Are Apple products too eXpensive? [Archive]

Nipsy

Jul 11, 2002, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by ShaolinMiddleFinger
I think Apple is crazy for charging that much. Now, I know they want to put the best hardware in a Mac but I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost THAT much more.... what we need is a good explaination on why their products cost so much

Explanation:

Dell does not have to support the iApps.
Compaq didn't develop OSX.
Gateway doesn't have an Ive.
Sony didn't do the R & D on Airport.
HP didn't develop a cantilevered display support arm.
Toshiba doesn't have a team of people who sit around everyday trying to make things one step easier.
IBM never put 2000 songs in your pocket.

Apple products are priced based on the research, engineering, design, and quality. The hardware itself has very parallel component costs.

Look at some small examples of what you're paying for:

The Apple Pro Mouse has adjustment built in so that you can be comfortable with it. (Didn't know that? Flip it over and turn the wheel)

When you buy a Mac you get some best of breed freeware...on top of a stellar OS...ever hear anyone get excited about Windows Media Player?

The el Capitan case is so much more friendly than anything in the PC world. Most off the shelf cases require 4 screws be removed to install RAM. While this sound simple, how many of you keep a screwdriver in your desk drawer?

The MBTF of Apple hardware is incredible...I have a working 128, a working Plus, etc. My 18 year old Mac still works!

The price disparity is further inflated by the fact that Apple doesn't make any bargain basement machines. They have midrange and high end machines only.

Time and again, people have configured a machine at a PC vendors site to match the specs of an Apple, and found the price difference eroded dramatically.

So, if $200 if going to cramp your lifestyle, you don't have one!

As Forrest Gump sort of said:
"Hookers are like a box of chocolates, the good ones cost more!"

Eliot

Jul 11, 2002, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by AlphaTech
This has been done before... I don't have the inclination to search and put up a link to one of those threads... You can do a search and find out how we feel by yourself...

newbies... sheeeeesh :rolleyes: :eek: :D :rolleyes:

Alpha, with all due respect for you encyclopaedic knowledge of all things Mac, and acknowledging my own almost total lack of tech savvy outside of the recording studio, would it hurt to be a LITTLE less short with those of us who are here because we love Macs, but don't necessarily know them inside-out like you?

Likewise the rest of you big hitters. This is the best of all the Mac-centric web sites IMVHO, but in this respect, the pants are hanging low and the b*tt-cheeks are on display to all of us new- and nearly-newbies.

We all (I think) have a sense of humor here........wouldn't be a Mac person otherwise. It's the best experience in what will, in the not-so-distant future, look like the digital Jurassic era.So a few more hugs and a few less kicks would do ,if it's not too much to ask. I think that KC, who is probably the youngest of the Establishment, has more idea sometimes, than some of his elders. Eye is the best. He's a fine example. At your best, you're all fine examples.

But all too often, It's like watching a troop of baboons and the parade of brightly-colored b*tts is getting a bit much. And don't go pleading that it's all a bit of fun. The "humorous" put-down is a little too regular to make that anything more than a fig-leaf.

RowdyFROG

Jul 11, 2002, 08:10 PM

If you think prices are high in hell...I mean in the US, try buying apple products in heaven...I mean Australia.

The sums just don't add up, and they are made closer by.

but we still get them. Why? because we are suckers? perhaps. Because we want the best? more likely.

Dr_Floyd

Jul 11, 2002, 08:28 PM

Apples prices are right on target for what you get!

Macmaniac

Jul 11, 2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Nipsy

As Forrest Gump sort of said:
"Hookers are like a box of chocolates, the good ones cost more!"
If you look at todays Apple prices they are really cheap compared to what it was years ago, Spartacus cost over $10000, the average powermac was $3500, its almost 1000 cheaper today. Sure you pay a few extra $, but you get the best hardware and software and it works... well!
You don't see alot of PC users with old comps because they broke down but with an Apple owner they've got every single mac they've ever used,
You pay for quality with an Apple.
My $0.02

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 11, 2002, 09:17 PM

this is a question that comes up a lot, and is mostly the result of two things. one; higher prices of apple computers in the past and 2; ignorance of consumers who do not know what they are buying. im not going to play the whole "mac are great so they cost more bit" we have all heard it and true or not it isnt a necessary component of the argument. quite simply macs are typically priced equally to peecees. discounting all of the advantages of a mac (the design, os, software, etc) the mac costs the same as a similiarly configured pc, and if you look at some fo the older threads on the subject you will see many people have gone to dell and gateway and other pc manufacturers and priced machines with similiar specs to the apple models and found typically that apples are within 10% of the peecee "competition" (often the apple is cheaper). take a look at laptops and you will find apples are wonderfully priced. apples might seem more expensive to the average consumer because they do not realize that they get so much more when they buy the mac. apple advertises its top end not its low end, while dell will often advertise peecees for sub $1000 (often not mentioning any of the specs). it is not that the peecee is cheaper but that the peecee taht is being advertised is a low end model. apple has very cheap computers, they just dont advertise that low end (that g3 imac is still available and selling quite well). unless you build the pc yourself, you will not find a pc priced significantly better than a similiarly spec'ed mac.

madamimadam

Jul 11, 2002, 09:28 PM

Amazing how many people go on and on about the cost of Apple product before ever looking at the cost of a PC these days and their cries are justified by others as "you get what you pay for". Go to Dells site or IBM sites and configure a machine to match an Apple machine and then try and cry.

The only way you are going to get a PC that is far cheaper than a Mac is if you go somewhere and get it built for you. All computer corporations charge for their machines. There are many reasons for this but to say that Apple charges more than their competition is just rediculous.

mymemory

Jul 11, 2002, 10:05 PM

Yes! they are too expensive.

AlphaTech

Jul 11, 2002, 10:05 PM

This is one of the rare times that I agree with AL... A Quality system, from a reputable maker (like Alienware (http://www.alienware.com/)) costs in the $3000-$5000 range. That is with a ~2GHz chip (the ~equal of the dual GHz from Apple) from either AMD or intel. That is without any extra frills, but with a dvd-rw (superdrive), Gb ethernet, 80GB hard drive (WD), and 512MB of RAM. More memory will cost you more (duhh).

Of course, with all of those systems, you have no choice, but to suffer with windblows heXPee. IF you want to go with something else, you have to purchase it yourself and install it. Be careful of doing that, if you have to send it out for service, you very well could get the system back with the shipped OS installed on it again (and all your files gone).

For many people it boils down to taste... Mac users have it, most peecee owners don't. :eek: :P :D

gopher

Jul 11, 2002, 10:57 PM

Look at these studies:

http://138.202.192.14/~trembath/smon/index.html

http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html

And faster:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop

look at the RC5 numbers.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

And easier to setup...
Easier to maintain.
and longer lasting.
More compatible thanks to VirtualPC supporting
MS-DOS through Windows XP,
when PC Mac emulators can only support up to Mac OS 8.1.

Seriously, anyone who wants to get a machine today should get a Mac. You get what you pay for. Macs offer a lot more value for the same money you would pay a PC for.

And if you don't believe me, read what

http://www.apple.com/switch people have to say about it. I rest my case.

solvs

Jul 12, 2002, 12:11 AM

Go to Dell or AlienWare (not Gateway) and configure. Pretty close. Sure you could do what Maximum PC Magazine did and build a kick-a** PC that beats the pants off of the iMac. But before you complain about stuff like drive upgrades and memory prices, it seems everyone in the (reputable) PC world charges twice as much.

You can always get really good deals on the net for cheaper stuff. I can go to www.pricewatch.com and buy a 120 GB IBM hard drive from someone for ~$150, but would I want to?

No really, I'm asking. I've been screwed before, but I've gotten some good deals, and my 40 GB Seagate is getting a little full, but I'm waiting for the 200 GB Western Digital hard drive. Need an ATA/133 PCI Card or Firewire Pro case to see over ATA/66s 128-137 GB limits, though.

Anyway, to Apple - I don't mind paying for for state-of-the-art. C'Mon... Where's my 166 MHz FSB, 333 MHz DDR-Ram, ATA/133. I ain't buyin' if the new towers come out with ATA/66 and PC133 SDRam.

If that's the case, you're right. Apple would be too expensive, using years old technology.

End Rant (until someone else starts a similar thread).

Edited to add that I'll pay more to use OS X, if I can afford it, over XP any day.

3rdpath

Jul 12, 2002, 01:25 AM

since the majority of my work is created using a mac, i'd say they are a sweet deal.

it runs like a top, is incredibly reliable and supports software that makes the use of a computer a transparent part of the creative process. i'll gladly pay a premium for those attributes.

and 3 grand is chicken feed for a piece of equipment that does what it does.

part of my opinion is obviously career specific.

but i'm also old enough to remember the time before personal computers... and pocket calculators...
and digital watches...

and what they cost when introduced...

when evaluating technology and affordability...these are the best of times.
and macs are a bargain. :)

big

Jul 12, 2002, 01:32 AM

I like all the new blood coming in, I see people with 2, 5 or 8 posts. Very nice, and they are all starting there own threads.

sometimes its good to revisit a thread by starting a new one like it, then you don't have to read through a million posts.

next, is it possible for ambitiouslemon to try paragraphs? :D

and well, you pay for more upfront with apple, though you get alot more. really a better product, I will not repeat it, though "you get what you...."

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 05:36 AM

... outside the US it is something totally different.

Here in Europe we pay about 20% more for a similar Mac compared to US prizes (yes, the sales tax is already subtracted on this comparison), since the Euro is about 0,99 US$ at the moment. Even a few months ago, when the US$ was stronger it was still about 10-12% more. Considering that Apple has one of the biggest margins in their products of the whole industry that appears somehow rediculous.

As an example (Apple store): The Xserve starts in Germany at 3,590.- $ in the US at 2,999.- $

Any questions? Same product, just a different power cable... A difference of 600.- $ is a *****-load of money! And for the other products it's similar.

Dell prizes in Europe are only slightly higher than the US prizes. Considering that you will have a hard time to find any PC from a major PC-Maker being equally equipped and not a few hundred bucks cheaper. The Apple prizes just kill any competition here.

I feel milked by Apple and I know a lot of other users here feel the same.

If the prizes at least would be the same as in the US I would be almost all satisfied.

Apple is focussing too much on the US market at the moment and that is a big mistake. They should consider to develope special products for the european and asian market since it makes 40% of their sales overall. The original iMac for example was a nice machine for the US market, but didn't work a lot for Europe, since the mentality here about computers is a little bit different.

Apple is global but plays local at the moment. That won't work for long anymore. The market-share in Germany e.g. is continously going done and is hovering at about 1,8% at the moment. It is hard meanwhile to find an Apple dealer here near where you live. You find some in the big cities, but a lot of them went bancrupt. Here in Berlin we have still 4 (real) Apple dealers (and they are really small). And that in a city with more than 3.000.000 people. Since a lot of folks don't have an Apple dealer near to them anymore, they have to order the stuff online.

Yes, I think the Apple prizes are way too high! At least here in Europe. If Apple won't change that they will never gain a bigger market-share here and also the faithful Apple fans won't spend money on a new machine too often.

It doesn't help them at all, if they only raise the market-share in the US and the rest of the world is diaspora. We already have to face the problem here in Germany, that some software won't be localized anymore, because it would be too expensive or that the localized versions cost a lot more than the original versions (Exception is software that is developed in Germany, eg. Logic, Cubase, Cumulus, etc...). As a result the people are willing even less to work with the Mac, when part of the software is only available in English, plus the high prizes for Macs here. If the Apple marketing here in Germany wouldn't have been extraordinarily stupid through all the years (until now), the market-share could be remarkably higher. But like this they won't win a medal in the race.

Don't get me wrong, I am still an Apple fan, but it gets on my nerves to pay 20% more for a Mac, just because I am located in Germany, when other manufacturers don't charge you for your passport!

groovebuster

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by solvs
Go to Dell or AlienWare (not Gateway) and configure. Pretty close. Sure you could do what Maximum PC Magazine did and build a kick-a** PC that beats the pants off of the iMac. But before you complain about stuff like drive upgrades and memory prices, it seems everyone in the (reputable) PC world charges twice as much.

You can always get really good deals on the net for cheaper stuff. I can go to www.pricewatch.com and buy a 120 GB IBM hard drive from someone for ~$150, but would I want to?

No really, I'm asking. I've been screwed before, but I've gotten some good deals, and my 40 GB Seagate is getting a little full, but I'm waiting for the 200 GB Western Digital hard drive. Need an ATA/133 PCI Card or Firewire Pro case to see over ATA/66s 128-137 GB limits, though.

Anyway, to Apple - I don't mind paying for for state-of-the-art. C'Mon... Where's my 166 MHz FSB, 333 MHz DDR-Ram, ATA/133. I ain't buyin' if the new towers come out with ATA/66 and PC133 SDRam.

If that's the case, you're right. Apple would be too expensive, using years old technology.

End Rant (until someone else starts a similar thread).

Edited to add that I'll pay more to use OS X, if I can afford it, over XP any day.

State of the art is in Altivec, RISC, level 2 and level 3 cache. All of which Macs have. PCs need a higher bus to overcome the limits of the Pentium and high number of stages on its processor. And still they end up slower than Macs where it counts. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Macs are not state of the art. RISC is faster, no matter how you slice it. Until PCs start coming out with full RISC and vector processing Macs will always be faster at the tasks that count.

Oh and you can plug a ATA 133 card into the PCI slots of the PowerMac towers if that's what you really want. Speed of drives aren't only the ATA speed, it is also the RPM speed. Or you can plug in wide SCSI. So that leaves with the question of why not faster RAM? Again, you are mistaking bus for a requirement to have higher speeds. Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.

Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.

iGav

Jul 12, 2002, 06:17 AM

So are Ferrari's............ but I'd still want one........ :)

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by gopher
Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.

Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.

Are they? I don't think so! The Macs are not faster anymore, stop those ferry-tales. On some highly specialized Altivec routines they are still competetive, but the overall system performance sucks!

If you know anybody who has a 1GHz DP Powermac and a state of the art DP Windows-Box, do the comparison and you will never make a statement like that again. The Windows-Box smokes the Mac really badly!

Don't get me wrong, we are talking about system perfomance and not about usability and ergonomical issues. On some tasks I only care for the raw power and not if the OS has a nice Aqua GUI. Performance is not always about Altivec, it is also about Integer and FP operations, which are the most used in the average application, if you don't do just number-crunching with an Altivec-optimized piece of software. The G4 sucks on integer and FP operations, that's just fact.

And what's the point to chain 63(!!!!!) external HDs to your Mac, not to mention the heat and noise it would cause?!?!?

I want some fast drives IN my Mac with state of the art storage capacity. Like doing a little raid with two 160GB or even 200GB HDs. External devices are always just for temporary usage to keep your internal drives clean and to store data for a while before it is needed again (for not to burry a server with data or no so server is available) or to transport big amounts of data to another place.

63 devices is a theoretical number, because thats how many addresses are provided by firewire for the connected devices. But you will hardly find any machine with more than 3 or 4 devices hooked up at once on one Firewire-Bus and people are only switching them on, when they need them.

Oh, and by the way... 63 external FireWire HDs would cost you probably a little fortune (let's say about 25,000 $). The storage capacity would be impressive (7.5 TB), but what would you do with that much storage capacity hooked up to a little Mac over one Firewire cable with 400MBit/s bandwidth??? Just to fill all the drives with data would take you at least 3 days (24/7)... in case you would have that much data and would have fast enough access to it to keep the Firewire bus 100% busy all the time.

Sorry, but I don't like statements that are totally out of real world usage of technology to make the Mac look better hardware wise than it is.

The Mac is a nice piece of technology, especially since MacOS X and with Jaguar to come, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mac isn't competetive at the moment regarding overall system perfomance.

groovebuster

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by iGAV
So are Ferrari's............ but I'd still want one........ :)

I wouldn't want a Ferrari with 100hp engine and scooter wheels. :(

You have to consider that when you compare a Mac with a Ferrari!

:(

groovebuster

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 07:16 AM

G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!

Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world. Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide. The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed. Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla. Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.

MacFocus

Jul 12, 2002, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by groovebuster
... outside the US it is something totally different.

Here in Europe we pay about 20% more

groovebuster

I totally agree, here in the Netherlands it's te same.

MacFocus

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by gopher
G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!

Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world. Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide. The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed. Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla. Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.

Calm down and do a real world test with two machines side by side!

Check this out: http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

And those results are pretty close to what I experienced while comparing a Mac to a Windows-Box. Sorry dude, but just saying 1 million times in a row it can't be doesn't change the facts to a better.

By the way the... the same problem with "error free code" you have with the Mac, so what's the deal? And the 15 GFlops are a theoretical number, they just counted together all processing units in the G4. In real life you'll never reach that number. Learn a bit about the architecture of the G4, PIV and the Athlon and then we can go on talking, OK?

And before I forget... Intel and AMD are using SSE that is similar to Altivec, though not as efficient. But since the integer and FP specs of the PIV and especially the Athlon are way better than of the G4, it doesn't matter a lot. Not to forget that they arte clocked way faster than the G4...

Tell me how you want to do a FP calculation double precison on a G4??? Ooops! Doesn't work? Too bad...

Listen, there is a reason why benchmarks showed that a PIII is about the same as a G4 on integer and floating point operations without Altivec involved running at the same frequency. So a G4 running at 1GHz is the same as a PIII running at 1GHz. Of course the G4 would be faster as soon as SSE and Altivec would be involved, but today we are at 2.4 GHz PIV my friend. Even Altivec can't pull it anymore! And to compare a DP system to a SP system is a little bit unfair, don't you think? But even a single PIV smokes the G4 DP 1GHz in most disciplines.

Don't get me wrong, basically the G4 architecture is the better one, but even a DP 1GHZ G4 workstation can't compete against a state of the art DP Athlon or Intel System. Deal with the facts! Apple is stuck with Motorola and if they don't come up with something totally ground-braking it will do no good for Apple in the near future.

groovebuster

P.S.: Did you ever ask yourself why it became so quite around the "Megahertz Myth"??? Because the current PIVs and Athlons smoke the G4 in almost everything.

danman

Jul 12, 2002, 09:22 AM

The comparison at barefeets seems to answer just a couple of truisms:

The Athlon is as good as (or maybe marginally better) than a G4 at clock for clock performance.

The PIV is a disgrace, though clocking at 2.4Ghz as it is now, it should be able to hold it's own.

And last but not least:
The Mac -is- bad value for money because it is working on an ageing architecture.. I would say the difference between the Athlon and the G4 performance could probably be answered in one fell swoop by giving the G4 a faster FSB and memory subsys, something that Motorola have dragged their feet over.

(Oh, and for those of you who don't know, the Athlon -is- a RISC machine at it's heart, and a very good one)

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 09:25 AM

Afraid you are wrong sir. The G4 when altivec is running is equivalent to a 3 to 5 Ghz Pentium IV which doesn't yet exist. Barefeats doesn't tell the entire tale:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop look at the RC5 numbers.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

G4s are faster. And don't try and wiggle out of that one. 5 times faster is nothing to sneeze at. Until AMD and Intel lower the number of stages in their processor to that of the G4 and still maintain the same Mhz speed and go full RISC they are going to be behind. OK so AMD is full RISC, they still are fudging their name to try to match Intel's clock speed to say their processors are as fast as certain Intels. And they aren't even at 2.4 Ghz Pentium numbers.

bbarnhart

Jul 12, 2002, 09:29 AM

I'm trying to convice a friend to buy an iBook. He just bought a cheap PC laptop and the screen quit after 5 days which he returned.

I showed him the switch ads, I always tell him about my iBook, the wireless network, how easy it is to sort digital pictures and he is very excited.

Now, he looked at the price.

No way will he pay 1500 for an iBook (/w cdrw). Not a chance in hell when he says he can walk into Best Buy and get another cheap pc laptop for 900.

It does not matter that the iBook is faster, more attractive and will last longer than a cheap pc laptop.

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 09:35 AM

You can get a used iBook for $900 at the Apple Store and Macresq.com or Powermax.com

Perhaps that's what he wants. Plus it has more battery life, easier to setup, and less likely to fail.

danman

Jul 12, 2002, 09:35 AM

Mr. Gopher, you -are- right. But the instances these stats point to are: 1) Altivec use, which is no question the leading vector unit in the field, and 2) Xserve systems that have (through fudge) increased that oh so holy memory throughput, and finally 3) BLAST being a tight algorithm that sits oh so nicely in that fat and fast L3 Cache.

So - come MacWorld (or just after) I think we are going to see the PowerMac being -very- competitive in performance again, not to mention all the aspects of Mac that were always a winner (such as software, case design etc) still being there. All that will remain is for the G4 to start reaching the 1.8 Ghz level similar to the Athlon and we should see a performance leader across the board.

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by gopher
Afraid you are wrong sir. The G4 when altivec is running is equivalent to a 3 to 5 Ghz Pentium IV which doesn't yet exist. Barefeats doesn't tell the entire tale:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop look at the RC5 numbers.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

G4s are faster. And don't try and wiggle out of that one. 5 times faster is nothing to sneeze at. Until AMD and Intel lower the number of stages in their processor to that of the G4 and still maintain the same Mhz speed and go full RISC they are going to be behind. OK so AMD is full RISC, they still are fudging their name to try to match Intel's clock speed to say their processors are as fast as certain Intels. And they aren't even at 2.4 Ghz Pentium numbers.

I really start to wonder, if you can understand what other people are telling you... :(

The examples you gave are specifically optimized for Altivec and don't have anything to do with the system overall perfomance in daily life. Got it?

How often do you use Blast in your daily work? Oh... never? And you should start to learn how to read between the lines! All that crap is marketing bla bla. They say 5 times faster than the standard implementation. I wonder what it would say, if they would have compared to an optimized version for the PIV as well... On top of that they compare the DP G4 with a single PIV...

The page for the megahrtz myth is a joke as well. The suite used for the performance comparison uses almost completely routines that take advantage of Altivec, I could build you another suite for Photoshop that shows exactly the opposite picture... So what? Play a little bit with the MHz numbers and tell me if you still think that an Athlon DP system would run slower than a DP G4 running at 1GHz...

The RC5 thing again is just a specific task when not a lot of data has to be shoveled around and it is taking full advantage of Altivec. So again something that doesn't have anything to do with the average workstation user out there. And do the same comparison on SETI and the G4 gets smoked.

By the way.. I never questioned if the Xserve is a fine machine, but we are talking WORKSTATION and not SERVER here.

So one last time... do a real life comparison yourself and stop pointing out super specific use cases of the G4. If you would do that the other way around it would be very embarassing for the G4.

And since you are claiming that the Macs are so superior for video. Compare a PowerMac with Windows-Box using Premiere and AfterEffects. You should be smart enough to find some benchmarks online yourself...

The system overall performance IS NOT RUNNING ONLY ALTIVEC OPTIMIZED CODE all the time.

groovebuster

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by danman
So - come MacWorld (or just after) I think we are going to see the PowerMac being -very- competitive in performance again, not to mention all the aspects of Mac that were always a winner (such as software, case design etc) still being there. All that will remain is for the G4 to start reaching the 1.8 Ghz level similar to the Athlon and we should see a performance leader across the board.

That's what I am waiting for since more than a year now... that Apple provides competetive gear again finally. So I hope there will be nice stuff coming out at the MWNY, but since I got disappointed again and again lately by Apple I willl only believe it when I can touch one of those performant machines and compare them to other solutions. Before I remain sceptical... And if there is nothing coming out that is highly improved in performance, I will maybe buy a DP Windows-Box for getting the stuff done that needs raw power and is time critical. When Apple has something again to offer after while I of course will be in line again for a high end system, but that still remains to happen...

So we'll see!

groovebuster

danman

Jul 12, 2002, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by groovebuster

That's what I am waiting for since more than a year now... that Apple provides competetive gear again finally. So I hope there will be nice stuff coming out at the MWNY, but since I got disappointed again and again ...

Oh yes that man, do I second that. When the G4 first arrived I wasn't in a position to upgrade, and since it arrived the Mac has slipped further and further behind in performance. I'm sitting here with my B&W G3 400, still waiting for Apple to give me a good enough reason to fork out £2grand. I simply am not in a financial position to jump until they make a significant improvement. Still, this machine kinda runs X ok..

Dual 1.4 DDR Gf4Ti will do me fine thankyou very much.

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 10:37 AM

There are real live tests showing DVD encoding 3 times faster on a Flat Panel iMac than any other PC. Adobe Premier? Why not use Final Cut or DVD Studio Pro? There are other video editing programs that are better optimized for Altivec. And if they aren't optimized they should be. It isn't that hard to do. Now when are you going to learn that Macs are nothing to sneeze at when it comes to speed. Go and try one of the modern Macs for yourself with optimized software. You will be glad you did. Even Deneba CAD is Altivec optimized. Black Lab Linux is Altivec optimized.

You just have to know where to look.

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/index.html

http://www.psrv.com/documents/VAST_AltiVec/VAST_AltiVec_FAQ.html

http://macspeedzone.com/archive/frames2000/g4applications.shtml

Altivec does wonders for programs. You have to think of it this way, what if your instructions could be issued 128 bit? Yes 128 bit. Now is that your double precision numbers or isn't it? It is. What's more it does this on a processor that uses less heat than an AMD or Intel. We are talking here less heat = greater potential speed. Granted parts of Mac OS X aren't Altivec optimized but Mac OS X is multithreaded and you can kill threads that are slowing you down. So now you see you can have your cake and eat it too. Become a programmer if you can't find code that is optimized for Altivec to do what you want, and use Apple's developer's link above to create your own optimized code.

Look at what Apple says about Altivec:

"Motorola's AltiVec Technology, embodied in the G4 processor, expands the current PowerPC architecture through addition of a 128-bit vector execution unit that operates concurrently with existing integer and floating-point units. This provides for highly parallel operations, allowing for simultaneous execution of up to 16 operations in a single clock cycle. This new approach expands the processor's capabilities to concurrently address high-bandwidth data processing (such as streaming video) and the algorithmic intensive computations which today are handled off-chip by other devices, such as graphics, audio, and modem functions.The AltiVec instruction set allows operation on multiple bits within the 128-bit wide registers. This combination of new instructions, operation in parallel on multiple bits, and wider registers, provide speed enhancements of up to 30x on operations that are common in media processing."

Originally posted by groovebuster

I really start to wonder, if you can understand what other people are telling you... :(

The examples you gave are specifically optimized for Altivec and don't have anything to do with the system overall perfomance in daily life. Got it?

How often do you use Blast in your daily work? Oh... never? And you should start to learn how to read between the lines! All that crap is marketing bla bla. They say 5 times faster than the standard implementation. I wonder what it would say, if they would have compared to an optimized version for the PIV as well... On top of that they compare the DP G4 with a single PIV...

The page for the megahrtz myth is a joke as well. The suite used for the performance comparison uses almost completely routines that take advantage of Altivec, I could build you another suite for Photoshop that shows exactly the opposite picture... So what? Play a little bit with the MHz numbers and tell me if you still think that an Athlon DP system would run slower than a DP G4 running at 1GHz...

The RC5 thing again is just a specific task when not a lot of data has to be shoveled around and it is taking full advantage of Altivec. So again something that doesn't have anything to do with the average workstation user out there. And do the same comparison on SETI and the G4 gets smoked.

By the way.. I never questioned if the Xserve is a fine machine, but we are talking WORKSTATION and not SERVER here.

So one last time... do a real life comparison yourself and stop pointing out super specific use cases of the G4. If you would do that the other way around it would be very embarassing for the G4.

And since you are claiming that the Macs are so superior for video. Compare a PowerMac with Windows-Box using Premiere and AfterEffects. You should be smart enough to find some benchmarks online yourself...

The system overall performance IS NOT RUNNING ONLY ALTIVEC OPTIMIZED CODE all the time.

groovebuster

topicolo

Jul 12, 2002, 11:00 AM

Just for kicks and giggles, I went to Dell's website and the Apple Store and configured two computers that were SOMEWHAT similar. This is what I got

DELL:
P4 2.53Ghz
512Mb PC800 RDRAM (MUCH faster than SDRAM)
80Gb Hd
Harmon Kardon hk395 speakers
Soundblaster Live! card
DVD+RW/CDRW drive (superdrive equivalent)
Geforce 4 Ti 4400
15" LCD panel
56k modem
M$ office small business edition
Norton Antivirus
WinXP
and a 3 year warranty

$2656

Apple:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
$3407

I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by topicolo
Just for kicks and giggles, I went to Dell's website and the Apple Store and configured two computers that were SOMEWHAT similar. This is what I got

DELL:
P4 2.53Ghz
512Mb PC800 RDRAM (MUCH faster than SDRAM)
80Gb Hd
Harmon Kardon hk395 speakers
Soundblaster Live! card
DVD+RW/CDRW drive (superdrive equivalent)
Geforce 4 Ti 4400
15" LCD panel
56k modem
M$ office small business edition
Norton Antivirus
WinXP
and a 3 year warranty

$2656

Apple:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
$3407

I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.

Dell's display isn't digital. Compare Apples with Apples.
DVD+RW isn't readable in as many DVD players DVD-RW drives are. You can attach the 15" SVGA LCD display to the Apple as well and save $200. Pro speakers can be replaced by Radio Shack speakers for $40 less. Is the RAM all that much faster if the processor has 3 times as many stages? It has to use that much faster RAM to even come close. And there is a 933 Mhz G4 for $2299 at Smalldog:

http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

Total price $2599. Throw in the rebate on the 15" Apple display it comes out to $2399 + RAM and speakers which can be gotten for less than $100. Replacement warranty for 2 years at CompUSA is $30 even if you didn't buy it there. Dell lost there!
Next....

jefhatfield

Jul 12, 2002, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by elensil
I want to know what do you think about Apple pricing. Anyone thinks they are right on or way over board?

1) compared to the price of a home computer in the early 80s, any mac is a great deal

2) compared to those fast bus, ddr pc machines, macs are too expensive

here is my suggestion for apple to up marketshare

imac starting 1199 (i am referring to lcd imac)
ibook starting 999
emac 899
powermac starting 1399
tibook starting 1999

but here is what i think we will actually see next year or later

imac 1299
ibook 1099
emac 999
powermac 1499
tibook 2199

i bought my bare bones ibook for 1599 and gradually saw the basic ibook go down to 1199, but something tells me the buck will stop at 1099 and it will be years before we see any sub-1000 dollar apple laptop

come on, steve, prove me wrong:p

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by gopher
G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!
Name one Mac that can do 15 billion double-precision FP calcs/sec. As a matter of fact, name one Mac that can do 2 double-precision GFLOPS/sec. The 15 GFLOPS number is for vectorized single-precision FP only.
Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world.
If you're referring to the most recent SPEC benchmarks (which had to be obtained for Macs unofficially because Apple was presumably too ashamed to do it themselves), why does the fastest (1GHz PPC) fall virtually dead last against ALL other CPUs tested? I mean, c'mon, it's dead even with the equivalently-clocked Pentium III and gets spanked by a MIPS R14000A at half the MHz. Not to mention the PA-RISC, Itanium, Power3/4, P4, Athlon, and UltraSPARC, which all destroy it. The 2.2GHz P4 is several times faster at both integer and fp.
Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide.
Why should they expend such effort when they can write code that runs optimally on what ~95% of the world uses - x86 - with no extra effort on their part. You're a developer, and you want to write a piece of software. Are you going to write it in nice, portable, platform independent code that screams on x86, or are you going to write it in a weird proprietary vectorized manner which renders it dog-slow on all but some strange embedded processor used by 3% of the desktop market?
The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed.
To be more specific, it's faster than all PCs at vectorized single-precision floating point, and that's about it.
Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla.
You must be joking. A 500MHz Celeron with a decent video card is so much smoother than a rev B TiBook at web browsing that it makes me, as a rev B TiBook user, want to cry.
Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.
If "where it counts" to you is in vectorized single-precision floating point code, then I agree. Unfortunately, the reality is that the G4's integer speed is terrible, and its double-precision floating point speed is ATROCIOUS.

AlphaTech

Jul 12, 2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by topicolo
I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.

Does that peee4 come with L3 cache??? Didn't think so.. :p

Anyone that has used one of the Apple systems with the L3 cache KNOWS that is is like a hypercharger slapped onto the processor.

The Apple also gives you a svelte package design while the dell system, well, it's from dell dude... :p :D

jefhatfield

Jul 12, 2002, 11:45 AM

i think most of us know that pcs are faster than mac these days

it would just be nice to catch up some day

as much as i think motorola is an overall good company, they have hindered apple's plans to keep pace with intel and amd

but i still prefer my mac to my pc

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by gopher
State of the art is in Altivec, RISC, level 2 and level 3 cache. All of which Macs have. PCs need a higher bus to overcome the limits of the Pentium and high number of stages on its processor.
And that they certainly do have.
And still they end up slower than Macs where it counts. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Macs are not state of the art.
State of the art?
- ATA-66
- PC133 SDRAM
- Integer and double-precision / non-vectorized fp benchmark scores dramatically lower than virtually all of their competition
- USB 1.0

If that's state of the art to you then welcome to 1999.
RISC is faster, no matter how you slice it. Until PCs start coming out with full RISC and vector processing Macs will always be faster at the tasks that count.
The Athlon and P4 ARE RISC. RISC vs. CISC has nothing to do with performance anyway, it's simply a difference in processor design philosophy. Fewer instructions / higher clock / lower complexity (RISC) vs. more instructions / lower clock / greater complexity (CISC). The debate is irrelevant today.
Oh and you can plug a ATA 133 card into the PCI slots of the PowerMac towers if that's what you really want. Speed of drives aren't only the ATA speed, it is also the RPM speed. Or you can plug in wide SCSI. So that leaves with the question of why not faster RAM? Again, you are mistaking bus for a requirement to have higher speeds. Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.
So tell me, from which community college did you obtain your associate's degree in computer engineering?
Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.
That's incredible - what an amazing coincidence that I can do it with a PC as well.

Alex

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 11:53 AM

Then vectorize your code....it isn't that difficult and you will see the G4s jump by leaps and bounds over the PCs. Why are you comparing non-vectorized code? That's like telling me a jet is slower than a Ferrari on the runway because it doesn't run on standard car gasoline. The G4 is the jet. The Ferrari is the PC in this case. Get your code up to jet speed. Altivec it. You can add USB 2.0 cards to the Mac. You can add ATA 133 and Ultrawide SCSI to the Mac. If you really want all those options they are there. The RAM difference is there only because the PC is so slow and overburdened by its processor. And it still isn't as close to the processor as L2 and L3 cache, as it has to send signals from the RAM to the bus of the PC just to come close. Every leg of that equation slows the PC down. If the PC had L2 and L3 cache comparable to the Mac and as few pipelines as the Mac and it had that high speed RAM it would be faster, but no, they chose to use processors overly dependant on off processor bus RAM. No they chose to use processors overly dependent on off processor graphic cards. Where instead the Mac's floating point units on a G4 1 Ghz processor is 15 billion floating calculations a second. And that's on the processor itself! You have to think for a moment why the PC is so slow. People have made 42 massively parallel G4s run at 630 billion floating point calculations a second, and made that network setup in one hour. Try and do that on a PC. The point is you can't fathom how fast the Mac is.

16 floating point instructions per clock cycle is the limit it goes at. There is your double precision. SpecInt and SpecFP code was written for Pentiums, not for G4s. Until they are actually written for G4s your argument is fruitless.

jefhatfield

Jul 12, 2002, 11:56 AM

macs are slower

but speed is not everything

steven tyler of aerosmith put it best

paraphrase:

"when you are young in your early 20s, you do [it] frantically and it's over in sixty seconds, but when you get older, you learn to work the thing and take your time and you get the most of it (and so does she)

it's about the quality, baby...and that's why i use a mac:p :eek: ;)

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by gopher
Then vectorize your code....it isn't that difficult and you will see the G4s jump by leaps and bounds over the PCs. Why are you comparing non-vectorized code? That's like telling me a jet is slower than a Ferrari on the runway because it doesn't run on standard car gasoline. The G4 is the jet. The Ferrari is the PC in this case. Get your code up to jet speed. Altivec it.
Do you work for Apple or Motorola PR or something? Are you ignoring me on purpose? I'll repeat myself for your convenience:
Why should they (developers) expend such effort when they can write code that runs optimally on what ~95% of the world uses - x86 - with no extra effort on their part. You're a developer, and you want to write a piece of software. Are you going to write it in nice, portable, platform independent code that screams on x86, or are you going to write it in a weird proprietary vectorized manner which renders it dog-slow on all but some strange embedded processor used by 3% of the desktop market?

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
macs are slower

but speed is not everything

steven tyler of aerosmith put it best

paraphrase:

"when you are young in your early 20s, you do [it] frantically and it's over in sixty seconds, but when you get older, you learn to work the thing and take your time and you get the most of it (and so does she)

it's about the quality, baby...and that's why i use a mac:p :eek: ;)
I like that analogy a lot. :)

jefhatfield

Jul 12, 2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

I like that analogy a lot. :)

it's cleaner than saying,

"i am better off working it with a few good mags than straddling a pillow and being done with it a few secs"

:eek:

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 12:09 PM

Your 95% numbers are based on sales, not actual machines in market. Macs account for as much as 15% of the actual market. The reason is they last 3 times longer. And G4s have been out since 1999 all starting at 4 billion floating point calculations a second. PC users are getting upset that PCs are having massive license restrictions, when Macs are more open allowing you to install on many more machines the same CD. How much are you going to spend on licensing restrictions alone? Mac OS X server is UNLIMITED licenses. Microsoft licenses limit you to 25 licenses for 6 times the cost of Mac OS X server. And who is going to want to run Linux now, now that Mac OS X consists of the highest percentage of Unix users on the planet and is simpler and easier to use?

Originally posted by alex_ant

Do you work for Apple or Motorola PR or something? Are you ignoring me on purpose? I'll repeat myself for your convenience:
[/B]

jefhatfield

Jul 12, 2002, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by gopher
The reason is they last 3 times longer.

you can say that again

my early 90s performa 600 still works and the apple printer from a couple years later still makes beautiful color prints

i don't know of any pc from the early 90s that works without having had something done to them...i have never been inside the case of the performa 600 ...and only one battery change, by dealer, in nearly a decade

AlphaTech

Jul 12, 2002, 12:17 PM

I am actually configuring a G3 (blue and white) 350MHz for a new user that starts on Monday. For many people, these systems are all they will need. They do the job, don't crash (unlike peecee's of the same vintage), and are easy to maintain.

Simply put, we love Mac's. That is from the standpoint of both end user AND tech. :D

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by gopher
Your 95% numbers are based on sales, not actual machines in market. Macs account for as much as 15% of the actual market. The reason is they last 3 times longer.
OK, I think Apple has brainwashed you here. According to this (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0207/03.marketshare.php) article (at Macworld nonetheless) Apple's recent sales figures account for 3.48% of the US market. Less of the world market. Don't try to tell me that Apple has a 15% real-world market share - the Mac hasn't had a 15% market share since the mid-'80s. Even if your claim that "Macs last three times longer" is true (which I'm doubting), that would still only add up to about 10%. So what were you saying? 5% or 10%, my point about AltiVec not being worthwhile to develop for compared to x86 still stands.
And G4s have been out since 1999 all starting at 4 billion floating point calculations a second.
4 billion peak single-precision floating point calculations per second with highly optimized nonstandard vectorized code. How hard is that to understand?
PC users are getting upset that PCs are having massive license restrictions, when Macs are more open allowing you to install on many more machines the same CD. How much are you going to spend on licensing restrictions alone? Mac OS X server is UNLIMITED licenses. Microsoft licenses limit you to 25 licenses for 6 times the cost of Mac OS X server. And who is going to want to run Linux now, now that Mac OS X consists of the highest percentage of Unix users on the planet and is simpler and easier to use?
The topic is: "Are Macs too expensive?" If you're talking about the Xserve, then say so. I was under the impression that we were talking about desktops/laptops, faster x86 versions of which can be had for less than their Mac counterparts - the whole point of this thread. I see that you've sidestepped my earlier arguments - I take it as an indication that they must be pretty good.

Alex

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 12:36 PM

If G4s are only single instruction precision, I ask you, why are the RC5 numbers so much higher on the G4? Those numbers came out from prior to the XServe being released. The Xserve only increases the speed because of the copper processors.

Again I find hard to believe they are only single instruction precision when this quote from Apple's developer page says:

"Motorola's AltiVec Technology, embodied in the G4 processor, expands the current PowerPC architecture through addition of a 128-bit vector execution unit that operates concurrently with existing integer and floating-point units. This provides for highly parallel operations, allowing for simultaneous execution of up to 16 operations in a single clock cycle. This new approach expands the processor's capabilities to concurrently address high-bandwidth data processing (such as streaming video) and the algorithmic intensive computations which today are handled off-chip by other devices, such as graphics, audio, and modem functions.The AltiVec instruction set allows operation on multiple bits within the 128-bit wide registers. This combination of new instructions, operation in parallel on multiple bits, and wider registers, provide speed enhancements of up to 30x on operations that are common in media processing."

That's 16 operations in a single clock cycle. Where is that single precision? And with dual processors it makes it that much more formidable. Again read this carefully:

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/index.html

Vector calculations make sense. What good is high speed if the operations are so complex it takes 5 times longer to learn them?

How is parallelism single precision? You aren't making sense. Because that's what you are saying the G4 is doing. You can get as much precision as you like when the processor is running things in parallel.

groovebuster

Jul 12, 2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by gopher
There are real live tests showing DVD encoding 3 times faster on a Flat Panel iMac than any other PC. Adobe Premier? Why not use Final Cut or DVD Studio Pro? There are other video editing programs that are better optimized for Altivec. And if they aren't optimized they should be. It isn't that hard to do. Now when are you going to learn that Macs are nothing to sneeze at when it comes to speed. Go and try one of the modern Macs for yourself with optimized software. You will be glad you did. Even Deneba CAD is Altivec optimized. Black Lab Linux is Altivec optimized.

Yeah right... links please!

Maybe because Premiere is still a standard? You know what a standard is, right?

Originally posted by gopher
You just have to know where to look.

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/index.html

http://www.psrv.com/documents/VAST_AltiVec/VAST_AltiVec_FAQ.html

http://macspeedzone.com/archive/frames2000/g4applications.shtml

You mean, you just have to know where to look when you want to ignore the bare naked truth??

Originally posted by gopher
Altivec does wonders for programs. You have to think of it this way, what if your instructions could be issued 128 bit? Yes 128 bit. Now is that your double precision numbers or isn't it? It is. What's more it does this on a processor that uses less heat than an AMD or Intel. We are talking here less heat = greater potential speed. Granted parts of Mac OS X aren't Altivec optimized but Mac OS X is multithreaded and you can kill threads that are slowing you down. So now you see you can have your cake and eat it too. Become a programmer if you can't find code that is optimized for Altivec to do what you want, and use Apple's developer's link above to create your own optimized code.

Dude, you still don't get it!!!

Double precision FP != Altivec code

And for the rest... I am not going to write my own applications, there are standard applications out there I want to use! Is it that so hard to get???:confused:

To optimize code for Altivec isn't that trivial and especially since it is incompatible with other processors it means just a lot of extra code/work for software houses.

And less heat doesn't mean greater potential speed. If you would accelerate the G4 to the clockspeed of the PIV on the given technology the processor core would melt!

Originally posted by gopher Look at what Apple says about Altivec:

"Motorola's AltiVec Technology, embodied in the G4 processor, expands the current PowerPC architecture through addition of a 128-bit vector execution unit that operates concurrently with existing integer and floating-point units. This provides for highly parallel operations, allowing for simultaneous execution of up to 16 operations in a single clock cycle. This new approach expands the processor's capabilities to concurrently address high-bandwidth data processing (such as streaming video) and the algorithmic intensive computations which today are handled off-chip by other devices, such as graphics, audio, and modem functions.The AltiVec instruction set allows operation on multiple bits within the 128-bit wide registers. This combination of new instructions, operation in parallel on multiple bits, and wider registers, provide speed enhancements of up to 30x on operations that are common in media processing."[/B]

Fine! That still doesn't solve the problem with my standard integer and FP operations in standard code. But I am too tired to go on about that subject. You don't want to get it... so be happy with your opinion.

Be nice!

groovebuster

Apple][Forever

Jul 12, 2002, 12:50 PM

I am writing this on my two-and-a-half-year old B+W G3 450... stuck a gig of cheep pc100 ram and an 80GB ATA drive (to replace the small 9GB scsi drive that it came with) and it is running 10.1.5 like a dream, for about $300 of upgrades. (I tried flashing a GF2MX PCI card for upgrading the video, but it didn't work out.)

on the other hand, I went from a Celeron 300A overclocked to 450 to an Athlon 700 to a T-Bird 1GHz on the wintel side... just to keep up with 98->2000->xp. Now that the PC's dead tho (crashed HDD) I'm in NO HURRY to fix it... :)

these were all home-built machines, btw, so they had good, fast components... but the software brought it down!

If Jag is as good as people are saying, I'll be able to keep this thing for two more years!

topicolo

Jul 12, 2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by gopher

Dell's display isn't digital. Compare Apples with Apples.
DVD+RW isn't readable in as many DVD players DVD-RW drives are. You can attach the 15" SVGA LCD display to the Apple as well and save $200. Pro speakers can be replaced by Radio Shack speakers for $40 less. Is the RAM all that much faster if the processor has 3 times as many stages? It has to use that much faster RAM to even come close. And there is a 933 Mhz G4 for $2299 at Smalldog:

http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

Total price $2599. Throw in the rebate on the 15" Apple display it comes out to $2399 + RAM and speakers which can be gotten for less than $100. Replacement warranty for 2 years at CompUSA is $30 even if you didn't buy it there. Dell lost there!
Next....

Well, as much as I hate defending pcs, you're not comparing apples to apples here either. The smalldog G4 933 only has a 60gb hd (vs 80), and a gf4 dual = gf4mx (vs a gf4 4400, which has programmable pixel shaders, and about 150% the speed due to faster ddr ram). The L3 Cache is good, but the RDRAM runs at 800Mhz, faster than the G4's the L3 cache, and it doesn't limit the cpu like sdram does. Also, I'm comparing fully customized computers on apple and dell's websites to see pricing differences their respective companies. If you compared a fully preconfigured system with a barebones system that's been upgraded, it completely defeats the purpose of the experiment, which is to see how much apple charges over an average pc vendor. If I went along with your reasoning I could build a custom pc myself and get the exact same pc system for about $1800 by buying the components off of www.newegg.com. Sure, it's not fair, but neither was your comparison.

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 01:35 PM

For those saying AltiVec should become a thing of the past, may i just say that i agree with you 100%. there are very few apps left that sill use it. everyone is now worried about Carbonising for OSX. i'd much rather see them concentrate on getting a new chip with some serious speed increases. something that everyone could use. look at the eMac. it's the biggest scam in the world. over a thousand dollars for a 700mhz machine! what consumer who uses as eMac needs AltiVec? none. i don't think little Timmy is running Blast or or doing RGB to CMYK conversions in Photoshop. my point is that because AltiVec is so rarely used all we are left with is straight mhz, at which point i'd rather have a G3. it makes me sick to hear Apple make the outlandish claims of Pentium Crushing Power and Gigaflops. ***** Gigaflops. no one cares about floating point calculations. all anyone wants is some speed. shame on them for ripping people off.

ThinkpadsRule

Jul 12, 2002, 02:29 PM

We all know apple's systems are outdated. I here you guys talk about how apple's systems are made of the best components. What a bunch of crap. The hardware is old how can it be considered the best. Listen to yourselves before you say apples systems are made of the best components. If it so good where are the 128 meg ddr graphics cards,ddr ram,rdram,dvd+rw (the new standard),gforce to go portablegraphics cards,superfast processors, faster harddrives in portables I could go on and on. Apple's prices are much to high for their dated hardware and crash prone OS. Yes I said crash prone OS. I have been running 4 GC's (gas chromatographs)and 3 LC's(liquid chromatographs) with chemstation on win2k with 3 hp vectras for over a year without one single crash. My thinkpad with winxp pro has yet to crash but my powerbook has crashed numerous times in the past 8 months. Apple needs to step up and produce more up to date systems.

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by ThinkpadsRule
We all know apple's systems are outdated. I here you guys talk about how apple's systems are made of the best components. What a bunch of crap. The hardware is old how can it be considered the best. Listen to yourselves before you say apples systems are made of the best components. If it so good where are the 128 meg ddr graphics cards,ddr ram,rdram,dvd+rw (the new standard),gforce to go portablegraphics cards,superfast processors, faster harddrives in portables I could go on and on. Apple's prices are much to high for their dated hardware and crash prone OS. Yes I said crash prone OS. I have been running 4 GC's (gas chromatographs)and 3 LC's(liquid chromatographs) with chemstation on win2k with 3 hp vectras for over a year without one single crash. My thinkpad with winxp pro has yet to crash but my powerbook has crashed numerous times in the past 8 months. Apple needs to step up and produce more up to date systems.

right on dude. i find it funny when people say how stable OSX is. i get a kernal panic almost everytime i turn off my machine. i get the spinning beachball of death atleast once a day. i constantly have to force quit apps because they've frozen. i use cmnd-option-ctrl-powerbutton atleast once a day. my 550 TiBook is the biggest piece of crap. yet it cost like $3000. and since there is very little use of AltiVec left in the world i'm squeaking along on a 550mhz computer, which is pathetic at this point in time. i don't doubt that OSX could be a great OS one day but they don't even have hardware that can handle it properly. and i use a dual 1gig and i'm not impressed by that either. 128mb RAM just to run the desktop? that's just retarded. people always say "OSX flies on the dual..." or whatever. yeah, the OS is fast but applications still run like crap! power users have nothing to gain from the G4 right now since everything is just barely Carbonised and buggy as hell. to hell with AltiVec and the G4 and Apple for ripping everyone off. the iBook is the only halfway-decent machine in the line. i'd trade all the throbbing vector icons in the world to have some speed again.

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by gopher
If G4s are only single instruction precision, I ask you, why are the RC5 numbers so much higher on the G4?
RC5 results are so much higher on the G4 because RC5 is heavily optimized for the matrix calculations that are AltiVec's bread and butter. RC5 works on AltiVec because it uses vectorized single-precision fp operations. It is not an accurate measure of real-world performance any more than SETI@home or the random Photoshop filter. (Which are among the only things the G4 performs well at these days.) It is, however, a reasonable measure of Photoshop, FCP, and SETI@home performance, if you want to look at it that way. :)

Floating point precision, single or double, refers to the word length of a floating-point instruction. A single-precision fp word (on most processors including x86 and PPC) is 4 bytes (32 bits). Double-precision fp words are 8 bytes (64 bits). (Bits = digits)
Again I find hard to believe they are only single instruction precision when this quote from Apple's developer page says:

"Motorola's AltiVec Technology, embodied in the G4 processor, expands the current PowerPC architecture through addition of a 128-bit vector execution unit that operates concurrently with existing integer and floating-point units. This provides for highly parallel operations, allowing for simultaneous execution of up to 16 operations in a single clock cycle. This new approach expands the processor's capabilities to concurrently address high-bandwidth data processing (such as streaming video) and the algorithmic intensive computations which today are handled off-chip by other devices, such as graphics, audio, and modem functions.The AltiVec instruction set allows operation on multiple bits within the 128-bit wide registers. This combination of new instructions, operation in parallel on multiple bits, and wider registers, provide speed enhancements of up to 30x on operations that are common in media processing."

That's 16 operations in a single clock cycle. Where is that single precision? And with dual processors it makes it that much more formidable.
Yes - up to 16 single-precision operations in a single clock cycle. The paragraph you quoted mentions nothing about floating point precision. As I said, the maximum word length AltiVec can handle is 32 bits.

128 / 32 = 4 (the maximum number of single-precision [32-bit] fp ops / sec)

128 / 16 = 8 (the maximum number of half-precision [16-bit] fp ops / sec)

128 / 8 = 16 (the maximum number of quarter-precision [8-bit] fp ops /sec, and the source of the marketing stat that you just fell for)
Again read this carefully:

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/index.html

I would suggest YOU read it carefully. Stop swallowing the marketing hype and think for yourself.
Vector calculations make sense. What good is high speed if the operations are so complex it takes 5 times longer to learn them?
Vector calculations do make sense, for some tasks. I suggest you get to work convincing developers why they should devote precious time and energy re-writing the necessary portions of their code to support a platform that comprises a miniscule portion of all markets outside the graphic design and audio production realms. Outside these niches, it would help Apple so much more if the PPC were simply able to run standard, platform-independent code even close to as fast as x86 (or any other CPU family) can.
How is parallelism single precision? You aren't making sense. Because that's what you are saying the G4 is doing.
No I'm not. You are confusing parallelism with precision. Parallelism refers to processing chunks of data concurrently, which AltiVec does do. AltiVec is, however, incapable of processing these chunks of data concurrently if they are double-precision (>32 bits long). Double-precision fp work (and non-vectorized single-precision fp work) is passed off to the G4's FPU, which sucks massively.
You can get as much precision as you like when the processor is running things in parallel.
Nope. It doesn't matter if the vector processor is 128-bit or 1024-bit, if it only supports 32-bit words, it will only give you 32-bit precision. It's just that a 128-bit VPU will give you four chunks of 32-bit data per cycle. As you know, adding 1,000 (4 digits) 4 times will not give you a number that is 16 digits long. I HOPE you knew that, anyway.

Alex

elensil

Jul 12, 2002, 02:50 PM

Right now I am looking to buy a computer that would run PhotoShop, Quark, Flash, Dreamweaver, Premier, AfterEffects.
Are those applications AltiVec optimized? I am a student with small budget. How would eMac perform under such a task?

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 02:56 PM

sneed

Jul 12, 2002, 03:02 PM

It's funny, every time people talk about how expensive macs are, or that they are too expensive, the discussion always degrades to whether or not pcs are better. I would say that that has nothing to do with the other.

Macs are expensive, beyond the quality of the products, because Apple does a lot of R&D. Someone has too pay for it, and I am glad to contribute, because Apple helps drive the industry to new places.

As for whether macs or pc are better... You know it's always something? The big argument used to be that macs weren't worth it, because PC's had more software; or that macs weren't worth it, because they were too hard to modify, and now it's that they aren't fast enough. Well, all these arguments have/had merit, but it really doesn't matter. It's all smoke.

Most users (gamers, get a console, jeez) come nowhere close to using the speed they have. Are y'all trying to tell me that writing email and surfing the web is painful at a gigahertz? What, you write so well, that the sluggish MS Office is holding you back? Come on.

And for the professional, which I am one, yeah, computer speed is important, but it isn't the most important. I am far more concerned with how fast a project goes than how fast the computer goes, and if there is a delay, it is almost always due to inexperienced or disorganized users, rather than the computer itself.

In the rare case that a computer does case the delay, it is due to a crash or outright failure. In that case, I haven't loss a mac to major failure in 18 years, and crashes have always been rare. What more can you want?

To sum up, a faster machine isn't going to make you more talented, no matter how fast it is. I use macs because they are reliable, and they stay out of my way. For that, nothing is too expensive.

alex_ant

Jul 12, 2002, 03:10 PM

Tjwett, I hear you, and I sympathize with everything you've said, but as a fellow 550MHz TiBook user I'm going to step over to the other side and defend my TiBook.

Yeah, it's slow. OK, it's damn slow. I knew this would be the case when I bought it. 10.1.5 is not as unstable for me as it is for you, but it does have its problems - SBOD (spinning beachball of death) every week or so and generally miserable performance being the big two. However, as I said, I knew it was pretty slow before I bought it. I could have got a GHz+ laptop instead, with all the same features for less money. I'm still not bothered though, because I wanted a computer that:

- Didn't suck for desktop use like Linux
- Had as little to do with Microsoft as possible

And that pretty much narrowed it down to the Mac.

I think, if things don't improve, Apple is going to have to de-emphasize the performance angle. They need to stop calling their computers supercomputers, because everybody knows that's a load of crap. They need to stop saying that the G4 smokes the P4, because that's about as close to a lie as you can get without quite stepping over the line. What they need to do (or one thing they could do) is emphasize the pleasantness of the "Mac experience" - the always-working plug & play, the ease, the simplicity, the smoothness, etc. I think the kernel panics etc. you're experiencing are not normal, and I hope those get fixed for you ASAP. At the very worst, enjoy the high resale value of your TiBook. :)

Alex

peterjhill

Jul 12, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by TiMacLover
I hate pricing of Apple stuff, it is awful. Who the hell is going to pay $3500 for a TiBook? Thats just grr o man, Apple I hate to say is only from the rich in my book.

I have a Ti800 and think it was worth every penny. I used to have a Dell Desktop as my primary office machine, and a Dell Lattitude as my home/portable work machine. The TiBook has handily replaced not only both of those machines, but also about half of a unix box. I still have a headless linux box in my office to run some custom stuff that was developed in house that won't yet run on my Mac. I love doing an ssh -X server to do xwindow port forwarding, so I can run an app on my linux box and have its windows appear on my dual-headed Mac.

Lets see why the Ti book is worth the price:
Only laptop with built in gigabit ethernet (for that matter only laptop with
any kind of gig E)

Beautiful Screen

DVD player that actually works (all my pc friends have problems with playing dvds on their laptops)

Great battery life

Light as hell

DVI-VGA-SVideo-Composite video out

Worth every penny

AlphaTech

Jul 12, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by tjwett
i find it funny when people say how stable OSX is. i get a kernal panic almost everytime i turn off my machine. i get the spinning beachball of death atleast once a day. i constantly have to force quit apps because they've frozen. i use cmnd-option-ctrl-powerbutton atleast once a day. my 550 TiBook is the biggest piece of crap. yet it cost like $3000. and since there is very little use of AltiVec left in the world i'm squeaking along on a 550mhz computer, which is pathetic at this point in time. i don't doubt that OSX could be a great OS one day but they don't even have hardware that can handle it properly. and i use a dual 1gig and i'm not impressed by that either. 128mb RAM just to run the desktop? that's just retarded. people always say "OSX flies on the dual..." or whatever. yeah, the OS is fast but applications still run like crap! power users have nothing to gain from the G4 right now since everything is just barely Carbonised and buggy as hell. to hell with AltiVec and the G4 and Apple for ripping everyone off. the iBook is the only halfway-decent machine in the line.

One: You have done something to ***** up your computer... When was the last time you ran ANY kind of utility on it??? Even a simple fsck -y???

Two: if you spent $3k for the 550MHz system, you either got it jacked up with something, or the store saw you coming and knew they had a sucker on the way. :p

I never had a kernel panic on my 500MHz TiBook, unless I placed in the incorrect memory. Makes me wonder where you got the memory that is installed in either of your systems...

OS X rips you a new asshole from my 800MHz TiBook, twit... :p The G4 processor is NOT 'buggy as hell' unless you actually do something to ***** with it.

Have you bothered to check the memory requirements for windblows?? 128MB is the bare bones minimum for either win2k or winheXPee. Right from m$'s web site... "128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
* 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*" OS X can run on less memory, but it performs better with more, just like windblows does.

BTW, judging by your writing style, you didn't do very well in the English classes, did you now...

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by sneed

...Macs are expensive, beyond the quality of the products, because Apple does a lot of R&D. Someone has too pay for it, and I am glad to contribute, because Apple helps drive the industry to new places....

i hope those days are not over. FireWire, the death of the floppy, DVDR, etc. i hope they have something up their sleeve. it all just feels really old to me right now. i really try not to compare the Mac to the PC. i just think we should have components that are current. i agree with everything you said though.

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by AlphaTech

One: You have done something to ***** up your computer... When was the last time you ran ANY kind of utility on it??? Even a simple fsck -y???

Two: if you spent $3k for the 550MHz system, you either got it jacked up with something, or the store saw you coming and knew they had a sucker on the way. :p

I never had a kernel panic on my 500MHz TiBook, unless I placed in the incorrect memory. Makes me wonder where you got the memory that is installed in either of your systems...

OS X rips you a new asshole from my 800MHz TiBook, twit... :p The G4 processor is NOT 'buggy as hell' unless you actually do something to ***** with it.

Have you bothered to check the memory requirements for windblows?? 128MB is the bare bones minimum for either win2k or winheXPee. Right from m$'s web site... "128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
* 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*" OS X can run on less memory, but it performs better with more, just like windblows does.

BTW, judging by your writing style, you didn't do very well in the English classes, did you now...
Okay,
1. I run Disk Warrior regularly.
2. I bought my machine new when it was first released and after tax and a few peripherals the price was in the neighborhood of 3k. i'm not going to split hairs here.
3. I use Viking RAM, it's good.
4. I'm no twit. And I NEVER said the G4 processor was buggy. I said that alot of the new Carbonised software that is being released for OSX is buggy. It is. And these Carbonised apps do not take advantage of AltiVec at all, or in the same capacity as they used to, which hurts the performance.
5. I never looked at the requirements for Windows and I don't really care since I didn't spend any money on a Windows machine.

BTW, I don't repond to lame insults. I have no problem getting into discussions, even arguments, about Macs and related topics but I don't waste my time with flamewars about ridiculous things such as my "writing style". I type fast. Forgive me for not running a spellcheck before I post.

gopher

Jul 12, 2002, 08:03 PM

So then why don't you write developers to optimize their code for Altivec? It obviously presents a great method of speeding things up.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2002/07/12/steinberg.htm

Stories like this keep pouring in on how Altivec is indeed faster. Apple isn't going to feed the bottom of the vine as long as graphic artists demand higher speeds. It is up to developers who want to get more speed out of Macs to use Altivec. Only if we demand them to do it, will we see faster speed out of those lower end programs you feel Apple is ignoring in terms of speed.

And anyway who needs all that double speed precision except those who already have Altivec on the Mac? Obviously your demand for speed on the Mac is like asking for a mouse to fly like an airplane. Where the mouse is your lowly little word processor, and you want it to do what? Spell check 15 billion words a second? What are you going to use the double precision speed for on the low end when Altivec isn't being used?

solvs

Jul 12, 2002, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by elensil
Right now I am looking to buy a computer that would run PhotoShop, Quark, Flash, Dreamweaver, Premier, AfterEffects.
Are those applications AltiVec optimized? I am a student with small budget. How would eMac perform under such a task?

Wait until after new Towers are released, buy yourself an education only lower end G4 Tower (about $1200), CTO or upgrade with cheaper parts from www.pricewatch.com, and get yourself some better software (unless you're not 'buying' the software;)). Final Cut Pro is way better than Premier (uses OS X and AltiVec) and you can get it for $300 Educational. Plus if you buy a new PM Tower from the Apple Store Education, you can get Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign (screw Quark. There's no way I would buy that product. Actually, you couldn't give it to me), Acrobat, GoLive, and LiveMotion in a bundle for like $400. If you have to have Macromedia Studio, go to http://www.academicsuperstore.com/ and buy it for $200, and get most of the other stuff for less than $400.

That's what I'm doing.

Let me know if you want some more advice.

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by gopher
So then why don't you write developers to optimize their code for Altivec? It obviously presents a great method of speeding things up.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2002/07/12/steinberg.htm

Stories like this keep pouring in on how Altivec is indeed faster. Apple isn't going to feed the bottom of the vine as long as graphic artists demand higher speeds. It is up to developers who want to get more speed out of Macs to use Altivec. Only if we demand them to do it, will we see faster speed out of those lower end programs you feel Apple is ignoring in terms of speed.

And anyway who needs all that double speed precision except those who already have Altivec on the Mac? Obviously your demand for speed on the Mac is like asking for a mouse to fly like an airplane. Where the mouse is your lowly little word processor, and you want it to do what? Spell check 15 billion words a second? What are you going to use the double precision speed for on the low end when Altivec isn't being used?

right. so why isn't the eMac a G3? if the apps that are it's intended users don't use AltiVec why make it a G4? because it sounds better and they can charge more money. they boast the power of the G4 as the major selling point of the eMac but they don't tell anyone that they actually don't need it and won't use it. that's why it's a ripoff.

tjwett

Jul 12, 2002, 09:16 PM

alex_ant

Jul 13, 2002, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by gopher
So then why don't you write developers to optimize their code for Altivec? It obviously presents a great method of speeding things up.
Okay, I'll quote myself a third time:
Why should they expend such effort when they can write code that runs optimally on what ~95% of the world uses - x86 - with no extra effort on their part. You're a developer, and you want to write a piece of software. Are you going to write it in nice, portable, platform independent code that screams on x86, or are you going to write it in a weird proprietary vectorized manner which renders it dog-slow on all but some strange embedded processor used by 3% of the desktop market?
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2002/07/12/steinberg.htm

Stories like this keep pouring in on how Altivec is indeed faster. Apple isn't going to feed the bottom of the vine as long as graphic artists demand higher speeds. It is up to developers who want to get more speed out of Macs to use Altivec. Only if we demand them to do it, will we see faster speed out of those lower end programs you feel Apple is ignoring in terms of speed.
Yes - AltiVec can be very fast at tasks which lend themselves to it well, like audio/video/graphics editing. It doesn't handle anything else.

Graphic artists, by the way, at least the ones who aren't blind and don't vow to never leave Apple, are in an unfortunate position - they're wondering whether or not they should stick with the Mac since PCs are now so fast that they can spend roughly the same amount of $$$ on one as on a dual G4 and get superior performance. A dual G4, even at AltiVec-optimized tasks, will get its butt kicked by, for example, a highly-clocked dual Athlon. (Which can be had for less.)

And anyway who needs all that double speed precision except those who already have Altivec on the Mac? Obviously your demand for speed on the Mac is like asking for a mouse to fly like an airplane. Where the mouse is your lowly little word processor, and you want it to do what? Spell check 15 billion words a second? What are you going to use the double precision speed for on the low end when Altivec isn't being used?
That's a very good point - now you face the challenge of making every potential buyer of a low-end Mac agree with you. Right now, it's "You can spend $X on a PC, or you can spend $X+$500 on a Mac that's slower." You'll probably bring up the intangibles of the Mac, like their ease of use, their trouble-free nature, their seamless hardware & software interoperability, etc. - and I agree. But the challenge is making consumers understand that. Low-end Macs are definitely not faster than PCs - they're much slower - and they cost more. If consumers look at it from a speed angle, they'd be insane to buy the Mac. So the challenge is getting them to look at it from a different angle. This has proven difficult - which is the whole reason I'm saying Apple needs to get in gear and start catching up to PC-land.

Alex

jefhatfield

Jul 13, 2002, 09:46 AM

the average consumer wants that mhz-ghz thing to look fast

to them a bus is a transportation vehicle on four wheels and "cache" is what is in the wallet ..."pipelines" push your poo into the ocean and "risc" is riding your harley without a helmet:p

jefhatfield

Jul 13, 2002, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by sneed
I use macs because they are reliable, and they stay out of my way. For that, nothing is too expensive.

well said:D

atomwork

Jul 13, 2002, 11:26 AM

I don't really think you guys see that the right way. The prices are now with the euro almost the same, don't forget that prices in Europe have added already the 16% tax in it. That might seem higher. If you buy a mac here in the US it looks good but wait until they ad the local and state tax on 4500... hahah. You'll see!

Regarding the high price. Give me a break. A Hyundai cost less then a Beemer too!!!. Good products deserve a fair price. Well may be the mass market can't affort it but thats life.

humantech

Jul 13, 2002, 12:07 PM

First Off, I really enjoy reading the posts on this site- You guys and gals have some very diverse viewpoints and always make for enjoyable reading!

I am a mac freak, through and through. Also a Realist. Also a musician with a background in recording on the mac ( and the PC- EEEWWw.... Sends chills up my spine) I'm also an Apple Certified Warranty Tech- working on my OS X certification, a paid consultant and the owner of an Apple Specialist Retail store. I opened the store on faith and a shoestring, so I'm not at all an elitist, nor am I rich.
Thats my background. Let me give you my point of view on pricing of Apples products.
Apple makes a GREAT product. All the way around.
They do charge a LITTLE more for it. They should. Its a better product.Its a free market economy ( well, not Counting M$) :-)
Consumers pay the extra price if they want the machine. What is needed to help cost justify the purchase is an understandable explanation of the advantages of the Mac Experience.
As a store owner and salesperson, I can say from first hand experience, that since OS X hit 10.1 ( the first "Ready for prime time release" IMHO), I have been converting between 4-7 PC users per week. Linux users too. These are NEW Mac Users. No problem. Just let them play and they buy it. COST IS NOT A FACTOR.
Most people are more than willing to pay a few more dollars to get something that works.We've even got a trade in your pc towards a Mac promo going ( want cheap pcs? Just check us out on ebay)
Bottom line- Class and quality count more than sheer speed- Just ask Alpha why he has a Harley and not 2 or 3 crotch rockets. If you have to ask, you wouldnt understand.... :-)
As for the fastest hardware out there, Apple doesnt need to have it. Why? Bottlenecks. Reduced margins. No appreciable gain in marketshare and making less money on the same sales. That would be fiscally irresponsible of them. At this point in time, they would get no additional sales out of having faster hardware than they do, and they would either have to raise prices, or kill their margin. The reason they are able to make the experience to the end user so great is all about balance. Tweak the hardware, tweak the software,Tweak the apps,Tweak the appliances. Put money in the bank. Stay in business. Stay the course of providing the best user experience. Not the fastest hardware. The most PRODUCTIVE and ENJOYABLE systems.
Having said that, With OS X, its a brand new world. Quartz extreme will start the process of OS X doing things other OS's have never done. Hardware will start to evolve ( think of the amount of Resources apple has dedicated to OS X and NOT hardware for the last 3 years. They are now getting into the TWEAK the hardware phase. ) My guess tells me that by january ( next macworld) Apples hardware will begin to spank anyone else out there. Sure, there will be faster COMPONENTS out there. But Overall system performance will be GREAT. Look at the throughput on the Xserve. Look at the real world benchmarks rolling out on that vs its competitors. The Pro line is next.
To say Apple should lower its prices is silly. When someone says to me, with a straight face AND can back it up, that running a pc works better than a Mac, then they should lower prices. Until that time, you arent buying an ATA 100 Hard drive, a PC 133 bus and Dual Gig G4's. You are buying a Mac. That means something. You will get your work done. you will enjoy it. You will be ragged on by your pc friends until they use it, then they will spew specs at you because they have no other recourse. Dont worry- Their Just Jealous...;)
As always my 2 cents-
humantech

PFY

Jul 13, 2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by atomwork
I don't really think you guys see that the right way. The prices are now with the euro almost the same, don't forget that prices in Europe have added already the 16% tax in it. That might seem higher. If you buy a mac here in the US it looks good but wait until they ad the local and state tax on 4500... hahah. You'll see!

Regarding the high price. Give me a break. A Hyundai cost less then a Beemer too!!!. Good products deserve a fair price. Well may be the mass market can't affort it but thats life.

The only problem is that Apple's European prices (without VAT) are on average 20% higher than their US prices. Of course the Euro's value has risen in the past few month, but hey why can't Apple lower the prices accordingly? After all this might finaly renew the enthusiasm among the European Apple faithfull.

gopher

Jul 13, 2002, 03:36 PM

Alex, I still disagree with you. Macs aren't $500 more expensive than PCs and still slower. Find me a PC that is $500 less than a Mac and yet faster, and I'll find you a Mac that is as fast as that PC for the same price or less. Look at what I did earlier for the Dell that was quoted. If you must compare Macs to PCs, compare new machines whose every quality is backed by the manufacturer. Even Dell can't guarantee the operating system will work on the system you install it on. Even Dell doesn't make a listing of devices that won't work with Windows XP, but there are plenty as well. With Apple, we know what works, what doesn't, how easy it is the configure, and if we don't the person at the Applecare phoneline can help us. Apple is going even as far as to custom build your system at their retail store. With a PC you need to be educated as a system engineer to get things working all the time. With a Mac you just need to be able to follow the directions on the screen. The net cost of building a PC and making it run will always be higher than the net cost of plugging a Mac and running it.

What artist has the knowledge to build their own highly clocked dual Athlon? Clocked machines by the way have a chance of lasting a very short time should you not have the technical knowhow to keep it going. So your arguement about that Athlon is moot unless you can train the average artist to become a systems engineer knowledgeable in how to modify hardware to one's hearts content. And what artist is going to have the time to clock a machine to precisely the speed they want? What artist has a hardware technician at their beckoning call in case something goes wrong. I want something that works, is fast, and doesn't break down to the point it needs a technician it breaks down. For that there is Macintosh. For the rest of the people who can spend the money on hardware gurus there are PCs. But a hardware guru invariably costs more than machines. So the Macintosh is cheaper by far in the longrun.

madamimadam

Jul 13, 2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by PFY

The only problem is that Apple's European prices (without VAT) are on average 20% higher than their US prices. Of course the Euro's value has risen in the past few month, but hey why can't Apple lower the prices accordingly? After all this might finaly renew the enthusiasm among the European Apple faithfull.

When it comes down to it, unfortunately, Apple is still a big corporation and such "niceness" would not even pass the though patterns of the board of directors when it came to long term ways to make more "dosh".

I love Apple but there are SO many times that I love to hate Apple and that is because corporations are bastards to earn more big bucks.

CountZero

Jul 13, 2002, 05:00 PM

After reading all the posts in this thread, guess what it reminds me of? CARS.

The whole PC vs Mac is kind of like comparing American cars to European cars. American's being PC and European's being Mac.

American cars tends to have larger engine, bigger body, more toys, etc. Whereas European cars have more efficient engines, better handling, and (probably) more class. Oh and European cars cost a bit more too in general.

Which one is better? Depends on what you can afford, what you use it for, etc. I don't think there is a definitive answer here. Each to his/her own.

Personally I am a recent 'switcher' and love my Mac. Still use PC at home and at work, to earn a good living so I can have time to enjoy my Mac. And I prefer European cars over American any days of the year.

At the end of the day, no one is forcing you to buy what you think is over priced computer system/car. If you can't afford or don't think it is worth the money, DON'T buy it.

gopher

Jul 13, 2002, 05:27 PM

Agreed to some extent...Apple does make it easier to buy if you go through their store. You can get 3 months same as cash, and up to a 5 year loan to purchase one of their computers. We are talking less than $1 a day in many cases to purchase one of their iMacs. For someone who can't afford $1 a day, I feel sorry for you, but that's what jobs are for. Even McDonalds will give that to you. And ask for Student and Government discounts, Apple has them for both students and teachers, for government employees and agencies.

alex_ant

Jul 14, 2002, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by gopher
Alex, I still disagree with you. Macs aren't $500 more expensive than PCs and still slower. Find me a PC that is $500 less than a Mac and yet faster, and I'll find you a Mac that is as fast as that PC for the same price or less.

Look at what I did earlier for the Dell that was quoted. If you must compare Macs to PCs, compare new machines whose every quality is backed by the manufacturer.
See below.
Even Dell can't guarantee the operating system will work on the system you install it on. Even Dell doesn't make a listing of devices that won't work with Windows XP, but there are plenty as well. With Apple, we know what works, what doesn't, how easy it is the configure, and if we don't the person at the Applecare phoneline can help us.
Yes, I never said this wasn't the case. It doesn't make Macs any cheaper, though, and the whole thing I'm getting at is that PCs have a better price/performance ratio. Not necessarily price/usability, or price/simplicity, but price/performance - this is what a lot (the majority?) of people look at.
Apple is going even as far as to custom build your system at their retail store. With a PC you need to be educated as a system engineer to get things working all the time. With a Mac you just need to be able to follow the directions on the screen.
This is extremely exaggerated and untrue. Most people get by just fine with Windows XP. If they didn't, the Mac would have a lot more than 3.48% market share.
The net cost of building a PC and making it run will always be higher than the net cost of plugging a Mac and running it.
Debatable.
What artist has the knowledge to build their own highly clocked dual Athlon?
Who says they have to build their own? There are plenty of lesser-known build-to-order and mom & pop computer companies that would be more than happy to build & assemble a reliable and working computer for you, who will include a multi-year warranty for free (unlike Apple) and multi-year free tech support (unlike Apple). The lesser-known, "beige box" companies, taken together, make up the largest segment of PC retailers. Let's put that 933MHz G4 you brought up earlier up against, say, a custom-configured Systemax computer for example. I'll bold the superior components in each.

The Mac:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
Gigabit Ethernet
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
1-year warranty,
------
Total: $3407

The Systemax:
Athlon XP 2100+ (which will beat a dual GHz Mac at non-AltiVec tasks)
1GB 266MHz DDR SDRAM
Dual 120GB ATA drives
Dual SuperDrives
GeForce4 Titanium
15" LCD monitor
10/100 Ethernet (or drop in a GigE card for <$100)
Sound Blaster Audigy
44 watt speakers w/ subwoofer
USRobotics 56K Modem
MS Intellimouse / Internet Keyboard
Windows XP Home / Works Suite
Headphones
3 year warranty, 3 years on site & lifetime phone support
------
Total: $2710

Now I want you to find me a Mac that performs just as well as the Systemax for the same price, like you said you'd do.
Clocked machines by the way have a chance of lasting a very short time should you not have the technical knowhow to keep it going.
This is plain false.
So your arguement about that Athlon is moot unless you can train the average artist to become a systems engineer knowledgeable in how to modify hardware to one's hearts content.
The Systemax comes from the factory ready to go out of the box, just like the Apple. No systems engineer degree required. Clickety click, you're on the Net, just like the Mac. Is XP inferior to OS X? Yes. It's not inferior to the extent you say it is, though - millions of people are perfectly happy with it.
And what artist is going to have the time to clock a machine to precisely the speed they want? What artist has a hardware technician at their beckoning call in case something goes wrong.
If something goes wrong, call Systemax, just as you'd call Apple.
I want something that works, is fast, and doesn't break down to the point it needs a technician it breaks down. For that there is Macintosh. For the rest of the people who can spend the money on hardware gurus there are PCs. But a hardware guru invariably costs more than machines. So the Macintosh is cheaper by far in the longrun.
I don't understand why you continue to flog a dead horse. Just because you can open up a PC to tinker with it doesn't mean you have to. If something goes wrong, you can call the company and have them pick it up and fix it for you, and it's just like calling Apple and having them do the same. I seriously think you read too much Apple sales literature. I like Macs too, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that they get their butts kicked by PCs performance-wise on a regular basis - why can't you be too?

Alex

Penguiner

Jul 14, 2002, 04:03 AM

Hi,

I'm a newbie to these forums.
Here's what I would like to say.

1°) ARE MAC'S TOO EXPENSIVE ?
Here's my answer. to compare prices, you should take items that can be compared. And if you consider the quality of components included into Apple's hardware, you should compare it to IBM, Compaq, Toshiba or HP. At least. And if you compare a Mac to those machines, then MAC's are more expensive, but the price difference you'll see isn't a real barrier on buying a Mac.

2°) HAVE MACS BETTER PERFORMANCE THAN PC'S ?
Well, a lot has been written already on this forum and in this thread.
Some are telling that Macs are slower, some that they are faster.
I do not doubt that all of the contributers to this thread are computer freaks that will push their machines until the engine blows.
But to be honest, who really cares about that performance question ?

Who NEEDS to play Quake or RTCW in 120 fps, when 30 are enough to have fluid game ?
Who NEEDs to spell check a 1200 pages long document daily in less than 30 seconds ?
Who NEEDS to have a script of several Photoshop filters applied in seconds instead of minutes ?
Who NEEDS to get 3D rendering of a complex scene every day ?
Who NEEDS to have lightning fast video special FX's to be calculated in less than 4 hours ?

Those who really NEED to do this are skilled professionals who work for big companies. Those do not care if the computer costs 500 dollars less or more.
So, when you do not NEED that much performance, what's the point in arguing if the Pc's faster than a Mac. OK, my friend tells me he can RIP DVD's on is PC in less than 4 hours. It will take me more than an entire night to get the same result. I don't care. I have a Powermac G4/400 with 140 GB disk storage and 1,2 GB RAM. And I must tell that this machine is enough for almost all my needs : word processing, spreadsheets, some graphics work, some video editing, gaming (with WC3, Alice or diablo II). I don't do 3D modeling or rendering and I guess this is the only domain where my Mac would be too slow. But are we all 3D renderers ?

madamimadam

Jul 14, 2002, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Penguiner
Hi,

I'm a newbie to these forums.
Here's what I would like to say.

1°) ARE MAC'S TOO EXPENSIVE ?
Here's my answer. to compare prices, you should take items that can be compared. And if you consider the quality of components included into Apple's hardware, you should compare it to IBM, Compaq, Toshiba or HP. At least. And if you compare a Mac to those machines, then MAC's are more expensive, but the price difference you'll see isn't a real barrier on buying a Mac.

2°) HAVE MACS BETTER PERFORMANCE THAN PC'S ?
Well, a lot has been written already on this forum and in this thread.
Some are telling that Macs are slower, some that they are faster.
I do not doubt that all of the contributers to this thread are computer freaks that will push their machines until the engine blows.
But to be honest, who really cares about that performance question ?

Who NEEDS to play Quake or RTCW in 120 fps, when 30 are enough to have fluid game ?
Who NEEDs to spell check a 1200 pages long document daily in less than 30 seconds ?
Who NEEDS to have a script of several Photoshop filters applied in seconds instead of minutes ?
Who NEEDS to get 3D rendering of a complex scene every day ?
Who NEEDS to have lightning fast video special FX's to be calculated in less than 4 hours ?

Those who really NEED to do this are skilled professionals who work for big companies. Those do not care if the computer costs 500 dollars less or more.
So, when you do not NEED that much performance, what's the point in arguing if the Pc's faster than a Mac. OK, my friend tells me he can RIP DVD's on is PC in less than 4 hours. It will take me more than an entire night to get the same result. I don't care. I have a Powermac G4/400 with 140 GB disk storage and 1,2 GB RAM. And I must tell that this machine is enough for almost all my needs : word processing, spreadsheets, some graphics work, some video editing, gaming (with WC3, Alice or diablo II). I don't do 3D modeling or rendering and I guess this is the only domain where my Mac would be too slow. But are we all 3D renderers ?

BRAVO to the newbie... I like your style. As an added point to your Quake comment, the human eye can only see 12 fps but it is important to have about 30 for things like when you hit a very 3D complex part of the game and that 30 is significantly hindered but, theorectically, we can not notice anything over 12.

tjwett

Jul 14, 2002, 05:00 AM

first off, i'm with alex_ant on this one. i like Macs better but i do know that they pretty much suck. i also liked to watch Perfect Strangers. that sucked too. there is no denying that they are seriously slower and anyone who claims otherwise is on glue or in denial. and believe it or not, there are people...

"Who NEEDS to play Quake or RTCW in 120 fps, when 30 are enough to have fluid game ?
Who NEEDs to spell check a 1200 pages long document daily in less than 30 seconds ?
Who NEEDS to have a script of several Photoshop filters applied in seconds instead of minutes ?
Who NEEDS to get 3D rendering of a complex scene every day ?
Who NEEDS to have lightning fast video special FX's to be calculated in less than 4 hours ?"

...and these are called "power users" and Apple has not catered to us in a very long time. all the fixed benchmarks in the world can not make our machines fast. i don't hate Apple. i just don't live in the fantasy that they are worth their price or even close to as fast as the rest of the computing world. as i've said before: Apple makes the claim of "Pentium Crushing Power" but the tests are always conducted running tasks specially designed for the Mac OS, the G4 and AltiVec. Macs are only fast in Appleland running Apple software, at the Apple headquarters, by Christina Applegate while she's eating a shiny macintosh apple. Out in the real world, where most apps are just ported across platforms, the Mac continues to get spanked on a daily basis and that's what counts. other processors are just plain fast and they don't require a patheticly biased benchmark to prove it. and more importantly, they don't require special coding to make them fast. Apple is not only slowing down it's users but the all the developers who waste their time coding for AltiVec, which is now a rarity and thus adding to the slowness of the Mac. i'm not here to bash Apple but atleast be honest with yourselves. these are slow, overpriced computers that could be running the best operating system ever, if only they could handle it.

mmmdreg

Jul 14, 2002, 07:10 AM

generally, the more you pay, the more you get and this is true up to a point with Macs...however, they are probably a tad overpriced for the general consumer looking for a good system..

gopher

Jul 14, 2002, 09:57 AM

The Mac:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
Gigabit Ethernet
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+
iApps
1-year warranty,

------
Total: $3407
------
The Systemax:
Athlon XP 2100+ (which will beat a dual GHz Mac at non-AltiVec tasks)
1GB 266MHz DDR SDRAM
Dual 120GB ATA drives
Dual SuperDrives
GeForce4 Titanium
15" LCD monitor
10/100 Ethernet (or drop in a GigE card for <$100)
Sound Blaster Audigy
44 watt speakers w/ subwoofer
USRobotics 56K Modem
MS Intellimouse / Internet Keyboard
Windows XP Home / Works Suite
Headphones
3 year warranty, 3 years on site & lifetime phone support
------
Total: $2710

[/B]
Alex I already told you you could find the same machine at Smalldog for $1200 less. Why are you using yesterday's Mac prices?
http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

"PowerMac G4/933 256/60/Superdrive/GeForce4 Dual w/ 256mb RAM upgrade ($400 mail in rebate with monitor purchase from Apple until 8/12/02)

* Condition: new, never used, 1 year warranty
* Part Number: 2/APPM8666
* Platform: Mac
* Price: 2299.00
* Product Status: Available "

OK so it is 60 GB, but you can sure find another 20 GB Firewire for less than $100. Display normally costs $500, rebate brings that to $100.
Mac still costs $160 less once you factor in 256 MB of RAM.

jefhatfield

Jul 14, 2002, 10:32 AM

i pick up every mac and pc magazine i see on the rack, and from what i see, the pc is the faster computer for the power users and gamers

but most of us are not into that type of power

pentium 4 and athlon are going into .09 micron processing which will make those chips able to last longer than a transmeta on a portable and also be able to go to 4 ghz in 2004...3 ghz by this december on p4 is a possibility

i can't see using that type of speed

some analysts say that wintel will easily support 4 GB of ram and in some multiprocessor models, support a terabyte of ram...again, why?

i am happy with g4 is and that is enough power for 99 percent of us mortals who clog away at the computer

our day in the sun at 2 ghz will come in less than a year i predict

jefhatfield

Jul 14, 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by gopher

http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

smalldog is great

btw, gopher, this is off topic...i read you bio

have you seen the movie, "map of the human heart?" it's about a cartographer and one the best five movies i have ever seen

alex_ant

Jul 14, 2002, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen

BRAVO to the newbie... I like your style. As an added point to your Quake comment, the human eye can only see 12 fps but it is important to have about 30 for things like when you hit a very 3D complex part of the game and that 30 is significantly hindered but, theorectically, we can not notice anything over 12.
I think the number is actually something like 60, but I get your drift anyway. :)

atomwork

Jul 14, 2002, 12:59 PM

Hi guys,

I like to add something what might help to see it form a different point of view. Its now only about power and speed, this discussion. If feel that there are quite some more things relevant to the price tag. I think some were already pointed out before.But i just didn't have the time to read almost 99 posts.

There is just no company like apple out there that builds everything for their consumers. Yes we can compare IBM, Toshiba, Dell etc... So what do they do? Build the hardware and thats it! But on every machine runs that weird windows. Now i can ask, why don't some companies start to build their own destop software but i guess they would be pretty quick out of business if the system won't run other PC apps.

So it is a good thing to have a computer without windows and still so much to get for it. Everytime i have clients here or friends pass by they are amazed about that kind of system. OS X. I think its really great. My G4 flys on it. The looks and the feel and everything that comes with it is great. Even the Microsoft applications look better then on the PC, so they said. I don't need to mention the 22" cinema display that blows them.

So speaking about all of this, I just cannot imagine why people still complain about the price tag that comes with all that great equipment. OK i saw that the prices in europe are slightly different but still not really far off.

Yesterday I saw the new Gateway commercial. OK, tying to be fancy stylish but somehow the company still didn't got some great designers for their money. As I was looking at it closely i saw that it was in my point of view only generic PC trash. So, let those people have it for 700 bucks.

--
Don't spank me now:)))
---
Cheers,

Wry Cooter

Jul 14, 2002, 01:01 PM

I think its important that Apple keep some computer of theirs priced around the 600 dollar range simply because the PC manufacturers are hammering the airwaves with such ads. I know apple does not want to enter a commodities market, which is what the PC side has become, but they need to keep this market in mind. Price is the most compelling reason that many buyers do NOT buy mac.

alex_ant

Jul 14, 2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by gopher

Alex I already told you you could find the same machine at Smalldog for $1200 less. Why are you using yesterday's Mac prices?
Those are actually today's Apple Store prices... my mistake.
http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

"PowerMac G4/933 256/60/Superdrive/GeForce4 Dual w/ 256mb RAM upgrade ($400 mail in rebate with monitor purchase from Apple until 8/12/02)

* Condition: new, never used, 1 year warranty
* Part Number: 2/APPM8666
* Platform: Mac
* Price: 2299.00
* Product Status: Available "

OK so it is 60 GB, but you can sure find another 20 GB Firewire for less than $100. Display normally costs $500, rebate brings that to $100.
Mac still costs $160 less once you factor in 256 MB of RAM.
Sigh... so my target price then is $2399 (including monitor) - $500 = $1899 now, eh?

Athlon 2000+ (which will come close to a dual GHz Mac at non-AltiVec tasks, if it doesn't beat it)
256MB 266MHz DDR SDRAM
60GB ATA drive
SuperDrive
GeForce4 Titanium
15" LCD monitor
10/100 Ethernet (or drop in a GigE card for <$100)
Speakers
56K modem
Keyboard/mouse
Windows XP Home
Office XP Small Business
Warranty equivalent to the Mac's
----
$1729. $670 cheaper than the Mac. You can nitpick over all the components and whatnot - swapping most of them and replacing them with something else before ordering is trivial. I'm only trying to give an example of how it is possible to buy a quality PC much faster than a similarly priced Mac from a reputable manufacturer for less money than that Mac, and I think I have, unless you're going to lead me to some kind of grey market Mac chop shop or something.

So, yes, you must now show me a $1729 Mac that will meet or beat this Athlon in performance, like you said you would.

Alex

alex_ant

Jul 14, 2002, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I think its important that Apple keep some computer of theirs priced around the 600 dollar range simply because the PC manufacturers are hammering the airwaves with such ads. I know apple does not want to enter a commodities market, which is what the PC side has become, but they need to keep this market in mind. Price is the most compelling reason that many buyers do NOT buy mac.
I agree. They ought to stick a Sahara G3 into the old iMac and lower it to around $600, with maybe a slight redesign. (The low end model is $650 or something in the education store, and they have to be making a killer profit even off that.)

alex_ant

Jul 14, 2002, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by atomwork
So it is a good thing to have a computer without windows and still so much to get for it. Everytime i have clients here or friends pass by they are amazed about that kind of system. OS X. I think its really great. My G4 flys on it. The looks and the feel and everything that comes with it is great. Even the Microsoft applications look better then on the PC, so they said. I don't need to mention the 22" cinema display that blows them.

So speaking about all of this, I just cannot imagine why people still complain about the price tag that comes with all that great equipment. OK i saw that the prices in europe are slightly different but still not really far off.

Yesterday I saw the new Gateway commercial. OK, tying to be fancy stylish but somehow the company still didn't got some great designers for their money. As I was looking at it closely i saw that it was in my point of view only generic PC trash. So, let those people have it for 700 bucks.
Yup, when you pay that extra for the Mac, it's not speed you're getting - it's an excellent OS, great software, great hardware design (even if it's yesterday's great hardware design :)), ease of use, trouble-free hardware and software interoperability, and so on. This is what I think justifies the extra cost - not any sort of speed advantage. I think Macs are a good value even if they are generally priced higher than PCs. That's why I bought one and love using it, even if it is slow...

Alex

DidotCicero

Jul 14, 2002, 01:56 PM

I think Macs are expensive, although there's a lot value for money.

Call me crazy, but I bought my Mac secondhand 4 years ago from a design company. They replaced it with a new machine
I was a graphic design student and couldn't afford a new mac.
So I bought this PowerComputing PowerBase 240. As said earlier in this forum, macs keep their value a lot longer. It was made in 1997 and is still a pleasure to work with.
I've recently given it a harttransplant, now it has a PowerLogix 400 mHz G3 processor, along with a 40 Gb HDD and 128 Mb RAM. I felt the machine got a bit slow compared with my G4 450 mHz DoubleProcessor w. 1,5 Gb RAM at work.
Even with these (and other) upgrades I'm still way off the price of a new Mac. This way I saved money to buy all of my software. There's no single illegal copy of software (yes, including fonts) on my machine. I think that's important too! [How many of you Consumer Macusers with your brandnew machines can say that too?]
No I can't run MacOSX. I really don't care. I will buy me an secondhand iBook if I get really stuck (I can imagine that iTools/.Mac might be only accessed through MacOSX in the near future), but for now I'll keep my PowerBase thank you very much.
Eventually it is not the machine that matters, it's what you do with it!
(as long as it is a Mac, ofcourse)
For me a Mac isn't a status symbol, it's my collegue. Together, we get the job done.

gopher

Jul 14, 2002, 08:48 PM

You failed to mention the link you found that at...I did not. Face it...I back up my statements. You do not. Who do you think you are kidding? Someone unknown company? As I said before most people don't know how to build their own PCs and don't want to have the bother. And you can get a refurbished G4/933 with superdrive, Titanium GPU, for $1799. http://www.smalldog.com/product/41169

Not bad. If you want to find elcheapo you can get elcheapo Mac as well. Just need to know where to shop.

Originally posted by alex_ant

Those are actually today's Apple Store prices... my mistake.

Sigh... so my target price then is $2399 (including monitor) - $500 = $1899 now, eh?

Athlon 2000+ (which will come close to a dual GHz Mac at non-AltiVec tasks, if it doesn't beat it)
256MB 266MHz DDR SDRAM
60GB ATA drive
SuperDrive
GeForce4 Titanium
15" LCD monitor
10/100 Ethernet (or drop in a GigE card for <$100)
Speakers
56K modem
Keyboard/mouse
Windows XP Home
Office XP Small Business
Warranty equivalent to the Mac's
----
$1729. $670 cheaper than the Mac. You can nitpick over all the components and whatnot - swapping most of them and replacing them with something else before ordering is trivial. I'm only trying to give an example of how it is possible to buy a quality PC much faster than a similarly priced Mac from a reputable manufacturer for less money than that Mac, and I think I have, unless you're going to lead me to some kind of grey market Mac chop shop or something.

So, yes, you must now show me a $1729 Mac that will meet or beat this Athlon in performance, like you said you would.

Alex [/B]

alex_ant

Jul 15, 2002, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by gopher
You failed to mention the link you found that at...I did not. Face it...I back up my statements. You do not. Who do you think you are kidding? Someone unknown company?
www.globalcomputer.com (http://www.globalcomputer.com)

With some exceptions, a PC is a PC is a PC. It's all the same Asian components, from all the same sources, assembled in virtually identical factories. Don't delude yourself into thinking a small manufacturer's products are any less reliable or built with any less quality than Dell's. The small manufacturers are the ones who will fight tooth-and-nail to bring you a better price than anyone because all they have to rely on is word of mouth from happy customers - not massive "Dude, Yer Gettin' a..." advertising budgets. If this company is unknown to you (there are hundreds more just like it out there), that's your problem, as I've already established that it is perfectly capable of delivering a Mac-crushing PC at a sub-Mac price, with Mac-like quality - that's right, name-brand components built in the same Taiwanese ISO9001 factories as Macs are.
As I said before most people don't know how to build their own PCs and don't want to have the bother.
I agree, and as I said before, what is there to build here? The Systemax comes fully assembled, ready to run out of the box, to no less extent than an Apple. You never, ever, have to even SEE the inside of the machine.
And you can get a refurbished G4/933 with superdrive, Titanium GPU, for $1799. http://www.smalldog.com/product/41169

Wooptie-doo - whatever Mac you can find, I can find you a substantially cheaper PC with the same or more features to murder it performance-wise. You still haven't found me a $1729 Mac faster than the Athlon I brought up in my last post. No, the 933MHz Power Mac doesn't even come close. I'm STILL waiting. Why not just stop deluding yourself, give up, and concede that PCs generally offer better price/performance? Again, not necessarily price/usability, or price/ease-of-use, but price/performance.

Alex