Bare Feats has some interesting benchmarks to show: Fastest G5 so far to the fastest G4 MP. G5 is much faster on memory operations, but not all operations are faster than the G4. Bare Feats says that until developers optimize their code for the G5, users won’t see G5 being speedier than G4 on all tests. Same thing happens with all new CPUs though, including the P4s which included a new instruction set and developers had to compile for it in order to take advantage of what it really had to offer.
G5/2GHz MP Performance Data compared to the G4/1.42GHz MP
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well in some aspects the G4 wasn’t all around “slow as snails”, but Moto has deep issues, and just dropped what may have been a very decent chip with proper updates; I also read that ALL the PPC engineers that Moto fired / laid off were hired by Intel (I guess that’s why the P4 FINALLY started to take off).
<I also read that ALL the PPC engineers that Moto fired / laid off were hired by Intel >
That’s simply NOT true. if I were to write down what I have read over the years that simply is NOT true….man oh man it would fill a library.
Stay on topic and don’t spread nonsense.
“(I guess that’s why the P4 FINALLY started to take off)
And really, when did the P4 ever really “take off”
According to Bare Feats, the advantages that the G4 has over the G5 are in some AltiVec instructions. The G4 blasted past all competition when AltiVec was utilized. If the G5’s AltiVec is is only slightly slower in certain operations as compared to the G4 that still puts it leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.
The thing that bothers me about this news posting is that the forum trolls on this site will read this to mean that the G5 is “as slow as the G4 which must mean that it is slower than x86 chips”.
All this means is that the G4’s altivec instruction is WAY faster than most everything out there and that the G5’s altivec is slightly less fast.
Firstly, This isn’t slashdot. We don’t find that funny.
Secondly, What are you talking about?
To my knowledge, Moto still makes G4’s…they just don’t give a flying f*ck about the desktop anymore, and for good reason, the embedded market is several times larger for them than the desktop market ever was or will be.
Apple just slashed their prices for education customers.
1GHz eMac w/ Superdrive is 1,099.00
2GHz G5 2,699.00
12″ Powerbook $1,399.
How many more hundreds do they need to shed?
The 12″ Powerbook prices (esp. for Education) look SWEET. Exactly how hot do they get?
I think clearly this is an issue of the AltiVec instructions being optimized for the G4’s scheduler and not the PPC970’s. This doesn’t indicate that the 2GHz PPC970’s scheduler is “slower” than the 1.42GHz G4’s. Apple is in the process of transitioning to what is essentially an entirely different line of CPUs, and consequently applications will not be fully optimized for these processors for quite some time.
“To my knowledge, Moto still makes G4’s…they just don’t give a flying f*ck about the desktop anymore, and for good reason, the embedded market is several times larger for them than the desktop market ever was or will be.”
The G4 while no longer ideal as a professional chip, has worked out an excellent consumer chip keeping Apple ahead of the curve.
“Exactly how hot do they get?”
The front left corner gets warm… but not terribly so.
The G4 while no longer ideal as a professional chip, has worked out an excellent consumer chip keeping Apple ahead of the curve.
Step out of your reality distortion bubble for a second…repeat with me…the G4 is slower than the P4. Yes, I realize that per MHz, the G4 is more efficient, but the G4 clock winds out well before the P4…do you see any 3Ghz G4s on the Moto road map?
I assure you, on the “consumer” side of things, Apple is NOT ahead of the curve from a technology standpoint. Find me a low-end Mac desktop that competes performance-wise with an equivalently priced PC desktop.
Like I said, Moto gave up on desktop chips, because the embedded market is much more profitable.
“Step out of your reality distortion bubble for a second…”
What reality distortion bubble?
“repeat with me…the G4 is slower than the P4.”
I never said otherwise. What I did say was that the G4 while no longer ideal as a professional chip, has worked out an excellent consumer chip keeping Apple ahead of the curve…. which is true. Remember, the P4 is used in the average high end computer which competes with Apple’s high end computer… the G5. The G4 competes with the celeron or the P3.
“do you see any 3Ghz G4s on the Moto road map?”
Actually, last check, I believe I did.
“I assure you, on the “consumer” side of things, Apple is NOT ahead of the curve from a technology standpoint.”
What?! What would cause you tho think that? The G4 competes with the celeron and the P3…. and is faster. The G5 competes with the P4 and is faster.
“Find me a low-end Mac desktop that competes performance-wise with an equivalently priced PC desktop.”
One need only find any PC that has a celeron and compare it to a Mac with a G4.
“Like I said, Moto gave up on desktop chips, because the embedded market is much more profitable.”
Moto didn’t give up… they gave up their roll as high-end chip processor for Apple, but they didn’t give up in the desktop chip market… Apple uses Motorola chips in the vast majority of their systems.
roll = role
The G4 also competes with lower MHz P4 systems as well
uhm, dude? if you go Celeron the pricegap between that one and a g4 machine will be so ridiculously big that only a moron would opt for the g4 from a performance standpoint. be gentle and pit a g4 against a p4.
“if you go Celeron the pricegap between that one and a g4 machine will be so ridiculously big that only a moron would opt for the g4 from a performance standpoint. be gentle and pit a g4 against a p4.”
Apple’s current G4 towers asside (they still have some room for price cutting IMHO (probably because the G5s haven’t shipped yet) but all of Apple’s other G4 hardware holds up price-wise if you compare the celeron machine against a G4 with the exact (or as close as possible) hardware and software configurations.
As you mentioned, the G4 will still best the celeron in speed too… (although the celeron will best the G4 in battery life)
The G4 competes with the celeron or the P3.
Only if you count the fact that the fastest G4s are clocked at about the same freq. as the fastest P3s </cheapshot>
Let us not forget the fact that P3 at the same clock is as fast as a P4
And that says nothing about the price/performance comparison of those dirty little cheap Athlons.
I can put together a 2 Ghz desktop cube for less than $1000. Show me a 2 Ghz Mac at a similar price point..
I’ll buy it.
Hey 12.105.181.—, everytime you talk on this site you make MacHeadz look bad. You find it necessary to react to every line of every post that in any way criticizes the Mac, and you end up looking quite defensive.
In addition, it’s ludicrous the way you keep saying that Mac’s are “a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact (or as close as possible) specs in both hardware and software to a PC.”
Give up already, people know that this is not the case, and you can only pretend that it’s the case by assuming that the iApps are equivalent to $500 that PC buyers would need to shell out. Macs are more expensive. They may last longer, but for the level of technology (memory, hard disk, processor speed) they are not a good value.
As for G4 being a competitive chip with P3’s and Celerons, have you priced PC’s recently? You can go to Dell.com (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special61.htm)
and get a 2.2Ghz P4 for $600. Even if you add a bunch for monitor, etc., you still have a pretty fast computer for $1000. G4’s are not competitive in the desktop space, period. End of story. Stop wasting our times with these ridiculous responses. You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.
You can get a 2.2Ghz Celeron machine (with 256MB DDR) for $400-500 from major companies.
The cheapest G4 is $1100. Give me a break.
And its not like Apple hardware is better than PC. Except for the processor/mobo, its the EXACT same parts, and not high quality (a geforce2, 128MB SDRAM in desktop machines).
To get a machine w/ DDR ram, you have to spend $1500.
“I can put together a 2 Ghz desktop cube for less than $1000. Show me a 2 Ghz Mac at a similar price point..”
Let us not forget that MHz/GHz is not an accurate gauge for a processor’s speed.
When we keep this in mind, its important to match a the PCs specs in hardware and software to the Mac when making price comparisons. When you do that, you find that the Mac does in fact compete compeatively in price and performance.
“Hey 12.105.181.—, everytime you talk on this site you make MacHeadz look bad.”
No I don’t.
“You find it necessary to react to every line of every post that in any way criticizes the Mac, and you end up looking quite defensive. “
No, only the posts that are wrong or are very misleading. If I you find that I am posting to several articles about Apple and the Mac, it says more about the trolls that exist on this board rather than my supposed defensiveness.
“In addition, it’s ludicrous the way you keep saying that Mac’s are “a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact (or as close as possible) specs in both hardware and software to a PC.””
No, its not ludicrous at all. It helps clarify the confusion that Macs are expensive… they are not.
“Give up already, people know that this is not the case”
Give it up? When even you, the supposed voice of reason still hasn’t grasped it yet? I will stop when everybody understands and stops spreading FUD.
“you can only pretend that it’s the case by assuming that the iApps are equivalent to $500 that PC buyers would need to shell out.”
No, the iApps work out to be about $250 – $300 for the equivalent software on Windows.
“Macs are more expensive.”
No, they are not. That is the point of been driving home… and the one you apparently failed to grasp.
“They may last longer”
yes they do.
“but for the level of technology (memory, hard disk, processor speed) they are not a good value.”
They use the same commodity memory and hard disk that PCs use… as far as the processor speed is concerned, you are wrong.
“As for G4 being a competitive chip with P3’s and Celerons, have you priced PC’s recently? You can go to Dell.com and get a 2.2Ghz P4 for $600.”
I have prices PCs and have gone to Dells web site and what I’ve found is that the Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when the exact (or as close as possible) hardwar and software are included on the PC.
The prices that you show on Dells site (and others) exemplify what I’ve been saying all along… the PC is more configurable than a Mac which allows you to buy less and therefore pay less.
“Even if you add a bunch for monitor, etc., you still have a pretty fast computer for $1000.”
yes, you do. Nobody ever said otherwise.
“G4’s are not competitive in the desktop space, period.”
You see, this is where you are wrong.
” Stop wasting our times with these ridiculous responses.”
I’ll stop when people stop saying incorrect things like that which you have just done.
When we keep this in mind, its important to match a the PCs specs in hardware and software to the Mac when making price comparisons. When you do that, you find that the Mac does in fact compete compeatively in price and performance.
yeah, I see that awesome processing power when Finder windows don’t resize smoothly etc *rolls eyes*
dude, I’ve been arguing this to no end over at macrumors, I speced PCs against Macs there and looked at benchmarks all over, even the mac zealots over thre had to contend that Macs are slow and overpriced in comparison. They are down to “you can’t run OS X on PCs” true, I wouldn’t even want to.
“You can get a 2.2Ghz Celeron machine (with 256MB DDR) for $400-500 from major companies. The cheapest G4 is $1100.”
No, the cheapest G4 is $799.
What you are not understanding in your price comparison is that a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact same specs from the Mac (or as close as possible) specs in both hardware and software to that how you can configure a PC.
“And its not like Apple hardware is better than PC.”
Apple uses the same commodity high-end parts that you can find in a PC
“the EXACT same parts, and not high quality”
“(a geforce2, 128MB SDRAM in desktop machines).”
You obviously didn’t see that a Mac can be equipped with an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (or one of many other Graphics processors)
“To get a machine w/ DDR ram, you have to spend $1500.”
Which proves that the PC is more configurable.. not that the Mac is more expensive.
“yeah, I see that awesome processing power when Finder windows don’t resize smoothly etc *rolls eyes*”
That has little to do with processing power and more to do with the different means used to render the UI. Thankfully, with the introduction of quartz extreme, the lack of window resize smoothness is no longer a factor.
“I speced PCs against Macs there and looked at benchmarks all over, even the mac zealots over thre had to contend that Macs are slow and overpriced in comparison.”
Macs are neither slow or overpriced. Rather, a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact same specs from the Mac (or as close as possible) specs in both hardware and software to that how you can configure a PC.
Regarding speed, the G5 outpaces its high-end desktop x86 competition and the G4 outpaces its low-midrange x86 competition.
“They are down to “you can’t run OS X on PCs” true, I wouldn’t even want to.”
Thats okay… many do.
So you basically proved my point by negating everything I just said, without backing it up with any information.
If you go here (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special61.htm)
and configure the Dell the following way:
2.4Ghz P4, 256MB DDR333 Ram, 60GB hard drive, CD Rom drive, 4x DVD+RW/+R Drive w/CD-RW, 15 inch LCD, with Microsoft Works, the price comes to …. drum roll please … $984, before taking into account the $100 rebate. So the price is $884 plus tax and shipping.
Please tell me where, oh where I can find a G4 Mac of comparable parts for a comparable price. And don’t bother quoting me the eMac (not as good) or the iMac (way more expensive).
I look forward to your response which will itemize and negate everything I’ve written, without so much of a shred of truth to it, but filled with conjecture. I’m sure that Apple thanks you for combatting “FUD” with lies, damn lies and more. You are doing the whole community a major service.
I saw stuttering on panther as well *shrug* but I guess you can come up with an explanation for that as well
Well, I dare you. So far you have only sputtered empty words (repeated in half a dozen comments so far) but failed to back them up. Now stand up to your own words and provide us with an example how a G4 is cheaper than a PC with equal components configured at Dells website. I’m waiting.
“So you basically proved my point by negating everything I just said, without backing it up with any information.
If you go here and configure the Dell the following way…”
its funny that you say that, because this comment proves my point that a PC is more configurable… not less expensive.
You’re puzzled why I haven’t given you proof yet the reason why I haven’t is not because a Mac can’t be had for less when configuring it to the specifications that you gave, its that the PC can’t be priced less (or much less) then a Mac with its specifications.
What I’m getting at is that I/We all know that a PC can be configured with less which would of course cost you less, but that’s not the issue at hand. Rather, the issue at hand is whether you can build a PC with the exact same specs (or as close as possible) in hardware and software as that which can be had when buying a Mac.
What that means is that I simply need to point you to the Apple store: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore/ to give proof of prices and it is YOUR job to find a PC with the exact same specs (or as close as possible) in hardware and software and price it significantly less than what can be had from Apple.
“I’m sure that Apple thanks you for combatting “FUD” with lies, damn lies and more.”
Nothing in my post is FUD nor have a lied about anything.
“You are doing the whole community a major service.”
Quite the contrary… I am in fact helping the community by ridding it of the fallacy which so many individuals on this board like to propagate.
as shown above a PC with better specs can be bought for less you loonie. to counter that you provide nothing but your mepty blathering.
“So far you have only sputtered empty words (repeated in half a dozen comments so far) but failed to back them up.”
Okay, here’s the proof you need: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore/
Now, find me a PC that can match a Mac’s specs exactly (or as close as possible) in hardware and software for significantly less. Until you do, anything less is sputtering and empty words.
“as shown above a PC with better specs can be bought for less you loonie.”
Again, it doesn’t have the same specs.
Please find me a 3GHz DP Xeon with 512MB DDR400, 160GB serial ATA HD, DVD & CD-RW, PCI-X slots, AGPx8, Firewire 800, Firewire 400, USB2.0, and Gigabit Ethernet for less than $3000.00.
To make things easier, you could just find me a 6GHz P4 system.
And while you’re looking, please remember that a comparable Apple system is only $3000.00. (Just remember PC’s are cheaper and Apples are expensive).
no my mentally challenged little troll, you are seemingly unable to comprehend the english language, enough examples for comparisons have been given which you have tried to refute with an argumentation akin to what I’m used to hear in a kindergarden. YOU go and spec out a PC against a Mac. The other way around it has been done a few times here by now. Either you start providing any actual facts, or you shut up. Otherwise I will can from now on utilize your “debating” skills and just link to the Dell website in response to whatever comment you make and employing your logic that would suffice to fully refute your claims.
Why, lets just start: You are wrong, here is the proof you need http://www.dell.com
“To get a machine w/ DDR ram, you have to spend $1500.”
Which proves that the PC is more configurable.. not that the Mac is more expensive.
Configurable implies that you have a wide range of options to choose from; both PCs and Macs are equally “configurable” because you can add/remove or modify their components. The one thing that you don’t realize is that if you can configure a PC to have features equal to that of a Mac but for a lower price, that makes it less expensive!
Given that the benchmarks have been called in doubt before and while barefeets has shown that even a G4 may be faster than a G5, I trust that http://www.alienware.com/System_Pages/mj-12_ddr.aspx will stack nicely while being cheaper.
You’re hopelessly out of touch. I showed you a decent computer for around $1000. I defy you to show me a Mac that can compete with this computer for less than $1500. I don’t think you can. To compete, I need a decent processor, 256MB Ram, LCD display and a DVD-R drive. I tried to find one at store.apple.com, but was unable to. Since you are a champion of the Mac, maybe you can do better.
Note that if you can’t come up with a desktop Mac that can come within $500 of the $1000 Dell that I configured, than you simply cannot pretend any longer that Mac’s are price competitive. $1000 is the dead middle of the market right now. If Apple can’t put together a comparable computer within $500 of that price, than you should stop wasting your time (and ours) pretending that they are price competitve.
I look forward to more empty-speak from you. I am reminded of a quote from Shakespeare in the Merchant of Venice, “Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search.”
2.4Ghz P4, 256MB DDR333 Ram, 60GB hard drive, CD Rom drive, 4x DVD+RW/+R Drive w/CD-RW, 15 inch LCD, with Microsoft Works, the price comes to …. drum roll please … $984
Because you used Intel’s slightly less than highest desktop processor, i will do the same and illustrate what you are missing:
To start with, you will need to add a
– 512K L2 Cache
– 900MHz Frontside bus
– 512MB PC3200 (400MHz) Frontside bus
– NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
– 160GB Serial ATA; 7200 rpm hard drive
– SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
– Three open full-length PCI-X slots: one 133MHz, 64-bit slot and two 100MHz, 64-bit slots
– One FireWire 800 port, two FireWire 400 ports, three USB 2.0 ports, wo USB 1.1 ports
– AGP 8X Pro slot with graphics card
– ADC connector and DVI connector
– Two internal hard drive bays
– one optical drive bay
– 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet
– 56K V.92 modem
– Optical digital audio in
– optical digital audio out
– analog audio in
– analog audio out
– iTunes
– iPhoto
– iMovie
– iDVD
– QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition
– FAXstf
– Art Directors Toolkit
– Microsoft Office v.X Test Drive
– FileMaker Pro Trial
– OmniGraffle
– OmniOutliner
– GraphicConverter
– QuickTime, iChat
– Safari
– Sherlock
– iSync
– Mail,
– Developer Tools
– Keyboard
– Mouse
– USB keyboard extension cable
– DVI to VGA adapter
– modem cable
– AirPort (802.11b/g) antenna
– 90 days of free telephone support
– a one-year limited warranty.
Add these exact same options (or as close as possible) to your configuration then come back to me and tell me that you can have your PC for less.
Any comment suggesting otherwise only says that your PC is more configurable when buying than a Mac…. that does not mean that a PC is less expensive.. it means that you can get less and therefore pay less.
no, you are wrong, here is all the proof you need: http://www.dell.com
“no my mentally challenged little troll”
Stop with the insults. I’m not insulting you. If you can’t have a civilized conversation without disparaging comments then perhaps you should leave.
“you are seemingly unable to comprehend the english language”
No, i understand it fine.
“enough examples for comparisons have been given which you have tried to refute with an argumentation akin to what I’m used to hear in a kindergarden.”
All those comparisons gave you less which caused you to pay less.
“YOU go and spec out a PC against a Mac.”
I did, and the Mac was less expensive.
“The other way around it has been done a few times here by now.”
Yes, and in each instance you didn’t spec the PC properly to match the Macs specs.
“Either you start providing any actual facts, or you shut up.”
I already did.
So, you’re asking us to create a computer to compete with a Mac that’s not even available in stores right now?
The *vast* majority of PC’s sold go for less than $2000. I’m sure most are less than $1000 now. But all you can say is that an unreleased Mac is tough to compete with.
I’d like you to find a Mac to compete with a Dell desktop for under $1500. If you can do so, Steve Jobs will surely find a job for you in Marketing Macs, which obviously (although not your calling) is something you dearly would love to do.
no, you are wrong, here is all the proof you need: http://www.dell.com
now go spec them and come back.
“Configurable implies that you have a wide range of options to choose from; both PCs and Macs are equally “configurable” because you can add/remove or modify their components.”
Not when purchasing them you can’t.
“if you can configure a PC to have features equal to that of a Mac but for a lower price, that makes it less expensive !”
Im saying that this statement is incorrect
“if you can configure a PC to have features equal to that of a Mac but for a lower price, that makes it less expensive !”
Im saying that this statement is incorrect
and based on that I call you a nutcase, laugh heartily and go to bed. good night.
“Given that the benchmarks have been called in doubt before”
If they were called into doubt, they were clarified when Greg Joswiack gave an interview to slashdot.
“and while barefeets has shown that even a G4 may be faster than a G5”
No they didn’t they said that some Altivec instructions were faster on the G4 than what they are on the G5. The G4 was ALREADY way faster then every desktop computer on the market… so if the G5 is slightly slower, its still way faster then everything else.
“I trust that http://www.alienware.com/System_Pages/mj-12_ddr.aspx will stack nicely while being cheaper.”
If its cheaper, it will only be because it gives less… and it certainly wont be faster if a P4 is placed inside of it
Here’s my try: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W…
At $3,323 it is still missing Firewire 800, iPhoto, iMovie, Quickbooks, OmniGraffe, OmniOutliner, GraphicConverter, iSync, and development tools. (I only named full products included with the Mac that are not aviable free (ie: QuickTime)). I also skipped things like iChat, iCal, FAXstf, and Mail which are provided by Microsoft with Windows XP. Please note that it is also using slower DDR233 memory instead of DDR400.
I’m also ignoring the benchmarks showing the Mac as being faster; instead I’m assuming that they are the same speed.
“I showed you a decent computer for around $1000. I defy you to show me a Mac that can compete with this computer for less than $1500.”
I’m not arguing that. I’m saying that a PC is not cheaper than a Mac of the same configuration.
This guy can’t be doing any of this with a straight face. I’m guessing he has a healthy portion of his 401k (if he has a job) or his allowance money for the past year (more likely) invested in Apple stock, and he wants to encourage people to buy Apple computers regardless of their true merits.
For the record, I think Apple makes great machines and fantastic software and that is why people buy them.
To pretend that they are a good value hardware wise is to ignore the fact that as a small company producing that much free software, the development costs must be built into the hardware sales and margins.
That’s reality, whether you like it or not. If you want Apple software, you have to pony up for the hardware. If you want a fast computer and enjoy Linux or whatever, you’d be a world-class idiot to purchase desktop Apple hardware.
The notebook computer situation is a far different story, of course.
“So, you’re asking us to create a computer to compete with a Mac that’s not even available in stores right now?”
This works with every Mac… I gave that comparison because the current G4 towers could stand to come down in price. Their current prices are likely the result of the fact that the G5s wont be out for a month.
So, yes, if you are going to compare a high end P4, you will have to configure it against a high end Mac… which happens to be a G5 and wont be released for another month.
“The *vast* majority of PC’s sold go for less than $2000. I’m sure most are less than $1000 now. But all you can say is that an unreleased Mac is tough to compete with.”
Fine, lets compare against the eMac or the imac or the powerbook or the iBook… it works that way too.
“I’d like you to find a Mac to compete with a Dell desktop for under $1500.
I would like you to find a Dell desktop that matches the Mac’s specs in hardware and software. The issue at hand isn;t whether a Mac can be priced for less than a PC… (thats obvious because PC manufacturers allow you to pay less by allowing you to buy less)
“This guy can’t be doing any of this with a straight face.”
I’m very serious
“I’m guessing he has a healthy portion of his 401k (if he has a job) or his allowance money for the past year (more likely) invested in Apple stock”
I don’t own any stock and I’m far past the age of getting an allowance.
“and he wants to encourage people to buy Apple computers regardless of their true merits. “
No, I want them to be considered for purchase based on their merits as opposed to individuals being discouraged from buying them based on false assumptions
“To pretend that they are a good value hardware wise”
pretend?
“is to ignore the fact that as a small company”
Apple is one of the largest computer manufacturers on the planet.
“producing that much free software, the development costs must be built into the hardware sales and margins.”,/i>
They can justify those development costs by causing you to buy more… hence the reason why PC manufacturers are more configurable… they allow you to buy less which translates to paying less.
[i]”The notebook computer situation is a far different story, of course.”
If the notebook appears different its because notebooks on PCs are far less configurable to start with… so they are playing on the same playing field as Apple in that regard.
Macs are not end all be all but you on the other hand are giving Wintel/AMD people here some serious bottoms kicking!
Relax for a moment and let them relax too…
After a relax session: Keep rolling and keep it up! You! You! You, Wintel/AMD a$$ kicker!!!
OSNews <=> AppleVsWintelAmdOSFlameWars :p
is that their is nothing fun to talk about. So basically to stir sh*t up, people will assume roles and provoke trolls, and zealots alike.
And everyone’s favorite Mac Fan (12.105.181.—) comes to the gallant rescue of Apple Computer (which seems to be doing fine marketing itself).
“Macs are not end all be all but you on the other hand are giving Wintel/AMD people here some serious bottoms kicking!”
Heh.
I know Macs are not the be all end all. I just get frustrated with people on this board make the mistake of saying that Macs are expensive or that Mac are slow (or slower) than PCs when what they mean is that they can custom configure a PC for less money, that will be faster albeit with less features than what can be had if I were to buy a Mac.
“Relax for a moment and let them relax too…”
Many of these guys get real tense when I clarify this point because price and speed are one of the last two selling points why an individual should buy a Mac over a PC.
Now it appears that configurability when buying is the only one left.
However, that is a VERY strong selling point so Apple still has some catching up to do.
“The Real Problem is that their is nothing fun to talk about. So basically to stir sh*t up, people will assume roles and provoke trolls, and zealots alike.”
The definition of a troll is exactly as you describe. however, a zealot is described as someone who believes that a person or thing can do no wrong. lest I be labeled a zealot, its important to recognize that I have only worked to ward off the mis-statements of trolls. I haven’t said anything or implied anything that suggests that Apple can do no wrong.
“Many of these guys get real tense when I clarify this point because price and speed are one of the last two selling points why an individual should buy a Mac over a PC.”
I said this wrong… it should read:
Many of these guys get real tense when I clarify this point because price and speed are one of the last two selling points why an individual should buy a PC over a Mac.
” Many of these guys get real tense when I clarify this point because price and speed *were* one of the last two selling points why an individual should buy a PC over a Mac.”
I understand what you’re saying in some ways, and do agree, but I think it is pointless to compare the two. If I were looking for a cheap G4M3zOR Box, I would never buy a Mac, because I could get a better deal on a PC. If I were looking for a server (a new server, for my house) I would probably custom build a PC because I would trust the parts, and workmanship of the PC, and would get a better deal. It goes without saying that I would use a free UNIX-like OS. If I were looking for an inexpensive home server, (which I am,) I would choose an either an old G4, or an Intel-based computer built by a company I trust. (I don’t trust the hardware quality of any mainstream computer companies save Apple.) If I were looking for a laptop, I would buy Apple, because I believe that Apple makes a killer laptop for a great price. If I were looking for a NEW production desktop, (who needs a chip that operates at 37 Bazillion clock cycles per second for word processing?) I am rather undecided, though I would probably buy a Mac because it is more comfortable for me. The key element that those involved in pointless flame wars miss is that there are NO absolutes to anything in this business. A related example: I am currently in the process of taking out some major rust spots in my car with a drill, and 3 or 4 metal brush bits. I change bits when a different one suits the task at hand, and I brush by hand in the really hard-to-reach areas. Let each person be empowered by the tool that empowers him the most in a given situation. I believe that is all there is to say.
By the way, you are incorrect in stating that Quartz Extreme dramatically sped up Finder windows resizing. Quartz Extreme only works to composite the windows after the APPLICATION has drawn it. Finder redraws parts of the window when you resize it, not Quartz Extreme. It is more likely that optimizations within the Finder itself have led to better performance. I don’t blame you though. It really is easy to fall for any company’s marketspeak.
Some people have different tolerances for slowness, and value different computer experiences differently. For example, someone may find Finder window resizing DOG slow on my G3 600 MHz iBook, but for me it’s perfectly comfortable. The computer does it fast ENOUGH for me, and the interface generally doesn’t get in the way.
The dual processor 970 is a good deal. It is a good mix a traditional workstation features (dual processor) with cost-effective consumer components (non-SCSI, non-ECC-DRAM). I can’t say I see anything on the PC side of things that really matches it (the DP Athlons are pretty old now with single channel DDR).
DP Xeons are NOT consumer level machines. They are workstations (a much less price sensitive market). Notice that WindowsXP Home doesn’t support muliple processors (I think). Both MS and Intel’s desire to segment their market into professional (read expensive/high margin) products and consumer (read cheap/high volume) products has created this situation. Apple/IBM seem willing to buck this trend by offering a machine that scales fairly linearly in price from 1P to 2P. I applaud them for that (hopefully, it’ll prompt intel to do the same).
However, all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the average (or even most non-average) PC user. Most people (myself included) cannot afford a $3K machine. I spent $1900 on my last PC (monitor included). The “sweet spot” for PCs is probably $1600-2800. I consider the “sweet spot” to be where if you spend more, you spend a lot for little return and if you spend less, your machine will be obsolete soon.
Apple’s “sweet spot” is a bit higher than in the PC world. Apple’s “sweet spot” for the G5 is probably $2800-$4800 (with monitor). If you configure a G5 for less than around $2800 you really won’t have a balanced system (256MB memory is NOT enough. GeForce 5200 sucks).
I’m not saying anything about the relative value of the machines (will just start a flame war), just about where the best values are found for each. Notice that the Apple sweet spot is significantly larger than the PC sweet spot because the DP is actually a decent value.
“I understand what you’re saying in some ways, and do agree, but I think it is pointless to compare the two. If I were looking for a cheap G4M3zOR Box, I would never buy a Mac, because I could get a better deal on a PC.”
That makes sense. Although the vast majority of all popular games are available for the Macintosh, there are still a lot of less popular bargain bin games that are still worth playing and aren’t available on the Mac.
“If I were looking for a server (a new server, for my house) I would probably custom build a PC because I would trust the parts, and workmanship of the PC , and would get a better deal.”
If you were to buy the PC based on parts you could trust, thats not a reason to buy a PC… because a Mac is equipped with the same name brand parts that you’re familiar with on a PC. however, if you were custom building a server, it would be best to do so with a PC (assuming that the PC you were building didn’t have the exact same (or very close) parts as what came standard on the Mac… as you could buy the PC with the parts you don’t need.
“By the way, you are incorrect in stating that Quartz Extreme dramatically sped up Finder windows resizing. Quartz Extreme only works to composite the windows after the APPLICATION has drawn it.”
Perhaps my wording was correct, but what i was eluding to is that with the inclusion of Quartz extreme, the issue of slow Window redraws is no longer a factor. Instead, Quartz extreme is such overkill for the task at hand, Apple has the opportunity to incorporate several other UI enhancements without any slowdown.
“I don’t blame you though. It really is easy to fall for any company’s marketspeak.”
I know how it works, and I didn’t “fall for any company’s marketspeak”. However, i will admit that I may have conveyed my words in a manor which could have been misunderstood.
“For example, someone may find Finder window resizing DOG slow on my G3 600 MHz iBook, but for me it’s perfectly comfortable.”
If its comfortable for you, thats respectable, but its important to understand that the G3 iBook you are using doesn;t take advantage of quartz extreme.
I will reiterate that it is my personal preference to not buy an inexpensive x86-based PC from a mainstream manufacturer due to what I percieve to be the low quality of parts. I would also not buy an eMac, because, first of all I think they are BUGLY, and second, I have doubts about their quality control. It’s possible Apple has fixed the problems with their quality control, but they still don’t appeal to me as low-end solutions (neither the eMac, nor the inexpensive PC.) Aside from quality control issues, I dislike mainstream PCs in general because there is too much cruft included with them that I would never use. I dislike many of the OEM software packages, and unless I like all software bundled with a computer, I won’t buy due to general impossibility to selectively install programs (or even install the restore disk on a single partition, instead of eating a whole hard drive.) Again, this is my taste, and each his own in something so petty. We’re not discussing the death penalty, or abortion, or the seperation of church and state. We’re talking about a BOX with little lights that blink when your tin can inside decides to wave its magic wand over little electronic pieces of magic pixie dust. SHEESH!
“Most people (myself included) cannot afford a $3K machine. I spent $1900 on my last PC (monitor included). The “sweet spot” for PCs is probably $1600-2800. I consider the “sweet spot” to be where if you spend more, you spend a lot for little return and if you spend less, your machine will be obsolete soon.”
Agreed. Most consumers spend this much (perhaps a bit less actually), but its nice to know that Apple sells competative machines in this price range as well.
“Apple’s “sweet spot” is a bit higher than in the PC world Apple’s “sweet spot” for the G5 is probably $2800-$4800 (with monitor).”
The G5 isn’t for everybody which is why Apple sells competitive systems for much less. Additionally, Apple sells Apple branded flat screen displays at competitive prices, and also sells displays at competitive prices from other manufacturers. Apple’s computers are able to use the same displays that PC users use.
“If you configure a G5 for less than around $2800 you really won’t have a balanced system (256MB memory is NOT enough. GeForce 5200 sucks).”
You will have a balanced system if you buy any one of the G5 systems, match it up with the graphics processor of your choice and (most importantly) don’t ever buy ram from Apple. Its priced WAY to high.
“Notice that the Apple sweet spot is significantly larger than the PC sweet spot”
Apple has several different sweet spots for different markets. They do this because you can’t custom configure a Mac at the Apple store like you can do elsewhere with a PC.
Just look at you saying “my mac is better than your pc”
and
“but my pc is cheaper”
grow up.
If you were to buy the PC based on parts you could trust, thats not a reason to buy a PC… because a Mac is equipped with the same name brand parts that you’re familiar with on a PC. however, if you were custom building a server, it would be best to do so with a PC (assuming that the PC you were building didn’t have the exact same (or very close) parts as what came standard on the Mac… as you could buy the PC with the parts you don’t need.
True, what I meant is that I would probably end up ripping many of the parts out of the mac, but not enough to make it unrecognizable as a mac. I would want to replace SO much on most PCs that I would end up rebuilding the thing from scratch anyway. It wouldn’t be recognizable as its brand (seeing as it’d be a whole new computer.)
Perhaps my wording was correct, but what i was eluding to is that with the inclusion of Quartz extreme, the issue of slow Window redraws is no longer a factor. Instead, Quartz extreme is such overkill for the task at hand, Apple has the opportunity to incorporate several other UI enhancements without any slowdown.
I fail to see what you mean. Quartz Extreme lets the video card draw the final result of all the windows on screen, meaning that you could have several transparent terminal windows open at once, and drag them over each other smoothly, with the graphics card processing the final result, but redrawing each window to wherever it is drawn (I’m assuming some buffer somewhere) in wait to be composited into the final result is the job of the applications/CPU. I think what you said about my G3/600 not using QE further exemplifies my point: That window drawing is completely free of the graphics card. You seem to have claimed in an earlier post that QE would make the redrawing of windows faster. I take issue with only that. It will make certain functions of redrawing the entire screen faster, but individual windows are not drawn by the GPU. To further support my point, I suggest you try moving a window that changes appearance around in the background (by command-dragging the titlebar,) and see how smooth it is. (Assuming you are on a QE-enabled machine.) If you then regular click on the window, it may take a split second to redraw itself. That is the application activating, and redrawing parts of the window. To see exactly what is being updated, you can use Quartz Debugger included with the Developer Tools. Available: http://developer.apple.com
“Just look at you saying “my mac is better than your pc and but my pc is cheaper” grow up.”
It’s important to clarify points such as these when they are misappropriated, because over the past two years Apple has experienced minor setbacks as a result of misunderstandings about price and performance.
“redrawing each window to wherever it is drawn (I’m assuming some buffer somewhere) in wait to be composited into the final result is the job of the applications/CPU.”
Whatever CPU load there is offset by the fact that the GPU does the vast majority of the work, work which before would have been down solely by the CPU thus causing slowdowns. With the GPU doing the majority of the work and because the GPU can handle so much more than what an operating systems UI throws at at it, Interface developers have the luxury of creating additional UI elements which would have been unpractical had they not been offset to the GPU.
“I think what you said about my G3/600 not using QE further exemplifies my point: That window drawing is completely free of the graphics card.”
Window drawing will be independent of the graphics card (rendered by the CPU) if there isn’t one (or a compatible one) that the OS can use to render those graphics.
“You seem to have claimed in an earlier post that QE would make the redrawing of windows faster. I take issue with only that. It will make certain functions of redrawing the entire screen faster, but individual windows are not drawn by the GPU.”
The end result is a faster UI.
“To further support my point, I suggest you try moving a window that changes appearance around in the background (by command-dragging the titlebar,) and see how smooth it is. (Assuming you are on a QE-enabled machine.)”
I did and it was as smooth as I could hope for. No skips whatsoever.
“If you then regular click on the window, it may take a split second to redraw itself.”
Nope. Just as clear as before.
If someone gave me $3k and said you can only use it to buy a Mac I would. I have nothing against Macs but the price-performance for my needs along with the software I want just isn’t there for the Macs.
That said…will you guys just stop the ridiculous pissing match. If you want a Mac buy a Mac, if you want a x86, buy an x86.
Oh and for the mac zealots…sorry to say, but not everybody buys the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.
Also, it doesn’t matter if the G5 is the fastest PC on the planet(which isn’t even out yet); what matters is the software that runs on it. And since I’m somewhat of a gamer (not as much these days though) I’ll wait and see a comparison between a top-end Mac and top-end Wintel machine when Doom3 comes out.
The tests still don’t show much.
XBench is a poor benchmarking program. I have a dual 1.25 and if I had a SCSI controller and drive, my computer according to XBench would be faster than a 1.42GHZ G4. That makes no sense.
They need to test using real world apps and 100+ MB Photoshop files. XBench scores aren’t at all conclusive. Its like running MacBench in Classic.
BTW… Im using a standard 1 GHz G4 with 768 MB of ram and running 10.2.6.
Do you think the build quality on Mac’s is overrated?
I have owned a G3 i-mac. Co-workers have a dual G4 1.25 gig with 1 gig of RAM, and the other has an i-mac.
After seeing the i-book I would never, ever consider buying one because the quality is poor (Screen and keyboard). The Power Mac is better, but is soooooo noisy when the fan comes on. The old i-mac I had was good quality.
I want to get a Power Book, and am going to a Mac store to try one out so I hope I am not disapointed to find that the build quality is just hype.
P.S. By the way the dual G4 (1.25 gigs) with a Gig of Ram feels unresponsive when compared to the PC next to it, which is a Athlon 1800+ single processor with 256 Gig Ram and a GEForce 2 MX Card. Quartz Extreme does not seem to solve the problem in my opinion, I am hoping OS 10.3 will.
“I have nothing against Macs but the price-performance for my needs”
If the price to performance doesn’t meet your needs then you must also have problems with average x86 PCs then, as they don’t give you an more performance for the price as compared to Mac
“along with the software I want just isn’t there for the Macs.”
That’s a worthy argument. May I ask, what software are you lacking on the Mac?
“Oh and for the mac zealots…”
Which zealots are you talking about… i haven’t seen one Mac zealot post in this thread thus far.
“Also, it doesn’t matter if the G5 is the fastest PC on the planet(which isn’t even out yet); what matters is the software that runs on it.”
Agreed. Thankfully, the Mac has plenty of software that would meet the demanding needs of even the most demanding of consumers.
“Do you think the build quality on Mac’s is overrated?”
No. While yes, there are PCs that match the Mac’s quality… Apple’s hardware is typically one among only a handful of players that incorporates high quality standards when building their product.
“After seeing the i-book I would never, ever consider buying one because the quality is poor (Screen and keyboard).”
That’s funny, the iBook’s overall quality is among the best in its price class.
“The Power Mac is better, but is soooooo noisy when the fan comes on.”
And yet far less noisy than most PCs of the same caliber.
“I want to get a Power Book, and am going to a Mac store to try one out so I hope I am not disapointed to find that the build quality is just hype.”
i think you will be pleasantly surprise with what you find and how it compares to PC laptops of the same class.
“P.S. By the way the dual G4 (1.25 gigs) with a Gig of Ram feels unresponsive when compared to the PC next to it, which is a Athlon 1800+ single processor with 256 Gig Ram and a GEForce 2 MX Card.”
While it may feel less responsive, (I can’t imagine that this could in any way be misconstrued as unresponsive) this is to be expected because you have more than 150% more ram in the Athlon.
“Quartz Extreme does not seem to solve the problem in my opinion, I am hoping OS 10.3 will.”
I don’t see the problem you are experiencing.
And yet far less noisy than most PCs of the same caliber.
That machine cost like $2,500 for the box. I use an old cheap compaq at work, PIII 667 256 meg SDRAM. It is far quieter than the Mac. I hope the 9 fans in the G5 that spin very slowly solve the Mac Fan problem!
“P.S. By the way the dual G4 (1.25 gigs) with a Gig of Ram feels unresponsive when compared to the PC next to it, which is a Athlon 1800+ single processor with 256 Gig Ram and a GEForce 2 MX Card.”
While it may feel less responsive, (I can’t imagine that this could in any way be misconstrued as unresponsive) this is to be expected because you have more than 150% more ram in the Athlon.
Sorry I made a mistake in my most I meant 256 MEG and not gig Ram. Anyway the Mac had 4 times the RAM, dual processors (Each about the same clock speed) and we all know how efficient the G4 is, yet somehow OS X -> Aqua slows it down considerably. I really hope that things get better as far as responsiveness goes.
I am typing this from an HP notebook (build quality is far superior to the i-book). It’s a PIII-M with 256 meg ram and is running the new Redhat Beta. You won’t believe this but it is so responsive compared to that Power Mac at work.
My ideal is OS X interface with the respsonsiveness of OS 9.
“That machine cost like $2,500 for the box. I use an old cheap compaq at work, PIII 667 256 meg SDRAM.”
naturally, its a P3
“I hope the 9 fans in the G5 that spin very slowly solve the Mac Fan problem!”
I’m hoping that the fact that they are computer controlled fans (each fan blows individually and only when necessary unlike current desktop computers used today) will reduce the noise to a minimum
“Sorry I made a mistake in my most I meant 256 MEG and not gig Ram. Anyway the Mac had 4 times the RAM, dual processors (Each about the same clock speed) and we all know how efficient the G4 is, yet somehow OS X -> Aqua slows it down considerably.”
I use a similar machine and yet don’t experience the slowdowns you speak of…. and I use a Win2k PC right next to it… so its not like I’m in-sensative to the differences.
“I am typing this from an HP notebook (build quality is far superior to the i-book).”
Thats understandable if the HP notebook was meant to compete with the PowerBook.
“You won’t believe this but it is so responsive compared to that Power Mac at work.”
Oh, I thought you were running Windows. That ads more legitimacy to your comments made thus far.
“My ideal is OS X interface with the respsonsiveness of OS 9.”
Me too… but I feel I get that with jaguar now. (I’m also running the Panther preview on my home ‘puter… it it feels smooth too.
Andrew G said:
…which is a Athlon 1800+ single processor with 256 Gig Ram…
256 Gig of ram is not possible for Athlons. 256 Megs certainly…but not 256 gigs.
You are right, a definite typo.
then you could build a 300 dollar PC and get as good of performance out of it as a 1500 dollar. the fact is that you can not get the same quality in hardware in a 300 dollar PC as you can get in a 1500 dollar PC….PERIOD.
so saying that a G4 is the same hardware wise as a 300 dollar e-Machine is pure crap.
“P.S. By the way the dual G4 (1.25 gigs) with a Gig of Ram feels unresponsive when compared to the PC next to it, which is a Athlon 1800+ single processor with 256 Gig Ram and a GEForce 2 MX Card.”
I find this hard to believe. The 1800+ runs at a clock of 1.5 GHz.
What is the load on your mac? Do you reboot it everyday? Did you check to see if an errant process wasn’t hogging 100% of your CPU cycles?
It is not that it is slow. Creating PDF files for example from large Photo Shop or InDesign files is fast, but the UI itself just does not snap. It just does not feel fast.
Also it is very strange because it crashes often (at least once a day). IE crashes it every 30 minutes or so, Camino does even faster, and Safari will not work with the MS proxy server (I really hate the way MS makes it so difficult for non MS OS’s). Even Apps like Photoshop bring the system down.
Running the latest update has improved things somewhat. If you have any tips on going about diagnosing the problem please send them to my email address. We don’t get help on Mac’s at work really. The diagnosis software that is supposed to come with the Apple Care has not been released for OS X yet.
The Power Mac has been a great disappointment to me, because it took an act of Congress to get it at work. I was very disappointed that it could not connect to our network properly because of Active Directory. I believe that 10.3 is going to solve this though.
I still want a powerbook though
“but the UI itself just does not snap. It just does not feel fast.”
Either you are:
1) using something other than Jaguar
2) You have really old hardware
3) Or you got something seriously wrong with your setup.
“Also it is very strange because it crashes often (at least once a day).”
You had a inkling of credibility up until this point. I’ve been running Jaguar since the first day it was released. I’ve only crashed 2 times… and that was with the first OS X release.
Either you are doing something really bizarre with your computer or you are lying.
“IE crashes it every 30 minutes or so”
IE is by no means the most stable App on OS X, but it certinly doesn;t crash every 30 minutes.
“Camino does even faster”
Camino crashes even faster (faster than every 30 minutes) or it renders pages faster…. If the former is true, I know you are lying.
“Safari will not work with the MS proxy server (I really hate the way MS makes it so difficult for non MS OS’s).”
That’s not true. I use Safari at work… We have a MS proxy server and I haven’t experienced one problem as a result.
“Even Apps like Photoshop bring the system down.”
You are lying. If Photoshop crashes, it will crash the application itself… it will not bring down the whole system.
If you have any tips on going about diagnosing the problem please send them to my email address.
I’ll give you my professional opinion… Your suffering from an error known as “PEBKAC” (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair).
“The Power Mac has been a great disappointment to me”
I imagine it would be when you manufacture all these lines about it.
“I was very disappointed that it could not connect to our network properly because of Active Directory.”
We have a total Windows based server and OS X was able to connect to every aspect of the network.
“I believe that 10.3 is going to solve this though.”
Nothing to solve. you are lying.
-Same thing happens with all new CPUs though, including the P4s which included a new instruction set and developers had to compile for it in order to take advantage of what it really had to offer. –
Not all new cpus no. Mac appologist as allways. AMD AThlon KICKS fpu code.. kicks normal code and performs up to spec on mmx code. What slowed down here …?? nothing. The p4 and the g5 are slower because they had to make the pipeline longer and they are not as good a relative design as the Athlon.
By a real computer buy a AMD… in the worlds fastest supercomputers.. and your desktop.
“You’re puzzled why I haven’t given you proof yet the reason why I haven’t is not because a Mac can’t be had for less when configuring it to the specifications that you gave, its that the PC can’t be priced less (or much less) then a Mac with its specifications.
What I’m getting at is that I/We all know that a PC can be configured with less which would of course cost you less, but that’s not the issue at hand. Rather, the issue at hand is whether you can build a PC with the exact same specs (or as close as possible) in hardware and software as that which can be had when buying a Mac.
What that means is that I simply need to point you to the Apple store: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore/ to give proof of prices and it is YOUR job to find a PC with the exact same specs (or as close as possible) in hardware and software and price it significantly less than what can be had from Apple.”
It can’t be done for several reasons:
1. The <slowest> AMD CPU currently manufactured is the XP2500+ (333MKZ bus). The <slowest> Intel is the 2.4 GHz (533MHz bus)
2. The <slowest> memory currently manufactured is DDR266.
You can’t build anything as slow as the eMac, iMac or dual 1.25GHZ G4 using <current> x86 technology.
<All> currently shipping Macs are built with totally obsolete components.
The cheapest 1.3 GHZ Duron craps on an eMac.
Desktop Macs cost 2-3 times as much as PCs of similar quality on raw performance – that is indisputable.
What are you talking about P4’s and Athlons ? Wasn’t there a rule to stay on topic ? 😉
: : ASUS Unveils AW171, the World’s First Opteron Processor-Based Workstation
Taipei, Taiwan; July 22, 2003 – ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (ASUS), a leading provider of high-performance computer systems, today introduced the AW171, the world’s first workstation to support the latest AMD Opteron processor. The all-new ASUS workstation, based on the NVIDIA nForce 3 pro 150 chipset, incorporated cutting-edge technology and unique designs to offer a high-performance and cost-effective solution.
With the AMD Opteron processor, the AW171 provides 32-bit and 64-bit computing capability for the most demanding applications. Combined with four 184-pin DIMM sockets supporting a maximum of 8GB memory capacity, it is the perfect device for excellent performance. For peripheral connection and networking, the AW171 supports six USB 2.0 ports, up to two IEEE 1394 ports, one onboard audio port and high-speed Gigabit LAN technology.
The AW171 comes equipped with the Promise R20378 RAID controller onboard to offer support for two IDE and two Serial ATA hard disk drives, which enable RAID 0, 1, 0+1, functions for better performance and data protection.
The AW171 allows superior performance without the extra baggage of overheating through an excellent system layout that increases airflow. In addition, the unique Smart Fan technology, found only on ASUS systems, monitors system temperatures and automatically adjusts fan speeds to maintain acoustics at the most suitable level.
Key Specifications:
AW171
Processor Socket 940 for AMD Opteron processor
Chipsets NVIDIA nForce 3 pro150
Memory 4 x 184-pin DIMM Sockets support max. 8GB PC2700 / PC2100/ PC1600 ECC DDR SDRAM Registered memory
Expansion 1 x AGP 8x slot, 5 x 32-bit/33MHz PCI slots
Hard drive bay 5 x Internal HDD Bays
Built-in devices 1 x Gbit LAN, 6 x USB ports
Hard disk drives 5 x 3.5″ ATA 133 IDE/SCSI Internal hard drive bay
Others 320W power supply and 218x445x610 19″, 5U rack
Note the use of ECC RAM and SATA RAID and “smart cooling fans”.
BTW you can get one now!
By Anonymous (IP: —.ph.ph.cox.net)
Now Now there is no need to be rude. Every system crashes it is fact. My colleague bought a 12 inch powerbook and he claims it locks up and crashes.
Andrew G might have genuine problems with his powermac. I don’t own a mac so can’t be much help to him diagnosing the problem.
Andrew G
Like I said I don’t own a mac but I can offer some advice in tracking the issue down.
1. When did the problem first occur or start occuring?
2. Is it always a certain application or series of events that cause a crash?
3. What is the crash is it a panic or a lock up?
4. Are there any error mesages in the log file just before the panic or hang?
Answering the above may help isolate the problem. If the mac is under warranty you might contact apple support.
Yeah, lets make AppleDroid [ Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—) ] happy and say that Apple is the greatest… IMHO he is not an Apple Zealot (a zealot is ussually a Protos warrior, he is more like a Zerg, a Lurker IMHO).
While he is trying to convince us how great Apple is, and also worth the money, well, he should slow down because he generates allot of traffic on this web site and I’m sure that someone pays allot of money for it, not that it is my problem, but it would be taughtfull to help that person to save some money.
Apple has great products, I admit, I like them too, but I see no reason for AppleDroid to continue what he is doing right now.
On the other hand maybe if we wouldn’t comment on Apple topics he could loose hes job???!!!
You never know…
Just my two (2) hard earned cents.
I read a day an interview with IBM processor G5 devolopers that said they are looking into improving the altivec in future versions. They mentioned that they were looking at the G4e altivec. What also was noted was that they said that the G5 was Apples design, they produced it.
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-intervi…
We have a total Windows based server and OS X was able to connect to every aspect of the network.
You need to go and read Apple’s own doc’s. The only way you can connect to active directory is by using another Xserver box (Or Mac as a server). I forget the details but it acts as a bridge and is in essence a Hack. Do a seach for mac OSX and active directory you will see there are third party apps to solve the problem to. They all require another mac to be the bridge or whatever. We don’t have enough Mac’s to warrant a server.
Also for a Mac user you obviously don’t read their web site very closely. Goto point 4 on their list under OS X Panther Server. Read it then come back and apologise.
That’s not true. I use Safari at work… We have a MS proxy server and I haven’t experienced one problem as a result.
Actually Opera for windows does not work either, it is something about the protocol used to authenticate. I am sorry you are naive enough to think that all MS products are automatically setup the same way. Also this is a recent upgrade, less than a year, when your company upgrades you may have the same problem.
Trust me I was surprised as you that the system would crash so often. I have told people at work that this could not possibly be normal MAc behaviour. I am a Mac advocate who wants Apple to succeed!
as shown above a PC with better specs can be bought for less you loonie. to counter that you provide nothing but your mepty blathering.
Let’s be fair here.
Mr or Mrs Anonymous has conceded a very important point:
When shopping for a PC you have almost unlimited configurability. This allows you to buy a system which is better in some ways than a more expensive Mac. This is possible by configuring the PC to not contain some of the things the Mac has.
This has already been admitted. PCs are more configurable. Configuring to only include the things you want can save you money.
However, the question of “comparable” systems and their prices is another matter. That’s what Mr or Mrs Anonymous is suggesting – that a Mac and a comparable PC are about the same price.
It shouldn’t take a 12th grade education to understand this. It’s very simple logic.
YOU go and spec out a PC against a Mac.
I have actually provided those details several times on this site. I have provided Dell vs Apple comparisons for low-end machines and for laptops.
But then some loon always responds with a Dell or eMachine system that doesn’t have half of the features the Mac comes with and tries to claim that it is a comparable system. It’s hard to have a discussion with people who don’t understand enough basic English to know what comparable means.
Configurable implies that you have a wide range of options to choose from; both PCs and Macs are equally “configurable” because you can add/remove or modify their components. The one thing that you don’t realize is that if you can configure a PC to have features equal to that of a Mac but for a lower price, that makes it less expensive!
Configuring allows you to take out features. Macs generally don’t have this option. You can’t remove the advanced features of Mac OS X. You can’t remove the iLife software. The hardware isn’t as configurable either. Try buying a Mac with a cheap case. Try buying a Mac without built-in FW or gigabit ethernet. You can’t. Why? Because Macs aren’t very configurable. More to the point, they are not even nearly equally configurable when compared to a PC.
But to say that the configured PCs have features “equal” to a Mac would be a lie. They might have only the features you care about but it has been shown time and again they these cheaper PC systems are lacking features compared to the Mac. That means they aren’t comparable.
I showed you a decent computer for around $1000. I defy you to show me a Mac that can compete with this computer for less than $1500. I don’t think you can. To compete, I need a decent processor, 256MB Ram, LCD display and a DVD-R drive.
That would be a meaningful exercise if anyone was trying to prove that Macs are highly configurable. But no one is.
PCs are more configurable. That means it is ALWAYS going to be possible to design a PC system that will be cheaper than a Mac with the same features.
Why? Because all you have to do is find the holes in the Macs lineup and build a PC with those elements.
But its a strawman. No one is arguing that Macs are more configurable. What they are arguing is that if you want to buy a PC that has all the features found in a particular Mac model you will pay just as much.
If you cannot see the difference between those two arguments then this discussion can go nowhere.
If you want Apple software, you have to pony up for the hardware.
Actually it would be fair to say that if you want a Mac you have to pony up for the entire system whether you want all the features or not.
Kind of like how Sports Illustrated didn’t give a subscription discount for a while (I don’t know if they do now) but instead gave you a stupid free gift with your subscription.
So while other magazines would give you a discount SI basically forced you to buy a crappy sweatshirt or VHS tape to get a subscription.
I think we should NOT compare config to the bone PC with Mac. This is not a fair way to do this.
For a guy who can and want to build a PC himself, he’s out of this PC buyer group. Those people need to have the skill and knowledge to build a PC, and it’s also very hard to compare the engineering of Apple with a individeual.
Just look at the new G5 innard layout and you see what I mean. I never see any individual able to build a PC like that. Clean compartments, well organize components, the design of the ventilation, ports arrangements, everything is clean and tidy, not even see a trace of wire. That box (I’m not talking about the outside look), is a piece of art.
That’s the quality of the engineering keep the Mac ahead, they’re better in shelf life compare to many PC too, why? Because of the quality. And that’s why they charge you more. And that’s why, the profit margin of Mac per sales is higher than all the PC makers.
Why can’t anybody see that?
But… if you use a Mac (OS X), you might realize it really doesn’t crash.
The problem is when I believe there is no absolute case about something that will never go wrong, my OS X experience lead to to think otherwise. It have about 2-3 lock up in my 2 year OS X days… my god, I know what it means by stability now.
I think there’s one piece of important information is missing in that post.
What OS doesn it run ?
Windows 2003 64-bit for the Opteron is still in a testing stage, so the only possibility is Linux64.
Now, I like Linux, but I knwo it’s now for everybody… so that system is not consider as a competition to G5.
And we still don’t know the real performance of that system, and the quality of it. It’s always easy to read spec and claim the power, and it’s not hard for a engineer to build a monster box, but only time will tell this is really a machine that could on top of everything.
So no, it’s not beating Apple’s G5.
“And we still don’t know the real performance of that system, and the quality of it. It’s always easy to read spec and claim the power, and it’s not hard for a engineer to build a monster box, but only time will tell this is really a machine that could on top of everything.
So no, it’s not beating Apple’s G5.”
In that respect the Apple’s G5 isn’t beating anyone either.
Alright, let’s try this again. I ask some Mac Fan to submit his best apple at the $1000-$2000 price range with a monitor.
A full computer. You decide what’s important.
I will respond with a Dell that’s faster / better.
Now, understand that it will have Windows XP and not Mac OSX, so you can’t say (after the fact) that it’s not comparable because XP and OSX are in different leagues. And I don’t want to hear anything about the iApps. To make up for all that BS, I’ll even spot you $500.
So go for it. Make my day.
For all the people saying that my favorite computer is better than yours!
GET A LIFE!
This pissing up the wall boasting is sad.
All the article really says is that the G5 is somewhat faster than the G4, end of story.
Remember my comment about holes in the Apple lineup? Well, you have hit one.
Unfortunately the $1000-2000 system with monitor is a problem for the current Apple lineup. The only decent system in that price-range is the iMac (the G4’s are still over-priced even with the announcement of the G5). But an iMac is going to cost more than a big desktop PC with an LCD. Of course, they aren’t really “comparable” in that regard either.
Unfortunately the even price comparisons (computers with comparable features) can be made only with the laptops or the high-end desktops (starting around $2500 with monitor). Apple has cheaper desktop systems but they just don’t compare easily.