NASA publishes first 3rd party benches of Apple G5 machine vs. P4.

[Eug]

That's kinda what I'm trying to get at. Given my Wintel background, going to OS X really doesn't make sense unless I want to TOTALLY convert over to using Apple hardware...b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

What's wrong with using both?

For the record, I build my own PCs, and I buy Macs too. I doubt I'll go completely Mac or completely Windows (I don't like Linux) any time soon, because the machines complement each other. At home I run one of each. My desktop is a Celly Tualatin, and my laptop is a beautiful PowerBook Titanium. I sold my PIII 600 Inspiron 5000e for an iBook 600 (before I got the TiBook), specifically because I like OS X.1 so much and because the Inspiron was a beast. OS X is very well thought out, built from the ground up to be a next generation OS. It is very intuitive and looks beautiful too. The *nix geeks like the Unix base, but quite frankly I (fortunately) never deal with that layer of the OS. Actually, scratch that, every once in a while I open up the terminal to run "top", just for the hell of it. I hear that top now has a beautiful front end in Panther OS X.3 so that will be the end of touching Unix for me I guess.

However, I did sell the iBook because it was simply too slow. The TiBook is very nice however. It's no screamer but it easily handles what I need it to do. 1 GHz G4 with 768 MB RAM, 15.2" widescreen, powered Firewire, DVI-output, and a built-in DVD burner, all in 5.5 lbs. I never considered the desktops because I found the G4s too slow for a desktop, partially because of the 167 MHz bus. The one thing I noticed that impressed me though about the hardware was the integration with the OS. Apple controls the OS AND the hardware so I found that it simply worked. Much easier than dealing with my home built Athlon or even my hand-tweaked quiet PC Celeron Tualatin. Buy something and everything works. Even my preconfig'd HP P4 purchase wasn't that smooth. As much as I like tweaking my hardware (get your mind out of the gutter) there is something to be said about hardware that works out of the box. Nothing is perfect of course, but the Macs are definitely a big step in the right direction in this regard.

Now I mentioned that I never considered the Power Macs... until now. The new G5s are quite sweet. I won't buy one in 2003, but I'll consider one for 2004, in addition to my Windows XP box. I won't drop Windows by the way, because like I said it complements my Mac quite nicely. My PC the server and the TiBook is the one I lug around. Interestingly I actually run Windows on my Mac... I wirelessly access the XP, and take it over on the Mac via Microsoft Remote Desktop. (I need to run Quicken on the PC sometimes but I didn't feel like buying a Mac version for it. Plus it's nice being able to do my finances on my Windows box upstairs from the comfort of my living room couch. )

Why floss when the toothbrush does everything you need?

Don't tell your dentist you said that.

Windows XP Pro = Sonicare!

Ironically, my dentist told me not to use my Sonicare brush. It was faster, but not necessarily better. (P.S. I'm being serious here too.)

My friend has an Apple laptop, and the only thing outstanding that I saw was the severe lack of applications.

What does he do with it? I run Photoshop, Dreamweaver, FTP, iTunes, MS Office, Keynote, and a few other things a lot. I don't run 3D Studio Max of course. Mind you I don't run that on my PC either.

If I remember correctly, the G5 has a 1 GHz bus between processors, but the bus that links it to memory is 800 MHz.

Actually, the G5 has dual independent 1 GHz busses connecting the system controller to each of the CPUs. The memory bus is on an 800 MHz bus connected to the same controller. See description here.

I never said that IBM didn't have the manufacturing expertise to make the G5 scale well (IBM has one of the best teams out there, I think). But you're still listing things that Intel will have several months before Apple/IBM. Prescott appears ready to roll, which is .09um, and in 12 months, it will almost be Tejas time (H2 2004). My point isn't that the G5 is bad, because it's not, but it's not anything revolutionary, and it's not even the best. What I am saying is that for now, Intel still has the performance advantage, and will for the forseeable future. It's good to see the IBM is committed to the future of the G5, though.

Well, true, but right now they also have a chipset architecture that is arguably inferior. That said, both the G5 and the Intel stuff are FAST, and furthermore it's good to see a new competitor in the speed arena. The recent G4s aren't even in the running.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

Uh.... Interesting analogy, but I'll run with it. Why floss when the toothbrush does everything you need? Or, perhaps even a better job? It really isn't too complicated to figure out. If I like to use Windows, and it meets my needs, and it's faster than a Macintosh, why would I bother switching? Or why would I even bother to pay attention to the new G5 processor? Does it offer anything over Intel or AMD? If you're a Mac user or Mac fan, then I'm sure you must be astounded, but to me, the new G5 didn't rock my socks off. Now, if it were faster, and had more potential than the P4, then I might be interested, but right now, neither have been conclusively proven. That, plus Prescott is so damn attractive.

you must have bad teeth. toothbrushes don't do much of the things that floss does. obviously you guys are never gonna try a mac because you aren't openminded when it comes to computers. you feel like your current implementation does everything fine. which it might. i used to be like you, but then i let myself in to a new computer experience. i'm much happier after having done it. PC's still "meet my needs", but my Mac makes my general computer usage much more enjoyable. sometimes i use my PC, because it can do some things better than my Mac can, but i use OS X 95% of the time i use a computer.

it's not a matter of closemindedness in may case, it is a matter of simply not being able to afford it

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

That's a perfect analogy. The only minor difference being one combo cost $5, the other $5000. If you could buy a decked out Apple and PC for $5 combined, there wouldn't be any debate, everyone would own 100 of each.

 

[Eug]

Hmmm... Some guy in a MacNN forum post suggests that one problem with this benchmark on the G5 side is the G5's second FPU. This bench used a non-G5-oriented compiler meant for the G4 (which only has one FPU). I wonder what the speedup would be if you specifically coded/compiled to take into account the second FP unit.

(Asking, because I'm not a programmer.)

 

[GL]

If you haven't used an Apple recently, you really don't know what you're missing. You could take my word for it if you knew me well. But you can't just compared specs to familiarize yourself with the platform. When iTunes is released for Windows, and if it is a true clone of the Mac version, some of you will start to get a realization for what Mac OS X offers.

I still use Windows (essentially it is only my gaming platform now) and Linux (server), but OS X has taken over my desktop duties. You really have to try both platforms. Mac users who never use Windows are still stuck with outdated perceptions of Windows from the 3.11/95 days. Similarly, Windows users have little to know knowledge of what OS X offers. They see lots of fancy graphics and assume that's all there is to it. But there's much more and unless you use the system for a full week, you won't get a good impression of what it has to offer.

Some of the neat things I've been able to do with OS X that would be impossible to do on Windows without a tremendous amount of effort:

1) I scripted Mail.app to read aloud the first sentence and sender's name of e-mail I've deemed to be important. Instead of checking the e-mail everytime something arrives, I can leave the app in the background and just check it once in the morning/once in the evening. If something important arrives, I am read aloud the first sentence and can choose to attend to that e-mail.

2) Try to explain to a PC user the entire concept of Sherlock/Watson. I've got quite a few Sherlock channels setup that make accessing web services much more convenient and flexible than going through a web browser to do the same.

3) Look at my desktop I've got a nice calendar on the desktop and my to-do list right on the desktop as a nice reminder. I can also check up some stock prices and check the weather (the latter being fairly gimmicky I have to say). Oh, and the CD album art of the Mp3 I'm listening to automaticaly downloads and slides into that CD cover in the middle of my desktop.

4) I've setup encrypted disk images for sensitive projects I'm working on. When panther comes out, I'll be able to encrypt my entire home directory. The difference with Win2k/XP's encryption is in the implementation. It just makes more sense. You won't see so many people encrypting their files and then not being able to decrypt them after they format like is evident with 2k/XP.

5) I can use Applescript to script GUI apps like iTunes, iPhoto, etc. I can integrate AppleScripts with Perl or other shell scripts to get even more functionality and automation. Need an alarm clock? Forget about downloading some cheesy shareware, just script iTunes to wake me up with a random choice from my most-played songs. Script Proteus to SMS my cell phone when I'm away but get an important e-mail away from the computer. Script the computer to parse my public transit's website to remind me the best time to leave for an appointment that's showing up in iCal.

6) The command line! I don't know how often this has saved me hours of work. When I have to do some web work and somebody sends me an Excel file, I can output to .csv and integrate the information from that file into the webpages. Just whip up a bash script to parse the files which are often in different formats as far as data setup goes.

7) Bluetooth! When I get my bluetooth phone I'll be able to do use it as a remote for OS X. Again, with the great scripting support, the remote could essentially do anything. When the phone rings I'll be able to see who's calling on my computer and choose to answer or not. Sounds gimmicky but I often leave my cell in my jacket so it's not near me. If I just keep a headset near me, I'll be able to keep my phone in my jacket hanging from the wall somewhere moderately far away, and still use it.

8) iSync is great. I've got my contacts, address book, webpage bookmarks and other syncable data available anywhere even if I only have a PC handy.

I dunno, I'm pretty geeky, but if you're into programming at all, OS X is just plain fun. If you're a gamer, I'd probably tell you just to stick with Windows. But everyone should at least open their eyes to all the platforms out there.

 

[Eug]

Bluetooth! When I get my bluetooth phone I'll be able to do use it as a remote for OS X.

I tried this with my friend's phone, to control Keynote. (For those who don't know, Keynote is Apple's competitor to PowerPoint, but with nice 3D accelerated transitions.)

It worked, but the range was only about 10 feet with my TiBook (using an external D-Link BlueTooth adapter). Not enough of an incentive for me to invest in a new BlueTooth phone.

 

[Murr]

GL-

To me, most of those reasons, while cool, are just niceties. And although you seem to be against it, I have no problem grabbing the equivalents off downloads.com.

The things that don't appear to be available or as good are #4 and 6 (I don't know what #2 is), but they don't interest me anyway.

I'm in no way saying XP is the better OS. It just doesn't seem worth it to me to give up more software (mostly games) and a lot more cash for OSX. But if you're satisfied with the games you got on Macs and have lots of money, I can understand.

 

[drag]

There are several reasons to choose OS X over Windows. Although of course I prefer Linux.

1. Built in security. Windows by design is a very insecure operating system, even with the dramatic improvements and multiuser ability added since w2k, it can't change this fact. The security is almost mostly a tack-on and is only implimented at the top-most levels of the OS. Everything underneath is still basicly a combination of single user win98 and NT that has been impoved and fine tuned. Windows can't get out of it's own design issues. Linux/BSD (a BSD with a Mach kernel is on which OS X is built) have security built in from the ground up, every level of the OS is picked over by security personal the world over and checked for inconsistances. The quality control in this aspect has Linux/BSD 100 times more extensive then any thing MS has. (and don't fool yourself, Open source is not inherently more insecure because people see the source code, because guess what? Hackers have copies of Window's source code, too. MS servers have been hacked and many people have day jobs and some of them work for MS-affiliated companies that have access to the code. ND agreements only affect those worried about following the law.)

2. Virus's. Due to windows design it has a VERY slow reaction time to vunerabilities and the tendancy is to blame the user (a security vunerability in my book is when you install programs by accidently clicking a "ok" on a random pop-up). Therefore it is very easy to create virus's that cause problems the world over. There are easily over 60,000 viruses that affect windows users. The viruses for Linux and Mac's combined only number in the dozens. Many people beleive that Linux and Macs will be subject to more viruses as they get more popular. This hasen't happened and it probably won't. It's due to the nature of the design of the OS that even if people figured out how to make a virus for linux/bsd (which isn't hard) it can't do anything unless given root access. Even if I had a hostile virus in my home directory and I tried to execute it, the worst it could do would be to screw up my home directory, other users will remain unaffected because if I don't have rights to system files, neither will the virus, and this goes all the way down to the kernel, the very core of the os. not just file permissions on the harddrive. OS X isn't quite as good at it since most people just run it logged in as a admin, but still is not a fraction of what you poor windows users have to go thru.


3. This is personal taste, but I like the design of the gui of OS X over windows. It's refined and better integrates windows and desktops and icons together.

4. Multimedia has always been Mac's strongpoint, it's proccessor and achitecture is designed to handle high-quality graphics and movies, the same as Windows and x86 are designed to be fast at games.

5. Stability. Mac's improved a hundred fold with OS X over OS 9. it's not a 100% stable, but it doesn't decline with age. And if you do run into problems a file permissions and partition repair is usually all thats needed. you can avoid most of the problems by not runnning as admin and not running classic mode.

6. modification. Again not as strong as in Linux because of the closed sourced aqua interface, but the OS can adapt to your level of expertise, better then linux if your a newbie. If you just need something to get work done and you don't want to mess with learning a bunch of stuff, you don't have to. However if you realy want to get your hands dirty you can modify anything, you can turn your desktop into a server that will use the same programs and services that high-end Linux/Unix worktations can use. With windows like XP and w2k pro, you are intentionally hobbled from the outset by what you can do with the OS by limiting client numbers and stuff like that. Sure you can add-on services, but these won't be as fast as those offered by the OS itself.

It's just a matter of taste, if you want to use you computer to it's upmost and your a PC hobbyist that likes modify and tweak and program your system and get the most out of the internet and new technology then linux/bsd is for you.

If all you want to do is chat and play video games, with some movie watching-type stuff thrown here and their then stick with windows.

OS X is a good OS that does a pretty decent job of comprimising between the 2 worlds.

It you want to try it out best thing to do is see if you can find a old g4 or a late model g3 (the ones that look like g4 powermacs, but have clear ugly green/white plastic with "G3" showing) on the side for about 400-600 bucks on ebay. Best thing is to get a Apple laptop, most windows users are happy about having a hassle free laptop, even if they can't give up having a bazillion games on the desktop. This will give you a opertunity to try it out. If you don't like it then you can still religate it to a file server and/or install linux on it, so it won't be a waste of money. Plus many older ones have scsi drives and cards that are still usefull for upgrading to nicer drives. The hardware is fairly top-notch so it's not quite as risky as buying a used PC with unknown quantity of generic parts.

If you are fairly wealthy and want something nicer you can get a emac or a imac that don't take up much room, and the older 1.25 ghz g4 powermacs now go for around $1100-2900 (1600+ with dual 1.25 and combo drive) now that the G5. (www.macmall.com)

 

[NFS4]

I dunno, I'm pretty geeky, but if you're into programming at all, OS X is just plain fun. If you're a gamer, I'd probably tell you just to stick with Windows. But everyone should at least open their eyes to all the platforms out there.

(1) When my money is involved, I stick to what works instead of spreadin' my resources thin. XP works, why switch? It's gonna take more than a few retarded commercials I mean, you're trying to convince 98% of the computing audience to convert to a 2% marketshare minded way of thinking.

(2) All that stuff you mentioned up above I either don't care about or just have no use for. Web services, encryption, scripts, etc. I don't need any of that crap. I use my machine for News posting, gaming (mmmm, BF1942, Desert Combat, GTR 2002, drool), web browsing, HTML work, Photoshop stuff, etc.

(3) I also use it as a central station for my PocketPC. I use my desktop as a gateway for my iPAQ 2215 in two manners other than USB.

Bluetooth: my iPAQ 2215 has integrated Bluetooth so I use it to sync wirelessly (I have a 3Com USB Bluetooth dongle on my desktop) managing all of my contacts/emails/calender data/files/favorites/etc. I can also transfer files back and forth etc with Bluetooth. I also use it to piggy back Internet access, but it's a little slow.

802.11b: my iPAQ 2215 also has a CF slot which I use for an 802.11b card. I use this to remotely control my desktop using the Terminal Services client. I also have some of my main folders shared (MP3's, MyDocs, etc.) so that while I'm walking around the house or am in a different room, I have access to all 10GB's of my MP3's and all documents I'm working on. I also use 802.11b to piggy back the internet connection off my desktop. Much faster than Bluetooth in this regard. I also use the 802.11b to sync with my laptop with ActiveSync and to browse the Win2k/WinXP networks we use at work. And since we use Office at work, I can manage Word/Excel files and read Adobe Acrobat files as well.

(4) Ohh, Windows Media Player 9 also downloads album covers and all of that snazzy "foo foo" stuff. I know b/c all of the CD's that I have ripped with WMP have the album covers showing up on the folders when I browse through them.

The point is, OS X isn't offering me anything I need or want and definitely not offering me everything I need to ditch my WinXP machine. It's NOT worth it for me to buy a completely new Apple system just to say "Wow, look at this fancy alarm clock."

My computer is a tool for me to use. And for that purpose, it excels magnificently. It does everything I ask of it and more. For me to switch for such trivial reasons as to just "try something new" is NOT worth the expense to me when we're talking thousands of dollars. If it were something I HAD to do or something that actually BENEFITED me, I could understand. But OS X does nothing for me.

As for desktops, I prefer my clean layout:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bahill2/desktop.jpg

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

When iTunes is released for Windows

GL, I have only heard of this as rumor. Do you have any more hard evidence(links maybe?) that Apple will do this? So far, iTunes is about my favorite app on OSX. Heck, I've bought more music from iTunes in the last month than I have in the last year.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: GonzoDaGr8

When iTunes is released for Windows

GL, I have only heard of this as rumor. Do you have any more hard evidence(links maybe?) that Apple will do this? So far, iTunes is about my favorite app on OSX. Heck, I've bought more music from iTunes in the last month than I have in the last year.

Well, considering they showed MS exactly how to launch a successful online music store, they'd be stupid not to port it over before MS does something like, oh, I don't know - include it in Longhorn.

- M4H

 

[Eug]

When iTunes is released for Windows

GL, I have only heard of this as rumor. Do you have any more hard evidence(links maybe?) that Apple will do this? So far, iTunes is about my favorite app on OSX. Heck, I've bought more music from iTunes in the last month than I have in the last year.

Apple has posted a job opening for an iTunes for Windows project leader/programmer.

I dunno if the position has been filled or if it has, when an actual shipping Windows version would appear.

All that stuff you mentioned up above I either don't care about or just have no use for. Web services, encryption, scripts, etc. I don't need any of that crap. I use my machine for News posting, gaming (mmmm, BF1942, Desert Combat, GTR 2002, drool), web browsing, HTML work, Photoshop stuff, etc

Re: Photoshop, etc: For the pros, colour management is usually easier on the Mac (since they've aimed it historically at creative professionals). And OS X.3 will bring integrated colour management to the OS, so that apps which don't colour manage at all will still (hopefully) display colours correctly.

 

[drag]

I'd also like to point out that to compare one g5 against one pentium4 proccessor isn't a realistic comparision. Like the Opteron or Athlon MP, the chip is designed to be used in tandem with another chip. Putting it in single chip only comparision your crippling the architecture... of course since Apple sells single chip computers the benchmarks are still valid... that's all.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
well, i'm off this thread now. Terminator 3 beckons

Bah, tuck your tail between your legs and run. Yeah, go ahead and run!!!!!

that movie was great. funny as hell.

 

[GL]

NFS4,

I'm sure you could find a lot of use out of OS X. I mentioned some extremely specific cases, but in general, the interaction between applications is great. Let me pose this hypothetical situation for you. I'm not exactly sure how your news posting works, but let's assume it works much like how we post on the forums. There are probably authentication fields, a URL field, a news blurb field, etc. Let's see what OS X brings to the table:

You could whip up an Applescript to interact with the web-based news submission form. Thanks to system-wide spell checking, you wouldn't have to rely on any Fusetalk magic to provide spell checking (if there is any) on the news submission. Moreover, thanks to the text summary service, you could script one of the fields to automatically summarize the enclosed text to a pre-determined size. For instance, instead of quoting an entire paragraph verbatim, you might quote several paragraphs but in summary. You could then have the script match the domain in the news piece's URL to an e-mail address in your address book. For instance, if you were posting a news link to joeshmoeshouseofoverclocking.net, the script could send off a boilerplate e-mail to joe@joeshmoeshouseofoverclocking.net who is in your address book saying "Hey Joe, we just linked to your article. Great stuff...".

And how would you interact with this script? It'd look like a document window. You highlight the URL in the Safari web browser. Drag it into the URL field in your script. Highlight some text from the actual article. Drag it into the summary field of your script. Sprinkle with your own comments. Note the as-you-type spell checking and hit "Submit". Voila, the script submits to AnandTech.com, it notifies Address Book to query for the contact for the site and requests Mail.app to send an e-mail to this contact. Done and done. No more complicated than what you're probably used to, but with some added flare. Hell you could even have it start a forum topic for really important news so you could cut down immensely on the latency between you posting news and then posting a forum topic about that piece of news

The interaction between applications and system frameworks in OS X has got to be the most powerful thing going for it. It's not innovative, but it's nice to have command-line-type philosophy extended to the GUI. Each application becomes less of an island as it becomes linked more with other applications.

You don't even want me to get started on my "Date Mode" script that I've whipped up Now that's nerdy but it gets the girl's smiling and is a great ice breaker.

 

[mosco]

The reason windows stinks is because i can't seem to find an app that can copy an application icon without paying 14 dollars!!

getting that out of my system, I don't think that one machine is more stable that the other. I have only had a couple crashes with Windows XP but they were driver related, stupid leadtek. I own both macs and pcs. Windows for games and TV recording and my mac for everything else. While i agree that the features that mac os x offers are not all that more than what Windows Xp offers, i generally prefer the layout of mac os x. Windows to me seems so slopy. Things don't seem to be integrated all that well and seem out of place to me. I think that mac os x has the edge on this though because they were able to start fresh. MS has had to add stuff to the same basic design of Win95 where as apple got to design all those features together from the start.

plus, by the time the next windows comes out, we will probably be at Mac os 10.4.

NFS4,

my mac desktops(kinda old though)

Desktop
Desktop2
Desktop3
Desktop4 (running KDE ontop of osx)

The hardest part about switching between osx and windows is remembering that on a mac, paste is apple(alt) - v and on windows it is control - v.

 

[RanDum72]

I think of them more as an appliance than a computer... you're not really supposed to mod them or anything... THey just do what they do when you buy them.

What are you trying to say, its not a computer if you can't mod it?
Computers ARE supposed to do something. Its like buying a car. Some people buy one so it can take them to work. The ones that don't work, they get a car so they can tinker with it ( or 'mod' it). Really productive. If the mod is done so you can actually do more work, then its a different story. But if you do it just to be 'cool', then I don't know what to say.....

 

[ZimZum]

Aside from the upgrade, price and performance issues the Mac OS isnt nearly as backwards compatible
as windows. An application that worked with win95 will in all likely hood work with win98 and XP. OS X is
another story. Youre basically expected to purchase new versions of all your applications every time an
upgrade is released. Thats one of the reasons for their lauded stability. I'm sure if MS wrote a legacy free
OS from scratch it would also be rock solid.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: ZimZum
Aside from the upgrade, price and performance issues the Mac OS isnt nearly as backwards compatible
as windows. An application that worked with win95 will in all likely hood work with win98 and XP. OS X is
another story. Youre basically expected to purchase new versions of all your applications every time an
upgrade is released. Thats one of the reasons for their lauded stability. I'm sure if MS wrote a legacy free
OS from scratch it would also be rock solid.

1) Compatibility? I guess you've never heard of Unix.
2) Many of my apps for 95/98 didn't work in 2000. Many did however.
3) XP is simply an upgraded 2000. If it worked for 2000 it'll probably work for XP (with exceptions).
4) MS hasn't written a legacy free OS. You were arguing backwards compatibility remember.

 

[Regs]

EdipisReks, I think I've fallen in love with you.

 

[Eug]

Here is a better diagram of the G5 architecture, since somebody asked.

 

[Sunner]

NFS, if you think XP is the perfect OS, indeed, why should you switch?
I don't understand why anyone feels the need to try to convert people who have no interest in switching.

Me, I don't like Windows, I have to use it now and then, and I prefer Win2K in those situations, but I stick to Linux as much as possible, Windows lacks a huge amount of functionality that I require, and I don't believe MS will include much, if any, of it anytime soon.
At work, I use Linux, and I have an old crappy box running Win2K on the side, for outlook and the FW-1 admin programs.

But I'd love to trade both of those in for a G5, heck I could run the FW-1 programs in VirtualPC or whatever it's called.
I've never been one to root for specific companies, etc, I like Macs, I like x86's, they both have their place, just as I like both nVidia and ATi, AMD and Intel, etc.

I've always thought of the Mac fans to be the worst of all fans, but in thise thread, the attitude of many x86 users is outright repulsive.

 

[Eug]

I probably couldn't 'switch' to either Mac or PC. I prefer to use both.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Czar]

I'm impressed, but I'm afraid that after 6 months at most the current p4 will be much faster than the one now but the G5 will still be the same as now.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Czar
I'm impressed, but I'm afraid that after 6 months at most the current p4 will be much faster than the one now but the G5 will still be the same as now.

Macs tend to be upgraded every 6 months even if it means a couple months delay after faster chips are available, whereas x86 boxes are updated as soon as the chips are out.

I don't know if this will change at all with the G5, but I expect not.

ie. 1.6/1.8/2.0 in August, still 1.6/1.8/2.0 3 months after, but say 2.0/2.3/2.5 six months after, at around the same price as now.

My guess is that a single 2.5 GHz G5 would roughly be around a 3.3 GHz P4 or faster. depending upon the compiler/software optimizations or whatever, and if you don't count bus bandwidth (which is faster for the G5).

I don't know where Intel will be in 6 months. I expect the 3.4 GHz P4 will be out relatively soon, but I don't know about the next-gen stuff. If Prescott is out by then, then great, IBM has more competition to get its 0.09 @ssets in gear. (I'm guessing that the 3 GHz G5 will be 0.09 um. IBM has said that they hope to bring the fab to 0.09 by the end of 2003.)


BTW, How much faster is a Prescott 3.4 GHz supposed to be than a P4 3.4C anyway? Is Prescott still expected to debut at 3.4?