I need a G5 to keep track of all the claims
on
G5 Benchmark Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Looking at everything I've seen so far, it looks like the G5 at 2.0 GHz is comparable to a current Xeon or P4 on raw speed. Maybe it lags a little bit in some areas, and in a few areas it can beat the Xeon or P4. But I think we've gotten a little too anal about the processor specs. If I'm not mistaken, Apple didn't claim "World's Fastest Processor." they claimed "World's Fastest Personal Computer."
At 2.0 GHz, the G5 is on par with the current top processors, but what I think people need to look at is that the 1GHz bus is a monster. It allows data transfer rates that smoke other desktop systems. This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop. So the total system is significantly faster than the PC in terms of that kind of real-world performance.
And there are two more things that give the G5 an advantage: price and GHz. If the claim of twelve months to 3.0GHz is true, then at 3.0GHz the G5 will be exponentially faster than a 3.5 or 3.6 GHz P4. I don't know precisely how fast the Intel chips will be in 12 months, but a whole GHz? Unlikely.
Lastly, price is a fantastic advantage for the G5 systems. At $3000 you can buy the fastest Mac and a machine that can run certain apps twice as fast as PC systems. And it's cheaper than these top-of-the-line PCs by more than $1000. The G5 is simply the fastest, cheapest system with the most potential in the future to get even faster. When looked at in total, there really isn't a lot of debate on those points.
I happen to live within just a block of one of the ComputerWare stores and have watched it go out of business twice. The store did fair business. In visiting, there had been no time in the past several years that I was the only one in the store, and it was often crowded. If they didn't make money, it's because it was run poorly. They were always busy. Another local Mac shop had/has the same amount of foot traffic and remains open.
But let me also tell you a story of another place where I've lived, the Pacific Northwest. My family purchased three Apples (IIc, Mac SE, IIgs) over time from a chain called "The Computer Store." which has been in business there since the early eighties, and now is called "The Mac Store." They did a great job of presenting Mac in a clean and professional retail environment with knowledgeable salespeople. They probably still do.
The point is, that in opening retail stores, Apple initially opened bay area stores in Santa Clara and Palo Alto. That was the original plan, and it was fair. They put one near Apple's campus in Cupertino and another in a well-travelled shopping district in an affluent town.
But - they didn't put any stores in Oregon or Washington. Why? The Mac Store chain is doing very well selling Apple products, with satisfied customers. There was no great need for Apple to go into those areas. Apple just recently opened a Seattle-area store, and will likely go into Portland at some point. But they are being very careful not to but The Mac Store in trouble. They couldn't be more respectful of The Mac Stores' ability to stay in business.
In the Bay Area, ComputerWare was the only Apple chain, and when they went out of business (the first time), Apple suddenly a store into Emeryville (near Pixar HQ) and announced Burlingame and Walnut Creek stores. It was a solid, sensible move to retain customers. All the sudden here comes Elite, which had never given Apple much trouble before, and they spend tons of cash to rebuild the ComputerWare chain, putting stores into the same markets.
I never understood it - why would you invest so much money in competing with Apple in retail? Well it was pretty obvious that Apple was going to win that war, just on brand recognition. How could Elite ever earn the investment back selling low-margin Macs? They knew very well what they were getting into. Forget "unfair practices" - the ComputerWare stores were doomed, and Elite should have known it. It was a stupid move. Whatever they're claiming now is just legal cover for investors and future lawsuits.
First of all, the new product announcements are in a few days. That could clear things up. Second, are you all really going to take the word of an obscure Asian business journal as the death knell of the best selling computer Apple has built in the last three years?
The 15" iMac has been consistently rumored to have been discontinued, but this has been refuted by other sources. It is still for sale on Apple's site and in retail stores - but the reigining theory is that it will be history in favor of the 17" model. It has to do with better margins for 17" LCDs vs 15".
Another story widely posted Thursday details the iMac (and eMac) production being switched to a new manufacturer, so maybe the reporters got half the story.
And lastly, how the heck do you kill a computer six months from now? That makes little to no business sense. The rumors of the iMac's death... you know the rest.
I don't think people really understand the influence of PR firms in the news media. Microsoft employs several big PR firms to put the Microsoft line out, and are quite successful at planting stories in the mainstream media. Did you ever wonder why, after Microsoft introduces a new feature, new product, or a new initiative, an 'independent' news story pops up out of nowhere at exactly the right time to back up Microsoft's efforts? Well, that's likely the work of a PR firm right there.
That being said, MS often screws up it's own efforts, and this latest OS X adoption complaint is a prime example. Do you really think MS went into making Office v.X without someone checking to see what Apple estimated the adoption rate was? And now they are shocked and disappointed with that rate being exactly on target?
I can see the PR firms banging their collective heads on the table, wishing MS management would keep its' big mouth shut. I'm sure the MS people believe that they can prod Apple into better marketing efforts for OS X, but in effect they're creating more bad blood between Apple and MS, and it can only tick off customers. Don't confuse this latest salvo a PR effort. It's just another example of Microsoft's companywide arrogance.
"I WANT MORE MOUSE BUTTONS!" - This point keeps coming up in this thread, so I want to clear something up about mouse buttons.
Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons. Just plug in whatever strange little USB mouse you want (or already use on the PC) and you can use them just like you do in Windows. No plug-ins required.
And why does the Mac come with only one button? It's becuase it's so darn simple. Anybody can guess what you do with one button. Point. Click. Easy. Now, give a newbie a two-button mouse, and they get a little confused. It's kind of like having a door with two doorknobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at everything I've seen so far, it looks like the G5 at 2.0 GHz is comparable to a current Xeon or P4 on raw speed. Maybe it lags a little bit in some areas, and in a few areas it can beat the Xeon or P4. But I think we've gotten a little too anal about the processor specs. If I'm not mistaken, Apple didn't claim "World's Fastest Processor." they claimed "World's Fastest Personal Computer."
At 2.0 GHz, the G5 is on par with the current top processors, but what I think people need to look at is that the 1GHz bus is a monster. It allows data transfer rates that smoke other desktop systems. This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop. So the total system is significantly faster than the PC in terms of that kind of real-world performance.
And there are two more things that give the G5 an advantage: price and GHz. If the claim of twelve months to 3.0GHz is true, then at 3.0GHz the G5 will be exponentially faster than a 3.5 or 3.6 GHz P4. I don't know precisely how fast the Intel chips will be in 12 months, but a whole GHz? Unlikely.
Lastly, price is a fantastic advantage for the G5 systems. At $3000 you can buy the fastest Mac and a machine that can run certain apps twice as fast as PC systems. And it's cheaper than these top-of-the-line PCs by more than $1000. The G5 is simply the fastest, cheapest system with the most potential in the future to get even faster. When looked at in total, there really isn't a lot of debate on those points.
I happen to live within just a block of one of the ComputerWare stores and have watched it go out of business twice. The store did fair business. In visiting, there had been no time in the past several years that I was the only one in the store, and it was often crowded. If they didn't make money, it's because it was run poorly. They were always busy. Another local Mac shop had/has the same amount of foot traffic and remains open.
But let me also tell you a story of another place where I've lived, the Pacific Northwest. My family purchased three Apples (IIc, Mac SE, IIgs) over time from a chain called "The Computer Store." which has been in business there since the early eighties, and now is called "The Mac Store." They did a great job of presenting Mac in a clean and professional retail environment with knowledgeable salespeople. They probably still do.
The point is, that in opening retail stores, Apple initially opened bay area stores in Santa Clara and Palo Alto. That was the original plan, and it was fair. They put one near Apple's campus in Cupertino and another in a well-travelled shopping district in an affluent town.
But - they didn't put any stores in Oregon or Washington. Why? The Mac Store chain is doing very well selling Apple products, with satisfied customers. There was no great need for Apple to go into those areas. Apple just recently opened a Seattle-area store, and will likely go into Portland at some point. But they are being very careful not to but The Mac Store in trouble. They couldn't be more respectful of The Mac Stores' ability to stay in business.
In the Bay Area, ComputerWare was the only Apple chain, and when they went out of business (the first time), Apple suddenly a store into Emeryville (near Pixar HQ) and announced Burlingame and Walnut Creek stores. It was a solid, sensible move to retain customers. All the sudden here comes Elite, which had never given Apple much trouble before, and they spend tons of cash to rebuild the ComputerWare chain, putting stores into the same markets.
I never understood it - why would you invest so much money in competing with Apple in retail? Well it was pretty obvious that Apple was going to win that war, just on brand recognition. How could Elite ever earn the investment back selling low-margin Macs? They knew very well what they were getting into. Forget "unfair practices" - the ComputerWare stores were doomed, and Elite should have known it. It was a stupid move. Whatever they're claiming now is just legal cover for investors and future lawsuits.
First of all, the new product announcements are in a few days. That could clear things up. Second, are you all really going to take the word of an obscure Asian business journal as the death knell of the best selling computer Apple has built in the last three years?
The 15" iMac has been consistently rumored to have been discontinued, but this has been refuted by other sources. It is still for sale on Apple's site and in retail stores - but the reigining theory is that it will be history in favor of the 17" model. It has to do with better margins for 17" LCDs vs 15".
Another story widely posted Thursday details the iMac (and eMac) production being switched to a new manufacturer, so maybe the reporters got half the story.
And lastly, how the heck do you kill a computer six months from now? That makes little to no business sense. The rumors of the iMac's death... you know the rest.
I don't think people really understand the influence of PR firms in the news media. Microsoft employs several big PR firms to put the Microsoft line out, and are quite successful at planting stories in the mainstream media. Did you ever wonder why, after Microsoft introduces a new feature, new product, or a new initiative, an 'independent' news story pops up out of nowhere at exactly the right time to back up Microsoft's efforts? Well, that's likely the work of a PR firm right there.
That being said, MS often screws up it's own efforts, and this latest OS X adoption complaint is a prime example. Do you really think MS went into making Office v.X without someone checking to see what Apple estimated the adoption rate was? And now they are shocked and disappointed with that rate being exactly on target?
I can see the PR firms banging their collective heads on the table, wishing MS management would keep its' big mouth shut. I'm sure the MS people believe that they can prod Apple into better marketing efforts for OS X, but in effect they're creating more bad blood between Apple and MS, and it can only tick off customers. Don't confuse this latest salvo a PR effort. It's just another example of Microsoft's companywide arrogance.
"I WANT MORE MOUSE BUTTONS!" - This point keeps coming up in this thread, so I want to clear something up about mouse buttons.
Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons. Just plug in whatever strange little USB mouse you want (or already use on the PC) and you can use them just like you do in Windows. No plug-ins required.
And why does the Mac come with only one button? It's becuase it's so darn simple. Anybody can guess what you do with one button. Point. Click. Easy. Now, give a newbie a two-button mouse, and they get a little confused. It's kind of like having a door with two doorknobs.