I sold an old tape drive to someone in Riverside, CA (about 1 hr. east of LA) on eBay. He paid me and I shipped it from Los Angeles, CA FedEx ground and forgot about it.
Several weeks later he emailed me and wanted to know where his package was. (Delivery only should have taken 2 or 3 days). I looked up the tracking number and found that it had gone from Los Angeles, to Phoenix, from Phoenix, to Los Angeles, from Los Angeles, to Phoenix... etc. for a total of 4 round trips!
FedEx had no clue what the problem was, but eventually it ended up at its destination 21 days after I shipped it.
That is exactly correct. Example: start up an MP3 player in the background, the fire up a browser. Notice that even as the browser lags as you click on stuff, the MP3 will continue to play just fine without stuttering. Fire up some more programs, and your MP3 will continue to play just fine, even as you suck up memory. The "machine" is fast, as far as running tasks, but the responsiveness makes it seem slow.
Right now, OS X has a SERIOUS responsiveness problem. If you think it's bad on a fast G4, be glad you don't have an iBook. Great little machines, but I couldn't believe how unresponsive it was. Sold it to some zealot that can't see the truth even when it's staring them in the face. Seriously, if it works for folks, more power to them. But I don't see how anyone could use the iBook with OS X on a daily basis - I couldn't. I was ready to throw it out the window!
Speed should always come second to usability and the ability to get work done.
A big part of usability is the system responding in an instant when the user clicks on something. If this doesn't happen, the user starts thinking "did the computer realize that I clicked?".
Maybe they click again, or they assume they're "doing it wrong" when the only problem is that the system is slow to respond to their mouseclick/keystroke.
The ability of the system to quickly respond to user requests is a giant part of usability. I don't want to GUESS where to click because a window is still redrawing, or wonder whether I can start typing in a text field yet.
Is the system ready for my input? With OS X, I don't know and it's very frustrating. Speed has EVERYTHING to do with usability. Windows does not suffer from this problem.
No, there is a preference that allows you to ALLOW popups generated by your clicking, while DISABLING those that occur when the page loads/unloads. Check it out.
Absolutely! The simple popup blocking is the NUMBER ONE feature that convinces folks to switch.
I've convinced several folks on Windows to switch to Mozilla just by showing them this feature as well.
Another feature I'd like to see would be the interstitial ad blocking. For example, on salon.com if you click a link to a story, they bounce you to an ad, you sit there for 5 seconds or so, then they bounce you to the story. I'd like to see a Mozilla feature that would ignore the supplied "wait" value and just redirect you immediately. Wouldn't be hard to implement, just need a checkbox for "ignore META redirects of longer than x seconds".
How is dual 1.533GHz Athlon processors anywhere equal to dual 1Ghz G4 processors? The combined processing power of the Athlons is over 1Ghz greater than the combined processing power of the G4s. Again, I ask, how is this equal? Also, we know the amount of ram in each system but what type of ram was it. The G4 had PC133 but the Athlon? It was likely using 266MHz PC2100 DDR ram, far superior. What about the hard drives? Apples was probably a DMA 66 5400 or 7200 RPM drive while the PC was likely supplied with a DMA 100 7200 RPM drive. With the processors aside, there's a lot more to consider when comparing apples to oranges.
Uh, I think that's the point! Look at what you get for your money, see how much faster the PC is? It would be nice if Apple would include faster RAM, bus, and drives. Unfortunately they have chosen not to sell computers with those features.
The only comparison that anyone can make has to use what they sell. The Mac system compared in the article uses what they sell - in fact, the FASTEST computer currently available from Apple. Note that the Athlon system they compared it to is not nearly the fastest available Wintel, yet it wins the test anyway, and costs less than the Mac.
Of course laptops depreciate, and rather quickly. That is not my complaint. My complaint is that the iBook does not (and now, apparently never will) run fast, whereas an "entry level" Wintel for the same price screams.
Apple likes to claim their computers are twice as fast per clock. In my experience (OS X 10.1.4), they are more like half as fast per clock... that is, the 500mhz iBook with OS X feels like a Pentium II 266 with Windows 2000. If that works for you, great. But it makes me feel ripped off.
But that is a bogus comparison! You're comparing a 600mhz iBook to a 600mhz Wintel. That Wintel is 2 years old, while the iBook is CURRENT. One would hope the iBook would be faster, if not far faster, but it's not.
Basically what you've told us is that your $1500 iBook 600 is about the same speed as a 600mhz P3 worth maybe $250! Now you see what I'm complaining about!
A new macintosh purchased just two years ago is now out of style.
Actually, as mentioned in this thread, a new mac purchased just two WEEKS ago is now out of style. Not enough video RAM in the TiBook to leverage the new technology. I guess that means that OS X will continue to suffer from slow responsiveness for those of us that don't buy a new Mac every year.
One of the big selling points that mac fans like to harp on is that Macs last longer than PCs. I don't find that to be the case... OS X is dreadfully slow even on CURRENT Mac hardware (iBook, CRT iMac), let alone hardware from 2 years ago.
It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. Jobs said this puts Apple two years ahead of 'the other guys.'"
WTF is that?!? The iBook, a machine they are selling RIGHT NOW does not meet those specs. So basically their current 'entry level' model is never going to have accelerated video? This is ridiculous.
I had one, it was so slow that I sold it. This video driver issue is probably the reason why.
Macs last longer than PCs, huh? How long is an iBook with no video acceleration going to be able to keep up with OS X? Apparently by "two years ahead", Steve means "you'll need the machine we'll be selling two years from now to keep up with the OS we're selling today".
It's still so damn slow! OSX is clearly far more stable and versatile than OS 9, but OS 9 puts it to shame with it's speed. OS X is very slow to respond to mouse clicks and redraws.
What exactly is the problem here? An OS doesn't have to be slow to be stable (Both Be and Windows 2000 are very snappy, even on "entry level" hardware.)
The main problem here is that a $1000 PC runs Windows 2000 lightning fast, and a $1000 Mac with OSX is very slow. They have to address this!
One flaw with Linux/Evolution that definitely holds it back in some places is the setup of Palm syncronization. I would like to be able to sync my Palm device with Evolution's data.
I'm sure it's possible to get it working, by reading some how-to's and following the instructions, but I never could. (under RedHat 7.2).
Compare this to the Windows version, where most folks can achieve sync with Palm Desktop simply by plugging in the device and running setup.exe.
Evolution seems to assume that you are already syncing the Palm with another Linux tool, when in fact, lots of folks might be starting from scratch. I'd like to see this improved to the point where they have a setup widget for Palm devices that starts from nothing, loads appropriate drivers, and then allows you to sync all your data with Evolution with no fuss.
You can chalk this up to not being nerdy enough, but really, I don't think you should have to be a sysadmin to setup a Palm.
Does anyone else have a Linux version of *their* media player? Does Real or M$? What about Vivo?
Real not only has a Linux player, they even have a build for PPC linux, which is quite rare and to be commended. They also provide a variety of formats, RPM, etc.
The fact that good ANSI C rigorous comp sci benchmarks (such as ByteMark 2.2 source code) perform about 2 times faster on PowerPCs than AMD mean that this 700 Mhz box is like a 1.4 Mhz AMD.
If the G4 is twice as powerful per mhz, then why is OS X still so god damn slow?
You have the choice. Whatever you really want, you can get from Apple.
Funny, I can't seem to find the expandable desktop computer with PCI slots for less than $1500. Nor do I see an expandable laptop (PCMCIA) for less than $2000.
Both of these are available with Wintel, so it seems that Apple does NOT sell what I really want.
If I'm wrong, please post a link, because I'm not into $1800 computers where I can't upgrade the video card.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to flame you, but maybe now you understand why it's important to buy a computer with a socketed processor and a PCI/AGP slot?
Several weeks later he emailed me and wanted to know where his package was. (Delivery only should have taken 2 or 3 days). I looked up the tracking number and found that it had gone from Los Angeles, to Phoenix, from Phoenix, to Los Angeles, from Los Angeles, to Phoenix... etc. for a total of 4 round trips!
FedEx had no clue what the problem was, but eventually it ended up at its destination 21 days after I shipped it.
Right now, OS X has a SERIOUS responsiveness problem. If you think it's bad on a fast G4, be glad you don't have an iBook. Great little machines, but I couldn't believe how unresponsive it was. Sold it to some zealot that can't see the truth even when it's staring them in the face. Seriously, if it works for folks, more power to them. But I don't see how anyone could use the iBook with OS X on a daily basis - I couldn't. I was ready to throw it out the window!
A big part of usability is the system responding in an instant when the user clicks on something. If this doesn't happen, the user starts thinking "did the computer realize that I clicked?".
Maybe they click again, or they assume they're "doing it wrong" when the only problem is that the system is slow to respond to their mouseclick/keystroke.
The ability of the system to quickly respond to user requests is a giant part of usability. I don't want to GUESS where to click because a window is still redrawing, or wonder whether I can start typing in a text field yet.
Is the system ready for my input? With OS X, I don't know and it's very frustrating. Speed has EVERYTHING to do with usability. Windows does not suffer from this problem.
No, there is a preference that allows you to ALLOW popups generated by your clicking, while DISABLING those that occur when the page loads/unloads. Check it out.
I've convinced several folks on Windows to switch to Mozilla just by showing them this feature as well.
Another feature I'd like to see would be the interstitial ad blocking. For example, on salon.com if you click a link to a story, they bounce you to an ad, you sit there for 5 seconds or so, then they bounce you to the story. I'd like to see a Mozilla feature that would ignore the supplied "wait" value and just redirect you immediately. Wouldn't be hard to implement, just need a checkbox for "ignore META redirects of longer than x seconds".
Uh, I think that's the point! Look at what you get for your money, see how much faster the PC is? It would be nice if Apple would include faster RAM, bus, and drives. Unfortunately they have chosen not to sell computers with those features.
The only comparison that anyone can make has to use what they sell. The Mac system compared in the article uses what they sell - in fact, the FASTEST computer currently available from Apple. Note that the Athlon system they compared it to is not nearly the fastest available Wintel, yet it wins the test anyway, and costs less than the Mac.
I suspect that those people who are still using Macs either:
1. Don't have speed as their first priority, (maybe they are more interested in tightly integrated hardware/software, for example)
2. Simply don't realize how much faster Wintel has gotten because they haven't used one lately, due to bias and/or choice.
640 megs. Lack of RAM is not the problem.
N/T
They (apple) are still selling them, so that makes them "current" in my book.
Apple likes to claim their computers are twice as fast per clock. In my experience (OS X 10.1.4), they are more like half as fast per clock... that is, the 500mhz iBook with OS X feels like a Pentium II 266 with Windows 2000. If that works for you, great. But it makes me feel ripped off.
Basically what you've told us is that your $1500 iBook 600 is about the same speed as a 600mhz P3 worth maybe $250! Now you see what I'm complaining about!
Actually, as mentioned in this thread, a new mac purchased just two WEEKS ago is now out of style. Not enough video RAM in the TiBook to leverage the new technology. I guess that means that OS X will continue to suffer from slow responsiveness for those of us that don't buy a new Mac every year.
One of the big selling points that mac fans like to harp on is that Macs last longer than PCs. I don't find that to be the case... OS X is dreadfully slow even on CURRENT Mac hardware (iBook, CRT iMac), let alone hardware from 2 years ago.
WTF is that?!? The iBook, a machine they are selling RIGHT NOW does not meet those specs. So basically their current 'entry level' model is never going to have accelerated video? This is ridiculous.
I had one, it was so slow that I sold it. This video driver issue is probably the reason why.
Macs last longer than PCs, huh? How long is an iBook with no video acceleration going to be able to keep up with OS X? Apparently by "two years ahead", Steve means "you'll need the machine we'll be selling two years from now to keep up with the OS we're selling today".
What exactly is the problem here? An OS doesn't have to be slow to be stable (Both Be and Windows 2000 are very snappy, even on "entry level" hardware.)
The main problem here is that a $1000 PC runs Windows 2000 lightning fast, and a $1000 Mac with OSX is very slow. They have to address this!
Presumably, I could still manually record shows and share them, I just wouldn't get their automated listings. Correct?
FIRST FRAG
I'm sure it's possible to get it working, by reading some how-to's and following the instructions, but I never could. (under RedHat 7.2).
Compare this to the Windows version, where most folks can achieve sync with Palm Desktop simply by plugging in the device and running setup.exe.
Evolution seems to assume that you are already syncing the Palm with another Linux tool, when in fact, lots of folks might be starting from scratch. I'd like to see this improved to the point where they have a setup widget for Palm devices that starts from nothing, loads appropriate drivers, and then allows you to sync all your data with Evolution with no fuss.
You can chalk this up to not being nerdy enough, but really, I don't think you should have to be a sysadmin to setup a Palm.
Real not only has a Linux player, they even have a build for PPC linux, which is quite rare and to be commended. They also provide a variety of formats, RPM, etc.
Yeah, this is exactly what Dell does too, except they don't see the need to hold a fucking press conference to announce it.
If the G4 is twice as powerful per mhz, then why is OS X still so god damn slow?
See? Mac people have trolls, too!
Look, BitGeek, don't be such a fucking tool. You know damn well that a Pentium does not run at 200mhz on battery, and so do I.
How do I know? BECAUSE I'M USING ONE RIGHT NOW. It goes from 600, plugged in, to 500, on battery.
Defend your platform choice all you want. But do it with truth, not with made up lies.
Funny, I can't seem to find the expandable desktop computer with PCI slots for less than $1500. Nor do I see an expandable laptop (PCMCIA) for less than $2000.
Both of these are available with Wintel, so it seems that Apple does NOT sell what I really want.
If I'm wrong, please post a link, because I'm not into $1800 computers where I can't upgrade the video card.
Say, that's a pretty good trick, keeping those machines around for 10 years. Considering they were just released seven years ago and all.
Buy hey, nice try propogating the myth that Apple hardware lasts longer than Wintel.
The iBook, which is hardware they are selling RIGHT NOW can't even run OS X properly. Where do you think that computer will be in 5 years?