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

B

BlingBling 3k12

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

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

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

Please... Steve... Release G5's at 1.5 GHz at MWNY! Light a fire up under the ass of Motorola and make them make the G5!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bling... do not expect a G5 anytime soon. Things are going to keep getting worse. Sorry to tell you that. Life is a bi_ch isnt it?
 
I was going to ignore this thread because there is so many others (hint hint, we don't need more). We would all like to see faster computers even if it was just higher numbers with as much power as now just so we can appease our inferiority complex. The ones who whine the most have the most insecurity of their manlihood but the rest of us will just be content with their 266 P3 crushing iMacs.

I'm sure this invites all sorts of flames and I am sorry if I offended anyone. Nobody is forcing you to use a Macintosh. M$ uses mind control but so does Apple so think for yourself and get what is best for you.
 
If Apple went the same route as Dell and other PC vendors you would quickly find out that Apple would fail.


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

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

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

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

That all said.... I would love to see Apple get a boost up to 1.5 ghz... just so that we can capture more market share with the other players involved...
 
You know, it's funny, I just can take PC speed as being real for me. An x86 based processor system running at 2.5 GHz or 25 GHz doesn't represent anything to me because it doesn't run any of the software I use. Even on a 25 GHz Pentium IX system OmniWeb 4.1, TIFFany 3.5, Create, or even Mac OS X won't run, so why would I care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

When x86 CPUs arrive they are greated with a yawn. Nobody seems to need that much speed. Let's hope that Apple/Motorola gets there soon.
 
That was a great post, RacerX! I have to agree with vanguard too. My 233 iMac just isn't cutting it anymore. I have to believe that once I get a PM this fall I'll be content for another four or five years. But in the meantime I have to gnash my teeth every time I hear how far behind Moto is. :rolleyes:
 
I kind of agree with you Racer X. Sure... 2.53 ghz does not matter with email or word. But the PC guys might get so much more speed... the Mac will lose the pro design area. Print, web design, digital video, ect.
 
what about that gateway? 2ghz, 128mb ddr ram, 40 gig hd, 15" monitor, 48x cd-rom & speakers for $800. add a 17" monitor and 24x10x40 and it's $1000.
that's a hellalotta speed for less than a grand.
while you are satisfied with your speed, i am not. i can't even scroll without it looking choppy, dammit, let alone minimize windows in OS X. what good are pretty effects if my system can't handle 'em? all i want to do is minimize a window and sometimes it takes up to 5-6 seconds.
and to continue with the 'speed limit' analogy: using high-end programs (photoshop, games, video editing, etc) there is no speed limit. and right now my g4 crawls in comparison to pcs.
okay, a pc doesn't run 'omniweb'. who cares? it has IE integrated into the OS so it's incredibly fast. every time i use a pc after using my mac (usin' os x) i get browser envy (not to mention scroll envy). i love os x. i love my mac. don't get me wrong... but these low prices at such high speeds are enough to make me sell my year old mac and get an even trade in for a brand new 2ghz PC.
please spare me the "fine, leave, we don't care. i hope you enjoy your peecee-- don't hang around here any more" comments. i'm not going to trade it. it's just food for thought.
 
Its true. PCs are faster. If Apple/Moto dont get in the game soon, there will be some loss of market share in the high end (i.e. video and photoshop stuff). This much is true.

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

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

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

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

People drastically overestimate the power they need. To the people who really need the power, it may make enough of a difference to give up OS X and go over to XP (please factor in the Wintel learning curve!). To others it may not. Apple does need to get it together in the highend. But for most of us, we have plenty of speed and we have the best OS in the world, hands down! I wouldnt give it up for anything.
 
by boi
please spare me the "fine, leave, we don't care. i hope you enjoy your peecee-- don't hang around here any more" comments. i'm not going to trade it. it's just food for thought.
Click to expand...

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

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

Edge100 and boi,

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

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

So, please pick a platform that works for you and stop complaining. For the rest of us, a Gateway is just a $1000 paper weight. In other words, a complete waste of money (not to mention the worst made systems on the planet).
 
Yeah, It'd be nice to have "faster" macs - but hey, I'm a student so it's not likely I'll be able to afford one any time soon anyway.

So to all you people complaning about your slow macs - I'm using a original iBook 300 mHz with 160 megs of ram. And it works fine. And I still prefer it to the PCs we have in the labs... :p
 
Ok my 2cents,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What i am saying is BE HAPPY WE HAVE OPTIONS

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

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

your truely,
M$ and bill Gates makes me cry

:confused:
 
Originally posted by culo77:
pentium 42.53ghz
Click to expand...
Wow, I guess I really have lost track of the current progress of the x86 world. That's a fast processor. ;)

And that's an expensive temper you have there.

As to the rest of the post...

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

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

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

anyway, i'd just like to see a little more open-mindedness about the subject. a lot of mac fans are complete fanatics, and don't care WHAT pcs have to offer. that's no way to look at things.
i'm not saying there aren't PC users like that, it's just a larger percentage of mac users are.
 
Now this discussion involves megahertz and browsers... It's not going to be pretty... **ducks behind couch**

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

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

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