Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Dual 2GHz By The Numbers

timothy posted about 11 years ago | from the schmohkin' dept.

Desktops (Apple) 776

mallumax writes "ComputerWorld has an exciting review of Apple's Dual 2GHz machine." An excerpt: "It's clear from two weeks of testing that Apple's new Power Mac G5 dual 2-GHz machine is the fastest thing the company has ever produced. And while you can debate benchmarks until eternity, it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apple - The Choice of Homosexuals in the GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138528)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [] ?
Are you a NIGGER [] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on [] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to or as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

yesss... (4, Funny)

potpie (706881) | about 11 years ago | (#7138532)

come to the other side of computing... join us... don't be afraid!

no thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138597)

this 'other side' you speak of is full of jews, niggers, and homosexuals.

I'll stick with my PC and not go to hell like the rest of you

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138703)

Yes, but we've got all the best movies, music, and fashion. And in the end, isn't that what counts?

My tests (3, Funny)

tcd004 (134130) | about 11 years ago | (#7138534)

The G5 is great, but it doesn't hold a candle to my Powerstack 5000. []

Maybe because it's processor is based on this bad boy. []


Informative? (1)

sql*kitten (1359) | about 11 years ago | (#7138575)

Did any of you moderators click those links? LOL!

Re:My tests (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 11 years ago | (#7138580)

you know what is funny....the morons who voted you up as Interesting....

read the links you fools :-)

The question is then (2, Insightful)

BizidyDizidy (689383) | about 11 years ago | (#7138539)

Is pure speed enough? What factors are most important to "real" consumers?

Stories like this appeal to the geeky "need for speed" undoubtedly ramoant at /., but offer little insight into real consumer thought/need.

That said, this is pretty cool; not cool enough for me to switch to Apple, but cool.

It is not enough (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138562)

Pure speed is not enough. Macs run hardly any software at all compared to PC's. If you want think different" (run an application outside of the most common uses), you would be forced to ditch the Mac.

Yeah, it will run. Fast, too. But only down a few roads.

Re:The question is then (2, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 11 years ago | (#7138574)

RAM and Video RAM. Cpu cyles arent too important anymore >1GHz (in my opinion at least) for normal computing. Higher end processors are more suitable for servers, research platforms and clusters. Just my two cents though.

A common mistake... (1)

arcite (661011) | about 11 years ago | (#7138586)

Ah, a common mistake. Most people forget that OSX is also shiny AND lickable, besides just being blazingly fast.

Re:A common mistake... (1)

Seequeue (713543) | about 11 years ago | (#7138624)

Ah, another common mistake. A fast lick might be fun sometimes, but the long drawn out ones are generally better.

Re:The question is then (1, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | about 11 years ago | (#7138728)

Let's see:

1. It's the fastest most powerful desktop computer in the world.

2. It's certainly the most usable and stable.

3. It has the beautiful Aqua UI.

4. It's a superb Unix workstation.

5. It comes in a gorgeous aluminium case.

What the hellkind of a Geek are you ? Get back to your pee cee and "Management Weekly" web site.


Price a bit steep... (-1, Flamebait)

sirmikester (634831) | about 11 years ago | (#7138547)

I like what I see about the G5. It looks like it would make a great workstation, but at $4,198 few people could afford it. Unless you're doing high end video manipulation or DNA sequencing I can't see someone being able to justify spending that much on this, unless they are rolling around in money.

Re:Price a bit steep... (1)

curtlewis (662976) | about 11 years ago | (#7138577)

It's no more expensive than a similarly configured high end PC.

Re:Price a bit steep... (1, Troll)

vadim_t (324782) | about 11 years ago | (#7138654)

Hah. It cost me about $1100 to buy a dual motherboard, two Athlon MP 2000+, 1GB of ECC DRR RAM, a Lian Li case and an Enermax supply.

None of the above components are cheap, and still the price isn't near what you said. Of course the hard disk, CD drive, video and sound cards aren't included, but I'd have to fill the case with drives and buy the most expensive video card to get near that.

Of course mine isn't 64 bit, but I didn't see Opteron motherboards being sold anywhere when I was buying the components.

Re:Price a bit steep... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 11 years ago | (#7138587)

But that has always been the point about the latest and greatest - most people don't need it because the software that is sold in volume today is designed to work adequately fast on the hardware that is sold in volume today.

It is only the people that are pushing the edge that need the top end stuff. The rest of us will buy it at 1/2 the price in 18 months time.

Re:Price a bit steep... (2, Insightful)

jwachter (319790) | about 11 years ago | (#7138605)

I like what I see about the G5. It looks like it would make a great workstation, but at $4,198 few people could afford it. Unless you're doing high end video manipulation or DNA sequencing I can't see someone being able to justify spending that much on this, unless they are rolling around in money.

Try pricing out a comparable machine from Dell (w/ dual 3GHz Xeons). You'll see that the Dell is significantly more expensive than the G5.

Re:Price a bit steep... (-1, Troll)

AstroDrabb (534369) | about 11 years ago | (#7138774)

Why in the world would you buy a setup like that from Dell? You can build it yourself for almost half the cost. For example, dell wants about $270 to add 512MB of Ram, you can get that 512MB for under $100 online. Dell is just a middle man and really marks up the prices. Search on google, I found plenty of Dual Xeon 2.4GHz setups starting around $1,500, many of them with SCSI. Also, why would you try to compare the cost of a dual 3GHz xeon to a dual 2GHz G5? Wouldn't it be more fair to compare a dual 2GHz to a dual 2GHz?

You get what you pay for. nuff' said. (1)

arcite (661011) | about 11 years ago | (#7138612)

thats that.

Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138723)

Only a fool equates quality with price.

Re:Not quite (1)

arcite (661011) | about 11 years ago | (#7138738)

Still, it is true more often than not.

Re:Price [NOT] a bit steep... (2, Informative)

sakusha (441986) | about 11 years ago | (#7138622)

Oh ferchrissakes, quit trotting out that lame old story about how macs are more expensive. They are actually CHEAPER than most of the PeeCees that they're benchmarked against. Macs now have a better price/performance ratio than PeeCees. Sure they sent out a high-end unit for review, just like all the other manufacturers. But the new G5 units are way cheaper than similarly performing Windoze CPUs from Dell, IBM, etc. Sure you can put together a piece o'crap whitebox for less, but what you won't be getting a seamlessly integrated hardware/software solution.

Re:Price [NOT AT ALL] steep... (1)

CountBrass (590228) | about 11 years ago | (#7138741)

So buy one of the cheaper ones, the 1.6 or the 1.8 single proc boxes.

They're comparably priced to a similarly specced pee cee, but they run OSX not Windoh!s

hmm... (4, Funny)

ILoveMyGeeky1 (699004) | about 11 years ago | (#7138550)

"it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side."

Doesn't anything somewhat stable meet or beat anything running windows?

"you can debate benchmarks until eternity" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138557)

and i'm sure slashdot intends to.

So, to what productive end do we expect this particular slashdot thread, perhaps the third or fourth on the subject of the G5's supposed speed, to go?

G5 Rules (3, Interesting)

thedillybar (677116) | about 11 years ago | (#7138560)

After seeing benchmarks for the G5, I'm actually considering switching to Mac, which I once thought to be a mortal sin (or is it still?).

I certainly can't think of a better desktop machine that the majority of people are familiar with and yet kicks out that kind of performance. Then again, why should I care if anyone else can figure out how to use my machine?

Re:G5 Rules (0, Flamebait)

skinfitz (564041) | about 11 years ago | (#7138611)

But... even if the benchmarks aren't biased, according to Moores law Intel will have a faster CPU in 6 months and Apple will not release a new CPU for several years.

Re:G5 Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138743)

Quite so. In fact, Apple probably won't ever release a new CPU. Because they don't make CPUs.

Your comment is also ridiculous because Apple will probably release a ~2.4 GHz PMG5 in another few months too, and then a 3 GHz one six months after that (when they'll actually ship is a different story, but still). The 970 has a lot of life left in it, and there are plenty more chip designs where it came from.

Re-reading our two posts, I'm still baffled by your assertion that "Apple will not release a new CPU for several years." Even if you meant that IBM won't release and thus Apple won't use a new processor for several years, that's quite obviously a total falsehood. Of course there are faster versions of the 970 and totally new designs on the way!!! Why wouldn't there be?

Re:G5 Rules (3, Informative)

robbieduncan (87240) | about 11 years ago | (#7138789)

Whilst Apple will not have a "new" CPU in 6 months, i.e. they will not have a G6 they will have a 3Ghz G5 by summer next year (as was announced at the introduction of the G5).

Is this good enough for you?

what tests??? (1, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 11 years ago | (#7138563)

Did this guy actually test anything????

The entire article is full of startup times.....
My xt booted faster then his setup which needed almost a minute is surely must beat anything apple has....


Re:what tests??? (1)

kyrre (197103) | about 11 years ago | (#7138593)

Did your XT run Os x?

Re:what tests??? (0, Troll)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 11 years ago | (#7138662)

Neither did the pc he was comparing the g5 with...
They basicly said 'it boots osx faster then other apples, it must be better then anything intel has'


Re:what tests??? (1)

kyrre (197103) | about 11 years ago | (#7138716)

And where in the article did he compare the boot-up time of a G5 and a PC?

By the way, are you claiming that your XT booted Windows XP in less than a minute?

Plenty fast, but I'm still waiting... (0, Offtopic)

ajensen (155948) | about 11 years ago | (#7138570)

for one side (Apple) or the other (Intel, et al.) to switch to an organic compound instead of silicon. If that really will allow a huge speed increase, then it seems to follow that whoever adopts this first will have a huge competitive edge.

That's assuming, of course, that the price is half-way reasonable. Anybody have news on that front?


benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (1) (562495) | about 11 years ago | (#7138571)

a question: how does this compare to a intel's hyperthreading processor.
any benchmarks on that?
When comparing against a hyperthreading (HT) processor, do you count a HT CPU as one or two.
Linux kernel sees HT CPU as two, so SMB kernel has to be used.

Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138636)

Linux kernel sees HT CPU as two, so SMB kernel has to be used.

Wow, I never knew Samba could do that...

Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 11 years ago | (#7138640)

SMB kernel has to be used.

A SMB kernel? You mean with Samba enabled? ;-) You must have meant SMP.

Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138785)

No! I said symmetric multibrocessing, and I stand by it.

Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (3, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | about 11 years ago | (#7138701)

The first benchmarks released comparing the G5 to an Intel box had notes on this.

The PC folks wailed and moaned because Hyperthreading was turned off on the Intel boxes when the benchmarks were performed but they neglected the footnote that mentioned that the PC actually performed worse on the benchmarks when HT was on, so to be fair they took the best score.

Re:benchmark against hyperthreaded CPU (2, Interesting)

htmlboy (31265) | about 11 years ago | (#7138721)

When comparing against a hyperthreading (HT) processor, do you count a HT CPU as one or two.

it's one processor. it represents itself as two logical processors with no instruction cache to trick the operating system into letting the hardware take care of optimizing instruction scheduling. even though linux identifies two full speed processors, there's only one chip doing the work, so it would be silly to expect it to perform twice as well.

News flash! (4, Funny)

dtfinch (661405) | about 11 years ago | (#7138572)

New processor is faster than its predecessor.

Re:News flash! (3, Informative)

Duckman5 (665208) | about 11 years ago | (#7138658)

What would seem to be simple logic isn't always the case. If you will direct your attention here [] , you will discover that, depending on the task, an early Pentium 4-M could actually be outperformed by the higher end Pentium 3-M of the time.

Re:News flash! (1)

Naito (667851) | about 11 years ago | (#7138675)

well, considering each new generation of Intel processors have tradionally been SLOWER than the previous ones in their initial iteration (P4 Willamette vs. P3 Tulatin), it COULD count as a news flash

Re:News flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138695)

Still no games for the G5.

Power Schmouwer. (0, Flamebait)

Gwala (309968) | about 11 years ago | (#7138590)

It's a dichotomy, all this power, and yet so little of what could benefit from it, is actually availible for mac (I'm speaking high level plugins such as Mental Ray [for 3dsmax], which are x86/Windows binaries, only.)

There is only so much power you can throw at photoshop, and to a lesser extent video editing applications. My AthXP-1800 machine is perfect for photoshop, and nothing takes longer than 15 seconds - with video it's still a concern (and one that is lessening, or being moved to dedicated hardware), but the question is - without an industry like gaming, which demands an up-to-date-system (*cough doom3 cough*), why do apple insist on trying to have the fastest, and not instead focus on widening their compatibility, which is their real enemy. ... *hmm*


15 seconds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138657)

Christ, you must have the patience of a saint.

Re:Power Schmouwer. (1)

pantone (671493) | about 11 years ago | (#7138661)

Actually, Mental Ray does run ont he Mac. It's integrated into Maya 5.

Re:Power Schmouwer. (1)

m3djack (613125) | about 11 years ago | (#7138671)

There's plenty that utilizes the power the G5 has to offer, else there wouldn't be a market for the machine and it would not sell. Because you can't think of the software doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I, personally, am looking forward to Renderman returning to the Mac.

why do apple insist on trying to have the fastest, and not instead focus on widening their compatibility, which is their real enemy...

That's just a silly statement. It's not like all of the company's resources are focused on only doing one thing. Looking back over the past five years, I think Apple has made exceptional progress in regards to widening compatibility...

Re:Power Schmouwer. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 11 years ago | (#7138759)

I'm very much looking forward to Discreet's Cleaner 6 being installed on our new dual G5 (typing on it right now). We're currently using Cleaner 5 on a Dual 450 G4 - I think that just maybe the Dual 2.0Ghz will encode into mpeg2 for DVD a little quicker.

Similarly, Final Cut Pro will benefit from decreased render times, although it's pretty impressive on a dual 450 - Apple worked hard to sqeeze performance out of older systems with FCP.

You can shunt all this processing to dedicated video hardware costing thousands and upward, or you can buy a standard Mac and put FCP, Shake and Cleaner on there for much less.

Quake III Arena, while dated slightly compared to the better visual quality games still rules the roost for gameplay and it ambles along happily on this machine as you'd expect (more a function of graphics card really).

keeping up with the Jones (-1, Troll)

t0ny (590331) | about 11 years ago | (#7138591)

Its sad that it takes a dual-processor machine to beat something that, on the Windows side, is one processor and costs at least half what the Apple does.

And contrary to the commercials, new users find WinXP to be just as easy to learn as OSX.

Not only that, but I happen to like having more than one mouse button. Fight the mono-button tyranny!!!

I don't care about the Jones (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 11 years ago | (#7138632)

You speak authoritatively as an owner and user of a G5, OS X, and one buttoned mice, right?

Or are you *imagining* everything about a Mac without having used it?

Re:keeping up with the Jones (1)

Phroggy (441) | about 11 years ago | (#7138704)

Not only that, but I happen to like having more than one mouse button. Fight the mono-button tyranny!!!

Give it up already. Buy a Mac, sell the mouse on eBay, and buy a new one for $20. Logitech makes very nice ones. Microsoft's have improved since their optical mouse was first introduced. Just to be different, I bought my last one from IBM. Seriously, quit whining. If you can afford a Mac, you can afford a third-party mouse to go with it.

Yes, yes. What of it? (4, Insightful)

Latent IT (121513) | about 11 years ago | (#7138592)

And while you can debate benchmarks until eternity, it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side.

Well, uh... what?

I mean, maybe I'm just "debating benchmarks" here, but how do you pull the above statement out of the linked article?

On the G5, Photoshop launched in 8 seconds, and relaunched in 4. Yes, 4. On the Dual G4, it launched in 24 seconds, and relaunched in 12.5. And on the Powerbook, Photoshop was ready to go in 25 seconds the first time around, and in 17 seconds on relaunch.

Yes, but what of it? This has nothing to do with Windows, Windows Desktops, or even anything non-apple. It compares the G5 to other, older Apple products. Unsurprisingly, the *new* Apple product beats the *old* Apple product. And clicking a stopwatch, and measuring how long launching a program takes, or how long a reboot lasts isn't that much of a "benchmark".

And, just to give you an idea of the technical competence of the reviewer who wrote the article, check out this snippit:

One final note: I whined in my first review about the G5's weak Airport wireless signal. Several readers promptly (and pointedly) wrote to ask if I'd installed the Apple-supplied external Airport antenna. I had not.

I'm sorry. The article is lousy, and the clown who submitted this article to /. clearly has an agenda to push. Why waste our time like this?

Re:Yes, yes. What of it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138649)

Because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Bash MS and get a free front page article. Limited time offer, operators are standing by now!

Yes, my lord .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138748)

on that high horse! :)

Re:Yes, yes. What of it? (2, Insightful)

CGP314 (672613) | about 11 years ago | (#7138767)

Why waste our time like this?

I think it has something to do with the banner ads at the top this page.

Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138594)

Why hasn't someone benchmarked this? Or at least why would apple not publicize this one? I would think apple could use a benchmark with very large datasets that would show the G5 with 8GB Ram and a Dual Xeon with 8GB Ram(using PAE). The G5 would clearly kick the $#!t out of the Xeon in this case.

The fact that the G5 can handle more ram without resorting to the PAE b.s., is a clear advantage and I think Apple should market that a little better.

Re:Benchmarks with 8GB Ram (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138700)

Of course, such benchmarks should be compared against an Opteron or Athlon64, rather than a Xeon...

When the cows come home (0)

jforman (172134) | about 11 years ago | (#7138598)

Yeah, and I'll get to experience a dual-G5 when that Brinks truck turns over in front of my house, spewing dollar bills everywhere. Is it just me, or does Apple hardware seem outrageously expensive? I can get a great spiffy new Dell box, or build my own machine, with some nice x86 (possibly even a 64 bit proc) for a hell of a lot less money, and be happier with two mouse buttons!

Re:When the cows come home (1)

proj_2501 (78149) | about 11 years ago | (#7138653)

hey, guess what? you don't have to buy a top-of-the-line, just-came-out mac for decent performance! apple still sells g4's!

Re:When the cows come home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138677)

It's just you -- and other similarly ignorant people.

Thanks for playing... (5, Interesting)

phillymjs (234426) | about 11 years ago | (#7138750)

...but real-world app tests have shown that the dual 2GHz G5 beats Dell's cheapest dual 3.06GHz Xeon sytem, both in performance and (when configured identically as possible to Apple's base 2GHz dualie) in price.

In fact, Dell's current price ($4372) on the comparison machine has gone up by $600 since late June, the first time I configured one-- but even back then, Apple beat them by hundreds of dollars. []

And don't bother playing the "I can build it cheaper" card-- you cannot fairly compare a manufactured system with one that you cobbled together with the cheapest parts you could find.


Euurghh... *gulp* (0, Troll)

spacerabbits (710068) | about 11 years ago | (#7138607)

Power to the people!

e"'( Why am I still working on an old text-mode terminal?

Re:Euurghh... *gulp* (0)

spacerabbits (710068) | about 11 years ago | (#7138725)

Thank you to the one who modded me down. I'd like to have it even deeper...
But for you knowledge... I indeed still have a 1989 Olivetti Server with SCO UNIX system V, 3 running with textmode terminals at home. And yes, it is still operational.

Beats Anything? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138608)

And while you can debate benchmarks until eternity, it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side."

Yea..except in price.

Re:Beats Anything? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 11 years ago | (#7138787)

Well, of course.

If you're comparing Apple to a standard "build from cheapest parts by yourslef" PC then of course it's going to be more expensive.

Home brewed beer is cheaper than a pint in the pub.

What? No debian is better post yet? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138613)

By now there is at least one Debian is better than Jesus posts.

Debian IS better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138639)

You prick. And don't forget to make it a capital "D" next time. Show respect for the best. Just because you are a stupid Mac user that can't grasp Debian doesn't mean that it isn't the best.

Re:debian IS worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138722)

No, it doesn't.

But the facts clearly show that debian sucks like an Electrolux.

In fact, a variety of household tests have proven debian to suck better than even a mighty Dyson.

Plans are now afoot to market debian as a household cleaning device - and thanks to the GPL, even the very poor can afford to keep their homes dust- and dirt-free. (Assuming they can afford dirt, which is, after all, worth more than debian.)

"Meet or beat?" Yeah, right (1, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | about 11 years ago | (#7138614)

The review didn't (unfortunately) seem to compare the dual-proc Mac to a PC, so the "meet or beat" claim is simply conjecture on the part of the story submitter.

However, it's a reasonable bet (given that a 2Ghz G5 isn't competitive with a top-of-the-line P4) that the submitter intended a multi-proc Mac to be compared to a single-proc PC. Comparing a dual-processor system to a single-processor is ridiculous (and I'm not talking about price concerns, either).

The overwhelming number of times when there's a bottlenecked task, it's a single CPU-bound thread. Having multiple processors will provide only nominal benefits. Apple putting multiple processors on-board won't *hurt*, except in the wallet, but it's not going to give Quake 3 double the framerate. Most raytracers support multiple threads of execution when rendering or can be hacked up to do so (even if, like PovRay, they require multiple processes to do so). Very few pieces of 2d software (video, still, etc) can benefit from multiple processors, however.

The claim should be "this system is faster than Apple's older systems, and worth a look for Mac users". Comparing one of Apple's systems to x86 boxes on a CPU horsepower or bang/buck metric not only isn't particularly favorable to Apple, but doesn't make much sense.

Use the best tool for the job (4, Interesting)

charnov (183495) | about 11 years ago | (#7138619)

I got the chance to play with the mid-model (single 1.8 GHz) G5 and it is VERY fast compared to the older models (roughly about the same if not faster than the previous top model). The owner of said machine (a video editor) uses it as a front end for some of his editing work mainly because he wanted a Mac to use for the interface. The back end is comprised of two large SGI's and dozens of linux boxes (all AMDs).

The best tool for the job. My hats off to Apple for a great machine.

Price / Performance (0)

codepunk (167897) | about 11 years ago | (#7138620)

Well ok it is a fast machine but what is the price performance marks for this vs the fastest alienware box [] . I am willing to bet that the alienware box smokes the pant's off of it for price vs performance. Not only that but the alienware box looks even cooler.For myself I would go for the amd64 alienware box which has a rather attractive case and price.

Re:Price / Performance (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 11 years ago | (#7138692)

I am willing to bet that the alienware box smokes the pant's off of it for price vs performance.

You know, if you get can find a free pencil lying around you'll have a tremendous price/performance ratio. Maybe you should make that your regular machine.

Re:Price / Performance (1)

codepunk (167897) | about 11 years ago | (#7138742)

Actually the 1's and 0's throughput on the pencil would be rather poor. I think the pentium and perhaps even a G5 would beat it. Smile and run your Mac my friend, at least it is not windows.

I know "cool" is subjective... (1)

DwarfGoanna (447841) | about 11 years ago | (#7138735)

This is why nobody else thinks your Transformers watch is cool, either. I'm sorry, but every "cool" PC case I've seen reminded me of the infamous "Homer Car" from the simpsons. I would rather hide my computer under the desk than actually flaunt something so awful. Sharp industrial design is not gluing some fins and flashing lights on the same old box, then spray-glossing it all to a high sheen. Please throw Apple this bone, at least.

Fastest thing ever? (5, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 11 years ago | (#7138626)

Of course it's the fastest ever, CPU speeds are increasing all the time. If I go out and buy a new AMD CPU it'll be the fastest ever....for about 2-3 months.

Plus there's the "it beats anything on the PC market", erm quad CPU Xenon? it's a PC ain't it? where do you want to draw the line?

Macs are cool but speed doesn't convice people to buy a computer, the price often does. Mac users were once ridiculed for knowing very little about computers, however I think this isn't true these days. Mac users know enough about computers to be able to choose between a computer running Windows and a Mac.

Re:Fastest thing ever? (1)

WrongWay (26772) | about 11 years ago | (#7138734)

On the G5, Photoshop launched in 8 seconds, and relaunched in 4. Yes, 4. On the Dual G4, it launched in 24 seconds, and relaunched in 12.5. And on the Powerbook, Photoshop was ready to go in 25 seconds the first time around, and in 17 seconds on relaunch.

umm my 2.5Ghz wintel box launches Photoshop in 8 seconds, and relaunches in 3 secs.
I REALLY want to like apple, its just unfortunate I am poor.
I wish I could afford to spend 4x the $$$ for the same performance.

Re:Fastest thing ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138780)

Xenon is a gas. (And an old vertically scrolling Amiga/AtariST shoot-em-up by the Bitmap Brothers.)

I believe you mean "Xeon".

From what I've seen, most computer users don't know a damn thing about computing, regardless of platform.

Claiming they "know enough" to make their choice is dubious at best. Politics aside, how do you know they make the right choice? Is there such a thing?

Or, for a Mac user, is the "right choice" always a Mac on the grounds that they know how to use a Mac but not a Windows machine?

I think a lot of such choices come down to marketting and what people already know.

In other words, it means a Mac owner can recognise a Mac.

compared to what? (0, Flamebait)

magical22 (664542) | about 11 years ago | (#7138631)

If you must have two processors to compete with a single processor something is wrong, plus they never include the cost of the EQ and the shitty components apple uses, I am sad to say this is why I never buy name brands in the first place (sure if you are a huge company and you want 1 hour service times you will go with dell/etc) but comon who wants crap inside there pc's... Have they tried matching it with a Dual Zeon Board? ... This is basically what I'd put it up against since the price is the same.

Yawn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138634)

It might be the fastest and it might be UNIX, but it still has the gayest, most unintuitive, most non-keyboard-centric user interface ever designed. Oh, that and the fact that there is no longer a start/apple menu so all you applications are crammed [] onto a long bar at the bottom with no text description. Fine if you only use a half a dozen apps I guess. w00t.

Re:Yawn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138763)

Everything this man says is true!

Don't forget to use Apple-Y to eject your discs. You have to "clean up" your discs because the Mac gets confused when you merely eject them (in no way obvious in the interface). Or you can Trash your disc, which is not the same as trashing a document or your hard drive. What, are you stupid? The difference is obvious. Duh!

People miss the point (5, Informative)

emerrill (110518) | about 11 years ago | (#7138635)

This is they type of thing that shouldn't make front page. Its good for the apple section but not front page. It is only a good article for apple users (which I am). But then you get all these ppl saying 'so what' which if you aren't a apple user, is true. This article doesn't give hard benchmarks, and specifically says that. So when ppl come in here and say my xxx boots quicker then that, all I have to say is, So what? This isn't meant to compare different platforms, just Macs.

So far (3, Interesting)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 11 years ago | (#7138643)

I've had one for a few days now. Extraordinarily responsive. I used a firewire cable to connect my powerbook to it via "target disk mode." I started a huge copy, like 30 GB or so. While this was going on I was able to continue use the computer as if nothing were happening. In fact I had to stop a few times and check the progress of the copy, because it seemed like it must have stopped or something. But there it was, chugging along.

It's just fast fast fast.

Anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138645)

" certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side."


"All this speed will set you back $4,198 at the Apple Store..."

Sorry, but it obviously doesn't beat the price of a comparably suited MS Windoze PC. Why do people keep trying to compare apples and lemons, anyway?

Great Quote (0)

nacturation (646836) | about 11 years ago | (#7138687)

"Apple, since the G5's introduction in June, has touted the new chip's processing power in numerous comparisons with Pentium 4 machines, and rightfully so. It'll pretty much hand every other computer its proverbial hat and keep on crunching data without breaking a sweat."

That got a chuckle.

And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (0)

ishmalius (153450) | about 11 years ago | (#7138689)

It makes me sick to think that the fastest high end machines will end up on the desks of management types running Word for OSX. With a cursor blinking all day at the speed of light.

While the tech guys who might actually need such horsepower will have 5-year-old boxes.

Face it, having such a box on your desk is like having a 4WD in the driveway that has never had mud on it.

Re:And it's totally wasted on the unwashed masses (1)

heff (24452) | about 11 years ago | (#7138744)

you mean like all the guys in the city with hummers?

let's be honest.. having a fast machine (or a hummer) is just cool.

I want a G5... To run GNU/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138711)

Given that I already run GNU/Linux, switching hardware would not be a big deal; all the software I currently run would work. If TCPA and Palladium become a reality and don't implement something like the EFF's suggested Owner Override, I probably will switch to a G5.

I've seen online stores where you can buy a dual-boot GNU/Linux and MacOS X system, but is there anyone that will sell a GNU/Linux only (or a no-OS) Apple system?

well.. (1)

bongobongo (608275) | about 11 years ago | (#7138714)

cool article but very short on useful information. we've already seen benchmarks, we've already heard specs, we already know it's fast.

from the article:
The obvious conclusion: The Power Mac G5 is a stellar machine for anyone who will be using it for serious processing work. If you're simply surfing the Web and editing the occasional digital picture, it's overkill, of course. One of the single-processor G5s or even a Dual G4, which Apple still sells, is more than enough for those tasks.

and the only conclusion they come to is what they themselves describe (and what i would describe) as 'the obvious conclusion'. yep, sure is obvious. is anyone buying a g5 for yahoo games and tetris anyway?

ok, there's probably one of you but...

Beating the bushes (0)

ThisIsFred (705426) | about 11 years ago | (#7138718)

I'm sure it's the fastest thing Apple has ever produced. But it's a far cry from the fastest thing on the "Windows" side of the market. And I'm willing to bet that the faster things on the IBM PC side are more affordable as well.

But, welcome in earnest to the multi-gigahertz fold, Apple.

What about the OpenOFfice benchmark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138727)

OpenOffice totures every PC I touch. The new version 1.1 still takes around 10 seconds to load on my Overclocked Gentoo box (An athlon XP 2000+ overclocked from 1.2Ghz to 1.67!) Has anyone tried OpenOffice on the 2Ghz G5 yet, and how fast is it?

Big deal. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138730)

Will it run Half-Life 2? Oh yeah,that's PC only. What about Desert Combat? Nope, PC only. RTCW? Nope, no Mac version. Halo? C&C Generals? Flashpoint? Sim City 4? NFS Hot Pursuit? Grand Prix Legends? Civ III?

A Mac? Nice toaster. /I don't do video/image editing and would prefer to spend less than 1000 bucks and run 90% of the software on the market. There's a lot to be said for compatibility.

OSnews (0, Offtopic)

Universal Indicator (626874) | about 11 years ago | (#7138733)

More and more every day, this site seems to be just a copy of I can't tell you how many times I see a story posted there first, and within a couple of hours the same story with the same wording is posted here. What gives? We don't need two sites being copies of each other.

So much for meeting and beating... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138749)

Hm... This article is a bit misleading
I just recently got a Sager Laptop (for any who haven't heard about them, check out for some outrageous laptops)

Here's the specs:
P4 3ghz HT
1 gb RAM
Radeon 9600
Two 60gb 7200RPM HD's in RAID 0

I have Photoshop 7. It launched in 4 seconds off cold boot. Relaunched in 2.

WinXP boots in 20 seconds, loading just about everything I have (Gaim, Kazaa, TV studio (it has a TV tuner), antivirus, etc). If it weren't for RAID initialization, the entire computer would boot in under 30 seconds.

It can run a good game of BF1942, all settings up on highest, while playing a DVD on another monitor, and downloading various things off Kazaa.

True, the laptop was about $2800, but hey, it's a LAPTOP. Try getting an apple laptop at that price that can compete with mine...

MAC = TEH GAY (-1)

applecup (683527) | about 11 years ago | (#7138756)

MAC users are FaggitS!! you nknow its true homos

Mars or Bust (4, Informative)

Graymalkin (13732) | about 11 years ago | (#7138757)

What a disappointing article. His "speed" tests consisted of the ridiculously unscientific "boot time" test and application launch tests. Lopped on top of that were hand crafted Photoshop and Bryce "tests" which verify that the dual G5 kicks the crap out of the 17" G4 and 1.25GHz PowerMac. My 12" Powerbook is faster than the Lombard I bought in 1999. Yay.

What about running real stuff like FCP's Compressor or Maya's mental ray renderer plug-in? Maybe even a After Effects render speed. Using iMovie to test anything isn't very fair to the people who would buy a G5. They're not using iMovie to work on SD video. Photoshop users aren't using a bunch of filters picked at random.

Obligatory reality check. (4, Insightful)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | about 11 years ago | (#7138770)

Before we all freak out - once again - about the comparisons of G5 vs. whatever, may I offer a suggestion:

Let's all take a nice deep breath, and remember that this is simply yet another offering, in a huge selection of products; that these products are different in many ways, for many people; that purchasing one or more of these products is not indicative of your mental health, penis size, sexual orientation, or anything else... okey?

G5 fast, mmm, nice G5. Athlon also fast, mmm, nice Athlon. I want both, for different reasons. They are not mutually exclusive.

(As for all the 'so fuckin' what' posts; this is Slashdot. No one made you click More.)

what I like... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138772) all the Mac haters who used to say "yeah, the Mac is cool, but I need something a little faster than 1GHz, like my IntelAMDAthlonXP 5500MHz box. You should see how FAST Explorer pops up on that puppy!!!1111"

Now that Apple has a arguably *fast* machine, they've switched back to complaining about the price.

I guess those folks just go between price, speed, and the number of mouse buttons, in circles.

I think the Macs are great machines and reasonably priced. My 500MHz iMac is perfectly usable and sits aside my 1.8GHz P4 Linux box with pride. The iMac cost me $1300 and the P4 cost around $1400 (I bought all quality components like Intel mobo, Antec case, 1GB Crucial RAM, etc), and it was purchased about 2 years after I got the iMac, and didn't even come with a monitor, so I think the iMac was a good deal. *shrug*

I don't know or care precisely how fast the G5s are. I just know they are fast, well-designed machines with a beautiful operating system and tools (have any of you ever written a program using the apple devel tools? I had a harder time taking a shit this morning!!) and they are worth the few hunder dollar premium.

I find it funny (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7138776)

I find it funny that all the posts that are moderate towards the Macintosh, or show how a Wintel machine can be a bit more, or generally don't slam the Mac, are all modded very low. I give this post 30 seconds before it is modded -1 Troll.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?