Mac OS X 10.3, aka Panther, will not be a 64-bit operating system, despite running on a 64-bit processor, the PowerPC 970 aka the G5. Instead, the next major release of the Mac operating system will be a hybrid, much like version 10.2.7, codenamed ‘Smeagol’, which Apple has running on its pre-production Power Mac G5 machines and with which it will almost certainly ship production units, TheRegister reveals. TheRegister also has an article about a possible roadmap of the G5 CPU family. Also, this the second installment of ThinkSecret’s “Inside Panther” series, covering Mac OS X 10.3.
Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Will Not Be a 64-bit OS
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
When Apple went from 68k to PPC. People went out
and bought a 66mhz PPC Mac to replace their 68k
Machines. Then reliized that their 68k apps actually
ran slower on their new machine.
I already mentioned this previously in a comment. The simple reason is that making Panther completely 64bit would make it slower, even on 64bit hardware. Too much overhead. 32 bit applications will run just as fast, there is no emulation involved.
They are just going to optimise some libraries for 64 bit, for example the math libraries.
When Apple went from G4 to G5, people went out and bought a 2GHz Dual G5 Mac to replace their G4 machines. Then realized that not only did new 64bit apps run much faster on that machine, but their 32bit apps ran up to twice as fast on it, too 🙂
If Mac OS X 10.3 was completely 64-bit, then how would Apple sell it to customers still using 32-bit G4s? Apple wants customers, not absolute elegance.
When do you consider an OS 64bit?
Panther will allow applications to use 64bit-pointers, they can perform 64bit calculations and some libraries that do really benefit from running in 64bit mode will be optimized. What advantages would a “true” 64bit-OS have? None?
WHY should Apple EVER make something like a 64bit-Finder, if that Finder would have NO ADVANTAGES AT ALL?
Well, I TOLD YOU SO!!!! Panther WILL NOT BE A 64bit OS!!!
After all the hate post of get informed, and you not having clue… it turn out that Steve Jobs is doing ya’ll again.
This is why I do not use Apple. They will sell you an expensive G5, granted is great hardware, but the ripoff is the OS which won’t take advantage of the hardware. So Jobs like to benchmark the Hardware, but he doesn’t put any stress on benchmarking OSX versus say YelloDog Linux, or in this case AIX, as IBM intend to sell G5 AIX boxes.
You guys are right Steve Jobs IS charismatic guy, in fact he get some of you to drink all the red kool aide up! Suckers.
While I respect your hardware choice, I personally like the PPC line, I think you are being taken, wildly, on the OS side by Apple.
When Nintendo came out with the SNES, people went out on it and bought it because it was 16bit instead of 8bit…oh glorious Mario!
same goes for any other OS..
This is why I do not use Apple. They will sell you an expensive G5, granted is great hardware, but the ripoff is the OS which won’t take advantage of the hardware.
No, you won’t use an apple, because you have absolutely no clue. Here is a clue: a hybrid 64-32 bit OS is faster than pure 64 bit on hardware that gives natives performance on both 32 and 64 bit operations.
Are the new Windows XP 64 Bits versions fully 64 Bits? Other than the Itanium version…
“Well, I TOLD YOU SO!!!! Panther WILL NOT BE A 64bit OS!!!
After all the hate post of get informed, and you not having clue… it turn out that Steve Jobs is doing ya’ll again.”
Remaja, what you said/implied was that the OS would not be able to run 64 bit software nativly… and THAT is false.
“This is why I do not use Apple.
Sounds to me like you don;t use Apple technologies out of ignorance.
“They will sell you an expensive G5”
No more expensive than comparible PC systems.As a matter of fact, they’re considerably less expensivethan comparable x86 systems.
“the ripoff is the OS which won’t take advantage of the hardware.”
The finder wont, but the OS does. In typical OS news fashion, the headline is misleading which feeds the ignorance of the unwashed masses such as yourself.
“So Jobs like to benchmark the Hardware, but he doesn’t put any stress on benchmarking OSX versus say YelloDog Linux, or in this case AIX, as IBM intend to sell G5 AIX boxes.”
The largest competition isn’t YelloDog Linux on G4/G5. its x86. He made the right comparison.
I predicted this on 6/23/2003, becuase pushing hardware and selling an inferior OS on it is Apple MO. Is not the first time, MacOS use to run on PPC emulating 68k, embarassing. Now Panther will do similar. More kool-aide?
Here is how it went down on 6/23/2003:
Apple is suckering you again!
By anonymous (IP: 209.11.79.—) – Posted on 2003-06-23 19:28:45
Lets say the G5 is the fastest pc out there. I actually love the PowerPC line over X86. BUT, Apple is suckering you again. The hardware is fast, but how about the OS??? Is Panther 64bit? Or is it 32bit OS that a 64bit processor will emulate and ergo not fully utilize the hardware advantage?
Apple has a looong history of beefing up their hardware and selling you a crappy slow OS to run on top. Remember the MacOS on PowerPC? You got a PowerPC chip emulating a 68K one to run MacOs.
Wake up! The new G5 are good only if you slap a 64bit Linux on them, or AIX for that matter. Apple may have the hotest hardware, but they will sell you something that you cannot fully exploit with Panther, I’ll bet.
RE: Apple is suckering you again!
By alan6101 (IP: —.ATLNGAHP.covad.net) – Posted on 2003-06-23 19:33:01
Get off the crack, panther is 64bit.
Re: Apple is Suckering you again!
By anonymous (IP: 209.11.79.—) – Posted on 2003-06-23 19:43:35
RE: Apple is suckering you again!
By alan6101 (IP: —.ATLNGAHP.covad.net) – Posted on 2003-06-23 19:33:01
Get off the crack, panther is 64bit.
***************************
eweek article: 64-bit Macs May Outpace ‘Panther’
“Since the PowerPC 970 is backward-compatible with 32-bit code written for the G4, Apple intends to release Smeagol to fill Q37’s software bill until Panther ships, sources said.”
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43076,00.asp
Perhaps there is a news update to this that I am not aware of.
Re: anonymous
By Bascule (IP: —.atmos.colostate.edu) – Posted on 2003-06-23 19:44:37
Apple is suckering you again. The hardware is fast, but how about the OS??? Is Panther 64bit?
Yes.
Or is it 32bit OS that a 64bit processor will emulate and ergo not fully utilize the hardware advantage?
No
Wake up! The new G5 are good only if you slap a 64bit Linux on them, or AIX for that matter.
Uhhh, AIX is not going to support HyperTransport/NUMA.
A move to a 64-bit processor will benefit MacOS X *much* more than it will Linux. MacOS X currently suffers from a rather inefficient ABI on 32-bit PPC, and a move to 64-bit PPC will allow them to design a much more efficient ABI for all 64-bit applications.
Apple may have the hotest hardware, but they will sell you something that you cannot fully exploit with Panther, I’ll bet.
Perhaps you should read a bit before writing this sort of comment… it’s been known for months that Panther will include a 64-bit kernel and userland (as well as legacy 32-bit supprt, ala Solaris)
Re: Apple is suckering you again!
By Anonymous (IP: —.ph.ph.cox.net) – Posted on 2003-06-23 20:07:54
“Is Panther 64bit?
Yes
“Or is it 32bit OS that a 64bit processor will emulate and ergo not fully utilize the hardware advantage?”
No, the OS is fully 64 bit
Suckered?
By Anonymous (IP: —.broadviewnet.net) – Posted on 2003-06-23 23:45:39
Your an idiot, anyone who purchases a 970 will receive Panther. Panther is a 64 bit OS. There is no 32 bit emulation, it runs native.
Bye, bye.
____________
Think about it. Why should a 64bit OS be faster/more capable that the hybrid Panther?
If you really know an advantage, please post it here. Applications can be optimized for 64bit on Panther. So that wouldn’t be an advantage. The 32bit code in Panther is as fast as 64bit code on the G5 and the G5 does not have to switch modes or something.
So if Apple optimizes the portions of the OS that will benefit from 64bit processing (No OS uses more than 4GB RAM for itself, so they could only speed up math operations that use 64bit numbers), Panther should be as fast as a “true” 64bit OS or even faster.
“Panther will allow applications to use 64bit-pointers…”
Not true. The OS will still give you 32 bit pointers. Meaning that even if you have 8 GB of RAM, no single application can see more than 4 GB. The only significant 64 bit advantage of the G5 is the ability to do long long integer math in hardware.
«”Panther will allow applications to use 64bit-pointers…”
Not true. The OS will still give you 32 bit pointers. Meaning that even if you have 8 GB of RAM, no single application can see more than 4 GB. The only significant 64 bit advantage of the G5 is the ability to do long long integer math in hardware.»
Ok, if that is really true, I admit that it would be a real disadvantage of Panther vs. a real 64bit system. However, I wonder why the Mathematica guy who was at WWDC said that they had looked for a benchmark that would show the advantage of being able to address more than 4GB of RAM if Panther did not support it?
When do you consider an OS 64bit?
Panther will allow applications to use 64bit-pointers, they can perform 64bit calculations and some libraries that do really benefit from running in 64bit mode will be optimized. What advantages would a “true” 64bit-OS have? None?
Well, on my Alphas, memory glorious memory and actual math. I want my OS 64-bit so I can get around that @#&#$&!’n 4 GB barrier and so I can use pure-on 64-bit math. Let me tell you, you learn true patience when you get used to quantum chemistry on Alphas and then have to move to 32-bit.
Cry baby, cry!
Now go give all your money to Stevey Jobs, an obviously honest fellow. Er, also I have a bridge to sell. More kool-aide anyone? 🙂
That Panther will feature a 32-bit build of XNU?
This makes absolutely no sense. The article makes it sound as if Apple would rather pull off some (nearly impossible?) hacks to make XNU manage memory with 64-bit datapaths while in 32-bit mode. This begs the question “Wouldn’t it be simpler to make a 64-bit build of XNU?”
I really see no reason why not to make a 64-bit build of XNU, unless Apple was unable to make the XNU codebase 64-bit clean in the past 7 or so months, something I find highly unlikely.
Certainly there must already be 64-bit code in portions of XNU, such as the HFS+ module.
One thing I noticed about this article is a complete lack of attribution or citing of sources. Whatever happened to lead, quote, transition, quote, transition…
The article says that “Smeagol is a 32-bit operating system, though certain libraries and other elements have been recoded to allow applications – and the OS itself – to make use of the 64-bit addressing and datapaths, sources close to Apple said.”
Perhaps from this we can assume that the userspace will remain 32-bit. Yet I see no reason why XNU itself can’t go 64-bit (32-bit applications can still make system calls to a 64-bit kernel)
It also seems many people here are unfamiliar with how to facilitate a conversion from a 32-bit to a 64-bit OS. I suggest you look at how Sun did it with Solaris, supporting both sparcv8 and sparcv9. All packages in the base system come with 32-bit and 64-bit builds, ensuring backwards compatibility but also full 64-bit support.
“I predicted this on 6/23/2003, becuase pushing hardware and selling an inferior OS on it is Apple MO.”
How is the OS inferior? You are totally misreading the headline. (Hard to do because of OSNews’s headline wording) The OS will sully support 64 bit applications. The finder is not 64 bit. This is a GOOD thing for the finder as it would be slower, but yes, the OS itself is 64 bit in that it FULLY supports 64 bit applications.
“Is not the first time, MacOS use to run on PPC emulating 68k, embarassing. Now Panther will do similar. More kool-aide?
Nope. No kool-aide here. The G5 runs 32 bit apps nativly, the same way it runs 64 bit apps nativly… all with no speed degridation. As a matter of fact, 32 bit applications will run CONSIDERABLY faster than what they did on the G4. No, and no, not because the g5 makes up for the speed dfference to make the emulated code run fast… but that it is NOT emulating code. Its all runny totally native.
“Lets say the G5 is the fastest pc out there.
Lets anyone misunderstand… Apple claimed that the G5 is the fastest personal computer… not the fastest computer as has been incorrectly quated throughout the media…
“Apple is suckering you again. The hardware is fast, but how about the OS???”
Apple is not suckering anybody. The hardware AND the OS are fast.
“Is Panther 64bit?”
The finder will not be 64 bit, but apps run at full 64 bit.
“Or is it 32bit OS that a 64bit processor will emulate and ergo not fully utilize the hardware advantage?”
Nope. It will run 32 bit apps nativly. it will run 64 bit apps nativly. The finder wont be 64 bit, bit the OS will run 64 bit apps nativly.
“Apple has a looong history of beefing up their hardware and selling you a crappy slow OS to run on top.”
Not at all.
“Remember the MacOS on PowerPC? You got a PowerPC chip emulating a 68K one to run MacOs.”
In that case, the PPC was emulating 68K code, but the PPC was so fast, 68k apps actually ran FASTER than what they did on machines which previously ran the 68k apps nativly.
“Wake up! The new G5 are good only if you slap a 64bit Linux on them”
Not at all. While I’m sure that Linux will run fabulious as well… OS X will run just as intended…. very fast.
“or AIX for that matter.”
that OS too.
“Apple may have the hotest hardware, but they will sell you something that you cannot fully exploit with Panther, I’ll bet.”
See… you were wrong. If the finder were 64 bit, it would not be as fast. Thankfully, the finder is 32 bit and the OS FULLY supports 64 (and 32) bit applications nativly at full speed.
“The OS will still give you 32 bit pointers.”
32 and 64.
“Meaning that even if you have 8 GB of RAM, no single application can see more than 4 GB.”
Not true.
>The only significant 64 bit advantage of the G5
>is the ability to do long long integer math in hardware.
And what advantage is this for all but 1% of the population?
-m
>The finder is not 64 bit. This is a GOOD thing for
>the finder as it would be slower
I’ve read this a few times already and am wondering how this would be so?
-m
Actually Bascule, you need not get too technical. According to information from an eweek article[ http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43076,00.asp ] one can conclude that Apple was going to do this all long. It just that Stevey Jobs decided to lie for the Press-media show, and apparently you fell on that bait like a flimsy cod.
Wish there was a better explanation, but IMHO is sleazy bussiness as usual in Apple land. Here is to all that money going into Cupertino!
But relax is just a computer. So what if Panther is 32bit, the main thing is that you can brag about a G5 hardware, even though we all know that is not being properly utilize by OSX, but hey, let that be our little secret.
>>”The only significant 64 bit advantage of the G5
>>is the ability to do long long integer math in hardware.”
>”And what advantage is this for all but 1% of the population?”
Considering the fact that nobody has a G5it affects 0% of the population. Your statement assumes that OS X usage wont increase with the G5. I can assure you that OS X usage will grow.
I have several Windows and Linux using friends who have said for several years that they would never buy a Mac, and with the introduction of the G5 with Panther they not only said they would buy a G5… they already did. Their orders are already placed.
If Apple has got these individuals to switch… individuals that swore that they would never buy a Mac… to do so, then I believe this is an indicator that several others are considering the same. OS X useage WILL grow.
I have just found out that what you wrote is not correct. Applications can access more than 4GB of RAM in Panther. They can theoretically access 4TB of RAM.
Again, who knows a real (and true) advantage of a complete 64bit system???
Almost everybody here writes things like “The chip is not properly utilized by Panther”, “it can be compared to the PPC emulating 68k code” etc. and NO ONE except Daniel has given any reason why a 64bit OS would be better/faster. And Daniel’s argument turned out to be wrong.
“one can conclude that Apple was going to do this all long. It just that Stevey Jobs decided to lie for the Press-media show, and apparently you fell on that bait like a flimsy cod.”
What did Jobs lie about?
“Wish there was a better explanation, but IMHO is sleazy bussiness as usual in Apple land.”
Seems to me that the sleazyness is in the people that respond to misleading news articles in an effort to fulfill their own OS agenda. Apple didn;t do anything to warrent that comment. you’re just a troll.
“But relax is just a computer.”
How can anyone relax when people are spreading FUD?
“So what if Panther is 32bit”
Pather’s finder is 32 bit. it can run 64 bit applications at full speed. IE… nothing has changed.
“the main thing is that you can brag about a G5 hardware
AND about the OS and its FULL support for 64 bit applications
“even though we all know that is not being properly utilize by OSX”
It most certinly is. If the finder were 64 bit, it would be slightly slower. (Not by much… the G5 would certinly make up for the difference… but why make the finder 64 bit if it doesn;t need to be? Especially if it makes it slower? You really have no argument here.
Who would need more than 4GB of RAM on his personal computer, anyway?
…
That’s what I though. I think 32-to-64-bit transition is good, as 64-bit compilers aren’t probably optimised and stable as 32-bit compilers. Let the technology mature. Most future Athlon64 users will probably only use Windows XP 32-bit at its launch…
>By Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—) – Posted on 2003-07-07 >18:11:35
>”one can conclude that Apple was going to do this all long. It >just that Stevey Jobs decided to lie for the Press-media show, >and apparently you fell on that bait like a flimsy cod.”
>What did Jobs lie about?
LOL. Is all in good spirits, here have some more kool-aide.
My understanding from the WWDC was that 10.2.7 certainly couldn’t do this, and the engineers I spoke to were not aware of a 64 bit virtual address space in Panther. Do you mind if I ask what your source is? I could be wrong, but I didn’t hear about this the whole week I was there.
To your previous question, I’d say that 8 GB of RAM would still be useful with 32 bit pointers because the kernel can use the remaining memory quite well, for example on the disk cache. Or of course on other applications.
Almost everybody here writes things like “The chip is not properly utilized by Panther”, “it can be compared to the PPC emulating 68k code” etc. and NO ONE except Daniel has given any reason why a 64bit OS would be better/faster. And Daniel’s argument turned out to be wrong.
I guess a 64-bit OS would be faster with some calculations involving large integers, but that’s it. I think the main advantage is the access to more RAM. I don’t think we’ll see a big speed difference like we saw when we moved from 16-bit to 32-bit… for now. Maybe we’ll do in the future.
“Who would need more than 4GB of RAM on his personal computer, anyway?”
Digitial music editors, 3D animators, digital movie editors are a few consumers that come to mind.
Currently, home users don’t require that much ram, but the machine is being targeted at the professional. Apple has lower end consumer machines and low-end towers for consumers who only need a computer for word processing, e-mail and web…
However, many consumers will want the speed that the G5 brings and may opt to not max out the ram… like me. I bought one for its speed but will only bringing the ram up to 2 Gigs.
>>”[/i]What did Jobs lie about?”[/i]
“LOL. Is all in good spirits, here have some more kool-aide.”
Here, go back under your bridge you troll.
“Considering the fact that nobody has a G5it affects 0% of the population. Your statement assumes that OS X usage wont increase with the G5. I can assure you that OS X usage will grow.”
That doesn’t really answer the question. So let’s say that the G5 explodes to be 50% of all desktop computers sold (for argument’s sake). Of that population, how many would care that 64 bit integers can be processed directly in hardware? Really, where I’m trying to go with this is that Apple has developed many innovating products and brought them to the market. However, this latest itteration is not very innovative at all, but it is being marketed as such. And the fact that the G5s allow 64-bit data types does not legitimately help anyone except a small population of scientists and engineers.
-m
Case1:
Mac zealot: Macs are great you get to run Adobe, Adobe is great!
Event: Adobe drops Mac platform for Première
Mac Zealot: Adobe sucks, who needs Adobe anyway, Apple apps are better!
Case2:
Mac zeolot: Macs will now be the greatest they will be 64G5 running 64bit Panther, Wintel can’t do that, or at least not yet!
Event: News get out that Panther will be 32bit.
Mac zeolot: 64bit is slow, who needs 64bit, 32bit is better!
:::Keep sipping that kool-aide!
“That doesn’t really answer the question. So let’s say that the G5 explodes to be 50% of all desktop computers sold (for argument’s sake). Of that population, how many would care that 64 bit integers can be processed directly in hardware?”
That depends on what those consumers did with their computers. If they were professionals that required the extra ram, or were professionals that required the extra ram and wanted to take advantage 64 bit applications… then it would be that population that would be able to take advantage of the hardware.
If the consumers that bought them were home users that required the extra ram (not as likely… but a possibility), or home users that required the extra ram and wanted to take advantage 64 bit applications… then it would be that population that would be able to take advantage of the hardware.
“Really, where I’m trying to go with this is that Apple has developed many innovating products and brought them to the market. However, this latest iteration is not very innovative at all”
Apple didn’t make the G5. Its IBM’s innovation. Apple however was wise in being forward thinking and preparing its user base for a new breed of application that could take advantage of 64 bits.
“And the fact that the G5s allow 64-bit data types does not legitimately help anyone except a small population of scientists and engineers.”
Right now, the primary applications that a 64 bit processor would benefit is this market. But Apple is being forward thinking and is developing applications that will take advantage of it as well as creating development tools that will help developers take advantage of it.
I recall, several years ago many consumers saying that they simply didn’t have a need for increased processing power and yet they bought new computers a couple years later… and yet new computers a couple years after that… and yet again… newer computers after that.
To think that the industry wont find a use for increased processing power is akin to adopting the mindset that these same individuals held so many years back. The industry will most certainly find use for increased processing power as it always does.
Why is “Force Quit Finder” an option in the Apple menu
?
“Case1:
Mac zealot: Macs are great you get to run Adobe, Adobe is great!”
Event: Adobe drops Mac platform for Première
You’re forgetting the fact that Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express have already swept up the market… not with just Mac users, but Windows users who want the best post production video editing software. So in retrospect, your comment should read, ” Mac realist: Macs are great you get to run Final Cut, Apple software is great!
“Mac Zealot: Adobe sucks, who needs Adobe anyway, Apple apps are better!”
Nobody is saying that Adobe sucks, but their video editing software is lacking when compared to Apple’s offering.
“Case2:
Mac zeolot: Macs will now be the greatest they will be 64G5 running 64bit Panther, Wintel can’t do that, or at least not yet!”
“Event: News get out that Panther will be 32bit.”
The finder is 32 bit. This is a good thing as it would decrease the performance for an application that wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the power that 64 bit processing allows. Thankfully, OS X FULLY supports 64 bit applications and all the advantages that go with it. You have no argument here.
“Mac zeolot: 64bit is slow, who needs 64bit, 32bit is better!”
I don’t know any Mac user saying that… probably because 64 bit is better.
I recall already telling you all this.. but then again, its become obvious that you only want to troll these forums.
“:::Keep sipping that kool-aide!”
Go back under your bridge you troll.
BTW… zealot is spelled zealot and you sounds like one when you spell it incorrectly.
For professional use, yes, but I thought I clearly said “personal computer”. You know, the one at home. IMO, that’s an useless feature to promote. Even XEONs supports 8GB (although I must admit that it’s with ugly hacks).
” But Apple is being forward thinking and is developing applications that will take advantage of it as well as creating development tools that will help developers take advantage of it.”
I hope that you’re right. I hope that these apps come out soon enough to take the world by storm. However, there is always the possibility that Apple doesn’t exploit the 64-bit architecture (before someone else… i.e. Traff-O-Data) and instead continues to sell interesting technology to the same gang of friends that is has been for more than a decade.
-m
“Why is “Force Quit Finder” an option in the Apple menu
?”
Because, like (although rare) the Finder can misbehave. So, rather than bringing down the whole system, you can opt to force quit it which will result in it auto starting again.
“However, there is always the possibility that Apple doesn’t exploit the 64-bit architecture (before someone else… i.e. Traff-O-Data) and instead continues to sell interesting technology to the same gang of friends that is has been for more than a decade.”
Apple will almost certinly take advantage of its newly acquired 64 bit strength as the company repeatedly does for most of its advantages.
Apple has consistently grown their user base year after year for the past decade even if sometimes the overall computing industry grow faster than it did.
“For professional use, yes, but I thought I clearly said “personal computer”.”
The computer that professionals use is a personal computer the same way that a home computer is also a personal computer…. IE: P.C.
“You know, the one at home. IMO, that’s an useless feature to promote.”
Apple has several consumer applications that are power hungry enough that would benefit from 64 bit processors… most notable is their consumer video editing software applications. (iMovie and Final cut express)
“Even XEONs supports 8GB (although I must admit that it’s with ugly hacks).”
I didn;t know of such a hack. Can you point me to a reference?
Apple will almost certinly take advantage of its newly acquired 64 bit strength as the company repeatedly does for most of its advantages.
Apple has consistently grown their user base year after year for the past decade even if sometimes the overall computing industry grow faster than it did.
A growing user base is meaningless in the face of market-share. I probably miss-spoke in my “friends” comment. My point is that I really hope that Apple is able to get that killer 64-bit gem out there because if they don’t then they are in the same boat. Apple has consistently released products of high quality, and yet the market share seems to be stagnant at best. So whatever that next great product that they make is… it better be extremely cool, or at least first.
-m
for those of you saying “who needs 8 gigs of ram” remember this quote:
“640K of memory should be enough for anybody.” — bill gates 1981
Also, to 12.105.81.—‘s
>>They will sell you an expensive G5″
>No more expensive than comparible PC systems.As a matter of fact, they’re considerably less expensivethan comparable x86 systems
I just purchased an athlon 2600 with 512 megs of ram and an 80 gig hard drive for 500 dollars brand new. if I were to cluster, I could have 6 of those clustered for the same price as the base model dual 2 ghz G5. not that I’m knocking apple, I want a dual 2 ghz G5 running OSx very badly, but not enough to warrant spending 3 grand (3800 for the configuration I wanted, which is another athlon in the cluster)
People keep adding fud to anything that sounds remotely bad. how about take the technology as it comes and see how it turns out. instead of saying “32<64, if panther isn’t fully 64 bit it must be inherently evil” look into the technology and see why it’s not fully 64 bit. otherwise you look like a moron when you’re proven wrong.
Thank you for your time
My my, the misinformation runs rampant around here, doesn’t it?
1) Speed isn’t being affected here — since the G5 executes 32-bit PPC instructions just as fast as 64-bit instructions, the only thing that comes into play is increased pressure on the data cache, which won’t mean much more than 10% in practice.
2) Memory addressing probably isn’t affected. Its going to be a little contorted inside the kernel, attempting to manage >4GB memories with 32-bit code, but I’m guessing they’ll manage. Most likely what will happen is that the full memory of the system will be available to 64-bit user-space apps, while the OS will be limited to using only the first 4GB for its own purposes (data structures, caches, loadable modules). Unlike the AMD Opteron and Itanium, I’m guessing that the G5 has a mode that allows 64-bit apps to run under a 32-bit kernel. If it doesn’t, then the “hybrid” aspect will probably mean some thunks will come into play which will shunt calls from 64-bit apps to 32-bit code deeper in the OS. Not unlike Win9x, really, except not as extreme.
3) The only real impact this has is on elegance. But OS X is a rather inelegant architecture underneath anyway, so, as the saying goes, if you’re in the sticks, you might as well enjoy the grits
“A growing user base is meaningless in the face of market-share. I probably miss-spoke in my “friends” comment.”
Actually, market share is irrelivant in this context.
Market-share is determined by quarterly or annual sales figures. The problem with market-share statistics is that it implies that all computers retain the same level of usability over time. It assumes that once a computer is sold, it will retain its productivity status for as long as its parts continue to function.
Unfortunately, usability statistics and replacement purchasing habits of consumers vary significantly between platforms thus causing the market-share figure to look skewed.
Linux users (for example) are known to keep aging computer hardware useful long after it was left for dead by its former Windows using owner. The open source community consistently manages to squeeze every last ounce of processing power from even the most aged hardware available.
Similarly, Mac users are known to keep their computers as primary productivity tools until the gears fall off. This is really a testament to the quality that Apple incorporated into its hardware and software over the years.
Unfortunately, the incorporation of quality into these platform’s coding efforts will only fuel the notion that they are far less popular as what they are as long as market-share is the most commonly used gauge to determine platform popularity.
Because the Linux operating system’s distribution model isn’t tied directly to sales, it will never get a truly accurate gauge as long as market-share is touted over installed-base.
Apple on the other hand, may be in a better situation for the foreseeable future.
As we all know, the troubled economy has caused desktop PC purchases to fall to an all time low. This fact may actually work to Apple’s advantage.
Everything Apple has been working toward pivots on the release of OS X running on next generation hardware.
The release of the G5, when coupled with Apple’s Panther operating system starts the completion of Steve Jobs’ rebuilding of Apple.
It’s this combination, which the computer using populace has been waiting for, many of which have said that they’ve been holding back their computer purchases for Apple to get the time table right.
This sudden sales windfall will occur in parallel with the PC industry’s slow sales rate, which means that as long as the semi-misleading market-share statistic continues to be touted; Apple’s percentage will likely jump from its current 3 percent status to double-digit growth, (somewhere in the 12 percent range) in as few as 6-9 months.
Remember, marketshare for any given company is calculated in relation to the sales of its competators. This will cause Apple’s market share to make an even larger spike considering the fact that each individual PC manufacturer’s sales wont be there to counter Apple’s.
“My point is that I really hope that Apple is able to get that killer 64-bit gem out there because if they don’t then they are in the same boat.
I’m asuming that you’re talking about them getting the G5 out there… as in… in the market… as apposed to meanting that they need to make Pather 64 bit which is for all intents and purposes wrong as for as consumers wanting 64 bit applications are concerned. (Remember, Panther will be able to run 64 bit applications nativly… despite the misleading OS News headline. (Its only the finder than wont be 64 bit… which is fine. The finder doens;t need to be 64 bit. Actually, I would argue that at this point, the finder needs to be 32 bit… as it would experience as slight speed decrease as a result.
“Apple has consistently released products of high quality, and yet the market share seems to be stagnant at best.”
its important to remember that Apple HAS increased its user base, although not as quickly as the rest of the industry. Again, marketshare for any given company is calculated in relation to the sales of its competators on a quarterly or annual basis and is not a reflection of how a company products sit in relation to the rest of the world as far as who is using them.
“So whatever that next great product that they make is… it better be extremely cool, or at least first.”
I’m not worried their products typically are. Thankfully, the G5 seems poised to increased both user base and market share.
Actually Bascule, you need not get too technical. According to information from an eweek article[ http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43076,00.asp ] one can conclude that Apple was going to do this all long. It just that Stevey Jobs decided to lie for the Press-media show, and apparently you fell on that bait like a flimsy cod.
The eWeek article had the following to say:
While Smeagol will be built using GCC 3.1, Apple plans to compile Mac OS X 10.3 with GCC 3.3. Apple has said it will show off Panther later in June at the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, an event which sources said will also mark Apple’s first discussions of the PowerPC 970; it’s unclear whether a developer preview will include support for the new chip.
I thought the last part was the most interesting…
Apple does, however, plan to release a 64-bit version of the OS when it ships in September, according to sources.
At least eWeek recognizes that somewhere exists a source for their information, unlike the Inquirer article, which simply states it as fact and provides no source.
The eWeek article is also saying the exact opposite from the Inquirer article… that Panther will include 64-bit support, be that in the kernel or only in userspace.
Regardless, there is no technical information in this article. They don’t say if Panther’s build of XNU will be a 32-bit binary or if a 64-bit version will be included for use with PPC970. It makes no sense to make only a 32-bit build of XNU as it won’t take advantage of PPC970 scheduling and would make implementation of a VMM for 64-bit data paths significantly harder than if they were to simply do a 64-bit build of the kernel.
So once again I ask… what is the source of this information? It simply does not make sense…
“My my, the misinformation runs rampant around here, doesn’t it?”
I would like to thank Mr Hashem/Remaja for writing a very well-reasoned response to the FUD and misinformation that is being posted around here. In the past, this wasn’t always the case.
Keep up the good work.
for those of you saying “who needs 8 gigs of ram” remember this quote…
First, I said 4GB.
Second, I knew that somebody would dig up that quote. It was predictable like a clock.
Third, yes, right now, we don’t really need 4/8GB RAM, so I hardly see why Apple promotes it as a feature. That’s all. I realise that some people need it, or that we will need it someday, but it’s like saying that 4TB is stupid and that we should seek 96/128-bit processors…
Memory addressing probably isn’t affected. Its going to be a little contorted inside the kernel, attempting to manage >4GB memories with 32-bit code, but I’m guessing they’ll manage.
The question is why go to such extreme and bizarre lengths to manage 64-bit addressable memory from 32-bit code? Why not simply make a 64-bit build of the kernel? The only two reasons I can think of would be that PPC970 support in gcc is not robust enough to justify a 64-bit build, or that XNU is not 64-bit clean. Judging from the most recent commits to the gcc 3.3 tree (which included, amoung other things, PPC970 scheduler support) the former isn’t true. As for the latter, Apple has already had almost seven months to ensure XNU’s 64-bit cleanliness.
I once again call into question the accuracy of this article, which does not mention any sources for its information and gives no quotes as to the matter. The information provided is sketchy at best, and makes little sense…
Actually, market share is irrelivant in this context.
Market-share is always relivant when it comes to Apple. We’re not talking about a swing of a couple of percentage points… we’re talking about a margin of close to +90% points. That is major. You say that Apple users hold onto their computers longer, and that very well may be (I still use my 6100/66), but that very well may be because the hardware is sold at a premium far above that of PCs. While it’s probably true that a similarly equiped PC may run approximately the same price, most people would never know that because they see $500 computers that do everything that the Macs do just as fast. I am a computer scientist and consider myself to have needs above those of the ‘average’ user (email, internet, scanning, digital camera, mp3s) and I still don’t find the justification to dole out +$2500 on a computer that may make my software builds slightly faster. Let’s face it… Apple sells the Lexus, and there are only a set percentage of people who need them, want them, or can afford them… everyone else just needs something to get them from point A to B.
-m
“Right now, we don’t really need 4/8GB RAM
Many of us do.
“so I hardly see why Apple promotes it as a feature.”
Because many of us need it and it wasn’t available on previous Macs or x86.
“That’s all. I realise that some people need it”
Why would you say that after saying, “we don’t really need 4/8GB RAM”?
“or that we will need it someday”
Many more will probably need someday and Apple is being forward looking, but many consumers do use it. Its not as if Apple is forcing you to buy it.
“but it’s like saying that 4TB is stupid and that we should seek 96/128-bit processors…”
not at all.
Hello,
If you want an interesting read the Apple Devlopers doc for hardware is up at Apple (sorry can’t find link right now) from readin this document it appears that Apple only talked about the dual cpu G5.
1. There are 3 speeds of CPU to Hypertransport channel, 800, 900, 1000
2. THe CPUs use the same channel into memory. THis is equivalent to the current AMD MP system. Means it shouldnb’t scale well beyond about 4 CPUs, Opterons NUMA is far superiour on this point.
3. Bluetooth is an usb donngle (how amusing)
4. USB is used A LOT inside the computer.
5. THe AGP-Hypertransport Tunnel is an AMD chip
Other notes
if(sizeof(void*) == 8)
std::cout << “64 bit ” <<std:: endl;
if lseek uses an 64 bit argument.
Also:
I check to see how much a G5 dualie would run and it seemed to me that Apple is only shipping 1 GBi sticks. THe memory is old PC2100 DDR non-ECC. I expected to see the 4GBi expansion to use 8 sticks of 512Mbi. I think there is some price goging there. The drives and other components seemed pretty close. (drives witihin a dollar of online, bluetooth too.) Video cards are little high, Take an intel radeon and reflash it to save a few bucks. (Same card sans the DVI connector but Power PC bios not intel BIOS.)
My 2.3 cents
Donaldson
Panther is a hybrid 32 bit and 64 bit OS. It can run both 32 and 64 bit applications natively. It can definitely access 8GB of RAM and theoretically access several terabytes of RAM. I’ve known all of this for quite some time…so methinks others just weren’t reading the press releases carefully or weren’t reading them all all, just reading headlines and comments and thinking that makes them informed.
The computer that professionals use is a personal computer the same way that a home computer is also a personal computer…. IE: P.C.
I guess that’s just because we don’t share the same definition of PC. I tend to call an high end machine a “workstation” and a home machine a PC.
Apple has several consumer applications that are power hungry enough that would benefit from 64 bit processors… most notable is their consumer video editing software applications. (iMovie and Final cut express)
Benefit of 64-bit processors, OK, but of >4GB RAM… I doubt.
I didn;t know of such a hack. Can you point me to a reference?
Yes! It’s called Physical Addressing Extensions (PAE). Here’s a list of Intel chipsets for the XEON:
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/linecard/svr_wkstn.htm
As you can see, many of them are supporting over 4GB even if all their CPUs are 32-bit. However, I must add that PAE must be supported by the OS (some versions of Windows Server, Netware, Linux and FreeBSD (still in development)). I’ll try to find a more “direct” reference to that term instead of a chipset list.
“Market-share is always relivant when it comes to Apple.”
For perception yes, but not for sales.
I’ll make this very simple. Think of it like this, if in one quarter, Apple sells 1 computer and Windows sells 9, Apple has 10% market sahre. But If apple sells 100 and Windows sells 900, Apple still only has 10% of the industry this despite significantly growing its user base.
Now If Windows has a bad quarter and drops down to 600 (from 900) and Apple sells 400 computers (up from 100) their market share just shot up to 40%.
The next quarter the PC industry may recoup sales and the proports may not be like they were. This could mean that Apple’s market sahre would change from 40% ro 15-20% in the sapce of only a few months.
In every scanareo, Apple has increased its user base. This is how Apple has been opperating for the past several years… increasing user base but not making much of a dent in market share because the industry grew faster than they did.
Right now, Windows is very stagnate with regard to sales, and Apple just released a highly wanted product. This could mean that “market share” will make the dramatic rise as outlined in my example.
“While it’s probably true that a similarly equiped PC may run approximately the same price, most people would never know that because they see $500 computers that do everything that the Macs do just as fast.”
Well, thats the key, a $500 computer is not equally equipped and therefore cannt do the same as a Mac costing $1000 (for example)
“I am a computer scientist and consider myself to have needs above those of the ‘average’ user (email, internet, scanning, digital camera, mp3s) and I still don’t find the justification to dole out +$2500 on a computer that may make my software builds slightly faster.
Nobody says you should. On that same token, why would you spend that much on a PC (considering the fact that the PC with the same components will cost roughly the same ammount if not more) Simply find a Mac to meet your needs.
“Let’s face it… Apple sells the Lexus”
You’re implying that Apple’s prices aren’t similar to whata PC would be with the same specs. Apple has several different models, all with different configurations to meet the pricing needs of nearly all consumers… except for the <$800 consumer.
“and there are only a set percentage of people who need them, want them, or can afford them… “
As would be the case for the average PC. Remember, the prices are similar when software and hardware are matched similarly.
“everyone else just needs something to get them from point A to B.”
Thankfully, Apple sells a computer priced accordingly for these people as well…
Here’s a though,
With these machines shipping so late why didn’t Apple just drop AGP all together and use PCI-X video cards. Would have saved money. (Article link below on ATI dropping AGP cards.)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8841
Donaldson
Somebody asked why having a 64-bit CPU was useful. Let me explain:
1. You get a much larger addressable memory area since you can hold 64 bit addresses in a register. Useful for databases.
2. You can do faster 64-bit math. If anything, this is where you’d find quite a bit of the advantage in going to 64-bit. This is useful for mathematical applications and engineering applications. It could also be useful for things like Photoshop when dealing with high color depths. For more information on why more bits are a good thing for math, read IEEE-754. More precision and more accuracy!
As you can see, there’s not really all that much reason for a stereotypical home user to care about 64 bit-ness at the moment. Your web browser won’t run faster. Your games won’t play quicker (unless they’re doing something really funky!). As memory sizes get bigger, it will become a serious issue if your OS can’t address them in hardware, but again, that’s not a big problem _right now_, and probably won’t be for a few years (assuming “average” memory size keeps doubling every year).
The PPC970 itself sports some other improvements which will no doubt make it much faster than the G4 for home users, but it being “64 bit” is not one of them. The Athlon64 and Opteron are much the same way – the performance increases you see from recompiled apps are from the addition of registers and architectural improvements, not “64 bit power”.
But… please do not fall into the trap of thinking “64 bit CPUs are always better than 32 bit CPUs!”. We’re not talking about the NES vs. the SNES here.
-Erwos
QUick Summary,
For G5 to be considered a success in my book, Apple computer needs to sell 1.2 MIllon 3Q and 1.4 millon 4Q. THis would show apple is expanding their user base. If they sell there normal 700-880k machines per quater then Apple is in trouble on the computer front.
(From finacial reports worldwide sales)
Donaldson
“I guess that’s just because we don’t share the same definition of PC. I tend to call an high end machine a “workstation” and a home machine a PC.”
Okay, Apple sells “workstations” and personal computers for consumers and professionals.
“Benefit of 64-bit processors, OK, but of >4GB RAM… I doubt.”
These processors are incredibly fast. These consumers will benefit from the speed even if they choose to not take advantage of the Ram allotments they can fill. The fact that the chips are 64 bit is irrelivant in that regard.
Either way, Apple continues to sell very fast 32 bit G4s which meet the needs of all consumers anyways.
“For G5 to be considered a success in my book, Apple computer needs to sell 1.2 MIllon 3Q and 1.4 millon 4Q. THis would show apple is expanding their user base.”
But they already are (and have been) increasing their user base. They’ve been doing that quarter after quarter year after year since the company started.
“If they sell there normal 700-880k machines per quater then Apple is in trouble on the computer front.”
They probably wont seel that few, but that wont mean they’re in “trouble” considering the fact that they company has remained profitable and continued to grow their user base.
anon: 12.105.181.— can you show me where I can find a mac for 500 dollars that is comparable to my athlon 2600 with 512 megs of ram and an 80 gig hard drive? the best I can do on store.apple.com is an 800MHz PowerPC G4 with 128 megs of ram and a 40 gig hard drive and a CD-ROM (not 48 speed write like mine) for 799 plus shipping. remember, my athlon cost 425 bucks plus 75 dollars shipping. by the way, I am 100% serious here, I want to buy a mac but financial situation doesn’t support spending 1000+ on a mac that can handle my needs when I can spend 500 on a linux machine that will. prices are NOT comparable between athlon based machines and apple machines. if I can get a computer that can easily handle video editing and 3d animation, where’s the justification for spending more money on macs?
“anon: 12.105.181.— can you show me where I can find a mac for 500 dollars that is comparable to my athlon 2600 with 512 megs of ram and an 80 gig hard drive?”
You can’t.
However, if you’re eluding to the notion that Macs are expensive, then match up a PC with the same hardware and software etc. When you do, you will find that Apple’s computers are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.
If you or others have a problem with Apple not competeing in the ultra low end, complain about that. Similarly, if you have problem with the fact that Apple doesn’t allow you to build your own computer, say that. Just don’t that Mac are expensive or are out of the price range of most consumers because that simply isn’t the case.
Most home consumers spend $800-$2000 on a personal computer, something which Apple is easily able to accomidate them with… and at the same prices to a comperable Windows PC.
“Prices are NOT comparable between athlon based machines and apple machines.”
Yes they are. When you compare, make sure to upgrade the Athlon system with the same hardware components that come standard on the Mac that has a similar processor speed. Additionally, its important to include the price of all the software which comes as standard equipment on all new Mcs.
“if I can get a computer that can easily handle video editing and 3d animation, where’s the justification for spending more money on macs?”
If you prefer Windows and are content using inferior bundled software (at the same price for which you could have also got a Mac) then… there wouldn’t be.
Either way, Apple continues to sell very fast 32 bit G4s which meet the needs of all consumers anyways.
I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of the old G4. I must admit that the G5 has a pretty interesting price/performance ratio for high-end computing, but the G4… Bah. It was not bad when it came out, but it’s not great right now.
>>Either way, Apple continues to sell very fast 32 bit G4s which meet the needs of all consumers anyways.<<“
“I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of the old G4. I must admit that the G5 has a pretty interesting price/performance ratio for high-end computing, but the G4… Bah. It was not bad when it came out, but it’s not great right now.”
I think I worded my origional statement incorrectly… I was saying that its an adequately powered machine for most consumers. its definately not Ãœber-High end… but is definately an extremely powerful computer. Its price/performance is relative to x86 mid range options.
Yes they are. When you compare, make sure to upgrade the Athlon system with the same hardware components that come standard on the Mac that has a similar processor speed. Additionally, its important to include the price of all the software which comes as standard equipment on all new Mcs.
Unless you don’t need all of that stuff. I didn’t realize that you were comparing both hardware->hardware AND software->software systems, so I was a bit perplexed at your argument… but it makes sense now. That being said, most people do not make such comparisons. In fact, they tend to look at the bottom line. Most people ARE content to live with “sub-par” apps packaged with Windows (and whatever compatible peripherals that they may desire) because the flash and elegance is not worth the extra cost. As mentioned, while the G5 may be a beautiful work of art, the benefits are not worth the price premium that I have to pay… and I think that goes for the majority.
-m
Many Apple zealots are copy/pasting this argument:
Apple computers are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.
I’m sick of reading that twisted argument. It’s only somewhat true with the new G5, which you can’t get right now (you can only pre-order it). Please, don’t use it like a whore, as it’s not true for the low/mid-end market.
Btw, I say “somewhat” because it depends on the use you’ll do with the whole bundle. What’s the point in having Firewire & a buttload of software licences if you won’t use them? Note you can say the same thing with PCs…
And Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—), no, I don’t think you can compare current G4s with mid-end x86 offerings.
“Unless you don’t need all of that stuff.”
Then customize a system that doesn’t have the hardware you don’t need.
“I didn’t realize that you were comparing both hardware->hardware AND software->software systems, so I was a bit perplexed at your argument… but it makes sense now. That being said, most people do not make such comparisons. In fact, they tend to look at the bottom line.”
Typically, what happens is that consumers see a bare bones stripped to nothing model prrice extremely low. When they look at its specs the realzie its only barely usable so they end up upgrading it here and there to the point where they could have easily bought a Mac anyays, as it would ahve the same compontents they upgrade to .
“Most people ARE content to live with “sub-par” apps packaged with Windows (and whatever compatible peripherals that they may desire) because the flash and elegance is not worth the extra cost.”
But thats the kicker, assuming these consumers aren’t buying these ultra low LOW end machines and are upgrading them margionally… they don;t have to live with sub-par apps because the machines are the same price.
“As mentioned, while the G5 may be a beautiful work of art, the benefits are not worth the price premium that I have to pay… and I think that goes for the majority.”
Just to be clear, its not a “premium” your paying in relation to an equivilent x86 PC. As a matter of fact, tehir significantly less.
If you’re not going to buy an ultra hi-end Mac anyways… then you wouldn’t be buying an ultra high end PC. Which means that you (and similar consumers) would be in the market of one of Apple’s many other computer configurations… which include High or low-end G4 towers which are significantly less expensive now that the G5 debuted.
Here’s a though,
With these machines shipping so late why didn’t Apple just drop AGP all together and use PCI-X video cards. Would have saved money. (Article link below on ATI dropping AGP cards.)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8841
PCI-X != PCI-Express 🙂
http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pcix_20/
http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/
“Many Apple zealots are copy/pasting this argument:
Apple computers are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.”
I haven’t seen a single Apple zealot saying that. However, I have seen several very rational Mac users saying this.
“I’m sick of reading that twisted argument. It’s only somewhat true with the new G5, which you can’t get right now (you can only pre-order it). Please, don’t use it like a whore, as it’s not true for the low/mid-end market.”
Its true for all of Apple’s product line. it wasn’t true previously for Apple’s towers (G4) bvut now with the G5, it is very prevelant, as a similarly equipped x86 machine would cost more than $1000 more.
“Btw, I say “somewhat” because it depends on the use you’ll do with the whole bundle. What’s the point in having Firewire & a buttload of software licences if you won’t use them? Note you can say the same thing with PCs…”
For many prebuild PCs, removing Firewire isn’t even an option. You buy it whether you like it or not… coincidentlly the same way as Apple sells its computers.
“And Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—), no, I don’t think you can compare current G4s with mid-end x86 offerings.”
I sure can, as can you. if you make a fair comparison, you will see that a Mac is in fact either slightly more expensive, same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive.
I’m getting really sick and tired of this whole argument that Macs at the $2000 are comparable to those PCs at that price range. YES…they probably are…but there is more to it. What if I don’t HAVE $3000 to spent on a Mac plus a nice monitor? It doesn’t matter how much fucking bang-for-your-buck your going to get if you don’t HAVE that buck. Schools cannot afford a $2000 workstation. Sure, they might last longer, but no school board is going to allow you to spend $2000/computer (that’s without a monitor) just because it will “last longer.” That’s just silly.
They might be comparable, but we don’t need those $2000 PCs that are comparable, either. If you don’t HAVE the money, it doesn’t matter how great it is, you can’t buy the fucking Mac!
Tell you what. When Panther comes out and folks can actually fish through it and find out for sure, then I’ll believe that Steve was blowing a certain amount of smoke when he said Panther would be 64 bit. Rumor sites are notoriously wrong.
-HH
so are you saying that my athlon 2600 with 512 megs of ram and an 80 gig hard drive is ultra low end? how about a dual mp 3 ghz with a radeon 9800 and 2 gigs of ram for under 2 grand? where’s the comparable mac? and you must have missed my linux. no one said that windows is cheap, and my machine runs faster with the linux equivelants of the software than it did on windows 2k or xp. even if oo.org takes a little while to load. and you keep saying that you can get macs for the same price that are comparable, I haven’t seen any mac for under 2 grand that would compare to some of the amd/intel systems that you can get for under 1500.
in fact, I’ll get you a price right now:
athlon dual MP 2400 (500)
1 gig of pc2700 ram (120)
160 gig SATA (150)
radeon 9800 128 megs(300)
sound card (<50)
dvd-ram (150)
gigabit NIC (<50)
case (50-100)
athlon system: 1420 (and that’s rounding up in most cases)
mac 1.8 with 1 gig of ram and a 160 and the radeon 9800 and the super drive: 2,970.00
or was that high end enough for you? I just compared a high end (I think you’ll agree) athlon system against a comparable mac system and the price is twice as much. I want you to tell me a situation where the mac will be twice as good as the athlon. macs are more expensive, no way around that, I’m not anti mac, I want to use one because they’re smooth as silk, no way around that, but when the performance is equal, the prices are way different. if you can prove me wrong, I’ll admit I was wrong, I offer proof, offer some of your own.
“I’m getting really sick and tired of this whole argument that Macs at the $2000 are comparable to those PCs at that price range. YES…they probably are…but there is more to it. What if I don’t HAVE $3000 to spent on a Mac plus a nice monitor? It doesn’t matter how much fucking bang-for-your-buck your going to get if you don’t HAVE that buck.”
Then you wouldn’t be buying a PC at that price either then. If you need to go down in price then Apple offers an equivilently price computer to an x86 Windows PC if you compare both the hardware and software exactly (or as close as possible)
“Schools cannot afford a $2000 workstation.”
Then they don’t have to. Both Macs and PCs come in configurations that are priced dramatically less than that. When you compare each machine (yes even those in the sub-$2000 market as well) you will find that Macs are either priced slightly more, are the same price, slightly less or are significantly less.
“Sure, they might last longer”
yes, and at a price that is only slightly more, the same price, slightly less, or significantly less.
“but no school board is going to allow you to spend $2000/computer (that’s without a monitor) just because it will “last longer.” That’s just silly.”
Agrred. Thankfully, Apple sells computers that are significantly less than $2000, are well equipped and can have a monitor included
“They might be comparable, but we don’t need those $2000 PCs that are comparable, either.”
Then you wouldn;t get a Mac or a PC in that price class.
“If you don’t HAVE the money, it doesn’t matter how great it is, you can’t buy the fucking Mac!”
Nor the PC for that matter.
Funny–
Our school replaces it’s Macs on a three year schedule, and yes they purchase the high end models. Our labs are 1/3 Sun workstations, 1/3 Windows PC and 1/3 Mac.
by the way those are pricewatch.com prices on the athlon and store.apple.com for the G5. I really want to see you compare a mac with an athlon or intel system and get similar priced similarly equipped systems
I haven’t seen a single Apple zealot saying that. However, I have seen several very rational Mac users saying this.
Right…
For many prebuild PCs, removing Firewire isn’t even an option. You buy it whether you like it or not… coincidentlly the same way as Apple sells its computers.
For many, yes, but not for all.
Its true for all of Apple’s product line. it wasn’t true previously for Apple’s towers (G4) [then why it’s true for the entire product line? -Me] bvut now with the G5
[…]
“And Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—), no, I don’t think you can compare current G4s with mid-end x86 offerings.”
I sure can, as can you. if you make a fair comparison, you will see that a Mac is in fact either slightly more expensive, same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive.
Please, next time, read what you’ve written above before copy/pasting your “argument”… I must agree with you for the G5, but the copy/pasting you made with the G4 prove that you’re in the category that I call “zealots”.
“so are you saying that my athlon 2600 with 512 megs of ram and an 80 gig hard drive is ultra low end?”
Not at all.
“how about a dual mp 3 ghz with a radeon 9800 and 2 gigs of ram for under 2 grand?”
Not at all.
“where’s the comparable mac?”
http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/
http://www.apple.com/powermac/ (It comes in a low-end configuration too)
“and you must have missed my linux. no one said that windows is cheap, and my machine runs faster with the linux equivelants of the software than it did on windows 2k or xp.”
Macs run Linux too you know…
“you keep saying that you can get macs for the same price that are comparable, I haven’t seen any mac for under 2 grand that would compare to some of the amd/intel systems that you can get for under 1500.”
Remember, its important to upgrade those systems with all the standard equipment that come with the Mac. Regardless, Apple’s High End G4 and Low-end G5 would compete very well in either case for simialr price points.
“in fact, I’ll get you a price right now:
athlon dual MP 2400 (500)
1 gig of pc2700 ram (120)
160 gig SATA (150)
radeon 9800 128 megs(300)
sound card (<50)
dvd-ram (150)
gigabit NIC (<50)
case (50-100)
athlon system: 1420 (and that’s rounding up in most cases)
mac 1.8 with 1 gig of ram and a 160 and the radeon 9800 and the super drive: 2,970.00”
This is what I’m talking about. Your PCs are equally equipped with what the G5 gives you. If you’re going to make these comparisons, you’ve also got to factor in the software as well.
“or was that high end enough for you?”
not at all.
“I just compared a high end (I think you’ll agree) athlon system against a comparable mac system and the price is twice as much.”
You left out several key components that the G5 will give you that the systems you suggested don’t.
“I want you to tell me a situation where the mac will be twice as good as the athlon.”
A single or dual processor G5
“macs are more expensive, no way around that”
Not at all. They are less configurable however.
“I’m not anti mac”
its hard to tell.
“I want to use one because they’re smooth as silk, no way around that, but when the performance is equal”
The performance is greater on the G5
“the prices are way different.”
Nope. Depending on the configuration, a mac is either slightly more, the same price, slightly less, or significantly less.
“if you can prove me wrong, I’ll admit I was wrong, I offer proof, offer some of your own.”
Just match the hardware and software to the EXACT same specs (or as close as possible) in both hardware and software and you’ll see. Its all there… you just aren;t matching up the specs.
“I must agree with you for the G5, but the copy/pasting you made with the G4 prove that you’re in the category that I call “zealots”.”
I made some typographical errors and now I’m a zealot? Pahleaze…
Black Pot and Black Kettle….
“Its true for all of Apple’s product line. it wasn’t true previously for Apple’s towers (G4) [then why it’s true for the entire product line? -Me]
because the prices on the G4 made a dramatic price drop with the introduction of the G5.
“”Again, who knows a real (and true) advantage of a complete 64bit system???””
There’s actually some incredibly funky things you can do if you have 8 bytes to play with in a register. It’s not all maths either, there’s quite a few optimisations you can pull off by doing multiple operations simultaneously thanks to have the bits to play in. Eg, changing case of 8 ASCII chars in one fell swoop, string searches etc.
Then there’s all the graphical stuff like being able to mix multiple pixels simultaneously (Like the x86 MMX instructions). That particular case might be dealt with in the GPU now, but there are plenty of others like it.
Yeah, I know. I checked the prices on Apple Store before making that argument, too. IMO, they’re still too high. If you make a fair comparison, you will see that a mid-end PC is either slightly more expensive, same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive
. Then again, maybe they’re just okay for users that really want to get a Mac.
That said, I wonder if Apple will offer a “low-end” G5 (maybe a 1.4GHz?) under 1500$. I must admit that the G5 seems to be a great computer (although we haveyet to see an independant review, i.e. not asked or sponsored by Apple). IMO, I’m sure that more people would like to get (or at least try) one at that price point.
what key differences did I leave out? you are being very vague and taking my comments out of context. instead of commenting on bits and pieces of my comment, why not the whole entire thing?
first off, between the systems, mac software was factored in, linux software mostly free was factored in.
secondly, the dual athlon 2400 vs the single G5 1.8 and all else hardwarewise was equal, tell me if I’m wrong here, and the mac was twice the price.
Those systems are pretty close to being equal, how about you do a comparison with systems that you think are “the EXACT same specs” tell me what was missing in my comparison or something instead of being like a 10 year old and saying “nope you’re wrong, nope that’s not right, um, not quite, you’re not telling the whole story”
I’ve given numbers and exact reproducible data for everyone to see, my cards are on the table. show data, if you go into court and say “I don’t think he could have dont it, you just have to believe me, it’s just not in his nature” you’d be laughed out of court. GIVE SOME PROOF
and have some kool-aid or build a bridge or whatever you think is necessary 😀
you keep saying that a mac is either slightly more, the same price, slightly less, or significantly less. give a situation where an equally equipped mac is either slightly more, same, slightly less, or significantly less than it’s (equally equipped remember) opponent. I seem to be missing those, because I’ve searched ebay for QUITE SOME TIME now for a mac that is even slightly more than it’s non-mac counterpart. I seriously want to buy a mac, but the fact that for the same price or (in all of my experiences) LESS, I can get a higher performance non-mac, has led me to believe that there are none that fit the bill. show me a system that fits the bill of being less than the pc-compatible counterpart. I’m anxiously awaiting that system.
“Yeah, I know. I checked the prices on Apple Store before making that argument, too. IMO, they’re still too high.”
Then you also must have a beef with x86 manufacturer’s prices, as Apple’s prices are similar in price.
“If you make a fair comparison, you will see that a mid-end PC is either slightly more expensive, same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive
.”
That one made me laugh.
“Then again, maybe they’re just okay for users that really want to get a Mac.”
The point is, while Apple may be lacking in the configurability department, they are not lacking in price. When people say that Mac’s cost too much, what they mean is that they can eliminate a feature and make it less expensive. But then again, most of the features that come as standard equipment on the Mac are typical of the base systems that most consumers would want anyways… IE USB, Hard drive, keyboard etc…
Similarly, Apple doesn’t compete in the ultra low end nor does the company allow you to build your own computer which only fuels the misconception.
What I’ve found is that Most consumers who opt for the ultra low end PCs typically upgrade fgeatures here and there to the point that they could have got a low end Mac anyways., and Apple is also very competative in the $800 – $1,200 market (the market these people upgrade these $400 computer to) so, for the most part that aspect of the price equation is a non issue.
Similarly, if people have a beef with Apple that they don’t allow them to build their own computer… (which can result in a lower price) simply say that… rather than sawing that Apple’s computer’s are more expensive).
What’s important when comparing prices is that you compare Apple as a computer manufacturere to other computer manufacturers and equip both machines with EXACT (or as close as possible) hardware and software.
“That said, I wonder if Apple will offer a “low-end” G5 (maybe a 1.4GHz?) under 1500$.”
Eventually, when the G5 gets transitioned to a 0.9 process to which it will benefit from the associated cooling advantages, (In less than a year) we will probably see such as system.
“I must admit that the G5 seems to be a great computer (although we haveyet to see an independant review, i.e. not asked or sponsored by Apple).”
A representative employed by Nasa recently conducted an independant review. His report verified much of what Apple said.
What I fear is that other independant reviewers make the mistake of comparing the G5 SPEC scores to a P4/XEON using Intel’s compiler which will end up with dramatatically different results. People will see those different results and cry shenanagins.
The reason why the GCC compiler was used on both platforms (rather than using Intel’s compiler on the x86 hardware), is because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware.
To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation — using the same version and similar settings. Regardless, its important to remember that gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.
The Dell numbers that Apple quoted would have been higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.
“IMO, I’m sure that more people would like to get (or at least try) one at that price point.”
I’m sure they would. But Apple’s High-end G4’s make up the disparity in price to performance between the low end G5s and the high end iMacs.
“what key differences did I leave out? you are being very vague and taking my comments out of context. instead of commenting on bits and pieces of my comment, why not the whole entire thing?”
I know this looks like I’m avoiding the question, but a comparison like that takes at least a half hour to make sure that both machines are matched accordingly.
I’ve done those so many times before on some many forums… all of which can;t be copied and pasted because in each instance someone throws a new configuration at me. What inevitably insues is an attempt to tear appart the differences, to which I must spend an additional hour or two defending lest it look like my comparison was false.
For these reasons, I’m going to put this back in your court because it is use that is claiming shenanigans. however, I will give you a reference where you can compare tech specs which must be matched:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
Mactch these specs, then bundle in the price of equivilently matched software. When you do, post your results here.
Anonymous — your argument is BS.
“where’s the comparable mac?”
http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/
>>>>>>>
Hardly. The closest G4 machine I got get to his config was a dual 1.25 GHz with 256MB of RAM, 80GB HDD, and Radeon 9000 for $1570. The G4 has a much slower processor, much smaller HDD, a quarter of the RAM, and a much slower graphics card. Bringing the G4 up to dual 1.25GHz with 1GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, and GeForce4 Ti (nowhere near as fast as the Radeon 9800) comes to $2500 (from the Apple Store). There is no way in hell the Mac comes with $1000+ worth of software, especially when you take into account that the total cost of software for a Linux machine is on the order of $100.
Macs run Linux too you know…
>>>>>>
You can build a PC without buying Windows. Building a Mac is expensive and requires jumping through hoops.
Remember, its important to upgrade those systems with all the standard equipment that come with the Mac.
>>>>>>
Like what? Gigabit NIC? He took that into account. DVD burner? He took that into account. Shitty onboard sound? Check. The Mac doesn’t even include speakers in its base price! The original poster did his part. He offered up the specs to a PC. Now, let’s see you build a Mac to comparable specs for price even $500 within the PC.
Look. Apple products can be very high quality. However, they aren’t cheap. I recently shelled out $370 (student discount
for an iPod. I could have bought a cheap plastic imitation that did the same exact thing for half that. But the iPod is a genuinely high quality product, and it was worth what I payed for it. Nobody’s trying to say that Apple products aren’t worth what they cost. Thanks to the new dual G5’s, the roughly $500 price premium you’re paying over a comparably equiped PC (the base $3000 dual G5 machine leaves something to be desired in the graphics and audio departments) seems reasonable if you really like OS X and the iApps. However, lets not try to pretend that Apple machines are anywhere near as cheap as PCs.
“you keep saying that a mac is either slightly more, the same price, slightly less, or significantly less. give a situation where an equally equipped mac is either slightly more, same, slightly less, or significantly less than it’s (equally equipped remember) opponent. I seem to be missing those, because I’ve searched ebay for QUITE SOME TIME now for a mac that is even slightly more than it’s non-mac counterpart.”
Match the specs for each of the following systems:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/emac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/ibook/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
“I seriously want to buy a mac, but the fact that for the same price or (in all of my experiences) LESS, I can get a higher performance non-mac
You’re not compareing teh same specs for hardware and software. I’ve done these experiments MANY times.
“Hardly.”
Don’t buy the Ram from Apple.
” You can build a PC without buying Windows. Building a Mac is expensive and requires jumping through hoops.”
Agreed, but then your argument is not with the price of the Mac its with Apple’s decision to not let you custom build one.
“Like what? Gigabit NIC? He took that into account. DVD burner? He took that into account. Shitty onboard sound?”
I know this looks like I’m avoiding the question, but a comparison like that takes at least a half hour to make sure that both machines are matched accordingly.
I’ve done those so many times before on some many forums… all of which can;t be copied and pasted because in each instance someone throws a new configuration at me. What inevitably insues is an attempt to tear appart the differences, to which I must spend an additional hour or two defending lest it look like my comparison was false.
For these reasons, I’m going to put this back in your court because it is use that is claiming shenanigans. however, I will give you a reference where you can compare tech specs which must be matched:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/emac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/ibook/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
“The Mac doesn’t even include speakers in its base price!”
Every Mac comes with an internel speaker.
I offer you a challenge. pick apart my system that I spec-ed above and tell me the key differences between the mac G5 1.8 listed there. remember, I have stated the key specs, that’s not all of the specs. I also stated the prices. state the key differences, you’re starting to sound like you’re under the age of 15, and by the way, all of your comparisons are based on the apple website, give some real world proof of concept here. so far I (and probably everyone else who has read this, who by the way have left the conversation) have seen nothing from your statements other than “I kiss the ground that steve-o walks on, he is my god and there is no other before him, his are best there are no others, you offer proof but you must trust me”
Upgrade the cache on your athlon to 512K
Now give it a 800MHz frontside Bus
Now upgrade the DDR SDRAM main memory to 256MB PC2700 (333MHz)
You didn’t say, does your config come with Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet? if not add it.
Is it prewired for 802.11b/g? If not, add that too.
Does your configuration have Optical digital audio in, optical digital audio out, analog audio in, analog audio out, front headphone minijack and speaker? If not add that.
make sure to find equivilents for the following: iLife (including iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and 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, Address Book, iCal, iSync, DVD Player, Mail, EarthLink, Acrobat Reader, Classic environment and Apple Developer Tools
Does it come with 90 days of free telephone support and a one-year limited warranty? If not, add that too.
The chalange was not whether or not Apple could be as configurable as a PC. A PC can be more configurable. His configuration had many things lacking as compared to a G5, G4 etc…
The argument was whether or not the PC was less expensive than the Mac. Macs come in predefined configurations… so it is HIS hob to find a configuration that will match the Mac, not my job to find a Mac that is configurable to a PC.
Again, I NEVER said that a Mac was more configurable.
If he wants to make comparisons, he’s going to have to match the Mac’s specs and try to make the price difference considerable.
I’ve consistently said that the mac will either be slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive when you match the PC’s hardware and software EXACTLY or as close as possible to the Mac.
Anyone that contests that is going to have to abide by that rule.
Do you PC hobos factor in the cost of the case of the G5? Its at least the cost of the high end CoolerMaster? How about the cost of having a 9 computer controlled fan system? FW400, FW800, 802.11g all built into the motherboard.
Getting price from Pricewatch is stupid, who handles the warranty? All six or ten of the companies you order from? NewEgg? Who? Compare name brand to name brand. Apple is a name brand, Jimmy Sockitoomi’s computer store on pricewatch is not.
Nobody factored in the cost of the software either? MacOSX and all the iApps is worth more than $200 at least. If you counter that you don’t care about MacOSX and you will just install Linux it shows how much your time is worth.
Ever think of depreciation? I sold my G4/400 for $650, I bought it new for $1200 several years ago. My AthlonXP today is not even worth a third of what it cost to build.
You can peice together a Honda Civic to get 400HP car but its still not a BMW-M series even if it is faster and you know it.
Sorry, but I did the comparaisons, and not with self-built computers. Then again, we’re using cheap Canuckistan dollars here, so it has probably an impact on the price. For example, Intel CPUs tend to be more expensive than AMD ones here even if their prices are more or less the same in the US.
Btw, I think upgrades are great because it extend the useful life of the computer. Most people I know upgrade their PCs for gaming. Perhaps Mac users don’t have that problem because there ain’t many Mac gamers. Non-gamers don’t really need to upgrade often. My GF is still happy with her P1 233MMX that she bought 6 or 7 years ago even if it’s slow as a snail. She only made one upgrade: the HD.
the athlon processors I spec-ed had 512K cache
um, the memory WAS pc2700… 1024 megs to be exact
I actuallly did say it had a 10/100/1000 base T ethernet
macs don’t come prewired for 802.11b/g, you can upgrade to one though 99 dollars to be exact (store.apple.com)
no digital audio in on my sound card, but it had digital audio out, analog in and out, and the case came with front headphone jack and speaker AND MIC AND USB AND FIREWIRE (where’s that?)
iLife there is more powerful but not as polished open source/free software programs,iPhoto konqueror can handle, bundled with xmms and xine can handle iMovie and iTunes ms office is crap (so is oo.org so we’re even there) filemaker is trial, doesn’t count. what the crap is omniGraffle and outliner? graphic converter? you mean between formats? the gimp can handle that, xine is much nicer than quicktime IMHO. Gaim is really nice, ever tried it? beats iChat. Mozilla browser and firebird are better than safari, and you’re REALLY digging with mail address book and dvd player, every system can read .pdf, and if you have to mention a free earthlink program, you must really be desperate.
warranty, every single thing had 90 day to 1 year plus warranty… did I miss anything?
OH YEAH front side bus… if you’re going to pay 1500 dollars for a faster front side bus, then you’re pathetic.
tell me, did I miss anything?
“Btw, I think upgrades are great because it extend the useful life of the computer.”
I agree. I enjoy upgrading my Mac regularly.
“Perhaps Mac users don’t have that problem because there ain’t many Mac gamers.”
I disagree. There’s no reason to believe that the number of Mac gamers runs in paralyl to that of Windows users when considering market share proportions.
my spec-ed mobo has fw400, and let me reiterate mac is “AirPort Extreme ready” meaning that it has a pci slot and you can buy the air extreme card for 99 dollars. which mac has 9 computer controlled fans again? my case has 5 and I paid 25 for the cas with a window and led fan, and have 2 on the power supply, and then bought the fans for 10 dollars a piece… 120 mm fans, not 60mm 120mm. that’s 65 dollars for the case.
and by the way, my 1985 iroc Z-28 with a 383 enforcer with a paxton supercharger and about 5 grand into structural reinforcement and suspension and steering is faster and has better handling than the bimmer M, and only cost 7 grand for the engine/supercharger, 5 grand into handling, and 2500 for the car, that adds up to 14500 for the car, and I can pull off my T-tops and beat that bmw-m around any track.
any more questions? is my system up to spec with yours yet? thank you come again
RE: bsdrocks (IP: —.ks.ok.cox.net)
I know that but in order for ATI to support AGP that have to use a tunnel to convert to AGP, Apple Should easily be able tosweet talk them into a PCI-X version and more than likely get AMD to agree (Opteron server boards.)
Donaldson
and as for considerable price difference, I believe that the 1550 dollar price difference is considerable, since I haven’t added any cost to my system and found software to match and the only considerable difference was the front side bus… argue with me that that’s worth 1550. I mean seriously. do it with a straight face, I can’t keep a straight face for real