Updated Power Macs at Apple.com

Gropo writes "Same old 'scary cyclops' quicksilver face. Up to 1.42 Ghz, FireWire 800, 802.11g and entry-level pricing has dropped. " With the SuperDrive and one of those massive LCD screens, you have a one highly desirable chunk of hardware.

Comments

Oooh yummy!

[ollie_ob]

1.42GHz!

Still a long way to 3GHz but we're getting there, revision by revision.

Still happier with my silent 600MHz iBook than a roaring G4 monster though...

Re:Oooh yummy!

[Secret Chimp]

People keep on forgetting that Intel chips do a whole lot less with each clock cycle than PowerPC chips. The reason that PowerPC processors have remained at lower clock speeds than Intel chips is because they can get the same amount of work done, if not more, in less clock cycles than it takes for an Intel chip. If only we could get IBM PowerPC chips in G4s... they've been making ass-fast shizz lately, but we've had to stick with Motorola. Maybe Apple doesn't like the slight irony of using IBM stuff.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[Znonymous Coward]

My 800 MHz iMac seems much faster than my P4 2GHz. Maybe it's just me, but MHz isn't everything.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[trash eighty]

Naa Apple have been using IBM made PowerPC chips for ages, G3s used in iMacs and iBooks nowadays are IBM ones i believe

Re:Oooh yummy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Processor speed aside, RAM speed is still the main problem with G3/4s. It's just a matter of persuading Motorola to implement DDR properly onboard, then they might be able to completely beat x86 with no problems.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[Directrix1]

OK, I'm tired of all this stupidity about how nobody knows exactly what MHz means, and how its not really a measure of speed. Here let me simplify your life:

Every processor has instructions that it understands. When executed, each instruction executes a sequence of microinstructions. Now these microinstructions execute at a rate directly proportional to the overall frequency of the machine (i.e. 133MHz ~ 133 million microinstuctions per second) with the following exceptions:
1) memory accesses in general are the largest bottleneck for any processor so it can decrease the speed of a processor tremendously without a sufficiently large cache and without a caching algorithm sufficient for the task
2) there can be, and usually are, parrallel microrocessing units inside of each processor, so this can increase the operational speed

Myth: Intel chips do a whole lot less per clock cycle than PowerPC chips
Fact: Intel chips have been extended to include all the same vector processing functionality included in most PowerPC chips. Furthermore, the CISC architecture is designed in a way where more work is theoretically done per instruction.

Myth: RISC is better than CISC
Fact: It all depends on the optimization and utilization of the available instruction set. CISC can theoretically do more per clock cycle than RISC.

Now, I'm not really advocating CISC over RISC. I personally hate CISC instructions sets as they are very hard to optimize for. But just because apple says something is faster and you want to believe it, doesn't mean you have too believe it.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[radish]

Indeed, when I studied processor design, the mantra was that CISC did more per cycle than RISC (as the instructions are more complex), but due to increased simplicity in design RISC chips run at a higher clock rate. Having a slow RISC chip seems to be the worst of both worlds!

Now, of course nothing is that simple, but the truth is that you need to devise a benchmark which represents your usage, and use that to decide - not some made up marketing numbers.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[overunderunderdone]

...Now these microinstructions execute at a rate directly proportional to the overall frequency of the machine

This is *vastly* oversimplified - there are complexities to processor design & trade-offs to be made that make clock speed almost useless for the sake of comparisons between chips with different architectures - even if they DO perform the same number of instructions per cycle (which often isn't the case).

there can be, and usually are, parrallel microrocessing units inside of each processor, so this can increase the operational speed

And this is one of the differences between PowerPC and Intel architectures - in general PowerPC has chosen to sacrifice clock cycle speed to do more instructions per cycle while Intel has chosen to sacrifice the number of instructions to get more speed. In other words Intel usually chooses to do one thing at a time really fast while PowerPC chooses to do several things at once more slowly. Right there you have a *partial* explanation for the MHz (now GHz) gap.

Fact: Intel chips have been extended to include all the same vector processing functionality included in most PowerPC chips.

I'm no expert on this but most reviews & articles from fairly non-partisan sites have concluded that Altivec is superior to the Intel alternative and that this shows up in real world scenarios.

The final upshot is that *in general* the PowerPC does more per cycle than an Intel chip. How much more (or even if it's more at all) depends on what exactly it's doing. But the fact remains: for most applications, especially multimedia applications that use Altivec, the PowerPC outperforms Intel chips of the same clock speed.

BUT intel is so far ahead in speed that even taking the "MHz Myth" into account Intel is still far ahead of the PowerPC in overall performance. Apple has got to get it's old AIM partners to step up or it will have to abandon the PowerPC for Intel (or intel compatible)

Re:Oooh yummy!

[swordboy]

People keep on forgetting that Intel chips do a whole lot less with each clock cycle than PowerPC chips.

Doesn't Linux run on both PowerPC and Intel hardware? Then why doesn't some enterprising individual go put together some various benchmarks comparing the two on this type of level playing field? I want to believe that the PowerPC is faster clock-for-clock, but I can't until I see some good benchmarks.

I just google'ed for some and all that I could find were some ancient BYTEMARKS.

It sure looks like it would be faster...

Re:Oooh yummy!

[afantee]

>> the mantra was that CISC did more per cycle than RISC.

The opposite is true: most of the RISC instructions execute in a single cycle, while many CISC instructions take much more, which is why raw clock speed is only perhaps meaningful for RISC chips and means very little for CISC, but totally meaningless across platforms.

People keep forgetting that the G4 has a much higher raw clock speed than most of other very expensive high end RISC systems like Sun UltraSparc or SGI Mips or HP PA. How come other RISC vendors don't get blamed for their clock speed, while everyone screams at Apple everytime a faster system is introduced? Could this means that people just love to talk about Apple because it's cool and we all want a better Mac?

Re:Oooh yummy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert on this but most reviews & articles from fairly non-partisan sites have concluded that Altivec is superior to the Intel alternative and that this shows up in real world scenarios.

I've actually programmed both SSE and Altivec, and you're right in one way: Altivec is far easier to program, provides a much cleaner vector instruction set, and does more per cycle.

The only problem is that it doesn't do TWICE as much per cycle in practice (save a couple of photoshop filters carefully selected by Apple), so the raw clock of x86 still makes Intel the winner in most cases.

Intel have also worked hard on getting their compilers to automatically generate SSE/SSE2 code, which really improves performance on _all_ programs. There is no such thing for the PowerPC - if you want altivec you will have to handcode it. (And no, all the new altivec support in gcc is limited to the compiler supporting the altivec C language wrapper instructions - it will not generate them automatically).

Motorola probably did the right thing FOR THEIR PRIMARY MARKET. Most PPC chips are doing signal processing in built-in systems where it is perfectly OK to handcode a filter for better performance/lower power consumption. The problem is that most general PC programs benefit more from Intel's approach which is more automatic.

Finally - Apple/Motorola has a bigger problem: it makes sense to invest time in handcoding SSE/SSE2 for a CPU with 95% of the market, but usually not for one with 5% of the market.

Re:Oooh yummy!

[IamTheRealMike]

That's not really a very useful test.

For one, PowerPC chips can outperform Intel chips at the same clock rate, but they only do so reliably (as far as I'm aware) if you start using stuff like AltiVec. Most stuff can't be optimized in this way, but a few things can. So, if the Intel chips did outperform the PowerPC chips in a particular benchmark, then some people would just jump up and down and claim it's not fair because AltiVec wasn't used, or something. I've seen this before.

Secondly, testing clock-for-clock is interesting in an academic sense only. The subjective speed of a system can be affected by so many things, slight performance differences at the same clock rate make very little difference.

Anyway, I'm sure you're aware of all of this, but there are so many confounding factors it'd be very hard to get undisputable results.

I would absolutely love one of these

[rollthelosindice]

Uunforetunately, My budget likes the $400 EMachine 1.5 ghz (of sometihnkg like that) a lot more than even the entry level powermac at $1499

Wait for the IBM 970

[BoomerSooner]

I would wait on the IBM 970 (G5 whatever) that is coming out this next fall/winter. 64bit, 900MHz Bus, Altivec(or whatever it'll be called), approx 2ghz...

Unless you want a laptop then a Powerbook is a good buy (except 15", there are new bodies for 15.4" powerbook and iBooks on the way).

Just my 2cents being an Apple/Linux/Windows/Solaris user.

Re:Wait for the IBM 970

[jbolden]

I think you are confused here. For years Motorolla talked about another generation of chip. They had serious problems and then cut off development until very recently. That was the problem with the "G5". The i970 was an IBM plan to bring out a lower priced version of the Power chip line (and the Power chips have existed for years, Apple can't them at prices their customers will accept). IBM has already seeded the chip to developers. And they have a commitment to have the chips in mass production by Q3.

Incidentally the down the road on this chip looks very good. 2.5 ghz model may come out sometime in 2004 and IBM has already demod a buggy 6ghz model of the chip. At the same time the Power5 chip will be out soon....

Re:Wait for the IBM 970

[John Bayko]

For years Motorolla talked about another generation of chip. They had serious problems and then cut off development until very recently. That was the problem with the "G5".

As far as I know, the "problem" with the G5 wasn't the core, it was the bus. Motorola makes almost all its money selling CPUs for embedded systems, where system cost is more important than for desktops, and a large part of system cost can be the bus complexity. Motorola did get the G5s working, and as fast as promised, but with the existing cheap bus that wouldn't have done Apple much good.

Apple had specifications for a CPU bus that would meet its needs, but Motorola couldn't justify the expense of making a special version of the G5 in relatively small numbers, for one customer (who, face it, would just keep asking for special versions of any good future PowerPC model - not just a one time cost).

So Motorola kept its G5 design until the embedded market is ready for it, and Apple took its bus elsewhere.

IBM is developing the PowerPC 970 for its own use - specifically in "blade" servers, which need a lower power, cheaper and cooler CPU, while keeping up performance, which is exactly the same needs that Apple has. I don't know if Apple is going to get its bus in the 970, but it would be a simpler design than the POWER4 which actually uses two busses, one in and one out, allowing the CPU to keep sending addresses out even before it gets the data back in.

Either bus would be very fast. Motorola will ba happy it doesn't have to make custom CPUs, IBM will be happy it can sell more 970s, and Apple will be pissed at Motorola but will at least be back in the performance race again so it'll end up happy. Finally.

hold your tongue and say apple

[korea]

Think Differe-- BIGGER FASTER BETTER, Must...Catch...Up...

Re:Yeah...

[hcdejong]

Prices start at $ 1500, not 2000.

Do you know what kind of PC I could build for that much money??

One that won't run OS X, that's for sure.

Re:Yeah...

[BWJones]

For only $1999 ... Do you know what kind of PC I could build for that much money?? Then I just need the beowulf cluster..

Yeah, but can you get Firewire 800, Firewire 400, built in Gigabit, 54 MBps wireless networking, and a set of sweet applications like Apple bundles with their machines for only $1999?

The Bigger Story is the Displays

[Schlemphfer]

Maccentral has an excellent summary of the new Macs. To me, the most interesting part of the story isn't the incrementel improvements in the desktops, but the extremely steep price cuts surrounding Apple's flat panel displays. You can now get a 20" widescreen flat panel from Apple for $1299. That's just $300 more than Apple was charging yesterday for a 17" standard aspect model.

The best part about Apple upgrades is . . .

[dgrgich]

. . . the fact that it immediately makes "last years" models much more affordable. Resellers like MacMall, Smalldog.com, & the others have great prices on these older models.

Of course, Apple may still have a problem selling these newer faster machines because they've managed to produce an OS that works fantastic on even older models like the dual 533 I'm writing this on!

Re:The best part about Apple upgrades is . . .

[jo_ham]

Indeed, we have a Meida 100 system as our primary edit suite and aside from the very expensive (approx £10,000) specialist editing card it's a stnadard single processor 867 G4.

We just bought a an old Mystic (Dual G4 450) and a copy of Final Cut Pro 3. We were dubious about it being able to work with full frame DVCAM but it's a little gem of a machine - so far we've had it playing back timelines with 4 video streams on along with 3 audio tracks.

It renders transitions in seconds.

I don't know how Apple expects to sell these new machines when we can produce broadcast quality edits using a three year old Dual G4.

Final Cut Pro 3 is too good on those old systems!

"Expandible"? (Obligatory spelling snipe)

[pnot]

Faster, more expandible, and more affordable than ever... The Power Mac G4 also comes with a library of creative, productivity and communications-specific third-party applications that leverage the strengths of Mac OS X.

But evidently not a spell-checker...

excellent

[Boromir son of Faram]

It's great to see Apple leading the pack in new hardware. They are bringing 802.11g and FireWire 800 to the people just as they did with SMP (that "1.4GHz" sounds a lot more impressive next to a 3GHz P4 when you realize there are two of the suckers in there) and 1Kbase-T.

Funny, Macs used to be faster than Pentii, but crippled by their other hardware (SCSI, memory, ADB) and OS. Now they have the advantage everywhere except CPU speed, and I think they're a whole lot better off.

I see the new PowerMacs as a gift. With their power, used wisely, we might be able to save my people from the growing Shadow in the East.

Re:Is a price drop at Apple news?

[Junks Jerzey]

Why dont you be fair and report on the next model eMachines, Dell or Compaq sells at Best Buy.

Because many people like what Apple is doing, and it's generally understood that if you could buy a Power Mac for the price of a Dell, then a whole lot of people here would get one. I mean, look, you get away from all the Intel/AMD nonsense, no crazy cooling issues, dual processors, flashy UNIX out of box with commercial applications available...this is the holy grail to a lot of people.

But no one wants to pay Apple's high-end prices.

Re:If you consider an EMachine on par with a PC

[YrWrstNtmr]

Just keep an eye on the power supply of that eMachine. They have to cut corners somewhere. My kids had one, and thats the part that failed.

Other than that, it seemed to be OK.

Re:This Just in

[Znonymous Coward]

Update:

Yes, Macs still more expensive than PC's... But they are worth it.

Highlights at 11.

Re:Why did they even bother?

[binaryDigit]

But, seriously, why did Apple even release this

True, why bother releasing new better competing products when you have new product coming out in 6 to 12 months (which we all know is nothing in computer time). People would be much more impressed with a jump from 1.25Ghz to 2Ghz vs seeing incremental steps and lowered prices along the way. Shame on them for not releasing new PowerBooks, after all it's been weeks since the previous announcment. Tying up those vast resources to bump up the processor speed and adding a few extra features, I'm sure this totally derailed any iMac or iBook efforts.

Look, I agree that they have soft spots that they have to work on, but laptops is not one of them. iMacs need to get cheaper, agreed. But they MUST continue to bump the TOTL PowerMac's to keep and hearts and minds of their high end buyers in the Mac camp. If they waited until the 970 to release ANYTHING in the PowerMac line, they'd be screwed big time.

If as some suggest that the new machines will be out in time for Summer MacWorld, then great. If not, don't be too surprised to see maybe one more bump if the new guys don't make it until the end of the year. I bet if Motorola can get them faster G4's, they'd put them out there pronto (as they did with these).

A good day for Mac users

[rworne]

I am suprised no one noticed that the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro is now a BTO option.

Still listed as "coming soon" though.

I do.

[BoomerSooner]

But no one wants to pay Apple's high-end prices.

Until Linux has a decent desktop (where installing an application actually integrates with the menu) and has some decent apps (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Illustrator, Premiere, ...) I'll be sticking with OS X on the client side and Linux/Solaris on the server side. Blue curve is a great try at a good desktop, maybe it will take off.

Linux has a long way to go to match the ease of use of even windows much less comparing it to OS X. I have no problems with linux b/c I've been using it since around '95 (ah slackware). However, trying to find all the workarounds to keep things playing friendly isn't fun on higher end or newer hardware.

Re:Is a price drop at Apple news?

[johnpaul191]

big price drop on the LCDs, but the towers are upgraded. being the first or among the first machines to ship with Firewire800, 802.11g ready/equipped. it also says blutooth-enabled and bluetooth ready somewhere else, i don't know what the means exactley but .... hrmm... it seems in the stoe the top of the line BTO is Bluetooth included and the others are "ready". i dont know if it's the same little usb nub or some slick integration, but overall the upgrades and price drops are nice.

Re:Who's Hat

[calc]

You do realize that AMD Athlon XP 3000+ which is coming out in a few weeks only really runs at 2.16GHz right? ;)

A G4 runs at around 1.5x MHz an equivalent P4. So a 1.42GHz would probably perform about the same as a P4 2.13GHz. Also P4's can't run in SMP mode, although you can buy a Xeon for that, so a Dual G4 1.42GHz is roughly equal to a single P4 4.26GHz, currently the fastest P4 is 3.06GHz.

Now do you see why Apple is using SMP? ;)

Lower your prices, Apple

[vasqzr]

$1,499.00
Image
1GHz PowerPC G4
1MB L3 cache
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA/100
Combo drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
64MB DDR video memory
FireWire 800
56K internal modem
Bluetooth Ready


Sell this to me for $899. Please.

For $500 more you get 1.25GHz, dual processors, and a 80GB HD.

They just cost too much to justify buying, since I wouldn't be using it for DTP/other Mac stuff.

Re:Lower your prices, Apple

[adzoox]

There is no $899 machine from any other manufacturer that has the specs this does. Apple DOES have a $899 G4 with monitor called the eMac.

If I go to Dell, I can configure a system shipped (no 800 firewire) for $1640 that is comparable to the base model.

Re:Lower your prices, Apple

[zaren]

What do you mean, lower your prices? This is already (I believe) $100 cheaper than the low end machine they were selling YESTERDAY, and it's faster!

To compare: as of yesterday, in the .edu channel, this was what I had priced out on their low end model:

$1643.00
867Mhz PowerPC G4
256MG SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro
64 MB DDR video memory

(+ 17" Mitsubishi monitor and Apple Pro speakers, and - internal modem)

On that model there was no FireWire 800, no Bluetooth, no Airport 800...

Right now, I'm looking at a low end machine with a faster CPU (1 Ghz), 20 gig more drive space, GeForce4 MX (better?) video, and faster ram, plus all the bells, whistles, and ports listed above, for $8 more than yesterday. If they want to give me all of that for an extra eight bucks, I'm not going to complain :)

Re:Lower your prices, Apple

[cenonce]

The $499.00 Dell (Gateway, HP, whatever) is a farce and borders on, IMHO, consumer fraud. Everytime, I go to Dell and try to configure a $499.00 Dell with the standard bells & whistles (that comes with a PowerMac, BTW), the price always jumps from 499 to 1100 or 1200 bucks (minimum).

Yeah, you can get a 499 dollar Dell, but it has the standard equipment of a four year old model.

What a joke!

I like building my own machines, especially for running Linux (webservers, file sharing and such), but when I want to get anything done (i.e., to make a living), I get it done on a Mac. I don't spend time configuring (as in Linux) and I don't spend time recovering from crashes or things just not working not matter what I do (as I do in Windows).

Re:Lower your prices, Apple

[Phroggy]

Explain to me again how a school buying more expensive hardware that isn't generally used in the real world is going to help my kid get a better education?

The whole "generally used in the real world" argument is utter nonsense. You should teach kids computing concepts, not specific applications or systems, because by the time they graduate, the specific applications and systems they used will be obsolete anyway, but the concepts still apply. It doesn't matter if a kid learns about computers on Mac OS X, Windows XP, KDE, Gnome, Mac OS 8, or Windows 95. They'll have to adjust later anyway.

However, there are two distinct advantages of not using Windows in school: first, since the student is likely to be using Windows at home, teaching them something else at school gives them a broader base of experience than what they might otherwise have exposure to, which will make it easier to adjust to other systems in the future. Second, it shows them that there are viable alternatives to Microsoft, so if they later choose to run Windows, it will at least be a real choice.

Re:Lower your prices, Apple

[cenonce]

FUD? That's a little dramatic.

Today's Celeron 1.7 is yesterday's PII 350. A PII doesn't run ME very well (heck I have a PIII 800 that doesn't run it very well) and a Celeron doesn't run XP very well.

48X CD-ROM drives were standard in 1999. Combo Drives (or at least a DVD and a CD-RW drives) are standard in 2003.

64 MB of RAM runs Win 98. 256 MB RAM does not run XP very well (especially with a Celeron 1.7).

"Free" 15" monitor!?! No thanks... you can't even find a 15" CRT in the store anymore. A 20 dollar Lexmark printer with crappy printing and an ink cartridge I have to replace after 2 months? Are they doing me a favor by throwing that in, or just trying to ditch old inventory?

I just went to Dell's site to build a 499 dollar PC! There was no more 499 dollar one, so I went with the 699 (799 - 100 dollar rebate). It ended up costing 1488. Yeah it as a PIV now... 1.8 ghz. 15" monitor (flat screen too), but no free printer. I added 512 MB of RAM to run XP. I upgraded to full operating system, XP Pro (Note: OS X only has one version). I added a Combo Drive (since that is the minimum you can get on a Power Mac). Gigabit ethernet wasn't an option. Neither was a graphics card. That could have something to do with the Intel built in video motherboard they used to save money. There is no AGP slot to upgrade that either. There is also probably only 2 PCI slots in that machine. And not likely any room to put a second harddrive.

All that and the thrill of using Windows! No thanks! I suspect that the reason the G4 is slow has more to do with the OS than the CPU. I suspect PIV's are so darn fast is because Windows is so full of security holes.

So I'd say for 1488, I'll pony up the extra 200 bucks to buy a CRT for an entry level G4 and not waste my time trying to upgrade a PC with no expansion slots, nor configure and secure Windows XP. And a single 1 ghz G4 Power Mac probably is comparable in speed (whatever that means) to a P-IV 1.8.

Like I said. I got nothing against PC boxes. I build them and enjoy doing it. The 499 dollar PC is great for a basic business machine. But these machines aren't directed at businesses. They are directed at parents buying for their kid. And I do have a problem with pawning off underpowered, unexpandable, unupgradeable machines as some great home media/game box to unsuspecting parents.

Re:So....

[binaryDigit]

I think the reason why Apple stuff is tolerated a lot more (other than the fact that it is not WinTel), is that Apple is the #1 producer of *nix based machines in the world. Not only that, but the ship more OSS "based" machines in the world (not to mention OSS based OS). So in that regard, they are much more meaningful than someone like Dell simply bumping the speed of their boxes. Remember that /. actually has a separate Apple section, so why is it news to YOU that Apple stuff would get mentioned more frequently?

How many dB does it pump out?

[jamie]

What I'd like to know is how noisy the new mirror-face Power Macs are.

I have an older PowerMac by my left knee and at ear level it generates 44 dB of soft white noise. The new-style mirror-face PowerMacs also generate about 44 dB of noise. But it's whining, tonal noise. It's a note you can hum. It's a hum that cannot be ignored.

Also, apparently, when the mirror-face PowerMacs' auxiliary fan kicks on, it's described as a "leaf blower." It's a lot louder. (I haven't heard that -- the main fans are bad enough -- and it's possible that the recent firmware upgrade helped keep the leaf-blower fan mostly off.)

The hum is so annoying that there's a website devoted to complaining about it and trying to get rid of it: g4noise.com.

A friend of mine has a music lab with 20 old-style PowerMacs that he'd like to upgrade to newer models. He got one mirror-face PowerMac just to see what it was like. The noise is totally unacceptable for a music lab station -- there's not even any question -- I sat down in front of the keyboard and it took me three seconds to realize there's no way I would use this computer for music.

The best solutions seem to be building a plywood case, lining it with foam, and putting the whole PowerMac inside!

So I hope the new models have quieter fans...

Re:How many dB does it pump out?

[jamie]

Thanks for the link, here it is clickable:

Apple updates Power Macs, releases 20 inch display:

The noise level was one of the biggest complaints many customers had with the previous generation Power Macs. According to Apple, this problem has been fixed and customers will be happy with the results of the work put into correcting this issue.

"We worked really hard and went over the systems to find every possible way to make the system quieter," said Tom Boger, Director, Power Mac Product Marketing. "I'm happy to tell you that we've done that -- when the systems get out in the marketplace, I'm sure our customers are going to be delighted at how quiet these systems are."

"They are significantly quieter -- these will answer the critics," added Joswiak.

I hope so... I don't want my next Mac to end up looking like this...

Re:How many dB does it pump out?

[tbmaddux]

What I'd like to know is how noisy the new mirror-face Power Macs are.

The really bad noise in the (old) mirrored-drive-door PowerMac G4s is the same source as in the Quicksilver 2002s. It's the dual 60mm power supply fans manufactured by Delta. You can get good results by modding the case to get rid of them or replace them. Then you can get more aggressive with the rest of your setup.

Unfortunately those fans spin at constant RPM and don't respond to firmware fixes that others have remarked on -- the firmware fix is just for the mid-case variable-speed CPU fan.

ISP running on eMachines

[vasqzr]

*time travel back to 2000*

Ran over to Best Buy, bought 3 eMachines.

2 machines Celeron 366
1 machines AMD K6 400

One machine is the DNS server (RH 6.2)
One machine is the mail/web server (running Windows 2000, even)
One machine is the firewall (RH 6.2)

These machines still run to this day (we did replace the power supply in one of them though). Not bad machines at all, and they were like $189 each, floor models, no software, box, etc.

ISP that has about 700 users. Sure, not a big one, but the boss loved it. Cheap.

Re:read through it...

[Textbook Error]

But I don't think that this part you included was in the original article...

You heard that whoosing sound? That was the sound of a joke. Passing over your head.

Re:I hope you mean OS 9

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It still is laggy on the fastest machines.

No, it's not. I really don't know where people get this idea. I have a Mac that is, as of this morning, no longer state-of-the-art. It's got two 1 GHz G4's and a Radeon 9000 card. Is it "laggy?" No. It's faster than I am; the only time I wait on it is when I'm compiling.

I also have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, not a fast machine by anybody's reckoning. OS X is entirely useable on that machine for things like surfing and email, iCal, iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, and so on.

I think the people who still propagate the "OS X is slow" meme haven't used it in about a year.

Re:Yeah...

[overunderunderdone]

For only $1999 ... Do you know what kind of PC I could build for that much money??

Actually that is a pretty good question - Assuming your time is worth nothing, how much would it take to duplicate this on the PC side? A dual 2GHz proc (I don't go for steve's "PowerPC is twice as fast" but it IS at least a little faster than intel) with 802.11g, FireWire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, Bluetooth etc. Or assuming your time IS worth something how much to buy such a configuration from Dell.

Just curious

RISC vs CISC

[digitalscoots]

You can't compare clock speeds for a RISC processor to an Intel CISC processor. The clock speed only tells you how fast each instruction is executed, not how fast the CPU runs an application compared to a different architecture. A 1.42 GHz RISC processor may well be faster than a 3 GHz CISC processor in actual performance.

Re:RISC vs CISC

[Oculus Habent]

CISC-based, no. But still they have plenty of CISC instructions (lots of the apps, the OS, etc), which it has to break down into RISC instructions, which takes processing time before they can be processed. The P4 has all sorts of requirements of the instructions to obtain performance anywhere near it's theoretical maximum.

Re:Display

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You say that like it's something new. Power Macs have always come without a monitor. Which is fine, because any third-party monitor will work, and lots of people like to save money by using an old monitor, or buying a non-Apple-branded monitor for their new G4.

Of course, now that the 17" display is down to $700, that becomes less of a point.

Question for Apple owners

[Twister002]

How often do you upgrade your computers? One of the big selling points of a Mac is it's stability. Yet, they release new products all the time.

I come from a PC world where the next gen of OS and Games usually means I have to upgrade my PC or I can't run these applications. I'd like to switch(tm), but I don't want to spend $3500 for a Powerbook just to find out that it breaks down in a year and parts cost a bundle. I'd rather spend $1200 on an iBook. See if the wife and I like it.

Do these new machines mean that much to Apple users, or can they happily chug away on their old iBook or Powerbook?

Re:Question for Apple owners

[Doctor Beavis]

It kind of depends on what you mean by 'upgrade.' If you mean get a whole new computer, I probably do so about every 3 years or so. But even that is more because of the lust factor than that my older computer is no longer able to run contemporary applications.

In terms of upgrading an existing machine, I still have my first generation G3 desktop machine that I bought in 1997. I have upgraded this machine several times over the years to keep it semi-up to date. I put in a 400 MHz G3 for about $200 (probably 4 years ago now), tons of extra RAM, a bigger HD, and added a FireWire/USB card. This machine runs OS X (although the GUI is much slower than on my 500 MHz G4 Titanium PB) and is still perfectly functional. I have friends who own PC's from that same era and they have long since had to abandon them (or change them to linux boxes, e.g.). Games are another matter - I was a bigger gamer in the past, but now play games like Civilization 3 and Sims that run fine on my PB. Twitchy first-person shooters (Unreal, etc.) really do need the power and graphics cards that you can't get in a laptop. If you are big into those types of games, laptops are NOT the way to go. On the other hand, the desktops are very upgradeable, especially now that Apple has AGP, uses IDE drives, etc.

As far as PB's breaking down, that would cost a bundle (as would any laptop), but you can get a 3-year extended warranty (covers EVERYTHING) for about $300. I thought it was worth it but will also be happy if I never need it (haven't had to invoke it yet).

Hope this helps.

Re:If you consider an EMachine on par with a PC

[stratjakt]

They save money by bundling them with a boatload of adware, spyware, trialware, demoware, advertisements, ISP offers, etc. About 7 gigs on a 15 gig HDD was full of ad-ware bloat. A quick format and reinstall and you're all set.

As for the PSU, get a replacement (it's flex atx 5" wide, 4" deep - usually sold as 'for eMachines ,HP, or Dells') 200 watt PSU to replace the 145 watts they ship with. 20 bucks apiece.

The PSUs in there arent really 'cheap' per se, but if you want to add HDDs and whatnot, it's worth 20 bucks. At least that's what I did with the P3-era machines I bought.

My only hassles with eMachines was trying to retrofit a real drive cage into one of 'em so I could mount more HDDs. But thats generally par for the course with boxed brands. I also had trouble getting the goofy HSP modem in the little riser slot to work since they only provided ME drivers. I didnt need or use it anyways, I like my external USRobotics, so no biggie.

The mobo is micro-atx form factor, with a fairly low profile CPU cooler, I just finished moving all of an eMachine into a slick looking little VCR-style case with a cheap TV out card. Makes a nifty media player.

You get a lot of bang for your buck in those cheap boxes. Usually cheaper than the components would cost seperately. And like I said, the cheapness is because of kickbacks from all the spyware bloat thats preinstalled, so install your own OS of choice over it.

I dont think it's fair that only the editors get to slashvertise stuff. Buy an eMachine.

Re:Dumb question

[Ponty]

You need a device called a DVIator (good name, eh?) http://www.drbott.com/prod/DVIator.html

It's a little expensive, but that's because it has to do all of the power stuff that you get over the ADC.

Re:Who's Hat

[Zathrus]

Also P4's can't run in SMP mode

Depends on just how much hacking you're willing to do, but it's a pretty safe assumption that most sane people wouldn't be willing to draw new traces...

a Dual G4 1.42GHz is roughly equal to a single P4 4.26GHz

No it's not. SMP does not give you 2x the horsepower. If you get 80-90% of the horsepower you're doing well... and even then you only get the horses if you're actually doing something that take advantage of SMP. Which most users don't. Ever.

Frankly, most of the time your CPU is sitting idle waiting on you to do something. Or waiting on the I/O bus if you are doing something. SMP doesn't mystically solve this problem... usually it just makes it worse.

Are there applications for SMP? Sure. No question. But even most geeks who lust after SMP won't ever actually utilize it to the fullest.

currently the fastest P4 is 3.06GHz

Yes, and it can simulate two CPUs in one, which according to your SMP math makes it 6.12 GHz. Of course, even in the latest linux development kernels nobody's seeing a speed improvement of more than 30-40% in optimal conditions. In most scenarios it adds nothing, or actually slows things down due to I/O contention (which, admittedly, is more severe in a hyperthreading situation than a true SMP one).

Frankly, for the price of the Dual G4 1.42 GHz I can buy more than 2 P4 3.06 GHz boxes, which is a much better solution for most cases.

Have one at work

[mao che minh]

We have a dual 867mhz model running Jaguar. Before recieving this gift from our corporate masters, I had had little experience with Mac OS X (or Macs in general, other then loading Netware clients on them and running off before graphics design people could start asking for pretty flower things and such). This hardware is for real. The performace of one of these units as a small business file sharing server (for both other Macs, Windows clients, and Linux clients) and firewall while still being able to manipulate 400mb Photoshop files quickly is amazing.

Still, a bit expensive for the casual user. For a small business, this baby rules.

Slashdot FAQ please?

[BenjyD]

Could somebody please add a posting FAQ to slashdot including (at least - additions anyone?) the following points:

1)"Apple Macs are more expensive than a decent x86 box. "
We know that, you're paying for the engineering that goes into their design and their quality.
2)"Kde3? I use blackbox/ratpoison etc. Kde is slow! "
No, KDE3 runs very fast on a reasonable machine. If you don't want to use it, that's ok.
3)"In every discussion about either MySQL or Postgres, I must mention how much better Postgres/MySQL is at $FEATURE."
No, you don't. Anyone who needs to know the differences can go to the relevant websites and look them up.
4)"A new graphics card is out. When will it end!/I only just upgraded/they're too expensive"
This has been said many times, and is generally said about 100 times in every relevant story. I'm guilty of this one too. Please stop.

My only worry is that nothing at all would be posted to slashdot, and I'd have to start doing some work occasionally.

Re:Pricing. (Spot the rip-off.)

[zapfie]

Uh.. if Apple is a software company that makes their money selling hardware, then Apple is a hardware company. Not a software company.

Indian student blues

[thesilverbail]

Well, how about me then?
I'm an indian student and it's been three years since I even saw an Apple anything. (and that was through a shop window.) Guess we third world geeks will just have to make do with assembled stuff.
*Sighs, and rides his elephant off into the sunset *

Invalid

[jbolden]

It wouldn't be hard to explain at all if the numbers were genuinely invalid. Apple could pull out the specmark, the MFLPs, topmark, or any of fifty other benchmarks (or all of them) and show people the numbers were invalid. For the Pentium I and the pre 3ghz Pentium IV apple had the advantage that the chips had problems with non optomized code, so you could use some alternate benchmarks. But even using non optomized code you get the following:

The G4 was equal to a Pentium 3 that is 20% faster so
800mhz g4 ~ 1ghz PIII

The first edition of the Penium IVs were very fast but terrible chips so
1.4 ghz G4 ~ 1.75 ghz PIII (if it existed) ~ 2.6 ghz PIV.

The problem was really that the 1.4 ghz G4 wasn't out to this year while the 2.6 was out last year and at a lower price. Now however at the 3+ghz range the PIV have instruction reordering of the PIII + hyperthreadng. That means it is at least as fast as the PIII and probably faster. That is a 3.0 ghz PIV would test somewhere between 2.4 ghz G4 and a 3.0 ghz G4.

So you really can compare ghz with a high degree of accuracy relative to Intel's consummer x86 line. Now if you want to play the cache game Intel can play that too since the Xeons are available for a few hundred dollars more.

Apple has a serious CPU problem. Motorolla has done horrible damage to Apple, lets stop trying to deny the problem exists. It is by far the single biggest flaw in the line.

Absolute lies!

[Reality Master 101]

This turbocharged Power Mac rips through digital video and 3D projects faster than Pentiums can say "uncle."

I'm not a big fan of Apple in many ways, but this is what just burns me. I will never, ever deal with a company that is this dishonest. Benchmark after benchmark shows that a top of the line Intel KILLS the Macintosh, and is half the price to boot. How can Apple get away with bald-faced lying to the public like this?

Can't they just sell on the merits of their hardware and software, and just stick to the truth?

Re:RAM controller?

[red_dragon]

The new systems, while considerably faster, don't appear to be much different from the previous models that you point to. From their tech specs:

• Up to 167MHz system bus supporting over 1.3GBps data throughput
• 256MB or 512MB of PC2100 (266MHz) or PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SDRAM main memory supporting up to 2.7GBps throughput

Hhmmm... 1.3 GBps vs. 2.7 GBps... sounds like the front-side bus on the new processors is running at single data rate, just like the previous iterations.

This is the same issue that the previous models had: the memory bus runs at double data rate, while the processors' FSBs run at single data rate, effectively half the speed of the memory bus. While this allows the remaining components (AGP, PCI, Ethernet, IDE, Firewire, etc.) to use DMA without stepping in the way of the processors, it also holds back the processors, specially when running Altivec-optimised code.

Don't blame Apple for this, BTW; this is Motorola's problem.

Re:Who's Hat

[droleary]

... and even then you only get the horses if you're actually doing something that take advantage of SMP. Which most users don't. Ever.

You never run more than one app? Or are you saying that threading on the OS you'd use is screwed up? On Mac OS X, threading is done at the Mach level, and it is dynamically shifted between processors. For those situation where an app can take advantage of multiple threads, adding support to a Cocoa app can be simple call to an NSThread object. I've had single processes suck up 180% of the CPU while 40 other ones ran just fine on my box. Buying a 2x Mac is something I have not regretted, but thank you for letting me know it would be a regrettable thing to do if I ever upgrade my Linux server.

Are there applications for SMP? Sure. No question. But even most geeks who lust after SMP won't ever actually utilize it to the fullest.

The truth is that no CPU architecture that's popular is being used to the fullest. Computers are sitting idle 95+% of the time waiting for the user to do something. And the other 5-% is unlikely to be a burst that pegs usage at 100%. All those 3GHz Intel boxes aren't any faster really, they just idle faster; that's not something to brag about.

Frankly, for the price of the Dual G4 1.42 GHz I can buy more than 2 P4 3.06 GHz boxes, which is a much better solution for most cases.

Please point to a major manufacturer that offers two PCs that are similarly spec'd to the one Mac, with the addition of the high revving engine, for the same price. Note that being able to hobble parts together in your parent's basement doesn't make you a business on par with Apple.

Re:Yeah...

[BWJones]

I've used my apparently already obsolete regular firewire port exactly zero times. So Firewire 800 will let me transfer nothing how many times faster?

Whose fault is this? I use Firewire 400 on a daily basis to back up many hundreds of gigabytes of data (soon to be terrabytes if the next grant goes through). Firewire 800 would save me and those who deal with large amounts of data or video lots of time. Also, I suppose that Firewire could be used for large scale interconnectivity. See an editorial I wrote here for details.

Gigabit?. Sure. Just as soon as I plonk down another $500 for an 8 port gigabit switch to replace my $50 8 port 10/100 switch.

There are those that use gigabit networking you know. Apple is not making computers *just* for you.

Sweet Applications?

Yes.

You mean iTunes and iMovie?

Yes.

You have to upgrade to the superdrive for iDVD to work.

Yes, but I also use the Superdrive for other data as well.

They are nice applications but PC owners can get nice applications with all the money they saved and stil have some left over.

And you end up at the same price point if not more for a kludgy inelegant solution that does not run UNIX applications along with Photoshop, Office, etc...etc...etc...

You have to come up with a convincing cost/benefit analysis based on benefits they will actually use.

I along with at least a few million other folks on the planet seem to think that there is a convincing cost/benefit analysis to purchasing a Mac. For me, I was able to buy a single dual G4 and replace a Windows box, an older Mac *and* my SGI Octane with a sweet display that saves much money in terms of software licensing, hardware purchase and maintenence contracts (SGI).

Based on the actual benefit to me, Apple would have to cut the price on that $1999 model down to under $1000 w/o the superdrive or around $1200 with.

Yeah, its called the iMac or eMac which can be had for educational customers at that price. If you are not a student or faculty member somewhere, it will cost you a little more, but for the money there are almost no other machines that will match feature for feature with a Mac.

Re:I hope you mean OS 9

[Draoi]

I'm running on a very early (pre-production) blue iMac which has been hacked to 333MHz with just 128MB. Runs like a champ on X.2.3. Sometimes the dock genie effect gets choppy & pixellated but it still works just fine. And hey - it's got to be approaching 5 years old now ....

(Try taking a 5 year old PC & installing XP on it & see how it performs. Fun & games)

Yay! The CPU debate begins! Again...

[TwitchCHNO]

"My 4 THz Intel Pentium IIIVIXXX is father then your 16 KHz G101"

For those of you who have not read ALL of the CPU articles at ArsTechnica. Go there now and do so. Before posting any of your inane babble about clock speed and processor power.

It IS true that Motorola has fallen behind Intel - sort of.

There are other advantages to hardware other then Intel based systems.

Since this is an Apple thread I'll focus there - One of the most note worthy (My opinion) Is apple's System controller.

Go READ the articles at ArsTechnica!

Rather than re-writing I'll simply cut & paste.

Fast system controller: The system controller, first introduced in Apple?s highly-regarded Xserve line, coordinates and transfers data and instructions among the processor(s), PCI bus, memory, graphics and I/O buses of the Power Mac G4. Controller speeds in the new Power Mac G4 configurations run as high as 167MHz.

The PCI bus is what really impressed me.

Direct PCI bus: In another example of superior architecture, the Power Mac G4 optimizes PCI performance by connecting the PCI bus directly to the system controller. In a typical PC architecture, PCI devices connect to the I/O controller through a bridge, a bottleneck in the data path where all connected PCI devices are slowed down to avoid overloading the system controller. Going through this bridge constrains PCI throughput to 133Mbps (the bus speed on Pentium 4 systems), even with otherwise fast PCI devices. This slowdown of data to and from PCI devices results in greater overall system latency. The Power Mac G4, on the other hand, features a direct 266-MBps bus to the PCI slots to guarantee high throughput and low congestion ? in effect, lowering latency. The Power Mac G4 also supports write combining, which allows write instructions to be grouped into one large instruction, further increasing data throughput.

Then Apple oficially slams PC architecture.

On the Power Mac G4, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet and even the ATA/100 bus are built into the system and integrated directly into the system controller. (The ATA/66 bus has its own controller.) This dedicated connection reduces PCI congestion and guarantees low latency, resulting in optimal FireWire, Ethernet and hard drive performance. And as a side benefit, it also keeps the computer?s PCI slots free for your specialized audio and video cards instead of using them to provide basic technologies.

I got this info here.

Go READ the articles at ArsTechnica!

Apple is not the end all - be all of systems. Two of the greated systems are made by DEC & H/P. The UltraSparc kicks the crap out of anything Motorola & Intel have to offer.

And let's not forget the Alpha. The Pentium - Pentium III architectures were based on technology stolen from DEC. Technology that Intel is still paying for today.

It basically falls down to system preference. Mac users DO NOT CARE if you can build a PC for $400. Mac users DO NOT CARE if only a few of the best selling game titles are ported to the system.

Having more game titles available is a Good Thing - naturally -but I find myself being... PRODUCTIVE instead of having my time eaten away by games - Linux users also what I'm talking about - unless they've downloaded BZFlag or Crack Attack.

Go READ the articles at ArsTechnica!

No USB2?

[harlows_monkeys]

No USB2?

Yeah, I know Firewire 800 is way faster than USB2, and Firewire 400 (which is what most people will be using for quite a while, since there aren't many Firewire 800 peripherals) is slightly faster in real life (USB2 is theoretically faster than Firewire 400, but the benchmarks I've seen have Firewire actually getting a little more out of things like disks), and that Firewire's isosychronous ability and latency guarentees is essential for some applications.

However, when I go down to stores like Best Buy or Circuit City I see a busload (pun intended!) of USB2 hard drives and CD and DVD readers and writers, and just the occasional Firewire drive.

For those of us who like to buy the small things locally instead of mail order, and don't live in one of the areas where there is a nearby Apple dealer...we need USB2.

Re:No USB2?

[phillymjs]

If you want it so bad, buy a USB2 card. Jaguar has built-in support for it, Apple just doesn't include it in their machines.

Most if not all of the USB2 peripherals can be connected to a USB1 bus as well (but will just run at USB1 speeds), so there's pretty much no reason why you couldn't buy them if you REALLY wanted to.

~Philly

Re:Why subjective speed talk modded up?

[King_TJ]

You ask why a completely subjective comparison on CPU speed would be modded up?

Answer: Perception is 9/10's of reality. This holds true in the courtroom every day (as any good lawyer can tell you), just as it does when it comes down to people using their computers.

No benchmark can account for the millions of combinations of hardware/software people run on a given platform. Why do you think most of the PC benchmarking sites (Tom's hardware, etc.) typically pick a few games like Quake 3 as "standards" for comparison? They simply chose popular programs that seem to heavily tax many aspects of a system.

I have a theory, too, when it comes to long-time Mac users. They've been stuck in a basically non multitasking environment for so long, they often get an overrated perception of their newer system's overall power in OS X. (Quite simply, their eyes are opened to how much more they can get accomplished on their new computer because things put in the background really do process in the background.) They forget that over on the "Intel" side of the fence, people have been doing this (and expecting it to work that way) ever since the days of Windows '95 and NT 3.5, not to mention all the Linux and BSD users).

When you put aside any personal efficiency gains obtained simply from the OS allowing true multitasking - I think you find OSX lacking in speed compared to Linux or even Windows XP on a P4 class computer.

(Not that OS X isn't still pretty cool.... I've got it running on a Mac system at home myself. I just accept that the hardware isn't as powerful as my PC's, and use it for other reasons.)

Urban legend

[Markonen]

You know, the 1.25GHz macs were never overclocked. Take off the heat sink and see "7455A 1250" on the chips. This rumor started to spread after Motorola didn't update their G4 specs to include 1250MHz availability. The likely explanation is that these parts are only available to Apple.