Could PCWorld have a "worse" group of applications to benchmark? Apple will always lose these benches because:
Premiere 6 sucks
Word 6 and above sucks
Quake III doesn't suck but isn't optimized for Macs
Photoshop 7 = dinosaur
Please PCworld update your freakin' apps.
This benchmark is useless. Well it does make for a good idiot alert. Anyone who cannot see the irony of these benches is surely an idiot.
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
Paleeease!!!! With all of the rumors circulating around during the MOTO days and did we see a change. Things at IBM are not nearly as bad as they were with MOTO and you guys are still mongering the possibility of a switch. Obviously all of the ship manufacturers have hit a solid wall. No one is getting good performance out of anything beyond 3GHZ. It'll take allot of innovation to get beyond that barrier and in the mean time everyone is looking for sidesteps like MP and MC technology. It didn't happen 10 years ago and it ain't gonna happen now.
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
PC Magazine is actually pretty decent in covering non windows stuff. I'll likely subscribe to them in the future again. I wouldn't use PC World to wipe my *bleep*
Apple currently has both better hardware (excluding portable machines...*sigh*)and software than PC vendors. The end.
The G5 is a monster. It is why Microsoft dumped Intel in favor of PowerPC for the xbox successor and why Nintendo is also using IBM as well as PPC being the heart and soul of the cell processor.
The G5 is at the very LEAST even with the best AMD has to offer clock for clock (better now with a higher clock than AMDs highest) and far superior to anything Intel has, no matter the ghz.
I imagine intel would the cheaper route for the console makers, but PPC is the BETTER.
That is why Apple is on the right track and that is why Apple will continue to partner with IBM. IBM is looking up, not down. That would be Intel, people. A move to Intel would definitely be a backwards step.
The Power4 definitely has a lot of room for growth and then there is alway Power5 and 6 down the road if need be. We already have a supercomputer CPU. And as of today is superior to anything on the market in its class. I think we should just be very glad at the state of Apple as the company is on top right now and it looks good that it will only improve going forward.
PC Magazine is actually pretty decent in covering non windows stuff. I'll likely subscribe to them in the future again. I wouldn't use PC World to wipe my *bleep*
They usually rate the mac stuff higher than the windows stuff. When they have an issue with Apple hardware, its usually valid.
In his blog today, Paul Thurrott reported that he heard a rumor from colleges at WinHEC that Apple may switch to an Intel Architecture.
"This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously.
Suppose there's truth to this?
That would be a reason to switch to a different fabricator, not a differenct architecture. I could see Apple sourcing PPC G5 production to AMD, for instance.
1. In two years basically all they've done to the ship is move from a 130nm process to a 90nm process. There has been no real improvement in chip design. AMD and Intel make small improvements with each release.
2. Same exact chipset for two years. This isn't a chip issue. It's an Apple and IBM being lazy issue.
3. No low watt versions. AMD seems to be able to build Athlon 64s that can fit in 1" laptops, why can't IBM build a 970M?
The 970 has a lot of potential, but I don't think IBM or Apple is willing to put up the cash to reach that potential because of the small user base. They spend what it takes to make it just good enough.
That would be a reason to switch to a different fabricator, not a differenct architecture. I could see Apple sourcing PPC G5 production to AMD, for instance.
Apple doesn't own the design, IBM does. And AMD's fabs are about at capcity with their internal designs. They couldn't take own 970 production if they wanted.
Apple sells crippled hardware all the time. Wake up!
My comments were completely in reference to your complaints about BUS SPEED. Shipping a G5 system with a bus speed which is "only" half the processor speed IS NOT a form of crippling a computer. In fact, trying to run the bus speed of a G5 system faster than half the processor speed would quite effectively cripple the computer, rendering it totally inoperable.
That Apple deliberately cripples hardware in other ways -- such as disabling monitor spanning in iBooks, for one example -- is not in question.
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
Because we all know that any PC-based media have an evil agenda, and all Mac-based sources are pure, without an agenda, and honest. Truly the angels among insects.
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
But they are right on one thing. If you want a machine to play Doom III the mac is probably not for you. That's always the funniest thing to me--a supposedly professional review that uses game frame rates as an indication of performance.
If you want to know what machines are really the fastest have a look at these benchmarks different scenes stress the computers in different ways so it actually gives a very good indication as to "real world" performance.
But they are right on one thing. If you want a machine to play Doom III the mac is probably not for you. That's always the funniest thing to me--a supposedly professional review that uses game frame rates as an indication of performance.
Well it is a guide to OpenGL performance, which is actually pretty poor on Macs by the way.
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
I would be with you on that point, if it were true. The x86 chips in the comparison were released as far back as 2 years ago. This was a snapshot of top of the line performance available at that time. While all CPU providers have grown slowly since then, it's not too hard to extrapolate that given current hardware the results would be roughly the same in terms of the performance differential.
Because we all know that any PC-based media have an evil agenda, and all Mac-based sources are pure, without an agenda, and honest. Truly the angels among insects.
I don't trust the Apple ones either (at least not most of them)
You answered your own question: "Paul Thurrott reported".
Thurrott is the guy that said Apple copied Microsoft on search technology. Of course, never mind that Apple released it probably 2 years before Microsoft will. If Apple is the one copying, they're either damn good, or Microsoft is damn bad.
I wouldn't rule out entirely a switch to x86, but I will rule out entirely a switch to generic x86, where OS X runs on any x86 machine. People who think that would work are ignoring history. Instead, I could see the possibility of an Apple machine with an Athlon64 or Opteron processor. But I don't think it's a strong possibility. There are two problems that Apple wouldn't be able to surmount with generic x86:
1. Most OS sales on x86 are preloads. This is where M$ makes its money. And that is why they guard preloads like a hawk. They retailiate against any manufacturer that ships an alternative OS.
Could Apple take over the x86 market with retail sales? No way. Most PCs never have their OS changed from what was installed at the factory. In fact, I read a study the other day that said many people never use any application program that wasn't preloaded!!! Apple doesn't have to worry about preload agreements when they sell the hardware.
2. The x86 world is full of exotic hardware. I know from experience that when buying hardware to run with Linux, you have to do your homework... sometimes a lot. Lots of hardware still doesn't work with it. Apple would have to write lots of drivers, or support very limited hardware. Consumers wouldn't go for this. If they got other companies to write drivers, they'd still have to QA them. Microsoft had problems with this a few years back. Bad drivers were causing problems with NT 4.0 stability (as was crappy NT code). So Redmond set up a massive and expensive QA program.
The other problem here is of course user experience. Apple has the best user experience because they control the entire thing. Dell doesn't control the full user experience on the stuff they ship. MS controls a lot of it.
Breaking binary compatibility is very risky. Few companies have sucessfully done it. Apple did with the m68k-->PowerPC switch. It worked because they controlled the platform, had seamless emulation of m68k built in to MacOS, and finally, because PowerPC was so much faster, there wasn't a huge performance hit. To do an x86 conversion they would need a PowerPC emulator or a binary translator (which is faster). The ability of MacOS Mach-o binaries to be multi-architecture (or "fat") is a huge advantage, but I still don't see a big enough reason for the change at this point.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Could PCWorld have a "worse" group of applications to benchmark? Apple will always lose these benches because:
Premiere 6 sucks
Word 6 and above sucks
Quake III doesn't suck but isn't optimized for Macs
Photoshop 7 = dinosaur
Please PCworld update your freakin' apps.
This benchmark is useless. Well it does make for a good idiot alert. Anyone who cannot see the irony of these benches is surely an idiot.
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
PC Magazine is actually pretty decent in covering non windows stuff. I'll likely subscribe to them in the future again. I wouldn't use PC World to wipe my *bleep*
Originally posted by RBR
Apple sells crippled hardware all the time. Wake up!
Apple currently has both better hardware (excluding portable machines...*sigh*)and software than PC vendors. The end.
The G5 is a monster. It is why Microsoft dumped Intel in favor of PowerPC for the xbox successor and why Nintendo is also using IBM as well as PPC being the heart and soul of the cell processor.
The G5 is at the very LEAST even with the best AMD has to offer clock for clock (better now with a higher clock than AMDs highest) and far superior to anything Intel has, no matter the ghz.
I imagine intel would the cheaper route for the console makers, but PPC is the BETTER.
That is why Apple is on the right track and that is why Apple will continue to partner with IBM. IBM is looking up, not down. That would be Intel, people. A move to Intel would definitely be a backwards step.
The Power4 definitely has a lot of room for growth and then there is alway Power5 and 6 down the road if need be. We already have a supercomputer CPU. And as of today is superior to anything on the market in its class. I think we should just be very glad at the state of Apple as the company is on top right now and it looks good that it will only improve going forward.
Originally posted by hmurchison
PC Magazine is actually pretty decent in covering non windows stuff. I'll likely subscribe to them in the future again. I wouldn't use PC World to wipe my *bleep*
They usually rate the mac stuff higher than the windows stuff. When they have an issue with Apple hardware, its usually valid.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
In his blog today, Paul Thurrott reported that he heard a rumor from colleges at WinHEC that Apple may switch to an Intel Architecture.
"This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously.
Suppose there's truth to this?
That would be a reason to switch to a different fabricator, not a differenct architecture. I could see Apple sourcing PPC G5 production to AMD, for instance.
1. In two years basically all they've done to the ship is move from a 130nm process to a 90nm process. There has been no real improvement in chip design. AMD and Intel make small improvements with each release.
2. Same exact chipset for two years. This isn't a chip issue. It's an Apple and IBM being lazy issue.
3. No low watt versions. AMD seems to be able to build Athlon 64s that can fit in 1" laptops, why can't IBM build a 970M?
The 970 has a lot of potential, but I don't think IBM or Apple is willing to put up the cash to reach that potential because of the small user base. They spend what it takes to make it just good enough.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
That would be a reason to switch to a different fabricator, not a differenct architecture. I could see Apple sourcing PPC G5 production to AMD, for instance.
Apple doesn't own the design, IBM does. And AMD's fabs are about at capcity with their internal designs. They couldn't take own 970 production if they wanted.
Originally posted by JLL
It's not technically possible.
You obviously can not learn from history. Start with, for example a Blue and White. Screwed from the inception. The list goes on.
Originally posted by RBR
Apple sells crippled hardware all the time. Wake up!
My comments were completely in reference to your complaints about BUS SPEED. Shipping a G5 system with a bus speed which is "only" half the processor speed IS NOT a form of crippling a computer. In fact, trying to run the bus speed of a G5 system faster than half the processor speed would quite effectively cripple the computer, rendering it totally inoperable.
That Apple deliberately cripples hardware in other ways -- such as disabling monitor spanning in iBooks, for one example -- is not in question.
Originally posted by Bancho
You mean a PC biased publication may want to test using software which could cast the Macs in a bad light (or at least hide their strength)? NoooOOOOOoooo! Say it's not so!
Because we all know that any PC-based media have an evil agenda, and all Mac-based sources are pure, without an agenda, and honest. Truly the angels among insects.
Originally posted by nowayout11
Depends who you ask, I guess.
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
But they are right on one thing. If you want a machine to play Doom III the mac is probably not for you. That's always the funniest thing to me--a supposedly professional review that uses game frame rates as an indication of performance.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
But they are right on one thing. If you want a machine to play Doom III the mac is probably not for you. That's always the funniest thing to me--a supposedly professional review that uses game frame rates as an indication of performance.
Well it is a guide to OpenGL performance, which is actually pretty poor on Macs by the way.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
You realize that puts high-end PC hardware against low-end G5's, right? In other words, my two year old Mac is only 5% slower then the fastest PC on the market (in Photoshop, which is the only test on that page that means something) even though there's Macs that are 30% faster than mine out now?
Fact is, PowerPC creams x86. It's cheaper, cleaner, and has lots of room to grow. If/once Apple achieves an even slightly higher marketshare to balance the tremendous economy of scale benefit x86 has, x86 is going to get more and more costly and PPC is gonna get cheaper and faster.
I would be with you on that point, if it were true. The x86 chips in the comparison were released as far back as 2 years ago. This was a snapshot of top of the line performance available at that time. While all CPU providers have grown slowly since then, it's not too hard to extrapolate that given current hardware the results would be roughly the same in terms of the performance differential.
Originally posted by nowayout11
Because we all know that any PC-based media have an evil agenda, and all Mac-based sources are pure, without an agenda, and honest. Truly the angels among insects.
I don't trust the Apple ones either
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
Suppose there's truth to this?
You answered your own question: "Paul Thurrott reported".
Thurrott is the guy that said Apple copied Microsoft on search technology. Of course, never mind that Apple released it probably 2 years before Microsoft will. If Apple is the one copying, they're either damn good, or Microsoft is damn bad.
I wouldn't rule out entirely a switch to x86, but I will rule out entirely a switch to generic x86, where OS X runs on any x86 machine. People who think that would work are ignoring history. Instead, I could see the possibility of an Apple machine with an Athlon64 or Opteron processor. But I don't think it's a strong possibility. There are two problems that Apple wouldn't be able to surmount with generic x86:
1. Most OS sales on x86 are preloads. This is where M$ makes its money. And that is why they guard preloads like a hawk. They retailiate against any manufacturer that ships an alternative OS.
Could Apple take over the x86 market with retail sales? No way. Most PCs never have their OS changed from what was installed at the factory. In fact, I read a study the other day that said many people never use any application program that wasn't preloaded!!! Apple doesn't have to worry about preload agreements when they sell the hardware.
2. The x86 world is full of exotic hardware. I know from experience that when buying hardware to run with Linux, you have to do your homework... sometimes a lot. Lots of hardware still doesn't work with it. Apple would have to write lots of drivers, or support very limited hardware. Consumers wouldn't go for this. If they got other companies to write drivers, they'd still have to QA them. Microsoft had problems with this a few years back. Bad drivers were causing problems with NT 4.0 stability (as was crappy NT code). So Redmond set up a massive and expensive QA program.
The other problem here is of course user experience. Apple has the best user experience because they control the entire thing. Dell doesn't control the full user experience on the stuff they ship. MS controls a lot of it.
Breaking binary compatibility is very risky. Few companies have sucessfully done it. Apple did with the m68k-->PowerPC switch. It worked because they controlled the platform, had seamless emulation of m68k built in to MacOS, and finally, because PowerPC was so much faster, there wasn't a huge performance hit. To do an x86 conversion they would need a PowerPC emulator or a binary translator (which is faster). The ability of MacOS Mach-o binaries to be multi-architecture (or "fat") is a huge advantage, but I still don't see a big enough reason for the change at this point.