The Future Is Just About Now.
It seems to me that everyone on these boards wants a newer and faster Mac. People want them that wont even buy them, just because they want Apple to offfer such a product. All of these predictions about PowerMacs and the hailed 970 will hopefully stop the constant whining that people do here, when they are released.
What is this speed needed for, running applications and the OS? I really think that most people would say this is why they want speed speed speed. I for one think that those desires have been met. Apple currently provides systems other than the iBook's that run the OS and the applications so well. I would say blazingly fast.
We are coming to a point in time where speed will not matter as much but software does. The speed of a machine will be gauged by how fast it runs the applications compared to its predecessor. If this is what is happening then I see no reason to complain about any of the current G4 systems Apple offers in terms of speed...price however is not yet where it needs to be.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
What is this speed needed for, running applications and the OS? I really think that most people would say this is why they want speed speed speed. I for one think that those desires have been met. Apple currently provides systems other than the iBook's that run the OS and the applications so well. I would say blazingly fast.
We are coming to a point in time where speed will not matter as much but software does. The speed of a machine will be gauged by how fast it runs the applications compared to its predecessor. If this is what is happening then I see no reason to complain about any of the current G4 systems Apple offers in terms of speed...price however is not yet where it needs to be.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
Comments
:cool:
<strong>It seems to me that everyone on these boards wants a newer and faster Mac. People want them that wont even buy them, just because they want Apple to offfer such a product. All of these predictions about PowerMacs and the hailed 970 will hopefully stop the constant whining that people do here, when they are released.
What is this speed needed for, running applications and the OS? I really think that most people would say this is why they want speed speed speed. I for one think that those desires have been met. Apple currently provides systems other than the iBook's that run the OS and the applications so well. I would say blazingly fast.
We are coming to a point in time where speed will not matter as much but software does. The speed of a machine will be gauged by how fast it runs the applications compared to its predecessor. If this is what is happening then I see no reason to complain about any of the current G4 systems Apple offers in terms of speed...price however is not yet where it needs to be.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that you Steve?
Just joking, have a nice day.
Something else that needs to be addressed, assuming Apple wants to really get into the high-end content creation area, is video cards.
There currently are no workstation class video cards available for the Mac. In fact, the choices are rather limited outside of this niche.
But for running a word processor, and similar other tasks, I agree with your point.
The most shocking thing about this GhzTi is that the only time I find myself waiting for anything is when something mechanical needs to move, such as the drives. This is BY FAR the slowest thing on this machine. Everything else is instantaneous, but accessing disks seems to take forever by comparison.
Rendering in video is definitely quicker, and probably double the speed of the 500, but because the projects I work on generally require a few big renders as opposed to a lot of small ones, I still find myself waiting for those renders. A good example is a 3D render I had going constantly for about a week (in the background) not long ago. It would have taken forever whether it was a single 867 Mhz or a single 1.3 Ghz. Hell, if the processor was twice as fast, a 2 Ghz G4, it would still have taken half a week.
Anyway, processor speed seems to be getting to a really nice point. Now how about some solid-state storage options!
yea, a dual G4 1.25 Ghz runs nearly everything you want without a problem... it also costs $3000+
and we really aren't t a point where computers are "fast enough". None of them are.... especially for professional work. and as Apple dives into digital media more and more at the consumer level, speed and performance become more and more important for those low pricepoint products
<strong>
I bet you didn't know the ATi and Nvidia Mac GPU versions have the same capabilities as the corresponding PC workstation cards (except in some instances RAM size). The non-Quadro boards and drivers are hamstrung as are the non-Fire lines. The three to four capabilities (of which two sided lighting is probably the most important) that seperate the PC workstation cards from the PC gamer cards are actually there in the Macintosh market cards! It's just not marketed that way.
Why? It currently costs too much to hamstring the Mac hardware and software and still get it QA'ed for normal use. So they just put the PC workstation class capabilities in really tiny print buried way down in the documentation so PC folks won't easily find it and get bent out of whack they are paying an extra grand for the same silicon that just hasn't undergone a little laser lobodomy and driver slashing.
About the only things missing are the price difference between classes that share the same hardware already and the driver application certifications ( this last one may make a difference to a few folks).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I have heard this about the nVidia cards but not the ATI ones. I heard that the Geforce 4600 Ti for Mac is equivalent to a Quadro on the PC, but based on what I've heard from different sources, they don't perform the same.
Are you saying that the Radeon cards are the same as the PC FireGL cards?
<strong>
i think the problem a lot of people aren't willing to get over is that why pay so much for a computer that performance wise, is behind much cheaper competition.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe you pegged the problem. In many cases, it is psychology, not required performance. Some people feel like they are getting second rate products, no matter how much better everything else may be. As long as the x86 PCs keep stressing MHz, it will be difficult for some folks to see past this issue. Likely a test drive is the only thing that can show them it is fast enough, and even then they may feel short changed with a Mac. So, I guess we just have to wait for the big equalizer to ship in Macs, to satisfy almost everyone.
It will be a big day. Those who need performance will get it. Those who just want performance will get it. And many will simply be glad that Windows users can no longer scorn their choice of computer.
[QB]It seems to me that everyone on these boards wants a newer and faster Mac. People want them that wont even buy them, just because they want Apple to offfer such a product. All of these predictions about PowerMacs and the hailed 970 will hopefully stop the constant whining that people do here, when they are released.
What is this speed needed for, running applications and the OS?
<hr></blockquote>
I have quite a bit of electrical engineering and math software for windows, this is one of the reasons I'm waiting for ppc 970 (or G5) powermacs. Either of these chips should run VPC fairly fast. Of course, if a G4 with a DDR integrated memory controller was available which could ran vpc much better than current G4?s, I'd suppose I cave in and buy one.
I'm actually getting impatient waiting to upgrade. I'm still using a 5yr old 8600 and although I love this machine, it doesn't run OS X. It seems like every few months or so, Apple makes OS X slightly better. For example, I?ve just tried out Safari and am quite impressed. Plus, it looks like I could use X11 to log into our company unix systems instead of running exceed on wintel.
1) Window dragging in XP with a Radeon 9700 Pro and the latest Catalyst 3.0 drivers sucks. You get some tearing at the edges and elements behind the dragged object aren't redrawn immediately all the time. Window dragging also uses a majority of the CPU. Where's the hardware acceleration? Do I need to download another software utility??? Window resizing is a bit better on XP, but I bet Apple will eventually fix that problem. The Window resizes faster in XP but the elements in the window are subject to white flashes between redraws.
2) The P4 just doesn't feel that fast. I initially overclocked my P4 to 2.7 GHz and it was entirely stable, but I downclocked t back to factory speed because I really didn't notice a difference. Things that were awfully slow at 2.4 GHz, were still awfully slow at 2.7 GHz. An example of a slow process? Take your pick: changing from the XP theme to the Classic one, telling your computer to hibernate, sometimes apps just stop responding for a while.
3) MS's product activation is ridiculous. Because I bought XP and used it in Virtual PC for a while, my new computer was so radically different it triggered the reactivation process. The dialog box instructed me to copy down a 54 digit installation ID and repeat it to a telephone rep. The telephone rep then interrogated me for 5 minutes and finally gave me a 42 digit reactivation code. Ridiculous.
4) The Microsoft practice of hiding the filesystem/installation hierarchy from the user is just plain wrong. Other than the various "My [whatever]" folders, recycle bin, and taskbar, Microsoft tries to hide EVERYTHING from the user. Try installing an app that doesn't come with an installer in Windows XP...it's not very easy. You have to unpack the app, drag the app to yoru Program Files folder, then create a shortcut to the Start Menu under the "All Users" folder.
5) Blah blah blah...I could go on and on, but I'm just going to say this: Apple's low-end G4 based Macs feel just as snappy as my 2.4 GHz P4 running Windows XP. The little things in Mac OS and the hardware integration really do help.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Why I'd like a 970? I do a lot of intense design work. This isn't uncommon for mac users.
ok I'll stop now.