Apple's Dual 2GHz By The Numbers 776
mallumax writes "ComputerWorld has an exciting review of Apple's Dual 2GHz machine." An excerpt: "It's clear from two weeks of testing that Apple's new Power Mac G5 dual 2-GHz machine is the fastest thing the company has ever produced. And while you can debate benchmarks until eternity, it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side."
yesss... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:yesss... (Score:5, Funny)
Except for one thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
I own a 2ghz G5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Why?
Because I really love the Apple operating system, and it's the best in the world, especially if you're a Unix geek who also likes doing arty stuff like video editing and compositing.
Because I'm working on some projects requiring heavy compositing and special effects, and I really wanted to have the most powerful Mac I could find.
Because the aesthetics of the Mac make me happy and make me enjoy work, and life, more. This is more important than one might think; considering all the time I spend in front of the screen, and the value of that time, it's well worth the bucks to get a computer I really like instead of one I don't.
Hope that helps.
D
Other side of computing: Linux running on G5 (Score:5, Insightful)
The new G5 from Apple is more than merely "fast". It is a workstation in its own right. In "Byte of the Apple [businessweek.com]", "Businessweek [businessweek.com]" notes that the new Macintoshes are, in fact, UNIX workstations. The notebooks based on G5s are, in fact, portable UNIX workstations.
Steve Jobs, if he had any sense, would be marketing these machines as workstations instead of mere personal computers. With 64-bit processors, these machines are fully capable of handling engineering workloads like Verilog, HSPICE, fluid-dynamics simulation, etc.
Right now, a tidal wave of Linux-on-x86 machines is drowning Sun Microsystems in the workstation market. It sure would be nice to see a G5 take some market share bled from Sun Microsystems. In fact, it would be ideal to see a Linux-driven G5 take market share.
Re:Other side of computing: Linux running on G5 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other side of computing: Linux running on G5 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Other side of computing: Linux running on G5 (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple merging with SGI or Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
There's loads of reasons why it won't happen, but I always thought that Apple should have bought SGI.
It'd be a huge engineering task, but having a consistant Unix with a good UI from laptop, to desktop, to machine room would be excellent, and SGI would give Apple the entree to research/corporate data centers they lack now, as well as some industrial-strength computing power they don't have now. This would give Apple a huge unified market in visualization.
The time for this would have been a couple of years ago when OS X was being developed so that it could have been developed for both platforms (and stuff from SGI merged into OS X). It's probably too late for it to be meaningful now.
The other option would be a merger/takeover by Sun. It's a poorer fit, though, as Sun is more datacenter/DB than visualization, but it would give Sun the ability to market a complete alternative solution to MS, including a really good end-user desktop.
Whenever I posit this, most people say "Apple's doesn't want to be a business/corporate platform". This may be true, but long-term its easier to see Apple's CPU development being less dependent on the good graces of a third party as well as having more compelling high-end computing driving their CPU development.
There's also nothing that says Apple should stop their consumer/botique marketing or market niche -- it would be important to a $UNIX+Apple company to keep the consumer/end user desktop viable, and staying in that market makes that happen.
It'd be good for "big Unix" as well, since Sun and SGI can't offer the lower end of the spectrum to the customers and end up bouncing off of MS-centric operations at a lot of places. With a total package that extended a viable, well-known platform to the desktop, their server offerings would get a better advantage, as well as giving them better lower end server offerings in Xserve variants.
My tests (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe because it's processor is based on this bad boy. [lostbrain.com]
Tcd004
The question is then (Score:2, Insightful)
Stories like this appeal to the geeky "need for speed" undoubtedly ramoant at /., but offer little insight into real consumer thought/need.
That said, this is pretty cool; not cool enough for me to switch to Apple, but cool.
Re:The question is then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The question is then (Score:2)
I imagine that the next version of SimCity will really like the G5.
Re:The question is then (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, you've got the people who do media editing... sound/video/still... They are going to continue to shell out the big bucks for the best Apple hardware because it will continue to put them in a competitive advantage over their collegues who need to spend more time every day waiting for numbers to crunch. In the case of this market, the dual G5 will pay for itself quickly, on speed alone.
Then there's the sciences, which if you'd read the article is one of the very things being tested on this monster. I've got a friend who works in bioinformatics, and I can't wait to tell him that BLAST is being compiled for the dual G5. He will curse me as he picks up the phone to call Apple =]
Finally, there's this myth of incompatibility... for your average desktop luser, what applications are important to run? Well, hello, we have the Suite of the Beast, which runs natively, and rather well, on OS X... Exchange connectivity included, thank you very much. What else? Oh, you mean something that doesn't already exist on the unix side and has been ported by the Fink project? Hello? Are you still there?
I was helping a frind of mine to try to save his win98 box from an inevitable wipe-and-reinstall, and I asked him how he liked OS X on his dual-G4. This guy used to flip front-panel switches on PDP-8s for a living (but only when the tape reader was shredding paper), and hasn't left the industry since... I regularly pick his brain on "bigger-picture" type issues, and his ignorance of how to keep his teenaged children from b0rking win98 configs notwithstanding, he really knows his s**t. His reply about OS X: So true. I use and enjoy Linux on my peecee, and have no intention of leaving it behind as an OS - it's still much too useful for me for lots of things - but I have to say, Apple has done a fantastic job with OS X. It is fantastically easy to teach n00bs on, and I have found it to be superb for administering a very heterogenous network consisting of various windoze clients and servers, Apple machines from ][e to current models, and various *nix servers and a few clients... best of all, I can do all this with tools native to OS X - I've got the windoze Remote Desktop Connection, Apple Remote Desktop, and X11 or even Terminal.app for the real work =]
I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, although I admit I've probably done just that. It's just that when you find a really useful tool to get your job done, it's hard not to wax enthusiastic.
Re:The question is then (Score:3, Flamebait)
I have a nice, new dual G4 powermac sitting in my office with a nice cinerama display, and it never gets used. It's just too loud.
Re:The question is then (Score:3, Funny)
Just doing my thing to control (noise) pollution... I live to give.
Re:It is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation: macs don't have much software (Score:5, Funny)
This is true. I tried to get "Windows XP Tutor" from the Video Professor guy who's on TV all the time and they don't have it for Mac.
I bet all their other super high-quality software is PC-only too.
You are soooooooo right! (Score:5, Funny)
You're so right, because there's just no way for you to download thousands of UNIX utilities [gnu.org] and run configure, make, and make install, and have it run on OS X [sourceforge.net].
And aside from the command line, there just aren't any software products [apple.com], just as you say. Basically, with Macintosh, you get a word process, e-mail client, browser, and that's it!
And there's really no hope of that ever changing, what with the crappy, hard-to-use development enviroment [apple.com] Apple has released for their platform, and the total indiffernce from the developer community regarding the platform.
It's a wonder more people [dvorak.org] don't share the "insight" you do.
Thanks for the enlightenment!
Re:The question is then (Score:3, Insightful)
7. I don't get to build it myself to my specs.
All the power in the world is meaningless if it doesn't have the apps and games I'm interested in using.
I am also not a big fan of buying off-the-shelf systems. I like to piece mine together using exactly the parts I want.
The austere aluminum look is too sterile for my taste, as well.
Re:The question is then (Score:4, Insightful)
According to whom? The only benchmarks I've seen are from PC Magazine (not that reliable) and Apple. PC Magazine gave it a mediocre evaluation, and, Apple, well, it's their product.
Apple's SPEC scores don't impress me. When they start showing me numbers in the 1400s, I'll agree. Unfortunately, all that they have released are the GCC numbers which makes comparison with other computers difficult. Am I to trust that Apple's numbers for the Dell system aren't biased at all? What about Athlon 64?
SPEC works because companies compete to optimize their platform (compilers, operating system, and software) to produce the best results. There are regulations that the company must follow; these are voted upon by SPEC members. Apple has not submitted results to SPEC, nor are they benchmarking their platform with the best compiler. And if GCC is the best compiler for the G5, then they have a bigger problem.
"2. It's certainly the most usable and stable."
Also debatable. "Usable" depends on what you're used to. I have not seen usability studies involving XP vs. OS X. Is your "most usable" base on actual data or is it just your personal opinion?
"Stable" depends on what kind of configuration you're running, as well as a number of other factors. Windows can be surprisingly stable; many Windows systems have been up for years. Of course, if you install every spyware ridden screen saver, Windows will likely be unstable, but that's not Microsoft's fault. Is your "Stable" claim based on actual data, or is it another opinion?
"3. It has the beautiful Aqua UI."
I could debate this (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but I won't. I like Aqua too. However, after a few months, most people stop caring.
"4. It's a superb Unix workstation."
So is Linux. Or Windows with Cygwin.
"5. It comes in a gorgeous aluminium case."
There are plenty of great looking aluminum ATX cases. The G5 "cheese grater" case is a little gaudy for my tastes, but, again, this is preference.
So, let's see:
1: Is it the fastest? We don't know. Show me some impressive SPEC numbers and we'll talk.
2: Is it the most usable and stable? Show me some studies that say so. Your opinion means little to me.
3: Aqua does look cool. But that's a preference, not a fact.
4: PC's with Linux make great UNIX workstations too.
5: There are plenty of cool looking aluminum PC cases.
Re:The question is then (Score:5, Insightful)
heh you wanna know stable? how about X11 + Gnome + Gimp for image authoring, + 6 different web browsers for cross-browser checking of DHTML functionality, + office apps such as word and excel to deal with requirements documents sent by management drones, Multi-IM chat client to stay connected with co-workers over AIM, and Jabber over SSL, iTunes mp3 player in the background to soothe the mind playing music from a firewire-connected iPod, BBEdit code editor and 10 terminal windows, one of which running Tomcat java servlet container, another one running ant build scripts, to work on various components of a J2EE-compliant web application, all this and a few other apps running and being actively used simultanously on a 400mhz Titanium powerbook bought in early 2001, recently upgraded to 1Gig of RAM for $180 including priority shipping courtesy of pricewatch.com.
How many times have i ever crashed the machine, and have had to reboot due to a crash? well, TWICE, when i got kernel panics when fiddling with some obscure features of CUPS printer sharing over SMB. But never while performing the typical daily load outlined above on this machine.
I only reboot my laptop once a week as a preventive measure to give the OS a chance to perform a periodic fsck whenever it feels it needs to do so. My daily routine is heavy in network, peripherals, *and* disk I/O. Plenty of room for bad sectors to creep up on me.
Go ahead, weep. [earthlink.net]
Again, this is a 400mhz machine from 2001. It's old. and it still kicks ass.
PC's with Linux do make great UNIX-ish workstations but not nearly anywhere near Mac OS X.
Windows with Cygwin fucking sucks ass compared to OS X. I should know, prior to 2001 i used windows NT then windows 2000 on a DELL laptop. I used cygwin. I even wrote entire application development environment set-up scripts in bash under cygwin. It becomes a real bitch when you need to access executables that live in the "windows" world and get them to interoperate in the "cygwin world". cygpath. forward slashes vs backward slashes. stupid stupid stupid waste of time. Don't get me wrong, prior to OS X, Cygwin was a God-Send. It made windoz bearable to deal with.
I have a debian linux server running at home on a cheap 2Ghz PC i inherited from my sister. I love Linux because thanks to Linux, no piece of computing hardware ever becomes truly obsolete. You can always turn any box into a cheap, decent desktop workstation, or a cheap, decent server.
Windows NT and 2000 have wasted me countless hours of valuable time.
In the end, to me, the best computing platform is Apple. The turning point was this pure beauty of an operating system that is Mac OS X.
The revolution is now starting with Apple's new next-generation computing hardware architecture. Read here [slashdot.org] why I place such emphasis on overall system architecture. Hint: until dramatic architecture changes happen, wintel PCs really are stuck in a speed dead-end right now. Clocking your CPU chip upwards can only take you so far without melting your enclosing case or restricting your customer base to Alaska.
Re:The question is then (Score:3, Interesting)
10 seconds worth of Google time would have told you that the HyperTransport Architecture that both AMD and Apple use was developed jointly by them and many other companies. Neither can claim all the credit for it, Apple was just the first to bring it market.
Re:The question is then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The question is then (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to agree with you there, but my new 1.6GHz G5 has been incredibly unstable since the day it arrived. It will freeze up hard doing just about anything. I went through about 2 hours of troubleshooting over the phone with Apple Australia, and in the end the only thing they could recommend was that I box it up and send it back to them.
If you check the user discussion forums on Apple's support site, there are lots of people having problems with their new G5s freezing and kernel panicking. Some of this is due to a firmware bug that causes 3rd party RAM to wreak havoc, but a lot of it also appears to be related to USB hubs and various USB devices causing kernel panics.
Don't get me wrong...I love the idea of the G5 (which is why I bought one), but for me at least, it's been the least stable piece of computing equipment I've ever owned or used (and this is going back to Apple IIs and Microbees (for the Aussies out there)).
I think Apple may still have a lot of production difficulties to sort out...I think a lot of us have been stung by the infamous 'Don't buy a Revision A Apple product' syndrome.
Of course, even with the G5 sitting there completely frozen on my desk at work, waiting to get off hold with Apple tech support, there was a non-stop stream by passers-by coming into my office to admire the system case and have the requisite demonstration of the side panel coming off, revealing the shiny (crashed) goodness inside.
Hopefully one day I'll get a 1.6GHz G5 that works!
Re:The question is then (Score:4, Informative)
Regarding its bloodline, it's more Unix than Linux is being that it is BSD based.
Just because an OS is easy to use, doesn't mean it isn't Unix based.
Re:The question is then (Score:5, Funny)
hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't anything somewhat stable meet or beat anything running windows?
"you can debate benchmarks until eternity" (Score:5, Funny)
So, to what productive end do we expect this particular slashdot thread, perhaps the third or fourth on the subject of the G5's supposed speed, to go?
G5 Rules (Score:3, Interesting)
I certainly can't think of a better desktop machine that the majority of people are familiar with and yet kicks out that kind of performance. Then again, why should I care if anyone else can figure out how to use my machine?
Re:G5 Rules (Score:2)
Re:G5 Rules (Score:2, Informative)
With the arival of the g5, the performance of macs has finally catched up with x86. But while on the paper the chip looks like a killer, it looses to the a64. and most likely prescott,too, but thats speculation.
Yes, the g5 has dual fpus capable of doing a mac each per cyle. But people should realize that even with 32 registers you need 2 loads and one store per MAC. Thus whenever you could really use the power of the 2 fpus, you will be so hopelessly
Re:G5 Rules (Score:4, Informative)
Is this good enough for you?
benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (Score:2)
any benchmarks on that?
When comparing against a hyperthreading (HT) processor, do you count a HT CPU as one or two.
Linux kernel sees HT CPU as two, so SMB kernel has to be used.
Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (Score:4, Interesting)
The PC folks wailed and moaned because Hyperthreading was turned off on the Intel boxes when the benchmarks were performed but they neglected the footnote that mentioned that the PC actually performed worse on the benchmarks when HT was on, so to be fair they took the best score.
Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (Score:3, Informative)
Or at least, that was an early claim. It ultimately turned out, however, that all the standardized optimizations that should have been turned on, were. And the ones that weren't, actually degraded performance. So it is hardly surprising that subsequent benchmarks are confirming what Apple claimed--the G5's are speed-competitive with the fastest Intels, and fo
Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (Score:3, Interesting)
it's one processor. it represents itself as two logical processors with no instruction cache to trick the operating system into letting the hardware take care of optimizing instruction scheduling. even though linux identifies two full speed processors, there's only one chip doing the work, so it would be silly to expect it to perform twice as well.
News flash! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:News flash! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, yes. What of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, uh... what?
I mean, maybe I'm just "debating benchmarks" here, but how do you pull the above statement out of the linked article?
On the G5, Photoshop launched in 8 seconds, and relaunched in 4. Yes, 4. On the Dual G4, it launched in 24 seconds, and relaunched in 12.5. And on the Powerbook, Photoshop was ready to go in 25 seconds the first time around, and in 17 seconds on relaunch.
Yes, but what of it? This has nothing to do with Windows, Windows Desktops, or even anything non-apple. It compares the G5 to other, older Apple products. Unsurprisingly, the *new* Apple product beats the *old* Apple product. And clicking a stopwatch, and measuring how long launching a program takes, or how long a reboot lasts isn't that much of a "benchmark".
And, just to give you an idea of the technical competence of the reviewer who wrote the article, check out this snippit:
One final note: I whined in my first review about the G5's weak Airport wireless signal. Several readers promptly (and pointedly) wrote to ask if I'd installed the Apple-supplied external Airport antenna. I had not.
I'm sorry. The article is lousy, and the clown who submitted this article to
Re:Yes, yes. What of it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it has something to do with the banner ads at the top this page.
Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that the G5 can handle more ram without resorting to the PAE b.s., is a clear advantage and I think Apple should market that a little better.
Re:Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (Score:2)
I want to see real independent benchmarks (like that will ever happen), and I want to see it compared to Athlon 64, a dual Operon, a P4 EE and a dual Xeon. And with the P4 and Xeon, I want to see results for hyperthreading turned on AND off. I've seen hyperthreading help some things, and hurt other things, so it really is important to try it both ways.
Re:Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to show off 8GB of memory, you need either some high-end workstation applications or some server applications. The G5 should be able to run some of this stuff, though I don't know how widely available the softwar
Re:Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that the G5 can handle more ram without resorting to the PAE b.s., is a clear advantage and I think Apple should market that a little better.
Or even better, how about an AMD64 or Intel Itanium with 12GB
Re:Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (Score:3, Interesting)
Kidding right?
Basically all modern OSes, like WindowsXP (any NT), Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and OSX can all be considered to be respectively JUST AS RELIABLE and STABLE.
OSX is NOT the world's crowning achievement of stability, sorry.
In our test labs, of hundreds of test machines, we have only 11 logs of Windows2000 or WindowsXP syste
Use the best tool for the job (Score:5, Interesting)
The best tool for the job. My hats off to Apple for a great machine.
Fastest thing ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus there's the "it beats anything on the PC market", erm quad CPU Xenon? it's a PC ain't it? where do you want to draw the line?
Macs are cool but speed doesn't convice people to buy a computer, the price often does. Mac users were once ridiculed for knowing very little about computers, however I think this isn't true these days. Mac users know enough about computers to be able to choose between a computer running Windows and a Mac.
Re: Fastest thing ever? (Score:4, Insightful)
For a long time, many people have been citing the relative lack of speed as a reason not to get a Mac. In some cases, that may have been a genuine reason, in which case this speed increase would persuade such people to get a Mac.
In other cases, I suspect that speed is merely an excuse used by people who have other reasons (conscious or not) for avoiding Macs; this excuse is now no longer valid, and those people will need to either find a better excuse, examine their real reasons, or reassess their preferences.
It's interesting to see how many reasons/excuses have been pretty much crossed off in recent years: 'Apple's dying', 'The OS isn't up to it', 'It's not compatible with Unix &c.', 'There's no software', 'It's not compatible with XYZ piece of hardware', and 'It's not fast enough' are now non-issues for many (most?) people. Of course, there are still some genuine concerns amongst those, but I suspect that more people dismiss Macs through ignorance, crowd-following, or inertia than from genuine need.
Re:Fastest thing ever? (Score:3, Funny)
People miss the point (Score:5, Informative)
So far (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just fast fast fast.
Congrats! You are no longer using CaveOS! (Score:4, Funny)
Just don't ask how long Linux or even Microsoft users have been able to do the same thing. It will probably depress you.
Re:Congrats! You are no longer using CaveOS! (Score:3, Informative)
I got a 1.3ghz, running windows xp
when I copy over the network from my pb12"
the winxp computer slows like a dog.
7200rpm maxtor in the xp
5200 rpm whatever in the 12".
Re:Congrats! You are no longer using CaveOS! (Score:4, Informative)
Mars or Bust (Score:5, Informative)
What about running real stuff like FCP's Compressor or Maya's mental ray renderer plug-in? Maybe even a After Effects render speed. Using iMovie to test anything isn't very fair to the people who would buy a G5. They're not using iMovie to work on SD video. Photoshop users aren't using a bunch of filters picked at random.
Obligatory reality check. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's all take a nice deep breath, and remember that this is simply yet another offering, in a huge selection of products; that these products are different in many ways, for many people; that purchasing one or more of these products is not indicative of your mental health, penis size, sexual orientation, or anything else... okey?
G5 fast, mmm, nice G5. Athlon also fast, mmm, nice Athlon. I want both, for different reasons. They are not mutually exclusive.
(As for all the 'so fuckin' what' posts; this is Slashdot. No one made you click More.)
what I like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that Apple has a arguably *fast* machine, they've switched back to complaining about the price.
I guess those folks just go between price, speed, and the number of mouse buttons, in circles.
I think the Macs are great machines and reasonably priced. My 500MHz iMac is perfectly usable and sits aside my 1.8GHz P4 Linux box with pride. The iMac cost me $1300 and the P4 cost around $1400 (I bought all quality components like Intel mobo, Antec case, 1GB Crucial RAM, etc), and it was purchased about 2 years after I got the iMac, and didn't even come with a monitor, so I think the iMac was a good deal. *shrug*
I don't know or care precisely how fast the G5s are. I just know they are fast, well-designed machines with a beautiful operating system and tools (have any of you ever written a program using the apple devel tools? I had a harder time taking a shit this morning!!) and they are worth the few hunder dollar premium.
Re:what I like... (Score:2)
Upgrade treadmill - is it slowing down? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the 386 and 486 days, I was in the 18-month upgrade cycle, simply cause my comp couldn't run the latest and greatest apps. Now, I am currently using a computer from 1999 - a p3-500. And, I have no immediate plans on upgrading. I consider myself among the power users -- graphic design, MSOffice, many programming suites, even an occasional game. And ya know what? It all works like a champ. Tell me, what's the reason for upgrading? So Photoshop loads in 4 seconds and not 20? Obviously, a new system would be NICE, but I don't really NEED it like we used to (new version of windows wouldn't run, office would crash, etc).
Before you answer with "To play games!" Please note that you can buy a brand spanky new Gamecube for $99 now. I will never play games on my PC again at that price!
Obviously this also doesn't apply to video editting as that needs every drop of power you can get it.
Yeah, and people make fun of Quake 3 FPS increases (Score:2, Insightful)
Startup and reboot
Er, yes, great. You do that what, once a day? And so are you telling me that by shaving 20 seconds you will now make the decision to sit and stare at the screen during the remaining 55 seconds of bootup rather than grabbing a beverage, finishing your sandwich, or going across the room to talk to someone?
Application launch times
Ok, yes. Again, wonderful. And so with your 512MB to 2GB of RAM you don't suppose you will just leave your email client and productivity app running?
Photoshop ma
You just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading some of the comments I've come to the conclusion that they just don't get it.
Despite the review, the point of a Mac is not the horsepower (and comparing completely different CPUs using gigahertz is just stupid).
The point is: Macs and OSX just work and they're beautiful! If you don't value quality then you won't value a Mac.
But please, don't bore the rest of us with your attempts to justify sticking with an inferior product.
"Yeah my Ford Ka is just as good as any Ferrari - it can do the same speed in town AND does more miles to the gallon! That means my Ka is better than a Ferrari!".
The difference is at least the Ka owner pays a lot less for his car. The pee cee users PAY THE SAME PRICE and get an inferior product ! Got to love Michael Dell and Bill Gates. And people say Apple is great marketing company.
Edward
Where the dual processors come in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
I know of more people in the last year to 18 months that abandoned Linux as their desktop for OSX. I am one of those because at the end of the day, I like Photoshop much better than GIMP, and the ablity to develop PHP/MySQL apps on my iBook and still have powerpoint is exactly what I need.
I do come from a video/graphics systems admin background. I worked during college part-time at a friend's father's architecture firm where they had a small 24 unit ALPHA rendering farm.
Now I do indy technology consulting, mainly to small businesses and video firms. I had a number of clients switch to PC's (Dell's mainly) in the last two years because the hardware costs were so much less, however they quickly found out that programs like Premeire suddenly crashed a lot more and the time in lost work was far greater than what it would have cost for a mac. ALthough this was mainly due to Adobe Premeire 6 generally being a piece of junk, not really windows itself.
I have one customer that is going to order the dual G5 after 10.3 is shipping. He is semi-retired, but does some commercial and wedding video work. He has a six year old G3 400 with 1GB of ram to run Final Cut Pro and he has upgraded X.2 and some of his rendering output times are 6 hours. No big deal to him, clicks render, goes out the back of his house onto his boat and goes fishing the rest of the day. Well, the local apple store was flying a specialist from apple over FCP and DVD studio pro and we were in the store and had my client's last video, which took about 4.5 hours to render. We imported the file from a DVD onto the new G5 with an enhanced version of FCP and then on a single 1.8Ghz G5 and the difference was about 15% for the same footage in favor of the dual compared to the single G5 and about 1/3d of the time that it took on his G3.
Granted configured with a new 23" HD and 17" flatpanel, the dual box is about $15,000 with all the software he needs as well. Add in about another $3000 for upgrades over the next 5 years in software and and the new box he will be buying is cheaper that his old G3.
Now granted, in video production, you can spend $20k on a mac and it will do just about anything you want, or you can jump and spend $250k on an Avid. Even dedicated editing boxes are $3500, so this industry will & must spend the money and for many graphic/video firms, that 15% difference means 15% more money because they can turn around and start the next job that much faster. Couple the increase in turn around with the prices some of these firms charge, that can pay for a couple dual G5's real quick.
Then finally, there is TCO. Most small wedding video/indy video companies I know of tend to hang on to their equipment for a long time. I know a lot of people that purchased G3's and still are using them because they knew a year ago that the G5's were going to be out, so they decided to wait. Some have already purchased the G5's and have been extremely pleased with their purchase and the dramatic increases in speed. Another video company in town switched from their Casablance/Kron editing tools to FCP on G5's and after about a month, their turn around times for videos has gone from about 14 days to 7 or 8. Many of their editors are full time college students and FCP is what is being taught in the classrooms, so the cost of time in retraining was extremely low. Now they purchased Single 1.8Ghz boxes with 2GB of Ram, but it seems to be more than enough for them.
So will the average "user" need dual processors...um, no, but there are those out there were it such high end specs can be usefull and profitable.
I have to admit that I was not a fan of Apple until a year ago and bought this iBook. The main reason why I switched was I wanted something that worked and thus far everything has worked perfectly and I have no complaints.
Re:Where the dual processors come in handy (Score:3, Informative)
uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh, Windows doesn't make computers, nor does Microsoft...
Would you buy the Fastest Computer? (Score:2)
Personally I look at MIPS / $$ and my $400 machine with maxed out ram does everything I could want super cheap. Even doing a full build every few minutes doesn't keep the CPU at 100% for more then a few seconds. I st
Scope of price differentials (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm building a HD editing/compression system. When you add in storage, displays, audio, etcetera, even a cheap setup makes a $500 difference pretty tiny.
For my needs, I'm shaving THOUSANDS off by going Mac. Why? Xserve RAID. I can get 2.5 TB for about $12K, that's fast enough for 1920x1080i60 at 10-bit uncompressed capture. I haven't been able to find anything that's close to that price performance on Windows.
This is an edge case, granted. But for anyone who bills by the hour, a few hundred bucks in a system that's going to be making you money for a couple of years is nothing - like a quarter a day. Downtime for one tech support incident could eat up the entire differential.
Re:Price a bit steep... (Score:2)
It is only the people that are pushing the edge that need the top end stuff. The rest of us will buy it at 1/2 the price in 18 months time.
Re:Price a bit steep... (Score:2, Insightful)
Try pricing out a comparable machine from Dell (w/ dual 3GHz Xeons). You'll see that the Dell is significantly more expensive than the G5.
Re:Price [NOT] a bit steep... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Price [NOT] a bit steep... (Score:2)
Uh, so a computer build from scratch using the same parts (or better) than the Dell counterpart, is a "piece o'crap"? Why is this exactly?
Oh, and I got a newsflash for ya: Dell computers aren't born assembled. Believe it or not, Dell PCs are built by buying the hardwar
Re:Price [NOT AT ALL] steep... (Score:2)
So buy one of the cheaper ones, the 1.6 or the 1.8 single proc boxes.
They're comparably priced to a similarly specced pee cee, but they run OSX not Windoh!s
Re:Price a bit steep... (Score:2)
Build it yourself vs well designed supported etc etc blah blah blah? No offense, but if you really think someone who knows how to build a computer is getting a better packaged deal from Dell or wherever, you're dead wrong. For speed, stability, etc, buying the best quality component
I don't care about the Jones (Score:2)
Or are you *imagining* everything about a Mac without having used it?
Re:keeping up with the Jones (Score:2)
Give it up already. Buy a Mac, sell the mouse on eBay, and buy a new one for $20. Logitech makes very nice ones. Microsoft's have improved since their optical mouse was first introduced. Just to be different, I bought my last one from IBM. Seriously, quit whining. If you can afford a Mac, you can afford a third-party mouse to go with it.
Re:When the cows come home (Score:2)
Thanks for playing... (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, Dell's current price ($4372) on the comparison machine has gone up by $600 since late June, the first time I configured one-- but even back then, Apple beat them by hundreds of dollars. [slashdot.org]
And don't bother playing the "I can build it cheaper" card-- you cannot fairly compare a manufactured system with one that you cobbled together with the cheapest parts you could find.
~Philly
Re:Thanks for playing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually - I did do the compairson:
The cost of a dual Opteron + the cost of my Time = the cost of a Apple dual G5 + $1500.
The dual G5 is a bargin.
Re:When the cows come home (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just you, it's everyone who hasn't done their homework.
For more or less equivalent dual processor systems I get:
Dell - $4,763.00
Apple - $3,623.00
Note that the Apple price does not include the $50 or less you would have to spend on a mouse to keep you happy.
I know "cool" is subjective... (Score:2)
Re:Price / Performance (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple Box:
18.Ghz G5
1Gb DDR ram
160Gb S-ATA drive
Superdrive (DVD-RW. CD-RW, CDR etc)
GeForce FX 5200 64Mb
Gigbait ethernet
3x Firewire (1x 800, 2x 400)
USB 2.0
SP-DIF optical inputs and outputs
Alienware box:
AMD Opteron 64bit 1.8Ghz
1Gb DDR ram
160Gb S-ATA drive
DVD, CD-RW combo (n
Re:Price / Performance (Score:2)
Re:Power Schmouwer. (Score:2)
Similarly, Final Cut Pro will benefit from decreased render times, although it's pretty impressive on a dual 450 - Apple worked hard to sqeeze performance out of older systems with FCP.
You can shunt all this processing to dedicated video hardware costing t
Re:Power Schmouwer. (Score:2)
640K is enough for anyone.
Sorry, had to be said.
Re:Beats Anything? (Score:2)
If you're comparing Apple to a standard "build from cheapest parts by yourslef" PC then of course it's going to be more expensive.
Home brewed beer is cheaper than a pint in the pub.
Re:Beats Anything? (Score:3, Interesting)
I priced out a top-of-the-line Dell (which is slower than the mac) and a top-of-the-line Mac. Here are the results.
Mac: $3395 [apple.com]
Dell: $2917 [dell.com]
Of course this doesn't include the fact that you get better case design (aluminum/super quiet) with the mac. Nor does it reflect the Unix based OS that you get with the Mac.
Wow, you redefine "ignorant." (Score:5, Informative)
RTCW? Yup. [amazon.com]
C&C Generals? Yup, coming soon. [gamespot.com]
Halo? Yup, soon. [bungie.org]
Sim City 4? Yup. [amazon.com]
Civ III? Yup. [amazon.com]
In conclusion, you need to take a break from the gaming and check your facts before you post. Otherwise you come off looking like a dumb shit when someone like me comes along to easily prove you wrong.
~Philly
Re:Big deal. (Score:2, Informative)
Halo? Yes, about a month behind the PC version
Sim City 4? Yes
Civ 3? Yes
Granted anyone who just wants to play games for cheap has no need for a Macintosh. But you could also argue that they don't need a PC either (get a console).
I agree that there is a lot to be said for compatability: it gotten a lot better in the past few years.
Re:So much for meeting and beating... (Score:2)
It's called a PowerBook.
My 15"PB is ready to use in about 2 seconds and I just close the lid to shut it down. And mine isn't even the latest version.
I know you were hoping for help in justifying the, expensive, mistake you made. Should have bought a PowerBook.
Maybe you could find a sucker on ebay ?
Re:So much for meeting and beating... (Score:5, Informative)
That's not a freaking laptop! It's a freaking desktop, LITERALLY! No wonder the weight/size specs are buried 3 pages deep way down in a chart here [sagernotebook.com].
There is NO MENTION of battery life. What does it get? 15 minutes?
Meanwhile the powerbook 15" weighs less than 6 pounds, and is an inch thick.
Do you walk with your laptop?
Re:So much for meeting and beating... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So much for meeting and beating... (Score:5, Interesting)
In our house we have 3 laptops, I have a tibook, my girlfriend a 12"G4 and sometime ago I retired the g3 laptop to inhouse server status. It is connected to the stereo and since it is pre-firewire is connected to a great big external drive via USB. we both have itunes running. my gf likes music i'd never allow on my laptop and i have music she will never want. she's in the back room writing an essay but using rendesvous has access to all the music on my mac, all the music on the stereo and her own music. she's no nerd, and the music sharing abilities of itunes are simply transparent. right now, just taking a look, she's playing music off my laptop but is out my my earshot. I am listening to music off the home stereo that is also coming off my laptop. there is nothing to configure, nothing to confuse a non-techy person, it all just works.
meanwhile every night at around 3am some shell scripts run thanks to cron that use ssh and rsync to backup mine and my gf's work to the g3, into our own account spaces on the stereo. when our local backups are done the stereo in turn backs up changes to a mate's server in holland. his server? an even older g3 laptop than mine. i have admin rights and the osx server admin tools are simply awesome. he's running a cvs server which i use with a bunch of our mates to share code. ican admin that from here with a lovely gui. yeah i know you can so all that nerdy stuff on *nix or windows, or at least I assume you can on windows, but the convenience of having it all look and feel consistant is just gold to me.
later this year i'll buy a new 15" powerbook and the tibook will hit the hi-fi rack. it's running mysql and tomcat and so forth so will become both a music server, dvd burning station and staging server for my clients.
and what's more it all synchs with my new cell phone and my ipod. lordy lordy i love my macs.
Re:So much for meeting and beating... (Score:3, Insightful)
It can run a good game of BF1942, all settings up on highest, while playing a DVD on another monitor, and downloading various things off Kazaa.
Right, and that's really important to all of us who play 3d games while watching DVDs and searching for mp3s on Kazaa. From the looks of your daily activities, your schedule must be really hectic. If you had a G5 those 2 extra seconds it takes to load Photoshop would seriously hamper yo
Re:And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (Score:2)
Btw: i have a magazine from 1990 in which 486s are tested. they costed between 12000-20000$, and the reviewer was eager to tell the reader that it would be a waste to use that much computing power for anything else than high end cad or database work...
times change
Re:And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (Score:2)
Bro, I feel your pain...
The closest most SUV owners come to off-roading is running over a fucking skunk on their way to a parent/teacher conference.
Re:And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah.... but... The Hummer has room for three skanks.
X11 (Score:2)
X11 on a dual CPU box kicks the arse of a single CPU box, even when the X server itself is single threaded. Why? Client/server architecture, on a single CPU box it context thrashes between local client applications and the X server.
So if you run Linux with X11, go for a dual. You *need* it.
See, now I've given you an excuse go persuade your boss to buy one. You can thank me later.
Re:what suck is... (Score:3, Funny)
Which is basically what this would be best at.
I mean, really, do you need a dual G5 to launch Mozilla?
Well... I mean other than the 1.4 branch.
If your video editing, you most likely want only three things: power, power, and more coffee. This appears to provide at least two of those.
Now, if your going to complain about the "lack of
Re:not so great for us (Score:3, Interesting)
This makes no sense: the dual G5 has PC3200 with two dedicated 1GHz buses, faster than anything you're likely to find from Dell. So how does a machine with better throughput have worse performance?
Methinks PEBCAK.