While 1.07 million Macs sounds like a lot at first, it pales in comparison to the amount of PC's that were shipped, especially when you consider that Apple is the only company that sells Macs (obvously).
For reference, IBM shipped 2.9 million PC's in the quarter, and they're a relatively minor player. HP shipped 8.2 million, and Dell shipped 8.8 million.
That accounts for almost 20 million PC's, and that's only from the top 3 vendors. There are hundreds, if not thousands of smaller companies who make PCs.
Even considering the stellar year Apple had, it still only accounted for 3.7% of the computer market, meaning that 96.3% of computers were PC's, and not Macs.
Garage Band 2 comes free with every Macintosh. Damn near every OS X user also owns a copy of Garage Band, even if they are not musicians, DJ's, or recording enthusiasts.
This means that Trent Reznor has just released the bare tracks of a major-label single from a multi-platinum artist to the general consumer! High school kids lucky enough to own a $999 iBook or a $499 mini can now make their own Nine Inch Nails remix, or sample the loops into creations of their own.
This is huge. If it catches on, it could fulfill the prediction Brian Eno once made about popular music eventually becoming user-modifiable constructs. If you can't see what a big deal this is, you are not looking with an open mind.
You are vastly overestimating the market share that Apple's Mac has.
People are saying that Trent Reznor is breaking ground by being the first *major label* artist to do this, and I agree with this reasoning. Sure, other tiny players in the market have done it before him, but since they are not major players they're just a footnote in the broad scheme of things. Their efforts impact a small few.
Such is the case with Apple Macs. They have less than 3% of the market. While their owners are very vocal, they are a tiny minority. 3% marketshare doesn't make you a major player. As much as people want to trash Windows, if it were to be bundled with a piece of sofware that Macs have had for years, it would be a bigger deal since it appeals to a vast majority instead of a tiny minority.
Just as Trent's efforts impact vastly more people than the efforts of obscure artists who did it first, Microsoft's software impacts vastly more people than Apple's, even if it was available first.
Actually, I believe that language is defined by common usage; if people understand what is said (or written) then it works and is therefore, by definition, correct usage.
Nice attempt at revising the definition of "correct usage". If the majority of people use incorrect grammar, it doesn't make that grammar any more correct, it only highlights the fact that the majority of people don't have a firm grasp of the language.
Such reasoning reminds of the lame attempt at legitimizing street slang and calling it "ebonics".
It must be incredibly hard, if NASA have trouble with it.
Pet peeve time mode = ON
When referring to an organization as a whole, it is a singular noun. In this usage, NASA is a singular noun, and therefore the sentence should read, "It must be incredibly hard, if NASA has trouble with it".
Only when referring to the individuals with an organization is it a plural noun. Such a usage would be "Ford were in agreement on their decision to choose a new CEO". In that case you're obviously referring to more than one entity at Ford, since it takes more than one person to be in agreement.
The top AMD is, what, 2.6GHz? Compared to intel at 4GHz. We've come to accept that AMD's 2.6GHz is faster than intel's 4GHz, and from there it isn't hard to believe that IBM is approximately equal to AMD per MHz
I agree about the AMD outperforming the Intel chips, but I think it's a really big jump to assume that the G5 performs the same as the Athlon 64 on a clock-for-clock basis. They're close, but both the A64 and newer P4's have the lead over the G5, with the top of the line G5's being similar in performance to chips a step or two down from top of the line from AMD/Intel.
Ironically, you say this and then use benchmarks that effectively measure megahertz to say the raw processing power is not keeping up.
Not true. I'm not basing their performance off their frequency, I'm basing their performance off their proven power in benchmarks. The AMD chips in these benchmarks also runs at a lower clock speed than the Intel chips, yet they are faster than both the P4 and G5.
Frankly, the reality is, for any kind of serious work, there are no machines out there that are as fast as the PowerPC G5 series.
Apple has been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. But people are in denial of it because they have some sort of machismo wrapped up in thinking their machine is faster (And there's more non-powerpc users out there than powerpc users.)
Apple has *not* been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. They weren't even close until the G5 came around. And even now, they're close but still not able to compete with the high end Athlon64's. No legitimate hardware tester would come to this conclusion, not even an Apple fan. Only the least technical and hardest-core Mac zealot would knowingly turn his head away from reality and keep on believing that his machine is faster when other chips have proven themselves to be faster.
Since the time that this article was written, AMD and Intel have released multiple increased speed grades, while the G5 has only just now been able to increase in one small speed grade.
And please don't attempt to tell me that this is a Pro-AMD, anti-Mac website saying this, since the site is a Macintosh-fan site.
There are some objective Mac fans out there, but there are too many people who are so into it that it has become a religion for them, and trying to convince them that the G5 can't compete with a high-end Athlon64 is like trying to convince them that their God doesn't exist. As soon as you show them conclusive evidence shooting down their belief, they'll close their eyes and let blind faith take over... and at that point, there is no reasoning with them.
Before everyone yells at them and tell them to take off their tinfoil hat, let me clear something up.
I think that many people have a rightful distrust of those in authority, because often those in power tend to abuse that power to stay in power.
For instance- Let's say that you're pulled over by the police. They have their cameras recording your every action. If you had complete 100% trust in your government, there would be no need to film the police doing their job, since they're already filming it for you. But all too often they abuse that power and selectively lose/find recordings. If an officer unlawfully beat someone, do you think the recording would ever be used in that person's favor? Not likely, since it wouldn't be in the police department's best interest to share that information.
This is about more than just videotapes. This is about keeping the balance of power in the citizens' favor, the way it should be. Remember, the US is supposed to have a government run by the people, under the citizens' supervision. The citizens control and monitor the government, it's not the other way around.
It's got to be good for Apple's marketing that their MHz ratings are properly competing with modern PCs nowadays.
Properly competing with modern PC's? I'm not one of those "Mhz RuleZ" guys, but as far as your comment about Mhz goes, their Mhz ratings are definitely not competing with modern PC's. They've been falling further behind. The P4 2.8 chip was out 3 years ago, in 2002. They're up to 3.8 ghz now.
Like I said, I know Mhz isn't everything and I know that different chips perform differently at the same clock speed, but as far as marketing and Mhz numbers go, Apple is definitely not keeping pace.
(They're also not keeping pace in raw processing power, either, as the highest-end G5 performs about on par with a mid range Athlon64.
Why is the sex of a computer user important? Is the next firefox update give a choice of pink or blue coloring?
Demographics data is very important when trying to identify your audience and tailor your product to them.
Let's say you made a TV show that was originally meant for middle aged men, but after gathering data you found that the show was a flop with middle aged men but fairly popular with young women. You could either waste a lot of effort trying to redesign the show to attract that minority of men, or you could tweak it just a little bit to increase your popularity among the majority.
Also, despite being politically correct and saying that everyone's an individual, the simple fact is that the actions of large groups of people are very predictable. Sure, you'll get a few people who don't fit in, but on the whole the majority dictates the pattern they follow.
Marketers have the act of predicting the actions of large groups of people down to a science. Talk is cheap, people vote with their actions. Everyone likes to say they eat healthy and stay away from McDonald's, but take a look at the sales (and the obesity level in the US). In fact, if you were to ask every American if they intended to be fat in two years, I bet nearly everyone will say they'll have started a diet and be in shape by then. But talk is cheap, and I believe that the obesity level will be in line with historical trends.
Continuing the Slashdot trend of putting very misleading titles on their articles to attract readers, this headline states "Moore's Law is Dead", yet also adds, "He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet."
That's like a doctor telling someone that they're dead but they'll still be living for a few years yet.
The automobile battery is designed to provide short bursts of power (and spends more of it's life being recharged as you drive) while the later is used constantly to run say an electric trolling motor
STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.
From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.
So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?
We landed on the Moon in 1969. We had more launch capability back then than we do now. We couldn't land a man on the Moon now if we wanted to. We were closer to putting a man on Mars back then than we are now. Not all "progress" moves forward. Sometimes your efforts move you in the wrong direction.
Just because something is old doesn't mean its function or capability is outdated. If we had a rocket like the Saturn 5 or Energia, that would be a step forward compared to what we have now.
One would be suprised how the Great White is really looked at competely the wrong way. The reason for the wrap of the bad name (besides Jaws) is the problem with their way of satisfying their curiousity. As humans have a habit of touching things they are curious about with their fingers sharks satisfy it by biting. Their bite is meant only as a touch but with thousands of razor sharp teeth it can also be deadly.
To a researcher, it may be a big deal to find out what the shark's intentions are when they bite a person, but to the person getting torn apart it doesn't matter. They're still dead. A shark may just be curious and want to "sample" you, but when the shark is 10x heavier than you and has giant jaws, getting sampled or getting eaten means same thing- you're a goner.
I do see your point about useful science being neglected in favor of things that makes the average American smile when they see it on TV, and normally I'd say to forget about the average joe and do what's best.
But in this case there is a dealbreaker- Joe Public is funding NASA. If the majority of the public doesn't see a use for NASA, they can demand a cut in its funding.
Tsunamis have been around long before 1997, they've been killing millions of people since the dawn of time, it was a thoughtless name back in 1997, they may as well have called it Toonberculosi
So have hurricanes. And tornados. And asteroids. And comets. But nobody complained when Honda called their motorcycle the Honda Hurricane. I guess if the PC-police were around back then, they would have came up with sensational arguments such as "How could you name a motorcycle after a horrible storm that kills millions of people?". Or maybe you should blame GM for naming a truck "Typhoon". Right now, the word "typhoon" means a powerful force of nature in most people's minds. But let a typhoon kill thousands of people and people will associate it with death and destruction for a while.
Currently, the word "tsunami" is fresh in the vocabularies of many Westerners and they strongly associate the word with the most recent tsunami on Dec. 26, and they're letting their emotions override their sense of reason. "Toonami" was named after the word "tsunami" long before most people in the US even knew what a tsunami was.
Actually, I believe it to be you who is the idiot. The latest issue of Wired actually contains the hard copy of the article so maybe you should return to your post as Overlord of Dairy Queen.
Let me guess- the latest issue is the April edition? And, as we all know, Wired is above pulling April Fool's pranks. But since you bravely posted as Anonymous Coward, I expect that you'd conveniently vanish if I proved you wrong.
As for better elements that all depends on who you are buying your parts from. First of all a G5 outclasses a P4, it may not be as fast for 32-bit operations, but its only PC equivilent is an Opteron. And if you know anything about PC's an Opteron costs way more then a P4. This is also true for the mobo it requires. So your're not comparing equivilent systems. The iMacs components are closer to a workstation in some areas. Basically the Mac uses higher grade components which cost more. The G5 towers are true worksations, if you're wondering why their price is even higher.
This is plain FUD. First of all, I'm not an Intel fan but the G5 certainly does not outclass the P4. You will be hard pressed to find a G5 that can compete against the high-end P4's.
Second of all, the G5 does not have to compete against an Opteron. An Athlon 64 is more comparable and is much cheaper. It is also faster than anything Apple has, as you will not find a G5 that delivers the performance that the fastest Athlon64's will.
In the past when I've debated performance against Apple fans, the debate follows a predictable path. First they'll claim that their Mac can compete on a performance basis. Once I show them the benchmarks which clearly show that this isn't the case, they'll attempt to compare a dual-G5 to a single P4/Athlon. When I bring up the fact that they can buy a dual P4/Athlon for less money, they'll try to say that it's "apples/oranges". Why? I don't know, but it's probably because they've reached the end of their rational arguments.
This is from a Mac news page. This isn't some anti-Mac Intel fanboy page.
Apple never actually held the crown for fastest processor. They tried claiming that their product was available while AMD's wasn't, but in reality AMD's product was available first. When companies called Apple on its bogus claim, they quickly backpeddled. Also, if you look at the date of the article, you'll see that some time has passed since then. AMD and Intel have ramped up their clock speed greatly, while the G5's have not been able to ramp up speed nearly as fast.
You'll notice that for single processors the G5 cannot match the top of the line Intel or AMD systems (since that article was made Apple has not been able to ramp up the speed of the G5, while Intel and AMD have released faster chips). If you want to compare dual systems, once again it cannot compete.
I don't think you're comment is trolling, but it is redundant--there's like twelve posts stating the same thing, but then my post is probably redudant too.
And the 350 posts from fanboys praising Macs isn't redundant? And not to mention, this board is disproportionately pro-Apple, which doesn't match up with the general population. It highlights the fact that they're just an extremely vocal minority who will mod down anyone who proposes an alternative to their favorite platform.
Slashdot Mirror
While 1.07 million Macs sounds like a lot at first, it pales in comparison to the amount of PC's that were shipped, especially when you consider that Apple is the only company that sells Macs (obvously).
For reference, IBM shipped 2.9 million PC's in the quarter, and they're a relatively minor player. HP shipped 8.2 million, and Dell shipped 8.8 million.
That accounts for almost 20 million PC's, and that's only from the top 3 vendors. There are hundreds, if not thousands of smaller companies who make PCs.
Even considering the stellar year Apple had, it still only accounted for 3.7% of the computer market, meaning that 96.3% of computers were PC's, and not Macs.
Garage Band 2 comes free with every Macintosh. Damn near every OS X user also owns a copy of Garage Band, even if they are not musicians, DJ's, or recording enthusiasts.
This means that Trent Reznor has just released the bare tracks of a major-label single from a multi-platinum artist to the general consumer! High school kids lucky enough to own a $999 iBook or a $499 mini can now make their own Nine Inch Nails remix, or sample the loops into creations of their own.
This is huge. If it catches on, it could fulfill the prediction Brian Eno once made about popular music eventually becoming user-modifiable constructs. If you can't see what a big deal this is, you are not looking with an open mind.
You are vastly overestimating the market share that Apple's Mac has.
People are saying that Trent Reznor is breaking ground by being the first *major label* artist to do this, and I agree with this reasoning. Sure, other tiny players in the market have done it before him, but since they are not major players they're just a footnote in the broad scheme of things. Their efforts impact a small few.
Such is the case with Apple Macs. They have less than 3% of the market. While their owners are very vocal, they are a tiny minority. 3% marketshare doesn't make you a major player. As much as people want to trash Windows, if it were to be bundled with a piece of sofware that Macs have had for years, it would be a bigger deal since it appeals to a vast majority instead of a tiny minority.
Just as Trent's efforts impact vastly more people than the efforts of obscure artists who did it first, Microsoft's software impacts vastly more people than Apple's, even if it was available first.
It's the impact which counts in the long run.
Actually, I believe that language is defined by common usage; if people understand what is said (or written) then it works and is therefore, by definition, correct usage.
Nice attempt at revising the definition of "correct usage". If the majority of people use incorrect grammar, it doesn't make that grammar any more correct, it only highlights the fact that the majority of people don't have a firm grasp of the language.
Such reasoning reminds of the lame attempt at legitimizing street slang and calling it "ebonics".
I'm sorry if you don't have a firm grasp of the English language. I'm here to help.
y le-book/singular-plural.htm
o unssingularorpluralcompanyisvcompanyare
These links may help you speak what is probably your primary language:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-st
http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_d.shtml#Groupn
It must be incredibly hard, if NASA have trouble with it.
Pet peeve time mode = ON
When referring to an organization as a whole, it is a singular noun. In this usage, NASA is a singular noun, and therefore the sentence should read, "It must be incredibly hard, if NASA has trouble with it".
Only when referring to the individuals with an organization is it a plural noun. Such a usage would be "Ford were in agreement on their decision to choose a new CEO". In that case you're obviously referring to more than one entity at Ford, since it takes more than one person to be in agreement.
The top AMD is, what, 2.6GHz? Compared to intel at 4GHz. We've come to accept that AMD's 2.6GHz is faster than intel's 4GHz, and from there it isn't hard to believe that IBM is approximately equal to AMD per MHz
I agree about the AMD outperforming the Intel chips, but I think it's a really big jump to assume that the G5 performs the same as the Athlon 64 on a clock-for-clock basis. They're close, but both the A64 and newer P4's have the lead over the G5, with the top of the line G5's being similar in performance to chips a step or two down from top of the line from AMD/Intel.
Ironically, you say this and then use benchmarks that effectively measure megahertz to say the raw processing power is not keeping up.
Not true. I'm not basing their performance off their frequency, I'm basing their performance off their proven power in benchmarks. The AMD chips in these benchmarks also runs at a lower clock speed than the Intel chips, yet they are faster than both the P4 and G5.
Frankly, the reality is, for any kind of serious work, there are no machines out there that are as fast as the PowerPC G5 series.
The fastest Intel and AMD chips outperform the top of the line G5's. See how the G5 machines compare to the Intel and AMD machines: http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
Apple has been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. But people are in denial of it because they have some sort of machismo wrapped up in thinking their machine is faster (And there's more non-powerpc users out there than powerpc users.)
Apple has *not* been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. They weren't even close until the G5 came around. And even now, they're close but still not able to compete with the high end Athlon64's. No legitimate hardware tester would come to this conclusion, not even an Apple fan. Only the least technical and hardest-core Mac zealot would knowingly turn his head away from reality and keep on believing that his machine is faster when other chips have proven themselves to be faster.
Take a look at this link http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/31867.html
Since the time that this article was written, AMD and Intel have released multiple increased speed grades, while the G5 has only just now been able to increase in one small speed grade.
And please don't attempt to tell me that this is a Pro-AMD, anti-Mac website saying this, since the site is a Macintosh-fan site.
There are some objective Mac fans out there, but there are too many people who are so into it that it has become a religion for them, and trying to convince them that the G5 can't compete with a high-end Athlon64 is like trying to convince them that their God doesn't exist. As soon as you show them conclusive evidence shooting down their belief, they'll close their eyes and let blind faith take over... and at that point, there is no reasoning with them.
Before everyone yells at them and tell them to take off their tinfoil hat, let me clear something up.
I think that many people have a rightful distrust of those in authority, because often those in power tend to abuse that power to stay in power.
For instance- Let's say that you're pulled over by the police. They have their cameras recording your every action. If you had complete 100% trust in your government, there would be no need to film the police doing their job, since they're already filming it for you. But all too often they abuse that power and selectively lose/find recordings. If an officer unlawfully beat someone, do you think the recording would ever be used in that person's favor? Not likely, since it wouldn't be in the police department's best interest to share that information.
This is about more than just videotapes. This is about keeping the balance of power in the citizens' favor, the way it should be. Remember, the US is supposed to have a government run by the people, under the citizens' supervision. The citizens control and monitor the government, it's not the other way around.
It's got to be good for Apple's marketing that their MHz ratings are properly competing with modern PCs nowadays.
Properly competing with modern PC's? I'm not one of those "Mhz RuleZ" guys, but as far as your comment about Mhz goes, their Mhz ratings are definitely not competing with modern PC's. They've been falling further behind. The P4 2.8 chip was out 3 years ago, in 2002. They're up to 3.8 ghz now.
Like I said, I know Mhz isn't everything and I know that different chips perform differently at the same clock speed, but as far as marketing and Mhz numbers go, Apple is definitely not keeping pace.
(They're also not keeping pace in raw processing power, either, as the highest-end G5 performs about on par with a mid range Athlon64.
How the hell do they know if its men or women visiting.
A user posted the answer above.
I guess adware running on those users systems.
Nope, not adware.
I think companys should be arrested just for publishing findings like that
Why should they be arrested for publishing demographics information? And how do you arrest an entire company?
Why is the sex of a computer user important? Is the next firefox update give a choice of pink or blue coloring?
Demographics data is very important when trying to identify your audience and tailor your product to them.
Let's say you made a TV show that was originally meant for middle aged men, but after gathering data you found that the show was a flop with middle aged men but fairly popular with young women. You could either waste a lot of effort trying to redesign the show to attract that minority of men, or you could tweak it just a little bit to increase your popularity among the majority.
Also, despite being politically correct and saying that everyone's an individual, the simple fact is that the actions of large groups of people are very predictable. Sure, you'll get a few people who don't fit in, but on the whole the majority dictates the pattern they follow.
Marketers have the act of predicting the actions of large groups of people down to a science. Talk is cheap, people vote with their actions. Everyone likes to say they eat healthy and stay away from McDonald's, but take a look at the sales (and the obesity level in the US). In fact, if you were to ask every American if they intended to be fat in two years, I bet nearly everyone will say they'll have started a diet and be in shape by then. But talk is cheap, and I believe that the obesity level will be in line with historical trends.
Fast microchips are all fine and dandy, but they're not going to satisfy my appetite for frozen light.
Continuing the Slashdot trend of putting very misleading titles on their articles to attract readers, this headline states "Moore's Law is Dead", yet also adds, "He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet."
That's like a doctor telling someone that they're dead but they'll still be living for a few years yet.
The automobile battery is designed to provide short bursts of power (and spends more of it's life being recharged as you drive) while the later is used constantly to run say an electric trolling motor
My power source is optimized for trolling.
STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.
From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.
So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?
We landed on the Moon in 1969. We had more launch capability back then than we do now. We couldn't land a man on the Moon now if we wanted to. We were closer to putting a man on Mars back then than we are now. Not all "progress" moves forward. Sometimes your efforts move you in the wrong direction.
Just because something is old doesn't mean its function or capability is outdated. If we had a rocket like the Saturn 5 or Energia, that would be a step forward compared to what we have now.
I wouldn't focus on age as much as capability.
One would be suprised how the Great White is really looked at competely the wrong way. The reason for the wrap of the bad name (besides Jaws) is the problem with their way of satisfying their curiousity. As humans have a habit of touching things they are curious about with their fingers sharks satisfy it by biting. Their bite is meant only as a touch but with thousands of razor sharp teeth it can also be deadly.
To a researcher, it may be a big deal to find out what the shark's intentions are when they bite a person, but to the person getting torn apart it doesn't matter. They're still dead. A shark may just be curious and want to "sample" you, but when the shark is 10x heavier than you and has giant jaws, getting sampled or getting eaten means same thing- you're a goner.
I do see your point about useful science being neglected in favor of things that makes the average American smile when they see it on TV, and normally I'd say to forget about the average joe and do what's best.
But in this case there is a dealbreaker- Joe Public is funding NASA. If the majority of the public doesn't see a use for NASA, they can demand a cut in its funding.
It's a public program that's taxpayer funded.
Tsunamis have been around long before 1997, they've been killing millions of people since the dawn of time, it was a thoughtless name back in 1997, they may as well have called it Toonberculosi
So have hurricanes. And tornados. And asteroids. And comets. But nobody complained when Honda called their motorcycle the Honda Hurricane. I guess if the PC-police were around back then, they would have came up with sensational arguments such as "How could you name a motorcycle after a horrible storm that kills millions of people?". Or maybe you should blame GM for naming a truck "Typhoon". Right now, the word "typhoon" means a powerful force of nature in most people's minds. But let a typhoon kill thousands of people and people will associate it with death and destruction for a while.
Currently, the word "tsunami" is fresh in the vocabularies of many Westerners and they strongly associate the word with the most recent tsunami on Dec. 26, and they're letting their emotions override their sense of reason. "Toonami" was named after the word "tsunami" long before most people in the US even knew what a tsunami was.
ork
Please, MAKE IT STOP!
From the song called " "
Actually, I believe it to be you who is the idiot. The latest issue of Wired actually contains the hard copy of the article so maybe you should return to your post as Overlord of Dairy Queen.
Let me guess- the latest issue is the April edition? And, as we all know, Wired is above pulling April Fool's pranks. But since you bravely posted as Anonymous Coward, I expect that you'd conveniently vanish if I proved you wrong.
This is an April fools prank. And everyone who has responded so far are all fools.
As for better elements that all depends on who you are buying your parts from. First of all a G5 outclasses a P4, it may not be as fast for 32-bit operations, but its only PC equivilent is an Opteron. And if you know anything about PC's an Opteron costs way more then a P4. This is also true for the mobo it requires. So your're not comparing equivilent systems. The iMacs components are closer to a workstation in some areas. Basically the Mac uses higher grade components which cost more. The G5 towers are true worksations, if you're wondering why their price is even higher.
This is plain FUD. First of all, I'm not an Intel fan but the G5 certainly does not outclass the P4. You will be hard pressed to find a G5 that can compete against the high-end P4's.
Second of all, the G5 does not have to compete against an Opteron. An Athlon 64 is more comparable and is much cheaper. It is also faster than anything Apple has, as you will not find a G5 that delivers the performance that the fastest Athlon64's will.
In the past when I've debated performance against Apple fans, the debate follows a predictable path. First they'll claim that their Mac can compete on a performance basis. Once I show them the benchmarks which clearly show that this isn't the case, they'll attempt to compare a dual-G5 to a single P4/Athlon. When I bring up the fact that they can buy a dual P4/Athlon for less money, they'll try to say that it's "apples/oranges". Why? I don't know, but it's probably because they've reached the end of their rational arguments.
I will even link to a Mac news page:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/31867.html
This is from a Mac news page. This isn't some anti-Mac Intel fanboy page.
Apple never actually held the crown for fastest processor. They tried claiming that their product was available while AMD's wasn't, but in reality AMD's product was available first. When companies called Apple on its bogus claim, they quickly backpeddled. Also, if you look at the date of the article, you'll see that some time has passed since then. AMD and Intel have ramped up their clock speed greatly, while the G5's have not been able to ramp up speed nearly as fast.
Here is a page with a rough speed comparison to P4's (compares A64,AXP,Opteron/G4/G5 to P4 speeds)
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
You'll notice that for single processors the G5 cannot match the top of the line Intel or AMD systems (since that article was made Apple has not been able to ramp up the speed of the G5, while Intel and AMD have released faster chips). If you want to compare dual systems, once again it cannot compete.
I don't think you're comment is trolling, but it is redundant--there's like twelve posts stating the same thing, but then my post is probably redudant too.
And the 350 posts from fanboys praising Macs isn't redundant? And not to mention, this board is disproportionately pro-Apple, which doesn't match up with the general population. It highlights the fact that they're just an extremely vocal minority who will mod down anyone who proposes an alternative to their favorite platform.