# Megahertz Myth...



## Jason (Jan 10, 2003)

Isnt a myth after all 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html

I think its time apple looks into a new processor and quick... sorry apple, you just arent cutting it anymore


----------



## binaryDigit (Jan 10, 2003)

Well yes and no.  It is sorta a myth, but the difference has simply gotten too great.  If the top P4 was at 2ghz, a 1.25ghz G4 based machine could give it a run for it's money.  But a 3ghz machine is way too much for the lowly G4 to possibly keep up with.

Look at the benchmarks, the G4 will easily keep up with and beat the 1.8ghz Dell, and even though it is only 40% of the clock rate as the 3ghz, it is not nearly that slow in the benchmarks, some even come out fairly close.

Now there are some things to consider.  The G$ IS a DUAL G4, so that does help SOME of the benchmarks, so it's not just a 3ghz vs 1.25ghz battle.  One area that the G4 _should_ shine in is what if you want to browse some websites while your filters are being applied.  On the Dell, this can be either A) painfully slow, B) have a major impact on performance, or C) both.  The Apple should suffer less if you're doing more than one thing, since it can truely multitask.  Another area is how efficient the OS is at multitasking, either in single or dual processor configurations.  NT/2K/XP is not known for having the best multitasking around, so it will suffer when forced to do something other than a single major task.  Don't know about OSX, haven't seen any benchmarks/comparisons (everyone wants to focus on single task benchmarks).


----------



## Jason (Jan 10, 2003)

i would love to see a dual vs dual bench mark...

the myth is true you are right, but up to a certain point, a pentium 1.0ghz probably wont keep up against a g4 1ghz, but ive never seen the tests, so i wont assume.. ive never noticed big differences between my 700mhz pc and my 800mhz g4 and 800mhz g3 

and as far as multitasking, i have no problems multitasking on my pc and its only a 700mhz athlon , in the win9x days yeah it was an issue, but with xp its not a whole lot different than osx as far as sharing power between processes...


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 10, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I think I heard some where that that benchmarking thing was fixed. When I compared my lowly iMac against my friends PC I couldn't get the PC to do anything using Mac OS X.   Even if he had an 8 GHz PC system it wouldn't make any difference because when running in Mac OS X, Macs... run, and PCs don't even boot. If someone gave me the fastest super computer around today for free, I would end up just using my iMac because nothing I do now would most likely run on that type of system.

Now if I was someone who used Linux on a Mac, then maybe the whole comparing a Mac with a PC thing would make some sorta difference, but I run Mac OS X, so no matter how faster "other" computers are in the world, if they don't run on Mac OS X, why would I care.



Then again, I don't even usually buy the higher end Macs, so all this MHz/GHz stuff is sorta wasted on me anyways.


----------



## edX (Jan 10, 2003)

you said it as well as i ever could mac-blog. right down to the last line!!


----------



## UtaTr3y (Jan 10, 2003)

Apple needs to just discontinue their hardware line, the hardware is no longer inovative, its yesturdays technologies with a different form factor. They would make alot more money if they just competed with Microsoft on Intel.

Everyone hates Microsoft, apple would own the Desktop in under 5 years if they would just start using X86 hardware!

People say that hardware is the primary way Apple makes money, but look at microsoft, seems to me you can make a pretty penny with just selling software.

This is of course only my opinion. You may disagree, and many of you will likely be a little biased concidering you got ripped off paying for Apple hardware, but I truly beleive that if MacOS X was on X86 it would be easily the most popular OS in the world within a short time.

Apple has THE best OS in the world -> OSX, they simply can't compete in the hardware field however, and they need to stop trying!

_____________________________________

On a side note: Mac-Blog, you are aware that OS X runs ON hardware, not the other way around right? :-/

_____________________________________

You know, the reason so many people use Windows is because of its hardware. The reason people use Linux is because it runs on X86 (and its open source). The hardware is cheap, and powerful, neither of which Apple hardware can claim. People complain about both Linux and Windows, Apple lets you do everything both of these can perform however, but noone wants that damn hardware, its a rip off.

#1 Operating System = Mac OS X
#1 Hardware = X86

Doesn't it seem like a good marriage to you?

/me dreams of the day.........

I would go out and buy OSX tomorrow if it ran on an Intel architechture, untill then I have to go without however.

I probably know more about OSX then half the people on these boards, but I cannot use it because I refuse to be ripped off on the hardware side, MANY other people I know are the way... OSX would be an instant success on Intel based hardware if Apple would just wise up!!

/me shuts up on this matter...


----------



## edX (Jan 10, 2003)

given the success of the iMac and apple's desktop line, i find that opinion to be just a little naive. no doubt you are one of these people who won't be happy til they have a big mhz mac. i still don't see this being an issue to the average consumer. it's not the mhz myth that people are worried about today, it's the office myth or windows myth - that you need a pc to be compatible. relatively few people actually buy the big mhz models in either platform.


----------



## Jason (Jan 10, 2003)

i think apples design is absolutely great too, the iLamp and the laptops are both great exercises in design... they just need to catch up with the innards i suppose... i mean for most people it doesnt really matter, any consumer that just surfs the net does normal things etc wont care... but someone such as a graphic designer etc this is starting to matter that our hardware is falling behind, and to me thats scary, i just wonder whats going to happen 

hopefully, the consumer models will sell enough to keep apple in business long enough for us to catch up


----------



## Jason (Jan 10, 2003)

oh and UtaTr3y, he was joking, its kinda an old joke


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 11, 2003)

Yeah. I like my iLamp. It's fast. It's purty. It doesn't usually keep me waiting. The 17" (wide)screen catches my drool because it's adjustable.

What else do you need?


----------



## edX (Jan 11, 2003)

> What else do you need?



perhaps this 



oh, and i don't think Uta can afford to laugh. it cost too much. excessive laughter will cause lines around the eyes and mouth. what a rip off


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

hey thats a pretty sweet setup!


----------



## edX (Jan 11, 2003)

i saw them at mwsf. they really are kinda nice if you like modern look. wouldn't blend with an antique decor very well. but functionally they are quite nice i think. if it were me though, the floor around it would be piled with crap and it would negate the nice clean look of it.


----------



## Trim1 (Jan 11, 2003)

perfect for the kitchen! ha!


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

yeah i think that would work for me, all my crap is in my "office" so if i have a consumer model mac for just net surfing etc then that might just work... for about 1 day until i get lazy and make it a mess like ed


----------



## edX (Jan 11, 2003)

you must admit there is something appealing about igo bed.


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

especially if she comes with it


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

you know what would be good with this? some sort of battery power supply, like that bottom half of the sphere can be a battery, probably wouldnt last a real long time... but it would get rid of cords and it would make it mobile around the house better


----------



## phatsharpie (Jan 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by UtaTr3y _
> *Everyone hates Microsoft, apple would own the Desktop in under 5 years if they would just start using X86 hardware! *



This is a misconception. The most effective way of gaining marketshare in the Intel space is through OEMs (like Dell, Sony, Gateway, etc.), and most OEMs would not touch OS X with a ten foot pole. First of all, all the OEMs are already paying for Windows with each and every PC they sell (this is written into their contract with Microsoft - they have to pay a MS licensing fee for every PC they sell, even if the customer wants to install Linux, etc. on it), and none of them would be signing up to pay for another OS. Secondly, none of the OEMs would want to anger Microsoft. The Intel world is already competitive to the max, who would want to loose any licensing advantages?! Look at Linux, despite being free, and having been around since the mid 90's, it still have a minute presence in the desktop space. Many other operating systems have been released by different companies for Intel hardware, and none of them succeed because no OEMs would bundle them, most notables include:

OS/2 - awesome OS in the early 90's for PCs, great grassroot support (think Linux of today), and definitely my favorite OS in the days of Windows 3.1. No OEMs (other than IBM) carried it, pretty much RIP.

BeOS - very good OS also. Garnered some interest, no OEM support, RIP.

Mac OS 7.x ("Star Trek") - Apple worked with Novell and ported Mac OS 7.x to Intel hardware. Asked OEMs to support it (including Dell), they all said they would support it if Apple gave them the OS for free (they were already paying MS for every PC sold). It would've bankrupted Apple, RIP.

NeXTSTEP/OpenStep - Mac OS X's previous incarnation, available for not only Intel, but Sun/SPARC, HP UNIX Workstations, and IBM UNIX Workstations. Amazing OS, totally ahead of its time. Despite some successes in the Enterprise space (WebObjects, EnterpriseObjects) and educational space, no OEM support, on its way to disappearance, bought by Apple and became OS X.

So the question is, why would Apple succeed now if they pursued an OS only strategy? IBM couldn't do it with it spending millions on OS/2, and at the time Windows didn't even have a death hold on the industry as it does now. Nor could NeXT, nor Be. Linux has minimal success on the desktop - and that's mainly because it's free and grass root support.

I would love Apple to succeed with OS X, and I would love to see OS X on Intel (I was a NeXTSTEP junkie), but it's not likely to happen unless Apple can garner some OEM support. If Apple can get Dell to carry OS X, then yes, it would work, but until then, no way.


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

thats kinda brings up a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" no?

I mean they can go at it outside of the x86 platform and be at the point they are right now forever basically (5-15% market share?)

or they can try to go the x86 oem route, but would lose basically all hardware sales of their own, unless they dropped prices and made intriquing configurations.... basically it could work, but at the same time it could be dangerous, definately an unknown


----------



## stealth (Jan 11, 2003)

guys i think we all agree on the fact that a Pentium 3Ghz is faster in RAW power in comparison to the PowerMac dual 1.25 (when performing only 1 application) !!!

BUT... has ANYONE actually used both of these machines from up close? have they tried MULTITASKING with both of these beasts? Well i know Hulkaros has. and from his tellings the Pentium sucks at multitasking!u open up a few applications and the music stars skipping, whereas with the powermac u can open many more applications and it will keep on going!
the good thing about dual processors is that u can have one processor doing 1 app. and the other one doin somethin else!

for me this matters. i use my mac as a hobby and not for video editin so i dont care if its not as fast as a pentium machine. I care that i can do 5 things at the same time. and THAT in the end saves me time!

but EVEn for professionals; what good is it to them if they cant do ANYTHIN AT THE SAME TIME with there computer while there editing some video! ITS USELESS.  cause in the end they lose more time. and time is all about money(<------hahahaha)!!!!


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 11, 2003)

One of our customers is doing the following on a Dual 1 GHz PowerMac (1.25 GB RAM, SuperDrive, 3x80 GB HDs) with no problems for a LONG period of time and that's the usual everyday scenario for the Mac anyways:
-Burning DVDs with Toast
-Encoding iDVD based DVDs
-Playing some MP3s
-Having VPC5 with Windows 2000 Pro running a DVD/VHS rental app
-Exporting from iMovie DV clips for use with iDVD
-Downloading trailers from the internet with QuickTime PRO 6
And ALL the above AT THE SAME TIME... Also, when the iDVD finishes the encoding and the Toast its job, most of the time the iDVD burns a DVD and the toast is idle. NO restarts, NO damaged DVDs, NO MP3 skipping at ANY given time!!! Of course the jobs are slower than having just 2 or 3 of them running at the same but at least the Mac is finishing them easily with NO problems at all...

Now, I NEVER saw ANY Pentium4 PC doing the above stuff with Win2K PRO or XP PRO and I would really like to see one trying similar things on a PC only to find out that he needs rocket scientist knowledge AND God's luck   and no, I'm not talking about Jobs or Gates  

So far, the P4 3 GHz showed to me that YES it beats ANY Dual Mac when playing ANY games, E A S I L Y . . . And yes, including that Solitaire game  

Also, the 3 GHz beast is DAMN fast overall but hey, it is a fresh new design from intel and that poor Dual PowerMac is an old design from the first month of 2002!!! Did we like to forget this? Or simply the iWhiners out there simply fail to mention this to newbies around here or even worst to themselves?

I think that the tables will turn in the months ahead with the new PowerMacs all while at the same time intel will TRY hard to boost their P4 design for a mere 500MHz at the most for 2003... Sorry, no more 1-1.5 GHz upgrades in a year for intel!

As for benchmarks around the globe... BS! If anyone wants the following:
-An inch thick notebook with more than enough speed
-12-17" inch displays
-2.5 kilos
-DVD-R
-60 GB HD
-Firewire
-Built-in wireless net capabilities with speeds up to 54Mbps
-Graphics that would allow me to play Doom 3 when it will be out
-Mac OS X.x.x
-Terminal
-Easy to use apps but still powerful
-ANY Windows version just for the fun of it...
-An apple logo somewhere on it  
No much how much money one has or how fast the Wintel platform is, they don't have what we (including myself) the Mac users can have: Titaniums  

I love the faces and sounds that PC people do when they see my 1GHz PowerBook in action... No, PC currently available (or soon to be available) can give me that... Its priceless!


----------



## chevy (Jan 11, 2003)

I would not compare speed with MHz, but speed with $$$. I don't care if my machine has one, two or 64 CPUs. I don't care if it runs at 300 MHz or 3 GHz. I don't care if the graphics is done by the main CPU(s) or a specific peripheral. I want it to be fast enough, and to be affordable.

And I agree with everybody that Unix is far more stable and clean than Windows. But Unix alone is not an operating system for general purpose user. OS-X the best complete OS (Unix base + Apple GUI). And I don't care if the CPU is made by Motorola, IBM, Intel or Texas Instruments.

But Apple does.

Apple makes money selling computers. And applications. And OS.


----------



## chevy (Jan 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by phatsharpie _
> *This is a misconception. [...]
> 
> I would love Apple to succeed with OS X, and I would love to see OS X on Intel (I was a NeXTSTEP junkie), but it's not likely to happen unless Apple can garner some OEM support. If Apple can get Dell to carry OS X, then yes, it would work, but until then, no way. *



Apple had several OEMs supporting its OS, including Motorola, at time of System 7. The problem is that Apple didn't do enough money to continue to have the OS to progress. So they had to increase the license price and this was not accepted by the OEMs. The OEMs were only eating on Apple's market, not penetrating any other markets.


----------



## chevy (Jan 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *you must admit there is something appealing about igo bed.  *



Excellent !

Should be available in any Apple Store ! (near to the Burton Jacket)


----------



## Gregita (Jan 11, 2003)

And next, we will debate whether or not Apple will go to x86 chips...Again.


----------



## toast (Jan 11, 2003)

You said it, Gregita. Again. That's the word.

Again...
Again and again. And again.

Apple will NEVER give us those missing MHz. They're giving something else instead. Now guess what, ask yourself it it excuses a delay of 3 seconds on such or such 700Mb blur-operation in Photoshop or not.


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

it depends toast, some of us have to do an action to multiple (in the hundreds) multi mb pictures... so that 3 secs can very well add up 

as far as multitasking, my g4 800, when i burn a cd, most everything else slows down extremely, i must be missing something


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

hey hulk, have you ever tried doing multitasking with a dual processor pentium? ive never had a chance to use one so i wonder how they perform


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *hey hulk, have you ever tried doing multitasking with a dual processor pentium? ive never had a chance to use one so i wonder how they perform  *



But Quad as well... AMD MPs as well as P3s and Xeons... They work fast! Too fast! Amazingly fast! Especially if they are configured with loads of RAM and Win2K Pro, Win2K Server and Win2k Advanced Server... I don't know why but when using the WinXP the things aren't that good for dual CPUs... Above 2 CPUs you MUST use Win2K Server editions if you want your Quad or 8-CPU system to use its many cpus because XP handles only 2 and that is when using the Pro version of XP  

Compared to a Dual Mac any dual PC running above 1.5-1.6 GHz it smokes the poor Mac... Hell, even the single P4 3 GHz beast gives the Dual Mac a run for its money! However, when multitasking with multimedia apps, DVD-R/RW/etc. drives, CD-R/RW/etc. drives at the same time the PCs ALWAYS seem to underperform compared to a Dual Mac... Or if you prefer they aren't all that fast and mighty as you believe when you have Quake 3 infront of you or that DVD2DivX app  

Also, all those people complaining about Dual Macs noise obviously they never heard a similar PC system! Of course you can buy quite stuff but the majority dual/quad/8-cpus systems from well known and respected companies out there produce loads of noise 

Another thing with dual (and above) PCs is the fact that they lose the following:
-They aren't cheap
-Not many mainboard options
-Harder to upgrade
-Much more difficult to maintain
-Not many companies to chose from
-Not many Windows OS options
-Much more difficult to get tech support in a bad case scenario
-More expensive electricity bills
-Not THAT compatible with other hardware options (graphics, sound, etc.)
-And many other things which break the myth of how good REALLY is owning a Dual Wintel regardless of how FAST it truly is  

I don't know why but Macs running OS X seem to be much more stable performers compared to similar PCs... It may be the combination of software/hardware from the same vendor or simply the way Macs handle I/O traffic internally... I don't know what! But for sure I NEVER saw ANY PC handling the previous things that I posted THAT good...

PS. DVD2DivX stuff on PC simply smokes the poor Mac


----------



## Jason (Jan 11, 2003)

so its kinda a win some lose some deal, oh well, no one setup will be utterly perfect


----------



## Trim1 (Jan 11, 2003)

"I don't know why but Macs running OS X seem to be much more stable performers compared to similar PCs... It may be the combination of software/hardware from the same vendor or simply the way Macs handle I/O traffic internally... I don't know what! But for sure I NEVER saw ANY PC handling the previous things that I posted THAT good..."  


Mac OSX 10.2.x  is the reason .  This is the best consumer OS ever.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 11, 2003)

I don't know about the desktops, but as for the laptops I think his analysis is _extremely_ inadequate.  Look at the benchmarks and the specs and I think you'll see what I mean:

1.  The PowerBook he used (PB800) is *2 generations old* and most _definitely_ not in the same price range as the Alienware he configured, while the Alienware he used is priced in the same range as the _new_ 17" PB!
2.  The PowerBook 17" has a *25% raw speed increase* over the PB800.  The Alienware would have to reach *3.83GHz* to experience a similar increase.
3.  The Alienware laptop he used is the *most current model*.
4.  The PB 17" uses *PC2700 DDR SDRAM* at an effective 167MHz, vs the PB800 133MHz.
5.  The PB 17" has a *100MHz system bus*, vs. the PB800's 66MHz system bus.
6.  The PB 17" is *6.8lbs* and the 15" *5.4* lbs.  The Alienware is *9.6 lbs*
7.  The largest screen available for the Alienware is *15"*.
8.  The *prices are equal* on similarily configured PB 17" and Alienware 15" machines.
9.  The Alienware is almost *twice as thick* as the PB 17" _and_ *1.2" deeper*.  The Powerbook 17" is wider (15.4" vs 13"), obviously (it's a 17" screen), and yet the total volume of the PowerBook vs the Alienware is   *157 vs. 252 in^3*!!!!  Wow.
10.  The Alienware isn't even a real laptop!  It uses a regular P4 processor!  Only _loonies_ make laptops with regular P4 processors!!  (Yeah, I'm loony too, but in different ways )  You thought a PB was hot -- this thing has got to scorch the hairs off your legs through 3 layers of clothing!!  Battery life must be simply horrendous!  So bad that Alienware won't even tell you.  The only thing Alienware claims "*1-2 hours*" battery life for their batteries, and that's if you get the *other model* (the Hive-mind instead of the Area-51) with a *Mobile* P4 processor!  There's no way the Area-51 could make it over an hour.  Any other laptop users out there wanna comment on how useful a 1-hour battery life portable would be?   There is a market for it, I just don't think most people looking for a laptop are in it.
11.  The fastest true Mobile Pentium chip you can get is *2.2GHz* vs the 3.06GHz he used.  That's a 50% increase that really shouldn't be there.

Put it all together and the _old_ PB800 _still_ beat out the Alienware on a decent number of tests!  I'd like to see Sr. Galbraith compare a _real_ PC laptop with the _new_ PB 17" and see what he has to say.

On top of all the raw speed, size and weight issues where the PB beats out other PC laptops, think about this:
1.  The PB 17" has a superdrive.  The Alienware has a combo drive.
2.  The PB has Airport extreme _built-in_ whereas the alienware comes with nothing and you'd eat up your only PCMCIA slot and have an antenna sticking out if added it on.
3.  The PB 17" has two firewire ports and one is Firewire 800.  The Alienware has one firewire port and its Firewire 400.  There are so many advantages to Firewire 800 over 400, but I've posted enough about that in these forums already .
4.  The PB has 10/100/1000 Ethernet built-in, whereas the Alienware only has 10/100.
5.  The PB runs OS X!!

I think Apple's right on the mark about it being the year of the laptops and their laptops definitely can't be beat.


----------



## toast (Jan 12, 2003)

> it depends toast, some of us have to do an action to multiple (in the hundreds) multi mb pictures... so that 3 secs can very well add up



400 magazine covers represent 20 more minutes of rendering. In couterpart, we have OS X.

(Based on those 3 seconds per cover: 400*3/60)


----------



## kendall (Jan 13, 2003)

The PC notebook wins, fair enough, its a singled 3GHz CPU compared to the dual 1.25GHz Mac but what about the 1.8GHz PC? Single CPU and still beat the dual CPU Mac in most of the tests.

Ya, ya, ya, Windows sucks! Ya, ya, ya, it crashes constantly. I know, I know.

Of course, I'd still rather have my iBook or PowerBook compared to any PC notebook but when it comes to desktops, I'd never trade mine for a PowerMac.

For around $400, you can have that same out dated Dell setup. For $3600, you can have the PowerMac. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why PCs with Windows are dominating the world.


----------



## Jason (Jan 13, 2003)

im getting deja vu


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 13, 2003)

Hehe, that is some sweet setup. But back to the main conversation. I have to agree with the whole Mac OS X on x86. Or AT LEAST GETTING SOME NEW FREAKING HARDWARE! Im well aware that the PowerPC 970 or whatever is comming about soon, but thats over a year away! Lord nows how crappy the G4 is gonna look then! Apple needs some serious change, or innovation. Not in the Software department...they've already done that about a billion times over for the last 20 some odd years.  Apple needs to look into getting something else other than a processor that can't even handle DDR RAM (SD RAM SUCKS!!!!). Look at almost all current PC makers, they're all selling RD RAM! Hell, RDRAM is becoming the standard for them! And heres Apple selling SDRAM still...*weeps*. But I didn't buy my 17 incher iMac for the hardware...hehe, HELL no. I bought it for Mac OS X!! I love that OS with every fiber of my being! *weeps*...its so damn beautiful...


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 13, 2003)

> (Yeah, I'm loony too, but in different ways )  You thought a PB was hot -- this thing has got to scorch the hairs off your legs through 3 layers of clothing!!



LOL!! Nice remark! And yes, now that you mention it, this test was preformed VERY recently....

You know what I think? I think THAT SICK BASTARD IS JUST JELIOUS BECAUSE HIS STUPID BRIGHT YELLOW/GREE OR WHATEVER "ALIEN" WARE PC ISN'T AS COOL AS ANY MAC OUT THERE!! I don't see any people cheering  and crying tears of joy at any Intel or MIcRO$hafT keynotes, do you?


----------



## Jason (Jan 14, 2003)

i dont care who you are loyal to, but i dont care for name calling in whomevers direction... the part i edited could very well be taken as mac trolling... trolling isnt something thats too welcome here, so watch your choice of words.

thanks


----------



## Romendo (Jan 14, 2003)

I have one of those "huge" notebooks (not Alien, but still big) at home. It fits my bill perfectly. It has lots of power, a great display, and runs everything I need. Maybe some of you should just realize that not everybody needs a PowerBook (or iBook). I needed a desktop replacement - something that is powerful but easy to transport when needed. The Alienware notebook fulfills the same needs. There is no need dissing PCs just because they are different from Macs.

I wonder why Mac fans have to get so defensive all the time. If the Mac OS is so great, then there is no need to defend it. Nothing in this world is perfect. And there is room for everybody. It would make much more fun reading this board if those PC bashing remarks would not occur all the time (same with Mac bashing).

So, let's just get along...


----------



## Jason (Jan 14, 2003)

i like this guy!


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2003)

Guys, i think the point is that macs are constantly getting bashed by the media, by coworkers and by any skinny gamer with a pc. so we shout back occasioanllly. it's part of the mac culture. it has been for a long time. perhaps when developers, IT's, ISP's, and the kid next door stop treating us like second class citizens in the computer world, we'll calm down, but probably not before that.

This is a mac site. not a computer site, but a mac site. one of the few places around the web we can call our own. we're quite welcome to switchers and adders, but complaining about our complaints about pc's isn't too cool. it's not going to stop any time soon - especially when cockeyed comparisons like this one continue to be the norm.


----------



## kendall (Jan 14, 2003)

You missed *bastard*.  

Honestly, I don't see a problem with the article.  The guy ran several tests using PCs and Macs.  In the end, the PC notebook won but even more shocking is that a $400 Dell Desktop cleaned the clock of a $3600 PowerMac.  The guys a Mac user and can admit that Macs need some work.  Maybe its time for Apple and its fellow Mac users to stop being in denial and do something about it.


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Romendo _
> *... Maybe some of you should just realize that not everybody needs a PowerBook (or iBook). I needed a desktop replacement - something that is powerful but easy to transport when needed. The Alienware notebook fulfills the same needs. There is no need dissing PCs just because they are different from Macs.
> 
> ...
> ...



Where did someone say that everyone should use Macs? Or PowerBooks? Or iBooks? In a Mac forum, the discussion is going to get Mac-centric, but I don't know of any Mac users who go to PC forums to tell them to use Macs. 

I got an idea, maybe we can all realize that pushing PCs in a Mac forum is going to meet with resistance. I personally think talking about PCs has as much relevance as talking about the latest Cray supercomputers or the original Apple ][s. If they don't run a Mac OS and Mac software, why are we talking about them as if they matter? And if PCs matter, why not bring up Suns and Silicon Graphics computers too? Or even IBM's stuff (at least they run on PowerPC processors).

Romendo, an alien computer system that can't run a Mac OS fulfills none of the needs of people with Mac software. It *does* fulfill the needs of PC users with their PC operating systems (someone open a Window) and PC software, but that's about it. For me as a Mac user, buying a Mac is far more cost effective in terms of both work flow and cost (as moving from one platform to another seems to negate the savings of the cheep hardware, which I still have never seen work right).


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> ... but even more shocking is that a $400 Dell Desktop cleaned the clock of a $3600 PowerMac.  The guys a Mac user and can admit that Macs need some work.  Maybe its time for Apple and its fellow Mac users to stop being in denial and do something about it. [/B]



Maybe I missed that one. How fast did the $400 Dell boot Mac OS X? What were the render times for web pages with OmniWeb 4.1 on the $400 Dell? And here is a good one I would like to know, was Sherlock faster than Watson while running them on the $400 Dell? I just want to see some real world tests between this $400 Dell and even my lowly iMac.


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

Here is some more discussion on this article, complete with rather complete analysis of the market forces involved, etc:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/01/Timeismoney.shtml

and:

http://www.grotto11.com/blog/?+1042511080

Both these sites have lots more on this subject for those that are interested.

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *I don't know about the desktops, but as for the laptops I think his analysis is extremely inadequate.  Look at the benchmarks and the specs and I think you'll see what I mean:
> 
> 1.  The PowerBook he used (PB800) is 2 generations old and most definitely not in the same price range as the Alienware he configured, while the Alienware he used is priced in the same range as the new 17" PB!
> ...


* 

Erm, the PC laptop isn't mainly compared to the Mac laptop - it's competing against the Dual 1.25 GHz G4 tower. (And it wins...) Read through the comments section of the article in question - it contains some high-grade, flame-free discussion.

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!*


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

"I got an idea, maybe we can all realize that pushing PCs in a Mac forum is going to meet with resistance. I personally think talking about PCs has as much relevance as talking about the latest Cray supercomputers or the original Apple ][s. If they don't run a Mac OS and Mac software, why are we talking about them as if they matter?"

Because to most people, they present the main alternative to the Mac?

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

Or if you prefer some MORE things 

How fast is the Dull system while running iApps? Final Cut Pro? Express? Keynote? Shake? Safari? Chimera? OmniWeb? Quake 3? Doom 3 when it will come out? Or does it come with 64bit PCI? 10/100/1000 buil-in network? Can it support built-in Airport? How fast is its SuperDrive? How many Hard Disks can the Dull support inside its box? Is its Hard Disk 120GB? How fast is it while using Classic? Does it have an Apple logo on it? What about ADC connector? DVI? What about FireWires? Is it beatiful compared to PowerMac and PowerBook? Is it light and small as the Titanium? And does it multitask? Methinks for the guy to live the poor Dull out of the multitasking tests is a big WHY at the least...

Kendal, methinks that is at least a cheap trick to repeat over and over the price/performance ratio of the Dull because in the end the Dull lacks MANY features... The biggest of all being that it is coming from a company called Dell with stuff coming from the Wintel platform... Hell, Dull doesn't even support Amd stuff!!!

As for Mac guys bashing the Dark Side: Of course we will bash 'em a lot! Let's just say we were talking about cars and my favorite car was Ferrari... Should I support or favor Porsche instead or even say that Porsche is the same as Ferrari? Big freaking NO!

Mac rulez! Just because


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Erm, the PC laptop isn't mainly compared to the Mac laptop - it's competing against the Dual 1.25 GHz G4 tower. (And it wins...) Read through the comments section of the article in question - it contains some high-grade, flame-free discussion.
> 
> /GulGnu
> ...



And you want us to believe that this Alien-what? thing is a laptop? Maybe you got that ALL WRONG... It may look like a laptop but let me tell you this: It's a PC box in disguise    You should have known better: It is DAMN ugly and with no real usage on the road: Hell I can beat it with an iBook 600MHz EASILY while on the road


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *"I got an idea, maybe we can all realize that pushing PCs in a Mac forum is going to meet with resistance. I personally think talking about PCs has as much relevance as talking about the latest Cray supercomputers or the original Apple ][s. If they don't run a Mac OS and Mac software, why are we talking about them as if they matter?"
> 
> Because to most people, they present the main alternative to the Mac?
> ...



...they don't present the main alternative to the Mac... They try as hell to make it look as a Mac alternative but they fail 

That's the problem of Wintel... They try hard, spending billions and still they CANNOT make the people NOT envy a Mac when they see one in action         Maybe in 2004 with the new Windows and new Intel CPUs


----------



## Cat (Jan 14, 2003)

What do you mean "alternative to the Mac"? 



> If they don't run a Mac OS and Mac software, why are we talking about them as if they matter?


Right so Mac-Blog! 

I'll consider Intel-ware when it can run OS X (and seamlessly intergrates X-11 apps with the rest).

If you really need more Mhz to do your job and Apple doesn't provide those, I understand that you consider "alternatives". The point seems to me, that precisely because of software reasons (including the GUI, stability, etc.) you don't _have_ any alternatives. Well, then you have in fact made your chioce! Why complain? You chose the best! And if you simply want more, *more,* more ... well, we all dream...


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *And you want us to believe that this Alien-what? thing is a laptop? Maybe you got that ALL WRONG... It may look like a laptop but let me tell you this: It's a PC box in disguise    You should have known better: It is DAMN ugly and with no real usage on the road: Hell I can beat it with an iBook 600MHz EASILY while on the road     *



It's not a laptop in the ordinary sense, entirely true - it's a portable desktop replacement, aimed at gamers. That's one great thing Mac portables have going for them - good battery life. That's probably one of the reasons Intel have cooked up their new processor family - we'll see how they shape up once Intel gets them out the door. 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *...they don't present the main alternative to the Mac... They try as hell to make it look as a Mac alternative but they fail
> 
> That's the problem of Wintel... They try hard, spending billions and still they CANNOT make the people NOT envy a Mac when they see one in action         Maybe in 2004 with the new Windows and new Intel CPUs   *



I repeat: to "most people" they present the main alternative. And most people go with the PC option. I realize you yourself might not consider PC:s an option, but that does little to change the fact that "most people" will consider PC:s as a Mac alternative. 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *
> Put it all together and the old PB800 still beat out the Alienware on a decent number of tests!  I'd like to see Sr. Galbraith compare a real PC laptop with the new PB 17" and see what he has to say.
> *



Erm, the PB800 beat the alienware in excactly zero (0) tests. Not surprising - it shouldn't be able to, since, as you point out, the Alienware is rather a mobile desktop replacement than a portable. (Still, it didn't beat the 1.8 GHz Dell in any tests either for that matter...) This is rather a drawback for the PC side of the test, since it's top-end is represented by a portable, with the drawbacks in performance that come with the portability - sporting a 5400 rpm harddrive for instance, vs. the dual 1.25 G4:s 7200 rpm drive. I would have preferred a benchmark sporting a tower P4 3.06 / Dual Athlon MP:s rather than the alienware portable for a more relevant comparison.  

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *The point seems to me, that precisely because of software reasons (including the GUI, stability, etc.) <snip>, more, more ... well, we all dream... *



Erm, what's this "M$ Windooze crashes once every 5 mins" thing about? face it: XP is pretty much crash-proof. (Much like OS X) As for the GUI - Aqua looks pretty smashing, but XP is not far behind (Especially once you skin it... The metallic style is OS X-ish enough for my tastes...) Let's face it here as well: Opening Photoshop in XP takes 2 rapid clicks - doing the same in OS X takes, well, about the same amount of time. And once yoy are in the program, it's unlikely you will experience any major productivity differances. 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## Cat (Jan 14, 2003)

> Erm, what's this "M$ Windooze crashes once every 5 mins" thing about? face it: XP is pretty much crash-proof. (Much like OS X)



Oh well, I don't think M$ is so unstable that it would be unusable. I've used a wintel system for years and years, starting actually with DOS only  I liked Win98 SE well enough, and it was stable enough, but not as stable as OS X. Since I first installed it, it has never crashed, nor did I ever need to re-install it (unlike my wintel machine). Moreover I can reconfigure most settings without needing to restart the whole system, that is a stability issue too. And I'm definitely sure most wintels perform as well as or outperform Macs in many area's. Still, instead of comparing the newest pentium or athlon at 3+ Ghz with a G4 PM, I'm very curious how a 1 Ghz x86 machine would perform in comparison. My PII@333 Mhz suddenly looked very old and sluggish when compared with my G3@366. I wonder if Apple is running tests and benchmarks with their Marklar x86 port...

With the GUI I didn't only mean pretty looks but also ease of use, the way everything seems to work intuitively as you think it should. I have never used XP and in comparing OS X and windoze I have 98 in mind. So maybe XP has fixed things I didn't like in 98. For instance almost every time I needed to change IP settings or tinkered with my network settings I had to restart the whole thing... with OS X I can reconfigure most of the system while up and running. I switch from an ethernet connection to Airport without having to make any changes at all! Maybe now the peecees can do that too, well that means they have catched up. That's good for the people who use them. I don't care what the productivity of others is, as long as mine's good enough. For me "switching" to the Mac was an improvement. And yes, I like my Mac, I'm fond of my iBook in a way I never was before of a computer. The experience in using my iBook was a whole new thing to me. Now I lust for the 12" AlBook and have become a real Mac-fetishist...


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

Yea, a G4 366 should whoomp a PII 366 =) . I'd say XP is a major change from 95/98/Me - they have pretty much dumped the old underpinnings entirely in favor of the NT kernel = good stability. I'd say 98 compares more to OS 9 in generational terms. It's easy to set up hardware-wise as well, which is a major help in the hardware jungle of the PC world... Still, I think the interface is somewhat more consistent in OS X, which of course is a matter of taste.  

As for the sexiness of Mac:s, well - that new 17" AlBook sure looks yummy. (The lit keyboard is way, way cool. Best part of the keynote, hands down, even though Safari was a major surprise as well. Oh, and Keynote looked pretty sweet as well =P) 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## mightyjlr (Jan 14, 2003)

> Erm, what's this "M$ Windooze crashes once every 5 mins" thing about? face it: XP is pretty much crash-proof. (Much like OS X)



I have been a Windows user and lover all of my life until 1 1/2 years ago.  Windows XP IS much more crash-proof than its predecessors.  I do however, still get a good amount of crashes using it.  Most of the time the computer does not need to be restarted, but occasionally it does.  I don't know anyone who can go for close to a week or even a day without having to restart XP at least once...  I am an architecture student and we have labs with dozens of XP computers in them...  I know of at least 2 dozen times when the computer has crashed and a student has lost their work.  Very frustrating.  On my Powerbook the only time I have to restart my computer is when I install an update like Quicktime 6.1.  It can literally run for months at a time...


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mightyjlr _
> *I have been a Windows user and lover all of my life until 1 1/2 years ago.  Windows XP IS much more crash-proof than its predecessors.  I do however, still get a good amount of crashes using it.  Most of the time the computer does not need to be restarted, but occasionally it does.  *



Just for the record: When I say "crash" I mean an OS crash - not just a program going haywire =) That said, it is indeed possible to bring XP to a screeching BSOD halt by introducing it to 'exotic' hardware. I threw together a low-cost PC using some old parts, as well as new stuff (MoBo / memory / Processor new) - this worked fine, except in one game, that would bring down the OS every single time you tried to quit it. That was, until I replaced my 4-year-old soundcard with a newer model, then everything worked really neat. Moral of story - if you get a brand-name PC, you can be pretty sure it's stable. If you build it yourself, you are taking a risk. I'm running a brand-name machine atm, and it's pretty much crash-proof - I never take it down except for system updates (Infrequent), and into sleep mode. Rock solid. Then again, on PC:s with their multitude of hardware, you get no 100% guarantees - that's both an upside and a downside for PC users. Greater flexibility hardware-wise, but it comes at the cost of potential instability. 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *I repeat: to "most people" they present the main alternative. And most people go with the PC option. I realize you yourself might not consider PC:s an option, but that does little to change the fact that "most people" will consider PC:s as a Mac alternative.
> 
> /GulGnu
> ...



No! No! You got it all wrong! The undergod in computers is the Mac... So, you see Macs are really alternatives to Wintels 

Anyways, I think you evaded the thing of PC users drooling over Macs IF and WHEN they see one in action very swiftly 

Anyways, the Mac isn't just an alternative: Is the MUST have modern computer... Wintels are just SO boring


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2003)

the myth itself only works up to a point and i think most everyone has been aware of this for a while. when it comes to raw power, apple's top end chips are behind

so the real question isn't really about the mhz myth, it's about whether mhz matter. and the definitive answer is 'yes and no'.  on the no side there are people like myself who aren't going to buy those top end machines anyway. our mhz will always be a step or two down and we're ok with this.  it just needs to be good enough. and we know that there is already plenty of evidence that there is still plenty of speed yet to be gained by improved programming instead of just cranking the mhz. also on the no side are the people who realize that the stability and multitasking abilities, along with ease of use, more than make up for a mhz gap in raw speed. and of course, the no side includes those people who just like their macs and wouldn't trade em for a pc no matter what. we are known as the faithful. 
and the yes side - people who have to have the biggest everything and a few specialty professionals. but even here, i constantly read testimonials from these pros about how the ease and stability and all makes up for the raw speed. there's even an interesting story about one of our members who sold his pwermac because it wasn't fast enough and made a big public issue of it. now, a few months later, despite owning a big powerful pc, hew can hardly wait to get a powermac again. ask verlorenangel just how much tests like this article really count for in the real world. i can tell you he won't fall for the line of reasoning in this article again anytime soon 
.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

...say it again: XP is a lot more stable than Win9x/Me versions BUT and here is the nice part:
It doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000 Pro and above... Those are the most stable OSes ever produced in Redmond!

And yes it is hard for me to admit it  

Anyways, XP still gives crashes and especially under heavy use like DVD authoring, Video Editing and heavy multitasking usage... And as for exotic hardware I've seen hardware designed for XP specifically still bring the system to a halt!  

If you want stability on a Wintel platform give Windows 2000 Pro a shot! You will be more than satisfied with its stability  

Still, ALL Windows versions cannot compare to OS X.2 both in stability and way of handling things      At least for me and who am I anyways to tell you all this?


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 14, 2003)

<<...say it again: XP is a lot more stable than Win9x/Me versions BUT and here is the nice part: 
It doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000 Pro and above... Those are the most stable OSes ever produced in Redmond! <<

I was under the impression that XP is basically 2000 with some more fluff on top? =/ Or am I misinformed?  

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 14, 2003)

GulGnu, 

I've used Photoshop on a Mac. I've used Photoshop on a PC. It is better on a Mac. When Photoshop is open on a PC it takes over the whole screen. What about the other apps running in the background? Why even have desktop pictures (sorry, _wallpapers_) on a PC? Once you open any app they are completely gone!

Hey, did you hear about the _new_ feature for AOL for Windows? You can choose a background image for the program. Imagine that! We can still see our original choice of a desktop picture in the Mac version, so we don't need that feature. PC people who haven't used a Mac completely miss the workflow advantages of not being restricted to a window for their apps. Almost every Mac user I know uses the desktop in the background as part of their workflow, on a PC you can't even see the desktop to have it be part of that work flow. On a PC you are being forced to work on one task while on a Mac you can freely multi-task within the environment.

Don't worry, I don't expect you PC people to get it. If you did, you wouldn't be PC people any more.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by GulGnu [/i]
> *Erm, what's this "M$ Windooze crashes once every 5 mins" thing about? face it: XP is pretty much crash-proof. (Much like OS X)*


* 

I donno about you, but I've gotten XP to crash (while not even trying) more than a few times. But i do admit, it is alot more stable then @#$#&! Windows 98 or...*chuckle chuckle* 95!! (Or even Win ME for that matter!). *


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *<<...say it again: XP is a lot more stable than Win9x/Me versions BUT and here is the nice part:
> It doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000 Pro and above... Those are the most stable OSes ever produced in Redmond! <<
> 
> I was under the impression that XP is basically 2000 with some more fluff on top? =/ Or am I misinformed? *



No, you were informed correctly. WinXP is Win2000 with a few more desktop themes and custom sounds. Oh! And a new name and logo too!! WOWIE!!


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Erm, what's this "M$ Windooze crashes once every 5 mins" thing about? face it: XP is pretty much crash-proof. (Much like OS X) As for the GUI - Aqua looks pretty smashing, but XP is not far behind (Especially once you skin it... The metallic style is OS X-ish enough for my tastes...)*


First:
I have OS X running on my 2 year old Cube 450. It works great! It's stable! It hasn't crashed since 10.2! It only did so once in 10.1! Now I know plenty of people who tried out XP on similarly aged PC's, and went back to 98. Why? Because XP was both less stable and less functional on a fresh install. Maybe it works better on newer hardware, but hey, hardware sales are down and more people than ever are simply upgrading current hardware. 
Second:
Yes, Aqua _is_ prety smashing. And it manages that out of the box! The fact that you have to skin XP to get it even close is just sad.
Also,


> _Originally posted by UtaTr3y_
> *Apple needs to just discontinue their hardware line, the hardware is no longer inovative, its yesturdays technologies with a different form factor.*


Actually, it is the Companies like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.. who sell yesterday's tech. That is in many cases why their machines are so cheap. And everyone who has mentioned how much better multitasking is on Mac gets it. Really: most PC users I know who burn CDs are satisfied if only 1/4 to 1/3 of their CD's end up as coasters. What's that all about, I ask them. Their answer, "Well, I realized I needed to check my em@il, and I forgot it was burning, and then I went and played this game..." Well forget that! I can burn and surf and em@il and play games all at once, and I have had one coaster that was my fault (I used a CD-R I knew was probably scratched up). And all that on a 2yo 450mhz machine that many PC users thought of as a joke (until they actually saw one in person). If I can find a graphics card upgrade for my Cube that lets me use Quartz Extreme (and still without a fan) I could easily use this machine and be happy for another 2 or more years. As it is I'll be fine for another year!
I love my Mac because it works, and it is easy to use, and it becomes more powerful and easier to use with almost every update Apple lets us download. Most Windows software updates I have seen (and I have done Windows Update for many PC users) are security patches. And plenty of them. When I work on a PC, I am always nervous and fearful it will mess up on me. My Mac lets me relax, feel safe, and do my work.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *<<...say it again: XP is a lot more stable than Win9x/Me versions BUT and here is the nice part:
> It doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000 Pro and above... Those are the most stable OSes ever produced in Redmond! <<
> 
> ...



XP is based mostly on Windows 2000 (aka NT) code but it is a mix with Windows 9x code too... On top of all this, they added some new technologies and that's it!

You see, mixing always doesn't work 

That's why you cannot find Server versions of XP as you can find for Windows 2000... If you prefer XP is Windows 2000 for the mainstream 

Anyways, I thinks that if you want to learn more go to www.microsoft.com or even try to find some windows sites (I currently cannot point you to any Windows sites) where you will find the truth which marketing hype hides from us...


----------



## fryke (Jan 14, 2003)

You got it quite right.

Windows 95 > 98 > Me | XP Home.
Windows NT 3.51 > NT 4.0 > 2000 > XP Professional.

XP Home is the first 'home' edition to be based on the NT kernel. But it has less networking features than Windows Me. And it only supports one processor.


----------



## kendall (Jan 14, 2003)

If it is based on the NT kernel, then it hardly has anything in common with 95/98 and ME which ran on top of DOS.  They didn't just delete DOS and replace it with the NT kernel.  Instead, they took 2000 and scaled it down.

I like XP, its rock solid.  Once they get the UI right and develop their bundled apps some more, its going to be pretty hard to beat.

Put it this way, it takes MS several tries to get anything they release right, (IE, WMP, Office, etc), but once they do, like it or not, they're pretty damn good apps and everyone else finds themselves trying to play catch-up.

Also, I find it comical that this thread went from a MHz debate to a OS flame-war.  Has Mac hardware fallen that far behind that bashing Windows is a last line of defense?

Stay on topic.  A $400 Dell Desktop beat a $3600 PowerMac.  Discuss!


----------



## xyle_one (Jan 14, 2003)

<XP is pretty much crash-proof> 
Not to be a d*ck, but that is comlete sh*t. Here at work we have 2 pcs with XPpro on them, My machine & the Bosses machine. I do a lot of heavy graphic work (Animations, Presentations, Video) and the boss uses his for autocad.  I have dual procs & 2 ibmSCSI drives, 1gig2100ddr, etc... My computer crashes at LEAST TWICE A DAY. im lucky to get a full day in with no crashes. My bosses pc crashes less than mine, but it still crashes or screws up once a day. We have taken the boxes to several "specialists" in town and it all comes down to Windows XP is sh*t. Even 2000 is, though we have less problems with it. I was still crashing with 2000, just not everyday.
Now, i get home and start work on some side-jobs (similar to what i do at my fulltime job) and my mac handles everything i throw at it, plus some.  i have NEVER CRASHED osX.2. i Have never had to push the "reset" button. 
Fu@k windows & its joke of an os.  Even my linux box doesnt crash. 
----------------------------------------------
Xp has a lot of dos code in it, so it could try and be compatible with older software.  Xp ui is disgusting, and their apps are poorly deployed. I have not seen any application from microsoft that could be called unbeatable, let alone their os.  As for MHZ, i don't think that really matters. Do you really need 3ghz to play solitaire (oh wait, we are talking about bloated microsoft apps her, so yeah, i guess you do)?  Production wise, i get more done on my G4 than i do on my WinTelPC, so even though i have "faster" procs in my PC, i can work more efficiently on my "slower" G4.  So why does MHZ matter?


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Stay on topic.  A $400 Dell Desktop beat a $3600 PowerMac.  Discuss! *



Yeah, stay on topic people! I'm still waiting to hear how that $400 Dell did with the real world tests I suggested.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 14, 2003)

> _ Most Windows software updates I have seen (and I have done Windows Update for many PC users) are security patches. And plenty of them. [/B]_


_ 

LOL!! Isn't this the truth! Last time I reformatted my PC with WinXP Pro, I had over 59 updates to install!! And all of them were security updates!!!!! fiftey freaking nine!!! I think 10.2 has had, MAYBE, 3 at most..._


----------



## Romendo (Jan 15, 2003)

From all these comments it is quite apparent that many people have no clue what Windows XP is. Some even admit that they never used it, but that doesn't stop them from bashing it.

So, just go back to your childish behaviour. I hope that for you ignorance is bliss.

As for the original topic, nobody here seems to be really interested in a serious discussion. I hope you enjoy your stay in the sand box.


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 15, 2003)

I wonder what he meant by that?



Anyway, could someone pass me the shovel and bucket, I'm going to make a big sand castle right over here.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Erm, the PC laptop isn't mainly compared to the Mac laptop - it's competing against the Dual 1.25 GHz G4 tower. (And it wins...)*



Actually, they were all compared to each other, simply by the layout of the data as well as in the discussion.  



> _Originally posted by Romendo _
> *I have one of those "huge" notebooks (not Alien, but still big) at home. It fits my bill perfectly.  Maybe some of you should just realize that not everybody needs a PowerBook (or iBook)....There is no need dissing PCs just because they are different from Macs. *


About it being useful -- I shouldn't have said that 'loonies' part, sorry.   However, I _do_ think everybody needs a Mac!   (<---- joke )  Remember, I said myself:  "There is a market for it, I just don't think most people looking for a laptop are in it."  And I really don't think most people are in it.  I think if most people looking for a portable had a chance to really try out several laptops for several days they'd find out that there are a lot of factors that are really important to them that they hadn't thought of because of the speed-frenzied media and public.  They'd find out what they really want is a PowerBook!  

If the "stay near an outlet and buy a back brace" D) laptop is really worth it to some people, however, maybe Apple should come out with another laptop line:  the SuperpowerBooks, or the Mighty Mighty Bossbooks, or perhaps the PowersuckingBooks  or something.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Erm, the PB800 beat the alienware in excactly zero (0) tests.*



Oops....um....sorry.  Sorry! I have no idea how I messed up on that one!  Thanks for the correction.  Maybe it's 'cause I was reading sideways on my bed since my PowerBook is so portable. 

But you're wrong about it not beating the Dell!!  It won in one category!  See if you can find it -- it'll be like Where's Waldo in a column!


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *I repeat: to "most people" they present the main alternative. And most people go with the PC option. I realize you yourself might not consider PC:s an option, but that does little to change the fact that "most people" will consider PC:s as a Mac alternative. *



Not the people in this forum!    And that's where we are!


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> * It's not a laptop in the ordinary sense, entirely true - it's a portable desktop replacement, aimed at gamers. That's one great thing Mac portables have going for them - good battery life. *


That's it huh? Battery life is all the powerbook has going for it huh?  How about half the volume, 2/3 the weight, a much larger screen, Firewire 800, Gigabit ethernet, integrated WiFi and a Superdrive?  Not to mention 10x the eye-candy too.  (Hey, cars look cool and people think it's important.  Why not computers?  Though I guess a sleek computer isn't quite as likely to attract women (or men!)... "Hey there good lookin', can I press the eject button on your superdrive?" )  

My point, though, is that the PB 800 really doesn't fit in this comparison.  Not only is it extremely outdated (in comparison to the other so-called laptop) but it's in a whole different class from the Alienware and the two desktops, and the author doesn't bring this out at all.

People spend all this time doing speed tests and making tables and easy-to-understand graphics but hardly ever balance their report by outlining briefly but clearly what the tradeoffs are for going with the speed.  I really wish they would take a second to say "hey, this is an article about speed, speed, speed, but here's a quick summary of the other important factors you should probably think about too."  The masses (including me) have short attention spans and a lack of information.  It you're gonna write an article for them and want to be truly helpful you need at-a-glance summaries (or mentions, at least) of the _other_ things going into computers too or else they'll just latch onto those speed numbers and end up with a computer that helps them not be able to do what they want to do more quickly, near power outlets, with no hair left on their legs, no fashion sense and a sore shoulder .


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *I repeat: to "most people" they present the main alternative. And most people go with the PC option. I realize you yourself might not consider PC:s an option, but that does little to change the fact that "most people" will consider PC:s as a Mac alternative. *



not that i didn't like jeb's answer to this, but i felt i needed to add more. why is it that pc users come here and assume we're not aware that we only have a small market share - that we're a minority? could it be because they feel as frustrated as we do in a CompUsa or other so called computer superstore where half the things we want aren't carried or even made for our macs? could it be they suddenly find themselves surrounded by people who love their macs and the only 2 lines of defense they've got are "pc's are faster and cheaper" and "i'm like most people"?

Who's the fastest and cheapest counts for something in a bar on friday nite. and even then their is often a price to be paid for choosing that route.  being like "most people"  also means your IQ is in the average range and so your abilities to make truly informed decisions are limited.  

but then another problem is us - mac users. we tend to shorten windows' user to pc user, when in fact there are some pc users who feel as disgusted with m$ as we do. But that is only natural, because let's face it, what terminal jockeys would waste their time making comparisons like the one in the article? so when ever we see pc speed claims, we're eally talking about windows' users who feel they've got to justify their choice to be like "most people". Cause the ones who would go thru all this are most likely smart enought to know that there's more to it than that, but admiting it is hard.especially if you're still paying off your credit card for all your m$ updates of XP and office.Add in the windows version of photoshop and you've already spent more than a new mac that would have solved all those other problems besides speed. 

but back to being mac users in a computer store - i used to get really mad whenever i was faced with seeing lots of peripherals for pc's at half the price of the same things for macs. but eventually i realized that anybody could make a piece of crap piece of hardware and sell it. Having a mac helps reduce the chance i'll make a poor purchase decision. it doesn't eliminate it, but it reduces it. i would really like to see a set of compatibility to peripheral devices for these computers. there's still a lot to be said for 'plug and play' vs 'plug and pray' besides just saving xmas.

but jeb, i wonder if you didn't open up a whole new door of advertising for Alienware with the observation of removing leg hairs. my GF might want one of those. It would be a whole new way to multitask


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *Who's the fastest and cheapest counts for something in a bar on friday nite. and even then their is often a price to be paid for choosing that route.*



lol!



> _Originally posted by edX _
> *but jeb, i wonder if you didn't open up a whole new door of advertising for Alienware with the observation of removing leg hairs. my GF might want one of those. It would be a whole new way to multitask  *



LOL!!!!  That would make for a great advertizing campaign!  Picture Lubriderm-like commercial pitting Alienware vs. Crocodile for beautiful woman.  








*virtually quoting Ed's post in entirety*
Amen to that brother!  Can we get that whole post embossed, framed and hung next to the site rules or something?


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *Actually, they were all compared to each other, simply by the layout of the data as well as in the discussion.
> *



True, but the top-end Mac vs. PC faceoff is between the G4 Dual 1.25 GHz and the Alienware 3.06 GHz P4, which I guess is what matters to most professionals in this context. That he threw the old Dell and PB in there, well, might be interesting for second-hand buyers, who knows...

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *Oops....um....sorry.  Sorry! I have no idea how I messed up on that one!  Thanks for the correction.  Maybe it's 'cause I was reading sideways on my bed since my PowerBook is so portable.
> 
> But you're wrong about it not beating the Dell!!  It won in one category!  See if you can find it -- it'll be like Where's Waldo in a column!   *



Whoopse!  Missed the preview test, despite it being right on top... doh... 

Edit: Well, I did say "beat the alienware"=P

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *That's it huh? Battery life is all the powerbook has going for it huh?  How about half the volume, 2/3 the weight, a much larger screen, Firewire 800, Gigabit ethernet, integrated WiFi and a Superdrive?  *



Erm, no - I said it's "one thing" it's got going for it - all the other stuff obviously come into play as well. All in all, Apple makes great laptops - it's the Desktop side that is hurting at the moment, imho.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *  The masses (including me) have short attention spans and a lack of information.  It you're gonna write an article for them and want to be truly helpful you need at-a-glance summaries (or mentions, at least) of the other things going into computers too or else they'll just latch onto those speed numbers and end up with a computer that helps them not be able to do what they want to do more quickly, near power outlets, with no hair left on their legs, no fashion sense and a sore shoulder .   *



Well, it's not really for "the masses" - it's for pro photographers. And the author does mention other factors down in the comments section, but they aren't all favourable to the mac... Read it - it's a good, clean discussion.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Erm, no - I said it's "one thing" it's got going for it - all the other stuff obviously come into play as well. All in all, Apple makes great laptops - it's the Desktop side that is hurting at the moment, imho.
> 
> Regards / GulGnu
> ...



DOH!!  Man I really got to start to learn how to read!    Sorry!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

"Who's the fastest and cheapest counts for something in a bar on friday nite. and even then their is often a price to be paid for choosing that route. being like "most people" also means your IQ is in the average range and so your abilities to make truly informed decisions are limited. "

The 90-95% of computer users who use Wintels most likely contain both some really stupid and really smart people - sort of the 5% that owns Mac:s. In my case, I like to play games on my 'puter once in a while, (BF 1942... yumm!), which makes the PC the only viable option. If (when) I get a productivity laptop though, I'll most likely go with the Mac (That's why I spent an hour looking at this year's keynote - plus it's good fun =P)  - it's also the reason I've been lurking on this board for a while. 

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Well, it's not really for "the masses" - it's for pro photographers.*


Pro photograhers are part of the masses, and there are masses of pro photographers, in my opinion!  



> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Edit: Well, I did say "beat the alienware"=P
> *



Yes, but you also said:
"Still, it didn't beat the 1.8 GHz Dell in any tests either for that matter..."
  



> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *The 90-95% of computer users who use Wintels most likely contain both some really stupid and really smart people - sort of the 5% that owns Mac:s...If (when) I get a productivity laptop though, I'll most likely go with the Mac*



http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jul02/jul22/1_mon/news4monday.html

  You belong in the Mac crowd GulGnu!  Join the dark...er... light side of the force!  GulGnu is a perfect name for a Jedi!    The force is strong in you, I can feel it!    I switched and haven't looked back since OS X.  Well, maybe just a _couple_ times...  Just to make sure that behemoth Wintel train wasn't trying to steamroll me.

So has the 17" PB got you itchin' to blow $3000 yet?


----------



## stealth (Jan 15, 2003)

guys. anyone care to help me with my question: that alienware laptopt, since has a processor runnin at such high clock speeds, doesnt it wast lots of battery ? how long would any laptops battery last (runnin at 2 or 3 ghz)  ??? thanxxx


----------



## Cat (Jan 15, 2003)

> Stay on topic. A $400 Dell Desktop beat a $3600 PowerMac. Discuss!



Yes my Lord! 

Discuss: I don't believe it! And I'm not in a denial phase either ...

The facts:
$ 399,- buys you very little. In order to configure the Dimension 2350 in something vaguely resembling a PM the price goes up to at least $ 1200,- In this case you get a
P4@2 Ghz with 512K L2 cache
256 MB Ram
an "Integrated Intel Extreme 3D Graphics", 17" monitor etc.

Thus the Dell costs about as much as an iMac.
The iMac costs you exactly: $1,499.00

iMac 700MHz 15" TFT/256SD/40G/Combo/GeF2 MX/56K/FW/VGA/KB/SPKRS
256MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
Apple Pro Speakers
Combo drive
40GB Ultra ATA drive

Let's compare it to the PowerMac: for $3.500,- you get:

NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual-display w/32MB DDR
Apple SuperDrive
Power Mac G4 Dual 1GHz w/167MHz system bus
56K internal modem
256MB DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM 
80GB Ultra ATA drive
Apple Pro Speakers
Apple Studio Display (17" flat panel)

So what follows from this?
That it is damn hard to compare them!
The PM can hold up to 4 120 GB HD's, the dell only one. So if you need a lot of HD space, the PM is better. If you're interested in games and graphics, I really think the iMac and PM are going to give you a better image, since I don't really trust the "integrated intel" thinghy. It all depends on what you do with your computer!

Most people who use a computer for work need something like a 486 DX/4 with 32 MB ram, and 4 mb video, running win95 and word/exel.

You can discuss which processor architecture is better, you can discuss which computer has a higher framerate in Quake III, but not which computer is outright "better".

Comparing the $ 399,- Dell to a PM is meaningless, because the PM can do things the Dell can't and viceversa. Comparing two top-of-the line computers would make more sense. Realize that in that case you pitch Apple against all the other players: IBM, Dell, Acer etc. There are always going to be companies that can provide cheaper computers and there are always companies that are going to produce faster/bigger etc. computers. Troubles begin when they are the same. At the moment being I do not believe this to be the case. Apple competes on the middle/high market: no "el cheapo" Macs! And I don't think the $ 1200,- Dell "beats" the $ 3500,- PM.

Sorry for the lenghty post...


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *"Who's the fastest and cheapest counts for something in a bar on friday nite. and even then their is often a price to be paid for choosing that route. being like "most people" also means your IQ is in the average range and so your abilities to make truly informed decisions are limited. "
> 
> The 90-95% of computer users who use Wintels most likely contain both some really stupid and really smart people - sort of the 5% that owns Mac:s. In my case, I like to play games on my 'puter once in a while, (BF 1942... yumm!), which makes the PC the only viable option. If (when) I get a productivity laptop though, I'll most likely go with the Mac (That's why I spent an hour looking at this year's keynote - plus it's good fun =P)  - it's also the reason I've been lurking on this board for a while. *



  you're right of course. and i have said the same thing in other threads. I just hate the "most people" argument as it implies that being a mindless follower of what other people do is somehow a good thing. and we all know that pc's have gained large parts of their market share thru just that. joe average follows what his work or neighbor has, never really looking into it very deeply.  Long before the "think different" campaign, apple users have pretty much been known as a bit outside the norm though. not neccesarily more inteligent, but certainly outside the mid range on a number of bell curves.

this is a paradox of sorts though as macs have always been easier to use and maintain than windows boxes and should be much more appealing to thsoe without a lot of tech background or natural intelligence, while pc's with all their complexities, should be more appealing to those with higher intelligence as an intellectual challenge. like solving puzzles or equations. but that is also part of the beauty of os x, it contains the simplicity and the complexity. it is all ready to be whatever kind of an os you want it to be.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *guys. anyone care to help me with my question: that alienware laptopt, since has a processor runnin at such high clock speeds, doesnt it wast lots of battery ? how long would any laptops battery last (runnin at 2 or 3 ghz)  ??? thanxxx *



Up to 1 hour... the most? Who knows for sure? The Alien-what? company doesn't even mention the battery facts about that ugly, hulk-like  Alien... That says A LOT  at least to remotely smart people


----------



## stealth (Jan 15, 2003)

thanx HULK.  
so hulk... since ur not famous for ur intelligence in comic books . tell us. is that why u bought a mac ?was it hard to use a pC ? what were ur main reasons  hahaha


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

"If it is based on the NT kernel, then it hardly has anything in common with 95/98 and ME which ran on top of DOS.  They didn't just delete DOS and replace it with the NT kernel.  Instead, they took 2000 and scaled it down."

Yep... They created a scaled down OS which called: XtraPain because it lacks the things that made NT 5 a STABLE + ADVANCED OS... 

"I like XP, its rock solid.  Once they get the UI right and develop their bundled apps some more, its going to be pretty hard to beat.
Put it this way, it takes MS several tries to get anything they release right, (IE, WMP, Office, etc), but once they do, like it or not, they're pretty damn good apps and everyone else finds themselves trying to play catch-up."

Yep! Catch-up because of again and again installing SO many Service Packs and Web Updates    only to find out that a new hole needs to be covered with ANOTHER patch and/or also a new virus wreak havoc which needs ANOTHER update or even a special download! 

"Also, I find it comical that this thread went from a MHz debate to a OS flame-war.  Has Mac hardware fallen that far behind that bashing Windows is a last line of defense?"

You know what? I find comical the fact that PC fans (which the best part is when they call themselves realists + open minded  ) come here with cheap lines like the following...

"Stay on topic.  A $400 Dell Desktop beat a $3600 PowerMac.  Discuss!"

Which is THE cheap line because the $400 Dull cannot touch the Dual Mac not only in price levels  but in capabilities too! And like PC fans boring us, I will retaliate by boring them some more: The Dull LACKS (to say the least) the following...
-Mac OS X.x.x and its iApps
-Hard Disk size
-Graphics card
-Extra Hard Disk slots
-SuperDrive
-Built-in Airport
-USB Optical Mouse
-USB Keyboard with USB connectors
-ADC connector
-DVI connector
-RAM
-64 bit PCI slots
-10/100/1000 network
-A gorgeous Mini Tower box
-FireWire ports
-Apple Pro Speakers connector
-And last but NOT least the legendary Apple inside, out and all over it


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *thanx HULK.
> so hulk... since ur not famous for ur intelligence in comic books . tell us. is that why u bought a mac ?was it hard to use a pC ? what were ur main reasons  hahaha *



Me: HULKAROS! Hulkaros smash puny Stealth... When Hulkaros done smashing puny Stealth, HULKAROS will smash HULK... Always puny humans confuse Hulkaros with fake Hulk  

Hulkaros had many puny Wintel/Amd boxes which with one punch smashed... ALWAYS... Sometimes Hulkaros was confused because even without him smashing, the PCs ALWAYS destroyed  

Now, Hulkaros happy because found only one thing stronger than his punches: A Mac! No matter how hard Hulkaros smashes: Mac always welcomes Hulkaros back!  

Hulkaros says you not believe things you read about Hulkaros intelligence... Stories people use puny PCs because Mac is too strong for them


----------



## kendall (Jan 15, 2003)

Everyone seems to miss the point of the comparison in regards to the specific tests.

Its not whether the PC has OS X, iApps, AirPort and whatever else a PowerMac has, its that for $400, a pro digital photography solution is available in a PC that out performs a $3600 PowerMac in that specific arena.  An arena that is supposed to be the PowerMac's strong suit.

Make excuses all you want but that's the facts Jack.


----------



## stealth (Jan 15, 2003)

what u lack to see kendall is that the dell probably sucks in multi tasking. and a pro digital photographer NEEDS to 2 more than 1 thing at a time  if he can convert 1 image to something else 2 times faster than a mac thats good  but what happens when he wants to 2 more than that at the same time? will he even attempt to do it? or is he afraid to press the button (in case that blue terrifyin screen appears again?)


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Everyone seems to miss the point of the comparison in regards to the specific tests.
> 
> Its not whether the PC has OS X, iApps, AirPort and whatever else a PowerMac has, its that for $400, a pro digital photography solution is available in a PC that out performs a $3600 PowerMac in that specific arena.  An arena that is supposed to be the PowerMac's strong suit.
> ...



Kendal let me put it this way because YOU are making YOUR facts:
-P3/1GHz, 1GB RAM, CD-RW 48x, 120GB HD, GeForce 4600ti
-P4/2GHz, 128 MB RAM, CD-ROM, 20GB HD, TNT2
Which one do you honestly believe is a better computer?

I'll go with the first choise... The same with the Dual Mac... Or drop that! I will go with ANY PC which costs $3000 more than the Dull one even with another Dull which costs $3000 more than the el cheapo $400... Now fact this up!


----------



## kendall (Jan 15, 2003)

OS X is very poor at multitasking without more than 512MB of RAM.  

XP doesn't have this problem.  It handles virtual memory a lot better.  

I have a SMP P3 1GHz PC and haven't used a UP PC for awhile but I don't consider multitasking one of OS X's strong suits.  At least not with a UP Mac compared to a UP PC.

In Windows XP I am simultaneously transcoding four 2hr+ DivX files to MPEG2.   I'm using 90% of two CPUs but less than 300MB of RAM.  I can't even run Jaguar with a few apps open with less than 300MB of RAM.  My box doesn't crash, my MPEGs encode fine and I am able to do this and anything else I need without any problems.  

I use Windows everyday and know it works.  I love OS X to but when people bash Windows, I can't help but feel its out of ignorance, because I know it works.


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2003)

i don't think anyone here has missed the point that this guy took his computers and ran somebenchmarks on some straightforward tasks and the macs lost.

but once you quickly figure out that a lot of things that would add to the validity of the tests are missing, it comes down to questioning just what he wanted to prove in the first place. 

most of us have been using os x long enough to know that pure speed was never it's strength, no matter how big your mhz. the memory management is built for stability at this point. it's a trade off. i would love to see the same macs compete in os 9. they would undoubtibly pick up speed but then fall victim to the same issues of stability and multitasking as the pc's.  He isn't just comparing hardware here, he is comparing os'es. also, notice the contradiction between the main headline and his subheader



> Headline -
> In pro digital photography, megahertz matters
> 
> subheader -
> If RAW photo and Photoshop batch processing are important in your workflow, then speed is what you need



one is a very broad baiting claim, the other is a very specific question. one doesn't have to read past this to figure this guy has an agenda. and basically what most of us here are doing is answering his question with a "no, RAW speed doesn't count for much." it's only one of a number of factors that matter.


----------



## kendall (Jan 15, 2003)

The guy is a self proclaimed "Mac-head."  What could his agenda possibly be?


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *OS X is very poor at multitasking without more than 512MB of RAM.
> 
> XP doesn't have this problem.  It handles virtual memory a lot better.
> ...



How come an iBook G3/800 compared to a P3/1GHz desktop, both with 256MB RAM the Mac running OS X and the P3 running XP, do the following:
-DVD playback
-MP3 playback
-CD Recording
the Mac handles the jobs with almost no drop of frames on the DVD or NOT a hitch with the MP3s while the PC loses both in DVD and MP3 playback? And that from a CPU running 200MHz less AND a slower hard disk?

Then again it may be that the OS X REALLY multitasks while the XP fakes it


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *OS X is very poor at multitasking without more than 512MB of RAM.
> 
> XP doesn't have this problem.  It handles virtual memory a lot better.
> ...



In a PowerMac G4/933 with 1GB of RAM I can do the following AT THE SAME TIME with NO problem whatsoever:
-DivX a FULL DVD (movie+subtitles) with Mencoder
-Play MP3s
-Run Word, Excel, TextEdit, AppleWorks, Internet Explorer, Safari, OmniWeb, AddressBook, Calculator, iCal, iPhoto, Mail, QuickTime playing a trailer, System Preferences, DVD Player, Chimera, Toast, Stickies, iSync, Clock and here is the best part: iMovie and do Video Editing while all the previous stuff is loaded with the MP3s playing and the Mencoder doing its charm WITH NO PROBLEMS!!!!!!

One CPU @ 933 against your Dual 1GHz which I would like to see you even try the above stuff... Give it a shot... I'll be around to help you recover your PC from crashing again and again...


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2003)

i've searched his site a couple of times and found nothing to indicate he is a mac head. where do you get that from?


----------



## xyle_one (Jan 15, 2003)

i have been using windows pcs for a while and it doesnt matter how fast it is, it is still going to crash. it will only crash faster now. I have NEVER used a windows pc that didnt crash, let alone heard of anyone who has had a flawless windows experience. So for my money, id rather spend a little extra on a system that is rock solid, than on the fastest system from dell. I dont have time to reinstall windows every week. I shouldnt have to. When i buy something, like a car or a TV, i want it to work, i dont want to have to make it work. And just because everyone else is using it, doesnt mean that i should use it. That makes for a very boring world. And as for compatability with other windows users, i have not run into any problems. They can read the cds i burn, and can open the files i send them. No problem. </rant> anyways. i dont see MHZ as an imprtant factor when buying a computer.


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *i've searched his site a couple of times and found nothing to indicate he is a mac head. where do you get that from? *



Erm, his front page being full of reports of new mac apps, MacWorld product reports, etc. perhaps? 

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2003)

gulgnu - his front page is just filled with all sorts of stories and links about photo and digital media software and hardware. it includes all platforms and manufacturers as far as i can tell. since apple is such a big player in this field, he would be leaving out a considerable number of potential viewers if he laeft macs out. the front page offers proof of nothing except that he runs a digital image web site.


----------



## Jason (Jan 15, 2003)

if you read the article he clearly states that he uses a mac daily in his work etc


----------



## Jason (Jan 15, 2003)

Directly pulled from the article...



> When the idea for this report was conceived, I'd assumed there would be more performance give and take across Mac and PC. Since the Mac is currently my primary computing platform, I'd certainly hoped this would be the case. But, the overall speed superiority of the PC is impossible to ignore...


----------



## kendall (Jan 15, 2003)

He says his primary computer is a Mac.


----------



## kendall (Jan 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *In a PowerMac G4/933 with 1GB of RAM I can do the following AT THE SAME TIME with NO problem whatsoever:
> -DivX a FULL DVD (movie+subtitles) with Mencoder
> -Play MP3s
> ...



I had a iBook 800MHz with 128MB of RAM.  I couldn't open two apps without poor OS X grinding to a halt.  I upped the RAM to 640MB and everything was fine as long as I kept less than 10 apps running at a time.  Anything over seven and things slowed down quite a bit.  This was the same on my PowerBook 667 DVI with 786MB of RAM.

Anyway, what part of transcoding four 2hr+ DivX files to MPEG2 while doing everything else I need, (watch DivX movies, Office, Mozilla, WMP, etc) without any problems?  XP doesn't crash.  It's rock solid.  So is OS X but it can't multitask like XP.  Not even close.

Now this is just one person's opinion.  Maybe I'm lucky not having any trouble with Windows but I know Windows is just as capable as OS X.


----------



## Jason (Jan 16, 2003)

i have an 800mhz G4, 896mb ram, OSX 10.2.3
When i burn a cd, everything else slows to a snails pace, i can barely use proteus to talk to friends while burning a cd. I cant imagine decoding, encoding, watching dvds, listening to music, checking my email and all that at the same time.

I have a 700mhz Athlon Windows XP SP1. When i burn a cd, everything slows to a snails pace. I can barely use MSN messanger and AIM when burning a cd. I cant imagine decoding, encoding, watching dvds, listening to music, checking my email etc all at the same time.

I guess im the only one who has a computer that takes a hit in performance while doing cpu intensive tasks such as burning a cd.

on the subject of Windows having too many updates etc... Since the introduction of OSX how many total system updates have their been? Since the introduction of Win XP how many total system updates have their been?

IMO i think its pretty damned close.


----------



## wiz (Jan 16, 2003)

no they are not, windowupdate has always a update, almost each week, as compared to apple's softwareupdate. and most of the time they are security updates!!! it kinda gets annoying.


----------



## wiz (Jan 16, 2003)

i use xp as my web development server, for playing games, surfing, mysql db server. it has crashed on me a couple of time. while my mac does the same things. has not crashed yet.

xp sp1: P4 2ghz
osx 10.2.3: PowerPC G4 400MHz


----------



## edX (Jan 16, 2003)

just because somebody says their primary computer is a mac doesn't mean that he is a mac head. however i finally broke down and read some of his own forum's discussion of the article. he explains a few things he left out of the article. in fact his first post there is almost as long as the article.
let me quote one or two things from it -


> Apple's claims, and similar claims in the Mac press, that the Mac is faster than a PC drives me nuts.


so here he admits that his original intention was to show that PC's are faster. however, i think part of why he did this was for a good reason, even if his way of doing it was questioanble


> If, as Mac user, that makes you mad, contact Apple, contact the software developers, and convince them that this is a problem to be dealt with asap.


basically, he wants what all pro mac users want, some better top end hardware. i've long since admitted that this particular group of mac users has a point to some extent. and i see nothing wrong with them telling apple about it. and trying to convince everyone else to tell apple about it. 
there's other points to be made from his post that the article misses, primarily that he admits that much of the software used for these tasks is not well coded for macs, but rather poorly ported. only in photoshop did the macs come consistently close, even winning a few,and we all know how long it took adobe to even figure out how to port to os x. there is no doubt that it still needs some fine tuning that is nobody's fault but adobe's.

but despite all this, he'll still be booting the mac everyday because 2 of his main programs are mac only. i guess the macs kicked ass in those side by side comparisons. 

oh, and kendall, read the specs carefully - the dell didn't beat the powermac. it did in some of the first tests, but overall did slightly better.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jan 16, 2003)

Here's a question since i didn't have the time to respond to this eight page rant:

why wasn't this drawn out debate put in the cross platform forum? If it's expected that there will be plenty of mac bashing it should go there. 

I'm sick of these articles about the mac being the wrong platform and these dang benchmarks tests. Who cares?! I'm starting to see the same one's here as i see on macnn. Are there any positive reviews someone could browse the newspapers for? Obviously there are some people who enjoy mac's in their jobs.


----------



## Jason (Jan 16, 2003)

ed, i can tell you one of the programs that is horribly ported to OSX is the nikon programs, as a  "photographer" who has taken about 4000 pictures in the last year, its quite the pain in the ass to deal with nikons crap software on osx... it was definately ported from windows and not optimized at all....

its no secret that most programs could be faster with some better coding

and my point with this whole thing was about the "professional" lineup... as a consumer i have no problem with the speed of my macs, but as a professional, its horrid, my machine quite frankly cannot keep up with the demands of large files, i just hope that apple comes up with something for the small niche of pros that need speed and power from their macs


----------



## Jason (Jan 16, 2003)

another quote for ed...



> First, it's important to understand that I'm a Mac guy. This is the platform I would prefer to use. That's primarily because I'm familiar with it after many years of the Mac being my primary computing platform. So, my familiarity with the Mac is a factor in the computer selection process, alongside RAW photo processing, Photoshop batch processing, image cataloging and card to computer transfer speed.



seems to be a mac guy


----------



## jade (Jan 16, 2003)

I have been considering switching now for about 3 years...... And I worry if my move will be enough an increase in speed.  I am looking to replace my sony laptop (it is about ibook size,  but it is super slow at this point,  being 5 years old and no upgrades)  Primarily I use a pc desktop w/ 800 p3 and 500mb ram.  I can burn cds and check email at the same time,  and i am using win 98.  What causes my hesitation,  speed.  My next computer has to be smaller than my sony (no problem here) and significantly faster,  and it doesn't seem as if it will be the case,  so i am deciding to be patient.  But I imagine of I was a pro user and saw that artice.  Well if a $400 system beat the dual G4 and I could save $3200,  I would be pretty willing to sacrafice a few things considering it is pretty easy to upgrade the hd and add firewire.  And that is why lots of other potential switchers are sticking with microsoft.   It is a lot cheaper to stay where you are,  and the macs seem a bit expensive.  (especially when you consider the costs of porting your info and applications.  Hopefully in the next few months apple finds a way to catch up.  Then cost won't be much of an issue.




PS:  my first computer was an apple IIe,  then we went DOS and never went back....besides of course those old school macs always floating around in school.....  I think that is where a lot of people got turned off by macs.  My high school had win 95 computers and those old school 1984 apples with the first mouse and grayscale screen in the computer lab.  (i finished in the mid 90s)


----------



## stealth (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> ... *XP doesn't crash.  It's rock solid.*  So is OS X but it can't multitask like XP.  Not even close....


hahahaahahahhahah
hahahhaaha
(cant stop laughing)

hahahahahha 
hhahahahahhaahha !!!! 
   thats all i have to say! .


----------



## stealth (Jan 16, 2003)

interestin report on G4 performance


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *i have an 800mhz G4, 896mb ram, OSX 10.2.3
> When i burn a cd, everything else slows to a snails pace, i can barely use proteus to talk to friends while burning a cd. I cant imagine decoding, encoding, watching dvds, listening to music, checking my email and all that at the same time.
> 
> ...



I hope you are making jokes here because friend I can upload a video clip here at this very forum letting YOU people see the following:
-An iMac G3/500/512MB RAM/20GB HD/CD-RW/X.2.3 doing the following stuff at the same time...
-Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Stickies, Calculator, Address Book, TextEdit, Safari downloading stuff, Chimera browsing web pages with multimedia and stuff, iTunes playing MP3, iCal publishing calendars, iPhoto, QuickTime, System Preferences, Toast burning and audio CD AND iMovie Video Editing Digital Video with effects and everything ALL AT THE SAME TIME...

Now, all you have to do is let me upload the video only to saw you what words (mine, yours doesn't matter) CANNOT reveal... The video will be shot with a DV Sony video camera with sound and everything. How long do you want it to be? Let me know... Because I cannot really say anything else about a G4/800 with loads of RAM not be able to do similar stuff... Something smells rotten here!  Did you get your G4 at an Apple Store to check it for harware failure? Once we got at our company a new Dual 1GHz which ALWAYS was crushing after some time of even remotely use... The solution? We changed the SuperDrive AND DDR RAM and everything was back to normal... Really Jason, if you cannot multitask with your Mac while burning a CD you MUST check it for problems, both in hardware and software... Here is hoping for software problems only!

As for updates please ANYONE do the following:
-Format a Mac and install OS X.2
-Install X.2.3 Combo
-Then check Software update
-You will find QuickTime, iSync, iCal, StuffIt, Airport and iPod updates (6 all and all --or I'll say 8 just in case I forgot 1 or 2)

-Format a Wintel and install XP
-Install SP1 on XP
-Then check M$ Windows Update
-You will find LOADS of updates (too many to describe here) and you know what? The Windows Update is even worse on a Windows 2000 box with Service Pack 3!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn close I here you say? Yes if you wanted to describe the updates condition for Windows XP and 2000 platform... Or simply you wanted to make a joke and a very good one I'm telling you


----------



## kendall (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *hahahaahahahhahah
> hahahhaaha
> (cant stop laughing)
> ...



Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!  *



Was this a sarcasm towards people who insist that X.2 can't multitask and be rock solid like Windows XP? Or drop that! I know it can't be like XP...


It is only better     Maybe in 2004 with XXP M$ will get even with X.2


----------



## wiz (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!  *



lol,

maosX.2.x being a rock-solid os, even better than xp.
why do u deny that?


----------



## stealth (Jan 16, 2003)

XP is rock solid and does not crash ? in which world ? ur dreams maybe? hahahhahaha 

im sorry but  u must be a ONE IN A MILLION case. or like i asked u be4: what do u do with ur pc? play solitaire all day ?


----------



## xyle_one (Jan 16, 2003)

xp is a joke. Xp is the biggest reason i switched from windows to mac. It wasnt until after the switch that i learned how truly horrible m$ is  
i have never seen a satable xp system. I do not know a single person that can honestly say their xp has never crashed.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *Denial isn't only a river in Egypt!  *



_content of reply post removed by edx._


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jan 17, 2003)

He was probably referencing to the security updates and system updates Mac OS X has been treated too. 
In contrast,
first: apple released their security updates instead of covering them up
second: Mac OS X is constantly evolving while Windows XP has stayed put at SP1. 
Perhaps you are in denial that any version of the Windows OS is an incomplete one and doesn't offer much in the realm of a fix or overhaul.

Last: Mac OS X can usually update your OS without a restart and even than your back to work/play in 1-2 minutes.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jan 17, 2003)

One more thing: Windows is rock solid. It's interface reminds me of a rock that is easy to break.


----------



## edX (Jan 17, 2003)

well, i've got to tell about my day today as it made me rethink much of what we are discussing here and in many other threads about speed.

i went to an apple store for the first time. i had some time to spend before i had to be somewhere else, so i went over and played with a nice powermac with the biggest lcd screen i've ever used. i figured this thing is going to fly. so went to this site. i was amazed. it wasn't that much faster than the g3 imac 400 i'm using right now. i clicked around a few forums and hit back and it just wasn't impressive. 

so then i went over to the 17" imac. it had safari on it, the powermac was using ie. it was a bit better than the powermac. still nothing that would get me excited about needing a new computer. then i tried the 15' imac, also with safari. now this baby did fly. it was lightening fast. pages rendered perfectly and near instantly. so i went to a few other sites. same thing. i went back to the other two and tried other sites. still not as fast and smooth as the 15'. 

so lastly, i checked out the emac. it was about the same as the 17" imac. not bad, but nothing to write home about. the only one of these 4 computers that made enough difference from the lowly imac i'm on that i would lust after it was the 15".  what's going on here? i mean, if i was sitting there with a stop watch, i could have posted a big report about how there is a mhz myth in apple's own line. I certainly see why people who are paying for the big macs are getting a bit stressed and why those of us with low to mid range consumer models are shouting "what's wrong?".

all i can say is it woke me up. i'm still not sure what it means, but it gave me a look at these speed debates with whole new eyes.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *well, i've got to tell about my day today as it made me rethink much of what we are discussing here and in many other threads about speed.
> 
> i went to an apple store for the first time. i had some time to spend before i had to be somewhere else, so i went over and played with a nice powermac with the biggest lcd screen i've ever used. i figured this thing is going to fly. so went to this site. i was amazed. it wasn't that much faster than the g3 imac 400 i'm using right now. i clicked around a few forums and hit back and it just wasn't impressive.
> ...



Well I bet EdX you know what I'm going to reply but anyways let's play the game:
-Surfing with one window open isn't THAT much depended on computer's horsepower as much as it depends on internet speed connection...
-THAT internet speed is also depended IF you are browsing via a network
-THAT network speed is depended on wither you use a cable based network with a good switch or just a hub. Also, depends on that cabling AND switch capabilities like be it 10 or 10/100 or even better 10/100/1000
-Now, if THAT network is Airport or a similar technology still you have things to take care like walls and other object between your computer and the source of your internet access
-Also, the internet speed depends wither you have a modem speed (any speed) or an ISDN speed or a broadboand, etc.

Also, another role for speed in general under X.2 is how much RAM is installed and even which updates the basic X.2 installation has... Also, what graphics the computer has and not just RADEON or GeForce but color depth and resolutions...

One other thing that MANY users and even the experienced ones, is that of how much cached web stuff the browsers have already and IF that data is actually YOUR kind of internet surfing stuff  

Of course it is better if you use Safari or Chimera on ANY Mac system, especially if those Macs are low-end ones or even worst the same Macs are browsing via a modem speed of 33.6 Kbps!!! 

And finally, another difference in speed can occur if you have another browser window open and if you have, how many of them are TRULY accessing the internet... 

I may be missing here something but I know for sure that my 1GHz Titanium has a HUGE difference with the iBook 700MHz that I've used on the same ISDN connection both with Safari, Chimera, Mozilla, IE while browsing www.macosx.com, www.apple.com, www.mac.com, www.mactopia.com, www.microsoft.com, www.insidemacgames.com...

However, I can understand ANYONE and even I tell them so, who insists on using G3/233/OS 9 for just browsing NOT upgrade or change their Macs in general... I know I'm NOT that good of a sales person    That's why I am a tech person


----------



## edX (Jan 17, 2003)

yea, but even with all those factors, shouldn't a $3,000 + mac beat out a $1500? i mean, these were all on the same network, no real change in number of other users that i noticed, all stock as advertised, etc. i was simply going thru the lineup and peforming a relatively simple task - viewing this forum. it's also a task i do often enough to recognize any problems that are server side and have a perceptual memory of how long certain talks take on my little old mac. like i said, it just kinda surprised me.  there is no way i would have walked out with a powermac if i had all the money i needed. i would have gone with one of the imacs. and maybe that's where apple wants to concentrate their sales right now, i don't know.


----------



## kendall (Jan 17, 2003)

hulkaros,  can't you just accept that someone might have a different opinion than you and its not necessary to analyze and justify someone else's perception of the truth?


----------



## edX (Jan 17, 2003)

kendall - how about we just say someone else's perception and not get involved in something as debatable as truth?


----------



## kendall (Jan 17, 2003)

I love Apple notebooks.  I think they're lightyears ahead of anything the PC world has and that is why I've owned 3 of them, but I agree with Ed, Apple Desktops, especially the PowerMac, is becoming less and less desirable.


----------



## kendall (Jan 17, 2003)

well, what's true to you may not be true to another!


----------



## edX (Jan 17, 2003)

and that's about as close to absolute truth as i care to venture


----------



## RacerX (Jan 17, 2003)

I work on or with almost every type of Mac made, and I've never felt any real form of speed envy. Sure, as I start using newer apps that require newer hardware, I upgrade, but never to the _top-of-the-line_. I always end up with _mid range consumer models_ or the low end pro systems (or used higher end systems... I rarely buy new anyway).

What I've found and seen within both my work flow and my client's work flow, is that raw speed of a processor(s) isn't enough to push them to upgrade to newer _faster_ systems.

Lets look at one of my closer (personally) clients whom I have talked to about their systems and what they are looking for. They currently have three G4s (two 400 MHz and one 733 MHz systems) and two G3s (one 350 MHz B&W and one 233 Beige) which are meeting their needs completely. Their software is pretty much the same on all their systems- Mac OS 9.1/9.2.1, QuarkXPress 4.0/4.1, Photoshop 5.5/6.0.1/7.0.1, Illustrator 8.0.1/9.0, Acrobat 4.0/5.0.5 and either ATM Deluxe or Suitcase. Almost all the systems are running with 512 MB of RAM or more and have at least a 40 GB hard drive. Their file server is a B&W 400 with Mac OS 9.1 and Appleshare IP 6.3 and their print server is an HP (Pentium II/400) running Windows NT 4.0 sp6 and Fiery print server software.

As the main reason for not moving to Mac OS X for them has been QuarkXPress (the fact that QuarkXPress 5 wasn't Mac OS X native is why they haven't moved beyond 4.1), they are still very much a Mac OS 9 shop. In talking with the designers I have asked them if they are interested in upgrading their systems (seeing as the one of the two G4/400s is vacant currently), and the answer has been no. Even the one who is using the G3/233 seems more than happy with where he is at.

So comes the question... Why? The answer is one we should really all know by now. For more than 90% of what most of us do with our systems, they are fast enough. Most things in Photoshop don't take nearly long enough any more to effect our work flow. Consider this, as we get faster and faster processors, the difference in actual work benefit decreases. For example, lets say processor X1 can complete a task in Photoshop in 30 sec. Then processor X2 is released that is twice as fast as X1 was and it only takes 15 sec. Later we get X3 and than X4 doing the job in 7.5 and 3.25 sec respectively. Now lets say these processors are released in about two-three year cycles. Buying a new system with an X2 after using an X1 made a noticeable difference when doing this task and felt worth the money you spent.  Remembering how good it felt when you upgraded to a X2, you jump on the X3 as soon as it comes out, but you don't seem to notice the benefits quite as much... your a little disappointed. Finally when the X4 hits the street you just can't justify getting a new system for an increase of 3.25 sec on some tasks when not that long ago that type of upgrade would have yielded a 15 sec speed boost. So now comes the X5 which is twice as fast as the X4, but you realize playing with one that moving from your current X3 to an X5 would only yield and increase in speed on some tasks of about 4.9 sec (still less than your last upgrade which gave you a boost of 7.5 sec).

For me, there are only a handful of task that would ever make me think about an upgrade (working on large Quicktime movies and the rare time that I work with a hi-res image in Photoshop). And the last upgrade I did wasn't even to any of my Macs. I upgraded the processor in my SGI Indy a few months ago so it could capture video faster (last time I checked it saved me 7 minutes for every 30 minute process with the old processor).

I think Apple realizes that processor speed is not going to yield the purchases that they need. Old users don't feel the need to upgrade and new users aren't going to see any real differences. Apple is rightly working on features that make their systems more useful to people. In the end, I'm not going to upgrade for a processor that can do things 8 times faster than my current system when 90% of those things take less than a fraction of a sec on my system to begin with. I need a better reason than that. And as for moving from Macs to PCs, even if there was a Wintel system out there that was 20 times faster than my current Mac, the adverse effect on my work flow not only negates the speed increase (if I ever actually got around to doing anything that would show it before leaving the system to get work done on my Mac) but also makes the purchase of the system and software a complete waste of money for me.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *hulkaros,  can't you just accept that someone might have a different opinion than you and its not necessary to analyze and justify someone else's perception of the truth? *



...In the end of previous post I agreed that even with a very old Mac one doesn't need to upgrade in anything else... So, no problem there with anyone else's opinion or perception...

But I really wanted a more clever way of REALIZE the truth about speed from a smart person like YOU people...

If you want to understand the difference of speed between Macs don't browse... instead iMovie, iPhoto, etc. or even multitask between them! Then come and tell me or people of this forum (without telling lies) that there is no speed difference between a G3/800, G4/1GHz and Dual G4s or a speed to justify upgrades from old G3s and G4s... Or you know what? Run that Jedi Knight 2 Demo or Return to Castle Wolfnstein Demo with full details to those same Macs I mentioned before and let us know if you see difference in speed area...

As for eMacs and iMacs I think that Apple made it clear that they are about the same in speed areas... At least made it clear to people who are Thinking Different and not just thinking...

Anyways, I think that Apple didn't tell anyone to upgrade to a new Mac just to browse faster... That's Intel with P3s and P4s!!! Apple said connect easier and faster with a Mac... They never said browse faster with a Mac!


----------



## edX (Jan 17, 2003)

you're missing the point hulk. i'm just looking at a quick comparison of the mac line and that's what i saw. it's the same task in all cases. in fact one so small, that i shouldn't have seen the powermac be the worst performer. it should have done it in it's sleep. i mean, i suppose it could be due to ie, i think that is possible. but it sure seems like it should have been the fastest without question. and if it is, and the guys in the store let it get screwed up somehow, what's that say about the emphasis (or lack of) that apple is putting on the high end right now?

take a deep breath here hulk and think. i'm not comparing macs to pc's, i'm comparing macs to macs. it's not a matter of loving them or not. it's a matter of what i saw.
and you surely could be right about more intensive apps showing the diffs better. i don't know.


----------



## fryke (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm not usually doing this, but I've written an article on macnews.net.tc that talks about this, and I don't want to post the whole thing here, as it's also about other stuff... Here's the link, though:

http://macnews.net.tc/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2003/Jan/16


----------



## Meltdown (Jan 17, 2003)

You all are missing the point. it's all about workflow. Workflow on a mac is much faster than on a Pc. I work with both of them with similar apps. Workflow is what has been and always will be the point of the Apple experience.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *you're missing the point hulk. i'm just looking at a quick comparison of the mac line and that's what i saw. it's the same task in all cases. in fact one so small, that i shouldn't have seen the powermac be the worst performer. it should have done it in it's sleep. i mean, i suppose it could be due to ie, i think that is possible. but it sure seems like it should have been the fastest without question. and if it is, and the guys in the store let it get screwed up somehow, what's that say about the emphasis (or lack of) that apple is putting on the high end right now?
> 
> take a deep breath here hulk and think. i'm not comparing macs to pc's, i'm comparing macs to macs. it's not a matter of loving them or not. it's a matter of what i saw.
> and you surely could be right about more intensive apps showing the diffs better. i don't know. *



When did I say that you were comparing PCs to Macs? But even when comparing Macs to Macs compare them fairly:
-Chimera VS IE VS Mozilla VS Safari VS ANY OTHER browser on the same internet connection with histories, caches and everything cleared first
-iApps
-Games
-Other apps in general
-Peripherals added on those Macs
-Other hardware in general

And not just I loaded TextEdit on a G3/300 and on a Dual G4/1.25 and I found out that the Dual Mac is worst than G3 or same...

I don't care if one compares Apples to Apples or Apples to Anything else as long as it is a fair and square benchmark...

For example I know and insist 1000% that Macs are worst than PCs when one likes to play games... Or when one needs MORE than dual CPUs Macs is still not the best solution even with multiple XServes... And these are SOME examples were I know that Apple lacks solutions...

Also, I know for sure that software needs a major boosting from Apple (and not only Apple but other major players as well) as RacerX meant...

And one other thing: Do you guys know what Apple has up its sleeve with the next generation of desktop solutions? I said it before and I will say it again: Have faith in Apple... Didn't ANYONE noticed that the lowered their prices MORE than ever before? But they couldn't make otherwise I hear you say because they will make their customers flee to Wintels so, let's whine somer more I here you say...

Well, whine all you want while I will "just" send Apple and other companies emails on how they may improve their software and hardware if they will listen to what their customers want/need... Are you sure that whining gets you what you like or emails from people like me? Dunno! Just a thought


----------



## solrac (Jan 17, 2003)

Apple might make a lot of people a lot of money in the stockmarket, in about 2 - 3 years

Today, Apple has a better OS, and better hardware designs, and the best in innovation.

Apple also has much higher prices and a much slower CPU.

What we've seen Apple overcome in the past is much harder to accomplish than deploying a new CPU and lowering prices.

Apple has survived and come through bleak times, when everyone has predicted their demise. They completely eradicated their old OS, which was 15 years old, and put UNIX on the mac desktop, which is the most genius move which may have ever been done in the industry.

At this point, everything about mac is better except price and CPU, and fixing these problems is easier than what's been already done. It's not a walk in the park, however, and it's the last step Apple must take to poise itself to eventually increase its marketshare to about 50% of the market and become great again, as it once was.

Once apple gets its faster CPU it will be better than the Wintel world in:
- Design
- Innovation
- Operating System
- Speed (Better or equal)
- Software
- Ease of use
- Stability
- Electricity / Efficiency / Noise

- PRICE (???)

If price does indeed come down, then we will see that Apple will be better than windows and wintels in EVERY WAY except marketshare and distribution of software.

Network effect does make software more desirable. If a billion people have microsoft excel, then excel will be much more desirable than some other spreadsheet app.

But in today's open standards world, network effect loses its, ahem, effect. If you can open an excel file in any spreadsheet program and work with it, and save it in a cross platform open file format (which excel reads anyway), then what does network effect matter? As long as there is software to get your task done and share it with anyone on any platform, Apple's smaller distribution of software will not be a barrier to Apple's gain of marketshare.

The only exception to this rule is in games. But as Apple gains marketshare publishers will make all games for Apple as well, and get the bonus that now their game is already running on Unix too!

So indeed, Apple will be better in EVERY way, PERIOD. There will be NO reason to buy a PC, as long as a salesperson is aware and unbiased.

Now, what if price is still higher in the future? This will effectively slow down apple's gain of marketshare, but not stop it. With a new faster CPU, apple will still be able to make more sales at higher prices since it has much better hardware and software and will be accepted as a premium product, and worth the extra money. But the masses will still have a good reason to not buy Apple, price.

But if Apple wants to create a firestorm of sales and rapidly gain marketshare, it will lower prices as well as get the new faster CPU.

With Apple better in every way, as well as with Mac OS X and the geeks and salespeople not having any reason to sell a PC instead of an Apple, the masses will all buy Apple, and PC sales will decline.

This will be the day when Apple is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY, and the marketshare starts rising to 10%.... 20%.... 30%.....

and a lot of people will make a lot of money on Apple stock.

---

Ok, now back to reality: while Apple is accomplishing all of the above, the Windows world will be doing their own stuff to compete with Apple. They will get a new Windows OS after XP (but not for years), they will increase speed and lower prices as well.

Apple may not get up to 30% marketshare for maybe 5, 6 years or more. OEM is not a factor in Apple's marketshare in the long run. Apple is its own OEM. 

But I still see it happening. I see a point where Apple holds all the cards, and Windows and wintels start to suffer.

This will happen when Apple triples its current marketshare, and at the same time, Linux gets much bigger, and Windows is barely moving away from XP to a new version.

Mac OS X and Unixes will be compatible and friendly, and Windows will not. Microsoft and PCs will not lose marketshare, but they won't be able to stop Apple from hitting 30 - 50% marketshare eventually.

As for today, the Alienware machine stomps Apple in raw processing power, but don't forget that Mac OS X is still better at multitasking.

The alienware machine is a better choice if you need a workstation to do this one task. But if you're a consumer, you will have a better experience surfing the net, burning a DVD, listening to MP3s, working with your photoshop files, all at the same time, with a mac.

And that's today!

Also, consumers and the mass market will make Apple a lot more money than professionals. And I love Apple because while they know this and are marketing to them, they are not sell outs like AOL and they are able to keep the pros AND the consumers happy at the same time.

I was about to ditch macs forever until I heard of the OS X public beta, and I hung on to Apple ever since (even though it only came through for me as a computer until all the big apps were released for it, and Jaguar came out.)

Apple is truly a great company, and is about to rise like a phoenix. And I hope I get that Apple stock at the right time! It's 14 bucks a share right now, and Microsoft is at 55 bucks a share! I can see it doubling or more, if apple truly lowers prices and gets its faster CPU and gobbles up marketshare.

Well, I've said enough.


----------



## fryke (Jan 17, 2003)

It was a tad long, but I've read it. 

But I think you're wrong in one point: Apple won't (and it shouldn't) lower their prices. I think "Apple: Lower your prices!" has been a cry from almost everywhere ever since Apple introduced the Macintosh in 1984. I've heard it so many times. Apple _did_ lower their prices. They've sold us the cheap PowerBook 150 at some point, they now have a 999$ iBook. We once had the PowerMac 4400 (which showed how it shouldn't be done) and we have the iMac and eMac. Apple shouldn't go cheaper. _Because_ Apple is better. Very-cheap-machines just take a piece of the expensive-cake. It would be like with the clones back in 1997.

And I certainly hope Apple will never be viewed as a company that offers a 'cheap alternative' to Windows machines. Macs are a bit more expensive. But you also _get_ more.

Once the Mac's processors are again closer in performance to Intel/AMD processors, price will not be the biggest problem.


----------



## solrac (Jan 17, 2003)

Yes but in this new market, Apple is trying to gain the mass market, the consumers. This is what makes price so important.

If apple wants to gain marketshare fast enough to get to its goals before microsoft comes out with a great big barrier to apple's marketshare, then it needs to offer a consumer level set of macs with lower prices AND a faster chip. It can still offer higher priced pro level models, too.


----------



## fryke (Jan 17, 2003)

Hmm... I think Apple should definitely not compete with Walmart style offers. Want a cheap Mac? The iBook is 999$. I don't think such a good notebook should be even cheaper.

About the processors: Yes, faster is needed.


----------



## solrac (Jan 17, 2003)

true, I don't mean to go below $999 for the iBook. That's already a pretty good price, but it should have a similar price offering with the "new chip". Not a G3, not a G4......


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 17, 2003)

Apple can't lower prices *that* far - 'exessive' hardware costs are needed for Apple in order to cover their expenses in developing MacOS. While Microsoft has ~90-95% of the market to divide Windows development costs across, Apple has both to stay ahead of MS in OS development, while only being able to divide costs across ~5% of computer users. (Development cost is the major factor here - distribution costs are negligable by comparison.) Thus, the cash for OS development can't all come from OS sales - MacOS would become too expensive by comparison (This is why there will be no 'Marklar', or OS X for x86 in any form.) Apple needs the exessive margins in order to stay afloat and continue to improve on MacOS X. 

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 19, 2003)

...I think that the next destop line be it PowerMacs, e/iMacs will follow the path that Apple started with iBooks and PowerBooks!

That means more stuff with less money!

Also, I believe that as long as quality stays high the same will hold truth for Macs... But I can understand Apple lowering quality if needed just to lower the price some more... I for one do not want such thing but still... Who knows?

Also, not for a moment forget that Apple isn't selling only hardware and software but services as well! Services like AppleCare, .Mac, etc. so they earn money from other things too! Not to mention that they sell their OS from time to time too!

Apple can and it will lower the prices when they HAVE to! For now, they don't have to...


----------



## solrac (Jan 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *
> Also, not for a moment forget that Apple isn't selling only hardware and software but services as well! Services like AppleCare, .Mac, etc. so they earn money from other things too! Not to mention that they sell their OS from time to time too!
> *



If you view Apple's total earnings, you would see that hardware sales are 85 - 90% of their revenue.

So .mac, OS X, iLife, AppleCare support, etc. only make up 10% of their income.

Until that changes, hardware will always be at a similar price from apple.

But once apple gains more market share in the future, their software and services revenue will go up as well. Then apple will have more options.

For now, all I want is a new CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## verlorenengel (Jan 19, 2003)

Just a little note for everyone to think about...

I switched my parents, I heavily emphasised how much better a new iMac would be and told them it wouldn't crash, etc, etc, etc.
They love the look of it, and seem happy with the idea...

So we pick it up, I install it and off they go.

First thing my mum says to me whilst opening Internet Explorer:
"Why is it so slow? The old computer was faster"

I had no answer.
I couldn't be bothered explaining either..

They get on fine with the mac now.


----------



## solrac (Jan 20, 2003)

give them Navigator (Chimera) or Apple's new Safari.

DON'T LET THEM USE EXPLORER

the explanation is that "explorer is piece of trash software"

Even though we all want a new CPU for our macs, nothing slows down a computer more than bad software.

I could have a 2 billion terrahertz processor that will be like crap compared to a 100 mhz G3, if the software on the former is trash, and the G3 has well written software.

Please show your parents Safari or Chimera.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *If you view Apple's total earnings, you would see that hardware sales are 85 - 90% of their revenue.
> 
> So .mac, OS X, iLife, AppleCare support, etc. only make up 10% of their income.
> ...



Yes, but isn't services supposedly a better way of earning money? What I mean is that they leave a bigger margin for profits than hardware selling business or so I think... And maybe just maybe the 10% or so figure is actually a better figure than 30%-40% figure of hardware business... I don't know


----------



## solrac (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *Yes, but isn't services supposedly a better way of earning money? What I mean is that they leave a bigger margin for profits than hardware selling business or so I think... And maybe just maybe the 10% or so figure is actually a better figure than 30%-40% figure of hardware business... I don't know  *



Yes, Apple makes much higher margins selling Jaguar than ANY hardware they'll ever make.

Now that Jaguar is done, and on store shelves, apple's profit margin is like 99.99999999999%. That's the beauty of software. (The only overhead is packing / printing / boxes.)

But with hardware, their profit margin maybe 50% or less, because of the costs of getting the materials and putting them together.

This is why Bill Gates is the riches man on earth. Because for every $100 of software microsoft sells, their profits are like $99 (minus whatever marketing they do.)

So once apple has more computers out there, they will start to make more money on software, than hardware.

But today, they are still a hardware company mainly.

That is why microsoft is bigger and richer than apple. Microsoft = software. Apple = hardware.

Microsoft sells software to everyone that bought a computer from dell, compaq, gateway, etc, and they don't even sell any hardware. They just make pure profits.

Apple only sells software to people with Apples, and they have expense of making hardware. (Thankfully they make money on their hardware.)

Can't wait for what's to come, though...


----------



## stealth (Jan 20, 2003)

when 10.3 comes out . will we be expected to pay $130 again ?


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *when 10.3 comes out . will we be expected to pay $130 again ? *



But I hope not!  

Let's just say that if it is worth it I will more than happy to pay such a low price... 

Windows XP Home costs about $100 and XP Pro costs about $200 if I'm not mistaken... So, I guess $100-$150 is a logical price for such a product!?


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> Can't wait for what's to come, though... *



Me either... Me either


----------



## phatsharpie (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *Yes, Apple makes much higher margins selling Jaguar than ANY hardware they'll ever make.
> 
> Now that Jaguar is done, and on store shelves, apple's profit margin is like 99.99999999999%. That's the beauty of software. (The only overhead is packing / printing / boxes.)
> ...



I think your argument is essentially true, but a little simplistic. Software does lend itself to have a higher profit margin, but in your descriptions, you left out developmental and licensing costs. When NeXTSTEP for Intel was released, it was prohibitively expensive as a consumer OS because NeXT had to pay royalties for Display PostScript, BSD, etc. Also, because NeXTSTEP had a relatively small market, they had to jack up their prices to recoup the developmental cost.

So Windows and other commercial OS's do cost money to develop and test, so usually it takes a bit of time for the costs to be recouped. So it's not like all software can have a 99.99999% profit margin right out of the bat! It also depends on how big your market is.

I think MS's ingenuity (or evilness), is that they charge hardware manufacturers a Windows tax. All the Windows licensee (or most of them) has to pay for a copy of Windows with every PC they sell, even if the user plans to load Linux on it. Now *that's* what made Bill Gates the richest man on Earth.


----------



## solrac (Jan 20, 2003)

Yes but windows has none of these developmental costs. Every element of their OS is owned by microsoft.

and i don't believe mac os x has any other costs either. I think it's all pure profit at this point, just like windows is.

Software only costs money to make the first time. Once its done, it's all pure profit.....


----------



## fryke (Jan 20, 2003)

Hmm... The last time I checked, Apple hadn't stopped developing Mac OS X. I heard a version 10.2.4 is in the works and 10.3 should be available in Summer...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jan 20, 2003)

nice 
I hope greek is fully supported because the whole issue of greek on carbon and the attitude of raibow (the greek reseller) is drivin' me insane 

I hope I dont have to shell out a lot of $$$ for 10.3...well if it has A LOT of updates then no prob, but for minor stuff and nothing "noticeable" i will be pysed


----------



## phatsharpie (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *i don't believe mac os x has any other costs either. I think it's all pure profit at this point, just like windows is.
> 
> Software only costs money to make the first time. Once its done, it's all pure profit..... *



Uh... Then why does Apple and MS hire developers to work on their OSes?

It's a basic rule in software development life cycle that majority of costs (70+%) is actually in support and bug fixes. Software development is actually a never-ending process.


----------



## f_h_petrone (Jan 20, 2003)

do you want profit?
tell apple to go fully international
I live in Argentina, we have only "Macintosh Authorized Resellers" only and the cost of a new Mac here is more than 140% the cost of the same mac in the US, and they even come 3 or 4 months late. The cost of a Mac here is fixed by Apple in Cupertino (more than 10000 kms away) ant they even FINE the resellers if they catch them selling macs at lower prices.
Argentina is a PC country i think that apple's market sahre here is less than 1%. That is because EVERYTHING is difficult to get (not talking about the exchange, because if I did I should tell you that to buy a thing that costs 1000 U$S we have to pay 3500 of our "pesos" BUT our salaries don't keep the same difference. A guy here working 40 hours a week can get between 1000 and 1500 "pesos" per month (that is about 300-500 U$S dollars) doing the same job for wich a Northamerican guy is paid 1000-1500 U$S dollars.

That is to say that for us is five or six times as difficult to buy a Mac. and it is only 2 or 3 times as difficult to buy a PC (because we have thousands of PC resellers and they fierecely compete wich each other so the price of a PC here is only 105% the price of the same PC bought un the US and they are released at the same time.

I'm writing this in a G3/366 upgraded from a 233.
I had to SMUGGLE the ZIF processor because I could not find it here anywhere.

My first Mac (I was 9 years old) was an SE that was also smuggled by my grandfather back in 1987. he payed more than 5000 dollars for it....

if apple realized that putting a mac here at the same price it puts it in the US would open a very unexplored territory here (and in many other countries in similar situation) I think a big sales boost would be seen


----------



## solrac (Jan 21, 2003)

wow that's crazy. There must be some reason apple hasn't hit the south american market correctly.

As for software costs, I meant that once a version is released, that version is pure profit. Bug fixes and developers are costs associated with making a new version.

Tech support is not a software cost. That is a customer support cost.

Smuggling mac stuff to argentina is super cool in my book! :-D :-D (Although low salaries are not cool)


----------



## Cat (Jan 21, 2003)

The whole debate about the MHz Myth should take two issues into account:

1) What do you need to do with your computer?
2) What do you want to spend?

There are loads of people who don't need more MHz. Everything is working quite fine, thank you. To them (mostly consumers) the debate is completely uninteresting.

If I don't have the money, I don't really have a choice. If can only affoord a $ 400, - computer, I cannot buy a (new) Mac, but must look into PC's.

The point of "a $399,- Dell beats a $ 3000,- PowerMac" is a bit beside the point, if you get my point.

The MHz myth is not "MHz are not important" but "MHz are not all-important".

There are loads of things the $ 3000,- PM can do which the Dell can't, so they cannot really be compared.

Macs aren't cheap, but you definitely get something for your money's worth. Maybe not MHz, but design, innovation, connectivity, the Brand, style etc. 

Judging a computer only by the MHz is like judging a car only by the maximum speed listed on the speed-dial.

P.S. Note that this debate is not about which OS feels "snappier". MHz is about hardware. besides MHz also the FSB, the different cache's, type of RAM etc. etc. etc. should be considered before deciding which OS runs faster on which hardware. Just wanted to point that out, again...


----------



## solrac (Jan 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *
> 
> Judging a computer only by the MHz is like judging a car only by the maximum speed listed on the speed-dial.
> ...



Actually, it's more like judging a car by its 0-60 time.

Which is the main selling point of fast cars.

Which mhz is also the main selling point of PCs. Although consumers don't need crap of mhz to send emails and surf the web, that's all they see when they go to the store, and that's how they make their buying decision.

Apple has great ads that say "everything is easier on a mac", but those ads need to say that "everything feels just as fast on a mac even though the megahertz is slower".

But the whole mhz argument is primarily for pro-users, like me. (I do a lot of photoshop, web design, programming, flash, and video.)


----------



## Cat (Jan 22, 2003)

> Actually, it's more like judging a car by its 0-60 time.
> Which is the main selling point of fast cars.



You're probably right there... but my point is that the average consumers doesn't want the fastest car on the block, but simply get to work, do shopping, pick up the kids from school... so he will look too whether it's comfy, has a good radio/cd player & boxes, what the looks are etc... so MHz are important but not all-important.



> But the whole mhz argument is primarily for pro-users, like me. (I do a lot of photoshop, web design, programming, flash, and video.)



I couldn't agree more!  And this is precisely why you couldn't / wouldn't use the $ 400,- Dell, because beside the highest MHz, you need good display capabilities (video card & screen), a lot of HD space, quite some RAM etc. All these features will raise the price of the Dell to the level of a PowerMac, IF they can be built into it at all. 

So what you need is a quad 6 GHz G5 Tower!    (Don't we all ...?)

Is someone (besides M$ users) still actually believing the MHz Myth, or are we preaching to the converted here?


----------



## solrac (Jan 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *I couldn't agree more!  And this is precisely why you couldn't / wouldn't use the $ 400,- Dell, because beside the highest MHz, you need good display capabilities (video card & screen), a lot of HD space, quite some RAM etc. All these features will raise the price of the Dell to the level of a PowerMac, IF they can be built into it at all. *



But that's precisely wrong!!!

If you add a bigger hard drive, video card, and good monitor, it goes way higher than $400, but still WAYYYY lower than a power mac.

I built a 1.8 ghz celeron computer, with GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video card, and a used but great LCD screen, with 100 GB hard drive .... all for $700!!

I got some really good deals, but the same could easily be built for $1000 without ANY price cuts.

A powermac with those features start closer to $2000.

Really the only thing better about a mac is OS X, and the design of the hardware, and the overall quality of software on OS X.

Apple doesn't really have anything better hardware wise. That's why I hope to see apple become a software company one day, not mainly a hardware company. I hope they always offer awesome hardware and cool computers, but I want to see their main revenue be software sales, and their smaller revenue being hardware. This will happen when apple gains more marketshare.

But today, everything that makes apple special is software. If OS X never came out I would've ditched mac a long time ago. The only thing that kept me on the mac was Mac OS X public beta. And OS X was not a viable option for over a year, and I stayed just because of it.

There's no other reason to own a mac other than OS X. (Unless you're rich and you really don't care.)


----------



## Cat (Jan 22, 2003)

> I built a 1.8 ghz celeron computer, with GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video card, and a used but great LCD screen, with 100 GB hard drive .... all for $700!!


But is this the computer you use for work or privately (gaming, etc.)?

Whereas I do not contend the dual 1.25 is slower that the fastest P4, I think it is faster  than a celeron 1.8 GHz.
I cannot compare second-hand / refurbished / older computers and parts to a new system, but did those $ 700,- buy you really something so close to this:

Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX

This is all new for $ 1600,- . Go to Dell's site, build something as close as you can get (no duals) and watch the price soar. OK: PM's are overpriced and too slow, but I do think they can beat what you described above, and not just MHz wise, so the comparison isn't exactly fair. Again, take into account what you do with your Mac and what you do with your PC. Then look at how much you can / want to spend. If you cannot spend the $ 1600,- for a PM, buy an iMac/iBook/eMac or a Dell. But you cannot complain that there exist computers that are cheaper without looking at what you can/cannot do with them. You always pay for what you could do with a computer: the PM can host 4 120 GB drives. You pay for this kind of thing even if you don't use it.



> Really the only thing better about a mac is OS X, and the design of the hardware, and the overall quality of software on OS X.



This should be a great incentive to spend a bit more on your Mac and would account for the higher price. IMHO Apple makes great hardware too: not only the 12" and 17" PB's, but also the fruity iMacs and the FP iMacs.

Still, we all could use the 970@1.8 GHz to make us feel a bit more comfortable with the prices we pay for our Macs...


----------



## solrac (Jan 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
> 133MHz System Bus
> 256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
> ...



Forget buying new. The one fact that you can build a used computer in the windows world is what makes apple such a small market share. People who don't have a lot of money are the GREAT GREAT GREAT majority in this world.

Forget the mhz and system bus. The PCs are way faster as is, and the macs faster system bus is not gonna help.

Basically, my thing is:
684 MB SDRAM (DDR Ram would've been a couple hundred bucks more, including the motherboard)
100 GB HD
Combo Drive would've been a couple hundred more, or less.
I have an Nvidia GeForce Ti 4200, way better than MX.

So, for $400 more I could've got the DDR ram (which works twice as fast in intel architecture than currrently in mac architecture), and also the combo drive. Making my purchase $1100 - $1300, depending on deals.

But if you buy a mac, your generally stuck with your configuration. Although it's not so true anymore if you get a tower. You can switch out HDs, Video card, RAM, most anything.

The mac just plain needs to go twice as fast or more. Then it will start to make real sense to get an apple.


----------



## fryke (Jan 22, 2003)

It makes real sense to get an Apple already. At least to me. TiBook: Power, Battery life, Ease of Use, I Can Work With It. OtherBook: Speed, Windows. I choose the Mac of them.


----------



## solrac (Jan 22, 2003)

it makes sense to get an apple for me too, just because os x is so much better, and the powerbooks are so much better.

BUt I'm talking about making sense to the mass market, the general public who doesn't really care about anything but price / performance.


----------



## Cat (Jan 23, 2003)

Price / performance is mostly focused on hardware features like MHz, hence the MHz Myth, while it should be also concerned about software features.
The fact I can run OS X  on my hardware is something I am willing to pay for and account for in the price / performance calculation.

Software features as OS X enhance the machine: stability, optimal combination between intuitively easy-to-understand GUI and maximum control through Terminal/Unix Underneath (Instead of Intel Inside Appl ecould make an ad with "UNIX Underneath" ...)

This can account for a few hundred $ IMHO. OK we're still not there with the price. Moreover there are such things as second hand Macs, so there are cheap Macs. The fruity iMacs still sell in the second hand market for  400,- to  600,-. Take  = $ for sake of simplicity, and voilá: cheap Macs. 

The masses won't buy a PowerMac anyhow .... abd that's why Apple has separate consumer / professional lines. In price / performance, nothing out there beats the iBook!


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *But is this the computer you use for work or privately (gaming, etc.)?
> Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
> 133MHz System Bus
> ...



From Dell.com:

2.4 GHz P4
256 MB DDR RAM
533MHz FSB
17" CRT Monitor
NVIDIA GeForce MX 64 MB
60GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
48x /24x/40x Max CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive

Price: $1,188, Note that this includes a 17" CRT monitor.


----------



## Cat (Jan 23, 2003)

Thanks GulGnu! You have proven my points exactly. 

$ 1,188 is almost _three times_ the price we were talking about in the beginning ("A $ 399,- Dell beats a $ 3k PM").

Yes the Dell is cheaper and probably equally fast. Nonetheless I repeat that they differ a lot in features, both hardware and software, which has to be taken into account.

Moreover for work I would never depend on a second-hand custum built computer (unless spending a lot of time in checking whether everyting is compatible, if it is supported by the OS, etc.). I don't think I can get AppleCare on a second-hand custom built Mac ... 

The 'power'Macs (as they are beginning to be called) are probably Apple's worst product at the moment. So whereas it is correct to point this out and hope for improvements, bashing them into the ground is pointless. Taking them as a representative of overall Apple products is unfair. I think a comparison between the iMac and the Dell would be better, even if the iMac too is nearly due for an update.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *From Dell.com:
> 
> 2.4 GHz P4
> ...



Now, add to the above stuff the following:
-2xFirewire
-64bit PCI slots
-DVI output
-Support for 4 internal Hard Disks
-Apple pro speakers mini-jack
-An awesome designed mini tower box which opens with just a simple trick
-Mac OS X.x.x with its iApps and ANY other possible Apple software one might need 

Oh, and that 17" monitor is just a plain CRT stuff... I would never buy such a basic stuff! I would go for the best 17" money can buy instead because computers can change a lot easier than monitors... 

Now, check again those prices with the above stuff and let us know which one is actually cheaper...

PS. What is the installed OS in that Dull system? My guess is that el cheapo, el crapo XP Home    However, I really hope that I'm wrong on this one because then you have to add to the price the Windows XP Pro version which is closer to OS X.x.x features...


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 23, 2003)

"Now, add to the above stuff the following: 
-2xFirewire 
-64bit PCI slots 
-DVI output 
-Support for 4 internal Hard Disks 
-Apple pro speakers mini-jack 
-An awesome designed mini tower box which opens with just a simple trick 
-Mac OS X.x.x with its iApps and ANY other possible Apple software one might need"  

True, didn't notice there was a no monitor option - that's why I went with the 17 CRT =P Reconfigured w/o monitor and Win XP Pro, the whole thing sells for $1,089.00$. The GeForce MX in the Dell has 64 megs of VRAM though, compared to the 32 in the PowerMac, and you get a couple of speakers and a subwoofer with the Dell, as well as assorted productivity software. If you want 2xFirewire + USB 1.0 or 8x USB 2.0, well, not a big diff in speed between Firewire 1 and USB 2.0, and the Dell packs more ports... Now, I could probably shave the processor down to 2 GHz without pushing it when compared to the 2X867 MHz of the Mac.

Bottom line? I'd like for Apple to shave PowerMac prices, or give em a decent upgrade =P

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## stealth (Jan 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *...not a big diff in speed between Firewire 1 and USB 2.0, ...! *



well. instantaneously the usb 2 might be faster.
but i u transfer a 2 GB file using usb2 and firewire 1.. ull find that firewire1 is TWICE AS FAST.
now imagine when firewire 2 comes  into powermacs


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *True, didn't notice there was a no monitor option - that's why I went with the 17 CRT =P Reconfigured w/o monitor and Win XP Pro, the whole thing sells for $1,089.00$. The GeForce MX in the Dell has 64 megs of VRAM though, compared to the 32 in the PowerMac, and you get a couple of speakers and a subwoofer with the Dell, as well as assorted productivity software. If you want 2xFirewire + USB 1.0 or 8x USB 2.0, well, not a big diff in speed between Firewire 1 and USB 2.0, and the Dell packs more ports... Now, I could probably shave the processor down to 2 GHz without pushing it when compared to the 2X867 MHz of the Mac.
> 
> Bottom line? I'd like for Apple to shave PowerMac prices, or give em a decent upgrade =P
> ...



-Still the Dull has NO 64 bit PCI slots
-No Firewire ports (as for USB2 I think that it is a 6x USB2 ports but anyways the problem is that if one cares about Firewire to use for DV, iPod, etc. he/she MUST add to the cost of the Dull the Firewire ports, so you see it is not really which is faster or which you prefer... Also, the USB1 ports on the PowerMac are 4 (2 box/2 keyboard)
-While in the keyboard area, don't even compare the quality of PowerMac's keyboard VS the Dull's... Dull's is el cheapo to say the the least
-No built-in Wireless network for Dull
-No space inside the box to go with 4 internal hard disks
-No matter how much video ram the Dull's graphics have, still cannot offer basic dual monitor support (DVI is out of the question too)
-Also, NO MATTER how fast the single P4 system can be, when you will load apps and stuff it will not be able to multitask as good as the Dual G4...
-The Dull has 10/100 network while PowerMac has 10/100/1000
-The awesome mini tower of the PowerMac cannot be touched by the poorly-designed Dull's box... And no I'm not talking about the outside but the inside as well: Opening the box, install/uninstall ANYTHING you want is a snap!
-The Dull cannot have what Macs can have: OS X.x.x, its iApps and in general the quality in every single area...

I don't know about you guys but quality to me matters... That's why I use a Plextor CD-RW and not that HowWasThatBrandsNameOfYours?


----------



## solrac (Jan 24, 2003)

Hulkaros, still with everything you say, an equally equipped Dell (for the most part) is much cheaper than a mac.

What you prove though, is that Apple still has enough awesome stuff to very well sell a powermac over a Dell. You'd be a great apple salesman! But you cannot deny that we pay a premium for apple.

I'm about to pay a big premium getting that 17" laptop!!!! (I'm still aching about giving up $3200 + tax very soon!!)


----------



## GulGnu (Jan 24, 2003)

Just a couple of comments...

"-No Firewire ports (as for USB2 I think that it is a 6x USB2 ports but anyways the problem is that if one cares about Firewire to use for DV, iPod, etc. he/she MUST add to the cost of the Dull the Firewire ports, so you see it is not really which is faster or which you prefer... Also, the USB1 ports on the PowerMac are 4 (2 box/2 keyboard)"

True, if you use Firewire for something, splash on another 20 bucks for a Firewire card. And it's 8 ports, 2 front, 6 back.

"-No built-in Wireless network for Dull"

Erm, no airport for the Mac either, unless you add on the price of an airport card... (Not included)

"-No matter how much video ram the Dull's graphics have, still cannot offer basic dual monitor support"

? The GeForce MX certainly supports dual monitors. As for the VRAM, the 32 MB model of the MX isn't even listed on Nvidia's product page - where do they dig that stuff up? It sure shouldn't be in a pro machine for chrissakes! Apple should stop being cheapos and at least start putting the 64 MB version in as standard. 

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## Cat (Jan 24, 2003)

In the end I think we can all agree to this: 
"An equally equipped Dell is cheaper than a 'power'Mac, but Apple still has enough awesome stuff (HW features like Hulkaros said, OS X & iApps, quality & design) to sell a 'power'Mac over a Dell, even if the 'power'Mac is overpriced"

... and so they lived happily on for ever after!


----------



## stealth (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *...You'd be a great apple salesman!... *



he he he

actually the hulk does sell apple computers here in Greece. and hes damn good at it ... but
can get rather annoyin sumtimez hes shows so much hate towards MS and PCs in general (i dont know why...????all of us here. wel lovem) ..he he he


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *
> Erm, no airport for the Mac either, unless you add on the price of an airport card... (Not included)
> 
> ...


All current Macs have built-in Airport antennas and a spot for the Airport Card. I doubt the Dull has such already-there support for wireless networking; the best it can do is either an external device through ethernet (I assume that Dulls currently come with ethernet standard, but probably not g-bit) or an internal PCI-slot-style setup. 
As far as the graphics card is concerned, why would Apple have the 64 Meg GeForce card and a 64 Meg ATI? Nobody would get the ATI, even though it is probably better in other ways than the GeForce MX. The idea, I think, is to have tiers of performance. Since Apple only has 2 brands of Graphics Cards, and they have 4 configurations, they decided to have 3 Graphics memory Tiers to go along with it. That way they can better justify the price difference, and make it easier to choose a system rather than saying "well, that one's only a couple hundred more, maybe I should go with the better machine, but is it really that much better?" This way, it is clear that each machine is better than the last simply from the price, and they need the features to back that up.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *Hulkaros, still with everything you say, an equally equipped Dell (for the most part) is much cheaper than a mac.
> 
> What you prove though, is that Apple still has enough awesome stuff to very well sell a powermac over a Dell. You'd be a great apple salesman! But you cannot deny that we pay a premium for apple.
> ...



Well, yes we pay some more for Macs but isn't the same with electronic products out there? For example I can buy an uknown TV out there but I'm sure that I would not get the quality of Sony, Philips, et al now, would I?

The same holds true with other Wintel companies... You can go on and buy a Dull but for sure you don't get the quality that you can get by building a custom PC with high quality parts (a tower box for example with 400 Watt power suply with fans for air flow and shield for radio waves, etc).

Maybe Dull sells a lot but am I the only one who sees cheap quality at their parts? Even the high end desktop/consumer boxes aren't THAT good...

Solrac, I hope that you will enjoy your 17" PB as much as possible but something tells me that you will ANYWAYS


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Just a couple of comments...
> 
> True, if you use Firewire for something, splash on another 20 bucks for a Firewire card. And it's 8 ports, 2 front, 6 back.
> ...



I think that Sheepguy42 said some nice things but I would also like to fill in some facts...

What I meant about the built-in wireless support is that it is there and if you want you just install an Airport and that's all... While on the Dull you don't have such a built-in capability.

As for Firewire it isn't a matter of JUST add a Firewire card and I think that anyone out there who tried it (especially with different Windows versions) he/she knows already that it isn't THAT easy and/or compatible with apps and hardware in general while on the Mac you just plug a firewire device and play with it  Also, MANY tech persons out there fail to mention to a possible USB2 consumer that the USB2 is actually slower than Firewire400 while one connects to his/her computer more than one devices to it 

As for Geforce MX on Dull you get a plain VGA output (no DVI connector) and just a TV out (no actual dual monitor use... While on the Mac I can connect a 17" Apple Display and any other >15" DVI monitor out there and have a real dual display capabily (mirroring & extended desktop). Once you use such a config you will ask to yourself how come and you didn't had this trick before? And you know why? Because you didn't have a PowerMac before and you got yourself a Dull, that's why (I'm talking in general here and not actually YOU  )... As for video RAM 32MB versus 64MB: You know what? Customize you PowerMac for 64MB  But then again have you used a Dual PowerMac and found it slow in graphics? Maybe in games but then again why did you buy a Mac for games? He, he!

As for all the previous things that I mentioned that the Dull lacks? Can you actually buy them? And if you do: How much money would you pay for them? For example if you want more than 2 hard disks you cannot have it with Dull... You MUST buy another box: So no Dull for this, too! You know what? I think in the end the Dual G4/867 is A LOT cheaper than the Dull wither we like to admit it or not...

Now, if ANYONE don't want or need to pay for things that the PMac has already simply because they are more than one will ever use it is actually simple: Buy an iMac, a PowerBook, an eMac, an iBook but hey don't you buy a Wintel... And if you do, don't say I didn't warn you for future harm in your peace of mind AND pocket


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *he he he
> 
> actually the hulk does sell apple computers here in Greece. and hes damn good at it ... but
> can get rather annoyin sumtimez hes shows so much hate towards MS and PCs in general (i dont know why...????all of us here. wel lovem) ..he he he  *



Hulkaros will smash puny Stealth once and for all...

Back to human form: I know that my alter ego isn't THAT smart but hey, what's your excuse Stealth?   

How come and you tell to people that I show hate towards the Dark Side? I LOVE the Dark Side... If it wasn't the Dark Side I wouldn't know if I'm Jedi or Sith! So, you see, I actually want them to exist! Well, this and also the fact thay they help me with their problematic nature of their products buy those sweet Apple products! 

Note to new people of this forum: I work as a PC/Mac tech person and guess what? I earn 70%-80% of my money by fixing problematic products coming from the Dark Side... And not the other 20%-30% isn't from the Mac Side (I work as a computer teacher as well but unfortunately not in a Mac school  ) only!

Anyways, I like the Dark Side...  because they help me live in the Mac Side of the Force


----------



## stealth (Jan 24, 2003)

stealth will kick ur ass. 
i am the ONE .
im better than onslaught or apocalypse u loser!!!
im better than Neo or YuLaw.  
im better than Yoda and Anakin.
  and im gettin a PowerBook.
get ready u loser


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stealth _
> *stealth will kick ur ass.
> i am the ONE .
> im better than onslaught or apocalypse u loser!!!
> ...



-Stealth... Kick your ass because mine is too strong for you...
-You are the ONE who will lose a fight against Hulkaros with only a punch 
-Probably you don't know know that Apocalypse could not even touch Onslaught... As for Onslaught guess who beat the crap out of him? Yep! Me, the old mean, green, fighting machine...
-Neo and YuLaw together can pick a fight... With R2D2 from Star Wars and then again guess what? They will lose the fight because R2D2 is smarter than both of them 
-Yoda and Anakin don't even live while I enjoy beating losers such as yourself
-Guess what? I'm having already a great PowerBook
-I'm always ready! Are you?


----------



## stealth (Jan 24, 2003)

i dont even touch PCs anymore  ha ha ha
so IM THE WINNER


----------



## edX (Jan 24, 2003)

take it outside guys. i'm assuming you 2 are friends. if so, this is more appropriate for private communication. if not, it's not appropriate at all.


----------



## stealth (Jan 24, 2003)

hahahahha . sorry ed. its just that hulks low iq . and my brain damage (due to air pollution). can lead to such childish posts


----------



## solrac (Jan 25, 2003)

beware... EACH AND EVERY LAST FINAL POST IS MODERATED!!!!!


----------



## edX (Jan 25, 2003)

duh


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Just a couple of comments...
> The GeForce MX certainly supports dual monitors. As for the VRAM, the 32 MB model of the MX isn't even listed on Nvidia's product page - where do they dig that stuff up? It sure shouldn't be in a pro machine for chrissakes! Apple should stop being cheapos and at least start putting the 64 MB version in as standard.
> 
> ...



Are you certain about your certainty regarding the certain support of dual monitors for certain Dell workstations?  I certainly wouldn't attach the word certain to any less-than-certain statement which would certainly jeopardize my trustworthiness if I happend to be certainly wrong.  Then again, that's certainly just my opinion.

In my opinion, however, you should certainly check out the Dell webpage and see for yourself that Dell's GeForce MX certainly _does not_ support dual displays:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/learnmore/learnmore_gfx_cards_trans_desktops_popup_dimen.htm?ref=CFG
 

Geez!  I don't know where in the beejeebees Dell pulls this junk out of the gutter!  _No_ DVI and _no_ dual monitor support????  And NVidia's webpage even says the MX has multi-monitor support!  What is this, land-o-trash and dullness??

I'm just playing wit' ya with all the sarcasm & etc., of course.   But I'm pretty sure everything I said is true -- check it out for yourself to see.  Of course, I _certainly_ could be wrong.  

Nvidia's page doesn't talk about specs for specific card models, as far as I can see.  Remember -- they supply a lot of chips & etc. for 3rd parties who make their own cards.  What they do talk about on their product page for the MX (http://nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforce4mx) are the potential capabilities of how different Nvidia processors and their chipsets can be implemented according to the card makers' desires.  Nvidia's page clearly states:  *Maximum* Memory:  64MB.  Whether 32MB is really enough is another topic altogether, and the statement _"the 32 MB model of the MX isn't even listed on Nvidia's product page - where do they dig that stuff up?"_ isn't accurate at all.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 26, 2003)

Here's what I came up with configuring a _2.0_GHz P4 from Dell's site:
(or check out the screenshot here:  http://homepage.mac.com/jeb1138/.Pictures/DellP4.jpg)
- P4 2.0GHz, 400MHz FSB, 512K L2 Cache, No L3 Cache.
- 256MB DDR SDRAM
- No Monitor
- 64 MB DDR Nvidia GeForce4 MX, TV-out, no DVI, no Dual-monitor
- 60 GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM HD
- WinXP Professional
- Optical Mouse (2 buttons!  )
- 10/100 Ethernet
- 32/10/40 Combo Drive
- Integrated Audio
- 2 speakers
- WordPerfect Productivity Pack w/ Quicken New User Edition
- Dell Jukebox Premium
- Dell Picture Studio, Image Exper Premium
- 1 Year Limited Warranty + 1 year at-home service
- 6 months AOL (Yee-hah!!! )
- Belkin Surgemaster
- Dell Movie Studio Plus

Then throw in $60 for a good-priced decent Gigabit Ethernet card (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/3052919) for your professional work environment and $40 for a good-priced decent Firewire card (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/2854614) so you can make cute, priceless and worthless() videos of last year's summer vacation and have fast external hard drives.

*TOTAL PRICE:  $1467*

Now if you add in a wireless PCI card (but not into the price total since it would cost around what an Airport card would cost) you realize that suddenly you've eaten up 3 of your expansion slots to get even with the Mac.

$1467 is definitely close enough to the $1699 for the dual 867 to make me get the dual 867.  I mean, all factors included -- like the dual 867 is a Mac and runs OS X  -- I would definitely go for the Mac.

And finally remember that you are comparing a Mac to the low-price leader (Dell) of computers.  That's not an excuse for Apple to charge more, but remember that Apple would probably do even better compared to a Gateway or HP.  Anybody care to try it out?  I'm too tired right now.

Yeah, I still think Apple *really* needs to get on the speedbump wagon in their _pro desktop_ line and really hope they are doing something about that, but still, the price/performance gap isn't 'deadly' now.  Ummm...well...hopefully not at least.


----------



## fryke (Jan 26, 2003)

Also, a P4 2.0 GHz is kind of an old machine. 

I'm a bit tired of this age-old debate now. I've long come to the conclusion that, maybe sadly, I can't really work with a Windows PC. I'm faster with a Mac, even with my eons-old TiBook 500. The PC could come for free and have an 8 GHz processor, and I would take it and use it for DivX and Games (although I don't play games, but what the heck, if it's free...), but I'd still replace my PowerBook with a PowerBook.


----------



## solrac (Jan 26, 2003)

That's what I feel too. My powerbook G4 400 (Which i just sold to help me get the 17 inch powerbook in March) is WAY slower than my PC.

If anyone remembers, I bought a $600 PC (with hookups / deals) which is a 1.8 ghz Celeron with GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64 MB card, and 684 MB of RAM.) I use this PC to view flash sites, test web sites on PC, and play Counterstrike (plus other games), which are the only 3 things I can't do on mac.

However, I don't care about that.  There's only ONE  REAL way that the PC is better than my mac. It's WAY faster / snappier.

Opening windows (especially the layer effects window in photoshop) is ALWAYS instantaneous on the PC.

On the mac, it takes like 2 - 3 seconds to open that window. (And several other areas in several programs where the mac is always slower)

However, I still get more done on the mac. It's just easier to use. And on top of that, the extreme snappiness of the OS in windows screws me up all the time. Like I'll click a close button and if I release the mouse to fast, the close button will depress and un-depress, but the window won't close. And a jerky movement can always happen and close the wrong window, and stuff. That stuff NEVER happens on mac os x.

Rootless windows rule on mac os x. (If you don't know what that is, do a search or something.)  It's basically where: you can see the desktop behind photoshop, if your in photoshop.

And there's nothing like column view on the PC. Column view is the ONE thing Apple came up with that truly beats the PC. It's the one thing the PC has in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Maybe there's a 3rd party app that lets you do something similar on PC, but that means millions of people just don't know about it.

And the OS is just so much more beatiful. Everything's so smooth, and I NEVER see redraw problems on mac. On PC, if an application is going slow, like an explorer window, you'll see the desktop behind it INSIDE the window while it waits to redraw the window. That kind of stuff never happens on mac. Everything's so smooth and silky on mac, windows can't TOUCH it. Especially the dock.

And Mac os X handles application crashes better. An app is stuck thinking or crashed? just move the mouse anywhere else, like click on the desktop, and your INSTANTLY back to work, every time. Windows 2000 is only that good like 60% of the time. Sometimes an "End Task" message in windows can make the WHOLE system wait for a while. This NEVER happens on OS X.

Basically mac os x wins because of:
- Column view
- Extreme smoothness / silkiness
- Dock
- rock hard stability
- smoother and more consistent user interface (although slower, as used on a 400 mhz G4, probably the 1 Ghz is WAY better, with quartz extreme enabled!)
- no jerkiness / redraw problems
- better hardware (expect of course CPU speed, PC has that these days.)
- Mulititasking is much better. Music will never skip if I'm doing a photoshop filter, and  5 other things, all at the same time, for example. On Win2000, it probably will skip....

also, optical mice are smoother on OS X!! I can use the SAME optical USB Microsoft mouse on my OS X and on my windows 2000. I'm using it on a grainy wood desk, with many grain patterns.

On windows 2000, I HAVE to use a solid colored mouse pad, or the mouse movement will be SUPER squirrelly and jerky, like UNUSABLE. On mac os x, I don't need a mouse pad. The wood grain works just fine. Amazing, huh???

So I do need my PC. Flash player works 20 x better on PC, and it has lots of good games these days, and it is faster hardware so if a encode a DivX or something like that it's useful), and the OS is much faster (but harder to use).

Soon the mac will have the same library of games as the PC, the OS will be just as fast (almsot is already, if you have a new mac with quartz extreme), the search feature now works faster in Jaguar than the PC, and hopefully macromedia keeps improving flash player for mac.

At that point, PCs will have absolutely no use to me. I'll just get Virtual PC for mac to test web sites on PC.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 26, 2003)

"And Mac os X handles application crashes better. An app is stuck thinking or crashed? just move the mouse anywhere else, like click on the desktop, and your INSTANTLY back to work, every time. Windows 2000 is only that good like 60% of the time. Sometimes an "End Task" message in windows can make the WHOLE system wait for a while. This NEVER happens on OS X."

I was deleting the other day some files (2-3 GBs total) in an Athlon XP 2000, Windows 2000 Pro, 1GB ram, 2x60GB 7200 hard disks, Yamaha 44x CD-RW, SB Live, GeForce 4MX, etc, and for some seconds after the delete action the particular window I had open it freezed!!! I tried to hit the Start button and other areas of the screen but nothing! And this happened for at least 10 seconds... After that the system came back to life and opened the Start menu and other things that I clicked on and a window hell got loose  After, I closed them and continue to delete other files as well... The same thing happened but this time the Start button opened and THEN the system freezed  for many seconds again...

"Mulititasking is much better. Music will never skip if I'm doing a photoshop filter, and  5 other things, all at the same time, for example. On Win2000, it probably will skip...."

Yep, it will skip and if not it will freeze for some seconds 

"So I do need my PC. Flash player works 20 x better on PC, and it has lots of good games these days, and it is faster hardware so if a encode a DivX or something like that it's useful), and the OS is much faster (but harder to use)."

I thought a month ago too that the PC had the Mac in DivX but guess what? With Mencoder and FFmpeg the Mac after all may be better!!! In a PowerMac G4/933 I created many Divx files with bitrates at least 1600 and MP3 quality above 160, with movies as long as 2+ hours in 4 hours ONLY (including subtitles and everything  ) Give those apps a shot 

"Soon the mac will have the same library of games as the PC, the OS will be just as fast (almsot is already, if you have a new mac with quartz extreme), the search feature now works faster in Jaguar than the PC, and hopefully macromedia keeps improving flash player for mac."

Believe me: a GHz G4 is a BIG difference 

"At that point, PCs will have absolutely no use to me. I'll just get Virtual PC for mac to test web sites on PC."

No way! PCs will always have a use for something... Be it recycling, making jokes, calming you down (by beating the box or something), solitaire, crash dummy (I insisted in my friends at Fiat to use Wintels at crash sites for the cars  ), upgrading always to a faster exploding bomb device...

You know what guys? When a possible customer comes to buy a computer I show them a Mac... They like it a lot. But they love it when they see a PC next to it! Even the ones that they know Wintels inside out!!!  I said before and I will say it again... A Mac makes the Wintels guys make faces that I never thought were possible for our human race!


----------



## Cat (Jan 26, 2003)

Solrac wrote:


> Basically mac os x wins because of:
> - Column view
> - Extreme smoothness / silkiness
> - Dock
> ...


You forgot the Terminal! Unix Underneath! 

Don't tell me ... WinXP has DOS emulation?  LOL 

Ooops, this thread is turning into a Mac OS / Windoze debate again ...

Fryke wrote:


> The PC could come for free and have an 8 GHz processor, and I would take it and use it for DivX and Games (although I don't play games, but what the heck, if it's free...), but I'd still replace my PowerBook with a PowerBook.


You can say that again! ... Wait I just did it for you!  

Jeb1138 wrote:


> $1467 is definitely close enough to the $1699 for the dual 867 to make me get the dual 867. I mean, all factors included -- like the dual 867 is a Mac and runs OS X  -- I would definitely go for the Mac.


That quite settles it IMO. Let's say the Mac and the Dell play even (hardwarewise), but we (as Mac supporters) think the Mac has gotten a moral victory because of the OS.


----------



## solrac (Jan 26, 2003)

Yes, of course... on top of EVERYTHING I said, add that OS X is a UNIX system and can run UNIX apps. And now with Apple's X11 beta (www.apple.com/macosx/x11), it's now even easier and more optimized to use X11 UNIX apps on mac os x. Before, I never had enough time to figure out how to install xfree86, and I could never run GIMP and GRASS, and OpenOffice.org, and all those UNIX programs, but now with Apple's X11 beta its super easy, and I have all those apps running.

By embracing open standards and using winning technology (UNIX), and adding to it good graphics, interface, and software, Apple has finally made a genius move.

While not licensing Mac OS to OEM computer manufacturers in the early 90s may be the worst technology decision in history, made by Apple, moving to a completely brand new OS run by UNIX may be the smartest technology move ever.

Mac OS X is worth a lot more than $130. If you figure the more expensive Apple hardware into the cost of OS X, then, even calling OS X a $400 or $500 additional cost it is still well worth it.

But there is one thing better about PCs still. They get all the new drivers faster. Like cell phone connectivity. You can use cell phones to connect a computer to the internet, but Mac can't really do it. Sprint, Motorola, AT&T, etc. haven't really released any drivers for os x to do this stuff, for example.

So whenever new technology comes out, mac might not have a way.... this is the only reason one of my friends won't get mac. And then I tell him "I'm sure there's a way to get a cell phone connecting a mac to the Internet... you just gotta look for it", but he doesn't have enough time for all that.


----------



## Cat (Jan 26, 2003)

> But there is one thing better about PCs still. They get all the new drivers faster.


That is indeed the case, but (considering drivers) it's not really something the peecees have intrinsically as bonus (hardwarewise), but mainly due to the marketshare of ~95% that windoze has. Same argument for games. It is OS related, not hardware related.

However, there are ways in this particular case, which you could suggest to your friend:

http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=17852

Moreover, very very often it is just the Mac who innovates, leaving other hardware developers lagging behind. With some innovations Apple is simply lonely at the top for some time, while others catch up. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage, which comes with every innovation: you're the first, but also the only one.


----------



## solrac (Jan 26, 2003)

wow, cool. Someone always has a way for mac


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jan 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *Basically mac os x wins because of:
> - Column view
> - Extreme smoothness / silkiness
> ...


Sort of along the line of Column View, don't forget the ability (in icon view) for Icon names to have a subtitle of, for example, # of items in the folder; pixel dimensions of the picture; remaining and used space on the disc or drive; and others I think. Also, the most uncelebrated feature: Services!


----------



## JetwingX (Jan 28, 2003)

i think this is the bigest news/rumors thread! (nice job lol)


----------



## solrac (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> * Also, the most uncelebrated feature: Services! *



No one understands services, not even mac experts like me. Plus, I've never ever never ever used ONE service since day one of mac os x public beta........


----------



## fryke (Jan 28, 2003)

Hmm... Might be because I've used Rhapsody for a while, but I love Services. I frequently use them to look up a selected URL (in a text file) and to define a selected word in OmniDictionary.

And what's there to understand? 

Every application in /Applications propagates its services (if it wants to) in Services. It's mainly about selecting some text and handing the selection over to another application. Yes, you can also copy the selection, switch to the respective app, paste it and click 'do' (or whatever the app wants), but the Services menu and the Services' keyboard shortcuts are plain faster.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 28, 2003)

Like fryke, I've been using Services for a long time. But then again, I'm more likely to be using Cocoa apps which are more likely to support Services.

The point behind Services is that instead of having one application with tons of features that it may or may not specialize in, you could get a group of smaller apps that each have their own special feature that they share with other apps. I don't realy expect Apple to start to push Services until Carbon apps have an equal footing in this area in Mac OS X... hopefully that should be soon.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 28, 2003)

Any way to make the services menu appear in the right-click menus?


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *Any way to make the services menu appear in the right-click menus? *



VERY interesting question! But then again I don't even have a mouse 

Hmm.. I'll try and see what gives 

Also, on the subject of services, I think that also the Speech is one other thing that is extra cool... You can go across the room and have the app read the selected text for you! Awesome...

In general Services are great and I hate to see only the Cocoa apps using them 

I like in general the stickies, textedit, speech, mail, open url, finder services but I never use the grab and summarize services... However, I use Services a lot, especially when I'm online


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 28, 2003)

Great, thanks Hulkaros!  Please let us know if you come up with anything!   I think services would get a lot more use if they were right there in the right-click menu.  I mean, when you select text and want to do something with it you often control-click to do stuff, right?

BTW -- you don't have a MOUSE??


----------



## MacLegacy (Jan 28, 2003)

How does the services menu work and what does it do? (I don't have OS X (yet))


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *Great, thanks Hulkaros!  Please let us know if you come up with anything!   I think services would get a lot more use if they were right there in the right-click menu.  I mean, when you select text and want to do something with it you often control-click to do stuff, right?
> 
> BTW -- you don't have a MOUSE??  *



A new powerbook and I'm using the pad 

Anyways, we have at our company and I'll give a shot to the right-click thing ASAP


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacLegacy _
> *How does the services menu work and what does it do? (I don't have OS X (yet)) *



...Services is an option that you find when you click next to the Apple menu where you find the application menu in OS X...

When you click at Services you get other options but take note: In order for those extra options to be enabled mostly you have to have a text selected first...

Example follows:
-I read something at www.macosx.com that I like. So I select the text that I like!
-I click at the Safari menu
-Select Services
-Select Mail
-Select Send Selection To
-Click there

Mail.app opens for me with the selected text, I type the person's email and then click Send... 

So, without first selecting text then copying it then opening mail then compose then paste text then then then... With couple clicks my job is done via Services!

Also, I type at any app "applications" (for example) select it and then choose Finder then Open and the Applications folder opens up... I know not a great example but you get it! 

The same with other Services  They let you do things the quick and easy way...

Unfortunately only a handful of Services are currently available... I hope with the next release of OS X that the Services will be richer


----------



## solrac (Jan 28, 2003)

hulkaros... with the powerbook (or any mac), you can do a right-click by holding control down, then clicking.


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *hulkaros... with the powerbook (or any mac), you can do a right-click by holding control down, then clicking. *



I know... What I wanted to say is that I'm not using a mouse! 

And also, I don't care THAT much about right clicking 

I'm free from it even after so many years of right clicking with OS/2 and Win9x


----------



## hulkaros (Jan 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *Great, thanks Hulkaros!  Please let us know if you come up with anything!   I think services would get a lot more use if they were right there in the right-click menu.  I mean, when you select text and want to do something with it you often control-click to do stuff, right?
> 
> BTW -- you don't have a MOUSE??  *



Browse here:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20021022063820832

About how to access Services via context menus 

and here:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010104231846176
http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12595&db=mac

For some "extra" Services 

If I'll find anything else, I will post it here


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm really glad that there are other people seeing how great Services are! BTW, at VersionTracker you can download useful and fun services that are not coming from a specific application. I like to use Rainbowize Text, but there is a service that lets you open just the text (no formatting) of any .doc app in any Cocoa app! And many things that fill in some missing features of TextEdit (by missing I just mean not there, not necessarily that I think they should be in what is supposed to be a simple text & rtf editor.)


----------



## Cat (Jan 31, 2003)

> In the end I think we can all agree to this:
> "An equally equipped Dell is cheaper than a 'power'Mac, but Apple still has enough awesome stuff (HW features like Hulkaros said, OS X & iApps, quality & design) to sell a 'power'Mac over a Dell, even if the 'power'Mac is overpriced"



I think I'm going to take that back ... 

In view of new facts, I think the following would apply:

"An equally equipped Dell is as cheap as a PowerMac, and moreover Apple has a lot of awesome stuff (expandibility, connectivity, OS X & iApps, quality & design) to sell a PowerMac over a Dell"


----------



## solrac (Jan 31, 2003)

I think what's COMPLETELY true is.....

regardless of MHZ crap, there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of consumers that should be buying a mac instead of a cheap PC. and they bought a PC because of misinformation from biased salespeople.


----------



## Cat (Jan 31, 2003)

Amen brother!


----------

