BareFeats has a benchmark, testing the SDRAM-based dual G4 at 1Ghz with the new DDR PC2100 ones. The new PowerMacs are the same or slower than their previous models, the test reveals. The Mac community got a bit dissapointed (judging from the forums). The author says that the slowdown is because the two processors share a 1GB/s pipe to Apple’s custom AGP/Memory controller. While the shared bandwidth is a factor, it is not the reason that makes the new Macs slower. Having a better look at the specs, show that the author have forgot a very important detail:The new PowerMacs have 1 MB of L3 Cache, while the SDRAM ones have 2 MB of L3 and that’s the real reason which results to the slowdown.
Especially his kinds of tests, that could fit a lot of their information on that cache, have a bigger impact when you have less cache. The author implies a technical “flaw” of the overall design, a hidden bottleneck, but this time I will have to semi-take Apple’s side, and say that this is not a technical flaw, but simply a design decision on the amount of L3 cache to be included.
Apple’s only mistake was to take this decision in order to decrease the price of the new Macs. Selling a slower Mac than the previous same model, it is just not good business these days for Apple.
New Macs might be a bit slower or the same speed as the previous same model Macs, despite the fact that they now using DDR. But this slowness is certainly not for the reasons the author implies (“shared bandwidth”).
Update: BareFeats have now updated their web site with the information about the cache, as presented here.
In other Mac news, Apple will coincide with next week’s release of Mac OS X version 10.2 (also known as Jaguar), consumers can buy a $199 a copy of the operating system and install it on up to five Macs in a single household
Yep, it seems Apple still has not learned its lesson, get rid of moto. I read this article and laughed, makes you wonder what Apple is thinking, like this would not come out. Apple needs to look at what it is producing and focus again. Just like they did when Jobs came back. Too many products with too old of technology under the case.
I gotta sayit again, where is my OSX for my athlon system!!!
Or give me the Power4 decendant from IBM
GET RID OF MOTOROLA APPLE
Hey I got the first post again. 🙂
Why DDR DRAM? Why not RDRAM? RDRAM is superior to DDR DRAM in everyway. They should have kept DDR DRAM for the low-end versions and RDRAM for the G4s! Corporations can’t live with them, can’t live without them (rule doesn’t apply to filthy commies
).
RDRAM is just too expensive at the moment. DDR is the way to go currently. When RDRAM drops to a price the average consumer can grasp they’ll put it on.
And because they wanted too
I’m not surprised. I think when barefeats tests the I/O and harddisk, I’m sure there’ll be big improvements from the older ones.
– Mark
Erm, Charles…
Motorola wasn’t responsible for the L3 cache. If the L3 cache has indeed halved, then it’s purely Apple’s engineers that you want to take a swipe at.
Motorola CPUs have many significant advantages over x86 architecture. It would be a shame to see computing evolution stall because everyone thinks that “x86 is the only way to go.”
After all, x86 still has many legacy aspects dragging it back. Sure, these might eventually be removed, but until then it is like having a fully fledged OS hamstrung by DOS legacy support!
It was a very hard decision to move from my 68030 to an (AMD) 80486 all of those years ago.
>then it’s purely Apple’s engineers that you want to take a swipe at.
Actually, the product managers take these decisions, not engineers. Engineers are geeks themselves, if it was in their hands, they would have pick the faster solutions.
Just installed the Final Gold Master of Jaguar on my G4 450Mhz/320MB RAM/ 32MB ATI RAGE AGP card. I have to say it was the most painful installation that i have ever done, taking just over 3hrs to upgrade from 10.1.5. When i saw the installation time will take 2 hrs and 40 mins I thought “bloody hell thats taking the piss, Now Apple have pinched somethign else from MS Windows”. I nearly kicked the machine when it took approx 3 hours instead and thats supposed to be normal!!
Its faster than 10.15 and there’s some nice little touches, but damn it is still too slow, esp when u compare it even to a PIII running Win2K or XP and when u switch to BEOS.. Jaguar is just painful. Its also still way to resource hungry, the swap file was on average 1.6GB and out of the 320MB of RAM, there was just 60MB or less free for apps. I’ve switched off all the fancy stuff. A single CPU mac like mine is always going to struggle with OS X and it shouldn’t. The G4 hardware well, I won’t be buying one any time soon.
no sense of humor? Eugenia .. yuo just wrote:
“the product managers take these decisions, not engineers.”
it is the same
Thanks for the kind words. I like when people post civil comments.I understand the benefits, but motorola is dropping the ball, with big Blue’s annoucment of there new chips coming, i hope Apple makes the move over to that. I was being a little sarcastic.
Motorola I think is either way behind in there chip speed and/or Rapid I/O intergration or they just dont care about chips for Apple.
I have been and always shall be a Apple sympithiser!
Anyway, i am not sure how those specific tests actually fill the memory. I am not that tech. savvy.
Eh, the only move you have is to change the video card and get a better one supporting full QE acceleration.
I won’t make it a different OS.
I agree it is bloated with unuseful stuff.
I love apple they put unix on the desktops .. but guys .. was this one the right way?
We can’t expect the OS x to be 400% faster in the future .. this is not something easy to be done without removing stuff already sold to users.
I have to wait next year and consider again to buy a new MAC, I will not even try to put OS X on a revb IMac. (I fall in love with it at WWDC ’98)
:))
It would not have been moderated down if you had it formatted better. It has so many spaces and empty lines that takes way too much space. It looks ludicrous, and it is unfair for the other comments.
Do not try to repost it now please. Too late.
I run os X 10.1.5 on my 700Mhz ibook single CPU it is fine. 450 is at the low end of spec is it not? I mean I hae my original G3 running at 416mhz(overclocked)
ok it is an answer I can accept
A G4 450 Mhz with 1 MB L3 Cache is about as fast as a G3 at 667 Mhz. And especially an ibook, which is slower by design for being a notebook (slower hard drive etc). So, it is not the fact that the guy has a 450 Mhz, he has a G4. The problem is that OSX is just slow. I tried Jaguar at the Apple STore on a dual 1 Ghz G4 with 2 MB L3 Cache and it was still crawling, compared to WinXP on my dual 533 Mhz with 0 MB of L3 Cache. Please.
We do not want Apple to trash his work but:
what if apple made the most heavy pieaces of the OS like the GUI more customizable? like
1 “remove animations option/ change graphical detail with a nice slider”
2 “default to classic GUI”
Option one would be easy
what else could be made customizable to make the system faster?
What do you think about it Eugenia, other options?
My 733 is more than fast enough 90% of the time for me. but now, a dual 867 SDRAM will be even cheaper. And more tempting… Ye-ha!
But, for the “real world” which isn’t mine. This sucks.
The time it takes apple to get some real power in their machines I could write a ppc emu layer in i386 darwin, get OS X running and have it be faster. Well.. maybe not. But I’d betcha it’d be close. 😀
maybe i am doing something totally different than you all here are the 2 computers I use
ibook 700Mhz running OSX-no 9 support
Athlon 1800 on a KT333 MB XP Pro
here is a secret you all XP is fast windows in windows has always been snapper. here is what I do in OSX right after the slow loading OS comes online. I open each app I want to run today right at the start. takes less than a minute to load 3 to 7 programs I use. once loaded osx is fine for me. I dont notice a lag. So I am not sure what you all are talking about. Things do intially take longer to load, but then again I am on a laptop. But my windows pop up just fine. XP in its bloated form can be worse in some instances. So I think it is all how you have your settings in each OS.
One last comment here, Windows will always seem snapper, I think it is the way they built it. I am not that savvy, but even on 3.1 windows seemed to be faster was it or not, I think that is debateable. back to you…….
once upon a time, 386’s and 486’s made use of an external cache.
since 2000, cpu’s are all internal caches.
Can someone explain to me why don’t they have a l3 external cache for even better performance?
That’s odd. I’ve never had a version of 10.2 install/update take that long on any 10.1.x system. And I’ve tried using various machines, from the 450Mhz Cube to the 1GHz Dual Quicksilver towers.
Remember when the 733 MHz machine was top of the line? It had an added L3 cache which was something new at the time. When the next machines came out, suddenly, the low end machine was 733 without the L3 cache. The newer, low end machine did not compete with older, high end machine. Does that sound familiar? The newest 1 GHz machine is the middle machine, not the top of the line and, while it may be nice, it doesn’t have to compete with the old top of the line machine.
HarjTT:
If you put in 512 MB, you should notice a good speed increase with Mac OS X, anything above that will give you what you’re probably expecting. 320 MB is not reasonable for good performance.
Where are all you people getting your copies of 10.2 already? I thought it wasn’t available til next week? BTW, does it come with the free Developer kit like the last one? (Project Builder, gcc 3.x, etc…?)
-spider
It officially hits the shelves next week. However, it’s been posted on some Mac board that when they buy their brand new machines, the fulfillment pack comes with the 10.2 CDs. It’s also available to the higher paying members of Apple Developer Connection.
As for me, I get access to them from work.
Why DDR DRAM? Why not RDRAM? RDRAM is superior to DDR DRAM in everyway.
Umm, let’s think about this rationally:
* RDRAM is a proprietary technology owned by a single company, Rambus
* Rambus is dying
* RDRAM is significantly more expensive than DDR SDRAM
* As is they can’t utilize the full bandwidth of DDR SDRAM
Yeah, I’d say that pretty much sums it up
> I thought it wasn’t available til next week?
It is common knowledge that the golden master is available for download in some pirating channels.
> BTW, does it come with the free Developer kit like the last one? (Project Builder, gcc 3.x, etc…?)
AFAIK, yes.
What are your boot times for 10.1.x and 10.2? I would be very interested in that. Also times until you can use the computer after login. It seems that some of you wait forever… well… almost
Hi there,
Most people are missing the point….sorry to say that.
The new dual G4 is a 7455 FROM a Xserve which is not a TRUE DDR artectiture, just because the processor is NOT supported to handle DDR I/O. The 7470 will. Processor 1.3 GB/sec—>bus speed 1 GB/sec DDR 2.7 GB/sec see the problem? that’s the processor having bottleneck to move things smoothly…that’s why it’s not faster. maybe a tad bit.
And one more thing…the new duals use 1 MB cache instead of 2 MB on the 1 GHz model. The top of the line 1.25 GHz uses 2 MB cache…I wonder how it does though.
I hope u guys see the point now….if u are still idiots I will not discuss it anymore…..u can have fun.
>And one more thing…the new duals use 1 MB cache instead of 2 MB on the 1 GHz model. The top of the line 1.25 GHz uses 2 MB cache…I wonder how it does though.
I am wondering… You never read MY article or HIS article, didn’t you? The guy benchmarks not just the xserve, and I am talking about the cache problem.
For as long as I have known of Apple Computer, They have always had great ideas that they never finish. I would love to by a new mac with a powerplant that could come close to competing with intel. Oh well
once upon a time, 386’s and 486’s made use of an external cache.
since 2000, cpu’s are all internal caches.
Can someone explain to me why don’t they have a l3 external cache for even better performance?
Internal cache runs faster than external cache and more importantly it’s cheaper to manufacture. Look at how much material was needed to make a Slot1 cartridge based CPU like the Pentium 2 and early Pentium 3 (Katmai). The core was mounted on a PCB alongside the external cache, a plastic face-plate was put on the opposite side, which is just decoration and wasteful.
To ckristian:
what else could be made customizable to make the system faster?
Kill the drop shadow under every window, and the alpha blending. Windows 2000/XP lets you choose whether to have transition effects and even with them on it does not get in the way. Apple should at least leave that option up to the user.
Well I run OS X on an old Blue&White G3 with a speed of 450MHz. And I can tell you what I did.
First of all. Put in a lot of RAM. I have the maximum of RAM my machine can support. 1GB of RAM. With the current prices it isn’t that much anymore.
I have a few harddisks in my machine. Benchmark youre drives. Look at what the fastest drive is in youre system and create a swap-volume on it. Multiply youre memory with 2 and that should be the swap-volume. At http://www.resexcellence.com there is a story about the chancing the swap-file.
Go to youre dock-preferences. Don’t use magnification. Chance minimize using scale effect. Don’t use genie-effect. It only slows you down.
While you are at resexcellence take a look at some of the themes and download an other one. Our get Shadowkiller. You don’t need transparent icons.
Get Tinkertool and shutdown font-smoothing our anti-aliasing.
Look for a program called WincompressX. Macos X has some kind of video-caching. Macos X makes of every aplication-screen a back-up-layer in memory. It depends on the resolution of youre screen. If the window needs to be displayed again, Macos X will draw it from memory. This is a huge memory-killer. With WincompressX you can chance this behaviour.
If you are on DSL our acces internet only via a router, go to youre network-settings. Look at Active Network Ports. Shut down modem port if you are not using it. It will speed up internet browsing. Otherwise Macos X will try to use the modem port first and then try Build-in ehternet.
And last of all. Never use classic-mode in Macos X. Keep classic down. It will only slow the system down.
Can’t say Macos X is lightning fast, but on my old G3 I can’t complain either. But it took me a lot of fiddilling around with the system.
I said about the cache too….it’s right ther….1 MB VS 2 MB…AND the processor needs to be support DDR that will help ALOT too…
I find it amusing that people claim Apple to be the innovators, the guys who come up with new ideas while the rest of the industry is just doing “me-too” business strategies.
How long has DDR memory been out? And only now are they actually utilizing it. Apple also claims that the XServe was the first dual CPU server to use DDR memory. This is only half true. I don’t know what the first 1U server out that used DDR memory, but I do know that Tyan’s dual K7 board was out before XServe and it had angled DDR slots, hinting at the possibility of using it in a 1U rack.
Actually, if you consider the price apple charges for memory you wouldn’t notice the price diffrence if they switched to RDRAM
I’m joking, i’m sure they would raise the price of the memory at their store so they would make the same ammount of profits :/
Since Apple is the be all and end all of the entire desktop PPC line, it’s nearly them vs an entire industry.
being superior to DDR??? Have you guys really check out RDRAM bandwith/real clock speed/heat/transfer rates/latency/production issues/AND price? My, I’m still giving thanks Intel/Rambus had to eat stones and sticks, and now I hear it is superior.
what is dropshadow/alpha blending?
Apple also claims that the XServe was the first dual CPU server to use DDR memory.
I dont remember them making that claim, but i do remember them making a claim that the XServe was the first dual CPU 1U server. Now that was a flat out lie, and the debian-alpha mailing list had a cow over it. There was a dual Alpha 1U server that existed a while back.
Doesn’t it make sense that a dual processor machine would have less cache then a uniprocessor machine? Aren’t there all kinds of issues with cache once you put another processor in there? They can’t both have their own cache because you have all sorts of dirty data issues, right? And having one cache for both processors is probably not nearly as efficient as for just one processor. It all makes sense to me, am I crazy?
I’ve been using Macs since the beginning in 1984 and I never knew we were supposed to buy a copy of the OS for each Mac <g>.
I liked Charle’s post, the first post here. I too think that Apple is pushing the envelope, bordering on getting their customers confused. Jobs has an all out offensive on – server, subscription software, iApps, digital hub, education, high end and low end.There is, of course, the Jobs Reality Distortion Field in place anyway. But, it is getting worse than usual. Why not just tell the truth or just lay out the facts regarding RAM speeds, etc.? It’s better than ending up with egg all over your face. It’s great that Apple has a good server entry, but there is no need to exaggerate or even lie about it. Jobs said CRT monitors were out – then everyone wanted the eMac. I do think Apple needs to get a little bit more organized and get things straight and not confuse people with double talk.
I can’t wait to get 10.2. I sold a bunch of my stuff on eBay over the past few months and saved up. I just got the “old” Power Mac G4 dual 1GHz model with $500.00 off. And a 17″ Studio Display, also with $500.00 by way of rebate. The Mac has 1.5 GB RAM and I got the 128MB Titanium card – I’m planning on keeping this for a long time – may as well get stuff that should last. LOL, I sold so much stuff to get this – Apple IIgs accelerators, Apple II+ black Bell & Howell’s, all my NeXT stuff and the list goes on. I got several Be compatible PC’s and put together the best parts of them and kept it and sold the rest. And what do I get for all this? The spinning beach ball!<g> 10.2 better be faster and better take advantage of these dual processors or I’m going to be seriously teed off.
Apple not putting the larger L3 cache on the new models, reminds me of some of their earlier models which had 32 bit chips on 16 bit data bus with the 68040s, and putting a 64 bit ppc 603 on a 32 bit data bus. Mostly to save money by not having to design new motherboard architectures.
Are these New G4s eventually going to be compared to the 5200 series, or to the LCI or LCII series design mistakes?
Good ideas but bad execution.
I hope I don’t offend anyone, but I am an Athlon user and would like to get away from M$. I have to say Apples look damn good, but too expensive for my taste. And with M$ and their Palladium project, if Apple swithed to X86, I would jump the boat in a heartbeat. AMD’s Hammer line looks very promising. Going with X86 may result in more sales for Apple. I know Moto is holding Apple down and they need to do something before they go down further. AMD or IBM? Which one is the right one?
The base two models have 1MB of L2 cache.
The top model has 2MB of L2 cache.
The lowest model comes with DDR PC 2100.
The top two models come with DDR PC 2700.
or would you expect Mac OS X to run on your machine?
I don’t expect that Apple will support just any machine no matter how good it is. It would be of their own specification so that they don’t have to deal with the huge number of permutations of hardware with which to contend.
Even on x86 machines, you might not be able to buy just any video card or any optical drive and install it. If you wanted to run Windows on the machine, you might not be able to do that either.
I want an AMD processor running Mac OS X, but I don’t want the hardware mess with which I’ve had to deal at work.
Well since my post on the other “thread”, in this forum, kinda set this one off… I’d like to add….
Let’s keep this in perspective… The top of the line machine is now the middle tier machine, all computer makers do this… in the transition, performance was kept the same, new technology was introduced and the price was lowered. This is both reasonable and good.
Where the rubber will meet the road will be in the 1.25ghz machine, which I would expect to see at least a 25% performance jump (analysis in the original thread below). This is quite respectable (from the baseline… the quality of the baseline aside).
Now the baseline, IMHO, is actually quite good. Granted, the interface isn’t quite as snappy as other platforms, but the real performance (execution of applications, especially multiple applications) is actually quite good.
Then there’s the flexibility of the platform. Even though it is propriatarily coupled hardware and software, the flexibility is amazing. Prior to switching to a mac, I NEEDED both a windows box and a Linux box to perform all the tasks I needed. Now I do it all on my mac.
Again, I may not complete a given task as fast as I would on another platform, but I don’t have to maintain multiple platforms to complete all my tasks. Just to clarify the last sentence a bit… for the most part, the difference in completing “a given” task has shown itself to be relatively negligable.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Some benchmarks are in comparing the SDRAM d1ghz PM with the new DDR d1ghz.
http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html
It appears to be a wash… the article is making the conclusion that the DDR ram and increased bus spead do not have any added benefit… however, it would appear that they do as the newer PM’s only have 1/2 the L3 of the older.
Pretty smart of Apple actually, since they will be able to justify the higher price of the 1.25ghz model based upon overall improved performance, afterall I would expect >25% (processor intensive) improvements from a 1.25ghz 2mb L3 over a 1.00ghz 1mb L3.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
follow the link
http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/09/0809apple.html?partner=yahoo&refer…
After reading the article, pull out your tarot… I myself don’t care much about it, though the rainbow ‘supercomputers’ always entertain me.
Ronald:
RDRAM is NOT superior in every way to DDR…. first, the latencies for RDRAM are rediculous, second, the G4 doesn’t have the bus to be able to actually take advantage of RDAM, like the P4 does.
So in reality, going to RDRAM is a waste of time and money (coincidentally, time IS money too…).
A G4 450 Mhz with 1 MB L3 Cache is about as fast as a G3 at 667 Mhz. And especially an ibook, which is slower by design for being a notebook (slower hard drive etc). So, it is not the fact that the guy has a 450 Mhz, he has a G4. The problem is that OSX is just slow. I tried Jaguar at the Apple STore on a dual 1 Ghz G4 with 2 MB L3 Cache and it was still crawling, compared to WinXP on my dual 533 Mhz with 0 MB of L3 Cache. Please.
No the new G3s the ones in the iBooks are fast as crap IBM has done great things with these a 700mhz G3 is as fast if not faster than the 667 G4 in the powerbook. I just wish Apple would release a faster powerbook, so they could put the 1ghz G3 (which IBM has ready) in the iBook
http://www.railheaddesign.com/
It seems to be a tilt in balance between the I/O around the CPU!
>>The problem is that OSX is just slow. I tried Jaguar at the Apple STore on a dual 1 Ghz G4 with 2 MB L3 Cache and it was still crawling, compared to WinXP on my dual 533 Mhz with 0 MB of L3 Cache. Please.<<
I find that hard to believe… 10.1 doesn’t even crawl on my TiBook G4, so I doubt Apple is delivering an OS slower than what is out now! I’ll know soon enough since I will buy a copy of Jaguar for the TiBook! I have already been playing with 10.1 on newer Mac machines here in Europe, and my colleague here even was impressed with the performance of the iMac G4 (which he plans to purchase I might add). I guess Europe must the faster version… they already have the faster cars 🙂
CPUGuy:
DDR DRAM is almost catching up to RDRAM in performance. And that’s with a chipset(i850) that’s almost 2 years old!
I still need more infos on this topic tho! I’m still waiting to see what move are Apple going to do next. And if IBM is gonna take over the PowerPC duties for Apple. I still want one but this is not the move I was hoping for(nor anticipating)!
>>DDR DRAM is almost catching up to RDRAM in performance. And that’s with a chipset(i850) that’s almost 2 years old!<<
Actually I think you have that backwards… RDRAM is slower in performance compared to DDR RAM as benchmarks have shown from various sites… Toms Hardware had some number on this (if I remember correctly)!
I have little old iMac DV G3 400 mhz with 512mb ram. Since I started running X 10.1.2 my machine has become faster with each update. Also, I use a nice little program called MOX to prebind my application files, and enable window buffer compression.
I have found Norton Speed Disk a safe way to defrag, with a significant speed boost. I have all the fancy stuff, like dock hiding, genie, etc. OFF. All in all, the machine is running 10-20% faster.
Another tip, if you can find a cocoa app to do what your carbon app is doing, use it! Good example would be substituting Adium for the far slower AOL im.
As always with the mac, the user can influence the speed of the machine positively or negatively.
Bottom line, the multitasking is superb, reboots are infrequent (mainly for updates) and the terminal is outstanding.
Didn’t the dual 1.25Ghz model replace the old 1Ghz model? That would explain why the 1Ghzs are not equal after all. Apple thinks more in terms of models than numbers.
It is important to have a well balanced system when it comes to bus speeds. Tuning can give more than raw power, and having uneven speeds can add latency to make it slower rather than faster. The CPU needs to get better busses to hang in there. And then you have all those other “things” like AGP, PCI, etc to worry about. Simply slapping in faster memory is not the way to go, you need to do the rest of the homework as well.
Dual Channel DDR memory is fast, very fast, ask the P4 about that, and ask nVidia as well. Apple needs to license good solutions instead of developing them themselves, it will improve their time to market and improve system speeds.
If apple wants Opteron in their computers they could design a Mac chipset and BIOS that is very PC unfriendly and surely add something on the CPU itself to make it stand out of the crowd. It is _not_ the PPC that sells Macs, it’s the design and OS. Apple needs faster hardware and they need to realize that they can get it and still retain their own style. Heck, they don’t even have to tell you what is inside it, most won’t care as long as it makes MacOS X run 5x faster.
I am sure a Dual Itanium 2 (or even 3) would smoke running MacOS X for example. And who in their right mind would buy a Mac to run Linux or Windows on it?
I ask again, how is this OS news?
I’m using Jaguar at work, where we have several Apple Developers who have been getting the various betas from Apple for months.
Regarding install times, the lead developer told me that Jaguar would take a long time to install becuase of all of the new features and optimizations that Apple have done. Nearly three hours is just shocking. XP and win2K do not take that long to install from a clean build or upgrade.
There are some really nice touches to Jaguar, but to me it is slow compared to say XP/2K running on similar spec’d XP/intel hardware. I’m happier with the startup time as Jaguar starts up much quicker, its no BeOS but its much better than 10.1.5. Performance wise it is better than theearlier releases but it is still not good enough. Open more than a couple of apps Quicktime, IE, terminal and the text editor and Jaguar just slows down. As another comparison MacOS 9.x on the same machine just seems to fly even with lotus Notes, IE,photoshop, Quark all running at the same time.
In a lot of ways Jaguar is a step forward from 10.1.x, but in terms of speed, repsonsiveness, and use of resourses to me it still has a long way to go.
>As always with the mac, the user can influence the speed of the machine positively or negatively.
User can of course buy new hardware or not? Perhabs he can switch some kind like super-nice-mega-visual-effect on/off!
…
The OS remains the same – OS slow, sorry OS X!
>Bottom line, the multitasking is superb, reboots are infrequent (mainly for updates) and the terminal is outstanding.
Thats clear, Apple OSes before OS X had no real Multitasking!
When I bought a Mac I was disgusted that I couldn’t switch between the task like I could in Windoze! It made Browsing in the Internet pretty boring and unusable for me! Then I tried BeOS and Mandrake-Linux on it, and I was surprised of how a Mac can perform. And he can – Without OS < X && OS >= X!!!
PS: This is just my Mac-Experience!
Ronald: Why DDR DRAM? Why not RDRAM? RDRAM is superior to DDR DRAM in everyway. They should have kept DDR DRAM for the low-end versions and RDRAM for the G4s!
There is absolutely NO difference in using RDRAM nor DDR RAM on current PowerMacs. If the FSB especially can’t take full advantage of DDR, what’s the point of RDRAM?
Antarius: Motorola CPUs have many significant advantages over x86 architecture.
You are comparing a processor and a architecuture. I really like PPC, but it is a poor thing Motorola practically killed it.
Antarius: Sure, these might eventually be removed, but until then it is like having a fully fledged OS hamstrung by DOS legacy support!!
Of course, OS X has support for even 68k applications via its classic mode
But anyway, the latest version of Windows has no DOS software, but it has DOS emulation (just like dosemu on Linux).
ckristian: what if apple made the most heavy pieaces of the OS like the GUI more customizable?
Jeff Raskin brainwashed Jobs into thinking that skinning/theming= bad.
Bascule: * Rambus is dying
Common illusion because of the anti trust investigation and Intel turning their backs on Rambus.
Jim: Since Apple is the be all and end all of the entire desktop PPC line, it’s nearly them vs an entire industry.
Hope Amiga would change that. Since Amiga doesn’t make the Amiga ONEs, there would be competition between manufacturers which means cheaper prices which means more demand which means IBM and Motorola would invest more in PPC.
DF: I just wish Apple would release a faster powerbook, so they could put the 1ghz G3 (which IBM has ready) in the iBook
Doubt this would happen. Apple would first have to push iMac’s speed to 1GHz.
CattBeMac: I find that hard to believe… 10.1 doesn’t even crawl on my TiBook G4[…]
Maybe the TiBook is miraculously faster than the dual 1GHz G4 with SDRAM, which is slower than my laptop using 1.1GHz P3 with Windows XP that cost 1/2 the price. Either that or you massively configured your system – but the same could be done on XP (and it improves the performance by 45%, of course without the animation, things look less professional, but real snappy).
Ronald: DDR DRAM is almost catching up to RDRAM in performance. And that’s with a chipset(i850) that’s almost 2 years old!
DDR is catching up with RDRAM PC800, but not the newer stuff from Rambus that could only be used with hacked P4 boards.
CattBeMac: Actually I think you have that backwards… RDRAM is slower in performance compared to DDR RAM as benchmarks have shown from various sites… Toms Hardware had some number on this (if I remember correctly)!
I think YOU got it backwards. I can’t find the page (I’m finding it now), but I remember the benchmarks so clearly. It caused me to loose a Intel vs. AMD debate.
Perhaps I could find it by tommow, but jeez, Tom’s Hardware site is hard to search.
HarjTT: Open more than a couple of apps Quicktime, IE, terminal and the text editor and Jaguar just slows down. As another comparison MacOS 9.x […]
I’m actually quite interested: how do you open a terminal in OS 9?
Rajan: <<< Maybe the TiBook is miraculously faster than the dual 1GHz G4 with SDRAM, which is slower than my laptop using 1.1GHz P3 with Windows XP that cost 1/2 the price. Either that or you massively configured your system – but the same could be done on XP (and it improves the performance by 45%, of course without the animation, things look less professional, but real snappy).<<<
I really doubt that a 1.1ghz P3 (laptop no less) is faster then your dual 1ghz. Your interface might seem snapper when working on one item. Try this, to compare the performance:
Concurrently:
* run the cli seti client (with default priority)
* have NAV scan your filesystem
* open another terminal and recursively list your system (for s & g’s have a few remote mounts)
* watch a DVD
* Compile some code
* chat on IM
* Check e-mail
* browse the net
On xp you’re pretty well hosed after nav. On osx, you won’t even drop a frame in your concert/movie.
Rajan r : When i mentioned all terminal it was on Jaguar.
i made no mention of a terminal app running on Mac OS 9.x
Okay. Look about the submit button. Do you see a link taht says “THESE TERMS”? If so, click it and read number 8.
Latency is not an issue with pc1066 (the latest rdram spec) and is generally around the same as ddr3200. rdram *IS* faster than DDR.. no question about it. if you want proof then use a search engine and look for asus p4t533-c motherboard reviews- there are at least 7 of them that i know of and each one has come to the same concluseion- pc1066 rdram is the highest performing memory without exception. Even toms hardware guide came up with the same outcome (despite calling the article “DDR 400 kills rambus” or somthing similar, but THG is well known to be biased against intel/rdram). if your comparing pc800 rdram then fair comment, but get with the times people!
* run the cli seti client (with default priority)
* have NAV scan your filesystem
I don’t think they allow you to do so at the stores.
* open another terminal and recursively list your system (for s & g’s have a few remote mounts)
I normally do this on my Mandrake system on a Duron 1GHz, and it is no slower than that PowerMac.
* watch a DVD
Did that. No difference in performance.
* Compile some code
This I have yet to try, but from what I have heard, G++ is 2-3x slower on PPC than on x86.
* chat on IM
No difference.
* Check e-mail
I use Yahoo! Mail, so the next point:
* browse the net
This was the most dissapointing thing about OS X. Browsing is so god damn slow even with IE 5.2. Heck, browsing on Mozilla 0.8.x on a Linux 2.2 kernel running on XFree86 3.x is much more faster.
Rajan r : When i mentioned all terminal it was on Jaguar.
I was just poking fun.
Okay, this DDR RDRAM debate is rather pointless at this point. Seeing as how I really don’t think that the Processor could even come close to touching or neading the bandwidth of RDRAM. The P4 is bandwidth starved and due to its deep pipeline needs data like crazy. Now do a comparison to the AMD chip where you barely see any movement at all when you over clock the RAM speed. The processor just can’t use the bandwidth. Neither can the Apple. This is just a theory of course unless someone has a way of independently raising the ram bandwidth without raising the FSB of the processor on one of the newer macs. Either way I think having an L3 cache that runs at just ever so slightly faster than the memory speeds of the PC counterparts is a shame and Apple needs to just ditch it altogether and adopt a better memory standard instead of dragging its feet behind everyone else.
i recently got myself a TI Powerbook (the “faster” model)
sometimes i kick myself for not getting a pc (i’ve always been a pc user (windows/openbsd)). my mac just doesn’t have the raw power that pc’s do. but lately, probably to make myself feel better, i’ve been telling myself that you don’t get a mac for the power, you get it because it’s a mac. it has the look and the feel. the user interface is awesome (other than the fact that 10.1.x doesn’t remember finder settings for beans, and the horrible lack of a good alt+tab or windows+d), the applications are neat, the system is stable. and you get to be one of the mac-elite, hah. anyway, i think that some people are thinking of mac as a budget-monster, like x86’s are. they aren’t, but that’s not to say they don’t have other fabulous qualities.
For clarification:
Try performing all the outlined tasks, concurrently, on a dual processor XP box and see how “fast” and “responsive” the box is…
On your linux box, you really don’t have a comparable “hog” to NAV… plus you were not running the seti component, which will be very context switch intensive.
BTW, IE 5.2 is a piece of !@#$. Try Chimera… very nice, fast and stable browser.
I hate to be the one that brings this up, but i have a question about Apple’s cost. Everyone whines cause Apple charges more for hardware that doesnt perform as well as others. That we all know. But what im wondering is how long an average Mac user keeps his/her Mac. In the PC world what is it? 3years now the average litetime of a PC? If its a machine which satisfies the user for longer, then wouldnt the cost not be such a problem?
i dont use macs, i use pc’s, so i think you should all stfu and listen
DDR pc3200 (400mhz) > RD PC1066 > DDR PC2700 (333mhz) > RD PC800 > DDR PC2100 (266mhz)
there you have it
why apple didnt choose to use DDR400 (pc3200) or at least wait for DDR-II is beyond me..
you using PC’s is a reason for people to listen to you? if your going to tell people to “stfu” and act like that you should at least get your facts right first.
its a great shame apple seem to be screwing up atm… their hardware is falling so far behind x86 architecture that its almost embarressing having spent all that money on a company I used to love for their innovation and useability.
For real, what do you people do on your Macs? A 1 GHz G4 is slow with OS X? I run OS X on a 500 MHz iBook and it’s fast enough that I don’t think it’s slow. The G4/500 TiBook my friend has makes OS X super zippy… I can’t imagine what you guys have running in the background hogging cycles.
Especially considering that OS X runs fine on my machine when I have a process always eating about 10% of the CPU. (which is normal for the app in question, does it on any OS) Are you constantly doing Bryce renderings in the background or something?
The Mac appeared a long time before any usable implementation of Msft Windows.. I guess that in 1984 the concept of Multitasking didn’t exist.
a DOS ‘box couldnt multitask, the development of TSR apps was a poor workaround, and I doubt the mac OS was designed with it in mind.
The (Classic) Mac OS has always given a massive majority of its performance to accelerate the application in use.. background apps and services rarely run well. The flipside was that of comparable specified Pcs and macs ( and I mean SAME clock speed and RAM ) , a big app like Photoshop would run way faster on the mac because of the way the OS prioritised it.
I believe this is the beginning of the myth of Mac superiority.
I also believe it explains the woeful interface flaws in the Mac OS.. an OS not designed for easily flipping between applications didnt evolve an easy way to do it.. and Apple, despite the changes it wrounght in OSX, is frighteningly conservative about UI traditions at this level
Windows started out later, and cruder, but since the 1995 release has had comprehensive multitasking ability and VERY easy switching, Also, due to the better way it handles video memory it doesnt struggle to redraw new windows after an Alt-Tab operation. It may never reach the speed per hardware for a single application that Mac OS 8 had but run several apps at once and you speed ahead.
For me, App switching, and in fact general keyboardability, is the outstanding failure of the Macs UI. techies like context menus, we like to be able to flip between multiple web pages
( Using a mac and trying to find the onme of three MSN or Yahoo messenger boxes that just received a message is very painful while surfing or photoshopping )..
.. Oh and for gods sake let us buy iBooks with a 2 button trackpad PLEASE. I’d love an iBook but NO WAY without a context mouse button…
.. Try running a Mac without a mouse.. I can run my Windows boxes from the keyboard alone at a good speed… Linux also falls behind here mainly due to the less integrated nature of the Desktop.
It’s all about relativity. If a user went to OSX after months or years of using BeOS, then yeah they would complain about the sluggishness of OSX. Then there older folks who take some time to find the right buttons and what not. I came from a Windows background, and at one point in time I fried my mouse so I spent a whole day learning keyboard shortcuts. I find keyboard shortcuts to be most efficient for me because I can zip around faster and zero-in on a button and presss ENTER or SPACEBAR to select it rather than click with a mouse, believe me, I’ve seen people struggle with it.
Anyways, bottomline is our eyes and minds are trained for a certain level of responsiveness. And when we try something different, obviously we’re going to see a difference in speed and performance of the UI.
I like both Pc’s and Macs. Although I will admit that I tend to lean towards Macs because of their industrial design and I like OSX a little more than I like XP. I say this because I think it is important that people know that I have used both and that I currently use both. I think it is also important to note that I am NOT a hardcore computer Geek. I genrally don’t like PC games, and I can’t program anything but BASIC. I have gotten into video-editing, and DVD creation over the last couple of months. With that said….
I don’t think Apple’s recent hardware problems is entirely their fault. If I’m not mistaken Moto makes the PowerPC in the latest Macs. I think Apple has done the best they can with the CPUs they have been delt. The G4 7455 couldn’t handle anything more than a 133 Mhz FSB, but Apple new that they needed more “speed” or atleast appear to build a more current system. Hence the DDR. I will admit that Apple could do a little more on the hardware front, like ad ATA100 (even if there isn’t really a speed difference. It makes people fell better about spending atleast $1600), maybe a 10,000 RPM harddrive, and if possible a dual FSB one for each CPU (if the G4 7455 can handle it)
Now, with that said. When I edit video on my mac and PC the PC (Dell P4 2GHz) it does render faster, and does just about everything else faster..But…I can get work done faster on the Mac (especially when I use Final Cut instead of Premeire which is on both machines), because the Mac OS (X) has a better workflow. Things just work. I don’t have to play will my firewire camcorder inorder for it to work. It just does.
I said that to make a point that speed matters, but it isn’t the only thing. And most of Apples trouble is really MOTO.
How does Eugenia know that smaller cache is the real reason?
Normally larger cache does yield in better performance, but to know for sure you need to simulate load and look at frequency of TLB flushes and hit/miss ratio.
Perhaps author the article did that.
Eugenia have you had experience developing OSes? If not, why flaming author of possible legitimate article.
One has to have really deep understand of a particular OS implementation to say which factor are of highest relevance to its performance.
Are you competent?
I’m confused! How slow are the new apple machines. Some people say they are fast and others say that they are really slow, who’s right? I was thinking about saving up for a new iMac, but not if they are too slow to use. I have tried them in the shops and they seem fast enough, but then again me playing around in the shop for five minutes is not going to give the full picture.
…namely, just like before, only the cheapest Power Macs have 1 MB of L3 cache. The rest still all have 2 MB. BareFeats was comparing the 2nd cheapest Power Mac against the then-most expensive Power Mac, with a difference in price of around $1500. Does that really make sense to anybody?
Well, because the entire damn thing is all the except for the fact that the new RAM is in its favour and then there only remains the cache. This is like with Pentium/Celeron and Athlon/Duron – the same things with different caches.
How does Eugenia know that smaller cache is the real reason?
She bribed some people at apple to tell her…
(kidding of course)
Eugenia have you had experience developing OSes?
Nawww… Eugenia has nas absolutly no experiance developing OSes and has never talked to any one who has.
(yes, that was sarcasm)
Are you competent?
Yes. Are you?
that should have been has not nas.
I have read some posts here that talk about various aspects of os9 and os X and the Windows line. I have noticed most people that hate the mac have not used it for any length of time. No this is an oberservation, I have used both for many years and one post basically had it right. Windows feels and I will even give you is faster, but that is not all that is needed in a computer. That is like saying the car you buy only needs to do 0-60 in 2 seconds and top speed of 200MPH that is abour 320KPH for you metric people. Does not comfort of ride how the car handles, ect matter. Just like any tool YES these are factors.
Multitasking- People Apples OS since 6.xx could mutlitask so if could not do it you were doing something wrong. My old Mac Plus with 2 megs RAM had the “multifinder”
Virtual Memory- This was one of the biggest problems with anything before os X, man the best performace boost for any Apple was tons of Ram and no virtual memory. Unless photoshop or large swap files then there wa a work around using a RAM disk and virtual memory.
But to get to my point, I use OSX not becuase it is the fastest wondow/app opener; but rather, that it is easier for me to be productive on it. I am not fighting with the computer to get something done. And after all is that what a tool is for to help you get things done.
While I have heard lots od Be users rant and rave about it, great I am happy for you, enjoy, no reason to get pissy about osX.
I was surprised about how many PC magazines that always were how should I say sceptical of Apples products, have come to enjoy OS X for many reasons. Some have switched to OS X after using it for a while, and that answers most of the posts about the os itself. getting people to come from another platform says a lot. whether you like OS X or not lots of people DO.
Once again for people I use as my primary computer an iBook 600
and my other machine is Athlon 1800/KT333 MB XP Pro
Is OSX that slow ? Not if your run it on decent hardware. Agreed the user intefrace is not as snappy as other system but the percieved speed difference mostly seems to annoy former BE OS enthusiasts ;-). I personally find OSX’s speed acceptable and the system as a whole enjoyable and productive.
The Imac is overall a great machine. Being able to move the screen effortlessly everytime you change your posture is an ergonomy breaktrough that enhance the quality of your computing experience in a much more important way than churning data at a most of the time imperceptible higher speed. (the naysayers should just go in an Appe store and toy with an imac for a few minutes).
Assuming you do not have to calculate the flight path of the next Nasa space shuttle in real time, and your interest is more that of a regular home usage, you will have plenty of speed for every of your daily tasks. Apart for heavy computation profesionnals there is no reasonable justification for the extra speed of the current top performers, Wintels or Mac towers alike.
If you are new to the Mac side of things you might be very pleased by the experience. The Windows Hells of installation, configuration, maintenance and virus protection are just not part of the mac experience. The Iapps make everything digital video/ digital cameras/digital music/family-style web publishing-in-a -click a gratifying experience. Another top-quality of the Macs for home users is the silence. You do not need to feel like you are using a vacuum cleaner when you turn a mac on.
(Eugenia, did you ever shut down your other computers to enjoy the cube’s silent operation ? Just curious 🙂
The only drawback for a home user is that the available games catalog is reduced to the most popular and successful ones. Also, be prepared to endure snickering remarks from wintel enthusiast about how faster, cheaper and badasser their machine is.
If you have IMac lust, you should go for it. This post sounds like zealotery but I work on both platforms and over the years, Macs have just given me a lot more luvin and a lot less nightmares than Wintels.
Yes, I have worked in OS field. I also have some insights on OSX.
BTW, knowing someone who developed an OS does not make you a developer just yet. Otherwise instead of learning Japanese we would just go to nearest Sushi bar and get acquinted with the chef.
So, Kevin you post does not give any valid points.
POst from anonymous however, it quite serious. But, [s]he forgot that author mentioned shared memory controller. It could be exactly why newer Macs are slower.
Basically my point is: before suggesting that someone overlooked something in an article, it’s good to be sure that you know what you are talking about.
I don’t think Eugenia is very technical person when it comes to OS development. (I mean not in sysadmin sense, but as a developer or architect)
BTW, why did one of comments get moderated? Against which guideline[s] was it?
It seemed like very accurate description of happens in “brainstorm” meetings. Of course it’s unique to Apple and may not have accurate in conjuction with Macs. But it seemed like an innocent joke and realistic one at that.
Yes, Eugenia may have been correct about slowness due to L3 size, but that’s not the point. If she would have ran benchmarks on two boxes and one with 1MB and one with 2MB then, he statement would have been legitimate. Otherwise, it’s just a flame.
Yes.. thats why I’m on a Windows PC still.
Its not a question of Anti-mac sentiment.. More the exact opposite. Zealots get upset when they lose the argument!
If you are happy with a Windows PC cool more power to you. I am fine with whatever tool works for you.
If its a machine which satisfies the user for longer, then wouldnt the cost not be such a problem?
It all depends on what the user expects. Macs tend to be high-quality hardware, so if you expect your Mac to function as well as it did when you bought it for years, you probably won’t be disappointed. But there’s a nastier side as well: Apple’s a hardware company. Because of that, it’s in their primary interest to get you to upgrade your computer. Furthermore, because they do everything, it’s a great advantage of theirs that they can move in a direction much faster than the PC world—but this often leaves people behind when they change their minds (MacTV, AUX, OS X Server 1.0, anyone?) Or look at all the Powerbook users with hardware DVD decoding that were left DVD-less when 10.1 first came out. Or all the people with SCSI drives that had to buy adapters when Apple switched to IDE. Or ADB, or… Apple’s top priority will always be making their new machines appealing rather than supporting their old users.
3 years ago, if you bought a PC, you probably got a 500 mHz PIII or so. A machine like that will run WinXP rather well (maybe you’ll have added a bit of RAM or some such minor upgrade)–hell, my 400 ran it great. 3 years ago, if you bought a Mac, you got a G3 system, maybe around 500 mHz like my friend’s Blue and White (or the various iMacs). Try running OS X on it. Yes, it works, but it’s frustratingly unresponsive.
It’s the fundamental difference between Apple and Microsoft: Microsoft makes their money from the software, so it’s in their best interest to make it run on the widest array of hardware out there without negatively impacting the product too much. It’s like a computer game: you want the best features and graphics that you can get without making the hardware requirements too high. You don’t want to sacrifice everything just so it can run on a 133, but it’s worth sacrificing some to make it run on many more computers than, say, Quake III. The more people who have computers that can run the newest version of Windows, the more money Microsoft makes. So there’s great incentive for them to make it attractive on the large installed base of older hardware. Apple wants you to buy new hardware, since that’s how they make their money, and thus they support you just enough to keep you happy with the company and willing to do business with them in the future. But they’re constantly trying to lure you to new hardware. They sell all-in-one computers for more than just ease of setup, you know.
Bottom line: given these distinctions, I just don’t understand how anyone can say that a Mac will “last longer” than a PC. It’s in Microsoft’s interest to make Windows XP run well on older PCs, and it’s not in Apple’s interest to make OS X run well on older Macs. If you want to go beyond the logic, look at the facts: the newest Windows runs great on older (~3 years) PCs. Mac OS X doesn’t run well at all on older (more than ~18 months) Macs. I think the people that continue to make the tired “lasts longer” argument compare PC geeks—who constantly upgrade their hardware—to schoolteachers and other people who don’t. But, of course, that’s a distinction between buyers, not the hardware.
well here is a shining example of how people are mistaken, I have a G3 from 1998 that is running osx on it, wow that was a 233 that I bumped to a 400. This is all real old before the iMac. Still uses ADB and it works fine, it actually is being turned into my web server.
And I have a p3-450 running XP ( game server) just stick tons of ram it in and it will be fine, just like OS X .
So like many posts have said it is what you expect among other things. All you need is a G3 for OS X enjoy. I have heard some people getting it to work on older 604s but I will believe that when I see it.
Finally people XP and OS X are BLOATED to beyond and back. Those people using BeOS can tell you that. but between the 2 I prefer OS X. Though I like XP plug in play finally, that was one reason I hated 95 and beyond.
>>Maybe the TiBook is miraculously faster than the dual 1GHz G4 with SDRAM, which is slower than my laptop using 1.1GHz P3 with Windows XP that cost 1/2 the price. Either that or you massively configured your system – but the same could be done on XP (and it improves the performance by 45%, of course without the animation, things look less professional, but real snappy).<<
I think you are FUDing the truth a little… my colleagues at work (99% of them anyways) are running laptops, which range between 700 MHz and 1 GHz (all PIIIs) and my Titanium Powerbook is more responsive than all of them, and the majority of them are running Windows XP! Though I don’t claim Mac OS X to be a speed demon (I’m a BeOS freak as well) I do know that Windows XP is not as responsive as people claim, especially since I got to babysit and computersit a few months ago and the machine I was sitting was an Athlon (800 MHz) running XP quite well, but nothing jaw dropping as people are trying to claim. Take it for what you will, but a lot of Mac users are not fooled by these claims!!!
In 1984, multi-tasking did exist. It was mostly on large computers because small computers didn’t have the disk space or speed or the memory to handle it properly. Each original Macintosh came with multi-tasking applications called Desk accessories. They weren’t great or complex, but they were available while there was a main application active.
In the meantime, (1983) DeskView was coming from Quarterdesq and (1984) TopView from IBM to bring character-based multi-tasking to DOS. Then, there was the development of (1985) Windows from Microsoft and (1984) GEM from Digital Research for graphical environments. GEM caught on very quickly and provided desk accessories just like Macintosh. In fact, it was so much like Macintosh that Apple sued Digital Research and Atari, which was a major licensee (Atari ST series).
Jump to 1990 and Win3.0. It duplicated Macintosh’s MultiFinder’s multi-tasking pretty well. They both used cooperative multi-tasking, rather than pre-emptive multi-tasking and so were both slow for the background applications.
1995 brought Win95 and a pre-emptive multi-tasking operating environment over a shaky DOS. I still found Mac OS 7 to be superior with a download in the background as long as there was plenty of memory in each, and memory was allocated well.
I commend what Microsoft did with OS/2, errrm, WinNT. It was quite solid.
You’re quite right about some usability issues. When Windows screws up, I can usually use the keyboard to get out of it. Mac OS X is nearly as easy though. Check the Keyboard control panel and Full Keyboard Access. I also am glad that Borland popularized contextual menus and that Microsoft included them in Windows. They’ve made my life easier. With a two or three button mouse on Mac OS 9.x or X, they work quite well. Mr. Jobs needs to understand that it’s him against the world and the world is winning.
With the messenger issue: AIM always helps me out so that, when I click on the dock icon, it brings that window to front. iChat is equally helpful.
Can someone explain to me why don’t they have a l3 external cache for even better performance?
AMD did use an L3 cache for the K6-3. If my memory serves me well, it was on the motherboard and could be anywhere from 512k to 2 megs in size. That same L3 cache was an L2 cache if you put in a K6-2 or any other processor that would fit on one of those motherboards.
I think they stopped doing that so motherboards would be cheaper to manufacture(?). I’m not sure about that though.
a DOS ‘box couldnt multitask
If my memory serves me well, a DOS box can indeed multitask. DOS programs can be multithreaded too. (Amazing what DOS can do that most people aren’t aware of. Heck it’s amazing what the old PC speaker can do that most people aren’t aware of!)
You do not need to feel like you are using a vacuum cleaner when you turn a mac on.
And I have a number of PCs over here that are pretty quiet too. (Of course I have a few that roar too) Certainly my macs are quiet, but they aren’t any quieter than my quiet PCs. So…
As far as the new dual macs go… It seems like a good move to me. If Motorola can’t provide processors that are fast enough for Apple, then this was the way to go. As far as the cheaper ones not being as fast as the old duals go. I wouldn’t expect them to be. Would it be nice if they were? Yes. Personally, overall I think Apple made a good move.
As far as OS X’s responsiveness goes. It seems ok to me.
“I was sitting was an Athlon (800 MHz) running XP quite well, but nothing jaw dropping as people are trying to claim.”
Oi thats what i got almost .. i got an Ath 700, performs great but its over 2 years old now
.(I use it in sonar and get many many real time fx and low latency audio (down to 1-2 ms)). Better upgrade if u want to try consider something new;)
Glenn
Friend has PC cobbled together from my spare parts box, with 90mhz FSB, AMD K6/2 400 running at 360mhz, 128Mb and SiS chipset
Run XP Pro, Dreamweaver and flash MX, Photoshop 6 very nicely… and faster than it does win2000 and 98!!
bkakes writes above: ” 3 years ago, if you bought a Mac, you got a G3 system, maybe around 500 mHz like my friend’s Blue and White (or the various iMacs). Try running OS X on it. Yes, it works, but it’s frustratingly unresponsive.”
I can tell you from personal experience that this is not so. My day-in, day-out, does-everything machine is a 350 MHz iMac with 128 megs of ram. I’ve been running OS X on it from Day One and lack of speed has never been an issue. I don’t think that many of the people who pontificate about Macs on this site have enough experience with the machines to know what they’re talking about.
But speed is really irrelevant. For the average user — that is to say, someone who isn’t rendering scenes for Toy Story 3 or someone whose ego isn’t wrapped up in having the biggest, baddest computer on the block — being able to use the computer productively is more important than megahertz or clock cycles.
Yeah, PCs are faster than Macs, but all that means is that they do clunky, awkward things quickly. Forgive me for the tired car analogies, but a PC using either Windows or Linux is like an American muscle car, all horsepower with no handling and no brakes. The Mac is perhaps more like an MG, underpowered but nimble.
For ease of use and fewer headaches, the Mac OS is a better choice for the nontechnical user, and all hardware considerations are secondary. And while Apple may someday make faster computers, I sincerely doubt that Windows or Linux will ever be more user-friendly.
anonymous – Bert: On your linux box, you really don’t have a comparable “hog” to NAV… plus you were not running the seti component, which will be very context switch intensive.
I don’t run Seti, I see no use it in.
anonymous – Bert: BTW, IE 5.2 is a piece of !@#$. Try Chimera… very nice, fast and stable browser.
It’s the one on the Mac. I can’t be like installing software on a computer not belonging to me. OmniWeb was installed there too (I wonder why), it took 1.5x the time to load than my Opera or Mozilla for Windows, and page rendering is much slower than on my PC.
Richard Fillion: But what im wondering is how long an average Mac user keeps his/her Mac. In the PC world what is it? 3years now the average litetime of a PC?
I don’t know. Most of the PC users I know have PCs older than 5 years. I have a very old machine upgraded again and again (right now its Pentium 3 800MHz machine). This is because I’m a geek.
I seen this thrown around a lot of times…. what makes you guys think that Macs last longer than PCs? Is it that Intel and AMD secretly placed in a self destruct timer? Besides, can you run OS X on hardware older than 3 years old? I could with Windows XP – though it wouldn’t be a speed marvel, but it would run.
loluz: why apple didnt choose to use DDR400 (pc3200) or at least wait for DDR-II is beyond me..
It couldn’t even use the bandwidth by PC2100 and PC2700 DDR SDRAM, what’s the point in going for something more expensive? Besides, there is, IIRC, RDRAM faster than PC1066.
Blackthought: Apple could do a little more on the hardware front, like ad ATA100 (even if there isn’t really a speed difference.
There is a speed difference if you use an ATA100 harddrive.
Charles: I have read some posts here that talk about various aspects of os9 and os X and the Windows line. I have noticed most people that hate the mac have not used it for any length of time.
I used it for an hour. It is too sluggish for my taste (I’m coming from a KDE/Linux background). It’s not like the UI is that fanstatic either. I like every part of the UI EXCEPT that annoying thing called the Dock. I like OS 9 UI even more better though. I absolutely hate that Aqua look. It’s so childish looking, it looks nice at first but not nice to work with. Photorealitic icons aren’t the best to my opinion, they don’t attract any attention, so I spend my time searching for icons.
For your information, though, I have moved from many UIs to many UIs. Right now I’m using GNOME 2.0, previously Window Maker, previous to that was Fluxbox, previous to that was KDE 3. I also use Windows 2000 and Windows XP 50% of my time.
Satchel Buddah: You do not need to feel like you are using a vacuum cleaner when you turn a mac on.
Thanks for streotype thinking. If you want a quiet PC, you could have a quiet PC. Get a PC with good heatsinks (Alpha is good) and a quite fan.
This is the same method how G4 computers stay cool and quiet.
Mr. Love: BTW, why did one of comments get moderated? Against which guideline[s] was it?
Read the rules. If you violated them, your post would go down.
I think you are FUDing the truth a little… my colleagues at work (99% of them anyways) are running laptops, which range between 700 MHz and 1 GHz (all PIIIs) and my Titanium Powerbook is more responsive than all of them, and the majority of them are running Windows XP!
Like I said, I never compared it with TiBooks, but rather the dual 1GHz PowerMac. I’m telling the truth, because if I wasn’t, I would be using the Mac right now.
Joe User: Yeah, PCs are faster than Macs, but all that means is that they do clunky, awkward things quickly.
I like Windows UI quite okay, I love GNOME 2.0 UI (well, most of it). OS X is nice, but some times it gets in your way.
I think PCs are like blackmarket Ferraris or Porches, while Macs are overpriced Hyundais. 😀
(BTW, yes, I could be as productive on Windows as in Mac OS X)
And while Apple may someday make faster computers, I sincerely doubt that Windows or Linux will ever be more user-friendly.
Missed this flamebait earlier…
Windows have been becoming more and more easier to use. Windows 95 was much more easier to use than Windows 3.1.1. Windows 98 was much more easier than Windows 95. Windows 2000 may be more complicated than Windows 98, but if you are doing basic stuff, it is more easier to use. Windows XP is overall MUCH more easier to use than older versions of Windows.
Linux too on the other hand will get easier to use. And it is. Two years back it takes you days to learn how to install Linux properly. Now, anyone could do it. Two years back KDE and GNOME was so confusing I took 3 months to learn. Right now, they are much easier (though not there).
So, yes, Linux and Windows would get easier to use, like it or not. Longhorn is coming out with a better UI, check out for that in 2005.
you missed my point, I use OSX because it is more productive for me, i could care less what you use. What ever makes you happy. But to start making a subjective statement a definitive fact is something else. Like i said before there Most people generally like OSX and some even switch after playing with it. People that switch to a Wintel generally do it out of some specific reason. Not the OS. And if you are trying to sell to the public, you need to make it friendly for more than commandline geeks( not saying you specific just general statement)
But to constintely make Apples products a red headed step child is why you get such a strong opinion from a Mac user.
And your car analogies are way far off, a PC is definately not a Porsche or Ferrari. if you look there are faster cars but not ones with the overall package of style and power, a complete package. Answer me this what is Porsche known for, it is certainly not power….
So try again, and stop trying to insult something just because you dont like it.
Cheers!
Rajan,
The point of the task list given was to provide you a clear test plan to demonstrate 1) Windows XP does not scale well in a multitasking use case and 2) OSX does scale well in a multitasking use case. Forget whether you find seti useful, it is listed as it is a low priority, processor intensive task. Remember, XP was your reference platform… If you want to discuss Linux/OSX pro’s/con’s we can do that as well.
Now, if you don’t have a Mac and have only used one for “an hour” in a store, then your comments regarding OSX are misleading as they are relatively unfounded.
Working with large enterprise class systems, in fortune 100’s, for many years, owning PC’s for many years (my home network is larger then many companies’). I am speaking from experience and technical understanding. I am not on a soap box trying to convert people to Mac’s, however I can say:
1) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to my grandmother who doesn’t know the first thing about computers.
2) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to the hard-core unix geek how wants additional flexibility.
3) I don’t feel comfortable recommending a Mac to the hard-core gamer.
4) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac to anyone who has the need to perform targeted, specialized scientific analysis and prefers/needs to have general use productivity components in one system.
I made an informed choice (just a couple of months ago) to “sacrafice” “best of breed” hardware for a “best of breed” operating system. Since my work is not based upon “this one task needs to get gone as fast as possible” and I’m not a big gamer, my “sacrafice” has not been felt in the least.
Use whatever you want, but this is a community board and you do a disservice pushing agenda instead of communicating ideas that will allow others to make informed decisions.
>>(BTW, yes, I could be as productive on Windows as in Mac OS X)<<
Helk I can be productive with Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac OS… I use them all at work and I sometimes have used them simultaneously jumping from one computer to the next doing different stuff on each of them.
But I have to admit I still like coming home to my Macintosh at the end of the day 🙂
Charles: And if you are trying to sell to the public, you need to make it friendly for more than commandline geeks( not saying you specific just general statement)
I’m a commandline geek :-). But my family aren’t. And my family is *big*. And I mean real *big*. My extended family alone could populate a small town (and they actually do…). 😀
Charles: And your car analogies are way far off, a PC is definately not a Porsche or Ferrari. if you look there are faster cars but not ones with the overall package of style and power, a complete package. Answer me this what is Porsche known for, it is certainly not power….
Porsche is known for it’s style
– Sure Apple has some great looking computers, but I could get better looking stuff than from Apple. Something that suites my tastes. Everyone has different tastes, and Apple only suites a group of people’s taste in style.
– Porsche is also known for its raw power. Sure, it doesn’t accelrate as fast as Ferrari or the Lamborghini, but it certainly fast. Something like the PC.
– Howeverm unlike the PC, Porsches cost way more than a normal car.
There are many types of PCs that could suite the Porsche’s category, and the one I really want is the Shuttle Mini PC (Before you call it a Cube clone, read about it, see photos of it and compare it with the Cube. I know, because I immediately though it was a Cube clone :-).
My point isn’t that Macs are completely useless. A lot of people find it productive. A lot of people find Hyundais great too. But my point is that the car analogy DOESN’T work in this case.
Charles: So try again, and stop trying to insult something just because you dont like it.
I actually like the Mac. Especially the Cube. I liked OS 9’s UI, really cool. (Sure it looks dull and boring, but it is the only UI that I could pick up and get used to it in less than an hour).
1) Windows XP does not scale well in a multitasking use case
It actually do. I normally have about 30 browser windows open… (okay, that doesn’t count because I’m using opera), a few windows of Office, Photoshop, and a slew of other applications open. And I don’t close them to watch a DVD movie
Have you even use Windows XP, or are you making statements based on Microsoft previous versions of their consumer Windows?
anonymous – Bert : Remember, XP was your reference platform… If you want to discuss Linux/OSX pro’s/con’s we can do that as well.
I was comparing with hardware, not the OS. Because, even if I bought a Mac, I would still run Linux on it like 50% of the time. I use Windows XP only 25% of my time. Again, I’m comparing with hardware.
anonymous – Bert: Now, if you don’t have a Mac and have only used one for “an hour” in a store, then your comments regarding OSX are misleading as they are relatively unfounded.
I use the laptop for an hour and bought it a few days later. I don’t buy a Mac and then decide whether I like it or not. I’m not really fond of OS X (mainly because of the strip interface of Aqua). Besides, i said I used the PowerMac for an hour. I also use the iMac G4 for about an hour an a half. I use the iMac G3 for at least a week, put together the amount of time I used it.
If you like to advertise Mac OS X, try ease of use, not speed. It is more easier to use than Windows XP.
1) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to my grandmother who doesn’t know the first thing about computers.
I feel much more comfortable recommending Mac OS 9 to my grandmother. Like I said above, Mac OS 9 is much more easier to use than Mac OS X, at least to me. Sure, it needs a clean up in the System Preferences (or whatever they call it in OS 9), but it is really a no brainer.
OS X tries to merge the OpenStep UI with the Mac OS UI, and adding some interface stuff from Windows.
anonymous – Bert: 2) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to the hard-core unix geek how wants additional flexibility.
How is Mac OS X more flexible than any other UNIX?
anonymous – Bert: 4) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac to anyone who has the need to perform targeted, specialized scientific analysis and prefers/needs to have general use productivity components in one system.
I wouldn’t recommend anything to them because I do NOT know their line of work, what they do, how they use it, how much they use it, blah blah blah. So in the end, whether a scientist studying possible life on Mars uses that $200 PC from Lindows, or that $20,000 workstation from SGI is irrevelant to me. After all, I have no idea what they do.
Almost every porsche made has had great brakes. And the GT-2 can accelerate with the best of them. There are some quick facts……