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.
2.6GHz PowerMac G5s at MacWorld SF 2004?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Re: Macs, Speeds and processors
It took me about 5 minutes with Office X to realize how appallingly slow it was, especially Word X. I happen to think it's rather awful in other ways as well, but its performance is undeniably bad in many areas.
It's funny how Office X got a lot of good press and kudos at its introduction because of its rather thorough redesign for OSX. It's a necessary evil for me and for the platform, but as a cross-platform benchmarking tool it is a liability for the Mac. An almost perfect best-case scenario for Microsoft...
It took me about 5 minutes with Office X to realize how appallingly slow it was, especially Word X. I happen to think it's rather awful in other ways as well, but its performance is undeniably bad in many areas.
It's funny how Office X got a lot of good press and kudos at its introduction because of its rather thorough redesign for OSX. It's a necessary evil for me and for the platform, but as a cross-platform benchmarking tool it is a liability for the Mac. An almost perfect best-case scenario for Microsoft...
Re: Re: Re: Rot in hell Apple...
How can facts be false ? Or is there more sarcasm hidden in that too
Originally posted by leet1
Don't bring that into this, because your stating false facts
How can facts be false ? Or is there more sarcasm hidden in that too
Re: Re: Macs, Speeds and processors
Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment!
But, if that's the case, then I guess that's the way it is. You learn something new everyday on these forums!
Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment!
But, if that's the case, then I guess that's the way it is. You learn something new everyday on these forums!
Rolling you over..
Ok I remember the days of early 1990 in the new of LA when the clear sole Nike Air Jordans came out and the rich kid on the block got 'Rolled' for those shoes. This phenomenon spread all the way to Toronto, Canada.
Dude, I have a Dell and I'm suffering, If my neighbor gets a PowerMac G5 before I do then I'm rolling her for it!!!!!!!! LOL! She can come over only once a week to use it!!
Just Kidding!! Stealing is wrong no matter what its for..........but Oh man I sure wish I had Jedi mind tricks!!!!!!!!
Ok I remember the days of early 1990 in the new of LA when the clear sole Nike Air Jordans came out and the rich kid on the block got 'Rolled' for those shoes. This phenomenon spread all the way to Toronto, Canada.Dude, I have a Dell and I'm suffering, If my neighbor gets a PowerMac G5 before I do then I'm rolling her for it!!!!!!!! LOL! She can come over only once a week to use it!!
Just Kidding!! Stealing is wrong no matter what its for..........but Oh man I sure wish I had Jedi mind tricks!!!!!!!!
I try to keep up with these forums, but this one exploded overnight. So to throw in my two cents or dollars or something, Here I am.
<joke>
I know it was way back at the beginning of the thread, but I'm going to have to agree with our friend who is upset about the 2.8 Ghz Dell laptops. Apple needs to keep up with the times for cryin' in the beer. My girlfriend has one of those and it has an amazing feature that I've never seen in an Apple laptop. Just the other day, the electricity in my house was out, and she started up her laptop and brought it over so I could flip it over and cook myself some breakfast on it... mmmm... Bacon, fried eggs, and if you do a little photoshop work on it, you can shut the lid afterwards and make waffles between the keyboard and the screen. Of course we had to go in the other room to talk as we couldn't hear ourselves over that ingenious and oh so aesthetically pleasing fan once it cranked up... what are the folks at Apple thinking!?!!?!?!?</joke>
Anyway, in all seriousness, with Intel's huge gains this year in the stock market, they're destined to get sacked here soon, looks like Apple and IBM are aiming for their knees with the roadmap for the PowerPC. I pose this question: What will we all do with our freetime when we don't have to teach our friends about the megahertz myth anymore?
Go Apple, and one of these days I'm gonna have to replace my 500mhz iBook, maybe when if it ever stops working, oh wait, it's an Apple, I guess I can live with two working computers...
Edit: I just remembered, it is now necessary to clarify when one is joking and when one is not....
<joke>
I know it was way back at the beginning of the thread, but I'm going to have to agree with our friend who is upset about the 2.8 Ghz Dell laptops. Apple needs to keep up with the times for cryin' in the beer. My girlfriend has one of those and it has an amazing feature that I've never seen in an Apple laptop. Just the other day, the electricity in my house was out, and she started up her laptop and brought it over so I could flip it over and cook myself some breakfast on it... mmmm... Bacon, fried eggs, and if you do a little photoshop work on it, you can shut the lid afterwards and make waffles between the keyboard and the screen. Of course we had to go in the other room to talk as we couldn't hear ourselves over that ingenious and oh so aesthetically pleasing fan once it cranked up... what are the folks at Apple thinking!?!!?!?!?</joke>
Anyway, in all seriousness, with Intel's huge gains this year in the stock market, they're destined to get sacked here soon, looks like Apple and IBM are aiming for their knees with the roadmap for the PowerPC. I pose this question: What will we all do with our freetime when we don't have to teach our friends about the megahertz myth anymore?
Go Apple, and one of these days I'm gonna have to replace my 500mhz iBook, maybe when if it ever stops working, oh wait, it's an Apple, I guess I can live with two working computers...
Edit: I just remembered, it is now necessary to clarify when one is joking and when one is not....
LIQUID COOLING
It's my understanding that Apple has been working on liquid cooling. I wonder if we'll see the first implementation in the new powermacs? I imagine that we'll see it in the PM before the PB.
This reminds me......
It's my understanding that Apple has been working on liquid cooling. I wonder if we'll see the first implementation in the new powermacs? I imagine that we'll see it in the PM before the PB.
Like the 9800 gfx card?
For the record, I'm STILL waiting for my 9800 graphics card to get shipped from Apple to my local reseller, on a box that I paid for back in July 2003. Apple had to finally ship my box less B/T and 9800 card in Oct due to some unknown hdw conflict between them, and I'm still waiting for 9800 card.
For the record, I'm STILL waiting for my 9800 graphics card to get shipped from Apple to my local reseller, on a box that I paid for back in July 2003. Apple had to finally ship my box less B/T and 9800 card in Oct due to some unknown hdw conflict between them, and I'm still waiting for 9800 card.
Re: Re: Re: Macs, Speeds and processors
Well, it *looks* nice and OSX-ish on the surface. What I have found, among other things, is that certain kinds of embedded objects in documents cause hellacious slowdowns on the Mac.
I was trying to do something very simple: extract two diagrams from a 40-page PC-created document. Open the document, scroll to the diagrams, copy-paste them to a new document, and save. Every time I touched the scroll bar, though, I had a 30 second beach-ball. Roughly 45 hair-pulling minutes later, I had finished. I then went back and pulled up this document on an old crappy PC at work, and it was smooth as silk.
That's by far the worst example I've encountered, but at the time I was ready to chuck it out the window. In general, I find it to be pretty but pretty slow at everything. My ancient copy of Office 98 running under Classic is infinitely crisper.
But it functions, and serves its purpose in its own way. I probably overstate how bad it is; others might have better experience than mine. But it irks me how it was held up as a paragon of great Mac programming when it first came out.
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment!
Well, it *looks* nice and OSX-ish on the surface. What I have found, among other things, is that certain kinds of embedded objects in documents cause hellacious slowdowns on the Mac.
I was trying to do something very simple: extract two diagrams from a 40-page PC-created document. Open the document, scroll to the diagrams, copy-paste them to a new document, and save. Every time I touched the scroll bar, though, I had a 30 second beach-ball. Roughly 45 hair-pulling minutes later, I had finished. I then went back and pulled up this document on an old crappy PC at work, and it was smooth as silk.
That's by far the worst example I've encountered, but at the time I was ready to chuck it out the window. In general, I find it to be pretty but pretty slow at everything. My ancient copy of Office 98 running under Classic is infinitely crisper.
But it functions, and serves its purpose in its own way. I probably overstate how bad it is; others might have better experience than mine. But it irks me how it was held up as a paragon of great Mac programming when it first came out.
So nothing new...Originally posted by encro
I know what I would do:
It would go something like creaming in my pants daily
Originally posted by ~Shard~
HAHA - nice one!
Ah Dr Zebor, I have created something miraculous and perfect. I shall call him "Clone".
Re: Re: Macs, Speeds and processors
IMHO, Word today is worse than Word was back around 1992. Today Word is much slower, does some things worse (e.g., stitching together multiple documents into one meta document), and a few things that did work (e.g., embedding EPSF) do not work or work really badly.
I was looking at MS's recent SEC filing, and 86% of their profits come from their Windows desktop and Office divisions. In other words, one of the largest capitalized companies in America ($284 billion) is based on selling you things you already own and that still work.
In the case of Office, they do this by adding bloated code, most of which you will never need, re-casting existing capabilities as "improvements", and then forcing large corporations into license deals that push upgrades. Then MS adds incompatible file format that force the rest of us to upgrade once we start receiving documents we cannot read.
I use Word a fair amount for proposals, reports, memos, etc. Around 1991-92 I used Word (4?) on my Mac SE/30 to produce the proceedings for a conference we held.
IMHO, Word today is worse than Word was back around 1992. Today Word is much slower, does some things worse (e.g., stitching together multiple documents into one meta document), and a few things that did work (e.g., embedding EPSF) do not work or work really badly.
I was looking at MS's recent SEC filing, and 86% of their profits come from their Windows desktop and Office divisions. In other words, one of the largest capitalized companies in America ($284 billion) is based on selling you things you already own and that still work.
In the case of Office, they do this by adding bloated code, most of which you will never need, re-casting existing capabilities as "improvements", and then forcing large corporations into license deals that push upgrades. Then MS adds incompatible file format that force the rest of us to upgrade once we start receiving documents we cannot read.
In a MWSF thread someone mentioned Apple coming out with a pro-level AppleWorks (seems unlikely to me) but here's what I think:
For Apple to come out with something that would be on par with Office for Windows would be specfreakingtacular. Even though Office v.X allows us to use Microsoft's file formats, it's features are way behind Office 2003, Outlook's contact management is lightyears ahead of Entourage. (granted 2003's goodies appeal mostly to IT professionals running big networks) Give it Office 2003 compatibility, a comparable feature set, and don't do like Microsoft and require servers and all sorts of server software to use half the goodies like sharepoints and Information Rights Management. IMHO, If Apple could do that, then that would be the software release of the decade.
For Apple to come out with something that would be on par with Office for Windows would be specfreakingtacular. Even though Office v.X allows us to use Microsoft's file formats, it's features are way behind Office 2003, Outlook's contact management is lightyears ahead of Entourage. (granted 2003's goodies appeal mostly to IT professionals running big networks) Give it Office 2003 compatibility, a comparable feature set, and don't do like Microsoft and require servers and all sorts of server software to use half the goodies like sharepoints and Information Rights Management. IMHO, If Apple could do that, then that would be the software release of the decade.
LIQUID COOLING
So am I the only one that thinks we might see liquid cooling in the new PowerMacs?
If Apple goes to .90 process, I'd imagine liquid cooling may be an option... At least trying it in the PowerMacs before the PowerBooks.
So am I the only one that thinks we might see liquid cooling in the new PowerMacs?
If Apple goes to .90 process, I'd imagine liquid cooling may be an option... At least trying it in the PowerMacs before the PowerBooks.
Re: LIQUID COOLING
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but because the .90s are smaller than the existing chips, do they not draw less power and throw off less heat as a result? If so, liquid cooling may not be as necessary, but it would still be really cool (pun intended). And I guess as the processors get faster and faster cooling will become more and more important....
Bring on liquid cooling!
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but because the .90s are smaller than the existing chips, do they not draw less power and throw off less heat as a result? If so, liquid cooling may not be as necessary, but it would still be really cool (pun intended). And I guess as the processors get faster and faster cooling will become more and more important....
Bring on liquid cooling!
Here I go being ignorant again...
Isn't the exciting thing about 90nm 970s that they would be inherently much cooler, thereby reducing the need for some extreme cooling solution?
Don't hurt me, just correct me...
Edit: Oh Look! Shard beat me to it, but another thought, I imagine you'd need some kind of mechanism to circulate the liquid, wouldn't that drain the battery like mad?
Isn't the exciting thing about 90nm 970s that they would be inherently much cooler, thereby reducing the need for some extreme cooling solution?
Don't hurt me, just correct me...
Edit: Oh Look! Shard beat me to it, but another thought, I imagine you'd need some kind of mechanism to circulate the liquid, wouldn't that drain the battery like mad?
That's my understanding, but they become less cool as you go higher in Mhz/Ghz. I was riding on an earlier comment about intels .90 process pushing 140W. I'm not sure how much the G5 @ .90 would push, but if you want silent computing, maybe liquid cooling would help achieve the results without 9 fans and 80 lb heatsinks... Just a guess.
heehee, an 80 lb. heatsink, that would just look funny...
Sorry, too much coffee this morning...
Sorry, too much coffee this morning...
This is very true, because as we all know, word and an emulated (classic) version of premier against a non-emulated one is the best benchmark for a processor....
A64 is a very fast proccessor, but then, why didn't virginia tech use them if thier THAT much faster??
Then add a second processor and you're shooting 160 lbs. Steve will announce it with an iForklift and a crazed look on his face...
- Status