Apple releases iMac G5...

[Praxis]

The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

You think that clockspeed is the absolute indicator of performace?

Sorry to break this to you but clockspeed only matters within a range of identical chips. For example, a 1.5 Ghz Itanium II still has 50%+ more FP performance then a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4, and a 1.2 Ghz G5 will still cream a 1.5 Ghz G4.

Ah, I see the mistake.

I was referring to the new G4's in my post, and you were responding to my post about the G5s.
Nevermind.

A 1.2 Ghz G5 will probably cream a 1.5 G4 if the G5 has a good bus speed (The G4's have sucky bus speeds), since the G5 is 64 bit, has more cache, faster bus speed, etc, etc.
I've known about the MHz Myth for years, I just misread your post
You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

[Praxis]

Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

A G4- even a G3- with enough RAM is EXTREMELY responsive. I've seen 500 mhz G3 iMacs with enough RAM running Photoshop at colleges perfectly.
G4's are extremely responsive with enough RAM.
A 1 GHz G4 about as fast as than a 1.5 GHz P3 or 4 in my experience.

What version of OSX are you using? 10.3 has a serious problem with anything short of dual G4's and a G5 is recommended for smooth performance.

BTW, the G4 I was using had 1GB of Ram in it.

Not at all. In fact, 10.3 runs FASTER and more responsively than 10.2 (not just me, there are benchmarks to this effect).
The iMacs I saw were running 10.2, my PowerBook and my old Pismo G3 are running 10.3.

[Pu-239]

The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

You think that clockspeed is the absolute indicator of performace?

Sorry to break this to you but clockspeed only matters within a range of identical chips. For example, a 1.5 Ghz Itanium II still has 50%+ more FP performance then a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4, and a 1.2 Ghz G5 will still cream a 1.5 Ghz G4.

Ah, I see the mistake.

I was referring to the new G4's in my post, and you were responding to my post about the G5s.
Nevermind.

A 1.2 Ghz G5 will probably cream a 1.5 G4 if the G5 has a good bus speed (The G4's have sucky bus speeds), since the G5 is 64 bit, has more cache, is 64 bit, etc, etc.
I've known about the MHz Myth for years, I just misread your post
You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

Uh, the 64 bit capability in the G5 doesn't do much.

[Praxis]

True. But it's cool.

[The Kernel]

Not at all. In fact, 10.3 runs FASTER and more responsively than 10.2 (not just me, there are benchmarks to this effect).

Benchmarks can judge single applications, they do not gauge OS responsiveness.

The iMacs I saw were running 10.2, my PowerBook and my old Pismo G3 are running 10.3.

Durandal knows more about the problem then I do; he said it was due to the GUI in 10.3 being very CPU intensive, I wouldn't really know and I didn't spend a whole lot of time with the machine in question.

[Durandal]

Benchmarks can judge single applications, they do not gauge OS responsiveness.

No user on the face of the planet would tell you that Panther is less responsive than Jaguar. It was a huge leap forward in terms of speed.

Durandal knows more about the problem then I do; he said it was due to the GUI in 10.3 being very CPU intensive, I wouldn't really know and I didn't spend a whole lot of time with the machine in question.

The "problem" is that OS X's UI centers around features and extensibility, and those come at the cost of "teh snappy." Quartz is basically a composition engine. It has to be. Every element on the screen (like windows, the pointer, icons, everything is composited as though the screen were an After Effects project. That's why everything is blended so well. Each element has an 8-bit alpha channel, and that alpha channel is composited against the rest of the screen elements.

QuartzGL runs every pixel being drawn through the GPU, but it does not actually accelerate compositing. That task still falls on the CPU. That's why, on a QuartzGL-capable box, you can have elements cast shadows over a playing DVD window. On Windows, you'll notice that you can't have a pointer shadow over a playing DVD; it turns into a really ugly bulge. That's because the DVD frames are being put on the screen after the rest has been drawn. QuartzGL composites everything first and then runs it to the screen.

So you get superior visuals OS-wide, but it also takes more CPU power. And those kinds of compositing calculations cannot be offloaded to current GPU's. Some things can, and that's what CoreImage is all about, but at the end of the day, the CPU still has a lot of work to do. That's why you can warp a window smoothly (like the Dock minimization animation), but the resize is choppy. The former is off-loaded to the GPU (which treats the window as a polygon with a texture) and the other has to stay on the CPU because the GPU doesn't know what the separate elements of a window are.

But Macs are incompatible with the majority of software on hte market.

Define "incompatible." You mean I can't run Bass Fishing Challenge XXIII on my Mac? Oh horrors ...

And for the non-power users, PC's are cheaper and more convienent.

Except, of course, when they get overrun with viruses, worms, trojans and spyware because the OS and default web browser have security holes that you could drive a truck through. Then Joe Non-Power-User has to pay someone to remove all that shit, which takes hours if it can be repaired at all.

[Praxis]

Not at all. In fact, 10.3 runs FASTER and more responsively than 10.2 (not just me, there are benchmarks to this effect).

Benchmarks can judge single applications, they do not gauge OS responsiveness.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/archives/2004/ ... herand.php
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/1030.html

There are programs that judge responsiveness, for example by opening and closing 1000 windows and judging the time it takes. Additionally, there's XBench (see first link).
Plus the fact that a number of the animations in Panther have less frames, so they go by faster.

[Praxis]

No user on the face of the planet would tell you that Panther is less responsive than Jaguar. It was a huge leap forward in terms of speed.

Agreed.

About incompatibility and PC's being cheaper and more convenient etc etc...
While I disagree with many of the earlier statements made, I really don't want this to get locked as a Mac vs PC debate, so lets try to stay away from that bit.

[The Kernel]

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/archives/2004/ ... herand.php
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/1030.html

There are programs that judge responsiveness, for example by opening and closing 1000 windows and judging the time it takes. Additionally, there's XBench (see first link).
Plus the fact that a number of the animations in Panther have less frames, so they go by faster.

Similar claims are made about the usefulness of Sysmark to judge the increase in responsiveness given by Intel's Hyperthreading (using similar methods to the benchmarks you linked) but so far it has been rather dubious in this regard.

[The Kernel]

Define "incompatible." You mean I can't run Bass Fishing Challenge XXIII on my Mac? Oh horrors ...

Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

Except, of course, when they get overrun with viruses, worms, trojans and spyware because the OS and default web browser have security holes that you could drive a truck through. Then Joe Non-Power-User has to pay someone to remove all that shit, which takes hours if it can be repaired at all.

It isn't just the security holes of Windows that are responsible for that, one can use a safe browser like Firefox and a great security suite like Pc-Cillin Internet Security and still run into problems. This is due, more than anything else, to the fact that Windows runs the majority of computers in the world and as such it is the prime target for virus, malware, spyware and spam makers.

[Zaia]

I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.

It's processor is roughly equivalent to a five year old Pentium III. That is what is wrong with it. Of course if you aren't a power user, you may not notice but whenever I use a G4 and OSX it is unresponsive as hell.

Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

(Just so you know) I have 512 in mine. I got an extra 256 the day I bought the computer.

[Praxis]

Define "incompatible." You mean I can't run Bass Fishing Challenge XXIII on my Mac? Oh horrors ...

Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

Sure, there are some that don't, but most of the major games get ported.
http://www.apple.com/games/features/

The only big annoyance to me is the lack of Star Trek games (excepting Elite Force). Die, Activision!

[YT300000]

Activision stopped making them because ST started constantly sucking much more than ever before.

[Meest]

True. But it's cool.

I think that's the problem with the whole Mac hype, never understood it. I guess I'm just a bang for the buck type.

[Durandal]

Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

And for just about any app you can think of on the PC side, there's an equivalent on the Mac side, except of course for games and some other highly specialized ones (like EPROM chip burners).

It isn't just the security holes of Windows that are responsible for that, one can use a safe browser like Firefox and a great security suite like Pc-Cillin Internet Security and still run into problems. This is due, more than anything else, to the fact that Windows runs the majority of computers in the world and as such it is the prime target for virus, malware, spyware and spam makers.

Windows' ubiquitousness makes it the prime target, but it is not responsible for the huge number of successes that people have had writing malware for it. The only thing responsible for the successful malware attacks on Windows is Microsoft's negligence and penchant for releasing half-assed software and then expecting massive service packs and untold amounts of patches, all distributed through a kludge of an update system, to make up for it.

The most disastrous worms and viruses on record for Windows have all been things that spread easily because of lax default security settings. If, say, OS X was in Windows' position, many of those types of worms wouldn't be problems. So no, Windows' dominance is not an excuse for its horrifyingly bad security track record.

[Pu-239]

Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

And for just about any app you can think of on the PC side, there's an equivalent on the Mac side, except of course for games and some other highly specialized ones (like EPROM chip burners).

It isn't just the security holes of Windows that are responsible for that, one can use a safe browser like Firefox and a great security suite like Pc-Cillin Internet Security and still run into problems. This is due, more than anything else, to the fact that Windows runs the majority of computers in the world and as such it is the prime target for virus, malware, spyware and spam makers.

Not to mention stupid |users.

Windows' ubiquitousness makes it the prime target, but it is not responsible for the huge number of successes that people have had writing malware for it. The only thing responsible for the successful malware attacks on Windows is Microsoft's negligence and penchant for releasing half-assed software and then expecting massive service packs and untold amounts of patches, all distributed through a kludge of an update system, to make up for it.

The most disastrous worms and viruses on record for Windows have all been things that spread easily because of lax default security settings. If, say, OS X was in Windows' position, many of those types of worms wouldn't be problems. So no, Windows' dominance is not an excuse for its horrifyingly bad security track record.

[Praxis]

True. But it's cool.

I think that's the problem with the whole Mac hype, never understood it. I guess I'm just a bang for the buck type.

No, I meant 64 bit was cool.
The thing with Macs is the OS, which is *awesome*.

Activision stopped making them because ST started constantly sucking much more than ever before.

Yeah, but it would have been nice if they had gotten around to converting Starfleet Command 3 before they stopped making them

[SPOOFE]

You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

Don't be surprised. Cars have been around for a century, and the average consumer still considers only horsepower, and never gives a thought about torque.

[Xisiqomelir]

What version of OSX are you using? 10.3 has a serious problem with anything short of dual G4's and a G5 is recommended for smooth performance.

I call rubbish. My rev C 17" runs 10.3.4 blazing-fast with just stock RAM.

[Durandal]

Not to mention stupid |users.

Stupid users can only be held accountable for so long. How was the propagation of the Blaster worm the fault of stupid users? It wasn't. It was the fault of Microsoft for not disabling file sharing by default. Those same stupid users on Mac OS X would not have had the same problems, even if OS X was as popular as Windows.

[BabelHuber]

And for just about any app you can think of on the PC side, there's an equivalent on the Mac side

I think it all comes down to market segments. I won't buy a Mac anytime soon, because it just would be the completely wrong choice for me. I like building my own high-end PC with RAID, a good graphics card, lots of RAM, a good analog sound card etc. OTOH, I have no use for SMP (yet).

Of course it's always fun to point out that my PC performs faster, looks cooler (at least not like a toy, it has a big aluminium tower) and runs more apps. But in the end, there is a reason why there is a niche market Apple delivers to.

I personally think that the new iMac is an over-prized toy, but if somebody wants a basic computer with OS X, or thinks the iMac has a stylish design, and is willing to spend the $$, why not?

[Durandal]

I think it all comes down to market segments. I won't buy a Mac anytime soon, because it just would be the completely wrong choice for me. I like building my own high-end PC with RAID, a good graphics card, lots of RAM, a good analog sound card etc. OTOH, I have no use for SMP (yet).

Of course it's always fun to point out that my PC performs faster, looks cooler (at least not like a toy, it has a big aluminium tower) and runs more apps. But in the end, there is a reason why there is a niche market Apple delivers to.

Macs haven't looked like toys since the fruity iMacs, and the G5's are big, aluminum towers. Sure, the iTit was a style statement (and a discontinued one, thankfully), but it didn't look like a toy (and the LCD arm was actually incredibly functional).

I personally think that the new iMac is an over-prized toy, but if somebody wants a basic computer with OS X, or thinks the iMac has a stylish design, and is willing to spend the $$, why not?

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment. People who buy iMacs don't generally want to play games; they want to surf the internet, check e-mail, maybe IM here and there. In other words, they want to accomplish a set of very simple tasks and not have a hard time with them. iMacs are more like appliances.

[Praxis]

You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

Don't be surprised. Cars have been around for a century, and the average consumer still considers only horsepower, and never gives a thought about torque.

What? You mean that horsepower isn't speed?

j/k

[Praxis]

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment. People who buy iMacs don't generally want to play games; they want to surf the internet, check e-mail, maybe IM here and there. In other words, they want to accomplish a set of very simple tasks and not have a hard time with them. iMacs are more like appliances.

Just a side note:
If you look on the teamspeak forums, you'll see they're starting to hate Mac users because there are so many Mac gamers (almost daily) that pop in wanting to know when a TeamSpeak for Mac will come out This implies there are a few Mac gamers as well But you're right. Most Mac users don't get their computer STRICTLY for games. If all you want from a computer is games, you get a PC, since you don't care as much about security, stability, extra features, etc- you just want to play. Most Mac users, as you say, want to USE their computers AS computers, not game consoles (kind of like Linux users, although the Mac users usually aren't quite as advanced OR want to play SOME games ).
Not saying there's anything wrong with gaming on the computer What do you think my PeeCee is for?

[BabelHuber]

Macs haven't looked like toys since the fruity iMacs, and the G5's are big, aluminum towers.

The G5s don't look like toys, but I don't get excited because of their design, either.

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment.

My home PC is some kind of toy, too, somehow.

The iMac isn't balanced out very well. It has a CPU doesn't perform bad, but the GeForce 5200 is ridiculous, not to speak of 256MB RAM stock.

For a mere office computer, it's too expensive. The smallest model costs 1370 Euro here in Germany, and the specs qualify it only for 2D applications, with no way to upgrade the GPU.

I think the core market is the home user, who is likely gonna use this machine to write e-mails, look at pictures and write a document from time to time.

For these simple tasks the iMac is really expensive, so it is a toy, isn't it?