Not a current owner. Won't be untill PM's provide clearly better performance than similarly priced PC's
That's what I expect. Better performance. Leagues better performance that justifies the price beyond the Color flow/industry standards arguments. RAW PERFORMANCE that doesn't need hokey 'megahertz myth' marketing spin. Performance that allows me to clearly see a difference by just putting the machines side by side and running absolutely any apps/suites/filters or combinations of such that I see fit. Performance that is viserally ascertainable in EVERY singal task applied to the machine, not just a few carefully chosen tasks.
ARE YOU LISTENING APPLE? We don't want gimmicky iStuff, WE WANT PERFORMANCE THAT WE OURSELVES CAN VERIFY with every single computation we throw at the machine.
JOBS! YOU TURTLE NECK WEARING, NEW AGE ECO-PIMP. I know one of your lackies is reading this, or perhaps you've a spare moment on the can -- where you, no doubt, can see this from the comfort of a prototype airport web pad as you pass one of your so-cal nutri-fibre enduced movements. Well, you can wipe your (only borderline hetersexual) ass with that pad for all we care. We Expect FAST hardware. That is what we expect, SPEED. Anything else, on any other dimension, is not 'Beyond' us.
Now get it together! Put on that turtle neck and put on a proper Expo'
<strong>Not a current owner. Won't be untill PM's provide clearly better performance than similarly priced PC's
That's what I expect. Better performance. Leagues better performance that justifies the price beyond the Color flow/industry standards arguments. RAW PERFORMANCE that doesn't need hokey 'megahertz myth' marketing spin.....
blah-blah-blah
.....We Expect FAST hardware. That is what we expect, SPEED. Anything else, on any other dimension, is not 'Beyond' us.
Now get it together! Put on that turtle neck and put on a proper Expo'</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have any proof that Powermacs don't have speed and performance? Or are you just basing this on the fact that one MHz rating isn't as big as another?
G4/500 cube, 1GB memory. Arch rendering and heavy Illustrator Photoshop, with some VPC/autoCAD. Render times on the Cube are brutally slow.
Don't care if its a G1 or a G6, want better FPU performance, memory throughput and would be very happy with more Altivec extensions--double precision floats. Gotta be better than 2X-3X my present machine to spend the $$$ that Apple charges.
If Apple could pull some real pro video cards [ELSA, 3DLabs] thatt would rock my world.
Given the G4, even the Apollo flavor, is unlikely to ever surpass 1.5 or 1.6GHz, I'll be waiting for the G5, even though my machine is 3 years old now.
I have upgraded it to a G4 466, that's fine for most stuff so far and will be for a little while.
Getting a faster G4 will only increase performance linearly, and I want some exponential blast next time. If Apple is ever going to just ahead of PCs again, it will the during the switch from G4 to G5, as it was during the switch from 604e to G3 (750).
That's when I bought my last Mac, and it was good enough for 3 years, I plan on repeating that positive experience.
You have any proof that Powermacs don't have speed and performance? Or are you just basing this on the fact that one MHz rating isn't as big as another?
SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arrrgh! Someone pass my meds! You Blah-blah-blahed the best part of my quote!
Powermacs do actually have speed and performance, but at their current price they don't have enough of it to justify a new purchase. There are a number of accounts all over the web and in print (all in the mac press) that state as much. Even given roughly equal performance to top end PC boxes, the power macs still cost too much. A certain price premium is expected for a quality machine. That's acceptable, but for a machine with a very old RAM and HDD subsystem, and somewhat neutered graphics card options, they are simply over-priced.
There are many good things about the mac environment but the current hardware/price ratio isn't one of them (at least not in the desktop lines)
Look at the value they cram into an iBook? They need to find a way to do that with a Power Mac (and iMac too) if they're serious about 'reaching the other 95%'
Errrm, I dont currently have a powermac, nor a need for one. THat was why I didnt tell you about my expectations I was just agreeing with a post I thought was spot on...
<strong>I own a Sawtooth G4 400. It's fine for everything in OS 9, but OS X is a bit slow on it.
For me to buy a new system, Apple would have to up the ante quite a bit. I'm to cheap to buy anything but the low-end Powermac, so the low end would have to be at least:
1 GHz (G4 or G5)
Considerably faster bus (266 MHz?)
DDR RAM
8X AGP, with at least a GeForce 3
This is the minimum I'd buy. Anything less and I'd just wait, since my current Mac serves me fine for everything I actually NEED if for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've found a kindred spirit in the old Dawg! I'm pretty much in the same boat - own a G4/400 Sawtooth and I usually buy on the low end (sub-$2,000 model). Apple would have to blow me away with a G5 1.4 GHz with 266 MHz DDR in order to get more of my money.
Cool! I spent $1100 on my Powermac G4 400. Bought it when it was "last year's" model at the time, thus the deal. That was the only way I could afford a G4, but I'm glad I went for it. This computer will last me a long time, espeically if I can ever buy a CPU upgrade for it. A dual 800 CPU upgrade would be sweet.... as long as the price was right.
<sigh> Sometimes Apple nearly drives me to a life of crime, robbing banks, knocking off gas stations, all to support my Mac habit.
[quote] You have any proof that Powermacs don't have speed and performance? Or are you just basing this on the fact that one MHz rating isn't as big as another? <hr></blockquote>
SdC, check <a href="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/"; target="_blank">this page</a> for speed comparisons between Macs & PCs in Lightwave.
The performance of the Mac for 3D rendering is PATHETIC. In some of those tests, the current high end Mac is outperformed by PCs by a factor of FOUR-- and the Mac costs twice as much. That's sick.
Since I use Lightwave, this is pretty important to me. I'd like to see the high end Mac match the high end PCs-- even if the double price premium still exists, the advantages of running Lightwave in a real UNIX environment with a great GUI would go a long way to evening the playing field. Right now, paying a 100% price premium for 1/4 the performance makes my stomach turn.
And yes, I do own a Powermac-- a Quicksilver 733. I bought it because I got a deal on Lightwave for the Mac-- $1000 off. Not having to spend the $1000 was more important than the higher performance. Besides, I wanted a Mac. I'm hoping that the playing field will be leveled with the introduction of the G5, or at least the performance gap won't be so obscene. Then I'll buy a dual G5.
More negative than I thought, but mostly free of the screed throwers, so this thread isn't all for naught.
Anyway, I think there is way to much negativity at AI in general. These computers coming out on 1/7 will be bigger and better than the ones now, and I really can't see, except for a very select few, how these products won't have the horsepower to keep up.
My personal opinions: I use a QS 867 to do some FCP (2, sadlt, the school has not upgraded), and it's about as fast as I think I could measure accurately. Now that I'm putting together my own DV workstation, I am pretty psyched about having a machine (and FCP 3) that will stomp the shiznit out of my schools machines.
So, well, anyway, I'm hoping for a dualie in my price range ($2500-ish). We'll see soon enough, I guess. If Apple doesn't have an improved mobo architecture (DDR, HyperTransport, etc.) after 1/7, I'm gonna get a reduced price 800x2, and wait another year.
Top of the line G5. If not then I might have to settle for-
[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>I would agree with most of the posters here, 1.4 Ghz is what Apple needs, or move all of their towers to dual processer models, toping out with at least a 1 Ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
..but onloy if they have DDR and faster bus. If not, I'll wait another 6 months.
well, i don't use a powermac. And i won't even consider one until the low end tower comes back down to 1,499.00 or they improve the performance worthy of it 1,699.00 price tag.
also, just a random thought..
if.....IF apple release a dual 1.2Ghz G4 monday, would they claim that they are now ahead in the Mhz war by using this equation?
1.2ghz + 1.2ghz + OS X = 2.4Ghz (P4 is at 2.2Ghz now, i think)
i know they won't release it, but i was wondering nonetheless...
Performance is adequate for all that I use it for.
This was my first new unit (I upgraded from a 6100/66) so I was pretty spoiled by how fast it was. I won't upgrade until it is truly compelling to upgrade (ie 3-4x speed boost). I really don't care how Apple gets there (faster proc/bus/whatever).
The two other things I want in a new Mac.
1. More USB and Firewire ports (preferably with some more accessible than the back of the machine. I have 4 USB (plus K & M) and 1 Firewire device on my Mac, playing swap the cord gets old (Haven't found a hub that works reliably yet)
2. Apple should include AppleCare level Warranty and Support with professional machines To pay $2500 for a machine and Apple will only talk to you for 90 days is pathetic.
It'll probably be a long while before I upgrade. But that's OK, Steve knows where to find us reluctant upgraders when he's ready to offer a fair deal.
>1,5Ghz GX with a 64bit chip so i can allocate more than 999Mb RAM to Photoshop or Final Effects, more than 2 USB ports and the ability to RAID 4 drives inside the box, 4G RAM.
come on steve... blow us away with a lovely little 64-bit 1.5Ghz GX chip that takes Wintel and makes it kick it's own ass... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Comments
I would want anything thats better than the current PC offering. I would need anything greater than 1GHz.
Currently have a G3 BW 400 and a Sawtooth 400
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: dartblazer ]</p>
That's what I expect. Better performance. Leagues better performance that justifies the price beyond the Color flow/industry standards arguments. RAW PERFORMANCE that doesn't need hokey 'megahertz myth' marketing spin. Performance that allows me to clearly see a difference by just putting the machines side by side and running absolutely any apps/suites/filters or combinations of such that I see fit. Performance that is viserally ascertainable in EVERY singal task applied to the machine, not just a few carefully chosen tasks.
ARE YOU LISTENING APPLE? We don't want gimmicky iStuff, WE WANT PERFORMANCE THAT WE OURSELVES CAN VERIFY with every single computation we throw at the machine.
JOBS! YOU TURTLE NECK WEARING, NEW AGE ECO-PIMP. I know one of your lackies is reading this, or perhaps you've a spare moment on the can -- where you, no doubt, can see this from the comfort of a prototype airport web pad as you pass one of your so-cal nutri-fibre enduced movements. Well, you can wipe your (only borderline hetersexual) ass with that pad for all we care. We Expect FAST hardware. That is what we expect, SPEED. Anything else, on any other dimension, is not 'Beyond' us.
Now get it together! Put on that turtle neck and put on a proper Expo'
SdC
<hr></blockquote>
Now, now...play nice!
<strong>Not a current owner. Won't be untill PM's provide clearly better performance than similarly priced PC's
That's what I expect. Better performance. Leagues better performance that justifies the price beyond the Color flow/industry standards arguments. RAW PERFORMANCE that doesn't need hokey 'megahertz myth' marketing spin.....
.....We Expect FAST hardware. That is what we expect, SPEED. Anything else, on any other dimension, is not 'Beyond' us.
Now get it together! Put on that turtle neck and put on a proper Expo'</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have any proof that Powermacs don't have speed and performance? Or are you just basing this on the fact that one MHz rating isn't as big as another?
SdC
Don't care if its a G1 or a G6, want better FPU performance, memory throughput and would be very happy with more Altivec extensions--double precision floats. Gotta be better than 2X-3X my present machine to spend the $$$ that Apple charges.
If Apple could pull some real pro video cards [ELSA, 3DLabs] thatt would rock my world.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
I have upgraded it to a G4 466, that's fine for most stuff so far and will be for a little while.
Getting a faster G4 will only increase performance linearly, and I want some exponential blast next time. If Apple is ever going to just ahead of PCs again, it will the during the switch from G4 to G5, as it was during the switch from 604e to G3 (750).
That's when I bought my last Mac, and it was good enough for 3 years, I plan on repeating that positive experience.
G-News
<strong>
You have any proof that Powermacs don't have speed and performance? Or are you just basing this on the fact that one MHz rating isn't as big as another?
SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arrrgh!
Powermacs do actually have speed and performance, but at their current price they don't have enough of it to justify a new purchase. There are a number of accounts all over the web and in print (all in the mac press) that state as much. Even given roughly equal performance to top end PC boxes, the power macs still cost too much. A certain price premium is expected for a quality machine. That's acceptable, but for a machine with a very old RAM and HDD subsystem, and somewhat neutered graphics card options, they are simply over-priced.
There are many good things about the mac environment but the current hardware/price ratio isn't one of them (at least not in the desktop lines)
Look at the value they cram into an iBook? They need to find a way to do that with a Power Mac (and iMac too) if they're serious about 'reaching the other 95%'
<strong>psantora, jcg, sizzle chest, thinklikeacriminal, strangelove:
tell me about your powermac set-up.
SdC
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Errrm, I dont currently have a powermac, nor a need for one. THat was why I didnt tell you about my expectations
-Paul
<strong>I own a Sawtooth G4 400. It's fine for everything in OS 9, but OS X is a bit slow on it.
For me to buy a new system, Apple would have to up the ante quite a bit. I'm to cheap to buy anything but the low-end Powermac, so the low end would have to be at least:
1 GHz (G4 or G5)
Considerably faster bus (266 MHz?)
DDR RAM
8X AGP, with at least a GeForce 3
This is the minimum I'd buy. Anything less and I'd just wait, since my current Mac serves me fine for everything I actually NEED if for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've found a kindred spirit in the old Dawg!
<sigh> Sometimes Apple nearly drives me to a life of crime, robbing banks, knocking off gas stations, all to support my Mac habit.
SdC, check <a href="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/"; target="_blank">this page</a> for speed comparisons between Macs & PCs in Lightwave.
The performance of the Mac for 3D rendering is PATHETIC. In some of those tests, the current high end Mac is outperformed by PCs by a factor of FOUR-- and the Mac costs twice as much. That's sick.
Since I use Lightwave, this is pretty important to me. I'd like to see the high end Mac match the high end PCs-- even if the double price premium still exists, the advantages of running Lightwave in a real UNIX environment with a great GUI would go a long way to evening the playing field. Right now, paying a 100% price premium for 1/4 the performance makes my stomach turn.
And yes, I do own a Powermac-- a Quicksilver 733. I bought it because I got a deal on Lightwave for the Mac-- $1000 off. Not having to spend the $1000 was more important than the higher performance. Besides, I wanted a Mac.
Anyway, I think there is way to much negativity at AI in general. These computers coming out on 1/7 will be bigger and better than the ones now, and I really can't see, except for a very select few, how these products won't have the horsepower to keep up.
My personal opinions: I use a QS 867 to do some FCP (2, sadlt, the school has not upgraded), and it's about as fast as I think I could measure accurately. Now that I'm putting together my own DV workstation, I am pretty psyched about having a machine (and FCP 3) that will stomp the shiznit out of my schools machines.
So, well, anyway, I'm hoping for a dualie in my price range ($2500-ish). We'll see soon enough, I guess. If Apple doesn't have an improved mobo architecture (DDR, HyperTransport, etc.) after 1/7, I'm gonna get a reduced price 800x2, and wait another year.
SdC
[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>I would agree with most of the posters here, 1.4 Ghz is what Apple needs, or move all of their towers to dual processer models, toping out with at least a 1 Ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
..but onloy if they have DDR and faster bus. If not, I'll wait another 6 months.
And dualies.
SdC
also, just a random thought..
if.....IF apple release a dual 1.2Ghz G4 monday, would they claim that they are now ahead in the Mhz war by using this equation?
1.2ghz + 1.2ghz + OS X = 2.4Ghz (P4 is at 2.2Ghz now, i think)
i know they won't release it, but i was wondering nonetheless...
Performance is adequate for all that I use it for.
This was my first new unit (I upgraded from a 6100/66) so I was pretty spoiled by how fast it was. I won't upgrade until it is truly compelling to upgrade (ie 3-4x speed boost). I really don't care how Apple gets there (faster proc/bus/whatever).
The two other things I want in a new Mac.
1. More USB and Firewire ports (preferably with some more accessible than the back of the machine. I have 4 USB (plus K & M) and 1 Firewire device on my Mac, playing swap the cord gets old (Haven't found a hub that works reliably yet)
2. Apple should include AppleCare level Warranty and Support with professional machines To pay $2500 for a machine and Apple will only talk to you for 90 days is pathetic.
It'll probably be a long while before I upgrade. But that's OK, Steve knows where to find us reluctant upgraders when he's ready to offer a fair deal.
come on steve... blow us away with a lovely little 64-bit 1.5Ghz GX chip that takes Wintel and makes it kick it's own ass... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I would like to see:
1.2+ ghz
DDR
faster HDD bus
GF3 and GF4 cards
basically what you get for 1700 $ in the PC land, where I assume that a 1.2 ghz G4 is about equal to Pentium4 2ghz performace-wise.