Moved: all Tower Duals reveal a desperate move
..just like when moto was stuck at G4@500mhz, and there was no other way but to put two cpus in the more expensive towers to make people think 2x500=1000 (less than the mhz speed of pcs at that time).
Then apple marketing worked hard to get us believe: "two brains are better than one".
Well, we all know that's not true.
Neither i was it before nor it's going to be this time.
And remember that when moto past the 500mhz Duals disappear from the line? (except for special build to order).
Two processors cost twice than one (obviously), need twice the space, twice the electricity and create a lot of heat, which means more dissipators, fans and noise. If that's the way apple have to compete with wintels they should release a dual titanium, wich is not going to happen.
Hope all this makes way for a strong decision, whatever that be. Since 1984 Apple computers have never been so behind. And it's getting worse everyday.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
Then apple marketing worked hard to get us believe: "two brains are better than one".
Well, we all know that's not true.
Neither i was it before nor it's going to be this time.
And remember that when moto past the 500mhz Duals disappear from the line? (except for special build to order).
Two processors cost twice than one (obviously), need twice the space, twice the electricity and create a lot of heat, which means more dissipators, fans and noise. If that's the way apple have to compete with wintels they should release a dual titanium, wich is not going to happen.
Hope all this makes way for a strong decision, whatever that be. Since 1984 Apple computers have never been so behind. And it's getting worse everyday.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
Comments
In fact the dual cpu layout is IMHO the better solution, if you take in account the overhead modern operating systems put on your hardware, at least you have one cpu available for your real task.
I call it the sensible approach to parallelism.
we've should have sticked to this much earlier ...
I prefer 4-8 cpu's much more than one fast cpu.
Especially if it's not that multiscalar, as I#d like it to be.
Cheers
--> Yeah, Apple is doomed since 1984 :-)
i remember when duals first emerged apple was so annoyed because they were earning much less as a result of fitting 2 $400 cpus instead of one.
apple hasnt been doomed since 1984. i've been using macs for more than a decade so i still remember when our computers were the f*****ng speed demons.
Multiple processors are what make SGI and Sun outstanding performers in their "niche" markets. Pro users are clamoring for quad Macs, A recent poll at Architosh showed that quads are what are wanted by the pro users by a wide margin.
Although cheered by the release today of duals across the board, I would have liked to see a quad at the "Ultimate" level, even at a $4K price point.
With the obvious conclusion that the IBM PowerPC will be the fabled "G5" and will most likely be a dual core chip, this was probably the reason a quad G4 was not released at this time. If the PowerPC is not ready by MWSF I would hope that a quad will be the news out of that show.
That should be the distinction:
Consumer machines = Singles
Pro Machines = Duals
They've got the right OS for it, the advantages are many (real and percieved)
They've also got the right CPU's for it (PPC's are cheaper, smaller and much cooler)
There's more than enough margin in even a $1600 dollar PM to make a quite profitable DP867 G4's only cost about 100 bucks @ 800Mhz.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Macs are no longer the speed demons they once were....
However. They still are IMHO the most progressive and efficient system I used.
But I like the parallel approach. Which will make life much easier as well as computing.
It is not a big deal that the G4 can't clock as high as a P4. I just would like to get the bus system on par with the modern PC's ...or get the NumaCC.
still I would never trade my G4 867 in for a P4 2.5GHz.
What I wanted to state is, that IMO it is better to have more CPus working with you, than to have only one.
Therefore I like the idea of being multiple ...
No flame intended buddy, just a wierd attack of humour.
Cheers,
Martin
I really prefer a cheaper dual 867 to a uber-expensive single 1.6 (and you can bet your house that a 1.6 ghz G4 _is_ expensive like hell).
I think it's a very good compromise - hey, at the low end you get a total of 1734 mhz of G4 goodness. if that's not enough then I don't know what is. And just for your information - the Athlon XP at 1733 mhz is rated 2100+.
<strong>am not saying dual computers are a waist but that having a dual as a base model means you cant build a faster one with just 1 cpu (as there are single and dual AMDs).
i remember when duals first emerged apple was so annoyed because they were earning much less as a result of fitting 2 $400 cpus instead of one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you think that? Apple let the dual processor cat out of the bag in 2000, dude. Where's the logic in thinking dual 867 is a desperate move. Faster chips do exist. Would you rather have a single 1000 Mhz or a dual 867? I'll take the dual please.
I was hoping to get a single 1.25GHz at the most but now I can get a dual 867 (read 1.7+GHz).
Excellent.
Dobby.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: dick tracey ]</p>
G-news