PC VS MAC On Photoshop
 

Now we all know MHZ dont matter, AMD and Apple have pushed this subject throughly.

So what we need to compare is dollar for dollar performance.

Here is an independant test of a MAC VS PC in Apples favorite software, Adobe Photoshop!

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...w_macvspc2.htm

Skyler

That's cute Sky. What's the matter, couldn't find anything with the new G4, or just didn't want to share the results? Please, if you're going to sling mud, do it while it's still wet.

Take care,
~Chris

BTW, the $1699 G4 tested faster than your $2800 PC, so I guess Mac wins the dollar for dollar arguement, too.

As far as the megahertz myth, Intel proved to me that the numbers are virtually meaningless. In that PC repair and networking class I took, they had four identical computers, except one had a PII chip, one had a Pro chip, and one had an MMX chip, and I don't remember the 4th one. They were all 400MHz chips, and were all made by Intel, yet each computer performed tasks at very different speeds.

Intel proved it, Apple and AMD just helped others realize it.

:)

Take care,
~Chris

Well we could also compare it to intels newest P4 2800 chip.

Or how about a overclocked P4 running at 3.5ghz? :-D.

I know i will never convince you Chris, but its fun to always kep the debate going. hehe

Skyler

Likewise.

:)

Take care,
~Chris

Don't know what the heck you were reading Chris? The dual G4 Mac got killed in all 10 benchmarks by the single processor P4. The Mac was also a $3000 machine (not $1600??), and the P4 was a $2875 machine.

So the P4 annihilated the Mac in every test (running Mac software no less), cost less, has cheaper software, was running on an extremely reliable platform, is easier to find parts for, and is just all around a far superior purchase.

As far as clock speed, your theory is flawed. You're talking about different processors built on totally different frameworks. Clock speed DOES matter. That's why AMD is actually going to start listing their processors in real speed. They've been misleading until now. Clock speed is kinda like engine rpm. In itself, it doesn't mean anything because you could have different gears. When you're comparing on a same chip basis, it's very important, exactly like a sprint car. A PIII 733MHz chip is going to get smoked by a PIII 1.13GHz chip. It's not debatable. Comparing a PIII 1.4GHz Tualatin processor vs a 1.4GHz P4 processor would result in the "older" PIII chip kicking P4 in the nads. They are on totally different platforms, and PIII would do it dispite having a tremendous disadvantage in memory speed because of the structure of the chip. The PIII would have .13 micron technology vs the P4's .18. That and P4 tends to bog down because the chipset cycles so deep. Bottom line, a P4 2.53GHz processor has a tremendous amount of advantage in clock speed vs the G4. Even over a dual processor G4. That means if the chipsets are equals, which I'd have to say it looks like P4 is probably faster chip vs chip anyway, P4 would kill the Mac.

Then they must be pretty embarrassed at having had the dual 867 G4 smoke it. Not sure what you're reading, Kell, but the new dual processor G4's, ALL of them, smoked the 2.53 P4. Keep trying, guys.

:)

Take care,
~Chris

BTW, the dual 867 is the slowest of the new G4's.

:)

Take care,
~Chris

Damn I love these debates. For starters lets just say once and for all the Macintsh G4 is the best:) .

Yes you will find advantages from both Apple and PeeCee chips. Overall Apple does beat the crap out of just about all PC's. Now you get a PC chip that is equal in speed and you will soon realize that the MAC will win. The company that makes the chips for Apple is Motorola. Motorola also uses these same chips in some of the best servers out on the market(SUN micro systems). Don't forget guy's the big thing that slowed down the MAC was the OS. Most of these bench marks you see done are running the old MAC OS. The new OS for the MAC is running a varient of BSD *nix. This OS will out perform the PC easily especially if each machine is running at the same speed. Skyler's link to the bench mark test is bad. Trying to do a bench mark test using applications is not a real bench mark test(no offence Sky). The Applications are written completely different for each machine. I would like to see a real test using the main OS, windoze using the there ancient Dos prompt and the MAC using a terminal window and running commands from there. Doing this you will get a huge difference and how well the G4 chips really are.

I agree with Skyler that the MHZ is all nothing more than a marketing scheme to sell newer machines.

Kell, I like your point of view, But a 2.54 P4 beating a MAC????

Well, I'm about convinced to get a Mac. This cpu I got in April is giving me a headache. I bought a scanner in Jan and it won't work with XP. I've got some kinda virus that only PC-cillin can detect(can only quarantine or delete). I've tried Norton and McAfee and neither of those 2 can even detect it. I can't shut down my CPU, only power it off. This DVD burner requires some expensive software to actually burn a DVD and roxio doesn't work even with the patch! Not to mention the darn CPU freezing up on me!! I thought this one would last me a good long while! DVD player, DVD burner, 1.6 P4, 512 ddram, 80 gigs.. Chris has had no problems with his Mac, hmmm.. either that or I need to go back to a P2 where I can atleast get GLQuake to work.

Re: PC VS MAC On Photoshop
 

Now you guys really got me thinking about this debate. Dollar for dollar the MAC is best.
For instance:
1. When was the last time you had to restart your machine due to problems? I bet at most a week or two ago and thats stretching it.
Me on a MAC? If it wasn't for upgrading my OS I would have been up and running for about a month and half now.

2. Lets say you want to put in a new graphics card. You need to go through the daunting task of installing drivers so it will work correctly.
The MAC? You just pull the old card out and put the new one in and start the machine that is it.

3. Number 2 applies to everything you plug in to your machine.

4. Worries of getting a virus, trojan horse and so on. All PC owners.
Me? I have been using Macs since 1993 and have not once had a virus.

Also if you really think about it the MAC actually comes standard with a cd-rw on the base model and the others come with a super drive(cd-rw/dvd-rw). They also come standard(depending on which model) with 256mb to 2.0 gb of ram in them.
What does your PC come with? Then we will see which is best dollar for dollar.

Come on over to the bright side of computing:) .

Virus problems on a MAC? Nope you have that problem.

Trying to burn a DVD? The MAC has great cd/dvd burning software built right into the OS or you could use Roxio(I use both) without a problem.

Are you guys missing this link I posted completely?

The 2.54GHZ P4 from Dell (Grossly over priced) beat the crap out of the MAC on all kinds of photoshop tests.

People complaining about PC's freezing and having problems have low quality components. There is so much competition in the PC market you can buy junk. Apple is the only one making their stuff.

If you would look at that bench mark it was running OSX 10, and Windows XP, both the newest OS's for both platforms.

Yeah theres less virus's for macs out there, but theres a lot less software and stuff to do on them as well. Get PC Cillin, let it update automatically and you will never have a problem. As far as cleaning that virus rick Im sure I can help you out.

If real world tests like photoshop filters and actions arent good performance tests then what is? How about gameing performance? Everyone knows a PC Chip will THRASH a G4. The G4's claim to fame is its Adobe performance.

The positive things on the mac are that is slightly more user friendly. Dont take this the wrong way, but they are made so an idiot can use. Athough windows xp is just as good now. The UNIX based OS is a step in the right direction as well.

I have had a properly build Pentium 4 system, recently threw in a 2.4GHZ CPU and I have had no ONE crash or blue screen error in 9 months.

Is the mac a good system? Does it have a few advantages here and there? YES. Is it faster than the PC dollar for dollar? NOT A CHANCE.

Skyler

Oh, BTW I was using a brand new, just out of the box Dual 1GHZ G4 the other day and it hung up on me in about 5 min of use. :)

Skyler

How about "Read the Article"
 

Applications are the PERFECT benchmark. Granted, the benchmarks do not give you pure processor performance, which is totally irrevelent. It's the equivilent of doing a 1/4 mile run. Even if the G4 processor is faster (more horsepower), which it's not even close, it's like you've saddled it into a 1967 Full size station wagon vs a 1967 Mustang is what you're saying. I don't care how fast the processor is, I want to know how fast the system runs. You can have the fastest processor in the world, and it'll still run slow if the rest of your system isn't right, just like a car. Using tier one parts, the PC was WAY faster than the Mac. The benchmarks are there. If you guys would bother to read them, the Mac got slaughtered. Once the application is loaded and running, the OS should not make a huge difference, unfortunately, Mac O/S's are so insanely terrible at multitasking it shows as extremely poor performance. Since the dual processor Mac is the slowest of the Mac dual processors, I guess I'll just say, these systems were priced somewhat near each other. If you want to get a faster dual processor Mac to compare, that's fine. I really doubt it'll close the gap when compared to the much much faster P4 2.8GHz with even further enhanced memory speeds. It's not like the PC was the quickest PC used to test, either. Maybe you'd like to run the test heads up against the older PIII chip? Maybe you think your G4 would stand a better shot going against a dual PIII Tualatin system? My best guess, even with a very slow 133MHz FSB the dual 1.4GHz Tualatin PIII would smoke the dual G4.

Even if you are right about the processor, it makes no difference. Your processor is housed in a POS box with no performance potential, so in the real world, the PC has always, and always will be faster to use. End of story. The performance tests that show the Mac as being faster are based on running certain codec fragments from a Macintosh program which the Mac is specifically designed to enhance performance on. It's a joke. Like comparing a 1/4 mile race where the lane the PC is driving on is at a 30* incline, and the Mac is at a 30* decline. Jeez, which is going to run faster (barely I might add). Same thing as AMD did back in the AMD K6-2 vs PII days. They would pick and choose their performance tests to find a way their processor could beat Intel's lol. Sad. From a 32-43mph punch, my Mac is quicker than your PC.

My PC, even running Windows ME gets rebooted maybe once every 1-2 weeks. XP is extremely stable, and Dan has had his servers that operate this site in new Windows platforms that are incredibly stable. In short, you Mac guys know just about nothing when it comes to newer PC's, and you refuse to acknowledge the facts. I've worked with Mac's. I hate them. They are slow, inefficent, ugly, expensive, and difficult to fix if they do develop a problem (read reformat).

Ever hear of plug 'n play? It's been around since Windows 95. Enhanced significantly in 98, and every package after that. It's now basically just a matter of plugging the "less expensive" PC card into a slot and the system will auto detect it and load the software for it. Normally, there isn't even a reboot associated with it.

It's not the PC that's bad. It's ultra cheap, poorly contructed systems. My system was relatively inexpensive, and I've had VERY few problems with it while expanding it a great deal. If something goes wrong on a Mac, there is only ONE way to fix it. Format the hard drive and re-install everything.

I disagree strongly about Mac being a superior product for the inexperienced user. Why pay way way more for a computer when you can have something nearly as user friendly, with a great deal more growth potential, that's less expensive.

As far as software not working with XP, lol, there are ways to set XP up to run like previous versions. Might want to talk to Skyler, whos been able to get anything to run on XP that he has tried.

http://www.glenrhodes.com/macvspc.html

Pretty much sums it up. Mac uses asinine benchmarks to skew the truth, has a horrible O/S, and slow memory interfacing. All that adds up to a poor performing system, regardless of how fast the processor is. Maybe Apple should spend some money developing the important parts of their junkers, and come out with a "system" that works, not just a processor.

OMG. XP as good as OS X. LOL!!!! That's a good one. MS has been trying for 11 years now to copy the Mac OS, but they're always a step behind. Plug and play, that's another good joke. You guys are funny. Sorry Kell, I know how you feel, but you're letting your feelings cloud your judgement. YOU are the one who is obviously not familiar with the newer Macs. Your loss.

Take care,
~Chris

Oh I don't know, I guess we must win already, Skyler. PKRWUD can't support his position with a single fact at all while we've thrown benchmarks, and technical analysis at the Mac guru's.

XP isn't OS-X. It is FAR FAR superior to OS-X in almost every way, shape, and form. It's so much faster it's not even funny, it multitasks like new computers are used for, it has enhancements for burning DVD's and upgraded plug and play (apparently you've never used a proper plug 'n play O/S or else you'd know there is no joke about it). The Mac software you love so much is much more like server software in the way it runs it's programs, but it's so narrow minded, and old fashioned it's unable to keep up in the PC dominated market. It's like COBAL 85. Works great compared to COBOL 77, but it's totally inadaquate to do what people are doing with programs now-a-days.

Sorry, but just because you think your Mac processors are faster (might be faster because you can't actually test the processor with the O/S being so poor you can't have flattering or accurate results), doesn't mean the system is any better. Mac users are kinda like ricers. Their engine is really really fast, but they never want to race the domestics, and when they lose, they just talk about how much more hp per liter they have. In the end, it's run what ya brung, and the winner wins, the loser loses. No excuses, the Mac is just plain slow.

Maybe so but it's very fun to have these debates between a pc and a MAC.

Yeah maybe it did in that one test. Adobe just recently had to rebuild Photoshop from the ground up to run on the new OS 10 for the mac. They did an OK job but they are still not taking full advantage of the CPU as Photoshop did in the old OS 9.

Very true. Apple is very strict and hard headed when it comes to this. That is why you don't realy have any problems on the MAC.

Sorry but the latest OS for the MAC they did not use. They used OSX 10.1.5 and the latest is 10.2(massive difference).

MAC's having less software? I doubt it unless you are talking about games. The games are starting come in very fast since Apple switched to the new OSX. Other then that they have just about the same. You just have to order it through a catalog or online for most stuff. Not to mention there is a great place called sourceforge that 95% of the stuff on the site will run on the MAC.


This subject goes away from the whole subject. As you should know this mainly depends on your graphics card.

Thats a good boy Skyler. We will convince you yet to get a MAC and keep it for every day use.
XP as good as the MAC? never

Look at what you do for a living. Take that same machine and let a friend use it for a week. You will have problems with it afterwards.

Thats a no brainer. HELL YEAH IT IS

I think you should get some more rest. Your judgments have been impaired.

All right Kell this is just plain wrong to put the word ricers in this.

I can build a P4 2.53GHZ system w/ a quality Intel board for under $600.

Tell me how that is not a dollar for dollar winner over the Mac? I think you need new glasses.

Skyler

Wait wait wait, I thought it needed the newest version of the MAC OS to make photoshop fast? Now your saying that photoshop is slow in OS 10 because they had to rebuild photoshop? C'mon which is it? Since Macs are made for photoshop, we better start telling everyone to go back to OS9.

Yes gameing has to do w/ the graphics card, but you can use he same cards in both PC's and MACs. So then it really comes down to the processor doesnt it? And a PC will whip the MAC hands down everytime.

Dollar for Dollar he PC is 2x less money. A Dual CPU 1GHZ G4 w/ a superdrive, 80gb hdd, 1GB Ram with a hefty school discount will cost $3111.

I could build a P4 for half that, and a athlon for even less.

The benchmarks are there. Maybe OS10 is slightly more stable? I havnt used it enough to know one way or the other. But you cant debate the $ or speed of a PC.

I love this :-D

Skyler

No No No. Photoshop is realy fast. It's just not takeing full advantage of what the CPU is capable of doing.

Maybe you don't understand how ridiculously you're outclassed here Shadow?

Skyler owns his own PC store, and builds them for a living. He's also had first hand experience with Macintosh computers. We've posted the benchmarks, the analysis, and facts to back up our positions. I've been keeping up with computer performance for quite a while, built a lot on my own PCs, and I was a tech support person for a network of over 200 Mac's.

XP is a far superior O/S as I stated above, with a technical anaylsis on why. Just because you love your Mac doesn't make it any faster or better. The ricer comment was completely in line. Why are people called ricers? Because they talk about their cars as being ultra fast, and how great they are, and trash against the real cars, and they can't back it up. Just like what's going on right now with claims about the Mac being superior.

You've just admitted that Mac launched an O/S incompatable with programs that were designed to run on the Mac. There goes your super Mac's ability to just install and forget it. Furthermore, there are other tests that show how much faster the P4 is than the G4. Such as Premiere. To make matters even more transparent, the PC was forced to run on Macintosh codec. It's like making a guy come to your track to race them, and you get to pick the lane.

Also, the video cards are exactly the same in the test. So you can throw that bit of misinformation about the video cards causing issues right into the trash.

So what good is a CPU that you can't take advantage of?

How about a 1500hp engine that will only fit into a 10,000lb semi truck chassis?

Skyler

I've had a canopus card, which worked great and a Monster Fusion that worked after a patch or two. Both ran GLQuake great and I loved it. I upgraded to a P3 with a nvidia card and never could get glquake to work, my quake days were over:(. I got this new P4 with the GeForce nvidia card and still can't get glquake to work. I think its the card not the processor, this has nothing to do with the debate.. just venting my frustration.

Good debate, carry on:D

Sky, my Vaio is under warranty and a year tech help so I guess I need to take the time to us it. Otherwise I would box this thing up and send it to you.

I know they cut corners where they can but I don't think sony cut too many corners with this unit... It has a Pioneer DVD player and a Pioneer DVD burner, I just think I got ripped on the software.

Rick have u downloaded the lastest Detonator4 drivers from nvidia.com?

I have several Nvidia cards and all work great with open GL. You need to load the additional drivers.

What card is it? A Geforce2 series? Lemme know Ill help you get it working.

Skyler

Nah never. I just love haveing fun talking trash on a PC vs Mac topic.

Yes I know Skyler has a PC shop. And if I ever needed anything that i couldn't already get I would contact him.

Me too. I work with around 300 MAC's( running OS9 and OSX 10) and around 300 PC's running anything from Windws 95,98,XP,2000 server, NT server, NT workstation.( damn I just realized thats a lot of OS's) I have done this for the past 7 yrs as an Application Support Analyst and tech(sometimes).
Whatever. Keep telling yourself that.


That ricer comment is not in line.
Mac's being superior? yeah they are. But Not Always

And like your wonderfull windows has not done the same?


We were talking about games with the video card issue. Calm down man.

Skyler yes the have the same cards for both but as you know the rom on the cards are different and so are the drivers.

Thats Adobe's fault

God, Kell, you are so full of yourself. I've been trying to be civil about this, but you insist of being the low-blow guy. That rice comment was way out of line, but whatever. Did you bother to read the other thread that started this one? The benchmarks you keep referring to are with the LAST GENERATION G4. It has been replaced with an even better design ( Go read about it ). You want me to quote new G4 benchmarks against old PC marks? Give me a break.

The system has been redesigned, with a new system controller ( Read about the new architecture ).

Here's info about the processors.

Here's some info about the SuperDrive, and it includes a benchmark, just for you.

Go here to learn about the graphics.

I had a hard time keeping a straight face when you made that rediculous statement about Macs not being expandable! I've never seen a PC that was this expandable.

Here you will see the software that comes with it. Pay close attention to all the digital software. Windblows has nothing on these.

And here's the simple tech specs, including a benchmark in which the cheapest, $1699 G4 was 45% faster than the $2850 Dell w/ the 2.53 P4.

How about dozens of testimonials from Windblows users that switched to a Mac?

There is even Apple's Top Ten Resons To Switch.

Want the press? here you go.

Then, the real reason the Mac will always be superior: The OS! Jaguar

No software for Macs??? Guess again, Gomer. In fact, Microsoft claims that their version of Office for Macs is leaps and bounds better than the version for Winblows.

There are tons of other pages out there, Kell, but I'm not here to hold your hand while you try and find them. You asked for it, you got it. You want more, go find it yourself. I know you will never accept the fact that Windblows is nothing more than a cheap copy of the Mac OS, so why should I waste any more time on it with you? Charlie is entertained by all this. Quite frankly, you guys are boring me.

Take care,
~Chris

YEAH.......... What he said.

And yes I am very entertained by this

I am quite entertained myself as well :).. I'll work a reply for you tonight Chris, Don't worry you havnt won yet ;).

Skyler

You hear that Chris? He said you have not won yet. He is already admitting to loosing.

Mac better?
 

please read:

http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?pc/.../G4_plus/start
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4an...4andg4e-1.html
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

well the G4 seems to be fast. In real world testing, it seems the PC is far superior over the Apple. some of the tests beat the P4, but not by much. So it is faster, a little in some aspects. So how much are you going to pay for your G4 compared to the P4 which in your words is SLOW, when they are close in some degree?

the only 2 things i see APPLE's are good for are eating and Photoshop! Woo Hoo!

hey look mom, i just spent $1800 so i can use Photoshop flawlessly!:rolleyes:

2 things:

I personally dont like Windows that much, but of all the Windows OS systems, 98SE works the best. Iam running Xp PRO right now and its interface is "interferring" so to say. so far i dont like XP.

last: can you build a Mac like a PC?

It's about time someone else got in on this debate.

srv1 make sure you go to all of the links Chris posted. For most all around purposes a MAC will be the better machine. Depending on your needs for a machine this could different.

Hey Skyler here is a little bit of info for you.
winbloze and MAC networking You have to read the whole article.

And here is another good one.
Apple server

Alright, I've been toying with you for a while. Time to bury you computer rice boy.



Quit crying like a baby and admit you're dead wrong. I'm sorry I know more than you do about computer performance. :rolleyes: Your G4 gets smoked in real world uses. I mean just flamed.

That's great, they're comparing an old PIII memory platform to the latest and greatest Apple has to offer. SDRAM isn't the hottest thing on the market, and P4 absolulely BLITZ's the Apple in memory performance. Furthermore, the advanced ability to hold memory in the Mac is useless because the memory interface is too slow to make a difference. The Sweetness "L3" cache they are talking about isn't even 1/2 as fast as the new 1066 memory on the P4. To make that even sicker, the openly admit their old memory system ran 4x slower than their new one, which is still 2x as slow as the new P4 technology. The new architechture also features a new "faster" 167MHz FSB, hahahahaa. Compared to P4's 1066MHz. Pretty sweet. Furthermore, the enhanced sweet L3 cache tries to fix a problem the P4 doesn't have. The P4's technology actually allows the processor to anticipate commands in advance so it's one step ahead of the game. The dual drive technology is pretty nifty. Too bad the Ultra ATA/100 HDD's are second tier to the 133's the PC's can now get, and at 10,000rpm instead of the 7200 the Mac is limited to. I see Mac is using 5 year old technology DMA 66 drives on the second tier of master/slave configuration. Up to 480GB? Sweet. PC's figured out how to get beyond the 120MB barrier of HDD performance. They're up to 200MB in size each now.

Nice. Too bad in the real world the processor actually has to work with the rest of the system. Note they didn't do a comparison to any PC chips, let alone dual PC chips.

LOL, nice benchmark. Too bad you can set the PC up with the same basic technology. Note the asterisk at the end of the benchmark. Apple made the tests in completely different software packages, ahahah. In Adobe for them (which the P4 kills the G4 in, even though the G4 was built specifically for it), and Lycos and Sonic for the PC. PKRWUD whiffs again.

Super duper. The exact same graphics "cards" the PC's use. Wow, that Mac is really ahead of the PC there, lol.

That level of expandability has been on PC's for years now my friend. I have a PIII motherboard that has 5 PCI expansion slots the multiple HDD controllers (which are usually unnecessary on a PC to boot, unless you're using it as a server). My PC currently has a floppy, CDRW, CD, room for a DVD, 2 HDD, holds up to 1 gig of ram, 6 USB ports, 2 DSL modems, 2 open PCI slots, and it's technology is 3 years old, and it was cheap to begin with. LOL

Wrong. Take a look, grasshopper.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/tec...es/default.asp

Enhanced Windows Media Player, Decoder, Movie Maker, DVD Ram support, and more. The software you list on the Mac is basically a bunch of freeware, such as MICROSOFT Internet Explorer, Adobe 5.0 Reader, and some cheapy multimedia files like Window's Paintbrush. Yawn. If you like MS Office for Mac, go for it. It was designed for Mac users. Mac users are going to like it better. I like the PC version much better. To each their own.

A horribly flawed test based on running processor calculations only on a "part" of a Macintosh program (codec) that was tailored to the Mac's processor specifically. That's not a benchmark. It's showing the 60ft time in a 1/4 mile race. Doesn't give you much info. Again, what good is a 500hp race car engine in a tractor trailer with a 3 speed manual from 1965 and 2.73 rear gears?

Doesn't mean squat. I could show you dozens of Camaro drivers that once had Mustang's. Are you saying the Camaro is the better car because of it?

Gasp, shock..... Apple wants you to by Macintoshes instead of PC's??????? Unreal, they are marketing their product. Maybe you should be a Mistubishi because they have a 0, 0, 0 event and Ford doesn't? Hurry up. Get yours today!!

You're so informative, Chris. I betcha Chevy's website has all kinds of good press about their cars!

Isn't that the same reason you used why the Mac will never be as fast as the PC in real life? Yeah, sweet O/S. It can't even multitask as well as Windows 95. :rolleyes:

Sure, there is software out there for Mac's. Take a scroll through your local Best Buy and tell me which software section is bigger. Mac or PC?

You know, I'm not that full of myself, it's just when people are blatently wrong, egotistical little misinformation machines, I have a tendancy to make them look dumb. Call me weird. I call it easy. By the way, while you spent 4hrs researching your post on Apple's own Macintosh website, there wasn't a single piece of data on any of the arguments Skyler or I made. Just percentages, smoke, and mirrors. Exactly what I'd expect to find on the site of an inferior product.

Shadow. i dont think they will be.

this gives you a clue on whats "TOP DOG"

Super Computers

no! my toys are better!
:D

You just don't understand. Mine will always be the best:cool:
MACINTOSH

Kell, you could sell ice to eskimos. LOL. You are funny! You're also so full os schit, I can smell you from here, but hey, as long as you're happy!

You don't seem to understand that I really don't give a flying phuck what you believe. YOU are not worth the time and effort, and you're wrong. :)

I DO know PC's. The one constant during the 8 month repair and networking course I took before getting certified, was that PC's, and Winblows in particular, are shotty, cheap rip-offs. They tried so hard to copy the Mac, but they failed. My 233MHz G3 will SMOKE my next door neighbors Gateway 1000MHz cow. I gotta admit, even that surprised me. PC's and Windblows just go so far out of their way to make things more work than they need to be. A two step operation on a Mac takes 8 steps on a Wintel machine, and the result is a joke.

Anyway, Kell, you go right on with your gag. I do think it's VERY amusing watching you spend so much on this arguement. LOL! You're a card!

James-

Yes you can build a Mac like a PC, except the Mac won't fall apart, or need every internal part replaced within a year.

Those were interesting links, but they weren't really relavant to this discussion. That first one was almost 2 years old. I did, however find my new favorite quote on the last one (where he was comparing the old Mac with the new P4, like all the others)!

Take care,
~Chris

***TIME OUT***
 

Hey Kell, all hostilities aside, I have been meaning to ask you about Auna, and how she's doing? I haven't heard anything in 2+ months, but I do think about her a lot, and was wondering, and hoping.

She doing better?

Take care,
~Chris

you tell me something. of all the members on this board, what is the majority running? i can honestly say its not a Mac.

Chris, it was out dated, just want to show that Mac is just starting to keep up with the PC's.

Ok Chris, build be a Mac. This is what i want:

512 DDR Ram (minimum)
80 GB HD 7200
NVDIA GF4 Ti 4400
10/100
2 USB ports or more
5 PCI slots
1 AGP
200/266 FSB
Dolby Digital Sound Card
1800 MHZ or higher (Mac equivilent)
CD R/W
DVD

i want something equal to this or very close. now how much will it cost me for this Mac?

I couldn't disagree more. I have never seen a Wintel that rivals the best Macs. I still haven't seen a Wintel, to date, that has better graphics and overall appearance than my 4.5 year old 233 G3. I don't know if it's because of your ages, or what, but you guys have everything so backwards. Mac was ALWAYS the best. Intel NEVER challenged Mac because they always lost. Win95 came out when Mac had OS 8. Windows didn't rival OS 8 until Win98, by which time there was OS 8.6. XP rivals OS9, which has been out for what, 3 years? Etc, etc, etc. Windows has always been 3 (or more) steps behind Apple. Apple has always been the inovator, too. They have to be. If they weren't state of the art, top of the line, best of the bunch, etc, they would have gone out of business a long, long time ago. It was a well known, undisputed fact that the Mac was the best, until Gates released Win95. They made such a huge deal out of it, and pimped it silly. They made it possible for people to get a cheap version of the Mac, for about 2/3 of the price. Most people didn't care about quality, they cared about price. Before long, they were everywhere, and since then, the Ford vs. Chevy pride of ownership thing has taken over. I have not yet met one person that used Macs first, and switched, by choice, to Wintel. I do, however, know dozens of people that went the other way.

Just because something sells the most, doesn't mean it's the best. In fact, I can't think of anything that is the number one seller, and is clearly the best. It's ususlly the cheapest.

More people use AOL than any other ISP. Do you think AOL is the best?

In the last few years, intel and AMD pushed hard to increase their clock speeds, and the race was on. It didn't matter that there wasn't any software that could take advantage of it. Too many people that didn't use computers, but directed them, didn't like Macs. Mac only has about 5% of the computer sales market, but when it comes to high end graphics work, ie: the entertainment industry, the media, the arts, etc, the numbers jump up to over 50% in many cases. When you go to an office building, where it's spreadsheets and fiscal accounts, PC's are king. Whoopie.

One of you guys remarked about the Mac being a $2000 Photoshop machine. Yes, that's exactly right. And the best digital hub out there. I guess maybe it just depends on what you want your computer for. I think a $2000 Photoshop machine makes alot more sense than a $2000 Playstation.

In nearly 5 years, I have not had one single failure between my two Macs. I can honestly say that I don't know any Wintel owners that can say that. I hear every day about another motherboard needing to be replaced, or a hd that crapped out.

In fact, speaking of which, the website that I'm helping out in Tampa had just such a post today:

Or you can go see it for yourself:

http://forums.modernmustangs-tb.org/viewtopic.php?t=386

This is a daily occurence. There's a thread a week in here about PC problems. C'mon.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. As long as everyone is happy, that's all that matters, and I'm very, very happy. :)

I'll ask on Monday about your list.

Take care,
~Chris

Building the Mac.

You can't build that machine, srv1. You'll never get the Macintosh to perform like the PC in memory. The fastest (read latest) version of the Mac features a ridiculous SDRAM with a 167MHz FSB. It's 2MB of L3 Cache runs at up to 500MHz which may increase that processing speed. Still a problem that the processor speed is incapable of taking care of memory enhancements. That's one of the main reasons Mac has stuck with the older SDRAM. Their processors simply do not have the clock speed to utilize the new, faster bus speeds. As I said before. A given processor against the same processor running a faster clock speed is a mismatch. The faster clock will win. Clock speed is extremely important. The new P4's have been built with super high clock speeds, and the chip itself has been overclocked to the point where the ram was actually restricting the processor performance. That's with much improved 400MHz RDRAM. Now that Intel has advanced it's memory interface even further, up to 1066MHz, the RDRAM is no longer holding the system performance back. PKRWUD is right about processors being faster than applications. They were, for a long time. Which is why Mac kept on making advances and the PC's stayed about the same. It took Mac YEARS to catch up with system performance. Now with CD burning, DVD burning, media encoding, and other system taxing processes, the faster processor is being utilized again. Guess what? All those years of catching up were erased in just a few months by the PC's. They're now way faster than the Mac again (even with the Mac in a dual processor configuration vs the PC single).

Unfortunately, to get the pure application speed, you'll need a dual processor setup. To compete with the PC setup like you want, you'll need to spend at least $3000.

PKRWUD even the dual processor G4 1.0GHz running OS X is slower than the single processor 2.4GHz P4 with the older 400MHz FSB in application speed. The only benchmarks the Mac has EVER won was in pure processor capability (not directly related to system speed), and running a specific part of a program designed for enhanced speed on the Mac. When you run the whole program, the P4 beats the Mac down, even in a program designed for the Mac. Your comments on higher up more processor intense industries using the Mac is also skewed. I haven't seen many Oracle databases on Mac's. Talk about system stretching.

The $2800 Dell Machine in the benchmark tests can be built for under $1000, easy. Don't know why Dell is so overpriced.

By the way. Of the few Mac users I know, they have WAY more problems with their Mac's crashing and freezing up than they do with their PCs. I'm talking several times less stable with the Mac.

As far as older Mac systems being superior, they've been inferior (read vastly) since I can remember. I've been working on PC's and Mac's since 1992. My high school had only Macs. The performance of the Mac systems at the time "LC II" was horrible. The O/S was unstable, the hardware was unreliable, and the software available for it was inferior.

You need a much better, diverse, source to get your information from. Getting it all from the Apple site isn't reliable.

Adriauna is doing very well. She's back to 100%! Thanks for asking!

That's teriffic news about Auna!!! I can't tell you how happy that makes me! She went down a rougher road than most people will ever see, and I know it was family members like you that helped her get through it. For that Kell, I will always have the greatest respect for you.

As far as computers are concerned, I think your nuts. LOL.

Kell, I don't base things on what is on the Apple website, I base things on first hand experience. You and Sky kept going on and on making inane statements which made it obvious you had no clue about the new G4. You kept pushing and pushing, unable, it seemed, to type the 8 letters that make up apple.com, so I wnet there and did it for you. 10 minutes out of my day. I do like to go there to see what's new, but I don't base my feelings about the Mac on what they say at all.

The fact that you've been in and around PC's since you were 15 speaks volumes about your opinions. My first experience was in a county run PC repair class in 1995. They taught us to make fun of Macs, even though the only one we got to use was so misused and uncared for, I'm shocked it worked at all.

I learned DOS, and 3.1, and Win 95. I wanted my own computer, but couldn't quite afford one. Then, for my birthday in 1998, my Grandmother bought me a computer, but she bought a Mac. I was disappointed because I didn't know any better. In less than a week, I knew there was no comparison. I laughed at people who still used Wintel boxes. This was how a computer was supposed to work.

Anyway, I guess our experiences have been very different. In my world, and all the people I know in it, PC's are crap. I don't know why it is that they have such a high rate of mechanical failure, other than perhaps the average user is sub par, I really don't know, but the facts as I know them, and as I have seen them, have Mac leaps and bounds above any PC.

Then again, I'm not into video games or solitare.

LOL. Something else I think is a riot is when I took my seciond pc repair and networking class, the entire 8 months was like going back in time. Floppies were so critical, whereas the new G4's didn't even have a floppy drive. This was also when getting a nic card with an ethernet port was such a big deal! Macs have had them for years, and I just had trouble with how foar behind Wintel machines really were. Not one machine always worked with plug and play, and it was accepted as normal to have to install a driver several times before it took. Unbelievable!

As far as your friends having trouble with their Macs, they must not be too bright, and they must be using OS 9 or older. Those OS's where very RAM dependant, and since those were the days when RAM could cost $1 to $3 per meg, Apple was very stingy with how much they gave away. But, any problem your Mac had was easily solved by increasing the RAM., and if you did that in the first place, it was very unlikely you would have any problems.

However, since OS X came out, it's all over. MS needs to worry more about being AOL's main competetor instead of Apple, because they cant touch it. In all fairness, it wasn't Apple's genius that made OS X the best OS there is, it was Unix, combined with the minds that create Apple's awesome GUI.

Every friend I have drools over my bottom of the line Mac, and I can't blame them. When I go to their houses, the computer becomes tedious and cumbersome. Especially in comparison.

As far as the processors go, Apple got kinda screwed in that Motorola has been having business problems, and as one of their customers, Apple suffers. My understanding, though, is that this is now behind them, and the G5 is on the horizon. Kinda funny in a way, having your processors, that compete against IBM compats, being made by Motorola and IBM.

As far as "real world" bench tests, like I said, my 233 smokes my neighbors 1000MHz cow. My friends don't believe me that it's only got a 233 in it. I can only imagine what that new dual 1.25 must be like!

Anyway, have fun in your world, Kell, because I'm having a blast in mine!

:)

Take care,
~Chris

Chris. i dont think anyone asked you this question yet. what do you use your computer for?

If Mac's are so great, how come more people don't own them? are you going to give me the excuse that its the "markets" fault? Dollar for dollar, Mac is better. yeah right! tell you what, if your Mac is great at Photoshop and thats the best Mac owners can think of, then you can have your title as Mac's being the best. We got the rest of the industry to do MORE applications than a Mac will ever see!

Chris that is fine that you like Macs. but then you talk how "superior" they are to PC's, is gettting old. There is a reason that Mac has a small market.

Yes they use them in schools. The only reason is they are "user friendly". so is AOL. get my drift?

check your PM.

hey, I didn't start either of these threads, and I've tried to be the mellow one throughout.

I use my Mac for alot of graphic work, as my digital hub, and for the internet. What do you use yours for?

There's lots of reasons why Macs don't have a larger share, and it's 70% cost, and 30% bad buisness practices.

Why do you think WalMart is the number one store in the country, because of their quality? Fine, comparing Wintel boxes with WalMart is pretty good, actually. They're everywhere, they're cheaper than dirt, and you know when you leave the store that what you got may not last.

I ask you, if Macs are so bad, why are they around at all? They have had HORRIBLE decisions made at the corporate level, and if they didn't have an awesome product, they would have been gone. They also put all there eggs into the DVD basket, when CD-R's took off. That didn't help, and neither did Napster. Still, the Apple sells between 5% and 6% of all the computers sold. Funny thing, though, their numbers in the home are higher (nearly 12%). Why's that? because they don't break down.

I don't see how anyone, unless they're blind, could possibly sit down in front of a G4 and Wintel, and not prefer the mac. It's cleaner, sharper, smoother, much more user friendly, and the easiest computer to upgrade.

You ever look at the installation instructions for things that work with both macs and Windows? The Windows instructions are usually twice as long. Typical. The Mac is a very quality machine, and anyone that says different is a complete idiot.

Kell,
You made a comment about
I am not sure where you got your info but I think you were on the skewer too long. Numerous processor intense industries are useing or switching to the MAC. A lot of the science industries have switched or are takeing a good look at the MAC. Also did you know that NASA uses MACs and someone(can't remember who) is actualy building a satellite made up of a cluster of MACs. Yeah you don't see Oracle on the mac but watch out because it was released for the MAC not long ago and will grow very fast.


srv1 you said,
If you re-read this whole thread you will see that Chris and I do make comments about how great the MAC is but at the same time how this started was from people bringing up how superior the pc is.


I agree with Chris 100% of everything he has said.

Well time for a new question.

Lets say since 1998, How much money have you spent on your computer and all of your components to do what you need it to do?

For me, about $2000, but that doesn't include the iPod because it was a gift. But, I've got a very cool, albeit bottom of the line, Digital G4 with a 19" and a 17" running together, Epson, Umax, Buslink, and an Iomega that's for sale. Okay, maybe $2100, but that's only because i wanted a cordless trackball.

Take care,
~Chris :)

P.S. I still have my G3, too!