TMO Reports - Power Mac G5 Not at 3GHz, But 'Speed Doesn't Matter,' Says Analyst
by , 2:45 PM EDT, April 27th, 2005
Apple's Wednesday announcement of new Power Mac G5 computers has drawn criticism from some users who continue to fret over the company's failure to hit the 3GHz mark, which was promised within a year by CEO Steve Jobs upon the machines' initial introduction in June 2003. Jupiter Research analyst Joe Wilcox, however, told The Mac Observer that "speed doesn't matter much anymore. We've moved beyond the 'speed and feeds' debate."
Mr. Wilcox pointed out that chip efficiency has increased to such a degree that "a processor with less GHz can perform better than chips with more GHz." He noted that Apple has avoided the GHz speed wars over the past few years, choosing instead to focus on the benefits of technology rather than checklists of features that don't always serve users.
Delivering Benefits First
For example, Mr. Wilcox said that the addition of Double Layer SuperDrives to the Power Mac G5 line is more important than incremental speed increases. While such DVD burners have been available as stand-alone units since last year and became standard equipment in some Windows computers late in 2004, Mr. Wilcox said that Apple "did the right thing by waiting [to include the drives]. There's been a lag between the drives coming to market and the availability of media. What's the point of including something that consumers can't use?"
Now that SuperDrives are compatible with Dual Layer DVD media, Mr. Wilcox said he sees "more opportunities for people working with HD video, as well as those who want to put longer movies on these 8.5GB discs." In addition, he noted that the higher-capacity media allows users with, for example, large iTunes libraries to back them up to one disc.
Apple's inclusion of Bluetooth 2.0 in the new computers is also an important development, according to Mr. Wilcox, even though compatible peripherals are just starting to come on the market. While the speed difference in the new version won't make a difference with such devices as wireless mice and keyboards, he noted that users who want to sync data from cell phones and PDAs will appreciate the boost in transfer rates.
Apple's LCDs Even More Attractive
The computer maker also dropped the prices of its 20- and 23-inch Cinema Displays on Wednesday, a move that Mr. Wilcox said makes them "look pretty good now." In his opinion, the monitors' pricing "didn't look bad before," either. "US$1,500 for a 23-inch HD display? Wow," he said. "I'd put one in the living room in place of a TV."
Mr. Wilcox dismissed comparisons between Apple and its competitors in terms of display pricing, noting that the former's "displays are beautiful. You could walk into an Apple store and come out with a Mac mini and a 20-inch Cinema Display for $1,300. That's pretty good."
But it does matter. My Machine is faster, therefore I am a better human being! I AM MAKING A DIFERENCE IN PEOPLE'S LIVES! PEOPLE LIKE ME DAMMIT! WORSHIP ME iPIGS!
is the top of the line PM not requiring a $500+ GPU in order to use the 30" display. Sadly it's out of my price range . . .
I have to agree with the basic issue: speed isn't that important to me these days. 10 - 15 years ago it sure was, but my G5 iMac and 15" PB are doing very well in terms of speed. (Yes, I did add RAM to both.)
In terms of general use the Macs out today are going to perform very well, especially if you max out the RAM. and the average user will be very happy. Enhancing the Mac is more RAM based, Tiger based, and app (i.e., iLife) based than the small bump in the processor.
Feed a PC processor speed and its owner is happy. Feed a Mac RAM and both computer and owner are happy.
I have a 2 GHz Athlon processor on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard, 1 gig of DDR 400 ram (all Kingston), a 160 Gig 7200 rpm drive for storage, and a 10 gig 10,000 rmp drive for swap space, 21" monitor, and JVC sound system. Yet my 1.33 GHz 12" PowerBook with just 256 megs and single 60 gig drive (4200 rpm? I forget) runs everything FASTER! I'm not talking about browsing the internet. I'm talking editing 2 or 3 gigs of photos after a wedding in Photoshop. I'm talking video capture and editing. EVERYTHING I do runs better on my "weak" PowerBook than my tweaked PC that benchmarks faster yet fails in real life use.
And I never spend time fixing my Mac, removing spyware, fixing the registry, etc. It just works effortlessly.
If you enjoy the challenge of figuring out what's wrong with your machine or just generally fixing computers, stick with Windows.
I'd say the single biggest limiting factor for speed in personal computers is the I/O system. I/O to a hard drive is many orders of magnitude slower than processsor speed so no matter the processor speed, you're still limited by I/O and both you and your operating system are doing a lot of it and, usually, to a single drive. IBM (and other) mainframe computer companies solved this problem many years ago (like the 60s) by inventing a channel architecture and using multiple hard drives so that you can have numerous I/O operations going on simultaneously to numerous hard drives. Today's mainframes support literally hundreds of simultaneous I/O operations which, in general, has a far greater effect on speed than a processor ever could. Of course, it's in the best interest of processor makers to keep that a secret so they can sell more processors. You could probably get the same performance (except for compute intensive operations like video rendering) with much less processor speed if the I/O system was upgraded.
"He noted that Apple has avoided the GHz speed wars over the past few year...?"
No it has not. Proof is, as quoted, Jobs' promise to ge the PPC up to 3GH by last year, so, no, Apple is indebted to us Apple users to get it up to 3 instead of now yawning at its promise.
But it's not up to Apple to get it up to 3GHz. That's IBM's and Motorola's job. Just like it's not Microsoft's or Dell's or HP's job to get the CPU up to 4.0 Pentium/Xeon or 3.0 Opteron. That's Intel and AMD's job.
But it is up to Apple to build subsystem, such as I/O and graphics, around the CPU in order to maximize the productivity of its users. So on that score, I'd hold Apple accountable to reworking all the subsystems for the next PowerMac release so that it will be using the latest advances such as PCI-Express and even higher end graphics cards.
Why does everyone always say that Steve Jobs 'promised' to get to 3GHz within a year of the G5's release?!? Steve said "Within 12 months, we will be at 3GHz."
That's hardly a promise, more like a roadmap. Poor choice or words, yes, but most likely based on roadmaps provided by IBM. Unforeseen production problems got in the way of that, or maybe the desire to get dual core G5s to market took precedence over attaining 3GHz based on the direction the industry was moving.
In any case, would everyone just get over it already? These new G5s are merely a stop-gap measure until Apple can get dual core PCI Express models to market, my bet is in the next update after this one. Hopefully before the end of the year, I've got my Christmas bonus reserved for it...
Just take a look at the PlayStation2 platform. the hardware remains the same but the performance and graphics improved from one Gran Turismo version to another.
"Sorry to have to shed a little truth on your day, but Apple stock has been downgraded. Check the facts: "
Sorry to hit you with the facts, but Apple's share price has been going up and down regularly, and that article you linked to doesn't say anything about "downgrading" Apple's stock. Infact, American Technology Research MAINTAINED it's Hold rating. Only the estimated price target was lowered.
Sorry to hit you with the facts, but Apple's share price has been going up and down regularly (I follow the pretty red and green arrows on tv), and that article you linked to makes want to crap my pants. Infact, I'm MAINTAINING a Hold on my pants till I get to the bathroom. Only then will my pants be lowered.
"Apple grabbed 3.6% of total U.S.-based PC shipments in the March quarter, up a full percentage point from the 2.6% obtained by the Mac maker during the year-ago quarter, Merrill Lynch said today."
Let's see... 100x(3.6-2.6)/2.6 = 38.5% increase in market share it seems to me.
"Sorry to hit you with the facts, but Apple's share price has been going up and down regularly (I follow the pretty red and green arrows on tv), and that article you linked to makes want to crap my pants. Infact, I'm MAINTAINING a Hold on my pants till I get to the bathroom. Only then will my pants be lowered.
Jonathan Ives is hot."
That's not how to do it! Look, that's almost totally unrecognizable compared to my original post. First you were changing too little, now you're changing too much. There's a middle ground here. Use it.
Jonkun227 wrote: Feed a PC processor speed and its owner is happy. Feed a Mac RAM and both computer and owner are happy.
I have a 2 GHz Athlon processor on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard, 1 gig of DDR 400 ram (all Kingston), a 160 Gig 7200 rpm drive for storage, and a 10 gig 10,000 rmp drive for swap space, 21" monitor, and JVC sound system. Yet my 1.33 GHz 12" PowerBook with just 256 megs and single 60 gig drive (4200 rpm? I forget) runs everything FASTER! I'm not talking about browsing the internet. I'm talking editing 2 or 3 gigs of photos after a wedding in Photoshop. I'm talking video capture and editing. EVERYTHING I do runs better on my "weak" PowerBook than my tweaked PC that benchmarks faster yet fails in real life use.
And I never spend time fixing my Mac, removing spyware, fixing the registry, etc. It just works effortlessly.
If you enjoy the challenge of figuring out what's wrong with your machine or just generally fixing computers, stick with Windows.
- Jon
Exactly!
In reality a MHz number written on a box is not the end-all-be-all and it hasn't been for some time. I want to know how many people will realistically not be able to get their work done on time with a dual 2.7, it is silly.
Exactly! At least that's what I keep telling myself considering I paid a few thousand for a 400 MHZ G3 machine that will soon be turned into a fish aquarium.
and it's still a perfectly capable machine. (How many Windows folks can still say that about their Pentium III's which is what the curent hardware was at the time.) I can run the latest design software and get work done (and get paid) on my current hardware. If the iMac had a 23" screen, I'd buy that for my office. Long story short: Any machine Apple makes at this point is a great tool. The majority of folks who really consider their needs understand this. (note, I said "majority"...not "all")
(I used to do professional design work for a major men's retailer on Mac IIci's. Anything better is gravy.)
Anonymous wrote: and the G3 machine still sucks. ( Windows folks at the time were making fun of me and still do and their Pentium III's and their machines still have a lot of class.) I design my work so I can be lazy. If the iMac had a 23" screen, It would tip over!!!
(I used to do professional design work making black and white detention slips for my high school.)
"Quote
Anonymous wrote:
and the G3 machine still sucks. ( Windows folks at the time were making fun of me and still do and their Pentium III's and their machines still have a lot of class.) I design my work so I can be lazy. If the iMac had a 23" screen, It would tip over!!!
(I used to do professional design work making black and white detention slips for my high school.)"
This baby has a 1.35GHz system bus!!!!
Intel systems top out at something like 800MHz.
Do you remember not long ago when Macs were stuck at 200MHz system buses and everyone was on Apple's case that this was as important as processor speed? Yowza!!
Since IBM designs and makes the CPU and Apple designs the system controller that delivers the screaming bus speeds I think it's clear who is doing their job!
First off, I am a Mac fan. In fact, I just convinced a client to try a Mac instead of a PC (for home) not 5 minutes ago.
That said, this Jupiter Research dude needs to look more closely at some of his contradictory stances. First, he says Apple should not include Dual Layer burners because of media availability, so "what's the point"? Ok... I don't really agree, because the media *will* be available, and if they include the technology early, the customer does not have to upgrade a component (something Apple discourages in favor of wholesale system replacement) to take advantage of the new technology.
I disagree, but I could live with that. But then this guy goes on to brag about how they included Bluetooth 2.0 even though there isn't any hardware available for it, and how important an advance it is. Basically, the exact OPPOSITE of his rationale for holding off on including dual layer burners! Huh?
I am thrilled Apple moved to BT2 ahead of the industry. I am also thrilled they FINALLY moved to dual layer (after the PC world had been there for a year). But this analyst is kind of a joke. Apple should not be lauded for both leading in one area and playing catch-up in another while using the exact same arguments to support both. It just makes no sense.
Have you totally lost your mind? Disigning your own work means that you can't afford to be lazy. Has Apple's growing success finally pushed you off the deep end?
Have you totally lost your apples? Disigning your own work means that Macs suck. Has Apple's declining success finally been shown to the rest of the world?
what are you talking about? Mac is actually getting more successful. Anybody who actually knows what they're talking about will agree that Apple has managed to design a OS way better than Microsoft. OS X doesn't crash, it looks better (as well as the PCs), it beat Microsoft to 64-bit, it supports Quad-CPUs now, and has much more well thaught out features (like desktop widgets, hell, I have to d/l the ones on my WinXP system, and add extra resource hogging programs to use them).
Mac "digital life" reached success no other single company can match. Know anybody who made a more successful MP3 than the iPod? Ever found a WiFi roughter more simply and well designed than the Airborn Express/Extreme?
On top of all this, Apple has baught a gaming company, and is making plans with the GPU giants to improove OpenGL performance on PowerPCs. Games have been one the more significant reasons people buy PCs of Macs for years. Microsoft is loosing ground fast.
This is the revolution of iGeneration. Are you on the right side?
signed,
an enthusiastic anti-microst,
Mac enthusiest.
Anonymous wrote: I know what are you talking about. Mac is actually getting less successful. Anybody who lies will say this - OS X doesn't crash, it looks better (as well as the PCs), and has much more well thaught out features.
(Tiger is desktop widgets hell and adds extra resource hogging madness.)
I make up product names like "WiFi roughter" "the Airborn Express/Extreme."
On top of all this, Apple has baught OpenGL. Troubleshooting have been one of the more significant reasons people buy Macs for years.
This is the revolution of iLemmings. Will you join the dark side?
"Anybody who lies will say this - OS X doesn't crash, it looks better (as well as the PCs), and has much more well thaught out features. "
I bet that's what Microsoft does. Tell itself those are all lies as it watches its user base gradually slip away to consumers who are becoming increasingly aware that those indeed aren't lies.
"Troubleshooting have been one of the more significant reasons people buy Macs for years."
Well, at least you got that right. A person will be spending many more hours troubleshooting a Windows PC than a Mac. That's a definite factor in deciding which one to purchase.
"This is the revolution of iLemmings."
No, it's the delusional lies and ranting of a blind Windows fanatic who wouldn't know reality if it walked up and had his mother. But, hey, don't stop. I want to see what you have to say about those articles proving you 100% wrong about Apple's success decreasing.
"Anybody who lies will say this - OS X doesn't crash, it looks better (as well as the PCs), and has much more well thaught out features. "
I bet that's what Apple does. Tell itself those are all lies as it watches its user base gradually slip away to Windows and Linux and who are becoming increasingly aware of Steve's lies.
"Troubleshooting have been one of the more significant reasons people buy Macs for years."
Well, at least you got that right. A person will be spending many more hours troubleshooting a Mac than a Windows PC.
No, it's the delusional lies and ranting of a blind Apple fanatic who wouldn't know reality if it walked up and drained his iPod's battery. But, hey, hey , hey, I am wrong about Apple's success increasing.
I made up WiFi and Airborn Express/Extreme? Look up Apple's WiFi product. YOu will learn that it's named Airborn and it has a nice little tech called AirTunes. I'm using one right now jack ass!
Mac OS X really doesn't crash. Sure, I've had to close some frozen programs, but the whole system itself has never crashed since OS 9.
Mac OS does look better. I used my mac today to come onto my Windows XP computer and look how XP has no nice special effects, low resolution icons, and the task bar hasn't changed in years, it's starting to annoy me. Needless to say, it lacks presentation, and presentation is everything. What more pathetic is that Mac OS X hogs less resources than XP, and drains battery power from labtops that use it. And yet, it has nothing to show for it. It sucks!
Plus, Mac equips EVERY computer with it's profession, hi-end version OS. Nope, Microsoft charges double for it.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:21 amSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote: I made up WiFi and Airborn Express/Extreme. I spell it Airborn, jack ass!
Mac OS does look better than me. I used my mac today to come onto my Windows XP computer and look how XP has no nice special effects like my stick man drawing, low resolution pop icons like 50 Cent. Mac OS X hogs resources , drains battery power from "labtops!" snd yet, it has nothing to show for it. It sucks!
Plus, Mac equips EVERY computer with it's "profession", it has a profession. It must make a living. Apple charges double for it with tax.
First of all, that's 'Beatles'. Second, I never said the Beatles WEREN'T suing Apple. That article doesn't prove me wrong about anything or have anything to do with the subject.
You, however, said that Macs were getting less successful. I linked to the hard facts that prove Macs are becoming MORE successful. That proves you a liar.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:24 pmSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
First of all, my arguments will be ignored and my posts reworded. Second, is WEREN'T a hoot in hell. That article does prove me wrong about anything I will ever say and subjects me to the guidance of Jobs.
You, are right that Macs were getting less successful. I linked to the hard facts that prove Macs are becoming LESS successful. That proves you correct.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:56 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Plus, Mac equips EVERY computer with it's "profession", it has a profession. It must make a living. Apple charges double for it with tax.
Excuse me, I made a typo. But apple equips each of their computers with a good, high-end version. Meanwhile, Microsoft has two versions, home and professional. Both suck, but professional has some high-end features home doesn't, such as dual processing. And if you could figure out what I was talking about, you don't know much about the topic
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:15 pmSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Excuse me, I made a tai po. But apple equips each of their computers with a good, high-end detonator. Meanwhile, Microsoft has two versions, wet and windy. Apple sucks, and professional OSes have some high-end features Apple doesn't, such as Games! And if you could figure out what I was talking about, you understand Grade F English like me.
