G3 = Hammer

[Rockridge]

Any computer that does the job is fine... a G3... or whatever you've got... most of the posts i read on this site sound like they've been written by a bunch of spoiled brats... people who complain about cpu speed and spend most of their time playing with screen savers.

The computer industry has turned many of you into a bunch of insatiable baby's...

And to those of you who think they're tech's... my adive is ... grow up...and get your nose out of Steve Job's butt...

 

[Hemingray]

G3 = Croquet Mallet in Photoshop.

The G3 is all good and fine for some stuff. But sit down and spend a lot of time in Photoshop, for example, and you're going to see the difference between that and a G4. Like rasterizing an EPS.

I agree, some of the people here are whining a bit too much about the phasing out of the G3, but with the development of the G5 having been on the horizon for over half a year, it isn't all without warrant.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rockridge
Any computer that does the job is fine... a G3... or whatever you've got... most of the posts i read on this site sound like they've been written by a bunch of spoiled brats... people who complain about cpu speed and spend most of their time playing with screen savers.

The computer industry has turned many of you into a bunch of insatiable baby's...

And to those of you who think they're tech's... my adive is ... grow up...and get your nose out of Steve Job's butt...

What does someone thinking they're a tech have to do with anything?
Many of us here are actual techs. Full-time, salaried techs. What do you do for a living?

The main reason so many of us are clamoring for a new CPU and the death of the G3 is that we have software that demands a better processor: OS X. It's useable on my G3 450 at work, but it's much more comfortable on my PBG4 400. Once you've used X on a G4 machine, a G3 seems like antiquated technology. And by today's standards it is. The G3 was discontinued in the Pro desktop line in August of '99. The PowerBook line dropped it last January (2001). It is now discontinued in the Consumer desktop line as well, with the new G4 iMac. It is only hanging on in the iBook line, where I agree that it should remain for a while. But moving the iBook up to a G4 is an absolute must for Apple. After all, when the original iBook was released in July of 1999, it debuted at 300 MHz. The PBG3 was only at 333 MHz. The iBook can and should be moved to a 400/450 Mhz G4 in the near future.

 

[Taft]

Huh.

In some part, I agree with this. There are a lot of people who don't need the power that complain too much. However some people (graphics and audio professionals for starters) do need it.

And you get a 1 out of 10 for presentation. Take it down a notch.

Matthew

 

[alex_ant]

Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rockridge
Any computer that does the job is fine... a G3... or whatever you've got... most of the posts i read on this site sound like they've been written by a bunch of spoiled brats... people who complain about cpu speed and spend most of their time playing with screen savers.

The computer industry has turned many of you into a bunch of insatiable baby's...

And to those of you who think they're tech's... my adive is ... grow up...and get your nose out of Steve Job's butt...

I complain about my 550MHz G4's speed regularly. I complain about OS X's speed even more. I plan on doing nothing with computers in my career. I'm not a "tech." I'm a geography major. I try to surf the web with two browser windows open, play an MP3 without it skipping, and compile a simple program in the background and I can't do it on a machine that cost $2300 three months ago. Apparently I am a spoiled brat because I was previously able to do just that on a 3-year-old PC I recently sold, which, at the time I sold it, was worth 1/9 as much as my Powerbook.

However, it should be noted that all the screen savers included with OS X run fine on my machine. I'm glad Apple was thoughtful enough to optimize something in OS X.

Perhaps it would be prudent to reconsider whose nose is embedded in the crack of Steve Jobs' bum. Please piss off, sir or ma'am.

Alex

 

[dualburn001]

Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

The iBook can and should be moved to a 400/450 Mhz G4 in the near future.

i disagree with you rower beacuse for a couple reasons:
1) apple wont make an ibook even with a g4 that has less megahertz then the g3
2) and I don't think theyre going to put the g4 in the ibook until they get the g5 in the powerbook ( yea yea I know it's not gonna happen for a while because of heat issues)

jus my 2 cents

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by dualburn001


i disagree with you rower beacuse for a couple reasons:
1) apple wont make an ibook even with a g4 that has less megahertz then the g3
2) and I don't think theyre going to put the g4 in the ibook until they get the g5 in the powerbook ( yea yea I know it's not gonna happen for a while because of heat issues)

jus my 2 cents

Why wouldn't they intro the iBook at a lower clock speed? That's exactly what they did with the PowerMac G4. The PowerMac G3 was at 450 in 1999, and when the G4 introed it was only at 350. Look at EveryMac.com if you don't believe me.
I think that Altivec outweighs the MHz difference here. And with the G5 nowhere in sight, I think it's the right step.

Let me know what you think. I appreciate the discussion.

 

[dualburn001]

Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Why wouldn't they intro the iBook at a lower clock speed? That's exactly what they did with the PowerMac G4. The PowerMac G3 was at 450 in 1999, and when the G4 introed it was only at 350. Look at EveryMac.com if you don't believe me.
I think that Altivec outweighs the MHz difference here. And with the G5 nowhere in sight, I think it's the right step.

Let me know what you think. I appreciate the discussion.

true but apple would want to wait as long as they can before putting the g4 in the ibook beacuse they still have to keep it light. That's one of it's main advantages, being light and small. But you are kinda right because if they wait to long to put the g4 in and let's say they get the ibook up to a 1ghz g3 they wont be able to have 1 .1 ghz g4 in it.

This might be a good discusion.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by dualburn001



true but apple would want to wait as long as they can before putting the g4 in the ibook beacuse they still have to keep it light. That's one of it's main advantages, being light and small. But you are kinda right because if they wait to long to put the g4 in and let's say they get the ibook up to a 1ghz g3 they wont be able to have 1 .1 ghz g4 in it.

This might be a good discusion.

Here's another thing that might make the move from G3 to G4 easier in the iBoook: the Apollo G4.
With lower energy requirements and lower heat, the new G4 chips are ideal for portables. No need for a fan or large heat-sink. The only thing is, are they making Apollos at all speeds, or just in the newest chips (933, 1 GHz)?

I agree that the portables need to be kept light, but if anyone can find a way, it's Apple.

 

[dualburn001]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Here's another thing that might make the move from G3 to G4 easier in the iBoook: the Apollo G4.
With lower energy requirements and lower heat, the new G4 chips are ideal for portables. No need for a fan or large heat-sink. The only thing is, are they making Apollos at all speeds, or just in the newest chips (933, 1 GHz)?

I agree that the portables need to be kept light, but if anyone can find a way, it's Apple.

do you think they'll make the move to the apollo g4 in the ibook (if they do) in tokyo or do you think it's gonna be in new york or next year?

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by dualburn001


do you think they'll make the move to the apollo g4 in the ibook (if they do) in tokyo or do you think it's gonna be in new york or next year?

I'm torn on this one. They just bumped the introed the 14" iBook in January at 600, the same as the top end before it. Maybe they're prepping it for the G4. I do think that we need to see a speed bump/revision of the PowerBooks too to keep the Pro and Consumer lines separate. Tokyo would be nice, but since Apple has said "No new hardware", I'm more inclined to say New York.

 

[stoid]

Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by dualburn001


i disagree with you rower beacuse for a couple reasons:
1) apple wont make an ibook even with a g4 that has less megahertz then the g3
2) and I don't think theyre going to put the g4 in the ibook until they get the g5 in the powerbook ( yea yea I know it's not gonna happen for a while because of heat issues)

jus my 2 cents

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the G5 architecture allows it to run faster while drawing less power, and therefore creating less heat.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by stoid



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the G5 architecture allows it to run faster while drawing less power, and therefore creating less heat.

Good point. I haven't heard this myself, but it makes sense that the G5 would use the same SOI architechture as the Apollo G4.

Finally, a PowerBook that doesn't roast your nuts while you're using it!

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Good point. I haven't heard this myself, but it makes sense that the G5 would use the same SOI architechture as the Apollo G4.

Finally, a PowerBook that doesn't roast your nuts while you're using it!

That's essentially correct, but only at the same clockspeeds. A 1.6GHz G5 is still going to be hotter than an 800MHz G4. Just not twice as hot.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


That's essentially correct, but only at the same clockspeeds. A 1.6GHz G5 is still going to be hotter than an 800MHz G4. Just not twice as hot.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The 667 in PBG4s is hot enough as it is, I can't imagine them putting anything faster in until heat issues are solved.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rockridge
Any computer that does the job is fine... a G3... or whatever

I hate the fact that this topic still pops up on a regular basis. Rockridge dumps this post and sits back and watches the fallout.

My opinion: It all depends on the job. As a 3d animator, when I can do realtime radiosity, I'll stop looking for the faster computer. I don't see that even happening with a G5.

Regardless whether there ever is a faster model or not, there will always be something driving the need for one.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

ok rockridge clearly hasnt ever used OSX. if we were all still using os9 then he would be right. a lot of people out there dont need more. but osx has changed the landscape. osx has made every existing mac obsolete. running osx on a g3 is unacceptably slow. running osx on a dual ghz g4 helps a little but it is still unacceptable to me and most people i have met.

people arnt complaining because the want bragging rights. they are complaining because they want to resize their browser window without the agonizing jerkiness. there are windows i cant even open in osx because they have too many items. this is ridiculous. and calling people spoiled brats for wanting the newest os to run on machines that are less than a year old just makes yous sound like a moron.

 

[Amadeus]

I believe the main concerns regarding the ibooks revolve around os x...

who would want to buy a laptop that will barely be able to run the os?? not to mention the apps.

granted most ibook consumers are consumer level laptops users-- i.e. e-mail, word processing, iphoto, itunes, and maybe an imovie here or there...

But!

either apple improves the performance of os x on the g3s or the ibooks need a g4 while maintaining the same quality of the current ibookes: long battery life, low heat, and low cost.

don't mean to be negative, but it is apparent that with os x, higher standards must be set for all hardware

I think, therefore, I'm different...

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Amadeus
I believe the main concerns regarding the ibooks revolve around os x...

who would want to buy a laptop that will barely be able to run the os?? not to mention the apps.

granted most ibook consumers are consumer level laptops users-- i.e. e-mail, word processing, iphoto, itunes, and maybe an imovie here or there...

But!

either apple improves the performance of os x on the g3s or the ibooks need a g4 while maintaining the same quality of the current ibookes: long battery life, low heat, and low cost.

don't mean to be negative, but it is apparent that with os x, higher standards must be set for all hardware

I think, therefore, I'm different...

ah finally someone who gets it.

osx has changed everything. if apple wants osx on all its computers it needs to make sure osx can run adequately on all its machines. and as mozart tells us:

either apple improves the performance of os x on the g3s or the ibooks need a g4

 

[DakotaGuy]

I have an iBook 600MHz G3 and I don't understand people when they say that it will not run OSX well. Mine runs it quite snappy. Window resizing is fairly smooth and the dock works well. Apps launch quite fast. I admit that I run only consumer based programs, MS Office, Appleworks, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Mail, IE, etc. I would suppose that some programs that the pros use might lag on the machine, but isn't that the reason they build the TiBook? If the iBook had the same processing power as the TiBook and was priced the same as iBooks are today...who in the hell would fork over the cash for a bigger display? Maybe a few would, but I would imagine it would undermine the sales of the TiBook drastically and hurt Apple profits.

I finally got a chance to play with the new iMac today at the Apple dealer. Very impressive machine to say the least. My buddies were with me, MS fans, and they too were totally impressed. Yes it did feel more responsive then my iBook, but not as much as what I was expecting with all the G4 hype I hear on these message boards. Apps launched just slightly faster...the only real improvements I could see with what I was doing was smoother window resizing and a Quicktime movie would minimize with less distortion and lag...but even with the 800MHz G4 it was still noticable. While working in programs...little difference was noticed. If my iBook ran at 800Mhz like the iMac does...even with the G3 it would hang right in there.

I will not argue the fact that the G4 is better...but to say a 600MHz 750cx will not run OSX is absured to say the least.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

no offense or anything but you either have incredibly low standards or are quite blind.

open a window in your browser and resize it. pretty jerky.

but i dont know why i am even arguing with you. steve himself has said on at least three interviews since january that OSX needs a g4. apple knows and admits this, so stop kidding yourself.

im not saying osx wont run on your machine. you can install and run it on a 200mhz g3 and it will work fine. thats not the point. and the way apps run also isnt what anyone here is talking about. all we are saying is slow is the gui. the finder to be more specific. its slow. its jerky. and its unacceptable.

perhaps you didnt notice too much difference because its still a problem even in the top models. or maybe its just that you didnt do a side by side comparison. i dont know.

if you are happy with it, good. im happy for you. apple is lucky there are people out there who have low standards.

but for the rest of us, we willa dmit there is a problem. you know there is nothing wrong with saying apple has something they need to work on. it wont turn you into a windows user or anything.

most of us use apple products because we ask for more. because we want some thing that works for us not the other way around. because you want a pleasant user experience. we dont settle.

maybe you just feel like we are attacking your machine. we dont mean to hurt your ibook's feelings. they are amazing computers. i reccomend them to people all the time. i think you need to understand though that its got some problems. its not perfect (is anything?).

 

[dantec]

Ambitions lemon I think you are talking about IE. It is made on ancient carbon resizing libraries that are outdated and cause that M$ Windoze resizing effect. Also think of the resoultion. If I turn my Quicksilver into 800x600 I assure you it is faster than 9 in EVERY WAY! Same with my original iBook, it's not so bad, as long as you don't resize windows... Opening word takes 4 bounces... and running iTunes & everything else is running fine! OS X isn't as bad as it is!

Think of Windoze 2000. It runned like **** on the older machines that runned 98, then when people bought new hardware like goats it runned "well" and then over time become what Win 98's speed once was (which is still slower than X any way you look at it). With a little tweaking in a couple area's Apple can make OS X go really fast on my Powermac... Eventually we will all have to buy new hardware, and so by the time Powerbooks & iBooks reach 800mhz they will run snappy (for Powerbooks this is possible by Macworld New York).

 

[dantec]

This is also interesting on M$. M$ has already changed foundation of their OS's (Win 2000 & Win XP both come from NT variants), and now with XP they supposivly have had speed increases.

Look at apple it's almost the same thing... except they had a fast Os to begin with.. Apple bought neXt and Mac OS X came out of that... Now with Mac OS 11 we might be lucky and have "major" speed improvements.

But I hope Apple doesn't use the M$ route described above, I am hoping that these final tweaks in OS X's speed come in at "10.2". How hard is it for Apple to make OS X run fast? My school has 866mhz celerons and they run win 2000 fine (apart from when Internet Explorer messes up), OS X isn't really ready for that job.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

um... dont make assumptions. any browser for osx has problems. i use mozilla it has problems. ive tried icab, chimera, omniweb, opera...

its not the browser its osx.

and its NOT like any other update where old hardware is oblolete. hell current hardware feels obsolete in osx. played with a g4 imac or dual ghz machine yet? i think you should. NOT snappy.

and those new ibooks. soooo much slower (im talking gui not renders or what not) than any of the g4 machines.

im not osx basing or anything. i like osx. i just get annoyed by people who pretend there isnt a MAJOR problem with the speed of the GUI. apple has clearly accepted this. how many times have we heard Steve mention how he put the g4 in the imac for two reasons:
1) dvd burning
2) OSX!!!

whenever there is an update to system yes all old computers are put through their paces and many fail the test. but this time things are different. with osx current machines are struggling to mac osx bareable. so much of osx is built around the velocity engine its silly to pretend it doesnt make a difference.

its no coincidence that apple put a g4 in a comsumer computer the same time their started having osx boot as standard.

osx is faster than os9 in almost everyway except one very very important one... the GUI. its slow, its jerky, its laggy. however you want to say it it adds up to an agonizing experience especially if you just shelled out a few grand for a brand new computer.

instead of telling me how you dont mind the speed in osx, or you have learn to deal with it maybe you should ask yourself if you ever even thought about "dealing" with the speed of windows in os9. this is such a low level system task that it shouldnt be taxing any system. take a look at your cpu monitor as you drag a window around... pretty shocking how much cpu usage goes into that huh?

again like i said before im gald you guys are happy with your machines, but dont pretend that there is no problem. its just sad.

 

[Amadeus]

Great posts, AmbitiousLemon...

I couldn't agree with you more on this one.

The speed of the GUI of X just isn't quite there... it just doesn't feel responsive enough.

The thing that also bugs me is that if you do something like 'automatically hide and show the dock' .... forget it ... when you try to pull up the dock, it will just hang there for a few seconds before the dock appears... that drives me crazy.


Now, let's just all hope we see those GUI speed improvements soon!!!