[Nobody]

I just don't get it. Computers are tools, and faster tools are better. 1.25 GHZ does not cut it in today's standard no matter from any angle you look at it. It is just slow, 'period'. So, why do people still resist to admit that 'speed is everything' in computing world? If you don't care about speed, why do you need a computer anyway???? If Apple was the fastest in the market, I know the majority would claim that ' PC's are too slow', but unfortunatly that is not the case now, people would say, ' no, speed is not that important." ???????? Hello! Why condition ourselves to convince that 'speed is not everything' ??? Let's get over this, and say, 'we want more speed.' I fear that if we don't ask for it, we will NEVER get it.

lk

[Nobody]

Speed isn't everything. It's important, but it's not everything. It depends on the task you're using it for.

Most of the time, your computer is waiting for you /NOT/ the other way around. Yes, it's possilbe to tax your machine to it's limit, but you can't do it surfing the web or writing in a word processor or checking email.

[ericb02]

If you could have dual 5000+ amds that would be nice right, but what if it was running DOS? Even if it was runnign xp u wouldnt see that much of a difference between that and a 3ghz p4 because the osfware woudlnt be ablet ot ake good use of the power.

[PhotoshopMonkey]

Yes I agree with 1K speed is important. I use photoshop day in and day out and the speed diffrence between the 2 GHZ P4 I have at work and my 350MHZ G4 at home is quite huge.

Filters just finish in a few secs, handling 100 MB+ files feels snappy, batch processing hundreds of files takes less time. Its very comfortable and less wait means you get done more and does not distrupt your concentration because you have to wait for an image to render for 5-10 mins.

I'm sure the new Powermacs have the same level of performance but my point is that for many people especially graphic pros like me - speed counts. I'm not talking about Altivec but brute raw speed and power.

[Nobody]

Well of course more speed is always going to be better. I myself have been calling for speed lately but you seem to be confusing clockspeed with actual speed. As much as the MHz myth isn't cutting it anymore the G4 is still a well designed chip smaller pipestage does help a lot. Basicly what I am saying is don't compare on clockspeed alone.

Soundguy

[Nobody]

Well of course more speed is always going to be better. I myself have been calling for speed lately but you seem to be confusing clockspeed with actual speed. As much as the MHz myth isn't cutting it anymore the G4 is still a well designed chip smaller pipestage does help a lot. Basicly what I am saying is don't compare on clockspeed alone.

Soundguy

[mbryda]

Why is speed everyting only in computers?

We don't all drive F1 race cars...We don't all drive the fastest cars out there. (The top selling vehicles in America are dog slow.)

We don't all fly in supersonic jets.

We don't buy the "fastest" TV, VCR, etc.

My Palm Pilot is not the "fastest".

The hand tools I own (drills, saws, etc.) are not the "fastest".

Yet I must have the "fastest" computer, even though my needs are easily met by my current machine.

Speed is nice, speed is welcome, but you don't have to be the 'fastest'. We are at a point where computers are faster (And will be for quite some time) than 90% of the people need/want....

[Nobody]

Some people just don't get it, you know?

Speed IS important. It's becoming more and more important as we move further into the wireless age and make more demands on our systems.

One point is overlooked: Software programs are also designed to work on faster machines. That's why they say, "240mb to run efficiently," etc., so forth, and so on.

So, when a Photoshop program for Windows is running lightning fast and we have so-so machines on the Mac end, then Mac users are at a disadvantage.

Speed IS important. Unfortunately, Apple is in an embarrassing BOX with Motorola: Motorola has no new chips or improved chipsets to use.

Apple did this to itself and it's users.

images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Nobody]

Yes, you're right. When you work on Photoshop, speed is very important. Speed is important when you are rendering scenes for preview in LightWave and Maya, speed is important for running multiple apps at once, for browsing the internet, even for word processing. There was a time when macs were faster than PCs (about 7 years ago). But, the honeymoon is over. Once Apple comes out with 64-bit computing via IBM, our problems are over. The Power4 architecture (G5) is a lot easier to scale upward MHz wise than the PowerPC. In the meantime, we are stuck in limbo with DP (don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a DP mac). We NEED more speed now, and I think we'll have plenty of it compared with the Wintel world come this time next year (maybe even January, but I doubt that).

-Jim

[mbryda]

CPU Speed is not important for:
[] Surfing the internet. Even a 386 can cope with brodaband. Decompressing Jpegs and GIFS is simple stuff...

[] Wireless. Even a 386 can use a Wireless NIC/network - even the fastest ones are not that fast.

[*] I'd say most people's demands are simple, Net, Email, lite duty office stuff, all of which don't require a fast processor. Heck, my PC's Firewire card requires a Pentium/233... About the only thing I've added to my list of things I need my computer for is video editing and digital photography, both of which are handled quite well by the iMac.

Yes, for those who make a living on Photoshop or rendering speed is important, but for most tasks (even basic video editing), it's not the be all and end all.

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: mbryda ]

[monkey_man]

Lemme tell you guys why speed is important: it may have nothing to do with today, but it has a lot to do with tomorrow.

What am I talking about? Well, when someone lays down $1,000-2,000 for a brand new computer, unless they've got money coming out of the wazoo, I don't think that person would be ready to condemn that very hardware obsolete in about a year, and at the same time, just go out and buy a brand new system without feeling a pinch on the wallet.

I know technology moves at a fast pace. Future software and even hardware will be designed to utilize more system resources. That has been the trend. But if someone pays a precious penny for a system that's only marginal in its performance, who's to say that system will continue to support the newer software and hardware technologies in the future?

Look at the people who bought Powerbooks early last year: they're running 400-500Mhz G4s. Certainly not cutting edge today, but less than a year ago they paid a cutting edge price. Or how about iBook owners with 500Mhz-600Mhz G3s. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like dumping another $1,500 in less than a year to see the speed that I expect. Especially when it comes to an OS that still comes nowhere near to having the rapid third-party support as, say...Windows.

So is speed everything? Maybe right now it isn't. But you better believe you'll need it in the future. If you were taking your car on a long trip, you wouldn't fill only 1/4 of your gas tank.

Of course, you could say that one should just buy a maxed-out PowerMac. But why? Not only is it a ton of money, but look how much of it you can pocket by just migrating to the Windows platform.

[Nobody]

Monkey man, while I understand your complaint, in general, I don't understand it, as it relates to this arguement.

Faster machines today means faster machines tomorrow--the rate of change is going to remain constant. A top of the line machine today is still going to be one year removed from the top of the line next year. If Apple was shipping 1.4GHZ now, that just maeks ita ll the more likely that they'd be shipping 2.0 GHZ a year from now, which would put you in exactly the same bind as if you bought a 1.25GHZ today and they came out with a 1.8GHZ a year from now.

[Nobody]

quote:

---

I'd say most people's demands are simple,

---

But we are not "most people". I would estimate there are few people on this board that just surfs the Internet, that just read e-mail. We are Power Users, we have certian demands that must be met, on the PC platform or Mac platform.

I have been toying with the idea of getting a Mac for about 1 year now. First I thought PowerBook, but I am not in a mobile enviroment to necessitate it, then I thought of a Quicksilver with a Cinema Screen, but it was too expensive. Now that Intel is way above the 2GHz mark and climbing, and Apple might be a very long while before they come up with a faster solution, I have to seriously debate on either getting a Quicksilver or build a 1.8 Intel and overclock it to 2.6, and save a bundle.

If Apple had a ~1.7 - 2.0GHz system for $3000 I would plunk down the money today. But their best system is $5000. Hell the 800MHz powerbook with Air Port base is $4000.

it's jsut too expensive and too slow, and yes speed is an issue (along with price, which I think falls second in importance).

[monkey_man]

Ronaldinho, I'm sorry if I seemed unclear. But I believe the following quote from my post earlier tells enough:

quote:

---

I know technology moves at a fast pace. Future software and even hardware will be designed to utilize more system resources. That has been the trend. But if someone pays a precious penny for a system that's only marginal in its performance, who's to say that system will continue to support the newer software and hardware technologies in the future?

---

You see, before I purchased my iBook, I asked several questions. The very first I asked was, in general, how much mileage I could get out of a new iBook. In other words, will the hardware become obsolete to the point that future software won't support it--i.e. 1.5 to 2 years down the road? Well, the obvious response from the Apple salesperson was not necessarily. But, as we all know, opinions are meaningless except when they come from our own mouths.

So you could believe me or not on this issue. All I'm stating is what I see as one facet to the speed problem. No, I didn't say that I expect my system to remain cutting edge. Anyone can accept that his or her system will fall from first class to coach. What I am pointing out is that the lifespan of the current crop of hardware is rather weak.

I brought up the case regarding last year's Ti and iBook owners because, in my own view, they paid top-dollar for sub-par hardware. I'm one of the suckers. I own an iBook G3. I wasn't very happy when, a few weeks into using OS X, I discovered that web browsing was still not as fast as an old Pentium II Windows machine. Web browsing! I'm talking basics here, not high-end stuff like Photoshop.

At any rate, I'll leave it at that. I'm growing weary of this debate as well.