FACT: No one cares how fast Macs are

[jamdr]

There seems to be this idea in the Mac community that PC users perceive Macs to be slow and this is the reason they don't buy them. This isn't true at all in my experience. The only people who care that 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5 is 0.8% slower than the fastest Intel or AMD processors are internet-dwelling computer dorks who really have nothing better to do with their time than argue about crap like this. In the real world, you don't ever see people try a Mac and walk away saying, "Boy, I would get that iMac G5 if it wasn't so darn slow". There is no perceivable performance difference between Macs and PCs so most people don't care about this.

There are a lot of other misconceptions out there that prevent people from getting Macs, but I've NEVER heard a real-life person say that Macs are slow. If this Apple-switching-to-Intel rumor is true, there is more to it than the myth of the "MHz myth".

 

[Mord]

FACT: your wrong.

 

[topicolo]

FACT: it's "you're wrong" or "you are wrong"

 

[BornAgainMac]

Macfacts.com. I love it.

 

[Erendiox]

I think that if people didn't care about the speed of macs, we wouldn't have people going ******* over powerbook G5s and 3.0 powermacs

 

[James Philp]

In my experience the only consumers who care about the bleeding edge are gamers, and people who think that Macs can compete with PCs on a gaming level are plain wrong, for game selection as much as anything else.

Of course professionals (especially video, audio or photo) DO care about the speed of their machines, and this is why the "Pro" line of the PMs are fast.

But true, for everyday consumer tasks, such as web browsing, mail, music, DVD, photo collections every Mac out there does these at a decent rate.

 

[MisterMe]

There seems to be this idea in the Mac community that PC users perceive Macs to be slow and this is the reason they don't buy them. This isn't true at all in my experience. The only people who care that 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5 is 0.8% slower than the fastest Intel or AMD processors are internet-dwelling computer dorks who really have nothing better to do with their time than argue about crap like this. In the real world, you don't ever see people try a Mac and walk away saying, "Boy, I would get that iMac G5 if it wasn't so darn slow". There is no perceivable performance difference between Macs and PCs so most people don't care about this.

There are a lot of other misconceptions out there that prevent people from getting Macs, but I've NEVER heard a real-life person say that Macs are slow. If this Apple-switching-to-Intel rumor is true, there is more to it than the myth of the "MHz myth".

Agreed. There is an old saying: "To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Of the responders to your your thread-starting post, none has any frame of reference other than "speed," whatever that means. To many, it means that one computer has a higher benchmark number than another. To them, I say this: "If you need a benchmark to tell you that your computer is faster than some other computer, then it doesn't matter if your computer is faster or not."

 

[bartelby]

Macfacts.com. I love it.

FACT: That made me laugh!

 

[amin]

Speed matters. When I run a automate a 40-step Photoshop action on folder full of 45MB TIFF files, my Rev A PB goes into a world of its own for a really long time. Sure there are much faster PBs out there now, but I'm waiting for Apple laptops to get nearly as fast as the latest PC laptops before I upgrade. In the meantime, my little PB is fantastic for everything I do except heavy Photoshop.

 

[Nickygoat]

The only people who care are internet-dwelling computer dorks who really have nothing better to do with their time than argue about crap like this

Who is that aimed at?
You might be right in that a lot of people don't need faster computers but we have created a culture of always trying to upgrade to the next best thing, whether we need it or not.

 

[whooleytoo]

If this is true, could any of you G5 users who don't care about speed, kindly swap for my Mac which is a pig? I thank you. FACT!

 

[ewinemiller]

I have to agree that the PC users that I know really don't care about Mac performance. It's not because they consider it on par however, it's because Macs just aren't on their radar. Their PCs do everything they want them to do just fine.

Every one in my family and extended family, except the musician brother-in-law and me, has a PC. Everyone in my day job, except me, has a PC. Not one of them rejected a Mac because performance was slow, they didn't even consider a Mac. The only reason I started looking at Macs is because I write plug-ins for a cross-platform 3D app. I've only met two people physically in the last 10 years who use a Mac just as a personal computer (as opposed to folks who use them because that's what works for their business/job).

To me it seems almost like the difference between gas and electric in a stove. Most folks in the south use electric, it would never occur to them to specifically get their house plumbed for gas unless they really like cooking and even then, you can usually do fine with electric so unless you're hitting some limit, why expend the energy to find out what the other options are?

That's what Apple has to overcome to gain market share, most folks don't even know there is an option.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I am going to stick up for this guys point to a degree. About 75% of the people in entire computer market, will either a) not care or b) will actually think the Mac is faster. I have converted some people to the Mac platform and if they are not, WAY advanced in knowledge, I can let them read the iMac G5 website and when they come away, they will want a G5 processor. They feel that the G "5" is a newer processor then the Pentium "4". At this message board we ALL know that even a Pentium 4 is faster then the G5, but there is a huge part of the buying public that does not. I have always been satisfied with the PowerPC performance, but not everyone feels the same about this.

I will say however, most people who use computers on a day to day basis and not for real heavy duty professional stuff will always come away liking the Mac better. Most will feel the Mac is faster. That is not the same as a place like this where people live on benchmarks. Most here would be happy to see the Dual G5's gone no matter what x86 they would be replaced by, they would be much faster.

Last you have consumers like myself who don't really care about the slight speed difference, we will stay with the Mac. You even have people like my sister who is a professional graphics artist. She will not leave the Mac and is actually VERY impressed with the performance. Of course what did she have before she got her Dual G5? A B&W G3, so why would she not be totally blown away with the performance? I honestly don't feel any of it will have much of an impact on Apple. They can go x86 and have the same exact clock speeds and processors as all the PC's and I really don't think you will see it do much for market share. They need a different path. I am not sure what that is, maybe someone else does?

 

[Xiabelle]

Most of what I hear in criticism is not speed. It's software availability and having to move data over. People are entrenched; they don't like making a switch and having to transfer data, and there's always the niggling feeling you'll lose something. I'm using my Mini most of the time, now, but there's still a program or two I haven't found. Maybe I'll have to get myself virtual PC.

Oh, and this:

To me it seems almost like the difference between gas and electric in a stove. Most folks in the south use electric, it would never occur to them to specifically get their house plumbed for gas unless they really like cooking and even then, you can usually do fine with electric so unless you're hitting some limit, why expend the energy to find out what the other options are?

made me giggle, randomly. Mostly because I live in Texas and would KILL to have a gas range. Oven can stay electric, but man, I miss my first two apartments, which had gas. Most people here have gas for their furnace, and a lot have gas dryers if they can help it. Then again, natural gas is pretty cheap in Texas.

 

[numediaman]

Speed matters.

Nah. It's size.

But concerning the question at hand . . . Apple should always sell the OS -- but be competitive with the hardware. More expensive hardware, plus a CPU that is "perceived" to be slower is a recipe for disaster (read: 5% marketshare).

 

[Artful Dodger]

You can have all the speed from the best Mac/PC but if you can't use the programs very well then it truly doesn't matter...does it.

 

[MontyZ]

I agree, actually. Most people just want something that works and runs the software they need to use for as little money as possible. The number of people obsessed with having the latest, fastest computer on the planet is in the minority. But, we are also the people the majority turns to most before they buy their next computer, so, who knows what the "rub-off" factor may be!

 

[the dr]

There seems to be this idea in the Mac community that PC users perceive Macs to be slow and this is the reason they don't buy them. This isn't true at all in my experience. The only people who care that 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5 is 0.8% slower than the fastest Intel or AMD processors are internet-dwelling computer dorks who really have nothing better to do with their time than argue about crap like this. In the real world, you don't ever see people try a Mac and walk away saying, "Boy, I would get that iMac G5 if it wasn't so darn slow". There is no perceivable performance difference between Macs and PCs so most people don't care about this.

There are a lot of other misconceptions out there that prevent people from getting Macs, but I've NEVER heard a real-life person say that Macs are slow. If this Apple-switching-to-Intel rumor is true, there is more to it than the myth of the "MHz myth".

Gee!! - You're so right!!! Of course speed doesn't matter - I'm going to cancel my iMac G5 order now and use my SE/30 for the rest of my life - after all, the speed is irrelevant.

 

[dhracer88]

The only people who care that 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5 is 0.8% slower than the fastest Intel or AMD processors are internet-dwelling computer dorks who really have nothing better to do with their time than argue about crap like this.

FACT: I think you fall into this category. You are arguing about it now, aren't you?

 

[MOFS]

I am going to stick up for this guys point to a degree. About 75% of the people in entire computer market, will either a) not care or b) will actually think the Mac is faster. I have converted some people to the Mac platform and if they are not, WAY advanced in knowledge, I can let them read the iMac G5 website and when they come away, they will want a G5 processor. They feel that the G "5" is a newer processor then the Pentium "4". At this message board we ALL know that even a Pentium 4 is faster then the G5, but there is a huge part of the buying public that does not. I have always been satisfied with the PowerPC performance, but not everyone feels the same about this.

I will say however, most people who use computers on a day to day basis and not for real heavy duty professional stuff will always come away liking the Mac better. Most will feel the Mac is faster. That is not the same as a place like this where people live on benchmarks. Most here would be happy to see the Dual G5's gone no matter what x86 they would be replaced by, they would be much faster.

Last you have consumers like myself who don't really care about the slight speed difference, we will stay with the Mac. You even have people like my sister who is a professional graphics artist. She will not leave the Mac and is actually VERY impressed with the performance. Of course what did she have before she got her Dual G5? A B&W G3, so why would she not be totally blown away with the performance? I honestly don't feel any of it will have much of an impact on Apple. They can go x86 and have the same exact clock speeds and processors as all the PC's and I really don't think you will see it do much for market share. They need a different path. I am not sure what that is, maybe someone else does?

I agree with your there, but I think you don't far enough. The most important point here is that most people don't care one iota about what PROCESSOR their computer does. Except for some people who blindly cling to the idea that we mustn't use Intel CPUs because they're in bed with the devil. Well too late - we've been there already. IBM-compatible, anyone?

 

[efoto]

Last you have consumers like myself who don't really care about the slight speed difference, we will stay with the Mac. You even have people like my sister who is a professional graphics artist. She will not leave the Mac and is actually VERY impressed with the performance. Of course what did she have before she got her Dual G5? A B&W G3, so why would she not be totally blown away with the performance? I honestly don't feel any of it will have much of an impact on Apple. They can go x86 and have the same exact clock speeds and processors as all the PC's and I really don't think you will see it do much for market share. They need a different path. I am not sure what that is, maybe someone else does?

I don't think switching alone will do much for the market share Apple is attempting to gain, the real + (theoretically) is that not only are they technically getting a slight increase in performance (a big increase in some cases) they are also able to attain and therefore advertise the following:

• Higher Clock Speeds - which uninformed consumers care about
• Longer battery life in portables - due to lower power consumption as stated by Jobs (I think)
• Lower Price - due to a large supplier, hopefully they pass the savings on to the users

and those are probably just to name a few.

 

[plastique45]

FACT: The top PC's are MUCH faster than the 2.7GHz PowerMacs (not 0,8% faster)

FACT: These machines for the pro market. To them, every hour of render they save means $$$ in the bank. Why would they buy a twice as costly, half as fast Mac over a PC?

FACT: Steve Jobs' Pixar cancelled it's switched to OS X 2 years ago and they are still running on Intel, so are MANY companies.

Speed is EVERYTHING. If your mom doesn't care because all she does is check her emails, that's normal. But she's not buying new Powermacs and PowerBooks every year at a rate of 100 units each. The pro market is the core of Apple's hardware business.

 

[Mord]

FACT: The top PC's are MUCH faster than the 2.7GHz PowerMacs (not 0,8% faster)

FACT: These machines for the pro market. To them, every hour of render they save means $$$ in the bank. Why would they buy a twice as costly, half as fast Mac over a PC?

FACT: Steve Jobs' Pixar cancelled it's switched to OS X 2 years ago and they are still running on Intel, so are MANY companies.

Speed is EVERYTHING. If your mom doesn't care because all she does is check her emails, that's normal. But she's not buying new Powermacs and PowerBooks every year at a rate of 100 units each. The pro market is the core of Apple's hardware business.

FACT: you should back up your claims about whats "much faster" with some evidence.

the x86 is no faster at the moment it's the roadmap that apple is signing up to and that must have been pretty special.

 

[Xtremehkr]

Wow.

For some strange reason, I thought Pixar would be using a lot of high end Apple equipment. Maybe there are some limitations I am not familiar with, and the story is about the servers, not the actual computers used. It is a little disappointing though to think that Pixar may not use an all Apple setup.

 

[dhracer88]

FACT: This whole FACT thing is getting out of hand.