PC VS MAC On Photoshop

[PKRWUD]

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)!

Am I at a crossroads as a Mac user? Not yet. My conclusion above is based solely on raw speed. There are other factors besides speed to consider in choosing a computer. As a truly Unix based OS, Mac OS X is far superior to Windows XP in technical sophistication, not to mention "look and feel." The Pentium 4 running Windows XP may be a "Corvette" and the Athlon may be a "Viper" but the Power Mac G4 MP running OS X is a "Porsche Carrera Twin Turbo." And I'm a Porsche kind of guy.

Take care,
~Chris

[PKRWUD]

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

[srv1]

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?

[PKRWUD]

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:

Anybody who mailed me in the last 48 hours please resend. I lost W2K this morning after I got mail and it froze on me. And it would not boot again, not even in safe mode. So I had to format and re-install... Losing all email I just got in. I know there where 2 messages in

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

[Unit 5302]

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!

[PKRWUD]

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

[srv1]

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.

[PKRWUD]

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.

[shadowblue89]

Kell,
You made a comment about

Your comments on higher up more processor intense industries using the Mac is also skewed.

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,

Chris that is fine that you like Macs. but then you talk how "superior" they are to PC's, is gettting old.

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?

[PKRWUD]

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!

[Unit 5302]

SECTION A: On the boxes I have actually run since 1998, I've spent a whopping $750. My current box will run just about anything out there, smooth I'm sure, picked it up for $500, added $150 of extra's to it. Where's your $650 Mac? Prior to my current box I got in early 2000, I was running an overclocked Pentium with 72MB RAM on Windows 95. Picked it up for $100.

SECTION B: Chris, what 1.0GHz computer are you comparing to? Even a Celeron is faster than your Mac at 1.0GHz. It's just a blatent lie, and quite sickening. The only possible answer is your friends went to a discount store IE Best Buy, and bought an E Machine with no RAM, a weak, integrated Motherboard, Bigfoot HDD, and bottom line processor. Even then there is no way now that I think about it. You're running on a 66MHz FSB, which means every computer running at 1.0GHz from the factory has a tremendous advantage over your Mac, unless it's a WAY overclocked Celeron.

How is this scientific comparison done? I've run programs on a 233MHz Mac before, and it was nothing short of a crunchy turd. I'm shocked the old thing will even support your cable modem.

SECTION C: All I see is a bunch of Mac is better, Mac is better, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that I've ever seen. You linked me up to about a dozen Macintosh pages on their home site, and I gave my technical anaylsis. It's Macintosh at least 1-2 years behind PC's. At least. You can't blame anything on Motorola. According to you guys, they build the fastest processor. It's like you've just decided to pull about a dozen arguments out of your hinder and you think that I'm going to go for them.

To reiterate what you've said.

SECTION D: Macintosh O/S's are the best because:

1. They are more stable (False, Skyler has been running XP for 9mo straight)

2. They are more user friendly (Maybe for the brand new user. Overall, I'd have to say false. Mac O/S's are based on server software, and is far more limited than Windows.)

Macintosh O/S's suck because:

1. They can't multitask.

2. They are very slow.

So which is it, are they the best or do they suck? Make up your mind okay? I can't fault your arguments that the O/S sucks, but I certainly can give examples why it does suck.

SECTION E: Macintosh's are faster than PC's:

1. Their processors are much faster. (The advertised calcuation speed of the Mac is peak speed, not overall. There is no basis to support your position. If the benchmark shows the PC kicking the Mac's ***, you blame it on part 2 (Macintosh O/S's suck because

2. Clock speeds mean nothing. (As I explained before. They do matter. If they didn't, why are Mac's now at 1.25GHz??? How about the old arcitecture G4 1.0GHz vs the base G4? Which one is faster? Oh! So clock speed does matter?!!)

SECTION F: Macintosh's are better bang for the buck:

1. PC's break down more, requiring you to spend more money over the long haul. (In truth, the Mac becomes outdated so fast in performance, that it's unable to run the intense software on the market. That and the fact you can usually buy about 3 PC's for the price of one Mac. There is no advantage you could possibly argue here.)

Macintosh's are more expensive, thus less bang for the buck:

1. Since Mac is so much more expensive than the dime-a-dozen PC's, that's why their marketshare is weak. (Nope, their computer is weak, unless you get the very fastest model they make, in which case the price is astronomical)

Again, make up your mind. Is the Mac cheaper (it's sucicide to argue this) or is the Mac far more expensive?

SECTION G: Macintosh's are smaller in the market, but will gain ground

1. Because of so many PC competitors, it's been hard to establish a niche. (Whatever. Look at VAIO. They came into probably the most competitive market in the United States, and they were able to rock it gaining excellent marketshare with inferior computers.)

2. Because Mac's business practices are poor. (Apple has OUTSTANDING business practices. It's the only way Mac has even been able to remain selling at all. It certainly can't do it on the computers merits. Most people look to Apple absolutely in LOVE with the way their management works. For god's sake most of investors agree with me, look at their fricken stock price!!!)

3. Because Mac's are more expensive. (Go back to SECTION F, I can't figure out whether you're in agreement that Mac's are too expensive or whether you think they're cheaper??)

SECTION Mac Supporters Don't have a leg to stand on: So while you Mac users can't make up your mind, and when you do the PC users have dozens of real life application benchmarks we can point to where even the twice as expensive Mac system with dual processors is far slower than the single processor releases from AMD and Intel. Where you point to stability, we have just as many testimonials about Mac being unstable far more than the PC's as you do about the opposite, and this argument is your main weapon. Where you point to what will be a growing Mac presence in business, we point to an established business community relying almost solely on PCs because they are faster, cheaper, and better. Where you point to industries that are set in their ways using a Mac, I point to false advertising, people set in their ways, and Mac offering HUGE discounts to capture marketshare. Do you really think schools were purchasing Apple products on the basis of performance, and ease of use? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... continued HAHA's for quite some time, just use your imagination like that concept is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Mac's have a presence in schools because they set their price soooo low, and offered computers that were basically outdated when they hit the desks to gain a niche market. They hope people won't find out about Windows. They pray people will become hooked on a Mac in school. Uh-oh. Too late. Now buyers are exposing kids to PC's much earlier. Thus Apple dropped back it's campaign and PC's are beginning to trickle into the once Apple dominated market. It's already begun.

[PKRWUD]

You know Kell, you are very convincing untill I catch you in a flat out lie, or proof that you are truly clueless when it comes to Macs, I'm not sure which.

You have some serious issues, Kell. In many respects, you are wise beyond your years, but when it comes to seeing the world as anything other than black and white, you are still very juvenile.

This arguement means so much to you that you twist what I've said, lie about facts and history, and base an entire operating systems stability on a 20 year old living in Ojai.

The sad part is that this is an argument you cant win, which I know you can't even concieve, but oh well.

I have not lied once, Kell. I don't need to.

Your "facts" are nothing more than YOUR personal opinions based entirely in ignorance. Macs can't multitask. LOL! I can do more on my G4 simulteanously than you can dream of on your box. You should become more familiar with something before you make a fool out of yourself criticizing it for faults it doesn't have.

God herself (I know, your agnostic) could stand in your face and tell you Macs were better, and you'd start on a rant again. I don't need this. You seem to thrive on it. Have fun playing with yourself, Kell. I'm not going take part in this with an uneducated man.

Take care,
~Chris

[Unit 5302]

Without a shred of data or real life proof to back up his argument, the Mac user backs exercises their right to stand back and lob personal attacks at the PC user, who is armed with technical analysis, data, and contradictory statements made by Mac users.

The end result, the more educated, and well versed PC user shakes his head at the incompetency of a Mac user's arguments based solely on opinion and detailed technical phrases put out by the Mac's home page marketing site to prove his point.

Ego bruised, the Mac user makes up some dream about the PC user getting even the least bit huffy over what has so far been an extremely easy debate to win. I'm not flustered Chris. Your arguments took hours to contruct, and me but minutes to dissolve. It only takes me a couple minutes to make my post, so it's not the most important thing by any means. Actually, I'm doing a load of body work to the 87GT right now. I have to wait for the door to dry, which is the only reason I'm even here.

Btw, I don't base my arguments solely on a professional in a now established and successful PC shop with degrees in computer networking, and years of experience working with Mac's and PC's. I base a lot on my experience (predating yours) on being tech support for hundreds of Mac's, and building PC's, along with self-taught networking wiz's, who are my friends. I was doing tech support for a network of 200 Mac's on an ethernet before you even took your entry level computer courses in 1995. Trust me. Yep, I was tech support for 2,600 people when I was 16 years old, clear back in high school. I learned on Mac's. I grew to hate them, and I made the switch to the far superior PC platform because it allowed me to customize the way my computer ran and worked. I openly admit, I know crap about PC's compared to my friends, but I still know more than most.

[Mr 5 0]

Chris:

What was the 'flat-out lie' Kell told?

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I use my computer like some people use a commuter car. I surf the net and do some word processing, maybe play a few (borrowed) games once in awhile - and thats about it.

I have little interest in Mac's and don't intend to buy one as my 2-year-old 750 Mhz processor Compaq is fine for my needs and gives me almost no problems at all. You guys lose me with some of the arcana but as a bystander who has no strong opinions or knowledge on the subject of PC's vs Macs, the discussion is interesting and I'm sure others appreciate it, even if the tech parts take some time to sort out.

I find that both you and Kell make fairly cogent arguments but when you start accusing each other of ignorance and stubborn allegience to a favorite computer platform, nothing is really learned.

This is akin to a Ford vs Chevy argument so nothing is ever truly resolved (you're not about to sell your Mac and Kell isn't dumping his PC any time soon) but we can all gain from facts presented. I hate to see you simply dismiss Kell even though you're frustrated. As you should know by now, Kell is not easily dimissed.

I would rather see you counter his arguments, if you can. I would also like to see more facts presented, as Sky did. That's convincing and can be checked and evaluated whereas opinions and negative characterizations of each others intelligence and integrity cannot .

Anyway, good debate, so far.

[shadowblue89]

here is a good little link you all.

[Unit 5302]

I hate to prove you wrong, or imply you're wrong, but take a look at this benchmark test. Done by a MACINTOSH website. Unfairly pitting a single PIII vs a dual G4. Their basis of comment? It was unfair because of CLOCK SPEED. That meaningless thing. Oh, also threw in a single G4 450 vs it too. THe PIII kept right up with the dual G4 machine, and wasted the single G4. In Adobe Photoshop!!!

Again, this test was done by a Macintosh site. THe PIII used is an old school technology 1.0GHz non-tualatin processor.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/ph...GHzPCvsG4.html

So I don't see how your pathetic 233MHz G3 could outrun a single G4 450MHz. Do you? If you do, do you think your G3 can take on and keep up with or (since you kill the 1.0GHz computers with your 233Mhz box) whoop a dual 450Mhz G4?

Of course not. My point about you blatently lying has been proved to well above my satisfaction.

Remember, the test was done by a Mac site, using Mac software! Hehehe, against an old school PIII of all things. I bet the new Tualatin, which roasts the old PIII would hang with a mighty dual G4 1.0Ghz.

[Skyman]

I guess Im walking in a little late here. Things get to be a little heated.

Chris- Start using some facts, I see things like "my 233 is faster than my neighbors 1000mhz machine" Theres no fact there. My honda is faster than my neighbors mustang. Same amount of evidence. So lets refrain from using worthless statements like that.

You saying that harddrives dont fail in Mac's yet you see it in PC's all the time? False. Guess what? They both use the same parts. Open up that G4 you'll probably find an IBM Deskstar hard drive. Reformat it and you can run it in any PC as well. BTW, the one in my dads G4 just failed after a year old.

I dont think this is a Windows VS OS10 debate, I think this is which computer is faster and can do more for the dollar. And I think its well proven that the PC blows the mac away in a dollar for dollar comparison.

Now as far as the MAC being better in photoshop, the link I posted proved the 2.53 P4 blew away a Dual 1GHZ G4. Now I dont know the changes in architecture on the G4 now at 1.25GHZ. But if clock speed is the only increase you can figure it out easily that it still will not beat the 2.53, and the new 2.8 will put more of a hurt on it.

Saying things like the graphics on your old machine is better than new PCs is 100% false.

I have used a new Dual 1GHZ G4 running OS10.2 and I have to say the graphics are awesome, the operating system looks really nice and is quite user friendly. For never using a MAC before I was able to figure it out pretty quick. Set it up to login to the Windows 2000 Domain controller and print to a couple of network printers. One problem though, we had a Laserjet 2100 and I set it up to print to that printer, with the correct driver provided in OS10 and it did no print correctly. Just a bunch of crap. It did work good with the laserjet 4550 though. Ive NEVER had a problem with a PC when selecting the correct driver. Maybe I was doing something wrong but I seriously doubt it as I setup the other printer just fine.

Citing things from apples site is fine, but obviously they are going to lean to the mac side, why wouldnt they? They are selling them arent they? Its like taking data for AMD's chips off of Intels site.

As far as Windows XP sucking? Its the best windows yet? Why, plug and play works perfectly. Yeah I agree, it wasnt perfect in previous versions of windows. But now you can plug in almost any hardware item and it will find the driver and set it up perfectly. Yeah maybe mac already had this, but it doesnt have nearly as wide an array of hardware available out there for it.

As far as crappy PC's and computers that freeze and dont work right. Think about it this way.... There are hundereds of PC parts manufacters out there. Most PC's are combined with all different brands of parts, are there going to be occasional conflicts? Yes! How many guys modify their cars with all kinds of new parts and are on here with all kinds of tuneing problems. (Not the best analogy but it gets the point across I believe)

Kell has no experience w/ Windows XP? So what, neither do you Chris. I guess this stupid "20 year old up in Ojai" doesnt know anything about it since hes been runnning it just about a year now, including beta versions that were released before it even came out for most people. I guess my location really has a lot to do with what I know about an operating system.

So is the G4 faster than a PC in photoshop? It certainly hasn't been proven to me. ALL the older tests point to the PC being faster. I will not accept a test from APPLE on this. Its like believe the cigarette companies when they say cigs dont cause cancer. Is the new dual 1.25 G4 Faster than a 2.8GHZ p4 in photoshop? I dont know, I dont have one to run the test myself, and I havn't seen a test run on it yet. I do have access to a Dual 1GHZ, but I guess those test arent accepted.

Parts failure more on PC. Not true, same components are used. The main things to fail on computers are Hard drives, and Cd-roms, and printers, and same companies make for both.

Another non-relivant interesting peice of information. Last year my dad bought a Dual G4 533, loaded with 1.5ghz of ram for just under 3500bux. Apple shipped him this Dual CPU G4 with OS9.x and it didnt even support DUAL CPU. His second CPU just wasted away while it became obsolete.

Heres something for you mac'ers to look into. A Mac buddy of mine said theres a way to load windows XP on a new G4. Is this true? I dont see how it would be possible but you never know.

Oh yea, BTW Chris, Im 21, not 20, and have had every model of IBM Compatible cpu from he 4.77MHZ 8088 on up. Dont know why my location or age had any relevence in this discussion though.

Shadow- Thats Windows 98, shall we start comparing 2 versions older copies of the MAC OS? So thats completely irrelevent.

Skyler

[Skyman]

Obvious Im not serious here, but u gotta see this.

http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/ellenfeiss.html

Maybe if this girl wasnt stoned while using the computer she wouldnt have lost her paper.

Skyler

[PKRWUD]

That's it. I knew this **** was going to happen. I never said you were stupid, Sky. **** this. This is why I don't play games with kids. BTW, for me it was always about the OS. THAT is what makes the Mac so much better. The technicals are just gravy. Every technical point I made was about the new G4, and I still haven't seen anything from either of you about it. But I don't want to. This has sunk to a level I try very hard to avoid.

Jim, this is for you:

SECTION A: On the boxes I have actually run since 1998, I've spent a whopping $750. My current box will run just about anything out there, smooth I'm sure, picked it up for $500, added $150 of extra's to it. Where's your $650 Mac? Prior to my current box I got in early 2000, I was running an overclocked Pentium with 72MB RAM on Windows 95. Picked it up for $100.

I believe it. It's almost to the point where you can't even give them away.

SECTION B: Chris, what 1.0GHz computer are you comparing to? Even a Celeron is faster than your Mac at 1.0GHz. It's just a blatent lie, and quite sickening. The only possible answer is your friends went to a discount store IE Best Buy, and bought an E Machine with no RAM, a weak, integrated Motherboard, Bigfoot HDD, and bottom line processor. Even then there is no way now that I think about it. You're running on a 66MHz FSB, which means every computer running at 1.0GHz from the factory has a tremendous advantage over your Mac, unless it's a WAY overclocked Celeron.

It's a Gateway computer. I have no idea who made the processor, and it's not a lie.

SECTION C: All I see is a bunch of Mac is better, Mac is better, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that I've ever seen. You linked me up to about a dozen Macintosh pages on their home site, and I gave my technical anaylsis. It's Macintosh at least 1-2 years behind PC's.

LOL! I see, so documented facts are worthless because they're on Apple's website, but YOUR "technical analysis" is law. ROFLMAO!!! You must be joking, Kell. Please. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't give you the right to dismiss facts in favor of your opinions, and then preach them as though they were fact.

To reiterate what you've said.

SECTION D: Macintosh O/S's are the best because:

1. They are more stable (False, Skyler has been running XP for 9mo straight)

That's all the proof I need. Damn Kell, what was I thinking???

Kell=wrong

2. They are more user friendly (Maybe for the brand new user. Overall, I'd have to say false. Mac O/S's are based on server software, and is far more limited than Windows.)

You are either ignorant, inexperienced, or lying. OS X is a Unix platform that is virtually unlimited, and can do anything Windows can do, and more.

Kell=Wrong again

Macintosh O/S's suck because:

1. They can't multitask.

Again, you are either ignorant, inexperienced, or lying.

Preemptive multitasking
Preemptive multitasking essentially works like a controller that enables the PowerPC G4 to process several different tasks simultaneously. The controller gives priority to your primary applications, while the PowerPC G4 continues to crunch away at other tasks in the background. Mac OS X uses this controller to monitor the processor at all times. The controller prioritizes tasks, makes sure activities are at peak levels, and allocates resources on the fly to ensure that every task has the processing power it needs.

Processor priorities are set according to the importance of each task. If you suddenly decide to check your email or surf the web while youÕre in the middle of compressing an MP3 music file, Mac OS X preempts the audio compression task and re-allocates sufficient processor power to comply with your most recent request.

Symmetric multiprocessing
All Mac OS X applications and technologies are optimized to take advantage of the dual processor capabilities of the PowerPC G4, because symmetric multiprocessing takes preemptive multitasking to the next level. Mac OS X automatically harnesses both processors, so all of your applications benefit from the higher performance the second processor offers. Mac OS X allocates application tasks to the processors as needed, using (say) one processor to burn a DVD while it uses the other to create a new MP3 file. As serial processes these two tasks could take quite a while to complete, but with both processors in action Ñ processing in parallel Ñ the time to complete the two tasks is cut nearly in half. ThatÕs why complex tasks like image transformations, video compression and MP3 encoding operations are often completed in up to half the time using Mac OS X on a dual processor Power Mac G4.

Multithreading
Mac OS X enables dramatic performance increases by breaking down complex processes into sub-processes, known as threads, and executing the threads in parallel across two processors. For example, if you were creating a transition between two clips of video, the process would include decoding the first clip, decoding the second clip, rendering the transition, and re-encoding the transition back into the original format. On Mac OS X, the system can decode the two clips at the same time, one on each processor. And afterwards, while the transition is rendering on one processor, finished frames can be re-encoded on the second processor. Because threads are processing in parallel, you can complete a process in significantly less time.

Kell=Wrong yet again

2. They are very slow.

Ignorant, inexperienced, or lying. See above.

The performance advantage of the PowerPC G4 starts with its data pipeline. The term Òprocessor pipelineÓ refers to the number of processing steps, or stages, it takes to accomplish a task. The fewer the steps, the shorter Ñ and more efficient Ñ the pipeline. Thanks to its efficient 7-stage design (versus 20 stages for the Pentium 4 processor) the G4 processor can accomplish a task with 13 fewer steps than the PC. You do the math.

Kell=Wrong

So which is it, are they the best or do they suck? Make up your mind okay? I can't fault your arguments that the O/S sucks, but I certainly can give examples why it does suck.

You haven't been right yet, why stop now? BTW, Macs ARE the best.

SECTION E: Macintosh's are faster than PC's:

1. Their processors are much faster. (The advertised calcuation speed of the Mac is peak speed, not overall. There is no basis to support your position. If the benchmark shows the PC kicking the Mac's ***, you blame it on part 2 (Macintosh O/S's suck because

Here's where you twist my words around for your convenience. MHz numbers are virtually meaningless EXCEPT among the same type of chip, made by the same manufacturer. For example, two different P4's can be accurately compared, but a Celeron and a P4 can't be, even though they are both Intel chips. If you can't even use it for measure among chips made by the same company, how in the hell do you think you could possibly compare them across two different platforms? You can't, so stop try to.

2. Clock speeds mean nothing. (As I explained before. They do matter. If they didn't, why are Mac's now at 1.25GHz??? How about the old arcitecture G4 1.0GHz vs the base G4? Which one is faster? Oh! So clock speed does matter?!!)

That reminds me, Kell, you haven't shown one shread of evidence yet. You keep talking about benchmarks, but the only one I've seen so far with the new G4, have the G4 smoking the P4. Go figure.

SECTION F: Macintosh's are better bang for the buck:

1. PC's break down more, requiring you to spend more money over the long haul. (In truth, the Mac becomes outdated so fast in performance, that it's unable to run the intense software on the market. That and the fact you can usually buy about 3 PC's for the price of one Mac. There is no advantage you could possibly argue here.)

Sure there is. You're wrong again! People keep their macs an average of 6 years because they keep on working. If they didn't handle a new app, they'd be replaced, but they do just fine. You also aren't troubled with the inconvenience of having to replace the motherboard this month, and your hard drive a couple months later. The one thing I do agree with you about, though, is that PC's are definately disposable.

Macintosh's are more expensive, thus less bang for the buck:

Just like the Cobra and the Mach 1, huh?

1. Since Mac is so much more expensive than the dime-a-dozen PC's, that's why their marketshare is weak. (Nope, their computer is weak, unless you get the very fastest model they make, in which case the price is astronomical)

Wrong again. The $1699 G4 is faster than the 2.53 P4.

SECTION G: Macintosh's are smaller in the market, but will gain ground

2. Because Mac's business practices are poor. (Apple has OUTSTANDING business practices. It's the only way Mac has even been able to remain selling at all. It certainly can't do it on the computers merits. Most people look to Apple absolutely in LOVE with the way their management works. For god's sake most of investors agree with me, look at their fricken stock price!!!)

You are either a bold faced liar, or dumb as a box of rocks. Apples screw-up's are the only reason Windows had a chance. Among other things, they wouldn't sell licenses to other manufacturers to build their parts or similar machines, like IBM did. If they had, Hewlit Packard, Compaq, et al would all be selling Mac clones. Apple is the first three chapters in every business classes book of things not to do. Do some research for a change, Kell, this is very common knowledge.

SECTION Mac Supporters Don't have a leg to stand on: So while you Mac users can't make up your mind, and when you do the PC users have dozens of real life application benchmarks we can point to where even the twice as expensive Mac system with dual processors is far slower than the single processor releases from AMD and Intel.

There's 4 lies right there.

Where you point to stability, we have just as many testimonials about Mac being unstable far more than the PC's as you do about the opposite, and this argument is your main weapon.

Whoops, there's another one.

Where you point to what will be a growing Mac presence in business, we point to an established business community relying almost solely on PCs because they are faster, cheaper, and better. Where you point to industries that are set in their ways using a Mac, I point to false advertising, people set in their ways, and Mac offering HUGE discounts to capture marketshare.

It's fascinating the way you get everything backwards, Kell. Are you Dyslexic?

If you are, get someone else to read these articles to you. They deserve your attention.

How about a positive review from PC Magazine, in which they point out how simple it is to network the two platforms effortlessly.

Hehehe, or this article from the Boston Globe that pretty much shuts down your arguement regarding the Macs strengths, Kell.

Oh, and this one backs me up too, Kell. It's an article from the Post Gazette, confirming that Windows is still a very unreliable OS, whereas OS X is virtually flawless. Yeah, I must have made that one up, too.

Without a shred of data or real life proof to back up his argument, the Mac user backs exercises their right to stand back and lob personal attacks at the PC user, who is armed with technical analysis, data, and contradictory statements made by Mac users.

I had the proof, you had the opinions. Oh, I'm sorry, is this more of your fictional writing?

Ego bruised, the Mac user makes up some dream about the PC user getting even the least bit huffy over what has so far been an extremely easy debate to win. I'm not flustered Chris. Your arguments took hours to contruct, and me but minutes to dissolve. It only takes me a couple minutes to make my post, so it's not the most important thing by any means. Actually, I'm doing a load of body work to the 87GT right now. I have to wait for the door to dry, which is the only reason I'm even here.

LOL!!! Don't flatter yourself. I have a Mac, it only takes me minutes to do what it must take you hours to do.

Btw, I don't base my arguments solely on a professional in a now established and successful PC shop with degrees in computer networking, and years of experience working with Mac's and PC's. I base a lot on my experience (predating yours) on being tech support for hundreds of Mac's, and building PC's, along with self-taught networking wiz's, who are my friends. I was doing tech support for a network of 200 Mac's on an ethernet before you even took your entry level computer courses in 1995. Trust me. Yep, I was tech support for 2,600 people when I was 16 years old, clear back in high school. I learned on Mac's. I grew to hate them, and I made the switch to the far superior PC platform because it allowed me to customize the way my computer ran and worked. I openly admit, I know crap about PC's compared to my friends, but I still know more than most.

Oh, okay, then it's okay for me to base my opinions on DOS?

Get real.


Take care,
~Chris

Jim-

I'm glad you're entertained by this, but I'm not. The only reason I wrote this last one is because you said something. I'm not into this. Honestly, they both work, it's really a matter of preference, which is why neither one of us can ever "win". Unfortunately, Kell isn't able to see that yet.

I am.

Take care,
~Chris

[Skyman]

Cmon guys, I never ment to turn this into a **** slinging contest. I thought it was a friendly debate, and I never got riled up about it. Except for a minute there. Chris, I'm not personally attacking you. Maybe this has got outta hand.

Skyler