Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WWDC - One Day More... Final Thoughts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For interactive use, a dual-processor machine will ALWAYS outperform a single processor machine barring drastic differences in basic capabilities. This has to do with the nature of modern operating systems. They're doing lots of things at once. A dual-processor computer can do two things at once. Literally, at the same slice of time a dual-processor computer is doing two things, while a single-processor computer is doing only one thing. A twice-as-fast single-processor computer might be capable on paper of doing the same work in the same time as a dual-processor computer, but in practice this isn't true. Context switching (going from one task to another) takes time, and worse is results in a cache flush. Interactively using a single-processor computer effectively nullifies the benefit of your caches, because you're constantly telling the computer to stop doing this and do that instead. The caches are always been missed. On a dual-processor machine, however, a process will tend to "stick" to a given processor (this is called "processor affinity") as long as it can to take advantage of the nice, full caches on that processor. You won't be prompting a cache flush every time you hold down the mouse button.
It all depends on your definition of "perform." For an interactive computer, a desktop or a laptop, the correct definition of "perform" is centered around latency. How long does the user have to wait for a given task to complete? (We're talking micro-tasks here, like switching applications or pulling down a menu.) Looking at it in terms of simple instructions-per-second is the wrong approach.
A feature of the hardware cannot be a security risk. That's like calling an IDE port a security risk, because in theory somebody could steal your hard drive.
Please point me to a PC with a six-pin FireWire 400 port on the motherboard. (This should not be a tall order. It's been years. I can't imagine they're not out there.) Now please point me to a PC with a 9-pin FireWire 800 connector on the motherboard. (Not quite so easy, huh?)
It never has been.
It's funny how many people try to compare Macs to "$499 PCs which outperform them." I'm sorry, every PC I know of uses Windows as the OS, or maybe Linux -- let's see, either total Big Brother crap, or total DIY geekfest.
IMO, being able to use OS X (which has not crashed on me in like a year or something?) makes EVERY Mac incomparable to a crappy PC. Not to mention we get cool stuff like the iTunes Music Store which Windows users have to wait months and months for. Not to mention iMovie, etc.
I think one day some of the Mac zealots on this site will realize that half the posters are Windows-lovin' trolls who just come on here to give us a hard time, and are best left COMPLETELY IGNORED. What real Mac user do you know who would come on here and say a $499 Dell comapres to ANY Mac made in the past 5 years? Please.
IMO, being able to use OS X (which has not crashed on me in like a year or something?) makes EVERY Mac incomparable to a crappy PC. Not to mention we get cool stuff like the iTunes Music Store which Windows users have to wait months and months for. Not to mention iMovie, etc.
I think one day some of the Mac zealots on this site will realize that half the posters are Windows-lovin' trolls who just come on here to give us a hard time, and are best left COMPLETELY IGNORED. What real Mac user do you know who would come on here and say a $499 Dell comapres to ANY Mac made in the past 5 years? Please.
Right on.
This is the one constant that seems to hold with Macs versus Windows machines. Even with XP: my friend has this sweet box he made, super fast, overclocked, florescent see thru, and Premiere just crashes up the wazoo. And he had all this trouble with his graphics card not working with certain games. It's a great computer, except it has all these problems.
I have problems with my Mac too. But they aren't really big deals: Safari crashes more then I'd like (but a: it's still a beta, and b: it certainly doesn't take down the whole system); The other day when I plugged in my headphones I found that sound only game from one ear. I thought my headphone jack was broken until I went into the sound control panel (yes, I still call it the control panel) and found that my balance was shifted all the way to the right (or left, I forget). ...you can stop reading right now, I'm rambling about nothing...so I slid it to the middle and it worked. here's the interesting side note: the other day I brought my ibook to this hotel room for a friend's bachelor party so we could have music and watch dvds (although it's apparently possible to output a laptop screen to a tv on a pc, I've never seen it done...yet it's done all the time by me and other people I know with mac laptops.) but the tv setup in the room had only one sound input, not two. So I plugged the red one in and it sounded fine. But I'm wondering now, if somehow the OS *knew* that I was only outputing to one channel and shifted the balance for me. is that possible? if so, that's really cool (except it should have reverted when I unplugged it). I suppose it's possible that one of the other people there knew enough to switch the balance, but I think that's unlikely.
anyway, I lost whatever point I was trying to make. Macs seem to work pretty easily with minimal hassel. And I think this is because a: they have a superior OS, b: hardware done by the os company, and c: the computers, although more expensive, come standard with stuff Apple knows is good and *the future* but that people might not buy trying to save a few bucks. For example, I might not have bought my wireless card if apple didn't include an awesome antennae in my laptop screen. All the laptop PC users I know are now realizing that wireless is awesome but they have to have some lame pc card that sticks out an inch on the side of their machine. And wireless is seriously the best thing ever. Same with firewire.
Sorry, must have the pre-keynote jitters.
This is the one constant that seems to hold with Macs versus Windows machines. Even with XP: my friend has this sweet box he made, super fast, overclocked, florescent see thru, and Premiere just crashes up the wazoo. And he had all this trouble with his graphics card not working with certain games. It's a great computer, except it has all these problems.
I have problems with my Mac too. But they aren't really big deals: Safari crashes more then I'd like (but a: it's still a beta, and b: it certainly doesn't take down the whole system); The other day when I plugged in my headphones I found that sound only game from one ear. I thought my headphone jack was broken until I went into the sound control panel (yes, I still call it the control panel) and found that my balance was shifted all the way to the right (or left, I forget). ...you can stop reading right now, I'm rambling about nothing...so I slid it to the middle and it worked. here's the interesting side note: the other day I brought my ibook to this hotel room for a friend's bachelor party so we could have music and watch dvds (although it's apparently possible to output a laptop screen to a tv on a pc, I've never seen it done...yet it's done all the time by me and other people I know with mac laptops.) but the tv setup in the room had only one sound input, not two. So I plugged the red one in and it sounded fine. But I'm wondering now, if somehow the OS *knew* that I was only outputing to one channel and shifted the balance for me. is that possible? if so, that's really cool (except it should have reverted when I unplugged it). I suppose it's possible that one of the other people there knew enough to switch the balance, but I think that's unlikely.
anyway, I lost whatever point I was trying to make. Macs seem to work pretty easily with minimal hassel. And I think this is because a: they have a superior OS, b: hardware done by the os company, and c: the computers, although more expensive, come standard with stuff Apple knows is good and *the future* but that people might not buy trying to save a few bucks. For example, I might not have bought my wireless card if apple didn't include an awesome antennae in my laptop screen. All the laptop PC users I know are now realizing that wireless is awesome but they have to have some lame pc card that sticks out an inch on the side of their machine. And wireless is seriously the best thing ever. Same with firewire.
Sorry, must have the pre-keynote jitters.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
True I have never heard my friends with web development and servers businesses claim that a $500 PC could come close to a Mac in overall experience. We do on the other hand once and a while discuss a comparison of PowerMacs to high end P4s and AMDs. At this point yes the best of the best in both categories does slightly outweigh the PowerMacs but the difference is so slight that in real world experience even my friends say it's a wash.
So? Growth is fine and dandy, but all that counts is profitability. As long as the company remains profitable, sufficiently profitable to continue doing business in the way that they want to do business, they are effectively above criticism. They may not be doing things the way you would wish they could be done, but they are doing things exactly right.
Right here: 🙂
Predictions of doom and gloom rarely come to pass. In this case, most certainly not.
Squire
macrumors 68000
Doesn't "FY" mean FISCAL Year? (I'm not trying to be a smart-ass...it's a real question.)
And I believe the old supply vs. demand argument will enter into the pricing equation. If these 970s are as hot as everybody expects, Apple won't be able to make enough of them, even at the higher price.
I think...
Squire
[Edit: I guess several people above have answered the "FY" question. I should have read the whole thread.]
zach
macrumors 65816
I'm 13 years old. Despite the fact that I have only had enough cash to buy my own mac once in my life, (my bar mitzvah 😀 ) I would much rather save 2 years for a new mac than buy a $500 Dell. Even if a mac is outdated, it is a great computer for word processing, email, web browsing, and even to an extent games. I have a Performa running OS 9 at 66 MHz, and I detect no noticeable difference while typing, recieving email, and playing Escape Velocity (people at Ambrosia are god 😀 ) between it and my iBook 700 MHz.
And for people who wonder why anyone would ever need a Dual 2 GHz, people do happen to do graphics editing and video editing on computers. Oh, I forgot. You use a PC, so you have never seen it done on one. 😛
Seriously, though, some people could use a Dual 2 GHz 970 and still want more power.
Just take other people into mind before you post.
And for people who wonder why anyone would ever need a Dual 2 GHz, people do happen to do graphics editing and video editing on computers. Oh, I forgot. You use a PC, so you have never seen it done on one. 😛
Seriously, though, some people could use a Dual 2 GHz 970 and still want more power.
Just take other people into mind before you post.
Yes, unfortunately profits are down, number of units sold is down, and market share is down. Apple is genuinely not even holding its own any more. I know people have been predicting Apple's demise for years, but if this trend continues, an end will be unavoidable.
Hopefully improved models will result in improved sales to media and artist people, and to scientists (who are already beginning to be interested because of UNIX).
the future
macrumors 68040
Absolutely! Hell, even just LOOKING at my TiBook and the OSX desktop gives me more joy than any Windows/Linux PC ever could.
Every iMac except the Rev A (my 1st personal mac) that was a brual experience. For a LCD iMac you open the bottom and it's a snap (literally)
Squire
macrumors 68000
Agree 100%.
When I told people I was going to buy a Mac for X dollars, most people gasped. I aked them to price a Sony with an 80 gig HD, 17" widescreen LCD, CD-R/RW drive, DVD-R drive, AND software...not much difference. I think they were within 200 bucks of one another.
Squire
Is it just me or is anyone else frightened by a 13 year old who types/speaks like this? 😉 Reminds me a lot of myself.
Re: Right on.
Nope, you made the point quite nicely. Macs (for the most part) just work and Mac users are used to dealing with the task at hand. PC's generally have other issues going on.
Nope, you made the point quite nicely. Macs (for the most part) just work and Mac users are used to dealing with the task at hand. PC's generally have other issues going on.
Big jump in speed for all Macs in next two months
The focus of the upcoming WWDC will be the 970 and Panther, but the chip improvements that will arrive from Motorola in the third quarter of this year will likely be very interesting also. A Siliconstategies.com article mentions that Motorola was able to get up to a 20% boost in speed from adding a low-k dielectric to the current 7455 G4 chips. Motorola states that the company has been delivering products with low-k for over a quarter of a year on the .18-micron process. If you backtrack 3 months from the June 2nd date of the article that puts the date of the first low-k dielectric chips at the end of January or beginning of February. It just so happens that Apple introduced the 1.42 GHz Power Macs on January 28, 2003. Apple's previous fastest Power Mac processor was running at 1.25 GHz and if you add in a 20% boost from a low-k dielectric coating that puts it at about 1.5 GHz. Hmmm.... it looks very likely that the low-k dieletric is currently being used only in the topend 7455 G4s.
Motorola has also stated that the 1GHz G4, made on the smaller .13-micron process, will use less than 10 watts. That is less than half of the 21.3 watt usage for the current 1 GHz 7455 G4.
A 1.3 GHz 7457 will likely use slightly less watts than a 1 GHz 7455. If Motorola adds a low-k dielectric to the 1.3 GHz 7457, that would give about a 20% speed boost to about 1.560 GHz, with very little increase in power use.
Since IBM has already stated that the 970 at 1.2 GHz will use about 17 watts and a 7457 at 1.5 GHz will use about the same amount of power, then its very likely that Apple will choose to use the 7457 G4 in all of the Mac notebooks. That will probably change when IBM moves the 9XX chips to a smaller .090-micron process and the 9XX power use of the 2GHz processors drops dramatically. Seeing how the .090-micron 9XX chips will likely be based on the Power5 processors and IBM has stated that a Power5 computer will run up to 4X faster than a Power4 computer, then Apple will probably have the worlds fastest notebook and desktop computers in the PowerBooks and Power Macs by the end of 2004.
The focus of the upcoming WWDC will be the 970 and Panther, but the chip improvements that will arrive from Motorola in the third quarter of this year will likely be very interesting also. A Siliconstategies.com article mentions that Motorola was able to get up to a 20% boost in speed from adding a low-k dielectric to the current 7455 G4 chips. Motorola states that the company has been delivering products with low-k for over a quarter of a year on the .18-micron process. If you backtrack 3 months from the June 2nd date of the article that puts the date of the first low-k dielectric chips at the end of January or beginning of February. It just so happens that Apple introduced the 1.42 GHz Power Macs on January 28, 2003. Apple's previous fastest Power Mac processor was running at 1.25 GHz and if you add in a 20% boost from a low-k dielectric coating that puts it at about 1.5 GHz. Hmmm.... it looks very likely that the low-k dieletric is currently being used only in the topend 7455 G4s.
Motorola has also stated that the 1GHz G4, made on the smaller .13-micron process, will use less than 10 watts. That is less than half of the 21.3 watt usage for the current 1 GHz 7455 G4.
A 1.3 GHz 7457 will likely use slightly less watts than a 1 GHz 7455. If Motorola adds a low-k dielectric to the 1.3 GHz 7457, that would give about a 20% speed boost to about 1.560 GHz, with very little increase in power use.
Since IBM has already stated that the 970 at 1.2 GHz will use about 17 watts and a 7457 at 1.5 GHz will use about the same amount of power, then its very likely that Apple will choose to use the 7457 G4 in all of the Mac notebooks. That will probably change when IBM moves the 9XX chips to a smaller .090-micron process and the 9XX power use of the 2GHz processors drops dramatically. Seeing how the .090-micron 9XX chips will likely be based on the Power5 processors and IBM has stated that a Power5 computer will run up to 4X faster than a Power4 computer, then Apple will probably have the worlds fastest notebook and desktop computers in the PowerBooks and Power Macs by the end of 2004.
Does everyone drive neons and hyundais?
This price fixation amazes me. I remember paying $4000 for a Zenith laptop that weighed over 10 pounds, was running word perfect on a teeny, lo-con black and white screen. Why do computer users ignore issues like fit and finish, elegant design (both hardware and software) and expect to pay NOTHING EXTRA for these qualities, yet admire (and perhaps purchase) a BMW or Lexus or the like without hesitating, spending 10's of thousands more for a car that really does 'exactly' what a neon or focus does, just not as elegantly. Yet somehow an elegant computer like Apple's, that might cost $300 more, is a CRIME AGAINST NATURE. What is this cheap mentality? The only place that I feel this issue has ANY legitimacy is for those who really don't have the money for anything but the lower priced machines, like our bar mitzvah boy here, and many students. There, it would be nice if Apple had a machine that was just okay, that could compete with the $500 or $600 dollar windows machines. Other than that situation, this carping about price seems to me to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. ELEGANCE has VALUE. Why should computers be different than every other purchase we make?
This price fixation amazes me. I remember paying $4000 for a Zenith laptop that weighed over 10 pounds, was running word perfect on a teeny, lo-con black and white screen. Why do computer users ignore issues like fit and finish, elegant design (both hardware and software) and expect to pay NOTHING EXTRA for these qualities, yet admire (and perhaps purchase) a BMW or Lexus or the like without hesitating, spending 10's of thousands more for a car that really does 'exactly' what a neon or focus does, just not as elegantly. Yet somehow an elegant computer like Apple's, that might cost $300 more, is a CRIME AGAINST NATURE. What is this cheap mentality? The only place that I feel this issue has ANY legitimacy is for those who really don't have the money for anything but the lower priced machines, like our bar mitzvah boy here, and many students. There, it would be nice if Apple had a machine that was just okay, that could compete with the $500 or $600 dollar windows machines. Other than that situation, this carping about price seems to me to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. ELEGANCE has VALUE. Why should computers be different than every other purchase we make?
new powermac case design
All these rumors about the cosmetic (read; only small changes) redesign of the current G4 case.... Do not underestimate Jonathan's team; Expect a totally redesigned case (from scratch form wise), a new typology (remember the new Imac versus the previous) Bear in mind that these new PMs will have to last a couple of generations, and so must be ahead into the future....
I tend to think different... This is what I expect;
An elongated upside down cube architecture; sized half the height of current G4s. This means all access from the top; slide in cards, harddrives (Xserve hot swap,...) RAM and plug in cables and insert disks/media. This facilitate accessibility being a digital hub, and upgradeability being a pro machine.
Case out of single part aluminum (extruded) with 2 vertical gaps back (cables guide from the top to the bottom) and front (speaker, switches some ports). Floating for forced convection cooling (air in through gap with bottom and surface standing on, air out through gap between top panel and case) thus no visible and disturbing air holes. Also no visible plugs;the cable/cards part covered with a double hinged (hinge/slide backward) lid keeping things organized. So will the 2 DVD (one read/one super) have a top loading mechanism (like in the rega planet cd player http://www.rega.co.uk/index2.htm). The standard cd trays are terrible visualy and much slower in use; time for a step forward. I Know this will mean no 3rd party discdrives, but apples will be there as a feature bonus adding extra value (at low manufacture cost; just like LCDs) and thus very few will need 3rd party drives. Apple has been using this added superdrive value marketing for a while now and will continue this path.
And of course top it of with a pull out central handle (reminiscent of the cube).
Jiri
All these rumors about the cosmetic (read; only small changes) redesign of the current G4 case.... Do not underestimate Jonathan's team; Expect a totally redesigned case (from scratch form wise), a new typology (remember the new Imac versus the previous) Bear in mind that these new PMs will have to last a couple of generations, and so must be ahead into the future....
I tend to think different... This is what I expect;
An elongated upside down cube architecture; sized half the height of current G4s. This means all access from the top; slide in cards, harddrives (Xserve hot swap,...) RAM and plug in cables and insert disks/media. This facilitate accessibility being a digital hub, and upgradeability being a pro machine.
Case out of single part aluminum (extruded) with 2 vertical gaps back (cables guide from the top to the bottom) and front (speaker, switches some ports). Floating for forced convection cooling (air in through gap with bottom and surface standing on, air out through gap between top panel and case) thus no visible and disturbing air holes. Also no visible plugs;the cable/cards part covered with a double hinged (hinge/slide backward) lid keeping things organized. So will the 2 DVD (one read/one super) have a top loading mechanism (like in the rega planet cd player http://www.rega.co.uk/index2.htm). The standard cd trays are terrible visualy and much slower in use; time for a step forward. I Know this will mean no 3rd party discdrives, but apples will be there as a feature bonus adding extra value (at low manufacture cost; just like LCDs) and thus very few will need 3rd party drives. Apple has been using this added superdrive value marketing for a while now and will continue this path.
And of course top it of with a pull out central handle (reminiscent of the cube).
Jiri
Possible Predictions
What do you think of the following thoughts:
1. Demo of FCP4 putting entire video sequence into 6 gigs of RAM and rendering it almost instantly.
2. Reveal that Quark is written in 64 bit, and that is why it could not be released until this week.
3. Reveal that IBM will now offer OSX server as an option on their BLADE SERVERS and this will be the beginning of a joint effort to TAKE BACK THE SPACE FROM MICROSOFT, with IBM servicing the very high end and OSX server filling in the lower levels all the way to the desktop.
4. Oracle runs in OSX in 64 bit, Larry Ellison makes surprise visit. Again, part of a new alliance against Microsoft.
5. In order to work better as an all-around server, OSX now has a reduced version that runs under a server on INTEL hardware.
What do you think?
What do you think of the following thoughts:
1. Demo of FCP4 putting entire video sequence into 6 gigs of RAM and rendering it almost instantly.
2. Reveal that Quark is written in 64 bit, and that is why it could not be released until this week.
3. Reveal that IBM will now offer OSX server as an option on their BLADE SERVERS and this will be the beginning of a joint effort to TAKE BACK THE SPACE FROM MICROSOFT, with IBM servicing the very high end and OSX server filling in the lower levels all the way to the desktop.
4. Oracle runs in OSX in 64 bit, Larry Ellison makes surprise visit. Again, part of a new alliance against Microsoft.
5. In order to work better as an all-around server, OSX now has a reduced version that runs under a server on INTEL hardware.
What do you think?
Mazel tov!
Mazel Tov on your Bar Mitzvah! I totally agree that the lifespan of a Macintosh computer totally blows away the lifespan of a PC! You may pay more for a Mac, but it will last years beyond the usefulness of a PC.
Mazel Tov on your Bar Mitzvah! I totally agree that the lifespan of a Macintosh computer totally blows away the lifespan of a PC! You may pay more for a Mac, but it will last years beyond the usefulness of a PC.
No, it hasn't. If you haven't noticed, Apple marketshare has been steadily shrinking and the Mac has become an extremely marginal product, much more so than its great OS should warrant. 🙁
Besides, it's only in the last year or so that things have gotten REALLY bad, price/perf wise. So how are those powermac sales again?