Search results

I would just like to say that I think no one is maliciously trying to rain on anyone's parade here. There's whining to be sure, but there's also valid criticism. I've always been a big Mac proponent, having owned a Plus, LC475, PowerBook Duo 230, and now a 400 MHz TiBook. The criticism of...

I never said that these Mac users will be switching. I suggested that they would simply be not buying. Either way, Apple is going to be slammed hard. Again, the point is - DDR-SDRAM was need badly, but not at these prices! There's a great anecdote from decades ago. A large department...

Depends on what your current machine is. But consider that for $129 to upgrade to Jaguar, you can see a signficant performance boost in any OS X-capable machine. Is it worth $1700 to ante in when in all likelihood, G5-based pro desktops may only be 5 months away? Heck, you don't even get...

I do want to add that Apple's consumer strategy is much more effective since consumers have much more different needs from pro users. No problems there. Same with the TiBook, which still blows away any notebook out there (and my 400 MHz TiBook still runs great with 10.1.5) But the pro desktop...

It's true my analysis depends on the 30% performance number. That figure is a "reasonable guesstimate" based on different reports on near final builds I've seen (Macosrumors.com, for example, recently reported 35-50% faster speeds across the board). But my point is this - no matter what...

A caveat: I'm basing this analysis on the specs posted by MacMinute as of August 12, 2002, before the official release of the revised G4 towers. Basically, although I've been a Mac user since 1984 when my best friend in middle school showed me his cool 128 KB Mac, I'm afraid we Mac users are...

I agree the low-end is the best value model by far (again assuming these specs are accurate). But seriously....if I had a dual 500 MHz G4 tower and for $129, I can get a 30% speed increase across the board, more if I had a good graphics card, why would I want to spend $1700 getting a machine...

If these specs are accurate, all that comes to mind is: Too little, too late. Let me predict 99% of the professional Mac community will be skipping this revision. But that's what you get for half-hearted hardware efforts that is 7 months late at prices that are still a year out of date...

Theed, You make several good points once again. Although I can't say with 100% certainty about the bottleneck in current Mac systems, many benchmarks indicate that the processor is being choked by the slow subsystems. For example, MacSpeedZone did a test between the PowerBook G4/800 (which...

Theed, no offense taken, but I wanted to be clear that I was just expressing my frustration with Apple sometimes and that I wasn't just trolling for attention. :-P Pezagent, I wouldn't go as far as calling Mac users losers, but the slowness with which Apple is responding to advances on the PC...

Hi theed, Sorry if I sounded kinda frustrated there. I'm breathing slow and deep breaths now. :-P You do make some valid points with regards to latency and everything. Macosrumors also mentioned that Jaguar is much better and more efficient on MP machines. And the OS is a big factor and by...

And another thing - has anyone else noticed that almost none of the threads on the New and Rumors Discussion page have anything to do with cool new hardware? It's as if the Mac community has collectively decided hardware has become totally uninteresting or unimportant anymore. Or perhaps it's...

Heheh, oops! Naturally, I meant 1.5 GIGAhertz. :-P In any case, although we may never see a quad-G4 machine, I'm worried about a disturbing change in the position of Apple hardware. Apple at least used to be able to claim Macs were faster in certain operations than higher clocked PCs. But...

Macosrumors.com recently posted this interesting tidbit "One very interesting new development is a growing belief that Apple may be ready to unleash Quad Processors on us, with the help of the new memory bus and PPC 7470 chips. If true, this alone could signify an entirely new era in Mac...

There's also another good analysis of the new IBM chip at ArsTechnica http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/power4-apple.html Gee, I hope Apple adopts this chip and I hope the design is such that it's low-power enough to go into notebooks. I'm frankly sick and tired of Motorola's...

No, I think I saw an article somewhere that said the new CPU would provide support for 32-bit code for backward compatibility. But unfortunately, we'll have to wait until Oct. 15 to get the full details - and we don't even know if Apple will be using this chip in the future! But undoubtedly...

Actually, since the processor is fully 64 bits, Altivec will provide less of a performance gain than it does in the G4. It makes me wonder if IBM has developed a turbo-charged version of Altivec.

Actually, we as Mac users should be concerned. Let's not stick our heads in the sand just because we dismss the "megahertz myth" and Intel propoganda. The fact is, Intel is making huge strides in Pentium performance and driving down prices at a far faster rate than Motorola can even dream. If...