Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G5

I don't think the speed 1.6 ghz will not reach til next year....Apple will never speed up their powermac that quick. That is just my thought though..I hope Steve will prove me wrong.

G5 will be next year...but if they release this year...their stock will sky rocket...becoz everyone is waiting for it...:O) that is just my thought...
 
im not power hungry just cuz i want more. im not some idiot who always asks for more. some of you people just dont get it. i was very happy with my 333 mhz until i started using osx. then i started checking out how osx ran on all thew new machines and was pissed off to find that osx drags on any machine.

im not asking for more power for games, or rendering, or filters. i was happy waiting there. but i cant stand an os that drags. some of you are happy with osx performance. but most people arent. i found it ridiculous that people are talking about window load times and window resizing issues. is this a joke. these sort of system level tasks should not tax any cpu in the lineup.

this is why we all suddenly are begging for more power. we couldnt care less what intel and amd is doing, o sure it would be nice to have some bragging rights, but really all we want is a responsive osx.

play some in os9. thats how quickly things should load. um instantly. thats what we are used to, and we arent asking too much to have that back. the only reason i really use os9 is because its fast.

and why do i use a mac? not because i "think different" although im fond of the phrase. not because im a rebel and have to be different or i have some weird affinity for apples. no, i use mac because i always shop around and i expect more. i expect perfection. at work i deliver nothing short of perfection, and i work to exhaustion until i get it. i use apple because its the best plain and simple. i call myself a machead, but if windows delivered a better system even with their anti competitive attitudes id switch in a second. but apple is the best. bu that doesnt mean i dont expect more. there is nothing wrong with someone wanting their machine to work properly and not to have to wait for low level system tasks.
 
Couldn't agree more, ambitiouslemon.

If only OS X (or Aqua/Quartz) could be stripped back to 9-like simplicity (but leaving Darwin in tact, of course!). Zip!

If we could do that then I wouldn't be (as) concerned about the state of apple's motherboards.

Then, when the hardware can finally take it, we can just add-in as many bells and whistles as we want... Too much to ask?
 
OSX and performance

I think that Lemon is correct.

I dont think that of always demanding the best, although that is a right, in a capitalistic monetary system.

I think that the current systems are poor in their performance at the OS functions. Which i find strange because Unix has a rep for speed but obviously the OSX shell has many graphic demands on the system. Which only increases the need for superior hardware.

The hardware changes MUST come soon, everyone knows it!
Of course Jobs is doing the best he can, but our griping and demands are important to feuling the fire of these changes.
We all love Mac's but that doesnt mean that we need to accept the current line! Not at all, in fact we demand that the systems function at the highest levels cinsidering currently available hardware specs. Apple knows this also, thats why they are trying to get all the Motherboard and cpu changes out!

It doesnt matter that the average consumer uses his computer to listen to music, play a few games and write a little, and that the current models should be fine for him.
Thats ridicluous! There are iMacs for those people.
Mac's are for professionals also and those units must function at the highest possible configurations.
There is never enough speed for rendering and other graphic needs, etc.

This isnt about average users, or the kid that wants his mp3's on an iPod. We need to make our demands known loud and clear and make our feeling known in the only way that finally matters, with cash flow. If you feel that mac is good as it is, then buy now.
If it isnt enough for you, hold out and wait!
Apple will feel the squeeze and will force the issue with Moto.
Till the G5's come out or something equal, anything that will increase the performance ratio for OSX.
 
Exactly. Why did Apple have to put one of its fastest chips into its consumer model (which coincided with OS X as default)? Can't convert people to the platform if even window resizing is jerky!
 
The answer is obvious.

Apple put the g4 into the consumer model imacs because with
OSX loading as default the unit needs all the power that it can get to make the OS function properly.

No, people will not move to an OS that works in a jerky manner.
Perhaps most people would not notice, but those that do will tell others their negative evaluations. Also Unit reviews which consumers read, will also state the obvious.

In this age of high computer speed and cheap ram, a slow OS based on Unix is NOT acceptable. And it wouldnt exist if not for the hardware issues, etc. That Apple is frenzied to fix.
 
Re: The answer is obvious.

Originally posted by Grokgod

In this age of high computer speed and cheap ram, a slow OS based on Unix is NOT acceptable. And it wouldnt exist if not for the hardware issues, etc. That Apple is frenzied to fix.

so you'd rather an OS based on uh.... NT? ;)

seriously dunepilot has it right - look folks teh IDF is on at the moment - Intel are demoing a 4Ghz p4 with hyperthreading due for next year and a 3ghz for later this year. Meanwhile AMD are demoing their 64bit 'hammer'.....and we are thankful for a mere 150odd mhz jump?? looks like the g5 will be late to market after all.....
 
Okay, I'm getting thoroughly sick of this......

Stop whining.

Is it so hard to wait? Does Apple have to have a new shiney for you every 2 weeks? Do any of you KNOW that Apple WON'T do something impressive this summer?

Reality check:

AMD's Hammer and Intel's 4Ghz chip won't be in any machine selling for less than $10,000.00 and those are most likely to be custom built Pro-E workstations and the like where the software and CPU together run 20 grand+!!!!!!! If you're gonna get your knickers in a twist about what chip makers are turning out for their high end workstations look at IBM NOT Apple.


Apple is (no matter how many pro's use them) a GENERALIST company. They are walking a fine line between consumers and Pros. They are competing with more companies than any of us can name in both of those fields. For Apple to have even a 3% marketshare is incredible considering the only other 2 companies that tried this path (Atari and Amiga) are long deceased.

Please keep context in mind regarding the likelihood of actually seeing a Gateway Nog-Box with a 4 Ghz processor. Just what do you think the marketshare is for a 4Ghz workstation? Maybe one pro in fifty?

All of those high end workstations are typically built for 1 specific program or other and have enough mods to the OS as to preclude the use of other software. I have watched my brother wrestle with this for 5 years. Every year a new $10-Grand whiz-bang PC that only runs Pro-E (another $10-Grand) and perhaps 3 other Apps.

Not to mention the main advantages here: Tech support takes about 2% as much arcane knowledge and less than half the time. 99% of the hardware you buy that says it's Mac compatible actually IS on the first try.

So please, if you have a hard time waiting, fine but please have a little more patience and faith.

When I was small I lived in an isolated community that was only accessable by plane or car-Ferry. This taught me patience as getting anywhere required WAITING. There was a schedule and everybody knew the schedule. You get up and go to the terminal and WAIT for the next Ferry as inevitably you almost never get there when one's just coming in. Apple has a schedule:Every 3 months, give or take a week they release a new toy. Get used to waiting, learn the schedule and calm down.
 
DDR RAM is not possible with the current G4 chips, it's not apple's fault

If you read the specs on the motorola site you'll see that the G4, even the latest Apollo chip only has a 133Mhz FSB (front side bus), the fsb determines the type of RAM the CPU can use, DDR is 266Mhz so it won't work (please someone who understands this better, correct me if I'm wrong).

now when you concider that the largest cache on the G4 chips hasn't gone any higher than 250Mhz ever (the 533Mhz G4 is an exception but lets ignore that, it was mid range not high end). DDR ram could be used instead of the optional L3 cache, it'd save apple production costs for not having to add the extra cost of the cache and we'd all be happy.

look at the largest cache on the high end G4s since the G4's introduction:

500Mhz G4, 1Mb Cache at 250Mhz (2:1 ratio)
733Mhz G4, 1Mb Cache at 244Mhz (3:1 ratio)
1Ghz G4, 2Mb Cache at 250Mhz (4:1 ratio)

If apple get rid of the Level 3 cache and motorola increase the Level 2 cache to 512K and add 266Mhz DDR ram support, the G4s will scream compared to current models even if the clock speeds only increase to a maximum of 1.2Ghz on the high end and 1Ghz on the entry level by summer.

Just look how lame a G4 without the 2Mb cache compares to one with the cache and you'll see how the larger cache is just as much of a bottleneck as the slow memory. I use my mac for audio and unless I can get a good deal on the mid range mac near the end of the year, I'm gonna have to look at what End Of Life deals are around at the time and try and get the current 933Mhz model just so I know it performs well enough for my needs while remaining cheap enough for me to afford one.
 
OS based on NT??

Never said or want anything NT, XP, WIN or M$$$.

I love Unix! even this rendition of it.

What I said was a SLOW unix based OS.

Unix has always been speedy, it cant help but look bizarre and be preplexing to have a Unix system with a speed problem. Yes, I know it has the Aqua interface ontop and it, and slows because of it.

I dont think that patience is the issue hear, not at all.
Its the fact as PANTS has said, what is the competition doing?
Apple is putting millions or billions into design, stores, and god knows what. It needs a return on that money.

5 percent isnt the goal that Apple is looking for!
As Jobs stated "95% to go."

What is it going to take to get that percent moved over to what is an obviously better machine, os and company?

Jobs has many of the ingrediants for this pie of success ready.

The last ingrediant is the "Need for Speed!" that comes with state of the art hardware. That is recognized by the masses with the proper numbers and the obvious speed that it will bring to OSX.

Which will once and for all trump Micro$ and Inte*.

This is Jobs final goal and its almost here!
SOOo frustrating...
 
mischief: i think you missed our point here. we arent looking at amd and intel as reasons to increase speed. i think we would all love to see those snail with the pentium on its back again but these are mere bragging rights which can wait (although eventually it must be addressed).

all we really want is to be able to run the operating system apple has given us.

its really that simple.

apple's software has gotten too far ahead of its hardware and thats why people are all of a sudden screaming for more speed.

yes dv peeps can always use more, but if you look around everybody is asking for more.

its for one simple reason. osx does not run properly on ANY machine currently on the market.

many people will be satisfied with osx performance but most will not. like someone said previously, why did apple put the g4 in the imac after so many years. it is just a pro chip. they did it because they couldnt sell osx to consumers with the g3 in the imac. it was just too slow. apple admits this. steve has been quoted many times saying how they put the g4 in the imac for two reasons osx needs it and dvdr needs it.

apple is currenlt doing the best they can with what hardware they have available to them. putting pro chips in consumer models and such. but even with such extreme measures osx isnt up to speed.

also consider the fact that although we call osx version 10, it is more like version 1 of something completely new. and as a version 1, the complexity and need for speed will only increase as more and more features are added.

when thinking about this one begins to realize that osx can not evolve as long as the current hardware is belabored running what is already there.

for all of you who have not tried out osx on a new powermac i sincerely tell you that you need to get your hands on one. its easy when running osx on an old machine to think to yourself that your machine is just old and thats why osx is running poorly. but as soon as you play with osx on a dual ghz machine you will notice that window resizing is still jerky, opening windows still calls up a beach ball. opening windows with 50+ items still takes a long time. pull down menus in the menubar still do not appear instantly.

all the things i mentioned are low level system tasks. when you call up memory usage you will find that things such as the window server is eating up a considerable chunck of ram. more than some apps. basically your cpu is working hard at every task in osx. whether it be running a photoshop filter or opening a window. and this is not good. it is bad for the life of the hardware and it is trying on the patience of the user.

if someone's first exposure to mac os, is jerky window resizing and two second load times for windows to open i seriously doubt that person is going to jump on board.

this is why we want more speed, for our own personal interests in wanting our operating system to run at decent speeds, and so that when we show off our machines to our peecee friends we will impress them, not bore them with window launch wait times.
 
faster machines

I tried a PC running xp in a store the other day.......(gasp!)
I am not going to buy one, it was a horrible experience all except for one thing (I think it was a Sony):
It was bloody quick! The windows opened - bang - no delay at all.
IE - instant on - it was so fast it was scary.
Now if X was that fast - it would be unbeatable.

But X is sluggish - I have tweaked it and fiddled and f****d about with it, maxed out the ram, faster drives, blah, blah, blah, but its still sluggish.

Thats why Lemon is complaining - and he's right.

We need and want faster architecture and chips - NOW.

Who cares what Apple use? They dont make chips, they buy 'em - so buy 'em from whoever and make it work .
Bus speed must be way faster, chip speed faster, and ram faster.
Also, faster drives will help.

Screw bloody altivec - it isnt cutting the mustard.

Give us some speed, Steve!
 
Re: DDR RAM is not possible with the current G4 chips, it's not apple's fault

Originally posted by barkmonster
If you read the specs on the motorola site you'll see that the G4, even the latest Apollo chip only has a 133Mhz FSB (front side bus), the fsb determines the type of RAM the CPU can use, DDR is 266Mhz so it won't work (please someone who understands this better, correct me if I'm wrong).

now when you concider that the largest cache on the G4 chips hasn't gone any higher than 250Mhz ever (the 533Mhz G4 is an exception but lets ignore that, it was mid range not high end). DDR ram could be used instead of the optional L3 cache, it'd save apple production costs for not having to add the extra cost of the cache and we'd all be happy.

look at the largest cache on the high end G4s since the G4's introduction:

500Mhz G4, 1Mb Cache at 250Mhz (2:1 ratio)
733Mhz G4, 1Mb Cache at 244Mhz (3:1 ratio)
1Ghz G4, 2Mb Cache at 250Mhz (4:1 ratio)

If apple get rid of the Level 3 cache and motorola increase the Level 2 cache to 512K and add 266Mhz DDR ram support, the G4s will scream compared to current models even if the clock speeds only increase to a maximum of 1.2Ghz on the high end and 1Ghz on the entry level by summer.

Just look how lame a G4 without the 2Mb cache compares to one with the cache and you'll see how the larger cache is just as much of a bottleneck as the slow memory. I use my mac for audio and unless I can get a good deal on the mid range mac near the end of the year, I'm gonna have to look at what End Of Life deals are around at the time and try and get the current 933Mhz model just so I know it performs well enough for my needs while remaining cheap enough for me to afford one.

The new G4 has DDR L3 cache, so it's actually like this:
L2 cache: 256k 1:1 (1GHz)
L3 cache: 2MB 1:2 (250MHz x 2)
 
I agree!

I totally agree with Lemon and elruga!

Thats a good point about it actually being version one of osx
and future version will need even more hardware strengths.

I believe that OSX is the future of computing.
Also that the Micro$ machines have run their course!
I really believe that!

Xp is a totally irritating and buggy. Not to mention that it is invasive to our lives and controling! Ever try to activate XP without being called a thief! It lacks any finess or style.
The fact that Xp is the most widely used and supposed best that the human race can achieve in the field of operating systems for the planet is incredible pathetic.

I have an XP box for work and to be compatible with the majority of the universities that i work for. WHne I boot it , i wince!
Yet there is NO doubt that it is fast, if you dont add X times the numer of reboots and the time to clean the screen after spitting at it.


Osx must destroy this lame beast and put it out of its misery!

Hey , I think I got a good rant going! that was fun.

Give us speed, Jobs!
 
intresting. i havent had any slow resizing windows issues with osx or slow launching apps issues etc. etc. ive seen the beachball at times but not much.
the other day i was using illustrator 10, photoshop 6, dreameaver and itunes in classic mode and i was switching back and forth with them on the fly. no slowing down. im serious. i mean i was using filters and etc. in photoshop and i was impressed with the speed. maybe im tripping or something but i havent had any trouble. however i hear you all,those that need more speed, ....for this is the nature of the computer world.
 
krossfyter:

Are you saying that you don't notice ANY difference in the overall "snappiness" of the System when you switch from OS 9 (native) to OS X? If that's true, I want the machine you're running!

So far, my experience has been a little like when I installed System 7.5 on my LC II! It "worked" fine. But was sluggish (compared to System 6) opening and closing windows, arranging long file lists in views, launching apps, etc. Same thing when I put OS 8.6 on a Performa 5200. No actual problems, just that dragged-down feeling... of the software being more sophisticated than the hardware running it.

OK, I'm talking about a Pismo 500 512MB, which I know is a bit old fashioned... HOLD ON, that was the top of the line Pro portable 15 months ago!

I'm used to built-in obsolescence -- bane of capitalist existence -- but this is a bit ridiculous... since some people here are saying that their machines in effect ARRIVED obsolete.

But I'm interested to hear that you have enough power not to notice. I believe you, and that cheers me up! There's hope.
 
Speaking of missed points.

Yes, all these things need to happen but they won't happen tomorrow or next week. They will happen at MWNY at the earliest. Apple is well aware of their HW shortcomings. Scully/Gil put Apple behind schedule by at least five years. SJ has to catch up with the original plan AND try to repair the dammage Apple incurred under such business-school twits.

I cannot stress this enough: THE MARKET SUCKS RIGHT NOW.

Asking Apple to accelerate when their sales base is busy making rent and their suppliers are dropping like flys is REALLY OBNOXIOUS and very unfair.

Apple will have a 333Mhz DDR mobo with ATA100 soon enough and it will have a G5 on it. Go back to your novel.

BTW:I have found that when you keep it healthy OS X.1.3 is no slower than OS 9.2.1 on either a G4 400 AGP, G4 DP 533 or G4 DP 800. Many of my apps are actually faster. My only complaint so far is the shoddy 3rd party software.

I use OS X every day for CAD, Photoshop, managing a LAN, DSL, iTunes, etc. I usually run all these things at once. The only thing that's slow about X is APP launching and that, I think is all about security: Think about it. XP is basically core-open, when an App launches it doesn't matter what or where it is---it launches. In OS X I think it's slow init is due to a system level version of what Norton used to drive us nuts with. The ease of multitasking and stability are well worth slow init of apps.

We must also remember that Apple has stated that 1:there will be no new CPUs for at least a couple months and 2: that iMac is the FIRST Mac designed specifically for X. This means ALL the other CPUs will rev in the next year to "X native" architecture.

Just settle on what you want,we'll make a list and SPAM Apple with it if you want. But most of all-cool it. Apple isn't gonna go back to 9 just because some of you feel screwed.
 
c'mon

Why whine about g5? Why not the next gen architecture beyond RISC? Alot of you complaining. Just remember Jobs and NextSTEP and try to see why hardware is taking some time to develop. g4, g5, piii, piv, what's the problem. What we need is beyond the Gen chips. I'm telling ya, RISC was a step in the right direction, but lets think beyond. Besides, its not all up to Jobs anyway.
 
just want to say.....

Today I used Office X for the first time in a "got to get this thing done NOW" work situation.
we had about 2 hours to fix up a small biz plan with excel charts embedded etc.etc.
Originally we had done this thing in OS 9, and then did the last 2 or 3 drafts in OS X.
well it wasnt pretty. Running a 450 G4 with 512 ram and some fast drives it was very sluggish, esp. when changing things in the excel stuff.
Then the bloody thing crashed (the word app). Before the crash, it had been getting slower and slower.... so force quit and off again.
Yes, I know that the system didnt crash. Its kind of like the car that never crashes because it never leaves the driveway.

OS X is too damn slow, and that is a priority and I dont care what anyone thinks - ITS A PRIORITY - get this thing moving.

We got the job done, of course. And yes, I think M$ are wankers, and maybe it was partly Office X to blame.

You just wouldnt believe the spinning beach ball when I changed text in an excel chart - ridiculous. And no beach in sight......

I may go back to OS 9 for a while - groan.
But its been about 6 weeks on OS X and I am kind of committed to X, (changed things over, email programs etc. some new software, about 30 hours of messing with it to make it better, fruitmenu, compress windows, and all that stuff)

So if I am committed to X, like so many of us are, is it ok to ask that Apple put some serious resources into making it more useable in real-world situations - like I had today?

As for whining - I dont do it. This is called telling it like it is.

SPEED UP THE F****** OS, APPLE - ASAP!
 
Why the G5 is taking long.....

The main reasons for the G-5's delay are several but key.

1) during the huge layoffs the last 2 quarters at Motorola have reduced their research and production & testing staff to minimal. A lot of their OEM chip customers have left, some new ones climbed on board after Apple took this major opportunity to head up the research & design of Motorolas G-5 chip, of which I think they're now about 60% in control of the decision making process.

2) because of the nature of the copyright laws and contract between Motorola, IBM, and Apple binds them and divides them much like the Fellowship of the Ring; what i mean is that IBM is forbidden to research the G-4's Altivec technology and to sell a chip based on that technology as its own by Motorola. (remember Motorola's Execs are still pissed--cash convertible options weren't much an option 4 years ago-when Apple had delayed and revamped the Mhz line of the original PowerMac G4 and blamed openly Motorola). Thats why IBM has made huge advancements with the G3 chip!!! Although the Altivec technology was a joint interest between Apple and Motorola the later fully owns all rights to it. bummer!

3) Remember although mostly a server for corporate users and a PC product company IBM could make their own version of the G5 but Motorola has the experience of Dual, Quad processors able to fully communicate and shift processess to and from one another natively without the software being written for it (remember the dual G3 at 233/266mhz way back in the day??!!!). This is what Apple is secretly loving about Motorola openning up more sales to corporate customers of lately that genetics company they just recently co-written software for the Mac OS X for them to use on Dual G4 PowerMacs.

4) Because of the renewed contract between them Apples is still binded and under Motorolas multi-vector processing lure in their chips, also doesn't IBM have yet to announce a success in a fully capable 64-bit chip?? Not sure there, but the G5 is supposed to, and capable of 256-bit processing with 32-bit processing capability (for older Mac OS') Think how much IBM would stand to gain if this work was passed onto them, and how much more competitive the PC world would be if AMD or gods below allowing Intel or ARM to get a hold of that holy grail??

5) Apple is smart their not gonna just release a horrible G5 with performance only 33% better than a Dual G4 running at 800Mhz or with only 25% better than a Dual G4 running at 1 Ghz! That like Palm releasing the M515 with slightly brighter screen and 8 more Mb or standard RAM with the same processor; in the Palms case is completely stupid and as customers the $200 extra cost of the m515 we should be getting imbedded Bluetooth. Well Apple isn't playing a game here folks; The 500Mhz G4 Sawtooth board wasnt a significant increase over the 500Mhz G4 before it only the 4x AGP slot helped it sell so a DDR board on a Dual G4 1Ghz is going to outsell the non DDR board Dual 1 Ghz G4 ==== can you say hurting overstock, rock bottom prices stock price drop!!

I think when Apple does release the G5 it may be at 1.5Ghz or even 1.9Ghz with DDR-RAM and maybe that fangled bus speed technology headed by AMD--forgot what its called. Also maybe a faster AGP bus (6x or 8x???)?????!!


Lastly the main selling point for this Dual G4 is that performance gain is significant over the 867mhz G4 and the going price of SDRAM is extremely cheap even by Canadian dollar prices!!!! Try getting a Dual G4 with 1 GB or SDRAM today compared to early summer last year!?!? Today you'd most surely save yourself $400 US with offers from Apple and about $550 US aftermarket compared to early last summer.
 
First of all...

...there are NO 128 or 256 bit processors. The G4 is 32 bit with 128 bit Altivec, Hammer is 32/64 bit, Itanium is 64 bit, Power4 is 64 bit (I think), MAJC is 64 bit, Crusoe is 32 bit (I think), G5 will be either 32 or 32/64 with 128 bit Altivec (unless it's an IBM chip), P4 is 32 bit, AthlonXP is 32 bit, etc...

Everyone seems to think that because Altivec can handle 4 32 bit chunks at once (128 bit), the G4 is 128 bit. The reason the Sawtooth board wasn't much faster was that it was the same processor. If the rumors about the G5's bus speed are correct then a 1.9 GHz G5 is not possible. Processor speed is a multiple of bus speed, and no company I've ever heard of uses anything but whole number or .5 multipliers (the 1GHz [actually 997.5MHz] G4 is a 7.5x multiplier on a 133MHz bus, the G5 will hopefully be released as 3x, 3.5x, and 4x on a 500MHz RapidIO bus for 1.5, 1.75, and 2GHz [assuming the bus rumors are right]. It might just be 2.5, 3, and 3.5 for 1.25GHz, 1.5GHz, and 1.75GHz, or they could use some really wierd multiplier and prove me wrong.) The original Yikes G4 was a G4 tacked onto a G3 mobo, Sawtooth was what the G4 was supposed to be. Also, what are these dual G3s you're talking about? Last I heard the G3 didn't support SMP.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.