Apple 'world's fastest' Claim... [Archive]

View Full Version : Apple 'world's fastest' Claim...

MacRumors

Mar 26, 2004, 05:09 PM

CNet reports (http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5180251.html) that the Council of Better Business Bureaus has recommended that Apple stop comparative performance claims with respect to the PowerMac G5.

Responding to a complaint initiated by Dell, the council "determined that the evidence provided by Apple did not provide a reasonable basis for its broad unqualified claims that its Power Mac G5 is 'the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer' and that it 'edged out the competition on integer.'"

The ad campaign has already been completed but Apple reportedly "will be mindful of NAD's views in its future advertising".

Grimace

Mar 26, 2004, 05:14 PM

What?? This is crap. If we dominate - we should let it be know.

VectorWarrior

Mar 26, 2004, 05:15 PM

Reminds me of when they banned the G5 ads in the UK.

CalfCanuck

Mar 26, 2004, 05:16 PM

Busted!!

Now if they actually bring out some new models faster than once a year, maybe they can make this claim in the future!

geoffreyMB

Mar 26, 2004, 05:17 PM

fenlyn

Mar 26, 2004, 05:18 PM

Bah. WHATEVER!!

fenlyn

Mar 26, 2004, 05:23 PM

in the spirit of the regular person campaigns...

start with jeff goldblooms voice over.... "so some of you think that the G5 isn't the world's fastest....here's our argument" and then you can do a lot of people saying I definitely think the G5 is the fastest computer I've ever used....blah blah blah

and its all computer programmers and designers and photographers *cough* *cough* and whoever else PLUS bring back ellen feiss.

my 2 cents.

Hmmm... Jeff Goldblum overload on Apple's part if that was the case. One ID4 Powerbook ad, two iMac ads, AND a G5? Well, if the man really needs the work, I say good for him. ;) Although, I will never forgive him for "The Fly."

jimthorn

Mar 26, 2004, 05:24 PM

I think it should be made public what computers the NAD folks use. If they buy Dells, that should raise a few eyebrows.

xhost_plus

Mar 26, 2004, 05:25 PM

Does anyone have any information on benchmarks done by Dell comparing it to the G5?? I have yet to find any.

Koodauw

Mar 26, 2004, 05:27 PM

cb911

Mar 26, 2004, 05:28 PM

he he. someone doesn't like it.... :D so i say they should keep up with it!!

howard

Mar 26, 2004, 05:30 PM

i always thought the claim was kind silly

"worlds fastest computer"

just sounds hoky anyway

smllpx

Mar 26, 2004, 05:30 PM

Not a big deal... maybe apple will focus on all the other great things about their systems instead of just this one questionable statement (i.e. fastest at what? A couple photoshop filters? etc.)

HexMonkey

Mar 26, 2004, 05:32 PM

Does this mean new G5s on Tuesday? :D

Sorry, couldn't resist...

1macker1

Mar 26, 2004, 05:32 PM

If it's not true then they shouldn't be saying it.

Darwin

Mar 26, 2004, 05:36 PM

I don't care if the G5 isn't the fastest computer, with Macs it doesn't feel like speed is everything :)

technocoy

Mar 26, 2004, 05:37 PM

it was the fastest personal mass produced computer.

but oh well,
now they just have to do it again.

Trowaman

Mar 26, 2004, 05:40 PM

Hmmm... Jeff Goldblum overload on Apple's part if that was the case. One ID4 Powerbook ad, two iMac ads, AND a G5? Well, if the man really needs the work, I say good for him. ;) Although, I will never forgive him for "The Fly."

Say what u want about "the Fly" but Ian Malcolm is my personal hero! :p

Sorry, but I can't get enough Goldblum, he's one of my favorite actors.

the_mole1314

Mar 26, 2004, 05:40 PM

Wanna bet that Michael Dell is getting back at Apple for HP choosing the iPod instead of the Dell DJ? I find this funny, mabey Apple can submit a complaint to the BBB about how Dell isn't the cheapest nor the most easy to use.

Naimfan

Mar 26, 2004, 05:41 PM

SNORE........

Hemingray

Mar 26, 2004, 05:47 PM

I hate to say it, but I agree. Not because I don't believe Apple's claims, but because the "World's ____est" slogan on all their stuff is getting pretty annoying! IMHO. :)

agreenster

Mar 26, 2004, 05:57 PM

The G5 used to be able to claim it was the fastest...maybe the day it came out. But since then, Intel and AMD has outperformed again.

Even at 3ghz, the G5 may not even be the fastest.

lewdvig

Mar 26, 2004, 05:58 PM

If you are slowest in most tests, you deserve to be spanked when you claim to be fastest. The only numbers that back Apple up are theirs. Many have tested these things - including Mac sites I write for - and they have never been able to conclusively state Apple is fastest.

G5 made Apple competitive - and that was enough. We Apple users have lived without speed for so long.

There were lots of better angles to leverage in selling these things. Stuff that matters to people.

This is total small penis syndrome.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 05:59 PM

dombi

Mar 26, 2004, 06:00 PM

Haha...this was reported by Dell?????

I guess they got scared...bunch of friggen whimps!

Dahl

Mar 26, 2004, 06:00 PM

Busted!!

Now if they actually bring out some new models faster than once a year, maybe they can make this claim in the future!
Yeah, let's see Apple make a G5 that leaves no doubt.

jxyama

Mar 26, 2004, 06:01 PM

apple should have qualified it:

"world's fastest computer that is also worthy of being a museum piece"

dell won't be able to complain about that... i don't think of their black/grey boxes being even potentially museum worthy.

while the orig. campaign was off - it's always tough to make the "world's ...est" claim - and i think apple did mislead a bit, but i wish BBB would spend more time getting on someone like eBay which is rampant with fraud...

blogo

Mar 26, 2004, 06:01 PM

They could change it to "The worlds best computer".

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 06:03 PM

Yeah, let's see Apple make a G5 that leaves no doubt.isnt that the truth, its the megahetz spin all over again. make a machine that kicks butt in everything not just that Photoshop test.

brhmac

Mar 26, 2004, 06:14 PM

If it's not true then they shouldn't be saying it.

Exactly.

raynegus

Mar 26, 2004, 06:15 PM

They should start an ad: "windows, the world's crappiest operating system". Then no one cold argue with it. :D

PlanB

Mar 26, 2004, 06:22 PM

The G5 used to be able to claim it was the fastest...maybe the day it came out. But since then, Intel and AMD has outperformed again.

Even at 3ghz, the G5 may not even be the fastest.

dual 3ghz not the fastest.... are you on crack????
simply the fastest personal computer ever no comp.....
but as they always do they ( the wintel community) will try (emphasis on TRY )
to belittle it.... but there is not a pc that will go anywhere nere a 3ghz powermac with this architecture and 1ghz fsb or more....

brhmac

Mar 26, 2004, 06:31 PM

dell won't be able to complain about that... i don't think of their black/grey boxes being even potentially museum worthy.

Fair enough, but I don't know that the G5 is "museum worthy." It's unnecessarily big and is nothing more than brushed aluminum with ventilation holes. Simplicity and elegance in design, it's true, but hardly innovative.

That said -- and please note that I'm as much a Mac champion as the next person, having used them since 1988 -- the Dell, even with it's black/grey box is no slouch. The PC I use at work...

1. Operates at 2.4 GHz
2. Does everything I need it to.
3. Features attractive, contemporary styling
4. Occupies only the space needed to be functional
5. Costs LESS THAN $1,000

OK, a dual 2.0 GHz G5 probably kicks this machine's backside, but it costs $3,000 plus monitor (are the mouse and keyboard "extras" too?). Most people buy a computer for a tool, not a museum piece.

agreenster

Mar 26, 2004, 06:37 PM

0 and A ai

Mar 26, 2004, 06:43 PM

we'll see what they say when the 3ghz machine is out and the fastest p4 is 3.4 or .6 while intel starts their campaign that clockspeed isn't th eonly factor.

PlanB

Mar 26, 2004, 06:44 PM

You've obviously never used a wicked fast Xeon workstation.

Link (http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=-840&storeId=1&langId=-1&dualCurrId=73&categoryId=2436210)

Dual 3.2ghz. Under 3 grand. Available 3 months ago.

I believe you are on crack.

Regardless, I'd still want a dual 3ghz G5, but lets not be silly here. The G5 is not the fastest available computer out there, and it probably wont be for quite some time.

firstly yes i have used dual xeons but a dual 3.2 is not even close to 3 grand........
secondly a dp2ghz is 41% faster( floating point) than dual xeon 3 ghz the 3.2 being about 8 - 12% faster

and a dp2ghz would be slihtly slower than it in spec tests so

a 3ghz WOULD IN FACT BE ALOT FASTER THAN YOU XEONS

Mr.Hey

Mar 26, 2004, 06:45 PM

The G5s are what Apple claims and more they just need optimization --ITS A BRAN NEW CHIP PEOPLE!. ;) Thanks in part to IBMs new compilers that will help harness the power of 970s. :)

rikers_mailbox

Mar 26, 2004, 06:52 PM

i like "World's Most Advanced Personal Computer"

that's a pretty objective statement that Apple could easily support.

elo

Mar 26, 2004, 06:53 PM

Lancetx

Mar 26, 2004, 06:58 PM

Apple is full of itself, just look at MacAddict or MacWorld magazines and they admit its not the fastest. Apple spins a lot of truth instead of just selling us better hardware. reminds me of the Bush administration except with them we are buying lots of hardware if you know what i mean.

Yeah, and Dell's act of running to cry to Mama about it like an 8 year old reminds me of all the childish whining and crying Democrats do about Bush on a daily basis too.

0 and A ai

Mar 26, 2004, 07:03 PM

The problem with claiming an absolute is that it invites rebuttal. Even the most ardent Apple supporter would hear a "world's fastest..." claim and wonder if it is really true.

Note, for example, how many articles were written criticizing some aspect of the G5's performance. If Apple had just advertised its "exceptional performance," or some such thing, these same articles would have been nothing but glowing. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me to see a third-party or two bring up the possibility that it was the world's fastest personal computer.

elo

Yes but nothing grabs more headlines and gets people talking then a little controversy which worked out exactly how apple planned. Most people will see for themselves if they feel it is truely faster. THose that don't woulnd't be in the market for buying it anyway.

kainjow

Mar 26, 2004, 07:05 PM

Yeah, and Dell's act of running to cry to Mama about it like an 8 year old reminds me of all the childish whining and crying Democrats do about Bush on a daily basis too.
LOL well said!

inkswamp

Mar 26, 2004, 07:14 PM

The "world's fastest" thing is just marketing hype. Who can't see that? It may or may not be true, but who really cares one way or the other? I never have. Is it really so hard to figure that out? Has there been a rash of people rushing out to get G5s only to find out they were sorely duped? This is such a non-issue.

Clearly, Dell is run by a bunch of whiners who would rather gripe and complain than come up with their own attention-grabbing ad campaigns. And it's so nice to see CNet letting themselves be used as Dell's little b*tch--no surprise there given CNet's notorious history of Apple bashing. :mad:

DGFan

Mar 26, 2004, 07:19 PM

Why is it only on speed that people get called on marketing hype?

When Dell was advertising showing "interns" supposedly going through their night support center there was a problem. Those people were supposedly in the US. Actually they are in India (at least for home users, the target of the ads). So that was pretty much a blatent lie. But I didn't see any stories about it.

For some reason people get their panties in a twist about 'fastest'.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 07:29 PM

ebuddy889

Mar 26, 2004, 07:30 PM

AmigoMac

Mar 26, 2004, 07:34 PM

The fastest computer I ever had, it arrived one monday at 8:30 AM and went back to DELL by noon... IT WAS TE FASTEST!!! :D

mrsebastian

Mar 26, 2004, 07:37 PM

isn't this kinda after the fact anyway!? every 5 minutes there's a new faster processor/computer, so at the time it was a true statement.

szark

Mar 26, 2004, 07:37 PM

Worlds fastest personal computer

They never said which world....

Yeah, everyone knows that Apple users are in a different world than the rest... and it's certainly the fastest computer in our world! :D

Sun Baked

Mar 26, 2004, 07:46 PM

They claimed is was the first 64-bit & the world fastest desktop, then go on and compare it to workstations.

Yes it's a high-end desktop that is best compared to the niche game machine market on the PC side in price and speed, but Apple used Workstations.

---

As the FTC would say, be clear in your advertising -- or else.

Apple did start taking orders from the public first for the 64-bit desktops, but AMD does seem to be moving a bit quicker on updating the Athlon64 and getting it into notebooks.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 07:50 PM

Sun Baked

Mar 26, 2004, 08:12 PM

I dont think so since Alienware matches up very well to the dual G5s and i have ben looking at a lot of benches. Macworld used Alienware game machines and the Alienware was only loosing in the Photoshop test.The problem with the advertising was calling the machine the fastest desktop, then not using desktops in the comparison.

Sort of like the advertising saying the Hybrids are the best mileage vehicles on the planet -- when they're advertising in the US -- and neglecting to mention that VW has been selling the Lupo 3L TDI (outside the US) that got around 100MPG in it's round the world trip.

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 08:23 PM

I dont think so since Alienware matches up very well to the dual G5s and i have been looking at a lot of benches. Macworld used Alienware game machines and the Alienware was only loosing in the Photoshop test.

Funny how there's never a direct quotation, citation, or graph you can show us, DHM. For all we know, you're completely fabricating this, or (what I consider more likely, given your track record) absolutely and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting something that you think you read.

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 08:40 PM

Glad to see the BBB is spending it's times on worth while causes! I mean heaven forbid an unsuspecting person ending up with a G5! That would be horrible! :rolleyes: Glad to see Dell is there to protect the everyday joe from the big bad Apple!

Hehehe
Pretty good statement. As for this: A Dell representative said in an e-mail: We "notified NAD because we felt there were some inaccuracies in Apple's advertisement and wanted to act on behalf of consumers in the marketplace who deserve accurate information on which to base their purchase decisions...Essentially, we felt that clarity in the marketplace benefits consumers, and NAD agreed."

"wanted to act on behalf of consumers"

Yeah right. :p

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 08:46 PM

Pretty good statement. As for this: A Dell representative said in an e-mail: We "notified NAD because we felt there were some inaccuracies in Apple's advertisement and wanted to act on behalf of consumers in the marketplace who deserve accurate information on which to base their purchase decisions...Essentially, we felt that clarity in the marketplace benefits consumers, and NAD agreed."

On a related note, Microsoft held a press conference to announce that not only were they pursuing Trusted Computing to promote "consumer choice and freedom in the marketplace," but also a joint venture with Coke, so that anyone who bought Pepsi could experience the fact that "this station is quite operational." One member of the press, when asked afterwards what his thoughts were, commented that "it was like millions of voices all cried out at once, and were silenced." :cool:

djbahdow01

Mar 26, 2004, 08:46 PM

Funny how there's never a direct quotation, citation, or graph you can show us, DHM. For all we know, you're completely fabricating this, or (what I consider more likely, given your track record) absolutely and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting something that you think you read.

Actually i remember reading that article and he is almost right, can't remember the whole article as it was in like january or so but the alienware did match up pretty well. I just can't wait for the programs to be optimized for 64bit and dual processors.

Edit: december article 2003 sorry.
No article but MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/magazine/december2003/) has it in the mag, i have it.

P Rush

Mar 26, 2004, 08:50 PM

in the article, "we felt there were some inaccuracies in Apple's advertisement and wanted to act on behalf of consumers in the marketplace who deserve accurate information on which to base their purchase decisions"

ever heard of megahertz myth that dell and other companies used for years!!?!?

BS!

Soire

Mar 26, 2004, 08:51 PM

I've been reading just about every major thread on this site for the past month, hoping to glean some inside information about new PowerMacs. As of late there seems to be a lot of talk about the future of Apple, and why they suck, and why Apple needs to get its' act together, so on and so forth.

Now I don't claim to be a long time apple user, or to be a computer expert. But it seems to me that Apple hasn't really released -anything- major in the way of computers in what, nine months? Other than the iPod mini, when was the last big release? November when we got the 20" iMac and the dual 1.8? Shouldn't Apple have released something- anything, computer wise since then?

So in my mind there's only two options; one good and one bad.

Good is that there will be an impending release in the next few weeks and we can all take our heads out of those nooses made of firewire.

Bad is that Apple is experiencing major problems, they don't care about computers much anymore, they're losing money like a leaky bucket, and it'll be another nine months till a paper release of the new G5 line.

Here's hoping for the good- may we all start hyperventalating come the 30th. ;)

ALoLA

Mar 26, 2004, 08:53 PM

The PowerMac G5. Used to assemble the world's third fastest, and most cost-effective, supercomputer. They can't dispute that! :D

Xnet

Mar 26, 2004, 08:56 PM

Actually i remember reading that article and he is almost right, can't remember the whole article as it was in like january or so but the alienware did match up pretty well. I just can't wait for the programs to be optimized for 64bit and dual processors.

Edit: december article 2003 sorry.
No article but MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/magazine/december2003/) has it in the mag, i have it.

Look Apple has the best operating system in the world and good hardware that is RIDICULOUSLY over priced when compared to the competition.

Apple needs to do something - when the marketshare gets down to 1% I'm jumping ship.

what was it last? 1.8%?

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 09:01 PM

Now I don't claim to be a long time apple user, or to be a computer expert. But it seems to me that Apple hasn't really released -anything- major in the way of computers in what, nine months? Other than the iPod mini, when was the last big release? November when we got the 20" iMac and the dual 1.8? Shouldn't Apple have released something- anything, computer wise since then?

So in my mind there's only two options; one good and one bad.

Good is that there will be an impending release in the next few weeks and we can all take our heads out of those nooses made of firewire.

Bad is that Apple is experiencing major problems, they don't care about computers much anymore, they're losing money like a leaky bucket, and it'll be another nine months till a paper release of the new G5 line.

Well there's the XServe G5 together with the new cluster nodes and XServe RAID. I'd say that's a pretty major release.
And I don't really see, where they are losing that much money... maybe the margins aren't as high as they used to be but they ARE making money off pretty much everything they sell.
One more thing: What about all this G5 crap? These things are still brand new! Or do some of you think, it would be better to anounce a machine in let's say january, release it in february and then anounce a new one in march??? You gotta give them a bit time to actually SELL those machines :D

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 09:03 PM

Look Apple has the best operating system in the world and good hardware that is RIDICULOUSLY over priced when compared to the competition.

Apple needs to do something - when the marketshare gets down to 1% I'm jumping ship.

what was it last? 1.8%?

If marketshare is your reason for staying, go ahead and jump. The market is continuously growing, and we're hanging at a population that has remained largely unchanged for some time. The mac is as healthy as it has ever been, and more competitive than it has been for quite some time.

Since that's not enough for you, then go join DHM and buy and Alienware.

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 09:05 PM

One more thing: What about all this G5 crap? These things are still brand new! Or do some of you think, it would be better to anounce a machine in let's say january, release it in february and then anounce a new one in march??? You gotta give them a bit time to actually SELL those machines :D

Nothing is ever good enough for some people, nubero. Apple could announce that they were giving away a free G5 1.8 dual to anyone who ordered a computer in the last two years, and we'd still have people griping. Some would be mad it wasn't three years, others that it wasn't a dual, and ones like DHM would be pissed that it wasn't an Athlon under the hood. It's just how the world is. You can't make everyone happy. :rolleyes:

shen

Mar 26, 2004, 09:12 PM

just once i would like to see Apple put out some ads that point out that they have by far and away the best OS. show how good it looks, how the iApps stomp the multiple hundred dollar apps in the winders world, how OS X is both easier, and more secure than eXtremePain. show off your assets Apple. drop the speed.

is the G5 fast? damn straight! but i have a G3 that i wouldn't trade for the best of the best from dell or HP. i have OS X. speed is just icing on the cake.

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 09:17 PM

Look Apple has the best operating system in the world and good hardware that is RIDICULOUSLY over priced when compared to the competition.

Apple needs to do something - when the marketshare gets down to 1% I'm jumping ship.

what was it last? 1.8%?

Well if you put FireWire 400 and 800, Gigabit Ethernet, Serial ATA, PCI-X, Digital Optical Audio and all the other things that for example the G5's got in a PC you'll get:

a. A PC that will cost you at least the same (If not more since you wanna buy quality components wich Apple buys at a low price in volume)

b. A PC that'll be hell to use cause you'll have to juggle with DLLs and wizards and all the other Windows crap 'cause you added all this hardware.

About that market share thing. I wonder why it matters to you how much market share they got. You need a Computer that works for you right? So why bother.
And btw the way the market share gets counted it's no wonder Apple gets around 2-3%. If a really big Bank buys like 30'000 Windows licenses that'll count as 30'000. When in reality it should count as one 'cause it's one customer. And the poor drones that work there do use Word and Excel only anyways. So in reality the modern Windows PC in an enviroment like that is not much more than a Terminal, hooked up to a Mainframe, was 30 Years ago.
My point is, that Apple hasn't got that many big customers who use all of their computers for the same task.
So my guess is that when you count the "real" customers who don't work like the drones you'll get another number. Though it is clear that a higher share from whatever they got now would do them good.

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 09:18 PM

Nothing is ever good enough for some people, nubero. Apple could announce that they were giving away a free G5 1.8 dual to anyone who ordered a computer in the last two years, and we'd still have people griping. Some would be mad it wasn't three years, others that it wasn't a dual, and ones like DHM would be pissed that it wasn't an Athlon under the hood. It's just how the world is. You can't make everyone happy. :rolleyes:why the smear campaign thatwendigo, Go read MacAddict or MacWorld. when Mac publications say the new Powermac isnt the fastest computer what more do you need. Rdowns sent me a copy of the Macworld tests and in all but one the Mac Lost and THATS A MAC PUBLICATION! WAKE UP from your DENIAL. are you employed by APPLE and have to spin the truth? Fact is we have Hardware that just gets back into the same league. Dual G5s. But they still cost a lot more and are not the fastest. only fastest in those few benches. Stop the lies to Mac readers they deserve the truth.

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 09:20 PM

You can't make everyone happy. :rolleyes:

...But you should always try :p

Thanks for your reply!

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 09:32 PM

why the smear campaign thatwendigo, Go read MacAddict or MacWorld. when Mac publications say the new Powermac isnt the fastest computer what more do you need. Rdowns sent me a copy of the Macworld tests and in all but one the Mac Lost and THATS A MAC PUBLICATION! WAKE UP from your DENIAL. are you employed by APPLE and have to spin the truth? Fact is we have Hardware that just gets back into the same league. Dual G5s. But they still cost a lot more and are not the fastest. only fastest in those few benches. Stop the lies to Mac readers they deserve the truth.

Go buy a Dell then for Pete's sake.

I do believe that by now the G5 isn't THE fastest Desktop anymore but that's totally besides the point. Point is that the G5 gave us a whole new architecture that can only get better. Apple had a good way of covering up the fact, that they haven't got that much R&D money.
Think about it for a second: The mainboard of the very first G4 was based on the G3's. after a while they just tweaked it a bit. The performance they got from it 'till the G5 arrived was - keeping what I just said in mind - pretty good. They were/are changing one big thing after the other: First the OS, now the Hardware.
Now with the G5 architecture they got themselves a big open space again in terms of memory and I/O bandwith.
So do I care if a Computer gets comparable slower to others after 4-6 months? Not really. And especially not with those G5s. I'm pretty critic to all the marketing talk but the statement that "this is just the beginning" should turn out to be very true in this case. :o

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 09:47 PM

Wow! I go away for a few hours, and a single new thread gets opened up here and - bam - it's three pages long in no time whatsoever. And guess what? Half of it is the same as on every other thread here!

We really need something new from Apple. Not so much because we need the speed (or because we do need it, depending on whose posts you root for). But because it's getting boring here! I mean, if you remove the "when is something coming out" and the Mac-vs-PC-speed posts, well, there's not a lot left!

God, at this point, I'd be happy if they announce new iPod earbuds, now in various colors. Or scratch-n-sniff minis. Or a new GarageBand JamPack that's all bagpipes. Just something. Anything. I don't care if people buy it, love it, hate it, wish it was faster/smaller/cheaper/pink. Whatever. At least it'd be something different.

:)

Xnet

Mar 26, 2004, 09:47 PM

Well if you put FireWire 400 and 800, Gigabit Ethernet, Serial ATA, PCI-X, Digital Optical Audio and all the other things that for example the G5's got in a PC you'll get:

a. A PC that will cost you at least the same (If not more since you wanna buy quality components wich Apple buys at a low price in volume)

b. A PC that'll be hell to use cause you'll have to juggle with DLLs and wizards and all the other Windows crap 'cause you added all this hardware.

About that market share thing. I wonder why it matters to you how much market share they got. You need a Computer that works for you right? So why bother.
And btw the way the market share gets counted it's no wonder Apple gets around 2-3%. If a really big Bank buys like 30'000 Windows licenses that'll count as 30'000. When in reality it should count as one 'cause it's one customer. And the poor drones that work there do use Word and Excel only anyways. So in reality the modern Windows PC in an enviroment like that is not much more than a Terminal, hooked up to a Mainframe, was 30 Years ago.
My point is, that Apple hasn't got that many big customers who use all of their computers for the same task.
So my guess is that when you count the "real" customers who don't work like the drones you'll get another number. Though it is clear that a higher share from whatever they got now would do them good.

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

I'm not just talking about the G5s the iMacs are really overpriced too and underperform. You can get a Dell 3.4 P4 with a Radeon 9800 Pro for less than 2000 with a LCD display - all with quality parts since they come from the same place that Apple gets them.

Its simple economics I cant afford to pay $1000 more for an Apple. If I could run OS X on a PC that would be great - but Linux isnt too bad.

rdowns

Mar 26, 2004, 09:50 PM

Funny how there's never a direct quotation, citation, or graph you can show us, DHM. For all we know, you're completely fabricating this, or (what I consider more likely, given your track record) absolutely and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting something that you think you read.

I don't think they have the story on theor web site, this is all I could find.

http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/magazine/december2003/

I have the issue. G5 lost 4 of 6 real world tests.(Word, Quake III, Premier (not a fair test since FCP is not on a PC to compare) and MP3 encoding) he Mac won in Photoshop and MPEG-2 encoding.

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 09:59 PM

I don't think they have the story on theor web site, this is all I could find.

http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/magazine/december2003/

I have the issue. G5 lost 4 of 6 real world tests.(Word, Quake III, Premier (not a fair test since FCP is not on a PC to compare) and MP3 encoding) he Mac won in Photoshop and MPEG-2 encoding.

For me, the ones the Mac won are the ones that count - and FCP would've kicked the butt of Premier, so I count that as well. Quake III, I couldn't care less about. And Word, well, hell it keeps up with my typing just fine even on my lowly dual-2.

They're close enough for me. And the quality of the Mac also counts for me. Seriously, it's built like a tank but also with amazing attention to detail inside that would shame Alienware. Those things count, too. A decade or so ago, a friend of mine had a tuned Firebird that was a bit faster - straight line - than my Mazda RX-7 (both were 1993 models). You know what? I had a lot more fun with my car. Same with the Mac. It has "soul". I can't quantify it, but it matters to me.

shen

Mar 26, 2004, 10:01 PM

why the smear campaign

Fact is we have Hardware that just gets back into the same league. Dual G5s. But they still cost a lot more and are not the fastest. only fastest in those few benches. Stop the lies to Mac readers they deserve the truth.

i won't argue the speed issue, because 1) they aren't the fastest, and 2) 90% of all users don't even need a G4, let alone dual G5.

having said that......

cost a lot more? what are you smoking? find me a machine with similar quality and performance and it will have similar or higher price. and don't you dare quote me some POS dell, 30% return rate "i personally shipped 32 of one hundred ten machines back to them DOA only cause i fixed a dozen more myself for not having the mobo power hooked up, the idiots" crap. i want a real machine. that leaves me with a very select (alienware for example) set of options, and i want *nix, which cuts the list shorter, and OS X is *nix done right, so there is one option.

you don't like Apples stuff? why are you always here?

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 10:02 PM

I'm not just talking about the G5s the iMacs are really overpriced too and underperform. You can get a Dell 3.4 P4 with a Radeon 9800 Pro for less than 2000 with a LCD display - all with quality parts since they come from the same place that Apple gets them.

Its simple economics I cant afford to pay $1000 more for an Apple. If I could run OS X on a PC that would be great - but Linux isnt too bad.

Well maybe you should go to Dell's website and double check as i got $2,148 for a Dimension 8300 that is more or less comparable to the 20" iMac for $2,199.00
Just did the test right now 'cause I didn't want to believe you. And there you are. And yes, I didn't forget the screen, or the software or the memory...

No one is a magician. If you want something good, you'll have to pay for it. If it is a Car a Computer or anything else. That's the way it has always been. Or do you think Michael Dull or Bill Hates gonna throw their products at you for free 'cause the two got enough money allready?

Sorry, didn't mean to bash that much but this price comparraison statement just made me a bit angry (as it always does). So no offense OK? ;)

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

GFLPraxis

Mar 26, 2004, 10:30 PM

Oh please.

How come whenever Microsoft claims to have the best operating system, or when Microsoft claims to have the best Office program, nobody ever says that there isn't sufficient evidence?

ryanw

Mar 26, 2004, 10:42 PM

What?? This is crap. If we dominate - we should let it be know.
Well dude, sorry, but a DUAL PowerMac G5 is not faster than an 8way AMD Opteron. Sure, it's faster than an equivilent DUAL processor machine, but the PC world has larger machines available to them than the Mac world. No matter how much I love Apple and OSX, it's the truth.

I still wish Apple would like up with IBM to OEM OSX for IBM's higher end 16 processor Power4 machines. Anyone here try to hack a recent pSeries IBM PowerPC machine and put OSX on it LATELY? I know it's been done in the past with old MacOS, but has anyone done it with OSX?

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 10:44 PM

Xnet

Mar 26, 2004, 10:49 PM

Well maybe you should go to Dell's website and double check as i got $2,148 for a Dimension 8300 that is more or less comparable to the 20" iMac for $2,199.00
Just did the test right now 'cause I didn't want to believe you. And there you are. And yes, I didn't forget the screen, or the software or the memory...

No one is a magician. If you want something good, you'll have to pay for it. If it is a Car a Computer or anything else. That's the way it has always been. Or do you think Michael Dull or Bill Hates gonna throw their products at you for free 'cause the two got enough money allready?

Sorry, didn't mean to bash that much but this price comparraison statement just made me a bit angry (as it always does). So no offense OK? ;)

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

none taken
But a 3.4 GHz P4 will blow the pants off an iMac, not to mention the iMac has a terrible graphics card. The following is a rather high-end Dell with no monitor, you could get a 3 or a 2.8 with a smaller drive for A LOT less. Hence Apple is way over priced.

Remember that the G4 is not fast at all - so I'm not sure what you are saying is comparable to the iMac - I hope you dont mean the 3.4 GHz p4

heres the price from the other day at Dell
Dell Dimension XPS
Pentium 4 3.4 GHz w/800 MHz FSB
MS Windows XP Professional
Limited 1 Year At-Home Service
2 GB DDR SDRAM@400 MHz
128 MB ATI Raseon 9800 Pro w/TV out
Sound Blaster Audigy w/Dolby 5.1 and Firewire
Dell Media Experience
250GB Serial ATA 7200 RPM
48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM
RecordNow!
3.5 Floppy Drive
Intel PRO 1000 Ethernet
Word Perfect / Money
Dell Picture Studio
Free Turbo Tax

$2,099
ships 4/1/04

omnivector

Mar 26, 2004, 10:54 PM

sigh. one of these speed threads again.

the g5 is damn fast, plenty fast enough for almost any professional's needs. the fact that i can load a g5 with 16 gigs of memory TODAY means it's going to be the pants of anything in the wintel world for applications that demand that much memory.

the opterons are 64bit, but they have no 64bit os to go with it that supports >4gb of memory right now unless i'm mistaken.

even regardless of all that, the speed difference between a g5 and a dual xeon/opteron is negligable. you buy a system based on the operating system. if you like mac, you go with mac. if you like windows, you go with x86. it's that simple. raw speed will not switch or impress ANYONE unless one of the two skyrockets ahead in performance to the point that it's 2-3 times faster or even more.

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 11:04 PM

none taken
But a 3.4 GHz P4 will blow the pants off an iMac, not to mention the iMac has a terrible graphics card. The following is a rather high-end Dell with no monitor, you could get a 3 or a 2.8 with a smaller drive for A LOT less. Hence Apple is way over priced.

Remember that the G4 is not fast at all - so I'm not sure what you are saying is comparable to the iMac - I hope you dont mean the 3.4 GHz p4

heres the price from the other day at Dell
Dell Dimension XPS
Pentium 4 3.4 GHz w/800 MHz FSB
MS Windows XP Professional
Limited 1 Year At-Home Service
2 GB DDR SDRAM@400 MHz
128 MB ATI Raseon 9800 Pro w/TV out
Sound Blaster Audigy w/Dolby 5.1 and Firewire
Dell Media Experience
250GB Serial ATA 7200 RPM
48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM
RecordNow!
3.5 Floppy Drive
Intel PRO 1000 Ethernet
Word Perfect / Money
Dell Picture Studio
Free Turbo Tax

$2,099
ships 4/1/04

Yep. I had one with a 19.1 Inch Flat Panel Display but much smaller Hard Drive and the preinstalled Graphics Card when I did the test. Now when you include the Display as well in yours, you're gonna be way higher in price... But as someone already said here: the differences are so small and in areas which you really can't compare that it boils down to the OS you would like to see in front of you (and if you have taste, the housing of your computer as well).

But I'm getting out of this thread now as it is turning out to be getting really silly... :(

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

isus

Mar 26, 2004, 11:14 PM

oh well, not that much of a loss for apple. the world's fastest pc claim was what, 8 months ago? at the time, it was true, but everybody wanted to say "hey, apple cheated" instead of looking at the facts.

to me, the g5 is fast enough as it is, and when the 3ghz g5's come later this year, then apple can go back to the world's fastest pc slogan.

oh, and let's not forget, with this "you can get an 8-way opteron computer" or whatever, that those are NOT personal computers. those are servers and workstations and nodes.

one other thing to remember: when you go find a dell with a 3.4ghz p4 for thousands less than a powermac, you get what you pay for... buddy of mine bought an ipod at best buy and it failed on him within a few days, because it was a display model, and a return. (hey, it only cost him $180 for a 3g 10gb). so he sent it to apple. within 3 days, he had a brand new ipod.

how often do you think that happens at dell?

Xnet

Mar 26, 2004, 11:25 PM

Yep. I had one with a 19.1 Inch Flat Panel Display but much smaller Hard Drive and the preinstalled Graphics Card when I did the test. Now when you include the Display as well in yours, you're gonna be way higher in price... But as someone already said here: the differences are so small and in areas which you really can't compare that it boils down to the OS you would like to see in front of you (and if you have taste, the housing of your computer as well).

But I'm getting out of this thread now as it is turning out to be getting really silly... :(

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

Its really not about the G5s which are fast as hell, but Apples entry line-up which needs help in terms of price / performance.

I dont think Apple is selling as much to the consumer market as it could b/c its prices are too high.

you dont mean criticizing Apple is silly do you?

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 11:32 PM

the fact that i can load a g5 with 16 gigs of memory TODAY means it's going to be the pants of anything in the wintel world for applications that demand that much memory.

No offense, since we're on the same side here, and I freely admit potential ignorance about new developments, but I thought the max was 8 GB, today at least.

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 11:34 PM

... buddy of mine bought an ipod at best buy and it failed on him within a few days, because it was a display model, and a return. (hey, it only cost him $180 for a 3g 10gb). so he sent it to apple. within 3 days, he had a brand new ipod.

how often do you think that happens at dell?

Never, man. I sent my bum iPod to Dell weeks ago and they have yet to return it. Customer Service acts like they don't even know what I'm talking about.

:)

nubero

Mar 26, 2004, 11:36 PM

you dont mean criticizing Apple is silly do you?

No I don't. And I guess you are right as there is always some room for improvement... But I wanted to point out, that it isn't as bad as you said it was in the first message. But looking at the 15" iMac I wonder myself who's gonna buy one of those now... (except maybe for a small office or something like that...).

But the whole iMac line could go into revision this year. Would be a nice time. I don't think we are going to see this case design by this time next year anymore...

Then again the iPod is Apples "iMac" right now. As long as they have a product like that every 3 years or so (a real take off i mean) we shouldn't worry.

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

isus

Mar 27, 2004, 12:02 AM

No offense, since we're on the same side here, and I freely admit potential ignorance about new developments, but I thought the max was 8 GB, today at least.
no, i think corsair has 2gb sticks out there... the 8gb is 8 slots filled with 1gb sticks... so 8 slots filled with the 2gb sticks is 16gb :-P

however, i think it costs several THOUSAND dollars to get all that ram... i think near $8k

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 12:12 AM

the opterons are 64bit, but they have no 64bit os to go with it that supports >4gb of memory right now unless i'm mistaken.

Didn't you know that Linux 64-bit is available, or that Windows 64-bit can be downloaded today for free from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp ?

Did you know that 32-bit Windows supports up to 64 GiB of RAM today?

And, by the way, did you know that (unlike 64-bit Windows) OS X is a 32-bit operating system?

Like 32-bit OS X, it's a fact that 32-bit Windows can support more than 4 GiB of RAM (up to 64 GiB).

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 27, 2004, 12:14 AM

Interesting to say the least. looks like Windows is moving away from Intel. looking at the article its all AMD.

h'biki

Mar 27, 2004, 12:50 AM

Look Apple has the best operating system in the world and good hardware that is RIDICULOUSLY over priced when compared to the competition.

Apple somehow has to pay for the R&D of that 'best operating system in the world' (and all its kickass technology) -- and that's the margin's on the machines.

Most PC manufacturers have bugger all R&D, so they can keep their margin's lower because there are only direct costs involved.

djbahdow01

Mar 27, 2004, 01:14 AM

Interesting to say the least. looks like Windows is moving away from Intel. looking at the article its all AMD.

Considering right now at the moment AMD is the only company with a consumer 64-bit processor in the WIndows world, 64-bit Windows would only run on an AMD. Intel is way far behind in the chip wars as of right now. Yeah they might have the highest GHz but that doesn't mean anything as they have found out considering they are going to the performance grading system instead now. They have no consumer 64-bit chip meaning no 64-bit windows.

isus

Mar 27, 2004, 01:15 AM

vpalvarez

Mar 27, 2004, 02:06 AM

The Apple G5 website now states that the Powermac G5 is "one of the fastest computers ever made" Is that a change from the ordinary?

yamabushi

Mar 27, 2004, 02:10 AM

i didn't think it had anything to do with how much ram the os could address; more about how much the chips inside could address.
Both the OS and hardware have memory address limitations. The number of slots and capacity of memory sticks are the primary limiting factors for current hardware. Mac OS 10.3 can address far more memory than you can squeeze into a Mac today but can only provide up to 4GB for each process.

vpalvarez

Mar 27, 2004, 02:17 AM

Does anybody know the warrants to the claim that it isn't the fastest. I read the areticle and besides the bit about workstations can't find the warrants.

thatwendigo

Mar 27, 2004, 02:39 AM

But a 3.4 GHz P4 will blow the pants off an iMac, not to mention the iMac has a terrible graphics card. The following is a rather high-end Dell with no monitor, you could get a 3 or a 2.8 with a smaller drive for A LOT less. Hence Apple is way over priced.

As terrible as Dell's use of integrated graphics with shared memory in the same price point? As terrrible as the 5200 FX that's in the Alienware at the same pirce point?

Yes, in pure CPU tests, a 3.4 P4 will slam the G4 in many things, espcially in single-processor configurations. However, you and many of the people like you are forgetting something about the iMac that isn't in the PC world. The enclosure is less than 11 inches around at the base, and half that high. The footprint is a literal foot, and that's stretching things a little bit, and it only uses one fan. So, if you've got PC systems that use that tight of a space, include one of the best LCDs in the market (since Apple's displays are very highly rated), and still cost in that range, I'd like to see one, prebuilt, from a vendor.

heres the price from the other day at Dell
Dell Dimension XPS
Pentium 4 3.4 GHz w/800 MHz FSB
MS Windows XP Professional
Limited 1 Year At-Home Service
2 GB DDR SDRAM@400 MHz
128 MB ATI Raseon 9800 Pro w/TV out
Sound Blaster Audigy w/Dolby 5.1 and Firewire
Dell Media Experience
250GB Serial ATA 7200 RPM
48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM
RecordNow!
3.5 Floppy Drive
Intel PRO 1000 Ethernet
Word Perfect / Money
Dell Picture Studio
Free Turbo Tax

$2,099
ships 4/1/04

You're going to need more than the basic software to match iLife and the built-in OS tools. That adds cost. Also, as you were so kind as to note, that system has no monitor. Yet more money...

oingoboingo

Mar 27, 2004, 03:40 AM

dual 3ghz not the fastest.... are you on crack????
simply the fastest personal computer ever no comp.....
but as they always do they ( the wintel community) will try (emphasis on TRY )
to belittle it.... but there is not a pc that will go anywhere nere a 3ghz powermac with this architecture and 1ghz fsb or more....

Might it not be prudent to wait until a 3GHz G5 actually materialises before claiming it will crush all before it? As for the boasting about the G5's FSB speed...you do realize that AMD's Opteron runs its FSB at a 1:1 speed with the core clock speed? If you have a 1.6GHz Opteron, then you have a 1.6GHz FSB speed.

As for the Wintel community trying to belittle the G5, MacWorld did a fairly good job of dispelling Apple's hype in a recent issue. The G5 was beaten by x86 systems in all but a small portion of a broad benchmark suite. The G5 surely is a fast system...but it's not the fastest, no way. Congratulations to the relevant bodies for pulling Apple up on some truly misleading advertising.

Let's re-visit this discussion when Apple actually manages to ship a 3GHz G5, instead of making vague promises 9 months ago, with no subsequent speed increases.

carbonmotion

Mar 27, 2004, 03:57 AM

uberman42

Mar 27, 2004, 04:22 AM

The day final cut pro ships for pc, is the day i buy a 3.4 ghz pee four...

i read your guys arguing and i just shake my head... who cares? maybe its faster maybe its slower on certain parts of certain applications... by a few percents here a few percents there. If a movie takes 5 seconds longer to render on one machine then another do you notice? can your brain even have time to register annoyance in that time span? Anyways, I own a Dual 2ghz Athlon MP with a gig of ram and a Radeon 9800XT. Good machine, I built it myself (genius me :D) except I never use it. In fact it's collecting dust at home. I find that my powerbook alu 15" (although alot slower) does everything more effectively. Most people don't need the bleeding edge, just a good comprehensive all around hardware/software package. Look, the G5 maybe faster than the P4 in some repects and slower in others... so lets just stop these comparisions, they're not going anywhere. ...btw (and i'm totally serious when i say this.) if you believe that you're going to be more productive on a wintel box, then by all means you should score youself one. Don't let your self be tied to apple just because of brand loyalty... I mean for what alot of people do, wintel with linux or windows are probably superior alternatives to osx/apple hardware. *yawn* in the mean time, while you chew on that, I'm going to nap.

Hmmm- you mention not being tied to Apple, but await for Final Cut Pro to be compiled to CISC in order to get a P4 when you can get editing software from Avid http://www.avid.com/products/xpressdv/index.asp :confused:? You can actually buy xpressdv and get both the mac and win copy to load into your Athlon and Pbook! As for the five seconds, it counts when you multiply it numerous times for a project. Speed counts when you are in a business that bills by the hour or in a project that is time sensitive. The thing that hurts in OS X is when I am multitasking through multiple apps in a short period of time, the slow window redraw times between apps kills my productivity.

ionas

Mar 27, 2004, 04:39 AM

you do regulate the market yourself, so st*u,
let ppl do their biz, let governments control some of economy to all our best (if governments are good again ;p) - stop whining, wto, iwf and all the cra**y newcomers.

omnivector

Mar 27, 2004, 05:04 AM

Didn't you know that Linux 64-bit is available, or that Windows 64-bit can be downloaded today for free from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp ?

Did you know that 32-bit Windows supports up to 64 GiB of RAM today?

And, by the way, did you know that (unlike 64-bit Windows) OS X is a 32-bit operating system?

Like 32-bit OS X, it's a fact that 32-bit Windows can support more than 4 GiB of RAM (up to 64 GiB).

sorry, last time i checked i couldn't run all my windows software on linux. WINE is great, but it's not perfect.

just because you can download it free now, doesn't mean it isn't beta quality (and thus beta priced), and that it won't cost money in the future.

64gb on a pure 32bit kernel, you're joking right? please send me a link to a page on microsoft.com that claims this.

MacQuest

Mar 27, 2004, 05:28 AM

If it's not true then they shouldn't be saying it.

Yeah. They shouldn't lower themselves to Micrapsoft and Inhell's level of false propoganda.:rolleyes:

I say ***** it, paybacks' a beeyatch and fight fire with fire.

Let Apple re-run the campaign when we have 3Ghz G5's in the next 6 months while Intel is still banging it's head on it's 3.xGhz cieling and all they can do about it is re-name their processors. :p

MacQuest

Mar 27, 2004, 05:44 AM

...within 3 days, he had a brand new ipod.

how often do you think that happens at dell?

Never.

Someone would actually have to buy a Dell DJ for this to happen. :D

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 08:16 AM

64gb on a pure 32bit kernel, you're joking right? please send me a link to a page on microsoft.com that claims this.

Not joking at all

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/compareeditions.mspx

"Both the 32-bit version of Datacenter Edition and the 64-bit version of Enterprise Edition support up to 64 GB RAM."

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#512ram

"Designed for demanding enterprise applications, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports new systems with up to 32 gigabytes (GB) of RAM."

"Designed for mission critical applications, the 32-bit version of Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports up to 64 gigabyte (GB) of RAM on x86-based computers."

thatwendigo

Mar 27, 2004, 08:31 AM

"Designed for demanding enterprise applications, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports new systems with up to 32 gigabytes (GB) of RAM."

"Designed for mission critical applications, the 32-bit version of Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports up to 64 gigabyte (GB) of RAM on x86-based computers."

While technically true, I think it's a little misleading to have phrased things the way you did, as if all of the Windows line was capable of addressing memory that way. It's two specific versions, both of which likely cost more than a consumer license, and so it's not the same market as what we're talking about.

I do concede, however, that Windows can address more than 4GB in 32-bit mode, though, unless someone else shows why this isn't true.

djbahdow01

Mar 27, 2004, 08:42 AM

Not joking at all

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/compareeditions.mspx

"Both the 32-bit version of Datacenter Edition and the 64-bit version of Enterprise Edition support up to 64 GB RAM."

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#512ram

"Designed for demanding enterprise applications, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports new systems with up to 32 gigabytes (GB) of RAM."

"Designed for mission critical applications, the 32-bit version of Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports up to 64 gigabyte (GB) of RAM on x86-based computers."

Remember that is the Windows Server 2003 meaning that it could be a cluster of computers, which could inturn give you 64 GB or you forgot to mention 512 GB of RAM that is accesible. This is not in one computer, 32 bit processors can only access 4 GB of ram per processor. So that is a number of processors. A 64 bit chip can access up to right now 16 GB and from what i read it can be a lot more than that, there just isn't the RAM chips yet in the large sizes yet.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 27, 2004, 09:00 AM

Wonder when someone will challenge this?

oingoboingo

Mar 27, 2004, 09:22 AM

Funny how there's never a direct quotation, citation, or graph you can show us, DHM. For all we know, you're completely fabricating this, or (what I consider more likely, given your track record) absolutely and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting something that you think you read.

I have a copy of the MacWorld issue to which he is referring. Private message me with your e-mail address and I will e-mail you a scanned copy of the entire article. DHM is correct...even MacWorld had to concede that the G5 was bested by the AlienWare system on the majority of benchmarks.

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 09:46 AM

Remember that is the Windows Server 2003 meaning that it could be a cluster of computers, which could inturn give you 64 GB or you forgot to mention 512 GB of RAM that is accesible. This is not in one computer, 32 bit processors can only access 4 GB of ram per processor.

No, this is Windows 32-bit on a single computer accessing up to 64 GiB of RAM. It's not the sum of the memories in a cluster (obviously, since the sum is essentially unbounded).

First, on the hardware side - the P4 and Xeons have 36-bit physical addressing for support of up to 64 GiB:

http://developer.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm

Enables system support of up to 64 GB of physical memory

The CPU supports 64 GiB, as does the chipset:

http://developer.intel.com/design/chipsets/linecard/svr_wkstn.htm

E7505 Max Mem 16 GB

http://www.broadcom.com/products/product.php?product_id=GC-LE

The GC-LE is capable of supporting up to 16GB of main memory at speeds up to 4.2 Gbps of memory bandwidth.

http://www.broadcom.com/products/product.php?product_id=GC-HE

The GC-HE is capable of supporting up to 64GB of main memory at speeds up to 6.4 Gbps of memory bandwidth.

The motherboard supports more than 4 GiB:

http://developer.intel.com/design/servers/se7501hg2/index.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_mthrbds+se7501hg2_srvr&

Support for up to 12 GB of registered ECC DDR266 memory through six DIMM sockets

The systems support more than 4 GiB:

http://www.hp.com/workstations/ia32/xw8000/specs.html

Up to 12 GB* of Registered ECC PC2100 DDR-266 memory (6 DIMMs in 3 pairs, dual-channel architecture)

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl380/index.html

[i]12GB of 2-way interleaved PC2100 DDR SDRAM, with Online Spare Memory and Advanced ECC capabilities

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl740/index.html

Advanced Memory Protection Hot Plug RAID Memory (Front Access)

RAM Std/Max Addressable (Total) 4GB/64GB (80GB)

The 80GiB config contains an extra 16GiB bank used as hot-swap RAID - in case of a failure of a DIMM the system keeps running, and you can replace the DIMM while the system is up. Cool stuff, see http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl740/benefits.html for more info on hot-swap RAM.

B!nej

Mar 27, 2004, 09:56 AM

Those versions of windows that can address large amounts of RAM do exist. They are not "Windows" in the sense of Windows that you can go and buy in a shop. Try it, ask a computer shop to get you a computer with Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition or Datacenter Edition, see what they say. :)

A 32 bit address space allows for a maximum range of about 4 billion possible addresses. This does _not_ have to equate to maximum physical RAM - it's the maximum address space for a process. Because each process running in Windows (or any modern OS) has it's own address space, you can have a lot of processes each with a full 32 bits of address space. On windows, the usable address space is in fact 2GB in standard versions, and 3GB for "enterprise" versions.

Don't go crazy, but Windows (NT) was available in 64 bit flavor for the DEC Alpha years ago. It was canned in favor of IA-64 (didn't that go well :) )

On the G5, it is not especially important for Apple to have a full blown 64 bit OS, since the G5 will run 32 bit and 64 bit code equally well. There is no magical speed advantage to being 64 bit on the G5.

-----

For practical purposes, the G5 is the best professional quality box you can buy. I know that you can buy or build a faster PC for less, but you don't get the exceptional industrial design, and you don't get OSX and all the cool stuff that comes with it.

Do you buy a computer for what it is or what you can do with it?

redAPPLE

Mar 27, 2004, 10:18 AM

Does this mean new G5s on Tuesday? :D

Sorry, couldn't resist...

*Haha* now it should say. "NOW you got the world's fastest".

redAPPLE

Mar 27, 2004, 10:26 AM

Yeah, let's see Apple make a G5 that leaves no doubt.

this will only happen, once they stop their politics of waiting until the "ghz difference" between machines "is correct". if they have (for example) a 4 ghz g5 processor, but only 1000 procs, then they could say "the world's fastest"... and then sell 2.5 or 2.2 ghz als entry level machines.

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 10:33 AM

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 10:38 AM

Don't go crazy, but Windows (NT) was available in 64 bit flavor for the DEC Alpha years ago.

The released versions of Windows NT for Alpha (starting with NT 3.1 in 1993) were 32-bit O/S on a 64-bit CPU (just like OS X).

Windows 2000 64-bit for Alpha was part of the public beta testing program, but Compaq/Microsoft discontinued Alpha support during the field test. The 64-bit for Alpha product never shipped.

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 10:39 AM

this will only happen, once they stop their politics of waiting until the "ghz difference" between machines "is correct". if they have (for example) a 4 ghz g5 processor, but only 1000 procs, then they could say "the world's fastest"... and then sell 2.5 or 2.2 ghz als entry level machines.

tsk

Mar 27, 2004, 10:51 AM

The G5s are what Apple claims and more they just need optimization --ITS A BRAN NEW CHIP PEOPLE!. ;) Thanks in part to IBMs new compilers that will help harness the power of 970s. :)

I think the other part of the complaint was that they were optimizing the hell out of the G5's and then "unoptimizing" the hell out of the competing workstations. I recall Apple somehow managing to get some terrible benchmarks for the systems they were competing with. I dunno, but to me if you have to do that, it's probably unethical.

rjwill246

Mar 27, 2004, 12:31 PM

The G5's did turn out to be the fastest on certain comparative tests but no matter, the IBM chips will just get better and better and at some point the G-series will be the fastest... and Apple won't have to say a thing. This last year PC World and other mags have done nothing but rave about Apple product and that will continue to be the case as Apple's line just grows into untouchably awesome (if it isn't already!) in which case Apple won't need to resort to hyperbole.
And 64 bit Windows won't be on the personal desktop anytime soon while Apple's can't be too far off. Altogether the complaints about this marketing are hypocritical on a good day, just plain bad sportsmanship on a bad one, since Dell et al. have made similarly exaggerated claims in the past as well. And, of course, it would have to be Dell complaining. It is so in character with the lack luster company that Dell is to be 'so snippy' (thank's for that one Al). Mickey D. has never produced a noteworthy item, never will and this new complaint is surely the last resort of an intellectually sub-performing CEO! Mick, you are at least maintaining your outstanding ability to be mediocre... one of the few in all history to do so and make such a fortune as you have. In that respect you are an unqualified over-achiever!

damax452

Mar 27, 2004, 12:40 PM

pwned

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 12:59 PM

And 64 bit Windows won't be on the personal desktop anytime soon while Apple's can't be too far off.

Boy, this is wishful thinking. Desktop 64-bit AMD systems are already shipping at under $1000 dollars. Microsoft has the Windows XP 64-bit O/S test version available for free download. Final release is scheduled for the summer timeframe. Note that this is the already shipping Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium, just recompiled for x86-64.

Where's Apple? Not a word about 64-bit, not even to the developer community. Are there any "how to rewrite your code for 64-bit Mac OS X" sessions scheduled for WWDC?

Do you really think Apple's going to surprise folks at WWDC by releasing a full 64-bit version of OS X? The only 64-bit surprise that might come from WWDC would be if Apple *doesn't* start to discuss their roadmap to 64-bit.

HP Pavilion Athlon 64 system - $720

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_store/computer_series_detail.do?series_name=a450e_series&series_index=0&catLevel=2

HP Presario Athlon 64 system - $970

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_store/computer_series_detail.do?series_name=8000Z_series&series_index=0&catLevel=2

Windows XP 64-bit Extended download - free

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp

Windows XP 64-bit IA64 - buy the released version today

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/howtobuy/default.asp

Gelfin

Mar 27, 2004, 01:40 PM

Good post, except that the Dell store has the simple option for Enterprise Server - e.g. http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=PE1750PAD&s=biz

PowerEdge 1750:
PowerEdge 1750, Intel Xeon 2.4GHz w/512K Cache, 533MHz Front Side Bus 175245 [221-2097] 1

Operating System(s):
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with 25 Client Licenses W2K3ENT [420-2966] 11

Your "Computer Shop" probably doesn't have any x86 boxes that can hold that much memory, so no surprise that they might not have the O/S that enables it.

Fry's Outpost.com has Enterprise for sale though....

This is really a tangent, but it should be noted how much you have to pay for the option to use large amounts of RAM in Windows. Enterprise Edition has a MSRP of $3999.00. Just the OS costs more than any desktop computer these days.

And Datacenter Edition? Well, Microsoft won't even quote a price for that, because it's sold only with new hardware. Their OEMs don't quote a price either, because the only systems on which DE is available are somewhere up in the stratosphere of the market where you only buy by talking to a technical sales guy. I mean, I suppose it's possible they're covering up for a policy of throwing Datacenter Edition in for $20 with unlimited client seats... but I kind of doubt it. Rather, I imagine it's priced at a point that would make most medium sized nations give serious thought to whether they really need it.

kerryb

Mar 27, 2004, 02:10 PM

rjwill246

Mar 27, 2004, 03:11 PM

Boy, this is wishful thinking. Desktop 64-bit AMD systems are already shipping at under $1000 dollars. [/i]

Yep and we've seen them everywhere with tons of software to boot. Gosh, the MS website is loaded with info about the released product. In fact MS is asking everyone using Win XP to switch to its new 64 bit Windows this weekend with extraordinary promotions for the first 2 million upgraders who sign on.
Boy, this is wishful thinking. Apple however has much in place to become fully 64 bit with not too much twiddling of the popular software as well and even if they choose to go slowly on this one, it doesn't involve all the bruhaha of MS, AMD and Intel figuring out how to get YOU all of the current popular product in 64 bit on YOUR desktop. We'll have 1080p, over the air direct to your 1" thick DLP before that happens.

windowsblowsass

Mar 27, 2004, 03:28 PM

The solution is simple Worlds fastest personal computer *

*according to blah blah texsted in etc.*

carbonmotion

Mar 27, 2004, 03:33 PM

I think part of apple's charm is its contant underdog position... 'sides most of the creative sector uses apple stuff, so they're secure in a future hardware/software pool of buyers who are loyal. and on top of that ...i lost my train of thought... you guys just work with what i have above.

AidenShaw

Mar 27, 2004, 03:45 PM

Apple however has much in place to become fully 64 bit with not too much twiddling of the popular software as well and even if they choose to go slowly on this one, it doesn't involve all the bruhaha of MS, AMD and Intel figuring out how to get YOU all of the current popular product in 64 bit on YOUR desktop.

Like the PPC970, the IA32E chips (the Intel and AMD 64-bit extended chips) can run:

existing 32-bit applications and 32-bit operating systems at full speed

existing 32-bit applications on 64-bit operating systems at full speed

new 64-bit applications on 64-bit operating systems

Unlike Apple, however, bullets #2 and #3 are here today.

There won't be any need to get "popular product" in 64-bits - only those apps that need 64-bit addressing will need to be changed.

ionas

Mar 27, 2004, 03:53 PM

about that "windows" and 64bit discussion

1. intel supports 36bit extentions for a long time now, as does windows 2000 afaik (and if only the advanced server version, who cares, more about that below), maybe even winnt 4.

2. windows is windows - there are about 4 "groups" of windows i would like to categorize. (i ll leave out mobile, windows ce, pocket pc, tablet pc blah)

1. windows 1, 2, 3+

2. windows 95, 98, me

3. windows nt 4 (i just left out 3.5 that is just strange, dont know much about it anyway)

4. windows 2000/xp, normal, home, professional, adnavned server, data center, media center whatever.

the forth group is one complex with different "modules" (more ram, more cpu, more gui features, more admin features, more network features, whatever) but it is essentially the same. means:

windows - as we know it - supports 64gb of ram - but thats the max - there is no more imho (maybe clustered windows - but that doesnt really count - btw can the powermacs theoretically adress 2 times 64bit of ram? (2^64)?

bye

Sun Baked

Mar 27, 2004, 03:54 PM

The solution is simple Worlds fastest personal computer *

*according to blah blah texsted in etc.*Worlds fastest Mac

then you can get rid of the disclaimers.

moebus

Mar 27, 2004, 04:58 PM

On the Mac, its not all about speed. It's about the experience and lifestyle that goes along with owning a Macintosh. I am personally growing tired of the Mac vs. PC argument. It has become so over-done, its too moot to even consider anymore. I feel if you wish to be different, set apart from everyone else, you want dependablilty instead of speed and you thrive on creative spirit and good taste in design, buy a Mac. If you are truly indifferent, buy what ever you want, but please, just stop the bad mouthing and ill-informed cheap talk about the Mac. If you don't like us, just ignore us. What have we done? If you like Windows, good for you. Buy what you like and what you feel is you. I will always be a Mac user and that is my choice.

Kabeyun

Mar 27, 2004, 07:03 PM

Forgive me if someone else said this already, but...
...if it "just edges out" the competition, isn't it still the world's fastest?

-K

ingenious

Mar 27, 2004, 08:12 PM

its nice to see that dell is worried about apples competition. BTW, dell could never produce evidence to back up their claims like apple did, but the BBB just took their side from what ive read.

ingenious

Mar 27, 2004, 08:15 PM

Worlds fastest Mac

then you can get rid of the disclaimers.

where's the excitement for the PC users to switch over to mac then?

laserbeahm

Mar 27, 2004, 09:03 PM

I think Apple should report Dell to the BBB. Dell's slogan, "Easy as Dell" Simply isn't true. If you ask me, there isn't anything easy about Dell. I think, and I'm sure that Apple would agree with me, that this message is misleading to consumers and should be stopped. Compared to a Macintosh, is it easy to go online with a Dell? Is it easy seamlessly connect to a wireless network with a Dell? No, it isn't. I think it really would be something if Apple put them in their place.

jsw

Mar 27, 2004, 09:07 PM

I think Apple should report Dell to the BBB. Dell's slogan, "Easy as Dell" Simply isn't true.

Well, now, they don't say it's easy, or the world's easiest-to-use computer. They just say "Easy as Dell". As in, "was it easy to drag yourself over a mile of broken glass using only your lips?" "easy as dell!"

sethypoo

Mar 27, 2004, 09:39 PM

Does this mean new G5s on Tuesday? :D

Sorry, couldn't resist...

I have 4 things for you to do:
1. Quit Safari
2. Quit all open programs
3. Turn off your computer
4. Walk away, and don't come back to Mac Rumors to make pointless posts!

No, just kidding. I think Dell's just jealous.
:eek: ;) :p

ClimbingTheLog

Mar 27, 2004, 10:58 PM

The BBB? Please, if Dell had any sack they'd file a complaint with the FTC. They didn't, so let's call it like it is - they don't have a leg to stand on. They got their feelings hurt.

The BBB is being political, trying to be diplomatic in the situation. Really this just makes Dell look like a whiney bitch - waaaaah.

Sombody call the Wambulance!

isus

Mar 27, 2004, 11:28 PM

i just made a little update over at www.onlyinkenya.com

it's just marketing in the end... sure, the g5 might be the fastest cpu around, but there are too many people saying "oh apple lied and they are horrible". lots of marketing campaigns are really just lies...

you must be able to think for yourself, regardless of the claim

0 and A ai

Mar 27, 2004, 11:50 PM

[QUOTE=Sun Baked]Worlds fastest Mac

nice avatar. ;)

GFLPraxis

Mar 27, 2004, 11:53 PM

Easy as Dell = Easy as being tortured to death in front of a blue screen while Tech Support laughs maniacally...

sethypoo

Mar 28, 2004, 01:55 AM

Bah. WHATEVER!!

My thoughts exactly.

:) :rolleyes: :D

massimom

Mar 28, 2004, 09:04 AM

I have a dual 1.8 G5 with 3 gigs of ram and 2 160gig hard drives. I love the beast to death but I have to be fair. My 3.4 gig P4 with 2 gigs of ram and two 160s in Raid0,(which I have built myself without all the crap from Dell or others), kicks the 5G's butt in a major way on 99% of the applications I run. I have always thought the Apple's claim was kind of silly when they said it was the fastest personal computer on earth. We could say it is the coolest looking, fun to use PC but definately not the fastest. Now, a 2.6 dual with all the software running at 64 bits with OSX doing its job and maybe we got an argument.

AidenShaw

Mar 28, 2004, 09:25 AM

Now, a 2.6 dual with all the software running at 64 bits with OSX doing its job and maybe we got an argument.

Most of the time, 64-bit software is not faster than the equivalent 32-bit version. In fact, it's often marginally slower because the larger pointers require more cache space and more memory bandwidth to handle.

The only time you'll find 64-bit software faster is when you need more than 2GiB to 4GiB of RAM - and you have many GiB in your system.

For example, a 64-bit Photoshop using 12 GiB of RAM for the image could be a lot faster than 32-bit Photoshop using scratch files.

Another example, a 64-bit video editor that keeps a 10 GiB clip in memory could be a lot faster than a 32-bit one that has to keep most of the clip on disk.

If you only have 1 or 2 GiB of RAM on your system, there will be no advantage to 64-bit except on some extremely rare (and probably contrived) programs.

tortoise

Mar 28, 2004, 01:12 PM

the g5 is damn fast, plenty fast enough for almost any professional's needs. the fact that i can load a g5 with 16 gigs of memory TODAY means it's going to be the pants of anything in the wintel world for applications that demand that much memory.

Umm.... I have Opterons with 16 gigs right now on my desk. And I could buy 32 gig systems if I so desired. And unlike the G5, I have a 64-bit OS available right now.

The G5 with MacOS X makes an excellent workstation -- Apple should be marketing the OS package and not the hardware -- but the lack of a true 64-bit OS limits its applications in that role. The G5 can technically hold 16G of RAM, but the 32-bit process space and ABI make it far more limited in practice because the RAM cannot be utilized effectively.

As a more technical note, the underlying architecture of the G5 systems isn't designed for scalable RAM. STREAM benchmark comparisons demonstrate this rather starkly.

tortoise

Mar 28, 2004, 01:28 PM

64gb on a pure 32bit kernel, you're joking right? please send me a link to a page on microsoft.com that claims this.

x86 hardware actually has 36-bit physical memory addressing, and has for years, if you bother to take advantage of it. I know that both Linux and FreeBSD also support >4Gb RAM on 32-bit Intel.

tortoise

Mar 28, 2004, 01:39 PM

windows - as we know it - supports 64gb of ram - but thats the max - there is no more imho (maybe clustered windows - but that doesnt really count - btw can the powermacs theoretically adress 2 times 64bit of ram? (2^64)?

No, PPC970 cannot address 64-bits of physical RAM, even in theory. IIRC, the G5 is limited to 36-bits of physical RAM (like Intel) and 48-bits of virtual address space. Even though the address space of 64-bit chips extends seamlessly to a full 64-bits, the hardware (currently) never supports the entire 64-bit range. Opterons are 40-bits physical/48-bits virtual, for a comparison. So nobody is *actually* producing physical hardware capable of 64-bit addressing, just hardware that supports an ISA capable of 64-bit addressing should someone ever produce a processor with that many address lines.

Confused yet?

massimom

Mar 28, 2004, 03:35 PM

The only time you'll find 64-bit software faster is when you need more than 2GiB to 4GiB of RAM - and you have many GiB in your system.

True. And that makes Apple's comparisons even more misleading. Why put out such silly benchmark testings and claims? Just the simple task of opening a browser and onto CNN and my PC is a considerably faster. Itunes downloads are faster and so is burning Cds and DVDs.

Obviously the 64Bit issue is a moot point and they should stop trying to cash in on that. People choose Apple PCs not beacause they are the fastest. Trying to compare with the fastest P4, with an optimal configuration, is a lost cause for them.

Dunepilot

Mar 29, 2004, 08:13 AM

isnt that the truth, its the megahetz spin all over again. make a machine that kicks butt in everything not just that Photoshop test.

I think you'll find that the test apple used when the G5 came out included number of other real world 'burn-offs' including number of simultaneous audio tracks/reverbs, mathematical floating-point calculations and video encoding tests.

Respectively these address: audio pros, mathematicians/scientists, film-makers.

These are just three of the major professional markets that Apple is keen to hold onto, and I think their tests underlined that they knew the over-emphasis on Photoshop was losing them credibility. These tests used at the time of the G5 release were very open, and hardly a matter of spin.

peaks

Mar 29, 2004, 01:49 PM

I want to share a true story with all of you.

Back in Jan/Feb, it was time for me to upgrade my computer. I was a diehard Mac user in college, but started using PC's when I began working for money not grades. After a while I progressed towards working in the industry in terms of web hosting and web development. Things took off and before I knew it I had the money and the time to buy a new computer.

Enter Apple.

Being a previous Mac(OS 7.5 was when I left) user, I enjoyed using the Mac and it did and still does hold a fond place in my heart. I was discussing the idea of buying a Mac with a colleague of mine when he became absolutely animate about it. The mere thought of me buying another PC just seemed to piss him off. No big deal, everyone needs a passion. Then I discover this site, while trying to find out if Apple is going to release a "speed bump" upgrade. And I see more of the same blindly animate passion for a computer company. Two things come to mind: this is either one hell of a company, or these people are so insecure about their purchase that they need to rigorously defend the fact that they have spent too much money on not enough computer.

So I follow this for a bit, mainly wanting to see when the speed bump will arrive, and before long crunch time comes - I need a new computer. I like the Mac OSX because of prior UNIX experience - but I have been running a dual boot Linux/Win machine forever so that wasn't a big deal. Went to Best Buy and checked out their G5 on hand, and was pleased with the quality and display. I did make the mistake of dragging something from the dock to the desktop only to watch it disappear in a puff of smoke (nice touch :mad: ) silly me for thinking it would be moved to the desktop.

In the end, the combination of Win/Intel ranting and raving, combined with Apple apparent lack of commitment in hardware sent me to Dell. The moral of this story is that all of your bashing turns people off! This mode of behavior is not unique to Apple either, and if you watch the trend it generally has disturbing results.

Lastly, I don't think the G5 is the fastest desktop, and who cares? Anyone with the money and the aptitude can set up a dual P4/Xeon OC'd and water-cooled for maximum POWER. Or run a cluster for that matter.

I know this is long so let me make one last observation: people do not buy a computer because of the "lifestyle" that supposedly surrounds it. Please read that sentence twice. Now read it again. That whole concept is perhaps one of the dumbest I have ever come across. You could no more make that statement about a refrigerator or microwave. If your looking to find a home, a place where you fit, you'll do better to join a book club. If you want to buy something that will let you fit into a lifestyle - buy a Ferrari or a VW. Apple does have a stereotype - but it's unfair to stereotype.

shen

Mar 29, 2004, 02:10 PM

I want to share a true story with all of you.

<<<snip>>>

I like the Mac OSX because of prior UNIX experience - but I have been running a dual boot Linux/Win machine forever so that wasn't a big deal. Went to Best Buy and checked out their G5 on hand, and was pleased with the quality and display.

<<<snip>>>

In the end, the combination of Win/Intel ranting and raving, combined with Apple apparent lack of commitment in hardware sent me to Dell. The moral of this story <<<snip>>>

so basically, you have used a good OS, (Linux) and liked the machine quality, and some loud mouths at a rumors site where something like .3% of all Mac user visit, made you pass on a great (better than Linux in many ways, far better than windows in most) OS and great machine and go with Dell.

moral of the story: critical thinking is a weak point for most people. how does it feel to be a member of the general herd?

peaks

Mar 29, 2004, 02:19 PM

Case in point. Why get defensive - do you work for your money harder than I do?

You have attacked what you perceive as an argument on my part by attacking me personally. Either you are uneducated or prone to wearing your emotions on your sleeve.

Given your wasteful use of meaningless statistics I’d guess both. So here are some statistics:

Last I checked, 95% of computer users on the internet use Windows. So a web designer using a Mac has effectively eliminated the conditions effecting 95% of his target audience. And anyone doing this just to make a point will not and can not be successful. It’s bad business.

benpatient

Mar 29, 2004, 04:22 PM

peaks, i think you'll find a great community here....of whiners and loonies.

I'm typing on a Dual 1.8 G5 right now, and I wouldn't say for one second that it's head-and-shoulders better than any PC with this kind of price tag...well, not any PC I would build.

that's the thing with me...my boss got me this computer.

my 700 dollar PC at home does most things better or equally...because i built it from scratch.

i don't get all these "blue screens" that all these die hard mac users seem to think windows users get all the time...

i don't get much in the way of system freezes...can't tell you the last time it happened.

i know windows isn't perfect, and there are a TON of things about OS X that i love. I like Rendezvous. I like most things about Aqua (except the "bigness" of it), I like Expose.

I don't like the crappy networking since OS 9 went away.

I don't like the continuing and unexplained "unexpectedly quit"s that my iLife apps keep throwing at me, or when an Mail gets fixed to not CRASH EVERY TIME IT OPENS, it's called an "enhancement" and not a bug-fix.

People say all these point releases of OS X are legitimate, separate versions of the OS and are worth an upgrade price...I say everything before Panther (or maybe 10.2.7) has been a beta release with a price tag. Try installing a new program on 10.0 or 10.1...then try using it.

it's like beating yourself in the face with a metal spike.

anyway, it's a love-hate thing for me, just like windows.

i love how i can, and always have been able to, copy and paste files all over the place. Heck, you can even cut/paste them. What an amazing concept, huh? How about drawing a box to select files...regardless of what "view" you're in?

uh-huh. long ago in PC-world.

Yes, windows needs a better "window management" system, but honestly, the best one i've ever used was in OS 9, not OS X...the double-click springing title bar method is superior...and now unavailable to me.

OS X has better keyboard shortcuts than windows.

windows has keyboards that can "skip tracks" or "load music player" or "go to internet" or "open XXX programs" and all that functionality works without drivers, etc.

iTunes can't show you when minimized what song is playing, and you can't switch to the next song without bringing it up out of the dock.

That's feature-dumb, and WinAmp has carried this ability from before v.2.

anyway, i've ranted again. I really, really want to like my G5. I do much of the time...but it's far from perfect, and in test less manipulated and misconstrued than those used by apple, my 700 dollar PC box comes out on top more often than my G5...

which is a real-world, personal experience situation. It's little stuff...my digital camera transfers 2x faster on the PC, using the same USB cable...why?

every single game i've tried on the G5 is slower than my PC.

Good thing i don't want to play games more at work. i'd go nuts with frustration.

Part of my frustration with apple is their mentality...they have an unwarranted cockiness that comes straight from Steve Jobs...he knew when he approved the "worlds fastest" promotional stuff that, even though it wasn't true, he'd get away with it for the most part.

someone earlier in this thread wrote: "Apple did start taking orders from the public first for the 64-bit desktops, but AMD does seem to be moving a bit quicker on updating the Athlon64 and getting it into notebooks."

this is called an understatement. you can already buy 64 bit AMD laptops. They use radeon 9600 mobile graphics, and they usually have 48-52x CD burners or 4x DVD burners in them.

lots of them are relatively boring to look at, but they aren't about looks. They are about results.

Apple's major problem is that the image is more important for them than the results. This sort of mentality often leads to issues.

example: VW. Probably the worst car you can buy these days...they are relying on their "looks" and their "image" at the expense of the actual car and the service you get with it. Buy a 2003 Jetta and your odds are 1 in 3 that you'll need a rental car for a month while waiting for a new coil pack or a new window or a new transmission.

but man, aren't they CUTE!

dells aren't ugly, guys...they are just boring and plain. apparently 95% of the market is more worried about value than style.

apple is around to cater to the rest.

javabear90

Mar 29, 2004, 04:59 PM

if someone wants to Really see if the G5 is the fastest they should install the same os. Same hdd, same grafics.... Same ram etc. Or as close as possible. Then run the benchmarks..

djbahdow01

Mar 29, 2004, 06:22 PM

if someone wants to Really see if the G5 is the fastest they should install the same os. Same hdd, same grafics.... Same ram etc. Or as close as possible. Then run the benchmarks..

Too bad thats virtually imposible. Can't swap OS's although you can basically put in the same amout of other stuff. The processor is going to be different as well. Best tests would be against an AMD64 and a G5 both dual, running 160 GB SATA or (2) 160 GB Raid 0, 1GB DDR400 RAM, and a Radeon 9800. Both with 4x DVD-R's. My guess is that would be the closest. But who knows benchmarks look good but when i can't "see" how it works on both then i can't say which one is quicker. All i can say is that for the work i plan on doing the G5 "should" do it better.

AngryLawnGnome

Mar 29, 2004, 10:05 PM

in the spirit of the regular person campaigns...

start with jeff goldblooms voice over.... "so some of you think that the G5 isn't the world's fastest....here's our argument" and then you can do a lot of people saying I definitely think the G5 is the fastest computer I've ever used....blah blah blah

and its all computer programmers and designers and photographers *cough* *cough* and whoever else PLUS bring back ellen feiss.

my 2 cents.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ef7MJrLo0RIJ:movieweb.com/movie/lostworld/co6.jpg

Jeff Golblum can convince me of anything. I'm glad they're removing this one.

sakasune

Mar 30, 2004, 08:45 AM

Too bad thats virtually imposible. Can't swap OS's

but couldnt you install a 64-bit linux or unix on both machines? i know someone released (or is planning to release) a 64-bit linux for the G5, and im sure there is one for the x86 architecture

javabear90

Mar 30, 2004, 09:04 AM

but couldnt you install a 64-bit linux or unix on both machines? i know someone released (or is planning to release) a 64-bit linux for the G5, and im sure there is one for the x86 architecture

exactly. Put the same distro of linux on both of them. You would have to do one for ppc and one for x86 but......

ya

jsw

Mar 30, 2004, 09:16 AM

if someone wants to Really see if the G5 is the fastest they should install the same os. Same hdd, same grafics.... Same ram etc. Or as close as possible. Then run the benchmarks..

Yeah, but that proves nothing, assuming they could fit, say the same rev of Linux on both. People would always claim, on either side, that the software you installed was biased for or against the G5.

Frankly, I think it's all BS. To me, "fastest" means this: take about a day's worth of typical tasks. Put two people of the same ability (or run it twice, with each person on each machine) on the fastest Mac and on the fastest PC (or, to be fair, one person on each of the platforms you're evaluating, including, say, Linux and Solaris). See which platform does the job fastest.

And, assuming they're all within 10% or so, which I'd guess to be the case because most people spend most of their time doing things which don't task the CPU, then fine. They're all about the same. Pick the one you like the best.

Speed is important. But ease of use is more important. That's why most people - even single people - drive cars instead of motorcycles.

cunnin61

Mar 30, 2004, 02:49 PM

Although, I will never forgive him for "The Fly."

That was his BEST movie and the only reason I give him much credit.

uzombie

Apr 5, 2004, 02:32 PM

Segregation.
Discrimination.
Pro Care Activation.

Time to get Jessie Jackson on Apple's case. :mad:

"Hi, I'd like to reserve a Mac Genius"
"Would you like the 15 minute rate at $30 the first 1/2 hr but not to exceed 31 minutes?"
"I am not sure. I mean, I don't know how long it will take"
"Oh, then may I suggest the 60 minute rate at $70 for the first 60 minutes. You get more minutes than the 1/2 hour rate"
" Wow, that's a bargain"

Yeah, they need to use the Mac OS scientific calculator to figure their bargain...and they NEED morethan one genius for that!

briankonar

Apr 5, 2004, 07:34 PM

they should just say the G5 is the world's fastest macintosh, then nobody would be nitpicking at the speed. how can you compare a PC to a Mac in terms of raw speed? The architechtures are pretty different as far as I understand, people need to come to their senses and realize they are too different in terms of computation to effectively measure the difference objectively. Apple can develop their own propietary coding to improve the speed of functions, as can any PC manufacturer.

It's akin to comparing a Subaru WRX to a BMW M5 (used as comparison because my friend has both, insert Pocket Rocket and Luxury Sedan of your choice), the Subaru can outrun the M5, and saves you plenty of dough. But the ride is nowhere near as smooth, luxurious, comfortable or consistent as the M5. For those who are concerned with money or pure performance, the Subaru is ideal. However, those who enjoy the practicallity of the M5 as well as the various creature comforts, etc, it's a clear win for the M5. Two totally different categories of car, two totally different categories of computer.

bullet rogers

Apr 6, 2004, 03:38 AM

It's akin to comparing a Subaru WRX to a BMW M5

Great comparison. My beemer still doesn't need virus software.

thatwendigo

Apr 6, 2004, 06:04 AM

I'm surprised that this has been left unchallenged for so long. Disregarding the opening insult, let's get down to nuts and bolts:

I'm typing on a Dual 1.8 G5 right now, and I wouldn't say for one second that it's head-and-shoulders better than any PC with this kind of price tag...well, not any PC I would build.

Expecting a large OEM to meet hand-built prices is business insanity, and you won't find it in the PC world, let alone at Apple. Only one PC manufacturer is making a profit right now, and they manage it on sheer volume of sales. The others are hemorrhaging money and barely surviving because of their attempts to compete in the low-price market. Gateway was just used to rebrand eMachines, for example.

i don't get all these "blue screens" that all these die hard mac users seem to think windows users get all the time...

Running an install disc for a major manufacturer's USB peripheral 802.11b bridge on my friend's computer ended up killing the whole thing. I'm no Windows guru, but the easy answer was pretty obvious... Reinstall Windows.

On the flip side, my Airport card slotted into my old Tangerine iBook (Rev A), and then into its Snow iBook replacement. Neither one has ever had any problems, and both played amazingly well wherever I took them. I've started wardriving/warwalking as a hobby, just to see where there are open access points around town, and it's easy for me to get access just by being in range.

i don't get much in the way of system freezes...can't tell you the last time it happened.

I've been using OS X on some eight or nine machines, concurrently, since the public beta. I've had a grand total of five kernel panics on all of them, put together, since before 10.0 was official. By contrast, I hear constant questions from coworkers about how to fix driver issues (and worse) on their single machines they have at home.

I don't like the crappy networking since OS 9 went away.

My dad is on a corporate network, based largely on Windows and various *nix flavors, using some services that aren't native to OS X. That being said, he does everything his coworkers do, doesn't get the virii and other problems, can use all their networked printers and other resources, telnets to their terminal room, and can fileshare on demand with anyone on the network.

I do similar, though less secure, things with my iBook, and had a LAN with my roommate's PC tower where we would use each other's HDs as backups when doing something particularly dangerous with installing third party or Open Source apps.

I don't like the continuing and unexplained "unexpectedly quit"s that my iLife apps keep throwing at me, or when an Mail gets fixed to not CRASH EVERY TIME IT OPENS, it's called an "enhancement" and not a bug-fix.

I've never had an issue with this, and neither has anyone else I know. Maybe it's a problem with your setup, or some particular software that you're using.

People say all these point releases of OS X are legitimate, separate versions of the OS and are worth an upgrade price...I say everything before Panther (or maybe 10.2.7) has been a beta release with a price tag. Try installing a new program on 10.0 or 10.1...then try using it.

I did, and I gladly paid for each update. The OS has really improved by leaps and bounds as time has gone on, and the major point updates have been worth the cost for the new life they breathe into my machines. Each time, performance has improved.

Yes, windows needs a better "window management" system, but honestly, the best one i've ever used was in OS 9, not OS X...the double-click springing title bar method is superior...and now unavailable to me.

I find Expose and minimizing to be superior for me. Maybe you're trying to generalize your beliefs to everyone unjustifiably?

windows has keyboards that can "skip tracks" or "load music player" or "go to internet" or "open XXX programs" and all that functionality works without drivers, etc.

Hardware issued by outside vendors is not the fault of Apple.

iTunes can't show you when minimized what song is playing, and you can't switch to the next song without bringing it up out of the dock.

That's feature-dumb, and WinAmp has carried this ability from before v.2.

That's a valid, though extremely minor concern, since WinAmp is a product by an outside vendor. For a version of WinAmp that can do what iTunes does, you shell out $15. For $5, you can get a little widget called Synergy (http://synergy.wincent.com/) that shows you track name, artist, album art, and other information in a translucent panel that disappears after a few seconds, and has a configurable controller that sits in the menu bar.

anyway, i've ranted again. I really, really want to like my G5. I do much of the time...but it's far from perfect, and in test less manipulated and misconstrued than those used by apple, my 700 dollar PC box comes out on top more often than my G5...

Says someone who posts neither their results nor their methods, as Apple has. I think I know who I'll stick with.

every single game i've tried on the G5 is slower than my PC.

Two words: DirectX support.

Your PC is using optimizations that just aren't available on the mac, and so it will get more from comparatively lower and cheaper hardware, for as long as GPU manufacturers go along with DirectX. OpenGL is often an afterthought for the PC game coders, and so the performance is lackluster on their hardware, let alone on ports of code that's already a little below the standard that you're going to be used to from a Wintel machine.

Good thing i don't want to play games more at work. i'd go nuts with frustration.

I game on a G4 1.4ghz with 768MB of RAM, Geforce 3, and an SATA controller for the drive. I run Warcraft 3 at 1152x800 and Halo at the same resolution, and both of them only ever slow down for the connection, not for combat or anything processor or system related.

Only if you're dealing in FPS rates that are higher than we can probably perceive (as the top of the line 9800 XT and x86 processors are starting to), is it ever going to be noticeable. I've played on PC gaming rigs... So what? I don't feel like dealing with the headaches of Windows to get an extra couple of frames on something I'm doing for fun, in any case.

this is called an understatement. you can already buy 64 bit AMD laptops. They use radeon 9600 mobile graphics, and they usually have 48-52x CD burners or 4x DVD burners in them.

Powerbooks are using Radeon 9600 Mobility GPUs, SuperDrives, and get a hell of a lot longer battery life than the AMD Athlon64 desktop replacement books do. Also, the Athlons I've seen are all clunky (8-9 lbs, plus) and thick.

dells aren't ugly, guys...they are just boring and plain. apparently 95% of the market is more worried about value than style.

There are more roaches than people. Are the roaches superior?

In all fairnes, they are better at one thing... In the event of nuclear war, there will still be roaches. Giant, glowing, horrible roaches that will spell the end of any person who survives. :D

oingoboingo

Apr 6, 2004, 11:09 PM

iTunes can't show you when minimized what song is playing, and you can't switch to the next song without bringing it up out of the dock.

Right click on the iTunes icon in the dock. It will bring up a menu showing you the currently playing song and artist. It also has menu entries for 'Next Song', 'Previous Song' etc. You don't need to bring iTunes up out of the dock. If you want an always-visible indication of what's going on in iTunes, as well as easily accessible iTunes controls all the time in the menu bar, take a look at a program called Synergy...try looking on www.versiontracker.com. It does everything you're asking for.

Alternatively, you could just find another MP3 player that does what you're asking. iTunes just happens to be the music player bundled with OS X. You're not limited to just using Windows Media Player on Windows, are you?

ingenious

Apr 7, 2004, 10:05 AM

Right click on the iTunes icon in the dock. It will bring up a menu showing you the currently playing song and artist. It also has menu entries for 'Next Song', 'Previous Song' etc. You don't need to bring iTunes up out of the dock. If you want an always-visible indication of what's going on in iTunes, as well as easily accessible iTunes controls all the time in the menu bar, take a look at a program called Synergy...try looking on www.versiontracker.com. It does everything you're asking for.

Alternatively, you could just find another MP3 player that does what you're asking. iTunes just happens to be the music player bundled with OS X. You're not limited to just using Windows Media Player on Windows, are you?

on my windows pc, i can use itunes as a mini player, but i haven't been able to find that on my PB. I like to use the full window better, but in this person's case, maybe he would like a smaller player? if anyone can find this, plez let me know.

ingenious

Apr 7, 2004, 10:13 AM

Yes, windows needs a better "window management" system, but honestly, the best one i've ever used was in OS 9, not OS X...the double-click springing title bar method is superior...and now unavailable to me.

this is too in os x. click the top of the bar on a window and OH MY GOSH! it actually minimizes into the dock!!!!