...they give you one page instructions for building an Appleseed cluster, and then direct you to a 230 page book on building Linux-based Beowulf clusters...
...VERY few users need more processing power than is currently available from even entry level systems. In fact, there have been many studies over the past couple years looking at the effects of computing power on operational efficiencies, basically showing that beyond a very mild level processing power, computers have little or no impact on efficency... </strong><hr></blockquote>
While I agree with you to a point, OS X does benefit from faster CPU's from what I've read, as well as Alti-Vec. For this reason alone Apple needs to increase the Speed of thier systems in the PowerMac line-up.
Apple does need faster computers, even if computers today offer more power than most people need. Even if a word processor, browser and email client could run happily on a 8100 or a 486? The truth is when people go shopping for a computer (or generally any product) they want something that's going to last. Just about any computer bought today has more than enough power to run today's software. But what about tomorrow's software? Or next year's software? This is something people think about and an 800 MHZ iMac seems slower than a 1.8 GHZ Windows machine for the same price.
So yes, if Apple were to revolutionize software with 100 more great iApps that all ran on an 800 MHZ iMac but they never changed the speed of their computers, they would go out of business.
All I'm saying is that the people that are overreacting to the MHZ issue are overreacting to a real issue. Their overreacting is not a sign that their worries are unfounded.
I think that for most people, the desire for speed isn't out of a legitimate need for it today, but a combination of two very sensible desires:
1) The desire to get *value*. It's human nature. You want to save a dollar on the supermarket chicken, you want to get the free upgrade at the rental car place. You want to get the best product you can for your hard-earned cash, and you want it to be a good buy in an absolute sense as well. If my neighbor had a 12 GHz Athlon today, I would seriously question my computer choices. He's obviously getting a much better performing machine, because -- let's face it -- 12 GHz would open up a whole 'nother world of abilities.
2) The desire for your purchase to LAST. Sure, you might not use all that speed today, but you can bet that tomorrow's applications will. The faster your computer is now, the longer you can go before you feel the need to upgrade.
I think that these are two very legitimate reasons to be pushing for the very fastest possible machine.
And it doesn't help that OS X is kind of sluggish. I get the spinning beachball all the time on my G4/450, and I have to wait for the OS a LOT. I push my machine hard most of the time, and it's doing quite a lot of (useful) things in the background. I at least know that I could get more work done with a faster machine.
[quote]VERY few users need more processing power than is currently available from even entry level systems. In fact, there have been many studies over the past couple years looking at the effects of computing power on operational efficiencies, basically showing that beyond a very mild level processing power, computers have little or no impact on efficency.<hr></blockquote>
OSX, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD...and these are consumer oriented. The iMac got shoved to a G4/800 for a reason.
I now believe that if a new Power Mac was released tomorrow, it would be the first of the Apollo chips and that may not be bad as long as the new motherboards are ready with DDSRAM. This would be an acceptable speed increase while we wait for the G5 processors.
This would also be the most cost effective/lowest rish launch....remember we haven't hit bottom yet. The recession has at least four months to go if we are lucky.
Comments
...they give you one page instructions for building an Appleseed cluster, and then direct you to a 230 page book on building Linux-based Beowulf clusters...
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
...VERY few users need more processing power than is currently available from even entry level systems. In fact, there have been many studies over the past couple years looking at the effects of computing power on operational efficiencies, basically showing that beyond a very mild level processing power, computers have little or no impact on efficency... </strong><hr></blockquote>
While I agree with you to a point, OS X does benefit from faster CPU's from what I've read, as well as Alti-Vec. For this reason alone Apple needs to increase the Speed of thier systems in the PowerMac line-up.
So yes, if Apple were to revolutionize software with 100 more great iApps that all ran on an 800 MHZ iMac but they never changed the speed of their computers, they would go out of business.
All I'm saying is that the people that are overreacting to the MHZ issue are overreacting to a real issue. Their overreacting is not a sign that their worries are unfounded.
1) The desire to get *value*. It's human nature. You want to save a dollar on the supermarket chicken, you want to get the free upgrade at the rental car place. You want to get the best product you can for your hard-earned cash, and you want it to be a good buy in an absolute sense as well. If my neighbor had a 12 GHz Athlon today, I would seriously question my computer choices. He's obviously getting a much better performing machine, because -- let's face it -- 12 GHz would open up a whole 'nother world of abilities.
2) The desire for your purchase to LAST. Sure, you might not use all that speed today, but you can bet that tomorrow's applications will. The faster your computer is now, the longer you can go before you feel the need to upgrade.
I think that these are two very legitimate reasons to be pushing for the very fastest possible machine.
And it doesn't help that OS X is kind of sluggish. I get the spinning beachball all the time on my G4/450, and I have to wait for the OS a LOT. I push my machine hard most of the time, and it's doing quite a lot of (useful) things in the background. I at least know that I could get more work done with a faster machine.
Alex
OSX, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD...and these are consumer oriented. The iMac got shoved to a G4/800 for a reason.
This would also be the most cost effective/lowest rish launch....remember we haven't hit bottom yet. The recession has at least four months to go if we are lucky.