Why do think that everyone who does not bow down to the Mac alter should go buy a PC? Keep saying that enough and people will do just that. Not so good for Apple. I did more than most have done so far. I went to the store and I spent some hands on time with the hardware to get a first hand impression of it instead of sitting around waiting for the next benchmark result. I described the circumstances of my evaluation. I held nothing back. I was not trying to insult your family or friends. Some of you need to gradually back off the caffeine.
There was 2.5 GB of ram in the 1.8. The scrolling on both machines was done in Safari on a message board like thins one. The salesman saw the slight lag and tried to explain it as best he could, but he did not argue that it wasn't there. He said that he wished the machines came with better vid cards and that in any event, Panther should fix the GUI problem. (He and I are friends, so he does not try to BS me. We talk candidly all the time.) I plan to buy my first desktop Mac from him. We have no reason to lie to each other.
As far as comparing 9 and X, I really do not care about 9. My point was that 9 works the way an OS should work as far as responsiveness goes. X does not. It is as simple as that. Remember, I am a none techy. I don't care why. X has been out for quite a while, hardware has advanced, and optimizations have been made. We are long past the time for excuses. Sure the OS is fast enough. Sure you can get your work done when using it. Sure we can look the other way and pretend that it runs perfectly. Sure we be thankful that it is faster than it was. But that is really not the point. The point is when you do basic tasks and the GUI on my Mac does not performs as well as the GUI on other systems, or I have to watch a slight lag for simple scrolling on a Web page, IT IS ANNOYING!! It also brings into question the integrity of the whole system. Whatever the reason, even if it is not that big of a deal, I don't want to see these types of things on a two thousand + dollar machine.
As far as the CPU load is concerned. I thought OS X was renown for memory management and multitasking. These tasks were things that consumer would normally be doing. If you tell me that these are really processor intensive tasks, then I will accept that. But how will it deal with 16 stereo tracks running 25 - 30 filters, (reverb, compression, etc.) recording an incoming audio track, all without any noticeable latency? That is a test I can't run at the store. So I have to make my best guess based on what I can see.
The iSight was already hooked up to the machine for display but the software was not completely set up so I entered my own .Mac account to test it out. The clerk encouraged me to do it and he was surprised that the video was as choppy as it was. I did not set out to give the machine an unfair test. The clerk thought it was running at about 10fps and suggested that the encoding was just too much to share resources. By the way, the 1.6 was not under load. It was doing nothing at all. I did not harp on its performance because I have already seen in other threads some people dismissing it as the low end as if that should equal low expectations. For my part, low expectations go hand in hand with a low price. As for the 1.8, the clerk thought it ran about like a DP 1.42. I can only take him at his word on that one.
I highly recommend that those people who are concerned about the performance of these machines take a break from the boards and go get your hands on them and run your own tests. My assessment is as fair as I can make it for those who have not yet had the chance to do so.
David, I guess what I am mostly saying is that you were testing a new tech machine running a hacked version of an OS that doesn't take full advantage of the G5. Also, the apps running, mainly iTunes is also not written for the G5. If you want to more accurately gauge the G5 please do so after Panther is released with the updated iApps. That's all I'm saying. Photoshop and like 2 other apps have been updated for the G5. Either test them or give the G5 a break until it's supported by the programs and the OS.
What is a "none" techy? Is this a non-techy or a known techy? I'm not a stickler for spelling or grammar, but when I can't even figure out what you mean ...
I posted the same thing right after WWDC when I tested the dual G5 running smeagol.
You will have folks giving you the following excuses for the GUI lag:
- "The video card can't do what Quartz 2D needs it to do"
- "Who the hell sits at their desk and resizes windows all day?"
- "(Scrolling/Resizing/whatever) is JUST FINE on my dual xxx mhz G4 - there must be something wrong with your machine."
The fact is, I posted a screen capture of the mouse cursor a full two centimeters ahead of the window corner. THIS is what the thread author is talking about.
Concerning scrolling, yes Panther scrolls amazingly fast on my dual gig G4, but you can STILL drag the mouse cursor off of the scroll bar if you whip it back and forth - it can't keep up. This does not happen in OS 9 or a Windows machine, even if you have Superman himself dragging the mouse.
So no, we don't resize windows all day. We just can't freaking BELIEVE that a dual 2.0 gHz PowerPC 970 system can't keep up with a mouse movement.
I'm not trying to be an apologist because I hate the lag, but the lag is there for a reason. It's a side effect to quartz. Remove quartz and you'll have your resizing back, but lose a lot of other things.
Concerning scrolling, yes Panther scrolls amazingly fast on my dual gig G4, but you can STILL drag the mouse cursor off of the scroll bar if you whip it back and forth - it can't keep up. This does not happen in OS 9 or a Windows machine, even if you have Superman himself dragging the mouse.
So no, we don't resize windows all day. We just can't freaking BELIEVE that a dual 2.0 gHz PowerPC 970 system can't keep up with a mouse movement.
The fix for that should be pretty simple. Right now, the only real difference is that Windows draws just the border around the window as fast as possible, and lets the app reflow as it can (if you're quick, you can see the white areas the app hasn't drawn into yet when you expand a window). OS X doesn't redraw the border until the app's done reflowing. Change that, and OS X will be as fluid as Windows is when resizing windows.
Send feedback.
(In fact, it occurs to me that if Apple can find a way to transparently thread the GUI, they can lick this problem and the cosmetic annoyance where a window stops updating when you hold down the scroll thumb.)
I'm not trying to be an apologist because I hate the lag, but the lag is there for a reason. It's a side effect to quartz. Remove quartz and you'll have your resizing back, but lose a lot of other things.
So you are saying there is delay code deliberately put into the Quartz engine for some reason? In other words, even a 100 gigahertz processor on a 50 gigahertz bus would still have the sluggishness?
I know that there are a ton of levels of frameworks that X goes through to do anything, but it's still hard to believe that THIS MUCH processing power can't run that read-mouse/redraw window/ loop faster than I can move my hand. To be able to manually outrun a dual G5 would require literally billions of instructions to be executed for each redraw event. Is that really what Quartz is doing? Or is it throttling the redraw messages so as not to hog the CPU during a continuous resize? Hell if I know.
So you are saying there is delay code deliberately put into the Quartz engine for some reason? In other words, even a 100 gigahertz processor on a 50 gigahertz bus would still have the sluggishness?
You can always throw hardware at a problem, but that solution is more effective for some problems than for others. This problem is far more easily addressed in software, because there will always be a document for which instantaneous resizing is not an option.
On my Windows XP box at work, reflowing isn't instantaneous either, especially not for big complicated documents like one of the threads here. The issue is not so much the raw power of the hardware as the extent to which the code can even use it, or does. So Windows provides the illusion of totally live resizing by moving the bounding box around with the mouse. If you look carefully, you'll see the document itself reflow in a sort of stop-motion while you're doing that, just like OS X, but since the window border's movement isn't tied to the document reflow you don't get the same lag.
my user experience with Jaguar is fine under my old G4 533. It will be certainly even better on the G5 without or with Panther.
The lag never annoyed me. I prefer jaguar with a small lag, rather than classic without any lags.
Quartz extreme can do tasks that no others OS are able do. For example at my right there is my powerbook 17. It is in the screen savers mode, showing me gorgious planets of the solar system with zooming and transition : does classic is able to do that ?
I use and love OSX, but the lag is there. It has irked me from day one, and continues to do so. My machine is not the fastest, but it is definitely true in my experience that older and cruddier Wintel machines are more responsive GUI-wise. I truly hope Panther really delivers the improvements in this area that are promised. And it does reflect badly on the platform, there is no doubt.
All that said, it also really is true that running a gaggle of non G5-optimized programs on a non-optimized OS is not the best way to judge a G5. If that means waiting until the more optimized platform (i.e., Panther and the bundled iApps that'll come with it) is available to make a judgment and decision, then that's reasonable. But it's too early to condemn the G5, even if it would have been nice (though unrealistic) for the G5's to ship with all optimized software.
Further, for digital audio work, OSX has an excellent reputation as far as I can make out, and the G5 should do extremely well as an audio platform. Try to find user reports on those using the new G5-optimized release of Logic; if they're not out there yet, they should be soon.
So Windows provides the illusion of totally live resizing by moving the bounding box around with the mouse. If you look carefully, you'll see the document itself reflow in a sort of stop-motion while you're doing that, just like OS X, but since the window border's movement isn't tied to the document reflow you don't get the same lag.
An "illusion" of live resizing is better than what OSX gives. Immediate feedback to mouse movement is extremely valuable and in my opinion the most important thing when resizing and many other GUI operations. Let the contents catch up when they can. If they can keep up in real time (which happens more often under Windows than OSX) all the better.
Some people are more bothered than others by this sort of thing, but it definitely contributes to the perception of Mac sluggishness.
An "illusion" of live resizing is better than what OSX gives. Immediate feedback to mouse movement is extremely valuable and in my opinion the most important thing when resizing and many other GUI operations. Let the contents catch up when they can. If they can keep up in real time (which happens more often under Windows than OSX) all the better.
Some people are more bothered than others by this sort of thing, but it definitely contributes to the perception of Mac sluggishness.
QE is scheduled to be the motor of OS X for the 10 next coming years. It is sluggish right now, but with time, it will become the new standart, because it's a dynamic WYSIWIG, and not an illusion like Windows who give you only a static WYSIWIG inside the windows while you resize it.
Perhaps OS X is too much in advance in some aeras.
I agree that OS X's interface is a bit laggy. However, I don't blame this on quartz. Rather, it is the heavy weight view-tree management typically used in cocoa programs and other programs with live resizing enabled.
Also, note that microsoft has achieved quick redraw speed by making some rather dubious, short-term compromises. For instance, much of windowing system in windows exists at a lower level than in OS X. For this reason, typical buffer-overflow viri can trounce all over the kernel's memory space. They've traded security for speed. Also, with fewer developer resources, it doesn't make sense for apple to create throwaway, short-term architectural hacks to be replaced in just a couple of years.
Sure there is some lag... but I still prefer OS X over less-laggy systems and their less immediately-obvious caveats.
Perhaps OS X is too much in advance in some aeras.
That's no joke. In, uh (...counting on fingers...) 2 1/2 years since OSX was introduced, hardware seemingly still hasn't caught up to Quartz's demands. It is reasonable to question (as has been done ad nauseum already) the wisdom of designing software that is so far beyond the hardware.
We'll see how it goes with Panther.
Edit:
Maybe it doesn't all come down to Quartz, BTW. I still haven't seen anything definitive to isolate exactly where the sluggishness comes from. Quartz is an easy scapegoat, maybe unfairly.
As far as the CPU load is concerned. I thought OS X was renown for memory management and multitasking. These tasks were things that consumer would normally be doing. If you tell me that these are really processor intensive tasks, then I will accept that. But how will it deal with 16 stereo tracks running 25 - 30 filters, (reverb, compression, etc.) recording an incoming audio track, all without any noticeable latency? That is a test I can't run at the store. So I have to make my best guess based on what I can see.
Yes, OS X is renowned for multitasking. Multitasking DOES NOT mean that when you want to do something when there is already 100% load that it seems as smooth as if there is 0% load. Multitasking means that multiple things are done at once, which means that the machine can't give its resources to more than one thing at a time, and as such all the things being done run slower than if there was only one thing being done (but the user can get more than one thing done at once).
Multitasking means that you can do many things at once, but if the CPU already has its plate full, then it can't give you the whole plate, just some portion of the plate. If you tried this on a dual CPU machine, you would probably get much better results because there is a second plate.
The example would be this: if you are dealing with all these audio tracks and you want to handle them effectively, then you probably shouldn't be rendering a 3D animation in the background. As for how well the G5 can handle multiple audio tracks, the Stevenote had the Dual G5 destroying the Dual Xeon. Handling the audio tracks is about memory bandwidth and the G5 rules in this area (try to find the G5 keynote speech where Steve Jobs does comparisons to the Xeon for a live stage demo).
As I said before, it isn't as if Windows doesn't do the same thing. You are testing for performance under stress conditions (i.e. memory use, heavy CPU load). Go back and test when the machine isn't doing something. I can enumerate the conditions under which Windows absolutely falls apart and becomes unusable if you want to know them.
The flaw I see in your proposition is that Apple is selling these machines.
Yes, it is a frankenhack OS (10.2.7 on G5), but Apple is selling them, screwed up as they appear to act when lightly tasked.
Apple, by putting them in the market, is insisting that the G5s be judged by how they perform, and some people are finding that performance not up to their subjective standards. You can criticize them for that, but it is Apple that deserves the chewing out.
Again, Apple fails to market its products effectively.
What are you talking about? When I tell people that I'm getting a G5 (and I don't say "Powermac G5" or "Apple Powermac"-- just "G5"), people instantly know the product which I am refering to. The name recognition is awesome. People have seen the ad on TV, read the ad in magazines...people know "G5" as well as they do "iMac".
As for speed: I did some basic Photoshop tests on my visit to the store, and what was instant on the G5 1.8 (level 50 radial zoom blur on Apple's G5 PR photo) took over 7 seconds on a G4 Dual 1.42 with 768 (is that correct?) mb of ram.
I don't know what you guys think, but I'm impressed.
Comments
Why do think that everyone who does not bow down to the Mac alter should go buy a PC? Keep saying that enough and people will do just that. Not so good for Apple. I did more than most have done so far. I went to the store and I spent some hands on time with the hardware to get a first hand impression of it instead of sitting around waiting for the next benchmark result. I described the circumstances of my evaluation. I held nothing back. I was not trying to insult your family or friends. Some of you need to gradually back off the caffeine.
There was 2.5 GB of ram in the 1.8. The scrolling on both machines was done in Safari on a message board like thins one. The salesman saw the slight lag and tried to explain it as best he could, but he did not argue that it wasn't there. He said that he wished the machines came with better vid cards and that in any event, Panther should fix the GUI problem. (He and I are friends, so he does not try to BS me. We talk candidly all the time.) I plan to buy my first desktop Mac from him. We have no reason to lie to each other.
As far as comparing 9 and X, I really do not care about 9. My point was that 9 works the way an OS should work as far as responsiveness goes. X does not. It is as simple as that. Remember, I am a none techy. I don't care why. X has been out for quite a while, hardware has advanced, and optimizations have been made. We are long past the time for excuses. Sure the OS is fast enough. Sure you can get your work done when using it. Sure we can look the other way and pretend that it runs perfectly. Sure we be thankful that it is faster than it was. But that is really not the point. The point is when you do basic tasks and the GUI on my Mac does not performs as well as the GUI on other systems, or I have to watch a slight lag for simple scrolling on a Web page, IT IS ANNOYING!! It also brings into question the integrity of the whole system. Whatever the reason, even if it is not that big of a deal, I don't want to see these types of things on a two thousand + dollar machine.
As far as the CPU load is concerned. I thought OS X was renown for memory management and multitasking. These tasks were things that consumer would normally be doing. If you tell me that these are really processor intensive tasks, then I will accept that. But how will it deal with 16 stereo tracks running 25 - 30 filters, (reverb, compression, etc.) recording an incoming audio track, all without any noticeable latency? That is a test I can't run at the store. So I have to make my best guess based on what I can see.
The iSight was already hooked up to the machine for display but the software was not completely set up so I entered my own .Mac account to test it out. The clerk encouraged me to do it and he was surprised that the video was as choppy as it was. I did not set out to give the machine an unfair test. The clerk thought it was running at about 10fps and suggested that the encoding was just too much to share resources. By the way, the 1.6 was not under load. It was doing nothing at all. I did not harp on its performance because I have already seen in other threads some people dismissing it as the low end as if that should equal low expectations. For my part, low expectations go hand in hand with a low price. As for the 1.8, the clerk thought it ran about like a DP 1.42. I can only take him at his word on that one.
I highly recommend that those people who are concerned about the performance of these machines take a break from the boards and go get your hands on them and run your own tests. My assessment is as fair as I can make it for those who have not yet had the chance to do so.
Ta for now.
David
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Kid Red,
Ta for now.
David
David, I guess what I am mostly saying is that you were testing a new tech machine running a hacked version of an OS that doesn't take full advantage of the G5. Also, the apps running, mainly iTunes is also not written for the G5. If you want to more accurately gauge the G5 please do so after Panther is released with the updated iApps. That's all I'm saying. Photoshop and like 2 other apps have been updated for the G5. Either test them or give the G5 a break until it's supported by the programs and the OS.
You will have folks giving you the following excuses for the GUI lag:
- "The video card can't do what Quartz 2D needs it to do"
- "Who the hell sits at their desk and resizes windows all day?"
- "(Scrolling/Resizing/whatever) is JUST FINE on my dual xxx mhz G4 - there must be something wrong with your machine."
The fact is, I posted a screen capture of the mouse cursor a full two centimeters ahead of the window corner. THIS is what the thread author is talking about.
Concerning scrolling, yes Panther scrolls amazingly fast on my dual gig G4, but you can STILL drag the mouse cursor off of the scroll bar if you whip it back and forth - it can't keep up. This does not happen in OS 9 or a Windows machine, even if you have Superman himself dragging the mouse.
So no, we don't resize windows all day. We just can't freaking BELIEVE that a dual 2.0 gHz PowerPC 970 system can't keep up with a mouse movement.
I'm not trying to be an apologist because I hate the lag, but the lag is there for a reason. It's a side effect to quartz. Remove quartz and you'll have your resizing back, but lose a lot of other things.
Originally posted by lundy
Concerning scrolling, yes Panther scrolls amazingly fast on my dual gig G4, but you can STILL drag the mouse cursor off of the scroll bar if you whip it back and forth - it can't keep up. This does not happen in OS 9 or a Windows machine, even if you have Superman himself dragging the mouse.
So no, we don't resize windows all day. We just can't freaking BELIEVE that a dual 2.0 gHz PowerPC 970 system can't keep up with a mouse movement.
The fix for that should be pretty simple. Right now, the only real difference is that Windows draws just the border around the window as fast as possible, and lets the app reflow as it can (if you're quick, you can see the white areas the app hasn't drawn into yet when you expand a window). OS X doesn't redraw the border until the app's done reflowing. Change that, and OS X will be as fluid as Windows is when resizing windows.
Send feedback.
(In fact, it occurs to me that if Apple can find a way to transparently thread the GUI, they can lick this problem and the cosmetic annoyance where a window stops updating when you hold down the scroll thumb.)
Originally posted by bunge
Mouse movement /= speed.
I'm not trying to be an apologist because I hate the lag, but the lag is there for a reason. It's a side effect to quartz. Remove quartz and you'll have your resizing back, but lose a lot of other things.
So you are saying there is delay code deliberately put into the Quartz engine for some reason? In other words, even a 100 gigahertz processor on a 50 gigahertz bus would still have the sluggishness?
I know that there are a ton of levels of frameworks that X goes through to do anything, but it's still hard to believe that THIS MUCH processing power can't run that read-mouse/redraw window/ loop faster than I can move my hand. To be able to manually outrun a dual G5 would require literally billions of instructions to be executed for each redraw event. Is that really what Quartz is doing? Or is it throttling the redraw messages so as not to hog the CPU during a continuous resize? Hell if I know.
Originally posted by lundy
So you are saying there is delay code deliberately put into the Quartz engine for some reason? In other words, even a 100 gigahertz processor on a 50 gigahertz bus would still have the sluggishness?
You can always throw hardware at a problem, but that solution is more effective for some problems than for others. This problem is far more easily addressed in software, because there will always be a document for which instantaneous resizing is not an option.
On my Windows XP box at work, reflowing isn't instantaneous either, especially not for big complicated documents like one of the threads here. The issue is not so much the raw power of the hardware as the extent to which the code can even use it, or does. So Windows provides the illusion of totally live resizing by moving the bounding box around with the mouse. If you look carefully, you'll see the document itself reflow in a sort of stop-motion while you're doing that, just like OS X, but since the window border's movement isn't tied to the document reflow you don't get the same lag.
The lag never annoyed me. I prefer jaguar with a small lag, rather than classic without any lags.
Quartz extreme can do tasks that no others OS are able do. For example at my right there is my powerbook 17. It is in the screen savers mode, showing me gorgious planets of the solar system with zooming and transition : does classic is able to do that ?
All that said, it also really is true that running a gaggle of non G5-optimized programs on a non-optimized OS is not the best way to judge a G5. If that means waiting until the more optimized platform (i.e., Panther and the bundled iApps that'll come with it) is available to make a judgment and decision, then that's reasonable. But it's too early to condemn the G5, even if it would have been nice (though unrealistic) for the G5's to ship with all optimized software.
Further, for digital audio work, OSX has an excellent reputation as far as I can make out, and the G5 should do extremely well as an audio platform. Try to find user reports on those using the new G5-optimized release of Logic; if they're not out there yet, they should be soon.
So Windows provides the illusion of totally live resizing by moving the bounding box around with the mouse. If you look carefully, you'll see the document itself reflow in a sort of stop-motion while you're doing that, just like OS X, but since the window border's movement isn't tied to the document reflow you don't get the same lag.
An "illusion" of live resizing is better than what OSX gives. Immediate feedback to mouse movement is extremely valuable and in my opinion the most important thing when resizing and many other GUI operations. Let the contents catch up when they can. If they can keep up in real time (which happens more often under Windows than OSX) all the better.
Some people are more bothered than others by this sort of thing, but it definitely contributes to the perception of Mac sluggishness.
Originally posted by neilw
By the way, quick response to this:
An "illusion" of live resizing is better than what OSX gives. Immediate feedback to mouse movement is extremely valuable and in my opinion the most important thing when resizing and many other GUI operations. Let the contents catch up when they can. If they can keep up in real time (which happens more often under Windows than OSX) all the better.
Some people are more bothered than others by this sort of thing, but it definitely contributes to the perception of Mac sluggishness.
QE is scheduled to be the motor of OS X for the 10 next coming years. It is sluggish right now, but with time, it will become the new standart, because it's a dynamic WYSIWIG, and not an illusion like Windows who give you only a static WYSIWIG inside the windows while you resize it.
Perhaps OS X is too much in advance in some aeras.
Also, note that microsoft has achieved quick redraw speed by making some rather dubious, short-term compromises. For instance, much of windowing system in windows exists at a lower level than in OS X. For this reason, typical buffer-overflow viri can trounce all over the kernel's memory space. They've traded security for speed. Also, with fewer developer resources, it doesn't make sense for apple to create throwaway, short-term architectural hacks to be replaced in just a couple of years.
Sure there is some lag... but I still prefer OS X over less-laggy systems and their less immediately-obvious caveats.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Perhaps OS X is too much in advance in some aeras.
That's no joke. In, uh (...counting on fingers...) 2 1/2 years since OSX was introduced, hardware seemingly still hasn't caught up to Quartz's demands. It is reasonable to question (as has been done ad nauseum already) the wisdom of designing software that is so far beyond the hardware.
We'll see how it goes with Panther.
Edit:
Maybe it doesn't all come down to Quartz, BTW. I still haven't seen anything definitive to isolate exactly where the sluggishness comes from. Quartz is an easy scapegoat, maybe unfairly.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
As far as the CPU load is concerned. I thought OS X was renown for memory management and multitasking. These tasks were things that consumer would normally be doing. If you tell me that these are really processor intensive tasks, then I will accept that. But how will it deal with 16 stereo tracks running 25 - 30 filters, (reverb, compression, etc.) recording an incoming audio track, all without any noticeable latency? That is a test I can't run at the store. So I have to make my best guess based on what I can see.
Yes, OS X is renowned for multitasking. Multitasking DOES NOT mean that when you want to do something when there is already 100% load that it seems as smooth as if there is 0% load. Multitasking means that multiple things are done at once, which means that the machine can't give its resources to more than one thing at a time, and as such all the things being done run slower than if there was only one thing being done (but the user can get more than one thing done at once).
Multitasking means that you can do many things at once, but if the CPU already has its plate full, then it can't give you the whole plate, just some portion of the plate. If you tried this on a dual CPU machine, you would probably get much better results because there is a second plate.
The example would be this: if you are dealing with all these audio tracks and you want to handle them effectively, then you probably shouldn't be rendering a 3D animation in the background. As for how well the G5 can handle multiple audio tracks, the Stevenote had the Dual G5 destroying the Dual Xeon. Handling the audio tracks is about memory bandwidth and the G5 rules in this area (try to find the G5 keynote speech where Steve Jobs does comparisons to the Xeon for a live stage demo).
As I said before, it isn't as if Windows doesn't do the same thing. You are testing for performance under stress conditions (i.e. memory use, heavy CPU load). Go back and test when the machine isn't doing something. I can enumerate the conditions under which Windows absolutely falls apart and becomes unusable if you want to know them.
The flaw I see in your proposition is that Apple is selling these machines.
Yes, it is a frankenhack OS (10.2.7 on G5), but Apple is selling them, screwed up as they appear to act when lightly tasked.
Apple, by putting them in the market, is insisting that the G5s be judged by how they perform, and some people are finding that performance not up to their subjective standards. You can criticize them for that, but it is Apple that deserves the chewing out.
Again, Apple fails to market its products effectively.
As for speed: I did some basic Photoshop tests on my visit to the store, and what was instant on the G5 1.8 (level 50 radial zoom blur on Apple's G5 PR photo) took over 7 seconds on a G4 Dual 1.42 with 768 (is that correct?) mb of ram.
I don't know what you guys think, but I'm impressed.
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
"THE MAC STORE" ?
Maybe it's this store in the NW:
http://www.thecomputerstore.com/