THANK you Agent Cooper. The soothing voice of reason, finally. You're damn right that I'm not going to buy a Wintel box no matter how many GHz they get up to. There's a lot of reasons I use Macs, and processor speed is not among them. Like you, I of course would love more speed, and we are going to get it. But it's not of paramount importance to me, and in fact not important enough for me to even consider getting a PC for any reason.
OS X, iApps, the way the Mac looks/feel/works, usability, productivity... why should I give any of that up? I'm in the market for a new Mac now too, and I'm thinking now is just about the right time for me to get one... even if it's "only" a dual 1.25 GHz Mac with a 166 MHz bus. With Jaguar on it, it will bloody SCREAM. It already moves pretty quickly on my 800 MHz iMac... it'll be massively responsive on a system like that.
I wouldn't get a Wintel box if it had a googolhertz Pentium 37... Wintel boxes don't work for me.
<strong>Alright, a bit of speculation on my part in regards to the MacMinute specs, but bear with me.
As for the current bus speed ratios:
800/133 = 6
933/133 = 7
1000/133 = 7.5
As for the upcoming ratios, let's try a 133 MHz bus speed.
867/133 = 6.5 (this works)
1000/133 = 7.5 (again, this works)
1250/133 9.39 (this doesn't work, it'd have to be either a 1197MHz or 1264MHz G4. I doubt they would short change themselves and round 1264MHz down to 1250.)
What about a 166 MHz bus?
867/166 = 5.22 (nope)
1000/166 = 6 (this works)
1250/166 = 7.5 (works as well)
What does this mean? If the proc speeds reported by MacMinute are 100% correct, then the following points hold:
- The 867 machine MUST have a 133 MHz bus, or some multiple thereof (i.e. 266)
- The 1000 machine can have a bus of either 133 or 166 or a multiple thereof (i.e. 333)
- The 1250 machine must have a bus of 166 or a multiple thereof (i.e. 333).
A quick check of available ram types reveals that for SDR RAM, only 66, 100, 133, and 150 MHz models were ever made.
So, if the 1250 machine must have a 166 MHz bus, then it holds that only 166 MHz DDR RAM (333MHz effective) could sit on such a bus.
EDIT:
In short, 333 DDR RAM is almost guaranteed in the 1250 model.</strong><hr></blockquote>This post deserves repeating.
Here's a question that may bear on the 133/166 issue: why does Macminute say the dual 1ghz model won't be shipping yet? Maybe they're moving to a new mobo for that machine and the 1.25, while the 867 will stay at 133.
I honestly doubt it, because I'm guessing this is still Apollo, and Mot's specs say Apollo uses a 133 bus, not 166. But maybe...
[quote]BTW, did anyone else notice the fairly hefty price increases that go along with these machines? <hr></blockquote>
That's a matter of perspective. Most people would look at today's dual-1GHz for $2,999 compared to the rumored dual-1GHz for $2,499 and think that was a $500 price DROP.
maybe to you. to me its a vital tool that allows me to create things and generally live a happy life since i get to do what i love for a living. compared to a office worker hack or a guy at macdonalds i feel lucky. its the mac that is the the tool that allows for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
so, if your current mac allows you to be happy and healthy and achieve nirvana...
why are you so damn pissed about new ones not being all that much better than the current one?
I mean, look at that, if the current one is that wonderful, then these new, faster ones MUST be EVEN MORE WONDERFUL.
Curious to see if the 867x2 will have L3 cache of any significance. It'll have a SuperDrive (cripes, the eMac's getting a SuperDrive). Grab a cheap CRT 21" monitor, and that's a pretty good DV/DVD authoring system.
I agree with you Xaqtly, its not the processor speed that makes the computer its the computer
You all need to just chill out, macs are still faster than PC's I think. I use the damned things everyday for 3d studio max, and such and generally speaking macs run overall faster I feel in productivity apps. Sure you may want to run internet exploder faster or play some stupid game at 3 fps faster, but thats just ridiculous. Add real productivity, and stable OS X in the mix you got a killer combo. I hate rebooting 5 times a day or more, and having to deal with IT saying that "macs are hard to network, macs mess up our database, macs suck"
if you don't like it quite whining go buy a pc and see for youself, your in for a world of hell
Yea pc's have alot of mghz but your options are limited, Windows or Linux, Neither offer anything as great as OS X. Nine short months ago the top of the line system was a dual 800 that costed $3500 now you can get a dual 867 for $1699. For those of us that were about to dish out $1999 for a 17" imac these new PowerMacs look awesome and at a good price. I just hope the new cases are less noisy than the current ones...
[quote]your basing your disapointment on a rumor?<hr></blockquote>
I wasn't expressing disappointment. Read my post again. I said that most people in the market for a Mac will be thrilled that the machine that cost $3,000 yesterday is $2,500 today.
We need to enlarge the base of mac users!!! The more we'll be the stronger we are!!!
We are not living in a closed world apart from the reality of the market!!
We need to have a solid base of users in order to push programmers to develop applications on our platform.
Do you really think that more people will go to the mac with those pricing and specifications???
The megahertz gap is a reality for normal people and believe me, if they compare a pricey mac running at 1ghtz against a cheap 3ghtz wintel box the choice will not be at our advantage.
The mac platform exists because higher caliber applications run better here than anywhere else. If you're worried about Apple drying up and dying - stop worrying. Application developers need apple just as badly as apple needs them.
Granted - there are less, much less. applications available for mac than PC. But how many computer makeover apps do you need? how many greeting card apps? how many of the other garbage apps that make up %90 of those staggeringly large numbers of apps available for PC?
Granted - People will hesitate to switch to the Apple if it has a significantly lower CPU speed. But they won't switch at all if the apps they want to use aren't here. You'll notice thats what apple stresses in the "switch" campaign - software compatiblity - most of which already exists. Apple is putting their money where its mouth currently is - building a more user freindly OS and Consumer Usable Apps. Beleive it or not, processor speed is insignificant to most people looking to buy a new computer. Most of the people who stress over Mhz, are gaming nerds, hardware nerds, sys admins (nerds), and AI posters. Ahem.
Why are most people so unconcerned about Mhz? Becuase it really doesn't matter. If the hardware does what it needs to do, who cares what number is associated with it?
You say market Mhz. I say market Ease of use - and so does apple.
<strong>That's a matter of perspective. Most people would look at today's dual-1GHz for $2,999 compared to the rumored dual-1GHz for $2,499 and think that was a $500 price DROP.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, that's an interesting perspective.
If these numbers are true, they've upgraded the specs, as continually happens in this industry. But they've also increased the prices substantially across their range.
[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>Next person to use the smiley in here gets their posting access turned off for a day.</strong><hr></blockquote>How typical.
Anyone who actually expected 1.5 or 1.6 GHz tomorrow is crazy. For better or for worse, Apple's top clock speed is not going to be 50% faster tomorrow than it is today.
I must say that yourdailymac.com has never never never never never ever been right but I think most of you knew that already. In fact, MOSR's Ryan Meader is a prophet compared to them. Just needed to clarify.
The MacMinute/Think Secret specs sound correct though. I believe them. I can see why there will be no special event for these. I think it shows that the G4 is reaching its limits or at least Motorola is. The DP 867 model sounds like Yikes! revisited. This should be enough to hold them over until the IBM Power4 derived processor (hopefully) and other goodies like 802.11g and 1394b are ready. I feel that internally the new case is ready for the next generation processor already but when that day comes I expect a more revolutionary change externally to the case.
Actually I see this as good news. If improvements such as DP across the board, DDR Ram, 166Mhz bus, etc., are only deserving of a press release... then what will they have in store for us next year at a big event like Macworld? That is the silver lining in my opinion. This is just a stop-gap and Apple knows this. You can tell from their actions regarding this release.
Depressing is an understatement for these lame specs. Apple is losing too much ground.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these specs show are the CPU SPEED!!!! For all you know the new PowerMacs could hold a whole crapload of suprises yet to be revealed - faster system bus, faster ram, on chip memory controller... the possibilities are limitless. I think you WANT to be dissapointed, becuase you've jumped on this first rumor that doesn't say what you want to hear and begun to pout... pout away.
FACT - My G3 350 is till fast enough to keep me happy. the only reason I'm buying one of the new PowerMacs is so that I can run DVDSP.
FACT - Even if the speeds DON'T GO UP, they're still great machines.
FACT - NO ONE CARES if you want to switch to PCs because the G4s haven't breached the 3Ghz barrier. Switch - no one will miss you.
<strong>there is a distinct possibility that the FSB may remain at 133.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is something wrong with that. Why the OLD 1 Gig goes to $2199 and the NEW 1 Gig goes to $2499 at the end of the month... strange if it's the same MB.
To Agent Cooper : You're the One, man !
I'm thinking seriously to buy the 1.25 IF it's a full DDR implementation and ATA 100, and I'm coming from a Dual 800.
I think that a lot of people who are complaining don't even have a QuickSilver (I'm not talking to you Leonis )
Anyone who won't buy because of MHz rating is the kind of person who obsessively worries about the size of other things in his life, too.
Yeah, it's a penis joke.
Anyway, I don't know what you people expect. I like the idea that "I'm pissed because this machine is so much faster than my machine is right now which is good enough so I'm not upgrading anyway". That's pure ****ing comedy gold.
Ah, well. The next line is: "I care about the platform! Waaaa-waaaa-waaaa!" No you don't. If you really cared about the platform, you'd see the strength and vibrancy of a platform depends on the software, and things haven't looked this good on the software side ever.
If the question is performance vs. speed rating or user experience vs speed rating, I'll take the former over the latter EVERY TIME.
I would rather you people switched back to Intel and left the rest of us alone than continue your inane braying about how Apple is always letting you down. There is a weird self-hating vibe to these kinds of posts that leads me to believe you all need some serious help.
for all those doomsayers saying Pc buyers will see 2.5-3.0 GHz machine against a 1.25GHz. I say they will see 1.25+1.25=2.5 - The Mhz myth gap has been reduced significantly.
Also for those who say 2 CPU dont add up to a faster computer for general useage then for general use most ppl wont be using the "speed' of 3 GHz PC.
To be honest I am sick of all the whinning and bitching and threats to go PC ( you must pirate all your software to consider it an economic proposition).
When Apple finally breaks free of the motorala debarkle will you all be wanting to jump back?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Aussie John ]</p>
My gut tells me we have a Powerbook type situation here. Like when the 550 and 667 Powerbooks were announced. the dual 867 will be 133MHz bus, the Dual GHz and Dual 1.2 will have ddr ram and ddr FSB, hence the difference in price between the new Dual GHz and the discontinued Dual GHz.
Comments
OS X, iApps, the way the Mac looks/feel/works, usability, productivity... why should I give any of that up? I'm in the market for a new Mac now too, and I'm thinking now is just about the right time for me to get one... even if it's "only" a dual 1.25 GHz Mac with a 166 MHz bus. With Jaguar on it, it will bloody SCREAM. It already moves pretty quickly on my 800 MHz iMac... it'll be massively responsive on a system like that.
I wouldn't get a Wintel box if it had a googolhertz Pentium 37... Wintel boxes don't work for me.
<strong>Alright, a bit of speculation on my part in regards to the MacMinute specs, but bear with me.
As for the current bus speed ratios:
800/133 = 6
933/133 = 7
1000/133 = 7.5
As for the upcoming ratios, let's try a 133 MHz bus speed.
867/133 = 6.5 (this works)
1000/133 = 7.5 (again, this works)
1250/133 9.39 (this doesn't work, it'd have to be either a 1197MHz or 1264MHz G4. I doubt they would short change themselves and round 1264MHz down to 1250.)
What about a 166 MHz bus?
867/166 = 5.22 (nope)
1000/166 = 6 (this works)
1250/166 = 7.5 (works as well)
What does this mean? If the proc speeds reported by MacMinute are 100% correct, then the following points hold:
- The 867 machine MUST have a 133 MHz bus, or some multiple thereof (i.e. 266)
- The 1000 machine can have a bus of either 133 or 166 or a multiple thereof (i.e. 333)
- The 1250 machine must have a bus of 166 or a multiple thereof (i.e. 333).
A quick check of available ram types reveals that for SDR RAM, only 66, 100, 133, and 150 MHz models were ever made.
So, if the 1250 machine must have a 166 MHz bus, then it holds that only 166 MHz DDR RAM (333MHz effective) could sit on such a bus.
EDIT:
In short, 333 DDR RAM is almost guaranteed in the 1250 model.</strong><hr></blockquote>This post deserves repeating.
Here's a question that may bear on the 133/166 issue: why does Macminute say the dual 1ghz model won't be shipping yet? Maybe they're moving to a new mobo for that machine and the 1.25, while the 867 will stay at 133.
I honestly doubt it, because I'm guessing this is still Apollo, and Mot's specs say Apollo uses a 133 bus, not 166. But maybe...
That's a matter of perspective. Most people would look at today's dual-1GHz for $2,999 compared to the rumored dual-1GHz for $2,499 and think that was a $500 price DROP.
<strong>
maybe to you. to me its a vital tool that allows me to create things and generally live a happy life since i get to do what i love for a living. compared to a office worker hack or a guy at macdonalds i feel lucky. its the mac that is the the tool that allows for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
so, if your current mac allows you to be happy and healthy and achieve nirvana...
why are you so damn pissed about new ones not being all that much better than the current one?
I mean, look at that, if the current one is that wonderful, then these new, faster ones MUST be EVEN MORE WONDERFUL.
thus concludes this session of logic 101.
your basing your disapointment on a rumor?
you need look up the meaning of the word rumor.
You all need to just chill out, macs are still faster than PC's I think. I use the damned things everyday for 3d studio max, and such and generally speaking macs run overall faster I feel in productivity apps. Sure you may want to run internet exploder faster or play some stupid game at 3 fps faster, but thats just ridiculous. Add real productivity, and stable OS X in the mix you got a killer combo. I hate rebooting 5 times a day or more, and having to deal with IT saying that "macs are hard to network, macs mess up our database, macs suck"
if you don't like it quite whining go buy a pc and see for youself, your in for a world of hell
I wasn't expressing disappointment. Read my post again. I said that most people in the market for a Mac will be thrilled that the machine that cost $3,000 yesterday is $2,500 today.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: BrunoBruin ]</p>
<strong>
SWITCH You said the magic word!!!!
We need to enlarge the base of mac users!!! The more we'll be the stronger we are!!!
We are not living in a closed world apart from the reality of the market!!
We need to have a solid base of users in order to push programmers to develop applications on our platform.
Do you really think that more people will go to the mac with those pricing and specifications???
The megahertz gap is a reality for normal people and believe me, if they compare a pricey mac running at 1ghtz against a cheap 3ghtz wintel box the choice will not be at our advantage.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Applications! you said the Magic word!
The mac platform exists because higher caliber applications run better here than anywhere else. If you're worried about Apple drying up and dying - stop worrying. Application developers need apple just as badly as apple needs them.
Granted - there are less, much less. applications available for mac than PC. But how many computer makeover apps do you need? how many greeting card apps? how many of the other garbage apps that make up %90 of those staggeringly large numbers of apps available for PC?
Granted - People will hesitate to switch to the Apple if it has a significantly lower CPU speed. But they won't switch at all if the apps they want to use aren't here. You'll notice thats what apple stresses in the "switch" campaign - software compatiblity - most of which already exists. Apple is putting their money where its mouth currently is - building a more user freindly OS and Consumer Usable Apps. Beleive it or not, processor speed is insignificant to most people looking to buy a new computer. Most of the people who stress over Mhz, are gaming nerds, hardware nerds, sys admins (nerds), and AI posters. Ahem.
Why are most people so unconcerned about Mhz? Becuase it really doesn't matter. If the hardware does what it needs to do, who cares what number is associated with it?
You say market Mhz. I say market Ease of use - and so does apple.
<strong>That's a matter of perspective. Most people would look at today's dual-1GHz for $2,999 compared to the rumored dual-1GHz for $2,499 and think that was a $500 price DROP.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, that's an interesting perspective.
If these numbers are true, they've upgraded the specs, as continually happens in this industry. But they've also increased the prices substantially across their range.
[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>Next person to use the
867/133 = 6.5
1000/133 = 7.5
1200/133 = 9.0
With those numbers there is a distinct possibility that the FSB may remain at 133.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: foamy ]</p>
<strong>Since Thinksecret is now reporting 867/1000/1200 speeds, so the new PMs may be more depressing than previously thought.
867/133 = 6.5
1000/133 = 7.5
1200/133 = 9.0
With those numbers there is a distinct possibility that the FSB may remain at 133.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: foamy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Depressing is an understatement for these lame specs. Apple is losing too much ground.
The MacMinute/Think Secret specs sound correct though. I believe them. I can see why there will be no special event for these. I think it shows that the G4 is reaching its limits or at least Motorola is. The DP 867 model sounds like Yikes! revisited. This should be enough to hold them over until the IBM Power4 derived processor (hopefully) and other goodies like 802.11g and 1394b are ready. I feel that internally the new case is ready for the next generation processor already but when that day comes I expect a more revolutionary change externally to the case.
Actually I see this as good news. If improvements such as DP across the board, DDR Ram, 166Mhz bus, etc., are only deserving of a press release... then what will they have in store for us next year at a big event like Macworld? That is the silver lining in my opinion. This is just a stop-gap and Apple knows this. You can tell from their actions regarding this release.
<strong>
Depressing is an understatement for these lame specs. Apple is losing too much ground.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these specs show are the CPU SPEED!!!! For all you know the new PowerMacs could hold a whole crapload of suprises yet to be revealed - faster system bus, faster ram, on chip memory controller... the possibilities are limitless. I think you WANT to be dissapointed, becuase you've jumped on this first rumor that doesn't say what you want to hear and begun to pout... pout away.
FACT - My G3 350 is till fast enough to keep me happy. the only reason I'm buying one of the new PowerMacs is so that I can run DVDSP.
FACT - Even if the speeds DON'T GO UP, they're still great machines.
FACT - NO ONE CARES if you want to switch to PCs because the G4s haven't breached the 3Ghz barrier. Switch - no one will miss you.
<strong>there is a distinct possibility that the FSB may remain at 133.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is something wrong with that. Why the OLD 1 Gig goes to $2199 and the NEW 1 Gig goes to $2499 at the end of the month... strange if it's the same MB.
To Agent Cooper : You're the One, man !
I'm thinking seriously to buy the 1.25 IF it's a full DDR implementation and ATA 100, and I'm coming from a Dual 800.
I think that a lot of people who are complaining don't even have a QuickSilver (I'm not talking to you Leonis
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
Yeah, it's a penis joke.
Anyway, I don't know what you people expect. I like the idea that "I'm pissed because this machine is so much faster than my machine is right now which is good enough so I'm not upgrading anyway". That's pure ****ing comedy gold.
Ah, well. The next line is: "I care about the platform! Waaaa-waaaa-waaaa!" No you don't. If you really cared about the platform, you'd see the strength and vibrancy of a platform depends on the software, and things haven't looked this good on the software side ever.
If the question is performance vs. speed rating or user experience vs speed rating, I'll take the former over the latter EVERY TIME.
I would rather you people switched back to Intel and left the rest of us alone than continue your inane braying about how Apple is always letting you down. There is a weird self-hating vibe to these kinds of posts that leads me to believe you all need some serious help.
Jet
Also for those who say 2 CPU dont add up to a faster computer for general useage then for general use most ppl wont be using the "speed' of 3 GHz PC.
To be honest I am sick of all the whinning and bitching and threats to go PC ( you must pirate all your software to consider it an economic proposition).
When Apple finally breaks free of the motorala debarkle will you all be wanting to jump back?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Aussie John ]</p>