IBM G5 Dual-Core 2.5 ghz

opus66 said: "Ummm... and where did I say that the mac was a resource hog and inefficient? Dude, grow up and stop trying to start a flame war. I find your entire post to be just a little too far to the side of bitter."

I think it was a "conclusion". He didn't say you _said_ it was a resource hog and inefficient.

I think terms like "grow up" are rather dangerous in terms of flamewar material. So, dudes, all a'ya: Grow up and stay tame! ;)
 
@opus66

You are assuming that the Intel macs will somehow automatically lower the barriers to entry to trying OS X. This is false, unless Apple allows non-Mac machines to run OS X, which I doubt is going to be the case. You will still need to buy a new machine to try out OS X.

As I've said before in my post, Dell isn't No.1 because of making quality machines. They have the honors of that spot because of a) volume discounts and b) good support. Apple should never compare themselves to Dell in terms of quality. It's like getting Ferrari to compare itself with Ford (i know, beating dead horse). Different leagues, and they should stay there.

It's alright to make assumptions, but I'm pointing out that some of the assumptions made aren't based on sound reasoning. Granted, they could be expressed in a more un-antagonistic way, but I've grown tired of rehashing what is essentially the same arguments with the Mac 'faithful'. There is no need to take offense, because none were intended. You have your opinions, and I have mine. Needless to say, discussion should be done in an adult manner, and just because I disagree with your arguments and point out why, doesn't mean it is flame bait. If you want flame bait, go hang out on some GaMerZ ForUmz and see the 1337 h4x0rs flaming each other to death. ;)
 
What opus66 was trying to say with the "special from their chip" comment is that MacOS X is a hugely different beast than Windows in terms of resources it utilizes. Using the vector unit in a lot of places helps MacOS X perform quite efficiently, but at the same time, "requires something special from the chip". :)
 
Yeah, just don't mix things up. The _interface_ for example profits much more from a decent graphics card than it does from AltiVec. An iBook G3/900, for example, performs the user interface quite nicely. It doesn't compare well to a 800 MHz G4 iBook, though, if it comes to video or audio encoding. Software optimised for the Velocity Engine really makes the G3 look like a very old processor. I'm sure once a decent intel Mac comes out, we'll see how well which tasks are running. But be sure that the user interface won't lag. That's mainly the graphics card.

And Viro: An intel Mac _does_ make it easier to switch to the Mac, because it offers you a way back to Windows, should a user really consider that, without selling the Mac and buying a PC. Sure, that's not as easy an entry point as Mac OS X for _any_ PC, but for people who're looking into replacing their old computer, a Mac suddenly is much more attractive. The user can try Mac OS X, can dual boot into Windows and - should the Mac side of things really not be what he or she wanted - move back to Windows. All on one machine.
 
The thing is, there hasn't been any confirmation whether you can dual boot Windows on the Intel Macs. Anything people say now is just speculation on what some Apple exec said about not officially supporting Windows on Intel Macs.
 
Just to be clear, I wasn't looking to get into an argument that gets personal... so I'm glad we're in agreement there...

fryke, thanks for the clarification on my entry barrier argument, as that's exactly what I was trying to explain.

From everything I've read thus far, the Macintel machine will easily dual boot (ironically, I think Mac Os will probably have more bugs initially).
My understanding is that any extra hardware Apple requires will be to allow and possibly enhance OSX's operation on the machine. At the same time any such hardware would simply be inactive during Windows usage... Apple simply won't be baited into fielding Windows related support issues/questions from users.

Viro does make an important point... This could also come down to how Apple positions themselves with this capability. If they avoid the issue, and thereby omit it from all media coverage and promotion of the unit... well then they won't be able to benefit from the ease of switching I tried to detail. I hadn't considered that.

All of the posters bashing Dell's quality... you're most likely correct. But just keep in mind that the vast majority of people with very crappy Dell's believe that those crappy machines are the best on the market. Those very unhappy with their Dell, still believe that a Gateway or HP would be a step down from where they are now. Sound ridiculous? Sure, but it's also true. Others simply aren't educated enough to know they should be getting better utility and are therefore quite content.
 
dell have innovated exactly one thing: production line. they make lots of machines very cheaply. they offer big discounts and get lots of "bulk buy" deals. but. they're sh!thouse machines.

and i think we'll probably find the biggest difference between a "PC" and a mac with intel, will be the CMOS bios replaced by a new firmware-based bios..

however, apple have for a long time shipped thier "own" video cards (built using ati and nvidia chips) rather than supplying crappy third-party cards.

this will likely not change, so they probably wont "just work" under windows.
 
Mikuro said:
I'd like to give a big "I told ya so" to the the "IBM can't deliver" crowd now. They've been keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years, regardless of whether they hit their own growth targets.

This is as expected, and pretty much in line with what has been expected for the past year (although it was hoped that they'd be ready for the last revision).

I'd like to hear more about the low-power version. They don't make any specific claims of 'Book-worthiness. Low-power doesn't necessarily mean low-enough-power. If they really can be crammed into PBs, that would be yet another shot to the "Intel's chips are faster" theory of Apple's switch. Hmm.

I still think Apple's decision to switch was not about performance.
Click to expand...


IBM has been "keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years"?

Really?

If so, where is my PowerBook G5?

And where is my 3GHz Power Mac G5?
 
georgelien said:
IBM has been "keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years"?

Really?

If so, where is my PowerBook G5?

And where is my 3GHz Power Mac G5?
Click to expand...
I was referring to desktops. The lack of a laptop-capable G5 IS a big downside (and I consider it to be a likely driving force behind Apple's switch), definitely. But as for the 3GHz thing, as I said before, the G5's clock speed has increased more than the P4's over the past two years. The fact that they "missed" the 3GHz mark means nothing. Sure, it'd be nice and marketable to have a "3" in there, but that's really all it amounts to.

As far as desktops go, IBM's been doing consistently better than Intel ever since they released the G5.
 
Mikuro said:
I was referring to desktops. The lack of a laptop-capable G5 IS a big downside (and I consider it to be a likely driving force behind Apple's switch), definitely. But as for the 3GHz thing, as I said before, the G5's clock speed has increased more than the P4's over the past two years. The fact that they "missed" the 3GHz mark means nothing. Sure, it'd be nice and marketable to have a "3" in there, but that's really all it amounts to.

As far as desktops go, IBM's been doing consistently better than Intel ever since they released the G5.
Click to expand...


I disagree with your "'[missing]' the 3GHz mark means nothing" remark.

If it did meant "nothing," then Steve would not mention it at this year's WWDC.

Apple today could sell twice as many--maybe even more--Power Macintosh G5 computers if the fastest processor speed matches Intel's.

When the G5 was just released, I agree that Apple once again led the race.

However, now 2 years later, the x86 camp had once caught up and passed the performance of the G5s.

If Apple doesn't do something soon, the PM G5 will not only be passed--but blown away--by the high-end PCs.

Dual core, PCI express, DDRII memory and new system bus--just for the start.

God bless the Power Macs!
 
One interesting question I haven't seen answered anywhere is, Did Apple overclock the 2.5 GHz 970s to get 2.7 GHz? Seems likely. They've overclocked before.

And BTW Phil Shiller specifically said Apple would do nothing specific to prevent Windows from running on the MacIntels.

Doug
 
Apple today could sell twice as many--maybe even more--Power Macintosh G5 computers if the fastest processor speed matches Intel's.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know this and that it’s been done to death but it's not about clock speed. Processors are complicated things you can't boil them down to number. PowerPC and AMD have clock speeds slower than Intel but they are great chips!

A more fundamental way would be how many useful computations per clock cycle can a chip perform. And if you look this data you'll find some thing along the line that the high end AMD can process about twice as much in one cycle than some Intels. No wonder the only way out for Intel is to crank the clock speed higher and higher!

From this point of view PPC and AMD are actually better!

However, the PPC design is starting to reach it's limits, and apple has had to use water cooling etc. Intel has realised the error of there way and started paying attention to chip design and are starting to innovate and come out with some great things. The Pentium M for example; based on a P3 core but run on a smaller manufacture process (90nm I think), allowing them to bolt on a huge cache, FSB 400 MHz etc.... features not clock speed.

Chip design and features are more important than and one number.

There is a great podcast that talks about chip design and the Intel v PowerPC stuff on iTunes 4.9. 'MacCast' the shows are a special edition released on 21-06-2005 check them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top