F/reW/re, they probably arent referring to the upgrade. Probably a new product---thats what we are going to get blown away by.
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.
1ghz Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know guys, I know
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.
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.
P
Pauldunlop
Guest
MacUser
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 !
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 !
Speed
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.
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.
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]
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]
just a thought
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.
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.
Crap
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.
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.
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)
Why clockspeed matters
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.
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.
My point being
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.
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.
Cool
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..
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..
I
Ive
Guest
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.
1ghz?
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....
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....
Comparison
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...
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
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 .
)). 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 .