[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