Wow, Windows XP is amazing!

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
I love my Titanium Powerbook, and will never give it up, but I have no illusions of the G4 being faster than the P4/Athalon at much of anything (save RC5 and Shake anyway, where the Altivec unit can actually be used for something).

Raw speed > 'Elegance'

Thank you, have a nice day.

Ya, but comeon, how much speed does one actualy need? How much do you truely put to use on a regular basais?

I use a dual 800 G4 and all the programs and games that I rutinely use run fantastic. I play Warcraft III at top graphical setings most of the time and it runs flawlessly. Same with things like the Sim's, Quake III, all the Baulder's Gate's, Giants, Diablo, etc..

Photoshop kicks ass. PC bench marks will tell you that a gausian blur on a poster sized image renders faster on a P4, but none of them ever tell you that the regular uses, that being all of the standard tools you use %99 of the time run faster on a Mac. Even if they didn't, who the fuck needs to gaussian blur a poster sized image? And if you did, what difrence does it make if it takes 3 seconds on a G4 and 1 one second on a P4? It's not like this is a task you perform on a regular basis anyway.

Another point these sort's of things miss, is the fact that any graphic designer worth his salt rarely ever will even click in the Filters menu, because filters make an image look cheep.

So you can get a 2Gigahertz athalon XP. Wooptie shit, I know people who are running 800Mhz+ P3's to this day and are not at a want for more power. They also run all the latest 3d stuff like Morrwind etc. All they did was get a GeForce4 Ti and off they went.

The Xbox, PS2, nintendo GameCube, all exibit outstanding graphics and raw power. Not one of them tops 700Mhz.

One day soon, there will likely be a 2Gigahertz Mac. Maybe even a 3Ghz that will bust Intel as the G3 once did when it premered. And that will be great, but even 4 years from now, when PC's are running at speeds requiring a swimming pool as a heat sink, I, and many others will likely be running systems below the Ghz mark.

The bottom line is, Mac's are better computers. Better designed, beter OS, low TCO, Fast (yes, very fast), better looking, and an overal plesure to use and own every day.

So let's stop comparing dicksize and arguing weather or not something can render a sceen in a half hour or twenty five minutes, be cause the diffrences in speed between systems now adays is negligable at best.

[MacUser3of5]

I see, people don't 'really need all that power much anyway'. I'll try and not be trollish and throw the aside that Macs cost significantly more and are 'good enough' (whoops, there I went!).

Anyway, I use Photoshop daily. I am a graphic designer. I don't use filters*, but when opening 300+ MB psd images, yes, I need a fast machine, not for games, but one that has fast I/O, something sorta lacking on the Mac...

My Powerbook 667 is fairly quick yes, but my year old 'windoze xpee' machine is noticeably faster (and was about $1200 cheaper).

Negligible difference? Hardly.

This has nothing to do with consoles.
This has nothing to do with 'Mhz' or whatever.
This has nothing to do with dick size, but mine is 6 inches.

This has a whole lot to do with price/performance ratio, which right now, sucks.
This has a whole lot to do with someone buying a new computer, and seeing a $1000 wintel outperform a $2000 Apple (desktops, anyway). Better designed, in my opinion, yes. Aesthetics, design, OS X or not, those are hard numbers to swallow for a consumer. Those are hard numbers to swallow period.

   

quote: One day soon, there will likely be a 2Gigahertz Mac. Maybe even a 3Ghz that will bust Intel as the G3 once did when it premered. And that will be great, but even 4 years from now, when PC's are running at speeds requiring a swimming pool as a heat sink, I, and many others will likely be running systems below the Ghz mark.
 

RSN!!!

And do you think that time will magically stop for Intel and AMD?

*but wouldn't you agree that if I wanted to, I shouldn't wait around any longer than needed, right?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]

[psyjax]

What is RSN?     Sorry, but that's the only thing I didn't understand.

I agree with you that the price vs. performance gap between PC's and Mac's sux a big one. And I wish Apple would dump those lazy bastards in Motorola for IBM or even AMD.

But for my money, I still say Mac's are better computers. I'm no strangers to windows PC's and use them regularly. (2k on a 1.2Ghz AMD box, $500 price tag from uBid YIKES!), and while some programs may be snapier, some functions faster, I don't actualy enjoy using the thing.

Windows sux, it's clunky. Applications on it are clunky, when compared to their Mac counterparts and I find the environment stifling, creativly bare, and limiting.

It's not user friendly no matter how you slice it, keeping your software and hardware getting along whenever it desides to freak out on you is a pain, (I have had 2k totaly destroy itself for no particular reason on two ocasions already , requiring a total re-install) And when I use the thing I wish I didn't have to.

In orther words, what you gain in performance you lose in useability IMHO.

But hey, I never have run photoshop on a powerbook 667, so I couldent tell ya. I rutinely open and edit files ranging from 75 to 500MB's on my dual 8, and never see as much as a stutter.

"And do you think that time will magically stop for Intel and AMD?"

No, but that's nither here nor there. Apple whiped out the G3's when Intel's top speed was 233. It can happen, and probably will.

"*but wouldn't you agree that if I wanted to, I shouldn't wait around any longer than needed, right?"

Well, it depends what you want to do with your comkputer, what you want out of it. If you think a PC will suit your needs better than a Mac, more power to you.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[RudeCat7]

Wow, it seems to me that two Mac lovers have given the best argument for building your own pc and installing Linux on it.


Mac Addicts -pay more for a better computer.

Windows Users-pay whatever Bill wants

Linux Users -pay less for a better computer.

[MacUser3of5]

   

I was a bit confrontational, sorry psyjax...

Anyway, I responded like that because it really burns me when people like MacMan start talking out of their ass about everything... especially how macs are faster... which is completely untrue.

I really like Apple. I really want them to be competitive, performance wise... they have an excellent os (with a few rough spots here and there), and some great technological advancements.

It just really sucks because my friends see my TiBook, love it, and they themselves want to get a PowerMac/desktop thing... And I have to tell them that, well, the G4 is too slow for what you pay for... really underpowered. Having to say that sucks. Completely. I think you'll find a lot of people want OS X, but aren't willing to pay a high premium for under-performing equipment.

That is really frustrating for me.

Anyway, RSN = Really Soon Now... that was me being an asshole...      

Edit: RudeCat7... What's a linux?    

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]

[preacher]

You know what. I hate the fact that you lump all pc owners into the same group. Im a linux pc owner, which is 100% different than a Windows pc owner. My computer is fast, strong, secure, and stable, which is more than I can say for a lot of other systems including some macs. And its a bargain basement priced power house at that. For less than $100 I built my linux powered monster. No windows pc or mac can even come close in terms of price, security, services, and stabilit.

Oh by the way, you might not have noticed Apple struggling in the computer market, but I did.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/tech/story/3450133p-4478716c.html

[Calum]

mac users and linux users, both know the full difference between machine and operating system.

the problem is that while many linux users are happy to go on and on about how it's the system that makes the difference and not the machine (which is 80% true and i'll be the first to agree, since i am one of those people), many mac users seem to be too far up their own arses to admit that there is a difference between their mac and their macOS, and that ipso facto there is a difference between linux, an i386 machine and Microsoft windows.

No offence intended if you are reading this and you are a mac user who is not too far up your arse to admit this, but if you get pissed off by my comments, chances are i'm talking about you.

[psyjax]

I said, Windows PC at the beginning of the post...

Less you were refering to Macman.

[IvoryTower]

Being an avid Mac user I loathe to admit that there are certain things I wish Apple would learn from the Wintel world.

Backing up a moment, it has to be said that Apple has a great advantage in that it controls both hardware and OS...this in turn guarantees the consumer a high-quality product (more often than not). I hope this arrangement continues without much variance for the reasons described. On the flip side, this drives up the price considerably...and with the perceived lack of power, the numbers, even if only on paper, are likely to become the death of the sale.

Here's where my first statement comes in: for Apple to stay truly competitive, PPC updates need to happen on a more frequent timeline (akin to Intel/AMD) and only IBM can do this currently. IMO It would take quite a bit of time and work for AMD to retool their fabbing processes in order to accomodate PPC production. Obviously, Apple's albatros Motorola needs to be rid of and fast. And please, if you reply don't speak of Jag on x86...it ain't gonna happen. M$ would make sure of that.

But the hardware troubles extend beyond the processor into total system architecture. The only benefit to current Apple motherboards: integrated IO controllers like FW (where the hell is FW2?), GigEnet and better PCI bandwidth. Drawbacks include a crippled system bus (single 'pipe' @166Mhz) which only allows for a partial DDR implementation. Granted, the 'snort port' Macs have seen some decent improvements over the QuickSilvers of early 02...but not significant enough to make the purchase justifiable to most folks.

So, while most of us want to believe that our Macs are 'top of the line' or 'cutting-edge', one could really only say that about the OS (10.2 to be specific) without crossing his/her fingers behind his/her back. In essense, let's think and speak realistically about Apple's current position...things need to change and quickly. OS development is crucial, but the OS doesn't mean shit unless it has some decent hardware to run on.

I have faith in Apple and its leadership, but only time will tell how this saga plays out.

My $0.02

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: IvoryTower ]

[smokey]

Hey IvoryTower your opinion is good however I think  that it has to be more than system specs.

The "computer" was made to perform a task (mathematical) and that is all but people's interests in simulations, graphics and games drove the development of multipurpose computers. Anything a Macintosh computer can do that a PC can do will always (except maybe raw CPU speed) be better on a Mac because of the fact that Macintosh computers are more elegant, nice computers that you would actually want to use. Windows is a POS and linux is ok but none compare to other architectures os's.

To all mac bashers:
Stop complaining about what Macintosh computers can't do and move on!

To Macintosh lovers:
Help the Macintosh platform. Encourage its use and show people alternatives to Windos and Linux. Not everyone likes linux and Apple makes a good worthwile computer that can do more than people think they can.

I am learning Objective C so I can code stuff for Mac OS X.
Maybe an alternative to "Mac suxx, windows rulez" or "Windos sucks linux rules" should be something along the lines of "Support the platform that supports you!"

[choasforages]

or howabout, linux on an dual ppc mac, hmmm, lets see, kicks the shit out of x86 any day. probably kicks the shit out of macosx/*if linux can take advantage of alti-vec, my mplayer would probably be much faster*/ and is more familir of a unix the osx./*fucking /etc/fstab, what the fuck were they thinking*/ i wonder what macoxi is giong to be like. i mean, once down the UNIX path. its kinda hard to switch to something like classic style os. so as i was saying, use what makes you happy

[penguin341]

quote:Originally posted by trc3:
[QB]There is no way in hell a pc users is going to convince a mac user to switch, and vice versa, the only way people switch is by using the other and deciding witch they like better.
/QB]

Umm, thats a load of crap. I have already convinced two of my good friends to switch to mac. One of them is now the happy owner of a Flat Panel iMac, and the other purchased an iPod and hopes to purchase a Mac for college. And yes, I am obviously a mac user.