Why is it that......

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>Moki, you're not crazy. My 733 MHZ Dell at work running Windows 2000 is so much slower than my 667 MHZ TiBook. The Dell only has 128 MB of ram, but it's RDRAM. The Ti has 512. This is a big difference, BUT, 512 MB of RDRAM is $900. So, to make it an equal machine I'd have to spend a hell of a lot more money.



    So to me Macs are still more usable even running 'slower'.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    At work we're getting these new 1.466 GHz Athlons w/ DDR, and they are blazingly fast. They grind through our compute intensive tasks at easily three times the speed (conservative estimate) of my previous machine -- a dual 733MHz PIII. This is literally a 25 minute to 7 minute improvement. Both machines were running Win2K with more than half a gig of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive. The real kicker is that these new machines cost half of what the top-of-the-line PowerMac costs, and it is at least as well equipped (USB2, 1394, GigaBit Ethernet, geForce2 or 3, fast IDE, etc).



    I wouldn't mind Apple's big margins so much if the machines were as fast.
  • Reply 42 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by MarkL:

    <strong>A quick question: What do people require so much power for?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Compilers never run fast enough.



    Real-time 3D graphics is also pretty good at bringing a processor to its knees. There are also plenty of batch processing operations that I hate waiting around to get the results from.



    For those who say that fast machines just raise the frame rate of Quake3 from 112 to 120 frames per second (which is useless)... consider that Quake3 is hardly the end-all and be-all of realtime 3D graphics. Graphics are going to get much more sophisticated in the future, and that is going to require even more brute force computing power. There is a long way to go before more speed cannot be used.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
  • Reply 43 of 87
    I think I have to agree with TigerWoods to some extent. However, I don't think this is entirely Apple's fault.



    One of the biggest reasons we have such a huge GHz gap is because AMD started eating Intel's lunch.



    The resulting price/product war really pushed the envelope. All the better for consumers, right?



    Right now, there isn't anyone to push Motorola. The threat of losing Apple's business isn't really enough to force greater productivity, the money just isn't there, and frankly, neither is the market. So Moto gets to it when they get to it. Ho Hum.



    Unfortunately, IIRC, Apple has/had contractual obligations to Moto that control who it can go to for processors.



    So, right now Apple is at the mercy of a company that really is in no hurry, and wants to do this as cheaply as possible, regardless of the timeframe. In that regard I blame Apple for getting itself entangled with a single point of supply.



    Personally &lt;flame on!&gt;, I think Apple would be rocking the world right now, if they could. Just a guess, but I'm thinking Steve isn't really pleased about playing catch up to Dell/M$/Intel/et al. (Regardless of whose <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020110.htmlpulpit20020110.html"; target="_blank">standards</a> you use).



    Will Apollo appear, is the G5 G-coming? Who knows! But (as much as I'd like to believe otherwise), until Apple gets either a bigger carrot or a bigger stick, it'll be slow and steady finishes the race. Just finish, not win. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    tsukurite



    edit: stupid url, grrrr...



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: tsukurite ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>





    Compilers never run fast enough.



    Real-time 3D graphics is also pretty good at bringing a processor to its knees. There are also plenty of batch processing operations that I hate waiting around to get the results from.



    For those who say that fast machines just raise the frame rate of Quake3 from 112 to 120 frames per second (which is useless)... consider that Quake3 is hardly the end-all and be-all of realtime 3D graphics. Graphics are going to get much more sophisticated in the future, and that is going to require even more brute force computing power. There is a long way to go before more speed cannot be used.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    boy, the first time I can get a PM to render a Lightwave scene with Radiosity enabled in less than a day, I think I'll cry, and then I think I'll marry it.



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    tsukurite
  • Reply 45 of 87
    Well, I must say that I get very very tired of these rants. I moved to the mac platform about 2 months ago, and have not regretted it a bit. Truth be told, I am not the slightest bit let down by today's speed bumps, and the "un"inclusion of DDR. I know it will come with the G5. Yes, "on demand" performance of gaming is still not as good on pc, because of many factors. One being Quake 3 was written to take high advantage of the x86 architecture. Of course, also, there is the fact of no ddr, etc. The Mac is a powerhouse, but not yet a speedhouse, if that makes sense. I am satisfied with a bit less performance on gaming, if everything else does great. Final cut pro will scream on mynew dual 1ghz. Especially compared the old g3/450 iMac I am currently on.
  • Reply 46 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>





    At work we're getting these new 1.466 GHz Athlons w/ DDR, and they are blazingly fast. They grind through our compute intensive tasks at easily three times the speed (conservative estimate) of my previous machine -- a dual 733MHz PIII. This is literally a 25 minute to 7 minute improvement. Both machines were running Win2K with more than half a gig of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive. The real kicker is that these new machines cost half of what the top-of-the-line PowerMac costs, and it is at least as well equipped (USB2, 1394, GigaBit Ethernet, geForce2 or 3, fast IDE, etc).



    I wouldn't mind Apple's big margins so much if the machines were as fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Just for perspective, I just upgraded my work machine from a p2 to a p4 1.4 with 700 or so megs of ram and a 7200rpm drive ($1300 w/ 19" monitor). The new machine is just as slow on some tasks as my old one. It sat in the IS department for a week after it arrived while they wiped the drives and ran a clean install of windows 2000 because of all the extra crap that comes preinstalled. Since I have been able to use it the IS techs have been averaging 2-3 visits to my office a week to fix or configure things. (I'd do it myself but then what would they do all day?) The GIS industry really dosen't know what they are missing with OSX and mac. Reliable predictable hardware and software is worth every penny if you ask me.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Mike D ]</p>
  • Reply 47 of 87
    mr.emr.e Posts: 20member
    Tigerwoods99, you're a complete fu[king asshole; why don't you go fu[k yourself - maybe you'll be a nicer person - stop wasting the message board space here.



    I doubt you are 1% as smart as the people who run Apple, so if you aren't happy with yo Mhz, then use your DellHell and shut up in these forums.
  • Reply 48 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by mr.e:

    <strong>Tigerwoods99, you're a complete fu[king asshole; why don't you go fu[k yourself - maybe you'll be a nicer person - stop wasting the message board space here.



    I doubt you are 1% as smart as the people who run Apple, so if you aren't happy with yo Mhz, then use your DellHell and shut up in these forums.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    goodness, I hadn't noticed the children were home! someone forgot to childproof their keyboard!



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    tsukurite
  • Reply 49 of 87
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    [quote]Originally posted by tsukurite:

    <strong>



    boy, the first time I can get a PM to render a Lightwave scene with Radiosity enabled in less than a day, I think I'll cry, and then I think I'll marry it. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think that's one thing that all of you hard-core pros need to remember: in your business, computing takes time.



    AFAIC, if it takes around a day to render something, who cares if it ends up being 23 hours or 25 hours! It's still too damn long (but gives you a chance to go golf on the clock).
  • Reply 50 of 87
    mr.emr.e Posts: 20member
    tsukurite -grow up. I'm wearing condoms on my fingers as not to scare my child-like keyboard.
  • Reply 51 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by mr.e:

    <strong>tsukurite -grow up. I'm wearing condoms on my fingers as not to scare my child-like keyboard.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    ...



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    tsukurite
  • Reply 52 of 87
    [quote]Originally posted by CosmoNut:

    <strong>



    I think that's one thing that all of you hard-core pros need to remember: in your business, computing takes time.



    AFAIC, if it takes around a day to render something, who cares if it ends up being 23 hours or 25 hours! It's still too damn long (but gives you a chance to go golf on the clock).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ah, but when that's only one frame and it takes 24-30 frames for a single second of animation, well. Time for a render farm, but last I looked, I don't work for ILM, so no current PM's for me!



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    tsukurite
  • Reply 53 of 87
    [quote] A quick question: What do people require so much power for? <hr></blockquote>



    I'm happy with my Sawtooth G4, 400 MHz Powermac. It's fast enough for my needs, sure it'd be nice if OS X were smoother and faster, but that's not the fault of the Powermac. After more optimization OS X will be better.



    But if Apple were still selling Powermacs at 400-500 Mhz, do you think they would still be in business?



    Much of this is about perception. Besides the professionals who really do need all that performance, Apple needs to woo consumers from the Wintel side, and the fact is that consumers base their buying decisions on performance (often they measure performance by MHz, dumb, but still they are attempting to measure performance). If Macs performed better than Wintels, by a considerable margin, then I'm convinced Apple would gain at least some market share. Speed is not everything, but it does count for something.



    Apple has covered all their bases except for hardware performance. OS X rocks and it's destined to keep getting more amazing, all the iApps are dead cool, and Macs have style. But they lack performance.



    I'm sick of getting flamed by all you AppleZombies because I find fault with Apple. It's BS. I've never bought a Wintel, only Macs, and I have no intention of ever buying a Wintel as long as Macs are a viable computing platform. IMO this entitles me to criticize Apple.



    If you're with a friend at a party, and he's got big blob of food on his mouth, what do you do? Smile and pretend everything is ok, while he tries to pick up chicks looking like a bum? Or do you tell him, "hey, your face is messed up, go wash it"? It's the same thing with Apple...I don't criticize Apple because I want them to fail, I point out their faults because I want to see them corrected, so Apple is better.



    And anyone who can't understand why someone would be angry, because they like OS X, but they hate Mac hardware, man, get a clue. It's not so simple as, "just decide if you like the OS more than you hate the hardware, be a man" What sort of macho bullsh!t talk is that? I use Macs--I'm not going to change--and I want to see Apple thrive! I want fast hardware so my computing platform, the one I choose to live with, is viable 10 years from now. If some AppleZombie cannot understand such a simple emotion, then they need get a clue.



    I swear Apple could sell sh!t on a stick and some of you people would smile and say it "Tastes great!". (given proper focusing of Jobs' RDF, of course). No wonder some Wintel users hate Macs because of the people who use them...they can't stand how irrational some of them are.



    The way Mac users look down upon Wintel users for being sheep and just using whatever M$ throws in their face...it's much like the way Mac users use whatever hardware Apple shoves at them and likes it. What it comes down to is Apple has a monopoly on hardware...we have no choice and that makes some of us mad, the same way that windows makes us made because it's got a virtual monopoly. Does it make me mad enough to not use a Mac? No, but I still get pissed sometimes.



    Well good night, I'm going to do some more work on my 400 MHz G4, and yes I LIKE IT! Something you people seem to have hard time understanding, is that some of us want faster Macs not for ourselves but for the sake of Apple Computer's corporate health.



    So please, AppleZombies, quit whining. If you don't like a post or a thread then instead of whining about it, don't read it. Thanks.
  • Reply 54 of 87
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    It's way too early in the morning to still be up, but while I'm here, I may as well add to the discussion.



    I didn't want the rumors to be true, but they were dead on. The fact is, we ignored those rumors because they weren't very impressive, and neither are the machines we got today. They're impressive when compared to the truly sorry state the towers were in on the 27th, but they're not going to rock anyone's world. Not by a long shot.



    With this anemic update out, I fail to see why some are so optimistic that Apollo will scale all that much better at .013. Some have made wild predictions of 1.6 G4 Apollos. Does that really seem all that plausible, when the best Apple was able to do with the first Apollo was 1GHz? I don't think there's much room for optimism concerning Apollo. And I also feel now that the G5 is farther off than most optimists believed. I don't think we'll see it until January, if then.



    The only cause for hope of greater processor speed in the future is the fact that Apple still touts Photoshop results as being superior to the competition. Apple still cares about trying to maintain the Power Mac speed advantage, and as long as they do, processors will have to follow, one way or another.



    If the Pentium and Athlon continue to ramp up in speed as some predict, something will definitely have to give at Apple. Either Apple will cede the professional market in an attempt to focus only on consumers, or Apple will have to get the PowerPC in gear. There is no in between among those choices - the first signifies slow death, so that won't cut it. Rather, it's just a question of which path Apple will choose to faster processors, as well as how quickly those chips will materialize.



    For the record, I haven't used the dual 1GHz yet, and I'm sure it's a very fast machine. However, Apple won't maximize its market potential unless and until its machines provide greater performance in all situations, rather than artificial Photoshop scenarios. Before I'm berated for speaking the truth, as others have been, I also must make it clear that I love Apple. I want the best for the company, and so do all of the other dissenters. Apple must watch these boards in some capacity, and if no one's screaming about performance, the company will assume that we're content with the GHz gap. Apple listens and will take action if we scream loudly enough. Those who don't enjoy reading such content should avoid threads on the subject.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
  • Reply 55 of 87
    philbotphilbot Posts: 240member
    Tigerwoods, you make a lot of sense.



    You are right about the older Macs genuinely giving you a better deal than PCs. When the first CD ROM shipped on the Mac, PC users were still fumbling around with mountains of floppy disks! What about colour? I can remember having the first colour screen (on my LC) in our company and PC drones came up from accounts to have a look. Some would say "why do you need a colour screen?"



    Now we are in the same position as the PC Drones. "Why do you need a G5 when a G4 is fast enough?" because Apple has a history of innovation which they have let slip over the last few years, which I believe is caused by emphasis on design rather than performance.



    Yes, Apple make the best looking computers in the world, but there is absolutely no reason why they can't include industry standard components in their computers. Especially as PC makers drive the prices down so much.



    Apple should always have the current standard RAM, HD size, Bus speeds etc as comparable PCs, but differentiate itself through its superior OS and applications.



  • Reply 56 of 87
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by mr.e:

    <strong>Tigerwoods99, you're a complete fu[king asshole; why don't you go fu[k yourself - maybe you'll be a nicer person - stop wasting the message board space here.



    I doubt you are 1% as smart as the people who run Apple, so if you aren't happy with yo Mhz, then use your DellHell and shut up in these forums.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wonder who the real asshole is



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
  • Reply 57 of 87
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I think this post is slowly sliding out of the acceptable levels. If fair, personal criticism evenually end up in people calling each other assholes, then you should probably stay away from the forums for a few days, take a nap, relax and come back when you feel like a grown up Mac user again.



    If you want to swear and insult each other, buy a PC and play CounterStrike, or join GameRanger and throw in words like sex, porn, gay, cheating etc, and the flamewar will start immediately. That's what makes up those teenagers.



    G-News
  • Reply 58 of 87
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Realistically, the new Powermacs are not competitive with the fast athlons or pentiums. Nobody needs any benchmarks to know that a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 is going to bitch-slap a powermac at everything save a few photoshop filters.



    Maybe if these Powermacs had a faster bus and memory, you'd have a point, but on the same mobo, these CPUs aren't going to make much of a difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    JD, if you look at Apple's benchmarks, you see a big increase in 933 vs DP 1GHz. Shit dude, that wouldn't happen to mean that the main bottleneck is not the bus but the CPU, wouldn't it :eek: ? GeForce 4 MX is a crippled GeForce. With extra pipelines and cross-bar it would be competitive with the latest x86 offerings. I reckon that the latest Athlon XPs and Northwoods would beat it in apps where the 4mb L3 cache wouldn't make much of a difference (ei games) but they wouldn't kick its ass either.



    Barto



    [edit: I am not an Apple apologist, I think Apple needs its head to be pulled out of its intestinal tract (that is to take care of workstations through a hot-rod mac, release low end towers or motherboards for enthusiasts, release its own CPU upgrades to make PowerMacs better value for money and get some rackmount gear out... and if they don't want to let a 3rd party do it) but I think that "Apple is too lazy to build faster products" is crap.]



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
  • Reply 59 of 87
    [quote]There were also a bunch of people who expected that the G4 Apollo would come out this week.QB]<hr></blockquote>



    IT IS THE APOLLO!!!!

  • Reply 60 of 87
    I don't think performance VS a p4 is a great benchmark really; the p4 is engineered to run at high clock speeds first, and for performance second; the AMD is a better comparison not least because the architecture is closer to the PPC.



    &lt;----instant expert
Sign In or Register to comment.