Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > An open (very long)ltr. to Quicksilver detractors and whiners

An open (very long)ltr. to Quicksilver detractors and whiners
Thread Tools
Hydra
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:01 PM
 
Warning: The following is MY opinion and mine alone, something these forums need is for people to be able to discern fact from opinion. My opinion is based on observations as a current and past Apple/Mac user and supporter with a dose of hope and reality mixed in. I felt it appropriate to whine a little about the whiners.

I can�t tell you how sick and tired I am of all the posters on these boards and elsewhere whining (yes whining in my opinion) about the apparent failure of Apple Co. to produce what in THEIR opinion is an acceptable upgrade to the PowerMac G4 line. The hype before MacWorld NY was so incredibly overblown that if Apple had produced a new 10 GHz Ti G5 tower running on cold fusion that made Intel and AMD file Chapter 11imediately instead of wasting money trying to futilely compete, most would have been disappointed! What must Apple do to make people happy? I can understand the disappointment in the iMac which seems a rather dull update (IN MY OPINION) but I think the G4�s are a VERY GOOD update if not stellar.

For those who have very short retention spans I shall recap the last 2 years or so of Apple�s Pro product Line. The G4 was introduced and found to not be able to hit the 500 MHZ mark very well and a year later Apple introduces the Dual CPU 500MHz model at the same cost as the outgoing single CPU to mostly happy consumers. Speeds are stuck at the 500MHz mark for about a year and everybody gets their panties in a bunch because Apple is losing the MHz/GHz war to Intel (I�ll get back to Intel at another time).

Fast forward to this past January and Apple introduces the new 733 MHz models with the groundbreaking Superdrive for $3500, the fastest single CPU Mac ever and quite a big jump from the old top of the line 500 MHz. While not cheap, the box comes with a DVD burner that costs about one quarter the price of the whole machine. The Apple BTO options on that machine were extremely limited and $3500 was about as low as you could go, so I didn�t buy one but came very close. Later Apple releases a Superdrive-less 733MHz model for under $3000 due to constraints on Superdrive supply and subsequently drops the 667MHz model; most people must have realized that it was not a good midrange option (just speculation here).

Fast forward to this past month of July and Apple introduces a 867 MHz G4 tower as the MIDRANGE and a Dual CPU 800 MHz model BOTH with SUPERDRIVES. On top of this APPLE makes the 733MHz CPU model the base G4 (albeit without an L3 cache, Superdrive and less Ram and drive space) for less than half the price of the original 733 MHz model.
This is where the whiners and losers irritate me most:

Apple is now selling an 867 MHz G4 in almost an identical configuration to the 6-month-old 733 MHz model (that didn�t even ship for until a month after the January show) at ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS! This 867 MHz Machine is almost 20% faster than the 733 MHz for those who can�t do the math, and is now the MIDRANGE model. Apple could have chosen to keep it top of the line and price it at the old $3500 level but they instead chose to make a DUAL 800 MHz model fit in at that price level. Do some of you get that EACH CPU IS FASTER and you get TWO of them. Plus the nicer Twinview Nvidia card as standard and a big 80GB WD hard drive as standard. After going to MWNY and playing with the Dual 800 MHz model with iMovie and Quake 3 among other apps for almost half an hour (all the while irritating those behind me who wanted a chance, hey I�m not perfect) I placed an order for the Dual 800 MHz at the Apple store. I removed 128MB of ram for $200, lowered the hard drive to 40 to save $200 more and put a Geforce 3 for an additional $250, all deletions that were unavailable before. Now I can put 512MB of RAM in for $75 and buy an OEM IBM Deskstar HD for the $200 I saved on the downsizing of the built-in drive and it�s like getting the 40 GB drive for free (yes I know it�s only a 5400 RPM model but who cares, the IBM I�m getting is very fast!). Also after seeing the new 17inch Studio Display in person made that choice a no-brainer as a poor man�s Cinema Display (absolutely the best LCD�s I have ever seen with my own eyes � others may be cheaper but none are better). By the way I could not believe how fast the Dual was rendering in iMovie when I threw a butt-load of transitions and titles at it all at once.

For those who know enough to complain that Apple�s RAM prices are exorbitant, STOP and rejoice. The fact that Apple will cut the price $200 to take only 128MB out of the box means you can put this savings toward almost 1.5 GB in cheap 512Mb DIMM�s, THIS IS GOOD NEWS. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Why complain about the RAM if you DON�T HAVE TO BUY IT? If APPLE can get away selling 128MB for $200 more power to them.

PHEWWW! I�ve said a lot here but I have been reading these forums for a long while and a lot has pent up over that time. I�m sure there are inaccuracies in the above post and feel free to flame but that�s how I see it. Apple is one company and they sure can�t make everyone happy and the alternative is always to move over to M$ box.


Jerry C. a.k.a. Hydra

PS The idea of this post is to not single anyone out but only to voice out that SOME people are pretty happy with what Apple provides to us consumers, products we could in no way get elsewhere. All above statements are not meant to be blindly supportive of Apple but only understanding of what ONE company can reasonably be expected to do in a marketplace where it is by far outnumbered and on the short end of the stick in the R&D department.
     
Nyuni
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:07 PM
 
Aaaaaaaaamen Reverend! You hit the nail right on the head, IMO.
The Quintessential Featherhead.
     
Lolo from Paris
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Paris FRANCE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:15 PM
 
I agree. The new Quicksilver G4 is a good deal especially the 867 and the bi800 if you go BTO and don't take extra Ram or HD. I do think too that Apple is doing better now than a few months ago, iBook is great, Tibook better than Pismo and G4 are faster...Low end G4 is missing a Combo drive IMO for the price.


The problem is the iMac and the lack of low end machine without screen, the low end G4 is too expensive for that and the iMac is still 15"...

That's why people whine, if you don't wanna an iMac you need to buy a big G4, nothing in between
     
Tzaar
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:18 PM
 
I'll second that! I'd grab a dual 800 too if I didn't already have my tibook!
     
Osirisis
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:25 PM
 
I completely agree. I personally think the new machines are great. In fact I've put my money where my mouth is. I have a Dual 800 on order. It will take me some time to pay it off, but it's well worth it to me.

Not all of us have G3 or G4 machines. To those of us who don't, ordering any of these machines is a big upgrade. With OSX 10.1 being released in September, I can see no reason not to get one of these machines. These machines are the perfect match for 10.1. A slick new OS, combined with a slick looking Box... Who can't be happy

BTW, I'm working with a Starmax 225Mhz Clone at home... SO I ain't complaining that Apple hasn't given me enough reason to upgrade my G4 400...
     
AGE
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:28 PM
 
"Worst case.........ever....."!
     
Nyuni
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by: AGE
"Worst case.........ever....."!
What's so wrong with it? To me, it's a natural progression of the previous G4 case, and the slightly lighter greys and more streamlined curves (on the top and bottom) are very pleasing to the eye while still retaining the basic shape that the Pro line has had ever since the first B&W Yosemite G3.

Yeah, I know some people were hoping for a totally redesigned case, but what would've been the point? Wait until the G5 for the new case, because that will be a huge change overall. For that, a totally redesigned case would make sense. Speed bumps in the G4 line hardly warrant a completely new case, IMHO.

Hey, I'm happy we got a refinement! Apple could've saved some time and money and just kept the same old graphite enclosures with the flip-down drive door.
The Quintessential Featherhead.
     
slipjack
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:01 PM
 
Well, I think one reason the 867 Mhz Mac doesn't get as much props as it should is because the G4 was stuck at 500 for so long. I mean, I was running OS 8.1 on my SuperMac G3 @ 525Mhz 2 years ago! Do you remember how long we had to put up with the 'but it has Altivec' crap...? I personally am really excited to see the G4 speeding up. This is great! I think we will see Mac's @ 1000Mhz by next January. Motorola's finally getting their act together

Team MacNN :: Crush the competition :: crunching :: Dual Ghz G4/Radeon 9000/23" Cinema Display
     
The Ancient One
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: My mind (sorry, I'm out right now)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:08 PM
 
"Worst case.........ever....."!

Have you actually SEEN the case? It looks quite nice in person. Of course I'll have to live with it for a long time since I have one on order. I do think one complaint is valid, though - the lack of space for a second optical drive. Zip drive? Give me a break! who the heck needs a Zip drive when every current Mac desktop writes CDs and everything built in the last couple of years reads them?
The first commandment of ALL religions is to provide a comfortable living for the priesthood.
     
Lolo from Paris
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Paris FRANCE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by The Ancient One:
<STRONG>"Worst case.........ever....."!
the lack of space for a second optical drive. Zip drive? Give me a break! who the heck needs a Zip drive when every current Mac desktop writes CDs and everything built in the last couple of years reads them?</STRONG>
It's not a problem of lack of place for second optical drive, but the lack of place for a second 5,25" IDE or SCSI device..

Why put a 3,25" place for Zip drives ? That's the main complain. Apple should have let place for 2 5,25" IDE drives, not one 5,25" and another 3,25".
     
maxuser
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by: AGE
"Worst case.........ever....."!
"Worst post.........ever....."!
     
Brian McHale
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tehachapi, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:30 PM
 
I agree with the original post. And I'm also putting my money where my mouth is, having ordered a Dual 800.

I have an answer to the "Why get a Zip Drive question": I am presently using a Performa 6400/200, which I have a Zip drive for. Since I don't have USB or ethernet for my old computer, I don't have a good way to move data back and forth. I could burn CDs, but my CD-R drive is on the fritz and only successfully burns have the time (one of the reasons I need a new computer in the near future).

During the transition to the new machine, I expect to have a regular need to move data back and forth, since my old machine will be connected to my scanner and printer. The Zip drive will make this easy, therefore worth the $100 investment.
Brian
     
[email protected]
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 04:56 PM
 
I just ordered a PowerMac G4 867MHz QuickSilver for $1852. I am getting a new 17" Apple Studio display (new ones) for my old 300MHz G3 (trading it).

just strip it down to the minimum, plus i am getting the educational price.
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 05:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Hydra:
<STRONG>
I can�t tell you how sick and tired I am of all the posters on these boards and elsewhere whining (yes whining in my opinion) about the apparent failure of Apple Co. to produce what in THEIR opinion is an acceptable upgrade to the PowerMac G4 line.</STRONG>
Hmm, we are the consumers, we are givng Apple our money. Apple is building products so that we buy them. When Apple stops building good products we don't buy and they lose money.

I think our opinions count as to the products that WE want to spend $5000 on.
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
maxuser
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 05:06 PM
 
But seriously, has anyone noticed that the economy isn't the runaway success it was a couple of years ago? I know we'd all like to think that Apple is somehow immune to real-world forces like economics and cut-throat competition, but guess what, they're not! There, I've said it. And there's no Santa Claus either. (I know, that's a lot to absorb in one post, but I think you can handle it.)

That said, I think it's a testament to Steve's leadership and Apple employees' dedication that they've accomplished all that they have when analysts everywhere are predicting global economic recession. Everyone is pulling back, and yet Steve's army has marched on with dual 800MHz systems (a HUGE leap forward in performance under OS X) and announcements and demos of their impressive progress on OS X. It's clear that they wanted and tried damn hard to do more, as evidenced by Steve's aside near the end of his MWNY keynote asking the audience to give a round of applause to the work and sacrifice of Apple employees that allowed them to introduce a new G4 design, multi-processing for the masses, OS 10.1, iDVD 2, etc.

In Steve's words (paraphrased a bit) to those of you who felt entitled to more or better announcements at MWNY:
"We at Apple use words like honor, source code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something; you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a user who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very computing experience that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said 'thank you' and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a keyboard and write a killer Mac app. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
     
blakespot
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 05:16 PM
 
(Original post) states my sentiments EXACTLY. Thank you.


blakespot
iPodHacks.com -- http://www.ipodhacks.com
     
Treebeard
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Isengard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 05:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Hydra:
<STRONG>I can understand the disappointment in the iMac which seems a rather dull update (IN MY OPINION) but I think the G4�s are a VERY GOOD update if not stellar. </STRONG>
That was where most of the fire was aimed anyway. People like "AGE" (who flame away at the QSs) are idiots and need to "GROW UP."

However, I was one of the ones disappointed with the lack of a new iMac. I was holding out for one. I had family who were waiting for one, and now are looking at Wintels cause they can't afford Apple's towers. (Granted, I didn't fly off the handle like some half-cocked lunatic. It's a frikin computer people! Sheesh!)

Furthermore, I think some of Apple's decisions regarding the iMac have been quiestionable. Dumping the fruit colors was dumb. Complicating the lineup with that whole (now dropped) DV+ thing was dumb. Snow was (and is) dumb. And I think they should have gone to a 17" small footprint flat screen CRT this January or July--but we all know Steve is holding out for LCDs to get cheaper. As of MWNY, I would have been happy with announcing the new LCD iMac2 (we all know it's coming) just like the original iMac preannouncment, and slashing $100-200 on the MWSF iMacs (400-600MHz). I would have bought one in a heartbeat, regardless of flower power! Both the old and the new would have sold like mad.

After MWNY, I was extremely disappointed and had decided to put off buying a Mac until MWSF 2002 or MWT. But the reality of needing a new computer wouldn't go away. Luckily, my wife heard about the SuperDrive on the mid-range option and asked about that. We'd use it. (And our friends and family.) We did some math. We did some investigating. We dug into some savings. And thanks in part to some of the people on these boards--we ordered a QS 867 w/ SuperDrive. It's expensive, but also expandable enough that we figure it can last us about 4 years or more. That justifies the expense.

Yes, I know that something better will come out in January. For Apple's sake, I hope it's more like November (say 800, 933, and dual 867s and SuperDrive BTO for $300 on the bottom) and leave MWSF for the new iMac to shine. Yeah, sure I'd have liked to have gotten a SuperDrive on a cheaper model. Who wouldn't? But reality is what it is.

I hope our machine gets here soon. We just sold our old maxed-out performa 6115 today ($50 ). And Apple already shipped us our DVD-R media, which is just sitting there on the desk taunting us!
Hoom hom hmmmmmmmmmmm...
     
Treebeard
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Isengard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 05:45 PM
 
double post

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Treebeard ]
Hoom hom hmmmmmmmmmmm...
     
murbot
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 06:16 PM
 
I also think the G4s are a great deal right now. I ordered a SuperDrive-less 867 and can't wait for it to get here. I think it's very reasonably priced for the power it packs.

I was just at a store playing with a new 733 and almost wishing I had just ordered that model - I would have it at home now, instead of waiting another 3-5 weeks for it to get here. It was running OSX, and I couldn't believe how fast it was. MUCH faster feeling that my 466 MHz G4 was in X. I couldn't believe it. I'm excited thinking about how fast the 867 will be, especially since it will have 768 MB of RAM, and this 733 had only 256 in it.

BTW I also LOVED the look of the case. It looks amazing beside an Apple LCD. Anyone not happy with this new lineup needs to be hobbled.
................
     
pysan
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2001, 07:33 PM
 
I also think the original post by Hydra was right on the money. New imacs definitely would have been nice, but they are coming, hopefully sooner than later. But as for the G4's, that is exactly what I was waiting for, and I also think the new case is a very nice change from the other graphite one. I got a superdrive-less 867 as well, and I can't wait for it to get here.
iMac G5 1.8 17" SD/768MB/80GB
iPod Mini 4gb Rev. B
external firewire 400 120GB drive
     
AGE
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 04:10 AM
 
Read my initial and large post about quicksiler case and the last comment I made about mice and treadmills in newer G4's describes ppl like Treebeard.
     
rambo47
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Denville, NJ.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 10:27 AM
 
The only complaint can agree with is the case design lacking space for additional 5.25" drives like Lolo from Paris said. That would be nice but hardly a fatal flaw. And this is an odd time for this criticism to surface since the casing has been the same since Yosemite. Some folks just refuse to be happy I guess.

Maxuser's paraphrasing of Steve's words was great. Imagine if Steve got up on the stage at a MacWorld and said exactly that?! People would sh*t their pants. He's got the temper to do it, too. "I'm a reasonable man, but this f*ckin bad press (heat) is making me crazy."
     
<Error Type 1>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 01:01 PM
 
Apple Take it up the ass. They have long since forgotten what a professional machine is. Apple has turned its back on Pro users,and instead focused on developing fluffy toys.

AMD 760 MP 1.2ghz outputs Int & FP scores that make a dual 800 G4 look like an overpriced 2nd rate wally box. MHZ in this case is not a Myth, an AMD T/Bird can be compared clock for clock with a G4. A 1.2Ghz AMD will yeild very similar INT & FP score to the same clock G4. Currently there is a huge defeceit in this area......

My QuickSilver Notes

Bad points
G4 frequency too low, 1.2ghz should be minimum in single and dual.L3 cache 1/4 of CPU...too slow
System board frequency-133mhz too slow.
System board PC-133 ram out dated (thats why its so cheep)
ATA/66-last years tech
PCI bus is rev2.1, rev2.2 is current rev-also insufficient bandwidth
only 1x5.25" drive bay-non expandable
only 3x3.5" bays
ADC connector-non standard- (DVI connector can also take a VGA CRT)
No availablity of dual video card with DVI interface due to Apple segregating themselves from the rest of the industry.
Mac OS X system software-appaulingly unresponsive and under featured. Most certainly not the worlds most advanced OS. (when Mac OS X reaches the level of Irix 6.5 or Solaris-then they have the right to market as one of the worlds most advanced OS's)
Price-exorbidently overpriced considering the dated technology on offer.

Good Points
Case offers easy access to internal for upgrading.
Built In Firewire
Built in Gb E-Net

Im afraid to Apple has much work to do to regain the confidence of the Pro Mac niche out there.

Salutations
     
SnowmanX
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 01:53 PM
 
Originally posted by &lt;Error Type 1&gt;:
<STRONG>Apple Take it up the ass. They have long since forgotten what a professional machine is. Apple has turned its back on Pro users,and instead focused on developing fluffy toys.

AMD 760 MP 1.2ghz outputs Int & FP scores that make a dual 800 G4 look like an overpriced 2nd rate wally box. MHZ in this case is not a Myth, an AMD T/Bird can be compared clock for clock with a G4. A 1.2Ghz AMD will yeild very similar INT & FP score to the same clock G4. Currently there is a huge defeceit in this area......

My QuickSilver Notes

Bad points
G4 frequency too low, 1.2ghz should be minimum in single and dual.L3 cache 1/4 of CPU...too slow
System board frequency-133mhz too slow.
System board PC-133 ram out dated (thats why its so cheep)
ATA/66-last years tech
PCI bus is rev2.1, rev2.2 is current rev-also insufficient bandwidth
only 1x5.25" drive bay-non expandable
only 3x3.5" bays
ADC connector-non standard- (DVI connector can also take a VGA CRT)
No availablity of dual video card with DVI interface due to Apple segregating themselves from the rest of the industry.
Mac OS X system software-appaulingly unresponsive and under featured. Most certainly not the worlds most advanced OS. (when Mac OS X reaches the level of Irix 6.5 or Solaris-then they have the right to market as one of the worlds most advanced OS's)
Price-exorbidently overpriced considering the dated technology on offer.

Good Points
Case offers easy access to internal for upgrading.
Built In Firewire
Built in Gb E-Net

Im afraid to Apple has much work to do to regain the confidence of the Pro Mac niche out there.

Salutations</STRONG>

Salut yourself,

I agree with you. I mean, to hell with REAL WORLD performance! I want numbers and I want them on retail spec sheets, damnit!

Really, though, such advances are forthcoming. Have you/we not learned anything, having owned Apple machines? They are almost always a step (or two, sometimes) behind on the spec sheets! And then every other blue moon, Apple surpasses the "industry standards." You need not be a statistician too have realized the pattern.

Now get blown.

Yours,

...really
You can ask me anything. Just don't question me.
     
SnowmanX
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 01:57 PM
 
y'all know what happened

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: SnowmanX ]
You can ask me anything. Just don't question me.
     
<bozo the clown>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 02:40 PM
 
My QuickSilver Notes

&gt;Bad points
&gt;G4 frequency too low, 1.2ghz should be minimum in single and &gt;dual.L3 cache 1/4 of CPU...too slow

I agree that faster G4s would be nice, but they ain't here yet, and Altivec does compensate for some of the slowness.

&gt;System board frequency-133mhz too slow.

This has been covered before; The G4 won't take advantage of DDR RAM, and it seems that memory bandwidth isn't generally being maxed out. PC166/200 SDRAM seems pretty rare and pricey. Others know a lot more about this than I, but it seems DDR isn't the end-all be-all that some would like to believe. If the performance gains are minimal, is it worth upgrading to DDR just to say you have it?

&gt;System board PC-133 ram out dated (thats why its so cheep)


&gt;ATA/66-last years tech

Would ATA/100 make one bit of difference?

&gt;PCI bus is rev2.1, rev2.2 is current rev-also insufficient bandwidth

I thought they had improved the PCI bus.

&gt;only 1x5.25" drive bay-non expandable
&gt;only 3x3.5" bays

This hasn't changed, and yes it does suck.

&gt;ADC connector-non standard- (DVI connector can also take a VGA CRT)
&gt;No availablity of dual video card with DVI interface due to Apple

A $40 adapter converts ADC to DVI. There's also a VGA connector. So the problem is.....

&gt;segregating themselves from the rest of the industry.
&gt;Mac OS X system software-appaulingly unresponsive and under &gt;featured. Most certainly not the worlds most advanced OS. (when &gt;Mac OS X reaches the level of Irix 6.5 or Solaris-then they have the &gt;right to market as one of the worlds most advanced OS's)
&gt;Price-exorbidently overpriced considering the dated technology on &gt;offer.

&gt;Hopefully this will change, although I'm not a down on OS X as you &gt;are.
&gt;&gt;Good Points
Case offers easy access to internal for upgrading.
&gt;Built In Firewire
&gt;Built in Gb E-Net

&gt;Im afraid to Apple has much work to do to regain the confidence of &gt;the Pro Mac niche out there.

&gt;Salutations
     
applenut1
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 02:47 PM
 
Originally posted by SnowmanX:
[QB]


Salut yourself,

I agree with you. I mean, to hell with REAL WORLD performance! I want numbers and I want them on retail spec sheets, damnit!
real world performance? the Power Mac does not stack up well.

Have you/we not learned anything, having owned Apple machines? They are almost always a step (or two, sometimes) behind on the spec sheets! And then every other blue moon, Apple surpasses the "industry standards." You need not be a statistician too have realized the pattern.
I guess you don't remember when the Power Macs used to kick ass and were some of the most powerful personal computers you could get. Power Macs used to have features standard that no PCs had standard. the only thing we have now is gigabit ethernet. come on, they are called POWER Macs for a reason. Obviously Apple needs two tower lines. One for the people who want to play games and need a larger screen than an imac and only need 2 or 3 PCI slots and an AGP slot and don't want to spend 2500 bucks. then they need a real workhorse of a tower with duals standard, high end graphic subsystems, high memory bandwidth, 6 PCI slots, etc. it makes more sense then the cube.
     
Hydra  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 04:16 PM
 
I cannot argue that Apple has the most advanced hardware configurations on the planet but as with all technologies going that last 10% in performance can cost as much as the first 90% did to reach that point. The AMD chips that a few of you mentioned are very well engineered chips (enough so to scare the hell out of Intel for sure) but I�m not sure I believe the so-called fact that they are equivalent to G4 MHz for MHz. I have never even seen a Dual AMD system and wonder how well the OS (yes the OS is the determining factor in how well the overall performance of the dual will perform and not just in a multiprocessor-aware app like Photoshop or the like). Also do any name-brand manufactures sell those dual boxes? I do find it richly ironic that for years we had been laughed at when Apple proponents would utter the dirty little phrase that �clock speed doesn�t matter� to have AMD pose a threat to the Intel behemoth and now it is the AMD supporters that use this phrase as their mantra to show that the 1.8 GHz P4 is a dog (I agree and the FPU is more pathetic than I could have ever imagined).

What ever happened to the spec sheet showdown between Intel and AMD? On paper the Intel P4 is hands-down the most advanced chip we have ever seen. It has the fastest buses it has the most advanced memory sub systems and most importantly it has the FASTEST CLOCKSPEED. I guess I should end there because that is the most important number anyway (just ask an Intel marketing exec.) All these advances and in all the benches I have ever seen the slower AMD cleans the P4�s clock handily in real world apps like Office 2000 etc. Well I�ll be darned, how did that happen (stay with me here I�m laying the sarcasm on a little thick)? Here�s the best part, (are you still with me?) now Intel people claim that in most Pro and Multi media apps like Photoshop etc. the P4 with is high speed subsystems will excel.

The Irony is not lost on me as Intel and most of the PC benchmark websites are now saying that the AMD does better in real world apps but the P4 seems to have an edge in the pro stuff. That is the original argument about the Velocity Engine that Apple used and many mocked. Now that Apple has incorporated Velocity Engine at the OS level all things can be improved so the statement that the AMD chip is equal to the G4 clock for clock is dead WRONG. MMx and what is that AMD uses 3DNOW? are doubtless NOT incorporated into the Win OS (not that they truly compare to Velocity Engine anyway but I�ll throw you that bone) also how many people are coding for 3DNOW anyway?

I�m am most definitely NOT saying that with the advent of the Quicksilvers that we can go and spike the ball in the end zone, declare victory and wave our private parts at the INTEL/AMD crowd but only that the Apple world (pro world anyway) can feel a little better about what our favorite OS runs on than we did 7-8 months ago.

As a last word about the spec sheet love so many people seem to have, the time you waste staring mindlessly at your beloved spec sheets you could be doing something useful on you computer instead, like running benchmarks! I�ll stick to wasting my time writing excessively long posts on the web�

-Jerry C.

P.S. I just bought a Silver IBM 2.4 GHz cordless phone. I really do enjoy having the bragging rights that come with owning an IBM machine with by far the fastest clock speed. Eat your heart out!!!

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Hydra ]
     
iCartman
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In a van down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 05:21 PM
 
I agree that the new Powermacs are a great bargain, but here is my #1 complaint with the new case:

You are f*cked with the 5.25" device. If you buy a base model and later on want to add something like a superdrive you need to break off the front bezel in order to use it with the new case (most front bezels either glue or snap-on). If you want to take the 5.25" device that comes with your the Quicksilver and place it in an external device bay (or just sell it), you can't because Apple doesn't include the bezel with the device!!

My #2 complaint is that power pass-through only works with ADC monitors.!!
respect mah athoritah!
     
TheDoctor
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2001, 06:11 PM
 
I'm glad I got my dual-533 back in March. I paid more than a $1000 less for it than the new dual-800. Sure, I don't have a Superdrive, and it's the old 7410 chip as opposed to the newest G4, but my machine still flies. I'm shocked that Apple didn't produce any dual 733's. I'm also dismayed that you can only get the Superdrive with the 867 and dual-800. Very odd.
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2001, 12:08 AM
 
GREAT email Hydra


Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>
Power Macs used to have features standard that no PCs had standard. the only thing we have now is gigabit ethernet. </STRONG>
PCs may have the same standard features as PowerMacs... but it's Apple that pushes the standards. USB, Firewire, SCSI, Wireless Networking (Airport)... all standards and technologies pushed by Apple. Until Apple pushed them, nobody heard of them, they just stagnated. In fact I swear I just read somewhere this week that Sony wants to introduce wireless networking on thier laptops... hmmm, wonder where they got that from.

We have a faster MacOS X coming out in September, faster PowerMac G4's coming next January, and the PowerMac G5 on the horizon... it's gonna be a wonderful future...
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
real
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2001, 04:29 AM
 
I think we should get together and buy all the people that dont like mac's anymore a PC(windows) with all the crazy stuff that they want then they will really have something to compain about. HAHAHAHA. Age and all you guys, If you want all that stuff go buy a PC most of us dont want to hear it anymore. HAve a good day.
With some loud music + a friend to chat nearby you can get alot done. - but jezz, I'd avoid it if I had the choice---- If only real people came with Alpha Channels.......:)
AIM:xflaer
deinterlaced.com
     
nana2
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2001, 04:35 AM
 
What has happened to the onboard SCSI of past? and the video/audio capture of the A/V Macs? These were cutting edge machines.
     
rogerkylin
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 10:03 AM
 
..I don't remember who sad that 133 memory was cheap because it is outdated. That is false.

The reason it is so cheap is because there is a huge over-supply of it due to slow pc sales (There was even a recent article here about that).
     
rogerkylin
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 10:10 AM
 
As far as apple being behind the industry standard. Although the technology is and has been available to pc's for a while (I'm not sure exactly how longg), Apple has had all of their computers AirPort ready for at least two years.

I have a Rev. A ibook, which i bought with the AirPort Base Station and have been loving it. Even today when pc'ers see my setup, they're amazed, many not even having heard of the wireless technology, although I'm sure many others have heard of it.

What about the floppy. I know this is an arguable point, but I am glad not to have a floppy drive. I have never missed it...it just wastes space.

I think the point I may be trying to make is Apple is always trying to push the envelope standardizing new technologies. Sometimes they just get it wrong. Case in point, delivering DVD-RAM and not CD-RW.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 02:54 PM
 
Roger, The point the previous poster was trying to make was Apple's abandonment of Professional products.

It is obvious you as an iBook user do not fall into the category of a profesional user. Whilst AirPort is kinda cool for internet and home users, i assure you products like this are very very low on the list of a profesional users needs. In essence that is exactly what the previous poster is trying to present.

It is unfortunate for the professional Apple user of yester year who have been left in the dark due to the recent influx of "new school mac candy kids". This basterdisation and prophetising of the great and wonderful usefulness of devices such as airport, usb and others has created undue frustration in the pro sector.

Many of the new mac kids of today who pass off technologies such as SCSI and Serial etc are simply foolish.
Technologies such as the above mentioned have always worked well. Video/Audio pro's rely on SCSI, and Audio guys need serial for critical midi timming....USB is simply much to sloppy....

Another previous poster mentioned will ATA/100 really make a difference. A reply may be, possibly not to the average home user, but to a video guy who needs to offload some 60gigs of data to an ATA/100 drive used for dumb storage, most positively yes. The difference bettween 35meg/sec sustained (ATA/66) and 60meg/sec sustained (ATA/100) rates are significant in a time pressured workflow.

quote&gt;ADC connector-non standard- (DVI connector can also take a VGA CRT)
&gt;No availablity of dual video card with DVI interface due to Apple
A $40 adapter converts ADC to DVI. There's also a VGA connector. So the problem is.....

The problem is my dear freind, there is no ADC to VGA adapter. The new TwinView card will accept 1 monitor on a digital connector and 1 monitor on an analog connection. Had Apple used DVI, a user could use two new LCD's on digital connectors, this same user could also connect any other VGA monitors to the same connector, use 1 vga and 1 digital monitor. You cant even hook up 2 new Apple LCDs because of this issue. Pro's needin dual monitor will want the same monitors, as a result Apple loses out on display sales. Clearly this is a demonstration of a company who fully does not understand its targeted markets.

Hydra Said "The Irony is not lost on me as Intel and most of the PC benchmark websites are now saying that the AMD does better in real world apps but the P4 seems to have an edge in the pro stuff."

Im not sure where you have read this, but ill tell you, this is utter BS...sorry for crudity for lang.

Hydra also said "That is the original argument about the Velocity Engine that Apple used and many mocked. Now that Apple has incorporated Velocity Engine at the OS level all things can be improved so the statement that the AMD chip is equal to the G4 clock for clock is dead WRONG."

By making this point, it disturbs me of the severity of poor performance of Mac OS X. If this is a testament to the velocity engine then i understand completely why Apple was mocked. But lets get back to your so called real world , the velocity engine may have been implemented somewhat in the consumer software space, but in the pro sector it has been largely ignored. While i think Vops bolster performance significantly in some areas, the other real world where Vops are not used has proven time and again that the AMD CPU smashes the G4 out of the stadium. This is purely from a performance pov, since performance for a price to a pro is not an issue. If you think the Pro world will be transitioning to the new OS for imbeded Vops, your poorly misguided , in the worst case completely deluded. OS 9 will be used in the pro arena for at least another 9 months.

Hydra also said "As a last word about the spec sheet love so many people seem to have, the time you waste staring mindlessly at your beloved spec sheets you could be doing something useful on you computer instead, like running benchmarks! I�ll stick to wasting my time writing excessively long posts on the web� "

Ill forgive your naivety if you think this is how all tests are conducted. The next time you have the opportunity to witness 3D rendering or Digital Audio Proccessing testing systems, make a note of how many cups of coffee you consume when u sit looking at the progress bar and drying the sweat of the palms of your hands why waiting for your over glorified G4 to complete its task. After the G4 has completed its task you can now feel comforted that you spent 3 times the $$$ for a machine that actually cost you even more $$$ /hour. Thats the real world benchmark my freind.

The future, as often speculated, seems rosey in the Mac world, but time after time it never turns out that way.......its always next time ...unfortunately next time always falls painfully short.Maybe next time Apple will deliver on a superior fast product

On that note my 15 minute video render has about another 4 hours to go....time for yet another coffee..or 3

Targon
     
rogerkylin
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 03:38 PM
 
Targon. Point taken.

I see that Apple's 'progress' and abandonment of tried and true technology can cause problems for pro mac users (who I assume have $$$ invested in hardware & software), which I am not.

Perhaps Apple needs a third (fourth if you count servers) level of computer. One with more BTO that include the things the pro user needs. I'd bet it'll be a while before they'd be able to do this for a reasonable price (assembly-line style).
     
waffffffle
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 04:19 PM
 
All 3 nw G4 models are great machines. Anyone who disagrees is on crack. There is no question that these machines are cutting edge and stack up against ANY competing PC. People can scream all they want about the numbers on Intel and AMD chips, but in reality, the G4 is the MOST powerful chip in it's class. There are other chips out there that are meant for even HIGHER end work, but for the needs of Apple's customers, Apple made the right choice to go with the G4. It offers performance in the high end apps that pro mac users use: Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, etc. Those are the apps that Pro Mac users use. So whoever thinks that Apple doesn't understand their pro customers is brain dead.

However there are a couple MINOR things about the quicksilver lineup that I would change. One being, the low end is too expensive. There should be a $1300 low end G4 by now, even if it's a 667 or a 533 with low RAM and hard drive space, Apple should have a pro computer in that range by now. There used to be the Cube in that range and I really wish Apple gave the Cube just one more revision, with faster processors, and an even LOWER price. I would have bought one if they had since I have a pismo400 but I would like a more powerful desktop and I don't want to take up too much space. I hope Apple brings back the cube in some way. Maybe as the EXTREME low end, for like $500, bare bones, nothing on it. That would be very cool. And I'd buy one, or 2....
     
nana2
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Targon:
<STRONG>Another previous poster mentioned will ATA/100 really make a difference. A reply may be, possibly not to the average home user, but to a video guy who needs to offload some 60gigs of data to an ATA/100 drive used for dumb storage, most positively yes. The difference bettween 35meg/sec sustained (ATA/66) and 60meg/sec sustained (ATA/100) rates are significant in a time pressured workflow.
Targon</STRONG>
There is no real world advantage of ATA/100 over ATA/66. The reason is that there is no IDE drive in existence that exceeds 40MB/sec sustained. And this is at the start of the disk, it only goes lower as you move from the outer edges. Perhaps in a year or so there will be a drive that exceeds 60MB/sec sustained. By then SerialATA will hopefully be released.
     
Hydra  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 12:50 AM
 
Targon-

I can appreciate your perspective, you apparently being in the video field or whatnot, but I thought I would just stop by to follow up on a few of your points.

Targon posted:
�Another previous poster mentioned will ATA/100 really make a difference. A reply may be, possibly not to the average home user, but to a video guy who needs to offload some 60gigs of data to an ATA/100 drive used for dumb storage, most positively yes. The difference bettween 35meg/sec sustained (ATA/66) and 60meg/sec sustained (ATA/100) rates are significant in a time pressured workflow.�

Well the ATA/33/66/100 interfaces do carry a hefty overhead, but it�s usually around 25%, so an ATA/66 will reasonably be saturated at around 50meg/sec (35 is way too low � maybe you�re using cheap drives . That is even higher than the fastest ATA/100 drives are capable of sustaining so you�re not drinking too many more cups of coffee while waiting. And if you routinely wait hours for you renderings a few secs shouldn�t make much difference to you,

Targon posted:
�The problem is my dear freind, there is no ADC to VGA adapter. The new TwinView card will accept 1 monitor on a digital connector and 1 monitor on an analog connection. Had Apple used DVI, a user could use two new LCD's on digital connectors, this same user could also connect any other VGA monitors to the same connector, use 1 vga and 1 digital monitor. You cant even hook up 2 new Apple LCDs because of this issue. Pro's needin dual monitor will want the same monitors, as a result Apple loses out on display sales. Clearly this is a demonstration of a company who fully does not understand its targeted markets.�

Well you could buy the beautiful Cinema Display, as it is a product aimed squarely at the pro�s who like the nice wide format. And the FCP guys are gonna want a break-out box and a true NTSC monitor to look at real output quality any way. And people who make their livings where color really matters, well, you shouldn�t be using ANY LCD display.

Targon posted:
�Hydra Said "The Irony is not lost on me as Intel and most of the PC benchmark websites are now saying that the AMD does better in real world apps but the P4 seems to have an edge in the pro stuff."

Im not sure where you have read this, but ill tell you, this is utter BS...sorry for crudity for lang.�

Well I may have overstated the pro stuff part as Tom�s Hardware did an article with the P4 Vs. AMD and stated �We know that Pentium 4 performs rather poorly in current office applications, so the two Athlon systems are leaving their equally priced Pentium 4 opponents quite far behind.�

As far as my statement that the P4 seems to have the edge in Pro apps I came to this conclusion from the improved SSE2 onboard but whether or not it has been truly implemented on the platform is a bit of a question. Tests on Tom�s Hardware showed that P4 MPEG4 (a multimedia function that is more on a pro level) encoding whooped the AMD chip but it later came to light that Intel gave them a specially compiled version of the software to run the test on. (Intel�s attempt to tilt the test in its favor is atrocious and I will not apologize for their behavior). Quake 3 performance was better on the P4 which is only a game but very little stresses a system as much as one of Carmack�s latest creations. This does lead me to wonder just what the P4 is good at besides Q3.

Targon posted:
�Hydra also said "That is the original argument about the Velocity Engine that Apple used and many mocked. Now that Apple has incorporated Velocity Engine at the OS level all things can be improved so the statement that the AMD chip is equal to the G4 clock for clock is dead WRONG."
By making this point, it disturbs me of the severity of poor performance of Mac OS X. If this is a testament to the velocity engine then I understand completely why Apple was mocked. But lets get back to your so called real world , the velocity engine may have been implemented somewhat in the consumer software space, but in the pro sector it has been largely ignored.�

I think you have been mistaking most of the criticisms of OSX�s lack of GUI performance for actual system performance. The Quartz graphics layer does and always will require more overhead than OS�s with less eye candy and much of what it does do can�t be accelerated by today�s 2-D video cards. The original Mac was a dog compared to what is used graphically today but at some point to advance the GUI further you need to push the hardware and sometimes the hardware pushes back. 10.1 apparently fixes a lot of the problems with slow responsiveness. Even if the deep layers of OSX are not quite up to full speed yet � that will come. Remember this is not a M$ �All New OS!� snow job of tweaking a few lines of code slapping a shiny new shrink-wrapped box on it and call the stockholders for a party but it truly a from the ground up remake of Mac OS. It may take developers a while to acclimate and further improve app performance.

I�m going to quote you again here because I hope it is a typo on your part, you said �the velocity engine may have been implemented somewhat in the consumer software space, but in the pro sector it has been largely ignored.�

???????????????? Implemented in the consumer software and ignored in the Pro???????????????? Maybe in your SUPER DUPER PROFESIONAL WORLD but FCP, all ADOBE products, MAYA etc. ARE PRO products that have heavily optimized code for Velocity Engine and last I checked the consumer iMacs and iBooks don�t have G4�s (the chip where the Velocity Engine is found) only the Pro series Towers and PowerBooks do. I�m saying some of this tongue-in-cheek because I�m not sure what that statement is based on. Have you ever seen a Mac let alone used one? Even using PRO apps like FCPin OS9 (not avil in X yet) gets major boosts from the Velocity Engine as well as Quicktime on which FCP is based.

Targon posted:

�The next time you have the opportunity to witness 3D rendering or Digital Audio Proccessing testing systems, make a note of how many cups of coffee you consume when u sit looking at the progress bar and drying the sweat of the palms of your hands why waiting for your over glorified G4 to complete its task. After the G4 has completed its task you can now feel comforted that you spent 3 times the $$$ for a machine that actually cost you even more $$$ /hour. Thats the real world benchmark my freind.�
The future, as often speculated, seems rosey in the Mac world, but time after time it never turns out that way.......its always next time ...unfortunately next time always falls painfully short.Maybe next time Apple will deliver on a superior fast product.�

I am the first to Admit that I have little experience in Pro 3-D and Audio apps. NO platform can be ALL THINGS to ALL PEOPLE at ALL TIMES anyway. This is too much to ask of any platform. I do have extensive experience with Final Cut Pro (albeit an amateur) and can tell you that the Dual 800 G4 tower I saw demoed at MWNY with and without the help of the new Matrox real-time effects rendering was without question the fastest non-linear video editing rig this side of a network TV setup costing an order of magnitude more money (the demo actually used a real ESPN TV show that uses FCP to drive this point home). And FCP is ONLY available on the Mac.

I find it a very sad state of affairs for the Windows world that so small a platform like the Mac can compete at all (even if YOU think it�s inferior) while being out gunned hopelessly in R&D dollars. Remember Apple (along with Motorola and IBM in CPU R&D) is competing against both Hardware and Windows OS development.

Jerry C.

P.S. Targon, I�m very happy to have read your post as most of your points were well conceived but I do consider it my prerogative to disagree with them, as you no doubt consider it yours.


     
maxuser
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 01:44 AM
 
Targon, your argument about poor performance on G4's is confusing at best, contradictory at worst. First you say:
where Vops are not used has proven time and again that the AMD CPU smashes the G4 out of the stadium
OK, I won't argue with that. I do development on GHz Athlons, and they're damn fast. Then later in that paragraph you say:
performance for a price to a pro is not an issue
Then at the end of that paragraph:
OS 9 will be used in the pro arena for at least another 9 months
Putting all this together (and please, correct me if I'm not capturing the intent behind your words), I'm hearing that OS 9 is better optimized for the power of a G4 chip than OS X, therefore yields significantly higher performance, which is what Pro users need most.

So which OS 9 Pro applications make better use of a G4 than their OS X siblings? (I'm asking sincerely; I simply don't know.) Are you claiming that OS 9 itself is better optimized for the G4 than OS X? Well, if that's your claim, then you are probably confusing user-interface responsiveness with performance. It's OK, a lot of people make that mistake, even sophisticated Pro users such as yourself. An OS 9 menu pops open about 10 times faster than an OS X menu with all its gratuitous shadowing and transparency. But while that OS X menu is down, the rest of your system is chugging along on that video compression that, if you're lucky enough to have multiple processors, is blindly taking advantage of all of them (unless the app is poorly or maliciously written). Meanwhile, while you're holding down that OS 9 menu, your system is doing...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Are you aware that even AOL Instant Messanger's idle-time-processing extension drains a significant portion of CPU cycles? And that's just one poorly written OS 9 extension. There are tons of them, and they're everywhere. On OS X, a programmer would have to try pretty hard to make the system's OVERALL performance and responsiveness drop to the level of OS 9. But if all you do is run a single app with no system extensions (and that app is available for OS 9), then you have no need to use OS X. In the same way, I sometimes just need a calculator. It's all about using the right tool for the job. That said, most (but not ALL) computing tasks will simply run better and more smoothly on OS X.

Now back to the poor performace associated with Aqua. We are all privileged to be able to say that we lived in the days when Aqua still ran slowly. Our kids (or nephews and nieces as the case may be) won't believe us. They'll say, "But Uncle Maxuser, Aqua redraws faster than my bionic eyes can detect in OS XII. Did you really have to wait for a menu to drop?" Sure that's the future, but thanks to OS X, the Mac platform will have a very long one. Think about the classic Mac interface for a second. Other than the introduction of color, thicker window borders and hierarchical menus, the interface hasn't really changed for 17 years! Back in 1984, Mac/GUI detractors said the same things that Aqua detractors are saying today. The only difference is that the old argument was about bitmapped displays (as opposed to those snappy, responsive character-based displays) and the new one is about transparency and shadows. When we take the inevitable step into 3D OS's in the future, these nay-sayers will resurface to make arguments about how the OS's 3D virtual camera is disorienting.

And it's not as if we have to wait another 17 years for a snappy, responsive interface. From the looks of 10.1, we just have to hold out until next month. The problem will be solved simultaneously over time by optimized software and ever-faster hardware.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 10:02 AM
 
Maxuser asked "Are you claiming that OS 9 itself is better optimized for the G4 than OS X?"

My appologies for the lack of clarity. In absolutely no way am i claiming 9x is better optimized.
My point was, simply point out thats Mac OS X's development is far from a useable state and may not be for atleast 9 months. It will take this amount of time for the Pro apps to migrate over into the new environment and subsequently take a little longer for things to stabilise.

Im sure most of the internet, disk burner, dvd player etc type apps will be ready by the end of the year for most users.At this point in time however, many developers of Pro Audio/Video and 3D app's can't really move to far yet until the I/O Kit is in its finished state among the other unfinished low level API's.

Max, i won't bother quoting you on the rest of your post, as i fully aware of and understand everything you mentioned regarding the arcane inner workings of 9x.

I will point out however, if anyone is speculating, im not in any way denouncing X. It has the potential, but again that potention will not be realised for some time to come yet. Like anyone else i wanted it yesterday. Unfortunately some of us will have to make do with 9x for the comming months. No stress really, my systems rarely misbehave.

I am a little skeptical of 1 particular issue pertaining to the Threaded, Pre-emptive nature of OS X. That is audio latency. Now before anyone starts throwing claims around, this topic is very sensitive to many folks in the audio area and the lack of definitive clear cut answers brings about this doubt.

It has long since be-known that Mac OS 9x's audio latency is pretty much the best around. The reason, so im told, is the fact that OS 9x has a co-operative tasking model. That said, the application basically takes command of the entire system (hardware/software) where it can guarantee an uninterupted stream of audio thru the OS thus the sub 3ms latencies that can be achived. Under a pre-emtive, multi-threaded environment, the schedualing system of the data stream can become unstable due to calls from apps in the background. Now im not fully up to date with the latest development in core audio, there is still many changes to be made.

For anyone interested, the other week macworld uk posted an article from peabody uni. The paper described the testing of latencies of different OS's. Mac OS X faired reasonably well with a latency of 2.7ms i think it was. The paper has been updated with the following info.

For those of you that saw my latency paper
(http://mambo.peabody.jhu.edu/~karlmac/publications/latency-icmc2001.pdf) I
made a minor update to the MacOS X numbers. The latency in the original paper
was incorrect. The correct value is 3.97ms, which is still the best system
with load. I'm surprised no one noticed since the original number was below
the minimum settings that CoreAudio seems to allow (at least on my system).

This test is somewhat suspect. The test machine used the internal audio I/O on the Mac while other machines used different PCI audio cards, we all know PCI card will load a system far more than the internal I/O built into the Mac. But thats another debate for another time.

Anyways, Maxuser, hopefully i have managed to dispel the confusion u read out of my post.

Regards
Targon
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,