Tell me about it.Originally posted by Megaquad
This is so sad..
Mac is so much more expensive and PC is so much faster
All we can do is hope for better days.
IMHO if Apple could introduce better macs at lower price they'd do it, right?
that is 3ghz btw, in case you made a "Typo" it is pretty sad that you have to spend 5000 for a top of the line mac and still have it be considerably slower then one that is 1/2 its price.Originally posted by lmalave
Ouch! Looks like the Dell 3MHz is almost twice as fast in a lot of those Photoshop and After Effects benchmarks. On the other hand, that implies that if Apple can bump up the G4 speed to about 1.8 MHz, and maybe even introduce a faster bus, that gap will narrow significantly (maybe the Dual-G4 being only 25% slower than the fastest single Intel CPU at the time). Still, 2003 looks grim for the Apple pro line, at least until they can put IBM 970s in those PowerMacs. Then we'll see about those Photoshop and After Effects benchmarks! I hope IBM and Apple surprise us and come out with 970 PowerMacs earlier than currently projected. Maybe they'll even be announced at MWNY this summer?
Agreed. I work with PCs and Macs all the time, and the former more often than not outperforms the latter in sheer processing speed. Yes, there is indeed a megahertz myth, but the performance gap between PCs and Macs are too wide to ignore. Yes, Macs are generally more stable than PCs, but Windows is not the crash-happy OS Macusers generally deride as. I have no problems with paying for better performance, but Macs are falling way behind the processor race. If Apple expects us to pay a premium for an advanced OS, shouldn't we as consumers expect to pay less for hardware that is generally slower than the competition? This is a fair question.Originally posted by daniel77
that is 3ghz btw, in case you made a "Typo" it is pretty sad that you have to spend 5000 for a top of the line mac and still have it be considerably slower then one that is 1/2 its price.
You can't really compare OSX and OS9 in speed because OSX has preemptive multitasking etc.Originally posted by Dunepilot
Tell me about it.
Having said that, I have my dual-867 on order now, and I'm looking forward to playing with a machine that blows my current one out of the water.
As long as it feels snappier under OS X than this machine does under OS 9 (old 333MHz powerbook) then I'm going to be happy.
It doesn't seem slow at all when you have a Dual/GHz/DDR Mac. It's extremely snappy faster at OSX then any machine I ever ran using OS9. That being my last machine a B/WG3 400. Also I could care less about the interface as long as it is reasonably fast. What's impressive is how well OSX uses both processors in this machine. I rarely see one processor having more load then the other. Also when I'm running multiple programs at once there is no slow down.Originally posted by Megaquad
You can't really compare OSX and OS9 in speed because OSX has preemptive multitasking etc.
I am beginning to think all this OSX slowness is because of PDF-based interface and everything on screen. Could there be a better solution then PDF? Something faster?
OS X just seems too slow, actually, it is insane how slow it is!