Operating Systems > macOS
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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? :D 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? :D
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version