Detailed Notes about IBM 970

[MacRumors]

RealWorldTech posts (http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101502203725) some detailed notes from IBM's presentation last week. Here are some hilights:

- the SIMD unit is AltiVec compatible
- PowerPC 970 has already "taped out", parts exist in labs, undergoing performance eval and debugging
- Second half of 2003 is when volume production is expected
- if Apple adopts the 970, 32-bit applications can run seamlessly, after OS modifications are made
- due to the subsystem support required for the chip, "Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale".

[reyesmac]

If volume production will not be untill the end of next year, I expect Apple will use next year to sell overpriced but cheap to make powermacs to counteract the higher cost of the new IBM powermacs. But in the end, they will still raise prices on the powermacs. Or better yet, make it very clear that if you do not spend over $2,000 on a Powermac, you will end up with a crippled system. It's kind of like what they have been doing with the powermacs for a years now where they give the cheapest one a slower motherboard than the more expensive ones but it will be more obvious to the casual viewer.

For a company that prides itself on total control of their product, it is really pathetic that they are always held back by thier component partners. I still plan to buy a Powermac next year. I will not come with high expectations so hopefully Apple will still be able to surprise me (and take my $2,000).

[j763]

volume production in 2nd half of 03? woohoo! :D :D :D :D

[ddtlm]

reyesmac:

I can see reason for a certain amount of pessimism, but perhaps you have taken it too far...

[3G4N]

Although the PowerPC 970 is a part that would cost considerably less to manufacture and sell, its performance actually exceeds the POWER4 processor in many areas.

I told all you whiny punks to shut up.

This PuPPy is gonna rock.
Power4 core x Altivec?!
sick.
sick with power.

[barkmonster]

This PuPPy is gonna rock.
Power4 core x Altivec?!
sick.
sick with power.

you forgot the evil "mhaaa ha ha ha" at the end :D

Having read the specs this cpu looks like a total monster, I wonder if apple will opt for RDRAM to cope with the bandwidth needs ?

It sounds like the only option right now but I have read about dual channel DDR memory, it would need to be 2 x 333Mhz which is still less than the cpu needs.

With the same 1066Mhz RDRAM as the pentium 4 can use, this chip will have all the bandwidth it needs but I can imagine this will push up the cost of the powermac line, unless apple start being more fair with their prices because they know this chip is going to tempt a lot of high end switchers if they can make a dual configuration.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by 3G4N

Although the PowerPC 970 is a part that would cost considerably less to manufacture and sell, its performance actually exceeds the POWER4 processor in many areas.

I told all you whiny punks to shut up.

This PuPPy is gonna rock.
Power4 core x Altivec?!
sick.
sick with power.

Abso-bloody-lutely - bring it on! I REALLY have started saving up for a summer 2003 PowerMac!

Oh, and here's a thought, there'll be enough chips for PowerMacs only, but of course it won't go into the iMacs for a while (like the G4), instead it will go in the NEW CUBE! Remember, the product that never died!:D

[ddtlm]

3G4N:

Although the PowerPC 970 is a part that would cost considerably less to manufacture and sell, its performance actually exceeds the POWER4 processor in many areas.
Note that he did not say "all areas," and this in reference to a Power4 that runs at only 1.3ghz. In fact this statment is so unsurprising as to be boring: since the Power4 lacks AltiVec well then there are obviously going to be certain things that will go faster on the PPC-970, and seeing as how the clock speed is higher yet the core is the same, certain things that are not very memory intensive will also go faster. This should be readily apparent to you.

I told all you whiny punks to shut up.
Some of the "whiny punks" out here knew all of this, and more, long before we read the article. Your joy is misplaced.

[foniks2020]

At the end of the article in the summary of specs he lists the 1.2 ghz 970 with 19w of power used... how does this compare to current G4s being used in Powerbooks? While I didn't look too hard for this spec just now it isn't specifically listed at Apples tech spec page for Powerbooks or G4.... any experts out there?

[3G4N]

Originally posted by barkmonster
you forgot the evil "mhaaa ha ha ha" at the end :D

I erased it, thinking I'd sound like a dork. But to each his own.:)
The real reason I didn't put it, was I didnt feel like sounding
it out finetic'ly. I knew you'd hear it in your own sick head!!!

But really, like barkmonster notes, the thing I wonder about is the
price. What's the pricetag of the good RAM and other (new) architectural
components (RapidIO,Hypertransport,AGP8x???) needed to
feed this new voracious mouth? And how much is the mouth itself?

I sure hope this doesn't give the whining masses a new topic.
I'm willing to pay more for more.

And yes, ddtlm, the 970 will go faster and slower at this and that
than the Power4. It can nitpick better than you, too. bla-bla-bla.

Bottom line. The 970 is going to rock.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by foniks2020
1.2 ghz 970 with 19w of power used... how does this compare to current G4s being used in Powerbooks?

once upon a time, i think i read the pbook chip uses 24w, and the sahara g3 in the ibook 6w.

please be kind if i'm mis-remembering.

[foniks2020]

Originally posted by zimv20


once upon a time, i think i read the pbook chip uses 24w, and the sahara g3 in the ibook 6w.

please be kind if i'm mis-remembering.

First, it looks like it's the dissipation of heat that is the issue... the usage is in volts, etc... my mistake.

Looked on Motorola's site and it lists the 7451s at 14.5 watts typical and 19 max dissipation but the Rev A/B TiBooks used the earlier 7400 - 7410 with 5 watts typical and ~12 max... so if Apple worked out the power dissipation issues with the newer Pbooks then these 970s could be used for portables.

[theranch]

I like the news...at least Apple might finally be moving upward and onward with a much more powerful chip than using the old 2 processor speed bandage to keep the Mac faithful happy (and productive). Don't get me wrong...the current powermacs are fast enough and have enough great horsepower to handle most of what we all are doing with these machines except for those video editors or 3D modelers who need to render quicker.
This news just sounds refreshing and might just calm down some of the whiners on this site who can't wait to get up every morning to complain about mhz or ghz in the mac vs peecee.

[lou tsee]

your wrong!
the ppc 970 CAN be faster than the POWER4, even when you rule out
Altivec & the different clock speed. check this out:


"In the case of the PowerPC 970, the processor does not need to meet similar reliability requirements as the POWER4 processor, and as a consequence, circuit and process technology can be tweaked to obtain higher performance by trading away the near-absolute reliability required by the POWER4 processor."

found here: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101502203725

cheers ,)

[Mr. Anderson]

So this is all well and good, but what *is* Apple going to do until they come out? I don't plan on buying a new machine until I can get a Power 4 and a 900 MHz bus (that is truly going to be amazing). And I know I'm not the only one. I wonder if Motorola will come out with a new chip or two in the mean time.

The other thing is this going to push Apple for OSXI or OSX.5 - since it will requre some coding to make the operating system work......

D

[unclepain]

Dude, it's not whining- it's good busniness sense. Apple has been sucking up all these small companies for their video and audio apps- they are desperate to get into production houses of all kinds, and they know that it will be an extremely hard sell for pros to get excited about their systems (regardless of the apps available) with the current hardware as it is now. Speed is everything in this kind of market and these guys want the fastest hardware they can afford in order to finish as many projects as quickly as possible. They need something dramatic in the hardware world for Apple to make inroads into these areas of business.

I bet we don't see any of these types of machines for under 2K though.

[rugby]

The big $1,000,000,000,000 question is "Will it be faster than whatever Intel or AMD has out by then?" We can sit here and ooh and ahh the chip, but neither one of those two companies is sitting idle in the meantime.

Will the 970 rock? Yes.

Will it be better than anything else out there? Who knows.

[drastik]

Originally posted by unclepain
Dude, it's not whining- it's good busniness sense. Apple has been sucking up all these small companies for their video and audio apps- they are desperate to get into production houses of all kinds, and they know that it will be an extremely hard sell for pros to get excited about their systems (regardless of the apps available) with the current hardware as it is now. Speed is everything in this kind of market and these guys want the fastest hardware they can afford in order to finish as many projects as quickly as possible. They need something dramatic in the hardware world for Apple to make inroads into these areas of business.


I think you are only half right. Pro users will trade some things for raw speed, but software and platform do make a huge difference. I work in video, and every major production house in town uses macs, a couple have PC based avid systems as well, but FCP is definitely the tool of choice for most places, its cheaper and a better program. Plus, these places have had Macs for years, so the learning curve is nil. ALso, a good production tech doubles as an IT manager in that he or she fixes thebroken stuff( shoooting of any kind involves lots of broken stuff.) For a tech to diagnos and repair a MAc is simple, Windows starts telling you your software isn't legal and you've got a problem.

Most of the music studios around here (a lot of studios in this town) use MAcs. infact a lot of them still have the Blue and White G3's that there old Pro Tools setup came in. They trust them, and frankly, they are fast enough for the task.

People who come in here and rant about raw speed always seem ingnorant about these industries to me. Speed is wonderful, sure, but not the whole package, especially not in Audio and Video.

The 970 should rock, and it will be a boone to Pro users.

[ryan]

Originally posted by foniks2020


First, it looks like it's the dissipation of heat that is the issue... the usage is in volts, etc... my mistake.

Looked on Motorola's site and it lists the 7451s at 14.5 watts typical and 19 max dissipation but the Rev A/B TiBooks used the earlier 7400 - 7410 with 5 watts typical and ~12 max... so if Apple worked out the power dissipation issues with the newer Pbooks then these 970s could be used for portables.
I hope you're right. I would love to be able to pickup a 970 PowerPC PowerBook in early 2004 even if they had to down-clock it to something like 1.4GHz.

[ddtlm]

lou tsee:

Pal, you are ignorant of how digital devices work.

your wrong!
the ppc 970 CAN be faster than the POWER4, even when you rule out
Altivec & the different clock speed. check this out:

"In the case of the PowerPC 970, the processor does not need to meet similar reliability requirements as the POWER4 processor, and as a consequence, circuit and process technology can be tweaked to obtain higher performance by trading away the near-absolute reliability required by the POWER4 processor."
The Power4, PPC-970 and all other current processors are synchronous digital devices. This means that nothing happens anywhere unless there is a clock pulse telling it to happen. The millions of transistors "march" much like an army. The only way to make anything faster on a given design is to increase the clock speed.

What RWT was talking about is simply that IBM can make the transistors faster by making them less durable. But this doesn't mean anything unless they also increase the clock speed. Even if every transistor in the chip is done with its "work" in the first 10% of every clock cycle, they sit on the butts until the next clock pulse tells them to "work" again.

So yes, we are back to increased clock speed on the same core and the existance of AltiVec as far as the only two things a PPC-970 has that can make it go faster than a Power4.

[ddtlm]

rugby:

I pretty much have to agree with your "who knows" approach. We do pretty much know that the PPC-970 would be dominant in a large number of Photoshop filters and everything else a G4 is good at these days, but on the other hand, less highly optimized apps will not be as fast as the x86 competion, based on SPEC results (and yes, SPEC is meaningful). The PPC-970 is going to be fighting some mean x86 chips.

[elohim01]

Gee...I might as well put of purchasing ANY computer so I can get the PPC-970 Powerbook with slot loading superdrive for a cheap $5,500.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by foniks2020
Looked on Motorola's site and it lists the 7451s at 14.5 watts typical and 19 max dissipation but the Rev A/B TiBooks used the earlier 7400 - 7410 with 5 watts typical and ~12 max... so if Apple worked out the power dissipation issues with the newer Pbooks then these 970s could be used for portables.
Just a minor nitpick - Actually the rev B used the 7440, which according to Motorola draws 11.4w min / 15.5w max at 600MHz... unfortunately, they don't mention what it draws at 550 and 667MHz. :)

[elohim01]

Oh, I forgot the numerous :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[lou tsee]

ddtlm:

your right: It was an overreacted and non-reflected post.
(there was also a languge-related misunderstaning)

please send post to NIL

*****, no I also got caught by this processor-frenzy ;)

btw: I DO know a little how such devices work

cheers

[ddtlm]

lou tsee:

You may or may not be schooled on digital devices, but you have mastered the art of admiting error. :) I'd say it's at least as important as all this techno-babble.

elohim01:

I am still betting that any laptop based on the 130nm PPC-970 will be more than 1" thick.

[NMR Guy]

It sounds like the only option right now but I have read about dual channel DDR memory, it would need to be 2 x 333Mhz which is still less than the cpu needs.

With the same 1066Mhz RDRAM as the pentium 4 can use, this chip will have all the bandwidth it needs...

Actually, dual channel DDR 333 memory has a higher bancdwidth than dual channel RDRAM 1066 memory. This is because each DDR module is 64 bits wide (total = 128 bits), whereas each RDRAM module is 16 bits wide (total = 32 bits). Total bandwidth is ~ 4.3 GB/sec for dual channel RDRAM, and ~5.3 GB/sec for dual channel DDR 333.

[Cappy]

And by the time this thing is shipping we'll probably be seeing ddr 400 in dual channel configs or possibly qdr although I haven't read on any release dates for it.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
lou tsee:

Pal, you are ignorant of how digital devices work.


The Power4, PPC-970 and all other current processors are synchronous digital devices. This means that nothing happens anywhere unless there is a clock pulse telling it to happen. The millions of transistors "march" much like an army. The only way to make anything faster on a given design is to increase the clock speed.

What RWT was talking about is simply that IBM can make the transistors faster by making them less durable. But this doesn't mean anything unless they also increase the clock speed. Even if every transistor in the chip is done with its "work" in the first 10% of every clock cycle, they sit on the butts until the next clock pulse tells them to "work" again.

So yes, we are back to increased clock speed on the same core and the existance of AltiVec as far as the only two things a PPC-970 has that can make it go faster than a Power4.


So is it just a bunch of crap when they state that it can achieve up to 8 operations per clock cycle?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ddtlm
lou tsee:

You may or may not be schooled on digital devices, but you have mastered the art of admiting error. :) I'd say it's at least as important as all this techno-babble.

elohim01:

I am still betting that any laptop based on the 130nm PPC-970 will be more than 1" thick.

I would also be willing to bet it will be a long way off like maybe early 2004. The desktops always get updated first and the powerbooks follow afterwards.

It's also still a mistake to make your purchasing plans based on this info. It is still a rumor that Apple will even use these chips no matter how likely or how logical it may seem. If you need a new computer/laptop buy it don't wait because such and such rumor says this or that. If you do you will wait for ever because there is always something a thousand times better just around the corner according to rumors.

[barkmonster]

Most of the music studios around here (a lot of studios in this town) use MAcs. infact a lot of them still have the Blue and White G3's that there old Pro Tools setup came in. They trust them, and frankly, they are fast enough for the task.

People who come in here and rant about raw speed always seem ingnorant about these industries to me. Speed is wonderful, sure, but not the whole package, especially not in Audio and Video.

I totally agree, if I could afford the 3 grand or so (UK pounds) for a used Protools|24 Mix system, any G4 system of 500Mhz or more would offer me enough extra power to run all the RTAS plug-ins and software synths I'd ever want to use because the DSPs on the mix card would cope with quite a few plug-ins that could bring any cpu to it's knees (Sans-amp, RenVerb, Realverb etc...).

The problem I have is that I can't afford a full protools system and I'd be more than happy with a faster mac running Protools LE, my beige G3 is very long in the tooth but I still run protools LE on it because I can't afford a new mac for at least another 4 months or so, that's why I think a faster mac is more important for hobbyist audio/video work than it is for professionals. I know even an 800Mhz G4 runs rings around my current mac, with the dual cpu support coming in Protools LE 6.0 under OSX I'd have an even better system but waiting for a 1.4 - 1.8Ghz GPUL based powermac seems so much better because it should have something like the raw speed Athlon and Pentium 4 based protools LE systems have. If you can't afford the TDM hardware and you don't need to use n amount of mac only plug-ins, the windows platform is certainly a lot faster, 1.5 - 2.5 x faster at present and that's comparing a fairly modern dual G4 in the 800Mhz - 1Ghz range to a 2.2Ghz P4 or Athlon XP 2200+ system you could build for about a 3rd of the price of a dual Ghz powermac. I wouldn't switch to window because I need a lot of mac only software and even without it, no midi patchname manangement and 1 lousy tone module plug-in isn't enough to go with all that extra speed I'm never going to have any genuine use for.

A GPUL based mac with well matched RAM would give me the best of both worlds. I think it's worth the wait for hobbyists, even if the professionals are fine with their current setups.

[shadowfax0]

Could anyone spill all the beans on the AMD Clawhammer so we can compare these two...??

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by foniks2020
At the end of the article in the summary of specs he lists the 1.2 ghz 970 with 19w of power used... how does this compare to current G4s being used in Powerbooks? While I didn't look too hard for this spec just now it isn't specifically listed at Apples tech spec page for Powerbooks or G4.... any experts out there?

According to http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7445&nodeId=01M98653:

Typical: 10.3 @ 733 MHz
Max: 14.5 @ 733 MHz

Note that this is at 733MHz, not 1.2GHz. I would be surprised if the "typical" power dissipation was 19w at 1.2GHz, but the "max" dissipation may very well be that high. Not sure which figure you are quoting for the PowrPC 970.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by shadowfax0
Could anyone spill all the beans on the AMD Clawhammer so we can compare these two...??

Do a search through the threads. There were some very interesting discussions on other 64Bit processors when the info of the PPC970 was first released last week.

[ddtlm]

MacBandit:

So is it just a bunch of crap when they state that it can achieve up to 8 operations per clock cycle?
Well, pretty much yes, but not for any reason related to the post of mine that you replied to. IBM tells the truth when they say "retrieves up to 8 instructions per cycle" but people have ran off and decided that it can do 8 operations per clock, which is not what IBM said. The Power4 and PPC-970 can only retire one bundle of instructions, which is up to 5 instructions, per cycle. AFAIK it could maintain 5 instuctions per cycle "forever" in the perfect program.

The above does not include the AtliVec unit. I have no idea how many AltiVec instructions can be issued, retired, or anything else... and I don't know how that effects the scalar executions and retires. I don't know where to find that info either. Perhaps, just perhaps, the PPC-970 really can sustain 8 instructions per clock if we include AltiVec. More info is needed.

[lou tsee]

to jettredmont:

the specs you supply belong to the 7445, whereas the new
powerbooks (DVI) use the 7441 as far as I know

(http://www.everymac.com/systems/by_processor/powerpc7400.html)

the 7441 has the following figures:

14.5W @ 667 MHz, 19.0W @ 667MHz

so the PB 800 should max out at somewhere around 23W

meaning the ppc970 is roughly whithin this range!

[MacCoaster]

Nice. Volume production by mid 2003. Better than I expected. But we still gotta wait to see if it lives up the hype.

[PrettyMan]

Nice.

My 400Mhz iMac SE and I will wait eight months.

I'm not goin to buy a new system now if I'll have a hyper-super-great-mac in that period of time !!!

Ciao.

[Tue12]

This leaking news is going to hurt Apple sales. Everyone is gonna wait for one of these bad boys. :)

Including me. Forget my plans for an iMac. I'll take one of these monsters...after winning the lottery :D

Dual 1.8Ghz PPC970
900Mhz bus
Radeon 9700Pro, etc...etc... :D
oh, yeah ... 23" HD Cinema Display

...for'ged aboud id! :D

[Cappy]

Originally posted by Tue12
This leaking news is going to hurt Apple sales. Everyone is gonna wait for one of these bad boys. :)

That's why I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple must have something planned to hold people over before then. I'd guess that Apple is going to go with a new Moto chip like the mystical G5 for the desktop. It all kinda makes sense because no matter how people want to warp the facts, everything is currently pointing to Apple using this in "high-end" systems if they do use it and would "almost" suggest that even the sub-$2000 PowerMacs may not have this cpu. That's my own speculation though...or maybe just my luck since I couldn't afford anything more than that. ;)

[tychay]

Remember, these things are going to appear in the XServe line first, then the pro desktop line. And then the pro notebook line--Q1 2004 seems optimistic for us Powerbook G4-Ti owners ;).

It's interesting to note the need of separate controllers and separate memory busses for each CPU. This fixes a problem in the dual-G4s where they are forced to share the memory bus which negates the DDR speed advantage (http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html). One wonders if Apple had a hand in that?

Unfortunately, this probably means that the dual and quad CPU PPC970 XServes would be very expensive, and probably the pro-desktop model will move back to a single CPU PPC970 (assuming Apple calls this chip "G5" and not a 64-bit Motorola chip).

[MacBandit]

I don't want to insult people but I think that anyone who wants a new computer now and is instead going to wait because of a rumor is a complete idiot. Buy your computer now and in a few years you will be ready to upgrade and guess what there will be something even faster then a 1.8Ghz PPC970 by then. There will always be something faster tomorrow. Get what you want today. Also there has been absolutely no guarantee that Apple will go into production with this chip. It does seem highly likely but no press release has been made.

[PrettyMan]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't want to insult people but I think that anyone who wants a new computer now and is instead going to wait because of a rumor is a complete idiot.

But yo do it !!

I've an three years old iMac and it seems to work fine for me and I was thinking to buy a recent DP. But I can wait, because of I'm not using it at work (I've a new 1Ghz DP threre) and I don't use it to play games.

I think that anyone who thinks people is idiot is no very intelligent. There is a lot of reasons to wait, and rumors is one of them.

Ciao.

[ddtlm]

I have to agree with MacBandit about the logic in waiting (if you need a machine now). For all we know, if Macs are offered with PPC-970's they may only be offered in single-CPU configs, greatly reducing the performance edge (over a dual G4). They may (at first) be available at only 1.4ghz... or some other speed very close to dual CPU G4's they could replace. They could cost a lot more than the current dual 1.25. They could be delayed until 2004, and then be all of those bad things I listed, all at once!

(Or, they could be none of the bad things I listed.)

[scem0]

sort of ironic how for years everyone only talked about the g5, and waited and waited and waited for it, and it will probably come out in Jan, and nobody is gunna buy it. Poor g5 :o ...

:D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by PrettyMan


But yo do it !!

I've an three years old iMac and it seems to work fine for me and I was thinking to buy a recent DP. But I can wait, because of I'm not using it at work (I've a new 1Ghz DP threre) and I don't use it to play games.

I think that anyone who thinks people is idiot is no very intelligent. There is a lot of reasons to wait, and rumors is one of them.

Ciao.

I only think someone is an idiot if they wait based on rumors. If Apple were to say tomorrow that they planned on using the PPC970 and it will be released in August, hell I'd wait. As it is I already have my new Dual/Ghz/DDR and I am not dissapointed in that I didn't wait. This machine is incredibly fast and will do what I need it do for 2 or 3 years at which point I will upgrade.

Rumors really suck because all they do is get people hopes up and hurt the current business and when they turn out to be untrue everyones pissed off especially at the company. It's not there fault so and so said that the new computer would be able to transport you anywhere in the world and back in seconds.

Be realistic people rumors are rumors and are complete fiction until prooven otherwise.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't want to insult people but I think that anyone who wants a new computer now and is instead going to wait because of a rumor is a complete idiot. Buy your computer now and in a few years you will be ready to upgrade and guess what there will be something even faster then a 1.8Ghz PPC970 by then. There will always be something faster tomorrow. Get what you want today. Also there has been absolutely no guarantee that Apple will go into production with this chip. It does seem highly likely but no press release has been made. Although I'd generally agree in this case I do disagree with that. You are forgetting those that actually will see large advantages witha 64-bit processor. It is far better for me to wait 6 months than buy at the next revision then have to wait for my next purchase cycle to buy. Having my mac as a 64-bit machine is simply too important to me. 64-bit computing opens up avenues for some professions that simply aren't available with current hardware and I would strongly suggest to those people to wait.

[Cappy]

I think the one thing that *will* literally drive Mac fanatics crazy is that Apple won't announce if they're even going to use this cpu until the last possible minute which could be at such an unveiling. I could honestly see something like this happening thus it will remain a rumor until something does or doesn't happen. If anyone is expecting some announcement at the next Macworld that they're going to be using these, they're nuts. I just don't see how Apple could possibly benefit from announcing it. It's not the same as going from 68k to PPC where it well known far ahead of time.

[hesdeadjim]

I only think someone is an idiot if they wait based on rumors. If Apple were to say tomorrow that they planned on using the PPC970 and it will be released in August, hell I'd wait. As it is I already have my new Dual/Ghz/DDR and I am not dissapointed in that I didn't wait. This machine is incredibly fast and will do what I need it do for 2 or 3 years at which point I will upgrade.

Rumors really suck because all they do is get people hopes up and hurt the current business and when they turn out to be untrue everyones pissed off especially at the company. It's not there fault so and so said that the new computer would be able to transport you anywhere in the world and back in seconds.

Be realistic people rumors are rumors and are complete fiction until prooven otherwise.

I think you are being too harsh. I agree that most people put too much into rumors, but they are good in letting you judge when an update is coming and when to update your own computer. I agree that if you need a computer now, you shouldn't be too concerned about updates unless it looks like it will be in a few weeks. This computer will serve you well even if it is only the top of the line for a month. The big problem is that rumors are useless this far in advance.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by scem0
sort of ironic how for years everyone only talked about the g5, and waited and waited and waited for it, and it will probably come out in Jan, and nobody is gunna buy it. Poor g5 :o ...

:D

That's what I fear too. Did you read between the lines of the Q4 results guys? The future looks anything but bright for Apple.

International sales dropped 30-40%, depending on the region. Now Apple gets the shaft for neglecting the outside US customers so badly over the years. And I can exactly tell you when that neglecting started. It was when Jobs took back over Apple. He is not able to think global. He proved that so many times. The iMacs may be cool for North America, but they are not very atractive for european customers. He never gave a damn. The products are always designed for the american market, instead of making a difference in the product lines and to provide an acceptable pricing. Can anybody tell me, why I should pay about 10-15% more for every Apple product?

The customers outside the US are sick of paying insane prices for Macs compared to the US prices. They are sick of having a really bad support. For example: .Mac is especially for the US market. But if I want to use it as a european too, I have to pay the same price, although not all features are available for me and I have no support in Germany.

Apple did really a bad job when they pulled from the CeBIT in Hannover a few years ago. The biggest computer fair of the world. They don't show presence at all here. The market share is down to rediculous 1.5% here in Germany. It was almost 10% ten years ago. Most of the Apple retailers go bancrupt because of Apple's policy. And now finally they won the jackpot with forcing the retailers into new contracts with insane conditions (one is that Apple has the right to check the books of the retailer at any given time without notice) that made again some retailers to turn the back to Apple.

Apple has to play global and fair if they want to survive... just Mr. Jobs can't get that!

I have a really bad feeling this time considering Apple and it was never that bad before.

And I think scem0's statement could be a kind of prophecy... by the time the "G5" or however it will be called will be out, nobody cares anymore, because nobody is seriously considering to buy an Apple anymore for professional work and a lot of them will have replaced their workstations with alternatives to Apple.

I will go on using my Macs as long as it makes sense to do so, meaning also support from Software Companys that provide me with the Software I need. But somehow I start to believe that my workstations I make money with won't have the Apple logo anymore in about 2 years.

groovebuster

P.S.: You should hear the statements of traditional Mac users here in Germany. Most of them are pissed and most of them seriously consider to switch in the near future if the situation doesn't change.

[scem0]

Originally posted by ddtlm
reyesmac:

I can see reason for a certain amount of pessimism, but perhaps you have taken it too far...

No - ive taken it too far. I just bought a PC. I totally recognize what he is saying. As of now, I think anyone who is willing to spend 3,000+ to get a powermac that is slow compared to the top PC and has old hardware to go with it, is crazy. I bought a 2.4 GHz pent4 with 6 USB2 ports, CDRW drive (40x-12x-XXx), WinXP Home, GeForce 2 MX, and everything else I need, for $600 . I think that it is crazy that the low end mac users get stuck with crap too. Imagine trying to shop for a mac with $600. Anything you buy is gunna be so slow, and so outdated, that it is already obsolete. Right now, apple computers are going down the drain, but luckily they switched to IBM who can, hopefully, save their arses. I am saving my money to buy the overpriced apple machine coming out in, hopefully, a year and a couple months.

Rant over

[allpar]

I hate to say it, but he is. There's no way I'd buy a new Mac right now. The emac is the only one that has a reasonable price, and that comes iwth a monitor that I don't need. What I really need is a cheap minitower with a fast bus and hard drive. I'd buy a used blue and white G3 and upgrade the processor (I already have a 450 MHz G4 upgrade I got for my beige G3 for $150), but THOSE cost as much as a 1.8 GHz Dell...USED. Best price I can find on a B&W seems to be over $500.

What I'd love to see is something like the Cube, only not so artsy. Or a beige G4 in a nice cheap case. I don't care about what it looks like on the outside, I want something quick that runs OS 9 and OS X... a speed boost for my beige G3... at a reasonable price. (I know they make better processor upgrades, but my G3's problem is not the procesosr or the 7200 rpm hard drive, it's the system bus, video card, and slow IDE, and I'm not going to be able to upgrade those very easily or cheaply.) Lots of people at this point would - or are - simply buy one of those fast Dells we see on TV, and get a three year on-site warranty along with the deal, for less than a used G4-450.

Boy, I'd love a Cube about now...! Except I don't think I could shove my DVD-RAM (for backup) into it. Let me rephrase that. I'd love a stripped B&W G3 about now...!

But I think Apple starts to consider those who are UPGRADING from older computers and already own a monitor, but can't spend $1,600 for their cheapest machine. I think the time has finally come for another $900 monitor-free G4...perhaps an 800 MHz single-processor model without the fancy blue case.

[allpar]

There is [sic] a lot of reasons to wait, and rumors is one of them.
[/B]

Agreed. I remember waiting just a little longer to get a new Mac, years ago, and was able to get a Plus at a $400 lower price...then when retiring the Plus, waited just a little (instead of getting an LC III) and the Quadra 605 came out...at about the same price...then the beige G3 replaced the expensive 604e... now I suspect I could either buy one of Apple's current machines, or wait until February and get either the current crop a LOT cheaper, or something that is to the beige G3 what that was to the Quadra...

(which by the way still works, as does the Mac Plus, whicih I have in my basement now; and both were loaned out to people after I stopped using them. My laptop is a 1994 Duo 280...in frequent use!)

[tucker]

First I do not believe there will be a G5 Moto as such,( for the Mac) they will up-date the G4's and Apple will be using them for a while maybe two years or so before the 970 starts to trickle down to the consumer level.(doesn't matter who produces them Moto, Hatachi,etc.)

I have seen time and time again even as well built as the Mac's are that there are problems with first generation products and people always say wait for the second generation. This will be well into 2004, this supports thoses that say if you need a new computer get it, if you don't then you do risk wasting your money just so you can have the latest greatest, (and this is fine if you can afford it) but don't complain if something comes out faster, it always does.

The next year or so will be very exciting, lets hope all these predictions come true, and yes I do believe in Santa Clause.

[MacBandit]

I'm not disagreeing that rumors can be a valuble tool. I too have used them when I was getting ready to buy. Just this time I did. I wanted a new computer but I knew that a new model would be out in no more then 6 weeks so I waited.

Waiting a year to a year and a half on rumor at this point though is utterly rediculous. Rumors hold very little accuracy even as little as the week before an announcement. If you need something get it now. There will not be any revisions to towers for almost 6 months to come and when they do come I don't think your getting a 64 bit chip at that time.

The people who need a 64bit processor might have a point for waiting but it still seems a little far fetched to wait a year based on a rumor that may have little truth in reality.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0


No - ive taken it too far. I just bought a PC. I totally recognize what he is saying. As of now, I think anyone who is willing to spend 3,000+ to get a powermac that is slow compared to the top PC and has old hardware to go with it, is crazy. I bought a 2.4 GHz pent4 with 6 USB2 ports, CDRW drive (40x-12x-XXx), WinXP Home, GeForce 2 MX, and everything else I need, for $600 . I think that it is crazy that the low end mac users get stuck with crap too. Imagine trying to shop for a mac with $600. Anything you buy is gunna be so slow, and so outdated, that it is already obsolete. Right now, apple computers are going down the drain, but luckily they switched to IBM who can, hopefully, save their arses. I am saving my money to buy the overpriced apple machine coming out in, hopefully, a year and a couple months.

Rant over

I'm sorry Scem but I disagree completely. Yes you have a fast processor but overall you did not get what I would consider a comparable machine. Geforce2mx talking about old hardware as you put it. Also no firewire, superdrive or anything else. What kind of ram does it have and what speed bus?

Buying a Mac is about so much more then simply looking at the hardware. It's about the system as a whole and the OS. It's about the community and about simply having a mac. No it's not always simply logical but you get what you pay for in my oppinion.

[ryan]

Originally posted by Tue12
This leaking news is going to hurt Apple sales. Everyone is gonna wait for one of these bad boys. :)

While I know that Apple isn't the only one to blame for the lackluster performance of their current Mac's and don't want to see them "hurt," I do think think that in this case these sorts of rumors can be of some benefit. Assuming that we only see speed bumps of the current G4 before the 970 PowerPC makes its debut Apple may be forced to lower prices and/or greatly increase the features in their next round of machine revisions that we'll probably see in the next 3-4 months.

I'm planning on replacing my current iBook in 12-18 months, hopefully I'll be able to buy a 970 PowerPC PowerBook then.

[Tue12]

The US computer market is saturated. In particular, firms are not upgrading their hardware, since the vast majority of the machines are used for administrative tasks that are easily handled by computers made as far back as 1995 or more.

It's just a brutal market for all computer companies. Some of them will have to die out. Gateway comes to mind. :)

If IBM delivers, then before we realize it, in a few months from now Apple's hardware problems will be on the way to recovery.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by MacBandit


I'm sorry Scem but I disagree completely. Yes you have a fast processor but overall you did not get what I would consider a comparable machine. Geforce2mx talking about old hardware as you put it. Also no firewire, superdrive or anything else. What kind of ram does it have and what speed bus?

Buying a Mac is about so much more then simply looking at the hardware. It's about the system as a whole and the OS. It's about the community and about simply having a mac. No it's not always simply logical but you get what you pay for in my oppinion.

So tell me one thing that you can do with a Mac that you can't do with Windows machine these days as a pro user? Same standard apps, same experience within the apps. The OS normally makes just a little bit of the daily work, and the differences are minimal and both sides have their pros and cons.

Your point of view is totally acceptable if you are a consumer, but not when you make money with the machine.

Apple is losing it's pro users, because there isn't a real argument anymore to better use a Mac than a PC. The only reason I could think of is to not use a M$-based machine. When you have to budget your hardware you couldn't care less if there is an Apple logo on your machines or anything else. Best productivity for lowest price. That's how the economy works.

I work with Macs and PCs and since W2000 I never had some of those horror problems again mac addicts like to refer to. On my W2000 machine I never had a system crash since I purchased it almost 2 years ago. So is that stable or what?

On the other hand I had several sessions to fix my Macs once in a while because of things like a corrupted file system or some drivers or apps wouldn't work anymore after I updated the OS...

Don't get me wrong, I like to work with the mac a lot, but at the moment there are no rational arguments at all to shell out a lot more money for a mac to do exactly the same work as on the PC. The pro users are starting to switch because since a while you get your work done as good as on a Mac and if it needs a beefy CPU even faster than on a Mac in a lot of cases.

Emotions are OK for the consumer, but are not such a big deal for pro users. In business it's cold numbers to certain extend and the Mac looks worse than bad considering that.

Maybe that's why Apple is focussing so much on the consumers... but without a remarkable pro user base Apple could die an unexpected fast death.

groovebuster

P.S.: You were referring to all the stuff build into the Mac already when you buy it... Hey, but a lot of people don't need that stuff! For what do you need all the little gadgets, when you need just a machine to surf the net and to do office work? And that's what the most PCs are used for... just office work! The only thing they need is an ethernet port a CD-ROM, an onboard graphics chipset and a HD... If Apple could just get that a lot of people would buy a cheap Mac like that right away if it would be available. A little G4 minitower in a cheap enclosure and for about 600$! That would be the top seller! You could even use it for little tasks in Phototshop 'n stuff when you are not in need to crunch numbers all the time... But Apple prefers to die in grace... like a swan!

[allpar]

Originally posted by groovebuster
The only thing they need is an ethernet port a CD-ROM, an onboard graphics chipset and a HD... If Apple could just get that a lot of people would buy a cheap Mac like that right away if it would be available. A little G4 minitower in a cheap enclosure and for about 600$! That would be the top seller! You could even use it for little tasks in Phototshop 'n stuff when you are not in need to crunch numbers all the time... But Apple prefers to die in grace... like a swan!

I'd be quite happy to get a cheap box without all the crap. Frankly, I have most of the components I need already. In the PC world I could buy a box, a good motherboard, and a processor, and use all the other stuff I already own. I have for years wished Apple would start selling motherboards to us at reasonable prices with the undertsanding that we have the brains to shove a CPU and RAM on, and then put a case around it ourselves. But then they'd need to increase their market share to keep sales up! Because most of us would not upgrade to a totally new machine...

Apple doesn't seem to realize that they need to double their market share, and to do that, they need prices to come down. I think most investors would go for a "temporary losses to boost market share" strategy even in this economy. Especially if it was accompanied by a lower Jobs expense account.

[SonnyCA]

Here's my deal, and maybe some of you fall into this category...

I am a freelance designer. I love my Dual 500, it does everything I want, and a new Radeon card and some more RAM will zap any remaining performance issues I have. My total software investment is close to equal with my initial hardware investment -- about $3,000.

I listen to everyone talk about how slow Macs are compared to PCs, and how Macs use outdated hardware, and this, and that. But do I need anything to go faster on my Mac that requires raw CPU performance? Not really. And if I were to get the fastest PC on the planet, I'd need to add $3,000 to its price tag in order to purchase all new software. This is not an attractive option to me, sorry.

I have worked in plenty of creative houses. Do you know what most of them use for day-to-day work? G4 450s and 500s, single CPU systems with maxed-out RAM. Hmmm... they should all have 2.4 GHz PCs because they need speed, right? I work on poster-size PhotoShop files and I should upgrade everything (hardware and software) to the fastest PC just because it's the fastest, right?

I think a good 75% of the complaints you read about Mac performance have to do with men and their need to compete for the biggest p*nis. It doesn't have much to do with reality.

I can understand that if you need to do a lot of 3D rendering, you need a fast CPU. Cool, so go get that 2.4 GHz $600 rendering box. Awesome investment! But you'll still want a Mac, with all of its niceties, to put everything together and to do other types of work.

Serious professionals, who get serious work done, are not swayed by the performance arguments I read in here and on other boards. There is little justification in moving to an entirely different computing platform, with all of its requisite software re-investment costs. We're doing just fine.

:)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by SonnyCA
Here's my deal, and maybe some of you fall into this category...

[...]

I listen to everyone talk about how slow Macs are compared to PCs, and how Macs use outdated hardware, and this, and that. But do I need anything to go faster on my Mac that requires raw CPU performance? Not really. And if I were to get the fastest PC on the planet, I'd need to add $3,000 to its price tag in order to purchase all new software. This is not an attractive option to me, sorry.

[...]

I think a good 75% of the complaints you read about Mac performance have to do with men and their need to compete for the biggest p*nis. It doesn't have much to do with reality.

[...]

Serious professionals, who get serious work done, are not swayed by the performance arguments I read in here and on other boards. There is little justification in moving to an entirely different computing platform, with all of its requisite software re-investment costs. We're doing just fine.

:)

First, let me say that it's one thing to bitch and moan about Mac performance, and a wholly other thing to actually "reverse switch" (Microsoft style) to Windows.

Secondly, as for myself, I get incredibly sick of waiting for 30-45 minutes for the project I am working on to compile for my Mac when it takes <5 minutes for a complete ground-up rebuild on a 1.5GHz P4 Windows box. Granted, MS's compiler is fast, but 6-9x as fast? A faster Mac would be greatly appreciated by the development community. And spending $3000 more to reduce that compile time by, say, 50%? That's a damned bargain!

But you are correct. For the "average" user out there, raw performance is not the usability bottleneck: overall system stability and design are the bottlenecks. Macs address these issues while Wintel machines largely ignore them. A $300 eMachine will get your email just as fast as a $1299 iMac, but the $300 eMachine will never run an operating system with the grace and design of OS X (not to mention it will likely fizzle and die within the first six months).

Which is, of course, why I put up with 30 minute compiles before I can test my latest changes. But I'm still gonna bitch about how slow it is! :)

[reyesmac]

Since this has moved from talking about the IBM chip and turned into some anti-Apple thing, I want to add some more points the the bad Apple column.:D First let me say that when I bash Apple it is because I see it as the best computer hardware/software manufacturer and I hold them to a much higher level of accountability. I would never switch to the dark side, but I will not lie to myself about it being the answer to everyones computing problems.

1.) Apples "affordable" computers are not processor/video card upgradable.

2.) Anything but the top-of-the-line $3,000+ Powermac is based on old technology.

3.) The Powermac line is not marketed to people who just want a regular computer, yet it is the only computer Apple sells that has PCI slots and in a tower shape. (PC's always come with PCI slots and you dont have to pay a premium to use Firewire, internal 40x CDRW $50, external 16x cdrw $120)

4.) Apple cripples every machine but the fastest Powermac so they are slower than the most expensive.

5.) Apple only offers bleeding edge video connectivity and wanted to do the same with audio. (There is no cheap way to get high quality RCA jack VCR video into a mac, only firewire DV signals)

6.) If Apple made a Mac out of standard PC parts (exept the motherboard) it would have a Mac that is cheaper, more expandable, as reliable, and faster than ANY Powermac sold today.
(It would be faster because it would use faster CD-rw's and video cards and USB2. It would be more expandable because firewire/usb and ethernet would be on its own PCI slots giving it around 6 available PCI slots.)
You might be able to make some arguments about reliability, but that is only if you chose really cheap hardware, which they wouldnt do.

Apple is in a transition phase right now and this is probably as bad as its going to get as far as speed/price gaps are concerned. Next year will be better than this year.

Also, for the price of one powermac without monitor, you could get an eMac and a nice PC that would do everything you could ever want for the next few years if you used both to get your work done. Thats kind of sad really that I can buy the slowest Mac and a PC around the speed of the lowest powermac for the price of a Powermac.

Even with all that said, I will still stick with Apple, they must be doing something right for to say that.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by groovebuster


So tell me one thing that you can do with a Mac that you can't do with Windows machine these days as a pro user?

Pro audio work with Digital Performer, Logic, or MAX/MSP? :-)

- Springs

[springscansing]

Originally posted by reyesmac

2.) Anything but the top-of-the-line $3,000+ Powermac is based on old technology.

That's a little harsh. I got a DP 867 with a Radeon 9000 from the apple store on the educational discount (which requires like no proof btw) for 1650. I wouldn't say that's much worse than the 3000 model. Slightly slower ram (no way you can notice it with a G4 anyway) and a slightly slower bus. That's it.

[springscansing]

I donno how this went from a 970 thread to a Apple bashing thread, but whatever. :rolleyes:

Eitherway, I know personally that for PRO audio work, macs are still the best, or at least they will be in a few months. Coreaudio and coremidi are GODLIKE, and XP or any other OS can not come ANYWHERE NEAR it. OS X is simply the best pro audio production OS in existance, especially with Logic, Cubse SX, Reason 2, and Protools now. :-)

If NI would get damned Reaktor out for OS X I could switch back to 10.2.1 instead of this damned OS 9!

- Springs

[Dave K]

Originally posted by reyesmac
1.) Apples "affordable" computers are not processor/video card upgradable.
And from a video standpoint, neither are most of your $300-$1000 Intel Integrated PC specials from mainstream manufacturers last I looked.

2.) Anything but the top-of-the-line $3,000+ Powermac is based on old technology.
And one could argue that anything other than a $2000-$2500 PC is based on "old technology", after all, they won't necessarily be running the latest and greatest chipsets, video cards, or media devices on the low end either...

3.) The Powermac line is not marketed to people who just want a regular computer, yet it is the only computer Apple sells that has PCI slots and in a tower shape. (PC's always come with PCI slots and you dont have to pay a premium to use Firewire, internal 40x CDRW $50, external 16x cdrw $120)
That's because I'd be willing to bet 90% of mainstream "regular" computers users never make any changes to their machines from the day they turn it on, until the day they toss it in the bin.

Other than perhaps paying someone else $50 an hour, 1 hour minimum charge, to increase the RAM because their "computer literate" friend told them it would be a good thing to do...

4.) Apple cripples every machine but the fastest Powermac so they are slower than the most expensive.
Yeah. And a Celeron/Duron box has all the Cache and bus Speed of a PIV/Athlon box...

Afterall, Apple's the only company anywhere that has ever played fast and loose with chip features and bus speed to differentiate product ...

5.) Apple only offers bleeding edge video connectivity and wanted to do the same with audio. (There is no cheap way to get high quality RCA jack VCR video into a mac, only firewire DV signals)
http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=VW60933&cat=pc

http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf_id=DRI4410&blind=&view=&cat=pc


6.) If Apple made a Mac out of standard PC parts (exept the motherboard) it would have a Mac that is cheaper, more expandable, as reliable, and faster than ANY Powermac sold today.
The Mac does use standard PC parts, other than the motherboard and processor. There's nothing else inside the Mac that you can't get outta any other PC shop...

(It would be faster because it would use faster CD-rw's and video cards and USB2.
Not really. There's only one card faster than a GF4 Ti or ATI 9000 PRO out there, so it's not like there's a lacking of fast cards (Nor is the 9700 exactly overflowing the shelves at the moment). CD-RW's wouldn't get any faster because Apple's priority is all in ones and that's not likely going to change. Meanwhile, while it's not slow, USB2's merits against FireWire are still up for debate at the moment.

It would be more expandable because firewire/usb and ethernet would be on its own PCI slots giving it around 6 available PCI slots.)
Unhuh, and the sky's green and the ground is blue...

Wanna care to explain to me how you plan to move Firewire, USB, and Ethernet off the motherboard and onto PCI cards, and then proceed to INCREASE the total number of available PCI Slots in a system while maintaining the same form factor?

There's a reason all this stuff is integrated, on both Mac and PC motherboards (even FireWire is becoming more common on the PC side).

[allpar]

Here's the core issue for me, and I suspect a lot of others.

I need a computer which won't have me falling asleep while Photoshop 7 or GoLive 6 loads... yet, I don't have $1,600 to blow on something that will be obsolete in six months. A PC would cost me about $1,000 if I wanted to go for all-out quality - buying the best case, the best motherboard, a good replaceable processor, etc.

There's no real way to get a fast, cheap Mac that fits my needs. The emac comes with a monitor built in, which makes the form factor untenable for me. The iMac and PowerMacs are too expensive, and again the iMac has its own monitor. I have an excellent 19" monitor already...I need a computer to power it, one where Explorer doesn't hang for absurd lengths of time while drawing pages that a cheap Duron 950 system does in the blink of an eye. I need a computer that will load PS7 or GL6 in the time it took my Mac Plus to load Word... or my G3 to load PS3 and GL3.

I'd LOVE a motherboard upgrade. The PC world is running 200 MHz busses with ATA133 on $700 computers. I'm stuck with 66 bus and ATA33, and to go up to an old-fashioned 100 (or is it 133?) bus and ATA66 (100?) would cost me $1,600?

Yes, I'm whining and moaning. Give me a cheap, reasonably fast computer in a plain box and I'll buy it. By cheap, Steve Jobs, I don't mean $1,400. I mean UNDER $1,000. Or about $1,000... that's what state of the art cost me in 1988 and again in 1993.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by allpar
Yes, I'm whining and moaning. Give me a cheap, reasonably fast computer in a plain box and I'll buy it. By cheap, Steve Jobs, I don't mean $1,400. I mean UNDER $1,000. Or about $1,000... that's what state of the art cost me in 1988 and again in 1993.

Dude... sounds like your getting a DELL! :rolleyes:

Sorry but Apple can't sell hardware on the cheap AND provide users with OS X and all of the things Apple is famous for (iApps and the like).

Hardware costs FUND OS DEVELOPMENT... Do you really think Apple could pay the programmers who write the OS on the money from OS SALES alone? Sorry but it can't. Apple prices it's OS where it does because MS does.

Repete after me...

HARDWARE FUNDS SOFTWARE
HARDWARE FUNDS SOFTWARE
HARDWARE FUNDS SOFTWARE

I've said this about a BILLION TIMES but what the heck...

DELL DOESN'T WRITE AN OS IT CAN SELL STUFF ON THE CHEAP
MICROSOFT HAS VOLUME ON ITS SIDE

Apple has to be both MICROSOFT and DELL all with a very small market share. I for one think they are doing a FANTASTIC JOB. Look at Be they failed... Look at Amiga the failed... look at HP they failed... Look at Sun (down for the count)... Look at SGI (down of the count)...

In short you want what Apple provides but don't want to pay of it... Sorry but you'll have to pay if you wanna play.

Dave

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit


I'm sorry Scem but I disagree completely. Yes you have a fast processor but overall you did not get what I would consider a comparable machine. Geforce2mx talking about old hardware as you put it. Also no firewire, superdrive or anything else. What kind of ram does it have and what speed bus?

Buying a Mac is about so much more then simply looking at the hardware. It's about the system as a whole and the OS. It's about the community and about simply having a mac. No it's not always simply logical but you get what you pay for in my oppinion.

It has 512 Megs of PC2700 DDR RAM. A lot of good RAM. And yeah, it doesn't come with a superdrive, or a geforce 4 ti, or a radeon 9000, but find a mac for $600 that doesn't have a Rage graphics card... Now who is talking about old technology. Yeah for $2, 200 more I can get a comp with a better graphics card from apple. Or I could spend $350 and buy a good one. I'll go with the latter thank you. You are right that a computer's quality is more then just its speed. But all in all a mac is less quality. Sure it has the looks and the OS, but not much more is going for it. I am just not willing to buy an obsolete mac, when I can get a new PC. I think anyone who would buy a mac with $600 will be very dissapointed.

[scem0]

Originally posted by DaveGee


Dude... sounds like your getting a DELL! :rolleyes:


Dave

what you say is true, but not completely true. The reason apple overprices it's computers is not to fun their software. It is to make up for their lack of market share. I think that if they took a stab at lowering their prices, then they would gain a lot of market share, and wouldn't have to overprice their computers.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by SonnyCA
Here's my deal, and maybe some of you fall into this category...

I am a freelance designer. I love my Dual 500, it does everything I want, and a new Radeon card and some more RAM will zap any remaining performance issues I have. My total software investment is close to equal with my initial hardware investment -- about $3,000.

I listen to everyone talk about how slow Macs are compared to PCs, and how Macs use outdated hardware, and this, and that. But do I need anything to go faster on my Mac that requires raw CPU performance? Not really. And if I were to get the fastest PC on the planet, I'd need to add $3,000 to its price tag in order to purchase all new software. This is not an attractive option to me, sorry.

I have worked in plenty of creative houses. Do you know what most of them use for day-to-day work? G4 450s and 500s, single CPU systems with maxed-out RAM. Hmmm... they should all have 2.4 GHz PCs because they need speed, right? I work on poster-size PhotoShop files and I should upgrade everything (hardware and software) to the fastest PC just because it's the fastest, right?

I think a good 75% of the complaints you read about Mac performance have to do with men and their need to compete for the biggest p*nis. It doesn't have much to do with reality.

I can understand that if you need to do a lot of 3D rendering, you need a fast CPU. Cool, so go get that 2.4 GHz $600 rendering box. Awesome investment! But you'll still want a Mac, with all of its niceties, to put everything together and to do other types of work.

Serious professionals, who get serious work done, are not swayed by the performance arguments I read in here and on other boards. There is little justification in moving to an entirely different computing platform, with all of its requisite software re-investment costs. We're doing just fine.

:)


Here here I agree completely. It is ***** envy in most cases. I do agree there are those that need the fastest and in those cases the PC might be the answer.

To previous posts I disagree completely when you say the experience of using a PC as compared to a Mac is very similar.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0


It has 512 Megs of PC2700 DDR RAM. A lot of good RAM. And yeah, it doesn't come with a superdrive, or a geforce 4 ti, or a radeon 9000, but find a mac for $600 that doesn't have a Rage graphics card... Now who is talking about old technology. Yeah for $2, 200 more I can get a comp with a better graphics card from apple. Or I could spend $350 and buy a good one. I'll go with the latter thank you. You are right that a computer's quality is more then just its speed. But all in all a mac is less quality. Sure it has the looks and the OS, but not much more is going for it. I am just not willing to buy an obsolete mac, when I can get a new PC. I think anyone who would buy a mac with $600 will be very dissapointed.

$2,200? You can get a Dual867 for $1,600 and it is more machine then 99% of all computer users need.

[springscansing]

+?+3/43/4?]Originally posted by scem0 [/i]


what you say is true, but not completely true. The reason apple overprices it's computers is not to fun their software. It is to make up for their lack of market share. I think that if they took a stab at lowering their prices, then they would gain a lot of market share, and wouldn't have to overprice their computers. [/QUOTE]

You know, Apple DOES have a marketing department who knows a lot more about this subject than you do. And last time I looked, Apple and Dell were the two healthiest computer consumer companies going. They were the only two to even make a profit a couple quarters ago.

I think their pricing scheme does quite nicely, regardless of how much I like it from a consumer standpoint.

- Springs

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit



Here here I agree completely. It is ***** envy in most cases. I do agree there are those that need the fastest and in those cases the PC might be the answer.

To previous posts I disagree completely when you say the experience of using a PC as compared to a Mac is very similar.

I don't think the experience is very similar at all... I don't think you are talking about me, becuase I never said they were similar, but I want to comment on this. They are not similar, and very hard to compare, because they are so different. Macs have a whole mac community, sort of like MacRumors :D - and people who use macs generally know more about computers, and enjoy the computer experience more. But PCs have more expandability, more people use them, they are faster in most of everything, and they have more compatibility. Overall (at this moment, I think in a year it will be the opposite) I think the PC experience is better, but that is arguable. It is mostly opinion, but right now, I can't stand to wait 20 seconds just to get on a browser that would browse faster on a similarely priced PC.

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit


$2,200? You can get a Dual867 for $1,600 and it is more machine then 99% of all computer users need.

That is true, but for $500 you can get a PC that is more then 99% of all computer users need.


You know, Apple DOES have a marketing department who knows a lot more about this subject than you do. And last time I looked, Apple and Dell were the two healthiest computer consumer companies going. They were the only two to even make a profit a couple quarters ago.

I think their pricing scheme does quite nicely, regardless of how much I like it from a consumer standpoint.

That is true, but what I said is true too. Apple's pricing works for apple (sometimes) but it doesn't work for me, or most people. As soon as I get a high-paying job, and can afford macs, I will buy them. Unfortunately, I am 15, and my mom isn't interesting on spending $3,000 on a computer she would have trouble turning on. LOL she turns on the monitor, and I have to explain to her why the computer won't turn on.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by allpar
Here's the core issue for me, and I suspect a lot of others.

I need a computer which won't have me falling asleep while Photoshop 7 or GoLive 6 loads... yet, I don't have $1,600 to blow on something that will be obsolete in six months. A PC would cost me about $1,000 if I wanted to go for all-out quality - buying the best case, the best motherboard, a good replaceable processor, etc.

There's no real way to get a fast, cheap Mac that fits my needs. The emac comes with a monitor built in, which makes the form factor untenable for me. The iMac and PowerMacs are too expensive, and again the iMac has its own monitor. I have an excellent 19" monitor already...I need a computer to power it, one where Explorer doesn't hang for absurd lengths of time while drawing pages that a cheap Duron 950 system does in the blink of an eye. I need a computer that will load PS7 or GL6 in the time it took my Mac Plus to load Word... or my G3 to load PS3 and GL3.

I'd LOVE a motherboard upgrade. The PC world is running 200 MHz busses with ATA133 on $700 computers. I'm stuck with 66 bus and ATA33, and to go up to an old-fashioned 100 (or is it 133?) bus and ATA66 (100?) would cost me $1,600?

Yes, I'm whining and moaning. Give me a cheap, reasonably fast computer in a plain box and I'll buy it. By cheap, Steve Jobs, I don't mean $1,400. I mean UNDER $1,000. Or about $1,000... that's what state of the art cost me in 1988 and again in 1993.


I highly doubt that your getting the best everything for $1,000. Also you complain about it being outdated well your $1,000 box will be outdated before it's built.

Ther are only a couple PC's I'm not talking about manufacturors but computers themselves running 200Mhz Bus'. In fact Apple is the first manufacturor to make a production computer with a 166Mhz bus.

I'm sorry but in 1988 state of the art was much closer to $4,000 if not more. Computer prices in general are cheaper now then they were then.

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit



I highly doubt that your getting the best everything for $1,000. Also you complain about it being outdated well your $1,000 box will be outdated before it's built.

Ther are only a couple PC's I'm not talking about manufacturors but computers themselves running 200Mhz Bus'. In fact Apple is the first manufacturor to make a production computer with a 166Mhz bus.

I'm sorry but in 1988 state of the art was much closer to $4,000 if not more. Computer prices in general are cheaper now then they were then.

I beg to differ. A 2.8 GHz pentium with a good motherboard and all the latest hardware (yes, you can find one on eBay for ~$1,000) is not already outdated. Not to mention a 533 MHz FSB... :rolleyes:

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0


I don't think the experience is very similar at all... I don't think you are talking about me, becuase I never said they were similar, but I want to comment on this. They are not similar, and very hard to compare, because they are so different. Macs have a whole mac community, sort of like MacRumors :D - and people who use macs generally know more about computers, and enjoy the computer experience more. But PCs have more expandability, more people use them, they are faster in most of everything, and they have more compatibility. Overall (at this moment, I think in a year it will be the opposite) I think the PC experience is better, but that is arguable. It is mostly opinion, but right now, I can't stand to wait 20 seconds just to get on a browser that would browse faster on a similarely priced PC.


No I was not referring to you. What mac takes 20seconds to start a browser? My computer takes only 30secs to start and like 1sec to open a browser.

I do believe that Macs are better built it. It has a lot to do with the control Apple can have over there computers. They build the OS they build the hardware and they make sure that whatever goes in it is not only compatible but also reliable.

The problem with Windoze is that it has to be built to the lowest common denominator. In other words at has to work with any computer that it is accetable to license it for right down to the 600Mhz Celeron with 64MB of ram and a cpu base graphics card that uses 12MB of that ram for vRam.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0


I beg to differ. A 2.8 GHz pentium with a good motherboard and all the latest hardware (yes, you can find one on eBay for ~$1,000) is not already outdated. Not to mention a 533 MHz FSB... :rolleyes:


That is actually only a 133Mhz FSB but but it is as they say Quad-Pumped. What else does it have? A good hard drive of 80GB or larger will cost you $150 and up. Does it even come with RAM or a graphics card?

[scem0]

My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit



That is actually only a 133Mhz FSB but but it is as they say Quad-Pumped. What else does it have? A good hard drive of 80GB or larger will cost you $150 and up. Does it even come with RAM or a graphics card?

I just bought a 2.4 GHz p4 with an OS (XP), CD Burner (a really fastone), 40 Gig 7000 RPM HD, Geforce 2 MX, and everything else I need for $600. It has a bunch of good RAM. 512 megs of PC2700 DDR RAM.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

That could definitely be true. All I know is every time I go to price a PC from a major manufacturor and add on all the features that I want that I get from a Mac standard I end up with a computer within $200-300 of the Mac.

[scem0]

I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0
I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.


What kind of companies. Small no names? Ones with questionable warranties (could go out of business tomorrow) with no customer support.

[3G4N]

10 seconds here, $100 there.
put yer nit-peckers in your mouths,

shut up and work.

if it's too slow, go get another
computer, and quit whining.

This isn't a democracy.
Vote with your wallets.
You get what you pay for.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

Well, you've got a few faults here.

1: Browser opening speed on a PC is very fast. Why? Because the browser (IE) is already open when the OS comes up. Add IE to your startup apps in OS X and you'll get the same performance boost. On a 800MHz P3 Mozilla takes about 30 seconds to come up unless it is set to "load with Windows", in which case it comes up as fast as it can draw its window. On a 2.2GHz P4 Mozilla comes up much faster, but still in the 5-10 second range.

2: A 333MHz iMac does not compare to anything available today. If you are comparing a $333 Wintel computer today to a Mac, it needs to be a Mac currently sold at $999 to qualify for "3x the price" of the Wintel alternative. Compare a $1000 Wintel machine to a $3000 Mac.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

Your iMac is messed up man. IE opens in 5 seconds on my 7600/120.

[springscansing]

Mozilla loads in 4 seconds on my DP450, just for a reference.

I think mr. spinnyhead avatar needs to get his facts straight. :rolleyes:

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0


I just bought a 2.4 GHz p4 with an OS (XP), CD Burner (a really fastone), 40 Gig 7000 RPM HD, Geforce 2 MX, and everything else I need for $600. It has a bunch of good RAM. 512 megs of PC2700 DDR RAM.

I'm assuming without monitor. I'm assuming XP Home, not "Pro/I might want to actually use a network someday".

Quality of parts is questionable. Off the shelf costs:

40 Gig 7200 RPM HD: $75
GeForce 2 MX: $50
CD Burner: $75
512 MB PC2700 DDR RAM: $180 (crucial.com)
2.4GHz P4: $190
Decent Power Supply: $50
Cheap MB: $200

Adds up to $820 without a monitor or case or software taxes. Given that the above prices are for "middling quality" components, not high-quality, I wouldn't trust that $600 PC. They've cut corners somewhere.

If you want cut-rate, a Mac is not an option for you, and never will be (knock on wood).

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0
I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.

Umm, if that's your source, you'd do better assembling it yourself. No-namers offer no usable warrantee (no guarantee that they'll be around to help if you need it), and no name to be tarnished if they fail to do a full burn in, and no volume to get volume discounts from manufacturers. You might as well cut out the assembler and extra shipping and do it yourself.

Again, if they're making a PC cheaper than you can assemble it, I can guarantee you they're skimping somewhere.

[reyesmac]

Apples a different kind of computer company. You pay more because when the competitions computers are obselite yours will still be running pretty well. They last longer and have style. They do not always have the fastest or cheapest drives/video cards. They rarely ever keep legacy parts that are now mainstream and affordable. They are the computer for someone who does not want to buy things to put inside it except more ram. They have an excellent operating system that at times is the only reason to stick with the platform, it is more than enough to justify not switching IMO.

But, it is not the computer for everyone, it is not the first computer you should buy. It is the tool that will help you be more productive once you are computer literate. Or, it is the computer you should buy if you do not plan on buying another computer for about 6 years. Because even if it looks like it is slower than PC's it is more power than the average person needs for a Mac.

I will be buying a 500mhz G4 upgrade card for my Blue G3, it should be more than enough to do what I do with my machine. But I also think that while waiting for the G5 to arrive, I will also get my wife the PC that she needs for her work. And I wont mind it one bit, because I will have years worth of games to play, more choices in arcade emulation programs which I like, and more choices in video importing than I currently have. I wouldnt recomend someone use a slow USB video capture device over a much faster PCI device. The PC would be used by me only as a device that captures information into my Digital Hub Mac. That and a nice gaming system.

I just don't feel like spending lots of money for something that needs to be replaced every few years. I don't like doing the same things on my computer, I like to use new programs and new OS's, but does it make sence to spend that much on a Powermac if you are not planning to make money with the machine?

[scem0]

No corners were cut. My system I bought is an official dell computer that (I am guessing something like this happened) a company bought a whole bunch of, and got a really good deal from Dell, and then they had 3-4 extra, and they sold them on eBay. It is all quality parts from Dell. I can return it if the product doesn't work.

As for my startup times with the iMac. That is with a jam packed HD, a bunch of other programs open (my mom never quits progs), and most of the system resources being used. I only have 160 Megs of RAM in that comp too. I don't use that comp though, and I haven't in a long time, so my guesses may be wrong. I use a g4 450 which is much faster.

I am fully aware that IE is integrated into windows, but browsing is still faster on windows.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by SonnyCA
Serious professionals, who get serious work done, are not swayed by the performance arguments I read in here and on other boards. There is little justification in moving to an entirely different computing platform, with all of its requisite software re-investment costs. We're doing just fine.

So I am not serious professional? Thanks a lot...

Sorry, but you totally missed the point. Regarding the software... That is not true. All the updates together of the Adobe Design Collection for example cost about the same as the collection itself when you buy it new.

And not to forget that also MacOS X requires a lot of Software investment. You tell me that a lot of companies still work with old gear? I know! And that is just the point. They DON'T buy new equipment! That's why Apple suffers. And as soon as they HAVE to, they are thinking if it is worth to pay at least 2,000$ for a barebone Mac or 600$ for something else, that is even faster -> lasts longer.

To question people's professionality just because they have a different point of view is unprofessional! :D

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by reyesmac
Apples a different kind of computer company. You pay more because when the competitions computers are obselite yours will still be running pretty well.


Can we stop those fairy-tales, please? Those times are over since a long time! Why should the usability of another Computer decrease when it is not an Apple Macintosh? I know people who work still with old 4 or 5 years old Windows machines and they are not less usable than Macs from that time...

They last longer and have style.
They use the same parts as other standard PCs... so there is no reason to believe, that they last any day longer than the average Windows-PC. And style? Well, last time I saw my PowerMac 7500 (it is still running well at some friend's place) I didn't find it that stylish. And who knows how we think about newer macs in a few years? Not to mention that the new PowerMacs are anything but really beautiful. "Style" often has the problem that it becomes outdated and old-fashioned.

But, it is not the computer for everyone, it is not the first computer you should buy. It is the tool that will help you be more productive once you are computer literate. Or, it is the computer you should buy if you do not plan on buying another computer for about 6 years. Because even if it looks like it is slower than PC's it is more power than the average person needs for a Mac.

Is there any logic in your statement??? :eek: Just no comment...

I just don't feel like spending lots of money for something that needs to be replaced every few years. I don't like doing the same things on my computer, I like to use new programs and new OS's, but does it make sence to spend that much on a Powermac if you are not planning to make money with the machine?

Then you shouldn't buy a computer at all...

groovebuster

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Can we stop those fairy-tales, please? Those times are over since a long time! Why should the usability of another Computer decrease when it is not an Apple Macintosh? I know people who work still with old 4 or 5 years old Windows machines and they are not less usable than Macs from that time...

Here is were you missed the point. 4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac. Hell I still know of a few companies in the area that are using old MacSEs for there cash register, business management, and accounting. Those things are old and still very much a useable computer. Oh and they have the original external hard drives and they still work.

In case you don't know the MacSE was originally sold in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Here is were you missed the point. 4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac. Hell I still know of a few companies in the area that are using old MacSEs for there cash register, business management, and accounting. Those things are old and still very much a useable computer. Oh and they have the original external hard drives and they still work.

In case you don't know the MacSE was originally sold in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989.

I didn't miss it at all. And I know all the Macs from the beginning. The first Mac I ever worked with for longer was a SE/30 (why they didn't order the SEs with an internal HD?). But where is the argument against the Windows machines? I showed that old PCs are still in use too and you tell me that I missed the point? My mother-in-law is studying again since a few years and she is writing all her papers on an 386-PC with DOS and StarWriter and it works just fine. She doesn't need more. So what?

It is always depending on the tasks you need to do. If you need just a simple wordprocessing machine, almost any computer from the last 15 years will do it, no matter which brand or OS. But there are also a lot of computers that are just not enough anymore for what you need to do with it. For example, I finally retired my PowerMac7500 last year (already upgraded to a PPC604e/200MHz) and gave it to someone else who doesn't need more power, because it was just too slow for a lot of tasks on my daily schedule.

4 or 5 years can be very old for a Mac, depending on what you want to do with it and which software you are running. It is not much different compared to the PC-world. And that's just what I wanted to point out... It is just the same!!! It isn't any better as a lot of Mac users want to believe.

Maybe you should think the other way around... since PCs were always way cheaper than Macs, people didn't mind to buy new hardware more regularly and to benefit from the speed increase. But that doesn't mean that their computers didn't work anymore. Actually I hardly met any people who replaced their PCs because they blew up, it was always because they wanted to run newer software or needed more power under the hood for games or new kinds of things that were impossible before. Exactly the same reasons why you want a faster/better Mac, also as a pro...

Does MacOS X run on a SE?? I guess not. What about MacOS 9?? Hmmm... also not! MacOS 8.1? Too bad, also that won't move it, latest supported OS is 7.5.5... excludes a lot of the "newer" software... What about a Photoshop newer than PS 2.0??? Oh, I forgot... b/w-screen, doesn't matter anyway... and damn... I can't plug my FireWire-drive to it...

Do you still think that I missed the point? ;)

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by springscansing


Pro audio work with Digital Performer, Logic, or MAX/MSP? :-)

- Springs

What kind or argument is that? There are alternatives. To bring example of a software product that isn't available (anymore...) is lame. Shall I list the pro software products that are not available for the Mac platform (at least in a current vesrion)? The list would be way longer...

groovebuster

[mum]

Yeah, I guess the list of PC apps "missing" on the mac platform is long, but when it comes to pro audio and design the lack of software on PC's is pretty apparent too.

[groovebuster]

... examples?

And I mean examples that provide functionality that you can't have with an alternative product as well?

groovebuster

[backspinner]

Originally posted by springscansing
I think mr. spinnyhead avatar needs to get his facts straight.
forgive him, he is only 15 and his mother pays for his expenses...

about ebay: not really the source for a long standing supplier. you better won't build a discussion about a company and their products on it!

[kenohki]

All this I know this person who's computer does this. I know this person who's computer does that. I say get right down to the facts. Windows is a nasty architecture. It's "plug-n-play" model sucks and works about 60-80% of the time. The driver model sucks and much of the driver software goes through so little R&Q testing that driver compatibility is almost as bad as extension compatibility when System 7 came out. It's also not dynamicly loaded meaning you have to reboot your machine for just about everything. And the registry has got to be the WORST frickin idea in the history of computing, I swear. I'd say that impacts the usability of most users. I use a Windows 2000 machine all day (iceBook when I come home). I can say that I seriously have MUCH less "out of the blue" problems with my Mac. Nor do I have to reboot all the time.

I also work in an IT organization for an enterprise with over 10,000 employees (Only about 2,000 or so at my location.) We use everything Dell (except for printers). Why do we use them? Because they're cheap. Do we have problems with reliability? Not so much with the desktops and workstations. But the laptops are absolute crap. So far we've had about 10 motherboard replacements with the Latitude C610 models because they just died. Their clocks are all screwed up meaning we're probably going to have to replace more. The video drivers are completely buggy and Windows Explorer freezes on them. And this is with Win2k with the most updated drivers available. So scem0, while you may have had a good experience with Dell, I can assure you it's not always the case. You get burned a lot more on the PC side of the fence than you do with a Mac. Luckily for us we're under warranty. But for those switchers on the Mac ads who are talking about how they don't have an IT department so they switched. I'm absolutely SURE they're telling the truth.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by groovebuster

....

And not to forget that also MacOS X requires a lot of Software investment. You tell me that a lot of companies still work with old gear? I know! And that is just the point. They DON'T buy new equipment! That's why Apple suffers. And as soon as they HAVE to, they are thinking if it is worth to pay at least 2,000$ for a barebone Mac or 600$ for something else, that is even faster -> lasts longer.
....
This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the software out there ran natively on MacOS X when it was introduced. It's called Carbon, it works, and it's only getting better. I had installed Adobe Acrobat 5.0 under MacOS 9.0. When I upgraded from MacOS 9 to MacOS X 10.0, Acrobat ran natively on the new OS. Zero additional software investment. Many other titles that require upgrades to be MacOS X native are available at standard upgrade prices, a small fraction of the price of software for a new platform. Of course, you may spend your money the way you see fit.

Elsewhere in this thread, you have contended that Windows machines are comparable in quality to Macs. Well, we have very different standards of quality. Sitting on my receptionist desk is a Gateway. It is usable, but the sound card is shot and the video pin-cushions, seemingly due to a problem with the video card. One of my workers just bought one of your beloved high-quality Dells for his home. Well, the deliveryman is expected to return the thing to the factory today. It would not even boot-up when pulled out of the box.

[allpar]

Funny, I thought those $130 upgrades funded software a little bit :)

I know the hardware has to be more epxensive because it funds the software. however, Apple has a MASSIVE war chest right now - about equal to its market cap - and STILL doesn't make a BASIC TOWER for NORMAL PEOPLE.

That is to say, an inexpensive computer to sell to people who are in the market for something like an eMac, but who DON'T WANT A BUILT IN MONITOR.

BTW, back in 1987 and 1993, with my thousand-dollar examples, I did not buy state of the art - but I came pretty darned close. A Mac Plus was about the speed of an SE - hard to tell the difference using it, and it looked better (the SE was made better and could have an internal HD). The Quadra 605 was a 25 MHz 68040LC - and I quickly upgraded it to a full 68040 (easy to do). (Also clock-chipped it to 33!) - which was nearly as fast as the Quadra 700 even in stock trim. I'd LOVE an equivalent to that machine now - I'd guess it to be a $1,000 G4-800 or so. (But what I'm *really* looking for *now* is a used blue and white G3 with nothin' in it - no hard drive, no RAM, no CD, nothin' - because I have all that stuff, and I want a cheap upgrade to my beige so the bus can get to a decent speed and my G4 card can actually do some work.)

[kenohki]

Originally posted by allpar
BTW, back in 1987 and 1993, with my thousand-dollar examples, I did not buy state of the art - but I came pretty darned close. A Mac Plus was about the speed of an SE - hard to tell the difference using it, and it looked better (the SE was made better and could have an internal HD). The Quadra 605 was a 25 MHz 68040LC - and I quickly upgraded it to a full 68040 (easy to do). (Also clock-chipped it to 33!) - which was nearly as fast as the Quadra 700 even in stock trim.

Funny, my first Mac was a Plus that I upgraded to have 4 megs of RAM and then after drooling over my friend's IIci for a while I bought a Performa 476 (retail Quadra 605). Aah, brings back memories.

[macmax]

I am making my thesis about Apple and the first inconvenient everyone seems to point out is the price.

Why can't apple compete?

Time will tell, as for me , there is nothing else but a mac close to me , if there was a time when there are no macs, i would go back to a pencil and a paper, but never to a pc.

[allpar]

...since Mac OS X resembles Windows XP more than it does Mac OS 9.

Well, I'll try Jaguar and see if iti helps. Wish Apple would just break down and buy one of the many shareware Apple menu and task menu replacements... guess Steve Jobs really did become a limiting factor after a while...as all the books say...shame. If he wasn't so #@&^#@*&! stubborn the Mac would not have been so great, but then again it wouldn't have been so limited after a while... don't know why they're so stuck on their "new" interface. I suspect more people would have switched if they had kept more of the friendly old Mac interface...

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by MacBandit


$2,200? You can get a Dual867 for $1,600 and it is more machine then 99% of all computer users need.

I wish all the PC comparison people would use this as the basis. Every couple of years I go to PC Club (low cost PC supplier with high end build to order capability) and have them do a custom quote of a "similarly equipped PC". It is always MORE MONEY with LESS software support and integration, and on the point of integration, when you ask a PC service or sales geek, "how do you do this on a PC"? The typical answer is either a blank stare or "contact the vendor." I then ask, which vendor? And the answer is BLANK STARE.

If you have an issue with Apple ask Apple. If you need to know how to do a particular task there is lots on the net and the vendors (admittedly they are zealots) actually CAN tell you what to do and how to integrate 3rd and 4th party devices to make it work.

Don't even get me started on the Gateway commercial that says for a $100 price difference you can get a PC that "runs thousands more apps than a Mac". Hello. An iMac can run OS9, OSX, UNIX proper, linux, and every flavor of DOS and windows. EVERYTHING.

False advertising. And the arguement VCP does not come in the box is not valid. Those thousands of applications do not either. VPC is the FIRST application you buy if the comparison is the point and Yellow Dog Linux is the second.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mum
Yeah, I guess the list of PC apps "missing" on the mac platform is long, but when it comes to pro audio and design the lack of software on PC's is pretty apparent too.

The actual list of good useable software that's not on the Mac platform is pretty short. When people talk about how many applications the Mac platform doesn't have most don't realize that that includes every nickel and dime shareware and freeware app written for a WinPC.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by allpar
....

BTW, back in 1987 and 1993, with my thousand-dollar examples, I did not buy state of the art - but I came pretty darned close. A Mac Plus was about the speed of an SE - hard to tell the difference using it, and it looked better (the SE was made better and could have an internal HD). The Quadra 605 was a 25 MHz 68040LC - and I quickly upgraded it to a full 68040 (easy to do). (Also clock-chipped it to 33!) - which was nearly as fast as the Quadra 700 even in stock trim. I'd LOVE an equivalent to that machine now - I'd guess it to be a $1,000 G4-800 or so. (But what I'm *really* looking for *now* is a used blue and white G3 with nothin' in it - no hard drive, no RAM, no CD, nothin' - because I have all that stuff, and I want a cheap upgrade to my beige so the bus can get to a decent speed and my G4 card can actually do some work.) The MacPlus did not support an internal hard disk, but you could most certainly add an external one. My first Mac, however, was an SE with two internal floppies. The Mac SE was introduced in 1987 when just about every application shipped on a floppy that included the System.

My advice to those who want a better system but cannot afford a new Mac, do what automobile buyer in the sam situation do. Buy used. A used 800 MHz G4 will do everything that you want your cheap new G4 to do and will do it more reliably.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by allpar
...since Mac OS X resembles Windows XP more than it does Mac OS 9.

Well, I'll try Jaguar and see if iti helps. Wish Apple would just break down and buy one of the many shareware Apple menu and task menu replacements... guess Steve Jobs really did become a limiting factor after a while...as all the books say...shame. If he wasn't so #@&^#@*&! stubborn the Mac would not have been so great, but then again it wouldn't have been so limited after a while... don't know why they're so stuck on their "new" interface. I suspect more people would have switched if they had kept more of the friendly old Mac interface...

I understand your point but I continue to be hung up on your first line.

...since Mac OS X resembles Windows XP more than it does Mac OS 9.

This is inferring somehow that OSX has copied XP and we all know this is simply not true. OSX was released long before XP. Again, I do understand what you mean. The OSX environment is like the seasons. OS9 would be summer and OSX would be fall. They are very similar but very different.

[Dr. Distortion]

Originally posted by groovebuster



Can we stop those fairy-tales, please? Those times are over since a long time! Why should the usability of another Computer decrease when it is not an Apple Macintosh? I know people who work still with old 4 or 5 years old Windows machines and they are not less usable than Macs from that time...


They use the same parts as other standard PCs... so there is no reason to believe, that they last any day longer than the average Windows-PC. And style? Well, last time I saw my PowerMac 7500 (it is still running well at some friend's place) I didn't find it that stylish. And who knows how we think about newer macs in a few years? Not to mention that the new PowerMacs are anything but really beautiful. "Style" often has the problem that it becomes outdated and old-fashioned.



Is there any logic in your statement??? :eek: Just no comment...



Then you shouldn't buy a computer at all...

groovebuster

I think STYLE is that apple has always used auto-ejecting floppy drives. I haven't ever seen a pc which can eject floppies from the OS. I don't see the lack of a floppy drive in the mac since 1998 as a loss, but still no PC has surpassed Apple on this point ;)

-Dr. D.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Here is were you missed the point. 4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac. Hell I still know of a few companies in the area that are using old MacSEs for there cash register, business management, and accounting. Those things are old and still very much a useable computer.
I'm sure that for every Mac of that vintage still in service there will be about 15 times as many PCs of that vintage (proportionate to market share) still in service. Also, anecdotal evidence is not an accurate indication of how long Macs last compared to PCs. "I know x really old Macs that are still in service compared to very few really old PCs" is not valid.
Oh and they have the original external hard drives and they still work.
That's great, but in that case you should be giving credit to the drive maker (Seagate, Western Digital, Micrapolis, etc.), not Apple, since Apple has never manufactured hard drives - only rebadged them.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I'm sure that for every Mac of that vintage still in service there will be about 15 times as many PCs of that vintage (proportionate to market share) still in service. Also, anecdotal evidence is not an accurate indication of how long Macs last compared to PCs. "I know x really old Macs that are still in service compared to very few really old PCs" is not valid.

That's great, but in that case you should be giving credit to the drive maker (Seagate, Western Digital, Micrapolis, etc.), not Apple, since Apple has never manufactured hard drives - only rebadged them. [/B]


The points are I know no local businesses that depend on old PC's day in and day out to run there business.

Apple get's the credit for the hard drive because they chose the brand they tested the drive and they certified it to work dependably with there computer. They were willing to sell it under there name. In the last 3 years alone among my friends and family about 4 out of 6 PCs have had a hard drive failure. It's my oppinion that it's the fault of the PC manufacturor for not installing a better drive. Same as it's Apples fault for using such a good drive.

[Groovsonic]

I understand what both sides are saying here, but I bought a mac because I wanted a mac. Yes, the frustration of going into 90% of stores and not being able to find much (if anything) in the way of software is annoying. Yes, macs are more expensive (like caddilacs, bmws, audis, ect...) but you tell me where I can get a clone PC for $2000 with a 17' lcd and a dvd burner that looks so good in my house and takes up so little room. I am a consumer and I don't need many programs, but I sure use iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, sherlock, appleworks, and iDvd quite a bit. Gaming is lacking, but not horribly. I have my favorte games on my mac. I play CIV3 and the sim games and I run tons of emulator software (for atari, nes, snes, ect.). I Use my iMac for web surfing, e-mail, editing video and to burn cds and dvds and thats about it for right now. I would enjoy a bit more speed, but I could get that with a $100 ram upgrade. I don't think most people are concerned with the Mhz issue as much as you think. I think most people (the average consumer) are just uneducated about macs and what they do, and so don't even bother looking.

By the way, this is my first mac. I had a horrible gateway before. It was horrible.

Anyways.... I am thrilled with my 5 week old 17in LCD iMac, it kicks booty!!!

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by MacBandit


The actual list of good useable software that's not on the Mac platform is pretty short. When people talk about how many applications the Mac platform doesn't have most don't realize that that includes every nickel and dime shareware and freeware app written for a WinPC.

I have to disagree again... :rolleyes: There are a lot of pro apps outside the graphic design & music field that are NOT available for the Mac by a larger number. Key applications are missing like a full and working support for MS Exchange servers with all the functionality they provide (please don't discuss with me if it is a good product, it is an industry standard used in a lot of companies, period), Engineering software, CAD, Enterprise software like an SAP-client or an "simple" software like VISIO... the list is endless. Nickel and dime shareware and freeware??? I don't think so...

And those missing apps are very often the reason why in a lot of fields the Mac is not an alternative at all. Of course you get almost everything for the Mac that is available for WinPCs for "creative" work. But that's really almost it... the rest is diaspora.

That is the problem of the Mac... you can't do a lot of "serious" business on it besides some creative stuff. I really wonder how they ever gonna raise market share on the pro field if that's not gonna change. But the question is just HOW? No mac users -> no apps, no apps -> no mac users. The old problem...

If they would be more competitive with the hardware they provide, they would at least put a little bit pressure onto the software developers, when people gain interest in the platform...

groovebuster

[scem0]

4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac.

Ummm, try playing WCIII on a 4 year old mac, and then your opinion will change.

[shadowfax0]

hey ya know...my computer is almost 3 years old, and I play WCIII alot :D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0


Ummm, try playing WCIII on a 4 year old mac, and then your opinion will change.

My B/W G3 400 is almost 4 years old and though it can't play it real well it is playable on it. Granted it has a Radeon PCI card. Also with a G4 upgrade it would do fairly well.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by groovebuster


I have to disagree again... :rolleyes: There are a lot of pro apps outside the graphic design & music field that are NOT available for the Mac by a larger number. Key applications are missing like a full and working support for MS Exchange servers with all the functionality they provide (please don't discuss with me if it is a good product, it is an industry standard used in a lot of companies, period), Engineering software, CAD, Enterprise software like an SAP-client or an "simple" software like VISIO... the list is endless. Nickel and dime shareware and freeware??? I don't think so...

And those missing apps are very often the reason why in a lot of fields the Mac is not an alternative at all. Of course you get almost everything for the Mac that is available for WinPCs for "creative" work. But that's really almost it... the rest is diaspora.

That is the problem of the Mac... you can't do a lot of "serious" business on it besides some creative stuff. I really wonder how they ever gonna raise market share on the pro field if that's not gonna change. But the question is just HOW? No mac users -> no apps, no apps -> no mac users. The old problem...

If they would be more competitive with the hardware they provide, they would at least put a little bit pressure onto the software developers, when people gain interest in the platform...

groovebuster

I admit and agree that you have a point but by and large the quantity of good software out there that is not on a Mac as I said is very small. Yes the ones that are good and aren't on a Mac may be the few that a person needs but by and large they do not make up the majority of software.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by MacBandit


I admit and agree that you have a point but by and large the quantity of good software out there that is not on a Mac as I said is very small. Yes the ones that are good and aren't on a Mac may be the few that a person needs but by and large they do not make up the majority of software.

Very often the question is not if the software is good or the best, it is just that it is needed because it is an industry standard or there are no working solutions at all for the Mac. I somehow understand your fanatism for the Mac platform, I am a Mac user myself... but try to stay a little bit objective. The majority of the users are pro users and don't need Photoshop or FCP. They use other software solutions that in most cases are not available for the Mac at all... and this is not just 3 programs over all or something...

groovebuster

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by groovebuster


Very often the question is not if the software is good or the best, it is just that it is needed because it is an industry standard or there are no working solutions at all for the Mac. I somehow understand your fanatism for the Mac platform, I am a Mac user myself... but try to stay a little bit objective. The majority of the users are pro users and don't need Photoshop or FCP. They use other software solutions that in most cases are not available for the Mac at all... and this is not just 3 programs over all or something...

groovebuster

I will on the other hand never argue the need for some people to have a PC and a Mac. With that though I believe pro users that we have been describing make up less then 1/2 of 1 percent of the market. It's likely an even smaller number then that that actually need a faster machine then a G4 400 let alone the software that you/we have been discussing.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by groovebuster


Very often the question is not if the software is good or the best, it is just that it is needed because it is an industry standard or there are no working solutions at all for the Mac. I somehow understand your fanatism for the Mac platform, I am a Mac user myself... but try to stay a little bit objective. The majority of the users are pro users and don't need Photoshop or FCP. They use other software solutions that in most cases are not available for the Mac at all... and this is not just 3 programs over all or something...

groovebuster

Yeah, in the industry I'm in (automotive / engineering), there are no viable software solutions for Macintosh. The big CAD programs (Unigraphics, CATIA, Pro/E, SDRC, PDGS, AutoCAD, etc.) just don't exist on the Mac. Therefore, they're precluded from a whole industry.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0


Ummm, try playing WCIII on a 4 year old mac, and then your opinion will change.

Um, WC3 is jumpy on a <year old P4 2.2GHz with GeForce 2MX (512MB RAM, Creative Live! sound card, etc). Yeah, the video card isn't spectacular, but that's what I'm stuck with on this machine (and WC3 isn't worth the bucks to upgrade a video card).

WC3 is not the best judge of what is "old" or not when it doesn't run smoothly on what most would consider a fairly high-powered (although not top-of-the-line) current PC.

That having been said, I haven't seen it on current or old Mac hardware, so it might perform differently on the Mac side than on the PC side ...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by kenohki


Yeah, in the industry I'm in (automotive / engineering), there are no viable software solutions for Macintosh. The big CAD programs (Unigraphics, CATIA, Pro/E, SDRC, PDGS, AutoCAD, etc.) just don't exist on the Mac. Therefore, they're precluded from a whole industry.

Correct. The Auto industry (and, likewise, the entire CAD industry) is tied to Windows and will remain so for many years. AutoCAD does not have a Mac version, and the CAD industry is just not large enough for them to put the massive development and support effort required to release a Mac version (it would be large enough for a simpler program to be ported over, but AutoCAD is far from simple, and the infinite backwards-compatibility requirements mean that old bugs have to remain supported forever).

And, of course, if AutoCAD were to switch over themselves then they would lose marketshare massively because the existing Wintel infrastructure in the industry will not switch wholesale over to Mac. The same holds true for Linux users (no AutoCAD, and no hopes for such any time in the near future). There are CAD alternatives out there, but they don't yet have the stability or interoperability with AutoCAD required to replace them (and if you think MS has been devious in their binary format design, you haven't seen the tricks AutoCAD has thrown in to make sure no one else can read their files without their express consent!) With the experience gained reverse-engineering MS Office formats, though, I'm beginning to have hope that someday an open alternative to AutoCAD will arise. Today, though, that's a hugely uphill battle.

Given that your industry has no hopes of ever being able to use a Mac, and thus you have no hope of ever using a Mac at work and no hope of ever being able to completely rid yourself of Windows, and yet you still come here to a Mac rumor site ... that, IMHO, is a terrific testimonial to what Apple has put together.