or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs - Page 5

post #161 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by crayz:
<strong>Are you blind? I specifically said "Q3A is not one of the 'toughest games' either"

And no, I am not all that impressed by the most expensive and powerful Mac ever created barely breaking the 200FPS barrier in Q3 only when using a tweaked config file.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) The original poster did not name a specific game, you did. You named Q3 and RTCW (which happens to be built on the Q3 engine). RTWC might be a little more demanding, however, it's built off of the same generation of technology. It's not like comparing to a game based on generations old technology like the original Doom, etc.

2)It is commonly acceptable to do minor tweaks that in no way impair the image or sound quality of the game. Likewise, <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com" target="_blank">www.xlr8yourmac.com</a> changing the chunk size is no different from PC Gamer disabling vertical syncing. In fact, many web sites don't even report such tweaks as part of their testing. Anyone familiar with the Q3 engine will perform similar tweaks and this is commonly understood.

3)The fact that your not impressed by Macs breaking the 200fps barrier only shows your troll like PC bias. Seeing as though it takes a 1.8 - 2.0 GHZ P4 with a Geforce 3Ti or higher to achieve the same task, most would credit Macs as being a pretty decent gaming system. I didn't hear a claim that Macs were better or faster in this area. They are powerful enough though.

[quote]Originally posted by crayz:
<strong>Tom's has an Athlon XP 2000+(a much cheaper system than a DP 1GHz) running Windows XP getting nearly 220FPS at 1024x768. That's the exact same card and the exact same game run with the exact same settings, and its getting over 35FPS more than the much more expensive PowerMac. That means that the PowerMac, either the CPU, the OS, or some other part of the system(like the AGP bus) is limiting the ability of the Ti4600 to do its job - BECAUSE THE MAC IS JUST TOO SLOW.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

First, who said anything about cost? This is a common argument for PC trolls and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Second, yes, here's a link from Tom's Hardware which illustrates your point:

<a href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020409/geforce4ti4200-10.html" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020409/geforce4ti4200-10.html</a>

Notice that the same Athlon with a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 only gets 199.7 fps at 1024x768. The Mac gets 182.9 fps at that resolution. Is the Mac version of the Geforce 4Ti based on the 4600 or the 4200? I don't know. Either way, performance is very much in the same ball park. Yes, the Athlon system is a little faster. One thing is for certain, no end user would be able to tell the performance difference between 182.9 fps and something over 200fps. This is a fact. Macs are no where near as slow as you suggest.

Steve
post #162 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by theMagius:
<strong>

From what I've been taught in my A+ classes, the advantage of a SCSI chain is NOT so much that it is inherently faster at data transfer than an ATA drive (as they both move data to the HD in un-sustained bursts). The advantage is that multiple devices (e.g. HD1, HD2, SCANNER, CDROM, DVDROM, etc.) on the same SCSI chain can SIMULTANEOUSLY transmit/receive data. Whereas, an ATA bus can only communicate with ONE of its devices at a time (e.g. HD1 or CDROM on the same ATA controller, but NOT both at the same time).

I guess I don't see how SCSI comes into play since my (personal) beef is with apple supplying ATA/66 controllers with their PowerMacs instead of something more advanced.

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: theMagius ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think we'd all like to see the latest and greatest components in our systems. However, I don't fully understand your argument here. You just acknowledge that ATA is only going to handle one thing at a time. Now, the ATA66 can handle (theoretically) 66MB/sec. The best ATA 7200rpm hard drives can deliver what 35-40MB/sec. tops? Either way, todays drives really can't saturate an ATA66 bus. I realize there is a difference between actual and theoretical performance, but how much faster do you think a drive will be on an ATA133 bus, let alone an ATA100?

Steve
post #163 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>('Whoops, 'Power'mac has been lapped three times by Intel Pantium 4.') Signal for more 'Power'mac users to abandon ship. Perhaps some professionals look not just whether it was fast compared to my last mac but whether it's value for money to what they can get else where. Windows with XP is getting increasingly bareable.

I don't think Mac users need to be lectured on what they actually use their machines for. I like the Mac Os X. I presume most people who post here do so too and would just like apple to push the boat out more than 'a little'. 'X'? It isn't worth £3000 for 'X' on an out of date machine. Well, not to me it isn't.

I don't see the dual 1 gig G4 beating my Athlon 1.6 gig. The AMD seemed faster to me. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat. I doubt any professionals will. It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms. Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough. I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform. It is. The same is true for PC shops. Sure people like to bitch and moan on forums such as this, but these are the vocal minority.

As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks. I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time, or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks that I do in conjuction with work. I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation, "digital hub", stuff, etc. I use neither platform because of a MHZ difference, rather I use the best tool for the job. This usually involves other aspects such as the Operating system and the applications (and plugins) available to support the required task. In short, my opinion doesn't sway from day to day based on MHZ jumps on one platform or another.

Steve
post #164 of 239
SteveS-

Good responses! I too use both platforms. Software is an expensive investment..if you go changing your Platform with every change in Megahertz you better have one hell of a Software collection.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #165 of 239
"Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion."

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

(and that's mine on the current 'power'Mac lines.)

"That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat."

I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.

Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!

For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!

The software's there!

BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.

"I doubt any professionals will."

Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!

I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)

"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."

What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?

Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?

Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.

"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."

That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.

Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.

Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.

If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.

"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."

Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?

"It is."

Agreed, of course!

"As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks."

It is.

"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"

Something Windows 2000 can't do?

I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.

"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"

Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.

A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!

"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"

I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.

So. Why did I switch?

I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #166 of 239
Thread Starter 
Basically I do not think that the Power Macs currently even touch the potential of OSX. Apple's software progression seems to be far outpacing the hardware.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #167 of 239
"Basically I do not think that the Power Macs currently even touch the potential of OSX. Apple's software progression seems to be far outpacing the hardware."

Yep. By a country mile.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #168 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.

Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!"</strong><hr></blockquote>

So... you doubt anyone will switch a the drop of the hat, then you admitted you did just that, now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever...

[quote]<strong>
For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.

[quote]<strong>
BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Macs have always been at a premium when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box, you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible. Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better.

[quote]<strong>
"I doubt any professionals will."

Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines. Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot. You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc.

As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?

[quote]<strong>
I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Rather than just speculate, have you ever spoke to the owner, or at least someone whose in charge at a Mac based shop that has a large number of machines and lots of money invested in software, training and peripherals? I have. If you did, you would know that each company generally has it's own product refresh cycle. How long that cycle lasts generally depends on a number of factors. The fact that G4s sat at 500mhz for 18 months is certainly a factor as to why the upgrades aren't pouring in now that the high end is only 1GHZ. This point is true. However, as G5s or even G4s are announced in the 1.4 - 1.5 GHZ range, I suspect that would be enough of a performance increase to justify an upgrade for those with 500mhz (and lower) machines. I don't think this has very much (if any) to do with percieved value in terms of what an equivalent PC would cost. Rather, it has everything to do with justifying the cost of an upgrade for a 2x (or less) improvement.

[quote]<strong>
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."

What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?

Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course migrations happen. I don't think anyone claims this doesn't happen. Just read MacCentral, and they'll point out "forward migrations" to the Mac platform as well. I'm concerned with general trends. Most of the trend away from Macs occurred during the "dark days" back in '96 - '98. Since then, I don't see a real significant erosion of the Mac's marketshare. In fact, Apple has even taken back lost markets such as digital video, etc. Yes, it's a niche market, but it's also high profile.

[quote]<strong>
Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ. PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture. The more intelligent people will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do.

[quote]<strong>
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."

That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know if that's true across the board. I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.). The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC.

Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck, until you hit the "workstation" class machine. There will always be some, possibly even a majority that purchase soley on "bang for the buck". Others will buy what they want, regardless of perceived value. Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market. Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you. I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you.

[quote]<strong>
Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy. The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc.

[quote]<strong>
Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.

If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not really a fair comparison to make. You're comparing all of the bad things Apple has done prior to Jobs' return to all of the good things that have happened since, by the color of the box. This type of comparison is a gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time.

[quote]<strong>
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."

Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This may or may not be true. I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to. Again, not that I don't believe you, but I would be interested if you could send me a few links which discuss this.

[quote]<strong>
"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"

Something Windows 2000 can't do?

I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4.

As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background.

[quote]<strong>
"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"

Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.

A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks. This is absolutely not true across the board. Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed. Also, even in the case where the program you're running is single threaded, the high end Mac (dual cpu) will be able to walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance.

[quote]<strong>
"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"

I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.

So. Why did I switch?

I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment for a perceived performance improvement. You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers. Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple, that it's hard to take your position objectively. You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them, whether your argument is rational or not.

Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now, regardless as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance.

Steve
post #169 of 239
"So... you doubt anyone will switch a the drop of the hat, then you admitted you did just that,"

Check eyesight. (Again, I guess you view making a decision over many years, 'Drop of a hat'.)

"now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever..."

I didn't say I was 'back' either.

"What's changed?"

Maya. GL.

"We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya."

Correct. A world class 3D program and decent Gl. Big difference. ie Macs weren't taken seriously at 3D.

"Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either."

Look closely. This is about hardware. But seeing as you mention software...(I have Lightwave for the Mac/PC...and have plenty of respect for that...but take that away? Electric Image...and..? Years ago C4D was a hatchling...)

Mac 3D software? Previously? 'Okay'. It's better now. But it's still lacking some big hitters.

The lack of Gl, lack of high end 3D card, fitting an almost £3,000 'workstation' 'power'Mac with a 'Rage' 16/32 meg card for what seemed like years!!!! ....AND...Quickdraw (Okay, I'm reaching really far back for that one... )

For many years. 'power'Macs. Joke. Simple words. My view. Your point on the software. Well...okay, we had Lightwave. (A very wobbly version of until relatively recently...go Rage ATi...)

They are 'less of joke' only in comparison to previous Mac 3D workstations.

I guess I'm talking hardware 'joke'...but the x/gl software has got them on track.

"Macs have always been at a premium "

SO that makes it alright to charge almost £3,000 for a Mac workstation that gets hammered by the equivalent PC workstation? For techology I, ahem, lets get this right now, 'perceive' to be out of date, ridiculously over priced as opposed to premiumly priced...?

(...and the initial point of my argument is my 'low end' PC, a 1.6 gig Xp slaps the 'power'Mac dual silly. My 'xp' aint very special any longer (how many Athlon bumps and price cuts have we had since the dual 1 gig G4?) and that's within the space of half a year! Compare that to Moto's much anticipated 'leap' to 1.2 dual G4s? Still, let's see...eh?)

"when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box,"

Compared to a pc half the price that's comparitively crippled? Look again. If you think a few ports here and there makes up for the whopping extra Apple charges...

"you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible."

Nope. You're seriously behind the curve here. Compare a a SERIOUS 3D PC workstation and a Mac one and ouch. There isn't any competition. In benches, the Mac is comprehensively hammered. (That's why the recent dual 'power'Mac had its price dropped because they didn't: compete. They still don't.)

"Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better."

RDF. Seriously?

Post me a few links willya...

"Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines."

Well, PC schools can get a cheap, high performing tower that stuffs both the old imac and the 'e' mac.

"Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot."

Yeah. Keep cherry picking.

"You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc."

No. I didn't. You weren't looking hard enough. The redesigns have given Apple a few home runs. Granted. And I'm pleased for Apple and want them to do well with them (not bad for a guy who has an 'axe to grind', eh? Where did you get that idea...? )

However, note the dip in sales with both the ibook and powerbook as Apple took ages to update them and when they did, it wasn't enough. Sales for both have dropped. Sales for them look okay combined. But the ibooks have stopped 'flying' off the shelves so quickly. This is when Apple's 'mean' spec list becomes exposed.

(...and don't tell me you haven't noticed Apple's generous supplements of ram over the years?)

When you get past the 'cool' style intial sales impact...we get back to the crux of Apple's problems. Hardware! The specs...and...the recent ibook wasn't doing enough spec wise and sales had slipped. Gee, guess that's why it got 'bumped.'

The recent bump, for many, is not enough cpu wise. But, according to you, we've got axes to grind when we complain Apple's performance on the spec sheet isn't up to scratch.

"As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests"

Then how do you know? I've read many news sites, data etc that suggests this 'erosion'. I guess I'll have to make notes from now on and post an avalanche of hyperlinks to keep me mate here happy. (Still, it's more fun to stick to our perceived arguments, right?)

"these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?"

Sure. I'll go get them right now...

On the other hand, just why are those 'power'Mac sales shrinking? What shall we pinpoint? Lack of OS X.2? The lightweight Aquashop 7? 'power' users putting off their purchases because they're on their 'cycle'? (OR MAYBE it's those huge prices and LOW specs?)

"Rather than just speculate"

That's what 'FH' is for. (You really go and speak to those guys?)

"Of course migrations happen."

That's why Apple's worldwide marketshare is 3-5%?

Where's your hard data to show this erosion aint happining. (Check Apple's sales figures. Look okay? See an overall trend? No. Okay. Apple aint out of business. Sure. It's not here yet. But they need a few more 'gimmicky' home runs. Because there overall sales the last year or so have shrunk. Y'know, that 'majority' that aren't fickle like me...)

So, 'significant'? Define. Erosion.

"No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ."

What, like me? Like those who are contributing to Apple's otherall shrinking sales?

Apple may have steadied the 'ship'.

But can they see real growth. Much of the software and 'gimmicks' are in place.

But hardball line in the sand? The specs?

Er...well, listen to the wail of the Appleinsider and co post board banshees and draw your own RDF conclusions.

"PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture."

Then they'd better start thinking different.

Because myself and others don't buy the dual 1 gig g4 is competitive with even single P3 at 3 gig argument.

Change the record, Apple!

"The more intelligent people"

So, I'm not 'more' intelligent (like you...of course...) because I bought a machine for a, let's see, a sixth of the price of the dual mac that clobbers it in any of the tests you fail to provide benchmarks for?

"will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do."

Yadda, yadda.

Is that a 'perceived' competitive performance?

So all the people who decide they can get a dual Athlon XP with twice the mhz and performance for less money are 'ignorant'?

"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."

Minor? Well, if you say so... (shakes head...)

"I don't know if that's true across the board."

Well, if you 'don't know', then don't talk about it.

"I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.)."

Where, exactly, do you 'recall'? A link..?

(...and how about other build to order companies? What about smaller firms? Otherpriced Gateways - a PC company much like Apple... - offering overpriced underperforming kit... Hardly a 'fair comparison' if you've got a PC point of view...)

"The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC."

I recall talking about 'power'Macs in particular. The imacs do a much better job. But, check that spec list again. Cos they are behind. They look heaps better though and have all those freebie 'easy to use' apps you mention...

"Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck,"

Glad you agree on my post. What took you so long to crack?

"Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market."

Oh. I see. And how did it get that way? So mac sales are shrinking? How come, overall, despite Steve Jobs most titanic efforts...they are still shrining all be it more slowly? Big on style and short on substance (not, duh, talking software here...) Why are sales still going primarily to PCs than Macs? Perhaps many of those 'ignorant' people have a reason for going PC?

Tell me, why my school, having £12,000 to spend are going PC? Gee, I wonder, but because I'm not intelligent I don't know.

"Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you."

Patronising, eh? Easily swayed...but you aren't. Good for you.

"I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you."

In 'uncertain' times for the Mac market, they almost went bankrupt and Powermac sales werre healthier then(!) Powermac sales are now a poor relation to what they were years ago.

Take away the imacs and the already waning ibook and Apple have some underlying problems to solve with their famous 'value added' approach.

The spec aint. VALUE ADDED!

The shrinking 'majority'. I guess if you want links to testify to that you'll have to get off your *** and look it or Apple's sales figures up yourself!

"Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy."

Macs are not without 'some' substance. The cpu issue is no longer 'perceived'. Well, not by my 'perception'. The 'imac' in a beige case. Dead on arrival. The 'gimmick' saved the company. The company bet on the imac and 'won'. But note how the 'gimmick' faded during those 'six years' when Apple failed to keep the spec list competitive, when they doggedly stuck with an antiquated cpu and graphic chip and 15 inch monitor. Trends that saw the sales fade. Instead of building on the 'old' imac they 'milked' it and lost any momentum for growth. Unfortunately.

This sums Apple over their patchy history. Do something great, sit on it...get overtaken. See classic os. See first Power PCs...see first...

Well, buy a sodding Apple history book.

Take away current 'new' imac sales and Apple look in trouble to me. That's my perception. You can read their sales figures differently if you like.

"The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc."

Yep. That might be part of why they have 3-5% marketshare now.

"That's not really a fair comparison to make."

Yes, it is. I'm saying, take away the 'style' and Apple's hardware is poor. Out of date and out of shape. Disagree if you like.

You pay BMW prices, you expect a damn good engine. Fast. Not the fastest. But the G4 is a Ford engine in a BMW chassis.

"You're comparing all"

Not all. You're saying 'all'.

"gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time."

No it isn't. I'm talking about hardware. I don't recall dropping on Apple's software in the 'recovery' period?

"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."

Such as? The 'Apple' retails that have gone to the wall in the UK? There's about five 'big' ones left in the UK. Can't speak for Amercia, I guess...

Oh, 'shops'. Well, I can tell you I've spoke to many that said, 'Mac? Stopped using them years ago...' Reasons cited? Value. Specs. Cost.

"This may or may not be true."

Well, unless you collect the data yourself you can't criticise the sources I have read and my own perception of said 'sources'.

"I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to."

...and me yours.

"few links which discuss this."

Do we really have to? I'm having too much fun clobbering your Steve Jobs inspired RDF.

Go on. Set up a £1,200 pc and a £1,200 mac.

There's your proof. Do the costings of a dual Athlon vs a dual Mac.

Better still, put any SINGLE 'power'Mac against a 'low end' Athlon. You can build a dual Athlon for the price of a low end 'power'Mac. Maybe this would be a 'fairer' test for you?

"Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4."

Which is dirt cheap and beats the snot out of the Powermac. Better still. Let's compare my 'low end' pc with the 'low end' Powermac?

"As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background."

It's not a question of whether 'Powermacs' can handle any given task. I and others on these boards harp on about them being overpriced and out of date. Which, in my view, they are.

And. By the way, I love to harp.

"A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple."

Show me benches that sez it aint true. I'm not talking '1 gig' Pentium. They still sell those?

"Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks."

Just how many task are 'velocity controlled'?

"This is absolutely not true across the board."

...and given little 'altivec' optimisation, how can a G4 compete?

A dual 1 gig 'power'Mac G4 still gets thumped on Lightwave by a single Athlon Xp. A low end dual Athlon wipes the floor with it.

"Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed."

What, like those cheap Photoshop filters, the ones 'nobody' uses anymore?

"walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance."

Like it does on the 'after effects' suite of tests that saw it clearly outclassed and outmatched? (Sure, your perception may see a bit smoother...go ahead and pay three to four times much for the privelage.)

"So. Why did I switch?"

Eh? Do I have to repeat everything for you?

The mac I was using was years old, clearly outmatched by cheap pcs. The macs I wanted to buy were out of date, under specced and overpriced.

Funny, when I bought the 'Power'mac many years ago it was priced at a premium but the 'Power'Macs then weren't outclassed or underspecced (as much as they are now.)

They weren't at least in the same ball park.

Now? Laughable. But then you don't perceive this. So why am I wasting my time typing this crap?

('I don't know' sez Stevie.)

Requote:

"I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'."

Oh presumptious one, I wasn't talking about Apple's most loyal and die-hard fans (of which, despite my 'axe-to-grind', I count myself one.)

I was, again, if you were 'listening' talking about those damned aged specs that Apple clung to for so long.

Remember the alien harvest fields? You know...those Ati Rage 'alien' face suckers that clung doggedly to their victims...the poor ibook, the impoverished 'old' imac, the powerful 'power'Mac line...all victims. Still, I guess was being 'out there'.

In English. Macs have out of date specs (did I say that already?) For years, an example of this was the Rage line of graphic cards.

Things, graphic card wise, are better. But the cpus aren't. The ram isn't. The 'monitor' included in the price isn't. (With the 'Power'mac line.) The 'bus' isn't. The G4's fpu is still feeble.

"Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment"

Yes and no. Pure evangelism. Yes. The mac environment is better. Even the aged OS9. However, on a machine that was too slow? The price to replace it? The outdate specs?

I could do the same job much the same, faster on the PC. Still can. I've watched since the G4 debacle began, and though an Apple fan, I await Apple doing something serious with their 'flagship' line. It's been a while since they were 'Power'Macs.

"for a perceived performance improvement."

Well, I can put together a dual Athlon Xp (and nearly did...) for less than the price of Apple's 'slowest' 'power'Mac.

That's 'perceived'? Glad you think so. (As six fpus kick the crap out of 1 G4 fpu.) I've seen the latest macs and pcs in action. Right. If this kind of 'perception' (read: GULF!) doesn't matter then why is the 'deafening' din of mac users across the boards on this, and others chewing Apple's, Moto's, IBM's *** on the CPU issue? Maybe we all have an 'axe-to-grind'?

"You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers."

Your interpretation. See above.

"Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple,"

Wrong. Cynical of late. Critical. Jaded at their spec-weary premium pricing tactics. Clinging to death on aged cpus, ram and motherboards.

They, in my opinion have capitulated in there spec downfall. DDR, better graphic cards and motherboards have been around for years. Apple takes ages to get to them. Ask them why. Maybe because they are a monopoly who likes being 'corrupt' in their own little way as MS does in their 'big' way. Apple are a company at the end of the day. They still like easy money.

I like their style while screwing us, though!

And gee, their OS X is pretty good...so...

When they were level? I bought the 'premium' argument. (and held my 'investment' for four years.) But now they are behind as of the last few years...do I buy into the 'well behind and premium' argument?

No.

"that it's hard to take your position objectively."

Likewise. If you like being screwed on price and out of date components. Fine. Your money, I guess.

But to get mine? Apple must try harder. Once fleeced? Twice shy.

"You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple"

Outside of their 'spec' lists your accusation is unfounded and without merit. But I guess we don't know each other that well.

"and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them,"

On specs. Out of date 'hardware'? Yes. (PULLING on the pit boots as I speak...)

"whether your argument is rational or not."

Being charged lots of money for out of date hardware on the 'power'mac line? Brings out the 'irrational'? It does. Check the 'chewing' *** that's going on these boards.

Still, I don't think saying they're 'behind' (alot) in terms of specs is irrational. Anymore than you saying otherwise... (RDF on full...you work for Apple?)

Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now,

"regardless"

Nobody and not Apple get my money regardless. I don't have 'sucker' taped onto my forehead.

"as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance."

Your choice. For me, Apple will have to do better.

Still, no matter how much Apple lag now, I think most posters on these boards, myself included...hope they'll pull it around.

When they do? I'll be there.

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #170 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
SteveS wrote:

"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."

<strong>What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?</strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, the guy did it to "make his mark on the company," and second of all, look at how well Mot has done since then.

Doing something sweeping and arbitrary like that, for essentially selfish reasons, is exactly the kind of managerial incompetence that got Mot in trouble to begin with. The fallout proves Steve's point, not yours.

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #171 of 239
James, you're such a cutie...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #172 of 239
Lemon Bon Bon,i'm really interested to know the specs of your beautiful Athlon XP... Bus, Ram, Hard Drive, Network, Firewire, USB, etc. the whole enchilada !
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #173 of 239
Thread Starter 
I knew that Mot switched from Macs to Wintel but was the reason really just pure spite?
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #174 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong> What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.

Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>

First Macs aren't a joke when it comes to 3D since they got OSX and GF3. Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9. Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs. Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do.

Macs are great for print and webdesign work (and simple 3D, admitted) because those are things that don't stress the computer all too much. But in order to be able to sell hardware to the "serious" 3D market, you have to be able to offer a Wildcat-class card to go with. And dual CPU machines with strong FP performance are a plus. Serious 3D needs a high troughoutput for moving a lot of 3D data and the G4 isn't there yet.

To adress the point of switching platforms - if you use your Mac for surfing and the occasional Word letter and then decide to play games you might switch the platform just like that. But I know companies who are still working in Quark 3 because it works for them and they are too scared to invest even the 15 minutes to learn Quark 4, not to speak of InDesign. And others who do all their work in Quark 4, even web design. That's the advertising company part - the printing market on the other hand is using more and more Windows machines because companies who make the film-making, RIP, prepress, cutting, digital-printing and classic printing equipment are bundling their hardware with Windows PCs because of speed and price. This is how Wintels got introduced to the industry as something that "actually works as well" and many a company where price/performance is king is buying Wintels when buying new hardware. At least in my part of the world.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #175 of 239
"Lemon Bon Bon,i'm really interested to know the specs of your beautiful Athlon XP... Bus, Ram, Hard Drive, Network, Firewire, USB, etc. the whole enchilada !"

Listen, sweetheart, I never said it was 'beautiful'.

There's such a thing as crossing a line in the sand. And that's one line too far.

I may own a PC, but it sure aint beautiful. Fast? Yes. But? Ugly, clumsy, clunky, beige hell spawn of a...

Spec?

1.6 gig Athlon Xp, 1 gig of DDR266, 266 motherboard, ATi 8500, IBM Deskstar 7,200 rpm. A heap of PC junk.

But it's a competitive piece of junk.

Lemon Bon Bon.
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #176 of 239
"First Macs aren't a joke when it comes to 3D since they got OSX and GF3."

Correct. Nice to have somebody on the same bus.

"Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9."

Yeah. I remember doing the Raydream Studio thing on with 'Quickdraw 3d' ((with Mac Os 7.5.3(?)...)) which didn't support textures or something daft. Open Gl support? What was that back then? Raydream crawled like molasses on my Formac 80 graphics card. No standard GL to accelerate 3D. Torture? It was almost slideshow quality updating... Yep. But it was a great Photoshop machine, though and I loved her (my Powermac...) like no other...

My machine was the latest you could get at the time (when 200mhz was fastest bar the Power clones 220mhz thing)...but it sucked at 3D. Even 'slower' pcs at the time were better at 3D for reasons we know too well know. (Yeah, I know, back when ah wuz a lad...) But hey, it's the present now and it's nice Apple have Open GL and Nvidia graphics cards. Let's whoop for Apple...

"Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs."

Don't let Stevie hear me say this...but I was pleasantly surprised at how well Lightwave ran on my wife's ibook. (Me? I'm still 'power'Mac less...) Rendering was a pleasant surprise. OSX and Open GL have done wonders for Lightwave... Well, at the least, it runs better on the ibook then it did on my old Mac clone...

"Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do. "

Agreed. I think Maya on the Mac is not quite finished. Bit slow by all accounts...no altivec (!) acceleration or dual cpu optimisation...

Well, at the risk of giving Stevie another point...having seen Maya run on the PC...I think it's over rated. Over hyped more to the point. Agreed. I have seen lots of student projects on it...and I think the renderer was plasticy like Studio Max. I think Lightwave, for the price, stands toe to toe with it. I think the Legendary Lightwave renderer blows it out the water...on visual quality.

Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #177 of 239
"the printing market on the other hand is using more and more Windows machines because companies who make the film-making, RIP, prepress, cutting, digital-printing and classic printing equipment are bundling their hardware with Windows PCs because of speed and price. "

Yep.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #178 of 239
"But in order to be able to sell hardware to the "serious" 3D market, you have to be able to offer a Wildcat-class card to go with. And dual CPU machines with strong FP performance are a plus. Serious 3D needs a high troughoutput for moving a lot of 3D data and the G4 isn't there yet."

An honest and concise(!) assessment of the G4.

Bring on the 7500...

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #179 of 239
"I knew that Mot switched from Macs to Wintel but was the reason really just pure spite?"

Well, they did keep Apple at 500mhz for 18 months and humiliated them before that by making them drop from 500mhz to 450mhz.

(Talk about holding a grudge.)

My sarcastic side says: 'I wouldn't put it past them...'

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #180 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>

Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know if you're saying this from experience, but Maya IS the 3D app.

It is by far the most respected 3D application. Almost all 3D games are done on Maya and 3D Max. But Max isn't used much in feature film and FX production, Maya is. In fact it is the one that's most commonly used.
post #181 of 239
I just realized than any time Lemon Bon Bon saves by using his PC versus his Mac he wastes posting incredibly long messages here
post #182 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>I don't know if you're saying this from experience, but Maya IS the 3D app.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's (or was, until recently when they dropped the price) the most expensive but it surely doesn't get you as much bang for your bucks as Lightwave, for example, does.

[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>It is by far the most respected 3D application. Almost all 3D games are done on Maya and 3D Max. But Max isn't used much in feature film and FX production, Maya is. In fact it is the one that's most commonly used.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually most game companies use 3DS Max, not Maya, and big studios use a lot of _different_ packages. Maya is just expandable and so you have the basic and complete versions, whereas studios have to write most of stuff they need themselves.

Of all 3D packages I tried (from Blender, to Cinema, to 3DS Max, to Lightwave to Maya) Lightwave is the best option for most tasks because it has a lot of nice features, a good renderer and comes at a affordable price and doesn't need a 10.000 $ computer to run (and run nicely). You'll see Lightwave used as much.

Just the huge price tag it had didn't make it the best option and certainly didn't help a|w much (given the rumored bad economic state they are in right now). Sure, it sounds great to "have downloaded Maya just recently, woah it's great", but it doesn't change the fact that Maya of all "known" packages is the only with a IRIX port, which forces many SGI-equipped shops to use it. Unless they write their own tools.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #183 of 239
Oh my god you wrote a lot in all those posts Only one thing I really care to pick up on.

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have done a great deal of work in an industry that has historically been dominated by Wintel machines (or Unix workstations or a combination). OS X has been receiving a great deal of interest though. It gives the best of Unix while maintaining a consumer based profile. Especially in companies that have maintained unix machines and Windows machines. OS X gives the option of integrating the two.

Most of the computers are only PIIIs so speed isn't the issue for these companies. If they want speed they usually won't buy an "off-the-counter" computer.

The major issue is most people still think Macs can't be used for regular computing or are difficult to integrate.

You have no idea how much joy it gives me when people ask, "Why do you use a Mac?" to reply "Because I can do my job better, faster and more easily and have been doing so for quite some time." It's great to prove to people it is a decent system.

Even when I used do process design and modelling I prefered the Mac and that does take computing power.

All of that said from everything I have read Apple has been maintaining or increasing unit sales while a lot of PC manufacturers are seeing shrinking numbers. Unit sales don't directly equal profits but marketshare means more software development and a better community knowledge, which equal inroads into PC markets.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #184 of 239
Hey Lemon Bon Bon,

I did that Ray Dream thing (just Ray Dream 3D at the time) on a IIvx!!
Wa-hey, those were the days (I was only a hobbyist though). It took me a whole summer (literally) to model and render a scene.

I now have C4D and it does kick *** (at least from my previous experiences), it is still too slow in OSX though (and I don't know what the OpenGL enhancement does... anyone?).

I hope Apple has a computer that I can put some confidence in for purchasing this summer at NY.
post #185 of 239
It is known that Apple computers have a weaker floating point unit, right??

Could this help?

\t
Architosh Staff (info@architosh.com)
22 May 2002
Â*"Apple discusses Oct-level precision in AltiVec G4 Processor"

<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-05/2002c-0522-oct-prec.phtml" target="_blank">web page</a>

PDF can be found <a href="http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/pdf/oct3a.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>

Would this require software developers an inordinant amount of extra programming to utilize?? Would this only be used in a very narrow type of calculations??

A 4X increase in speed seems fairly significant.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #186 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>It is known that Apple computers have a weaker floating point unit, right??

Could this help?

\t
Architosh Staff (info@architosh.com)
22 May 2002
Â*"Apple discusses Oct-level precision in AltiVec G4 Processor"

<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-05/2002c-0522-oct-prec.phtml" target="_blank">web page</a>

PDF can be found <a href="http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/pdf/oct3a.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>

Would this require software developers an inordinant amount of extra programming to utilize?? Would this only be used in a very narrow type of calculations??

A 4X increase in speed seems fairly significant.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Not really -- the complaint is usually that normal C/C++ floating point math code runs slower than on other platforms. This means single and double precision floats. The technique in that paper is for getting even higher precision using the AltiVec unit in some special ways that you have to code specifically. It doesn't speed up the standard float types and it doesn't work with ported code unless you rewrite that code.

And the G4's floating point unit is not slow -- the problem is that there is only one of them, and the processor's clock rate is lower than the competition's. In use this amounts to the same thing, but it means that the speed disadvantage is not insurmountable and there is not some design flaw that limits what Motorola can build. They just have to decide to put more of them into the next processor.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #187 of 239
"I just realized than any time Lemon Bon Bon saves by using his PC versus his Mac he wastes posting incredibly long messages here "

Yeah. I guess. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />

Still, I guess I must be compensating for a small...post count

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #188 of 239
"I don't know if you're saying this from experience, but Maya IS the 3D app."

Said Xtype:

"It's (or was, until recently when they dropped the price) the most expensive but it surely doesn't get you as much bang for your bucks as Lightwave, for example, does."

It doesn't offer anywhere near as much bang for buck as Lightwave...or as many plug ins or as much support on the web.

Originally posted by timortis:

"It is by far the most respected 3D application."

Well, there are 'names'. Aren't there? Sure, ILM used Maya for the Pod Race in Star Wars. But they mainly write their own tools...

Maya is the 'glamour' name. But, I'd rather use Lightwave. A superb all rounder and as feature complete as you'd care to get for its price. Great 'hair' renderer with version 7-7.5. You'll pay big bucks for that 'add on' with Maya with no noticeable improvement in 'fur' quality.

Just like Xsi. But I found Xsi to be inferior in many aspects to both Maya and Lightwave in my own experience. Lightwave seems to work better with less resources than Maya or Xsi...

The renderer on Maya got a whole lot better with version 4. But I sez Lightwave owns in. And I guess Xsi has 'Mental Ray' the 'nice' but slow renderer... (well, Xsi has to have something to say for itself and it's ridiculous price...)

"Almost all 3D games are done on Maya and 3D Max. But Max isn't used much in feature film and FX production, Maya is. In fact it is the one that's most commonly used."

Agreed. Spot on.

"Actually most game companies use 3DS Max, not Maya, and big studios use a lot of _different_ packages. Maya is just expandable and so you have the basic and complete versions, whereas studios have to write most of stuff they need themselves."

Yep. Though Maya is 'up and coming'. I don't seeing it surpassing Max any time soon...

"Of all 3D packages I tried (from Blender, to Cinema, to 3DS Max, to Lightwave to Maya) Lightwave is the best option for most tasks because it has a lot of nice features, a good renderer and comes at a affordable price and doesn't need a 10.000 $ computer to run (and run nicely). You'll see Lightwave used as much."

It's a great contender for it's price and all round feature set. Where as you'll have to pawn your granny, your soul and an overpriced 'power'Mac to own either Max, Xsi or a 'complete' version of Maya. Newtek, on the other hand, have had some great offers on Lightwave over the last year. I bought version 6.5 for £995. Bargain. Then I've had several free upgrades since then including the excellent 'Duo' license version! I'm now on 7.5 and haven't paid a bean since version 6.5!

Beat that Discreet and Alias!

"Just the huge price tag it had didn't make it the best option and certainly didn't help a|w much (given the rumored bad economic state they are in right now). Sure, it sounds great to "have downloaded Maya just recently, woah it's great", but it doesn't change the fact that Maya of all "known" packages is the only with a IRIX port, which forces many SGI-equipped shops to use it. Unless they write their own tools."

Lotta snobbery in the 3D world. There is some substance to Xsi and Maya and Max's toolset. I looked at them...but couldn't see what they offered the 'artist' that Lightwave couldn't. If you're a real boffin/science-artist/cum scripter (I hate you if you have that god-like capacity) then Maya is probably for you so you can spend ages programming new shaders...

But at the price? Take Lightwave and though I haven't used it much, the improving 'pretender' is Cinema 4D. Also, some excellent upgrade deals for Electric Image for those who bought DV Garage 3D tool kit!

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #189 of 239
"And the G4's floating point unit is not slow -- the problem is that there is only one of them,"

Yup.

"and the processor's clock rate is lower than the competition's. In use this amounts to the same thing, but it means that the speed disadvantage is not insurmountable"

...deliver us Saint Jobs from this cup of G4 suffering...bringeth on the most G5-ish of processors. Even though x86 land is doing a damn fine job of 'lapping' Moto, I still don't think it's insurmountable either.

"and there is not some design flaw that limits what Motorola can build. They just have to decide to put more of them into the next processor."

Improvements and more fpus, not design flaws, I hope you mean!



Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #190 of 239
"Hey Lemon Bon Bon,
I did that Ray Dream thing (just Ray Dream 3D at the time) on a IIvx!!"

Good man! I fellow 'Ray Dreamer'. Cool.

You're a braver man than me Davelee!

"Wa-hey, those were the days (I was only a hobbyist though). "

Given how long it too to update. So was I!!!

"It took me a whole summer (literally) to model and render a scene."

Bring out a gold medal for this guy. You have my undying admiration. You've got more patience than I have...

"I now have C4D and it does kick *** (at least from my previous experiences), it is still too slow in OSX though (and I don't know what the OpenGL enhancement does... anyone?)."

Open Gl enhancement. It's software. A common 3D standard. If you have a graphic card that supports it? Makes the 3D objects update faster on your display! (You know, when you go 'wahay' with a hundred thousand polygon model with 32-bit textures on...) If you have a big 3D standard like Open GL, you can keep adding support for more 'features' eg fog and lens flares in real time in your 3D viewpoint without having to render them to see what's going on...

...at least that's the theory...you may encounter severe inertia with any Ati Alien Face Sucker 8 or 16 meg card...

As for why 'X' and 'Cinema 4D' are slow? What are your specs? Cpu? Card? Ram?

"I hope Apple has a computer that I can put some confidence in for purchasing this summer at NY."

Me too...,

...me too.

Lemon Bon Bon.

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #191 of 239
"You have no idea how much joy it gives me when people ask, "Why do you use a Mac?" to reply "Because I can do my job better, faster and more easily and have been doing so for quite some time." It's great to prove to people it is a decent system."

Nice one, fellow evangelist.

"Even when I used do process design and modelling I prefered the Mac and that does take computing power."

A preference it is. And preference it would be, for me...if Apple weren't far behind in CPU and Mobo. It's as plain as vanilla for me. Others may disagree. Still, I'm not without some hope that as we begin to leave the G4 behind this summer that the next year will offer some hope.

In English? I'll probably crack by January and buy the 7500 if its the 'G5' we've been waiting for...we'll see. It's getting harder to wait for 'it' despite my 'axe to grind'.

"All of that said from everything I have read Apple has been maintaining or increasing unit sales while a lot of PC manufacturers are seeing shrinking numbers."

Well, of very late. Apple are holding firm in the PC market and that is chiefly down to the NEW iMac, shrewdly continuing the 'old' imac and good laptops. If it was down to towers alone, they'd be in serious trouble.

If they can get the G5 (whatever the next cpu is...) out of the doors, keep the case style 'gimmicks' coming, the 'free' iapps, the broadening of the brand eg iPod style digital devices but fundamentally the OS 'X' factor maintained in its current momentum AND the increasing visible presence in their Apple branded stores (not only in the US...but over here in Europe!!!)

...then...they've got a shot at some growth.

Perhaps what is their most historically inspired move is the mac on Unix flavour OS with deep Java support. This potentially gives them an iron clad stronghold...and a base from which to begin a stealth assault on certain server markets...

But if they sit on their specs like they have been doing they can jeopardize some of the quite superb work they've done with software over the last few years. I think most Mac users would settle for 'near' CPU/Mobo parity. But I'm not paying the premium for Moto's lazy ways and for Apple's poor management in not seeing this coming sooner.

In my reply to Steve's post, I'll obviously come over as very vexed and frustrated (time of the week, fellow Appleinsiders...)however, it's perhaps because, givent that Apple has so much of it's strategy 'nailed' down...and now in getting more developers than ever to see the Mac in a new light (not down to hardware...) but the 'X' factor... I guess, I feel annoyed that the CPU and mobo should still be an issue some several years on from the G4 stuck at 500mhz debacle.

Get a good CPU in there. The G4 isn't it. It was fine for last year, maybe. The year before that? Great. But now? Dated. Over powered by the competition. And if it is REALLY that cheap compared to Intel's over priced chips then why can't apple use some of their 'fat' 30% margin to give us dual processors across the 'power'Mac line?

"Unit sales don't directly equal profits but marketshare means more software development and a better community knowledge, which equal inroads into PC markets."

Yes. When Apple failed to clone at the point of almost going critical mass all those years ago. They blew it. Now? I'm not sure I'd have it any other way (bar the cpu issue...)

I think even Apple are beginning to realise they're gonna have to dip below 30% margins to increase 'mind/unit' share. Especially if those retail outlets are going to help fuel 'growth.'

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #192 of 239
[quote]Programmer
"It doesn't speed up the standard float types and it doesn't work with ported code unless you rewrite that code."<hr></blockquote>

drat
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #193 of 239
Thread Starter 
I do not write code or software so if this sounds like it makes no sense that is my excuse!

Didn't I hear that one of the big pieces of news to come out of WWDC was that coding or writing in C++ has now become much easier and more stable due to something that is integrated in Jaguar? Could this along with better G4's make the next Power Macs even faster?

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Bodhi ]</p>
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #194 of 239
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

"I didn't say I was 'back' either. "

You did use the word temporary in describing your switch, correct? What exactly are you implying? I don't think I was out of line by inferring you were planning on coming back based on the choice of words you used.

For many years. 'power'Macs. Joke. Simple words. My view. Your point on the software. Well...okay, we had Lightwave. (A very wobbly version of until relatively recently...go Rage ATi...)

If we're talking about a platform, it's the combination of hardware and software which defines the overall rating. I think we can agree on that much. Anyway, I never said Macs were best in class for 3D. I will reiterate that I don't think they are the joke you seem to think they are. Macs do lack truly high end video cards for 3D. Though, the pace of performance increase at the low end gaming cards (take the Geforce 4Ti) for example, is rapidly approaching the capabilities of the high end cards. You have to agree the difference between the two has narrowed greatly.

"SO that makes it alright to charge almost £3,000 for a Mac workstation that gets hammered by the equivalent PC workstation? For techology I, ahem, lets get this right now, 'perceive' to be out of date, ridiculously over priced as opposed to premiumly priced...?"

I'm not going to argue that spec for spec Macs are a great deal hardware wise across the entire range. That's a losing battle. However, many people look beyond the raw specs and look at the entire package, and then determine if the value is worth it or not. Give me a dual Athlon running OS X and my favorite software, and I'll buy it. Until then, I choose to remain dual platform.

"(...and the initial point of my argument is my 'low end' PC, a 1.6 gig Xp slaps the 'power'Mac dual silly. "

My P3 1GHZ is low end. Your 1.6Ghz Athlon is not low end. Further, it doesn't smack the powermac dual silly. Yes, there will be some benchmarks whereby a single threaded task is faster on the Athlon. However, I maintain that overall system performance is better on the dual G4. Further, there are more than a few benchmarks where the dual G4 will smack the single Athlon silly.

"Compared to a pc half the price that's comparitively crippled? Look again. If you think a few ports here and there makes up for the whopping extra Apple charges..."

A few ports, plus some very significant bundled software that let's a Mac be very productive right out of the box. Yes, this type of thing does add up. My point is simply that this value consideration isn't quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

"RDF. Seriously? "

This is a common response for you when someone doesn't side with your opinion, huh. If I were in an RDF, why would I own a PC?

"Well, PC schools can get a cheap, high performing tower that stuffs both the old imac and the 'e' mac."

There are an infinite number of things a school can do. What's your point?

"However, note the dip in sales with both the ibook and powerbook as Apple took ages to update them and when they did, it wasn't enough. Sales for both have dropped. Sales for them look okay combined. But the ibooks have stopped 'flying' off the shelves so quickly. This is when Apple's 'mean' spec list becomes exposed."

BS! You are completely ignoring the fact that every new product has a typical life cycle. When a new product is announced, sales are brisk. Eventually, overtime as things don't change much, sales drop off. You note the tail end of a product cycle and try to conclude Apple's business is going down the tubes. Further, during the early part of a product's life cycle, you attribute the "anticipated" success as a "gimmick". Based on these observations, I have to question your sense of history and business acumen.

"(...and don't tell me you haven't noticed Apple's generous supplements of ram over the years?)"

Gee, you don't think that could have anything to do with OS's 128mb requirement, do you? Further, they've simply kept pace with PC's amount of memory in the process. When was the last time you saw a PC advertised with only 32MB of memory? I have to wonder where you get these arguments from. Perhaps there's a MSRDF in effect that I'm now aware of.

"Then how do you know? I've read many news sites, data etc that suggests this 'erosion'. I guess I'll have to make notes from now on and post an avalanche of hyperlinks to keep me mate here happy. (Still, it's more fun to stick to our perceived arguments, right?)"

I specifically said that I don't know and I likewise asked you for evidence. I clearly have not seen this trend. That doesn't mean it isn't true. This is a friendly discussion, I'm just asking you to enlighten me in this area.


"That's why Apple's worldwide marketshare is 3-5%?

Where's your hard data to show this erosion aint happining. "


Considering Apple's marketshare has been fairly consistent over the past number of years, that should be proof in and of itself.

"So, I'm not 'more' intelligent (like you...of course...) because I bought a machine for a, let's see, a sixth of the price of the dual mac that clobbers it in any of the tests you fail to provide benchmarks for?"

I didn't classify you one way or another, you did. I did suggest that if you purchase something just based on a spec sheet and not realize the value of the total package, that wouldn't be real bright. That's not to say that everyone who buys a PC isn't intelligent. I own a PC because I have a specific work related need to own one. I don't flip flop from platform to platform based on price and spec sheets though. I also don't disregard other investments in software, etc. that you're not including in your price. Also, for your statement to be true, that would mean you paid $500 for your PC. Either your math is very good, or you got one hell of a deal!

&gt;"will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do."

Yadda, yadda."


LOL! Yeah, none of the above is important. I love the way you dismiss that so easily. I'm glad that sort of thing isn't important to you. That doesn't really help your case for switching platforms based on a rational decision.

"So all the people who decide they can get a dual Athlon XP with twice the mhz and performance for less money are 'ignorant'?"

Not at all. It would depend entirely on why and how they made their decision. It would depend upon taking many factors into consideration such as how much money they'd be losing by buying all new software, the retraining involved, etc.

&gt;"I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.)."

Where, exactly, do you 'recall'? A link..?


I don't have the original link handy, but a quick search brings up many such comparisons. Here's one at random:

<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2002%2F0 3%2F11%2FBU205972.DTL&type=business" target="_blank">SF Chronicle article</a>

"Tell me, why my school, having £12,000 to spend are going PC? Gee, I wonder, but because I'm not intelligent I don't know."

Oh please, that's anecdotal evidence at best. Hardly a trend. Do you want anecdotal evidence to the contrary? Fine. My wife's school district was mixed PC and Mac. Now, they're going all Mac, except in the offices. I can ask you the same silly question as to why that is happening...

"Patronising, eh? Easily swayed...but you aren't. Good for you."

No, I'm not. I see value in both platforms and continue to support both. There are very specific things I prefer a PC for, the majority of things I prefer a Mac for. Neither preference was based on price.

"I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you."

"Take away the imacs and the already waning ibook and Apple have some underlying problems to solve with their famous 'value added' approach."

According to your logic, Apple will go out of business very soon, bacause their iBook gimmick is wearing out, correct? It seems you still haven't grasped the concept of a product life cycle, have you?

"The shrinking 'majority'. I guess if you want links to testify to that you'll have to get off your *** and look it or Apple's sales figures up yourself! "

I'm not the one making the assertion that Mac market is shrinking and eroding like you are. Therefore, the burdon is upon you to back up this claim, not me. In short, you shouldn't make claims that you cannot back up. If you do so, you should at least have the courtousy to mention that you cannot backup your claim with any actual evidence.

"Macs are not without 'some' substance. "

Okay, at least we agree on this much.

"The 'imac' in a beige case. Dead on arrival. The 'gimmick' saved the company."

It's pure speculation on both of our parts how much of the original iMacs success was gimmick and how much was substance. I will say this, the iMac was the first consumer based G3 processor which performed quite well for it's time. It was a significant increase in performance for a consumer level machine. It also came well equipped for the internet. Both a built in modem, 10/100 ethernet, bundled internet based software, all at the height of the internet frenzy. Also keep in mind just how the PC based iMac clones, such as those from E-Machines and Compaq failed miserably. Likewise, I seriously question just how much the "Gimmick" factor came into play with the iMac's success. Additionally, the Performas (which the iMac replaced) were horrible machines that were not marketed well either. The iMac was designed for simplicity, and was marketed as such. Make all of the iMacs the same "snow" colored and I think they would have done almost as well.

"The company bet on the imac and 'won'. But note how the 'gimmick' faded during those 'six years' when Apple failed to keep the spec list competitive, when they doggedly stuck with an antiquated cpu and graphic chip and 15 inch monitor. "

Yes, of course, how long do you think any product can succeed without a significant refresh? This all goes back to the product life cycle that I'm talking about. Why do you think the new iMac is doing so well? They sold 150,000 (or at least received orders for) in the first month. That beat any product in Apple's history. Of course, this is a brand new product that is sufficiently different from it's predecessor. It's also in the early stage of it's product life cycle.

"Take away current 'new' imac sales and Apple look in trouble to me. That's my perception. You can read their sales figures differently if you like."

You can say that with just about any company. Take away their best selling product and see how the company does. That's a silly argument to make.

"You pay BMW prices, you expect a damn good engine. Fast. Not the fastest. But the G4 is a Ford engine in a BMW chassis."

What do you think the difference between a Ford Mustang and a BMW 5-series is? I'll give you a clue, it's not just the engine. You can have a very fast engine in a Ford, but at the end of the day, it's still a Ford. The same goes for PCs. Generally speaking, they are not as smooth and well integrated as Macs. Hence the Mac experience.

&gt;"gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time."

No it isn't. I'm talking about hardware. I don't recall dropping on Apple's software in the 'recovery' period?"


Well you should be comparing everything. Apple is not a software company. Apple would not survive selling software alone. Apple is a hardware company where it's software adds value to it's hardware. Likewise, when discussing the health of the company, you must compare the whole picture, not merely the small factor which you feel supports your case, then ignore all of the other factors.


&gt;"few links which discuss this."

Do we really have to? I'm having too much fun clobbering your Steve Jobs inspired RDF."


Oh, I see. Again, if I don't agree with you, it must be due to an RDF, despite the fact that I'm also a PC user and despite the fact that you cannot backup your claims. Are you sure you don't live in Redmond, Washington?


"Let's compare my 'low end' pc with the 'low end' Powermac?"

Okay, how about a G4800 vs P3 1GHZ. These seem to represent the respective low ends. FYI- a 1.6GHZ Athlon is not the low end for a PC.

"Just how many task are 'velocity controlled'?"

In Apple's core markets, image manipulation, digital video edition / compression, etc., quite a few. More importantly, the major applications that are core to Apple's market are optimized for SIMD.

"A dual 1 gig 'power'Mac G4 still gets thumped on Lightwave by a single Athlon Xp. A low end dual Athlon wipes the floor with it."

Like most applications, it depends on the specific task. I don't have Lightwave benches handy. However, what about Cinebench (a benchmark based on Cinema 4D). There are some rendering functions which make use of dual processors. In those functions, the dual G4 would beat the Athlon. In other functions, the Athlon would be the G4. Big deal. What about PS tests. What about Mpeg2 compression, what about scientific applications like Blast, or encryption programs like RC5? You see, my point about across the board performance isn't as narrowly defined as your Lightwave tests. Further, what about total system performance such as running multiple programs at the same time. What happens when you start a long render in Lightwave, then want to surf the net, or play an MP3? I think you'll find a different story regarding system performance with the dual G4 as compared to your single Athlon.

"What, like those cheap Photoshop filters, the ones 'nobody' uses anymore? "

Do you care to elaborate on that a bit? Are you referring to SJ's PS bakeoff against PCs where the PC gets smoked? It seems to me that it was based off of the creation of movie posters like Monsters Inc. Let's see I saw some transforms, rgb-&gt;cymk, guassian blurs, lighting effects... no, these filters never get used.

This conversation could go on and on forever. In the end, you seem upset because you're now a PC only user that is basically a Mac user wannabe. Are Macs expensive? Compared to PCs, strictly speaking of the hardware, sure. Have Macs fallen behind in performance. Sure. Are they still competitive. It think so, at least in Apple's core markets. However, the bottom line is that you are now on the outside looking in. You're hoping that Apple will lower it's prices so that you can become a Mac user again. Otherwise, you wouldn't be hanging out in Mac forums or even care about the Mac market in the first place. Oh well. At least I'm happy with my platform decisions. I hope one day you can resolve your issues and move on.

Steve

[edited excessively long URL to restore board formatting -Amorph]

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
post #195 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>IDidn't I hear that one of the big pieces of news to come out of WWDC was that coding or writing in C++ has now become much easier and more stable due to something that is integrated in Jaguar? Could this along with better G4's make the next Power Macs even faster?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's true - apparently Apple will ship a much improved version of the C++ compiler for OSX which in turn should make software faster after a simple "recompile". C++ is never easy if it's "done right" but maybe the compiler will also optimise the code otherwise than just on the speed side. Anyway, it's nice to see the Mac front develop that nicely. I wonder if Metrowerks has a OSX CodeWarrior yet?
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #196 of 239
[lightwave has..]"a great 'hair'renderer with version 7-7.5. You'll pay big bucks for that 'add on' with Maya with no noticeable improvement in 'fur' quality."

I use lightwave. You can't even compare saslight with Maya Fur. Sasquach is (a bit) closer, but noway near as versatile as Maya's, or as realistic.

I'd agree that lightwave's renderer kicks Maya's. Thing is, most places use renderman or sometimes EI (if there in a rush) with Maya.

/back on topic:
The Powermacs aren't quite as far behind as everyone seems to reckon. OK, they are behind, but are still highly rated by professionals in many areas. If Macosrumors is right about the next specs <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> they'll be right up there.

This is not my first post - I just changed my name.
ltic
Reply
ltic
Reply
post #197 of 239
Steve, haven't you got anything better to do?



We obviously don't agree.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #198 of 239
I just read something which strongly implies that Motorola will not add DDR support to MPX, and it will not reach higher than 166 MHz (if it even gets there). Their next step will be to an on-chip memory controller with per-processor memory. No time frame was given. While not as factual as a press release from Motorola, this is a source I tend to believe (no I'm not going to publish a link), and yes it does shoot down The Register's 7460 / 7470 rumour.

If we are lucky then the on-chip memory controller will arrive very soon. Otherwise I expect that the next PowerMac will be an XServe in a new case.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #199 of 239
speedwise, how would this compare programmer?
post #200 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:
<strong>speedwise, how would this compare programmer?</strong><hr></blockquote>

How would which compare? The on-chip memory controller is a better approach, in my opinion, and "the way of the future". The trend since the invention of the transistor has been toward higher and higher levels of integration, and bringing the memory controller onto the chip is the next logical step. The MPX goes away and is replaced by an I/O and arbitration bus like RapidIO.

Simplying adding DDR would have given a short term performance increase, but it wouldn't be a long-term solution... it would have just been a stepping stone.

The XServe-style approach will probably not appear to be any better in benchmarks than current machines, nor will it run processor intensive applications any faster. It should, however, make a big difference when combined with Quartz Extreme and lots of I/O. Consider that if you were running a memory bound application while doing lots of GUI work, 50% of your performance is lost due to the time spent updating the GUI. I/O activity (i.e. hard disk, FireWire, or network access) would reduce this further. On an XServe the processor would run at full speed, as if nothing else was going on in the system... and yet your I/O and graphics will still be happening, and at a faster rate due to the improved controllers and QE's full use of the graphic chip and AGP. So while the machine might not be faster at specific things, it will probably be much more usable and may subjectively feel like a considerably faster machine. At least that's my theory. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

I'd still much rather see the on-chip memory controller... much of the stuff I do benefits from lots of processor &lt;-&gt; memory bandwidth.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs