iMac GE

[4fx]

The new iMac looks like quite the nice little machine for games and such. However, the gf2mx is dated, though it has quite some life in it left. I would like to see Apple make a gaming edition. Specs wouldnt have to change much at all. Just take the high end machine, replace the superdrive with a dvd/cdrw and add a gf4ti. This would more or less be a substitute. The only other thing different would then be a large bundle of popular mac osx games. Im thinking, warcraft 3, unreal 2, ev3, deimos rising, and various others. Id gladly pay the same price for this machine as the top end. And in all actuality, it wouldnt cost Apple any more than the superdrive equiped one.

[4fx]

The thing is, this manouver would probably look like an aggressive maneuver on Apple's part to game producers. And could possibly bring more games to the mac, if not the ones that are going to be anyway faster. Plus, just having it in name would open gamer's eyes to the wonderful world of macintosh :) I know many people who want a gaming machine, but dont want to spend the money on a powermac. This bridge for gaming(and all around purposes) could potentially do a lot for Apple's PR.

[Wrong Robot]

Its possible apple might experiment with a gaming edition machine sometime down the line. I don't feel like now is a good time, Perhaps second or third rev of the new iMac will have BTO geforce4...or something like that....once all ranges are shipping, and iMac2 has sold millions and everyone loves apple, THEN expect more experimental things like a gaming machine. imo.

[applenut]

the imac should not have models targeted at specific demographics. that makes it seem like the other models are limited.

There is no reason Apple can't just use a geforce 4mx in the existing high end and include a few more games.

no need for specific models.

[BRussell]

I agree with the gaming edition - or at least a better graphics card in the high-end.

But the problem is still that you can't upgrade the video. Even a gamer's video card will be "obsolete" in a year (or at least the gamers will think so).

[stepson]

I also think this is a good idea... whether a 'special edition' model, or something else along those lines, but an iMac with a better video card might be cool... GeForce 3? I dunno ... unfortunatly, it may require a new motherboard, since the 2MX is soldered on there now ... i have the 2MX in my cube, and its a decent video card, but, hey, more is always better (more memory on the card, more fill rate, etc). Including the games is a good idea too ... (instead of rebates).

[RolandG]

Hi there!

Although I am of the opinion that Apple should offer larger display options I am not sure about them offering a special gaming machine:

I think the future is consoles - cheaper to produce at the same performance level, longer product cycles, unified platform = easier, more efficient programming, performance advantages due to missing modularity.

Well, the iMac is not all that modular but still it does not offer the high level of component integration consoles offer either.

[Macintoshhh]

Why doesnt Apple just offer any kind of specs people want?

[Anders]

[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
<strong>Why doesnt Apple just offer any kind of specs people want?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nice to have you back.

1: Taking sales away from PM
2: Less choices=Cheaper storage and production
3: Design doesn´t have to consider BTO (2MX on mother board etc.)
4: You buy a new iMac sooner.

[BungHole]

How much more heat does the Gforce4Ti produce then the 2mx? I think quite a bit. I think apple needs to have the iMac video card upgradable somehow though.

[cdhostage]

I would love to have one of the new Geforce 4 Ti in my new iMac. Yeqah, woohoo!

Of course, I haven' t bought any of these things yet. Have to sell my iMac 500 first.

[NeoMac]

[quote]Originally posted by 4fx:
<strong>However, the gf2mx is dated</strong><hr></blockquote>

The GeF2MX in the iMac is a Ti-400 model. It's no GeF3, but it is hardly dated. But

Frankly, it's surprising Apple used the latest edition. I was betting they would use the older versions.

If they still use the GeF2mx i in the 2003 iMac, then we can start bitching! :)

[Tarbash]

It's also surprising they put a 24X burner in the low end config...

[MacGregor]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the imac should not have models targeted at specific demographics. that makes it seem like the other models are limited.

There is no reason Apple can't just use a geforce 4mx in the existing high end and include a few more games.

no need for specific models.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't agree. I think in the world of the consumer, bundles are very big and since gamers are high-end consumers by and large (or is that by "in" large). Consumers are worried about software issues. Allay those fears with bundles.

The best times for buying Macs was during the clone wars when every Mac reseller had bundles at great prices.

Applenut has a point about diluting the message of the iMac being your digital hub. However you can easily keep the iMac from seemingly being limited in anyway by actually using quick, UBIQUITOUS advertising that explains all of the ways the simple consumer Mac could be used by 80% of the world's computing population. The other 20% should buy a PowerMac.

The iMac for Business; the iMac for Gaming; the iMac for Music and Video - those are all great marketing visions that start with a computer that really can do it all. It would be nice for consumers to be able to optimise a few things on their own, since that part of the consumer market that wants to, is getting larger.

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: MacGregor ]</p>

[YakManDoo]

This is a great idea! The automakers do it all the time LE, SE and so on (luxury, Sport editions) here are the specs:

Gamer's Edition (GE)
G4 1Ghz
NVidia GeForce 4Ti 128MB DDR
17" LCD
CD/RW (Superdrive is an option)
512MB RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
Creative Audigy? Sound card..their big one whatever it is
(2) USB 2.0 (1) Firewire
Boston Acoustics Speakers
$1999

Multimedia Edition (MME)
G4 933Mhz
NVidia GeForce 3 or 4MX
15" LCD
Superdrive
100 GB Hard Disk
512MB RAM
Audigy
(2) USB 2.0 (2) Firewire
Boston Acoustics
$1799

Office Edition (OE)
G4 800 Mhz
NVIDIA GeForce 4MX
15" LCD
80 GB Hard Drive
CD/RW
256 Ram
(2) USB 2.0, (1) Firewire
$1399

[YakManDoo]

I would buy the GE tomorrow, that would be a sweet ride if I do say so myself...Oh wait I did.

[Fran441]

Sorry, but this is a bad idea. In fact, it's a VERY BAD idea.

Why? Most people don't buy computers to play games. Now I'm sure a lot of people here do buy computers to play games, but most consumers do not buy a computer for gaming.

Targeting a machine for games alone, is silly. There just isn't a market for it. There aren't enough Mac games to warrant it either. For most games, you could just take a 500 MHz iMac with a 16 MB graphics card and 256 MB of RAM and they would run fine. Sure there are some FPS games that will run better and get more frames out of the processor, but to spend $1800-$2000 on a machine just to play games is ridiculous.

If you're really serious about games, the major consoles will be online within months- PS2 already is for some games, so is the XBox. The Game Cube should have it's online plans forecasted by E3. Plus, for portability, there's always the Game Boy Advance. They have many more games out there to choose from and are MUCH cheaper.

Unless Apple works much harder to get game developers working on making nearly everything for the Mac, a Gaming Edition iMac is a bad idea.

[SteveS]

For starters, one of the oldest suggestions is for people that are interested in games, to buy a console instead of a PC. Of course, this statement comes from people that don't understand the gaming market. (No insults intended). Consoles are great for the typical arcade type of games. However, the more serious gamer is often in to simulation type of games that just aren't available on consoles (not the arcade type of sims). Unfortunately, many of these games, but not all, do in fact require a very serious system. For these types of gamers, only a high end PC (like the $3000+ dream systems described in PC Gamer magazine) or equivalent Mac will do. Of course, these systems come with the latest and greatest video (previously nVidia Geforce 3 TI500) and kplisch 5.1 speaker systems, etc.

There's no sense in Apple catering to this market really. Instead, the best thing Apple can do is raise the standard for the lowest common demoninator in terms of gaming performance. Let's not forget that Apple did exactly that with the new iMacs. Apple moved from the G3 to the G4s. This is big for all around performance, but specifically helps OpenGL. More importantly, Apple ditched the crappy ATI Rage 128 (16mb) for the nVidia GeForce2mx (32mb). This is huge! The ATI chip was state of the art 4 years ago. The combination of G4 and nVidia graphics has more than doubled the iMacs gaming performance overnight. Is it state of the art? No. But the iMac is no longer the laughing stock it once was for gaming. This is exactly what Apple needed to do and did. Further, with the Geforce4mx, it's clear that Apple has a nice low cost speed bump ready and waiting for the iMac when the time is right.

Steve

[SteveS]

[quote]Originally posted by YakManDoo:
<strong>This is a great idea! The automakers do it all the time LE, SE and so on (luxury, Sport editions) here are the specs:

Gamer's Edition (GE)
G4 1Ghz
NVidia GeForce 4Ti 128MB DDR
17" LCD
CD/RW (Superdrive is an option)
512MB RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
Creative Audigy? Sound card..their big one whatever it is
(2) USB 2.0 (1) Firewire
Boston Acoustics Speakers
$1999

Multimedia Edition (MME)
G4 933Mhz
NVidia GeForce 3 or 4MX
15" LCD
Superdrive
100 GB Hard Disk
512MB RAM
Audigy
(2) USB 2.0 (2) Firewire
Boston Acoustics
$1799

Office Edition (OE)
G4 800 Mhz
NVIDIA GeForce 4MX
15" LCD
80 GB Hard Drive
CD/RW
256 Ram
(2) USB 2.0, (1) Firewire
$1399</strong><hr></blockquote>

I like the idea of a gaming edition iMac in theory. The problem comes when theory meets practice. For starters, a 1GHZ G4, nVidia GeForce 4TI, 17" LCD... etc.. for $2000?? Come on, let's be realistic. The current iMac is considered to be a good deal, even by PC standards. I know you're dropping the DVD-R, but even still, there's no way all of those things could be added at that price.

Even if it could, who would buy the Pro Macs? How much should people spend for PCI slots?

Also, it gets to be a bit ridiculous to have the iMacs into the $2000 range. IMO, iMacs should cover the $999 - $1800(max) range. You could get a lower end G4 tower that is fully expandable at the $2000 range. Further, the serious Mac gamer will likely buy a tower anyway.

Steve

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]</p>

[YakManDoo]

First in the next Rev. this pricing point is not too far out there especially six to eight months from now. Second...the specs on all three carry over to a million different things, there are companies who cater to gamers alone for their pc's and they are built to play...try Alienware for one and Falcon (I think that's it) for 2. Third, most people who are buying the imac under 35 want to play games and the $1799 machine is a dog for games of any kind. The open source community plays a lot of games and that is where Apple is targeting...$2000 ain't too much to put great hardware in the hands of capable users who aren't sure that the Mac platform is the way to go. Games are very important to the consumer don't underestimate them.

[Fran441]

[quote]For starters, one of the oldest suggestions is for people that are interested in games, to buy a console instead of a PC. Of course, this statement comes from people that don't understand the gaming market. <hr></blockquote>

Well, I used to buy that argument, but I don't any more. I fully understand the gaming market, and I own all of the 'next-gen' consoles thanks to my very good luck. :)

Any way, when I look at the XBox games that are out now like Halo, or I play a Game Cube game like Madden 2002 or play a PS2 game like GTA3, I have to wonder why people do buy PCs just for gaming. Most, if not all, of the very popular titles come out for the consoles in the end any way, and come out looking very spiffy. Take Deus Ex for PS2 for example. It's a great port. The gameplay and graphics flow on the game just like on a very good computer.

Plus, the game libraries of these systems are HUGE! You've got sports games (which the PC never replicated well), a lot of console classics, and some great FPS like Halo (I'm sorry for those who hate M$, but this is a great game). Plus, with systems like the XBox coming with a hard drive and an ethernet port, add ons are definitely possible, as are great internet games. When they come out with the voice headset, that will be even more amazing. Who wouldn't want to play Unreal Championship in a huge open arena with 31 other players with virtually no lag because you're all on high speed internet connections?

I'm not saying that this is the end of PC games by a long shot, but the consoles do a great job and have a ton of games and they are a LOT CHEAPER than a $3000 computer. (Heck, for $3000, you could buy an XBox and every XBox game! :eek: )

I just don't think there is a market for a Gaming iMac, or at least not a machine marketed as a gaming iMac. I think it would be a flop.

[YakManDoo]

Not to make this a console vs. pc gaming debate and staying on the topic of the pros and cons of a GE version of the Imac I will say this:

The PC/MAC experience allows a programmer to create greater depth of play, larger environments and a decidedly more immersive environment than a console ever can. This is not to say that consoles don't have great games, however, the games are not nor will they ever be as immersive as those of the personal computer. This is only because of the one dimensional nature and time within which the hardware of a console becomes obsolete.
What this means: The GE version of the iMac were Apple to put one out which they won't, gives the consumer a bang up personal computing experience as well as a capable though not a top of the line gaming experience. No one is buying the iMac for games at this time...great add on, but wouldn't it be nice if for a couple hundred more bucks one could buy the iMac with a video card for which companies would be aiming their games at for some time to come? The current hardware will not allow the consumer to play those games that are coming out in the next 6 - 8 months (UT2 and C&C Renegade) at resonable levels of resolution and FPS. The GF 2MX doesn't cut it. It does fine for the digital hub, but again wouldn't it be nice if Apple made gaming a part of the digital hub environment?

As for product price entry points the ones I outlined aren't far fetched for a 6 to 8 month time horizon. Apple just needs to remember that we like games as much as we like our cameras.

[macaddict]

[quote]The GeF2MX in the iMac is a Ti-400 model. It's no GeF3, but it is hardly dated.<hr></blockquote>

A GF2MX Ti 400? That's a new one. ;) I think you mean an MX400.

The iMac is not a gamers machine and can't be. The Mac is not a gamers machine and it can't be. Like it was said before, gamers are a niche market. Only about 5% of the PC market is composed of hardcore gamers...and take 5% of 3% and you get a uhhh...very small number. ;)

Macs are not gamers machines for these reasons:

A. Not very many PC games come out for the Mac. Some of the better ones do, but a lot are never ported even after a year or so.

B. Gaming hardware is very sparse on the mac. We have what, 3 modern gaming cards? And the only sound card made with gamers in mind on the Mac is the horribly crappily drivered SB Live...and it's $100. For $100 you can get an Audigy with a few games bundled.

C. Cost: As Fran stated, spending $1800+ on a gaming machine is kind of weird, especially for one with such limiting features. Hardware is cheap on the PC side, which makes it very attractive for gaming.

Now add the drawbacks of using an iMac:

A. The iMac is small. Will not fit a GF4 Ti. Those things are monsters and put out a ton of heat.

B. The iMac is very limited expandability-wise. Uses SODIMMS, no PCI slots, no extra drive bays, internal or external.

C. LCD screens are not gaming screens, and using a CRT is not an option by any means for an iMac.

A gaming iMac will not appeal to many PC gamers, and not to many Mac gamers either. Most would rather buy a G4 733 for $~1200, add a good 17" CRT, and maybe a decent video card.

Oh, and Fran, a G3 500 + 16MB Rage 128 is just not working for any serious gamer. That's pretty similiar to my set up and let me tell you it sucks. Even with all eye candy turned off I can barely get playable framerates on my G4 400 + Rage 128.

[YakManDoo]

I disagree with you one one point...that LCD's aren't for gaming. I spent all weekend playing Return to Wolf, C&C Renegade and Counterstrike on a beautiful 17" Samsung LCD...Good God, it was brilliant, the colors were on, the thing was as bright as day and wow!

How much of a niche was there for the Dalmation CRT? The 700mhz CRT was a SE (special edition)and that didn't sell very well. All I am saying is that as this model progresses (iMac 2) there will be the need to play with the specs. When that time comes it wouldn't hurt Apple to have 3 lines based on three potential uses one with a bang up video card in it and call it the GE.

[Amorph]

Very few people, relative to the total customer base, buy computers for games, period. On the other hand, most people play games on the computers they buy, and the overwhelming majority of those are casual gamers. The iMac is a more than capable gaming machine for the majority of people. It's also better equipped than the baseline machine that most game developers try to target, because there aren't nearly enough hardcore gamers with the latest and greatest to pay for the multi-million dollar costs of modern game development.

I think a boost to a GeForce4MX is a pretty obvious enhancement, although I don't know if it'll appear too soon given that the iMac apparently has very little wiggle room as far as internal heat sources are concerned. The non-user-accessible RAM has to be coated with thermal paste to prevent the unit from overheating!

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[Matsu]

Remember, NV-17 is a pretty crafty engineering feat on nVidia's part: It doubles as a budget GF4 and as a high-end laptop solution. To me that suggests that they made it with heat/energy consumption and cost in mind. We could probably look for it in an imac within a year since it's power characteristics are supposedly better, and it's cost will only drop.

Amorph is right about the engineering constraints. Obviously, Apple spent a long time ironing out the design for mass production. (Nevermind his Steveness's RDF garden and sunflower last minute redesign spin) That's months of work there. At some point before NV-17 would meet their cost/availability requirements, Apple had to set some of the design parameters or they just wouldn't be able to move on. They probably just went to nVidia and said what've you got right now, that's going to be plentiful and cheap, and that meets these requirements NOW? nVidia answers: GF2MX, heck we can give you a slightly hotter version, but that's all we can guarantee.

I bet there are NV-17 versions in development right now. As are any number of tweaks to the internal layout -- maybe two external dimms, certainly a 133Mhz bus, faster G4's. I'm betting the first iMac rev that sees 133Mhz FSB probably moves both dimms to the user accessible side of the Mobo. All these things take time, and the only reason you don't see them on iMacs right away is that they had to make a decision and stick to it, if they ever wanted to get the thing into mass production.

[Fran441]

[quote]Oh, and Fran, a G3 500 + 16MB Rage 128 is just not working for any serious gamer. That's pretty similiar to my set up and let me tell you it sucks. Even with all eye candy turned off I can barely get playable framerates on my G4 400 + Rage 128.<hr></blockquote>

Interesting. The snow iMac we have is a G3/500 with a 16 MB video card and it plays most of the current games out there without an issue. The same is true with my PowerBook G3/500 with it's 8 MB video card. I can play the games if I want to. I've played Elite Force without an issue on my PowerBook. Q3 and UT work fine. Sure, some maps might get choppy, but for 95% of the game, it's great.

The big test for me will be RTCW (when is that going to ship, btw?)

[macaddict]

[quote]The snow iMac we have is a G3/500 with a 16 MB video card and it plays most of the current games out there without an issue.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, it will play but it slows down a lot when you need speed most—intense action firefights. I find this especially annoying playing online using Urban Terror.

Me: "Aha, I see that dude! Another free frag for me!"
*muzzle flash slows system down to 15fps, guy jumps around and nails 5 headshots*

[Quarem]

I have an iMac 400, and an iMac 600 and anybody who says the iMac is a great gaming machine is either lying or has a skewed perception of what "great gaming" means. From what I have heard the new iMac is a quantum leap better at games then the old ones, which is good to know.

But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Eric D.V.H]

[quote]Originally posted by Quarem:
<strong>But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/" target="_blank">The Megahertz Myth</a> is perfectly valid. as the 1Ghz PPC 7450 can rip the heart out of any 80886 or K7 without even flinching. and more than one of them might as well be a lynch mob. so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.

Unlike on the wintel side. where motherboards have been running off of DDR 2400 DRAM DIMMs for years now. my cutting edge QuickSilver G4 is still just grasping the concept of PC133 DRAM DIMMs :rolleyes: . meanwhile. Apple has actually taunted us with DDR 2400 DRAM in the newest G4s. but as CPU cache :mad: ! when everyone knows your supposed to use _SRAM_ for that.

Probably the most fundamental problem(Game related or otherwise), aside from the fact of that it isn't all Apple's fault. is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X. the fact of that nearly all games nowadays are wintel ports(Plus SSE, MMX, 3DNow! and multiple Celerons aren't even supported hardly ever on the wintel side <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> ). and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.

Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.

Also. although it slows it down very slightly. Macs have always had lousy audio subsystems since about when Wing Commander IV came out. and the horrific demise of the Mac Sound Blaster Live! recently doesn't bode well for this problem.

Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.

In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/" target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.

Eric,

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>

[applenut]

[quote]The Megahertz Myth is perfectly valid. as the 1Ghz PPC 7450 can rip the heart out of any 80886 or K7 without even flinching. and more than one of them might as well be a lynch mob.<hr></blockquote>

it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP

[quote]so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.<hr></blockquote>

hardly the only reason

[quote]is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X.<hr></blockquote>

uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.

[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>

cocoa means **** . a well written carbon app will run the same speed as a cocoa app.

and you must have some freak hands because there are many apps optimized for MP and altivec

[quote]
Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.<hr></blockquote>

and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66

[quote]
Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.<hr></blockquote>

the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.

get your facts straight

[applenut]

Apple DVD Player
* DVD Studio Pro
* Disk Burner
* Final Cut Pro
* iMovie 2
* iTunes 2
* Mac OS X
* Quicktime
* WebObjects
Adobe After Effects
* Premiere 6
* Photoshop 5.5-6
Absoft Pro Fortran
Active Concepts Funnel Web
Alias|Wavefront Maya
Artel Boris Series (all)
Asarte DVDirector
Bitheadz Unity
Buena Software Effects Pack
* AltiVec Effect
Cassady & Greene SoundJam MP Plus
DCES RC-5
Digital Origin EditDV
Discreet Logic Combustion
Electric Rain Swift 3D
Filemaker Filemaker Pro
Heuris MPEG Power Pro
id software Quake
Maxon Cinema 4DXL 6
* Body Paint 3D
Media 100 Media Cleaner Pro
* CineStream
Metrowerks CodeWarrior 5
MOTU AltiVerb
* Digital Performer
Netscape Communicator 6
Propellerhead Reason
Qbeo PhotoGenetics 2
* VideoGenetics 1
Qdesign Music Codec 2.1
Sorenson Sorenson Video

StarNine WebStar 4.2
Steinberg Cubase VST

Strata Studio 3D Pro
Terran Media Cleaner Pro

Terra Soft Solutions *
Yellow Dog Linux
Toon Boom
Toon Boom Studio
Video Script
Video Script Pro


those are just a sample list of the altivec AND MP optimized apps available today. Count that on your single hand :rolleyes:

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by Eric D.V.H:
<strong>In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/" target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

thanks, I forgot to mention that

[Eric D.V.H]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP</strong><hr></blockquote>

I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. perhaps if Office X's transparency and scrolling code were snapped up a bit… ;)

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines). compare their tiny smidgeon of vector code with their great FPU optimizations. and yes. being Altivec optimized and MP aware from the start helps _quite_ a bit. just look at the way Serious Sam benefits from clever use of Intel's and AMD's VPUs. or for a more extreme example. look at the microcoding(Binary programming) done on consoles and supercomputers. I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lets add a slave drive… Oooops!

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know that. My AGP slot has a preloaded GF2MX in it. the ProFormance III+ is from my old computer. and I installed it in one of the PCI slots of my G4 to drive a second monitor. what I was complaining about is the fact of that if Apple had spent just a tiny bit more money. my ProFormance III+ would be as happy in my G4 is it would be in a Blue and White G3. and for your information. although Apple just used it as a graphics slot in the G3. there are numerous other kinds of 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI cards out thare too. and 64-Bit/66Mhz cards are about a third faster than 32-Bit/66Mhz or 64-Bit/33Mhz cards.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>those are just a sample list of the altivec AND MP optimized apps available today. Count that on your single hand :rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeesh. what I said was:
[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>

Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>thanks, I forgot to mention that</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whooops! my mistake. <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=01M98653" target="_blank">your quite right</a>. I guess Motorola _is_ to blame for the lousy RAM bus in recent Macs to at least some degree(Allthough I wonder about the steadfastness of those rules. as Met@box managed to squeeze 2MB of backside cache onto their JoeCard G4 upgrades…).

Eric

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>

[TigerWoods99]

I think Apple should've done a GF4 MX in the iMacs and then GF4 Ti in the PowerMacs. Since there are 3 models each here is what you could do:

low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440

low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600


Apple should give me the GF4 Ti card for the troubles with this stupid crap GF4 MX that looks like its gonna kill the screen or something. Seriously I have put up with a lot of problems from Apple and they haven't done jack in the past.

[Eric D.V.H]

[quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:
<strong>I think Apple should've done a GF4 MX in the iMacs and then GF4 Ti in the PowerMacs. Since there are 3 models each here is what you could do:

low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440

low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600</strong><hr></blockquote>

The PowerMac is upgradable. as for the iMac. I think Apple should just make a special AGP card. only have it be easy slide in/out and fully encased like a giant PCMCIA card. this would solve the "PCI/AGP cards are too difficult for the average joe(As well as just being a genuine pain for people like me too)" argument against an upgradable iMac.


Eric,

[mslee]

[quote]and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66<hr></blockquote>

applenut, remember when I said ATA-66 was good enough for most people?

What did you say?

"wah...not for me....wah"

[applenut]

[quote]I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.<hr></blockquote>

I'm pretty sure the g4 sucks in integer performance and that the Athlon's FPU is much better than the g4. I'l try to get some numbers but if what you said was correct than the G4 would be as fast as those processors even without altivec which it is not. in fact without altivec the G4 compared to a new P4 sucks.

[quote]Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines).<hr></blockquote>

sorry, but that is completely wrong. FCP sees a 70% boost from dual processors and now has real time effects simply because of altivec. that's badly tacked on?

photoshop sees huge gains using altivec

Lightwave is heavily optimized for both

[quote]I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'<hr></blockquote>

The OpenGL libraries already have altivec optimizations and some games are MP and even altivec optimized such as Myth 3.

[quote]Lets add a slave drive… Oooops!<hr></blockquote>

ATA can only right to one drive at a time AFAIK.

[quote]Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.<hr></blockquote>

what are you talking about?

what does that have to do with anything?

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

[quote]I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.<hr></blockquote>

HEHE, that was a good one, tell me another <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[Junkyard Dawg]

Fu[k yeah! An iMac GE would rock!

Spec it out like so:

17" LCD
CD-RW drive
1 GHz G4, 266+ MHz system bus.
GeForce 4 Titanium


Essentially, make it on par with powermacs, but sell it in the iMac form factor for lower cost. It would have everything the Powermacs did except expandability.

Too bad Apple will NEVER make an iMac geared towards gaming, but it's fun to masturbate with such ideas.