# I Have Been Forced To Buy A Pc



## Joseph Spiros (Oct 14, 2001)

I have become a traitor... I am so sorry to all of you... but...

I AHVE BEEN FORCED TO PURCHASE A PC!!!!

I love Apple, and Macintosh, and everything else about it, but for us poor power hungry people, Mac's just dont help... They are too darned expensive for just a "kinda-powerful" system, when PC's are supercheap. Well, until I am rich enuff to get a NICE Mac for my money, or until Apple gets their acts together and allows companies to make clones, I will have to deal with this:

http://www.alienware.com/main/confi...rieveQuote=joseph.spiros@chronosurf.com-58739

Oh well... I'm probally gonna install some Distro on Linux tho... cant stand Windows 

Please Please Please Please Please tell me how sorry you feel for me


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

My sincerest condolences


----------



## Jadey (Oct 14, 2001)

Heh, Apple hardware is so expensive, so you went out and bought an alienware machine - typically one of the most expensively priced PCs for their configuration. If you really wanted to save some money, you should have bought another brand - or a non-branded machine. Now that you've saved yourself a couple hundred initially, sorry to tell ya that you're going to more than make up for that in electricity bills powering those overheated chips. My sympathy: see ya.. wouldn't wanna be ya


----------



## sithious (Oct 14, 2001)

argh that machine is ugly...


----------



## RacerX (Oct 14, 2001)

That sure seems like a lot of money for what you are getting. I could put together a very nice Mac for that amount. The only reason to go with a PC over a Mac would have to be for software reasons. If you already own a ton of PC software, then you don't need to replace it if you get a PC. But moving to a Mac would mean aquiring new software. I have a ton of Mac software, so it doesn't cost me anything extra to buy a new Mac.

Still, what do you actually need that much speed for? I have never recommended a top of the line system for anyone who wasn't doing photoshop, 3D rendering or high end mathematics. Most games depend more on the graphics card than the processor these days, and 90% of the apps out there don't get any faster with clock speed (I type just as fast today as I did ten years ago when the top of the line was a 33Mhz system). Even going with a PC, you could get just as much real world power out of a system that cost half as much. That is as much as I paid for my four fastest systems put together.

I know you are not old enough to drive yet, but you may have heard about this before. When buying a new car, you have lost money the moment you drive it off the lot. It is the same with computers... only worse.


----------



## fiznutz (Oct 14, 2001)

yeah and the fact that pc hardware gets old so darn fast dont make it cheaper anyway! you can keep a top of the line G4 a lot longer then top of the line AMD/intel machine. + it saves you alot of trouble. i dont fell sorry for you if you waited for a month or 2 you could save more money and get a real computer good luck with the crashes!
PS.
dont blame it on APPLE
DS.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Oct 14, 2001)

Why should be feel sorry for you? You really aren't "forced" to buy a PC, you are choosing to. You can buy a good used or reconditioned Mac for the same price, maybe less. And if you already own Mac software, you are going to end up spending more rebuying new PC versions. 

Buy you have nothing to warrant pity. WindowsXP isn't horrible. It's OK. It's not OS X, but if I had to use something other than a Mac, a WinXP PC would be my first choice.


----------



## mrtew (Oct 14, 2001)

I don't think you are looking for pity party at all; I think you are bragging that you have found a machine that  you think is cooler looking than a Mac.  (And I kind of agree with you too.)   I would never sink to the level that I would actually buy a pee-see but your letter is a wake up call to Apple that they need to put the heat on the designers to keep the weaker members of the herd from straying.


----------



## rmcquistion (Oct 14, 2001)

I hate when that happen.....But there a PC emulator that you can run Windows on Mac!

www.connectix.com.

I hope I will not be froced to buy PC....But I will if I am froced to.

WHY?!

Because if I don't, I lose job. That would be stuipid thing to do.    If I am, I will buy PC emulator for a Mac! 

Just pay $150 for Virtual PC. Then when who ever didn't need you to have a PC anymore....Sell it!


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Oct 14, 2001)

Well, I'll admit, I'm not being FORCED to buy a PC, however, for what I do (Photoshop and Lightwave), its cheaper... I mean, I WANT a Mac... I really do, but its so much. I'll also admit that an Alienware machine IS one of the more expensive PC brands out there, but, I'll admit, I think its the closest I can get to a Mac without getting one (cool looks, and when I install Linux, It'll have the same great features as OS X.)

If someone has a way for me to get a nice G4 with basically the same setup as http://www.alienware.com/main/confi...rieveQuote=joseph.spiros@chronosurf.com-58901

please tell me... I would love to hear about it because, if there was a system like it, I would buy it right away.

I'll also admit that I have some PC software I would love to run (namely Lightwave 6 and the game Half Life), and VPC, if you have ever tried it, is the WORST way to go.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

Forgive me for saying this but those alein designs are just butt ugly 


I dont foresee getting a PC for productivity.
I probably would get one as a hobby thing, buy the parts on my own and then load OSes on it.  I already have installed disks/CDs for 25 x86 OSes 


Admiral


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

> Well, I'll admit, I'm not being FORCED to buy a PC, however, for what I do
> (Photoshop and Lightwave), its cheaper... I mean, I WANT a Mac... I really
> do, but its so much. I'll also admit that an Alienware machine IS one of
> the more expensive PC brands out there, but, I'll admit, I think its the
> ...



I got news for you   You aint gonna be able to run those apps in linux, I dont think


----------



## iamnotmad (Oct 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Joseph Spiros _
> *Well, I'll admit, I'm not being FORCED to buy a PC, however, for what I do (Photoshop and Lightwave), its cheaper... I mean, I WANT a Mac... I really do, but its so much. I'll also admit that an Alienware machine IS one of the more expensive PC brands out there, but, I'll admit, I think its the closest I can get to a Mac without getting one (cool looks, and when I install Linux, It'll have the same great features as OS X.)
> 
> If someone has a way for me to get a nice G4 with basically the same setup as http://www.alienware.com/main/confi...rieveQuote=joseph.spiros@chronosurf.com-58901
> ...



1) Linux is nothing like OSX. No linux distro is.
2) you cannot run those apps on linux (PS or Lightwave.
3) You could get a dual 800 g4 stripped (no superdrive, low ram, etc) add ram for cheap) for hardly more than the price of that pc.  And the mac will run most of those linux apps, *plus* photoshop and runs Lightwave 7b excellently.
4)  reality is, these overpriced pcs are NO better than any other cheapo.  The name means nothing.  They just build pcs from the same parts you could buy and build yourself.


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Oct 14, 2001)

Quick Question... the GeForce3 that you can get with a G4.... does it have a VGA connector on the back ALONG with a ADC?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2001)

Yup.  ADC and VGA.  You can only use one at a time, though, unless you get the GeForce2 Twin-View.


----------



## jarinteractive (Oct 14, 2001)

My college told me to get a Dell laptop; I instead saved up my money and got a TiBook.  It is worth it!  All those PC laptops running around campus are horrid!  Many of my friends are very sad that they got a Windows machine.  They are always having trouble, but my computer just keeps working .

-JARinteractive


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Oct 14, 2001)

Well, heres what I configured that I could get (note: the items prefixed with *s are items I got myself and will install myself):

733MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
* 512MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive
* 16x DVD-ROM drive
NVIDIA GeForce3 - 64MB DDR-SDRAM
* LaCie Electron19Blue Monitor
56K internal modem
* SoundBlaster Live! for Macintosh
* SoundBlaster Inspire 5.1 Speaker System
Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
Mac OS - U.S. English
Gigabit Ethernet
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
Apple Pro Mouse

Total (without S&H) = $2729.98


I guess that *is* enough for me... However, I was wondering one thing about the new Quicksilver cases:

If you don't get anything for the second drive bay, will they ship you another CD/DVD Bezel that there is nothing behind, or will they ship you a non-movable bezel? If so, where can I get a CD/DVD Bezel?


----------



## RacerX (Oct 14, 2001)

My question still falls into the area of software. That is a great system, but what about software? If I was buying anything but a Mac (as a replacement for my Mac vs. all the extra systems I currently have that are not Macs) I would be looking at a lot of money to get software for them. Don't get me wrong, I would love for you to get a Mac as much as the next guy, but you should take EVERYTHING into consideration before putting your money on the table. If you already have photoshop and lightwave for PC, find out what it is going to cost to "upgrade" to the Mac versions.

As for your old software (things like office and stuff), you could just run it in VirtualPC. But don't get the version with Windows preinstalled if you already have the Windows install CDs, just get the DOS version. It is far less expensive and you shouldn't have to pay for the OS twice.


----------



## buggs1a (Oct 14, 2001)

I say congrats. pc's are way cheaper and more powerfull if you buy their top of the line AMD cpu's. They play all the games and run so many more apps then the mac. The problem and sad thing is you are forced to use windows for that or linux which i hate. I have a pc and mac and don't use my mac cus the pc does everything i need. Sad, but that's the way it is for me. So I've even thought about selling my mac and in time, buy a faster/more top of the line dual mac then i have now, like a dual G5.

i am into games and news group access. the mac doesn't do either one well. it doesn't have the games I like and it does not have a good news group program. not one. lololol. Also the mac can not play all the avi/mpegs I have, so it's useless there. As I access the news every day and play a game every day or so, the mac for me is pretty much useless. now. if it ran VPC way faster or had native apps that i use on the pc, I'd never touch windows or a pc ever again. but this won't happen for years in my opinion.

if windows runs all yer apps you need and better then mac i say buy a pc. buy a mac if it runs all yer apps you need and runs them good. buy mac over the pc any day. i hate windows, but i love how it has what i need and the cost is sooo cheap compared to Apple.

I hate this how the mac doesn't do what i want/need. cus i don't wanna use windows. but oh well.


----------



## foo (Oct 15, 2001)

I made that mistake, I just invested money in a PC at the recommendation of one of my developer mates, to run various database apps. It has been the worst mistake of my life 8( I have spent the weekend reinstalling, seriously, I am on the 3rd reinstall for this weekend.

I can't use this piece of junk for anything but games, it is a glorified games console. It is totally unreliable and crashes for absolutely no reason. So much so, that I thank god everyday for my apples, they make computing worthwhile.

It is not an economical solution, the mac might cost a tad more, but I get at least 3 hours more work out of it a day. It is more reliable, and I find it much more conducive to a creative environment.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

I'd love to have 2 screens


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

Mac doesnt do newsgroups???? ROTFLMAO


----------



## solrac (Oct 15, 2001)

> _Originally posted by foo _
> *I made that mistake, I just invested money in a PC at the recommendation of one of my developer mates, to run various database apps. It has been the worst mistake of my life 8( I have spent the weekend reinstalling, seriously, I am on the 3rd reinstall for this weekend.
> 
> I can't use this piece of junk for anything but games, it is a glorified games console. It is totally unreliable and crashes for absolutely no reason. So much so, that I thank god everyday for my apples, they make computing worthwhile.
> ...



Ummm.... since when does windows crash more than mac? Unless you are talking about OS X.

Thoth for OS X is a pretty good news reader!

OS X I think is better than Windows because first, you can run all the major graphics apps. Plus, you can run any Linux / Unix software if you install the X Windows system. (Hard to do, but possible on OS X.) Third, if you HAVE to, you can run Virtual PC. Plus, many cool games are coming out for OS X.

With OS X, you can do database, programming, games, and graphics, and video of course.

What you can't do is play EVERY game, and run many smaller software titles that are only for Windows.

The biggest drawback of the Mac is flash. Flash player for mac is shit. If you are into flash, and like flash, do NOT get a mac, unless you plan to wait for the new better flash player (if it ever comes to life).

If someone asked me something that a mac can't do, honestly, that it honestly can't compete with Windows, the ONLY thing I'd say is Flash, and pricing.

On the other hand though, that means windows can do everything a mac can do, INCLUDING flash. However, OS X is much more advanced, in my opinion. It's based on UNIX.... open source...... more solid foundation..... better graphics.... I think Motorola makes the better chip, too, especially when the G5s come out.

But if you're poor, I'd seriously recommend getting a Windows box. A similar mac usually is around $1000 more than a similar PC.

-Carlos-


----------



## yogel (Oct 15, 2001)

My current setup, I must admit is a hybrid area.

I'm a web developer, need ASP etc.

I run Win 2K Advanced Server - it is insanely stable & usable... hardly ever dies. (except for critical updates... but that's another story...)

I also run a redhat linux box.

I have a G3 Powerbook, iMac DV 400, iMac 266, Powerbook G3 233, Powerbook G4 ti (well... it's not mine... but it is on the network), 2x Powerbook 1400cs, Quadra 850.

I love my macs. I love my PC. All of them are cool, all of them server different usable purposes. If someone tells me they want to buy a PC and not a mac, the first question I ask is - what for?

If they want to play half life & do asp development, buy a PC. If they want to just get onto the internet, and only have $1000AU, buy a PC. If they need 16 processors, I tell them to go and be crazy. 

But, in any other situations, i almost always recommend the mac. Photoshop runs 1000x faster, and much more stably on a mac. If you want to do video/film stuff, buy a mac (or an avid). If you want to do audio, buy a mac. If you want to get onto the internet, get a mac. If you need something to give to your kids that they can learn easily and use, get a amc. Athlons are good, and fast, but still not as stable as PIV's, and PIV's are dreadfully expensive. If you want to have a computer you can use, buy a mac. If you don't want to have to be on the line to the support guys because you have to format your hdd *again* then buy a mac. On the whole, my mac's run flawlessly. The only real times i have problems is when I do stupid stuff like try and modify system (in OS 9). 

But... If they want to do a lot rendering in Maya, then buy a PC. And buy a mac. That way, you can render it on a 4 Processor 1GHz Xeon SGI machine (which will be faster than any dual G4 atm - no buts, I know... been there done that...), and design it using a very nice Dual G4 800, with a graphics tablet, etc., etc.,...

So... I have no qualms with people buying a PC for work purposes... but just remember that if you are in any way a designer, buy a Mac, or a $20 000 PC. That's when you start to notice the difference. Up to that point, the mac kicks ass.

Andrew


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

Dang 
You must have lots of dough 
Can you buy me an SGI O2 ?


----------



## yogel (Oct 15, 2001)

as much as I'd like to claim it is, It wasn't my SGI, and in fact it was only a 540 NT box... so it was only 550MHz Xeons...

never the less 

you tend to acquire computers when you work selling them most of your day...

Andrew


----------



## RacerX (Oct 15, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *Ummm.... since when does windows crash more than mac? Unless you are talking about OS X.
> *



From years of supporting both, I can tell you that Mac OS 8+ hardly crashes if you set it up correctly. I would bet on any Mac (Mac OS 8-9.2) I set up (running non-game apps) against any Windows 95/98/Me system (again, running non-game apps) in actual uptime. I had to install NT 4.0 (sp6) on 12 Windows 98 systems because they couldn't go a day without crashing (usually twice in a day) while only running Office and IE. Windows NT 4/2000 Pro match what I've gotten in uptimes with 8.6/9.1 systems, but then again it helps to remove ALL extnsions that have nothing to do with the systems you are running. Also you can make a replacement restore CD (replacing the one that Apple supplies) with all your all and setting in place (if you have users who "play with thing on their systems). All and all, Macs are more "User Proof" than Windows systems any day of the week. 

On my home systems (5 of which are running Mac OS 8.1-9.1) which I'm not the only user, they can go weeks without crashing (and almost all system wide crashes occur during games).

As for Mac OS X, none of my Rhapsody based systems have gone down in the last 9 monthes, and the only crashing I've had with Mac OS X 10.0/10.1 has occurred (again) while using games (and only twice that I can recall).



> *
> The biggest drawback of the Mac is flash. Flash player for mac is shit. If you are into flash, and like flash, do NOT get a mac, unless you plan to wait for the new better flash player (if it ever comes to life).
> *



??? What are you seeing that I'm missing here? I know a few people who put together Flash sites and they are all using Macs.



> *
> On the other hand though, that means windows can do everything a mac can do, INCLUDING flash. However, OS X is much more advanced, in my opinion. It's based on UNIX.... open source...... more solid foundation..... better graphics.... I think Motorola makes the better chip, too, especially when the G5s come out.
> *



Except run rootless apps! Windows is far behind the Mac in many areas, and the ONLY strong point for Windows (which has never made Microsoft happy) is gaming. If it wasn't for gaming, Windows 95 would have been the end of the 95/98/Me line. That line has been a sore point in Microsofts quality record (okay, you can add security to that as well) for more than 5 years. Anyone who has worked closely with Microsoft knows that they first had to fight hardware developers (through sp3) and then public preceptions on NT 4.0 (and most users really can't tell  the difference when using productivity apps).



> *
> But if you're poor, I'd seriously recommend getting a Windows box. A similar mac usually is around $1000 more than a similar PC.
> *



Actually if your poor and own all your apps already, there really isn't that much different between  similar systems (current Mac prices fall right in the middle of the range between the over priced and the hardly running  PC systems that "look" like they have the same equipment). Anyone pushing one over the other doesn't have your best interest at heart. In the end, your better off going with the one you want, not the one everyone else is pushing (Mac or PC).


----------



## yogel (Oct 15, 2001)

Hi.

I'm going to try and clear this up. Flash on a Mac (even on a Dual G4 500) plays up to 20% slower than it does on a PC (eg a PIII 450).

In fact... in general 2D performance is not quite as good on a mac as it is on a PC. BUT this is purely due to the fact that the authors have not optimised their code enough. (We can tell this from apps like QT, OS X)

Authoring flash on PC is marginally easier, because of the right mouse button (yes I know you can get it on a mac... but...), and keyboard setup.

Personally, I own flash 5 for mac, a friend owns flash 5 for PC, and if I had to choose, i'd pick flash 5 for PC... but i must stress *that there is nothing wrong with flash on a mac*. It is a good idea to author it on a mac, because then you can see how a real computer plays flash 

A.


----------



## yogel (Oct 15, 2001)

On a side note...

flash for OSX is around...

cast your mind back to the first OSX demo by Mr Jobs. The only non-apple app being demonstrated native in X was Flash 5...

We were told at the launch of the 4 stuff (Ultradev, Dreamweaver, Fireworks) that Flash 5 for OSX would ship simultaneously with OSX.

... anybody know why it didn't?

Andrew


----------



## solrac (Oct 15, 2001)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> From years of supporting both, I can tell you that Mac OS 8+ hardly crashes if you set it up correctly. I would bet on any Mac (Mac OS 8-9.2) I set up (running non-game apps) against any Windows 95/98/Me system (again, running non-game apps) in actual uptime.
> ...



I don't know how this is possible. I can install OS 9.2 on my Mom's G3 with NO extensions, just BASE set for OS 9 and it crashes a couple times a day. Same on my G4 Cube, which I sold to get my TiBook. OS 9.2 is set up on that with BASE only extensions (cuz I use OS X) and that shit crashes every day. I pity Macintosh Pre OS X, just for that.




> *??? What are you seeing that I'm missing here? I know a few people who put together Flash sites and they are all using Macs.*



I've put together many great flash sites on my mac, too. But you're totally missing the whole problem. Flash player on the mac slows down to MOLASSES when too much animation is involved. Also, it processes strings much slower, and hangs up too often when sending data back and forth to a server. Flash is TOUGH on the mac. The PC software runs circles around the Mac. This is a complete software issue and has NOTHING to do with mac or pc hardware. Something is totally screwed up with Macromedia's product on the mac, currently. Try playing a non-super-simple flash site side by side mac vs. pc. It's sad. Makes the mac look HORRIBLE. Try vmatrix.com. Or flashgods.com/portfolio/games/tetris. Or nightplans.com (now a butchered site). These are all sites I've created in flash, on the mac. But it still sucks on the mac. I'd buy a PC if I had the money just to do my flash work on.




> *Except run rootless apps! Windows is far behind the Mac in many areas, and the ONLY strong point for Windows (which has never made Microsoft happy) is gaming. If it wasn't for gaming, Windows 95 would have been the end of the 95/98/Me line. That line has been a sore point in Microsofts quality record (okay, you can add security to that as well) for more than 5 years. Anyone who has worked closely with Microsoft knows that they first had to fight hardware developers (through sp3) and then public preceptions on NT 4.0 (and most users really can't tell  the difference when using productivity apps).*



What do you mean by rootless apps? Where is Windows far behind the Mac? What can the Mac certifiably do that Windows just can't do at all? Nothing! (As long as you are experienced and have the right software, there is NOTHING Windows can't do that a Mac can do.) Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe there's a few new things with Unix and stuff, but besides that.

-solrac-
(Was a Mac user for 10 years, and got disgusted with the crap that is OS 9 and before. Currently, a Mac user only because of OS X, and almost grateful to be so... but Flash just kills it for me (but that's only temporarily).)


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

I dont understand why your macs crash twice a day 

I could have my macs (one at work, beige G3 tower, one at home B&W G3) running all day *and* being used (being used is an integral part lol... if you dont use em they probably wont have an opportunity to crash ) and the are really stable.  I have these macs turned on all day long and shut em down when I leave work, or go to sleep and still nothing bad happens 


Admiral


----------



## solrac (Oct 15, 2001)

My experiences with anything Pre OS X is horrible, dreadful, shit.

I don't know why...... just don't know why.....

And Flash is WAAAAY worse than 20% slower on a PC. It's totally screwed on mac. The OS X player doesn't help any.

Just do a test..... you'll see.... side by side...

Hopefully soon Macromedia fixes this.

-solrac-


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

There there man!
Its gonna be alright 
Here have a buweiser he he he 
Its juuust a computer


----------



## solrac (Oct 15, 2001)

EVIL!!!!!!!!!! E-VIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NYAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NYAHHHHHHHHHCKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 15, 2001)

I dont blame u 
I dont like beer 

Want a martini ? screwdriver ? mudslide ? 

and for europeans who know what I am talking about: A blade? an X99 ? a Rigo ?  lol



Admiral


----------



## RacerX (Oct 15, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> What do you mean by rootless apps? Where is Windows far behind the Mac? What can the Mac certifiably do that Windows just can't do at all? Nothing! (As long as you are experienced and have the right software, there is NOTHING Windows can't do that a Mac can do.) Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe there's a few new things with Unix and stuff, but besides that.
> 
> ...



Rootless: a good example would be photoshop. Open photoshop in windows, can you see the desktop? Can you see other open apps? Lets change the window size, what happens to the windows containing the open images? I would say that photoshop on Windows is pretty bad.

Windows requires installers for most apps. How about booting from a CD? Accessing a system's drive when the OS is down (that is a fun one with Windows). Up until OS X, everything the systems needed was in the systems folder (ever has a use delete stuff off the root level of a Windows systems?). How about murging one of the most crash prone apps ever created in to the OS to strengthen market share. And as for "certifiably", how about run Mac software. I have a ton of stuff that only runs on Macs (NO Windows version exist, or OS X at this time). I like I say, unless you use your computer as a toy, Macs are better at most things. 

As for you sucess at keeping it up (your Mac that is), I don't know why you are having problems. Maybe Windows is better for you. I have never tried to convert, if you like Windows, we won't miss you.


----------



## PoweMACuser (Oct 16, 2001)

My PowerMac also crashes before. At that time I was  using 9.0.4. Every day it crashed up to 10 times. Then I update it to 9.1. It crashed around 5 times every day. and now I am using 9.2.1, My computer crashes around 1 in a week.

OS X also crashes when using iTool. But very few. around 1 per month or better.


----------



## rharder (Oct 16, 2001)

Get whatever kind of computer you want, but that's a pretty rotten price you have going there. The only interesting part of the system is the 1.8Ghz chip.

-Rob


----------



## serpicolugnut (Oct 16, 2001)

You are getting hosed! If you are going to spend that kind of money, go this route:

BTO an Apple G4/867...

-Up the processor to the dual800
-Go with the minimum RAM, HD. Drop the internal modem if you don't need it. 
-If the GF 2MX Twinview is fine for you, keep that. Otherwise, go for the GeForce3. Much better graphics card. OK, here's your specs now:
 Dual 800MHz PowerPC G4
 128MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
 40GB Ultra ATA drive
 CD-RW drive
 NVIDIA GeForce3 - 64MB DDR-SDRAM
 56K internal modem
 Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
 Mac OS - U.S. English
 Gigabit Ethernet
 Two USB ports
 Two FireWire ports
 Apple Pro Mouse

Total:$3,049.00 

Add another 512MB of RAM from OWC or just about anybody for that matter for around $50. So your total is now $3100.
If you don't need the GF3, go with the standard GF2 and save $350. Your subtotal (with OWC RAM) is now $2750. Or if you really want the Superdrive, drop the GF3 and go with the Superdrive ($400 option).

Yeah, this is quite a lot more than the average PC, but it is a Mac...


----------



## serpicolugnut (Oct 16, 2001)

Buggs1a writes: 
"i am into games and news group access. the mac doesn't do either one well. it doesn't have the games I like and it does not have a good news group program. not one. lololol. Also the mac can not play all the avi/mpegs I have, so it's useless there. As I access the news every day and play a game every day or so, the mac for me is pretty much useless. "

*WRONG* 

1st - there are so many Newsgroup readers for Mac it isn't even funny. Granted the OS X selection is much more limited (right now), but under OS 9 you have : Newswatcher, MT Newswatcher, YA Newswatcher, Outlook Express, Eudora, Thoth. Under OS X you have Newswatcher X and Thoth. These are just the ones that come to mind. The only newsreader worth a damn I've ever been able to use under Windows is Newsshark, and it's nowhere near as good as the Mac equivilant.

2nd - Games. Yeah, there aren't as many games available for the Mac. But we've got the big ones. QuakeIII. Alice. HeavyMetal FAKK. STV: Elite Force, TombRaider, Myst, etc etc etc. 

If games are your thing - get a damn Playstation or XBox. 

3rd - QuickTime handles .AVI / MPEG files just fine if you have the latest version. And if you have QT Pro, you can export them to .MOV. Also, there is something called the *Windows Media Player for Mac* , and it works great. The OS X version will be out next month along with Office v. X, but the OS 9 version is here.

If you use a PC, power to ya. No one is faulting you for that. But you aren't going to get away with disseminating PC propaganda on this site. 

On the PC defense side - yeah, Flash playback on the Mac sucks. A G4/400 can playback Flash content at almost 1/3rd slower than a P3/800. My dual 800 handles it very nicely though, right about the speed of a 1.2ghz Athlon.


----------



## buggs1a (Oct 16, 2001)

AdmiralAK
the mac doesn't have one good news group app. none of them do what i need.
i need multiple server support so it combine all servers files in one list for more completetion etc. look at www.newspro.com and www.newsbin.com for the 2 best nntp client apps in the world. i need multiple server support and for the app to do what i need. not one mac app does this. so im stuck using windows for it.


----------



## solrac (Oct 16, 2001)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> Rootless: a good example would be photoshop. Open photoshop in windows, can you see the desktop? Can you see other open apps? Lets change the window size, what happens to the windows containing the open images? I would say that photoshop on Windows is pretty bad.
> ...



Ok true, I ALWAYS liked that better about mac. I hate the way apps in windows have to be inside some "bigger" window. Also, the usabillity of the OS is much better in the fact that all extensions are in system folder, apps can be moved anywhere and still work, all preferences are in the preferences folder. Preferences files are the easiest thing ever made, only on mac. As opposed to ... a REGISTRY...... BLAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know why my Mac OS 9 crashed so much, either. If I had the uptimes you guys had on OS 9, I would have NEVER EVER NEVER complained. But, OS X fixes that for EVERYBODY. I was the only one praising the OS X public beta when everyone else was flaming it, just because it was miraculous to me that it was the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I saw a mac not crash 3 times a day.

And honestly, Windows would be better for me, today. Only because of Flash. Flash is hosed on mac, currently. It is 3 to 4 times slower than ANY PC, even old ones. And there are much more 3rd party tools for Flash on PC.

But, I like everything else about Mac so much better I use a mac anyway, only because of OS X though.

There's no way OS 9 is better than Windows. No way in hell. Yes, rootless apps and a MUCH more intuitive OS construction, and better looking... but other than that Windows topples it in every conceivable way.

But now with OS X...... it is the shit. It is the all-encompassing system. Run Unix, Windows, Mac, Linux, etc. etc. NEVER crash, fast, beautiful..... it's amazing.

But you DO need to be a SUPER power user to appreciate it and harness ALL of it. I can't even install X Windows. It never worked for me. But I don't know shit about Unix either. The point is I can't show up any of my Windows friends with installation of GIMP and X Windows, because I can't do it. LOL

I'm very happy to still be able to stick with Apple.

-solrac-


----------



## buggs1a (Oct 16, 2001)

serpicolugnut

none of the games i play are on mac. and i only play a couple. i have no interest what so ever in Elite force and all the games you mentioned. i only have interest in a couple games and that's it. and one of them doesn't even play worth a damn on my mac but probably cus it's only 450mhz and ati 16mb vid card.
the mac does not play the avi files that i play just fine on pc. try to and you get codec not found errors. the divx on mac fucking sucks and is pathetic compared to windows. 
you want to i can set up for you an ftp account on my server, let you download all the movie files i have and you try to play them on the mac os x. if you get them to play exactly the same performace or so as my pc can, I'll give that to you. I have tried, QT pro does not play them avi files i have. no codec found.

The news groups app i talk about. 
None of the mac programs do what i need. newswatcher freaking sucks. none of them and i mean not one work with multiple servers the same way newsbin and newspro do on the pc. www.newsbin.com and www.newspro.com
now if mac os 10 had an app for news group access that did this, I'd hardly ever use a pc except to play those games i like.

I access the news groups daily and have several servers. i download tons of binary files. what i do is combine all servers in the news group app newsbin and news pro. they both do it similar. it forms a more complete group by combinding servers etc. so if one part is not on a server it gets from another one etc. 
no mac app does this that i know. just go read those web sites i mentioned and you'll see what i talk about. no mac app does what they do. not that i know.

i would not buy a console cus it doesn't have many games that i like either. pc has the games i like and they won't ever be on consoles nearly as good as the pc. I'm only interested in sports games, baseball only, and maybe FPS like unreal tournament or return to castle wolfensteing, medal of honor allied assult, etc. RTCW will be on mac os x and plays like crap for my dual g4 450 with 896mb ram, 10.1 and the current beta. frame rate sucks in 10*7. play on my pc and it freaking rocks!!! but it's better hardware.

anyhow take care.
my email buggs1a@hotmail.com


----------



## PMG4DP (Oct 16, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Joseph Spiros _
> *Well, I'll admit, I'm not being FORCED to buy a PC, however, for what I do (Photoshop and Lightwave), its cheaper... I mean, I WANT a Mac... I really do, but its so much. I'll also admit that an Alienware machine IS one of the more expensive PC brands out there, but, I'll admit, I think its the closest I can get to a Mac without getting one (cool looks, and when I install Linux, It'll have the same great features as OS X.)
> 
> If someone has a way for me to get a nice G4 with basically the same setup as http://www.alienware.com/main/confi...rieveQuote=joseph.spiros@chronosurf.com-58901
> ...


I will tend to agree with you on this one.  Right now the LightWave on the mac is pretty useless..I can barely get any stuff done.  The UI is slow, it's unresponsive, etc.  I am still thinking about buying PC just for lightwave.  But I can't bring myself to spend money  I have so much invested in Mac hardware and software, I'm just going to ride it out and wait for NewTek do do something about the crappiness of LightWave(Hell, 7.0b is a major improvement from 6.5)


----------



## mindbend (Oct 16, 2001)

I'll be getting a PC too, but for the dumbest reason of all. That's right:games.

OS X and the latest Macs  and the next round of games may change my opinion, but as of today, there is no comparison. Sure, some well-written Mac games run smooth (Unreal comes to mind), but for crying out loud Diablo II (a freaking sprite based scrolling game) and Baldur;s Gate (even less demanding) run like total crap even on my G4 450 with an AGP Rage Pro. 

Apple's been hyping OS X's OpenGL performance, but again, as of today, I haven't seen it as far as games are concerned. 

My rationalization is that I'll just consider the PC to be a gaming console.. A sort of expensive one, but still a gaming console pure and simple.

If Apple could get the game thing resolved, I guarantee you there would be at least a slight shift of PC users to Macs for that reason alone.


----------



## RacerX (Oct 16, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> I don't know why my Mac OS 9 crashed so much, either. If I had the uptimes you guys had on OS 9, I would have NEVER EVER NEVER complained. But, OS X fixes that for EVERYBODY. I was the only one praising the OS X public beta when everyone else was flaming it, just because it was miraculous to me that it was the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I saw a mac not crash 3 times a day.
> 
> ...



I would never use a system that crashed three times in a day (or week for that matter). A good example would be the system I am writing this on. The last time I started it up was Oct 3rd. On average it would see about three hours of use a day. Since the last time I started it it has run the following apps:

Acrobat Reader, Acrobat, Acrobat Distiller, Adobe Image Ready, Adobe PageMill, Adobe Photoshop, AppleWorks, BBEdit Lite, Bugdom, Corel PHOTO-PAINT LE, CorelDRAW LE, Disk Copy, Elite Force, Fetch, Freeway,  Iconographer, Internet Explorer, iTunes, Netscape Communicator,
Outlook Express, PictureViewer, Quake 2, QuickTime Player, Rainbow Six, ResEdit, Rogue Spear, SimpleText, Virtual PC 4.0 (running Window 2000, Solaris 7 and RedHat Linux 6.1 in the last week), and Unreal Tournament

Figuring out when my last start up was is easy enough, every time my system starts, so does "KODAK PRECISION Startup", and my recent apps menu is set to 40 items. The modification day of the "KODAK PRECISION Startup" alias is the last time the system was started (so I know that even though my wife uses this system also, she has not restarted it in the period between the 3rd and now).

I don't think any of these apps I use are any easier on my system than they are on anyone else's system. At 317 hours, I don't see this system going down anytime before the 20th (when I go out of town for a couple days, and turn off all but my unix based systems). So I don't know why "your" system crashes so much, but mine seems to be better than almost any Windows system I have ever seen (other than Windows NT printer server which can run without problems for monthes). I have never seen Windows run that many games without crashing (and I had not realized that I had played that many games on my system without it crashing, must be lucky). I don't know what you are doing wrong (or what I must me doing that is so right that I would have the most stable Mac possible), but if you choose Windows over Mac OS 8/9, then so be it.


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

It seems that most of the complaints about the Mac are due to software, as opposed to the actual hardware.

Most Mac apps that have been originally created on the PC are merely ported to the Mac platform, and that's why their performance sucks.  I don't know if this is true with Flash or with LightWave, but it wouldn't surprise me (feel free to correct me if either of these started on the Mac).

The main thing that keeps Apple going, however (by no means the only thing, though) is the ease of use and design of the operating system.  The Classic Mac OS is very intuitive and Mac OS X continues that tradition (in certain aspects... I admit OS X is severely lacking in certain areas compared to OS 9, but lets go easy on a 6-month old operating system as opposed to a 17-year-old one).  I know users on GameRanger who use a Mac solely because of it's operating system -- they can't stand the Windows interface... and it's a valid reason.

You can argue all you want about the applications and how crappy software is and whether Apple hardware is superior or inferior to PC hardware, but all you'll end up doing is getting blue in the face.  The Mac and PC are better at different things, and there are legitimate reasons to buy either, even though I like to be a Mac advocate (DAMN, the new TiBook is DAMNED awesome!  The LOW END config is better in EVERY way than my cube -- faster processor, faster system bus, same size hard drive, better graphics card (Mobility Rage as opposed to Rage 128 Pro, both with 16 MB VRAM), same optical drive, etc. -- and my cube is only a year old!).

Your best bet is to look at what applications you'll be running, what your daily routine will be, and then make an educated decision from there.  If you're just going to be using low-end applications that don't require much speed, and a few games here and there, then you'll probably be better off with a Mac.  If you have to do 3D work or Flash work that require a hefty processor and good software, you're probably better off with a PC.  Gaming also depends on which games you'll be running -- EV, Cro-Mag, and STV:EF run more than adequately on a Mac (oh, by the way, anything above 100 fps is usually just pointless, because the human eye can't detect such differences -- I believe it is in the range of 60-80 fps that the human eye maxes out).  If you want to play Half-Life and other games that don't run well on the Mac, and that's all you'll be using, go ahead and buy a PC that's suited for that.  If you can't stand the operating system and are willing to sacrifice a few games/apps (no, I don't need 500 versions of solitaire), then go ahead and buy a Mac and you'll save yourself the horror of the un-usability of Windows.

You have to make an educated decision.  I never need to run PC games or PC applications, and I don't do any processor intensive work unless you count gaming, and even then I don't run the latest and greatest games.  So since I am interacting with the operating system a lot of the time, I need the ease of use of the Macintosh, and that's why I stay with it.

Nothing beats an educated guess.


----------



## cmoz (Oct 17, 2001)

I don't know what you all are arguing about. 

1. Crashes can be caused due to enviromental conditions in addition to hardware/software so comparing the ammount of crashed is irrelivent as I doubt very much that any of you keep your machines in a temperature/humidity controlled room.

2. As the owner of 1 a pc Intel celeron 800mhz CISC processor, 160megs of ram a 20gb hard drive a 3dfx Voodoo3 pci video card Running Windows XP and Windows ME. and 2 a Ibook G3 500Mhz RISC processor with 256megs of ram running osx.  I have both computers networked and I have never found a significant difference in the uptime of either and I use Both for game oftern playing Unreal Tournament between the two. Neither crashes more than 1 or twice a month. I use both the same way and for the same things. My reasoning for having both is that I'd like to stay open minded to both platforms. Anyone who argues back and forth is just arguing Pepsi Vs. Coke or even more acurate Dodge Vs Chevy . 

As Apple Zealots you should all know that 1. IBM, Motorola and Apple built the Power PC not just apple. 2. That Microsoft owns A large share of Apple.  hmmm.... IBM, Microsoft, and Apple hmmm...if the companies don't have a grudge why do their customers?

And lastly If you all look at it ..... Windows XP and OSX's GUI's look very similar .....hmmm... maybe they're preparing us for a larger cross platform OS for the future ?

Like I say neither OS is better ...... Different and specialized in different areas but both relatively equal


----------



## solrac (Oct 17, 2001)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *The last time I started it [Mac OS 9] up was Oct 3rd. On average it would see about three hours of use a day. Since the last time I started it it has run the following apps:
> 
> Acrobat Reader, Acrobat, Acrobat Distiller, Adobe Image Ready, Adobe PageMill, Adobe Photoshop, AppleWorks, BBEdit Lite, Bugdom, Corel PHOTO-PAINT LE, CorelDRAW LE, Disk Copy, Elite Force, Fetch, Freeway,  Iconographer, Internet Explorer, iTunes, Netscape Communicator,
> ...




Honestly, I don't believe you. I think you are lying. Seriously. I know that's a shitty thing to say, but to me it sounds like a pipe dream. I wouldn't believe it unless I could stay at your house for a week and use your mac every day. Then I'd burn your system folder to a CD and sell it to other mac users for $1000 a pop, because that shit just doesn't exist. I've gone through 4 macs in my time, from system 7 - 9.2, and at least through 8.0 - 9.2 macs crash at least once a day, up to 4 or 5 times a day on a bad day. That's why people used to say MACINTOSH = "MOST APPLICATIONS CRASH IF NOT OPERATING SYSTEM HANGS"... and it's so true.

Sorry, I just don't believe your mac has been up since October 3rd. That's two weeks. LOLOLOL... whatever dude. I'd seriously, honest-to-god have to SEE that to believe it.



> *So I don't know why "your" system crashes so much, but mine seems to be better than almost any Windows system I have ever seen (other than Windows NT printer server which can run without problems for monthes). I have never seen Windows run that many games without crashing (and I had not realized that I had played that many games on my system without it crashing, must be lucky). I don't know what you are doing wrong (or what I must me doing that is so right that I would have the most stable Mac possible), but if you choose Windows over Mac OS 8/9, then so be it. *



I only choose Windows over Mac OS 8/9 because Windows 98 or 2000 can go for days without crashing, in my experience. Even 2 days without crashing would be awesome to me. I've never seen a mac go for more than a day without crashing, and I'm an expert at the whole system folder / extensions / preferences game. Shit, my Mac OS 9 would sometimes crash on STARTUP. I mean, it's ridiculous!

Now with Mac OS X, the longest uptime I've had is 5 days. That is amazing to me. It would've been 7 days, but 2 days ago, my CD-ROM stopped working. So I tried a reboot. Fixed it. (OS X crashed today.... the whole thing just hung, Finder, Dock, and all, just spinning that cursor). So one crash in 7 days. To me that is great. The last time my OS X crashed was a couple months ago. (The reason my longest uptime was 5 days is because I always used to turn off my computer, but I have started using only sleep mode, just to see how long I can go without ever rebooting or crashing.)

But as for OS 9...... I think you should donate your computer to science.

-solrac-


----------



## ladavacm (Oct 17, 2001)

$ uptime
12:04PM  up 74 days, 19:44, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
$ 

Okay, so it is only my NAT/router/firewall, 24/7 on hostile cable internet, serving my home network and making sure nobody comes in.

Obviously, no data is present nor is any work actually done on that machine.

And it is not running Windows, either


----------



## RacerX (Oct 17, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> Honestly, I don't believe you. I think you are lying. Seriously. I know that's a shitty thing to say, but to me it sounds like a pipe dream. I wouldn't believe it unless I could stay at your house for a week and use your mac every day. Then I'd burn your system folder to a CD and sell it to other mac users for $1000 a pop, because that shit just doesn't exist. I've gone through 4 macs in my time, from system 7 - 9.2, and at least through 8.0 - 9.2 macs crash at least once a day, up to 4 or 5 times a day on a bad day. That's why people used to say MACINTOSH = "MOST APPLICATIONS CRASH IF NOT OPERATING SYSTEM HANGS"... and it's so true.
> 
> Sorry, I just don't believe your mac has been up since October 3rd. That's two weeks. LOLOLOL... whatever dude. I'd seriously, honest-to-god have to SEE that to believe it. [/B]



That is okay, anyone who knows me, knows I'm not one for lying about these types of things. As for it being a "shitty" thing to say, not really... it actually is very telling about your personality. Usually people who tend towards lying accuse others of doing the same. At this point I would question if you have ever touched a Mac. It adds up though, say you own a Mac (a TiBook no less) and then say that you can't keep it running. If people with NO computer experience are having less problems than you (and I'm giving you credit has actually having experience), then maybe you are just in the neighborhood trolling. 

As for selling this stuff to other Mac users, I only charge $50.00 an hour to step up systems and networks (maybe I should charge more). I always wondered why people were so happy with the systems that I set up. At $1000 a pop, this would have been a $9000 week for me and it is only Wednesday.

And honestly, I don't know what you are doing to your Macs, but the way you descibe it, you are the kiss of death to computers. I don't know anyone who has a Mac that crashes as much as the ones under your care. I mean really, out of the box, if a Mac is crashing that much, you have major hardware issues. If you have screwed with the OS, it is your own fault. And as for Mac OS X, I can't remember the last time I saw a system crash (that includes Rhapsody, Mac OS X Server 1.0 -10.0, and Mac OS X PB -10.1). 

As for up times, two weeks is not that great. I was able to keep a Quadra 900 running Mac OS 8.1 up for over 90 days (my wife was the primary user, using mainly Netscape, Outlook Express, and ClarisWorks). Any system running 8 or later should be very stable. I don't make promises for 7.6 and earier, though my A/UX 3.0 system has been running continuously for 38 days without any problems, and I have been using it as more of a System 7 platform than a Unix platform (I still have some old software that doesn't like 8). But the truth doesn't matter here any more, so whatever dude.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 17, 2001)

For Joseph --> Take notes of this thread man   You can learn a lot  ...


----------



## buggs1a (Oct 17, 2001)

cmoz, xp and os x look nothing alike. i hate it when people say it does, but it does not in my opinion. totally different colors, totally different icons, buttons etc. everything is different. i don't see in any way what so ever how xp looks like os x.
i use a pc daily and mac os x rarely, but when i do, mac os x and win xp look nothing a like.


----------



## sequoiaman96 (Oct 17, 2001)

In my opinion I think Macromedia is not making the flash player optimized for Mac.  I don't see a problem on my computer, I'm serious.  I haven't got a crash or slow animation.  IT runs just fine, fast and smooth.  I don't know what u guys talking about.   Maybe u meant the flash player when u create shockwave movies?  or what?  

GALEN


----------



## solrac (Oct 17, 2001)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> That is okay, anyone who knows me, knows I'm not one for lying about these types of things. As for it being a "shitty" thing to say, not really... it actually is very telling about your personality. Usually people who tend towards lying accuse others of doing the same. At this point I would question if you have ever touched a Mac. *



LOL, dude. So you are accusing me of lying. Questioning if I have ever even touched a mac. That is very telling about your personality, you know. Usually people who accuse others of lying tend to lie themselves. I heard this from somewhere, can't put my finger on where though...



> *
> It adds up though, say you own a Mac (a TiBook no less) and then say that you can't keep it running. If people with NO computer experience are having less problems than you (and I'm giving you credit has actually having experience), then maybe you are just in the neighborhood trolling. *



Oh so I'm a troll now? I'm too busy to come to message boards and start arguments based on false information. I've been using macs since I was 12 years old. I think maybe you are the troll. Well, the opposite actually. A troll tries to start shit on message boards. You're doing the opposite. Coming to this board claiming your OS 9 stays running for 30 - 40 days, praising your OS 9 for something it could never be to instill hope and enjoyment in others. So, you're not a troll, but an angel. A fallen angel, a prince of lies.



> *And honestly, I don't know what you are doing to your Macs, but the way you descibe it, you are the kiss of death to computers. I don't know anyone who has a Mac that crashes as much as the ones under your care. I mean really, out of the box, if a Mac is crashing that much, you have major hardware issues. If you have screwed with the OS, it is your own fault. And as for Mac OS X, I can't remember the last time I saw a system crash (that includes Rhapsody, Mac OS X Server 1.0 -10.0, and Mac OS X PB -10.1).*




For OS 9 and before, how can you be a kiss of death to a computer? There's no way! The OS is fool-proof (minus extension conflicts and corrupt preferences). That's what is so great about Mac! It would be the shit if it never crashed! Shit, Apple and Steve Jobs would never have made OS X if OS 9 ran the way you claim it to run on your machine! LOL!!

Even with a base set of extensions and a whole new preferences folder OS 9 crashes frequently. Less, of course, but as you use it, it builds up and crashes more and more. It's not a long-term, stable system. It's just not. I'm not a kiss of death. Now, for OS X I can be a kiss of death. I can do stuff that can screw the whole system. I log in as root exclusively. Everyone knows this is a "bad thing to do", but yet I do it, and like I said. My OS X crashed the other day, and the last time it crashed before THAT was 2 months ago. That is pretty damn good. That is reasonable, honest-to-god, believable performance of a stable, rock-solid OS. YOU CLAIM YOUR OS 9 IS UP FOR 74 DAYS!!! That's longer than MY OS X LASTED!! You're so full of shit.

Ok whatever, maybe you are telling the truth. But so am I.

So if we can be friends and admit to each other that we're BOTH telling the truth, then even THEN... the real truth is we are two people. YOU have a rock solid OS X quality OS 9 running. I have shit crap OS 9s running.

That means, factually, that two different people have the SAME system, and one is GREAT, and one is PURE SHIT. This fact alone proves that OS 9 is not stable.

OS X is stable for everybody. The fallen angel, the kiss-of-death man, and everyone else. OS 9 is not. (We are the living proof.)

I don't mean to insult you either you are probably a cool guy.

Thanks for listening,
-solrac-


----------



## swizcore (Oct 17, 2001)

That thing is definitely butt ugly, and getting that thing to work as quickly as a Mac is not going to be cheaper. Shoot, those things dont even have a respectable BS cache speed still. All generic componentry( I dont care if they are name brand or not, it is all inadequate when compared to Mac internals) which adds up to an ugly regurgitation of every other PC out there trying to "look cool" but failing miserably. There are alot of Mac imitators out there such as Dell for his iMac wannabes and the like, although they are immitators at least they realize Mac design is a well thought solution to product design. Unlinke that Alien system that is just trying to look futuristic and innovative while coming off looking silly.


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

Guys, guys...

Please stop duking it out in this thread.  It is starting to annoy me.

As I said in the other thread that was similar to this, everything has been said, and anything else that there is to add is just personal experience... and we all no experience varies from machine to machine and from user to user.  I'm sorry if some of you are the kiss of death to OS X and some of you are the kiss of death to OS 9.  I, on the contrary, am the kiss of life to both operating systems (every time someone is having a problem, I just start using it and the problem goes away).

OK, OK, maybe I'm too high on my horse.  My point was that this doesn't add anything to the thread, and nothing else will anymore, especially since some of the people in the thread have been resorting to "not believing" and calling "liars" and starting to swear.  I don't care WHO started doing this -- this is supposed to be a friendly place to discuss things.

Also, it seems like this thread has become more than discussion on one topic, and it's kind of hard to follow.

So I encourage any people looking at this thread NOT to reply anymore, for I doubt there is anything anyone can add to this thread anymore, including me.  

Without further ado, let us retire this thread in peace like that other thread that was recently revived.


----------



## swizcore (Oct 17, 2001)

Hey simX, what does the word bubble say in your avitar?
Sorry for topping this topic with this question but.... it's just to spite you for fun 
Peace


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

You IDIOT!  You RUINED my chance for MacOSX.com bulletin board domination!!!

Seriously, though, let's retire this thread.

And my avatar says 'No Windows'... it's a little hard to see since it's antialiased (and the text is gray)... I'm getting a better version up that might be a little easier to read.

NO MORE DAMN POSTS!


----------



## RacerX (Oct 17, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> Even with a base set of extensions and a whole new preferences folder OS 9 crashes frequently. Less, of course, but as you use it, it builds up and crashes more and more. It's not a long-term, stable system. It's just not. I'm not a kiss of death. Now, for OS X I can be a kiss of death. I can do stuff that can screw the whole system. I log in as root exclusively. Everyone knows this is a "bad thing to do", but yet I do it, and like I said. My OS X crashed the other day, and the last time it crashed before THAT was 2 months ago. That is pretty damn good. That is reasonable, honest-to-god, believable performance of a stable, rock-solid OS. YOU CLAIM YOUR OS 9 IS UP FOR 74 DAYS!!! That's longer than MY OS X LASTED!! You're so full of shit.
> *




Wow, you're something of a hot head aren't you. Funny, I just pointed out how easy it would be to say you could be lying also, but you take it as though I was calling you a liar. The second half of the post talking about how you are dealing with your Mac would not be needed if I was saying the same things about you that you have said about me. Reading carefully helps. I current make a living off of fixing Macs. I don't take ANY crash as being a natural thing to happen. It shouldn't happen. And I don't stop looking for the problem (and if your system is crashing there is a problem) until I find it (okay, maybe not for crashing during games, but anything else). I never claimed I had OS 9 (this system) running for 74 days (at least get the fact straight), but I have seen OS 9 go for longer (granted it was a server running ASIP 6.3, but it was on 113 days the last time I check).

You should reread you series of post. I can tell from this that you have not try to find out WHY your systems crash. If must be the OS, so why look, is that how you deal with it? Do you know why OS X crashed on you the last time? Or did you just say, "oh, once in two month, that's not bad, I'll just restart and go about like nothing had happened". That attitude is what leads to systems becoming more and more unstable over time. If your car quits on you going down the freeway, do you just start up again and forget about it? Or do you find out WHY it quit on you. Apple gives techs a complete list of things to check on any of their system (and I have a hand full that I have come up with from my own experiences).



> *
> Ok whatever, maybe you are telling the truth. But so am I.
> *



Like I said, if I didn't belive you, that would have been a much shorter post.



> *
> So if we can be friends and admit to each other that we're BOTH telling the truth, then even THEN... the real truth is we are two people. YOU have a rock solid OS X quality OS 9 running. I have shit crap OS 9s running.
> *



Like I said, it could very easily be hardware related. But you have to look for the problem before you can fix it.



> *
> That means, factually, that two different people have the SAME system, and one is GREAT, and one is PURE SHIT. This fact alone proves that OS 9 is not stable.
> *



No, it only proves that you have not looked for the problems in your system. If  part of your OS was written to a bad sector of your drive, that would cause problems for any OS... but that is not the fault of the OS. If you installed a bad DIMM, your system would freeze periodicly... but that is not the fault of the OS. If you are trying to use more fonts than the system can deal with (128 for Mac OS 9) by using third party software (like ATM or Suitcase), you could get errors drawing fonts to your display... but that is not the fault of the OS. I could go on endlessly with this, there are plenty of reason besides the all to easy "OS 9 is not stable". If it is for one, then it can be for others.



> *
> OS X is stable for everybody. The fallen angel, the kiss-of-death man, and everyone else. OS 9 is not. (We are the living proof.)
> *



OS X is stable for everybody... except you. Your system crashed. By your argument with OS 9, that fact alone proves that it is also unstable. Unix is stable... until you run a theme manager on top of X-Windows on top of the core install. Why? Because to produce themes, you have to break rules about how X-Windows is suposed to function. The are a ton of apps the try to do this in the Mac OS, finding them and either getting a fix or stopping their use on a system can do wonders. But then again, you have to look for the problems to fix them.

You're young. Maybe that is enough of an explanation, but I know other people who are younger than you that are able to solve such problems without looking for the easy solution of "the OS 9 is not stable".

(Sorry simX, somethings need to run their course. I'll do my best not to swear, but it does come up in the quotes.)


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

RacerX, let it rest -- if he chooses not to figure out why his system crashes (and frankly, I don't blame him if OS X only crashed once every 2 months), then let it be.  He can deal with the problem later when (and IF) it becomes a major problem.

(I would encourage an admin to lock this thread, since it's just becoming a duke-it-out-fest.)


----------



## mailseth (Oct 17, 2001)

I dont know about you guys, but I have found that is the person that is on the machine at the time that causes the instabilaty.

Recent examples:
When I ran os 9.2.1 on my laptop (before 10.1 came out), I had uptimes of approx 1 week on average. If my girlfriend got on the machine, there was a 50% chanc of it being crashed within the first 10 min.

I have had 10.1 on my machine for over 2 weeks now. I have had one crash total and I use the machine continuously. (and that was just a really wierd interface slowdown and freeze) I installed 10.1 on my family machine, and my little brother uses it for 10 min (literally) and now the monitor will only turn on when you reboot in 9.2.1. The family has gone back to using 9.2.1


----------



## twyg (Oct 17, 2001)

Everybody... enough... 

This isn't the pissing match thread, nor is it the I'm better than you forum...

Please stop replying to this thread. It's distracting, and getting annoying. If people want to scrap go rent a boxing ring at the Y, otherwise cut it out. 

We should really try to be respectful to each other here. Stuff like this starts to be a pain. Remember you are heavily based on what you post. The world (well, just us but...) The world all the same sees you by the way you write, and what you write. Imagine meeting a person in the real world who has read your post. Particularly the person you flamed. If you think that they won't respect/dislike you based on what they see here, you're wrong. That's not good. The world is far to small... (I gave a guy the finger about 6 months ago on the interstate. I just ran into him in the elevator the other day in NYC, 100 miles from where the incident happened. That's a treat.)

I'm not suggesting a utopia here... Fights will happen, people will take things personally, and flaming will inevitably appear. Take it behind scenes... If you don't have the gumption to say it to the person one on one in an e-mail, or PM then it certainly has no place here. 

Please keep things on track folks, little things straying are fine, but the 500 word essays about symantics are done here. Take them over to "All things non-technical" because that's really in essence, not in content, this has become.

Thank you.


----------



## Carlo (Oct 18, 2001)

Those alien machines have no option to get it with no OS... So your still paying for microsoft windows.. 

Thats my biggest problem with the big hardware companies, you cant buy a dell, compaq etc with out windows (well you cant in australia) 

So really microsoft are screwing the users if they want to use another operating system. Obviously dell have forgot that people want to use other operating systems such as BSD, Solaris 8 i386, Linux, beos, etc etc etc 

Its crazy! At least when I buy a mac it comes with the operating system for free. You buy a dell or something you get a machine which has 300 dollars worth of software you dont want.


----------



## cmoz (Oct 18, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Carlo _
> *
> 
> Its crazy! At least when I buy a mac it comes with the operating system for free. You buy a dell or something you get a machine which has 300 dollars worth of software you dont want. *



Sorry but you're way off on this one . EVERY mac comes with an Apple os pre installed without the option of no os and despite what you think the price of the os is factored into the price of a mac. Apple unfortunately only has about a 16-22% share of the personal computer market right now they can't afford to give away os's that take billions of dollars of reaserch and development for free


----------



## Manimac (Nov 5, 2001)

Why don't you just wait for the G5.??? (2002)

The lates test (nov. 5 shoved 2.4GHZ)

Look at this:

Initial benchmarks supplied by my source suggest the G5 is pretty fast indeed: 

GHz	                         1.2	                 1.4	                 1.6
SpecInt2000	           987              	1151	                1340
SpecFP2000	          1005	              1173	                1359

By comparison, Intel's 2GHz Pentium 4 has recorded SpecInt2000 and SpecFP2000 scores of 656 and 714, respectively, according to www.specbench.org If accurate, the G5 figures are impressive indeed.

With this machine you wouldn't have to buy a new one for years regardlees of the somewhat higher price thus saving in the long run..

Carlson
Barcelona, SPain

Born on Mac


----------

