Where to start?
A) Macs are significantly more expensive then PCs, sickeningly so. Please don't take my word, check the Apple Store. This just isn't even close, you can buy an SGI workstation for the price of a high end(dual 500MHZ G4s, 256MB RAM, 40GB- $3499 with no monitor) Mac. This single statement proves that he has no clue what he is talking about.
B) Figuring for the above, what kind of rig could anyone on this board build for $3499? For that matter, what kind of rig could you build for half that price? Easily a GHZ Athlon rig with 384MB, larger HD, better equipped in nearly every way. An important factor in the performance equation is that the Mac OS does not support SMP(supports the significantly less effective AMP, and not very well at that). For the overwhelming majority of tasks a like priced PC will absolutely obliterate a Mac in nearly any measurable performance category. Sure, there are a *few* exceptions, but very few.
C) Oh, so IBM and ATi make special pieces of hardware for Apple? Mac users tend to keep their machines longer, how many people keep PCs until they stop working? I have a 286 around somewhere and last time I gave it a shot, it booted into Windows 3.11 without problem. I don't find that impressive, it should be expected. Macs in no way last longer then PCs, the users just keep them longer.
I used Macs pretty much exclusively for many years, started off on a pre Mac Apple][, I'm not a blindly loyal "PC zealot", the kind of talk your teacher is going on with is very counterproductive to helping the Mac platform.
Any gamers want a good laugh? Q3 640x480 Dual G4 450@ 52.7FPS
For particulars in performance areas, what exactly do you want to know about? Motorola has had very serious issues with the G4, they still have yet to ramp speeds over 500MHZ. Forget the talk about MHZ to MHZ, the G4 is faster in that area but it isn't close to twice as fast overall, and now 1GHZ chips are dropping into the realm of budget chips($251 according to Anand's Price Guide).
Which type of performance benches do you want to see? I know their are thousnads of them out their, most of them are a bit dated now as Apple long ago was left in the dust.
Right now Apple has two main strengths, DTP and their GUI. Their OS is absolutely horrible, unacceptable in nearly every way for the year 2000 in terms of underpinnings.
No protected memory(despite what some may try and tell you). An app goes down, most of the time it takes the entire OS with it.
Manual memory assignment. You have to tell the OS how much RAM an application should use if you want optimal performance, no joke. This is so incredibly archaic it is hard to believe that Apple has still not fixed it.
No preemptive multi-tasking. When running multiple applications, the Mac chokes hard. This isn't the fault of the hardware, LinuxPPC and BePPC(older versions of Be) have no problems whatsoever, just the Mac OS. Simply popping open a half dozen IE windows(my standard for browsing) the computer will often slow to a crawl.
The entire OS is scheduled to be replaced with OSX which should solve all of these issues, but that was also scheduled to ship in Q1 2000. In fact, the Mac boards were lit up for some time about how Apple was going to show up MS "once again" by getting OSX out before Win2K. MS has since then released two(Win2K, Me) OSs with the third in beta. Apple has an inability to execute.
In terms of stability Macs are very poor, despite what those accustomed to it will tell you. Much as I can keep Win9X up and running for over a month, Mac users can keep their machine up for long stretches of time by delicately operating them. It is nothing like NT/Linux/Win2K where you just don't worry about it. At best it is equal to a properly set up Win9X machine, not even close to the more serious operating systems.
The "mighty" G4, the main hype behind Steve Inc's hot air isn't that good in reality. Upon its' launch it was a very competitive offering, but since then they have only managed a ~12% clock boost while the PC side has more then doubled its' operating frequency. Yes, it certainly is a more "elegant" design, but it can't compete with the latest and greatest X86 offerings in real world terms(ie- ignore clock speed completely, use price or simply the best respective for each). X86 has been moving at an incredible speed, and Apple(Motorola) has done pretty much nothing for the last year.
I'll stop rambling for now, can you give any particular benches that you would like to see? The claims he made are absolutely and definitively false and can be proven as such. Out of the many arguments that can be made for the Mac(and there are some quite strong ones), price and performance are the two weakest when compared to PCs.
A) Macs are significantly more expensive then PCs, sickeningly so. Please don't take my word, check the Apple Store. This just isn't even close, you can buy an SGI workstation for the price of a high end(dual 500MHZ G4s, 256MB RAM, 40GB- $3499 with no monitor) Mac. This single statement proves that he has no clue what he is talking about.
B) Figuring for the above, what kind of rig could anyone on this board build for $3499? For that matter, what kind of rig could you build for half that price? Easily a GHZ Athlon rig with 384MB, larger HD, better equipped in nearly every way. An important factor in the performance equation is that the Mac OS does not support SMP(supports the significantly less effective AMP, and not very well at that). For the overwhelming majority of tasks a like priced PC will absolutely obliterate a Mac in nearly any measurable performance category. Sure, there are a *few* exceptions, but very few.
C) Oh, so IBM and ATi make special pieces of hardware for Apple? Mac users tend to keep their machines longer, how many people keep PCs until they stop working? I have a 286 around somewhere and last time I gave it a shot, it booted into Windows 3.11 without problem. I don't find that impressive, it should be expected. Macs in no way last longer then PCs, the users just keep them longer.
I used Macs pretty much exclusively for many years, started off on a pre Mac Apple][, I'm not a blindly loyal "PC zealot", the kind of talk your teacher is going on with is very counterproductive to helping the Mac platform.
Any gamers want a good laugh? Q3 640x480 Dual G4 450@ 52.7FPS
For particulars in performance areas, what exactly do you want to know about? Motorola has had very serious issues with the G4, they still have yet to ramp speeds over 500MHZ. Forget the talk about MHZ to MHZ, the G4 is faster in that area but it isn't close to twice as fast overall, and now 1GHZ chips are dropping into the realm of budget chips($251 according to Anand's Price Guide).
Which type of performance benches do you want to see? I know their are thousnads of them out their, most of them are a bit dated now as Apple long ago was left in the dust.
Right now Apple has two main strengths, DTP and their GUI. Their OS is absolutely horrible, unacceptable in nearly every way for the year 2000 in terms of underpinnings.
No protected memory(despite what some may try and tell you). An app goes down, most of the time it takes the entire OS with it.
Manual memory assignment. You have to tell the OS how much RAM an application should use if you want optimal performance, no joke. This is so incredibly archaic it is hard to believe that Apple has still not fixed it.
No preemptive multi-tasking. When running multiple applications, the Mac chokes hard. This isn't the fault of the hardware, LinuxPPC and BePPC(older versions of Be) have no problems whatsoever, just the Mac OS. Simply popping open a half dozen IE windows(my standard for browsing) the computer will often slow to a crawl.
The entire OS is scheduled to be replaced with OSX which should solve all of these issues, but that was also scheduled to ship in Q1 2000. In fact, the Mac boards were lit up for some time about how Apple was going to show up MS "once again" by getting OSX out before Win2K. MS has since then released two(Win2K, Me) OSs with the third in beta. Apple has an inability to execute.
In terms of stability Macs are very poor, despite what those accustomed to it will tell you. Much as I can keep Win9X up and running for over a month, Mac users can keep their machine up for long stretches of time by delicately operating them. It is nothing like NT/Linux/Win2K where you just don't worry about it. At best it is equal to a properly set up Win9X machine, not even close to the more serious operating systems.
The "mighty" G4, the main hype behind Steve Inc's hot air isn't that good in reality. Upon its' launch it was a very competitive offering, but since then they have only managed a ~12% clock boost while the PC side has more then doubled its' operating frequency. Yes, it certainly is a more "elegant" design, but it can't compete with the latest and greatest X86 offerings in real world terms(ie- ignore clock speed completely, use price or simply the best respective for each). X86 has been moving at an incredible speed, and Apple(Motorola) has done pretty much nothing for the last year.
I'll stop rambling for now, can you give any particular benches that you would like to see? The claims he made are absolutely and definitively false and can be proven as such. Out of the many arguments that can be made for the Mac(and there are some quite strong ones), price and performance are the two weakest when compared to PCs.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter