Well I am a switcher, and for the moment I want to get a MacMini and sometime next year an IntelPower Book, an IP Book
Anyway I was wondering is it worth getting the MacMini now? I mean I know it is, but it sounds like the Yonah chip is going to be like twice as fast as the current G4 chips, and if that is the case I would be a bit upset, so if that is the case I would want to wait until the Intel MacMini line is coming out.
Questions short: " Aprox. how fast will the Yohan 1.66 Ghz be compared to a 1.42Ghz G4 ? If the Yohan will be a fast as the 3.6Ghz Pentium at the moment, how does the G4 compare to a Pentium aprox.?"
I saw some advertising yesterday and saw at what price those Intel based laptops are going for sale. In the iBook category the could go with Celeron M for a price of 600-800$, while the Powerbook category is between 1200-2500$ based on screen size and Pentium M or Pentium 4. The rest is what you can expect 40-8O Gb harddrive, 512-1024 RAm and the graphics cards are the newest from ATI.
With these specs in mind, Apple could go for iBook 699-1199$ and Powerbook 1499-2499$ and you get a shiny copy of OS X.
Well I am a switcher, and for the moment I want to get a MacMini and sometime next year an IntelPower Book, an IP Book
Anyway I was wondering is it worth getting the MacMini now? I mean I know it is, but it sounds like the Yonah chip is going to be like twice as fast as the current G4 chips, and if that is the case I would be a bit upset, so if that is the case I would want to wait until the Intel MacMini line is coming out.
Questions short: " Aprox. how fast will the Yohan 1.66 Ghz be compared to a 1.42Ghz G4 ? If the Yohan will be a fast as the 3.6Ghz Pentium at the moment, how does the G4 compare to a Pentium aprox.?"
Thanks
I would wait till the financial results in mid July, maybe they will announce some updates for educational season. If you need it now ( which is not the case i suppose) buy it. You want to get to know OS X, buy now and get experience with it until you get your Intelbook.
I think it would be easier for the "intel sucks, OMG" crowd not to choke on their talking points that they mindlessly held for so many years against intel like standard democrat talking points if they just use their brain and think about it.
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
What brain?
couldn't resist, sorry.
I think this "mindless" points against Intel
just shows, that Apple customers have a huge
emotional relationship to the product. This is not bad
in the first place. But it can blur a whee bit reality
perception. Of course.
Seriously, my guess is most Apple folks feel
a certain lost of identity.
It's psychological. People hate to change.
If you start to think a minute about the Apple/Intel
thing, if you gather information about the
technological implications (and directions), if you
discard all your emotional views, than the entire move
makes a lot of sense. The future seems to be bright for apple.
Things change of course. It's called Evolution. Wether one is a religious person or not, he/she needs to understand that products, just like people, evolve over a certain period of time. And that evolution is dependent on several factors when it comes to computers: that is, the need, the supply, and the raw material.
The supply should always strive to meet the demand, and they should use those raw materials that are most desirable, efficient and economic at the same time. You can't continue making products with just one type of raw material because people want something else. Something better. Hence change. Hence diversity. Hence Intel.
voxy and gene clean hit the nail on the head there.
i just came back from a local 'pc' fair, the local apple dealers had two separate decent sized booths, and then there were tons of smaller guys, in amongst the benq, samsung, canon, intel booths.
if apple is to increase marketshare, they have to play the numbers game:
1. cost (low)
2. ghz (high)
3. frontsidebus (high)
4. number of cores (dual)
5. power consumption (low)
6. battery life (high)
the ibm strategy was pushing them further and further into a corner. stevie J said 'fuck this' and hooking up with intel is the way to get out of that corner and refresh
the GPU scenario as well is showing so much growth and promise, and Apple partnering with Intel allows more seamless working with standard ATI / nVidia PC graphics cards (drivers of course are the main issue then as some others have mentioned)
i am slowly learning to welcome intel into the mac family and see what it can really achieve, free from microsoft (when making Mac products)
I have been quietly been watching the Intel debate over several day?s on several different boards.
My only concern would be this?
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market. I hear AMD this and Intel that, but here in the real world having dual RISC processors is incredible. At our company we have been evaluating all three options with UNIX (albeit OSX w/BSD) and G5 shines brighter than any of them to date.
I can see single core Intel on the consumer line (eMac, MacMini, iMac and iBook) and dual core Intel chips on the professional line (PowerBook and PowerMac). But on the server line or the speculated monster workstation xMac or whatever nick name it has now, you have to be a fool to want to abandoned the G5. Lets be honest here if you were looking a servers or an xMac price is not the foremost concern on you mind, if it were you would not be going to apple.com you would be shopping at dell.com.
I like the idea of Apple diversifying itself by creating a new partnership with Intel, but Apple has had a problem with throwing all of its egg?s in one basket before. I would like to see Apple have multiple MFG?s on call. I think it would only help Apple and not allow thier vendor to be come stagnate as seen in the past.
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market. I hear AMD this and Intel that, but here in the real world having dual RISC processors is incredible. At our company we have been evaluating all three options with UNIX (albeit OSX w/BSD) and G5 shines brighter than any of them to date.
I can see single core Intel on the consumer line (eMac, MacMini, iMac and iBook) and dual core Intel chips on the professional line (PowerBook and PowerMac). But on the server line or the speculated monster workstation xMac or whatever nick name it has now, you have to be a fool to want to abandoned the G5.
[/B]
How do you know that the G5 is the fastest?
I mean I know it is fast, but how do you really compare them?
I never once said that the G5?s were faster in my post. But the truth is it outperformed the other two boxes. I am not going to go into all the details I will just explain a bit how I came to my conclusion in ?Real world testing? not benchmark testing.
In the account software package (Using Cobol and via terminal emulation) that we use reports ran and finished at about ten minutes quicker that the dual Intel Xeon or the AMD Opteron. Not that the other two were chumps just the PowerMac Shined brighter. Also the Intel and AMD boxes were taking on 60 users at once with only the accounting package and they were starting reach there limits and it was very obvious. But the PowerMac took on the same load, and get this, took on the entire request for our web-based CRM and intranet and sustained VPN connection all at once. True when all three actions were happing the PowerMac began to show its threshold, but it was able to perform all three where as the Intel and AMD boxes were not able to.
Like I said ?real world testing?, benchmarks mean crap when the company is counting on you to get the job done. Also to condense six servers down to two is a godsend for administration purposes. (Six servers = 3 live ? 3 redundant)
I am not an Intel or AMD basher. I am not an Apple lapdog. I just see an advantage to the G5 (RISC) processors. I know there is more there than just the processors I was just pointing out that Apple should retain the G5 for there server lines.
Just to note the Opteron was far more impressive than the Xeon IMHO.
Before you ask they all ran Dual Processors(PM G5 2.0Ghz - Xeon 2.8 Ghz - Opteron 2.6Ghz), 2Gig of memory gigabit Ethernet.
(It is grate to work for a company with enough revenue to give the IT dept. a huge budget for eval.)
I never once said that the G5?s were faster in my post. But the truth is it outperformed the other two boxes. I am not going to go into all the details I will just explain a bit how I came to my conclusion in ?Real world testing? not benchmark testing.
In the account software package (Using Cobol and via terminal emulation) that we use reports ran and finished at about ten minutes quicker that the dual Intel Xeon or the AMD Opteron. Not that the other two were chumps just the PowerMac Shined brighter. Also the Intel and AMD boxes were taking on 60 users at once with only the accounting package and they were starting reach there limits and it was very obvious. But the PowerMac took on the same load, and get this, took on the entire request for our web-based CRM and intranet and sustained VPN connection all at once. True when all three actions were happing the PowerMac began to show its threshold, but it was able to perform all three where as the Intel and AMD boxes were not able to.
Like I said ?real world testing?, benchmarks mean crap when the company is counting on you to get the job done. Also to condense six servers down to two is a godsend for administration purposes. (Six servers = 3 live ? 3 redundant)
I am not an Intel or AMD basher. I am not an Apple lapdog. I just see an advantage to the G5 (RISC) processors. I know there is more there than just the processors I was just pointing out that Apple should retain the G5 for there server lines.
Just to note the Opteron was far more impressive that the Xeon IMHO.
Before you ask they all ran 2Gig of memory gigabit Ethernet.
(It is grate to work for a company with enough revenue to give the IT dept. a huge budget for eval.)
that's a great apple-in-the-enterprise story. i'm sure you'll have powermac g5s or xserves, etc for a few years to come
no worries, i think its good to have a case study of sorts like you mentioned
curious, are you aware of IIRC anandtech showing powermac g5 suffering w.r.t mysql loads compared to... whatever it is they compared to, my brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment.
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market.
Please help us understand two things:
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
Imagine that you're the VP for Global Sales and Marketing for the G4 at Moto. Imagine that every week your regional sales managers call in and you go down the list and you say "OK, who's got a new opportunity for laptops or desktops, or servers?". And every week, every one of your regional sales manages says "Got nutt'n".
I'm guessing that after the first 400 or 500 weekly sales meetings full of "Got nutt'n", even a VP for Global Sales and Marketing is going to figure out that he's not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine.
And his counterpart over at IBM's got G5s sell and he's got a Rolodex with customer contacts. I don't think that he gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he flips it open and finds two cutomers, and one of them is him.
2) As an 'IT Manager' you must familar with all of the revelent test results. Let's start with SPEC. Please explain to us why PPC scores are so weak. And for bonus points, how's about and analysis of TPC or SAP or PeopleSoft results.
It's real easy to claim that "I've got my secret test that shows that mine is better than your's", but it's a whole nother thing to come out into the open and compete on a level playing field.
It's gets more than a little tiring to hear people trying to bash benchmarks as 'not real world'. Benchmarks are open competitions. If you can't do well in open competitions then you're not going to do well for your average customer.
curious, are you aware of IIRC anandtech showing powermac g5 suffering w.r.t mysql loads compared to... whatever it is they compared to, my brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment.
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
The G5 is a good implementation of a good architecture. It's not stellar, but it's good. However, the current implementation of OS X has major problems for server applications.
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
Imagine that you're the VP for Global Sales and Marketing for the G4 at Moto. Imagine that every week your regional sales managers call in and you go down the list and you say "OK, who's got a new opportunity for laptops or desktops, or servers?". And every week, every one of your regional sales manages says "Got nutt'n".
I'm guessing that after the first 400 or 500 weekly sales meetings full of "Got nutt'n", even a VP for Global Sales and Marketing is going to figure out that he's not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine.
And his counterpart over at IBM's got G5s sell and he's got a Rolodex with customer contacts. I don't think that he gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he flips it open and finds two cutomers, and one of them is him.
2) As an 'IT Manager' you must familar with all of the revelent test results. Let's start with SPEC. Please explain to us why PPC scores are so weak. And for bonus points, how's about and analysis of TPC or SAP or PeopleSoft results.
It's real easy to claim that "I've got my secret test that shows that mine is better than your's", but it's a whole nother thing to come out into the open and compete on a level playing field.
It's gets more than a little tiring to hear people trying to bash benchmarks as 'not real world'. Benchmarks are open competitions. If you can't do well in open competitions then you're not going to do well for your average customer.
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I shut up mind my own business, damn?.
mate, don't take it too hard IMHO you sound like an actually pretty decent IT manager... i've known some real dickheads
mate, don't take it too hard IMHO you sound like an actually pretty decent IT manager... i've known some real dickheads
I appreciate that very much, I try very hard to understand our user?s frustrations and not to be condescending to them or be little them in any way. I remember when I was trying to learn and how I was treated and do not want to thought of that way. You have to be patient with the end users they do not have your knowledge.
The way I look at it is I know how to work on my 1970 Pontiac GTO but I have to take it to the dealership for my 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. You can?t now everything so that?s why you seek help else where.
Comments
Originally posted by fieldor
Well Intel might be providing whole chipsets for Apple, so this might be a big plus.
They could provide the northbridge : regular Intel stuff, and a custom southbridge with Apple specifications inside.
If you look at the developper machine it's seems that it's based upon a 915 chipset nortbridge, and a strange southbridge.
In this way the mobo design of Apple comp will be still unique, but most of the componements will be regular ones, produced in a huge number.
Originally posted by fieldor
Well Intel might be providing whole chipsets for Apple, so this might be a big plus.
yes, chipset stuff be good for Apple. also another reason why intel is happy
Anyway I was wondering is it worth getting the MacMini now? I mean I know it is, but it sounds like the Yonah chip is going to be like twice as fast as the current G4 chips, and if that is the case I would be a bit upset, so if that is the case I would want to wait until the Intel MacMini line is coming out.
Questions short: " Aprox. how fast will the Yohan 1.66 Ghz be compared to a 1.42Ghz G4 ? If the Yohan will be a fast as the 3.6Ghz Pentium at the moment, how does the G4 compare to a Pentium aprox.?"
Thanks
With these specs in mind, Apple could go for iBook 699-1199$ and Powerbook 1499-2499$ and you get a shiny copy of OS X.
Originally posted by punica888
Well I am a switcher, and for the moment I want to get a MacMini and sometime next year an IntelPower Book, an IP Book
Anyway I was wondering is it worth getting the MacMini now? I mean I know it is, but it sounds like the Yonah chip is going to be like twice as fast as the current G4 chips, and if that is the case I would be a bit upset, so if that is the case I would want to wait until the Intel MacMini line is coming out.
Questions short: " Aprox. how fast will the Yohan 1.66 Ghz be compared to a 1.42Ghz G4 ? If the Yohan will be a fast as the 3.6Ghz Pentium at the moment, how does the G4 compare to a Pentium aprox.?"
Thanks
I would wait till the financial results in mid July, maybe they will announce some updates for educational season. If you need it now ( which is not the case i suppose) buy it. You want to get to know OS X, buy now and get experience with it until you get your Intelbook.
Originally posted by g3pro
I think it would be easier for the "intel sucks, OMG" crowd not to choke on their talking points that they mindlessly held for so many years against intel like standard democrat talking points if they just use their brain and think about it.
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
What brain?
I think this "mindless" points against Intel
just shows, that Apple customers have a huge
emotional relationship to the product. This is not bad
in the first place. But it can blur a whee bit reality
perception. Of course.
Seriously, my guess is most Apple folks feel
a certain lost of identity.
It's psychological. People hate to change.
If you start to think a minute about the Apple/Intel
thing, if you gather information about the
technological implications (and directions), if you
discard all your emotional views, than the entire move
makes a lot of sense. The future seems to be bright for apple.
More than ever. change
my2change
The supply should always strive to meet the demand, and they should use those raw materials that are most desirable, efficient and economic at the same time. You can't continue making products with just one type of raw material because people want something else. Something better. Hence change. Hence diversity. Hence Intel.
i just came back from a local 'pc' fair, the local apple dealers had two separate decent sized booths, and then there were tons of smaller guys, in amongst the benq, samsung, canon, intel
if apple is to increase marketshare, they have to play the numbers game:
1. cost (low)
2. ghz (high)
3. frontsidebus (high)
4. number of cores (dual)
5. power consumption (low)
6. battery life (high)
the ibm strategy was pushing them further and further into a corner. stevie J said 'fuck this' and hooking up with intel is the way to get out of that corner and refresh
the GPU scenario as well is showing so much growth and promise, and Apple partnering with Intel allows more seamless working with standard ATI / nVidia PC graphics cards (drivers of course are the main issue then as some others have mentioned)
i am slowly learning to welcome intel into the mac family and see what it can really achieve, free from microsoft (when making Mac products)
Originally posted by sunilraman
...
i am slowly learning to welcome intel into the mac family and see what it can really achieve, free from microsoft (when making Mac products)
Yes. I believe more and more that Microsoft was/is
just a burden to Intel. They simply didn't
want to deal any more with all that legacy
thing Microsoft is hooked to.
My only concern would be this?
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market. I hear AMD this and Intel that, but here in the real world having dual RISC processors is incredible. At our company we have been evaluating all three options with UNIX (albeit OSX w/BSD) and G5 shines brighter than any of them to date.
I can see single core Intel on the consumer line (eMac, MacMini, iMac and iBook) and dual core Intel chips on the professional line (PowerBook and PowerMac). But on the server line or the speculated monster workstation xMac or whatever nick name it has now, you have to be a fool to want to abandoned the G5. Lets be honest here if you were looking a servers or an xMac price is not the foremost concern on you mind, if it were you would not be going to apple.com you would be shopping at dell.com.
I like the idea of Apple diversifying itself by creating a new partnership with Intel, but Apple has had a problem with throwing all of its egg?s in one basket before. I would like to see Apple have multiple MFG?s on call. I think it would only help Apple and not allow thier vendor to be come stagnate as seen in the past.
Just one IT Mangers opinion?.
Originally posted by DGNR8
My only concern would be this?
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market. I hear AMD this and Intel that, but here in the real world having dual RISC processors is incredible. At our company we have been evaluating all three options with UNIX (albeit OSX w/BSD) and G5 shines brighter than any of them to date.
I can see single core Intel on the consumer line (eMac, MacMini, iMac and iBook) and dual core Intel chips on the professional line (PowerBook and PowerMac). But on the server line or the speculated monster workstation xMac or whatever nick name it has now, you have to be a fool to want to abandoned the G5.
[/B]
How do you know that the G5 is the fastest?
I mean I know it is fast, but how do you really compare them?
Do you have benchmarks from somewhere?
If I look at this here http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html the Pentium look squite good and now we are talking 3.6 Ghz and not 3 Ghz.
Cheers
Originally posted by punica888
How do you know that the G5 is the fastest?
I mean I know it is fast, but how do you really compare them?
Do you have benchmarks from somewhere?
If I look at this here http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html the Pentium look squite good and now we are talking 3.6 Ghz and not 3 Ghz.
I never once said that the G5?s were faster in my post. But the truth is it outperformed the other two boxes. I am not going to go into all the details I will just explain a bit how I came to my conclusion in ?Real world testing? not benchmark testing.
In the account software package (Using Cobol and via terminal emulation) that we use reports ran and finished at about ten minutes quicker that the dual Intel Xeon or the AMD Opteron. Not that the other two were chumps just the PowerMac Shined brighter. Also the Intel and AMD boxes were taking on 60 users at once with only the accounting package and they were starting reach there limits and it was very obvious. But the PowerMac took on the same load, and get this, took on the entire request for our web-based CRM and intranet and sustained VPN connection all at once. True when all three actions were happing the PowerMac began to show its threshold, but it was able to perform all three where as the Intel and AMD boxes were not able to.
Like I said ?real world testing?, benchmarks mean crap when the company is counting on you to get the job done. Also to condense six servers down to two is a godsend for administration purposes. (Six servers = 3 live ? 3 redundant)
I am not an Intel or AMD basher. I am not an Apple lapdog. I just see an advantage to the G5 (RISC) processors. I know there is more there than just the processors I was just pointing out that Apple should retain the G5 for there server lines.
Just to note the Opteron was far more impressive than the Xeon IMHO.
Before you ask they all ran Dual Processors(PM G5 2.0Ghz - Xeon 2.8 Ghz - Opteron 2.6Ghz), 2Gig of memory gigabit Ethernet.
(It is grate to work for a company with enough revenue to give the IT dept. a huge budget for eval.)
Originally posted by DGNR8
I never once said that the G5?s were faster in my post. But the truth is it outperformed the other two boxes. I am not going to go into all the details I will just explain a bit how I came to my conclusion in ?Real world testing? not benchmark testing.
In the account software package (Using Cobol and via terminal emulation) that we use reports ran and finished at about ten minutes quicker that the dual Intel Xeon or the AMD Opteron. Not that the other two were chumps just the PowerMac Shined brighter. Also the Intel and AMD boxes were taking on 60 users at once with only the accounting package and they were starting reach there limits and it was very obvious. But the PowerMac took on the same load, and get this, took on the entire request for our web-based CRM and intranet and sustained VPN connection all at once. True when all three actions were happing the PowerMac began to show its threshold, but it was able to perform all three where as the Intel and AMD boxes were not able to.
Like I said ?real world testing?, benchmarks mean crap when the company is counting on you to get the job done. Also to condense six servers down to two is a godsend for administration purposes. (Six servers = 3 live ? 3 redundant)
I am not an Intel or AMD basher. I am not an Apple lapdog. I just see an advantage to the G5 (RISC) processors. I know there is more there than just the processors I was just pointing out that Apple should retain the G5 for there server lines.
Just to note the Opteron was far more impressive that the Xeon IMHO.
Before you ask they all ran 2Gig of memory gigabit Ethernet.
(It is grate to work for a company with enough revenue to give the IT dept. a huge budget for eval.)
that's a great apple-in-the-enterprise story. i'm sure you'll have powermac g5s or xserves, etc for a few years to come
no worries, i think its good to have a case study of sorts like you mentioned
curious, are you aware of IIRC anandtech showing powermac g5 suffering w.r.t mysql loads compared to... whatever it is they compared to, my brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment.
G5 64Bit PowerPC Processor is the best buy bar none in the server market.
Please help us understand two things:
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
Imagine that you're the VP for Global Sales and Marketing for the G4 at Moto. Imagine that every week your regional sales managers call in and you go down the list and you say "OK, who's got a new opportunity for laptops or desktops, or servers?". And every week, every one of your regional sales manages says "Got nutt'n".
I'm guessing that after the first 400 or 500 weekly sales meetings full of "Got nutt'n", even a VP for Global Sales and Marketing is going to figure out that he's not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine.
And his counterpart over at IBM's got G5s sell and he's got a Rolodex with customer contacts. I don't think that he gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he flips it open and finds two cutomers, and one of them is him.
2) As an 'IT Manager' you must familar with all of the revelent test results. Let's start with SPEC. Please explain to us why PPC scores are so weak. And for bonus points, how's about and analysis of TPC or SAP or PeopleSoft results.
It's real easy to claim that "I've got my secret test that shows that mine is better than your's", but it's a whole nother thing to come out into the open and compete on a level playing field.
It's gets more than a little tiring to hear people trying to bash benchmarks as 'not real world'. Benchmarks are open competitions. If you can't do well in open competitions then you're not going to do well for your average customer.
curious, are you aware of IIRC anandtech showing powermac g5 suffering w.r.t mysql loads compared to... whatever it is they compared to, my brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment.
This is probably what you had in mind:
http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
The G5 is a good implementation of a good architecture. It's not stellar, but it's good. However, the current implementation of OS X has major problems for server applications.
Originally posted by sillyfool
Please help us understand two things:
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
Imagine that you're the VP for Global Sales and Marketing for the G4 at Moto. Imagine that every week your regional sales managers call in and you go down the list and you say "OK, who's got a new opportunity for laptops or desktops, or servers?". And every week, every one of your regional sales manages says "Got nutt'n".
I'm guessing that after the first 400 or 500 weekly sales meetings full of "Got nutt'n", even a VP for Global Sales and Marketing is going to figure out that he's not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine.
And his counterpart over at IBM's got G5s sell and he's got a Rolodex with customer contacts. I don't think that he gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he flips it open and finds two cutomers, and one of them is him.
2) As an 'IT Manager' you must familar with all of the revelent test results. Let's start with SPEC. Please explain to us why PPC scores are so weak. And for bonus points, how's about and analysis of TPC or SAP or PeopleSoft results.
It's real easy to claim that "I've got my secret test that shows that mine is better than your's", but it's a whole nother thing to come out into the open and compete on a level playing field.
It's gets more than a little tiring to hear people trying to bash benchmarks as 'not real world'. Benchmarks are open competitions. If you can't do well in open competitions then you're not going to do well for your average customer.
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I shut up mind my own business, damn?.
Originally posted by DGNR8
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I shut up mind my own business, damn?.
mate, don't take it too hard
Originally posted by sunilraman
mate, don't take it too hard
I appreciate that very much, I try very hard to understand our user?s frustrations and not to be condescending to them or be little them in any way. I remember when I was trying to learn and how I was treated and do not want to thought of that way. You have to be patient with the end users they do not have your knowledge.
The way I look at it is I know how to work on my 1970 Pontiac GTO but I have to take it to the dealership for my 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. You can?t now everything so that?s why you seek help else where.