Really is one thing I hate. Whenever I talk to "big-time" Mac users, they act like Macs are better and faster. Thats crazy. WHat do you think?
Mac Discuss: YRMac Users so smug?
- Thread starter TheyCallMeSAK
- Start date
I meet a lot of those Mac people that think Macs are better no matter what. Some kid in college kept trying to tell me that the extra $900 he spent to get a SCSI equipped Mac made it sssooo much better than my computer. Yep, I am sure those fast HDs really helped him out surfing the net...
I know what you mean... One of my friends is a machead, and it's so funny when he sends me a link to a crappy site where they've reviewed a G4 500mhz VS a 1gig Athlon, and they say the mac is like 10 times faster in photoshop (the only benchmark they know). 
Then you try to explain a couple of things to him, but it just goes out the other ear, and the only response you get concerns the G4 being the holy grail of computers.
Then you try to explain a couple of things to him, but it just goes out the other ear, and the only response you get concerns the G4 being the holy grail of computers.well Mac's are superior. no question there. the only thing PC's have going for them is the sheer amount of software and hardware upgrades for them. PC's have competitive speeds to Mac's but at nearly double the mhz.
mhz doesn't mean anything. the good old risc vs cisc discussion.
macs are good machines, i give them that. but they're not for gamers or get hands on with the hardware type people. but some mac users/"zealots" are so set in their little mindset that macs own pc's.
it's disturbing how brainwashed some of those people are.
dc
macs are good machines, i give them that. but they're not for gamers or get hands on with the hardware type people. but some mac users/"zealots" are so set in their little mindset that macs own pc's.
it's disturbing how brainwashed some of those people are.
dc
photoshop, lol. I know what you mean. Comparing software that was designed for Macs.
Soccerman, why are Macs so superior then? Processor architecture? Bus speeds, can't be. I'l listen.
Soccerman, why are Macs so superior then? Processor architecture? Bus speeds, can't be. I'l listen.
The Altivec core is great on the G4.
Macs can do Photoshop.
Macs can do RC5 like mad.
That's about all the things I can come up with why a Mac is superior to a PC. BTW, the G4 core may be great as is the Athlon core. They are designed for different purposes: the Athlon is designed for high clock speeds and the G4 is designed for high performance per clock. Different ways of getting things done and similar results.
and Brian_Rendeueua,
The Pentium !!! already makes my internet faster. Why would I need a hard drive to do that
Macs can do Photoshop.
Macs can do RC5 like mad.
That's about all the things I can come up with why a Mac is superior to a PC. BTW, the G4 core may be great as is the Athlon core. They are designed for different purposes: the Athlon is designed for high clock speeds and the G4 is designed for high performance per clock. Different ways of getting things done and similar results.
and Brian_Rendeueua,
The Pentium !!! already makes my internet faster. Why would I need a hard drive to do that
Everyone knows that pentium III and internet speed is a joke. Still, many SCSI HD don't have better access time than IDE, and besides, I use SCSI. Maybe it opens IE a lil faster
My roomate is a fanatical Mac user. I refuse to even speak to him anymore regarding the entire subject of computers because his logic is so twisted.
well, i like pc's for games, but i have to use msvs,so i have to use a pc. macs are better for amateur to professional level imaging, whether it's 2d or 3d. altivec isn't that amazing, but the way the g4 handles it is, a dedicated vector processing unit as opposed to shared fpu registers like the k7 and p3's. no fpu clogging when altivec instructions are needed. if i was a graphics artist or doing video editing, i would go w/ mac. no 2 gig file barrier. anything else, pc all the way.
borealiss0
borealiss0
If AMD and Intel would drastically start changing and make some high performance CPUs that don't use x86 at all, and have a much better architecture, once and for all PCs would outperform MACs, even at their own game.
TheyCallMeSAK, x86 architecture is what makes a PC a PC. Otherwise it would be an Alpha, or Atari, SG, or a whatsis.
Don't you agree that if they got rid of x86 architecture we(average working class) would no longer be able to afford and enjoy top of the line systems? I believe if a differant instruction set was used it would be the end of P.C.s as we know them. We would be charged for the privilage of using the new architecture without as much of a performance increase as we would expect for the money. Let them change it gradually as is being done behind the scenes so we never have to feel it financially. I'm enjoying being able to afford a decent system for a decent price.
"Still, many SCSI HD don't have better access time than IDE, and besides, I use SCSI."
Yeah old SCSI drives...
now anyway, Macs are superior because they aren't nearly as limited in architecture, look they don't even have IRQ's. we're living in the past with this x86.
Ok, this is it. I'll tell you all I know about Mac's (not much!)
Mac's are just as good performance wise as PC's. PC's only advantage, is that it's got soooo much hardware and software upgrades, that the people are the ones keeping the x86 architecture alive.
So, the G4, performs NEARLY double the speed an equivelently clocked Pentium 3, or Athlon. SO as you see, there really isn't much of a difference in Speed between CPU's, you can add speed either way (parallelism, or increasing the MHZ).
ok CPU wise, they are nearly equal overall (if you compare the 500 to the 1 ghz P3 or Athlon).
Now, you have the Video card problem. There are barely any good video cards supporting the Mac, so in that way, Mac's lose, however I think you can get alot more proffesional cards then just the lowly ATi cards..
Have SCSI on Mac's are superior. why? becuase high end macs (the ones you guy ridicule all the time that are $10 000) have 64bit PCI slots running at 66 mhz. compared to the PC's 33mhz 32 bit PCI. What does that mean? well that means that you can get REALL fast SCSI going. I mean, SCSI 160 RAID. that's what I'm talking about. not only that, but ultra high speed gigabit ethernet will need a slot like that too.
Motherboard wise, Mac's win, because they don't have x86 limits, however I personally haven't heard of a motherboard manufacturer making motherboards like the way they do with PC's though.
So you see, it's really a matter of preference. Mac's are fun, easy to use, don't crash that much, but don't have as much software, nor peripherals to upgrade with.
PC's are compatable with ALOT of software, have alot of hardware upgrades, but are limited in the x86 architecture.
BTW, I thought this kind of info was common knowledge, so it appears I found why poeple just pick sides with what they have personally, and don't learn anything.
Yeah old SCSI drives...
now anyway, Macs are superior because they aren't nearly as limited in architecture, look they don't even have IRQ's. we're living in the past with this x86.
Ok, this is it. I'll tell you all I know about Mac's (not much!)
Mac's are just as good performance wise as PC's. PC's only advantage, is that it's got soooo much hardware and software upgrades, that the people are the ones keeping the x86 architecture alive.
So, the G4, performs NEARLY double the speed an equivelently clocked Pentium 3, or Athlon. SO as you see, there really isn't much of a difference in Speed between CPU's, you can add speed either way (parallelism, or increasing the MHZ).
ok CPU wise, they are nearly equal overall (if you compare the 500 to the 1 ghz P3 or Athlon).
Now, you have the Video card problem. There are barely any good video cards supporting the Mac, so in that way, Mac's lose, however I think you can get alot more proffesional cards then just the lowly ATi cards..
Have SCSI on Mac's are superior. why? becuase high end macs (the ones you guy ridicule all the time that are $10 000) have 64bit PCI slots running at 66 mhz. compared to the PC's 33mhz 32 bit PCI. What does that mean? well that means that you can get REALL fast SCSI going. I mean, SCSI 160 RAID. that's what I'm talking about. not only that, but ultra high speed gigabit ethernet will need a slot like that too.
Motherboard wise, Mac's win, because they don't have x86 limits, however I personally haven't heard of a motherboard manufacturer making motherboards like the way they do with PC's though.
So you see, it's really a matter of preference. Mac's are fun, easy to use, don't crash that much, but don't have as much software, nor peripherals to upgrade with.
PC's are compatable with ALOT of software, have alot of hardware upgrades, but are limited in the x86 architecture.
BTW, I thought this kind of info was common knowledge, so it appears I found why poeple just pick sides with what they have personally, and don't learn anything.
I have yet to see a drive (SCSI or IDE) whose physical media transfer rate even APPORACHES 80mb/s Not going to happen, the only way you will ever fill up the 80mb/s of Ultra2, (not to mention U160) is in a drive array of at least 4 or 5 10k RPM drives, that is usually saved for a departmental server or web server, and if you server either off of a mac, you have some problems, most large servers are running Linux/Unix, NetWare or NT on an x86 platform, I have yet to see a mac serving any type of decent network or web page. Now for design, that is a different story.
Edit: Good point Russ
Edit: Good point Russ
ArthurB, the thing with SCSI, is that you can have multiple drives per chain. the CHAIN's max is 160MBytes/second. if you could somehow get a drive to do 160, then you will get 160.
Cyrix.. don't get my started about Cyrix.. they don't run at high speed, nor do they have good performance.. nuff said?
now, anyway, high speed harddrives are useful for macs, becuase you can do alot of multimedia stuff on them, just as with the PC. I saw someone doing alot of video editing on a G3 (I think.. it was about the time the G3 came out, and I was amazed at the performance, so I assumed it was a G3). it was nice. I mean, he must have had some nice harddrives going.
The quality was good, I could tell, becuase we watched it on a HUGE projected screen. he made the video out of clips (that were recorded before on some nice video camera too) in about an hour or so.. most of it was just putting the clips in the right spot though, some of it was actually a bit harder.
Anyway, that was my first experience with a Mac, and I was impressed. that was I think 1998.
Cyrix.. don't get my started about Cyrix.. they don't run at high speed, nor do they have good performance.. nuff said?
now, anyway, high speed harddrives are useful for macs, becuase you can do alot of multimedia stuff on them, just as with the PC. I saw someone doing alot of video editing on a G3 (I think.. it was about the time the G3 came out, and I was amazed at the performance, so I assumed it was a G3). it was nice. I mean, he must have had some nice harddrives going.
The quality was good, I could tell, becuase we watched it on a HUGE projected screen. he made the video out of clips (that were recorded before on some nice video camera too) in about an hour or so.. most of it was just putting the clips in the right spot though, some of it was actually a bit harder.
Anyway, that was my first experience with a Mac, and I was impressed. that was I think 1998.
There seems to be some misconceptions about Macs here-
"macs are better for amateur to professional level imaging, whether it's 2d or 3d."
I'll agree on 2D, they are far behind PCs in 3D, not even worth mentioning as competitors at the moment. They have vastly inferior graphics subsystems, as of now they don't have a single option for on board hardware T&L. Besides that, the G4's weakest point when compared to the Athlon or PIII is raw FPU performance. As of right now, no render engines support AltiVec, this enables the Athlon to be faster clock for clock, let alone in absolute speed. Another problem is the availability of high end software, though Maya is now scheduled to launch for the Mac after they get OSX done.
"Mac's are just as good performance wise as PC's. PC's only advantage, is that it's got soooo much hardware and software upgrades, that the people are the ones keeping the x86 architecture alive."
Not true. If you talk to knowledgeable Mac users, they will admit that they are far behind in the performance wars right now. The only time that they are comparable is when AltiVec is used, and then represents less then 10% of the tasks of the software that does support it which is less then 10% of the overall Mac software market.
"Now, you have the Video card problem. There are barely any good video cards supporting the Mac, so in that way, Mac's lose, however I think you can get alot more proffesional cards then just the lowly ATi cards.."
Formac has a non T&L equipped Permedia3 for the Mac, that is about it. The vid card situation is so poor that there was a compant at one point touting a Banshee board as a high end pro offering for the Mac, and charging in the $300 range for it.
"Have SCSI on Mac's are superior. why? becuase high end macs (the ones you guy ridicule all the time that are $10 000) have 64bit PCI slots running at 66 mhz. compared to the PC's 33mhz 32 bit PCI."
There was one generation of Macs that had the 64bit 66MHZ PCI slot, and it was only one of them. That was Apple's answer to AGP, and was a large disappointment to the Mac community. These were the Blue and White G3 Macs that were the top of the line before the G4(also used on the low end G4 machines at launch until the supply of mobos dried up and they switched to all AGP lineup, see the Yikes! machines).
"Motherboard wise, Mac's win, because they don't have x86 limits, however I personally haven't heard of a motherboard manufacturer making motherboards like the way they do with PC's though."
Most Mac fans would probably gladly pay a decent premium to have the EV6 platform available to them. There mobos are very poor when talking about performance, and as of right now they are limited to 3 PCI, 1 AGP, and integrated sound and LAN. No, there is no way to buy a Mac mobo without buying a Mac.
"So you see, it's really a matter of preference. Mac's are fun, easy to use, don't crash that much, but don't have as much software, nor peripherals to upgrade with."
Macs crash a lot, and have many other problems that PC users will never have to deal with(conflicting extensions etc). They are not that stable, that is a myth pushed by the Mac loyal. At best I would say that they are equal to Win98, not even close to Win NT. Ease of use is in the eye of the beholder, and while the Mac OS may be a bit simpler for someone completely foreign to computers, Windows is much easier to handle once you know what you are doing. I spent about ten years using the Mac OS solely, before using Windows, and I think that Windows is easier to use now overall. File management, in particular, is much better under Windows then under the Mac OS(Be uses a similar method for those that are familiar).
Other problems with the Mac OS- Memory management. Think what you will about Win9x, it kicks the Mac OS's @ss in memory useage, not to mention that you have to assign RAM to a given application if you want to use it effectively(no joke). Multitasking- Forget it with the Mac, it isn't practical. It can be done, but performance is horrible because of the threading scheme used by the OS. When I start working on my, or any other PC, I'm used to firing up ther half dozen apps that I will be using. I am harshly reminded every time I sit down at a Mac that they don't deal with it well(system slows to a crawl).
OSX will fix all of the above problems, in theory anyway, while keeping up what Mac users truly do like about their machines, the GUI of the OS.
Outside of grapihics pros who are worried about color accuracy issues pertaining to printed material, the Mac OS is on a technical basis inferior to Windows, even Win9X. The look and feel of the Mac OS is that the users are hooked on, and what they are willing to pay through the nose to get. Another element that seems fairly common is their disliking of Bill Gates and all things MS(even though the majority of Mac users chose Office and IE). This is unlike the Linux crowd in the way that they discuss things. There seems to be an honest loathing of them, because they think that MS actively attempts to kill the Macintosh platform. Linux users would have validity to that statement, the Mac platform would have been dead many times in the past more then likely if not for MS and their financial and more importantly application support.
I've gone on long enough, I have plenty more to say but the main thing is that Mac users love their GUI, and most of them honestly seem to think that using Macs makes them some how stronger willed.
"macs are better for amateur to professional level imaging, whether it's 2d or 3d."
I'll agree on 2D, they are far behind PCs in 3D, not even worth mentioning as competitors at the moment. They have vastly inferior graphics subsystems, as of now they don't have a single option for on board hardware T&L. Besides that, the G4's weakest point when compared to the Athlon or PIII is raw FPU performance. As of right now, no render engines support AltiVec, this enables the Athlon to be faster clock for clock, let alone in absolute speed. Another problem is the availability of high end software, though Maya is now scheduled to launch for the Mac after they get OSX done.
"Mac's are just as good performance wise as PC's. PC's only advantage, is that it's got soooo much hardware and software upgrades, that the people are the ones keeping the x86 architecture alive."
Not true. If you talk to knowledgeable Mac users, they will admit that they are far behind in the performance wars right now. The only time that they are comparable is when AltiVec is used, and then represents less then 10% of the tasks of the software that does support it which is less then 10% of the overall Mac software market.
"Now, you have the Video card problem. There are barely any good video cards supporting the Mac, so in that way, Mac's lose, however I think you can get alot more proffesional cards then just the lowly ATi cards.."
Formac has a non T&L equipped Permedia3 for the Mac, that is about it. The vid card situation is so poor that there was a compant at one point touting a Banshee board as a high end pro offering for the Mac, and charging in the $300 range for it.
"Have SCSI on Mac's are superior. why? becuase high end macs (the ones you guy ridicule all the time that are $10 000) have 64bit PCI slots running at 66 mhz. compared to the PC's 33mhz 32 bit PCI."
There was one generation of Macs that had the 64bit 66MHZ PCI slot, and it was only one of them. That was Apple's answer to AGP, and was a large disappointment to the Mac community. These were the Blue and White G3 Macs that were the top of the line before the G4(also used on the low end G4 machines at launch until the supply of mobos dried up and they switched to all AGP lineup, see the Yikes! machines).
"Motherboard wise, Mac's win, because they don't have x86 limits, however I personally haven't heard of a motherboard manufacturer making motherboards like the way they do with PC's though."
Most Mac fans would probably gladly pay a decent premium to have the EV6 platform available to them. There mobos are very poor when talking about performance, and as of right now they are limited to 3 PCI, 1 AGP, and integrated sound and LAN. No, there is no way to buy a Mac mobo without buying a Mac.
"So you see, it's really a matter of preference. Mac's are fun, easy to use, don't crash that much, but don't have as much software, nor peripherals to upgrade with."
Macs crash a lot, and have many other problems that PC users will never have to deal with(conflicting extensions etc). They are not that stable, that is a myth pushed by the Mac loyal. At best I would say that they are equal to Win98, not even close to Win NT. Ease of use is in the eye of the beholder, and while the Mac OS may be a bit simpler for someone completely foreign to computers, Windows is much easier to handle once you know what you are doing. I spent about ten years using the Mac OS solely, before using Windows, and I think that Windows is easier to use now overall. File management, in particular, is much better under Windows then under the Mac OS(Be uses a similar method for those that are familiar).
Other problems with the Mac OS- Memory management. Think what you will about Win9x, it kicks the Mac OS's @ss in memory useage, not to mention that you have to assign RAM to a given application if you want to use it effectively(no joke). Multitasking- Forget it with the Mac, it isn't practical. It can be done, but performance is horrible because of the threading scheme used by the OS. When I start working on my, or any other PC, I'm used to firing up ther half dozen apps that I will be using. I am harshly reminded every time I sit down at a Mac that they don't deal with it well(system slows to a crawl).
OSX will fix all of the above problems, in theory anyway, while keeping up what Mac users truly do like about their machines, the GUI of the OS.
Outside of grapihics pros who are worried about color accuracy issues pertaining to printed material, the Mac OS is on a technical basis inferior to Windows, even Win9X. The look and feel of the Mac OS is that the users are hooked on, and what they are willing to pay through the nose to get. Another element that seems fairly common is their disliking of Bill Gates and all things MS(even though the majority of Mac users chose Office and IE). This is unlike the Linux crowd in the way that they discuss things. There seems to be an honest loathing of them, because they think that MS actively attempts to kill the Macintosh platform. Linux users would have validity to that statement, the Mac platform would have been dead many times in the past more then likely if not for MS and their financial and more importantly application support.
I've gone on long enough, I have plenty more to say but the main thing is that Mac users love their GUI, and most of them honestly seem to think that using Macs makes them some how stronger willed.
oohh Benskywalker! didn't see your post. Looks like you commented on alot of stuff I posted. Half of it was a repeat of what I said. Bad software availability, bad hardware availability pretty much sums up the biggest problems Mac's have.
Ben you seem to have experience in everything.. is it me, or are you the computer god? j/k! hehe..
Half of the Mac's 3D performance problem is the fact that there is barely any hardware you can get for it. that's why I summed it up like that.
Heh, I didn't know that they didn't carry 64 bit PCI slots anymore.. I don't understand why not.
BTW, how do you compare performance on IBM's and Mac's? you don't. plain and simple. code originally written for PC will run better on PC. this is true for many MANY programs. not all though.
this is one reason why Mac's are seemingly slow, this is part of the Bad amount of software support that I originally posted.
Though I don't own a mac, I'd love to, I love their interface! it's just alot different then Windows, I sometimes like change! I wish there was a good interface changer for windows that doesn't bog it all down.. make things really look like Macs, or make your own up.
I actually tried one, it worked ok, but wasn't that great.
I guess this is one advantage of Linux eh? considering that OS-X is probably going to be similar to Linux I wouldn't worry bout their software being as bloated as before.
Ben you seem to have experience in everything.. is it me, or are you the computer god? j/k! hehe..
Half of the Mac's 3D performance problem is the fact that there is barely any hardware you can get for it. that's why I summed it up like that.
Heh, I didn't know that they didn't carry 64 bit PCI slots anymore.. I don't understand why not.
BTW, how do you compare performance on IBM's and Mac's? you don't. plain and simple. code originally written for PC will run better on PC. this is true for many MANY programs. not all though.
this is one reason why Mac's are seemingly slow, this is part of the Bad amount of software support that I originally posted.
Though I don't own a mac, I'd love to, I love their interface! it's just alot different then Windows, I sometimes like change! I wish there was a good interface changer for windows that doesn't bog it all down.. make things really look like Macs, or make your own up.
I actually tried one, it worked ok, but wasn't that great.
I guess this is one advantage of Linux eh? considering that OS-X is probably going to be similar to Linux I wouldn't worry bout their software being as bloated as before.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Soccerman
If you want to spend the dough, there are servers that come with 64 bit PCI, though there isn't really that much use for them. Gigabit NICs and the like I believe is mostly what they're for.
My last job (which was, admittedly, 5 years ago) was as the office manager at an advertising agency. As you can imagine, Mac was the platform of choice, even for the staff outside of the art room. I truly came to hate Macs in that time. MacOS is highly unstable, I crashed my machine more often than ever crashed my DOS/Windows boxes at home. The memory management was horrible, trying to enable virtual memory usually resulted in even less stability. It really soured me on Macs, and I haven't used one since I left that job. And the first computer I ever owned was a Mac SE, so it's not as if I had anything against them. Perhaps they've gotten better, but I rather doubt it. Apple talks to much, they need to spend more time creating quality products. Not unlike a certain graphics company...
If you want to spend the dough, there are servers that come with 64 bit PCI, though there isn't really that much use for them. Gigabit NICs and the like I believe is mostly what they're for.
My last job (which was, admittedly, 5 years ago) was as the office manager at an advertising agency. As you can imagine, Mac was the platform of choice, even for the staff outside of the art room. I truly came to hate Macs in that time. MacOS is highly unstable, I crashed my machine more often than ever crashed my DOS/Windows boxes at home. The memory management was horrible, trying to enable virtual memory usually resulted in even less stability. It really soured me on Macs, and I haven't used one since I left that job. And the first computer I ever owned was a Mac SE, so it's not as if I had anything against them. Perhaps they've gotten better, but I rather doubt it. Apple talks to much, they need to spend more time creating quality products. Not unlike a certain graphics company...
well I personally don't have much experience with Macs OS's, I have tried it a fair amount of times, each time I had lots of fun, once I did screw the computer up though, that was a REALLY slow computer with like 4 megs of RAM.. it still ran well though.
I guess I should take out that stable thing... it's caused 2 people to kick my ass for it..
I guess I should take out that stable thing... it's caused 2 people to kick my ass for it..
Ahhh. My thread worked out pretty well. We have a good discussion going on here. Some good points have been brought up.
I'm still trying to figure out how a GUI can be so FUN! Not to attack anyone, just seems like that is a big deal to Mac users. Hopefully PC technology will get to the point where all hope is lost for the Mac. Just for the sake of Mac lovers whom will probably be forced to pay even MORE unbelievable prices for these barely-upgradable/customizable systems.
Thanks Bensky and BoberFet for making us all feel EVEN better about PCs. Macs, die soon and RIP.
I'm still trying to figure out how a GUI can be so FUN! Not to attack anyone, just seems like that is a big deal to Mac users. Hopefully PC technology will get to the point where all hope is lost for the Mac. Just for the sake of Mac lovers whom will probably be forced to pay even MORE unbelievable prices for these barely-upgradable/customizable systems.
Thanks Bensky and BoberFet for making us all feel EVEN better about PCs. Macs, die soon and RIP.
"Heh, I didn't know that they didn't carry 64 bit PCI slots anymore.. I don't understand why not."
The G3 Blue and White Macs, the only ones that had a 64bit PCI slot, only had one of them. It was supposed to be the "answer" to the AGP slot on the PC side of things. The problem with that is, as I'm sure you know, you only have higher bandwith, none of the other benefits of AGP. With the "high end" Macs shipping with 16MB grapihcs cards as the best available option, AGP texturing could have helped them out a bit. The rest of the PCI slots(three of them) were the same as the 32bit slots that we have in our everyday PCs.
"BTW, how do you compare performance on IBM's and Mac's? you don't. plain and simple. code originally written for PC will run better on PC. this is true for many MANY programs. not all though."
True, but the important factor is how well do the programs you want to run perform on each platform? The rest is trivial in terms of real world useage. There is a reason that Photoshop performs better on Macs in comparitive terms, the PC port is very poor(they have a memory allocation option under Windows). If you want to play any sort of games, you will be extremely disappointed with the Mac platform, they are absolutely horrible at it. The Mac crowd may tell you different, but they use 30FPS as a playable number and will use the argument of why do you need higher resolutions to play. That is of course unimportant to most people, but the average user here does care about it.
Searching through a Mac gamers FPS database, the fastest numbers I could find for a G4 500MHZ running Q3 Timedemo 1@800x600 was 58.2FPS, most G4s were in the 30FPS range. Anyone here that would be happy with that out of a $3K+ machine(it had 320MB of RAM installed for the curious). Here is a link to the FPS database for anyone who wants to check it out-
http://forums.xlr8yourmac.com/fpsdb/fpsdb.lasso
"this is one reason why Mac's are seemingly slow, this is part of the Bad amount of software support that I originally posted"
Possibly for some tasks, but the Athlon and PIII now best the Mac even under most Photoshop filters. If Adobe ever gets around to porting it over properly, it will be ugly.
"Though I don't own a mac, I'd love to, I love their interface! it's just alot different then Windows, I sometimes like change! I wish there was a good interface changer for windows that doesn't bog it all down.. make things really look like Macs, or make your own up."
Have you tried the Windows Blinds OSX shell? I haven't, but I have heard several positive reports on it. I'm not a fan myself(Mac's GUI), Windows is the "change" for me still
The G3 Blue and White Macs, the only ones that had a 64bit PCI slot, only had one of them. It was supposed to be the "answer" to the AGP slot on the PC side of things. The problem with that is, as I'm sure you know, you only have higher bandwith, none of the other benefits of AGP. With the "high end" Macs shipping with 16MB grapihcs cards as the best available option, AGP texturing could have helped them out a bit. The rest of the PCI slots(three of them) were the same as the 32bit slots that we have in our everyday PCs.
"BTW, how do you compare performance on IBM's and Mac's? you don't. plain and simple. code originally written for PC will run better on PC. this is true for many MANY programs. not all though."
True, but the important factor is how well do the programs you want to run perform on each platform? The rest is trivial in terms of real world useage. There is a reason that Photoshop performs better on Macs in comparitive terms, the PC port is very poor(they have a memory allocation option under Windows). If you want to play any sort of games, you will be extremely disappointed with the Mac platform, they are absolutely horrible at it. The Mac crowd may tell you different, but they use 30FPS as a playable number and will use the argument of why do you need higher resolutions to play. That is of course unimportant to most people, but the average user here does care about it.
Searching through a Mac gamers FPS database, the fastest numbers I could find for a G4 500MHZ running Q3 Timedemo 1@800x600 was 58.2FPS, most G4s were in the 30FPS range. Anyone here that would be happy with that out of a $3K+ machine(it had 320MB of RAM installed for the curious). Here is a link to the FPS database for anyone who wants to check it out-
http://forums.xlr8yourmac.com/fpsdb/fpsdb.lasso
"this is one reason why Mac's are seemingly slow, this is part of the Bad amount of software support that I originally posted"
Possibly for some tasks, but the Athlon and PIII now best the Mac even under most Photoshop filters. If Adobe ever gets around to porting it over properly, it will be ugly.
"Though I don't own a mac, I'd love to, I love their interface! it's just alot different then Windows, I sometimes like change! I wish there was a good interface changer for windows that doesn't bog it all down.. make things really look like Macs, or make your own up."
Have you tried the Windows Blinds OSX shell? I haven't, but I have heard several positive reports on it. I'm not a fan myself(Mac's GUI), Windows is the "change" for me still
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter