Displays: Ok, I have to fume now!

[Zammy-Sam]

natively the fsb is set at 200Mhz but after the multiplier it is like 800Mhz.

[King Shrek]

Originally Posted by Zammy-Sam

Shrek, you are a typicall pc user from what I read by now. You are pretty much obsessed with numbers. I would suggest you to pick certain applications and try them on macs and pcs. You will then understand why Macs are so much spread in the professional and educational field.

Thank God I actually do look at the numbers and too many Macheads just don't understand that not everything Apple tells them about it's products is necessarily true. They often greatly exaggerate what their products can do just to make it sound good when they market them.

[King Shrek]

Originally Posted by Pengu

OK. What part of "FSB 200MHz" means 800mhz? I mean, I don't pretend to understand all the little idiosyncrocies of Voltages vs mhz vs Clock cycles vs watts vs ohms, but i can read english, and that sure as hell looks like 200.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...e_6800-22.html

Click Here

[Zammy-Sam]

Originally Posted by King Shrek

Thank God I actually do look at the numbers and too many Macheads just don't understand that not everything Apple tells them about it's products is necessarily true. They often greatly exaggerate what their products can do just to make it sound good when they market them.

I disagree. Every new technology introduction of course tends to exaggregate. But once you test the software, there is no other prove that is needed. If my software runs much better on my mac eventhough it can't compete the pc box by the clock speed and cache size, it would be darn stupid to still go for the number hype. I find it very obtuse to just believe in those numbers. PR marketing if you ask me.

[King Shrek]

Originally Posted by Zammy-Sam

I disagree. Every new technology introduction of course tends to exaggregate. But once you test the software, there is no other prove that is needed. If my software runs much better on my mac eventhough it can't compete the pc box by the clock speed and cache size, it would be darn stupid to still go for the number hype. I find it very obtuse to just believe in those numbers. PR marketing if you ask me.

It matters not how well they run. The numbers do matter because you are only referring to performance of specific applications, while I am talking about overall system performance with ANY application.

What are you trying to do anyway? Get me to consider buying a G3 or G4 system? It's not worth it. I already made up my mind about a year ago; I'm going to buy an affordable G5 system and that's that.

[Zammy-Sam]

You won't find a system that is outperforming others in ANY application. You always need to ask yourself why you need the computer and what you gonna do with it. I am not talking you into G3 or G4 macs. My point is that currently there is no gap in performance and price in apples stores. If you want a fast system for developing games and the G5 powermac is too expensive, then a Dual G4 should do. You know, ppl developed good games in <2003 as well, where there was no G5 yet. So, thinking G5 is the only option is not really based on good research.. (also see other thread).
It's annoying to see ppl making sure statements which are based on very disoriented arguements.
But congrats for your decission. I hope it was the best.

[Randman]

Affordable G5 system? That's bare bones. Instead of waiting on and on and getting all antsy, get a decent system now with enough ram and quit bellyaching.

[King Shrek]

Originally Posted by Randman

Affordable G5 system? That's bare bones. Instead of waiting on and on and getting all antsy, get a decent system now with enough ram and quit bellyaching.

No. Affordable to me would have be a G5 iMac, which knowing Apple it should come in at a modest midrange computer price.