even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling, , Just looking at the history. Are there any indications g5 might scale above the 2ghz of moto's roadmap.
Well, unless Adobe bloats the rest of their apps I think 1.6 will be fine for the majority of people for a while. 3D and some video is really the only place you'd need that raw power to keep increasing. I'm still on a G4 450 so when I get a new computer the power should do me well for a while. The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz mac wise. I guess that's why the iMacs will remain G3.
I don't see myself complaining about being stuck at 1.6 ghz in a few years unless the apps and OS X bloat up.
even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling, , Just looking at the history. Are there any indications g5 might scale above the 2ghz of moto's roadmap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) with the exception of the G4 7400 chips usually have a lot of room to grow over the initial speeds. 604 went from 180 up to 350. g3 has gone from 233 to 733 and 1Ghz soon. Revisions will likely be needed but a good design should have much room to grow.
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing </strong><hr></blockquote>
This topic is about restoring faith in MOT if the G5 does come out in Jan. I don't see any other threads about restoring faith in MOT
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing </strong><hr></blockquote>
This one really is different, otherwise I would've closed it.
The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz
Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.
<strong>The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz
Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.
I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)
True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.
I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".
Well the whole 1.2-1.6 GHz G5 story is from the register, right? And if I remember correctly, the register also reported that Moto is fabbing G5s at up to 2.4 GHz! So if the Register's mole is legit, then the next 18 months or so should be very interesting for Apple.
My faith would be restored in Moto even if they were to put out a nice speedbump, to around 1.1 or 1.2 GHz for the G4. That would be a respectable speed bump, and it would keep Powermacs in about the same speed range as a Pentium 4, at least for a few months.
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.
I just don't understand why Apple can't speed bump and reduce prices without expos. Like use the latest chips available and bump up the RAM without a MWNY style launch. I think expos should be reserved dramatic improvements or totally new products only.
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
so I guess 5 years ago with 603 and 604 processors you thought you would need nothing more ever as they did word processing, web browsing and e-mail fine.
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I must respectfully disagree with you on this point.
5 years ago, your computer was plenty fast already for word processing, e-mail, and most mundane tasks - heck, it was probably fast enough 10 years ago for that stuff. However, web browsing was slow, 3-d graphics rare (and incredibly slow), and video playback (let alone streaming video on the Web) were barely within reach of the best PCs.
It is important for computing power to keep increasing because the applications which become practical or even possible keeps increasing as a result. There are a gazillion (pardon the technical language ) things a desktop computer could do in principle, but doesn't because the computing power required is too much for current hardware.
5 years from now, your computer will be powerful enough to do things that we can't even imagine right now. We'll look back on a 1.6 GHz G5 and be amazed we ever got anything done with such a snail of a processor. 7 years ago, I thought my 6100 with a 60 MHz PPC 601 processor was way cool. I can't even use it, now.
No computer will ever be "fast enough", IMHO. I can't wait for what's coming next!
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I've been using pc's since the TRS-80, and almost every technological advance has had its share of "I honestly don't see..." statements and detractors. And no, this isn't one of those "I walked 10 miles through snow uphill to school" posts.
Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that >512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.
Let's look forward a bit... how about an upgraded ViaVoice, one that was smart enough to put in the punctuation on its own, could transcribe meetings, lectures etc, and be able to identify each different speaker by the tone of their voice? What a boon this would be for students and businessmen/women! Being able to actively listen and participate in class without worry of taking complete notes. More complete learning, the ability for real-time assistive learning devices.
True voice control of your pc, true handwriting recognition, far better compression technologies that make video conferencing viable at lower bandwidths, real-time image recognition. The list can go on and on, ad infinitum.
All of this becomes a reality when the speed of the pc processor is such that it can handle those tasks as a background process.
Yes, in todays terms the average user simply does not tax their system. At the same time, it isn't fast enough to do the type of truely useful things the average person can benefit from (see above).
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Hi Ho Quicksilver ]</p>
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, for your average Joe, as things stand right now, even a 600 MHz G3 is fast enought for most any Mac application. Now, let's look at what Steve had said last year. He wants DVD Burning (aka SuperDrive) to be brought to the consumer in Q1 2002. Now in order for that to take place, a person needs to have a 1 GHz if not more in the G4 range to do the effectively. Also, they need to improve the speeds of the SuperDrive.
However, as things stand now, a G3 in the 600 - 800 MHz is plenty fine for the average Joe Blow.
Yeah, but this "average joe blow" normally buys a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 system so he can play the latest games and/or brag about how big his MHz is to all of his buddies.
I think the "average joe blow" doesn't really care about what he NEEDS. This average blowhard drives an oversized SUV so he can successfully navigate paved roads, he likes to brag about the horsepower of his SUV, and he will talk on and on about how many WATTS his stereo has. And none of it means a damn thing to the guy because he doesn't drive offroad, he rarely redlines his engine, and he doesn't know jack squat about music (or even like music, he mostly likes the IDEA of himself driving around to a kickin' bass theme).
So this same jackass doesn't care about what he NEEDS, it's about what he wants, and what he wants is based on IMAGE, ultimately, the image he thinks it takes to get laid. And more MHz somehow fits into all this to make him a better, bigger man.
So it's in Apple's best interest to get this Pentium-stomping G5 into their powermacs so they can brag about how much faster it is than a 2 GHz Pentium.
Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that >512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
2 years ago, did photoshop require 150+megs? That wouldv'e been, what OS 8.0? That used about 40megs if I remeber correctly. So, you see my point, apps and the OS have bloated due to extra features, effects, drop shadows, etc. But I think we are close to being as far as we need to be.
2 years from now, I don't think photoshop will require 500megs to run, if it does, then LOL, holy shit!
You see what I mean, it's like now that we have cars with 200+hp we really don't need much more, or at least by average.
Comments
even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling,
I don't see myself complaining about being stuck at 1.6 ghz in a few years unless the apps and OS X bloat up.
<strong>I was thinking pollux,
even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling,
1.) with the exception of the G4 7400 chips usually have a lot of room to grow over the initial speeds. 604 went from 180 up to 350. g3 has gone from 233 to 733 and 1Ghz soon. Revisions will likely be needed but a good design should have much room to grow.
2.) Dual processors
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing
This topic is about restoring faith in MOT if the G5 does come out in Jan. I don't see any other threads about restoring faith in MOT
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing
This one really is different, otherwise I would've closed it.
Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.
<strong>The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz
Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.
I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)
For most of us we really don't need the power for Dreamweaver/Quark/Office/Illastrator etc.
We like the power but usually don't need it.
<strong>
True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.
I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".
My faith would be restored in Moto even if they were to put out a nice speedbump, to around 1.1 or 1.2 GHz for the G4. That would be a respectable speed bump, and it would keep Powermacs in about the same speed range as a Pentium 4, at least for a few months.
<strong>
BULL
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.
<strong>
BULL
until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.
<strong>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
so I guess 5 years ago with 603 and 604 processors you thought you would need nothing more ever as they did word processing, web browsing and e-mail fine.
<strong>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I must respectfully disagree with you on this point.
5 years ago, your computer was plenty fast already for word processing, e-mail, and most mundane tasks - heck, it was probably fast enough 10 years ago for that stuff. However, web browsing was slow, 3-d graphics rare (and incredibly slow), and video playback (let alone streaming video on the Web) were barely within reach of the best PCs.
It is important for computing power to keep increasing because the applications which become practical or even possible keeps increasing as a result. There are a gazillion (pardon the technical language
5 years from now, your computer will be powerful enough to do things that we can't even imagine right now. We'll look back on a 1.6 GHz G5 and be amazed we ever got anything done with such a snail of a processor. 7 years ago, I thought my 6100 with a 60 MHz PPC 601 processor was way cool. I can't even use it, now.
No computer will ever be "fast enough", IMHO. I can't wait for what's coming next!
Tom Moyer
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
BULL
<snip>
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I've been using pc's since the TRS-80, and almost every technological advance has had its share of "I honestly don't see..." statements and detractors. And no, this isn't one of those "I walked 10 miles through snow uphill to school" posts.
Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that >512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.
Let's look forward a bit... how about an upgraded ViaVoice, one that was smart enough to put in the punctuation on its own, could transcribe meetings, lectures etc, and be able to identify each different speaker by the tone of their voice? What a boon this would be for students and businessmen/women! Being able to actively listen and participate in class without worry of taking complete notes. More complete learning, the ability for real-time assistive learning devices.
True voice control of your pc, true handwriting recognition, far better compression technologies that make video conferencing viable at lower bandwidths, real-time image recognition. The list can go on and on, ad infinitum.
All of this becomes a reality when the speed of the pc processor is such that it can handle those tasks as a background process.
Yes, in todays terms the average user simply does not tax their system. At the same time, it isn't fast enough to do the type of truely useful things the average person can benefit from (see above).
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Hi Ho Quicksilver ]</p>
<strong>
BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.
That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.
I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, for your average Joe, as things stand right now, even a 600 MHz G3 is fast enought for most any Mac application. Now, let's look at what Steve had said last year. He wants DVD Burning (aka SuperDrive) to be brought to the consumer in Q1 2002. Now in order for that to take place, a person needs to have a 1 GHz if not more in the G4 range to do the effectively. Also, they need to improve the speeds of the SuperDrive.
However, as things stand now, a G3 in the 600 - 800 MHz is plenty fine for the average Joe Blow.
I think the "average joe blow" doesn't really care about what he NEEDS. This average blowhard drives an oversized SUV so he can successfully navigate paved roads, he likes to brag about the horsepower of his SUV, and he will talk on and on about how many WATTS his stereo has. And none of it means a damn thing to the guy because he doesn't drive offroad, he rarely redlines his engine, and he doesn't know jack squat about music (or even like music, he mostly likes the IDEA of himself driving around to a kickin' bass theme).
So this same jackass doesn't care about what he NEEDS, it's about what he wants, and what he wants is based on IMAGE, ultimately, the image he thinks it takes to get laid. And more MHz somehow fits into all this to make him a better, bigger man.
So it's in Apple's best interest to get this Pentium-stomping G5 into their powermacs so they can brag about how much faster it is than a 2 GHz Pentium.
<strong>
Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that >512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
2 years ago, did photoshop require 150+megs? That wouldv'e been, what OS 8.0? That used about 40megs if I remeber correctly. So, you see my point, apps and the OS have bloated due to extra features, effects, drop shadows, etc. But I think we are close to being as far as we need to be.
2 years from now, I don't think photoshop will require 500megs to run, if it does, then LOL, holy shit!
You see what I mean, it's like now that we have cars with 200+hp we really don't need much more, or at least by average.