PDA

View Full Version : G5? Not Quite...


arn
Jul 23, 2002, 09:05 PM
On Jul 22, Motorola released (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-945430.html) the PowerPC MPC8560--the latest version of its e500 processor, a communications chips which also bears the name G5. Note, this is not the same class of processor used in Macintosh computers.

The chip, however does incorporate a DDR SDRAM memory controller as well as a RapidIO interconnect.

RapidIO (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M0yqX0l0H) is a high-performance "interconnect" technology that is in competition with Hypertransport (http://www.hypertransport.org). Of interest, Apple is a member of the Hypertransport (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16589.html) consortium, whose technology is also used in NForce2 (http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=nforce2)

nuckinfutz
Jul 23, 2002, 09:15 PM
This is the G5 Motorola chips for Embedded Markets right? There is no Altivec as well which leads me to believe that the "Powermac G5" will be of a similar core but with Apple specific functions. At any rate good news because this means the G5 should be no later than Q1 next year!

gbojim
Jul 23, 2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
This is the G5 Motorola chips for Embedded Markets right? There is no Altivec as well which leads me to believe that the "Powermac G5" will be of a similar core but with Apple specific functions. At any rate good news because this means the G5 should be no later than Q1 next year!

Not only is it embedded - it is specifically for communications. There is no way this will be used in a Mac. It does have a SIMD processor but from the Motorola specs it does not sound as sophisticated as Altivec.

Stike
Jul 23, 2002, 09:36 PM
This leads to the conclusion that:

- this polish roadmap of the Moto Chips may contain some true stuff (G5+?)
(see the G5+ Thread here)

- Apple may show NO NEW Powermacs until MWSF, because the gap between now an JAN 03 is too small to produce a whole new Pro Line. And I heard the stores are still full with the current pro line. Right?

G4scott
Jul 23, 2002, 09:49 PM
Maybe the next generation Mac will be a super-fast router :p

Either Apple's going to stick with the G4's for a while more, Motorola actually has the desktop G5's going, and we'll see them within another 6 months, or Apple's going to switch to using the IBM chips. The only thing is that Apple put so much pressure on AltiVec, it would go to waste without G4's or G5's, unless IBM put in an altivec unit with their chips, but that's very unlikely...

Stike
Jul 23, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Maybe the next generation Mac will be a super-fast router :p

Either Apple's going to stick with the G4's for a while more, Motorola actually has the desktop G5's going, and we'll see them within another 6 months, or Apple's going to switch to using the IBM chips. The only thing is that Apple put so much pressure on AltiVec, it would go to waste without G4's or G5's, unless IBM put in an altivec unit with their chips, but that's very unlikely...

I thought Altivec is a trademark of Moto?

This would be the scenario, to quote Steve Jobs: "...we like to have options." With some options, Apple COULD switch to another platform.. or not? IBM, AMD anyone?

ffakr
Jul 23, 2002, 10:35 PM
It is my understanding that Rapid IO is a processor to Chipset bus and Hypertransport is a bus used by the chipset.

I could be wrong, but I believe that RapidIO is not a competitor with Hypertransport.

As stated at The Hypertransport Consortium (http://www.hypertransport.org/doc_faq.htm)
HyperTransport™ technology is optimized for chip-to-chip interconnects and is designed to move data over short distances between chips in a system

Also of interest is this Hypertransport overview pdf (http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/ht-overview.pdf)

The pdf shows various implementations of Hypertransport... Many are similar to this...

CPU --- host bus --- Memory Controller --- Hypertransport --- AGP

... where the host bus could be anything, such as RapidIO. RapidIO and Hypertransport can co-exist quite nicely since they a designed for different purposes.



.....ffakr.

TyleRomeo
Jul 23, 2002, 10:37 PM
what makes you guys so certain that the G5 will come out MWSF 2003?

I mean the new Power Macs didn't come out at this years MWNY like all of you said they would.

why would apple wait until January when all of you rumor maniacs would allready know everything there is to know about the new PMs before they come out. That kinda ruins the point of even having an expo.

Apple will surprise you with new Power Macs when you least expect it.

DannyZR2
Jul 23, 2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Stike
.. Apple may show NO NEW Powermacs until MWSF, because the gap between now an JAN 03 is too small to produce a whole new Pro Line.

You are an IDIOT if you are still convinced Apple can only introduce new machines at an expo.. WHAT DOES IT TAKE???? You fu*king morons piss me off! We are all pretty sure there will be a new Powermac later next month and the only thing keeping Apple from shipping a G5 is simple... YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN SHIP THEM!!!

-However, since we know Moto is still producing the router types of these 85xx chips, and we know that Apple wouldn't let them ruin their surprise, .. it is possible they also have been moving on with production of the desktop 85xx chips and could be in process of supplying them to Apple as we speak... we have know way to know either way because Apple wouldn't let that get out.

All the speculation that G5's are not to show til next year are all based on horsesh[t.. we all *should* know that. All this rumor crap is all based on absolutely nothing but ''well i heard this'' and it's getting old.. so who knows, but DON"T be an idiot and think that Apple wouldn't ship a G5 just because it's not an expo.. we should all know better by now.

kaneda
Jul 23, 2002, 11:07 PM
Pentium is about to release 2.8ghz...and they will lower the price of all their earlier chips, and by the end of the year...they are planning to release 3ghz during the holiday season buying season...

I think that 1.6ghz powermac should be release now or we will be wait behind.

wait! I can get a dual 2.4ghz pentium for the same price of high end Mac...with more powerful graphic card!!

I am switching!!!! GOOD BYE MACCCCC!!

Stike
Jul 23, 2002, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by DannyZR2


You are an IDIOT if you are still convinced Apple can only introduce new machines at an expo.. WHAT DOES IT TAKE???? You fu*king morons piss me off! We are all pretty sure there will be a new Powermac later next month and the only thing keeping Apple from shipping a G5 is simple... YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN SHIP THEM!!!

-However, since we know Moto is still producing the router types of these 85xx chips, and we know that Apple wouldn't let them ruin their surprise, .. it is possible they also have been moving on with production of the desktop 85xx chips and could be in process of supplying them to Apple as we speak... we have know way to know either way because Apple wouldn't let that get out.

All the speculation that G5's are not to show til next year are all based on horsesh[t.. we all *should* know that. All this rumor crap is all based on absolutely nothing but ''well i heard this'' and it's getting old.. so who knows, but DON"T be an idiot and think that Apple wouldn't ship a G5 just because it's not an expo.. we should all know better by now.

Please stop flaming. And read the text AGAIN. I´ve never said Apple would hold back new products/G5 just to release them on an expo. I said that the G5 schedule from Moto (read the "G5+"-thread) on that polish site would fit with the time the MWSF would take place.

On the other hand, I really expect new G4s to be around the corner. But that would push the G5 further away... so this is the question: What will happen next?

If new G4s are coming, I would expect new PMacs (G5?) around early Summer 03...

And BTW: We are here to discuss "I´ve heard that..."-Topics. This defines a rumor site. And if this is pissing you off, well... you are free to leave.

Rocketman
Jul 23, 2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by DannyZR2

8540 detail from Motorola site:

Innovative Technology

The MPC8540 processor integrates IEEE 802.3 10/100/1G Ethernet controllers (with support for
jumbo frames and Layer 2 acceleration), a 10/100 controller, a 64-bit PCI-X controller operating at
up to 133 MHz, a DDR memory controller, a 4-channel DMA, a multi-channel interrupt controller,
and a DUART serial interface. Its high level of integration means simplified board design, lower
power consumption and a faster time-to-market solution for customers.

The MPC8540 also integrates the e500 core, 256 KB of on-chip L2 cache, and the revolutionary
on-chip non-blocking crossbar switch fabric, called OCeaN (On-Chip Network), providing
cross-sectional bandwidth of up to 22 Gbps peak bandwidth per port together with independent
transaction queuing and flow control.

e500 Core

Utilizing an SoC platform which balances MIPs, watts, packet performance and cost, Motorola has created a flexible platform
architecture enabling multiple products from easily integrated IP. The e500 high performance core implements the enhanced
PowerPC Book E instruction set architecture and provides unprecedented levels of hardware and software debug support. The
e500 will serve as the core for a family of ASSPs for communications, automotive and consumer applications.



This is a router and DSL modem chip, but is the basis for the someday G5 for Macs. A long time ago I posted that when the G5 was on routers we could BEGIN to look for it in Mac CPU's about 6 months later.

Supporting evidence:

1. Its been released for routers!

2. The link to the pdf for the new Powermac closures says the motherboard is G5 ready!

3. Consumers are anticipating it and some/many are deferring purchases for this product :(

4. If nothing else, Steve always jumps the gun on a new chip, so he will not delay! Thank god for zealots.

5. The site estimated Mhz at 800-1000.

Hold on to your hats gentlemen and prepare for a Maxell tape commercial like performance. Be blown away.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

Catfish_Man
Jul 23, 2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman


This is a router and DSL modem chip, but is the basis for the someday G5 for Macs. A long time ago I posted that when the G5 was on routers we could BEGIN to look for it in Mac CPU's about 6 months later.

Supporting evidence:

1. Its been released for routers!

2. The link to the pdf for the new Powermac closures says the motherboard is G5 ready!

3. Consumers are anticipating it and some/many are deferring purchases for this product :(

4. If nothing else, Steve always jumps the gun on a new chip, so he will not delay! Thank god for zealots.

5. The site estimated Mhz at 800-1000.

Hold on to your hats gentlemen and prepare for a Maxell tape commercial like performance. Be blown away.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg ...boost it to 1.8 like the G4 and it'll hit higher clock frequencies.

ffakr
Jul 23, 2002, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by kaneda

wait! I can get a dual 2.4ghz pentium for the same price of high end Mac...with more powerful graphic card!!

I am switching!!!! GOOD BYE MACCCCC!!

Enjoy. If it weren't for Wintel users, there'd be no Tech Support Jobs (at least a lot less). Wintel pays the bills.

If all you care about is MHz, your a perfect windows user. There is a lot more to a great computer than MHz (or even raw power). If it was all about clock or even SPEC, we'd all have switched to the Alpha and Unix back around '97.
A computer is only as good as it's ability to let you get work done. This quality is expressed in stability, quality, and user interface. You can have the fastest machine in the world, but it isn't worth a crap if you can't get any work done on it because it is GPF'ing or always getting in your way when you try and work.

BTW, what's your performance standard? MHz? SPEC? ByteMark? Photoshop scripts? RC5? Seti? Blast? You'll get really different results depending on what bench runs on any particular processor. Why do x86 processors spank G4s in SPEC when G4s are 3X faster in RC5? What about Photoshop scores, where G4s beat P4s clocked twice as fast? ... Blast, where large genome searches are 15X faster on a PPC than an x86 PC?
Everyone knows Altivec is just propaganda right?

Altivec sure as hell isn't a cure for all the current PPC woes, but it goes a long way in the tasks that really need a fast CPU. I need the really intensive stuff to be fast, like the photoshop filters. I don't give 2 craps is a P4 2.8GHz runs Word code 50X faster than a Mac... because the Mac doesn't need to run Word any faster than it currently does. It already keeps up with my typing and spell checks on the fly. :-)

MacUser1
Jul 23, 2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


I mean the new Power Macs didn't come out at this years MWNY like all of you said they would.



not everyone said that new PowerMacs would be released at MWNY '02

kaneda
Jul 23, 2002, 11:45 PM
You need raw power, if you are doing 3D animation and graphic craps! If I am using Word everyday...I can buy a imac and be happy...but I am not...

I am going to the darkside...:)

I was happy when Maya released for MAC...but no freaking hardware to run it...

nero007
Jul 24, 2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by kaneda
You need raw power, if you are doing 3D animation and graphic craps! If I am using Word everyday...I can buy a imac and be happy...but I am not...

I am going to the darkside...:)

I was happy when Maya released for MAC...but no freaking hardware to run it...

Ciao. :rolleyes:

dongmin
Jul 24, 2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Rocketman


This is a router and DSL modem chip, but is the basis for the someday G5 for Macs. A long time ago I posted that when the G5 was on routers we could BEGIN to look for it in Mac CPU's about 6 months later.


If I'm not mistaken, the e500 series ("G5") have been out for a while and have been in use. So your "6 months later" hypothesis is off by a while.

Also, the main issue with Moto have been yields, yields, yields. They may have no prob producing these "G5s" in the 800-100 mhz range. But what we need are the 1.6+ ghz variety.

Purely speculating here (since there's no solid rumors on the G5 these days), but I'd say the G5 is another year away. They're introducing a revamped motherboard and case in August. I'd say they'll try to get more than 6 months out of the case-mobo-G4 combo.

carlsson
Jul 24, 2002, 01:28 AM
I would like to remind everyone about the ongoing petition at

http://www.petitiononline.com/Jaguar

If you want
- upgrade prices for existing OS X customers!
- free upgrades for recently bought Mac's and OS X packages!

job
Jul 24, 2002, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by andreascarlsson
I would like to remind everyone about the ongoing petition at

http://www.petitiononline.com/Jaguar

If you want
- upgrade prices for existing OS X customers!
- free upgrades for recently bought Mac's and OS X packages!

What does that have to do with the G5?

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 03:04 AM
I can't hear it anymore... is it that hard for a lot of Mac users to accept that there is a world outside Apple and that is isn't all bad?

Originally posted by ffakr
Enjoy. If it weren't for Wintel users, there'd be no Tech Support Jobs (at least a lot less). Wintel pays the bills.

Stop telling those tales! Of course there was a lot of support needed in the older days. Since Windows2000 times changed dramatically. My wife works with a Dell Computer (700MHz Celeron) that costed 600$ since more than 2 years now (Yes, there are people who don't like to work on a Mac!). Wonna know how many real problems she had during that time with her computer??? ZERO!!! She's knows ***** about computers and it crashed maybe 5 or 6 times since then. She never had a BSOD and she runs Office, Photoshop, etc... pp.. on it. I just installed her a new graphic card last year, because the onboard video was too slow for some stuff. It was a snap, no problems either.

Some friends of mine who are self-employed like me are only using Windows machines in their studios, so I can compare pretty well my work with what they are doing. And know what? None of them had really serious problems with their machines as well, since they use Windows2000. When you set up your system carefully in the beginning, a Windows system is usually very stable.

Originally posted by ffakr
If all you care about is MHz, your a perfect windows user. There is a lot more to a great computer than MHz (or even raw power). If it was all about clock or even SPEC, we'd all have switched to the Alpha and Unix back around '97.
A computer is only as good as it's ability to let you get work done. This quality is expressed in stability, quality, and user interface. You can have the fastest machine in the world, but it isn't worth a crap if you can't get any work done on it because it is GPF'ing or always getting in your way when you try and work.

I remember times when Mac users used the argument that a Mac is faster than a PC. Now that the Mac platform is so much behind on speed issues all the people say now that it doesn't matter anymore... So what?

Even Jobs was always using the Mhz myth to point out how fast the Macs are. Now it doesn't matter anymore?

And that thing said about the Alpha processor and UNIX is just stupid. In '97 you hardly got any of the professional standard apps for creative work for Alpha machines or UNIX. But you get all the major apps for Windows these days (excpet those that got bought by Apple lately) They are 1:1 identical and sometimes they run even smoother than on the Mac, because they are developped on Windows normally these days and then they cross-compile for the Mac.

Tell me the difference between PS on the Mac and PS on Windows and how the OS is getting in your way then?!?!?! Or take any other app that is available for both platforms... I don't work with the OS the whole day, I work within the apps. And there I can't see any difference usually. The OS is running in the back and the most important thing is that it is stable and gives me the frame to run apps in it. Of course is the UI of Windows a nightmare, but when you got used to it there is now reason why you should be slower using it than on a Mac.

Oh, and to refer to the PC of my wife again... To surf the internet with it is a dream (we have a high bandwidth connection). Comparing my "high-end" Macs with that old and "slow" Windows machine is embarassing, no matter which browser I use.

A company I have a contract with is only using Windows machines (30 employees). I asked the sysad lately how much work he has with supporting the PCs and he said that it is normally almost nothing, he is normally responsible for the servers (since they are a .COM they have quite a few of them) and the support for the PCs is made by him just on request between the other stiff he has to do. Is he a liar? I don't think so...

Originally posted by ffakr
BTW, what's your performance standard? MHz? SPEC? ByteMark? Photoshop scripts? RC5? Seti? Blast? You'll get really different results depending on what bench runs on any particular processor. Why do x86 processors spank G4s in SPEC when G4s are 3X faster in RC5? What about Photoshop scores, where G4s beat P4s clocked twice as fast? ... Blast, where large genome searches are 15X faster on a PPC than an x86 PC?
Everyone knows Altivec is just propaganda right?

All those peformance standards matter! Blast and RC5 are so special that even the organisations say that a benchmark based on those numbers can't be used as comparison for real life performance. The PPC is just that fast on those things because the code fits perfectly into the cache of the processor and Altivec can go crazy then. As soon as the RAM is involved even Altivec can't pull it anymore.

What counts is the overall performance of the system. And by the way... I want to see the benchmark where Photoshop on a Mac beats a PC clocked twice as fast that is NOT from Apple marketing department! All the benchmarks made by independent sources say the opposite.

As a matter of fact in real world a G4 performs like a PIII at the same clock speed. Many many tests by different sources confirmed that and it is backed up by what I experienced too.

Originally posted by ffakr
Altivec sure as hell isn't a cure for all the current PPC woes, but it goes a long way in the tasks that really need a fast CPU. I need the really intensive stuff to be fast, like the photoshop filters. I don't give 2 craps is a P4 2.8GHz runs Word code 50X faster than a Mac... because the Mac doesn't need to run Word any faster than it currently does. It already keeps up with my typing and spell checks on the fly. :-)

If you would just stop to close your eyes from reality and would do the comparison yourself, instead of sticking with your fanatic opinion that Apple HAS to be better by definition, you would maybe start to understand from which direction the wind blows.

There are users out there that need all the performance in a system they can get. And it is a fact that at the moment the PowerMacs are not able to compete with Intel/AMD systems, like it or not. The funny part is that Apple is heading for the high-end video and audio production field and so far has no competetive workstation to run the stuff on. For that stuff you need friggin' powerful equipment to keep up with the standards of the industry.

Of course I am curious how the new PowerMacs (so if they will arrive one day) will perform finally. But also I am tempted meanwhile to try out the Windows world for my stuff, by putting a windows set up right beside and doing the performance hungry stuff on the PC, especially when the new PowerMacs turn out to be another disappointment. As soon as Apple gives me what I want and need (and not the other way around), I am back on the band waggon, but til then I invest my money probably in gear that gives me a way better performance than any Mac that is available at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, I still hope that finally Apple can provide some decent hardware again, since I prefer the Mac as a platform (16 years user, 14 years owner of Macs), but I am at a point to ask myself if it is just fanatism to stay or if it is rational...

Cheers!

groovebuster

DannyZR2
Jul 24, 2002, 03:40 AM
It's been a long time since I've heard so much nonsense come out of someone's ass like that.

It's easy to sit and say one thing or another about a PC and how windows works and all this, but I just can't help but laugh at it.

blah blah blah.. my pc works .. blah blah... macs are slow... blah blah... i built a 18ghz pc for $200 blah blah..

every mac user around has heard all of this for years.. it's just part of being a mac user... but when you build you a pc, as I have done, and really sit down and try to not get pissed off and annoyed at the error messages and conflicts, and all the microsoft crap that is built in and you have to find a way to disable this and that, so your computer doesn't tell microsoft everything you do on your computer... it just gets old.. I'm saving my money for one of the new products from Apple. I have a PC in the meantime since I sold my Pismo and it has been hell.. .. sure i can browse the net a bit faster, but is it really worth it?? nope. not when I reinstalled XP 6 times, bought a new MoBo and reinstalled again .....

Oh and about the jaguar thing the guy is petitioning about.. get a life man... -I don't buy anything from M$, cause I just can't get myself to do it.. but from Apple? oh yeah.. I bought os X, the upgrade and I'll be getting a new mac with jag installed, so won't have to then, but what's the deal..why do you complain aboutnot getting your products and features you want, but when the come, aren't willing to reward the designers and engineers for doing it by paying the price to upgrade? that is hypocritcal if you ask me....

and about the petition for the .mac thing -- at least make sure and do a freakin spell check on the petition before you put it online!!! ---Just tells you the morons out there trying to save a buck.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by DannyZR2
It's been a long time since I've heard so much nonsense come out of someone's ass like that.

:D That is a nice introduction to what you wrote afterwards! ;)

Originally posted by DannyZR2
It's easy to sit and say one thing or another about a PC and how windows works and all this, but I just can't help but laugh at it.

How is the stuff called you are taking? You should stop it! Drugs are no good! ;)

So what is so funny about it? Man, I am working with Macs since 16 years! You are one of those guys who don't allow your beloved Mac to be criticized, because you can't accept the truth... Laughing is very often caused by being stuck in an embarassing situation. I tend to believe it was like that for you...

Originally posted by DannyZR2
blah blah blah.. my pc works .. blah blah... macs are slow... blah blah... i built a 18ghz pc for $200 blah blah...

Hmmm.... you learned to undersand the content of a text, right? Your comment makes me doubting that!

Originally posted by DannyZR2
every mac user around has heard all of this for years.. it's just part of being a mac user...

A computer is a tool and being a mac user is not a kind of religion or cult! Reality check?

I am a Mac user probably longer than you can spell the word c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r and I still am!

Originally posted by DannyZR2
but when you build you a pc, as I have done, and really sit down and try to not get pissed off and annoyed at the error messages and conflicts, and all the microsoft crap that is built in and you have to find a way to disable this and that, so your computer doesn't tell microsoft everything you do on your computer... it just gets old..

Too bad for you that you wanted to build one yourself without knowing anything about it... I would never do that for the core system. There are companies who build me exactly the gear I want and test it before they deliver it to me. Also your own fault when you use Windows XP. For pro use Windows2000 is the better choice anyway. And that's what we were talking about here, not about a little guy trying to build his own Windows box to save some bucks.

Again I recommend practicing the global understanding of written text.

Originally posted by DannyZR2
I'm saving my money for one of the new products from Apple. I have a PC in the meantime since I sold my Pismo and it has been hell.. .. sure i can browse the net a bit faster, but is it really worth it?? nope. not when I reinstalled XP 6 times, bought a new MoBo and reinstalled again .....

Do whatever you want! The reference to the web-surfing was just told to underline how slow the Mac is in general at the moment even on simple things like that!

And again... XP is no option for most pro users anyway for a while, as far as I heared from people in my environment.

Since you showed in an impressing way your problems to understand what you read, I don't wonder anymore, that building a PC yourself didn't work out for you, considering that you were reading the installing instructions.

And another time I have to tell you that building a PC yourself is one of the least things you'll do when you have to work professionally with it. No guarantee and service can become very expensive easily.

We were talking pro and not consumer in this thread here, so get it finally. That a Mac is a fine computer for consumers in most cases is out of question, but for pros count a lot more things they have to consider. One of them is the overall performance of the system in tasks where you definetely need it! There are people like that out there, believe it or not...

Oh... and maybe you should work on your manners as well! :D

groovebuster

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 04:47 AM
Just to underline what I said before, read this article:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-945310.html

If the mac platfom would be the best choice, no matter what, I am pretty they would have bought just Macs and not only just a few...

Have fun reading.

groovebuster

G4scott
Jul 24, 2002, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by kaneda
You need raw power, if you are doing 3D animation and graphic craps! If I am using Word everyday...I can buy a imac and be happy...but I am not...

I am going to the darkside...:)

I was happy when Maya released for MAC...but no freaking hardware to run it...

So, you're a 3d animator?

Well, if you're switching to windoze, then you might as well leave these boards...

thies
Jul 24, 2002, 05:18 AM
A computer is only as good as it's ability to let you get work done. This quality is expressed in stability, quality, and user interface. You can have the fastest machine in the world, but it isn't worth a crap if you can't get any work done on it because it is GPF'ing or always getting in your way when you try and work.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my Mac crashes just as often as my W2K box at work, with the x86 rebooting faster than my Mac in those instances. Nor is the UI less usable, I'd say in some cases the opposite is true. Switching between tasks is faster on a W2K box as on my Mac where I have to cycle through the dock.

solvs
Jul 24, 2002, 05:20 AM
I think we can all agree we love the Mac OS. Why else would we be here? And we hate the way M$ does business.

But a lot of us loyalists, who once touted the superiority of the hardware, software, and the company in general, seem to be waivering. Apple isn't the only one running a business in an "economic slowdown". Most of us are at least budgeting, and need the most bang for our bucks.

Sorry to tell you, but Wintels are the competition. If Apple wants to win consumers, and keep us non-zealot supporters, they need to wake up. If Motorola is lagging, find other ways to make things look better. Faster FSB, memory, IDE, overall system improvements. The cases are neat and all, but what about what's inside? The software is Fantastic, give us the hardware to prove it. We all dislike Windows.

And M$. So why conduct business like they do? I support them buying up other companies to innovate (Apple, not M$), and giving us new software solutions, but at what costs. Should we just accept it, because it's the lesser of 2 evils? Should we just say, "well that's the fastest Mac there is, so I'll buy it". Or "it looks so stylish, who cares if it's still using last years technology". Why become complacent with the obsolesencs?

Should we have to over pay for things that others offer for free, or at least cheaper? People are mad because they feel extorted, and dammit, they have every right to be pissed. They paid extra because they thought they were getting more. Now they're getting the old "bait and switch". The extras of .Mac are worth $100/year, if they work. But what about the "free for life" e-mail. Or paying $1,000 for a new OS X.2 Server Liscense 2 months after buying a $4,000+ xServe? Or even FULL PRICE for an upgrade. They want us to buy hardware before an Expo, then punish us if we do.

See if anybody buys a new Mac after they announce 10.3, but before they deliver it. Next it will be XP type registration practices. Isn't this why we're trying to move away M$. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't get new customers by p*ssing people off, and you lose those that used to support you. How many of us used to rave to our friends, family, and co-workers about Apples? How many of us now think twice before recommending them? They want to switch people, give them a better reason to want to switch.

They want to move into the Pro realm, give us Pro hardware. Who cares if you have a 1.2 GHz CPU, if it's surrounded by ATA/133 (which really is better than ATA/66), 120 GB+ Hard Drives, PC2700 DDR, 166 FSB (x2), 2 CD Drives, USB 2, built-in Bluetooth, etc. It matters now. You can do it. How many of us use GB Ethernet, or used USB or FW when they first came out? You can't use modern day specs!?!

You want to charge us more, give us more. All you zealots can flame away. "Apple good, Wintel bad, must hide head in sand". You should see what the other side is saying, I'm a zealot to them. But I'm just trying to be a realist here. I want a new Mac, but nothing on the current roster suits my needs. I'm not paying $2,000 for style. I can't afford to. Not many can (and if you can, lucky you). Mr. Jobs, give me something fairly decent and I'll take a (slight) performance hit for the extra stability and ease of use.

It's my $$$, I'll take it where I think it would serve me best. And telling people to just go buy a PC doesn't help. Actually it just proves my point. Because that's exactly what people do. This isn't a private club, it's a business claiming to want new customers, and in doing so doesn't seem to be catering to it's current base. If anything, it's p*ssing off it's most important clientel by making a lot of really bad choices. We're not happy, and we, the customer, are what matter.

Voice your opinions people. And b*tch all you want, until someone listens. Because no, it's not "good enough".

We're mad as Hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore.

DannyZR2
Jul 24, 2002, 05:21 AM
Man it's hilarious how you insult me about understanding what I read. It's funny because in your own insult, you apparantly have a hard time WRITING!


Originally posted by groovebuster



How is the stuff called you are taking? You should stop it! Drugs are no good! ;)


How is the stuff called? --wtf?

So what is so funny about it? Man, I am working with Macs since 16 years!
wow! you make no sense at all!! - how about "Man, I have been working with Macs for 16 years..." I think that is what you meant!

You are one of those guys who don't should be "doesn't" allow your beloved Mac to be criticized, because you can't accept the truth... Laughing is very often caused by being stuck in an embarassing situation. I tend to believe it was like that for you...

Actually, I just like to have a good time. Sorry if that's not something you like to do.

Hmmm.... you learned to undersand the content of a text, right? Your comment makes me doubting that!
OH MY GOSH!!! THIS IS TOO EASY!!!! Maybe if you could properly format your sentences!

A computer is a tool and being a mac user is not a kind of religion or cult! Reality check?
Yes, a computer is a tool.... so... Would you keep using a hammer if every third time you hit a nail, the head came off? I don't think so! You would quickly throw it away and buy one that worked! Same thing with a PC.. why put up with it?

I am a Mac user probably longer than you can spell the word c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r and I still am!

Why don't we leave this one alone.. I think it is you who is having problems spelling words...

Too bad for you that you wanted to build one yourself without knowing anything about it... I would never do that for the core system. There are companies who build me exactly the gear I want and test it before they deliver it to me. Also your own fault when you use Windows XP. For pro use Windows2000 is the better choice anyway. And that's what we were talking about here, not about a little guy trying to build his own Windows box to save some bucks.

Okay.. sorry. I keep forgetting that Microsoft DOWNGRADES Windows each time they put out a new OS. MY BAD!!!

Again I recommend practicing the global understanding of written text.

Uh.. yeah! Me too! -- I'm glad you spelt "understanding" correct this time though! -- Keep it up!

Do whatever you want! The reference to the web-surfing was just told to underline how slow the Mac is in general at the moment even on simple things like that!

So.. macs are slow "in general"? Or just in web-surfing? Can you make up your mind? We are all aware that Macs render web pages slower than PCs. I personally don't know why this is, but then again, I don't think it's that big of a deal. If you are talking about "Pro Users" like you've been saying, then I don't think true professionals who use their computer to look at web pages are really the "Pro Users" you are talking about. So are we talking about "Pro Users" or people that need the fastest porn viewer they can find?

And again... XP is no option for most pro users anyway for a while, as far as I heared from people in my environment.

hmm... as far as I "heared"??? good one!

Since you showed in an impressing way your problems to understand what you read, I don't wonder anymore, that building a PC yourself didn't work out for you, considering that you were reading the installing instructions. I am starting to wonder how anything works out for you with that kind of writing ability!

And another time I have to tell you that building a PC yourself is one of the least things you'll do when you have to work professionally with it. No guarantee and service can become very expensive easily. Exactly! I'll by a mac instead! Why would I waste my time with a PC if I had the choice? (Unless of course I don't know any better.)

We were talking pro and not consumer in this thread here, so get it finally. uh.. again.. the pros who look at web pages all day, right? Okay, I think I got it...finally.. That a Mac is a fine computer for consumers in most cases is out of question, but for pros count a lot more things they have to consider. Can someone please tell me what he just said? One of them is the overall performance of the system in tasks where you definetely need it! There are people like that out there, believe it or not... If there are people like you out there, than I'll believe anything!

Oh... and maybe you should work on your manners as well! :D Yes Mam!

groovebuster

pev
Jul 24, 2002, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by DannyZR2
Oh and about the jaguar thing the guy is petitioning about.. ... but what's the deal..why do you complain aboutnot getting your products and features you want, but when the come, aren't willing to reward the designers and engineers for doing it by paying the price to upgrade? that is hypocritcal if you ask me....

Sorry, got to come out of lurkdom to reply to this - I bought OSX to run audio apps. I *only* use my Mac to run Logic Audio. I bought the full 10.1 release to support Apple, but they never got the CoreAudio support into the operating system. Logic (bought now by Apple curiously) will not work until 10.2 as it needs the new CoreAudio, so they expect me to shell out the same again! I dont want new features, just the support that has been missing and promised since OSX's inception. Should I be forced to pay again? If they put the missing CoreAudio into 10.1 I'll happily use 10.1 and forget Jagwire. I am not a happy bunny at the moment.

~Pev

Gianrico
Jul 24, 2002, 05:39 AM
The real G5 processor code is 8540 in my opinion and the first specs are at this address: http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8540&nodeId=03M943030450467M98657.

The full features has hidden. There are the " - "

What do you think?

DannyZR2
Jul 24, 2002, 05:41 AM
I thought (although I am not a pro audio user) that I had read that the core audio in OS X 10.1 was amazingly good.

- Incredible Latence -
-from apple
Performance
Mac OS X delivers the best audio performance in desktop computing. The most fundamental measure of audio performance is throughput latency. That’s the time it takes for audio to enter your Mac, travel through the system to your application and then pass back out to your monitoring system (speakers). Historically, Mac OS offered audio pros excellent latency of about 10ms.

The Core Audio HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) provides ultra low latency communication between applications and I/O devices that is measurably more efficient than previous solutions. M-Audio reports latency as low as 40 samples on Mac OS X from the company’s audio interfaces. That translates into 1ms throughput latency — and you get this performance in a full multi-channel environment.
- and here's a thing about Logic -
The Core Audio HAL also allows multiple applications to share the same device, a feature new to Mac OS X. This means that you could assign channels one through six of a eight channel output device to a multi-track program, such as Logic, while leaving a virtual instrument like Reason with channels seven and eight.

-All I've ever heard is that doing audio on a PC can be done, and maybe for cheaper, but stability has always been an issue doing intensive audio on windows. Most professional Studios and sound-engineer school labs use g4's, but I personally don't have the experience in audio as many people do.

What exactly doesn't work in 10.1 that you need? I'm just curious...

DannyZR2
Jul 24, 2002, 05:44 AM
I've seen the numbers on Apple's "gigaflop" approach, but have never seen a similar spec for an x86 system measured in gigaflops.

Anyone seen any?

I mean, overall system sustained throughput in floating point operations/second. I've seen it for GPU's, but not for the overal system like Apple claims.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 06:06 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DannyZR2
Man it's hilarious how you insult me about understanding what I read. It's funny because in your own insult, you apparantly have a hard time WRITING!


If you can talk German as good as I can talk English as not being my mother-tongue, you can dare to say something like that. :D

And just for you...

To understand a text doesn't have anything to do with the ability to express yourself in a foreign language. I am pretty sure that most of my statements were made in a way that they couldn't be misunderstood, even when I do here and there sometimes a little mistake in grammar or using expressions.

Besides that everything is said. You don't like to understand what I meant... fine! But as far as I remember you started to insult me on a pimp like level right with your first sentence. So you shouldn't wonder when you get an appropriate response.

Put your head in the sand and believe that the Mac is the solution for all the problems in the galaxy, I couldn't care less.

groovebuster

P.S.: I guess with that kind of reply you made pretty much a jerk out of yourself. Du bist nichts weiter als ein arrogantes Arschloch!

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by DannyZR2
I thought (although I am not a pro audio user) that I had read that the core audio in OS X 10.1 was amazingly good.

It is not! Too many things still don't work properly on the system level. That is the reason why Logic and Cubase for example are not finished so far for MacOS X. In the given implementation it's useless for the pro apps. The quoted text is just marketing bla bla by Apple! Check out the newsgroups for Logic and Cubase and you will find more details on that problem.

10.2 will finally provide the audio core that is necessary to make those apps working.

groovebuster

thies
Jul 24, 2002, 06:32 AM
Just like a lot of pro graphicdesign users, a lot of pro audio users stick to OS 9 for now for various reasons.

Stike
Jul 24, 2002, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster

P.S.: I guess with that kind of reply you made pretty much a jerk out of yourself. Du bist nichts weiter als ein arrogantes Arschloch! [/B]

LOL :D Der war gut :rolleyes: :D

He tried to start a flamewar with me before...

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by thies
Just like a lot of pro graphicdesign users, a lot of pro audio users stick to OS 9 for now for various reasons.

Exactly... I use Cubase for my recording sessions on OS 9. Since there isn't Logic or Cubase for OS X so far I don't have choice anyway.

In most cases you can work already in MacOS X with graphic apps, just that Xpress is missing still is annoying. As well as the printer support... but with CUPS in MacOS X also that should be history soon. I really hope that Quark is finishing really soon so that I can get rid of all the OS 9 <-> Classic/MacOS X switching finally...

groovebuster

eirik
Jul 24, 2002, 06:46 AM
Despite Groovebuster's grammatical madness and the flame war between he and DannyZR2, Groovebuster made an excellent point thematically in his first post in this thread (or is it the first post in this page of the thread?).

That is, there truly is a performance gap!!! Burying out heads in the 'productivity' mantra is misleading and a bit self-deluding. Yes, productivity is ultimately more important than performance specs. However, the benefits of 'productivity' are only meaningful if one can QUANTIFY them.

Yes, adding software and hardware to a Mac is radically simpler and more pain free than doing so on a Win-Don't machine. But, with Win2k and I assume XP, once one gets the system working, after adding something, it is in fact fairly reliable and productive. Once one is inside the application itself, much of the Win-Don't counter-intuitive clutter is out of the picture.

So, if one is adding hardware and software everyday, one ought to be able to quantify the productivity benefits of the Mac over the Win-Don't systems. However, if one is adding/removing stuff so often, I have to question how productive one can be using a different piece of hardware and software so often.

In production operations management, one tries to minimize start/stops because they incur downtime. Further, one is undoubtedly climbing a learning curve with use of new stuff.

Boiling this post down, adding and removing software and hardware over and over frequently doesn't sound like much of a productivity gain over that of a system that can crunch code 50% to 150% faster, depending upon the operations in question of course.

I find the posts stating that 'I'm going to the Windows platform if...' and all that a bit childish in the tone of some posters. Naturally, those whose livelihoods depend upon results must do what they must do to maximize the value that they can yield. If that means dumping MacOS because of the hardware, in terms of computational performance, that's just business.

We zealots are made stronger, ultimately, when we look at and discuss the cold hard numbers, even when, for the moment, they are discouraging. I'm sure Apple is more responsive to criticisms based upon quantifiable performance with relevance to Apple's target market than generalized complaints and desires that Mac systems simply be faster than Win-Don't systems.

One of the best posts that I've read in this forum recently illustrated the maximum computation throughput of G4 (CPU) as well as that of the main memory to CPU throughput. Yeah, its old news. But, its quantified and it speaks volumes!

Imagine Apple's PowerMac product management team drueling over some mystical PowerPC 75XX or 85XX that won't be ready until around Jan '03. Maybe they're thinking in this fictious scenario that they can get by with the current Mobo and speedbumped 7455's until then, sparing them the cost and hassle of introducing a new Mobo with the faster 7455s. They might be tempted to wait until then.

However, the zealots and a greater and greater of other Mac users, Mac-would-be users, and tech media folk are reporting that Apple's PowerMac's with PowerPC 7455 (?) are starved for data and the competing systems are not, making PowerMac's vastly inferior in an increasing number of different benchmarks. Consequently, fewer people are buying PowerMacs. And some are even 'going to the dark side'.

So, the word got out about where the performance gap is. Now Apple's product management is faced with an unsettling fact, regarding the premise of this fictious scenario that unless Apple sells a PowerMac with a new Mobo that eliminates the main memory to CPU bottleneck, people will still be reluctant to buy a PowerMac even if it had 2 GHz 7455's in them because of the bottleneck. What good is a hurry up and wait for more data system? They're reading periodicals and web articles stating that users get radically better performance from x86 systems with their significantly higher throughput main memory to CPU buses.

Yeah, the word has been out for some time. But now product management has an ass full of inventory that even the zealots are reluctant to buy.

No, I don't think we'll be waiting until early next year for the next revision to the Powermac line. As for the inventory, at some point, it costs Apple more to hold out and sell it than it does to radically discount it and sell a boat load of new PowerMac's.

I expect someone's ass is out the door at Apple, if inventory truly is the obstruction to a new PowerMac introduction. Apple has a world class inventory management system. But also, Apple has a long time-dishonored history of not utilizing primary (first hand) market research and depending upon market research firms with questionable methodologies.

What a rant, sorry this was so long. I hope you had something to eat while reading this post.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Stike


LOL :D Der war gut :rolleyes: :D

He tried to start a flamewar with me before...

Also manche Amis hier haben echt einen an der Bommel! Was glaubt der Typ eigentlich, wer er ist? Das ist nicht das erste Mal, dass ich auf so einen Wasserkopp hier treffe. Ich dachte immer, wir Deutschen können ignorant sein, aber was Du hier erlebst, da wundert einen gar nichts mehr... alles kleine Schorsch-Dabbeljuhs...

Whatever... let's see what August will bring for us mac users... :)

groovebuster

ibjoshua
Jul 24, 2002, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster If you can talk German as good as I can talk English as not being my mother-tongue, you can dare to say something like that.
you tell him groove!

I am pretty sure that most of my statements were made in a way that they couldn't be misunderstood
perfectly understandable

even when I do here and there sometimes a little mistake in grammar or using expressions.
a little more than here and there...... but that's not the point. I applaud anyone that learns another language and actually puts it to use.

P.S.: I guess with that kind of reply you made pretty much a jerk out of yourself. Du bist nichts weiter als ein arrogantes Arschloch!

i think jerk summed it up. oh and Arschloch sounds about right.

and for the record i don't think either of you had very strong arguments. too much waffle

josh
out

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
I applaud anyone that learns another language and actually puts it to use.


Thanks for the flowers. My English was a lot better a while ago... but since I am not in North America anymore on a regular basis it got worse! :(

I just don't have the opportunity to practice anymore. After a while you start to do typical german mistakes again and you don't even notice... especially when you type fast sentence structure or irregular verbs are preferred obstacles. Most times I recognize mistakes myself after I read a text again, but normally I am too lazy then to edit the whole thing.

My wife is french canadian and she learned German almost perfectly in about 2 years. Something she can be really proud of since even some Germans have a lot of problems with the grammar of their own language, not to mention all the words with multiple meanings and irregular verbs...

People... learn languages, travel a lot and use them. The world appears in a totally different light when you experienced the way of life of other cultures.

groovebuster

wchamlet
Jul 24, 2002, 07:44 AM
I mean seriously, think about it.

I know I have. I've been putting this off for months, but I think I might buy a PC, although I am not sure to what type as of yet. The reason I would think to do something like this is because Maya currently runs much better on a PC then it does a Mac. And for a cheaper price to boot (For the CPU). That doesn't mean I have to switch everything over ot PC, just Maya. And as of right now Maya unlimited isn't even available on a Mac.

That doesn't mean that I am "going to the Dark Side". It just means I'm using my head and actually weighing all possibilities. Which is more than I can say about some of the Apple/Windows fanboys I've seen running around these here parts. :D

Apple has a little more time though to release a Pro Tower that would make me change my mind. Maya 4.5 comes out in Sept. I'll get the best CPU that is out at the time. PC or Mac. Doesn't matter. I want Maya, and to use it at it's best potential.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by wchamlet
I mean seriously, think about it.

I know I have. I've been putting this off for months, but I think I might buy a PC, although I am not sure to what type as of yet. The reason I would think to do something like this is because Maya currently runs much better on a PC then it does a Mac. And for a cheaper price to boot (For the CPU). That doesn't mean I have to switch everything over ot PC, just Maya. And as of right now Maya unlimited isn't even available on a Mac.

Exactly my opinion! I don't plan to throw out my Apple stuff completely, I will just maybe buy a PC as well. There is pressure now to make a decision because some jobs have to be done in about 2 months that need really performant hardware. If Apple has some new PMs who will meet the needs until then, I am fine to buy Macs again. If not, Mac and PC have to "snuggle up" a little bit in my studio! :D ;)

Who knows... maybe they really like each other and I'll have some pocket PCs in a few months that run OS X on an AMD processor with Altivec unit!!! :eek: :D

groovebuster

G4scott
Jul 24, 2002, 08:06 AM
Is it just me, or is there a lot of hate in this thread? We'd better get someone in here to clean the ***** off the walls...

Long live the Mac!!!

rickag
Jul 24, 2002, 08:09 AM
Just a little piece of information somewhat relevant to this thread.

The prototypes of the MPC 8560 will not be available until 2003.
Althought the MPC 8540 and MPC 8560 will never be used as a
desktop cpu, they may be an indication of the direction Motorola
and Apple are taking.

eric_n_dfw
Jul 24, 2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
All those peformance standards matter! Blast and RC5 are so special that even the organisations say that a benchmark based on those numbers can't be used as comparison for real life performance. The PPC is just that fast on those things because the code fits perfectly into the cache of the processor and Altivec can go crazy then. As soon as the RAM is involved even Altivec can't pull it anymore.
Bingo!
This is something I've been harping about for OVER A YEAR NOW! I think I had read somewhere like anandtech.com or arstechnica.com that the AltiVec units on the G4, while vastly superior to the Intel and AMD SIMD units, are starved when it comes to RAM access speed.
My buddies at work are, I'm sure, sick of hearing me say, "DDR has GOT to be coming out soon." I've been saying it for so long that it's more of despation than prediction now!
As I've said a hundred times here, I'd be more than happy with NO SPEED BUMP on the current G4's if they could just catch that RAM bus speed up to where AltiVec wasn't playing a game of chess between operations!

synergy
Jul 24, 2002, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by wchamlet
I mean seriously, think about it.

I know I have. I've been putting this off for months, but I think I might buy a PC, although I am not sure to what type as of yet. The reason I would think to do something like this is because Maya currently runs much better on a PC then it does a Mac. And for a cheaper price to boot (For the CPU). That doesn't mean I have to switch everything over ot PC, just Maya. And as of right now Maya unlimited isn't even available on a Mac.

That doesn't mean that I am "going to the Dark Side". It just means I'm using my head and actually weighing all possibilities. Which is more than I can say about some of the Apple/Windows fanboys I've seen running around these here parts. :D

Apple has a little more time though to release a Pro Tower that would make me change my mind. Maya 4.5 comes out in Sept. I'll get the best CPU that is out at the time. PC or Mac. Doesn't matter. I want Maya, and to use it at it's best potential.

I don't blame you. The whole megahertz myth is no longer even talked about in Apple land. It was fine and dandy for a while but now with clock speeds where they are in Pentiums and AMDs its no comparison.

I built myself a PC a while back and hardly use it. A number of times I have been tempted to upgrade the CPU in it and start using it again. I certainly will not buy anything though with Windows XP installed. Apple really needs to hound Motorola on this issue. If not, get another CPU and take their PPC patents with them. Let motorola fall on its face why don't they.

synergy
Jul 24, 2002, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by pev


Sorry, got to come out of lurkdom to reply to this - I bought OSX to run audio apps. I *only* use my Mac to run Logic Audio. I bought the full 10.1 release to support Apple, but they never got the CoreAudio support into the operating system. Logic (bought now by Apple curiously) will not work until 10.2 as it needs the new CoreAudio, so they expect me to shell out the same again! I dont want new features, just the support that has been missing and promised since OSX's inception. Should I be forced to pay again? If they put the missing CoreAudio into 10.1 I'll happily use 10.1 and forget Jagwire. I am not a happy bunny at the moment.

~Pev

You came out of lurkdom to say you will be forced to pay again?
How exactly are they forcing you? Are they holding your balls to the fire?

I see OS 10.1 full installs being sold for 40-50 bucks on different places. You run 10.1 this long without dying, so you can wait as well for the 10.2 update to drop in price like that as well if you don't like the pricing.

Like others have said, its a pure head game with this. If Apple released it as 10.5 and at MWSF 2003 everybody would be jumping and bumping at the prospect of paying for the next iteration of 10.

For those cheap 10 installs check out http://deal-mac.com if you must.

ImAlwaysRight
Jul 24, 2002, 09:10 AM
I see that this article has 47 comments attached to it, so I'm hoping for some good discussion about the G5...

then when I get done reading I feel like I just finished watching an episode of Jenny Jones...

drastik
Jul 24, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster


Oh... and maybe you should work on your manners as well! :D

groovebuster

Groove buster:

I'm not gonna argue with your whole post, I think that people use a Mac for other reasons entirely in many cases and I think your points about a professional environment are valid (depending on the environment.) However, I think that the manners comment is rediculous, you are one of the rudest posters on these boards, in my experience.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by drastik
However, I think that the manners comment is rediculous, you are one of the rudest posters on these boards, in my experience.

Am I??:rolleyes:

Your opinion... but not mine.

Maybe you could just show me some examples when I started to be rude and not in response to others??? You will have a hard time to find one.

And in case you are referring to that whole APPLE58 case... for what are the smilies then, if not for marking your words as irony or not to be taken too serious? Even some other forum members didn't see any problems with that and also said it was clear that I wasn't serious with my last sentence since I put a ;) behind it. I was just pushing the guy to tell us what he knows, if he knows anything and shouldn't make us begging like little kids "oh, please, please, tell us, oh, please!" I'm sorry if he got that totally wrong, but as I said already a few times before... if I would take all the ignorance and offenses personal that I was confronted with within this forum already, I would have gone crazy a long time ago.

And maybe you didn't realize in your prejudices that I am not a person who is resisting to talk to a person I had a flame-war with before. Even with AlphaTech I had a just normal conversation a few days ago in another thread...

I had very decent conversations with a lot of people here already and I really don't get why some people (including you) don't let any opportunity pass to pick on me again because of one or two flame wars I was involved in, after being attacked for nothing before...

I am not saying I am perfect, but that I am one of the rudest posters here is just not true.

To say it with your own words... "that's rediculous"!

groovebuster

Sun Baked
Jul 24, 2002, 10:33 AM
RapidIO would be fun, it converts the standard computer bus into something resembling a packet switched computer network. It's a point-to-point packet switched interconnect technology for use "inside the box" - runs in serial or parallel configurations chip-to-chip or board-to-board. Drastically reduces the pin count.

Hypertransport is an extension of the standard computer bus, just reduces the bottlenecks and latency in the current MPX incarnation. Lot's of pins needed.

TechLarry
Jul 24, 2002, 10:49 AM
Groovebuster makes some pretty good points.

Windows, since Win2K, doesn't necessarily suck any more. It still has it's problems (the Font architecture needs work, the Registry is STILL the worse idea in computing history, and shared libraries are still a pain) but major problems are not that common any longer.

No, the true evilness comes from the company itself. It's obvious ever-expanding desires to control what users do with thier computers, and how they do it, are the true issues on that side of the fence.

If you haven't heard the term "Palladium", and want to see something REALLY scary, go do a search on Google and read up on it.

Apple is no saint either. It's Jaguar pricing scheme is totally without merit. Charging people for QuickTime 6 when they just paid for it 5 weeks earlier is also not treating your customers right.

Microsoft is a Monopoly, and thus unfortunately can get away with this stuff. Apple is in a MUCH more precarious position, and it really shouldn't be pissing off it's loyal customers like this, or they may not be loyal much longer.

I have two Mac's, including an LCD iMac. I have a couple of Win2K Servers, a Win2K Laptop and a WinXP Desktop. Frankly, though I don't want to do it, I could sell the iMac and the other Mac and hardly notice they are gone. Any work I'm doing there can easily be transferred to the PC's in minutes.

After the announcement of the Jaguar pricing, I transitioned ALL of my home finances and other chores back over to the PC. The iMac is used strictly as a general "Living Room Machine" and for mastering DVD's now.

I am contemplating selling it, and putting $500 towards the purchase of a DVD ROM burner for one of the PC's, and the rest to pay off the Loan.

And I've owned Mac's since 1984.

As far as system performance goes, the Wintel side as thoroughly out-classed the Macintosh at this time.

TL

Originally posted by groovebuster
I can't hear it anymore... is it that hard for a lot of Mac users to accept that there is a world outside Apple and that is isn't all bad?



Stop telling those tales! Of course there was a lot of support needed in the older days. Since Windows2000 times changed dramatically. My wife works with a Dell Computer (700MHz Celeron) that costed 600$ since more than 2 years now (Yes, there are people who don't like to work on a Mac!). Wonna know how many real problems she had during that time with her computer??? ZERO!!! She's knows ***** about computers and it crashed maybe 5 or 6 times since then. She never had a BSOD and she runs Office, Photoshop, etc... pp.. on it. I just installed her a new graphic card last year, because the onboard video was too slow for some stuff. It was a snap, no problems either.

Some friends of mine who are self-employed like me are only using Windows machines in their studios, so I can compare pretty well my work with what they are doing. And know what? None of them had really serious problems with their machines as well, since they use Windows2000. When you set up your system carefully in the beginning, a Windows system is usually very stable.



I remember times when Mac users used the argument that a Mac is faster than a PC. Now that the Mac platform is so much behind on speed issues all the people say now that it doesn't matter anymore... So what?

Even Jobs was always using the Mhz myth to point out how fast the Macs are. Now it doesn't matter anymore?

And that thing said about the Alpha processor and UNIX is just stupid. In '97 you hardly got any of the professional standard apps for creative work for Alpha machines or UNIX. But you get all the major apps for Windows these days (excpet those that got bought by Apple lately) They are 1:1 identical and sometimes they run even smoother than on the Mac, because they are developped on Windows normally these days and then they cross-compile for the Mac.

Tell me the difference between PS on the Mac and PS on Windows and how the OS is getting in your way then?!?!?! Or take any other app that is available for both platforms... I don't work with the OS the whole day, I work within the apps. And there I can't see any difference usually. The OS is running in the back and the most important thing is that it is stable and gives me the frame to run apps in it. Of course is the UI of Windows a nightmare, but when you got used to it there is now reason why you should be slower using it than on a Mac.

Oh, and to refer to the PC of my wife again... To surf the internet with it is a dream (we have a high bandwidth connection). Comparing my "high-end" Macs with that old and "slow" Windows machine is embarassing, no matter which browser I use.

A company I have a contract with is only using Windows machines (30 employees). I asked the sysad lately how much work he has with supporting the PCs and he said that it is normally almost nothing, he is normally responsible for the servers (since they are a .COM they have quite a few of them) and the support for the PCs is made by him just on request between the other stiff he has to do. Is he a liar? I don't think so...



All those peformance standards matter! Blast and RC5 are so special that even the organisations say that a benchmark based on those numbers can't be used as comparison for real life performance. The PPC is just that fast on those things because the code fits perfectly into the cache of the processor and Altivec can go crazy then. As soon as the RAM is involved even Altivec can't pull it anymore.

What counts is the overall performance of the system. And by the way... I want to see the benchmark where Photoshop on a Mac beats a PC clocked twice as fast that is NOT from Apple marketing department! All the benchmarks made by independent sources say the opposite.

As a matter of fact in real world a G4 performs like a PIII at the same clock speed. Many many tests by different sources confirmed that and it is backed up by what I experienced too.



If you would just stop to close your eyes from reality and would do the comparison yourself, instead of sticking with your fanatic opinion that Apple HAS to be better by definition, you would maybe start to understand from which direction the wind blows.

There are users out there that need all the performance in a system they can get. And it is a fact that at the moment the PowerMacs are not able to compete with Intel/AMD systems, like it or not. The funny part is that Apple is heading for the high-end video and audio production field and so far has no competetive workstation to run the stuff on. For that stuff you need friggin' powerful equipment to keep up with the standards of the industry.

Of course I am curious how the new PowerMacs (so if they will arrive one day) will perform finally. But also I am tempted meanwhile to try out the Windows world for my stuff, by putting a windows set up right beside and doing the performance hungry stuff on the PC, especially when the new PowerMacs turn out to be another disappointment. As soon as Apple gives me what I want and need (and not the other way around), I am back on the band waggon, but til then I invest my money probably in gear that gives me a way better performance than any Mac that is available at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, I still hope that finally Apple can provide some decent hardware again, since I prefer the Mac as a platform (16 years user, 14 years owner of Macs), but I am at a point to ask myself if it is just fanatism to stay or if it is rational...

Cheers!

groovebuster

drastik
Jul 24, 2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster


Am I??:rolleyes:

Your opinion... but not mine.

Maybe you could just show me some examples when I started to be rude and not in response to others??? You will have a hard time to find one.

And in case you are referring to that whole APPLE58 case... for what are the smilies then, if not for marking your words as irony or not to be taken too serious? Even some other forum members didn't see any problems with that and also said it was clear that I wasn't serious with my last sentence since I put a ;) behind it. I was just pushing the guy to tell us what he knows, if he knows anything and shouldn't make us begging like little kids "oh, please, please, tell us, oh, please!" I'm sorry if he got that totally wrong, but as I said already a few times before... if I would take all the ignorance and offenses personal that I was confronted with within this forum already, I would have gone crazy a long time ago.

And maybe you didn't realize in your prejudices that I am not a person who is resisting to talk to a person I had a flame-war with before. Even with AlphaTech I had a just normal conversation a few days ago in another thread...

I had very decent conversations with a lot of people here already and I really don't get why some people (including you) don't let any opportunity pass to pick on me again because of one or two flame wars I was involved in, after being attacked for nothing before...

I am not saying I am perfect, but that I am one of the rudest posters here is just not true.

To say it with your own words... "that's rediculous"!

groovebuster

Look, I don't want to start a war here, but I do think your tone tends to be a little agressive. This si supposed to be a market place for discussion, not name calling.

As far as other conversations go, I agree, I know you don't have a problem letting it go and moving on. My point was refeering to your telling another person to watch their manners, when you sometimes respond the same way.

drastik
Jul 24, 2002, 11:24 AM
Tech Larry:

I think you are underestimating what will come out of jaguar, especialy networking freatures and productivity apps. And as far as QUicktime 6 goes, that ain't apple. They are charging because of the liscensing fees for the use of MP4, this is handled by MpegLA, so take it up with them. If you don't need Mpeg$, don't buy it and stick with 5, that's what I'm doing.

pgwalsh
Jul 24, 2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by DannyZR2
However, since we know Moto is still producing the router types of these 85xx chips, and we know that Apple wouldn't let them ruin their surprise, .. it is possible they also have been moving on with production of the desktop 85xx chips and could be in process of supplying them to Apple as we speak... we have know way to know either way because Apple wouldn't let that get out.
I agree that they wouldn't announce the G5 and burn SJ's introduction. This doesn't mean they'll come out next month either, but I hope they do. If anything lets hope for new system bus and other new technologies.

If your going to wintel, then just stand at the edge and I'll help push. :p

dernhelm
Jul 24, 2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by wchamlet
I mean seriously, think about it.


That doesn't mean that I am "going to the Dark Side". It just means I'm using my head and actually weighing all possibilities.

No, sorry - you're going over to the "Dark Side" you just don't know it. True zealots care nothing for what works, and can learn nothing from someone who is different from them. If you aren't a true zealot, you simply don't belong here.

And that box in the corner running Solaris? That just pays the bills...

:-)

tucker
Jul 24, 2002, 11:43 AM
This is my first post and I am a little disapointed, I really thought there might be a some information/speculation on whether there is a G5, or could be a G5, whether it is from Moto or IBM.

I really wasn't expecting this Mac/Windows flame war, lets try and keep to the topic, I am sure there are other topics that relate to that!!! subject where you all can go at it all you want.

Thanks:p :p

ffakr
Jul 24, 2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
Stop telling those tales! Of course there was a lot of support needed in the older days. Since Windows2000 times changed dramatically.
...
Wonna know how many real problems she had during that time with her computer??? ZERO!!! She's knows ***** about computers and it crashed maybe 5 or 6 times since then. She never had a BSOD
...

hehe, I'm glad you know so many happy windows users. I, on the other hand make my living fixing Macs, PCs and Unix/Linux boxes. Windows IS much more stable than it has ever been, but it also is a million more times susceptable to viruses... not just because there are more windows virus writers, but also because MS enables virus writers with their bad design decisions.
Windows also goes down much harder when there is a problem. When windows DOES go south, it is a lot harder to fix than a mac... again due to design decisions by Microsoft.
Microsoft's code is often much worse than its competetors, IMHO... If you want proof, lets not even bother with counting MS bug fixes because it could be argued that MS has more holes exposed because more people look for them. Rather, consider Microsoft's own testimony in front of the DOJ. When arguing against a proposal to open the Windows source code as a term of settlement in the DOJ antitrust case, MS first contended that this would raise security concerns. On questioning, however, MS admitted that its code was so loose and buggy that they couldn't release it for fear of divulging the security issues.
The Register link one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25194.html)
There is another such register article, but I'm unable to quickly find it and I don't have all day to look :-( The other article provided better examples of my above claims. :-(


I remember times when Mac users used the argument that a Mac is faster than a PC. Now that the Mac platform is so much behind on speed issues all the people say now that it doesn't matter anymore... So what?

Even Jobs was always using the Mhz myth to point out how fast the Macs are. Now it doesn't matter anymore?

yes, Macs did clock faster back in the day. Remember when the 604e was pushing past 300MHz and Intel users were overclocking PPros to 266MHz?
The difference now is that a 'slow' processor is pretty wicked fast. Back then, software was smaller, but you were still dealing with 200-300MHz. Now, a 'slow' processor is clocked at 3x that speed, with tons more bandwidth and video power that you couldn't imagine back then.
My argument was/is, integer performance on just about any modern processor is pretty damn fast. Altivec DOES actually make up for the G4s current lack luster FP performance. In short, not as fast, but fast enough in the stuff that matters.

And that thing said about the Alpha processor and UNIX is just stupid. In '97 you hardly got any of the professional standard apps for creative work for Alpha machines or UNIX.
You posted nothing in the original post about application support. You whined about P4 clock rates and indicated that PCs were faster so screw the Mac. I just responded to what YOU said. Don't call me stupid because I responded to your original, narrow post.

Tell me the difference between PS on the Mac and PS on Windows and how the OS is getting in your way then?!?!?! Or take any other app that is available for both platforms...

Well, I for one don't like the Windows design philosopy where all windows of an app run in a window. Seems silly to me.
But... I complained about an OS getting in the way and you ask for Application examples. ???
You are not responding to the your original point, or my response.
There are many examples of how windows interface 'gets in the way'. How it isn't efficient. The most overt example has to be the integrated 'help' system in XP though. Who the ***** want's the OS to come up and pester the user, over and over. 'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?'
You can't get any more 'in your way' than that.

A company I have a contract with is only using Windows machines (30 employees). I asked the sysad lately how much work he has with supporting the PCs and he said that it is normally almost nothing, he is normally responsible for the servers (since they are a .COM they have quite a few of them) and the support for the PCs is made by him just on request between the other stiff he has to do. Is he a liar? I don't think so...

No, he's not lying. He's good and/or lucky. Any competent tech can have an easy job if 1) he sets things up from the start, and 2) his coworkers aren't too inqusitive about there machine configs. This is true of a Mac or a PC.
I only claim that a) PCs are more problematic due to the underlying design of Windows, b) they are more likely to be infected, due to market share (attention from crackers) AND due to bad MS design, and c) Macs are significantly easier to fix than Wintel PCs when both go bad... given the techs have roughly similar respective PC and Mac troubleshooting skills.


What counts is the overall performance of the system. And by the way... I want to see the benchmark where Photoshop on a Mac beats a PC clocked twice as fast that is NOT from Apple marketing department! All the benchmarks made by independent sources say the opposite.

That isn't exactly an accurate statement. Independent benchmarks do show PCs pulling ahead of Macs in Photoshop benchmarks. SSE2 updates to code helps. This doesn't mean that Macs don't beat much higher clocked PCs in Photoshop benchmarks.
I did a search and found some examples. I could do better if I had more time. I was not able to find one pro-apple benchmark that I remember being published recently in one of the PC mags.
TechTV, P4 2GHz beats 867MHz G4 at photoshop, but not by much (http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/print/0,23102,3339307,00.html)
There is another, recent (last month?), PC/Mac PShop shoot out at a major PC magazine, but I can't freaking find the link!!!! The Mac won almost all the benches. sorry, I can't locate it.
USA Today... Dual Gig G4 vs p4 vaio (author is mac user) (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002-07-19-steinberg_x.htm)
xinet's xServe benchmarks (http://www.xinet.com/)
...and to be fair, the Mac getting spanked in digital video (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm)

My only complaint with the video editing bench, is the use of OSX. Though it is coming along nicely, It obviously isn't nearly as fast enough as it could be. Use of a Jaguar beta points this out clearly. I'd like to see the benches run on OSX and OS9 to see if OSX is 'getting in the way' and to make sure the carbon versions of the apps are optimized well in X. It is, after all, supposed to be a HARDWARE benchmark.


As a matter of fact in real world a G4 performs like a PIII at the same clock speed. Many many tests by different sources confirmed that and it is backed up by what I experienced too.

yes, and a P4 performs SLOWER than a PIII at the same clock rate, unless SIMD2 is used on the P4. The PIII never performed that far behind the athlon either. In fact, when the PIII move to 512k L2 cache, it started outperforming similarly clocked Athlons (Tom's Hardware P3 Tualatin review (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010919/index.html) ). So your point is? The G4 runs most non-parallel code like a PIII, which runs non-parallel code like an Athlon, which runs non-parallel code faster than a similarly clocked P4?
Nice point.
Fact is, the chips are more similar in integer and FP performance than most people think. A little faster here, a little slower here. The only exception to this is the P4 which is quite a bit slower at the same clock as other processors.
The big difference has been clock speed. Sure, a 2.5 GHz P4 is going to smoke... even with the design choices Intel was required to make in order to get that fast. That doesn't mean that:
a) a 1GHz PPC 7460 isn't more than fast enough for most common tasks.
b) Altivec can't accelerate video/decryption/encryption and similar tasks far beyond the capabilities of other processors.

Thing is, the athlon hasn't scaled very well in clock speed in the last 6 months. I hate to talk in 'ifs', but this is a rumor site. 'If' Apple can release a dual 1.4 GHz next month, it will go a long way tword closing the performance gap. The fastest Athlon is (i believe) currently 1.7 GHz. That's a lot closer than when the Athlons were clocked twice as fast as the PPC chips.


If you would just stop to close your eyes from reality and would do the comparison yourself, instead of sticking with your fanatic opinion that Apple HAS to be better by definition, you would maybe start to understand from which direction the wind blows.

nice pun... wind blows
anyway, I entered my last post on my Duron 800, which is more than fast enough (after 2000 finishes loading) for everything I do on it. I actually have 2 running PCs at home and no running macs at the current time.
I consider myself to be very fair in my posts about everything, I tell people to buy PCs when they have experience or investment in that platform. That doesn't mean that I don't believe 100% in everything I've said:

Windows is more problematic than the mac, especially when something DOES go wrong on either platform

Any current processor is fast enough for just about any common task

Altivec does make a real difference in the tasks that most need a significant amount of computing power (encryption, decryption, video editing, image processing)

pgwalsh
Jul 24, 2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by eirik
As for the inventory, at some point, it costs Apple more to hold out and sell it than it does to radically discount it and sell a boat load of new PowerMac's.
I agree with that statement. They can't sit on old technology and hope that they can force consumers to buy dated products by not releasing new ones. That would be foolish thinking. It's best they dump the junk and release more competitive products.

groovebuster
Jul 24, 2002, 12:13 PM
OK, so let's say we agree on most things. I don't see that fixing of a Windows machine as not that critical. It is of course a pain, but so far I never saw someone with a totally screwed system since Windows2000. I also agree that the design of Windows is a joke, but on the processor issue I disagree. I did the comparison myself with two systems side by side and I can't approve this.

And of course a PIV is slower per clock-cycle compared to a PIII. But the current PIV clocks at 2.4GHz... should equal a PIII at 1.8 GHz.

I pointed out a few times, that I care for the overall performance of the system and not only the processor speed. When Apple can provide machines soon that give a performance boost to be equal again with the Intel/AMD world, I will shut up immediately and you won't see me ranting about Apple hardware for a long time I guess. And I really don't care, if they do that with 1GHz clockspeed or 1THz, the output is what counts. The processor was just one of the problems in the flawed/old design of the Apple pro machines to date.

If Apple really has a tower next months with two 1.6GHz G4s and DDR RAM, I would be more than happy. It is just that the last 2 years were kind of disappointing and the uncertainty what's coming next is making people nervous (including me).

groovebuster

pgwalsh
Jul 24, 2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by tucker
This is my first post and I am a little disapointed, I really thought there might be a some information/speculation on whether there is a G5, or could be a G5, whether it is from Moto or IBM.

I really wasn't expecting this Mac/Windows flame war, lets try and keep to the topic, I am sure there are other topics that relate to that!!! subject where you all can go at it all you want.

Thanks:p :p
Welcome Tucker!
There is a G5; it's just in the embedded market. Cisco and company are much more excited then us right now. However, in the past the PPC for Mac has followed. Usually Moto doesn't announce it until after Apple announces their new systems. So we speculate that the G5 is around the corner. Some think next month others next year.

If Apple didn't release new high-end products at MWNY that means one of two things. One, they don't have anything spectacular to release and sj didn't want to get pummeled on stage. Two, they have something really awesome and they need time to put the finishing touches on it. I'm hoping for number two, like many in this forum. I and others suspect it will be released with Jaguar.

I agree, flame whore's suck arse.

idoru1135
Jul 24, 2002, 12:34 PM
Both "sides" have value, depending on how (and for what purpose) you use a computer for. Mac's give ME a more pleasurable computing experience; it does not mean Windows machines are not good machines (I happen to use both). Macs can be just as frustrating as Windows machines when things go wrong.
I understand the frustration of pro users at this point; Macs have definetly lagged behind. We (Mac fans) are used to Apple wowing us at every turn; this time they have not. I'm sure Apple and Steve know the towers are in trouble- but as a public company during a MASSIVE downturn in the global economy, need to find a way to A: Sell off the inventory of present G4's, B: Raise the money to change an entire production line, C: Increase market share in the consumer arena (75%+ of total hardware sales). They're in a pinch, and they know it.
Pro users who need to upgrade TODAY, I sympathize. Regular consumers (and MHZ speed freaks), the current Mac product line has more than suffecient horsepower for our needs. If you feel a Mac is too expensive, DON'T BUY IT; it is not necessary to attack Macs (and Mac fans). A Ford will get you where you want to go at a reasonable price; it dosn't mean I have to badmouth Porsches' and their owners.

Rocketman
Jul 24, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
RapidIO would be fun, it converts the standard computer bus into something resembling a packet switched computer network. It's a point-to-point packet switched interconnect technology for use "inside the box" - runs in serial or parallel configurations chip-to-chip or board-to-board. Drastically reduces the pin count.

Hypertransport is an extension of the standard computer bus, just reduces the bottlenecks and latency in the current MPX incarnation. Lot's of pins needed.

That being the case and the fact Motorola is using Rapid IO on the G5 chips, why is Apple persuing Hypertransport so vigerously? I have heard them say they are separate and complimentary technologies but no explanations beyond that. Admittedly I do not hang out on IEEE standards forums either because they talk some other language than I do.

Anybody have meaningful input?

Oh, my 6 months from 8-02 estimate is 2-03 and the early 03 prototype for Mac G5 is close to that, so MAYBE we will see G5 X-serves in mid-03.

Rocketman

Rocketman
Jul 24, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by dernhelm


No, sorry - you're going over to the "Dark Side" you just don't know it. True zealots care nothing for what works, and can learn nothing from someone who is different from them. If you aren't a true zealot, you simply don't belong here.

And that box in the corner running Solaris? That just pays the bills...

:-)

I have been reading the latest wave of Wintel banter.

If you have a $9000 program that runs only/better on Wintel, by all means buy a wintel for that application and put it on the network with your old, trusty Mac and whatever wintel boxes you have. Why not?

But for consumers doing typical consumer applications the slight price premium for a Mac is generally worth it for tighter hardware and software integration which translates to ease of use, ease of software upgrade and downgrade, ease of adding devices, etc.

Also a Mac typically has a MUCH longer system useful life. For me on average 6 years vs 2-3 for a PC. So the cost of replacing a PC twice as often and all the hassles of upgrading software and reinstalling all that crap has to be considered.

In fact I believe this is the biggest impediment to people switching from OS9 to OSX, there are utilities to transfer all inmportant stuff from PC to OSX but not so much from OS7,8,9 to OSX.

This is why they have a classic environment so at least you can run old compiled programs as needed.

I anticipate relying on OS9 classic for at least 3 years or more. So they better do maintenaince releases.

Rocketman

Wry Cooter
Jul 24, 2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by eirik

I expect someone's ass is out the door at Apple, if inventory truly is the obstruction to a new PowerMac introduction.

I don't think there is much Apple could have done about some inventory backlog, without a crystal ball. They had to eat a lot of g4 iMacs because they couldn't make the ship date, for myriad reasons in the manufacture and distribution chain. From now on they are probably going to make sure they have guaranteed product in the pipeline, and no clogs before they even announce. In that case it was a quick growth curve on demand, while supply didn't come through until after the typical crash of a quick growth curve.

Power Macs haven't sold because the demand for the next big thing has been there for a long long time. Adding a superdrive, or a speed bump is only going to push so many units out the door. One thing they are doing to curb premature demand, is to stop announcing hardware PERIOD at Expos, which are really very badly timed for the prime buying seasons.

Cappy
Jul 24, 2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman
Also a Mac typically has a MUCH longer system useful life. For me on average 6 years vs 2-3 for a PC. So the cost of replacing a PC twice as often and all the hassles of upgrading software and reinstalling all that crap has to be considered.

<<stepping on soapbox>>
I'm not sure what plane of existence people come up with these figures but it's flat out wrong. At the place where I work(no names please) it is common to see P5-100's and P5-133's still in use...even with Windows 2000 installed on them.

Memory is the key to making it work. A minimum of 80 MB can make them very useable with a stable OS like Win2k. I actually took a PowerMac 7500 with a dual 200 mhz 604e card, Mac OS 9, 160MB ram, and 4 GB scsi drive from my wife once that she used for browsing and email. I replaced it with a P5-100 with 128MB of ram and 1.6GB ide drive loaded with Win2k. Both systems had Eudora and IE for email and browsing. After 5 min of using it, she asked why the Windows system was so much faster. For her use it was and for most people it would be too.

Can you take a 100mhz PowerMac and easily install Mac OS X on it and it run as acceptable and quick in a useful sense? If you know what you're doing, you might get it going with the 3rd party tools on the net but as quick? I doubt it. One more thing the Win2k system crashed one time over a 5 month period for her. The PowerMac crashes 1 every two weeks on average. Which systems are more useful for a longer lifespan now???

Now before people start flaming me, let me add that even though my wife felt this Wintel system was faster and just as useful if not moreso, she liked the interface of Mac OS and apps better. She felt things made more sense in how it was all layed out. Basically more apps are consistent in their look and feel than Windows apps. I've always felt that way as well.

So to wrap this up those figures you read about how long systems are good for is all bogus and usually is due to money being spent incorrectly. Also it can be due to what markets the figures were taken from. There are a number of variables but in general since I've supported both Macs and PC's for years, I will go on record as saying that anyone who believes those figures needs to get a reality check. No offense. ;)

And I didn't even cover those outragious support needs that get quoted on Mac sites when comparing PC's to Macs. I just went from 80 hours a week of help including my hours to support 250 PC's to over 500 of them with 100 hrs/wk that includes my hours. No letup in service and support. And for those who care, I supported over 100 Macs with 150 PC's previous to this for about 3 yrs at the same place before I got bored with them and moved to another area.

What am I getting at? Macs are easier to support in most environments but supporting PC's are not even close to being as bad as some think if you know what you're doing and use the right OS.

<<stepping off soapbox>>

eddit
Jul 24, 2002, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Gianrico
The real G5 processor code is 8540 in my opinion and the first specs are at this address: http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8540&nodeId=03M943030450467M98657.

The full features has hidden. There are the " - "

What do you think?

The dashes are there because the chip doesn't have the extra features that the MPC8560 has !!!

Wry Cooter
Jul 25, 2002, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Cappy

What am I getting at? Macs are easier to support in most environments but supporting PC's are not even close to being as bad as some think if you know what you're doing and use the right OS.


An enormous percentage of the installed PCs are indeed being used in a manner very unlike what I would guess to be a typical mac users experience, as narrow ended machines. The email/browser for the person that is not keen on multimedia content, the office app, the specialized database front end. Where the user experience easily breaks down, is when you launch a second application, and it seems to be written to entirely different standards, and if you fail to follow through on a step on a particular screen, your changes may not stick, etc.... And when you step out of bounds, it freezes.

The Mac is not immune to this either, but the point is, if you took away the PCs that were being used as narrowly focused tools, from both wintel and mac platforms, there would be more parity in the numbers of people using both platforms, if you were only counting the people using them as a swiss army knife that can handle a variety of tasks without crashing. But of course no one is going to measure market share that way.

Which really doesn't pertain to the g5 discussion...

kenohki
Jul 25, 2002, 03:15 PM
Okay, so first off, what's up with everyone's wife in this thread? Everyone's talking about their wife's machine and how she's on a old pee cee and loves it. Just thought it was funny.

Second, I think it's interesting to visit the Motorola SPS site http://www.mot-sps.com or the IBM semiconductor site http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/index.html and look at the roadmaps and applications of PowerPC technology. It looks like these processors are clearly roadmapped to the embedded markets. Motorola especially doesn't seem to be targeting the desktop processor market like it used to during the heydays of the 680x0 and when the 880x0 was being developed. It's kind of disheartening.

My question is, what does everyone think of migrating to a non-PowerPC, non-Intel architecture such as POWER or UltraSPARC. This is a highly rhetorical question. I mean, the implications of asking developers to compile applications for a new microarchitecture this soon after getting them to finish the migration to the Carbon APIs would probably not be appreciated (understatement) by application developers. However, in another thread, someone brought up the point that with the Mac OS X package structure (folders renamed with the .app extension), it's possible to include two sets of binaries for an application sort of like a fat binary. The appropriate binaries for the architecture it was running on would be selected and executed. This could negate the consumer confusion that would ensue due to two different sets of binaries.

My question is, all logistic problems aside, would another processor architecture serve the Macintosh community better than the current or future PowerPCs. It seems that what the Mac community wants is speed and throughput; the ability to have big apps like Maya and Shake scream past other architectures. Would utilizing POWER4/5/6 or UltraSPARC III/IV/V or even MAJC put Apple back into the performance equation instead of utilizing trickle-down POWER technology? (Okay, AltiVec is an exception to this.)

Alpha is soon going away and some IP being absorbed by Intel, MIPS is becoming embedded, and IA-64 won't give much diversification from the next generation HP or Dell machine. POWER and UltraSPARC seem like the only other places where resources are being expended to try and keep pace with workstation class performance. Any thoughts?

-D

(And yes, I do appreciate elegant processor design. I appreciate that the PowerPC is low-power, low-heat, and fairly low-cost. But all that stuff doesn't necessarily mean you have class leading performance.)