You guys think that Macs are so damn fast? Have a look at this.

[cocoamix]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:


They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful.

Yeah, so they can run LINUX clusters at Rendering Farms. The real creative work is still done on Macs.

 

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:

PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses

I guess all there are fake, eh?

[choasforages]

yeah, x86, i would rather use a dual 233 mhz ibm rs/6000 then a dual athlon thank you

[trc3]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses

HA!! HAHA!!! Good one...

[rtgwbmsr]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:

I'm sorry your mediocre Macintosh can't handle web pages with frames and pictures, but don't take it out on us Windows users.

Are you serious? That's the only one you can come up with a response to?

If you want to argue something make it half-way decent please, and stop wasting the world's time with your idiocy.

PS: Windows crashed when I tried to load the site. No BSOD's in XP? BS!

[the_black_angel]

XP!! The installer crashed twice

And within a day it had crashed three times, once it totally froze - i could not do anything, the other two imes it scrolled a heap of text across the screen then restarted, i would tell you what the text said but it scrolled too fast for me to read it.

This is extremely similiar to a Mac OS X Kernel panic (i randomly deleted things out of core services    )

Windows displays graphics extremely badly compared to an apple, get exactly the same image and look at it on a mac and then look at in windows and you will see a difference.

[ravuya]

quote:Originally posted by the_black_angel:
XP!! The installer crashed twice

And within a day it had crashed three times, once it totally froze - i could not do anything, the other two imes it scrolled a heap of text across the screen then restarted, i would tell you what the text said but it scrolled too fast for me to read it.

This is extremely similiar to a Mac OS X Kernel panic (i randomly deleted things out of core services     )

Windows displays graphics extremely badly compared to an apple, get exactly the same image and look at it on a mac and then look at in windows and you will see a difference.

Yes, and Windows has problems with color. A page will look entirely different when rendered in Windows.

The XP installer crashed when it ran out of disk space half way through the install. Shouldn't it... you know... CHECK?

[Kintaro]

quote:Originally posted by Ravuya:


it looks like Windows caught up with CD-ROMS, by right-clicking a CD-ROM in Windows and picking 'Eject' it will eject. But, nope, Windows won't eject floppies.     Because x86 floppy drives suck.

Im working on building one that does. Maybe even writing some software to eject if via ParaPort.

Im going to compare a Z/80 based machine with a pushbutton for a cpu (hit rapidly) with a P-IV 2.0ghz

Compare a G4-1ghz with a P-3 1 ghz and see who wins!

[Kintaro]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:


They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful.

PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses

Windows XP does crash, Linux does crash, Mac does crash, everything can crash... unplug your CPU well the system is running... it will crash!

You are an idiot because i had XP and it kept crashing and i know what your thinking "Screwy Hardware" well its not my fault XP cant handle my setup, but dont take it out on us Linux users.

So why do you post here XP Luser?

[Kintaro]

Anyway XP Luser was saying XP starts faster than KDE, so i timed them all....

SCSI Enabled:
XP: 49.7 secs
KDE: 7.8 secs
LINUX: 45.2 secs
GNOME: 4.2 secs

No SCSI:
XP: 15.2 secs
KDE: 7.8 secs
LINUX: 35.2 secs
GNOME: 4.2 secs

The fact is that XP does start faster but i have a dodgy SCSI controller that needs a delay on XP and Win2k to stop crashes. And Linux it just takes extra time, same with XP.

Anyway I think i have proven that XP Luser is a bullshit artist, everyone post your times!

[voidmain]

I don't have to post my times, I never turn my computers off.  I guess that would be "0" seconds.

[cahult]

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
I don't have to post my times, I never turn my computers off.  I guess that would be "0" seconds.

Wow, how much is your bill?  

[choasforages]

i do the same thing, the only machine i knows boot time is mine, with Redhat 7.3, it boots in about a minute or so. with FreeBSD, it boots in under 20 seconds, ChoasNETOS is he fastest but ive never measured it

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Macman:
Do I have to remind you people again that you cannot compare Mac and PC speed. They are two different configurations. The Mac's processor does move more slowly, but it is also more efficient. PCs have to move more quickly and they still don't measure up to the Mac. So zombie, you're right. In many cases PCs' processors are faster, but only because they have to work harder.

Zombie, you are an idiot! Everything you've posted here has been countered by us. You know this as well as I do, so please quit fighting us just to fight.

Ehhh? It is more like Macs don't measure up to the x86 PC. I think that it is perfectly clear that the fastest PC's available right now kick the dog shit out of the fastest Macs available now. The PC's will only continue to keep getting faster while your beloved Macs are still struggling to get faster than 1 ghz. The fastest PC's available today(the ones that whip the shit out of the Macs) are also cheaper than the fastest Macs. PC's are better by a longshot because they are faster, cheaper, keep evolving, have more hardware available to them(and more faster hardware being made every week), have more software and more OS chioces than the Mac.

Macs are overpriced hunks of junk that are made for fools who believe Steve Jobs' propoganda. It is no wonder why PC's have so much more market share than Macs.
 
PS. You haven't countered a damn thing buddy. This post was made to show that Macs are not "all that". Nothing that has been posted in this topic counters that either. Face the fact...your Mac is a dinosaur compared to state of the art PC's. The truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[socokid]

Winblows XP User:


"I'm sorry your mediocre Macintosh can't handle web pages with frames and pictures, but don't take it out on us Windows users."


What an idiot. My god. Even the most novice of computer users would realize that is has EVERYTHING to do with the browser app, and NOTHING to do with the OS with regard to page rendering. What an idiot.


quote: Like any of the professional video editors or Photoshop experts will even care. Graphics and Video professionals are more concerned with the user interface, stability, and lack of hardware and OS headaches than crap like benchmarks.

"They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful."

Holy crap. Of COURSE their cheaper, they SUCK! They're power hungry heat machines. Anyone can make something faster by adding more crap to the crap. That's without mentioning the simple fact that more are made. Supply/demand.


"PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses"


I'll let that one lie... *sigh*

[ravuya]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
your beloved Macs are still struggling to get faster than 1 ghz.

Too bad you haven't been keeping up. We went to dual 1.25GHz + DDR about a week ago. If there's something I hate more than an obvious troll (which you are), it's an obvious troll who can't even bother to keep up with what he's bashing.