1GB) then my rev. c (768MB). I can only speculate how much faster it would be at 1GB of RAM. Also, the rev. a had a 5400 rpm drive, where the rev. c has a 4200 rpm drive (I will be getting a replacement 5400 rpm drive from IBM in the next few weeks).

Don't go by raw numbers alone, or you will never be happy. Also I would take any site that compares two models with at least a grain or six of salt. When it comes time for me to upgrade a Mac, I look at MORE then just what the processor speed is. Just as when I went for the new TiBook (the mobile radeon 7500 was the deciding factor for me).

I might be ready for a new Mac tower come MWNY, but suspect it will be more like MWSF before I can get one. With the TiBook I really don't need to, it's more of a want.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I would hardly call that an attack...especially considering the source. :p

If you can't take someone disagreeing with your post, then you have some serious issues you need to work on.

LMAO!!! You know me too well Rower :D

I guess the reality washing I gave was too much for him... :D Remember the old saying... if you can't take the heat... :D

reflex
May 29, 2002, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by AlphaTech


If you delete one dll file from the windows directory/folder on your peecee

Now why would you go and do that ?

gaomay
May 29, 2002, 03:10 AM
A jump from 1.0 to 1.5Ghz does not fit the established pattern. That is the only certain knowledge we have - anything else is speculation.

Also, if Motorola were able to release 1.5Ghz-rated G4s in July would that not suggest that they had say 1.2Ghz ready in, for example, April? If that were true then I am sure, given the concerns over the "Mhz gap", that Apple would release them as soon as such clock ratings were available.

Just a quick question for people - how many of you use even half of your processor's capability most of the time?

I think that the next "major" jump will happen when the G5 is released. Intel did a similiar thing when moving from the PIII (1Ghz) to the P4 (1.5Ghz) because the P4 was to a great extent engineered to enable much higher clock speeds, as is the G5 with its deeper pipeline.

These are great fora, keep up the good work people!

alex_ant
May 29, 2002, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by reflex


Now why would you go and do that ?
Normally I have AlphaTech on my ignore list, but when people quote him, several of his sometimes worthwhile but mostly relentlessly inane paragraphs manage to creep their way out from invisibility and onto my screen, forcing me to read them. So, don't mind him, as he is apparently only being himself. :)

alex_ant
May 29, 2002, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Figure on G3s equaling a P3 of 1.25-1.5x the clockspeed (this is a very rough guess), so the 700 ibooks are in the 750-1000 MHz P3 range (that's the mobile P3s), faster on a few tasks (floating point heavy ones).
I know I'm helping to perpetuate an off-topic sub-thread, but I'm curious as to where you're getting the figure of a G3 performing 1.25 to 1.5x as well as a PIII of equal clock speed. I remember back in the ~450MHz days (not that long ago for Apple :)), the G3 was almost exactly dead even with the PIII according to both SPECint and SPECfp95. Has the 700MHz G3 been improved that dramatically?

Aside from that, my impression is that OS X will make a G3 seem substantially slower than a PIII of equal clock speed running XP or especially Win2k, simply because OS X is so slow.

Alex

Dr. Distortion
May 29, 2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by reflex


Now why would you go and do that ?

Some windows uninstall programs remove shared dlls...

Gfour?
May 29, 2002, 05:37 AM
If apple Is comming with a 1.2Ghz max update.... Apple will loose more market share and they will see an decreasement of their share.

If apple want to increase their market share they need to come with a 1.5, 1.8 and 2 GHz computers.

The distance is getting to big.

Sun Baked
May 29, 2002, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Curiousstrngmint
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."

Don't make a mistake thinking that the over-hyped PC Front Side Bus is a major speed improvement over the XServe with DDR.

This is a short definition of FSB:

At present, the connection between the processor and chipset, called the front-side bus, operates at 400 MHz on Pentium 4s, although with the 845G Intel is starting the move to the higher speed of 533 MHz. The nearly one-third jump in speed is expected to deliver performance benefits to users when coupled with Pentium 4 processors that support the new speed, which are also expected to be unveiled next month.

But take note that while the Intel Chipset (the I/O Controllers) are connected at 400 and 533 MHz to the CPU, the most important part - the I/O to the rest of the computer - is quite similar to the XServe and just as limited in bandwidth.

Rember the FSB is not equal to Apple's definition of System Bus. Compare a DDR PC to the XServe and you'll find the I/O is quite similar and looks dreadfully like a 133 MHz System Bus machine wrapped up in Wintel marketing hype.

iapple
May 29, 2002, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Gfour?
If apple Is comming with a 1.2Ghz max update.... Apple will loose more market share and they will see an decreasement of their share.

If apple want to increase their market share they need to come with a 1.5, 1.8 and 2 GHz computers.

The distance is getting to big.

And it's people like you, that are blindly looking at MHz, and NOT looking at reality. If the label says 2 GHz, are you happy? I'm not. I care more about other things, like ease of use, stability, and the ACTUAL speed of the computer I am running.
I'm not trying to be picky, but we really need to look at computers without this narrow-minded view!

Lets all look at the big picture! If Apple comes out with 1.2 GHz G4's (which they might) they are NOT going to lose marketshare just because of that. A 1.2 GHz G4, with DDR ram, faster bus, new architecture, etc. a dual 1.2GHz G4 is NOT going to be a slow machine, and it can compete with P4s, and even beat them bigtime!

Gfour?
May 29, 2002, 06:42 AM
Personaly I work with the apple for 14 years now, So I know all about the Mhz myth.

The only thing that I want to say is: if apple want's a bigger market share they need to increase the Mhz, otherwise starting comp users will buy a PC, why? they don't know anything about Mhz.

Their thought is how faster the better (Mhz) I know that the apple is faster but they don't.

That's all I

gopher
May 29, 2002, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Distortion
Well, I'm quite sure that any iBook apple sells right now will be faster than a Celeron equipped pc laptop. Also, the Apple portables are generally far more rigid and components won't fail as easily as in pc laptops. I speak out of my own experience, since I unfortunately had to buy a Toshiba Satellite pro 4600 for my study (haven't seen a mac running Solid Works yet...).

The biggest problem with laptops nowadays isn't processor speed. It's also not the video speed. What really counts is your harddisk speed. Since osX does multitasking, it can be quite demanding on your harddisk from time to time. At such moments you want to have a fast disk, or the entire computer will slow down.

Apple is still using 4300 RPM hard disks for the most part. I upgraded my Wallstreet II (a.k.a. PDQ) 233 Mhz hard disk to a 5400 RPM drive, and don't see the usual slowdowns people experience with Mac OS X. Imagine if all the towers had 10000 RPM drives!

Backtothemac
May 29, 2002, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Distortion


Some windows uninstall programs remove shared dlls...

It is not a matter of why one would do this, but the fact that it can happen. Alpha may not be tactful in some of his statements, although in this thread he is more mellow than Jeff Spicolie. The problem with Windoze on a corporate network is that everyone using their systems are not the brightest people in the world. I cannot tell you how many times I have issued a virus alert to people on the network only for them to call the next day saying, "Remember that file you told me not to open, I opened it." Meanwhile BadTrans is running rampant through the system.

Look, the point that he was trying to make is that in IT costs, the Mac is far superior than a PC. They do crash more, they do have more problems. Macs outnumber PC's 2 to 1 on our network here, and yet the Macs account for only 5% of the problems, and know it is not 2 macs and 1 pc. More like 400 Macs over three different WAN's and 200 PC's over those same WAN's. The Apple file servers, install, and forget. The NT and 2000 servers, constant maintenance.

I equate the PC to a wire guided missle. You have to stay with it till it hits the target. The Mac is a FAF missle, or Fire and Forget.

OSeXy!
May 29, 2002, 09:27 AM
I guess a lot of those "G5" generic boxes which have been sighted over the months are actually test boxes for xServe and (hopefully) the "MWNY" G4 motherboards.

Since all the rumours say these secret units scream compared to current models, I'm hoping the 1.13/1.5 issue is not so important (in raw speed terms) -- especially as those boxes were probably using G4s at or slower than the current crop. I agree that PSYCOLOGICALLY it remains important for Apple to narrow the speed gap, but it is also important to get the real-world gains the faster mobo alone promises.

Another speculation: maybe Apple does have faster G4s (1.4 - 1.6 GHz?) but didn't want to 'waste' them on the old mobo, when they knew the benchmarks wouldn't live up to the anticipated speed increase due to bandwith strangulation? If so, then we will see a big MHz jump at MWNY...

Timothy
May 29, 2002, 09:28 AM
I've become convinced that there is a madness to Steve's method with regards to the Mhz advancements...

I think Steve has removed himself, somewhat, from the Mhz battle. He's decided to attempt to win new users through added features and benefits, a la digital devices and consumer apps.

In concert with this, I think he is following a strategy of incrementalism in hardware upgrades. With this line of thinking, why would one release a 1.4 ghz machine and get one sales bang, when you could instead get two sales bangs by releasing a 1.2 ghz update and then 6 months later release the 1.4 ghz machine. I think Steve has calculated that the majority of Apple customers are not counting Mhz in the way that we denizens of the rumor sites are, and that ANY increase in speed is just that, and worthy of an upgrade.

That being said...I think it's a partial mistake. I think the Mhz gap does need to be closed as quickly as possible. Mhz myth or not, even Apple still uses Mhz as the primary designator of their systems.

Finally...with the difficulty Apple has had securing faster chips from Motorola, I'm perplexed that Apple hasn't built in the fastest possible other components. Even if the fastest Mhz are not available to them, faster bus speeds, faster ram, and faster hard drives should have been standard 2 years ago.

Jookbox
May 29, 2002, 11:01 AM
doesn't anyone think that 1.2 ghz is pathetic?

that's the speed the tibooks should be, not apple's top of the line desktop.

Jookbox
May 29, 2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.


can you point me to the article that proves this? oh, you can't? well stop spewing crap.

Grokgod
May 29, 2002, 11:21 AM
I cant believe that there is still someone on this board that would post this type of statement!

Gaomay~
"Just a quick question for people - how many of you use even half of your processor's capability most of the time?"

Forgive my diatribe, BUT~

Is this supposed to be taken seriously or as a silly sarcastic joke or is it being used to merely point out the fact that as a user, you are incredible focused on doing nothing but typing!

I think that anyone that makes this statement should be driven to the nearest computer dumping area and be given the oldest computer there and sent back home to type out resumes.

When I use a computer I am certain that I am using all that it has to give.
When I am rendering I wish there was more speed, when a file transfer takes forever or a window resize gives me a beachball or when simple OS function taxes the system. That is when processor speed is all used up, and I need more.

Puhlease stop these pathetic and foolish statements.
Such as~
"Why would we even need more Processor speed"
"I dont need more speed, I get everything that I need done"
"No one uses all the speed that their processor can give"

The world isnt filled with lamers satisfied with the base line.
Thats what low end macs are geared at.

We're talking about high end powermacs aimed at pro's that have work to accomplish, on video and other high end processor intensive applications.

We talking about creating units that are capable of competing with Pcheese units in the professional field of video and graphics!
For gods sake, get a life and get some understanding because this isnt about
being able to type out some papers for high school.

Get an iBook for that!

This is about the Powermacs, that need as much power as possible to regain their rightful place in areas that have been taken over in a large degree by Pcheese and Apple needs to make their units a viable options for all those companys that are looking to return to the Apple world after having experienced Winblows. OSX is the leverage to get back in the game but the hardware needs to be there!

aww now I'ave gone and made a mess.

~enuff said!

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 11:33 AM
Hey Grokgod, where have you been hiding????

Damn dude... relax... This started out because the 1.5GHz rumor is proving to be unrealistic (I know... realistic rumor?? go on...).

Judging by Apple's history/track record, I still think we will see top end speed close to 1.2GHz (1GHz low end, 1.13GHz mid range and 1.26GHz top end in a dualie).

There are applications that really benefit from the raw power the faster chips will provide, such as 3d apps and things like photoshop. Then again, most of those apps also can take full advantage of dual processor systems.

Who knows, we could all be wrong here and Apple could release the G5 at MWNY *cough*bullsheet*cough* :D

gaomay
May 29, 2002, 11:35 AM
You have a point. Maybe my comments would be more appropriate to iMacs and not the Power line.

Could have been put a little more tactfully though.

Regards.

Ovi
May 29, 2002, 11:44 AM
2

Backtothemac
May 29, 2002, 11:45 AM
Jook,
WTF up dude and smell the coffee. Why would 1.2 be so bad, and don't say because the PIV is at 2.5 THZ or what ever it is at now days. Have you worked on a dual 1 GHZ with a GIG of ram? Have you tried it at all. Grok have you played with one?

Like Alpha said. This is about a rumor of 1.5 being to high. Wich it is. We will see at least 1.3, but I am told 1.4. Now that being said. How much of a differenct is there in a 667 PowerMac, and the Dual 1GHZ? how much to you think there would be between the 800, and a dual 1.4? Think about it, and then realize that yes, these are PowerMac's not iBooks.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
Once you drive a Mercedes you don't always need to get the latest model every year, unless you can afford one.

Just like once you get a Harley, you don't even look at any other motorcycles... :D

mischief
May 29, 2002, 12:00 PM
1. Until I see all the various CPU's comared side by side on identical mobo's running identical Linux with identical RAM and drives THERE IS NO COMPARISSON.

2. A G4 running at 1.33 Ghz on a 133Mhz bus will be WAY more anemic than a 999Mhz G4 on a 266Mhz bus just in CPU to I/O clock ratio.

3. If you insist on comparing CPU's from various manufacturers, at least compare more similar chips: Motorolla G4s to Sun, SGI and MIPS chips. I think you'll find Apple's cost-to-Mhz ratio rather favorable in that light.

4. With Quartz Extreme freeing up cycles, probable DDR and even a modest increase in Mhz the new Towers will be more than capable of running rings around any production Wintel machine.

TechLarry
May 29, 2002, 12:22 PM
It will NEVER be a 50% increase.

Motorola has to keep stringing Apple along to keep it from jumping ship to a new supplier.

If they gave a 50% boost, that would represent 3 years of upgrades (in Motorola time) and it would appear that too much time has passed since an upgrade was released.

I know this sounds silly, but it's no more silly than Apple sticking with a Processor supplier that is so far behind X86 speeds that it isn't even comical any more.

TL

numb_brain
May 29, 2002, 12:39 PM
To 1.4 or not to depends on one thing: can Mot get enough of them?

Suppose they can't get enough of them by july, apple might still announce them then and only ship it later on... That would be better than to keep it at 1.2 I think.

for those not believing a jump of 400 MHz is possible, consider this: if I'm not mistaking the new 7470 has a deeper pipeline, which might make it easier to make such a jump...

Of course, I'm only speculating...

Backtothemac
May 29, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry

I know this sounds silly, but it's no more silly than Apple sticking with a Processor supplier that is so far behind X86 speeds that it isn't even comical any more.

TL

Speed Smeed. Look, what does it take for people to understand that MHZ doesn't mean speed. Look at AMD. 600 MHZ behind, and kicking Intel's collective A$$. Get it into your heads. MHZ is like horsepower. It doesn't mean *****!

sedarby
May 29, 2002, 01:23 PM
MWNY seems to be shaping up as one of the biggest events for Apple in some time. It seems to be almost a given that there will be a new motherboard design for the PMG4s.

So, could Apple be moving to a new processor architecture? ;)

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Speed Smeed. Look, what does it take for people to understand that MHZ doesn't mean speed. Look at AMD. 600 MHZ behind, and kicking Intel's collective A$$. Get it into your heads. MHZ is like horsepower. It doesn't mean *****!

Not always (for horsepower)... But just raw numbers don't mean much. You could have 200hp with little torque and you won't go all that fast. The same 200hp with a heathly dose of torque and you will leave rubber on the road.

AMD has better chips, for less money then intel. Even though intel has the MHz/GHz numbers over AMD, the AMD chips more then hold their own. When you look at performance per dollar, you get a lot more value from AMD then intel.

Apple's systems may not have the MHz/GHz numbers, but they still perform a hell of a lot better then what people think the MHz/GHz numbers mean.

Peecee people seem to just look at GHz, and not at what they get for those numbers. Where Mac users know better and look at the overall system as well as what they need. I think that Mac users buy systems that suit them better then peecee people/users.

Backtothemac
May 29, 2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
MWNY seems to be shaping up as one of the biggest events for Apple in some time. It seems to be almost a given that there will be a new motherboard design for the PMG4s.

So, could Apple be moving to a new processor architecture? ;)

I must warn you that if you mean X86 instead of PPC, then you must run. Run as fast as you can to avoid the flames and pulse blasts coming from Alphatech's gun.

Hope you have some kevlar body armour if that is what you mean.

If it is, the polite simple answer is no, won't happen, never, no way. 2 Chances, slim and none and slim just died.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


I must warn you that if you mean X86 instead of PPC, then you must run. Run as fast as you can to avoid the flames and pulse blasts coming from Alphatech's gun.

Hope you have some kevlar body armour if that is what you mean.

If it is, the polite simple answer is no, won't happen, never, no way. 2 Chances, slim and none and slim just died.

None is just shaking his head in pity... :D I believe I harm him muttering "you poor, poor bastard"...

Arming weapons... muahahahaaaa

pey/coy-ote
May 29, 2002, 01:47 PM
In 1997 I purchased a 9600/350 {320 mgs ram, ati 128, audiomedia III card OS8.6} My PowerMac has been a very good investment for me. My DSL web connection seems slow, but speed is not an issue in other apps (ok, except photoshop). When I purchased MystIII Exile, I forgot to check the system requirements(way below specs), people with P2's were posting all sorts of problems, I updated QT and my 9600 worked fine.

I use the computer daily and I have not had a system crash in over three years ! (although IE does freeze). My PowerMac is stable and trouble free. Most non Mac friends have gone through two or three computers since I purchased mine. Based on my experience the Macintosh is an excellent value (remember in '97 I paid over $4000) Believe me I did not purchase the 9600 for the way it looked, and it has been an incredible workhorse.

I will get a new Mac soon, prob within 18 months depending my needs, more MHz not being at the top of the list, but...

Yes, new G4's/G5's should be the fastest they can be. Quad cpu's? 2GHz+? Big ********** DDR pipe? all that and more!

Apple can make hands down the best OS, I expect them to produce the best hardware as well, they have done amazing things since '97(Steve has saved Apple, transformed the look of the PC). The time for new hardware to lag behind, or play catch-up is over, I think they know that, I just hope Apple delivers as excellent a machine for 2002/2003 as I was able to purchase five years ago.

sedarby
May 29, 2002, 01:49 PM
Okay, a while back there was some speculation that IBMs POWER series of processors might be a likely candidate.

If Apple EVER tried to use an Intel, AMD or other processor linked to Microsoft it would be corporate suicide.

I only propose that since a motherboard redesign is imminent wouldn't a more advanced RISC processor be a possiblility (no matter how remote this possibility may be)?

Flame if you must but at least entertain the possibility that Mototrola may be pink slipped.

Backtothemac
May 29, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
Okay, a while back there was some speculation that IBMs POWER series of processors might be a likely candidate.

If Apple EVER tried to use an Intel, AMD or other processor linked to Microsoft it would be corporate suicide.

I only propose that since a motherboard redesign is imminent wouldn't a more advanced RISC processor be a possiblility (no matter how remote this possibility may be)?

Flame if you must but at least entertain the possibility that Mototrola may be pink slipped.

Ah, you misunderstand my young padawan. Yes, they could get pink slipped, but them having a secret roadmap for a secret processor. I really doubt it. They have to make that stuff public so that they can keep the stocks going. They have laid off thousands of people this last year, and would have revealed any secret projects they were working on.

Be mindful of your thoughts, they betray you.....

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
Okay, a while back there was some speculation that IBMs POWER series of processors might be a likely candidate.

If Apple EVER tried to use an Intel, AMD or other processor linked to Microsoft it would be corporate suicide.

I only propose that since a motherboard redesign is imminent wouldn't a more advanced RISC processor be a possiblility (no matter how remote this possibility may be)?

Flame if you must but at least entertain the possibility that Mototrola may be pink slipped.

Moto could get the pink slip, but not before Apple developes a newer processor and lines someone up to produce it. That could happen with the G5 or G6 but not before then. Even then, it WON'T be based on ANY ******* x86/intel architecture.

Oh, and before Apple would switch processor makers, it would made damned sure that the company could produce the product as promised and on time. No more waiting for a company to pump up the production of a processor.

sedarby
May 29, 2002, 02:12 PM
For my 3rd post ever to MacRumors.com I shall take heed of the advice given. I don't believe Apple wants or should get into the processor design and fabrication business.

Not to contradict myself, but the number one reason not to shift to a new architecture is the delivery of 10.2 which would not be promised by end of summer if a new processor was in the works.

Oh well, so much for hopeful wishing.

AlphaTech
May 29, 2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by sedarby
Oh well, so much for hopeful wishing.

Don't stop wishing or dreaming... Remember all the people begging for a rackmount Mac server??? See what happened??? :D

I was one of those saying it wouldn't happen, and Apple prooved me wrong. I would suggest that you can speculate all you want, but nothing is known until Apple makes the release.

r8ix
May 29, 2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo

You can easily compare a computer to a car.

GHZ=horsepower

horsepower doesnt always equal speed
there are other factors involved such as the weight of the car, it's transmition, clutch, intake system ect....


Actually, MHz/GHz == RPM.

Saying that a P4 is faster than a G4 is like saying that a little compact running at 6000 rpm and a max speed of 55 mph is faster than a Ferrari with a V-12, which can do 130 mph at just 2500 rpm.

iFresh
May 29, 2002, 03:15 PM
Hello, I am a 1st timer to this message board. I am in the market for a new G4 and the Apple 17inch LCD and am a little hesitant to make a purchase right now with MWNY coming up. (Even though those rebates do look good!)

I was thinking about getting the 933 since I read that it has a 40% performance increase over the 800, but now I am hesitant because I am thinking that the entry level G4 Power Mac after MWNY will be 1Gz. The current 933 is around $2299 and I am anticipating that the new entry level machine will be a little under $1700.

Can anyone give me any advice as to whether I should purchase the 933 now or wait till after MWNY?

Thanks!

iN8
May 29, 2002, 03:53 PM
SGI workstation are running at speeds of 300-600MHz, 64bit processors though. I don't hear anyone tossing their name into this megahertz myth foray. Proof is in the performance.

I agree that MHz/GHz = RPM's. Mainly because Horspower is a measurement of Work (physics fans). RPM is a measurement of cycles/frequency, just like MHz/GHz. It's how much work is done during the cycles that counts.

No part is greater than the sum of them all. You could have all the horsepower in the world, but if your tires can't hook up, it's pointless.

iN8
May 29, 2002, 04:12 PM
The current 933 is around $2299 and I am anticipating that the new entry level machine will be a little under $1700.

If you look at it that way, wait. Especially if you want that speed and not the latest and greatest that will be released MWNY.
Do you really need a computer now though? Can you be making money instead of waiting?

Grokgod
May 29, 2002, 05:34 PM
In reply to your question a page back.
as to where I have been?

You know how it is, working.
Still waiting for my Ti, Apple gave me a parts late email. Damn!

iFresh~ Wait till NewYork. There is no doubt! You must wait!
The newest and the best will be coming out then and all the other stuff will be reduced in price. If you buy now you will be smashing yourself in the head.
And I know that it gonna hurt. Hold back on your desire and be patient, its only about 6 weeks.
Go to a lot of movies and read a few books. Get into something cool and the time will pass, thats what i do when I am waiting for a new computer or something else cool.

barkmonster
May 29, 2002, 07:12 PM
I put together this table on my site.

G4 and Pentium 4 CPU history (http://www.calculatedrisc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/p4vsg4info.htm)

If you think apple have got problems with Mhz, just check this out, once you're read through this little article you'll see why intel still make Pentium III chips.

2Ghz Pentium 4 vs 1.2Ghz Pentium 3 (http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm)

From all the info I've gathered from the various sites to put the table together, I've proved one thing that could make G4s over 1.2Ghz a possibilty with the PPC7470 if the past is anything to go by.

With 2 additional pipelines and 3 additional pipeline stages the G4 increased by almost 50% with the PPC7450 over the PPC7400/PPC7410, Maybe we'll see the same kind of speed hike this time if we're really lucky.

Also, notice how each speed bump on the mac is getting less and less while the PC is almost dwindling to insignificance. I know we're spinning slower right now but the actual speed increase of a 1Ghz G4 to 1.2Ghz G4 would be more significant than the increases PCs are getting now they're over 2.5Ghz.

If I had the cash, I'd happily buy a 1Ghz or 1.2Ghz G4 this year, safe in the knowledge that come january, I might get a 1.4Ghz mac to replace, that would still be a 16 or 40% increase depending on what model I bought.

If the Pentium 4 makes it to 3Ghz this year, that's only an 18% increase. How many people with PCs would bother with whatever intel release between now and 3Ghz cpus hitting the shelves. I doubt many would.

I just hope steve jobs keeps up with feature add ons aswell, an audio input wouldn't go a miss.

pey/coy-ote
May 29, 2002, 07:19 PM
You car guys have good points but neither the computer/car analogies go beyond the simple MHz isn't everything statement. There's a problem with; different make cars, vs different make personal computers. Cars all run on the same roads, and the internal combustion engines of different make cars use basically the same fuel, which is readily available at the same places. The engines and most components are virtually technologically identical between different makes. ...But, it wasn't always so.

In it's infancy the auto industry had steam engines, electric motors, two cycle internal combustion engines, as well as four cycle internal combustion engines, which finally overtook the others. The market weeded out the different.

I don't expect this to happen to personal computers, and let's hope it doesn't.

On another note: Apple would not announce severing it's relationship with Moto with a new non Moto CPU except as a last resort. That would be seen as an extreme move by Apple and would look very bad to other development partners.

What Apple puts in it's computers is ultimatly Apple's responsibility. But, they are not stupid, and they are also not apt to repeat the same mistakes. And, What Moto did in the past doesn't predict what it will do in the future.

iFresh
May 29, 2002, 08:49 PM
I need a new PowerMac for work around the end of June- early July. Looking at all the hype over MWNY- I think I'm going to have to wait till July 7th.

I am hoping that the new PowerMacs will ship as soon as they are announced. Does anyone remember how long it took new PowerMacs to ship last time Apple made an announcement? (Will I have to wait till the end of July to actually use one of these new PowerMacs?)

Also, just curious, but does anybody know if the rebates on Apple LCD when buying a new PowerMac are pretty standard? Meaning that after the release of the new PowerMacs, will there likely be a special deal on LCD's with the purchase of a PowerMac?

Thanks.

(Looks like it's going to be a long 6 weeks till MWNY!)

Grokgod
May 29, 2002, 09:23 PM
It IS going to be a long 6 weeks!

Very Long , indeed!

I ordered a ton of computer books and magazines and cool stuff, and a Ti.
To distract me for the next 6 weeks, I hope it works!

It will be worth the wait.

All my friends and i do is sit around drinking coffee and telling each other that the freakin DDR ram better come out in the powermacs this time around.
Or there is gonna be a lynchin!

wwworry
May 29, 2002, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod

All my friends and i do is sit around drinking coffee and telling each other that the freakin DDR ram better come out in the powermacs this time around.
Or there is gonna be a lynchin!

I am truly embarrassed to have read that.

Grokgod
May 30, 2002, 10:41 AM
I think it was obvious that I was being kinda uhh sarcastic in a blunt way.
But we did talk about it again last night at a party, just the way that we all talk on the subject here at mac rumors. Except that there are actually people and faces looking and talking at you.

Does that embaress you also> do you type posts in the closet?

Well, we didnt lynch anyone or even propose it, was that the embaressing part?
The lynching?

finchna
May 30, 2002, 05:32 PM
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.


As a user of both Mac and Win (laptops and desktops) I'll share my experiences. I use an ibook 600MHz 12" with all the RAM it will hold and it is a great laptop that I carry in my backpack. However, I'm a heavy user and run OSX (10.1.4) and OfficeX and other software is not as fat as when I run OS9 on the same machine (and surely not as snappy as on my Mac or Win desktops or Win laptop). I frequently see a spinning beachball while the machine waits to complete tasks like printing and saving files. I live with that because it is not my primary computer--it syncs with my desktop, and I use it wireless at work around the office in meetings and at home, and on the road. The machine is bombproof, goes for weeks at a time sleeping/waking, networked and disconnected without rebooting--OSX is super, but it is, in my opinion, slower than many other configurations under heavy use (many programs open, many docked items, many processes running at the same time) with my 600MHz G3. In my experience, OS9 isn't that stable, but it makes things more snappy. I use a dual 500 G4 for my desktop Mac and it is great--fast at most everything. I'd have no hesitation recommending a dual Gig or better when they arrive. If you want to run OSX on a laptop I'd suggest a TiBook. My Win machines work fine and I need them for specific software, however, the UI is inferior--things are easier to do on a Mac. Hope this is helpful. Best wishes,

Nathan

mmmdreg
May 31, 2002, 08:55 AM
I use iMacs so I have no need for faster PM's but still, 1.4GHz would be nice, just to know it exists...1.2 will also be alright...although 1.2 is more realistic than the slightly optimistic 1.4 dual, 1.4 is possible enough to happen I'm guessing...well it's only another few weeks so let's sit back and see what comes of it..

rice_web
May 31, 2002, 10:59 AM
Well, we've pretty much narrowed MWNY to DDR memory and 1.2GHz for the PowerMacs. However, the iMacs may get a speed bump, too.

Even though the iMacs have only been shipping for a few months, I'd find it likely that we'll see either a jump to DDR, a better video card, and/or a faster system bus.

We could see DDR1600 at 200MHz, and the iMac could retain its 100MHz system bus. This would offer a tremendous boost in system speed, and I wish we could see it offered in the iMacs (DDR memory also produces less heat than SDRAM).

A new video card wouldn't be too shabby either. The little GeForce2 MX doesn't offer much power. I'd much rather see the GeForce4 MX, especially for better compatibility with Quartz Extreme.

Probably the most likely speed boost for the iMacs could come in the form of a 133MHz system bus (this would also cause a slight MHz jump: 733MHz and 866MHz). A move to a 133MHz system bus would speed up the entire system significantly, especially in those infamous Quake frame-rate tests. Besides, the iMac already takes on DIMM of 133MHz memory.

awrootbeer
Aug 12, 2002, 05:24 PM
Damn this rumor for being right. DAMN IT!

daveg5
Aug 12, 2002, 06:11 PM
Dual's 1.6 would be so sweet