IBM and Motorola Diverging

[Rower_CPU]

alex-

Good points.
At least we come to consensus on one point, the ease of use of the GUI.

As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...

If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!

As for your <1800 machine, not bad...but he claimed under 1000.
I'm still waiting.

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
alex-

Good points.
At least we come to consensus on one point, the ease of use of the GUI.

As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...

If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!

As for your <1800 machine, not bad...but he claimed under 1000.
I'm still waiting.

I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Scottgfx
To: gjohns01

Ahh, I forgot to mention. I built a system from scratch. The Tyan Tiger was a dual ATHLON. 1.2Ghz Athlon MPs were a bit expensive at the time but faster than your PIII. The system has 512MB of the proper ECC DDR RAM that the MB REQUIRES. At the time that I bought the parts, the MB was $380. I'm sure it's cheaper now. And I know how to use PriceWatch, thank you.

I also put in in a nice $300 case, Enermax 400W power supply, Radeon 8500, Soundblaster Audigy. Your right, I am a moron. It's still not a mac!

And put down that micropolis, it's heavy and you'll hurt yourself.

Yep. Dual Athlons are nice, but I already had a stockpile of PC100/133 DIMMS. No need to throw them out. In any case, are you sitting around playing with your digital hub? or are you trying to make a living? No old Mac or new one will provide a return on my investment. So I'll deal with Windows 2000, Solaris, and AIX until Apple can get it s**t together. Until that happens you can sit on that micropolis and spin.

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by gjohns01


I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

oh and i can do that for under a $1000.

 

[gjohns01]

The Last Word

This is my last word. At the end of the day, if you can use your Mac or PC for the purpose you purchased it for it's a good thing. If it's word processing, graphic design, video production, software development, running your business, playing games, or whatever the choice of what system you end up working on usually fits the following criteria:

- It has all the hardware you need
- It has all the software you need or it's readily available
- You're comfortable with the system (GUI and/or OS)
- It serves more than one function (home use/school use/work use)
- You don't have to mortgage your house to buy it.

That's obviously overly simplified. But depending on the person, you may pick a mac or you may pick a pc. The problem is that at this point in time, the Mac has limited use for some people. Sure you can use it at home. Sure you can use it at school (depending on where you go). Sure I can use it for some work related functions. But you know what?! I can't use it for every work related function because my company doesn't support it. There's no VPN software that works with my companies firewall. There's no Outlook client. There's no MS Access. Oh I need to run Websphere on my development machine but I can't. etc etc. I don't see the Mac as the greatest machine with the best architected cpu, the best looking case, and the price premium as a compelling argument anymore. I wish them all the luck in the world, but they haven't fulfilled my needs for a very long time.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gjohns01
I'm sure I can put together a single processor AMD system that will clean a dual G4's clock on pretty much any test you want to offer up. It's the sad truth buddy. They picked the wrong chip partners and haven't moved their motherboard to new technology.

Once again, prove it. Show me the parts and prices and I'll offer a fair comparison. I'm pretty sure I could grow wings if I really tried, but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not in denial about the fact that Moto is way behind in terms of clock speed and memory bandwidth. But they still are great performers.

And, again, the OS is a crucial factor in the equation...

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by gjohns01


Yep. Dual Athlons are nice, but I already had a stockpile of PC100/133 DIMMS. No need to throw them out. In any case, are you sitting around playing with your digital hub? or are you trying to make a living? No old Mac or new one will provide a return on my investment. So I'll deal with Windows 2000, Solaris, and AIX until Apple can get it s**t together. Until that happens you can sit on that micropolis and spin.

Re: Micropolis
Not untill you're done using it as the parking brake for you're car. :O

I do design work (Print and Video) for a TV station and 8 radio stations. I have 5 mac systems that I admin and use on a daily basis. We crank out tons of work on these things. Yes, I get paid to play.

ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Scottgfx
ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was going to address it...but something came up...

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Scottgfx


Re: Micropolis
Not untill you're done using it as the parking brake for you're car. :O

I do design work (Print and Video) for a TV station and 8 radio stations. I have 5 mac systems that I admin and use on a daily basis. We crank out tons of work on these things. Yes, I get paid to play.

ROI? I've been very impressed with the RIO on my mac systems. I had a two year old G3-450 system that gave back 1/3 of it's original price when I sold it last year. Show me a PC system that will hold it's value like that. I can't even find buyers for the two athlon systems I've built.

You proved my point. You're a designer. So what. I'm not a designer and neither is the majority of the population.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gjohns01
You proved my point. You're a designer. So what. I'm not a designer and neither is the majority of the population.

The majority of the population just uses email and surfs the web and knows jack**** about computers, too. I thought we were discussing usefull machines here.

Design work is a good barometer of system performance, since it requires more from the hardware and OS than the quotidian tasks aforementioned.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issues we bring up? No answers?

My count is two, so far:
1) sub $1000 server
2) ROI

Waiting for a third...?

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Once again, prove it. Show me the parts and prices and I'll offer a fair comparison. I'm pretty sure I could grow wings if I really tried, but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not in denial about the fact that Moto is way behind in terms of clock speed and memory bandwidth. But they still are great performers.

And, again, the OS is a crucial factor in the equation...

Do I really need to prove it? alex_ant already configured a machine for you. And that was with SCSI and dual cpus. Subtract the price of the SCSI drives, the Ultra160 controller, and the second NIC card drops you to $860. Add a 80GB Ultra ATA HD for $87 and you reach $940. Single processor will drop the price below $900. Add a Geforce card and it's still below $1000. Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS? Stop smoking.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As for heavy loads, I'm not sure what your qualifications are. Please elaborate so that I can understand better. To me, it doesn't get heavier than streaming video...

Are you talking about the server doing on-the-fly video decompression? Streaming video puts strain on the disk subsystem and not much else. Disk I/O is one of the Mac's big weaknesses (on the server). The Mac can't saturate an Ultra160 bus, and HFS+ and UFS (whichever you decide to use) are very bad, not only in terms of performance but in terms of features. On an x86 server you have the option of using Linux, and if you choose Linux you can go with XFS, which simply rocks at the kind of streaming you speak of. Dynamic web hosting is a good example of a "well-rounded" task that stresses every aspect of a server. The Mac will fall behind here. It's got all the right software, but it's simply not as fast as the competition, and that includes the competition at just about any price point. Again I'm not saying the Mac sucks, I'm just saying that it doesn't currently make as good a server as the competition in terms of performance.

If you're looking at enterprise servers, sure the PowerMac doesn't match up...but how much do they cost? For an off-the-shelf system, they are amazing!

No more amazing than an off-the-shelf Dell, or Compaq, really. The only advantage a Power Mac server has over an x86 server is that it's much easier to administer. And that's a valid selling point for the niche Apple sells to. So, like I said, I can see a niche market for the Mac server, but it is nothing more than a niche.

Alex

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


The majority of the population just uses email and surfs the web and knows jack**** about computers, too. I thought we were discussing usefull machines here.

Design work is a good barometer of system performance, since it requires more from the hardware and OS than the quotidian tasks aforementioned.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issues we bring up? No answers?

My count is two, so far:
1) sub $1000 server
2) ROI

Waiting for a third...?

LOL. What issues? You haven't said anything but make the point that you can stream video and use photoshop on your Mac. How does design work make a good barometer of system performance if that's not what you use it for? That's like saying you drive a dump truck, but it's good for grocery shopping too. Get real.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gjohns01
Do I really need to prove it? alex_ant already configured a machine for you. And that was with SCSI and dual cpus. Subtract the price of the SCSI drives, the Ultra160 controller, and the second NIC card drops you to $860. Add a 80GB Ultra ATA HD for $87 and you reach $940. Single processor will drop the price below $900. Add a Geforce card and it's still below $1000. Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS? Stop smoking.

OK, I see how it is. Make a claim and let someone else prove your point for you...interesting strategy.

You're telling me the time it takes for a qualified tech to setup and maintain on of those other OSes makes OS X worse? Can you say CodeRed?

You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...

Maybe you should start smoking. Might loosten you up some...

 

[alex_ant]

Although I will admit that it is very possible to build an x86 server that costs 1/3 as much as the best Power Mac server, I think there's one issue that hasn't been brought up yet - Reliability and support. If that x86 server crashes on me at 4pm Friday afternoon, I basically have no option but to stay late and fix it myself, or have another employee do it - and hope I have the right parts on hand to do the job. There's no peace of mind and no guarantee that the thing isn't going to start behaving weirdly in exactly 34.26 hours, as x86 machines are so prone to doing. I would NEVER use a self-built x86 server ANYWHERE I needed something even remotely reliable - not even if I had a professional computer wank on-hand 24 hours a day. There is a big advantage to buying the whole computer from a reputable company (and that doesn't just include Apple). It all boils down to how much your time, and your employees'/clients'/users' time, is worth.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...

Actually if it matters, I'd be willing to settle for less than $3000.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gjohns01
LOL. What issues? You haven't said anything but make the point that you can stream video and use photoshop on your Mac. How does design work make a good barometer of system performance if that's not what you use it for? That's like saying you drive a dump truck, but it's good for grocery shopping too. Get real.

Have you used Photoshop?
No, I mean have you really used it?

Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.

How does a Quake3 benchmark indicate performance to me if I'm not a gamer? Any program can be dismissed as arbitrary if you really want to.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?

PS. ROI?

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by gjohns01
Is the OS really worth a $1400-$1800 premium? You're telling me that OS X's ease of use/feature set over Windows 2000/XP, Linux, BSD is worth that much money? You're telling me that the time it takes to sit down with an OS for a few days, pick up a "Name your OS for Dummies" book, or use some common sense makes OS X a better OS?

I think for some people it does. I can imagine that a small business or school that can't afford to hire an IT guy would be interested in an OS - like OS X Server - that takes very little technical knowledge to administer. For some people, being asked to pick up and study a "For Dummies" book is like being asked to pick up a "Paris During the Haussmann Infrastructural Revolution of 1852-1870" book. Not all people are zit-faced nerds who live in their parents' basement and whose idea of a good Friday night is setting up PostgreSQL on an old RS/6000 they got off eBay. In fact most people aren't... most people don't even care about computers... most people truly despise even the thought of setting up a server. So for them, a Mac server could be worth it. They will save time and energy at the cost of their computer's performance, although I don't see why that has to be a bad thing.

Alex

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Have you used Photoshop?
No, I mean have you really used it?

Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.

How does a Quake3 benchmark indicate performance to me if I'm not a gamer? Any program can be dismissed as arbitrary if you really want to.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?

PS. ROI?

Yes I've used Photoshop. I used to use version 4 daily. I know exactly what it's capable of. I don't play Quake 3. I'm not dismissing Photoshop as a benchmark, just not a relevant one for what I need to know. Can Photoshop tell me what kind of network throughput I'm getting? Number of http connections? Number of database connections? How long it takes to compile a quarter million lines of code? No. It has no relevance for me.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gjohns01
Yes I've used Photoshop. I used to use version 4 daily. I know exactly what it's capable of. I don't play Quake 3. I'm not dismissing Photoshop as a benchmark, just not a relevant one for what I need to know. Can Photoshop tell me what kind of network throughput I'm getting? Number of http connections? Number of database connections? How long it takes to compile a quarter million lines of code? No. It has no relevance for me.

OK, we're starting to make headway here.

PS was brought up as an indicator of performance for Macs in general, but not specifically for the servers.

What tools do you use to test your network throughput, etc on your x86 server? Are they available for the Mac?

I would love to pit my _old_ server at work against one of your machines...if we can establish a level playing field. As far as I'm concerned, that alone would settle the debate for me. I will gladly admit I'm wrong if we can run a series of tests that definitively show your system winning out over the mine.

As the saying goes: "Put up, or shut up."

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


OK, I see how it is. Make a claim and let someone else prove your point for you...interesting strategy.

You're telling me the time it takes for a qualified tech to setup and maintain on of those other OSes makes OS X worse? Can you say CodeRed?

You're telling me the salary of said person is worth it? Hmmm, monthly salary of such a person is what...$4000 a month? There goes your budget...

Maybe you should start smoking. Might loosten you up some...

LOL. What claim is that? My original claim that I could buld a system for $500? Under a $1000? Build one for less than a similarly configured Mac? Not be able to do the work that I do on a Mac? Because I think I proved those points. You've done nothing but spew typical "Macs are best because it rocks at Photoshop. " I don't use Photoshop. I don't use Final Cut. I never used Premiere. I never had that need to edit or stream video. I don't use my pc as a replacement for my stereo. I don't ever plan on ordering a nice pretty photo album. I don't see any reason for my Mac running OS X Server to even be on except to say "It's on".

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Large images and complex filters take up enormous amounts of RAM and put your system to the test. Slower machines will come up lacking.

The Mac's only speed advantages in Photoshop are due to AltiVec, which makes it kind of an unfair comparison.

What then is your standard for testing system performance? I'm real, are you?

How about SPEC_CPU2000, which would make a good approximation of Photoshop performance if not for AltiVec, which skews everything...

Int/FP
866MHz PowerPC: 259/153 (peak)
1GHz PowerPC: 306/178 (peak, from the DP Mac, per-CPU)
1GHz Pentium III: 309/unknown (peak, from a DP machine, per-CPU)
1.13GHz Pentium III: 461/320 (base - peak is higher)
1.4GHz Pentium III: 648/715 (base - peak is higher)
1.4GHz Athlon: 495/426 (peak)
Athlon XP 2000+: 697/596 (base - peak is higher)
2GHz Pentium 4: 648/715 (base - peak is higher)
2.2GHz Pentium 4: 790/779 (base - peak is higher)
400MHz MIPS R12000A: 328/382 (base - peak is higher)
1.3GHz IBM POWER4: 790/1098 (base - peak is higher)
866MHz Alpha 21264B: 497/643 (base - peak is higher)

And yes... the 1GHz PowerPC G4 is slower than even the 800MHz Itanic, which scored a 358/715. Ouch.

Alex

 

[gjohns01]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I think for some people it does. I can imagine that a small business or school that can't afford to hire an IT guy would be interested in an OS - like OS X Server - that takes very little technical knowledge to administer. For some people, being asked to pick up and study a "For Dummies" book is like being asked to pick up a "Paris During the Haussmann Infrastructural Revolution of 1852-1870" book. Not all people are zit-faced nerds who live in their parents' basement and whose idea of a good Friday night is setting up PostgreSQL on an old RS/6000 they got off eBay. In fact most people aren't... most people don't even care about computers... most people truly despise even the thought of setting up a server. So for them, a Mac server could be worth it. They will save time and energy at the cost of their computer's performance, although I don't see why that has to be a bad thing.

Alex

I don't dispute that at all. I agree with you. The point of my original post was to say that Macs are not offering "ME" what I need. They don't have the apps or tools I need and they cost too much. That was my point. I can't comment on what other people need. I know what I need. I know what my coworkers need to do their jobs. Macs offer a consumer machine, and a pro machine. They offer "servers" but they are not what I consider a server to be. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one kind of Pro. Apple's definition of Pro is centered around the creative types. They failed to address other needs. So by all means use OS X and OS X Server. I'm just letting you know that as a product (hardware and software) Apple is seriously deficient in some areas..

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by gjohns01
I don't dispute that at all. I agree with you. The point of my original post was to say that Macs are not offering "ME" what I need. They don't have the apps or tools I need and they cost too much. That was my point. I can't comment on what other people need. I know what I need. I know what my coworkers need to do their jobs. Macs offer a consumer machine, and a pro machine. They offer "servers" but they are not what I consider a server to be. The fact of the matter is that there is more than one kind of Pro. Apple's definition of Pro is centered around the creative types. They failed to address other needs. So by all means use OS X and OS X Server. I'm just letting you know that as a product (hardware and software) Apple is seriously deficient in some areas..

OK! Sooo... what ARE we arguing about?

 

[sunbear191]

Why not using IBM POWER

Is there any reason why Apple could not use IBM's POWER3 or POWER4 cpus? They are compatible (except for AltiVec), aren't they?