MacWorld Tokyo Rumor Wrapup

[arn]

With the Keynote over, and presumably most of the major announcements made... here's a wrap up of rumors over the past few weeks and the winners and losers

Winners

MacOSX.com Forums (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14716) - Posted on 3/18/02, the iPod contact functionality was disclosed.
Spymac (http://www.spymac.com), MacOSRumors (http://www.macosrumors.com) and many users predicted 10gig iPod functionality.
Surprisingly, an anonymous emailer to MacRumors (http://www.macrumors.com/viewstory.php3/sid/20020222015709/) accurately predicted (on Feb 22) iPod Equalizer Support would arrive at MW Tokyo.
iPoding's picture (http://www.macrumors.com/viewstory.php3/sid/20020320174425/) - though posted only hours before MW Tokyo.

Losers/Still up in the Air

It's hard to point out specific Losers... as most rumors don't commit to a time frame... but let's just say, these haven't yet panned out...

Apple Digital Camera (http://www.macrumors.com/viewstory.php3/sid/20020225071435/)
Jobs to come Clean on iMac delays in Tokyo (http://www.thinksecret.com/features/jobstokyo.html)
Digital Camera, PVR, 10.2 (http://www.macrumors.com/viewstory.php3/sid/20020312190426/)
iPhoto 1.0.1? (http://www.macrumors.com/viewstory.php3/sid/20020228012429/)

[eyelikeart]

I don't want to sound like I'm bitching mainly because I wasn't counting on it this time...

but I wonder when we'll get 10.2 and more speed for X?

on a lighter note....Bluetooth is killer! :p

[teabgs]

Other then the price increases I thought this expo went better then I had thought. Bluetooth is gonna be sweet, and man oh man do I want one of those 23" HD LCD's. Too bad I don't have that much money...

Im a bit surprised that spymac finally got something right...good for them :D

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by teabgs
Im a bit surprised that spymac finally got something right...good for them :D

Hey, if you throw around enough guesses you are bound to get one right here and there.

My predictions are that, at some stage we will see either:
G4 1.1GHz; and or
G4 1.2GHz; and or
G4 1.3GHz; and or
G4 1.4GHz; and or
G4 1.5GHz; and or
G4 1.6GHz; and
maybe a form of generation 5 processor next year.

Is someone going to congratulate me when I get something correct???
;)

[chibianh]

darn... guess I'm gonna go with the Tibook 667. Hmm... if i decide to wait, when would an update to the tibook likely to happen?

[BeerDrinker29]

If you check out Spymac's tokyo page, they also predicted a new monitor, however they said it was due for release in New york.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by chibianh
darn... guess I'm gonna go with the Tibook 667. Hmm... if i decide to wait, when would an update to the tibook likely to happen?

Well, PowerBooks HAVE to be updated so you could just make a smart guess and say NY

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by chibianh
darn... guess I'm gonna go with the Tibook 667. Hmm... if i decide to wait, when would an update to the tibook likely to happen?

Apple did say "no new hardware"....that could have been a hint... ;)

but seriously....we're gonna get something later this year...they won't go a whole year without bumping the TiBook....

[kidtronix]

Apple never cease to let me down. I can't believe they are go an entire year without updating the powerbook, that's not actions of a modern computer company, that's just stonage.

I mean seriously, who are they kidding? I'm about 90% sure the latest revision (NOT INCLUDING THE COMBODRIVE) on the hardware inside the book was in New York. So, they are gonna update their high end laptop once a year? What's that? That's a ****ing joke that's what it is.

Yes, we all know they said no new hardware, CPU or however you want to transcribe, but that's beneath the point.

No matter what craptop/pc ****/mhz myth/apple love/**** you are gonna give me, Apple is behind, far behind.

What's the book missing it should have other than a faster chip? Well, just small things as DDR memory, a better gfx card with accompanied better resolution. The fact that Apple still doesn't use DDR memory is beyond any common sense.

For what we pay for our Apples, I think we should be able to say things like this, we do, after all, not buy the products for their looks, even if I'm sure Apple would like to see that.

This could have been a glorious time for Apple with all the os x programs coming out this spring.

:rolleyes:

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by kidtronix


No matter what craptop/pc ****/mhz myth/apple love/**** you are gonna give me, Apple is behind, far behind.

What's the book missing it should have other than a faster chip? Well, just small things as DDR memory, a better gfx card with accompanied better resolution. The fact that Apple still doesn't use DDR memory is beyond any common sense.

For what we pay for our Apples, I think we should be able to say things like this, we do, after all, not buy the products for their looks, even if I'm sure Apple would like to see that.

:rolleyes:

I'm inclined to agree. I'm trying to persuade a PC-using friend to go for a Powerbook or an iBook when he gets a laptop (which'll be soon), but beyond the myths, there's no doubting that apple's portables are lagging dangerously behind the new Intel P4 portables.

But i reckon there may be some sort of revision in the next month at a special event (as with the dual 1GHz PM release).

Fingers crossed.

[Beej]

I remember the good ol' days when the G3 500 black PowerBooks were the undisputed speedsters of the notebook world. Ahhh, those were the days.

[OSeXy!]

Yeah, the total silence on the PBook is strange. It has to be in line for a 'quiet' speed-bump soon... or a more noisy 'special event' with new High-Density TFT and a Graphics card to drive it, as well. Beyond that, I can't see that there's much they can do, given the bus limits of the G4 chips they've got.

Whatever, waiting till MWNY for an update -- unless they significantly lowered prices of the current models -- would be a disaster for Apple's drive to convert the masses and entertain the faithful.

Also: I want 10.2 (assuming that means better performance, not just more features...). Why do we hear so little about 10.2 now?

[erova]

hello? the 550 and 667 were released in the third week of october 2001, not mac world new york...combo drive, which we're not counting like you said, was in december....that was quite a tirade to be about four months wrong...

[Q-bert]

Originally posted by kidtronix
Apple never cease to let me down. I can't believe they are go an entire year without updating the powerbook, that's not actions of a modern computer company, that's just stonage.

I mean seriously, who are they kidding? I'm about 90% sure the latest revision (NOT INCLUDING THE COMBODRIVE) on the hardware inside the book was in New York. So, they are gonna update their high end laptop once a year? What's that? That's a ****ing joke that's what it is.I see. So how often would you like the PowerBooks updated then? Twice a year? Three times a year? Every month?

Many of us actually PURCHASE computer equipment on a regular schedule. In my world, the release schedule of Apple is not a "sport" to be commented on, it affects my business. And my business cannot afford to have brand-new systems made obsolete and losing value frequently, period. Why bother purchasing at all if your ROI is made worthless by Apple just to keep the "gear-heads" happy - and the situation is even worse if you lease equipment!

That's on the customer side. On Apple's side, a new system on a more frequent schedule means that they cannot buy components in bulk, since they won't be viable for very long. That means that the cost of building each system will be HIGHER, which is passed along to US, the customers. Not to mention that Apple would have to throw more engineers at the task of releasing new hardware on an accelerated schedule, which also gets added into the cost of the computer (and again, WE pay).

Why put yourself through that? Do you enjoy spending $2000+ on a laptop computer, only to watch it become irrelevant in a couple of months? One of the biggest annoying traits of the computer industry (and a huge ecological problem to boot) is the speed at which expensive equipment becomes obsolete. All those computers with nowhere to go...

I really wish that people would stop wishing for "faster" and "more gear" and start wishing for "better". I don't need more MHz - I need for the computer to not get corrupted hard drives. I need software that helps me be productive. I need less time reading manuals and more time taking advantage of my hard-earned purchases. I need all of these things more than I need DDR RAM, extra MHz, benchmarks, or whatever "new" thing comes along that most likely does nothing to help my computing experience improve.

I know this is probably falling on deaf ears considering that this is a rumor board, but I needed to vent. :D

[Fwink!]

Sombody light a match!

Actually it occured to em that warranty lifespan is probably a big factor in new product releases.

[Dunepilot]

Q-bert, you are making the mistake of assuming that Apples products exist in a vaccuum.

I've seen several high-powered executives in the last year or so using TiBooks running Virtual PC and Windows software on trains to and from London, and it's these people the product is aimed at.

They want a kick-arse piece of hardware that looks like it means business, but they also want bragging rights to having something with unchallenged performance in the laptop arena.

If they can buy a 2.2 GHz wintel laptop for LESS money than the TiBook, they will do so, and Apple will lose a perfect chance to introduce the CEOs and the like in large companies who can actually make their own businesses consider Apple hardware, and maybe even MacOS as a viable platform.

If you have a top-end laptop running at a clock-speed of less than a third of the competition, you aren't dealing with Megahertz myth but an outdated product.

[elgruga]

Originally posted by Dunepilot


If they can buy a 2.2 GHz wintel laptop for LESS money than the TiBook, they will do so, and Apple will lose a perfect chance to introduce the CEOs and the like in large companies who can actually make their own businesses consider Apple hardware, and maybe even MacOS as a viable platform.



Sorry, it just doesnt work that way in the real world.
If the CEO uses a Powerbook, and then he says "Hey, why dont we all have one of these?" it gets passed on to the VP operations and then to the Chief Technical Officer, and then to 3 or 4 guys who will do an 'evaluation' because "the boss wants to know if we can use Apple". They all fall about laughing for a few minutes, and then they quickly write up a memo explaining why that cant happen, and thats the end of it.

CEO's dont care what the company uses as long as it doesnt negatively impact the bottom line.
If the "tech" guys say its time to use the abacus - thats what will happen.
The CEO's dont have time to get into these issues in any depth, they are too busy arguing with shareholders, meetings etc.etc

You dont buy a dog and bark yourself.

And tech guys hate macs because they represent less control for the tech guys.

Apple will never be a 'corporate' computer - they are too good for that kind of mind-numbing business use.

Yes, I am a CEO of a small co. that uses Apple products, and I have contacts/friends who are CEO's - not one uses Apple and they think I am nuts for doing so.

Price and megahertz are the cheesiest and crappiest way to decide anything in life, computers included.

But then it has to be said that businessmen are the cheesiest and crappiest people out there, except for politicians, right?

[kidtronix]

Originally posted by Q-bert
Many of us actually PURCHASE computer equipment on a regular schedule. In my world, the release schedule of Apple is not a "sport" to be commented on, it affects my business. And my business cannot afford to have brand-new systems made obsolete and losing value frequently, period. Why bother purchasing at all if your ROI is made worthless by Apple just to keep the "gear-heads" happy - and the situation is even worse if you lease equipment!

this has completely nothing to do with it. what you are basically saying is that if there is no new computers out, we don't have to buy new ones and when there are new books out we have to buy them. the sun doesn't spin around apple how much we wished so. apple may only release every two years for all i care, just as long as they don't fall two years behind in the evolution of computer technology - and right now they are quite some time after in technology (not concidering mhz).

[Q-bert]

Okay, I'll continue to try to be provocative here...

Like I predicted, my comments fell on deaf ears. One person mentions CEOs and "bragging rights", another wants the latest technology. Doesn't anyone ever think about what they will actually DO with the latest hot new chip or computer technology? Will it help us write better posts on the internet? Will it make our lives easier?

Tell me, why is it so utterly important for Apple to have "bragging rights" anyway? I thought the mission statement of Apple Computer is to make computers that help people, that enrich them, that enhance their productivity (cue "Think Different" music here... ;) ). While tech specs matter in this goal, they are far from the most important thing. After every trade show, seemingly dozens of Apple fans (in the loose sense of the word) come out to complain about Apple not keeping up with the latest trends, and how they'll be assigned to the dustbin of computing history in a short time if they don't get on the ball. And every time, somehow all this doom-and-gloom doesn't come true. Why?

Because, my friends, we are not normal. Normal people don't read rumor sites waiting to see and/or speculate if Apple will increase their MHz by 15%. Normal people don't measure the length of time between Apple release cycles, then start issuing grand fire and brimstone statements about the health of the company based on not-so-astute observations.

No, normal folks - the ones who Macintoshes are designed for, really - are USING their computers. To talk to each other, to get work done, to communicate, to create things, whatever. The ups and downs of the tech industry and the current speed at which motherboards run at aren't at the forefront of their minds, and frankly, I think they're better for it. They recognize that the computer is a tool, not an infant that must be watched and fussed over at all times.

I think that maybe it's time to get off the "I've gotta have the latest thing no matter what" bandwagon. Frankly, it gets tiring to read all the lamenting that goes on after each Apple trade show. I don't begrudge anyone's right to get off on that stuff, but me, I'm kind of bored with it.

Now, having said this - I wonder when Apple is going to introduce GigaWire? :p

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Q-bert
Now, having said this - I wonder when Apple is going to introduce GigaWire? :p

Watch yourself there, you are just asking for more deaf ears that suddenly work when they hear the word "GigaWire". I ask, please please please please please, no more debates about what the second firewire will be called.

So, when is Apple going to introduce iWalk? :p

[joek]

Originally posted by BeerDrinker29
If you check out Spymac's tokyo page, they also predicted a new monitor, however they said it was due for release in New york.

They also predicted Powerbook G4 update, iMovie 3, DVD Studio Pro 1.5, iPod Windows Compatability, iTools Pro

[kidtronix]

Originally posted by Q-bert
Like I predicted, my comments fell on deaf ears. One person mentions CEOs and "bragging rights", another wants the latest technology. Doesn't anyone ever think about what they will actually DO with the latest hot new chip or computer technology? Will it help us write better posts on the internet? Will it make our lives easier?

what are you, 12? you use your computer for mail and surfing? god, that's a waste of computer. no i use mine for work related (illustrator, photoshop, flash, maya as a graphic designer) and hobby related (max/msp sound manipulating). and yes, i want to have beast for a computer that can handle running these heavy programs at the same time smoothly.

for people over 12, who need the computer to be able to handle this, we need updates, if they come twice again, once every second year, it doesn't matter, just as long as they follow the evolution and don't fall behind.

[Q-bert]

Originally posted by kidtronix
what are you, 12? you use your computer for mail and surfing? god, that's a waste of computer.You got me there. Yep, I'm a 12-year-old who uses my computer for mail and surfing. I also happen to run a post-production facility employing Macintosh, SGI, and Linux systems. We employ Flame, Maya, Photoshop, ElectricImage, After Effects, FCP, and numerous other software packages in our work. I've been told I'm a little ahead of the other kids my age, so sometimes my mommy lets me work late at the office if I ask her real nice.

Oh, and I also tend to use sarcasm a lot, like most 12-year-olds do, as the statement, "Will it help us write better posts on the internet?" would be categorized as. :rolleyes: Many of my fellow 12-year-olds might have picked up on that, I'm very surprised that you didn't.

I am quite aware that powerful systems directly our business productivity. I also believe that most people who aren't poring over rumor sites consider the TiBook to be very powerful, and nowhere near the state of "desperately needing an upgrade". An upgraded TiBook would be very nice, but Apple is not "screwed" without it at this moment in time. I also understand with my 12-year-old business sense that the original argument I responded to in this thread about "more upgrades, more frequently" is not a viable way for Apple to approach a potential problem of not claiming the fastest systems on the market. And furthermore, I believe that the way to solve a request for the latest technology is NOT to immediately start whining for Apple to slap it in to a motherboard upon reading about said technology on the internet. I want them to have the latest technology too, but I don't want it unless it's done intelligently and in a way that helps everyone, not just "because", and I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time for that to happen.

Because in the meantime, we actually get work done with the computers we have purchased and leased, amazingly enough. Our Flame system is running on an SGI box that's over 2 years old - according to the logic of some here, I should be posting up a storm on the SGI rumor sites about it. But our artists seem to have no problem doing high-end compositing on it. How weird is that? :rolleyes:

And finally, I know from direct experience that the "megahertz myth" is indeed real - a Pentium 2.2 GHz should be over twice as fast as a 1 GHz Macintosh, but our render tests prove that this is not the case, in fact the Mac beats most of our PC systems easily (1.7 GHz P4), and comes very close to the 2.2 GHz system we have - and that's mostly without the aid of Altivec. That's a lot for a 12-year-old like me to handle, but I give it my best.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play outside.

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by elgruga


Sorry, it just doesnt work that way in the real world.
If the CEO uses a Powerbook, and then he says "Hey, why dont we all have one of these?" it gets passed on to the VP operations and then to the Chief Technical Officer, and then to 3 or 4 guys who will do an 'evaluation' because "the boss wants to know if we can use Apple". They all fall about laughing for a few minutes, and then they quickly write up a memo explaining why that cant happen, and thats the end of it.

CEO's dont care what the company uses as long as it doesnt negatively impact the bottom line.
If the "tech" guys say its time to use the abacus - thats what will happen.
The CEO's dont have time to get into these issues in any depth, they are too busy arguing with shareholders, meetings etc.etc


I agree that this pressure exists, but there are many types of small business, a I think you're looking at all businesses as being the same kind of animal.

In schools, for instance, IT support staff are often few in number. They're not there to create work for themselves, and hence the Mac makes a good platform for the pupil network.

However, the decision on which many schools (for instance) would make the purchase, and I know this for a fact since my father is a headteacher, lies ultimately with the figure in charge of this small business and his financial staff. They have to be able to show accountability in their spending on new Mac machines, particularly where there are much cheaper Windows boxes available.

School governors, for instance, will often be the ones to exert a certain pressure upon headteachers to buy wintel machines with arguments such as "well, everyone uses windows these days. Why are you doggedly sticking with Macintosh?", which are persuasive to the non-technical. If Apple's machines have a better price/MHz ratio, then this negative pressure can be countered more effectively. If headteachers are drawn to powerbooks as a result of their reputation for being streets ahead of Intel-based notebooks, then a degree of Mac-advocacy is all the more likely from the headteacher in the face of pro-windows propaganda. This is certainly the situation in schools where IT purchasing is not dictated on a county-wide level, the schools that fall under the umbrella of 'small business'.

Turning to the kind of businesses you're talking about, with the UNIX implementation in Mac OS X, Apple is tentatively hoping to show the technical geeks that their OS is industrial-strength and that they can meddle with the command line as much as they like, therefore making it attractive to the technically-minded. But this is unlikely to bring Macs into businesses if there's no top-down pressure for change from CEOs etc. They're the ones who are interested in the quality and finish of Apple's hardware, even if they then run Windows emulation software on it, as I have often seen.

So essentially, CEOs are converted by the hardware, then the techs MIGHT be convinced to look at the software.

Which all brings us back to the centrality of the powerbook for Apple in business markets. This is why it needs updating urgently from its sorry 667MHz iteration.

And to reply to Q-Bert

"No, normal folks - the ones who Macintoshes are designed for, really - are USING their computers. To talk to each other, to get work done, to communicate, to create things, whatever. The ups and downs of the tech industry and the current speed at which motherboards run at aren't at the forefront of their minds, and frankly, I think they're better for it. They recognize that the computer is a tool, not an infant that must be watched and fussed over at all times. "

This is rubbish. I've worked in computer sales and can tell you that people know the figures for processors. They're even starting to know about the MHz myth thanks to AMD's new numbering methods, but they won't be persuaded that a 667MHz G4 is as fast as a 2.2 GHz mobile P4. They want value for money, bang for the buck, and place this above ease of use, unfortunately.

[Q-bert]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
This is rubbish. I've worked in computer sales and can tell you that people know the figures for processors. They're even starting to know about the MHz myth thanks to AMD's new numbering methods, but they won't be persuaded that a 667MHz G4 is as fast as a 2.2 GHz mobile P4. They want value for money, bang for the buck, and place this above ease of use, unfortunately. It's only rubbish if you can prove that everyone knows about and is concerned with MHz speed. Don't assume that just because some do, it applies to all. Certainly there are large numbers of people out there who place a premium on CPU speed, but there are even more that don't. And when they ask a "computer person" to help, the first thing the computer person tells them is that "megahertz" is the most important factor in purchasing a computer. That's what I call rubbish. Why do any of us use Macintoshes? WE know that MHz isn't the most important thing - so why are we propagating this fallacy even amongst ourselves by pressuring Apple to keep up with the "megahertz race" instead of insisting on quality? When I talk about "better", it's not just ease of use - it's also more automation, better design, better UI workflow, things like that.

Keeping up with Intel still wouldn't do anything to help Apple. Let's pretend that Apple makes computers that have the exact same MHz rating as Intel-based computers. Then what? It's certainly been proved time and time again that Apple can't add value with their software, integration, and design, and simultaneously be the cheapest - so will customers go to Apple computers then? I say not necessarily - because speed is NOT the dominant factor in why people choose one system over another, period. Think about buying a stereo. Most of them cost around the same, and do the same thing. The only ones that stand out are the ones that have something extra, like say, a Bose system. People say "wow, those are cool", and may not know the signal-to-noise ratio or output wattage or any of those figures, they just know that this stereo does more and has more VALUE than the other ones. And in many cases, people are willing to pay more for something that gives more value. Apple is trying to reach that position, but we do them no help when we keep prattling on about MHz, MHz, MHz.

Here's another practical consideration. Our SGI system running flame runs at - hold on to your seats - a whopping 500 MHz! Wow - you'd think it was the slowest thing on the block, right? Wrong - because of the system architecture and the unified memory architecture, an artist sitting on the Flame can do things at a speed that puts the PCs and Macs to shame. Why? Because the overall design contributes just as much to the performance as the MHz rating, and overall the system becomes faster.

Knowing what's possible with better software and better architecture and better design, I refuse to believe that all our troubles will be solved simply by adding more MHz to a computer. The fact that many of you believe the MHz hype amazes me - we HAVE to get off this bandwagon and hold computer companies accountable for this lie, and start getting true performance out of our systems, along with true productivity. No, I don't believe that we shouldn't have upgraded systems, of course Apple should improve their computers on a regular basis. I just don't think that this works in a vacuum, speed without thought of how it's used and how the system performs overall means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by Q-bert
It's only rubbish if you can prove that everyone knows about and is concerned with MHz speed. Don't assume that just because some do, it applies to all. Certainly there are large numbers of people out there who place a premium on CPU speed, but there are even more that don't. And when they ask a "computer person" to help, the first thing the computer person tells them is that "megahertz" is the most important factor in purchasing a computer. That's what I call rubbish. Why do any of us use Macintoshes? WE know that MHz isn't the most important thing - so why are we propagating this fallacy even amongst ourselves by pressuring Apple to keep up with the "megahertz race" instead of insisting on quality? When I talk about "better", it's not just ease of use - it's also more automation, better design, better UI workflow, things like that.


So you haven't used OS X then?

Today's PowerMacs and Powerbooks are aimed at professionals. They are not as powerful as they could be, particularly being underpowered in Apple's new OS.

That's the bottom line

What I was also trying to say is that consumers are (in some cases rightly) fixated with speed, and shaking this preconception isn't easy, even if it's only a recently acquired fixation as in the case of first-time buyers.

Also, as much as I love Apple hardware, there's really not much to differentiate their CPUs from x86 boxes compared with the past, except for the processor and the fact that modern bus architecture and RAID, ATA133 etc are not available. There is a difference in quality, but it's not what it used to be, and therefore your argument is less valid than it would have been 3 or 4 years ago.

IMHO

;)

[Pepzhez]

I'm not an engineer, but every engineer I have spoken to on this topic states the obvious: ideally, you want a CPU that is fast and is LOW in Mhz.

There's no way around it: more Mhz = a more inefficient design; more heat generated, more cooling fans required to keep the damn thing from frying your system (not to mention itself).

This is not a fact of nature, but rather a testament to the wrong-headed thinking that has plagued CPU conception.

What was the name of the company that recently demonstrated a chip that has the power of 10 or more Pentium 4's and runs at - yes - around 100 Mhz? THIS is the direction things ought to be going - better CPU designs which won't require liquid nitrogen cooling in order to function.

[blakespot]

We just signed a $13,000/month contract where I work for 3 machines to make up our new, hosted internet system (web, intranet, etc.). These are Suns running Solaris (and Oracle, Apache, Cold Fusion). Two of the, (the production and staging webservers) are single CPU machines running at 450MHz. The third is a quad-CPU machine, each processor running at 450MHz.

If you go to Sun's site and take a look (http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=48594&parentId=48589) at the purchase cost of these machines, you'll see that the single-CPU 360MHz version is $4,995. The next unit up, has a faster processor and 256MB more memory. That unit is a 450MHz unit and costs $9,995. That's $5,000 difference in cost for a 90MHz increase in speed and an insignificant stick of memory.

If you place one of these machines against a P4 server, you'll find that the PC is decimated by the power of the Sun. There's a bit of a testament as to the overall importance of MHz vs a well architectured CPU.



blakespot

[Q-bert]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
So you haven't used OS X then?

Today's PowerMacs and Powerbooks are aimed at professionals. They are not as powerful as they could be, particularly being underpowered in Apple's new OS.

That's the bottom lineI have used OS X. We run it on some of our systems, but not all (FCP suffers under OS X compared to OS 9 at the moment). But you're proving my point - by now introducing the OS into your argument, you're saying exactly what I'm saying, that other factors besides clock speed come into play when comparing systems. If Apple were to "tune" OS X more aggressively, then even their existing systems, including the TiBook, would get a nice speed boost.

I don't think Apple is perfect, far from it, I have plenty of beefs with them. But I also don't think people are giving their current systems enough credit, either. I've said it before, I'll say it again in a different way - Apple does NOT need to match Intel GHz for GHz in order to "win" the speed race, as long as they concentrate on overall performance. As someone else pointed out, Sun and SGI make systems that scream, yet have even lower clock speed than Macintoshes. This is all part of the quality argument - I would rather us insist on quality from Apple (which includes improving OS X) than waste our efforts on a pointless horse race.

That's the bottom line, IMHO. ;)

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by Q-bert
?
by now introducing the OS into your argument, you're saying exactly what I'm saying, that other factors besides clock speed come into play when comparing systems. If Apple were to "tune" OS X more aggressively, then even their existing systems, including the TiBook, would get a nice speed boost.

I don't think Apple is perfect, far from it, I have plenty of beefs with them. But I also don't think people are giving their current systems enough credit, either. I've said it before, I'll say it again in a different way - Apple does NOT need to match Intel GHz for GHz in order to "win" the speed race, as long as they concentrate on overall performance. As someone else pointed out, Sun and SGI make systems that scream, yet have even lower clock speed than Macintoshes. This is all part of the quality argument - I would rather us insist on quality from Apple (which includes improving OS X) than waste our efforts on a pointless horse race.

That's the bottom line, IMHO. ;)

Okay, good to see we're getting to some sort of concensus.

But we still have to wait for something to happen. At the moment, both the processor and the OS are sluggish. I wish Apple would pull their fingers out and really get X up to OS 9 performance. Then I'd make the change full-time.

But is it in Apple's financial interest to do this? We've seen time and time again that they don't care about upgrade manufacturers and where possible will thwart their efforts to upgrade older macs, thereby forcing purchases of new macs.

That Jobs has been saying recently that he thinks everyone should have a G4 to run OS X shows the philosophy that's starting to pervade Apple in a worrying way. There's no reason for Apple to fine-tune the OS to make it run on an older system if it'll cannabalise their sales.....:(