[quote]And what would make Apple right? How fast do the Towers need to be?
2GHz?...oh but wait, Intel is going to have a 2.2 GHz soon...
It's a never ending race. Even if Apple catches up, its sure to lose the lead again, only to catch up again.
<hr></blockquote>
I would be content to be in the same general performance range as Wintels. That means I can run Photoshop on a Mac about as fast as I can on a PC--WITHOUT resorting to only altivec optimized filters. It means that a Mac will be as fast as a PC, on non-Altivec stuff. Then when you throw in Altivec, Macs wipe the floor with PCs.
I don't think this is all that much to expect from Apple. I'm not asking for Moto to match x86 performance, only to be pretty close.
And when I say "performance", I mean just that, NOT MHz. If a 1 GHz G4 were equal in performance to a 2GHz P4, then cool. But based on most benchmarks I've seen, reality is that a G4 is not competitive with a pentium 4 at anything but a few tasks that are highly optimized for Altivec.
So no, Powermacs don't have to be faster than Wintel boxes, but it would be nice if they were almost as fast.
What is the purpose of this thread's title? Pessimists, by defintion, always expect the worst to happen. Of course they won't be happy enough. Of course!
And what would make Apple right? How fast do the Towers need to be?
2GHz?...oh but wait, Intel is going to have a 2.2 GHz soon...
It's a never ending race. Even if Apple catches up, its sure to lose the lead again, only to catch up again.
Yeah, I'd like faster and cheaper stuff too. Yes, Apple needs to be more competitive. But some have blown things out of proportion and like I said before, are things that bad that you're going to go Wintel? For the majority of us here, I think not.
So in other words, we're at the mercy of Apple with arguably slower than Intel speeds, but I'd take that over the alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point was is that's the only thing wrong with Apple, their tower speeds. If the towers were faster or closer to Intel, the pessimists wouldn't have much to bitch about. Price is no longer a legit gripe, the iMac is no longer a legit gripe, software is no longer a legit gripe, after X.2 it's sluggishness will no longer be a legit gripe.
The only legit gripe left for whiners to whine about is the tower's speed. If Apple releases a G5 or a G4 at 1.6ghz then I believe a lot of whiners will STFU.
I'm not a whiner, I was explaining their only whine. I will never use windows. I think i would learn unix before I had to switch to windows.
Comments
2GHz?...oh but wait, Intel is going to have a 2.2 GHz soon...
It's a never ending race. Even if Apple catches up, its sure to lose the lead again, only to catch up again.
<hr></blockquote>
I would be content to be in the same general performance range as Wintels. That means I can run Photoshop on a Mac about as fast as I can on a PC--WITHOUT resorting to only altivec optimized filters. It means that a Mac will be as fast as a PC, on non-Altivec stuff. Then when you throw in Altivec, Macs wipe the floor with PCs.
I don't think this is all that much to expect from Apple. I'm not asking for Moto to match x86 performance, only to be pretty close.
And when I say "performance", I mean just that, NOT MHz. If a 1 GHz G4 were equal in performance to a 2GHz P4, then cool. But based on most benchmarks I've seen, reality is that a G4 is not competitive with a pentium 4 at anything but a few tasks that are highly optimized for Altivec.
So no, Powermacs don't have to be faster than Wintel boxes, but it would be nice if they were almost as fast.
Is that unreasonable?
<strong>
And what would make Apple right? How fast do the Towers need to be?
2GHz?...oh but wait, Intel is going to have a 2.2 GHz soon...
It's a never ending race. Even if Apple catches up, its sure to lose the lead again, only to catch up again.
Yeah, I'd like faster and cheaper stuff too. Yes, Apple needs to be more competitive. But some have blown things out of proportion and like I said before, are things that bad that you're going to go Wintel? For the majority of us here, I think not.
So in other words, we're at the mercy of Apple with arguably slower than Intel speeds, but I'd take that over the alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point was is that's the only thing wrong with Apple, their tower speeds. If the towers were faster or closer to Intel, the pessimists wouldn't have much to bitch about. Price is no longer a legit gripe, the iMac is no longer a legit gripe, software is no longer a legit gripe, after X.2 it's sluggishness will no longer be a legit gripe.
The only legit gripe left for whiners to whine about is the tower's speed. If Apple releases a G5 or a G4 at 1.6ghz then I believe a lot of whiners will STFU.
I'm not a whiner, I was explaining their only whine. I will never use windows. I think i would learn unix before I had to switch to windows.