Megahertz Myth...

[hulkaros]

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

-Stabil som fan!

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]

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]

...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]

<<...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .