another mac vs pc compare

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe[...]
Just outta curiosity what do you need to do that a current Mac is too slow to do?


Lethal

how about Photoshop / premiere / aftereffects ?

Seriously, what puzzles me the most about mac fans, is that they claim to be "graphics professionals", yet the only positive thing about Apple is the OS. A professional cares about how fast his work gets done (in photoshop or whatev) instead of how pretty the buttons are in the file manager window, no?

trust me...after loading over 800 fonts and thousands of different colors to a ripper with a PC that NEVER EVER gets the color right...I go to my Mac and boom instant printout.

Plus in the graphics industry there is almost NO software that can talk to a plate processor. So you cannot go direct to plate with a PC...gotta have a Mac.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: NOX
OS X is a good OS! If it were out for the PC I would definitely buy it and do some kind of dual boot config with Win2k/XP. The only problem I have with mac?s are the hardware. The CPU is evidently dreadful when compared to AMD and Intel. The Imac G4 I used for about six months was good at first, but when we started installing more, and more programs it started to run slow and it was very noticeable, unlike the effect you get with a PC. IE for the mac was just slow period, the Internet was slow. Mac really needs to leave Motorola and get with AMD and Intel.

You mean IBM. Anyhow, even with x86 based machines, if you do not take care of your computer properly, it is going to get slower and slower.

No I meant PC. Are you one of those guys that send emails to every web site that uses the title "Mac vs PC"?

Yes even an x86 platform will slow down if you don't take care of it, however if you do there is little to no noticeable slowdown.

My current system for example (in sig), displayed no visible slowdown and its been running the same install for over a year now. Essentially very minimal prolong affect, however the Mac appeared to slowdown by the hour (more like day), and I was not the only person who felt this way.

I would love to see OS X come to the PC, opps sorry I mean x86 platform. Mac?s will continue to be whooped by PC?s until Apple chooses to do so, to get with people like AMD and Intel could do wonders for Apple. Until then Apple will continue to be 2nd best. I won?t even comment on the price comparison.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe[...]
Just outta curiosity what do you need to do that a current Mac is too slow to do?


Lethal

how about Photoshop / premiere / aftereffects ?

Seriously, what puzzles me the most about mac fans, is that they claim to be "graphics professionals", yet the only positive thing about Apple is the OS. A professional cares about how fast his work gets done (in photoshop or whatev) instead of how pretty the buttons are in the file manager window, no?

trust me...after loading over 800 fonts and thousands of different colors to a ripper with a PC that NEVER EVER gets the color right...I go to my Mac and boom instant printout.

Plus in the graphics industry there is almost NO software that can talk to a plate processor. So you cannot go direct to plate with a PC...gotta have a Mac.

Yes but that's not to suggest that a PC can create a lot of great graphics. Like DBM & Phong, they both use PC's for their work, though I'm not sure about ALL their work.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: NOX
OS X is a good OS! If it were out for the PC I would definitely buy it and do some kind of dual boot config with Win2k/XP. The only problem I have with mac?s are the hardware. The CPU is evidently dreadful when compared to AMD and Intel. The Imac G4 I used for about six months was good at first, but when we started installing more, and more programs it started to run slow and it was very noticeable, unlike the effect you get with a PC. IE for the mac was just slow period, the Internet was slow. Mac really needs to leave Motorola and get with AMD and Intel.

You mean IBM. Anyhow, even with x86 based machines, if you do not take care of your computer properly, it is going to get slower and slower.

No I meant PC. Are you one of those guys that send emails to every web site that uses the title "Mac vs PC"?

Yes even an x86 platform will slow down if you don't take care of it, however if you do there is little to no noticeable slowdown.

My current system for example (in sig), displayed no visible slowdown and its been running the same install for over a year now. Essentially very minimal prolong affect, however the Mac appeared to slowdown by the hour (more like day), and I was not the only person who felt this way.

I would love to see OS X come to the PC, opps sorry I mean x86 platform. Mac?s will continue to be whooped by PC?s until Apple chooses to do so, to get with people like AMD and Intel could do wonders for Apple. Until then Apple will continue to be 2nd best. I won?t even comment on the price comparison.

What n0c meant by IBM is their 970 PPC chip is probably what's gonna power the next gen of Macs (not Intel or AMD), and if even half the hype is true the days of Macs being "slow" are numbered.


Lethal

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: NOX
OS X is a good OS! If it were out for the PC I would definitely buy it and do some kind of dual boot config with Win2k/XP. The only problem I have with mac?s are the hardware. The CPU is evidently dreadful when compared to AMD and Intel. The Imac G4 I used for about six months was good at first, but when we started installing more, and more programs it started to run slow and it was very noticeable, unlike the effect you get with a PC. IE for the mac was just slow period, the Internet was slow. Mac really needs to leave Motorola and get with AMD and Intel.

You mean IBM. Anyhow, even with x86 based machines, if you do not take care of your computer properly, it is going to get slower and slower.

No I meant PC. Are you one of those guys that send emails to every web site that uses the title "Mac vs PC"?

Yes even an x86 platform will slow down if you don't take care of it, however if you do there is little to no noticeable slowdown.

My current system for example (in sig), displayed no visible slowdown and its been running the same install for over a year now. Essentially very minimal prolong affect, however the Mac appeared to slowdown by the hour (more like day), and I was not the only person who felt this way.

I would love to see OS X come to the PC, opps sorry I mean x86 platform. Mac?s will continue to be whooped by PC?s until Apple chooses to do so, to get with people like AMD and Intel could do wonders for Apple. Until then Apple will continue to be 2nd best. I won?t even comment on the price comparison.

What n0c meant by IBM is their 970 PPC chip is probably what's gonna power the next gen of Macs (not Intel or AMD), and if even half the hype is true the days of Macs being "slow" are numbered.


Lethal

Ahh... I see. Then I take back what I said.

I surely hope so, I really like OS X, very simple and one solid OS. Not to mention the audio quality, all my CD's which I've burned using our G4 sounds MUCH better then what any of our PC's can produce.

 

[imgod2u]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

Just look at the serious graphics studios & scientific world and see how many powerPC/mac that they use to maximizes their productivity? Where uptime and development cycle it at a cutthroat rate

this is so true, in my xray lab we are constantly upgrading our viewing machines every 6 months, the latest boxes we have at p4 2.533ghz/1gb RDRAM

we are set to upgrade here in another month or two, these boxes come installed with the latest version of linux

the only apple's i've seen in the labs where i work are for word processing and internet browsing.

even our sequencing cluster is either alphas, suns, sgi or dell boxes. the only macs in that lab are used to control some of the older sequencers, but the actual computers doing the crunching at pcs

but that article about upgrading the computer systems in a scientific lab to apples is just rediculous, they have too much money to be throwing around and the computer users in the group must be apple users fromt he get go. I don't know many people in biological science fields that use apple boxes for number crunching, thats all handled by 64bit machines, or high clocked pc boxes, i can't imagine its all that different for other fields. Even in our NMR lab all the boxes were just upgraded with the exception of the controller computer and they are all dell boxes, and again the only mac in the lab is for word processing and internet related stuff

The "velocity engine" can do wonders with some numbers. Alphas are dead and expensive. Sun machines have stengths in other fields. I agree that fast x86 based machines are a great asset, but Macs can crunch numbers damn well.

The "Velocity Engine", which refers to the AltiVec SIMD unit of the PPC G4 variants, wouldn't help much in massive scientific calculations. Those tasks usually require large amounts of 64-bit integer math which no SIMD engine can handle as I know of (except maybe the one in Itanium, not sure). I don't think most 64-bit processors out there support SIMD for 64-bit integer vectors. Even if it were used for 32-bit integer calculations, SSE would provide just as much, if not more improvements for such number crunching than AltiVec would. AMD's upcomming Hammer should provide quite a relief for these tasks that do a lot of 64-bit integer math but don't want to pay the high price for Sun/IBM/HP machines. But Macs certainly aren't the replacement (at least not until Apple adopts the IBM PPC 970), and they certainly aren't a good one.

 

[dannybin1742]

good point, this whole argument really boils down to is different speeds for different needs, hey if it works for you great, but if your work scales with clock speed, then you know your decision

 

[Duvie]

This whole thing is funny as heck!!!

It seems no one ( and I mean the rude mac fanboys who can't seem to stick to facts and not insults) is going to address Aduls quote...

I THINK THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP!!!!!
And while we are at it lets stop the blantant skewed lies of the MAC commercials!!! I can beat those fools tlaking about how they saved xmas cause dig camera drivers had to be downloaded from the net to work....BS!!! They obviosly were not using winxp...

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Duvie
This whole thing is funny as heck!!!

It seems no one ( and I mean the rude mac fanboys who can't seem to stick to facts and not insults) is going to address Aduls quote...

I THINK THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP!!!!!
And while we are at it lets stop the blantant skewed lies of the MAC commercials!!! I can beat those fools tlaking about how they saved xmas cause dig camera drivers had to be downloaded from the net to work....BS!!! They obviosly were not using winxp...

I know I'm not "no one" but Aduls quote represents the opinions of one person working in a field dominated by Macs. YMMV w/any product you purchase.

And as annoying as I find Apple's "switcher" ads I'm they seem to be remembered and get people talking so they must be working.

BTW, it's "Mac" not "MAC" (one stands for Macintosh the other for Machine Address Code) and thanx for such an unflaming post. I know how hard it is to have to tolerate rude fanboys who can't seem to stick to facts and not insults.


Lethal

 

[Bovinicus]

Macs make up for their lack of performance with ease of use and low down times. However, things have changed in the favor of the PC in recent times.

With MS moving to the NT core for their home OS, stability for the vast majority of users is a reality. My system is rock solid stable while overclocked (Using Windows 2000). I am not just talking about being able to run 3DMark. I have had near one month up times. I only reboot when I make some kind of system change that warrants such things (Driver installation, certain software, etc.). Furthermore, more software for content creation is becoming available for the PC. Sure, it isn't quite up to par with Mac's offerings, but very few users need anything more than the programs on the PC offer. Basically, this leaves Macs catering to a niche market.

Furthermore, I don't know what this "low-maintenance" talk about Macs means. What maintenance are you referring to that people have to do with PCs? Running disk defragmenter once a month while I'm sleeping? Running scandisk prior to the defragmentation? The case cleaning I do every 6 months or so?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Macs make up for their lack of performance with ease of use and low down times. However, things have changed in the favor of the PC in recent times.

With MS moving to the NT core for their home OS, stability for the vast majority of users is a reality. My system is rock solid stable while overclocked (Using Windows 2000). I am not just talking about being able to run 3DMark. I have had near one month up times. I only reboot when I make some kind of system change that warrants such things (Driver installation, certain software, etc.). Furthermore, more software for content creation is becoming available for the PC. Sure, it isn't quite up to par with Mac's offerings, but very few users need anything more than the programs on the PC offer. Basically, this leaves Macs catering to a niche market.

Furthermore, I don't know what this "low-maintenance" talk about Macs means. What maintenance are you referring to that people have to do with PCs? Running disk defragmenter once a month while I'm sleeping? Running scandisk prior to the defragmentation? The case cleaning I do every 6 months or so?

Only one month up times? My Win2k box stays up for months at a time. If you don't count hardware or software installs that require reboots I've had her up 24/7 for nearly 6 months on more than one occasion. And Macs have always, and probably will always, cater to a niche market. Apple makes a specific product with a specific image and goes after specific users. Apple isn't out to make a computer for the masses (if they were you'd see $499 iMacs competeing w/the $499 Dells). Mac heads are, catagorically, not much different than hardcore gamers, PC enthusiasts, or linux geeks (they all want something that Dell, Gateway, or Compaq can't offer them).


Lethal

 

[Bovinicus]

Apple isn't out to make a computer for the masses

I highly doubt that. What was the point of the pretty colored iMac cases then? It was a marketing move to get more people to buy their products. Apple's executives are just like all other executives, they only care about maximizing profits. They definitely want to be able to compete with PCs. The problem is that they can't. If they could, they would.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

Apple isn't out to make a computer for the masses

I highly doubt that. What was the point of the pretty colored iMac cases then? It was a marketing move to get more people to buy their products. Apple's executives are just like all other executives, they only care about maximizing profits. They definitely want to be able to compete with PCs. The problem is that they can't. If they could, they would.

As I said in my first post Apple is selling an image, not just a computer. If Apple wanted to compete head-to-head w/Dell and sell to the lowest common denominator users we'd see $499 Macs in beige boxes, not $1199 iMacs w/15" LCDs attached to dome-shaped bases. Of course Apple wants to sell more computers, but they aren't going to strip down and sanitize their product to do it. Apple doesn't target the consumer who always looks at price first and features second.

I hate car metaphors but I'm gonna use one (and this refers to business model only, not quality of product). A company like Dell or Gateway is similiar to a company like Honda/Acura or GM in that they all have products ranging from econo-boxes to luxury sedans. Apple is more like BMW or Mercedes in that they don't target the "low end" of the consumer scale. BMW isn't going to make a car at a price point compete w/a Metro anymore than Apple is gonna make a computer at a price point to compete w/an e-machine.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

Apple isn't out to make a computer for the masses

I highly doubt that. What was the point of the pretty colored iMac cases then? It was a marketing move to get more people to buy their products. Apple's executives are just like all other executives, they only care about maximizing profits. They definitely want to be able to compete with PCs. The problem is that they can't. If they could, they would.

compete with the sagging budgets and razor thin margins of pc makers? that's not competing, thats just outright idiocy.

apple has lower volume, but they still make better profits. they don't NEED to "compete" with the likes of dell, they're already doing better than that.