Shocking New For Macs Vs Pc.

You can buy all that top notch hardware for pcs, and still have paid only half the cost of a mac.

Fans are a available for gfx and processors that are quieter than the human heartbeat...

and as for that 486, that would be the stupidist thing ever.

No other part of the motherboard would have the bandwidth to cope with that processing power, it would be useless, its probably the same to some extent with the Mac.

If you don't have faster memory and system bridges, that processor will be wasted mainly.

#25481

Exactly my point, fissyb.. The Beige G3's old Logic Board would work just fine, being able to hold 1 gb of ram and using PCI Radeon cards.. While the old PC Hardware could not..

#25482

nah thats not what i meant, although such an old machine holding 1GB is impressive.

The speed was what i meant, say its 66/100 MHz, that will provide much less bandwidth than the 800MHz dual ddr provides. That bandwidth to the memory will restrict the processor. That GHz will be somewhat wasted i think, just a gimic to get mac owners to part with their cash when they should be saving for a new machine.

A pci radeon is hardly bleeding edge.

Anyway are you comparing like with like? 486's are over 10 years old

#25484

I think the mac loyalists here are still missing the point here, it is ALOT faster, not a little. The difference is HUGE.

I mean the argument about quality of hardware? I personally could care less if any system IS of better quality than any other if it is a tugboat in the end productivity wise. Thats the my main point.

Ultimately people will buy what they want, but what I am trying to say is that dont be blind to the fact of the huge performance and speed difference advantages. To do so would be like walking with blinders on, not observing the true reason of having a computer...productivity and speed. Graphics companies are noticing this and re-thinking their own loyalties.

And with the low cost of PC's, you could buy new ones more often or upgrade your existing one to the latest and greatest compared to the cost of a Mac.

Macs gui is beautiful, there is no doubt, but the fun thing here is you can get a pc to approximate the look, or make it look any other way you want. So the gui look is mute, so then you have to look under the hood and see who whas more pony's to run your render farms or graphics more productive. After all, time is money, and a business needs to do all it can to cut costs whereever it can nowdays.

This is my fear for Macs in the commercial world.

Other than that I say, Dont worry, be happy.

:rolleyes:

#25485

The hardware is top notch, Not generic. Best NVidia and ATI cards, Best chips (That dont require Fans for cooling mind you)

Top notch cards, huh? I believe my Geforce4 is better than the GENERIC GF2 that ships w/ the e/iMacs. To get a GF4 in a mac, youd have to pay $1500. A Geforce4 on PC cost me $50.

No fans,huh? Open up your case, and look at the big honking heatsink and fan on your G4.

#25488

two points i wanna bring up that make alot of sense...

1. MEGAHERTZ DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!

2. YOU CANNOT COMPARE A MAC AND A PC. THEY RUN DIFFERENT SOFTWARE, HAVE DIFFERENT HARDWARE ECT.

thats my $1.50

#25491

yes but if the mac takes twice as long to do the same task in photoshop, it has to be admitted that its slower.

It might be caused by bad programming (unlikely) or slow processors (likely) but it means the mac IS slower

#25492

You ask two people to do a task, lets say in Adobe After effects. one on PC and one on Mac and see who finishes first if both users are of same speed.

Thats what fissb means by comparison.

#25493

People who say macs are faster are idiots. Hardware wise, they are much much worse. Now admitidly, Windows does a very bad job of taking advantage of that hardware (especially DirectX), but dont say that macs are faster just because Windows is crappy, thats not the hardwares fault.

Macs are slower than PCs. Done, no more argument. Am I condeming macs, NO! I still perfer macs over Windows, because of all the great features of them. You just give up speed on serious apps, but if you just do desktop work anyway, it doesnt matter, no does it. :huh:

#25496

Originally posted by contrasutra@May 9 2003, 10:06 PM
People who say macs are faster are idiots. Hardware wise, they are much much worse. Now admitidly, Windows does a very bad job of taking advantage of that hardware (especially DirectX), but dont say that macs are faster just because Windows is crappy, thats not the hardwares fault.

Macs are slower than PCs. Done, no more argument. Am I condeming macs, NO! I still perfer macs over Windows, because of all the great features of them. You just give up speed on serious apps, but if you just do desktop work anyway, it doesnt matter, no does it.

DING!!

Yet again, Contra sums it up perfectly.

Macs are NOT fast. Mac hardware is not the best out there.

Its the software side, and aesthetics (hware+sware ) in which mac is the king.

#25504

hehe good conversation goin on here, like taha said, contra has summed it up

-bolero

#25507

Yeah, this has been a great discussion. I'm just sorry that people cant express themselves without insults to others. But hey life goes on doesn't it, hehe.

As for me, I have re-thought the reasoning behind owning a Mac, and will no longer pursue getting one. Next laptop upgrade will probably be an Alienware Area 51 laptop. I hear those have horsepower when it comes to a laptop. Can anyone concur on this? or has anyone had bad experiences with the Alienware laptops?

Thx for any info.

Looking to give this SonyVaio GRX570 laptop to my wife as her upgrade and I move onto something alot stronger.

#25516

well said Contrasutra

Problem is if macs continue to get left behind, they could become too slow (compared to windows pcs) to do normal desktop tasks, lets hope that doesn't happen.

Alienware do a laptop with a 3.06GHz pentium 4 in it. That laptop is probably twice as fast as the fastest powermac!

Its made with desktop parts though, so don' go for it if you want to be moving it around.

It'll probably get hot and maybe noisy, because of the desktop parts again.

#25544

Oh man those Alienware Laptops are sweet! They are really heavy, hot, and their battery power is loooow, though. Sooo cool though. (drooool)

I dont think computers will ever be too slow to do desktop work,because they arent now, and they are only getting faster. EXCEPT that microsoft is now purposly making Office eat RAM and CPU (I realize its not a bug now ), so people will have to upgrade. AH HA! Im on to you MS!

This is the laptop im getting: http://info.lindows.com/mobilepc/mobilepc.htm , Its awesome for running Linux, and its super light. And super cheap, cause im super broke.

#25551

cool laptop, does it come with Lindows on it? are you going to leave Lindows on.. if i was you i wouldnt.. hehe

-bolero

#25561

Originally posted by TheChosenOne@May 10 2003, 01:44 AM
two points i wanna bring up that make alot of sense...
1. MEGAHERTZ DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!
2. YOU CANNOT COMPARE A MAC AND A PC. THEY RUN DIFFERENT SOFTWARE, HAVE DIFFERENT HARDWARE ECT.

1= Yes it does <_<

2= They do have the same software, and hardware, PC drives work on MAC's and Nvidia and ATI make the same standards of graphics cards for both platforms.

Sky

#25581

Contrasutra, wow thats nice, I may get that for my wife then and keep my Sony. My sony is almost as good as alienware, but I have same troubles, battery life is low, screen is huge (16.1" viewable), heavy, etc.. But it is a powerhouse. Cost me 3k so yeah it wasnt cheap, but I needed a strong system that could be mobile also.

#25582

Yeah, it comes with Lindows, but Id probobly just wipe it and run Slackware or LFS, or dual boot. Who knows, its cheap, and thats all that matters.

16.1 inch screen? Jeez, my desktop only has a 15in screen. Hey, if you got the cash, show if off. Thats why macs exist.

#25583

lol

#25584

**Hm... Looks like Apple may have noticed things as well. On the screensavers show today they talked about how the people at PC Magazine saying that Apple will be using intel chips before long.

This is great news!

**The people at Adobe have also made public announcements regarding their product line running faster and stronger (productivity) on pc's and recommending their products be run on pc's for best results. (This per the screensaver show)

**And the screensaver crew stating they will be very happy when Macs switch to intel chips for the speed and broader application acceptance, the talk host also stating points of our discussion here, saying that there is no way that the fastest Mac he is provided on the show can compare performance wise to his own PC's. Apparently this view was also shared by his tech crew.

*** so, some interesting developments happening; in the end... I hope that things pan out best for the consumer (end users) not Intel or Apple ( I dont own stock in either of these so it doesnt matter to me) and that the results will be a very strong system which has a very beautiful interface for us to purchase.

#25867

comparing macs and pcs is fine, and as tools it is only natural.

i deal with both a lot, studying motion graphics, normal graphics, print, flash and whatever else crap at uni, all i know is that i prefer working on macs, but when its crunch time, its back to windows.

there is nothing shocking about that revelation (and in my experience its largely true), the important thing is, for a majority of users the difference in speed doesn't mean much. i imagine most people on this forum are in areas similar to my own, so it just boils down to preference.

we (my family and i) have 3 macs and 2 pc workstations at home.

no biggie

#156651

is a year old thread...A YEAR OLD THREAD!, :cry:

#156679

Lets face facts here... a 1ghz computer can work just as good, as a 3ghz computer. There's no software out there on the market that would even need to use more than 1ghz, And there will never be because of the simple fact that the current computer BIT is too low to handle anything further. In the future maybe, like for instance the 64 bit edition pcs, much better but don't need more than 1.5 ghzs.

I don't care how many things you are doing on a computer a 1ghz will suit you just as fine as a 3ghz proccessor...

Speed is all determind by RAM, BIT, Hard drive speed, and proccessor manufacture.

Im capable of running the sims and all of their expansion packs up to makin magic, on my 400mhzs computer upstairs. And it's strange how it says you need at least 1ghz on the box.

Strange how companies fool you into buying things that are unessary! I think they call that global marketing, it's how they get you to repeat buy! Your not getting any more, but your not getting any less, Your just wasting your money.

Duel proccesser mother boards? What a crock, pointless, studdies state that they don't even get to use the second processer because they don't need the first one in the first place.

Open your eyes people, It's all about money! Always has always will... And you happen to be the sheep they are leading to the slotter!

Mac knows this! that's why they are not wasting their time marketing unused, worthless stuff to their customers.

#156685

Originally posted by zandor@May 5 2004, 02:49 PM
Lets face facts here... a 1ghz computer can work just as good, as a 3ghz computer. There's no software out there on the market that would even need to use more than 1ghz, And there will never be because of the simple fact that the current computer BIT is too low to handle anything further. In the future maybe, like for instance the 64 bit edition pcs, much better but don't need more than 1.5 ghzs.
I don't care how many things you are doing on a computer a 1ghz will suit you just as fine as a 3ghz proccessor...
Speed is all determind by RAM, BIT, Hard drive speed, and proccessor manufacture.
Im capable of running the sims and all of their expansion packs up to makin magic, on my 400mhzs computer upstairs. And it's strange how it says you need at least 1ghz on the box.
Strange how companies fool you into buying things that are unessary! I think they call that global marketing, it's how they get you to repeat buy! Your not getting any more, but your not getting any less, Your just wasting your money.
Duel proccesser mother boards? What a crock, pointless, studdies state that they don't even get to use the second processer because they don't need the first one in the first place.
Open your eyes people, It's all about money! Always has always will... And you happen to be the sheep they are leading to the slotter!
Mac knows this! that's why they are not wasting their time marketing unused, worthless stuff to their customers.

What a load of tripe.

What about people who do home video editing? Are you telling me that it's perfectly fine for them to wait for 8-10 hours for their home videos to render, if they have even the slightest of effects in them?

As for dual processor machines being useless, does that mean that all this time I've been working for a company who requires quad-processor servers to handle the load could have just put an old 400MHz P3 in the place of quad-processor machines, and maybe even not bother with a million Euro cluster setup to host our web sites?

If you think that the ultimate test of a computer is "The Sims with all the expansions", then you're badly mistaken.

I, for example, use a dual processor machine as my primary machine at work because I typically have at least 10 applications running at any one time, all of which are heavily CPU intensive, not to mention "helper apps" such as IM clients, media players, and an e-mail client.

Maybe in a single-application-at-a-time style of use (like most home users use), powerful CPUs aren't necessary. If you want to play the latest games with the best quality, however, a recent CPU and graphics card are almost always required. If you're a "power user" who has lots of applications open at the same time, a multi-threaded machine makes life much easier (less time spent waiting for context-switches to occur).

I'm sorry, but you obviously don't have much of an understanding of the way various types of CPU architecture affect user experience. You also indicate that you dont' really understand the reasons for cutting edge technology.

I'd also like to know what the hell a BIT is? D'you mean a bit, as in binary integer? A bit is a single, binary-state value, not some measure of performace.As for "64 bit edition pcs" - 64 bit computers have been around for years - the future, indeed! Not only that, but 64 bit processors only differ from 32 bit processors in that they can handle bigger numbers (if we're doing a straight comparison of 32-64 bit, completely abstracting other "architectural" changes).

#156689

/me loves to read pointless arguments...

why argue on whose supposedly "right" anyway?

making a person switch to a PC or a Mac doesn't make the world a better place does it?

PS. how does gentoo/yellow dog emulate 3 buttons or even 2 buttons on a Mac? :lol:

#156692