what did you do on it? play around with OS X and iTunes? I would hope they were fat on it. they SHOULD be fast on all supported machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Played around with OS X and opening up apps mostly. Everything was a lot faster then the Dual 800.
Apple's top of the line Macs have always cost around $3000. It's nothing new.
The thing is Dell and Intel have gone and screwed up the rest of the industry by slashing prices and thereby slashing their competitors throats, as they kill their profits trying to keep up (or down, rather).
I guess Apple could follow suit and be like Compaq, or IBM, or Gateway or whoever...they're doing real great aren't they?
Dell has a business model, of reducing costs wherever possible, that allows them to do that. They don't stock a single PC. The others (including Apple) don't follow that model. That simple really.
Dell doesn't develop a thing. Minimal R&D costs. No putting a GUI on top of someone else's OS (macaddict), no taking Lucent Technology and making it widely available by pushing it into the industry, no Firewire, no cool iSoftware. Just a cheap bunch of "fast" hardware using as few screws and bits of plastic as possible. Using Intel's "fast" chips and mobos cause they are out to destroy AMD (and any other competition).
Dell has helped to destroy the PC industry, they'll destroy the server industry next. That's what they do, kill profits and innovation.
Dell: The anti-technology company.
The only way for Apple to exist is to keep their margins up, and with their business model they have to bring in about 30%.
Dual 1Ghz Mac = $3000 - ~30% = $2000. You'll get your cheap Mac and Apple will die. How would that suit you?
Oh, don't forget, as soon as Dell is the big boy, when the dust is settled, you can expect them to control their pricing a little more "profitably", if you know what I mean.
So, go 'head, gead a cheap, fast PC, get one while you can. It likely won't be that way forever.
Sure, it would be nice if Apple had CPUs the same speed as Intel, but it ain't so. It just ain't so. Figure it out on your own from there.
[quote]what did you do on it? play around with OS X and iTunes? I would hope they were fat on it. they SHOULD be fast on all supported machines.<hr></blockquote>
Like a DT G3/233 with mininum RAM requirements?
[quote]Face it, Apple may not be able to be the leader in processor performance but they haven't shown the desire to make up for it through lower pricing and/or enhanced all around features/performance.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know...When you've got such a little portion of the pie, you need to charge a premium. Gigabit ethernet, built-in wireless support, FireWire, DVD-RW, TwinView dual monitor support, 3 DIMM slots, 4 open PCI slots, GeForce4 MX...
I configured as close to equivalent machine from Sony as possible.
2.2 GHz P4, 512 MB DDR, GeForce 2, DVD-RW, Windows XP Pro, 80 GB HDD...as close as possible. $2000
vs
dual 1 GHz G4, 512 PC133, GeForce4 MX, DVD-RW, Mac OS X and various iSoftware, 80 GB HDD, etc. $3000.
I don't know, for me, the $1000 savings is not compelling enough, but I am not a serious gamer. I bet the RAM comes in two sticks on the VAIO too.
The equivalent HP is right around $2000 too, but with a GeForce3 Ti 200, 2 256 MB DIMMs, XP Home...
Compaq's PC was $1800, but only 1.9 GHz
The closest Dell is the best deal...big surprise.
However, none of them have as many open PCI slots. Almost all of them use more than one RAM slot. I don't know. I don't feel compelled to switch. I don't feel like I got a raw deal with my new purchase.
Well I too was underwhelmed at the speed bumped PM's.
It seems more of the same 'ol i.e. the hardware is faster but only by a small amount and the price is still high but the improvements are just compelling enough to keep most of the faithful happy and NOT compelling enough to entice new converts. And so we wait.
There has been a lot of discussion about comparing the Dual Proc G4 to a single Proc P4 2.2 Northwood. In multi-threaded apps dual is logically better. But in apps not multi-threaded you system is only as fast as single CPU. So a better comparison would be between a dual P4 2.2 DDR setup and the Dual 1GHz G4 in a variety of software apps. An even better comparison would include a dual proc AthlonMP DDR. Benchmark rendering in Lightwave, Maya, and yes Photoshop and other apps as well.
With reference to Dell, HP and other major OEM's their systems are usually slower than custom built computers. This is due to the proprietary motherboards i.e. cheap and cheap and their extensive use of non-retail quality components. This does not mean that one must assemble computers by hand it simply means buying a pre-built system from a local dealer or custom national builder like Supercom. A P4 2.2 Dell versus a real Asus DDR board with the same cpu will be faster, about 10-15% on average. Not a huge deal but a difference nonetheless.
Ok so what's my point? Apple makes great stuff but they are behind in performance for professional applications. They used to be the fastest which justified the high premium price. The medicore speed increases this week are welcomed but still more than a day late and a dollar short. The race is not over of course despite what Micheal Dell is saying. Apple has time to regain its past glory. It has options and plenty of cash and I hope the guts to address their CPU supplier issue.
One last thought. The G5 sounds to be stunning. By the time the G5 may actually be available to purchase, AMD and Intel will have probably started shipping their 64-bit chips. These will not be shackled to the x86 platform. The (near) future holds the promise of some powerful pro systems.
Well, LinuxMan, the productive pro apps are multithreaded, multiprocessor aware for the most part. The little apps like web browsers, AIM, QT Player, etc...things that you would be running all at once, they'd all feel peppier. The apps that will demand 100% of your CPU will most likely be MP aware, those that don't are apps you tend to run with others concurrently, which means a high likelihood of load balancing across the two CPUs.
I doubt I will really feel 1 GHz behind most of the time.
One thing I think of is that we as users take a micro view of the situation. We can't see the future so all we know is the present. Presently Apple's fastest computers aren't the fastest available. Companies don't move at a day to day pace like we do. Apple makes a move every 3-6 months.
Apple knows their machines aren't the super fastest bestest machines in the world, but they're able to see long term.
So, they probably know that for the next X months they'll lose some sales. I'm sure they're not happy about it but they're most likely waiting for Motorola to design better chips. If the G5 is all it's supposed to be, in X months Apple will be ahead of the curve again, and will probably be there for a few years.
It's just a long slow process for us 'fans'. I'm not an apologist, but I'm also not worried.
Comments
<strong>
what did you do on it? play around with OS X and iTunes? I would hope they were fat on it. they SHOULD be fast on all supported machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Played around with OS X and opening up apps mostly. Everything was a lot faster then the Dual 800.
<strong>
Played around with OS X and opening up apps mostly. Everything was a lot faster then the Dual 800.</strong><hr></blockquote>
and that means what?
how does that not make it what would equal a mid range PC? it opens apps quickly?
The thing is Dell and Intel have gone and screwed up the rest of the industry by slashing prices and thereby slashing their competitors throats, as they kill their profits trying to keep up (or down, rather).
I guess Apple could follow suit and be like Compaq, or IBM, or Gateway or whoever...they're doing real great aren't they?
Dell has a business model, of reducing costs wherever possible, that allows them to do that. They don't stock a single PC. The others (including Apple) don't follow that model. That simple really.
Dell doesn't develop a thing. Minimal R&D costs. No putting a GUI on top of someone else's OS (macaddict), no taking Lucent Technology and making it widely available by pushing it into the industry, no Firewire, no cool iSoftware. Just a cheap bunch of "fast" hardware using as few screws and bits of plastic as possible. Using Intel's "fast" chips and mobos cause they are out to destroy AMD (and any other competition).
Dell has helped to destroy the PC industry, they'll destroy the server industry next. That's what they do, kill profits and innovation.
Dell: The anti-technology company.
The only way for Apple to exist is to keep their margins up, and with their business model they have to bring in about 30%.
Dual 1Ghz Mac = $3000 - ~30% = $2000. You'll get your cheap Mac and Apple will die. How would that suit you?
Oh, don't forget, as soon as Dell is the big boy, when the dust is settled, you can expect them to control their pricing a little more "profitably", if you know what I mean.
So, go 'head, gead a cheap, fast PC, get one while you can. It likely won't be that way forever.
Sure, it would be nice if Apple had CPUs the same speed as Intel, but it ain't so. It just ain't so. Figure it out on your own from there.
Good night.
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
Like a DT G3/233 with mininum RAM requirements?
[quote]Face it, Apple may not be able to be the leader in processor performance but they haven't shown the desire to make up for it through lower pricing and/or enhanced all around features/performance.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know...When you've got such a little portion of the pie, you need to charge a premium. Gigabit ethernet, built-in wireless support, FireWire, DVD-RW, TwinView dual monitor support, 3 DIMM slots, 4 open PCI slots, GeForce4 MX...
I configured as close to equivalent machine from Sony as possible.
2.2 GHz P4, 512 MB DDR, GeForce 2, DVD-RW, Windows XP Pro, 80 GB HDD...as close as possible. $2000
vs
dual 1 GHz G4, 512 PC133, GeForce4 MX, DVD-RW, Mac OS X and various iSoftware, 80 GB HDD, etc. $3000.
I don't know, for me, the $1000 savings is not compelling enough, but I am not a serious gamer. I bet the RAM comes in two sticks on the VAIO too.
The equivalent HP is right around $2000 too, but with a GeForce3 Ti 200, 2 256 MB DIMMs, XP Home...
Compaq's PC was $1800, but only 1.9 GHz
The closest Dell is the best deal...big surprise.
However, none of them have as many open PCI slots. Almost all of them use more than one RAM slot. I don't know. I don't feel compelled to switch. I don't feel like I got a raw deal with my new purchase.
It seems more of the same 'ol i.e. the hardware is faster but only by a small amount and the price is still high but the improvements are just compelling enough to keep most of the faithful happy and NOT compelling enough to entice new converts. And so we wait.
There has been a lot of discussion about comparing the Dual Proc G4 to a single Proc P4 2.2 Northwood. In multi-threaded apps dual is logically better. But in apps not multi-threaded you system is only as fast as single CPU. So a better comparison would be between a dual P4 2.2 DDR setup and the Dual 1GHz G4 in a variety of software apps. An even better comparison would include a dual proc AthlonMP DDR. Benchmark rendering in Lightwave, Maya, and yes Photoshop and other apps as well.
With reference to Dell, HP and other major OEM's their systems are usually slower than custom built computers. This is due to the proprietary motherboards i.e. cheap and cheap and their extensive use of non-retail quality components. This does not mean that one must assemble computers by hand it simply means buying a pre-built system from a local dealer or custom national builder like Supercom. A P4 2.2 Dell versus a real Asus DDR board with the same cpu will be faster, about 10-15% on average. Not a huge deal but a difference nonetheless.
Ok so what's my point? Apple makes great stuff but they are behind in performance for professional applications. They used to be the fastest which justified the high premium price. The medicore speed increases this week are welcomed but still more than a day late and a dollar short. The race is not over of course despite what Micheal Dell is saying. Apple has time to regain its past glory. It has options and plenty of cash and I hope the guts to address their CPU supplier issue.
One last thought. The G5 sounds to be stunning. By the time the G5 may actually be available to purchase, AMD and Intel will have probably started shipping their 64-bit chips. These will not be shackled to the x86 platform. The (near) future holds the promise of some powerful pro systems.
I doubt I will really feel 1 GHz behind most of the time.
Apple knows their machines aren't the super fastest bestest machines in the world, but they're able to see long term.
So, they probably know that for the next X months they'll lose some sales. I'm sure they're not happy about it but they're most likely waiting for Motorola to design better chips. If the G5 is all it's supposed to be, in X months Apple will be ahead of the curve again, and will probably be there for a few years.
It's just a long slow process for us 'fans'. I'm not an apologist, but I'm also not worried.