What separates a Mac from a PC?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, panag, you do know that the CHEAPEST PCs are ones that you make yourself, right?

Dells are actually overpriced, because you can get all the parts at a much cheaper cost. With Dell, you are paying for labor costs to put it together as well.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, panag, you do know that the CHEAPEST PCs are ones that you make yourself, right?

Dells are actually overpriced, because you can get all the parts at a much cheaper cost. With Dell, you are paying for labor costs to put it together as well.

hi ,



the cheapest ones are the ones that are being sold by large firms after a short lease or so , .....

coNpaq is very good at it , ....

why bother to build something yourself , pffff , all the troubles you have to go true , ..... all the time you waste , .... no 36 months guarantee , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

panag is copy/pasting from the Mac site, and it's clear he's just trying to sell the computers (he's copying marketing bullshit, for christ sake).

If the Mac folks have anyone with the intellectual capacity to debate, can he please step forward?

hi ,

so what , is there a problem with that , .....

why would we waste our time on trying to explain something that from the start gets an attitude of "i dont want to listen" , .....

have a nice day

[Asher]

Originally posted by panag
a better processor

The Pentium 4 is way faster than the G4. I'm sorry, but this is just absolute fact. Even most Mac zealots concede that the G4 is obsolete, and pin their hopes on the new IBM PowerPC 970.

Take a look at the SPEC benchmarks, they're widely watched and widely respected.

http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/

These results were also taking not using Intel's highly optimized C++ compiler, both use GCC for the sake of fairness. They say Intel's compiler is about 20% faster.

With a SPECint_base value of 306 Apple's 1 GHz machine under Mac OS X ran almost head to head with the equally clocked Pentium III, combined with Linux and GCC, with a SPECint_base value of 309.

With SPECfp2000 values of between 147 and 187 the Apple device lagged far behind its equally briskly clocked competitors in terms of floating-point operations values. Thus the Pentium III, for instance, in conjunction with Intel's Linux compilers achieved a SPECfp value of 297. What is more, a current Pentium 4 will achieve a value that exceeds the latter by a good deal more than twice that amount.

The G4 can't even compete with the Pentium III.
FYI, a 3GHz P4 hits over 1000 in SPECfp2000 now. The 1GHz G4 peaks at 187.

The Apple marketing team is quite brilliant and managed to convince most Mac users that they're using some extremely efficient, supercomputer-esque type chip, which apparently some of you still believe.

Of course, people will be quick to point to select Photoshop benchmarks to "prove" the G4 is almost as fast. After all, Photoshop is a native Mac app and ported to x86, and they'll carefully select operations and filters with AltiVec optimizations but no SSE2 optimizations. Laughable from a computer scientists' perspective, amazing by a Mac user's perspective.

Then don't even get me started on other components. Pentium 4 has 800MHz FSB (6.4GB/s), the G4 has a 133MHz system bus with 1.06GB/s bandwidth. Not to mention the lower latencies on the PC, because the RAM used is DDR400 rather than DDR266...

[Nubclear]

This just proves my point. The best people in America are the 5% that use Macs. We will rule the other 95% who aren't worthy of using a Mac. It's an exclusive club I'm glad to be a part of.

The Mormon church says the same thing

in some places its 5 % , in others 30 % , .....

But in all, WINDOWS is the major majority

intresting how civ on a windows ( huge specs ) takes longer then on the mac , ... same map , same set up , smae scen , .... yet the mac beats it with more then half the time

I also find it interesting how it takes about 10 seconds to load that Apple copy of Word on a mac, but it takes less than half the time to open an identical program on the PC

I also find it interesting how when playing a graphically intensive game, Macs suffer a HUGE performance loss compared to PCs

I also find it interesting how almost EVERYTHING is developed for PC first and then ported to mac (if they want to. Some things just never are )

I also find it interesting how the majority of computers in use are Windows.

I also find it interesting how the majority of computers sold are Windows.

I also find it interesting how Macs are quite pricey compared to PCs.

I also find it interesting how Apple forbid others from building macs and therefore drove prices up.

I also find it interesting how microsoft saved apple

I suppose there are a lot of interesting facts in this word

Have a nice WINDOWS Day, Panag

[Drake Tungsten]

panag is copy/pasting from the Mac site, and it's clear he's just trying to sell the computers

A Mac employee is the perfect foil for everyone's favorite MS lackey.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Mormon church says the same thing

You do know that they're the only ones getting into heaven, right?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

The Pentium 4 is way faster than the G4. I'm sorry, but this is just absolute fact. Even most Mac zealots concede that the G4 is obsolete, and pin their hopes on the new IBM PowerPC 970.

Take a look at the SPEC benchmarks, they're widely watched and widely respected.

http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/

These results were also taking not using Intel's highly optimized C++ compiler, both use GCC for the sake of fairness. They say Intel's compiler is about 20% faster.

Quote:

With a SPECint_base value of 306 Apple's 1 GHz machine under Mac OS X ran almost head to head with the equally clocked Pentium III, combined with Linux and GCC, with a SPECint_base value of 309.

Quote:

With SPECfp2000 values of between 147 and 187 the Apple device lagged far behind its equally briskly clocked competitors in terms of floating-point operations values. Thus the Pentium III, for instance, in conjunction with Intel's Linux compilers achieved a SPECfp value of 297. What is more, a current Pentium 4 will achieve a value that exceeds the latter by a good deal more than twice that amount.

The G4 can't even compete with the Pentium III.
FYI, a 3GHz P4 hits over 1000 in SPECfp2000 now. The 1GHz G4 peaks at 187.

The Apple marketing team is quite brilliant and managed to convince most Mac users that they're using some extremely efficient, supercomputer-esque type chip, which apparently some of you still believe.

Of course, people will be quick to point to select Photoshop benchmarks to "prove" the G4 is almost as fast. After all, Photoshop is a native Mac app and ported to x86, and they'll carefully select operations and filters with AltiVec optimizations but no SSE2 optimizations. Laughable from a computer scientists' perspective, amazing by a Mac user's perspective.

Then don't even get me started on other components. Pentium 4 has 800MHz FSB (6.4GB/s), the G4 has a 133MHz system bus with 1.06GB/s bandwidth. Not to mention the lower latencies on the PC, because the RAM used is DDR400 rather than DDR266...

hi ,

one , the link takes no account in the new g4's , it does not count them in dual config , and last but not least , do you really believe that a processor is all that counts , .....

have a nice day


this is getting boring , ....

[Asher]

Originally posted by panag
one , the link takes no account in the new g4's , it does not count them in dual config , and last but not least , do you really believe that a processor is all that counts , .....

have a nice day

One: It also doesn't take into account the new P4s, which are actually faster than the predecessors than the new G4+s are compared to the original G4. Consider yourself even luckier on this count.
Two: It also doesn't count the P4s in dual configus, what's your point?
Three: Of course processor speed isn't all that counts. Unfortunately for you, this hurts your case even more.

PCs have Serial-ATA rather than just UltraATA.
PCs have PCI-X rather than just PCI.
PCs have AGP8x rather than AGP4x.
PCs have far faster memory subsystems.
etc.

[Drake Tungsten]

Macs have Apple software.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

One: It also doesn't take into account the new P4s, which are actually faster than the predecessors than the new G4+s are compared to the original G4. Consider yourself even luckier on this count.
Two: It also doesn't count the P4s in dual configus, what's your point?
Three: Of course processor speed isn't all that counts. Unfortunately for you, this hurts your case even more.

PCs have Serial-ATA rather than just UltraATA.
PCs have PCI-X rather than just PCI.
PCs have AGP8x rather than AGP4x.
PCs have far faster memory subsystems.
etc.

hi ,

if you believe "herbert" , .....

good , so if herbert tells you , ....


pfffff, if you believe that guy , ....

and since when can someone look in the future , ....

not to mention , ....

this is boring , ... sjee , .....

have a nice day

another apple user walks away from boredom

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Macs have Apple software.

Like OS X, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Mach BSD kernel?
Like Safari, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Konqueror/KHTML engine?
Like iTunes, which was purchased and extended from a third party and is still nothing more than a run-of-the-mill media player that's too bloaty for its own good, including using freely-available visualization software like Geiss and G-Force.
Like QuickTime, which we've already addressed about its crappiness?

[Asher]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

if you believe "herbert" , .....

good , so if herbert tells you , ....


pfffff, if you believe that guy , ....

I don't just believe him, I believe every single real benchmark I've seen about the Macs.

The Macs are not powerful machines. Get over it. They're pathetically slow by today's standards.

The only argument Mac users have for using a Mac is Apple's software, which Drake is trying to get you to argue about instead because I'm sure even he realizes you're getting your ass handed to you right now.

and since when can someone look in the future , ....

Huh?
That article was from January 2002.

not to mention , ....

this is boring , ... sjee , .....

have a nice day

another apple user walks away from boredom

This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring.

[Drake Tungsten]

Like OS X, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Mach BSD kernel?
Like Safari, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Konqueror/KHTML engine?
Like iTunes, which was purchased and extended from a third party and is still nothing more than a run-of-the-mill media player that's too bloaty for its own good, including using freely-available visualization software like Geiss and G-Force.
Like QuickTime, which we've already addressed about its crappiness?

They're all better than anything MS makes.

The only argument Mac users have for using a Mac is Apple's software, which Drake is trying to get you to argue about instead because I'm sure even he realizes you're getting your ass handed to you right now.

panag's not getting his ass handed to him; he actually has a good strategy. He just talks and talks and hopes the other person gets sick of it and leaves. Surely you can't criticize the man for using your own tactics?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

Like OS X, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Mach BSD kernel?
Like Safari, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Konqueror/KHTML engine?
Like iTunes, which was purchased and extended from a third party and is still nothing more than a run-of-the-mill media player that's too bloaty for its own good, including using freely-available visualization software like Geiss and G-Force.
Like QuickTime, which we've already addressed about its crappiness?

hi ,

huh , have you read a newspaper in the last couple of months , ....

itunes , .... well visit the site and see

quicktime crappy , could be , but huh , then why is , ....

pfffff , ....



have a nice day

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
They're all better than anything MS makes.

If that's the case, how come no one buys OS X Server and Windows Server's marketshare continues to skyrocket?

And IE is actually better than Safari.

And Windows Media 9 is lightyears ahead of QuickTime. Any codec comparison will tell you that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

huh , have you read a newspaper in the last couple of months , ....

itunes , .... well visit the site and see

I know all about iTunes, and their music-store thing which has been done before, but Apple users act like it's revoluntionary.

quicktime crappy , could be , but huh , then why is , ....

Then why does it crash all the time?
Why does the interface on the PC suck so much?
Why does it take forever to load?
Why do the codecs suck so much compared to WM9?

pfffff , ....



have a nice day

is right

[Drake Tungsten]

And Windows Media 9 is lightyears ahead of QuickTime. Any codec comparison will tell you that.

Windows Media Player is absolute crap on the Mac, while QuickTime is godly. Seems to be the exact opposite way on Windows. Seems that proprietary operating systems are at fault, not the respective media players.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't just believe him, I believe every single real benchmark I've seen about the Macs.

The Macs are not powerful machines. Get over it. They're pathetically slow by today's standards.

The only argument Mac users have for using a Mac is Apple's software, which Drake is trying to get you to argue about instead because I'm sure even he realizes you're getting your ass handed to you right now.


Huh?
That article was from January 2002.


This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring.

hi ,


"This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring. "

look in the mirror , ....

a mac user knows what he has , ... why would we try to talk with someone who does not even see to what is being presented , ...

overpriced , nope , .....

oh , btw , drake cant do zip to me , ....

as for the article , ..... well go with "herbert" the two of you woold make a great team , ...

and huh , my behind gets hadden out to no-one , ... are we clear on that , ...

bye

[Asher]

If you want another article to shoot down the Mac "speed demon" bullshit, check out this one at Ace's Hardware. Ace's Hardware is probably the most well-respected hardware site on the internet. Wraith and I (which almost never agree on anything) both believe so.

It's also newer, from Dec 2002, and includes the dual G4+ 1.25GHzs

Some benchmarks for you:
Adobe Premiere 6.5 Export to PAL DV
Dual Athlon MP 2200+: 33s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 65s

Adobe Premiere 6.5 Export Timeline to MPEG-4
Dual Athlon MP 2200+: 39s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 71s

Lightwave 7.5 Raytrace
Dual P4 Xeon 2.4 GHz: 67s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 102s

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

I know all about iTunes, and their music-store thing which has been done before, but Apple users act like it's revoluntionary.


Then why does it crash all the time?
Why does the interface on the PC suck so much?
Why does it take forever to load?
Why do the codecs suck so much compared to WM9?


is right

input defines output , ....

ever wondered why all the other people dont have problems , ...

maybe the guy at the console is responsible for the crash , ...

it does not mean that because it loads to slow on your comp or that the codecs suck or the interface sucks on a pc that the product is bad , .... it could be that the person who handles it has done something to it , that his or her comp spec's aint great , .... that there is a software conflict , in short a thousand reasons , ....

ask herbert , he can write about stuff he has never touched , ....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Windows Media Player is absolute crap on the Mac, while QuickTime is godly. Seems to be the exact opposite way on Windows. Seems that proprietary operating systems are at fault, not the respective media players.

I'm not just talking about Windows Media Player, but Windows Media.

Windows Media kicks QuickTime's ass on any platform. It's the set of codecs.

On the PC, any program that uses the DirectShow interface interacts with Windows Media seamlessly. So if you don't like WMP -- don't use it! Use Winamp, DivX Player, NVDVD, etc.

And you just can't argue that Windows Media and Quicktime are comparable codec-wise.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher
If you want another article to shoot down the Mac "speed demon" bullshit, check out this one at Ace's Hardware. Ace's Hardware is probably the most well-respected hardware site on the internet. Wraith and I (which almost never agree on anything) both believe so.

It's also newer, from Dec 2002, and includes the dual G4+ 1.25GHzs

Some benchmarks for you:
Adobe Premiere 6.5 Export to PAL DV
Dual Athlon MP 2200+: 33s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 65s

Adobe Premiere 6.5 Export Timeline to MPEG-4
Dual Athlon MP 2200+: 39s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 71s

Lightwave 7.5 Raytrace
Dual P4 Xeon 2.4 GHz: 67s
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: 102s

[tinyp3nis]

Hmm is there somewhere more comparisons? Like there was really nice speed comparison in toms hw of all the pentium/amd processors from last (5????) years. Anyway many.

Question:
Can the best macs beat my ancient palonimo XP1800+ ddr266 in benchmarks?
Notice benchamarkS not just one, but the overall performance, that's what I'm interested in.

Panag, that picture looks like a PR bs picture. % instead of actual figures. I remember on my pure Voodoo1 6mb case it said it was faster than voodoo 2. I have no Idea if that picture is correct or not, probably is, but looks suspicious sorry dude.

[Asher]

Panag just attached a PR image from Apple's notorious benchmarks, and it doesn't even compare the speed to the PCs, just shows "yes, when you increase the MHz, it gets faster! If you add another, it gets faster!".

And of course it shows % rather than real numbers.

Drake, I think you should ask Panag to stop. He's hurting Macs even more by reinforcing stereotypes of the users being brainwashed morons.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, I think you should ask Panag to stop. He's hurting Macs even more by reinforcing stereotypes of the users being brainwashed morons.

I never said he was helping our cause. I'm just glad he's giving you some competition in the brainwashed zealot category.

[Q Classic]

hi ,

panag , your post on benchmarks , ...

final cut pro 3 isn't released for the x86 platform , ... so nope it's useless for comparison ...

adobe premiere 6.5 , ... is for ppc and for x86 , ... so it's useful for comparison ...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

dorks. very few of the arguments presented here are reasons why apple is lagging behind windows. The vast majority (like over 90%) of consumers dont care about kernals, SWIBSDO and Ultra QQRX graphics cards.

[Q Classic]

Lawrence, you're probably one of the few here that is using sense in the debate.

People will use what they're comfortable with. That's all there is to it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
dorks. very few of the arguments presented here are reasons why apple is lagging behind windows. The vast majority (like over 90%) of consumers dont care about kernals, SWIBSDO and Ultra QQRX graphics cards.

Right, and the 90% of consumers that don't care about kernels, etc. are the ones who wonder why they have to pay twice as much for a software platform that has a fraction of the software base.