Will your next Mac have this?
- Thread starter Nachohat
- Start date
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?
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?
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.
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
Registered
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.
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$, Redhat, and motherboard companies. Think innovative! The key bottle neck in a system is the slow hard drive. Let's write the OS's and develop the motherboards to use the inexpensive memory to speed things up.
Sorry for the subject title sounding so rude. I'm just frustrated that no one out there is developing serious caching to speed our 'puters up.
Tigger
Bring mich zum Licht!
I don't have any problems with the startup speed of programs, as I open them in the background anyway.
You don't get Window-dragging and resizing faster via caching.
Not even saving of files, unless you want to go the rather insecure way of writing the file to your RAM and write it to disk later (What if your OS crashes meanwhile?).
You don't get Window-dragging and resizing faster via caching.
Not even saving of files, unless you want to go the rather insecure way of writing the file to your RAM and write it to disk later (What if your OS crashes meanwhile?).
mccallister I don't know what the hell you are talking about 
Even if memory prices are pretty cheap (and you will find that they have gone up recently), you can't just build a computer with 2Gigs of cache. Lets assume that cache costs the same as DDR 400 RAM; about 100$/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)
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
Registered
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
*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.
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$. Come on Apple, I want my Surround Sound in the next PowerMacs!
Right now you can buy a cheap pc motherboard for about 130$ with Surround and 5.1 speakers for less than 100$. Come on Apple, I want my Surround Sound in the next PowerMacs!
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.
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
Registered
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.
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
Bring mich zum Licht!
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
Registered
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.
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.