I don't know if G4 sales are in trouble, but here's a couple of notes:
A friend has a good contact at MacWarehouse in the UK, contact says sales are quite slow.
A the same time MacWarehouse had something like 200 733 G4s at GPB:949 (GBP:200 off the cost of a current 800) plus approx 50 800/867s shortly after the intro of the dual 1GHz and associated speed bump. All of those old model machines seem to have gone from the MacWarehouse inventory.
To me this seems pretty good going, I would have expected a few of them to hang around - given that there were also screen bundles in there too.
Additionally, we managed to find another reseller who had approx 200 733s a couple of days ago. When we called to enquire they said that they'd moved 60 of them on *one* order - the rest were going fast.
So, I reckon that sales over here are pretty healthy, the dealers are doing ok, even if they are selling old/obsolete stock.
Not so fast. There are several issues here: How good the MP implementation is, how pervasive it is, and what you have to do to actually make use of it. MP under Linux is inefficient. The consumer version of XP isn't MP savvy. I'm not sure how MP savvy the various x86 processors are, but the 74xx series has, in general, featured top-flight MP support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. What I was trying to get at though is for a far comparison of where the G4 is at when compared to the x86 processor we should really be comparing a single CPU setup to another single CPU setup.
I don't have a lot of experience, actually non at all, with dual processor x86 systems but I would think that Windows XP professional has good MP support. The money you could save by getting an dual Athlon system instead of a PowerMac would compensate for the price of XP Professional.
[quote]<strong>
In other words, when it can run code written for x86's strengths faster than x86-based architectures can. That's a multi-headed problem, really: Apple speeding up gcc will go a long way toward realizing that, and faster CPUs will help, but the bus speed/CPU speed ratio and the way the main bus is designed will also be very significant. PPCs are designed to load a bit of code and a bit of data, crunch it, and store it back to RAM - it's assumed that loads and stores will be occasional, and spaced out, and that code and data will come in chunks that can be digested by the generous register set and/or the caches. In particular, starting with the G3, PPCs have been designed to assume a lopsided ratio between the CPU and the main bus - the P4 Northwood, in contrast, depends for its performance on a (relatively) fat, constant stream of data - which as I understand it is more of an amplification of the way x86 machines have traditionally been designed than a change (x86 processors are starved for registers, and until recently were cache-starved as well). The two approaches are different enough that code written for one will run relatively poorly on the other, independent of any abstract measure of CPU performance.
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
I'll be honest. I'm a second year engineering student here in Canada at the University of Alberta. I don't really have any intensive engineering applications to run on my Mac so the most intensive thing I use my Mac for is the weekend relaxation ritual of Urban Terror and Giants.
I love my Mac, I love Mac OS X, but I really don't like how Macs are so much slower in FPS then PCs especially for the price. I don't care what the problem is, but I want a solution. The fact is Macs are slower at 3D games. I don't know what Apple needs to do, you seem to have an idea about the issues, I just want it fixed.
I really don't want to get the, "Buy a PC for gaming", solution because I don't want too, I want to play on my Mac. In reality you need to upgrade your computer because either games are too slow, or a "high end" application is too slow. I am willing to bet that a significant amount of people upgrade their computers to play new games. I Apple wants to sell to these people it would be in their interest to up the game performance, which means upping the GHz and upping the memory bus.
The bottom line, if I pay more for my Mac I want it to be faster.
[quote]<strong>
There is also the minor problem that nVIDIA's Mac drivers are in woeful shape compared to their Windows drivers.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
I know, I long for bump-mapping in Giants, oh how I long.
<strong>I haven't even read this thread yet, but I still feel the need to comment: Junkyard Dawg = Chicken Little. 'Nuf said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comment on threads that you haven't even read...that's a sure sign of intelligence.
Do you know ANYTHING about Powermac sales? Anything at all? If so, then please contribute to the discussion. If not, then why are posting nonsense?
We do not need a G5 now, Apple is in the drivers seat...it is hardware and software that make a difference....I dont even want to talk to someone like you JYD.
[quote] You also missed the point that CPU speed (whether clock speed or real performance) != computer speed. If you could attach the current G4s to fast DDR RAM you'd notice a real difference, especially with code that is not optimized for the Mac platform (e.g. most games). If the performance per clock of a 1.4 or 1.6GHz G4 stays on par with the current models, with the added benefit of additional instruction units and one or more faster busses to the rest of the motherboard, the benefits would be far greater than mere clockspeed would suggest. Plus, with more bandwidth to memory, Apple might be able to indulge in four processor configurations for the first time.
<hr></blockquote>
You missed the point that I'm talking about perceived performance and marketing. Don't be such a tool, most consumers don't understand the subtle differences between CPU architectures, and why less MHz is in some cases faster and better than greater MHz.
Also, there is the small but annoying FACT that as Pentiums run at greater and greater MHz, they will make up for inefficiencies with brute clockspeed. Even if a G4 is twice as fast as a Pentium 4 at any given clockspeed, it doesn't bode well for Mac performance, since Motorola will soon be pumping out G4s that are less than half the clockspeed of Pentium 4s!
Yes, one could argue that Apple need only add more processors and take advantage of OS X's incredible multiprocessor support. This may work in a lab, but it is simply not practical. Let's forget about things like power consumption and heat dissipation for a moment, and think about PRICE. Price is already a major obstacle in the way of Apple gaining market share. If Apple is forced to put four (4) G4s in every Powermac so that they can keep up with Wintels, then the price differential will become even more ludicrous. G4s are expensive chips already, imagine a system with four of the buggers! Apple would price themselves right out of even their own niche markets.
It's good to see that at least some posters are discussing the topic, i.e., powermac sales. The AppleZombies of course divert attention from the topic in a futile attempt to make readers forget about Apple's gloom and doom laden future. I'll say it again...unless Motorola can supply Apple with CPUs that are competitive with those from Intel, Apple is doomed. And when I say competitive, I mean from a marketing standpoint. It doesn't matter if the Moto CPUs are faster at a handful of Photoshop filters, what matters is real world performance. Apple must break out of their niche markets if they ever hope to grow and thrive as a company, and that means that Macs must do more than run Photoshop quickly.
I am not hung up on MHz myself, what I'm concerned about is Apple's future. I don't need many MHz for what I do: I surf the net, write, design presentations using Powerpoint and Canvas, analyze data using Excel and some specialized scientific apps, graph data using some older Mac only graph programs, and play some Quake from time to time. My 400 MHz Powermac G4 w/Radeon and 576 MB RAM is fine for my needs....although OS X is a bit sluggish I still prefer it over OS 9, and I'm optimistic that 10.2 will enhance the performance of OS X. So all you AppleZombies can quit whining about me being caught up with MHz, or not understanding that MHz doesn't correlate with performance, or that my dick is the wrong size. You are using straw man arguments without even touching the subject at hand.
The Macs available now run software at competitive and comparible speeds to other platforms...deal with it..stop whining...its no real big deal...especially since the Mac has so many more advantages than just speed (sometimes) and is why the Mac is just a better computer overall.
<strong>The Macs available now run software at competitive and comparible speeds to other platforms...deal with it..stop whining...</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) that's not really that true
2.) even if you want to believe that is true and even if it were you are paying a hell of a lot more just to get that "comparible" performing computer. not great IMO.
It's not entirely Apple fault but they could definitely do a lot to reduce the problems. best example: make the 2299 powermac dual processor as well. and figure any way possible to increase the bus speed
But at least JD is consistent. He's always bitching about how doomed Apple is. Applenut did a complete 180º turn from cheerleader to naysayer. Either way, they're two halves of the same whole, making AI less pleasant with all the bickering, arrogance, and defensiveness.
Here's the fact. No one here really knows Apple's future. If you're a pessimist, enjoy it, if you're an optimist, enjoy it, express opinions, but don't squabble, please. It's not like insulting a person's intelligence is going to change their mind, anyway. Considering everything brought up here is pretty much speculation, I don't see why people can be so convinced of their own opinions.
1) Apple is not doomed. Since Steve Jobs returned, Apple has had strong and weak points in its product line. These change. The iMac went from strong to weak to strong, the Power Mac for strong to weak, the iBook from weak to strong, and the Powerbook went from weak to strong. It is all cyclic. Even if (and this would still be dreaded) the Power Mac was discontinued with no replacement, Apple would still be a maker of portables and consumer desktops.
2) It really doesn't matter what the next Power Mac is called, what the clock speed is, as long as it is fast. It is also inwardly cyclic . It is currently fast at tasks where the full CPU speed L3 is enough of a substitute for real DDR memory. It is slow when it is not a substitute. Assuming a cpu with a faster system bus appears, this will change. Mac OS X is also cyclic. Simple ports of applications are slower on X than 9. However, rewritten applications are faster. Therefore, your computer is slow now, but it will become faster over time.
3) The current weakness, however, is not totally unimportant. This is a end of weakness, and there is less time to be had than at the beginning of weakness.
4) To augment the other points, the level of Power Mac sales is unimportant. It is the introduction of new models that is important.
No need to be sorry, actually you and I think along very similar lines concerning Apple and there current situation. I have also lashed out at Apple and Motorola on these boards.
I have said it elsewhere on these boards, but to recap;
Because of Apple's inability to offer ANY upgrade to the towers @ MWSF and later the subsequent unsatisfying upgrade, I recently bought a 7500 for $89(+$20 shipping) and a Sonnet 400 G4 upgrade card for $224. Actually, I'm fairly impressed w/ its' performance.
I have been running an 8100 and it just became too painfully slow. At the begining of Jan., I had >$1800 CASH) money(Apple are you listening to buy a low end tower(been secreting away $5-$10/wk for a long, long time(married w/ children). Now I'm down the $300 and my purchase of a new tower will be consequently delayed.
I also bought 2 -128Mb dimms @ $28.99 each and OS 9.1 for $49(educational price). Another $107 to make up
But the bright side; This machine will do just fine for quite some time and hopefully Apple/Motorola will revise the cpu's and motherboard substantially by the time I have recouped from my expenditures. Then my kids will have a very adequate machine.
One final note; look at my signiture. I really don't need a tower, but the iMac is so neutered that I buy the low end towers. Don't get me wrong, the iMac for its' target market is a GREAT machine.
<strong>Sorry Junkyard Dawg but i don't think the real problem for apple is speed... for the IT people i think it's the price. Actually nobody will buy PowerMac G4 Server with Mac OS X... it's too expensive compare to a Linux Server !</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Power Mac isn't that expensive compared with "brand name" Linux boxes.
Take a look at a Cobalt RaQ XTR. The Extra Large one have 1x1 GHz P3, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD and costs $4,799.
The top Power Mac G4 Server with 2x1 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 2x80 GB HD and a CD-RW costs $3,849,00.
It just needs to be a 1U with hot swappable HDs and redundant power supplies.
We need the G5 NOW, and it better debut at sizzling speeds, I'm talkin' 1.4-2.0 GHz. Anything less and Apple's going to be in over their heads.[/QB][/QUOTE]
I dunno, I've lurked around quite awhile here and I hear this idea bounced around alot. WE need this and we need that NOW.
As a QA person I look at quality, both in the workplace and at home. I want a good user experience, I want to get my work done, I don't want to hassle with anything if I don't have to.
Hence, the reason I gave up on the Windows platform and moved myself over to the Macintosh.
Let me offer this...
Right now in the PC world the element of Quality is lacking. I'm not just talking about Bluescreens, kernel panics, device driver compatibility problems, and general computer associated mayhem I'm talking about the whole package, the user experience.
What I see is a lot of crappy products, (namely software) getting shoved out the door at an alarming rate on the Windows platform. I see the nightmare that is the Windows XP UI confusing and adding to the deminished quality of a users work experience. I see and hear the numerous complaints of people who are getting fed up with not being able to accomplish their work.
I know that the Macintosh platform from the standpoint of specification is lagging in terms of performace behind the Intel/AMD world. I say: "So What?"
Apple is winning converts, and I can tell you that there is a momentum building because in the last year I've seen Mac's slowly making thier way back into an environment that would not have tolerated their presence before. I see a line of people at my CompUSA playing with the iMac admiring it and wanting one, and I've noticed some people walk out the door NOT with a Wintel box, but instead another Power Mac model because the sales people told them that the new iMac was not currently in stock.
My reasoning is telling my that Apple has approached the market with a QUALITY product that is making users take notice. I do not believe that anyone in the Wintel space is trying to "Improve the User Experience" or "Allowing our users to do GREAT things with their PC". I see specs, I see performance and I see people who are not only wanting something else, but who are now starting to demand it. Personally, I think Apple is taking the correct tactic, winning new costumers with numbers and specifications has not been a winning game for Apple in the past and I am inclined to believe that it would be suicidal for them to do it now.
Fix OS X, produce more compelling iApps, extend the functionality of the Mac so it becomes a solution for as many people as it can, and frankly worry about specs later.
[quote]We do not need a G5 now, Apple is in the drivers seat...it is hardware and software that make a difference....I dont even want to talk to someone like you JYD.
<hr></blockquote>
What an arrogant snob. No wonder Apple has problems, it's people like you who figure everything is fine.
All of the pro-Apple arguments here miss the point. Of course Macs are better than Wintels, that's not my point, and you don't need to convince me. The problem is that Apple's sales have been dropping, along with their marketshare. and since it appears that Apple is doing everything right from the software side, there must be some other explanation, like HARDWARE. I think the main reason is the GHz gap and the excessive price of Macs. But if the Macs had competitive performance, then the price wouldn't matter so much, since people don't mind paying a premium for something that is better, and clearly OS X is better than Windows. But currently people feel like a Mac is a trade-off, between the OS and performance. They have to sacrifice performance to use OS X, and once they've sacrificed performance they are in no mood to sacrifice MONEY as well.
I'm not saying Apple is doomed NOW, but the day is coming when the GHz gap will give birth to a feature gap, as features are designed for Wintels that cannot run on slower Macs. This seems self-evident to me, and frankly I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand this concept, unless one is burdened by dogma.
JYD is absolutely right. Who cares if we are happy and will keep buying macs? Does that increase apple's market share? No - we ARE apple's market share. here's something that occurred to me:
Apple seemed to have a bigger market share when:
1) They had software that allowed you to do things pc users couldn't. Remember Director, photoshop et al being mac first or mac only? Pixelpaint? Strata? Infinidi? Electric Image? . . .
2) they used proprietry hardware. Since apple dominated the creative markets it made sense for 3rd parties to develop h/w for apple's nubus etc. Back then an average pc could not even come close to the range of functions a mac could provide. Today even an average intel will do almost everything a mac can (uglier, harder and more frustrating but it can) and at a lower price. Now there are a plethora of top end h/w especially pro graphics cards and 3d apps that may never come to macintosh. That says a whole lot more about the pro towers sales potential than tales of "My Uncle works in . . . ".
3) The only way that apple could be doomed is if people keep sticking their heads in the sand and proclaim that everything is fine.
4) I'm still waiting for that quantum leap in performance apple carped on about - you know the one about how we would forever leave the wintel world behind in speed thanks to RISC?
5)Why do people mock the wintel worlds proclamations about the power of their hardware and then blithely accept all of apple's claims that the Mhz doesn't matter?
6) Altivec? How many people spend their days doing nothing but running those photoshop filters sj keeps showing off?
7) why don't people stop swallowing benchmarks? Just put a G4 next to a similarly priced PC, get your watch out and see for yourself. THIS is the real world test.
8) Apple has a history of never knowing what to do
9) Market share will not increase until the G5 as people still feel that the G4 is an outdated stop gap for the G5.
10) Apple has to produce a machine that is so fast and powerful that it has no peers. That alone might make OS X feel snappy.
Aren't we tired of this same old discussion yet? I know I am. Can't we be a little more creative than this in the future hardware forum? Whatever happened to all the mock ups? And can't we just keep all these threads in one 'perpetual Apple is doomed' thread? Save bandwidth. Some of us are still on dial up.
Apple cannot just sit on their laurels and continue to slap each other on the back for half assed jobs. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple, and would never use anything else....but Apple seem to have this knack of making a greatly designed computer, nice iApps and all....and yes, it all works beautifully but there is a performance (speed) hit.....and then ask for us to fork out a shit-load more than what PC's are asking.
Look at OS X. works beatifully, but Jezus H Christ, it takes the same amount of time to open Word on a TiBook 550 as it does to open it on an LC630. And Apple are asking AU$5500??
I understand that OSX is a new OS, it needs work...but it's really a G4 OS. Anyone who says that the performance on a G3 machine is acceptable really has eaten too much Apple RDF for breakfast.
If Apple is to ask for the prices they do, give us something that really craps on the Wintel machines. Honestly, next time you have the opportunity of playing with a fast PC running XP (Blah), see the launch times you get on their Apps....they leave OSX for dead. I know you guys are got roast me for all this, but it shits me to no end that I have to pay major bucks to have the privelidge (sp?) of using something that works smoothly ie. Apple hardware, but take a major hit in performance. Why do I have to buy a higher MHz G4 to get some DECENT performance out of OSX!!
Before you all tell me "Go and get a PC then!!", my argument is purely this: I am an Apple user and want to remain that way, but if Apple have an inflated price on their products, it has to be FULLY justified!! Not this "yeah, this will work much better than Winblows, stability, user experience, intergrated HW/SW/OS....but you'll have to put up with it running like a dog unless I can entice you in this 933 G4!!"
I will take what Apple have over Winblows any day of the week, but it don't mean I like to throw my money at something less than what my hard earned $$ are worth to me!!
<strong>JYD is absolutely right. Who cares if we are happy and will keep buying macs? Does that increase apple's market share? No - we ARE apple's market share. here's something that occurred to me:
Apple seemed to have a bigger market share when:
1) They had software that allowed you to do things pc users couldn't. Remember Director, photoshop et al being mac first or mac only? Pixelpaint? Strata? Infinidi? Electric Image? . . .
2) they used proprietry hardware. Since apple dominated the creative markets it made sense for 3rd parties to develop h/w for apple's nubus etc. Back then an average pc could not even come close to the range of functions a mac could provide. Today even an average intel will do almost everything a mac can (uglier, harder and more frustrating but it can) and at a lower price. Now there are a plethora of top end h/w especially pro graphics cards and 3d apps that may never come to macintosh. That says a whole lot more about the pro towers sales potential than tales of "My Uncle works in . . . ".
3) The only way that apple could be doomed is if people keep sticking their heads in the sand and proclaim that everything is fine.
4) I'm still waiting for that quantum leap in performance apple carped on about - you know the one about how we would forever leave the wintel world behind in speed thanks to RISC?
5)Why do people mock the wintel worlds proclamations about the power of their hardware and then blithely accept all of apple's claims that the Mhz doesn't matter?
6) Altivec? How many people spend their days doing nothing but running those photoshop filters sj keeps showing off?
7) why don't people stop swallowing benchmarks? Just put a G4 next to a similarly priced PC, get your watch out and see for yourself. THIS is the real world test.
8) Apple has a history of never knowing what to do
9) Market share will not increase until the G5 as people still feel that the G4 is an outdated stop gap for the G5.
10) Apple has to produce a machine that is so fast and powerful that it has no peers. That alone might make OS X feel snappy.
I'm tired, depressed and god its late</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like you lost track of what you were listing.
And yes, AltiVec is important, and it enhances alot more things than a few Photoshop filters.
And yes, for what I want a computer to do, it's better, and faster, on a Mac than a PC. Right now. And I expect things only to get better. That's my benchmarks in a nutshell.
Now, to all the whiners, stop and think for a minute. All you guys are saying that Apple is "standing on its laurels". I disagree. People still go to work there everyday and do their jobs. They aren't just galavanting around the campus. They are working on stuff you aren't aware of. Otherwise they wouldn't get paid.
I think alot of things that were planned aren't ready yet, even though they were already anticipated. I think that Apple's timetable is behind. Things just didn't pan out with hardware suppliers, etc. I think a big part is the problems with Motorola. Apple probably had things waiting to stick with some new hardware. For all we know, they may have a DDR motherboard waiting for a chip that was supposed to be out already.
And I don't see why our opinions matter so much. You act like the problems Apple is having with hardware speed is the fault of their customers not posting "Apple is DOOMED!" messages on AI all the time. Like the hardware guys at Apple are going to suddenly going to look at some post of Junkyard Dawg's and say "OOOOHHH! DDR motherboards and 1.6 GHz processors! It all seems so simple now!"
Apple is selling out the fastest hardware it can at the time. The 7455 is not compatible with FSB's running at higher than 133 MHz. I'm sorry.
Also, if all you guys know so well what Apple needs to do right now, and it would be so easy, why aren't you out running multi-billion-dollar companies instead of sitting in front of your computers complaining about everything?
<strong>Aren't we tired of this same old discussion yet? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Here, Here!
It happens everytime a MacWorld rolls around. People keeps yelling that the sky is falling or if Apple doesn't do this, they're doomed. Or I'm going Wintel if they don't unveil a G5.
I know it's a forum and we're all free to express our opinions. And sure I'd like some new processors too. But sometimes you gotta step back and smell the coffee. Enjoy what you've got. Instead of dwelling on possible catastrophic scenarios.
Apple's doing well. I mean they're a heck of a lot better off than they were before Jobs came back.
[quote] I don't have a lot of experience, actually non at all, with dual processor x86 systems but I would think that Windows XP professional has good MP support. The money you could save by getting an dual Athlon system instead of a PowerMac would compensate for the price of XP Professional. <hr></blockquote>
FYI XP pro or otherwise is based on the core of Windows 2000. MP support is no different than it has been for years. One app on one processor and one app on the other with the OS not written to take advantage of MP as OSX is. Unless a developer actually codes an application to use SMP you get nothing more than that.You have to get the "Advanced Server" OS versions to get anything else.
Microsoft apparently doesn't feel that SMP belongs in annything other than network servers.
Comments
A friend has a good contact at MacWarehouse in the UK, contact says sales are quite slow.
A the same time MacWarehouse had something like 200 733 G4s at GPB:949 (GBP:200 off the cost of a current 800) plus approx 50 800/867s shortly after the intro of the dual 1GHz and associated speed bump. All of those old model machines seem to have gone from the MacWarehouse inventory.
To me this seems pretty good going, I would have expected a few of them to hang around - given that there were also screen bundles in there too.
Additionally, we managed to find another reseller who had approx 200 733s a couple of days ago. When we called to enquire they said that they'd moved 60 of them on *one* order - the rest were going fast.
So, I reckon that sales over here are pretty healthy, the dealers are doing ok, even if they are selling old/obsolete stock.
<strong>
Not so fast. There are several issues here: How good the MP implementation is, how pervasive it is, and what you have to do to actually make use of it. MP under Linux is inefficient. The consumer version of XP isn't MP savvy. I'm not sure how MP savvy the various x86 processors are, but the 74xx series has, in general, featured top-flight MP support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. What I was trying to get at though is for a far comparison of where the G4 is at when compared to the x86 processor we should really be comparing a single CPU setup to another single CPU setup.
I don't have a lot of experience, actually non at all, with dual processor x86 systems but I would think that Windows XP professional has good MP support. The money you could save by getting an dual Athlon system instead of a PowerMac would compensate for the price of XP Professional.
[quote]<strong>
In other words, when it can run code written for x86's strengths faster than x86-based architectures can. That's a multi-headed problem, really: Apple speeding up gcc will go a long way toward realizing that, and faster CPUs will help, but the bus speed/CPU speed ratio and the way the main bus is designed will also be very significant. PPCs are designed to load a bit of code and a bit of data, crunch it, and store it back to RAM - it's assumed that loads and stores will be occasional, and spaced out, and that code and data will come in chunks that can be digested by the generous register set and/or the caches. In particular, starting with the G3, PPCs have been designed to assume a lopsided ratio between the CPU and the main bus - the P4 Northwood, in contrast, depends for its performance on a (relatively) fat, constant stream of data - which as I understand it is more of an amplification of the way x86 machines have traditionally been designed than a change (x86 processors are starved for registers, and until recently were cache-starved as well). The two approaches are different enough that code written for one will run relatively poorly on the other, independent of any abstract measure of CPU performance.
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
I'll be honest. I'm a second year engineering student here in Canada at the University of Alberta. I don't really have any intensive engineering applications to run on my Mac so the most intensive thing I use my Mac for is the weekend relaxation ritual of Urban Terror and Giants.
I love my Mac, I love Mac OS X, but I really don't like how Macs are so much slower in FPS then PCs especially for the price. I don't care what the problem is, but I want a solution. The fact is Macs are slower at 3D games. I don't know what Apple needs to do, you seem to have an idea about the issues, I just want it fixed.
I really don't want to get the, "Buy a PC for gaming", solution because I don't want too, I want to play on my Mac. In reality you need to upgrade your computer because either games are too slow, or a "high end" application is too slow. I am willing to bet that a significant amount of people upgrade their computers to play new games. I Apple wants to sell to these people it would be in their interest to up the game performance, which means upping the GHz and upping the memory bus.
The bottom line, if I pay more for my Mac I want it to be faster.
[quote]<strong>
There is also the minor problem that nVIDIA's Mac drivers are in woeful shape compared to their Windows drivers.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
I know, I long for bump-mapping in Giants, oh how I long.
<strong>I haven't even read this thread yet, but I still feel the need to comment: Junkyard Dawg = Chicken Little. 'Nuf said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comment on threads that you haven't even read...that's a sure sign of intelligence.
Do you know ANYTHING about Powermac sales? Anything at all? If so, then please contribute to the discussion. If not, then why are posting nonsense?
We do not need a G5 now, Apple is in the drivers seat...it is hardware and software that make a difference....I dont even want to talk to someone like you JYD.
<hr></blockquote>
You missed the point that I'm talking about perceived performance and marketing. Don't be such a tool, most consumers don't understand the subtle differences between CPU architectures, and why less MHz is in some cases faster and better than greater MHz.
Also, there is the small but annoying FACT that as Pentiums run at greater and greater MHz, they will make up for inefficiencies with brute clockspeed. Even if a G4 is twice as fast as a Pentium 4 at any given clockspeed, it doesn't bode well for Mac performance, since Motorola will soon be pumping out G4s that are less than half the clockspeed of Pentium 4s!
Yes, one could argue that Apple need only add more processors and take advantage of OS X's incredible multiprocessor support. This may work in a lab, but it is simply not practical. Let's forget about things like power consumption and heat dissipation for a moment, and think about PRICE. Price is already a major obstacle in the way of Apple gaining market share. If Apple is forced to put four (4) G4s in every Powermac so that they can keep up with Wintels, then the price differential will become even more ludicrous. G4s are expensive chips already, imagine a system with four of the buggers! Apple would price themselves right out of even their own niche markets.
It's good to see that at least some posters are discussing the topic, i.e., powermac sales. The AppleZombies of course divert attention from the topic in a futile attempt to make readers forget about Apple's gloom and doom laden future. I'll say it again...unless Motorola can supply Apple with CPUs that are competitive with those from Intel, Apple is doomed. And when I say competitive, I mean from a marketing standpoint. It doesn't matter if the Moto CPUs are faster at a handful of Photoshop filters, what matters is real world performance. Apple must break out of their niche markets if they ever hope to grow and thrive as a company, and that means that Macs must do more than run Photoshop quickly.
I am not hung up on MHz myself, what I'm concerned about is Apple's future. I don't need many MHz for what I do: I surf the net, write, design presentations using Powerpoint and Canvas, analyze data using Excel and some specialized scientific apps, graph data using some older Mac only graph programs, and play some Quake from time to time. My 400 MHz Powermac G4 w/Radeon and 576 MB RAM is fine for my needs....although OS X is a bit sluggish I still prefer it over OS 9, and I'm optimistic that 10.2 will enhance the performance of OS X. So all you AppleZombies can quit whining about me being caught up with MHz, or not understanding that MHz doesn't correlate with performance, or that my dick is the wrong size. You are using straw man arguments without even touching the subject at hand.
<strong>The Macs available now run software at competitive and comparible speeds to other platforms...deal with it..stop whining...</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) that's not really that true
2.) even if you want to believe that is true and even if it were you are paying a hell of a lot more just to get that "comparible" performing computer. not great IMO.
It's not entirely Apple fault but they could definitely do a lot to reduce the problems. best example: make the 2299 powermac dual processor as well. and figure any way possible to increase the bus speed
Junkyard Dawg, '00: Apple is Doomed!
Junkyard Dawg, '01: Apple is Doomed!
Junkyard Dawg, '02: Apple is Doomed!
One of these years he'll get it right.
But at least JD is consistent. He's always bitching about how doomed Apple is. Applenut did a complete 180º turn from cheerleader to naysayer. Either way, they're two halves of the same whole, making AI less pleasant with all the bickering, arrogance, and defensiveness.
Here's the fact. No one here really knows Apple's future. If you're a pessimist, enjoy it, if you're an optimist, enjoy it, express opinions, but don't squabble, please. It's not like insulting a person's intelligence is going to change their mind, anyway. Considering everything brought up here is pretty much speculation, I don't see why people can be so convinced of their own opinions.
2) It really doesn't matter what the next Power Mac is called, what the clock speed is, as long as it is fast. It is also inwardly cyclic . It is currently fast at tasks where the full CPU speed L3 is enough of a substitute for real DDR memory. It is slow when it is not a substitute. Assuming a cpu with a faster system bus appears, this will change. Mac OS X is also cyclic. Simple ports of applications are slower on X than 9. However, rewritten applications are faster. Therefore, your computer is slow now, but it will become faster over time.
3) The current weakness, however, is not totally unimportant. This is a end of weakness, and there is less time to be had than at the beginning of weakness.
4) To augment the other points, the level of Power Mac sales is unimportant. It is the introduction of new models that is important.
Barto
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
No need to be sorry, actually you and I think along very similar lines concerning Apple and there current situation. I have also lashed out at Apple and Motorola on these boards.
I have said it elsewhere on these boards, but to recap;
Because of Apple's inability to offer ANY upgrade to the towers @ MWSF and later the subsequent unsatisfying upgrade, I recently bought a 7500 for $89(+$20 shipping) and a Sonnet 400 G4 upgrade card for $224. Actually, I'm fairly impressed w/ its' performance.
I have been running an 8100 and it just became too painfully slow. At the begining of Jan., I had >$1800 CASH) money(Apple are you listening to buy a low end tower(been secreting away $5-$10/wk for a long, long time(married w/ children). Now I'm down the $300 and my purchase of a new tower will be consequently delayed.
I also bought 2 -128Mb dimms @ $28.99 each and OS 9.1 for $49(educational price). Another $107 to make up
But the bright side; This machine will do just fine for quite some time and hopefully Apple/Motorola will revise the cpu's and motherboard substantially by the time I have recouped from my expenditures. Then my kids will have a very adequate machine.
One final note; look at my signiture. I really don't need a tower, but the iMac is so neutered that I buy the low end towers. Don't get me wrong, the iMac for its' target market is a GREAT machine.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
Here's "marketing" for you. Apple's UK ads for the iMac don't mention the CPU speed at all - they just say things like "amazingly fast".
No "megahertz myth", no "four times as fast...", just let the people make up their own minds based on... no facts, and the branding alone.
Pretty smart move I think.
<strong>Sorry Junkyard Dawg but i don't think the real problem for apple is speed... for the IT people i think it's the price. Actually nobody will buy PowerMac G4 Server with Mac OS X... it's too expensive compare to a Linux Server !</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Power Mac isn't that expensive compared with "brand name" Linux boxes.
Take a look at a Cobalt RaQ XTR. The Extra Large one have 1x1 GHz P3, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD and costs $4,799.
The top Power Mac G4 Server with 2x1 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 2x80 GB HD and a CD-RW costs $3,849,00.
It just needs to be a 1U with hot swappable HDs and redundant power supplies.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
I dunno, I've lurked around quite awhile here and I hear this idea bounced around alot. WE need this and we need that NOW.
As a QA person I look at quality, both in the workplace and at home. I want a good user experience, I want to get my work done, I don't want to hassle with anything if I don't have to.
Hence, the reason I gave up on the Windows platform and moved myself over to the Macintosh.
Let me offer this...
Right now in the PC world the element of Quality is lacking. I'm not just talking about Bluescreens, kernel panics, device driver compatibility problems, and general computer associated mayhem I'm talking about the whole package, the user experience.
What I see is a lot of crappy products, (namely software) getting shoved out the door at an alarming rate on the Windows platform. I see the nightmare that is the Windows XP UI confusing and adding to the deminished quality of a users work experience. I see and hear the numerous complaints of people who are getting fed up with not being able to accomplish their work.
I know that the Macintosh platform from the standpoint of specification is lagging in terms of performace behind the Intel/AMD world. I say: "So What?"
Apple is winning converts, and I can tell you that there is a momentum building because in the last year I've seen Mac's slowly making thier way back into an environment that would not have tolerated their presence before. I see a line of people at my CompUSA playing with the iMac admiring it and wanting one, and I've noticed some people walk out the door NOT with a Wintel box, but instead another Power Mac model because the sales people told them that the new iMac was not currently in stock.
My reasoning is telling my that Apple has approached the market with a QUALITY product that is making users take notice. I do not believe that anyone in the Wintel space is trying to "Improve the User Experience" or "Allowing our users to do GREAT things with their PC". I see specs, I see performance and I see people who are not only wanting something else, but who are now starting to demand it. Personally, I think Apple is taking the correct tactic, winning new costumers with numbers and specifications has not been a winning game for Apple in the past and I am inclined to believe that it would be suicidal for them to do it now.
Fix OS X, produce more compelling iApps, extend the functionality of the Mac so it becomes a solution for as many people as it can, and frankly worry about specs later.
My 2 pennies worth.
<hr></blockquote>
What an arrogant snob. No wonder Apple has problems, it's people like you who figure everything is fine.
All of the pro-Apple arguments here miss the point. Of course Macs are better than Wintels, that's not my point, and you don't need to convince me. The problem is that Apple's sales have been dropping, along with their marketshare. and since it appears that Apple is doing everything right from the software side, there must be some other explanation, like HARDWARE. I think the main reason is the GHz gap and the excessive price of Macs. But if the Macs had competitive performance, then the price wouldn't matter so much, since people don't mind paying a premium for something that is better, and clearly OS X is better than Windows. But currently people feel like a Mac is a trade-off, between the OS and performance. They have to sacrifice performance to use OS X, and once they've sacrificed performance they are in no mood to sacrifice MONEY as well.
I'm not saying Apple is doomed NOW, but the day is coming when the GHz gap will give birth to a feature gap, as features are designed for Wintels that cannot run on slower Macs. This seems self-evident to me, and frankly I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand this concept, unless one is burdened by dogma.
Apple seemed to have a bigger market share when:
1) They had software that allowed you to do things pc users couldn't. Remember Director, photoshop et al being mac first or mac only? Pixelpaint? Strata? Infinidi? Electric Image? . . .
2) they used proprietry hardware. Since apple dominated the creative markets it made sense for 3rd parties to develop h/w for apple's nubus etc. Back then an average pc could not even come close to the range of functions a mac could provide. Today even an average intel will do almost everything a mac can (uglier, harder and more frustrating but it can) and at a lower price. Now there are a plethora of top end h/w especially pro graphics cards and 3d apps that may never come to macintosh. That says a whole lot more about the pro towers sales potential than tales of "My Uncle works in . . . ".
3) The only way that apple could be doomed is if people keep sticking their heads in the sand and proclaim that everything is fine.
4) I'm still waiting for that quantum leap in performance apple carped on about - you know the one about how we would forever leave the wintel world behind in speed thanks to RISC?
5)Why do people mock the wintel worlds proclamations about the power of their hardware and then blithely accept all of apple's claims that the Mhz doesn't matter?
6) Altivec? How many people spend their days doing nothing but running those photoshop filters sj keeps showing off?
7) why don't people stop swallowing benchmarks? Just put a G4 next to a similarly priced PC, get your watch out and see for yourself. THIS is the real world test.
8) Apple has a history of never knowing what to do
9) Market share will not increase until the G5 as people still feel that the G4 is an outdated stop gap for the G5.
10) Apple has to produce a machine that is so fast and powerful that it has no peers. That alone might make OS X feel snappy.
I'm tired, depressed and god its late
Apple cannot just sit on their laurels and continue to slap each other on the back for half assed jobs. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple, and would never use anything else....but Apple seem to have this knack of making a greatly designed computer, nice iApps and all....and yes, it all works beautifully but there is a performance (speed) hit.....and then ask for us to fork out a shit-load more than what PC's are asking.
Look at OS X. works beatifully, but Jezus H Christ, it takes the same amount of time to open Word on a TiBook 550 as it does to open it on an LC630. And Apple are asking AU$5500??
I understand that OSX is a new OS, it needs work...but it's really a G4 OS. Anyone who says that the performance on a G3 machine is acceptable really has eaten too much Apple RDF for breakfast.
If Apple is to ask for the prices they do, give us something that really craps on the Wintel machines. Honestly, next time you have the opportunity of playing with a fast PC running XP (Blah), see the launch times you get on their Apps....they leave OSX for dead. I know you guys are got roast me for all this, but it shits me to no end that I have to pay major bucks to have the privelidge (sp?) of using something that works smoothly ie. Apple hardware, but take a major hit in performance. Why do I have to buy a higher MHz G4 to get some DECENT performance out of OSX!!
Before you all tell me "Go and get a PC then!!", my argument is purely this: I am an Apple user and want to remain that way, but if Apple have an inflated price on their products, it has to be FULLY justified!! Not this "yeah, this will work much better than Winblows, stability, user experience, intergrated HW/SW/OS....but you'll have to put up with it running like a dog unless I can entice you in this 933 G4!!"
I will take what Apple have over Winblows any day of the week, but it don't mean I like to throw my money at something less than what my hard earned $$ are worth to me!!
OK, I feel better now after my bitch!
<strong>JYD is absolutely right. Who cares if we are happy and will keep buying macs? Does that increase apple's market share? No - we ARE apple's market share. here's something that occurred to me:
Apple seemed to have a bigger market share when:
1) They had software that allowed you to do things pc users couldn't. Remember Director, photoshop et al being mac first or mac only? Pixelpaint? Strata? Infinidi? Electric Image? . . .
2) they used proprietry hardware. Since apple dominated the creative markets it made sense for 3rd parties to develop h/w for apple's nubus etc. Back then an average pc could not even come close to the range of functions a mac could provide. Today even an average intel will do almost everything a mac can (uglier, harder and more frustrating but it can) and at a lower price. Now there are a plethora of top end h/w especially pro graphics cards and 3d apps that may never come to macintosh. That says a whole lot more about the pro towers sales potential than tales of "My Uncle works in . . . ".
3) The only way that apple could be doomed is if people keep sticking their heads in the sand and proclaim that everything is fine.
4) I'm still waiting for that quantum leap in performance apple carped on about - you know the one about how we would forever leave the wintel world behind in speed thanks to RISC?
5)Why do people mock the wintel worlds proclamations about the power of their hardware and then blithely accept all of apple's claims that the Mhz doesn't matter?
6) Altivec? How many people spend their days doing nothing but running those photoshop filters sj keeps showing off?
7) why don't people stop swallowing benchmarks? Just put a G4 next to a similarly priced PC, get your watch out and see for yourself. THIS is the real world test.
8) Apple has a history of never knowing what to do
9) Market share will not increase until the G5 as people still feel that the G4 is an outdated stop gap for the G5.
10) Apple has to produce a machine that is so fast and powerful that it has no peers. That alone might make OS X feel snappy.
I'm tired, depressed and god its late</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like you lost track of what you were listing.
And yes, AltiVec is important, and it enhances alot more things than a few Photoshop filters.
And yes, for what I want a computer to do, it's better, and faster, on a Mac than a PC. Right now. And I expect things only to get better. That's my benchmarks in a nutshell.
Now, to all the whiners, stop and think for a minute. All you guys are saying that Apple is "standing on its laurels". I disagree. People still go to work there everyday and do their jobs. They aren't just galavanting around the campus. They are working on stuff you aren't aware of. Otherwise they wouldn't get paid.
I think alot of things that were planned aren't ready yet, even though they were already anticipated. I think that Apple's timetable is behind. Things just didn't pan out with hardware suppliers, etc. I think a big part is the problems with Motorola. Apple probably had things waiting to stick with some new hardware. For all we know, they may have a DDR motherboard waiting for a chip that was supposed to be out already.
And I don't see why our opinions matter so much. You act like the problems Apple is having with hardware speed is the fault of their customers not posting "Apple is DOOMED!" messages on AI all the time. Like the hardware guys at Apple are going to suddenly going to look at some post of Junkyard Dawg's and say "OOOOHHH! DDR motherboards and 1.6 GHz processors! It all seems so simple now!"
Apple is selling out the fastest hardware it can at the time. The 7455 is not compatible with FSB's running at higher than 133 MHz. I'm sorry.
Also, if all you guys know so well what Apple needs to do right now, and it would be so easy, why aren't you out running multi-billion-dollar companies instead of sitting in front of your computers complaining about everything?
<strong>Aren't we tired of this same old discussion yet? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Here, Here!
It happens everytime a MacWorld rolls around. People keeps yelling that the sky is falling or if Apple doesn't do this, they're doomed. Or I'm going Wintel if they don't unveil a G5.
I know it's a forum and we're all free to express our opinions. And sure I'd like some new processors too. But sometimes you gotta step back and smell the coffee. Enjoy what you've got. Instead of dwelling on possible catastrophic scenarios.
Apple's doing well. I mean they're a heck of a lot better off than they were before Jobs came back.
FYI XP pro or otherwise is based on the core of Windows 2000. MP support is no different than it has been for years. One app on one processor and one app on the other with the OS not written to take advantage of MP as OSX is. Unless a developer actually codes an application to use SMP you get nothing more than that.You have to get the "Advanced Server" OS versions to get anything else.
Microsoft apparently doesn't feel that SMP belongs in annything other than network servers.