I have been involved in Systems Analysis for a number of years and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is that it really doesn't matter how "fast" the machine is as much as how "fast" a person is able to complete a task on it. In this regard, I find Macs more efficient and thus "faster" than the competition.
I am (with baited breath) anticipating the arrival of my dual G5. I look forward to a "fast" piece of equipment with an "efficient" interface which will make my tasks more pleasant to complete.
Of course, we've heard directly from Maxon that CB does not work well with G5's, and both CB and its real world equivalent will be updated ASAP.
One thing that seems really hard for non-technical people to understand is that sometimes very small things can cause major performance issues in new hardware. Performance is "fragile". This is true of all new hardware, not just Apple's. Fortunately in this case most of the problems can be fixed very easily -- first by removing a couple of rarely used instruction (which only appear in highly performance optimized code), and second by recompiling with a new compiler switch. A new minor patch of the software can deliver a very substantial performance improvement without any serious work on the part of the developer. If the developer then uses Apple's new tools the can optimize performance even further.
I have been involved in Systems Analysis for a number of years and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is that it really doesn't matter how "fast" the machine is as much as how "fast" a person is able to complete a task on it. In this regard, I find Macs more efficient and thus "faster" than the competition.
I am (with baited breath) anticipating the arrival of my dual G5. I look forward to a "fast" piece of equipment with an "efficient" interface which will make my tasks more pleasant to complete.
This is the best 1st post I've ever seen. You have summarized in a few sentences what millions of Windows users somehow cannot understand.
Tell this to some musician running/using realtime software synthesizers/processors.
His statement is not absolutely true, but it's generally true and absolutely worth stating.
The overwhelming majority of desktops and notebooks will never attempt to process 2,000 7.1 24-bit tracks, each with 128-band EQ and 10,000 high-quality effects, while rendering the Big Bang in FORTRAN and the next Pixar film in Maya. And surfing pr0n sites.
For the bulk of people, a good interface is a better productivity booster than a fast processor. Even when it's not that clear, it's still a valuable advantage - if you're working in real time, the last thing you need is an interface getting in your way! A creative person can always work with fewer sounds and fewer effects, but anybody has to be able to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
"IBM launched the G5 at speeds exceeding those they announced."
Good point.
So when Steve Jobs said: '3 gig' then I'm quietly hoping for another surprise...
While people may query the current speed grades of G5, it IS early days, software from vendors is unoptimised, Apple's OS X is unoptimised, benchmarks are unoptimised and few in number, the amount of tests are few and far from diverse/comprehensive. The machines are only shipping. The only machine we have had benched is a 1.6 which is a 'Yikes' G5? No, not really. But it IS the entry machine and even unoptimised, it's giving the dual G4s a real headache... Not bad when it's giving 1 and a half gig of mhz sway to the previous fastest Apple machine.
All things adding up, people are complaining that the entry level is slightly faster than a dual G4. Sorry, but the irony isn't lost on me.
Still, for those people who still aren't convinced now, I think Apple will probably bump these machines relatively quickly. In Jan' 2004, it will have been over six months since announcement. Time for a bump. I think we'll see 2.5 gig G5. Dual of course! And for each 500 mhz we get 970? We get 1000mhz of G4 fpu power! My point? The dual G5 2.5 is, relatively speaking, close by (compared to the G5 wait/debacle!) It is this dual G5 2.5 that will give the Intels out there a real headache. I just don't see Intel reaching 4 gig by January. IBM and Apple will, therefore, be piling on the pressure and really closing the gap. It will, in my view, silence any doubters.
As for the AMD64. Hmmm. I'm not sure AMD can ratchet up 500 mhz between now and Jan'...given the mhz problems they've had with both the Athlon and Hammer. I think 'our' 2.5 G5 will prove a match for them. By Jan' 2004, we should see plenty of 'updates' which are 'optimised for G5' by then...and of course, the ace in the pack?
Panther.
In the meantime, the point about a dual 2 gigger and a productive interface says it all (now that we have a G5.) Given hardware of parity or exceeding PC performance...then it will be interesting to see how many creative pros who defected to Wintel 'come home'. All things being equal, the benefits of 'X' should really give Apple the edge they've been looking for since their tower sales began to *slowly* bleed to death
A figure of 60% of workstation users moving to Mac has been quoted. And I'm not surprised considering that even an unoptimised dual g5 hangs with Xeons costing heaps more. You get 'X' and iapps thrown in for 'free' with a fantastic choice of high end Apple software...and now Mac looks like a real value added solution, a productive platform.
If I was on the PC side (which I kinda am/am not-I have an Athlon tower but am typing this on my wife's iBook, the PC tower got taken out by 'So big' and I can't be arsed to purge the virus at the moment...) then I'd be tempted. I'll be going G5 within five months.
...fast..really fast..but not as fast as you can imagine...
OK quick update; reason for the recall of G5's is the side door not closing properly so CPU throttled as if the door is open - this explains some of the lousy benchmarks vs. G4 boxes published. QED.
Comments
I am (with baited breath) anticipating the arrival of my dual G5. I look forward to a "fast" piece of equipment with an "efficient" interface which will make my tasks more pleasant to complete.
Originally posted by Anna Mated
Of course, we've heard directly from Maxon that CB does not work well with G5's, and both CB and its real world equivalent will be updated ASAP.
One thing that seems really hard for non-technical people to understand is that sometimes very small things can cause major performance issues in new hardware. Performance is "fragile". This is true of all new hardware, not just Apple's. Fortunately in this case most of the problems can be fixed very easily -- first by removing a couple of rarely used instruction (which only appear in highly performance optimized code), and second by recompiling with a new compiler switch. A new minor patch of the software can deliver a very substantial performance improvement without any serious work on the part of the developer. If the developer then uses Apple's new tools the can optimize performance even further.
Originally posted by 2G5inWA
I have been involved in Systems Analysis for a number of years and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is that it really doesn't matter how "fast" the machine is as much as how "fast" a person is able to complete a task on it. In this regard, I find Macs more efficient and thus "faster" than the competition.
I am (with baited breath) anticipating the arrival of my dual G5. I look forward to a "fast" piece of equipment with an "efficient" interface which will make my tasks more pleasant to complete.
This is the best 1st post I've ever seen. You have summarized in a few sentences what millions of Windows users somehow cannot understand.
Welcome aboard.
one thing that keeps coming to mind is that it really doesn't matter how "fast" the machine is as much
Tell this to some musician running/using realtime software synthesizers/processors.
For some tasks, performance really matters.
Originally posted by rambo
Tell this to some musician running/using realtime software synthesizers/processors.
For some tasks, performance really matters.
i feel exactly the same way!
it's us audio/video people who really need these.
the one exception is talent....that is something that speed can't really help!
Originally posted by rambo
Tell this to some musician running/using realtime software synthesizers/processors.
His statement is not absolutely true, but it's generally true and absolutely worth stating.
The overwhelming majority of desktops and notebooks will never attempt to process 2,000 7.1 24-bit tracks, each with 128-band EQ and 10,000 high-quality effects, while rendering the Big Bang in FORTRAN and the next Pixar film in Maya. And surfing pr0n sites.
For the bulk of people, a good interface is a better productivity booster than a fast processor. Even when it's not that clear, it's still a valuable advantage - if you're working in real time, the last thing you need is an interface getting in your way! A creative person can always work with fewer sounds and fewer effects, but anybody has to be able to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
This is the best 1st post I've ever seen. You have summarized in a few sentences what millions of Windows users somehow cannot understand.
Welcome aboard.
what do you expect from someone who will reach his ultimate combined physical and intellectual efficiency in about 3 years time.
maybe he is fast and he already did.
Good point.
So when Steve Jobs said: '3 gig' then I'm quietly hoping for another surprise...
While people may query the current speed grades of G5, it IS early days, software from vendors is unoptimised, Apple's OS X is unoptimised, benchmarks are unoptimised and few in number, the amount of tests are few and far from diverse/comprehensive. The machines are only shipping. The only machine we have had benched is a 1.6 which is a 'Yikes' G5? No, not really.
All things adding up, people are complaining that the entry level is slightly faster than a dual G4. Sorry, but the irony isn't lost on me.
Still, for those people who still aren't convinced now, I think Apple will probably bump these machines relatively quickly. In Jan' 2004, it will have been over six months since announcement. Time for a bump. I think we'll see 2.5 gig G5. Dual of course! And for each 500 mhz we get 970? We get 1000mhz of G4 fpu power! My point? The dual G5 2.5 is, relatively speaking, close by (compared to the G5 wait/debacle!) It is this dual G5 2.5 that will give the Intels out there a real headache. I just don't see Intel reaching 4 gig by January. IBM and Apple will, therefore, be piling on the pressure and really closing the gap. It will, in my view, silence any doubters.
As for the AMD64. Hmmm. I'm not sure AMD can ratchet up 500 mhz between now and Jan'...given the mhz problems they've had with both the Athlon and Hammer. I think 'our' 2.5 G5 will prove a match for them. By Jan' 2004, we should see plenty of 'updates' which are 'optimised for G5' by then...and of course, the ace in the pack?
Panther.
In the meantime, the point about a dual 2 gigger and a productive interface says it all (now that we have a G5.) Given hardware of parity or exceeding PC performance...then it will be interesting to see how many creative pros who defected to Wintel 'come home'. All things being equal, the benefits of 'X' should really give Apple the edge they've been looking for since their tower sales began to *slowly* bleed to death
A figure of 60% of workstation users moving to Mac has been quoted. And I'm not surprised considering that even an unoptimised dual g5 hangs with Xeons costing heaps more. You get 'X' and iapps thrown in for 'free' with a fantastic choice of high end Apple software...and now Mac looks like a real value added solution, a productive platform.
If I was on the PC side (which I kinda am/am not-I have an Athlon tower but am typing this on my wife's iBook, the PC tower got taken out by 'So big' and I can't be arsed to purge the virus at the moment...) then I'd be tempted. I'll be going G5 within five months.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by blackwind212
...fast..really fast..but not as fast as you can imagine...
OK quick update; reason for the recall of G5's is the side door not closing properly so CPU throttled as if the door is open - this explains some of the lousy benchmarks vs. G4 boxes published. QED.