How Apple+Mac is better than Windows+Intel

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
But at least MS doesn't force you to buy computers built by MS to run the Windows OS.

No, they just strongarm all the major hardware vendors who don't have their own OS to sell said hardware with a copy of Windows. Ever tried to buy a desktop/laptop machine in a store or from a major computer manufacturer without a copy of Windows? It's no easy task I can assure you.

Like it or not (I don't), Windows is the most popular OS out there at 97% of the market so all hardware manufactures surely want to be able to sell their equipment preloaded with Windows. Problem is, if they don't sell *every* desktop/laptop computer with a copy of Windows Microsoft will punish them by not giving them as good of a deal.

That makes it pretty unlikely that any competing OS will ever get a piece of that market with all the proprietary formats and protocols Microsoft can dish out by having that 97% of the desktop market. Users are stuck, unless they are willing to make a number of sacrifices initially (like I am willing to do).

[Zombie9920]

Nope. I never have and never will buy a OEM computer. Know why? Because I prefer building my own systems. =0P I

BTW, the Windows being pre-installed wouldn't be a big issue for me even if I did buy an OEM computer because I feel Windows is just the best system to be running right now(I install Windows on systems I build for a living as well as systems I build for myself). All PC games are made to run in Windows, almost every *popular* graphical, office, video editing, etc. app runs in Windows(Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, etc.). With Linux you have to rely on Open Source knock offs of the popular apps that try thier best to support the formats of the popular apps but always fall short. With Linux you have to rely on stuff like Wine to play alot of the popular games(Wine does not run most Win32 stuff flawlessly though).

Another reason why alot of OEMs do not choose to use Linux as an OS to pre-install on consumer computers is because Linux is too difficult for most consumers. In one corner you have an OS that is all point and click, it runs pretty much everything useful and it has a decent GUI to boot(I don't care what you say, Gnome, KDE, IceWM, etc. are not nearly as good as the Windows GUI for looks and ease of use) in the other corner you have an OS that has a GUI added on to a command line OS(and to do stuff effectivley in Linux you need to use the Konsole instead of the GUI WM), it doesn't have support for most of the popular apps and games, it is a bitch to install some stuff on it because you have to be root to install certain things(alot of users wouldn't know about gaining root access) and it is not easy to use(the command line stuff is used alot in the GUI). Tell me, how many people would know that they need to manually mount and unmount something like a floppy drive wheras in Windows it mounts/unmounts all drives automatically.

Linux is not ready to be on the desktops of most users therefore it will not be pre-installed as an OS for consumers.

Linux has a long way to go.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Nope. I never have and never will buy a OEM computer. Know why? Because I prefer building my own systems. =0P I

BTW, the Windows being pre-installed wouldn't be a big issue for me even if I did buy an OEM computer because I feel Windows is just the best system to be running right now(I install Windows on systems I build for a living as well as systems I build for myself). All PC games are made to run in Windows, almost every *popular* graphical, office, video editing, etc. app runs in Windows(Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, etc.). With Linux you have to rely on Open Source knock offs of the popular apps that try thier best to support the formats of the popular apps but always fall short. With Linux you have to rely on stuff like Wine to play alot of the popular games(Wine does not run most Win32 stuff flawlessly though).

Another reason why alot of OEMs do not choose to use Linux as an OS to pre-install on consumer computers is because Linux is too difficult for most consumers. In one corner you have an OS that is all point and click, it runs pretty much everything useful and it has a decent GUI to boot(I don't care what you say, Gnome, KDE, IceWM, etc. are not nearly as good as the Windows GUI for looks and ease of use) in the other corner you have an OS that has a GUI added on to a command line OS(and to do stuff effectivley in Linux you need to use the Konsole instead of the GUI WM), it doesn't have support for most of the popular apps and games, it is a bitch to install some stuff on it because you have to be root to install certain things(alot of users wouldn't know about gaining root access) and it is not easy to use(the command line stuff is used alot in the GUI). Tell me, how many people would know that they need to manually mount and unmount something like a floppy drive wheras in Windows it mounts/unmounts all drives automatically.

Linux is not ready to be on the desktops of most users therefore it will not be pre-installed as an OS for consumers.

Linux has a long way to go.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

I really liked the RIAA kitten picture, what happened to it?  I think the RIAA really would kill kittens.  

Calling all open-source software knock-offs to popular apps is complete BS.  Open source software often beats out the propriatary crud.  Take Apache for example.  It wipes the floor with ISS.  How about Mozilla vs. IE.  Alot of proprietary software is based on open source.  Unlike Windows you get a choice of GUIs, and you can make it look however you want, so don't say windoze's GUI looks better.  You say Lin is hard to install, and that simply is not true anymore.  Wine works, I don't think you've ever tried it.  You say you have to use the command line to do things effectively in Linux, but that is also not true.  Tell me then, what do you need a command line for.  You do need to be root to do some things yes.  Windows catches viruses and is hacked more easily than Linux.  There is a connection between the two.  And its not exactly hard to get into root.  Takes about 2 seconds if your a very slow typer.

More and more computer manufacturers are offering Linux preinstalls.  The only thing ONLY thing that was holding them back so long were the penalties M$ would throw at them with their monopoly power.  Linux is growing, and will gain more ground.

I don't think you have ever really used Linux, and if you have, it was a very long time ago because what you are saying is simply not accurate.

I hate the RIAA.  Do you like the RIAA?  DRMOS is on its way.  I won't use it, will you?

V

[psyjax]

Man, Zombie4848979784

you sure do have a way of degenerating a perfectly decent thread. I belive Jimmie James was being a bit sarcastic and takeing liberties with his story. Note the fact that he says he threw the PC off the roof with an X box!

Don't know about you, sounds like humor to me.

Whatever...

Yes, Windows PC's (damn these political corect computer terms   )

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Doctor V:


I really liked the RIAA kitten picture, what happened to it?  I think the RIAA really would kill kittens.  

Calling all open-source software knock-offs to popular apps is complete BS.  Open source software often beats out the propriatary crud.  Take Apache for example.  It wipes the floor with ISS.  How about Mozilla vs. IE.  Alot of proprietary software is based on open source.  Unlike Windows you get a choice of GUIs, and you can make it look however you want, so don't say windoze's GUI looks better.  You say Lin is hard to install, and that simply is not true anymore.  Wine works, I don't think you've ever tried it.  You say you have to use the command line to do things effectively in Linux, but that is also not true.  Tell me then, what do you need a command line for.  You do need to be root to do some things yes.  Windows catches viruses and is hacked more easily than Linux.  There is a connection between the two.  And its not exactly hard to get into root.  Takes about 2 seconds if your a very slow typer.

More and more computer manufacturers are offering Linux preinstalls.  The only thing ONLY thing that was holding them back so long were the penalties M$ would throw at them with their monopoly power.  Linux is growing, and will gain more ground.

I don't think you have ever really used Linux, and if you have, it was a very long time ago because what you are saying is simply not accurate.

I hate the RIAA.  Do you like the RIAA?  DRMOS is on its way.  I won't use it, will you?

V

Q. What happened to my other sig? A. I got sick of seeing it so I took it down. =0P

The last distro of Linux I used was Mandrake 9.0. I never said that Linux was hard to install so I don't know where that came from. LoL

Open Source software couterparts to popular propriarity software are knock offs. I have yet to see any open source software that actually beats out propriarity software. I'll give some credit, Apache is an excellent solution for a server(I'll even go as far as to say it is better than IIS in alot of ways)..but guess what, Linux and Unix were designed to be used on servers and not as a desktop OS, so knock on wood, *nix has excellent server solutions available.

Now lets get to the rest of the stuff Open Office in no way beats MS Office. Honestly, OpenOffice has some problems with MS Office file formats(MS Office is the DEFACTO standard office format used these days so Open Office does not offer anything better than MS Office...Open Office formats are not the DEFACTO standard you know ;P). Mozilla does not beat out IE. I garantee I can view more pages correctly in IE than I can in Mozilla. IE doesn't have sites that are incompatible with the IE browser(which is the case with Mozilla). Just for an example, go to Homestead and try logging into the site builder/file manager with Mozilla and you will get a nice lil message saying that Site Builder does not support your browser. There are other sites just like that out there. ;P

The Gecko engine has always had problems with properly rendering CSS(Cascading Style Sheets). That was a big turn off for users trying Netscape in the past and the same problem still exists in Mozilla(which so happens to be almost like NS 4.x), luckily for some of you CSS isn't used nearly as much in pages as it used to be though.

Now for the command line in Linux. You can do things much more effectivley in the command line(like compile drivers, install drivers properly, configure your newly installed drivers, compile software packages, etc.). Void Main is a Linux guru so I'm sure he knows that the command line is much more effective than the GUI. For the root acess...you may know that you have to gain root access and you know how to gain root access as well as I know...but how many average consumers know that they have to be root sometimes and know how to?

For the you can make Linux look how you want it to statement. Wow, you can change your GUI's color. I'm so impressed. Most Linux desktops use KDE or Gnome as a GUI. No matter what color it is, it still looks like KDE or Gnome. I'm impressed that you can change the color of an ugly GUI.       :rolleyes:      

Example of having to use command line stuff in the Linux GUI. When I used Mandrake I had to manually type /file/mnt/hdc to access my Master drive file/mnt/cdrom to access my CD-ROM, etc. in Konquerer whereas in Windows I would just double click My Computer and double click the drive/partation I want to access.

I bet that MS isn't holding OEM's back from using Linux as much as you try to claim. I bet if MacOS was ever ported to x86 you would see it being pre-installed on OEM computers just like you see Windows pre-installed. You know why? Because MacOS *is* easy to use and is consumer ready. The only thing MacOS really lacks is good gaming support. It already has support for all of the popular apps available today for work. To make a long story short, the only thing holding OEM's back from pre-installing Linux on most of thier consumer systems is the fact that they know Linux is not ready to be the OS for most desktop conumers. If MS really held OEMs back then why do OEMs offer Server computers with Unix installed? Oems don't have to worry about admins having a Unix system that they don't know how to use because chances are if a person spends the kind of cash that they do on a server then they figure the admin knows how to use Unix. There is a Windows XP 64bit available, Win2K Datacenter server, etc. but OEM's still don't use only MS OSes on thier server line of computers. That is enough to show that MS isn't holding OEM's back.

Mac OSX is a great OS, it is just a crying shame that Apple demands that it has to be run on thier inferior computers.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[hm_murdock]

quote: Uh, not quite, it only runs on Apple hardware and it's expensive (not free). Maybe you should stick to picking on Windows so's we don't have to get in an argument.

void main, those are the advantages that it lacks. that's why I said *nearly* all =^)

Zombie, yes. P4s will overheat, and they suffer from the most serious design flaw of all... INTEL ACTUALLY MADE THE DAMNED THINGS.

Shittium 4s are the biggest waste of silicon since the Itanic. I hope Inhell goes the way of all the companies that MS has screwed up the bunghole.

Oh yeah, and even though I like AMD, they still make shitty x86 processors. The only reason x86 has an "edge" over PPC is that when you throw 3,000 MHz at something, yeah... it's gonna be faster.

It doesn't change the fact that WINDOWS SUCKS BIG FLOPPIN' DONKEY BALLS

And zombie, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS THE BALL LICKER!

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:


void main, those are the advantages that it lacks. that's why I said *nearly* all =^)

Zombie, yes. P4s will overheat, and they suffer from the most serious design flaw of all... INTEL ACTUALLY MADE THE DAMNED THINGS.

Shittium 4s are the biggest waste of silicon since the Itanic. I hope Inhell goes the way of all the companies that MS has screwed up the bunghole.

Oh yeah, and even though I like AMD, they still make shitty x86 processors. The only reason x86 has an "edge" over PPC is that when you throw 3,000 MHz at something, yeah... it's gonna be faster.

It doesn't change the fact that WINDOWS SUCKS BIG FLOPPIN' DONKEY BALLS

And zombie, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS THE BALL LICKER!

You really are a stupid fucking idiot aren't you?

Proof that the Pentium 4 does not suffer heat failures.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html for the whole "How Modern Processors Cope With Heat Emergencies" article.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-02.html for the results of what happens to a P4 when it gets too hot. For those of you who are too lazy to read it, the P4 slows down but is fully operational and no damage occurs to the CPU. I love how Tom the hardware guru says "It is pretty much impossible to 'fry' a Pentium 4 processor" which is opposite of what you the know nothing not a hardware guru says. It is obvious that you know nothing about hardware because you buy pre-built systems(made by Apple). It is obvious that you don't self build your systems.    :rolleyes:  

A PIII doesn't die from thermal issues either. If a PIII/Celeron gets too hot they simply freeze all operation to prevent damage to the CPU(they are fully functional again after you reset your comp).

Now, where is your proof to backup that Pentium 4s do burn up? I own several P4 systems(my 2.53ghz system handidly smokes any of your beloved Macs mind you. ;P) and I've tested out the thermal protection for the hell of it..and guess what, results from my testing prove to me that P4's don't burn up(even though little articles from reputable hardware gurus like Tom is enough proof to make me believe it).

If Intel CPU's were so much trash then why are the P4's reaching 3ghz+ speeds while AMD can barely produce any Athlons rated at 2800+(right now they are Sold out of the limited stock they had according to an article I read not very long ago and AMD is having trouble restocking them because the Athlons fail at the 2800+ speeds) and the G4 isn't even making it much farther than 1ghz. ;P

If you can't even get your facts straight about CPU design then how can anybody believe anything else you have to say? You are full of shit, end of story.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[preacher]

You sit here and say that nobody wants to use an OS that requires command line knowledge with a beautiful gui on top, but it wasnt that long ago when everybody was using windows 95, and everyone was trying to learn dos commands. Whats the difference? Some people refuse to believe that learning the *nix command line is as easy as learning dos. Linux is in a progression stage right now, just like Windows was back then. However unlike windows which attempted to completely eliminate all use of the command line, linux will provide both a graphical and a command line way to do almost all things. I guarantee that one day we will reach the point where there will be no benefits of choosing windows over linux, because we will have reached the same functionality, and ease of use as them. At the same time we will offer lower costs and greater reliability, not to mention unparalleled flexibility. We arent there yet, but 5 years from now is a different story. If you dont believe linux will ever be a true competitor to windows, just look how much better linux has become in the recent past. Linux is the #2 OS for the x86 platform, and even though our numbers are low, thats still something to be proud of.

[psyjax]

Here! Here!

Well said Preacher!!

*applaus* *applaus*

[foobar]

I haven't heard anyone reply on the processor subject, but the only thing that i can say is that i've heard about them not blowing up your fan and your socket when you get to blow it up ... but i'm really not a processor geek ...

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
I haven't heard anyone reply on the processor subject, but the only thing that i can say is that i've heard about them not blowing up your fan and your socket when you get to blow it up ... but i'm really not a processor geek ...

This is a PDF document describing in some detail why PPC processors are technically superior to Intel's microprocessor. I uploaded it on my page but I can't remember where I dowloaded it from cause I've lost that bookmark. Anyway, credits go to the guy who wrote it, whoever that is.

The opinions expressed on this document reflect his own, so that doesn't mean I agree with everything read there. Keep in mind that I'm not a hardware expert  

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by arya:
Can any body please tell me how an apple computer running mac os is better than an intel pc running microsoft windows for a multimedia development center.

welcome to the forums. in answer i say, try them both out and see which you prefer. HOWEVER don't be fooled if you are familiar with one setup and unfamiliar with the other. It WILL take a little while to get acquanted with an unfamiliar system.

[hm_murdock]

Zombie...

As I said earlier... crank the numbers and it'll be faster.

If I made a 5GHz 80286, it would seriously fuck up your Shittium.

throw enough clock cycles at something, and yeah, it'll be fast. I've never refuted that x86 processors ARE faster. But I'll never agree that they're better.

As for AMD... ain't if funny how their Athlon 2800 is rubbing Intel's 2.8GHz offering into the mud and it's only clocked at what... 2100MHz? 2000?

AMD still relies on engineering and good design to create a superior product. Intel compromises their shit so they can crank up the numbers and then spend big bucks on marketing to get people to think that "INHELL INSIDE" means something.

Last Intel processor I had was a 486/33. The 486 was the last time Intel was respectable. The original P5 was a waste of time, and the worst possible competitor to the old school PPCs (back when PPCs actually mopped the floor with Inhell)

I doubt that we'll ever see PPCs match clock rates with CISC chips, but then, I doubt any RISC chip will ever do that. RISC is a drastically different design, and very little compares between the two. You seem to be fairly acquainted with microprocessor technology... you should know about this.

Moto and Apple marketing have really given Mac users the shaft in recent years. Moto's inability to deliver a new processor design, or at least increase clock speed on a regular basis, combined with Apple marketing's brain-dead adherence to the G4, when IBM was kickin' ass with GHz G3s over a year ago have really put us in the dumps as far as clock speed goes. They stuck it out with the G3 in the iMac as long as they could, but since they won't use G3s over 700MHz, they just couldn't keep it going without a G4. The current iBooks are nice, but $1800 for a 700MHz G3 is looney.

Intel's marketers push big numbers. Apple marketing seems blind to customers' needs for "faster across the board". They're both guilty of absolute stupidity.

Apple's afraid that if they make the G3 'books as fast or faster than the G4s, that it'll harm the G4 sales, because "pro" users will get iBooks instead of TiBooks. May be so, but Joe Public who walks into CompUSA will look at an iBook and think it looks nice, but be turned off by "low numbers". If he saw an iBook with a 1.3GHz PPC750fx, he'd see style and comparable numbers, and choose the iBook. Sacrificing sales to new customers in the name of the product matrix.

On the PC side of the fence, though, well-designed processors at 1.8GHz are really the accessible high-end. 3GHz Shittium 4s are priced HOW HIGH? A 1.8GHz Athlon 2200 runs roughly $150 to $175 while a 2.2GHz Sh4 is around $350? $400?

AMD sells a slower-clocked processor that uses less power, generates less heat, and keeps up with a higher clocked Inhell... for less.

Give it up, Inhell makes garbage. They've made garbage since the early 90s (except the P3, it was l337) they make garbage now, and they'll always make garbage, and then have stupid commercials that make ignorant n00bs buy their bullshit.

Any processor can overheat, dipshit. No amount of core-controlled downclocking can stop it. Even if the CPU locks itself, it's still a heat-induced failure. G4s will overheat. Athlons will overheat. Inhell chips will overheat. MIPS RISC chips will overheat. They all farkin' overheat if they don't get cooled off.

Oh, and wow... Intel actually engineered a good feature into the P4. But one thing can't change the fact it sucks. It's just the difference in a wet turd and a dry turd.

Fuck Intel, fuck the Shittium 4, fuck the Itanic, fuck ia32, fuck Microsoft, fuck Windows

please 'scuse the broken nature of the post. it's pretty much stream of conciousness

Zomb... you need to learn not to take life so seriously. Just keep in mind that you won't get out alive!

[Zombie9920]

Actually, you are wrong on Pentium prices too.

Prices from priewatch.com

Athlon XP 2400+ - $199

P4 Northwood 2.4ghz - $184 533mhz FSB

2.53ghz/533 FSB - $234

It looks like the Pentium 4 is actually cheaper than the competitive Athlon and the Pentium is a better quality product and is of course more compatible with all of the x86 programs(Yes AMD processors *do* have problems with properly running some apps/games). Remember, Intel invented x86, AMD simply tries to emulate Intel x86 code(kinda like how Via and Sis emulate a real Intel AGP bus through driving control...Intel invented AGP too ;P) How fast is AMD's 2400+ FSB? 266mhz/DDR, Intel's FSB is 533mhz(which means the P4 communicates with the PCI, AGP, Memory, etc. bus alot faster than the AMD pprocessor does and the memory in a P4 system works at much higher speeds(even with DDR) than it does in an Athlon. Notice how the 2400+ is the highest speed that you can buy of the AXP? That is because the Athlons at speeds any higher than the 2400+ rated speed fail. Like I said previously, AMD is having trouble producing Athlon chips that can successfully operate at 2600+, 2700+ and 2800+ speeds(there are very few out there and I doubt any of us will get our hands on one anytime soon). The reason why Athlons fail at higher speeds is because AMD CPU's have sever heat issues and serious design flaws. Learn how to accept that already. ;P

Even if the Intel chips were more expensive than the comparable competitor chip it is worth the extra money because the Intel CPU is better quality is more reliable, more stable and will never fry. ;P

AMDs' days are numbered for having the best price/performance ratio.

What happens to a G4 if you remove the heatsink? I haven't researched how G4's handle thermal emergencies.

(EDIT)WoofuckingHoo I don't have to use a proxy to access this site anymore!    (EDIT)

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[Zombie9920]

Oh, and for you saying an AXP 2800+ wipes the floor with a 2.8ghz P4. You are sadly mistaken once again. Out of all of the benchmarks in that article, the AXP 2800+ oply comes ahead in a few of them(and the ones the AXP do win are only by like 4fps in games or a few  seconds in rendering). I love how even the 2.26ghz P4 wipes the floor with the AXP 2800+ when SSE2 is enabled(an option not available for the Athlon). SSE2 optimizations are available in almost every rendering app out there so the P4 definatley has the edge in performance for rendering. ;P

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=5

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]