Which is better? PC or Mac?

[Dputiger]

Ok, I'm not looking for pure opinion, but for some baseline facts--I've always heard from Mac enthusiasts that Mac's are better, but of course, that's suspect given the source. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


So which is better, and, more importantly, what makes them better? WOULD the Mac be a better gaming machine than the PC if the games were optimized for Mac hardware?

[Entragian ][]

I think it all depends on your situation and what you want to use the system for.
You also need to take the 2 for what they are right now. Not If this... If that... Because the IFS can go either way.
I do mostly gaming on my system as alot of others do (Not all) and I would never buy a MAC for gaming.
Just my personal opinion.
'
Entragian ][

[thekingofpain]

It entirely depends upon what you have in mind to do---Macs do alot of things EXTREMELY well as many "informed" people well know, do your research as to your software and hardware prefs and choose...

---> ok Warthog, go ahead and chime in with your entirely UN-biased opinion...

[NDC]

If you wanna it purely for intertainment such as games, MAC is NOT the way to go! But if you wanna use it for graphic purposes such as Web Design, Desktop Publishing, Multimedia Directing, etc. MAC is the ONLY way to go! As for RAW Power, MAC will blow the hell out of ANY PC in its class and above its class. The new MAC CPU's are 128bit, NOT 32 or 64 bit. It take 128 bit chunks at a time for data transmission. But like I said, MACS are not for ALL computer users. MAC only dominates the computer graphic world. You won;t be able to find all the fun little programs that they have for PC's for MACS. That is why I have both. If they had all the programs that were available for MAC, a MAC would be ANYONE'S BEST CHOICE. MAC isn't a PC! It's a POWER PC! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-12-2000).]

[jman01pa]

What are you wanting to do with a computer? What software are you wanting to use? In my area there is almost know MAC support (Repair or Software) at all. So I would either have to buy off the net or go out of town for software or hardware. Are you going to trade files and games with friends and co-workers. If that's possible then what do they use. I am not a MAC user but if I was trying to make a decision this is what I would ask myself.

Good Luck

J http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[thekingofpain]

OH NDC, you dont realize the criticism you have opened yourself up too...I praised a Mac here...once

(as a user I understand) http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Warthog]

hehehe....I don't feel like getting into another pointless argument here, so I'll keep it to a minimum...

Can you build a mac? No.
Are many accessories made for mac? No.

Speaking of accessories, they cost a poop load of money. You know those "Mouse in a Box" mice? They are basic, **** mice. It costs about $15 for a PC. $50 for a Mac. Yikes. A 64mb RAM stick costs about $70 for a PC, $140 for a Mac. Why is this???? Is it because not many people buy them?

*light bulb turns on*
But wait! Imacs are supposed to be the basic, budget, no frills computer - they fit the last one cause there's no freakin' floppy drive - but the thing costs $1500!!!!!!! They isn't ANYTHING special about the Imac. It is nothing. It consists of nothing. For $1299, you can buy a pretty good Dell computer. For less, you can build a better one.

Are they good with heavy, serious graphic stuff? I think so (from what I've heard)

....about the graphic stuff....why are they better than a PC??? In another thread, I said that I thought it depended on the software. Sure, maybe a Mac has some extra speed, but what does that matter??? Will it produce better looking graphics or something??? (please explain)

You won;t be able to find all the fun little programs that they have for PC's for MACS

Yeah, there a hardly any games for the mac. That sucks - big time.

And Dputiger, I kept my opinion out of it. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 08-12-2000).]

[NDC]

Yes, I know the KINGOFPAIN, But I really don't give a flying SH*T about what kinda criticism I get in this forum. I'm ONLY telling the FACTS, nothing fabricated. Yes WARTHHOG, Macs are clearly not for your everyday users as I said above. But some people don't like to play games on a computer. Such as me. And besides, If I really wanted to play games , I would buy a Playstation 2 and not waste ALL that good money for a $1500 computer and buy all these fans and heatsinks to overclock my computer for games!

Answers to your questions:

(1) MACS are clearly faster than PC's because they have 128bit processors, NOT 32 or 64bit. They send chunks of data in 128bit, not ..... you know

(2) Yes, they do produce better graphics when you print on a mac because they have a much more superior monitor calibration methods compared to PC's for image outputs.

(3) Yes, speed is EVERYTHING when it comes the graphics industry. You want to get the graphic rendering as fast as possible. Time is money! LOL

Now I have a question for you,

Have you ever even done intensive graphic work on your PC and a MAC? If not, you will never understand. If you have, I'm sure that you will clearly agree with EVERYTHING that I have said here.

If you don't take my word for it, and you really wanna prove me wrong. I would suggest that you test two systems at the same specs and run a copy of Photoshop! And then we shall talk some more.

Seeya Warthog! I never knew that these forums could be so aggressive! LOL

P.S. Let's NOT even mention the name IMAC, that is a disgrace to MACS! They are the most cheesiest systems that mac has ever produced! It is a desgrace to even call them MACS! LOL. Especially those disco duck colors that they come in! Not to mention the sad IDE intrface that are in the system. YUK!

Don't get me wrong, WARTHOG. I love PC's and MACS. You can' really compare the two because of the different fields that they are used in. I have a DUAL Pentium III at 733Mhz with 768MB RAM and do graphics on that once in a blue moon. But seems to come no where close to the good old MAC for graphic work!



[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[smokin1]

I agree totally the Mac simply rocks on graphics..and RC5...I use PC's almost exclusively, but what I see from Mac's is in a word...Power!
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif
It may be cool to diss them, but really...have a good look,with an open mind..the PC is really not the only thing out there...and it's not always the best. I mean after all, it's not like we invented them..so why get all bent about it?
There are various tools out there, and some are better than others for certain uses...
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[NDC]

Well said Smokin1! lol

[Fingers]

Careful what you say, your strong opinions may affect your credibility.

Pentium Coppermine is OLD technology for MACS. Their CPU's ALREADY utilized COPPER long before coppermine was even mentioned for PC users.

Intel "Coppermine" processors do not use copper interconnects. "Coppermine" is the name given to current P3s that use a .18 micron manufacturing process, All Pentium-3s and Celerons are still based on aluminum. Copper based processors are on the way from Intel however.

[Joel Kleppinger]

I respect the technology in the Mac, but for some reason, I just can't get past the interface. My uncle gave me a Mac for about 2 months. I messed around with it for quite a while, and I eventually got frustrated with all the things the Windows 9x interface had that it didn't (especially right-click menus). I also miss the efficiency of having the minimize, maximize/restore, and close buttons all on the same side of the window as well as a control menu on the left side of the menu. I know Macs have all of these _features_, but why are they scattered all over the place? And why is the control menu for the current window on the Apple bar or whatever it's called?

Now, my uncle's best friend swears by a Mac and thinks its interface is heaven on earth. He really doesn't enjoy using a Windows-based box even though that is currently his main machine.

Personally, I think Apple should take a look at the upcoming Mozilla and current Linux abilities to have complete different-looking skins/window managers to give just the interface people want. I might actually have a Mac around here if I got could use a Wingman gaming mouse with it and have the right mouse button do something useful. They could do a rough translation of the Windows interface and allow users to pick which style of interface they want to use (KDE would be an example of a rough translation... similar, but definitely distinguishable). Sure, the base of Apple users might get ticked, but they could still have their original interface so everyone wins. Macs have been around since 1983, and Linux has only been public since about 1993. Anyone want to bet which is currently more popular and why? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

I don't know much about OS X (the machine I played with was OS 8) so maybe they have improved... I wouldn't know. I kinda sorta stick to machines to you can actually build and get cheap parts for. I don't have a machine (except my laptop) that I didn't build nor do I have a machine with a closed case.

BTW, has a Mac enthusiast site ever mentioned overclocking those G4s? Sure, anything is possible, but has anyone reported doing it? I've occasionally browsed around a little, but I never noticed anything.

[KillerBug]

And don't say that they are better than ANY PC technology even above them, what do you think is more powerfull? 16 1.33gh P-3 Xeon chips, or a single 1.2gh mac proc? How about just 2 Alphas, they are 64 bit and run over 1000mhz, and will beat the **** out of a MAC. The MAC does have good points, like that they have dropped much legacy stuff that windows will not, but a good, clean linux distribution will run faster even with only duel 850s than a MAC, and the duel chip PC will cost less to make. MACs also use inferior hard disk, memory, and video technologies in their most powerfull machines than PCs use. Last, the quality of the output is for the printer to do, not the computer, the macs have some good printers, but PCs have much better ones available.

[Warthog]

(2) Yes, they do produce better graphics when you print on a mac because they have a much more superior monitor calibration methods compared to PC's for image outputs.

Sorry, but I still don't get it. You're just talking big words to me: "superior monitor calibration methods". What the heck is that? You mean monitor quailty? I thought my future 19" FD Trinitron had good quality. As for printing, it doesn't matter what comp you have - it's all in the printer, as Killerbug said.

And ummmmm....chill a bit, buddy
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif
Warthog

[BFlurie]

Wow, this is getting rough (it usually does w/PC vs MAC). MACS are solid machines, but I was needing to build a decent machine for a couple hundred buckeroos. Made a quite reasonably up-to-date PC for 'bout $350 -- w/a few leftover parts (Monitor, Printer). Hammered, nailed, & glued it together -- worked like a charm. So both types have their +s and -s. Joel, I have to agree -- I find r-clicking to be one of the most powerful Windows features -- Send To, Find, Properties, Create Shortcut, Copy, Delete, etc., & it's (somewhat) customizable.

[Warthog]

So, if you want a computer that is limited in software and hardware availabe, that cost s you more but looks pretty and is basically non-tweakable, go with a MAC.
otherwise, if you want to spend less money, have any hardware available, tweak, game and do anything with a system albeit, slightly slower, go with a PC.

THANK YOU, for summing it up.

Please, answer my questions about the graphics, NDC!!!! Just like Dave said, it's with the freakin' software!!

Warthog

[NDC]

That is correct, Warthog. Without software a computer couldn't be a computer that we are now using, would it? I really don't feel like going any further with this conversation and getting in bad terms with you in this forum. I don't wanna get all bent over for computers I didn't even make. I am a computer graphic artist and have been for a while. The conclusion is that MACS are MUCH better over PC's for Graphics artists. (That is from years of experience in using both machines in the field of computer graphics)



[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Warthog]

nonononononono....I'm not going to take this argument personally http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif You surely aren't going to get "in bad terms with [me] in this forum". http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

But I still don't get why they are better??

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 08-13-2000).]

[daveleau]

I see what they are saying. They are saying that a MAC can process the graphics faster, not better. You get the same software now for MAC and PC for graphics art (only not other software) but these programs were originally made for a MAC and thus are optimized for MAC and run faster. That is why MACs use PS for benchmarks. It is software optimized for MAC and not for PC (unfair if you ask me). So, a MAC can be seen as faster (but still inferior http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif)
Dave

[NDC]

Well, good. If you truly wanna know why MAC Cpu's are faster that Pentium III CPU's, I would suggest that you do some researching. I am finished convincing you! LOL Seeya

[NDC]

Dave, Pentium 3 processors are 32bit and Mac processors are 128bit, I think that does have a difference in speed for graphics applications, PC's also have Adobe Photoshop. They are MMX optimized, but can't achieve the speed that MACS can , cus Pentium CPU's are 32bit. Meaning that they can only acess datas in chunks of 32bit

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Missing the point]

Killerbug:

Of course 16 P IIII 1.33GHz Xeon Chips are gonna be faster than one 1.2GHz Mac!

What kind of a comparison is that?

[Joel Kleppinger]

/me continues waiting for a response to the issues he discussed.....

Until they are responded to, I see most Mac addicts as people that are just trying to defend themselves for their choice of a less popular computer system.

NDC, don't walk away from a discussion leaving questions unanswered... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif especially since it could easily be a very interesting thread and there are zero personal attacks anywhere around.

Oh, and by monitor calibration, I believe NDC was referring to doing color calibration between what you see on the screen to what you get when you print out. If that's the case, then PCs DO indeed have those features. Professional PC graphics cards can also output graphics directly to BNC for even more color/monitor control.

[wyvrn]

In all honesty, Mac systems are faster and more reliable

Daveleau, I have used Macs (been a year or so) and PC's, and I think a PC running Win2k with properly installed drivers is more reliable than any MAC machine. The MAC OS 8.5 uses roughly the equivalent thread scheme as Windows 3.1, where one program can bring the entire computer to its knees. I do not find that in the least bit "reliable".

I think your summation is a bit too simplistic. There are more choices of OS with a PC than a MAC, and the speed gap is not what it used to be. For the same cost as a MAC, you can have a dual PIII PC with all the bells and whistles, and it will hold its own. If we are talking bang for buck, pcs are a better all-around choice than MACS.

[voogru]

Get a PC Its will Be Better for gaming but you will have to suffer through Ileagal Operations Blue Screens Of Death General Protection Faults Suddenly Back To Windows (in Games) If you up to the challenge Geta a PC ,If your a wimp and dont want to suffer Get a MAC

Oh and,
I know where you live!
Be a good boy and buy a pc!

[NDC]

Yes, Joel, INDEED PC's do. They have a calibrating software, but I just think that MAC does a better job. But as you may alreay know, there a wider selection of graphics applications for MACS than there are for PC's. Why? I have no idea. The discussion was about the speed of the two CPU's from the beginning. I think that this thread is getting in to a different point now. Do you agree? Look how this whole topic started. I said that deciding between MAC and PC depends on what you wanna do. And yes, Without the slightest doubt what so ever, MAC Processors are faster than PC Processors. you can't tell me what i am saying is incorrect, can you?

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-13-2000).]

[thekingofpain]

If it means anything NDC, I got your back http://smilecwm.tripod.com/ruinkai/crossbonesgif.gif

[NDC]

Sound like we are in a battle here! LOL. I'm sure that MOST, but not all of the people in here have never even done graphics on either of the machines. you have to use a MAC and PC for a period of a time to understand the power of MAC Processors in the graphic world.

[Joel Kleppinger]

Sure, the thread _started_ discussing CPUs, but technology is irrelevant if the OS/software/peripherals you want to use won't work with the hardware.

So, back to my first post in the thread, what is Apple doing to make their interface more efficient.... or at least multi-faceted for both Windows and old-school Mac users? What about overclockability... has anyone ever actually succeeded with the G4s, and if so, where are the web sites?

I'm rarely ever in a war. I'm seeking information here, and if you've got it and are willing to share, then do so. The whole idea is to learn and grow.

[This message has been edited by Joel Kleppinger (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Fingers]

Since we seem to be centered on the area of power graphics applications, here's a comparison of 500MHz NT workstation and a "top of the line" PowerMac 400 using Adobe Photoshop... http://machardware.about.com/compute/m achardware/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.publish.com/features/9906/machines/machines.html (http://machardware.about.com/compute/machardware/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.publish.com/features/9906/machines/machines.html)

Be sure to click the "Testing 1-2-3" link near the bottom.


[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Warthog]

For the same cost as a MAC, you can have a dual PIII PC with all the bells and whistles, and it will hold its own. If we are talking bang for buck, pcs are a better all-around choice than MACS.

Exactly! Maybe a Mac processor is faster, but it costs a poop load more.

But as you may alreay know, there a wider selection of graphics applications for MACS than there are for PC's

There are? I figured they were all multi-platform.

I said that deciding between MAC and PC depends on what you wanna do.

I'll sum it up: If you want to do everything, get a PC. If you want to be the best graphics person, get a Mac.

But then again, I still don't understand!. WHY is a Mac better for graphics?? Is it simply speed? I think the latest dual P3 with 64mb video card PC, can handle any graphic editing out there and for the same price as a mac, as said above. Am I wrong?

Warthog

[Win_98]

the mac have true multi tasking which is at hardware level where else a PC is software based which mean it emulate mac's OS therefore isn't as fast say only 50 percent as efficent you notice why thing run much slower in windows then in dos... a mac can run at full speed in windows environment as if it running in DOS that where it is SUPERIOR. NONE of YA can explain this cause it too freaking technical. ")") http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif it uses the 68K processor manufacturer by motorola it is far far superior to 8088 processor the difference is that 68K is built for windows environment therefore it can handle many task and not have to sacrifice speed say slice itself in half to do more then 1 task.
the expensive price tag of a MAC make it not so wise buy http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif and of course majority of people do not like mac because we all been brain washed to like PC!!! can I say brainwashed??? Ya just gotta be with the crowd no what I mean? or be left in the dust to rot for eternity. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif that is life pretty tough eh?!?! PC is was known as business computer regardless how sucky of it in term of hardware people will like it for ease of use and popularity as well... the windows9x is far far inferior to mac because it crashes often and not as efficient but hell most of us like it cause everyone use it! that all there is to it. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif not to mention it feel kind of cheesy too well I have got to give mac some credit for it versatility and the ability to do many thing with little or no slow down and never ever crashes either. it kind of hard to explain mac advantages over windows9x if you never used one before and I see most folk won't see a reason to heck it a dieing platform these day.

[Fingers]

See my link above, It seems I may indeed have been "brainwashed"... brainwashed into thinking that Mac is better at heavy graphics applications than a PC, that is. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Warthog]

of course majority of people do not like mac because we all been brain washed to like PC!!! can I say brainwashed???

Soooooo all of us pro-PC people are "brainwashed"? I think we have all explained our reasons for not liking macs...

BTW, I am not trying to be mean at all, but could you please just put some periods and commas in your sentences http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif? And could you also put some spaces somewhere? Thanks http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Warthog

[NDC]

Well, said Warthog, i think you are finally beginning to understand me now. GET A PC for fun, or get a MAC for graphics work. Very simple decision! And I did look at the link that FINGERS provided, and MAC was nearly fast or faster despite the fact that MAC had lower system specs. Lower CPU Mhz, half the RAM, Slower Hard disk, etc

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Warthog]

Well...I wouldn't say "for fun" but MAYBE for non-graphics work until proven otherwise http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Warthog

[NDC]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to post this 4 times in a roll. I thought that it was not posting, but realized that there was a second page. SORRY http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif.


Fingers provided the link here that shows that MACS are faster. Despite the fact that CPU was 100Mhz lower, Memory was 128 less, SCSI hard disk was 7200rpm, not 10,000 like the PC. It had similar benchmarks. Here is the link: (click on TESTING 1,2,3, at the bottom of the screen)
http://machardware.about.com/compute/m achardware/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.publish.com/features/9906/machines/machines.html (http://machardware.about.com/compute/machardware/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.publish.com/features/9906/machines/machines.html)





[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Fingers]

Ahem... Fingers did not provide a link that showed that the MAC was faster!!!


1) The PC took 179 seconds to complete the tests, the Mac took 185. You decide which is faster?

2) The faster HDD on the PC was not an issue in the benchmarks because the test did not use a "scratch disk".

3) At the time of the test, both systems were considered "top of the line". It was a test of the best Mac available against a similar PC. (besides, shouldn't that "128 bit" architecture more than make up for the difference in MHz?)

[NDC]

Ahem, Fingers DID provide a link that shows MAC is faster. The test shows that both systems were almost the same in performance Despite the differences shown below.Let's imagine if both systems were EXACT same specs, which would be faster? Let's try to do the math here, Fingers. Would you benchmark two PC's at those kinda different specs? That would be very unfair, wouldn't it? And NO, the 128 bit will not make for the less 128mb RAM, RAM is everything when it comes to graphic files cus they are so huge. 128mb will make a significant difference.

MAC= 400Mhz, 128MB RAM, 7200RPM SCSI
PC = 500Mhz 256RAM, 10,000 RPM SCSI

And yes, I did decide which is faster, GET MY POINT? (hmmm, what am I saying here? I knew for quite some time now which is faster!) LOL


I honestly think that this discussion has come too long of a way. I don't need to stick up for MACS, I have no reason to, I love PC's as much as I love MACS, just in different ways. Seeya around, Fingers! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


P.S. I honestly thank you for showing that you really do your researches first before you speak. Some people just seem to rag on MACS without having any knowledge or have experience in using them. And about the coppermine thingy, I did some research and seems that you are absolutely correct. I heard about that from one of my colleagues. I'm gonna have to kill him for that one! LOL.

http://www.geocities.com/ndcmj/benchmarks.gif

MAC seems to be faster in ALMOST all the potential areas, and for much less. Although the SGI does come woth a flat screen which made a significant difference in price.

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[daveleau]

In all honesty, Mac systems are faster and more reliable. But they are more expensive and there is a limited amount of software, freeware and shareware for MACs where, the less expensive PC has plentiful software.

The old cliche that MACs are better for graphics is just not true at all anymore with Canvas, Photoshop and other high end graphics programs have PC versions that are great on PC.

So, if you want a computer that is limited in software and hardware availabe, that cost s you more but looks pretty and is basically non-tweakable, go with a MAC.
otherwise, if you want to spend less money, have any hardware available, tweak, game and do anything with a system albeit, slightly slower, go with a PC.

Dave

[Dputiger]

Well, I still haven't gotten my original question answered--at least not really. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

It seems to me that what makes the Macintosh faster than the PC in graphics applications is 1) the 128-bit proccessor,
2) The optimization of PS for the Mac.

I don't consider it unfair for the Mac's to use PS as a benchmark, as the gaming world uses Quake III, which is heavily SSE optimized.

What I was hoping is that someone could tell me WHY Macs are faster in apps like PS, yet even with Voodoo5 pull miserable gaming framerates.

[NDC]

I told you that MAC isnt the way to go for games, remember? MAC has the saddest collections of games that you could ever imagine. PC's have ALL the good games. I'm not saying that a MAC couldn't run games as well as a PC, I'm saying that there aren't many good games for MACS. As for game benchmarks, I have no idea, because there haven't been any benchamrks with Quake3 or Rainbow Six, etc. If you really wanna get your money's worth on all the popular programs & games that are released., Get a PC. You will really regret getting a MAC for that purpose. As I have said many times "MACS are NOT for ALL users". Trust me and get a PC. I think that you will enjoy the apps and games availability.

P.S. The answer to your question is that MAC processors are 128bit. I would say that us the reason why they are faster in Photoshop. I think that if Intel knew the secrets to how Motorola makes MAC CPU's, Intel would have already followed that technique. 128bit chunks make a differnce from 32bit chunks. Hope this helped.

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Dputiger]

I guess I never made this point clear. I'm not interested in BUYING a Mac. I'm interested in learning about Mac hardware.

I have seen Mac benchmarks with both UT and Quake III. I've also seen them running both the Voodoo5 and the ATI Rage Pro. In both cases, the Mac hardware simply gasps and dies.

Basically, here's what I want to know: Is the Mac's higher performance over the PC due to merely software optimization levels or better hardware design? In either case, why does the Mac perform so unevenly?

[NDC]

As for gaming on a MAC, you've really got me, for I have never tried running a game on a MAC, NEVER. Sorry. I would probably say hardware, hardware as in CPU. As for SCSI ard drives , i would think that they are both the same. But as for video cards, Geforce II, Voodoo5 is a high performance AGP card for games, but is considered a budget video card in the computer graphics world. You will see most high-end graphic cards for professional system starting at about $1,200 USD. Sad isn't it??? I use a Geforce 256 DDR for my PC and seems to work fine because I don't do any 3-D work on my
PC.

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Joel Kleppinger]

Ah, but I think all of us would agree that there is MUCH more to a computer platform than just its CPU technology. There's the peripheral bus speed, memory size bus speed, as well as video chip and memory size and bus speed. Don't forget cache spread around the processors and memories. And that's just some of the hardware that goes into the overall system performance.

I see a lot of comparison here to Windows 98. The fact is that serious 2D/3D graphics developers use Windows 2000 (or NT4 at a minimum). I have found Win2k to be quite stable... I usually only reboot every 4-7 days or even less often. Win2k (as with NT4) uses true pre-emptive multitasking, which, as I'm aware (I'm admittedly not up on my MacOS technology), MacOS 9 didn't even provide. What use is hardware multitasking (and no one has sent any links about this supposed ability) if you can't keep the whole system from crashing when one process goes down?

My opinion has yet to even be challenged: Graphic artists stay with Macs because it's what they started with and what they're comfortable with, NOT because the Mac system is so much better. There are tons of new graphic artists that have only worked with Windows NT and their work is of the same quality as any Mac-based artist. Even here at most of Earthweb, all of our graphics are handled on Windows-based machines. I suppose you're right.... we should just toss our design until we can create one on the Mac.

As with Dputiger, buying a Mac is irrelevant... we're trying to discuss technology and functionality here in an unbiased light (I couldn't care less whether a Mac wins... I just want to know why).

[NDC]

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but....Why do you keep jumping to different issues? We were just talking about CPU's alone, as to which CPU is faster wehn it came to graphics weren't we??? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Of course CPU isn't everything, if you have a fast CPU but crappy components to work with that, the system would have a HUGE bottle neck. All of the above that you mentioned about components is very true. But many high-end system these days come with somewhat-high-end parts to work with the CPU.
Have you seen a Pentium 3 system come with a cheesy PIO mode 1 hard drive? Doesn't matter how fast of a hardware you get for you system. Harware will NOT be able to keep up with the CPU. That is one of the bottlenecks that manufacturers are trying break.

As I have posted the speed test above, MAC was faster in many of the potential areas of graphics despite the difference in hardware. I also use a PC for graphic work and it is a dual processor. But strangely, the MAC seems to keep its own although it has a single processor, but if the MAC had 2 processors also, well....... I think that is one of the reasons why a MAC has dominated the graphic field. I think you also have a point there about graphic artists being more comfortable with MACS. As for me and my colleagues, that is NOT the case. We feel at home using both, PC or MAC .And yes, there are many new graphic artists that started with PC's, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that MACS are faster. The Mac doesn't produce better quality images than the PC, but just does it faster. This whole conversation was about SPEED as I recall, RAW CPU speed that is... I think that i have made my point that MACS are faster, Agree? As to why it is, I cannot answer. I think that Intel would like to know the same thing as to why a Motorola CPU processes data faster in graphics. But anyhow, the important thing is that both Intel and Motorola, and let's not forget AMD are progressing much in producing more powerful CPU's. I have also tested AMD VS.INTEL in graphics work and found out that INTEL was faster for Photoshop tasks, as well as other graphis applications. My boss at work is a real computer freak and buys all sorts of computers and I was able to test them at the same system specs. The result was quite suprising. Intel was faster (by a small margin despite the fact that the cache on AMD is 512 not 256 like the Pentium 800Mhz, maybe it was the speed of the cache, coppermine moves at 1:1 ratio, not 1:2)! Hmmmmm. I wonder why..... I guess we will just have to save this one for another topic! LOL

Quote:
_____________________________________________
I see a lot of comparison here to Windows 98. The fact is that serious 2D/3D graphics developers use Windows 2000 (or NT4 at a minimum)
---------------------------------------------
Why are we suddenly duscussing Win98 now???

I would never compare a Win98 system to a Win2K or Win NT4 when it comes to 3-D work. Why? Who in the heck uses Win98 for 3-D modeling or animation????? I don't know a single person around me or in the graphics world using a windows 98. Why?

(1) Win98 doesn't support DUAL Processors. Which increases performance about 40~60% in 3-D modeling and animation compared to Single-Processing.

(2) It's very tweaky (In my opinion)
I have had much luck using WIn98.

I agree very much that Win2K is stable, I have NEVER had to reboot my system during a graphic job due to an error. Not even ONCE! But as for Win NT4 Workstation, it was another story. Don't get me wrong though. Win NT4 was and still is a wonderful OS. As for MAC OS, yes, there have been a few times I had to reboot due to program errors. I don't know if that was the program that caused the error or the MAC OS. I know many people who like to work with 3-D MAX and they WON'T buy a MAC, you know why? There isn't a 3-D max available for MAC. I see many people do 3-D work on Dual Pentium systems.

Quote:
I suppose you're right.... we should just toss our design until we can create one on the Mac.

What did this suppose to mean????


Seeya! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

P.S. I could care less whether MAC or PC is faster also. I love them both! They both serve a different purpose for me.



[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Joel Kleppinger]

First, the TOPIC of this discussion is "Which is better? PC or Mac?" NOT "Which CPU is better? Intel or Motorola?" That means anything between the two platforms is available for scrutiny, NOT just CPUs. Sure, the discussion started with CPUs, but I guess if a Mac only needs a G4 to run, then that's all we'll discuss.

Ok, NDC, so you hadn't mentioned Win9x, but I was responding to Win_98's comments and comparison. I think we're also being a little selective by only comparing to a Microsoft-based OS. Have you ever seen BeOS in action? It makes an x86 machine act like a whole new system.

And thanks NDC... you finally answered my question. Your comparisons between the two platforms have been based on subjective experience, not an objective knowledge of the technology behind the platforms (which IS available to the public). It's well-known that the G4 Altivec Engine is what makes the CPU so amazing (at least for RC5 http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif), and information with how it works is highly available.

I am still very interested in hearing whether anyone has overclocked a G4.

[NDC]

yes, they are PURELY from my experiences and my colleagues as well.
Yes, I have been hearing about BeOS, how is that OS, is it any good? And can I run ALL applications that were made for windows? I heard that it is free.

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Nathan G]

BTW- Go check keyrates on RC5 for a G4... WOW!! Serious number cruncher!
First time someone showed me the keyrates for a G4, i was sure he doctored the printout.
lol OMG!

[Gomer]

I have never used a Mac before, only gazed in wonder at them. But I did see an ad for the new one. The one that looks like a box. I was impressed by a few things. First, there are no fans. This is a fast processor right? I don't know of any pc's these days that are passively cooled. The more fans the better, right?

Also, there is one power supply for everything. Just one cord to plug in. No tangle of cords everywhere. Only one cord running from the monitor. Mouse can plug into either side of the keyboard.

Those two things seem pretty innovative to me. I don't know what kind of OS they can put with that, or how great it works as a computer.... But if my PC was like that, I would love it.

[Warthog]

Mouse can plug into either side of the keyboard.

Ever used one of those? I have. Personally, I think they are a pain in the ****. The cord gets in the way all the time.

The one cord idea - you probably can't even ad any peripherals. Another example of why the stereotype of Mac lovers being stupid exists. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

Warthog

[Gomer]

The mouse thing really didn't impress me too much warthog. As for the cable getting in the way, mine plugs into the back of the computer and I still tend to trip over it from time to time. Peripherals are supported via USB, Firewire, or an ethernet connection.

As for the one cord deal, the speakers are also powered by one cord. I have so many wires going every which way around my computer it isn't even funny. 2 sound outs, monitor, mouse, keyboard, mic, gamepad, video patch for DVD decoder, sound patch for DVD decoder, digital out from dvd decoder, tv out from dvd decoder, printer, phone in, phone out, webcam, scanner, + 4 power cords for all of this. I know that the mac doesn't have all the frills I enjoy, but the fact that you can have the monitor and amplified sound with just 2 connections is great.

I would love to rip the fans out of my comp and put it in an 8"x8" box too! I know the mac is far from upgradable, but look at what Compaq and all them have been able to do with the PC, nothing like this. Not even close. I think it is pretty nifty, even if the OS sucks.

[Warthog]

The mouse thing really didn't impress me too much warthog. As for the cable getting in the way, mine plugs into the back of the computer and I still tend to trip over it from time to time. Peripherals are supported via USB, Firewire, or an ethernet connection.

Hold on a sec. "The mouse thing"? You mean my other thread? or this one? Another thing that goes with "peripherals" is the ability to choose what monitor you have....can't really do that if the cord is somehow integrated. And the "ethernet connection"? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Warthog

[NDC]

Hey Warthog, how do you that QUOTE thinga majig? I had to sit there and draw the lines.LOL

[Dputiger]

Ok, I'm sorry, but this is just true:

That **** hockey puck mouse sucks. No one likes it. Every person I've talked to that LOVES Macintosh's hates that mouse. Hell, I have nothing against the Mac, and I hate that mouse. Kill the mouse. I hate it more than Jar Jar Binks.

Ok, other than that, we're still going round and round. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Fingers]

For those of you who are interested in the architecture of the G4's Motorola MPC7400 processor, here is some technical stuff. http://arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html

NCD, how do you that QUOTE thinga majig? I had to sit there and draw the lines.LOLit's in the FAQ http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/ubbcode.html

[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 08-15-2000).]

[Joel Kleppinger]

That's why you get a wingman gaming mouse. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Of course, I don't know what good the right mouse button would do on a Mac.
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?masterid=12582

[NDC]

Ahhhhhhhhh, thank you very much Fingers. appreciate it. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif