Mac Vs. PC

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Have you repaired permissions? Run Apple's disk utilities? Run Disk Warrior? Reset PRAM? Reset NVRAM? Reset PMU? Chachamacarena? Oh wait these things are supposed to work perfectly right out of the box without tinkering. My bad homie.

Uh, yea. Does your geek status improve by 1e-10 with this post? :roll:

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Have you repaired permissions? Run Apple's disk utilities? Run Disk Warrior? Reset PRAM? Reset NVRAM? Reset PMU? Chachamacarena? Oh wait these things are supposed to work perfectly right out of the box without tinkering. My bad homie.

Uh, yea. Does your geek status improve by 1e-10 with this post? :roll:

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[lepixz]

haha

 

[CalvinHobbs]

oh i love this..how pc gonna bash apple and vice versa..if i could i wouldn't mind having both of them..

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
The Apple website refers to PC's as "Frankensteins"
These people would much rather be seen in a New Beetle over a Shelby Cobra or Ferrari Enzo.
There is a biological term for these people: "vagina"

haha true.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

According to Barefeats, the G5's got whooped in 3D gaming.

 

[SickBeast]

There are several key workstation apps that are not available for the Mac.

Beyond that there are the issues of customization, price, and OEM hardware availability.

If I were a lawyer, a writer, or a graphic designer I would definately want a Mac to do business on. Most other professionals require Windows unfortunately.

As far as performance goes, I can't see anything in the Mac realm beating out two dual-cored Opterons (quad CPU effectively) when they are released in the not-too-distant future.

That said, iPods are very nice toys. 🙂

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: calvinHobbs
oh i love this..how pc gonna bash apple and vice versa..if i could i wouldn't mind having both of them..

:thumbsup: I have used a Mac at school (an older G4 dual 1Ghz) and I think OSX is awesome.

 

[ManBearPig]

Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

 

[biostud]

who cares...........really?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Heen05
Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

It is. Games just aren't optimized for Mac's. A G5 and special Dual G5's would be overkill for most users.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Quote from Barefeats.

"I often get asked to do price/performance comparisons on the Mac vs PC. It's hard to do since the price of the Windows PCs vary widely depending on the motherboard used and from whom you buy. I did go to @XiComputer for a quote on the AMD Opteron 252 (Dual 2.6GHz) with 4GB of memory, DVD burner, 10K Raptor boot drive, and 160GB data drive, a configuration that matched the Dual G5/2.5GHz Power Mac we tested. I also ran their numbers for the Intel Dual Xeon 3.4GHz system (same config):
The Dual Opteron 252 quote came in at $5593 (before tax and shipping).
The Dual Xeon 3.4GHz came in at $4197.
The Apple Online Store quote for the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac was $4870 + $179 for the 10K Raptor (ZipZoomFly) for a total of $5079. (Apple typically overcharges for memory. Buying the four 1GB PC3200 modules from sources at "sane" prices drops the overall price of the Mac to $4351.)"

Is this accurate people? Barefeats makes it seem as though there is virtually no price difference between equivalent high end dual core PCs and Macs.

I configured from Monarch, a 2x252 with 2xAMD approved coolers with BFG 6800U OC, Tyan 2785 with independent memory adressing, 4x1gb Corsair 3200 reg ecc, 74gb Raptor, SATA 160GB 8mb cache, XP pro sp2, Silverstone ALU E-ATX full tower with side window, Antec EPS550w, NEC DL burner, Mitsumi 7in1+FDD drive, Nero and PowerDVD, 1yr parts&labor+free shipping=$4208 Far cheaper than the place he used, but the price is indeed very comparable to the dual G5 as he configed it.

 

[Umberger]

My brother just got a new 20" iMac G5. want to know what he does with it?
1)AIM
2)E-mail
3)MS Word.

To its credit, the thing has never frozen or crashed, the case is awesome looking, and the visual effects are stunning. Also, it comes with a really neat game, where you roll a marble around a map and collect gems. Is this worth almost $3000? I think not. But for $3000 I would think that they could give me a fvcking 2 button mouse.
I think a lot of what people are paying for is the ease of use of OSX. That operating system babies you, and won't let you screw anything up. It drives me nuts, but little bro seems to like the fact that he can't break stuff by messing with settings.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: Umberger
My brother just got a new 20" iMac G5. want to know what he does with it?
1)AIM
2)E-mail
3)MS Word.

To its credit, the thing has never frozen or crashed, the case is awesome looking, and the visual effects are stunning. Also, it comes with a really neat game, where you roll a marble around a map and collect gems. Is this worth almost $3000? I think not. But for $3000 I would think that they could give me a fvcking 2 button mouse.
I think a lot of what people are paying for is the ease of use of OSX. That operating system babies you, and won't let you screw anything up. It drives me nuts, but little bro seems to like the fact that he can't break stuff by messing with settings.

:thumbsup:

 

[ksuWildcat]

From a hardware perspective, the G5 doesn't have anything on Athlon 64/Opteron, but for people who have special software needs (a very small percentage of people) they have to go with Macs.

For the vast majority of people, PCs do a lot more for less $. Plus, I don't like not having control over my system, which is what OSx does, preventing people from utilizing the system. Of course, Windows is on it's merry way to that too.

Be smart. Use Linux LoL.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Heen05
Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

Why should it be much better?

 

[ksuWildcat]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Heen05
Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

Why should it be much better?

LoL. Because...the case it comes in is "purdy."

 

[ksuWildcat]

Seriously though, x86 machines have native support now for much more advanced technology, not to mention that there are better processors out there than the G5. Macs don't support the latest features for SATAii and PCIe graphics solutions, the processor has a smaller cache than Intel or AMD top of the line procs, the effective bus speed is less then HT, and so-on and so-on.

It's not too difficult to look at the specs and see why a G5 can't compare to a A64 San Diego.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Heen05
Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

That makes no sense at all. If anything, in terms of pure processing power, a dual Opteron 2.6 should be a bit faster than a dual 2.7 G5. And a dual 2.7 GHz G5 hasn't even been released yet.

In multi-threaded scientific computing a dual G5 will destroy a single P4, but that's to be expected. However, in single-threaded gaming, a P4 will destroy a dual G5. The games that exist on Mac OS X are mostly ported from Windows anyway.

 

[ksuWildcat]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Heen05
Ok, what im trying to say is, WHY isnt a top of the line mac G5 as good as a PC at doing things (even just regular PCs)? Theoretically shouldn't it be much better?

That makes no sense at all. If anything, in terms of pure processing power, a dual Opteron 2.6 should be a bit faster than a dual 2.7 G5. And a dual 2.7 GHz G5 hasn't even been released yet.

In multi-threaded scientific computing a dual G5 will destroy a single P4, but that's to be expected. However, in single-threaded gaming, a P4 will destroy a dual G5. The games that exist on Mac OS X are mostly ported from Windows anyway.

Very true. If you're into gaming, the A64 is for you. For encoding, possibly a G5 or P4. But I think that most scientific number crunching is left to 4-way+ Opteron systems or SPARCS.

 

[hurubi]

They have good stability, but the hardware sucks. Its hard to get individual parts and build a really good MAC. The PC is much fatser and can kill ANY MAC. Macs are still used for graphics and stuff like that because they are easier to maintain than a PC.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat
Very true. If you're into gaming, the A64 is for you. For encoding, possibly a G5 or P4. But I think that most scientific number crunching is left to 4-way+ Opteron systems or SPARCS.

Well, if you can afford a 4-way Opteron then great, but those are $$$$$. Two-way machines are sufficient for a lot of people, and much less costly.

 

[ksuWildcat]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat
Very true. If you're into gaming, the A64 is for you. For encoding, possibly a G5 or P4. But I think that most scientific number crunching is left to 4-way+ Opteron systems or SPARCS.

Well, if you can afford a 4-way Opteron then great, but those are $$$$$. Two-way machines are sufficient for a lot of people, and much less costly.

True, but serious scientific simulations are not done on Macs, that's for sure. And a high-end Mac is roughly $4,000. If I were doing simulations all day, I'd put that money toward an Opteron system instead.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat
Very true. If you're into gaming, the A64 is for you. For encoding, possibly a G5 or P4. But I think that most scientific number crunching is left to 4-way+ Opteron systems or SPARCS.

Well, if you can afford a 4-way Opteron then great, but those are $$$$$. Two-way machines are sufficient for a lot of people, and much less costly.

True, but serious scientific simulations are not done on Macs, that's for sure. And a high-end Mac is roughly $4,000. If I were doing simulations all day, I'd put that money toward an Opteron system instead.

SPARCs don't typically do calculations. That isn't even close to their strong point. The 8-way processors might help, but it's still not their specialty.

Alphas were the proc to do with, but they're dead. Thanks Intel!

Opterons and POWER processors are the way to go for crunching server. Macs are also popular choices for workstations. Virginia Tech has some neat ideas though...

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: ksuWildcat
Very true. If you're into gaming, the A64 is for you. For encoding, possibly a G5 or P4. But I think that most scientific number crunching is left to 4-way+ Opteron systems or SPARCS.

Well, if you can afford a 4-way Opteron then great, but those are $$$$$. Two-way machines are sufficient for a lot of people, and much less costly.

True, but serious scientific simulations are not done on Macs, that's for sure. And a high-end Mac is roughly $4,000. If I were doing simulations all day, I'd put that money toward an Opteron system instead.

Around here, a lot of the biomedical informatics types and some of the physics types like Macs. To get a top of the line G5 system, they're $3000 + extra memory. The other issue is whether the computer is to be used for double duty for non-scientific stuff when needed. eg. Office, Photoshop, etc. Dual booting Windows and Linux on a dual Opteron system can get real old fast. For a dedicated machine it's different though. Mind you, a dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) Boxx is gonna cost you even more than a dual G5 2.5.