1ghz Mac

[MacRumors]

Macuser UK (http://www.macuser.co.uk/macsurfer/php3/openframe.php3?page=/newnews/newsarticle.php3?id=1638) (via MacSurfer link) reports:

Sources close to Apple US have indicated to MacUser that the company will announce its first 1GHz Power Mac on Monday.

While less exciting than some of the rumors/opinions floating around, a bump to 1ghz is certianly more realistic.

[macrules929]

ok, so 1GHz would be nice, but it's not what I was hopeing for... I mean, comeone, we could at least get a 1.2 GHz, maybe a 1.4. But to stay at just the 1 GHz, Apple, you can do way better!!

O well, I hope that this is right IN that we'll get to the 1GHz, but I'm really hoping/expecting that we pass 1GHz and go to like 1.2, 1.4GHz, (should I say) 1.6.

[dw1]

Come on, there has to be more than that. If Apple can only acheive a 1 GHz cpu over god knows how many years, well they're in some trouble. The performance benefits are just not there. What happens when AMD releases the Hammer? Now that would be beyond the rumor sites. Mac OS X and the AMD Hammer. Bye, Bye Motorola, hello fast lane.

-to err is human, I'm very human.

[amichalo]

Originally posted by macrules929
O well, I hope that this is right IN that we'll get to the 1GHz, but I'm really hoping/expecting that we pass 1GHz and go to like 1.2, 1.4GHz, (should I say) 1.6.

I would not know what to do with a 1GHz chip in my G4 Ti. I have the slowest 400 MHz version and it screams.

I'm just happy Apple has broken the GHz barrier so Intel junkies have one less point against Macs.

Go Apple

[agreenster]

I cant believe we Apple people are still bitching about mHz and gHz.

Holy ******** ***** people. Did you know that SGI, one of the leaders in high-end computer systems (yeah, the same computers nearly every single special effect in movies are made on, and the leader in medical simulation hardware) are only up to 400mHz machines? Its not about the goddamn speed. How many ******** times do we have to go over this? Its about the architecture, the pipeline, the Bus (which Apple IS behind in), the Cache, the Video card, the type of RAM.

Please get your heads out of your asses. An Apple is NOT a ******, slow computer! If you've ever used one, you should know!

DAMN!



boy was THAT a rant. Havent dont that in a while. felt good.

[GPTurismo]

Well, since the G4 is a risc, and AMD and Intel use CISC, G4's don't need the megahertz to perform on similar levels.

If you are tired of not being able to boast to PC users, you're using macs for the entirely wrong reason, and you won't see me trying to hold you back when you do what we have been needing you to do for 3 years now, and that is go ahead and jump ship.

[spuncan]

Oh come on Ive been waiting to upgrade my !233! rev 1 G3 for so long why couldn't Motorola get of there ass and release the G5. I was hoping to get the rev 2 G5 at MWNY 02' so much now I have to wait till MWSF 02'.
Oh yeah the reason Id get Rev 2 is cuz Im not getting screwed again but the first rev and haveing none of the new standard that were 1 rev away.

[spuncan]

oops I ment MWSF 03' for when id get the rev 2 G5

[agreenster]

Yeah, Rev 2 is best time to buy. I have a rev 2 TiBook and dont regret the wait. However, if you are trying to stay 'on top,' forget it. You never will. You will have to buy a new computer every 2-3 months. Just get what you want, and then enjoy it.

[eyelikeart]

As much as a feat it may be, fact still remains that they are lagging behind if they can only reach 1 Ghz. I completely agree upon the fact that PowerPC processors are faster and more efficient than any PC's on the market, but the whole Mhz-Myth is partly what's killing Apple with consumers.

I will always rely on Apple to satisfy any computer needs I may have, but we need to convince the masses that Mac OS is superior to Windoze...

...and that the PowerPC will always crush it's competition no matter how fast it's clock speed says it is in comparison! :D

[Falleron]

Look! WE all know that a mac is quicker at a lower Mhz BUT the Dumb consumers dont! For the purposes of creating a larger market share apple needs to be able to compare its products to the P4 for example. As a matter of fact if apple only takes its processors to 1Ghz (increase of about 133Mhz) and intel takes the P4 up to 2.2Ghz (which is happening in january 200MHz increase) the P4 is getting quicker at a greater rate than the G4 is (The G4 is actually slower on some tasks at the moment)!

Dont get me wrong, the mac rocks but it is fair to say that OSX needs all the power it can get and motorola is just not helping the cause.

[Edited by Falleron on 01-03-2002 at 03:19 PM]

[SPG]

You're planning on waiting a year for an upgrade from a three year old machine? It'll be a four year old machine when you upgrade?
Proof that Apple's making some damn good product if it fulfills your needs for four years.

[agreenster]

I know. Im just frustrated.

[Smelt]

Yaknow...

I don't care about speed. I teach tech and am sys amin at a K-8 school with Wintel crapola. I also teach New Media at an art college here in Maine. Thank the Holy Spirit we use Macs at the college. I do all of my own freelance stuff-DVD authoring, video post and web using a 450 Sawtooth and a 800 2x-these are fine...they work great...everything I want and more.Love my Xmas Tibook too!

But...??? Is this all there is???

Come on! I haven't slept for two days...crusing the rumor mills...a 1 gig machine? Oh boy (feign yawn.)

Time to go to sleep...I want funky, cool and wild...

Show it to me Steve!

[Falleron]

Originally posted by SPG
You're planning on waiting a year for an upgrade from a three year old machine? It'll be a four year old machine when you upgrade?
Proof that Apple's making some damn good product if it fulfills your needs for four years.

I use a PowerMac 8600 + PowerBook 1400 both of which run everything I need (apart from OSX)! They are at their end of life when it comes to speed though!

[Falleron]

Thats why I want a G5!!

[F/reW/re]

A G4 1GHz sure wont blow me away!

[SPG]

Try running a video editing and DVD operation! If you gave me a 2ghz quad processor G5 I'd say that's nice but when does the 4ghz version come out?
Render=time, time=money.

[agreenster]

No one ever said they wouldnt be introducing 1gHz and up, by the way.

Plus, F/reW/re, if a Dual 800 doesnt already blow you away, then you probably arent really an Apple fan.

[spuncan]

yeah weve had it since i think January 1998 we got a usb/firewire pci card in 2000 and we also bought a CD burner and a fw harddrive we run os 9.1. we tried X but its to slow so were back to 9.1 and its ok for general use but its getting old.

[Falleron]

Sure, but only adding 133Mhz in an update to a product line is not exactly mindblowing! I know I will be waiting unitl I get a real update to the powermac line.

[SPG]

Originally posted by agreenster
No one ever said they wouldnt be introducing 1gHz and up, by the way.

Plus, F/reW/re, if a Dual 800 doesnt already blow you away, then you probably arent really an Apple fan.

Doesn't mean we hate the product, we just want it to be even better. If being an Apple fan means loving anything Apple puts out than I am not a fan.

[agreenster]

Whatchacallits (a few posts up) Powerbook 1400 is a 133mHz alone! Good grief. What do you want? I can see the headlines now!

APPLE TO RELEASE A 350gHz G7!

Man, let them make their computers with the quality they always have. The last thing I want is a shotty PC version of an Apple because they rushed to get the mHz up.

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by agreenster
F/reW/re, if a Dual 800 doesnt already blow you away, then you probably arent really an Apple fan.
Why do Apple say: Get ready to be blown away?
How can I get ready to be blown away if I already should have been blown away?

A jump from 800 - 1000 MHz sure wont blow me away, like NOOO.

I`m a total macfan/apple fan, belive me, but I wont be impressed by a 1GHz G4.

[Edited by F/reW/re on 01-03-2002 at 03:36 PM]

[agreenster]

And yes, Im a 3D Animator. I know all about 36 hour rendertimes. I know the math. But even Pixar has 90 hours of rendertime per frame. Computers arent godlike you know. You have to learn to take the good with the bad.

[agreenster]

F/reW/re, they probably arent referring to the upgrade. Probably a new product---thats what we are going to get blown away by.

[Falleron]

Us mac fans are hard to please!

[AppleJunkie]

Maybe the 1ghz Apple is the low end machine. Think about that.

[agreenster]

First off, sorry for flying off the handle. It just frustrates me on both ends. Dont think I wouldnt love to wake up Monday morning and hear that Apple has anounced a 3gHz G5. I would probably pee my pants. But I try to be realistic, and patient with technology. It seems like sometimes that people now 'expect' computer companies (especially Apple) to make huge gains in IT and create computers that will send us to the moon.

I trust Apple. I do. I think that when they release a computer, they dont do it to make bucks like Bill, and Dell, and Gateway do. They dont advertise cost. They advertise quality, performance, and style. They dont have an annoying kid on TV yelling at moms to buy their kids a PC or any other piece of **** at BestBuy. They are refined, and so are their systems.

So I guess whenever I hear that people are unimpressed, I take it as they dont realize that Apple is actually bringing you the very best quality they can give you, and dont focus on how much money they can swindle you out of. They are an excellent company, and when I hear that people dont respect them, especially Apple faithfuls, I get really pissed.

They dont sell ****, so I dont expect people to give **** back to them.

[Pauldunlop]

Well, one thing about this report is its more than likely to be true. In the past, MacUser have been 100% about pre-expo announcements. They don't make em a lot, but EVERY single time they have, they have been BANG on ! So 1Ghz macs are more than likely ! yay !


Still, i'm sure there is more than that to come. Think Secret has an interesting report, but it does conflict with MacUser, so one has to question just how accurate it is !

[rekras]

agreenster, your my hero. everything you say is always right on....

hmmmmmm i wonder why that is?

[agreenster]

I have a groupie. Thats a first
:)

[atlascott]

The G3 is a three or four year old processor, but it is still sitting in Apple's consumer lines, even though the general consensus is that the current G3's run OS X too slow for it to be worth using. (I have heard this from three different guys who are total Mac fans--one owns a 400 MHz iMac G3 with 512 MB, another owns a 600 MHz ibook, the last a 500 MHz iBook. If they are wrong, by all means, correct me.)

In the time the G4 went from 3-400 MHz to 867 MHz, the Pentium went from a 1.2 PIII to a 2.0 GHz P4.

Are RISC processors going to wipe the floor with CISC processors at the same clock speed? Absolutely--but here's the problem--WE (APPLE) ARENT RUNNING AT THE SAME CLOCK SPEED__WE ARE RUNNING AT LESS THAN HALF THE PC COMPETITOR'S CLOCK SPEED.

What's that you say? Bus Speed and RAM and Video card make up total system performance? Well, Apple is behind there, too. Apple tops out at 133 MHz bus speed, but the bus speed for Athlon is 266, and 400 for P4. Macs ship with less RAM (and lower speed RAM) than many PC's (used to be 64 MB, just in the last year, up to 128MB). Finally, Consumer Apples for 1500 bucks ship with a 8 or 16 MB Rage ATI card, a 5 or 6 year old graphics card (around 1994 or '95). A $1000 PC ships with a GeForce 2 32 MB card at the low end (which wipes the floor with a Rage card, and, incidentally is the same card that ships with the high end Power Macs).

I am as big and ardent an Apple fan as anyone, but lets face it: if Apple is going to charge a premium for its hardware for the privilege of running its software, Apple needs to do a better job of giving us "state of the art." We shouldn't let our appreciation of Apple cloud our judgment of technology.

And your argument that Macs must be good because we use them for 3-4 years before upgrading is specious. We wait so long because the technology doesn't change half as much in 4 years as it does in 3 for PC's. And we pay, on average, 50% more for a new machine than does a PC-user, so we have to get more use out of them.

Finally, I'll leave you with this: I was in a MicroCenter (PC store with a big Mac section) last weekend. I was playing with a Sony laptop (1GHZ Celeron, 128 MB, running that POS WinXP) and a iBook 600 MHz (with only 9.whatever on it (no OSX)). I wanted to compare form factor, boot speed, etc. The Sony PC was tiny like the iBook, and had a great form factor and a more responsive mousepad, but the ibook was nicer. But they booted up about the same speed. In fact, I think the Sony booted that resource hog XP FASTER than the iBook booted OS 9.whatever. Say what you want about our processor's and OS's superior design--unless we take that superior design and produce superior (faster, better, more stable, more productive, easier to use)product, superior design doesn't mean jack squat.

Apple has a unique opportunity to wow us with a complete product line overhaul and introduction of new products. We have already rewarded Apple for its ingenuity with our dollars. Let's hope that the posting on Apple.com are not ONLY hype.

[blakespot]

I'd still take my DP G4 800 over a 1GHz single-CPU G4 box, thank you.


blakespot

[agreenster]

Good post AtlasScott-truly.

I wish you would have tested that Sony/Celeron system against a TiBook, but thats still a good comparison.
Note though, that Apple went from a 400mHz system, to an 867 mHz system. Thats more than double the clock. The Pentium systems did the same thing, yet a little less than double the clock. (1.2 to 2) Therefore, there isnt as much differene there as you infer.

And, your test should show you that a consumer Apple laptop, running 400mHz 'less' than the more professional (correct me if Im wrong, Im not up on this) PC Laptop running 1.0gHz, still did very well.

You are totally right about the Video Card, but take a second look at what ships with the Quicksilvers. They arent Rage cards.

[Edited by agreenster on 01-03-2002 at 04:23 PM]

[manfrotto]

It is possible that apple will be releasing a 1Ghz machine but it's also possible that they wont being doing any processor speed bumps. Just a thought, but what if apple doesn't focus on a speed bump but rather they have developed there velocity engine technolgy to push more information then ever dreamed possible through a slower processor. Apple has shown us that the faster the processor doesn't mean a thing if it can't get the information through. Perhaps apples focus will be on the pipeline or perhaps they have some new radical way of streamlining information so that a processors speed is really negligible and once and for all the Mhz myth will be busted open and left on the streets. Wouldn't that be something, running a 166mhz chip that toasts even the itaniums speed to run an app. I'm not a chip engineer and I don't know what it would take to develop technology like this but I don't see any reason why the possibities wouldn't be endless. Think Different.

[Catfish_Man]

This article is crap. They said it will be either the 7445 or 7455, Motorola has confirmed the existence of the 7460. Also, every semi-reliable rumor I've heard has put the clockspeed at 1, 1.13, and 1.26Ghz. A 1Ghz powermac is very likely, but it'll probably be the low end, not the high end.

[agreenster]

I doubt that. The itanium is a chip on chip compliant 64 bit wonderchip. (how many 'chip's was that?) It is very similar in construction to the G5. (also 64 bit)

[chicagdan]

The reason clockspeed matters is OS X.

I have two computers, a Beige G3 I upgraded to a 500 Mhz, with 256 megs of Ram and a Radeon PCI card ... and an IBM 450 Mhz Pentium II with 256 megs of RAM and a Radeon PCI card. When I was running OS 9 and Windows 98, there was no comparison, the Mac kicked Big Blue's sorry ass.

But after upgrading to OS X.1 and Windows XP, it's a totally different story. Now it's the IBM that works hand in glove with its operating system and the Mac that is gasping for air. Don't get me wrong -- I think OS X is a vastly superior OS, but with my configuration, it's awfully sluggish.

Give me a compelling (and reasonably cheap) reason to buy a new Mac and I'll gladly give the Beige machine to my nephew. But if you can't double my clockspeed and come in under $1200, I'm not interested.

[manfrotto]

My point is that it seems people are once again getting hung up on the whole Mhz thing when there are countless number of avenues for technology that could be taken to increase the overall speed of a computer. The itanium versus a 166mhz was not necessarily a belief that it will happen but you have to keep your mind open to these kinds of possibilties, closed minded people don't invent new technologies. That being said, I believe apple has the kind of open minded employees to make the impossible, possible. There are numerous new discoveries in every field imaginable many small some all together huge and others that need the inspiration of those other small discoveries to be complete. To think that we are set in our ways of doing things is to put the noose around our necks.

[markseaton]

Ok so we all know that MHZ don't matter but if apple IS only going to introduce the 1ghz G4 i would be happy but only if it had some other inprovements like DDR ram, 7200rps standard, and a bus of 266mhz and PCI buss of 66mhz, Maybe AGP Pro slot, with a Nvidea GeForce3 64 with s-vid out and dual display, and one extra ram slot to make 4. then i would be happy with just a 1ghz machine.. :)

[manfrotto]

Now your talking. It's not the processor that makes up the whole of the computer.

[agreenster]

Yes!

Point well taken, both of you. I hope Apple is listening.

[Ive]

Originally posted by F/reW/re
A G4 1GHz sure wont blow me away!

That is too bad your expectation for an iMac replacement is too high. I, for certain, is glad that Apple is unveiling a 1GHz G4 at the same price point as the current iMac.

[serpicolugnut]

While a 1ghz Mac is plenty fast enough, if that's all Apple has up it's sleeve then they are in serious trouble.

We all know that Motorola has produced Apollo chips up to 1.6ghz, and that yields of chips up to 1.4ghz are good enough for mass production. If Apple plays it safe and only releases a 1ghz chip, they are doing themselves and their customers a disservice.

Jeesh, I'm expecting the new iMac to be a 1ghz G3 machine with all the hype Apple is spouting about....

[atlascott]

Agreenster:

Thanks, glad you saw my point.

I think a Celeron and G3 comparison is appropriate. They are both low end consumer machines. Although Mac has a better OS and more ports (USB and FIREWIRE standard), we cannot really claim to have technogically superior machines. Not when the competitive PC's have faster processors; more RAM; faster bus sppeds, and faster video cards. I should note that most, if not all PC laptops for around $1200 or $1300 do not have video cards at all--they share their system RAM to render video, which slows everything down something fierce.

It is a similar situation with higher end hardware laptops. If I were comparing a TiBook to a PC laptop, I would look at a mobile Pentium III (high end mobile processor for PC laptops). Both have mobile Radeon cards, but the form factor for what is essentially a desktop replacement (TiBook) gives the Tibooks the advantage. In fact, Apple generally is price competitive and enjoys feature superiority over PC laptops, which explains why they have done so well, especially with the iBook, lately.

Unfortunately, desktops are a different story...but Mr. Jobs will be remedying that in a few days...

[Timothy]

A 1ghz mac...hmmm...yawn...

Give me a break on the "if your a true apple fan you won't criticize the company" rhetoric. I'll not bore you with my years of commitment to the platform, and the huge amount of money I've given them. I think my commitment to them is well demonstrated in my business and expenditures.

It is precisely this commitment in time and money that allows me to be critical of Apple when it needs to respond to market pressures.

If, as many of you claim, Mhz is not an important indicator of the machine...then why does APPLE itself list it as the #1 feature for all of their products? If Apple can't win the Mhz war, then why do they not make sure they win the Bus speed war, and then list that as the premier "feature" at the Apple Store? But, they are losing in all of the wars...and right now, a Mac is NOT the fastest machine in the marketplace in many if not most areas.

Of course, the sum of the parts makes an Apple an extremely attractive machine. That's why I continue to buy them. But, the Motorola situation has been a pain in Apple's side for far too long...and they need to SOLVE this issue...they've needed to solve it for 3 years now, and I am fearful that they lack the needed courage to pull the plug on Motorola.

So, I'll be watching Macworld, in part, to see if Motorola and Apple can get back into the game when it comes to machine speed.

And, I'll critically analyze any and all decisions of a company whose stock I own, whose machines I buy, and whose reputation I still respect.

[iwantanewmac]

Not completely true about that Itanium.
It needs a "emulator" to run 64 bit

[F/reW/re]

I have never seen Apple advertising anything like this before: BLOWN AWAY!

When I saw this at http://www.apple.com I tought, WOW is this gonna be a computer thats will make Wintels look like crap, even to Wintel users.

To me the words BLOWN AWAY does`t mean just a 200 MHz speed bump, thats just to stupid...

[kotovasii]

You fools :-))).
What are you all worrying about – let me tell you a short story. I have been a Linux/PC user since they have appeared. Those days in Russia we did not have any access to Apple, and had to build things ourselves. I spent this Xmas with my friends who just bought a PowerBook (one of those top models) and when I saw it I just felt embarrassed that I have spent £3000 for a IBM ThinkPad: ok my laptop was just as fast as the PowerBook but I just could not understand why is it that a Mac is so light, solid, ergonomic and yes - great looking. So do take my PC user advice – just be happy that you had this great chance to own Macs. I know what I shall buy next, sorry IBM but your “most reliable hardware on the market” is but a mere junk compared to Macs. Why is it that so many people here in the "wild west" still keep their eyes closed and too greedy to spend extra pound on a Mac. The day will come I hope….

[F/reW/re]

To be BLOWN Away WE NEed some G5 POWER ;)

My mothers PC just broke down :(
I just selected quit in Illustrator and nothing happens. THen after some time i press the famous ctrl+alt+del
The message is clear -> The program is not responding.
I choose to quit the program. Nothing happens. I press ctrl+alt+del 2 times to restart. The computer restarts, but the screen just stays black. Nothing happens. I had to unplugg it to make it work again. Thnx M$, u GAYS make my dag !

[sparkleytone]

we dont NEED g5 power and g3s are fine.

first of all they need to streamline the OS (esp. quartz)for g3s. my iBook 600 runs nicely, but not nicely enough considering 640MB RAM. i would appreciate a very advanced OS X install option in order to customize kernel support for things i may or may not use. this would come along with a nice help feature akin to that used in linux kernel building.

secondly, i could care less if the new hardware ran at a GHz, as long as the bus speed, pipeline bandwidth, and other underlying structures are groundbreaking (not utilizing the lates and greatest, but surpassing it). it would be nice to see a machine that could multitask snappily on simply 128MB RAM. it can be done.

finally, apple software is always the key. we all know that hardware means nothing without software implementation (e.g. Pentium4). i reiterate my belief that processor/chipset specific kernel implementation is key and also believe that apple must make the full shift NOW to OS X.

[Falleron]

Originally posted by agreenster
First off, sorry for flying off the handle. It just frustrates me on both ends. Dont think I wouldnt love to wake up Monday morning and hear that Apple has anounced a 3gHz G5. I would probably pee my pants. But I try to be realistic, and patient with technology. It seems like sometimes that people now 'expect' computer companies (especially Apple) to make huge gains in IT and create computers that will send us to the moon.

I trust Apple. I do. I think that when they release a computer, they dont do it to make bucks like Bill, and Dell, and Gateway do. They dont advertise cost. They advertise quality, performance, and style. They dont have an annoying kid on TV yelling at moms to buy their kids a PC or any other piece of **** at BestBuy. They are refined, and so are their systems.

So I guess whenever I hear that people are unimpressed, I take it as they dont realize that Apple is actually bringing you the very best quality they can give you, and dont focus on how much money they can swindle you out of. They are an excellent company, and when I hear that people dont respect them, especially Apple faithfuls, I get really pissed.

They dont sell ****, so I dont expect people to give **** back to them.

I know apple does not sell ******! Thats why I am using a powermac 8600 (6/7 years old)! I am in the market for a new mac though, + dont want to buy a G4 when a G5 is just round the corner.

[SPG]

Sparkletone, YOU might not need G5 power, but some of us sure as hell do. I'd rather be more productive than sipping coffee while watching render progress bars. Video, DVD, Audio, Graphics all need more power. Given more power than we really ned will give software writers the chance to use it to make even better more powerful programs!

[kiwi_the_iwik]

Funny - I always thought that MHz really didn't matter.

I've just gone through this thread, and found that some of you are still hung up on this myth. Because PC's use CISC architecture, and Macs use RISC chips, even an iMac can hold it's own quite comfortably with a Pentium 3 in the high MHz/early GHz range.

It's the SOFTWARE, stupid!

Mac programs have always been of a smaller size, more stable and even faster, when written in their native code, to their PC counterparts. So I say let the Pentium chips fry under the intense heat produced by billions of computations per second, when a low-end G4 can get the same result in half the time, and get half as hot.

I have a Cube, and I love it for the fact that it's silent - it's very clever convection cooling design allows the exclusion of a fan, and in most computers that usually sounds like a 747 taking off.

Finally, I've said it before - now I'll say it again...

...I don't care if I have to wait around 0.3 of a millisecond before my spreadsheet opens. I could give not a rat's ass that I'm only getting 50fps in Aliens Vs. Predator instead of 65fps (geez - TV is only 24fps!). And I definitely could not show any interest in a G5 - especially when I spent @£2000 on the computer of my dreams not 11 months ago.

...My wife would be proud to hear me say that...

[reyesg4]

While I dream of owning an over 1Ghz Mac, my brother built himself a 1.2 Ghz computer for less than the cheapest iMac. Breaking the over 1Ghz barrier is nice but how many people can afford a high end G4? Unless all the people exclaiming the virtues of the 1Ghz G4 plan to actually buy one THIS YEAR then all this talking is pointless. Because of freaking Motorola being so late in bringing us faster chips, all Apple has managed to do in the last few years is either be slightly faster than the competition for 2 months at the most or have the highest quality computer at its mhz level. And if you are comparing the 867 G4 to a two year old 867 Mhz pentium, well, we should not have to settle for a great computer/platform with a slow processor. If you want to be honest about speed, then we should really be comparing only the G3 any other consumer machine you can buy at a retail store. Instead, we talk about apples top-of-the-line G4 in its multi-thousand dollar machines. Man, all this talk makes me think I won't be satisfied with anything less than a G4 imac at $1,000.

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
Funny - I always thought that MHz really didn't matter.

It mathers!! I don`t want a Mac with a 200MHz speedbump. I want a mac with a 1GHz speedbump. A G5 1.6GHz is faster than a G4 1GHz. MHz does mathers !

[kiwi_the_iwik]

The deal is F/re, what do you need the speed for?

Apple certainly wouldn't let the millions of consumers who have/are still buying iMacs to go out in the cold. Therefore, software has to be compatible with those processors as well.

I can certainly understand if you're doing high-quality video editing, that a fast G5 is the way to go. However, being a Television Cameraman, and having many editor friends who have bought Quicksilvers, we are all in agreement that Final Cut Pro blows away even Avid systems. And that's just on a G4 for broadcast.

Also, CNN apparently use FCP on the road, editing with their Powerbook G4's. I can't see a problem with their footage...

[Falleron]

The G5 is the future! The G4 is the past.

[j763]

The last thing I want to see from apple at the moment would be a high-GHz chip just to impress ppl. However, I think that the G5 is well overdue; this isn't apple's fault - it's motorola's - they're really ******** apple about at the moment. Apple needs to take chip development in-house.

And just a question - if their desktop comps run at 1GHz or whatever, how can they then explain why their best laptop runs at only up to 667MHz?

I think that Apple either need to a) rename their chips with rough Pentium4 MHz equivs like AMD has done - like the G4 Apollo 1800. or b) Find a new system of measurement and use it. Obviously option a is probably better - you can still give the masses big numbers but still produce high-quality chips...

[kiwi_the_iwik]

So Falleron - does that mean you're in the past now?

And if so - are you going to fork out a small fortune after taking out another mortgage on your home, pawning your watch and selling your dog just to get your hands on the latest and greatest - only to find that the OPTIMISED software that it only runs costs almost as much as the CPU itself?

Hmmm?

And what do you say to the great unwashed who'd just bought their G3 iMac, hoping that it would be sufficiently future-proofed to write their letters, edit their movies, burn their CD's and play the latest games...

[Falleron]

Its not such a big problem with the laptops because I believe that the fastest pc laptop runs at 1.2Ghz and not 2Ghz. A chip upgrade from apple will close this gap.

[macfreek57]

what's the deal with having 3 different processors in apple's lineup? they still can't get the g4 into a cheap machine. don't go around saying that they NEED to release the g5. it would have been nice if all they did in november was put slow-ER g4's in the current iMac line and now realease the g5.

[Falleron]

I am in the past at the moment! my mac is about 7 years old!

[Falleron]

I need a new computer!

[kiwi_the_iwik]

At least you know that you'll be in for big savings on G4's if the G5 comes out on Monday...

[Falleron]

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
At least you know that you'll be in for big savings on G4's if the G5 comes out on Monday...

True, but I would splash out on a G5 if they existed! I dont tend to buy new computers very often (student budgets!)

[sparkleytone]

being that the (true) g5 is a 64bit processor and that this will be the first consumer-based chip as such, i would think many people would shy from a g4.

another thing we must remember is OS X support for the g5 is not there yet, and the feeling is strong that 10.2 is not coming early no matter what.

[Falleron]

I know, just wishful thinking

[kiwi_the_iwik]

It's just like buying a new car:

No sooner do you drive it out of the lot, you lose 30% of the price.

Bugger...

[sparkleytone]

no thoughts on my other comments??

like the software and the kernel customization etc. ???

[eric_n_dfw]

Darwin/OS X runs on the Mach micro-kernel as opposed to Windows and Linux's monolithic kernels. While the your idea would be great for those (as it always has been for Linux), it doesn't apply to micro-kernels.

I'm not that much of a bit-nerd but from the cob-webbed corners of my brain I an remember reading that one of advantages of the micro-kernel was that it was extremely small and it loads only the pieces it needs for current environment. (Which sounds a little like Linux's kenel modules, but I'm sure it's very different)

-Eric

[rekras]

Originally posted by agreenster
I have a groupie. Thats a first
:)

everyone on this site is a groupie of yours

[lazyrighteye]

Hey SPG,
Your line ("If being an Apple fan means loving anything Apple puts out than I am not a fan") was about the best thing I've read on any Mac-centric site. Well said.
peace,
lazyrighteye

[SPG]

Originally posted by lazyrighteye
Hey SPG,
Your line ("If being an Apple fan means loving anything Apple puts out than I am not a fan") was about the best thing I've read on any Mac-centric site. Well said.
peace,
lazyrighteye

Yay! I have a groupie too!

Seriously though, I just wanted to point out that as much as I do like the product, I can't be a blind follower...isn't that one of Apple's selling points that we are not blind followers?

[unregistered]

Originally posted by SPG
You're planning on waiting a year for an upgrade from a three year old machine? It'll be a four year old machine when you upgrade?
Proof that Apple's making some damn good product if it fulfills your needs for four years.

Four years is nothing! I bought a Mac II in 1988, upgraded it in 1991, got an 8500/120 in 1995 and took delivery of my dual 800 in August 2001. A high-end Mac is good for at least five years.

[Falleron]

Maybe not this time with OS X pushing the processors all the way!