Megahertz Myth...
- Thread starter Jason
- Start date
hulkaros
The Incredible...
I hope you are making jokes here because friend I can upload a video clip here at this very forum letting YOU people see the following:
-An iMac G3/500/512MB RAM/20GB HD/CD-RW/X.2.3 doing the following stuff at the same time...
-Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Stickies, Calculator, Address Book, TextEdit, Safari downloading stuff, Chimera browsing web pages with multimedia and stuff, iTunes playing MP3, iCal publishing calendars, iPhoto, QuickTime, System Preferences, Toast burning and audio CD AND iMovie Video Editing Digital Video with effects and everything ALL AT THE SAME TIME...
Now, all you have to do is let me upload the video only to saw you what words (mine, yours doesn't matter) CANNOT reveal... The video will be shot with a DV Sony video camera with sound and everything. How long do you want it to be? Let me know... Because I cannot really say anything else about a G4/800 with loads of RAM not be able to do similar stuff... Something smells rotten here!
Did you get your G4 at an Apple Store to check it for harware failure? Once we got at our company a new Dual 1GHz which ALWAYS was crushing after some time of even remotely use... The solution? We changed the SuperDrive AND DDR RAM and everything was back to normal... Really Jason, if you cannot multitask with your Mac while burning a CD you MUST check it for problems, both in hardware and software... Here is hoping for software problems only!As for updates please ANYONE do the following:
-Format a Mac and install OS X.2
-Install X.2.3 Combo
-Then check Software update
-You will find QuickTime, iSync, iCal, StuffIt, Airport and iPod updates (6 all and all --or I'll say 8 just in case I forgot 1 or 2)
-Format a Wintel and install XP
-Install SP1 on XP
-Then check M$ Windows Update
-You will find LOADS of updates (too many to describe here) and you know what? The Windows Update is even worse on a Windows 2000 box with Service Pack 3!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn close I here you say? Yes if you wanted to describe the updates condition for Windows XP and 2000 platform... Or simply you wanted to make a joke and a very good one I'm telling you
hulkaros
The Incredible...
Originally posted by kendall
Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!
Was this a sarcasm towards people who insist that X.2 can't multitask and be rock solid like Windows XP? Or drop that! I know it can't be like XP...
It is only better
Maybe in 2004 with XXP M$ will get even with X.2 
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
Originally posted by kendall
Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!
content of reply post removed by edx.
ApeintheShell
Registered
He was probably referencing to the security updates and system updates Mac OS X has been treated too.
In contrast,
first: apple released their security updates instead of covering them up
second: Mac OS X is constantly evolving while Windows XP has stayed put at SP1.
Perhaps you are in denial that any version of the Windows OS is an incomplete one and doesn't offer much in the realm of a fix or overhaul.
Last: Mac OS X can usually update your OS without a restart and even than your back to work/play in 1-2 minutes.
In contrast,
first: apple released their security updates instead of covering them up
second: Mac OS X is constantly evolving while Windows XP has stayed put at SP1.
Perhaps you are in denial that any version of the Windows OS is an incomplete one and doesn't offer much in the realm of a fix or overhaul.
Last: Mac OS X can usually update your OS without a restart and even than your back to work/play in 1-2 minutes.
ApeintheShell
Registered
One more thing: Windows is rock solid. It's interface reminds me of a rock that is easy to break.
edX
mac shaman
well, i've got to tell about my day today as it made me rethink much of what we are discussing here and in many other threads about speed.
i went to an apple store for the first time. i had some time to spend before i had to be somewhere else, so i went over and played with a nice powermac with the biggest lcd screen i've ever used. i figured this thing is going to fly. so went to this site. i was amazed. it wasn't that much faster than the g3 imac 400 i'm using right now. i clicked around a few forums and hit back and it just wasn't impressive.
so then i went over to the 17" imac. it had safari on it, the powermac was using ie. it was a bit better than the powermac. still nothing that would get me excited about needing a new computer. then i tried the 15' imac, also with safari. now this baby did fly. it was lightening fast. pages rendered perfectly and near instantly. so i went to a few other sites. same thing. i went back to the other two and tried other sites. still not as fast and smooth as the 15'.
so lastly, i checked out the emac. it was about the same as the 17" imac. not bad, but nothing to write home about. the only one of these 4 computers that made enough difference from the lowly imac i'm on that i would lust after it was the 15". what's going on here? i mean, if i was sitting there with a stop watch, i could have posted a big report about how there is a mhz myth in apple's own line. I certainly see why people who are paying for the big macs are getting a bit stressed and why those of us with low to mid range consumer models are shouting "what's wrong?".
all i can say is it woke me up. i'm still not sure what it means, but it gave me a look at these speed debates with whole new eyes.
i went to an apple store for the first time. i had some time to spend before i had to be somewhere else, so i went over and played with a nice powermac with the biggest lcd screen i've ever used. i figured this thing is going to fly. so went to this site. i was amazed. it wasn't that much faster than the g3 imac 400 i'm using right now. i clicked around a few forums and hit back and it just wasn't impressive.
so then i went over to the 17" imac. it had safari on it, the powermac was using ie. it was a bit better than the powermac. still nothing that would get me excited about needing a new computer. then i tried the 15' imac, also with safari. now this baby did fly. it was lightening fast. pages rendered perfectly and near instantly. so i went to a few other sites. same thing. i went back to the other two and tried other sites. still not as fast and smooth as the 15'.
so lastly, i checked out the emac. it was about the same as the 17" imac. not bad, but nothing to write home about. the only one of these 4 computers that made enough difference from the lowly imac i'm on that i would lust after it was the 15". what's going on here? i mean, if i was sitting there with a stop watch, i could have posted a big report about how there is a mhz myth in apple's own line. I certainly see why people who are paying for the big macs are getting a bit stressed and why those of us with low to mid range consumer models are shouting "what's wrong?".
all i can say is it woke me up. i'm still not sure what it means, but it gave me a look at these speed debates with whole new eyes.
hulkaros
The Incredible...
Well I bet EdX you know what I'm going to reply but anyways let's play the game:
-Surfing with one window open isn't THAT much depended on computer's horsepower as much as it depends on internet speed connection...
-THAT internet speed is also depended IF you are browsing via a network
-THAT network speed is depended on wither you use a cable based network with a good switch or just a hub. Also, depends on that cabling AND switch capabilities like be it 10 or 10/100 or even better 10/100/1000
-Now, if THAT network is Airport or a similar technology still you have things to take care like walls and other object between your computer and the source of your internet access
-Also, the internet speed depends wither you have a modem speed (any speed) or an ISDN speed or a broadboand, etc.
Also, another role for speed in general under X.2 is how much RAM is installed and even which updates the basic X.2 installation has... Also, what graphics the computer has and not just RADEON or GeForce but color depth and resolutions...
One other thing that MANY users and even the experienced ones, is that of how much cached web stuff the browsers have already and IF that data is actually YOUR kind of internet surfing stuff
Of course it is better if you use Safari or Chimera on ANY Mac system, especially if those Macs are low-end ones or even worst the same Macs are browsing via a modem speed of 33.6 Kbps!!!
And finally, another difference in speed can occur if you have another browser window open and if you have, how many of them are TRULY accessing the internet...
I may be missing here something but I know for sure that my 1GHz Titanium has a HUGE difference with the iBook 700MHz that I've used on the same ISDN connection both with Safari, Chimera, Mozilla, IE while browsing www.macosx.com, www.apple.com, www.mac.com, www.mactopia.com, www.microsoft.com, www.insidemacgames.com...
However, I can understand ANYONE and even I tell them so, who insists on using G3/233/OS 9 for just browsing NOT upgrade or change their Macs in general... I know I'm NOT that good of a sales person
That's why I am a tech person
edX
mac shaman
yea, but even with all those factors, shouldn't a $3,000 + mac beat out a $1500? i mean, these were all on the same network, no real change in number of other users that i noticed, all stock as advertised, etc. i was simply going thru the lineup and peforming a relatively simple task - viewing this forum. it's also a task i do often enough to recognize any problems that are server side and have a perceptual memory of how long certain talks take on my little old mac. like i said, it just kinda surprised me. there is no way i would have walked out with a powermac if i had all the money i needed. i would have gone with one of the imacs. and maybe that's where apple wants to concentrate their sales right now, i don't know.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I work on or with almost every type of Mac made, and I've never felt any real form of speed envy. Sure, as I start using newer apps that require newer hardware, I upgrade, but never to the top-of-the-line. I always end up with mid range consumer models or the low end pro systems (or used higher end systems... I rarely buy new anyway).
What I've found and seen within both my work flow and my client's work flow, is that raw speed of a processor(s) isn't enough to push them to upgrade to newer faster systems.
Lets look at one of my closer (personally) clients whom I have talked to about their systems and what they are looking for. They currently have three G4s (two 400 MHz and one 733 MHz systems) and two G3s (one 350 MHz B&W and one 233 Beige) which are meeting their needs completely. Their software is pretty much the same on all their systems- Mac OS 9.1/9.2.1, QuarkXPress 4.0/4.1, Photoshop 5.5/6.0.1/7.0.1, Illustrator 8.0.1/9.0, Acrobat 4.0/5.0.5 and either ATM Deluxe or Suitcase. Almost all the systems are running with 512 MB of RAM or more and have at least a 40 GB hard drive. Their file server is a B&W 400 with Mac OS 9.1 and Appleshare IP 6.3 and their print server is an HP (Pentium II/400) running Windows NT 4.0 sp6 and Fiery print server software.
As the main reason for not moving to Mac OS X for them has been QuarkXPress (the fact that QuarkXPress 5 wasn't Mac OS X native is why they haven't moved beyond 4.1), they are still very much a Mac OS 9 shop. In talking with the designers I have asked them if they are interested in upgrading their systems (seeing as the one of the two G4/400s is vacant currently), and the answer has been no. Even the one who is using the G3/233 seems more than happy with where he is at.
So comes the question... Why? The answer is one we should really all know by now. For more than 90% of what most of us do with our systems, they are fast enough. Most things in Photoshop don't take nearly long enough any more to effect our work flow. Consider this, as we get faster and faster processors, the difference in actual work benefit decreases. For example, lets say processor X1 can complete a task in Photoshop in 30 sec. Then processor X2 is released that is twice as fast as X1 was and it only takes 15 sec. Later we get X3 and than X4 doing the job in 7.5 and 3.25 sec respectively. Now lets say these processors are released in about two-three year cycles. Buying a new system with an X2 after using an X1 made a noticeable difference when doing this task and felt worth the money you spent. Remembering how good it felt when you upgraded to a X2, you jump on the X3 as soon as it comes out, but you don't seem to notice the benefits quite as much... your a little disappointed. Finally when the X4 hits the street you just can't justify getting a new system for an increase of 3.25 sec on some tasks when not that long ago that type of upgrade would have yielded a 15 sec speed boost. So now comes the X5 which is twice as fast as the X4, but you realize playing with one that moving from your current X3 to an X5 would only yield and increase in speed on some tasks of about 4.9 sec (still less than your last upgrade which gave you a boost of 7.5 sec).
For me, there are only a handful of task that would ever make me think about an upgrade (working on large Quicktime movies and the rare time that I work with a hi-res image in Photoshop). And the last upgrade I did wasn't even to any of my Macs. I upgraded the processor in my SGI Indy a few months ago so it could capture video faster (last time I checked it saved me 7 minutes for every 30 minute process with the old processor).
I think Apple realizes that processor speed is not going to yield the purchases that they need. Old users don't feel the need to upgrade and new users aren't going to see any real differences. Apple is rightly working on features that make their systems more useful to people. In the end, I'm not going to upgrade for a processor that can do things 8 times faster than my current system when 90% of those things take less than a fraction of a sec on my system to begin with. I need a better reason than that. And as for moving from Macs to PCs, even if there was a Wintel system out there that was 20 times faster than my current Mac, the adverse effect on my work flow not only negates the speed increase (if I ever actually got around to doing anything that would show it before leaving the system to get work done on my Mac) but also makes the purchase of the system and software a complete waste of money for me.
What I've found and seen within both my work flow and my client's work flow, is that raw speed of a processor(s) isn't enough to push them to upgrade to newer faster systems.
Lets look at one of my closer (personally) clients whom I have talked to about their systems and what they are looking for. They currently have three G4s (two 400 MHz and one 733 MHz systems) and two G3s (one 350 MHz B&W and one 233 Beige) which are meeting their needs completely. Their software is pretty much the same on all their systems- Mac OS 9.1/9.2.1, QuarkXPress 4.0/4.1, Photoshop 5.5/6.0.1/7.0.1, Illustrator 8.0.1/9.0, Acrobat 4.0/5.0.5 and either ATM Deluxe or Suitcase. Almost all the systems are running with 512 MB of RAM or more and have at least a 40 GB hard drive. Their file server is a B&W 400 with Mac OS 9.1 and Appleshare IP 6.3 and their print server is an HP (Pentium II/400) running Windows NT 4.0 sp6 and Fiery print server software.
As the main reason for not moving to Mac OS X for them has been QuarkXPress (the fact that QuarkXPress 5 wasn't Mac OS X native is why they haven't moved beyond 4.1), they are still very much a Mac OS 9 shop. In talking with the designers I have asked them if they are interested in upgrading their systems (seeing as the one of the two G4/400s is vacant currently), and the answer has been no. Even the one who is using the G3/233 seems more than happy with where he is at.
So comes the question... Why? The answer is one we should really all know by now. For more than 90% of what most of us do with our systems, they are fast enough. Most things in Photoshop don't take nearly long enough any more to effect our work flow. Consider this, as we get faster and faster processors, the difference in actual work benefit decreases. For example, lets say processor X1 can complete a task in Photoshop in 30 sec. Then processor X2 is released that is twice as fast as X1 was and it only takes 15 sec. Later we get X3 and than X4 doing the job in 7.5 and 3.25 sec respectively. Now lets say these processors are released in about two-three year cycles. Buying a new system with an X2 after using an X1 made a noticeable difference when doing this task and felt worth the money you spent. Remembering how good it felt when you upgraded to a X2, you jump on the X3 as soon as it comes out, but you don't seem to notice the benefits quite as much... your a little disappointed. Finally when the X4 hits the street you just can't justify getting a new system for an increase of 3.25 sec on some tasks when not that long ago that type of upgrade would have yielded a 15 sec speed boost. So now comes the X5 which is twice as fast as the X4, but you realize playing with one that moving from your current X3 to an X5 would only yield and increase in speed on some tasks of about 4.9 sec (still less than your last upgrade which gave you a boost of 7.5 sec).
For me, there are only a handful of task that would ever make me think about an upgrade (working on large Quicktime movies and the rare time that I work with a hi-res image in Photoshop). And the last upgrade I did wasn't even to any of my Macs. I upgraded the processor in my SGI Indy a few months ago so it could capture video faster (last time I checked it saved me 7 minutes for every 30 minute process with the old processor).
I think Apple realizes that processor speed is not going to yield the purchases that they need. Old users don't feel the need to upgrade and new users aren't going to see any real differences. Apple is rightly working on features that make their systems more useful to people. In the end, I'm not going to upgrade for a processor that can do things 8 times faster than my current system when 90% of those things take less than a fraction of a sec on my system to begin with. I need a better reason than that. And as for moving from Macs to PCs, even if there was a Wintel system out there that was 20 times faster than my current Mac, the adverse effect on my work flow not only negates the speed increase (if I ever actually got around to doing anything that would show it before leaving the system to get work done on my Mac) but also makes the purchase of the system and software a complete waste of money for me.