I wouldn't be suprised if Steve Jobs unvieled the PowerMac G5 range at MW Tokyo in March. Why would they it put back to March, a month later than usual isn't it?
Maybe Apple is readying G5 chips and the top model at 2Ghz, THAT would give intel a run for their money!!!!
Special Events are not "low Profile". That's how they introed the new iBook and iPod. The problem is that there isn't going to be a Special Event if new PowerMacs are released next week. The press has not been notified. MacUser says there will be a press release and that's all. Probably no new form factor, just an upgrade on the chip side. Too bad, Apple needs to do a "iMac" and reveal their new mini Tower form. Looks like that won't occur until MWNY this summer. What happens (if it does) next week is a stop gap measure I'm afraid.
<strong>Instead of worrying about comparing penis size... I mean Quake frame rates... with Pentium and Athlon users, think about the real world and just how well these things will run OS X, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop when it finally appears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen, sister.
I'm starting to think more than half the people whining about this thing aren't even in the market for one, and if they are, it's so they can fire up Internet Explorer, come here, and post about HOW FAST their G5 is.
"Internet Explorer loaded in, like, half a second!"
If people bought dual 800's and actually spent as much time using them for work as they do coming here and bitching about clockspeed, their productivity increase would probably be greater than they'd get from having a 1.6 GHz G5 anyway.
Oh, and never mind with ther "I need it for rendering <insert high end graphics software title>. I'm not talking about you.
<strong>The other explanation (of course), is that Apple is only able to sell what is available from their suppliers.</strong><hr></blockquote>I can see right now that you don't belong here.
... Motorola acknowledged that the G4 is a dead-end road and allocated 80% of the enineering-manpower to the development of the G5 a year and a half ago?
... Steve acknowledged that Apple lost the GHz battle and therefore tries to win the war by skipping the 1.x GHz era and jumping right into the 2.x GHz league
There were times when thousands of engineers tried to get another 5% speed out of prop aircraft whilst others were working on jet-engines...
Instead of worrying about comparing penis size... I mean Quake frame rates... with Pentium and Athlon users, think about the real world and just how well these things will run OS X, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop when it finally appears.
Uhh, yeah right. DP 800 gets its ass kicked by an Athlon XP 1700 even in Photoshop. If Apple keeps the 133MHz bus you are pretty much guaranteed that a DP 1GHz would lose to an Athlon XP 2000. And that's in Photoshop. That will probably be by 20% or less - any other app on the planet will be by far more.
I'm starting to think more than half the people whining about this thing aren't even in the market for one, and if they are, it's so they can fire up Internet Explorer, come here, and post about HOW FAST their G5 is.
Did you ever think people here might want for Apple to continue selling machines, so that they can continue to stay in business and make OS upgrades and what not for us? Or so other companies will actually produce software for Mac OS X?
<strong>Uhh, yeah right. DP 800 gets its ass kicked by an Athlon XP 1700 even in Photoshop. If Apple keeps the 133MHz bus you are pretty much guaranteed that a DP 1GHz would lose to an Athlon XP 2000. And that's in Photoshop. That will probably be by 20% or less - any other app on the planet will be by far more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh dear god. You're comparing your penis again. It doesn't matter. A dual 800MHz Power Mac runs Photoshop just great. Okay, so it's maybe not as fast as an Athlon for some functions, but even if Apple's hardware ran twice as fast as its competitors, the difference in performance of an application like Photoshop would be nowhere like 2x.
Windows users would not switch to Apple hardware even if this was the case, because people buy Windows-based hardware for many other reasons.
[quote]<strong>Did you ever think people here might want for Apple to continue selling machines, so that they can continue to stay in business and make OS upgrades and what not for us? Or so other companies will actually produce software for Mac OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.
What Apple needs to do is increase market share, and hardware performance is not as big an issue in persuading users to switch platform as you seem to think it is.
Out of interest, where'd you get the information about Photoshop on the Athlon XP 1700 and dual 800MHz G4?
[quote]Originally posted by Michael Grey:
<strong>I'm using an iBook.
I...I have a tiny frame rate....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry, Michael Grey, you seem to have less issues about it than crayz. And it's all about how you use your Mac, not how big or fast it is.
Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm....no they wouldn't. I for one am going to hold out for a G5, or until after MWNY, whichever comes first.
Instead of worrying about comparing penis size... I mean Quake frame rates... with Pentium and Athlon users, think about the real world and just how well these things will run OS X, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop when it finally appears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, if they're dual machines, wouldn't breast size be a better metaphor?
> Oh dear god. You're comparing your penis again.
You are the only one coming up with a penis here and I am starting to think that you might have a penis fixation.
> It doesn't matter. A dual 800MHz Power Mac runs
> Photoshop just great. Okay, so it's maybe not
> as fast as an Athlon for some functions, but
> even if Apple's hardware ran twice as fast as
> its competitors, the difference in performance
> of an application like Photoshop would be
> nowhere like 2x.
Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.
> Windows users would not switch to Apple
> hardware even if this was the case, because
> people buy Windows-based hardware for many
> other reasons.
I think that the point is not Windows users going to Mac but rather Mac users going to Windows, because _some_ people need every bit of performace they get (for example if doing 3D, big photoshop pics with 100+ layers, video composing, etc). It's the PRO market that spends the big money and they are all about performance - not penis size - because it makes them work faster.
If for the same money you can get a speedier Athlon box and you need the power you will not go to use a Mac (even if you used one before). That was the reason for people buying SGI computers around 1990 and converting to NT workstations after 1998.
> Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual
> 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users
> over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.
No it wont. G5 and dual G4 machines are the PRO lineup, and a professional graphic/3D designer is not gonna spend his cash on a machine that has a bus that is as slow as the G4 one.
> What Apple needs to do is increase market
> share, and hardware performance is not as big
> an issue in persuading users to switch platform
> as you seem to think it is.
Duh, professional users care about nothing but performance and while you don't seem to "get" the concept of a _power_mac. Studios that are looking for their next lineup of workstations are looking for speed for theit bucks. And the pro users are most likely to buy it all at Apple thus generating more profit than the ones who don't care about performance.
> Out of interest, where'd you get the
> information about Photoshop on the Athlon XP
> 1700 and dual 800MHz G4?
It's obvious that at memory-intensive tasks the Athlon XP will dominate the G4. And for the money you need for a dual 800 G4 you most likely get a dual 1700 MP Athlon as well which wipes the floor with the G4's. 70% more mhz, faster RAM and bus (= faster HDD access too). And they mhz myth isn't that much of an argument with Athlons as it's with the Pentium 4s.
> Don't worry, Michael Grey, you seem to have
> less issues about it than crayz. And it's all
> about how you use your Mac, not how big or
> fast it is.
To some people it's how they use it and to others it's how fast it is. You may play with your digital camera on your iMac, but the digital content creation shop that is looking for 10 new machines thinks different about it.
[quote]<strong>I think that the point is not Windows users going to Mac but rather Mac users going to Windows, because _some_ people need every bit of performace they get (for example if doing 3D, big photoshop pics with 100+ layers, video composing, etc). It's the PRO market that spends the big money and they are all about performance - not penis size - because it makes them work faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately for your argument, there are a lot of technologies on the Mac that invalidate the raw speed advantage for the professionals who buy Macs: AppleScript. ColorSync. Real PostScript support (esp. fonts). Ease of networking and troubleshooting (due in no small part to years of experience). Font management. And the apps run better under MacOS, even though at this point some of the filters might run faster on a PC.
Of course, the Mac professionals would like to have a machine that blows the doors off any PC and has all the other advantages. But I doubt many Mac professionals are going anywhere. Professionals want speed, yes. But many, many more things than CPU performance contribute to a professional's definition of speed. Anything that lets them get work done faster counts.
> lot of technologies on the Mac that invalidate
> the raw speed advantage for the professionals
> who buy Macs: AppleScript.
I never saw it used - what can you do with AppleScript that you can't on Windows?`
> ColorSync.
Color synchronisation is as well posible on a Windows machine given that you know how to set it up. And professionals usually do.
> Real PostScript support (esp. fonts).
Postscript works on my NT machine as good as on a mac, afaik
> Ease of networking and troubleshooting (due in
> no small part to years of experience).
Never had problems with networking in a windows environment, mostly because it's pretty similiar - you have got IP adresses and then you can share resources. Yay.
> Font management.
Under MacOS 9 font managment is more of a pain than on windows machines, plus you can get ATM for windows as well. I had more problems with fonts (mainly ps type1 and 2) than ever on a windows machine.
> And the apps run better under MacOS,
With all the crashing? I am using Windows NT and I must say the Apps run better than on the G4 with OS9. Lack of real memory managment and multitasking in OS9 is to blame. And don't say OSX because I have not seen Xpress, Photoshop, Flash and Dreamweaver for OSX yet.
> even though at this point some of the filters
> might run faster on a PC.
I don't use filters.
> Of course, the Mac professionals would like to
> have a machine that blows the doors off any PC
> and has all the other advantages. But I
> doubt many Mac professionals are going
> anywhere.
Maybe ont "mac" professionals, but I saw a lot of multimedia folks abandoning the Mac (put it on ice?) in the last 2 years.
> Professionals want speed, yes. But many, many
> more things than CPU performance contribute to
> a professional's definition of speed.
> Anything that lets them get work done
> faster counts.
Exactly - faster bus, faster memory, faster graphic cards and faster HDDs. Of those you can only match HDD speed with a G4 powermac holding SCSI drives. The bus, the memory and the graphic cards are way below what you can call "pro" on the powermac. I don't really see your point here..
[quote]AppleScript. ColorSync. Real PostScript support<hr></blockquote>
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.
Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT. Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.
<strong>Umm....no they wouldn't. I for one am going to hold out for a G5, or until after MWNY, whichever comes first. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I realise many people will make the same decision as you, but out of interest, do you make the buying decision for the secret Rebel base? Or an IT department? A media company? An educational establishment? Or is your purchase a single Mac for your own use?
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Actually, if they're dual machines, wouldn't breast size be a better metaphor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shush Amorph, you'll upset xype.
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>You are the only one coming up with a penis here and I am starting to think that you might have a penis fixation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, you've got me there. I do.
[quote]<strong>Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reread my post. I didn't say it would run slower. I said that if the hardware (In particular the processor) was twice as fast, that would not necessarily make the software run twice as fast. A 2GHz Pentium 4 will not necessarily perform Photoshop functions twice as fast as a 1GHz Pentium 4.
[quote]<strong>I think that the point is not Windows users going to Mac but rather Mac users going to Windows, because _some_ people need every bit of performace they get (for example if doing 3D, big photoshop pics with 100+ layers, video composing, etc). It's the PRO market that spends the big money and they are all about performance - not penis size - because it makes them work faster.
If for the same money you can get a speedier Athlon box and you need the power you will not go to use a Mac (even if you used one before). That was the reason for people buying SGI computers around 1990 and converting to NT workstations after 1998.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very good point, losing customers through poor performance would be a major issue. However, the comparitive benchmarks for 3D rendering, Photoshop processing, video processing and compression, etc. don't show up a wide gap in performance between the high end Macs and Intel/AMD based machines. G4 machines (Especially duals with properly written software) more than keep up with the fastest Pentium or Athlon machines in these tasks. The widest gap you'll see in any benchmark comparisons is in games performance.
[quote]<strong>No it wont. G5 and dual G4 machines are the PRO lineup, and a professional graphic/3D designer is not gonna spend his cash on a machine that has a bus that is as slow as the G4 one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that "professional" feels he/she needs a faster machine than is currently on his/her desk, then a faster G4 will be an incentive to upgrade. If there isn't an incentive for a "professional graphic/3D designer" to make that upgrade, there is no incentive to switch to the current Pentium 4 or Athlon based machines either, because the performance gap is negligible. A G5 may be more of an incentive, but this whole situation shows up a failing on the part of people posting to this forum, not Apple or Motorola. To expect processor speeds in Apple machines to leap suddenly from 800MHz to 1.6GHz is utterly ridiculous. As I've said before, even if Apple had these processors, to make that leap overnight would be an unsound move financially, especially if faster G5s won't appear for many, many months.
[quote]<strong>Duh, professional users care about nothing but performance and while you don't seem to "get" the concept of a _power_mac. Studios that are looking for their next lineup of workstations are looking for speed for theit bucks. And the pro users are most likely to buy it all at Apple thus generating more profit than the ones who don't care about performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that a studio currently working on Windows-based machines would make the decision to switch to more expensive Apple hardware if a 1.6GHz G5 with all the bells and whistles was announced tomorrow? I doubt it because the performance will not be significantly better than the current Pentium/Athlon based machines, and those studios will have already made massive investments in Windows software packages.
Will Apple-based studios switch to Windows for their next purchases if all Apple can manage is a dual 1GHz machine? No, for exactly the same reasons.
Performance is not currently a huge factor in increasing market share. In fact, the pro market is not currently one of the biggest factors.
[quote]<strong>It's obvious that at memory-intensive tasks the Athlon XP will dominate the G4. And for the money you need for a dual 800 G4 you most likely get a dual 1700 MP Athlon as well which wipes the floor with the G4's. 70% more mhz, faster RAM and bus (= faster HDD access too). And they mhz myth isn't that much of an argument with Athlons as it's with the Pentium 4s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it obvious? I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks for that. I don't really follow the shootouts as closely as perhaps I ought to. When you said an Athlon XP 1700 would kick a dual 800MHz G4, did you mean a dual Athlon machine or a single?
So, if you can buy a dual Athlon XP 1700 machine that wipes the floor with a dual 800MHz G4, and both machines have been on the market for quite some time, it seems a lot of people are still willing to stick with seemingly slower Apple machines.
[quote]<strong>To some people it's how they use it and to others it's how fast it is. You may play with your digital camera on your iMac, but the digital content creation shop that is looking for 10 new machines thinks different about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, well I just ordered a new iMac and digital camera, so I guess I'll be happy.
I also co-own a company that creates digital content. We just increased capacity in our film department, and now have a total of 24 Power Macs in that department. The decision was made on price, performance, available software, and hardware features.
We went with Apple hardware for several reasons - Final Cut Pro offered better features over Premiere, and even our old 500MHz G4 runs FCP just as well as the fastest Intel/AMD machine could run Premiere. Same goes for After Effects. DVD Studio Pro was also a big factor in choosing Macintosh, as was the SuperDrive, and the price and quality of Apple's displays. We bought three Avid Media Composer systems, and chose to go with the G4-based solutions because there's no performance gain in going for the Windows-based system.
We've also saved money in that we've not needed to get expensive realtime cards for all the machines because the faster G4s get realtime processing in FCP3.
I'd consider our company a very professional outfit, and a company with only one Apple evangelist (Me), and yet the decisions were made by eight people, and not one questioned processor and bus speed, only the performance of the system and software as a whole.
I wouldn't dare to suggest this is the case with every "professional" out there, but it does show that the guts of a machine aren't always that big a factor in choosing the best performing system.
Comments
Maybe Apple is readying G5 chips and the top model at 2Ghz, THAT would give intel a run for their money!!!!
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: mattyj ]</p>
Yeah, Baby! Remember Guadacanal!
<strong>Instead of worrying about comparing penis size... I mean Quake frame rates... with Pentium and Athlon users, think about the real world and just how well these things will run OS X, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop when it finally appears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen, sister.
I'm starting to think more than half the people whining about this thing aren't even in the market for one, and if they are, it's so they can fire up Internet Explorer, come here, and post about HOW FAST their G5 is.
"Internet Explorer loaded in, like, half a second!"
If people bought dual 800's and actually spent as much time using them for work as they do coming here and bitching about clockspeed, their productivity increase would probably be greater than they'd get from having a 1.6 GHz G5 anyway.
Oh, and never mind with ther "I need it for rendering <insert high end graphics software title>. I'm not talking about you.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
<strong>If rumors are to be believed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
?we would have had iWalks, 1.6GHz Power Mac G5s and more.
<strong>The other explanation (of course), is that Apple is only able to sell what is available from their suppliers.</strong><hr></blockquote>I can see right now that you don't belong here.
What if ...
... Motorola acknowledged that the G4 is a dead-end road and allocated 80% of the enineering-manpower to the development of the G5 a year and a half ago?
... Steve acknowledged that Apple lost the GHz battle and therefore tries to win the war by skipping the 1.x GHz era and jumping right into the 2.x GHz league
There were times when thousands of engineers tried to get another 5% speed out of prop aircraft whilst others were working on jet-engines...
Just a thought...
Uhh, yeah right. DP 800 gets its ass kicked by an Athlon XP 1700 even in Photoshop. If Apple keeps the 133MHz bus you are pretty much guaranteed that a DP 1GHz would lose to an Athlon XP 2000. And that's in Photoshop. That will probably be by 20% or less - any other app on the planet will be by far more.
Did you ever think people here might want for Apple to continue selling machines, so that they can continue to stay in business and make OS upgrades and what not for us? Or so other companies will actually produce software for Mac OS X?
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: crayz ]</p>
I...I have a tiny frame rate....
G-News
<strong>Uhh, yeah right. DP 800 gets its ass kicked by an Athlon XP 1700 even in Photoshop. If Apple keeps the 133MHz bus you are pretty much guaranteed that a DP 1GHz would lose to an Athlon XP 2000. And that's in Photoshop. That will probably be by 20% or less - any other app on the planet will be by far more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh dear god. You're comparing your penis again. It doesn't matter. A dual 800MHz Power Mac runs Photoshop just great. Okay, so it's maybe not as fast as an Athlon for some functions, but even if Apple's hardware ran twice as fast as its competitors, the difference in performance of an application like Photoshop would be nowhere like 2x.
Windows users would not switch to Apple hardware even if this was the case, because people buy Windows-based hardware for many other reasons.
[quote]<strong>Did you ever think people here might want for Apple to continue selling machines, so that they can continue to stay in business and make OS upgrades and what not for us? Or so other companies will actually produce software for Mac OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.
What Apple needs to do is increase market share, and hardware performance is not as big an issue in persuading users to switch platform as you seem to think it is.
Out of interest, where'd you get the information about Photoshop on the Athlon XP 1700 and dual 800MHz G4?
[quote]Originally posted by Michael Grey:
<strong>I'm using an iBook.
I...I have a tiny frame rate....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry, Michael Grey, you seem to have less issues about it than crayz. And it's all about how you use your Mac, not how big or fast it is.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>
Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm....no they wouldn't. I for one am going to hold out for a G5, or until after MWNY, whichever comes first.
<strong>Don't expect too much thinking happening here...
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahh? That explains most of your posts
<strong>
Instead of worrying about comparing penis size... I mean Quake frame rates... with Pentium and Athlon users, think about the real world and just how well these things will run OS X, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop when it finally appears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, if they're dual machines, wouldn't breast size be a better metaphor?
Seriously though, good post.
> Oh dear god. You're comparing your penis again.
You are the only one coming up with a penis here and I am starting to think that you might have a penis fixation.
> It doesn't matter. A dual 800MHz Power Mac runs
> Photoshop just great. Okay, so it's maybe not
> as fast as an Athlon for some functions, but
> even if Apple's hardware ran twice as fast as
> its competitors, the difference in performance
> of an application like Photoshop would be
> nowhere like 2x.
Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.
> Windows users would not switch to Apple
> hardware even if this was the case, because
> people buy Windows-based hardware for many
> other reasons.
I think that the point is not Windows users going to Mac but rather Mac users going to Windows, because _some_ people need every bit of performace they get (for example if doing 3D, big photoshop pics with 100+ layers, video composing, etc). It's the PRO market that spends the big money and they are all about performance - not penis size - because it makes them work faster.
If for the same money you can get a speedier Athlon box and you need the power you will not go to use a Mac (even if you used one before). That was the reason for people buying SGI computers around 1990 and converting to NT workstations after 1998.
> Um, yes. But Apple would sell just as many dual
> 1GHz G4 machines to current Power Mac users
> over the next few months as it would 1.6GHz G5s.
No it wont. G5 and dual G4 machines are the PRO lineup, and a professional graphic/3D designer is not gonna spend his cash on a machine that has a bus that is as slow as the G4 one.
> What Apple needs to do is increase market
> share, and hardware performance is not as big
> an issue in persuading users to switch platform
> as you seem to think it is.
Duh, professional users care about nothing but performance and while you don't seem to "get" the concept of a _power_mac. Studios that are looking for their next lineup of workstations are looking for speed for theit bucks. And the pro users are most likely to buy it all at Apple thus generating more profit than the ones who don't care about performance.
> Out of interest, where'd you get the
> information about Photoshop on the Athlon XP
> 1700 and dual 800MHz G4?
It's obvious that at memory-intensive tasks the Athlon XP will dominate the G4. And for the money you need for a dual 800 G4 you most likely get a dual 1700 MP Athlon as well which wipes the floor with the G4's. 70% more mhz, faster RAM and bus (= faster HDD access too). And they mhz myth isn't that much of an argument with Athlons as it's with the Pentium 4s.
> Don't worry, Michael Grey, you seem to have
> less issues about it than crayz. And it's all
> about how you use your Mac, not how big or
> fast it is.
To some people it's how they use it and to others it's how fast it is. You may play with your digital camera on your iMac, but the digital content creation shop that is looking for 10 new machines thinks different about it.
Unfortunately for your argument, there are a lot of technologies on the Mac that invalidate the raw speed advantage for the professionals who buy Macs: AppleScript. ColorSync. Real PostScript support (esp. fonts). Ease of networking and troubleshooting (due in no small part to years of experience). Font management. And the apps run better under MacOS, even though at this point some of the filters might run faster on a PC.
Of course, the Mac professionals would like to have a machine that blows the doors off any PC and has all the other advantages. But I doubt many Mac professionals are going anywhere. Professionals want speed, yes. But many, many more things than CPU performance contribute to a professional's definition of speed. Anything that lets them get work done faster counts.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
> Unfortunately for your argument, there are a
> lot of technologies on the Mac that invalidate
> the raw speed advantage for the professionals
> who buy Macs: AppleScript.
I never saw it used - what can you do with AppleScript that you can't on Windows?`
> ColorSync.
Color synchronisation is as well posible on a Windows machine given that you know how to set it up. And professionals usually do.
> Real PostScript support (esp. fonts).
Postscript works on my NT machine as good as on a mac, afaik
> Ease of networking and troubleshooting (due in
> no small part to years of experience).
Never had problems with networking in a windows environment, mostly because it's pretty similiar - you have got IP adresses and then you can share resources. Yay.
> Font management.
Under MacOS 9 font managment is more of a pain than on windows machines, plus you can get ATM for windows as well. I had more problems with fonts (mainly ps type1 and 2) than ever on a windows machine.
> And the apps run better under MacOS,
With all the crashing? I am using Windows NT and I must say the Apps run better than on the G4 with OS9. Lack of real memory managment and multitasking in OS9 is to blame. And don't say OSX because I have not seen Xpress, Photoshop, Flash and Dreamweaver for OSX yet.
> even though at this point some of the filters
> might run faster on a PC.
I don't use filters.
> Of course, the Mac professionals would like to
> have a machine that blows the doors off any PC
> and has all the other advantages. But I
> doubt many Mac professionals are going
> anywhere.
Maybe ont "mac" professionals, but I saw a lot of multimedia folks abandoning the Mac (put it on ice?) in the last 2 years.
> Professionals want speed, yes. But many, many
> more things than CPU performance contribute to
> a professional's definition of speed.
> Anything that lets them get work done
> faster counts.
Exactly - faster bus, faster memory, faster graphic cards and faster HDDs. Of those you can only match HDD speed with a G4 powermac holding SCSI drives. The bus, the memory and the graphic cards are way below what you can call "pro" on the powermac. I don't really see your point here..
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.
Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT. Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.
<strong>Umm....no they wouldn't. I for one am going to hold out for a G5, or until after MWNY, whichever comes first.
I realise many people will make the same decision as you, but out of interest, do you make the buying decision for the secret Rebel base? Or an IT department? A media company? An educational establishment? Or is your purchase a single Mac for your own use?
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Actually, if they're dual machines, wouldn't breast size be a better metaphor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shush Amorph, you'll upset xype.
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>You are the only one coming up with a penis here and I am starting to think that you might have a penis fixation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, you've got me there. I do.
[quote]<strong>Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reread my post. I didn't say it would run slower. I said that if the hardware (In particular the processor) was twice as fast, that would not necessarily make the software run twice as fast. A 2GHz Pentium 4 will not necessarily perform Photoshop functions twice as fast as a 1GHz Pentium 4.
[quote]<strong>I think that the point is not Windows users going to Mac but rather Mac users going to Windows, because _some_ people need every bit of performace they get (for example if doing 3D, big photoshop pics with 100+ layers, video composing, etc). It's the PRO market that spends the big money and they are all about performance - not penis size - because it makes them work faster.
If for the same money you can get a speedier Athlon box and you need the power you will not go to use a Mac (even if you used one before). That was the reason for people buying SGI computers around 1990 and converting to NT workstations after 1998.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very good point, losing customers through poor performance would be a major issue. However, the comparitive benchmarks for 3D rendering, Photoshop processing, video processing and compression, etc. don't show up a wide gap in performance between the high end Macs and Intel/AMD based machines. G4 machines (Especially duals with properly written software) more than keep up with the fastest Pentium or Athlon machines in these tasks. The widest gap you'll see in any benchmark comparisons is in games performance.
[quote]<strong>No it wont. G5 and dual G4 machines are the PRO lineup, and a professional graphic/3D designer is not gonna spend his cash on a machine that has a bus that is as slow as the G4 one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that "professional" feels he/she needs a faster machine than is currently on his/her desk, then a faster G4 will be an incentive to upgrade. If there isn't an incentive for a "professional graphic/3D designer" to make that upgrade, there is no incentive to switch to the current Pentium 4 or Athlon based machines either, because the performance gap is negligible. A G5 may be more of an incentive, but this whole situation shows up a failing on the part of people posting to this forum, not Apple or Motorola. To expect processor speeds in Apple machines to leap suddenly from 800MHz to 1.6GHz is utterly ridiculous. As I've said before, even if Apple had these processors, to make that leap overnight would be an unsound move financially, especially if faster G5s won't appear for many, many months.
[quote]<strong>Duh, professional users care about nothing but performance and while you don't seem to "get" the concept of a _power_mac. Studios that are looking for their next lineup of workstations are looking for speed for theit bucks. And the pro users are most likely to buy it all at Apple thus generating more profit than the ones who don't care about performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that a studio currently working on Windows-based machines would make the decision to switch to more expensive Apple hardware if a 1.6GHz G5 with all the bells and whistles was announced tomorrow? I doubt it because the performance will not be significantly better than the current Pentium/Athlon based machines, and those studios will have already made massive investments in Windows software packages.
Will Apple-based studios switch to Windows for their next purchases if all Apple can manage is a dual 1GHz machine? No, for exactly the same reasons.
Performance is not currently a huge factor in increasing market share. In fact, the pro market is not currently one of the biggest factors.
[quote]<strong>It's obvious that at memory-intensive tasks the Athlon XP will dominate the G4. And for the money you need for a dual 800 G4 you most likely get a dual 1700 MP Athlon as well which wipes the floor with the G4's. 70% more mhz, faster RAM and bus (= faster HDD access too). And they mhz myth isn't that much of an argument with Athlons as it's with the Pentium 4s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it obvious? I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks for that. I don't really follow the shootouts as closely as perhaps I ought to. When you said an Athlon XP 1700 would kick a dual 800MHz G4, did you mean a dual Athlon machine or a single?
So, if you can buy a dual Athlon XP 1700 machine that wipes the floor with a dual 800MHz G4, and both machines have been on the market for quite some time, it seems a lot of people are still willing to stick with seemingly slower Apple machines.
[quote]<strong>To some people it's how they use it and to others it's how fast it is. You may play with your digital camera on your iMac, but the digital content creation shop that is looking for 10 new machines thinks different about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, well I just ordered a new iMac and digital camera, so I guess I'll be happy.
I also co-own a company that creates digital content. We just increased capacity in our film department, and now have a total of 24 Power Macs in that department. The decision was made on price, performance, available software, and hardware features.
We went with Apple hardware for several reasons - Final Cut Pro offered better features over Premiere, and even our old 500MHz G4 runs FCP just as well as the fastest Intel/AMD machine could run Premiere. Same goes for After Effects. DVD Studio Pro was also a big factor in choosing Macintosh, as was the SuperDrive, and the price and quality of Apple's displays. We bought three Avid Media Composer systems, and chose to go with the G4-based solutions because there's no performance gain in going for the Windows-based system.
We've also saved money in that we've not needed to get expensive realtime cards for all the machines because the faster G4s get realtime processing in FCP3.
I'd consider our company a very professional outfit, and a company with only one Apple evangelist (Me), and yet the decisions were made by eight people, and not one questioned processor and bus speed, only the performance of the system and software as a whole.
I wouldn't dare to suggest this is the case with every "professional" out there, but it does show that the guts of a machine aren't always that big a factor in choosing the best performing system.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>