Originally posted by: 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.
Yes, the most obvious example that augumentum ad hominem is indeed a fallacy.
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.
Much more than "wouldn't be by much"
Part 2
Part 3
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.
Neither do most Win2k/XP users. But I suppose you aren't interested in giving the latest version of Windows a fair try for terms of stability and usability. Not many people who've used XP have complained that it's difficult to use nor about it giving them "random issues". The mere fact that there are so many more Windows users out there obviously means there will be more errors reported. Doesn't mean that it's any less or more prone-to-error than OSX.
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.
No, but if you buy a PowerMac and it comes with an LCD screen, what are you gonna do? Throw it away? What about an iMac? You can't remove the LCD screen.
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.
$245.99 is still quite cheap for a DVD-RW/+RW drive (Sony has a combo-drive which does both for under $300). Apple's superdrive, I should mention, is DVD-RW only.
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.
It's ironic you would call him biased. Your entire judgement that they're "not far behind" in terms of performance without even looking up benchmarks shows an obvious sign of bias. And your constant put down of Windows, despite the fact that WinXP is more compatible than OSX and asside from the flashy effects (which you can get for XP with third party software), I don't see anything else that's more "user friendly" and I use OSX pretty often. I'll admit Apple has done some pretty good things as far as standardized parts on their PowerMacs. In fact, up till recently when Intel has taken an active role in incorporating technologies like SATA, USB 2.0 and other things into their chipset, many Macs were well ahead of their PC counterparts in terms of supporting newer technology. However, that doesn't change the fact that the latest PowerMacs are well behind their x86 counterparts in terms of performance (especially in video editing, as seen above) and are grossly overpriced (a Dell 3.06 could cost $2500 with monitor). Last I looked, a PowerMac dual 1.42 G4 without monitor cost in excess of $3000.
You don't have to be insulting to get a point across either.
No, but many feel they do.
Facebook
Twitter