quote:
Originally posted by Cocaine Elephant:
Macs ARE expensive.
Macs HAVE limited games.
Macs ARE slower than a Athlon of the same price range.
These are points well enugh. But the way your first post worded them sounded rather troll like terms like iLamp come to mind, sarcastic jabs at mac gaming. Your whole attitude seems geard tword waiting for someone to post something so you can puke pro-windows gabage back in their face.
You didn't seem to aproach this thread with a desire for actual discussion but rather an exchange of insults. Thus I would venture to say that you were indeed narowminded.
Since you agree that M$ is bad that's great. That's step one. A personal reason why I don't use their products stems from their buissness tactics which I don't feel like giving money in order to support.
Second, windows is not good. I am well versed in it, I owned a PC for a while, several infact. And windows has never been as good as any Mac OS IMHO. It has allways been nothing more than a cheep copy.
Windows XP breaks new ground in M$'s attempts at privacy violation and the software includded is substandard compared to it's competition. The bundled software with OS X is far more usefull and powerfull than the windows counterparts.
As far as games are concerned, I have adressed this issue in a thread calld gaming not in the Mac forum. I don't think games should be a prime factor in buying a computer, at least they aren't for me. I don't know about you, while games are fun and all (Im a particular fan of Baldur's Gate, and the Blizzard games (which are well supported for the Mac)), they are programs that don't really do anything. I use my comp as a graphics workstation and general computing machine and it does wonders, I could never use a PC to run PS7 and Illustrator because a) PC/Windows graphic support is true shit when it comes to Desktop Publishing, b) Graphics Apps for the Mac run infinitly better.
Windows is a hinderance to performance because of it's crude designe, poor security, and nearly everything else that Mac OS isn't. I have seen XP crash, I have yet to see OS X do it.
Windows has a 3 to one click ratio with the Mac. Meaning I can do more on a Mac with one click than you can in wondows because one GUI has actually doen the research that windoze chose to simply plagerize and bastardize to their own ends.
As far as more bang for your buck, that to me is purely subjective. If you look at the analsies out there it is a known fact that Mac's are viable for a whole lot longer than PC's (i.e. they are usefull for a longer period of time), productivity on Mac's is better than on PC's, programms overal tend to better designed (even M$'s word 2001 has recived praise for it's Mac OS port over it's less functional PC equivilant), Mac Hardware works and comes right out of the box with everything your going to need for a very long time.
As far as chip speeds go, this debate is an old one. PIV's first of all can't outperform a ciphilitic mule. But PIII's and AMD's are damn nice chips (rumer has it Apple is looking at AMD and/or IBM to make G5's or G6's). There are alot of factors that go in to the actuall performance of a chip, and it truely depends on what program you are running, how it was built, etc. etc. etc.
Intel has truelly done a diservice to computing when it first began to tout clock speeds as the end all be all of what one should use to mesure a chips true power. Did you know that a high end SGI workstation clocks in around 500Mhz and still manages to pump out incredible graphics (my bro. ran a 90Mhz SGI box when he worked on Final Fantasy the Movie)? The N64 ran on 90Mhz G3 etc. etc. Performance relies hevely on software and Hardware optimization. Optimization is Apple's strength and the results are fantastic.
A vectorized Application on a G4 WILL outperform any other chip. Right now G4's are being used in several science labs (NASA as well) running vectorized programs in a cluster because they are more powerfull and cost effective than their alternatives.
Finaly, a chip's speed is only as good as how far you use it. For general computing, I would be hard presed to say the avarge user should be doing more than 450Mhz, I mean seriously, unless you are a power user, or profesional, shelling out for a dual 2Ghz to make a game look pretty is absolutely rediculous.
But that is my opinion.
Even so, the overal experience on a Mac running OS X will be much more productive, seemless, and problem free than you are likely to experience running nearly any other OS in the world. This is why I prefer them, and why they are my system of chice over the Wintel world.
Wether you like Mac's or not, you should read the fetured article on this very site. It outlines many of windoze's major drawbacks.
[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
