Changes in Late 2003

[MacRumors]

eWeek speculates (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,571041,00.asp) about the upcoming plans for Apple/Mac/PPC:

The main theme I see emerging from these various reports: Apple is methodically plotting its pressing need to migrate the installed user base to Mac OS X against its equally urgent need to speed the evolution of Mac performance, dragged down in recent years by the relatively sluggish ramp-up of the Motorola PowerPC G4 CPU at the core of most current Macs.


No new details or rumors, but reiteration that major updates should not be expected before late-summer 2003.

[Mr. Anderson]

Ah, use of the methodically really seems to set the tone here. It will be a while before we see any changes, so the G4 will be around in Desktops probably until MacWorld NewYork 03 - if this speculation holds true.

What I'm not surprised at is 'Moreover, Mac watchers in the good seats stress that Apple is not about to drop Motorola's PowerPC flavors any time soon, at least when it comes to its laptop lines.'

That makes total sense, even though some here want to see the new chips in the consumer and laptops first. That won't happen.

D

[Stike]

Originally posted by Macrumors

No new details or rumors, but reiteration that major updates should not be expected before late-summer 2003.

Ahm, ok... wait... WHAT?? Summer/ late 2003? Why? Will Apple leave us starving for that awaited edge of performance?

Seems my Comp is long before being outdated. ;)

Perhaps Apple needs the time to make the Power4 derivate deal with IBM? :confused:

[impierced]

Watch Apple's already eroding market share drop even more. I don't think many that use Apple's high-end equipment can handle another year of hacked motherboards and mediocre processors.

Maybe Apple can become a service only company since .mac appears to be so successful!!! *sigh*

[PrettyMan]

Can we wait another year ? No.

Has anybody tried Oracle's performance on new DP G4 ? Horrible.
(yes, it´s a developer release, what a pitty. No reason to avoid the poor performance).

Has anybody used Maya, Photoshop, Java, Seti or another proccess consummer application ? Puagg.

I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst.

We need a solution. Quickly, please !!!

:( :( :(

[macdop]

Originally posted by PrettyMan
I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst.


1982, eh? can I borrow your time machine?

[Falleron]

I believe we will get a substantial update in January or around that time. Why? Because OSX will the only system booting on new towers + people need more speed. I dont believe that market share will drop before then. I dont have any evidence to back it up, just my opinion.

Can someone answer me this? We must assume that Motorola will release a compatible chip that uses the full capacity of the DDRAM (G4 - 7470 I believe). What speed increase will this give in %? Add to that, a speed bump of the processor - another 250Mhz, Firewire 2, usb2, bluetooth + faster graphics, and faster superdrive. I believe all this will make a much better system.

[rice_web]

Originally posted by macdop


1982, eh? can I borrow your time machine?

You know, he is from Spain. Now, my Spanish isn't perfect (I've only studied for two years), but wouldn't, "I am using since 1982," be correct in a direct translation of Spanish to English?

[rmac]

Originally posted by PrettyMan
Can we wait another year ? No.

Has anybody tried Oracle's performance on new DP G4 ? Horrible.
(yes, it´s a developer release, what a pitty. No reason to avoid the poor performance).

Has anybody used Maya, Photoshop, Java, Seti or another proccess consummer application ? Puagg.

I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst.

We need a solution. Quickly, please !!!

:( :( :(

I may be in the minority here, but I'm perfectly happy with my G4 450. In the photo studios at Dartmouth we only have graphite G4s. We're doing editing in Photoshop with files usually in the 80-300 MB range, and things work well. Yes, transforms and sharpening take a while but for a good final picture, I've got a minute or so to spare. Better yet, in OS X we now can scan in stand alone apps, while working in Photoshop on another picture, while doing test prints on yet another picture. This may have been possible in OS 9, but I never would have done it because something would have crashed and brought down the whole system.

Check out the NY Times. They have an article there in the Technology section about how speed is not as big a factor as it used to be. Apple is fighting the right fights now, IMHO.

On a separate note, did anyone ever wonder if "Junkyard" might refer to distributed computing which the Mach microkernel is built to do? Wouldn't mind clustering my next computer with my current one....

[mr evil brkfast]

If Apple thinks that they can get by with 100-200 mhz bumps until next summer and still maintain their present level of market share they are dreaming.

Since the G4 has been pretty much a bust since the start, shouldn't Apple have been looking for alternatives as far back as July 2000?'
:mad:

[allpar]

...the great leap will be later, but there's nothing stopping Apple from making "minor leaps" sooner. GPUL in September 2003, new G4s in January 2003.

[pgwalsh]

I think Apple should continue its focus on cleaning up OS X and making iApps. With the market in its condition right now, it doesn't make too much sense IMO to buck out a huge processor. I just don't think corporate budgets are looking to spend doe on new systems. Now, I think the time is to focus on implementing new technologies to there fullest.

IBM has a new fab facility in NY and Apple could outsource the development of a new processor. They can license new technologies from IBM and MOTO. Maybe that's what they're doing and it's just going to take some time (which I think they have) to reach fruition. Wouldn't it be better to launch your bad a$$ products when the market turns up instead of during a depression? Save the doe and focus on doing what you do best - making a solid OS with incredible apps - appeal to those that strife WXP and don't need the power.

Believe you me, I want a pentium crushing CPU as much as the next person, but I have some reservations about releasing anything right now. It would be great for me, but not necessarily for Apple. I'm in the market for a new Mac and I'd like to see more options but I can deal with the new machines like I have with my G3 400 for the past four years.

I’m coming from a perspective of a power user too. Think I like waiting an hour and a half for premier to render a 10minute clip? Ha!
.

[rice_web]

Any developer should understand that processors of today are overkill. If code was actually optimized from time to time (like Microsoft Word), we wouldn't have any need (except for the hardcore gamers and DV professionals) for the P4 2.8 and AthlonXP 2800+.

[Token]

"I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst."

Strange.. The first Macintosh was made in 1984
;) :D

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by rice_web
Any developer should understand that processors of today are overkill. If code was actually optimized from time to time (like Microsoft Word), we wouldn't have any need (except for the hardcore gamers and DV professionals) for the P4 2.8 and AthlonXP 2800+. I agree. It's like when the web first started and we all had really slow modems. You'd optimize your images and html so pages would load at an acceptable rate for the slowest possible modem. I still believe that philosophy should apply, but it's widely ignored as broadband is being pushed.

Applications have the same issue. There's a lot of bloat because the focus has been on processor speeds, which the majority of the public really doesn't need. That's why there's usually a dot release after the initial release. They clean up some of the bloat code and fix bugs etc.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Token
"I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst."

Strange.. The first Macintosh was made in 1984
;) :D

Some people confuse the Lisa as being a macintosh.

Jerry

[PrettyMan]

Originally posted by Token
"I'm using Macs since 1982 and never the compared-performance was worst."

Strange.. The first Macintosh was made in 1984
;) :D

Sorry, the correct year is 1992. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
(I'm not so old...)

And excuse me, but my english is absolutely awful, you know.

Ciao.

[Kid Red]

People, people. We will get a G4+ with new mobo FSB etc. The substantial update will be the IBM power4 core due out in the fall. We will have a significant update in January just not as big as the one in the Fall when we go with a new chip for the towers.

[Falleron]

I think we are in for an interesting couple of months. The way I see it, most lines need to be updated + SJ wont want to do all of them at San Fransico.

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I think Apple should continue its focus on cleaning up OS X and making iApps. With the market in its condition right now, it doesn't make too much sense IMO to buck out a huge processor. I just don't think corporate budgets are looking to spend doe on new systems. Now, I think the time is to focus on implementing new technologies to there fullest.

IBM has a new fab facility in NY and Apple could outsource the development of a new processor. They can license new technologies from IBM and MOTO. Maybe that's what they're doing and it's just going to take some time (which I think they have) to reach fruition. Wouldn't it be better to launch your bad a$$ products when the market turns up instead of during a depression? Save the doe and focus on doing what you do best - making a solid OS with incredible apps - appeal to those that strife WXP and don't need the power.

Believe you me, I want a pentium crushing CPU as much as the next person, but I have some reservations about releasing anything right now. It would be great for me, but not necessarily for Apple. I'm in the market for a new Mac and I'd like to see more options but I can deal with the new machines like I have with my G3 400 for the past four years.

I’m coming from a perspective of a power user too. Think I like waiting an hour and a half for premier to render a 10minute clip? Ha!
.

I think you hit it right on the nose. While everyone is complaining about not having the best NOW, Apple is doing something. You may not think so, but the Apple I know always has something up it's sleeves. And I think that the end of the depression is one thing that they are waiting for. I edit video also and would alway love a better machine, but I'm doing fine as it is. If you didn't read pgwalsh's post, you should and think about what is in Apple's best interest.

P-Worm

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by rmac


I may be in the minority here, but I'm perfectly happy with my G4 450.

I used a p3 for years, then saw a cheap shuttle (Think Cube) and bought it, 1.8 ghz, there is a difference, especially when dealing with video. If mac wants to be a virtual hub they need a processor. Yes I could encode w/ xvid at 3 frames a second, now I get over 100.

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by P-Worm


I think you hit it right on the nose. While everyone is complaining about not having the best NOW, Apple is doing something. You may not think so, but the Apple I know always has something up it's sleeves. And I think that the end of the depression is one thing that they are waiting for. I edit video also and would alway love a better machine, but I'm doing fine as it is. If you didn't read pgwalsh's post, you should and think about what is in Apple's best interest.

P-Worm

yes this has been said before, right before MWNY. I waited. So instead of getting a mac, i'm using wintel. 600, P4 1.8 ghz L2512, USB 2.0, Firewire, DDR300, and the only part of this comp that makes noise is the 40CDRW firewire and the Hardrive.

As Intel ramps up speed and PCs like this become even cheaper Mac’s market share will continue to decline. Ghz may be a myth, but this speed gap sells.

[MikeH]

**** hot processors are all well and good but without good peripheral support (ie. Scanners for the most part) it's all a waste of time.

If got a two year old Nikon Coolscan III (SCSI) and a Swift Scan card reader sitting next to me that won't work in OS X, and the prospect of paying £700 for something that might work with OS X doesn't appeal. I'm ready to accept that my four year old printer A3+ (£500 for the one I want) needs renewing but I'm buggered if I'm buying new everything just because Apple can't sort their peripheral support out.

I don't care how many Mhz you wave in front of me or how pretty the GUI is, unless I can do what I want with the hardware it's nothing more than a glorified paper weight.

[prewwii]

OS X or XP, choosing either for the first time will cause us
-- reach deep to upgrade software we already have for the previous OS,

-- reach deep to replace hardware we already have because there is no support on the newer OS.

-- reach deep to get additional processing power to regain interface performance we're familiar with in the current OS of choice.

In Apple's case there is no significant performance to buy at any price. While Apple tauts there latest 1.25 ghz processor, Intel is preparing to release their 3 ghz P4 and have demo'ed a beta 4.7ghz version.

The question is where to spend our money for the most bang. Once inside the application the differences between the two OS camps is becoming a blurry line.

I have use Mac's since 1986 and will not upgrade another time until there is a return on investment. Show me the money.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by prewwii
OS X or XP, choosing either for the first time will cause us
-- reach deep to upgrade software we already have for the previous OS,

-- reach deep to replace hardware we already have because there is no support on the newer OS.

-- reach deep to get additional processing power to regain interface performance we're familiar with in the current OS of choice.

The question is where to spend our money for the most bang. Once inside the application the differences between the two OS camps is becoming a blurry line.

I have use Mac's since 1986 and will not upgrade another time until there is a return on investment. Show me the money.
Windows XP (eXPerimental) is a terrible OS. It crashes all the time. I have a few windows boxes and the headaches are with XP. Windows 2K is pretty damn solid, but they screwed up with XP. Mac OS X is solid and comes with some great applications.

If you recently bought a scanner, printer, digital camera and can't get it to work with OS X then that's a bummer. I did my homework before I bought products so everything I have works with OSX and OS 9. Not everyone is as fortunate and I understand his or her anger. If you want drivers, then bug the manufacture. If you need legacy adapters then you'll need to spend a few extra dollars.

So you're still using your 1986 machine? Well, there have been a lot of changes in hardware, software, and performance since then. If you can't see that then maybe you should look a little harder. If you're just word processing and using spreadsheets, then your point is well taken. Sounds like you're in a comfort zone or maybe you can see through all the marketing BS.
:D

[Shrek]

Originally posted by Macrumors
eWeek speculates (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,571041,00.asp) about the upcoming plans for Apple/Mac/PPC:

The main theme I see emerging from these various reports: Apple is methodically plotting its pressing need to migrate the installed user base to Mac OS X against its equally urgent need to speed the evolution of Mac performance, dragged down in recent years by the relatively sluggish ramp-up of the Motorola PowerPC G4 CPU at the core of most current Macs.


No new details or rumors, but reiteration that major updates should not be expected before late-summer 2003.

I wouldn't take this literally until the October 15 Microprocessor Conference. ;)

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by Shrek


I wouldn't take this literally until the October 15 Microprocessor Conference. ;)

Yes, it will be very interesting to see what IBM has to say about their new processor. If their "PowerPC derivative" is destined for the Macintosh platform, what, if anything, will IBM be able to say about that development, given Apple's tendency for prefering to be the first and last word on what will be gracing the Macintosh line of computers? I doubt we will hear anything as earth-shattering as "And now the processor heretofore known as the GPUL will be called the G5."

RL

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

Windows XP (eXPerimental) is a terrible OS. It crashes all the time. I have a few windows boxes and the headaches are with XP. Windows 2K is pretty damn solid, but they screwed up with XP. Mac OS X is solid and comes with some great applications.


Hog Wash! 2k is based on NT, which goes back to its creators' VMS roots. XP is stable, yes its more bloated than 2k. (Which loses the UI speed of NT 4) but it is stable.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Ibjr


Hog Wash! 2k is based on NT, which goes back to its creators' VMS roots. XP is stable, yes its more bloated than 2k. (Which loses the UI speed of NT 4) but it is stable. You're the only person I've heard that has positive things to say about it. Most people I know are Windows users (unfortunately) and those with XP complain about compatibility issues and crashes. Many of us have stayed with W2K.

We are talking WXP Professional. There are plenty of sites around that report all kinds of problems with it. XP is based off 2K, but they introduced a lot of bugs in the bloat ware. Remember that this is my experience with XP. I have both OS's and I find XP to be a major problem. Your experience is obviously different.

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
You're the only person I've heard that has positive things to say about it. Most people I know are Windows users (unfortunately) and those with XP complain about compatibility issues and crashes. Many of us have stayed with W2K.

We are talking WXP Professional. There are plenty of sites around that report all kinds of problems with it. XP is based off 2K, but they introduced a lot of bugs in the bloat ware. Remember that this is my experience with XP. I have both OS's and I find XP to be a major problem. Your experience is obviously different.

22 computers, and this shuttle is the 23. No problems except w/ the aureal based soundcards.

[Shrek]

I have WinXP. I'm BSOD'd at least once a day and some programs don't work properly in XP; they freeze a lot. It sucks. :mad:

[prewwii]

I have only briefly used three XP systems. Two crashed when trying to use or install USB ports. I used NT for years and occasionally crashed it. Based on my experience and antidotal stories from friends who have XP and have been either 95 or 98 users I would say the jury is still out on whether XP is an improved stability system or not.

I was surprised how much processor it takes for the interface to feel completely snappy. My first experience with XP was on a 1.xghz Dell and there were times when the interface delay was quite noticable.

I have a friend who has some 2.x ghz machines and a dual 1.25ghz Mac. He says there are several occasions when the Mac hesitates. He also describes the PC's as pretty snappy.

They have three XP machines and three OS X machines. They have not crashed an OS X machine yet and have crashed XP a couple of times.

The last XP I crashed, a Dell, had to be unplugged from the wall to get it to restart. The power on/off button wouldn't even work.

Is this a tortise and hare thing between Mac and PC's.

[Telomar]

I've seen incompatibilities and issues when using older hardware or software and there is still the potential to bring the whole system down but XP is stable, for a Windows system. Still does crash though.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Ibjr


22 computers, and this shuttle is the 23. No problems except w/ the aureal based soundcards. That's a pretty damn good. Everything I've bought supposedly is WXP certified, but like the last poster, I have crashes. Anything but the basic applications can cause problems. Whenever I work with multimedia, problems seem to occur. Word processing, no problem, and spreadsheets, no problem, anything more intense, problem.

Apparently you have many more computers than I running XP so you'd have more expereince than I do with XP. Kudo's on your success to gettin it to run solid.

I'd give you a whole bunch of Kudo's if those 23 machines were Mac's.

[ddtlm]

XP is working well on my laptop (I tried to do 2000 but some drivers are only available for XP). I've had an "issue" or two but it is overall a decent OS for a laptop.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by ddtlm
XP is working well on my laptop (I tried to do 2000 but some drivers are only available for XP). I've had an "issue" or two but it is overall a decent OS for a laptop.

I just knew you were a PC head. :( :mad: :p

[digitalgiant]

My wife has used a sony viao with XP since last year and i think we only had problems when i was trying to set up a wireless network for her. The drivers were in beta and they jacked her cpu up. She does very little by way of cpu intensive programs. So its great for her. But my Ti PB 667 eats her viao for lunch when it comes to photoshop and we cant even get her video editing software to work. When we have some more $$ bling bling she wants a mac. Hmmmm,, new PBs in January. Looks like she might get my old one ;) :D

[MikeH]

I've been using XP since it's release and found it to be perfectly stable and compatable with all the main software and hardware I use. A 100% improvement over the glitchy W2K.

The only issues I've had are it likes the latest VIA 4 in 1 drivers (anyone that's getting regular crashes should update these if they have a VIA chipset motherboard) and, as mentioned elsewhere, my old Aureal sound card refusing to work properly (Aureal had gone bust before XP was released).

Which is more than I can say for OS X. OS X is very stable, looks great and may well turn out to be the best OS in the long run, but until scanners and SCSI cards are better supported it throws up more problems than XP at the moment. (And no, I am not keen on ditching £1600's worth of two year old scanners just to use OS X).

[losfp]

I've been using XP for a while and I find it quite stable - in fact the most stable OS I have installed on my PCs (1.2Ghz Athlon, 366mhz PII laptop). IMHO because of the MASSIVE variety of hardward you find in the PC world, incompatibility issues are going to be there to some extent.

For me, XP is the first version of windows where I have been able to install and it automatically detects the majority of my peripherals. Recognises the (oldish) soundcard. Detects my dual-head matrox video card. Works with my printer straight away. I've also had less crashes with it than win2k (mostly buggy drivers for the video card, but that's matrox's fault). My PII laptop had about 22 days of uptime before I had to reboot it after installing some software - and I was running IIS (now THAT is bloatware), photoshop, and playing DVDs on it.

I find that I have very few problems with windows PCs (at least my own - I have limited tweaking rights to my work PC).. They DO require a slightly higher base knowledge though I think. If you know what you're doing, you should do fine on either platform.

From my limited OS X experience, it is a great OS but seems to concentrate too much on being pretty. still saving up for a powerbook though :) I figure I can't be an objective judge unless I have a foot planted firmly in each camp.

Um. what was the thread topic again?