Couple of potential myths in my computing life that I need to have set straight...

[xboxist]

Hi again. Back with another round of questions for you. I've thought of a few general PC curiosities that I have never questioned for some reason.

1) MACs own PC's when it comes to multimedia editing...

Over the course of the last few years, I've ran into the general concensus that if you're going to get into music or film, then you simply have no choice other than to get a MAC since they are superior to PC's in that department. Exactly how true was/is this? I'm looking at modern top-o-the-line PC's and I can't see how they could be inferior to MACs.


2) "Don't bother getting a gig of RAM, you'll never use it..."

I'm the computer novice within a core group of friends that I have. While none of them are even close to computer-master status, I've always pretty much trusted what they've said. This is something I've heard them say more than once in various situations. So, what type of PC user would have a need for a gig of RAM or more? Maybe they were totally wrong and almost everyone would see enhanced performance, but maybe not enough of an enhancement to warrant the upgrade cost?


3) HD partitioning

When is this needed? It seems like it just had a pointless, 2% coolness factor back in the day when you would make 20 sub-HDs. But in reality, when should it be taken into consideration? For example, I have a 120gig drive that is not partitioned at all. All of my apps. and such work from the same drive.

That's all I can think of for now... answer to all three, or none at all... but I appreciate you peeking at this.

 

[dexvx]

Hi again. Back with another round of questions for you. I've thought of a few general PC curiosities that I have never questioned for some reason.

1) MACs own PC's when it comes to multimedia editing...

Over the course of the last few years, I've ran into the general concensus that if you're going to get into music or film, then you simply have no choice other than to get a MAC since they are superior to PC's in that department. Exactly how true was/is this? I'm looking at modern top-o-the-line PC's and I can't see how they could be inferior to MACs.

No comment on this, although there are some obscure benchmarks in which Macs still own.

2) "Don't bother getting a gig of RAM, you'll never use it..."

I'm the computer novice within a core group of friends that I have. While none of them are even close to computer-master status, I've always pretty much trusted what they've said. This is something I've heard them say more than once in various situations. So, what type of PC user would have a need for a gig of RAM or more? Maybe they were totally wrong and almost everyone would see enhanced performance, but maybe not enough of an enhancement to warrant the upgrade cost?

It depends on how you would use it. Some programs demand a lot of memory, in which 1GB is bare minimum. Some programs are also crappily programmed and develop memory leaks. However, for a large amount of people, 512MB is more than sufficient. I'm typing this on a 256MB Ram Tualatin system running Windows2k, and it works just as good as my AXP with 512MB. The memory usage never goes over 200MB, as this is only a FTP server and chat box.

3) HD partitioning

When is this needed? It seems like it just had a pointless, 2% coolness factor back in the day when you would make 20 sub-HDs. But in reality, when should it be taken into consideration? For example, I have a 120gig drive that is not partitioned at all. All of my apps. and such work from the same drive.

I tend to partition a drive just for Windows and Windows applications. If windows screwed up, I needn't format my whole drive (or in your case 120GB), losing all the data when it is not needed. Instead, I could just format my Windows drive, saving every other piece of data on the drive.

 

[IanthePez]

1. Macs do not beat PCs in the hardware department at all anymore. Supposedly some of the software is better, but who knows on that.

2. A gig of ram can be used in cases such as the newest games or heavy grahpics/video editing. 512mb is pretty much the standard now and some things are starting to push even that.

3. Degragging takes less time on a smaller drive/partition so that's one reason. Another is installing the os on one partition and everything else on another. Then when you want to format you format just one partition.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Question 2: Gaming, Photo Editing, Movie Editing, etc.
Question 3: It just a way to organize it pretty much. I guess this helps out when you get ready to format and build a new computer or upgrade parts like a cpu/mobo,etc. This way, your OS's files are seperate and you know where everything is.

Quesion 1: I will respond to this to my best ability. I'm not asking for flames on this either, I haven't ever used one of the newer MAC's so I only know what others have told me. I have heard they are better in that department and PC's still have catching up to do. I'm guessing this could very well be true because Apple must be doing something with their research on many of these things.

Now, I'm going to sleep. I'd write more, but I'm tired. *yawn*

 

[everman]

Partitioning is actually a very smart thing to do. Install your OS on one partition and ghost it. Put data files on another. As said, defragging a 5gb os partition is a lot faster than a 120gb.

 

[Batman5177]

1) does anyone have the link where Adobe shows where their programs are faster with pc's than mac's?? i cant seem to find it.

2) unreal tournament 2003 loves a gig of ram, so does the doom 3 alpha (not that i would know hehe)

3) i save all my files on the second partition so when i format to reinstall windows, i dont lose all my files. it's not necessary on everyone's computer, but i hate backing up files to disk.

 

[apoppin]

1. Myth

2. Depends. True for Win 98 . . . maybe for 2K and more likely needed for XP.
(also program dependent)

3. Depends on your "style". I have done both and now - currently - keep everything on ONE partition.
("saving" defrag time is the most ridiculous excuse I have EVER heard as a "reason" for multiple partitions; same with "losing data" when you only have one HD.)

 

[Ardan]

1. MACs do excel over PCs in that area. The latest G4 Processors are miles ahead of the Pentium 4's in performance and its not the clockspeed of course. Also, MACs use DDR memory now, utilize nvidia and ATI cards and LCD screens tend to be standard on the systems. I have used one of these systems and it is VERY nice and if I was buying a new computer, I would probably get one of those MAC towers. Apple's OS X is also right up my alley as well. It is not a myth that they are ahead of PCs in that area...they are of course ahead of PCs. They match the PCs in hardware and speed, and the OS is certainly better than Windows XP and LCD screens are standard...something yet to be had with PCs. Don't forget about their Superdrives and those DVD-RW drives that are now readily available there. How is THAT a myth?
Edit: You can buy MACs with a Radeon 9700 Pro, or buy it and put it in there. They use 120Gb ATA/100 HDs, DDR333 memory.
you decide if they're behind PCs, everyone

2. A gigabyte of RAM, in my opinion, is best spent on a video/dv editing system, a server, or a system that compiles a lot of sourcecode. Everyday systems won't see a need for it, especially games...the latest games won't see a need for 1Gig of RAM...only 512.

3. HD Partitiong is indeed very smart, as others have said. I have an 80Gig HD partitioned three ways and it helps to organize my files. I keep multimedia-related things on the 3rd partition, games on the 2nd and everything else on the 1st one. Also, like someone said, you can wipe out your windows partition w/o losing everything because you can move critical data to another partition. I don't agree with that it 'saves time in defragging' though. If you maintain the computer well and defragment at least once a month, you shouldn't see a huge length of time to defragment it. However, when only one partition is fragmented, it obviously shaves time when you only have to defragment that partition instead of all 80 or 120Gb of data.

 

[Baileybbk]

1) Unfortunately (for MAC) a lot of the software that used to be developed for the MAC first is now being produced for the Windows platform first....the second platform usually gets short changed. This is just a matter of economics for the software shops.

2) 1 Gig is easily used by programs now, and things will only get worse. Of course, if you are only surfing the web then 512Mb is plenty.

3) Makes house-keeping easier. I use 1 partition for Windows, 1 for programs, and 1 for data. Easy for me to backup my data by just duplicating the partition.

 

[SUOrangeman]

A few thoughts on partitioning

-SUO

 

[Pariah]

1) No amount of CPU power can make up for software shortcomings. Mac's still rule the roost on the software side. In fields like desktop publishing they are the industry standard pure and simple. It doesn't matter what you think is better, if you want a job in that field, you will be using a Mac.

2) For 99% of users and 99.5% of non WinXP users it's true. Everyone likes to believe they are the hardest core computer user around running fluid dynamic simulations and weather simulators on their PC 24 hours a day, but the reality is it's a very rare instance that a typical home user would come across a scenario where they would need that much RAM.

3) Simply user preference. It isn't required, but still has its uses to some users, myself included.

 

[Confused]

1) MACs own PC's when it comes to multimedia editing...

Over the course of the last few years, I've ran into the general concensus that if you're going to get into music or film, then you simply have no choice other than to get a MAC since they are superior to PC's in that department. Exactly how true was/is this? I'm looking at modern top-o-the-line PC's and I can't see how they could be inferior to MACs.

Although the higher speed PCs nowadays are beating Macs in video/audio decoding/encoding, and a lot of the software available for Mac, is not available for PC. Although there are alternatives, they are generally not as good as the Mac versions. I have not used Macs or PCs for music/film, however this is what i've heard (and remembered) from around here

2) "Don't bother getting a gig of RAM, you'll never use it..."

I'm the computer novice within a core group of friends that I have. While none of them are even close to computer-master status, I've always pretty much trusted what they've said. This is something I've heard them say more than once in various situations. So, what type of PC user would have a need for a gig of RAM or more? Maybe they were totally wrong and almost everyone would see enhanced performance, but maybe not enough of an enhancement to warrant the upgrade cost?

If you are doing video editing, photo editing, or programming, then 1GB+ of RAM is what is needed. Some newer games, such as Battlefield 1942, and Sim City 4, benifit hugely from 1GB of RAM, compared to 512MB. In SC4, once you get to about 75k people in your city, it starts to crawl on even the fastest computers, with only 512MB RAM, whereas on computers with 1GB RAM, it is still smooth. BF1942 benifits more too, as it can load even the biggest of maps into memory, and can help to prevent that stuttering.

3) HD partitioning

When is this needed? It seems like it just had a pointless, 2% coolness factor back in the day when you would make 20 sub-HDs. But in reality, when should it be taken into consideration? For example, I have a 120gig drive that is not partitioned at all. All of my apps. and such work from the same drive.

I have an 80gb drive. It's split into 2 partitions, a 25gb partition for Windows, and all my programs/games to be installed on, and the rest, for my music, videos, drivers, downloads etc. When I reinstall Windows (which i do every few months, or sooner if I play too much and screw it up ), then I only format the first partition. This means all my drivers, music and videos are on the other partition, and do not get touched. Of course if my whole drive fails, then I'll lose it, but that's the risk I take by not backing it up! Having 2 (or more) partitions is useful if you have stuff that you want to save between OS installs, or if you are dual booting, and want Win2k and Win98 on seperate partitions, and want to have a partition that has all your data on, so that it can be acccessed by both OSes


Confused

 

[SgtZulu]

Why MAC > PC for video editing
Final Cut Pro

 

[wake]

1. Granted there is some software that is available only for Mac, you will never see a $1200 Mac beat a $1200 PC, nor a 1.2 GHz Mac beat a 1.2Ghz PC.

 

[Slammy1]

PC vs Mac
Yes, the Mac does have certain advantages, especially in graphics display. Apple limited other company's investment in their format, which is a strength and a weakness. For example, a Mac video card has very limited possible arrangements for compatability, so it can specialize in ways a PC cannot. The downside of this is less companies developing for the Mac format, and higher pricing. Dollar for dollar, PCs over Macs.

1 Gig RAM
I remember when 128 MB was a big waste, and that was only a couple of years ago. As OS's move towards higher end systems, you'll see more of a need for it. Past a Gig will slow down a computer for some applications, especially older boards where it's necessary to run ECC memory for >1 Gig. In a year or two at the most, 1 Gig will be a standard the same way 384 is considered minimum now.

Partitioning
In addition to the advantages listed, it's nice to move downloads to a separate partition from your primary due to viruses and fragmenting of HDs. I have 4 HDs, each with their own purpose and each 1 partition.

 

[Dug]

. MACs do excel over PCs in that area. The latest G4 Processors are miles ahead of the Pentium 4's in performance and its not the clockspeed of course. Also, MACs use DDR memory now, utilize nvidia and ATI cards and LCD screens tend to be standard on the systems. I have used one of these systems and it is VERY nice and if I was buying a new computer, I would probably get one of those MAC towers. Apple's OS X is also right up my alley as well. It is not a myth that they are ahead of PCs in that area...they are of course ahead of PCs. They match the PCs in hardware and speed, and the OS is certainly better than Windows XP and LCD screens are standard...something yet to be had with PCs. Don't forget about their Superdrives and those DVD-RW drives that are now readily available there. How is THAT a myth?

Please be specific where the G4 Processor is miles ahead of the Pentium4.
Just curious. Because we have dual G4's and Pentium4 here at work and I don't see anyone using the Mac's.
And how did OSX become better than XP again? Oh because it's Linux? Too bad you have to run over 3/4 of your stuff in OS9 because its not compatible with OSX. Not to mention ADB support.

 

[Double Trouble]

apoppin: ("saving" defrag time is the most ridiculous excuse I have EVER heard as a "reason" for multiple partitions; same with "losing data" when you only have one HD.)

"losing data" is indeed a valid reason for multiple partitions. Yes, on a single drive, if the drive goes bad you lose everything no matter the partitioning. However, occasionaly fat tables get corrupted and other such problems occur. If you have multiple partitions, you only lose data on the partition with the bad FAT table, not all of them. Further, if you accidentally mess up a partition (perhaps using Partition Magic or something), you only affect a single partition instead of everything......

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tagej

apoppin: ("saving" defrag time is the most ridiculous excuse I have EVER heard as a "reason" for multiple partitions; same with "losing data" when you only have one HD.)

"losing data" is indeed a valid reason for multiple partitions. Yes, on a single drive, if the drive goes bad you lose everything no matter the partitioning. However, occasionaly fat tables get corrupted and other such problems occur. If you have multiple partitions, you only lose data on the partition with the bad FAT table, not all of them. Further, if you accidentally mess up a partition (perhaps using Partition Magic or something), you only affect a single partition instead of everything......

For you perhaps . . . I keep complete and incremental backups of everything. If you don't have partitions, you won't have the genuine worry of Partition Magic screwing something up. The chance of an irrecoverable FAT table hosing the entire partition is not sufficient reason for me to have multiple partitions.

It's a matter of style . . . not "protecting data" or "saving defrag time" . . . isn't reason for me (especially "saving defrag time").

 

[bluemax]

I won't say Mac hardware is better than PC - HOWEVER the Mac does indeed have some much better software when it comes to certain areas. Mac was always much further ahead for MIDI and audio recording software... it's only been VERY recent that *some* of the music software is being designed for PC instead of Mac.

But one program alone makes me wonder what the PC is doing wrong... I don't know the name of it offhand, but it's a presentation package that puts MS PowerPoint to absolute, complete shame!! It has graphic control and transitions that rival PowerPoint a hundred times over. If I were putting on a demonstration that needed "glitz", I would use a Mac and this program WITHOUT QUESTION! They made a PC version but it was barely better than MS PowerPoint... the Mac version is simply and vastly superior.

 

[microAmp]

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Ardan
The latest G4 Processors are miles ahead of the Pentium 4's in performance

<0wnage>

and its not the clockspeed of course. Also, MACs use DDR memory now (so do PCs and they have for a long time), utilize nvidia and ATI cards (which PCs have had since approximately the Stone Age) and LCD screens tend to be standard on the systems ("standard" is good, "only option" is bad!).

I have used one of these systems and it is VERY nice and if I was buying a new computer, I would probably get one of those MAC towers. Apple's OS X is also right up my alley as well.

Is that the corner of n00b Lane and Zealot Street?

It is not a myth that they are ahead of PCs in that area...they are of course ahead of PCs.

Read it and weep.

They match the PCs in hardware and speed

I believe that has been thoroughly 0wn3d by the article above

and the OS is certainly better than Windows XP

/me boots into FreeBSD 5.x - Windows What?

and LCD screens are standard...something yet to be had with PCs.

Earth to n00b. LCD screens are both expensive and utter ass for gaming unless they're sub-16ms. Standard good. "Only option" bad.

Don't forget about their Superdrives and those DVD-RW drives that are now readily available there. How is THAT a myth?

Ever heard of this wonderful thing called a "DVD-R drive"? You can buy one for about US$150 now and put it in a nice inexpensive PC.

Edit: You can buy MACs with a Radeon 9700 Pro, or buy it and put it in there. They use 120Gb ATA/100 HDs, DDR333 memory. you decide if they're behind PCs, everyone

Ooh, an R9700P with a 120GB HD and DDR333. Wow. Hold me back.
Athlon XP 2700 with dual-channel DDR400, R9800P, and 2x100GB HD - which also cost about 1/2 that PowerMac

</0wnage>

- M4H

 

[Jeff7181]

I would guess Macs do just as well as PC's is most things. One may do better than the other in certain things, but I think it pretty much evens out. There's no one best solution for everyone. Like I've said before, find out what you need, consider your wants, and choose your hardware and software accordingly. One thing I have noticed is, an entry level Mac is $1000. While an entry level PC can be had at Best Buy for under $500 after rebates... about $600-700 without rebates. And that includes speakers and a printer, which to my knowledge, the entry level Mac does not come with.

As far as the RAM, again... find out what you need, what you want, and buy accordingly. Windows XP has a hard time doing more than Web Browsing and Office apps with 256 MB. Get a program that demands memory, and you'll be better off with 512... even better with 1 GB.

As for hard drive partitioning... my main reason is fragmentation... when I download a ton of stuff, it goes on a separate partition and my Windows partition with all my frequently used programs don't get fragmented nearly as quickly or as much. I keep my swap file on it's own partition, as well as games, so they don't get fragmented either. Another reason for hard drive partitioning would just be for organization. If you don't like partitioning, then I would suggest getting a fast, but small hard drive for Windows and your programs, and get a large, but maybe not necessarily fast, hard drive to store data on.

 

[Ardan]

Is that the corner of n00b Lane and Zealot Street?

Wow, you're cool. I would take other posts on here as nice, intelligent, valid arguments for my claim that the latest macs do not 'suck' but this is rediculous.

I believe that has been thoroughly 0wn3d by the article above

You obviously misunderstood what I said. The fact that you can buy the same things on a MAC, such as a GF4 Titanium, or a Radeon 9500 Pro - 9700 Pro and the processors are just as fast as PC processors because of their internal components. Maybe if I ran a benchmark that is available on the PC as well, a 3Ghz P4 might beat the 1.25Ghz G4, but I know it wouldn't be by much. My friend works at the Apple Store in the Mall of America, and he has that 1.25Ghz G4 and I can't tell any difference with performance.

me boots into FreeBSD 5.x - Windows What?

You have never ever used OS X, have you? It isn't a carbon copy of BSD by any means. They took the core components of BSD and Unix in general and made it extremely user friendly. This is something that Unix and Linux communities still haven't gotten to the point of. That is some very good programming. Oh yea, and my friend hasn't had random problems like Windows PCs typically do, and he doesn't have to reformat his HD every 6 months.

Earth to n00b. LCD screens are both expensive and utter ass for gaming unless they're sub-16ms. Standard good. "Only option" bad.

LCD screens are not 'utter ass' for gaming. Alienware PCs running on 17" Samsung LCDs look great in games. I am a college student, and I am right now working part time but I could still afford to buy a 17" LCD screen if I wanted it (off of Newegg). They are not the only option either. Apple's LCD screens are very nice so don't compare them to the half-assed LCDs that are rampant from PC manufacturers (save only a few of them). If you look on Apple's store, you can buy good 17"-21" CRTs and can configure G4's without a monitor. I know people who have G4s and they use 19" CRTs bought online or at a store instead of the LCDs commonly configured with the new MACs. It is good they are standard, but NO they are NOT the only option for MAC users.

Ever heard of this wonderful thing called a "DVD-R drive"? You can buy one for about US$150 now and put it in a nice inexpensive PC.

$150? Yea right, I have looked into them recently because my cousin wanted one and he wasn't sure where to start looking. I think the cheapest I have ever come across was $245.99 on Newegg. Of course, maybe they're cheaper somewhere at some small, unknown reseller.

Athlon XP 2700 with dual-channel DDR400, R9800P, and 2x100GB HD - which also cost about 1/2 that PowerMac

And what good would Dual-Channel DDR400 do on an Athlon with only a 333Mhz Front Side Bus? You can buy 2x100-180Gb HDs for MACs, and the 9800 will without a doubt be available for MAC users. You can be childish and call me a 'n00b' if you want for being unbiased with hardware decisions but MACs are NOT years behind PCs anymore and they are a viable choice for those that would decide to get one. It is unwise to be so biased and say that MACs are horrible, horrible computers regardless of the facts. They have done a lot of catching up and people would agree they have really done a good job of doing that as well.

You don't have to be insulting to get a point across either.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Ardan

You don't have to be insulting to get a point across either.

More people should follow this advice.

Aside from that... the main reason I don't find Macs to be a viable choice for 95% of consumers is the price. You can get a PC that does the same thing for 1/2 the price.

 

[sharkeeper]

) For 99% of users and 99.5% of non WinXP users it's true. Everyone likes to believe they are the hardest core computer user around running fluid dynamic simulations and weather simulators on their PC 24 hours a day, but the reality is it's a very rare instance that a typical home user would come across a scenario where they would need that much RAM.

Looks like I'm that 1%

-DAK-