"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." -- Steve Jobs
Oh, sorry, you were using your post to bitch about a bunch of other off-topic Apple things that didn't have to do with the discussion while praising your expensive nuclear laptop with the 1 hour battery life. My bad.
"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." - Steve Jobs from the keynote
Seems pretty honest to me. Amusingly, it's the sites like Slashdot leaping on the speed claims and obsessing over them, while Jobs himself gave them a real-world context in the keynote speech. Not that such a thing would get mentioned in the article submission...no, no, gotta get all those page hits from people bitching about Steve Jobs "lying." Sigh.
And we've got the numbers which speak for themselves, so let's take a look at them. The iMac G5 and the iMac Core Duo. Let's take a look at SPECmarks. SPEC2000, integer performance, the most important benchmark of computer performance: 10.2 on the iMac G5, 32.6 on the iMac Core Duo. 3.2X. And these are using the best compilers on each: IBM's compilers on the G5, and Intel's compilers on the Core Duo. For floating point, 13.0 on the G5, 27.1 on the Core Duo, for 2.1. So, in the most important benchmarks of performance, 2-3X. Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster.
What, you say? Everyone here bitching about Steve Jobs and his "hype" didn't even watch the keynote where Jobs honestly described the new Mac performance? I bet they don't read the articles either...
What do you think you're doing?! Injection sane rationality and logical reasoning into a Slashdot discussion about Apple benchmarks is akin to introducing a matter/anti-matter explosion. Please, keep your filthy rationality on sites like Arstechnica.
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car. You're writing calm, rational posts in a Slashdot zone. Please take your emotion from the glove box and wear it on your head while barking "STEVE LIED." I'll let you off with a warning this time.
Possibly, but then why does their web site specifically word things to make the 'average' consumer think the new computers are going to be twice as fast?
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL MACS.
Sigh. This article is a dupe anyway. Third one today?
OS X incremental updates are smaller in scope than service packs, usually minor bugfixes and speedups released every few months. Security Updates are occasional. Contrast to Microsoft which actually has a "Patch Tuesday" and releases dozens of non-stop patches all year long.
I won't argue that Apple has made crap in the past, but the Powerbooks/MacBook Pros, for instance, are fantastic for users who make their living on the road. They're built with a solid exoskeleton, unlike the internal chassis that competitors use. They're also pretty damn thin and light. Not even getting into the value of bundles like iLife/OS X here.
Once again, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's completely obvious in every way that the MiniStore is doing web searches of the Music Store, so the people like you claiming this is some sort of deceptive practice Apple isn't telling you about are 100% wrong. It's right there in front of your face. Click the cute little button to make it go away. Ahhh, no more whining. Problem solved. Move on. Next.
I'm not sure how on earth anyone can read the above and say "Ah! iTunes 6.0.2 also sends data to a remote server about each and every song you listen to, regardless of where you got it."
Well, they should have gleamed it from the big giant MiniStore right there giving them related albums. iTunes isn't psychic or anything; it's obvious the MiniStore is searching the Music Store, and to do that--you guessed it--requires the use of this thing called the Internet.
It's unreasonable to expect people to check product pages and search knowledge bases every time a minor (as in 6.0.1 to 6.0.2) update occurs, especially if Apple is claiming to tell you what the "improvements" are in the update.
Nobody's saying they need to. The MiniStore is such a complete non-issue that Apple didn't feel the need to put it in Software Update. Regardless, it's on the public webpage so the point still stands. www.apple.com/itunes if you're interested. You know, the place the majority of iTunes users got the update, since most of them are Windows users and DON'T HAVE A SOFTWARE UPDATE.
For myself, this is one of the reasons I don't automatically hit the Update button until a few days after the fix has been released (which is why I was able to copy and paste the above), but you know, I do that because I don't trust Apple, I've had enough experience now to know they are not greater than Microsoft and Dell in reliability and honesty, despite the knee-jerk Macnut response to each and every criticism, and so, yes, I don't necessarily believe them. The funny thing is though that I still didn't expect them to actually try to pull the wool over my eyes, as in this particular stunt.
With the "Macnut" comment, you reveal that you're biased anyway, so of course a simple web search is going to be a privacy issue for you. Have a nice day...and don't forget to clear that Google cookie.
Why buy an Intel Mac? What's it got that a comparably-equipped Dell doesn't?
A super-thin space footprint, generous USB and Firewire ports, top of the line components that won't break in 12 months, stability, no spyware/viruses/registries/file fragmentation/need for reinstalls, etc.
A one-button mouse?
Apple's store has always sold multi-button mice, and now the Mighty Mouse is 4 buttons...so enough with that old, tired argument.
A snazzy case? I doubt most Mac users, many of whom are actually quite sophisticated computer users these days, use a Mac because they like the case (although, I'm sure it's a bonus for some.)
You do NOT know Mac users very well.:)
Macs are integrated solutions. They sell hardware, and they sell the software that runs it, but the idea is that the software is supposed to be "part of" the hardware. You don't consider the iPod's interface separate from the iPod. They believe consumers shouldn't have to treat the hardware and software so differently, and even in the PC world this is true, as the big majority of Windows sales comes from preinstallations on new PCs, not people rushing out to buy Windows from a store shelf. They get Windows as it comes on their computer, and they refer to Windows as "the computer."
I think the Mac is on Intel simply because there was little else to do to generate new sales momentum. By going to Intel it is implied that people with the older technology will buy new Apples, thereby increasing sales and making Apple's bottom line look better.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with performance-per-watt, as has been stated a million, zillion times before.
The Intel Core Duo--a low-power laptop chip--is keeping up with a desktop Athlon64 3800+ X2. Intel has bigger plans with the Merom/Conroe releases later this year, chip redesigns with low-power goals in mind. Apple's crown jewel is their line of laptops, so it's important to get low-power chips in there.
The Merom and Conroe chips later this year will be complete redesigns and are expected to trump even the Yonah in performance and power usage. This Core Duo release is more of a stopgap. I great one that is worth it, but there is even better stuff coming down the line.
Since they're not seeking a competitive advantage in performance, it makes sense of Apple to at least assure commodity performance by going with the dominant CPU architecture.
The Intel switch wasn't about switching to a dominant architecture, it was about moving to a platform that had a future roadmap for performance-per-watt. Intel is kicking butt in that department with the Core Duo (a laptop chip that manages to compete with a desktop Athlon64). Merom and Conroe later this year are supposed to further this even more dramatically, being chip redesigns with performance-per-watt as the design goal.
Steve Jobs was tired of selling a G4 Powerbook, so he moved to Intel.
Well, then consider this--Yonah is a low-power laptop chip, and it's keeping up with an Athlon64 3800+ X2. Pretty amazing.
Later this year will see Intel's desktop plans with the Merom and Conroe chips released. Conroe is a full-on 64-bit capable desktop chip and is supposed to not only cut power usage even less than the Yonah but will increase speeds.
Can you say new Power Mac? It's safe to say Intel learned its lesson the past few years and is ready to kick butt.
The Merom and Conroe chips later this year are redesigns, successors to the Pentium-M and Core Duo, and will supposedly cut down power usage dramatically while increasing speed. They'll also have Intel's 64-bit extensions.
Today's Core Duo is a laptop chip, and it's already competing with AMD desktop chips. Imagine how Intel's high-end desktop chips will perform when released this fall.
And in the process, telling them what you're listening to.
Oh my god, they know I listen to Danny Elfman!
Again, it's just sending a search query. It has to send the currently playing song information to grab related albums to that song. It's nothing nefarious.
I think you've pretty much invalidated your argument by claiming people don't expect iTunes to be Internet-connected:
1.) It DOES make the user aware of its behavior--it said on the iTunes page that the Mini-Store grabs related albums. But more importantly...
2.)...it doesn't even need to advertise this fact because it's blindingly obvious it's connecting to the Music Store to give related albums, unless you believe iTunes is now a psychic entity that magically knows related albums and their ratings without connecting to the Internet.
You didn't really address the Google issue. Are you saying it's reasonable to expect that Google is tracking all your searches in a cookie that expires decades from now? Or does Google get a pass for storing all your email and searches, while Apple gets scourged for daring do a web search?
The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.
It was stated right on the Apple iTunes page that the Mini-Store connects to the Music Store and provides info on the music you're currently listening to.
Of course, in the zeal to scream "ITUNES IS MALWARE LOLZ," nobody bothered to check out the page.
What user outcry? I think Slashdot and Boing Boing were the only sites that cared.
I think most iTunes users are annoyed that they now have to opt-in to something that just worked when it was enabled. It's just doing a Music Store search. What is privacy-invading about that? Better go after Google then, whose special cookie tracks everything you do.
Oh, I forgot, this is Slashdot. It's hip to hate Apple but give Google a total pass.
Users who do not click on the 'Turn on MiniStore' button will not have their privacy invaded
It's just doing a WebObjects query for related albums. Jesus Christ, my privacy isn't being invaded over that. There's more information stored via the Google cookie, and where is the Slashdot outrage over that? That information has been confirmed to be stored indefinitely, along with your email in Gmail. Oh no, Slashdot is storing your IP in its weblogs! In fact, every server does!
Aqua is not open source, but OS X as a whole is packed with a lot of open source. The operating system that the window server Aqua runs on, Darwin, is open source.
Slashdot Mirror
From the keynote:
"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." -- Steve Jobs
Oh, sorry, you were using your post to bitch about a bunch of other off-topic Apple things that didn't have to do with the discussion while praising your expensive nuclear laptop with the 1 hour battery life. My bad.
Here's the "crap from Jobs" you're talking about:
"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." - Steve Jobs from the keynote
Seems pretty honest to me. Amusingly, it's the sites like Slashdot leaping on the speed claims and obsessing over them, while Jobs himself gave them a real-world context in the keynote speech. Not that such a thing would get mentioned in the article submission...no, no, gotta get all those page hits from people bitching about Steve Jobs "lying." Sigh.
From Steve's keynote:
And we've got the numbers which speak for themselves, so let's take a look at them. The iMac G5 and the iMac Core Duo. Let's take a look at SPECmarks. SPEC2000, integer performance, the most important benchmark of computer performance: 10.2 on the iMac G5, 32.6 on the iMac Core Duo. 3.2X. And these are using the best compilers on each: IBM's compilers on the G5, and Intel's compilers on the Core Duo. For floating point, 13.0 on the G5, 27.1 on the Core Duo, for 2.1. So, in the most important benchmarks of performance, 2-3X. Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster.
What, you say? Everyone here bitching about Steve Jobs and his "hype" didn't even watch the keynote where Jobs honestly described the new Mac performance? I bet they don't read the articles either...
What do you think you're doing?! Injection sane rationality and logical reasoning into a Slashdot discussion about Apple benchmarks is akin to introducing a matter/anti-matter explosion. Please, keep your filthy rationality on sites like Arstechnica.
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car. You're writing calm, rational posts in a Slashdot zone. Please take your emotion from the glove box and wear it on your head while barking "STEVE LIED." I'll let you off with a warning this time.
Possibly, but then why does their web site specifically word things to make the 'average' consumer think the new computers are going to be twice as fast?
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL MACS.
Sigh. This article is a dupe anyway. Third one today?
So Slashdot posted two previously worthless submissions and now gave the good link in the third one. That's not much better.
For a record, see my sig.
OS X incremental updates are smaller in scope than service packs, usually minor bugfixes and speedups released every few months. Security Updates are occasional. Contrast to Microsoft which actually has a "Patch Tuesday" and releases dozens of non-stop patches all year long.
I won't argue that Apple has made crap in the past, but the Powerbooks/MacBook Pros, for instance, are fantastic for users who make their living on the road. They're built with a solid exoskeleton, unlike the internal chassis that competitors use. They're also pretty damn thin and light. Not even getting into the value of bundles like iLife/OS X here.
Once again, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's completely obvious in every way that the MiniStore is doing web searches of the Music Store, so the people like you claiming this is some sort of deceptive practice Apple isn't telling you about are 100% wrong. It's right there in front of your face. Click the cute little button to make it go away. Ahhh, no more whining. Problem solved. Move on. Next.
I'm not sure how on earth anyone can read the above and say "Ah! iTunes 6.0.2 also sends data to a remote server about each and every song you listen to, regardless of where you got it."
Well, they should have gleamed it from the big giant MiniStore right there giving them related albums. iTunes isn't psychic or anything; it's obvious the MiniStore is searching the Music Store, and to do that--you guessed it--requires the use of this thing called the Internet.
It's unreasonable to expect people to check product pages and search knowledge bases every time a minor (as in 6.0.1 to 6.0.2) update occurs, especially if Apple is claiming to tell you what the "improvements" are in the update.
Nobody's saying they need to. The MiniStore is such a complete non-issue that Apple didn't feel the need to put it in Software Update. Regardless, it's on the public webpage so the point still stands. www.apple.com/itunes if you're interested. You know, the place the majority of iTunes users got the update, since most of them are Windows users and DON'T HAVE A SOFTWARE UPDATE.
For myself, this is one of the reasons I don't automatically hit the Update button until a few days after the fix has been released (which is why I was able to copy and paste the above), but you know, I do that because I don't trust Apple, I've had enough experience now to know they are not greater than Microsoft and Dell in reliability and honesty, despite the knee-jerk Macnut response to each and every criticism, and so, yes, I don't necessarily believe them. The funny thing is though that I still didn't expect them to actually try to pull the wool over my eyes, as in this particular stunt.
With the "Macnut" comment, you reveal that you're biased anyway, so of course a simple web search is going to be a privacy issue for you. Have a nice day...and don't forget to clear that Google cookie.
IBM dumped Apple? Last year's reports indicated IBM wasn't even aware of Apple leaving them for Intel until the weekend before WWDC '05.
Next.
No, they bought Core Duo chips, which are low-power laptop chips that still manage to compete with a desktop Athlon64 3800+ X2.
Why buy an Intel Mac? What's it got that a comparably-equipped Dell doesn't?
:)
A super-thin space footprint, generous USB and Firewire ports, top of the line components that won't break in 12 months, stability, no spyware/viruses/registries/file fragmentation/need for reinstalls, etc.
A one-button mouse?
Apple's store has always sold multi-button mice, and now the Mighty Mouse is 4 buttons...so enough with that old, tired argument.
A snazzy case? I doubt most Mac users, many of whom are actually quite sophisticated computer users these days, use a Mac because they like the case (although, I'm sure it's a bonus for some.)
You do NOT know Mac users very well.
Macs are integrated solutions. They sell hardware, and they sell the software that runs it, but the idea is that the software is supposed to be "part of" the hardware. You don't consider the iPod's interface separate from the iPod. They believe consumers shouldn't have to treat the hardware and software so differently, and even in the PC world this is true, as the big majority of Windows sales comes from preinstallations on new PCs, not people rushing out to buy Windows from a store shelf. They get Windows as it comes on their computer, and they refer to Windows as "the computer."
I do so wish I could get OSX on Cell, and buy as many heads as my budget allowed. That would be schuite and phayen.
A report last year said Apple evaluated a Cell-based Mac and found it too slow and complex.
I think the Mac is on Intel simply because there was little else to do to generate new sales momentum. By going to Intel it is implied that people with the older technology will buy new Apples, thereby increasing sales and making Apple's bottom line look better.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with performance-per-watt, as has been stated a million, zillion times before.
The Intel Core Duo--a low-power laptop chip--is keeping up with a desktop Athlon64 3800+ X2. Intel has bigger plans with the Merom/Conroe releases later this year, chip redesigns with low-power goals in mind. Apple's crown jewel is their line of laptops, so it's important to get low-power chips in there.
The Merom and Conroe chips later this year will be complete redesigns and are expected to trump even the Yonah in performance and power usage. This Core Duo release is more of a stopgap. I great one that is worth it, but there is even better stuff coming down the line.
The Intel switch wasn't about switching to a dominant architecture, it was about moving to a platform that had a future roadmap for performance-per-watt. Intel is kicking butt in that department with the Core Duo (a laptop chip that manages to compete with a desktop Athlon64). Merom and Conroe later this year are supposed to further this even more dramatically, being chip redesigns with performance-per-watt as the design goal.
Steve Jobs was tired of selling a G4 Powerbook, so he moved to Intel.
Well, then consider this--Yonah is a low-power laptop chip, and it's keeping up with an Athlon64 3800+ X2. Pretty amazing.
Later this year will see Intel's desktop plans with the Merom and Conroe chips released. Conroe is a full-on 64-bit capable desktop chip and is supposed to not only cut power usage even less than the Yonah but will increase speeds.
Can you say new Power Mac? It's safe to say Intel learned its lesson the past few years and is ready to kick butt.
The Merom and Conroe chips later this year are redesigns, successors to the Pentium-M and Core Duo, and will supposedly cut down power usage dramatically while increasing speed. They'll also have Intel's 64-bit extensions.
Today's Core Duo is a laptop chip, and it's already competing with AMD desktop chips. Imagine how Intel's high-end desktop chips will perform when released this fall.
And in the process, telling them what you're listening to.
...it doesn't even need to advertise this fact because it's blindingly obvious it's connecting to the Music Store to give related albums, unless you believe iTunes is now a psychic entity that magically knows related albums and their ratings without connecting to the Internet.
Oh my god, they know I listen to Danny Elfman!
Again, it's just sending a search query. It has to send the currently playing song information to grab related albums to that song. It's nothing nefarious.
I think you've pretty much invalidated your argument by claiming people don't expect iTunes to be Internet-connected:
1.) It DOES make the user aware of its behavior--it said on the iTunes page that the Mini-Store grabs related albums. But more importantly...
2.)
You didn't really address the Google issue. Are you saying it's reasonable to expect that Google is tracking all your searches in a cookie that expires decades from now? Or does Google get a pass for storing all your email and searches, while Apple gets scourged for daring do a web search?
The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.
It was stated right on the Apple iTunes page that the Mini-Store connects to the Music Store and provides info on the music you're currently listening to.
Of course, in the zeal to scream "ITUNES IS MALWARE LOLZ," nobody bothered to check out the page.
What user outcry? I think Slashdot and Boing Boing were the only sites that cared.
I think most iTunes users are annoyed that they now have to opt-in to something that just worked when it was enabled. It's just doing a Music Store search. What is privacy-invading about that? Better go after Google then, whose special cookie tracks everything you do.
Oh, I forgot, this is Slashdot. It's hip to hate Apple but give Google a total pass.
Users who do not click on the 'Turn on MiniStore' button will not have their privacy invaded
It's just doing a WebObjects query for related albums. Jesus Christ, my privacy isn't being invaded over that. There's more information stored via the Google cookie, and where is the Slashdot outrage over that? That information has been confirmed to be stored indefinitely, along with your email in Gmail. Oh no, Slashdot is storing your IP in its weblogs! In fact, every server does!
Non-issue, in my opinion.
Aqua is not open source, but OS X as a whole is packed with a lot of open source. The operating system that the window server Aqua runs on, Darwin, is open source.
Has it sunk in yet?