OSNews

I must fully agree, even though it's almost a bit too undepth for my liking

Rayiner's writings have always been a high-point.

Criticism is ok and accepted, but:
1) He paid too much for the computer, I paid almost $500 less for the similar configuration. (2 GB RAM, all Apple RAM)

2) I too have been a hard drive "bigot" preferring Seagate drives but the only drives that have failed for me in the past two years have been Seagates. My Western Digitals oddly enough have all been running fine.

3) My dual core G5's (2.0's and 2.3) are all very quiet, not sure what the beef is there.

4) The G5's are too big, too much metal.

I also liked the review a lot. Count me in as one of the majority Mac fans that DO like criticism.

There once was a time that Apple did use the highest quality parts or so I read. Now, it's all about the margin and possibly what supply they can get (while still making things ubercool). I cannot recall which drive came in my dual chip 2.3 from May, but I think it was/is a Seagate. Not knowing better, I added a WD.

I'm disappointed to find that the engineering to combat sound is still not the best. I guess I can barely live with the cheap bearings in the hard drive but cannot fathom why they didn't put sound isolation into the mountings as that seems the most basic. That probably explains why some people can hear the CPU make noise when it goes into NAP mode. I also found it interesting to know about the airflow & cheap fans.

This begs the question: will the Intel based PowerMac have a case redesign?

This really shouldn't be surprising, as NeXT had several years getting things right on x86 prior to the Apple purchase, and the PowerPC port didn't even start until after the purchase.

That said, the issue with the Intel version won't be native performance, which will be excellent, it will be performance of Rosetta apps, and people not realizing the difference. That is the gotcha. While so many applications aren't Universal, that will be the achilles heel of the transition.

That said, you are seeing a large number of Universal Binaries starting to appear, and that is a VERY big deal for Apple. The more of those out there, the easier the transition will be.

I do have a DTK, and have alot of first hand experience with the environment, and cannot and will not give any details about the performance, I will say that to me, it looks like the right choice on their part.

Now, I do realize OS X x86 is not production yet, but from the tests I have seen comparing it with XP:

OS Boot up/shutdown
-------------------
OS X
Windows XP
Linux

Application Preformance
-----------------------
Linux
Windows XP
OS X

OS X really needs to deal with its threading issues:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=8
http://sekhon.polisci.berkeley.edu/macosx/
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916-3,00.htm

I would venture to OS Xs preformance issues are due to OS X rather than the G5. In which case jumping to slighty fasters P4s is only a bandaid.

It is, but the design of the OS is better suited to the design of the x86 than it is the PowerPC, so the change will have a far greater impact. Further, Windows XP Application Performance is < Win2k, < NT 4. Think Vista will change that? (judging by early betas, no).

That's not true of OS X, where each successive version has improved.

The issue is that OS X is the only OS in the list that uses a microkernel, and you do pay a price for that. You get other benefits though, and ultimately they trade off. Not too mention that only in gaming is eeking out that last bit of sprite performance really that critical. You forget that 90% of the computers in the world never lift a heavier load than a middleweight Excel spreadsheet.

I understand a micro-kernel implies a level of overhead; however I would go so far as to say the Darwin micro-kernel suffers from mediocre implementation. OS X suffers from more severe thread concurrency and kernel locking issues than micro-kernels I have worked on or used.

I do agree with you OS X (which has an excellent UI) performance is increasing with each build. This is an interesting trend since Linux* (which has excellent performance) is becoming increasingly user friendly. I look forward to these trends meeting in the middle.

As you said most user applications are relatively light weight; but it is ridiculous for mp3 encoding to take 40 seconds longer than the same hardware running XP (see my original 3rd link). I hope apple uses the compatibility breaking x86 transition to revamp their kernel locking and address other issues that they may not have wanted to approach before for fear of breaking compatibility, now would be the ideal time.

*Linux, I know is a kernel, so I will use Ubuntu in this case to represent "Linux"

I agree, that there remain issues in the kernel, some of which I don't think will ever be fully resolved, as they appear to be the result of conscious design compromises based upon the targeted deployment.

Others I think will be resolved, thread concurrency being one of them, because the multiple processor deployments rising will force it be. When we start talking 4,6,8 etc, it should become even more of an issue.

At the same time, you are right, most of the Linux flavors are improving. I find it interesting that Ubuntu seems to be the flavor du jour in the Linux geek world. I still find Fedora and Suse to be the most end user friendly distro's, and the money behind them really shows.

"The issue is that OS X is the only OS in the list that uses a microkernel"
RTFM
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/2984/pg/2/2....

NT isn't a microkernel at the moment, nor have it been for a very long while. In NT4 it wasn't a microkernel.

NT is a hybrid between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29

I did not find him to be whiney at all. I also disagree about noise. You really don't want the noise of your computer competing with your thought processes and your productivity. You can't help but notice the fluctuations of the fans (at least with my iMac) as you perform certain operations.

It is amazing how loud the fans can get when you hit a web page with a couple of flash advertisements.

I agree with you about the WD drives. They have been of good quality and to the contrary, I find my seagate drive to be noisy and annoying with its clicking. But maybe I have a cheaper seagate drive.

Then again how many of us have served on an aircraft carrier?

You are right, still, if you prefer silence to do your job and that is what you are used to, it makes a difference.

I have to agree. Maybe this is from laptop use, but I have a reaction to try and stop doing heavy tasks when i hear a fan kick up faster...
It'd be preferable to just have the fan run hot all the time, or a really nice water-cooling system.

Anyway, I'm hoping to see Intel center more on low watt heat output chips; then I can buy a PC that's not a lawn mower but can still play a game...

In the interim, I recommend putting your desk next to a closet.

Funny you should say that... we are moving soon (again - but just across town in a house we are building) and I believe my wife is relegating me and my computer to our walk-in closet.

Something to be aware of regarding noise as it applies to the target market.

In a home setting, a quiet computer, preferably nearly silent tends to be preferred, and if you look at the Apple product lines, I think you'll see that trend. All of the consumer oriented machines have a focus on quiet operation.

The pro machines have a primary market towards the office setting, a setting where noise of that nature is a different beast altogether. In many, if not most offices, there is significant ambient noise, as well as in many cube farms, a white noise generator that sounds suspiciously like a fans or light television static. This noise has a purpose, and that is to help insulate the staff from the droning noise of many voices bleeding over the tops of the cubes.

I recognize that many PowerMacs are used in home settings (my dual 1.8 G5 is), and it does tend to be loud when the fans spin up to full spped, which only happens when I'm really pushing the machine, but it is no louder than the ambient noise in most workplaces, and that is the misconception.

If anything is 'whiny' here it's your post. You confuse commenting on 'quality' with being surprised with what you get. Mentioning the noise of the G5 receives "well of course it's louder than something you made yourself [plus I'm ignoring your comments about those Dell machines]." Referring to a model of WD HDD as "cheap" brings up the Raptor (which is neither quiet nor the HDD mentioned). I think the noise here is overstated and "cheap" from a quality perspective undeserved, but you could mention a review from Storage Review rather than bring up a completely unrelated product.

Getting used to noise pollution is "damage." It's great you don't care, but that has little to do with the quality of his review.

I don't think the review is completely coherent, and I've certainly seen better, but it's not especially bad. Colloquialisms are the least one has to complain about in the age of the blog, and if anything really bothered me it was the collection of disparate concerns in an attempt to provide an all-encompassing review of not just the product but the 'switch.' Not a big deal, and definitely of higher quality than the average submission here.

And where did I say anything about Dell machines in any of my posts? How about not confusing my posts with others. I did mention HP and Sun hardware in one of my posts.

I was trying to make a point about the quality of Western Digital's products, obviously you didn't get it.

The point about noise is relevant since Rayiner spends a significant amount of time discussing it. Some people go "over the top" about noise and considering the purpose and market for this machine, I am not surprised by the number of fans and the amount of noise it makes. If one of the things you are looking for in a machine is something that is quiet, then don't buy a workstation class machine for the power then bitch about the noise.

I have seen better articles here as well, and this is not one of them.

Did you read his article where he specifically mentions the Dell computers in his apartment being quieter, or did we read different articles?

Maybe what you don't get is that the quality of "Western Digital" makes no sense. The quality of models makes sense. OH MY GOD YOU HAVE A WESTERN DIGITAL? DON'T THEY MAKE THE RAPTOR? THAT MUST MEAN IT'S COMPARABLE TO THAT SEAGATE DRIVE IF NOT BETTER. Your argument is completely amusing. It's the model of HDD he's referring to as cheap, not the company. The company and its other products don't matter. How do you refute his comments? By making some vague reference of knowing their history (wow, what a spectacular argument) and referring to a completely irrelevant product.

His point is that his competitive X2 machine is quieter. And commenting about the noise only bothers you because it's negative. You've damaged your hearing with noise pollution, but that's no big deal right? You don't care, so why include it in a review.

It's the model of HDD he's referring to as cheap

If it wasn't clear, the hard drive in the PowerMac is the 2500JS, a special cheap version of the 2500JD (to the tune of 10% or more, depending on supplier). That's why I referred to it as "cheap". It's like using an ASRock motherboard instead of an Asus. Both are from the same company, but one is a cheaper (presumably lower-quality) model.

Also, from a silent computing standpoint, Western Digital, aside from their Raptor, is very decisively in the rear of the pack. Most people agree that Samsungs are the quietest, followed by Maxtor, followed by Seagate, followed (distantly), by Western Digital and Hitachi.

It just occurred to me that you didn't understand the function of the brackets in the made up quote I wrote. Brackets in a quote represent additions or substitutions to a quote to clarify meaning, which in my post I was using to point out that you were intentionally ignoring his comment about the pre-built Dells in order to dismiss his comments about noise on the grounds that he made the X2 himself. Since you didn't say it yourself, I took the liberty of pointing it out with the brackets.

I found Rayiner's tone for parts of the article almost whiny and very annoying. If he didn't like the internals of the PowerMac, then why did he spend the money on it?

The OS that runs on it.

The noise issue is one that is no big deal for me, from time to time I have to go into the data center where there is plenty of noise.

Going into a data centre and using a desktop in an office or study is quite another. That's the most in denial comment I've heard for a little while.

And there should be a difference between a machine he spent time and money on quieting and one "out of the box", DUH!

The point is you pay money to Apple for them to do it for you. It should not be that noisy, plain and simple.

The comment about the "cheap" Western Digital drive, where the Hell did that come from? I checked PriceWatch and the Seagate drive he feels is "superior" is priced about the same as the Western Digital in the PowerMac.

The point being made was that some people believe that Apple uses higher quality components. From the Western Digital hard drive, as cheap as the same one you'd put in a normal PC, Rayiner is making the point that that isn't true.

Obviously Rayiner is not aware of the history of Western Digital, or the quality of their products. Based on my experience I wouldn't call them "cheap", or better yet, ask anybody who uses a Raptor.

Quality of hard drives tends to jockey around. Western Digital drives have had more than their share of problems, Seagate work but they are extremely average, Maxtor were good but I've seen them fail more than once recently and the best at the moment in my opinion is Samsung.

For the money that you pay to Apple they should be looking out for these trends in good quality components and be sourcing from suppliers more appropriately. Apple need to buck up their ideas if they think they're going to go off and sell a bog standard Intel PC in a slightly more pretty case at a large premium.

More interestingly, on the same platform we're going to find out just how good Mac OS X is performance wise to Linux and Windows. Unfortunately, there's no hiding place for Apple of "Oh, but it's running on differet hardware".

The software part of the article, well I wouldn't use "pissed off" to describe anything in something that I would want published. That terminology is fine for conversation and blogging, not a "professional" piece.

There are so many people out there in the world who just cannot take bluntness for the life of them. Get used to it.

Rayiner needs to learn brevity, what he says could have been said in fewer words.

Yer. The PowerPC hardware as a desktop is crap overall and the only thing that would make anyone buy it is OS X as a desktop environment. OS X and PowerPC together as a server combination is suicide.

The point is you pay money to Apple for them to do it for you. It should not be that noisy, plain and simple.

It isn't. I have a dualcore 2.0Ghz G5 and it is plainly much less louder than the Athlon box it replaced.

The noise issue is personal and a value judgement. Since Raynier didn't post any mesaurements using an spl meter it is subjective at best.

"I found Rayiner's tone for parts of the article almost whiny and very annoying. If he didn't like the internals of the PowerMac, then why did he spend the money on it?"

I disagree, both with the title, and with the comment above. He already told you why he spent the money, and he was detailing what he liked, and what he didn't like. That's the purpose of the piece.

"The noise issue is one that is no big deal for me, from time to time I have to go into the data center where there is plenty of noise. I think he makes too much of a big deal about the noise of the PowerMac. And there should be a difference between a machine he spent time and money on quieting and one "out of the box", DUH! Again, I am sure he had the opportunity to examine an operational machine before he spent his money. If he had a problem with noise it should have came up there (it would have for me). I have an Sun Enterprise 3000 at home and it sounds like a plane taking off, I got used to the noise."
You seem defensive. He's obviously not using it in a noisy data center. It's there for your information. If you don't like noise, it's an issue. If you don't mind, it's not.

"The comment about the "cheap" Western Digital drive, where the Hell did that come from? I checked PriceWatch and the Seagate drive he feels is "superior" is priced about the same as the Western Digital in the PowerMac. Obviously Rayiner is not aware of the history of Western Digital, or the quality of their products. Based on my experience I wouldn't call them "cheap", or better yet, ask anybody who uses a Raptor. "
Might be a good point there.

"The software part of the article, well I wouldn't use "pissed off" to describe anything in something that I would want published. That terminology is fine for conversation and blogging, not a "professional" piece. His comments about Matlab should not have been included if it "sucks on every platform", not just on the PowerMac, what's the point? "
He elaborated on that. I found his descriptions informative. That they were too informal for you is simply a matter of personal taste.

"During the time it has taken me to examine his article several people have commented positively about it, unfortunately I don't agree. Rayiner needs to learn brevity, what he says could have been said in fewer words."
And you had one decent criticism in five paragraphs. What's good for the goose...

While you're at it, you might want to read my follow up posts so you get the "whole picture" including my response to Rayiner.

You have the most annoying habit of writing arguments that were effectively rebutted by the original article. Either RTFA or shut the heck up.

Let's look at a portion of your first post:

I found Rayiner's tone for parts of the article almost whiny and very annoying. If he didn't like the internals of the PowerMac, then why did he spend the money on it?

He already explained that very thoroughly. RTFA.

The noise issue is one that is no big deal for me, from time to time I have to go into the data center where there is plenty of noise.

He already said that you need to evaluate what's important to you; these were his impressions. RTFA.

I think he makes too much of a big deal about the noise of the PowerMac.

Your personal opinion again, nimrod. RTFA.

And there should be a difference between a machine he spent time and money on quieting and one "out of the box", DUH!

He already said that he had three P4 Dell machines in his apartment, and all of them were quieter than the PowerMac. RTFA.

Again, I am sure he had the opportunity to examine an operational machine before he spent his money. If he had a problem with noise it should have came up there (it would have for me).

What if he ordered online? Must everyone go into an Apple store to verify conventional wisdom (e.g. Macs are mroe quiet)? The article is about his experiences. RTFA.

I have an Sun Enterprise 3000 at home and it sounds like a plane taking off, I got used to the noise.

Again, that's your experience. If you want to write an article about it, fine. But as Rayiner said, more and more people are becoming aware of this problem. RTFA.

The comment about the "cheap" Western Digital drive, where the Hell did that come from? I checked PriceWatch and the Seagate drive he feels is "superior" is priced about the same as the Western Digital in the PowerMac. Obviously Rayiner is not aware of the history of Western Digital, or the quality of their products. Based on my experience I wouldn't call them "cheap", or better yet, ask anybody who uses a Raptor.

Whatever. He made no direct comparison of the WD to the Seagate, so I don't see where the "superior" claim is that you are somehow rebutting. The only thing he implied was superior about the Seagate drive was the noise level. RTFA.

Demanding that people to read your thread history is sooooo hypocritical when you're just trolling like an Apple sycophant yourself.

Edited 2005-11-16 00:23

I don't own a Mac, so the "Apple synchphant" comment is a waste of time. And if we were talking about my experience with Macs (MC68000 and 1st Generation PowerPC Macs), I would say they suck, but I haven't used one since.

So before you start calling people names, what I said is my opinion and nothing you say is going to change my view of the article or its content.

I just have a Mac Mini, but at office we have tons of iMac-Hair-dryers. But still, I don't want to go back to Linux or windows. Never. OS X gives me something I have searched for too long and I don't want to give that up. I am too much used to "it works" and I don't have to worry about anything at all.
So much that I really think about spending tons of Money on a PowerMac

Mac OS X/Darwin are limited in drivers to what Apple decides it will support as well. Also (and I don't know this, I am asking) does Apple directly benefit from OpenSource on the driver issue? Or no?

Linux/BSD support a great range of hardware and it seems to grow everyday. Again, I am a mac user, I just cannot find many faults with how the OpenSource OS's are coming along. To me they have reached the point where they are truly viable as desktop computers.

As a matter of fact, my mother uses my old Athlon box running Ubuntu. She was strictly a Windows user for 20 years. She picked up Ubuntu in one phone call (she lives 2700 miles from me, I left the computer in her spare bedroom when I moved). One phone call and I simply told her how the menu structure was laid out. She's golden.

Your comments about Linux really come across as nothing more than FUD to me. Sure, there are a lot of distro's out there that could fit your description of what using Linux is like, but my experience with the larger distro's isn't anything like what you portray.

Are there professional programs for Linux? You bet there are. That doesn't mean that people don't use other alternatives. Just because people decide to use an open source program in Linux it doesn't mean that there aren't proprietary alternatives. And, just because something is open source doesn't make it inferior. Can Linux run any program ever made? No. Can OS X run any program ever made? No.

Can I install a program by dragging and dropping it? No. Do I care? No. Installation is no harder in Linux than in any other OS unless the designer of the program was too lazy to make it easy to install. Can your Mac keep track of practically every piece of software on your computer and automatically notify you of any upgrades or patches? No. Do you care? Apparently not.

You're definitely right that Linux is good for tweaking. One of the things that I don't like about Macs is that I'm not allowed to tweak as much as I want. I like the default options well enough for occasional use, but it isn't quite my cup of tea.

As for drivers, I've never had to maintain or use my own Mac. So, I can't really comment on how well they interface with upgrades or other hardware. That sort of thing has always been done by whoever owned the machine I was using. I can say that drivers have rarely crossed my mind with Linux because everything is so well detected and automatically setup.

I don't begrudge anyone liking one product over another, but I really don't like when someone makes overly generalized, inaccurate comments. Your impression of Linux may have been accurate at one time. It isn't now.

Edited 2005-11-15 19:50

Professional - Someone who gets paid to do something.
Amateur - Someone who loves to do something.

I prefer amateur software, thank you . It's always late, sometimes never "ready" but they consistently fail to lie to me and promise features that end up broken.


Now, for the rest of your sad "argument:"
Library dependency problems are not problems. They're solutions that work just fine. There are c++ library compatibility problems against major upgrades in gcc, yes. However, these are entirely solved by the fact that FOSS is distributed as source, not binaries. As for closed programs, usually they offer multiple builds; it's not that hard. And typing gcc --version to find which to download is beyond no one. The biggest problem I've seen with *nix closed software has been license managers, but that's intentional.

"Can you install them just by dragging and dropping them, or do you have to wade through library dependency hell every time you put a new app in?"

Autopackage install: chmod +x package; ./package
--or--
sh package
--or--
right click, select properties. Go to permissions and set executable. Double, or single if in konq, click.

"How about drivers? "
Drivers in Linux work extremely well. I've never seen anything do better, well except maybe BSD's (I've heard NetBSD's wifi support is better now). Do you know how I install my drivers? I don't, they came on my system.

BeOS is a sad story. Maybe you should get off FOSS back and help out the Haiku project. You wanna see apps on BeOS, there's your chance...

A lot of games sell on Mac. I mean a lot. Have you checked out the Mac game isle at CompUSA? That could keep anyone who's not a hardcore gamer happy for years... I can't run all those games on my Windows load (because of my hardware )!

What applications are you so missing that FOSS doesn't provide? I know there are plenty, but what is it specifically that you sorely need? And why do you have to downplay the work amateurs do just to make yourself happy with your Mac decision?

"Professional - Someone who gets paid to do something.
Amateur - Someone who loves to do something. "

True but sometimes people who get paid to do something love it as well.

I use a Mac. I also use Linux. Every day, I find that I can get more and more work done on it. Every week, I find I've used my Mac just a little less than before, and my Linux desktop a little more.

Eternal beta? That's a good thing. It means always improving. Too much tinkering? Yeah, that's still a pain sometimes. But it also means I can find ways to do things on Linux that I probably couldn't have, or at least not so easily, on the Mac.

I agree with the author. I love OS X. I prefer KDE to GNOME, but I see both desktops rapidly approaching Mac quality, having left Windows behind a couple of years ago. I won't buy another Mac for myself -- when Apple dropped Appleworks on its most recent line, and when Open Office hit 2.0, it became a no-brainer. Until then, there are still some Mac applications I still use, but none that are virtually irreplaceable by Linux.

Because noise is subjective, what is quiet for one is noisy for another. I have a Pentium IV rig on my desk and I don't hear it at all. This machine has no special quieting technology added to it.

If you want a powerful computer at your desk, there are some compromizes you have to make, and noise is one of them.

My single processor PowerMac is relatively quiet most of the time. But if the OS loses control of the fan system, or the thing gets hot, it's louder than an 11,000 BTU air conditioner in the opposite window. It puts out a very noticeable breeze.

There are hundreds of complaints on the Apple discussion boards about fans going haywire after the last OS upgrade. You'd be hard put to find an Intel or AMD system that could get as loud as a PowerMac, without getting a decent-sized server.

If you want a powerful computer at your desk, there are some compromizes you have to make, and noise is one of them.

Apparently not, according to the article.

"If you want a powerful computer at your desk, there are some compromizes you have to make, and noise is one of them."

I think the author demonstrated otherwise in his comparisons, where the computer that scored consistently best on performance was also the quietest.

I have 12 pc-s around and i can't work without a music in the headphones. I really hate the noise. My home athlon64 is also very loud

This is a must, in my opinion. Everything GUI with MATLAB on OS X is just excruciatingly slow, especially all the elements that use Java. Actually, come to think of it, MATLAB on OS X pretty much sucks in all respects compared to Windows and Linux. This isn't a critique of Apple but rather Mathworks, who despite charging a multitude of arms and legs for their product can't seem to put out a decent application.

Personally, I use Emacs + Terminal for MATLAB myself and find it a nice combination, though a lot of the features of MATLAB are lost that way. (Also, I use a modified matlab.el file for better syntax highlighting.)

Yea. However, I remember watching someone try and do a fair intel to mac comparison by using the absoft (I think) compilers for ppc and the intel compilers for the xeon... Yea, too bad the code was in fortran and no one there knew fortran, might have helped in getting it to compile on something other than gcc!

I think the hardware for powermacs is pretty competitive for what people buy it for. It's not a gaming rig, but it can play most games (you're just spending extra money on stuff you don't need, like dual processors).

If you want to use a Mac, you should be using it because you want OS X, or *maybe* because you think those notebooks are so pretty. But the day when you bought them to get "on power" is gone. But so is the day of MacOS Classic, so you win some and you lose some .

From a technological standpoint I couldn't agree more with you. I'd very much like to see Apple to partner with AMD rather than Intel. However, business-wise it makes sense in cuddling up next to the big player as Intel has enough cash to buy Apple's hardware/computerdivision if things go bad. AMD doesn't.