The biggest problem they seem to have now, is that Adobe has confirmed that, except for Lightbox, we won't see an Intel version of any of their software, including, it seems, that from Macromedia, until 2007.
That is holding back sales right now, and might restrict them even further. It's the reason the stock came down again, starting late yesterday. It had been rising .
Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...
Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...
Other than Aperture, I can't see what they could come up with. It's difficult coming up with a new program or compete with something that has been around for a long time, that has hundreds of features, has been honed, and works with many high-end hardware and software packages. When that program is part of the workflow of many companies, it's hard to dislodge it. When everyone is also trained to use that program, they are VERY reluctant to learn another one that might not make it, and that no one is asking for.
Look at Quark. Indesign has been around for quite a while now. People just HATE Quark as a company, and it's disregard for its customers. They failed to come out with an OS X version for years, etc., etc. InDesign has been regarded as having better overall design, usability, features, etc. But Quark is still king of the hill, even though those who don't really know the industry have been predicting its demise for years. While inDesign has gathered more users, it's still far behind. I use both, and prefer inDesign. But when customers demanded Quark files, you had to supply them. Too many publishing systems use Quark as their central piece of software.
The same thing is true of PS, though to a somewhat lesser extent, as Adobe made their plug-in architecture available to anyone. Which Quark didn't.
But, it would still be a long haul. Apple would pretty much have to match feature to feature, and have some compelling technologies that Adobe couldn't use as well. Version 1 would have to be a distance runner right out of the box. This is almost impossible for anyone to do.
Don't even get me started on Quark... the bane of designers everywhere.
That will always be the biggest difference between the two apps, and probably why InDesign will never win over Quark.
InDesign is for Graphic Designers who care most about design. InDesign gives you almost every tool you need to do whatever you want. Even if it means breaking rules, like being able to copy and paste directly from Illustrator or offering "effects" for any object.
Quark is for the printing industry which really doesn't care about design, and is just focused on the workflow of printing huge jobs. They don't want objects in the page which where "pasted" from somewhere else, or crazy effects that will crash the RIP.
If Apple wanted to take on Photoshop, I think it would be a much easier task because they already have quite a bit of respect in the design community, and have a good reputation with Final Cut Pro and such.
It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.
Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.
As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?
It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.
Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.
As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?
This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.
This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.
I suppose that this is really off topic, but Expression 3 (in that odd period when it was free) is a pretty good application. It certainly provides an interesting platform for Microsoft to push their whole Vista Expression software line.
Expression will include bitmap & vector graphics, Visual Studio GUI tools (imagine, Windows applications that actually look good!), and a web design application (that is supposed to provide handy hooks between their browser and Visual Studio code).
If it all works as advertised, this could drive adoption of Vista. On the other hand, Microsoft's attempts to create an internet that only works on Windows Vista computers may be doomed to failure. I'm afraid that the world probably won't sit still for a host of proprietary web standards. Also, Visual Studio will have to magically get a lot better than it is now for anybody to seriously devote the time and energy that this new platform will require.
Unless Adobe makes some serious mistakes in the next few years, I don't see Microsoft Expression going anywhere.
The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.
The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.
My feelings entirely. I also think you're absolutely right about Expression's being a means of driving Vista sales. They'll have something of a winner in that regard, but we'll see if it's anything more than that. The thought of a proprietary Vista internet makes me want to retch ...
MS is very concerned right now that things are spiraling out of control, from their perspective.
This new $100 computer initiative, now also being sponsored by the UN, has upset things in an unexpected way.
Remember, if you didn't already know, that Jobs offered OS X for the machine. That was rejected, as was MS's offer of Windows, in favor of the version of Linux that Red Had provides.
I don't know if there is anything that Apple will be doing to counter this, but MS has come up with a cockeyed scheme to provide cell phones with windows Mobile on them.
The idea that as many as 100 million $100 Linux machines will be circulating amongst the children of the third world is something that Bill, and I suppose Steve, as well, are becoming upset about.
If MS can do something to prevent that from discouraging the use of Windows, I can understand their stance.
Look at the new news.
Both AOL and Yahoo are planning to charge for the sending of e-mail to anyone on their services from outside!
supposedly this is to discourage spam, and such, but is it really?
Are we going to see the beginning of the closed IP networks that we've been reading about?
These are the things I'm concerned about. A Vista IP is just one part of it.
I was planning on buying a Quad after macworld, if there were no Intel machines coming out. But, now that the schedule has been moved up by a year, I'm waiting for the equivalent PM (or whatever it will be called).
Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.
It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.
Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.
It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.
Because, it's something I don't need. Just something I want. I no longer do much professional work ,only if I can't get out of it. So, I'd rather wait for the new unit.
Apple will be promoting the Quad in March, during the show, when they show off their Universal Binaries of their Pro editing programs. Supposedly, there will be a requirement for the Quad for something, I foreget what it is.
It does seem to me that Apple is unenthusiatic about the G5's. As the AppleInsider review shows, the Intel iMac is good for some things. Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration. Apple's speed claims, their enthusiasm for the Intel products, and their rapid phasing-out of the G5 iMac should make anyone think twice about buying a G5 Power Mac. Apple's failure to make clear commitments to continue developing G5 software in the future is a serious problem, given that Apple has a history of abandoning technologies before their customers are ready to do so. In promoting the Intels, Apple is promoting products that they don't actually sell yet, except for the iMac.
Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration.
Not sure why people think the SPECint and SPECfp rate benchmarks aren't accurate. They are about in line with what you'd expect based on other specint and specfp tests.
It does seem to me that Apple is unenthusiatic about the G5's. As the AppleInsider review shows, the Intel iMac is good for some things. Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration. Apple's speed claims, their enthusiasm for the Intel products, and their rapid phasing-out of the G5 iMac should make anyone think twice about buying a G5 Power Mac. Apple's failure to make clear commitments to continue developing G5 software in the future is a serious problem, given that Apple has a history of abandoning technologies before their customers are ready to do so. In promoting the Intels, Apple is promoting products that they don't actually sell yet, except for the iMac.
Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.
The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.
When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.
In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.
Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.
That's encouraging.
Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.
Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?
Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.
Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.
The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.
When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.
In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.
Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.
I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.
I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?
Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.
I wouldn't worry about ti.
I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)
As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?
dh87, you're making the mistake of treating Intel and Freescale as if they had equally-robust roadmaps for future chip development; which simply isn't the case. You might be confident that Freescale could have developed (and could keep developing) low-power G5 chips, but I have serious doubts that this was (or will be) the case. Freescale has put all of its eggs in the Xbox basket; which left Apple with enough uncertainty that they decided that the massive change needed to be made.
I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.
The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.
But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.
Quote:
I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.
And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.
Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.
I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.
With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.
When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded up?twice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.
Quote:
I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)
I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.
But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.
The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.
IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.
What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.
Quote:
As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?
None.
What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.
It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.
If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.
Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.
Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".
If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.
The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.
But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.
From what I read, the Intel iMac is both faster and slower. Some of the tasks for which it is faster, like booting or starting programs*, seem to me irrelevant, while the ones on which it's slower, like running Photoshop, seem more important. Clearly, the results reflect the underlying strengths of the two chips, and different people will find different costs and benefits.
*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Word?say up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIci?would be a real benefit.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.
Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.
I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.
With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.
When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded up?twice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.
I can't comment from personal experience. When the G5 (or G4) came out, people said "It's fast now, but wait until the OS is really optimized for it." Months went by, new versions of the OS were introduced, but the great increases in speed never seemed to materialize.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.
But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.
The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.
IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.
What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.
What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.
It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.
If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.
Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.
Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".
If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.
My parenthetical comment about IBM and low power chips was sarcastic.
The part of your comparison that I suggest is unfair is the comparison of existing chips to future chips. The iMac does have some limitations on the "desktop" chips that it can accept. Presumably a dual core G5, which would certainly be faster than a Core Duo, would overcook it. Whether a Conroe in its initial production runs will be suitable in cost or in heat for an iMac can't be known. Hence, the only real comparison is an existing Core Duo and a single G5.
My original point is that by promoting the Intels exclusively, Apple is persuading people to put off their computer purchases. Apple doesn't have to do this; the G5 is a good desktop chip, and Apple could be providing specific assurances that they will be providing high-quality support for it into the future. Instead, if I were in the market for a new computer, I'd be wondering and waiting.
*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Word?say up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIci?would be a real benefit.
Personally, I contend that Word 5.1a was the pinnacle of MS's Mac achievement.
Personally, I contend that Word 5.1a was the pinnacle of MS's Mac achievement.
I have an installed copy of Word 5. Documents with Endnote citations created in Word 5 can't be opened in later versions of Word. I was never able to get Word 5 to work properly under OS 9, however.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
The biggest problem they seem to have now, is that Adobe has confirmed that, except for Lightbox, we won't see an Intel version of any of their software, including, it seems, that from Macromedia, until 2007.
That is holding back sales right now, and might restrict them even further. It's the reason the stock came down again, starting late yesterday. It had been rising .
Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...
Other than Aperture, I can't see what they could come up with. It's difficult coming up with a new program or compete with something that has been around for a long time, that has hundreds of features, has been honed, and works with many high-end hardware and software packages. When that program is part of the workflow of many companies, it's hard to dislodge it. When everyone is also trained to use that program, they are VERY reluctant to learn another one that might not make it, and that no one is asking for.
Look at Quark. Indesign has been around for quite a while now. People just HATE Quark as a company, and it's disregard for its customers. They failed to come out with an OS X version for years, etc., etc. InDesign has been regarded as having better overall design, usability, features, etc. But Quark is still king of the hill, even though those who don't really know the industry have been predicting its demise for years. While inDesign has gathered more users, it's still far behind. I use both, and prefer inDesign. But when customers demanded Quark files, you had to supply them. Too many publishing systems use Quark as their central piece of software.
The same thing is true of PS, though to a somewhat lesser extent, as Adobe made their plug-in architecture available to anyone. Which Quark didn't.
But, it would still be a long haul. Apple would pretty much have to match feature to feature, and have some compelling technologies that Adobe couldn't use as well. Version 1 would have to be a distance runner right out of the box. This is almost impossible for anyone to do.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Don't even get me started on Quark... the bane of designers everywhere.
That will always be the biggest difference between the two apps, and probably why InDesign will never win over Quark.
InDesign is for Graphic Designers who care most about design. InDesign gives you almost every tool you need to do whatever you want. Even if it means breaking rules, like being able to copy and paste directly from Illustrator or offering "effects" for any object.
Quark is for the printing industry which really doesn't care about design, and is just focused on the workflow of printing huge jobs. They don't want objects in the page which where "pasted" from somewhere else, or crazy effects that will crash the RIP.
If Apple wanted to take on Photoshop, I think it would be a much easier task because they already have quite a bit of respect in the design community, and have a good reputation with Final Cut Pro and such.
It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.
Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.
As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?
Originally posted by Sybaritic
Good thread, meandering and curious.
It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.
Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.
As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?
This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.
Originally posted by melgross
This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.
I suppose that this is really off topic, but Expression 3 (in that odd period when it was free) is a pretty good application. It certainly provides an interesting platform for Microsoft to push their whole Vista Expression software line.
Expression will include bitmap & vector graphics, Visual Studio GUI tools (imagine, Windows applications that actually look good!), and a web design application (that is supposed to provide handy hooks between their browser and Visual Studio code).
If it all works as advertised, this could drive adoption of Vista. On the other hand, Microsoft's attempts to create an internet that only works on Windows Vista computers may be doomed to failure. I'm afraid that the world probably won't sit still for a host of proprietary web standards. Also, Visual Studio will have to magically get a lot better than it is now for anybody to seriously devote the time and energy that this new platform will require.
Unless Adobe makes some serious mistakes in the next few years, I don't see Microsoft Expression going anywhere.
The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.
originally posted by dws:
The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.
My feelings entirely. I also think you're absolutely right about Expression's being a means of driving Vista sales. They'll have something of a winner in that regard, but we'll see if it's anything more than that. The thought of a proprietary Vista internet makes me want to retch ...
This new $100 computer initiative, now also being sponsored by the UN, has upset things in an unexpected way.
Remember, if you didn't already know, that Jobs offered OS X for the machine. That was rejected, as was MS's offer of Windows, in favor of the version of Linux that Red Had provides.
I don't know if there is anything that Apple will be doing to counter this, but MS has come up with a cockeyed scheme to provide cell phones with windows Mobile on them.
The idea that as many as 100 million $100 Linux machines will be circulating amongst the children of the third world is something that Bill, and I suppose Steve, as well, are becoming upset about.
If MS can do something to prevent that from discouraging the use of Windows, I can understand their stance.
Look at the new news.
Both AOL and Yahoo are planning to charge for the sending of e-mail to anyone on their services from outside!
supposedly this is to discourage spam, and such, but is it really?
Are we going to see the beginning of the closed IP networks that we've been reading about?
These are the things I'm concerned about. A Vista IP is just one part of it.
Originally posted by melgross
I was planning on buying a Quad after macworld, if there were no Intel machines coming out. But, now that the schedule has been moved up by a year, I'm waiting for the equivalent PM (or whatever it will be called).
Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.
It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.
Originally posted by dh87
Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.
It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.
Because, it's something I don't need. Just something I want. I no longer do much professional work ,only if I can't get out of it. So, I'd rather wait for the new unit.
Apple will be promoting the Quad in March, during the show, when they show off their Universal Binaries of their Pro editing programs. Supposedly, there will be a requirement for the Quad for something, I foreget what it is.
Originally posted by dh87
Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration.
Not sure why people think the SPECint and SPECfp rate benchmarks aren't accurate. They are about in line with what you'd expect based on other specint and specfp tests.
Originally posted by dh87
It does seem to me that Apple is unenthusiatic about the G5's. As the AppleInsider review shows, the Intel iMac is good for some things. Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration. Apple's speed claims, their enthusiasm for the Intel products, and their rapid phasing-out of the G5 iMac should make anyone think twice about buying a G5 Power Mac. Apple's failure to make clear commitments to continue developing G5 software in the future is a serious problem, given that Apple has a history of abandoning technologies before their customers are ready to do so. In promoting the Intels, Apple is promoting products that they don't actually sell yet, except for the iMac.
Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.
The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.
When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.
In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.
Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.
That's encouraging.
Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.
Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?
Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.
I wouldn't worry about ti.
Originally posted by melgross
Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.
The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.
When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.
In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.
Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.
I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.
Originally posted by melgross
Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.
I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.
Originally posted by melgross
Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?
Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.
I wouldn't worry about ti.
I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)
As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?
None.
Originally posted by dh87
I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.
The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.
But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.
Quote:
I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.
And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.
Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.
I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.
With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.
When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded up?twice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.
Quote:
I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)
I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.
But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.
The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.
IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.
What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.
Quote:
As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?
None.
What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.
It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.
If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.
Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.
Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".
If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.
Originally posted by melgross
The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.
But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.
From what I read, the Intel iMac is both faster and slower. Some of the tasks for which it is faster, like booting or starting programs*, seem to me irrelevant, while the ones on which it's slower, like running Photoshop, seem more important. Clearly, the results reflect the underlying strengths of the two chips, and different people will find different costs and benefits.
*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Word?say up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIci?would be a real benefit.
Originally posted by melgross
And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.
Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.
I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.
With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.
When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded up?twice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.
I can't comment from personal experience. When the G5 (or G4) came out, people said "It's fast now, but wait until the OS is really optimized for it." Months went by, new versions of the OS were introduced, but the great increases in speed never seemed to materialize.
Originally posted by melgross
I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.
But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.
The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.
IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.
What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.
What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.
It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.
If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.
Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.
Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".
If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.
My parenthetical comment about IBM and low power chips was sarcastic.
The part of your comparison that I suggest is unfair is the comparison of existing chips to future chips. The iMac does have some limitations on the "desktop" chips that it can accept. Presumably a dual core G5, which would certainly be faster than a Core Duo, would overcook it. Whether a Conroe in its initial production runs will be suitable in cost or in heat for an iMac can't be known. Hence, the only real comparison is an existing Core Duo and a single G5.
My original point is that by promoting the Intels exclusively, Apple is persuading people to put off their computer purchases. Apple doesn't have to do this; the G5 is a good desktop chip, and Apple could be providing specific assurances that they will be providing high-quality support for it into the future. Instead, if I were in the market for a new computer, I'd be wondering and waiting.
Originally posted by dh87
*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Word?say up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIci?would be a real benefit.
Personally, I contend that Word 5.1a was the pinnacle of MS's Mac achievement.
Originally posted by lundy
Personally, I contend that Word 5.1a was the pinnacle of MS's Mac achievement.
I have an installed copy of Word 5. Documents with Endnote citations created in Word 5 can't be opened in later versions of Word. I was never able to get Word 5 to work properly under OS 9, however.