Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by bullrat


Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat

you have a lot of valid points as i notice the excuses get more and more ridiculous as to why apple machines are behind in speed

dropping motorola has been something more mac users here have pondered, but we will have to wait and see if ibm can truly deliver

the latest powermacs may not be as fast as was rumored but they are a good step in the right direction

when apple has no more machines in the sub 1 ghz range, then the complaints will definitely slow down, and once apple has a machine over 2 ghz sometime next year, then the speed issue will not be at the top of the list...of course, the pc world will be over 3 ghz at that time but hopefully not at 4 ghz...so it's our dual 1.25s vs. wintel's 2.5 ghz p4s and that does not look too good

so if we can scale up to 2 ghz while pcs are not at 4 ghz yet, then it won't look as bad or matter that much...and maybe then the major switching will start to begin en masse...i will keep my fingers crossed

i think apple's goal is to get more users, not to beat microsoft...at this point, no one could beat microsoft

when asked who would be the next microsoft, one of the financial brothers of the motley fools (business book series) said the next microsoft is microsoft...pretty obvious stuff

at one time, i thought dot.com would grow even more placing much more IT/IS emphasis on WAN making cisco systems become the next microsoft but that did not happen and cisco is not in any position to take on the mantle of a microsoft
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.

I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.

I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.

Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat


Here's the problem right here with all these nonsensical rants. The G4 iMac is in now way jerky when it comes to window resizing. Whoever has posted this a)doesn't know whay they're talking about b) if they owned this iMac had something wrong with it.

All we're doing by pissing and moaning about Mhz is hurting ourselves an Apple and the whole debate with the PC switchers.

I don't know how many of you have actually spent time on a dual ghz mac but they are blazing fast. I currently own and am using a dual ghz/DDR and this thing flys with everything.
 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
433
186
MAC Can't Compete with Hardware

We all know MAC can't compete with Hardware, but we have some of the best programs on the market. That is how Steve going to use it for his ads campaign.

I read article at macworld.com the other, Apple will never make OS for PC. Check out this article: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0209/11.haddad.php

I am not complaining with the speed of the new Powermac, but I wouldn't mind to be faster. Faster is always better.

With ipod release for PC. Apple will make tons of money. And maybe use that money and invest in developing new Hardware.

Anybody has a stat. sell of Gateway Profile 4 and Apple imac? I want to see who is winning...
 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
433
186
Upgrade now!

Everybody needs to UPGRADE from 10-10.1 to 10.2 JAGUAR!! IT IS FAST!
 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
433
186
MACBANDIT I don't know how many of you have actually spent time on a dual ghz mac but they are blazing fast. I currently own and am using a dual ghz/DDR and this thing flys with everything.



I agreed with you. The new dual ghz is FAST, but the noise in the hot summer day. I can use my new Powermac as heater in the winter season. :)

This baby can heat up your room nice and warm!:) if you are looking for heater and something to compute, Apple dual is a machine to get!
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.

I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?

I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.

Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.

The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!

-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.

As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
 

onemoof

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
RISC vs. CISC

Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.

First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)

Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
[/B]I agreed with you. The new dual ghz is FAST, but the noise in the hot summer day. I can use my new Powermac as heater in the winter season. :)

This baby can heat up your room nice and warm!:) if you are looking for heater and something to compute, Apple dual is a machine to get! [/B]


Compared to every high end PC I've seen of late is not only louder but makes any Mac look like a refrigerator in comparing the amount of heat they exhaust.
 

nixd2001

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2002
179
0
UK
Re: RISC vs. CISC

Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.

First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)

Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.

The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.

The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.

There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.

Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.

Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.

I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
 

big

macrumors 65816
Feb 20, 2002
1,074
0
>onemoof

thanks...I knew anyone who could dissasemble their mac and turn it into leftovers would know about this stuff...

half that I had forgotten, the other I just couldn't remember
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Originally posted by MacBandit



You don't need to spend 3,000 to get an extremely fast mac right now try 1,600-1,700.

But for 1,600-1,700 dollars I can get a hell of a lot faster PC. Nobody can deny that.
 

big

macrumors 65816
Feb 20, 2002
1,074
0
yeah, but in the end you have a dell "dude". for what its worth, I am very very happy with my mac, I just will not buy a new one until they again are the fastest in the world.

all my PC friends constantly are reformatting their drives, worried about viruses etc

OSX is the best out there, even my tried & true PC friends know it...
 

onemoof

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
fastest in the world

Apple must have a 5 GHz chip lying around somewhere. I bet Motorola has produced at least one or two by luck in some of their production runs. Apple should slap them into a Mac and sell it for $100,000 just to say Macs are the fastest. Some rich people would love to have the fastest Mac around.
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Dont you think that chip would be a little to hot... :D . Well, I fully agree with OS X being the best. But the OS and the quality apps are all that is going for apple. Apple lacks speed, but I cant blame apple for that (stupid moto :rolleyes:), but I can blame them for not dumping moto a long time ago. If apple computer were just as fast as PCs there is no way I would think about getting near a 'peecee', but they arent as fast :(...
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,539
406
Middle Earth
Dont you think that chip would be a little to hot... . Well, I fully agree with OS X being the best. But the OS and the quality apps are all that is going for apple. Apple lacks speed, but I cant blame apple for that (stupid moto :rolleyes, but I can blame them for not dumping moto a long time ago. If apple computer were just as fast as PCs there is no way I would think about getting near a 'peecee', but they arent as fast ...

What are you doing that requires so much speed. Do you bill clients by the hour? Do you continually render files that take hours? I'm curious to know why people who harp about speed really need it.

It's one thing to be able to attach earning to the speed of a computer but quite another to want a fast computer just for bragging rights.
 

big

macrumors 65816
Feb 20, 2002
1,074
0
I personally do a lot of rendering...Vector based specifically, and billing clients is an issue when it comes to architectural work.

A lot of clients view an architect as being overpaid anyways, so when they see a 100 hour bill they can get a little uneasy.

I pride myself on being able to produce the "best" & most completed set of drawings available, at the absolutely quickest time (ie, I draft like a bat out of hell, and do it accurately, though my spelling is atrocious)

often I find I must boot into 9 just to produce...however, for mid level drawing 10 is "ok" on a 450 G4, its all about simulation I'm sure (using classic)

once engsw.com releases Powercadd OSX native, I will be all over that...that should change my booting habits. Though I know a faster machine would make a world of a difference as well.
 

atomwork

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2001
336
213
Miami Beach
Much money

Originally posted by scem0
I am mad at apple, their processors suck right now... not to mention their price. Im not gunna spend 3,000 for a computer that I could get with -yes - a worse os, for 1,000. Macs just arent worth it right now. Until they have something that can compete speed wise, my next comp is a PC.


Hi scem0,

how do you do this to keep up with the programs if you switch every couple years from one system to the other. And isn't it confusing in your workflow or are u just a consumer user. If so then the power ain't matter my friend.

Cheers,
Dave
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Re: Much money

Originally posted by atomwork



Hi scem0,

how do you do this to keep up with the programs if you switch every couple years from one system to the other. And isn't it confusing in your workflow or are u just a consumer user. If so then the power ain't matter my friend.

Cheers,
Dave

I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a friend with a year old PC playin Warcraft with less jumpiness then my 6 month old powermac, it makes me want to switch. Power does matter to me, and you cant get much power for the amount of money I have when it comes to computers from apple.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5?

I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Re: Re: Much money

I am definitelynot a 'power user', but I am a hardcore gamer. And when I see a friend with a year old PC playin Warcraft with less jumpiness then my 6 month old powermac, it makes me want to switch. Power does matter to me, and you cant get much power for the amount of money I have when it comes to computers from apple.

So what do you use your mac for except for playing games???
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Re: Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5?

Originally posted by iGAV
I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)

i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves

btw, igav, i see that you are on akira's site...i should go there and join up and give the old alphatech a hard time...i miss alphatech and his intelligent comments...even when he gets unintelligent and flames newbies:eek: :p ;)
 

Pants

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2001
194
9
Originally posted by MisterMe

I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.

I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book

Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?

these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.

never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.