Apple Gains Ground in GHz Battle [Archive]

barhar

01-30-2003, 10:28 AM

I will not disagree that any Macintosh is expensive - relative to an Intel / Intel Clone PC.

Having both - an [1.4 GHz I beleive] Athlon based PC mainly for MicroController and USB Development - for the Macintosh Platform, irronically - and seven different Macintosh Models [from a couple of $2400 'MacPluses' to the $3500 'dual 500 MHz G4 PowerPC PowerMac] - I can say the price for the Macintosh'es are worth it.

I understand each of the above Posters may and will disagree - that is fine with me and expected. I will not get into a Reply to a Reply Mode however.

When at the last place I worked - what I did on a PC for three or four Hours, I could do in less than one with a Macintosh - of any Model! Again, I know this as fact and will not prove each and every Comment.

Windoze98 is my choice for my PC - after using Windoze NT / 2000, and XP, I just prefer the Windoze98 Interface and overall speed.

Now - before you beleive this to be a Mac vs PC Post - it is not.

Since Apple released MacOS X [Version 10.0.0] about two years ago - I have been very dissatisfied with the perofrmance and User Interface of the 'new' MacOS.
Yes, it has a UNIX Core - but 'Finder' cripples MacOS X.
When I boot into System 9.2.2 and use only one MicroProcessor [excluding the use of second MicroProcessor with specific Software - such as 'Photoshop'] my 'dual 500 MHz' zips about, Windows open and close instantly - as well as Menus, etc.
When I boot into MacOS X - Version 10.2.3 [this latest and greatest, in Speed and Functions] the 'dual 500', with both MicroProcessors used, is no better than 75% as 'zippy' as when booted with System 9.2.2.

I have documented nearly one hundred inconsistencies, with MacOS X - many, if not all, verified by othere I communicate and visit with.

So, as you see - I am not a Windozez Fan, nor - with MacOS X as the Flagship OS - an Apple Fan.

I do use both Computers to perform the fucntions I need - work and personal wise; and, yes - the PC is typically the pushed to one the side - with its 38.1 cm [15"] diagonal Monitor, as the Macintosh is connected to the 53.34 cm [21"] diagonal Sony Triniton.

I program using Visual Basic and Visual C / C++ on the PC; and, with RealBasic, C, C++, Perl, MacPerl, Java, and AppleScript on the Mac.

When troubleshooting Hardware, System Software, or third-Party Software - the Macintosh is second to none in figuring out and correcting the Problem(s). System 9.2.2 above MacOS X to keep a proper prospective. The Intel based Platform troubleshooting is not so straight forward.

I first Computers were a TI-99/4A [1983] and Apple IIc [1984]. Actually, I used a 'Wang' Computer at West Philadelphia Catholic High School for Boys in 1974; and, then would visit a nearby 'Radio Shack' Store to program and play on a 'TRS-80' ['Trash 80'] as early as 1977 or 78.

BarHar

Bloodhawk89

01-30-2003, 04:00 PM

The apple computers are still to darn expensive. And the fact that ou have to have a dual cpu to beat a single P4 is pathetic!

barhar

01-30-2003, 05:36 PM

No. When I purchase a Computer of any type or recommend one - I do not stop and think 'Oh, which PowerPC or Intel / Intel Clone Processor is this going to beat?'.

I typically, recommend on the basis of what one needs to do, what others they work / play along with, etc.

I myself purchased the dual 500 MHz G4 PowerPC PowerMac for its 'Altevec Technology' which indeed is much better than any MMX implementation. And as a side Note - the single 500 MHz G4 Processor ranked equivalent to the 1.2 or 1.4 GHz Pentium of its Day. These are not my Numbers but an average of those posted on the Internet. Yes, I know - anyone can publish anything ... on the Internet. Also noted - just because it has two Processors does it mean one doubles the Computers performance. I would say up to 60 Percent, at least for me.

With respect to expensive - all I know is all my Macintosh'es from the 1985 MacPluses to the most recent dual 500 MHz G4 PowerPC PowerMac have worked since Day one. No visits to any Repair Facility. This is my experience; I have had to refer other Macintosh Users to a Repair Facility once I determined an AppleCare [Apple Computer's Insurance Plan] Part was at fault or I did not want to handle the liability on removing a stuck CD-ROM Disk.

With respect to my no-name Athlon PC - I used it less than ten Days and the Power Supply died. One Week to the Day later the Hard Disk Drive failed. While I know that Apple uses basically the same Parts - I cannot say I am not really impressed with the PC. Yet, I do use it since it is the right Tool for a particular Job.

By the way there are many dual Pentium Systems out there too. Looking at their Specifications - I am not too impressed with them either; nor, their Prices.

Bar Har

thronka

01-30-2003, 06:30 PM

Its not the price or hardware.. its the software that some people are required to use.

BiG MiKeY

01-30-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by thronka
Its not the price or hardware.. its the software that some people are required to use.

no apple r based on a total diffrent architechture ..... they use RISC chips... and yes they are a hell of alot more powerful that CISC chips (pc)

becuz of that diffrent architehture u HAVE to use diffrent software... that y apple wont take off for a very long time or maybe ever

u know how amds chips r less powerful in mhz although they can beet a faster pentium.... well apple take that to a whole new level

amount of work per clock cycle
1. Apple
2. AMD
3. Cyrix (i hate intel)
4. Pentium

here is a site for some facts..... here (http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/)

iceblue

01-30-2003, 09:45 PM

time for some real facts (http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000335).

say bye bye mac enthusiasts for the last time.:t

paul0660

01-30-2003, 10:47 PM

I really need a definative answer to this discussion, as my son is ready to upgrade his old G4 with something. He runs adobe indesign and photoshop mainly, and his 300 or 400 mhz single is very slow. I can build him a p4 system that will overclock to nearly 3 ghz for $700, or he can go with the mid sized mac for three times more. I think if the performance were equivelent he would prefer the mac even at the higher price. But is can the performance be the same? I read another benchmark comparison (heck it might be the same one):

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

that certainly seems to say that the mac is MUCH slower. Yet barhar, and many other mac users say stuff like:

"When at the last place I worked - what I did on a PC for three or four Hours, I could do in less than one with a Macintosh - of any Model!"

I don't have an ax to grind. Although Mac is sort of a ripoff I think Apple has done as much for personal computing as anyone. Without those guys we would still be typing c:/ to start the day. (Of course without wintel we might still be paying $4000 for an 8088!) So barhar, or anyone else, how is it possible that Macs can do the equivelent amount of work in less time, given these benchmark comparisons we are looking at?

AllGamer

01-30-2003, 10:57 PM

How important, is your Son's work?

Does the system needs to be ready and available anytimes he needs it?

if you said yes to any of them

then the MAC is a better choice

sure P4 or AMD XP are good and fast and low cost

but you suffer when it comes to Windows
and the other hardwares, and how the Same software perform in them

so the basic trade off is the Power/low cost vs Efficientc/high cost

in Windows Adobe softwares are much more resource intensive compared to MAC versions

and yes they do crash if some files are too large even with more than enough system requirements

it's... just one of those Windows thing :t

paul0660

01-30-2003, 11:14 PM

Thanks Allgamer, but I do not buy the reliability arguement. I know of Macs that crash, and pc's that do not. (Like all the ones I have built). That sort of mythmaking is what Apple users (and Apple) rely on to further the religion.

Anyone who has used OS9 vs. OSx knows that Apple knows how to screw up software as well as MS can, but I do believe that the Adobe programs do run more efficiently on Macs. HOWEVER, the benchmark comparisons we have referred to were RUN ON THESE PROGRAMS! Is not completion of a task in the shortest time an attribute? It looks like the mac takes about 50% longer or more in every PS benchmark, and I would expect that ratio to stay the same comparing the faster P4 system I am contemplating vs. the new Mac offerings.

The question I guess is are these tests somehow comparing apples and oranges? (sorry). I really want to get to the bottom of barhars 4 hours vs. 1 hour statement.

AllGamer

01-30-2003, 11:32 PM

well yeah, regardless of PC vs MAC

when you have such a Clock difference you are definitely comparing Apples vs Oranges :p

is the same dilema with AMD vs Intel

when you compare AMD vs Intel Clock by Clock AMD does the job twice as good at the same speed

and the same deal is with the MAC

when you compare clock by clock, the MAC does run more efficient and faster than Intel

oh BTW, AMD CPU has some MAC in its gene, both share the RISC architecture in their core

but well with what is currently offered at the Retail level

then sure a PC system at the moment is better

just this weekend i set up a mid high end system for an office that does exactely that

AutoCAD, Adobe All, and other Graphical stuff

and i just set them up with a whole new batch of AMD 1800 + All In Wonder (they do videos stuff too), a Gig of RAM and prenty of HDD space etc etc..

all for just $700 canadian each

that's around $450 us, so it's a huge bargain compared to the old PCs/old Macs systems

:D :t

but 1 thing is true, their old MACs never gave them any problem, but PCs was like a non stop thing

so after a while they just got pissed by the old crappo P , P2 and P3s, so they decided finally to upgrade a couple of weeks ago

now they are happy campers and all waaay below budgeted money, so they got so happy that they used the left over to buy a few Laptops, but too bad they couldn't get any AMD laptops :p

cuz after tasting the Sweet AMDs, now when they have to use the Intel Laptops they have this kind of eeky feels towards intel CPUs

LOL :r

paul0660

01-30-2003, 11:56 PM

Allgamer, I dig the clock speed bs, that is why I am asking about those benchmark results. It doesn't matter the horsepower rating, it matters who gets first in the drag race........doesn't it? I hope barhar comes back and comments on this because what he said was very provacative.....I really do want to know his side by side experience with the 2 platforms, and I would hate to think he is a Machead who spouts the party line and expects us to be convinced.

AllGamer

01-31-2003, 12:08 AM

well as i said, in real life usage, it's obvious the PC side wins by default

but within the PC side, AMD does a better job, even at lower speed compare to Intel

but if you are a P4 fan, well, get a P4 then

and in MAC vs MAC i like MAC OS 9.1 better, i just feels more stable ironically enough :)

lptech

01-31-2003, 01:15 AM

The main question is not the cost but the amount of hassles that the person would tend to run into! Windows XP Professional is a very good OS but still has many problems, henceforth the recent release of Service Pack 1. I've seen both platforms run certain software that does rendering and to be honest, there is alot less hassles running the Mac platform. Again, that is due to the fact that they kept all the software and hardware developers under very tight compliance with their systems.

Yes, I agree that they are more expensive, but to people who just needs to get going on their projects and not need to be bothered with troubleshooting issues. The Mac platform is the way to go! But to those that feel that they are overprice, they don't seem to realize that money is not the issue for the users of Mac but the realization that their time is more precious in doing the job instead of trying to troubleshoot the PC problems.

Again, I myself use both platforms! There are advantages and disadvantages to either one! So my advice is to keep an open mind and learn more instead of trying to say bad things about either platforms Mac or PC!

paul0660

01-31-2003, 02:32 AM

thanks all you guys, I agree it is good to keep an open mind, and that each platform has its advantages. As I said Mac has contributed greatly to the pc revolution, and the competition of Mac vs. wintel, and also AMD vs. Intel, have gotten us to where we are, with hardware unimaginable just a few years ago.

Logan2002

01-31-2003, 02:55 AM

i agree totally. For example if you learn how to build your own pc you can build for so cheap! And get exactly what you want

pc2mac

01-31-2003, 06:38 PM

I've been supporting Mac users for almost ten years and been building PCs at home for five. My two cents:

Macs are much easier to troubleshoot. At least up to OS 9.x. I haven't had too much OSX troubleshoot experience because the darn thing never crashes! Applications may quit unexpectantly but, this won't bring the whole system down like it did under OS 9. The feedback we are getting back from our first 60 OSX installs have been pretty positive.

With Unix at its core, I'm worried that fixing a down OSX machine will soon be like fixing a down windows machine, backup, reformat, and reinstall OS.

I've been running Windows 2000 at home and I've been pretty impressed with its stability. My machines at home don't totaly lock up like they did with Win 98.

I do feel that Macs are too expensive. There is no way I can buy Macs for me, my wife and son but, I was able to build three PCs for the price of one. I haven't had a working Mac at home for almost two years.

The incredible selection of low cost PC parts does come at price. Invariably, you will run into several pieces of hardware that don't like each other. Don't get me started on VIA chipsets and internal IDE device drivers! I just had a troubleshooting experience where an ethernet card will work fine in one PC but, not in another. Had to try two other ethernet cards before it would work. If you are a techie, this is no biggie but, to a newbie, this can be intimidating.

Software availability is what sold me on having a PC at home. No longer do I have to be dissappointed to find out there won't be a Mac version of an application or game.

However, I've found some applications just work better on a Mac than a PC. I tried digitizing some video that my son shot for a school project and it took me hours to get the video editing app and the digitizing board to work correctly. It wouldn't work under Win 2K but, worked fine under Win 98! I've been able to get people up and running on iMovie and a camcorder in under ten minutes on a Mac.

Monday illustrated one huge advantage of the Mac. The SQL worm pretty much prevented several thousand PC users at my company from logging into their ccomputers while all the Macs users were able to keep on working. We have a new company president who uses a PC but, had to view his email from his secretary's Mac. I thougt that was funny.

both platforms have their pluses and minuses. If you are techncially proficient, I feel a PC works out to be a better value. I don't miss not having a Mac at home. I usually point non-computer literate users to Macs.

$1500-P4 gamer

01-31-2003, 06:47 PM

First of all someone here said the pc is cisc. thats wrong. The pc cpu is risc/cisc and the mac is RISC only. pc's cpu risc unit is week in comparison as pcs primarly use cisc. Not reduced but complex codeing. So of course the mac is faster at risc only ops. So if comparing that way try running a pc app at full speed CISC on a mac RISC hahahahhahaha. that is a joke. So is the other way around. The other thing is look at the lowsey title here.

"Apple Gains Ground in GHz Battle "

How in the hell is that? I mean they upped from dual 1.25 to dual 1.4gig Now thats a boost of 150mhz on a 1gig+ chip. You wont even notice that and compaired to 3gig P4 or XP 3000+ a 1.4gig cpu is very slow by all measures. Point is Apple is still WAYYYY behind in this race. Actually their not even in the ghz race at all anymore this is proven by them making a big deal out of a whopping 150mhz boost. Ohh ahhh.. And software wise pc will always own macs. Just to **** widespread pc's are and more used as a result so more proggys are out there and tons more "free" ones. Which is the real denominator of it all. I have a mac here. Not against them at all. they have their uses. They are also harder to trouble shoot when stuff goes bad hardware wise I will say. So be glad they do work long periods of time. All in all the mac is no replacment for pc or vise verse but at the same time I think this article is huge joke. T-ya mac gaining ground on IBM clone pc's alright. LOL.
:rolleyes:

iceblue

01-31-2003, 10:11 PM

wow, so many joining just to say a few words on macs :rolleyes:

iceblue

01-31-2003, 10:15 PM

so i say the people that complain about windows crashing and such dont know how to use it.

causticVapor

01-31-2003, 10:41 PM

One reason why macs are so clean and efficient is because the RISC core is fully risc, not cisc-risc composite like the athlon CPU. It also doesn't have to deal with the x86 instruction set, which is clunky in nature. Take this into mind, and combine that with the small amount of hardware that a mac system can work with. You want full efficiency? Then don't ask for full interchangability. If the MAC had to run x86 instructions, it would need software interpretation, which would be doggedly slow. The x86-xx intel and AMD CPUs are able to overcome the x86 and CISC hurdle with enormous ALU/FPU horsepower and half-RISC operation.

$1500-P4 gamer

01-31-2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by causticVapor
One reason why macs are so clean and efficient is because the RISC core is fully risc, not cisc-risc composite like the athlon CPU. It also doesn't have to deal with the x86 instruction set, which is clunky in nature. Take this into mind, and combine that with the small amount of hardware that a mac system can work with. You want full efficiency? Then don't ask for full interchangability. If the MAC had to run x86 instructions, it would need software interpretation, which would be doggedly slow. The x86-xx intel and AMD CPUs are able to overcome the x86 and CISC hurdle with enormous ALU/FPU horsepower and half-RISC operation.

Yep.:D And to further clear the waters folks both P4 and the Xp are risc/cisc so is the pc x86 way. Do Intel and AMd not run the same progs and etc. yes, so then its obvious that both risc/cisc no.;)

Slade54

02-01-2003, 07:21 PM

You said that some of your software wouldnt work under win2k but under win98. This is not a PC issue, this is a Microsoft issue, they try to force you into new technology that isnt fully backwards compatible, and just say deal with it when you complain. Mac hasnt done this, they have tried to keep as much as possible compatible.

When you talk about that Slammer virus a few days back, that was very easily avoided if you would have applied a 6month old security fix. Though i get where your going with that. But thats the price we pay for MS ****. (thats why i want to make the switch to Linux when i can, i can use a PC or a Mac with that, and with constantly improved software, for free non-the-less)

When you complain about PCs crashing while Macs dont, you simply dont know how to tame the beast. I havent goten a BSOD in ages with win98se. The only drawback to this is it takes time to learn how to tame it, but a Mac is so much more straight forward and properitory, there isnt as much to learn to keep it going smooth.

When you complain about PC hardware failing, you deserve it for buying crappy hardware. Its very easy to find out who makes qaulity hardware, and buy accordingly.

If Macs came down in price, that would make them a much more attractive option. But when you paying twice as much for half of what you could get in the x86 world, with less support, it just isnt worth it.

And when you say it takes 4hours to do something on the PC while only 1 hour on the Mac, can i have an example. I dont trust ppls word (who can with all the **** the media throws at us) Now did it take 4 hours cuz the PC was "slow" or because you didnt know the software and such as well as the Mac? That makes a big difference cuz that a personal preference opinion, not much of a valid argument.

This may seem alot like a Mac bashing article, but im just laying out the facts in front of you, and the fact is the mac has many pitfalls.

If your getting a computer for your grandma, and you want a really simple computer you can teach them to use in 5min and not have to worry about them getting confused or dealing with software crashes, then a mac is a good idea. (man, ive tried showing my grandma things on the pc, but she just can get it) a mac is so much more simple, and more stable right outa thebox, that its simply a better choice for something like this.

I personally hate macs, but i can blame my school for that. When forced to use extremly crappy macs alot, it just makes you angry, and i havent really had access to a good Mac i can build a positive experience on. Though i also have to use crappy PCs too, but when i get home from school, i get to use my PC, so it makes things better.

AllGamer

02-02-2003, 06:03 AM

LOL :r

that was the whole idea why MAC was invented back in the 70s

so people can use the MAC just like they can turn on the TV or a VCR

there are still people out there that still have that 12:00 flashing non stop :p

as far as everything else i do agree

but in regards to Support, that's a whole different story

MAC has excellent support, reason why un-experienced users/buyers likes MAC

cuz they can all up anytime for help, and get stuff fixed on the fly

most of you have most likely called up Tech Support at one point or another
and never got any real help

well MAC support is different, things really gets fixed

instead of the usual in the PC world

"uninstall, reboot, reinstall"
or
"reboot the pc with the Restore CD, and say yes to everything"
:x :r :D

ErnstNF

02-02-2003, 07:03 AM

Iguess a lot of people don't realize that Mac G4 chips are 128 bit processors vs 64 bit Intel/Athlon processors.AND they have a large backside cache. You shouldn't rely on processor speed to determine how fast your machine will be. (eg. Athlon chips) I use both types of machines. My macs will be usable for 5 years before I have to upgrade. Most PCs will have a 2-3 year span before I have to upgrade. Is this an efficient use of a computer? What about all the landfills filled with older PCS?l

Slade54

02-02-2003, 01:53 PM

Yove got your numbers doubled there, x86 is 32bit, while G4 is 64bit

But from what i hear, the real thing that massively criples Mac is their really slow FSB (only 166Mhz)

And the only reason a mac has a live span of 5 years as you say is cuz they are so slow to release new technology, while the PC on the other hand just flys along.

And PCs have longer life times then 2-3, i know ppl using comps almost 5 years old just fine, ppl just give you the 2-3 year illusion cuz they constantly upgrade when they dont really need to.

And believe it or not, i only know of 2 ppl who have thrown away computers, the rest keep them in a box somewhere. Then i usualy take them from them.

$1500-P4 gamer

02-02-2003, 06:48 PM

First off I didnt know they had a 133fsb muchless 166mhz. Last I checked it was only 100mhz fsb on macs. Also Landfill pc's what about real old mac's too. They are about useless. I mean you think a 60mhz Motorolla cpu can do anything usefull. Not anymroe than a Pentium 75mhz pc is. So its all opinion there. True that mhz doesnt mean speed. BUT mac is nowhere near the speed of pc's yet. Try and prove otherwise. By the way the title was about them being in the mhz race which they arent. It said nothing about how efficient it was just that they are supposedly gaining ground on pc's mhz wise and that is a total joke.:t

MDLarson

02-02-2003, 11:08 PM

I would agree that a "MHz race" is a bad race for Apple. 1.42 vs. 3 GHz? I'd forfeit if we're comparing (perceived) speed alone.

But that's not the point of computing is it? We have computers because they do something for us.

Case in point:
I have a 4 1/2 year old PowerBook that I use every week at church. And guess what? I can run Apple's latest OS with no hardware upgrades (except RAM.) THAT is not due to stagnant Apple hardware output, it's due to quality hardware and a good Apple policy of supporting old hardware.

Can anyone run Windows XP on 4 year old hardware? If not, how can you beat that? :p

BiG MiKeY

02-03-2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by MDLarson
Case in point:
I have a 4 1/2 year old PowerBook that I use every week at church. And guess what? I can run Apple's latest OS with no hardware upgrades (except RAM.) THAT is not due to stagnant Apple hardware output, it's due to quality hardware and a good Apple policy of supporting old hardware.

Can anyone run Windows XP on 4 year old hardware? If not, how can you beat that? :p

wut u doin wit a laptop at church anyway .... im jewish (by birth agnostic by choice) i dont c ppl bring their laptops to synagoges....

win xp 4 year old hardware ..... i am in fact its almost 5 years next month.... just need some lots of ram (256 is enough)

Rugor

02-03-2003, 05:24 AM

Sorry guys. The G4 is a 32 bit chip too. The upcoming IBM Power5 chip will be 64-bits, but not the current G4.

Even if Macs were 64 bit at present it wouldn't matter, since they are still using a 32 bit OS. I believe the Altivec Instruction set may be 128 bits, but the processor is 32 bit.

It's good that Mac peformance is increasing, but they still have a long way to go. They are relying on Motorola's offshoots for CPU's while Intel and AMD are spending billions on x86 R&D.

MDLarson

02-03-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by BiG MiKeY
wut u doin wit a laptop at church anyway .... i dont c ppl bring their laptops to synagoges....

win xp 4 year old hardware ..... i am in fact its almost 5 years next month.... just need some lots of ram (256 is enough) I run the PowerPoint slides for worship time. It's not like I'm bored or something so I can play some Starcraft while I sit in church! :p

Serious though? No hardware upgrades for XP? How well does it run?

Here's a direct quote from Apple's site:
The Velocity Engine
Behind the PowerPC G4’s phenomenal performance is its aptly named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it’s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers — except that we’ve added 162 new instructions to speed up computations). In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle — two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.

The PowerPC G4 with Velocity Engine works with the Power Mac G4’s system architecture to accelerate the data-intensive processing required by next-generation video, audio and graphics applications. Among the key G4 features is a vector permute function capable of rearranging data in the registers — a priceless benefit when converting data from one format to another (often necessary with audio, video and graphics apps, which typically need to save data in a number of different formats).I don't know if this makes the whole chip 128 bit, but they claim the Velocity Engine is.

paul0660

02-03-2003, 03:38 PM

I got into this thread on the first page when Barhar said it took a pc 4 times longer to run complicated apps than a Mac. He said it like he knew what he was talking about, but since then he has been absent from the discussion. I have to write his comment off as BS, just more religious claptrap from the Mac owners, who need to defend their purchases with unprovable hyperbole. Wanna have some fun? Go over to

http://www.macdailynews.com/opinion.php

and bring up benchmarks results or any other criticism of Macs and watch the fur fly!

Slade54

02-03-2003, 06:59 PM

Yea, the fact he hasnt showed back up to defend his opinions and "facts" pretty much says hes full of ****.

And thats one reason way ppl dont like MS, is cuz they dont bother with support for the old, for them thats bad, cuz they dont make "as much" money if they supported everything old. That, and Mac so propreitory, so they are able to have much better supprt for the old, while x86 has to support so much more open hardware and software, it complicates things (though it is still doable to a little something called - standards).

BiG MiKeY

02-03-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by MDLarson

Serious though? No hardware upgrades for XP? How well does it run?

yea i just meet the sys requirments .... P2 400mhz 265 ram (although it needs 192) 9gb hd.... good enough the only upgrades i made had no influeince on makin xp run betta.... bigger hds and vidcard

it runs stable since it is xp.... runs slowww but i rather have stability not speed... thats y i switched from 98.... market for a new system... i hope the bartons oc well )-|

MDLarson

02-03-2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Slade54
?while x86 has to support so much more open hardware and software, it complicates things (though it is still doable to a little something called - standards). What do you mean by standards? Is it OpenGL? IDE? USB? PCI? Java? Bluetooth? 802.11b? UNIX? Apache? Not to mention the fact that Mac OS X can pretend to be a Windows box on a network.

Are you talking about strictly hardware standards? Because I have to continually insist that more hardware is Mac compatible than what you give credit for. Just because it doesn't have the Mac logo on the box doesn't mean that it won't work for the Mac. Sometimes the manufacturer simply didn't know they made a Mac compatible component.

As far as building a Mac from readily available hardware, I doubt it. I don't underestimate PC-builders' pride and effort, but for that to be a major obstacle for considering a Mac or even giving Macs due respect is pretty lame IMO.

Rugor

02-03-2003, 09:57 PM

Yes, Macs are much more compatible hardware wise than they used to be. However, it's not perfect compatibility and the Mac isn't designed to work with as many different components as the PC.

In the x86 world we have two major and two minor players for Processors: Intel, AMD, VIA/Cyrix, and Transmeta. Intel, AMD, VIA, SiS, ALi, Nvidia, and ATI all produce desktop chipsets. The OS has to run on all the possible permutations that the hardware supports. Apple has far fewer players in the core logic market. It's much easier to make compatible peripherals than chipsets. Both may support IDE, but Apple has to support far fewer IDE controllers, which is a far different thing than devices.

As to the whole build it yourself issue. That is a very important consideration in this household. We have 4 computers up in our household network at the moment, and will have a fifth in the next two weeks. Of those five computers, only two were bought as complete units : The slowest (a P200) and the 850 Duron that will be arriving in the next couple of weeks. Both of those computers have required significant upgrades.

However, we also have two Athlon XP based systems and a Celeron 300. They were built from scratch, and by judicious use of parts swapping and "hand me down upgrades" we have been able to go from two systems to five for just about the price of a single high end G4. The two Athlon XP systems cost a combined total of $1500 or so. We couldn't have done that without being able to build them ourselves.

MDLarson

02-03-2003, 10:13 PM

Points taken, Rugor. That's the way it should be, I think. The more selection, the better. Now if all those manufacturers held to the same standards? ;) It would be an easier job for any OS.

I think it's interesting that those who proclaim the many choices of PC-compatible components is considered a good thing for PCs, those same people poo-poo the idea of a non-PC computer (Mac.) If choices are good, why is Apple so hated?

I joined this forum knowing the crowd was full of a lot of hard-core PC people. Some of you guys are all-around smart regarding computers of all kinds including Macs, but some of you guys? man.

Maybe I'm just trying to convince people that Apple isn't really all that bad after all. Macs are just another way of "doing" computers. I personally tend to screw something up whenever I dive into a computer case, so I have no desire whatsoever to build my own PC (or Mac.)

Actually, 90% or more of the people I know buy computers as a single unit and could care less about what's inside.

Rugor

02-03-2003, 10:23 PM

I don't think they're bad. I do think that for many of us, including myself and this household they are an inappropriate solution.

They work, but they aren't for everyone.

Logan2002

02-04-2003, 12:20 AM

you know we have all this dialogue. I think it is a good thing.

But really the difference in some of the benchmarks that \I have seen is what a matter of seconds?

Do we really need to upgrade our cpu's, or change from pc to mac or vis versa because of a few seconds? (or 20 seconds?)

AllGamer

02-04-2003, 11:31 AM

Agree, same idea within the PC war itselfs

heck an AMD 1700+ perform just as well as an AMD 2100+ when it comes to office apps etc etc.

the only time you see a performance gain is when you do 3D animation and Games

so in a real work enviroment you'll never noticed a difference unless you work with 3D modeling.

paul0660

02-04-2003, 11:48 AM

Yes, but...........Mac lovers trot out a bunch of arguements to justify their paying 3x or more what a pc costs:

Reliability (maybe, but none of my wintels break unless I open the case)

Better o/s (maybe, but osX is slower than os9)

better ability to handle some programs which are written with the mac in mind (yes but, as the benchmarks show, pc's still run them faster AND, if you are doing a lot of that stuff, 20 seconds longer at each step adds up. )

Finally, Mac is just better, and anyone who does not see that, and use one, is uncouth.......don't believe it? Read this.........

http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P541_0_1_0

Apple is a religion.......it takes faith, and a LOT more money.

christexaport

02-04-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by AllGamer

...but you suffer when it comes to Windows
and the other hardwares, and how the Same software perform in them

problems with windows usually have to do with the system configuration. most systems from retailers are tested for the most popular software, but some high end software may conflict with a chipset or a pci card or what have you. Mac spends lots of time and money on investigating config, which is fine and a good idea. the windows platform is open, so you can build as you like, but you have to investigate the way the stuff you use works together. You can have a nice stable win sys just like a mac if you do your homework.

of course if you arent smart enough to research that stuff, spend for someone else to research relilability, or just plain stupid, buy a mac\

AllGamer

02-04-2003, 02:49 PM

Yup that's why MAC overall runs much better and more stable than any Wintel machine

and for that they pay a price

to businesses that's Quantizable, to Gamers that's obviously not

still out there over 60% of the busineses doing media stuff uses MACs

but that droped from the 90% that was in the past

so yeah more people are being brainwashed to use PCs, around 30%, but for those that needs their machine right there on the spot they rather have a MAC to work on

:t

Slade54

02-04-2003, 05:57 PM

If your a computer simpleton (i.e. most parents, grandparents, etc...) want to have as little hassel as possible, and you have the money, Then by all means, the Mac is your soul mate.

Otherwise, the PC is the only way to go.

christexaport

02-04-2003, 07:55 PM

which leaves me with this:
a pc is a power user's tool. if you know your stuff and are willing to settle compatibility issues before usage, you are at the cusp of computing nirvana.
otherwise, the mac is easy (one button mouses around still?!), user friendly, and less configurable. XP has brought useability to the masses, and pretty soon, a common OS platform for both hardware platforms will exist that is for the people and MAC will be history.

ErnstNF

02-04-2003, 08:05 PM

I see a lot of this: "if you want less hassle"" " or if you're stupid".
"if you configure windows properly".
What's up with that. I don't want to hassling with that stuff all the time. I want play games, surf the net, write up papers without any last second system crash screwing up everthing. I applaud the forum members who love to dig into the guts of the OS and tweak. The mac are for us tired souls exhausted with the constant config problems, constant OS fixes, constant viruses slowing down what a computer is supposed to be.

Rugor

02-04-2003, 09:27 PM

I can't afford a Mac.

I just priced out a 1GHz G4 with a Radeon 9000 Pro, and it costs more than our Athlon XP 1800+ and Athlon XP 2400+ systems did combined. Yes we did win some components, and the Apple has a much better monitor, but it's not as good a gaming platform as the XP 1800+ that's my primary box.

I'm into this machine for less than $1000. It has an ATI Radeon 9500 Pro, and 256mb of DDR.

I can't get the 9500 Pro from Apple, and the 9700 Pro isn't available yet and would add $350 to the base price (not the $50 of the 9000 Pro). I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. I can't get a machine from Apple that plays games as well as my Athlon within my budget

Also, I can't get the same games. I like Neverwinter Nights, and Morrowind. Neither has been released for the Mac, though I expect NWN to be out soon.

In conclusion, for MY uses, the Mac doesn't offer me enough value for my money.

Slade54

02-05-2003, 05:20 PM

Thanks Rugor, that was a good post.

Noticed, he explained why a Mac wasnt a good choice. He didnt just say "Macs suck, dont buy one". He stated why he didnt want to buy one.

If only more people would do that.

MDLarson

02-05-2003, 07:06 PM

You will run into many Mac users over at MacOSX.com (http://www.macosx.com) who have switched from the hardcore PC scene and claim the Mac is better for them. But both camps have their reasons, and that's totally cool with me.

But, referring to your previous statement that "Macs are for simpletons," ? uh, no. A simpleton is one who fails to get past the one button mouse. And for the record, Mac OS X fully supports two button mice. I'm using one now. And also for the record, I think Apple should bite the bullet and offer a two-button mouse if only to silence the simpletons.

Mac OS X is beautiful. If you are a GUI guy like me, you can easily ignore the Terminal, Console, Process Viewer, etc. But if you are UNIX guy, you can ignore the Finder and even replace it altogether.

maxwedger413

02-05-2003, 07:13 PM

This is my first post on any forum and I haven't had time to read all posts in this thread so hopefully I won't repeat prior info.
There are a few things about the Wintel/mac debate I find quite irritating usually involving smug pretence, ignorance and dishonesty, so as you can see I,m not really an apple fan.

Confusion - OS and hardware , usually a mac camp problem when citing issues and performace specs and comparisons. Windows and AMD/Intel are not synonomous or interchangable .Windows is the software and has it's own raft features and problems and shouldn't be used to selectively rate the "x86" based hardware (x86 are all AMD & Intel processor based machines)

FOR A MORE MEANINGFUL COMPARISON WHY NOT TRY RUNNING SOME COMMON APPLICATIONS UNDER A LATEST VERSION DISTRO OF LINUX , I'D RECOMMEND MANDRAKE 9.

MDLarson

02-05-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by maxwedger413
There are a few things about the Wintel/mac debate I find quite irritating usually involving smug pretence, ignorance and dishonesty, so as you can see I,m not really an apple fan.Your above statement indicates that Apple or its users have all the negative qualities you listed. Do you not know that this is stereotyping? Do you not know that your statement can be interpreted as a smug statement in and of itself?

maxwedger413

02-05-2003, 07:39 PM

I've used & own both platforms starting at Uni on macs, OK if you know nothing and someone else is paying for/maintaining them.
Microsoft & Apple are just as good/bad as one another 12/2, 1/2 doz the other except for the fact as all WinAmdtel users know - ALL software is entirely free - Isn't it ?

What makes a GREAT system
Best quality/model motherboard you can afford new or used
pref with :DUAL CPU support
80 MB/sec SCSI min - 160 prefered
CPU with a bare min 512k full speed cache
(1meg or 2meg are really what you should aim for)
Mac OS X does not seem to support SCSI and firewire is a totally inadequate and laughable alternative.

My machines- All <$1500 US, 8 systems - 7 Multi processor incl Intergraph Imagestation (now SGI) dual Xeon CPUs with triple 24" Sony Trinitron flat CRT monitors.
Photoshop & graphics are my bread & butter.
PERSONAL BIAS OPINION- leave Macs to big advertising firms with budgets to match EGOS or those who have trouble using the TV remote.

maxwedger413

02-05-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by MDLarson
Your above statement indicates that Apple or its users have all the negative qualities you listed. Do you not know that this is stereotyping? Do you not know that your statement can be interpreted as a smug statement in and of itself?

Some certainly do just like some Wintel users but not ALL, that would be unfair stereotyping if I claimed All , it's just in my personal exp having lots of graphics oriented friends thats where by far the majority were.
Running a for hire PC based digital studio we have to do most of the cross platform fomatting and take the flak for usually non existent problems solely because we are non mac.
But lets not get petty both platforms work fine together if all users put effort into working together.

welsh wizard

02-05-2003, 08:27 PM

Horses for courses,
I would not buy a Mac to Play games on, but neither would I use a IBM Compat , no matter how fast to run Desk Top Publishung stuff, Quark, Adobe , etc are just far better implamented on MAC's compared to the abortion they realease for the PC IBM Compat world.

WW

ErnstNF

02-05-2003, 08:30 PM

I looked at local pricing and Canadians have cheaper prices for Macs than the US. (1.0CAN$= 1.55 US$). I priced equivalent PRE-BUILT systems locally, education discount applied:
G4 867Mhz/256/CDRW/GForce4/Viewsonic 19" monitor--$1400US$
Seanix P4 2.0Ghz/256/CDRW/Gforce4 same monitor- $1200US$
Not a big difference. My analogy: Honda civic sedan: good price/performance ratio, low budget fun. Honda Civic Si: better price/performance ratio- slight higher budget, more fun. They both do the same thing, get us somewhere, but differently. I love to use the Mac platform, I can honestly only 'like' Windows. Mac users are willing to put a dollar value on reliabilty and simplicity and you can't fault us for that.

MDLarson

02-05-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by maxwedger413
Mac OS X does not seem to support SCSI and firewire is a totally inadequate and laughable alternative.There's an interesting article here (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=io_comparison).

FireWire is not totally inadequate and laughable. FireWire is hot-pluggable with no need for termination or IDs. After searching the internet for some SCSI vs. FireWire information, SCSI seems to have the edge for very fast transfer rates. I've seen future FireWire projections for greater than 1.5 Gbps as well as SCSI implementations of 2.56 Gbps. Right now FireWire is at 800 Mbps, and I was unable to find an authoritative source on the "current" SCSI rate.

Perhaps you could explain why you think FireWire is an inadequate technology compared to SCSI. As far as I can tell, it's a trade-off.

Also note: You can buy an UltraSCSI card on Apple's website store, leading me to believe that Mac OS X does support SCSI. If Mac OS X does not support SCSI, why would Apple offer the card?

PERSONAL BIAS OPINION- leave Macs to...those who have trouble using the TV remote.But lets not get petty both platforms work fine together if all users put effort into working together.Please take some of your own advice. Being a Mac user and still being able to figure out the remote, I am offended. I am sick of this simpleton label.

honkwomp

02-05-2003, 11:24 PM

To me the important question is not how fast, or even how reliable, although both of those points are very important. The question is: "Is what I buy today going to be supported tomorrow?"
The facts: Even if Apple was giving their equipment away, they still barely hold 10 percent of the market share. I am an MS hater, I will admit it right up front. I would be more than overjoyed if by some miracle Apple took 20 or even 30 percent of the market. But the fact is that Apple is a dying company whose only hope just a couple of years ago was a 200 million and change cash infusion from the very company that they compete with.

When it all comes down to it, if you get an Apple, you will pay a huge premium for inferior performance and take a risk that in the near future you will posess an orphan computer. Numbers are the game in computing, and all you have to do to help you decide is walk into any software store (except those that specifically specialize in Apple) and count titles. I think you probably already know what you will find.

I got into computing in 1984 with a Xerox 820/II. I have owned Kaypros, Ataris, Commodores, Eagles, and even a Wang. Except for the Atari, each model I bought cost me thousands of dollars and I found each useful. All were top performers of their time. However, after seeing myself holding yet another orphan with my Commodore 2000 "tricked out" with a 68040 and having to order software from Europe because there was precious little in the US, I vowed never to be stuck with an orphan again. That 2000 flew like the wind and to me, was better than an equivalent cost IBM style PC in every way you can measure. Except one important measure. Availability of software. If you do not mind paying a premium price for most add ons, if you do not mind paying a premium for the computer itself, if you do not mind that there are substantially fewer titles available for the Macs, and Apple's small market share does not concern you, then you already love the Macs and probably ought to stick with em.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paul0660
[B]I really need a definative answer to this discussion, as my son is ready to upgrade his old G4 with something. He runs adobe indesign and photoshop mainly, and his 300 or 400 mhz single is very slow. I can build him a p4 system that will overclock to nearly 3 ghz for $700, or he can go with the mid sized mac for three times more. I think if the performance were equivelent he would prefer the mac even at the higher price. But is can the performance be the same? I read another benchmark comparison (heck it might be the same one):

maxwedger413

02-05-2003, 11:28 PM

OK, to be fair labelling all Mac users as simpletons is totally unfair.misleading & as irritating as Mac claims to performance superiority over x86 machines.In fact I'd say there are a proportion of PC users out there that couldn't be matched for utter stupidity (from personal repairs exp) & sorry not to be negative, I have recommended Macs to them - better crash survivability.
SCSI. I use scsi for hard drives not periferals - RAID , Multi disk high speed data retrieval, removable media, secure multibooting, parallel disk access etc.
In these firewire isn't in the ballpark and shouldn't be compared firewire isn't a replacement for SCSI. Unfortunately misleading promo of Firewire at the exspense of SCSI is leading to neglect in support and risking a core piece of high perf hardware available for PCs.
OS X SCSI I don't have it so can't check.Based on reports incl local
GArtist- spent $10k on latest dual cpu mac -no scsi supp, no help local agent, can't use all his stored work

maxwedger413

02-06-2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by welsh wizard
Horses for courses,
I would not buy a Mac to Play games on, but neither would I use a IBM Compat , no matter how fast to run Desk Top Publishung stuff, Quark, Adobe , etc are just far better implamented on MAC's compared to the abortion they realease for the PC IBM Compat world.
WW
I'm sorry I have to say what a load of cobblers!!!
Come on mate put your glasses on & learn how to ues the other button- right click- menu
I don't use Quark but as for Adobe apps there's very little difference in the interface and Apple releases for the last few versions have lagged Windows by several months.A keyboard shortcut is the same whatever your platform , the same goes for a Wacom graphics tablet which is an absolute necessity for Photoshop.Optimization for Dual cpu support in photoshop is better implemented on the Wintel platform, combine this with a pair or more of Xeon CPUs with 2 meg L2 cache,160 SCSI & enjoy!!!.

barhar

02-06-2003, 09:50 AM

When I made my two Posts, last Week, the total Number came to five.

I agree with a Number of the previous - Posts - Name calling and attempting to Sterotype one over another is unproductive - and generally does not elict the desired Response.

At the last Place, I was fianlly presented a brand new Gateway - the Frequency I do not remember, but was easily 1.2 GHz if not more, and it ran Window NT/ 2000. The installation and maintanence of the PC was that of the IT Department. Each and every day during Boot-up [it was required to shudown after each day] the PC would be audited for unoffical installations.
Anyway, expect for 'Mentor Graphics' Schematic Capture Software, Microsoft Office, and Lotus cc: Mail were the defacto Tools.

Since the 'Mentor Graphics' was installed greater then six Months after taking the related Course; and, since it was decided that our Division was to be strip of its Aerospace Products - some going to two other US based Divisions and the third to the Headquarters in England - and then the Employees given the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere I never really used the Schematic Capture Software at a productive level.

Using Microsoft Word to create Graphics was painstaking. I did request the installtion of Freeware Graphic Software; but, was denied.

So, I would then go Home at times - sit behind the Mac and run a 1993 piece of Software titled 'SuperPaint' and would create Files, well within an Hour, that I would then take to work.
MS Word and Excel exist on both Platforms - but do not have the exact same Features or feel. Creating umlauts, Bullets, and such are second Nature on the Mac via a <option> key sequence. The PC is not so straight forward.

I added a 48x12x48 CD Burner for only $10; and, yes, I wish the same was possible on the Macs I have.

Please realize I am not here to itemize each action which in one instance is better on the Mac and others which are better on the PC.

I have used both Platforms since 1984. If someone I work for - places one or the other [Computerr type] in front of me I use it. If its my Money - I typically steer towards the Mac.

I am not a Gamer. I do have over a hunderd Games installed on the Hard Disk Drive of a MacIIci [it clocks at a whooping 25 MHz] for those who visit and want to play something. I have just a few on the dual 500 MHz G4 PowerPC PowerMac, which runs MacOS X [10.2.3].

Someone above mentioned Clock Speeds and anything less than ... - well, actually it depends on what you are doing with the Computer.

At the, now closed, Division we used a DOS based PC to program and test some of todays most advanced Cockpit Instrucments.
Some fo the Software was Commercial other in-House written. It would basically be connected to a DSP Chip for its internal programming.

Most Production based PCs were around 100 MHz but took forever just to boot - with all the auditing, virus protection installation, network verification, etc. Once the DOS Prompt, Windows 3.1, Windows 95. or Windows 98 appeared - they were [to us Engineers] decent in performance. That however was not the opinion of those on the Production Floor.

We used two Mac IIci's to control five Environmental Ovens which would contain Equipment during a minimum 72 Hour Temperature Cycle Process. These Macs were installed way back in 1990 or 1991, I was told. Yes, sometimes they would be turned OFF, but rarely, and for very brief Periods. They used National Instruments 'LabView' Software.

Yes, the Graphic Designer - for our Phamplets and other offical Publications used a Mac.
The Engineering Lab responsible for Test Fixture design did also. The Schematic Capture Software was 'DesignWorks' from Douglas Electronics Inc..

I have a few MacPlus'es [8 MHz Clocks] which zip about quite fast, especially when a RAM Disk is incorporated. Yes, I also run RAM Disks on the other Macs - for a speed boost.
What cripples the Mac IIci, and other early early Models, as far as a Web surfing Tool is simple - it cannot handle the 56 K baud Modem rate, run the Software, and update the Video - even with a Video Card installed. The same was noted on my then 486 DX running 66 MHz - when in 'turbo' mode. Again, different Computer - similar performance observations.

Again, what Computer one uses - is their choice. My statements about which Computer for who, and what functions, have already been presented - no need to repeat them.

For those who want to debate Bus widths etc., with respect to the various Mac Models - go here ['<http://www.apple-history.com>'] and have fun clicking about. Note: while the Velocity Engine does use a 128 internal Data Bus - the G4 Series is still a 64 Bit Data Bus MicroProcessor.

Rugor

02-06-2003, 05:15 PM

Barhar

I'm not surprised the graphics work took you much longer on a word processor under Windows than when using a graphics program on a Mac. That doesn't say anything more than your company wasn't taking peoples' needs into consideration when choosing a software package.

Yes G4 does have a 64 bit data bus, so does any x86 compatible processor since the original Pentium. All of these processors have 64 bit external data busses and work on 32 bits internally.

Still, each is better for some people than the other.

paul0660

02-06-2003, 05:23 PM

Barhar, Thanks for checking in to the thread you lit on fire with this:

"When at the last place I worked - what I did on a PC for three or four Hours, I could do in less than one with a Macintosh - of any Model! Again, I know this as fact and will not prove each and every Comment."

That is a clear statement not at all supported by your latest post, since you are comparing different software on older machines. Like most Mac users, your preference is strong, your reasons mysterious to any but the initiated.

I don't get it, but that makes sense, since I am a common man, too smart to NEED a Mac and too dumb to LOVE one.

footrope

02-07-2003, 02:46 AM

I've enjoyed reading your posts. Every one of them. Thanks. I don't give a rats about whether a Mac or a PC is better. But I have been remin.... thinking back to the past (1989 - Lol), as I read along.

I remember when I could reload a Mac OS with one or two floppy diskettes.

I remember spending many hours troubleshooting PCs. Then I found the directions - and couldn't understand them.

I remember when the 12 Mhz Compaq 286 was noticeably faster than the 10 Mhz Packard Bell 286. Must have been the video board. Or a cooler chip. They were both faster than the Mac ... until you got to pictures or graphics.

I remember when the only way to fix the balky Mac with a boot problem was to reload the OS (5.x, 6.0.x).

I remember the first thing I tried with the broken Mac - reload the OS.

I remember being so frustrated that the Mac OS hid most of the cool settings files and stuff from the non-programmer.

I remember how slow U-B Ethernet was compared to Novell 3.x.

I remember when Guy Kawasaki was the Head Macintosh Cheerleader.

I remember the switch from 68000 hosts to HP 486/33 Mhz fileservers. Whiplash!

I know people who liked the Apple II.

I remember Windows 3.0. I still get headaches.

I remember dragging my first file to the trash on a Mac. That was cool. Same thing with the floppy ejection.

I remember fishing two jammed floppies out of a Mac. Several times.

I remember all the managers had a Mac. Most of the engineers had PCs.

So, times HAVE changed.

Cheers,

AllGamer

02-07-2003, 03:32 AM

ahh... good times indeed

the good old pioneering times of "IT" (no such terms back then :p)

wow, back then i was already being paid big time travelling around fixing peoples PCs and Netware 286 (2.x) networks :D and DOS 3.x/4.x still anxiously awaiting DOS 5.0 :D :D

and those Apple IIs with appletalk for "networking" if you could have called it that back then :rolleyes:

:p

anyways good old times, the best DOS games were from that era

MDLarson

02-07-2003, 11:18 PM

If I could rate this thread, it would be 5 stars. I was hoping for some intelligent reasons why the PC people didn't like Macs (or didn't buy Macs) and I got them, even if I disagree...

For instance, "honkwomp" mentioned that Apple is on the brink of going out of business. Unfortunately (for those pundits,) Apple is probably not going out of business. People have been saying "Apple is on the brink" for a long time, and look where we are today; Apple is one of the leaders in computers again.

Now maybe Apple really is almost dead. "Past performance is not a good indication of future results." But Apple has its die-hard users (I suppose I'm one of them.) We think there's something special (or different, to use Apple's past-slogan) about Macs. They're certainly not bad machines.

I am satisfied to use my Mac in this Windows world, because I can. I am satisfied because I'm not buying Microsoft Windows. I'm satisfied because I am in a small way helping the computer industry be more diverse, while at the same time be compatible.

I don't need a PC for what I want to do, and some things I want to do, I can't do (at least enjoyably) on a PC.

In the end, I would ask the Mac skeptics on this board to refrain from ignorant naysaying and simply accept the possibility of a pleasant user experience on a Mac, without insulting anybody's intelligence. :)

Logan2002

02-07-2003, 11:22 PM

Just a side note what do you think about thier new laptop with the massive screen?

AllGamer

02-07-2003, 11:44 PM

Oh those new 18" LCD screens with full size keyboard laptops are Simply AMAZing and kick some serious buttocks :p

the plane commerial is funny too :t

paul0660

02-09-2003, 01:46 PM

MDLarson, I get that you think there is something special about Macs. I hear that a lot from other Mac users. I understand that whatever this is overrides the extra cost, lack of speed (even for applications designed for Macs, as the benchmarks referred to in this thread indicate), and limited software.

What I want to know is, WHAT MAKES THEM SPECIAL? If it is an indefinable aura, ok. If it is something that can be put into English, say it please. I would even understand if they just smell better. If it is just the psychic difference between having been laid in one's life or not, let us know!

I have asked this question of a dozen Mac users and never got an answer that was satisfactory, which is to say tangible. Some are defensive, some superior (like THEY have a real computer and I don't), and all are uncomfortable broaching the subject with someone outside the club. Make me smile MDLarson, give us an answer.

MDLarson

02-10-2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by paul0660
What I want to know is, WHAT MAKES THEM SPECIAL??Make me smile MDLarson, give us an answer. OK, I will... lol :D

There is a lot of creativity in the Mac community. Multimedia is the Mac's playpen. There is a lot of crazy diversity. I'm a creative person myself and maybe the Mac was just "natural" for me that way. There is a real sense of community. That probably sounds ethereal, but that's a part of it.

Another big part of it for me is that Macs are different from all the boring beige PCs out there. (You might have a nice PC, but you know what I mean.) I like having a computer with 4 wing handles on it, if only because it looks cool and different (plus it's pretty easy to carry around.)

The biggest kicker for me, however, is that I can do almost anything I want on my Mac in spite of the perceived notion that "You can't do anything on a Mac." That might not include the occasional game I wouldn't mind picking up or whatever, but for the most part I'm happy with it. I also have Virtual PC at work for the very occasional Windows program I want to open.

I may not have the fastest machine around, but it really doesn't matter to me. I get what I want to get done, without doing it the Windows 95/98/Me/2000/NT/XP way (did I get them all right? :rolleyes: ) I am totally happy supporting a very cool OS (Mac OS X) that isn't so badly supported. When all the PC whiners (this may or may not include you, reader) crab about how underpowered the Mac is or how unsupported the Mac is or how Apple is going out of business tomorrow or whatever, I may smile and continue happily using my Mac or I may fire off a quick and dirty challenge to the stupid ignorance.

I feel as though I'm waxing dramatic, but do you get an idea of how I think?

In the end, Macs are only bits of plastic, silicon and metal, and will someday die a computer death, so I don't make a religion out of it. And having said that, as always, if you dig your PC, that's fine with me. I just expect the same respect. :)

genesound

02-11-2003, 06:58 AM

As to the whole build it yourself issue. That is a very important consideration in this household.

Here too, that and price. In fact it was the deciding factor many years ago, as I was a mac addict back before windoze 286. So I learned DOS and desqview. Never did look back, even though macs were the only audio toy there for a while. Macs are fine if you don't mind spending lotsa money.

The only computers I buy are laptops, the rest I build.

Oh, and my mac friends replace their computers every year or two, same as me.

And my current computers still are capable of running very old DOS programs (if I install DOS 5 which still works, but none of the new features do, of course), but I can't imagine why I would want to run 15 year old software.

ReyeR

02-11-2003, 08:57 AM

I've used all kinds of computers starting with the zx spectrum and the first ibm pc with 64k ram.

As a designer I've used Wintels, Macs, SGIs and powerful dedicated systems like the Quantel Paintbox, HAL and Editbox.

As far as Macs and Wintels are concerned I think Macs are over rated. Their multi-tasking, multi-processor support and networking (AppleTalk yeesh!) was a joke (pre OSX), took them 50 zillion years to release OSX (which had to be re-written in Unix; and from what I've read even Mac diehards don't like it) and in the process destroyed (a perfectly good) neXT.

Yes Wintels have a steeper learning curve, yes Wintels are not as plug and play as Microsoft would like us to believe - but when configured properly it's a hell of a lot more bang for buck and much more flexible. And I can't remember the last time I rebooted my Win2000 box...

Whilst their computers are not junk, what p*sses me off is that Apple woo's it's fans with cleverly designed boxes and marketing campaigns and a 'warm and fuzzy' interface. And at the same time ripping them off with their prices. What a load of crock!

MDLarson

02-11-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by ReyeR
...and from what I've read even Mac diehards don't like it) and in the process destroyed (a perfectly good) neXT.Some love everything about it and some dislike some aspects of it. There aren't too many Mac users who would prefer OS 9 over OS X.

OS 9's interface was the culmination of years of tweaking. Things functioned as they should. No doubt, there are things I wish OS X had carried over from OS 9, but there is no way I'm going back.

I should point out that cleverly designed boxes are good things, and while I wouldn't describe Mac OS X as "warm and fuzzy," I would say that it has the best interface I've ever seen*.

I think reasonable minds will find that Macs are not necessarily a "load of crock," but fit the needs and wants of a different kind of customer.

ReyeR, please calm down a bit. :rolleyes:

*I haven't seen NeXT, so maybe I'm just naïve on this point.

custompccases

02-14-2003, 07:41 PM

If you already own a Mac and want to upgrade and have cash to spend go with the mac if you have pc already then upgrade to a pc, xp and jaguar are both excellent os's and both very stable.

It is quite difficult even for seasoned pc users to get used to the mac interface especially when they have grown up on pc only computers the same can be said for switching to a pc. I know many many people that have switched from mac to pc and vise versa all are confused at first but get used to it, in the end they think the interface being mac or pc is stupid and go back to their first love. The mac and pc are different ways of thinking and to most its hard to rearrange those wrinkles in your brain to a new thinking pattern.

Both have Photoshop and other popular graphics editing programs. There are many mac only and pc only programs but both will have a very similar counterpart for either system. So no matter what system you choose you will have software similar to the other.

Some have been commenting on the direction Microsoft has been heading with the palladium installment in the up and coming longhorn os. You need to understand that all os's will be having a version of this palladium even the mac.

Pc's give you complete control over your internal components. Microsoft is a monopoly over a few things but mac has it in the bag in the hardware department. There is no room for competition in mac hardware in pc there are hundreds of hardware companies to fight for your money. This of course brings a few bad additions though like quality of some products if your a smart buyer and pc component savvy you wont run into cheap parts breaking on you (most of the time...) if you know what brands to buy. Something else bad that it brings into the component department is compatibility so many parts out there is just asking for compatibility trouble. But again if your component savvy it will save you from many headaches. If your not component savvy you could always buy a pre made computer more expensive but still not as much as a mac.

I was a pc only person till about a month ago when I decided it was time for me to get acquainted with the mac in this industry you must know both. Now days systems don’t have more software than the other both are pretty much equal in all fields. Software manufacturers now days make money by providing their products for both systems, they are not os dependent (excluding the "I" items for Mac and "E" items for pc). But again you will find an equivalent for either system. Pc is of course the platform for gamers hands down but things are going to change macs will have a library comparable to a pc.

The only thing that breaks the pc away from the mac (in my mind) is again gaming and the ability to build your own pc dirt cheap and with full component customization some say its not needed but having it my way is the way I want it and the way its going to be for me. I have both and like both.

It's all good you will be happy with either.

paul0660

02-14-2003, 08:53 PM

Hey MDLarson, thanks for getting back to me. You are the first mac user to EVER answer the question as I asked it. Apple will never go out of business with this sort of devotion.

I agree, mutual respect. I also agree with ReyeR, you are getting ripped off.

Finally, remember this thread started over speed, and it ends (maybe) with this:

"I may not have the fastest machine around, but it really doesn't matter to me."

Throw a fifth wing handle on it Steve, that'll keep em for a while.

MDLarson

02-14-2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by paul0660
Throw a fifth wing handle on it Steve, that'll keep em for a while. :D That would be an ugly thing I'm sure, and many Mac fanatics would be debating it, no doubt about it! lol

Anyway, glad I could provide an honest answer. And about Mac users getting ripped off? Eh... I think that this crowd (the custom PC builder-type) is just not impressed with a closed system like Apple's. I believe that I'm getting a quality computer out of the box, and Apple has rarely left my expectations unfulfilled. I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off, so I doubt I am.

I do sometimes like to do a product comparison with Dell, but I typically lose interest halfway through. I guess I just don't care.

You may also recall that Apple used to license the Mac OS to Motorola, Power Computing & UMAX. Power Computing (http://www.sylloge.com/powerads/) was too successful at beating Apple, however, and Apple became the only Mac maker again.

Blah. I'm rambling. :t