Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Appleworks 7? quad-powermacs??
- Thread starter cesar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What Apple must do to AppleWorks (and all of its iApps):
SPEED EM UP!!!
The G4 iMac has only been out for a year. It's been personal calculation that consumers upgrade their computers every 3-4 years. I own a G3 iMac at 600 MHz (I believe there is a 700) with 512 MB of RAM, and OS X Jag on there is REALLY SLOW! Especially the iApps. Screw adding new features. Apple made the apps, the OS, and basically the entire chip architecture from inside and out. They should at least be able to make it run pretty quick. Where's my preemptive multitasking?
SPEED EM UP!!!
The G4 iMac has only been out for a year. It's been personal calculation that consumers upgrade their computers every 3-4 years. I own a G3 iMac at 600 MHz (I believe there is a 700) with 512 MB of RAM, and OS X Jag on there is REALLY SLOW! Especially the iApps. Screw adding new features. Apple made the apps, the OS, and basically the entire chip architecture from inside and out. They should at least be able to make it run pretty quick. Where's my preemptive multitasking?
Well, assuming that they pass the cost of each copy that comes with a mac when you buy it, then that one copy with every new mac. Then, add in the number of boxed copies sold. There's your number.
preemptive multitasking has nothing to do with speed, p-e. m. is the ability to run many applications together with system giving asigning needed cpu resources to it, not the front application like in os9, so if it needed all cpu power u couldnt touch anything in background
it was much faster tho
oh..how happy was i doing stuff in os 9..i do not feel that happyness any more..ahh those were the days, i was actualy doing some productive stuff on this mac, flash photoshop
but now its all slow and i cant stand it..
i gotta buy new mac
Processors, power, and placement
well, we all know that apple has been known to buy out companies to make their own iApps. such was the case with soundjam. I am still holding a grudge about that. but anyways, i don't know if anyone has had to do this, but try opening an office XP file on office V.x. you can't do that in many cases. if apple was able to make appleworks 7 work with office XP, and make it work well, then it would first of all, make MS get on the ball and update office, and second give a big appeal to students in schools, who like me have to deal with incompatabilities.
hmm... how does iSuite sound?
as far as quad processors, the reason the only ones you saw were 500MHz ones is because in order to get the most out of a quad machine, the processors have to be able to communicate with the system and eachother, as if they were part of the same chipset. having processors separated by the motherboard presents a bandwidth issue for the motherboard because it has to cater to four processsors simultaneosuly. -Dibbs
well, we all know that apple has been known to buy out companies to make their own iApps. such was the case with soundjam. I am still holding a grudge about that. but anyways, i don't know if anyone has had to do this, but try opening an office XP file on office V.x. you can't do that in many cases. if apple was able to make appleworks 7 work with office XP, and make it work well, then it would first of all, make MS get on the ball and update office, and second give a big appeal to students in schools, who like me have to deal with incompatabilities.
hmm... how does iSuite sound?
as far as quad processors, the reason the only ones you saw were 500MHz ones is because in order to get the most out of a quad machine, the processors have to be able to communicate with the system and eachother, as if they were part of the same chipset. having processors separated by the motherboard presents a bandwidth issue for the motherboard because it has to cater to four processsors simultaneosuly. -Dibbs
iSuite would be .... sweet (couldnt help my self)
why not just iOffice. Or more like aples current naming theme just Office.
or would that make it seem like they were competing with MS Office.
why not just iOffice. Or more like aples current naming theme just Office.
or would that make it seem like they were competing with MS Office
.
That system uses MPC7410s, which as far as I know are stuck at 500MHz. Its specs are also quite scary in a bad way (667 MB/sec memory bandwidth per processor). The 7455 is outdated enough as it is, and it is not fully MERSI-compliant so any attempt to get it working in a 4x configuration would require a massive and expensive hack job that would be a waste of effort with only a <12 month ETA on the PPC970.Originally posted by Megaquad
there are many industrial computers, or whatever they are and they have 4-16 G4 processors in it (only seen 500 MHz ones but there are probably faster ones too)
they are also in many military airplanes!
i don't think either appleworks or quad processors will be out at mwsf. Right now i think apple is helping Sun Microsystems to bring StarOffice to Mac. This would be good because its free and is a better competetor to m$ office than appleworks.
If appleworks 7 comes out soon, it needs a better GUI and better features. Maybe some portablility of files between it and m$ office would be good for the switchers as well.
Does anyone here know the maximum weight that the arm on an imac can take? I would like to know what is the largest sceen you could put on it is. Maybe a 23"HD display would be good. With a built in Nvidia Geforce FX!!! That would be sweeeeeet!!!!
If appleworks 7 comes out soon, it needs a better GUI and better features. Maybe some portablility of files between it and m$ office would be good for the switchers as well.
Does anyone here know the maximum weight that the arm on an imac can take? I would like to know what is the largest sceen you could put on it is. Maybe a 23"HD display would be good. With a built in Nvidia Geforce FX!!! That would be sweeeeeet!!!!
AppleWorks 7 would be nice, but it will not and should not try to be an Office killer.
Keep crying about Microsoft if you want to, but we all know that having Office is almost essential.
There are 2 phases to the "switch" campaign as I see it:
1. Stuff Mac does better or is only available for Mac
2. Stuff Mac does that you're used to on your PC, and Office is the heart and soul of this for many would-be switchers
Until the 970, we have to deal with it. Maybe even after?
* Apple's only real problem right now is BEYOND THEIR CONTROL: processor speed. *
And has been said, quad processors is not the answer.
Keep crying about Microsoft if you want to, but we all know that having Office is almost essential.
There are 2 phases to the "switch" campaign as I see it:
1. Stuff Mac does better or is only available for Mac
2. Stuff Mac does that you're used to on your PC, and Office is the heart and soul of this for many would-be switchers
Until the 970, we have to deal with it. Maybe even after?
* Apple's only real problem right now is BEYOND THEIR CONTROL: processor speed. *
And has been said, quad processors is not the answer.
They will come out with a Quad G4 PB and call it the iRon.
We want speed, I don't care if Joe Sixpack is content with his G3/600. I want speed, I get tired of watching crap render in my DP867. I want so much speed I can rip a cd in less than 15 seconds. I want to render/burn dvd's in less than an hour. I want a 23" HD monitor for $1500. I want an iPhone with quad band gsm/bluetooth/32-bit color screen/camera/java/QT.
I also want an iPod...oh wait I've got one already.
We want speed, I don't care if Joe Sixpack is content with his G3/600. I want speed, I get tired of watching crap render in my DP867. I want so much speed I can rip a cd in less than 15 seconds. I want to render/burn dvd's in less than an hour. I want a 23" HD monitor for $1500. I want an iPhone with quad band gsm/bluetooth/32-bit color screen/camera/java/QT.
I also want an iPod...oh wait I've got one already.
Yeah, sounds great on paper, but with Apple's pricing it will only be available to universities and rich geeks. I want Rendezvous-enabled distributed computing that's CROSSPLATFORM. That would be nice, a G4 front-end and have some super cheap dual athlons running darwin (oh wait, it doesn't support any AMD chipset) for the grunt work.
Apple doesn't need their own "Office killer" to become viable for business use. MS Office is the defacto office standard and it runs on the Mac! Isn't it a bit like saying they need a photo editing app. (Photoshop Killer) to be competitive in the desktop publishing market?
I think Apple needs an "Office compatible" though.
It makes sense if Apple were trying to part from the relationship with MS after all those TV ads. And the rumor about the Apple branded web browser is another plus for this theory.
>(Megaquad) There's not much use in quad processors..
95% of applications would act like there was only one processor in it. They are all unoptimized..
But OS X fixes this problem. If I am not mistaken, Os X can support up to 32 processors. Why don't we come with a 32 processor Mac?
Trial and error has shown that the performance with double processors does not double. And performance with Quads is only about double. If you really want Quad power, why not get a Mac with 8 processors?
We are lucky enough to have sub-$3000 dual processor Powermacs as it is! Remember when the G4 came out, 350MHz 1x G4 and all? $3500! Then we got dual PowerMacs for around that.
But we aren't adding just one more G4 to the chip. We're adding two more G4s. Imagine the cost.
As for an Appleworks 7, I agree. Let's not go overkill on it. iTunes was not overdone, and look how many people appreciate it. Mail was not overkilled, it's free, and you can block spam/crap email. Why give a software company a bad name? Overkill = MS.
95% of applications would act like there was only one processor in it. They are all unoptimized..
But OS X fixes this problem. If I am not mistaken, Os X can support up to 32 processors. Why don't we come with a 32 processor Mac?
Trial and error has shown that the performance with double processors does not double. And performance with Quads is only about double. If you really want Quad power, why not get a Mac with 8 processors?
We are lucky enough to have sub-$3000 dual processor Powermacs as it is! Remember when the G4 came out, 350MHz 1x G4 and all? $3500! Then we got dual PowerMacs for around that.
But we aren't adding just one more G4 to the chip. We're adding two more G4s. Imagine the cost.
As for an Appleworks 7, I agree. Let's not go overkill on it. iTunes was not overdone, and look how many people appreciate it. Mail was not overkilled, it's free, and you can block spam/crap email. Why give a software company a bad name? Overkill = MS.
'Unoptimized' apps LIKE more processors...
If by 'unoptimized' you mean not (sufficiently) threaded, think again. Unlike muti-processor behavior in OS 9, OS X provides muti-processor performance benefits (system-wide) regardless of how application code is written.
In OS X, individual processes (applications) can be distributed amongst multiple processors. Consider a system running iTunes and IE. Even if neither application made use of threaded code, a dual-processor system would distribute each app to a separate processor for execution. A performance boost would follow.
Of course, threaded code is required if you want a single application to take advantage of multiple processors simultaneously. With the advent of simultaneous thread execution within a single processor ('Hyper-Threading' in Intel-speak), well-threaded code will pay even higher dividends. With luck, we Mac users will see such silicon gymnastics with the Power PC 980 sometime in 2004...
If by 'unoptimized' you mean not (sufficiently) threaded, think again. Unlike muti-processor behavior in OS 9, OS X provides muti-processor performance benefits (system-wide) regardless of how application code is written.
In OS X, individual processes (applications) can be distributed amongst multiple processors. Consider a system running iTunes and IE. Even if neither application made use of threaded code, a dual-processor system would distribute each app to a separate processor for execution. A performance boost would follow.
Of course, threaded code is required if you want a single application to take advantage of multiple processors simultaneously. With the advent of simultaneous thread execution within a single processor ('Hyper-Threading' in Intel-speak), well-threaded code will pay even higher dividends. With luck, we Mac users will see such silicon gymnastics with the Power PC 980 sometime in 2004...
23 feet! woah...I can see the cinema display now. How much do you charge a seat? And are you going to serve popcorn with that?