*DAMN R6 Forum

Hi guys check out all the mac news sites about the upgraded Powermacs(I hope with silent fans). They have boosted the speed to 1.42. Also things like FW800 and other stuff is avaible now. However the best thing is that finally the Radeon 9700 is out(in benchmarks almost twice as fast as GForce4 Titanium) All macs and displays are also cheaper now.

However one point I don't understand:

Why the hell is the beginner model only a single prozessor mac!? Apple always promote that MacOSX makes use of dual and now they go back? - Probably because of the prize drop but  it is contraproductive to their advertisement.

At all I guess the changes are fine but those upgrades can't persuade any customer that didn't want to buy the old Powermacs or at least I still wait for the next generation 64bit IBM chips.

You forgot the new sexy 20" display ;)

I like the single processors 'cos dual processors aren't always used very well by games, it feels more like they're trying to trick people with it, saying that ?we have two 1.42 GHz processors instead of one 2.8 like the pentium has, and therefore it is as good?, which is not true 'cos dual processors are only used by applications that has been programmed to do so.

I'm also waiting for the G5's or whatever their names will be, don't feel like I need a new computer just yet anyway ;D

Kami, while dual processors don't mean twice the speed, they are a signifcant boost as long as you have two threads running simultaneously at any time (which I'm sure everyone does otherwise you could get by with a 400 mhz G3 with no problem). OS X supports symmetric multi-processing at the kernel level, so it definitely makes a difference for people who have multiple apps open at once. Admittedly it doesn't do much for games unless they have SMP support, but that's not a big deal. I do think offering a single processor base system was a step back.

The Powermac bump was expected, but I think the new displays are bigger news. The 17 inch flat panel for 600 bucks is a great deal, and the 20 inch display is freaking huge and actually decently priced. I may have to save my money for one of those.

Also, there is not going to be a G5. They will be the 970, a 64 bit IBM PPC desktop version of the POWER4 server chip. They will probably be out in fall or winter, and given all the current indications, "pwnage" doesn't even begin to describe it. I can't wait.

I think you're wrong, Assmaster 455, I think Apple should drop their pants or prices (whichever comes first) and go back to single proc for most of their powermac g4 models. its pretty unneccessary for most users. okay, big wee, I get a 1.42 ghz processor for itunes and a 1.42 ghz processor for safari, I'd rather save $500 or more and let those share a processor, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make a huge dent in performance. even if I had a single processor split between 5 apps, safari, toast, mail, iTunes and adium, there wouldn't be any performance hits. the second processor is useless for anybody that doesn't use photoshop (or some other huge ass program) and doing huge filters and stuff frequently. I'd even consider getting a new G4 if they did that, but as it is, I'm building myself a nice PC for half the price of a freakin G4 that I won't even fully utilize the power of.

anyways, the second proc needs a heatsink/fan. that means more noise. if its idling while I'm gaming or whatnot, it'll just make noise and heat. I don't like either of those.

now, stone me for being the voice of opposition if you wish. but while you folks are looking at raven shield screenshots with your super fast processors (plural!), I'll be playing it at framerates you could never get with AGP 4x. incoming stones! ::duck::

I haven't rebooted in a month.

    Wrath, lest you forget that Apple dropped the price on the top of the line system by $600 (it went from $3299 to $2699) and for that drop in price they upped the processor speed. While these upgraded systems may not seem very impressive at first glance, they are very impressive indeed. Apple has never had it's top of the line base configured system list for any lower than $2999. This definitely makes for a step in the right direction. ;D
    The reason why Apple made the low end system a single processor as opposed to a dual could be in order to give someone like us gamers the kick ass system we want without having to sell our soul (interpret that how you may). Or it could be to make the dual 1.25 seem like a very good buy at $1999.
    As far as gaming on these systems go, it'll rock on either tower once the Radeon 9700 Pro starts shipping. And if I'm not mistaken, there are a few games out based on the Quake Engine that are SMP enabled. The only thing that sucks is that I think I read on one of the Inside Mac Games updates about UT2k3 that Epic wasn't going to enable the SMP capabilities of the Unreal2 Engine on the mac version.  :(

Well in about 2 1/2 months I'll make the hard decission of wether to get a 12" PowerBook or a dual 1.42.

FrEaK?ShadowBox

Wrath, while I don't agree with the reasoning, after thinking it over a little I think having a single processor Powermac could be a good idea. My reason is that the Powermac is the only Apple line with any real expansion capabilities and it would be nice to have an inexpensive option for people who don't need a high end system but would like more expansion capabilities than an iMac offers. However, for anything other than that, I would say dual processors all the way. Remember, this is their professional line. Having a second processor is great for compiles, graphic design, and just general power users who usually have a lot of stuff running.

As for your gaming PC, I agree that hardware wise the Macs can't compete with a home-built x86's right now. Lacking AGP 8x and faster processors really hurt that. However, just wait until the 970's come out. I will lay money saying that when I get my 970 it will knock the socks off any x86, x86-64, or IA64 you can put together.

     Ace, that'll only be true if Apple upgrades the rest of the hardware along with the processors. I'm hoping Apple will shock and amaze me and produce Macs that have at least equivalent hardware to what is standard on the PC side, but I'm highly skeptical of their willingness to do something like that. $3000 would be a steal for a Mac that had all the same hardware as a high-end gaming PC (excepting the processor, of course). $2699 would be even better.

     I was spouting off on GR recently about how, IMO, Apple could grab a whole bunch of market share in the near future (FYI, "market share" is in terms of units sold, not installed base). The scenario involved adopting the Power4 (A.K.A. 970) and releasing Power Macs with the fastest 970 available and standard PC hardware, including 533 MHz DDR RAM, AGP 8x, a much faster frontside bus speed, etc. Then, by offering incentives (money) and embarking on a program of education, Apple would persuade game companies to port many more of their games to the Mac. As part of that project, Apple would create a totally cross-platform, fully modern networking library optimized for games, then release that library for free to all game developers. This is an effort to entice game companies not to use DirectPlay (the networking component of DirectX) when developing the PC version of their game, so that the PC version and Mac port of a game are cross-platform network compatible (as opposed to DirectPlay, which is the reason there are so many games that we can't play with PC users). Apple would also give lots of aid to game-related hardware companies to ensure that they wrote (high-quality) drivers for the Mac for their products. In six months to a year, Macintosh would be a (far more) viable gaming platform, and would see a lot of switching by PC gamers who won't touch a Mac with a ten-foot pole because they suck for gaming (which they do).

     Meh. I can dream.

Bravo Loth but I'm pretty sure you'll have to dream for a very long time.

I don't think Apple would have enough money for a 10th of what you just dreamed up Loth, although it's a nice thought ;)

Ace, for any normal mac user, who doesn't fuck around with photoshop or any other apps like that on a professional level, one processor is certainly enough, I think the second processor would be a waste of my money.

..thats assuming AMD and Intel will be sitting on their hands until september waiting for apple to get the upperhand. I agree that a 970 could beat any x86, x86-64, or IA64 I can put together.. RIGHT NOW. but the 970 isn't for many months, I'm not willing to sit around waiting for apple to unveil the magic product that will save the world and stop pollution. when september rolls around and if apple's new models are as good as you claim, I'd get one.

     Apple would be ABLE to produce models like I was suggesting. The problem is their willingness to do so. Apple makes a plentiful profit on every unit sold. Selling modern hardware would mean cutting down that profit margin, probably significantly. That's why it won't happen; it's not because it can't.

Kami, my point is that the Powermacs are NOT for normal mac users. They are a professional line for graphics designers, developers, and power users amongst others. That's why I think only the lowest end model should be offered with a single processor.

Apple should have just made a computer that was simply to use and had a swapable processor and video card. No other PCI slots or anything would really be needed. Even a built in moniter like the iMac would be fine. I don't know why Apple hasn't realized their pricing is what keeps people from buying an iMac every 2-3 years to stay somewhat near the top of technology. If there original iMac had swapable processor/RAM/HD/video card it would have been. And really there was no reason it could not have.

They could even streamline the processor installation with they're wonderful knack for over coming hardware difficulties in intuititive ways.

I fully support Apple trying to gain a larger market share, but I am also somewhat wary of such action. Remember what happened the last time Apple emulated a Wintel trend to get a  bigger market share (When they licensed other software companies to make Mac-compatible computers)? Yeah, Apple just about went bankrupt.

So now that Apple has been rebuilt, (to some extent, I would hardly say that they are financially "out of the woods") I think they can safely try again? they just need to make sure before they try to increase the level of competition with PCs that  they stay true to their loyal patrons and continue to make products that stand apart from what everyone else is making. They also need to make sure that they play it more conservatively this time... I'd say it's a difficult line to walk for Apple.

Another amusing note on  PC hardware?
 my roommate has a 1.4 ghz Pentium 4 Dell with 256 ram
 I have a 600 mhz g3 iBook with 384 ram

using the Haxial benchmark testing program, my iBook beat his by a significant margin in both speed benchmarks.

So mb Apple isn't so far behind after all? Imagine how well they could do if they were using more modern hardware...

wraith in case you dont know the duel 1.25 tower ran photoshop 23% faster then the 3 ghz dell P4 the 1.42 ran it 32% faster so dont start any of that framerate crap the duel 867 ran Q3 at 102 fps

with the duel 1.25 down to $1,999 i think it wasa good idea to make the 1 ghz single processor for anyone who wants G4 tower but doesnt need the power, or doesnt want to spend 3K ona duel 1.42,   like me =)

also I like the idea of changable processors, that way you could stay near the top of the line without getting a new computer every 3-4 years(think of all the money you'd save if that happend)

I dont see apple and PC in the same league as each other as far as im concerned  if you want something cheap to run simple programs on, you geta PC.
if you want something a bit more powerful that wont need to be upgraded all the time, that wont crash, and that will last you fora bit longer then a PC you get a apple.
picking a apple over a pc would be like picking a corvett over a mustang you pay a bit more for the vett but its 2x as good as the mustang.

get my name right, fool. the name is wrath, not wraith. or did wrath never enter your puny vocabulary?

definition in the merriam-webster dictionary:

noun; 1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation


now that thats out of the way.. I never said graphics professionals who run photoshop all the time should get a PC, in fact, I believe a mac is best for graphics work.

as for gaming, you cited Q3 FPS. in case you didn't know, Q3 is very much CPU based and is NOT a good indicator of general speed in games. if you tried a game like UT or UT 2003, you'd find the mac very much behind. if you compare an equally priced PC to the highest end mac, you'd find the mac sadly behind by a large amount. when it comes to gaming, macs suck right now. no AGP 8x really really hurts it. with AGP 4x, macs can only take advantage of half of the Radeon 9500/9700 and other high end geforces' power.

and for consumer macs, the iMacs and eMacs REALLY don't cut it for gaming. I tested a 700 mhz eMac w/ 512 megs of RAM and a geforce2 mx (which is the standard card), and I was getting about 30 FPS in Q3 at 800x600 at a little higher than medium quality on dm17. I was getting about 20 fps in ghost recon at 1024x768 at medium quality for everything. WHO THE FUCK DOES APPLE THINK THEY ARE KIDDING?

I'm done with this thread. nobody can convince stupid mac users of anything. not even a fellow mac user. Ace is the only person that really has any good substance to his posts here. (surprise!)

Hey. . .watch it wrath. . .you forget so easily your who is your match  ;)

However, I just thought I'd rebuke Ace a little. . .while it's true in actuality that almost exclusively professionals and the like use PowerMacs, that needn't be the case.  Users such as ourselves, who have equal desire for power but no use for dual processors, should not be excluded from the top-of-the-line machines.  Our PC brethren have full access to the latest and greatest for all users. . .Mac should be the same way.  

I want to have the best Mac I can afford, but only to the extent that I'll use it.  I shouldn't have to buy a lesser machine simply to avoid having 2 processors.

there musta been something fucked up with that emac 700 because i get about 45 fps in GhR on my 450 imac with everything on medium

hmm...I know this is off topic, but since I don't want to start a new topic and this kind of goes with the upgrading I'll just put it here. I  have a guess what will be upgraded at MCNY...

Hardware
-imac 15in & 17in
933mhz,1ghz G4
256mb DDR Ram
120gb HD
ATI Radeon 9000Pro

-ibook
867mhz G4
256mb DDR RAM
60gb HD
ATI Radeon 9000Pro mobility

-Powermac
nothing "big", maybe a few tweaks and upgrade speeds to 1.6ghz

Other stuff...

-new keyboard and mouse
-Safari 2.0
-a PocketPC
-New Appleworks

Crazy guesses
-PowerMac 970
-Apple Cellphone
-10.3

ah well I WAS BORED,
one

Loud, about the only power users who have a great desire for power but no use for dual processors are people who use their Macs almost solely for gaming. This group is so infintesimally small (if it even exists at all) that it it is not worth it to Apple financially to cater to them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but can you tell me who else would need a 1.42ghz G4 rather than a 1ghz G4 and would not have a use for multiple processors?

     Maybe you're looking at the dual processor issue the wrong way 'round. If dual processor Macs have good market penetration, perhaps porting companies will go to the trouble to enable SMP support in the games they release. On the other hand, they probably wouldn't.

I'd love a dual processor if I had the money, but I don't, I think it's silly to get another one just for programs like PS to run faster and for the computer to be able to multitask better (my Cube runs great with multitasking), I don't think a single processor would make multitasking much slower than dual processors. And then there's the heat factor, another processor makes another fan necessary and then you get the windtunnel G4's. The new macs have been relieved of much of that problem but still, it's just unnecessary for a guy like me, someone who would like a good computer for gaming and amateur PS'ing perhaps.