Dell is Building iMac Lookalikes 312
Shawn Pryde writes "MSNBC reports that Michael Dell told investors the Dell is going to start making PC's modeled after the iMac."
I hafta say for all the criticisms, the super cheap, non-upgradable
internet capable appliance PC is a wonderful holy grail.
Someday it'll happen, but the question is will Dell be able
to cover the cheap part of that grail?
Dell is creating iMac lookalikes (Score:1)
I have seen a PC within the Keyboard,
its from an L.A. based company. Their ads appear
regulary at the end of Byte and PCWorld magazine.
Looks like Dell was not the first
G3 (Score:1)
That's just not true. The G3 floating point unit is great. PPCs were designed for floating point from the ground up.
An unoptimized software-only G3 driver might well be slower than a Celery with HW acceleration, but I assure you that in absolute terms, the G3 wipes the floor with the x86.
If you code the same routine in x86 asm and PPC asm, the PPC one will win.
The "real-world" benchmarks system is always a problem, since they often compare a heavily-asm-optimized intel application to the rather poor, unoptimized, "let's-just-recompile-the C-sources" port the application's company did to the mac, just so they could say they had a mac version.
Never trust benchmarks - PPC or x86.
Don't forget, too, that however good the PPC hardware is, it's crippled by running the piss poor MacOS - I really would love to see a cheap, generic, little-endian PPC motherboard with PCI that we can port linux to, and all live happily ever after.
Style AND Substance (Score:1)
however, when the iMac came out, every componenent of the design was made BOTH stylish AND functional. the system design inside and out was reconsidered based on the idea of SIMPLIFICATION: we have too many ports: modem, printer, keyboard, mouse -> consolidate into ONE port: USB; we have too many boxes with wires hooking them up: CPU, monitor, speakers -> consolidate them into ONE. this one box needs to be moved occasionally -> put in a handle. the system software (OS8.1 / 8.5) was similarly reconfigured to work for the goal of functional simplicity: the internet TCP/IP setup process has been streamlined, and control panels and system components consolidated to make things easier. there's a rescue "Boot CD" that restores everything back to good order in the system if anything goes wrong, you just pop in the CD, boot, and things are made right.
when you actually USE an iMac (instead of criticising without having used it), you find out that it is not only stylish, but very FUNCTIONAL. that means the iMac doesn't simply "dress up" a PC box in a nice case, but has been fundamentally designed well from the ground up. the iMac delivers not only a superficial PC that is styled-over with a fancy case like what DELL is attempting, but the stylish case has come about from a fundamental design premise. this is something that i doubt dell will "get" or deliver.
while some geeks may disparage simplicity in order to bolster their feelings of superiority and mastery over complex and arcane systems. i would contend that SIMPLICITY IS DIFFICULT -> it is much harder to make a system simple than it is to merely master a complex system.
johnrpenner@earthlink.net
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
maybe nit picking here but does all that also include the OS ( apart from linux ) keyboard and mouse ?
NCs could be better... (Score:1)
I like to code on my machines - I like to take them apart - I am sure most people here are of the same mind. Still, I see the beauty and simplicity behind an NC box. I also see the danger.
If everything went to the NC style, the servers would probably be priced way out of range for geeks like me to work with - I mean, if I have to have NCs all through my house, I am definitely going to want a server for them in my closet, just so I can develop that next "new" app that everyone will want on the 'net. However, the server (or parts to build one) will probably be priced way out of most peoples budgets, simply because business would decide that no one would need a server in their house (similar to how M$ decides that no one needs to code at home - and price VS through the roof - at least there are alternatives here, though).
I know this is all speculation, and probably won't come to fruitation. I do know I like the look of the NC boxes I have seen up close, and would love to have a bunch of these networked throughout my house and tied into a central server. I just don't want to lose this capability.
Re: "Toys" (Score:1)
Despite the fact that your post screamed TROLL, I'm going to reply.
RC5 keys - hardly a useful benchmark. (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Hardware does not become obsolete quickly. (Score:1)
As far as Macs, they are every bit as capable of holding value. I have a Mac Plus with 1M of RAM doing duty as a kitchen recipe book. It boots off a floppy and has no HD and is still useful (though it does consume more wattage than paper, but less than the light bulb that shines on it
I have a IIcx that is destined to be the dedicated MIDI sequencer for my studio- got 20M of ram for it for free through good luck when I made it dualboot NetBSD and MacOS, but I can't do anything with NetBSD on this little machine- time to devote it to Mac-based MIDI sequencing in a big way. It will _always_ be fast enough for that.
I have a Classic (like a Plus only with a HD) which is well suited to being a little bedside machine for jotting down notes on. A Mac Classic can boot in fourteen _seconds_. Wake up, boot, type, shut down, go back to sleep...
I have a 9500 which I just got a Voodoo2 card for (whee!) It's my dualboot Linux/Mac box. I'm not bothering taking the CPU beyond the 200Mhz 604e, G3 wants a bus that can handle it (like the newer powermacs)... but the 9500 has _twelve_ DIMM slots and a bunch of drive bays. The 9500 is destined for lasting value as a digital audio workstation and as a rendering box when I eventually get something newer and quicker...
iMacs will hold their value marvellously- and maintain their _usefulness_ even better. Aren't people talking about using them as X terminals? Talk about obscene overkill as an X terminal! Yet, when they are costing about $200 each years from now, they'll still be just as overpowered for the task as ever.
iPC fatal design errors (Score:1)
I'm serious. This is a major, major issue for this type of design, and is probably the reason the iMac uses basically a Powerbook CD-Rom (lower wattage! less heat generation).
If the PC guys _do_ manage to get the PC equivalent, even at comparable power, into a monitor casing, if it doesn't catch fire in the lab then expect all the parts to have lifetimes about 1/4 what you'd expect. If they try to go for higher power, forget it- the things won't even survive testing. Do you know the _differential_ between even fast G3 chips and Pentia, as far as heat dissipation is concerned?
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
Hypocracy (Score:1)
Maybe now male Wintel owners can get a girlfriend (Score:1)
See 'Sex and the single geek' [macopinion.com] at MacOPINION. Pretty funny.
Refresh rate (was: Imac is a great design idea) (Score:1)
If I may ask, how'd you manage that? My sister has an iMac (purple), and I can't get it to go over 75Hz at 1024x768.
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
The Rev. B and Rev. C iMacs have 6 MB of video RAM, and an ATI RAGE Pro video chip. Okay, so you're not going to get a 70FPS Quake II crusher demo result off of it, but the iMac isn't aimed at the 3D-shooter snobs anyway. Nanosaur looks pretty good on it, though.
(By the way, I like the way the first poster quoted *all* the part numbers for every piece of hardware and software to make the list more visually impressive.)
hate the mouse (Score:1)
Note that since it's small, you can put something over it. Macsense makes a Bondi blue clip-on thing that transforms it into a reasonably ergonomic mouse. Also, now that USB is becoming mainstream on PCs, other USB mice are available.
iNet appliance (Score:1)
The processor maxes out at 233MHz Pentium MMX. With 128MB-EDO RAM and 6.4GB EIDE they charge $1172. There is no Windows tax, you buy that extra if you want it. In addition to the usual ports it has IR & USB, a built-in Realtek 10BT controller and an ISA slot.
It weighs 6.6lbs (3kg) but needs a 1lb. power brick. Most of the components seem to be standard, but old, desktop stuff rather than laptop. If they want to make PII, PIII models they'll probably have to use more laptop-style parts.
Refresh rate (was: Imac is a great design idea) (Score:1)
also it was a rev A imac not one of the new ones and was running at thousands of colors (before the increased Vram)
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
he infact sayst that the "Do" build too much margin into their products.
seems like more than a guess to me.
My point is that the computers apple sells may actuay be better than Pentiums in Price/performace... it all depends on how much better the G3 is compared to the pentium... according to the poster we cannon know this
so how can he know that apple has worse price performance.
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
Corect me if Im wrong... otherwise you are absolutely corect... My parents were just shoping for this dell...
if the processors were equal then the machines would be the same... unfortuantely the G3 is superior to the celeron
thems the breaks Dell.
Imac is a great design idea (Score:1)
Apple just upgraded the iMac to 333MHz... and the cost is still around $1,100. thats a damn good price performance ratio expecialy considering it comes with one of the finest monitors I have seen (I was just running one at 1024X768 with a refresh rate of 95Hz... nice and crisp)
Currently dell sells a celeron at that price also 333MHz... most other stats are the same but the Celeron isnt as fast as the G3.
I mean sure, you can get a better price performance ratio... but not that much better... Its a worthy machine at its price point...
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
the first is that we are not qualified to make a judgement on the relative power of the 2 chips running these systems and the second is that apple has lower price/performance than intel
how can you possibly say that.
if you cant make a judgement on the power of the system then how can you say that apple charges too much for them...
what if the G3 realy is twice as powerfull... what if its 10 times as powerfull...
still not worth the money?
you have violated your own rules here... you think that the G3 isnt worth the extra money... perhaps other people think that it is...
I have used celeron and G3 systems and I would take the G3 any day of the week... I wouldnt pay 5 times as much for it, but I would pay more.
Dell had a great case before the G3 (Score:1)
how long does it take?
The performa 646 only required the removal of 2 screws to get ant any part of the inside...
it also took about a half hour... I need a little more info (Ive never seen these cases before...)
The G3 is not for the appliance user ... (Score:1)
Not really (Score:1)
price/performance (Score:1)
Tell the old woman looking for a PC to do simple stuff, that its cheaper to build a PC than to purchase a prebuilt one. I wonder why Dell, Apple, IBM, Gateway, etc haven't all gone out of business. Clue: not every one has the time/patience/technical ability to build a PC. The extra price is worth it, you get a working out of box machine with a warranty and the knowledge that everything works properly on it. No offence to people who like to build PCs...I love it too. But for most people, the prospect of making a PC from scratch would be a nightmare.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Silly FatSean, your ignorance is showing. (Score:1)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Once again... (Score:1)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
What kind of RAM is this? 72pin SIMMs? This is awfully cheap.
15" - $100
Would this monitor be equal to the quality of the iMac monitor? Brand?
Case- $28
Ha ha! If you buy a case for this price you're asking for trouble....
Have you factored in the cost of shipping these individual cost of each part...and the time spent assembling them.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Fool (Score:1)
PCI, USB are standards that are licenced. Not stolen. All computers use these standards. No one steals them...
SDRAM and IDE drives are standard not only on PCs but also Suns, SGIs, RS6000s etc (well maybe not IDE). Using them in thier systems in no way constitutes "stealing".
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
333MHz iMac. (Score:1)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Once again... (Score:1)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Imac is a great design idea (Score:1)
BTW: its iMac, not Imac. No biggie....
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
You caught us! (Score:1)
Well there's one thing... (Score:1)
What Dell is going to put out is going to suck, because when the PC industry does it cheap, it's cheap (one word, WinModem).
I like Apple hardware more, and even though it shouldn't count technically, Apple has better designs in general. There's a book out there called Apple Design or smething like that I was flipping through the other day. I wish they had released some of that stuff.
That post had a score of 3? (Score:1)
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
That sounds like my old PCjr (Score:1)
It could be expanded in a similar manner:
It could also be expanded by adding extra sidecars on one end of it. Before it's death due to a flooded basement, it had 768K of RAM, a 360K 5.25" floppy, a 720K 3.5" floppy, a 80M SCSI HD and was painted black. It looked like a mutant NeXT cube. =)
Once again...MS (Score:1)
I do know that Apple caught MS with its hands in the QuickTime source code cookie jar. It was behind the scenes of the $150 mill investment.
Maybe you could say that they stole a crappy protected memory system from 95 with gaurd pages instead of doing it the real way.
If anyone else has some more obvious ones post em!
Pat
Once again...MS (Score:1)
To ignore the ideas that Apple has introduced to computing would be silly. To say that any good idea in computing has come from Apple is equally silly.
See how they recently embraced OpenGL. They are trying to make the fastest Java runtime for personal computing. They are a new company and I suggest you all take a new look at what Apple has done recently.
Anyway...
Pat
Gee, now an iDell (Score:1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dell cases ARE easy! (Score:1)
- Opening the case... [dell.com]
- Accessing the expansion cards... [dell.com]
- Removing and installing drives... [dell.com]
They're very well put together machines, you can lock them, and if someone opens the case when you're not there, you are alerted when the machine boots up. "Alert! Cover previously removed!".- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
iMac a "toy"? Not quite. (Score:1)
Currently the iMac's greatest limitation is its lack of PCI slots and SCSI. Once there are ample USB peripherals (soon enough; I've already seen USB scanners, MIDI interfaces and serial adaptors), this will become less important. Once iMacs have FireWire (the new ones reportedly will), the lack of SCSI won't matter.
Computers and aesthetics (Score:1)
I'd rather like to see computers become more attractively styled (and I don't mean tacky futurist fantasies of fluorescent colours). I also wouldn't mind if a lot of the functions of PCI slots and direct motherboard access were replaced by the likes of USB, FireWire and perhaps PCMCIA; most computers take up too much space as it is.
Modern Macs have good case designs (Score:1)
333MHz iMac? (Score:1)
Log
Terrible price/performance ratio? (Score:1)
not bad
.
Re: (Score:1)
mine did 2400 fine... (Score:1)
cuz I had custom UART code :-) My BBS software also let the C= caller hear real-time music, see interrupt driven character and sprite animation, as well as play online games with their joystick, all at 300 baud(provided they used my term software).
My BBS and term software also took advantage of the fact that 300 baud modems could be pushed to 450-500 baud without any problems. The users without the money to upgrade to a 1200 or 2400 really appreciated the free 50-67% speed boost.
If you lived in Corpus Christi, Tx from 83-87 or Houston from 88-91 you might have called it - The Dragon's Lair(yep, tis I, The Dm). I eventually dropped out of the BBS scene due to lack of interest. I had discovered the internet in the late 80's at U of H, and was busy in newsgroups and getting Amiga Demos from AMINET :-)
I had some other fun software for the C= 128: 128 Invaders, an 80 column Space Invaders clone(one of the few games that used the 80 column screen); a program to change the 80x25 screen to 80x50 (rewrote part of the print support for that and turned on interlaced video mode); and a 25% speed-booster for the 128's 40 column screen(a raster interrupt that turned the 2MHz switch on whenever the scanline was in the top/bottom screen borders, or back to 1MHz when in the visible portion)
This looks interesting, (Score:1)
It's actually what I wished the iMac was more like(using LCD instead of a tube).
been done before (Score:1)
Cute computers (Score:1)
ughh, integrated monitors (Score:1)
Not really. The moment that the Mac clones hit the shelves (and I lost my 50% discount on Apple equipement - a good reason to stick with them) I built a clone out of parts. It was cheaper. Now that we don't have clones, we're back with Apple.
I buy Macs because I:
That kind of nonsense does work in the PC market, by the way. The iMac is sold mostly to generic consumers. How many generic consumers buy Compaq monitors with Compaqs, Dell monitors with Dells, Apple monitors with Apples, etc? 99.44% of them, that's how many. It has nothing to do with the Mac, and everything to do with the market that buys consumer-oriented computers.
Me, I like Sony's trinitron tubes. I use an Apple monitor with an OEMed Sony tube on my Mac. (Got it under that 50% discount) But then, I'm not a generic consumer.
OTOH, I'd pay $100-200 for an ornate brass and cherrywood case for my computer, just to make it look nice. I also buy my clothes not only for functionality, but also to look nice. If it costs a little extra for a better look that's okay. I'm deliberately buying a better look. That's got value to some people dontcha know.
The PowerPC chips (Score:1)
In the beginning there was IBM.
Well who did you expect? Transmeta? Maybe?
Anyhow, back in the mid seventies, their 801 project, which was not really a microprocessor for a while longer, really helped get RISC started. Seymour Cray was involved in an earlier proto-RISC project, but then he was a blue ribbon genius.
Well, IBM did use some of their RISC developments, but it wasn't until the early nineties that they created the POWER1 chip (which is not really all that RISCy, but that's neither here nor there - it did evolve from the 801 project, is all)
In '92, Apple, IBM and Motorola (collectively known as AIM, or the Smith Street Gang ;) got together and began developing the PowerPC design, which was based off of POWER and was intended to replace the Motorola 68000 series (which it basically did) and the Intel x86 series, which is still crawling along, much to everyone's surprise.
The first PowerPC chip was the 601, and it can be considered a Generation 1 chip in this family (G1).
The 603 chip, intended primarily for laptops, but also used in low-end systems due to it being quite cheap, was more or less a G2 chip. The version that Apple used more frequently was the 603e, which had a larger cache - critical for laptops, where a L2 cache would prove detrimental.
The big name G2 chip was the 604. Rather than being a heavily POWER influenced design it was the first 'real' PowerPC chip. Its big brother is the rarely seen 620, which expanded the design to 64 bits, but was only really used for the IBM RS/6000 machines, and maybe some others. It was kind of slow, and arrived late, and is quite large and hot, IIRC.
There was also a rumored 615 chip which would have an x86 core as well as a 604. This never materialized however, but it's a neat, if useless (probably too expensive and unpredictable) idea.
The G3 that Apple touts is really the 750 chip. I suspect that they call it the G3, because it sounds better when compared to the PII. ;)
Well, to be quite frank, although the 750 is damned fast, and exceptionally cheap (it destroyed the market for used macs) it is actually pretty weak in the FPU department as compared to the 604, and is more of a successor to the 603. It's a cheap laptop chip that's popular in desktops due to low cost and reasonable performance.
Copper wiring is also now being used in the 750's (my G3 Blue and White has a copper chip) which not only boosts clock speeds by approx 33%, but also is an excellent folk debugging remedy. ;)
A little later this year, hopefully by July (the NY Macworld show) we'll see the first Macs with the G4 processor which will have several innovations.
First, it'll have additional instructions (collectively known as Altivec) which are somewhat like the MMX extensions. They're supposed to speed up a number of 128 bit 'multimedia' operations by operating in parallel with the int and fpu. While they have been reported to speed a lot of stuff up a great deal, I think that Motorola's management heard about the MMX announcement some years back and told their designers to one-up them. It would explain why they're so late.
Also, although we're unlikely to see this on anything that actual people can afford, AIM is also going to be making multiprocessor G4 chips. That is, multiple processors on the same piece of silicon. That should be hella fast, but i doubt they'll be used in much outside of servers and the worlds' most wicked pissah photoshop box (1 GB RAM, natch)
For more information on Grank Funk... er, PowerPCs, check out http://infopad.eecs.b erkeley.edu/CIC/archive/cpu_history.html [berkeley.edu], http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC/ [mot.com] and http://www.chips.ibm.com/products/ppc/ [ibm.com]
You caught us! (Score:1)
Basically this is because there are special subliminal suggestions blitted onto the screen by QuickDraw that say something to the effect of:
"IF YOU'RE A STRAIGHT MAN, DON'T USE THIS COMPUTER"
In fact, although the famous 1984 ad was broadcast during SuperBowl XVIII, the director (John Waters, not Ridley Scott, as many are led to believe) the messages printed on the bottom of the large screen encouraged straights watching to run right out during halftime and buy IBMs.
Although System 7.1, QuickTime, the Newton, and several other Apple products have always initially attracted straight men to them for their exceptional ease-of-use, or cool technology, or what have you, Apple has always consciously taken steps to prevent their actually using them.
I guess you were just too clever for us Ellis.
I liked his mugs (Score:1)
Sparc IPX (was "Off Topic") (Score:1)
I think the Novell reference is probably unintentional. Sun put out a less powerful workstation (25 MHz sparc instead of 40 MHZ, bwtwo instead of cgsix framebuffer built-in) in the same "lunchbox" case called the Sparcstation IPC. A place to check our for more info would be www.sunhelp.com - they have links to various info on old and new Suns alike.
On the subject of Imac-like computeres and Suns, there were also the Sparc SLC and ELC systems. *Very* much like an Imac in design, excapt no internal hard drive. There was an external SCSI port that could presumably be used for that purpose, though.
iNet appliance (Score:1)
| footprint of a keyboard and not cost 3x as much
| as the equiv desktop
This has already been done. Heck, computers for the home basically started out this way (C=64, etc.). More recently, Commodore basically had two products that were (for the time) baiscally what you describe - the A600 and the A1200. You could even hook them up to a television.
been done before (Score:1)
Too big. it's a keyboard-and-cpu-in-one-unit design, but it's certainly not a "PC Keyboard" sized computer like the A600 or A1200 were. My Sparc IPX has less of a footprint.
Computer styling (Score:1)
or, Why your computer will "come in colors" too.
I hate to link off-site, but here's a lengthy (and refreshingly flame/troll free) discussion of computer styling.
Check it out [arstechnica.com].
Still wrong, nyahh! (Score:1)
Some computer were all 'keyboard' like my old MC-10 and the Commodore 64. I remember the IIGS well because my friend bought one and was playing around with Bill Cosby soundfiles the day I came over and saw it. btw, don't take it personally, I'm smiling and I view this as a fun challenge
I guess you were born yesterday :-> (Score:1)
Apple neither pioneered that a-i-o nor the separate case style as both had been in existence by many manufacturers for years. To imply Apple stole either idea or pioneered either idea is ludicrous!
were you born yesterday!? (Score:1)
I'd have to agree... (Score:1)
girls like Macs? Too bad Mac users are all gay (Score:1)
Where does it go? (Score:1)
It is true that a bunch of people, whether you want to insult them or not, buy things like computers because they look pretty. I know a handful of people who want iMacs who have never really shown much of an interest in anything more complicated than a toaster.
But are computer manufacturers interested in these types of computers? You bet! Absolutely! Right now, in obedience to Moore's Law, technology moves fast enought to make hardware obsolete very quickly. But with these "toaster" style computers (just plug it in!) you will have to buy a whole new system on your next upgrade cycle instead of just another $100 bucks for some new component.
"Oh, but the computers will be cheaper, so people will be able to afford them more easily", I hear you say. Bunk and double bunk. You'll just end up buying a new system slightly less often than you would have bought the smaller component. Computer makers stand to make WAY more profits on these 'quickie'-style computers.
I'm all for cheaper, but this tends to remind me of the 'integrated hardware on the motherboard' discussion a while back.
and what has Apple done? (Score:1)
Next, what about Quicktime? Are you saying QT 3.x and 4.0 are "small things?" Try again. It's going to kick the crap out of Real and Windows Media Player.
Again, the surge of USB products (while not an Apple invented technology) lies SOLELY with the iMac and Apple. They pushed hard for it and vendors who make USB peripherals are seeing a nice increase in sales. Don't tell me there is no USB market.
I won't argue with you about service. Apple needs to get its tushy in gear as far as that's concerned.
Portable computers (Score:1)
Dell should come up with an original idea... (Score:1)
Huh???? (Score:1)
Huh???? (Score:1)
CD ROM is fine. (Score:1)
Interesting math here... (Score:1)
The current iMac uses, as you correctly pointed out, a 266 Mhz PPC G3.
While rumors about (and some vague confirmation) a fourth revision of the iMac in the next week or so to 300 or 333 Mhz, you are right to point out that the current one uses a 266.
Russell Ahrens
To Quote David Letterman... (Score:1)
The days of old (Score:1)
iPC (Score:1)
Personally, I absolutely adore my home and work dell cases. Mainly because dell is one of the few big companies that still make the top of the case flat, so it's easy to sit stuff on top of. Although, a cow spotted box would definitely be a plus. Perhaps cow spotted with a flat top? I can dream.
G3 (Score:1)
That said, one should evaluate a system by real-world results. When you buy a computer, you're buying a system, not just a processor. If the system as a whole performs poorly, it doesn't really matter whether it's due to anemic hardware or poorly written software. You know the saying, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
You also seem to be exaggerating the G3's abilities compared to x86 machines. With equal clock speeds, the G3 is somewhat faster (10-20%) than a PII for most tasks (that was the NTSL result IIRC). But since PIIs (and now PIIIs, which are about 10% faster than similarly clocked PIIs) are available at higher clocks, (and usually lower $) than the G3, the performance edge of the G3 is eliminated when comparing high end chips of each type.
As for your assertion that if you code the same routine in PPC asm and x86 asm, the PPC one will win, the truth of that depends highly on what routine you're coding. Each processor will do better at certain tasks than others. And since the assembly will differ for each, due to the different instruction sets, there may be more efficient ways to do a particular task in one processor than the other. Especially in the case of routines that could make use of things like the Katmai instructions. In some, the PPC chip may blow away the x86, whereas in other routines it could very well be the opposite.
I'm not sure where the "3D rendering" Celeron vs G3 story came from, but it's possible that it's based on some routine that happens to run much better on P6-based chips than G3s...but whether it is or not doesn't really matter since it's clearly not representative of overall performance. It could just be a rumor. Such things tend to abound on the Net
It would be interesting to see how Linux systems running on both x86 and PPC hardware fared...it might erase some of the penalty MacOS imposes on the PPC hardware.
iMac cute? (Score:1)
So no, you're not the only one who thinks the iMac is not cute. Even some Mac fans I know think it's pretty ugly.
-- my $.02
cheap? (Score:1)
Small footprint: yes, this is definitely an advantage of the iMac. I wonder though how many people really even considered this in their purchasing decision.
"Coolness": well, that really depends on who you ask. I know people who think it's absolutely hideous (including some die-hard Mac fans), and there are others who think it's incredibly great.
Price/performance: well, not at all. You can get much better performing PCs for the same cost (or less) than the iMac. For example, a PC from Quantex (I have a Quantex and have been most impressed with it, and their tech support on those few occasions I needed it):
for $1218:
Intel Celeron Processor 333MHz
96MB SDRAM
17" Monitor
16MB Voodoo 3 2000 AGP 2x video
8.4 Gig Ultra ATA Hard Disk
56K fax/modem
128-bit PCI wavetable sound card
32X Max Variable Speed CDROM Drive
Stereo speakers
Keyboard and MS mouse
USB
3.5" 1.44MB Floppy Drive
Quantex ATX Mid Tower Case
MS Windows 98
Corel WordPerfect Office Suite 8
MS Money 97
Dr. Solomon's AntiVirus
AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, Epoch software
and other misc. titles
3-year limited warranty with 1 year on-site service
24-hr./7-day Technical Support
============================
versus the iMac for $1199:
PowerPC G3 processor @ 266MHz
32 MB SDRAM
15" Monitor
6 MB ATI Rage Pro Turbo
6 Gig IDE hard disk
56K modem
ethernet port
sound (of unspecified capabilities)
24x variable speed CDROM
USB
Keyboard & mouse
MacOS 8.5.1
AppleWorks
Adobe Page Mill
Quicken 98
Earthlink software
and a couple other misc. titles
plus whatever tech support situation Apple has
======================
The two machines have almost exactly the same price, with comparable software bundles, but the hardware on the Quantex is just leagues ahead of the iMac.
I can attest that setup of the Quantex should also be about as easy as the iMac. Cables are all color coded, making initial setup of the box easy. Also included is a easy-to-read/use setup guide, which is basically a poster-like thing with basic instructions in case you need it. All you do is plug the cables into their color-coded positions and turn the thing on. AOL setup is easy, and you're on the Net quickly.
oh, BTW, since you asked even Dell can do better than the iMac: ($1156 gives Celeron 333, 64MB SDRAM, 17" monitor, ATI 8MB AGP video, 32x CDROM, 64voice wavetable sound, 56K modem, Win98, MS Works 99 and MS Money 99, Keyboard and Logitech Mouse w/wheel, 3-yr warranty, 1-yr next day onsite service, floppy drive, McAfee Antivirus, yadda yadda yadda)
*having* a disk cripples a PC (Score:1)
Very few people are interested in a PC's flexibility. It just happens to be the only way you can run AOL, Quicken and Word 97. Give someone something with those apps in ROM or on a DVD, and let them save documents on a network or on flashcards, and I swear they'll hug you. And this is the real reason why the next-generation consumer OS from Microsoft isn't going to be NT. It's going to be CE, and Microsoft knows this already.
In order to make a desktop computer truly easy to use and bring maintenance to absolute zero (which is what it should be), you have to stop trying to add layers of software to a PC and rather strip the complex crap away. Leaving a thin device.
Dell should copy the G3 case design (Score:2)
is sweet. Click a latch on the side of the
case and the whole motherboard panel drops
down (all connectors still intact) -- everything
is right there for easy picking, the hard drive,
RAM simms, adapters. Very nice case design.
What a non-news item (Score:2)
yes yes yes, but ALL benchmarks suck (Score:2)
The industry DOES need an accepted *standard* for measuring CPU's. Intel doesn't seem interested in such a thing however.
To me, claiming MHz is EXACTLY the same as "claiming RMP" in a car. Better benchmarks are 0-60, quarter-mile, and the torque curve.
The SpecINT and fpINT, and BYTEmarks are only part of the picture.
That post had a score of 3? (Score:2)
One thing I DON'T like about this system is it will auto-subtract posters like MEEPT! who sometimes has some clever (or at least witty) postings that are no less on topic than everyone else. Sometimes...
I think you mean Celeron vs. AMD not G3.. (Score:2)
The Celleron DOES get decent floating point but only if you compare it to AMD or Cyrix. If you compare an Intel offering against the PowerPC 750 ("G3") or say an Alpha, you're simply not in the same ballpark.
Read up on it. This is one of the "less disputable" platform-characteristics. Floating Point on Intel sucks. Maya and SoftImage may exist on NT, but that's because of a number of pressures (including IT departments), but floating point is not one of them.
How old are you, Mr. Sexist? 12? (Score:2)
Oh, and you did this investigation, didja?
Harboring resentment towards women, especially educated ones, will get you nowhere in life unless you live in saf Afghanistan. Get a life -- maybe you won't grow up to be a stalker.
WAY KEWL pee-cee wEb pAge aRt d00d...
Interesting math here... (Score:2)
Maxtor 6.4GB Hard drive- $114
32MB RAM- $31
24x cdrom- $29
Diamond Viper 330 (Riva 128 3D)- $47
15" - $100
Case- $28
Total $528
Add in misc software and there is a $600 roughly equivalent system.
All prices are from pricewatch.com
Dell's too cynical to pull it off (Score:2)
The iMac is just the next logical step in integrated systems like this.
price/performance (Score:2)
Er, sonny (g), a bit older than that. My *mother* was a computer programmer at one time, and she's in her seventies. Remember, the first electronic computers were built in the 1940s, and were being bought up by businesses in the 1950s. COBOL and FORTRAN date back that far.
I don't know that my Mom would have any interesting in putting her own box together these days, but my father-in-law, also in his 70s, and never a professional programmer (though he's tinkered with them nearly forever - he's the guy that coined the word "bionics") certainly could.
iPC (Score:2)
"Cuteness" can only sell a system for so long. Once people realize that iMacs weren't being built with the (in my mind) necessary baseline features for a system nowadays, someone else had to step in and do it better. Build a good-looking system that has a DVD drive, 128Mb RAM, 17" monitor. Want to make it extra special? Throw in SCSI and Firewire. Who needs internal peripherals anyway?
Sure, one can argue that the next iMacs have that (see www.macosrumors.com). Or that SGIs have done it for years. But it was only a matter of time before a major Wintel player entered the ring.
All along, I figured Compaq would be the company to do it. They've got enough market share and enough guaranteed consumer base (think of all the places that ONLY buy from compaq... companies, schools, etc). Compaq has the in-store audience, too, that Apple seems to be losing despite strong iMac sales. (Just this week, I was in contact with several Best Buys, CompUSAs, and office supply stores that sold out of all their iMacs in just a few days, but never even attempted to stock more.)
The problem with Compaq is the price premium, as always. You're paying more for stuff you don't get. But that's there because of their "guaranteed customer base." So businesses have been moving to Dell and the public have been moving to Gateway.
Sheesh, why didn't Gateway do this? They're the ones that have the home entertainment PC audience. Imagine a cow-colored PC. I would buy one of those in an instant.
Computers are getting so cheap that aesthetics DO matter. Powerful beige boxes just don't hack it anymore.
Nor do underpowered teal, green, pink, orange, or purple ones.
-Chris
(Of course, I'd love to buy an iMac and turn it into an iLinuxPPC)
Interesting math here... (Score:2)
And who makes that box? I trust Apple's hardware over some no-name computer company.
Don't forget about that cool case. Sure beats beige.
--
Once again... (Score:2)
--
Dell should copy the G3 case design (Score:2)
-Too big: It's how big it needs to be. If it were any smaller, you'd have grognards carping about the lack of internal expandability. If you want a small case, get an iMac or a powerbook.
-Security: If somebody can't be bothered to use a lock, they're not worried about security. Note that I have a key for just about every other computer on my person at all times...it's called a Phillips screwdriver.
-Upgradability: Users who don't want to upgrade buy iMacs. Users who DO want to upgrade buy PowerMac G3's.
You needn't have a tight case to have an elegant case. For those people (the PowerMac G3's target audience) who DO know their way around the inside of a computer, the easy accessibility is a boon.
Dell's too cynical to pull it off (Score:2)
The thing that cracks me up is that Dell isn't the first company to say this. After the iMac came out, a slew of PC makers (eMachines for one) and even Intel started pooh-poohing it, saying many of the same things that are being said on this discussion board. You know, not enough options, where's the floppy?, underpowered, overpriced, hard to expand, blah blah blah. And I remember a couple of companies slapping together prototype lookalikes and saying they could sell the same thing for $600 or whatever.
But the proof is in the pudding, and almost a year later, nobody's actually brought forth a competitor. Even Dell is, what, over a year away? And I don't think they'll ever be able to. The first iMac-style PC will be an embarrassment: you'll have to wade through a thousand options before you even buy it (processor, ram, video card, sound card, etc.), it'll have PCI and ISA slots, serial ports, external speakers, and forty-five minutes of "registration and personalization" when you turn the computer on, like any Windows PC you buy these days. PC makers just won't be able to make the tough sacrifices that Apple did when they designed the iMac.
The iMac succeeded because most people don't have the interest, patience or knowledge to seek out, configure and maintain the absolute top-of-the-line computer. Most people just want to run Office, IE, Outlook and a couple of games. And for that stuff, a 450 MHz Pentium versus a 266 MHz G3 just does not provide much extra benefit. USB is a great consumer interface -- it's so easy -- and Apple was right to force everyone to use it. And, to be honest, I think Apple sells a lot of iMacs because techy people like us know that we can tell our mothers, girlfriends and co-workers to buy them for home, spend at best an hour helping them set up, and never have to think about it again.
The pretty boxes sure got a lot of attention at the beginning, but I think they could start making beige iMacs at this point and they'd sell just as well. Listen to the testimonials and you'll hear that people in general are very pleased with their computers.
Dell can't get their prices down to Apple's... (Score:3)
Anyways, last time I priced a Dell Dimension v333c it came out to $2300! Never mind that the G3 is faster than a Pentium3... this Dell is a CELERON! The G3 is faster than the Celleron by *QUITE* a noticable margin.
For THAT price I could get a G3 WITH MONITOR, same memory and a BETTER video card. Dell vs. Apple is a much better comparison than say Apple vs. eMachines
Yes, but how many RC5 keys does your AMD crack? (Score:3)
If you want to be fair, base the AMD against the discontinued G3's that are less than 300 MHz... or maybe a discontinued 604e 200MHz system which can be had *very* cheap these days (and run not just Linux but also BeOS, for whatever that is worth..)
Wrong, the iMac is ZIF socket upgradable.. (Score:3)
Also, because they are built using PowerPC CPU's, the iMacs are very tolerant of overclocking.
As soon as I have had my G3 PowerMac for a full 60 days I will overclock it from 300 to 350, or 400 if it's stable.
The new IBM copper-process PowerPC CPU's can be taken from their "rated" 400 MHz up to the current record of a stable 560MHz... and they DO NOT OVERHEAT. the limiting factor is usually the 100 MHz speed RAM, or the cache.
Off Topic (Score:3)
What does the IPX in Sun IPX mean? Is is a reference to a (corporate) Novell network?
I like the Pizza Box case idea that Sun (and Apple) used to have. Pick your monitor, sound, network, video, and SCSI on the motherboard suits most people fine.
I've work at places that buy standard size but have a Technician-Shall-Not-Open-The-Case policy. The labor costs of upgrading an existing box apparently are much more expensive than just buying a new one.
--
iPC (Score:3)
The all-in-one PC is hardly a new idea. Even excepting the original Mac, Apple has had (non-colored) all-in-one models for 10 years.
Compaq has made all-in-one presarios, as well as a model that included a flat panel display. Others have followed.
The iMac is interesting because it's the first time this case style has gotten out of the educational market ghetto.
--
Very interesting developments (Score:3)
-random Chinese proverb, probably Confucian =)
So Apple set a trend and benchmark; consumers are at least as fashion conscious as power conscious. iMac flavors, design, and cuteness sells.
Why not? Notice the VW neoBeetle, for example!
However, I note several problems and have several thoughts.
A lot of people bash the iMac for cost, noting quite accurately that one could build a similarly powered system for half the price, without realizing that one would need to be knowledgable enought to build and maintain said computer. Call it a stupidity tax if you want, but that cost can be justified by the simpleness and attempt at being plug and play.
It's not as if a comparable Dell or Gateway costs $600 dollars right now. Is it me? With 6GB HD, 32MB memory, 32x CDROM(and floppy of course), and 15" monitor, the price is (gasp!) $1,018, not that far off from the iMac's $1,199 price, plus the fact you get to chose a color.
My guess is if Dell goes for the future consumer PC with larger monitor and such, Apple will beat it to the punch(12-18 months? Why so long for a PC maker the size of Dell?), with faster processors, better video cards, and larger monitors.
In a year I'd expect Apple's iMac to come with a nice quality 17" monitor, at least a 450MHz CPU, 64mb of memory, an ATI Rage Fury 32mb adaptor(about the same as a current TNT, not the Fury Pro), at least 6GB of HD space, perhaps ISDN or whatever revolutionary internet connectivity standard is hot, and separate speakers with 3d sound capability.
Assuming Apple doesn't make another blunder somewhere.
The PC market is still not offering anything cheaper than an iMac with it's functionality, performance, or style.
You can build your own, but that isn't the point.
Dell probably isn't the only one, just the first/only one to publicly announce it.
I also think that Apple's future device will drop below $1,000 dollars, and if bundled with MacOSX, will beat hands down Windows98, assuming it has all the standard features that Win98 and MacOS8.6 currently has. Windows will be on SR2 or whatever, with Win2k being to big and bloated for home use, and Win2k Personal won't be available yet.
I really think Apple is on the ball here.
AS
Form factor matters for consumers (Score:3)
For computers to become a ubiquitous device it needs to be in a form factor that consumers are familiar with. Most people do purchase TVs, with the intention of upgrading the speakers or the tuner, nor do they purchase microwave ovens with based on whether or not they can upgrade the turtable significantly later. What drives purchases in the consumer market are:
1) Ease of use - Can I plug it in and use it?
2) Features/capabilities built in - I'll choose the model that has the features I want built in!
3) Price - Can I afford it?
By making a computer a consumer device, Dell (or any manufacturer for that matter) has an incredible opportunity to make the killer consumer device. Imagine, what if in a form factor similar to an IMac there was a device that has the following capabilities:
17" monitor/touchscreen
64mb Ram, upgradeable via small removable panel on side.
4gb drive
DVD Drive
SVideo Out
TV Tuner capabilities
Integrated Sound w. Speakers plus AC3 and the usual audio inputs/outputs in back, headphone jack in front
2+ USB ports, make KB & mouse use USB
Port for home automation
10Mbit Network Card
56K modem
Joystick port in front
What does this device do? Replaces many consumer electronic entertainment devices...
Want to watch a DVD movie? Pop it in and watch on monitor, or connect it to TV...
Want to Manage Checkbook? Click/touch the checkbook icon...
Want to play a game? No problem, plug gamepad in front of unit and run the game...
Want to surf? Fire it up...
Heck, with a big enuf HD (or one reserved for that) you could even replace your VCR....
I'm not saying these specs are what should be done, instead they represent what could be done. A device that replaces or can control so many components would be successful in the consumer market.