Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,050 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i loved this part;
Like 64-bit Athlons, G5 CPUs (developed by Apple and IBM) can run 32-bit and 64-bit applications. However, while Athlon owners must await shipment of Microsoft's 64-bit Windows XP (or choose a 64-bit Linux OS) to use the chip's 64-bit capabilities, Mac G5 owners have a 64-bit-capable desktop out of the box.
fast 64-bit box, but alas no OS :( well, ok Linux

that Aurora looks like it could double as a de/humidifier - now that would be useful
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
As I understand it, Panther is NOT a TRUE 64 bit OS.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Panther is not 64 bit, whereas Windows for x86-64 will be. The thing is though, an app doesn't need to be 64 bit to take advantage of the great stuff the G5 has to offer.

The thing is, the Athlon 64 may well be faster than the G5, the upcoming P4 Extreme Edition probably will be too. Just trust that Apple will have faster machines coming out on a more constant schedule now than they were before and the Mhz gap will be much, much narrower than it was with the G4.

With IBM as a partner instead of Motorola, hopefully new technologies will be implemented faster as well.

--PB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
Wait a sec...the tests prove that the G5 is not the faster machine. While some can poo-poo the Premiere tests...just look at the Photoshop one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
did you guys also note the system specs? all the macs are standard (stock) while one aurora (what a cutesie name
)has standard and the other auroras have raid set up, 128 megs more video ram...and so forth...yep thats fair testing!..I loved the de-humidifier comment! would work well and would get my vote!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
Aside from the hostile bashing by Mac enthusiasts, from just above macspectrum's quote:

That's because Mac G5s come with a modified version of the OS X operating system, code-named Jaguar, which works with apps that can make 64-bit requests. Later this year Apple will launch another OS revision, code-named Panther, with even more 64-bit enhancements; neither is a fully 64-bit OS.
:confused: Someone got their wires crossed... Jaguar can't make 64 bit calls yet. Panther will be able too, and Smeagol (10.2.7) and Blackrider (10.2.8) both included updates specific for the G5 so it would run the software, but none of the internal components have been updated for 64 bit processing.

I also laughed when I saw the Windows Server 2003 ad beside the artiicle: UNIX-level reliability, without a UNIX-level budget. (Of course its more expensive (afaik).)

Not a perfect article, but the AMD 64 is faster then the G5 at some things, but a lot of the larger discrepancy between tests could be attributed to the optimization of the programs to their particular architecture. Also as far as I could tell it didn't say whether it was running the G5 plug-in for Photoshop or not.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Definitely one of the ugliest cases I've seen in a while. PC gamers who own these types of machines always feel the need to show their cases off. :confused: Nothing to show off there...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,483 Posts
I think the alienware case is cool. Like a giant alien head. However, I prefer the simplicity of Macs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
and what BS are they talking about! faster than G5 haha...worlds ugliest freakin computer..ford edsel of CPU's


http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,7,00.asp

whatever, if I bought a PC that looked like that (cross between a blowdryer and a prop off of Startrek the last frontier
) I would jump in front of a train if that was the first thing to put me out of my misery! oh well, where are these PC designers coming from anyways? not from school or marketing firms..

[ October 16, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: ehMax ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
I hear ya! That thing is freakin' ugly. Note to PC industrial designers: adding more billowing plastic crap like fins, louvers, stupid angles etc, ala North American auto manufacturers, does not equal cool. Honestly, where do they find these designers? Have they no pride, no souls?!! Well, I guess you can only do so much when the people making each part of the "widget" don't even talk to each other.

Anyway, their conclusion that the PC spanks the G5 is such a load of crap. I'd go into it, but As the Apple Turns already has in their usual, excellent sarcastic prose!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
PC case mods are just as pathetic as new PCs with bizarre designs - nothing alters the fact that they are lame Windoze boxes. Like the hot rodders used to say about "lead sled" custom cars - "If it don't go, chrome it."

Cheers :-> Bill
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
It was said:
all the macs are standard (stock) while one aurora has standard and the other auroras have raid set up, 128 megs more video ram...and so forth...yep that's fair testing!

Keeping in mind that benchmarks can be skewed either way, I don't see how it is totally unreasonable that they use the best graphics cards available for each system to do their testing. I suppose they could have done a RAID setup on the Macs to speed them up too, but instead they opted to downgrade a n Aurora to even the odds and also keep the PC scores, on average, higher.

And the fact that the G5 won the photoshop test proves nothing. The G5 was suppose to end the days of hiding behind the "But look at our Photoshop times" excuse.

The G5 is fast, but you have to appreciate that the MHz race is one that doesn't end. every time someone pulls ahead it only encourages the other runners to run harder. AMD has been working on their 64 bit line of processors for a long time now (in fact I heard about them well before I heard about the PPC970, and they came out months later), so I am not so surprised that they are fantastically efficient chips, expecially considering AMDs track record of getting much better performance per Mhz than most other competitors.

Another point worth noting: MS's ad regarding windows server 2003, and it's UNIX level power without the UNIX level budget, that will be more referring to the very, very expensive Sun (and IBM and others) hardware that UNIX back end typically run on, compared to the relatively inexpensive Intel hardware that Windows Server 2003 runs on. If you want to make fun of the ad, why not point out that it basically admits that UNIX has been better than Windows server up to this point, which is the exact opposite of what MS's marketing dept. has been saying for years now.

--PB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
jfpoole - Both are getting scrutinized by both sides, although taking a quote from that site you linked;

Most Mac users are nice. However, a significant percentage of them are crazy fanatics/zealots who believe that Apple is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and anything non-Apple is evil and must be destroyed.
Its largely these people who will be sure to complain bitterly (usually without evidence). Though, the performances that are given by Intel themselves are cheated results also, and in the end aren't that great for comparing PCs to Macs.

The G5 benchmarks were flawed, but I think some people are taking them out of proportion (both sides).

As for PosterBoy's comment on UNIX machines (eg. Sun) are being more expensive, I feel stupid, I was thinking more along the lines of a server bought from Sun or IBM, and sticking a UNIX operating system, and not about all the other costs that come with it. My apologies (although you could make a UNIX box cheaper since you can get UNIX for free)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
I don't even think that articles like that one serve a purpose anymore, I just wish that people would look at the big picture instead of acting like a bunch of 5 year olds arguing about who's stronger Superman or Spiderman. The PC vs. Mac argument will never be decided, each computer and operating system has it's strong points and weaknesses we just have to live with the decisions we make after buying the computer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,788 Posts
"The dual-G5 sparkled in one main area: our Photoshop test, which it completed in 18 seconds, or about 17 percent faster than the Aurora's 21 seconds."

Isn't it funny that Photoshop is one of the few apps that has been updated to take advatage of the G5 processor! Wait until the optimized OS & SW become available for the G5 and then do the comparison.

Why even bother. If trying to slam apple make them feel good about themselves, so be it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
From As The Apple Turns:

<blockquote>Quake III Arena, the only reason people ever spend over $3000 on a professional computer in the first place. Biased against Macs, you say? Why? Just because you assume that the x86 version was mercilessly hand-tweaked by John Carmack in assembly language and optimized 'til it cried, while the original Mac OS X version was ported by The Omni Group during commercial breaks of a Nick at Nite "Family Ties" marathon? Well, we know for a fact that that's not true. It was a "Cosby Show" marathon. So there.</blockquote>

Quake III Arena is probably one of the better programs to use when doing cross-platform benchmarks, since I'd imagine most of the code is shared between all of the different platforms. After all, Apple uses Quake III Arena as one of their benchmarks, so it can't be that invalid.

A lot of the reactions to these benchmarks strike me as knee-jerk reactions. Why do some Mac users have trouble grasping the fact that there might be a PC that's faster than the latest and greatest Power Mac? Why are benchmarks like this one carefully scrutinized when Apple's benchmarks are accepted at face value (save by a few people)?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
This is one of my favourite PC ATX cases, totally see through acryllic, I haven't built a comp with one yet but it's on my project list.

 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top