Who's at fault?

[vniow]

Okay, by now you should realize that things between the PC world and the Mac world aren't so black and white now.
XP & 2k are much more crash proof than 9x, have become more user-friendly and have become a better value than the Mac in some ways.
The major issue right now betwen PCs and Macs isn't any of those however, it's raw speed.
With Intel approaching 3Ghz by November, the fastest Mac at 1.25Ghz (duals or not) is just not loking very speedy by comparison.
Granted, they're not THAT slow, but they're far from where they could be.

There was a time when the Mhz myth was valid, then CPUs started to hit Ghz, then twice that, now at 3Ghz.
If I'm shopping for a speedy computer right now, what looks fastest, a dual 1.25Ghz G4 or a single 3Ghz PIV?
Even Photoshop, long favored on the Mac platform is going to render faster on a top of the line PC.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to choose a Mac over a PC at the moment, but speed is not one of them.

My question to you is, whose fault is it that we have this problem?
Is it Apple's for not pushing Moto to make faster chips?
Is it Moto for not giving any intrest in making faster chips?
Is it Intel, for making consumers think that Mhz is a valid measure for performanance?


Could Apple have threatened Moto with moving over to IBM chips much earler to get them to crank out some killer chips, or does Moto not care too much about selling chips to Apple because they make more money in the embedded chip market?
Could Intel have resorted to a better marketing move than cranking up the Mhz every chance it got?

You decide.

Sticking the blame on someone and complaining about what should have been done isn't going to do much now, but in the future we can hopefully use this knowledge to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

 

[MacAztec]

I think....

I think its Apple's fault. Motorola too. Apple always says how an 800MHz Powerbook is better at x and x than a PC, but the PC is still faster at like everything.

Its motorolas problem for not makin faster chips! But its Apples fault for not moving to IBM by now, and Apple is just accepting that they are barely over 1GHz when PCs are moving up on 3GHz

 

[TheFink]

I can say with certainty that it is NOT Intel's nor AMD's fault. Megahertz is a valid benchmark for performance in the PC world. Although it may not be the end all in deciding factors which is faster, it's safe to say that a 1.4 mhz AMD is going to be faster than a 1.2mhz. When comparing megahertz to different architectures, that is where the problem lies. I don't think, however, that megahertz is a "myth". When Apple was close to wintel speeds, it was a good marketing campaign. But now with Apple so far behind, that whole slogan needs to be put to rest. PC's are ahead in all aspects except software.

When it comes to pointing the finger, I think it lies with Apple. Apple should have more of a push with the cpu manufacturers. Instead, it seems like the manufacturers are totally in controll and Apple is forced to sit on their hands. You would think Apple would develop more of a partnership, rather than being just another customer of Motorola and IBM.

In closing, I think Apple, Moto, and IBM all suck. They missed the boat and the best they can do is try to catch up. They ALL lose, along with the Apple consumers.

Just my $.02

 

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by TheFink
I can say with certainty that it is NOT Intel's nor AMD's fault. Megahertz is a valid benchmark for performance in the PC world.

I'd have to dissagree with you there, even in the x86 world Mhz is not a clear rating, take the P4 and XP+ for example.
The top Intel CPU at the moment is 2.8Ghz, while the AMD 2600+ (2.13Ghz) is AMD's best offering, even though there is almost a 700Mhz speed difference there the AMD will still be as fast if not faster as the apparently (going by Mhz) supreme Intel.

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by edesignuk

I'd have to dissagree with you there, even in the x86 world Mhz is not a clear rating, take the P4 and XP+ for example.
The top Intel CPU at the moment is 2.8Ghz, while the AMD 2600+ (2.13Ghz) is AMD's best offering, even though there is almost a 700Mhz speed difference there the AMD will still be as fast if not faster as the apparently (going by Mhz) supreme Intel.

He didn't say it was valid for Intel v. AMD. He simply stated architecture. AMD has its own architecture, which is a RISC chip with CISC emulator as far as I'm concerned. He even compared two AMD chips. Here, the MHz/GHz is a very valid benchmark.

By the way, the 2.8GHz P4 kills AMD Athlon XP 2600+ for normal operations, but AMD Athlon XP 2600+ kills P4 when it comes to rendering with Maya, etc. Different things are superior in either.

 

[sturm375]

Marketing

Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

You have to ask, "What drives inovation?" Consumer demand is usually the answer. Apple consumers, by and larger do not over clock, game, or generally tinker with it. If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.

For a long time, Apple's products were pretty much closed to 3rd party vendors. Whether this was intentional on Apple's part, or just not financially fisible on the 3rd party's part, is up for debate.

In the PC world, there is a signifigant portion that: Game, overclock, and tinker. Also Hardware is fairly open to 3rd party vendors. There is a signifigant portion of PC users (probably equal, or greater than the total market share of Apple) bent on getting the absolute fasted rig they can possibly muster. And that is there prime goal, not using the functionality of the computer, just making it fast. Or if they use it for anything, it is gaming.

Basically what I am saying, lack of compitition in Apple's market, has squashed most of the performance inovation.

 

[blackpeter]

Re: Marketing

Originally posted by sturm375
Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.

Well said. I have to agree with you.

Most friends and relatives bring up the clock speed and price. But when they see how the machine looks on my desk, when they step up to OS X and take it for a spin, they see why I could take a speed "loss" for all the luxury that Apple brings to the user experience.

Now, a lot of us rumor-heads are focused on bleeding-edge. And it kinda burns us that Intel/Athlon chips are closing in on 3GHz and we've just broken 1 gig. But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by tfaz1


But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.

I think that's true.
Look at the latest ads for Intel, no Ghz is mentioned at all, it focuses on multimedia stuff.
I think Apple had at least some part in that mindset.

They're slowy moving away from Ghz, but still, to do major multimedia stuff, you need speed.

 

[Quark]

Popular Science Article

There is a very good article in the latest Popular Science (just got it in the mail two days ago -- I assume it is Nov-2002 issue -- when I get home, I'll verify).

The article discusses everything you guys are talking about.

It shows, very clearly, how Mhz and Ghz for benchmarking is not a good idea - it compares AMD to Intel, then throws the PowerPC into the mix.

It's definitely worth a read.

Quark

 

[Spike Spiegel]

all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.

 

[Falleron]

I think most of the blame lies with Motorola. Think of it this way, they have not even given Apple a processor that is fully DDRAM compatible (let alone enought speed bumps). Its a hash up system at the moment. I think when we get a full DDRAM G4 + the speed bump we need in Janaury the systems will get the performance needed.

 

[sturm375]

Originally posted by weezerophile
all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.

I believe you are in the minority. I know many people who own Macs (either exclusively, or majority), and not a single one of them "tinkers" with their Apples. Also, it is a given that since the vast majority of games are released for PC only, there just isn't enough games to make an extensive Mac Gaming market. Lastly, motherboard makers (eg. A-Bit) make boards with BIOS features specifically designed for overclocking. I have seen Mac Overclocking, in consists of adding little resistors to the motherboard.

I am sure there are Mac Overclocker, Gamers, and Tinkerers, there just isn't enough (percentage wise) out of the market to cater to them.

I would venture to guess the a full 10% of the total computing market, consists of these hard core, overclocking, uber-geeks.

Another thing to consider: in the last 3-4 years, which of the Apple computer lines allow "Tinkering?" Only the PowerMacs, and PowerMac Servers. PowerBooks, iBooks, iMacs, iPods are all pretty much "Set it, and forget it" style computers.

 

[mr evil brkfast]

I think it was Motorola's Fault to start with. Ever since the G4 Debuted they have not pushed for improvements and left Apple having to drop speeds in realeased products (500 to 450 in the original), and dual processors (July2000) with no speed bump.

Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!

 

[Falleron]

I think Motorola has another Revision (January / Febuary) + then they will have competition from IBM. I dont like Motorolas chances in that fight. We will probably get this sytem next:

Dual 1.5Ghz with Full DDRAM Support
167Mhz Bus
ATI 9000 Pro (Option 9700 or Geforce TI)
Firewire 2
Bluetooth

I think this spec is what we will get.

 

[mr evil brkfast]

I think it was Motorola's Fault to start with. Ever since the G4 Debuted they have not pushed for improvements and left Apple having to drop speeds in realeased products (500 to 450 in the original), and dual processors (July2000) with no speed bump.

Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!

 

[etoiles]

Re: Marketing

Originally posted by sturm375
Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

You have to ask, "What drives inovation?" Consumer demand is usually the answer. Apple consumers, by and larger do not over clock, game, or generally tinker with it. If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.

what about high end compositing/film editing ? What about the high end graphics market in general ? 3D anyone ? Apple has been very aggressive buying various software companies and technologies in the field, when are they going to deliver a matching workstation ?

 

[PrettyMan]

Re: Re: Marketing

Originally posted by etoiles


what about high end compositing/film editing ? What about the high end graphics market in general ? 3D anyone ? Apple has been very aggressive buying various software companies and technologies in the field, when are they going to deliver a matching workstation ?

Wait, please, wait...

 

[APPLEP58]

I think you're over analyzing this situation. It is one that is purely BUSINESS.

Intel has AMD as direct competition, causing a "space race" sort of 'speed race', they keep topping eachother in speed and proccesses. Both are forced to innovate to remain competitive; and even in the PC world, it is a hard choice whether to choose Intel or AMD for your processor.

With Apple as their primary and only customer for the Mac specific chip, Motorolla has no need to innovate, there is no fire under ass, so to speak.

Basically, they don't care because they don't have to. And it is not Apple's "fault", but rather a credit that they have standerdized on one processor; but that is a convenience and a privelage for Apple, only because there is no other maker at the moment. I'm sure if there was, there would be court cases similar to Microsoft is in about anti-competiveness of Motorolla .


Motorolla has a pure monopoly on a private platform; if Apple were still licensing, and you could buy Umax, SuperMac and other Mac Clones, I'm 100% positive There'd be 4Ghz Macs by now, because those companies would strive to compete with Apple.

 

[j763]

Current situation:
Software: Macs are pretty good
Hardware: pssh... you've got to be kidding!

Situation as of MWSF03:
Software: Macs are great
Hardware: Kind of OK... just.

Situation as of MWNY03:
Software: Macs are fan-fing-tastic
Hardware: Macs rock!!!

[edit]this isn't just made up... i've got some very reliable info[/edit]

 

[mac15]

macs need to catch up, their Hardware is pretty mediocre, but hopefully it can change

 

[benixau]

You know, i dont think apple, motorola, or IBM cares. We will, regardless almost, buy macs next time. A mac is a mac, and a mac user, never goes to a pc. They may use one in preference to a mac, but, they still look at the mac market and hope for a time when they ca move back. I did. 4 years ago i couldnt afford a mac. Now i can, guess which company has an order for two of their professional machines????

Apple doesnt care because of this.
Motorola doesnt care because they make more money elsewhere
IBM doesnt care because they sell pcs and loads of other stuff for computers so they dont need to depend on anyone.

We are 5% of people with computers. If i had to make a hardware marketing decision, which group do you think i want to please?????

 

[Postal]

I'm pretty sure that Apple cares (at least to the degree that they want you to have enough reasons to buy), and I think the issue is mainly with Motorola.

However, I don't think any of us could honestly say whether it's because Motorola can't, or simply won't, put out the speeds and volumes that Apple would like. The G4 is indeed clock-limited (the higher the number of pipelines, the harder it is to speed them up); at the same time, they've gradually been disinterested in the CPU market. Their financial situation hasn't helped either.

It's difficult for me to blame IBM; yes, for the longest time they've been reluctant to include vector multimedia extensions (i.e. VMX, or something eerily similiar to Altivec) in a desktop-oriented PPC, but there hasn't been much doubt as to their capabilities for manufacturing. They said last year that they could get the G3 (in the 750FX version) up to 1 GHz, and they presumably didn't simply because it would have killed incentives to get the Powerbook. A lot of the speculation about the flat-panel iMac in late 2001 was that the iMac would have a 1 GHz G3 processor.

Now that IBM seems to be including VMX in their desktop Power4 variant, I wouldn't be surprised if IBM gladly stepped in and gave the lineup a good kickstart.

 

[benixau]

IBM IBM, yay

Look, dont get me wrong. I believe that as soon as apple and motorola say ta-ta to each other for the mac's CPU then we may have a decent processor under the hood. Look, whilst ironic that the very chip we want comes from a copmany at the complete opposite end of the market, a power4 even cut down at 2Ghz or 2.5Ghz may get apple upto maybe 10-15% of the market share. That is important because then we would become a sizable group. Worth seriously developing for maybe???

Most of the oldest apple allys dont take apple seriously anymore and they just pump out aps that are compatible to stop the email flood that would occur if they didnt.

 

[scem0]

You forgot to mention the price difference too.... Yeah they both have their advantages and disadvantages, but if I were to get a computer right now, I would get a PC. It is because I can find a 2.8 GHz PC for half the price of a 1.25 (2x) pMac. Luckily for apple, I am waiting, because I trust apple to release something revolutionary within a year from now. ::::coug:::: GPUL ::::cough::::..

 

[etoiles]

Originally posted by j763


Situation as of MWNY03:
Software: Macs are fan-fing-tastic
Hardware: Macs rock!!!

[edit]this isn't just made up... i've got some very reliable info[/edit]

you just made my day better, I don't know if your info is really reliable or not, but as that other guy said: I want to believe !