[quote] If PC users are so happy with their wintel boxes, why are they speding so much time on Apple discussion boards? <hr></blockquote>
Because some of us "think differently" enough to consider all the possible options for doing their jobs better, faster, cheaper, whatever, rather than sticking blindly to dogma and ideology...
In my case, because Apple bought Shake, killed it for Windows, and I want to see what their going to offer in exchange... At the moment, it seems to be a slap in the face and a kick in the b*llocks.
Were I to consider buying some Macs for my company to run shake on, the performance Apple offers simply doesn't make it viable. And I know all about the two for one offer, still not worth it...
I'm merely amusing myself until I get banned...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone is going to ban you for having different taste in computers, but the s-word might get you a frown from the admins.
Honestly, i still don't get what a PC user is doing in an Apple disscussion forum. If you don't have anythign to prove, or a chip on your shoulder, then why do you come in to apple boards? Looking for a little validation for post-purchase depression?
As for the fact that you're not an angry person, i would tend to disagree - Wintel is an act of anger.
I've always maintained my position about PC users - don't bother us. It holds true for mac users who've switched to PC- don't bother us, go flaunt your inferiority complex somewhere else... Doesn't M$ have a discussion board yet?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Agent Cooper ]</p>
I think that you people don't get it. The people complaining about Apple in these forums are the people who care the most about their company. They are complaining because they know that if they don't release good enough specs people will never buy macs and will buy a pc that is alot cheaper. Come on people, for more than 3000$ you get only a dual 1,2. Sure for photoshop and rc5 it's fast but what about the rest, 3d, games, video? Stop fooling yourselves people, its not worth that much money. I agree, 10.2 is by far the best os. But paying 129$ for it is enough, i dont have to pay more for a computer that is tech wise more than a year old, because it can run 10.2. The mac went from being the fastest with the intro of the g4 to dog slow. Ok moto is to blame cuz of its poor results but apple could put new technologies in their mobo that aren't dictated by the cpu. like agp 8X, firewire2, ata133. I'm tired of apple charging us more because we love them so much.
If anything these specs are boring, but come on...they are not end of the Mac world numbers. But seriously Mac is not exiting anyone with these numbers, so they will probably exite people with a really cool case...that is Apple's style.
But Skullmac's analysis is right on. IF, IF the 1.25 gHz speed is correct, and not 1.20 gHz, then the dual-1.25 and the dual-1000 MUST have DDR-333. Because there isn't any SDR-166 RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, 333 doesn't go into 1.25 Ghz very well. Unless there are new clock multipliers that work at 3.75x, it appears unlikely that 1.25 is a real number. I'm sure someone over at ThinkSecret did the same calculations and came to the same conclusion.
[quote] Those "fast" processors should come in handy when you are reformatting XP every 3-6 months
(BTW- I have my MCSE, so I would love to get into a "Wintel Knowledge" pissing contest with you... )
I spend all day fixing Dell?s and Compaq?s (with XP Pro)? This is precisely why I choose to have a Mac at home. You clearly have not used your XP box long enough
<hr></blockquote>
Aw, you'll be fixing those "Dell's and Compaq's" all day till you learn the correct use of apostrophes... and you're only fixing them because you're got an MCSE... don't you get them at 7-11 these days?
I guess XP breaks for you because it knows you don't love it in that special way.
[quote] Weren't you the person that said that insane post about how every one is switching to digital domain's nuke? <hr></blockquote>
Dudes, do you notice on how these are all duals? I mean its a deal and a steal you get a dual processor for just a little more than a windoze machine, go compare prices for a dual windoze machines the prices are much more on the same field then. I wish I just had enough money I'd get the dual 867 probably, so that I can sit at home and mess around on message boards even faster people lighten up
In my case, because Apple bought Shake, killed it for Windows, and I want to see what their going to offer in exchange... At the moment, it seems to be a slap in the face and a kick in the b*llocks.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mac hasn't killed shake for PC yet, acctually.
Windows and Linux system requirements
Â*\t550MHz Pentium III, Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon processor
Â*\tWindows NT 4.0 (with Service Pack 5 or later), Windows 2000 (with Service Pack 1 or later), or Linux (with glibc 2.1 or later; for example, Red Hat 7.1 or 7.2)
Aw, you'll be fixing those "Dell's and Compaq's" all day till you learn the correct use of apostrophes... and you're only fixing them because you're got an MCSE... don't you get them at 7-11 these days?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] Mac hasn't killed shake for PC yet, acctually. <hr></blockquote>
Dead for Windows after version 2.5, Linux is way too much of a pain in the butt for anyone that's actually got work to do.
I love the way mac users talk about linux, don't you realise it makes windows 3.1 look user-friendly... which is why you bought a mac I guess, as it certainly wasn't for the scintilating performance.
If the Mainboard is the bottleneck, cranking up the CPU won't do anything significant to the real processing power of the unit.
The MLB Bus speed is the limiting factor of the current G4s, its worth waiting through a few minor chip updates if they offer significan MLB updates - which I think is what we're looking at in the very near future.
and on another subject:
If PC users are so happy with their wintel boxes, why are they speding so much time on Apple discussion boards?</strong><hr></blockquote>
a.c.,
let us forget about how happy pc user are on their wintel boxes. it is not the issue here.
yes, apple could do all kinds of designs on the interconnects between different devices on the mobo and increase the performance. in addition, you could even optimize compiler to increase performance as well. but apple are not doing any of them, at least from what is happening. by the way no matter what, you won't avoid upgrading the clock, which is the easiest way to do. sj maybe right that once apple could get jaguar out they could focus on the hardware. but i really did not see any execuses for apple not doing hardware at the same time with their os.
by increasing the clock, you _have_ to upgrade the interconnect interfaces, such as memory bus, or peripheral bus. it is a given, otherwise, it does not make any sense to upgrade clock.
yes, motorola is doing chip for apple and the overhead on it is hugh. then cut it loose or do it yourself as long as apple wants to use chip different from intel.
Why must our precious little machines be cursed with the Mhz myth? It's numero uno on my hate list. And, besides, if they were crappy like people think; hey baby, it's not the Mhz count, it's how you use it. I think a cheap dual powermac would kick---I may change my iMac plans and get a dual 867...hehe.
<strong>There is a weird self-hating vibe to these kinds of posts that leads me to believe you all need some serious help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
like most of the people in the netherlands
where complaining is a calvinistic tradition
I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.
They want a sort of value for money allthough they'll never use the entire value. 50 % at most, that means even a emac is to blassing fast for them and they stick to thier G4 400 for a couple of years.
hehe shannyla, you can get around shake, but you can't get around linux? haha I mean you should check out After Effects or somethen if all you use is the standard set of tools for shake
ooooo I can do gaussion blurs fasters than ever...
You can't say you don't use shake till you get into scripting and programming for it. That in there lies why its so cool, and that which I might add is way easier on a mac or linux
<strong>Any of you who consider this "speed increase" as much of a disgrace as I do really should check out the Dell Perfomance Workstation range. Dual 2.4 ghz Xeon for around GBP 2500. Windows XP is a fine operating system and I have had no trouble with it whatsoever, be it "hardware compatibility", "crashing for no reason", "only allowing 8.3 names" or any of the other Windows 95 bollocks that are the sacred cows around here. (By the way, if you weren't there, System 7 really sucked as well...) In fact I had way more problems with a dual 533 G4 and OsX.
It's what I "switched" to, and I have had no regrets whatsoever. And if Apple keep going the way they are, I won't be switching back anytime soon.
Thank you and goodnight. Flame me, stop my posting priveledges, whatever, I don't give a shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
FALSE.
Here in America, a Dell Precision Workstation 530 with comparable specs to the dual 1 GHZ PowerMac G4 costs $5,509-$2,510 MORE than the PowerMac. With the money you save, you can get a Cinema Display! OUCH! And don't even get me started on the Xeon's slow performance and Windoze XP.............
Comments
Because some of us "think differently" enough to consider all the possible options for doing their jobs better, faster, cheaper, whatever, rather than sticking blindly to dogma and ideology...
In my case, because Apple bought Shake, killed it for Windows, and I want to see what their going to offer in exchange... At the moment, it seems to be a slap in the face and a kick in the b*llocks.
Were I to consider buying some Macs for my company to run shake on, the performance Apple offers simply doesn't make it viable. And I know all about the two for one offer, still not worth it...
<strong>
I'm merely amusing myself until I get banned...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone is going to ban you for having different taste in computers, but the s-word might get you a frown from the admins.
Honestly, i still don't get what a PC user is doing in an Apple disscussion forum. If you don't have anythign to prove, or a chip on your shoulder, then why do you come in to apple boards? Looking for a little validation for post-purchase depression?
As for the fact that you're not an angry person, i would tend to disagree - Wintel is an act of anger.
I've always maintained my position about PC users - don't bother us. It holds true for mac users who've switched to PC- don't bother us, go flaunt your inferiority complex somewhere else... Doesn't M$ have a discussion board yet?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Agent Cooper ]</p>
<strong>
But Skullmac's analysis is right on. IF, IF the 1.25 gHz speed is correct, and not 1.20 gHz, then the dual-1.25 and the dual-1000 MUST have DDR-333. Because there isn't any SDR-166 RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, 333 doesn't go into 1.25 Ghz very well. Unless there are new clock multipliers that work at 3.75x, it appears unlikely that 1.25 is a real number. I'm sure someone over at ThinkSecret did the same calculations and came to the same conclusion.
266 * 4.5 = 1197 (~1.2)
333 * 3.5 = ~1166
333* 4 = ~1333
Take your pick....
(BTW- I have my MCSE, so I would love to get into a "Wintel Knowledge" pissing contest with you... )
I spend all day fixing Dell?s and Compaq?s (with XP Pro)? This is precisely why I choose to have a Mac at home. You clearly have not used your XP box long enough
<hr></blockquote>
Aw, you'll be fixing those "Dell's and Compaq's" all day till you learn the correct use of apostrophes... and you're only fixing them because you're got an MCSE... don't you get them at 7-11 these days?
I guess XP breaks for you because it knows you don't love it in that special way.
[quote] Weren't you the person that said that insane post about how every one is switching to digital domain's nuke? <hr></blockquote>
Not me, big boy, you confuse me with someone else
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
<strong>
In my case, because Apple bought Shake, killed it for Windows, and I want to see what their going to offer in exchange... At the moment, it seems to be a slap in the face and a kick in the b*llocks.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mac hasn't killed shake for PC yet, acctually.
Windows and Linux system requirements
Â*\t550MHz Pentium III, Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon processor
Â*\tWindows NT 4.0 (with Service Pack 5 or later), Windows 2000 (with Service Pack 1 or later), or Linux (with glibc 2.1 or later; for example, Red Hat 7.1 or 7.2)
Requirements seem pretty light too.
<strong>
Aw, you'll be fixing those "Dell's and Compaq's" all day till you learn the correct use of apostrophes... and you're only fixing them because you're got an MCSE... don't you get them at 7-11 these days?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please clarify?... I don't speak idiotanese...
Dead for Windows after version 2.5, Linux is way too much of a pain in the butt for anyone that's actually got work to do.
I love the way mac users talk about linux, don't you realise it makes windows 3.1 look user-friendly... which is why you bought a mac I guess, as it certainly wasn't for the scintilating performance.
Or English it seems... apostrophes make a noun possessive, not plural. But whatever...
<strong>
If the Mainboard is the bottleneck, cranking up the CPU won't do anything significant to the real processing power of the unit.
The MLB Bus speed is the limiting factor of the current G4s, its worth waiting through a few minor chip updates if they offer significan MLB updates - which I think is what we're looking at in the very near future.
and on another subject:
If PC users are so happy with their wintel boxes, why are they speding so much time on Apple discussion boards?</strong><hr></blockquote>
a.c.,
let us forget about how happy pc user are on their wintel boxes. it is not the issue here.
yes, apple could do all kinds of designs on the interconnects between different devices on the mobo and increase the performance. in addition, you could even optimize compiler to increase performance as well. but apple are not doing any of them, at least from what is happening. by the way no matter what, you won't avoid upgrading the clock, which is the easiest way to do. sj maybe right that once apple could get jaguar out they could focus on the hardware. but i really did not see any execuses for apple not doing hardware at the same time with their os.
by increasing the clock, you _have_ to upgrade the interconnect interfaces, such as memory bus, or peripheral bus. it is a given, otherwise, it does not make any sense to upgrade clock.
yes, motorola is doing chip for apple and the overhead on it is hugh. then cut it loose or do it yourself as long as apple wants to use chip different from intel.
<strong>There is a weird self-hating vibe to these kinds of posts that leads me to believe you all need some serious help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
like most of the people in the netherlands
where complaining is a calvinistic tradition
I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.
They want a sort of value for money allthough they'll never use the entire value. 50 % at most, that means even a emac is to blassing fast for them and they stick to thier G4 400 for a couple of years.
ooooo I can do gaussion blurs fasters than ever...
You can't say you don't use shake till you get into scripting and programming for it. That in there lies why its so cool, and that which I might add is way easier on a mac or linux
133,33 x 6,5 = 866,64 = 867 MHz
133,33 x 7,5 = 999,97 = 1 GHz
166,66 x 6,0 = 999,96 = 1 GHz
166,66 x 7,5 = 1249,95 = 1.25 GHz (MacMinute)
133,33 x 9,0 = 1199,97 = 1.2 GHz (Think Secret)
<strong>
Or English it seems... apostrophes make a noun possessive, not plural. But whatever...</strong><hr></blockquote>
and "you're only fixing them because you're got an MCSE" is good English I suppose?
<strong>Any of you who consider this "speed increase" as much of a disgrace as I do really should check out the Dell Perfomance Workstation range. Dual 2.4 ghz Xeon for around GBP 2500. Windows XP is a fine operating system and I have had no trouble with it whatsoever, be it "hardware compatibility", "crashing for no reason", "only allowing 8.3 names" or any of the other Windows 95 bollocks that are the sacred cows around here. (By the way, if you weren't there, System 7 really sucked as well...) In fact I had way more problems with a dual 533 G4 and OsX.
It's what I "switched" to, and I have had no regrets whatsoever. And if Apple keep going the way they are, I won't be switching back anytime soon.
Thank you and goodnight. Flame me, stop my posting priveledges, whatever, I don't give a shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
FALSE.
Here in America, a Dell Precision Workstation 530 with comparable specs to the dual 1 GHZ PowerMac G4 costs $5,509-$2,510 MORE than the PowerMac. With the money you save, you can get a Cinema Display! OUCH! And don't even get me started on the Xeon's slow performance and Windoze XP.............
Ah, but that's not what I said... I've been working on Irix boxes for years. Linux is just a pain in the ass in many ways, is what I'm saying.