A recent article by Tony Smith from The Register titled “Mac OS X 10.3 Panther will not be a 64-bit OS” caused a good deal of confusion with many people, including me. It is also caused a heated argument here on OSNews. The basic point of the article is that Mac OS 10.2.7 and 10.3 are not “true” 64-bit OSes, but the article does not clearly explain what a “true” 64-bit OS is. This had led to a lot of claims that the article is false or misinformed, rather than just unclear, which is certainly is.
It turns out that Smith’s article on The Register is more or less correct. More and more evidence is out there that applications on Mac OS 10.2.7 and 10.3 cannot address more than 4GB of RAM, which is the limit imposed by 32-bit operating systems. The basic evidence is from a post on Apple’s darwin-development list by Apple employee (or email account holder at least) Godfrey van der Linden. Van der Linden writes:
“Yes the kernel’s virtual address space will remain 32bit for the medium term but self-evidently we can address >32bit of physical memory from the kernel.”
So the kernel in current (10.2.x) and future (10.2.7 and 10.3 Panther) versions of Mac OS X will only support a virtual address space of 2^32 bytes = 4GB of memory. No one really cares how much memory the OS internals use, the key question is can real life applications break the 4GB barrier? One non-Apple poster on the darwin-development list, Shawn Erickson, speculates:
“Outside of that I believe the user mode libraries/frameworks will remain 32 bit and hence most processes/applications must remain 32 bit (if you are careful of what you use I see no reason you could not use 64 bit addressing in certain tasks). I have not seen anything yet that implies that new 64 bit addressing versions of the systems libraries and framework will be provided in Panther (I bet they will be recompiled to use 64 bit native math, etc. just not addressing). ”
Whenever you compile even the simplest application on an OS, you must link to libraries of some sort. While there are technical details yet to be revealed by Apple, if there are no 64-bit libraries on Mac OS X, the OS does not support 64-bit applications, in all practicality.
An anonymous poster on a Slashdot thread (OK, not the most relibable of sources) confirms this:
“Your code could use 64-bit addresses after being recompiled. But there is only one set of mmap(), etc… traps on the system at the moment (both 10.2.7 and Panther), and they only supports 32bit addresses. So, there is no way to put anything above 4GB in your address space to back those 64-bit addresses.”
Finally, The Ego on the same Slashdot thread says:
“An OS could be called “64bits OS” because it offers a 64bits ABI to userland applications compiled in “64bit mode”. My understanding is that this will _not_ be the case for Panther, all code will be compiled with the traditional ILP32 ABI.”
What does this mean? First, an individual application (or process) on current (10.2.x) and future (10.2.7 and 10.3 Panther) versions of Mac OS X can only address 4GB (2^32 bytes) of memory. So Panther does not change the status quo. As someone who writes Fortran programs that use lots of memory (but is not a computer scientist), MY personal definition of a 64-bit OS is one in which an individual application can use up to 2^64 bytes (17 billion GB) of virtual memory. OSes such as Solaris and 64-bit versions of Linux and Windows meet my test. Mac OS X, in what van der Linden calls the “medium term” (at least the next major release cycle, Panther), does not meet my test.
The other part of van der Linden’s post says that the kernel can support more than 2^32 bytes=4GB of physical memory. So, yes, the 8GB of memory that Apple claims the high end G5 model supports will indeed work. It is just that, from what I gather, no one application can grab all of it at once. Instead, each application can use only 4GB (the virtual address space limit which has not changed under Panther).
If this sounds suspiciously like 32-bit Windows, you are correct. The Windows NT kernel (found in Windows NT 4, 2000, XP and 2003) supports more than 4GB of physical RAM, but each process has only a virtual address space of 4GB, although the practical limits are much lower, as I will explain in a minute. For commercial market segmentation reasons this >4GB of physical RAM feature appears only in the 32-bit versions of Windows 2003 Enterprise and Datacenter Editions. Also for market segmentation reasons, hardware support for this feature is found only in the Intel Xeon chips, and not the nearly identical Pentium 4s. The 32-bit x86 Linux kernel also has support for the Xeon’s memory addressing abilities. Somewhat humorously, Red Hat is playing a similar segmentation game by charging extra for the more than 4GB of physical RAM feature.
As a side note, if you care, an Apple developer’s guide for the G5s says that they support 2GB DIMMs, so the high end G5 can really use 16GB of physical RAM, if you have the money. As a further side note, Motorola’s documentation for its recent G4 processors suggest that they can support 64GB of physical RAM, so Apple did not technologically have to wait until IBM’s release of the PowerPC 970s to support more than 2 or 4GB of RAM in PowerMacs and XServes. It’s not clear that Apple will support any of the 64-bit defining features of the PowerPC 970/G5, unless you are a cryptographer who cares about integer arithmetic with larger numbers.
Let’s go into some more detail about what the actual memory capabilities of Mac OS 10.2 Jaguar are. From some experimentation with C and Fortran codes, I have found that individual applications on 10.2 can address close to 4GB of virtual memory, even if the machine has much less physical RAM, as all currently shipping Macs do. The catch here is that only 2.25GB of this RAM is contiguous. So a simply written C or Fortran program cannot address more than 2.25GB of memory. The remaining 1.75GB of memory is not contiguous either. The problem here is that various shared libraries are loaded into memory at fixed locations in the 4GB of virtual address space, which splits up the available memory for the user.
How do 32-bit Windows and Linux compare? Windows by default allocates 2GB of RAM to each process. The other 2GB of RAM in the 4GB of virtual address space is reserved for the OS. In Enterprise Edition, there is a flag you can set to change the allocation to a more fair 3GB application/1GB OS breakdown. On top of this 2GB memory limit, 32-bit Windows allocates shared libraries in a poorly planned random manner, so the 2GB of address space is split up into chunks, and actual programs may only be able to access 1.5-1.7GB of contiguous memory.
32-bit Linux splits its 4GB of virtual address space per application into 3GB for the application and 1GB for the OS. However, of the 3GB for the application, only 2GB are contiguous, so again, simple C and Fortran programs (and many real life applications) can only use 2GB.
Apparently Microsoft has some hack so software vendors can use more than 2GB of RAM in Windows, and The Register article that started this discussion article alludes to the fact that Apple has added a similar hack to Panther. But these hacks are only practical for big money software companies such as Oracle and Adobe, and the performance of the hacks is often less than going to a true 64-bit application on a true 64-bit OS such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Irix, zSeries, Tru64 and the 64-bit versions of Linux, Windows and the BSDs.
Why might someone want to use more than 4GB of virtual memory? First, some scientific problems require that much memory. Fair enough. Second, people editing video or other large multimedia files might want to put the entire file into memory, to work on all at once rather than only one piece at a time, which reduces loading from the disk. Third, databases are really big and getting bigger, and putting more of your data in memory speeds up access. Fourth, even more people with very little physical memory, 64-bit virtual memory can be a big help. Remember those annoying shared libraries that take memory away from the user? In a 17 billion GB address space, there is presumably plenty of room to stash those shared libraries so that they never cramp the space taken up by your actual data.
A good way to conclude this discussion is to summarize Apple’s market position with regards to memory handling. Mac OS X is not a 64-bit OS, by my definition emphasizing the ability of applications to use 64-bits of memory. Therefore, Apple is behind almost all commerical UNIXs, 64-bit versions of Linux for many platforms including Intel’s Itanium and AMD’s Opteron/Athlon64, and 64-bit versions of Windows for Itanium and Opteron (the latter is to be released in early 2004 to OEMs only, rumors say).
However, as far as 32-bit OSes go, Mac OS X is actually somewhat ahead in the memory game. The virtual address space available to an application is close to 4GB, which is more than the 2GB Windows provides and the 3GB Linux provides. And the Mac’s contiguous address space of 2.25GB exceeds the 1.5-1.7GB on Windows and the 2GB for Linux. Furthermore, Apple will not require you to shell out big money for some “Advanced Server” version of its OS if you want to install more
than 4GB of physical memory in your machine, which is what Microsoft and Red Hat want you to do.
The downside of Apple’s support of more than 4GB of physiscal RAM is that there is less need for it on a Mac. Most Macs are used by one (professional) user at a time, and this user is typically going only to use one big application at a time. Unless this user opens up two massive applications, he won’t need more than 4GB of RAM, and he cannot use more than 4GB of RAM in one application because he is not running a true 64-bit OS.
On the other hand, Windows servers often run Terminal Services, which, while expensive, lets multiple users remotely log onto a GUI session and run multiple applications. If each user opens a big application, that extra memory can become handy quickly. Apple does not offer a Terminal Services solution, instead letting you log on remotely via ssh or telnet to a command line or X-Windows environment, where you are pretty much limited to using ported open source programs.
If you want a 64-bit OS on the desktop, use the appropriate versions of Windows or Linux on an Itanium or AMD64 (Opteron, Athlon64) machine. I would suggest AMD64 because it’s fully backwards compatible with existing 32-bit software for the appropriate OS, althogh Intel is trying hard to improve x86 emulation on the Itanium. Near-future versions of the Mac OS can run on a 64-bit processor from IBM, but will not themselves support 64-bit applications.
Update: A similar article, at eWeek.
About the Author:
A sometimes Fortran programmer who uses Mac OS X on his desktop machine and Solaris to run his codes.
“Power5 can be scaled up to multiple processors.”
–Anonymous
Boom! Gotcha, are you sure what you talking about?
Am I the only one that caught a slight sense of Anti Apple bias in the article… (unlike the overt FUD by Mistik jogelour) the article was a thinly veiled attempt at FUD.
no, you weren’t. i saw it, but just like the “OS X is sooooo slow” comments, i ignored it.
apple is a company, and though they do a lot i don’t like, they build a lot of hardware and an OS that i do. FUD away. i am still buying the stuff i like.
OS X is not the fastest way to do things, and i can use (and own) a nice fast box with a linux system that is plenty fast. from CLI. so why does the ibook (yes, that slow old G3 running that slow old OS X!) get used 95% of the time? it still does everything i want it to do, it does it fast enough (except video conversion and the other box is too slow for that too) and it is, wait for it, _a_joy_to_use_this_machine. end of story.
Final word: if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON’T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.
And if to increase so little you need to double the Bits on the hw [from 32 to 64] and the OS still at 32, is not worth it. Don’t get suckered by Apple, wait until MacOSX is 64bit on a 64Bit HW. Which is not yet, although the PPC is good chip, you are paying to much for nothing if you think that MacOSX(Jaguar) performs well now.
Later folks…
PS Thanks to Eugenia for seeing through the crying baby trick! 🙂
“Final word: if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON’T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.”
That statement suggests that a normal user may not benefit from increased speed. A better way to have phrased that would have been, “If you are a normal use and don’t need the added speed that the G5 and OS X will bring, consider other options.”
“And if to increase so little you need to double the Bits on the hw [from 32 to 64] and the OS still at 32, is not worth it.”
Moving from 32 to 64 does not double speed. Assuming that this is what you were implying, there is a minomer there. However, as far as we know, Panther will be able to run 64 bit software and take advantage of all its 64 bit capabilities, even if the Finder cannot.
“Don’t get suckered by Apple, wait until MacOSX is 64bit on a 64Bit HW.”
Nobody would be suckered by Apple if they were to adopt OS X and a G5 right away. They would be able to take advantage of its 64 bit capabilities with the software that utilizes it.
“Which is not yet”
Ofcourse. Its not even out yet.
“you are paying to much for nothing if you think that MacOSX(Jaguar) performs well now.”
Not at all. A G5 running panther will be a very good value.
“PS Thanks to Eugenia for seeing through the crying baby trick! :-)”
She must not be reading or is feeling especially lenient today.
> DON’T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.
yeah, i expect that a much faster CPU, at a faster clock rate, with a massively faster bus and huge floating point numbers will make no difference to my video work. in fact, i am sure those demos they ran on the G5 at the release were faked.
hell i bet they cut the video alla microsoft on trial. no, don’t waste your money.
subtle hint, there is a difference between the OS being fast enough, and the processing of huge chunks of raw data being fast enough.
Hey shane.
Curious… what city do you live in?
if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON’T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.
Here’s something to chew on:
maybe the OS is fast enough but we would like our applications to run faster.
Perhaps it would be helpful if Mr. Mistik decided to define what he means by power computing. He seems to be suggesting high-end workstations, not anything close to the desktop market. And, I find myself agreeing that Apple’s core market is *not* these high-end workstations. That said, I think it’s kind of rude of him to go off on so many wild rants — it’s easy to make a contrary case without being derogatory, and to do so contradicts the whole point of having a forum in general, which should be to foster debate in a constructive manner (not that that ever actually happens.
The more interesting point in this article is simply that Apple is trying to push into this high end market — dominated by those, er, high-end unices, and Mr. Mistik is castigating anyone that says that the performance of current macs running OS X is acceptable for those markets. Considering that no one in the general marketplace has used a G5 (and this is really the first time Apple will have hardware capable of running in this market (the AIX network server aside)), it’s a bit stupid to do more than speculate on what the performance will be until people have the freakin’ machines in hand with an actual (read: not pre-release version) of Panther installed. I think, at that point, we can start discussing whether Mac OS X is unable to perform in those markets.
And, considering the fact that a lot of unix stuff is getting ported to run under os x, I think it’s probably a good idea for Apple to make an end-run at getting themselves a higher profile in this market.
…saying, verbatim, “the Mac tends to be either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive” in every single post on every thread? That would simply be glorious…
What I think people are failing to recognize is that Apple *has* distributed a 23-bit version of Panther, to run on our 32-bit systems. A version of Panther compiled for the G5 will not run on a G4.
In conclusion, Panther will be a 32-bit OS on a 32-bit system, and a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit system. Simple.
Guys,
There is no way to win. You are talking democracy vs communism.
Islam vs Buddism.
There is a group of people here who are “Super- geeks” pardon my french. The kind of people who wants to read the code, “touch” the center of the machine etc etc.
Then we have a group of people who just wants their damn machines to work, and frankly doesn’t really care if a program opens in 3 seconds or 6 seconds.
You are not going to agree. Fighting is futile.
(Now i know everyone here likes to P’ each other off. Try to show supirior knowledge or useage and that is 90% of the reason you come here. To pick a fight).
Well know let me show my arrogance and supirior knowledge.
You are all boneheads, you will never win an argument. Because you are all right and wrong from you own and others viewpoint. You are wasting valuable time, that you could spend doing 64bit calculations and video editing.
Fact of the matter is that each person will use or want the kind of machine and OS that appeals to them. And for some that will be something they can tweak and for others it will be something that is easy to use and works.
Face it people you are wasting valuable typing time. With you 64bit OS you could probably already have found the cure for cancer and if you are still using a 32bit OS ‘shame on you, you are a hobby user’.
🙂
“Can we stop saying, verbatim, “the Mac tends to be either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive” in every single post on every thread? That would simply be glorious…”
I will be happy to as long as people incorrectly say Mac’s are expensive when what they mean to say, PC’s are more expandible.
well my recorded ip says ph.cox.net, and i know that cox has an azizona branch, and that ph could be phoenix, and that it is hotter than hades outside……. so i will go with phoenix. why?
I live in Peoria… I have the same IP for my home computer.
Howdie neighbor. =)
well hello! i am glad there is at least one geek with more than 2 brain cells in the area. makes we feel all warm inside. matches the outside. maybe you are used to this weather, but i have been here 6 weeks, and damn it is hot! even the iBook fan comes on!
i don’t even want to get into the heat coming off the 17″ monitor on the x86 machine. time to get a flat panel. hot!
i hope i adjust……
Ok, here’s my take hoping it would help to clear things up.
I’m throwing a link to a PowerPC Manual so others can take a look at it and compare them to what has been posted.
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/852569B2005…
On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.
I don’t know. Maybe they want to maximize margins, though.
“i hope i adjust……”
Just stay indoors. That’s all you can do.
On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.
Perhaps it’s for compatibility with older add-on cards?
What box are you running MacOSX on? What version? What are the Specs? Have you run YDL on the same box? What Version? What Apps have you use to test the speed on both OS? BS won’t do. Care to post benchmarks?
Let’s do some application performance benchmarks on my 500MHz iBook, running OS X 10.2.6 and YDL 3.0:
Painter 8 on OS X
Load time: 8 seconds
Painter 8 on YDL 3.0
Load time: …
Reason 2.0 on OS X
Load time: 12 seconds
Reason 2.0 on YDL 3.0
Load time: …
Final Cut Pro 4 on OS X
Load time: 15 seconds
Final Cut Pro 4 on YDL 3.0
Load time: …
Adobe Illustrator 10 on OS X
Load time: 10 seconds
Adobe Illustrator 10 on YDL 3.0
Load time: …
Need I continue?
On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.
A “64-bit brain”? A PCI subsystem?
A G5 system contains one or two PPC970 processors linked with a 6.4-7.2GB/s front side bus to a controller sporting a dual channel DDR400 memory controller with a combined memory bandwidth of 6.4GB/s and a HyperTransport controller which also sports 6.4GB/s bandwidth. This connects via a PCI-X I/O hub to a 64-bit 133MHz PCI-X bus which sports up to 2GB/s of bandwidth, versus 266MB/s for regular PCI.
You’d like to suggest some other bus standard for Apple to have used besides PCI-X? By all means, go ahead
“Need I continue?”
Er, no you don’t. Please don’t hurt yourself. I’m sorry I didn’t explain. I assumed you will figure it out. You need to run a similar task on both, say a raytracer, or something similar. Get it? Ok. Glad to help. I see why Mac are easier to use, they have appeal to certain market, eh?
I see why Mac are easier to use, they have appeal to certain market, eh?
Yes, a market of people who actually do things with their computers…
“You’d like to suggest some other bus standard for Apple to have used besides PCI-X? By all means, go ahead”
What do you think about the G5, is it a workstation class or a desktop PC class machine? Given the specs you cited.
Will it crunch numbers like any workstations (WSs) given PPC floating point and other numeric processing units? Will it deliver the bits needed to throw that vertex buffer out to the screen faster than any WSs?
You tell me.
The G5 Macs may not be in the league of machines like the SGI Octane 2. Sadly I haven’t been able to find a price for a new Octane 2, but a used one with 2x 360MHz. CPU’s comes at around 6000 euro’s. I can almost get two new G5’s of the dual 2GHz. kind for that money.
All in all I think that the performance/$$$ ratio works out very favorably for the Apples. You pay for performance, and with the big WS manufacturers you usually pay A LOT for it.
I’ll admit that I’ve never had the privilege of actually using one of those big iron workstations, but I’ll be very surprised if a dual G5 at 2GHz. gets beaten by a dual 360MHz. MIPS box. That’s not counting specialized custom graphics boards in the WS, just plain number crunching on the CPU (raytracing and the like).
Wouldn’t the AIX be the best current OS for that system? How could one spend that kind of hardware money and not purchase AIX? It really is native to the PPC platform.
If you define power computing under the limited context of “crunching #”, then OSX may not be the optimal performer. There are a few things you apparently aren’t aware of:
1) The are other contexts of power computing. I make my living in information security. Trust me, deep calc computing is a different complexity, not a greater one (except when doing crypto analysis… then it’s pretty much the same). OSX is an extremely powerful platform for my discipline to work on. BTW, hardcore music and video work is also a different complexity then your deep calc work, not more or less, just different.
2) Most personal/workstation computers are used for multiple functions (otherwise you are really talking about an appliance or a dedicated system). The fact that I can work on my home system, EASILY, make a movie of the kids (to torture our friends or to send to the grandparents on dvd), EASILY maintain an incredibly functional music library, and EASILY do a billion other things typical “end users” do is a huge + in the “power” column.
3) Potential power and Real Power are very different items. Since you are defining power as the ability to get something done quickly (more then evident by every post you have made), which is a more powerful system? The one that allows you to sit down and begin working on the task at hand, or the one that you must spend significant amount of time “preping” so you can perform the task at hand (which may only execute a few % points faster the the machine that didn’t require the “preping”).
The eMac costs $799.
WOW! look at my IP address! isn’t that fabulous. I am located in Australia and guess what currency I quoted the price in? you guessed wrong, it isn’t in US$ but in AUS$ hence the reason why $1899 was quoted. Jump over to http://www.apple.com.au/store to get a clue.
The price to performance ration on the emac is very good.
Price performance? An iMac costs 3.4K in Australia for the middle range 17 Inch jobby. I’ve had a look at the IBM pricing. $2250 for a 3Ghz P4 A50p Desktop + $899 for an LCD display. Pretty good value on IBM’s part if you ask me.
Not at all.
Of you compare Apple’s consumer line of products in both hardware and software Apple’s products tend to be slightly more expensive, the same price or slightly less expensive.
Based on what?
http://commerce-29.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prr…
Is a bargin. Look at the software bundle:
Software[23]
Operating system provided Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Productivity applications Lotus Notes Standalone Client License, Lotus SmartSuite Millennium license
Communication / networking applications[13] Access Support Connected Client
Device drivers / utilities Norton AntiVirus 2003 OEM Version, PC Doctor Diagnostics, Update Connector, IBM Director Agent (web deliverable), IBM Rapid Restore Ultra, Access IBM 4.0
As I have said, it is a bloody bargin compared to Apples consumer line of desktops.
“CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live?”
As would be the case with other products… in this case a PC.”
Absolutely false….Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA.
This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629…AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)
(www.ascension.net.au current price today)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533FSB
Corsair 512MB PC-2700 DDR
V9520 MAGIC – GeForce FX 5200 – TV Out 128Mb – DVI
ATX Midi Tower Case with Front USB, 350W
Sony 1.44 FDD
Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))
Benq 17″ V772 CRT Monitor
Asus P4SGL-VM SIS650GLX, 6 Channel Sound, Video, 10/100 Network
250W Speaker
Ascension System Build
Asus 52x24x52 CDRW Retail box
Windows XP Home OEM
Liteon 166S 16X DVD/48X CDROM
iMac AUD$1499 (todays price)
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
Yep that iMac is sure price competitive! Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor..and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17″ CRT monitor)
“CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live?”
As would be the case with other products… in this case a PC.”
Absolutely false….Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA.
This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629…AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)
(www.ascension.net.au current price today)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533FSB
Corsair 512MB PC-2700 DDR
V9520 MAGIC – GeForce FX 5200 – TV Out 128Mb – DVI
ATX Midi Tower Case with Front USB, 350W
Sony 1.44 FDD
Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))
Benq 17″ V772 CRT Monitor
Asus P4SGL-VM SIS650GLX, 6 Channel Sound, Video, 10/100 Network
250W Speaker
Ascension System Build
Asus 52x24x52 CDRW Retail box
Windows XP Home OEM
Liteon 166S 16X DVD/48X CDROM
iMac AUD$1499 (todays price)
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
Yep that iMac is sure price competitive! Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor..and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17″ CRT monitor)”
The Apple I qouted is a base model eMac for AUD$1499 not an iMac!!!!!!!!!
“WOW! look at my IP address! isn’t that fabulous. I am located in Australia and guess what currency I quoted the price in? you guessed wrong, it isn’t in US$ but in AUS$ hence the reason why $1899 was quoted. Jump over to http://www.apple.com.au/store to get a clue.”
I made a simple mistake about where you cam from. Who the hostility?
>>>”The price to performance ration on the emac is very good.”<<<
“Price performance? An iMac costs 3.4K in Australia for the middle range 17 Inch jobby.”
Notice I said eMac… not iMac. However, the iMac has a good price to performance ratio as well.
“I’ve had a look at the IBM pricing. $2250 for a 3Ghz P4 A50p Desktop + $899 for an LCD display. Pretty good value on IBM’s part if you ask me.”
That is a good value, and it reinforces the argument that I’ve been making all along… PC are more expandible that Macs. (However, your IBM price does not contradict my argument that a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive that a Mac when you compare it against a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same hardware and software configuration.
“Of you compare Apple’s consumer line of products in both hardware and software Apple’s products tend to be slightly more expensive, the same price or slightly less expensive.
Based on what?”
What do you mean based on what? That response doesn;t make sence. I stated a fact. If you think you can disprove it, be my guest.
“http://commerce-29.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prr…..
Is a bargin. Look at the software bundle:
Software[23]
Operating system provided Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Productivity applications Lotus Notes Standalone Client License, Lotus SmartSuite Millennium license
Communication / networking applications[13] Access Support Connected Client
Device drivers / utilities Norton AntiVirus 2003 OEM Version, PC Doctor Diagnostics, Update Connector, IBM Director Agent (web deliverable), IBM Rapid Restore Ultra, Access IBM 4.0″
Again, that is a good value, and it reinforces the argument that I’ve been making all along… PC are more expandible that Macs. (However, this configuration does not contradict my argument that a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive that a Mac when you compare it against a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same hardware and software configuration.
“As I have said, it is a bloody bargin compared to Apples consumer line of desktops.”
Apple’s consumer line of desktops ARE a good value. (The iMac is not a desktop computer BTW, its an AIO)
“Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA.”
That’s not true. A Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive that a Mac when you compare it against a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same hardware and software configuration.
“This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629…AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)”
First of all, you are comparing an AIO against a tower.
Second, you significantly understanded the. You said that the AUD$1499 iMac only has:
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
You forgot to add:
15-inch LCD flat screen
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
32MB DDR video memory
256MB SDRAM
(You misquoted the hard drive): It has a 60GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
Mac OS X
iPhoto
iMovie
iCal
iSync
AppleWorks
Mail App
Quicken 2003 Deluxe
World Book 2003 Edition
Mac OS X Chess
Otto Matic, Deimos Rising
Sound Studio
“Yep that iMac is sure price competitive!”
It sure is.
“Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor..”
The iMac monitor is one of the best available. You’re wrong about that.
“and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17″ CRT monitor)”
Hence the reason why comparisons between AIO and desktops aren’t a fair comparison. I mean, its not as if Apple only sells AIO computers are anything.
One more thing… you misquoted the drive as well. You said that it has a only has a CDRom drive when it has a DVD-R/CD-RW
“The Apple I qouted is a base model eMac for AUD$1499 not an iMac!!!!!!!!!”
Okay… lets do this again.
You mentioned that the base model eMac only had:
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
You forgot to mention:
•17-inch (16-inch viewable) flat CRT
•ATI Radeon 7500 with AGP 4x support; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM graphics memory
•You mentioned a case so I’ll do the same…
•Two FireWire 400 ports, five USB ports (three on system, two on keyboard), mini-VGA output port, headphone jack, audio line in jack VGA video mirroring
•S-video and composite video output
•10/100BASE-T Ethernet
•56K V.92 modem
•Integrated stereo speakers
•QuickTime
•iCal
•iChat
•iTunes
•iPhoto
•iMovie
•iSync
•DVD Player
•AppleWorks
•Mac OS X Mail
•Microsoft Internet Explorer
•Apple Safari
•Quicken 2003 Deluxe
•World Book 2003 Edition
•Mac OS X Chess
•Otto Matic
•Deimos Rising
•Microsoft Office v. X Test Drive
•Sound Studio
•FAXstf
•90 days of free telephone support and one-year limited warranty
•and mac OS X
Now, the comparison is more balanced, but (again) you’re comparing an AIO against a desktop computer. That in itself is not a fair comparison.
Regardless, the eMac help up pretty nicely.
It seems that I forgot top add VGA video mirroring as well.
Oh, and since you mentioned, “Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))”I should probably add the baseline eMac’s:
•Apple Keyboard
•Apple Mouse
•modem cable
When you make your logically wrong arguments, can you make them at least correct in spelling and grammar?
Maybe you think that correctness in spelling and grammar is just eye candy. But it somehow shows your ignorance. I know it’s impossible to get you to admire Mac software and hareware’s elegance, so I don’t even want to try it…
If it isn’t Steve Jobs pompom girl striking again.
Macs are more expensive than PCs. You are intellectually dishonest. Go back to drinking your translucent blue kool-aid!
You must be a cheap, loser Apple salesman [perhaps former as Apple can not be so dumb as to keep a dellusional jackass like you on their staff. You keep turning tricks all over this forums, eh?
You can repeat the lie as much as you want, but the consumer KNOWS and SHOWS that Apple ARE more expensive than PC’s, and subpar for that matter as the majority of consumers clearly chooses a computer other than Apple everyday. Majority uses PC’s, only a few are suckered by APple and even fewer are Maczealots cultist idiots like you.
Luckily you’re not a Mac user. The last post from you just demonstrates how low class you’re. It’s a shame.
I had figured that a 64 bit processor would mean some added processing power.
Like a 64 bit processor would be able to handle bigger chunks of data than a 32 bit processor. Is that true?
Would, for example Final Cut Pro made for 64 bit have more data processing power or not, beyond the size of the memory it can address.
I find it amazing that some of you people find ways to criticize apple no matter what. There are a great number of computer users who would like to actually USE their computer rather than sit around a tweak it and brag about their set up. Apple allows people to do so, seriously guys, is apple so bad?
“One more thing… you misquoted the drive as well. You said that it has a only has a CDRom drive when it has a DVD-R/CD-RW”
Go to http://www.apple.com.au the AUD$1499 DOES NOT have a DVD-RW, it DOES NOT have a DVD-ROM it DOES NOT have a CR-RW. It is fitted with a plain CD-ROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) What is kool-aide?
2) Where did I ever say that Apple was flat out more expensive? I have said that their CONSUMER line up are a rip off, however, their WORKSTATION line is VERY good value when compared to what Dell and IBM offers in their workstation line up.
I am not anti-Apple, I am a realist. If I was anti-Apple, I would NEVER had taken the time to compliment Apple on their great G5 PowerMac line up.
4) eMac http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/80605/…
A$ 1,499.00
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive
I believe your quote for the eMac is correct, because Apple sell the same model for SGD1,488 in Singapore and SGD is slightly higher that AUD currently.
But I think the comparison you made is somehow misleading. You can accuse Apple for not having a wider spectrum of offering in their consumer line, but comparing all-in-one (AIO) model with general desktop model is not fair. AIO models are more expensive than similar spec’d desktops in most cases. While AIOs have some disadvantages such as limited upgrading options and no PCI slot, they also have some advantages such as saving desktop space (which is very precious sometime), easy to moving around and easy maintenance. Due to AIOs’ casing limitation, they take more effort to design and the components inside are more expensive (due to smaller volume).
A better comparison might be between eMac and Dell’s OptiPlex SX260 line (Dell’s Ultra Small Form desktop model). With the similar spec, the Dell model will cost SGD1,726 which is more expensive than the base eMac model. And the Dell model has no dedicated graphic card (it uses Intel integrated graphic which we all know how poor it means), and no firewire port.
I’m not saying Dell’s offering is poor. My point is that when you make any comparison, the products you choose from both sides must be comparable. I own 3 Macs and 3 PCs, so I know their advantages and shortcomings for both sides from my own point. I admit myself prefer Mac more, but I always recommend people to buy computer according to their needs which include their current needs and the things they plan to do in near future. I can say the base model eMac certainly worth its money if you can fully utilize its power. But I’d recommend people go for the middle range model which presents more value.
Recently before I bought my Sony digital camcorder, I visited a few popular Websites dedicated to DV users. I found (with no surprise) so many people had struggled or were struggling to make their camcorder working with their Windows XP or 2000 machines. Such a task is so simple if you have a Mac. There are no software installation and no hardware fine-tuning, you just connect the camcorder and iMove will start to work. Same thing with the new released iChat AV beta. This kind of ease of use and plug-n-play is a dream for Windows users. Of course in order to enjoy such a convenience, you need to pay a little more sometimes. But that “a little more” is a wise investment, in my opinion.
“If it isn’t Steve Jobs pompom girl striking again.”
Who are you talking about?
“Macs are more expensive than PCs.”
They most certinly are not. Macs are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when comparing a PC of the exact same (or as close as possible) hardware and software.
“You are intellectually dishonest.”
What have I been dishonest about? I’ve asked before and yet you refuse to give an answer.
“Go back to drinking your translucent blue kool-aid!”
I don’t even like koolaid. What are you talking about?
“You must be a cheap, loser Apple salesman”
No. Actually my friends tell me I’m quite generous and am considered Quite sucessful and no, I’ve never been a salesman for Apple.
“[perhaps former as Apple can not be so dumb as to keep a dellusional jackass like you on their staff.”
You chastize people for insulting you yet you insult others? I would suggest that this gives others a license to insult you with out an argument from you.
“You keep turning tricks all over this forums, eh?”
You mean busting your FUD? If so, yes… I do.
“You can repeat the lie as much as you want”
Which lie is that?
“but the consumer KNOWS and SHOWS that Apple ARE more expensive than PC’s”
Well, the numbers surely suggest otherwise. As the old saying goes… numbers don’t lie, unfortunately the same can’t be said for you.
“and subpar for that matter as the majority of consumers clearly chooses a computer other than Apple everyday.”
Perhaps people are just as misquided about Apple’s prices as you are.
“only a few are suckered by APple”
Who got suckered by Apple?
“and even fewer are Maczealots cultist idiots like you.”
I’m not a Maczealout. Where would you get that idea?
“Go to http://www.apple.com.au the AUD$1499 DOES NOT have a DVD-RW, it DOES NOT have a DVD-ROM it DOES NOT have a CR-RW. It is fitted with a plain CD-ROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Look back over his origional post… He mistyped iMac when he mean eMac. I was right he was wrong.
“I am not anti-Apple”
Some of your comments suggest otherwise.
“I am a realist.”
If so, then who so much fakery?
“They most certinly are not. Macs are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when comparing a PC of the exact same (or as close as possible) hardware and software. ”
On Planet Mescaline maybe….
I’d like to comment on one of the secrets of Apples’ survival: giving users what they don’t want, today.
Comparisons showing less expensive models from reputable high-volume desktop vendors frequently do not include items such as FireWire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, and the like. When prompted, you typically get the response “I don’t need that, why would I spend on it?”. And of course, that’s a valid point; your computer is your computer, no need to get items you don’t want.
But ironically, it’s in part because of this practice that Apple is still here, and is still making Macintosh computers. You don’t buy the part later when you feel the need, you buy it now, and are in effect making an investment in the future. FireWire800, Gigabit Ethernet, 64-bit Computing… it’s the same. Some takers now, more takers later.
Whether or not this is a good practice, or whether or not it suits your needs, is up to each of us to decide individually. Of course, the OS pieces are not yet in place to take advantage of 64-bit Computing, so this whole question should be postponed until they are.
The whole strength of computing is task automation at speed. Different configurations will give you different results, for different prices. And that is as it should be. For me, a Macintosh gave me the results I wanted at a reasonable price, after doing comparisons with other vendors.
Don’t want to use a Macintosh? Hate Apple? Suits me fine; ignore them. But please don’t try and tell me that I’m a “sucker” or a “fool” for wanting a Macintosh, and please don’t try and suggest that my choice to use a Macintosh should be taken away to satisfy your needs. If the existance of the platform irritates you, tough. All you can do is live with it.
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.ph.ph.cox.net)
“I am not anti-Apple”
Some of your comments suggest otherwise.
Explain to my WHY I complimented Apple on their PowerMac G5 line? Again, please answer the bloody question. If I am so anti-Apple, why then did I compliment Apple on their PowerMac G5 line up?
RE: digitaleon (IP: —.nsw.bigpond.net.au)
I’d like to comment on one of the secrets of Apples’ survival: giving users what they don’t want, today.
What users want is a desktop with decent specs sold at a reasonable price. Users don’t want the bleeding edge but the certainly don’t want to be utilising 2 year old technology or worse still, as with the case of the iMac, bundling DDR memory with it even though the front side bus remains 133Mhz.
Comparisons showing less expensive models from reputable high-volume desktop vendors frequently do not include items such as FireWire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, and the like. When prompted, you typically get the response “I don’t need that, why would I spend on it?”. And of course, that’s a valid point; your computer is your computer, no need to get items you don’t want.
Again, I was comparing like with like. I made a comparision between IBM’s ThinkCentre Line up vs. the Apple iMac and eMac. I have made NO comparision between the PowerMac and the PC vendor because as I have stated again and again and again (like a parrot), the PowerMac G5 line is VERY good value for money. My bone of contention is the lack of any drive to push their consumer line to something close to the performance of what is available in PC land.
But ironically, it’s in part because of this practice that Apple is still here, and is still making Macintosh computers. You don’t buy the part later when you feel the need, you buy it now, and are in effect making an investment in the future. FireWire800, Gigabit Ethernet, 64-bit Computing… it’s the same. Some takers now, more takers later.
Which is why I haven’t made a comparision between the PowerMac and G5. The issue is comparing a ThinkCentre PC with an eMac and iMac. The only thing missing from the IBM ThinkCentre PC is a firewire port which can be added on later. Apart from that, on the IBM PC, you get USB 2.0, hyperthreading, Serial ATA, 64MB GeForce MX graphics card sitting on an 8x AGP bus with the option to upgrade to Nvidias workstation class graphics card.
Whether or not this is a good practice, or whether or not it suits your needs, is up to each of us to decide individually. Of course, the OS pieces are not yet in place to take advantage of 64-bit Computing, so this whole question should be postponed until they are.
The question is also whether there is significant demand both from end users and developers for these features.
The whole strength of computing is task automation at speed. Different configurations will give you different results, for different prices. And that is as it should be. For me, a Macintosh gave me the results I wanted at a reasonable price, after doing comparisons with other vendors.
Don’t want to use a Macintosh? Hate Apple? Suits me fine; ignore them. But please don’t try and tell me that I’m a “sucker” or a “fool” for wanting a Macintosh, and please don’t try and suggest that my choice to use a Macintosh should be taken away to satisfy your needs. If the existance of the platform irritates you, tough. All you can do is live with it.
I am certainly not saying that you or anyone else should move to a PC or some other platform, what I am simply relaying is what I see out there in the market. Apple need to ask themselves this, are they a consumer orientated company, a professional orientated company, or both. IMHO, their consumer line isn’t up the scratch and until they get a G5 down into their consumer line, their position in the consumer market will dwindle to nothingness, HOWEVER, in terms of professional workstations, they do a VERY good job at it. They provide a quality product with great speed and reliability. Instead of trying to beat it out in the consumer market, why not concerntrate on their tradition strengths, namely, the professional graphics market.
This forum started off in a very good discussion of the topic at hand. It has, as always, deteriorated into a garbage fight.
Apple overcharges: Let’s use that same argument for Dell, H-P, Gateway, etc.). Since they sell models below $600 then all of the other offerings of that company are grossly overpriced.
I can get them cheaper: Yes, and I can build a tool shed cheaper than I can pay for someone else to build it. The same is true of my audio equipement (yes I built my stereo), etc. Therefore, anyone who can’t, or doesn’t wish, to build their own is an idiot. They are dupes of big business.
Logic of this sort clearly indicates the lack of critical thinking. I rarely read such rantings by such individuals. I think that the best policy is to simply ignore their utterances by no longer responding to the incomprehensible mantras.
How about actually read what the discussion is about. The point I raised isn’t the raw price, but the price vs. features vs. speed vs and other possible variable.
I said it again, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
“the PowerMac G5 line is VERY good value for money”
How many times must I repeat myself until it gets through your anti-any-that-isn’t-your-particular-dogma brain?
I hate to say it but if the shoe fits, wear it. I am a Mac user and I happen to also think that the G5 is a good buy. I believe that you and many others jump to conclusions.
It would have been nice to have received a better answer by having you ask a few questions. I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, if you go back and actually read what I wrote you should discover that it was not anti against any particular computer system. It was about the constant bickering that clutters up these forums. (Oh, by the way, I have read the forum comments and contrary to your opinion I do comprehend what is being said. )
I hate to be redundant but I find this senseless bickering a waste of time. It is almost as bad as many of the chat rooms that rant about nothing with great vigor.