Like the ocean being sucked out before a large wave, Apple-related news is at a low ebb right now before Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ WWDC keynote scheduled for Monday, June 6, 2005, at 10am PDT at San Francisco’s Moscone West.
Rest assured, we’re here and we’re scouring the Web for interesting Apple-related news. Hopefully this slowness ends ASAP!
If you have anything of interest that you’d like to see posted, click “contact” above and send us a link.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Anticipation, rumors build ahead of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ June 6 WWDC keynote – May 27, 2005
“I take it there’ll be no web cast of Jobs’ keynote?
Owing to memory lapse, were previous WWDC keynotes webcast?”
Yes, both the 2003 and 2004 Keynotes were webcasted. However, the 2004 Keynote was not broadcasted live, but rather several hours after the event. I don’t remember about the 2003 event.
If I were a total and complete moron, what I would do is go on PC news sites (yawn) and taunt the PC fans. ‘stantheman’ is that type of brave person, it would seem.
I wouldn’t be caught dead in a PC news ‘forum’. What a utter waste of time.
I would hazard a guess that the conversations usually revolve around which antivirus software is being used with the least ineffectiveness, and which of the malware is currently hurting peoples PCs. Just think, we too could be those poor souls. But we’re not. We are Mac users.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
‘stantheman’ is to be pitied, not replied to.
Ok.
Let’s get it right.
It’s Micros**t.
Ok? Micros**t
Not Micro$oft, M$, Mickeysoft, (although that’s a good one!) nor is it Microflop or anything else.
It’s Micros**t.
That’s the best one out there and I want to see it being used.
ok?
News drought?
http://www.macsurfer.com/ should keep you busy.
the June announcements will be huge..
macnut222, thanx for the reminder. much appreciated
gee i think i will add my 2 cents of nothingness crap just like everyone above me did on this list.
Here’s some news you’ll never find headlining MDN:
“Single Chip Dual Core Pentium 3.2Ghz beats Mac G5 in most tests, costs $1000 less.”
http://www.digitalpostproduction.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=32744-1
…At $3496, it’s more than $1000 cheaper than the dual Xeon 3.6 Dell Precision workstation 470 we tested earlier, and it’s also more than $1000 cheaper than the Mac dual G5 2.7GHz machine. It’s remarkable to test a new product with faster performance at a price that’s about 25% cheaper. Compared to the dual Xeon machine, the performance was roughly the same on many benchmarks, but significantly better on others. And compared to the Mac, particularly in the CineBench benchmarks and the TotalBenchmark Comp 2 scores, the Mac fell way behind while still costing over $1000 more. ….
Now this is only with ONE dual core chip. Two dual cores (especially an Opteron) is just slaughter. Somehow I dont think IBM will come to Apple’s rescue anytime soon. LOL.
“Making an analogy to a natural disaster that slaughtered many thousands of people is about as tasteless and crass as you can get. You need professional help.”
I wasn’t making an anology to the tsunami that hit South East Asia. If I was, I agree that would be tasteless.
Sammy,
You’d be surprised what you’ll find in headlines at MDN:
Apple Power Mac G5 Dual 2.7GHz vs Dell Xeon Dual 3.6GHz – Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Sammy,
I know I wouldn’t buy memory from Apple like these guys did. But if one spec’ed out the G5 with 400GB drive, the most expensive video card (unlike the <$200 card in the new Dell), and 4GB of Crucial RAM, I get $4250, not $4600. Drop the drive and video card and the price is $3600. Or add a pair of 80GB (only?) 10Krpm drives and RAID stripe them and see how the disk performance changes (they should compare using similar HW configs).
Now add in 2GB of Crucial RAM for the PC to bring it up to 4GB like the others, and the price rises to $3976. Suddenly the $1000 difference might actually go in the other direction…
I won’t dispute the test numbers as reported, though. I would like to see tests with similar RAM configurations, comperable video, and disk arrays. Nobody would do any remotely serious home video editing on 160GB of total disk space…
Hey Sammy,
The CineBench 2003 benchmark – this ISN’T the one optimized for the G5 is it?… And you talk of comparing apples to apple on benchmarks….
Worst MDN article, every.
“Hopefully this slowness ends ASAP!”
That is the worst writing I have seen in some time. What, did the high school interns take over MDN.
No Mac news indeed.
Adobe After Effects is supposed to have OpenGL support for a limited series of Mac video cards. The tested card in the 2.7GHz G5 System is an nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL – which is NOT on the supported list of video cards for After Effects. If you are unsure if this is true, please read: http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/opengl.html and http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=32620-1
So is this a fair benchmark? It seems the TotalBenchmark is also based upon After Effects. For a video card that is not on the supported list, the numbers are impressive. The FireGL cards used in the dual-core PC is listed.
I now question the validity of the benchmark testing that Sammy is so proud to push in our faces. And I wonder if this comparison is really fair. For After Effects 5.5, Adobe did not support Macs with dual processor (only one was used for rendering). I hope the latest versions now do. If they don’t, one can imagine the rendering power available to application that does – like Final Cut Pro.
Awwww, bless ’em… stantheman, G-spank and Sputnik…
They’re like MDNs very own court jesters to keep us entertained when nothing else is on!
Can I come work for MDN, too?
-There is no news.
-There is still no news.
-No, nothing yet.
Stay tuned to MDN, people, your primary online source for no news!!
I hope you noticed the dual core Pentium EE used 533Mhz DDR2 memory….put standard 400MHZ DDR memory in their (same as Mac), the price drops by about several hundred dollars.
And why put ram in from Crucial? This was supposed to be a direct purchase comparison….however if you want to add third party replacements, you might as well do the same for the Dell, or simply just build the PC from scratch…and I guarantee you your attempts to price-favor the Mac will surely fail.
Any which way you try to put the spin on it, the dual core chip still came out on top with good performance/price compared to the latest Macs.
Sammy,
Any comments about the impact of After Effect reliance on OpenGL and the fact that the Macs weren’t ordered with a video card that was on the After Effects supported list?
It’s rather like somebody going to buy a new vehicle to go 4-wheeling and didn’t both buying 4-wheel drive. You can’t blame the manufacturer for that one. You blame the dummy that didn’t buy the proper parts. These guys doing the testing didn’t do the correct ordering for the purpose at hand.
With the RAM, these guys even said (when the did the 2.7GHz G5 test) that they wouldn’t have bothered buying RAM from Apple. I picked Crucial because their quality is great and their prices reasonable and the comparison fair.
If you want to add 400Mhz DDR memory in the PC go ahead and report your test numbers. You can drop the price further still by putting in a slower processor. Rather defeats the purpose don’t you think?
I never quibbled with the results as posted. I’m just saying test platforms similarly (and correctly) configured for the task at hand. You want to use RAID 0? Then configure the Mac the same as the PC (or the PC the same as the Mac). You want to use an After Effects/OpenGL test bench, then use video cards likely to be used by somebody using After Effects. Seriously, would you buy a video card that wasn’t fully supported by the application on which your income depended? These items are all direct purchase, too.
Bandit Bill:
My tsunami comment was directed at Sputnik. Ad nauseam (To a disgusting or ridiculous degree; to the point of nausea.) is right.
Sickening and pathetic troll.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”confused” style=”border:0;” />
Just because the 6800 Ultra is listed on “unsupported”, doesn’t mean the card was hampered in any way. If anything, it was an advantage considering its sheer processing power. The fact that OpenGL was used means nothing was even amiss, as Nvidia fully supports all OpenGL extensions. Notice ATI’s entire X800 series line is missing as well.
What you have is simply a matter of time before these latest graphics cards are added to the list, as the chart specifically says cards will be added as they are tested. You’re argument is based on very flimsy grounds, which will break once the latest generation of ATI/Nvidia cards are added to the list.
Just browse the after effects support forums. Plenty of users utilizing the 6800 and X800 series with no problems.
Which now brings us back to the main point, the 6800 Ultra is actually an advantage. Swap in any of the lesser “supported” graphics cards, you may end up with a much lower score. Be careful what you wish for.
“With the RAM, these guys even said (when the did the 2.7GHz G5 test) that they wouldn’t have bothered buying RAM from Apple. I picked Crucial because their quality is great and their prices reasonable and the comparison fair.
If you want to add 400Mhz DDR memory in the PC go ahead and report your test numbers. You can drop the price further still by putting in a slower processor. Rather defeats the purpose don’t you think?”
You’re trying to have it both ways, you can’t. Maneuver the G5 pricing all you want, it will NOT end up a better price/performance ratio than the dual core Pentium….that’s just going to be something you’ll have to accept until Apple improves their current lineup.
“I never quibbled with the results as posted. I’m just saying test platforms similarly (and correctly) configured for the task at hand. You want to use RAID 0? Then configure the Mac the same as the PC (or the PC the same as the Mac). You want to use an After Effects/OpenGL test bench, then use video cards likely to be used by somebody using After Effects. Seriously, would you buy a video card that wasn’t fully supported by the application on which your income depended? These items are all direct purchase, too.”
You can’t get over the fact the dual core Pentium whipped the G5 with less memory, and a weaker video card can you? You will be a mighty unhappy camper the next few months as more dual core offerings come to the table, especially AMD’s which are less expensive and more powerful than their Intel counterparts.
Why don’t you check barefeat’s latest Mac vs PC page? About as similar as you get, prices have obviously changed, yet the outcome still puts the G5 at the bottom of the barrel.
“Be careful what you wish for”
Well, I never said the the unsupported cards worked poorly (as you can see from the results as posted). What I said was that the card used was not one Adobe had listed as a supported model. And Adobe refers to this list pretty strictly with OpenGl issues (particularly nVidia driver versions). The FireGl being a weaker video card to the 6800? Not if the application used as a benchmark doesn’t properly support the 6800.
Fine, drop the 6800 in the PC. Frankly I’d love to see a comparison with the RAM, drive array, and video card inconsistencies removed. I frankly don’t need the power that either of these systems provide. And that isn’t a cop-out.
The RAM issue – I’m not having it both ways. You want higher performance gear, you tend to pay more for those parts. That’s a fact of life. In my example, I added 2GB of RAM to the PC using fair pricing and also used the same fair pricing to fill out the G5 (unlike Apple’s gouging for RAM which priced and available for the fools wishing to 2x overpay for what you buy at Crucial). BTW, the tests run aren’t impacted by 2GB or 4GB. But the price of the system is, and that was part of the argument. So either drop the Apple system’s price accordingly or up the PC price accordingly.
If you wanted to get more fair, add in pricing for FireWire800, optical line-in/out, etc. Then what we have are the essential difference between the systems.
That is what I’m looking for.
And frankly, I have no idea how you equated my comment of “I never quibbled with the results as posted. ..would you buy a video card that wasn’t fully supported by the application on which your income depended?” to me not being able to “get over the fact the dual core Pentium whipped the G5 with less memory, and a weaker video card can you?”
If I were in the market for a PC and saw a benchmark utilizing unsupported gear for an application on which my income depended, I would have the same, legitamate, questions. Would you buy a video card that didn’t perform as well with game that played the most for your gaming-specific PC?
As for being unhappy? It depends on what is available when I next need to purchase a computer. But somehow, I think your tears of joy won’t translate into tears of sadness for PowerMac users quite as quickly and extensively as you hope.
Zupchuck, I understand your point concerning both options and pricing. We could argue back and forth, changing the overall value to what we see fit as we debate what options should go in and out, or what options even matter.
If you have issue with this particular benchmark suite, I suggest you mention it to the article writer. Other than that, you can’t deny the dual core Pentium is quite a decent bang for your buck value, no matter how you strip it, even compared to last year’s Xeons let alone the Mac.
Keep in mind this pricing for new technology, which are generally high after initial launch. If history is anything, you will see these prices drop significantly over the next few months (considering, a dual core chip doest not incur a great manufacturing cost compared to a single core chip).
MicroShaft always finds a way to force users to switch to the latest crap they glued together. O you want a secure browser sorry but firefox doesn’t work on LH. For example.