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.