# Why do these damn Dell PC's keep getting faster?!



## BlingBling 3k12 (May 26, 2002)

For a top-o-the-line Dell.... it comes with...

Pentium® 4 processor 2.53GHz w/ 533MHz system bus & 512K L2 Cache

don't give me anything about the G4 being faster and all that because I am quite aware of that.... I just get annoyed every time I see theirs getting "faster" while Apple just stays the same.

Please... Steve... Release G5's at 1.5 GHz at MWNY! Light a fire up under the ass of Motorola and make them make the G5!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Nummi_G4 (May 27, 2002)

Bling... do not expect a G5 anytime soon.  Things are going to keep getting worse.  Sorry to tell you that.  Life is a bi_ch isnt it?


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (May 27, 2002)

yes, it is


----------



## Koelling (May 27, 2002)

I was going to ignore this thread because there is so many others (hint hint, we don't need more). We would all like to see faster computers even if it was just higher numbers with as much power as now just so we can appease our inferiority complex. The ones who whine the most have the most insecurity of their manlihood but the rest of us will just be content with their 266 P3 crushing iMacs. 

I'm sure this invites all sorts of flames and I am sorry if I offended anyone. Nobody is forcing you to use a Macintosh. M$ uses mind control but so does Apple so think for yourself and get what is best for you.


----------



## bubbajim (May 27, 2002)

If Apple went the same route as Dell and other PC vendors you would quickly find out that Apple would fail.


A couple of articles that I have seen around indicate that Intel and AMD continue to boost their chip speeds, they do not put as much effort in I/O speeds and overall speed improvement.  As long as that crank out a faster MHZ that is all the public cares about.

I think Motorola has been doing a better job at creating a better well-rounded chip.  From benchmarks, heat tests, and other various debates/comparisions, I have seen that though Apple does not lead the pack, they are still in the game with good solid hardware.

I am still amazed at the power of my Dual 450mhz G4, and while I have built many PCs, each one of them have fell victim to becoming painfully slow in other aspects beyond the speed alone and have continually had to upgrade them to keep up with my mac.

I would just like everyone to keep focus on the stability and quality of Apple and just because someone else claims their faster does not always mean it's better.

That all said.... I would love to see Apple get a boost up to 1.5 ghz... just so that we can capture more market share with the other players involved...


----------



## RacerX (May 27, 2002)

You know, it's funny, I just can take PC speed as being _real_ for me. An x86 based processor system running at 2.5 GHz or 25 GHz doesn't represent anything to me because it doesn't run any of the software I use. Even on a 25 GHz _Pentium IX_ system OmniWeb 4.1, TIFFany 3.5, Create, or even Mac OS X won't run, so why would I care?

Actually, my current system is running a G3 at 350 MHz, and I can't really justify getting a faster system at this point. It does everything that I ask it to do, so I don't even feel the need to envy those who are getting the dual G4s at 1 GHz (which I have worked on and they are quite nice). My needs just have not exceeded the abilities of my system yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for PC users. Quake III running at 2,600 frames per second would just make all the difference in the world (your average theatre film runs at 32 frames per second, just for reference). And I can see where the 2.5 GHz would really make Word and Excel so much nicer to use. I even bet that you could read you e-mail faster in Outlook Express on that type of system. It is like envying your neighbor who has a sports car that can go 300+ kph when the speed limit is 100 kph. Sure he has the ability to go really fast, but in real world driving (like rush-hour traffic), it isn't going to help him that much.

Lets face it, these speeds are not going to effect the average users real needs. People are productive on what ever system they know how to work with. If Cray ever came out with one of their super computers for under $1000, 30+ times faster than the fastest desktop system today (Mac or Windows), do you really think anyone would be very productive on it? Worrying about speed when you just don't have a real use for it is strange. And in the case of Mac users, worrying about the speed of non-Mac systems beyond wanting the implementation of new technology is pointless. My apps don't run on the newest-fastest PCs any more than they would on the newest-fastest super computer, and I don't even feel the need for the newest-fastest Mac at this point.

If you need something with the highest MHz rating _just_ for having the highest MHz rating, you should get a PC. If you are more productive with a PC than a Mac, you should get a PC. If you are more productive with a Mac than another system, then get a Mac. It is that simple.


----------



## iscaro (May 27, 2002)

Same as RacerX  

Higher Mhz is only needed for the latest games...

I play a few games on Mac and PC... but I have a PS2... and I still love to play PSOne titles too! 

I'll get a GameCube someday... when Zelda and other great games will be out... casue right now my PS2 is still grate for gaming! 


CiAo


----------



## vanguard (May 27, 2002)

Maybe I think macs are so weak because MY mac is so weak.  I've heard that they latest 700 mhz iBook is twice as fast as my 500 mhz version because of the other enhancements they've made to the system.

I haven't been to the apple store long enough to really check out what apple offers today.  My guess is that they are getting close to the stage where more CPU speed isn't getting much.

When x86 CPUs arrive they are greated with a yawn.  Nobody seems to need that much speed.  Let's hope that Apple/Motorola gets there soon.


----------



## RyanLang (May 27, 2002)

Film = 24 fps
NTSC = 29.97 fps


----------



## homer (May 27, 2002)

That was a great post, RacerX!  I have to agree with vanguard too.  My 233 iMac just isn't cutting it anymore.  I have to believe that once I get a PM this fall I'll be content for another four or five years.  But in the meantime I have to gnash my teeth every time I hear how far behind Moto is.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (May 27, 2002)

I kind of agree with you Racer X.  Sure... 2.53 ghz does not matter with email or word.  But the PC guys might get so much more speed... the Mac will lose the pro design area.  Print, web design, digital video, ect.


----------



## boi (May 27, 2002)

what about that gateway? 2ghz, 128mb ddr ram, 40 gig hd, 15" monitor, 48x cd-rom & speakers for $800. add a 17" monitor and 24x10x40 and it's $1000.
that's a hellalotta speed for less than a grand. 
while you are satisfied with your speed, i am not. i can't even scroll without it looking choppy, dammit, let alone minimize windows in OS X. what good are pretty effects if my system can't handle 'em? all i want to do is minimize a window and sometimes it takes up to 5-6 seconds. 
and to continue with the 'speed limit' analogy: using high-end programs (photoshop, games, video editing, etc) there is no speed limit. and right now my g4 crawls in comparison to pcs. 
okay, a pc doesn't run 'omniweb'. who cares? it has IE integrated into the OS so it's incredibly fast. every time i use a pc after using my mac (usin' os x) i get browser envy (not to mention scroll envy). i love os x. i love my mac. don't get me wrong... but these low prices at such high speeds are enough to make me sell my year old mac and get an even trade in for a brand new 2ghz PC. 
please spare me the "fine, leave, we don't care. i hope you enjoy your peecee-- don't hang around here any more" comments. i'm not going to trade it. it's just food for thought.


----------



## dricci (May 27, 2002)

fine, leave, we don't care. i hope you enjoy your peecee-- don't hang around here any more


----------



## Edge100 (May 27, 2002)

Its true.  PCs are faster.  If Apple/Moto dont get in the game soon, there will be some loss of market share in the high end (i.e. video and photoshop stuff).  This much is true.

Meanwhile, Apple is gaining like crazy in the mid- and low-range.  MacOS X, while not perfect, beats the pants off of XP and people know it.  A G4 iMac is fast enough for 95% of everything, and people know it.  A 700 MHz iBook is good enough for 90% of everything, and people know it.

I do a lot of audio stuff and my iMac G3/600 runs Logic Audio and Reason like a dream.  Granted, I still have to run 9.2.1 to use it, but I can compose some intricate stuff with speed to spare.  Bottom line: I get my work done FAST on a Mac.  On a PC, who knows how long I will have to fiddle to get the same programs working (a long time!  I know this from experience...it simply is not as easy on a PC).

I have used the Reason 2.0 beta on OS X and it looks like 10.1.4 can handle it nicely, even on my 1 year old iMac.  My iBook 500 runs all the above softs well too and I can even watch a DVD if I want to.

The point?  I am not a high end user.  I consider myself in the mid-range.  More than just Omniweb and email, but less than heavy photoshop and FCP.  My Macs, old as they are, do the duty admirably.  I would venture to say that I would not compose any faster on a dual 1GHz.  Sure I'd get more plugins going, but I havent yet run out of CPU power yet.

People drastically overestimate the power they need.  To the people who really need the power, it may make enough of a difference to give up OS X and go over to XP (please factor in the Wintel learning curve!).  To others it may not.  Apple does need to get it together in the highend.  But for most of us, we have plenty of speed and we have the best OS in the world, hands down!  I wouldnt give it up for anything.


----------



## RacerX (May 27, 2002)

> _by boi_
> *please spare me the "fine, leave, we don't care. i hope you enjoy your peecee-- don't hang around here any more" comments. i'm not going to trade it. it's just food for thought.*



Why should you be spared? The point is that (and you seem to not get it) if a platform doesn't do what you want, then it doesn't matter how fast it is. In your case (and you pointed it out) a PC *would* be better for you.

By the way, show me were IE on Windows can spell check and read text within a browser window. OmniWeb renders pages more than fast enough for me, and it has features that I use that I can't find in another browser.

Edge100 and boi,

The fastest system in the world isn't going to increase my productivity if it can't do the things I need it to. As for Photoshop, I work for a number of publications where Photoshop, Illustrator and QuarkXPress are their primary apps. Of over 50 systems which I take care of (covering 5 magazines) only 6 are G4s, and only two of those are running at greater than 500 MHz. These people's livelihood depends on images created in Photoshop at greater than 600 dpi (web designers use a much small resolution I would point out), and I have not heard any of them screaming for more speed. Only a fraction of the tools within Photoshop actually require a system faster than a G3 at 350 MHz to complete within a short (usually less than a few seconds) period of time. Actual, memory is the best thing to help Photoshop, anything to keep it from having to write that much to the scratch disk improves performance.

I don't see any of these people (which represent the true high end) moving from Macs (or moving to Mac OS X while they don't have a native version of QuarkXPress). I don't even see them showing the need to buy replacement systems for the ones that are over three years old at this point. My print shop clients are always on the look out for faster RIPs, but the actual workstations they are using seem just fine for all their tasks. And the one client I have that does video wouldn't move to any platform that doesn't have Final Cut Pro on it (and here is a news flash, he feels more productive with Macs than any other system).

So, please pick a platform that works for you and stop complaining. For the rest of us, a Gateway is just a $1000 paper weight. In other words, a complete waste of money (not to mention the worst made systems on the planet).


----------



## scaryfish (May 27, 2002)

Yeah, It'd be nice to have "faster" macs - but hey, I'm a student so it's not likely I'll be able to afford one any time soon anyway.

So to all you people complaning about your slow macs - I'm using a original iBook 300 mHz with 160 megs of ram.  And it works fine.  And I still prefer it to the PCs we have in the labs...


----------



## culo77 (May 27, 2002)

Ok my 2cents,

My girlfriend as an 300mhz pentium ll PC with 68mb ram an 10 or a 7gb harddrive running windoze 98.
She is way more than content with her PC, she only checks her email, types her papers for school and email for school, and runs the occasional programs for her college classes. 

My girlfriends Dad never had a computer...........
Butt just bought the Gateway 700xl pentium4  2.53ghz with 512k L2 cache 120gb harddrive with windoze XPeepee.
he will most likely use it for email and websurfing and to do some work at home.

As for me i gotz a HP 850mhz pentium lll with 128mb  a 30gb on windows crashME.
I use to run ACID Pro 3, and a few other music programs. I also use it for school and accounting programs. and the email websurfing.......
butt the difference for me is, i am HAPPY with the SPEED of my comp(I know i need more memory) 
BUTT I KAN NOT STAND M$ ANYMORE......
i do have a short temper........i threw my mouse out the window when i was working on a track and didnt save it in acid pro and the dang thing froze, the whole comp not the program.
then i threw my keyboard out the window when i was working in excel for a college assignment, that i put of to the last minute, and i wanted to listen to music cause i was gettin tired so i went to open up my mp3 player and ......
you guesseded it ....i saw the blue screen of sadness....then so did my keyboard!!!!!!!!

Ok after all that i said that has no point, no is the point you read for....

it like what "RacerX" said its what works for you.....

1. For me I dont need speed.... I need a NEW PLATFORM...which will be MAC X and either the new iBook or Tibook it depends on the money i have by august. (anything like acid pro for mac you guys know about?)

2. I told my girlfriends dad that he could buy my PC.....BUT he has a "napoleon complex"....He needs the biggest, fastest, to run "DIaL_UP" internet surfing and email??????
I dont know why? Plus he paid $5000 for the dang blue screen of sadness

3. as for my girlfriend she had that computer for 4 years and is still happy with it but the only reason she said she said she wants my PC when i eat apple, is the fact of my 3178 songs i have. (ILOVE MP3)
butt i am talking her into a iBook for VET school and i will keep my PC for the thing that needs PC.....or get my mom hooked on eBay 


What i am saying is BE HAPPY WE HAVE OPTIONS 

CAUSE WITH ALL THESE OPTIONS ALMOST EVERYONE CAN FIND A COMPUTER TO SATISFY THEM.

so quit complaing and be happy with what we have and get everyone to by APPLE..

your truely,
                M$ and bill Gates makes me cry


----------



## nkuvu (May 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by culo77:_
> *pentium 42.53ghz*


Wow, I guess I really have lost track of the current progress of the x86 world.  That's a fast processor.  

And that's an expensive temper you have there.

As to the rest of the post...

Uh, good?  I think?  I'm lost.


----------



## boi (May 27, 2002)

RacerX: chill. you're talking like i just insulted your mother. it's a computer. 
why should i be spared? read the sentence after it. because i'm NOT going to trade it in. 

the main point is this: i prefer macs. we all do. that's why we're here. but when gateway can produce a 2ghz machine for only $800, one starts to wonder why apple can only produce a 600mhz g3 for that much.  if apple is trying to get converts, they'll have to step it up. mhz sell computers, it's the UI and the ease of use that keep them. 
okay, great, a mac works best for you. you're more productive with a slow mac than a fast pc. hooray. guess what? someone productive on a pc is now /more/ productive on a fast PC. i'm glad you like your mac better... but i'm not trying to convice YOU to get a PC. you have to look at the general market (which is comprised of mostly PC users). as my computer science prof would say "most consumers worship the speed God. if you learn to realize this, you will sell programs".

now about Omniweb: it doesn't fully support java. it renders css wrong. it ignores a lot of css. it forces you to use aqua, which doesn't always fit in a certain table. anti-aliasing is only good for some people. some view it as fuzzy text. most people don't even know what anti-aliasing means, and i don't care if it's anti aliased with a drop shadow... as long as i can read it, i'm fine. IE on windows runs SO quick. admit it... PCs have mac users beat when it comes to browser wars.

anyway, i'd just like to see a little more open-mindedness about the subject. a lot of mac fans are complete fanatics, and don't care WHAT pcs have to offer. that's no way to look at things. 
i'm not saying there aren't PC users like that, it's just a larger percentage of mac users are.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 27, 2002)

Now this discussion involves megahertz and browsers... It's not going to be pretty... **ducks behind couch**

Seriously though, does a 200GHz machine really make someone wordprocess better? I mean, a 1GHz Celeron would probably suit 99% of the computing population just fine. So when it all comes down to it is marketing. There must be a plateau of diminishing return on performance and speed, once you reach that plateau, who cares how much raw power is in your processor? The truth of the matter is, the PowerPC processor, as it stands, will never beat Intel in pure megahertz, and I think that's why Apple is focusing on its user experience (both UI and industrial design) and OS, where is still does have an advantage. A lot of people I know (me included) are switching to Macs because of OS X. The truth is that even if Macs have 50GHz G4's, I wouldn't have even thought about switching if Macs are still using OS 9.

The bottom line is, if your computer does what you want and does it in a timely manner, what's the fuss? SGI and Sun workstations are mostly in the 500MHz range, but do we call these machines pieces of cr*p?

Browsing is indeed a bit faster on the Windows platform, but then again, the HTML rendering engine is integrated into the shell. For speed, we sacrifice 3rd party browser compatibility (I love Mozilla on the PC, but it crashes quite a bit for no good reason) and browser choice. Do we really want that on the Mac platform? I think all the browsers are indeed getting better, but OS X is still a rather new OS, it'll probably take time before the browsing experience gets better.


----------



## RacerX (May 27, 2002)

> _by boi_
> *chill. you're talking like i just insulted your mother.*



First off, I am not acting like you are insulting my mother (if you were insulting my mother we would be best friends  ).

Have you ever worked with Gateways? Of course they cost next to nothing, because that represents the quality of them! I did support of a company that had 12 Gateways. They were the most crash prone systems I've ever come across. Even if I was a Windows user, I would never willingly pay for a Gateway.



> *if apple is trying to get converts, they'll have to step it up. mhz sell computers, it's the UI and the ease of use that keep them.*



Apple doesn't make processors, Gateway doesn't make processors (or good computers), Dell doesn't make processors (but they'll claim to be the first to have done it to sell systems  ). Apple has made their processor choice (I wish they would have gone more with IBM, but we can't have everything) and they made that choice for their own good reasons. Beyond that, all of this is pointless.



> *okay, great, a mac works best for you. you're more productive with a slow mac than a fast pc. hooray. guess what? someone productive on a pc is now /more/ productive on a fast PC. i'm glad you like your mac better... but i'm not trying to convice YOU to get a PC.*



I have never tried to convert anyone. And _guess what?_, I've been saying that all a long. Why does it bother you that someone is both productive and happy with their PC? I'm happy for people who are productive with their PCs. Part of my job is to make sure that people with PCs are happy and productive. If someone ask me what type of computer they should buy, I ask them what they need it for. If they start down the PC path, then I'll help them with that choice. If they ask me what I use, they find out that I use a Mac. That is as far as I go in pushing any platform.



> *now about Omniweb: it doesn't fully support java. it renders css wrong. it ignores a lot of css. it forces you to use aqua, which doesn't always fit in a certain table. anti-aliasing is only good for some people. some view it as fuzzy text. most people don't even know what anti-aliasing means, and i don't care if it's anti aliased with a drop shadow... as long as i can read it, i'm fine. IE on windows runs SO quick. admit it... PCs have mac users beat when it comes to browser wars.*



First, I have only pointed out what makes OmniWeb *my* choice of web browsers. Why do you feel the need to affirm your browser choice (I think we are getting into some insecurity issues here) over mine? Could IE (on Windows or Mac) spell check this text as I type it? Could IE (on Mac or Windows) read me your text as it was posted? I have been using OmniWeb for a few years and have been quite happy with it. With OmniWeb 4 on Mac OS X, I have found that pages look better than I have ever seen them  (and for some reason they don't seem as annoying as they once were... I wonder why  ). 

I would point out that your _admit it..._ comment shows that you have some Mac-PC issues that you need to work out. My computing (and browser for that matter) choices are not governed by the masses (as it sounds like yours are). I use what I want regardless of what anyone else uses (I'm one of the only people who still uses Rhapsody as one of my primary operating systems), so I could careless if _PCs have mac users beat_ in your mind. I have the cool features I want, less of the annoying ones that I don't, and live a very happy life (which it doesn't sound like you can say the same).



> *anyway, i'd just like to see a little more open-mindedness about the subject. a lot of mac fans are complete fanatics, and don't care WHAT pcs have to offer. that's no way to look at things.*



And I have never looked at them that way... so what is your point?


----------



## anrkngl (May 27, 2002)

The funny thing is that the PC games have been keeping around the 400-700 MHz range for reccomended speed, while the RAM usage and graphics requirements have risen. The 2.5GHz is the difference between 65 FPS and 165. I don't think you'd miss those frames much


----------



## boi (May 27, 2002)

your last response was nothing but personal attacks, and i'm not going to do the same. i use macs because i am most productive with it. i, however, stay open-minded about buying a PC. your "Mac-PC issues" comment makes you seem as though you're a little over-zealous about computers. it's not a religion, it's a computer. 
as to not completely hijack this thread, let's get back to the basic points of this thread:
PCs are faster than Macs.
PCs are cheaper than Macs.
We all love Macs anyway because they're much easier to use.


now please stop insulting me. you're going to make me cry.


----------



## dricci (May 27, 2002)

> now please stop insulting me. you're going to make me cry.





If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Or better yet, just don't turn the oven on!

Welcome to the Internet.


----------



## boi (May 27, 2002)

man, people have always dreamed of uniting the world... see what happens when we do? 

it's not pretty.


----------



## nkuvu (May 27, 2002)

Why oh why does everyone who is proclaiming that PCs are better look only at CPU speed and price?  Is that all you ever care about?  Processor speed and sub-$1000 systems?

Every single person that I have seen on these boards says the same thing.  "I love Macs, don't get me wrong, but PCs kick Macs all over the place.  I mean, I can get a system for $800 and ... "

Is it just the same mindset that blinds these people to all of the other parts of the whole OS and hardware issue?

In my mind, there are about fifty things that you have to look at to evaluate an OS.  Here are just a few (and note that PCs are better in some areas, and Macs are better in others -- I'm not trying to promote one system or another):
- Availability of hardware
- Reliability of hardware
- Integration of hardware and software
- Overall reliability of the operating system with third party or built in apps.  If one app crashes do you have to re-install the OS?
- Overall reliability of the operating system with core services.  If you perform a regular action will it crash the OS?
- Ease of use for novice users
- Ease of use for expert users
- Compatibility with other OSs
- Compatibility with peripheral devices
- Overall performance of the OS when performing routine tasks
- Overall performance of the OS when performing intensive tasks (3D rendering, for example)
- Consistency throughout the GUI if one is available
- Ease of use of the GUI for _each individual person_.  Joe Schmoe might think this is the best GUI in the world, but John Smith thinks that other one kicks.

Et cetera et cetera.  There are so many things to consider, just looking at processor speed and system price is like buying a car buy examining only the steering wheel and the tires.

It's just plain ridiculous.


----------



## boi (May 27, 2002)

i didn't say PCs were better. just faster. and for that you look at mhz... right? i could be mistaken... i have been before ^_^


----------



## RacerX (May 27, 2002)

> _by boi_
> *your last response was nothing but personal attacks, and i'm not going to do the same.*



Please define what you consider a _personal attack_. So far there hasn't even surfaced the need for personal attacks. You should go back and read the post again. I just responded to your points (and that shouldn't have hurt your feelings).



> *your "Mac-PC issues" comment makes you seem as though you're a little over-zealous about computers. it's not a religion, it's a computer.*



In what way? Oh please elaborate on this (most people here have a good idea of my computing background, so this should be quite entertaining).



> *now please stop insulting me. you're going to make me cry.*



I haven't been insulting you. _Believe_ me when I say, you will know when I start to insult you (and no, that wasn't the start either).


----------



## nkuvu (May 27, 2002)

I should have specified that the "you" I was referring to in my previous post is not a specific "you", it's a general "you".

That said, I have a minor quibble -- you (this is a specific you, boi) didn't just say that PCs are faster:


> PCs have mac users beat when it comes to browser wars.


This is a claim that not only are browsers faster, but better for PCs.  I'm not arguing whether they are or not, just reminding you that you said more than just speed claims.

And while I'm posting, I missed the personal attacks that RacerX used against you.  There are some personal comments, but nothing I would consider an attack.  Nor do I believe that RacerX's post is "nothing but personal attacks".  I believe he raised some very valid points and explained himself and his ideas a little more thoroughly.


----------



## RacerX (May 28, 2002)

> _and then boi said_
> *and for that you look at mhz... right? i could be mistaken...*



Okay, here is a MHz test for you.

(1) Which is faster?

*a.* 300 MHz PPC 604e
*b.* 300 MHz PPC 603e
*c.* 300 MHz PPC 750
(2) Which is faster?

*a.* 200 MHz MIPS R4400sc
*b.* 180 MHz MIPS R5000sc
*c.* 75 Mhz MIPS R8000sc
(3) Which is faster?

*a.* 133 MHz Pentium
*b.* 132 MHz PPC 604
*c.* 133 MHz MIPS R4600pc
*d.* 133 MHz MIPS R4600sc
(Extra Credit) Which is faster?

*a.* 33 MHz MC68040
*b.* 33 MHz MIPS R3000
*c.* 50 MHz MicroSPARC


----------



## boi (May 28, 2002)

alright, the entire post wasn't personal attacks, just the last two paragraphs. 


> Why do you feel the need to affirm your browser choice (I think we are getting into some insecurity issues here) over mine?


i don't. i'm merely stating that browsing is faster on a PC. if we all kept our opinions to ourselves, there wouldn't be much of a forum, would there?


> I would point out that your admit it... comment shows that you have some Mac-PC issues that you need to work out. My computing (and browser for that matter) choices are not governed by the masses (as it sounds like yours are).


huh? where did that come from?


> so I could careless if PCs have mac users beat in your mind. I have the cool features I want, less of the annoying ones that I don't, and live a very happy life (which it doesn't sound like you can say the same).



that too... where did that come from?




i think racerX and i agree mostly, actually, if one re-reads all of our posts. it depends on the person. racerX likes the mac through and through. i like the speed and browsing of the PC and prefer the mac's hardware and OS. i just wish Mac would speed up and get their scrolling/browsing act together. then i wouldn't ever bother you poor people again-- i'd just sit in my room all day, reminding myself how cool my computer is.

i think i'm just tired of Mac elitists, and i mistook racerX to be one. when any mention of PCs is made, a lot of elitists attack the person who maybe thinks PCs are better, maybe, perhaps.

as a web designer, i'm really frustrated with Omniweb, so i recently stopped going through the extra effort to make pages OW complient as well. worrying about IE/Mozilla is plenty for me to handle.

peace to all. i'm off to bed ^_^

-_-..zzz


----------



## dricci (May 28, 2002)

Uh oh.. Web Developer who is having issues getting their page to work with Gecko.

I see this turning into a W3C standards thread pretty soon.

However, It's 1:15 AM. I'm not going to start it.


----------



## RacerX (May 28, 2002)

> _by boi_
> *racerX likes the mac through and through.*



I don't think so. 

Of the 17 computers I currently have, 4 are PCs, 3 are SGIs, 2 are Suns, and 8 are Apples. How can you get more broad a computing environment than I have? Sure doesn't look like _Macs through and through_ to me.



As for your _where did that come from?_ comments, hmm... the quotes that I posted. I take great care in addressing sections of people's posts specifically so that there can be little chance of _where did that come from?_ being asked. (quick hint: part of the answer was quoted in the quotes you took of my post  ).

I may not be a web designer, but for some reason my pages all look good in just about every browser I have tried (and as you can most likely guess, there are very few on any platform that I can't test my pages on). I guess that (like dricci said) may have something to do with HTML standards (I avoid MS-HTML completely). But hey, your the professional (who doesn't want people to view his content  ). From what I've seen, you should only need to make your pages W3C compliant for them to work great in OmniWeb. Shouldn't you be doing that anyway?


----------



## [Scizo] (May 28, 2002)

Having just purchased my very first mac, (after using pc's for a decade or so), i must say that i'm very happy with it's speed... 

I'm running Mac OS 10.1.4 on it, and besides from starting up apps, it's running very smoothly.

It's a B/W G3 400 Rev 1, 384 mb. ram...
I know the Rev. 1. ****s   but as i said i was/am a pc user, and therefore knew nothing about mac hardware.

I had to replace the original ATA66 cable with an oridinary ATA33 cable to avoid the disc corruption bug in Rev 1. and still the speed is acceptable.. (compared to my 900mhz Athlon thunderbird)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (May 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for PC users. Quake III running at 2,600 frames per second would just make all the difference in the world (your average theatre film runs at 32 frames per second, just for reference).*



Actually it's 24 fps.


----------



## boi (May 28, 2002)

my "where did that come from?" was more directed towards these comments:

"My computing (and browser for that matter) choices are not governed by the masses (as it sounds like yours are). "

"I have the cool features I want, less of the annoying ones that I don't, and live a very happy life (which it doesn't sound like you can say the same). "


anyway, concerning MS-HTML: style sheets are not MS-HTML. neither is Javascript. Omniweb supports neither (well, very little of each) and it's pretty frustrating. 

none of this is the point of the thread. i just mentioned that gateway has a 2ghz machine for less than $1000, so it'd be nice to see Apple step up their game so my great OS and great Apps will run nice and speedy


----------



## RacerX (May 28, 2002)

> _boi's request for clarification_
> *my "where did that come from?" was more directed towards these comments:*



*RacerX:* _My computing (and browser for that matter) choices are not governed by the masses (as it sounds like yours are)._

Specifically, this refers to this comment: *IE on windows runs SO quick. admit it... PCs have mac users beat when it comes to browser wars.* I consider this to be opinion (as to the quality of browsing with PCs) and your reference to _browser wars_ shows that your considerations *are* governed by the masses. Seems very straight forward and simple to me, I'm not quite sure where you had a problem understanding it.

Lets try the next comment and see how that one turns out. 

*RacerX:* _I have the cool features I want, less of the annoying ones that I don't, and live a very happy life (which it doesn't sound like you can say the same)._

I was simply pointing out that I am happy with my choice of platform and browser. You on the other hand seem to be very critical of my choice, which no one has ever *made* you use. And as pointed out above and re-enforced by your statement *i like the speed and browsing of the PC and prefer the mac's hardware and OS*, one would have to believe that you long for something better. A longing of that nature can only mean that you are neither happy on a PC or a Mac, therefore you must not be happy.

Would you like me to brake down any other posts in this much detail? 



> *anyway, concerning MS-HTML: style sheets are not MS-HTML. neither is Javascript. Omniweb supports neither (well, very little of each) and it's pretty frustrating.*



Again, you attacked my use of OmniWeb (trying to tell me that IE on Windows would be better), but I do not have a problem with how OmniWeb works for me. And again (which you seem to be missing), OmniWeb has features which I can not find on any other browser on any other platform. It is a completely enjoyable experience for me (that even a cheep PC can not match).



> *none of this is the point of the thread. i just mentioned that gateway has a 2ghz machine for less than $1000, so it'd be nice to see Apple step up their game so my great OS and great Apps will run nice and speedy  *



Yes, but you never responded to the questionnaire I provided in response to your _MHz is speed_ statement. It surely is very much to the point of this thread.


----------



## RacerX (May 28, 2002)

> _pointed out by ElDiabloConCaca (only the second time in this thread)_
> *Actually it's 24 fps. *






I'm not sure why I was thinking 32, it has been quite a few years since I worked as a projectionist.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (May 28, 2002)

Hehe... I was just nitpicking and being annoying.  It's one of those days.

At any rate, I'm enjoying this thread without really participating in it at all... keep up the GREAT arguments, RacerX!


----------



## Winblows (May 28, 2002)

its funny, because upgrading computers has become an addiction to some people.. although all they do is check email.. they justify it by telling people they can do all sorts of magic on it when they are strictly a home user only ... i could still use a se/30 and not use it to its full potential

i jus had an arguement with a religious pc user.. apparently his computer is better than my blue dalmation g3 imac, but its funny, cause im the first person he calls when he has problems .. im not saying macs dont have problems ever, but almost always do i talk to mac people and they figure out problems on their own, and thats prolly the biggest difference, the people ... im glad apple is not the monopoly that microsoft is.. sometimes its better to know something that others dont


----------



## MacLegacy (May 28, 2002)

I hope that the PM speed bump won't be as low as 200 mhz or Apple would *really* have screwed, and if they were to be 1.2 ghz at the top, they better have ddr333, but even then the speed bump would be really too low! 

I agree with Bling, it's annoying seeing the PC's becoming faster and faster, Megahertz Myth won't do over "Apple Dual 1ghz is faster than 2.5Ghz P4" simply because it ain't true anymore, especially with the new improved bus speed.

Well, I only hope Apple surprises every of us with something big! Like 1.5ghz PowerMacs, DDR333 or DDR266 ram (preferably 333) and 64 bit PCI ports


----------



## jocknerd (May 29, 2002)

I recently bought an iBook G3 500mhz. It was my first Apple product. I love this laptop but I am a little disappointed in the performance. I run linux at home and at work. I've got an Athlon 1.4ghz pc and an Intel PIII 667mhz machines at home and a Pentium 4 1.6ghz pc at work. All three run circles around my laptop. I know my G3 500mhz system is at the low end especially with its 66mhz bus.

Why have the pc processors blown past Motorola in the last four years? Its easy. There is competition. Intel and AMD continue to push each other. Motorola on the other hand has no competition. They've gotten fat and lazy. Apple needs to look for alternatives.  They've already dropped the old-school Apple operating system (much to the chagrin of many Apple loyalists), picking up many new fans such as my self by finally having a real operating system in OS X. Now its time to drop Motorola.  Without competition for Motorola, the PowerPC will continue to fall behind even further. And unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anybody who wants to make PowerPC compatible chips. Its just the laws of competition. It brings out the best. And Motorola isn't getting any. So why should they improve their product?

I know some of you Mac diehards won't agree with me and think the current performance is good enough for you, but personally I get fed up watching an cd icon spinning on my desktop when I click on an app.

Now if Apple released Aqua for the x86 version of Darwin, I would be all over that.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (May 29, 2002)

OMG not again!  If this thread starts into an OS X for intel thread again... I will go nuts!  NO AQUA ON INTEL DUDE!  not going to happen.  so forget about it.


----------



## RacerX (May 29, 2002)

> _mused by jocknerd_
> *Why have the pc processors blown past Motorola in the last four years? Its easy. There is competition. Intel and AMD continue to push each other. Motorola on the other hand has no competition. They've gotten fat and lazy. Apple needs to look for alternatives. They've already dropped the old-school Apple operating system (much to the chagrin of many Apple loyalists), picking up many new fans such as my self by finally having a real operating system in OS X. Now its time to drop Motorola. Without competition for Motorola, the PowerPC will continue to fall behind even further. And unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anybody who wants to make PowerPC compatible chips. Its just the laws of competition. It brings out the best. And Motorola isn't getting any. So why should they improve their product? *



Hate to be the one to point this out to you, but your system doesn't have a Motorola processor in it. Your system uses an IBM processor. And to top it off, it's the slowest speed version of what is their low end model. IBM makes some killer (and I mean fastest processors in the business _killer_) PowerPC processors, but Apple doesn't seem interested (at this time). 

I would also point out that Apple chose to use G3s at 500-700 MHz even though IBM has been able to produce them at 1 GHz for some time now. Because the rest of IBM's G3 clients want low heat, IBM has not had any need to push that part of there production. If you really want to see what the PowerPC platform can do, find out about IBM's POWER4 series. Maybe then you can start asking what Intel (even though they are making strides with Itanium) and AMD have been doing all this time.


----------



## roger (May 29, 2002)

> Because the rest of IBM's G3 clients want low heat



This point is key. It is not just a case of sticking a faster chip in the current computers - they would overheat. Either the chips must produce less heat or more fans must be put in the design.

R.


----------



## senne (May 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Edge100 _
> *I am not a high end user. I consider myself in the mid-range. More than just Omniweb and email, but less than heavy photoshop and FCP. *




Wow, i'm a high-range! Cooool. And I'm a high-range just for fun.. Should i go working for money? Mnah.. Just 16 years old, ain't gonna work maity.



senne.


----------

