I thought Mac users didn't care about speed!!! Oh well... Here we go again!
Well, just when you convinced yourself that speed was a none issue for your computing experience, the benchmark wars start up again. And to make it worse, Apple is the one waving the performance banner. They are the ones pushing speed as the issue. They are the ones that are in everyone's face over price/performance. The are the ones claiming to be the fastest PC in the world. They are the ones comparing one processor type to another. As if they learned nothing from the G4 debacle, they are loading up both barrels and aiming squarely for their lower extremities. Yes, they went through this whole song and dance a little over four years ago. We all know how that ended, (except for those who believe that the G4 is the winner and still champion). Now that the G5 has been announced, Apple is at it again. Will we never learn?
Does anyone out there really believe that Intel lacks the ability to produce and market a product for the mainstream PC that wouldn't kick the G5"s but? Do you really believe that even at 3 GHz, the G5 is somehow invincible? Lunacy! When will Apple quit picking these ridiculous fights. As soon as they think they have a speed advantage, they trot out inflammatory bake offs with companies that are not even competing with them. When is the last time Intel compared its chips with Motorola's? When is the last time AMD staged a bake off against a Mac? Some of you complain that cross platform tests are inherently unfair, yet you cheer when Apple does it. You lambast PC users for being obsessed with benchmarks and even real world speed that they will never use, yet as soon as Apple thinks they can get away with it, they become the worst offenders in the industry. PC users are scorned for worshipping at the alter of price/performance, yet was it not SJ, himself, who challenged the PC companies on this very point at WWDC? With the entry level tower running about $2 g with Apple branded monitor, and $2.7 g for entry level G5, He has got to be kidding.
My point, Apple should have been classy and taken the high road when introducing their exceptional new machines. They could have promoted them on their merits and let the real world results speak for themselves. If the machines are all that they say they are and more, others will be posting benchmarks and singing their praises soon enough. But, once again, Apple takes the low road. The mud has begun to fly. Now, instead of apple enjoying universal praise from the media and admiration from discerning PC Users, they fill the headlines with questionable tactics and doubtful statistics. If Apple believes that benchmarks are so irrelevant, then why on earth did they launch themselves into that cesspool once again? Will they/we every learn? I doubt it. Do you believe they are doing the right thing, or does anyone feel as I do?
Thoughts?
Does anyone out there really believe that Intel lacks the ability to produce and market a product for the mainstream PC that wouldn't kick the G5"s but? Do you really believe that even at 3 GHz, the G5 is somehow invincible? Lunacy! When will Apple quit picking these ridiculous fights. As soon as they think they have a speed advantage, they trot out inflammatory bake offs with companies that are not even competing with them. When is the last time Intel compared its chips with Motorola's? When is the last time AMD staged a bake off against a Mac? Some of you complain that cross platform tests are inherently unfair, yet you cheer when Apple does it. You lambast PC users for being obsessed with benchmarks and even real world speed that they will never use, yet as soon as Apple thinks they can get away with it, they become the worst offenders in the industry. PC users are scorned for worshipping at the alter of price/performance, yet was it not SJ, himself, who challenged the PC companies on this very point at WWDC? With the entry level tower running about $2 g with Apple branded monitor, and $2.7 g for entry level G5, He has got to be kidding.
My point, Apple should have been classy and taken the high road when introducing their exceptional new machines. They could have promoted them on their merits and let the real world results speak for themselves. If the machines are all that they say they are and more, others will be posting benchmarks and singing their praises soon enough. But, once again, Apple takes the low road. The mud has begun to fly. Now, instead of apple enjoying universal praise from the media and admiration from discerning PC Users, they fill the headlines with questionable tactics and doubtful statistics. If Apple believes that benchmarks are so irrelevant, then why on earth did they launch themselves into that cesspool once again? Will they/we every learn? I doubt it. Do you believe they are doing the right thing, or does anyone feel as I do?
Thoughts?
Comments
of couse, if you have the OS AND speed, well, then you just rule.
entry level G5 is $1999 i am pretty sure
And any Mac users who said speed wasn't important were simply in denial. But I don't think most Mac users were saying that anyway. The premise of your thread is false.
big player should NEVER compare to small player. it just gives the small player free press and legitmacy.
so apple compares with Intel, Intel should never compare to apple.
As for benchmarks, well of course Apple's going to take an interest in SPEC when they have a CPU that does well on SPEC. That's just marketing, same as everyone else's boasting about SPEC. But if you look at my posts about SPEC's worthiness when the G4 was getting slaughtered at SPEC and my posts now that the 970 turns in good numbers, you'll find that I've been pretty consistent about downplaying the relevance of the benchmark as a measure of real utility. It's marketing, pure and simple, and marketing should never be taken at face value.
We're all happy now because the Mac still has all the advantages it had before, with the imminent arrival of no-apologies real-world hardware performance and an OS that greatly improves both polish and performance on existing hardware - the same hardware that posted dismal scores on SPEC, and yet somehow manages to do perfectly well. And certain people on the other side just can't bear the thought that their "real" platform is rivalled or beaten by a Crapintosh.
Does anyone out there really believe that Intel lacks the ability to produce and market a product for the mainstream PC that wouldn't kick the G5"s but? Do you really believe that even at 3 GHz, the G5 is somehow invincible? Lunacy!
It's not a matter of lacking the "ability". Motorola has the "ability" to make competitive processors. The issue for any company is "can I make enough to turn a worthwhile profit?". Remember IBM makes the G5. This is the same company that shipped the POWER4 over a year ago. The same company that has been making Big Iron for Decades. Intel is the newcomer here MacVoyer. They've made their money in low cost Home Computers...yet in your mind Intel has the advantage. Pray tell how you come to that conclusion since you have nothing to back it up. IBM is protecting "their" turf from Intel...not the other way around.
When is the last time Intel compared its chips with Motorola's? When is the last time AMD staged a bake off against a Mac? Some of you complain that cross platform tests are inherently unfair, yet you cheer when Apple does it.
Intel's main competitor is AMD. They would be wasting time calling Apple out. That doesn't mean Apple should be refraining from doing comparisons themselves.
Apple did the right thing. Being smaller means being more agressive. If you have a good product ..then you market it anyway you can. Ask 100 Mac users their opinion and you'll get 100 ideas. With that in mind it's never good policy to use "we" and "you" too much in a post. Far too much generalizations.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
$1999 = $2700?
entry level G5 is $1999 i am pretty sure
In my post, I clearly stated those prices included an Apple branded monitor.
As far as the premiss of my post being wrong, we will have to agree to disagree. I use and respect both platforms. I have never really cared one way or another about which was faster, though I have always found the ridiculous war to be entertaining. I have followed it closely for several years now and in my opinion, when Apple was losing the battle for speed, the community rose up and defended Apple in part by say that at this stage of the game, speed was largely irrelevant. For most tasks, we had more than enough speed. Speed was not only downplayed, it was mocked. Mac Users said things like games were the only thing really pushing the speed envelope and that people who bought computers for gaming platforms needed to grow up and try getting some real work done.
As for benchmarks, Amorph, you may have been consistent in your comments but I have not seen that same consistency throughout the Mac Web universe. I believe my premise is sound and I would have liked to have seen Apple take a different rout with their new offerings. Their current strategy is shortsighted in my opinion and is based on the exact sorts of things that Mac users condemn PC users for. Eventually, such a course will lead them right back to where they were in the G4 era. The speed crown will be taken away again and Apple will be back to pedaling myths. It didn't have to be this way.
As for the "mac web", I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over any perceived reversals. It's human nature--you'll see it here, you'll see it anywhere.
Basically I'm saying you shouldn't really worry about this stuff so much, ultimately--the machines will be judged on their merits, regardless of how Apple, Dell or anyone else touts them on their introduction. The proof is in the pudding.
Look at the comments on the G5, apart from the 3D modellers and Audio guys nearly everyone seems to be saying "Speed! Cool! Shame I don't really need it for anything".
It's generally accepted that computers sales are taking a hit because everyone's already got a computer that's fast enough for everyday tasks. In fact, Apple has a greater need for high-speed chips on the consumer desktop because they are the one's making video editing possible for the masses.
The new G5 on the other hand is aimed at high-end Workstation users. And yes it is nice to be able to compete in such processor intensive markets too.
So basically, (and taking the other comments into account) you couldn't be more wrong unless you mispelled your username. Oh, wait...
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
unless you mispelled your username. Oh, wait...
I know all about the misspelled user name. I noticed it when I first became a member on these boards but I didn't know how to change it. I know a mod would have helped me out, but I decided to leave it that way to keep me humble.
It hasn't really been all that effective.
I suppose we should just act nonchalant and not care that Apple has regained the upper hand after how many years?
Eventually, such a course will lead them right back to where they were in the G4 era. The speed crown will be taken away again and Apple will be back to pedaling myths. It didn't have to be this way.t
So, your argument is that Apple shouldn't sell the G5 on speed because IBM will drop the ball later on?
1) If it has <good attribute>, they'll use <good attribute> as a selling point, whether that be speed, ease of use or aesthetics.
2) The PowerPC is not in any trouble for the forseeable future.
Should Apple have played down the G3 because the G4 might have gone wrong?
Your point is based on a false premise. Consumer grade machines, like the iMac, in general still don't need massive amounts of speed. That is, as people have said all along, unless you want to play 3-D games. Pro machines have always needed the speed, and just about everyone here has been upset with the poor performance of the G4 based machines.
Your point is absurd. Your trolling is silly.
Making any other generalization is just talking out of your ass.
Who pissed in your Corn Flakes this morning?
For the record, I happen to be one of those who believes that the focus on speed is a little bit absurd. Those who believe that there is a huge difference between pro and consumer are missing the mark IMO. Pigeon holing everyone who does not make a living with their computers as a consumer and therefore an iMac user is shortsighted and inaccurate. It is no more accurate to suggest that all tower users are professionals. People need enough power to feel like they got a good bang for their buck. But, they also need the headroom to be future proofed for the tasks they have not thought about doing yet. Just ask the people who own G3 based computers how they feel about being left out of some of the features of iChat AV. Who knew they would need a G4 to use their DV cam with video conferencing for the rest of us? There are plenty of home recordists like myself who need enough power to run the latest technology for those endeavors. Not all PS jockeys are pros. iMovie may not suit the needs or desires of all amateur videographers. Did I mention gaming? There are many reasons why people will want to have more power and future proofing than the "i" line provides. For many in this pro-sumer category, the G4 towers are not particularly a safe bet either.
Still, having acknowledged the importance of speed, I believe that comparisons from one platform to another and from OEM to OEM, for that matter, are of very limited value. The speed crown is worn by all of the major players at one time or another, even Moto. If the speed crown is the #1 thing you've got going for your system, then when you've lost it, and you will, then you have lost your #1 attribute. This is a marketing nightmare because you always have to claim and prove that you are the fastest, even when you are demonstrably not.
I am excited about the coming of the G5. It will be a real kick to see what developers enable the home user to do that was once thought impossible or impractical. It is exciting, but not because of the speed. Just as the G3 and G4 along with competing technology helped to spark the home studio/video/photo editing revolution, I believe that the next crop of chips will spark something equally exciting and heretofore, unattainable. This is how I would prefer to see the G5 marketed, not as the speed master de-jour, but as the great enabler. Who cares if it is faster than the Itanium right now? I want SJ to show me the Star Trek like functions it will bring to my life. IMO, that is what will spark the next computer buying feeding frenzy.
On a personal note, Bonge, you really need to think twice before behaving so harshly toward another poster just because you disagree. Nothing in my post was disrespectful. Certainly, no offense was intended to anyone on this board. I had an observation that I thought was worth discussing so I did. I do not know if your are a kid that needs to grow up, or an adult who needs to sober up. But it is your type of response that poisons such boards as these and robs some of us of the joy of being a Mac user and a part of a community of people who have enough in common to join the same club and enough differences to make it interesting.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Who pissed in your Corn Flakes this morning?
I miss corn flakes.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Certainly, no offense was intended to anyone on this board.
You called out the people on these boards. Maybe you could reread your original post and see how it was inflammatory to some or in some respects.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I do not know if your are a kid that needs to grow up...
No.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
...or an adult who needs to sober up.
Probably.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
But it is your type of response that poisons such boards as these and robs some of us of the joy of being a Mac user and a part of a community of people who have enough in common to join the same club and enough differences to make it interesting.
Certainly not my intent, but some of your comments were less than constructive.
All in all, like you, I think Apple is walking a proverbial tight rope. They can't push only the speed aspect, but they shouldn't ignore it either. And contrary to your beliefs, I do think Apple is competing with Intel in the eyes of the consumer even if Intel doesn't have Intel vs. Moto & IBM bakeoffs.