# Will your next Mac have this?



## Nachohat (Jul 23, 2002)

I will soon need to buy a new computer and I've been looking around on both sides of the fence.  I know Apple is struggling with the processor issue and I know that it is not interely in their control but they can still add several other things to their hardware besides a faster processor that would greatly make their products faster and more on par with the Dark Side.

I'm amazed at how many things are now integrated onto PC motherboards but not on macs.  Right now you can buy a 150$ US motherboard with USB 2, Dobly 5.1 Surround Sound, Firewire, ethernet and DDR 333Mhz RAM.  This would cost close to nothing for Apple to implement in the PowerMac.  

I can't blame them for not having the G5 out, but DDR RAM is dirt cheap and more than a year old and all we got is PC 133Mhz crap. Creative is going bankrupt because nobody needs a sound card anymore, except for mac users... It is understandable that USB 2 is forgotten because is competes with Firewire; I'll forgive Apple for that since I don't really need it either. And what about a three button mouse? I would be curious to know how many PowerMac owner replace their one button mouse; the percentage must be pretty high.  

I want my next comp to be a Mac but right now I would have to pay more than twice the price to be fed half the technology.


----------



## Snowball (Jul 23, 2002)

We'll probably see FireWire at 800 mbps...but not FireWire2/Gigawire...I'm wondering if this is all that the Zayante buyout is providing Apple? Seems like that would be something they could do themselves by just adding another controller...hopefully we will get something more than this...

As for sound, it  is traditionally one of Apple's lowest priorities (for example, their OS 9 Sound Manager was really poorly implemented, and while OS X's Core Audio is much better - low latency, very stable - it still needs more work and better developer documentation I hear). More support for that fact is seen in the way they removed the sound input port from all their models and only in the latest PB revision has it come back. (and no, Apple, buying an external USB line-in is NOT just as good) It's not like they use especially high-quality sound cards in the machines anyway, and the internal speakers of the iBook, PowerBook, and iMac are crap as well (even the PowerMac could use an extra speaker so sound output wasn't so darn quiet). 
If you want to hear great speakers in a laptop, try a Toshiba - their speakers really churn out great bass! The iMac's lack of decent speaker is understandable though b/c of lack of space, but it would be GREAT if Apple used the same speakers as Toshiba in their laptop line.

DDR RAM is definite since the Xserve has it (i.e. engineering it to be on a Mac motherboard is now done) - I'm too lazy to find out what the MHz are on the Xserve's RAM, but I imagine it would be the same on the upcoming PowerMac. Anyone know?

USB 2 is also unlikely because it is first of all not Apple's product, secondly not especially popular/widely used yet, thirdly owned by Intel, and fourthly, inferior to FireWire in a lot of ways -  a biggie being that it requires the computers' main CPU for data transfer between devices whereas FireWire does not.

Multibutton mouse? well, it would be awesome for the pro line. Some think that the new 3 button mouse requirements for Shake suggest that it may be coming (but didn't Shake require a 3 button before Apple bought it out anyway?) Rumors have cropped up about this many times before, but somehow I think that if Apple hasn't changed to a multibutton mouse in the last 18 years, they won't do it now...but, come on Apple, prove me wrong! Please!

you didn't mention one thing: we might see an improved IDE bus as well, but that is only something that should be done, not something that is absolutely required (hrmmmm...reminds me of DDR RAM a year ago...)


----------



## Tigger (Jul 23, 2002)

Why only a Front Side Bus of 333?

I want what someP4 PCs have:
533Mhz FSB, with 1066MHz DDR Ram.

Look at the machines from http://www.alienware.com
These PCs really made think about switching to the PC side.  
I am really not so sure if my next Computer will be a Mac, it depends on what Apple will have to offer the end of this year...


----------



## r4bid (Jul 23, 2002)

alienware == junk!

I currently own one and would never buy from them again.


----------



## Snowball (Jul 23, 2002)

I've only heard good things about Alienware (at least as a gaming platform). Apart from the fact that their laptops don't use the P4-M but the desktop P4, I thought their computers were pretty good. Could you elaborate more, r4bid?


----------



## strobe (Jul 23, 2002)

What's the point of USB2?

Intel has been promoting it for video. We all know this is going to fail miserably. It's also a pain to mix USB2 and USB1.1 devices, you basically need to buy an espensive USB2 hub.

I don't get it.


----------



## Holmes (Jul 24, 2002)

I don't think my next computer will have any of those...But 266 ddr ram MAYBE.


----------



## senne (Jul 24, 2002)

I don't think we'll see Firewire 2. Because the new iPods (5, 10, 20) are equiped with the "old" firewire. Or maybe it could be when they use the same port for both Firewire 1 as Firewire 2, but is that possible?

Because i don't want that i can't use my 10GB iPod (bought before MWNY) anymore when i buy a new mac.... 

Mneih, we'll see.



senne.


----------



## Nachohat (Jul 24, 2002)

Senne : Don't worry about Firewire 2 (or the 800mbps version), it will be backwards compatible (meaning that Firewire 1 devices work with the Firewire 2 port at Firewire 1 speeds).  All you will need is new devices that use Firewire 2 to use the full speed of the bus.  Your iPod will work with Firewire 2 at the same speed it works at now.

Holmes:  Realistically  I think that Apple will definatly use DDR 266Mhz RAM since that is what is used in the Xserve.  I'm a bit dissapointed of this because 333Mhz DDR costs almost the same price and you get a good performance boost.  DDR 400Mhz is the next step but it should only be ready towards the end of the year.

I don't know much about Rambus RAM (ie RDRAM).  DDR has pretty much won the battle and many will admit that RDRAM was ahead of its time.  I'm not sure what's the deal with RDRAM @ 1Ghz, that's pretty crazy 

Sometimes it amazes me to see how stupid some companies can be, and how out of touch they can be with their customers (example: what is up with those stupid Subway commercials?!  They almost make me want to stop eating there).  I think Apple needs to listen to it's customers more. They might be trying to keep their profit margins high, but if they keep selling us previous generation computers they will just sell less volume and make less profit in the end.


----------



## Tigger (Jul 24, 2002)

The Reason for RDRAM to not succeed were the high prices in the beginning, I think.
But now they are not much higher than DDR.
Also they are only supported by the P4, I think.

But it seems to really make a difference:
My brother (PC guy) told me there is a benchmark with the same machine with DDR 200MHz and RDRAM 1066MHz with Quake 3.

The DDR config got something like 280 fps, the RDRAM config something like 380fps. Not that anyone needs these high fps, but I think it shows what a difference RDRAM can make (if the processor is fast enough)

Even if we get DDR 266MHz in the next Powermac update, this is technology that is really old.
I wished Apple would start to be a little more innovative again.
The last Mac upgrades were something like: "Hey, it is tested on the PC side for months, so there is no harm in using it, too!"

If there isn't soon a Powermac that kicks the butts of PCs, or at least catches up, I don't see why Apple shouldn't dump the Powermac line and just go with nice little iMac consumer computers. At least the prices should drop.
Even if I don't need the power, as some people claim, it just doesn't feel right to pay a higher price for inferiour hardware.


----------



## Nachohat (Jul 24, 2002)

Damn straight!   Who want to pay more for less? It's just not logical. A fancy case and a great operating system shouldn't cost twice as much.

I was checking out RDRAM at www.rambus.com  . They will soon be selling 1333Mhz RDRAM! That is a clock speed ten time that of which is used currently in the PowerMac line!  Apple really needs to get it's act together fast.  

I just don't understand how they can be so inovative in some areas and so behind in others.


----------



## DualG4X (Jul 24, 2002)

apple should really stop spending all their time on making them look all nice n pretty and should start inovating in the hardware side, (i.e. cpu's over 1.5GHz, DDR400, Gigawire, faster airport) n give wintel machines a run for their money


----------



## skrillerd (Jul 24, 2002)

Nice 'n' pretty is up and down, faster hardware is side to side. Its not like they can take their gay english industrial designers and put them to work in the chip labs. "These layouts are GARISH! It's a jumble of wires and boxes! What the hell is a nand? I want simplicity!"

I'm recently off the mhz crack addiction and I don't care how fast the machines are. Its fast enough for everything but games. But there's no games for mac so who cares.  People need to concern themselves with getting sh*t done, not what they're going to do it with.  The computer industry right now is where American cars were in the 70's. Yeah, your chevelle has a billion footpounds of torque, but where are you going? (I'm talking about home users here).

But you're right, mac does need to do something to speed up if they want to attract pc users.  Too bad they can't cause they just made everybody switch to OSX. Get used to slow for a while.


----------



## DualG4X (Jul 24, 2002)

gay english industrial designers (hahahaha)


----------



## alexachucarro (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DualG4X _
> *gay english industrial designers (hahahaha) *



Is he gay?


----------



## simX (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by alexachucarro _
> *Is he gay? *



What shred of difference does it make?


----------



## DualG4X (Jul 25, 2002)

none really, but its just funny to hear, n u know no stait guy can come up with cool looking designes like that , haha 
strait guys design pc's
gay guys design mac's


----------



## alexachucarro (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DualG4X _
> *none really, but its just funny to hear, n u know no stait guy can come up with cool looking designes like that , haha
> strait guys design pc's
> gay guys design mac's *



and that's funny because............

and that's good because............

and that makes a difference because............


----------



## skrillerd (Jul 25, 2002)

As the source of this topic I'm going to take responsibility for it:

Just stop it right now. I'm sorry I brought up the industrial designer. His batting stance has nothing to do Apple or their computers. He's a damn fine ID and he designs good computers. 


Ok so now we can stop talking about how gay he is.


----------



## Nachohat (Jul 25, 2002)

Hahaha  

But I agree, he is gay and he has great fasion sense.


----------



## ksv (Jul 28, 2002)

Seems to me like the Apple hardware teams have been dead since January


----------



## mindbend (Jul 28, 2002)

Nachohat, there's one piece of technology you didn't mention. It's called OS X.

As for the others:

USB 2
I have no need for this.

Firewire 2
As hard drives get faster, this may matter, but right now Firewire 1's potential isn't even met, so for now, FW2 does me no good.

5.1 Surround
Yeah, I guess that would be nice. 

DDR266/333
People make a lot of fuss about this, but I would like to know more about why. I"m not being a smart aleck, I just genuinely don't know what that will do for me. What specifically is DDR333 RAM going to do for:

Indesign layouts
After Effects rendering
Final Cut Pro editing
Web browsing
Word/Excel file processing
Illustrator design
Photoshop editing
Lightwave rendering/OpenGL manipulation
Gaming

This is what I do every day, if DDR-RAM helps me in these areas, great, if not, then I don't care.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take all of the above in a second, but in terms of what actually helps me in my work, what I need (in this order) most is:

1. Faster GUI/graphics layer (soon to be greatly helped with 10.2), though I'd like to know what QE will do for InDesign if anything.
2. Faster CPU. Duh, who doesn't want a faster CPU?


----------



## Nachohat (Jul 29, 2002)

Faster RAM is always better no matter how fast your CPU is, but  a faster CPU will take more advantage of it.  Faster RAM  increases the bandwith between the CPU and main memory, meaning that the CPU can exchange more information in a same amount of time.  Your CPU has several types of memory varying greatly in speed and price.  From most expensive (fastest) to least expensive (slowest) you've probably got: internal CPU registers, level 1 cache, level 2 cache, level 3 cache, main memory (RAM), secondary memory (usually a hard drive), cd burner, tape backup.

Faster RAM will definatly make your computing experience MUCH faster.  Especially with programs like Photoshop, After Effect, Final Cut Pro where you can generate huge files of several hundred megabytes that are all stored in main memory if your computer ressources permit. That is why many people have 1Gig or more of RAM to keep the computer from having to fetch and store the information on the extremelly slow hard drive. DDR RAM would make Photoshop fly.

The conclusion is that more cache is the fastest solution, but it's also very expenssive.  DDR RAM costs close to nothing and would make PowerMacs soooo much faster.  Apple has no excusse for selling us second hand computer components when it's client need is so badly.  If they keep doing this they will just loose clients to the dark side.


----------



## mccallister (Aug 1, 2002)

I think everyone is missing the boat when it comes to REALLY speeding up a computer.  It's not the bus speed, CPU speed, or the amount of memory.  It really boils down to getting Apple, M$, Redheat, and motherboard manufacturers to implement some serious caching and "usage analysis"

Memory is so dirt cheap now days I don't understand why motherboards don't have 2GB of cache and the OS vendors cache the key system files to it (2nd CMOS battery).

Look at it from this scenario.  The first time you boot off of an OS, the OS says "hey, I'm not in cache."  It puts the key system files in cache (which has an additional CMOS battery to keep it there when powered off)

Then the next time you boot up, BOOM!  Fast ass load time.  No need to go to the hard drive at all.

Now let's look at "usage analysis."  The OS should analyze your usage and say "hey, he frequently fires up Word, mail, and Mozilla).  So it caches those apps' critical files to the 2GB cache.  Now you no longer have to go to the HD to load up the app.

If the OS analysis determines that the app it previously put in cache wasn't used much anymore it would clear it out and load the app you are frequently using that isn't in the cache.

Yeah, some are saying "what if the CMOS battery dies?"   Well, the OS would just load the critical files again into CMOS.

Come on Apple, M$, Redhat, and motherboard companies.   Think innovative!  The key bottle neck in a system is the slow hard drive.   Let's write the OS's and develop the motherboards to use the inexpensive memory to speed things up.

Sorry for the subject title sounding so rude.  I'm just frustrated that no one out there is developing serious caching to speed our 'puters up.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't have any problems with the startup speed of programs, as I open them in the background anyway.
You don't get Window-dragging and resizing faster via caching.
Not even saving of files, unless you want to go the rather insecure way of writing the file to your RAM and write it to disk later (What if your OS crashes meanwhile?).


----------



## Nachohat (Aug 4, 2002)

mccallister I don't know what the hell you are talking about 

Even if memory prices are pretty cheap (and you will find that they have gone up recently), you can't just build a computer with 2Gigs of cache.  Lets assume that cache costs the same as DDR 400 RAM; about 100$/256MB or 0.39$/MB. Sure thats pretty cheap but now multiply it by about 2000 and you pay 800$ for your cache!  You can buy a pretty decent complete Athlon system for that price.

But cache is MUCH more expenssive than regular RAM.  Level 1 cache is part of the CPU (ie in the same silicon as the CPU). Don't even dream of putting that much level 1 cache; it would simply cost a fortune and your CPU silicon area would be huge.  Level 2 and Level 3 cache are much cheaper than Level 1 cache as they are not part of the CPU chip; they lie on the motherboard in between the RAM and the CPU.  Level 2 and 3 cache are still much more expenssive than RAM.  

Manifacturers keep cost down by putting less cache on their CPU's. Celeron has only 128 KB versus Pentium 4 with 512KB.  Athlon has 256KB versus Duron with 128KB.

Sorry to blow your bubble (or flame you, even though I'm trying to be very polite)


----------



## mccallister (Aug 4, 2002)

I'm referring to putting 2gb of regular ram as a cache, not the more expensive memory typically used.  This would be in addition to the normal memory slots you would stick modules in



> _
> 
> But cache is MUCH more expenssive than regular RAM.
> [/B]_


----------



## gibbs (Aug 5, 2002)

> What specifically is DDR333 RAM going to do for:




*Indesign layouts
Make it faster.
*After Effects rendering
Make it faster.
*Final Cut Pro editing
Make it faster.
*Web browsing
Make it faster.
*Word/Excel file processing
Make it faster 
*Illustrator design
you get the picture 

Memory latency and bandwidth are the main limiting factors for all modern/mainstream computing platforms. Fact.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 6, 2002)

all of those options are nice 
personally I voted for surround sound since I am already patching my mac's sound out to my stereo for sound, so it would be nice to have it


----------



## Nachohat (Aug 6, 2002)

Yeah AdmiralAK, I want surround sound so bad!  I don't have have a stereo, just a mac. It looks much better than a bland stereo system 

Right now you can buy a cheap pc motherboard for about 130$ with Surround and 5.1 speakers for less than 100$.  Come on Apple, I want my Surround Sound in the next PowerMacs!


----------



## mdnky (Aug 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tigger _
> *Even if we get DDR 266MHz in the next Powermac update, this is technology that is really old.  I wished Apple would start to be a little more innovative again.
> The last Mac upgrades were something like: "Hey, it is tested on the PC side for months, so there is no harm in using it, too!"*



I see your point, but:  Would you rather a machine that crashes and/or has problems, or one that is stable?  The beauty of the Mac is the stability.  



> *If there isn't soon a Powermac that kicks the butts of PCs, or at least catches up, I don't see why Apple shouldn't dump the Powermac line and just go with nice little iMac consumer computers. At least the prices should drop.
> Even if I don't need the power, as some people claim, it just doesn't feel right to pay a higher price for inferiour hardware. *



How is it inferior?  There isn't much of a gap, and with the experiences I've had with XP on 1.6ghz and above x86 processors, I'm happy with where Apple is now.  People who buy Powermacs do so for work...and in that enviroment speed is nice, but productivity and stability reign paramount among all.  Put a 2.2ghz p4 against a dual 1ghx g4 in photoshop or indesign, etc.  Better yet open InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver at the same time.  Open the same document for each program (i.e. a flyer in ID, website in DW, etc.) and then try doing some filters in photoshop with the others in the background and/or minimized.  I'll put money on which one is done, and be faster (because reboots are time consuming).  

Also remember, Apple's profits come more from professional users than consumer users.  Granted they are changing this, but they couldn't afford to loose the professional series right now, nor should they.

I would love to see g5's that are 5 or 10, even 20x faster than the fastest p4 or amd offering...but for what purpose?  If it means sacrificing the stability and productivity of the machine, then NO.  

If they update to DDR, and give the g4 a nice boost (1.4 or 1.6 range) the PC's will be behind in the speed and in the OS.


----------



## King Shrek (Aug 6, 2002)

Yes, I would like all of those things.  But I'm a really optimistic person and can't help setting high standards.  I hope the new G5 chipset will support the following, or something like it:

_64-bit, 32-bit compatible processing

1GHz-10GHz range in processor speeds (the first G5's should hit speeds up to 2GHz).

A BUS speed of at least 2GHz (maybe not at first, but eventually).

Fast PC2100 RDRAM, and a few future memory types.

A new technology:  USB 3.0 with bandwidth of at least 10000MB/sec, with added support for a wide range of USB devices.

A new technology:  Firewire 3.0 with bandwidth about the same as USB 3.0, with added support for a wide range of firewire devices.

Wireless network capabilities based on Intel's upcoming 802.11a technology for notebooks._

I also wish for a 19" monitor on the new iMacs with a GeForce4 Titanium video card as well as a THX Certified Dolby Digital Surround Sound sound card.

OS X support for DirectX or an Apple equivalent.

Basically just a "supercomputer."  It's about time Apple stopped playing tortoise.

I'll let you know if I think of anything else.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *
> Better yet open InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver at the same time.  Open the same document for each program (i.e. a flyer in ID, website in DW, etc.) and then try doing some filters in photoshop with the others in the background and/or minimized.  I'll put money on which one is done, and be faster (because reboots are time consuming).  *


My brother is running Win XP on his PC, and it is really stable.
I never saw anything crash. Okay, he doesn't use Photoshop, so I don't know about this one. But Dreamweaver runs really fine. Dreamweaver on my Mac in OS X? Guess what? Crashed several times till now...
Last year, I have done an internship and had to work on a PC. Photoshop never crashed once on the Win 2000 machine I was working on. But this machine had a serious problem with its IO (savings took longer than they should have, crappy hardware, I suppose), so the experience was rather frustrating.

I think a PC with really good components (Say, it will cost almost as much as a Mac with all brand stuff in it) will crash not more than a Mac with OS X.
Remember, there is a lot of crappy hardware on the PC side. You can't compare a PC to a Mac that costs a fourth of that Mac.


----------



## BusinezGuy (Aug 12, 2002)

Wow, I'm a bit surprised by this thread!

As a Windows user, I fully expected Mac fanatics who would defend the speed of their computers to their deaths.  It's nice to see that you can admit (even if Apple can't) that the PC is faster.

With that said, I'm a PC user who is strongly considering either getting a iMac or a Power PC.  I am a gamer, but I am becoming less interested (I guess I'm getting out of that phase).  I really became interested in the Mac when I saw the power of iDVD and iMovie, not to mention iTunes and all of the other great apps that Apple has created.  The Mac OS X operating system is so much better than Windows XP, it isn't even funny.  Besides, it looks like it would be a lot more fun to watch a movie on a Mac than a PC.

I don't know.  Speaking as a Windows user, I'm not sure that the speed of the computer is everything.  Generally, the PC has a lot of apps that really suck.

Just some food for thought.


----------

