Mac vs. PC @ Tech TV


I read this article on about a Mac vs. PC Photoshop test they did. They wanted to try to prove that Steve Jobs had fixed the Intel-G4 showdown at MWNY. From what I read it seems that they were pretty fair about the testing. They had a G4 w/ 512MB RAM and a Intel 1.8 GHz and 512 MB RAM. The only thing I didn't like was they used a 733 MHz G4 instead of the one Steve used which was probably a Dual 867. The 733 MHz is the new low-end G4 and they tested it against the new high-end Pentium 4. They tested 6 benchmarks in Photoshop. (Image rotation, etc.) It was a tie. The G4 won 3 and the Pentium won 3. But I'm sure it probably wouldn't have been if they used a Dual 867 or even an 800 MHz G4.
First of all i would like to say that i disapprove the Mac vs PC is pointless and stupid, and i think even more useless was to show at macworld that "stupid" thing( i don't even know how to call it)
Mac users know what they are buying and they don t need to see how "SUPERIOR" the mac is.
Steeve Jobs lately is comparing Mac and PC too much...i think like with the iBook (2001) ..that was compared to a Compaq and a Dell i think and my point is that as we know Mac is better (they don't need to show it)but what i don 't understand they have to show this or is just that Apple used to make machine that weren t even comparable to PC and this showing Mac vs PC is now telling me that either the PC got better to be cpomparable, or our Macs got worse :-(
Anyway...don't bother Mac vs PC they are 2 different machines, how would you compare a moped to a Sport car?
In reply to BB.
Most Mac Users know what you are talking about and know that the mac is a superior machine. The events and test and comparisons that take place are not there to show us macusers that our machines are better, but they exist to show PC users and new computer users that the mac is better. It is all about marketing

IMHO, Mac vs PC is not even a valid comparison anymore. It really boils down to the OS. MacOS 9 vs MacOS X vs. Windows 98 vs Windows 2000 vs Linux vs Unix vs etc.
I use both Mac and 'PC'. I have a 400 Mhz G4 and an 800 Mhz AMD Athlon Thunderbird. Both machines run the same amount of RAM and have comparible system configurations. I can tell all of you that my AMD kicks ass on some tasks and that my G4 kicks just as much ass on other stuff. I use Linux-Mandrake 8.0 on my AMD and OS 9/X on my G4. I find Linux to be a much better OS that anything else, but that is my preference. OS X has great potential, but is not yet complete.
The thing is, hardware has become so standardized in the past few years, that the old 'Mac vs PC' battle is simply outdated. I installed Linux-Mandrake 8 PPC on my G4 just to see it (its new) and it rocked. It wasn't near as speedy as my AMD, but it is a beta, so I gave it some slack. When I compare my AMD running Linux and my G4 running OS X (Unix), I see so many similarities, yet I still prefer Linux.
No one company has some great 'secret' hardware process that makes their machines better anymore. I am sure that if Dell or Gateway or Compaq or HP went to Motorola or IBM and said, "your PPC is so great, we wanna ditch Intel and AMD and buy from you", that they would jump on the opportunity; a 90% market share increase! But they don't, simply because the hardware is so similar. Altough Apple did a great thing including the SuperDrive!
So, I think it all comes down to your preference for an OS.

Shotokan :)

"Of course, thats just my opinion and I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller
I'm not one to come out with false facts so I'll just basically say the truth about the matter. I've been visiting this site and many other Apple sites regularly and what I've basically concluded is that the MAC is a much NICER machine than anything the PC has to offer, but not faster or better in any way.

Everybody fails to mention that when the G4 beats the Pentium 4, it's done in Photoshop 6. Anybody who took the time to read about Photoshop 6 will know that this version takes advantage of Altivac on the G4. It's guaranteed that Photoshop will run faster if it's practically custom-made for a processor. Aside from that, why choose the Pentium 4. After watching Steve Jobs' comparison on, all I could say was 'ok dude, enough bullshit'. He claimed that the 4 leading processors are the P4, the Itanium, the SPARC and the G4. That's laughable considering the G4 holds less than 5% of the market and the P4 and Itanium are pretty much being destroyed on the market by AMD's products. How come Jobs never mentioned the Athlon?

It seems to me that the reason it wasn't mentioned is simply because the Athlon is actually quite comparable to the G4. Of course, the G4 is pound-for-pound the better processor. However the Athlon destroys the G4 in so many programs that the comparison is hardly worth making. Play games, use Office suites, encode/decode MP3's, DivX's or AVI's! You're way better off on the Athlon. When a GeForce 2 gets 131 frames a second on an Athlon and the G4 gets 52, you know something's terribly wrong.

All Steve Jobs basically declared is that if you're using Photoshop, and ONLY using Photoshop, then you might as well get a G4. If you're using a variety of different programs, you're much better off with an Athlon. Considering the price of the Athlon compared to a G4, you can get dual Athlon's with 512 megs of ram and a GeForce 3 and still pay less than a G4 system.

The next agenda now is the OS. People will say that Windows sucks. Frankly, 95, 98 and especially ME suck. I agree with you on that. That's why BSD and Linux have become viable options. However, nobody is dumb enough to sacrifice the immense amount of software available for the Wintel platform to touch an alternative OS. That's why you have Windows 2000. Nobody has anything bad to say about 2000. XP maybe, but 2000 is beautiful for a home system. Considering the events of the past days, I wouldn't recommend using 2000 for a server considering the numerous amount of exploits, but if you're at home and have critical update notification turned on (allowing you to patch holes before you get attacked), then you're in a FINE place.

Anyways. I love the MAC. I'm frankly fascinated by its history and adore Steve Jobs. The fact that he's born on the same day as me doesn't hurt. Nonetheless, it would be important for him to DROP the price of the G4 and especially the price of RAM (RAM on the PC is dirt-cheap now, why can't it be the same on Apple-made systems?) to fully compete with the PC. If we can get a G4 at the same price as a high-end Athlon, then Apple will actually destroy the PC market entirely (that and mentioning its lack of holes in the OS). Otherwise, it'll hold onto 5% of the market and keep trying to convince people who already USE the mac that it's faster than the PC in one task.

Btw, it wouldn't hurt to have Apple motherboards, processors and other components sell as a separate package like the PC so anyone can upgrade at ANY time. It sucks to buy an entire package every time you want to upgrade.
Actually AMD will probably take place of Motorola making Mac CPU.. that s why AMD stuff are not mentioned......
Concerning the ram...the G4 uses PC100 or PC 133 ram.. so it is Mac and PC compatible... just buy aPC(cheeper) and stick it into a Mac... or go to www.owcomputing and buy MAC ram (512 MB) for 87 $...hope this hepl
Actually what I meant about the RAM is that despite it being able to run regular PC133 ram, Apple still charges OUTLANDISH prices for that ram in their package. For instance, in Canada, 512 megs ram costs 112$ which would mean around 80$ in the US. However, buying an IMAC or a G4 and upgrading from 128 to 256 will cost you an extra 200$.

Apple is already overcharging people for the G4. Why must they overcharge people for RAM now too? If Microsoft and the PC is so bad because of its hardware, Apple sucks because of the ridiculous price it charges for just about anything. I'd rather buy superior hardware for a higher price than standard hardware at a higher price.