I was speaking more to the pro desktop machines. The servers look pretty good from a price-performance standpoint, even against x86.
This thread is looking to the Powermac, is it not? A PM with xServer architecture wouldn't be enough to close the gap. A 1.2-1.4Ghz G4 on an Xserver type not-quite-DDR Mobo @ MWNY would be lucky just to be as far behind as current DP Quick Silvers are to current x86.
By the time MWNY rolls around such a machine may in fact be even further behind yet to be released x86.
"I disagree... if its a new G4 with DDR support and/or other enhancements. I also don't think that 1.4 GHz is out of reach if they've moved to a new process as is expected."
Well, you're entitled to 'disagree' if you're okay/content with last years technology. (If the specs we're 'hoping' for as a minimum had arrived at San Fran this year then they would have been a late apology but no, Moto's crippled fab limped on to 1 gig processors.)
.5 gig in three years? What a joke? What a riot! I hope Apple have got something up its sleeve. 1.2 dual G4 with DDR? LOL. Yeah. This mythical DDR. Let me tell you something. I've seen very little real world difference between 512 megs of PC133 and 512 megs of 'DDR'. What kind of performance boost are people expecting from it? 100%
Sure, the Powermac sales may 'spurt' a little after this 1-1.4 ghz revision. But I think...as we move to the 'fall' then Powermac sales will exerience serious inertia as they get a hammering when both AMD and Intel move on. 'The Hammer' is pending and it'll 'Megahurt'! Many consumers don't buy Apple's stance. I speak to many who just aren't convinced by that 'computer company they've heard of...' ('But they're slower...')
Try blagging 3 times the mhz differential: Intel's 3 gig verses 1.2 G4? Or a 2.1 gig Athlon with its fpu units stomping all over the 1.2 (pending...) G4's single fpu...at double the hurts.
Steve better turn up his 'distortion field' to maximum and hope he's brought along a great case redesign for the 'Power'Macs.
Long term. Apple doesn't seem to be doing anything to arrest the overall decline in Powermac sales which have been sliding since 1999.
I think Matsu calls it right on. We need more than last years tech...more than incremental.
By the years end, Apple's 'Power' Mac specs will look a joke. If Apple are serious about the 3D/workstation market. Then they better up of their ass and get some serious workstation performance out there.
Professionals will look at 'tripple' the power and go...'sod it'...I can get 3 times the power for a third of the cost...even if I have to use it on a dog-tack ugly XP system.
I'm working on a 1.6 xp Athlon and it was peanuts to put together. (It doesn't give me pleasure to be Powermac-less...but unless Apple puts a 'competitive machine' out there. I aint buyin'.) Such a 'low end' system will give a dual 1 gig Powermac the runaround most of the time.
'X' on Sledghammer? I'd like to think so. 'G5' = multicore g3 via IBM? 'G5' = 8500/7500 by Moto?
Can anybody on these boards say for sure?
Sure, my whinin' aint helpin'. But I've noticed alot of Mac users on these boards doing the same. They're fed up. And it's getting harder and harder to dismiss the embarrassing performance of the Powermac line with 'Sod off and use x86 Winblows then!' (OOops. A lot of Powermac users just did. Gee, maybe the being 'stiffed' on price for last years tech' and a whopping .5 gig rise in processing power over three years drove them to it... Or maybe they are professionals who are professional and realise that OS semantics shouldn't get in the way of getting a job done faster. At the rate they keep 'sodding off' then it'll take more than the new imac to keep Apple profitable. Without a healthy Powermac line. Apple are in trouble.)
But I think it's a damn shame that with so much of the software, the os, market segments, the innovations in other areas, with the movement in 3D and digital video...getting nailed down strategically...that the one thing that is letting the side down, bar the superb stylings of Apple's hardware...is...is the internals of the machines themselves.
<strong>But it could be that they are so RDF-ed that they truly don't see it as that much of a problem, and so aren't taking the steps that they could be taking to change things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No offense, but
"Oh, C'mon...!"
I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent and enterprising individuals that have worked their way up in a technological industry would not understand the concept of raw horsepower. I am an "Apple" fan all-the-way... but there is no RDF that could twist the reality of the performance benchmarks of MULTI-Ghz Pentiums and such that are blowing-away the G4 left and right.
Again... I can only hope that they recognize it and the RDF is aimed at the general public to ease their concerns of the Mhz(Ghz) gap... but that they are frantically looking for advances and/or alternatives to power their machines in the future... even if it means dumping AltiVec or something drastic like that.
(Where is MMX now...? heheh)
I really hope you are wrong, and that they really DO get it, but they just haven't found the "right" solution yet. *crossing fingers*
I agree to some extent with what Matsu and Hornet are saying; I too think it is quite serious when people gush that Apple has finally delivered a technology that is old (the DDR situation). I sincerely hope that they deliver an improved bus for NY.
In addition I originally thought the the Xserve might be a bit of a bad omen, in that the spec did not look too hopeful for a vastly revamped powermac this summer.
It strikes me though, that Apple may finally be listening to exactly what it is that customers want (as they themselves state). The Xserve appears to be remarkably competitive for the price, and I think that this infers that Apple are doing their upmost to rectify the shortfall situation. (It is quite interesting when you visit the site that they plug the DDR thing so resoundingly.) One of the main problems with this 'silent' approach that the company has, is that we cannot tell what is going on behind closed doors, bad or good. Sometimes this approach works (remember the buzz when you read about the G4 in that first press release), sometimes it doesn't.
We all agree that Apple needs some hardcore hardware to successfully make inroads into the latest markets that it is going after, especially now that the Xserve can deliver the answer for render-farming, scientific modelling etc etc. The purchase of NothingReal is still a tantilising(sp?) clue as to what may be coming.
I believe that we be pleasantly surprised (although perhaps not blown away) with what comes this summer.
"We all agree that Apple needs some hardcore hardware to successfully make inroads into the latest markets that it is going after, especially now that the Xserve can deliver the answer for render-farming, scientific modelling etc etc. The purchase of NothingReal is still a tantilising(sp?) clue as to what may be coming."
Er. You said it better than I did. And in less words. Drat.
One other thing... although our discussions of all of this helps US flush-out information and ideas... it's somewhat masturbatory in nature unless these thoughts make their way to Apple. (stating the obvious here)
They "Appear" to be listening to their customers lately and responding in a positive way. When iPhoto came out, I sent in feedback to them regarding the slideshow element... I said: "Although it's kinda neat, why not have the images zoom in & out like they do in the screensavers in addition to cross-disolving... or have a button to allow people to set a group of images AS their screensaver images..."
Sure enough... there it was in the next release of iPhoto. I'm not saying that I was the only one to suggest it to them or that they didn't think of it on their own... but they keep mentioning how they're "listening" to their customers.
So... are we all expressing our concerns directly to Apple...? Sadly, I have not yet emailed them regarding the whole speed/architecture concerns yet. Will do soon.
Something must be wrong with your hardware/software. 150 fps @ 640 with that kind of hardware?
My hardware; G4 466/Rage128"pro" in fact gets 115 fps @ 640. Not joking, inflating by .1 fps. (Bring all your flames, but I'll still timedemo four at 115)
Macs are not THAT slow, thats for sure.
My prediction for MWNY:
1,33GHz DP/1,2 GHz SP/1,13Ghz SP
133 MHz systembus/266MHz DDR RAM
ATA 133 controller...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a 867 G4, GeForce 3, and 640 MB of RAM. With everything on in quake 3 at 1280x1024 I timedemo at 70 fps, a PC from the same era as my 867 would get around 170 fps at the same settings. There is a definite disparity between Macs and PCs when it comes to game performance. Just compare some tests from <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/"; target="_blank">XLR8YourMac</a> and <a href="http://www.HARDOCP.com/"; target="_blank">HOCP</a>
I also don't think we should overlook the the fact that the last few hardware announcements (excepting the Xserve) have been relatively low key.
I think the execs at Apple understand that people don't mind a small press release to announce a bump in speed, as opposed to the flash bang fireworks of a MacWorld. Additionally, the announcement of the RAID array for the end of the year makes me think that they will take on a more dynamic stance with regard to hardware announcements. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain tech may be introduced at some X point in the future (and it doesn't necessarily HAVE to impact badly upon current sales).
<strong>They "Appear" to be listening to their customers lately and responding in a positive way. When iPhoto came out, I sent in feedback to them regarding the slideshow element... I said: "Although it's kinda neat, why not have the images zoom in & out like they do in the screensavers in addition to cross-disolving... or have a button to allow people to set a group of images AS their screensaver images..."
Sure enough... there it was in the next release of iPhoto. I'm not saying that I was the only one to suggest it to them or that they didn't think of it on their own... but they keep mentioning how they're "listening" to their customers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So where can I send an e-mail to Mot/IBM advising them to stop doing PPC design with an etch'n'sketch? Dear Mot, Most CPU manufacturers now use some form of lithography and no longer rely on potato cutters and metallic finger paint. While I realize that potatoes are only $5 a sack...
So where can I send an e-mail to Mot/IBM advising them to stop doing PPC design with an etch'n'sketch? </strong><hr></blockquote>
You've got me baffled. All I know is, that I frequent these boards looking for information and insight... but rarely express my concerns to the very people I SHOULD be expressing them to; Apple.
I just finished sending something to them about 15 minutes ago. Again... to get us (me) back on topic... if the G4's hardware spec's stem from the Xserve... it would be a step forward (IMHO), but only a BABY step forward... they need to be making BIG strides at this point in the game (again, IMHO)
I love 'em... but they are dropping further and further from the pack... time to pull-out the Turbo, NitrousOxide, Afterburners, (place euphamism here) and blow-by the others.
While it’s true that the current 1GHz G4 cannot nearly compare with a 2.4GHz P4 in terms of raw horsepower, I would point out that lack of MHz is not the most significant hindrance in the Macintosh architecture. Bus speed limitations, HD controller speeds, and lack of onboard cache have an equally-devastating effect on the speed differences between the top Macintosh and the top PC.
For evidence, I cite <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pm01.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pm01.html</A>; . Note that the 533MHz single processor PowerMac is nearly identical in performance to the 733MHz PowerMac. The author of the article concludes that the gap in 733MHz PowerMac performance is due to the lack of L3 cache.
I would suggest that what Apple needs is NOT faster processors, but a completely redesigned hardware (motherboard) architecture that compensates for Motorola’s lack of MHz.
On Apple Market Share
I’ve often heard that Apple will not be able to gain market share until its processing speed matches that of a PC. And while I’m inclined to believe that a comparable MHz rating would help hardware sales, I humbly suggest that there is a more sure-fire way to gain market share.
Games.
Please do not confuse this with an, “I only get 125 fps on my PowerMac, “ rant. My reasoning for games = market share has nothing to do with how many fps the Macintosh gamer sees on his monitor. My contention is that there are TWO types of consumers that consistently upgrade their computer hardware: graphics/arts professionals, and gamers.
Graphic artists, designers, etc., directly benefit from faster hardware, as it cuts down on rendering time, etc. These individuals depend on cutting edge speed to get their jobs done faster every day.
Gamers, while not depending on computers for their livelihood, are insatiably generous when it comes to upgrading their computers based on the latest and greatest video games.
As an example, I cite myself. I use to have an Athlon 650 that I used for Starcraft and other “strategy” games. When Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was released for the PC, I found that my graphics chipset and processor were not adequate for playing MOHAA. In fact, I couldn’t even get MOHAA to get past the introductory screen.
What did I do? I went to the local Fry’s and dropped $400 into an Nvidia card, a new motherboard, and a new Duron 1Gig processor.
Freakish? Desperate? Perhaps.
But consider this. My roommate went to Best Buy and purchased a brand new eMachines 1.4Gig machine for $650 for playing MOHAA, Star Wars JKII, and a slew of other first-person-shooter games. I seriously doubt that we’re the only one’s shelling out cash for new PC hardware every time an MOHAA-type of game hits the market.
The Point
Consider this. If video games were ported to the Macintosh platform BEFORE they were released to the PC platform, and those same video games were released SIMULTANEOUSLY, would there be cause to upgrade Macintosh hardware?
Imagine the possibilities. If Apple Computer made a legitimate investment in PC gaming companies, such that contracts were made for SIMULTANEOUS video game release on BOTH platforms, then the Macintosh would have the following advantages:
Does not require Microsoft OS/Registration
Is capable of file sharing with MSFT PCs
Is capable of running Office applications
Comes with “i” apps - free
Has underlying UNIX core that supports preemptive multitasking
Is not susceptible to frequent MSFT crashes/viruses/VBA macros
Plays all the cutting edge games that a PC does
Now, not only do creative professionals spend money on Macintosh upgrades, but gamers put their money toward Macintosh hardware whenever they upgrade. Both of the heavy-upgrade markets are tapped. The money that Apple had invested in gaming development/partnerships comes back to them by way of hardware purchases.
On Apple DissatisfactionIdle threats to “leave the Mac and buy a PC” are commonplace on some of the Macintosh forums. My personal belief is that the people who make such statements are really Apple’s biggest fans. When their favorite computer maker appears to have a flaw, they see a flaw within themselves. It has also been suggested that we (the Apple consumers) should write to Apple telling them what we want from our OS and our hardware. While this is a noble effort, I have an alternate method for getting Apple to “listen” to our requests.
Don’t buy any new Apple hardware.
If you need your PowerMac to utilize the fastest bus speeds, and the current generation of PowerMac hardware is 2 years behind in technology - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC. If you’re tired of watching your PC friends play MOHAA months before it’s even considered for porting to the Macintosh platform - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC. If you’re tired of having to buy $30 USB peripherals just to hook up your 5.1 speakers to a Macintosh - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC.
Tell your friends and family NOT to buy a new Macintosh computer until they offer more bang for the buck. Hold out with your current Macintosh as long as you possibly can (G3 350MHz for me). When your PC friends laugh at you because you paid twice what they did for less-functional hardware, just smile and realize that you’re helping Apple Computer by spending your money elsewhere and showing them the error of their ways.
It will take some time. But after several quarters of losing money and stock value, Apple Computer will realize that “Power” should come first before physical beauty. Especially when your product is called “PowerMac”.
This matrox parahelia chip is a perfect example of what apple needs to do. Apple is already a generation or two behind, its time to skip some generations and whup some ass. Note to apple although i know they arent reading this, so you dont have to point that out to me) Power mac users/customers are out for POWER, not like the imac price/performance people. There needs to be a huge difference between the power mac and the imac, and if it takes a higher price to do this, then so be it.
<strong>I also don't think we should overlook the the fact that the last few hardware announcements (excepting the Xserve) have been relatively low key.
I think the execs at Apple understand that people don't mind a small press release to announce a bump in speed, as opposed to the flash bang fireworks of a MacWorld. Additionally, the announcement of the RAID array for the end of the year makes me think that they will take on a more dynamic stance with regard to hardware announcements. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain tech may be introduced at some X point in the future (and it doesn't necessarily HAVE to impact badly upon current sales).</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. IMO, Apple is being very open in regard to their announcments since the beginning of this year. Ok, they don't layout their long-term plans but they do give useful hints: The "no new CPU for some time" statement, all the quiet little announcements of even new products, we knew what was on schedule for WWDC and about Xserve - they even pre-announced and showed the Xserve RAID. And they respond to their customers' needs - but they can't do magic tricks and let appear what does not exist (yet).
I don't quite understand the "last years technology" claimers. What do you think is this years technology? DDR2700 - unstable immature and rare technology. DDR2 - still in research. Just to name a few. Either Apple does something proprietary - like ADC - and everyone complains, or they wait until new industry standards become common and mature and still everybody complains that they are way behind. Although I have to admit that they should adopt things a little faster.
Well, I guess that Apple's lastest aquisitions - that firewire company, that video-sw company etc. - will bear fruit soon. How long did Apple evaluate Xserve with key-customers?
The main problem Apple has is that they aparently have never understood that bandwidth is of the essence.
They clocked up the MHz ramp on the 604ev to notice it wasn't quite all there is to it.
The added caches like crazies.
The bragged about the IPS rate of their chips like champions (supercomputer on a chip blablabla)
And yet they have always been behind in system bus speed and storage interface bandwidth.
This is where Intel shines, the played the MHz game until they hit a wall with the P3 and realized that they needed a platform to build on that would LAST, not one that would just compete at the moment and be obsolete in 5 months, but one that had great future potential.
Sure they dropped the IPS rate to achieve that, but look at what they've got now?
A P4 that scales better than a rocket in the sky and a system FSB that has enough bandwidth for the next 2 years NOW already, with further scaling possible.
What has Apple done in the past?
They scaled from 32 to 50MHz on the G1 and G2 chips bus speed, they yanked it to 66MHz with the first G3, when the PC already had 100, and to 100 then the PC had 133...they went to 133 when the Athlons came with their 200MHz bus and they're still there. The athlons now have 266MHz effective bus speed and the P4 has 533MHz....
I'm not saying this is completely Apple's fault, as obviously Motorola also plays an important rule in that theatre, but don't tell me they thought about these issues from the ground up when designing the G4...they DEFINITELY didn't. They just took the G3 with all it's aged flaws, added double precision FPU and Altivec (all pure IPS rate wanking actually) and completely forgot about the fact that they might eventually need to have a bus that could support the chips speed...
They knwe the G4 was going to scale to at least 1GHz...how could they think a 133MHz bus would suffice beyond that? They had the ****ing example of Intel who had run into the P3 wall face ahead.
You can tell me whatever you want, but it's not all tech issues right there, it's bad judgement, a whole whooping lot of it. In war you get shot for that, and the IT industry IS WAR...
Also military courts like facts, not words...
I've said it in the past, adn I'll say it till the day has arrived: they've got time until MWSF 03, then it's deliver or die, as sorry as I am.
"So where can I send an e-mail to Mot/IBM advising them to stop doing PPC design with an etch'n'sketch? Dear Mot, Most CPU manufacturers now use some form of lithography and no longer rely on potato cutters and metallic finger paint. While I realize that potatoes are only $5 a sack..."
Between you and Junkyard Dog....well, you make the boards entertaining.
I think some interesting points have been raised here.
Games and Digital Art take lots of power and these kind of consumers want more power. This can lead to growth. Growth can lead to doubling your small market share. But weak 'Power'Mac specs leads to fear...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to Apple suff-er-ring.
Apple has to offer more to stop the drift of some of the digital art crowd to x86.
2nd interesting idea is that we stop buying Powermacs until Apple properly addresses the 'Power' in the Powermac performance issue. Me? I'm voting with my wallet. Unfortunately, the last time consumers voted with their wallets due to indifferent product differentiation over PCs...well, Apple almost went under before they got the message.
Apple's got alot more in cash these days. And yes, they do appear to actually 'listening' to some things. (Hey, how about that, a company that listens...) But maybe after a collapse of Powermac sales...well, they may just get the hint.
Yeesh, if AMD, a company that was bleeding to death fighting a 90% plus market gorilla like Intel only a year or so ago, can pull things around, I'm sure Apple can do something about the CPU issue.
Although Gamers get poo-pooed on these boards sometimes, it's clear that alot of gamers buy PCs. Was it THAT long ago that Macs had much respect games wise. Seems like such a long time ago now? IF Apple had the POWER in 'Power'mac then maybe they'd buy Apple (along with more dual releases of the big games. Maybe the DX framework emulator will help towards this to some degree...) Having grass roots respect with gaming on gaming sites did AMD's first clutch of Athlons the power of good and word got around just how good their cpus were compared to Intels!
It doesn't just come down to the OS 'X'. How many people are going to buy a Mac over a PC when its specs are clearly over a year behind?! If the performance gap widens and you're still paying a premium...it's going to get harder and harder for some people to justify buying Apple. These are the people Apple not only needs to keep but to build upon.
All things being equal, then OS X should decide the issue.
There is no 'single' issue why Apple have 3-5% market share. From marketing blunders to management misteps and insane ceos. However, currently, while in much of many of the things Apple are doing...they are leading innovation....in terms of hardware specs...Apple look embarrassingly out of touch especially in bang for buck comparisons.
Clearly, the CPU issue HASN'T gone away. The MOBO isn't helping. And if it isn't an issue, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE A MILLION THREADS WITH EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT IT?! (And why's my caps lock stuck...?)
Apple say they're after the 'other' 95% then they've got to 'walk the walk' not just 'do the talk'.
At the moment, their Powermac strategy is merely 'sandbagging'.
[quote]2nd interesting idea is that we stop buying Powermacs until Apple properly addresses the 'Power' in the Powermac performance issue. Me? I'm voting with my wallet. Unfortunately, the last time consumers voted with their wallets due to indifferent product differentiation over PCs...well, Apple almost went under before they got the message.<hr></blockquote>
Actually people have stopped buying Power Macs. Last two earnings calls Apple has stated that Power Mac sales have been flat...but that is where the RDF kicks in. It's because of the economy and no Photoshop for OSX and dribble like that. Yeah that's it. Thats why iMacs are flying off of shelves and Powerbook sales are strong.
No Apple, it's because the architecture is very very dated. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
"I don't quite understand the "last years technology" claimers. "
Where were you when the G4 was stuck at 500mhz for almost a millenia?
Ever experience the angst of Apple plucking the alien face sucking ATi 'Rage' graphic chip <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> from the corpse of 'Powermacs' past? (and heck, thousands of Macs were lost to the alien farm Ati rages...8 and 16 meg face suckers...it...it was horrible....)
...and er...here we are...still on G3s (how old is that chip....zzzZZZzzzz....), bus speeds of 66 (warp drive...), Powermac bus speed 133...compared to...well, I think we get the idea.
Adopt 'newer' technology sooner. Y'know, that has a hollow ring to it.
"No Apple, it's because the architecture is very very dated. "
That's the spirit Bodhi.
(I've got a spare Doctor Martin boot, care to put it on and join in the 'Power'mac kickin' contest?)
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Apple, if you think Photoshop 7 with its polyunsaturated feature count is going to get Powermac sales to break the half a million mark...then I suggest you 'listen' a whole lot more to the sound of the x86 train whistling on the track.
It always kills me during the earnings calls. "We still think our pro customers are holding off their hardware purchases for more professional OSX apps to become available.."
So what you are saying is that if I buy a Dual GHz G4 Photoshop 7 will not run on it when it comes out?? So I should hold off on my hardware purchase until they make Quark for OSX?
I realize that this is just Apple's spin they are putting on this and that they cannot actually believe this. But I really hope someone somewhere on that campus at Cupertino realizes that Apple is stil selling computers with a 66MHz bus, the "high end" machines have sdram and 133MHz bus speeds and ATA-66 interfaces.
Comments
This thread is looking to the Powermac, is it not? A PM with xServer architecture wouldn't be enough to close the gap. A 1.2-1.4Ghz G4 on an Xserver type not-quite-DDR Mobo @ MWNY would be lucky just to be as far behind as current DP Quick Silvers are to current x86.
By the time MWNY rolls around such a machine may in fact be even further behind yet to be released x86.
Well, you're entitled to 'disagree' if you're okay/content with last years technology. (If the specs we're 'hoping' for as a minimum had arrived at San Fran this year then they would have been a late apology but no, Moto's crippled fab limped on to 1 gig processors.)
.5 gig in three years? What a joke? What a riot! I hope Apple have got something up its sleeve. 1.2 dual G4 with DDR? LOL. Yeah. This mythical DDR. Let me tell you something. I've seen very little real world difference between 512 megs of PC133 and 512 megs of 'DDR'. What kind of performance boost are people expecting from it? 100%
Sure, the Powermac sales may 'spurt' a little after this 1-1.4 ghz revision. But I think...as we move to the 'fall' then Powermac sales will exerience serious inertia as they get a hammering when both AMD and Intel move on. 'The Hammer' is pending and it'll 'Megahurt'! Many consumers don't buy Apple's stance. I speak to many who just aren't convinced by that 'computer company they've heard of...' ('But they're slower...')
Try blagging 3 times the mhz differential: Intel's 3 gig verses 1.2 G4? Or a 2.1 gig Athlon with its fpu units stomping all over the 1.2 (pending...) G4's single fpu...at double the hurts.
Steve better turn up his 'distortion field' to maximum and hope he's brought along a great case redesign for the 'Power'Macs.
Long term. Apple doesn't seem to be doing anything to arrest the overall decline in Powermac sales which have been sliding since 1999.
I think Matsu calls it right on. We need more than last years tech...more than incremental.
By the years end, Apple's 'Power' Mac specs will look a joke. If Apple are serious about the 3D/workstation market. Then they better up of their ass and get some serious workstation performance out there.
Professionals will look at 'tripple' the power and go...'sod it'...I can get 3 times the power for a third of the cost...even if I have to use it on a dog-tack ugly XP system.
I'm working on a 1.6 xp Athlon and it was peanuts to put together. (It doesn't give me pleasure to be Powermac-less...but unless Apple puts a 'competitive machine' out there. I aint buyin'.) Such a 'low end' system will give a dual 1 gig Powermac the runaround most of the time.
'X' on Sledghammer? I'd like to think so. 'G5' = multicore g3 via IBM? 'G5' = 8500/7500 by Moto?
Can anybody on these boards say for sure?
Sure, my whinin' aint helpin'. But I've noticed alot of Mac users on these boards doing the same. They're fed up. And it's getting harder and harder to dismiss the embarrassing performance of the Powermac line with 'Sod off and use x86 Winblows then!' (OOops. A lot of Powermac users just did. Gee, maybe the being 'stiffed' on price for last years tech' and a whopping .5 gig rise in processing power over three years drove them to it... Or maybe they are professionals who are professional and realise that OS semantics shouldn't get in the way of getting a job done faster. At the rate they keep 'sodding off' then it'll take more than the new imac to keep Apple profitable. Without a healthy Powermac line. Apple are in trouble.)
But I think it's a damn shame that with so much of the software, the os, market segments, the innovations in other areas, with the movement in 3D and digital video...getting nailed down strategically...that the one thing that is letting the side down, bar the superb stylings of Apple's hardware...is...is the internals of the machines themselves.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>But it could be that they are so RDF-ed that they truly don't see it as that much of a problem, and so aren't taking the steps that they could be taking to change things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No offense, but
"Oh, C'mon...!"
I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent and enterprising individuals that have worked their way up in a technological industry would not understand the concept of raw horsepower. I am an "Apple" fan all-the-way... but there is no RDF that could twist the reality of the performance benchmarks of MULTI-Ghz Pentiums and such that are blowing-away the G4 left and right.
Again... I can only hope that they recognize it and the RDF is aimed at the general public to ease their concerns of the Mhz(Ghz) gap... but that they are frantically looking for advances and/or alternatives to power their machines in the future... even if it means dumping AltiVec or something drastic like that.
(Where is MMX now...? heheh)
I really hope you are wrong, and that they really DO get it, but they just haven't found the "right" solution yet. *crossing fingers*
In addition I originally thought the the Xserve might be a bit of a bad omen, in that the spec did not look too hopeful for a vastly revamped powermac this summer.
It strikes me though, that Apple may finally be listening to exactly what it is that customers want (as they themselves state). The Xserve appears to be remarkably competitive for the price, and I think that this infers that Apple are doing their upmost to rectify the shortfall situation. (It is quite interesting when you visit the site that they plug the DDR thing so resoundingly.) One of the main problems with this 'silent' approach that the company has, is that we cannot tell what is going on behind closed doors, bad or good. Sometimes this approach works (remember the buzz when you read about the G4 in that first press release), sometimes it doesn't.
We all agree that Apple needs some hardcore hardware to successfully make inroads into the latest markets that it is going after, especially now that the Xserve can deliver the answer for render-farming, scientific modelling etc etc. The purchase of NothingReal is still a tantilising(sp?) clue as to what may be coming.
I believe that we be pleasantly surprised (although perhaps not blown away) with what comes this summer.
Rant over.
Er. You said it better than I did. And in less words. Drat.
Lemon Bon Bon
Good point.
Altivec is largely ornamental unless people program support for it.
Altivec also hasn't stopped the Dual G4 getting its arsed kicked by a single processor Athlon in benches.
G5 please.
Lemon Bon Bon. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
They "Appear" to be listening to their customers lately and responding in a positive way. When iPhoto came out, I sent in feedback to them regarding the slideshow element... I said: "Although it's kinda neat, why not have the images zoom in & out like they do in the screensavers in addition to cross-disolving... or have a button to allow people to set a group of images AS their screensaver images..."
Sure enough... there it was in the next release of iPhoto. I'm not saying that I was the only one to suggest it to them or that they didn't think of it on their own... but they keep mentioning how they're "listening" to their customers.
So... are we all expressing our concerns directly to Apple...? Sadly, I have not yet emailed them regarding the whole speed/architecture concerns yet. Will do soon.
<strong>
Something must be wrong with your hardware/software. 150 fps @ 640 with that kind of hardware?
My hardware; G4 466/Rage128"pro" in fact gets 115 fps @ 640. Not joking, inflating by .1 fps. (Bring all your flames, but I'll still timedemo four at 115)
Macs are not THAT slow, thats for sure.
My prediction for MWNY:
1,33GHz DP/1,2 GHz SP/1,13Ghz SP
133 MHz systembus/266MHz DDR RAM
ATA 133 controller...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a 867 G4, GeForce 3, and 640 MB of RAM. With everything on in quake 3 at 1280x1024 I timedemo at 70 fps, a PC from the same era as my 867 would get around 170 fps at the same settings. There is a definite disparity between Macs and PCs when it comes to game performance. Just compare some tests from <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/"; target="_blank">XLR8YourMac</a> and <a href="http://www.HARDOCP.com/"; target="_blank">HOCP</a>
I think the execs at Apple understand that people don't mind a small press release to announce a bump in speed, as opposed to the flash bang fireworks of a MacWorld. Additionally, the announcement of the RAID array for the end of the year makes me think that they will take on a more dynamic stance with regard to hardware announcements. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain tech may be introduced at some X point in the future (and it doesn't necessarily HAVE to impact badly upon current sales).
<strong>They "Appear" to be listening to their customers lately and responding in a positive way. When iPhoto came out, I sent in feedback to them regarding the slideshow element... I said: "Although it's kinda neat, why not have the images zoom in & out like they do in the screensavers in addition to cross-disolving... or have a button to allow people to set a group of images AS their screensaver images..."
Sure enough... there it was in the next release of iPhoto. I'm not saying that I was the only one to suggest it to them or that they didn't think of it on their own... but they keep mentioning how they're "listening" to their customers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So where can I send an e-mail to Mot/IBM advising them to stop doing PPC design with an etch'n'sketch? Dear Mot, Most CPU manufacturers now use some form of lithography and no longer rely on potato cutters and metallic finger paint. While I realize that potatoes are only $5 a sack...
<strong>
So where can I send an e-mail to Mot/IBM advising them to stop doing PPC design with an etch'n'sketch? </strong><hr></blockquote>
You've got me baffled. All I know is, that I frequent these boards looking for information and insight... but rarely express my concerns to the very people I SHOULD be expressing them to; Apple.
I just finished sending something to them about 15 minutes ago. Again... to get us (me) back on topic... if the G4's hardware spec's stem from the Xserve... it would be a step forward (IMHO), but only a BABY step forward... they need to be making BIG strides at this point in the game (again, IMHO)
I love 'em... but they are dropping further and further from the pack... time to pull-out the Turbo, NitrousOxide, Afterburners, (place euphamism here) and blow-by the others.
While it’s true that the current 1GHz G4 cannot nearly compare with a 2.4GHz P4 in terms of raw horsepower, I would point out that lack of MHz is not the most significant hindrance in the Macintosh architecture. Bus speed limitations, HD controller speeds, and lack of onboard cache have an equally-devastating effect on the speed differences between the top Macintosh and the top PC.
For evidence, I cite <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pm01.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pm01.html</A>; . Note that the 533MHz single processor PowerMac is nearly identical in performance to the 733MHz PowerMac. The author of the article concludes that the gap in 733MHz PowerMac performance is due to the lack of L3 cache.
The 533 model was introduced on July 18, 2001 <a href="http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_533.html"; target="_blank">http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_533.html</A>; . The 733 model was introduced on January 28, 2002 <a href="http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_733_qs.html"; target="_blank">http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_733_qs.html</A>; . In this case, it is clear that the performance of Apple’s PowerMac computers has remained stagnant, despite a 200MHz processor speed increase.
I would suggest that what Apple needs is NOT faster processors, but a completely redesigned hardware (motherboard) architecture that compensates for Motorola’s lack of MHz.
On Apple Market Share
I’ve often heard that Apple will not be able to gain market share until its processing speed matches that of a PC. And while I’m inclined to believe that a comparable MHz rating would help hardware sales, I humbly suggest that there is a more sure-fire way to gain market share.
Games.
Please do not confuse this with an, “I only get 125 fps on my PowerMac, “ rant. My reasoning for games = market share has nothing to do with how many fps the Macintosh gamer sees on his monitor. My contention is that there are TWO types of consumers that consistently upgrade their computer hardware: graphics/arts professionals, and gamers.
Graphic artists, designers, etc., directly benefit from faster hardware, as it cuts down on rendering time, etc. These individuals depend on cutting edge speed to get their jobs done faster every day.
Gamers, while not depending on computers for their livelihood, are insatiably generous when it comes to upgrading their computers based on the latest and greatest video games.
As an example, I cite myself. I use to have an Athlon 650 that I used for Starcraft and other “strategy” games. When Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was released for the PC, I found that my graphics chipset and processor were not adequate for playing MOHAA. In fact, I couldn’t even get MOHAA to get past the introductory screen.
What did I do? I went to the local Fry’s and dropped $400 into an Nvidia card, a new motherboard, and a new Duron 1Gig processor.
Freakish? Desperate? Perhaps.
But consider this. My roommate went to Best Buy and purchased a brand new eMachines 1.4Gig machine for $650 for playing MOHAA, Star Wars JKII, and a slew of other first-person-shooter games. I seriously doubt that we’re the only one’s shelling out cash for new PC hardware every time an MOHAA-type of game hits the market.
The Point
Consider this. If video games were ported to the Macintosh platform BEFORE they were released to the PC platform, and those same video games were released SIMULTANEOUSLY, would there be cause to upgrade Macintosh hardware?
Imagine the possibilities. If Apple Computer made a legitimate investment in PC gaming companies, such that contracts were made for SIMULTANEOUS video game release on BOTH platforms, then the Macintosh would have the following advantages:
- Does not require Microsoft OS/Registration
- Is capable of file sharing with MSFT PCs
- Is capable of running Office applications
- Comes with “i” apps - free
- Has underlying UNIX core that supports preemptive multitasking
- Is not susceptible to frequent MSFT crashes/viruses/VBA macros
- Plays all the cutting edge games that a PC does
Now, not only do creative professionals spend money on Macintosh upgrades, but gamers put their money toward Macintosh hardware whenever they upgrade. Both of the heavy-upgrade markets are tapped. The money that Apple had invested in gaming development/partnerships comes back to them by way of hardware purchases.On Apple DissatisfactionIdle threats to “leave the Mac and buy a PC” are commonplace on some of the Macintosh forums. My personal belief is that the people who make such statements are really Apple’s biggest fans. When their favorite computer maker appears to have a flaw, they see a flaw within themselves. It has also been suggested that we (the Apple consumers) should write to Apple telling them what we want from our OS and our hardware. While this is a noble effort, I have an alternate method for getting Apple to “listen” to our requests.
Don’t buy any new Apple hardware.
If you need your PowerMac to utilize the fastest bus speeds, and the current generation of PowerMac hardware is 2 years behind in technology - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC. If you’re tired of watching your PC friends play MOHAA months before it’s even considered for porting to the Macintosh platform - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC. If you’re tired of having to buy $30 USB peripherals just to hook up your 5.1 speakers to a Macintosh - DON’T BUY A NEW MAC.
Tell your friends and family NOT to buy a new Macintosh computer until they offer more bang for the buck. Hold out with your current Macintosh as long as you possibly can (G3 350MHz for me). When your PC friends laugh at you because you paid twice what they did for less-functional hardware, just smile and realize that you’re helping Apple Computer by spending your money elsewhere and showing them the error of their ways.
It will take some time. But after several quarters of losing money and stock value, Apple Computer will realize that “Power” should come first before physical beauty. Especially when your product is called “PowerMac”.
My $0.02,
-theMagius
<strong>I also don't think we should overlook the the fact that the last few hardware announcements (excepting the Xserve) have been relatively low key.
I think the execs at Apple understand that people don't mind a small press release to announce a bump in speed, as opposed to the flash bang fireworks of a MacWorld. Additionally, the announcement of the RAID array for the end of the year makes me think that they will take on a more dynamic stance with regard to hardware announcements. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain tech may be introduced at some X point in the future (and it doesn't necessarily HAVE to impact badly upon current sales).</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. IMO, Apple is being very open in regard to their announcments since the beginning of this year. Ok, they don't layout their long-term plans but they do give useful hints: The "no new CPU for some time" statement, all the quiet little announcements of even new products, we knew what was on schedule for WWDC and about Xserve - they even pre-announced and showed the Xserve RAID. And they respond to their customers' needs - but they can't do magic tricks and let appear what does not exist (yet).
I don't quite understand the "last years technology" claimers. What do you think is this years technology? DDR2700 - unstable immature and rare technology. DDR2 - still in research. Just to name a few. Either Apple does something proprietary - like ADC - and everyone complains, or they wait until new industry standards become common and mature and still everybody complains that they are way behind. Although I have to admit that they should adopt things a little faster.
Well, I guess that Apple's lastest aquisitions - that firewire company, that video-sw company etc. - will bear fruit soon. How long did Apple evaluate Xserve with key-customers?
They clocked up the MHz ramp on the 604ev to notice it wasn't quite all there is to it.
The added caches like crazies.
The bragged about the IPS rate of their chips like champions (supercomputer on a chip blablabla)
And yet they have always been behind in system bus speed and storage interface bandwidth.
This is where Intel shines, the played the MHz game until they hit a wall with the P3 and realized that they needed a platform to build on that would LAST, not one that would just compete at the moment and be obsolete in 5 months, but one that had great future potential.
Sure they dropped the IPS rate to achieve that, but look at what they've got now?
A P4 that scales better than a rocket in the sky and a system FSB that has enough bandwidth for the next 2 years NOW already, with further scaling possible.
What has Apple done in the past?
They scaled from 32 to 50MHz on the G1 and G2 chips bus speed, they yanked it to 66MHz with the first G3, when the PC already had 100, and to 100 then the PC had 133...they went to 133 when the Athlons came with their 200MHz bus and they're still there. The athlons now have 266MHz effective bus speed and the P4 has 533MHz....
I'm not saying this is completely Apple's fault, as obviously Motorola also plays an important rule in that theatre, but don't tell me they thought about these issues from the ground up when designing the G4...they DEFINITELY didn't. They just took the G3 with all it's aged flaws, added double precision FPU and Altivec (all pure IPS rate wanking actually) and completely forgot about the fact that they might eventually need to have a bus that could support the chips speed...
They knwe the G4 was going to scale to at least 1GHz...how could they think a 133MHz bus would suffice beyond that? They had the ****ing example of Intel who had run into the P3 wall face ahead.
You can tell me whatever you want, but it's not all tech issues right there, it's bad judgement, a whole whooping lot of it. In war you get shot for that, and the IT industry IS WAR...
Also military courts like facts, not words...
I've said it in the past, adn I'll say it till the day has arrived: they've got time until MWSF 03, then it's deliver or die, as sorry as I am.
G-News
Ouch.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Between you and Junkyard Dog....well, you make the boards entertaining.
I think some interesting points have been raised here.
Games and Digital Art take lots of power and these kind of consumers want more power. This can lead to growth. Growth can lead to doubling your small market share. But weak 'Power'Mac specs leads to fear...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to Apple suff-er-ring.
Apple has to offer more to stop the drift of some of the digital art crowd to x86.
2nd interesting idea is that we stop buying Powermacs until Apple properly addresses the 'Power' in the Powermac performance issue. Me? I'm voting with my wallet. Unfortunately, the last time consumers voted with their wallets due to indifferent product differentiation over PCs...well, Apple almost went under before they got the message.
Apple's got alot more in cash these days. And yes, they do appear to actually 'listening' to some things. (Hey, how about that, a company that listens...) But maybe after a collapse of Powermac sales...well, they may just get the hint.
Yeesh, if AMD, a company that was bleeding to death fighting a 90% plus market gorilla like Intel only a year or so ago, can pull things around, I'm sure Apple can do something about the CPU issue.
Although Gamers get poo-pooed on these boards sometimes, it's clear that alot of gamers buy PCs. Was it THAT long ago that Macs had much respect games wise. Seems like such a long time ago now? IF Apple had the POWER in 'Power'mac then maybe they'd buy Apple (along with more dual releases of the big games. Maybe the DX framework emulator will help towards this to some degree...) Having grass roots respect with gaming on gaming sites did AMD's first clutch of Athlons the power of good and word got around just how good their cpus were compared to Intels!
It doesn't just come down to the OS 'X'. How many people are going to buy a Mac over a PC when its specs are clearly over a year behind?! If the performance gap widens and you're still paying a premium...it's going to get harder and harder for some people to justify buying Apple. These are the people Apple not only needs to keep but to build upon.
All things being equal, then OS X should decide the issue.
There is no 'single' issue why Apple have 3-5% market share. From marketing blunders to management misteps and insane ceos. However, currently, while in much of many of the things Apple are doing...they are leading innovation....in terms of hardware specs...Apple look embarrassingly out of touch especially in bang for buck comparisons.
Clearly, the CPU issue HASN'T gone away. The MOBO isn't helping. And if it isn't an issue, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE A MILLION THREADS WITH EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT IT?! (And why's my caps lock stuck...?)
Apple say they're after the 'other' 95% then they've got to 'walk the walk' not just 'do the talk'.
At the moment, their Powermac strategy is merely 'sandbagging'.
It's not good enough.
Lemon Bon Bon
Actually people have stopped buying Power Macs. Last two earnings calls Apple has stated that Power Mac sales have been flat...but that is where the RDF kicks in. It's because of the economy and no Photoshop for OSX and dribble like that. Yeah that's it. Thats why iMacs are flying off of shelves and Powerbook sales are strong.
No Apple, it's because the architecture is very very dated. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Bodhi ]</p>
Where were you when the G4 was stuck at 500mhz for almost a millenia?
Ever experience the angst of Apple plucking the alien face sucking ATi 'Rage' graphic chip <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> from the corpse of 'Powermacs' past? (and heck, thousands of Macs were lost to the alien farm Ati rages...8 and 16 meg face suckers...it...it was horrible....)
...and er...here we are...still on G3s (how old is that chip....zzzZZZzzzz....), bus speeds of 66 (warp drive...), Powermac bus speed 133...compared to...well, I think we get the idea.
Adopt 'newer' technology sooner. Y'know, that has a hollow ring to it.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
That's the spirit Bodhi.
(I've got a spare Doctor Martin boot, care to put it on and join in the 'Power'mac kickin' contest?)
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Apple, if you think Photoshop 7 with its polyunsaturated feature count is going to get Powermac sales to break the half a million mark...then I suggest you 'listen' a whole lot more to the sound of the x86 train whistling on the track.
So what you are saying is that if I buy a Dual GHz G4 Photoshop 7 will not run on it when it comes out?? So I should hold off on my hardware purchase until they make Quark for OSX?
I realize that this is just Apple's spin they are putting on this and that they cannot actually believe this. But I really hope someone somewhere on that campus at Cupertino realizes that Apple is stil selling computers with a 66MHz bus, the "high end" machines have sdram and 133MHz bus speeds and ATA-66 interfaces.