New PowerMacs Released

[eirik]

Originally posted by locovaca


That's because L3 cache costs a lot of $$$, and is usually found on high end workstation/server chips. A majority of the X86 community is the "cheap boxes" community, and adding L3 cache would make it much more expensive and would provide little benefit for their needs. L3 cache is better suited to databases and other software where you have large datasets you need quick access to. Memory that fast is expensive, especially in the quantities that Apple is using (1-2 megs).

The Intel Xeon MP chip has 512k - 1 meg of L3 cache.

I'm confused. If a large data set or database is measured in tens, hundreds, thousands of megabytes, then I should think that L3 cache would only help for frequently requested fields/records, provided the software knows to identify and cache frequently queried data. For example, if a database were a gigabyte in size, there would there only be a benefit from 2MB of L3 cache if a majority of the queries were for only about 2% of the data? Is that common? I don't get it; please help.

[jadam]

Originally posted by rugby
I can show proof that my G4/400 is nearly twice as fast as a Dell P4/1.7ghz. Run rc5 on both. Talk about pathetic, how can this poor G4/400 beat the pants off of a P4/1.7?

heh :D

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


no im not talking apple's benchmarks if i was id say the powermac is 90% faster than a 2.5intel. benchmarks are available all over the web from many independant sources. i quoted some above. every source i have found indicates someting similiar. the old powermacs were down about 20% from the top of the line amd. and about even with a 2ghz intel (i havent seen benchmarks against a faster intel).

And were these single processor Macs against single processor x86 machines?

[locovaca]

Originally posted by eirik


I'm confused. If a large data set or database is measured in tens, hundreds, thousands of megabytes, then I should think that L3 cache would only help for frequently requested fields/records, provided the software knows to identify and cache frequently queried data. For example, if a database were a gigabyte in size, there would there only be a benefit from 2MB of L3 cache if a majority of the queries were for only about 2% of the data? Is that common? I don't get it; please help.

Many databases, such as those behind websites, access the same data on a very frequent basis (say, for the front page). This is the data that eventually stays in the cache because it's accessed so frequently. In other databases settings, a particular record that is frequently searched for may stay in cache, and thus less clock cycles are spent on finding the same set of data.

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
ist faster on paper but you drop it into the real world and usb2 seriously lags behind fw.

Huh? I do not follow, firewire is better because of how it writes and reads, but claiming thats anything like the G4 vs P4 vs AMD is ludicrous.

[ddtlm]

AmbitiousLemon:

"sorry im not impressed. basically all you said is that despite an education (from where i wonder) that you still will ignore all tests of real world performance i favor of a benchmark that in no way translates to the speed of the processor."

Whew, talk about blinders!

I didn't say I would ignore other benchmarks at all, I said that SPEC means more to me than Photoshop by Apple and than RC5. Woo, look, 3 whole tests! Amusing that you tried to interpret this as all tests in the world.

Your claim that SPEC does not reflect in any way the speed of the processor is absoluty rediculous. What do you think they are benchmarking anyway? How fast monkeys can be trained to say the processor's name? Perhaps they just make up those numbers to make Apple look bad?

"furthermore you ignore everything regarding the differences in the archetecture of the chip all to stare blindly at a single benchmark that says something different from every single other benchmark performed on these machines"

Oh great. Tell you what, my applications don't run on buzzwords or marketing speak. Nor do they run on an irrational desire to have Apple defeat the vast Forces of Evil or whatever x86 is in your view. I bring up SPEC because it is industry standard. IBM, Sun, Intel, AMD, SGI, Compaq, HP... you'll find them all there. Note that IBM even runs their Power4 through SPEC and tells everyone about it. Guess what? When a G4 runs the tests (a wide variety of algorithms, int and float) it is shown to be on par with a Pentium III. Thats it. This isn't Photoshop, this isn't RC5, this is industry standard. This is the real world, not Apple cute backyard playset where you find Apple-friendly apps. It's better than these unnamed bechmarks that you seem to believe show the G4 to be close to as fast as top of the line P4's.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by ddtlm

Oh great. Tell you what, my applications don't run on buzzwords or marketing speak. Nor do they run on an irrational desire to have Apple defeat the vast Forces of Evil or whatever x86 is in your view. I bring up SPEC because it is industry standard. IBM, Sun, Intel, AMD, SGI, Compaq, HP... you'll find them all there. Note that IBM even runs their Power4 through SPEC and tells everyone about it. Guess what? When a G4 runs the tests (a wide variety of algorithms, int and float) it is shown to be on par with a Pentium III. Thats it. This isn't Photoshop, this isn't RC5, this is industry standard. This is the real world, not Apple cute backyard playset where you find Apple-friendly apps. It's better than these unnamed bechmarks that you seem to believe show the G4 to be close to as fast as top of the line P4's.

AMEN!!!! :D :D :D

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by kenohki


What benchmarks are you talking about here? Steve Jobs' Photoshop bakeoff. Marketing that is. Run a different set of filters that are SSE2 enabled and the P4 will come out ahead.


Intel gave Adobe assembly code for SSE2, so the filters ARE optimized for the P4. Do some research next time.

On the other hand, only two or three filters are optimized for AltiVec (lighting effects is one), so it's a pretty even match.

One other point is that these Photoshop tests are not just running some filters, as PC users seem to love to say. There is a lot of transforming and rendering involved. The reason Apple uses Photoshop is that both the Windows and Mac OS versions are based on the same code.

I use Photoshop for a living on both G4s and P4/Win2k boxes, and I can attest it's faster on Macs.

On the other hand, AfterEffects is a dog on OS X, and runs much faster on Windows, so this is a case where Adobe did not optimize their code for OS X.


I'd love to see an independent standard benchmark like SPEC (or TPC-C since I'm a DBA). Granted, SPEC isn't always the best indicator of system performance but it's pretty much the best independent benchmark out there for processor performance. And the G4 doesn't end up in a dead heat against a 2GHz P4 in SPECcpu.

The problem with the SPEC benchmarks is usually the compiler. The Mac version is poor quality. The problem is no benchmark is equal between two different platforms.
This is why Intel benchmarks are always better than another benchmark on the same CPU, because they have highly optimized compilers. Also it only tests the CPU, and not the whole system. In July 2000 NASA did some tests on the G4's, and felt they had better performance then Intel and Alpha CPUs.


This paper describes work conducted at NASA Langley Research Center during an evaluation of PowerMac G4 systems for FORTRAN-based scientific computing and computational fluid dynamics simulation. A PowerMac G4/500 was configured for dual booting into Mac OS and Linux operating systems. Various developer tools were used to compile and run test codes on the G4 for comparison benchmarking with platforms including Cray C-90, Compaq Alpha, Pentium III, and Silicon Graphics (SGI) systems. Following general benchmarking, more specific AltiVec testing was conducted on the G4 using FORTRAN and C, and approaches for implementing AltiVec in generic FORTRAN computations were developed.

Results indicate that the PowerMac G4 system has the potential to be an inexpensive high performance scientific computing platform. Much of that potential is currently unrealized, however, due to the limited amount of AltiVec support in FORTRAN. Without the parallel vector processing capabilities of AltiVec, the G4 places near the end of the pack in performance tests using standard FORTRAN scientific codes. In limited cases where AltiVec acceleration was available and tested under FORTRAN, the G4 showed a clear advantage with 4-7X greater performance and a 5-8X greater cost effectiveness than all other workstation systems evaluated. Examples presented in this report show that only minor re-coding would be necessary to implement AltiVec instructions if they were accessible to standard FORTRAN programming. Because of this, there appear to be many opportunities to advance scientific computing on the PowerMac G4 platform.


Benchmarks are only good if you spend your day running benchmarks, but most people do other things with their computers. ;)

[Ibjr]

Thank you jadam (posted above his msg)

[jadam]

OMFG Cyber**** IS RIGHT!! these are 7470s!!!! OMFG!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WHY?

well, there are no 867mhz 7455's only 867mhz 7451s and i doubt apple is using the 7451s again hehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehheheheh

from motorola.com

err i hope?

or maybe thats why the 867mhz system is so cheap... cuz there using 7451s.....

[ddtlm]

eirik:

The common principle behind caches is that data recently accessed is mostly likely (it's a big game of chance) to be accessed again in the near future. Although the database may be HUGE, critical parts such as indexes are used a lot and tend to be in the cache when they are needed even if all the main data is out in main RAM somewhere. Additionally, with large databases, there are at least two accesses: once to look up an index (could be many accesses), and once to get the data. Having half that cached can help a lot.

The algorithms that decide what stays in cache are actually amazingly simple (in theory), usually just an efficient version of "least recently used gets kicked out".

Of course it's not possible to search the entire cache for what was actually the oldest (most stale), so the have ways to guess and it does a pretty good job. The situation is actually more complex for set-associative caches (the most common type by far), but it at least starts out simple.

[Edit: Fixed spelling, wording.]

[kenohki]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


Intel gave Adobe assembly code for SSE2, so the filters ARE optimized for the P4. Do some research next time.

On the other hand, only two or three filters are optimized for AltiVec (lighting effects is one), so it's a pretty even match.


I know they're optimized. What I'm saying is that Apple excludes filters/operations that would heavily benefit from the SSE2 optimizations. And when the PC zealots run it, they stay away from ones with AltiVec optimizations.


The problem with the SPEC benchmarks is usually the compiler. The Mac version is poor quality. The problem is no benchmark is equal between two different platforms.
This is why Intel benchmarks are always better than another benchmark on the same CPU, because they have highly optimized compilers.

True, and I understand this. But SPEC is the industry standard and PowerPC ISA processors (POWER4) can scream on it. Everyone seems to participate except Apple, who sit's back and poo poo's the whole thing.

[cyberfunk]

Can I buy any PC 2700 memory to go w/ my new mac (www.pricewatch.com), or does it have to be special? Damn those Apple Memory prices are high.

[ddtlm]

DavidRavenMoon:

I won't call SPEC perfect, but I'd say it's not bad for a multi-platform test.

It is true that compilers are a big deal, however in the tests I am basing my opinion on (by c't I think) both the Pentium III and the G4 where using similar gcc compilers. The P3 scores 30%+ with Intel's compiler. So you see that I was already being nice to the G4. :)

[cyberfunk]

What do they mean when they say this:

—256MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 128-Mbit)
—512MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 256-Mbit)



what is the Mbit rating ? how do I make sure I buy the right kind of mem ?

[ddtlm]

cyberfunk:

Yes Apple uses standard memory. I'd recommend Crucial.com for it, thats what I did for my dual 800. Remember that before, some people with cheap RAM had it made unusable by an Apple firmware upgrade.

[Edit: I see Crucial does not have the new PM's listed in their memory selector, so if you want to play it safe with the compatibility gaurentee give them a week or two. The Xserve is listed.]

[cyberfunk]

Originally posted by ddtlm
cyberfunk:

Yes Apple uses standard memory. I'd recommend Crucial.com for it, thats what I did for my dual 800. Remember that before, some people with cheap RAM had it made unusable by an Apple firmware upgrade.

Right, thats what I'm worried about, but PC 2700 is already pretty expensive for 512 MB (111$)

I want to know what they mean 64 bits wide by 256 Mbits/128 Mbits

[jrbohorquezg]

Originally posted by davei


Check out the MJ-12 DDR from Alienware:

http://www.alienware.com/main/system_pages/mj12%20ddr.asp

Nearly the same price as the "Fastest" Powermac ($50 difference), but there's more memory (albeit technically slower), much better video, 5.1 sound, no Superdrive, no Firewire, slightly more HD space, no Gigabit ethernet.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I don't think the top end Powermac is all that bad for $3300, except on processor speed.

Well, the Alienware does include a free mousepad..... that's gotta be worht something, right?

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by eirik


I'm confused. If a large data set or database is measured in tens, hundreds, thousands of megabytes, then I should think that L3 cache would only help for frequently requested fields/records, provided the software knows to identify and cache frequently queried data. For example, if a database were a gigabyte in size, there would there only be a benefit from 2MB of L3 cache if a majority of the queries were for only about 2% of the data? Is that common? I don't get it; please help.

You are confusing this with main system memory. Only the CPU accesses the L3. The information requested are instructions being used by the CPU, not data used by an application. A database app will access main system memory and data on the hard drive. If you are using a program like Photoshop, and if you have enough RAM, it will load the entire image in RAM to speed things up. But even while Photoshop is accessing memory, your CPU is doing its own thing, both running Photoshop, and the rest of the system too.

So when Photoshop request an operation, say opening a file on your drive, the CPU is doing the work for Photoshop, and also any other programs or tasks running. If it thinks if might be called on to repeat a task (through branch prediction, etc.), it stores it in cache memory.
I'm over simplifying it, but that's the general idea.

[cyberfunk]

For instance, this is the info I get on Crucial 2700 ram:

DDR PC2700 • CL=2.5 • Unbuffered • Non-parity • 6ns • 2.5V • 64Meg x 64



64 Meg x 64 means what ? I dont see how the numbers 256Mbit and 64 Meg are related, to get from bits to bytes, one divides by eight, but 256/8 = 32 not 64.. so I'm confused...

[ddtlm]

cyberfunk:

Well I can tell you what the "megabit" is all about, but I can't tell you why Apple cares. The megabit rating tells you how big each chip on the RAM DIMM is, and since for example the 256MB DIMM is 128Mb (little b = bit), we know there has to be 16 chips of RAM on it. (Remember one byte = 8 bits, so 128Mb * 16 = 256MB.)

Why does Apple care? Beats me.

[iShater]

Did Apple drop the amount of RAM on the GeForce4MX from 64MB to 32MB when they moved it to the entry level machine? !:confused:

[Dr.Bimane]

Here is my $0.02...

I use both macs and pcs and honestly find the "speed difference" negligible.

But here is the interesting thing. PCs are up to 2.5 GHz while Macs are now around 1 GHz. So when these SPEC benchmarks periocially come out, a PC should be 150% (2.5X) faster than a mac on the various tasks but this is NEVER the case. At most, the mac loses by 20% or even comes out faster, depending on if the test uses Altivec.

I read those test results where TechTV or whomever says, "Macs are crushed by PCs" but when you look at the results, it is a mere 20% margin at most. When your clock speed is 2.5X, I think that you should be ashamed to be only 20% faster. It is obvious that intel has found a way to scale up their MHz without really increasing real-world speed.

But all this aside, will one be able to type a paper or report 3 times faster on a 3 GHz PC (when it becomes available) than on a 1 GHz PC? Oh, I bet you would be able to type up an e-mail and send it faster....give me a break.

Most people don't need or even use all the speed anyway.

[naumann]

I bought a PowerMac dual 1 gigz on August 2nd. Luckily they hadn't shipped it yet, so they let me switch my order to the NEW dual 1 gigz.

So I got the new one with the Nvidia Ti, and 120 gig drive (the old one was going to have an 80 gig drive w/ the Nvidia Ti) for $600 less than I was going to pay for the old version. The dual processors are now way too good to pass up.

Now, where to get 512 DDR ram at an excellent price? hmm. If you guys have any advice let me know.

[ddtlm]

cyberfunk:

In your "64 Meg x 64", I can tell you the second "64" stands for bits of width. Note that the ECC RAM is 72, i.e. it has an extra bit for parity on each byte (so it would have 9 or 18 chips to a DIMM rather than 8 or 16). I have to assume that the "64 Meg" refers to megabits, but honestly I am not sure and don't spend a lot of time looking at this stuff.

[ddtlm]

Dr.Bimane:

True, a 2.5ghz P4 is not 2.5 times the speed of a 1ghz G4. Actuall difference in speed depends on what you are doing. For many things Macs are close enough that it doesn't matter (10.2 should help that some too).

I think it's time for me to get to work!

[kenohki]

Originally posted by Dr.Bimane
Here is my $0.02...

I use both macs and pcs and honestly find the "speed difference" negligible.

But here is the interesting thing. PCs are up to 2.5 GHz while Macs are now around 1 GHz. So when these SPEC benchmarks periocially come out, a PC should be 150% (2.5X) faster than a mac on the various tasks but this is NEVER the case. At most, the mac loses by 20% or even comes out faster, depending on if the test uses Altivec.

I read those test results where TechTV or whomever says, "Macs are crushed by PCs" but when you look at the results, it is a mere 20% margin at most. When your clock speed is 2.5X, I think that you should be ashamed to be only 20% faster. It is obvious that intel has found a way to scale up their MHz without really increasing real-world speed.


Yeah, it's called NetBurst by Intel but really it's just stretching the pipeline out to more stages in order to allow high operating frequencies so they can sell more chips to people who don't understand processor architecture.

And this whole thing about 150% faster because the clock oscillates at 2.5GHz, that's the whole reason they can sell them.

[Dr.Bimane]

This would be an interesting test:

Take two computers by any PC company, say Dell.

Everything in both computers is identical except for the Intel chips: one is a P4 running at 2.5 GH and the other is a P4 running at 2.0 GHz. Will the faster chip do EVERYTHING 25% faster (as its clock speed would indicate)?

Does anyone know if this has been done?

I am willing to bet that it would not. I am sure it would be faster but only marginally so.....

[marcelo002]

Was anyone else waiting for Apple to increase the speed of the iMacs?
I thought they were going to do it during MacWorld, but after this price drop, It's almost certain that it won't happen anytime soon :mad: I just think that a 200 mHz difference between the low end PM and the high end iMac is way too big (not even counting that the PM is a dual proccesor)

PS. www.memorytogo.com has cheap memory prices last time i checked. www.lowendmac.com has good deals also.

[Dave K]

Does anyone know if this has been done?

Yes. With just about every generation of processor.

I am willing to bet that it would not.

You would be correct. Simply jacking the processor speed, while it will improve performance, won't improve it linearly. Most of the time, the processor is still waiting on the same set of other components which have been bottlenecking the system for years...

[Shrek]

I'm hoping that IBM brings even faster RAMBUS memory to the PowerPC platform! What do you think?

[ShaolinMiddleFinger]

I just saw the pics on Apple's site and it looks like they had a shotgun frenzy on the back. If it cools the processor that way to make it quiet...i'm all for it. Besides, I'll barely see the back anyway.

My overall opinion....i''ll buy myself the dual 1Ghz with 1Gb Ram 120Gb HD and 17 inch display by Sept. 30.

[Liske]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by naumann
[B]I bought a PowerMac dual 1 gigz on August 2nd. Luckily they hadn't shipped it yet, so they let me switch my order to the NEW dual 1 gigz.

So I got the new one with the Nvidia Ti, and 120 gig drive (the old one was going to have an 80 gig drive w/ the Nvidia Ti) for $600 less than I was going to pay for the old version. The dual processors are now way too good to pass up.


I did the same last night maybe they will let me have the new 1.25 since yesterday I paid for topline and today the 1.25 is topline. this is what I am hopiing for!

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by Dr.Bimane
Here is my $0.02...

I use both macs and pcs and honestly find the "speed difference" negligible.

But here is the interesting thing. PCs are up to 2.5 GHz while Macs are now around 1 GHz. So when these SPEC benchmarks periocially come out, a PC should be 150% (2.5X) faster than a mac on the various tasks but this is NEVER the case. At most, the mac loses by 20% or even comes out faster, depending on if the test uses Altivec.


Thanks for pointing this out. The SPEC tests never use AltiVec, and as the NASA paper I quoted pointed out, that makes a big difference.


I read those test results where TechTV or whomever says, "Macs are crushed by PCs" but when you look at the results, it is a mere 20% margin at most. When your clock speed is 2.5X, I think that you should be ashamed to be only 20% faster. It is obvious that intel has found a way to scale up their MHz without really increasing real-world speed.

Intel gets its high clock speeds by having a much longer pipeline. So even though the CPU is running faster, it's doing less per clock cycle in comparison to the G4. And if it makes an error, it has to wait for the instruction to flush from the long pipline. The G4 is doing something like 4 times as many instructions per clock cycle, and since it is a RISC processor, the instructions are shorter words as well. A typical x86 instruction is as long as 4 PPC instructions.

Also the Floating Point unit on the P4 also doubles as the Vector unit, so even though it can do double precision vector processing, it has a latency time involved due to switching modes. The MPC 7450 has 4 Altivec units, each handling 128-bits, as well as a double precision FP unit.


But all this aside, will one be able to type a paper or report 3 times faster on a 3 GHz PC (when it becomes available) than on a 1 GHz PC? Oh, I bet you would be able to type up an e-mail and send it faster....give me a break.

Well it will Blue Screen a bit faster ;)

Most people don't need or even use all the speed anyway.

I agree! The big bottle neck was the memory bus, but the Xinet (http://www.xinet.com) benchmarks show the XServe out performing P4 servers. If these G4's are really using the MPC7470 (MacOS Rumors say they are not) then all the more better!

The PPC is a better CPU, but we DO need much faster clock speeds.

[davei]

Originally posted by Dr.Bimane
This would be an interesting test:

Take two computers by any PC company, say Dell.

Everything in both computers is identical except for the Intel chips: one is a P4 running at 2.5 GH and the other is a P4 running at 2.0 GHz. Will the faster chip do EVERYTHING 25% faster (as its clock speed would indicate)?

Does anyone know if this has been done?

I am willing to bet that it would not. I am sure it would be faster but only marginally so.....

Yeah, check out all the PC benchmarking sites. www.tomshardware.com is a good start (massive ad content alert!) Check the CPU Guide section.

For the lazy, in one benchmark (Sysmark 2002) the 2.4GHz P4 with 100Mhz bus and 400Mhz memory scores 236, while the 2.0GHz version with same bus/memory scores 207, for a difference of 29 points, or a 14% increase, even though the Mhz has been upped by 20%.

[Edge100]

Originally posted by soilchmst
I have seen processor speeds soar, but my 366 ibook performs about the same as the 1. something pc's. The difference is, that while pressenting a technical paper in Orlando, my computer did just fine with the PowerPoint, and the PC before me crashed, and had to use a slide projector. ;)

Precisely!

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek
I'm hoping that IBM brings even faster RAMBUS memory to the PowerPC platform! What do you think?

Maybe, but I highly doubt Intel would let them. It's overrated anywayz, I've got in on my VC820 Intel MB and it's not THAT impressive. A 7200 rpm hard drive makes a MUCH bigger difference than 800 MHz RAM. The hard drive is the bottle neck in any computer, most everything else can run faster than it. Oh, well. Maybe if some rich guy bought four RAID cards, 12 1gig Compact Flash cards/w IDE enclosures, then maybe we'd see a difference. :p

[Edge100]

Originally posted by Ibjr


And yes using windows is a hellish nightmare, but until we see how these DDR macs perform a mac will not cut it for any professional use.

Now thats not fair. Ask all the music producers out there running ProTools or Logic on their DP Macs if their Macs are suitable.

Some things still cannot be done well on Windows. Audio systems are notoriously more stable on Macs than PCs.

And for god's sake, you dont even know how the new machines stack up yet. At first glance, the update doesnt look like much, but who knows?

But please dont make general statements like this. I run Logic and Cubase on my iMac 600 and I can produce 24-track masters with tons of plug ins and virtual instruments. And this G3 is definitely not a "pro machine".

[Shrek]

Originally posted by edvniow


Maybe, but I highly doubt Intel would let them.

Are you saying that Intel owns RDRAM technology?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[soosy]

Originally posted by ShaolinMiddleFinger
I just saw the pics on Apple's site and it looks like they had a shotgun frenzy on the back. If it cools the processor that way to make it quiet...i'm all for it. Besides, I'll barely see the back anyway.

My overall opinion....i''ll buy myself the dual 1Ghz with 1Gb Ram 120Gb HD and 17 inch display by Sept. 30.

I just read on macminute that it has NO FAN! wow. It should be nice and quiet... now the major vents in the front make more sense.

[trodel_post]

Does anyone know any detailed RAM specs for the new machines? When buying RAM, aren't you technically supposed to match things like cas latency across all DIMMs?

I called Apple to ask about it, and even after talking to a "product specialist" the drooly on the phone couldn't tell me anything.

I notice that Crucial's PC2700 DIMMs all seem to be CL=2.5, but I've seeb some mfrs offering CL=2.0. Anyone know what's in these bad boys?

I ordered a dual 1GHz this morning - can't wait to get my hands on it!

[soosy]

Originally posted by soosy


I just read on macminute that it has NO FAN! wow. It should be nice and quiet... now the major vents in the front make more sense.

maybe macminute is wrong. The QTVR certainly seems to show a fan.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek


Are you saying that Intel owns RDRAM technology?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I don't think they own them, they just have a VERY close partnership. Ever notice any RDRAM on any AMD MB? I don't think so...

[jadam]

err ever seen RDRAM tech on a N64 or PS2????

i think you HAVE.

[Sun Baked]

Well, well ...

Even though the FSB is still the same old bus, the benefits of DDR memory and the DMA scheme will still speed up a lot of operations which benefit from the increased bus speeds.

Everyone expected the XServe architecture to appear on the desktop, looks like you got it. But I saw way too many complaints about it -- too bad.

This system architecture is a lot like the Yikes machine, a small step on the way towards the next bus evolution. It's a little hard to expect Apple to lead with the introduction of a RIO or Hyptertransport system today, when Apple has show repeatedly that they lag the market in PC adoption.

Sure Apple has adopted some PC standards far ahead of the curve, but it should be expected that Apple will wait on the bus awhile to get an idea where the market is heading.

[DharvaBinky]

:)

Make no mistake, I have both a g4 and a PC. And I use them, regardless of speed, for different things. The Mac is for "work" (flash, photoshop, fireworks, after effects, and FCPro), the PC is for play and coding (wolfenstein, homeworld, VisualStudio.NET). The MacOS lets you work, Windows wants to "help" so much that working is impossible. But... Here's a breakdown for the "expensive PC" yakkers.

The Mac
Power Mac G4 Dual 867MHz w/133MHz system bus
• 512MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• 80GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
• Optical 2 - None
• NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual-display w/32MB DDR
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English

straight from the apple website: cost $1870

The PC
AMD Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz actual on 266MHz FSB)
MSI motherboard w/ onboard hardware RAID, usb2
512Mb PC2700 (333MHz) RAM
80Gb 7200rpm ATA100 HD
Nvidia GeForce4MX-420 (64Mb)
16x DVD-rom
32x12x40 CD-RW
CreativeLabs Audigy 5.1 w/ IEEE1394 (for 400Mbs firewire)
Kinda nice speakers (4 speakers w/ subwoofer 5.1 from Altec)
Floppy
10/100 Nic (didn't have option for Gigabit, so add $80)
keyboard&optical mouse
!!3 year warranty!!
winXP Pro

Straight From CyberPowerInc: cost: $1120

caveats: they didn't have combo drives on CyberPower, but 2 drives are better anyway. Didn't have gigabit NICs, but throw in another $80 for GbCU and you come to about $1200.

So... I have nothing to say about comparative performance. NOTHING. They would both keep up with me and my workflow just fine. The question is, is MacOS X and 2 years off the warranty worth $700?

Not at this time, no. I'll stick with my ancient G4-500AGP and my Athlon 1800+.

Dharvabinky loves both.

[vniow]

err ever seen RDRAM tech on a N64 or PS2????


I wouldn't know, I'm not much of a gamer, but I still find it interesting that Intel's closest rival, AMD, has never seen a MB w\RDRAM.

[LethalWolfe]

...by helping to negate the cost to hea yer home in the winter (assuming you are in a cold climate). :D

My home office (converted bedroom) is probably 10'x12' (something like that) and after running my DP 1gig for a 3-4hrs the room is easily 3 degrees warmer than the rest of the house (this is with the door open, and the monitors asleep).


Lethal

[Joshlew]

Whats that? The new PowerMacs are exactly the same as the spy shots?

:eek:

I think groove buster needs to apologise.....!:D

[nero007]

Originally posted by MacArtist
Here is a similarly specced DIY Athlon MP system :

2x$122-- Athlon MP 1600
$167-- Tyan S2460 Dual Athlon MP/ATX mboard
$111-- PC2700 DDR 512MB
$149-- ATI Radeon 9000 pro
$128-- Sound Blaster Live Platinum 5.1
$60-- Belkin 1394 firewire controller
$50-- D Link Gb Ethernet
$250-- Pioneer DVD-R drive
$113-- case
$20-- keyboard
$20-- mouse
$299-- Windows XP Pro
$84-- EIDE 80.0GB
_________________
$1695

There are some other parts that are required to build this system from nothing so the price is approximate. prices pulled off of pricewatch (http://www.pricewatch.com)


The Prices on the new PowerMacs aren't that outragious. After all, they are workstations, not your run-of-the-mill consumer PC. And I'd like you to price of a brand name Athlon MP or Intel Xeon workstation. The price will be very close.

Like another poster stated earlier, if you think the systems are too expensive, your not Apple's target market, and you don't have to buy one.

And those of you who are saying "I'm waiting till MWSF" I wouldn't get your hopes up. With a release this late in the year I'd be surprised to see a blow your socks off update until at least MWNY.

I'm assuming those prices aren't all pulled from the same site. In which case you'll have to pay seperate shipping for each item which will jack your price. I tried building a PC through Pricewatch and the trick is finding a site that has the best overall prices. Which I'm assuming, is not what you have listed there.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Dr.Bimane:

True, a 2.5ghz P4 is not 2.5 times the speed of a 1ghz G4. Actuall difference in speed depends on what you are doing. For many things Macs are close enough that it doesn't matter (10.2 should help that some too).

I think it's time for me to get to work!

lovely to see you finally came to your senses. i just love when someone does a 180° change and acts like nothing has happened. :)

SPEC blindness only temporary? or did all the posts from various people explaining how horribly wrong you were just convince you that you were wrong. or maybe you actually did some research and found that in every benchmark besides spec the powermacs are holding their own against the x86 processors. whatever made you change your tune its appreciated.

many of us who are aware of all of the benchmarks get tired of trying to educate ignorant newbies such as yourself.

bottom line is the g4 does very well. these new powermacs represent a very significant update. the cpu itself may not be that impressive, but the rest of machine isnt anything to scoff at. i honestly wouldnt be surprised if these machines give enough of a performance boost to close the gap between the powermacs and wintels.

[Hemingray]

Oh, fantastic... has anyone else noticed that we can no longer order a ZIP drive for the second bay?! That ticks me off. I've never needed a second optical drive, I'm in graphic design and we swap zips as much as CDs! That's ridiculous.

Apple has made some of the hardware advancement's we've been waiting for for years now, but a lot of the other stuff seems so half-baked. No new FireWire, no new USB, no built-in Bluetooth, no new displays, no new keyboards or mice, no front firewire or usb ports, no DDR FSB.

If these G4's are truly for the "prosumer", don't you think we'd rather have front, quick access to a hot-pluggable firewire disk as opposed to a front headphone minijack??

C'mon Apple, we've seen better from you, and consequently we've come to expect better from you. The new G4s are impressive, no doubt, but it's the little things that bring it down IMO...

Oh well, I'm not even remotely close to buying a new PowerMac, so I'll just keep waiting patiently for my G5... :rolleyes: ;) :p

[nero007]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. DUAL PROC MACHINES WILL ABSOLUTELY FLY IN X.2.

I have a DUAL 450 and I'm loving the performance in X.2. So I can only imagine how fast these machines will be in Jaguar.

[AmbitiousLemon]

hemingray i think you are being seriously unreasonable.

No new FireWire, no new USB, no built-in Bluetooth, no new displays, no new keyboards or mice, no front firewire or usb ports, no DDR FSB.

if this is your list of complaints i think you need to join the rest of us in the real world. no new firewire? come on. sure it would be nice, but it will come when its ready. dont blame them for not using future hardware. no new usb? who cares. sure i need usb2.0 so my mouse and keyboard and be faster. usb2 is a joke, with on board fw there is no need for usb2. no built-in bluetooth. seems pretty minor to me. no new displays or mice? you are joking right? apple's displays are awesome. and you wanted a new mouse? perhaps a different color. come on what a joke. no front fw and usb ports? ok some peope might find this useful, but for most people it would just be ugly and get in the way. no ddr fsb? not sure what you mean by that and i suspect neither do you. apple upped the speed of the fsb. it fully supports ddr.

did you even look at the specs on the new powermacs? there are many changes that will likley be copied by pc manufacturers. this hardware is inovative and if you cant see that from reading the specs then use one and get back to me with you bitching. this is a very good release.

[ddtlm]

AmbitiousLemon:

I haven't done any changing. The G4 still gets rocked in SPEC, and SPEC still matters more than Photoshop or RC5. Look again at my statement that apparently you think was an agreement with your position: I say "for many things" not MOST. I do not say what "many" is, most importantly I do not state how important these "many things" are. "Many" could be 100 tasks out of 1000000 possible tasks. Mr Lemon, you need to stop twisting everything to your liking. Take off the rose-colored glasses.

Anyway, as a general comment:

I am happy to see that although in one place Apple claims the L3 is "up to 500mhz", the L3 on the 1.25 is in fact 625mhz. I was pretty worried about them changing the multiplier to 1/5 from 1/4 (both pre-DDR), which I might add didn't seem possible based on Moto's PPC7455 spec document. But anyway, my mind is eased now. Whew. BTW: this is DDR SRAM (not DDR SDRAM), and much much faster than a direct 625mhz vs 166mhz comparision would lead one to believe. Much like a G4 clock cycle is worth more than a P4 clock cycle, SRAM is better than SDRAM at the same clock (because of latency).

[Shrek]

Originally posted by edvniow
I don't think they own them, they just have a VERY close partnership. Ever notice any RDRAM on any AMD MB? I don't think so...

Time for another round of antitrust litigation against Intel! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[GPTurismo]

Tests mean nothing real world equals everything and I am happy with my dual 800 at home and my g3 400 here at work.

*insert common computer forum flame here*

[vniow]

Yeeeesssss, BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Even though I've got an Intel in my system right now, I'll be damned if my next upgrade is to them (except if I get a Sony MX, drool...)

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ddtlm
AmbitiousLemon:

I haven't done any changing. The G4 still gets rocked in SPEC, and SPEC still matters more than Photoshop or RC5. Look again at my statement that apparently you think was an agreement with your position: I say "for many things" not MOST. I do not say what "many" is, most importantly I do not state how important these "many things" are. "Many" could be 100 tasks out of 1000000 possible tasks. Mr Lemon, you need to stop twisting everything to your liking. Take off the rose-colored glasses.

:) you are right once again. SPEC benchmarks mean much more than how fast the machine performs doing things that you do in real life. i mean who cares if a g4 is faster than a pc at tasks i do everyday and use to make a living. i want to know how it can perform mindless calculations that do not measure the speed of the machine as a whole and does not measure how fast it can work with real world data. [sarcasm]

ddtlm i have a hard time believing you know much of anything about computers since you continue to ignore all benchmarks other than SPEC. Either that or you are on the intel payroll.

No one here is looking at anything through rose colored glasses. We look at things realistically and actually research before we come on the boards and post the ignorant drivel you are passing off as an opinion. When it comes right down to it you are simply wrong. The g4 does get beat in SPEC (by a lot!), however when run through other benchmarks including real world benchmarks the g4 is not lagging at all. It even wins in many benchmarks. Overall it still is behind, but as nearly everyone who owns a newer powermac and a x86 machine will tell you the speed difference is negligable.

But of course we all know this mean nothing. All benchmarks (including real world performance) mean nothing to the all holy SPEC benchmark! ill get down on my hands and knees now and pray to the glory of one useless benchmark.[sarcasm again]

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by Hemingray
no DDR FSB.

Someone posted this on Slash Dot

These machines do have DDR memory and a DDR system bus but the G4's themselves are running at 133 or 167MHz (depending upon model). The system controller and memory are running full tilt though (266 or 333 depending).

And of course they have a DDR BSB too. :)

[ddtlm]

AmbitiousLemon:

The time has come for you to name some benchmarks and tell me why they are more meaningful than SPEC, and to provide links showing my how Macs are outperforming PC's.

I've already listed RC5 and Photoshop as cooked in Apple's kitchen. How about you name some of these other tests that you seem to think are so vast?

I state that SPEC is a well-known cross-platform many-algorithm, floating point and integer test that shows with roughly equal versions of gcc as the compiler, a G4 gets beat by a P3 at the same clock speed. It would be nice to compare a P3 with Intels compiler to one equally fast for Apple or G4's, but no such thing exists. That's the real world.

The real world involves programmers like me using the compilers and tools at hand to make programs for a commerical market. If you are lucky we bother to port it to the Mac. If you are even more lucky, we hand-code AltiVec where Intel's compilers would do SSE or SSE2 for us.

I repeat: bring out your benchmarks and lets have a look at them.

"but as nearly everyone who owns a newer powermac and a x86 machine will tell you the speed difference is negligable"

Ha ha ha! Rose glasses! Some will claim this, but hey I own both and lemme tell ya, I do not agree.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
if this is your list of complaints i think you need to join the rest of us in the real world. no new firewire? come on. sure it would be nice, but it will come when its ready. dont blame them for not using future hardware. no new usb? who cares. sure i need usb2.0 so my mouse and keyboard and be faster. usb2 is a joke, with on board fw there is no need for usb2. no built-in bluetooth. seems pretty minor to me. no new displays or mice? you are joking right? apple's displays are awesome. and you wanted a new mouse? perhaps a different color. come on what a joke. no front fw and usb ports? ok some peope might find this useful, but for most people it would just be ugly and get in the way. no ddr fsb? not sure what you mean by that and i suspect neither do you. apple upped the speed of the fsb. it fully supports ddr.

did you even look at the specs on the new powermacs? there are many changes that will likley be copied by pc manufacturers. this hardware is inovative and if you cant see that from reading the specs then use one and get back to me with you bitching. this is a very good release.

FireWire: Check out how long the original FireWire's been around. They COULD have v2 out by now if they really tried.

USB 2.0: It is not a joke. Although we're less likely to see it than FW2, IF they implemented FW2 then they could add USB 2.0 to keep us up to snuff with the newest USB hardware.

Bluetooth: They've been touting bluetooth now for the better part of the year, but where is it? In a little USB pluggable adapter. We'll probably see this in Jan., but it would have been nice if they had integrated it into these new PowerMacs while they were revising it in the first place.

Displays: No, I'm not joking. I'm quite serious. How long have we had the gap between 17" and 22"? I've been waiting for a 19" LCD for about two years now. They could do it, and they SHOULD do it. And they should have done it while they released the new PowerMacs.

Mice and Keyboards: I don't care about wireless, if you're wondering. I'm talking about little stuff, like bringing back the power key, give the mouse more than one button or a scroll wheel or something.

Front FW and UBS Ports: Ugly and get in the way? Naw, I think YOU'RE joking. It can't be any uglier than the new front already is! You've heard of the iPod and other hot-pluggable FireWire devices, right? And USB keys/memory sticks? Apple's always prided themselves in ease-of-use, and having to reach behind the tower to plug in these items goes directly against that.

FSB: Sorry, but the bus runs at 166, and it is NOT DDR! Take a look at the Apple Store and even the tech specs. Don't you think they would have mentioned that if it was?

All-in-all, a lot of us in your so-called "real world" are not that impressed with what COULD have been done with this revision. Like I said, SOME of the advancements have been met, but leaves a lot to be desired.

[Pekk]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
ddtlm. :) sorry im not impressed. basically all you said is that despite an education (from where i wonder) that you still will ignore all tests of real world performance i favor of a benchmark that in no way translates to the speed of the processor. furthermore you ignore everything regarding the differences in the archetecture of the chip all to stare blindly at a single benchmark that says something different from every single other benchmark performed on these machines. your education means absolutely nothing to me as long as you keep those blinders up. the plain fact of the matter is that the spec benchmarks do not test real world performance. since this machine is a desktop personal computer real world benchmarks mean far more than spec. what do the real world benchmarks show? well yes the powermacs are slower. but it is a narrow victory for the intel folks (amd does better). these new machines should make the gap even smaller. if you are interesting in using a computer how it is designed to be used apple does well. if you want to run spec all day get a pc and enjoy.

This man is just a believer. His belief is filtering all that you can tell him. No space for dialog. Don't take the time.

[soilchmst]

Originally posted by Hemingray
Oh, fantastic... has anyone else noticed that we can no longer order a ZIP drive for the second bay?! That ticks me off. I've never needed a second optical drive,

The issue here is zip. Zip is no longer an unchanging storage platform. Which zip should be included, the 100, the 250, the 750. Why create a drive bay for something which won't exist in a year?:rolleyes:

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


lovely to see you finally came to your senses. i just love when someone does a 180° change and acts like nothing has happened. :)

SPEC blindness only temporary? or did all the posts from various people explaining how horribly wrong you were just convince you that you were wrong. or maybe you actually did some research and found that in every benchmark besides spec the powermacs are holding their own against the x86 processors. whatever made you change your tune its appreciated.

Hmmm, I didn't hear anything but quiet around here. Certainly nothing about why one PPC ISA processor can do so well on SPEC (POWER4) while another sucks seriously (G4). Only anecdotal evidence about how you can't type faster than your G4 can process your keystrokes.


many of us who are aware of all of the benchmarks get tired of trying to educate ignorant newbies such as yourself.

bottom line is the g4 does very well. these new powermacs represent a very significant update. the cpu itself may not be that impressive, but the rest of machine isnt anything to scoff at. i honestly wouldnt be surprised if these machines give enough of a performance boost to close the gap between the powermacs and wintels.

These new PowerMacs represent an XServe in a desktop enclosure. Yes, the machine is no dog, but it's not cutting edge technology by any means. And it won't close any performance gap. The only benchmarks people have mentioned here (besides silly Photoshop bakeoffs) are Xinet server benchmarks. This proves what? That the G4 can keep up with 1GHz PIIIs. Okay, great, and while the P4 is at 2.53 GHz on a 533MHz FSB (and 3GHz by years end or sooner), we'll sit around and pat ourselves on the back about how we've finally caught up with LAST YEAR's Wintel machines. Granted, the P4 does less per clock than the PIII or G4 but you can't reason away 3GHz processors to the "megahertz myth".

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

ddtlm i have a hard time believing you know much of anything about computers since you continue to ignore all benchmarks other than SPEC. Either that or you are on the intel payroll.

No one here is looking at anything through rose colored glasses. We look at things realistically and actually research before we come on the boards and post the ignorant drivel you are passing off as an opinion. When it comes right down to it you are simply wrong. The g4 does get beat in SPEC (by a lot!), however when run through other benchmarks including real world benchmarks the g4 is not lagging at all. It even wins in many benchmarks. Overall it still is behind, but as nearly everyone who owns a newer powermac and a x86 machine will tell you the speed difference is negligable.


ROFLMFAO!!!! This guy is smoking crack! Conspiracy theory!!! LOL!!

Listen bub, bring your benchmarks. Either that or shut up!

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Pekk


This man is just a believer. His belief is filtering all that you can tell him. No space for dialog. Don't take the time.

hahaha. id say you are the 'believer' anyone who completely ignores all evidence to the contray has some issues.

and ddtlm ive posted links here as have several others. some people have even quoted the text. if you are too blinded by SPEC to click the link and read the posts then i wont bother reposting stuff that has already been said.

Heningray. i think you are just being unreasonable. You take rumors sites too much to heart. after a big release we always here people complain. try to be realistic here. apple isnt going to change the mouse. fw2 doesnt exist yet. usb2 is useless if you have fw. as far as front side ports go. maye it would be nice. im not convinced. i prefer them in the back so all the cables are out of the way. perhaps apple could do something to allow a front fw port. not sure why you woudl need usb in front. but all these things just seem so minor when you think about how ****ty the last powermac update was. and how big an update this is.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kenohki


ROFLMFAO!!!! This guy is smoking crack! Conspiracy theory!!! LOL!!

Listen bub, bring your benchmarks. Either that or shut up!

numerous link have been posted already by myself and many others. conspiracy theory? what you talking about? i think you are the guy who needs to shut up. as usual the only reason you seen to think that macs are crappy is because you keep jabbering and you havent read anything in this thread. please click the lil back button and actually read before you post again. you are just embarrassing yourself by posting stuff like this.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


Someone posted this on Slash Dot

And of course they have a DDR BSB too. :)

If what they say is indeed true then Apple really needs to make that more clear. Because to me, if the system bus was TRULY DDR, why would Apple simply say "166MHz system bus" as opposed to "333MHz system bus"? Of all people, Apple would be the ones to try and make it sound the most impressive.

[ferklee]

DUAL 867 "FASTER" THAN PREVIOUS DUAL 1GHZ?
i use for audio applications, Logic And DP3
plain question, plain answer
:)

I just went down to APple Store in Soho, no new machines there. They lost my purchase, in 2 days ill be buying it at Tekserve!

[phufball71]

what are the four things in thr front
'

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by soilchmst


The issue here is zip. Zip is no longer an unchanging storage platform. Which zip should be included, the 100, the 250, the 750. Why create a drive bay for something which won't exist in a year?:rolleyes:

Uh.... right... like the floppy drive won't exist in a year in PCs? :p The Zip's been around a long time, and it will still be around in a long time, no matter what some idealists would like. Technology doesn't get phased out as easily as we'd like. Steve ate his words with a fork and spoon after he declared the CRT dead and yet now we have an eMac with what? A CRT.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be able to get rid of Zips! The day that CD burning is as fast as disk-to-disk writing is the day I'll agree with you. Until then, a Zip disk is quick and dirty for transporting info.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by phufball71
what are the four things in thr front
'

Air intake vents. The turbine fan is behind it which draws air over the heat sink.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Originally posted by Liske I did the same last night maybe they will let me have the new 1.25 since yesterday I paid for topline and today the 1.25 is topline. this is what I am hopiing for! [/B]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think Apple will do that. (Normally they do, but doesn't seem so this time around.) I am an EDU customer and I tried to order the dual 1GHZ yesterday (Monday) to not only get the $400 display rebate, but hopefully be bumped up to the new high end, which we now know to be the dual 1.25 GHz.

After placing my order over the phone yesterday, today I called back to find out the stinking rep didn't actually place my order! She must have known about the new PowerMacs coming, and/or someone told her not to place my order. She was going to give me the new dual 1ghz in place of the old model, and with the 17" display and $400 rebate, still charge me $3218. However, the new price after the $200 rebate is now around $2968. So I said "no thank you" and cancelled that order that was never placed and then proceeded to order the new dual 1GHz + 17" for around $2968 after rebate.

Also, I had a dual 1GHz and 17" display saved at the Apple Store for normal folks. I checked that saved proposal and found that Apple automatically switched my stock configuration old Quicksilver dual 1GHz to the new dual 1GHz.

So, what I'm saying, it seems you are SOL if you placed your order yesterday, as far as getting bumped to the new high end. You better get on the horn as Apple will probably try to charge you the old $2999 for the new system which is now $2499 (but, they will "graciously" give you 512MB RAM in your new system, at a $500 premium!)

[mueng]

Originally posted by Shrek
I'm hoping that IBM brings even faster RAMBUS memory to the PowerPC platform! What do you think?

Isn't RDRAM really expensive compared to SDRAM and DDR?

[soilchmst]

Originally posted by Hemingray


If what they say is indeed true then Apple really needs to make that more clear. Because to me, if the system bus was TRULY DDR, why would Apple simply say "166MHz system bus" as opposed to "333MHz system bus"? Of all people, Apple would be the ones to try and make it sound the most impressive.

This is because people are willing to overlook the obvious if they don't want something to be so. Even the PC's which have 533 buses actually only have a 133 system bus. The system bus has always to other areas of the computer, not between the memory and the processor. What has brought confusion is that Apple, to curcumnavigate the slow system bus, is routing as much as possible directly to the memory through the controller.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by mueng
Isn't RDRAM really expensive compared to SDRAM and DDR?

Many high-end PC's use RDRAM and low-end one's and notebooks use less expensive DDR. I don't think it would hurt to use RDRAM in high-end PowerPC's, do you?

[bobbyG4]

Originally posted by puffmarvin


you know, i hate when people correct others in the forums but this is a perfect example:

pompus should be pompous

and

your should be you're since YOU'RE saying you are.

before lashing out against someones intelligence... check your spelling :p


Yes, I agree.

By the way, something someone has said or written should be contained in quotes......











;)

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


numerous link have been posted already by myself and many others. conspiracy theory? what you talking about? i think you are the guy who needs to shut up. as usual the only reason you seen to think that macs are crappy is because you keep jabbering and you havent read anything in this thread. please click the lil back button and actually read before you post again. you are just embarrassing yourself by posting stuff like this.

I think you're embarassing yourself by not responding to any of the technical points that ddltm or myself have brought up. We looked at your links and they were cooked up websites from other "believers" that showed how good AltiVec is at a FEW operations.

You have given only anectodal evidence. Again, I invite you, like others have, to give us a good cross-platform, independent, industry standard benchmark (please, give us something other than SPEC if you can find it).

I don't think Macs are crappy. I think Mac OS X is the most elegant operating system I've ever seen. I've owned Macs since my first Mac Plus (including a Lisa, a IIcx, an Quadra 605, a iMac DV+, this iBook Dual USB, and a PowerMac G4 Dual 1GHz). But I also have owned other machines (NeXT machines and SPARC machines) and I use a Dell at work. I can tell you, the Mac platform is the most behind in technology I've ever seen it. Their OS is great, but please, Apple needs to get with it and deliver the hardware the OS deserves.

[cyberfunk]

I'm just confused about the damn DDR memory, I dont want to go buying the wrong kind, but PC 2700 is PC 2700, right? (IE: If I buy something thats rated as PC 2700 memory, then it should work)

[cyberfunk]

Originally posted by Shrek


Many high-end PC's use RDRAM and low-end one's and notebooks use less expensive DDR. I don't think it would hurt to use RDRAM in high-end PowerPC's, do you?

OH dear, here comes the whole DDR vs RDRAM thing...

From what I can see RDRAM is a struggling "standard" that has tapped most of it's potential already, and DDR 400 supposedly beats the best RDRAM. Whats more, RDRAM is expensive and proprietary, and requires obnoxious fees to RamBus.

I'm not even going to start on RamBus the company and it's sleazy tactics.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kenohki


I think you're embarassing yourself by not responding to any of the technical points that ddltm or myself have brought up. We looked at your links and they were cooked up websites from other "believers" that showed how good AltiVec is at a FEW operations.

You have given only anectodal evidence. Again, I invite you, like others have, to give us a good cross-platform, independent, industry standard benchmark (please, give us something other than SPEC if you can find it).

I don't think Macs are crappy. I think Mac OS X is the most elegant operating system I've ever seen. I've owned Macs since my first Mac Plus (including a Lisa, a IIcx, an Quadra 605, a iMac DV+, this iBook Dual USB, and a PowerMac G4 Dual 1GHz). But I also have owned other machines (NeXT machines and SPARC machines) and I use a Dell at work. I can tell you, the Mac platform is the most behind in technology I've ever seen it. Their OS is great, but please, Apple needs to get with it and deliver the hardware the OS deserves.

you are right NASA just has cooked up benchmarks. really you are not proving anything by holding onto one benchmark that doesnt translate well into real world performance. if every other benchmark is 'cooked' then im sorry. you havent provided any 'technical' debate. in fact you dismissed all discussion of the pipeline differences as 'marketing speak'. so how can i argue with someone who is acting so illogically? you ignore all benchmarks. you use one benchmark that is admittedly poor at measureing the speed of a computer system. and you ignore all discussion of chip design. if you are so blindly committed to x86 then quit posting on a mac website.

[cyberfunk]

So, I'm getting a new comp, whats the Big difference bewteen the Radeon 9000 and the Geforce Ti, is it really worth that extra money ? I'm a bit tight on cash now, but I'd like to play games decently !

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by cyberfunk
So, I'm getting a new comp, whats the Big difference bewteen the Radeon 9000 and the Geforce Ti, is it really worth that extra money ? I'm a bit tight on cash now, but I'd like to play games decently !

i would suggest getting the lowest end card 4mx. it will probably be all you need and it will save you some dough. when the ati 9700 comes out and if you still want a new card. spring for that. it will likley be cheaper than the Ti and shoudl outperform it. some benchmarks have been posted in another thread here. check the main page.

[drastik]

Man, I just want a straight answer on the bus. I'd think it was DDR, but I'd like some hard proof.

Although, I think its a great machine anyway, so I'm not to concerned.

[BongHits]

Originally posted by iGAV


You can't go on benchmarks that are like 2 years old, running OS9 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you really want to believe that in terms of true performance, in real world demanding tasks that a single is only 3 seconds slower than a dual........ :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

P.S wasn't OS9 not configured to fully make use of Dual processors? unlike OSX?
the difference would be much more pronounced now......

from what i understand apps had to be specifically programmed for dual proc in os 9 (major selling point of the original duals was for photoshop use right?) but os x has support for multi-scaling proc built in. i dont know how this works (splits up load between duals, when one proc is saturated workload carries over to other proc) and would assume that apps can still customize the use of the duals to their specific needs....anyone who can give some weight to this?

[ffakr]

Originally posted by kenohki
The only benchmarks people have mentioned here (besides silly Photoshop bakeoffs) are Xinet server benchmarks. This proves what? That the G4 can keep up with 1GHz PIIIs. Okay, great, and while the P4 is at 2.53 GHz on a 533MHz FSB (and 3GHz by years end or sooner), we'll sit around and pat ourselves on the back about how we've finally caught up with LAST YEAR's Wintel machines. Granted, the P4 does less per clock than the PIII or G4 but you can't reason away 3GHz processors to the "megahertz myth". [/B]

I'm not going to defend Apple, or more specifically Motorola on these new releases. They are certainly an improvement, but they are more like a stop gap between the Old towers and modern PC technology. The latest processor to chipset bus is NOT DDR! Only the memory to chipset is DDR.

but... don't dismiss the Xinet benchmarks or the photoshop benchmarks. The xServe is a SERVER! The benchmarks done by Xinet are the types of benchmarks that server vendors routinely tout to sell boxes. They are perfectly valid, they are important indicators of design-house server needs, and they are compiled by an independent source. By the way, check the Xinet benchmarks again... you don't seem to appreciate how well Apple fared, especially in price to performace (lower price, more performance than Sun OR Dell).

As for photoshop, it is an important benchmark for a variety of reasons.
1) it has a common, cross platform, code base
2) it is optimised for a variety of platforms so you can't claim it is tweaked for one platform and not another
3) it is mathmatically intense, but it also stresses the memory subsystems
4) it can stress interger, FP, or SIMD performance... or all of the above depending on the batch of tests.
5) and for Apple, it is the 'holy grail' of one of their core markets. Lost time in Photoshop is lost productivity and lost money.

Here is the latest blurb from the G4 site...
The twin-engined 1.25GHz G4 runs professional applications like Adobe Photoshop up to 90 percent faster than a 2.53GHz Pentium 4-based PC
Not independent, but I bet Apple can back up that statement.

Right now, a Dual G4 offers up to 2.5GHz of clocks (minus the overhead associated with SMP). This seems to fare very well to the 'architecturally challanged' P4. I'm sure even Motorola could ratchet up the clock a lot more if they put 23 stages in their pipeline. Apple's problem is price... I'd say the performance of the low end dual is fairly close to a similarly priced (not garage built) P4s in Apple's core market applications, but if you look at what a high end Dual G4 costs you... then you have to start comparing to dual Athlons and Dual Xeons where Apple isn't going to keep up.

The 3GHz you mention has not been released yet. I bet they could get real close now but Intel is screwing the consumer and waiting for AMD to get closer before they release new processors. As for the Mac, there is still a 7470 processor on the road map (likely for this year) that WILL clock higher, if only due to a smaller process, and which will perform much better overall due to Rapid I/O DDR support and a 512K L2 Cache. If you want to talk 3GHz P4s, you should compare them to Dual 1.5 GHz 7470 processors. It is only fair to compare vapor to vapor isn't it?

... but of course, in the end you should look at TCO when you look at price or even price/performance shouldn't you? Could you show us one, just one, report that states Windows PCs have a lower TCO, or a higher level of productivity than Apple computers? If you do, I guarantee the rest of the posters here could find ten independent reports that state otherwise.
Even INTEL released a report a few years back that their macs cost less to operate than their PCs. I'm sure they fired the guy that leaked that one.

Just my 2cents.

(where's my freaking 1.6+ GHz G4s!!!) ... ffakr

[studioj]

Which would be better for pro audio use (Digital performer, Logic, etc.) the old dual gig with 2MB L3 or the new dual gig with 1MB L3 and DDR RAM/167 bus?

Anyone have an opinion?

[topicolo]

Originally posted by cyberfunk
So, I'm getting a new comp, whats the Big difference bewteen the Radeon 9000 and the Geforce Ti, is it really worth that extra money ? I'm a bit tight on cash now, but I'd like to play games decently !

OK, here's the deal. PC2700 is PC2700, the industry standard 333Mhz DDR DIMM (184 pins I believe). You can upgrade with any 512Mb PC2700 DIMM (you may even be able to use the slower PC2100 DIMMs because 90% of them overclock to 333Mhz easily, but I haven't tried it on a mac).
The Radeon 9000 is about 1/2 to 2/3 the speed of Geforce 4 Ti, 2/3 the speed of a Radeon 8500 (yes, you heard me right, the Radeon 8500 IS faster. Go check pc benchmark sites if you don't believe me), and 1/2 the speed of a Radeon 9700. Personally, I'd stay with the 9000 if it comes preconfigured and then I'd wait for the NV30.
Finally, just to rub it all in, the new macs AREN'T full DDR. 1.3Gb/sec is the bottleneck so not much of that DDR RAM stuff matters :p

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


you are right NASA just has cooked up benchmarks. really you are not proving anything by holding onto one benchmark that doesnt translate well into real world performance. if every other benchmark is 'cooked' then im sorry. you havent provided any 'technical' debate. in fact you dismissed all discussion of the pipeline differences as 'marketing speak'. so how can i argue with someone who is acting so illogically? you ignore all benchmarks. you use one benchmark that is admittedly poor at measureing the speed of a computer system. and you ignore all discussion of chip design. if you are so blindly committed to x86 then quit posting on a mac website.

Did you even read that NASA blurb? :rolleyes: They said


Without the parallel vector processing capabilities of AltiVec, the G4 places near the end of the pack in performance tests using standard FORTRAN scientific codes. In limited cases where AltiVec acceleration was available and tested under FORTRAN, the G4 showed a clear advantage with 4-7X greater performance and a 5-8X greater cost effectiveness than all other workstation systems evaluated

Yes, VMX/AltiVec helps a lot. SIMD is great but you can't use SIMD on all tasks. AltiVec can only be used on a small percentage of calculations and it would definitely be a boon to someone doing FORTRAN (which is a VERY VERY OBSCURE usage) Integer performance and floating point performance still need to be there and this NASA report says the G4 comes up the rear. So where's your benchmarks? Eh?

BTW, I don't even own x86 nor would I buy one. I own PowerPC and SPARC machines, thank you very much. :D

[topicolo]

Originally posted by trodel_post
Does anyone know any detailed RAM specs for the new machines? When buying RAM, aren't you technically supposed to match things like cas latency across all DIMMs?

I called Apple to ask about it, and even after talking to a "product specialist" the drooly on the phone couldn't tell me anything.

I notice that Crucial's PC2700 DIMMs all seem to be CL=2.5, but I've seeb some mfrs offering CL=2.0. Anyone know what's in these bad boys?

I ordered a dual 1GHz this morning - can't wait to get my hands on it!

If the new powermac was designed well, and I don't doubt that, the system will automatically default to the slowest cas level. Shouldn't be much of a problem since all of the PC133 ram that you guys have been using also varies from cas 2-3.

[gregorypierce]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Okay, so if a DP rig is running, lets say, UT, it won't be much faster than a SP (single proc). But if I'm running a bunch of apps the DP will be faster because the "thread load" is handle by 2 procs, not just one.

Is that the jist of it? And I own a DP 1gig so I'm not having any proc envy thank you very much. ;)


Lethal

Any application that utilizes more than one thread benefits from a multiprocessor system transparently. No optimization is necessary.

[topicolo]

Originally posted by edvniow


I don't think they own them, they just have a VERY close partnership. Ever notice any RDRAM on any AMD MB? I don't think so...

Actually RAMBUS tricked Intel into a contract that pretty much forced them to stick with RDRAM for their P4 mobos until late 2001 I believe. AMD hasn't touched Rambus because no one in their right mind would! RDRAM's price/performance ratio is so bad that people in the pc world call it rambust. Well, it's that, and the fact that rambus is trying to make money off of memory makers by suing them and trying to make them pay liscensing fees for Rambus themselves stole.

[robguz]

That means that on the most DP, G4 optimized opoeration, the absoulte and totally best one, the 1.25 will run 90% faster than a single P4 2.53 that costs half the price, or in reality based on what will be shipping when the 1.25 is, maybe 60% faster at best than a 2.8Ghz P4.

Undoubtedly there are also some filters that the P4 will run at far more than 90% faster than the DP 1.25

What really counts and what Apple doesn't comment on is how much faster it is consistently using a variety of common functions, not some single function that the G4 happens to have the advantage at.

It's like the stupid repeated comment that G4s are faster at RC5 so they are faster overall. That's real nice if all you want to do is run RC5 all day, in which case you are probably in a straghtjacket in some padded room. Yes, the new machine will trounce PCs if all you do is run one specfic PS filter all day long for months on end.

But here is the worls of the sane, the new 1.25 leaves us even further behind PCs than we were when the DP 1Ghz was introduced.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kenohki


Did you even read that NASA blurb? :rolleyes: They said



Yes, VMX/AltiVec helps a lot. SIMD is great but you can't use SIMD on all tasks. AltiVec can only be used on a small percentage of calculations and it would definitely be a boon to someone doing FORTRAN (which is a VERY VERY OBSCURE usage) Integer performance and floating point performance still need to be there and this NASA report says the G4 comes up the rear. So where's your benchmarks? Eh?

BTW, I don't even own x86 nor would I buy one. I own PowerPC and SPARC machines, thank you very much. :D

i think the problem i have with all of your arguments is that you ignore absolutely everything that shows the mac is just as good if not better than the pc. so you own a mac. sounds like you have a serious inferiority complex then. im sorry for you then. the very plain fact of the matter is that apple has built the powermac to perfrom well for what you do, not to perform well in benchmarks. please take a look at those real world benchmarks i and others have posted. yes the mac loses (find it odd that peopel claim they are cooked when the mac loses, we could easily make a real world test that showed the mac was faster but these have been designed to try to be fair), but as i have said many times it is close. the new macs should close that gap. i for one am very pleased.

and as for the gentleman who claimed this is a stop gap. i would agree to some extent. the joke of an update that was the last update was a stop gap. this update brings the macs up to date and even innovates a bit. but its a stop gap in that i think we all suspect bigger tyhings are to come in the next 18 months or so. this is sort fo a bring us up to date, lets get real innovation out soon.

robguz- the powermac would only be 2x as expensive if you build a stripped down p4. we have already discussed pricing and those who ahve actually spec'ed out a complete machine have seen that the price difference is non-existant. also you discuss realworld tests not benchmarks. funny thing is, is that this is where the mac actually excels. take a look at the links and quotes posted in this thread. in real world tests the powermacs does quite well.

[vniow]

Originally posted by topicolo


Actually RAMBUS tricked Intel into a contract that pretty much forced them to stick with RDRAM for their P4 mobos until late 2001 I believe. AMD hasn't touched Rambus because no one in their right mind would! RDRAM's price/performance ratio is so bad that people in the pc world call it rambust. Well, it's that, and the fact that rambus is trying to make money off of memory makers by suing them and trying to make them pay liscensing fees for Rambus themselves stole.

Thanx, I knew something was up between those two, but I was never sure what. RAMBUS sucks anywayz. I've got it and I'm not impressed.

[kenohki]

First off ffakr, thank you very much for posting a reply that had some thought and reasoning behind it. :D

Originally posted by ffakr


As for photoshop, it is an important benchmark for a variety of reasons.
1) it has a common, cross platform, code base
2) it is optimised for a variety of platforms so you can't claim it is tweaked for one platform and not another
3) it is mathmatically intense, but it also stresses the memory subsystems
4) it can stress interger, FP, or SIMD performance... or all of the above depending on the batch of tests.
5) and for Apple, it is the 'holy grail' of one of their core markets. Lost time in Photoshop is lost productivity and lost money.

Here is the latest blurb from the G4 site...
The twin-engined 1.25GHz G4 runs professional applications like Adobe Photoshop up to 90 percent faster than a 2.53GHz Pentium 4-based PC
Not independent, but I bet Apple can back up that statement.


Yes, and I understand this, but it's too easy for people to pick which operations are done, skewing the results. There is no standard PhotoshopMARK and so we find companies like Apple finding the optimal set of operations and filters to do so their machines look good. That's why I don't like that benchmark. Standardize the ops and I'll take it with more than a grain of salt.


The 3GHz you mention has not been released yet. I bet they could get real close now but Intel is screwing the consumer and waiting for AMD to get closer before they release new processors. As for the Mac, there is still a 7470 processor on the road map (likely for this year) that WILL clock higher, if only due to a smaller process, and which will perform much better overall due to Rapid I/O DDR support and a 512K L2 Cache. If you want to talk 3GHz P4s, you should compare them to Dual 1.5 GHz 7470 processors. It is only fair to compare vapor to vapor isn't it?

Well, I'd like to be comparing the 3GHz P4 to a POWER4 variant in 90 nanometer process which would thoroughly trounce the P4 in performance. Hopefully we'll see that coming along soon now. ;)


... but of course, in the end you should look at TCO when you look at price or even price/performance shouldn't you? Could you show us one, just one, report that states Windows PCs have a lower TCO, or a higher level of productivity than Apple computers? If you do, I guarantee the rest of the posters here could find ten independent reports that state otherwise.
Even INTEL released a report a few years back that their macs cost less to operate than their PCs. I'm sure they fired the guy that leaked that one.

Now now, let's not even get into TCO. That's a whole 'nother thread and way more subjective than performance. I don't like Wintel machines and I would hate to support them. If you wanna get real nitpicky though try a thin client. Those SunRay 1 appliances have unreal TCO. Granted, they have no apps either. ;) But great TCO.

Overall, I just think people should be realistic about where at and although it's better than we were yesterday, we're not going to trounce the high end x86 machines in performance (yet).

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

i think the problem i have with all of your arguments is that you ignore absolutely everything that shows the mac is just as good if not better than the pc. so you own a mac. sounds like you have a serious inferiority complex then. im sorry for you then.

I think the problem you have with my arguments is that you can't refute them like I just did with yours.

Once again, no facts or knowledge to back you up.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kenohki
Overall, I just think people should be realistic about where at and although it's better than we were yesterday, we're not going to trounce the high end x86 machines in performance (yet).

no one is claiming these machines will trounce the x86 machines. what we are trying to prove to you is that the current macs do not lag behind. what you have been trying to suggest is that the intel machines 'trounce' the powermacs. and this is simply not the case. i agree apple's photoshop filters are cooked. but i have seen too many other benchmarks of which photoshop is a part but not the whoel suite of tests, that show that the powermac is only 20% behind the fastest x86 machines. this leads me to believe the new machines will be very comparable to any x86 machine you can build. you claim about trying to be realistic and then say silly things like real world tests mean nothing. lets be realistic here. real world tests are the only thing that matters.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kenohki


I think the problem you have with my arguments is that you can't refute them like I just did with yours.

Once again, no facts or knowledge to back you up.

im sorry but no you are just being stupid. i cant refute what you said because you didnt say anything. you are a fool. no fact? no knowledge? sound like you are describing your own posts here buddy. all that you have said to refute what i have proved is say. i dont care. you refuse to look at benchmarks. you refuse to look at real world performance. you refuse to look at architecture. you are like a child covering his ears and screaming lalallala. you ignore every fact presented you for some unimaginable reason. you are a fool. and you are not worth my time.

[G4scott]

OK, I haven't read through this whole thread, because it would take me forever to get through 300+ replies...

What it seems Apple has done with their system architecture, is try to smooth things out, and get rid of major bottlenecks... Take the PCI bus for example, and you'll see how Apple has a direct PCI bus, whereas pee-cee's do not. Apple is eliminating the bottlenecks that hinder even the fastest p4's (can you say L3 cache?) so that Macs don't need insanely high clock speeds to perform as well as them.

This is just my thinking, and I may be wrong, but here goes...

With the DDR's 2.7gbps throughput, isn't that to the processor, or system controller? The L3 cache has something like 4gbps throughput, but it's not hindered by the 1.3gbps limit of the system bus... I'm a bit confused, and I'll admit that I don't know everything, but I do know that Apple's not dumb enough to put DDR in a computer just for the sake of saying that it has DDR... You have to remember that Apple is not as conformist as other computer companies...

[locovaca]

Originally posted by topicolo


Actually RAMBUS tricked Intel into a contract that pretty much forced them to stick with RDRAM for their P4 mobos until late 2001 I believe. AMD hasn't touched Rambus because no one in their right mind would! RDRAM's price/performance ratio is so bad that people in the pc world call it rambust. Well, it's that, and the fact that rambus is trying to make money off of memory makers by suing them and trying to make them pay liscensing fees for Rambus themselves stole.

Well, besides the legal problems, the other reason that AMD has not chosen to use RAMBUS is because of the differences in architectures. RAMBUS is a serial memory technology, and the main problem with it is that there is a higher latency associated with it. This is why when the 820 boards were introduced the P3 actually took a performance hit in using the new memory vs. SDRAM. Thus, the P4 was designed with RDRAM in mind, and Intel worked on countering the latency issues (that's where you get netburst, the prefetching units, the advanced BPU, etc.). If a CPU is designed with RAMBUS in mind, then it's not a bad technology, but trying to drop it in with current solutions doesn't usually yield good results.

[SPG]

Just placed an order for the 867DP to replace my G4 450 at home. MacMall says three weeks or more wait time. Anyone know a better timeframe? I can cancel my order with them.
Mailorder preferred.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by G4scott
OK, I haven't read through this whole thread, because it would take me forever to get through 300+ replies...

What it seems Apple has done with their system architecture, is try to smooth things out, and get rid of major bottlenecks... Take the PCI bus for example, and you'll see how Apple has a direct PCI bus, whereas pee-cee's do not. Apple is eliminating the bottlenecks that hinder even the fastest p4's (can you say L3 cache?) so that Macs don't need insanely high clock speeds to perform as well as them.

This is just my thinking, and I may be wrong, but here goes...

With the DDR's 2.7gbps throughput, isn't that to the processor, or system controller? The L3 cache has something like 4gbps throughput, but it's not hindered by the 1.3gbps limit of the system bus... I'm a bit confused, and I'll admit that I don't know everything, but I do know that Apple's not dumb enough to put DDR in a computer just for the sake of saying that it has DDR... You have to remember that Apple is not as conformist as other computer companies...

The L3 Cache does not use the FSB, but it is the first stop in front of it.

Once again, the DDR bus is only to the system controller, not the CPU. The CPU does not support a DDR bus afaik. DDR does help but not by as much as you and I would like it to. Only things that are done on the System Controller and are independent of the CPU will get a 100% boost, but very few things are done independent of a processor. I'll leave it up to you to contemplate the reason Apple decided to go DDR, but I can guarantee you that it will provide little advantage performance wise (due to the FSB only being half the speed of the memory bus). Take a look at the benchies when Intel released the RDRAM motherboards for the P3, or VIA came out with DDR chipsets for the P3, and you'll see what I mean. Heck, go over to Barefeats and take a look at their xserve benchmarks.

[pianojoe]

Originally posted by Ibjr


http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/QT_imovie_G4tests.html

Wow, i must say! A whole 3 seconds. Not worth the cost.

Hey this test was done two years ago with OS 9 that doesn't support dual systems unless they're coded to do so.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by SPG
Just placed an order for the 867DP to replace my G4 450 at home. MacMall says three weeks or more wait time. Anyone know a better timeframe? I can cancel my order with them.
Mailorder preferred.

Apple store says it ships in 1-3 days. You get about 100 bucks off if you know someone at a University too... :)

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG
Just placed an order for the 867DP to replace my G4 450 at home. MacMall says three weeks or more wait time. Anyone know a better timeframe? I can cancel my order with them.
Mailorder preferred.

Yea, My company can have one ship to us in one to two day. Then we would ship to you, so about a week or so. www.generalcybernetics.com/apple We are a new sponsor here and have just started selling Macs online as you can tell, but have been in business for 7 years. Let me know.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


im sorry but no you are just being stupid. i cant refute what you said because you didnt say anything. you are a fool. no fact? no knowledge? sound like you are describing your own posts here buddy. all that you have said to refute what i have proved is say. i dont care. you refuse to look at benchmarks. you refuse to look at real world performance. you refuse to look at architecture. you are like a child covering his ears and screaming lalallala. you ignore every fact presented you for some unimaginable reason. you are a fool. and you are not worth my time.

You keep saying the phrase "real world performance" but you never have any figures. I would like for you to post some numbers, some specs, something that would make me put some belief in your argument. What I've been describing to you are benchmarks. What you've given to me is a bunch of crybaby BS.

I will sit down and talk to you all day aboug architecture. Let's talk about bus speed, processor architecture, compilers, speculative execution, predication, hyperthreading, SIMD, VLIW, hell, we can even get into Sun's STC (Space Time Computing) that they get into with their MAJC processor. Hell, wouldn't that be fun.

Please, give me something with at least some reasoning. And if that's not worth your time, please don't respond.

[jadam]

errrr

RDRAM is a 16bit peace of ****, apple would not use it in there right mind.

[AmbitiousLemon]

keno - sigh. you are growing tiresome. ive already posted links to real world benchmarks. go read them before you insult me again. i honestly do not understand why you keep posting begging for proof. and then when presented with it you just act like no one posted it. pretty immature if you ask me.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by G4scott
OK, I haven't read through this whole thread, because it would take me forever to get through 300+ replies...

What it seems Apple has done with their system architecture, is try to smooth things out, and get rid of major bottlenecks... Take the PCI bus for example, and you'll see how Apple has a direct PCI bus, whereas pee-cee's do not. Apple is eliminating the bottlenecks that hinder even the fastest p4's (can you say L3 cache?) so that Macs don't need insanely high clock speeds to perform as well as them.

I think you're right and this is the way I think they should go. SGI has done the same thing with their machines and have had pretty good results with it. Seeing how the PowerPC can thoroughly spank MIPS, we should see great performance from future Macs if Apple can increase system bandwidth to the level that SGI has.

The new IBM PowerPC has 6.4GB/s of throughput which, if used, will be an incredible advancement over even what we have today.

[daRAT]

Originally posted by theaz
hmm, its funny. I had thought that the enclosure looked pretty nice. Guess I'm in the minority.

Naw, I like it also...but then I own a Gateway tower besides a Mac, so I have no taste :P

[aromac]

So far everything running incredibly smooth. I ran my logic audio on it and it runs it effortlessly. Damn thing is a noise monster though. The fan kicked in out of nowhere for a few seconds and scared the **** out of me.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
keno - sigh. you are growing tiresome. ive already posted links to real world benchmarks. go read them before you insult me again. i honestly do not understand why you keep posting begging for proof. and then when presented with it you just act like no one posted it. pretty immature if you ask me.

I seriously hope you're kidding here. if you're talking about these benchmarks:

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

just some benchmarks to help with the whole single versus dual discussion.
http://www.barefeats.com/xserve2.html

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

...and you are serious, then you're nuts!!! The Athlon 1.6 whoops the G4 every time. Go re-read it.

[macidiot]

The new powermacs have driven me to my first post here...

I have to say I am a bit underwhelmed by the release. As far as I can tell, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that unless these are 7470chips, its not true DDR utilization. Essentially, it appears to be similar to the xserve implementation of DDR. Which is disappointing. ATA 100 is nice though. It seems that the performance boost(dual 1Ghz vs. dual 1Ghz) is coming mostly from the following: Faster IDE, slightly faster system bus, and Jaquar. Oh and slightly faster video(Radeon9000 vs. Geforce4 mx). My guess is that the DDR isn't making much of a difference. And what's with the pathetic audio?? When is Apple going to wake up and spend the nickel it would take to add 5.1 sound? Or at the very least, prologic? And before anyone starts talking about pro audio rigs, yes they are great on a mac. Great if you are creating. But considering how Apple thinks its the "pro" solution for audio and video, shouldn't I be able to watch a dvd or play a game with 5.1??

Oh, and whats with the "new" case design. Granted, I don't care too much about the case, if the hardware was radical(which it isn't). But whats with the tarted up, bitchin' camaro version of the same old b&w case?? That case has been around forever. Adding hood scoops doesn't cut it. Where's the innovation? Frankly, I'm tired of bulbous, no-angle designs. How hard would it have been to change the shape of the handles and plastic cladding on the sides? Seems like they are milking the r&d investment there...

Having said all that, I am still sucking it up(or is it bending over?) and getting one, probably the dual 1Ghz. I can't wait any longer(my b&w/450/radeon7000 is dog slow...). Add in that I finally can have DDR which will be forward compatible for awhile, jaguar(without that stupid upgrade price), I suppose it could be worse. And, yes, I know any current mac is loads faster than what I have. But anyone notice how INCREDIBLY slow window resizing is in x? I truly hope jaguar is as fast as everyone says it is.

Finally, to throw a log on the fire, pc's are faster and cheaper. Period. The pc hardware is faster(USB2, faster bus, faster cpu-athlon/pentium-both are faster, MUCH better sound options, faster drives, etc.). And on price, Apple will never undercut or be the same as a comparable pc. For one, they can't do it, with their r&d costs. For another, related reason, they can't upgrade to the latest and greatest quickly(ala Dell). For another, they don't have the volume. They are most comparable to Sony on the PC side(vice-versa really as Apple was first), offering integration and style rather than the newest and greatest. What is disappointing is that in the past, Apple consistently offered both integration/style AND performance. In the past, macs always cost more, but at least you could see where it went in innovations/high performance like SCSI, A/V, graphics, 3.5 floppy, superior printers, superior monitors, 68k chip vs. early x86 chips... Today, other than the OS and CPU, whats all that different from a pc? Except for the Apple world pricing for RAM(whats up with that anyway? do they think people are that stupid?) And before anyone starts bashing about this, I've been using Apple's since 82. Back when they were Apple's and not Macs. I dig'em. II+, IIe, IIc, FatMacs, Se/30, IIfx, LC, Quadras, Centris, performa, powerbooks, duos, old a/ux servers, the aix server, you name it and I've used or owned them. Best ones I've used? any quadra, the original powerbooks, the 540c, wallstreet, and most current macs. In fact my old b&w has been utterly reliable. Probably why I've kept it so long. And the worst ones? Anything that shipped with System 7.5.2 through System 7.6. Those OS's did more to hurt Apple than anything MS did.

Finally, sorry for the long post, its my first one, I guess I had a lot to say:D

[aromac]

if you go to a university, or know anyone that does. The mac store give you 150 dollars of on the dual 1ghz model. I know that the website said -shipping in 1-3 days- but the apple store in my area does indeed have them in stock.

[pianojoe]

I've read all these posts about how to assemble your own PC and how it will be about $700 cheaper as a "comparable" Mac. However, I find these questions unanswered:

1. When I buy a fully assembled computer, I don't have to spend time to assemble it. (Or will the dealer do that for me?) I don't have to get all the different parts, or have them shipped to me (which may be costly). I don't have to review all specs and driver descriptions in order to make sure the different components don't interfere which each other.

2. What about the quality of the softwware provided? If I buy a superdrive for a PC for $250, will the software supplied be as good as iDVD? What about iTunes, DiskBurner, iPhoto, iMovie, and the upcoming iCal and iSync? (I know there's a lot of shareware out there. I'm talking about quality, support, and ease of use.)

3. Design. In a creative working environment, I don't want to look at an ugly machine.

4. Value. Last time I checked on Ebay, used Macs don't lose as much value as used PCs do.

Doesn't all that make up for $700? Not mentioning that it's more fun to use a Mac...

One more thing... When comparing prices, is it fair to take PC prices from the cheapest dealer, and compare them to The Apple Store who is likely to be the most expensive source available?

[skunk]

well said that man...

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Hemingray


Uh.... right... like the floppy drive won't exist in a year in PCs?

The floppy...that wonderful device that allows your Windows boot disks to run...

I have 2 PCs and 2 Macs at my desk. The Macs have booted from CD ROM since CD ROM was common tech. The two PCs both require FOUR Win2K boot disks, for the every six months when they need a reinstall. I own exactly FOUR floppy disks. Hmmmm...

[drastik]

it makes up the price by far, especially if you consider $20-$30 shipping seperately on parts of the PC, plus time, crappy components that don't want to talk to each other.

For the most part, PC people who claim to have the best homemade PC are underage gamers who have a great video crad and that's about it.

Also, don't believe anyone's statements about their expertise or education on this or any board, I've seen people say they do one thing, then say they do another in the same thread.

Take it lightly and go to the store to play. If you like it, buy it. Screw other peoples opinions.
:D

[brit-o-matic]

Originally posted by SPG
Just placed an order for the 867DP to replace my G4 450 at home. MacMall says three weeks or more wait time. Anyone know a better timeframe? I can cancel my order with them.
Mailorder preferred.

Placed an order this afternoon for new 1GHZ DP with Mac Connection (http://www.macconnection.com) by phone - (888)213-0260. Couldn't find new models on website yet.

Free 512MB RAM w/ free installation. No tax. $30 ground shipping. Ships tomorrow (Wed) .:D

[medea]

One word....Awesome.

[bousozoku]

macidiot:

I know what you're feeling.

It's difficult to look at a PC and a Macintosh side-by-side and not think about how much the Macintosh is missing.

I like big numbers as much as the next person. I want it to all go faster, as long as it runs well. As far as overall productivity goes, if you spend the money on quality components, the PC comes out about as expensive as the Mac, sometimes more.

That leaves the slow processor. Okay, AltiVec is wonderful. How many of us use any programmes which take advantage of AltiVec. Are there any games or is it just professional programmes? Yes, the O.S. uses it...thank goodness. An awful lot of games and professional programmes use the x86's SSE2 multimedia instructions and, while they may not be as good as AltiVec, the comparison in programmes using one and not using the other, is demonstrative.

All I can say is that I've got faith that it will get better. Otherwise, I would have bought a PC, and limped along with my G3/400, instead of the dual G4/800.

[jadam]

Originally posted by aromac
So far everything running incredibly smooth. I ran my logic audio on it and it runs it effortlessly. Damn thing is a noise monster though. The fan kicked in out of nowhere for a few seconds and scared the **** out of me.

hah, how fast is it?

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by nero007


I'm assuming those prices aren't all pulled from the same site. In which case you'll have to pay seperate shipping for each item which will jack your price. I tried building a PC through Pricewatch and the trick is finding a site that has the best overall prices. Which I'm assuming, is not what you have listed there.

You assume correct, the prices are from various vendors. I just tried to pull the best prices for the components, most of which include the shipping cost.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by Hemingray
Oh, fantastic... has anyone else noticed that we can no longer order a ZIP drive for the second bay?! That ticks me off. I've never needed a second optical drive, I'm in graphic design and we swap zips as much as CDs! That's ridiculous.

Apple has made some of the hardware advancement's we've been waiting for for years now, but a lot of the other stuff seems so half-baked. No new FireWire, no new USB, no built-in Bluetooth, no new displays, no new keyboards or mice, no front firewire or usb ports, no DDR FSB.

If these G4's are truly for the "prosumer", don't you think we'd rather have front, quick access to a hot-pluggable firewire disk as opposed to a front headphone minijack??

C'mon Apple, we've seen better from you, and consequently we've come to expect better from you. The new G4s are impressive, no doubt, but it's the little things that bring it down IMO...

Oh well, I'm not even remotely close to buying a new PowerMac, so I'll just keep waiting patiently for my G5... :rolleyes: ;) :p

External zips are much better than internal because you can use it on any usb equiped computer instead of being locked to one system.

As for no front access USB/FireWire ports, you can always get a hub.

[legacyb4]

Don't know about you, but all the bells and whistles don't really make up for the fact that you are stuck with a sub-standard OS...

Don't forget to throw in that extra $200 or whatever the upgrade to XP Professional will cost you ;-)

Originally posted by topicolo


*sigh* I was hoping to stay out of this, but I just had to join in here.


Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:58:11 AM CDT
Catalog Number: 29 19

Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition WHXP [313-7222] [412-0189] [420-3079]

-----------------------------
$1996 vs. Apple's $3299

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by MacArtist


External zips are much better than internal because you can use it on any usb equiped computer instead of being locked to one system.

As for no front access USB/FireWire ports, you can always get a hub.

No its really not, much more to move/lose. And who wants to buy a hub? I would think your Mac, that was x2 as much as it should have been, should have a front pannel. You are being killed on the price; it should at least be what you want.

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by Shrek


Many high-end PC's use RDRAM and low-end one's and notebooks use less expensive DDR. I don't think it would hurt to use RDRAM in high-end PowerPC's, do you?

yes, RAMBUS? THe fast DDR ram performs just as well if not better than Rambus, that high latency propriety chip.

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by edvniow


I don't think they own them, they just have a VERY close partnership. Ever notice any RDRAM on any AMD MB? I don't think so...

What are you talking about, intel Rambus != Intel. They are not even close business partners anymore, Rambus went after intel for thier offering DDR chipsets…

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by legacyb4
Don't know about you, but all the bells and whistles don't really make up for the fact that you are stuck with a sub-standard OS...

Don't forget to throw in that extra $200 or whatever the upgrade to XP Professional will cost you ;-)



Have you ever used 2000? Who wants XP with WPA? Heh, your hypothetical wasn't as clever as you thought eh?

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by ferklee
DUAL 867 "FASTER" THAN PREVIOUS DUAL 1GHZ?
i use for audio applications, Logic And DP3
plain question, plain answer
:)

I just went down to APple Store in Soho, no new machines there. They lost my purchase, in 2 days ill be buying it at Tekserve!

Shipping in 1-3 days

You really shouldn't be pissed that they didn't have them in stock. You can always order them online.

[ibjoshua]

my 2cents

i'm so pleased that the leaked pictures were real. i just love it when all the naysayers are proved wrong.

if people don't buy these machines i'll eat my ibook.


:)

josh

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by cyberfunk
So, I'm getting a new comp, whats the Big difference bewteen the Radeon 9000 and the Geforce Ti, is it really worth that extra money ? I'm a bit tight on cash now, but I'd like to play games decently !

The radeon 9000 is a pretty good card for gaming on a budget. The Geforce 4 Ti is better due to double the ram and better performance. If I were you, I'd go with extra memory as oppose to the Ti card.

As for your on going memory question, PC2700 is supposed to be PC2700 but some manufacturers are better than others. I suggest either RamJet or Crucial. RamJet memory is built eaxctly to the Apple spec and is guaranteed to work even after a firmware update.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by studioj
Which would be better for pro audio use (Digital performer, Logic, etc.) the old dual gig with 2MB L3 or the new dual gig with 1MB L3 and DDR RAM/167 bus?

Anyone have an opinion?
The new dual 1GHz, not only do you have a faster FSB but you get 512MB more memory to put in.

[arogge]

Originally posted by Eple
Notice that on the Quake 3 fps test, the low end mac is a dual 967mhz ;)

I sent in a comment about this to Apple's Web support address. Maybe the dual 967 MHz model is coming out next!

[i_wolf]

I plan to get a new mac.... but i am in two minds whether now or later. The heart wants to use OS X but the mind knows that performance in MAYA is more important.... i will wait for independent benchmarks to see which platform gives the best MAYA experience.....( i.e. i don't have to have me dinner while waiting for a scene to render as i have to on my piece of **** PIII dell!).
Oh just one thing..... those of you who are running win xp and hate the piece of **** as i do.... do what i have on my current pc. 1/4 of harddisk for windows xp (games and maya) and the rest for Linux such as redhat 7.3 or other with a decent GUI like Ximian Gnome or KDE 3.0.1/2 or whatever is latest with the AQUA theme. It looks beautiful and it runs steady as a rock. Don't buy any more of that M$ rubbish... linux has some great tools if you have to use x86. Don't flame me for suggesting this... this is only for those who are ooogling for a UNIX based mac and cannot afford one and are sick and tired of BSOD.
regards to all here,
i_wolf

P.S. is this the longest thread in the history of macrumors. Suggestion to arn..... why not create a top 10 of longest threads ever???!!! could be interesting. Any the who good luck with server upgrade.

[MacArtist]

At barefeats they have some closer to real world benchmarks to judge the Macs performance. The tests are done with a dual Athlon 1600MP, a single Athlon 1600 XP, a P4 2GHz, a PM dual 1GHz, and an Xserve.

The graphics test (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html) shows the Macs to actually hold their own fairly well IMHO, not being severely crushed as most would have us believe.

The gaming test (http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html) shows the Mac's performance on Quake3 and UT. The Q3 test shows the Mac as a close if not better performer than the other systems. As for the UT results, I don't agree with them. I get ~50fps in UT with a G4 933 and Radeon 7500, and this is with UT at 1024x768 and textures maxed out.


The following links will give you some real PS and AE results comparing apples to apples (http://www.mediaworkstation.com/2002/05_may/features/g4benchmarks020514.htm).
As well as an After Effects Showdown: Mac vs PC (http://www.mediaworkstation.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm) pitting the dual 1GHz vs. a dual Athlon 1800MP (priced at ~$2600).
This test was redone in Mac vs. PC, Round II (http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/features/07_15/cw_macvspc2.htm) pitting a dual 1GHz PM against a dual Athlon 2000MP(priced at ~$4000) and a P4 2.53GHz(priced at ~$2900).

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by i_wolf
P.S. is this the longest thread in the history of macrumors. Suggestion to arn..... why not create a top 10 of longest threads ever???!!! could be interesting. Any the who good luck with server upgrade.

Not even close. I could be wrong, but I believe the "Short Films" thread currently takes the cake at 664 posts:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=5645

Can anyone remember a bigger topic?

[jelloshotsrule]

it's all about short films...

that pretty much is a forum moreso than a thread... for all film people in general...

[bretm]

Originally posted by MacArtist


External zips are much better than internal because you can use it on any usb equiped computer instead of being locked to one system.

As for no front access USB/FireWire ports, you can always get a hub.

Um hmm. Yeah. Screw airport too. Wires are so much more fun! And dontca just love all those huge-a power supplies all over the place for the zips, external firewire drives, etc.?

Wasn't it apple that ditched the floppy because they wanted everyone going towards zip at least? Wasn't it apple that had the imac commercial focusing on the number of wires coming out of the machine? Wasn't it apple installing airport capability in their computers?

And if hubs are so cheap, how 'bout they stick a whole bunch of usb ports on the front of the computer? The side at least.

I don't think SJ would agree that external zips are better. Have you ever checked the speed difference? USB zip drives are amazingly slow. Horribly slow. The internal zip drives are running off an ata 66. A whole zip disk in less than a minute. Externals can take 5-10 minutes if it's got a lot of smaller files.

And why would we want to walk around with a zip drive and a zip disk in it? I f we all agreed this was a more productive route, wouldn't it even be more productive to buy an external usb drive for the same price and carry it around instead?

Let's not make excuses for apple. They do do stupid and rash things. They learn from them. They're either transitioning, or they're going to be doing a lot of learning. People are going to backlash on the style thing over the function. We can accept great style even if it lacks function. But the latest batch has dropped function like the internal zip AND the style is in question.

Me, I like the lower air ports. Looks fast. But the big nasty doors for the optical is butt ugly. Why not just have 2 quicksilver type doors?

[sw_perf]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


no one is claiming these machines will trounce the x86 machines. what we are trying to prove to you is that the current macs do not lag behind. what you have been trying to suggest is that the intel machines 'trounce' the powermacs. and this is simply not the case. i agree apple's photoshop filters are cooked. but i have seen too many other benchmarks of which photoshop is a part but not the whoel suite of tests, that show that the powermac is only 20% behind the fastest x86 machines. this leads me to believe the new machines will be very comparable to any x86 machine you can build. you claim about trying to be realistic and then say silly things like real world tests mean nothing. lets be realistic here. real world tests are the only thing that matters.

Since nobody seems to be able to post any benchmarks other than Apple's or benchmarks where PPC SIMD is compared with x86 scalar, perhaps the following site might be enlightening:

http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/

[burleypokey]

I am just posting here to try to bump this up to the record. Little help here!

I am really trying to understand this obsession so many people have with the chip architectures and how they compare to this or that. Seems to me to very reminiscent of a group of good old boys drinking some MGD discussing which is better, Ford or Chevy? Then there is the occasional fellow that brings up Mopar. The question should not be which is better, rather, which would you rather drive?

Regardless of what's under the hood, does it get you where you need to go? Sure there are all the benchmarks in the world that will say this is faster by this amount. But does this take into account other factors outside of the benchmark, such as, say, a Page Fault error? The Blue Screen of Death? Or how about a reboot time after your system crashes (including scan disk time)? Reboot time doesn't seem to appear on those benchmarks. Or how about the amount of time it take to download and install the weekly 'security' updates? Then add a reboot to that as well!

I'll put myself out on the line here, I like wintels. Why? They are a challenge. There are like that hot rod in the garage you are trying to get faster. Add that 4 barrel. Get a little more performance. Let's duel her out and get a boost in HP. Fun stuff!!! But when I need to get work done, without fear of a break down, I drive the ride that breaks down less or not at all.

But then again, maybe I am just a lousy mechanic!

-p

[blufire]

Hello everyone, I have a quick question: I just ordered a midrange dual 1 GHz (new model), and I also want to buy some RAM for it... however, I'm not sure if all PC2700 modules are 100% compatible with the machine. Can anyone give me some tips? Or will pretty much any PC2700 module work in the new G4?

TIA!!! ;)

[G4scott]

Originally posted by burleypokey
I am just posting here to try to bump this up to the record. Little help here!

I am really trying to understand this obsession so many people have with the chip architectures and how they compare to this or that. Seems to me to very reminiscent of a group of good old boys drinking some MGD discussing which is better, Ford or Chevy? Then there is the occasional fellow that brings up Mopar. The question should not be which is better, rather, which would you rather drive?

Regardless of what's under the hood, does it get you where you need to go? Sure there are all the benchmarks in the world that will say this is faster by this amount. But does this take into account other factors outside of the benchmark, such as, say, a Page Fault error? The Blue Screen of Death? Or how about a reboot time after your system crashes (including scan disk time)? Reboot time doesn't seem to appear on those benchmarks. Or how about the amount of time it take to download and install the weekly 'security' updates? Then add a reboot to that as well!

I'll put myself out on the line here, I like wintels. Why? They are a challenge. There are like that hot rod in the garage you are trying to get faster. Add that 4 barrel. Get a little more performance. Let's duel her out and get a boost in HP. Fun stuff!!! But when I need to get work done, without fear of a break down, I drive the ride that breaks down less or not at all.

But then again, maybe I am just a lousy mechanic!

-p

There is truth behind what you say... I have a 91 toyota pickup (4x4, standard) and a 98 ford escort... When I want to have some fun, go off roading, or do something that's not productive in my life, I drive the pickup... When I want to go somewhere quickly, or longer distances, I drive the escort, just because it's safer, and has less of a chance of breaking down...

I like to play around with pee-cee's, like ripping out the guts, and upgrading them, and helping friends fix them :cool: but when I want to get work done, I go straight to my Mac. Just remember this:

*NIX for development,
Palm for portability,
Mac for productivity, and
Windows for solitaire... :p

[G4scott]

Originally posted by blufire
Hello everyone, I have a quick question: I just ordered a midrange dual 1 GHz (new model), and I also want to buy some RAM for it... however, I'm not sure if all PC2700 modules are 100% compatible with the machine. Can anyone give me some tips? Or will pretty much any PC2700 module work in the new G4?

TIA!!! ;)

From Apple's tech specs:

Four DIMM slots supporting up to 2GB of DDR SDRAM using one of the following:
256MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 128-Mbit)
512MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 256-Mbit)

Hope it helps...

One of the things that I want to know, is if it only supports up to 2 gb of ram... I saw a pee-cee mobo on e-bay with 3 ddr ram slots, and it said it could take 3gb of ram... If they do make 1gb ram chips, will they work in these new PowerMacs? :D :cool:

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by G4scott
If they do make 1gb ram chips, will they work in these new PowerMacs? :D :cool:

Wouldn't that be nice... every bit as frustrating as me technically having 1.5GB of RAM in my G4 Yikes, but my good ol' mobo only recognizing 256MB per DIMM. :(

[RowdyFROG]

The quoted price increments for configurations on the apple US store page:
1699 - 2499 - 3299 - 4999

the prices (converted to $US) for corresponding configs at the apple Australia page:
2037 - 2950 - 3917 - 5925

there is NO WAY you'd get what you pay for here! NO WAY I tell you.

I'd like to know how anyone can afford to buy these things and (legally) load them up with software. Sure apple, i'm switching...just as soon as I rob a bank.

Does anyone else thing the drive bay panel looks like when you try to fit a new stereo system into an old car and it doesn't sit quite right?

[giovanni]

just one simple comment dudes.
With all this back and forth on which one is better/faster windows vs macs computer, it seems to me the only conclusion that's quite obvious to me, as a reader, is that there is a huge level of frustration among most Mac users in this forum due to, evidently, the lack of high end performance of the Macs relative to intel, amd et all machines.

Plus I do not seem to get confortable with the fact that few if any at all really seems to have a clue on most technical issues.

It is almost like what we say in Italy as a joke (not so much a joke): "why did you come so quicklly ? because I couldn't wait to tell my friends".

Here it looks like there is the desperate search for a quick way to say and support "my Mac is faster than your PC".

WHO THE ****** CARES ????
Do you like your Mac ? does it do what you need the way you like it and at an acceptable speed ? if yes, shut up and buy/keep it ! Can you get it done better on a PC, then get a PC !

Do not misunderstand me - I think discussions are extremely useful, in most cases, and one can learn a lot from them. However, and here is my own frustration, by reading posts here I have learned nothing useful , except may be where to buy memory or where the new macs are available.

Anyways, since I am hear, I will drop my own useless comment: Apple has not innovate crap with this new PM's - so yes I am disappointed and yes I am going to buy one. The latter simply because having a BW g3 350Mhz...so for me it is easy.

I still remember, with nostalgia, the great "leap forward" when I went from the Mac Plus to the Mac SE/30, wow, what a beauty. I was hoping to do the same this time ..

Sorry long....

[G4scott]

Oh, and on my opinion on how it looks:

It's ok, but it looks a little weird, almost fake... I haven't seen it in person, but it looks like an icon from MacTracker from the front... I'm not complaining... It looks nice, but weird.

And as for those of you who complain about how Apple needs to update their case, just shut up... The G4 case is quite functional, with easy-to-carry handles, and easy internal access. There's not much more that they can do to make it better (well, actually, front port access would be nice, but for the things I need, I just have the cable plugged into the computer the whole time, and when I need to hook up the device, I just grab that cable and plug it in. It's easier than having to plug it into the computer and the device every time I want to use it...)

I still have yet to see a pee-cee case that matches the functionality of the PowerMac G4... Those pee-cee cases with clear panels and lights are just eye candy...

[wildcat4100]

oh I'm the 400th to post on this thread
:D :D

[DannyZR2]

So we have here

1.4GB/s for the system bus
2.7GB/s for the DDR SDRAM


What I want to know is this: Apple says on the site something about the system controller routes some information through the controller vs. taking up bandwidth on the system bus. So doesn't this mean we should perhaps be able to still saturate the 2.7GB/s of memory bandwidth since some information will be coming through the system bus and some from elsewhere??

I am pretty confused about all this.. it's hard to get some hard facts vs. speculation... Who can end the madness!!!???

:confused:

[DannyZR2]

Here is the quote from /architecture

"The resulting throughput between main memory and the system controller is up to 2.7GBps, more than double the throughput from the previous dual 1GHz Power Mac G4. DDR-SDRAM also increases systemwide memory bandwidth to the processors and all other elements of the system. At the same time, direct memory access allows system elements, such as a hard drive controller or a graphics processing unit, to send and receive data directly from main memory, without going through the processors. The added bandwidth allows system elements to function independently at high data rates, boosting total system performance."

[legacyb4]

I use Win2K all the time... just pointing out the fact that the price quote included XP Home so the costs should reflect the upgrade price to XP Professional or purchase of Windows 2000 Professional...

Cheers.

Originally posted by Ibjr


Have you ever used 2000? Who wants XP with WPA? Heh, your hypothetical wasn't as clever as you thought eh?

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by G4scott


*NIX for development,
Palm for portability,
Mac for productivity, and
Windows for solitaire... :p

OMG, that would make a great .sig. LMFAO!!

[DannyZR2]

I saw that on a t-shirt once.. I was at the openning of the Apple Store in DFW

[8thDegreeSavage]

This thread make me feel sick to my stomach...



Anyway, i think those enclosures look amazing, i dont understand what you guys are griping about here, beautiful, beautiful hardcore military style enclosures...they are great.

Though all of your winging made me feel better about my QS 867:D

Anyway, while i was not blown away( the "Ultimate" in Canada is like 7.5 grand...kekekekekekekeke) I still think the new machines look alot more powerful and aggresive...something Apple needed.

[Hawthorne]

It's as if the only standard to measure car performance was the cubic inches of the engine, ignoring such little things as gear ratios, torque, handling, compression, etc, etc.

The "I can build a peecee for under for $100 out of baling twine and duct tape that will outdo the fastest Mac around" types probably would also drop a monsterous engine inside of a rusted '78 Cordoba. Sure, you've got horsepower, and it was cheap, but good luck getting it to run consistently well, and you're still stuck with a lousy experience driving it.

Mac users understand it takes more than just raw horsepower to make a great machine. The comparisons to Mercedes and BMW are appropriate. A Mac costs more at first, but in the long run, they're cheaper, and we get SO much in return for our $$, from stability to ease of use to killer exclusive apps.

Dell users? They're the ones with 1979 Firebirds with the 6-cylinder engine and automatic transmission. They believe they're got a good car, and the rest of us are just too ashamed to be seen with them or tell them otherwise. :)

[wildcat4100]

so no 2 botton mouse, or it even be one:( :( :(

[wildcat4100]

Originally posted by theaz
hmm, its funny. I had thought that the enclosure looked pretty nice. Guess I'm in the minority.

I can live with that too:cool: :D

[modul8tr]

I just want to say, to break up the ridiculous, constant, abysmally dull whining about why Apple's aren't PC's.......

I am excited about the new machines. Very much so. Everything I've bought from Apple in the G4 range has met my needs and then some. They rock!!! And every machine I've bought has been more rock solid and kick ass than the last.

I was going to buy the non DDR 1GHz for $2,900 before today. But I have to say I'm entirely pleased I was able to buy a new Dual 1GHz G4 today with all sorts of under the hood tweaks for $2,560. With a DDR RAM upgrade to boot. :D

My music apps (Logic, Pro Tools, Softsynths) ripped on my Dual 533 so I expect great things from my new 1GHz, as I KNOW Apple always delivers me products I LOVE that are great tools to boost my productivity.

People can sit here and wait for MacWorld to come with ridiculous PC expectations and then complain that Apple is not delivering.....PC's. Then fold there arms in a huff and wait another 10 months for some mighty super machine to come that in THEIR eyes may not. And the cycle continues.....

The rest of us will be flying on our fast, innovative, and VERY productive G4's.
:D

Furthermore all of the PC comparisons and benchmarks make no sense to me. It makes me think these people (not all) must not love Apple machines. So why be here? In MacRumors.com? When you're clearly looking for new crappy PC's?

There is a reason Apple has such a devotional fan base. Please just ease up on the negativity, on a site that is obviously built in the love of the unique Mac platform. I remember back when Apple seemed to be in serious danger of collapsing. So I must say I'm rocked off my feet to be sitting here today years later, with my new kick ass G4 on the way (here Friday) to rip through Reason 2 OSX, Ableton Live OSX, Logic 5, and Pro Tools (soon to be OSX native). Can't wait!!!!

Cheers:D

[modul8tr]

Right on Hawthorne!!!!!

Yeah.....and you don't see a www.DellRumors.com either. Wonder why??;)


I forgot to mention, I think the case looks DOPE!!!

[blufire]

If anybody would like to buy a DVI to VGA adapter, I'll sell it to you for $19 plus shipping (exact amount, via your choice of carrier), no tax. E-mail me for more info at blufiresw@aol.com. The reason for this is that I didn't realize the new G4s come with the DVI to VGA adapter, so I bought one with the order... silly me :confused: And, er, if I'm breaking some rule by posting this message, please let me know.. I'm not sure, so I guess I'll find out soon :)

[cbrantly]

One thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the PowerMac has a larger heatsink and NO FAN! There were a bunch of people complaining on the message boards about how loud this new PowerMac was going to be...and then Apple releases it with no fan. I love Apple, and I hate how pessimistic a lot of rumormongers are.

[arn]

Originally posted by cbrantly
One thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the PowerMac has a larger heatsink and NO FAN! There were a bunch of people complaining on the message boards about how loud this new PowerMac was going to be...and then Apple releases it with no fan. I love Apple, and I hate how pessimistic a lot of rumormongers are.

Um, I think you're wrong.

there is a fan

arn

[PyroTurtle]

is it just me or does no one on any board or store know how to put 5.1 surrounds sound on a mac?
i'm gonna have 3 towers soon, and one of them is in my front room, and i could really use the surround sound...not to mention it's why about 20 people in my dorms are refusing to switch, everything else they love, but they have their 5.1 speaker system and these computers are our entertainment centers when we're int eh dorms...most will consider PowerBooks (they love mine, even though it's a 400 Ti) in september, but most want towers cause they already have PeeC notebooks...i could really really use some help here, ause i want to buy a tower, but won't bother if i can't get surround sound...
and yes OS X 10.1 is what gave 5.1 support...

[cbrantly]

This is from MacMinute.com:

• processor heatsink is considerably larger than previous models, but lacks a fan

Are they wrong?

[Dave Marsh]

one next to the motherboard in the fold-down lid and one LARGE one vertically in line with the heatsink when the lid is closed. Go to

http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/pmg4_august2002_480.html

;)

[DannyZR2]

I bet there are some USB 5.1 solutions out there, but I'd say go get one of those audigy sound cards, or whatever sound card for mac that will do 5.1 and pop it in the pci slot.. that probably be the easiest way.

[Ordinate]

I CAN'T BELIEVE APPLE EXPECTS TO MAKE IT WITH THIS CRAP!!

LET'S SEE... DDR?... YES!!... WILL IT WORK??... NO! NO! NO! LEVAE IT TO APPLE TO OFFER MACHINES THAT CAN'T EVEN MAKE USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY INSIDE!!!!!

ANOTHER WASTED EFFORT, MISTER JOBS!!!!!!!!

:mad:

[DannyZR2]

Give it a break and figure it out!

On a PC EVERYTHING goes through the system bus.. NOT SO on a Powermac.. Each thing has it's own dedicated bus to keep from hogging the main system bus.

check out the article on zdnet...

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-949574.html

"But Joswiak defended what apparently is a small increase in the system bus.

'Our architecture is tough to compare to a PC bus, because we don't run everything off the same bus the way a PC does,' he said. 'A PC may have a 533MHz bus, but it's putting everything through that bus--whereas, we put everything on its own dedicated bus.'"

I dont' think anyone can argue iwth the video encoding increase.. 43% faster than the Dell 8200 2.54ghz P4 System! And 18% for the mid Dual 1ghz system.. I'm impressed.. call me a zealout, I don't care.. there will always be those who don't think it's good enough yet... I am tired of waiting and I know these are incredibly fast machines, and I can't wait to see them run X.2!

I am debating on the dual 867 or the dual 1ghz... I'd love to have the mid system, but it might have to wait, while I have the money RIGHT NOW for the dual 867 to spend! :D


SHOULD I WAIT AND SAVE ANOTHER $800 OR SPEND THE $1700 NOW!?!?:eek:


:thumbsup: to you Apple. I am pleased! Dual optical drives/audio in.. oh yeah.. I'm buying!

[modul8tr]

Depends on what you want to do. Both of these computers are fast. Are you going to need more RAM? An extra 256 is about $80. An extra 512 is $140-50 ish. Mac Mall is including 512 megs free right now.

Just think about what you need to achieve and weigh how each model will help your productivity. I bought the new Dual Ghz model today as it is the right amount of power and a whole lot more for what I'm doing AND would like to do in the future. I write music and create sound for films. For these tasks this machine will RIP.

Buy the fastest machine you can afford without blowing all your cash and don't look back. You WILL be happy.

Hope this helps....:)

[mmmdreg]

I don't see anything to complain about...now for the quads and the G5's :)

[DannyZR2]

I really can't complain if I get the 867 "lowend".. ha!

I was looking for a refurbed dual 800 machine for around 1999-2199 and now I can have more cpu power, ddr ram, audio in, dual optical bays, and a better vid card.. for $1699..

I'll probably sell the combo drive out of it and buy the superdrive from macsales.com for $299 (ANYONE INTERESTED????) and then I'll be set!!!

I've got a 24x cd burner in the PEECEE that I'll through in, and get another 256MB 266 RAM and I cant complain.. fastest computer i'll have ever used in my life! (including my xp1800+ system)

CAN"T WAIT!

Final Cut Pro on X.2 HERE I COME!!!!!!!!! :D

[wildcat4100]

Originally posted by dandy
How to open 2 drives with 1 keyboard eject?

I've been bothered ever since they removed the eject key from the drives in the last powermac rev. I actually had a problem on a quicksilver where the drive wouldn't open even though nothing was in it! The drive even failed to show up in System Profiler!. It was extremely annoying 'cause I couldn't even boot off a system cd -- even using all the tricks to open the drive on startup wouldn't work. Running disk utility and fixing drive errors finally let the drive be recognized again. This was in 10.1.5.

Anyway... how do you think you'll control which optical drive to eject with one keyboard key?



Maybe the good old command+shift+1 and command+shift+2 returns??

Guys, please look around before asking...
quote from Macworld:
"The eject button on the keyboard still opens one of the optical drives (a DVD-burning SuperDrive on the 1.25GHz and 1GHz versions, a CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive on the base model); option-eject opens the other."

[Pauls]

Apple advertised the new PowerMac range as built on Xserve architecture. If you refer back to xinet's benchmark test of the xserve you will see the old dp powermac model included in the benchmark adn how much of an improvement the xserve was even though they both had dual 1GHz cpu's — http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/

This should give some indication that today's offering from apple is not just a speed bump, but a serious increase in speed and bandwidth. I for one am glad that apple is working on performance across the board.

For me, it's not enough to look at the figures in isolation. Look at the whole picture, compare benchmark tests, set up your own benchmark tests and try it in the shops. Personal experience is the best judge of speed. Get to know the tasks where you need better performance and try them out on as many machines as possible, including wintel machines. Don't just buy a machine on spec, buy it when you know how it will make your life better.

[DannyZR2]

That site shows an Xserve running OSX Server while the Dual 1ghz G4 tower is running regular OS X.. I wonder how much that had to do with it..

Barefeats showed a test with xserve and the previous top-end dual 1ghz g4 and there was very little difference in perfmorance between the two...

[Cappy]

Originally posted by cyberfunk


OH dear, here comes the whole DDR vs RDRAM thing...

From what I can see RDRAM is a struggling "standard" that has tapped most of it's potential already, and DDR 400 supposedly beats the best RDRAM. Whats more, RDRAM is expensive and proprietary, and requires obnoxious fees to RamBus.

I'm not even going to start on RamBus the company and it's sleazy tactics.

Company aside from what I've seen users are just beginning to see the benefits of the technology. Unless someone can point to some hard facts the latest rev of rambus eats ddr for lunch although dual channel ddr and the forthcoming qdr should give rambus a run for its money.

[whiskeybravo]

I've read the vast majority of this thread with great interest. I've never bought into the PeeCee vs Mac comparisons/debate. As a user of both systems for 18 years (that right, Mac 128k right out of the box) I will probably never have anything but a Mac at home even though I will probably have to work with a PC at work for the rest of my career (maybe I should change careers?). I firmly believe that there isn't anything that can't be done better on a Mac than on a PC. Notice I didn't say faster.

In any event, Apple made my new computer decision relatively easy. While I love the new powermacs, I find them an uncompelling value. In order to equip the low end powermac roughly equal to the 17" iMac, you end up with a computer that costs more than $700 extraeven after the $200 rebate on the display. (substitute superdrive, larger HD, add 17" studio display).

As a home user, I don't see $700 extra value in two processors and the ability to have 4 hard drives. Hell, I can buy a whole G3 iMac for my kids for $799! (Then I could cluster them along with my StarMax and...oh never mind) Of course if I was making my living with my Mac, it would be a different story.

So I'm the proud owner of a 17" iMac and not the least bit envious of the new PM's.

[mdurg]

The "I can build a peecee for under for $100 out of baling twine and duct tape that will outdo the fastest Mac around" types probably would also drop a monsterous engine inside of a rusted '78 Cordoba. Sure, you've got horsepower, and it was cheap, but good luck getting it to run consistently well, and you're still stuck with a lousy experience driving it.

Why do you "types" always assume the worst? When I hand build a PC, EVERY component is the best you can get. But that's just me. Why do you assume it's a lousy experience? Have you ever built a peecee? OK Macs are the best, Steve has some more cool-aid for you to drink.

As for Apple, I almost bought the dual 1 gig last night. I susbstituted the Combo drive for the Superdrive and it was $200 cheaper. I'd use the combo far more since it's faster. But I chickened out. I'm going to wait until after the 20th, the date of my AMEX statement. Have a lot of charges for this month and I don't want the accountant to get all over me :eek:

It's too bad this thread has degenerated into a Mac vs PC thing. Everyone has to realize that one or the other is not the be all end all. Not all PCs are junk like many of you would like to beleive. Personally I like and use both. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. And in a few weeks I will have a nice brand spanking new dual 1 gig sitting next to my hand built XP2100+ where, at least in my office, they will coexist peacefully. :D

[kenohki]

Originally posted by burleypokey
I am just posting here to try to bump this up to the record. Little help here!

I am really trying to understand this obsession so many people have with the chip architectures and how they compare to this or that. Seems to me to very reminiscent of a group of good old boys drinking some MGD discussing which is better, Ford or Chevy?

For me, the reason I'm concerned is that I would like to be able to go to my boss and say, "Hey, this Mac over here is a great platform. It's now Unix based and has the same or greater amount of processor power as our NT workstations. Let's replace some of our NT boxes (including mine :D ) with them and see what happens."

If we had similar performance I might not get laughed at and might be taken seriously. And if we had similar performance I might be able to get them in. And if we had similar performance, I know our engineers would like the platform much better than the W2K junk they have today. But the processors aren't there yet for most tasks.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by bretm
Um hmm. Yeah. Screw airport too. Wires are so much more fun! And dontca just love all those huge-a power supplies all over the place for the zips, external firewire drives, etc.?
It's called USB bus powered, no big bulky powersupply. And if you work on more than one tower or a tower and portable, what are you going to do buy a zip for each computer? This coming from all of the people b****ing about the price of the towers.
Originally posted by bretm
Wasn't it apple that ditched the floppy because they wanted everyone going towards zip at least?
At the time Apple ditched the floppy in favor of the zip, CD-R/RW was too expensive and too slow. ~$700-$1000 Zip was the most viable mas storage media. Now that's not the case, zip drive int ~$100 from apple, zip disks 4 for $55.95. CD-RW $229 from apple, CD-Rs 50 for $29.95.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretm
Wasn't it apple that had the imac commercial focusing on the number of wires coming out of the machine? Wasn't it apple installing airport capability in their computers?
The iMac was marketed as easy to set up with only having one wire to plug in. Anyone with more than the keyboard and mouse had to get a hub. As for airport I never said anything about it.
Originally posted by bretm
And if hubs are so cheap, how 'bout they stick a whole bunch of usb ports on the front of the computer? The side at least.
I have my keyboard, mouse, trackball, graphics tablet, 2 printers, scanner, usb headphone/mic, and soon I'll have a digital camera. That's 8 usb devices, and since I don't have a Studio Display, I'd need to have 5 more usb ports on my tower to use all of my usb devices without hubs.
Originally posted by bretm
I don't think SJ would agree that external zips are better. Have you ever checked the speed difference? USB zip drives are amazingly slow. Horribly slow. The internal zip drives are running off an ata 66. A whole zip disk in less than a minute. Externals can take 5-10 minutes if it's got a lot of smaller files.

And why would we want to walk around with a zip drive and a zip disk in it? I f we all agreed this was a more productive route, wouldn't it even be more productive to buy an external usb drive for the same price and carry it around instead?
I don't deny that usb zips are slower than internals, but it's more ecconomical to buy one external zip drive for use with multiple computers than it is to buy multiple zip drives for multiple computers.
Originally posted by bretm
Let's not make excuses for apple. They do do stupid and rash things. They learn from them. They're either transitioning, or they're going to be doing a lot of learning. People are going to backlash on the style thing over the function. We can accept great style even if it lacks function. But the latest batch has dropped function like the internal zip AND the style is in question.

Me, I like the lower air ports. Looks fast. But the big nasty doors for the optical is butt ugly. Why not just have 2 quicksilver type doors?
Yes Apple does make rash dessions, I'm not making excusses for them. And if you really want an internal zip, I'm sure that they'll probably make an installation kit for the second optical bay, which I may add has been a request of many people since the B&W G3s were introduced.

As for the new look of the optical bays, it's a split, some like them, and some don't. I'll tell you one thing though, no matter what design they come up with, some will like it and some wont. You can't please everyone

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by G4scott


From Apple's tech specs:

Four DIMM slots supporting up to 2GB of DDR SDRAM using one of the following:
256MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 128-Mbit)
512MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 256-Mbit)

Hope it helps...

One of the things that I want to know, is if it only supports up to 2 gb of ram... I saw a pee-cee mobo on e-bay with 3 ddr ram slots, and it said it could take 3gb of ram... If they do make 1gb ram chips, will they work in these new PowerMacs? :D :cool:

Theoreticly it should support 4GB ram unless Apple did something to govern the amount of ram each slot can hold. However 1GB DDR333 chips aren't readily available and 1GB PC2100 chips start at $324.

[Pauls]

Originally posted by DannyZR2
That site shows an Xserve running OSX Server while the Dual 1ghz G4 tower is running regular OS X.. I wonder how much that had to do with it..

Barefeats showed a test with xserve and the previous top-end dual 1ghz g4 and there was very little difference in perfmorance between the two...

Do you have a URL for the Barefeats test?

What's interesting about the xinet test is that as the load of simultaneous processes increases, the differences between test machines become apparent. The graph shows that most machines were closely matched with only one process run at a time. The early 1GHz DP PM didn't perform as well under the increased load of simultaneous processes as the xserve but was comparable in single process loads.

This looks like an important point to keep in mind when comparing benchmark tests.

The new powermacs may well show their stripes in intense multithreaded activities such as processing large numbers of images simultaneously, or running many concurrent background tasks.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by DannyZR2
I bet there are some USB 5.1 solutions out there, but I'd say go get one of those audigy sound cards, or whatever sound card for mac that will do 5.1 and pop it in the pci slot.. that probably be the easiest way.
The Soundblaster cards don't work with OS X.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by DannyZR2
I really can't complain if I get the 867 "lowend".. ha!

I was looking for a refurbed dual 800 machine for around 1999-2199 and now I can have more cpu power, ddr ram, audio in, dual optical bays, and a better vid card.. for $1699..

I'll probably sell the combo drive out of it and buy the superdrive from macsales.com for $299 (ANYONE INTERESTED????) and then I'll be set!!!

I've got a 24x cd burner in the PEECEE that I'll through in, and get another 256MB 266 RAM and I cant complain.. fastest computer i'll have ever used in my life! (including my xp1800+ system)

CAN"T WAIT!

Final Cut Pro on X.2 HERE I COME!!!!!!!!! :D
BTO it with the superdrive, it's the only way to get iDVD. Other wise you have to drop $999 for DVD Studio pro. And as a $200 upgrade from Apple it's worth it.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MacArtist

BTO it with the superdrive, it's the only way to get iDVD. Other wise you have to drop $999 for DVD Studio pro. And as a $200 upgrade from Apple it's worth it.
... or you can pay $19.95 for iDVD 2.1
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M8755ZM/A

[bretm]

Originally posted by MacArtist

BTO it with the superdrive, it's the only way to get iDVD. Other wise you have to drop $999 for DVD Studio pro. And as a $200 upgrade from Apple it's worth it.

You can buy the superdrive any where you want. As long as it's an A03 or A04.

I've got an A03 in my G4 350agp, as well as an extra 80gig internal, and an internal zip drive. I've also thrown in a a 7000 video card. I'm running OSX.1.5 all the time and in general operations, the box doesn't feel much less snappy than a dual gig. Rendering in final cut pro is a different matter. Although not as much as you'd think. A 3 sec render of a dissolve in a dual gig is only about 8 secs in my G4 350.

That new sonnet 867mhz G4 processor upgrade is looking pretty decent right now! ($400 I think)

[G4scott]

Originally posted by cbrantly
One thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the PowerMac has a larger heatsink and NO FAN! There were a bunch of people complaining on the message boards about how loud this new PowerMac was going to be...and then Apple releases it with no fan. I love Apple, and I hate how pessimistic a lot of rumormongers are.

Actually, it has at least 2 fans. One by the motherboard that sucks heat from the optical drives when the case is closed, and another fan that goes the whole width of the computer, right in front of the heat sink (when it's closed). When you think about it, you really need the fans. With dual 1.25 ghz, 4 hard drives, 2 optical drives, and everything else in the thing, you'd have to be insane not to have fans. I have a friend whose video card had a heat sink that would burn you if you touched it while it was running...

Some of my other questions: Does this thing have the same type of power supply as the xServe, or at least a slimmer than normal power supply? In the pictures, you can see that it must be to have the PCI cards fit... Which leads to another question. Where would you run the cables for SCSI hard drives from a PCI SCSI card? Would you have to run them over the mobo, or is there a way to route them under it?

And my other question: Can you just put any ATA CD drive in the second bay? That way, I don't have to shell out $250 for another DVD drive and CD burner. I only need 1 burner and 1 regular CD drive.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by DannyZR2
Give it a break and figure it out!

On a PC EVERYTHING goes through the system bus.. NOT SO on a Powermac.. Each thing has it's own dedicated bus to keep from hogging the main system bus.

check out the article on zdnet...

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-949574.html

"But Joswiak defended what apparently is a small increase in the system bus.

'Our architecture is tough to compare to a PC bus, because we don't run everything off the same bus the way a PC does,' he said. 'A PC may have a 533MHz bus, but it's putting everything through that bus--whereas, we put everything on its own dedicated bus.'"



So, since an Apple marketing rep says that, it's fact?

Well sir, I'm afraid he's wrong. The truth is that the Apple System Controller is 95% similar in design to a typical x86 architecture design.

A typical PC design consists of two chips, the north bridge and the south bridge (with Intel being stupid and calling theirs different to make it sound better). A bridge is just a seperate controller, and the north/south designation is only the describe what each does. One of the misconceptions is that, since it has the designation "bridge", it slows things down. Call them chips, call them whatever you want, they're not like an ethernet bridge or anything.

The North Bridge does:
CPU Communications (FSB Bus connects here)
Memory Communications (Memory Bus Connects Here)
AGP Communications (AGP bus connects here)

The South Bridge does:
PCI Bus Control
USB Control
Integrated Video (if provided through the South Bridge and not an external chip or AGP)
Integrated Sound (if provided through the South Bridge and not an external chip)
Integrated Network (again, if not provided by an external chip)
Standard IDE (RAID functions are on the PCI bus)
Audio-Modem Riser slot functionality
Hardware Monitoring


The two bridges are usually connected nowadays by a pretty quick link, usually .5 GB/s in tranfer rates. The used to be connected via the PCI bus, which made it slow, but the link is more than sufficient for the traffic that goes from the South Bridge to the North Bridge.


The only difference between these two is that standard X86 chipsets will split it up among two different chips (although some of the newer boards are coming out with one big chip). This is usually done to lower costs (since it is much easier to make a pair of 400 pin chips than one 800 pin chip. You get fewer problems with heat dissipation, quality control, etc.). Otherwise Apple is no different nor better than x86- they all use the exact same technology, just implemented ever so slightly differently.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by MacArtist
I have my keyboard, mouse, trackball, graphics tablet, 2 printers, scanner, usb headphone/mic, and soon I'll have a digital camera. That's 8 usb devices, and since I don't have a Studio Display, I'd need to have 5 more usb ports on my tower to use all of my usb devices without hubs.

Not necessarily. You could use the built-in USB ports on the back plus a USB card for your keyboard, mouse, trackball, graphics tablet, 2 printers, scanner, and headphone/mic. That leaves only one item (your digital camera) that you need fast plug-and-play access to, thus the point of having at least one FW and USB port on the front.

[stevesien]

OK here is my 2 cents worth, as if anyone cares, well I do, anyway. The problem as I see it is this, at least for persons like me, I work with CAD and Photo software most days. Therefore every second I have to sit and wait for screen redraws etc. really add up, therefore I want the fastest machine I can get. A thousand dollars more for a better machine, that will save me from thousands of wasted, impatient minutes is a very acceptable expense, at least to an impatient person like me.
BUT, a thousand dollars or even a few hundred more for a SLOWER machine!!!!! Can't do it. As much as I want to. IF I fork over 4-6000 dollars I want the best available.
The new machines to me are so out of date already, it really makes me wonder WTF IS apple DOING? And a 6-8 week wait for the 1.25s?? What have they been waiting for?
I would be putting out for a new PM but like I said these are already out of date.
I hope APPLE realizes they are losing a lot of sales from people like me. If I fork over 4-6000 I want to feel I won't feel like I got last years goods. Therefore I have to wait till they catch up.
I bought an iMac Flat g4 800, I was disappointed with that too. It is a great design but it is so unresponsive FOR A BRAND NEW MACHINE, I have an Athlon 800 right beside it with an older graphics card and the same RAM 768mb and the Athlon is peppier with everything. Just scrolling a web page or clicking on something , it's like the G4 has honey poured over it or something, it is just sluggish again FOR a Brand NEW machine, whats up with that?
Ok I am done. Let me have it.
STeve


;)

[DharvaBinky]

Just was reading some benchmarks between a dual 1GHz quicksilver PM and the Xserve and someone wanted to know the difference between OS X server and OS X client.

Answer:

None.

Well, ok, As far as system performance and kernel and stuff is concerned, there's no difference. As far as we've been able to determine in house, the difference between OS X and OS X server is the fact that OS X server includes WebObjects and QuickTime Streaming Server and a couple of other goodies. But the underlying OS is identical.

Besides... considering that Apple is battling an image problem concerning the speed of their machines, it would seem that they'd ship the fastest (most optimized) OS available on all platforms. Hobbling the client would do nothing but p*ss us all off. <grin>

Also, there's been some significant misunderstanding regarding the PC specs I quoted yesterday versus the Mac specs. The PC specs I quoted are a completely built system, unpack the box, set it up, turn it on, it goes. well... we've all seen the Windows/Mac setup simplicity shoot out from back in the day, so... yeah, it doesn't "go", you have to type in this that and the other and do WPA and blah blah, but you get the point.

Additionally, the system I quoted has WinXP Pro included to bring it to "parity" with MacOS X... as far as latest versions are concerned. Now that doesn't mean there's true feature Parity, the both lack things the other has, but it's their latest. And for Stability concerns. I'm on OS 10.1.5 at home, and have never had a kernel panic. I'm on Win2kPro at home, and have never had a BSOD. <shrug> Both seem really stable to me.

So it comes to this, I guess:

Apple wants you to have a computer running an OS that is a productive tool that allows you to work and play as you see fit.

Micros*ft wants you to have a computer running an OS that is your plastic pal that's fun to be with.

:)

Dharvabinky

[Dave Marsh]

Originally posted by DannyZR2
I really can't complain if I get the 867 "lowend".. ha!

I was looking for a refurbed dual 800 machine for around 1999-2199 and now I can have more cpu power, ddr ram, audio in, dual optical bays, and a better vid card.. for $1699..

I'll probably sell the combo drive out of it and buy the superdrive from macsales.com for $299 (ANYONE INTERESTED????) and then I'll be set!!!


Careful...if you plan to use iDVD to burn to your new Superdrive you may have a problem. Their consumer iDVD app is designed specifically to work ONLY with the Apple built-in drive. In fact, they just stopped a third party from selling an enabler to be able to use this app to burn to the third party Superdrive. So, if you get the Superdrive from a third party, you'll have to use either Apple's PRO version of iDVD, or a third party app.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh


Careful...if you plan to use iDVD to burn to your new Superdrive you may have a problem. Their consumer iDVD app is designed specifically to work ONLY with the Apple built-in drive. In fact, they just stopped a third party from selling an enabler to be able to use this app to burn to the third party Superdrive. So, if you get the Superdrive from a third party, you'll have to use either Apple's PRO version of iDVD, or a third party app.
Um, there is no "Pro" version of iDVD - did you mean DVD Studio Pro? (which is in NO WAY iDVD - it's huge, like comparing FCP to iMovie)

Check out http://www.xlr8yourmac.com - they have a database of users who have put DVD-R drives (as well as any other kind of drive you can think of) in thier Mac's. There's people with Beige G3's (upgraded to G4's) running iDVD 2 on Mac OS X with Pioneer DVD-R drives.

I'm presuming the third party enabler you speak of is from OWC. It was only needed for Firewire DVD-R's and iDVD. Internal drives work with iDVD without any "enablers" (aka "Hacks" ;-) )

-Eric S.

[FatTony]

Originally posted by Hemingray
Oh, fantastic... has anyone else noticed that we can no longer order a ZIP drive for the second bay?! That ticks me off.


I know, and you can't get a SyQuest or Bernoulli drive either. I mean, really...Apple dropped the ball.[/sarcasm]

Honestly, just order one from a third party and install it. So what if you have to alter the front panel. Who knows, maybe someone will make a face plate to match these new cases.

[PyroTurtle]

ok, i'm leaving town, so if someone could e-mail me about the usb 5.1 or anything that has actually links to where i can buy something that does 5.1, please feel free to e-mail me, thankx everybody

[Dave Marsh]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

Um, there is no "Pro" version of iDVD - did you mean DVD Studio Pro? (which is in NO WAY iDVD - it's huge, like comparing FCP to iMovie)

I'm presuming the third party enabler you speak of is from OWC. It was only needed for Firewire DVD-R's and iDVD. Internal drives work with iDVD without any "enablers" (aka "Hacks" ;-) )

-Eric S.

Yes...I was referring to DVD Studio Pro, and yes it's a big app well out of iDVD's league. I was looking around for a Superdrive to use with my graphite AGP tower to play around with when I discovered the iDVD limitation with third party external drives.

Thanks for clarifying the OWC issue. That helps...:rolleyes:

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by FatTony


I know, and you can't get a SyQuest or Bernoulli drive either. I mean, really...Apple dropped the ball.[/sarcasm]

Oh, please... :rolleyes: Right, you forgot Jaz and floppies, too.

I dunno about where you are, but where I am our graphic design firms still use zips a lot. It would have been thoughtful for Apple to include a Zip option for the second bay instead of "optical or nothing". A lot of us have no use for a second optical drive, but we DO have use for removable media for quick swaps. I realize Zips are going the way of floppies, but they're still a viable media.

[FatTony]

I'm sorry, Hemingray, I couldn't resist. You're right, of course. There are tons of zips out there. I just don't know about expecting Apple to support it as a BTO option. I'm not sure about how much that would cost them versus the return on that investment.

I wasn't being sarcastic about the case mod, though. I have put some interesting things inside alot of cases. Mostly because the power supplies of old external drives died. I'm not sure how the optical drop-down drawer works on the new case, but you probably wouldn't have to cut the case to get a 3rd party zip in there.

[Dave Marsh]

RAILhead Design has a good explanation of the 133/167 system (front side) bus speed to Controller to DDR memory bus speed issue that has everyone worked up:

http://www.railheaddesign.com/

:rolleyes:

[topicolo]

Gee, that only says the exact same things I've been saying in my last 5 posts in the thread :rolleyes:

[Pauls]

Originally posted by FatTony
I'm not sure how the optical drop-down drawer works on the new case, but you probably wouldn't have to cut the case to get a 3rd party zip in there.

The Quicksilver internal kit might work with the new PM, it has a slot face plate, and is available on the accessories part of the store. There might be a kit on the way for the new PM to supercede the Quicksilver.

With the bad return rate of zip disks I'm looking at rewritable CD's as a replacement, for our zips. We already use CDRs when we know we won't get a disk back. This is much cheaper.

[PowerSmack]

First post. I'm wearing a Nomex suit, so flame away!

Does anyone find it the least bit odd that:

1. There has been no announcement by Motorola of a 1.25GHz G4 with a 167MHz bus interface? (The parametrics listed on the MOT web site show the 7455 topping off @ 1GHz and a 133Mhz bus)

2. The G4 really turned up the heat in this latest design. The new PM has a heat sink so large that it has planets orbiting it... not to mention the swiss-cheese ventilation holes in the case.

Now, if you took a 1GHz 7455 and multiplied the clock by 1.25 you'd get a 1.25 GHz G4 and... whoa... a 167MHz bus speed. (133*1.25)

Did I hear someone say, "What about the 1GHz model, it's got a 167MHz bus too." Ah, but wait! What if the new 1GHz chip is really an overclocked 800MHz chip? (800*1.25=1000) and that would bump the 133 MPX bus up to 167 also.

Just something to consider while I grab a fire extinguisher. (BTW, I think this means real and dramatic improvements will come in the next revision.)

[mediababy]

I am not a hardware wiz when it comes to chip design & ram, but I do a

way above average amount of multimedia work on all sorts of Macs

Ti Book 800 / PM Dual 1gig / Imac DV. I also have a large amount of time

involved in learning applescript to help speed up my workflow issues...

ie. file management, automated graphics, video editing etc., so what i am

getting at is I have a large investment in Apple products to run our business.

(Time, financial & otherwise)

I probably do 2 DVDs a day / Misc webwork / & file management of about

2 million photos per year & growing.

Up until now I have loved macs but frankly they are falling so far behind

in processing speed I definitely feel

I need to consider dual athlons at a minimum for our video editing.

Macs just take way too long to render in Final Cut even with a realtime

board installed. I understand windows is not elegant like OS X, but I havent

seen the blue screen of death on my friends dual athlon in a long time

and his athlon absolutely smokes my dual 1 gig in video rendering .

I hope Apple wakes up. I am willing to pay a premium for great

gear, but it is starting to slow me down for the volume of work i have

everyday.

[SPG]

mediababy, I don't think that you've really thought through what you're crying about here. If you're willing to go PC, then no more FCP. How good are the PC systems in handling your video edits? Media 100's new system is what, $65,000? that is supposed to handle everything real time. How about Avid? Invest $100,000 on an Avid suite. Aren't willing to put in that kind of money? FCP is $1000, if you're doing real film work then another $1000.
Two DVD's a day? just an encode and burn I'm guessing. I do mainly DVD work here and we do 2 or 3 titles (retail releases, not weddings) a week in the busy season, how? HARDWARE ENCODER, realtime MPEG2 on a G4 450.
We only use macs and a lot of them are old ones. Why? Because for the money they do what we need them to do better and cheaper than PCs do.
Go buy a dual Athlon and see what you can run on it. Especially video. I can give you a half dozen horror stories of producers who owned PC based edit systems that crashed taking whole features down in flames. One shop was even bankrupted because of it.
For the money, nothing comes close when you factor in features, reliability, and longevity.

[risin]

here is a link to a test between dual athlon, p4, and g4 dual.
sorry if this has already been posted.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc23.htm

[mediababy]

If we were running a editing suite for HBO or mainstream releases yes you are correct we are talking AVID. But when I see my friend and competitior
doing realtime edits (multilayer on Vegas Video no less with a $100 vid
card and it does more than FCP 3 (at 1/2 the price & rarely crashes.)
on a dual athlon I started to have a new appreciation for the current state
of Windows stability.

Believe me if Mac was right there in performance.....I would be right on that
train. But my margins are very slim & on volume.

My point was I am seeing it with my own eyes that Apple is getting behind
and I sincerely hope that instead of waving the Apple flag...i am using my
actual personal experience & situation to warrant my decisions.

Film studios & commercial editing suites are a long way from what many
small businesses have as resources to invest in their daily operations.

Also OS X it is not really 'rock solid' stable when you force quit out of an app
and still have to reboot OS X . Whats the difference between that and OS 9?

The crying sounds like it is coming from someone who is partially
Apple 'brainwashed'.

Yes small business can over-invest in gear or they can get what does the job
as fast as they need it & spend the rest of there income on families,hobbies
and other aspects of there lives.

I love aspects of Apple, but i am keeping my eyes & mind absolutely open.

[mediababy]

If we are disgruntled, how will Apple ever get the message that we are....
unless we refuse to buy new overly hyped hardware for a season or two & voice appropiate concerns.

The time of system 7 machines to keep them afloat on the prospect of unseen
great things does not need to reoccur.

Ive purchased Ipod & I love it. Unfortunately it doesnt make me money.

[Dave Marsh]

Here's the link to a thoughtful analysis of the new PowerMacs:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Anunbelievablekludge.shtml

It's seeming clearer and clearer that Moto's out and IBM's Power4-derivative chip will be the G5. It will be VERY interesting if we hear anything about this new chip being in the sampling stage.
:confused:
- redesigned case with massive cooling suggest it wasn't designed for the G4's
- overclocked G4's because faster chips not available because Moto's stopped developing it for desktop?
- new IBM facility cranking up to manufacture new chip
- vector processing unit in new chip (something IBM has avoided in the past)
- PowerPC technology, so who else is available to make use of this chip in quantity?

The only question remaining seems to be when...

:D

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Here's the link to a thoughtful analysis of the new PowerMacs:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Anunbelievablekludge.shtml

It's seeming clearer and clearer that Moto's out and IBM's Power4-derivative chip will be the G5. It will be VERY interesting if we hear anything about this new chip being in the sampling stage.

While I agree it looks like this new IBM chip might end up in Macs, I don't think they can call it a G5 (85xx).

Motorola already has a G5 out... the MPC8560 (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8560&nodeId=01M0ypBDKCb) : PowerQUICC III Integrated Communications Processor

It's an embeded processor, not very fast either, 600 MHz - 1 GHz, but this is of interest:

The PowerQUICC III also offers two integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet controllers,
a DDR SDRAM memory controller, a 64-bit PCI-X/PCI controller,
and a RapidIO™ interconnect.

[FatTony]

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


While I agree it looks like this new IBM chip might end up in Macs, I don't think they can call it a G5 (85xx).

Motorola already has a G5 out... the MPC8560 (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8560&nodeId=01M0ypBDKCb) : PowerQUICC III Integrated Communications Processor

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Motorolla has a different naming convention for their chips. Apple calls them G3, G4, etc. Not to say that they won't change, but Apple started the G (for generation) naming scheme, not Moto.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Here's the link to a thoughtful analysis of the new PowerMacs:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Anunbelievablekludge.shtml




You know, I've been reading that page, and the person writing it made some glaring common mistakes, such as:

"(I have a sneaking suspicion that they're underclocking the RAM to synchronize it with the FSB.)"

One would say that the FSB is running at 167 MHz and the DDR RAM is running at 333 MHz. However, the DDR RAM is NOT being clocked at 333 MHz, it's being clocked at the same 167 MHz as the FSB.

Since it reads both the rising and falling side of the clock pulse, it's doubling it's data throughput. Two ticks for every clock pulse.

167 X 2 = 334.

So we can see that the RAM and the FSB are running off the very same clock, at the same speed, and no synchronization is needed.

Another:

"167 MHz system bus (what is up with that? Dell's top-end systems are up to 533)"

He should have pointed out that a 533 MHz FSB is a "Quad Pumped" 133 MHz clock.

These tricks do help move data faster, but the chips are NOT running faster, just doing four times as much per clock cycle, which happens to be 133.25 MHz in this case. But they also help make the PC look faster... it's the same tricks Intel pulls with longer pipelines in the P4 so they can get the clock rate up higher... not telling anyone that their CPU is doing less instructions per cycle.

533 / 4 = 133.25

More:

"The "new" 1.25 GHz G4's aren't new. They're 1 GHz G4's which are being overclocked 25%. Apple is selecting G4's which can run that speed, and they've designed their new top-end system around them."

This is how it always works. Motorola doesn't make 800 MHz and 1 GHz chips. They make one CPU design per family, i.e., 7400, 7410, 7450, 7455, etc., and test the finished chips to see what their tolerance is, and stamp a speed on them. It's not overclocking when the chip is being run within it's tolerance rating.

I'd say the USS Clueless has its proper captain!

Listen everyone, stop believing all this FUD online. Anyone can put up a webpage and profess to be an "expert" at anything! A small amount of thinking shows they are wrong.

[robpage]

Wednesday I bought a new Dual 1Ghz from the Apple store in LA (The Grove). I'm a old time Mac nut but this thing is going back. It's louder than my Dual G4/450 as it is but it has a second HUGE fan in it and when it kicks in it's like my wife turned on the vacuum cleaner.

Lots of goofy-ness with the ATA busses too. I installed a 40 gig ATA/66 drive on that bus and the Mac booted up from that drive, the stock 80 gig that came with it wouldn't mount. Disconnect the 66, the other drive mounts. I fiddled with jumpers in every configuration. Nada.

The Apple tech support guy said these Macs were so new he didn't have any info on them and couldn't help. (I had to point out these new Macs have seperate ATA/66 & ATA/100 busses, he didn't know that.) Finally what worked, if you can believe this, was setting the 66 as "master", the ATA/100 as "slave" (on a completely different bus, go figure) and, get this, starting from the OS 9 CD holding down the "c" key. The Mac didn't boot from the CD but it did finally "see" the ATA/100 and everything works now. The manual says all drives should be set to "cable select" but that didn't work at all. Weird. (BTW, there's a screw that has to be removed first from the vertical drive caddy that the manual neglects to mention.)

I'm also getting a grinding-static sound through the speakers (not the headphones) whenever I drag something on the screen.

I'm crushed. I really wanted to love this Mac.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by FatTony


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Motorolla has a different naming convention for their chips. Apple calls them G3, G4, etc. Not to say that they won't change, but Apple started the G (for generation) naming scheme, not Moto.

Sorry, but you would be incorrect also.

Motorola uses the Gx naming convention. Go to their website and do a search for "G4."

They have a PDF document "PPC Road Map"

"Motorola Processor Strategy
based upon the PowerPC architecture"

They show the PPC family, starting from the G1 (601, 821, 823, 850, 860/62, 5xx), the G2 (603, 604, 8240, 8245, 8255, 8260/64/65/66) the G3 (750, 740, 745, 755) the G4 (7400, 7410, 7450, 7440) the G5 (85xx) and the G6 (86xx)

For the G5 it says:

Extensible architecture
New pipeline
New bus topology/RapidIO Interconnect Architecture
32 & 64 bit products, backwards compatibility
SymmetricProcessing Capabilities
0.13m process with SOI initial G5 product
800MHz to 2GHz +

PPC Rdmp master v4.pdf (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf)

[FatTony]

Nobody called the 601 a G1 and the 603/604 a G2. SJ started the whole G moniker. It would seem that Moto usurped it to help differentiate its many different chips.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by FatTony
Nobody called the 601 a G1 and the 603/604 a G2. SJ started the whole G moniker. It would seem that Moto usurped it to help differentiate its many different chips.

That wasn't what you said. You said:

Motorolla has a different naming convention for their chips.

And I pointed out that they use the Gx names. So does IBM. They use the same numbers as well (i.e. PPC750-MPC750)

Doesn't matter who started it, they are all part of AIM Alliance.

[FatTony]

I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. My point is that Apple can call its next big computer the G5 if they want. They did start it all.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by FatTony
I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. My point is that Apple can call its next big computer the G5 if they want. They did start it all.

Probably, and I hope so! It would look stupid if they al of a sudden had to chall it an "A5!"

I bet Jobs wants to kill Moto... you know his temper.

;)

[burleypokey]

Originally posted by kenohki


For me, the reason I'm concerned is that I would like to be able to go to my boss and say, "Hey, this Mac over here is a great platform. It's now Unix based and has the same or greater amount of processor power as our NT workstations. Let's replace some of our NT boxes (including mine :D ) with them and see what happens."

If we had similar performance I might not get laughed at and might be taken seriously. And if we had similar performance I might be able to get them in. And if we had similar performance, I know our engineers would like the platform much better than the W2K junk they have today. But the processors aren't there yet for most tasks.

Thanks for the perspective kenohki. I think there is a far greater thing going on here besides the benchmarks in you situation. Even if the the mac were to be equal to or greater than the performance of the NT machines, the true battle here is not within the benchmarks, but how the Apple Brand is perceived by IT departments.

Thinking outside of the business world for a moment, there is a more scientific principle here called institutional intertia, that is once certain behaviors or norms are institutionalized and why they resist change and persist even after better or more efficient alternatives present themselves. Another principle, institutional reflexivity, comes into play as well. This is how institutions affect indivuals and how individual then affect institutions.

Look at education for example. Apple has been so strong in education because early in the game they managed to get Apple computers as the norm for Educational institutions. In turn, these institutions affected individual (namely teachers and professors) computer choices.

Now let's look at the business world. Apple's specialty has never been modularity. The business world aims to cut costs. Early on business needed computers specially tailored to specific purposes. Apple never offered these. IBM and PC offered a platform which was customizeable for specific needs. Once these machines became institutionalized, which machines do you think these companies' employees purchased at home? Compatibility definitely being an issue. Which computers are people learning to use? How does this affect their choices later in life. How is this then reflexive at an institutional level?

I could go on, but you'll have to wait for my thesisjavascript:smilie(':)')

In any event...the morale of the story is the benchmarks are not going to affect the complex social principles at play here. In order to have a chance in your mission, get the boss to experience it first hand. If he does not 'unlearn' the negative association between macs and servers, these benchmarks, regardless of level of performance, will bear no relevance.

-p

P.s. Is this the longest thread yet??javascript:smilie(':D')