MacWorld Tokyo Rumor Wrapup

[Dunepilot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Powerbooks aren't the only notebooks!

Originally posted by Q-bert
It's only rubbish if you can prove that everyone knows about and is concerned with MHz speed. Don't assume that just because some do, it applies to all. Certainly there are large numbers of people out there who place a premium on CPU speed, but there are even more that don't. And when they ask a "computer person" to help, the first thing the computer person tells them is that "megahertz" is the most important factor in purchasing a computer. That's what I call rubbish. Why do any of us use Macintoshes? WE know that MHz isn't the most important thing - so why are we propagating this fallacy even amongst ourselves by pressuring Apple to keep up with the "megahertz race" instead of insisting on quality? When I talk about "better", it's not just ease of use - it's also more automation, better design, better UI workflow, things like that.

So you haven't used OS X then?

Today's PowerMacs and Powerbooks are aimed at professionals. They are not as powerful as they could be, particularly being underpowered in Apple's new OS.

That's the bottom line

What I was also trying to say is that consumers are (in some cases rightly) fixated with speed, and shaking this preconception isn't easy, even if it's only a recently acquired fixation as in the case of first-time buyers.

Also, as much as I love Apple hardware, there's really not much to differentiate their CPUs from x86 boxes compared with the past, except for the processor and the fact that modern bus architecture and RAID, ATA133 etc are not available. There is a difference in quality, but it's not what it used to be, and therefore your argument is less valid than it would have been 3 or 4 years ago.

IMHO

 

[Pepzhez]

I'm not an engineer, but every engineer I have spoken to on this topic states the obvious: ideally, you want a CPU that is fast and is LOW in Mhz.

There's no way around it: more Mhz = a more inefficient design; more heat generated, more cooling fans required to keep the damn thing from frying your system (not to mention itself).

This is not a fact of nature, but rather a testament to the wrong-headed thinking that has plagued CPU conception.

What was the name of the company that recently demonstrated a chip that has the power of 10 or more Pentium 4's and runs at - yes - around 100 Mhz? THIS is the direction things ought to be going - better CPU designs which won't require liquid nitrogen cooling in order to function.

 

[blakespot]

We just signed a $13,000/month contract where I work for 3 machines to make up our new, hosted internet system (web, intranet, etc.). These are Suns running Solaris (and Oracle, Apache, Cold Fusion). Two of the, (the production and staging webservers) are single CPU machines running at 450MHz. The third is a quad-CPU machine, each processor running at 450MHz.

If you go to Sun's site and take a look at the purchase cost of these machines, you'll see that the single-CPU 360MHz version is $4,995. The next unit up, has a faster processor and 256MB more memory. That unit is a 450MHz unit and costs $9,995. That's $5,000 difference in cost for a 90MHz increase in speed and an insignificant stick of memory.

If you place one of these machines against a P4 server, you'll find that the PC is decimated by the power of the Sun. There's a bit of a testament as to the overall importance of MHz vs a well architectured CPU.



blakespot

 

[Q-bert]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powerbooks aren't the only notebooks!

Originally posted by Dunepilot
So you haven't used OS X then?

Today's PowerMacs and Powerbooks are aimed at professionals. They are not as powerful as they could be, particularly being underpowered in Apple's new OS.

That's the bottom line

I have used OS X. We run it on some of our systems, but not all (FCP suffers under OS X compared to OS 9 at the moment). But you're proving my point - by now introducing the OS into your argument, you're saying exactly what I'm saying, that other factors besides clock speed come into play when comparing systems. If Apple were to "tune" OS X more aggressively, then even their existing systems, including the TiBook, would get a nice speed boost.

I don't think Apple is perfect, far from it, I have plenty of beefs with them. But I also don't think people are giving their current systems enough credit, either. I've said it before, I'll say it again in a different way - Apple does NOT need to match Intel GHz for GHz in order to "win" the speed race, as long as they concentrate on overall performance. As someone else pointed out, Sun and SGI make systems that scream, yet have even lower clock speed than Macintoshes. This is all part of the quality argument - I would rather us insist on quality from Apple (which includes improving OS X) than waste our efforts on a pointless horse race.

That's the bottom line, IMHO.

 

[Dunepilot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powerbooks aren't the only notebooks!

Originally posted by Q-bert
?
by now introducing the OS into your argument, you're saying exactly what I'm saying, that other factors besides clock speed come into play when comparing systems. If Apple were to "tune" OS X more aggressively, then even their existing systems, including the TiBook, would get a nice speed boost.

I don't think Apple is perfect, far from it, I have plenty of beefs with them. But I also don't think people are giving their current systems enough credit, either. I've said it before, I'll say it again in a different way - Apple does NOT need to match Intel GHz for GHz in order to "win" the speed race, as long as they concentrate on overall performance. As someone else pointed out, Sun and SGI make systems that scream, yet have even lower clock speed than Macintoshes. This is all part of the quality argument - I would rather us insist on quality from Apple (which includes improving OS X) than waste our efforts on a pointless horse race.

That's the bottom line, IMHO.

Okay, good to see we're getting to some sort of concensus.

But we still have to wait for something to happen. At the moment, both the processor and the OS are sluggish. I wish Apple would pull their fingers out and really get X up to OS 9 performance. Then I'd make the change full-time.

But is it in Apple's financial interest to do this? We've seen time and time again that they don't care about upgrade manufacturers and where possible will thwart their efforts to upgrade older macs, thereby forcing purchases of new macs.

That Jobs has been saying recently that he thinks everyone should have a G4 to run OS X shows the philosophy that's starting to pervade Apple in a worrying way. There's no reason for Apple to fine-tune the OS to make it run on an older system if it'll cannabalise their sales.....