# whats the deal with this? [G5 bashing from slashdot]



## Fahrvergnuugen (Jun 24, 2003)

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/


I don't have time to actually run all of these test on my own thats for sure...
I guess I won't be able to make my own opinion until I actually have a G5 sitting on my desk.


----------



## Randman (Jun 24, 2003)

Slashdot being slashdot. If they're trolling, it must mean that the G5 is quality work.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 24, 2003)

Notice the other thread on this:

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33882

Slashdot did NOT write this story, don't blame this on them.  Also note that Slashdot obtained and posted Apple's response to the story earlier today...

Rip


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Jun 25, 2003)

i wasnt blaming slashdot, i was just saying that i saw the story posted there.


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

Look, there is no really decent way to run benchmarks against different processors. The SPEC benchmark tests use a compliler that is specifically designed to run on Intel processors. That way Intel scores higher than AMD. Accusing Apple of doing the same thing that Intel already does is a bit silly.

A better test is one that I will run everyday and that is real world applications. How fast will it render a complex Photoshop file? How fast will it render a Final Cut Pro movie or in the interest of cross-platform challenges, how fast will it render a two hour video clip in Premiere?

I care about processor intensive tasks like rendering a video file. I don't care which one opens up Word faster. Word will be open in a few seconds. Knock 90 minutes  off a two hour rendering job and you have my attention.


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

Respectively, that article makes a lot of good points and shouldn't just be scoffed at. The G5 is not so much faster than anything else that it can safely be labled "The World's Fastest PC." The truth is, it's very hard to tell and apple is misleading people by stressing that it is indeed the world's fastest pc. I definately think it would be a good idea for Apple to reconsider their slogan.


----------



## Koelling (Jun 25, 2003)

He's done his own research and come up with his own conclusion, which is more than I can say for any of those flamers he's posted below the article. Those people get too worked up about nothing when in fact it's wise to remember that a computer is a tool. It has a purpose and those purposes are different between Windows, Linux and Macintosh. Half the people posting probably never even use gcc, so the tests are irrelevant anyway. Plus, what does it matter if the writer of this article thinks Apple is lying, I'll still use my iMac over a dual xeon any day.

but while I'm on the subject of comparing computers to tools, I'd like to point out that Windows can be compared to a drill without any drill bit or a lazy susan. We're all a little biased sometimes


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

I partially agree with the author of that article; I don't think that Apple is deliberately trying to mislead their non-technically literate users into thinking that the G5 is something much greater than it really is, however I do think that they're throwing around phrases like "The World's Fastest PC" and "Faster than Intel" way too much and by doing so is putting their credibility for these claims in jeopardy. They should wait until they have Dual 3GHz G5s out the door before making these claims.... but who knows what Intel and AMD will have by then.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 25, 2003)

Nah! That guy and the majority of Wintel users are trolling BIG way! ::ha::

I will take my chance with Jobs, Schiller, eMagic, Mathematica and Luxology guys anyday before I will listen to ANY Wintel FUD... ::ha::

Damn even Adobe's CEO (yeah that Adobe with the PC Preferred fiasco) said that G5 is a monster computer! Well, not exactly in those words! 

Boom!


----------



## Cat (Jun 25, 2003)

So Trolls are already now bashing an unreleased beta OS and not-yet-shipping hardware ... They must be really afraid then! 

On a side note: the worst problem of G4 systems was the FSB, which has now been _dramatically_ improved, along with all the other internal bandwidth. That alone is such a Great Jump Forward that it leaves most other PC systems in the dust. The G5 is the fastest Personal Computer in the World. Be afraid, be very afraid. We will be at 3 GHz _within_ a year, not after a year, with bumps in between, I assure you. Maybe already before Xmas or at MWSF2004 we'll have dual 2.5 GHz systems and single 2.0 as low end. What will the Wintel world say then? 

Fear us: We are the Mac and we are back!


----------



## powermac (Jun 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *So Trolls are already now bashing an unreleased beta OS and not-yet-shipping hardware ... They must be really afraid then!
> 
> I agree, they are blasting Apple, already. Why is it that whenever Apple does something, they troll. Nothing has been released to the public yet, and they have started.
> ...


----------



## doemel (Jun 25, 2003)

Many here certainly remember when the PPC first came out and beat the dung out of 486. Today, we have a G5 system the does the same with Intel chips and we have the same whining from the Wintel side just like back then.
Guess what: *They just can't stand seeing Apple taking the lead of the pack once more!*

As some have posts already point out: Real world performance will still be the real test for these new babies.


----------



## boi (Jun 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WinWord10 _
> *I partially agree with the author of that article; I don't think that Apple is deliberately trying to mislead their non-technically literate users into thinking that the G5 is something much greater than it really is, however I do think that they're throwing around phrases like "The World's Fastest PC" and "Faster than Intel" way too much and by doing so is putting their credibility for these claims in jeopardy. They should wait until they have Dual 3GHz G5s out the door before making these claims.... but who knows what Intel and AMD will have by then. *



it's called 'marketing', and every company does it. if the G5 beats intel in just one thing... even if it's only in boot time, apple can stick the phrase "faster than intel" and slap a fine print on it that most users won't even understand, let alone read in the first place.


----------



## pds (Jun 25, 2003)

OMG, Apple oiled the cucumbers and put the best looking strawberries at the top of the pint???  So what else is happening in the world.

I think the big thing is that we are off Motorola's lacksidaisical schedule. 3 gig in 12 months, what will that be like? 

PPC cooked the 486, and the g3 toasted the PII, it was in between that Macs showed their pot-bellies. Now we may stay ahead because IBM is interested in speed. Motorola was not.


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

lol, well not surprisingly many of you are trolls yourselves. Can you proove that Apple really does have the fastest pc? No. Let's look at it fairly. If Apple is trying to save some face among geeks by improving their processor speeds and keeping their prices competitive, they should say it's one of the fastest PC's. Saying it's THE fastest pc is hard to proove when they're conducting most of the tests and hardly anyone outside of Apple will even be able to use one until August. You know that these so-called "trolls" will continue their tradition of using any chance they get to bash Macs. When Apple can proove that the G5 is, without a doubt, the fastest pc in the world and give us solid proof is when they can start using slogans like that. Yes, boi, it's marketing, but it's misleading and unfair marketing. Personally I would respect them much more if they did amend their claim to something not as radical, but more proovable than what they have now. They're getting alot of attention from this article and unless fully independant tests are conducted in which Apple, Intel, Dell, or AMD have nothing to do with, Apple is put in a rather akward position trying to defend their claims.

Before now, Dell likely did have the fastest PC... or maybe it was HP or IBM, but they didn't call it that because it was too hard to proove. Apple is obviously taking very positive steps to improving their computers by partnering with IBM and releasing processors twice as fast as what they had. That alone is enough to sell lots of G5's to switchers and people who wouldn't have considered them before.


----------



## Decado (Jun 25, 2003)

i think apple proved it (that the G5 is the fastest) right on the keynote.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 25, 2003)

1. Apple clearly picked tests for the keynote that would easily show the "superiority" of the G5. I don't think any of us would dispute that.

2. By Apple's own admission, one of the SPEC scenarios put the G5 10% behind.

3. Nobody has a G5 yet, so it's interesting that everyone is suddenly an expert.

4. However, bottom line is that, by all accounts except the most ardent Mac-haters, the G5 is going to be really, really fast. It appears that it will more or less level the playing field. Yes, Intel will deliver a better chip shortly, but then the next G5 will seesaw back once again. At least the seesaw is moving again. For a long time it was a big fat kid with an ice cream cone against a skinny little girl eating a cracker.

5. In the end, even if it turns out that across the board the G5 is slightly slower than a P4/Xeon in many ways (which I doubt BTW), it's still virtually guaranteed to be a full 3-4 times faster than my machine right now and that's saying something. And I get to use my favorite OS on a really fast machine. Let em troll, whine and otherwise. I'm going to be very, very happy for a while.

6. For those requesting that Apple not say it's the fastest PC in the world, remember that it's really mostly a marketing phrase, like Best Tasting Butter. Apple can back up their claim to a certain extent and many of believe that for a short period it really is going to be the fastest personal machine overall. If that's the case, they sure as hell should be saying so. If it's not the case, the world will find out and let us know.

7. 3 gig in 12 months. 50% performance increase in 12 months. That is a freaking huge boost in a short span. Nice roadpath.


----------



## Cat (Jun 25, 2003)

> Can you proove that Apple really does have the fastest pc?


Yes, obviously. There is this VeriTest thinghy, were all the data and all the specs are put nicely side by side and the author makes it painfully clear what exactly he means by fastest etc. He defines step by step what he means, gives all the data and shows all the results. The results point out that the G5 is the fastest of the tested machines.

You can then, obviously, claim that the way of testing is wrong, etc. But this particular test, which is rather objective and independent, crowns the G5. Other tests, with other hardware and compilers etc. may claim other things. But this is not the point! The point is that everywhere where Apple claims: The G5 is the fastest, Apple refers to this test to explain why it is entitled to claim so.

Simple: I define the fastest computer by looking at which one gets more fps in Quake III. So lets see: the G5 scores higher than the Dell? OK: then the G5 is fastest. Easy, no?  Proof given: Quod erat demonstrandum.


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

The tests were not conducted independantly. They were done by Veritest under contract with Apple. The way I see it, Apple had some influence on the results because of that and you can't just automatically trust the results as being completely accurate. It's very likely that some tests were altered to make the G5 look better, in perticular by turning off hyperthreading on the P4's. Apple even turned off some features that will probably be on when the G5's ship, like prefetching, and instead enabled a high-performance malloc which is impractical for normal useage and probably will not ship as the default on the G5's in August.

All of these alterations render the Apple tests unfair, and make it impossible for us to tell if it is the fastest or not.


----------



## lurk (Jun 25, 2003)

You do know that turnign off hyperthreading speeds up single threaded computations like SPEC and therefore increased the Intel box's score. That is the reason Intel and Dell also turn it off when they run these benchmarks.

Unless you are arguing that the scores should be lower for the Intel box


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sure... if the results really were lower, Apple should have gone ahead and posted them that way.

Now answer this... why would they deliberately turn hyperthreading OFF to give Intel a BETTER score? Makes no sense.

Also why would they test the 3.0GHz P4 and not the 3.2GHz P4 that has been available for atleast a month.


----------



## binaryDigit (Jun 25, 2003)

I can't believe that as a group that is constantly decrying the "mhz myth", that  some Mac folk all of a sudden get so hung up on the "benchmark myth".  Geez people, go back and read your own posts about why "mhz doesn't matter in the real world" (speaking of which, funny how the old DP G4's were "faster than Wintel" (i.e. the mhz myth), but now that Apple themselves release machines that people seem to agree are significantly faster than the old ones, there STILL is an argument about the new machines being "faster than Wintel", what does that say about the old G4's?).

Veritest is FAAAAR from an "objective" measure of cpu/system superiority.  It, just like every other benchmark out there, measures a certain aspect of computing performance.  Whether or not this actually translates into ANYTHING in the real world is highly specuous at best.

If you want a new computer, figure out what apps you are going to use and then figure out which computer runs those apps the best, period.  SPECINT's are great for pissing contests, but not much else.  Follow your own advice, see the BS numbers for what they are, BS.


----------



## SoulCollector (Jun 25, 2003)

MANN comon, 
Sure... if the results really were lower, Apple should have gone ahead and posted them that way. 

" Now answer this... why would they deliberately turn hyperthreading OFF to give Intel a BETTER score? Makes no sense." 

Why would they do that, Im sure they would want it to be fair ass possible yea maybe there was optimizing, but then again all apps for Intel and linux are always optimized as well theres no one compiler and have it alll optimized for all different OS's or machines....Why would it be hard to beleive from the beggining and the ground up..they said hey I want this box to be way better then any intel chip had out today??? Im sure the goal was to be the fastest..and thats it..no budget about well for example....hey..we only have this much soo i guess will just use the chips that are almost the same speed..and just make it a lil faster on our benchmarks so we can look faster...?? see now that doesnt make. sense...but hey im sure..every Troll would only be happy if one of there pc guys actually test it and shows..the latter..ya know..soo i guess will seee....


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

Were you drunk when you wrote that? Lol i read it 3 times and still have no idea what you're trying to  say.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WinWord10 _
> *Now answer this... why would they deliberately turn hyperthreading OFF to give Intel a BETTER score? Makes no sense.*



Because they wanted to show that, even at it's best, the Pentium4 cannot beat the G5 on that particular test. What's so hard to make sense of? 

But other than that comment, who really cares?? OS X works beautifully on the G5 and can compete with other systems out there. Isn't that all that matters? I don't care how much faster freaking Intel's chips are! It only makes Windows crash that much quicker! And how fast of a chip do you really need!!?? It seems like for a while there, Intel would put out chips that were jumping MHz speeds in a matter of weeks (e.i.; 400MHz one week, 900 Mhz the next - this is exageration of course). How much faster do you want the Start menu to pop up? 

Just use your comp, and I'll use mine! Whats the big deal? ::sleepy:: If this bothers you so much, why don't you email Apple or call them?


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't believe Apple cooked the results any more than Intel does.

The only thing that matters is real world tests. 

Grab a complex 3D animation or a video file and render it on both platforms. Something that will take around two hours. Get back to me on whichever one can render the fastest with the least crashes.

That's what people really care about. The rest is smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pyroboy _
> *I don't believe Apple cooked the results any more than Intel does.
> 
> The only thing that matters is real world tests.
> ...



Thats about the extent I feel on the subject as well (I agree with you)


----------



## WinWord10 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Because they wanted to show that, even at it's best, the Pentium4 cannot beat the G5 on that particular test. What's so hard to make sense of?



I seriously doubt that. What good does that do Apple if they're not even mentioning that they "optimized" the Intel chips for best performance in their tests on their website. It will go unnoticed by most people.



> But other than that comment, who really cares?? OS X works beautifully on the G5 and can compete with other systems out there. Isn't that all that matters? I don't care how much faster freaking Intel's chips are! It only makes Windows crash that much quicker! And how fast of a chip do you really need!!?? It seems like for a while there, Intel would put out chips that were jumping MHz speeds in a matter of weeks (e.i.; 400MHz one week, 900 Mhz the next - this is exageration of course). How much faster do you want the Start menu to pop up?



Ok you're going off topic. APPLE says that the G5 is THE WORLD'S FASTEST PC. With such a claim, they had better be able to proove it which, I believe, they have failed to do. In fact, there is alot of evidence indicating that it is NOT the world's fastest pc.

"It only makes Windows crash that much quicker" -- obviously you're looking at this from a very biased point of view. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty much irrelevant in this case. I'm stating the facts. People do care about speed. They would not buy a 3,200$ computer if they did not, and obviously in this case with the G5, Apple thought speed DOES matter as they would not have bothered to revamp their processor line if they fealt otherwise.



> Just use your comp, and I'll use mine! Whats the big deal?  If this bothers you so much, why don't you email Apple or call them?



I'm sorry I've upset you by posting my saying something negative about Apple. I don't know you, and before your post I had nothing to do with you. I get the feeling from your comments that you're trying to start an arguement. Don't be a flammer.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 26, 2003)

While Apple has not proven to me that they have the world's bar-none, flat-out, no holds barred fastest computer, they sure as heck have convinced me that they have one really fast box. And that's all I wanted to hear last Monday.

Really, unless the G5 is truly a hoax, for all intents and purposes the top end boxes on both platforms seem to be on a level playing field give or take an app here and there. Fortunately for me, the stuff I use most (Photoshop, Final Cut) will probably smoke on the G5. The jury is still out for Lightwave, Illustrator, inDesign, Director, Flash, etc. Those latter apps aren't anywhere near as processor intensive, so I expect them to haul ass as well. Whether or not they technically run as fast as the top end Xeon I don't think will matter much given the nature of the aps (not so much render intensive as they are GUi intensive).

Lightwave better get their act together though as they've been really lacking on proper Mac development lately. I think I made a mistake with Lightwave, should have gone Maya.

Speed is very important. People have been saying for years that the current model of a given machine is as fast as the world needs. They have been wrong every time. Until all computers make the word "render" obsolete, and all apps open instantly (actually, they'd probably all always be open at all times many years from now) there will always be demand for more speed.

Bottom line. All current and near-future machines on the top end of either platform are REALLY fast. Let's all enjoy them.


----------



## legacyb4 (Jun 26, 2003)

What irks me though is that a lot of people worry too much what the Windoze folks think...

I'm just happy that the upcoming round of Apple hardware should be significantly faster running their own stuff compared to what they've had up to this point.

I also find it interesting that they didn't do *any* speed comps on the Apple site between a G4 and a G5... guess they didn't want to run it in the faces of those running around with dual G4s...


----------



## bobbyfett (Jun 26, 2003)

Lab tests are all very well and can spring up some arguable results, but at the end of the day real world tests are the ones that matter. And this comes down to the OS that sits on top of the hardware and how well companies like Adobe can program their software to take advantage of the grunt thats under the bonnet. And we all know Apple does this best


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WinWord10 _
> *..They would not buy a 3,200$ computer if they did not...*



The $ sign goes in front of the 3,200.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

It looks more to me like you lot are afraid of something. Whats with the knee jerk reactions to a bit of criticism?

I have to support Macs at work but wouldn't chose one over a PC. Show me the results of a head to head with a comparable system and I may take notice, but to just flame ANY criticism is plain ignorance.

Your problems are all to do with available software, much as Betamax was supposedly a better VCR system, VHS had the backing from third party and so won the day.
If you can't get software houses to write anything but graphics packages then eventually you could have a Mac with the power of a Cray and still people aren't going to chose them.


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

Jeeez, you must be bored in your job, having to support Macs! No wonder you choose PCs over Macs, you need something to do!


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

uh yeh.. the main problem is with the users being almost retarded. Like most Mac users they are miopic and won't even think of moving to a better faster system like pc's...

To be honest with the problems with reliability that OSX has it's just like working on pc's.


----------



## Randman (Jul 1, 2003)

> I'm just happy that the upcoming round of Apple hardware should be significantly faster running their own stuff compared to what they've had up to this point.


 Legacyb4 hit the nail directly on the head.
  And Texas, learn to spell just a lee-tle bit and use some grammatical marking such as commas before you go around calling others ignorant. 
  Or at least provide some backup to your wild claims. 
  And what kind of IT dept do you work for? I've known plenty that are die-had peecee folk and plenty more that are Mac addicts, but I've never heard of anyone who works with Macs at work, then goes home to a PC, unless it's a secondary computer or work-related.


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 1, 2003)

I think that the majority of people be it Wintel users, Linux, Mac, whatever users fall in the same trap that Apple fell... Premature Benchmarking!  

I think the real truth will come out after 2 or 3 months and until then everything else is pure BS... Damn, even those "old" Dual 1.25/1.42 G4s are kicking Dark Side bottoms! G5 will just kick them harder! A lot harder


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

OK so the typing is atrocious, along with the spelling but English is only my second language so 

I'm in large publishing house in London (in fact you will know it if I said it, which I'm not going to) with approx 1500 Mac users, all pretty much useless at anything but editing. We are trying with carrots and sticks to get them to use PC's in some form or other to do all the normal office type work but they hold onto their Macs like babies dummys, even when we show them the benefits (which are real and huge).
I go home to a PC because, simply put, they are better. I won't explain it any more than that because I've no doubt a flame war would start so lets just say thats my opinion and leave it at that.

I have to base my calling of Mac users 'ignorant' on what I see at work. If they are a good example of what most people who use Macs are like then I think I am nearly spot on. Have a look at the posts in this forum (not all of course) and I think you will see that the majority are not     erm..     mature? Rather than have a balanced view towards all computers I think you will see the trend is more of a 'I LUV MACS AND NEVER SAY ANYTHING AGAINST THEM!!!'.


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *OK so the typing is atrocious, along with the spelling but English is only my second language so
> 
> I'm in large publishing house in London (in fact you will know it if I said it, which I'm not going to) with approx 1500 Mac users, all pretty much useless at anything but editing. We are trying with carrots and sticks to get them to use PC's in some form or other to do all the normal office type work but they hold onto their Macs like babies dummys, even when we show them the benefits (which are real and huge).
> ...



Isn't a bit ignorant calling other people ignorant? And I bet for many other people you are "pretty much useless at anything but...your profession here..."

Or that you "are not     erm..     mature?"



As for "with carrots and sticks to get them to use PC's"... Is that how the Dark Side convinced you to turn into a Sith Lord?


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

Funnily, I thought he was describing what happens when trying to show PC users the benefits and pluses of using the Mac... 

TEXAS... unfortunately you have (immaturely) fallen into that trap of labelling ALL Mac users as one particular brand... as with ALL Windows users, we are a varied bunch of people all of which belong to society. Sorry to condescend, but you have posted on a Mac forum, insulting Mac people, for the obvious reason to get a reaction.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *
> I go home to a PC because, simply put, they are better. I won't explain it any more than that because I've no doubt a flame war would start so lets just say thats my opinion and leave it at that.
> *



fast user switching is better on macs ( but that is still in beta form)(and trust me ive tried it on both machines)
playin music on a mac is easier and better.
copyin cd and dvds on a mac is better and easier.
playin dvds on a mac is better and easier.
installin an app on  a mac is better and easier.
installing the whole OS on a mac is better and easier.
and the list goes on and on... u figure them out urself..

anyways . i used to come back home to a PC simply because that was my only choice... until i too saw the light, and left the dark side  

its ok that u find PCs better, u might also find a Ford to be better than a BMW.. but in the end. a BMW is much better than a Ford. i know that, u might find that out in 50 years time.. ur loss


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

Fast user switching....  wow.
Playing music is far easier with an absolute plethora of jukeboxes to chose from on the PC.
Copying cd's... great. Like thats a real bonus..
Playing DVD's through something like WinDVD using my ATI 9700 pro is infinitely better on my PC.
Installing apps is my forte, I find it much easier to control where things go and keep separate from the OS on a PC.
The list goes on and on... I have figured them out.

I have a Mercedes, I expect the same standard in my computers, which is why I use a PC 

But like I did say this will turn into a flame war so lets just accept that we disagree on this subject and get back to my original gripe, that Mac users seem to be very quick to put down anything that suggests that they might be wrong.

The G5 has brought you up to the same standard as PC's are at the moment, thats good news. The fact that you had to wait for ages isn't. The fact that you quickly put down any criticism is also bad. Try to accept that what Apple say isn't always the whole truth, just like the goverment.

ooo noticed the edit above. Yes I am provoking a reaction, I enjoy discussing/argueing with people on forums, especially about subjects that the people are as set in their ways in the same way as religous zealots


----------



## Cat (Jul 1, 2003)

So many people, so many views ... 

Instead of trying to bash each other's head in with your keyboards, try to define what "better" means. Define "Good" and then go on with the discussion. Arguments without definitions and agreement on certain premisses are completely useless!

The Mac is not better than the PC, the Mac is different, makes different choices, which from the perspective of most Mac users are perceived as better. Same is true of PC users.

What is better? Is it MHz? Real world speed? Benchmarks? Pleasing aesthetics? Workflow? Personal experience? 

First define _then_ discuss!


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm backing Cat, in my 1173 (ish) post history, I've had it with Troll-baiting::angel::


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

OK I will start a thread to discuss points, if anyone wants to reply they can.

Where on these forums would be best to discuss this kind of subject?

(oh, it's only troll baiting if you get a bite  )


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

BMW are better than Mercedes . 

and this is my 90th post. yey.. he he he 

(oh and TEXAS this is a MAC forum, if ur a pc fan . pls go to a PC forum. doesnt take much of an iq to figure that out. and change ur car. it sucks.. and i know much more bout cars than i know about computers and macs... so dont go creating a new post tryin to defend ur car or ur pc. just face it, they both suck )


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

"... it's only troll-baiting if you get a bite"

Let go!


----------



## Anim8r (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *OK so the typing is atrocious, along with the spelling but English is only my second language so
> 
> I'm in large publishing house in London (in fact you will know it if I said it, which I'm not going to) with approx 1500 Mac users, all pretty much useless at anything but editing. We are trying with carrots and sticks to get them to use PC's in some form or other to do all the normal office type work but they hold onto their Macs like babies dummys, even when we show them the benefits (which are real and huge).
> ...



This is pretty much the attitude of most IT people I have ever met. I know more than you so you are all morons.

The fact is TEXAS that you don't know how to properly administer a mac shop.

I have run and been in shops that have huge numbers of macs as well as the "average operator", and while there are some people who are just hopeless when it comes to technology, this has little to do with it being a mac. In fact I would guess that you will have far more problems with these users if you get them on PCs than if you just got the damn systems working well and left them alone.

It is an accepted "joke" in the tech industry that the mac is the test bed for Microsoft where new technology is concerned. They steal almost everything from someone else and then don't even do as good a job as the original. This is the way it has been from the start (CPM), so let's not try and claim MS is an innovator.

The mac is a better platform for a number of reasons. I will not use OS9 as an example, because admittedly it had problems. But we are now years past OS9 and OSX is fast, solid and very stable.
I have a mixed network of several machines and I have far more uptime with my Macs. I run Win2K because of the software I run and find I can keep ot mostly stable for some length of time... nothing like OSX though. I do have to re-install all my OS and apps on W2k thanks to bit rot. I have never had to do this with OSX. As a matter of fact, I am working with an OSX install that has migrated smoothly from OS9 to OSX beta to the current release without a re-install... EVER! Try doing that from 95 to NT to 2K to XP.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

quote: The fact is TEXAS that you don't know how to properly administer a mac shop

Don't tell my boss or my team! They seem to think I do, I'm happy with that. Thats why I can chose my own rate 

quote: I have run and been in shops that have huge numbers of macs as well as the "average operator", and while there are some people who are just hopeless when it comes to technology, this has little to do with it being a mac. In fact I would guess that you will have far more problems with these users if you get them on PCs than if you just got the damn systems working well and left them alone.

Hehe, this is the standard reaction from all the Mac users who are afraid of change, or being proved wrong. It's not that they are technologically useless, they manage to do what they need to most of the time due to the simplistic nature of the Mac, it's the attitude that seems to go with owning one.

I would suggest that you have not got the configuration right for your W2K machines if you don't find them as stable as your Mac's, or perhaps if you had the PC's doing as little varied work as your Mac probably does then you would find an improvement.


----------



## Anim8r (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *Fast user switching....  wow.
> Playing music is far easier with an absolute plethora of jukeboxes to chose from on the PC.
> Copying cd's... great. Like thats a real bonus..
> ...


Well, aside from having a pretty damned good utility in iTunes, there is Audion, CCDP, CD Player, Mercury, SimpleAudio and more.

How is WinDVD infinitely better? I personally would use PowerDVD, but I still like the Mac's cleaner interface. Plus the video quality is better.

I really have to take issue with the last point. Installing is easier on a pc? How do you control where things go? Most PC installers will put resources in specific places that you have no control over. OSX has started to add the *nix variety of resource allocation to the MacOS, but it is hardly like Windows. That and most applications can be installed by simply dragging their icons into a folder and I can't see how you can even make this statement.


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

--


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

PowerDVD is good, but I dislike the control center myself, personal choice. Also with the video quality, I find the 9700 much better, but then my screen is quality so I can't really compare to what I see at work (Obviously the video editing suite at work is good quality, but I cant really compare it to what I have, that wouldn't really be right).

Installing applications on a PC is a bit of a misnomer really, if you know what you are doing and know how it all works you would know what I mean and how it's done, I don't think it would do any good to explain the ins and outs of installing a PC application properly here. I shall admit that the average Joe user can screw things up eventually.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

TEXAS why dont u go register on: http://www.macfora.com

and go waste ur useless time over there
or else ill take out my jedi knight and destroy ur useless car + pc and then ill star laughin  hahaha and u can start crying


----------



## Nizzarr (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cat (Jul 1, 2003)

Besides Windows bashing I've yet to hear a good answer to the following:


> It looks more to me like you lot are afraid of something. Whats with the knee jerk reactions to a bit of criticism?


 Good point TEX, I'll give it a shot.
Mac user in general are tired of hearing "PC's are faster, Windows is standard anyway, etc.". An automatic reaction is easily triggered. We're all exited about the G5 and panther and reclaiming the performance crown.
WinWord10 was raining on our parade, and we were pissed off a bit.

There's nothing for us to be afraid of: The Mac has just made a huge jump forward. Both the OS and the hardware announced at WWDC will give the Mac a huge boost in performance, bringing it on par with the competition at least and propelling it even further IMHO. We are least of all afraid, we are euforic!  The Mac offers us all we need and more: beside all the beatiful elements of the interface (ease of use, pleasing eye candy, workflow enhancements) we get all the advantages of Unix underneath (CLI, X11, OpenSource). Windows and Linux cannot really compete with this on the same level. This is now complemented by far better hardware than we had before.
We are Mac and we are not afraid!

Definition of Good/Better:
Well, we have a number of options here.
1) Good is what works. No problems here, both PC's and Macs get work done.
Better is what works a) faster. The discussion here is open. The G5 was proclaimed performance king. Benchmarks are being attacked and defended everywhere, but there are no shipping systems widely available yet. I suppose it is safe to say that, with respect to the hardware, Mac and PC's are on a par. There are other things that matter, however. The Mac has claimed a more intuitive interface that speeds up workflow. Linux and windows do not make similar claims, and trolls simply deny this point. The burden of proof lies not with us ... 

Better is b) a higher quality. This depends largely on specific demands and specific programs or specific pieces of hardware. Most of these are widely available for both platforms and OS'es. High resolution printers, scanners, data storage, Offices, image manipulation programs, compilers etc. There are a host of options and the scala covers all levels from low level to the highest on both platforms. So we are still head to head here. 

2) Good is what pleases.
Tha Mac probably gives more attention to aesthetically pleasing design of its hardware and appearance of its OS, but pleasure comes also from entertainment in the form of games, audio and video. This is the domain of user experience and tastes. Discussion is open here, but the platforms IMHO start on a par. More games for the PC, better overall experience for the Mac. I am inclined to favor the Mac since it addresses the issue specifically with the iLife package.

So my conclusion is ... we're largely even. 
And the debate is open: Open means, no flames and give room to (intelligent) criticism.

BTW: "I like Macs so Macs are the best" is not an argument. Subjectively it may be true for you personally, but we are trying to be objective here ... aren't we? The important thing is trying to spell out WHY you think one is better than the other.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

Thank you Cat, you have answered the first question admirably. I agree with the premise that things are very even now, and in fact am glad that Mac has finally given Mac users what they have needed for a long time now, a catch up to what was going on in the PC world. Competition is needed to stir innovation and progress; this can only be good for both camps. 

My main reason for posting initially was because of the amount of threads that just decried the fact that the G5 tests may be slightly skewed in favor of the Mac (benchmarks between the 2 systems are contentious at best) and perhaps the claims shouted from the rooftops of 'worlds fastest home computer' should have been tempered slightly. 

Preference between the interfaces of both systems is purely personal, and can't really be argued about. Styling of the Mac has made PC manufacturers have to come up with something a bit more pleasing to the eye, beige boxes are soooo boring (luckily my SN41G2 Shuttle is beautiful). 

As much as I hate to admit it, I must agree, that at the top end of the market things are very even, time will tell if they can begin to offer Macs with the sort of performance that PC users have had for some time at the bottom end of the market. For instance, a cost of £700 got me a machine which will kill a top end G4 in the pure performance stakes, and with some tweaking freeware I have made the interface look exactly like a Mac. 

(I changed it back though   )


edited for my very poor English


----------



## uoba (Jul 1, 2003)

I have to agree with you there, a £700 PC could compare to the performance of a top G4, though, one factor in this, will be the machine's longevity compared to the G4. A point not too often overlooked by the Mac user, is the fact that the mac will usually last a lot longer than a lot of PC hardware (hence the higher price tag).

Are we off topic or what?


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

a pc could compare with a g4? in what sense ? when working with one app only eg photoshop ?

have u ever tried multitasking on a p4 3 ghz ??? try opening several apps on that thing and the music skips.

i have a G4 933mhz Pmac and i loaded the screen effects app with the red pill screen saver, i loaded many many apps and the damn music still wouldnt skip and at the same time i was writing a DVD without any fear. 
my friend with a pentium 1.7 ghz was writing a simple freakin cd and all i did  was a right click>properties  on a few files and the lame thing was thinking for more than 2 mins  (and were talking about a system which is less than 1 year old)


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

erm.. it's not really an arguement is it? Your friends PC sounds like it isn't setup very well for what you tried to do.

As I sit here with Bob Marley wailing in the background, a CD being burnt from an ISO image I retrieved from a terminal session to a PC miles away and perfmon running, I hear no skip. I'm afraid thats not very strong a case for selling my PC and going out and spend 4 times as much on a new Mac.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

thats the point. a mac doesnt need a proper set up. even a 10 year old can set it up perfectly

of course windows XP should be easy for every1 to set up, even for my friend (who is very skillful with computers) , windows 2000 server on the other hand shouldnt be that easy to set up just like MAc OS X server for the mac 

oh and TEXAS pls make all ur windows transparent and have a movie playin as ur desktop background and have music playin at the same time, take a screen capture of that, post it here . (and im sure ur music will be playin just fine)


----------



## Captain Code (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WinWord10 _
> *
> Now answer this... why would they deliberately turn hyperthreading OFF to give Intel a BETTER score? Makes no sense.*



To keep the whiners from saying, "The test was fixed because Apple didn't turn off hyperthreading, which would have gave a better score"

They ran the test on the Dell in a way that would make it score as high as possible.  You don't deliberatly cripple the machine because THAT would be falsifying the test.

Apple does it's best to make the Dell score as high as possible, and people still complain.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 1, 2003)

hehe, Tell that to the 20+ year olds at work who come shouting at me when they muck there OSX installs up. Not only do they insist that they can do a better job than us because they have 'always used Macs', we even give them a very detailed instruction sheets to follow, and still they just go and do what they want...

At least it increases the backing for the push to get them onto PC's.

Your points are very moot, who would want to have transparent windows and a movie as their background? We, or a least I, was originally talking about Mac users response to any criticism, which you show quite well 

*edit - oops, someone posted between the relevant post to mine.


----------



## Captain Code (Jul 1, 2003)

I don't see how you could "muck it up" installing.  Boot from CD, select HD to install to, click install.  Wait 20 mins and it's done.  

Windows on the other hand, you wait 40 mins at least to install it.  Then after that, you better hope you have all your driver disks or you'll have to download them.  No, the built in one doesn't work well with ATI cards.  Just gives basic support for the card and nothing else.  

Then, once you get Windows installed, go to windows update and download 20 to 40 security updates(just went through it with XP).

2 hours later you are done, while your Mac friend has been done for an hour and a half.


----------



## Anim8r (Jul 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *hehe, Tell that to the 20+ year olds at work who come shouting at me when they muck there OSX installs up. Not only do they insist that they can do a better job than us because they have 'always used Macs', we even give them a very detailed instruction sheets to follow, and still they just go and do what they want...
> 
> At least it increases the backing for the push to get them onto PC's.
> ...



TEXAS, as an IT guy... why do your users have access to system files that would allow them to "muck" things up?

Why arent you creating images and using NetBoot?

Why aren't you at the very least using images for quick rebuilds?

This all seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 1, 2003)

why did microsoft post those useless videos of longhorns impressive graphic capabilities ?
why did apple include the cube effect on the user switching ?

in the end its all just to impress the crowd and show what each system can do with similar hardware.

the fact is that mac os  x has had the dock magnification for years. it now has/will soon have a cube effect. it has/will soon have expose which is a very very useful feature. what do windows have ? they have jack shit 

the transparent windows was just a point to show u the capabilities of such a slow and expensive g4 such as mine, in comparison to ur cheap but very fast pc.
but i guess u where too much of a chicken to try all this!!! or maybe is it that u have no transparency capabilities?


----------



## binaryDigit (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by tsizKEIK _
> *why did microsoft post those useless videos of longhorns impressive graphic capabilities ?
> why did apple include the cube effect on the user switching ?
> 
> ...



And if M$ and Apple devoted that time spent on developing transparent windows, dock magnification, and rotating cubes on creating OS's and apps that were more stable, more secure, more useful, and with a _better_ (not prettier) UI, then we'd ALL be better off.  Those effects while "neat" are either A) utterly useless (my opinion) B) useful only in the context of poor ui and/or C) not nearly worth the resources they require (either from the machine or the programmers required to achieve those effects).  And for anyone who wishes to pipe in about OSX being secure/stable/useful, I don't see Apple stopping their ui tweaks, bug fixes, security patches, etc.  So while it may be good, it's still far from perfect (and in my opinion, not near as great as some others think, but again, that's just my opinion).

As for all this PC vs Mac stuff.  I work with both.  I type this now on my Pismo.  I've used Macs since the original Mac (and Lisa too if you want to count that).  I've also used PC's since my original 4.77Mhz clone.  My desktop machine is an Athlon 1.4Ghz running Win2k.  Fact is they've both come a long way.  Anyone who says that M$ doesn't innovate is full of it and doesn't have a clue.  Do they copy too, damn right.  Does Apple, sure nuff.  Does Apple innovate more than M$, maybe.  Who cares.  Does my Pismo lock up, uh huh.  Four times last week.  Does my Win2k lock up, depends on what I'm doing to it, but sometimes it does.  If I'm not mucking with either one, do they work dependably, yes they do.  Any PC owner who suffers "bit rot" is doing something seriously weird or wrong or just has some crap app that their running causing their problems (anyone who's running NT4/Win2K anyway, can't speak for 95/98/ME which I won't touch, or XP, which I don't use very much and I hate the eye candy crap they've added).  My Win2K Server desktop has been humming along happily for well over a year now.  Back when it was an NT4 box, it ran for 4 years without a re-install.  And I mess around A LOT with hardware in my PC boxes (one advantage that Wintel still has in spades over the Mac).  One issue that I've never had to deal with though is viri.  I know that a lot of other Wintel owners that have had issues either have them because of 16bit Windows (9x/ME) and/or viri.

Anyway, it's late and I'm starting to drift.  Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Mac folk bite back hard when they get the same old lame stereotypes thrown at them.  Well, for those of us who are Mac users, but not Mac Zombies, we feel the same way when PC's are stereotyped, as they often are on this board.  Some say "leave, this is a Mac board", I say that's a lame excuse.  The Mac community wants to _grow_ right? M$/PC folk are often accused of using FUD to keep the Mac down, but yet similar tactics are used right here.

Anyway, I'm really way off now.  But to summerize, Apple rocks.  Wintel isn't nearly as bad as many Apple folk wish it were.  Both have strengths and weaknesses.  If you love your Mac, more power to you.  If you love your PC, more power to you too.  If you love both (and in my case many more, I'm a computer polygamist), then more power to you.  You don't like people bashing your platform, well, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 2, 2003)

As a quick reply to Anim8r, we do all the above but senior people in the Mac users dept can still insist on their own way of doing things, some are above me in the pecking order and historically they have always done their own thing.
This is changing, and with every muck up they create, my case gets stronger to be able to draw them back under our full control.


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 2, 2003)

TEXAS you should change your signature into something like this:
Work as an IT like I don't need the money, Love Wintels like I've never been hurt and Damage Macs like nobody is watching... 

Or then again you should fulfill the path that UOBA laid before you here http://www.macosx.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=229111

Keep up the great work you are doing as a Sith Lord...  Or should I say as a Cave Troll?


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 2, 2003)

the fact is that G5 is faster than the Pentiums 

the losers can debate that (even the real world tests) are false in their own forums.

its obvious that ppl like TEXAS come here because the NEWS &RUMORS forum is popular and they wont be ignored 

the fact is that he has yet to post me of any XP or Longhorn capabilities that i requested (transparancies etc...)
my dear TEXAs , u have been weighed, u have been measured, and u have been found wanted..  

i suggest u quit ur job and join the dark side completely. im sure i can find u a job here in greece where ull be surrounded by wonderful pcs... u will have ur own little paradise.
im sure that in a few weeks u will get up and leave on ur own after so much QUALITY time with those wonderful cheap PC systems.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 2, 2003)

anyways. im sorry if i have been hostile towards u TEXAS or any other PC user.

i admit i did get out of order,
its just that ive had many bad pc experiences. anyways those days are gone. im a mac user now. theres no harm in u supportin ur own ideas. 
we all have freedom of speech


id like u too accept my apology 
and  my humble gift (that i have attached in the photo) !!! id be glad to give it to u personally one day if u come to Greece on vacation. we have many beautiful islands


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 2, 2003)

You would give me a G5? Woohoo!

And the internet is a strange place to discuss issues, bbs boards are probably the worst place to try to get across messages because the inflection on certain parts of posts that you would hear in a face to face discussion is missing, so the whole post can sound different to every individual. I understand my posts have been considered controversial, it is a Mac board after all 

I have been to Greece on occasion and find it a wonderful place with a nice population, I would love to go there again.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 2, 2003)

i know of great places to show u
full of green trees. and clean air


i especially liked on tree on my way to northern greece one beautiful morning!

i took  a picture of it.

i dedicate it to. and all THE PC USERS 

with all my love


----------



## Cat (Jul 2, 2003)

... that G5 logo tsizKEIK posted ... Is it just me or does it look remarkably like the T3 logo ... 

Regarding performance, the sky is the limit obviously. So on the high end, the competition is neck to neck. But what about the low end? Is a $ 700 Dell as capable as a $ 2800 Mac?
 We have checked this in various other threads and looked up the configs on the AppleStore and Dell website. The answer is NI! ... Nuuu ... no, NI!

Similar computers are priced similarly, the low end Dell compares perfectly with the low end eMac. One market Apple has always kept out of is the ultra low segment. Yet you can go very very low in price with students grants, special offers, refurbished systems and various offers from resellers. Moreover there is a good second hand market where you can find well preserved Macs. Macintoshes tend to conserve their value longer and also to last longer than similar PC offerings. However it is true that for the same amount of money you can cycle trhough various PCS or one Mac. On average, they compare very well.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 2, 2003)

the cheaper a product is, the lower its quality.
lower quality implyin more problems and maybe incompatibilities of the system as a whole .
this does not represnt apple, which is why they havent entered the ultra low segment


----------



## tamma (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TEXAS _
> *It looks more to me like you lot are afraid of something. Whats with the knee jerk reactions to a bit of criticism?*



It's not about the criticism, it's about where it is coming from. You as a support person should know what it is like to have some dumb, retarded, can't find the "any key" jack ass criticize your work and what you do. It is the same kind of thing here. 

We as Mac Users are use to criticism especially from ignorant Borg like drones that Bill Gates has created. Not all PC users are like this but most are, and it is because of this we are a tad bit defensive. This thread is one good example of defensiveness but for the most part what i have read on this thread is that most of us are waiting for the real world test.

Me personally i think the G5 looks ugly as sin but if it's performance is even close to what we have been told then i will be one Happy MacAddict.


----------



## TEXAS (Jul 2, 2003)

I'm off now back into the ether, but thanks for replying to my questions.

I hope you all get what you want out of your computers.


----------



## binaryDigit (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by tsizKEIK _
> *the cheaper a product is, the lower its quality.
> lower quality implyin more problems and maybe incompatibilities of the system as a whole .
> this does not represnt apple, which is why they havent entered the ultra low segment  *



Hmm, marketeers must absolutely love you since this is exactly what they want you to think.  By that logic I guess Linux is a piece of crap compared to WinME and the FreeBSD derived portions of OSX must suck big time, and Apache is junk compared to IIS.  Oh and iMacs are lower quality than 3.2Ghz Dells.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 2, 2003)

i was refering to HARDWARE. 

less money = lower quality of materials

cheaper food = crappier tomatoes in the food

ouga ouga. flinstone


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Hmm, marketeers must absolutely love you since this is exactly what they want you to think.  By that logic I guess Linux is a piece of crap compared to WinME and the FreeBSD derived portions of OSX must suck big time, and Apache is junk compared to IIS.  Oh and iMacs are lower quality than 3.2Ghz Dells. *



You seem to confuse cheap with free 

As for the iMac VS Dull... Stop it! I'm still laughing about that! 

Are you trying to become more and more like Steve Jobs? What's next? You are going to compare a Dual G5/2GHz with a Dual Xeon/3GHz? 

Thank you for making my night and hopefully next day too!


----------



## plastic (Jul 10, 2003)

All I want is for a faster Mac running on OS X. Too tiring to argue with everyone about "which is faster". Just make my PS run faster on the newer machines, and I will be a happy puppy.


----------



## plastic (Jul 10, 2003)

err.... the Gee Five *IS* faster than the fastest G4, isn't it?


----------

