Is it only Apple-zealots like myself that has noticed that Apple has revealed the fasted personal computer ever at WWDC?

Like all companies do, some of it is PR and bending the truth. But however you look at it, the spec are amazing. Oh well... Iam back to drooling over http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Is it true that you can get paid to let surgery students test their skills on you?
Not that anyone can claim Apple are expencive any more. The PowerMac G5 is faster then a 3GHz Dual Xeon and still cost less :).

But I think that the new vesrion of Mac OS X is what makes me drool the most. I would like to quote Steve Jobs from his presentation, I write this from memory and it was quite long so you must forgive me if it is not 100% accurate: " It would be sportsman like of us to wait for our competition [microsoft Windows] to catch up with 10.2 released last year, but they have let us know that their release has slipped from 2004 to 2005, and some speaks of 2005. We like to be fair to our users not our competition so now I will present some of the over 100 new features of 10.3 that will be available before the end of this year." (In brackets is my own clarification, in case you could not guess :) )

And it is quite true, so far the list of features Microsoft has slipped of Longhorn (Hardware accelerated UI, fast search filesystem etc etc) are all features that Apple user had for years.
More about it at http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/ I have even heard *cough* that the developer release has leaked onto the web.

That test apple performed is Bull

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

I am sorry to say but those accusations has already been disproved. Apple' s test is just as valid as any test performed by a company to put their own product in a better light.

What do you expect? That Intel should show the public tests that does not prove their superiority? That ATI should not fine tune their system when doing a test to get good numbers?

Apple' s test was a test made for a public presentation, they deliberately chose to present the numbers that looks best for them and deliberately chose not to show other numbers. Just as everybody else does when publishing tests as PR. To think any different is to prove oneself an idiot.

Some of the more blatant accusations has been disproved one by one as well. One poster for example claimed that Apple turned of hypher-threading to sabotage the Xeon performance, well Dells own web-page encourage users to turn off hyper-threading to gain performance, so much for that brilliant scheme to sabotage :).

Besides anyone who buys a system on benchmark numbers alone deserves to be ripped of their money. What matters is real world test. And the tests made using real world applications such as Photoshop and Mathematica shows of the G5 performance very well.

well they can' t fight this


http://www.ancientspear.com/mac.wmv

ORIGINAL: drew93084

well they can' t fight this

http://www.ancientspear.com/mac.wmv

Actually they can and it is quite easy. You see if you have some basic knowledge of mac, lets say anything beyond seeing one from afar and herd a friend say it suck. Then you would almost instantly know that he is referring to Mac OS 9.2 (Or an earlier version also refereed to as Classic Mac OS), because he quotes Classic Mac OS dialogue texts that simply is not present in Mac OS X. It is almost as laughable as if he would be throwing dirt at Windows and complain about 640k base memory constraints.

And now here is the funny thing: Classic Mac OS is no longer supported by Apple, in fact new machines can not even boot in Classic Mac OS. Apple has completely drop Classic Mac OS, Mac OS X is not only the future of mac it is also the present. Classic Mac OS is way in the past. And if you judge Macintosh today by what you know of Classic Mac OS then you are uneducated, stupid or both. Just as you would be uneducated, stupid or both if you judged Windows by what you know of Windows 3.11 or even Windows 95.

So read up on the subject or keep your mouth shut and you will look less stupid.

Here is a quick guide:[LIST]

Mac OS X does not share a single line of code with Classic Mac OS. Mac OS X is instead a completely new operating system derived from NextSTEP acquired in a buyout of NEXT in 1997.

Mac OS X is a Unix variant and as such is closely related to BSD, Linux and the likes. Most software that runs under Linux do run without modification under Mac OS X, including Apache web-server, MySQL database-server and the KDE desktop environment.

The Mac OS X kernel dubbed Darwin is an open source initiative just as the Linux kernel, and you can if you like download it and install on a PC or rewrite it to you taste/needs. You do however miss the graphical user-interface Aqua as that is proprietary software, and in my opinion what makes Mac OS X great.

Mac OS X has come in three major releases: 10.0 in march 2001, 10.1 in september 2001 and 10.2 in august 2002. A major release is such a move as from Win95 to Win98 or Win2k to WinXP if you like. 10.0 was really only for brave first adopters, 10.1 was the first release suitable for all users and well on par with Windows XP, 10.2' s feature-list is basically an copy of the promised features for Windows Longhorn coming in 2005. I encourage you to try it out.

10.3 is due for release " by the end of the this year[2003]" , and as a developer I have a pre-release and aside from some annoying design-changes (I hate the new tabs and pray they go away before the public release) I must say it rocks![/LIST]

Keep in mind that Apple is doing business uphill. Undisputedly on consumer desktops Windows dominate with well beyond 90% user-base. In fact most people who buys a computer for the first time does not even know there is a viable alternative. For most common users Windows and Intel IS a computer period.

How do you as a competitor fight in a such monopolised market? There are two solutions, the Linux way and the Macintosh way.
[list]

Linux competes by price. Linux is free, cost nothing. It is an infinitely cheaper alternative for those with knowledge of how to use it.

Macintosh competes with quality user experience. Macintosh is stable, secure, easy enough for my grandmother to use and yet powerful enough to be used my US army to host their web-sites.[/list]
To stay alive as a competitor in a monopolised market you must have a selling point that is almost infinitely better then the competitors, or otherwise the general user will go for the common goods. Both Linux and macintosh has found their selling points and both do it well. Windows sells mainly because it is well known and " everybody else" has it, if consumers would look at price quality only Microsoft would with it' s current products be out of business very soon. With the exception for the Office package, which I must say is an excellent high-quality product.

< Message edited by peylow -- 6/29/2003 11:28:49 AM >

Until Mac obtains at least 5% of the market

there is nothing to discuss here

And why is that, there are many people using cars with less then 5% market share (Ferrari and Porsche comes to my mind).

What is it that you fear you would loose? Your collection of funny movie-clips? Your school essays written in word? Your carefully compiled collection of internet favourites? Not being able to use your old e-mail? Not being able to chat with your friends over AIM, MSN, ICQ or whatever you use to chat with? Not being able to host your own web-page anymore? Not being able to post to this forum? Not being able to play Doom III when it comes till x-mas? Not being able to pay your bills over internet anymore? Not being able to bring your computer to a LAN-party and play Unreal Tournament or Warcraft III with your friends?

Or just what could it be? For it can not be any of the reasons I listed above, because all these things I do everyday (Well not all of them, obviously) with my Mac.

So what is it that is not distrust, unsurtenty and pure fear for what you do not know, that makes that 5% so important for you?

(I give you that EVE - Online has no Mac port and for that I grief)

I' m tired of arguing it really

here' s a thread at xengamers

http://forums.xengamers.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85639&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

I browsed through the thread and it made me so tired. Just how ignorant and uneducated can people be?

" OSX need to be more customisable, hanging hardware setting and such"
Euhm, downloading, editing and recompiling the core OS, just how much more customisable can you get?

" Macs must be more upgradeable piecwise as a PC"
Euhm, AGP and 3 PCI slots, ATA, that is exactly the same hardware pieces you upgrade a PC with.

" Apple had to cheat their benchmarks"
Both Apple and third parties had debunked every argument for cheating presented so far and still this rumour survives. And the ones who started it based it on the documentation Apple releases for how the tests where made. If you where to cheat on your taxes, would you tell IRS how you did it? Just how stupid can people be?

And sorry to say, just how stupid are you? When you blindly believe what is said by people who guess just as much as you do. If you read at a forum that Apple can not read a CD burned on a PC, it does not make it true. Try yourself, burn a CD and pop it in, how hard can it be. Do not believe everything you hear, investigate yourself!!!

And question remains from my previous post: What is it that you fear you would loose fro your current computer experience if you used a Mac?

I investigated enough to know that most of it is true
I used them through school and couldn' t wait to get home to my PC

Apple had programs here where schools get Macs for damn near free...schools cancelled it because they were crap and got Dells and Gateways instead

Everyone know PC' s are more compatible and more powerful overall

Macers, just wanting to be different, have to prove to themselves that the $2500 Mac is worthwhile...which it isn' t

Macs are 80% style

possibly 2% of computer buyers need 2 AGP slots or whatever

Mac doesn' t even consistently beat a PC in video editing as Macers always argue

there are done on average PC proccessors

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm

And why is that, there are many people using cars with less then 5% market share (Ferrari and Porsche comes to my mind).

There' s a very, very big difference between something that is better and something that is different. There' s nothing inherantly better about Macintosh, it' s just different.

ORIGINAL: Anthropic

And why is that, there are many people using cars with less then 5% market share (Ferrari and Porsche comes to my mind).

There' s a very, very big difference between something that is better and something that is different. There' s nothing inherantly better about Macintosh, it' s just different.

What kept you so long :).

And only different? Well I can only speak for myself as a developer. I am with no doubts more productive when developing on mac then when I develop Windows applications. The overall workflow is more tight allowing me to complete simple tasks faster as well as maintain several tasks at once without hassle. I do not consider that only different, I consider that better. If I save half a hour a day it is a good value by the end of the week and a great value by the end of the month. The only problem is that I charge my customers per hour and the chargeable hours are drastically lowered when developing Mac OS X applications for them.

ORIGINAL: PeyloW

The only problem is that I charge my customers per hour and the chargeable hours are drastically lowered when developing Mac OS X applications for them.

Obviously, you' ve never heard of the " don' t kill the job" approach. All this praise about Macintosh and you' ve only managed to make less money? Bravo.

Before you get your panties in a bunch, I' m only playing around. Besides, I' m only to here to watch you argue about this with Anthropic- play nice, kiddies!

ORIGINAL: Olorin
Obviously, you' ve never heard of the " don' t kill the job" approach. All this praise about Macintosh and you' ve only managed to make less money? Bravo.

It is not that bad, the fact that the jobs can be made faster has increased my reputation and given me more jobs. So even if a single Job brings less money (as it takes less working hours). I have even turn down jobs as I only do this part time for my studies and do not have as much time as I would like.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00410/

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/

I think you will find that overclockers.com has a a couple of in depth articles on this subject, which I tend to believe.

Bottom line? Apple falls short again.

ORIGINAL: Spacepiston

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00410/

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/

I think you will find that overclockers.com has a a couple of in depth articles on this subject, which I tend to believe.

Bottom line? Apple falls short again.

The first article is very falwed making statements such as PowerPC being limited by its pipeline depth. That s like saying that Volvo' s top speed is limited by the choice of color.

The second is not only flawed but lacks vital information. The author claims that Apple usually do not provide the configuration setup, but that other manufacturers do, and then he provides a reference to Apples setup used for the statistics provided but no reference to the configuration claimed to provide the true statistics. So how am I now to validate that the author' s claims are true when he provides nothing beyond " trust me" .

It also seams like the the author has not even read the configuration setup Apple has provided as he claims Linux has been chosen as it would be more fair as Mac OS X is a Linux. This statement is false on two accounts; first Linux was chosen as it provided better performance then Windows in the tests, which the configuration document clearly states. And secondly no one had ever claimed Mac OS X to be a Linux, Mac OS X is a Unix. Linux is also a Unix, they are cousins.

The overall quality of the article, also suggests the author is nothing more then a ravaging teenager. And I for one trust my own eyes; I have been at a demonstration event where the PowerMac G5 and a Dual Xeon 3.2GHz (Running Windows XP by the way) where setup and provided for visitors to try themselves. And I can assure you that even if someone can prove that the benchmark numbers are false, no one can disprove that actual performance on real applications is higher.

Well I' ve personally found in gaming comparisons that Mac versions are generally more impressive. For example I tried out Quake III on a 500mhz Pentium III against a 350mhz G4 or G3 (can' t remember exactly - this was in early 2000) and I found the Mac version running at a much smoother framerate in the same resolution as it' s PC counterpart. Both systems were using the same ATI Rage graphics card.

Also I friend of mine who owns both the lastest PCs and Macs (he upgrades) has said on many occasions that Macs are more efficient. Not concreate tests sure, but generally this seems to be true for many different programs and games.

Maybe in recent times things have changed. But I' ve heard they haven' t all that much.

ORIGINAL: Kyo.k
Maybe in recent times things have changed. But I' ve heard they haven' t all that much.

Both yes and no. In 2001 Motorola begun lagging with updates to their G4 cpus and new Macintosh machines as a result begun getting behind their PC counterparts. As power where no longer a selling point Apple had to concentrate on optimising their applications for performance as well as concentrate on quality over pure speed. Which resulted in mac OS X which today is far beyond Windows in quality and features. But at the same time applications dependent on speed such as the latest games and high-end calculation programs lacked. So if it was for good or worse really depends on what you use your computer for: good for the general user, bad for hardcore gamers and scientists.

But with Motorola lagging IBM and Apple in silence teamed up to create a desktop version of IBM' s high end Power4 serverrs (The kind you can not buy for less then $10.000). The result is the PPC 970, a stripped down Power4 cpu with added SIMD instructions to be compatible with AltiVec in the G4. So what has happened is that Apple and IBM made a high end 64bit CPU used for supercomputers (Like ASCI White) available and affordable for personal computers and now many people are not quite willing to accept that such a cpu can compete and in for some applications outperform Intels lineup for personal computers.

Most notable those people concentrates on spec benchmarks, numbers that has been twisted back and worth and I can agree there are: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks, so those should be taken with a fist-full of salt.

The other tests that it has been more quite about, which is real-life tests done using of the shelf (With the latest patches available to end users) software available for both Windows and Mac OS X. Tests has been done with for example Photoshop 7, Mathematica and Quake 3. The tests has shown that the PowerMac G5 outperforms Dual Xeons 3GHz from a few percent to almost the double depending on the application.

I can not quite understand why people get so obsessed by benchmark numbers, when these real-life tests speaks so laud. Anyone can go to a Apple retail store (I have) and perform those tests themselves. And if Photoshop renders a poster in half the time, or Quake 3 has a higher frame-rate, then what is there to argue about? So what if the benchmark numbers does not match up?

The apple zelot guy get' s the nod on this discussion.

In my experiance, and there' s more then I care to remember, most folks a vast VAST majority in fact who work with both platforms prefer the Mac. Yes I would be a perfect example. Now I love taking my pc to lan parties but when it comes to every other possible use it' s all about the Mac.

I work with both platforms and a pretty wide range of OSes on each and across the board it' s mac time when there' s a real solution available.

When it comes to home use, think basically the ' digital life style' OSX takes XP behind the proverbial woodshed.

Quick story, vendor and friend all about PCs doesn' t even consider buying a Mac Gets new PC " To do home movies and pictures" . Basically he' s taking his DV movies and Digital pics from vactions and what not and wants to share them and make nice lil home movies. So we go on a ski trip, get back, share raw data, I' m done in one weekend with a very profesional looking dvd and pics and movie on a homepage etc etc, a month goes by he finally come over for dinner with something after showing him some of my work he wouldn' t even let me check out his stuff He asks a lil about how I did it and a couple of days later reported that he had bought a new mac. ...of course the other week he thought he' d upgrade to final cut pro/express?? Evidently it was a lil beyond his expertise as he inquired about the availablitity of classes for the software.

Anyway I can relate stories all month long, the point is outside of gaming the vast majority of people would/will be a lot happier with the Mac experiance.

Don' t encourage him...