One thought is another thread had mentioned 4 G4 systems. We assumed it was the iMac. What if Apple will keep the 733 as the 4th model low end and price it around $1299 or something?
I dunno, I like the all models at and over 1.0ghz idea better.
<strong> With Adobe and especially Macromedia effectively abanddoning the Mac platform apple needs to set the world alight soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's take a look: Illustrator for X is available now - it's their single biggest product offering along with Photoshop. GoLive 6 and InDesign 2 will most likely be available within a month, as will After Effects for X. Photoshop 7 is in late beta and will likely be available within six to eight weeks. Yah, they've dropped Apple completely. Total abandonment.
As for Macromedia, my understanding is they simply aren't commenting on anything (a la Apple), but that native versions will be here [before fall]. Late to the game? Yes. Abandoned? Hardly. Macromedia isn't that big a company and hasn't been that well-off financially during this recession anymore than Adobe has. They can't simply dump the Mac platform, unless they're willing to dump A LOT of customers and by extension, lots of money.
These two developers have little to do with Apple needing to "deliver the goods". Apple needs to deliver the goods because their power macs are seriously lagging behind the competition and have been for quite some time, period. The only two companies to blame are Apple and Motorola....
<strong>One thought is another thread had mentioned 4 G4 systems. We assumed it was the iMac. What if Apple will keep the 733 as the 4th model low end and price it around $1299 or something?
I dunno, I like the all models at and over 1.0ghz idea better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that thread there was a link to the nVidia site. The info on the nVidia site was dated 1/7/01 not '02, they were referring to the 466, 533, 667 & 733 machines.
Let's take a look: Illustrator for X is available now - it's their single biggest product offering along with Photoshop. GoLive 6 and InDesign 2 will most likely be available within a month, as will After Effects for X. Photoshop 7 is in late beta and will likely be available within six to eight weeks. Yah, they've dropped Apple completely. Total abandonment.
As for Macromedia, my understanding is they simply aren't commenting on anything (a la Apple), but that native versions will be here [before fall]. Late to the game? Yes. Abandoned? Hardly. Macromedia isn't that big a company and hasn't been that well-off financially during this recession anymore than Adobe has. They can't simply dump the Mac platform, unless they're willing to dump A LOT of customers and by extension, lots of money.
These two developers have little to do with Apple needing to "deliver the goods". Apple needs to deliver the goods because their power macs are seriously lagging behind the competition and have been for quite some time, period. The only two companies to blame are Apple and Motorola....
Moogs, that's not what I meant. Both those companies are slowly but surely moving away from the mac and long term this means abandonement. Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? Adobe still doesn't have Photoshop out even though that's probably their mac best seller. Yet things are fine for XP. Their manuals are becoming more Windows centric and Adobe has bought DVD software with barbed comments about apple.
Do these programs run natively in Windows XP? I'm guessing the transition to XP is a lot easier than it is to X. I think this has more to do with the lag than anything else. Once the programs are ported though, there's almost no chance they (Adobe) will drop further production. A lot of time and money has gone into the products already.
Now if Apple's X market share doesn't grow, then we're all in trouble.
<strong>Do these programs run natively in Windows XP? I'm guessing the transition to XP is a lot easier than it is to X. I think this has more to do with the lag than anything else. Once the programs are ported though, there's almost no chance they (Adobe) will drop further production. A lot of time and money has gone into the products already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. In most cases nothing is required to make apps run in XP. It's more akin to MacOS 8 -> 9 upgrade. For user apps, a few things broke, but not much.
[quote]<strong>
Now if Apple's X market share doesn't grow, then we're all in trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take the word share out of there and I'll agree 100%. Apple has tens of millions of users. No matter how much bigger the PC market is, Apple's market is big.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Kevin Hayes ]</p>
I agree that 733 MHZ won't be on any PM when the new Macs come out. If it was a measly 133 mhz speed bump without DDR, then Apple would have brought it out at MacWorld ALONG with the 14" iBook (this didn't take away from the iMac). They would want it to blend in.
Apple's CFO said this quarter would be a transition quarter. That tells me new Macs by the end of March. I suspect Apollo G4 at 1.2 or 1.4 GHZ.
This post is mostly rant, so please skip it if you have a life; otherwise, read on:
/begin rant:
It's actually funny to see how things get out of hand in a certainly informal forum like this one. Specially when people with biased/technical (read: abstract) "knowledge" attempt to shoot down whatever comments other people make.
In any case, it all makes for an entertaining discussion and even some enlightment, yet at times it makes you realize how some users around here have dead-end minds. Their fixation on "mine is better than yours" somehow got stuck since elementary school.
/:end rant
/begin rant v.2
As someone around here said, regular (non pro) people don't buy PCs based upon mhz specs alone. Most users on a particular platform wouldn't necessarily buy the fastest *rated* cpu (even if they could afford it), but the one that better meets their needs, in other words, the one that provides the best overall computing experience. The original iMac is a perfect example of this FACT.
To those who think that Apple is going to win new users on *rated* speed alone, think again. Will it help to close the gap on *rated* cpu speed against wintel? Of course it would, but it would be insignificant regarding market share.
Regarding my comment that a dp 1ghz G4 would be much faster than a single current AMD or Intel, well, here is the background for it:
Who actually needs (and notices) actual raw horse power (not clock cycles) under the hood of their computers? Scientists, animators, digital artists, video/film editors, pro-audio, etc...(unless you are an alien in outerspace without colorsync that likes Intel for less than perfect photo editing)
Does MS Office run noticeably faster day in - day out on a 1.5ghz Pentium against an 800mhz Celeron? It certainly doesn't and I have some of those around me as we speak.
Does the internal cpu (current shipping models) make any difference in speed for web surfing? No again (and Explorer crashes as much regardless of the internal CPU or OS).
So what makes a computer more desireable than another?
In a nutshell, the single fact of being capable of giving the user a better and more productive time while using it. The problem with this is that for almost a decade now, people have had only one choice in operating systems, while Apple was poorly managed and missed the seemingly (at the time) final boat to reach a broader audience for their offerings, making comparisons impossible. Wintel grew not because it was better, but because there were no other options around in stores. Now, that is changing, slowly but surely.
Most computer makers are driven by keeping their shareholders happy, regardless of what their customers think. Apple is the only one focused on user experience, in both hardware and software. MacOS X and the Apple´s harware offerings are making a huge impact on users from the other side. Seasoned Unix pros and even die-hard wintel fans are jumping ship while discovering the otherwise hidden features of the Mac side... etc... Developers are finally looking (even coming back) to the Mac platform and soon software offerings will no longer be an issue when a new user chooses a computer.
Does a dual 1ghz G4 PowerMac beat a single 2ghz Pentium given the ideas I posted above?
Does a dual 1ghz G4 PowerMac beat a single 2ghz Pentium given the ideas I posted above?
Think beyond the number printed on the box.
/end rant v.2</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, but a 2Ghz P4 would cost less than half the price of that dual G4 and you could get a dual AMD Athlon box for a lot less and the dual athlon would kick its ass too
and going back to your comment that PC buyers don't buy on Mhz alone... that's bull. ask any salesperson. Mhz matters. It's a measurement that consumers "understand". the higher the better. its bragging rights. when you tell someone you just bought a computer they always ask how fast and the answer is always Mhz. If Mhz wasn't the main selling point Intel would not have strived to increase its Mhz at all costs.
Well, I at first thought agreed that these specs were too lame to announce at MWSF and therefore, are probably bogus. However, now I think that if they were announced at MWSF, there may have been some mighty unhappy folks there expressing their fellings in a vocal sort of way. A lame speed increase like this is best announced quietly (like on a Sunday afternoon).
Dang, I don't know what the heck is going on. At a minimum, I hope the next upgraded powermacs have apollo's with DDR up to 1.4 GHz, dual processers.
Applenut: You make a good point, as most do, but I know you are more clever than that. Otherwise you wouldn't be applenut, right? Or maybe I didn't make myself clear on my rant above. I hate to make analogies, but if price/rated speed comparison would be the only thing that mattered, Apple would have long gone the way Betamax did. It was close, very close to going that way, but not anymore.
a) Do you own and use a Mac over a PC? If yes, care to tell me why? Personal preference would be considered enough of a reason.
b) Do you work as a salesman in a store that sells both PCs and Macs? And I mean full time. You seem knowledgeable on that subject. Lets trade facts and figures, specially real stories.
c) Have you seen a PC salesperson brainwashing an unsuspecting new customer with the same bs mentioned over and over around here (including yourself)? If yes, than you know what I mean above.
I use both Macs and PCs at work. Some by choice, some by imposition. My computers at home both platforms too. By choice. I used to like PCs better. I am learning more about Macs now, so soon I will have only Macs at home and mostly Macs at work too.
I take back my comment about G4 vs AMD/Pentium; its useless around here. I will replace it by a much longer, yet easier to understand comment:
My $1299 Mac beats my $1299 PC hands down in every real world test in my household (and the PC is *rated* as faster). I own both. I know. My family knows. The PC will soon be relegated to CDRW duties and replaced by a new "poky slow 800mhz ugly iLamp-like iMac" (sarcasm).
I could have chosen a :eek: ***"blazing fast 1.8ghz IBM Netvista X41 for about the same amount of money"*** But I know better now. And I hope, as well as you do (I am sure) that most of us former PC users learn to distinguish fact from fiction.
So back to the topic at hand, I hope Apple introduces soon PM in the 900 - 1.2ghz range; only thing I am really hoping for at this time is a faster bus (200+). It makes a whole lot of difference, much more than a multighz cpu alone.
Oh, btw, Intel went all out for the mhz thingie because Cyrix (way back) and AMD were gunning at them in a big way. A good marketing move, yet severely shortsighted. Time will tell, if it hasn't started already.
[quote]Applenut: You make a good point, as most do, but I know you are more clever than that. Otherwise you wouldn't be applenut, right? Or maybe I didn't make myself clear on my rant above. I hate to make analogies, but if price/rated speed comparison would be the only thing that mattered, Apple would have long gone the way Betamax did. It was close, very close to going that way, but not anymore.<hr></blockquote>
no, that comment doesn't make sense. Apple has never been this far behind for this amount of time ever. they have always been as fast or faster and had comeptitive specs in their machines. They may have cost a lot more but at least the cost was backed up most of time by the specs. That is no more. the PowerMac tower shares more in common spec wise with sub $1000 PCs than $2500+ workstations
[quote]
a) Do you own and use a Mac over a PC? If yes, care to tell me why? Personal preference would be considered enough of a reason.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure why you went off into this direction but anyways...
Yes I own and use a mac over a pc. I own several macs and plan on buying several more. I would never buy a PC even if at times it can be a tempting decision. I got my start on the Mac because my mother was a teacher in the NYC Public School system and her district is 100% Mac. The first computer I ever used was a LC II (and a Commodore 64). Growing up using them and my mother using them at work pretty much clinched it that we would be "mac people" for life.
Why do I still use a mac? Because they eare cool, they are easy, and IMO they fullfil my wants and expectations of what a computer should be. But we also pay top dollar for that privelage and if we are going to pay top dollar we should not have to suffer from uncompetitive features. I don't care about spending a couple hundred more to get a mac but I don't expect to get less for that couple hundred more.
[quote]
b) Do you work as a salesman in a store that sells both PCs and Macs? And I mean full time. You seem knowledgeable on that subject. Lets trade facts and figures, specially real stories.<hr></blockquote>
nope, never worked in one. but plan to soon. My comments don't require a salesperson to confirm. it's basic knowledge. You're telling me your friends don't ask what speed your computer is after you buy a new one? or they don't brag about their speed when they buy one? I haven't met someone who DOESN'T do that.
and while I don't work at a store I sure spend a ton of time at them and I always "listen in" on the conversations. it's always Mhz, then price that come up. in that order. You never hear anyone say graphic chip or bus speed or ram, etc. I hate to say it but most of the time we overestimate the tech intelligence of the average consumer. it's actually very low.
[quote]
c) Have you seen a PC salesperson brainwashing an unsuspecting new customer with the same bs mentioned over and over around here (including yourself)? If yes, than you know what I mean above.<hr></blockquote>
what BS would that be? I don't remember spewing off any BS in this thread.
[quote]
I take back my comment about G4 vs AMD/Pentium; its useless around here. I will replace it by a much longer, yet easier to understand comment:<hr></blockquote>
what's uselss around here? can you not accept the fact that a dual 1ghz G4 is not going to be breaking any speed records and isn't going to be any threat to AMD or Intel for the performance crown?
[quote]
My $1299 Mac beats my $1299 PC hands down in every real world test in my household (and the PC is *rated* as faster). I own both. I know. My family knows. The PC will soon be relegated to CDRW duties and replaced by a new "poky slow 800mhz ugly iLamp-like iMac" (sarcasm). <hr></blockquote>
yea, uh.. that's a great analogy. My $2500 dollar PowerMac G4 destroys my $9000 PowerMac 9500 180/MP.
[quote]
I could have chosen a ***"blazing fast 1.8ghz IBM Netvista X41 for about the same amount of money"*** But I know better now. And I hope, as well as you do (I am sure) that most of us former PC users learn to distinguish fact from fiction. <hr></blockquote>
and what fact would that be <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[quote]c) Have you seen a PC salesperson brainwashing an unsuspecting new customer with the same bs mentioned over and over around here (including yourself)? If yes, than you know what I mean above.<hr></blockquote>
In fact sales people everywhere spew the MHz crap. CompUSA sales people constantly steered potential Mac buyers towards PC's. And the fact that you think MHz doesn't matter to the average consumer I have three words for you:
Anyone who thinks that MHz doesn't matter are in denial, projecting their own needs onto others.
MHz are important for several reasons.
1. Marketing. Lots of people really believe that more MHz = faster, and they think they need the speed, even if all they do is word processing, internet, and email.
2. Gamers need it for real.
3. Some professional markets, like 3D design, need the extra MHz.
There's probably more but I'm in a hurry. Anyways, MHz do matter, and without doubt are hurting Apple's marketshare. We can argue over how much impact MHz actually has, but there is no denying that MHz does have an effect on sales.
If MHz didn't factor into any buyer's purchasing decisions, then it wouldn't be marketing and hyped so much.
That said, I think the Powermac speeds posted at the xlr8 thread are BS. Apple reps don't know sh!t, and no way would Apple keep a 733 MHz G4 tower, unless they were going to price it way low, like 1299 or something.
At the very least, we can expect 867, 933, and 1 GHz. Motorola has had plenty of time to scale the 7450, and reportedly it scales ok but runs into problems over 900 MHz, but this was a problem Moto was having when Apple last speed bumped the towers. By now they've probably fixed it.
<strong>At the very least, we can expect 867, 933, and 1 GHz. Motorola has had plenty of time to scale the 7450, and reportedly it scales ok but runs into problems over 900 MHz, but this was a problem Moto was having when Apple last speed bumped the towers. By now they've probably fixed it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Maybe these new towers aren't 7460 chips? What if Motorola can't deliver 7460s in quantity until, say, May? 1 GHz max sounds about right for the latest 7450s. If so, then don't expect DDR yet. The fact that Apple can put 800MHz 7450s in their consumer machine indicates to me that they probably have more than enough higher speed G4s to go around.
Here's what I expect: same motherboard, same RAM, same video cards, but Dual G4s across the line. Maybe it is only a 733 / 933 / 1GHz lineup. If that's all Apple can manage because the 7460s aren't ready yet, then I can see them pulling another "two brains are better than one" stunt. They might even leave the 733 as a single and sell it for $1299, who knows? It certainly can't cost more for Apple to manufacture a 733 tower then a 700 LCD iMac.
Moogs, that's not what I meant. Both those companies are slowly but surely moving away from the mac and long term this means abandonement. Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe because in order to get software for XP you at best need to recompile it while when moving from OS9 to OSX you need to rewrite it. Doh!
Hmm. Maybe these new towers aren't 7460 chips? What if Motorola can't deliver 7460s in quantity until, say, May? 1 GHz max sounds about right for the latest 7450s. If so, then don't expect DDR yet. The fact that Apple can put 800MHz 7450s in their consumer machine indicates to me that they probably have more than enough higher speed G4s to go around.
Here's what I expect: same motherboard, same RAM, same video cards, but Dual G4s across the line. Maybe it is only a 733 / 933 / 1GHz lineup. If that's all Apple can manage because the 7460s aren't ready yet, then I can see them pulling another "two brains are better than one" stunt. They might even leave the 733 as a single and sell it for $1299, who knows? It certainly can't cost more for Apple to manufacture a 733 tower then a 700 LCD iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If true, then the post I read at another forum makes sence-
On Jan 22nd, Apple will make a quiet release of slightly speed bumped G4s. Knowing everyone is expecting G4s at 1.4ghz and G5s why make a big deal out of 1.0ghz current G4s? But they do have to release something.
I guess I'll be waiting for MWNY for when the real towers debut
BillM said what I've been thinking for a long time, and thanks for that. My only problem with a lot of these sys. requirement options and MHz arguments is that "who needs that?" is not a valid response. Microsoft Word may not run faster, but games do! As does video rendering, mp3 ripping speed, Mathematica computations, lots of stuff! It's the same as the discussion about number of PCI slots. Just because one person doesn't need more doesn't mean it's a useless request.
Also, I remember when the clock speed of (IIRC) the 604e was higher than it's contemporary Pentium. That number was used to drag wintels through the mud, while ignoring all other techincal specs. I only wish Motorola and IBM would compete in the PPC arena as visciously as Intel and AMD have.
Comments
I dunno, I like the all models at and over 1.0ghz idea better.
<strong> With Adobe and especially Macromedia effectively abanddoning the Mac platform apple needs to set the world alight soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah...that's *almost* accurate. Really. It's close.
Let's take a look: Illustrator for X is available now - it's their single biggest product offering along with Photoshop. GoLive 6 and InDesign 2 will most likely be available within a month, as will After Effects for X. Photoshop 7 is in late beta and will likely be available within six to eight weeks. Yah, they've dropped Apple completely. Total abandonment.
As for Macromedia, my understanding is they simply aren't commenting on anything (a la Apple), but that native versions will be here [before fall]. Late to the game? Yes. Abandoned? Hardly. Macromedia isn't that big a company and hasn't been that well-off financially during this recession anymore than Adobe has. They can't simply dump the Mac platform, unless they're willing to dump A LOT of customers and by extension, lots of money.
These two developers have little to do with Apple needing to "deliver the goods". Apple needs to deliver the goods because their power macs are seriously lagging behind the competition and have been for quite some time, period. The only two companies to blame are Apple and Motorola....
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>One thought is another thread had mentioned 4 G4 systems. We assumed it was the iMac. What if Apple will keep the 733 as the 4th model low end and price it around $1299 or something?
I dunno, I like the all models at and over 1.0ghz idea better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that thread there was a link to the nVidia site. The info on the nVidia site was dated 1/7/01 not '02, they were referring to the 466, 533, 667 & 733 machines.
<strong>
Yah...that's *almost* accurate. Really. It's close.
Let's take a look: Illustrator for X is available now - it's their single biggest product offering along with Photoshop. GoLive 6 and InDesign 2 will most likely be available within a month, as will After Effects for X. Photoshop 7 is in late beta and will likely be available within six to eight weeks. Yah, they've dropped Apple completely. Total abandonment.
As for Macromedia, my understanding is they simply aren't commenting on anything (a la Apple), but that native versions will be here [before fall]. Late to the game? Yes. Abandoned? Hardly. Macromedia isn't that big a company and hasn't been that well-off financially during this recession anymore than Adobe has. They can't simply dump the Mac platform, unless they're willing to dump A LOT of customers and by extension, lots of money.
These two developers have little to do with Apple needing to "deliver the goods". Apple needs to deliver the goods because their power macs are seriously lagging behind the competition and have been for quite some time, period. The only two companies to blame are Apple and Motorola....
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, that's not what I meant. Both those companies are slowly but surely moving away from the mac and long term this means abandonement. Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? Adobe still doesn't have Photoshop out even though that's probably their mac best seller. Yet things are fine for XP. Their manuals are becoming more Windows centric and Adobe has bought DVD software with barbed comments about apple.
Finally, where the f**k is Director for X?
Now if Apple's X market share doesn't grow, then we're all in trouble.
<strong>Do these programs run natively in Windows XP? I'm guessing the transition to XP is a lot easier than it is to X. I think this has more to do with the lag than anything else. Once the programs are ported though, there's almost no chance they (Adobe) will drop further production. A lot of time and money has gone into the products already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. In most cases nothing is required to make apps run in XP. It's more akin to MacOS 8 -> 9 upgrade. For user apps, a few things broke, but not much.
[quote]<strong>
Now if Apple's X market share doesn't grow, then we're all in trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take the word share out of there and I'll agree 100%. Apple has tens of millions of users. No matter how much bigger the PC market is, Apple's market is big.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Kevin Hayes ]</p>
Apple's CFO said this quarter would be a transition quarter. That tells me new Macs by the end of March. I suspect Apollo G4 at 1.2 or 1.4 GHZ.
/begin rant:
It's actually funny to see how things get out of hand in a certainly informal forum like this one. Specially when people with biased/technical (read: abstract) "knowledge" attempt to shoot down whatever comments other people make.
In any case, it all makes for an entertaining discussion and even some enlightment, yet at times it makes you realize how some users around here have dead-end minds. Their fixation on "mine is better than yours" somehow got stuck since elementary school.
/:end rant
/begin rant v.2
As someone around here said, regular (non pro) people don't buy PCs based upon mhz specs alone. Most users on a particular platform wouldn't necessarily buy the fastest *rated* cpu (even if they could afford it), but the one that better meets their needs, in other words, the one that provides the best overall computing experience. The original iMac is a perfect example of this FACT.
To those who think that Apple is going to win new users on *rated* speed alone, think again. Will it help to close the gap on *rated* cpu speed against wintel? Of course it would, but it would be insignificant regarding market share.
Regarding my comment that a dp 1ghz G4 would be much faster than a single current AMD or Intel, well, here is the background for it:
Who actually needs (and notices) actual raw horse power (not clock cycles) under the hood of their computers? Scientists, animators, digital artists, video/film editors, pro-audio, etc...(unless you are an alien in outerspace without colorsync that likes Intel for less than perfect photo editing)
Does MS Office run noticeably faster day in - day out on a 1.5ghz Pentium against an 800mhz Celeron? It certainly doesn't and I have some of those around me as we speak.
Does the internal cpu (current shipping models) make any difference in speed for web surfing? No again (and Explorer crashes as much regardless of the internal CPU or OS).
So what makes a computer more desireable than another?
In a nutshell, the single fact of being capable of giving the user a better and more productive time while using it. The problem with this is that for almost a decade now, people have had only one choice in operating systems, while Apple was poorly managed and missed the seemingly (at the time) final boat to reach a broader audience for their offerings, making comparisons impossible. Wintel grew not because it was better, but because there were no other options around in stores. Now, that is changing, slowly but surely.
Most computer makers are driven by keeping their shareholders happy, regardless of what their customers think. Apple is the only one focused on user experience, in both hardware and software. MacOS X and the Apple´s harware offerings are making a huge impact on users from the other side. Seasoned Unix pros and even die-hard wintel fans are jumping ship while discovering the otherwise hidden features of the Mac side... etc... Developers are finally looking (even coming back) to the Mac platform and soon software offerings will no longer be an issue when a new user chooses a computer.
Does a dual 1ghz G4 PowerMac beat a single 2ghz Pentium given the ideas I posted above?
Think beyond the number printed on the box.
/end rant v.2
<strong>
Does a dual 1ghz G4 PowerMac beat a single 2ghz Pentium given the ideas I posted above?
Think beyond the number printed on the box.
/end rant v.2</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, but a 2Ghz P4 would cost less than half the price of that dual G4 and you could get a dual AMD Athlon box for a lot less and the dual athlon would kick its ass too
and going back to your comment that PC buyers don't buy on Mhz alone... that's bull. ask any salesperson. Mhz matters. It's a measurement that consumers "understand". the higher the better. its bragging rights. when you tell someone you just bought a computer they always ask how fast and the answer is always Mhz. If Mhz wasn't the main selling point Intel would not have strived to increase its Mhz at all costs.
Dang, I don't know what the heck is going on. At a minimum, I hope the next upgraded powermacs have apollo's with DDR up to 1.4 GHz, dual processers.
- Mark
a) Do you own and use a Mac over a PC? If yes, care to tell me why? Personal preference would be considered enough of a reason.
b) Do you work as a salesman in a store that sells both PCs and Macs? And I mean full time. You seem knowledgeable on that subject. Lets trade facts and figures, specially real stories.
c) Have you seen a PC salesperson brainwashing an unsuspecting new customer with the same bs mentioned over and over around here (including yourself)? If yes, than you know what I mean above.
I use both Macs and PCs at work. Some by choice, some by imposition. My computers at home both platforms too. By choice. I used to like PCs better. I am learning more about Macs now, so soon I will have only Macs at home and mostly Macs at work too.
I take back my comment about G4 vs AMD/Pentium; its useless around here. I will replace it by a much longer, yet easier to understand comment:
My $1299 Mac beats my $1299 PC hands down in every real world test in my household (and the PC is *rated* as faster). I own both. I know. My family knows. The PC will soon be relegated to CDRW duties and replaced by a new "poky slow 800mhz ugly iLamp-like iMac" (sarcasm).
I could have chosen a :eek: ***"blazing fast 1.8ghz IBM Netvista X41 for about the same amount of money"***
So back to the topic at hand, I hope Apple introduces soon PM in the 900 - 1.2ghz range; only thing I am really hoping for at this time is a faster bus (200+). It makes a whole lot of difference, much more than a multighz cpu alone.
(and this has nothing to do with Macs)
no, that comment doesn't make sense. Apple has never been this far behind for this amount of time ever. they have always been as fast or faster and had comeptitive specs in their machines. They may have cost a lot more but at least the cost was backed up most of time by the specs. That is no more. the PowerMac tower shares more in common spec wise with sub $1000 PCs than $2500+ workstations
[quote]
a) Do you own and use a Mac over a PC? If yes, care to tell me why? Personal preference would be considered enough of a reason.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure why you went off into this direction but anyways...
Yes I own and use a mac over a pc. I own several macs and plan on buying several more. I would never buy a PC even if at times it can be a tempting decision. I got my start on the Mac because my mother was a teacher in the NYC Public School system and her district is 100% Mac. The first computer I ever used was a LC II (and a Commodore 64). Growing up using them and my mother using them at work pretty much clinched it that we would be "mac people" for life.
Why do I still use a mac? Because they eare cool, they are easy, and IMO they fullfil my wants and expectations of what a computer should be. But we also pay top dollar for that privelage and if we are going to pay top dollar we should not have to suffer from uncompetitive features. I don't care about spending a couple hundred more to get a mac but I don't expect to get less for that couple hundred more.
[quote]
b) Do you work as a salesman in a store that sells both PCs and Macs? And I mean full time. You seem knowledgeable on that subject. Lets trade facts and figures, specially real stories.<hr></blockquote>
nope, never worked in one. but plan to soon. My comments don't require a salesperson to confirm. it's basic knowledge. You're telling me your friends don't ask what speed your computer is after you buy a new one? or they don't brag about their speed when they buy one? I haven't met someone who DOESN'T do that.
and while I don't work at a store I sure spend a ton of time at them and I always "listen in" on the conversations. it's always Mhz, then price that come up. in that order. You never hear anyone say graphic chip or bus speed or ram, etc. I hate to say it but most of the time we overestimate the tech intelligence of the average consumer. it's actually very low.
[quote]
c) Have you seen a PC salesperson brainwashing an unsuspecting new customer with the same bs mentioned over and over around here (including yourself)? If yes, than you know what I mean above.<hr></blockquote>
what BS would that be? I don't remember spewing off any BS in this thread.
[quote]
I take back my comment about G4 vs AMD/Pentium; its useless around here. I will replace it by a much longer, yet easier to understand comment:<hr></blockquote>
what's uselss around here? can you not accept the fact that a dual 1ghz G4 is not going to be breaking any speed records and isn't going to be any threat to AMD or Intel for the performance crown?
[quote]
My $1299 Mac beats my $1299 PC hands down in every real world test in my household (and the PC is *rated* as faster). I own both. I know. My family knows. The PC will soon be relegated to CDRW duties and replaced by a new "poky slow 800mhz ugly iLamp-like iMac" (sarcasm). <hr></blockquote>
yea, uh.. that's a great analogy. My $2500 dollar PowerMac G4 destroys my $9000 PowerMac 9500 180/MP.
[quote]
I could have chosen a ***"blazing fast 1.8ghz IBM Netvista X41 for about the same amount of money"*** But I know better now. And I hope, as well as you do (I am sure) that most of us former PC users learn to distinguish fact from fiction. <hr></blockquote>
and what fact would that be <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
In fact sales people everywhere spew the MHz crap. CompUSA sales people constantly steered potential Mac buyers towards PC's. And the fact that you think MHz doesn't matter to the average consumer I have three words for you:
Apple Retail Stores
Why do you think they are there for?
MHz are important for several reasons.
1. Marketing. Lots of people really believe that more MHz = faster, and they think they need the speed, even if all they do is word processing, internet, and email.
2. Gamers need it for real.
3. Some professional markets, like 3D design, need the extra MHz.
There's probably more but I'm in a hurry. Anyways, MHz do matter, and without doubt are hurting Apple's marketshare. We can argue over how much impact MHz actually has, but there is no denying that MHz does have an effect on sales.
If MHz didn't factor into any buyer's purchasing decisions, then it wouldn't be marketing and hyped so much.
That said, I think the Powermac speeds posted at the xlr8 thread are BS. Apple reps don't know sh!t, and no way would Apple keep a 733 MHz G4 tower, unless they were going to price it way low, like 1299 or something.
At the very least, we can expect 867, 933, and 1 GHz. Motorola has had plenty of time to scale the 7450, and reportedly it scales ok but runs into problems over 900 MHz, but this was a problem Moto was having when Apple last speed bumped the towers. By now they've probably fixed it.
<strong>At the very least, we can expect 867, 933, and 1 GHz. Motorola has had plenty of time to scale the 7450, and reportedly it scales ok but runs into problems over 900 MHz, but this was a problem Moto was having when Apple last speed bumped the towers. By now they've probably fixed it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Maybe these new towers aren't 7460 chips? What if Motorola can't deliver 7460s in quantity until, say, May? 1 GHz max sounds about right for the latest 7450s. If so, then don't expect DDR yet. The fact that Apple can put 800MHz 7450s in their consumer machine indicates to me that they probably have more than enough higher speed G4s to go around.
Here's what I expect: same motherboard, same RAM, same video cards, but Dual G4s across the line. Maybe it is only a 733 / 933 / 1GHz lineup. If that's all Apple can manage because the 7460s aren't ready yet, then I can see them pulling another "two brains are better than one" stunt. They might even leave the 733 as a single and sell it for $1299, who knows? It certainly can't cost more for Apple to manufacture a 733 tower then a 700 LCD iMac.
<strong>
Moogs, that's not what I meant. Both those companies are slowly but surely moving away from the mac and long term this means abandonement. Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe because in order to get software for XP you at best need to recompile it while when moving from OS9 to OSX you need to rewrite it. Doh!
<strong>
Hmm. Maybe these new towers aren't 7460 chips? What if Motorola can't deliver 7460s in quantity until, say, May? 1 GHz max sounds about right for the latest 7450s. If so, then don't expect DDR yet. The fact that Apple can put 800MHz 7450s in their consumer machine indicates to me that they probably have more than enough higher speed G4s to go around.
Here's what I expect: same motherboard, same RAM, same video cards, but Dual G4s across the line. Maybe it is only a 733 / 933 / 1GHz lineup. If that's all Apple can manage because the 7460s aren't ready yet, then I can see them pulling another "two brains are better than one" stunt. They might even leave the 733 as a single and sell it for $1299, who knows? It certainly can't cost more for Apple to manufacture a 733 tower then a 700 LCD iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If true, then the post I read at another forum makes sence-
On Jan 22nd, Apple will make a quiet release of slightly speed bumped G4s. Knowing everyone is expecting G4s at 1.4ghz and G5s why make a big deal out of 1.0ghz current G4s? But they do have to release something.
I guess I'll be waiting for MWNY for when the real towers debut
Also, I remember when the clock speed of (IIRC) the 604e was higher than it's contemporary Pentium. That number was used to drag wintels through the mud, while ignoring all other techincal specs. I only wish Motorola and IBM would compete in the PPC arena as visciously as Intel and AMD have.