Author
|
Topic: Macintoshes Rule!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-24-1999 05:13 PM
Oh...and the reason Macs are 2 - 3 times faster than PCs when comparing MHz to MHz is because of two reasons.1. Mac processors have a more efficient set of instructions. Especially the new G4s which incorporate the Altivec instruction set which is dedicated to graphics processing. 2. PC processors are still based in the x86 world which acts as a bottle neck for performance. PCs need to stop worrying about backwords compatibility. Use a more stable OS too. Windows is way to buggy. btw, since Macs store the date differently, they will never have a problem with Y2K. Also, they are more efficient at storing files so that heavy fragmentation barely effects access times and performance. he he
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheKiller
Sarge
Member # 890
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-24-1999 05:53 PM
Does the phrase "Macs suck" mean anything to you? heheWell, if they are so much more powerful than PCs, and they have an instruction set designed for graphics, why do they suck for quake 3, the only game worth mentioning. Back when I was getting into PC's from my Amiga 500, I wanted a gaming machine that wasn't going to cost me an arm and a leg. Back in 1994 when this was all happening, macs were over double the price of a PC. Plus, who wants a very small selection of crappy games? Macs are behind in the graphics...PERIOD. ...TheKiller
Posts: 1723 | From: Gibsons, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-24-1999 08:59 PM
"Macs suck, no games, twice the price, not a game machine" Yes!!! I love it. Now to defend my position...Yes, 5 years ago Macs where way freakin' overpriced. Now, not so much. iMacs start at $999. For a thousand bucks you get a video editing machine that can quake at 40fps. Granted, this is not the best frame rate, but it's pretty decent for $999. But I have yet to talk about the G4s. In all benchmark tests the G4s are about 2.8 times faster than PCs (G4 450 vs P3 600). There was also a benchmark comparing the G4 450 to a P3 600 dual processor system. The G4 still was faster than that PC system. Whoa! And G4s can do Quake 1,2, or 3 at 60fps + (60fps being the visual barrier where no skipping appears). The G4s can also perform up to 4 gigaflops per second. For those of you that don't know what a gigaflop is, it's one billion operations per second, and the definition of supercomputer (doing 1 gigaflop or more). Because the G4 is a supercomputer, Apple can't ship these things to "hostile" countries...China for example. It's considered technological warfare. Whoa again! The G4s start at #1599 too, not bad for a supercomputer. As for the games, yes, there used to be hardly any, but not anymore. Now Macs have Quake 1,2,3, Unreal, Unreal Tourney, Rainbow Six, Half Life is in development, Carmageddon 1,2, Falcon 4, Fly!, Starcraft, Warcraft Trilogy, Diablo, Diablo 2 to be released 2nd half of 2000, Halo to be simultaneous release for Mac/PC, Oni, Descent 3, Tribes, Myth 1 and 2, Age of Empires, C and C, Tomb Raider 2,3. I know I left out some, but I think you get the point. And all of the cool ones are for Mac. But then you can't play games without good hardware. Mac Voodoo 4 and 5 cards will be supported when they ship in March, we've got your basic 32mb Rage 128 cards, the 16mb 2xAGP 128bit cards, your Voodoo 2 and 3 cards, need I go on. And as for the statement that Macs are behind in graphics, why don't you tell that to the majority of graphics designers that use Macs for their work. This reply pretty much nulifies the "Macs suck" statement. Besides all of this, I just like translucent computers. Sure you can get translucent PCs now, but I'd rather have the original that those companies copied from. he he. (I hit the submit button with a smug look on my face) lol Please, keep the arguments coming.
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MadHatter
Sarge
Member # 158
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-24-1999 09:24 PM
oh yea and my opnion... Macs: They kick ass for grafic work. It is unaguable. BUT they are also a pain in the ass to troble shoot.. and the hardware setup on the older ones (and the imac) is a nightmare for a IS guy, whom ever design it must have been smoking crack.. but i will admit that i use one for some graphics work. PC's: well lets face it, they win over all.. sure they dont have the graphics potential that macs have but they have everything else you would want. and i need not mention the software issue. and i find it hard to find the speed difference in my G4 450 and my PII 400, i work with both, bith have there strong points and both have there weaknesses. but i would never recommend a mac to anybody.. i would say: Get a silicon graphics workstation.. p.s. the mice on the g4 and imacs suck my right nut.. you have to admit that. [This message has been edited by MadHatter (edited 11-24-1999).]
Posts: 1601 | From: that warm little part of your heart | Registered: Jun 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-24-1999 09:44 PM
Those hockey puck mice do suck right nut (I wonder...would that feel good?). I couldn't stand it so I got an XLR8 Point and Scroll (USB 2 button mouse with scroll wheel). You probably can't tell the speed difference with your G4 because there isn't any software right now that's optimized for the Altivec instruction set. It's kind of like MMX. Except it's a lot easier to optimize apps for altivec (velocity engine is Apple's name) than MMX, and it's WAY better than MMX for performance increase. Just wait for an optimized version of the Consumer Mac OS X (An OS optimized for the supercomputer chip on the G4, Oh baby!). Basic operations, not just apps, will be F***ING FAST! Then when the Rev 2 G4s come out running at 780MHz - 1GHz that are twice as fast as the original G4s at equal MHz!!! Oh wait, I'm not suppose to talk about that. he he. I would have to disaggre on the troubleshooting thing. Macs are way easier to troubleshoot. I work in a Mac store where I play part time technician (we troubleshoot PCs too). Macs are way easy to fix. Half of the problems can be fixed by just reseting the PRAM and rebuilding the desktop file (about 4 minutes in all). Hardware problems are easily diagnosable by following the flowcharts that Apple Service provides to their techs. The hardest part is placing the order for the replacement part. No sweat baby! True the iMac design is a pain to get into, but once you've done like 4 of 'em, you can get in and out in like 3 minutes. But those towers, the design of those is to die for. I call it the 9 second RAM install. No one has beat my time yet.
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
AcidWarp
Sarge
Member # 997
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-24-1999 10:57 PM
I have used both iMac and PC, The first thing I was going to mention was those pucking mice (note the pun), it's not so much the shape as it is that stupid single button. . . but I digress. I've found that in the long run a PC may is the cheaper machine, and since cost is a major factor from the consumer's pov, that's one for the PC. Let me explain, I've noticed that the Mac in general (iMac in particular) is not very upgradeable. In a PC you can pretty much pull the whole thing out of it's case strip away all the crap your getting rid of, then dump it back in. You can even dump the case. In addition to that the old components don't seem to go out of date as quickly. I work in a Radio Shack. . .{The boo's and throwing of beer cups, cause Warp cry in shame, wishing he were dead. Alas the jeers aren't for where he works, but for the fact he sells Packaged Hells aka Packard Bells, and Compcraps} . . . and once had a Mac user tell me he wished he had a PC, and not because there is vastly more software available. There is and you have to admit that. He wanted one for the upgradeability. Needless to say that I was shocked.
Posts: 4363 | From: Waterloo, Ontario | Registered: Nov 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-25-1999 12:55 AM
Ibrators! Yes! I saved all of those commercials to my HD. Though all Macs ship with a single button mouse, they are upgradable to a two, three, four, or five button if you desire. The rest of this is part opinion part fact so I can't defend this with absolute certainty. Though Macs are very upgradable (not referring to iMac but more the towers), they are admitadly not as upgradable as PCs. PCs can be broken down into every component they consist of and reassembled. Macs can do this to a certain extent but... Apple's engineers work hard to make sure that all hardware and software is 100% compatible with eachother. So this makes interchanging parts have incompatibilities sometimes. In my experience, however, PCs have more problems with swapping parts than Macs do. But, seeing as how my PC experience is limited to Packard Bells and Compaqs, and AcidWarp doesn't speak highly of them, my opinion may be partial. It is only the Apple brand Macs that are partially upgradable though. You can put together a bunch of Mac parts to make a custom system, but you always end up having more problems this way. It's better to go with a Apple system and know that everything will work. Plus, in Apple systems, you can still upgrade the processor, graphics card, sound card, drive bays, RAM, power supply, logic board. It's the LB that causes the most problems when you upgrade it though. Connection on the LB to accomodate the other components tend to change between models with Macs. PCs are always wanting backwards compatibility. This is ok but it slows improvements in the systems in general by staying with certain standards. Macs, for example, about a year and a half ago, changed from SCSI, ADB, and 8pin serial to USB and Firewire. This was a vast improvement but a tough transition. Leave it to Apple's marketing people to make it a smooth one, which they did with the iMac. The iMac is not meant to be upgradable though. This would've increased the cost which makes it less of a consumer machine. Also, 1/3 of iMac users are first time computer owners that don't even know how to click a mouse (no joke, I've dealt with these people, it's unnerving teaching some one to click a freakin' mouse). These people would probably never want to upgrade their computer as they would not exceed its capacity and capability. Regarding the old components not going outdated as quickly on a PC, that's because Macs are always so far ahead in technology, always creating and implementing new and better ones. This makes old Mac components go outdated more quickly (this was opinion regarding outdated parts). I admit there is more software available on the PC, but the main ones are available on Mac too. If viruses count, there are A LOT more viruses for the PC. It's also my opinion that Macs are more stable that PCs. Have you ever seen a 15 year old PC still running (off its original parts). If you have, I guarantee there are a lot more 15 year old Macs running. You know those schools that have labs full of Mac SE computer, well, there ya go. Also, since they are more stable, in my opinion, they cost less to maintain in the long run. So, Macs are cheaper in the long run. I think Macs are more stable because Apple is good about picking their OEMs. Except that bastard ATI graphics, Macs need 3DFx as their OEM. Yeah! I think I'm done now. This reply has got to be essay length by now.
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
Snag
Sarge
Member # 992
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-25-1999 01:32 AM
You all fail to mention the main reason for the superior performance of a mac over a pc is simply due to the risc architecture. Don't get me wrong, I am a PC man all the way, but the Mac is architecturally superior. HOWEVER, wait till the Merced/Itanium (IA64) ships....64 bit risc based processor carrying multiple predication branches and paralell processing through instruction packs. It is intended to be a server machine though it DOES have full multimedia support as the current series do, a if we actually get a good OS (oh wait....we have Linux!!) to take advantage of the 64bit risc architecture, that superiority dwindles. This is a neverending argument because it is based on opinion. However, that introduces little intelliect on the most part and is just damn well hilarious seeing many people babble about many things they haven't a clue about (and I am not dissing anyone here...like i said for the most part) I am tired so blah! Merced Homepage Snag ZzZzZzzZzzzZz......
Posts: 2606 | From: Canada | Registered: Nov 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-25-1999 12:11 PM
Snag: Last I checked, Apple's market share was up to 15%. Better than 5%. Not only that but Apple's latest products are now in the top ten best retail sellers, with the iBook being #1! Oh, and regarding the itanium processor, that does sound like it will kick ass. But, correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't a 128bit risc processor faster than a 64bit. So why wait for the itanium when you can get a G4 (128bit) now. (STRIKE 1)Xanthan: your comments about Macs not being able to game, being overpriced, and having a lack of SW were discussed and bacically disproved in my post earlier. (STRIKE 2) Boba Fett: Yes, ATI cards suck ass! Your screenshot has made my point for me. 3DFx and nVidia are the best out there. 3DFx will surpass nVidia with the Voodoo5 though. The Voodoo5 will have 128mb of texture memory, 4xAGP support, 4 128bit processors on board, full screen antialiasing, the ability to acheive 60+fps at 1024 32bit antialias (Whoa!), native OpenGL, Glide, and Direct X, and it will have a 1.47 gigapixel fill rate. Damn! (STRIKE 3)
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Jakeman
Sarge
Member # 295
Rate Member
|
posted 11-25-1999 12:37 PM
Yes it took a while for some games like Q2 to get ported. But that was back when Apple was in a slump. Their market share was like 3% and they were making overpriced systems. But now they are back and making cheaper, more powerful systems and making money while most of the tech industry is under fire and loosing $. Lots of SW companies are making simultaneous releases of their kick ass games. Halo, for example is going to be a break through in multiplayer experience, and it will be a dual release. Most arguments against Macs in this topic have been against the old Macintosh. These new Macs kick ass though, and they are a lot cheaper. And that $900 PC you can build, you're gonna end up getting crappy, unreliable parts(opinion once again). This gets back to the stability factor that Apple engineers work hard to make sure Macs are stable and work perfectly. I know PC guys that wipe their HD every 2-3 months. I've had my Mac for a year and a half and it's running fine without having to take such measures. The Performa (I shudder at saying the word) I had before my Mac now was running for about 4 years with no SW or HW problems at all (opinion based on fact). And the iMac was a huge success! Apple sold over a million of 'em, and now other PC companies are copying its design. True, it sucks for upgradability, but it's meant to be a consumer machine (I discussed this earlier so I won't go into detail), not a game machine or a tower system. The all in one design really took off. It's the G4 towers that are very upgradable. You're comparing professional machines to "first time user don't know how to click a mouse" machines.*I discussed gaming software availability for the Mac earlier Xantan. There's a shitload of new titles coming out for the Mac now (dual releases included).
Posts: 800 | From: Modesto, California, USA | Registered: Jul 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unguided Missile
Sarge
Member # 920
Rate Member
|
posted 11-25-1999 02:40 PM
(just posted this at "the other" Q3A place, a shame not to waste it )*sigh* Time to set a few things straight... I own a Mac. I have never owned a PC. PC's are better than Mac's for games. If I wanted my 'puter for only playing games I would buy a PC. If you wanted a 'puter for only playing games you should buy a PC. Apple did NOT invent the GUI, Xexrox did. Apple "stole" it from Xerox and then Microsoft "stole" it from Apple. I like do like the Mac OS. If you grow up with the Windows OS and then spend 5 minutes using the Mac OS it will suck. I have spent 10 years using the Mac OS, and on coming to University and using the Windows OS for the first time I found it hard. But NOT impossible. Does anybody want to disagree with the stuff I have written so far? Mac's are overpriced compared to PC's Mac's usualy have better build quality. Not always true, but the new range of Mac’s, from the i Mac onwards have been particularly good. Apple make the 'puters and the OS, is it a supprise that there are fewer software/hardware conflicts? Microsoft have to contend with 1000's of possible configurations, they do a great job making Windows OS's work as well as they do. The Windows OS is better for 3D. There are some very clever people at Microsoft doing very clever things. Both Apple and Microsoft are out to make money, not good computers. The fact that they might make some good ones once in a while is beside the point. Mac's will never have as many games as PC's. Are we still ok with what I have said? Microsoft's monopoly has forced Apple to make better 'puters than they did 5 years ago. Apple will never be as big as Microsoft. Microsoft will have to work very hard to grow in size from existing levels. The world of computing would be a poorer place if Apple never existed. The world of computing would be a poorer place if Microsoft never existed. UM
Posts: 250 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unguided Missile
Sarge
Member # 920
Rate Member
|
posted 11-25-1999 03:13 PM
LOL. heres the second part of the post I made... quote: I feel pissed off that I had to write that stuff out. We have had this debate in this forum previously, and it was soo much more constructive. If you disagree with any of the above statements, and I'm sure some of you do, could you please explain why. While leaving phrases like "F**k Macs" or "Win users - just have Mac envy" at the door. They get us nowhere, not to mention they wind me up in a big way. Almost all of you have valid points hiding somewhere in your posts, but most of them are buried under so much schoolyard shit that you have to look hard to find them. What’s the point? You can learn so much from people who use different OS's why squander the opportunity to gain something from this place?
The first reply I got was... quote: Ok, ive just got here and so far I know that MACS SUCK!!! That is what the name of the topic shoul have been!!
I don't care anymore. um
Posts: 250 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|