Alright, I've been toying with you for a while. Time to bury you computer rice boy.
Quote:
Originally posted by PKRWUD
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.
|
Quit crying like a baby and admit you're dead wrong. I'm sorry I know more than you do about computer performance.

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.
Quote:
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.
|
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
Quote:
Here you will see the software that comes with it. Pay close attention to all the digital software. Windblows has nothing on these.
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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!
Quote:
Then, the real reason the Mac will always be superior: The OS! Jaguar
|
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.
Quote:
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 [/B]
|
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.