PC mag tests G5

[luka]

Hi all
Just found this on one of the rumor sites. PC Mag test a G5x2gh against G4 and dell Xeon x2 3.06gz

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274637,00.asp

the word is neck and neck:p

[Beamtracer]

I think the G5 was pretty comparable to the Dual 3GHz Xeon. Each one beat the other on some tests.

There'll be a further G5 speed improvement when the optimized Panther OS (10.3) comes along.

[CaptainKirk]

Excuse me Beam, but comments like yours: "Each one beat the other on some tests" is one of the reasons people think Mac users have no clue and are simply out of touch with reality.

Think about what you are saying?

There are total of 21 tests under Lightwave and Photoshop.

Intel wins 17

Apple wins 4

How is that: "Each one beat the other on some tests".

In anybody's book, that is called a severe beating.

17 - 4

I'll be the first to admit that in these tests at least G5 is close on most tests it lost and not 100% slower like on some other tests, so it looks better.

I would also give up on that "optimization is coming and things will get better ideas".

As you can see they used Photoshop optimized for G5 and still Intel won all but 2 tests with overall 25% faster performance.

From the link above that I posted, you can also see that 1.6 Ghz Opteron is about 15% faster than that same Intel Xeon, therefore it's safe to conclude that 1.6 Ghz Opteron is about 30-40% faster than a G5. Current top of the line Opteron also runs at 2Ghz. So as you can see, even when using a G5 optimized Photoshop, G5 still crawls compared to Opteron.

This is all simple numbers and logic, none of that fuzzy secretive, e-mail me and I'll tell you nonsense that Ed M. guy is peddling around here.

Luckily for Lightwave users, G5 seems to be closer than in Photoshop performance. So, see, NewTek isn't all that bad after all.

Things will get better with optimization on Intel and AMD platforms too. Opteron is already doing quite well speed wise and nothing is optimized for it at all. First Athlon 64 tests show it to be very comparable to Opteron and Intel is launching P4 s with 2.5 MB of L2 cache with speeds from 3.2 - 3.6 ghz. , so things will get better for everybody. We are talking about today.

Also very important not to remember that Steve Jobs has been telling us all along how even G4 was faster than the best Pentiums. Now look at those tests again. G4 is on most 100% slower. So, you can understand why people are suspicious when Steve announces anything and performs his "tests" on stage?

If he lied about G4 , he's most definitely lying about G5. A very basic logic required to understand that.

[Meshbuilder]

Somethings wrong with this test!!!

Look at this:

The Raytrace test scene:
G5: 112 s
Dual 1,42 GHz G4: 170,5 s

My G4 dual 1,25 GHz "ONLY" at work:
104 s

Ok so the G4 at work with "ONLY" 1GB Ram, not 2 GB as the computer in the test is faster then "the faster" dual 1,4 GHz G4 and the new G5?????

-----

Radiosity reflective things test scene:

G5: 51.10 s
G4 dual 1,42 Ghz: 72.30 s
My "slower" G4 dual 1,25 GHz: 47 s ?????

-----

And the other test wtf. ??
Don´t know what kind of scenes that is?

G5 would have won the Lightwave 3D test IF we could belive all the "other" numbers..

[Julian Johnson]

From looking at the test, I'd say that the numbers are all single-threaded which might account for the times...

- Julian

[Ge4-ce]

PC mag is a PC!! magazine! they're not objective! come on! As if Apple would double it's machines performance on paper just to win from a dual Xeon!! those photoshop tests are not reliable!!

[silvergun]

This website is as corrupt as the american government. Don't trust them

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Ge4-ce
PC mag is a PC!! magazine! they're not objective! come on! As if Apple would double it's machines performance on paper just to win from a dual Xeon!! those photoshop tests are not reliable!!
I thought the G5 was a PC as well?
I've just got a bunch of other benches from another "computer" magazine (better?, c't in this case), and they pretty much reflect those scores. Funny enough, the Dual Opteron they tested a 2GHz is a micro tad faster than the G5 in the Photoshop test, while the Xeon is slower.
The only renderer they benched was Cinebench 2003 (with a G5 optimized version), the G5 is a tad slower than the Dual Opteron, the Xeon is around 20% faster.
On a side note, they also compiled SPEC using the new IBM compiler (beta, C/C++ 6.0 and Fortran 8.1) on the G5:
int_base2000: 767
fp_base2000: 1001
int_rate_base2000: 16,0
fp_rate_base2000: 17,5
...now that's more like it.

Their summary: They heartily recommend the Dual G5, since it performs just about as fast as a Dual Xeon / Opteron, is a bit cheaper though. They do slag off the single G5s for being to expensive for the performance though.

Cheers,
Mike - still waiting for blanos, but the fog is clearing.

[luka]

why do these threads turn out to be slinging matches, all I wanted to do is show that in real world tests the g5 held out pretty well considering that some apps were not g5 optimised but those that were the g5 came out in front. I should of held off posting this as it's a highly contentious subject.

I have made up my mind and will be getting a dual 2GHZ G5:)

[CaptainKirk]

It keeps turning into a slinging match because you guys keep stubbornly repeating false info.

Again you say:

"g5 held out pretty well considering that some apps were not g5 optimised but those that were the g5 came out in front"

Absolutely not true. The Photoshop they used was the latest optimized for G5 Photoshop and still PC won by 25% overall, winning 13 out of 15 tests.

So, G5 LOST even with G5 OPTIMIZED Photoshop being used and it came significantly behind, not ahead as you say.

If you guys can accept that Macs are slower, but despite that, G5 is a very nice improvement over G4 and enough to keep you happy for a while it won't turn into a slinging match.

But if you keep insisting that G5 is faster even when numbers say otherwise, what do you expect? Why is it so important to be The fastest anyway. What diiference does it make really?

Mac simply cannot win the race for the fastest. AMD and Intel are competing and that makes PC side ramp up speeds much faster.

Things have been quiet for about a year. Now AMD will launch Athlon64, Intel is countering with a new 3.4 Ghz 2.5 MB cache Pentium4s which already show 10%-20% improvement over current top of the line ones. And just after new year Intel will have their new chip out. That one has almost 300 extra pins which all analysts agree mean it will be a 64bit chip. Intel isn't saying anything yet, but you know they are ready in case Athlon 64 requires a stronger response.

[Jimzip]

>Sigh<
Kirk, you're right, the G5's are keeping me happy at the moment. :)
I don't care which is faster, I just want everyone to keep improving quality.

Jimzip :D

[Ge4-ce]

You know Captainkirk... You're so full of ****...

You base you're entire arguments on the benchies provided by PC-mag.. And yeah.. they show photoshop slower on the Mac platform.. Weren't you the same guy or at least the same type of guy that said when first benchies around Photoshop came out and they told the G5 was TWICE as fast, you type of guys said that it is Lightwave that really counts?? NOW, when ONE, benchmark gives the G5 a disadvantage you're all up and happy.. Grow up..

Apple tested a Dual G5 VS Dual Xeon 3.06 live on that 'finding nemo'-poster! And the Mac Machine WAS twice as fast.. Now Apple uses this as a marketing and publicity stunt! DO YOU REALLY THINK APPLE AND ESPECIALLY ADOBE WOULD BLOW UP PERFORMANCE TWICE!!!!!! I mean like.. The G5 is twice as fast as a dual xeon 3.06 but in fact it is even 25% slower.. but the customer is never going to find that out... Give me a break :rolleyes:

[CaptainKirk]

I've seen these same photoshop tests on at least 3 sites and they pretty much match. Only when Jobs does it somehow G5 is twice as fast.

Jobs has been claiming that even G4 was twice as fast as the fastest PC, so nothing new there. I could easily set up a test where something like 300 mhz celeron performs twice as fast as G5. It's not very difficult to cheat in these "live" Apple demos.

Be happy with what you have. If you really need to be the fastest buy AMD next week. I'll take a good idea over speed anytime.

[Ge4-ce]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
I could easily set up a test where something like 300 mhz celeron performs twice as fast as G5. It's not very difficult to cheat in these "live" Apple demos.



then it is not very difficult to perform 3 benchmarks that make the G5 look bad either! I for myself will only trust benchmarks performed by my own for this moment.. The hype around the 'fastest' and 'best' processor is not good for objective results..

I will post my LW benchies on Blanos as soon as a have my dual G5..

[tumblemonster]

CaptainKirk -

I've read quite a few posts by you on this board, and I have to ask, why do you bother? It's like you come here just to start s***. We don't go into the PC board and say "you people are blind idiots why do you blah blah blah!"

Honestly. The only reason for you come here is to start conflict. Get a life.

-tm

[Paul Goodrich]

From the PC article in reference to the Photoshop tests:

Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is a popular image editing program used extensively on both OSes. We tested using version 7.01, the latest available for both Windows and Macintosh, and we used Adobe's G5 Processor plug-in update for Mac OS X, which lets the program take advantage of the system's additional memory and special instructions. We started with a 59.5 MB test image, but many operations completed too quickly to time, so we quadrupled the size to 238MB.


At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer.

[Gui Lo]

Hi all,
I am now very excited about the G5.
To me it is just what I've been waiting for. A cutting edge Mac that can gets quicker over the next few years, at least.

Please help me. I saw the G5 at the Apple store in Hong Kong but they were not running Lightwave. The assistant there is very helpful and says that I can download it and install it.

Where can I download a test copy of Lightwave on this website?

Thanks
Gui Lo

[mlinde]

This (http://images.newtek.com/lightwave/downloads/LightWave_Mac/lw75/LightWave_7.5_Update-Mac.sit) should download the latest 7.5c version of LW. It will run in discovery mode only, but should be fully featured, minus documentation and sample scenes/models. Bring a CD of objects & scenes to test with you.

[Gui Lo]

Thanks mlinde, but that is the update.

I downloaded the 7.5c update at the store but it was not able to run it idependently. Is this file different?

Also I have found a an old 6.5 demo+update CD from 3Dworld. Do you know if I can jump straight updating it to 7.5c?


Although this is the Lightwave forum I would love to see any DVD burning benchmarks. Any ideas?

Thanks
Gui Lo

[silvergun]

I Don't think it is possible to download a discovary edition of Lightwave. You can always buy the inside lightwave book by dan ablan http://www.danablan.com/. It comes with a demo on the disc but it cost around £48. You can however look for a copy of computer arts magazine and some of their discs come with demos. I remember Lightwave 7 being on one . Go here http://www.computerarts.co.uk/ and see if you can get back issues imported to hong kong.

[Gui Lo]

I have an old mag copy of LW6.5 that I can use since I lost my Inside Lightwave disc. :(

I just don't want to take my LW7 cd, that's all.

I'll post the results and the spec of the machine at the weekend.


Thanks
Gui Lo

[tallscot]

PSBench7 is the only Photoshop benchmark anyone should look at. PCMagazine has done what anyone can do - choose filters that make one of the systems look faster. PCMag didn't include Pointillize, Despeckle, or Radial Blur in their test, even though the standard PSBench7 spec includes them. Why? Because those three filters are much faster on the Mac than the PC. PCMag also didn't normalize the scores of those filters. Like morons, they only added the total. You need to normalize the score.

Ars Technica's forum has PSBench7 results for the dual 2 Ghz G5 and they have normalized the scores and came up with a score of 547, which is faster than the several PC scores listed in that thread, including the dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon.

Also, PCMag obviously doesn't have a clue what they are doing with Lightwave. Their results aren't close to reality.

So to summarize, the G5 is faster in Acrobat, Photoshop, Squeeze, and we don't know about Lightwave yet.

Other benchmarks out on the Net show the G5 is much faster in After Effects and Bryce too.

Oh yeah, how much was that Dell that PCMag used? Why did PCMag jack up the RAM instead of using the default? It's because PCMag doesn't want to highlight the fact that the dual 2 Ghz G5 costs a lot less than that dual Xeon from Dell.

Here's the Ars Technica link:
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=1150967585

[CaptainKirk]

What are you going to normalize?

PC won like 15 tests and only lost 2. Normalize all you want, but that looks bad for G5. You're lucky they didn't test AMD chips whic at only 1.6 Ghz, 3 months ago were already another 15% faster than that. Current one is at 2.2 Ghz. That would make it close to 50% faster than G5 even in 64bit G5 optimized Photoshop.

Like I said. Enjoy your Macs for whatever reason, I have nothing against it, but please stop making up ways of making it look faster than it is. It's faster than a G4, that should be enough for you.

[eblu]

CapitainKirk,
would you ever consider using a mac if it was undoubtedly faster than any pc at the same price point?

i somehow doubt you would. Its not a bad thing, but I don't come running into the PC forums shouting "pcs are bad at everything, and Dell stuffs socks in its shorts!" It would simply polarize your viewpoint. It would hurt any future rational discussion I might want to have. I don't want to use a PC, and I personally feel sorry for those of you who don't agree with me, but I'm not going to flush your head in the toilet.

It is my opinion that the g5 has a serious price/performance edge over every pentium box out there, and competes favorably with xeons. Its not the processor, its the "whole widget". many of the features in the g5 cannot be had in any combination, at Apple's price point from the big vendors (lets face it dell is the only big PC vendor these days, and they don't offer many of the features of the g5). And that discounts the very real advantage Apple has because they design both the software and the hardware. No Pc vendor can claim that kind of synergy, and in my experience, it plays a major role in the way a computer works.

I'm not saying there aren't disadvantages, but it is important for you to note that :
1. nothing you say, will be taken very seriously by myself, because you have already shown that you are motivated by something other than an interest in rational discourse, its a shame. Maybe you got carried away, but you should seriously keep that in check.

2. virginia tech went g5, because they found that the g5 had a significant price/performance savings over EVERY other vendor. So there must be SOMETHING to the claims.

3. I also pretty much take every other stat tossed in these forums with a grain of salt. Statistics is an art form, designed to support whatever thesis is held by the party funding the research.

4. you don't for one second accept the possibility that the g5 is what the claims say: the fastest desktop computer available. the stats you and otheres quote just don't add up. That should be enough for you to accept that You do not have enough concrete information to say either way. IE: your opinion is not based on facts, but stats (see number 3)

5. i don't take myself terribly seriously either. I like a good row once in a while. I have no trouble accepting that I could be wrong, and I try to maintain a stance that allows me to be wrong gracefully.


One thing i will say, Adobe has publicly announced that Photoshop 8 will be dramatically faster on the g5 because they will rework the application to take greater advantage of the g5. This puts the whole speed thing in a much different light. Here is Adobe publicly acknowledging that Photoshop can be Much faster than it is on the g5 with some code optimization. That lines up with what I and many others in this forum have been saying all along. Software developers in general have become lazy, and are used to blaming their speed problems on the hardware.


in any case,
have a pleasant day and stop picking on us mac zealots, we're good people too.
-eblu

[tallscot]

PC won like 15 tests and only lost 2.

In the PSBench7, the Mac wins 15 out of 21 and the normalized score is 555 versus 490 for the dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon (higher is better).

http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html

[luka]

whoohoo:eek:

[Darth Mole]

Okay, so the Photoshop tests seem to be a mixed bag - but man, those LightWave (anyone remember that program?) benchmarks are rubbish. They must be running in single threaded mode - although, to be fair, they could be running them single-threaded on the Dual Xeon also.

I posted my LW benchmarks elsewhere and the results on this website are double my results. Pretty easy maths, really...

Over at Blanos, a dual P4 2.8Ghz somehow manages to render the Raytrace scene in 52 secs; the dual G5 does it in 64.

Same spec P4 does Radiosity_ReflectiveThings in 28 secs; the dual G5 in 29.

The fastest Tracer_NoRadiosity rendering is 188 secs; the dual G5 does it in 222.

So, if these FASTEST PC scores are to be trusted (who knows what tweaks have been made to these things - the results vary wildly), the G5 does lose out, although the gap has certainly closed some.

I have to say, my life isn't empty enough that I'm going to worry over a few seconds here and there. This Mac works WAY faster than I do...

[tallscot]

Darth Mole,

Do you have your G5's energy saver settings to the fastest speed setting instead of automatic? Supposedly, automatic is considerably slower than the highest setting.

Three things that will make the Mac the fastest Lightwave platform:

1. Lightwave being optimized for the G5 - Newtek optimized Lightwave for AltiVec and will, no doubt, optimize it for the G5.

2. Panther - reports by developers who are beta testing Panther say that the speed increase with Panther is on the order of 40% with CPU operations. That wasn't a typo. Like many of you, I won't believe this until I see it, but I've read this report from many sources.

3. 3 Ghz G5 next year - the IBM 980 will be shipping next year at 3 Ghz and Steve Jobs already declared that the G5 will be at 3 Ghz next year. Will the Xeon be at 4.59 Ghz next year? Does the Xeon get anywhere close to the same real world speed increase per Mhz increase as the G5? Will the Opteron be at over 3 Ghz next year?

The dual 2.8 Ghz Xeons on Blanos.com average a score of 57.4 seconds for the raytrace scene. The only 3.06 Ghz Xeon scored 58 seconds. 63 seconds with a non-optimized Lightwave on a system that starts out at $2,999 is very good, IMHO. And I agree with Darth Mole, the platform is not dictated by the speed. It's the OS.

[Darth Mole]

I changed the settins and did some tests but the changes were minimal (tenths of a sec) - I also ran tests with the CPU monitor on and both CPUS were at full tilt on Automatic or Fastest.

BTW: I did a comparison today with a Boxx machine: if you fill in the BTO options to make it as close to a G5 as possible - and with ONLY dual 2.8 Xeons, mind, not even the 3.06s - the Mac is over $1,000 cheaper!!

Why do PC owners never point this out? I mean, Boxx machines are like Macs, they're high-end, well-engineered bespoke workstations, right? So how come the G5 is so affordable by comparison?? I was astounded. Or maybe Panini will say Boxx PCs are evil too...

[Ed M.]

Scott, Ted and Darth Mole... What can I say, you guys beat me to it and pretty much addressed everything I was going to respond to. VERY nice work.

BTW, any of you guys catch my latest posts in the other thread? Anyway, if you get some time, check them out. Double checked my hunches with a VERY reliable developer friend of mine (and no, not Chris Cox lol) Though I do owe Chris about a tanker load of beer... Anyway, a few things...

First, it being rumored that Virginia Tech isn't the only University that's building a G5 super cluster. I don't have much info at the moment, so I'll refrain from any further discussion on that. However, I expect once Virginia Tech gets the cluster up and running, It will be a big event -- probably including Apple and some media coverage. The cluster is supposed to rank in the top five fastest in the world, and it will be running OS X. We'll see.

Re: Photoshop. Indeed, Chris Cox is busily plugging away at optimizing version 8. I invited him to these forums and a few at Ars, but he says he's extremely busy. I believe it. As for the Photoshop test in PC Magazine ... well, Chris ran the tests over several times and he simply can't figure out how they are hamming the G5. If you guys are active readers of ArsTechnica, you might want to check out the latest posts by: BadAndy (The guy is sharp ;-). In short, he believes the article in PC Magazine is "crummy careless shlock" Here is a link to get ya going:

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=8560941685&r=8430929685#8430929685

Re: Lightwave. It's already been said, the G5 was running code for G4 which is at times hosing the G5's performance, plus the test was only single-thread. Once the Lightwave code is tweaked to hybrid status for G5, the scores *should* be dramatically higher. Again, it all depends on how much effort developers want to put into the optimizations.

I'll keep pressing for increased parallelism in the application code. The Lightwave coders have to start doing more things at one time in their code. They are throwing away 80%-90% additional performance by ignoring it. This is no $h^t people! I've mentioned this plenty of times in previous posts, however, it would appear that Ted hit the nail on the head when he said programmers have become lazy. Funny, they don't mind charging you for less-than-optimal products though... That's a whole other rant though.

As for G5 speed and optimizations, it only a matter of relatively short time...

BTW, you guys might also be interested in this tidbit:

http://www.lightworkdesign.com/full_pr.php?prid=76

--
Ed

[tallscot]

I just read that Lightworks released a G5 optimized version of their application and it's 30% faster.

Given Darth's numbers, a 30% increase in speed in Lightwave would make the Mac the fastest. Add to that Panther, and we have a winner.

Now all we need are 3D cards with more than 128 megs of memory! :)

[Darth Mole]

Okay, so if we assume, hypothetically of course, that I can install a VERY recent build of Panther on my G5, would you guys like to see the results...? :D

Any guesses whether those benchmark figures would come down? And by how much?

[Ed M.]

If they are saying that it is 1.3 times "faster". That tells me that if a car has a top speed of say 100 mph and another car is faster than that by 1.3 times it tells me that the car's top speed is 230 mph. It's the "faster" that tells us how to interpret it.

Remember, (100% faster) = "twice *as* fast".

I'm willing to bet it translates into 130% "faster", otherwise they would have worded it as: 1.3 times "as fast".

That would mean that something running 1 times "as fast" is "just as fast". The speeds would be equal.

Likewise 1.3 times "as fast" (not *faster*) would translate into 30% faster.

So, if they meant it as they worded it, it can be understood as 130% *faster* (i.e., twice as fast + another 30%) Again, 100% "faster" = "twice as fast".

The misunderstanding comes in the wording. In this particular case, if taken as stated:

1.3 times "as fast" would = 30% increase overall
1.3 times "faster" would imply just that -- 130% increase overall

I think I'm going to ask them ;-)

--
Ed

[tallscot]

Okay, so if we assume, hypothetically of course, that I can install a VERY recent build of Panther on my G5, would you guys like to see the results...?

Oh oh oh oh! Me me me! I do!

scot@swproductions.com

:)

[Ed M.]

OK Scot, let's have those results and stop teasing us ;-)

BTW, one thing we do know is that Panther will have a 64bit core. What we don't know for certain is what types of *new* API's Apple will make available to allow current apps to address more than 4Gig of RAM. I hear that the API's will be more refined. I was speaking to a developer at Apple and they told me that there are ways for developers to do this *now* even without the current API's. I was asking Chris, but he says he's under NDA, which is probably true. Panther is supposed to bring a whole host of UI speedups along with it as well. Anyway, we'll see.

--
Ed

[renderingfarmer]

Originally posted by Ed M.
If they are saying that it is 1.3 times "faster". That tells me that if a car has a top speed of say 100 mph and another car is faster than that by 1.3 times it tells me that the car's top speed is 230 mph. It's the "faster" that tells us how to interpret it.

Remember, (100% faster) = "twice *as* fast".

I'm willing to bet it translates into 130% "faster", otherwise they would have worded it as: 1.3 times "as fast".

That would mean that something running 1 times "as fast" is "just as fast". The speeds would be equal.

Likewise 1.3 times "as fast" (not *faster*) would translate into 30% faster.

So, if they meant it as they worded it, it can be understood as 130% *faster* (i.e., twice as fast + another 30%) Again, 100% "faster" = "twice as fast".

The misunderstanding comes in the wording. In this particular case, if taken as stated:

1.3 times "as fast" would = 30% increase overall
1.3 times "faster" would imply just that -- 130% increase overall

I think I'm going to ask them ;-)

--
Ed

http://www.mediacircus.net/rushhour2_2.jpg

"What the hell did you just say?"

[luka]

My Mac dealer just rang to say that he has the dual 2GHZ G5 in store now.
And asked if I wanted to do some testing on it.:D hmm.

seeya soooon;)

[luka]

I'm back my results are in didn't do all of them just some, but enough for my liking. Dual 2GHZ G5 straight out of the box. I have to thank Jay at Desktop Applications (http://www.desktopapplications.com.au/)
in Perth for letting me indulge.:D

Radiosity_Things = 3.0
DOF = 10.8
Radiosity_Reflective_Things = 28.5
Raytrace = 63.5
Tracer_Radiosity = 381.8
Skull.Head = 89.7

[CaptainKirk]

Just more confirmation that top of the line Dual G5 is twice as slow as a DualXeon in a couple of those tests and about 50-60% slower in others.

I 'm sure a couple of people ( you know who ) will still interpret this as: " AMD and Intel are in trouble / Mac is the best "

And I seriously think one of them should be banned from these forums for spamming it with fake rumors and news. I know companies pay people to post stuff on all relevant boards, but come on Apple , this is way too obvious and spammy.

Either don't do it, or hire somebody who has the ability to manipulate some factual data and disguise it as fact, rather than making up some way too long, totally senseless schizoprenic posts even Stevie Wonder could see through.

Even Mr. Spock would go crazy and have no choice but to show various emotions ( ranging from bewilderment to anger ) after reading through such material devoid of logic and reason.

[luka]

the g5 I tested really scorched the screen

Radiosity reflective things
MYG5=28.5|G5(PCMAG)=51.10|2xXeon=48.80

Raytrace
MYG5=67.2|G5(PCMAG)=112|2xX=99.50

go figure

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Just more confirmation that top of the line Dual G5 is twice as slow as a DualXeon in a couple of those tests and about 50-60% slower in others.

Huh. I just checked Chris's Lightwave Benchies. Heres some dual Xeons:
Raytrace:
Dual 3GHz Xeon: 58
Dual 2.8GHz Xeon: 61 (avg)
Dual 2.2GHz Xeon: 76 (avg)

>Dual 2GHz G5: 63.5

DOF:
Dual 3GHz Xeon: 4
Dual 2.8GHz Xeon: 5 (avg)
Dual 2.2GHz Xeon: 9

>Dual 2GHz G5: 10.8

Tracer Radiosity:
Dual 3GHz Xeon: 250
Dual 2.8GHz Xeon: 277 (avg)
Dual 2.2GHz Xeon: 338 (avg)

>Dual 2GHz G5: 381.8

Radiosity Reflective Things:
Dual 3GHz Xeon: 29
Dual 2.8GHz Xeon: 30.6 (avg)
Dual 2.2GHz Xeon: 38.5 (avg)

>Dual 2GHz G5: 28.5

Better go back to math class. There are some results that are twice as fast, but the majority aren't. The 3GHz is in some tests, but let's not talk about prices if were talking dual 3GHz Xeons. The stock Dual G5 is $2999. A comparable dual 2.6GHz Xeon system is $3100. A comparable dual 3GHz Xeon system is $4200. Oh, these are Dells, not byob, because byob doesn't come with "productivity software" and service. So, CaptainBenchmark, where do you get your stats? And how about your prices? $200 more with a smaller, slower HD (120GB ATA/133 v. 160GB Serial ATA) and comparable performance. $1300 more for somewhat better performance.

CaptainBenchmark, I'm admitting a dual 3GHz Xeon system is faster than a dual 2GHz G5 system. I'm also saying a dual 2.6GHz system is comparable, it's more expensive, and comes with less features. What about those FACTS?


Late update:
I forgot to add Applecare to match the Dell service/support. The prices are about equal with that addition for the 2.6 -> 2.0 GHz machines (in the US).

[Lightwolf]

Hi mlinde,
while you're prices my be correct in the U.S., it is quite different over here in Europe:

Dell 2x2.6GHZ Xeon 650 = 3235,- EUR
(FireGL X1 board, 120GB HDD, no FW800 but dual SCSI320 on board, DVD Burner, USB keyboard etc...).

Apple 2x2GHz G5 = 3520,- EUR
(base model, no modem, with Applecare, since the Dell includes a 3 year extended warranty as well).
All including 16% tax (VAT) of course.

I can pump up the Dell to a Dual 2.8GHz and end up at roughly the same price as the G5, if I don't care for SCSI I can take the 450 and save around 250$).

I do agree though that for an Apple the Dual G5 is exeptional good value for money.
Cheers,
Mike

[eblu]

kirk, based on PC mags findings, if you add up the times of all of the things they did on the g5 and the dual xeon 3 gig, the mac comes in 255 seconds faster.

most of that comes from the squeeze thing. if we take that out, the mac still beats the xeon by 53 seconds.

I seriously doubt PC mag has done a solid reliable test, in fact I KNOW through personal experience that the g5 is basically hobbled in MANY of the tests they did, and it still did all of the tests faster than the xeon.

I just can't credit any interpretation that the g5 is slower than the xeon. At worst, its neck and neck, at best the g5 is marginally faster, and soon to be faster still.

the xeon is touted as a workstation processor, interesting that the g5 is advertised as a desktop processor, and it still beats the pants off of the DELL 3 gig dual xeon workstation. It might have something to do with the faster hard drive, graphics and tuned processors, but who really knows?
none of That crap really matters does it? the g5 is a desktop, and the only machine anyone wants to compare it to is a workstation. Whats that tell ya? go ahead, put it up against a pentium.

[Lightwolf]

eblu:
Well, I honestly doubt whether any of us would call a dual CPU machine a "desktop", especially considering how little multi-processor optimized software there is out there for "consumers". I wouldn't call Maya, FCPro, Cinema, Mathematica or whatever "desktop" apps either.
Then again, if you compare single CPU machines (...to the G5 1.6 and 1.8), the P4 or Athlon 64s are definetely faster _and_ cheaper.
Cheers,
Mike

[Ge4-ce]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
Hi mlinde,
while you're prices my be correct in the U.S., it is quite different over here in Europe:

Dell 2x2.6GHZ Xeon 650 = 3235,- EUR
(FireGL X1 board, 120GB HDD, no FW800 but dual SCSI320 on board, DVD Burner, USB keyboard etc...).

Apple 2x2GHz G5 = 3520,- EUR
(base model, no modem, with Applecare, since the Dell includes a 3 year extended warranty as well).
All including 16% tax (VAT) of course.

I can pump up the Dell to a Dual 2.8GHz and end up at roughly the same price as the G5, if I don't care for SCSI I can take the 450 and save around 250$).

I do agree though that for an Apple the Dual G5 is exeptional good value for money.
Cheers,
Mike

Actually,... I don't get it how you come up with those Apple Prices!?? Go and check for example www.apple.be and go to that store.. Belgium is a neighbour of Germany, and without the 21% tax that you do not have to pay as a company, the dual 2 Ghz G5 costs 2799 euros!!

Even With the 21% that is 3386 euros (about the same in dollars)

Only when you want to buy a mac (or everything) as for personal use, you have to pay the tax.. But that's life.. I guess

[tallscot]

A 16% - 21% sales tax is life in Europe. Sweden has a 25% VAT!

It's like when people start telling you the price of gas in Europe. It's mostly tax!

[Ge4-ce]

Please don't start about that!! I hate the price of gas in Europe.. Waaaaayy to expensive..

I always heard you pay a dollar for a gallon of gas? We pay a euro for one liter! That's about 4 times as much.. (but I don't know for sure.. )

25% tax in sweden??!! But hey.. You have beautiful girls in sweden! That's worth 25% tax :D

[Lightwolf]

Hi Ge4-ce
Sorry, my mistake, I did include the 128MB Radeon to make up for the X1, without it's 3250,- EUR. So they are on par, but the Dell then has a pro GFX board.

You still have to pay the tax, even though you can deduct it later from profits (which are rare these days).
I prefer to calculate with tax, since it's the cash I need to have available.
Cheers,
Mike

[Ge4-ce]

Yes, You have to pay the tax.. But eventually you will get it back..

I don't know how these things exactly work.. But in a company, you do not have to pay it when it is an investment! That's what I know for sure (at least in Belgium it is like that..)

[tallscot]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I'm not familiar enough with the tax laws in Europe.

I live in the U.S. What happens is you can deduct certain things from your income before you figure out how much income tax you owe. A business can deduct the price of a computer from their income, for example. So if you made 10,000, just for example, and you bought a 3,000 computer, you would pay income taxes on 7,000.

Many people in the U.S. think that a deduction means that money comes from what you owe in taxes. It doesn't. It comes from what you earned, which is then taxed.

Sorry to swing this thread off-topic! :)

[Lightwolf]

Hi Ge4-Ce:
First you pay it, and then you can deduct a part (usually a third of the initial price) per year.
It only makes sense if you make a profit, leasing tends to be actually a better way of investing into new hardware for companies (tay reasons again, and it doesn't affect your cash flow as much).
Cheers,
Mike

[tallscot]

I had some Canadian bosses once who moved to the U.S. They said that they leased everything for tax reasons, and even provided their employees with cars through a lease for tax reasons.

[Ge4-ce]

Well yes.. I think everybody wants to keep their pure income or profit as low as possible so that the tax you pay ON your profit is as low as possible!.. When for example you have 10 people working for you at 100 000$ a year, your personel would cost you 1000 000$ a year. When they all produce something that makes your company a profit of 2000 000 $, and the gouvernement would take 10% tax of that 2000 000, you would have to pay 200 000$ tax.

When you would buy those 10 people a car that would cost you 10 000$ per car per year, that would give you a cost of about 100 000 dollars a year.

So your netto Profit would be 1900 000$ and you would have to pay 190 000$ of tax or 10 000 $ less.

Now you would say, you give 100 000 extra and only gain 10 000 so that's not right.. Well no.. But actually you will lower the paycheck of your employees because they get a car from their work!
That's the trick!! So they should get paid 90 000 dollar per year because their car costs 10 000$ a year. You pay another 100 000$ less so when you actually add all up you gain 10 000 $

(all numbers are juste picked offcourse)

[CaptainKirk]

Truly mind melting.

Mac users telling me to check my math then posting benchmarks which prove my point ( I said Xeon was twice as fast in a COUPLE of those tests, not all, but importantly it was faster in ALL tests )

People, people, these are old tests, faster PCs are already on the market and blow away G5 even more. Give it up. Enjoy your Mac for what it is and don't try to make up stuff to make it something it is not.

It is: a mid level PC with cpu and technology developed by IBM and AMD.

It is not: the fastest or first 64 bit desktop or workstation on the market.

The only Apple thing in this machine is the aqua interface and the case. The rest is all 100%PC anyway.

Like I mentioned Intel also has a 64 bit chip ready to go in December which may not be marketed as such or may use AMD extensions.

A full on 64 bitter will be released it turns out now by next summer and will start at 5Ghz +, Apple projects a 3Ghz G5 by October '04

So next year we will be looking at 5+ GHz 64 bit chip with a massive 2MB cache from Intel versus a 3Ghz G5. It's only going to get uglier for Apple, and that much should have been obvious to anybody. The reason is AMD. They keep forcing Intel to ramp up speeds much faster than they like. Apple is irrelevant in all this.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785

[Ge4-ce]

CaptainKirk.. Why do you bother telling this to us.. So now you're telling that next summer Intel will make a jump of + 2 Ghz in one time? and full 64 bit.. And blablablabl... I don't give a ****..

By the way.. You should inform yourself more before you say the only thing in the G5 are the case and the software!! The motherboard design plus some of the KEY-chips on that board are developed by Apple and IBM together! The Chip was also developed by IBM and Apple together!! Altivec.. remember?? It was probably most IBM's part, but still Apple did help them with Altivec..

And all by all.. We're not interested in your opinion since it is allways anti-Mac, in some way or another.. Go back to your starship enterprise and go beam something up.. Or it will be "red alert"

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Mac users telling me to check my math then posting benchmarks which prove my point ( I said Xeon was twice as fast in a COUPLE of those tests, not all, but importantly it was faster in ALL tests )

And I said a comparable Xeon was not. If you look at the benchmarks, in two tests, a comparable Xeon was faster. Not ever twice as fast. In fact, the fastest shipping Xeon (according to intel, the fastest available Xeon now is the 3GHz chip) is twice as fast ONCE. Not a couple of times, and not 50-60% faster in all the tests. Let's see, in the Raytrace the 3GHz Xeon was about 10% faster. In DOF it was twice as fast (and a bit more). In radiosity it was about 40% faster. In RRT it was 2% slower. So where do you get twice as fast in a couple and 50-60% faster everywhere? There are not faster Xeon workstations than the 3GHz version. Again, captain, you need to check your facts, and math.

And finally, the 3GHz Xeon still costs $1300 more than the G5. I don't see the 30% performance gains across the board to justify a 30% cost increase.

[CaptainKirk]

Where is this $1300 more costing xeon?

At Trump Plaza maybe?

You can buy dual xeons or Opterons or Amd 64 workstations for significantly less $3000 in a lot of places.

Last time I checked a dual 3.06 Ghz xeon setup cost $2600
That's with 160 GB hard disk and a better graphics card than a Mac. And 1 GB of Ram ( twice that of dual G5 )
The only thing missing was the DVD RW drive which you can add for a couple of hundred.. And this isn't even from Dell or Gateway or some other consumer/business company. I buy my stuff from places where I can choose exactly what I want, every single component.

You can pay only $2000 and change if you want to settle for a 2.4 Ghz dual xeon set-up. And that my friend is comparable in performance to a dual G5, but you pay $1000 less ( talking about 1GB of Ram configuration )


You still have to pay extra just to get a right mouse button.

Also the fastest xeon now is 3.4 ghz and is remarked as Pentium EE.
You can even run them in dual setups although nobody's supposed to know about it, not to anger server customers paying much more for slower chips.

It pays to be informed. Stop listening to Steve Jobs and think for yourself.

[Ed M.]

CaptainKirk is becoming annoying and I suggest to the mods that he be expelled.. just as he was once before (i.e., panini). The G5 wasn't even optimized for the tests in which he claims the Xeons were faster. He's a dopy kid. Again, that one test where the G5 gets beat by twice should tell everyone that it has to do with code. Since it wasn't tweaked for G5, we can only assume this. Remember data-cache-block-zero?
That's just one example of G4 coed that can hose the G5. The beauty part is that that code can be removed quite easily. It's all up to the NewTek programmers to extract more performance out of the G5 now.
--
Ed

[js33]

Ed,

It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers we get with LW from the Athlon 64 and FX. Also CaptainKirk does tell some truths Intel will have 64 bit capabilities in Prescott and there is also word that Intel will use AMD 64 extensions. I bet they are feeling stupid for going with Itanium so long now and ignoring the desktop.

Cheers,
JS

[CaptainKirk]

Not just some. Everything I say is the truth.

None of these 32 bit apps are optimized for Athlons or Opterons either, yet those chips have no problem beating Pentiums. Only G5 needs excuses avbout non optimizing ( besides G5 optimized Photoshop didn't help G5 one bit as it lost about 15 tests and won only 2 against a xeon )

Sure, can't win an argument , just expell them. Can't have the truth get in the way of your agenda. Maybe we should set up a forum section called the concentration camp where Ed can send everybody who dares to disagree.

[Ge4-ce]

You know KaptainJerk!! it's not that we disklike people that do not share our opinion!! We just dislike YOU!! Because as soon as you open your mouth, a stinking breath of 'anti' mac users is filling digital forum land!! Nobody wants to listen to you because you're just bloody arrogant!

Quote: "I'm allways telling the truth."

Just WHO the hell do you think you are? Some kind of a dictator???

Rule nr.1 Kaptainjerk is allways telling the truth.

Rule nr.2 If Kaptainjerk isn't telling the truth: see nr.1

Get a life!!!

[Ed M.]

Kap'nJirk, Optimized for the Opteron? Athlon64? You have zero clue what you are talking about. If they are running on 32bit wares optimized for current Intel or Athlon processors then these apps certainly *are* optimized. Get a life dude.

--
Ed

[js33]

You know Ed Lightwave has been on the Mac quite a long time now. If it's not optimized by now then why? Why has it been optimized for Intel and AMD and not the Mac? What sort of optimizations can they do that they haven't already done?
I think this unoptimized for Mac and optimized for everyone else argument is wearing a bit thin, don't you think? Maybe there are some new optimizations they can do for the G5 but I think the G4 has been optimized for a long time. Maybe this new Mac programmer they hired can shed some true light on this.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

What sort of optimizations can they do that they haven't already done?

How about just better coders -- people more familiar with the Mac and Mac programming? How about a more platform-specific application?

Anyway.. since you asked, how about starting by adding some parallelism in their software? Do more things at one time. I've discussed this in the past and won't bring it up here (again) I don't have *that* many posts on the LW forum boards, so the information shouldn't be that difficult to locate. The fact is that if developers aren't using more parallelism then they are throwing away 80%-90% of the performance they might otherwise expect and this is even before bringing AltiVec into the equation! As for the optimizations specific to the G5... We've been through this as well.

The G5 is not the G3 or G4. There are code segments in current apps that will completely hose the G5 and *thats* why the current apps that are being tested, evaluated and compared to the Wintelon offerings is a piss-poor indicator of performance gain.

Once again, if those apps which are being tested are optimized and compiled for the G3/G4 without replacing the appropriate segments and making tweaks for G5, then the code is nothing more than highly sub-optimal.

If you bother to read the G5 optimization pages at Apple or from other resources/lists/message boards discussing optimizing for G5 then you would know that the code for earlier PPC processors very often employs: Data Cache Block Allocate (DCBA), Data Stream Touch (DST) and Data Cache Block Zero (DCBZ). These functions will severely cripple a G5's performance and show it in a very sour light. These need to be removed and replaced with the appropriate optimizations for the G5.

This information has been widely known and relatively easy to implement. It's all up to the developers now.

I think this unoptimized for Mac and optimized for everyone else argument is wearing a bit thin, don't you think?

Nope. That's what you might want us to believe, but I assure you, there are tweaks and adjustments that need to be made to older PPC code so it will perform at least reasonably well on the G5. I'm just astonished that the G5 is doing so well on the current code for G3/G4, since it's highly sub-optimal for G5. And that's being kind. Who says the current code is even optimized as much as it could be for G4? We discussed this in another post. It talked about the performance gains with various compilers with respect to current code. Do you remember it?

Maybe there are some new optimizations they can do for the G5 but I think the G4 has been optimized for a long time.

Please refer to the forum post I made with respect to compilers and code.

--
Ed

[js33]

Well NT did hired a Mac specific programmer recently. I'm sure he is up on all this stuff. Maybe he can enlighten us as to what kinds of optimizations have been done, are going to be done, if they can or can't be done and why, if LW will/won't benefit from said optimizations, etc...

Cheers,
JS

[CaptainKirk]

Ahh, don't bother rationalizing with Ed. M

Nothing he says makes any sense and he contradicts himself in every sentence.

Like G5 is not G4 therefore things have to be optimized.

But on the PC side he's saying that Opteron or AMD 64 are exactly the same as previous 32 bit chips and everything is already optimized.

Additionally even the poor G4 hasn't seen all the optimization necessary after all these years. Poor old G4. We blamed it for its slowness and all along it was the fault of people like New Tek.

According to Ed These G4, G5 chips need a full time babysitter and round the clock optimizing to perform well.

You can have some fun with Ed. , but don't try to actually convince him of anything because there are only 2 possibilities

#1 He works for Apple and is simply trying to further his agenda,
just isn't very good at it and comes of sounding as a delusional psychopath because of all the nonsense and total lack of logic in his writing.

#2 He really is a delusional psychopath.

In either case, no matter how much factual info you present to him it will not do any good.


And to the other guy. Why am I a dictator because I always say the truth.

What exactly am I saying. If I say that Opteron scored better that a Mac in Photoshop and show you links to prove it. How is that not telling the truth.

Which parts exactly did I lie about? Find one, please.
If you can't , please shut up.

[Ed M.]

That would be great js... Really. There're some programmers that I know that could more than likely give him a ton of pointers for optimizing for G5 and help him out with things that he might believe can't be optimized for, but in reality can with additional knowledge and a little work. Perhaps he'd be willing to come and give us an update. I suggest hat you contact him and tell him of our interest.

--
Ed

[js33]

He is already present on this forum. Don't you remember when he introduced himself? I'm sure he is hard at work on 8 and doesn't have much time to read the posts but he is here.

Cheers,
JS

[js33]

CaptainKirk,

While I use a PC as well as a Mac. I'm excited about the AMD64 and the G5 as well. Perhaps you could try being a bit more polite afterall you are in the Mac forum. While I don't always agree with Ed either I make a point to hear his side of the story.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

Well, I'm terribly sorry, but I seem to have forgotten the name / handle of this new Mac programmer that NewTek hired. Perhaps he could reintroduce himself or perhaps you could provide an e-mail. Either would be great.

--
Ed

[Ge4-ce]

Ya know KaptainJerk.. Saying that you allways tell the truth is a man's first lie.. that's what I'm referring too..

Btw, I think I'm just gonna ignore you.. That is probably the best.. You have been banned before.. There was probably a good reason for that..

just go do something... make yourself usefull! but do not do it in these forums please..

[js33]

Originally posted by Ed M.
Well, I'm terribly sorry, but I seem to have forgotten the name / handle of this new Mac programmer that NewTek hired. Perhaps he could reintroduce himself or perhaps you could provide an e-mail. Either would be great.

--
Ed

I looked back through the last 2 months or so and I couldn't find his posts but they are there. Sorry I can't remember his handle either but I'm sure someone here does.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

BTW, there is a rumor floating around... I don't know how accurate it is, but apparent;y Apple's advanced development Group is busy tweaking and experimenting with some pretty slick algorithms for 3D rendering. Rumor also has it that many techniques have been making their way into the Mac version of PR-RenderMan. Whether they are variations on the double-precision varieties or the extremely high quality single-precision varieties, I do not know. In either case, it will be a BIG win for the Mac no matter what.

If the algorithms are of the double-precision variety, keep in mind that the G5 is a double-precision floating point MONSTER. All that remains is that developers utilize it's features correctly. In other words, double-precision floating point should scream if the code it tweaked properly. We haven't seen any of those optimizations in 3D apps yet.

If the algos are the rumored ultra-high-quality single-precision variety, then expect even the G4 machines to completely obliterate the competition due to AltiVec alone. AltiVec has no equal in the AMD/Intel world -- this is a well known fact. The G5 will only extend that by a huge amount over even the G4.

So, we'll have to wait and see. Just remember, the G5 is NOT the G4 by any stretch.

--
Ed

[js33]

Ed,

You must be getting tired of waiting to see by now. I'm not dissing Altivec but trying to understand it. Isn't the SSE extensions on the PC basically the same as Altivec on the Mac? The SSE optimizations on the P4 really do make a difference yet I have never seen Altivec make much difference on the Mac. I mean is Altivec so hard to use or does it really not make much difference? If it is such a good thing why isn't every Mac app using it? If it makes such a difference I would think Apple would literally force app makers to use it or make it autooptimized for in the compiler.

Cheers,
JS

[Ed M.]

Isn't the SSE extensions on the PC basically the same as AltiVec on the Mac?

No.

The SSE optimizations on the P4 really do make a difference yet I have never seen Altivec make much difference on the Mac.

Well, what apps in particular? 3D? 3d uses double-precision FP. The G5 has TWO of those thank you very much. AltiVec cannot be used for double-precision floating point. So, it depends on which apps you are talking about. The ones that utilize AltiVec clearly show a BIG win over the competition, but we've been through this already. As for the rest of your comment, you simply don't understand and the little I know probably won't help you understand that much more. I strongly suggest you visit:

www.simdtech.org and ask your SSE vs. AltiVec questions there.

Or you could visit Ars and read the posts by BadAndy, hobold, MrNSX and others. You could even post questions that they will likely answer. But in a nutshell, AltiVec is FAR superior to SSE. If you don't believe me, just do a little web research.

--
Ed

[js33]

Ed,

The SSE extensions in the P4 keep it on top of 3D benchmarks and other media apps. Now the AMD 64 has SSE as well so they will be doing better in the 3D/media apps now not to mention the 64 bit factor. Yes 3D apps make heavy use of DP floating point operations and the SSE makes a big difference to that performance while Altivec only uses Single precision floating point so how is it superior? Maybe Apple should make a DPFP Altivec.

Cheers,
JS

[Stewpot]

As a matter of interest, LW was optimized for the G4 to take advantage of Altivec, back at version 6.5,(if I remember corectly), and much play was made about that by Newtek at the time.

So I am not sure what you are saying Ed? Are you saying it isn't optimized for the G4?

[Ed M.]

js.... This is getting tiresome. It really is.

In any case, the dual FP units of the G5 should perform *at least* as well as SSE2. I told you, I'm not going to detract further from this thread when this discussion has already been settled. AltiVec is superior to SSE2 and anyone familiar with SIMD technology knows this to be true. If you don't care to do your own research or ask your own questions to the scientists at simdtech.org or anyone else with the knowledge, I don't know what to tell you. Either that or go to ArsTech and post the question in Battlefront to BadAndy and hobold. However, as I stated earlier, we've already been through it here:

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9523

--
Ed

[Ed M.]

Sure, they probably optimized what they could to the level of their ability, but it was for the single-precision stuff and who's to say it was top-quality code anyway? Then what about the heap of performance they are throwing away due to lack of parallelism? We could use much more of that and that's without taking AltiVec into account.

--
Ed M.

[js33]

Ed,

I know it's all been discussed before. The jist of it is that Apple is always saying their way is superior yet they always lag behind in performance and it's always due to unoptimized code. That my friend is what gets tiring. I'm still holding out hope for the G5 though.

Cheers,
JS

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Where is this $1300 more costing xeon?

Gee Kirky-poo, if you read thoroughly what I said, this computer is manufactured by Dell. The price is listed on their website, in the online store, when you configure it to the same specs as the stock 2x2GHz G5.

The reason I used a Dell instead of a build-it-yourself box is because it comes with service, support, and some software pre-installed. If you like spending more time tinkering with your machine than actually working (and earning the money you spend) you build-it yourself. The money you "save" building your own machine is non-existent, if you add in the cost of the software you are legally obligated to buy before you install it, and the time it takes to assemble a machine. So BYOB hardware costs maybe $1000-$1500 less. Throw in the cost of the software (Windows, MSOffice, various productivity stuff that is included with a retail box) and now you save maybe $500-$1000. Now throw in the time to assemble the hardware (let's say 4 hours), install and configure the software (um, 8-12 more?) and put it at a real-world rate ($80/hr) and suddenly it costs you MORE to build it yourself. That is, of course, if your time is worth $80 an hour. Mine is worth $120. I buy pre-built and configured boxes because my time is too valuable to waste putting it together.


-------


Ed etal, there is a Mac programmer working at Newtek, I think his name is Scott. I don't know that he has time to discuss the finer points of CPU-specific programming as he is probably neck deep learning the LW code, the Mac-specific code for LW, and what needs to get done for LW8. Perhaps you should direct an email to Chuck, or someone else, to see if they can fwd YOUR email address to Scott.

[js33]

Mlinde,

I agree with you about building a box now. I used to build my own until they got so cheap it did in fact cost me more. :(
But you are overlooking another option. That is if someone already has a box built but just wants to upgrade the guts (motherboard and processor(s)) then you can do that easily on the PC side and have an almost new computer for maybe an hour or two of your time. I have an 800Mhz P3 box that I want to do that very thing to but I may put an AMD64 in it or dual Xeons not sure which yet.

Cheers,
JS

[mlinde]

Originally posted by js33
Mlinde,

I agree with you about building a box now. I used to build my own until they got so cheap it did in fact cost me more. :(
But you are overlooking another option. That is if someone already has a box built but just wants to upgrade the guts (motherboard and processor(s)) then you can do that easily on the PC side and have an almost new computer for maybe an hour or two of your time. I have an 800Mhz P3 box that I want to do that very thing to but I may put an AMD64 in it or dual Xeons not sure which yet.

Cheers,
JS

Hey JS, that's only true to a certain extent. I have two P3/450s here. To get a real upgrade, I've got to replace the MLB, the processor, and the RAM in each. Since they are based on ATA towers, it should (in theory) be easy, but since they were both retail boxes (Dell and Gateway) I've held off to verify that the back panel ports aren't some obnoxious configuration. I ran into un-upgradeable PCs a number of times in the 90s because of that.

[CaptainKirk]

I'm not talking about a build it yourself box.

I am talking about better than Dell, you choose your components and they build it for you. Comes with warranty and customer support. I bought a few PC from them before and a few upgrades

Go to Game PC and depending on what you choose you can have a dual 3.06 Ghz xeon machine for around $2600.

Even with a DVD burner and a couple of extras you are at or below $3000 , but you can have double the ram of the Apple.

I will personally just get a new MB, Chip and memory kit from them and drop it into my existing machine as soon as AThlon 64 drops in price. So a 2.2 Ghz 64 bit machine for around $700 after new years.

I am being polite, but Ed just makes up everything, so there is a limit. I don't think he is doing any favors to Mac users or anybody by lying.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11822

Looks like there is some 64 bit windows already out there running things. It must be 2008 already then according to Ed.

Interestingly enough, no sign of any 64 bit OS from Apple.

And all this optimizing for years with no results ir really beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that Colecovision could be better than Playstation only if developers optimized for it. Lets be serious here. Results are all that counts.

[Ed M.]

Well, I just glanced over the article posted by panini and I don't understand their reasoning. AMD beat Apple to a 64bit desktop because AMD is running a 64bit version of LINUX? What makes them think that LINUX is anything close to a mainstream desktop environment like Windows or OS X? What's more if they implied they were running on *beta* Win64 for AMD64, keep in mind that that particular beta is only available to MSDs only. It isn't available to everyone. Since it's not shipping it therefore cannot be assumed that AMD beat Apple to the 64bit desktop. Let's see, Opteron was out MUCH LONGER and they are selling as bad as Itanic, what makes people think that Athlon64 will sell any better at their current cost?

Anyway, we'll see.

--
Ed

[Ge4-ce]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk


Looks like there is some 64 bit windows already out there running things. It must be 2008 already then according to Ed.

Interestingly enough, no sign of any 64 bit OS from Apple.




WOOPS!! Again a lie!!! Is it in the stores yet? Can you use it?? NO!! That's like saying:" Hey look, photoshop 9 or CS2 or whatever they gonna call it, is allready out and full 64 bit support!!" Just because they are making it, does not mean you can buy it, and is thus NOT USEFULL!!

Apple is also developing a full 64 bit OS, they only don't brag about it to give the intention that it will be out soon!

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Go to Game PC and depending on what you choose you can have a dual 3.06 Ghz xeon machine for around $2600.

CK, I just went to game pc, and I configured one of those dual 2.4 GHz Xeon workstations to have virtually identical stats to the dual 2GHz G5. Price for me was $3282 ($17 cheaper). Stock warrantees has your GamePC system at $15 cheaper.

If you look at the benchies, this machine performs about the same as the Mac. So where is your super-vaunted PC outperforming the Mac for so much less? I'm not talking about buying a lesser machine for less. I'm talking Apples to Intels -- ATA bus, FSB, Display Card, RAM, HD, Network, Audio I/O, Video I/O all with the same (or virtually identical) specs.

update oops. I didn't make sure they had the same video card, and the software packages weren't equal-ish. Now the PC is cheaper -- it's $2889, but there are a few things I can't add, like a video editing software package, and DVD-edit/assembly software package. I bet (just a guess here) those two things might run a bit more than $110 total though...

[CaptainKirk]

Well, that 's just bull.

I just configured a dual 2.4 Ghz xeon for less than $2000


2 X 2.4 xeon chips
Leave motherboard at default ( $300 )
Ati Radeon 9600 pro video card
1 GB of Ram
120 GB hard drive
Leve CD drives and floppy at default
Leave out mouse ( since I already have plenty ), choose a $40 keyboard and leave out Windows XP since I use Windows 2000Pro which I already own. Comes out to $1918

If you want to add OS and DVD burner it still will be $1000 less than a MAC

Same configuration as above with two 3.06 xeon chips comes out to $2490


The only way to get the price you quoted is to overload the PC with a much better graphics card, more expensive motherboard and extras you don't get with your mac anyway.

I prefer my machines clean with no software, so I choose what to install. What am I going to do with this software I'll never use. That doesn't concern me. Point is that 2GHZ Mac with 1MB of RAM cannot be head for less than $3200

On the PC side equally fast machine can be head for less than $2000 because we have choices.

[Ed M.]

Now here is something truly interesting:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_tfiu.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

Add to this the information I posted about the WOW64 layer that I correctly surmised would be running on AMD64 tech. to accommodate 32bit apps and the difficulty of OpenGL and the other obstacles I brought up and.... well, you guys get the picture.

--
Ed

[Tronam]

But one thing that I love about the modular configurability about my PC is that if I know exactly what I'm going to be using it for, I don't need all of the extra "fluff" that gets tied to OEM boxes. That's where it really counts for me. My Mac G4 (bless it's heart) is pretty much frozen in time and as such was left behind several years ago in favor of my easily upgradable and inexpensive PC components.

Now, if I really wanted the ultimate "out of box" experience with everything under the sun, then I would say the G5 is a very attractive system. But, at this point in time I am very hard pressed to drop $3000 for a computer. I've never spent more than $1000 migrating to new generation technology on the PC and it's usually less than that. Apple just doesn't cater to computer users like me.

-Tronam

[tallscot]

Yeah, and using the same "benchies", the dual 2.4 Ghz Xeon is as fast as a dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon.

After Effects, Bryce, Acrobat, Squeeze, Avid Xpress, and Photoshop are all faster than a dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon. In some cases, much faster.

Lightwave raytrace is getting 63 seconds on the dual G5, according to a couple of users. The dual 2.4 Ghz Xeons on Blanos.com average 67 seconds, even if you count the obviously bogus score of 59 seconds, which is 1 second slower than the dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon.

Also keep in mind that Lightwave is optimized for the Xeon, not the G5. Other applications that have been optimized for the G5 show an immediate ~28% increase in speed. Add to that Panther's reported significant speed increase, and you have a faster system for less money.

[CaptainKirk]

Ed , give it up.

AMD chips are already faster than G5 in almost all benchmarks, and by a wide margin.

So what difficulties are you talking about?

If there are any difficulties just more praise to AMD for being able to come out with the fastest CPUs despite these difficulties.

Besides I'm glad to see most of those features aren't supported in 64 bit windows. They are useless crap which gets discarded for better 3rd party apps/features.

You seriously think I'm going to use crap like:

Microsoft TV Technologies for Windows®
Video mixing renderer (VMR)
or Kodak Imaging Accessory

What are those anyway?

The beauty of AMD chips is that they don't need 64 bits.
There is no whining about optimization with AMD, they preform TODAY, and by the time 64 bit applications show up ( a long way from now ) there will be plenty of drivers and whatever else .

[tallscot]

AMD chips are already faster than G5 in almost all benchmarks

Show me those benchmarks.

[CaptainKirk]

Here you go, ONLY 1.6 ghz Opteron beating xeon which beats G5.
Today's Opterons and AMD 64 chips run at 2.2 Ghz, so the difference is huge by now.

Photoshop ( compare with MAC losing 13 out of 15 tests to that same xeon, for reference on ArsMac you can find the same test. Mac took 94 seconds, 13 longer than Opteron at only 1.6 ghz )

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=10

Maya

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron242&page=9

Cinebench and Photoshop

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Also, please open your eyes and see that these are ONLY 2.4 ghz xeon and 2.1 ghz regular Athlon, not Athlon 64 against top of the line G5.

G5 wins at Aftreeffects and another, and that is about the only time I've seen it win anything ( AGAIN I stress, against a year old AMD and xeon chips

Find those same tests for Athlon 64 and compare , you'll see it's night and day. G5 just doesn't come close.

Game frame rates:

http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html

Sopecbecnchmarks????

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296&page=2

Sorry, but G5 is just slow even compared to these old PCs and it just came out

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Well, that 's just bull....On the PC side equally fast machine can be head for less than $2000 because we have choices.
Ok. I'm still arguing that the SAME machine specs cost the same.
2x 2.4 GHz Xeon
Stock MLB (I can't find anything with a 1GHz FSB)
2x 256 MB DIMM
1x 160 GB Serial ATA drive
1 Pioneer A106 DVD burner
1 gigabit ethernet card
1 audio card with digital-optical I/O
1 firewire card (I didn't see the ports on the MLB)
I screwed up the ATi card. Should have been 9600, not 9800.
I still can't find a video editing package, DVD authoring package, and DVD burning software in the listings. Apple includes these for free. You can choose to not have the same features. You can choose to buy a system that is limited out of the gate (slower ethernet, more drive bays full, no digital video or audio I/O). I'm choosing to compare EQUAL SYSTEMS. Do you have trouble with the english language, that these two words aren't in your vocabulary?

Any idiot can compare a 2x2GHz G5 to a different computer, with different specs, and get a cheaper computer. I'm talking about EQUAL SYSTEMS.

In a comparsion of EQUAL SYSTEMS the prices are even. That is a fact, not some blind faith statement.

[CaptainKirk]

I think you have problems with the language.

My point is that I can choose what to buy.

YOU CAN NOT! Apple forces you to buy useless crap you don't need, along with overpriced memory.

I don't need an ethernet card, I don't need a new sound card since I already have a $500 sound card. I don't need another low end video editing or DVD authoring nonsense.

All I need is a fast machine and I can get it for $1000+ less.
All I need to drop in is the sound card and I'm ready to go.

You cannot. You need to buy what uncle Steve forces you to buy.

OK, Just to amuse you I added a Pioneer DVD burner , a modem, sound card, , ethernet, all things I don't need. Comes out to $2268 for a dual 2.4Ghz xeon system. Still $750 less than your G5

[tallscot]

PCMag shows the G5 is much faster in Acrobat, Avid Xpress, Squeeze:
javascript:OpenImageWindow('http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,3003,s=1564&iid=28726,00.asp',%20'640',%20'307')

The industry standard PCBench7 Photoshop benchmark shows the G5 is faster:
http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html

Barefeats shows After Effects is much faster on the G5, and you agree.

Barefeats shows that Quake III is much faster on the G5:
http://www.barefeats.com/image04/p4-kak.gif

Barefeats shows that Bryce is much faster on the G5:
http://www.barefeats.com/image04/p4-bry.gif

Tom's Hardware shows the dual Xeon is faster than the dual Opteron:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-23.html#3drendering

So Photoshop, After Effects, Acrobat, Squeeze, Avid Xpress, Quake III are all faster on the G5. Lightwave on the G5 does raytrace in 63 seconds, compared to 59 seconds with the dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon. Optimization will bring 20-30% speed increases. Cinebench is slower on the Mac, though I don't really use Cinebench very much. :)

If I want to play games, I'll buy a cheap PC.

[tallscot]

All I need is a fast machine and I can get it for $1000+ less.
All I need to drop in is the sound card and I'm ready to go.

You cannot. You need to buy what uncle Steve forces you to buy

Which is a big reason my Macs give me fewer hassles than my Windows PCs, and why Bill Gates and HP are working on a system that has Apple's kind of integration.

I'm very happy with the sound on my Mac. I'm happy with everything included on the mobo, and I can add to it.

It all boils down to price. You can get a PC for little money. PCs are cheap, with an inferior OS.

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
My point is that I can choose what to buy.

And all PC owners and users are just like you, right? With the same cool hardware and software, and lack of needs?

Oh, and for everyone else, this must not be panini reborn, since CaptainKirk only has and needs ONE machine to do his work, while panini had multiple opteron machines rendering lightwave in his basement.

Again, I stated way back in the beginning I was comparing equivalent systems. I don't need 3 or 4 copies of iMovie or iDVD. I don't need 3 or 4 DVD burners. I was comparing the specs of EQUIVALENT machines. I could care less about one person's specific needs or lack thereof, yours or mine. On EQUIVALENT machines, the cost of a dual Xeon system is comparable to the cost of the G5. That is a FACT, regardless of your personal needs or mine.

[CaptainKirk]

Well, sure you show only a gif for Quake, but not the whole page because G5 lost all other ( 5 ) tests and barefeats concluded that G5 is crap when it comes to gaming.

Photoshop is owned by Opterons. Tests you show are against older chips and do not show real times like those I do. That is somebody's interpretation of those tests.

Link I showed you shows Opteron completing all those photoshop tests in 81 seconds, xeon in 93, Mac completed it in 94 or 95, but some smarta$$ Mac lover decided to extrapolate some scheme which bases total scores on which tests were given more importance.

Bottom line , in both; PC mag tests,and in game pc tests and even those links you show. TOTAL TIMES WERE THE SLOWEST ON G5.

G5 is dead last in Photoshop. Behind Intel and behind AMD

And if you look above I did add all those things as if I were buying my first PC and needed them. Still comes out to only $2268

[tallscot]

well, sure you show only a gif for Quake

See how quickly you changed your tune? You said AE was the only one faster...

Tests you show are against older chips and do not show real times like those I do. That is somebody's interpretation of those tests.

Actually, those are the official PSBench7 results, and they are normalized. Only a moron adds the total time of 21 filters for a final result. You have to normalize the score.

t some smarta$$ Mac lover decided to extrapolate some scheme which bases total scores on which tests were given more importance.

No, that's the point - you normalize the score. If one test is 1 second on the PC and .5 seconds on the G5, that filter does not affect the overall score compared to another filter that is 20 seconds on the Mac and 15 seconds on the PC. Get it? You normalize the score to give all filters equal weight.

TOTAL TIMES WERE THE SLOWEST ON G5.

Again, you changed your tune. I showed you several applications that are much faster on the G5.

I use AE, and it screams on the Mac. I don't care if Cinebench is faster on the PC, since I don't use Cinebench.

Squeeze screams on the Mac. Acrobat screams on the Mac.

So again, only a moron adds the total score of all the benchmarks and claims one is faster than the other.

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
And if you look above I did add all those things as if I were buying my first PC and needed them. Still comes out to only $2268

Huh. I didn't even configure the system out of the box and it was $2355.
I changed only the upgrades/downgrades (like switching to the cheapest single 160 GB drive listed) to meet specs that match the G5. This price ($2905) comes up.

This link may or may not work:
http://www.gamepc.com/shop/custom.asp?rig=gpdev100
So, Kirk, what did I do wrong?

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Ed M.
Now here is something truly interesting:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_tfiu.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

Add to this the information I posted about the WOW64 layer that I correctly surmised would be running on AMD64 tech. to accommodate 32bit apps and the difficulty of OpenGL and the other obstacles I brought up and.... well, you guys get the picture.

--
Ed

In case you missed it in the other thread, those links refer to the Itanium version of XP64, not the AMD64 version.

[CaptainKirk]

Well, for one thing, you are starting out with a workstation option and paying $400 just for the case ( default option which popped up for me ). Another $70 for 2 cooling fans which you don't need since both CPUs come with their own retail fans.
There are additional thing there which are completely useless. You probably also didn't switch hard drive option to x1.
As a default you have x2, two hard drives, so you most likely configured two 160 GB hard drives instead of one.

Don't fall for marketing hype.

Start out with one of their P4 Gaming templates.

Switch P4 with xeons, Keep the $125 or so case which is excellent by the way.

And you'll end up with an excellent machine for $7-800 less. It will perform exactly the same as if you fell for that $400 case and extra fans etc....

I have the cheaper ( but not cheap by any means ) full tower, it has 6 fans already in it and retail CPUs come with their own, so only on case and fans you can cut down about $375 without losing anything.

[mlinde]

Hm. So you think there is no quality difference between a game designed MLB and case, and a workstation designed MLB and case? I doubt that. The biggest difference between a workstation and a home desktop (when going from the ground up) is additional power, cooling, and redundancy. I know that the G5 has advanced cooling, with variable cycling fans depending on the generated temperature inside the case. I also know that most workstations have redundant cooling, because if your system fries, you are in serious trouble in a business environment.

I changed the HD to a single 160. I may use a mac, but don't assume I'm stupid. It was cheaper to use a single 160 than 2 80s. I spent the time reducing accessories that were expensive and unnecessary (like RF wireless mouse/keyboard).

Even with that starting difference, I'm still sitting at about $2500 for a dual 2.4 Xeon.

The notable differences between the two machines:
1) FSB: Xeon has 533/400 MHz (per processor), G5 has 1Ghz (per processor).
2) Audio I/O: Xeon has RCA and 1/8 mini jacks, G5 has 1/8 mini and digital optical.
3) RAM: Same memory subsystem, the G5 has the option for 8 GB, Xeon limited to 4 GB.
4) PCI: Xeon has 32 bit PCI bus, G5 has 64 bit.

Kirk, I'm not buying or building a machine to play video games. Some of the features I get on the G5 are very important to me, like the 64 bit PCI, digital optical audio I/O, and redundant cooling. Are they worth $500? I'm not sure. But they are important, and they bring the price of the Xeon box up even to the G5 again.

[CaptainKirk]

G5 doesn't have any advanced cooling, just as it doesn't really have a super drive.

It's juts a low to mid end Pioneer DVD burner.

Any PC case on that site costing over $125 is as good or better than Apple's or Dell's or Gateway's. You can get those Thermalmasters which even measure temperature and have temp.readings, alerts, etc in the front. Those are between $160 and $200. Apple's case isn't worth $50

You most definitely do not need that almost $400 case or those extra fans since all that is already included in these PC cases.

Those options are just there for people who don't know and go for preconfigured systems, so they make an extra buck here and there.

[tallscot]

The G5 is the quietest PC I have ever listened to. Unfortunately, my very loud PC will be turned on in the same room, so it's moot.

[mlinde]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
G5 doesn't have any advanced cooling, just as it doesn't really have a super drive.
You know, except for this bit, your post wasn't very inflammatory, it was actually informative. As you already knew, without having to be an *****, the moniker superdrive is Apple's marketing hype for the DVD burner.

As for advanced cooling, I didn't know that every PC on the block had these features:
"... four independently controlled thermal zones for intelligently channeled airflow..."

"...Each of the four thermal zones is equipped with its own dedicated, low-speed fans. Apple engineered seven of the nine fans to spin at very low speeds for minimum acoustic output. And Mac OS X constantly monitors component temperatures in each zone, dynamically adjusting individual fan speeds to the appropriate levels..."

I consider multiple "thermal zones" and "dynamic fan speed adjustment" to be advanced. In any PC (or other Mac) I've seen, the fans are on or off, not variable speed.

Just when you start to sound reasonable, you go off the deep end. Obviously there is no way you'd ever compromise to the fact (and I do mean fact) that there are some good things in the new G5. Thanks for the info though. I'm done.

[luka]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
G5 doesn't have any advanced cooling, just as it doesn't really have a super drive.

It's juts a low to mid end Pioneer DVD burner.

Any PC case on that site costing over $125 is as good or better than Apple's or Dell's or Gateway's. You can get those Thermalmasters which even measure temperature and have temp.readings, alerts, etc in the front. Those are between $160 and $200. Apple's case isn't worth $50

You most definitely do not need that almost $400 case or those extra fans since all that is already included in these PC cases.

Those options are just there for people who don't know and go for preconfigured systems, so they make an extra buck here and there.

In this case pictures are worth more than words

[Beamtracer]

9 cooling fans, huh? That would be very useful for Captain Panini... ...to blow some of that hot air away!!!!

Then again, it may be better to bottle all that hot air up. Then we could call him Captain Cork.

[hokeypokey]

Hey Captain Kirk!

Why don't you just beam yourself back to your spaceship, and challenge your friend with the pointy ears to a game of basketball or something. The reason for this thread was to make contact with the LW programmer not a forum for some treky to work out the kinks of his oppressed childhood.:rolleyes:

[Jimzip]

Mmmm. G5'ey goodness...

Jimzip :D

[Ade]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
G5 doesn't have any advanced cooling, just as it doesn't really have a super drive.

It's juts a low to mid end Pioneer DVD burner.

Any PC case on that site costing over $125 is as good or better than Apple's or Dell's or Gateway's. You can get those Thermalmasters which even measure temperature and have temp.readings, alerts, etc in the front. Those are between $160 and $200. Apple's case isn't worth $50

You most definitely do not need that almost $400 case or those extra fans since all that is already included in these PC cases.

Those options are just there for people who don't know and go for preconfigured systems, so they make an extra buck here and there.

ANNOUNCED: Captainjerk to Englis translation app!

Let me translate this for you all using this new wonderful app-

Jerk said:
"Any PC case on that site costing over $125 is as good or better than Apple's or Dell's or Gateway's. You can get those Thermalmasters which even measure temperature and have temp.readings, alerts, etc in the front. Those are between $160 and $200. Apple's case isn't worth $50"

---Translation----

"I simply cant afford a G5, infact I dont even use Lightwave, its pirated" (as discovered once in a thread from cgtalk)


Jerk said:
"You most definitely do not need that almost $400 case or those extra fans since all that is already included in these PC cases."

---translation---
"My pc is ugly".


Jerk said:
"Those options are just there for people who don't know and go for preconfigured systems, so they make an extra buck here and there. "

---translation---
"I like having to goto the web and find every driver for ever component on my system, I love spending countless hours search and researching whats the bests parts casue if I buy wrong noones going to help me for the $5 profit they made".

[Beamtracer]

While we're still translating...

The word "Panini" in Italian = vegetable

[tallscot]

The iMac has variable speed fans too. I think it was the first - not nine of them with zones.

Why is it that the PC trolls never have any actual knowledge of or experience with Macs?

[Ade]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
While we're still translating...

The word "Panini" in Italian = vegetable

Or its plural for bread rolls in italian.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by tallscot
Why is it that the PC trolls never have any actual knowledge of or experience with Macs?
...what if we do and still don't like them? ;)
One thing I'm definetely sick of is Steve Js hype (I have to admit, the introduction of the G5 _did_ get me very excited). What is on the market now is in no relation to Apple's hype though. Nice box, agreed, on par with the ageing Xeons now, great. The Wow factor is gone though.
Cheers,
Mike

[Ade]

What I dont get is if u hate them so much why are u in the mac forums?

[Lightwolf]

Don't worry, I don't hate any of you guys. As I said, I got _really_ excited about the G5, and I was for once expecting Apple to deliver what they promised.

I never notice if I'm in the Mac forum or not, I just look at all new threads once or twice a day, sorry for that.

I should be more careful not to voice my opinion here in the future.
But don't even think about coming over to the PC forum if we start to BS about Macs ;)
Cheers,
Mike

[Ade]

No offence taken its just that it seems the pc ppl go out of their way to tell us that our platform is crap. Like why are you guys trying to change our minds for? Its tiresome, unproductive and alienating.

It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter or spite.
I myself an quit tired of reading a post about a mac problem only to find some pc user has nothing productive to say.

Its like get over it, you made your choice so did we. Sheesh these forums have gone to crap thanks to a few pc ppl.
Light i expect more from you, your not some dumb newbie like Captain jerk.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Ade
I myself an quit tired of reading a post about a mac problem only to find some pc user has nothing productive to say.
Ade,
most of the posts in the Mac forum where other platform users post are _not_ Mac related LW issues (which are imho the only posts that belong in the Mac forum anyhow, most PC users post their general stuff in the other, non platform specific, parts of the forum).
Anyhow, if I see a post, and I find information that afaik isn't right, I try to correct it. That goes both ways.
I'm not trying to change anyones mind (except for mine may be ;) ), but I want people to get their facts straight. What you do with these facts is none of my business...
Cheers,
Mike

[tallscot]

Lightwolf, what you discuss requires no experience or knowledge of the Mac or its OS. Your last post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You don't relate Mac experience, only Apple policy, hype, advertising, claims, etc. While criticism of this nature may or may not be completely valid and deserved (PC Quake III numbers on Apple.com are obviously suspect), none of that affects the Mac experience.

The G5 is much, much, much faster than the dual Xeon in After Effects, which is a program I use quite a bit. It's much faster in Acrobat, Squeeze, and Avid, according to PCMag's benchmarks. It's faster in Photoshop according to the PSBench7. It's much faster in Bryce, but who cares about Bryce, really. :)

Lightwave will probably see a 28% speed increase with optimization for the G5, if it's anything like Lightworks and Cinebench, which both saw ~30% speed increases after optimization.

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by tallscot
Lightwolf, what you discuss requires no experience or knowledge of the Mac or its OS.
Hm, which isn't too bad, considering that I actually have the experience of using it... ;)

Your last post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You don't relate Mac experience, only Apple policy, hype, advertising, claims, etc. While criticism of this nature may or may not be completely valid and deserved (PC Quake III numbers on Apple.com are obviously suspect), none of that affects the Mac experience.
As a potential customer Apple policy, hype and claims are the first thing I'm confronted with, especially since the dual G5s weren't available until some weeks ago.
Does that mean the speed of your machine doesn't affect your 'experience'? I try to get my work done as efficiently and as quickly as possible, which, in most cases, means waiting for software (whether 3D or 2D) :)
You are right, I didn't sit in front of a G5 yet, but looking at the benches for the software I work with, I don't see a point even thinking about it at the moment.

The G5 is much, much, much faster than the dual Xeon in After Effects, which is a program I use quite a bit. It's much faster in Acrobat, Squeeze, and Avid, according to PCMag's benchmarks. It's faster in Photoshop according to the PSBench7. It's much faster in Bryce, but who cares about Bryce, really. :)
Well, in that case it seems to be the right choice of machine for you, if those are the apps you spend most of your time with. I'm not arguing that at all.
From the benches I've seen:
Cinebench (G5 optimized) 504 / Xeon 648 - higher is better
Photoshop 7 278 / 334 (Funny thing that, a single Athlon 64FX-51 gets 337, a P4 3,2 362, Dual Opteron 275) - lower is better.
Other benches were Mathematica, Filamaker, MP3 encoding, Unreal Tournament.
It is currently slower with LW as well.
On a side note, we're only talking Dual G5 here, the single G5 1,8 was the second slowest machine in the comparison, in almost any case (third slowest in Photoshop), the slowest being a G4 1.0 GHz (used for reference).
On the x86 side, c't benched all current offerings from intel and AMD.

Lightwave will probably see a 28% speed increase with optimization for the G5, if it's anything like Lightworks and Cinebench, which both saw ~30% speed increases after optimization.
Yeah, but that didn't help Cinebench much, did it?Rendering seems to profit a lot from SSE2 on the Xeon/P4, even the Opterons stand no chance there (much slower SSE2).
Cinebench is currently hand optimized though, you might see a better performance increase once Metrowerks supports the G5 (Codewarrior 9 doesn't). GCC seems to be out of the question for _fast_ code, the IBM compiler seems to be extremely neat though, I wonder if switching the compiler will affect plugin compatibility though (this goes for all apps that need to be "optimized").
Cheers,
Mike

[Ge4-ce]

panini = vegetable
panini = breadrolls

poor vegetables, poor breadrolls...

BTW.. We all like fruit (Apples) what's that vegetable still doing here?

[tallscot]

Hm, which isn't too bad, considering that I actually have the experience of using it...

Yeah, and I have experience using a 747 (the bathroom), but that doesn't mean I've flown it.

As a potential customer Apple policy, hype and claims are the first thing I'm confronted with, especially since the dual G5s weren't available until some weeks ago.

Applies to all marketing. I'm having a heck of a time finding out the Mhz of the AMD processors. Is it 3200 Mhz or what?

Again, it doesn't relate to the Mac OS X versus Windows PC experiences.

Does that mean the speed of your machine doesn't affect your 'experience'?

Sure it does, and so does a missing DLL message that hoses your system. The Windows registry affects the speed of my computer a lot. Viruses, spyware, adware, all affect the speed of my experience on the PC, but not on the Mac. To only focus on the fact that the dual G5 does the raytrace benchmark in 63 seconds and the dual Xeon does it in 59 seconds ignores the fact that it is other things that affect my productivity, things that Windows has that negatively impacts my productivity in a big way.

Photoshop 7 278 / 334 (Funny thing that, a single Athlon 64FX-51 gets 337, a P4 3,2 362, Dual Opteron 275) - lower is better.

Nah, Photoshop PSBench7 on a Mac gets a score of 555 compared to a dual 3.06 Xeon's 490:
http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html

Athlon 64FX-51 does the raytrace in 87.9 seconds compared to the dual G5's 63 seconds:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=16

On a side note, we're only talking Dual G5 here

Yes, we are.

Yeah, but that didn't help Cinebench much, did it?

Yeah, it did. 28%. It's still slower, but Acrobat, After Effects, Photoshop, Bryce, Luxology, Avid Xpress, Renderman, and others are faster.

I don't use Cinebench much. Do you?

Again, all you talk about is speed and price, because that's all you can talk about. Those two subjects don't require any experience or knowledge of the Mac experience. Troll.

[CaptainKirk]

You Mac guys are really funny.

Like this quote:

Athlon 64FX-51 does the raytrace in 87.9 seconds compared to the dual G5's 63 seconds:


Yeah, that's a SINGLE Athlon chip against a dual G5. Why don't you see how fast they are on equal terms , one G5 chip against one Athlon 64 chip and get back to me.

About those cases. Actually most good PC cases like those Thermalmasters from $150-$200 have variable fan speeds and front pannel temperature measurments, adjustments etc.....

Like the super drive, the advanced cooling Apple mentions is just a fancy way of saying: "we have more fans inside"

When it comes to Photoshop AMD wins. Forget about those scores. Look at total times to complete tests.

G5 around 95 seconds, Xeon 93 seconds, Slower 1.6ghz Opteron 81 seconds ( don't have the numbers for new AMD chips, but I'm assuming faster ). I don't know how those guys concluded that Apple has a higher score even though taking the longest to complete the test.

Missing DLLs. What on earth is that? Viruses? The last virus trying to sneak into my PC was on a zip disk given to me by a Mac user who didn't know he had it because most Mac users think they are immune.

My personal knowledge of Macs comes from a handful of friends who work in video editing and use mostly Final cut pro. I never have to call them asking for help when something crashes. They do call me and I tell them to get a PC ' cause I can't help them with Mac problems. From my experience through them OSX crashes much more often than Windows 2000Pro.

When I tried to use their Macs everything seemed very unintuitive and left me wondering what on earth are alll these people talking about , about ease of use. I know it isn't quite like that, but just goeas to show you , it's only a matter of familiarity. Windows is just as simple to use as any Mac OS ever was.

[tallscot]

Yeah, that's a SINGLE Athlon chip against a dual G5. Why don't you see how fast they are on equal terms , one G5 chip against one Athlon 64 chip and get back to me.

Nah, having two is better. How about two Athlon 64s? Oh yeah, the Athlon 64 isn't capable of it. You have to get dual Opterons.

Look at total times to complete tests.

If you are a moron, yes, do that. You could have 20 filters be twice as fast on the Mac, but 1 filter is faster on the PC and the total time for the PC would be better. Don't total times, normalize them.

Actually most good PC cases like those Thermalmasters from $150-$200 have variable fan speeds and front pannel temperature measurments, adjustments etc.....

The G5 does it via the OS. It controls the speed/heat of the CPU and also varies the speed of the fan, all together. Windows PCs don't do this - period. You can have a thermometer in your case and have the fans increase as your CPU gets hotter, but nothing on the level of the G5.

Missing DLLs. What on earth is that?

From Microsoft:
http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?Catalog=LCID%3D1033%26CDID%3DEN-US-KB%26PRODLISTSRC%3DON&Product=&KeywordType=ALL&Titles=false&numDays=&maxResults=25&Queryl=missing+corrupt+dll&Query=missing+corrupt+dll&QuerySource=gsfxSearch_Query&srchExtraQry=

And any Windows tech support site, including ZDNet's, has tons of DLL-related problems.

http://forums.zdnet.com/group/zd.Windows.XP/community/community.tpt/@thread@49984@F@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@mark@49984?ROS=&OC=75

http://forums.zdnet.com/group/zd.Windows.XP/community/community.tpt/@thread@49852@F@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@mark@49852?ROS=&OC=75

The Mac doesn't have DLLs.

Viruses?

SoBig? All of these worms and viruses require Windows to propagate - period. There are zero known OS X viruses - period. If I get a macro virus in an Office document from a PC user, it does nothing to my Mac. I can then send that PC file to another PC file and it will do damage.

My personal knowledge of Macs comes from a handful of friends who work in video editing and use mostly Final cut pro.

Thanks for confirming my point - PC trolls have no experience and no knowledge of the Mac.

They do call me and I tell them to get a PC ' cause I can't help them with Mac problems. From my experience through them OSX crashes much more often than Windows 2000Pro.

My cousin's boyfriend's roommate's mother told me to buy a Mac because PCs suck. That was worthless, wasn't it?

You don't own a Mac. I do. I also own a couple of PCs, with Windows XP Pro and Windows 2K. Windows 2K and XP are very stable, but not as stable as OS X. Part of this has to do with OS X being a better designed OS that doesn't rely on shared resource files (DLLs) not being deleted when you uninstall an application, etc. Part of it has to do with the core of OS X being rock solid. Part of it has to do with the fact that there aren't a million people and their mothers building PCs, mobos, processors, etc., in their garages, requiring Windows to work flawlessly on a billion different configurations.

When I tried to use their Macs everything seemed very unintuitive and left me wondering what on earth are alll these people talking about , about ease of use. I know it isn't quite like that, but just goeas to show you , it's only a matter of familiarity. Windows is just as simple to use as any Mac OS ever was.

Again, PC trolls don't have experience and never go into specifics.

Give me specifics. What don't you find intuitive? Why? Explain. I can give you several pages of how Windows is a pain in the ***** compared to OS X. Just a couple:

Windows requires me to uninstall an application which asks me if I should delete DLL Y or X. Why does the end user have to make the decision to delete DLL Y or X? To uninstall Final Cut Pro, you just throw it in the trash.

Windows has a registry which is the source of many problems, requiring software like Reg Cleaner. OS X doesn't have a registry, so it has none of those problems. Why does my XP Pro system still think it has WinAmp when I uninstalled it? Why? Because the uninstaller did a poor job uninstalling and left the registry in Windows thinking WinAmp was still there.

See? I can give you specific things about Windows that make it a much bigger pain, because I own both. You don't own both, yet you come on this board and tell us how much Macs suck when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[CaptainKirk]

There are utilities such as those that came with my ASUS video card which let you control the speed of the CPU through software.
( same thing your OSX does )

The question is why??? Why the hell would anybody need to do that. If Mac needs to vary the CPU speed that only proves that it's a badly designed processor overclocked and straining itself to be able to compete with Intel and AMD chips.

It's been a well known fact that the latest round of G4 chips were nothing more than older ones overclocked. Obviously from what you tell me it looks like IBM had to overclock a slower 1.8 ghz chip too to get to 2Ghz
( thus reported G5 heat and the need for reducing the speed through OS ). This looks very bad if you are counting on 3Ghz by next summer as Jobs announced, because this is obviously a chip which is already at its limits unless some serious redesign can be done. Also a reason why it can't be used in laptops.

Now you know why you have those extra fans and why OS needs to be able to reduce the speed of the CPU. This thing will never get even to 2.5 Ghz without major redesign.

No such thing needed with any AMD or Intel chips.

And that is the main reason I don't like Apple ( since you asked for specifics ). They are quite content to sell you an overpriced
piece of obsolete technology while claiming it to be the newest and the fastest. On the PC side AMD and Intel competition keeps things more honest. I'm sure I could get used to OSX, but , hardware just isn't there for Apple and hasn't been since early 90s. Very limited choices ( basically none ) and slower at almost everything. I can understand somebody who grew up with Macs wanting to stick with them since speed isn't everything, but for somebody who is used to PCs there is absolutely no reason to even think about switching.

[tallscot]

Sigh.

Open up your preferred CPU monitor and see how much your CPU is being taxed while you type in a browser text field. It's not used much, is it? So why on Earth would you have your CPU at full throttle, requiring massive fanning and cooling, when all you are doing is typing in a Web browser. Get it?

Again, OS X coordinates the CPU throttling with the fans. Windows and PCs do not.

It's been a well known fact that the latest round of G4 chips were nothing more than older ones overclocked. Obviously from what you tell me it looks like IBM had to overclock a slower 1.8 ghz chip too to get to 2Ghz
( thus reported G5 heat and the need for reducing the speed through OS ). This looks very bad if you are counting on 3Ghz by next summer as Jobs announced, because this is obviously a chip which is already at its limits unless some serious redesign can be done. Also a reason why it can't be used in laptops.

Why do you continue to make posts about things you know nothing about. The 2 Ghz IBM 970 uses a lot less power than the 3.06 Ghz Xeon, the 2 Ghz Opteron, and the 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4.

The 3 Ghz G5 coming out next year is based on the IBM 980, which is a 90 nm processor, and uses less power.

Extra fans are used because there are thermal zones on the case, which is why the G5 is much quieter than any PC - period.

No such thing needed with any AMD or Intel chips.

So why are you touting PC cases that have thermometers? LOL! There are liquid cooled PCs, for crying out loud. These PC processors are using a ton of watts, and require massive cooling.

PC laptops used watered-down processors because the desktop processors are too hot and take too much energy.

And that is the main reason I don't like Apple ( since you asked for specifics ). They are quite content to sell you an overpriced
piece of obsolete technology while claiming it to be the newest and the fastest.

Sorry, but the G5 is loaded with the latest technology - dual independent 1 Ghz FSB, 8X AGP, 400 Mhz DDR RAM, PCI X, Hypertransport, FireWire 800, USB 2, optical audio in and out, serial ATA, gigabit ethernet... That comment right there by you shows us how ignorant you are.

And the IBM 970 and 980 processors are state-of-the-art.

On the PC side AMD and Intel competition keeps things more honest. I'm sure I could get used to OSX, but , hardware just isn't there for Apple and hasn't been since early 90s. Very limited choices ( basically none ) and slower at almost everything. I can understand somebody who grew up with Macs wanting to stick with them since speed isn't everything, but for somebody who is used to PCs there is absolutely no reason to even think about switching.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is plenty of choice in hardware for the Mac. I use the same RAM, same monitor, same HD, same CDRW, same DVDR, same SCSI card, same modem, same MP3 player, same mouse, same video card, as I do on my PC. The "choice" argument just doesn't fly.

OS X is superior to Windows XP - period. There's no if and or buts involved. The people who actually know both operating systems clearly say they prefer OS X. The only thing I see is people justifying using Windows XP by showing how cheap a PC is. You can build a PC with gum, some paper clips, and aluminum foil for $.33.

The dual G5 is faster than a dual Xeon, for less money.

I didn't grow up with Macs. I was using PCs before Macs. I also used Amigas, Atari STs, Radio Shacks TRASH 80, Vic 20, Commodore 64s, and Commodore PET. Oh, and the IBM PC Jr.

Again, you have shown us that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Tronam]

No "ifs, ands or buts" ehh? I own both platforms and use OSX and XP regularly. Is it ok for me to say that I like XP better? I can strip it down to a very minimalist, simple state that remains snappy, lean and out of my way. OSX feels sluggish in comparison. I don't need candy coated buttons to use a computer, although I'll admit that Apple's are nicer than those in XP's default theme (ack! Apple plagiarism of the cheapest kind). See, it's possible for someone to actually like Windows better. :)

-Tronam

PS: In the last 6 years that I've been using PCs, I've never been infected with a virus. Also, regarding the latest splurge of network aware RPC worms, I have a small, inexpensive little appliance firewall/switch that does not allow such traffic into my home. Simple solution.

[Beamtracer]

I feel very confident that the Apple G5 is the best desktop computer out there. I hope to have one on my own desk very soon.

I don't think Captain Kirk (aka Panini) could be convinced, but JS33 and Lightwolf have been hanging around in the Mac forum so much that I get the impression that they sometimes secretly salivate for a G5 themselves.

Come on guys... you'd be very happy to try out a G5, wouldn't you? ;)

Lightwolf comes from Germany. The German speaking areas of Europe (Germany-Austria-Switzerland) seem to be a no-go area for Macs. The percentage of Macs being used (especially in Germany and Austria) is much lower than most other countries.

Why is this, Lightwolf? Why are there less Macs being used in Germany than elsewhere? It seems to be only the graphic artists using Macs in Germany. You don't see many people with them in the home.

[CaptainKirk]

Agreed. Windows 2000 or XP are noticeably faster than OSX.

OSX seemed very sluggish on my friends' Macs.

I don't know where this guy got the idea that G5 is cheaper ( $3000 ) that a comparable dual xeon ( $2000 ) and faster. Almost all tests xeon trounces G5, AMD even more so.

About the cases. I just said they were available, Had you read more carefully you would have seen I suggested getting a cheaper , around $120 case , because PCs do not need extra fancy cooling to run stable. Liquid cooling you talk about is for extremely overclocked chips close to 4Ghz in P4 case. Not something an average person is likely to buy.

And, no you do not have nearly as many choices as we do on the PC side. First of all you are stuck with G5 chips which are already known for extreme heat generating which along with throttling indicates they are overclocked. There is absolutely no reson to have that. Average lifespan of an Intel or AMD CPU is close to 10 years running with CPU heatsing/fan only and no throttling.

They may use more power, but they can handle it. G5 obviously cannot handle whatever power it's using since it needs throttling and generates so much heat. If I were you I'd look into this because I can guarantee you it's overclocked and straining itself.

[DaveW]

Yeah, I've been using Macs and PC's side by side for years. I do like OSX a lot but there are a few little things that put XP over the top IMO. The three biggest things about OSX that bug me are the single file menu for all the apps, sluggishness, and the dock. The single file menu sucks for dual monitors. I also occasionally have the problem of thinking I'm in one app because all it's windows are in the front, but there's an app in the foreground with no windows (usually a web browser) or on the 2nd monitor and it messes me up sometimes. My biggest gripe with the dock is that it has all those little icons but the only way to tell which ones are running is the tiny black triangle. I like to keep my dock small to save space, and the triangle is just too hard to see. I don't use the magnification thing because moving targets drive me up the wall.

I've used a Panther beta and the interface is very snappy now, so I'm glad that's finally been taken care of. If we could just be given the option to have the single file menu or file menus for each app I'd be very happy; I've seen Windows hacks that let you have a single file menu like Macs, there must be some way to do the opposite on OSX. For the dock, two things would help a lot; 1, add a dock button to the keyboard (and/or a shortcut for legacy keyboards) that shows/hides the dock. They should also group running apps or make it more obvious which apps are running.


BTW, not all PC laptops are using watered down processors. The Centrino is very fast and very efficient. If only Intel put that kind of effort into their desktop chips...

[DaveW]

Throttling doesn't mean it's overclocked. It saves energy and requires less cooling, meaning the computer will run more quietly. Both are good things. My PC's alre space heaters, my cooling costs in the summer time are outrageous (it's nice in winter though :) ) Saving power is a concern too; electricity costs money. Savings can add up, especially at large companies. How about showing us some actual proof that G5's use throttling because they're overclocked and straining? Any technical web sites that explain this? Maybe IBM has something on their site? No?

[Tronam]

Now, don't get me wrong. I would love to have a Dual G5 and I agree that it is brilliantly engineered. But, in the end it's still just a computer and what matters most to me are the applications. Ironically, most of the dual-platform apps function almost 100% indentically, so why does the platform matter so much? We're at a point now where all of the computers are fast and the performance improvements just aren't as noticable as they once were. The leaps in performance have become incrementally evolutionary.

But, there are little OS quirks that bother me on both sides of the fence. Once my software of choice loads up, I want the OS to be as transparent and out of my way as possible. In this case, I find OSX's dock to be chunky and irritating. I actually prefer the Windows task bar for managing open applications, launching programs and configuring hardware (i.e. multi-channel audio interfaces, DSP audio cards via the system tray)... and it's all on a single, thin little strip at the bottom of my screen. Perhaps it's a similar taste debate over iconical 3D application UIs and LightWave's which is text oriented. Apple thinks scalable icons is the answer, but I prefer the text based task bar.

-Tronam

[js33]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
I don't think Captain Kirk (aka Panini) could be convinced, but JS33 and Lightwolf have been hanging around in the Mac forum so much that I get the impression that they sometimes secretly salivate for a G5 themselves.

Come on guys... you'd be very happy to try out a G5, wouldn't you? ;)




Well Beam I already own a G4 800 Mhz iMac/superdrive.
I also just got Final Cut Express for free with the Premier trade in promo. I would like a G5 and a dual Opteron and even a dual Xeon. Hehehe. I just like all computers. I would also like a new Silicon Graphics machine if I could afford them all. :D

But I can't just keep buying machines because I like them all...or can I. :D

I'm still waiting for the 64 bit fiasco to play out on the Wintel side to see what is available there.

I see benefits for having both platforms but at the same time I can do anything on the Windows side that I could on the Mac so the reasons to own both are largely gone these days.

Cheers,
JS

[tallscot]

I own both platforms and use OSX and XP regularly. Is it ok for me to say that I like XP better? I can strip it down to a very minimalist, simple state that remains snappy, lean and out of my way. OSX feels sluggish in comparison.

OS X on a dual 2 Ghz G5 does not feel sluggish. What does "I can strip it down" mean?

on't need candy coated buttons to use a computer, although I'll admit that Apple's are nicer than those in XP's default theme (ack! Apple plagiarism of the cheapest kind). See, it's possible for someone to actually like Windows better.

You can change the "candy coated" buttons. There are themes.

So far, you say you prefer XP because you think OS X feels sluggish and you don't like the Aqua buttons. Is that it?

In the last 6 years that I've been using PCs, I've never been infected with a virus. Also, regarding the latest splurge of network aware RPC worms, I have a small, inexpensive little appliance firewall/switch that does not allow such traffic into my home. Simple solution.

The latest worms are email based, so if you are getting email, you can get the worm.

I don't know where this guy got the idea that G5 is cheaper ( $3000 ) that a comparable dual xeon ( $2000 ) and faster. Almost all tests xeon trounces G5, AMD even more so.

A comparable Xeon would be a dual 3.06, which costs more than $4K from Dell.

PCMag shows us that the G5 is much faster in After Effects, Acrobat, Squeeze. PSBench7 shows us the G5 is faster in Photoshop. The dual 2 Ghz G5 does the raytrace in Lightwave in 63 seconds compared to 59 seconds for the dual 3.06 Xeon. I'm betting that Lightwave 8 will be G5 optimized and will be about 28% faster, which would make it much faster than the dual Xeon.

First of all you are stuck with G5 chips which are already known for extreme heat generating

Again, the G5 generates less heat than the AMD and Intel chips. Look at the wattage spec on these chips.

G5 obviously cannot handle whatever power it's using since it needs throttling and generates so much heat.

You still don't get it. Throttling is not required. I can turn it off. It's an innovative feature to keep your computer quiet. They don't just throttle the CPU, they throttle the fans at the same time, to make it quiet as possible. It's the most quiet computer.

The single file menu sucks for dual monitors. I also occasionally have the problem of thinking I'm in one app because all it's windows are in the front, but there's an app in the foreground with no windows (usually a web browser) or on the 2nd monitor and it messes me up sometimes.

I have three monitors connected to my OS X Mac and it's very obvious which application is in focus. There is a giant name of the application in focus right there on the menu bar.

I like being able to see my other applications in the background. It's one of many things that make the Mac better than Windows. I can drag and drop quite easily on the Mac because of this. Windows has a big gray application window that keeps you from seeing the other applications, and keeps you from dragging and dropping between windows easily. Multiple monitors is a huge pain in Windows because of this. Like most things, Windows doesn't act consistently. Applications act differently with multiple monitors. Some don't allow you to drag palettes or timelines out of that big gray application window, which forces you to manually extend that application window across the monitors.

Having a single application menu means I don't have menus located in various places. I gain physical memory with the Mac. I know where the menu bar is - it's always in the same place. With Windows, you have multiple menu bars all over the place.

My biggest gripe with the dock is that it has all those little icons but the only way to tell which ones are running is the tiny black triangle. I like to keep my dock small to save space, and the triangle is just too hard to see. I don't use the magnification thing because moving targets drive me up the wall.

Versus the taskbar that has huge task buttons that get truncated because there's never enough room for them, defeating the purpose of task buttons because you can't read which is which? Which one of these is Adobe Photoshop, "Adobe...", "Adobe...", "Adobe..."?

The taskbar has a very tiny icon for the application to launch and a huge task button for each running application. What a waste of space. The Dock uses the same icon for launching as it does to switch. That makes sense. And the task buttons are in a different order every work sesssion, so again, you don't get physical memory with Windows, but you do with the Mac.

I also don't like magnification and have it turned off.

I have no problem seeing the triangle. The triangle is plenty big enough to see. If you have trouble seeing the triangle, you obviously would have trouble deciphering the system tray in Windows.

There are utilities out there that let you customize OS X in various ways, including several for the Dock.

The Centrino is very fast and very efficient.

And not a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4, meaning it's watered down.

In this case, I find OSX's dock to be chunky and irritating. I actually prefer the Windows task bar for managing open applications, launching programs and configuring hardware (i.e. multi-channel audio interfaces, DSP audio cards via the system tray)... and it's all on a single, thin little strip at the bottom of my screen.

The Dock can be thinner. It can be scaled.

Problems with the taskbar -

1. Dock uses a single icon to launch, switch, and access functions (right-click on iTunes' icon for play/pause/next). Taskbar uses three for the Dock's one.

2. Taskbar task buttons are always truncated, which means I have to mouse over them to get the label.

3. Inconsistent behavior - applications act differently. Some give me a task button for each document, some do not.

4. Task buttons are in chronological order, which means I have to search for the Photoshop task button to switch to it. I don't have to search in OS X. It's in the same place every time. I have several applications running at the same time in OS X and Windows XP. In XP, I have a ton of bulky task buttons and they are in a different order every work session. It's a joke. I'm wasting a lot of time locating task buttons in XP, not OS X.

5. I can drag and drop documents to my Dock icons and it highlights for me if the application supports the file or not. Windows does not tell me if the file is supported or not, and will launch the application, then give me an error if it doesn't support the file. OS X saves me time with the highlight feature.

6. Icons look like crap in XP compared to OS X's beautiful Quartz.

7. Dock icons can change dynamically to communicate information. For example, Mail shows me in its icon how many unread messages I have. Toast gives me a graphic representation of how far my burn has to go. Photoshop tells me with a graphic bar how far along its operating is, etc. There are graphic CPU monitors, Dow Jones, etc. The task button can have text info, but it's usually truncated.

8. Minimized windows in the Dock are graphic representations of those windows, providing more information to the user. So a minimized Web page of this forum looks like a tiny page of this forum.

A "thin" taskbar is not what I have. I have to make my taskbar two panes thick for it to be of any use at all.

I hate how Windows has a different print and open/save dialog for every application I use. OS X is consistent. I hate how my open/save dialog in XP doesn't remember the view I had it set at. I only like Details in XP, or Thumbnail, and it doesn't remember the view I had it.

OS X's Finder shows me a thumbnail of images in List and Column view. XP only does it in Thumbnail view, or by clicking on the file.

OS X allows me to customize my Finder window toolbar at the top to put favorite places, which makes me much more efficient.

OS X's Finder lets me play audio and video files right in the Finder, which is a huge time saver.

Ah, the list is very long.

[Tronam]

Wow Tallscot, you are obviously very passionate about this and have really given it a lot of thought. It must feel good to stand atop that proverbial mountain, look down and laugh at the 90% majority of the computing world as they attempt to use Windows. It's amazing anything gets done. I mean, you are right, it is *so* hard to use and never does what I want it to. It's always crashing, getting in my way and I just can't figure anything out. I mean, it's not like were just talking about stupid shortcuts and control panel conventions which have nothing to do with actually creating anything. It's about a way of life. One way. The Apple way.

-Tronam

[tallscot]

Your sarcastic reply doesn't refute anything I said.

If you want to actually discuss the technology and the issue, instead of lashing out at me personally, that would be great. You want to discuss what you like about Windows, what you don't like about OS X, great.

15 million Britanny Spears fans can't be wrong, right? What that means is just because Windows is used by 90% of the public doesn't make it a quality product. GM sells the most cars...

It's really pathetic where Windows is at today considering how much money Microsoft makes. Apple has a fraction of the R&D budget as Microsoft, and Longhorn is going to catch up to features in OS X three years ago. Longhorn is reported to be delayed to 2006. By then, OS X will have been updated at least another two or three times.

I still can't just click on a control panel in Windows and tell it to boot from my FireWire drive. I still can't boot with a blank disk in the drive without the PC stopping. I can't just drag my application to another folder and have it work. I still can't just throw an application in the trash and have it work. I have applications that hijack my file associations, so even though I told Windows to open all my .MPEG files in WMP, they get opened in WinAmp. I have to go in and hack Windows so I don't get ads in the upper left corner of my screen that have to be force quitted. My God, I can't install and uninstall software on my PC without worrying about it hosing some other application.

It's my opinion that Windows is crap. Those are some of the reasons I think this. If you disagree and like Windows, that's great. Don't take it personally that I don't like a product you do like. If you didn't like the toaster I own, I wouldn't take it personally.

[Tronam]

I wasn't trying to refute anything (how can you refute taste?) and I didn't attack you, I merely teased a little. :) From reading your Windows experiences, it is clear that you are very frustrated and haven't yet figured out how to make Windows work properly and I can understand the feeling. I remember finding it frustrating trying to figure out why my G4 was constantly locking up and applications crashing with arcane error code numbers. Having to go through extensions one by one and repeated reinstalls of OS9 consumed a lot of my time and patience. But, eventually I grew to understand it better and overcame these things as I became more familiar with the operating system. I learned how to avoid certain pitfalls and how to optimize the operating system. It's the same with Windows. It works extremely well for me. I find it easy to configure, highly flexible, very stable (since Win2K), supremely compatible and intuitive. I like the application specific menuing system over Apple's global menus at the top. I like the task bar (and I'm not sure what resolution you are running, but I can always read the task titles). I like the fact that device drivers are typically better supported on the PC and I have fewer issues with them. This has been especially true in the digital audio interface/MIDI and DSP card realm.

But hey, it's obviously not for everyone and if OSX makes more sense to you, then you should probably stick with it. In the end though, I kind of find all of this rather superfluous, because it's the actual applications that are really important. As long as LightWave remains multi-platform, then it doesn't really matter what you use.

-Tronam

[CaptainKirk]

What's wattage spec have to do with how much heat a processor generates? There are many factors influencing heat dissipation. Everybody knows G5 runs hotter than any xeon.

G5 is slower at Lightwave in every test, slower running Maya, slower running Photoshop, slower at gaming FPS. It most definitely doesn't compare to a dual 3.06 xeon which by the way doesn't cost more than$2600.

It's a PC, you don't have to buy a $4000 Dell, Unlike Mac purchases, you have choices. You can buy just as fast and better ( free of Dell's crap extras which only bog down the PC ) for less if you know where.

You should check you PSBench7 again. G5 most definitely isn't the fastest, not even second fastest chip.

[Mike Borjon]

For the love of FREAK’N PETE would you guys please get back to work.

Mac_… PC, as long as you’re making a decent living who cares.

I use Macs and PC’s and can’t to this day figure out why some people become such zealots for thier machines.

It’s like … my porsche will do 0 to 60 in 4.12222233389923 sec., oh ya my ferrari can do 0 to 60 in 4.12225668876788 sec. (I’m partial to porsches myself.)

Mike

[Tronam]

Oops, you said you were partial to something. Let's talk about why Porsche sucks and the Ferrari rules. ;)

Actually, I can understand the reasoning behind much of these debates. For the first time in a while, Macintosh users really feel empowered by Apple's redesigned PowerPC architecture and future plans for the computer they love. It's bound to generate a lot of emotionally charged "conversations". And since we obviously don't have anything better to do then hang out in company forums, then why not? :)

-Tronam

[Mike Borjon]

Ah you got me there.

You know, I’ve been using Mac’s practically since the first Classic hit the desktop and have grown quite fond of this platform but not to the extent that I would want to limit myself from being able to learn and expand.

There are both good and bad aspects for just about everything we do. The way I see it, those who succeed are the ones who hold to their natural abilities and are able to keep bias at a distance, using whatever means (be it harware, OS, software, whatever) neccesary, never chaining themselves to any one thing in particular.

Show me a brilliant animation or 3D print and the last thing I’ll probably ask is which platform did you do it on. I’ll definantly ask you which software was used and it better be Lightwave. Just kidding.

Mike

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Mike Borjon
For the love of FREAK’N PETE would you guys please get back to work.


You're absolutely right. I was about to write a huge post in response to tallscot, but it would be pointless. I can write pages about what I like and dislike about either platform, but it's not going to change anybody's opinion; he's not going to convince me to like OSX better and I'm not going to convince him to like XP better. I normally avoid these pissing matches, I guess I just didn't like that he stated his opinion as fact.

[Jimzip]

Originally posted by DaveW
My biggest gripe with the dock is that it has all those little icons but the only way to tell which ones are running is the tiny black triangle. I like to keep my dock small to save space, and the triangle is just too hard to see. I don't use the magnification thing because moving targets drive me up the wall.

Hehe. Just as a side note, the triangles stay very much the same size no matter what you scale the dock to! ;) (See pic 1 ).

Originally posted by DaveW
For the dock, two things would help a lot; 1, add a dock button to the keyboard (and/or a shortcut for legacy keyboards) that shows/hides the dock.

CMD-Option-D to hide and show the dock.. You can bind it to any key you want in Panther.

I'm just commenting.
P.S Keep flaming fellas, it's entertaining and nobody gets work done! A double bonus.


Jimzip :D

Pic 1 .

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by tallscot
The Mac doesn't have DLLs.
See, that's what I mean. ;)
What do you think a shared library is?
Reminds me of the old "we don't need no stinkin' dynamic memory allocation" argument.
Cheers,
Mike

[silvergun]

Why don't you pc owners bugger off to your forums....by the way don't forget to backup your hard drives....somewhere a worm lurks :)

[Ade]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
See, that's what I mean. ;)
What do you think a shared library is?
Reminds me of the old "we don't need no stinkin' dynamic memory allocation" argument.
Cheers,
Mike

Love hate relationship... Although Light u must admit when u trash an app in OSX its easier than windows... Dont need uninstallers. DLL are every pc users nightmare, old legacy technology, OS9 had extensions that were as bad.
Open contents on an OSX app and youll see its lovely goo inside.

[Lightwolf]

Hi Ade,
shared libraries are a two-sided blade. If you pull out a shared library that one of your apps needs in a certain version, you're screwed.
The OS-X packages might make that a bit easier to handle, but the problem is the same (either that, or they use local libraries only, which is imho pointless for "shared" ibraries, might as well compile the stuff in statically).
Heck, I remember the same probs on the Amiga, and even back then there were some neat siggestions on how to solve the problem (no OS I know of even todays solves it properly though). Linux solves this quite neatly with the packages the resolve dependencies, but even that can lead to problems.
I don't think shared libs are "old-legacy" tech, otherwise every app woud, for example, have its own version of openGL included in the code ;)
Whether you need an installer or not doesn't really depend on the OS either. I never, for example, use the LW installer, and I can easily kick out to software. The deeper you insert a program into the OS though, the harder it is to pull out (think demons).
Cheers,
Mike

[Ade]

wish the amiga was still strong..

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by Ade
wish the amiga was still strong..
:D Now _that's_ something we can both easily agree on.
Cheers,
Mike

[tallscot]

OS 9's extensions are as relevant as DOS. OS X doesn't have that issue. However, Windows XP still has DLLs, a registry, no file type/creator info in the files, IRQs...

I don't see any evidence that drivers are of higher quality on the PC. If anything, because there are so many PC combinations of mobo/processor/bios/etc., there are more incompatibilities and issues on the PC. Right now, there are posts on the LW PC forum about driver problems, video card problems, bugs, etc.

Audio is very strong on the Mac. Frankly, the Mac kicks *** in audio.

A comparable PC would be a Dell. Dell's PCMag user survey results and JC Power rating is comparable to the Mac. In any case, I'd love to see a URL for a dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon with the same components and similar specs for $2,600.

I already provided PSBench 7 results that show the G5 is faster in Photoshop.

OS X applications do not install shared libraries that are used by other applications. MS Office doesn't install anything that Photoshop will use in OS X. I can throw Photoshop into the trash and there is no chance that anything else will be hosed. The OS, obviously, has shared libraries, but these libraries don't get uninstalled and they are read only, so they never get corrupted and never go missing.

So the DLL hell and registry issues on the PC don't exist on the OS X Mac - period. Those problems don't exist, among many other.

I've been using PCs for over a decade. If you think I don't know what I'm doing, please point out where. And go back to that Microsoft URL I gave that has several Knowledge Base items on corrupted/missing DLL problems.

The triangle is indeed the same size when you shrink the Dock down. Thanks, Jimzip. And you can bring up the Dock with a keyboard shortcut. So I guess they have no problems with OS X now, huh?

[CaptainKirk]

No you did not provide a link which shows G5 to be faster in Photoshop.

You provided a link to arstechnica forum in which somebody completely unreliable posted his results of a brand new dual G5 against a year old OVERCLOCKED 2.4 GHZ xeon

Even so, Xeon completed tests faster , but this person normalized the test results ( read: manipulated ) and conluded that G5 scored higher ( who is this person anyway ).

Test done by PC Mag where they tested a real 3.06 xeon ( not overclocked 2.4 ghz version ) show xeon winning 13 out of 15 photoshop tests and overall being 20% faster. Had they also tested Opteron it would have done at least 50% faster than G5 because Opteron ( you can read back to the links I posted ) is significantly faster in Photoshop than Xeon.

Read your own links before you draw conclusions and post false info. Please?

[Jimzip]

Guys, this battle is going to go on until the G6.
I really can't stand it anymore, and I don't care what anyone says to try and keep all this from continuing, I think it should cool down soon.

The fact is that now we have a computer that is quite competitive with current PC workstations. Whether people want to accept it and move on or not is their problem.

Whether it is faster or not I do not care.
I will find out when I use one.

I personally believe Apple, and, let's not forget that the G5 did indeed lose some benches as well, so it is not an almighty super-computer that beats all competition hands down. It is a powerful machine that is creating good vibes through the Apple community.

I know there's not much to talk about while we're waiting for Lightwave 8.0. But I think the G5 debate is well and truly milked to death.

Peace y'all.

Jimzip :D

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by tallscot
I don't see any evidence that drivers are of higher quality on the PC. If anything, because there are so many PC combinations of mobo/processor/bios/etc., there are more incompatibilities and issues on the PC. Right now, there are posts on the LW PC forum about driver problems, video card problems, bugs, etc.
True, there are more combinations to choose from. Then again, just look at the Ati issue on the Mac, for how long has that been going on? Will ATI now release a patch, or is it up to Apple and a new OS release to fix that bug?

Audio is very strong on the Mac. Frankly, the Mac kicks *** in audio.
Even that goes both ways, I've seen sutios jump ship from the Mac over to the dark side (mainly Sonic Solutions users...), and vice versa. Life goes on. Have you seen Nuendo?

A comparable PC would be a Dell. Dell's PCMag user survey results and JC Power rating is comparable to the Mac.
JC Power rating?

In any case, I'd love to see a URL for a dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon with the same components and similar specs for $2,600.
I think I've quoted the European prices somewhere above, and my reasons for picking those configurations.
I can configure a Dell to cost around the same as the Dual G5, I'll pay around 100 Eur more, in return I get a slighlty smaller HD, but a better GFX board and only FW800.
There is now way to get a Dual G5 over here for less than 3200 Euros (incl. Tax).

I already provided PSBench 7 results that show the G5 is faster in Photoshop.
Too bad PS doesn't make good use of the second CPU, and the 1.8/1.6 G5's don't look that favourable...

OS X applications do not install shared libraries that are used by other applications.
...which is the whole point of shared libraries in the first place, that's why they're called that.
Even under OSX this isn't quite true, think Quicktime codecs for example.

So the DLL hell and registry issues on the PC don't exist on the OS X Mac - period. Those problems don't exist, among many other.
I honestly never had any problems with that though. Your mileage may vary.

I've been using PCs for over a decade. If you think I don't know what I'm doing, please point out where.
I don't doubt that you do. I've been on PCs since 1996 (only NT and W2K), and I've used Macs since that time as well. I don't have that much exposure to Macs at the moment, I know hardly anyone that uses them, except for ad agencies and DVD authoring studios, and they both tend to run OS9 (esp. the DVD studios, since Sonic's range of apps hasn't been ported yet).
I know of a Mac/OSX based film production company, which is about the only chance of first hand experience I have at the moment.

Jimzip: Yep, the Dual G5 is very competitive, which is a good thing. It doesn't blow the competition out of the water though as Apple stated. That's my whole point.

Cheers,
Mike

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Jimzip
Hehe. Just as a side note, the triangles stay very much the same size no matter what you scale the dock to! ;)

I never noticed that. But it doesn't make the app stand out any more. An option or plugin that draws a red border or highlight around running apps would help tremendously.



CMD-Option-D to hide and show the dock.. You can bind it to any key you want in Panther.

I know about the shortcut, but that's just too convoluted. Nice to know Panther will let me change it though. I think it would be cool if Apple added a couple buttons on the side of their keyboards for the dock and expose. Kind of like those multimedia keyboards except actually useful :)

[mlinde]

Originally posted by Lightwolf
See, that's what I mean. ;)
What do you think a shared library is?
Reminds me of the old "we don't need no stinkin' dynamic memory allocation" argument.
Cheers,
Mike

Geez, I knew somebody would catch this. The nice thing about the structure of shared libraries in OS X is that either you use the system-installed libraries, or you package them with your application. Hence, when you throw away an application, everything that can go does.

Windows has this nasty tendency of allowing developers to choose to package DLLs, add them to the system, or access the system. Although "properly coded" applications DON'T add DLLs to the system (they are installed in the program folders), many developers don't follow these rules. This brings about that fun little dialog asking whether or not you want to de-install a DLL. In addition, InstallShield has the annoying "safety" of not de-installing any modified or new files in the application. Hence changed registry files or files in the actual program folder (and the folder itself) often get left behind.

Oh, and I'm not trying to continue a flame war. I think these are simple, legitimate issues with Windows that could be easily corrected, to make it that much better. I don't even want to start my OS X list. Well, Ok. What the heck is with developers screwing up permissions? It isn't that hard to repair your own mistakes!

[Jimzip]

Yeah. Perhaps that's something to notify Apple about. I'm sure they would at least consider it.

Actually, now that they have wireless mouses and keyboards, they could probably implement it into the next generations. That's if they haven't thought about it already. There are many commands in Finder that should find their way onto that system.
There could be a 'Get Info' button, a CMD-F equivalent button for searching, and a trash button, a dock hide/show button etc... It all sounds good, and that seems like a very practical idea.

But then again, what were Function buttons designed for in the first place!

Jimzip :D

[Lightwolf]

Originally posted by mlinde
Geez, I knew somebody would catch this.
Hehe ;)

[CaptainKirk]

All right.

A few quotes from Avid people which basically confirm that Steve Jobs is full of it and lying:

---DMN Tell me about authoring 64-bit software. Is that going to be as easy as Apple is saying? It's going to be really hard to do that, isn't it? Apple was characterizing this as a thing that takes five minutes.

Allard: Their characterization -- you have to read between the lines there. My understanding is that that was a rebuild working in 32-bit compatibility mode. You still have to compile for the new chip.

---We know that performance is substantially different between a G4 and a Pentium. The G5 looks better. The G5 is moving closer to what you can get with PCs now. ( note he says getting better , implying Pentiums still are faster )

---We need Mac to support G5 64 bit in the OS. Before we're going to do anything, it makes sense for them to get there first at the OS level, ( in other words forget about it untill there is a full 64 bit OS which isn't even announced yet, works both for Windows and Mac, only 64 bitWindows is already in beta )

---DMN How long do you think it'll going to take Avid to write a full 64-bit application? You must have already started, right?

Allard: I have no idea how long it'll take.

DMN That's like asking when's the baseball game going to be over?

Allard: Right. Sometime after the ninth. You have to look at the big prerequisites. A full 64-bit OS on both.

[Ed M.]

To everyone on this board. All I can say is that if Avid actually posted that to some forum, then start thinking about an alternative now. It simply makes no sense for them to wait. There is absolutely no reason why they have to wait until OS X is *completely* 64bit to optimize for the G5. It's just silly and absolutely not true.

--
Ed

[js33]

Originally posted by tallscot

Versus the taskbar that has huge task buttons that get truncated because there's never enough room for them, defeating the purpose of task buttons because you can't read which is which? Which one of these is Adobe Photoshop, "Adobe...", "Adobe...", "Adobe..."?

The taskbar has a very tiny icon for the application to launch and a huge task button for each running application. What a waste of space. The Dock uses the same icon for launching as it does to switch. That makes sense. And the task buttons are in a different order every work sesssion, so again, you don't get physical memory with Windows, but you do with the Mac.



Hi Tallscot,

If you don't like the taskbar on XP you can use the dock also. :D

http://jsgraphics.tv/PC_dock.jpg
Resized to 800x600 from 1024x768.

Cheers,
JS

[Tronam]

Ack! Evil XP themes! Go back from whence thee came. Turn off those Tonka toy buttons, for the sake of all that is good in this world!

-Tronam

[js33]

Originally posted by Tronam
Ack! Evil XP themes! Go back from whence thee came. Turn off those Tonka toy buttons, for the sake of all that is good in this world!

-Tronam

Hehehehe. You don't like it? Actually it's not a theme it's a program called Object dock. It works just like the Mac dock and you can make your own icons for it (32 bit png files). Oh it was free also.

Cheers,
JS

[DaveW]

I like the silver XP theme :)

You can actually make Windows look more like a Mac than just adding the dock. Stardock makes a suite of tools for $50 called Object Desktop that can give you the single menu for all apps, Aqua theme, dock, or pretty much any other customizations you want. You can get some of the components for free (Object Dock) or as nagware (WindowBlinds).

http://www.stardock.com/products/odnt/odnt-nov02b.jpg

[Tronam]

No way. Pure utilitarian simplicity for me. I want the UI as minimalist as possible and consume the least amount of screen real estate. :)

http://www.tronam.com/images/newtek/desktop1.jpg

[Tronam]

Notice how simplified Internet Explorer can be... :)

http://www.tronam.com/images/newtek/ie.jpg

[js33]

Originally posted by DaveW
I like the silver XP theme :)

You can actually make Windows look more like a Mac than just adding the dock. Stardock makes a suite of tools for $50 called Object Desktop that can give you the single menu for all apps, Aqua theme, dock, or pretty much any other customizations you want. You can get some of the components for free (Object Dock) or as nagware (WindowBlinds).



Yeah Stardock is cool but that's taking it a bit too far dontcha think? ;)

Cheers,
JS

[Tronam]

Mac users should be flattered to know that there are Windows users wanting to emulate MacOS. :)

[js33]

Well it's really more that we can :D

Cheers,
JS

[Johnny]

the scuttlebutt has it that in a few months (january??) the Rev-B G5s will get a speed bump, possible other improvements.

any feelings on the likelihood of this and whether it'd be a better use of money to wait 'til then?

J

[Tronam]

That is what I'm going to do. Let's face it, eventually (being the computer geek that I am) I'll be getting a G5, but I will not buy a first release product from Apple. This is their first run of this architecture and they almost always refine and improve it with each revision, ironing out issues that invariably show themselves over time. I'm holding out until next year, definitely. Besides, by then Panther (10.3) will be in full force and included with all new machines.

-Tronam

[mlinde]

Originally posted by Tronam
That is what I'm going to do. Let's face it, eventually (being the computer geek that I am) I'll be getting a G5, but I will not buy a first release product from Apple. This is their first run of this architecture and they almost always refine and improve it with each revision, ironing out issues that invariably show themselves over time. I'm holding out until next year, definitely. Besides, by then Panther (10.3) will be in full force and included with all new machines.

-Tronam

This is a good idea if you don't really want a G5 now. If you look at the history of Mac HW releases, there are changes and upgrades every generation (about every 6-8 months) of some kind or another. The G3 went through 2 case styles, the G4 went through 3 case modifications and 4 or 5 logic board revisions. You can expect the same from the G5.

[tallscot]

Yeah, there are many freeware/shareware utilities for the Mac that let you change the theme, have multiple desktops/Docks, have a taskbar, etc.

Here are some cool OS X desktops:

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=55572&papass=&sort=1&thecat=510

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=55542&papass=&sort=1&thecat=510

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=55207&papass=&sort=1&thecat=510

Nice XP theme:
http://homepage.mac.com/max_08/themes/macosxp.htm

Skin a Dock is nice to put fire, snow, water, etc., all over your Dock:
http://ittpoi.com/index.php

It's great that with some work you can make Windows look like OS X. Now, if we could just make it act like OS X! :)