Originally posted by: dejitaru
RISC vs CISC, my man.
However, most sane ones will agree that for 99% of the software, PC is faster.
Bullshit. Much Mac software titles are considerably faster than their counterparts
So Quake runs better on a Mac? How about WC3? How about Premiere or After Effects? Asside from a few Photoshop filters (yes filters, the program overall doesn't even run faster on a dual GHz G4) and possibly RC5 and Seti and some other distributed computing projects, name any program that is noticably faster, or even just faster in benchmarks than their software counterparts on an x86 machine.
most software isn't out for Macintosh.
Photoshop on a Mac is the same user interface as Photoshop on an x86 machine. What "quality" are you talking about? Asside from Final Cut Pro (which I still don't get the hype about, Premiere does just as good a job) and Apple's i-software for noobs, what possible "quality" could you be talking about that only exists on software that runs for a Mac? Photoshop runs on x86 machines, After Effects runs on x86 machines. They're the same program, it just runs faster on the x86 machine.
This is their only advantage.
On what do you base this?
Probably the fact that there is no other noticable advantage, other than the fact that it matches your ultra-trendy Ikea-incarnated room.
I prefer Macs (though not necessarily Mac OS) that I think they are of much higher quality overall than any PC.
What "quality" would you be refering to? I would pit the quality of an Intel or AMD made processor against anything Motorola makes. I would pit an Intel chipset against anything Apple makes themselves. Other than those 2, the HD's are the same pool of brands (Apple doesn't make their own HDs), the vid cards are the same (you have more choices for manufacturers with x86 machines), the sound card is the same. What "quality" are you refering to? The shiny looks? The cheezy gimics?
Though the recent Dells are nice.
Dell shipped their machines with WinME at one time. That probably earned them the title of "unstable POS" more than anything else. OEM machines usually aren't as flexible as self-built ones however, they're not time-bombs contrary to popular belief. A Dell with XP or Win2k loaded on it is just as viable in terms of "quality" as any Mac. It uses mostly standard parts.
Of the last rev of Macs, none of which included a fan for cooling (the most recent iMac has a fan). You could fry steak on a P4.
I doubt it as the throttling circuitry on a P4 would not allow it to exceed roughly 70 degress C. And that's in the upper range for fault tolerance
The setups are generally cleaner.
"Cleaner"? Yes, Apple polishes their boxes and puts 3 layers of wax before you get it. The Dell's don't even have paint on them........
The hardware and software are made by the same company.
Finally! An actual advantage. Although it hasn't always been an advantage. OS8 and OS9 were horrid. Even OSX wasn't all it was hyped up to be. 10.2 comes a lot closer though.
As for AltiVec, anything that needs it, has it.
After Effects has very few AltiVec optimizations. Premiere, 3dsmax, Lightwave, Autocad to name a few. All of those applications are very SIMD-friendly and yet most of the SIMD optimizations that the developers have worked on are SSE/SSE2 based.
Photoshop times and Q3A fps are terrible bases for cross platform benchmarks.
And what would be a "good" cross platform benchmark? One that favors the Mac? Q3A and Photoshop are 2 of the most commonly used applications out there. You're saying that benchmarking
commonly used applications is a terrible basis for comparing performance that the
user will see?
If you've never owned a Mac, you can't bash it. The cost issue is bullshit for a number of reasons.
I had a G3 PowerMac when it first came out. It just seemed better than my Celeron 333 Gateway box. Then I found out most of my software wouldn't run on it and the ones that will, I'd have to buy the "Mac version". To top that off, general usage was horrible. OS8 crashed all the time, it stuttered even if I just opened an IE and Word window. Was it faster than the Celeron 333? Yes. But then again it was a 400 MHz G3 and I'd paid $1800 for it.
Flash back to nowadays. You have a $4000 machine (dual GHz G4) that gets near half the framerates as a comparable $1500 x86 machine (Athlon 1.8, GF4 Ti4600) in Q3A and WC3. You have a the same machine being beaten by a single-processor, $2500 Dell with a 2.53 GHz P4 in Photoshop and After Effects. Ya, the price issue is really not that big a deal. $1500 more for a slower machine.........
If quality is of no great concern, get a Gateway or something. You'll be happier.
Again you ambiguously refer to this "quality". Exactly what "quality" would you be refering to? Intel or AMD processors inside a Dell is just as viable in terms of quality as any Motorola processor. I'm willing to bet Dell's motherboards aren't sub-par compared to Apple's own designs (if I remember correctly, up until very recently, the G4's still used the motherboards that were used with the G3's). The vid cards and peripherals are all standard parts from different manufacturers such as ATI, Creative, WD and Pioneer. Where's this mysterious "quality"?
In conclusion: Don't listen to us or anyone else, we're assholes. Just use various systems and make your own decision.[/quote]
If they're on this forum, I'd say it's safe to say that they want other's opinions.
Facebook
Twitter![RMAOOTFL@Thugs[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif](mailto:RMAOOTFL@Thugs[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif){kind=link}