Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 20:49 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews The news that Apple is going to switch to Intel processors shook up the computing world. Many users and developers were eager to publish their opinions on the switch. However, one group of people were totally neglected during all this: resellers. Today, we feature an interview with Wim Schermer, first Dutchman to own a Mac (in 1984), and co-founder of one of the biggest Apple retail stores in The Netherlands, MacSupport. We discuss the switch to Intel, and much more.
Order by: Score:
Good interview
by Andrew Youll on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:07 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

A good interview, very detailed, one question though... why drop prices of all G4's because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4's (haven't checked the iBook's FSB mind).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good interview
by godawful on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:34 UTC in reply to "Good interview"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

the mac mini changed the resale value for a lot of macs i believe is the point.. granted it does have lower specs then some, it still has higher specs (in areas) then others.. pre mac mini i would bet you could get 6 or 700 for a dual 500 g4.. after the mac mini that dropped.. i know the value of mine dropped like 150

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good interview
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:37 UTC in reply to "Good interview"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I wouldn't call the speed of the drive a flaw... its running at full speed.

Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Good interview
by pravda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Good interview"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales.

If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.

Fortunately outside of Apple and its patented "Greatly Insane Management" protocols, such a risk does not exist.

As has been shown on many sites, the Mac mini with a 7200rpm 2.5" drive is a much nicer computer to use. And it has been thoroughly shown that this mod does not enable the machine to compete with a G5 tower.

At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good interview
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good interview"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.

You're over-generalizing. For most people, a Mac mini is all they need. Apple wants the people who want something in the middle to upgrade to the low-end towars... not simply be content with the Mac mini. It makes a lot of business sense

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good interview
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good interview"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's "insanely great." Get your RDF terminology right, for Steve's sake. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Good interview
by kaiwai on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good interview"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers.

Oh, come on, that is the biggest load of bullcrap I have ever heard; they probably didn't use the 7200rpm, because they couldn't get the number they wanted in volume; maybe they got a better deal by asking for more 5400rpm models rather than spliting their request, thus lowering their power to leverage during negotiations.

7200rpm 2.5inch hard disks aren't the status quo, they aren't being produced in volume, and it would be crazy for Apple to start demanding HDD manufacturers to start speeding up production of 7200rpm without an expected delay.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Good interview
by kellym6 on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good interview"
kellym6 Member since:
2005-08-02

Its more likely a simple means off differentiating their hardware lineups in palatable means which affect most computer users.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good interview
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:30 UTC in reply to "Good interview"
Anonymous Member since:
---

A good interview, very detailed, one question though... why drop prices of all G4's because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4's (haven't checked the iBook's FSB mind).

Its all about perception and marketing, you, I and a majority of OS news readers know how much things like harddrive,ram and video gpu speed effect the overall speed of a computer. However the umm unwashed masses don't, most do know that cpu speed does efect it so when they see 2 computers on the shelf both are 1.5 ghz but one is 600-700$ more it becomes difficult for salesmen to explain why, so in the sales pitch after the techno jargon they mention they can get it it for 200$ less now

Reply Score: 0

Mac & Linux
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One of the most honest Linux positions I had read on a long time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mac & Linux
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:51 UTC in reply to "Mac & Linux"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think he's just not very informed. Its also against his interest to say "Oh yes, Linux is very good, and it runs on commodity hardware!". So of course he's going to play it down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac & Linux
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac & Linux"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I didn't see his comments as "playing Linux down". He's right in the sense that "why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system".

In the same machine, OS X "feels" faster than Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Mac & Linux
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac & Linux"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"He's right in the sense that "why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system"."

Simply because not all "Unix" are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free.
So: Mac OS? Yes, of course, else why buy a Mac. Linux? Why not?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mac & Linux
by Marlor on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac & Linux"
Marlor Member since:
2005-07-09

"Simply because not all "Unix" are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free."

Well, install Fink on OS X and you have access to most of those packages anyway.

That said, I think there is certainly a place for GNU/Linux on Mac hardware, but the point Wim was making in the article is that your average user wouldn't have a need for it (and would probably mess up their computers trying to install it), so he doesn't market it at his stores, which is fair enough. If techies have a need for Debian, they can easily download the ISOs anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mac & Linux
by japail on Fri 5th Aug 2005 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mac & Linux"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

XNU does not have identical performance characteristics to alternative PPC operating systems that some may desire to use for certain server applications. Yep, that matters about next to nil for the vast majority of people that are going to buy a Mac.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mac & Linux
by melgross on Fri 12th Aug 2005 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac & Linux"
melgross Member since:
2005-08-12

Mostly terrible packages from the standpoint of general usability, thats why.

On the desktop, Linux is still a hobbyist OS.

the difference is that with OS X the computer can be your hobby, with Linux the OS must be your hobby.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mac & Linux
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac & Linux"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Mac OS X doesn't always feel faster under Linux. On my machine, it typically feels much slower. But that was because I typically ran a leaner Linux installation which better suited my needs anyway.

The second point is that the typical Unix distribution will offer a greater number and more current packages than Mac OS X. Sure, stuff will compile and run under Mac OS X but I don't want to waste time doing that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Mac & Linux
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac & Linux"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can't really do anything with it as an individual or small company."

It sure sounds like he's playing down desktop linux here, or just willfully ignorant.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Mac & Linux
by melgross on Fri 12th Aug 2005 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac & Linux"
melgross Member since:
2005-08-12

No, I don't agree. He's right. I never found Linux to be useful. It's fine to play around with. If you want to use the stuff available to have fun with as a hobby, it's fine. But it's just too much hassle for those of us who want to use our systems rather than play with them.

Reply Score: 1

v algarete
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:40 UTC
v Where I disagree
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:47 UTC
RE: Where I disagree
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:14 UTC in reply to "Where I disagree"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree with you. It's Mac OS X only. It's easier than Windows and solid as Linux. Why bother with dual boot?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Where I disagree
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 03:11 UTC in reply to "Where I disagree"
Anonymous Member since:
---

you are by far in the minority. by far.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Where I disagree
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 5th Aug 2005 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Where I disagree"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"you are by far in the minority. by far."

Maybe. But clearly not among the people who post here (just read the other comments)

Reply Score: 1

mac mini
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I just got my first Mac mini and I love it (the 1.42 GHz model). It currently only has 256 MB of ram, but for web browsing and simple work like web processing and listening to music it's more than enough.

I am upgrading to 1GB of RAM, just didn't want to pay Apple's price on that.

I totally love it! Granted I was upgrading from a 450MHz machine. ;)

Reply Score: 0

Price
by Matt24 on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:19 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

He also gives a good explanation why Macs are more expensive than PC's:

'The price/quality ratio must be similar to the rest of the market, and I think Apple is doing that quite well.'

Reply Score: 1

RE: Price
by kellym4 on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:35 UTC in reply to "Price"
kellym4 Member since:
2005-08-02

Actually, I think he got it wrong about the whole price issue. Sure, Macs typically are of higher quality but they don't cost more. The problem the creates this illusion amongst most PC users is that Apple includes bundled software and additional hardware components in the computers which aren't typically incorporated in what they believe are comparable PCs. If Apple costs more its because you're getting more. It's a hard point to illustrate because Apple limits the amount of selection that you can get. As a result, you are typically forced into buying more than what you may want. Regardless, the notion that Macs are more expensive is a false one. When a PC is equipped with the exact same components in hardware, software and operating system (and that means ALL the components no more no less) as that which come standard on any Mac the two computers will typically be the same price. Often times, the Mac will be less expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Price
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Price"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple includes bundled software"

My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn't care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.

Ergo: that argument doesn't stand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Price
by kellym4 on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Price"
kellym4 Member since:
2005-08-02

"My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn't care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.

Ergo: that argument doesn't stand."


How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn't cost more than an equivalent PC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Price
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Price"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn't cost more than an equivalent PC."

Because when you Mac users say that, you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, something that PC users never do (I know, Mac software is better, but its cost to Apple isn't higher than the cost of equivalent software to Dell or Sony)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Price
by kellym4 on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Price"
kellym4 Member since:
2005-08-02

"you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, "

No, only the price to an equivilent version of software to run on Windows. Windows equivilents for iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and Garageband cost between $200 - $250. If you factor this in, and then match Windows XP Professional (not consumer) against OS X Tiger, then the Mac usually comes out about $50 - $100 less than a comperably equipped PC.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Price
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Price"
RE[7]: Price
by kellym6 on Fri 5th Aug 2005 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Price"
kellym6 Member since:
2005-08-02

"Yeah, right. You get Nero or EasyCD creator when you buy a burner."

These are applications for Burning DVDs (and CDs) not making a DVD.


"Movie Maker 2"

Movie Maker's video editing capeabilities are more akin to QuickTime Pro's.


"Picasa is free"

You're right. Now that its free... it does trump iPhoto for its freeness.


"iTunes is free"

I didn't mention iTunes for that reason.


"Acid XPress is free"

Garageband is not a sequencer. Well, it can sequence audio, but its not a sequencer. An appropriate comparitive application is fruity loops.


"Only an idiot would pay $200 for something like iLife."

Well, sure... if iLife was what you described it then ya. But you're obviously not familair with iLife so your response isn't accurate.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Price
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Price"
RE[6]: Price
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Price"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but Joe User *does not buy separate commercial software*, except maybe for MS Office, but tech savy friends are telling Joe User to download OpenOffice instead.
And the majority of us use OSS instead, unless we *really* need a commercial program.

Reply Score: 1

v omg
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 01:48 UTC
RE: omg
by dru_satori on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:25 UTC in reply to "omg"
dru_satori Member since:
2005-07-06

Only in the most general sense of the word. Technically speaking, a Mac is a 'Personal Computer'. However, it's been many years since the Mac described itself that way. Some people would, and could make a case for modern Mac's being 'workstation' class computers. I'm not one of them, I always felt that to be a misnomer anyways. For what's it's worth, IBM service marked the IBM PC, and the clones of the original 4.77 mhz 8086 based IBM PC used the term 'PC' (not the full Personal Computer as you are inferring it to be) as a general moniker for 'x86 computer capable of running software designed for the IBM PC and compatable devices'. This general term does not therefore include the Mac, as it does not meet that criteria.

As an aside, it is called Virtual 'PC', not Virtual x86, though that is in fact what it is.

In short, while you may be technically correct on one level, you are incorrect on the more approriate social and conversational level.

A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC, which in a nod to the evolution of spoken language may have started life as an acronym for Personal Computer, it has become through common usage a moniker that means x86 compatable computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: omg
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: omg"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC"

The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: omg
by dru_satori on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: omg"
dru_satori Member since:
2005-07-06

The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config

I don't think so. While it will share many of the same guts, most Macs today already do, the only real differences in what's inside is a CPU and chipset, a Mac wll continue to differentiate itself by design and implementation. We already know that will happen with the first generation MacTel's. We've already been told that Apple intends on using Intel's new BIOS, which to this point none of the x86 vendors are doing. We also can be fairly certain that Apple will continue it's emphasis on leveraging the hardware, and that means that they will continue to integrate the OS to the hardware to tweak performance and functions. This is probably the biggest reason _against_ opening the OS to any x86 box. Once you get into generic systems, and the general x86 'Reference Designs' that make up the vast bulk of x86 hardware today, you get into Least Common Denominator territory.

LCD is the great weakness of all the x86 proponents. It means making sacrifices for non-optimized hardware, or worse, implementing a hundred little kludges around known LCD issues, sacrificing performance and stability. I don't expect Apple to go down this path. While Windows and Linux will probably run on the hardware, don't expect Apple to go out of their way to make that easier. Their only interest will lie in tweaking the Hardware and OS X to work together as smoothly as possible.

I do have a Transition Kit, and while I can't say anything more than that about it, I can say with confidence that the next 5 years are going to be a hell of alot of fun for the entire IT industry as Intel, Microsoft, Apple and AMD lay waste to the stagnate rate of innovation in hardware and operating systems of the past 10 years.

Reply Score: 1

macs in holland
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 04:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Nice to hear from Wim, but when asked about Linux, he seemd like the Mac version of Martin Taylor, friendly but dismissive:

"...f you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac"

"But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop."

You might as well say that since Debian works, why have any other Linux distro-people like choice. Often, an older Mac may run better under Linux than under the latest OSX, I agree, users of new models will likely prefer OS X.

Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don't know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won't find in Linux? ( just asking ).

Reply Score: 0

RE: macs in holland
by dru_satori on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:38 UTC in reply to "macs in holland"
dru_satori Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don't know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won't find in Linux? ( just asking ).

Probably more than you'd guess, particularly if they have existing Mac's. There are several tools, like 4D and FileMaker that have quite a bit of custom development that's specific to Mac's. There is also a fair amount of veritcal market success that start life on NeXTstep that went to the Mac with OS X. These numbers certainly aren't on the level of projects rooted in Platform specific technologies like MS Access, Visual Basic or Delphi (Kylix is a joke), but for existing Mac shops or shops looking to go Mac, there are few niche markets that don't have Mac competitive products, and that includes the one that I work in (230 potential customers in the US, there are 5 competitors vending to them. There are 3 sites running Mac products written in 4D, some are using a product written in C#, others one in Basic, and others one in PRogress, the one I work on is in a mix of Delphi and C++).

For what it's worth, I do my development on a Mac, and am doing Mac development in my spare time, and there is a growing marketplace for custom Mac development, so this trend is only likely to continue.

Reply Score: 1

FreeBSD?
by rajan r on Fri 5th Aug 2005 05:46 UTC
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac.

Wow, I didn't know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.

FreeBSD isn't synonymous to BSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FreeBSD?
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 07:15 UTC in reply to "FreeBSD?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wow, I didn't know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.

FreeBSD isn't synonymous to BSD.


What? Next thing you know you'll claim that Red Hat isn't synonymous to Linux? ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: FreeBSD?
by japail on Fri 5th Aug 2005 08:01 UTC in reply to "FreeBSD?"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Yes, it is definitely amusing how people gloss over the details of XNU in order to refer to it as FreeBSD. Apple provides extensive documentations as well as public CVS access to the source code for anyone to peruse and see the myriad of sources various pieces of code come from, the fundamental differences in the underlying design, and where common code between original sources has since diverged. Despite all of this, the base of XNU is FreeBSD and that means it's stable/fast/Real UNIX/a superhero.

Reply Score: 1

Knock it off..
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 07:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

""why Macs are more expensive than PC's"

A Mac is a PC"

Be-jaysus ! - Did it ever occur to you that some (actually quite a lot!) words have more than one notion..? Probably not. For the purpose of this discussion, a Mac is not a PC. Life is a lot easier if you get these little notions and don't bug others with decade-old, and wrong comments.

Reply Score: 0

He may be surprised...
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 07:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Of course, he knows his business. But think what will be on the shelves a year from now. It will be products from Dell and from Apple whose sole difference will be the OS and bundled software. The punter will immediately be able to see processor speed, disk size, memory, graphics and know that these are or are not comparably spec'd at comparable prices. At the moment he really cannot make that comparison. because of all the FUD about processors. Now, the Apple loyalists would argue, this is fine. Macs are comparably priced now, and will still be comparably priced a year from now. We'll see. I think there will turn out to be a 30% premium, at least, and I think it won't fly. Or rather, it will fly for the loyalists, who will tell themselves the usual stories. But it won't fly for the other 95% of the market. And in the end, as a strategy, this is the way to become the Amiga of this decade.

Reply Score: 0

RE: He may be surprised...
by Dark_Knight on Fri 5th Aug 2005 13:18 UTC in reply to "He may be surprised..."
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

I agree. A company can't advertise and comment in the news, seminars, etc that their processor is the most powerful, fastest on the planet then retract it later with out having significant impact on how consumers view the company. Especially when the company, in this case Apple switches to Intel who they have trashed publicly in recent history. In the process of switching to Intel I do believe Apple has a lot of damage control to worry about and resellers that believe it won't be an issue seem to have their head stuck in the sand.

Reply Score: 1

Is that really true?
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 10:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now, I'm the first to admit I know nothing first-hand about the 900 series CPU's, but knowing the thermal characteristics of Intel CPU's (disregarding the M, which I think is the best CPU Intel ever created), does the following really rhyme?

And, they won't be able to make a G5 PowerBook, because it produces too much heat, and so Apple decided to bet on Intel because Intel can get the same speeds with about 5 to 7 times less the amount of heat.

Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?

Assuming a somewhat similar efficiency as an Intel CPU, that wastes around 30% of the power it consumes as heat, it would mean the G5 would need about as much power as a household microwave oven, or a full-sized vacuum cleaner!

That can't be right, can it?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Is that really true?
by Johann Chua on Fri 5th Aug 2005 10:17 UTC in reply to "Is that really true?"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?

Um, haven't you heard of the Pentimu M?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Is that really true?
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Is that really true?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Johann Chua wrote:
Um, haven't you heard of the Pentimu M?

No, never. Could that be the reason I stated I think it's the best CPU Intel ever created?

Sarcasm aside, you've got a point. He was talking about laptops, and obviously a P4 is not even on the radar while M is. Still, is the M really that more efficient than a G5? 5-7 times is ... much.

Reply Score: 0

Interview Wim Schermer
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 10:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Thank you for making the interview available. As a customer of Wim I
know he is a nice guy. But, even though I am probably not the "average" customer, my plans are definitely different from what Wim describes, because the main reason for not buying a PC still exist, the Intel processor, with its unbelievable way of processing bits (aka small-endian).
So what I'll do is, switch the major part of my processing to Linux and just keep a system for iLife type applications. With G5 iMacs getting cheaper there must be a moment that I can buy such a beast and say Goodbye to Apple (and Wim).
---
Klaas.

Reply Score: 0

Pentium M myths
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 12:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yes, it consumes less energy and produces less heat in average, but can it be honsetly compared with other CPU with same nominal clock speed?
I mean SpeedStep or alike.
If Pentium M runs permanently at its whole speed, e.g. while encoding DivX, i suspect it produces almost same heat as, to say, PIII. And maybe more than G4

Reply Score: 0

Good article but....
by Dark_Knight on Fri 5th Aug 2005 15:01 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

Over all it was a good interview article to read. Though I did find it some what confusing regarding a few comments made by Mr. Schermer as pointed out below.

Re: "Linux is a very good system, but let's be honest, it's a UNIX variant. And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac."

The simple answer here is choice. In that the consumer should have the freedom to run on their hardware what ever software they want and not have it decided by someone else. Also most switchers to Linux that don't choose OSX do so not because it's a UNIX variant as Mr. Schermer commented but because they are in most cases coming from a Windows background where the desktop GUI is similar to what distributions such as SuSE Linux, Mandriva Linux, Linspire, etc provide. While OSX is a good OS and it can be a useful resource to consumers it's apparent the GUI is not familiar to consumers (home, business, etc) that typically have used Windows for several years.

Re: "Of course, Linux is a good and especially compact system, there's nothing wrong with it. But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can't really do anything with it as an individual or small company. For servers, yes, it's very good for that. But that's just a relatively small part of the market. And it's also on solid ground in the scientific area. But the largest piece of the pie is the desktop segment; companies, individuals. Linux is on the rise, but mostly on servers."

What applications is he referring to..Office applications, graphics, etc? Post-Production studios for example have used Linux for years and have several options between commerical and open source applications to choose from. They don't just use Linux for servers or render farms but on their workstations as well. I could point out several distributions that not only offer just as much as OSX but in some cases would be easier for Windows users to transition to. This isn't just for businesses but also home consumers too. Typically the arguement from non-Linux users is that a Linux user can't buy products such as Photoshop for Linux. Well why should we when there's viable alternatives for free (ie: Gimp and Cinepaint)? With a selection of several thousand open source software applications to choose from it's hard to find reason to buy commercial software if there's a viable alternative available for free. The only thing Linux doesn't have going for it right now is mass marketing by distribution developers. It's only until this past year that I've noticed SuSE Linux and Linspire being offered through distributor channels and retail outlets. I'm sure due to the issues being raised with Windows users upgrading to Windows Vista and Apple's decision to switch to another architecture will provide increased interest in Linux. This would not only be due to what applications are available but also Linux increased support for new and legacy hardware.

Reply Score: 1

mini
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The Mini Mac is a great value. I'm enjoying it and safari is cool.

Even though the hard drive speeds are lower. I have successfully loaded video in to Final Cut Pro through fire wire, no problems what so ever. The deck is Panasonic and it's 2,000.00. That's 4x as much as a paid for my Mini.

No viruses, I will buy another one when it has Intel in it. I never shut the mini off. I still want a G5 though.

ken

Reply Score: 0

hardware price comparison app
by pravda on Sat 6th Aug 2005 06:54 UTC
pravda
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be interesting if someone wrote a hardware price comparison web page.

The user could select from a variety of weightings (based on usage of the machine) and then compare systems from different vendors.

I am surprised one of the shopping sites does not make such a thing.

With such a web page / app, it would make some of these comparisons less about viewpoints and more about numbers.

Reply Score: 1

losers
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 00:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

you people are a bunch of losers.. I spend a ton of time in various OSes but jeez, ive never sat and argued over a fscking price point.

and i thought i had no life...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Good interview
by melgross on Fri 12th Aug 2005 15:53 UTC
melgross
Member since:
2005-08-12

No one, except for those who are trying to be sarcastic is suggesting that a faster Mini would compete with a Powermac. That's just insane.

It would compete with the eMac, and the low end $1295 iMac G5.

The eMac is not much different except for the crt. The 17" iMac is not too much more than a Mini with a 17" LCD plus keyboard and mouse.

Reply Score: 1