1.2GHz G4s

[billiam0878]

PowerMac Rebates

I haven't really noticed, but does Apple typically discount the prices of their desktops before a routine update (133-200MHz) or are the current rebates unique? Thanks


Bill

 

[arn]

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
ok arn i know you want the dual 1.4s and are saying 1.2s becuase its the safe bet.

I'm not saying anything.... 🙂 I'm not saying 1.2 or 1.4 or 2.0...

I have nothing riding on anything.... the "rumors" that link from the main site are generally from third parties... I don't pass my own predictions off as rumors on the main page.

But yes, I think 1.2ghz is more _realistic_ than 1.4 based on past advancements by Motorola.

arn

 

[King Cobra]

Personally, here is how I feel about the current options for top of the line PowerMac updates:
1.2GHz: Reasonable, but not impressive.
1.4GHz: Arguable, but rather impressive.
1.5GHz: Not likely, so no need for an impressive comment.

So I am stuck between there being a 1.2GHz and 1.4GHz PowerMac. If I had to guess which one would be the new top of the line, just like in a 50:50 deal, I am usually wrong. So I am going to guess 1.2GHz. 🙂
__________________

Fear the King.

 

[britboy]

Re: PowerMac Rebates

Originally posted by billiam0878
I haven't really noticed, but does Apple typically discount the prices of their desktops before a routine update (133-200MHz) or are the current rebates unique? Thanks


Bill

It's pretty standard practice for apple to offer incentives. That way they can clear the lines for an updated product.

I'm not expecting anything above a 1.2GHz update. Even 200MHz is slightly above the normal increase apple introduces every 6 months.

 

[matznentosh]

0.1 ghz is not to die for

I don't get it. Why is 1.5 great, and 1.4 terrible? We're talking a 6 or 7% difference here. I think 1.4 is significantly faster than 1.0 and would be great - IF it used a chip equivalent to current models. Every time Moto increases the speed, it does it in part by increasing the pipeline, with corresponding drop in processing power. The 667 Tibooks weren't really faster than the 500 models, for example.

As for how big a jump, everyone is extrapolating from past experience that Apple only increases speed by 100-200 mhz. But really, that has been because of Motorola's poor production. I can't imagine Steve Jobs hiding a fast chip if it can be delivered in high quantities. Always, in fact, he has announced a faster chip and then had to wait for it to be delivered (new tibooks excepted) - and once had to actually roll back the chip speeds because the faster ones were not going to be available.

So I think Apple will roll out whatever speed computer it can reliably deliver, not keep to some arbitrary incremental increase for the sake of consistency.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by new2macs
Thanks for the responce,
I will probably be making my purchase in aug-sept and will probably go with one of apples desktops, because i think i can get more machine for my money. I am trying to my my homework before purchasing.
I have had mac users tell me i will never need the power of a 1Ghz Powermac but i always thought faster was better 😉 . Or would an G4 imac serve me well?
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.
I guess i am just a little nervous about laying out a few Grand on a computer i am unfamiliar with.
thanks

here's where i'm coming from so you can decide how to take my comments...

i have a dual 800 with 1.1 gig of ram and my parents have an imac 700 with about 384 of ram.

with photoshop as your most intense app (the med ones might be more, i'm not familiar with such apps).... i think the imac will be fine/perfect. the speed difference won't be vital in those apps especially if you want to save some money... the only thing i'd recommend is to get a lot of ram. 512+ for sure...

as for them being competitive with windows... yes. very much so. the OS is where you'll see the best difference (ie, os x is much better than windows). it's more stable and with the coming of 10.2, will be quite powerful (it is already, but will be moreso).

photoshop should run better on the mac. and probably most other things will run specifically better. but not all. it depends a lot on the apps themselves (like the medicine ones). i know apple had been pushing their bio related stuff lately so i'd guess the med side would also be quite good on mac...

so in closing. most folks here will say that macs are better. of course. so i'm just thinking that an imac should be adequate for you...

if you have lots of money though, buy the dual gig!

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Re: 0.1 ghz is not to die for

Originally posted by matznentosh
I don't get it. Why is 1.5 great, and 1.4 terrible? We're talking a 6 or 7% difference here. I think 1.4 is significantly faster than 1.0 and would be great - IF it used a chip equivalent to current models.

if i'm not mistaken, most folks are more concerned over the 1.2/1.4 question than the 1.4/1.5 question.... so it's a bit more of an issue.

though mostly it'll be ddr and what graphics card and any other redesigns to the case or motherboard.....

 

[Backtothemac]

Arn,
Do you remember like three months ago, I e-mailed you specs on the MWNY macs. Look for the following.

1.0, 1.2, and Dual 1.4

That is what I have said since February. They will be DDR, and have either a 133 or 266 Bus.

 

[gbojim]

...Every time Moto increases the speed, it does it in part by increasing the pipeline, with corresponding drop in processing power. The 667 Tibooks weren't really faster than the 500 models, for example.

Just a note that within the G4 family, all processors released to date have a 7 stage pipeline.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Arn,
Do you remember like three months ago, I e-mailed you specs on the MWNY macs. Look for the following.

1.0, 1.2, and Dual 1.4

That is what I have said since February. They will be DDR, and have either a 133 or 266 Bus.

What do you have to back that statement up with???

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Clock speed

Originally posted by Curiousstrngmint
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."

Figure on G3s equaling a P3 of 1.25-1.5x the clockspeed (this is a very rough guess), so the 700 ibooks are in the 750-1000 MHz P3 range (that's the mobile P3s), faster on a few tasks (floating point heavy ones). G4s are moderately better than G3s, except that on certain very specific tasks they can be anywhere from 2 to 10 times as fast. Figure a dual GHz is about equal to a P4A 1.6-1.8GHz when it isn't using Altivec much, and maybe a P4A 2-2.2GHz when it is (this assumes a well threaded program, and is a very rough guess). It's mainly memory limited, so DDR should help a LOT. Currently, for most tasks, the P4B 2.53GHz is the fastest desktop chip (fast ram, high clockspeed, crappy design), and the AthlonXP 2200+ is the second (good design, moderate clockspeed and ram). G4s and G3s are slower (low clockspeed, slow ram, but awesome design [Altivec specifically]), just not by nearly as much as it seems (they're low clockspeed and have slow ram, so it's amazing they do as well as they do).

OS wise, the Mac wins hands down. XP is a joke. It's ugly, clunky, insecure, included programs are much worse, doesn't support Java without a patch, and misuses eye candy even more than aqua (in OSX menus fade out, in XP they fade in, see the problem?). OSX is awesome, it just needs the hardware to back it up.

Basically here's how it matches up:
Speed: PC
Hard Drive: PC
Optical Drive: Mac
Networking: Mac
Ports: mixed
Stability: Mac
Appearance: Mac
Usability: Mac
Programs: PC (although their are a few great mac only programs)
Lifespan: Mac
Price: PC
Peripherals: PC
Customizability: PC (it's easier on a mac, but there's less you can do)


My recommendation would be to wait and see if Apple gets it's hardware back up to date. If they don't go build yourself a Hammer system, if they do, get a PowerMac.

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


What do you have to back that statement up with???

Well, I could tell you, but.. yea you know the rest 😀

Personal insight into the reality destortion field. A contact. We have had this conversation before remember. Just trust me. You will not be disappointed.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Actually...

Originally posted by gbojim


Just a note that within the G4 family, all processors released to date have a 7 stage pipeline.

All processors in the G4+ family have 7 stage pipelines. The original 7400/7410 (G4) had 4 stage pipelines. However they also had two less pipelines, slower buses, and didn't support L3 cache. TiBook 667s will be faster at almost everything, the 7450/7451/7455 is just a better chip.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by new2macs
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.

Keep in mind you are asking this question to members of a strongly pro-Mac forum. A few people here, I kid you not, will in all seriousness pit their 300MHz iMac against a 1GHz PIII and say that their iMac wins hands down, even running OS X. If you thought the 700MHz iBook was a bit of a dog, your eyes were probably not deceiving you. My recommendation would be to try out the computers you are considering before you buy them. Personally, I like the iBook a lot, but if the price/performance ratio is all you're looking at, I think a PC laptop will win hands down. (As an aside, I do not believe price/performance should be the sole purchasing criteria, but perhaps you do.)

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Clock speed

Originally posted by Curiousstrngmint
Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."

I agree completely. I don't think it's possible to equate, for example, the 700MHz iBook with an equivalently-priced 1.5GHz P4 laptop in terms of speed without making a fool of one's self. I would recommend emphasizing those characteristics of the Macs that don't show up so well on spec sheets: The way all their parts work seamlessly. The way it's virtually guaranteed that software intended to run on them will. The way they are less problematic. The way they are worth more and have a higher resale value. The way they have better battery life, a better OS, better design, etc.

Alex

 

[AlphaTech]

Re: Re: Clock speed

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Basically here's how it matches up:
Speed: PC
Hard Drive: PC
Optical Drive: Mac
Networking: Mac
Ports: mixed
Stability: Mac
Appearance: Mac
Usability: Mac
Programs: PC (although their are a few great mac only programs)
Lifespan: Mac
Price: PC
Peripherals: PC
Customizability: PC (it's easier on a mac, but there's less you can do)

I have a few points to contest with you on the above list... One, for hard drives... are you going by size alone??? IF that is the case, then that only applies with the system being able to access the 160GB drives. Otherwise they are a dead match. Even then, you add an ATA card (to either) and they are 100% even.

Ports... peecee's have legacy ports on them. If you go with Modern/current tech ports, then I say the Mac wins, since ALL Mac's have USB and Firewire in them. Most peecee's do NOT have firewire, but some offer USB 2 (I'd still rather use Firewire any day over usb2).

For programs, just about all programs, for business/corporate use are available on both platforms, with only a few finance/buisiness office only applications being only on the peecee. Peecee's really only outshine the Mac in games. Even there, the gap is closing as more games come out for both platforms, or get ported over to the Mac shortly after being released for the peecee. Take Deus Ex for one... with more current cutting edge games being on both.

For preipherals, just about all periferals being offered today work on BOTH platforms. Only a few stubborn items/companies are only on the peecee.

As for customizability, have you ever looked at a peecee from hp or compaq??? They are not any more customizable then a Mac. If you mean the raw number of items that you can toss into the computer, then it could be the peecee. In general, you don't need a ton of customization inside a Mac. I can see people wanting better audio cards, but just about everything else you could care about is available for the Mac. You can get ATA133 cards, RAID cards (ATA, and I believe even some SCSI ones), USB (1.1 and 2.0) cards too.

I think it is even closer then you implied with your list. In the area's that most Mac users care about, the Mac beats the peecee into a pulp.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well, I could tell you, but.. yea you know the rest 😀

Personal insight into the reality destortion field. A contact. We have had this conversation before remember. Just trust me. You will not be disappointed.

Better men (and women) then you have tried and failed. 😀

I put about as much weight behind the 'A contact' for sources as the person would have in zero G.

The point is moot until MWNY anyway.

 

[iapple]

If I can just shift the subject back...

Coming BACK to the 1.2/1.4 GHz G4 deal at MWNY, let me show you how see the increase in MHz...

733-867 is a 134MHz increase, 134/733 is a 18 per cent increase in MHz.

a DUAL 800--a DUAL 1000 is a 200MHz increase, 200/800 is a 25 per cent increase...

the 867--1000 is 133MHz increase, 133/867 is a 15 per cent increase...


As far as I see it, they will probably increase the mhz, somewhere around 15 to 25 per cent, therefore, my prediction would be 1.15MHz to 1.25 mhz.

If I see where that fits in with the rumors flying around, I'm afraid 1.2GHz G4s at MWNY seem like what's going to happen. But with the latest SJ's "we are going to double our market share" speech at the design award, maybe... just maybe...

 

[AlphaTech]

Re: Re: Clock speed

Originally posted by alex_ant

I agree completely. I don't think it's possible to equate, for example, the 700MHz iBook with an equivalently-priced 1.5GHz P4 laptop in terms of speed without making a fool of one's self. I would recommend emphasizing those characteristics of the Macs that don't show up so well on spec sheets: The way all their parts work seamlessly. The way it's virtually guaranteed that software intended to run on them will. The way they are less problematic. The way they are worth more and have a higher resale value. The way they have better battery life, a better OS, better design, etc.

Alex

Don't forget to include how infrequently the Mac will crash and burn on you. If you delete one dll file from the windows directory/folder on your peecee you basically have a nice door stop until you wipe it and reinstall the OS. Get a BSOD (blue screen of death) and you can forget about running the 'repair' feature form a windblows cd. Get winxp home edition and decide to keep your information private from m$ and you can forget about having a computer 31 days later (it will stop working after 30 days).

Just a couple of 'minor' points *cough*bullsh*t*cough*. 😀

 

[Choppaface]

well i have a PC and all i can say is that it does not crash more frequently than my mac..and i do indeed treat them the same. I don't see why some people have to have the prejudice that if a non-mac is presented to them that it will crash the second they lay their eyes on it. I've certainy had problems with my XP box, but I've also had problems with my OS X box. I think it's a tad foolish that people often overemphasize what is, at least in my experience, a minor, if even apparent, difference. take that competative energy and do something creative with it 😀 😀

 

[Matt_d]

Originally posted by firewire2001
moores law anyone?


also.. apple has really gotten into the idea of market share.. there are many factors in deciding this based on peoples opinions..
(

Not to mention PRICE. That made me thing twice.🙁

 

[Marianco]

1.2 GHz G4s = Very Big Disappointment

I would be very bitterly disappointed if Apple came out with 1.2 GHz Dual PowerPC Macs as their top end in MWNY. When the Pentium 2.5 GHz is outrunning the Athlon, and the Athlon far-and-away blows away the current Macs at Photoshop at 1.7 GHz, the Mac has to catch up.

If you look at Apple's own stats, the 1 GHz Dual G4 PowerMac, despite its 2 MB L3 Cache with DDR memory, only renders Final Cut Pro movies twice as fast as the original 500 MHz G4 PowerMac, which was introduced in 1999.

Doubling the speed took Apple 3 years to accomplish. Much of the fault lies with Motorola's ability to develop faster chips. But Apple also has a hand in helping Motorola design the G4 and G5.

A true next generation Powermac is about 4 times faster than the original generation. Then the speed difference is noticeable in everyday use. It lends a feeling of exhiliration.

Since the latest 1 GHz Dual G4s are only twice as fast, the difference in speed is not as noticeable enough to upgrade. Just look at Barefeats.com and their comparison of the 1 GHz Dual G4s to the 533 MHz Dual G4s. The increase in speed is not that great.

If the next model is a 1.2 GHz Dual G4, then I'm not upgrading. It will be so disappointing. I'll have to wait until 2003. Another year to wait. Hopefully the G5 is out by then.

Hopefully Apple/Steve Jobs has listened to the Movie Mogul bigwigs who want only Dual and Quad processor Macs, who want power that the current 1 GHz G4 does not offer.

A 1.5 GHz Dual G4 is still only three times faster than the original 533 MHz G4 1999 Powermac. But with DDR RAM, hopefully the speed will be closer to 4 Times faster.

The only way I'm going to buy a 1.2 GHz G4 is if it was a Quad Processor Mac.

Apple, are you listening? You may lose a lot of sales this year if you disappoint.

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Choppaface
well i have a PC and all i can say is that it does not crash more frequently than my mac..and i do indeed treat them the same. I don't see why some people have to have the prejudice that if a non-mac is presented to them that it will crash the second they lay their eyes on it. I've certainy had problems with my XP box, but I've also had problems with my OS X box. I think it's a tad foolish that people often overemphasize what is, at least in my experience, a minor, if even apparent, difference. take that competative energy and do something creative with it 😀 😀

Have you ever attempted to repair an installation of windblows that has gone bad? Compare that to if you get a system file that has gone bad under the Mac OS. Under OS 9.x it takes under 15 minutes to fix it completely and be back up and running. With windblows, there is no way to know how long it will take to fix it. Chances are, you will have to completely reinstall the OS, which has the potential to cause even more issues.

Before you go off halfcocked, I have encountered BOTH issues. It took the better part of the day to get the peecee back up and running. In the end, I had to get rid of the old OS and install a brand new one. Talk about MAJOR pain in the a$$. I was lucky that I had a spare ATA hard drive that I was able to move the user's files to. That way, I didn't loose too much. As it happens, they had stored files in places that were not there after the reinstall. That is something else where the peecee sucks... Put files onto the desktop, have something go wrong, log in as a different user, and the chances of the files being there is virtually zero. When logged in as an admin, you won't know that the files are there unless you saw them earlier. Under the Mac OS, the files are easy to find (they show up no matter what under OS 9). Add to that the fact that you can connect to servers even when booting from a cd (unless the NIC part of the motherboard has gone bad). Try and do that when booting up a peecee (from either a cd or boot floppy) and it's no where near as easy (if possible at all).

From a tech standpoint, Mac's are many, many times easier to fix. Peecee's on the other hand can be complete pains in the a$$.

I have plenty of horror stories when it comes to the peecee's at work, but only a few about the Mac's. Considering the ratio of Mac to peecee (240-250 Mac's and about 40 peecee's) that shows how bad peecee's are, or can be.

 

[Choppaface]

thank you for attacking me for a comment made to the forum in general. i guess i should have stayed off the board the last time i decided to leave...... :|

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Choppaface
thank you for attacking me for a comment made to the forum in general. i guess i should have stayed off the board the last time i decided to leave...... :|

I would hardly call that an attack...especially considering the source. 😛

If you can't take someone disagreeing with your post, then you have some serious issues you need to work on.