# OS X for Intel rumours...



## Kazrog (Jan 4, 2002)

Make it stop!!!!

Anybody with a brain would realize that Apple would *never* do this and that it would kill them. They would suffer the same ill fate as Be at that point.

Apple is the only company left that still makes "the whole widget," that is the whole point of their existence, to make computers and software that is better in every concievable way from the competition. Take a huge piece from the puzzle (like the OS itself) and you lose the whole purpose.

Open Darwin is different because it is more of a server solution to get Intel machines speaking with Macs better on LANs, etc.


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2002)

This is unbelievable! You open a NEW thread saying people should STOP to talk about something?

Although I'm always saying the same thing as you do (more or less), I am tempted to flame this thread through the roof by saying something different this time.

But I'll leave it at that.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 4, 2002)

But it's NEVER going to happen. Even if hell froze over, or Motorola was taken over by flying monkeys and stopped making CPUs, Apple would either design the CPU themselves and farm out production, or they would go with someone like AMD for the processor, but make it so the hardware could only run the Mac OS, and that the Mac OS would only run on Apple hardware by way of a ROM chip.

Remember, Apple is in the hardware business. They don't make very much money off of their software. 

And if enough Wintel users think they would buy an Intel version of the Mac OS, then why wasn't there enough sales of BeOS to keep that company afloat?

Simple.

Because Intel/AMD hardware owners love to romanticize about using another OS other than Windows, but in the end, they are either too lazy, or too cheap to make the switch.

Sorry, but it's true. These people bitch about Microsoft and complain they have no other choice. There has been an alternative choice from the beginning, they just weren't enlightened enough to make it. And now they want the benefits of the Mac OS on their Intel hardware.

Too bad guys. Buy a Mac.


----------



## julguribye (Jan 4, 2002)

I agree, Think Different.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Jan 4, 2002)

Apple pulled a good one when they chose that slogan "Think Different" because IT WORKS SO WELL!


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 4, 2002)

Why would making OSX available to AMD/INTEL machines destroy Apple, dont you know MACs are Supercomputers. Are you trying to say there hardware is not competitive with X86 Hardware?


----------



## Kazrog (Jan 4, 2002)

I decided it was a good idea for a new post because I wanted to at least attempt to get the awareness out there that this would be the stupidest thing that Apple could possibly do.

There seem to be a lot of people, even on these boards, who still think OS X for Intel would be really cool, and every time I see those posts I am very annoyed. There was even an article over at OSOpinion.com talking about it.

It's scary to me how rampant this rumor is, and after Apple *doesn't* announce OS X for Intel at Macworld, there will be a lot of these people finding themselves disappointed. Which really sucks that somebody would be disappointed in Apple for not killing themselves.

And FrgMaster - it's a LOT more complex than that. Despite Apple's efforts to squash the "Megahertz Myth," there is still a general perception out there that PCs are faster. And it would make Apple's OS a direct competitor with Windows among the clone makers, which means Microsoft would win since they have way more money to put behind it and the clone makers are all mostly their puppets.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 4, 2002)

> Why would making OSX available to AMD/INTEL machines destroy Apple, dont you know MACs are Supercomputers. Are you trying to say there hardware is not competitive with X86 Hardware?



Simple. Because AMD/Intel hardware is sold as a commodity. You can put together a 2ghz Intel machine with a 40gig 7200 RPM hard drive with a decent video card for around $700. 

Apple, on the other hand makes their money by designing/selling the entire widget. Yes, their machines cost more, but when you factor in all the extras you get (Firewire, OS X, iDVD, iTunes, iMovie), it's a competitive deal. Obviously everybody doesn't look at the bottom line. That's why Apple has such a hard time making in roads. Most people look at the upfront price and don't calculate total cost of ownership.

Look, it's real simple. If there was money to be made in providing an alternative OS for AMD/Wintel hardware, the BeOS would have been successful. It wasn't. They couldn't even make inroads GIVING their OS away. How the hell could Apple make a profit selling it for $129 to Wintel users?


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Jan 4, 2002)

FrgMstr... Apple makes LITTLE MONEY off it's software... and if INTEL/AMD users had the opportunity to get OS X for their computer, Apple would crumble and die because then, nobody would buy Apple's hardware...

so it's pretty simple.... if Apple would ever release it for x86, they would be killing themselves...


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 4, 2002)

guys i know that(whether x86 is a commodity or not, i dont care aslong as its faster and cheaper thats all that matters), i was being sarcastic. My question was non-retorical.

apple could then switch to selling software like M$, it works for M$ surely apple can sell there Software cant they, if its as good as im being told

All i get is Sarcasm around here no matter what, so i thought might aswell be rude and sarcastic like everyone else here, being polite gets you nowhere.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kazrog _
> *And FrgMaster - it's a LOT more complex than that. Despite Apple's efforts to squash the "Megahertz Myth," there is still a general perception out there that PCs are faster. *



They are faster.  It's not that close.  Hopefully things will change after Monday but my guess is that Apple closes some of the gap but still remains behind them.

It's really too bad that so much of this speed comparison discussion is being done right before the conference.  That's when the gap is at it's greatest.


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 4, 2002)

Dont worry vanguard im not gonna go away after monday. Im really looking forward to it. I hope we see a G5, that will make for some nice conversation, if people supply good reviews like i have were the G5 beats the Top athlons and P4s ill say damn good job to moto (cos it would be true) its no small task to outperform AMD and INTEL in the CPU market.

If we dont see a G5 apple will slip further and further behind, cos by the time they do bring it out we will have £80 sledgehammers running at 2Ghz+(64bit with hypertransport bus)


----------



## Kazrog (Jan 4, 2002)

FrgMstr - Apple's software is good, but software can be pirated. Hardware can't be!! That is a VERY important difference. Also, Be's software was arguably better than Mac OS X and, as was previously stated, couldn't be GIVEN away!!!

vanguard - I don't know where you are getting your "facts" but they are simply untrue. Macs still consistently win every speed test I've seen against PCs.


----------



## frgee (Jan 4, 2002)

some desktop guys might go with the intel/osx combo if they could, but there is no other laptop in existence which can usurp the rightful throne of the titanium...


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 4, 2002)

KazRog what speed tests are these, ive posted loads of up to date tests of out of date AMD/INTEL hardware beating the best APPLE offer TODAY.

Where are these speed tessts ive been asking for links for ages havent been given one.

come on Show me an Athlon XP get beaten by a G4 come on.
All you can come up with is a few PS benches thats it.


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 4, 2002)

frgee, i agree the titanium is one BADBOY piece of kit.


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2002)

It's true, current benchmarks clearly show that the G4 is too long in the tooth, it gets more and more behind the AMD and Intel competition. But that was not the start of the thread.

Let's say Apple is disappointed with the development of the PowerPC processor. Why not? The G4 was too little, too late and Motorola couldn't get it up to speed in its entire timeframe. The rumours about the G5 sound great, but they also lack MHz in comparison to Intels P4 and AMDs Athlon XP. And it will cost more.

And let's state that Apple *HAS* developmental builds of Mac OS X for the Intel platform. We know that for sure. There was Rhapsody DR 2 for PC Compatibles, and there's not much reason to believe that this development has ever been stopped. It just never was the time for Apple to release the code to the public (for all the reasons in previous posts in this thread).

And now. Why shouldn't Apple build an iMac with a Duron processor? If they make their own motherboard, they can still control the hardware. And can still make the OS dependable on their hardware. Okay, Carbon and Cocoa apps would need some recompiling. So what? Recompiling, not 'code-a-new'.

But again, I personally don't believe this. And if I said it once... -> Let's wait for 7th.


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 4, 2002)

MS makes little money from the consumer market.


----------



## amo (Jan 4, 2002)

I personally wouldn't like to see the Mac OS be made available to Windows users.  I like the fact that we have our own hardware and how PC people will never 'really' enjoy a Mac unless they get the whole package.


----------



## GadgetLover (Jan 4, 2002)

Apple Announces Plan To Inject Mice With Mac OS X: Mice can now do twice the amount of work in half the amount of time; and they don't crash into walls as much because of protected memory.


----------



## rfraley (Jan 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kazrog _
> *FrgMstr - Apple's software is good, but software can be pirated. Hardware can't be!! That is a VERY important difference. Also, Be's software was arguably better than Mac OS X and, as was previously stated, couldn't be GIVEN away!!!
> 
> vanguard - I don't know where you are getting your "facts" but they are simply untrue. Macs still consistently win every speed test I've seen against PCs. *



That answers the question "Why product activation?"  They are trying to expand their profits but end up losing valuable mindshare.  

Office is where the majority of the M$ profit, I thought that you knew that Fraggy.  Why do you think that they are not going to support Office 97 anymore while simutaneously removing 2k from the shelves.  So they can start with "software as a service", a.k.a. subscription model.  Hence .net.  I think that .net could be the backfire of Microsoft that brings it back down to this planet.  Linux is cloning the .net technology at a much cheaper cost, not to mention for free, *not to mention the lack of security holes in Linux or BSD compared to XP or their next OS, Microsoft Windows .net, (also called Longhorn)*.

Now that everyone is catching up to Office curve (Open Office and Star Office) all these apps need is the next M$ non-spyware killer app combined with their low price in order to wreck M$ and make it bleed blood red.  Imagine Steve Ballmer's convulsions when he loses a billion dollars in a day.  I believe that we are going to live to see that day.  All that IT managers and corporate executives need to do is weed out pro-M$ MC$E's and send them packing to Burger King where they belong.

When M$ weakens themselves Mac OS 11 truly has the chance to gain market share.  That's where it helps Apple.  Despite the claims of a singular troll on a MacCentral news site, the penguin is Apple's greatest ally.  When M$'s profit stream dries permanantly, then all the MS has to lean on is the consumer desktop.  But the free Linux versus the subscription Longhorn...all Linux needs is an OS 10 like interface and easy install procedures along with a Windows compatibility layer like Classic in OS X.  Hopefully Linus Torvalds will get his head out of his ass and make a version of Linux that's open source combined with a truly great UI, Linux version 3.0.  That's the *KILL MICROSOFT BLUEPRINT* people.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 4, 2002)

The reason BeOS had no chance is simple. No good Apps. I guarantee you if Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Dreamweaver ran swiftly in BeOS with all the BeOS advantages, BeOS would be alive and well. 

As for Intel boxes running OS X. Bring it on. I have no allegiance to Motorola. As people have said, I'm sure there's a way to make a hardware dependent security system so you couldn't just buy any old PC and run X. I don't care what chip is inside the box, just so it's fast, fast, fast.

It's not like Apple is making their own CPUs, so what do they care if they can get an Intel/AMD or other to make better chips that run X? I would say this, if Apple has in-house Intel boxes running X at twice the speed of a PowerPC chip, I'd be highly disappointed that we will not experience that.

Another major hurdle is that while software may only require a "recompile" as others have said, that's still a whole new marketing, upgrade, logistical, packaging, mess (though maybe not as bad as I think, what with the typical Upgrade process not being too messy).

For the record, I don't think it will ever ever happen, if for no other reason than Steve Jobs would rather go down in flames. But, think of this, all Apple branded computers have parts that are always changing manufacturer (Nvidia/ATI, RAM brands, CD-RW drives, monitors, etc.). There is no reason, other than technical plausibility why Apple shouldn't keep an Intel-made CPU as an option.


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2002)

It's a bit off to see Linux as the development of Linus these days. 

However, go to www.lindows.com to see something like that. But it will not change computing that much.

What is really needed is the next killer thing.

The Desktop Publishing made the success of the Mac possible at all.

'Desktop Video' might have given Apple a bit of air (time) (pun intended), but it was not the killer app and is available to Windows, too.

That's why the Mac has got to go way beyond todays' computing.

And Linux would have to do the same thing, too, if it was to succeed on the Desktop.


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 4, 2002)

<i>Office is where the majority of the M$ profit, I thought that you knew that Fraggy. Why do you think that they are not going to support Office 97 anymore while simutaneously removing 2k from the shelves. So they can start with "software as a service", a.k.a. subscription model. Hence .net. I think that .net could be the backfire of Microsoft that brings it back down to this planet. Linux is cloning the .net technology at a much cheaper cost, not to mention for free, not to mention the lack of security holes in Linux or BSD compared to XP or their next OS, Microsoft Windows .net, (also called Longhorn).</i>

<b>I doubt that Office is MS's biggest money maker. Can you provide a few links for me?

Also if your talking about the mono project, mono is not created to rival .net, most open source users have no intrest in Microsoft or .net.</b>

<i>Now that everyone is catching up to Office curve (Open Office and Star Office) all these apps need is the next non-spyware killer app combined with their low price in order to wreck M$ and make it bleed blood red. Imagine Steve Ballmer's convulsions when he loses a billion dollars in a day. I believe that we are going to live to see that day. All that IT managers and corporate executives need to do is weed out pro-M$ MC$E's and send them packing to Burger King where they belong.</i>

<b>Spyware? Star Office and Open office are the same project . . . And neither in any form has been spyware . . . Again please provide a few links.</b>

<i>When M$ weakens themselves Mac OS 11 truly has the chance to gain market share. That's where it helps Apple. Despite the claims of a singular troll on a MacCentral news site, the penguin is Apple's greatest ally. When M$'s profit stream dries permanantly, then all the MS has to lean on is the consumer desktop. But the free Linux versus the subscription Longhorn...all Linux needs is an OS 10 like interface and easy install procedures along with a Windows compatibility layer like Classic in OS X. Hopefully Linus Torvalds will get his head out of his ass and make a version of Linux that's open source combined with a truly great UI, Linux version 3.0. That's the KILL MICROSOFT BLUEPRINT people.</i>

<b>A few things, Linus has no intrest in taking over the desktop. Why would he want to?

You refer to Linux 3.0, Linux is simply the kernel, nothing more.

If your intrested in the desktop side of Linux try KDE and GNOME, again most have no intrest in Microsoft bashing or taking over the desktop but be warned most developers don't even concern themselves with Microsoft.</b>


----------



## rfraley (Jan 4, 2002)

I never meant to assert that StarOffice was spyware, I really meant to say that about M$ products.  Should have been clearer, sorry.  

Maybe the open source community should collaborate to have a project that works to eliminate M$ since GW obviously couldn't pull it off.  It would only be poetic justice!


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 4, 2002)

Why?

Honestly, my mom likes using Windows, so does my brother.

Linux appeals to a diffrent market right now, and I don't see that changing. Your seeing more and more people drift away from "ideals" (GNU) that simply want to crush large corperations . . . 

Why is this?

Well most developers, Linus included don't really see a point in going against something which most people are pretty happy with . . . 

Also, on a sidenote, Lindows looks like cheese. Anyone else see the screenshots today on /.?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 4, 2002)

Check out www.blanos.com, and compare Lightwave benchmarks for 7.0b. You will find the AMD ruling the root under most tests, but the G4 is very competitive in others. Yes, for the price, the AMD is faster in most tests.

Also check out www.barefeats.com . You will find Photoshop tests there as well. 

Apple is obviously making gains in a sour economy with processor speeds half that of the competition while costing twice as much. So forgive me if I snicker at the comment of Apple falling further behind. While they need to do better, owning 80% of the print publishing market, over 90% of the desktop video production market, 20-30% of the web design market, and surprisingly, around 27% of Law Firms (probably the most surprising statistic). Apple's doing pretty well while companies like HP, Compaq, eMachines and IBM are all struggling to stay alive. 

Really, this is a tired old argument. The frustrating thing is us Mac users here don't need convincing - we put our money where our mouths are and are quite happy with our purchases. If the Windows users here want the Mac OS, I suggest they do the same.


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2002)

Hmm... yes. But we're here to discuss things, not to buy Macs or PCs. 

Lindows looks like cheese? Whatever you mean, to me it just looks like a KDE desktop that has been made look very much like Windows. And I think it'll have a chance to get some Windows people over to Linux. It opens a path. But that's been discussed on /. already, of course.

We live in a world where we have choice, which is good.  Most people are not aware of this, else they wouldn't buy MS products, but it's there. And that's why *we* choose Macs, I guess. But still Apple has to do better than last year in the Desktop market.

Most PC magazines are full of joy when talking about the TiBook or iBook, but the latest iMacs and PowerMacs just don't fit in this picture. They're either too slow (iMacs don't make that good gaming devices, which is bad for a consumer machine) or too expensive (if you want to render fast, buy a dual Athlon half the price of a Mac and get more speed 2).

Apple has to do better. It's not enough to say that it's nicer to work on a Mac than on a PC. The speed gap must be closed, and I'm not talking MHz. I'm talking benchmarks. The next time Steve Jobs shows us some Photoshop filters and says 'we're twice as fast', I'm going to puke.


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 4, 2002)

No, most of the comments I saw were:

Windows is about 99 bucks, Lindows is 99 bucks, why buy Lindows which only half works?

or . . . 

Can't wait till they flop so maybe they will free up some source.

or . . .

Back in 1992-1993 we were shooting on the set of Sodomy Street, a take on the hit children's show. 

I won't reveal their real names, but the stars were "Hemos" and "CmdrTaco." Both were a rarity in the realm of gay porn stars because they were GENUINELY homosexual, instead of just pretenders. 

. . .

Yes, the Lindows interface looks awful and I highly doubt this company will last more then a year . . .


----------



## simX (Jan 4, 2002)

I don't know what to believe about which processor is faster, the G4 or the new Athlon processors or the Pentium 4.  And frankly, I really don't care, as long as we do fairly well in all of them, which I can say for sure we do, especially with one of those Dual-800 G4 babies (boy do I want one of those)!

Do you wanna know why I bought a Mac, even though I probably spent hundreds of dollars more than I should have for an overpriced cube? (Yes, I bought it at the $1799 + $999 for 15" studio display price point.)  Because of the design of the computer and the design of the operating system.

I suggest, if you don't know why we keep buying Macs, or why you YOURSELF keep buying Macs, let me point you to this article:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/10.why.php

I'll quote what I wrote in this thread:

Simone Manganelli: "I, for one, think that a computer should not just be a bunch of hardware slapped into a box and sold. I want to ENJOY using a computer, and the beauty of one is part of that. Apple puts a lot of thought into its design, and one of the aspects of the design is the beauty. There is no doubt that all of Apple's products complement each other with the translucency as well as the physical shape of the computer ... Along with the design of the hardware is the beauty of the operating system. Mac OS X, though departing from the traditional look of platinum as well as from many of the functions, looks great, and you can't deny that. Apple has put a lot of thought into the beauty of OS X, using large icons even while retaining their customizability." 

That wasn't my whole e-mail (the whole one was a couple pages long), but you get the drift.  And I'm sure they covered all my points somewhere else in the article.  It's old, but you should read it if you haven't.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 4, 2002)

> Apple has to do better. It's not enough to say that it's nicer to work on a Mac than on a PC. The speed gap must be closed, and I'm not talking MHz. I'm talking benchmarks. The next time Steve Jobs shows us some Photoshop filters and says 'we're twice as fast', I'm going to puke



Hey, I'll be the first to push Apple to do better.  In the last year, I've seen Apple work it's collective arse off to do what it can about getting 3rd party developers to speed up their Mac ports.

Case in point. Lightwave. Version 6.0-6.5 on the Mac was abysmal. Version 7.0 came out, and while it was much better with stability, the rendering times on the G4's were still pretty terrible compared to the AMD/Intel CPUs. Apple stepped in and worked with Newtek to optimize certain aspects of the rendering process for the G4, and Newtek came out with a release that puts the Mac back in the competition. Apple didn't have to do that, but they realized their users would appreciate the speed burst so they did.

I still don't see how you can crave benchmarks, but then go whine about the biggest benchmark of them all, Photoshop, which still shows a dual800 cleaning the clock of a 2ghz P4. That is one of the most important benchmarks you can run, because it measures speed and real world performance.(Side note: Apple will probably lose their speed edge with Photoshop with version 7 under OSX, due to 1) Adobe doing extensive P4 optimizations, and 2)OSX not monopolozing the CPU for one particular application.) 

Another benchmark commonly used is the Quake III fps benchmark. A dual800 with a GeForce3 card spanks just about every other configuration out there (the 2ghz P4 might be tops now, the test was last done with a 1.8ghz P4 I believe).

And finally...Apple will never be able to compete in the market space for teenage boys who use their PCs to play games. It just isn't going to happen. These users tweak their systems daily for the sole purpose of getting a few more fps out of Half Life, and will upgrade their machine 1 board at a timeBut they can (and have) do a good job bringing more games to the Mac, and making the Mac a better platform for game developers.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 4, 2002)

All of that G4 vs. Pentium 4 stuff is pretty interesting.  The trouble is, as far as I can see, it's completely fact free.  In addition to that, photoshop filters take advantage of the G4's altivec unit.  That unit does a great job with floating point operations.  So does Pentium's SSE (their replacement for MMX).  When Adobe is finished optimizing their code it will be interesting to see how they compare.  If you do more with your machine than just photoshop, you'll want a processor than can do more than just floating point at a reasonable speed (like me).

Can you post a link to where you found these results?  Also, comparing a dual G4 to a Pentium 4 seems unfair.  I wonder how a dual G4 compares to a dual Athlon 2000+ (their current top processor until 1/7/02).

However, any links showing the information you found would be great.

Vanguard

PS  I don't want to come off as anti-apple.  However, all these posts that claim the G4 is faster than the x86 offerings are crazy.  Apple's strength is not hardware capability right now.  Hopefully, they'll be closing the gap soon.  Spreading bad information is not going to help Apple.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  I'll be waiting for the links.


----------



## FrgMstr (Jan 5, 2002)

youre wasting your breath Vanguard, i posted a link a few days ago of a Dual Athlon 1.2Gh(not the latest) Vs Dual P4 1.7ghz(Not the latest) vs Dual G4 800(Apples Best).

Guess what G4 gets pasted in everything including AfterEffects, the tester even says its silly how the G4 cant even compete in its bread and butter apps.

Im not talking just getting beat here the Dual 800 G4s got battered man, i shudder to think what an XP2000 or dual P4 2000's or northwoods would do to the poor thing.

It was a very thourough review, people here still complained bla bla bla as per usual, so seriously you are wasting your time, just sit back relax enjoy the conversations in the knowledge that if they want to waste there money at least theyll have a pretty case to look at while they are waiting an extra two hours for an MPEG to render then they would have had too had they bought a $600 PC as apposed to their $3000 MAC LMAO 

Its so true though.

I mean they are already coming up with excuses for PS7 on OSX, for some reason its not fair when software is also optimised for another platform.


----------



## tagliatelle (Jan 5, 2002)

The maker of the Ometra Pc(Omega 4 ?) Mr Zillion in prison.


----------



## fryke (Jan 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *
> 
> Side note: Apple will probably lose their speed edge with Photoshop with version 7 under OSX, due to 1) Adobe doing extensive P4 optimizations, and 2)OSX not monopolozing the CPU for one particular application. *



Dig this.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 5, 2002)

Yeah, I've seen that (I too am "evaluating" the PS7b43 that's been circulating). But I fail to see what that has to do with CPU Monopolization and G4/P4 optimization.

Nobody is making excuseses yet for PS7, I'm just saying that alot of the reasons why Photoshop 6 benchmarks so well under OS 9 is due to OS 9's use of CPU monopolization. If Adobe can get around this under NT/2000/XP, I'm sure they can do it for OS X.

And Fragmaster, if you read that review (you are citing the review from DV Magazine, are you not...) You will see it is terribly skewed. But you've already made up your mind, so I will post this for those out there that haven't.

First off, they hardly have any RAM alloted for the machines. Of course those apps running in Mac OS 9 are going to get bested by the Wintel machines running Win2000/XP - when you have very little memory, OS 9 is a terrible OS. I think also machines had 256MB of RAM. I doubt the reviewers even allocated enough memory for the apps.

Also, the apps they tested were After Effects 4.1, and Adobe Photoshop 5, both of which are more than two versions old. 

I wish I was moderating this forum, because this whole Mac v. PC thing really doesn't belong here. You PC trolls should go hang out over a zdnet.com or cnet.com... You'll be much more welcome there....


----------



## mindbend (Jan 6, 2002)

Sorry, but I'm here to burst everyone's bubble. So, don't read on if you are a sensitive Mac fan (which I am, so I know of which I speak).

I bought (literally) one of the very first G4s (450) after gobbling up the Altivec hype. My business partner bought a P3 800 Laptop (Dell). That's 44% faster in pure MHZ right? Being the anal person that I am, I decided to run a battery of real world tests, not these nonsense Photoshop tests that Apple touts, nor the pointless Quake tests, that PC manufacturers tout. I tested MPG renders (Media Cleaner), non-Altivec Photoshop (which are the vast majority BTW) and 3D rendering (Animation Master).

Guess what. The P3 was around 40-50% faster in virtually all tests, including some so-called Altivec enhanced ones (MPG rendering). I don't care what Apple says about MHZ myth, I've done my tests for how I use my computers and I'm here to tell you that MHZ speed is for the most part an accurate depiction of speed (for my uses once again). I did come across a couple of exceptions, but they were fairly minimal and still did not make up the full 40-50% difference.

The irony is that, even with a theoretical speed advantage, the PC has caused us so many headaches, loss of money (by eating the print costs of screwed up files) and other nonsense issues, that my business partner gave in and bought a lowly 500 MHZ Mac and loves it. And this, my friends, is why we are Mac lovers and why we put up with slower speeds, but beg for more. Cuz in the end, when it's all said and done, I can still get more work done than any of my PC cohorts.

Oh, and here's another bubble to burst. Despite popular opinion, "you are" is consolidated to "you're", not "your". Teehee.


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 6, 2002)

<i>Oh, and here's another bubble to burst. Despite popular opinion, "you are" is consolidated to "you're", not "your". Teehee.</i>

Thank you for that little Enlgish lesson, I now have mastered the strange world of contraction's . . .

Also, I doubt many people buy Mac's because they really think they'are faster.

Is they'are right? : )


----------



## simX (Jan 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by allengoodman _
> *Thank you for that little Enlgish lesson, I now have mastered the strange world of contraction's . . .*



Hah, if that were true, you'd have spelled the word "contractions".  It's a plural, not a contraction.  That sentence reads, "I now have mastered the strange world of contraction is." 



> *Also, I doubt many people buy Mac's because they really think they'are faster.
> 
> Is they'are right? : ) *



I gather you're being sarcastic here, but just in case, it's spelled like this:

they're

Silly English language.  I hope I haven't made any errors.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 6, 2002)

Because I have three machines (see below). Before I got the dual800, it was just the G4/400 and the P3/800. I did some tests to see how they compared. The G4 won in everything but Lightwave 7.0 (not the new, Apple enhanced 7.0b) and Flash 5 . Photoshop, Bryce, Illustrator all ran faster on the G4/400. Lightwave render times with the 7.0 demo were horrible on the G4. The 7.0b update really improved the render times under OS X.

Flash continues to be a real thorn in my side. It is now the one application that runs so much better on the PC than the Mac. The Mac runs the application OK, but playback on the Mac is just terrible. The P3/800 cleans the G4/400's clock with Flash playback. However, mhz for mhz, the G4/800 is faster than the P3/800 for Flash playback. 

Macromedia cleary needs to rewrite their Flash plugin to take advantage of the new power of OS X...


----------



## tagliatelle (Jan 6, 2002)

1 a = 0
2 a  = a + 1
3 if a = 10000 then goto 5
4 goto 2
5 print "Give a number:"
6 input b
7 end


----------



## allengoodman (Jan 6, 2002)

Nah, my mistakes were meant to be, um, funny?

= )


----------



## mindbend (Jan 6, 2002)

Serp,

Thanks for the feedback. That's good to hear about your tests. To be clear, you were comparing your G4 800 SP to your PIII 800 right? And what kind of tests? Filter renders, 3D renders, AI screen redraws? Just curious. That makes me very excited for my next Mac.

If I get around to it, I've been wanting to create a centralized benchmarking site that we could all post our numbers (using the honor system) based on some clearly devised tests. We would all use the exact same files (provided on the site), the same software versions, etc.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 6, 2002)

No, these tests were between a PentiumIII/800 (home grown and built with a nVidia TNT32MB Video card) and a PowerMac G4/400 (Sawtooth with a ATI Radeon32MB Video Card). The Mac did have much more memory, though - 896MB of RAM compared with the 384MB in the P3. But since the test file for Photoshop that I used was only a meg, I don't really feel the extra RAM played a big part of the Mac winning most of the tests. It defiitely doesn't help Flash playback any...

 

Here's hoping that tomorrow Apple unveils some products that will give us a little respect among our PC lovin' bretheren.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 6, 2002)

Serp,

My tests were all based on using fairly large file sizes (50 meg minimum up to 200 meg). Almost any computer, even a 604e can plow through a 1 meg file almost instantly, so that's not really an appropriate test. If you get similar speeds with large files, long renders, etc. then I'd be impressed. I haven't gotten those numbers.


----------

