...(the Dell's RAM/FSB is slower but the iMac's CPU is slower, so whatever)...
The iMac's CPU is not necessarily slower. It is running at a lower clockspeed, but there's a lot more to the overall performance of a CPU than clockspeed -- especially if you're comparing two different CPU architectures. If the Dell was running a PowerPC 970/970FX (is the iMac using the FX or the original PPC 970?), or if the iMac was using the same Pentium 4 variant as the Dell, then a straight clock speed comparison might be useful, but, even if the iMac was using a different P4 variant, clock speed comparisons start being shaky ground.
Unfortunately, there's not a good system to use to compare two different architectures (especially two that are as different as the Pentium and the PowerPC) to get an overall speed rating. Benchmarks are about as close as it gets, and even then there's lots of give and take, and issues of code optimization, ad nauseum.
The entire reason the Power Mac G4 still exists in Apple's lineup is that it's the only machine that officially still supports Mac OS 9. As incomprehensible as it is to me, there are still people who want/need the ability to boot natively into 9. If I understand your suggestion to get the G4 down to 700-900 EUR correctly, it would require adding some hardware support into Mac OS 9 to get it to boot natively, and messing with OS 9 at this point is something Apple (understandably) isn't willing to do.
As for the iMac, it's long overdue for a speedbump. In fact, it's the only model in Apple's lineup that hasn't been refreshed this year. (Except for the Power Mac G4, but I doubt we'll see that get updated, just quietly discontinued once the pressure for a 9 box drops below a certain point.) For the last few months there's been a lot of mounting evidence that Apple was going to refresh the G5 and maybe the iMac at WWDC. The G5s have already been refreshed. If Apple does have a G5 iMac in the works, it would be much more keynote-worthy than a 25% speed increase in the G5 line, so they'd be more likely to wait on that.
I agree with you that it'll be the best thing we've ever had. Just in terms of innovation: if one of the three stumbles, at least one of the other two will pick up the slack. With only two, if one stumbles, the other won't bother picking up the slack because there's no competetive reason to.
However, given the amount of cross-porting between Mac OS X and Linux lately, you could say that a tenuous alliance against Windows is already in place.;-)
So, basically, you're saying that Americans say we should spend 8.4 times as much on foreign aid as we actually do, but at the same time 75% think we already spend too much?
Gotta love Americans, our total cluelessness as to our own policies creates some really funny statistical results sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw "After the X Prize" and thought the next one would be named the "XXX Prize".
The iMac's CPU is not necessarily slower. It is running at a lower clockspeed, but there's a lot more to the overall performance of a CPU than clockspeed -- especially if you're comparing two different CPU architectures. If the Dell was running a PowerPC 970/970FX (is the iMac using the FX or the original PPC 970?), or if the iMac was using the same Pentium 4 variant as the Dell, then a straight clock speed comparison might be useful, but, even if the iMac was using a different P4 variant, clock speed comparisons start being shaky ground.
Unfortunately, there's not a good system to use to compare two different architectures (especially two that are as different as the Pentium and the PowerPC) to get an overall speed rating. Benchmarks are about as close as it gets, and even then there's lots of give and take, and issues of code optimization, ad nauseum.
No, Orin Hatch is the number one producer of bullshit in Utah.
...Microsoft has announced that FUD 2004, their flagship product, is almost ready for launch.
The entire reason the Power Mac G4 still exists in Apple's lineup is that it's the only machine that officially still supports Mac OS 9. As incomprehensible as it is to me, there are still people who want/need the ability to boot natively into 9. If I understand your suggestion to get the G4 down to 700-900 EUR correctly, it would require adding some hardware support into Mac OS 9 to get it to boot natively, and messing with OS 9 at this point is something Apple (understandably) isn't willing to do.
As for the iMac, it's long overdue for a speedbump. In fact, it's the only model in Apple's lineup that hasn't been refreshed this year. (Except for the Power Mac G4, but I doubt we'll see that get updated, just quietly discontinued once the pressure for a 9 box drops below a certain point.) For the last few months there's been a lot of mounting evidence that Apple was going to refresh the G5 and maybe the iMac at WWDC. The G5s have already been refreshed. If Apple does have a G5 iMac in the works, it would be much more keynote-worthy than a 25% speed increase in the G5 line, so they'd be more likely to wait on that.
...is for a black, Muslim female to be elected president.
I agree with you that it'll be the best thing we've ever had. Just in terms of innovation: if one of the three stumbles, at least one of the other two will pick up the slack. With only two, if one stumbles, the other won't bother picking up the slack because there's no competetive reason to.
;-)
However, given the amount of cross-porting between Mac OS X and Linux lately, you could say that a tenuous alliance against Windows is already in place.
So, basically, you're saying that Americans say we should spend 8.4 times as much on foreign aid as we actually do, but at the same time 75% think we already spend too much? Gotta love Americans, our total cluelessness as to our own policies creates some really funny statistical results sometimes.