[quote]<strong>I am? I sure didn't think I was.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you said that people needed to stop buying PowerMacs, I replied that people needed to stop buying them and
tell Apple why, and you said that would be ineffective. Ergo, not buying PowerMacs is ineffective.
[quote]<strong>From what I see, Apple's PowerMac sales have dropped 23%, and still, there is no forward momentum in their hardware development. Their sales must not have not dropped ENOUGH for them to take action. I guess it's a question of numbers.
Remember Fight Club? If there aren't enough car accidents to be cost-impactive, the automobile manufacturer doesn't have a recall. It's a movie, I realize, but it describes American business practices to a tee.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't get my sense of economics from Hollywood films, and since I saw nothing about Fight Club
to recommend it, I ignored it.
Remember that Apple is aggressively moving into markets that cannot subsist on consumer products or laptops, and they are trying to grow market share. In both these cases, subsisting on increased sales of their other lines is a stopgap solution at best. It might be what they're doing now, but I'll bet it's not because they want to.
[quote]<strong>No, I have not used the 2xGig Powermac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's about 30% faster than the dual 800, to give you some idea. (That based on xlr8yourmac's tests.)
[quote]<strong>I agree that 512MB of 133MHz SDRAM can be as fast as 256MB of 266MHz DDR, all other things being equal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Busses and memory controllers being unequal (as they often are), 256MB of SDR SDRAM can outrun 256MB of DDR, or at least keep up in the majority of cases. MaxBus has robust support for streaming.
[quote]<strong>But I do not perceive Apple has having "quality" in mind when they made the decision to keep their 133MHz bus implementation. Rather, I imagine that they did it because they do not have a cost-effective/plausible implementation that would allow a 266MHz bus to be implemented for current PowerMac designs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What part of "quality" implies that they should use an implementation that isn't plausible? :confused:
They've eked an astonishing amount of performance out of their current architecture, far more than most - if not all - PC motherboards ever got out of their single-pumped busses. If they switched to DDR, and the net result was a single-digit performance improvement sometimes, Apple would be laughed off the boards. They implemented DDR for their servers, despite the 133Mhz MaxBus, because it made sense to have all that extra memory bandwidth for I/O; now that they have a memory controller that can use DDR efficiently, they'll implement DDR in the towers when they have a processor that supports it. To claim that they're holding back because the iMac is selling well is just strange.
[quote]<strong>And, yes, I believe that an 800MHz G4 PowerMac is beautifully-fast compared to my 350MHz G3 PowerMac. But that is completely irrelevant. My 1Gig Duron is beautifully-fast compared to my 350MHz G3, also. And it cost $1000 less.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Might as well ask another question: Is processor speed the only item of concern for you? Or hardware speed, for that matter? Do you mean real-world performance or numbers on spec sheets?
BTW, you can check out a dual GHz by going to a VAR or an Apple Store, if there's one around. That's how I did it.
The folks in the Apple Store load them up with pro apps, and they're more than willing to let you take them for a spin.
[quote]<strong>The REAL question is whether the 800MHz G4 is worth the money - now AND a year from now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My 450MHz G4 was worth the money when I bought it last year, and I still haven't come close to tapping its potential. I suppose it depends on what you're actually trying to do.
[quote]<strong>I'm curious, do you work in the engineering field?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In software, which has the same relationship to marketing that the hardware guys do. Plus a great many of my friends and coworkers are hardware guys. The "more with less" doctrine is more especially critical in hardware, especially where clock speed is concerned, because high clock speeds introduce a double handful of complications to motherboard design. But it's not uncommon in software, either. In fact, on the programming newsgroups, someone with a loaded, up-to-the-minute rig is most likely an abject newbie, and his uncapitalized "how do i clear the screen in c k thx bye" is probably going to be handled by someone on an 8500.
[quote]<strong>What I said was that ATA/66 is outdated. I would challenge you to find a Dell, Gateway, or HP in the PowerMac price range that still used an ATA/66.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but what you said is that you wanted something faster.
If Dell, Gateway and HP ship those... so what? The theoretical speed advantage they offer is irrelevant, and they offer no increase in storage capacity, unlike ATA/133. So we're back to real performance vs. theoretical numbers.
When I wanted more space, I bought an ATA/133 FW enclosure. I have my original 30GB drive in there now, but if I wanted to add a whopping 160GB drive tomorrow I could, and bigger drives as they become available. I can also buy another enclosure and daisy-chain it for even more storage. The FW drive is every bit as fast as the internal drive, so there's no loss there either.
[quote]<strong>And be careful about the word SUSTAINED. There is NO ATA HD out there (to my knowledge) that has a SUSTAINED data transfer rate. It's the same reason why Firewire wipes the floor with USB 2.0. A peak, unstable data rate of 800MB/s is no match for a sustained data rate of 400MB/s.
ATA/100 has the potential to write at 100MB/s in random bursts. Are you telling me that there's NO software out there that would require 100MB/s bursts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whether there is or not is moot if there isn't the hardware to provide those bursts.
Also, I doubt that there is. There is software that benefits from it, of course, which is why people buy big SCSI RAIDs like the ones that I linked to, but nothing I've heard of that requires
it. Real-time video, perhaps? Off to MacGurus you go, because you're not going to get it from your ATA bus.
[quote]<strong>Are you telling me that there's NO speed to be gained from 33MB/s MORE data throughput?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe a fraction of a second here or there reading relatively small files from RAM cache (which OS X does to some extent anyway by caching files in main RAM, bypassing the drive bus altogether), but nothing like the 33% increase in theoretical bandwidth. You won't get that until sustained reads from ATA drives get faster (what's a sustained read from an ATA drive? Well, copy a 1GB file on an optimized disk. There you go.
[quote]<strong>Are you telling me that there WON'T be software out there that may require this within the next year?</strong><hr></blockquote>
With almost 100% certainty. Any software that failed to run without being able to access an ATA HDD at that rate (i.e., which required
that bandwidth) would find itself with a vanishingly small market. People who really need that kind of speed fork out for SCSI RAIDs. That's where your read/write rates of 100MB/s are, and you'll pay dearly for them.
It's possible that Apple will introduce something like the ATA RAID technology on the XServe, although I'll bet they have two channels instead of four if they do. Even then, people who want real speed will get a SCSI RAID or an XServe RAID (when those appear). If disk performance is critical, you don't under any circumstance rely on a single ATA drive to provide it. It's just never done.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>