I really can't believe people are bitching about the duals. Come on, we know that in 2000 they did it because there was nothing faster, but now OS X takies advantage of having more than one proccessor. Like others have said, OS X will be great on these new towers.
Well, if you're right...they'll offer dual G5s across the line when they arrive?
Or maybe Apple will pull the 'all duals' when the G5s arrive because they actually have a decent cpu capable of real performance.
Duals are nice. But the pretense that Apple is offering them under anything other than the fact that they and therefore Moto' can't deliver anything better cpu wise is transparent.
<strong>Apple should make the move to all dual pro machines and STAY THERE, no matter what kind of chip they get in the future.
That should be the distinction:
Consumer machines = Singles
Pro Machines = Duals</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes.
I think ordinary computer users overestimate the utility of duals. They'll speed things up under two conditions:
1. You're using apps designed for multiple processors, or
2. you're running two compute-intensive apps simultaneously.
In most other cases, they won't make any noticeable difference, and you might as well turn off your extra processor. This idea that X will automagically make everything faster is BS.
But that's EXACTLY why all-dual pro machines are a good idea. "Pros" use apps that are dual-friendly, like photoshop.
"Consumers" won't spend much time in either of the two above conditions.
So that means the iMacs/eMacs/PowerBooks can get faster G4s, say 1Ghz, very soon, and the iBook can get its 1Ghz Sahara.
And this also smooths the transition to the Power4 variant, when the non-PowerMac machines can get the fastest G4s available.
[quote]So how come my 867 with 768MB and OSX takes longer to respond to my mouse cliks than my Pentium 1.2Ghz at work? How come lightwave renders faster on the Peecee than the mac? This is typical bu**sh*t. Macs are underpowered, overpriced and now with the new casing redesign butt ugly. Just as MS smashed IBM so Moto has Apple by the balls.
My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable. Sod the benchmarks and processor ratings - why won't people look at their machines and see how well they feel under use? Real world use and real world speed perceptions?
Firewire 2 isn't here when USB2 already is - another area where apple will be too slow to make it to market
<hr></blockquote>
Sounds like issues with Software. It's a given that OSX's current finder is slow. I'm not suprised that Lightwave and other apps run a tad slower on Macs. We are behind the curve right now but not enough for many to worry too much. Even with FW2 comes not many apps will use it anyways initially.
[quote] The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
Oh wait. It runs Photoshop operations 90% faster than a dell! Oh well then we're saved. I can't believe people still buy this bakeoff cr*p.
<hr></blockquote>
Photoshop is a Killer app that people depend on for their livelyhood. It's a good program because it's mature on the Mac.
[quote] And as for the X is multiple processor aware I haven't read a single review or article that didn't say the same thing - the dual processors afford no advantage accept for a few very limited functions in certain apps written for it. Dualies would make sense if all apps were totally Mp aware but they are not.
It wouldn't surprise me if the even the Finder wasn't 100% Mp aware!
<hr></blockquote>
Well the only way to entice developers to write for Dual Procs is to ship alot of DP based machines. This is one huge step in that direction because ALL Powermacs are DP now.
[quote] This is cr*p from apple. They know we're waiting for the G5 and they will now become aware that the RDF is weakening. These macs will sell - but not be a shining success. Until they produce the PC KILLER apple will not see a runaway success. They certainly won't tempt over any of the other 95% with these toys.
So much for Shake et al.
<hr></blockquote>
This is your anger talking. My Mother and plenty of my friends have no need for even the basic Powermac. They'd be fine with an iMac or iBook. Powermacs might not give you blazing performance but they're reliable and I see them everywhere when I look through magazines like EQ, Electronic Musician etc. They work without much of the hassles of PC's. The fastest car in the world does you no good if it keeps getting flats.
Suppose that IBM's new chip is the G5. Well I doubt that the G4 is going anywhere because we still have iMacs, iBooks and eMacs to use the G4. Perhaps Apple will go back to having two processor ..one high end and the other low end to midrange.
The market still hasn't stabilized. AGP 8x is still too new. Serial ATA is still too new. DDR is still undergoing changes. While it's nice to be on the cutting edge...someones gotta bleed.
<strong>My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I was taking your post seriously until I read this.
BS
You telling me that under equal operating systems your 350 604 chip (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of the best) on a 50MHz bus outperforms a 867MHz G4 on a 133MHz bus?
Until you said that I thought you made a legit post. Quit flaming buddy.
<strong>Duals are nice. But the pretense that Apple is offering them under anything other than the fact that they and therefore Moto' can't deliver anything better cpu wise is transparent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse my language, but so ****ing what?
What's the whole point?
If you reach the same computing power by using two processors instead of using a single, higher-clocked one, where's the inherent disadvantage? Why is it "bad" to go that route rather than to try and accomplish insane clockrates? I mean other than being able to boast of having the most GHz on the block?
Dammit, people around here kept saying they'd soooo need more horsepower. Now both lower-end models have more than twice the computing power than before, and even the 25% on the top model aren't exactly nothing, and there's still the bus speed increase, ATA100, more bandwidth to RAM, etc. I mean, please, people, I'm not saying this update is the most impressive one to ever have happened, but the "this time they're really doomed" crap around here is getting a little tiresome.
Rant's over, feel free to moderate as appropriate.
EDIT: Hmm, no need to do that anymore... Didn't realize we have auto-"*"-ing of bad language around here.
<strong>If you reach the same computing power by using two processors instead of using a single, higher-clocked one, where's the inherent disadvantage?</strong><hr></blockquote>That's a big "if."
The problem is that despite being bombarded with info here detailing the differences between AMD/Intel Processors and the G4 Processors. It seems that we get these same frustrated individuals that expect for Apple to follow lockstep with X86 despite the fact that the Processors are dissimilar. This makes no sens.
250mhz is not much of a gain with 22 Piplines but for a Proc with 7 that's more substantial.
Apple's bus system and how the devices interact on the bus is not always equivalent to how PC's access the bus.
I'm thankful that we all have varying levels of knowledg and I think we can pool from that but why is it that the ones who know the least tend to fly off the handle the most?
I try and reserve my comments for after extensive benmarking has been done. For instance I was SURE the iPod was gonna be a flop...show's how much I know about the whims of Digital Lifestyle fans.
I think we're fine. I mean if you look at Apples biggest hurdle over the last 5 years it was NOT hardware but trying to find some direction for their nextgen Operating System...that hurdle has been jumped the rest are fairly small in comparison.
You say that only programs built for duals with work with them...well yes. You see real programs that need POWER are useful and that is what Apple's pro machines are for.
Apple...with its pro machines is not looking at speeding up the rate at which you can open porn files! If you are not using pro apps, then what are you doing that you need speed?
With pro machines being dual...doesn't that increase the potential for apple bumbing the consumer machines now that there isn't a cramped product line?
You say that only programs built for duals with work with them...well yes. You see real programs that need POWER are useful and that is what Apple's pro machines are for.
Apple...with its pro machines is not looking at speeding up the rate at which you can open porn files! If you are not using pro apps, then what are you doing that you need speed?
With pro machines being dual...doesn't that increase the potential for apple bumbing the consumer machines now that there isn't a cramped product line?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I was taking your post seriously until I read this.
BS
You telling me that under equal operating systems your 350 604 chip (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of the best) on a 50MHz bus outperforms a 867MHz G4 on a 133MHz bus?
Until you said that I thought you made a legit post. Quit flaming buddy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
Compare this with my PII 400 at home. At work we have some Pentium 1.2Ghz machines. When I get home from a days work on 3DS Max and turn on my machine at home it feels like a dog in comparison. That's how far the pc has come. What's with the macintosh?
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
Compare this with my PII 400 at home. At work we have some Pentium 1.2Ghz machines. When I get home from a days work on 3DS Max and turn on my machine at home it feels like a dog in comparison. That's how far the pc has come. What's with the macintosh?
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
look at you machine How does it feel to you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
On my G4/400 I prefer OS X to *any* other Apple OS. And 10.2 is only going to make that better. I like being able to drag windows around or click and hold the mouse without the whole machine locking up. Perhaps some clean installs of OS X are in order or just wait for 10.2? Regardless, on this old G4/400, OS X is amazing and will only get better.
NO MATTER what they get in the future the pro line-up MUST be all dual all the time.
It is pure folly NOT to leverage this advantage of the PPC plus OSX.
Even the economics are on the side of more, if slightly slower, chips. Someone commented on 1 1200 being better than 2 800's, but I beg to differ. A 1200 is certainly north of $350 (probably over 400), an 800 is barely $100. It's cheaper to put in two slower chips than it is to put in one faster CPU. The OS is supposed to handle this beautifully, and the serious apps (as others have mentioned) all work well here. Well not ALL, but they will, and making sure ALL you pro machines support it is a good way to get developers to support it too!
The prices of these chips will fall in the comming months, and the internals have obviously been reworked with a few years worth of development in mind. Should they get significantly faster chips, it would remain wise to have a slight slower PAIR in the low and middle slots than a faster SINGLE.
Contrary to popular belief it keeps the machines cheaper. For the first time a DP mac actually sports a competitive price with a high-end SP x86. While outright performance issues may be a toss-up between a DP867 and an SP 2.533Ghz P4, at 1699 the performance of the Mac is a lot more tolerable than it was at 3000 (for an DP 1Ghz), or you could say the price is much more appropriate.
There's also the psychology and marketing potential. You don't really have to handicap the iMacs if the pro machines are all dual. You can slap G4's in the 867-1250 range in the iMacs SIMULTANEOUSLY because the iMacs will only get one CPU and much (severely) less expansion.
KEEPING DP Pro machines allows you to not only offer faster PowerMacs at a better price, it lets you keep the consumer machines more current too.
ARE YOU LISTENING STEVE??? For whatever reason we finally have ALL DP powermacs; NEVER, NEVER-EVER should you go back to SP Pro machines.
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
Repeat after me:
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
1.3 Gbps from memory to system controller is the only spec which is SIGNIFICANTLY behind PC's.
To bitch about proc speeds is just to prove to the rest of the world that youve bought into the gross oversimplification that has been foisted upon you.
Anyone who watches the internecine war between AMD and Intel over in PC-land knows that the proc speed doesn't mean squat. A 1.8 GHz AthXP will mop the floor with a 1.8 GHz P4. And that's between procs running the same damned x86 code!?!?
How in fvck's name are you going to compare procs that are in entirely different families?!?!?
That having been said, I'm going to tell you something you won't like:
Apple systems will NEVER EVER be faster than some PC system out there. Someone will always be able to home-bake a PC with the latest off the shelf components (anywhere from home pc builder all the way to Dell) and whomp the top of the line Apple in some spec match. I harbor no illusion on this.
What we should reasonably expect from Apple is that they remain competitive within the broader market. And I have to say, that they are still behind right now because of the bottleneck issue.
That having been said, if you want to buy a PC, then buy it. Nothing is stopping you. We're not begging you to stay; even Apple isn't begging. Just go. Leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Hasta la vista. Don't go away mad, just go away. Hit the bricks. Start walking.
Well I dunno anything about anything technical, but even I know this. ATA100 is the 100MBps disk control interface. It's Max throughput is 100MBps across all connected devices. Contrast to the older spec ATA66 which as the name implies has a max throughput of 66MBps.
Apple gives you one of each in the new machines. Each can support 2 drives for a total of 4 HDD's.
The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a lovely contradiction. Considering that we know the basic design for the new Powermacs probably has been around since last year, it suggests not desperation, but carefully considered design and development from Apple.
If you love your PC so much, and care more about how responsive your mouse clicks are than the quality of design, then buy PC's. In most cases, new features are just thrown in them, very much in desperation by manufacturers in fear of being left behind in the market.
I am glad that when I buy a Mac, I know that every detail of the design has been carefully considered and developed. This is why their failure rate compared to PC's is so much lower.
You say your 9500 running OS9 is more stable? Compared to OSX is it? Has your 9500 stayed up for 30 days at a time with many applications repeatedly opened and closed (especially internet applications from Microsoft) and devices frequently plugged and unplugged?
You ask us to look at the real world. My real world is a dual-450 G4, which fully utilises both processors in OSX. I have System Manager running on the side of the screen, and very rarely does it show one processor doing more work than the other. The average uptime is 15 days, only because I've had to install/update software or decided to move the machine.
I'd be surprised if many Wintel dual-processor boxes get better than 1.2x the speed of a single with regular use.
I used to have to sell PC's, and fully well know how shoddy many brand names are, as well as how bodgy M$ operating systems are, slowing down merely running a screensaver for a week while on demonstration in the shop. Why do you think M$ are the only operating system developers that include a system restore feature? Because they know their system is so badly designed that merely installing a device driver or program could screw it up.
I have seen first hand both the dedication and effort Apple employees put into their work, and the lack of care PC manufacturers put into theirs, and the results produced for both. I know where my money will be going when I decide to buy.
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
sounds in part like a problem you are having using classic to run older apps with. these older apps (PS 5.5, Premiere 5 etc) are several years old, and so do not even reference carbonlib and other specific APIs. this might partly explain the problems. also running these apps under classic in X will require proportionately more ram. if your machines do not have sufficient ram to run OS X properly. the performance differences are due to more than just the OS and apps loaded ... and i'm sure you could improve performance by running native apps ...
for the record, i welcom the new powermacs ... i think with the new procs, system bus and 10.2, with its support for MP and multithreading at finder level, plus quartz extreme. plus better expandability is a damn good thing. i'd love a midlle or top-range machine. 2 bays at last. 4 hd drive support as standard. a line in again. good graphics support ...
looks good from where i am standing .. i think we will be pretty impressed by betchmarks on 10.2 and these beasts ...
Comments
Or maybe Apple will pull the 'all duals' when the G5s arrive because they actually have a decent cpu capable of real performance.
Duals are nice. But the pretense that Apple is offering them under anything other than the fact that they and therefore Moto' can't deliver anything better cpu wise is transparent.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Apple should make the move to all dual pro machines and STAY THERE, no matter what kind of chip they get in the future.
That should be the distinction:
Consumer machines = Singles
Pro Machines = Duals</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes.
I think ordinary computer users overestimate the utility of duals. They'll speed things up under two conditions:
1. You're using apps designed for multiple processors, or
2. you're running two compute-intensive apps simultaneously.
In most other cases, they won't make any noticeable difference, and you might as well turn off your extra processor. This idea that X will automagically make everything faster is BS.
But that's EXACTLY why all-dual pro machines are a good idea. "Pros" use apps that are dual-friendly, like photoshop.
"Consumers" won't spend much time in either of the two above conditions.
So that means the iMacs/eMacs/PowerBooks can get faster G4s, say 1Ghz, very soon, and the iBook can get its 1Ghz Sahara.
And this also smooths the transition to the Power4 variant, when the non-PowerMac machines can get the fastest G4s available.
My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable. Sod the benchmarks and processor ratings - why won't people look at their machines and see how well they feel under use? Real world use and real world speed perceptions?
Firewire 2 isn't here when USB2 already is - another area where apple will be too slow to make it to market
<hr></blockquote>
Sounds like issues with Software. It's a given that OSX's current finder is slow. I'm not suprised that Lightwave and other apps run a tad slower on Macs. We are behind the curve right now but not enough for many to worry too much. Even with FW2 comes not many apps will use it anyways initially.
[quote] The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
Oh wait. It runs Photoshop operations 90% faster than a dell! Oh well then we're saved. I can't believe people still buy this bakeoff cr*p.
<hr></blockquote>
Photoshop is a Killer app that people depend on for their livelyhood. It's a good program because it's mature on the Mac.
[quote] And as for the X is multiple processor aware I haven't read a single review or article that didn't say the same thing - the dual processors afford no advantage accept for a few very limited functions in certain apps written for it. Dualies would make sense if all apps were totally Mp aware but they are not.
It wouldn't surprise me if the even the Finder wasn't 100% Mp aware!
<hr></blockquote>
Well the only way to entice developers to write for Dual Procs is to ship alot of DP based machines. This is one huge step in that direction because ALL Powermacs are DP now.
[quote] This is cr*p from apple. They know we're waiting for the G5 and they will now become aware that the RDF is weakening. These macs will sell - but not be a shining success. Until they produce the PC KILLER apple will not see a runaway success. They certainly won't tempt over any of the other 95% with these toys.
So much for Shake et al.
<hr></blockquote>
This is your anger talking. My Mother and plenty of my friends have no need for even the basic Powermac. They'd be fine with an iMac or iBook. Powermacs might not give you blazing performance but they're reliable and I see them everywhere when I look through magazines like EQ, Electronic Musician etc. They work without much of the hassles of PC's. The fastest car in the world does you no good if it keeps getting flats.
Suppose that IBM's new chip is the G5. Well I doubt that the G4 is going anywhere because we still have iMacs, iBooks and eMacs to use the G4. Perhaps Apple will go back to having two processor ..one high end and the other low end to midrange.
The market still hasn't stabilized. AGP 8x is still too new. Serial ATA is still too new. DDR is still undergoing changes. While it's nice to be on the cutting edge...someones gotta bleed.
<strong>My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I was taking your post seriously until I read this.
BS
You telling me that under equal operating systems your 350 604 chip (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of the best) on a 50MHz bus outperforms a 867MHz G4 on a 133MHz bus?
Until you said that I thought you made a legit post. Quit flaming buddy.
<strong>Duals are nice. But the pretense that Apple is offering them under anything other than the fact that they and therefore Moto' can't deliver anything better cpu wise is transparent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse my language, but so ****ing what?
What's the whole point?
If you reach the same computing power by using two processors instead of using a single, higher-clocked one, where's the inherent disadvantage? Why is it "bad" to go that route rather than to try and accomplish insane clockrates? I mean other than being able to boast of having the most GHz on the block?
Dammit, people around here kept saying they'd soooo need more horsepower. Now both lower-end models have more than twice the computing power than before, and even the 25% on the top model aren't exactly nothing, and there's still the bus speed increase, ATA100, more bandwidth to RAM, etc. I mean, please, people, I'm not saying this update is the most impressive one to ever have happened, but the "this time they're really doomed" crap around here is getting a little tiresome.
Rant's over, feel free to moderate as appropriate.
EDIT: Hmm, no need to do that anymore... Didn't realize we have auto-"*"-ing of bad language around here.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>If you reach the same computing power by using two processors instead of using a single, higher-clocked one, where's the inherent disadvantage?</strong><hr></blockquote>That's a big "if."
250mhz is not much of a gain with 22 Piplines but for a Proc with 7 that's more substantial.
Apple's bus system and how the devices interact on the bus is not always equivalent to how PC's access the bus.
I'm thankful that we all have varying levels of knowledg and I think we can pool from that but why is it that the ones who know the least tend to fly off the handle the most?
I try and reserve my comments for after extensive benmarking has been done. For instance I was SURE the iPod was gonna be a flop...show's how much I know about the whims of Digital Lifestyle fans.
I think we're fine. I mean if you look at Apples biggest hurdle over the last 5 years it was NOT hardware but trying to find some direction for their nextgen Operating System...that hurdle has been jumped the rest are fairly small in comparison.
You say that only programs built for duals with work with them...well yes. You see real programs that need POWER are useful and that is what Apple's pro machines are for.
Apple...with its pro machines is not looking at speeding up the rate at which you can open porn files! If you are not using pro apps, then what are you doing that you need speed?
With pro machines being dual...doesn't that increase the potential for apple bumbing the consumer machines now that there isn't a cramped product line?
Here's a simple way to tell if you'll get substantial performance boast.
Go into OSX, terminal. type 'top'
look at the first line, and looke at your thread number and ask yourself, how does that relate to multi-processors.
mine is currently at 130.
I dare you to get it lower then 2.
That second processor is not going to be hungry.
~Kuku
You say that only programs built for duals with work with them...well yes. You see real programs that need POWER are useful and that is what Apple's pro machines are for.
Apple...with its pro machines is not looking at speeding up the rate at which you can open porn files! If you are not using pro apps, then what are you doing that you need speed?
With pro machines being dual...doesn't that increase the potential for apple bumbing the consumer machines now that there isn't a cramped product line?
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I was taking your post seriously until I read this.
BS
You telling me that under equal operating systems your 350 604 chip (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best of the best) on a 50MHz bus outperforms a 867MHz G4 on a 133MHz bus?
Until you said that I thought you made a legit post. Quit flaming buddy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
Compare this with my PII 400 at home. At work we have some Pentium 1.2Ghz machines. When I get home from a days work on 3DS Max and turn on my machine at home it feels like a dog in comparison. That's how far the pc has come. What's with the macintosh?
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
look at you machine How does it feel to you?
<strong>
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
Compare this with my PII 400 at home. At work we have some Pentium 1.2Ghz machines. When I get home from a days work on 3DS Max and turn on my machine at home it feels like a dog in comparison. That's how far the pc has come. What's with the macintosh?
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
look at you machine How does it feel to you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
On my G4/400 I prefer OS X to *any* other Apple OS. And 10.2 is only going to make that better. I like being able to drag windows around or click and hold the mouse without the whole machine locking up. Perhaps some clean installs of OS X are in order or just wait for 10.2? Regardless, on this old G4/400, OS X is amazing and will only get better.
NO MATTER what they get in the future the pro line-up MUST be all dual all the time.
It is pure folly NOT to leverage this advantage of the PPC plus OSX.
Even the economics are on the side of more, if slightly slower, chips. Someone commented on 1 1200 being better than 2 800's, but I beg to differ. A 1200 is certainly north of $350 (probably over 400), an 800 is barely $100. It's cheaper to put in two slower chips than it is to put in one faster CPU. The OS is supposed to handle this beautifully, and the serious apps (as others have mentioned) all work well here. Well not ALL, but they will, and making sure ALL you pro machines support it is a good way to get developers to support it too!
The prices of these chips will fall in the comming months, and the internals have obviously been reworked with a few years worth of development in mind. Should they get significantly faster chips, it would remain wise to have a slight slower PAIR in the low and middle slots than a faster SINGLE.
Contrary to popular belief it keeps the machines cheaper. For the first time a DP mac actually sports a competitive price with a high-end SP x86. While outright performance issues may be a toss-up between a DP867 and an SP 2.533Ghz P4, at 1699 the performance of the Mac is a lot more tolerable than it was at 3000 (for an DP 1Ghz), or you could say the price is much more appropriate.
There's also the psychology and marketing potential. You don't really have to handicap the iMacs if the pro machines are all dual. You can slap G4's in the 867-1250 range in the iMacs SIMULTANEOUSLY because the iMacs will only get one CPU and much (severely) less expansion.
KEEPING DP Pro machines allows you to not only offer faster PowerMacs at a better price, it lets you keep the consumer machines more current too.
ARE YOU LISTENING STEVE??? For whatever reason we finally have ALL DP powermacs; NEVER, NEVER-EVER should you go back to SP Pro machines.
What is an ATA100 ? Can you explain it to me ?
And what about this new ATI Radeon 9000pro vid card ? Is this a better card than the 8500 ?
Thanks.
Repeat after me:
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
The only thing that matters is the bandwidth issue right now.
1.3 Gbps from memory to system controller is the only spec which is SIGNIFICANTLY behind PC's.
To bitch about proc speeds is just to prove to the rest of the world that youve bought into the gross oversimplification that has been foisted upon you.
Anyone who watches the internecine war between AMD and Intel over in PC-land knows that the proc speed doesn't mean squat. A 1.8 GHz AthXP will mop the floor with a 1.8 GHz P4. And that's between procs running the same damned x86 code!?!?
How in fvck's name are you going to compare procs that are in entirely different families?!?!?
That having been said, I'm going to tell you something you won't like:
Apple systems will NEVER EVER be faster than some PC system out there. Someone will always be able to home-bake a PC with the latest off the shelf components (anywhere from home pc builder all the way to Dell) and whomp the top of the line Apple in some spec match. I harbor no illusion on this.
What we should reasonably expect from Apple is that they remain competitive within the broader market. And I have to say, that they are still behind right now because of the bottleneck issue.
That having been said, if you want to buy a PC, then buy it. Nothing is stopping you. We're not begging you to stay; even Apple isn't begging. Just go. Leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Hasta la vista. Don't go away mad, just go away. Hit the bricks. Start walking.
Just kindly shut the hell up and go.
Jet
Apple gives you one of each in the new machines. Each can support 2 drives for a total of 4 HDD's.
<strong>
The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a lovely contradiction. Considering that we know the basic design for the new Powermacs probably has been around since last year, it suggests not desperation, but carefully considered design and development from Apple.
If you love your PC so much, and care more about how responsive your mouse clicks are than the quality of design, then buy PC's. In most cases, new features are just thrown in them, very much in desperation by manufacturers in fear of being left behind in the market.
I am glad that when I buy a Mac, I know that every detail of the design has been carefully considered and developed. This is why their failure rate compared to PC's is so much lower.
You say your 9500 running OS9 is more stable? Compared to OSX is it? Has your 9500 stayed up for 30 days at a time with many applications repeatedly opened and closed (especially internet applications from Microsoft) and devices frequently plugged and unplugged?
You ask us to look at the real world. My real world is a dual-450 G4, which fully utilises both processors in OSX. I have System Manager running on the side of the screen, and very rarely does it show one processor doing more work than the other. The average uptime is 15 days, only because I've had to install/update software or decided to move the machine.
I'd be surprised if many Wintel dual-processor boxes get better than 1.2x the speed of a single with regular use.
I used to have to sell PC's, and fully well know how shoddy many brand names are, as well as how bodgy M$ operating systems are, slowing down merely running a screensaver for a week while on demonstration in the shop. Why do you think M$ are the only operating system developers that include a system restore feature? Because they know their system is so badly designed that merely installing a device driver or program could screw it up.
I have seen first hand both the dedication and effort Apple employees put into their work, and the lack of care PC manufacturers put into theirs, and the results produced for both. I know where my money will be going when I decide to buy.
<strong>
ACtually I have a 9500/200 at home among others!! Most of the G4s at work are 400s although we have a few QS boxes. If I double click on an app it appears to launch faster while on the G4 the icon is still bouncing in the dock. Dragging a window in the finder and even in Photoshop is faster from the mouse down on the 9500 (up to 10MB files) than on the G4s. Redrawing web pages appears to be faster on the 9500 except for flash/qt heavy pages. The 9500 boots faster (as long as memory check is off). Director 8, PS 5.5, Premiere 5 and Freehand 9 have all crashed at three times (more in the case of director) under X on the G4s in the last week but haven't quit once on the 9500 in a month or more.
When it comes to rendering in Poser, After Effects or Bryce the G4s win hands down - even on the 400s but the point I am making is simply this:
Forget the benchmarks, how is it possible that when I get home from work (having used one or more G4s) and turn on my 9500, how come it does not feel light years away? How come many tasks appear to feel snappier? The G4 (even the Yikes 350) should make the 9500 feel like it belongs in the trash, yet it doesn't. That's why I've kept it.
From what I can tell, the only real heavy weight advantage the G4s have (even the older ones) is their ability to run FCP, DVD Studio Pro etc - becuase the 9500 obviously does not have a G4 proc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
sounds in part like a problem you are having using classic to run older apps with. these older apps (PS 5.5, Premiere 5 etc) are several years old, and so do not even reference carbonlib and other specific APIs. this might partly explain the problems. also running these apps under classic in X will require proportionately more ram. if your machines do not have sufficient ram to run OS X properly. the performance differences are due to more than just the OS and apps loaded ... and i'm sure you could improve performance by running native apps ...
for the record, i welcom the new powermacs ... i think with the new procs, system bus and 10.2, with its support for MP and multithreading at finder level, plus quartz extreme. plus better expandability is a damn good thing. i'd love a midlle or top-range machine. 2 bays at last. 4 hd drive support as standard. a line in again. good graphics support ...
looks good from where i am standing .. i think we will be pretty impressed by betchmarks on 10.2 and these beasts ...
it really helped to make things clearer to me.
And what about this new ATI 9000pro video card ? I never heard of it before.