Apple today introduced the eMac, a new desktop computer targeted specifically for education that mimics the all-in-one design of the original iMac. The eMac features a 17-inch CRT display (1280×960 maximum resolution at 72 Hz), 700MHz G4 CPU, NVIDIA GeForce2MX graphics, 128MB RAM, and a 40GB hard drive. The US$999 model features a CD-ROM drive while the $1,119 model includes a DVD/CD-RW combo drive. Apple also unveiled a new PowerBook G4 running at speeds of 667MHz and 800MHz and featuring higher-resolution 1280×854 15.2-inch display. The new PowerBook G4 also features a new 4x AGP ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 graphics processor with DVI output.Our Take: I have two problems with the eMac.
The (recommended) 1280×960 resolution of its 17″ CRT is a good res, but I would not be able to stand it 5 minutes at its 72 Hz. “Downgrading” its resolution down to 1152×864 at 80 Hz, it is probably a better solution and you make a favour to your eyes.
My other problem is Apple’s persistance of selling some of their machines with only 128 MB of RAM. I received the G4 450 Mhz Cube last week and it really makes MacOSX fly, not because of its speed (450 Mhz is not top notch these days), but because it came with 448 MB of SDRAM! MacOSX needs more memory than it needs CPU cycles (despite popular belief). Selling the eMac with 256 MB by default would have been more logical for OSX’s needs.
Also, I hope that Apple would at least reduce the prices on the classic G3 iMacs now, as this new eMac is way more powerfull than the classic G3 600 Mhz one, and surprisingly it sells at the same price ($999).
The $999 is for schools and such. For individual students and/or faculty, the starting price is $1249.
IMO, this eMac with its 17-inch monitor is far superior to the iMac with its 15-inch monitor. I can’t stand working on a 15-inch screen all day, but 17-inch screens are fine. I really don’t care about the differences in overall form factor at all, in this case.
It is absolutely ridiculous that the eMac will not be sold to the general public and will be available only to academia. This is another typical trademark Jobs maneuver that Apple just doesn’t need right now.
Have a look at the header at its specs page ( http://www.apple.com/education/emac/specs.html ). Apple’s marketing dpt calls the eMac a “SuperComputer”. In the case that Apple hasn’t changed the actual meaning of the word, all I can say is:
Yeah, right. Especially when compared to a ten year old 486. Because if I dare and compare it to a real “supercomputer”, like say, a dual Xeon SMT at 2 Ghz (which costs me around the same $$ as the much inferior 933 Mhz PowerMac), then I would only call the eMac a “toy”. What should we call that PowerMac then? Supa-dupa-Fartputer? Or, even better: What should we call the dual Xeon SMT which smokes the PowerMac? huh?
I like MacOSX and I like the quality of their… computer cases. I received the 450 Mhz G4 Cube last week (thanks again David!!) and *I love every minute with it*. But if there is ONE thing I can’t stand from Apple (except their cheezy prices) is their marketing dpt and their teacher, the master of the distorted reality, Steve Jobs.
Save your breath Apple. Please. Such cheap tricks don’t get through this old bitch’s skin.
echo eMachine | sed -e ‘s/hine//’
And hey, you can try that under MacOS X, too.
– chrish
Unfortunately Eugenia, you’re not Jobs/Apples target audience for the Reality Distortion Field. The marketing department at Apple is zeroing in squarely on educators who are used to Apple equipment and Apple prices.
I can’t see how this would even begin to make any kind of a dent in the disparity of numbers of Windows/Intel machines as opposed to Macs. In truth, it’s not going to, and isn’t meant to. This is strictly something meant to keep the existing education userbase to stay with Apple.
If they were serious about getting more people to buy into “The Apple Way,” they’d do what you suggest and throw in more memory, among other things (like lower the freakin’ prices!!!)
I’m so tired of the song and dance about how Apple equipment is tightly coupled to the OS, etc., etc., and how that equates to higher prices. Bull. It equates to higher prices because Apple is a *hardware* company, and their profits come strictly from selling boxes, not anything else.
It’s incredibly frustrating. Here’s a company that’s produced the first decent OS that I’ve seen that is a viable choice for someone like me (I’m into graphics and web database programming) and I just can’t justify the expenditure it would mean to migrate over from Windows/Linux. I’d dearly love to have a nice Mac OS X machine, believe me! It’s not going to happen, though, unless I win the lottery. Not only is the hardware too expensive for the amount of horsepower you get, but when you throw in all of the new software that I’d need to buy just so I could keep working at the same level of efficiency, well … it’s not a pretty sight.
Amen, E!
I’ve worked with supercomputers and I assure all those affected by the reality distortion field that Macs aren’t even CLOSE to being supercomputers. I don’t care how powerful the G4 with Altivec is, it’s just not a supercomputer and it’s silly to see Apple try and make the claim. Hell, even if the CPU _was_ as powerful as all the marketing speak claims, it’s still not a supercomputer because SC’s have very special architecture features that Macs just don’t have.
Then again, I don’t really feel that a 2-way Xeon SMT is one either.
One of my other fav Apple myths was that the cube was the “first 100% digital computer” (because it had no analog anything output… not even headphones). Yeah….. right.
Apple’s marketing dpt calls the eMac a “SuperComputer”. In the case that Apple hasn’t changed the actual meaning of the word, all I can say is:
Yeah, right. Especially when compared to a ten year old 486. Because if I dare and compare it to a real “supercomputer”, like say, a dual Xeon SMT at 2 Ghz (which costs me around the same $$ as the much inferior 933 Mhz PowerMac), then I would only call the eMac a “toy”. What should we call that PowerMac then? Supa-dupa-Fartputer? Or, even better: What should we call the dual Xeon SMT which smokes the PowerMac? huh?
Eugenia… Are you seriously comparing a 999$ computer to a dual Xeon? Get real. Apple’s marketting dept is just that, a marketting department. No need to get so emotional about it… I don’t hear you calling the p4 a “fart” (how mature btw) when Intel claims it speeds up the internet…
Advertising is a bad beast…
just ignore them and look at what you want
I’d like to have an A1 more than an eMac….
> I don’t hear you calling the p4 a “fart” (how mature btw) when Intel claims it speeds up the internet…
Intel’s marketing dpt is f*rting on this one, of course! They started that b*llshit (how about that for “mature”) about “our CPUs speeds up the net” from the PIII era. If Intel gets less critisism from me, is because they are not lieing in every other sentence. They have their moot points (especially the one you pointed out), but overall, they are pretty reasonable. With Apple, all their marketing headlines are diped into lies, misconceptions and changing of meanings.
Apple has lost every respect in my eyes, for years now. I like OSX (and I am very happy having this beautiful Cube running next to me), but I hate their marketing dpt. They make me wanna puke.
The company needs to come closer in line with PC prices or it will never increase its market share significantly. It is that simple. However, the company will never do that because they don’t want to lose the margins and sales of those high-end G4 customers.
Apple should address a new high end and go for the work station market. SGI is weak. That way they’d have a margin booster that would enable them to lower their prices on consumer machines. Of course, they’ll need better performance before they can do this.
I can finally toss out my nice 21″ display, and dual monitor setup (other monitor’s my trusty old Samsung 17GLSI)
Come on… The above comments are very accurate: Who can afford to toss out their established and familiar PC setup, just to pay way too much for an underpowered machine that’s hotwired directly to the monitor?
Want to run a dual display on this eMac? Tough!
Want to upgrade that pidly CPU to something a little more robust? Tough! You should have thought of that before buying an eMac.
Want to run any of the software you’ve collected over the years? Not on this puppy.
The better bet, for someone looking to run OSX (And admittedly, I’d love to play around with one) is to buy one of the new Amiga motherboards, and then download one of the hacked OSX loaders that are avail. onthe Net.
This lets you do what you want to, without being tied to the hardware Mr. Jobs has decided you need.
Man… I like the fact that Apple’s still around, but Steve Jobs is a one trick pony. Macs are still underpowered when compared to a similarly priced PC, and Apple still thinks that the world’s full of idiots who aren’t informed enough to realize that there are better, more viable solutions available.
Perhaps if Jobs got off his damn high horse and acknowledged that x86 users are on to his game, we might finally see an x86 version of OSX (which would be fairly popular I imagine). Until then Apple trails far behind the performance pack, if you ask me.
I seriously think Jobs is banking on peope who were used to the old school of Mac sticking with the new versions.
I also think that the longer Apple drags their heels trying to screw loyal customers over, the more these “old schoolers” are switching over to an x86-based system, and realizing that “Windows XP really isn’t too bad for what I want to do”.
Jobs is living in a dream world that will probably come crashing down by 2005 I believe (IMHO).
Hi Mrs. Loli-Queru! 🙂
Well, first of all I like to say:
Congratulations to you and the OSNews Team for the 1000th news story a few days ago – go on with the great work!
Now my comment:
Every time you get upset about this “Super-Computer” statement from Apple. Well my dear, this is called marketig. Marketig is never about saying the truth.
Or would you expect Jobs saying:
‘Hey we’ve got great computers to sell. They are only a little bit expensive and slow – but – otherwise they got a cool design and run a cool OS!’
I think for sure not!
B.Gates does this as well – every new Windows Version he introduce is the greatest, fastest and most powerfull and stable Win. release they ever made.
Or would you expect Gates saying:
“Hey this is our new Windows release – we polished the GUI a little bit, added some useless features and
the rest ist the same ugly old API-crap we sell since ten years.”
I think you don’t expect Jobs & Gates saying this!
So come on – I know you have a love/hate relationship to Apple – but don’t get angry all the time because of stupid marketing slogans.
Greeting from Germany
Ralf Hasemann
(ex BeOS user and now Powerbook owner)
> Eugenia… Are you seriously comparing a 999$ computer to a dual Xeon? Get real.
My friend. You have it all wrong. *It is Apple* the one who compared their products to “supercomputers” through their ads. All I did, was to NAME one of these “supercomputers” (in this case, a dual Xeon, which is not even as fast as the real supercomputers as Bart very successfully pointed out). If there is someone who needs to get real, is Apple, not me.
Woo! I think I’m going to get one soon. I just doubt I will be able to hold myself back this time around. I’ve managed to avoid plunking the money down for 2 full generations now. They are so sweet. And now they finally have DVI output! I just wish they had better video cards in them. Like a GeForce 4 or something.
> B.Gates does this as well – every new Windows Version he introduce is the greatest, fastest and most powerfull and stable Win. release they ever made.
I think you are trapped by your own statement here. Microsoft indeed say for each new Windows release that it is faster and stabler and more powerful *from the previous Windows release*. And that is generally true. They did not lie in this particular instance, according to my experiences with their products.
With Apple, there is not a single marketing slogan that has a hint of truth in it. It is all air-balloon talk. It just gets bad after you had it for a while…
> Well my dear, this is called marketig. Marketig is never about saying the truth.
I do not think so. Marketing is about putting nice words and slogans for a product, and trying to really present a product in less words possible that really stays in mind. It is not about lieing. Not always. But Apple’s marketing dpt is constantly lieing.
How about if I sue them as a consumer? Consumers have certain rights, and these rights are well protected here in USA and you get free laywers and stuff to battle against companies that take advantage of their consumers.
Supercomputer…
“Eugenia… Are you seriously comparing a 999$ computer to a dual Xeon? Get real. Apple’s marketting dept is just that, a marketting department. No need to get so emotional about it… I don’t hear you calling the p4 a “fart” (how mature btw) when Intel claims it speeds up the internet…”
That’s not really the point… But what can I build for $999?
Lets see… I can build a 2Ghz P4. Granted MHz isn’t everything. But I can gurantee you that this system will leave Apple’s 933MHz G4 in the dust. And for the same amount of money.
This is where Apple’s main problem is. They charge outragious prices for systems with inferior performance. I seriously do not understand how Jobs thinks he can continue to charge this much money for computers when equilvalent PC systems can be had for half the price of what Apple wants.
E, its a computer. Don’t you think your reaction is a bit much? As the saying goes down there in the states, vote with your wallet.
You don’t like it, don’t buy it. I, for one, won’t be owning a mac any time soon, simply because they don’t offer a compelling reason (price, performance, software) to change from my setup. I can’t imagine having to replace the several thousand dollar investment I’ve made in software simply to get OSX (which is, admittedly, cool).
You can pretty much forget Apple ever taking market share away from SGI in its segment, IMO. SGI workstations and renderfarms sooo fast, and they need to be. I don’t think Apple would ever be able to compete with them on that basis, although they may be able to port the Unix software over OK.
It is Linux that is eating SGI’s lunch right now. Take a look at this company as a really good example:
http://www.boxxtech.com/
Fact is the “SuperComputer” reference comes from the data processing rate of the Altivec unit in the G4. It is actually labeled as a supercomputer my the government as it is able to do more then 2B ops/sec (or some such high number). There was even an article in the EE Times a year ago about about replacing cpu+dsp combos with a single G4 and getting more performance.
The altivec on the G4 blows away the SIMD units in any of the x86 series CPUs and is why photoshop and the other image/video processing softwares are always faster on the top-end Mac vs. Top end PCs. It is also why QNX is so damned fast on the G4 – it uses the altivec unit for message passing.
Eugenia, and others who are whining about the “Supercomputer” tag–the fact of the matter is, this is actually a factual definition provided by our U.S. Customs. It arose when the G4 was released, and Apple was faced with import/export restrictions. Whatever you say about PowerPC benchmarks, U.S. Customs used fpu and calculations per second benchmarks to classify computers as supercomputers. The first consumer machine to do this was the PowerMac G4. Since Apple was going through the extra hoops and costs involved with importing/exporting these machines, they decided why not play up the term to their advantage–ultimately, this seems silly, but it was great advertising at the time. I know a lot of you know the ad I’m referring to.
Since then, they continue to use SuperComputer particularly to call out the G4 (over the G3). So all they are saying here is: here’s the first sub-$1000 G4.
Deal with it. It’s marketing speak, but does have its origins firmly rooted in concrete and verifiable data and definitions provided by our own U.S. government… Whether or not you have your own standards for what a supercomputer is.
“The altivec on the G4 blows away the SIMD units in any of the x86 series CPUs and is why photoshop and the other image/video processing softwares are always faster on the top-end Mac vs. Top end PCs. It is also why QNX is so damned fast on the G4 – it uses the altivec unit for message passing.”
#1: Almost no software takes advantage of Altivec. Photoshop is one of the few exceptions.
#2: When the MHz difference is this high, Altivec doesn’t make up for it. Photoshop will perform better on my 2GHz P4 than it will on a 933MHz G4.
Remember… Apple’s test was totally biased and unfair. They compared a dual 1GHz G4 to a single CPU 2GHz P4. That’s is hardly a fair test. Of course the SMP system will win.. But it also doesn’t take into account the fact that I can build the 2GHz P4 for less than half the cost that Apple wants for a dual 1GHz G4. In fact, I can probably build it for about one-third of the cost. Apple wants $3,000 for the dual 1GHz G4. And that doesn’t include a monitor.
I usualy point out what i don’t like about macs and such, but everyone else is doing that today. My first reaction to this was actully i like it how much does it cost. Penn State didn’t have it listed yet though but thanks for those who put up the price. 999 is to high for me, I’m looking for a simple basic mac, yes i do have things i like about them. But the old imac is way to slow, and since i would never run OS9 on it, it wouldn’t be a good choice since apparently OSX is slow on it. Also it’s a very dated computer hardware wise. Well there getting closer. Still is disapointing though you can build a dual athlon for less than this thing. Course this goes for bought PC’s as well. Maybe there will be a breif period where Job’s reality distortion feild reverses polarity and drops prices with new models and this thing hit like 500 bucks. Then its fun time
Altivec enabled software:
o Photoshop
o iTunes
o Quartz Rendering Layer of MacOS X.
o Quicktime
And I would venture that a test of photoshop would show that the Altivec enabled version would still beat the P4 but not by much, and yet the G4 is running at 1/2 the core speed of the P4.
How is comparing dual CPUs (which costs more overal system overhead then a single CPU of the same combined speed) to a single CPU not fair? It isn’t fair to compare x86 with PowerPC since the x86 is such a crappy CPU, but that has nothing to do with SMP. The reason for using SMP is that two CPUs down the price/performance curve are generally cheaper to buy then 1 top-of-the-line CPU OR the top of the line CPU isn’t fast enough and you need more.
And you couldn’t build a feature complete system for 1/3 the price since the DVD-R Combo drive is nearly $400 on it’s own.
2Gz P4 – $300
Mainboard (that isn’t shit) – $100
DVD-R Combo – $400
DRAM – $100
DISK – $100
Video – $100
keyboard+optical mouse – $50
56K Modem – $20
Gigabit Ethernet – $50
1394 PCI Card – $30
Sound Card + Speakers – $30
Wicked Case – $200
Windows XP Pro – $300
————————
~$1700
And that is using the cheapest shit I could find on pricewatch.com and amazon.com (XP). That also does not include any support or coverage. So, to be fair I went to dell.com and configured up the Dell Workstation 340 with the same specs as a dual G4 tower but with a single 2Ghz P4. It was $3700.
’nuff said.
It is also why QNX is so damned fast on the G4 – it uses the altivec unit for message passing.
Exactly _how_ does the vector processing unit on a CPU speed up message passing? Seriously. I’d love to learn something new today if this really does exceed my understanding of the terms ‘vector processing’ and ‘message passing’.
At any rate, since the ‘supercomputer’ marketing speak is only accurate because of a technicality you could apply the same marketing and label to most of Apple’s competition in the marketplace as well. For a company that is so obsessed over the MHz Myth they sure don’t seem to have any problem exploiting consumer’s misconceptions about what supercomputing is and isn’t…. Dell don’t seem to be screaming ‘supercomputer!’ from the rooftops.
And while we’re on the MHz Myth, I can’t see why you bring it up as a defense. You can’t claim the MHz Myth (which I do admit is real, but not to the extent Apple would have you believe) as an apologist reason for Apple not being a true SC since most SC’s have MHz ratings for each processing unit that is well below the top of the line of either the PPC or x86 families. If anything, most computer manufacturers could claim “Our CPU’s are faster than the ones in supercomputers!” and it’d be technially true. Of course, SC’s have tens to hundreds to thousands of them. Macintosh G4’s aren’t in of themselves SC’s because they just aren’t. MHz Myth or not.
bandwidth! It is all about bandwidth. If you read a little on the G4 you will soon realize that the Altivec unit has a special data-path into the cache which is 128 or 256 bits wide (depends on the chip). So, if you use the altivec’s load-store instructions you can quickly move 128bits at a time with a full size path to cache (instead of doing multiple 32bit moves).
And I really wasn’t trying to bring up the whole “myth” thing, just more that comparing x86’s and PowerPC’s isn’t all that fair. I mean hell, imagine if Intel took all of it’s process/production knowledge they have for milking that ugly x86 architecture and applied it to the PowerPC? It would be amazing.
chris
“The reason for using SMP is that two CPUs down the price/performance curve are generally cheaper to buy then 1 top-of-the-line CPU OR the top of the line CPU isn’t fast enough and you need more.”
This isn’t completely true. A dual CPU system can actually run two threads at the same time, where as a single CPU system can only run one. So the dual system will almost always be faster than the single CPU system. So it isn’t fair to compare a dual CPU system to a single CPU system. The ability to execute multiple threads at the same time gives it a speed advantage over a single CPU of the same MHz rating as the dual CPUs combined.
“It isn’t fair to compare x86 with PowerPC since the x86 is such a crappy CPU, but that has nothing to do with SMP.”
This is only true if you buy into Apple’s distrotion of the idea that “MHz don’t mean very much.” That’s true sometimes. But not when you are talking about the difference between 933MHz and 2GHz.
If the G4 is such a superior CPU, than how come IBM is abandoing PowerPC archetecture in favor of Intel’s IA64? And how come G4 is poking along at 933MHz when Intel CPU’s will probably break the 3GHz mark in a few months?
MHz does mean something when you are talking about differences that big.
It seems silly to be peavish about using a Mac as a “supercomputer”. It is my understanding that in order to truly be a supercomputer, the processor and chipset structure must maintain the 1 billion ops per second speed, not just a vector processing unit, which is merely a component of said processor. By profession, I do graphic and web design… I have yet to see an Apple (insert model name here) outperform my single processor unit. (which, BTW is an AthlonXP 2000+ w/ 512 MB DDR SDRAM). Photoshop, Flash MX, etc… it matters not, the machine just keeps running. My computer doesn’t have AltiVec, but do I need it?
No.
Is marketing evil?
Possibly.
Is marketing a reason to get pissy on an internet messageboard?
No.
my 2 cents.
chis your prices arn’t that fair. one you were working with the combo drive, well the $999 model is just a CD rom so thats a big price differance. You could have a case for well well less than 200 bucks, if building one, near no one would build with a gigabit card, or even a firewire card. For most the population they are worthless hardware. Theres probly other things could be nit picked. I relize the P4 was what people got talking about, but most people i would say would build an AMD system, chip cost way less, and you can have very good mobos for under 100 bucks. Also you wouldn’t have to use XP pro on it.
Would we really be able to classify any lone desktop as a supercomputer. Even when heavily optimized, they are still an order of magnitude less powerful than a real supercomputer (ie Cray or SGI). Furthermore, many of the benchmarks we see for 4 GFLOPS here or there, on PowerPC or x86, are all for single-precision floating point math. Worthless for when you *really* need all that extra power.
Brad – I am trying to be fair in comparing the $3000 G4 Tower to an equally configured PC from a brand name manufacturer. Comparing a hand-built machine to an Apple isn’t a fair price comparison. Build a Dell vs. an iMac and you will find they are the same prices as well. Just trying to show that Apple isn’t any more $$ then any other brand name computer maker.
Simba – First, if you are doing memory bound operations like image processing then using 2 threads on an SMP machine can be slower due to bus contention and resource allocation blocking. However, if there is also some other source of system blockage (disk for example) then having multiple threads is better. Mind you, if you have I/O blocking like to disk then having multiple threads on a single CPU will give the same benifit. SMP is a poor-man’s multi-processor – there is only a single memory bus and only a single I/O bus, so people often think there is more benifit with SMP then actually exists. Also, take a look at Apple and Adobe’s numbers – they have a single G4 trouncing a P4. Dunno how current those are and if the photoshop plugin was built with P4 optimizations but it does give some idea of the scale to which Altivec can take you.
Chris… You obviously don’t know where to buy parts. Now let me build the same system you just built:
2Gz P4 – $284. NOT $300
Mainboard – $90 NOT $100
DVD-R Combo – $355 NOT $400
Case – $55 NOT $200
Windows XP Pro – $142 NOT $300 (you can get an OEM copy if you are building a system.
(components not listed I couldn’t get cheaper than you found)
Total cost: $1,411
So I am still under one half the cost of the dual G4.
“Brad – I am trying to be fair in comparing the $3000 G4 Tower to an equally configured PC from a brand name manufacturer. Comparing a hand-built machine to an Apple isn’t a fair price comparison. Build a Dell vs. an iMac and you will find they are the same prices as well. Just trying to show that Apple isn’t any more $$ then any other brand name computer maker.”
Everyone is always comparing APPLE to PC prices, but they compare at the high end; not everybody is looking at high end. Lets have a look at the other side:
$999 Dimension 8200 (their are 3 models listed, I’m just comparing the $999 one)
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special03.htm
versus
$999 iMac (Their are three models listed I am just comparing a $999 one)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/261…
Dell – Apple
CPU: 1.8Ghz P4 versus a 600Mhz G3 no contest WINTEL
RAM: 128MB PC800 versus 256MB PC100 APPLE
VIDEO: GForce2MX 64MB versus Rage128 Ultra 16MB WINTEL
SOUND: Sorry the integrated sound on the iMac is better than than this DELL, not to mention the issues Windoze has with cheap arse sound cards but its speakers are smidgeon better than the iMacs – – Undecided
DISPLAY: 17″ versus 15″ WINTEL
PERM STORAGE: 20GB ATA100 versus 40GB ATA66 TIE
REMOVE STORAGE: CD-ROM versus CD-RW APPLE
COMMUNICATION: 56k modem versus 56k AND 10/100 APPLE
OTHER: USB versus FIREWIERE and USB APPLE
BUNDLED SOFTWARE: WinXP MS Works, MS Money versus OS 9 and OS X, iMovie, iTunes, Apple DVD etc etc, APPLE
Well, its a damn close call if you ask me, But I think if had no computer and only $1000 without enough brains to build my own, the iMac is the champ.
“Brad – I am trying to be fair in comparing the $3000 G4 Tower to an equally configured PC from a brand name manufacturer. Comparing a hand-built machine to an Apple isn’t a fair price comparison. Build a Dell vs. an iMac and you will find they are the same prices as well. Just trying to show that Apple isn’t any more $$ then any other brand name computer maker.”
What isn’t fair about this? If I am willing to invest the time to build my own system, it is perfectly fair.
It’s not my fault Apple insists on keeping their hardware closed so that I can’t build my own G4 based system. This is a perfectly fair comparision because it is one reason I won’t buy a Mac.
Simba – there is no WAY that case you are getting is as nice as the G4 Tower case. Dunno if you have ever used one but it is amazing. And I have seen what simular PC cases cost and $200 was on the low, low end. And you cannot legally buy the OEM version if you are building a single machine, although I am sure you can get it for free if you like.
“Simba – there is no WAY that case you are getting is as nice as the G4 Tower case. Dunno if you have ever used one but it is amazing.”
I’ve used one. And quite frankly, I don’t really care if my case has nice clear plastic and pulsating power buttons. I can get a case that is just as functional for $55.
“And you cannot legally buy the OEM version if you are building a single machine, although I am sure you can get it for free if you like.
”
Sorry, but you are just wrong about this one. You can buy an OEM copy of Windows perfectly legally if you are building a single system. The catch is of course that Microsoft doesn’t have any obligation to support it. The assumption is that if you are building your own system you can provide your own support.
But it is perfectly legal to buy an OEM copy of Windows if you are building your own system.
>how come IBM is abandoing PowerPC archetecture in favor of Intel’s IA64?
Actually, they don’t really have plans for IA-64 because it is a risky investment. they only intend to keep the S/390 chip and the new Power4 RS/6000 chip.
maybe I have missed a news article, but I’ve never heard of IBM using IA-64
“Actually, they don’t really have plans for IA-64 because it is a risky investment. they only intend to keep the S/390 chip and the new Power4 RS/6000 chip.”
I read an article in Linux Magazine (probably about 18 months old by now) which was an interview with an IBM big wig. The statement was made that RS/6000 would gradually be phased out in favor of IA64. That’s one reason IBM ported AIX to IA64.
I agree i don’t see why in buidling a PC one would have to get a G4 like case. Maybe thats not what someone else would consider a good case. I’ve seen many a nice case in the sub 50 range i would take over a mac case.
At any rate looks like a PC vs Mac price bash athon has begun again. Oh what fun….. Has there ever been a mac artical that this hasn’t happened
>MHz does mean something when you are talking about differences that big.
No it doesn’t, some Official SPEC FP scores:
Alpha 21264 1GHz :960
IBM Power4 1.1GHz (1 cpu only) :1075
Dell 2.2GHz Zeon :802
Hp 800MHz Itanium :701
AMD XP 2000+ (1,667MHz) :642
As with any benchmark take even SPEC scores with a pinch of salt, despite lower scores the AMD will perform around the same as the 2.2GHz Intel despite the 500MHz difference.
You may notice the 2.2GHz Zeon has it’s arse kicked by an aging 1GHz Alpha CPU which has a much smaller cache.
I don’t think Apple is really that far behind in raw CPU performance, no more than 30% and thats Motorolas fault. OS X does seem to run very slowly as the recent compiled (and unofficial) SPEC marks showed. I expect this will change – switching on hardware graphics acceleration should make a *massive* difference in perceived performance alone.
Though there should be a 1.5GHz G4 by the summer and the rumours I’ve heard of the G5 sould have it in the same league as AMDs Hammer (now called the “Opteron”). This wouldn’t surprise me as PowerPC have only been behind in performance since the G4.
>If the G4 is such a superior CPU, than how come IBM is abandoing
>PowerPC archetecture in favor of Intel’s IA64?
Just because IBM is selling IA64 boxes doesn’t mean they will give up on PowerPC. If they wanted to do that they wouldn’t have spent the vast amount it cost to develop the Power4. Even Sun started a port to IA64 but didn’t mean it’s being taken seriously. If IBMs customers really want an IA64 thats what IBM will sell them.
Power 4 has 5,000 pins, 4 dual core CPUs and requires several tons of pressure to close it’s metal case, at 500 watts it also doubles up as a handy room heater. It also happens to be compatible with the PowerPC instruction set so if Apple want to chase SGI they know exactly where to look for a CPU.
Cases:
I once owned a $75 case. It was the cheapest I could get at the time – NEVER again! It did it’s job of holding the PC in one piece but my PC generates quite a considerable amount of heat and it constantly overheated.
It’s replacement cost $250 (big SuperMicro server case) generates a ton of noise but never had any heat problems despite the fact I’ve 2HDs and 6 full slots…
I don’t know about Apple cases but you get what you pay for.in the PC world..
I dunno, I could care less about the pretty look of the G4 tower case. I am talking about it’s solid construction, good power supply and the ability to open it up and poke around while the machine is still running (designed to do that no less!). Never seen a PC case that opens up and presents the hardware as nice as that since I got my first PC back in ’85-’86 with the flip-top desktop case. I loved that case so much.
Because if I dare and compare it to a real “supercomputer”, like say, a dual Xeon SMT at 2 Ghz
Because if I dare and compare it to a real “supercomputer”, like say, a dual Xeon SMT at 2 Ghz
lol! you consider that to be a super computer?! That is nothing compared to the 512 cpu servers SGI sales. Thoese, IMOP, are pretty much super computers.
Apple has lost every respect in my eyes, for years now. I like OSX (and I am very happy having this beautiful Cube running next to me), but I hate their marketing dpt. They make me wanna puke.
I agree! And congrats on getting the Cube! Question… can you open it up and stick a faster G4 cpu from one of the towers in it? That would be cool.
not sure how much it would cost but i’ve been impressed with the case my HP has. Built like a tank, has a easy open door on it. I take it off all the time and can be done in a second. Has a nice slide out drive bay to make getting at stuff easy. This is the case they use on all their cheap ass computers, the only complaint i have is the PSU is small. But even for a puny case i have seen dual PIII boards in it. Still I have seen many cheap cases and found them to be very nice. Their simple and straight forward in design. The only cases I can see being a pain getting access to while running is ones with the sides in top made from one peice of metal. Those can be a pain. But hey their also the $20 cases. Far as cooling goes I think that has much more to do with your cpu/heatsink/fan combo. And how you route cables inside. You really need next to no holes to get proper curruilation through a case. It’s more of where they are at. Since every Mobo is differant some combos may not work well. My CPU fan is greeted by the PSU so there is almost no external air getting to it and its cold. the important thing is to get airflow through the heatsink. Of course a bigger case will alow for more airflow, but bigger doesn’t mean more expensive, just means bigger. Course there is the no case option, just pin the mobo to a peg/cork board way. Been there done that. works fine, looks differant.
Eugenia, and others who are whining about the “Supercomputer” tag–the fact of the matter is, this is actually a factual definition provided by our U.S. Customs. It arose when the G4 was released, and Apple was faced with import/export restrictions. .
Yeah, and the customs definition of supercomputer was written in, what, 1970
Technicly, sure, i guess it’s a supercomputer. But it doesn’t compare to today’s super computers…
>>Remember… Apple’s test was totally biased and unfair.<<
Yeah but as unfair as the SPEC benchmarks tailored to Intel’s advantage point!!!
>>Remember… Apple’s test was totally biased and unfair.<<
Yeah about as unfair as the SPEC benchmarks tailored to Intel’s advantage point!!!
a rephrase… not sure where the ‘but’ came from, sorry 🙂
Simba said:
<<
Remember… Apple’s test was totally biased and unfair. They compared a dual 1GHz G4 to a single CPU 2GHz P4. That’s is hardly a fair test. Of course the SMP system will win..
>>
Actually I disagree. A single CPU system would win in a benchmark if the sum of the clockspeed in the SMP system was equal to the single CPU system. There is a little overhead when writing multi-threaded applications that sometimes can hurt performance rather than give it a boost.
Why has Apple not yet submitted SPEC CPU scores? They claim that the Mac is a super computer. Prove it. They are afraid.
I bought my iMac back in March and I think I bought it for the right reason. It is a toy. If you’re a parent, you know the value in buying a toy your child can’t break, the longer the toy lasts the more valuable your investment becomes. I’ve yet to break my Mac. That compensates for the ridiculous price I paid for it.
Keep in mind that the eMac is aimed strictly at the education market, and low-end users in general. Talking about whether it’s “really” a supercomputer or whether one could build a comparable or better system is beside the point. No one who would want to buy this computer would ever do such a thing. I’m running OS X on a bargain-basement 350 MHz iMac, and it’s great for anything I want to do with it — without having to futz around with Linux or Windows. That alone justifies the princely $800 I spent on it.
“I dunno, I could care less about the pretty look of the G4 tower case. I am talking about it’s solid construction, good power supply and the ability to open it up and poke around while the machine is still running (designed to do that no less!).”
I can buy a case with a 250 watt UL listed power supply for $55. For the power supply to be UL listed it has to meet strict quality assurance standards set by UL. So basically, UL is the label of assurance that the power supply is up to standards.
Easy access might be nice. But I’m not willing to pay an extra $150 for it.
>>Why has Apple not yet submitted SPEC CPU scores? They claim that the Mac is a super computer. Prove it. They are afraid.<<
Because hand tailored code to run (or compile) flawlessly does not represent real world performance, though I agree with you and would like to see Apple put up or shut up! But say if Apple participated with the SPEC benchmarks when the G5s eventually come out and maybe show a clear winner, I still would be like “hey, why didn’t you do these benchmarks in the past?”. But then again I still believe that the SPEC benchmark is tailored to Intel’s favor or advantage point, so it’s about as fair as Apple’s secret Photoshop tests!
To be honest no benchmark tests I see on the web or else where will decide what I purchase, I go to the stores and shops and test the machines myself, if it meets my satisfaction in performance, then that is good enough for me 🙂
“I don’t think Apple is really that far behind in raw CPU performance, no more than 30% and thats Motorolas fault.”
I didn’t say it was Apple’s fault. But in a sense, it is Apple’s fault for relying on a vendor that has such a niche market in the CPU arena.
But anyway, I don’t care whos fault it is. You yourself stated that they may be 30% behind. Yet they are over twice as much for systems.
“Though there should be a 1.5GHz G4 by the summer and the rumours I’ve heard of the G5 sould have it in the same league as AMDs Hammer (now called the “Opteron”). This wouldn’t surprise me as PowerPC have only been behind in performance since the G4.”
I could care less about vaporware. “Yes but by summer we will have…” I don’t care what you WILL have. What do you have now? And I can counter that by saying that Intel will probably have broken 3GHz by summer. So G4 and G5 will not have gained any ground comparitively.
“Just because IBM is selling IA64 boxes doesn’t mean they will give up on PowerPC.”
All I know is what I read from an IBM big wig. And it said that IBM will gradually phase out their PowerPC based systems in favor of IA64 and will encourage their customers to make the switch on their new system purchases.
“Actually I disagree. A single CPU system would win in a benchmark if the sum of the clockspeed in the SMP system was equal to the single CPU system. There is a little overhead when writing multi-threaded applications that sometimes can hurt performance rather than give it a boost.”
Virtually all applications are multi-threaded anyway. So you take that performance hit whether you are running it on a single CPU system or a multi-user system. And besides, the advantage of multi-threading more than outweighs the cost. Multi-threading is why you can do more than one thing in an application at a time and don’t have to wait for one process to finish before starting the next one. Of course, on a single CPU system, you can actually only do one thing at once. It’s just that the CPU can switch to a different thread so quickly that the human eye can’t tell it is not running more than one at the same time.
With SMP however, you actually are running two threads at the same time. So the SMP system will beat the single CPU system. Like I said, either way, you have the overhead of threading. And that overhead is more than made up for by the benefits.
I think we all need to remember that speed isn’t everything, regardless of which side of the PPC vs. 48X debate is right. I’ve used both Macs and PCs, and I’m willing to pay more for a Mac because I like OS X a lot more than Windows. I think it looks better, something I value, and is easier to use. I think Apple hardware looks a lot better, too, than Dell and the rest. And in my experience, OS X is more stable than Windows. Could I get by with a PC? Sure. But I wouldn’t be as happy as I am with my Mac, and that’s something I’m willing to pay more for. If and when MS or whoever develops an OS I enjoy using as much OS X and is as stable and runs on cheaper hardware that’s just as stylish as Apple’s, then I’ll give it a try. But until then, I don’t care how fast it is — if I don’t enjoy how it gets me where I’m going, then I’d rather take a slower ride and savor the experience.
I’m surprised nobody mentioned this, so I might as well be the first. From the “Our Take” section:
“The (recommended) 1280×960 resolution of its 17” CRT is a good res, but I would not be able to stand it 5 minutes at its 72 Hz. “Downgrading” its resolution down to 1152×864 at 80 Hz, it is probably a better solution and you make a favour to your eyes.”
The eMac has an LCD monitor. LCD monitors usually run at a refresh rate somewhere between 60Hz and 75Hz — I’m writing this right now on a Gateway FDP1500 15″ LCD that runs at 62Hz.
Unlike a CRT, the refresh rate on an LCD won’t strain your eyes, as the pixels don’t update quickly enough to flicker (what is a downside for gamers is an upside for our eyes).
What matters on an LCD is running in the native resolution; if you run an LCD designed for 1024×768 at 800×600, for example, either you won’t use the full screen, or the image will be scaled (like stretching a picture in photoshop). The image gets blurry, and your eyes won’t like it.
So trust me on this: if you brought one home, you’d be running it at 1280×960.
Of course I agree about your comments regarding LCDs and Hz.
But you are overall wrong. The eMac has a 17″ CRT monitor, the new iMac is the one that has an LCD one.
.. the old war of the amiga and atari users is back in a new form 🙂
I really missed the heavy fighting.
Thoems
P.S. as in the old days no amiga/atari user would change their system, do really anybody think a fan of either side would change to the other side ? 😉
That comment just about says it all no point in fighting buy one the other or both
“P.S. as in the old days no amiga/atari user would change their system, do really anybody think a fan of either side would change to the other side ? ;-)”
Thöms, your are ALMOST right… except for me… as an ex Be-User and a user of PC Machine i would really really like to give OSX a try… but the Apple prices are way too much. In Europe i can only buy a crappy G3 for 999EUR (Gravis store… Apple sells it for 1159 EUR) and that’s a 500 Mhz machine with CDROM!
Ciao,
Bat
Here’s to a good trend!!! 17″ is what iMac should have had
The pictures of eMac are very reminiscent to some allegedly leaked apple concepts from a few years ago … altho it could just be their desire to keep the imac form factor going.
Still.. anything that sells more Macs has to be a good thing.. Microsoft/Intel still needs competition
>>Why has Apple not yet submitted SPEC CPU scores? They claim that the Mac is a super computer. Prove it. They are afraid.<<
>Because hand tailored code to run (or compile) flawlessly
>does not represent real world performance,
[]
Hand tailored????
The code used in the SPEC benchmarck cannot be modified!
Only the compiler can be modified: there have been a couple of “problems” where compiler have done special optimisation for the SPEC benchmark: but now it seems to be less frequent.
Maybe companies are afraid of the bad PR backslash..
[]
> But then again I still believe that the SPEC benchmark is
> tailored to Intel’s favor or advantage point, so it’s
> about as fair as Apple’s secret Photoshop tests!
You’re joking, right?
Each time I heard about the SPEC benchmark in the old days it was Unix vendors (IBM,SGI,DEC,HP,..), afterward Intel rose in the SPEC-Int benchmark, but 80×86 CPU are still very weark in SPEC-FP (quite funnily its exactly the reverse for the Itanium: good in SPEC-FP, bad in SPEC-Int)
SPEC is not at all “tailored to Intel”!
And if you’re speaking of the Altivec: only an handfull of apps use this nice feature, especially since I don’t think that Apple have an auto-vectorising compiler..
So while I really like this feature, it is not very relevant in the “real world”: too few apps.
Yeah, right….they’re the same ones Jobs and NeXT screwed the first time around. Well, like they say, there’s a sucker born every minute.
“I think we all ne”ed to remember that speed isn’t everything, regardless of which side of the PPC vs. 48X debate is right. ”
I don’t think speed is everything. And I love OS X. I would gladly buy a slower Mac if Apple’s prices were reasonable. But that is where my gripe is. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me that I should pay twice as much to get a system that doesn’t perform as well.
If Apple had reasonable prices on their PoweMac line, I would jump right in and buy one. But their prices are not reasonable in my opinion.
“It doesn’t seem to make sense to me that I should pay twice as much to get a system that doesn’t perform as well. [Apple’s] prices are not reasonable in my opinion.”
First, speed is the benchmark of performance only if you completely discount software design. The slowest Mac is preferable to the fastest PC, in my opinion.
Second, Apple’s prices are very reasonable when you consider a few factors: first, Apple designs the whole box, hardware and software, which requires far more investment than any PC manufacturer would ever dedicate; second, PC manufacturers have destroyed their profitability by racing to the bottom of the price range; and third, Apple doesn’t dare show an unprofitable quarter for fear of the press yelling “Apple is about to die!”
“Second, Apple’s prices are very reasonable when you consider a few factors: first, Apple designs the whole box, hardware and software, which requires far more investment than any PC manufacturer would ever dedicate; second, PC manufacturers have destroyed their profitability by racing to the bottom of the price range; and third, Apple doesn’t dare show an unprofitable quarter for fear of the press yelling “Apple is about to die!””
But so what? None of this matters to the consumer unless they feel some kind of loyalty based obligation to Apple itself. In other words, they feel like they have some kind of moral duty to make sure Apple survives, even if that means they have to pay inflated prices.
I don’t care why Apple thinks they have to charge so much. It doesn’t change the fect that from a consumer point of view, they are overpriced. And we live in a supply and demand economy. When demand goes down, prices must drop. When competition goes up, prices must drop as well. Apple needs to find ways to cut manufacturing costs instead of just trying to justify their high prices.
Prices can only go down so far, and I believe Apple has hit its limit. Apple’s prices aren’t high; other PC manufacturers have set their prices artificially low, and they’re paying for it in low profitability. Simba is right that one has no obligation to buy Apple; similarly, Apple is under no obligation to discount its hardware below a profitable price. You can buy what you like, but you’re gonna get what you pay for.
Hey guys.
Love this amazing flame war.
Simba (the Lion king no less):
You actually don’t know what you are talking about and are using deceptive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning for your arguments.
(For instance if you are an IT professional and you make $50/hour, setting up your own system actually cost you more then what you state, which is why Dell charges more than just parts; and don’t try to tell me that time is all you have because that just ain’t true for anyone, capitalism just don’t work that way.)
Eugenia:
Your arguments are routed on baseless information which is further embroyeled by passionate ignorance.
(Apple Microsoft Intel AMD are all capitalist companies and therefore use capitalist means to make money. That this is upsetting to you, means that you want to extract yourself from that system; in which case as far as OSes are concerned just got to Linux, but I really don’t know how you can make a computer without having to buy hardware from capitalist companies so I guess you are sh*t out of luck on that one.)
Others on both side:
The arguments presented on this list are mostly emotionally based and do not really make any difference one way or another.
(most of the arguments here are like two Art coneisseurs argueing over the merrit of Abstract Expressionist paintings being better then the renaissance paintings of Caravagio. How the hell do you settle that argument.)
This is an old flame war, and nothing new has been brought to the table, the Wintel group is still comparing Oranges to Bananas, the Apple camp is just reacting to the wintel FUD and using passion to fight it.
To give an example of what a completely unsubstantiated argument like this creates.
The recording/music/motion pictures and entertainment industry; are pushing laws trough the US Congress and the EU, based on similar FUD arguments which basicly gives them the right to control all hardware and software sales because technology unables Joe Shmoe to make copies of Music and Movies.
So Simba say good bye to your do it yourself computer cause people like you are making them a crime to use and own.
Members of the US Congress and soon in the EU are trying with all their might to Ban/Regulate/Censor; Video Games/Music/Art/etc; which they have argued, using passionate FUD such as Eugenia’s, are all responsible for the rise of school related homicide and violence.
Both of these groups are not using any real data to back up their arguments, instead rely on the biased information of interest groups who have all to win monetarily from these laws.
I have a few questions for both the Wintel and the Apple fans:
Who benefits from this flame war?
Is anything constructive coming out of it?
How much are Apple and Microsoft paying you to propagate useless FUD in their favor?
WINTEL
A) Wintel users are you sure you are really independent in you decision?
B) Are you sure it was not just based on convenience, availability/permeability of marketing hype, and your MOM/DAD/COMPANY/NEIGHBOOR/FRIEND/ making the decision for you?
MAC
A) Mac users, is it really necessary to try to explain to anyone why you made your choice?
B) same as wintel above.
Thanks for your time.
Moving swiftly on……
I like my iBook. I like my Athlon desktop too. Why? Because both of them do what I require admirably well. I know full well any of my Macs would be smoked by my Athlon desktop. Which is why I don’t own a copy of Red Faction/PPC. On the other hand, none of the three Wintel laptops I have ever owned has come remotely close, even with a brand new battery, to the battery life of my iBook. Using a two-year-old beat-up battery, I still get 4hrs of continuous use…more with a ramdisk. I invite wintel competition to *that* =)
The problem with Apple is that they have never had a problem with demand, only supply (and mismanagement). Until the demand for Macs goes down Apple will sell computers to whatever price they see fit. They have a very dedicated user base, and these folks are almost like Wintel folks, they’re not so open to change to another platform and unlike the other PC (or clone) makers that are a dime a dozen with no dedicated user base to one OEM (except for a select few) Apple is the only one building Macs and so its user base doesn’t have a choice but to buy from Apple. Yeah I am not a fan of the high prices either, I’m a cheap skate, but I like using Macs and I am willing to pay whatever price (within reason) to get the platform I enjoy using most 🙂
“You actually don’t know what you are talking about and are using deceptive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning for your arguments.
(For instance if you are an IT professional and you make $50/hour, setting up your own system actually cost you more then what you state, which is why Dell charges more than just parts; and don’t try to tell me that time is all you have because that just ain’t true for anyone, capitalism just don’t work that way.)”
So what? Completely and totally irrelevant. The point is I am willing to spend the time to build my own system and thus save myself about $500 to $700. (I mean come on. It takes what… 2 hours to build a system? So even at $50 an hour I would still be better off building my own).
But like I said, its irrelavent. I am willing to spend the time to build my own system and save myself a heap of money. It is not my fault that Apple chooses NOT to give their customers that option. If they did, I might buy a Mac. But they don’t, so I won’t. There is nothing at all deceptive about this.
You sound like a self-righteous bastard, you really do. As much as you are tired of hearing people fight over different hardware/software products, we are sick of people like you trying to stop us from doing what we like. Your words can be turned around and applied to yourself as well. You are not the first person to complain about the useless-ness of the PC vs. Mac flame war. You are not bringing anything new to the table. You’re just another “nanny” hushing the little kids who bicker about who has the better toy.
You did a good job explaining to us how capitalism works, but that’s just the business side of things. In this day and age, computers aren’t just business machines. They are becoming a favorite past time for many people. Hence the frivilous (spelling?) argueing and debate about which platform is better. If you put a handful of men in a room and have them talk about sports or cars, you can imagine that emotions will run wild and there will be a argueing and fighting about sports teams and whatever. Not everyone here is into computers to make money. Ask Eugenia how much money she makes off of being a webmaster here on OSNews. I don’t see much money making opportunities coming straight out of this website so I can’t imagine she’s making money off of this website (I could be wrong, I don’t know what her deal is with the site’s owner). My point is a lot of people put pleasure and entertainment first before business when using computers.
It’s a friggin’ hobby and people are entitled to act upon emotions, that’s what makes computers interesting and that’s why we continue to use them. Argueing about pointless topics adds flavor to my life which otherwise would be boring. This is a game where it doesn’t matter who wins or loses, you just try to rack up as many points for your side as possible. Think of it as a deathmatch in Quake 3: Arena with no time limits, and basically no limits at all, but the games still keep score.
> Ask Eugenia how much money she makes off of being a webmaster here on OSNews.
Zero.
The money of the ads is solely collected by David Adams, who is the OSNews owner. And in his turn, he has to pay for things like bandwidth…
The only things I got from OSNews for all my “work” (see: hobby) is the G4 Cube last week (owned by David) and a new 19″ monitor, which David sent me so I can write more Mac articles, and a bunch of books that some publishing houses are sending me in order to write reviews for them (and I am already “paying” for them, I had to get glasses 3 weeks ago for developing astigmatism
).
But I haven’t and will not get a single dollar from OSNews.
Ah.. The voice of reason. This is probably one of the most excelent posts I have seen in a long time. Very good points about how computers are no different than any other hobby. I really like the sports car comparision. Put a bunch of sports car enthusiasts in a room and ask them whether the true American muscle car is the Ford Mustang or the Chevy Camaro and you are probably going to get debates hotter than anything we see on here.
This is truely an excelent post from TLy.
“But like I said, its irrelavent. I am willing to spend the time to build my own system and save myself a heap of money. It is not my fault that Apple chooses NOT to give their customers that option. If they did, I might buy a Mac. But they don’t, so I won’t. There is nothing at all deceptive about this.”
BTW, as TLy pointed out, some of us actually ENJOY building our own systems. Some of actually ENJOY being able to select every component by hand and build the exact system we want. What a concept? We might actually like building computers. So time spent doing it that we don’t get paid for is not even an issue.
Simba, please email me or IM me on ICQ (6070904) or MSN (my hotmail address) or Y! (eugenia_loli) or AIM (eugenialoli) if you are reading this. I would like to “propose” something.
>>But like I said, its irrelavent. I am willing to spend the time to build my own system and save myself a heap of money. It is not my fault that Apple chooses NOT to give their customers that option. If they did, I might buy a Mac. But they don’t, so I won’t. There is nothing at all deceptive about this.<<
It wouldn’t be that hard to build your own Mac, the parts are out there and plenty of third party vendors to fit your needs. Just go out an buy an older generation Mac, swap the parts for what you want and presto, a home built Mac. This idea has been on my mind for awhile, but I think I am going to build an AmigaOne instead for the fun of it 🙂
The merrits of your argument are again at stake.
Let me see if i have this right.
First on building your own verses getting DELL/APPLE/COMPAQ/SUN/IBM/etc.
Anyone (as in your mom anyone) can go to a store and choose:
1) a processor. (AMD/INTEL/VIA+Athlon/Duron,Celeron/PIII/P4/Xeon)
2) a Fan for that processor (hopefully bundled in the Box)
2) a Motherboard compatible to that processor. (ABIT/ASUS/MSI/TRANSEND/TYAN/GYGABYTE+Chipsets from VIA/FIC/SIS/INTEL/ABIT+ DUAL or SINGLE)
3) RAM compatible to that motherboard (SDRAM/DDR/RDRAM+133Mhz/266Mhz/333Mhz/1600/2100/800Mhz+60NS/8NS/7.5NS+ 3.3v+ECC/EDO)
4) HD Controller (SCSI/IDE+ 66/100/133/ultra/ultra2/ultra3/wide/narrow/fast)
5) HD (scsi/IDE + 7200/5400/10000 + 66/100/133+Seagate/WD/IBM/TOSHIBA/Maxtor)
6) Optical drive (CDROM/CDR/CDRW/DVD/DVDRAM/DVDR/DVDRW/DVD+RW)
7) Floppy (I can’t even list half of the choices here)
8) Sound Card (Soundblaster compatible, or not + a trillion decisions I can’t start writing about)
9) Video card (Nvidia/ATI/Matrox + Abit/Asus/Gigabyte/NSI/etc)
10) Modem (to winmodem or not to winmodem + brands)
11) Network card (3Com/Intel/NetGear/Realtek compatible + 10/10-100/10-100-1000 + Managed or unmanaged)
12) Mouse/Keyboard (mouse/trackball/trackpad/Pen Tablet + USB/Serial + Optical or Not optical + contoured or not + 12 brands)
13) Monitor (LCD/CRT + sizes + refresh + aperture + Max resolution)
14) Cases (AT/ATX/MINI ATX/MICROATX + brands + # of spaces + styling +air flow rating)
15) OS (Win98/98SE/98Millenium/NT4/2000/XPhome/XPPro)
Here are your Moms choices.
How can she make a decision before doing research on each of these 15 issues?
so let’s say that each component takes an average of 2 hours to research lightly, that comes to about 30H of research. (at $50/h)
now that you’ve found all the best of the best you have to make sure all the parts will make a compatible sum, so add another 15h of research.
now let’s make sure that it’s possible to build a machine in 2 hours.
Even on the fastest machines a windows install takes 45min + the time it takes to partition and format your hard drive.
So the total amount of time to set up your own machine for Mom is about 45H of research + something like 3 hours to build.
This is contrast to spending 2 hours comparing the top rated systems, from the top tier and second tier vendors, and 1 hour to get it at the store or 30min to order it.
Now if any of these individual parts break you have to track down which one and send that one back to the manufacturer or get a replacement on your own.
With a Dell or an Apple if a part fails just send for an RMA on your system send it in and wait for it to come back)
So building your own is not for everyone, and if you value your time, it cetainly not the best use of it.
there will always be specialist/purist who construct their own Kit but this is neither recomended not practical for the general public.
Sure you could save a lot of money by spending the Time to do this, but none of the Top tier PC makers offer this option, and they do offer a lot more value for what you get then a do it yourself kit.
(I could make my own car, but I just need something to get me from A to B efficiently , using the least amount of Gas, but also in style and comfort; I therefore go and select a car from a manufacturer which is reputable and whom has the features I need, and when it’s broken I return to the dealer and ask for warranty repair of the whole thing, if I want to accessorise I can if I don’t want to I don’t.)
So in this present system we will have to compare Apple to Pairs and not to a fruit salad.
They are all made of fruit but 2 of these are complete and one has to be assembled the right way.
This is why people choose salad bar fruit salad or the do it yourself kind.
again there is no comparaison between a build it yourself solution and a secifically constructed machine.
If you’re implying that women do not know how to build computers by your reference to anyone’s mom, you are wrong. There are many women out there who build their own computers. And if they aren’t someone’s mom already they someday may be.
Needless to say we all value our own time, because life is short. Those who invest their precious time in building their own computers learn to value their computers more. It creates a bond between the user and the computer, like a father and son bond (personal note: that is something I lack in my life).
You make it sound like such a big deal, having to do the research to find the right parts and putting everything together. It sounds like a lot of work, but to people who are so enthusiastic about it, that time is well spent.
There is a benefit in buying pre-built systems, so I’m not saying you’re completely wrong. I will not say that home-made computers are much more cheaper than store bought, but the real benefit I see in building your own computer is you don’t get all the extra junk you don’t want in the first place. Computers become obsolete (or so the vendors want you to think) in a matter of months. So why buy a computer destined to be out dated?
Do you see what’s going on here? You and I, as well a few other people on in this thread, are talking back and forth about this topic. We’re not getting anywhere, the world is not a better place, nothing has changed. This is what it’s all about. Just talking and sharing knowledge. It’s been a pleasure talking to you, I hope you have more. Bring it on!
but I really don’t know how you can make a computer without having to buy hardware from capitalist companies so I guess you are sh*t out of luck on that one.)
If you want me to explain it to you, e-mail me.
The only things I got from OSNews for all my “work” (see: hobby) is the G4 Cube last week (owned by David) and a new 19″ monitor, which David sent me so I can write more Mac articles, and a bunch of books that some publishing houses are sending me in order to write reviews for them (and I am already “paying” for them, I had to get glasses 3 weeks ago for developing astigmatism
).
But I haven’t and will not get a single dollar from OSNews.
Now that really stinks! Atlease you got the cube though. Hmm, glasses, I got thoese a long time ago. I’ve spent way too many hours staring at a moniter
Starter when I was 8 or so, playing old DOS games, and haven’t stopped yet. 
Hmm, speaking of books… do you know of any good c++ books?
7) Floppy (I can’t even list half of the choices here)
Uh, yeah… you have your 1.44 MB beige floppy drive, or you 1.44 MB black floppy drive. There isn’t any thing else that is practical.
HD Controller (SCSI/IDE+ 66/100/133/ultra/ultra2/ultra3/wide/narrow/fast)
Oh bull. Only advanced users would need to buy a seprate controller. For pretty much everyone else the IDE controller that is on the mohterboard works fine.
Here are your Moms choices.
How can she make a decision before doing research on each of these 15 issues?
so let’s say that each component takes an average of 2 hours to research lightly, that comes to about 30H of research. (at $50/h)
2 things.
1 – Most people should not build there own computer. It’s a better idea to buy one from HP or who ever. It is nice to have the option to if you want. I build my own, becuase I consider it fun. But most people just want to buy one and have it work.
2 – Did I miss something? WHen did you start charging yourself for your time?
[i] 15) OS (Win98/98SE/98Millenium/NT4/2000/XPhome/XPPro) [i]
Go to a computer store. You have your choice of: XP Pro or XP Home. And sometimes Linux. Not a tough choice. When in doubt, the store sales person will help you. It wont take more than a few minutes to decied that Xp Home is the best choice (for “normal” users).
Oh, one more thing. TechTV makes some good books and videos that will make it easy for newbies to decide what parts they want, and show them how to build the computer. That will cut the research time down by leaps and bounds.
“again there is no comparaison between a build it yourself solution and a secifically constructed machine.” [rest of post snipped for the sake of being brief]..
Once again, so what? Your entire post is completely and totally irrelevant. Like I said, if I have the necessary skills to build my own system and the necessary knowledge, I can buy parts in 30 minute and build the system in about 2 hours. And I save myself $500 to $700 in the process.
It is not my fault Apple chooses not to give their customers this option. Therefore, I will not buy an Apple. Your recent post did not change a thing.
By the way, you intentionally made your component list a lot more complicated than this actually is.
For example, choosing a floppy drive? Give me a break! As little as people use floppy drives the drill here is buy the cheapest damn floppy drive you can find (which usually runs around $13).
And half of the components you mentioned I would have to research if I were buying a Dell anyway to see if they would meet my needs. After all, many of these are options when you configure a system from Dell. Do you want CRT or LCD? 15, 17, or 21 inch? What size hard disk? Do you want a CD burner?
Nice try Seabass. Buying a Dell or any other namebrand system doesn’t save you from having to make most of the decisions you listed.
(which usually runs around $13).
I can easily find them for 9 bucks.
Buying a Dell or any other namebrand system doesn’t save you from having to make most of the decisions you listed.
Exactly. In best buy, there are many computer to pick from, and on the internet when you buy direct from the company you still have to pick some of the components.
options for a Dell Dimension 8200 Series, form there website
Processor:
Pentium® 4 processor 2.4GHz w/ 512K L2 Cache
Pentium® 4 processor 2.2GHz w/ 512K L2 Cache
Pentium® 4 processor 2.0GHz
Pentium® 4 processor 1.8GHz
Productivity Software
Microsoft® Works Suite 2002 with Money 2002 Standard
Microsoft® Office Small Business with Money 2002 and EducateU
Microsoft® Office Professional with Money 2002 and EducateU
Memory
128MB PC800 RDRAM
256MB PC800 RDRAM
512MB PC800 RDRAM
1GB PC800 RDRAM
Haddrive
20GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive
40GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive
80GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive – Dell Recommended
120GB 7200RPM Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache™
Operating System
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Moniter
17 in (15.9 in viewable,.27dp) E771 Monitor
17 in (16.0 in viewable,.25DP) M782 Flat Screen CRT
19 in (18.0 in viewable,.26DP) M991 Monitor
19 in (17.9 in viewable,.24-25AG)P992 FD Trinitron® Monitor
21 in (19.8 in viewable,.24AG)P1130 FD Trinitron® Monitor
17 in (17.0 in viewable) 1702FP Digital Flat Panel Display
in (19.0 in viewable) 1900FP Digital Flat Panel Display
None
and so on and so on. the list is pretty long.
So, building a computer is not as hard as Seabass is trying to make it sound, and buying a computer from someone is not as easy. It helps a lot to know what your doing either way.
Note: Dell is just an example. Almost every site is like this. I wouldn’t really reccomend Dells, they aren’t very upgradeable. (Custom motherboard wont let you upgrade cpu and memory past a set point, etc…)
crap, forgot to close the bold tag. lol.
A “Supercomputer” is defined by it’s performance in Gigaflops. If memory serves me the G3 cpu met the specifications when it hit around 500Mhz. I seriously doubt the Gigaflops performance of any x86 cpu approaches that of a typical RISC chip at half the speed. Intel is the only large manufacturer of CISC chips (AMD has a RISC core) which is why they have needed to produce the high clock speeds to give the impression that their performance is better. Well, it isn’t so. Take two machines, one RISC, the other CISC, use the same OS (NetBSD for example), make the CISC chip twice as fast. Now compare performance.
RISC will win.
Oh wait, I do! I have an iMac G4 700 Mhz. But it doesn’t feel like a super computer, and I’m not talking about sluggish UI in OSX. I’ve been toying with distributed computing in the form of protein folding, and of course SETI. The folks behind those projects say that the client software is not optimized to favor processor extensions. How come my Pentium III 700 MHz completes the work unit faster? And needless to say, my Athlon 1 GHz also works faster than the G4 700. RC5 is the only distributed computing client that is optimized to use AltiVec and it gave me a 400% increase in performance, that’s comparing the P3 700 to my G4 700.
>>I’ve been toying with distributed computing in the form of protein folding, and of course SETI. The folks behind those projects say that the client software is not optimized to favor processor extensions.<<
Actually there was a guy that just done a comparison for SETI home on his Macs and PCs and found quite the opposite of your findings…
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/platforms.html
>>How come my Pentium III 700 MHz completes the work unit faster?<<
How come Sun Ultra 10s (running Solaris 7) with Dual UltraSPARC IIs 360 MHz can outperform a Linux box (Red Hat Linux 7.2) with Dual AMD Athlon 1.6 GHz at similar tasks? Hard to believe, but it’s reality! The Athlon Machine beats the Sun machines at simple tasks, but when a lot of data crunching is involved, it goes down hill from there, and I am not the only one at work noticing this. Of course Sun is known to have one of the best I/O implementations thus far!
Forgot a link…
http://www.lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0415.html
sorry 🙁
Oh and another thing… I am not downing the Athlon machine, because it happens to be one of my favorite workstations to use 🙂
[i]
How come Sun Ultra 10s (running Solaris 7) with Dual UltraSPARC IIs 360 MHz can outperform a Linux box (Red Hat Linux 7.2) with Dual AMD Athlon 1.6 GHz at similar tasks? Hard to believe, but it’s reality! The Athlon Machine beats the Sun machines at simple tasks, but when a lot of data crunching is involved, it goes down hill from there, and I am not the only one at work noticing this. Of course Sun is known to have one of the best I/O implementations thus far![/i[
No, that wouldn’t be too hard to belive. Sun makes awesome systems, which have far better performace to x86 boxes in most things. And Solaris is a pretty nice version of unix if you ask me.
I probably should have kept SETI out of this conversation because it’s as good a benchmark as Photoshop – meaning it’s not a good benchmark. It’s kind of difficult to measure performance in SETI because the time it takes to complete a work unit can vary widely. On my iMac G4 700, I’ve completed work units in 17 hrs, and once I completed a unit in only 8 hrs. But the average time needed is about 20 hours.
“How come Sun Ultra 10s (running Solaris 7) with Dual UltraSPARC IIs 360 MHz can outperform a Linux box (Red Hat Linux 7.2) with Dual AMD Athlon 1.6 GHz at similar tasks?”
Thi isn’t really a fair comparision though because you are comparing a 64 bit system to a 32 bit one. So its on a different level than comparing G4 (32 bit) to P4 (also 32 bit)
>>Thi isn’t really a fair comparision though because you are comparing a 64 bit system to a 32 bit one. So its on a different level than comparing G4 (32 bit) to P4 (also 32 bit)<<
Good point 🙂
bayerwerke said:
A “Supercomputer” is defined by it’s performance in Gigaflops. If memory serves me the G3 cpu met the specifications when it hit around 500Mhz. I seriously doubt the Gigaflops performance of any x86 cpu approaches that of a typical RISC chip at half the speed. Intel is the only large manufacturer of CISC chips (AMD has a RISC core) which is why they have needed to produce the high clock speeds to give the impression that their performance is better. Well, it isn’t so. Take two machines, one RISC, the other CISC, use the same OS (NetBSD for example), make the CISC chip twice as fast. Now compare performance. RISC will win.
Please read http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html and especially http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html the Pentium family is no more CISC than the G4 is RISC. I personally prefer the PowerPC architecture but Intel has had a RISC-like core in their CPUs for a long time, at least since the original Pentium.
Chipset and I/O efficiency have a lot to do with performance as well.
You kinda got to take that article with a grain of salt… it is a great article and I have read it myself, but the guy contradicts himself which still pointed out that Intel still has a CISC legacy built into CPUs, which means that they might have a RISC concept, they are still CISC in nature and have not become a full RISC implementation yet, there still are many differences!
if the usage of Mom as an example sounded sexit, It was not the intended point.
On Mom, and her realtionship to Apple:
Apple sells to Mom’s, Pop’s, Guido the Designer, Susan the perfomance artist, John the Broadcast Designer and Eugenia the Writer.
Mom needs a computer to browse the Web, Type letters and collect (scan or download from Dcam) and print photos and do some basic accounting.
Pop needs the same as moms.
Guido needs a computer to do his work which incidentally is not about the computer which is just a tool for his work (as a pencil)
Susan needs something that is easy to set up fast and can deal with various media in the least hasstled way;
and where the technology takes the back seat to the content.
John is like Guido, he’ll use a PC for his 3D (although now he might as well use his OsX version of Maya) and he’ll use his Mac for the compositing and editing.
His tools can’t become too overbearing in his work because he looses time and time costs him money.
(yes you do have to charge for your own time when you work for yourself, this is usually billed as downtime, which affects the bottom line in that it’s time you are not using for your client work.)
Eugenia, also needs a computer that will satisfy her needs as a writer and not get in the way. (This of course can be any computer even a unix system, because words and paragraph and essaies can be written and printed from all of them, despite what MS would have you believe.)
1) I’m not advocating sexism.
2) I’m all game for a good discussion, I just think there is such a thing as constructive/destructive/useless arguments.
3) I do think that Simba in his overarching Mac vs PC tread, is repeating arguments that the mainstream press has for years been beating over our heads and has not really substantiated (Apple is still around years after the Mainstream death knell had sounded).
4) I do not think it is possible to use computers, and computer parts made by capitalist companies and expect to be excluded from the process of capitalism.
5) I was not speaking of Eugenia’s salary nor her ability to get paid from this site’s owner.
In fact I would commend her for the work she has done here.
Thank you for your time.
6) Yes building your own computers and being passionate about computers is a hobby.
But this is not a hobby that most subscribe to.
This is why there are IT professionals and MacGeniuses and Linux Geeks.
These people provide the expertise for the Majority, who make decision based on the marketing and popularity of products for whom they have to make a minimum of Decisions; and even though experts like Simba go out of there way to find out all the components that are parts of the system they are getting from Dell, most don’t.
7) Last year’s economics Nobel prize laureates theory was on “the analyses of Markets with Assymetric Information.”(paraphrased bellow):
In the present state of Capitalism information flow is biased in favor of the Sellers at the disadvantage of the buyers.
True capitalism can on ly be based on balanced information exchange where a buyer always nows what is being sold to it’s littlelest imperfection, and a seller will get a price in relationship to the real value of the product.
( http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/index.html )
This is explains Eugenia’s original anger at Apple for using marketing speak such as “Super Computer”. The word “Super” is not a Measurement of anything in a computer; but in this market, it is used to sell all kinds of things, from amazing teeth whitening solutions to HP’s SuperDome servers;
This is not a unilateral Apple problem but a general effect of this market.
Intel who sells processors based on it’s metric of Mhz, is as guilty as apple of playing with reality.
what is the difference between a P42.2Ghz and P4 2.2 GhzA?
Does the A mean that the plain 2.2G is less able then the 2.2GA?
Well technically yes, but how will Intel sell both at the same time, when it’s performance metric is Ghz?
well it will add the word enhanced after the Ghz metric.
how is this different from AMD’s performance ratings?
how is it different from Apple’s performance rating?
is there really any way to compare computer performance?
How about Teeth whitening toothpaste performance?
Are you ever sure with all of your research and analysis of the data available to you that you really know anything
about the products that you are buying, wether they be from MS/Intel/Via or Apple?
8) To cut this short (he!he! dogma is fun) I have to go back to the antiquated 300Mhz G3 which just finished rendering my AE5.5 piece on OSX, moving over from this even more antique PM9600 604e 350Mhz which is half as fast as the G3 but about the same speed as the old but usefull PC next to it with it’s dual 400Mhz PII and it’s Quadro board with NT4 which is as we speak rendering a spinning dancing, caterpillar made in 3DSMax2.
I use both platforms I made my PII, but the next time I upgrade the PC I’m getting a Dell Precision workstation so that I don’t have to deal with service issues in the middle of Jobs.
Whenever I have problems with the Macs in the middle of a Job, I rent another one from Tekserve, leave the broken one over there and go back to work all my files being safe on my OsX server machine which is has been running nonstop for 2 years since Beta4 and has only been restarted once, when I moved to a new space.
There is a distinction between the CPU Hobbyist and the rest of the people that use computers.
The hobbyist are the minority, and they service the majority.
Comparing the price difference between what someone can get as an Expert (someone with Information) to what someone can get as a normal users is just not here nor there.
It just isn’t a comparison.
So Simba, that you can build a cheaper P4 10Ghz machine for $5 dollars doesn’t factor in my decision of buying a computer;
I just can’t afford to be the sole responsible entity for my equipment even if I have the knowledge and skill to do it, because that is not my core competency.
I charge $*000 a day for my work and in that day I have to be either Designing/Rendering/or meeting with clients.
I don’t see a minute dedicated to my own Tech support.
nor building my own computer.
And my personal time well it’s personal.
There just would not be any Dell/HP/APPLE if your theory’s of life where true.
If everyone thought like you simba about building their own, I’m pretty sure we would still all live in small quaint little towns, and riding horses and carriages, because Mister Ford would have failed miserably and the 2nd industrial revolution which he helped foster, with all of it’s ills and goodness would have not happened.
You are the true philosopher here on OSNews 🙂
“How about Teeth whitening toothpaste performance?”
Colgate rulez… or was it Aqua Fresh!@#$%^&*?
I’m not suggesting that building your own system is for everybody. I’m simply suggesting that you made it a lot more complicated then it actually is. And I’m also suggesting that you still have to make a lot of the decisions about hardware whether you buy your system or build it yourself. Of course, with buying, its a lot easier to make those decisions since you get this menu of everything you can change on the default system so you aren’t actually starting from scratch.
I’m also not saying that Apple will go out of buinsess for failing to give their customers the option of building their own system. I’m just saying that this is one reason a lot of technical savvy users shy away from Apple. Just because people have said it before doesn’t make it any less valid. There are people who don’t want to be locked into Apple’s proprietary systems. And I happen to be one of those people.
>Thi isn’t really a fair comparision though because you are comparing a 64 bit system to a 32 bit one. So its on a different level than comparing G4 (32 bit) to P4 (also 32 bit)
The fact one is 64 bit and the other is 32 bit will only matter in certain specific areas – such as 64 bit integer calculations. You’ll find both can handle 64 bit floating point calculations. 64 bits does not make a CPU faster.
There is some confusion as to what actually makes the bitness of a CPU. The Amiga and Atari ST were both described as 16 bit yet the 68,000 CPU was 32 bit internally. It did however have a 16 bit bus. On the other hand the Pentium is also 32 bit internal but has a 64 bit bus.
Pentium BTW was CISC, the Pentium Pro was Intels first x86 RISC, there were however RISC like features in the 486 onwards.
The last company to make x86 CISC chips was Cyrix and they’ve stopped since VIA bought them.
The RISC chips like Sparc etc have a different target market where floating point is the judge of processing power and consequently they wipe the floor with x86 chips whos main market is integer processing. They also have vastly better bandwidth and often being made in fairly small quantities and sold at high prices can afford to use more advanced chip making processes (one of the reasons Alpha was so fast). Sparc BTW are generall the slowest RISC processors sometimes even lagging the x86 camp.
Then there’s clock speed.
There are 2 ways to make a CPU:
“Brainiac” is where you hava a complex CPU doing a lot per cycle, they tend to have low or very low clock rates, G4 is very much in the Brainiac camp.
The other way is Speed demon where you have a very simple CPU doing very little per cycle and thus need a high clock rate to do the same as the lower clocked Brainiacs.
HP and DEC used to a have a grand fight with the competing methods in their PA-RISC and Alpha processors. The Alpha usually won but the PA-RISC usually wasn’t that far behind despite running at 1/3 of the Alphas clock rate. There were times when the Alpha did beat everyone by a large margin but this was in part due to DECs close integration of their design team and silicon process. When this was later broken the Alpha lost a good part of it’s advantage.
How does this relate to the Apple Vs PC?
The G4 is a brainiac whereas the Pentium 4 is very much a speed demon.
The Athlon and Pentium 3 sit in the middle somewhere.
Some dubious Mathematics:
At launch the Pentium 4 at 1.5GHz was outperformed by the 1GHz Pentium 3, sometimes even an 800MHz P3 could outgun it.
At this time the G4 at 700MHz was considered to be equavelent to a 900MHz P3, this makes a great deal of sense since the G4 has less pipeline stages.
The Athlon at 1GHz was pretty much the same as the P3.
How about Now?
The P4 is at 2.4GHz, the Athlon gives similar performance at 1.7GHz while the G4 is stuck at 1.0GHz.
The G4 should be equavilent to a 1.3GHz P3 which is only 25% behind the Athlon / P4.
I’ve ignored changes to the P4 (bigger cache) and Athlon (Palamino core) but the high end Macs have bigger external caches and the G4 probably had changes also.
So the G4 really isn’t that far behind (and Altivec is actually faster)…
OS X however does appear to slow Macs down quite considerably but as I’ve said before it’s a new OS and performance will improve. I was told that the system is slow on purpose (compatibility or something like that) and that wouldn’t surprise me.
OS X 10.2 should speed things up and the summers G4s (process shrink to 0.13um) which boost clock speed to 1.5GHz and add RapidIO (high bandwidth bus) should bring the Macs up to par. The G5 is another matter as there’s no official public info on it…
—
I may sound a bit like a Mac zealot at imes but I don’t as yet own one. I’ve seen them and I like the fact OS X is based on a good brand of Unix and has a beautiful desktop. I’m actually a BeOS user who has been making my own PCs for quite a few years. I pick the components carefully and assemble them myself, I usually go for good components as they tend to last better and are compatible. Even then neither RedHat 7.2 or OpenBSD 2.9 will function (or even install in the case of RedHat) properly on my PC. Windows 98 will take about a week to install and has to be done in the correct order otherwise it needs re-installed (I have 2 SCSI cards and this confuses the scanner software). I’ve tried Windows 2000 but it felt like swimming through treakle and some of my hardware isn’t supported (or wasn’t when I checked).
The reason I have taken to Macs (apart from above) is that I don’t want to have to spend my time fighting my PC to get it to work, I want to USE my computer, not spend all my time messing around with it.
The fact Apples are expensive is annoying (especially as I have no money 🙁 ) but understandable. They have to invest a lot more than any other PC maker and haven’t been stupid enough to get caught in a price war.