I realise that this question must be debated over and over again, and people may say "Features over performance," but I've never herd it explained as to WHY Apple has such SLOW bus speeds in their computers compared to PC's. Would it make them more expensive? Would it not make that much of a performance difference? I just don't understand why (PC) people laugh at the Mac's bus speed. Thanks!~
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Slow Bus Speed. WHY?!
- Thread starter dsamsa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it's the same reason the PowerMac fan sounds like a jet engine--money. If Apple can up their margin, especially doing something that 95% of users won't notice or care about, they'll do it.
szark
macrumors 68030
The current G4 processors don't support faster bus speeds. If the processor doesn't support a higher speed, Apple can't make a system that uses a higher speed. The G3 processors supposedly support a faster bus speed, but Apple definitely wants G3 systems to underperform the G4 systems.
The new IBM PPC 970 will have a 900 MHz bus, which should improve the situation when (if) they use that processor.
The new IBM PPC 970 will have a 900 MHz bus, which should improve the situation when (if) they use that processor.
MrMacMan
macrumors 604
First part is true, but then again do we want the re-surgence of G3's ... no.
And what other choices does apple have now that they killed the G5 like 4 market steps before going public. ( I still say if they didn't kill it we would of had G5's by now) The 970 is one of our only options, well besides releasing the x86 compatible OS X.🙁
jefhatfield
Retired
here is a three way approach i would like to see by end of year -
in hardware:
high end using the ibm 970 chip
consumer end using the motorola G4 chip
in software:
besides having os x for macs, also make an os x that is compatible with all new pcs and any pcs made within the last three or four years
...and make os x very affordable like $19.95 us
the rest of the world has to see why so many mac users are willing to still use slower machines and pay more money
it's about the overall experience in using a mac...it's a tool, not a headache like the windows operating system
i am convinced that the low price tag will make many say, "why not, it's only 20 bucks" and after using os x for some time, they will see the futile exercise in working with windows
i would say give it out for free, but that may get apple into a heap of legal trouble😉
in hardware:
high end using the ibm 970 chip
consumer end using the motorola G4 chip
in software:
besides having os x for macs, also make an os x that is compatible with all new pcs and any pcs made within the last three or four years
...and make os x very affordable like $19.95 us
the rest of the world has to see why so many mac users are willing to still use slower machines and pay more money
it's about the overall experience in using a mac...it's a tool, not a headache like the windows operating system
i am convinced that the low price tag will make many say, "why not, it's only 20 bucks" and after using os x for some time, they will see the futile exercise in working with windows
i would say give it out for free, but that may get apple into a heap of legal trouble😉
zarathustra
macrumors 6502a
I disagree with you. People will buy eMachines for $399 and use OSX. Just because people can dl distros of Linux, you don't see them abandoning Windows in droves... The appeal of Apple and OSX is that it is it's own entity, something to behold. Prices need to come down and computing speed and power (Not just GHZ) needs to increase.
FattyMembrane
macrumors 6502a
actually, i think that if these new "gobi" g3s are as good as they sound, apple should use the 970 in high end machines, and add altivec to a gobi g3 with a fast bus and high mhz and brand it something like the "g4 extreme" (apple seems to be fond of that word at the moment) for the low end machines. after all, an ibm g3 at a faster bus speed and clock speed with true ddr ram support would be more powerful than a g4.
jefhatfield
Retired
jefhatfield
Retired
MrMacMan
macrumors 604
Maybe but remember the Other extreme things apple labled. (They turned to bomb).
The G3 *was* a good processor, but many companies then coded for the G4 Altivec and it also had a faster, well everything.
Again I would like apple to produce a decent hardware only education based mac.
Yeah the eMac was 'Education Mac' but then like 5 people wanted it a *poof* it became the 'Everyone Mac' bah.
Re-Package the Cube, something low cost, fanless and give it a small screen. And I don't want apple to make this into a 'everyone' product.
bah.
How many people got the eMac? 😡