Don't forget the myth

[Chad4Mac]

I have noticed in the past months (this idea has probably been around longer than I have been viewing this site) that many Apple fans are pleeding Apple to break the Gighz barrier. This might be quite important for the Pro's, for a bump in speed will increase final productivity, but for general applications Apple's Mhz range is suficient.

I wish I could have been around the Apple sites when the "Megahertz Myth" was added to Apple idealogy. I bet very few Apple fans were contesting this unique ideal. Even when Windows-based PC's were jumping the Mhz barriers, Apple users were happy with 500 chips. But now, things have changed. Apple consumers, not just the pro's, want Gighz-plus PC's. My question is: For what? Do we really want to follow Intel and other chip makers?

Most consumers are internet, Microsoft Word and music users; the only thing they care about is how fast the internet browers is and how quickly applicatons launch and operate -- plus the functionality and usability of the OS! Go Apple!

Now, I'm totally into new technology -- got to have the newest stuff. But shouldn't we be looking into develoment rather than growth. By this I mean looking into what works then making it better -- development. Growth, on the contrary, would be compared to looking out or dramatically changing/expanding -- for the professional

I would like to see Apple continue with this idealogy, developing great consumer-based products with more efficient modifications and eye-candy developments. I like the MegaHertz Myth, that's one of the reasons I switched over to Apple and their OS. What sells the best for apple: consumer products. If it ain't broke don't fix it, (my input) just make it operate and look better.

Pro's: If Apple sells more consumer-based products, that increses the funds available for growth in the professional products.

Comments appreciated,
Chad4Mac

 

[mischief]

I, for one would bennefit.

The CAD software I use has no AltiVec or Open GL support because the guy who runs the SW company wants to "keep it clean of transitory HW support".
What a ****.

 

[mcrain]

Re: Don't forget the myth

Welcome Chad4Mac.

Only thing I take issue with is your signature. Rush is a political advertisement in newscaster clothing. He does nothing but advertise constantly for conservative politicians. He's not news, he's political advertising.

Oh, and why would you argue against Apple users who want the chips to be faster and then conclude your post with, "If it ain't broke don't fix it, (my input) just make it operate and look better."

Isn't a faster computer one that operates better?

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Apple is still targeting the pros. FinalCut Pro, DVD Pro, Cinema Tools, 3D animation with Maya, Lightwave, etc. Now with the possible rack units this makes even more sense. But they can't rely solely on the consumers, especially when they want to get more machines sold and they ask higher prices.

I don't know the demographics, but I'd love to see them if someones got them. Computer sales based on Consumer/Pro or Business.

 

[Chad4Mac]

Mcrain-
The Rush "advertisment" was just a think different idea, not to push views on anyone. I'll change it if it's breaking some kind of rule. Rush does use a Apple though.

And, no, I don't think a faster computer operates better. Just because it's got a larger chip doesn't mean that it will be stable, use-friendly, energy consumption efficient, talk to memory faster, etc.

Chad4Mac

 

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Apple is still targeting the pros. FinalCut Pro, DVD Pro, Cinema Tools, 3D animation with Maya, Lightwave, etc. Now with the possible rack units this makes even more sense. But they can't rely solely on the consumers, especially when they want to get more machines sold and they ask higher prices.

I don't know the demographics, but I'd love to see them if someones got them. Computer sales based on Consumer/Pro or Business.

Although they are VERY low profit machines, I know that over 80% of compaq's business is consumer....

C-

.........................

 

[mischief]

Actually:

Originally posted by Chad4Mac
...
...... Just because it's got a larger chip doesn't mean that it will be stable, use-friendly, energy consumption efficient, talk to memory faster, etc.

Chad4Mac

1. Larger does not equal faster.

2. Chip design has almost NOTHING to do with User friendly

3. Smaller, slower clocked chips use less energy (see point one)

4. Faster Chips typically DO talk to memory faster.

5. Faster overall clock speed does not equal faster execution except in programs with ZERO HW optimization and chips with a shorter pipe.

Did you follow all that?

 

[Taft]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth

C-

This might be a stupid question, but what is the significence of the 'C-'? You've used it before, have you not? You've got me perplexed.

Taft

 

[D0ct0rteeth]

first letter of my first name...

ie: "taft" would be "T-"

its a old habit... no hidden meaning..

C-

 

[Chad4Mac]

Mischief-

Exactly. Larger, or as you included faster, chips are not the solution to everything. And a larger chip has nothing to do with user-friendliness -- yes. But, without a larger chip could you run OSX, Apple's most user-friendly OS (assuming that OSX as system requirements).

What about development? What about increasing bus speed from 133 mhz, DDR ram, etc rather than satisfying chip improvements. Are these improvements dependent on chip speed? Can't Apple stay under a Gighz and develope (catch up) on optimization?

One quick point. My Dad bought a gateway 1.8 box. Great. Applications he uses: Quicken, IE, Excel, Access, etc. Do you even think he uses a quarter of that chip to do what he does? Not even close. The only benefit is lighting fast "click"..."Poof"...application up and running.

Chad4mac

 

[mischief]

Okay:

So much software is developed in "higher" languages that do not speak directly to the hardware that resetting the Mac platform for maximum efficiency would KILL Apple.Try and find a programmer willing to do a whole App in Octal.

The faster chips are neccesary to keep up with increasingly complex and cumbersome software as well as ever increasing user demand for multitasking and multimedia.


Chip developers have tied Rapid I/O and similar high speed bus technologies to next generation chips that, by definition will have higher clockspeeds (see above).

There is also the fact that with an ever-increasing number of logic gates a chip must be able to cycle faster to keep track of them all.

For the record PPC is one of the physically smallest CPU's on the market and therefore is enherenty more energy efficient per Mhz cuz it's pushing through shorter distances to do the same job. Think about plumbing.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Actually:

Originally posted by mischief


1. Larger does not equal faster.

2. Chip design has almost NOTHING to do with User friendly

3. Smaller, slower clocked chips use less energy (see point one)

4. Faster Chips typically DO talk to memory faster.

5. Faster overall clock speed does not equal faster execution except in programs with ZERO HW optimization and chips with a shorter pipe.

Did you follow all that?

Close, but not quite. Clock frequency does affect performance, even in optimized apps (a completely optimized app will go faster on a G4 933 than a G4 800, even if everything else is the same). A long pipeline chip can get better performance than a short pipeline one(by boosting the clock frequency), if it has fast enough memory (each blank spot spends more cycles in the chip in a long pipeline chip), and an excellent branch prediction unit (for the same reason). There are a lot of reasons the P4 is slow, the ridiculously long pipeline is only one of them. Also, the only reason fast chips talk to memory faster is because they tend to be newer, so they have newer buses/ram.

 

[mischief]

Dude!

I was actively trying NOT to confuse this guy with the permutations. I fully realize that given appropriate conditions I could custom build a 500Mhz G3 that outperforms a P4 but NOT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO LIQUID NITROGEN.



Yes. There ARE nearly an infinite number of possible combinations here, I was just sticking to existing patterns for the sake of simplicity.

 

[blackpeter]

Re: Re: Don't forget the myth

Originally posted by mcrain
Only thing I take issue with is your signature. Rush is a political advertisement in newscaster clothing. He does nothing but advertise constantly for conservative politicians. He's not news, he's political advertising.
[/B]

To single out one broadcaster or one news anchor is more than a little redundant. If anything, there's more liberal minded programming on the 3 majors than all conservative media combined (maybe that's why Fox news is doing so well).

All media is biased. Don't get your news from one source. Remember that almost all media in America is owned by just 3 men.

 

[eyelikeart]

I agree against the Mhz Myth...but it's still what prevents many people from opening up to Macintosh...they just don't see that it's irrelevant...

Apple did get hurt by this whole Mhz-race-crap that Intel's been leading for a while now...

but I also hope that they start producing some substancially competitive #'s at somepoint so they don't always end up lagging behind on paper...

 

[mcrain]

Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the myth

Originally posted by tfaz1
To single out one broadcaster or one news anchor is more than a little redundant. If anything, there's more liberal minded programming on the 3 majors than all conservative media combined (maybe that's why Fox news is doing so well).

All media is biased. Don't get your news from one source. Remember that almost all media in America is owned by just 3 men.

No question that many in the media are "biased" however, most at least attempt to provide the news in an "unbiased" manner. Rush is not a news source, although he tries to sound like one. Fox news is a news source that presents their information in an "unbiased" manner, but hires and sounds more conservative as compared to the liberal sound and feel to cnn.

The only reason I single out rush is not because he's biased, which is fine, but because he's catagorized as news or entertainment, when in fact he is 3+ hours of broadcasting which amounts to nothing more than advertisement, yet his programming is exempt from the limits on advertising time during election cycles.

The only reason that is important is because although news may be presented with a slant that is either liberal or conservative, when the content is not news, but rather advocating that the listener support one or more candidates, then the election laws should apply, but they somehow do not apply to Rush.

I personally don't care what Rush says or advocates, I'm just a big stickler for the rules, and I don't like Rush mainly because he's managed to avoid having the election rules apply to his programming.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by eyelikeart

Apple did get hurt by this whole Mhz-race-crap that Intel's been leading for a while now...

I think the whole idea of naming the beast - The MHz Myth - caused more problems than it solved. Where did this come from anyway, anyone have any ideas?

If Apple had just shown them outperforming Pentiums, not calling attention to the MHz, they might have been better off. But it is a bit of a Catch-22 situation, because it would have come up none the less, and required some explaining. But the genius who came up with the name also damned himself.

 

[mcrain]

Oh, your signature is fine by the way. I'm not aware of any rules against a political standpoint or whatever in a signature. I'd assume Arn would prefer that we avoid cussing or insulting other users, but beyond that, I don't know of any rules.

 

[blackpeter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the myth

Originally posted by mcrain

The only reason I single out rush is not because he's biased, which is fine, but because he's catagorized as news or entertainment, when in fact he is 3+ hours of broadcasting which amounts to nothing more than advertisement, yet his programming is exempt from the limits on advertising time during election cycles.

Hmm... That's a stretch, isn't it? I don't know if I can make that leap with you. The only reason Rush is on air - the only reason anyone is on air, is because they sell advertising.

Now I won't argue that Rush is a Rebublican that follows the party line. He is, and his show reflects his strong views. But none the less, his job is to sell advertising. He's not funded by the right wing, he's funded by his advertisers. Take it up with them if you don't like the content of his speech around election times. Regardless, the average consumer has decided that it wants 4 hours of Rush everyday, not the right wing.

The people who listen to Rush already know which side they're on. I don't think I can see many Democrats stumbling upon Rush when driving home. And I definately don't see them doing a 180 and voting for Bush because Rush says so.

I think it was far more damaging when the networks announced Gore's early victory in the 2000 elections - when most of the west coast were still on their way to the polls. Would any of you be motivated to take time out of your busy day to vote for someone who's already lost? Not me.

I can't just start down this road with any entertainer, pundant, or talking head in the media today. If one is guilty, they all are...

 

[Choppaface]

Re: Dude!

Originally posted by mischief
I fully realize that given appropriate conditions I could custom build a 500Mhz G3 that outperforms a P4 but NOT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO LIQUID NITROGEN.

:lol :lol :lol :lol!!!
oh gawd best quote ever