2.53GHz Pentium
- Thread starter designer
- Start date
I hate to bring this up again, but I have to point out a harsh reality. The megahertz myth is not entirely a myth at all. There are a few exceptions where indeed Altivec and DP G4s do quite nicely, but comments regarding the G4s blowing the P4s off the field are complete exaggerations at best.
I've tabulated several tests over the last year in virtually every type of application and in most cases there IS a fairly direct relationship between MHz among similar and dissimilar processors. As soon as I get my business site fully functional I'll be adding a subsite where users can provide their own test data based on files that I will provide so we're comparing apples to Apples (pun intended). As I said, there are exceptions, but believe me, a 2.5 MHz P4 is going to be freaking fast. There will be no blowing off the field by any G4.
As for comparing G4s to P4s, that's not REALLY the comparison. The comparison is Photoshop, Lightwave, After Effects, Media Cleaner, etc. These are completely legitimate comparisons, because they are virtually identical apps on both platforms. You can blab all you want about DP, Altivec, Bus, DDR, etc., but if it takes twice as long to render a raytraced ping pong ball, that's an easy decision. (For the record, Lightwave really holds it own vs. a P4 and the DP is totally utilized-proof that if you bother to try, you can write really nice clean code for a Mac).
I should point out that I am a Mac freak and dispise Windows boxes. We have one (800 mhz P4) at work simply for a test box and for a cheaper alternative for ASP server testing, etc. I use Macs because when it's all said and done, I can get more done because I'm not jerking around with a crap interface and unsolvable weird bug infiltrations and font problems and all the rest. I've lost more money developing on PCs than I care to discuss.
But I'm no fool, if I can get a cheap 2.5 ghz box and use it as a rendering box (say for AE or Lightwave renders), that would make sense.
Even if you want to believe that G4s "blow away P4s", when the P4 is 2.5 times the MHz speed of the G4, that can make up for a lot of inefficiency. Here's to hoping Apple pulls another one out of its butt.
Side note: at some point for many (most?) users, there is no functional difference between a 1 MHz and 10 Mhz machine if all you're doing is browsing, writing, emailing, a bit of web, a bit of Photoshop, some Quark, etc. This is where Apple is in a great position in terms of the "digital hub", the wonderful OS X as a whole and an extremely smart software/hardware integration strategy. That can make up for this whole MHz mess to some extent.
I've tabulated several tests over the last year in virtually every type of application and in most cases there IS a fairly direct relationship between MHz among similar and dissimilar processors. As soon as I get my business site fully functional I'll be adding a subsite where users can provide their own test data based on files that I will provide so we're comparing apples to Apples (pun intended). As I said, there are exceptions, but believe me, a 2.5 MHz P4 is going to be freaking fast. There will be no blowing off the field by any G4.
As for comparing G4s to P4s, that's not REALLY the comparison. The comparison is Photoshop, Lightwave, After Effects, Media Cleaner, etc. These are completely legitimate comparisons, because they are virtually identical apps on both platforms. You can blab all you want about DP, Altivec, Bus, DDR, etc., but if it takes twice as long to render a raytraced ping pong ball, that's an easy decision. (For the record, Lightwave really holds it own vs. a P4 and the DP is totally utilized-proof that if you bother to try, you can write really nice clean code for a Mac).
I should point out that I am a Mac freak and dispise Windows boxes. We have one (800 mhz P4) at work simply for a test box and for a cheaper alternative for ASP server testing, etc. I use Macs because when it's all said and done, I can get more done because I'm not jerking around with a crap interface and unsolvable weird bug infiltrations and font problems and all the rest. I've lost more money developing on PCs than I care to discuss.
But I'm no fool, if I can get a cheap 2.5 ghz box and use it as a rendering box (say for AE or Lightwave renders), that would make sense.
Even if you want to believe that G4s "blow away P4s", when the P4 is 2.5 times the MHz speed of the G4, that can make up for a lot of inefficiency. Here's to hoping Apple pulls another one out of its butt.
Side note: at some point for many (most?) users, there is no functional difference between a 1 MHz and 10 Mhz machine if all you're doing is browsing, writing, emailing, a bit of web, a bit of Photoshop, some Quark, etc. This is where Apple is in a great position in terms of the "digital hub", the wonderful OS X as a whole and an extremely smart software/hardware integration strategy. That can make up for this whole MHz mess to some extent.
I'm just in the process of updating my Pentium II box from RedHat 7.2 to RedHat 7.3. And I'm noticing something. I only use that machine for three things. 1) Watching TV. The tuner card was cheap and I have a 17" TFT monitor attached. Nice. 2) Surfing the web. I tend to work on my Mac and surf on the Linux box. 3) Testing my websites. I'm a designer and the Linux box is a nice testing bed, as the final sites will be running on a similar setup (Apache, Perl, PHP, MySQL).
What I noticed now is that while I *enjoy* using that machine for the tasks mentioned, I could never do creative work on it. Not in Windows XP (which I have installed on the machine, too, but I never run it), not in Linux. It was a cheap machine when I bought it new, upgrading it was cheap, Linux is free (I just downloaded the three ISOs and burned them onto CDs on my TiBook) and it makes a good secondary machine, because choice is good, if something doesn't run on Mac OS X I can try it on Linux or on Windows.
So, what do I want to say? I want to say that basically it doesn't matter (to me) that I could buy a 2.5 GHz PC. The 350 MHz PII still does everything I want it to do at a decent speed. Secondary machines don't need that much speed. *grin* ... But I always want my primary, creative workstation to be as fast as possible. Buying every revision of the TiBook is a bit too expensive for me (and others), but I'd want the increases to be bigger from revision to revision. 800 MHz to 500 MHz in what, 1.3 years? That's not enough, Apple. And I'm comparing Apples to Apples here. The top of the line TiBooks. If my Ti lasts me two years before I need/want/can afford to upgrade, I'm fine, but I'd want the Ti to be @ 2 GHz at MWSF/MWTO next year, rather than at 1.0 or 1.2 GHz. Not because I care where Dell's infamous notebooks will be, but because the difference between my old TiBook and my new TiBook should be BIG after two years.
What I noticed now is that while I *enjoy* using that machine for the tasks mentioned, I could never do creative work on it. Not in Windows XP (which I have installed on the machine, too, but I never run it), not in Linux. It was a cheap machine when I bought it new, upgrading it was cheap, Linux is free (I just downloaded the three ISOs and burned them onto CDs on my TiBook) and it makes a good secondary machine, because choice is good, if something doesn't run on Mac OS X I can try it on Linux or on Windows.
So, what do I want to say? I want to say that basically it doesn't matter (to me) that I could buy a 2.5 GHz PC. The 350 MHz PII still does everything I want it to do at a decent speed. Secondary machines don't need that much speed. *grin* ... But I always want my primary, creative workstation to be as fast as possible. Buying every revision of the TiBook is a bit too expensive for me (and others), but I'd want the increases to be bigger from revision to revision. 800 MHz to 500 MHz in what, 1.3 years? That's not enough, Apple. And I'm comparing Apples to Apples here. The top of the line TiBooks. If my Ti lasts me two years before I need/want/can afford to upgrade, I'm fine, but I'd want the Ti to be @ 2 GHz at MWSF/MWTO next year, rather than at 1.0 or 1.2 GHz. Not because I care where Dell's infamous notebooks will be, but because the difference between my old TiBook and my new TiBook should be BIG after two years.
i think many of us have been harrased with things like "mac's suck", "oooo you have a mac..." and "i hate imacs!". now with all this bombardment from the masses we tend to get allitle defensive about our computer nationality, dont we? when we say "g4 blows away p4" we are simply reminding ourselves that we belong to a very ilete group who are privilged to own computers that work well and are very fast.
personaly my mac has made me a smarter person, in 18 months of g4 i have gone from knowing nothing about computer and typing at 4 wpm to spending hours on end reading online and typing at 90 wpm... a know many a suberban boy with pc's who no little more then boiled cabage when it comes to anything beyond kazaa, aim, or word. thats my two sense on why owning a mac is better for you then owning a pc
personaly my mac has made me a smarter person, in 18 months of g4 i have gone from knowing nothing about computer and typing at 4 wpm to spending hours on end reading online and typing at 90 wpm... a know many a suberban boy with pc's who no little more then boiled cabage when it comes to anything beyond kazaa, aim, or word. thats my two sense on why owning a mac is better for you then owning a pc
I TOTALLY agree with you. I was a pc boy since we replaced my commadore 64 with like a 386 or something, I forget. When I got into macs, everything took off. I have become so obsessed with macs and techonology. I actually enjoy reading and learning now. I am a multimedia major, so I am around macs most of the day. I catch flack all the time for being a mac guy, I've actually lost friends because people say "all you talk about is macs and I don't care, pc's are just as good, blah blah blah". I never did anything but web surfing, mail, AIM and napster/games sometimes on my stupid wintel box. I get into just about all that I can with my mac and THATS why I have an apple stick on my bumper, THATS why apple is all I talk about, and THATS why I have keynotes on vhs on the day they are held!
P.S. - Pixar is better than Mainframe, hehehehhehe
P.S. - Pixar is better than Mainframe, hehehehhehe
Hmm... I wish I could *ever* see Steve Jobs' keynotes on TV. The QuickTime stream is always lagging a bit, although it's gotten better with time. Of course, seeing him live will beat that. Maybe I'll be at AppleExpo Paris this year... Can't they do it in Switzerland once? *grin*
Koelling
I Think Different
Well said. I can't ever believe how little the average Wintel person knows about their computer. I was talking to a person who was downloading stuff from audiogalaxy and she didn't know how to get the songs off her ocmputer. She thought she needed to do it from the audiogalaxy website
I asked her if she thought it was weird that a command issued from a website would be able to delete things from her hard drive and she didn't really understand what I was talking about. And don't go gender on me because she's in the college of Engineering so she should know *something* about her own computer.
I asked her if she thought it was weird that a command issued from a website would be able to delete things from her hard drive and she didn't really understand what I was talking about. And don't go gender on me because she's in the college of Engineering so she should know *something* about her own computer.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
One thing that I noticed from that website is that when they are testing the graphics card performance, they use a DP 800 G4 with a GeForce 3 while they only have a GeForce 4MX in the DP 1000 G4. We all know that the 4MX is basically the 3MX with a new name. Furthermore, they tested the AMD machine with a GeForce 4 Ti (not an MX), while they didn't test either the DP 800 or DP 1000 with a GF4 Ti. This is flawed, at best, even if it doesn't change the overall harsh reality of things. I will forgive this site slightly because the GF4 Ti isn't really available for Macs yet, because Apple has had some problems in shipping them, but they could've at least included the GF3 (not MX) in the DP 1000.
I just thought I'd make sure everyone knew of that.
Anyway, I have a couple things to say:
1) The places where Apple really needs to improve is system bus speed and the speed of the memory. If Apple put DDR RAM into the G4s as well as a HyperTransport system bus, I think there would be a GREAT performance increase. Hard drive speed could also help, as well as maybe making the hard drive interfaces to be internal FireWire which could help a bit.
2) It is Motorola's fault, not Apple's fault, for delivering "slow" microprocessors. It's Motorola who is sitting on their butt doing nothing. I truly believe that if Motorola puts up the PowerPC assets for sale and if Apple gobbles them up, Apple will be in a GREAT position to scale up the R&D on the G4 and G5 processors. Furthermore, it would make them even more the "whole widget maker". I am slowly accepting the harsh reality that G4s as a whole are falling slowly behind the competition in terms of raw speed, unfortunately. I, too, am hoping that Apple/Motorola come up with a miracle, though.
3) I would also like to reiterate what other people have said. It's more the operating system and the digital hub applications that make the Mac the Mac. Minus all that, the Mac wouldn't be as fantastic as it is today. That, and the design of their computers keeps me from switching over to PCs. However, those are two VERY BIG things that will never be in PCs, hence I will never switch to a PC full-time. If I need it, I'll use a PC for doing stuff, but you couldn't force me to use a PC.
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
OK, so the MHz Myth failed as a selling point, how about this:
Intel can make a 50 Terahertz PXVII tomorrow for al I care. In fact, I might just get one to play Halo on. However, I think not many of us bought Macs for the speed quite the opposite. In the end, productivity is defined by how long you spend messing around on the Internet. My Mac takes a nice long time to render a page compared to a Windows box, making the web less enticing, and me more productive. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Bernie)
Intel can make a 50 Terahertz PXVII tomorrow for al I care. In fact, I might just get one to play Halo on. However, I think not many of us bought Macs for the speed quite the opposite. In the end, productivity is defined by how long you spend messing around on the Internet. My Mac takes a nice long time to render a page compared to a Windows box, making the web less enticing, and me more productive. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Bernie
)
erhm, bad argument, i believe.
my productivity advantage on the Mac is different. for example, i can almost draw a perfect circle in photoshop with a Mac mouse. on windows, i can't. this is not only because on windows most mouse drivers are 'turbocharged', but has to do with the graphics model, i believe. while i don't draw circles very often, i still need correct mouse behaviour for graphical work. also, i can work with files in the finder much better than on windows. and while windows xp is very, very 'active' in 'helping the user' (do you want a passport, or write a letter, or play a game?), the Mac OS is very inobstrusive in my tasks. well done, Apple.
my productivity advantage on the Mac is different. for example, i can almost draw a perfect circle in photoshop with a Mac mouse. on windows, i can't. this is not only because on windows most mouse drivers are 'turbocharged', but has to do with the graphics model, i believe. while i don't draw circles very often, i still need correct mouse behaviour for graphical work. also, i can work with files in the finder much better than on windows. and while windows xp is very, very 'active' in 'helping the user' (do you want a passport, or write a letter, or play a game?), the Mac OS is very inobstrusive in my tasks. well done, Apple.
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
Look, no one here loves Macs more than I do... But I don't live my life in the reality distortion field...
Yes, the G4 is very competitive with the Pentium4. However, Apple is now so far behind in processor speed that I'm afraid the only logistical move for them is to either jump ship to another processor, or contract out someone like AMD to make fast PowerPCs built on Apple's specs.
Look at the speed disparities and the benchmarks. Show me a 3D application that renders faster on a dualGHZG4 than on a single 2.53ghzP4. Ditto for renders in After Effects. Web browsing, while much improved with browsers like Navigator, is still slower on a Mac than a PC. I'm not even sure that Photoshop (under OS X) still retains the speed advantage it previously had under OS 9.
Of course, people still buy Macs and still use Macs (even when there's a faster PC on the same desk) because of the elegance of the software. But if Apple continues to fall behind, raw performance numbers will not be able to be dismissed so easily in favor of elegance.
Apple is further inhibited by the current state of OS X, which generally takes hardware people considered fast under OS 9, and leaves it at hohum speeds under X (unless you are on a top of the line new PowerMac).
Some of these problems will be resolved with 10.2, but the hardware is still the crux. If Apple cant rule the roost with raw CPU performance, there are still other technologies they can adopt to make up for it. How about finally adding DDR RAM? Increase bus speeds? How about finally offering Mac users a Professional 3D Workstation Graphics Card?
I'm pulling for Apple all the way, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and lie to myself about what the other platform has to offer.
Apple simply has to do more with regard to performance.
Yes, the G4 is very competitive with the Pentium4. However, Apple is now so far behind in processor speed that I'm afraid the only logistical move for them is to either jump ship to another processor, or contract out someone like AMD to make fast PowerPCs built on Apple's specs.
Look at the speed disparities and the benchmarks. Show me a 3D application that renders faster on a dualGHZG4 than on a single 2.53ghzP4. Ditto for renders in After Effects. Web browsing, while much improved with browsers like Navigator, is still slower on a Mac than a PC. I'm not even sure that Photoshop (under OS X) still retains the speed advantage it previously had under OS 9.
Of course, people still buy Macs and still use Macs (even when there's a faster PC on the same desk) because of the elegance of the software. But if Apple continues to fall behind, raw performance numbers will not be able to be dismissed so easily in favor of elegance.
Apple is further inhibited by the current state of OS X, which generally takes hardware people considered fast under OS 9, and leaves it at hohum speeds under X (unless you are on a top of the line new PowerMac).
Some of these problems will be resolved with 10.2, but the hardware is still the crux. If Apple cant rule the roost with raw CPU performance, there are still other technologies they can adopt to make up for it. How about finally adding DDR RAM? Increase bus speeds? How about finally offering Mac users a Professional 3D Workstation Graphics Card?
I'm pulling for Apple all the way, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and lie to myself about what the other platform has to offer.
Apple simply has to do more with regard to performance.
vanguard
Registered
Here's a site that compares AMD performance vs. G4 performance in photoshop.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
It's not the newest x86 stuff but it still beats the G4 hands down. I thought you guys might be interested.
Vanguard
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
It's not the newest x86 stuff but it still beats the G4 hands down. I thought you guys might be interested.
Vanguard
MacLegacy
Unemployed Student!
we have to be realistic, long time I believed macs were more powerful than PCs, NO i'm NOT going to buy a PC but we have to be real and say Apple is lagging behind in several ways (hardware) compared to PCs now..
DDR RAM is missing
Bus Speed is slower
Mhz Myth is true and at the same time isn't
2.5 Ghz will beat the crap out of the most powerful G4 anytime now
By now we should have G5s and we should have at least 2Ghz for sure
It doesn't matter wheter or not we have multiprocessors, it won't give any advantage over most applications.
Motorola might be to blame for not being fast enough to develop though..
Well, all that said, yes the g4 dp 1000 IS powerful but still not as fast as the latest PCs. I'm just saying Apple AND Motorola have to lower their lagging.
Plz don't go flame me
I don't know much technical things and i am not sure if everything I said is true. I'm only 15 but care for Apple.
P.S: My english isn't perfect
i'm open to any comments but not to flaming
DDR RAM is missing
Bus Speed is slower
Mhz Myth is true and at the same time isn't
2.5 Ghz will beat the crap out of the most powerful G4 anytime now
By now we should have G5s and we should have at least 2Ghz for sure
It doesn't matter wheter or not we have multiprocessors, it won't give any advantage over most applications.
Motorola might be to blame for not being fast enough to develop though..
Well, all that said, yes the g4 dp 1000 IS powerful but still not as fast as the latest PCs. I'm just saying Apple AND Motorola have to lower their lagging.
Plz don't go flame me
I don't know much technical things and i am not sure if everything I said is true. I'm only 15 but care for Apple.
P.S: My english isn't perfect
i'm open to any comments but not to flaming
xaqintosh
Master of Reality
I must say that I have to agree, although Macs are better systems, Apple is definitely lagging in Processor/Bus speed and DDR ram. If Motorola or IBM is to blame, Apple should find a new Processor manufacturer (just not intel )
Just my 2¢ (I really hate that expression...)
)Just my 2¢ (I really hate that expression...)
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
The PowerPC G4 processor is a very powerful processor - especially when AltiVec is factored in. However, it is also true that when comparing raw performance power, the fastest available Athlon or Pentium 4 will beat the fastest available G4 hands down. Even though the "Megahertz Myth" is just that, a myth, the speed improvement in the Athlon and P4 architectures make up for their longer pipelines.
Now, considering that, we have to be realistic and recognize that Apple has limited resources. At present, it is focusing on refining and improving Mac OS X, which is a good thing. Since the beginning of its life, the Mac was never popular because of its raw performance rating, it's successful because it has the best OS around. Now after years of lagging behind in the OS department (no preemptive multitasking, no true multithreading, ineffective memory management), Apple once again has the best OS out there. Even though Apple makes most of their money through hardware sales, it is their OS that is their calling card. So I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X is the main focus right now. Apple simply does not have the resources to port to another platform (even if they wanted to). Also, if Apple makes such a drastic change, it's very possible that they would turn off developers who are porting software. Migrating to a new OS is difficult enough, but a new OS on a new chip? Not to mention the possible of retaliation from Microsoft from perceived threat!
Now I am not saying that Apple shouldn't increase the performance of the Mac, but Apple does have limited resources and it has to decide where to dedicate it. However, after the release of Jaguar, Apple probably has more resources to spare and evalute its actions in terms of hardware innovation.
Also, let's point out that some of the best workstation makers out there have some of the slowest chips around. SGI and Sun's highend workstations are barely 1GHz, and most of their workstations are at the 500MHz range.
I guess the thing to do would be evaluating your own personal experience. Is the Mac not performing what you are asking of it in an acceptable manner? Or are you asking for speed increase for the sake of bragging rights?
Just my 2 cents.
Now, considering that, we have to be realistic and recognize that Apple has limited resources. At present, it is focusing on refining and improving Mac OS X, which is a good thing. Since the beginning of its life, the Mac was never popular because of its raw performance rating, it's successful because it has the best OS around. Now after years of lagging behind in the OS department (no preemptive multitasking, no true multithreading, ineffective memory management), Apple once again has the best OS out there. Even though Apple makes most of their money through hardware sales, it is their OS that is their calling card. So I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X is the main focus right now. Apple simply does not have the resources to port to another platform (even if they wanted to). Also, if Apple makes such a drastic change, it's very possible that they would turn off developers who are porting software. Migrating to a new OS is difficult enough, but a new OS on a new chip? Not to mention the possible of retaliation from Microsoft from perceived threat!
Now I am not saying that Apple shouldn't increase the performance of the Mac, but Apple does have limited resources and it has to decide where to dedicate it. However, after the release of Jaguar, Apple probably has more resources to spare and evalute its actions in terms of hardware innovation.
Also, let's point out that some of the best workstation makers out there have some of the slowest chips around. SGI and Sun's highend workstations are barely 1GHz, and most of their workstations are at the 500MHz range.
I guess the thing to do would be evaluating your own personal experience. Is the Mac not performing what you are asking of it in an acceptable manner? Or are you asking for speed increase for the sake of bragging rights?
Just my 2 cents.
xaqintosh
Master of Reality
These are very good points, but the thing is that PC users will never switch to he mac platform when the mhz clock speeds are so low. I am currently Extremely happy with my 350mhz iMac with 128mb sdram, but that is not the point. I know that most Mac users aren't necessarily complaining about Apple's slowness in these issues, however If Apple wants to not only keep its current customers but also get new ones from the PC world, it needs to make some definite increases in speed and RAM.
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
I see your point, but I don't fully agree with it. The truth is, a lot of people are switching to the Macs for the first time in their lives due to OS X. I am, in fact, one of them. I am a UNIX junkie and an enterprise application developer. I have never thought about owning a Mac, but as a former NeXTSTEP advocate, I jumped onto the Mac bandwagon as soon as the Mac OS X appeared. And I am certainly not alone, if you chat with the more "techie" users, such as longtime UNIX users, you'll see that many are considering Macs for the first time in their lives. In fact, a lot of developers are moving over to the Mac, and this is a good thing. These users are the ones who often come up with innovative software - in fact, Mosaic, the first web browser was developed on NeXTSTEP.
Now about speed... There was a poll on Slashdot.org yesterday regarding the speed of the processors in people's machines. This is a website dedicated to tech-heads, and the largest majority of responses are 1GHz and below! Raw performance is nice, but it becomes irrelevant at a certain point (for most computing task of course, not talking about rendering 3D in realtime here).
Also, most of the people who are buying the fastest P4 and Athlon chips are hardcore gamers, and there is no way in heck Apple can woo these people anyway, Macs simply is not the best gaming platform out there.
I can't tell you how much Mac OS X have shifted people's perception of the Mac in the tech/developer/UNIX world. It's so great to see people, who for years looked at Macs in disgust, seriously thinking about buying themselves a Mac (incidentally their major gripe is the one button mouse, but that is another story).
xaqintosh
Master of Reality
I also see your point, and it is absolutely great, but the majority of PC users are not Unix techies, unfortunately, and they don't realize that Macs are a viable alternative. We have to somehow convince them to renounce the Dark Side (windows & Microsoft, not Linux/Unix etc.)
As for the one-button mouse, I prefer two-button scroll wheel mice myself, and Apple should have an option of either one or two buttons.
As for the one-button mouse, I prefer two-button scroll wheel mice myself, and Apple should have an option of either one or two buttons.
dricci
Registered
This isn't so much a concern for the major consumer convert yet, but we WILL loose pro users over it in time due to the higher bus speed and ram, which, like it or not, will give them more power for much less money than a high end power mac. Pro users don't care about interface, they learn 2 or 3 video or audio apps and that's all they need.
So unless Apple can get some higher bus speeds and better ram and of course, 2 - 3 ghz G4s/G5s out soon then we do stand to see some pros looking to upgrade from an older Power Mac looking at a Dell with a new P4.
So unless Apple can get some higher bus speeds and better ram and of course, 2 - 3 ghz G4s/G5s out soon then we do stand to see some pros looking to upgrade from an older Power Mac looking at a Dell with a new P4.