Is this a joke

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by terramax, Jul 21, 2002.

  1. terramax macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    Just a few minutes ago I went to check out the new 17' iMac, and what do I see in the "Specs" ?!
    800Mhz PowerPC with a 100MHZ SYSTEM BUS ?!
    I like Apple, they are great designers on every front Hardware, Software, Cases, but a 100Mhz system bus in this day and age for a NEW computer...
    I really cannot believe it.
     
  2. tjwett macrumors 68000

    tjwett

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    #2
    Re: Is this a joke

    yeah, and it's $2000 to boot! it's laughable to think anyone would buy one of these, or any of the current hardware the way it's priced.
     
  3. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #3
    Yes, it is...

    Apple frequently hides jokes in their spec data. Did you see the one about a Saudi, a German, two hookers and Santa Claus in the specs of the Rev A. TiBook.

    God...now that one was funny
     
  4. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #4
    If you don't like..... don't buy... but please stop the same f**king winjing argument again and again and again...... it's beginning to feel like Ground Hog day....... :rolleyes:
     
  5. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #5
    darn right, I am sick and tired of this stupid argument, shove it, its been covered, if you don't like it bug off and whine to your mother:mad:
     
  6. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    Yeah, who needs a stupid little all-in-one computer with a 17" flat panel and DVD-R drive for $2000...I'm gonna get a PC instead with all that for less...

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

    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #7
    You can actually get athlon which is twice as fast as that G4 snail with 100 mhz bus and sdram (1999ish technology),and as for Superdrive,who really needs it? DVD-R media is expensive and CD burning on that Superdrive is slooow (8x)..
    as for 17" LCD,its nice yeah,but i'd trade for some speed..
    we are comparing powermacs g4 which cost 3500$ to athlons (and still,they are faster),instead,imac should be compared to those peecees..
    right now,i cant get good mac for about 1500$
    lets see eMac:17" 1280*960 @ 72Hz? if i am not mistaken,apple's 17" crt monitor could go 1280*1024@85 Hz
    700 MHz G4? try some encoding on it..or some game with many bots
    GeForce 2 MX,you can't get good performances in games
    1099$? thats 1700$ over here in europe,now thats not a good value for money
    iMac 15":1024*768,larger resolution would be very nice
    GeForce 2 MX
    800 MHz cpu? too slow for me
    i was about to buy this imac,i thought they will update graphics,cpu and resolutio for this model..but nooo,now only option i have is powermac,the next powermac
    17" imac (screen is great),800 mhz,geforce 4 mx (why oh why only 32 megs of ram?),2000$,now thats too much for computer like that (thats 3500$ over here)
     
  8. Pin-Fisher macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Location:
    Marlton NJ
    #8
    Who will buy one?? I will as soon as they arrive at my local
    retailer. Why?

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

    Attached Files:

  9. mr.w macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    these computers were designed for consumer markets... not the pro market. How many everyday computer users actually need much more power??? If you want a little more power, buy a low end Powermac and a 15in or 17 in flat-screen .... they'll be about the same price.

    so shut up, if you don't like 'em. Buying an apple computer is like buying a high performance, imported car. They are not build to be economical machines - they are built to produce a high quality, exciting user experiance!!!
     
  10. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #10
    they are consumer machines on paper,but for 2000$ i dont expect consumer-level performance from it,you can get pc for that money which is faster then imac in every possible thing,even photoshop!
    yeah quality,and good user experience,that is true..but apple is simply milking money out of us,being a MacZealot wont make life of power-users better.
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    People can bitch all they want...

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

    Western Digital 200 GBs. Who-hoo.

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

    SCREW USB2.

    You want us to pay PRO prices, give us PRO machines.
     
  12. mr.w macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado
    #12
    Re: People can bitch all they want...

    What exactly are PRO prices... It is our reality that Apple computers cost as much as they do. I have only owned Apple computers (never a PC), to me it just costs $3500 for a computer... that's a reality, that's how much they cost. get used to it. Would you rather have a crappy little hinda civic (a PC) or a sweet new Porche 911 turbo (an Apple)... they both serve the same purpose (getting you from A to B) but with the porche/apple you're ridding in style and elegance .... thus a completely different price!
     
  13. gopher macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #13
    Let me tell you, the Flat Panel iMac at $2000 is a bargain. You get a 17" Digital LCD Display with 16:10 proportions, which alone costs $1000 in the regular market, A DVD burner, which is another $250, SVGA port for external display mirroring, all the iApps, Appleworks, Quicken, World Book, Otto Matic (a game), PiCalc, a three-D game that didn't come with the original Flat Panel iMac, two operating systems ($20 upgrade for Jaguar), 10/100 ethernet, 2 Firewire ports that require no adapter for the iPod (Firewire supports up to 65 bootable devices per port, hard drives, burners, scanners, videocameras), external Pro Speakers which are powered by the CPU,
    GForce4MX graphics, keyboard with volume, eject button, and display brightness controls, and upgradability to 1 GB of RAM, and an 80 GB hard drive. Oh and 1 powered and 2 unpowered USB ports (after plugging in the keyboard and mouse). Don't forget the G4/800 is about 25% faster than a Pentium IV 2 Ghz. So really you are getting a lot more computer than you thought. The bus doesn't matter a hill of beans on a Mac. It is the backside cache, RISC processing, and Altivec instruction units which do.
     
  14. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #14
    *resists urge to harshly disagree...unable to*

    okay. You're nuts. Have you used a Dual 1GHz? They're rediculously slow considering their potential. It isn't the chip, either. Everything runs through the bus simultaneously. RAM, HD, IO. And if it isn't fast, it's going to crap out when put under a heavy workload. I dare you to put the fastest chip on the planet into a mac with a 133MHz bus speed. Then come back and tell me that bus speeds don't matter on a mac. That's the most rediculous comment i've ever read on these forums. :rolleyes:
     
  15. gopher macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #15
    Dual 1 Ghz Macs run 15 billion floating point operations a second. Obviously if you have a slow Dual 1 Ghz Mac, you either have done something disasterously wrong to it, or you don't understand where it is able to pick up speed over the Pentiums and AMDs. What do you find slow on the Dual 1 Ghz Mac? How much RAM do you have on it, which operating system are you using on it? Are updating your prebinding if using Mac OS X? Are you leaving the machine on overnight if using Mac OS X? Are you rebuilding your desktop if using Mac OS 9? Are you using only necessary extensions and fonts if running Mac OS 9? Have you partitioned your hard drive to less than 25 GB per partition? Are you attempting to run Norton Disk Doctor, Personal Firewall, or any Symmantec utility other than anti-virus on it (you shouldn't), have you run Disk Warrior on it? If you really think the G4s are slow, show me a G4 that is slow, and I'll show you a user who doesn't understand their machine and doesn't use it for what it's built to do. If bus speed really mattered all that much, how come are the G4s up to 5 times faster running Genentech's Blast algorithms or running RC5 tests than the nearest competitor? FIVE TIMES! Obviously if you just optimize for Altivec and use the cache to its fullest advantage you can get remarkable results. I've posted the links here before for RC5 and Genentech.
     
  16. macktheknife macrumors 6502a

    macktheknife

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    #16
    Well, my comments are not really directed at the iMac, but it is similar to the price/performance arguement. First, let me say that I've been quite happy switching to a Mac since I bought my TiBook a few months back. However, playing WarCraft III on both my TiBook and my cousin's year-old Dell Inspiron laptop has made me realize how big of a performance gap exists between our two machines. I know it's probably OS X that's slowing everything down (that's why I'm patiently waiting for Jaguar), but Apple simply cannot convince more people to switch if they have to pay more and see their old PC programs running more sluggishly on a Mac.

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

    Again, please don't flame me: I'm just telling it like it is. :)
     
  17. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #17
    sorry...you missed my edit. I meant to say "compared to their potential" (see the revised above).

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

    Besides, your comments never back up why the BUS speed doesn't matter on a G4. I still think that was just rediculous.
     
  18. gopher macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #18
    You missed my edit too...look at the RC5 and Blast tests. I've got a three year old Integraph machine and it pokes compared to my iMac. Your mileage may vary. Probably you don't have a good graphics card. 3-D is not processor technology but graphics card technology nowadays. Not to mention if 3-D calculations are often cached to hard disk you are going to be slow anyway, and that's what a lot of games do on the Mac if they don't know how to apply OpenGL correctly. Some 3-d things like Maya run quite well. Ask for better written software. The hardware isn't being taken full advantage of in a lot of ports.
     
  19. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #19
    ARE YOU A ****ING IDIOT!?!!? HOW OLD ARE YOU?
    PowerMac G4 with 2 processors running at 1 GHz is slower then Pentium IV 2.53 GHz,and any athlon!
    did you see that pc's vs. g4 bechmark?
    now how do you think 800 mhz g4 imac with 100 mhz bus will perform (powermac has 133 mhz bus)?!??!
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    That was my point.

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

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

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

    I think you have it backwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you, good night, I'll be here 'til Thursday. End of rant.
     
  21. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #21
    Who the hell are you responding to? I think you quoted the wrong person.
     
  22. gopher macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #22
    OOOK, yes I've seen the benchmarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Oh and I'm 31.
     
  23. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #23
    The Altivec can only get you so far in life. But more memory-intense applications 100MHz would do you **** on a stick in the real world. Some applications absolutely NEED the damn DDR-RAM, and if they don't get it, you are SOL. Even if you had an 800MHz iMac G4 or a 0.5GHz Cube it makes little damn difference on these applications if you have the same ƒucking bus speed. Sure, they open faster, but do they make playing chess, Othello, or F1 games faster? Damn right, not by much.

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

    Attached Files:

  24. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #24
    more then 95% of applications AREN'T optimized for neither AltiVec,multiprocessing support,or use of L3 cache,in real-life with 1 ghz dual you can get max. 7 gigaflops,well,8 in some cases,what do you think how fast they are with non-altivec optimized apps? like macromedia's,adobe after effects,and oh yeah,video encoding!! and when you use a lot of apps in the same time..things become slow,even with jagwire
     
  25. Chryx macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    #25
    >http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_t>est.html
    >4 to 5 times faster is a dual 1 Ghz G4: 21 million key rate vs. 1.8 >Ghz Pentium IV at just under 5 million keyrate for RC5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Page