 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / Australian Mac Group / April 2005iMac compared to a Dell
Ok, I know it's the age old question, but how does a current 1.6GHz G5 iMac compare to something like the Dell DimensionTM 4700 with an "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)" ? Ok, I know it's the age old question, but how does a current 1.6GHz G5 iMac compare to something like the Dell DimensionTM 4700 with an "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)" ? Not near as fast, but not as slow as you'd expect comparing the raw numbers. > Ok, I know it's the age old question, but how does a current 1.6GHz G5 > iMac compare to something like the Dell DimensionTM 4700 with an > "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 1MB L2 > Cache, 800MHz FSB)" ? The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, if you don't already have an LCD screen the built-in LCD is OK, the iMac will be more than fast enough for nearly everything you throw at it, except: 1) Cutting edge games like Halflife 2, Doom3, etc. 2) Heavyduty (pro) media creation like Maya, movie, and sound tools. I have a 2.6Ghz P4 on my desk but still use my 800Mhz PBG4 for nearly all tasks, since 99% of my work runs fine on 800Mhz (and OS X keeps getting better and better, 10.4 is *much* better than the 10.1 this machine first had installed). BUT... I find the iMac to be fatally flawed, really. For one, the 17" LCD is really only worth $150 tops, since it is a widescreen format that is inherently less useful unless you are just watching DVDs all day. For the money, a 2.8Ghz P4 + Sony 20" LCD would cost less and be a more capable platform, but has the following tradeoffs: 1) A lot noisier 2) Windows XP is a lot crappier than OS X But hardware-wise, Apple isn't really competing well at the ~$1500 pricepoint. Not well at all. Steve wrote: >But hardware-wise, Apple isn't really competing well at the ~$1500 >pricepoint. Not well at all. Are dual-core G5's due next month? Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go a long way towards reducing or even eliminating the speed discrepency. I think we'll have to wait for Cell-based Macs to pull completely ahead, however, assuming that the raw numbers we've seen for Cell benchmarks translate into MacOS X app-speed reasonably well. >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go a >long way towards reducing or even eliminating the speed discrepency. yes and no. The real issue is that there is no direct analog for a barebones ~2.0Ghz AMD64 box. For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with a slowed-down FSB only 2/3rds the performance of the G5 towers. This doesn't make the decisio to get an iMac any more compelling to educated buyers. Plus the 5600U blows chunks. Basically the iMac would have been an awesome machine at its pricepoint 2 years ago, but now, meh. Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 pricepoint) consumer machine.... PCIe 6600GT or better, full-speed FSB, dual-layer DVDR. I'm sitting on a 20% developer discount and can't see anything worth buying. Sad. > >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm sitting on a 20% developer discount and can't see anything worth > buying. Sad. Apple has always had a tradition of crippling the low-end for the sake of the high-end. The lack of L2 cache in the 60/66Mhz PPC601's slowed them WAAAY down compared to an 80Mhz PPC with L2 cache, for instance, and let's not talk about the Performa line and the 16 bit databus that was available for a while with the 68030s. Part of the problem is that for non-64-bit (register) software, G5 Macs aren't all that much faster than G4's at the same clock speed, and are probably more expensive to make due to the cooling issues. Until you can get a way for Apple to provid non-crippled low-end hardware that doesn't compete with the potential high-end, (the slower FSB on the consumer G5's as a for instance), they will continue to have this problem. Dual core G5's would be a good start. Dual-core in all the current G5 offerings, and dual-CPU dual-core G5's for the pro-line, would be a start. You could go with a single high speed FSB design, I would think, and be competetive, speedwise, all the way down the line until you reach the Mini. And if the Mini were to be given a cooler G5 with a full-speed FSB sometime soon, it would compete pretty well, also. My *hope* is that pro-line dual-core G5's will be announced at the WWDC, but we'll see... >Apple has always had a tradition of crippling the low-end for the sake of >the high-end. This strategy is not working... http://pegasus3d.com/macsales9904.gif >From the chart it's clear the G5s have been a dud, not selling more than the old G4s. > >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yes and no. The real issue is that there is no direct analog for a > barebones ~2.0Ghz AMD64 box. Sure there is. The Mini. > For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with a > slowed-down FSB only 2/3rds the performance of the G5 towers. This Once again, you have a stange concept of 'crippled'. The FSB isn't limiting much of anything that the average iMac user is going to do. > doesn't make the decisio to get an iMac any more compelling to educated > buyers. Plus the 5600U blows chunks. Basically the iMac would have been > an awesome machine at its pricepoint 2 years ago, but now, meh. Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to have any noticeable impact. > Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple > needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 > pricepoint) consumer machine.... PCIe 6600GT or better, full-speed FSB, > dual-layer DVDR. And go right out of business. Nice move. > I'm sitting on a 20% developer discount and can't see anything worth > buying. Sad. That's funny - lots of people are seeing plenty worth buying. Apple's CPU sales jumped 43% last quarter. >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure there is. The Mini. The Mini isn't 64-bit. >> For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with a >> slowed-down FSB only 2/3rds the performance of the G5 towers. This [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to > have any noticeable impact. Depends on what they want to do, of course... >> Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple >> needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's funny - lots of people are seeing plenty worth buying. Apple's > CPU sales jumped 43% last quarter. > >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The Mini isn't 64-bit. How many people buying an entry level, barebones system NEED 64 bit? > >> For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with a > >> slowed-down FSB only 2/3rds the performance of the G5 towers. This [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Depends on what they want to do, of course... We're talking entry level users. > >> Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple > >> needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's funny - lots of people are seeing plenty worth buying. Apple's > > CPU sales jumped 43% last quarter. >>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > We're talking entry level users. By that logic, why not just offer them an 8600, charge, 2000 $ for it with a 604 and reinstall OS9. Nicolas >>>>Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple >>>>needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>That's funny - lots of people are seeing plenty worth buying. Apple's >>>CPU sales jumped 43% last quarter. > >>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > By that logic, why not just offer them an 8600, charge, 2000 $ for it > with a 604 and reinstall OS9. Presumably because the Mini is much, much better and 1/4 the price that you're suggesting that they offer. Not to mention, of course, that Apple has no desire to support Mac OS 9 any more. > Nicolas I see you still haven't learned to use a newsreader. >> >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >> >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How many people buying an entry level, barebones system NEED 64 bit? You'd be surprised. The 64-bit registers of the G5 are quite important in the computer graphics arena, and since an entry-level system on the Intel side can allow speedy graphics to be performed, you'd want the same for the Mac side, if possible. >> > Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a >> > computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We're talking entry level users. Entry-level users play games and 64-bit /128-bit calculations are very useful for graphics and probably other stuff as well. Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that they aren't losing marketshare, IMHO. >>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > side can allow speedy graphics to be performed, you'd want the same for the > Mac side, if possible. Ragosta reminds me of Gates when he said that we would never need more than 512K foe a HD or that he just couldn't envisage it. Whether consumers need it or not is irrelevant IMO. One things *is* for sure. They will buy it if they perceive that it gives them better value, i.e. better performance and future proofs them. >>>>Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a >>>>computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that they > aren't losing marketshare, IMHO. Apple relies more heavily on its religious-like following than it does on anything else. The minority of people who have had trouble with their PCs will also be looking for an alternative, pay the Apple tax and then spend their time trying to justify it and convince themselves that they made the right choice. Then they proceed to become evangelists and the really rabid ones, turn out to be Ragostas. Nicolas > >>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Ragosta reminds me of Gates when he said that we would never need more > than 512K foe a HD or that he just couldn't envisage it. Wrong, Nasty. As usual. I didn't say that NO ONE needs 64 bit or would never need it. I said that the entry level computer user doesn't need it today. If you think they do, please explain exactly what they're going to do with a MIni that would benefit from 64 bit. You see, that's how an intelligent person would discuss the topic. You, OTOH, simply call people names. > Whether consumers need it or not is irrelevant IMO. One things *is* for > sure. They will buy it if they perceive that it gives them better value, > i.e. better performance and future proofs them. So you're arguing that lying to customers is the way to gain business. Figures. I really like the 'whether consumers need it or not is irrelevant' part. Let's put pink furry cup holders on the computer, then. > >>>>Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a > >>>>computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > made the right choice. Then they proceed to become evangelists and the > really rabid ones, turn out to be Ragostas. I see you're still incapable of a rational argument. Maybe that magic MP3 damaged your brain, too. And why are you stalking me? > Nicolas And why can't you learn to use a newsreader? > >> >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >> >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > side can allow speedy graphics to be performed, you'd want the same for the > Mac side, if possible. Sorry, I just don't see it on a $500 system with 1 GB max RAM. > >> > Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a > >> > computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Entry-level users play games and 64-bit /128-bit calculations are very > useful for graphics and probably other stuff as well. Give an example of something an entry level user is going to do that requires (or even benefits from) 64 bit. > Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that they > aren't losing marketshare, IMHO. Apple is more competitive now than they've ever been. They've never had a $500 computer, for example. The dual G5/2.5 is clearly competitive with anything out there. >> >> >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >> >> >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Give an example of something an entry level user is going to do that > requires (or even benefits from) 64 bit. 64-bit is more than the address bus. The G5 handles a faster/wider data bus than the G4 and has better benchmarks. Games are something that consumers like to do. The Mini is not a games machine. It's only purpose is to serve as a high-end iPod accessory for Windows users. >> Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that >> they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a $500 computer, for example. The dual G5/2.5 is clearly competitive > with anything out there. Not really. If that were the case, Jobs wouldn't have promised a dual G5 3.0 some time ago. As it is, dual-core x86 CPUs are coming out today, IIRC. Of course, there's signs that Apple will announce dual-core G5's at the WWDC in May and we can but hope. > >> >> >> >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >> >> >> >as the current single and double-processor models we have now [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > like to do. The Mini is not a games machine. It's only purpose is to serve > as a high-end iPod accessory for Windows users. Not true at all. It's an entry level Mac. For that, 64 bit is irrelevant. You've even stated that it's not a games machine. As for '64 bit is more than the address bus', that's true. But you said above that the Mini was not an analog to a 2 GHz AMD64 because it wasn't 64 bit. The only thing you've come up with that it's missing is 64 bit addressing and higher performance. Neither of those is an issue for the target audience. > >> Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that > >> they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > course, there's signs that Apple will announce dual-core G5's at the WWDC in > May and we can but hope. None of that is relevant in any sense. Apple's top machines are priced and perform comparably to top machines from other vendors in that price range. You can quibble about a few points of performance, but they're clearly in the right ballpark. And when you consider things like malware, they're easily competitive. >>>>>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Not true at all. It's an entry level Mac. For that, 64 bit is > irrelevant. You've even stated that it's not a games machine. So we have the Ragosta on record saying that better performance is not an issue with computers. In the case of Apple, the older the technology, the better. IOW, he's saying that if the mini had better specs, it wouldn't be more successful. How goofy can a person be... > As for '64 bit is more than the address bus', that's true. Sure it is, but it had to be pointed out to you. Do you know *anything* about the Macs you advocate so vociferously? But you said > above that the Mini was not an analog to a 2 GHz AMD64 because it wasn't > 64 bit. The only thing you've come up with that it's missing is 64 bit > addressing and higher performance. Neither of those is an issue for the > target audience. No, he didn't. You misunderstood *again*. Goofy, goofy, goofy... >>>>Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that >>>>they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > None of that is relevant in any sense. Yes it is. Maybe not in your mind, given that you're sold to Macs to the bone. > Apple's top machines are priced and perform comparably to top machines > from other vendors in that price range. You can quibble about a few > points of performance, but they're clearly in the right ballpark. > > And when you consider things like malware, they're easily competitive. Ask your employees about how easy it actually is to protect a PC from malware. You were the one that bought the PCs in the first place. Nicolas > >>>>>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >>>>>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > an issue with computers. In the case of Apple, the older the technology, > the better. I see you're STILL making things up. I said that performance isn't the driving issue for someone buying an entry level computer. That's a true statement - no matter how much you get your panties in a bunch. > IOW, he's saying that if the mini had better specs, it wouldn't be more > successful. > How goofy can a person be... Yep. You are pretty goofy the way you make things up. My position is that the added cost of going from a G4 to a G5 in the mini would not add enough to make more people want to buy it. > > As for '64 bit is more than the address bus', that's true. > > Sure it is, but it had to be pointed out to you. Actually, the example he cited is wrong. The G4 and the G5 both use 128 bit paths to memory. > Do you know *anything* about the Macs you advocate so vociferously? Obviously infinitely more than you. Do you know *anything* about *anything*? > But you said > > above that the Mini was not an analog to a 2 GHz AMD64 because it wasn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, he didn't. You misunderstood *again*. It's right there above. Since you obviously can't read for comprehension, let me show you: > >>>>>>>>yes and no. The real issue is that there is no direct analog for a > >>>>>>>>barebones ~2.0Ghz AMD64 box. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Sure there is. The Mini. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The Mini isn't 64-bit. > Goofy, goofy, goofy... I see you STILL can't use a newsreader properly. Your name is supposed to go at the bottom. > >>>>Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that > >>>>they [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes it is. Maybe not in your mind, given that you're sold to Macs to the > bone. How is the fact that IBM wasn't able to ship 3 GHz G5 chips relevant to the question of whether Apple is competitive or not? A rational person would say 'let's look at Apple's current offerings and compare them to computers from other vendors'. You, OTOH, have to look at vapor instead. > > Apple's top machines are priced and perform comparably to top machines > > from other vendors in that price range. You can quibble about a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ask your employees about how easy it actually is to protect a PC from > malware. I know exactly what it costs. Hint: It's many, many thousands of dollars. > You were the one that bought the PCs in the first place. Nope. Nice try, though. > > > Not true at all. It's an entry level Mac. For that, 64 bit is > > > irrelevant. You've even stated that it's not a games machine. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > entry level computer. That's a true statement - no matter how much you > get your panties in a bunch. The situation with AMD64 is not comparable to that in the PowerPC world. On AMD, 64 bits also gives you 16 general-purpose registers. That's a clear performance win, compared to the 8 registers that Intel processors inherited from their 16-bit predecessor, the 8086. And it comes at no cost in power consumption, either. But PowerPC processors have had 32 GPRs from the very beginning, so there is no general performance improvement to be had, simply by changing to a 64-bit memory model. Sure, 64-bit arithmetic can be a win for specialized applications, like crypto algorithms. But for most purposes, 32-bit code will be faster, simply because data structures will be more compact, and thus use cache more efficiently. As far as games performance goes, if i were going to up the Mini's power budget by 30 watts, i'd spend it on a better graphics card, rather than a G5 processor. -SEan >> > > Not true at all. It's an entry level Mac. For that, 64 bit is >> > > irrelevant. You've even stated that it's not a games machine. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the Mini's power budget by 30 watts, i'd spend it on a > better graphics card, rather than a G5 processor. A very good point. >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> > <1114312398.705233.252710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > addressing and higher performance. Neither of those is an issue for the > target audience. You said that the Mini was a direct analog of the 64-bit AMD machine. The target audience isn't necessarily an issue. >> >> Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that >> >> they [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And when you consider things like malware, they're easily competitive. Not all graphics workstations are on the 'net. > >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> > <1114312398.705233.252710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > You said that the Mini was a direct analog of the 64-bit AMD machine. The > target audience isn't necessarily an issue. Of course it is. The Mini, like the AMD machine you cited, is being sold mostly to entry level customers. > >> >> Apple HAS fallen behind and its only due to the iPod halo effect that > >> >> they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Not all graphics workstations are on the 'net. True. But why would someone who wants a graphics workstation buy the Mini rather than a PowerMac? >>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The Mini isn't 64-bit. And? Do you actually know what the benefits of a 64bit system are? Or are you just thinking that 64 is higher than 32 therefore, 64 must be better? For the average user, 64 bit may well be *slower* than 32 bit, and for a consumer level machine, a 32bit CPU is absolutely fine. 64 bit CPU's come into their own when you need to address multi-gibabytes of memory. >>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > consumer level machine, a 32bit CPU is absolutely fine. 64 bit CPU's come > into their own when you need to address multi-gibabytes of memory. Or when they're doing hardcore video processing, such as is found in many games. The Minis aren't really an "entry level" Mac. They're an iPod accessory. > >>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > >>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Or when they're doing hardcore video processing, such as is found in many > games. Why don't you explain which games currently benefit from a 64 bit processor. And then explain why someone expects an entry level $500 computer to run them at top speed. > The Minis aren't really an "entry level" Mac. They're an iPod accessory. Then how would you explain the people who own Minis, but not iPods? >>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Or when they're doing hardcore video processing, such as is found in many > games. You really have no idea how this stuff works do you... Explain why you think that having a 64bit CPU will help with "hardcore video processing". >>>>>>>Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point >>>>>>>as the current single and double-processor models we have now would [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Explain why you think that having a 64bit CPU will help with "hardcore > video processing". HIgher bandwidth external and internal buses, faster/wider FPU, 64-bit integer arithmetic, etc. Minor things like that. > > >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > > >as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure there is. The Mini. Nah, for fun I priced out a decent 2.0Ghz rig tonight. $1300 for: Nice, top of the line nForce4 Ultra MB ($200), nice black aluminum case + 480W PS, XP Pro 2x512MB CAS2 PC-3200 RAM, 250GB SATA HD, Pioneer A109, 6600GT video. The mini is in no way in this box's class. But that's not a bad thing. > > For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with a > > slowed-down FSB only 2/3rds the performance of the G5 towers. This > > Once again, you have a stange concept of 'crippled'. The FSB isn't > limiting much of anything that the average iMac user is going to do. Actually it is, since the G5 has no L3 cache. Slowing the bus down effects nearly everything. > > doesn't make the decisio to get an iMac any more compelling to educated > > buyers. Plus the 5600U blows chunks. Basically the iMac would have been > > an awesome machine at its pricepoint 2 years ago, but now, meh. > > Sorry, 'educated users' are going to see what they want to do with a > computer and decide on that basis. The FSB on the iMac isn't going to > have any noticeable impact. Just sayin' it's a negative not a positive. > > Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. Apple > > needs to pull the thumb out and release a no-compromise (for the ~$1500 > > pricepoint) consumer machine.... PCIe 6600GT or better, full-speed FSB, > > dual-layer DVDR. > > And go right out of business. Nice move. I think Apple can bring this to market for $1500. It's not like they're selling that many towers anyway, 4Q04's unit sales were down 20% year on year, and this graph: http://pegasus3d.com/macsales9904.gif shows the towers aren't really doing much for the platform. Apple's average system sale is $1500, too. I think Apple should be able to hit the $1500 pricepoint, if it can't, it should look into abandoning PPC or finding somebody who can design its hardware more competently. > > I'm sitting on a 20% developer discount and can't see anything worth > > buying. Sad. > > That's funny - lots of people are seeing plenty worth buying. Apple's > CPU sales jumped 43% last quarter. year-on-year from a particularly sucky quarter. 1H05 came in at 88% of 1H00. Good, but looking at that gif above tells a story, namely the towers aren't setting the world on fire. > > > >Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > > > >as the current single and double-processor models we have now [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The mini is in no way in this box's class. But that's not a bad thing. Of course not. That machine doesn't run OS X. > > > For some reason Apple is crippling their single-CPU offerings with > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually it is, since the G5 has no L3 cache. Slowing the bus down > effects nearly everything. Trivially. For the things that most people do with their computers, the difference between a 600 and 900 MHz bus is completely insignificant. > > > doesn't make the decisio to get an iMac any more compelling to > educated [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just sayin' it's a negative not a positive. How is something that no one will even notice a negative? > > > Same thing with the mini, really. Might be too little too late. > Apple [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > abandoning PPC or finding somebody who can design its hardware more > competently. Apple has a bunch of computers below $1500. Are you deliberately misrepresenting or have you just not checked their web site for months? > > > I'm sitting on a 20% developer discount and can't see anything > worth [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1H00. Good, but looking at that gif above tells a story, namely the > towers aren't setting the world on fire. The last quarter was the best quarter they've had for years. Leave it to you to drag out ancient history to try to make them look bad. > Are dual-core G5's due next month? Dual-core G5 Macs at the same price-point > as the current single and double-processor models we have now would go a > long way towards reducing or even eliminating the speed discrepency. Hmm.. I wonder.. Would a dual-core behave essentially the same as two single-core processors? Would all software be able to take advantage of the dual-core or would it have to be specifically written/compiled to do so?  SignatureC Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund >Would all software be able to take advantage >of the dual-core or would it have to be specifically written/compiled >to do so? performance-sensitive apps are already multiprocessing enabled by design, since Apple has been shipping dualies for several years now. To see a win on a dualie the programmer must break the work into work units and feed them off to available execution units as they become available. This is why the Cell is so f.cking cool. It's like a V6 for this stuff, while the current G5s are like a two-cylinder and Intel's hyperthreading is a V 1.5. Dualies are also good when programmers DON'T break up the work sets, in that the system won't grind to a halt when one process starts wanting to hog a CPU (a good thread scheduler (the part of the kernel that determines which blocked/suspended process will get the next CPU timeslice) will prevent the system from bogging down too, at the cost of getting the work done... it's a tradeoff). > To see a win on a dualie the programmer must break the work into work > units and feed them off to available execution units as they become [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > timeslice) will prevent the system from bogging down too, at the cost > of getting the work done... it's a tradeoff). This techno dribble belongs on a Win list. We speak Mac on this list! > > Dualies are also good when programmers DON'T break up the work sets, in > > that the system won't grind to a halt when one process starts wanting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This techno dribble belongs on a Win list. We speak Mac on this list! No, this is real stuff which is interesting. If you want to see it on a mac newsgroup, go and read comp.sys.mac.programmer.* Sorry, but the "techno-dribble" is what makes the computer work inside. Dale Signaturedstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au > >Would all software be able to take advantage > >of the dual-core or would it have to be specifically written/compiled > >to do so? > To see a win on a dualie the programmer must break the work into work > units and feed them off to available execution units as they become > available. So the programmer still has to design his/her apps to take advantage of this. Well, I didn't really expect anything else. > This is why the Cell is so f.cking cool. It's like a V6 for this stuff, > while the current G5s are like a two-cylinder and Intel's > hyperthreading is a V 1.5. So, do you think Apple with go with multicore G5s or Cells? ;) Either way, I hope the rumoured specs that were leaked a week or so ago aren't correct. Those seemed like placeholder machines rather than a "real" upgrade. SignatureC Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund > > >Would all software be able to take advantage > > >of the dual-core or would it have to be specifically written/compiled [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So the programmer still has to design his/her apps to take advantage > of this. Well, I didn't really expect anything else. But, as you may recall from the recent thread about a crash in Preview, the stack trace showed that the Preview application has two threads. This shows that it has been designed to take advantage of two CPUs. I suspect that many other OSX apps are also designed in this way. The Cocoa framework makes it fairly easy to write multithreaded apps. -SEan >The Cocoa framework makes it fairly easy to write multithreaded apps. Well, not really. The GUI is only single-threaded, and IME NT4/Win2K had a stronger quasi-object-oriented asynchronous I/O API. It was really industrial strength, wrapping the BSD functionality (they borrowed the core code from BSD) in a more sane and usable C API. AppKit is kinda wimpy at this level, IME. After all, NeXT was only single-CPU until it took over Apple. > >The Cocoa framework makes it fairly easy to write multithreaded apps. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AppKit is kinda wimpy at this level, IME. After all, NeXT was only > single-CPU until it took over Apple. I've never done GUI coding on Win32, so i don't have a basis to compare. But i'll take your word for it. -SEan >> >The Cocoa framework makes it fairly easy to write multithreaded apps. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've never done GUI coding on Win32, so i don't have > a basis to compare. But i'll take your word for it. The GUI may be single-threaded, but each Cocoa app already gets two threads, I thought --one for the GUI and oen for the other stuff... > > Are dual-core G5's due next month? Dual-core G5 Macs at the same > > price-point [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the dual-core or would it have to be specifically written/compiled > to do so? There was a recent comparison (I didn't save it, so don't have the URL) that said that the AMD dual core was slightly faster than two comparable AMD single core processors. Their argument was faster communication between the chips. I don't know if that applies here or not. As for the rest, any multithreaded app will benefit, but (of course) the better the app is written and the more suitable it is for MP, the better. Graphics apps gain 50-90% on dual processor Macs, so a similar level of performance gain would be reasonable. You also get some gain if you're running multiple CPU intensive apps at the same time. Finally, I believe OS X is multithreaded in several key areas, so there's going to be some gain there. >>>Are dual-core G5's due next month? Dual-core G5 Macs at the same >>>price-point [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > believe OS X is multithreaded in several key areas, so there's going to > be some gain there. Spare us the platitudes, Ragosta. Your knowledge, compared to immoutahere as it pertains to computers and programming, is marginal, to say the least. Nicolas > >>>Are dual-core G5's due next month? Dual-core G5 Macs at the same > >>>price-point [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Nicolas At least I know how to use a newsreader. And I notice that you can't refute anything I said. Instead, you just do your usual namecalling. Please stop stalking me. > Spare us the platitudes, Ragosta. Your knowledge, compared to > immoutahere as it pertains to computers and programming, is marginal, to > say the least. So how do you think you look when compared to immoutahere? > Nicolas SignatureC Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund >>Ok, I know it's the age old question, but how does a current 1.6GHz > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, So it isn't...always functioning properly, it's the luck of the draw. LOL. if you > don't already have an LCD screen the built-in LCD is OK, Another huge "if"... the iMac will > be more than fast enough for nearly everything you throw at it, except: > > 1) Cutting edge games like Halflife 2, Doom3, etc. So it's useless for games. > 2) Heavyduty (pro) media creation like Maya, movie, and sound tools. Agreed. > I have a 2.6Ghz P4 on my desk but still use my 800Mhz PBG4 for nearly > all tasks, since 99% of my work runs fine on 800Mhz (and OS X keeps > getting better and better, 10.4 is *much* better than the 10.1 this > machine first had installed). I paid for that beta release also. Darn. > BUT... I find the iMac to be fatally flawed, really. For one, the 17" > LCD is really only worth $150 tops, since it is a widescreen format > that is inherently less useful unless you are just watching DVDs all > day. Making it even less useful. > For the money, a 2.8Ghz P4 + Sony 20" LCD would cost less and be a more > capable platform, but has the following tradeoffs: > > 1) A lot noisier > 2) Windows XP is a lot crappier than OS X We all have our subjective views. > But hardware-wise, Apple isn't really competing well at the ~$1500 > pricepoint. Not well at all. Nope. Nicolas > > The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, > > So it isn't...always functioning properly, it's the luck of the draw. > LOL. So Apple isn't perfect, especially with new products. Slag away. > > if you > > don't already have an LCD screen the built-in LCD is OK, > > Another huge "if"... Gee, you're your usual font of positivity this morning, LOL. Obviously the iMac is for people who don't already have an LCD display, especially now that the mini is out. > the iMac will > > be more than fast enough for nearly everything you throw at it, except: > > > > 1) Cutting edge games like Halflife 2, Doom3, etc. > > So it's useless for games. Not at all. The 5600U is a middling 2003 part. It will play eg. WoW fine (and Quake3, and any other game shipped in 2003 or earlier for that matter). The bleeding edge gamers aren't buying Macs anyway so this is highly irrelevant -- Mac game programmers have to adjust their designs to match the hardware spec; few if any Mac games other than Doom3 will not be playable on a iMac. Now, the Mac itself is relatively useless for (new, bleeding edge) games, but eventually the market will pick up on the fact that there is demand for games and the situation will improve. > > 2) Heavyduty (pro) media creation like Maya, movie, and sound tools. > > Agreed. Well, the G5 is probably fine for any iApp you can throw at it, or Photoshop for that matter. I had no problems with Photoshop on the machine, and the 16:9 aspect was quite good for the tool palettes. There's a lot of penis measuring going on with specs and stuff, but the bottom line is for most uses a 1.6Ghz G5 (or similar speed Pentium-M) is quite fast enough for most pro work. It's only the heavy duty stuff that gets bogged down, and if you're doing heavy duty workstation stuff you really should get a heavy duty workstation, not an iMac. > > I have a 2.6Ghz P4 on my desk but still use my 800Mhz PBG4 for nearly > > all tasks, since 99% of my work runs fine on 800Mhz (and OS X keeps > > getting better and better, 10.4 is *much* better than the 10.1 this > > machine first had installed). > > I paid for that beta release also. Darn. Uhuh. 10.1 was free for 10.0 owners, and came out ~6 months after 10.0. 10.1 was no beta, tho all software is shipped in an unfinished state. It's impossible to fully develop and optimize a SKU -- nothing would ever be shipped. > > BUT... I find the iMac to be fatally flawed, really. For one, the 17" > > LCD is really only worth $150 tops, since it is a widescreen format > > that is inherently less useful unless you are just watching DVDs all > > day. > > Making it even less useful. Sure, for vertically-oriented apps like web browsing and page layout. That's why I listed it. Sony has a nice $700 1600x1200 20.1" LCD that is a much better investment than the G5... for one it is reusable, while the iMac's display is stuck in it. > > For the money, a 2.8Ghz P4 + Sony 20" LCD would cost less and be a more > > capable platform, but has the following tradeoffs: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We all have our subjective views. I thought fundies were against relativism now. See, your problem, as a rather militant Windows apologist, is dealing with the fact that 10.4 is substantially what Micorsoft has promised to deliver with Longhorn (improving over XP), a large laundry list of features like: 1) New graphics stack with backing window store and hardware accelerated window compositing. 2) More bullet proof driver architecture 3) .net managed code 4) Metadata / databased filesystem (oops, that's been postponed) 5) More secure against malware 6) Aero Glass, a new UI/UE similar go Aqua. 7) Oh, everything is going to "Just Work" now LOL There's nothing I can think of about the UE of my XP box that is superior to, or hell, even matches, 10.4. Boot UE? XP's sucks. XP's sleep behavior? It's broken. File Navigation? OS X's Expose, spotlight, dashboard and other new stuff in 10.4 totally outclass XP. Font handling? XP is weak about my Japanese-language stuff. Looks like crap, really. System configuration & Info? OS X has a very nicely formatted and elegant UE for this. XP is all over the place, betraying its mid-90s NT and Win9x roots. Asserting these issues are "subjective" is like claiming opinions can vary about the smell of dogshit. If you think XP is comparable to 10.4 in these above issues you're simply f.cked in the head. Now, issues about the dock vs. Window's tray and task bar are more subjective. Both have their strengths and some people who have a clue (unlike you) aren't big fans of the dock still. It works well for me, but there are other dock replacements that arguably work better. > > But hardware-wise, Apple isn't really competing well at the ~$1500 > > pricepoint. Not well at all. > > Nope. Well, Apple is a smart company, they'll figure out how to balance their offerings better. Clearly the pro towers aren't cutting the mustard. >>>The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, >> >>So it isn't...always functioning properly, it's the luck of the draw. >>LOL. > > So Apple isn't perfect, especially with new products. Slag away. You said it, not I. >>> if you >>>don't already have an LCD screen the built-in LCD is OK, >> >>Another huge "if"... > > Gee, you're your usual font of positivity this morning, LOL. I'm a realist. > Obviously the iMac is for people who don't already have an LCD display, > especially now that the mini is out. According to you, it's still the luck of the draw to get one that functions properly. Hey dude, you're the one that mentioned it, not I. You can always retract your statement. >> the iMac will >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > games, but eventually the market will pick up on the fact that there is > demand for games and the situation will improve. Apple *must* get off its laurels and make the Mac more of a gaming platform as Jobs once promised a few years ago, even port the games itself if it has too, . The way I see it, they have effectively abandoned this aspect, in spite of the promises. >>>2) Heavyduty (pro) media creation like Maya, movie, and sound > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, the G5 is probably fine for any iApp you can throw at it, I certainly hope so. They are simple applications, why wouldn't it? or > Photoshop for that matter. I had no problems with Photoshop on the > machine, and the 16:9 aspect was quite good for the tool palettes. Well, duh. > There's a lot of penis measuring going on with specs and stuff, but the > bottom line is for most uses a 1.6Ghz G5 (or similar speed Pentium-M) > is quite fast enough for most pro work. There you go. > It's only the heavy duty stuff that gets bogged down, and if you're > doing heavy duty workstation stuff you really should get a heavy duty > workstation, not an iMac. Sure. With XP, you can get the best of *all* worlds. A kick-a.s pro workstation, a gaming machine and a media tool for 3d and movie stuff. Think 3dsm, maya, avid etc. >>>I have a 2.6Ghz P4 on my desk but still use my 800Mhz PBG4 for > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>getting better and better, 10.4 is *much* better than the 10.1 this >>>machine first had installed). So are you telling me you can't point and click on an XP machine to get work done, or do you think it makes that much of a difference which OS you're using once in the pro application? Utter and complete horse hockey. >>I paid for that beta release also. Darn. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's impossible to fully develop and optimize a SKU -- nothing would > ever be shipped. What are you babbling about? They could have waited another year.It certainly would not have prevented Apple from doing any better, given the years it took for users for users to migrate from OS9 to OSX. >>>BUT... I find the iMac to be fatally flawed, really. For one, the > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I thought fundies were against relativism now. You're funny. > See, your problem, as a rather militant Windows apologist, is dealing > with the fact that 10.4 is substantially what Micorsoft has promised to > deliver with Longhorn (improving over XP), a large laundry list of > features like: Actually, I consider myself to be more of an anti Mac-zealot guerrilla than a Windows apologist. > 1) New graphics stack with backing window store and hardware > accelerated window compositing. How does this make a difference when you're in PS or 3dsm? > 2) More bullet proof driver architecture What? Now drivers in XP are not as...bullet-proof as in OSX? > 3) .net managed code You're so right on the button here. Everybody should go buy Macs, like, right *now*! > 4) Metadata / databased filesystem (oops, that's been postponed) Sure it has. They want to get it right instead of jeopardizing backwards compatibility. This is the dominant platform we're talking about here. Any change in the OS that can break it, will spell disaster for corporations to government. And what's the hurry to innovate on something that already works well? This is a stupid, blatant and mindless desire for innovation and nouveaute for the sake of innovation. > 5) More secure against malware XP is already secure, given certain easy precautions. > 6) Aero Glass, a new UI/UE similar go Aqua. Sure, go ahead, make the UI slower and more sluggish with eye-candy. > 7) Oh, everything is going to "Just Work" now LOL Has it ever occurred to you that everything *does* just work in XP, that's why it's the dominant platform? Just as everything just works with the iPod, hence it's tremendous market dominance? > There's nothing I can think of about the UE of my XP box that is > superior to, or hell, even matches, 10.4. I can, but in the end, it will be subjective and biased because many elements are a matter of taste. If you ask me if I would like XP to have as many malware threats as the MacOS, I'd be crazy to say no, but given how incredibly easy it is to immunize a PC, it's a non-issue from where I stand. In the end, unless there is a substantial paradigm shift in the way we interact with computers, the GUI from the days of OS7 would have still been adequate today, as we speak. The rest is either eye candy, or bait or intelligent marketing, promoting false needs. Get over it. > Boot UE? XP's sucks. > XP's sleep behavior? It's broken. Never put my comp to sleep. And for the longest time, sleep was broken in the MacOS, so spare me. Only recently have they got it right. > File Navigation? OS X's Expose, spotlight, dashboard and other new > stuff in 10.4 totally outclass XP. Expose is great, spotlight is alright, but most users would be happy with a simple file search function offered in W98 and OS9. This is not revolutionary, but it is very useful. As for Dashboard, they screwed yet another mac developer-the makers of Konfabulator-, and I don't find it useful, given that you need to use a keyboard shortcut to access it, adding more complexity. > Font handling? XP is weak about my Japanese-language stuff. Looks like > crap, really. I know nothing about this but it seems it's something proper to your use of a computer and not something that would tip the balance for but a few users. > System configuration & Info? OS X has a very nicely formatted and > elegant UE for this. XP is all over the place, betraying its mid-90s NT > and Win9x roots. More general, non specific techno-babble. You sound like a politician. > Asserting these issues are "subjective" is like claiming opinions can > vary about the smell of dogshit. From where I stand, the Maccies are still sniffing dogshit from the 90s. It's getting pretty stale. > If you think XP is comparable to 10.4 in these above issues you're > simply f.cked in the head. Tell that to the gazillions of people using XP and loving it. > Now, issues about the dock vs. Window's tray and task bar are more > subjective. No, the fact that for example, applications/files/folders are wider in the taskbar than in the Dock, makes licking them a lot easier. Being able to minimize/maximize from the top of the Window is great, being able to create aliases n the desktop by r-clicking-dragging, Instead of c-o-l-click in the MacOS) makes for being more productive. Both have their strengths and some people who have a clue > (unlike you) aren't big fans of the dock still. It works well for me, > but there are other dock replacements that arguably work better. Ad homs betray the fact that you feel threatened by my opinions. Why is that? Do you think you're doing yourself and your credibility ( I think you have plenty) a favor by expressing yourself in this manner? Tsk. Tsk. >>>But hardware-wise, Apple isn't really competing well at the ~$1500 >>>pricepoint. Not well at all. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > offerings better. > Clearly the pro towers aren't cutting the mustard. You bet they are. They're milking the faithful and using halo effects to attract users and takers. Now if they could stop hobbling the low-middle end and offer something cool at the 1500$ price point. Nicolas > >>>The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You said it, not I. I haven't just been saying it in csma these years, I've experienced it. Nobody's perfect, but Wintel isn't even in the same ballpark as Apple. Apple rushes stuff to market, unlike in the 1980s when it would sit on something for years. The cycle is tight, and with their designs they tend to push the envelop, especially with thermal issues. > >>> if you > >>>don't already have an LCD screen the built-in LCD is OK, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm a realist. You're a loon. > > Obviously the iMac is for people who don't already have an LCD display, > > especially now that the mini is out. > > According to you, it's still the luck of the draw to get one that > functions properly. Hey dude, you're the one that mentioned it, not I. > You can always retract your statement. Every hardware product is the luck of the draw. The first batches of iMacs had a significant number of noise issues, including the one I got. I promptly returned it to amazon since I didn't want to f.ck with a dodgy product (and found the iMac to not be that much faster than my existing setup). I fully expect Apple has figured out a fix for this. It's not like they aren't busting their balls on their products. Give them some credit. Oh, I forgot, you're a f.cking realist. > > Now, the Mac itself is relatively useless for (new, bleeding edge) > > games, but eventually the market will pick up on the fact that there is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > itself if it has too, . The way I see it, they have effectively > abandoned this aspect, in spite of the promises. I can agree with this, especially the porting stuff. Microsoft is playing a good game against Apple here, and Apple's been standing around with its thumb up its bum these years. But, this platform strategy stuff is tricky, and executives have to balance risk v. reward. It's unclear what the return is for Apple going for gamers more... Wintel has completely sealed this segment, for Apple to compete it'd have to get more mainstream with Sony, Nintendo, and/or Xbox2 (which are all PPC boxes oddly). > > Well, the G5 is probably fine for any iApp you can throw at it, > > I certainly hope so. They are simple applications, why wouldn't it? Garage Band is pretty complex. Same with iDVD and iMovie HD. Never used iPhoto tho. > > It's only the heavy duty stuff that gets bogged down, and if you're > > doing heavy duty workstation stuff you really should get a heavy duty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > workstation, a gaming machine and a media tool for 3d and movie stuff. > Think 3dsm, maya, avid etc. All that is more a property of Intel/AMD and not XP. XP is the weak part of that particular chain, aside from DirectX which is ahead of Apple still. > So are you telling me you can't point and click on an XP machine to get > work done, or do you think it makes that much of a difference which OS > you're using once in the pro application? > Utter and complete horse hockey. Usability rears its head in a myriad of ways. Did the important DVD burn you were doing for a client coaster on you? Hell, in the mid-90s we were running SOFTIMAGE on NT3.5 boxes. Our poor artists lost WEEKS of work over the life of that project due to the apps crapping out (SOFTIMAGE was a UNIX app ported to NT after MS bought the company so not incredibly stable). But aside from color control issues there's not much of difference between XP and OS X. If I were heavily into Maya I'd run an XP rig not a dual G5 since Maya is faster and better supported on Wintel. > >>I paid for that beta release also. Darn. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What are you babbling about? They could have waited another year.It > certainly would not have prevented Apple from doing any better, given > the years it took for users for users to migrate from OS9 to OSX. No, everyone involved wanted the damn thing to ship already (I was there...) so the company could move onto the next point release. Software has cycles, and its very dangerous not to be in a defined ship mode... Micorsoft has mastered this process quite well, cf Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, or NT3, 4, Win2k. > > See, your problem, as a rather militant Windows apologist, is dealing > > with the fact that 10.4 is substantially what Micorsoft has promised to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, I consider myself to be more of an anti Mac-zealot guerrilla > than a Windows apologist. Whatever. Both platforms have their weaknesses, tho I've never seen you deal with XP's weaknesses honestly. > > 1) New graphics stack with backing window store and hardware > > accelerated window compositing. > > How does this make a difference when you're in PS or 3dsm? PS -- things won't flicker when you expose windows, switch out to check mail, etc. For fullscreen apps, OS X has a pretty good fullscreen switcher functionaly, more nicely polished and usable than XP's. It's not necessary, no. But it's nice. Kinda like real leather vs. fake sh.t. > > 2) More bullet proof driver architecture > > What? Now drivers in XP are not as...bullet-proof as in OSX? I guess this one is debatable. Allchin has said that LH will have more robust driver model. I do know for a fact that Avie was pretty hardassed about OS X's driver model to not cascade fatal errors. NT's graphics stack was compromised with NT4 in the name of speed (moving putting graphics out of ring zero and more into userland where it could get screwed up more easily). Win2k and XP have inherited this design decision. Just today I found that for my Canterwood box USB is crapping out when I try to wake from S3 sleep. XP has a documented hack that overrides the BIOS setting to keep the machine out of this failure state... Sleep/wake is an enormous PITA from the driver standpoint and from my experience Apple has always been years ahead of Wintel in this area. > > 3) .net managed code > > You're so right on the button here. Everybody should go buy Macs, like, > right *now*! Well, they should if they are a developer... > > 4) Metadata / databased filesystem (oops, that's been postponed) > > Sure it has. They want to get it right instead of jeopardizing backwards > compatibility. This is the dominant platform we're talking about here. > Any change in the OS that can break it, will spell disaster for > corporations to government. Yup. Sucks to be on such a glacially moving platform. XP doesn't give me anything OS X hasn't had for years now. > And what's the hurry to innovate on something that already works well? > This is a stupid, blatant and mindless desire for innovation and > nouveaute for the sake of innovation. I rather like it, instant search is quite cool and has been something I wanted from BeOS days. OS 9's Sherlock wasn't quite good enough, though the google desktop is a pretty nifty sub. > > 5) More secure against malware > > XP is already secure, given certain easy precautions. 100% secure? Macs are in a free love heaven, while XP is stuck in mid 80's virus paranoia. It's nice not being on the same ISA as the dominant platform, and of course Windows still has security holes for the bad guys to find (as does OS X no doubt, but with UNIX backing up OS X the only way for malware to really screw me over will be if I type in my admin password for an installer, something I just don't do). > > 6) Aero Glass, a new UI/UE similar go Aqua. > > Sure, go ahead, make the UI slower and more sluggish with eye-candy. It's a tradeoff. I prefer 10.4 to 9. The only thing that is slower is window resizing (scrolling is fine), and with 10.x we get MUCH better window dragging and uncovering behavior, not to mention transparency and drop shadows. Drop shadows are very nice and a worth the resize penalty alone. > > 7) Oh, everything is going to "Just Work" now LOL > > Has it ever occurred to you that everything *does* just work in XP, > that's why it's the dominant platform? WAAAAY to simplistic, ignoring possible contingencies like previous monopolies. Allchin just got finished listing some weak areas here, and you're busy disavowing the very words he said. Such a idiotic troll. > Just as everything just works > with the iPod, hence it's tremendous market dominance? iPod came out of nowhere, leveraging no previous contingencies. > > There's nothing I can think of about the UE of my XP box that is > > superior to, or hell, even matches, 10.4. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you ask me if I would like XP to have as many malware threats as the > MacOS, I'd be crazy to say no, but given how incredibly easy it is to > immunize a PC, it's a non-issue from where I stand. > In the end, unless there is a substantial paradigm shift in the way we > interact with computers, the GUI from the days of OS7 would have still > been adequate today, as we speak. The rest is either eye candy, or bait > or intelligent marketing, promoting false needs. > Get over it. Nah. Backing store is awesome, for the programmer and for the user. Drop shadows are a very welcome advance. The transparency of the volume control bezels was executed perfectly. Sure opaque would work too, but I value some degree of aesthetics, and not all aesthetics are ubjective. Taste is taste. The nice thing about 10.x is that it is very close to how I like to work. The F9 & F10 Expose window controls add a useful dimension, the ability to step back from the window stack and find something more easily. > > Boot UE? XP's sucks. > > XP's sleep behavior? It's broken. > > Never put my comp to sleep. And for the longest time, sleep was broken > in the MacOS, so spare me. Only recently have they got it right. huh? sleep has worked better on Macs than Windows since forever. > > File Navigation? OS X's Expose, spotlight, dashboard and other new > > stuff in 10.4 totally outclass XP. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > useful, given that you need to use a keyboard shortcut to access it, > adding more complexity. Agreed that it is pretty wonky and of unknown utility. We'll see how it progresses. > > Asserting these issues are "subjective" is like claiming opinions can > > vary about the smell of dogshit. > > From where I stand, the Maccies are still sniffing dogshit from the > 90s. It's getting pretty stale. LOL. A full year ahead of Micorsoft is pretty stale. Uhuh. > > If you think XP is comparable to 10.4 in these above issues you're > > simply f.cked in the head. > > Tell that to the gazillions of people using XP and loving it. Dubious assertion. These same people were "loving" Windows 3 too I bet. ::rolls eyes:: > > Now, issues about the dock vs. Window's tray and task bar are more > > subjective. > > No, the fact that for example, applications/files/folders are wider in > the taskbar than in the Dock, makes licking them a lot easier. ? My stuff is easy enough to hit in the dock. > Being > able to minimize/maximize from the top of the Window is great, being > able to create aliases n the desktop by r-clicking-dragging, Instead of > c-o-l-click in the MacOS) makes for being more productive. Sure, but I have yet to create an alias in OS X. When I do, I'll be sure to curse Apple for the lost 0.2second of my life. > Both have their strengths and some people who have a clue > > (unlike you) aren't big fans of the dock still. It works well for me, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that? Do you think you're doing yourself and your credibility ( I think > you have plenty) a favor by expressing yourself in this manner? I am annoyed by your manifest idiocies about slagging macs at every turn while ignoring the much more screwed up Windows issues. OS X has loads of issues left to resolve. It is far from perfect, and so is the company. Micorsoft, on the other hand, is on another dimension of both crappiness and moral hazard, given their past history of vigororously defending their monopoly position against all comers. If Micorsoft were actually responsible for moving the state of the art forward significantly, like the work Jobs has done with Lisa, Mac, and NeXT, I'd feel differently about MS. I value Apple's contributions to being a viable alternative to pure Micorsoft hegemony; I'll root for any challenger to Micorsoft; indeed if Sony were to break open its PS3 platform as a challenge to the Wintel desktop I'd be all over it, like I was with BeOS ~10 years ago. Your pure boosterism of a McDonald's or Walmart-quality business entity like Micorsoft is simply tiresome. Micorsoft is not a purveyor of quality, they have no taste, and they've done more damage to the industry than benefit. > Now if they could stop hobbling the low-middle end and offer something > cool at the 1500$ price point. Here's hoping! >>>>>The iMac is (unless you get a bum unit...) much, much quieter, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > But, this platform strategy stuff is tricky, and executives have to > balance risk v. reward. I think it's simpler than this. Either Steeve wants to do it, or he doesn't. The rest ensues. It's unclear what the return is for Apple going > for gamers more... Wintel has completely sealed this segment, for Apple > to compete it'd have to get more mainstream with Sony, Nintendo, and/or > Xbox2 (which are all PPC boxes oddly). And, why doesn't it? Don't they have the resources? >>>Well, the G5 is probably fine for any iApp you can throw at it, >> >>I certainly hope so. They are simple applications, why wouldn't it? > > Garage Band is pretty complex. Same with iDVD and iMovie HD. Never used > iPhoto tho. No, garageband is simple, compared to other audio apps. Much more so. >>>It's only the heavy duty stuff that gets bogged down, and if you're >>>doing heavy duty workstation stuff you really should get a heavy [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > part of that particular chain, aside from DirectX which is ahead of > Apple still. DirectX. Another *huge* advantage of Wintel over Macs. >>So are you telling me you can't point and click on an XP machine to > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Usability rears its head in a myriad of ways. Did the important DVD > burn you were doing for a client coaster on you? Never happened. I've burned dozens, if not hundreds. > Hell, in the mid-90s we were running SOFTIMAGE on NT3.5 boxes. Our poor > artists lost WEEKS of work over the life of that project due to the > apps crapping out (SOFTIMAGE was a UNIX app ported to NT after MS > bought the company so not incredibly stable). These are not the 90s. What's the point of this statement? > But aside from color control issues there's not much of difference > between XP and OS X. If I were heavily into Maya I'd run an XP rig not > a dual G5 since Maya is faster and better supported on Wintel. Well, well, what do you know? Wintel *is* actually good for something. >>>>I paid for that beta release also. Darn. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > No, everyone involved wanted the damn thing to ship already It still doesn't mean it *had* to ship. Patience has its rewards. There was nothing inherently wrong with OS9, given its niche at the time. people still preferred it over Windows. Another year would not have brought down Apple. Instead, we had a half-baked OS for which we had to fork out more than 100 $. And why not leave the *freaking* Newton alone? (I was > there...) so the company could move onto the next point release. > Software has cycles, and its very dangerous not to be in a defined ship > mode... Micorsoft has mastered this process quite well, cf Windows 1, > 2, 3, 95, or NT3, 4, Win2k. Yes they have. They're not in a position of hegemony because of "contingencies" alone, nor did they consolidate their dominance and crystalize their market share by acting as a monopolist alone. >>>See, your problem, as a rather militant Windows apologist, is > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > promised to Let's not get into what Apple or M$ promised. They both have promised and not delivered. >>>deliver with Longhorn (improving over XP), a large laundry list of >>>features like: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whatever. Both platforms have their weaknesses, tho I've never seen you > deal with XP's weaknesses honestly. The thing that I take issue with is the Mac zealots that still think Windows is stuck in the 90s, with all its shortcomings such as dll hell, registry corruption and the rest. It's simply not true today. It's an ideological blatant lie coming from people with a vested interest in spreading FUD, something they were accusing "Wintrolls" of like it was going out of style. >>>1) New graphics stack with backing window store and hardware >>>accelerated window compositing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > PS -- things won't flicker when you expose windows, switch out to check > mail, etc. Dear G_d, Windows is a freaking mess. The screen flickers for a few ms. > For fullscreen apps, OS X has a pretty good fullscreen switcher > functionaly, more nicely polished and usable than XP's. See above. Why are aesthetics held in such high regard with you people? I just want my box to do what I need it to do. And BTW, I can configure my mail app to not interrupt me while I'm working on a project. Can't seem to get the Keychain to stop popping up though, even when I've done everything I can to vaporise it from my computer. > It's not necessary, no. But it's nice. Kinda like real leather vs. fake > sh.t. That's hardly objective. >>>2) More bullet proof driver architecture >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Well, they should if they are a developer... So because it doesn't satisfy 0.0001% of users, an OS is crap? >>>4) Metadata / databased filesystem (oops, that's been postponed) >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yup. Sucks to be on such a glacially moving platform. XP doesn't give > me anything OS X hasn't had for years now. This comes with the territory. It's explained in another sphere of logic and applies to other companies or industries. it would be the same in the auto industry if they decided to abruptly change the way cars use gas and electricity. It needs to be a slow process, otherwise it has negative effects for the consumer and the economy as a whole. This falls under the general category "change/innovation for the sake of change." And Apple, with all its innovation, has killed off a few really cool devices, that were already working and didn't require too much R&D. In the end, I'd rather use what is trusted and true and works, than laud what is new and fall victim to marketing strategies when in the end, I can still burn a CD or create 3d or burn a DVD be itr in Panther, Tiger, XP or W9x. >>And what's the hurry to innovate on something that already works > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I rather like it, instant search is quite cool and has been something I > wanted from BeOS days. Sure, but is it essential? Are the outcomes any different? In my field, outcomes are paramount. They should be in the computer industry. Wintel has grasped this, Apple is in the position to lead and make M$ appear as the slothy company most Maccies love to imagine it is. OTOH, if the products they make for the Mac are any indication of what goes on in Redmond, they must be doing something right, contrary to foolish zealots such as Ragosta and Graves who've been ruminating the same BS since the early 90s. > OS 9's Sherlock wasn't quite good enough, though the google desktop is > a pretty nifty sub. Yep. >>>5) More secure against malware >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > malware to really screw me over will be if I type in my admin password > for an installer, something I just don't do). OK. >>>6) Aero Glass, a new UI/UE similar go Aqua. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Drop shadows are very nice and a worth the resize penalty alone. Well, if I could turn all that crap off I would. XP gives me the option. WHY doesn't OSX? >>>7) Oh, everything is going to "Just Work" now LOL >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > WAAAAY to simplistic, ignoring possible contingencies like previous > monopolies. Another way of saying "who knows why Windows is dominant." ;) > Allchin just got finished listing some weak areas here, and you're busy > disavowing the very words he said. Such a idiotic troll. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > iPod came out of nowhere, leveraging no previous contingencies. Willing to bet it will in the future? Why would Apple act any differently than MS? >>>There's nothing I can think of about the UE of my XP box that is >>>superior to, or hell, even matches, 10.4. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Nah. Backing store is awesome, for the programmer and for the user. Sure they are. Does this make my outcomes any better as an end user? > Drop shadows are a very welcome advance. Slows down the GUI. > The transparency of the volume control bezels was executed perfectly. No comment. Really, NO comment. > Sure opaque would work too, but I value some degree of aesthetics, and > not all aesthetics are ubjective. Taste is taste. I'd rather produce a tasteful DVD or music CD than bother about transparencies and opacities in the...volume button. > The nice thing about 10.x is that it is very close to how I like to > work. Good. You see, XP and OSX are about the same to me. > The F9 & F10 Expose window controls add a useful dimension, the ability > to step back from the window stack and find something more easily. Rarely use it. >>>Boot UE? XP's sucks. >>>XP's sleep behavior? It's broken. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > huh? sleep has worked better on Macs than Windows since forever. Not IMV. Sleep was the pits in OS9. >>>File Navigation? OS X's Expose, spotlight, dashboard and other new >>>stuff in 10.4 totally outclass XP. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > LOL. A full year ahead of Micorsoft is pretty stale. Uhuh. This is matter for another thread altogether. They certainly aren't in advance with video boards, RAID or DirectX. But they do have cute drop shadows. >>>If you think XP is comparable to 10.4 in these above issues you're >>>simply f.cked in the head. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ::rolls eyes:: Roll them as much as you want. XP continues to kick a.s. OTOH, so does OSX. >>>Now, issues about the dock vs. Window's tray and task bar are more >>>subjective. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ? My stuff is easy enough to hit in the dock. Not mine. I prefer the taskbar. >>Being >>able to minimize/maximize from the top of the Window is great, being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sure, but I have yet to create an alias in OS X. When I do, I'll be > sure to curse Apple for the lost 0.2second of my life. Well, next time I wish I could disable those drop shadows, I'll think of you. >> Both have their strengths and some people who have a clue >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I am annoyed by your manifest idiocies about slagging macs at every > turn while ignoring the much more screwed up Windows issues. I am annoyed by the manifest idiocy displayed for all to see, by foolish Mac advocates that think that XP is anything like W98 and spread BS about a platform that has done what Apple from the onset, promised to do, i.e., brought computing to the masses. Somewhere, Apple lost its way and became a hasbeen relying heavily on customer loyalty, hobbling the lower/middle end to not cannibalize the high end and killed off tremendous products that could have been successful. > OS X has loads of issues left to resolve. It is far from perfect, and > so is the company. Same with XP and MS. > Micorsoft, on the other hand, is on another dimension of both > crappiness and moral hazard, given their past history of vigororously > defending their monopoly position against all comers. So do you expect them to actually make a conscious effort to lose their dominant market position? I agree that they have been morally challenged in the past, but don't expect them or their shareholders to sit back and lose money. > If Micorsoft were actually responsible for moving the state of the art > forward significantly, like the work Jobs has done with Lisa, Mac, and > NeXT, I'd feel differently about MS. See above. Apple's minuscule market share made it possible for them to be innovative. And you're ignoring that if it were for Apple, fewer people would have owned computers, especially in Third World countries. Wintel has made the democratization of knowledge through computing and the internet possible. Apple has made cute computers and relied on customer loyaly for years and continues to do so. > I value Apple's contributions to being a viable alternative to pure > Micorsoft hegemony; So do I. I also v |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message