Is this a joke [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Megaquad

Jul 21, 2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yeah, who needs a stupid little all-in-one computer with a 17" flat panel and DVD-R drive for $2000...I'm gonna get a PC instead with all that for less...

What's that? You can't? Oh....uh...nevermind...

:rolleyes:
You can actually get athlon which is twice as fast as that G4 snail with 100 mhz bus and sdram (1999ish technology),and as for Superdrive,who really needs it? DVD-R media is expensive and CD burning on that Superdrive is slooow (8x)..
as for 17" LCD,its nice yeah,but i'd trade for some speed..
we are comparing powermacs g4 which cost 3500$ to athlons (and still,they are faster),instead,imac should be compared to those peecees..
right now,i cant get good mac for about 1500$
lets see eMac:17" 1280*960 @ 72Hz? if i am not mistaken,apple's 17" crt monitor could go 1280*1024@85 Hz
700 MHz G4? try some encoding on it..or some game with many bots
GeForce 2 MX,you can't get good performances in games
1099$? thats 1700$ over here in europe,now thats not a good value for money
iMac 15":1024*768,larger resolution would be very nice
GeForce 2 MX
800 MHz cpu? too slow for me
i was about to buy this imac,i thought they will update graphics,cpu and resolutio for this model..but nooo,now only option i have is powermac,the next powermac
17" imac (screen is great),800 mhz,geforce 4 mx (why oh why only 32 megs of ram?),2000$,now thats too much for computer like that (thats 3500$ over here)

Pin-Fisher

Jul 21, 2002, 05:30 PM

Who will buy one?? I will as soon as they arrive at my local
retailer. Why?

#1. I have a PC and want to experience something different.
#2. I like it for its looks.
#3. I have the money to blow.
#4. Just cause I wanna....

mr.w

Jul 21, 2002, 06:00 PM

these computers were designed for consumer markets... not the pro market. How many everyday computer users actually need much more power??? If you want a little more power, buy a low end Powermac and a 15in or 17 in flat-screen .... they'll be about the same price.

so shut up, if you don't like 'em. Buying an apple computer is like buying a high performance, imported car. They are not build to be economical machines - they are built to produce a high quality, exciting user experiance!!!

Megaquad

Jul 21, 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by mr.w
these computers were designed for consumer markets... not the pro market. How many everyday computer users actually need much more power??? If you want a little more power, buy a low end Powermac and a 15in or 17 in flat-screen .... they'll be about the same price.

so shut up, if you don't like 'em. Buying an apple computer is like buying a high performance, imported car. They are not build to be economical machines - they are built to produce a high quality, exciting user experiance!!!
they are consumer machines on paper,but for 2000$ i dont expect consumer-level performance from it,you can get pc for that money which is faster then imac in every possible thing,even photoshop!
yeah quality,and good user experience,that is true..but apple is simply milking money out of us,being a MacZealot wont make life of power-users better.

solvs

Jul 21, 2002, 06:25 PM

That's one of the things I like best about thses forums. If I spend that much for a computer, I want something good. I know a lot of people will buy this, and I get why. It is a pretty cool computer. But we do need modern day specs. Faster RAM, better IDE (ATA/133), etc. The OS kicks, but can be slow and limited. So why use yesterdays technology? Don't we want people to switch? I'm buying a Tower simply because I want to add a PCI card to get a drive over 128-137 GBs (well... and some other stuff) and I don't want to have to use any more external drives than I have.

Western Digital 200 GBs. Who-hoo.

Can't be that much more expensive to add ATA/133, DDR-RAM, and a 133+ FSB.

SCREW USB2.

You want us to pay PRO prices, give us PRO machines.

mr.w

Jul 21, 2002, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by solvs

You want us to pay PRO prices, give us PRO machines.

What exactly are PRO prices... It is our reality that Apple computers cost as much as they do. I have only owned Apple computers (never a PC), to me it just costs $3500 for a computer... that's a reality, that's how much they cost. get used to it. Would you rather have a crappy little hinda civic (a PC) or a sweet new Porche 911 turbo (an Apple)... they both serve the same purpose (getting you from A to B) but with the porche/apple you're ridding in style and elegance .... thus a completely different price!

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 07:26 PM

Let me tell you, the Flat Panel iMac at $2000 is a bargain. You get a 17" Digital LCD Display with 16:10 proportions, which alone costs $1000 in the regular market, A DVD burner, which is another $250, SVGA port for external display mirroring, all the iApps, Appleworks, Quicken, World Book, Otto Matic (a game), PiCalc, a three-D game that didn't come with the original Flat Panel iMac, two operating systems ($20 upgrade for Jaguar), 10/100 ethernet, 2 Firewire ports that require no adapter for the iPod (Firewire supports up to 65 bootable devices per port, hard drives, burners, scanners, videocameras), external Pro Speakers which are powered by the CPU,
GForce4MX graphics, keyboard with volume, eject button, and display brightness controls, and upgradability to 1 GB of RAM, and an 80 GB hard drive. Oh and 1 powered and 2 unpowered USB ports (after plugging in the keyboard and mouse). Don't forget the G4/800 is about 25% faster than a Pentium IV 2 Ghz. So really you are getting a lot more computer than you thought. The bus doesn't matter a hill of beans on a Mac. It is the backside cache, RISC processing, and Altivec instruction units which do.

iH8Quark

Jul 21, 2002, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by gopher
The bus doesn't matter a hill of beans on a Mac. It is the backside cache, RISC processing, and Altivec instruction units which do.

*resists urge to harshly disagree...unable to*

okay. You're nuts. Have you used a Dual 1GHz? They're rediculously slow considering their potential. It isn't the chip, either. Everything runs through the bus simultaneously. RAM, HD, IO. And if it isn't fast, it's going to crap out when put under a heavy workload. I dare you to put the fastest chip on the planet into a mac with a 133MHz bus speed. Then come back and tell me that bus speeds don't matter on a mac. That's the most rediculous comment i've ever read on these forums. :rolleyes:

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 07:41 PM

macktheknife

Jul 21, 2002, 07:53 PM

Well, my comments are not really directed at the iMac, but it is similar to the price/performance arguement. First, let me say that I've been quite happy switching to a Mac since I bought my TiBook a few months back. However, playing WarCraft III on both my TiBook and my cousin's year-old Dell Inspiron laptop has made me realize how big of a performance gap exists between our two machines. I know it's probably OS X that's slowing everything down (that's why I'm patiently waiting for Jaguar), but Apple simply cannot convince more people to switch if they have to pay more and see their old PC programs running more sluggishly on a Mac.

Please don't flame me--I'm just making what I think is a reasonable observation. I know that Macs are definitely more stable, and I am not a believer in the "Mhz myth." I just want to feel justified in spending a hefty sum on a machine. I am personally hoping that Jaguar will let my TiBook be all that Apple has promised it to be. I hope that Apple can improve the performances on all its machines in the coming year or two. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for me to buy another Mac in the future.

Again, please don't flame me: I'm just telling it like it is. :)

iH8Quark

Jul 21, 2002, 07:53 PM

sorry...you missed my edit. I meant to say "compared to their potential" (see the revised above).

And, yes, my computer is fine, it has 768 MB of RAM, and it still chokes like hell with most (and all) 3D programs. I have a friend that has a 3 year old Intergraph machine that smokes my G4. It's a BUS thing.

Besides, your comments never back up why the BUS speed doesn't matter on a G4. I still think that was just rediculous.

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 07:57 PM

You missed my edit too...look at the RC5 and Blast tests. I've got a three year old Integraph machine and it pokes compared to my iMac. Your mileage may vary. Probably you don't have a good graphics card. 3-D is not processor technology but graphics card technology nowadays. Not to mention if 3-D calculations are often cached to hard disk you are going to be slow anyway, and that's what a lot of games do on the Mac if they don't know how to apply OpenGL correctly. Some 3-d things like Maya run quite well. Ask for better written software. The hardware isn't being taken full advantage of in a lot of ports.

Megaquad

Jul 21, 2002, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by gopher

Don't forget the G4/800 is about 25% faster than a Pentium IV 2 Ghz. So really you are getting a lot more computer than you thought. The bus doesn't matter a hill of beans on a Mac. It is the backside cache, RISC processing, and Altivec instruction units which do.
ARE YOU A ****ING IDIOT!?!!? HOW OLD ARE YOU?
PowerMac G4 with 2 processors running at 1 GHz is slower then Pentium IV 2.53 GHz,and any athlon!
did you see that pc's vs. g4 bechmark?
now how do you think 800 mhz g4 imac with 100 mhz bus will perform (powermac has 133 mhz bus)?!??!

solvs

Jul 21, 2002, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by iH8Quark

*resists urge to harshly disagree...unable to*

okay. You're nuts. Have you used a Dual 1GHz? They're rediculously slow. It isn't the chip, either. Everything runs through the bus simultaneously. RAM, HD, IO. And if it isn't fast, it's going to crap out when put under a heavy workload. I dare you to put the fastest chip on the planet into a mac with a 133MHz bus speed. Then come back and tell me that bus speeds don't matter on a mac. That's the most rediculous comment i've ever read on these forums. :rolleyes:

That was my point.

W and Gopher must have missed the part where I thought the iMac was cool, and said that you get a lot for your $$$. My point was that they should implement better (re:current) technology.

The Porche analogy doesn't work here. You get a cool looking computer that's slower and uses older specs, but it's rock solid, versus something faster that looks terrible, is buggy, and much cheaper. Don't start on the whole Apples to M$ oranges thing, but as you have never owned a PC (I have) they've got their good points and bad. Are you suggesting we're just paying for style? I know the OS is better, that's my point. What, you think PCs don't use Hard Drives, RAM, etc? Macs should be more because you should get more. And better.

How many Porches do you know that have slower engines than Hondas, or break down less, and get better gas mileage?

I think you have it backwards.

And before you complain that I'm a troll, I love the new iMacs. I hate my PC (yes I have one, it sux, I hate it, but I have to have it for some stuff... and no, not games).

I just want my next Apple to be able to use a 200 GB Hard Drive. Is that too much to ask? I'll be getting a Tower even if it doesn't have ATA/133 (OWC has cards for $80), but that iMac would have been cool if it was just a little better.

If they want $2000+ they can at least use TODAY''s TECHNOLOGY. I don't think I'm asking for too much.

And yes Windows sucks, P4s suck, and Wintels in general suck. AMD on the other hand, are pretty cool. They crash much faster ;) and, unlike the P4, very rarely light fires.

The dual G4's are cool too, but pretty limited. ATA/66? PC133? In a $3000+ machine? Are you kidding? How much more could ATA/133 and DDR-RAM cost? Even on a 1.2 GHz it could really speed things up. I do Digital Video, every second counts. But SCSI is too expensive for the performance difference. And FireWires pretty limited, too.

If they want me to pay that much for a computer, I want better specs. I could buy a top notch AMD with all that stuff, but, in case I haven't mentioned it before, WINDOWS SUX. People can compare, they will compare, Apple vs. Wintel. They're both computers that do similar things using the same types of technology. Look at what is going on in the PC world. Leaps and bounds in the technology area. Apples - nicer but MUCH slower, Wintel - 0 to Crash in 10 seconds.

And don't just tell me to buy a PC if I'm not happy with what Apple has to offer. Cuz that's just what people do, and it just proves my point.

Thank you, good night, I'll be here 'til Thursday. End of rant.

iH8Quark

Jul 21, 2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by solvs
The Porche analogy doesn't work here. You get a cool looking computer that's slower and uses older specs, but it's rock solid, versus something faster that looks terrible, is buggy, and much cheaper. Don't start on the whole Apples to M$ oranges thing, but as you have never owned a PC (I have) they've got their good points and bad. Are you suggesting we're just paying for style? I know the OS is better, that's my point. What, you think PCs don't use Hard Drives, RAM, etc? Macs should be more because you should get more. And better.

How many Porches do you know that have slower engines than Hondas, or break down less, and get better gas mileage?

I think you have it backwards.

Who the hell are you responding to? I think you quoted the wrong person.

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Megaquad

ARE YOU A ****ING IDIOT!?!!? HOW OLD ARE YOU?
PowerMac G4 with 2 processors running at 1 GHz is slower then Pentium IV 2.53 GHz,and any athlon!
did you see that pc's vs. g4 bechmark?
now how do you think 800 mhz g4 imac with 100 mhz bus will perform (powermac has 133 mhz bus)?!??!

OOOK, yes I've seen the benchmarks:

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

4 to 5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4: 21 million key rate vs. 1.8 Ghz Pentium IV at just under 5 million keyrate for RC5.

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

5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4 than a 2 Ghz Pentium IV.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html
shows the 800 Mhz G4 is oops my mistake only 2 % faster than a 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV at Photoshop,

The point though is benchmarks alone don't tell the whole story, software itself if it is optimized for one system won't show itself superior in another. But Genentech specificly tried to optimize for Pentium IV 2 Ghz and found it was 5 times slower than the G4. As you can see even the 800 Mhz G4 is between 3 and 5 times slower than the dual 1 Ghz G4. Depending on your calculations
the 800 Mhz G4 can outmatch the Pentium IV or meet it even. Things that slow it down are poorly written software, and hard disk access times (which improve on Firewire hard disks).

Even so, how much does speed really matter when you are forced to reinstall software and identify hardware each time you reinstall, and defrag so often?

Oh and I'm 31.

King Cobra

Jul 21, 2002, 08:53 PM

The Altivec can only get you so far in life. But more memory-intense applications 100MHz would do you ***** on a stick in the real world. Some applications absolutely NEED the damn DDR-RAM, and if they don't get it, you are SOL. Even if you had an 800MHz iMac G4 or a 0.5GHz Cube it makes little damn difference on these applications if you have the same ****ing bus speed. Sure, they open faster, but do they make playing chess, Othello, or F1 games faster? Damn right, not by much.

I'm just ticked to why the blue heck you 4 are fighting over this? Calm down, take a blue pepsi and go elsewhere for your little friendly chat.

Megaquad

Jul 21, 2002, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by gopher

Dual 1 Ghz Macs run 15 billion floating point operations a second. Obviously if you have a slow Dual 1 Ghz Mac, you either have done something disasterously wrong to it, or you don't understand where it is able to pick up speed over the Pentiums and AMDs. What do you find slow on the Dual 1 Ghz Mac? How much RAM do you have on it, which operating system are you using on it? Are updating your prebinding if using Mac OS X? Are you leaving the machine on overnight if using Mac OS X? Are you rebuilding your desktop if using Mac OS 9? Are you using only necessary extensions and fonts if running Mac OS 9? Have you partitioned your hard drive to less than 25 GB per partition? Are you attempting to run Norton Disk Doctor, Personal Firewall, or any Symmantec utility other than anti-virus on it (you shouldn't), have you run Disk Warrior on it? If you really think the G4s are slow, show me a G4 that is slow, and I'll show you a user who doesn't understand their machine and doesn't use it for what it's built to do. If bus speed really mattered all that much, how come are the G4s up to 5 times faster running Genentech's Blast algorithms or running RC5 tests than the nearest competitor? FIVE TIMES! Obviously if you just optimize for Altivec and use the cache to its fullest advantage you can get remarkable results. I've posted the links here before for RC5 and Genentech.
more then 95% of applications AREN'T optimized for neither AltiVec,multiprocessing support,or use of L3 cache,in real-life with 1 ghz dual you can get max. 7 gigaflops,well,8 in some cases,what do you think how fast they are with non-altivec optimized apps? like macromedia's,adobe after effects,and oh yeah,video encoding!! and when you use a lot of apps in the same time..things become slow,even with jagwire

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 08:56 PM

>http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_t>est.html
>4 to 5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4: 21 million key rate vs. 1.8 >Ghz Pentium IV at just under 5 million keyrate for RC5.

distributed.net say that RC5 is a poor choice of cross-platform/processor benchmark :

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/faq/index.cgi?_recurse=1&file=27#file_55

>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
>5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4 than a 2 Ghz Pentium IV.

I notice a distinct lack of Athlon's in that test. (I'm not sure what kind of code is involved in blast, if it's fp code and the P4 version isn't SSE2 aware then the P4 will get smacked because it's FP pipeline is weak, the Athlon OTOH has a very beefy FPU)

>http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html
>shows the 800 Mhz G4 is oops my mistake only 2 % faster than >a 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV at Photoshop,

You are KIDDING me right?, find me some benchmarks that both back that up and AREN'T on apple.com? :)

Several independent tests have shown that a 1Ghz G4, on average, is about equal to a 1.33Ghz Athlon in photoshop.

>The point though is benchmarks alone don't tell the whole story, >software itself if it is optimized for one system won't show itself >superior in another.
This is true, you should know better than to trust benchmark results published by the manufacturer however. (ANY manufacturer)

Right now, unless the Altivec unit + L3 cache makes itself known, the G4 gets a big smack from the current top end x86 hardware, a dual 1.8Ghz Athlon machine or dual Xeon's are NOT to be sneezed at.

the current G4 is a bit of an icky processor IMO, the IBM's G3 implementation (the Sahara/750FX) is much nicer.

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 09:01 PM

The reason is, the falsity that is so obvious by the fact Genentech did manage their feet. The reason is so obvious because you spend more time (hence less taking advantage of speed of), trying to solve computing problems with Pentiums and AMDs than you do with Macs. If you buy into the Mhz/bus myth you get a Pentium or AMD. I for one do not, and have never seen a Pentium that comes close to the speed of my iMac or the ease of use of my iMac.

Let's look at it this way:

Pentium IV is actually slower than the Pentium III.
Tests show that on the RC5 tests above and in other places too!

AMD's fastest processors have their so called speed overemphasized by naming conventions to match up with comparable Pentiums. An AMD 1600, or AMD 1700 etc...Turns out they haven't even reached the speed of the top of the line Pentium IV if you follow that logic. Why don't I see an AMD 2600? Because they are SLOWER!

If the PC world can't agree on its own Mhz ratings = speed in its own processors, what chance in heaven does a Mac have any agreement with PC processors? Do away with Mhz. Let's look at the actual calculations done by programs optimized for their processors.

Case closed.

Megaquad

Jul 21, 2002, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by gopher

OOOK, yes I've seen the benchmarks:

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

4 to 5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4: 21 million key rate vs. 1.8 Ghz Pentium IV at just under 5 million keyrate for RC5.

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

5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4 than a 2 Ghz Pentium IV.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html
shows the 800 Mhz G4 is oops my mistake only 2 % faster than a 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV at Photoshop,

The point though is benchmarks alone don't tell the whole story, software itself if it is optimized for one system won't show itself superior in another. But Genentech specificly tried to optimize for Pentium IV 2 Ghz and found it was 5 times slower than the G4. As you can see even the 800 Mhz G4 is between 3 and 5 times slower than the dual 1 Ghz G4. Depending on your calculations
the 800 Mhz G4 can outmatch the Pentium IV or meet it even. Things that slow it down are poorly written software, and hard disk access times (which improve on Firewire hard disks).

Even so, how much does speed really matter when you are forced to reinstall software and identify hardware each time you reinstall, and defrag so often?

Oh and I'm 31.
ok,now you pissed me off completely
how about this link? http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm
haha "Benchmark Duel: Mac vs. PC, Round II
Dell 2.53GHz Pentium 4 Runs Circles Around Fastest Mac G4"
as for apple's benchmarks,ignore them
thanks to apple benchmarks,2 years ago,i was convinced that G3 350 MHz is faster then 600-700 MHz PC.
that was dirty lie. you are talking about real life experience,but ironically thats area where macs are slowest
-interface,slower than XPee even jagwire
-games are slower on macs
-programs are effectively slower on mac due to aqua (at least thats gonna relatively change with jaguar)
the list goes on and on...
oh yeah,try SETI,if you know what i mean
edit:i forgot to mention that g4 goes mhz by mhz in speed with athlon (even 10% slower),so if you gotta athlon at 1.4 ghz,you gotta 40% faster computer (if g4 is slighly better,thats because of dual cpu's,it isnt fair comparing double priced dual cpu too single athlon,is it? but athlon still runs circles around it)

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by gopher
The reason is, the falsity that is so obvious by the fact Genentech did manage their feet.

Of course they did, if they didn't they'd fall over.

The reason is so obvious because you spend more time (hence less taking advantage of speed of), trying to solve computing problems with Pentiums and AMDs than you do with Macs.
That is VERY debatable these days, my boxes run problem free.

If you buy into the Mhz/bus myth you get a Pentium or AMD. I for one do not, and have never seen a Pentium that comes close to the speed of my iMac or the ease of use of my iMac.

The ease of use factor ?.. yeah, that I'll give you.. the SPEED factor?.. nope, not giving you that.

It's not about how many megahertz you have, it's about how many megahertz and how many instructions per clock you have going on, AND how well fed the caching/memory subsystem can keep the processor fed.

Right now, in the consumer space, the Athlon has the first two nailed down, and the QDR bus on the P4 has the last issue nailed down.

Pentium IV is actually slower than the Pentium III.
Tests show that on the RC5 tests above and in other places too!

Per clock, yes, as http://n0cgi.distributed.net/faq/index.cgi?_recurse=1&file=27#file_55 points out, RC5 is a terrible benchmark for comparison PARTICULARLY with the P4

Here's the thing, the P4 scaled up to 2.0Ghz on a .18 process, the P3 topped out at 1.1Ghz, a 1.1Ghz P3 is about level with a 1.6Ghz .18 P4, hence it was faster (actual speed) on the same process.

AMD's fastest processors have their so called speed overemphasized by naming conventions to match up with comparable Pentiums.

Wrong, AMD's Quantispeed ratings are relative to AMD's older "Thunderbird" core Athlons, not the Pentium 4

An AMD 1600, or AMD 1700 etc...Turns out they haven't even reached the speed of the top of the line Pentium IV if you follow that logic. Why don't I see an AMD 2600? Because they are SLOWER!

Because

1) Intel have been on a .13 process for a while now, AMD only just started shipping .13 parts and haven't perfected it yet. (and AMD are concentrating most of their resources on Opteron)

2) the P4 is designed for raw clockspeed over IPC (which is frickin' stupid if you ask me)

3) a 1.8Ghz AthlonXP will _seriously_ smack around a 2.53Ghz Pentium 4 in floating point, the P4 pulls ahead if SSE2 code is being run on it, but the only reason it holds it's own against the Athlon clocked 700Mhz slower is that the Athlon is running into the limitations of it's memory bus (2.1GB/s isn't enough to keep a 1800Mhz processor fully fed if the dataset overflows the cache)

Notice the Povray graph (FP) and then the Lightwave graph (SSE2)

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q2/athlonxp-2200/index.x?pg=5

Bottom line, the G4 is fast in a few specific instances, but with each week It's falling further behind everywhere else and is borderline on getting overtaken even in the areas where it IS fast (except for the BLAST tests and a couple of others) , Apple need to start sticking POWER4's in their workstation line :)

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 09:13 PM

>http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

Unfortunately After Effects isn't Altivec optimized. If you use Final Cut Pro, you will get much better results. Use the application most suited to the processor and you will get better results.

As for trouble free AMD, you must be one hell of a guru. I have yet to see a PC that is as easy to run as a Mac. Installing software is something I loath to do on any PC. Too many DLL errors. With a Mac, if I install something bad, I just have to trash its preference and the application and my system acts as it always has without the application. It is that simple.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by gopher
>[url]As for trouble free AMD, you must be one hell of a guru. I have yet to see a PC that is as easy to run as a Mac. Installing software is something I loath to do on any PC. Too many DLL errors.

I haven't had a dll error since.. ooh, 1997?
It's just knowing when not to (or infact, when TO) punch the machine :)

the biggest trick to a stable AMD rig is to avoid any components that say VIA on the box :)

Windows 2000 is actually a fairly solid operating system, it's bloated, but it does actually work. (frickin' took microsoft long enough)

but then, OSX is also bloated in many ways.

* takes a moment to inject BeOS and AmigaOS fanboyism into the thread *

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

I haven't had a dll error since.. ooh, 1997?
It's just knowing when not to (or infact, when TO) punch the machine :)

the biggest trick to a stable AMD rig is to avoid any components that say VIA on the box :)

Windows 2000 is actually a fairly solid operating system, it's bloated, but it does actually work. (frickin' took microsoft long enough)

but then, OSX is also bloated in many ways.

* takes a moment to inject BeOS and AmigaOS fanboyism into the thread *

Avoiding VIA on the box? I've never seen VIA on any box. And where is this documented? I tried installing Realplayer on Windows 2000, and encountered a DLL error saying one wasn't available.
This was on a clean Windows 2000 system. And now my Windows 2000 machine requires rebooting after logging in each time because Windows Explorer has an error. Once I've rebooted everything is OK. Until wait a sec, it can't ping some part of the server and crashes Windows Explorer again. And this on a slower PC even, a Pentium III 1 Ghz by Gateway. I'm going to have to locate the article on AMD's chipnaming but that's for another night. I distinctly remember they were naming it to match Intel. Still I see the Lightwave benchmarks showing that like the Mac, no one is a clear winner on all programs. Some are optimized more for one platform than another. I still say the Mac is easier to use, install software, remove software, install hardware than any PC out there. And Ease saves time. And what saves time is faster regardless of how fast the machine is.

iH8Quark

Jul 21, 2002, 09:41 PM

VIA chipsets have been a major pain to my buddies in IT. Boy would they be happy to hear someone else say that.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 09:43 PM

Avoiding VIA on the box? I've never seen VIA on any box.

VIA are a hardware company that make chipsets, chipsets that have a knack for not working properly.

And where is this documented?
On usenet, in every post where someone says "I got a mainboard with a VIA chipset and my soundcard crackles and pops" etc etc.

I tried installing Realplayer
That was your first mistake, Realplayer is an absolute POS program.

And this on a slower PC even, a Pentium III 1 Ghz by Gateway.
Gateway *shudder* that was your SECOND mistake!

I'm going to have to locate the article on AMD's chipnaming but that's for another night. I distinctly remember they were naming it to match Intel.

The article you saw was making shiznit up

http://athlonxp.amd.com/technicalInformation/benchmarkingModelNumbering.jsp

"As a way of communicating the performance improvements of the new AMD Athlon™ XP processor relative to the performance of the currently available AMD Athlon™ processor"

Still I see the Lightwave benchmarks showing that like the Mac, no one is a clear winner on all programs. Some are optimized more for one platform than another.

Indeed, but eventually you'll hit a point where the suboptimal platform is winning through sheer brute force (and the G4 @ 1Ghz is RIGHT on that breakpoint at this time)

I still say the Mac is easier to use, install software, remove software, install hardware than any PC out there.

Sure, if all you do all day is install/uninstall hardware and software, some of us want performance whilst we're actually DOING things with the computer, I like Apple, I like MacOS X, I don't like the fact that Motorola are stringing Apple along with underperforming processors.

Hell, for non-Altivec stuff, the Sahara G3 is faster than the current 7-stage G4 (it's a shrunk 4-stage G3 with 512K of L2 cache, it's IPC is a good 25-30% over the G4 altivec/L3 cache not-withstanding)

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 09:56 PM

i was convinced that G3 350 MHz is faster then 600-700 MHz PC.

I'd give a 450-500Mhz G4 fair odds against a 600Mhz Pentium 3 Katmai, I'd expect a 600Mhz Athlon to kick it around though.

-interface,slower than XPee even jagwire

I presume you're referring to the amount of time displaying the genie effects etc? (I can't see Aqua Extreme being slow, though I haven't seen it up close yet).

-games are slower on macs
I seem to recall something about return to castle wolfenstein being exceptionally fast on a 1Ghz Quicksilver... I think most of the workingset fit in the L3 cache or something :)

i forgot to mention that g4 goes mhz by mhz in speed with athlon (even 10% slower)

Depends on the specific circumstance, those dedicated Altivec execution units can go a long way, except right now they bump into memory bandwidth limitations if the dataset is in any way big.

Oddly enough, I recall seeing benchmarks showing a single processor Xserve edging up to a DP Quicksilver in processor intensive benchmarks, could it be that they Xserve's DDR keeps the Altivec hardware fed better?

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 09:59 PM

Why should Realplayer or Gateway be mistakes? I mean we are talking software everyone has, and a machine that itself is quite popular. Do you realize how much time it takes an office filled with IT people to install one single PC with an operating system and its software? Sometimes a week! Now imagine this multiplied by many PCs in a single office. Whereas a Mac is ready in an hour with the same kind of software. And then when it comes to install new software often it takes them overnight to get it installed correctly, and this is even though they have the software on their server. With a Mac, it often is nothing more than drag and drop, or at most double click on install and click on restart. It is that simple. It gets to the point where you are afraid to install anything more because you just want a system that works. If PCs got me out of the starting gate earlier, maybe I'd switch to them, but I have yet to see a PC that does that. What good is having 100 times as many software titles, if 95% of them don't work well together? Why is there even an Uninstaller program for PCs? With a Mac, I just drag it to the trash and it doesn't affect the rest of the system. That's the kind of simplicity I wait for in the PC. Drag and drop everything.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 10:04 PM

Why should Realplayer or Gateway be mistakes?

1) Because their software is buggy, unstable, and spyware ridden?
2) because they cut corners in the hardware

Do you realize how much time it takes an office filled with IT people to install one single PC with an operating system and its software? Sometimes a week! Now imagine this multiplied by many PCs in a single office.

Unless the IT people are totally incompetant setting up a new machine shouldn't take more than about an hour, that of course assumes they know what the hell they are doing and have premade OS+application installs ready to GHOST over the network.

Even if they don't, a WEEK?.. that's still incompetance on a grand scale.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE simplicity and it's something Windows lacks quite majorly, but you are seriously exaggerating (or your IT people are clueless)

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by iH8Quark
VIA chipsets have been a major pain to my buddies in IT. Boy would they be happy to hear someone else say that.

Send them here http://www.ecs.com.tw/products/k7s5a.htm

Those boards can be had for $50 and they are quite possibly the best value in the history of the world, they're fairly quick, they WORK and they're cheap.. what's not to like ? :)

(I'm using one BTW)

gopher

Jul 21, 2002, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

Send them here http://www.ecs.com.tw/products/k7s5a.htm

Those boards can be had for $50 and they are quite possibly the best value in the history of the world, they're fairly quick, they WORK and they're cheap.. what's not to like ? :)

(I'm using one BTW)

Toll free number to Taiwan? I think not. OIC, they have a distributer in Canada. Fancy that Canadians can't buy Macs at U.S. prices. And I wonder if we can buy motherboards at Canadian prices? Now is it really all that cheap? Where do you get software, where do you get additional parts? How do you know what parts work together? With a Mac, it just works, and if it doesn't you have anywhere from a year on hardware/90 days on software, and 3 years on both if you purchase AppleCare to find out. And Apple's customer relations will help you if others won't. Building your own PC might be nice, but can you piece together a PC in 8 minutes flat from motherboard and parts and be on the internet, writing a paper, or managing Quicken? You can on a Mac. The argument for getting things done faster on a PC vanishes if you are talking about building your own PC. It is already finished on a Mac. And no amount of PC speed is going to save you there. The Mac is ready to rock and roll out of the box. And that's its strength. The Mac is gourmet fast food. The PC is a recipe and it is up to you to interpret it. Now some will say recipes are great, but what if you had the best chef from the best restaurant make you your favorite dish and have it ready for you? That's what the Mac is all about.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 10:36 PM

Now is it really all that cheap?
It's a $50 mainboard.

Where do you get software
It's a mainboard that takes an x86 (Athlon) processor, software for those is quite commonplace incase you hadn't noticed...

where do you get additional parts?
Pretty much anywhere?

How do you know what parts work together?
If it's a PCI card, it'll work, if it's an AGP card, it'll work, if it's PC133 or PC2100 ram it'll work, if it's an Athlon it'll work.

With a Mac, it just works, and if it doesn't you have anywhere from a year on hardware/90 days on software, and 3 years on both if you purchase AppleCare to find out. And Apple's customer relations will help you if others won't.

Standard hardware warranties on hardware is usually 1 year.
and whilst Mac's AIM to "just work" I've heard enough reports of them not "just working" (Cubes switching themselves off etc) to know better than to believe every word of apples hype.

Building your own PC might be nice, but can you piece together a PC in 8 minutes flat from motherboard and parts and be on the internet, writing a paper, or managing Quicken? You can on a Mac.

You can't on a Mac, you stumble over your VERY first point in that section, the "assemble from motherboard and parts" bit..

aside from that, It's a good point, but it's also fairly moot for anyone who knows what they are doing, exactly HOW often do you need to assemble a PC?..... ooh, once?

It Takes me about 2 hours to get from parts to a working machine, but for the amount I pay for them It VASTLY outweights my Time/Money ratio ($1000 for a fully fledged machine that takes 2 hours to build verses $3000 for a machine that works in 8 minutes)

If I had the cash, I'd have a Mac, they are damn nice, but I can't justify it when I can do what I need to do whilst spending a hell of a lot less.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 10:38 PM

The argument for getting things done faster on a PC vanishes if you are talking about building your own PC. It is already finished on a Mac. And no amount of PC speed is going to save you there

You have to build a PC _ONCE_, once it's built, you have a machine, you don't have to strip it down after each use you know.

Once the machine is built, if it does something faster, it does it faster. stop grasping at straws. >:(

Grokgod

Jul 21, 2002, 10:54 PM

I love this thread!

I was accused of whining when I was trying to discuss these issues, I tried to say that there are others that feel like I do and that I was making general discourse.

Suddenly here it all is in glorious text! LOL

Let me add some lighter fluid to the fun.

Yes, Pcheese's are faster!
Macs more dependable.

SO what we want is faster MACs to blow away Pcheese machines.
That means CURRENT hardware at current prices!

But APPLE has decided that SDRAM is the best RAM for PROs and that it cost ALOT! Despite the fact that its been out for years and anyone can buy it!
Its in the cheapest of WINTEL boxes, the CHEAPEST! :D

We are all angry about that!, the real question here is....

1>WHY is APPLE doing it ? ...and if we can figure that out.

2>DO they still deserve our business!

solvs

Jul 21, 2002, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by iH8Quark

Who the hell are you responding to? I think you quoted the wrong person.

I was responding to the guy who used a Porche analogy and has never had a PC.

Anyway, I didn't start this, but I seem to have made it worse.

We all know Apples are better than Wintels for so many reasons. My point wasn't about benchmarks, or even real world performance (wait, it was about real-world), it was about using last-years (or worse) technology in several-thousand dollar machines.

I just want to have my next $3,000+ computer come with a 120 GB ATA/100 (or better) hard drive (at least as an option) with the ability to add a 200 GB drive, without having to spring for an $80 PCI card (it's the principal of the thing. Plus it uses a precious slot). And you can't add PCI cards to e/iMacs. You'd have to use an external firewire drive.

Does anyone still sell machines that expensive with ATA/66? It matters. It's stuff like this that the PC weenies laugh at Mac users for. Do you really think those types of users want to switch? OS X is cool, esp. with it's UNIX core, but it needs modern hardware.

I love the Dual Gigs, we all do. And the 17" iMac is cool and all. But is it too much to ask for DDR-RAM and ATA/133. We should have 166 FSBs, PC2700, FW 2, USB 2, and everything else that makes a computer State-of-the-Art. 15 GigaFlops CPUs are cool and all too, but not everybody runs BLAST.

The G4 is actually a great CPU, and OS X is the best OS I've ever used (never tried BE, though), but they need to be fed by using better hardware.

That's all I was trying to say.

Chryx

Jul 21, 2002, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by solvs
We all know Apples are better than Wintels for so many reasons. My point wasn't about benchmarks, or even real world performance (wait, it was about real-world), it was about using last-years (or worse) technology in several-thousand dollar machines.

Exactly, I'd LOVE a big meaty PowerMac, but there's no way I'm spending that amount of money to buy something that's slower and/or less advanced than the el cheapo hardware I've got already.

a nice user interface etc etc is worth a lot, but spending MORE money to get something slower and/or less advanced just doesn't make much sense.

I mean, Apple hardware is generally extremely well engineered, but that alone doesn't translate to anything much more than reliability in most cases (and there's no such thing as a 0% failure rate anyway)

If Apple pull a rabbit out of their hats, be it a Motorola G5 that meets expectations or some sort of psuedo-Power4 from IBM (pair of Sahara cores + SMP logic + a few dedicated altivec units should fit on a 100mm^2 die at .13) then I'll give switching serious consideration.

until then I shall sit on the sidelines and look like an Apple fanboy everywhere else, and an Apple-basher on Apple fansites!

Paolo

Jul 22, 2002, 01:18 AM

Macs are the best - that's it no argument.

Reason:
PC's EVERYTIME you startup you have to look at microsoft! Who the hell wants that!
(unless of course you run UNIX or Linix) but Linix is just shoddy and looks half done all the time!

Mac's well yeah you have to put up with initially starting with M$ software, but you can just chuck it off, get replacements for all the M$Hate Zealot companies!

There you go!? Macs are better PC's are ****... plus a mac looks so much better on your desktop.

SO what if a PC can run a benchmark fast than a Mac under specific conditions favour the pc or vice versa.

As apple said in the keynote, they are atracting more switchers by the day. That just shows how many people went to mac from PC!

Another point is AMD and Pentium are chip companies... they JUST make chips (oh and other useless *****) apple make everything to do with computers... the do it all. So I see it as quite an achievement for apple to even be compared with chip companies!

You PC zealots, go and build your stupid PC so it runs faster than my mac. Who gives a stuff!

Paolo

Jul 22, 2002, 01:25 AM

Just got this off another thread... PC zealots EAT YOUR HUMBLE PIE

http://www.itsthebomb.com/story.php?storyid=2002/7/21/8

Megaquad

Jul 22, 2002, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by gopher
>http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

Unfortunately After Effects isn't Altivec optimized. If you use Final Cut Pro, you will get much better results. Use the application most suited to the processor and you will get better results.
As i said,95% of applications aren't optimized,lets look at few things used by the average user:
dreamweaver,flash and other macromedia apps,QT encoding,games,adobe illustrator..none of them is optimized for AltiVec! AltiVec is only a mask to cover terrible performances of G4,look at G3 sahara from iBooks,that little 700 MHz cpu is almost faster then dual g4 in raw processing power! (i am sure if g4 was single,g3 would be faster.)
now imagine 1 GHz desktop G3,200 MHz bus,DDR RAM,and it is pretty cheap,it would be so much better then athlons! (truly,it would suffer where G4 with AltiVec was fast).

fragiledreams

Jul 22, 2002, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by mr.w

Would you rather have a crappy little hinda civic (a PC) or a sweet new Porche 911 turbo (an Apple)... they both serve the same purpose (getting you from A to B) but with the porche/apple you're ridding in style and elegance .... thus a completely different price!

Do you know any Porche 911 turbo running slower than a Honda Civic? I don't, you ******** apple freak/ victim

tcmcam

Jul 22, 2002, 07:31 AM

OK, here is another benchmark to check out:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Notice only the DP 1ghz boxes are performance competitive. The 933 mhz is MUCH slower than a PC. So an iMac 800 (even with that sexy 17" screen) is so slow compared to anything here.

BTW, you can't even get a 1.8 ghz P4 machine anymore, they are all 2.2 or 2.4 ghz.

Why do I say this?
- I'm so FRUSTRATED with Apple, they've got some WONDERFUL assets (OSX, their "i" apps, quiet PCs like the iMac), yet they SCREW IT UP with their dreadful performance.

- I'm as open minded as anyone, Yes, MAC's have some great software, easy to use etc. But how do I justify a $3000 SPREAD in price for equal (or lesser) performance!?

This is Apple's problem. They will never make a major dent in businesses (large or small) with this type of price performance gap.

The new iMac could have EASILY had a 1ghz processor with DDR ram. How about ATA100? This would easily bump up performance. Why didn't they do this? To protect the very inferior PowerMac line which hopelessly out of date. Apple should learn from IBM's past mistakes. Sometimes it pays to release products even though it will make your current products inferior. IBM did that numerous times in the mid 80's and it finally killed their PC business.

I'm thrilled about the switcher's campaign. But let's face it, this is targetted at home users, not business. If Apple really wants to grow market share, how about appealing to at least one business segment (other than video production). Apple should be "THE" small business computer. But, Apple kills themselves in making this NOT happen.

:mad:

mr.w

Jul 22, 2002, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by fragiledreams

Do you know any Porche 911 turbo running slower than a Honda Civic? I don't, you ******** apple freak/ victim

listen a**hole ****. I don't want to start a flame war here.

In all experiences MAC's have been faster then PC's ... were talking about a matter of seconds here people.

Kethoticus

Jul 22, 2002, 04:24 PM

Some of the people in this thread seem to be of the mind that only positive things about the Mac can be said here. They fail to realize that this is a public posting area and the posts have all been relevant (at least the ones I've read). Complaining about the price/performance issues of the Macintosh computer line is all too right and necessary. Apple reps DO read these sites and sometimes actually take a little from them. The platform can be improved by *itching and moaning.

The user experience is not so much in question here. Probably everybody here prefers the Mac end-user experience to Windows'. But it's getting harder and harder to justify US$2,000 for a machine that has 50% the performance, 50% the upgradeability, but 200% the looks.

Some people have said that consumers don't need all that extra GHz power. Okay, fair enough. But then why are they not charged more like consumers? Why isn't the pricing structure more appropriate?

I know that this is probably just a matter of personal opinion, but I do not buy the porsche/chevy argument. Maybe I do not understand it. Could someone explain to me why it is that some Mac-heads feel the Mac is like a porsche? It certainly isn't fast like one. I do understand the quality thing though. I mean Macs do keep their value longer than PCs. But the overall analogy makes little sense to me.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Mac-basher, just someone who's slowly finding more and more reasons to look elsewhere for his computing needs. I'm hoping that the new PowerMacs rumored to be unveiled next month are going to make me think twice.

thies

Jul 22, 2002, 04:27 PM

Its actually quite simple. Over the last days alone I saw three real life "benchmakrks" being released that simply gauged the speed for a specific task at hand taking a Mac and a PC into account. The outcome was that the Macs are dogslow.
What else do we have? a lot of customers who only recently switched to Macs. Will they remain there seeing that they are stuck on slow hardware with Apple seemingly unable to release anything on par with x86? Even if they could push 1,6GHz chips out of the door in the next months it would be dated compared to x86.
I'm interested in getting a job done fast. Blinky shiny GUIs I don't care about.

voicegy

Jul 22, 2002, 05:00 PM

"Blinky shiny GUIs I don't care about."

That's ok. There's plenty of customers out there who DO care about such stuff. When my mom goes into the Apple store and is attracted to the pretty, blinky, cute iMac, believe me, the first words out of her mouth won't be "What's the benchmark bus speed on these?"

Who is Apple trying to sell their computers to these days, folks?! Think about it...sheesh!!!

thies

Jul 22, 2002, 05:03 PM

if I think about their marketing hype about "its based on UNIX!" and the "MHz myth" campaign, your grandma is surely not the only targeted customer.

macktheknife

Jul 22, 2002, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Disclaimer: I'm not a Mac-basher, just someone who's slowly finding more and more reasons to look elsewhere for his computing needs.

Exactly. I like Macs as much as the next Macuser, but I am not going to pay an obscene amount of money for something that is slower than a beige box.

Look, if Macs were twice as expensive but twice as fast, then the Porche vs. Chevy analogy would make sense. While OS X is inherently more stable than XP, the truth is that Macs *are* slower than comparable PCs. My old Dell laptop running on XP with a 800 MHz P3 processor and 256 MB of RAM was faster than my current 550 MHz TiBook with 516 MB of RAM. I'm sure that those nice Dual G4s are pretty fast, but I can buy a complete 2 GHz Dell system for about $1,200. Yes, it'll probably crash more often, but it's almost a third of the price of a Dual G4.

I *really* would love to buy another Mac in the future, but I simply cannot fork over almost another $3k for a slower-than-average machine.

Again, don't mean to start a flame war. I'm just telling it like it is.

Rower_CPU

Jul 22, 2002, 05:27 PM

Sure, I could get my tasks done quicker using a PC...in between crashes, IRQ conflicts and driver issues.

For me it's worthwhile to have an uninterrupted workflow where I don't worry about the machine not doing what it's supposed to.

I think most Mac users feel this way, otherwise they would have gone PC a while ago. The thing is that the current performance delta has just gotten ridiculously large...and with no signs from Apple or Motorola that that's going to change anytim soon.

Customers get impatient if they feel they are not given the service they deserve, and we have a lot of impatient Mac customers these days.

For me OS X is reason enough to stay with Macs...despite the slower performance. Jaguar will improve things a lot for many people, but it's not the shiny new hardware that everyone craves.

thies

Jul 22, 2002, 05:36 PM

which is mostly an issue if you run Windows and there are more OSes out there than that ;)

Rower_CPU

Jul 22, 2002, 05:40 PM

Not for most consumers.;)

rice_web

Jul 22, 2002, 05:52 PM

Do any of you even understand why DDR isn't being used? Well...

(1) With the current batch of G4s, the performance gain is marginal... at best. The Apollo doesn't support DDR, so DDR helps only in disk access, etc. (and don't tell me that the XServe benefits from DDR tremendously, servers are disk intensive and need that extra bandwidth; there is no extra bandwidth to the processor)

(2) Only the G3 currently supports DDR. However, Apple has marketed the G4 to such an extent, that moving back to IBMs G3s would seem like a step backwards. The funny thing is, the Sahara is running at about 1.2GHz, supports 200MHz system buses, and also supports DDR memory. I'd like to see benchmarks with a system of the above mentioned configuration versus the 933MHz G4 configuration. It wouldn't even be close; the hands down winner would be the Sahara (except in a couple of Altivec-enhanced programs)

Oh, and yes, the P4 kills the G4 as it currently stands. If not from a raw horsepower standpoint, from a performance-value standpoint for certain (although, it's my opinion that it wins in both)

tcmcam

Jul 22, 2002, 06:07 PM

OK, I went to the Apple store today. They had the new iMac 17" (800 mhz G4) there with 512MB RAM. It was running the latest beta of Jaguar.

Yes, some of the "UI gizmos" with the dock, moving, resizing, etc were faster. Other than that. This is a VERY underpowered machine for $2000.

My wife uses a P4 1.8 ghz machine with 512MB ram running Windows XP (with 19" LCD flat panel, DVR-A04 drive, $1900). It absolutely screams versus the iMac. I really, really, REALLY, want Apple to succeed, but they are close to hopelessly behind in terms of processor power.

I think too many seasoned Mac users have become "used to" Apple's definition of performance. I know many Mac users hate Windows XP, fine, but they should at least "surf the net" using IE or Mozilla on Windows XP and see how much faster it is. Not even close, Windows XP is blowing it away. And Windows XP is the 3rd release of a "fully protected, pre-emptive OS". First was NT, then 2000, now XP. Yes, NT and 95 and 98 were full of blue screens, but XP is pretty darn solid.

Grant you, there is nothing as nice as iMovie or iDVD on a PC. But they take so long to launch, even in Jaguar.

I am just praying that the new PowerMac's are simply awesome. As Mossberg from WSJ said the other day: "mhz is not a true benchmark of performance, but the gap has gotten so wide between Pentium4 and G4 that it is creating a gap that Apple cannot ignore."

Don't be afraid to demand a lot of Apple. We're the friendly people. If we don't, those Linux and Windows folks will be even tougher on Apple.

Remember, Apple may be getting switchers, but they are getting the easy ones. They are getting the people that have used Windows 3.1 for eight years and never upgraded their PC. I want Apple to blow away Windows XP in EVERY benchmark (or at least be on par).

Rower_CPU

Jul 22, 2002, 06:16 PM

I'm quite surprised that the Apple Store you went to had a new iMac and Jaguar installed on it.

Neither one ships for weeks...which store did you visit and which build of Jaguar was it?

One thing about your assessment: the word "beta" screams out that this is not a final product and as such can't be used to make any kind of fair comparison.

tcmcam

Jul 22, 2002, 06:42 PM

I was at the Apple store in Tampa, FL. It had a 17" iMac and Jaguar on it. I'm not sure what build, but the sales rep said they updated it over the weekend.

Yes, I agree that Jaguar is still beta and maybe it will be faster in final release, but it is not going to magically get 200% faster.

Please understand, I want Apple to succeed, but they are just being killed by Motorola's incompetence with the G4.

Don't be a sucker for Apple's marketting.

mr.w

Jul 22, 2002, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by voicegy

That's ok. There's plenty of customers out there who DO care about such stuff. When my mom goes into the Apple store and is attracted to the pretty, blinky, cute iMac, believe me, the first words out of her mouth won't be "What's the benchmark bus speed on these?"

Who is Apple trying to sell their computers to these days, folks?! Think about it...sheesh!!!

EXACTLY...

as for the porche thing -
here is my take on it........

Okay an apple computer is like a porche (it's elegant, stylish, reliable, etc.) it's also wanted by a lot of people... but you have to pay a lot for it. It's zippy (granted I guess the latest Powermacs are more like circa 1995 porche's due to the lack of new technology in them) Porche's, like Apple computers, are also built for specific tasks -> porche for pure speed and performance, and Apple computers for Digital Video, Graphic design, and User friendly interface. Porche's stand out, as do apple's (you get a lot of ooo's and ahhhh's) The owners of both these machines are, for the most part, extremely "close" to their machines... they care about them and take good care of them, and they both retain their value fairly well.

A PC is boaring... like a honda civic. Some Honda civics have a lot of upgrades making them a lot faster -> like those japanese street racing cars... (the're equiped with cutting edge technology) Some PC's are more highly equiped aswell. For the most part, PC's have more Mhz' (if that really matters) DDR ram (at least) higher cache and bus speeds, and mroe storage space. PC's like honda racing cars, are always in the shop getting fixed or upgraded, and can only retain top quality performance for short time spans. (((Porche's and Apple's are built for the long haul, and can keep pluggin' away for long periods of time)))

Overall, most people would rather have a porche for the looks, and reliability as aposed to a honda civic that has really high performance for short periods of time.

The same goes for the Apple computer.

__________________________
So to get back on topic... the new iMac, while costly and relitively slow compared to a top of the line PC, is reliable, elegant, and user friendly. You really do get what you pay for.

If apple computers were such a rip off then why has the market share risen??? Why would people even stay with them if they were a sound investment? Why have so many people stayed with apple computers for such long times??? (many their entire life)

Chryx

Jul 23, 2002, 03:18 AM

(1) With the current batch of G4s, the performance gain is marginal... at best. The Apollo doesn't support DDR, so DDR helps only in disk access, etc. (and don't tell me that the XServe benefits from DDR tremendously, servers are disk intensive and need that extra bandwidth; there is no extra bandwidth to the processor)

There's something you aren't taking into account there, contention.

I'm sure I've seen a few benchmarks of the single processor Xserve doing EXTREMELY well in processor bound stuff (right up there with a DP Quicksilver)

and the obvious answer is, the bandwidth for IO isn't _reducing_ the bandwidth available for the processor, such a thing shouldn't be ignored :)

thies

Jul 23, 2002, 04:22 AM

well, its Porsche, not Porche. And a G4 would be a Porsche with a Ford Model T engine installed. All the tasks you describe are CPU intensive ones, whoever has a little bit of sense would use whichever platform provides the highest CPU performance.
Wasn't it that Pixar does not use Apple computers? What more do you need o hear to realize that Apples are crap performace wise and are actually the Honda Civic out there?

terramax

Jul 23, 2002, 06:26 AM

Ok...ok... now, I started this discussion, and I've browsed through the replies. Firstly thanks guys for giving me such a varied and intuitive opinion on my remark about Mac bus speeds.

Looking back at everything I think it's fair to say:
-Mac case design RULES, they just look fabulous
-Hardware design is also good, DVD-R, intergrated flat panels, networking, wireless networking, USB, Firewire all in the box
-The OS is brilliant

The only BUT would be that no matter how you look at it, some of the hardware Apple currently employs is out of date.

That is they only problem.

Now let's just sit back, sip a martini and wait for that new G4 Tower/TiBook/ to FRY those Wintel machines... :)

voicegy

Jul 23, 2002, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by terramax
Now let's just sit back, sip a martini and wait for that new G4 Tower/TiBook/ to FRY those Wintel machines... :)

Well, after all of us gettin' all hot under the collar and posting all over the place about all things Apple for the past couple of days, that sound like a GREAT idea!

I'll have a Lemon Drop, please.:)

aussiesteve

Jul 24, 2002, 06:38 PM

Absolutely correct! 100mhz bus speed is a complete joke. Even the crappiest pc’s have a 133mhz bus. Ram is PC133. Premium prices = premium product!

D*I*S_Frontman

Jul 25, 2002, 12:05 AM

This is something I posted on another thread, but it seems appropriate for this discussion as well. Forgive the self-plagarism. I did amend it a bit...

----------------------------------

Apple looks to me like a company treading water, waiting for the next huge wave of hardware to be ready for release. Jobs already knows he can't ride on this current hardware platform much longer and is just trying to milk the last remaining unit sales out of this depressed economic environment before the big bombs hit--new PowerMac designs with beefier processors/mobos.

Marketing has little to do with real-world performance. To successfully sell a high-end item you have to create an aura, a perception of clear superiority people are willing to pay extra for, a great user experience, a chic/hip factor, an us-vs.-the-world mindset, and a perceived user identity people want to identify with. Once you have succeeded on all of these fronts you can name your price and people will pay it.

The Porsche vs. Honda comparison falls apart. I would offer instead the Harley vs. Japanese motorcycle analogy, with Apple being Harley.

Harley Davidson marketing:
AURA--toughness, dangerous, free-spirited
SUPERIORITY--over-engineered, ruggedly built, unchanging design, "the good ol' days"
USER EXPERIENCE--loud exhaust note, low torque mean pull to the engine
CHIC/HIP--instant access to the "Easy Rider" mystique of the cool, free, rootless drifter
US VS THEM--"American Made"..."no rice burner"... etc.
USER IDENTITY--tough, freedom-loving unconventional rebel who doesn't follow the crowd.

Apple marketing:
AURA--creativity, free-spirited, "Think Different"
SUPERIORITY--UNIX-based OS for the masses, user friendliness, AltiVec, rugged machines that have a relatively long life and low TCO
USER EXPERIENCE--ease of set-up/usage/peripheral additions, intuitive and consistent interface
CHIC/HIP--Cool trend-setting cases, Hollywood darlings
US VS THEM--anti M$/Intel
USER IDENTITY--creativity-loving non-hacker who doesn't follow the crowd

BTW--just how old and out-of-date is Harley's technology? Several decades? Why do people buy them? SUCCESSFUL BRANDING. People pay $10K+ for a bike with two air-cooled coffee-can-sized pistons that idles like a sputtering lawnmower. Japanese manufacturers make sophisticated bikes that run like Rolexes, purr like kittens, never leak oil, and can smoke any Harley ever made 0-60 without leaving 2nd gear. Does anyone here think Harley gives a tinker's damn about market share when people will preorder a tricked-out Softtail for $50 Gs sight unseen?

Where even this illustration breaks down, however, it that Apple is KNOWN for innovation and it is part of their claims of superiority. During this time of hardware challenges, Apple is dramatically losing this perception. Apple is also known for being the "creative professional's computer," the "content authoring machine," but a few more months with our current PM lineup and more of those professionals are going to be buying Athlons to remain competitive as far as their production turnarounds go.

Steve Jobs knows all of this. He is probably screaming daily at his production teams to get the new PMs online so the company's image is not further tarnished in the professional community. Steve know that in this market, image is everything--if Apple becomes "the slow computer with the glitzy OS, funky case, and is 3x more expensive than a faster PC," they're dead.

You are watching a company fighting against timing glitches. OSX 10.2 done early but PMs running behind. Shake ready but no monster platform to run it on. If we would have had some big iron come out when Jaguar did, we would not be paying $129 for it now--it would be shipping with all new machines or $19.99 online as an upgrade (or free @ CompUSA). But Apple needs income, so we must suffer for the delay. Same with iTools. It was a crappy PR move to start charging us, necessitated by the lack of new innovative PowerMacs to sell. I can't even imagine what the PM unit sales look like now--anyone who knows ANYTHING about this company or the technology of their current lineup is not buying. Waiting. I bet there is a virtual boycott of high-end Macs right now, or at least there should be.

When Steve Jobs unveils the new line of PowerMacs, I predict that his upbeat pitch will have a note of relief--".. ahh... we've made it!" Once another industry-leading hardware platform for the amazing potential of the OS is released, Apple will command respect again. Market perception will be bolstered and this perception will filter down to consumer lines. Apple ads will have teeth again. And, without dropping profit percentages at all on any of the product lines, Apple will make sizable market share gains.

Oh, and Microsoft will be afraid... very afraid... especially if AppleWorks goes on steriods and becomes a real competitor to Office and Apple develops it's own OS-native browser.

But if this takes another year to happen, Apple will be marginalized. Marketshare will dwindle to nothing. A $40 billion war chest can disappear quite quickly when no one is buying.

To answer the original question: yes, a new $2k system, even a consumer one, with a 100mhz system bus is absurd. Not that the price is wrong--for everything you're getting it is a value. But the fact that they have the technology (DDR RAM) and are deliberately holding out on new buyers is detestable.

Rower_CPU

Jul 25, 2002, 01:28 AM

Excellent post!

Now here's the question for Apple supporters. Do we "help" Apple by buying machines and subscribing to .mac...or do we send them a message to get on the ball?

job

Jul 25, 2002, 01:30 AM

Just wait till Alpha gets wind of the Harley comments in the above post. :D

I think he even has a Softtail....:)

groovebuster

Jul 25, 2002, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by mr.w
EXACTLY...

as for the porche thing -
here is my take on it........

:eek:

Sorry, but if you start to elaborate about cars as a comparison for computers, then at least finally spell the brand names right!

It is P - O - R - S - C - H - E !!!!!

OK?? You experts...! ;) You probably never saw one from close so far anyway...

Jesus! :D

And now go on with Apoll/Windoughs flame-war! ;)

groovebuster

DidotCicero

Jul 25, 2002, 05:44 AM

Listen you people, I'm getting a bit pissed off when I'm hearing you constantly complaining about Apple's 'slow' computers. It is really sad and even silly.

Most of the complainers are probably consumer users, not professional users. What kind of programmes are you running that need that kind of speed??? Word? PowerPoint? Does it make you type faster? Games? Are you stupid enough to pay $2000 for a games computer? Why don't you buy youselves a Nintendo or something? Keep it real! Personally I think it is an insult for your mac to let him run just games!

Let me tell you, I'm a professional graphic designer. At work I'm using a G4 450 mHz DP with 1,5 Gb RAM.
How come this is enough for me to work with, even if 'm editing high rez. images? Sure, sometimes I wish it was faster but still I get my jobs done, within my deadlines. My Mac is my realiable buddy and collegue.

Yes, there are Athlon-machines that have a faster processor. So what? Most of the times (yes, I know there's a Athlon currently faster) a mac is twice as fast as a peecee, of course in certain applications (most of the times these are the applications that count, like Photoshop etc.).

You want to buy a peecee because " it's cheaper and faster" then buy one, for gods sake! Stop telling everybody that you are going to buy one.
Hell, hust buy one and STOP COMPLAINING! You might even like it... ... until the first error...

Yes, MacOSX is probably a bit slow now. Slower than one might expect from a new OS. But with OSX.2 things will eventually change.

No, I'm not using OSX yet. Simply because all my applications are OS9 based, so there's no need for me to upgrade. But I will, maybe in half a year or so. When I buy upgrades for Illustrator and Photoshop.

> DidotCicero

Megaquad

Jul 25, 2002, 06:18 AM

You are running OS 9? Then you might consider that some people need power of multitasking and protected memory,OS 9 is relatively fast even on my crappy G3. But then again..look at speed of OSX..even dual 1 ghz crawls in it.
There is no excuse for poor performance in games for 2000$ computer,and FYI,games aren't main problem,problem is that simply surfing the web in OS X is slow,applications take too much time to launch and interface is also slow.
And don't ever again underestimate the power of consumer user,especially switched power-users from pc platform.They have high expectations and needs,unfortunately they are surprised how slower things are.

groovebuster

Jul 25, 2002, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by DidotCicero
Let me tell you, I'm a professional graphic designer. At work I'm using a G4 450 mHz DP with 1,5 Gb RAM.
How come this is enough for me to work with, even if 'm editing high rez. images? Sure, sometimes I wish it was faster but still I get my jobs done, within my deadlines. My Mac is my realiable buddy and collegue.

It's nice for you, when you don't need faster gear, nobody forces you to buy a faster machine. :)

BUT... there ARE people who want to do more with their computers than just using Photoshop and Illutsrator.

Video and Audio apps need a LOT of power to work with at an acceptable speed or to meet the demands for a project. Don't be pissed, it is just like that.

Also it is always the question if the hardware is worth the price... A QS 800MHz is definetely a joke considering the specs, not less the two bigger models. I see a relation between the price and the performance of a computer. And the performance is always in relation to the competition on the market. And like it or not... the competition is the Windows platform.

MacOS (X) is one thing, the hardware it is running on another. If Apple would double the price of the OS and as a result change the pricing of their computers to something that is oriented at the current prices for the components, I wouldn't mind at all. It is just that the hardware they sell these days isn't worth the money by far. The OS instead is a fine piece of software (Jaguar I am talking about).

Ask yourself what a pro Mac like the QS 800 would cost, when you brake it down to the components built in. You will see that the price is far too high.

So let's see what August will bring for the pro users. I am anxious but also worried that the new PowerMacs could be another disappointment...

groovebuster