Actually no, there is no such thing as a fair test being one type of machine tested against another of roughly the same type of machine.
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Even though my PC cost me about 1300 to build... and the mac cost me 1900 (developer discount)... So give or take 600... put that into the OS on the mac if you like
Actually no, there is no such thing as a fair test being one type of machine tested against another of roughly the same type of machine.
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Unfortunately that presumes that the only thing you are paying for is performance, and ignores the soft factors that are hard to benchmark (user experience, OS quality, hardware quality, etc). If, for example, you are willing to pay an extra $500 for having a Mac then your cost/performance comparison must be adjusted. Most people have a hard time setting that number, however, even if they understand all the issues.
Actually no, there is no such thing as a fair test being one type of machine tested against another of roughly the same type of machine.
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Not that I completely disagree, but I kinda think that would only count if your under a budget restriction. What I'm saying is. What if your prepared to spend $6,500.00 on the fastest computer for your needs that you can buy? I believe there are mitigating circumstances that nullify that argument. So anything equal or under $6,500.00 that suits your purpose would apply.
Programmer and onlooker. I merely wanted to address what I believe to be the misguided notion that we should be using the manufacturers' various marketting categories to compare products. The real situation is that you will have a number of products in a given price range that can fulfill a set of requirements. Compare those. I should de-emphasize cost a little bit, but certainly the range needs to be restricted to a reasonable amount that can still allow for variation in the the other areas of performance that are not strictly measured by timed tests (which I hold are the only tests of some value) things like stability, application availibility/features. I think it's perfectly valid to compare and FCP suite on the mac against a different suite on a PC (whatever the best of breed may be on that platform) and look for things like how fast the job gets done, how easily, and how well. However, these are harder to represent in a "shootout" type spec test.
I don't think that the range can be restricted (or derestricted as it were) in the way you describe, Onlooker. Yeah, you can spend 6500 in the PC aisle, but you can spend it on your Powermac too. I has no trouble configuring a 4GB RAM DP2.5 G5 with 2x250GB HDDs and a 6800 Ultra DDL for just under 5K.
There are different strengths, and I don't really believe that Apple suffers too much competing with the high end. Perhaps the "industry standards" for certain apps lag, but Apple has shown that it can and will appropriate the right software and roll their own solution where the market exists, and further that they can be quite successful in defining their solution as the new standard. Just look at FCP.
Programmer and onlooker. I merely wanted to address what I believe to be the misguided notion that we should be using the manufacturers' various marketting categories to compare products.
Heh, no argument there. Nobody should listen to any manufacturer's marketing crap.
I just hope that, before I buy another PM, I can put 4 hard drives in it and two opticals - like I could with the PowerMac G4. The G5 tower is just plain gigantic.
Yes, and Apple will be out of business in a year. I've been hearing this sh*t for years.
The cube was dead in the water, and Apple just lowered BTO option prices on the Mac Mini today... Do I Need To Explain Why?
I don't know what waters you have been drinking, but the Cube was expensive, but I still bought one because it was so superior to the towers then available for MY needs. And it was gorgeous, and quiet, and small, and Apple. Then I bought a 22" Cinema Display a while later (again very expensive, but a HUGE advance over what else was available. OK, when they killed the G4^3 I then picked up a reduced price model and remarried it to my initial 15" Cinema. Both are still working marvelously today.
Now why would Apple reduce the price on the MacMini BTO option? Because people want more on their machines, but did not want to pay more? You Think?8) The biggest changes are in the jump to 1 MB memory and the price of the wireless option package.
I just hope that, before I buy another PM, I can put 4 hard drives in it and two opticals - like I could with the PowerMac G4. The G5 tower is just plain gigantic.
The new powermac will most likely be smaller, especially if they use water cooling for the mobo also. The massive size was for the cooling, now that it is water they can make everything much much smaller.
The new powermac will most likely be smaller, especially if they use water cooling for the mobo also. The massive size was for the cooling, now that it is water they can make everything much much smaller.
But there was no water cooling planned when the G5 PowerMac was released. The only reason they added it was because they could not reach 3GHz, and they had to do something, so they put a that radiator in there so they could get a 2.2GHz processor to run at 2.5 GHz.
Now why would Apple reduce the price on the MacMini BTO option? Because people want more on their machines, but did not want to pay more? You Think?8) The biggest changes are in the jump to 1 MB memory and the price of the wireless option package.
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
Onlooker, not everyone needed a gigantic mega box under their desk, but many needed a good screen on their desktop. Expansion? Max memory at 1.5MB was good; the HD was not tiny at the time, but is small now. Video card upgrades would have been good, but when you cancel you don't get many of them.
The only thing that every went wrong with any of my cubes was the HD; One ground out on me, but still under Apple Care.
I'm not saying the Cube was useless to everyone. I'm just saying that people weighed their options, and chose other things instead, like PC's, or other Macs. That''s all.
Sure there was a market for it, and there is also a market for the Mac Mini, but how big is that market? At the time Apple obviously couldn't afford to keep it alive, and they now believe they have addressed the majority of the market with an updated version. Although I don't think this new market will last. It will probably out last the Cube though. That thing was just out of reach in many more areas than the Mac Mini is. Some of the weight has been lifted, but there are also other options that people will consider. The Majority of people still use PC's, and they still have a lot of options on their side of the fence.
But there was no water cooling planned when the G5 PowerMac was released. The only reason they added it was because they could not reach 3GHz, and they had to do something, so they put a that radiator in there so they could get a 2.2GHz processor to run at 2.5 GHz.
First off where is your proof that that is a 2.2ghz stock processor overclocked in those machines? As I recall this was a "thought" that was brought up on the board... no proof has ever been identified about this. Personally I think its BS, they have 2.3ghz procs in the XServe W/O WATERCOOLING.
2nd of all the MAIN REASON they used watercooling had nothing to do with running 2.5ghz chips. The 2.5ghz chips ran fine on fans... the problem was the fans were on too much and the system was too loud because of it. Thus they needed a quieter cooling system. Have you seen some of the heatsink/fans that are on the LG775 processors?! These things are monsters and are loud to boot. Apple's could sound like those machines, but who wants that in a professional work environment. Personally I'd rather have the quieter machine over a 3ghz chip. What's 500mhz per chip... it's not like its 100% dual symmetry.
3rd of all that wasn't my point. My point is they now have a device which they can use to their benefit of making the cases smaller... or opening up more room.
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
What can't you expand on the powermac? Give me a break. You can slap a professional audio card in there, you can slap a SCSI card in there (not really needed but some want read / write at the same tiem), you can slap a 2nd graphics card in there for tri monitors. What else do you need?
Another optical drive? External cases are 15-25 for a 3.5/5.25 case. Firewire or USB 2.0. Take your pick. It's all irrelevant because they will have better cases next time, guaranteed.
Lack of expandability, and lack of options got molded into one word in that phrase. "Expandability", but it rings true nevertheless. It's hard to open the market up to a group of new users, and old PM users "like myself" when the features just are not impressing you as much as other features you essentially need that are available elsewhere.
Plus, I have a terabyte of storage in my G4. The G5 came, and suddenly storage space was not on the agenda. How do they think we should upgrade to a G5 from a G4? Give us the option of either:
Spend $399.95 for a G5 Jam on top of what I just spent to upgrade?
Or spend $175-219 each for 2x 250GB firewire HD's?
It's not as appealing an option as just having it be there with the system already as the G4 was.
Either way I think upgrading to a new system should be a smoother transition than adding external parts, or butchering the innards of your brand new computer.
Comments
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Even though my PC cost me about 1300 to build... and the mac cost me 1900 (developer discount)... So give or take 600... put that into the OS on the mac if you like
Originally posted by Matsu
Actually no, there is no such thing as a fair test being one type of machine tested against another of roughly the same type of machine.
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Unfortunately that presumes that the only thing you are paying for is performance, and ignores the soft factors that are hard to benchmark (user experience, OS quality, hardware quality, etc). If, for example, you are willing to pay an extra $500 for having a Mac then your cost/performance comparison must be adjusted. Most people have a hard time setting that number, however, even if they understand all the issues.
Originally posted by Matsu
Actually no, there is no such thing as a fair test being one type of machine tested against another of roughly the same type of machine.
The ONLY fair test is a cost to performance test. Set a cost, give or take a negligible percentage. If that same cost buys a Dual G5 in the Mac aisle, and a single Opteron, or two athlon 64s, or FX whatevers in the PC aisle, it doesn't really matter. You should only be testing machines that COST the same amount against each other, and furthermore, you should only be doing timed tests to a specific task -- on like software where possible, and on the best software for each respective platform as well (as a counterpoint).
That's all that really counts: What do you get, at what price?
Not that I completely disagree, but I kinda think that would only count if your under a budget restriction. What I'm saying is. What if your prepared to spend $6,500.00 on the fastest computer for your needs that you can buy? I believe there are mitigating circumstances that nullify that argument. So anything equal or under $6,500.00 that suits your purpose would apply.
Anyway. Back to our regularly scheduled program.
Originally posted by thebeaglebeagle
I'd like to hear more about the, "Is PCI-X worth anything?" conversation, which ties in well to the original conversation.
On the other hand:
"Does PCI-X cost anything?"
The answer is pretty much "no". The cost delta between PCI and PCI-X is very minor.
I don't think that the range can be restricted (or derestricted as it were) in the way you describe, Onlooker. Yeah, you can spend 6500 in the PC aisle, but you can spend it on your Powermac too. I has no trouble configuring a 4GB RAM DP2.5 G5 with 2x250GB HDDs and a 6800 Ultra DDL for just under 5K.
There are different strengths, and I don't really believe that Apple suffers too much competing with the high end. Perhaps the "industry standards" for certain apps lag, but Apple has shown that it can and will appropriate the right software and roll their own solution where the market exists, and further that they can be quite successful in defining their solution as the new standard. Just look at FCP.
Originally posted by Matsu
Programmer and onlooker. I merely wanted to address what I believe to be the misguided notion that we should be using the manufacturers' various marketting categories to compare products.
Heh, no argument there. Nobody should listen to any manufacturer's marketing crap.
Originally posted by burningwheel
Apple will be the first company to abandon the tower. just you wait, the cube will be reborn, the mac mini was the first clue
Yes, and Apple will be out of business in a year. I've been hearing this sh*t for years.
The cube was dead in the water, and Apple just lowered BTO option prices on the Mac Mini today... Do I Need To Explain Why?
Originally posted by onlooker
Yes, and Apple will be out of business in a year. I've been hearing this sh*t for years.
The cube was dead in the water, and Apple just lowered BTO option prices on the Mac Mini today... Do I Need To Explain Why?
So, um, you buy that Alienware yet?
Originally posted by onlooker
Yes, and Apple will be out of business in a year. I've been hearing this sh*t for years.
The cube was dead in the water, and Apple just lowered BTO option prices on the Mac Mini today... Do I Need To Explain Why?
I don't know what waters you have been drinking, but the Cube was expensive, but I still bought one because it was so superior to the towers then available for MY needs. And it was gorgeous, and quiet, and small, and Apple. Then I bought a 22" Cinema Display a while later (again very expensive, but a HUGE advance over what else was available. OK, when they killed the G4^3 I then picked up a reduced price model and remarried it to my initial 15" Cinema. Both are still working marvelously today.
Now why would Apple reduce the price on the MacMini BTO option? Because people want more on their machines, but did not want to pay more? You Think?8) The biggest changes are in the jump to 1 MB memory and the price of the wireless option package.
Originally posted by cubist
I just hope that, before I buy another PM, I can put 4 hard drives in it and two opticals - like I could with the PowerMac G4. The G5 tower is just plain gigantic.
The new powermac will most likely be smaller, especially if they use water cooling for the mobo also. The massive size was for the cooling, now that it is water they can make everything much much smaller.
Originally posted by emig647
The new powermac will most likely be smaller, especially if they use water cooling for the mobo also. The massive size was for the cooling, now that it is water they can make everything much much smaller.
But there was no water cooling planned when the G5 PowerMac was released. The only reason they added it was because they could not reach 3GHz, and they had to do something, so they put a that radiator in there so they could get a 2.2GHz processor to run at 2.5 GHz.
Originally posted by Cubit
Now why would Apple reduce the price on the MacMini BTO option? Because people want more on their machines, but did not want to pay more? You Think?8) The biggest changes are in the jump to 1 MB memory and the price of the wireless option package.
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
Originally posted by onlooker
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
Onlooker, not everyone needed a gigantic mega box under their desk, but many needed a good screen on their desktop. Expansion? Max memory at 1.5MB was good; the HD was not tiny at the time, but is small now. Video card upgrades would have been good, but when you cancel you don't get many of them.
The only thing that every went wrong with any of my cubes was the HD; One ground out on me, but still under Apple Care.
Sure there was a market for it, and there is also a market for the Mac Mini, but how big is that market? At the time Apple obviously couldn't afford to keep it alive, and they now believe they have addressed the majority of the market with an updated version. Although I don't think this new market will last. It will probably out last the Cube though. That thing was just out of reach in many more areas than the Mac Mini is. Some of the weight has been lifted, but there are also other options that people will consider. The Majority of people still use PC's, and they still have a lot of options on their side of the fence.
Originally posted by onlooker
But there was no water cooling planned when the G5 PowerMac was released. The only reason they added it was because they could not reach 3GHz, and they had to do something, so they put a that radiator in there so they could get a 2.2GHz processor to run at 2.5 GHz.
First off where is your proof that that is a 2.2ghz stock processor overclocked in those machines? As I recall this was a "thought" that was brought up on the board... no proof has ever been identified about this. Personally I think its BS, they have 2.3ghz procs in the XServe W/O WATERCOOLING.
2nd of all the MAIN REASON they used watercooling had nothing to do with running 2.5ghz chips. The 2.5ghz chips ran fine on fans... the problem was the fans were on too much and the system was too loud because of it. Thus they needed a quieter cooling system. Have you seen some of the heatsink/fans that are on the LG775 processors?! These things are monsters and are loud to boot. Apple's could sound like those machines, but who wants that in a professional work environment. Personally I'd rather have the quieter machine over a 3ghz chip. What's 500mhz per chip... it's not like its 100% dual symmetry.
3rd of all that wasn't my point. My point is they now have a device which they can use to their benefit of making the cases smaller... or opening up more room.
Originally posted by onlooker
Because people are not buying as many of them as fast as apple anticipated, and they are hoping that this will spawn sales growth. You think?
The cube was dead because it lacked expandability for the expence. That is why there is a PowerMac, and The lack of expandability in the G5 tower is why Apple is having less than what they had anticipated in sales for PowerMacs as well.
What can't you expand on the powermac? Give me a break. You can slap a professional audio card in there, you can slap a SCSI card in there (not really needed but some want read / write at the same tiem), you can slap a 2nd graphics card in there for tri monitors. What else do you need?
Another optical drive? External cases are 15-25 for a 3.5/5.25 case. Firewire or USB 2.0. Take your pick. It's all irrelevant because they will have better cases next time, guaranteed.
Plus, I have a terabyte of storage in my G4. The G5 came, and suddenly storage space was not on the agenda. How do they think we should upgrade to a G5 from a G4? Give us the option of either:
- Spend $399.95 for a G5 Jam on top of what I just spent to upgrade?
- Or spend $175-219 each for 2x 250GB firewire HD's?
It's not as appealing an option as just having it be there with the system already as the G4 was.Either way I think upgrading to a new system should be a smoother transition than adding external parts, or butchering the innards of your brand new computer.