wintel vs. apple: wishes

C

Cow Loon

Registered
I think the greatest advantage pc users have over mac users, is the amount of software available. This is not something apple really has control over.

The second greatest advantage pc users have over mac users, and one that apple could address if it chose to is, hardware upgradability (by the way, this is why I have avoided macs since they have been in existence. but now, with OS X, I'm anxious to work with OS X, so I have a mac).

It's usually very easy for pc users to upgrade cpus/motherboards, or pay a store to do it for them, and for minimal cash. Sometimes you can't, but usually you can. With macs, you never can. You always have to buy an entire new computer which is a major investment for most people, I think.

I wish:

1. Mac users scream at apple to make upgradable macs.
2. Gateway or DELL etc. prints ads warning people away from macs because they can't be upgraded.
3. Apple responds by enabling people to upgrade their hardware, by selling G4/G5 whatever CPUs and motherboards

Basicly I'm annoyed right now because my 400 Mhz G4 w/1GB RAM that I bought a little over a year ago is know almost unbearbly slow compared to my pc...
 
There is some upgradability in the mac platform. Apple has been putting processors on daughtercards for some time. But it's always been a third party upgrade path. It feels a little more natural in the PC world because the entire machine is "third party" when you get it, so upgrading a part isn't crossing into any new territory... but really, would you expect to see Dell selling processor upgrades for their old Dells? ... they sell whole boxes, so that's what you get from them. Same goes for Apple.

next, no matter what you did with your processor, it wouldn't help your 100MHz bus to run at 133MHz, or your RAM, etc. Admittedly it's a bit sad that such a recent machine feels as slow as it might right now, but the processor alone is not the solution. There are other serious bottlenecks in that architecture trying to move into the future.

And finally, if Apple were to disintegrate their support for hardware, allowing it to follow the parts instead of the architecture, you'd ... end up with Windows - where the engineers can't make logical assumptions about an architecture to improve performance, and decrease the complexity of their job. Instead you end up with giant self-serving world of drivers and incompatibilities. It's a trade-off, and I think a fair one, reduced choices for increased stability and predictability.

Although I must say that I'm glad we have PCI and AGP slots, VGA and S-video connectors, and IDE HD controllers, and that USB replaced ADB. It was about time. Unification of standards can be good, choice can be good, but either in excess is usually bad.
 
Originally posted by theed
And finally, if Apple were to disintegrate their support for hardware, allowing it to follow the parts instead of the architecture, you'd ... end up with Windows - where the engineers can't make logical assumptions about an architecture to improve performance, and decrease the complexity of their job.

I don't think I've heard that argument before. It's a good point, but I think it would be more convincing if mac os(s) were more stable than unices like Linux etc. I don't know if Darwin will end up with the amount of attention as Linux gets from developers, but one can hope.

My point is that maybe instead of ending up with Windows, an open architecture would get you something like Linux, were performance is incredible and drivers are rock solid despite the different motherboard/BIOS/CPU combinations to support.

but really, would you expect to see Dell selling processor upgrades for their old Dells? ... they sell whole boxes, so that's what you get from them. Same goes for Apple.

Gateway, or somebody, is/was selling an upgrade program where you trade in your computer every year. We could wish for that.

Besides, Dell doesn't need to be the one selling the processor upgrades for it's pcs, you just walk down to 7-11 and pick one up with your slurpee.

next, no matter what you did with your processor, it wouldn't help your 100MHz bus to run at 133MHz, or your RAM, etc.

Yeah, but you have a range of options as opposed to no options. When you can it's just the CPU you upgrade, if not it's the motherboard and CPU, if not it's the motherboard and CPU and RAM, if not...
Click to expand...
 
Cow Loon:
*************. I also have a G4 400, however i only have 320M ram. sure, the graphics are sometimes a little slow to refresh when i have a lot of browser windows open, or somethin like that. but ya know why? I HAVE THE FACTORY VIDEO CARD. there is nothing wrong with the processor. it seems that you are like all the sheep that continuously use windows despite all the crashes and idiocy, simply because they tell you to. You remind me of the type of person who would have a P4 1.8(ish) ghz processor, with this and that and something else. you will only ever use the computer for word processing and email, but of course you need all that supposed power. now, if you ask anyone with at least half a brain they could tell you that WP and email is about all pentiums, and p4s in particular are good for. someone at tafe with me, has an 800mhz AMD. someone else has a 1.7(?) ghz p4. we BOTH said he was stupid for getting the p4. he couldnt believe my machine was only 400mhz. then the guy with the amd quite calmly explained that
a) P4's are ****, and
b) PPC chips run rings around Intel (and to some point AMD) chips of much higher clock speeds.
point is, upgrade your ram, your hdd, your video card. if you want, get a cpu upgrade for your mac. point is though, you probably DONT NEED IT.

QP
 
QuackingPenguin,

I get frustrated when somebody posts with so much confidence and so little education.

Can you explain to me in detail why a P4 chip, the current consumer peformance king, is "shit"? Here's a hint, it's not a bad chip and I know all about the mhtz myth.

Can you tell me exactly which PPC chips outperform the top P4 chip? Here's a hint, none.

On a related topic, a lot of people are under the idea that Intel made a decision to maximize ghtz at the expense of performance. The truth is, they made a decision to build a chip that would allow for future growth. A year later we see that the chip is the current king of the hill. Don't believe the photoshop bake off. Besides, the PPC can't even win the rigged tests now.

Apple has a great OS (although 10.1.5 crashes more than the 10.1.[1234] versions). However, the only catagory their hardware excels in is beauty.

Vanguard
 
QuackingPenguin,

Cow Loon was comparing the perceived speed of his Mac to the perceived speed of his PC, not the clock speeds! When it comes down to it all that matters is perceived speed (as long as one perceives 1 hour as less than 3 ;) . He said that he feels his Mac is slow compared to his PC. Since you own neither you aren't qualified to comment on the accurateness of his statement. Furthermore defending Macs with the Megahertz Myth is pretty sheepish, regardless of its value or lack thereof. And pointless insults aren't nice.


P.S. I’m excited about getting my iMac soon! though I would prefer a PowerMac, two monitors and the GeForce4 Ti. Too expensive if I want software with it.
 
If people would just stop believing that what works for them is right and nobody else is then we would have a much happier world. For me, and 95% of the population on this board, Macs are what work for them. People who want to build PC's should stick to Windows, but you are stuck with Windows. It's a trade off. Same thing happened to a larger scale with the NYC terrorist attacks. Some people thought that they were right and we (Americans) were wrong. But regarless of where you go when you die is it right to kill thousands of people?

To me, 266 megahertz works for school work (word processing and c++) and web browsing, but only with OS X. A P4 with 10ghz is a **** chip to me because it's Windows (refer to Theed's post if you want to bring up that Apple should port X to x86). But I don't need to force my set up on other people, it doesn't work for many people to have such a slow computer.

I agree with Bames, It's all about perception and that is obviously going to change per person depending on where they stand.
 
Originally posted by Cow Loon
I think the greatest advantage pc users have over mac users, is the amount of software available. This is not something apple really has control over.
Click to expand...

There isn't enough hours in the day or money in the bank to try out all that massive amount of software available for my PC... That's a non-issue... But if you mean games - well that's something else entirely. :p



The second greatest advantage pc users have over mac users, and one that apple could address if it chose to is, hardware upgradability (by the way, this is why I have avoided macs since they have been in existence. but now, with OS X, I'm anxious to work with OS X, so I have a mac).

It's usually very easy for pc users to upgrade cpus/motherboards, or pay a store to do it for them, and for minimal cash. Sometimes you can't, but usually you can. With macs, you never can. You always have to buy an entire new computer which is a major investment for most people, I think.

I wish:

1. Mac users scream at apple to make upgradable macs.
2. Gateway or DELL etc. prints ads warning people away from macs because they can't be upgraded.
3. Apple responds by enabling people to upgrade their hardware, by selling G4/G5 whatever CPUs and motherboards

Basicly I'm annoyed right now because my 400 Mhz G4 w/1GB RAM that I bought a little over a year ago is know almost unbearbly slow compared to my pc...
Click to expand...

Dude, go here , be happy!

Oh and update your video card too! :p
You can find those here, here, here just to name a few...
 
Dude, going there just makes my wallet scream out in pain.

What if i just went here and got a whole computer, not just a processor for the same price?

You can also find those here, here, here just to name a few...:D
 
Slightly OT: does ATI make a version of the Radeon with 128 mb RAM? I'd like to get something cheaper than the GeForce 4Ti, but the Radeon 8500 only has 64mb RAM.

Does this make a difference in this case?
 
Originally posted by azosx
Dude, going there just makes my wallet scream out in pain.

What if i just went here and got a whole computer, not just a processor for the same price?

You can also find those here, here, here just to name a few...:D
Click to expand...

Personally, I rather not have a computer than buy one from any of those jokers! I've had major headaches with _ALL_ of their boxes! Even now I can't get an HP to recognize a Network Card under Linux (yeah, that card works perfectly with all other PCs I stick it into, Windows and Linux).

For me it's either a Mac - or one custom built PC by Yours truly.

And none of the PCs I use can replace my Mac - altho Linux is starting to be fun for me - almost as much fun as OSX! :)
 
Originally posted by rinse
Slightly OT: does ATI make a version of the Radeon with 128 mb RAM? I'd like to get something cheaper than the GeForce 4Ti, but the Radeon 8500 only has 64mb RAM.

Does this make a difference in this case?
Click to expand...

Um, you mean for Mac - right? :p
I'm not sure about Mac - but for PC I can swear I had a 128MB DDR ATI card in my hands like a month or so ago, but we got the nVidia GeForce 4 instead.

I can't imagine it not being available for the Mac too.
 
Originally posted by satanicpoptart
the sad thing about those cards is they are not mp cards... i think ill take my dual 500 over a single 1ghz.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, I'm in the same boat. Don't worry though - they'll have Duals sooner or later, either them or someone else. :)

But I'm really in no hurry, I have to worry about maxing out my RAM before upgrading my CPUs. My Dual 533s do what I need without a hitch and is as fast as I need right now. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top