[quote]Originally posted by theMagius:
<strong>Normally, I would agree with your stance on this issue, Amorph.
However, the slouching of PowerMac sales over the past few quarters does not seem to have motivated Apple Computer to revamp their motherboard capabilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case, nothing will change anything, so you're also disagreeing with yourself.
[quote]<strong>What Apple HAS done is re-focused their efforts toward: laptops, consumer AIOs, servers, and their next generation OS. All of these things are important, but they do not address PowerMac line whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They have to work with what they have to work with. If the CPUs they have available are better suited to PowerBooks and iMacs than to high-end towers, Apple would be foolish not to concentrate its efforts on PowerBooks and iMacs.
The reason I see their focus as component-driven, rather than as Steve forgetting power users, is that Apple is targetting higher end customers than they ever have.
And (I can't resist asking) have you actually tried a dual-GHz PowerMac? Is the performance actually inadequate for your needs in practice? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm wondering if you've given it a chance. I have, and as far as I can tell the thing just blazes. As some of the engineers on this board have discovered, Apple's 133Mhz bus holds its own against some DDR implementations on the PC side. Quality of implementation matters.
[quote]<strong>Now, it is possible that the executives at Apple Computer do not realize that comparable PC hardware is CONSIDERABLY MORE ADVANCED than their own.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's quite possible that people who look at nothing more than spec sheets do not realize that Apple isn't as far behind as they imagine. Spec sheets are marketing; they're designed to make the product look as good as possible. On the other hand, good engineers pride themselves on doing more with less. This is why there is no love lost between engineers and marketers, generally speaking.
Are they behind in some areas? Sure. Woefully behind in running a couple of professional applications (I'm thinking 3D here). Could Apple solve those problems by throwing hardware at them, even though some of them may be specific to the software? Of course. Hardware was eventually able to make even System V UNIX run fast.
But I suggest sitting down in front of what they're offering now, if you haven't, and giving it a fair shot first.
[quote]<strong>But I would like to think that I have invested stock in a company that is intelligent enough to realize that Hard Drive controllers really should be faster than ATA/66 for a price tag of $2999.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Faster? Name one ATA HDD that comes anywhere close to transferring 66MB/s sustained. If Apple put ATA/100 on a PowerMac tomorrow without telling you, you'd never know they had. I expect Apple to leap up to ATA/133 soon, not for the added bandwidth, but because ATA/133 can address volumes bigger than 137GB, and hard drives are getting up there.
If you really want speed, forget the onboard controller and get <a href="http://www.macgurus.com/graphics/customraid.html
" target="_blank">one of these</a>.
[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>