Is there a reason to buy a Mac now

[BlakkIce]

lately we have seen mac G4's getting distroyed by the P4 3.06 and then there is the speculation that the nest round of G4 will run AMD Hammer chips but is there any reason now why someone should buy a mac

other than OS X

 

[Adul]

cant think of any other then some apps used on mac.


rumor is also they might be using IBM new power 4 base cpu

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BlakkIce
lately we have seen mac G4's getting distroyed by the P4 3.06 and then there is the speculation that the nest round of G4 will run AMD Hammer chips but is there any reason now why someone should buy a mac

other than OS X

Check out this thread a multiple answers to your question.

 

[magomago]

Yeah, but we are talking like 900 G4's and whatnot compared to 3.06 Ghx processor.

It is true that RISC CPUs slaughter CISC cpus....but after so many Mhz something is bound to happen, ya know?

Its like saying a 1600+ sucks against a 3.5Ghz Oc'd Celeron or something...

 

[Superman9534]

I have a 733mhz G4 with latest version of OS X and its great. Sure it isn't as fast as my 1800+ With 2000 pro, but its a hell of a lot more stable and more fun to work with. I agree, apple's hardware does suck right now, and I wouldn't buy a new system if I didn't already have a mac. I say wait until they go 64bit (i doubt it will be hammer, then all apps will have to be recompiled and it would be hell). I say they use the PPC 970 based on the IBM Power4, but it'll be a while still.

But I can say OS X is much more fun to work with then 2000 or XP pro. It just works, even networking with windows 2000 is good (although it takes 3rd party software to share printers between them, but oh well). Also I can compile linux programs and KDE 3 for it. Its pretty cool.

 

[hdeck]

comparing a 1 ghz processor to a 3 ghz processor is sure logical

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: hdeck
comparing a 1 ghz processor to a 3 ghz processor is sure logical

Yes it is when they cost the same.

 

[Huma]

Originally posted by: Superman9534
I have a 733mhz G4 with latest version of OS X and its great. Sure it isn't as fast as my 1800+ With 2000 pro, but its a hell of a lot more stable and more fun to work with.

I find it odd whenever people claim that OS X is much more stable than 2k. I've used 2k for 3 years and it's been the most solid OS I've ever used. Better yet, it's fast even on older hardware.
I use OS 10.2 on my G3 (350/512mb ram) at work, and it's a pig. Stability is better than os 9 for sure, but we've had more app crashes under OS X (though probably while running under os9 compat mode) than we have on our win2k machines.

Daily usage under win2k includes running web servers, photoshop, homesite, outlook + assorted smaller apps (trillian/winamp) simultaneously, often running throughout the week without rebooting.
I can't recall the last time my machine (at work or at home) has actually crashed on me.

I'm not arguing that osX isn't stable, I just find the argument of win2k being unstable to be a load of crap if it's been built on solid hardware and maintained adequately (eg. run windows update every 6 months).

 

[chizow]

I like to frequently upgrade my hardware, so I've never considered a Mac for that reason. I'm also a hardcore gamer, and Mac support just isn't there.

Chiz

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: hdeck
comparing a 1 ghz processor to a 3 ghz processor is sure logical

Yes it is when they cost the same.

you sure about that chief? why don't you look at the price of the processors...

 

[smp]

/me steps in to beat the dead horse a little more



why does this redundant topic have to come up every week? There are plenty of good reasons to buy a mac, there are plenty of good reasons to buy a PC, there are plenty of good reasons to do drugs, drink, kill yourself, drive too fast, drive too slow etc etc etc ad infinitum .. what is good for you might not be so for other people, what is good for other people might not be good for you. It's all relevant. I never understood why people cared about what other people buy (ie, ford/chevy, amd/p4, PC/mac) ... it's like you have to pick a team for EVERYTHING .. fvck the team. Fvck the pro sport mentality and fvck bigotry and herdism.

 

[Gravija]

NO, most of the stuff sucks right now...wait till after Macworld SF (in like jan/feb) and their announcements then and if they have some new release thing thenyou might consider it
otherwise, if you like games and such, mac users (like me) have to wait a long time for them to get ported from their PC counterparts (though some compnaies (like blizard and the MOO3 (i think) are dual platform releasing games)

 

[HokieESM]

I'm not personally a Mac fan.... especially the desktops (lack of upgradeability, etc)... but there is one VERY good reason (and its not OSX):

The Titanium Powerbook. Period. Beautifully designed, I ran one for close to five hours on a battery charge, and plenty of power to do notebook-ish stuff. I wish the PC-notebook manufacturers would FINALLY make a notebook with the quality of the Ti powerbook. They're splendid. The only detractor is price.... of course. But for a good notebook, its definitely fair.

But like you, I think the desktops are getting somewhat pointless. OSX is nice... the design is nice... and they run some programs VERY well. But they're very difficult to upgrade and are a bit slow for some applications (particularly games). But to some people, the design is a LOT of it (they also have GREAT LCDs)..... not to mention the graphics design business.

 

[BFG10K]

Yes it is when they cost the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you sure about that chief? why don't you look at the price of the processors...

You're right, the 3 GHz P4 is probably half the price of a 1.25 G4 GHz (or less).

500 MHz G4s on pricewatch are more expensive than 2.53 GHz P4s.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Yes it is when they cost the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you sure about that chief? why don't you look at the price of the processors...

You're right, the 3 GHz P4 is probably half the price of a 1.25 G4 GHz (or less).

500 MHz G4s on pricewatch are more expensive than 2.53 GHz P4s.

You are trying to compare a RISC cpu to a CISC cpu! RISC Cpus are MUCH MUCH more powerful!

Its like those idiots I know who they their 400mhz pentium 2 is faster than a the Playstation 2's EE. Just because it is a 300mhz processor tells nothing! That shiot is equivalent to like a 1.2 Ghz Processor!


Its like trying to argue that a 2 Ghz Celeron Oc'ed to 3 Ghz is faster than a 1.6P4! No it isn't! The Celeron will come close at that speed, but it can't beat a slower processor DESPITE BEING 2x AS FAST


APPLY THE SAME LOGIC HERE

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: hdeck
comparing a 1 ghz processor to a 3 ghz processor is sure logical

Yes it is when they cost the same.

Or when Apple advertises that the former can outrun the latter in a few carefully selected applications. Sure, the only applications that seem to run faster on the Mac nowadays are a few Photoshop filters, but that doesn't stop the fanboys from gloating about it

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: HokieESM
I'm not personally a Mac fan.... especially the desktops (lack of upgradeability, etc)... but there is one VERY good reason (and its not OSX):

The Titanium Powerbook. Period. Beautifully designed, I ran one for close to five hours on a battery charge, and plenty of power to do notebook-ish stuff. I wish the PC-notebook manufacturers would FINALLY make a notebook with the quality of the Ti powerbook. They're splendid. The only detractor is price.... of course. But for a good notebook, its definitely fair.

But like you, I think the desktops are getting somewhat pointless. OSX is nice... the design is nice... and they run some programs VERY well. But they're very difficult to upgrade and are a bit slow for some applications (particularly games). But to some people, the design is a LOT of it (they also have GREAT LCDs)..... not to mention the graphics design business.

Yep. I just bought one. 1 GHz G4, 15" screen, 1" thick, slot load CD-RW/DVD-R, 5.4 lbs, Gigabit Ethernet, 60 GB ultra fast drive, built-in wireless LAN, 768 MB RAM, Radeon 9000 64 MB DDR, DVI video output, powered Firewire, etc. Burning a DVD with it as we speak.

As for price, I have not yet seen a Windows laptop for the same money match its specs, and I mean ALL its specs, not just being faster in CPU speed. The closest I've seen so far is the IBM T30, but for similar features it actually costs more than the TiBook.

I would consider getting a SuperDrive iMac or eMac too. But I won't buy their PowerMac towers. Definitely overpriced, even after considering their very good build quality. I hear Final Cut Pro rules though. I know DVD Studio Pro is awesome, but if I needed to use that I suppose I could just use my TiBook.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: hdeck
comparing a 1 ghz processor to a 3 ghz processor is sure logical

Yes it is when they cost the same.

you sure about that chief? why don't you look at the price of the processors...

Yes I'm sure chief. Why don't you take 2 minutes and inform yourself chief...

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: magomago


You are trying to compare a RISC cpu to a CISC cpu! RISC Cpus are MUCH MUCH more powerful!

Its like those idiots I know who they their 400mhz pentium 2 is faster than a the Playstation 2's EE. Just because it is a 300mhz processor tells nothing! That shiot is equivalent to like a 1.2 Ghz Processor!


Its like trying to argue that a 2 Ghz Celeron Oc'ed to 3 Ghz is faster than a 1.6P4! No it isn't! The Celeron will come close at that speed, but it can't beat a slower processor DESPITE BEING 2x AS FAST


APPLY THE SAME LOGIC HERE

hate to break it to you, chief, but the pentium IV and the G4 are quite similar in operation. the pentium IV is basically a RISC cpu that translates all of the RISC operations into x86 compatible operations. besides, none of the Apple processors have actually been true RISC processors since before the G3 came out. there is no such thing as pure RISC or CISC anymore. your analogy about the Celeron and the P4 is not a good one, by the way, since it does not apply to a situation remotely the same as that between the Pentium IV and the G4.

anyway, a playstation 2 is hardly equivalent to a 1.2 gHz PC processor. the playstation 2 might be faster in optimized code, but it would be a pig running most of the software that a PC has to run. learn a little more before you start opening your mouth. i would suggest reading articles at www.aceshardware.com and www.arstechnica.com as a starter.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Yes it is when they cost the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you sure about that chief? why don't you look at the price of the processors...

You're right, the 3 GHz P4 is probably half the price of a 1.25 G4 GHz (or less).

500 MHz G4s on pricewatch are more expensive than 2.53 GHz P4s.

HAHA owned!