PDA

View Full Version : why is apple so far behind?


thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 10:35 PM
Hello, this is my first post on the forums here. Until recently I new little about Macs, after talking about my frustration with PC's with my friend he suggested I look into getting a Mac. Ive been researching a lot over the past two months and I and close to sure that I would like to get one. One thing that I dont understand is why are apple's so much more expensive then PC's while being slower and using cheap video cards as the standard? My brother just bought a dell with a 3.8 ghz processor, a gig of ram, and a 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 GTO Graphics Card for $1700. The computer I am typing this on was bought in December of 2001 and is 1.6 ghz. I am not saying anything bad about Apple just curious as to what the story is with this because Im new and very interested in getting a Mac. Thanks for any help.

tubedogg
Jan 19, 2005, 10:39 PM
They're expensive because they're Macs and that's the way Apple likes it. (It's the reason that they, along with Dell, are two of the few profitable PC companies). As for using cheap video cards as the standard, I wouldn't say that's really true. A 256MB 6800 is a top of the line card and is not really necessary for most home users.

As for clock speeds, you can't directly compare x86 (Intel / AMD) to PPC (Mac). They have different architectures and just aren't the same.

tateusmaximus
Jan 19, 2005, 10:47 PM
the architecture of each processor is so different you cant compare them. same with AMD and pentium. i am a recently converted windows->mac mover, and although i still enjoy my PC when i use it, the mac is a much better machine. although the mac is noticably not as quick as my P4 3.0GHz, it works! everything just works with a mac. no fluffing around changing thi and that to get the PC to do what you want it to do, that mac just does it... just slightly slower.

and they look alot nicer too!

gco212
Jan 19, 2005, 11:03 PM
Hello, this is my first post on the forums here. Until recently I new little about Macs, after talking about my frustration with PC's with my friend he suggested I look into getting a Mac. Ive been researching a lot over the past two months and I and close to sure that I would like to get one. One thing that I dont understand is why are apple's so much more expensive then PC's while being slower and using cheap video cards as the standard? My brother just bought a dell with a 3.8 ghz processor, a gig of ram, and a 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 GTO Graphics Card for $1700. The computer I am typing this on was bought in December of 2001 and is 1.6 ghz. I am not saying anything bad about Apple just curious as to what the story is with this because Im new and very interested in getting a Mac. Thanks for any help.

The processing speed aren't comparable because of different setups in their architectures. You really can't compare any processors. The AMD, Pentium 4, and the Centrino are all gauged differently, and the speeds aren't really comparable.

MacNut
Jan 19, 2005, 11:11 PM
Also remember, clock speeds are a marketing tool to sell computers. Don't buy a computer just on the speed of the processor alone, look at other factors such as hard drive and the amount of memory and graphics cards ect ect

Manzana
Jan 19, 2005, 11:13 PM
hey thor,

good job on researching this topic, as it is very convoluted and controversial, not only on the mac web but also in pc land. there is no easy answer, but in my real life experience my pc at work runs at 3.6 ghz and my 1.33 pb seems like it can handle more, more tasks, more programs without bogging down or crashing...i really can do things faster and that really amazed me! and basically that's what it really comes down to. AMD knew this two years ago when they started marketing their chips as 2000xp+, not according to the actual mhz. the mhz wars are over anyway, so who cares.

look at linux, i did before coming to mac. seems to me that linux runs faster and better on the same hardware than win xp. but (and there's a big one), if you want it for gaming then there is no comparison. when video chip makers market their cards for the mass market, of course the windows world will win on price and quality due to the huge market share.

i don't care about gaming, i play halo on my pb @ 35 fps and madden on my ps2

Manzana
Jan 19, 2005, 11:17 PM
AFAIK, Apple is not behind, they are ahead.

The hardware is two years old (in some cases) but the OS is four years ahead of win xp! hello Longhorne :confused:

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:26 PM
Thanks for all the replies, Ive never had this many responses so fast on any forum. So what you are all telling me is that mhz ratings dont mean anything? two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently? So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing? Manzana, that is pretty amazing to hear that you feel your 1.33 pb is running more efficiently than the 3.6 pc, are you speaking about running the same apps on each? In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D. One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help

CanadaRAM
Jan 19, 2005, 11:30 PM
One thing that I dont understand is why are apple's so much more expensive then PC's while being slower and using cheap video cards as the standard? My brother just bought a dell with a 3.8 ghz processor, a gig of ram, and a 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 GTO Graphics Card for $1700.
Why are the paper specifications important to you? More important is the real world productivity and experience of using the machine. What are you wanting to do with your computer?

Your brother spent extra on a high capacity 3-D gaming card. I'll say this up front: if playing the latest 3-D games (and continually spending $$$ to keep the gaming machine on the cutting edge) are the main reason for the computer, stick with Windows.

But a 256 Mb video card is absolutely unneccessary for 2-D applications such as most graphic, audio and office productivity software.

Part of the performance of a system has to be the performance of the OS, as well as the applications themselves.

So throw out the spec sheets, make a prioritized list of what you want the machine to accomplish for you, and visit an Apple dealer to get some hands on time. Judge for yourself whether the machines are fast enough, and whether the user experience is going to make you happy.

Now I have to get back to my Pentium 4 machine to figure out why it sponteneously has stopped networking, why the SATA drive that worked last week is now on a mutually exclusive-turf war with the DVD-RW, why it stops printing, but only after being on for 6 hours, and do my weekly round of BIOS upgrades, anti-virus, firewall and spyware upgrades. (Seriously, I worked on the thing til 4 AM last night, finally got a reply from MSI today saying that the BIOS setup has to be changed to a counter-intuitive setting. Rebooting for the 30th time, waiting 10 minutes each time for it to finish booting).

If you go Mac, you are saying goodbye to a lifetime study of trying to be a Windows security and compatibility expert.

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:30 PM
yes, the operating system is what is really attractive about the Mac, at least for me. playing around at the apple store without touching a Mac for almost 20 years and I was doing things I couldnt imagine learning on my PC. Come on though two years is an eternity in the computer world

tubedogg
Jan 19, 2005, 11:32 PM
So what you are all telling me is that mhz ratings dont mean anything? two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently?Yes. Two identically configured computers will usually run the same, but if you are comparing PowerPC (Apple) to AMD or AMD to Intel or any permutation of the above, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing?Very little. That's why Intel and AMD have both moved away from using it directly in the model numbers of the processors.

In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D.Dell may put a lot into R&D on making their operations more efficient to widen their margins but they aren't doing much R&D on their basic systems. Apple on the other hand innovates and pushes the industry further. They were the first mainstream system to use water cooling, and that's just the latest of their "firsts".

One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's?I think you just answered your own question...If it's a marketing ploy, why should Apple play along? As I mentioned earlier, they are one of very few profitable PC companies. They might not have huge marketshare but they are good at what they do.

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:39 PM
Yes Ram, all those things you have mentioned is what is making me want to switch. in regards to the video card, I have a ps2 so video cards dont make a difference to me. The point I was trying to make was how much PC you get for the price compared to Mac, regardless of how Apple has the better OS and more reliable hardware. Im really not trying to upset anybody, but when I see how much PC I can get for an Apple it makes it even harder for me to click the place order button on apple's website

CanadaRAM
Jan 19, 2005, 11:41 PM
In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D. One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help

Oh my gosh. don't get me started on the quality of HP, Compaq, Dell.
There is no company in the business that delivers better quality engineering and components than Apple. Apple is not perfect, but they are head and shoulders above the PC makers -- As evidenced by Apple winning virtually all the independent industry repair and satisfaction surveys since forever.

I think you're still a little fuzzy on the MHz question. The architecture of both the processors and the operating systems makes CPU Megahertz meaningless, essentially. The only time that MHz is comparative is when you are putting two of the same model processor side by side -- even among different Pentium 4s you can't directly equate the clock speed with performance.

So Apple does have a marketing problem, but the problem is *not* "how can they get the MHz up to keep up". That's like saying "Many pro basketball players are 7'; why isn't Steve Nash doing what he can about getting taller so he can compare with them?"

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:41 PM
yes, but if its a marketing ploy that sells computers you would think apple would take notice right?

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:45 PM
Yes Ram, I have had much experience with crappy compaq's and gateways, what I should have said was PC's will win on price and newer hardware. Also Ram, in your earlier post you mentioned why I would be concerned about specs. Im concerned because that is all I have to go on having little experience with Macs aside from the apple store

neoelectronaut
Jan 19, 2005, 11:51 PM
Should I dig up the link to the "Apple Explains the Megahertz Myth" Video?

thorshammer88
Jan 19, 2005, 11:55 PM
thanks but, Ive seen that one already during my research into Mac's. Look at the source, Im not saying that they are not telling the truth but apple isnt going to be very objective

killmoms
Jan 19, 2005, 11:56 PM
I'd say just gauge on your experience on the Macs in the Apple Store. That's how the machine will perform doing the tasks you're interested in. Talk to the representative, see if they have a machine in the store of the same model you want to buy that has the apps you'll be using on a regular basis installed on it and give them a whirl. Really the specs don't matter if you find the machine performs to your satisfaction.

Also, keep in mind there are some differences when comparing the perceived speed of a Mac to a PC. There's different design philosophies at work between MacOS X and Windows XP. Windows seeks to be Snappy™ at all costs—if that means drawing windows on the screen before there's content to fill them, Windows will do that. This gives it the impression of being "faster" that OS X, which wants to get a window ready for display before it puts it up on the screen. However, Windows XP can get very bogged down under multitasking loads, causing the system to get sluggish. OS X on the other hand scales very well under load—the interface might not feel as "snappy" as Windows, but it always chugs along smoothly. Speed vs. smooth is just one of the differences you'll find.

Apple's hardware will probably never compete on every level with PCs of the same price. Apple must charge more for its machines because they're a small company making (more) proprietary boxes out of components not priced like commodities. They need larger margins on their hardware to survive profitably. One of the difficult (but rewarding) things about entering the Apple fold is being able to swallow the higher cost of entry. Even if it seems iffy at first, it's well worth it.

ddtlm
Jan 19, 2005, 11:58 PM
thorshammer88:

yes, but if its a marketing ploy that sells computers you would think apple would take notice right?
And do what, drop half-a-billion dollars on a compeditive high-clockspeed design (for the sole purpose of marketing)? Look how far that got Intel in their war with AMD.

CanadaRAM
Jan 20, 2005, 12:00 AM
The point I was trying to make was how much PC you get for the price compared to Mac, regardless of how Apple has the better OS and more reliable hardware. Im really not trying to upset anybody, but when I see how much PC I can get for an Apple it makes it even harder for me to click the place order button on apple's website

"How much PC I can get for the money" has to be measured by some criteria.

You also get far more for your money, measured in dollars per pound, with a Kia or a Hyundai than you do with a Toyota or a Lexus.

Question is, is the criteria chosen for comparison actually meaningful?

Please go and hang out with a iMac G5 or an entry level G5 tower for a while, and see if you don't end up throwing the specifications/critera out and reevaluating based on other values.

(I'm going to regret this I know) If you must, a "very rough" way of thinking about speed is that 1 GHz PowerMac G5 = 2 GHz Pentium 4. So compare an iMac G5 17" at 1.6 GHz with a Dell P4 3.2 GHz with a 17" LCD.

Remember , a '71 Corvette may have the 400+ HP engine but it still has to drag around an extra 1000 lbs of metal, so the Mini Cooper will beat it on most courses.

mactropy
Jan 20, 2005, 12:01 AM
Why are the paper specifications important to you? More important is the real world productivity and experience of using the machine. What are you wanting to do with your computer?

CanadaRAM, I definitely have to agree with you. Usability and "Doing what I WANT" is really important for me. From a productivity and computer usage experience make up for a faster processor. Especially for me. I only do basic stuff like blogging, email, some video editing and Photoshop.
I'm not a gamer -have never been- and therefore my requirements are less pronounced. Also, I don't really care if rendering a video project takes three minutes longer on my Mac than on a PC. I would have spent 4 hours longer to get a same quality project on the PC.

CanadaRAM
Jan 20, 2005, 12:02 AM
Windows seeks to be Snappy™ at all costs—if that means drawing windows on the screen before there's content to fill them, Windows will do that. This gives it the impression of being "faster" that OS X, which wants to get a window ready for display before it puts it up on the screen.

Oh yeah! My P4 machine puts MS Outlook up on the screen at boot time a full 5 minutes before it is actually usable...

SuperChuck
Jan 20, 2005, 12:03 AM
yes, but if its a marketing ploy that sells computers you would think apple would take notice right?

Well, they have taken notice. Before the G5 came out, Apple did a lot of PR based around "the megahertz myth." They even ran ads that tried to explain this myth, but in the end, it didn't work for them. With the G5, however, Apple is closing the megahertz gap without sacrificing the performance of its chips.

We are now entering a period where megahertz have hit the wall for EVERYBODY, and the name of the game is squeezing more performance out of a chip with very limited boosts in Mhz speed. In this game, Apple is way ahead of the curve. They've been working under this model for years.

I'm certainly no expert on these matters, but I'm an avid reader of MacRumors forums, and this is the gist of things as I understand them.

ddtlm
Jan 20, 2005, 12:13 AM
CanadaRAM:

Heh, yeah that "1ghz G5 == 2ghz P4" thing is pretty generous to Apple. ;) With such modern processors, in code comprised of roughly comperable instructions (no vector instructions) its difficult to get that kind of per-clock performance disparity.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 12:17 AM
yes ddtlm, a billion dollar company like intel must be stupid to get as large as they have. Cless you brought up something Ive never given much thought to and took for granted. After booting up and my display shows, I wait another few minutes until Im actually able to use anything, while my computer sounds like its about to explode. Same thing happens while closing large apps, it closes but my computer gets bogged down and starts hummin and I cant use anything for a minute or two. Is this something Mac users dont deal with? Thanks again

ddtlm
Jan 20, 2005, 12:26 AM
SuperChuck:

We are now entering a period where megahertz have hit the wall for EVERYBODY, and the name of the game is squeezing more performance out of a chip with very limited boosts in Mhz speed. In this game, Apple is way ahead of the curve. They've been working under this model for years.
Thats an amusing spin on Moto's non-delivery of performance. ;) But anyway, Apple/IBM/Moto might be ahead of Intel in the game, but not AMD. AMD is spot-on and they've been spot-on for years.

thorshammer88:

Same thing happens while closing large apps, it closes but my computer gets bogged down and starts hummin and I cant use anything for a minute or two
Is your machine infested with spyware, or short on RAM? Sounds to me like your doing a lot of disk-swapping, and a well-ordered windows machine shouldn't be doing that (much).

The issue of RAM use is a definate problem for Mac users, so if you don't get a nice chunk of it you'll be back to the old "click grind grind action" you describe.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 12:35 AM
ddtlm, I have a gig of ram and Im not really doing anything very strenuous, so I dont know why it does that. I have norton and am running two anti-spyware programs, so Im sure there isnt too much spyware on there. I didnt install microsofts 70 meg service pack 2 or anymore updates because it literally killed my computer, I spent hours getting it off, another illustration of how fed up I am with PC's and windows in particular

live4ever
Jan 20, 2005, 12:35 AM
Also when you compare prices make sure to factor in all the great software that comes free with every Mac.

sorryiwasdreami
Jan 20, 2005, 12:41 AM
thorshammer88,

To be totally honest, you aren't going to understand what any of us are talking about until you truely experience the mac and OS X. When I sit in front of my father's windows xp computer, I feel like a child looking at windows 3.1.

I can't believe how ancient it looks, acts, and feels. For real. The latest windows xp is seriously built on 5-year-old technology, and I can't even believe people sit there and use it. It gives me chills.

I think computers that run windows aren't bad machines; the hardware is good. It's the user experience that is atrocious. If Mac OS X ran on x86 based hardware, I would love to use it. I'm telling you right now, there is absolutely no comparison in windows xp to OS X. I can't even make an analogy.

If you are worried about the cost of a mac, get yourself a Mac Mini or eMac. If you can afford more, go with the new iMac G5 (that's what I have). If you are a professional wanting to do video or sound editing, heavy rendering, go with a powermac.

You will be happy you did.

dejo
Jan 20, 2005, 12:42 AM
thorshammer88, I think you are placing far too much emphasis on the "numbers" when trying to make your comparisons, especially when such side-by-side comparisons don't always foretell the "end experience". A luxury sports car may have the same horsepower, top speed, 0-60mph as a seemingly lower priced alternative, but just "driving it" will be a much more satisfying experience to many.

ddtlm
Jan 20, 2005, 12:50 AM
thorshammer88:

Those sound like good precautions, and sounds like plenty of RAM. I only use Windows on occasion, but I think I've observed the virus-scanners and anti-virus programs actually causing some performance problems. :) For my Windows machines, I keep things smooth by only installing games, doing little web browsing, never doing email, and avoiding virus/spyware progs. What might work for you would be to keep a Windows machine around for the tasks that it excells at, and keep a Mac around for email/browsing/etc. For that purpose, a cheap Mac should suffice (but never get less than 512M of RAM).

sorryiwasdreami:

I can't believe how ancient it looks, acts, and feels. For real. The latest windows xp is seriously built on 5-year-old technology, and I can't even believe people sit there and use it. It gives me chills.
Uh, Unix wasn't exactly designed yesterday. I'm pretty much at a loss for how to approach your attitude about "old" technology.

clayj
Jan 20, 2005, 12:51 AM
Oh yeah! My P4 machine puts MS Outlook up on the screen at boot time a full 5 minutes before it is actually usable...You shouldn't use this particular case as an example of how Windows may or may not have a problem.

When you launch Outlook, one of the things it does before actually letting you run the program is to make sure that your PST/OST file(s) is/are OK... this takes time, moreso the larger the PST/OST file is, and if you shut Outlook down incorrectly, the test takes even longer. This test is performed after the program starts, but before the full UI engages... this is the reason why Outlook sometimes is slow to load and why its window comes up slowly. It's not Windows' fault.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 01:04 AM
yeah Im fully aware of the performance drawbacks associated with running anti-spyware programs, another craptastic feature of using windows. I actually have considered getting the Mac mini, but my only concern is if I really like it I would want something more suitable for my needs like the imac and then spending even more money getting one. Theres only so much time I have to play around at the Mac store so I know I will never have the full experience of the Mac until I purchase one. This is the reason I am a little apprehensive, I would be putting a lot of money into something I know little about. At this point though I'm just desperate to get away from windows.

mox358
Jan 20, 2005, 01:05 AM
Another thing I always factor in is just how much better OSX looks. As a web/graphic designer on the side, I notice how much more attractive the UI on Apple machines is compared to Windows (yes, even XP). OSX uses the graphics card to produce 3d effects, drop shadows, animations, and photo icons amongst other things. Windows XP even is using display technology from Windows 95. It just looks primitive. We have dell embedded XP terminals at work, and every time I come home to my mac I see how much better the interface looks, feels, and how much text is even easier to read.

And thats a technology MS has yet to reproduce, and apparently can't do by 2007, since I believe it was dropped from Longhorn.

Just trying to let you know that OSX does a LOT more work in the background, but the effects of having a much nicer interface will pay off in productivity and mostly your eyes not hurting! :)

Just my 2 cents.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 01:10 AM
yes, thats another thing I noticed at the apple store, how much easier everything was to read, I didnt have to squint

sorryiwasdreami
Jan 20, 2005, 01:12 AM
sorryiwasdreami:
Uh, Unix wasn't exactly designed yesterday. I'm pretty much at a loss for how to approach your attitude about "old" technology.

Maybe I should have elaborated. Windows xp is windows 2000 with a different UI. It's been the same 5 year old system; that's what I was referring to. Of course OS X is built on top of Unix, but we'd still be using OS 9 if we were in the windows world.

I'm trying not to take your comment the wrong way.

mox358
Jan 20, 2005, 01:25 AM
I like to think of Unix as proven software instead of "old". Proven to be stable, reliable, and virus free.

As opposed to windows was is also proven software - proven unreliable, (usually very) unstable, and the least, proven to be a breeding ground for virii.

:)

MikeLaRiviere
Jan 20, 2005, 01:32 AM
Defending Windows doesn't make one a jerk. I just built an AMD setup that I'm pretty satisfied with. It's great for gaming, and although I don't like it as much as my PowerBook, I still like it a lot. Just put Fedora Core 3 on there, and Windows XP seems to be a better system (granted, FC3 is rumored to be unstable, and I'm a linux nub). If I could run all my PC games on a Mac at the same or greater framerate for an equal or lesser (or perhaps slightly higher) price, that'd be great. Until that day, I'll still keep a PC around.

One other thing of note: although there are all kinds of goodies inherent with OS X, I find that with an x86 box I can "tinker" around quite a bit more. There are problems that arise in the BIOS, Windows, and Linux that I like to solve. Keeping Windows machines running optimally is another challenge I enjoy, fixing friends' computers and whatnot. I don't know if you're the same way... seeing as you're "fed up", I assume you're don't like to fix problems with computers. That being the case, a Mac is for you. I'm a big laptop guy - when I'm at home, I use my PC for gaming, but I always have my PowerBook in front of me. Right now, the iBook is quite a deal - comparable PC hardware does cost more, in fact. Although we maintain that clock speed is unimportant, check out a Pentium M thin-and-light less than five pounds with a built in DVD/CD-RW drive... if you're buying from Dell, you may find one that costs less (though I doubt it), but speaking from experience, these are flimsy machines. IBM and Sony make quality computers, but they cost more than the iBook. Bear in mind the student discount and corporate discounts, if they apply.

Toppa G's
Jan 20, 2005, 01:33 AM
Yes Ram, I have had much experience with crappy compaq's and gateways, what I should have said was PC's will win on price and newer hardware. Also Ram, in your earlier post you mentioned why I would be concerned about specs. Im concerned because that is all I have to go on having little experience with Macs aside from the apple store

Since it seems no one has really addressed the hardware besides the processor, let's take a look at that. With an Apple, you get a lot of options with even the basic package. They'll give you a couple FireWire ports, USB 2.0, DVI or VGA monitor connectivity, and for a little more money, you can add Bluetooth, AirPort/wireless, and more RAM (as people say, best to buy third party and install yourself). You get all that connectivity as a part of the package.

With most PCs (in my experience, feel free to correct me if wrong), you don't get FireWire; you usually have to add a card with FireWire ports. If you want Bluetooth, you have to add a card. Wireless internet? Add a card. These are some of the newest hardware technologies that Apple has done a great job of integrating into the computer and the operating system for a truly smooth interface.

So when you're talking about PCs using newer hardware, sure, they have "faster" processors. But everything else works darn well on an Apple. Heck, my iBook is about 4 years old, and I can still use it as my primary computer for web, email, Photoshop, Illustrator, page layout applications and more. And it works.

When I can open the lid of my 4 year old laptop and be surfing the web within 10 seconds (waking from sleep), that is worth it to me. Some of my friends and family using PCs have to log back in to their 1-2 year old computers with XP, then wait for everything to reload and then get to the internet, usually a 30+ second process.

A bit long-winded I guess, but I've found with my iBook I can get things done and find information faster and more intuitively. It just works.

ddtlm
Jan 20, 2005, 01:40 AM
sorryiwasdreami:

I don't want to take your comment the wrong way, but is there a reason to act like a jerk?
Cause by exchanging a few words and I could see the original comment directed at clothing by some uber-trendy highschooler. ;) That would have been a bad approach to technology. But its good to hear you didn't intend it that way.

Mav451
Jan 20, 2005, 01:49 AM
Firewire, while not as prominent on the PC side, has been around for a LONG time. I know that Firewire was already found on the very first PMac G4's in 2000, but I believe that PCs have had it since 1999 on even the early Athlon chipsets such as the KT133. Obviously, with the variations between motherboard manufacturers some would have it, while others do not. It is also good to point out that the success of the USB/USB2 overshadowed 1394 on the PC side, and literally limited Firewire as only a "requirement" if you had a digital camcorder and wanted to move that data. Cases, for the longest time have had Firewire ports on the front (easy access) or more typically, on the back as part of the typical I/O panel.

*well, actually those mobo's simply included the pci expansion card as part of the package. To be honest, I think that it is only more recently in 2002 that mobos started having the IEEE-1394 controller integrated directly into motherboards (the i845 and nForce2 chipsets come to mind).

In terms of wireless, any "Centrino" or more succinctly put, Pentium-M based laptop has wireless access built in, be in Banias, Dothan, or Sonoma core. Pentium-M's, on the PC side, are the only way to go anyway. If you have a friend who purchased a P4-Mobile (expensive, thermally inefficient), you can tell them they just wasted a lot of money =(

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 01:51 AM
Mike, when I spend $2000 for a computer it should just work. Im not a very technical person and I have no interest in correcting problems that shouldnt be there in the first place. Isnt that what Im paying them for? A computer that does what I expect it to do without hassles. These companies have amassed billions of dollars, youd think they could build a stable product that was easier to use.

JRM
Jan 20, 2005, 01:51 AM
Look at what Apple have:

Powermac G5 - Enough said
Xserve G5 - Think Virginia Tech
iPod - Watch out only have 65% of the market
Powerbook - Not G5 but my TiBook belts my brothers 2.0GHZ Centrino and the Ti actually works
iBook - Awesome price and functionality
Mini - Of course behind? Dell bought one of those stylish affordable machines out years ago. Didn't they?
iMac- Yes behind? My Dell Display doesn't have a DVD burner in it yet. Did U know that?
OSX - XP? Choose which one that works the best. How about simplifying it and choosing the one that DOES work.
iLife - Nothing to compete against and at $79

MY FRIEND YOU ARE MISTAKEN

jmsait19
Jan 20, 2005, 01:52 AM
thor, it sounds like you have pretty much made up your mind. Just reading through all these posts, you know you want a Mac, you are just needing some reassurance. I think everyone here will tell you that you won't be disappointed. And I also can vouch for that.

I'm a 19 year old college student. I have a part-time job that doesn't really pay jack. I like to spend so I don't really have any money. But I was fed up with my parents PC. It was slow as all dog and just an absolutely miserable experience to even check email. The computer would crash just trying to close pop-ups. So a year ago i got my parents to buy me a powerbook and set up a plan to where i would pay them back in full with a small amount of interest over time. Like you I was a little nervous because I had never owned a Mac. I was buying this based off of what I had read a little online and what a couple of people at my work had said. I actually didn't know of this website before i bought it, so I was more blind than you. (wow, that was a bigger risk than i originally thought!) However, I'm about halfway paid off and I sure could use the extra cash, BUT I wouldn't trade my powerbook for the world. I love it to death. I never have problems with it. It runs like a dream and is just goreous inside and out. Everything opens in good time, its not slow at all. Basically, as much as I could use the 2 grand-ish I spent on this, I don't regret for one second buying this computer.

As you said in an earlier post, if you pay a lot for a computer, you want it to work without hassle. Well, the Mac does. It could really be a slogan for the Mac. "It just works." Because it does work, and it works well.

I hope I was able to ease your nerves just a little bit.

atari1356
Jan 20, 2005, 02:10 AM
Mike, when I spend $2000 for a computer it should just work. Im not a very technical person and I have no interest in correcting problems that shouldnt be there in the first place. Isnt that what Im paying them for? A computer that does what I expect it to do without hassles. These companies have amassed billions of dollars, youd think they could build a stable product that was easier to use.

Based on that comment alone, I'd say you'd be quite happy with a Mac. :cool:

Mac OS X does have it's quirks... but in general it's very easy to use, extremely stable, and you won't have to deal with viruses and spyware.

As far as processor speed goes, as long as it's fast enough to get your work done, who cares what the MHz rating is? Besides, MHz is meaningless on PC's if you waste half of your time fixing problems anyways.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 02:19 AM
JRM, I dont know the whole point of that but if you want to talk stats whats apples market share of computers? Also, the powermac enough said comment really cleared things up for me, thanks a lot considering Im not interested in an ipod or an xserve. Do you have nothing better to do than to make sarcastic comments when I have legitimate concerns about making a huge investment in an apple?

I really do want one, like I said earlier I'm just concerend about putting a lot of money into something that I have no experience with.

Thanks jm, Im glad to hear about somebody in my situation who never owned a mac before being able to get the hang of it quickly

oldpismo
Jan 20, 2005, 02:25 AM
Just to throw my towel into the ring on the processor speed issue. I am writing this at work on a Dell laptop with a 1.7GHz Centrino processor with 1Gb of ram. At home I have a 1.8GHz iMac with 512Gb ram. There is no question that the mac is much faster. I can use the same development tools and the performance is greatly improved, for a GHz difference that shouldn't be noticable (especially with the ram difference) The greatest difference however is the speed to boot.

Processor architecture does make a big difference.

I also think that the need to have a virus checker on the PC slows down general file access and the whole machine now feels sluggish.

PC's also seem to slow with age. I don't know if Macs do, I haven't had it long enough yet.

Peter

crap freakboy
Jan 20, 2005, 02:27 AM
No matter how much you test drive a car there comes the point where have to take the leap of faith and part with your cash.
It's a no-brainer in my opinion, OSX is just sooo...listen, just buy an iMac G5, dont bother with the Mini...you'll never look back. It just works with you rather than against you. Hope you do make the right decision. I've been using Macs since '89 - never had a virus, adware or spyware.

jmsait19
Jan 20, 2005, 02:35 AM
Thanks jm, Im glad to hear about somebody in my situation who never owned a mac before being able to get the hang of it quickly

Actually yeah, thinking about it now, I feel like I can do way more with my mac after 1+ years as opposed to 8+ on a PC. They are just easier and they work. The risk was worth it and paid off greatly for me. I think it could do the same for you.

LeeTom
Jan 20, 2005, 03:02 AM
How can I put this?
I was a PC user most of my life, and bought my first Mac (since the early 90s) a year and a half ago... a Powerbook. At first I was a little ticked off at some things that were different, that I was used to on a PC. Little things.
But recently I bought a PC again SOLELY to play the new Counter-Strike:Source game, because it's so awesome... and realize how amazing the Mac experience is.

I USE the Powerbook... I don't have anti-virus software, I don't have spyware removers, I don't run defragmenter, and I don't even run the Scandisk equivalent (Disk Utility)...

I do have all my albums organized with cover art in iTunes.
I have edited old movies I made in iMovie, made slideshows with iPhoto and uploaded them to the web, or burned them to DVD for family members...
Recently I've learned Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro, and am building a pretty professional-looking DVD of old videos.
I recorded music with Garageband, and shared it with friends on the web.
I browse the web with no popups!
I read my email without thinking about spam, save for 1-2 times per month.
Drivers? What are drivers? I plug in my camera, video camera, iSight, iPod, printer... they just worked!

What I'm trying to say is, I don't think about all the B.S. that people have become accustomed to with their computers... I just enjoy working with my computer when I need to use it, and I'll take that over any numbers you can come up with, money- or speed-wise, anyday.

Lee Tom

CanadaRAM
Jan 20, 2005, 03:04 AM
You shouldn't use this particular case as an example of how Windows may or may not have a problem.
When you launch Outlook, one of the things it does before actually letting you run the program is to make sure that your PST/OST file(s) is/are OK... this takes time, moreso the larger the PST/OST file is, and if you shut Outlook down incorrectly, the test takes even longer. This test is performed after the program starts, but before the full UI engages... this is the reason why Outlook sometimes is slow to load and why its window comes up slowly. It's not Windows' fault.

Thanks, good information

My comment was in response to a post that commented on the tendency for Windows to display objects before they are populated/ usable. From a user point of view, that's what is happening with my Outlook (600 Mb mail database, always shut down properly). I'll blame Outlook rather than Windows for that (considering the manufacturer of both, a subtle distinction to be sure). A better interface would have been to put up a progress bar saying "Checking your PST file".

Windows drives me bonkers with dialog boxes that can be hidden behind other windows, and multiple, overlaying and competing dialogs, especially when running installers. It's all too possible to click on something and have something else be activated unintentionally. Apple is better at maintaining focus on the right thing in the UI.

sigamy
Jan 20, 2005, 10:34 AM
Most of this has been said, but I'll add my thoughts.

1. You can't compare Intel/AMD (x86) chips to Motorolla/IBM PowerPC (G4 or G5) chips. The architecture is different. PowerPC chips like the G4 and G5 can do more in a single clock cycle than x86 chips. This why a 1Ghz G4 can still compete with much higher Mhz x86 chips.

The PowerPC chips are RISC processors. Most large database servers in corporate American run Unix on RISC procesors in either HP, IBM or Sun servers. There are many, many important databases running on servers with four 500mhz RISC processors. Yep, 500mhz.

2. The other hardware. There is RAM, bus speed, HD speed, memory speed, video card. In most of these Apple has been behind also, due to limitations with the G4. But with the G5 Apple has come right back up to the lead. I'll also say that if you do go with a Mac you will want at least 512mb RAM. The more the better and these days (depending on what apps you use) 1GB is not out of the question. Video cards are fine for most consumers--(non-gamers). Remember the low-end Dells come with integrated video that shares system RAM.

If you feed a G4 Mac a bunch of RAM it will perform very, very well.

3. The OS and software. Windows has gotten better. Win2000 and XP are pretty stable. But they still don't come close to Mac OS X. OS X is a combination of proven technology like Unix, Nextstep/Openstep and new tech like Aqua, Quartz Extreme and QuickTime. The best word to describe OS X is elegant. It is a joy to work with.

If you don't need gaming and you don't have some strange piece of software that is Windows only you can move to a Mac and never look back. There is more to the value question than just the fact that someone can get a 3.x Ghz machine when you only get a 1.5Ghz Mac. Of course, the Windows machine may be faster at some tasks, but the Mac will "just work". It will get out of your way and let you be productive. It will be fun to use. It will make you more creative. Trust us.

Apple is the innovator in the industry. They were first to mass market USB, first to drop the floppy drive, first with firewire, 802.11 networking. All of these things are common on PCs today but just a few years ago they were add-ons. Macs have come with ethernet for YEARS. Dell spends very, very little on R&D. They slap components together into a box. Apple now uses standard, 3rd party components for the most part but they ensure that everythign works together. Seamless integration.

pigbat
Jan 20, 2005, 11:03 AM
The PowerPC chips are RISC processors. Most large database servers in corporate American run Unix on RISC procesors in either HP, IBM or Sun servers. There are many, many important databases running on servers with four 500mhz RISC processors. Yep, 500mhz.




This is a very valid point. We host our high volume transaction database on Sun equipment. I just purchased dual core 1.2 GHz RISC procs for a system and didn't think twice about it. It's more about the hardware and OS working together to acheive performance.

We have quite a few 450 MHz systems running business critical apps. The MHz/GHz is very deceptive. Once you get beyond looking at this and gauge it on your needs it's a very easy decision.

hulugu
Jan 20, 2005, 11:17 AM
Thanks for all the replies, Ive never had this many responses so fast on any forum. So what you are all telling me is that mhz ratings dont mean anything? two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently? So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing? Manzana, that is pretty amazing to hear that you feel your 1.33 pb is running more efficiently than the 3.6 pc, are you speaking about running the same apps on each? In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D. One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help

The difference really has to do with architecture, and the inherent give and take between those different architectures. Simply enough, the Pentium IV is very fast, but has a long pipe. This is great so long as the code has no gaps, which means the processor has to wait for that 'bubble' to clear for the next set of code. The longer the pipe, the faster the chip has to work to move the same amount of data.
The PPC has a short pipe, but lower frequency (what mhz really refers to) and so can deal with gaps or 'bubbles' in the data much easier. Most code has lots of 'bubbles.'
So, while the PPC chip has a lower frequency it can process as much or more data depending on the code or compiler. Very clean code on x86 runs like a cheatah, but any data bubbles will still slow it down.
Furthermore, the speed of the chip is also tied to the bus (here the G5 with its 1ghz bus is actually faster than the PIV's best at .8ghz) and the speed of the computer is tied to the hard-drive, video-card, memory, and even on some applications the speed of the optical drive.
This is ignoring the OS which can also have optimizations which allow it to take advantage of certain parts of the machine better than another.
It gets to the point where you're arguing which would win in a fight, Wolverine or the Punisher? (Or two other comic book heroes, take your pick).
Intel made the choice to go x86 because it had the high-potential for short-term fabrication of higher megahertz and then used that to market their chips. Apple, at one time had faster chips from Motorola, but that lead was lost as Intel pulled ahead. Motorola could never quite figure out what to do, and ultimately failed to make the G4 PPC comparable to Intel in the megahertz rating. IBM, who made the G3, had similar problems, but these appear to have been solved by the different architecture of the G5 PPC. Apple has never made the chips for their equipment and thus cannot be totally blamed for this, except for their decision to go with PPC rather than the x86 designs.
As for R&D, most PC makers put very little R&D into creating their machines, because most are cut and paste jobs from Intel and Nvidia designs. What's the real difference between a Compaq/HP or Dell desktop? The color of the case.
Apple, however, puts more R&D in real dollars than almost anyone else. Dell has put millions into R&D, but much of that money has been spent in supply-chain, order-on-demand efficiency, which is great, but it doesn't make your computer any better. (I'm not saying Dell hasn't tried to design their servers and high-end equipment, but that Dell Inspiron isn't exactly state-of-the-art either).
IMHO, Apple tries to put together the best machine with parts that will compliment each other (good drivers, low heat, light weight, performance) and create a great experience rather than slapping in the 'best' and hoping it all works.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 12:13 PM
hulu, yes when I spoke about R&D in PC's I was speaking of the hardware mainly Intel and AMD. I understand that PC's are a cut and paste job. Thanks for that explanation, I think I'm getting a better understanding of the different processors. Like I have said, I want an Apple, thats not the issue, its more of first the cost and second me picking up on the OS.

One more thing thats kind of off topic. What is with Apples secrecy with all their products. They are out there suing websites, whats up with that? In PC world it seems like you find out whats coming down the line way, way, way in advance so you can plan your product purchases. This concerns me because I dont want to purchase a Mac and then a month later have them come out with some nice upgrades to my machine I just bought. Thanks again everybody for all the help

jayscheuerle
Jan 20, 2005, 12:58 PM
Think of mHz as rpms.

Processors are wheels.

The G5 is a bigger diameter wheel than the P4, so the P4 needs more rpms to achieve the same speed as the slower rpm G5. Bigger wheels don't have to rotate as fast as smaller wheels to achieve the same speed.

In the end, you buy Macs for either the OS or because they're beautiful machines, and when you spec them out EXACTLY, they compare pretty favorably to PC systems (not byo boxes). - j

jayscheuerle
Jan 20, 2005, 01:00 PM
This concerns me because I dont want to purchase a Mac and then a month later have them come out with some nice upgrades to my machine I just bought.

Then never buy right before a Macworld or WWDC. :D

wrldwzrd89
Jan 20, 2005, 01:40 PM
Most of this has been said, but I'll add my thoughts.

1. You can't compare Intel/AMD (x86) chips to Motorolla/IBM PowerPC (G4 or G5) chips. The architecture is different. PowerPC chips like the G4 and G5 can do more in a single clock cycle than x86 chips. This why a 1Ghz G4 can still compete with much higher Mhz x86 chips.

The PowerPC chips are RISC processors. Most large database servers in corporate American run Unix on RISC procesors in either HP, IBM or Sun servers. There are many, many important databases running on servers with four 500mhz RISC processors. Yep, 500mhz.

2. The other hardware. There is RAM, bus speed, HD speed, memory speed, video card. In most of these Apple has been behind also, due to limitations with the G4. But with the G5 Apple has come right back up to the lead. I'll also say that if you do go with a Mac you will want at least 512mb RAM. The more the better and these days (depending on what apps you use) 1GB is not out of the question. Video cards are fine for most consumers--(non-gamers). Remember the low-end Dells come with integrated video that shares system RAM.

If you feed a G4 Mac a bunch of RAM it will perform very, very well.

3. The OS and software. Windows has gotten better. Win2000 and XP are pretty stable. But they still don't come close to Mac OS X. OS X is a combination of proven technology like Unix, Nextstep/Openstep and new tech like Aqua, Quartz Extreme and QuickTime. The best word to describe OS X is elegant. It is a joy to work with.

If you don't need gaming and you don't have some strange piece of software that is Windows only you can move to a Mac and never look back. There is more to the value question than just the fact that someone can get a 3.x Ghz machine when you only get a 1.5Ghz Mac. Of course, the Windows machine may be faster at some tasks, but the Mac will "just work". It will get out of your way and let you be productive. It will be fun to use. It will make you more creative. Trust us.

Apple is the innovator in the industry. They were first to mass market USB, first to drop the floppy drive, first with firewire, 802.11 networking. All of these things are common on PCs today but just a few years ago they were add-ons. Macs have come with ethernet for YEARS. Dell spends very, very little on R&D. They slap components together into a box. Apple now uses standard, 3rd party components for the most part but they ensure that everythign works together. Seamless integration.
Great post sigamy (as always) - but there's one little niggle I must point out. Remember that Intel invented the USB standard, so they would have been the first ones to mass-market it. However, as you said, it never really got going until Apple required its use in their first iMacs.

mrgreen4242
Jan 20, 2005, 01:59 PM
SInce it sounds like you have a nice PC desktop already, have you considered getting a Mac laptop to start? The iBooks are very nice computers, and start at under $1000 new, undiscounted, less for refurbs and with EDU pricing, etc. This way you can get a feel for OS X, see if you like it, and not get into a system that is going replace your desktop. It's nice to have a laptop, regardless of what OS it runs, so you can at least get some work done when you travel.

The iBook isn't a great gaming rig, but it's actaully tollerable. My sisters 933mhz iBook play UT2k3 and WC3 acceptabley. If you decide that you just can't stand OS X, all macs, notebooks especially, hold their value very well for resale. You could probably get out of it for only a couple hundred in loss after 5 months (something PCs can never do). If you decide you love it, you can either keep the laptop, or sell it and your PC and roll it over into a PowerMac or Rev. B iMac or something.

Good luck with your switch, it's great once you take the leap!

Rob

jmsait19
Jan 20, 2005, 02:32 PM
hulu, yes when I spoke about R&D in PC's I was speaking of the hardware mainly Intel and AMD. I understand that PC's are a cut and paste job. Thanks for that explanation, I think I'm getting a better understanding of the different processors. Like I have said, I want an Apple, thats not the issue, its more of first the cost and second me picking up on the OS.

One more thing thats kind of off topic. What is with Apples secrecy with all their products. They are out there suing websites, whats up with that? In PC world it seems like you find out whats coming down the line way, way, way in advance so you can plan your product purchases. This concerns me because I dont want to purchase a Mac and then a month later have them come out with some nice upgrades to my machine I just bought. Thanks again everybody for all the help

The secrecy is just something you have to deal with. Without it, this site probably wouldn't exist! It can be a hassle when trying to buy something new, but overall it's kind of fun to take time and ponder what they are coming out with next. How would you have liked to plan you purchase around the original release schedule of Longhorn only to find now that its been delayed who knows how many times and stuff and probably thrown your plan completely out of whack. There are pros and cons to both ways, but thats a topic for another thread.

Where you are concerned is you don't want to buy a machine that will be outdated in the near future. There is a buyers guide on the main page. Its the third tab at the top. So check that out before you buy, and you can always search the forums and ask us. We are always glad to help.

Again you mentioned picking up the OS. OS X is actually way more simple to get used to than windows, I'm sure everyone here will attest to. It's easier to get it to do what you want it to. Very intuitive. As I said before, I jumped into to the Mac land of OS X fairly blindly (I had fiddled a little and been to the Apple Store), and I have picked it up very well and fast. It sounds like it would be easier to switch than to continue using windows. I know it felt that way for me. I'm not looking back and I don't think anyone else here is. That probably sounds way too easy but it really is the best testimony we can give. We all did it, and don't regret it for one second.

notjustjay
Jan 20, 2005, 02:42 PM
Coupla notes.

That's exactly how I got into the Mac world, I bought a Mac Powerbook to supplement my Windows XP Pro PC. I used both systems but over the course of many months found I was slowly using the PC less and less, until I finally sold it last summer, about a year after picking up the Powerbook.

Another reason to consider why Apple may be considered "slow" is all the time they take to design their products. They don't simply whip together a power brick, say, and then rush it into mass production. They take a moment to say, "how can we make this look cool?" and start fiddling with molds for acrylic plastic, rounded corners, laser engraving, etc. That's also why you pay a premium for Apple's stuff. Even the packaging must cost them more than a typical brown box.

As for the "It just works" mantra - I have to say I always thought Mac users were exaggerating those claims, until I got this Powerbook. It really does explain the experience in just a few words. Example: A few months ago we bought a new color laser printer, which came with an Ethernet print server box. This is, literally, how quickly we got it going:

1. Place printer on desk. Plug in Ethernet cable and AC cables. Turn printer on.
2. Turn Powerbook on.
3. Open a document. Select "Print..." from the file menu.
4. From the Printer drop-down list in the dialog box, select the new printer, which the Mac has already detected and already has drivers for.
5. Click "Print". Go downstairs to find the document waiting for me.

Then I set up the Windows machines, which involved inserting one CD-ROM and installing printer drivers, then another CD-ROM and installing ethernet print server drivers, rebooting, then discovering that the driver was wonky, downloading an update, reinstalling, rebooting, ... I'm not kidding. It took me a week to get things printing properly from the Windows machine, and some things still don't quite work right. For those jobs, I just go up to the Powerbook and print from there.

I was just blown away by how easy it was. And that's just one of many such experiences.

ZildjianKX
Jan 20, 2005, 02:46 PM
People buy Macs for the OS, not for the hardware.

I bought my first mac (a powermac G5) about 18 months ago. Before this I was a really hardcore PC user...

The only thing that has dissapointed me about macs is gaming. I even bought a Radeon 9800 Pro trying to improve my gaming experience. In the end I just bought more games for my Xbox.

Anyways, I have absolutely no regrets about switching. I need to buy a laptop for school this fall (law school), and I love macs so much now that I'm buying a powerbook to take notes on and use everyday AND a POS PC laptop to take my finals on (examsoft only works on PCs).

The day to day experience of using a mac is just fantastic. Delete a program by dragging it to the trash. A registry, what's that?

notjustjay
Jan 20, 2005, 02:48 PM
Oh yes, and a comment about OS X's usability. Obviously, there are some things you do differently in OS X than you do in Windows. For a switcher, that can sometimes be confusing.

I know a few people who recently picked up iBooks and started learning OS X, and for a while I kept getting lots of questions... how do you do this? How does that work? After a while I started telling my friends, "You need to unlearn how you used to do things in Windows. Just step back and look at the problem and ask yourself, what would make sense?" and try doing what makes the most sense. More often than not, "what makes sense" is exactly how the operation is done in OS X. My friend even commented on how often that little trick worked, as she got used to her new iBook.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 03:05 PM
Thanks again, I have checked out that buyers guide, but it really seems as though apple hardware updates are getting further and further apart. I could be wrong here but wasnt the last powerbook update in march or april of 04'? So those predictions are just based on past upgrades and the time between them. I live at home but I commute to Akron and spend a lot of time there so a laptop would be pretty nice and is what I had originally planned for. I planned on getting a high end powerbook to do both, unplug when I go to school and set it back up at home. If I am going for a desktop replacement though I want something more than a 1.5 ghz G4. My other concern is its size, I dont know if I really want to lug that PB around all day. So know Im going through all the different options I have to deal with. Do I want an imac and a high end ibook, a mini mac and a low end ibook, an imac and a low end pb, a powermac and an ibook. On top of that to make things more difficult I can only buy one so Im sure its right for me before I get the other. Thanks for all the help, I'm new to Mac's and just want to make an informed and practical purchase.

topicolo
Jan 20, 2005, 03:16 PM
thorshammer88: Here's a pretty good example of how Mhz does not determine processor speed. If you look at Intel's CPU lineup itself, you'll notice that while the P4 tops out at 3.8Ghz, Intel's top of the line Itanium server CPU (for really heavy duty/high reliability 64bit processing) tops out at only 1.6Ghz (Link (http://www.intel.com/products/ server/processors/server/itanium2)), yet the two chips have similar performance in many benchmarks. Also, an Intel Pentium M at 1.6Ghz can outperform a 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 Proof (http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/mobile/0,39020442,2131818,00.htm) .

The same idea goes for comparisons between the Powerpc and Pentiums: Mhz means very little, you need to look at benchmarks.

mrgreen4242
Jan 20, 2005, 03:25 PM
Thanks again, I have checked out that buyers guide, but it really seems as though apple hardware updates are getting further and further apart. I could be wrong here but wasnt the last powerbook update in march or april of 04'? So those predictions are just based on past upgrades and the time between them. I live at home but I commute to Akron and spend a lot of time there so a laptop would be pretty nice and is what I had originally planned for. I planned on getting a high end powerbook to do both, unplug when I go to school and set it back up at home. If I am going for a desktop replacement though I want something more than a 1.5 ghz G4. My other concern is its size, I dont know if I really want to lug that PB around all day. So know Im going through all the different options I have to deal with. Do I want an imac and a high end ibook, a mini mac and a low end ibook, an imac and a low end pb, a powermac and an ibook. On top of that to make things more difficult I can only buy one so Im sure its right for me before I get the other. Thanks for all the help, I'm new to Mac's and just want to make an informed and practical purchase.

In my opinion, Apple doesn't offer a viable desktop replacement laptop at the moment. The high end PBs are NICE and pretty fast, but they are still much slower than the iMac which is half the price. If I was buying an Apple laptop right now, given the options of either $2300-2500 for a top end PB or $2400 for a 12" iBook AND a 17" 1.8ghz iMac, it would be a pretty easy choice!

The 12" iBook is smaller, lighter, has better battery life, and is VERY capable of doing most task reasonably well. For the mobile aspects computing it is better than either of the larger PBs. For the high power, at home usage of a computer, the iMac G5 is going to be much better than the PB as well. Seems like a no brainer, unless you travel for days or weeks at a time and need to take EVERYTHING with you.

Maybe the new PBs will change this, but unless they have a decent upgrade and a significant price drop, I can't see it happening.

Rob

Hodapp
Jan 20, 2005, 03:26 PM
Powerbook - Not G5 but my TiBook belts my brothers 2.0GHZ Centrino and the Ti actually works

http://img1.exs.cx/img1/7149/lol21qz.gif

There's a fine line between being an Apple fanboy and being a total retard, and I think you've crossed it.

My ThinkPad kicks the crap out of my PowerBook, in just about every sense of the word. If you think your ancient TiBook is faster than a 2.0Ghz Pentium M based laptop... You're either stupid, or not operating on the same space time continuum as the rest of the galaxy.

I don't understand all you people posting "LOL WELL DELL DOESN'T INNOVATE, WHERE'S THEIR R&D?!?!" ...The extent of Dell's R&D is manufacturing computer cases. They're a computer reseller. They... resell... computer parts they combine together to make a working machine. Intel, AMD, ATi, Nvidia, they do the R&D, not Dell.

What a stupid argument to make.

slooksterPSV
Jan 20, 2005, 03:54 PM
Ok now for my 2 cents. I used to love windows just like the next person and that, gaming and that. Well, I got into a graphics design class and we used macs in there. I heard some information, researched it all up and BAM I was hooked. Well, I bought a Powerbook G3 233MHz and put Jaguar on it, best (and my only) laptop for $200. Next I sold that and bought an iMac G3 333MHz, I've found that for certain applications, it starts faster than some things on my PC. I upgrade my AMD Computer to Windows XP Professional and it flew I'll admit, but once I found all the features and that on Mac (that just comes with the basic OS) I was hooked, and reeled it. Right now, I don't care about Windoze pc's anymore, I just want a Mac.

As for the comparison of Processors, yeah too many variables. If you have a CompUSA, go try out a Mac. I'm sure you'll be hooked too.

Apple had the first User-Computer to have a 64-bit processor in it. Think about that. Although, I'd buy a PowerMac G5, I'd still get an AMD Athlon 64-bit... possibly an FX just for gaming. The PowerMac would be my pride and joy.

Oh as a response to the Topic of this post. Apple is actually ahead, they had the first GUI OS, first computers to use USB & Firewire (correct me if I'm wrong somwhere), first 64-bit PC, etc.

JRM
Jan 20, 2005, 04:04 PM
http://img1.exs.cx/img1/7149/lol21qz.gif

There's a fine line between being an Apple fanboy and being a total retard, and I think you've crossed it.

My ThinkPad kicks the crap out of my PowerBook, in just about every sense of the word. If you think your ancient TiBook is faster than a 2.0Ghz Pentium M based laptop... You're either stupid, or not operating on the same space time continuum as the rest of the galaxy.

I don't understand all you people posting "LOL WELL DELL DOESN'T INNOVATE, WHERE'S THEIR R&D?!?!" ...The extent of Dell's R&D is manufacturing computer cases. They're a computer reseller. They... resell... computer parts they combine together to make a working machine. Intel, AMD, ATi, Nvidia, they do the R&D, not Dell.

What a stupid argument to make.


Hey it's only the truth. My 1GHZ TiBook starts up faster, runs Photoshop faster and doesn't crash. Those are the indicators which are important to me so i see it as my TiBook is a faster and definitely more stable machine, even though the Dell is only 3 weeks old. Think though, my PB has a gig of ram where as my brothers Dell only has 512 alot of my uses are memory intensive.

I'm just glad that you love you Thinkpad so much, i see that essentially every post that you make in someway refers to how good it is and how much better it is. Hardware wise it probably is superior to any Powerbook but my aggravated friend a computer performs based on the relationship between this hardware and the software on it, and in my brothers case the software is crap and although it is only three weeks old i would swear that he has more viruses on his Dell then there are in total for Mac's.

But heed this warning: next time that you go to bed with your now Lenovo Thinkpad just remember what viruses it could give you. So take care LOL

pyrrhusmj
Jan 20, 2005, 04:05 PM
So Apple does have a marketing problem, but the problem is *not* "how can they get the MHz up to keep up". That's like saying "Many pro basketball players are 7'; why isn't Steve Nash doing what he can about getting taller so he can compare with them?"

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

You had to bring Nash into a wonderful day, loving my mac, enjoying work. Then this....... I miss him ;) snif snif.

maya
Jan 20, 2005, 04:12 PM
This question is a joke on so many levels that it does not even add up, why?


1. Comparing x86 to PPC.
2. Not the same processor speed.
3. Not the same components inside.
4. Not the same optimized applications used.


If one has an advantage in one area the other will have it in another, there is nothing to state that my 3 marbles are the same as yours or yours are superiors to mine or visa versa. ;) :)

Why does this even matter, as long as you have a good uptime, no viruses, peace of mind that is all that matters. :)

jmsait19
Jan 20, 2005, 04:14 PM
Thanks again, I have checked out that buyers guide, but it really seems as though apple hardware updates are getting further and further apart. I could be wrong here but wasnt the last powerbook update in march or april of 04'? So those predictions are just based on past upgrades and the time between them. I live at home but I commute to Akron and spend a lot of time there so a laptop would be pretty nice and is what I had originally planned for. I planned on getting a high end powerbook to do both, unplug when I go to school and set it back up at home. If I am going for a desktop replacement though I want something more than a 1.5 ghz G4. My other concern is its size, I dont know if I really want to lug that PB around all day. So know Im going through all the different options I have to deal with. Do I want an imac and a high end ibook, a mini mac and a low end ibook, an imac and a low end pb, a powermac and an ibook. On top of that to make things more difficult I can only buy one so Im sure its right for me before I get the other. Thanks for all the help, I'm new to Mac's and just want to make an informed and practical purchase.

Thor. You want the Mac. You just want to make sure you have the right one in mind. I think you shold take a bit and sit back. This is where you have to be patient and wait for the right one. You will find it. I waited a few months and ended up with a 1Ghz 15" AlBook instead of a 667Mhz TiBook. Not that I wouldn't have enjoyed the TiBook, but the AlBook is technically superior. I was just patient and the book kcame to me. You wqill find what you want you just have to be patient at this point once you determine your cost and model you want.

I really hope you find the right one. I know you will. You'll love it and never buy another PC unless forced against your will.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 04:14 PM
Maybe I should have rephrased my questions about mac's and pc's. It seems like somehow people are finding the need to defend Mac's as if I'm attacking them or something. That is really not the case, I am just new to Mac's in general knowing little up until a couple of months ago. My knowledge is mostly based on the standards of the PC world and how it works. So I am just trying to get an understanding of how Apple does business as a company in general so I can make an informed decision about my purchase and what to expect after the purchase. Thanks again everybody.

Mr green, that is really the problem, Apple really doesnt have a viable desktop replacement, and even if they did, lugging that around all day would not be fun. I know I want a laptop for school so maybe I will just try out the ibook, I can get the feel of the OS and decide if its right for me. Then if I like it I can get an imac which I need anyways to replace this one.

mrgreen4242
Jan 20, 2005, 04:20 PM
Maybe I should have rephrased my questions about mac's and pc's. It seems like somehow people are finding the need to defend Mac's as if I'm attacking them or something. That is really not the case, I am just new to Mac's in general knowing little up until a couple of months ago. My knowledge is mostly based on the standards of the PC world and how it works. So I am just trying to get an understanding of how Apple does business as a company in general so I can make an informed decision about my purchase and what to expect after the purchase. Thanks again everybody.

Mr green, that is really the problem, Apple really doesnt have a viable desktop replacement, and even if they did, lugging that around all day would not be fun. I know I want a laptop for school so maybe I will just try out the ibook, I can get the feel of the OS and decide if its right for me. Then if I like it I can get an imac which I need anyways to replace this one.

That's an excellent plan. Worst case scenario, you hate the iBook, come back here and sell it. They hold value so well that it will be a cheap experiment. More likely you will love the iBook, keep it around for class and get an iMac or a PowerMac later on. Or, Maybe Apple will suprise us all and release a G5 PB in 6 months, and you can trade up from the iBook to a full desktop replacement level laptop.

Hope that all this helped!
Rob

ZildjianKX
Jan 20, 2005, 04:21 PM
Enough with the comparing Apples to Oranges defense.

PCs laptops (and desktops for that matter) have superior processors and hardware hands down. There isn't a mac laptop today that is anywhere near the speed of the PC laptops out now (and I'm not talking about 14 pound laptops). Any thinkpad made within the past 18 months and kill a powerbook both in performance and battery life. What do you expect when Apple has gone back to it's horrible ways of not updating products for 10+ months, and then giving them crappy speedbumps when they do?

With all that said, people are buying Macintoshes for their software, not the hardware. A great example of this is the iPod shuffle. It's a cheap piece of hardware, but the wonderful iTunes integration makes it cool.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 04:22 PM
yeah jm thats my concern, I want to get the right one, because I only get once chance to do it, and thats it for a few years. I dont know the average trade in time for a computer, but I tend to keep mine awhile this one is over three years old and the reason I dont want it anymore is the windows aspect of it, my last computer was 6 years old before I got a new one. So when I buy the Mac it will be with me for a long time so thats why Im being so cautious about which one to buy.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 04:32 PM
Mr. Green, carrying a top end PB around all day at school wouldnt be fun, especially when I realized that for not much more than the cost of a top end PB I can get an ibook and an imac. The ibook would primarily be used for word docs and spreadsheets and occasional photo editing when traveling, so I wouldnt need much more than the low end basic ibook

cyanide
Jan 20, 2005, 04:38 PM
One other thing of note: although there are all kinds of goodies inherent with OS X, I find that with an x86 box I can "tinker" around quite a bit more. There are problems that arise in the BIOS, Windows, and Linux that I like to solve. Keeping Windows machines running optimally is another challenge I enjoy, fixing friends' computers and whatnot. I don't know if you're the same way... seeing as you're "fed up", I assume you're don't like to fix problems with computers. That being the case, a Mac is for you.

what exactly is it that you like to tinker with? i am asking because nearly every possible aspect of the operating system, if not the whole thing entirely is accesible through a terminal in os x. that is the beauty of unix to the power-user. you can make your machine whatever you want it to be, if you know how. and to continue, fixing things is exactly what makes a computer a frustration to most users. that's why the most common phrase in a wintel office is "stupid computers, hurt more than they help". just today i watched my boss get irate with our brand new dell workstation as i silently held back my comments of "i told you we should have gone apple" anyways, what i was getting to is that a computer shouldnt need to be fixed, it should fade away and your task at hand should be there in front of you.

just for what its worth :-D

mrgreen4242
Jan 20, 2005, 04:45 PM
Mr. Green, carrying a top end PB around all day at school wouldnt be fun, especially when I realized that for not much more than the cost of a top end PB I can get an ibook and an imac. The ibook would primarily be used for word docs and spreadsheets and occasional photo editing when traveling, so I wouldnt need much more than the low end basic ibook

That's how I feel about Apples entire Power* line... but you mentioned that you were considering getting a top of the line powerbook, so if a new G5 PB came out, I assumed you would be interested. Personally, I'd go for a 12" iBook and save the $1500 for when the next iMac rev. came out.

The iBook is good for all the things you've mentioned, and is also perfectly capable of doing photo and video editing work as well as playing some faily recent/decent games. It's a nice little package for the money. Don't forget that extra RAM is a must. They ship with 256, adding a 512mb DIMM should give you plenty for just about anything you want to do. Get the RAM from a 3rd party vendor and install it yourself to save a bundle. I'd recommend newegg.com or crucial.com.

Rob

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 04:50 PM
Cyanide, thats pretty close to how I responded to that comment too, I just want my computer to do what I paid a ton of money for it do, to work!

Anyways, I think Ive squeezed about as much information out of this thread as possible. I still cant believe it got almost 80 posts and its not even a day old. Thanks again to everybody for all the help, I think it looks like my best option would be to start off with a low end ibook and go from there. When I get it and try it out awhile I will post again and let you know how it goes. Im really excited now

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 04:58 PM
That's how I feel about Apples entire Power* line... but you mentioned that you were considering getting a top of the line powerbook, so if a new G5 PB came out, I assumed you would be interested. Personally, I'd go for a 12" iBook and save the $1500 for when the next iMac rev. came out.

Rob

Thats exactly what I plan to do if the ibook works out for me. The top end powerbook was only an option when I was considering it as a replacement for home and travel, but for its price I can get a more powerful imac and an ibook, I cant really justify the price for my needs, even if they came out PB G5 I assume the portability issue would be the same. Thanks again

topher
Jan 20, 2005, 05:34 PM
One thing that I think doesn't get pushed enough when selling Apples is the low monthly payment. My iMac DV cost a little over $1200 when I bought it, and since then I have installed $150 worth of committed peripherals (airport card, extra 128mb of RAM) that won't be following me to my next machine.

Total cost $1350. I have used that machine everyday for 5 and a half years now, and I guarantee it will make it to 6 (as my primary, er, only machine). My needs may not be as great, and others may replace sooner, but if your machine lasts you longer without becoming a sinkhole for funds, the investment is wiser.

I compare this to the four "budget" priced machines and "not-budget" priced laptops that my parents have had to go through because they have literally broken. The laptop's case has come apart...I won't go into the rest of the list. They have spent close to $3000 in maintenance and replacement over the last 5 years to spend all of their computing time being supremely frustrated.

I recommend Apple computers for all of the reasons previously posted, but also because I trust Apple to make machines that will last a long time and offset the initial high price-point.

Jo-Kun
Jan 20, 2005, 05:51 PM
a good comparison Mac vs PC in Mhz and all the rest

I owned at the same time a B&W G3 300 (786 MB ram could go upto 1GB), TiPb G4 400 (256 MB ram later 1GB), and Dell PII 450 (maxed out ram: 384 MB)
I have to tell you offcourse that my main use is Photoshop... a Ram-Hog

but for comparison lets take the 2 wich are closest in Mhz & ram

PII 450, didn't handle XP quite well... (even when not running anything else)
TiPb G4 400, ran OSX Panther without a glitch... with even 128MB less memory at first...

Photoshop6 was the highest usable version on the pc, Photoshop7 took ages to load...
Photoshop CS ran as a dream on the Powerbook...

maybe in general Mac's are more expensive, but they last longer.
a pc: general 4Years...
a Mac: my 6Y old B&W was still quite up to date in OS abilities... & could handle 1GB ram to the 384MB in the PC...

and the best of all as written allready here & what Steve should use as new slogan: Mac: It just works!!

PS: about FireWire, the B&W G3 had it allready so the G4 was not the first mac to have FireWire, the B&W G3 was around in 1998 if I'm not mistaken I don't have a good idea when they were first build, but my ex-B&W is now 6y+ and still up and running at a friends house ;-)

Timelessblur
Jan 20, 2005, 06:07 PM
a good comparison Mac vs PC in Mhz and all the rest

I owned at the same time a B&W G3 300 (786 MB ram could go upto 1GB), TiPb G4 400 (256 MB ram later 1GB), and Dell PII 450 (maxed out ram: 384 MB)
I have to tell you offcourse that my main use is Photoshop... a Ram-Hog

but for comparison lets take the 2 wich are closest in Mhz & ram

PII 450, didn't handle XP quite well... (even when not running anything else)
TiPb G4 400, ran OSX Panther without a glitch... with even 128MB less memory at first...

Photoshop6 was the highest usable version on the pc, Photoshop7 took ages to load...
Photoshop CS ran as a dream on the Powerbook...

maybe in general Mac's are more expensive, but they last longer.
a pc: general 4Years...
a Mac: my 6Y old B&W was still quite up to date in OS abilities... & could handle 1GB ram to the 384MB in the PC...

and the best of all as written allready here & what Steve should use as new slogan: Mac: It just works!!

um what the heck are you smoking saying the PC is 4 years old. the 800mhz pIII are over 7 years old now. And at home my parents are running a 1ghz AMD computer running XP that is in it 5th year and it has about another year or 2 left before needing to be replaced. The life span of PC has extented a good amont since the number s they use came out

I think you PII 450mhz pII is back before windows 98SE came out.

Jo-Kun
Jan 20, 2005, 06:17 PM
um what the heck are you smoking saying the PC is 4 years old. the 800mhz pIII are over 7 years old now. And at home my parents are running a 1ghz AMD computer running XP that is in it 5th year.

I think you PII 450mhz pII is back before windows 98SE came out.

I didn't say the PC was 4y old (I bought my PII in march '99, wich is not yet 6y... and yes the PIII was for sale a few months later, but then I had this one allready...) I mean a PC ages faster (since you can still use the newest OSX on a 6Y old Mac & XP makes life hard on a PC that age...) and you'll replace it more likely in 4y and a mac in 6y... if you are a poweruser... when my TiPb was stolen I had to use an old P 166MMX wich was laying in the basement (since my B&W was sold to get an iPod & the PII I gave to a friend who needed a computer for internet/e-mail/word... wich it still is quite good for)

the PII and the B&W had the same age... I wanted to give a comparison about the Mhz/ram myth... and I guess if you would use Linux you can install the latest kernel and run it on the PC, so I guess ageing has a lot -if not everything- to do with the OS...

paulypants
Jan 20, 2005, 06:18 PM
http://img1.exs.cx/img1/7149/lol21qz.gif

There's a fine line between being an Apple fanboy and being a total retard, and I think you've crossed it.

My ThinkPad kicks the crap out of my PowerBook, in just about every sense of the word. If you think your ancient TiBook is faster than a 2.0Ghz Pentium M based laptop... You're either stupid, or not operating on the same space time continuum as the rest of the galaxy.

I don't understand all you people posting "LOL WELL DELL DOESN'T INNOVATE, WHERE'S THEIR R&D?!?!" ...The extent of Dell's R&D is manufacturing computer cases. They're a computer reseller. They... resell... computer parts they combine together to make a working machine. Intel, AMD, ATi, Nvidia, they do the R&D, not Dell.

What a stupid argument to make.

Thanks... for the most annoying post ever.

I WAS having fun reading this thread. :rolleyes:

Timelessblur
Jan 20, 2005, 06:21 PM
I didn't say the PC was 4y old (I bought my PII in march '99, wich is not yet 6y... and yes the PIII was for sale a few months later, but then I had this one allready...) I mean a PC ages faster (since you can still use the newest OSX on a 6Y old Mac & XP makes life hard on a PC that age...) and you'll replace it more likely in 4y and a mac in 6y... if you are a poweruser... when my TiPb was stolen I had to use an old P 166MMX wich was laying in the basement (since my B&W was sold to get an iPod & the PII I gave to a friend who needed a computer for internet/e-mail/word... wich it still is quite good for)

the PII and the B&W had the same age... I wanted to give a comparison about the Mhz/ram myth... and I guess if you would use Linux you can install the latest kernel and run it on the PC, so I guess ageing has a lot -if not everything- to do with the OS...


then all I can say is you got a bottom of th barrel PC in 99 conisdering that the PII233 was main stream back in 96-97 and speed was still doubling in under a year at the time. So you basicly got a PC that already was over a year into it life span.

Flynnstone
Jan 20, 2005, 06:25 PM
why is apple so far behind
More like why is Apple so far ahead!

Here is an analogy: think of a computer like a wrench. Windows people tend to describe it terms like : its real shiny chrome, the six inch model and I got for $$ cheap. No mention of turning a nut or bolt, what its real job is!
Apple people tend to describe it in what it can do, like : its 5/8" wrench good for 200 ft-lbs.

I have both PCs and an Apple. The prices are comparable. PCs with integrated graphics (Intel) are cheap and are junk. Like a REALLY cheap wrench.

Really, who cares what it is. What can it do!

Jo-Kun
Jan 20, 2005, 06:25 PM
then all I can say is you got a bottom of th barrel PC in 99 conisdering that the PII233 was main stream back in 96-97 and speed was still doubling in under a year at the time. So you basicly got a PC that already was over a year into it life span.

well special thnx to mr Dell for selling that at the time :p ... it was at that time the fastest they sold apparently (I bought it trough the company my brother was working at that time, reccomended by the IT departement, I have to say I never had problems with adding hardware, very stable system at the time compared to the PC's some friend bought...)

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 06:43 PM
flynnstone, how are you comparing Mac's and PC's to say that the prices are comparable? In terms of simple price comparison (not including any other factors) Macs on average are more expensive

dontmatter
Jan 20, 2005, 06:47 PM
Thanks for all the replies, Ive never had this many responses so fast on any forum. So what you are all telling me is that mhz ratings dont mean anything? two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently? So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing? Manzana, that is pretty amazing to hear that you feel your 1.33 pb is running more efficiently than the 3.6 pc, are you speaking about running the same apps on each? In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D. One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help

First, yup, the numbers are not indicitive. Further, it isn't even so simple as being able to say, this in pentium=this in amd=this in ...

Because, both as a matter of chip architecture and the software on it, different things will be faster one one chip and OS combination than another. 2d graphics will be better with a mac, 3d with a PC (hence gamers always saying PC's are better, while people who do 2d graphics always like macs).

So, there is no simple faster and slower. the 1.33 vs 3.6 sounds to me like in most respects 3.6 would definatley be faster, just because it's a huge jump. But the thing is, mac caching is awesome. So, with a single application open at a time, the PC would be faster in this situation. But if you're ADHD like me and have 10 apps going at any time, the mac is far better-I've piled up 20 apps at once on my powerbook and the only thing to get bogged down was my internet connection.

Anyway, personally, I think that in this day and age unless you have a very specific purpose that you need a particular type of power for, most differences in speed are too small to matter. The number of steps involved in navigating your system has a far greater effect on how much time it takes to do things.

And to that end, Exposé, Butler, the intuitive sturcture of OS X, and of course the incredible lack of spyware, save far more time than the gigahertz difference.

Of course, compatibility with my external hard drive, etc. are items that rest on the other side, but still, networking works so great with macs, and those above things are SO huge... it far outweighs the few compatiblitiy issues that do exist. Of course, the time i spend writting on macrumors...;-)

jayscheuerle
Jan 20, 2005, 06:49 PM
flynnstone, how are you comparing Mac's and PC's to say that the prices are comparable? In terms of simple price comparison (not including any other factors) Macs on average are more expensive

On the average, people tend to forget to upgrade the PC system with Firewire, XP Pro, non-integrated graphics card, Combo-drive, modem, and all the software necessary to bring it up to par with the Macs, which software-wise, can't really be done anyhow...

TEG
Jan 20, 2005, 06:51 PM
For several years, I have been having these arguments. Be it between classmates, friends, or my brethren, I will say the Intel, AMD, and VIA have worked at increasing the MHz. Numbers on their chips, but the throughput of their systems have only recently begun to improve over the levels 6 years ago, thanks to PCI-Express, SATA and other things. Apple on the other hand has 2 Processor Manufacturers (IBM and Motorola/Freescale) but they push the envelop by making their own standards (ADC, FireWire, AirPort) and tweak the system at the chip level, and software, whereas Most PC OEMs can only tweak hardware to a limited degree, and software even less.

Comparison:
HP Laptop; P-IVm 3.2 GHz; 256MB RAM, 40GB 5400 RPM HD
PowerBook G4; G4- 500 MHz; 256MB RAM (at that time), 20GB 4800 RPM HD

The PowerBook would boot in 47 seconds, whereas the HP took 278 seconds.
Copying a 5.5MB file from a CD-ROM look 15 second on the PB, 86 on the HP.
Connecting to a Wireless Network (from a Linksys router, never before encountered) 10 seconds PB, 368 seconds HP.
Loading Yahoo.com via Firefox over said Wi-Fi, 18 seconds PB, 55 seconds HP.
Time to Load Unreal Tournement (Mac OS9 for PB) from clean boot; 33 seconds PB, 94 seconds HP. Framerate on UT - 40 fps PB, 32 fps HP. And the HP has 64MB VRAM, the PB 8MB.
Max Battery Time on a new newly charged battery; 6:35 PB, 2:20 HP.

After this test, performed by myself and my apartment at University, they are all thinking about Macs, then I took my Powerbook to the living room, hooked it up to the TV, and starting watching Red Dwarf, with in 1 minutes, they were definitely going Mac.

Your Mileage may vary, but My 3.5 year old PowerBook Runs circles around newer Notebooks/Laptops, and I will replace it only for a few games, when it has 5 years of use left, while the HP will be obsolete in 1.5 years.

Also, MacOS X is really like Blackcomb to XP (Whistler) not Longhorn (a pub between the ski areas. It is THAT far ahead.

TEG

blodwyn
Jan 20, 2005, 07:01 PM
Cyanide, thats pretty close to how I responded to that comment too, I just want my computer to do what I paid a ton of money for it do, to work!

Anyways, I think Ive squeezed about as much information out of this thread as possible. I still cant believe it got almost 80 posts and its not even a day old. Thanks again to everybody for all the help, I think it looks like my best option would be to start off with a low end ibook and go from there. When I get it and try it out awhile I will post again and let you know how it goes. Im really excited now

On this forum and other Mac sites there are threads on every topic, and price comparisons galore that try to equalize Apple and Dell products. Believe them or not, it's up to you. There are many people (like me last June, after 17 years with Windows) that made the decision to switch from PCs to Macs. I have heard of very few (if any) that found it difficult or regrettable.

brap
Jan 20, 2005, 07:11 PM
Maybe I should have rephrased my questions about mac's and pc's. It seems like somehow people are finding the need to defend Mac's as if I'm attacking them or something.
Indeed. You should take anything people here say with a large pinch of salt, so to speak.

Basicaly, have a look in an apple store. Buy a cheap iMac, or iBook, see how you like it. My first mac was a cheap 466MHz iBook, clamshell, I found myself wanting to do everything on it. Mac OS X was just so... great, I decided to use it instead of my (then) 1.6GHz Athlon XP.

Now I have a 2.8GHz XP in an nForce board sitting, folding. It gets used when I want to play Total War. Use OS X, see how you feel - get back to us. You'll porbably find with whatever system, even though the MHz is slower, eve though the video card is 2 gens behind, it's more productive.

Consider it as your "Work" machine, and your PC for play and Sado-Masochism ;)

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 07:52 PM
Thanks everybody, youve helped a ton me with my concerns about making the switch. I'm going to be putting an order for a 1.2 ghz ibook. I'm still somewhat concerned about Apple's secrecy about upcoming products, but nothing is gonna change that so I guess I'll have to live with it. I can see that down the road if I 'm happy with Mac's and stay with them I'll have a hard time gauging when to purchase products, I can already feel the misery of buying a $2000 computer only for apple to come out with something better soon after or it to get a price drop.

dejo
Jan 20, 2005, 07:59 PM
Thanks everybody, youve helped a ton me with my concerns about making the switch. I'm going to be putting an order for a 1.2 ghz ibook. I'm still somewhat concerned about Apple's secrecy about upcoming products, but nothing is gonna change that so I guess I'll have to live with it. I can see that down the road if I 'm happy with Mac's and stay with them I'll have a hard time gauging when to purchase products, I can already feel the misery of buying a $2000 computer only for apple to come out with something better soon after or it to get a price drop.

Just remember that Apple does offer price protection if they do drop the price within 10 days of your purchase, as outlined on their Post Purchase (http://www.apple.com/support/store/postpurchase.html) page. Not a large window of oppurtunity, but it's better than nothing.

Flynnstone
Jan 20, 2005, 08:01 PM
flynnstone, how are you comparing Mac's and PC's to say that the prices are comparable? In terms of simple price comparison (not including any other factors) Macs on average are more expensive

I give this from a business/IT perspective. This the best exmaple of the costs, not by me but some one else. This company has 200 computers, 100 Macs and 100 PCs. The IT department consists of 4 people, 3 for the PCs and 1 for the Macs.
Lets for simplicity say a PC cost $2000 and a Mac $4000 and each lasts 3 years. The PC cost per year is $2000/3 or $666. The Mac cost per year is $4000/3 or $1333. Now lets factor in support costs. Lets assume a fully loaded cost of $80,000 per person. So the yearly support costs for the PC are 3 * $80k or $240,000 and $80,000 for the Mac. So for each PC the support cost is $240k /100 or $2400 per machine. The Mac support cost is $80k/100 or $800.
The Total cost of the PC per year is $2400 + $666 = $3066.
The Total cost of the Mac per year is $800 + $1333 = $2133.

The Mac is almost $1000 less! We haven't even include support software like Norton Anti-virus.

This is from a business point of view, need different perspective for home use.

jiggie2g
Jan 20, 2005, 08:19 PM
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's


G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)

G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)



No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.

brap
Jan 20, 2005, 08:30 PM
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's
It's the Holy Grail! :rolleyes:

dejo
Jan 20, 2005, 08:31 PM
It's the Holy Grail! :rolleyes:

Dan Brown's Holy Grail? ;)

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 08:33 PM
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's


G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)

G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)



No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.



My quest is now complete

Mav451
Jan 20, 2005, 09:45 PM
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's


G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)

G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)



No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.

I was about to say that this was an "objective" comparison until I saw that the 1.5Ghz P4 was called a "Palomino".

The Palomino core was the very 1st AMD Athlon XP core, not a Pentium 4. I'm thinking you meant the Williamette, as the Northwood cores started at 1.6Ghz (A-core).

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 20, 2005, 09:59 PM
Ok, so I'm a newb around these parts. I've been lurking ever since I cought wind about the mac mini. I do plan on getting one, and as soon as I can. However, I have to disagree when it comes to loving os x and it being so much better than windows xp. I use both os's on a daily basis, os x at work, and xp at home. Now, in the pretty graphics on my desktop department, sure os x is a bit better, but it's really not so much for me to go "oh wowzers, this is great!". And at the same time, it's not as though I get home to my xp machine and go "this is so dull and boring, I wish I had cool transparency effects." Operating systems are just there to provide me with the access to the programs I want to operate. And on that end, for me, I prefer windows.

The only real mac only type of thing that I really like is the self contained nature of the applications. I like how files aren't spread everywhere, requireing installers and uninstallers to make sure you are able to get rid of software you don't want. And even then, sometimes, you get remnants of those programs left here and there on the pc.

However, on my windows machine, I like being able to decide what hardware I use in it, and who it is manufactured by and which set of drivers I get for it, and all of the choice that is involved with the pc experience. Unlike apple, who have a nazi death grip on what hardware you use, windows is wide open.

I also like the whole start menu. I like accessing my program using it. I find going through finder to get to my app a pita for some reason. I don't want to have to open windows to get to things. And the task bar for windows, much better for me than using expose. I like being able to see what I have open. As easy as it is to move the mouse to a screen corner, it's just more convenient to have access right there at the bottom on the screen so that the window that is burried can be brought up no sweat without having to look at everything else I've got going on. And the menu bar in mac os, changing to the program you are using at the moment, sometimes, that infuriates me. I much prefer the self contained menus found in windows.

Apple has made thier interface much cleaner than microsoft has, but it limits the pace at which I work. Perhaps it's because I've been using windows far longer than mac os, but I doubt it. Windows is less refined, and that's what I like about it. You need to find something, click the friggin box that has that window's name on it and there it is. No fancy lets move the mouse here and see what we've got. Windows, it just works. It's crude, and I like it that way. I know that when longhorn is released, just like when windows xp was, the first thing I'll be doing is setting it to classic style. I don't want any fruity extra bars here and there. Just give me the basics.

Now, all that said, I can't stop telling my friends how I'm going to get a mac mini and use it to store videos and stuff on so I can take it everywhere I want to watch stuff with other people. That's going to be great. Even my small form factor pc is too big for that...and a mini itx system is just too freaking slow.

In the end, it's really a difference in two different forms of thought. Windows seems to be geared toward getting things done the quick and dirty way whereas OS X seems to be about getting things done with style. I can respect both, but in the end, I'll probably always pick a quick and dirty approach over a more refined one.

brap
Jan 20, 2005, 10:09 PM
Windows seems to be geared toward getting things done the quick and dirty way whereas OS X seems to be about getting things done with style. I can respect both, but in the end, I'll probably always pick a quick and dirty approach over a more refined one.Hmm. The thing is, it sounds as if you're having issues finding things, which is cool, because Aqua really isn't the most intuitive -- Especially when you come from Windows, and especially since X doesn't come with a manual!

In Aqua, the keyboard is used much more extensively to provide useful shortcuts, and if you decide to slap in a multi (3,4,5) button mouse these can often be assigned. Take your app/menu bar point, this can really simply be solved using the keyboard. Command/Tab cycles through apps, and Command/Tilde cycles through windows. Add to this a mouse button or two for some exposé features, and you're well on your way to having a quick, clean, and refined computing experience!

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 10:12 PM
uh oh, I can just imagine people running to get their pitchforks.

I havent had much experience with Mac so I cant speak for it, but windows I think I can. I download next to nothing off the internet and try to keep as clean a computer as possible yet on a near daily basis I have to reboot my machine because it freezes or programs wont open. I get problem after problem, now for someone who says "a properly maintained PC doesnt have these problems" Im not very technical and dont have the desire to be learning how to fix all those bugs, they shouldnt be there. Computers are not cheap, and when you pay thousands of dollars for one it should run without constant problems

Mav451
Jan 20, 2005, 10:13 PM
No i think he's referring to what OS 9 had, I believe. You could have a list of apps running down the left-side, I believe, found where the Apple button was (kind of like the Start button). OS X, of course, threw all of that out for the Dock.

Mav451
Jan 20, 2005, 10:19 PM
uh oh, I can just imagine people running to get their pitchforks.

I havent had much experience with Mac so I cant speak for it, but windows I think I can. I download next to nothing off the internet and try to keep as clean a computer as possible yet on a near daily basis I have to reboot my machine because it freezes or programs wont open. I get problem after problem, now for someone who says "a properly maintained PC doesnt have these problems" Im not very technical and dont have the desire to be learning how to fix all those bugs, they shouldnt be there. Computers are not cheap, and when you pay thousands of dollars for one it should run without constant problems

1) Are you using XP? If you are on 9x, then freezing is less of a surprise.
2) Maintenance? I don't do jack for maintenance. I simply use Firefox for browsing, iTunes for listening, Thunderbird for email.

Anti-spyware? Anti-virus software? I don't use any of that and I don't waste my time with them. I ran Spybot and MS Anti-Spyware (which is really Giant) once a while ago, and I ended up wasting my time b/c it didn't find any spyware. I used to run these things back in mid 2003, when I still used IE, but ever since I switched to Firefox, there is no need.

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 20, 2005, 10:22 PM
Oh, I'm aware of keyboard shortcuts. I mean, they exist in the windows world as well. So, it's not about having a hard time finding things, it's more about, what does the gui give me to do what I want. And windows just has it sitting there for you. It's not pretty, but it works.

Now don't get me wrong, OS X works well too. It's just not the best way for me. If microsoft would redo the way programs are installed to a model more like what apple's got going on, it'd be the best os ever for me. Of course, it'll never happen.

Now, everyone talks about apple including great software that makes thier prices more in line if you consider the complete package when compared to windows boxes. Now, while I tend to agree with that, it'd be nice to have the option to not include that software. It's not costing apple a thing to throw in their own software with a new machine. If I could save 80 bucks on them including ilfe I would cut that out and save the money. But that's just me.

mrgreen4242
Jan 20, 2005, 10:25 PM
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's


G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)

G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)



No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.

Well, I won't get into the massive over generalzations that this comparison entails, but I will point a few things out. According the the systemshoutouts site you referenced, a 1.2ghz G4 is rated at a 1.6ghz P4, 1.2ghz Athlon XP, and it doesn't list the Pentium M at 1.4ghz.

I also think that while this is sorta kinda accurate it is not very consistant For example, while it clearly shows that the G4 is faster clock for clock accross the board, it lists each 200mhz increase of speed for a G4 as being 'worth' only 100mhz of increase for a P4. And then the sub 100mhz jump from 1.42ghz to 1.5ghz G4 correlates to 200mhz of P4 clock speed. Doesn't make a whole ton of sense, if you step back and think about it.

There are other things that you could find fault with in this comparison, like OS X's better usage of GPU power for 2D desktop work, etc. Also the G4's Altivec subsystem is usually better than Intels SSE/MMX, resulting in a greater improvement in some tasks. Point is that while this is an OK overall guideline, it shouldn't be taken as a literal 1:1 comparison forall things.

It is interesting to see how the G5 stacks up in these tests, though. I wonder which 1.6 and 1.8 SP systems they used for testing... PowerMacs with the full 1/2 speed FSB or the iMacs with the 1/3 speed.

Rob

tech4all
Jan 20, 2005, 10:28 PM
I also like the whole start menu. I like accessing my program using it. I find going through finder to get to my app a pita for some reason. I don't want to have to open windows to get to things.

Don't you use the Dock to get to your apps in OS X?

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 10:28 PM
Im running XP, and I did switch to firefox about 6 months ago, since then noticed a huge decrease in spyware. I download very little and Im very careful so I dont know where it comes from. I stopped downloading windows updates a long time ago when service pack 2 really messed up my computer. So maybe that has something to do with it.

Mav451
Jan 20, 2005, 10:36 PM
Dude why would you do that? You are buying a Mac for its software. Honest to god, I would not buy it for anything else. iLife, the whole iPhoto/iMovie/Garageband suite is the reason you use a Mac. If I was doing anything else (gaming, Adobe software >> all found on PCs as well), then the reason to use a Mac is a lot less.

Especially if you aren't encountering the supposed "spyware/virus/worm" problem that Mac sites like to perpetuate. That's not a problem if you use Firefox--however some people never learn, so these people, for example, would benefit from a Mac b/c they are "forced" to use a better browser like Safari as the default.

I honestly haven't had a single system freeze since I went to XP in early 2003. Heck, I never had one on my 98SE system either. Instead of a total system crash, XP occasionally did have explorer.exe crash, which made your taskbar disappear for 10-20seconds. On the other hand, OSX has some of the very same problems, where Finder will crash making the Desktop/Dock/Menubar inaccessible for quite a bit until you can Force Quit Finder and get it restarted.

MyLeftNut
Jan 20, 2005, 11:38 PM
Its a great question you asked thorshammer and you have handled the replies very well.

I too was in the same situation as you and hestiant to take the great leap but no longer. I purchased the 17' PB Alubook middle of last year and was waiting patiently for a PB G5 but alas not to be. I dont regret the decision one bit. Simply, it has been the best computer EXPERIENCE I have had. In many instances it reminded me of how computing used to be for me when I was younger...fun! (And Im not talking about games).

I realise the PB is underpowered but in opposition to that, I realise that the form factor/weight/design of the Powerbook are part of the allure. Not to mention the software etc, that others have mentioned. Have I had problems? Sure, but they were inherently easier to figure out than if I was using a PC.

My point is that, Apple could put a G5 in a powerbook now but it would quickly become the 4 inch thick PowerBrick. They wont compromise. They'll wait for the right technology to come along and use it in a way that others can only copy. That is a mindset that rarely exists thesedays and because of that I have become more discerning about things I buy. Its more than a chunk of metal and plastic. Its a statement that you are tired of mediocrity and so you should be. Most companies dont deserve the money they get from consumers. Its seems many consumers like yourself are realising this. Bravo.

slooksterPSV
Jan 20, 2005, 11:41 PM
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/stats/imac_333.html

Thats the mac I'm using right now. My PC's lasted me only maybe about 5 months. Except my AMD Duron 1.10 GHz (64KB L1, 192KB L2 cache), because it's the fastest one (besides the stupid 2.5 GHz Celeron - which is slow due to 32KB L1 and 128KB L2 Cache). Now I'm on this iMac G3 333 MHz, and it has... read siggy... and this computer came out October 5, 1999 - Over 6 years ago. Now thats awesome, and it runs Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. just fine (except that I don't have those now), but on my Powerbook (that I had) G3, 233MHz, 288MB RAM, 30GB HDD - http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g3/stats/powerbook_g3_233.html - , I had Photoshop on it, it ran very well, on my brothers celeron (yes we're talking about CS) it runs so frikken slow, I get pizzed at it.

Now what does that tell you about Macs? It tells me that they are fast, will be fast, and are the best computers out there if you can buy one, have it for 6 years (I've only had this iMac for 2 weeks... maybe 3) and still use it today, thats pretty good technology and it must be doing something right. I don't want to have to buy a PC every 6 months just to get the best deal and for things to actually run, whereas with this iMac I'm set for a few years till I will actually need that power running behind the scenes.

thorshammer88
Jan 20, 2005, 11:57 PM
Thanks leftnut,

That is exactly how I feel about purchasing any high end product, especially computers. For the thousands of dollars they ask and the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into R&D we should be able to expect more. That is what I feel the problem with MS is, they have the market basically locked up with almost no competition so what we get are so-so products with little ingenuity. Its sad because with the resources MS has to work with they could be putting out amazing products.

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 12:01 AM
I can't say I agree with you. Flash sites absolutely reek havoc on my iBook, making even scrolling down the page a chore. Obviously on non-Flash sites, it is just fine. I am using Camino, so maybe it is the way Camino handles Flash? But i doubt it. I did open the CPU monitor, expectantly finding that my CPU is smacking the 80-90% barrier repeatedly.

On my desktop, it barely hits 20-25%, so there is one obvious difference, in something as "light" as web-surfing. Yes, I could just block Flash altogether, but many sites are now using this on major portions of their sites as well...so not exactly the best solution.

Timelessblur
Jan 21, 2005, 12:07 AM
Im running XP, and I did switch to firefox about 6 months ago, since then noticed a huge decrease in spyware. I download very little and Im very careful so I dont know where it comes from. I stopped downloading windows updates a long time ago when service pack 2 really messed up my computer. So maybe that has something to do with it.

bad idea. a very bad idea to stop running the updates. if you read stuff about SP2 it states make sure you computer is clean up from spy ware and virus before you install it because some of the stuff came out to defend itself against SP2 and it goal was to damgage the computer and then have you blame M$ for it.

It people like you who made MSblaster so bad. MSblaster was using a secuirty hole that M$ had patch a while before blaster came out. If you computer was keep resanbly upto date it would not be a big deal. It woudl of stayed patch. THat is why now it the defualt setting to windows update is for it to automictly install in the updates and has to be change from there.

Clean up the computer from stuff first then boot into safemode and install it. SP2 is a huge update and it makes XP a heck of a lot better (having it use less system resorces plus tons of updates) SP2 is just a little shy of installing a new os in the amont of stuff it does. most of it is behind the sences stuff and has no baring on the what the end users sees.

Also MS has release several updates in the past few weeks that has to deal with some holes that have been patch. one delt with something in XP pro where some could access you computer remoting and start doing stuff. you would see you mouse moving around on the screen. some people had fun around campus after we got the email on it. mostly I think to mess with people I was one of them who got infect by them having fun. I knew about the update and i just had not finish the install yet. finish it reboot and did not worry about.


In the end do the smart thing and update you computer.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:11 AM
Why are the paper specifications important to you? More important is the real world productivity and experience of using the machine. What are you wanting to do with your computer?

Now I have to get back to my Pentium 4 machine to figure out why it sponteneously has stopped networking, why the SATA drive that worked last week is now on a mutually exclusive-turf war with the DVD-RW, why it stops printing, but only after being on for 6 hours, and do my weekly round of BIOS upgrades, anti-virus, firewall and spyware upgrades. (Seriously, I worked on the thing til 4 AM last night, finally got a reply from MSI today saying that the BIOS setup has to be changed to a counter-intuitive setting. Rebooting for the 30th time, waiting 10 minutes each time for it to finish booting).

If you go Mac, you are saying goodbye to a lifetime study of trying to be a Windows security and compatibility expert.

Very well said. In my case I see no real performance differences with the Adobe CS Suite between my PB 12" and my older Sony desktop with a P4 in it. YMMV.

I have had my PB for just over a year. Never have had to reinstall the OS, unlike my other half's Winbox (two fresh installs in the last year due to malware and the such).

Outside of my being in a panic over postings here about 10.3.6(?) and certain FW drives, what ever I handed the Mac just seemed to work. Sure there are hicups along the way.

I did have issues with Epson and their 2200 printer. But it is a result of two different drivers with different capabilities. But guess what? The Mac will allow for both, and I get to choose which one will fit my needs.

What isn't mentioned much is productivity without the cost. In my previous position with my company I could generate a PDF from the print command and email them what they wanted. Guess what, they would need Acrobat to do the same thing.

In the end the Mac just works.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:12 AM
Should I dig up the link to the "Apple Explains the Megahertz Myth" Video?

Maybe you should.... :)

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 12:17 AM
Very well said. In my case I see no real performance differences with the Adobe CS Suite between my PB 12" and my older Sony desktop with a P4 in it. YMMV.

I have had my PB for just over a year. Never have had to reinstall the OS, unlike my other half's Winbox (two fresh installs in the last year due to malware and the such).

Outside of my being in a panic over postings here about 10.3.6(?) and certain FW drives, what ever I handed the Mac just seemed to work. Sure there are hicups along the way.

I did have issues with Epson and their 2200 printer. But it is a result of two different drivers with different capabilities. But guess what? The Mac will allow for both, and I get to choose which one will fit my needs.

What isn't mentioned much is productivity without the cost. In my previous position with my company I could generate a PDF from the print command and email them what they wanted. Guess what, they would need Acrobat to do the same thing.

In the end the Mac just works.

I'm guessing you haven't used PDF creator? My friend and I used to use Acrobat, but that thing was so full of bloat we went down to just the reader (to read pdfs), and used the PDF creator when we needed to convert our word documents to PDFs (e.g. for resumes or whatever).

thorshammer88
Jan 21, 2005, 12:17 AM
Hey time, youve illustrated well what Ive been saying here the whole time. Why is XP full of these security holes to begin with. If MS was truly concerned about making a good OS they could have put the time and money into doing it right to begin with. Can you give me a good reason why after spending nearly $3000 dollars on this computer I should have to deal with closing up security holes?

Also time for your edification its not people like me who are the problem, its corporations like MS who push inept software and tell us to shove it because we have little choice, (with the exception of abandoning PC's all together and switching to Apple) I feel like I have no option except doing exactly that

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:22 AM
Mike, when I spend $2000 for a computer it should just work. Im not a very technical person and I have no interest in correcting problems that shouldnt be there in the first place. Isnt that what Im paying them for? A computer that does what I expect it to do without hassles. These companies have amassed billions of dollars, youd think they could build a stable product that was easier to use.

And in that case the Mac wins hands down IMO.

I have been able to spend more time exploring other software options to make my computer life easier since moving to the Mac. No longer do I have to hunt down bad DLL's. Go in to the hardware manager to find what piece of hardware is causing a conflict. Why a card that worked yesterday, is not working today.

Diatribe
Jan 21, 2005, 12:24 AM
I also like the whole start menu. I like accessing my program using it. I find going through finder to get to my app a pita for some reason. I don't want to have to open windows to get to things. And the task bar for windows, much better for me than using expose.

Either you're just fishing for arguments or you really have not much experience with OSX.

If you like the taskbar that much it's basically the same as the dock (only that the app icons you put there stay after closing). Click on the app icon and it switches to that app. There you go.

As for the start menu... if you don't like to put a lot of icons in your dock (I can understand that) just put the app folder right next to your trash. Click on it with the right mouse button, voila you have a start menu like app folder...

And saying that you like to look at unrefined graphics and crude operating systems... why don't you use 3.1? Is that crude enough for you? :D

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:28 AM
How can I put this?
I was a PC user most of my life, and bought my first Mac (since the early 90s) a year and a half ago... a Powerbook. At first I was a little ticked off at some things that were different, that I was used to on a PC. Little things.
But recently I bought a PC again SOLELY to play the new Counter-Strike:Source game, because it's so awesome... and realize how amazing the Mac experience is.

I USE the Powerbook... I don't have anti-virus software, I don't have spyware removers, I don't run defragmenter, and I don't even run the Scandisk equivalent (Disk Utility)...

I do have all my albums organized with cover art in iTunes.
I have edited old movies I made in iMovie, made slideshows with iPhoto and uploaded them to the web, or burned them to DVD for family members...
Recently I've learned Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro, and am building a pretty professional-looking DVD of old videos.
I recorded music with Garageband, and shared it with friends on the web.
I browse the web with no popups!
I read my email without thinking about spam, save for 1-2 times per month.
Drivers? What are drivers? I plug in my camera, video camera, iSight, iPod, printer... they just worked!

What I'm trying to say is, I don't think about all the B.S. that people have become accustomed to with their computers... I just enjoy working with my computer when I need to use it, and I'll take that over any numbers you can come up with, money- or speed-wise, anyday.

Lee Tom

Again points very well said.

In regards to iTunes. There are AppleScripts that allow a user to select duplicate or missing titles and and delete them in the Mac environment. I have yet to hear of anything like this for the Windows environment.

ddtlm
Jan 21, 2005, 12:38 AM
TEG:

I will say the Intel, AMD, and VIA have worked at increasing the MHz. Numbers on their chips, but the throughput of their systems have only recently begun to improve over the levels 6 years ago, thanks to PCI-Express, SATA and other things. Apple on the other hand ... they push the envelop by making their own standards (ADC, FireWire, AirPort)
So since ADC is mostly DVI and AirPort is 802.11, that leaves Apple with FireWire, which they co-developed with Sony under the ieee 1394 standard. One co-invention does not put them ahead of the PC world on my innovation-o-meter, though clearly some people are more symathetic to Apple than I.

Comparison:
HP Laptop; P-IVm 3.2 GHz; 256MB RAM, 40GB 5400 RPM HD
PowerBook G4; G4- 500 MHz; 256MB RAM (at that time), 20GB 4800 RPM HD
... benchmarks, etc ...
I have no idea how you managed to get such astonishly awful scores out of the HP, but you'll be a fool to think that those represent PC's as a whole. (Well, except for the ~2hr battery life. ;))

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:43 AM
Thanks everybody, youve helped a ton me with my concerns about making the switch. I'm going to be putting an order for a 1.2 ghz ibook. I'm still somewhat concerned about Apple's secrecy about upcoming products, but nothing is gonna change that so I guess I'll have to live with it. I can see that down the road if I 'm happy with Mac's and stay with them I'll have a hard time gauging when to purchase products, I can already feel the misery of buying a $2000 computer only for apple to come out with something better soon after or it to get a price drop.

Congrats.

Don't have any concerns. The difference between the Mac and Windows arena is that Intel and AMD spread the word early about their chips. IMO Apple is concerned about how well the machines will meet their needs, as well as the consumer.

Just look at some postings here and you will find that there are a good number of users with "old" machines that are able to do the job. In the Windows world, many of these machines might only be good for email and the web.

Timelessblur
Jan 21, 2005, 12:45 AM
Hey time, youve illustrated well what Ive been saying here the whole time. Why is XP full of these security holes to begin with. If MS was truly concerned about making a good OS they could have put the time and money into doing it right to begin with. Can you give me a good reason why after spending nearly $3000 dollars on this computer I should have to deal with closing up security holes?

Also time for your edification its not people like me who are the problem, its corporations like MS who push inept software and tell us to shove it because we have little choice, (with the exception of abandoning PC's all together and switching to Apple) I feel like I have no option except doing exactly that

but wait apple release security updates... that means it is full of secuirty holes a well. I just point out keep you system upto date is a good idea. If it is not kept up to date and people dont bother even trying (aka turning it off and never even updating) I blame them for their stupidity and they get what they deserve.

It one thing if there was no update or if it was released in the past week or 2 but it another if the update is over a month old.
Does M$ have holes in it Yes. Does apple have seciryt holes in it YES other wise there would be no secuirty updates.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:47 AM
Thanks leftnut,

That is exactly how I feel about purchasing any high end product, especially computers. For the thousands of dollars they ask and the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into R&D we should be able to expect more. That is what I feel the problem with MS is, they have the market basically locked up with almost no competition so what we get are so-so products with little ingenuity. Its sad because with the resources MS has to work with they could be putting out amazing products.

Don't know if you ordered yet, but you are now sounding like a true Mac user.... :D

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 12:49 AM
I'm guessing you haven't used PDF creator? My friend and I used to use Acrobat, but that thing was so full of bloat we went down to just the reader (to read pdfs), and used the PDF creator when we needed to convert our word documents to PDFs (e.g. for resumes or whatever).

can you give more info, my boss might just be interested if it free!

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 12:59 AM
Its open source software:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

...so I'm pretty sure it free.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2005, 01:03 AM
Its open source software:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

...so I'm pretty sure it free.

thanks I will check it out.

dejo
Jan 21, 2005, 02:19 AM
Its open source software:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

...so I'm pretty sure it free.

Also, Mac OS X has PDF creation built in! Just go to the Print dialog of most apps and choose "Save As PDF..."

sorryiwasdreami
Jan 21, 2005, 02:43 AM
I also like the whole start menu. I like accessing my program using it. I find going through finder to get to my app a pita for some reason. I don't want to have to open windows to get to things.

Sounds like you should try out Quicksilver (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14831) and TigerLaunch (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/9152) or use the dock itself.

Windows, it just works.
That's funny and ironic.

dejo
Jan 21, 2005, 02:54 AM
I also like the whole start menu. I like accessing my program using it. I find going through finder to get to my app a pita for some reason. I don't want to have to open windows to get to things.

Try clicking and holding the Applications icon in the Dock. It'll then bring up a floating menu allowing you to choose your app. To paraphrase C-3PO: "very similar to the Start menu in most respects".

sunilraman
Jan 21, 2005, 06:12 AM
Thanks everybody, youve helped a ton me with my concerns about making the switch. I'm going to be putting an order for a 1.2 ghz ibook. I'm still somewhat concerned about Apple's secrecy about upcoming products, but nothing is gonna change that so I guess I'll have to live with it. I can see that down the road if I 'm happy with Mac's and stay with them I'll have a hard time gauging when to purchase products, I can already feel the misery of buying a $2000 computer only for apple to come out with something better soon after or it to get a price drop.

hi there, i am happy you have decided to take the plunge. i too was very worried about knowing when to buy. but something like this sites BuyersGuide is very useful...

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
It keeps excellent track of when products were updated and all that.
If you are skeptical about it, just discuss with people on this forum.

As you can see for the iBook, you are in 'mid cycle'. The red bar is half of the blue bars below that. Meaning that new models realistically wont be shipping for maybe 3 months. Regardless of how secretive Apple can be, in the iBook for example, there is a strong pattern of new iBooks every April and Oct/Nov, going back all the way to 2002.

There will always be the latest and greatest coming out, and saving for your dreams is always sometimes inspirational and sometimes frustrating. But I think your iBook 12" will be a fun start, and you can enjoy it right from Day 01. The screen is really razor sharp as well... After using it a while, if you have a CRT on your PC, looking at it will be like comparing a cleaver with a baseball bat...

thorshammer88
Jan 21, 2005, 08:52 AM
Time, maybe you should read the words you quoted me on earlier again. Who do you think you are to come here and call me stupid for not wanting to run updates that have screwed up my computer so much in the past. Did you even read what you just quoted me on? Also, what are these trojans and virus' that Macs are vulnerable to? I thought there werent any. Does Apple have the problem of what you stated in your first post of someone being able to remotely access your computer and screw it up? If not, why does a software company as large as microsoft? You must blame your own stupidity for allowing those people to get access to your computer right?

notjustjay
Jan 21, 2005, 10:35 AM
but wait apple release security updates... that means it is full of secuirty holes a well. I just point out keep you system upto date is a good idea. If it is not kept up to date and people dont bother even trying (aka turning it off and never even updating) I blame them for their stupidity and they get what they deserve.

It one thing if there was no update or if it was released in the past week or 2 but it another if the update is over a month old.
Does M$ have holes in it Yes. Does apple have seciryt holes in it YES other wise there would be no secuirty updates.

Right, but the big difference is that I have never heard of an Apple system being compromised by hackers exploiting a vulnerability. Either nobody tries, or Apple is really proactive about patching up security updates before any damage occurs. Whereas with Windows, it's almost like you first hear about the debilitating virus or hacker attack that exploited a security hole, and then a week later Microsoft issues the update to patch it.

And Apple's security updates are issued less frequently.

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 12:35 PM
Right, but the big difference is that I have never heard of an Apple system being compromised by hackers exploiting a vulnerability. Either nobody tries, or Apple is really proactive about patching up security updates before any damage occurs. Whereas with Windows, it's almost like you first hear about the debilitating virus or hacker attack that exploited a security hole, and then a week later Microsoft issues the update to patch it.

And Apple's security updates are issued less frequently.

If there's one thing XP did wrong (until SP2), was the enforcing of users to update/patch.

When OSX has security vulnerabilities, and yes they do exist, the Apple Update application starts RIGHT AFTER STARTUP. I mean, it gets in your face that your OS is outdated >> of course any user would update it then.

SP2 at least forces the user to make the decision to enable/disable auto-update; and well, auto-update is very good for those nutjob users who continue to blindly use IE.

It's sad, I agree, that MS waited until now (nearly 3 years after XP) to enable a much stricter updating policy on XP. If this kind of enforcement was there in 2001, Blaster and other worms would not be successful. Why? B/c MS patches these vulnerabilities weeks to months before it hit, and yet, most users do not know that they are unpatched.

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 21, 2005, 01:17 PM
Either you're just fishing for arguments or you really have not much experience with OSX.

If you like the taskbar that much it's basically the same as the dock (only that the app icons you put there stay after closing). Click on the app icon and it switches to that app. There you go.

As for the start menu... if you don't like to put a lot of icons in your dock (I can understand that) just put the app folder right next to your trash. Click on it with the right mouse button, voila you have a start menu like app folder...

And saying that you like to look at unrefined graphics and crude operating systems... why don't you use 3.1? Is that crude enough for you? :D

Oh, the dock works, there's no question about that. It's just not quick enough. But that's inherent in the whole elegant design of osx. I never said it sucked, I just said it wasn't as good for me as the windows quick and dirty approach. Now, if windows 3.1 was even a viable option, why not? Although, I can't remember the last time I had that running on a computer.

Realistically though, it's not that I don't have a lot of experience in the os. Maybe not as much as the majority of the people here, but I have been using it at least 5 days a week 8 hours a day for the the past 6 months. So it's not like I don't know how to get around the os.

Yvan256
Jan 21, 2005, 02:05 PM
So what you are all telling me is that MHz ratings don't mean anything? Two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently? So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing?

Clock speed is a fact (although no real basis for comparison anymore), but marketing just hangs onto that (especially intel since they got the higher clock speeds).

As another member already said, look at what AMD (and even intel, now) is doing. My CPU is an AMD Athlon XP 2400+, but the real clock speed is "only" 1.92GHz.

Also, my computer runs the World Community Grid Agent. This agent rates my processor at "193", and the basis for comparison is a Pentium 4/1.5GHz which is rated at "100". If you take the clock speeds alone, my CPU's is only 490 MHz faster than a P4/1.5GHz. Let's say that's roughly 500MHz, or 25% faster. If clock speed was everything, my score would be about 125, not 193! So if we take that client as a basis for comparing my Athlon vs their reference Pentium 4, my CPU runs as fast as a 2.9 GHz Pentium 4 (even though my real clock speed is "only" 1.92 GHz).

What all this means is: the relative speed difference puts my AMD as "1GHz faster" than the reference P4, even though in reality it's only 490MHz faster.

Even shorter answer: clock speed isn't a measure for computational power. :D

One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help

Apple doesn't make their CPUs, Motorola/Freescale and IBM do. Increasing clock speeds has hit a huge wall in 2004, even intel trashed their own GHz planning. Check out their new offerings, and you won't see any GHz ratings as being a main feature of their new CPUs. Also, higher clocked CPUs require more power (bad for laptops), produce more heat and require more cooling, making for noisy computers.

Here's the usual "car analogy":
If you got a huge, powerful engine (like a transport truck), would you try to compete with the insane RPMs of a motorbike? Nope. The truck has lower RPMs but can still beat the motorbike as far as brute force is concerned.

Yvan256
Jan 21, 2005, 02:08 PM
If you go Mac, you are saying goodbye to a lifetime study of trying to be a Windows security and compatibility expert.

Nice marketing line. :D

Yvan256
Jan 21, 2005, 02:12 PM
So Apple does have a marketing problem, but the problem is *not* "how can they get the MHz up to keep up". That's like saying "Many pro basketball players are 7'; why isn't Steve Nash doing what he can about getting taller so he can compare with them?"

Is there a points system on macrumors? I'd like to give some to CanadaRAM for using a non-car analogy. :D

Yvan256
Jan 21, 2005, 02:21 PM
thanks but, Ive seen that one already during my research into Mac's. Look at the source, Im not saying that they are not telling the truth but apple isnt going to be very objective

Sorry for the car analogy (again), but that's like trying to compare Honda vs Toyota/Nissan.

Do you want a really fast, really powerful engine (that goes almost nowhere since you're limited by speed laws) but a crappy ride (Honda doesn't equal comfort in my view). Or do you want a nice engine and a really great ride with very few problems?

Do you want a really fast CPU that doesn't do much difference in most applications (the user is still the slowest part of the computing experience) and has an insecure OS, or do you want a CPU that's enough for the task and a very nice OS and applications?

CPU power was relevent about 5 years ago. But above 1-2GHz, most people won't even notice the differenc for most applications.

Or forget car analogies. What console has the faster CPU? The most RAM? The best GPU? The most VRAM?

When consoles come out, everyone tries to crunch the numbers. Then after the crazyness dies down, what do people talk about? The games.

My point? The PS3 and Xbox2 won't mean anything to me since they won't have Zelda nor Metroid. :cool:

Forget the specs, see what you can DO with the systems. If it can do what you want better/easier than the others, take it. If you think iLife is great, get a Mac. It's that simple.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 21, 2005, 02:26 PM
<snip>
Here's the usual "car analogy":
If you got a huge, powerful engine (like a transport truck), would you try to compete with the insane RPMs of a motorbike? Nope. The truck has lower RPMs but can still beat the motorbike as far as brute force is concerned.
That's the best "car analogy" I've yet seen. You're good at analogies, Yvan256.

stevietheb
Jan 21, 2005, 02:35 PM
So a year ago i got my parents to buy me a powerbook and set up a plan to where i would pay them back in full with a small amount of interest over time. Your parents charged you interest? Harsh!

As for me, I decided I needed a laptop for school about a year and a half ago. I was in fry's and saw the macs. I had never considered purchasing a mac because I thought OS 9 looked hokey...but when I saw that pretty pretty Panther at Fry's...I was hooked. [I was switching from a 600 MHz P2...so obviously the G4 800 MHz was a speed demon by comparison...now the iMac--don't get me started...]

SO, now my wife and I have an iBook and an iMac G5. We couldn't be happier. Still trying to convince our parents that they should get the Mac Mini...

One thing that people here haven't mentioned (unless I just missed it) is the freeware. I've found free applications to do just about everything I could imagine...and often those applications are very elegantly done (such as "Meteorologist"). This was never the case with Windows (in my experience).

Finally, in terms of gaming--I'm a fan of World of Warcraft..kudoes to Blizzard for co-developing for the Mac platform!

deputy_doofy
Jan 21, 2005, 02:52 PM
I realize this concept has been beaten to death, but it really is about how fast the computer feels. When I had Comcast installed, the guy installing it commented on how fast my Powerbook moved. When he asked about its MHz rating, I told him 1GHz (PB 12" :)). He said he'd never seen a 1GHz machine respond like this before. Of course, he then reverted back to his Windows persona and said that he already had a 1GHz machine and wouldn't want anything that slow again.
The P4 is a super fast desktop chip, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me that it has to be that fast, because at 1GHz, it can't hold its own to the G4. That's just my opinion, mind you, based on PCs I've used around that speed.
And, Celerons...? Forget 'em. I've used Celerons at 2.2 & 2.4GHz that don't even compare. They are terrible.

Jo-Kun
Jan 21, 2005, 02:56 PM
hmm when I throw my PC from the top of the Taipei 101, I think it will be going much faster than my G5, at least it will feel like its going faster :p

just buy what you want, and when it feels slow buy a ferrari instead, they go fast enough I guess :p

sorry I'm in a sarcastic mood I guess :p

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 21, 2005, 03:01 PM
My preference of windows over mac os anything asside. Realistically, the only thing apple is that far behind on is the games scene. And really, thats the only thing driving the pc market. Everyone went nuts (myself included) upgrading their computer to run doom3. And lots of people before that for hl2 when it was supposed to come out. Gotta have the fastest cpu and video card for games. Now, for the majority of the users out there. Extremely fast cpu and extremely fast video card isn't needed.

My mom for example does nothing but work with excel spreadsheets and go on aol. She's using a 1ghz amd duron with half a gig of memory. LOW end by todays standards, but it works just fine for what she does. However, once that computer kicks the bucket, I'm moving her over to a mac because when I move out, I'll never have time to build/upgrade her computer and I sure as hell don't trust the pc manufacturers/my dad to do the job right. So, for my piece of mind, she'll be getting a box that if something breaks, she can't call me to come fix it :). "No mah, call the number and tell them it needs to be sent in for service." Haha, but for non intensive apps like that, and the fact that my sister likes to hijack my mom's computer and put spyware on it, will be good for her. And it's good for everyone else too.

Wow, now I sound like one of you guys...it's cuz I'm at work..damn mac

thorshammer88
Jan 21, 2005, 03:01 PM
Thanks yvan, I am getting a much better understanding of the different processors now. Now I dont really care about mhz ratings, I am more concerned about what a machine will do for me. My previous concerns were based on all I had to go with at the time which was the mhz rating. When I see a computer though that is 1.8 ghz in 2005 I think back in 2001 when this computer was purchased and its 1.6 ghz, so naturally Im curious about the discrepancy. Thanks a lot everybody for the help, Ill let you know how it goes with the ibook.

tech4all
Jan 21, 2005, 03:04 PM
Oh, the dock works, there's no question about that. It's just not quick enough.

I'm a bit baffled by that. How can the Dock not be quick enough? All you do is click an icon and it opens the app up? That seems fast enough to me. Can you please explain that a bit more? :)

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 21, 2005, 03:08 PM
I'm a bit baffled by that. How can the Dock not be quick enough? All you do is click an icon and it opens the app up? That seems fast enough to me. Can you please explain that a bit more? :)

Sure, like when I have 8 million safari windows. Sure it pops up safari but not necessarily the window I want. Usually, regardless of the os, I use multiple tabs and multiple windows. And with the dock, I've gotta hold down on the mouse button (if I had a 2 button mouse it wouldn't be so bad) and let it show me what windows I've got to choose from. It's pretty, but slower whan the two clicks it takes in windows. That's all.

It's not a big deal, but it does slow me down a little.

jayscheuerle
Jan 21, 2005, 03:14 PM
Sure, like when I have 8 million safari windows. Sure it pops up safari but not necessarily the window I want. Usually, regardless of the os, I use multiple tabs and multiple windows. And with the dock, I've gotta hold down on the mouse button (if I had a 2 button mouse it wouldn't be so bad) and let it show me what windows I've got to choose from. It's pretty, but slower whan the two clicks it takes in windows. That's all.

It's not a big deal, but it does slow me down a little.

You know that a) Double click on the open Safari window and it goes down into the dock (complete with frontmost tab's name) and b) You can use whatever mouse you want on a mac? And if you're working with Safari, you can use Expose to see all your open windows at once?

dejo
Jan 21, 2005, 03:25 PM
Sure, like when I have 8 million safari windows. Sure it pops up safari but not necessarily the window I want. Usually, regardless of the os, I use multiple tabs and multiple windows. And with the dock, I've gotta hold down on the mouse button (if I had a 2 button mouse it wouldn't be so bad) and let it show me what windows I've got to choose from. It's pretty, but slower whan the two clicks it takes in windows. That's all.

It's not a big deal, but it does slow me down a little.

Sounds like you prefer the Windows approach. Great. I'm not gonna try and stop you.

And everyone else needs to realize that there are always going to be some people who prefer how a different OS does things. Mac OS X is not the solution for everyone. We should be glad that we have somewhat of a choice and are not forced to have Windows or Mac OS X or something else everywhere that is not everything to everyone. Choice is freedom and freedom is good.

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 21, 2005, 03:28 PM
Yes, am aware of all the different methods. It's not like you guys need to convince me of anything at this point. I'm just saying what works best for me. And for the most part, I pick windows. But that's my personal preference. In no way am I saying "macs suck, windows all the way" as a blanket, everyone should stop using macs and get a pc, flame war inducing troll post. I was just posting my experience as having been subject to both operating systems.

And I'll say it again, windows = better for ME.

Although, when I said "windows, it just works" I was kinda making fun of how people say that about os x and macs in general. My windows machine just works, just as I suspect my mac mini will when I get it, even though the compenents it's based on are antiques compared to what I've got running in my windows box :-D. Gotta outrun the snowstorm tomorrow morning, get up early and get mine from the apple store though.

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 03:31 PM
I thought Expose lets you see all the windows in a specific app, so wouldn't it be easier to use that (default: F10) than the Windows approach?

Whenever I'm on XP, I wish I had those features. Alt-Tab is nice when you only have 4-6 applications, but if you have multiple windows for multiple applications, that's when Expose really shines.

When you press F10, I'm assuming it shows you the open windows for the app that is CURRENTLY open correct?

jmsait19
Jan 21, 2005, 03:45 PM
Congrats Thor on your decision to go with the iBook and iMac combo. I have a PB G4 that about a year and a quarter old, and really had I had the options that you have today, I would do the same. I really think that is a very smart and informed decision. I hope you love it as much as all of us here love the Mac.

EvilCrabMonkey
Jan 21, 2005, 04:05 PM
I thought Expose lets you see all the windows in a specific app, so wouldn't it be easier to use that (default: F10) than the Windows approach?

Whenever I'm on XP, I wish I had those features. Alt-Tab is nice when you only have 4-6 applications, but if you have multiple windows for multiple applications, that's when Expose really shines.

When you press F10, I'm assuming it shows you the open windows for the app that is CURRENTLY open correct?

I don't really like expose to be honesst with you. It's not that it doesn't work, but I dunno, it's that whole preference thing again. Just not a big fan. The filesystem however, big fan. And the way windows installs software really is the worst part of the os imo. But they've been doing it that way for a long long long long time now and will probably never change.

Timelessblur
Jan 21, 2005, 04:20 PM
Time, maybe you should read the words you quoted me on earlier again. Who do you think you are to come here and call me stupid for not wanting to run updates that have screwed up my computer so much in the past. Did you even read what you just quoted me on? Also, what are these trojans and virus' that Macs are vulnerable to? I thought there werent any. Does Apple have the problem of what you stated in your first post of someone being able to remotely access your computer and screw it up? If not, why does a software company as large as microsoft? You must blame your own stupidity for allowing those people to get access to your computer right?


so if I this straight you dont bother running updates because you think it safe to run you computer with out it. The issue I had I knew who was doing it and I was in the middle of a few system restores to track down something and to correct something so I jump back to before I installed the update. That or it was a program that was installed earily that day on my computer with out my knowleged I knew a few ways to disable it and I know my setting where change. I was to lazy to bother going around it so I system restored back a few days to jump back before because I am to lazy to bother wanting ot see what other setting where changed. But considering the update was less than a week old (falls in the range of 2 weeks) it mostly just a bothersome thing but not a big deal.

The remote access only effect WinXP pro because of remote desktop. Something that apple lacks out of the box and you have to get a program to do it. I use remote desktop every now and they could of sent them selves a remote help request to there computer for mine so I end up seeing my mouse randomly move and click on a few things

I still dont understand why you refuse to update you OS. I always get a kick out of how when something goes wrong that was fix several months ago they blame M$ and oh yeah the patch is a few month old hmmmm..... Reall you should go SP2 and install it in safemode.

You are trying to justify how it is ok not update your computer I am pointing out that a lot of people have problems that was fixed in a patch is several month old.

I can say apple needs to add a few things to there OS namely something that is as powerful and handy as system restore (which basicly allows you to return you comptuer ot an earily time in what is installed and all setting back to then) Make there fast user switching better because right now windows Fast user switching is better.

za9ra22
Jan 21, 2005, 04:23 PM
On the question of Start Menu vs Dock, I must admit that I simply dragged my Apps folder to the Dock and now just right-click on it for a very 'Start Menu' sort of list of applications. Works for me, and more importantly, it helps those who aren't familiar with MacOS in the office get applications running if they need to. And since I can do the same with my Docs folder, it makes it very easy to navigate around the system without really having to open anything.

On the wider issue of Macs vs PCs and which is or isn't faster or more advanced, the answer isn't anything to do with specifications and can't be all that readily explained by analogies. It's interesting to watch the task list on a fast PC, and realize that the process that runs most frequently (by far) is the 'System Idle' process - which is the process that is run when the PC hasn't got anything else to do. Personally, I can't see the need to splash out on a real fast computer that is going to spend the vast majority of it's running time doing nothing because it's waiting for it's user, or waiting for data, or waiting for the HD, or waiting for the next clock cycle, etc.

And even if these systems really did run flat out all the time, what exactly would we do with that collection of nanoseconds we'd be saving over an above a cheaper system that isn't so capable of idling around so quickly?!

High performance levels are really only significant in intensive applications - which the majority of users never really run. Hence the ramping up of processor speeds wasn't really, at least for the public, an issue of gaining access to greater power and performance to allow more sophisicated applications to work with more data, but was a way for manufacturers to market systems such that consumers could be urged to abandon otherwise perfectly acceptable equipment in favor or 'the new thing'.

So where does Apple fit into all that - after all, they've done the same thing, trying to encourage buyers to continually update their systems (otherwise their market share would be around zero by now). The answer is that Apple took a slightly different approach to power. Instead of pushing clock speeds so the system could move small lumps of data around more quickly, they pushed for systems that could move larger lumps of data around, even if not as quickly.

The advantage (in my view) of Apple's approach is that it tends to mean that system performance isn't as critically dependent on hardware components (think of a disc that spins at half the speed but allows more than twice the data to be moved in one go as a crude example), and that the user experience can be made better - even if only in an illusiory way, because what happens on the screen seems somehow rather more fluid and integrated. It also tends to allow something else: for complex data to be moved with less system demand, which many percieve as creating a far better system to work with.

To accomplish the same sort of result that a relatively 'low powered' Mac can achieve, a PC has to have more 'power'.... which brings us back to spending good money on a system that idles more!

OK, that's me done - I've going so you can shoot at me all you want!

MacAficionado
Jan 21, 2005, 04:40 PM
FWIW, I used various versions of Windows, since 1996. I have been using my first Mac for the last 2½ years and I still don't really know how to troubleshoot it. Non of that nonsense of uninstalling drivers, reinstalling the OS every month. No crashes while surfing the net, ctrl+alt+del, etc.
In essence the daily occurrences in Windows, become very odd, explainable once in a blue moon events on OS X.

A Dual 867mhz Powermac, is the best computer purchase I ever made and it is still editing videos and making DVDs like the first day I had it. Again, For What it's Worth.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 21, 2005, 06:03 PM
<snip>
I can say apple needs to add a few things to there OS namely something that is as powerful and handy as system restore (which basicly allows you to return you comptuer ot an earily time in what is installed and all setting back to then) Make there fast user switching better because right now windows Fast user switching is better.
Please share with us what could be improved in the Mac OS X implementation of Fast User Switching. I'd like to know!

brap
Jan 21, 2005, 06:29 PM
I can say apple needs to add a few things to there OS namely something that is as powerful and handy as system restore (which basicly allows you to return you comptuer ot an earily time in what is installed and all setting back to then)
And just to add... system restore is a bag of crap. For one, _RESTORE is where the nastiest of viruses chooses to hide out, because it's very well hidden. I've never, ever found a use for system restore, because when Windows b0rks, it b0rks good, and system restore won't help you one little bit. Last time was a couple of weeks ago, it just decided to hang at boot (directly after our good friend mup.sys).

I thought ****** this, I'll reinstall. I've never, ever had to reinstall OS X. I have better things to do with my life than sit around installing Windows -- I don't, I use Norton Ghost, but that's irrelevant. ;)

Of course, this, and all the other reasons given above won't make a blind bit of difference. Your Athlon box is soooo much better, and we're all stupid for not realising it -- right?

Timelessblur
Jan 21, 2005, 06:44 PM
Look system Restore is very handy. If you have even had to deal with little kids messing with the computer or if something goes wrong in something you where doing it is extermly nice. Mainly when it comes to kids messing with the computer because they hit buttons and click on things not knowing what they are doing or rename stuff unknownly it really nice when it comes just undoing it and going back to a point in time you know it was fixed

As for fast user switching OSX has a few glitches in it when it comes to dealing some program. I need it have problems with networking and more of a dail up like internet (Dail up and PPPoe set ups). It system works well but it could use work in separting out system apps from user apps. Networking is an area it could use its impovment so when I switch users I dont loose my internet connection, It would say oh User A is on the internet so User B should have access 2. And then there just are a few programs that seem to glitch with it

Plus something I know MS final goal with fast user switching the apple could work on as well. It deals with remote desktop and remote log in. I could log into the computer from off site while another user is currenlty using the computer. do what I need to do with out ever effecting them. currently I know you can not do this in windows and not in OSX either.

I will never get how people here have so much troulbe with windows and have to reinstall so offen considering that bettween 3 diffent computer running XP none of htem have had a reinstall in 2 years and all are doing just fine. Plus I know of some that have been up and running for over 4 years. The people who have reinstalled it knew what went wrong and knew they where the ones who made it happen. that or they had a Hard drive failure.

macmaniacttt
Jan 21, 2005, 06:53 PM
Glad you're interested in switching:
as for your problem with figuring out which one has more "bang for your buck", I suggest checking out this link:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3243
as well as:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2350

they should help answer your questions

David

wrldwzrd89
Jan 21, 2005, 07:09 PM
<snip>
As for fast user switching OSX has a few glitches in it when it comes to dealing some program. I need it have problems with networking and more of a dail up like internet (Dail up and PPPoe set ups). It system works well but it could use work in separting out system apps from user apps. Networking is an area it could use its impovment so when I switch users I dont loose my internet connection, It would say oh User A is on the internet so User B should have access 2.
Fair enough.
And then there just are a few programs that seem to glitch with it.
This particular complaint can be leveled against Windows too, so no advantage for either side here.
Plus something I know MS final goal with fast user switching the apple could work on as well. It deals with remote desktop and remote log in. I could log into the computer from off site while another user is currenlty using the computer. do what I need to do with out ever effecting them. currently I know you can not do this in windows and not in OSX either.
I'll tell you this - unlike Windows, UNIX was designed with this type of use in mind. This makes implementation on Mac OS X easier than it would otherwise be. However, Microsoft has already put most of the subsystems needed to achieve this in Windows XP, so it ends in a draw.
I will never get how people here have so much troulbe with windows and have to reinstall so offen considering that bettween 3 diffent computer running XP none of htem have had a reinstall in 2 years and all are doing just fine. Plus I know of some that have been up and running for over 4 years. The people who have reinstalled it knew what went wrong and knew they where the ones who made it happen. that or they had a Hard drive failure.
I reinstall Windows (and Mac OS X) just because I feel like it sometimes :D

slooksterPSV
Jan 21, 2005, 07:38 PM
Glad you're interested in switching:
as for your problem with figuring out which one has more "bang for your buck", I suggest checking out this link:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3243
as well as:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2350

they should help answer your questions

David

OMG, that is so weird.

Mav451
Jan 21, 2005, 08:40 PM
Lol, osViews is that close to being the O'Reily Factor of PC hardware.

*bottom line? Don't expect to learn anything about PC hardware from that site. Go to the legitimate hardware sites, who actually use/build/review these systems every day.*

Putting a Pentium 4 @ 2.0Ghz, on a chipset from 2001 (we are in the year 2005 folks), takes the cake. You literally save money by buying newer hardware (2.4C on 875 chipset).

Tell me if you would use 2.0Ghz (400FSB), or for $15 more 2.4Ghz (800FSB) on hardware from 2003.

gost8go
Jan 23, 2005, 01:10 AM
The best advice I ever read on this board was to buy the best Mac I could afford, when I needed to buy it. You'll always be waiting if you play the waiting game. (Excepting within a month or two of a conference announcement.)

Lacero
Jan 23, 2005, 01:14 AM
I always make a habit of buying right after the product is announced. Typically that could mean waiting 3-6 months for a product. I don't much so much as I already have a mac I could be using in the meantime.

Sogo
Jan 23, 2005, 02:09 AM
I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but if you don't like the mac after you buy it you could sell it at nearly the same price you bought it.

Mechcozmo
Jan 23, 2005, 04:08 AM
So... didja get it yet?

And Welcome to the light side of computing.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 23, 2005, 06:53 AM
The best advice I ever read on this board was to buy the best Mac I could afford, when I needed to buy it. You'll always be waiting if you play the waiting game. (Excepting within a month or two of a conference announcement.)
What I do is buy a computer, make a plan for replacing it, and stick to that plan. If an update comes out just after (or even just before) I buy and I get the older model, so be it - this is exactly what happened when I purchased my PowerBook G4 667, and I was fine with that.

Col. Panic
Jan 23, 2005, 10:39 PM
When comparing Macs to PCs it is also good to think about the time difference when performing every day tasks like installing software, connecting peripherals, and burning CDs/DVDs. It is also good to think about the ease of upgrading if you plan to add RAM or pther hardware upgrades. The iMac is supposed to be very easy to work on and the G5 towers are as beautiful on the inside as they are on the outside.

hulugu
Jan 24, 2005, 11:46 PM
Defending Windows doesn't make one a jerk... There are problems that arise in the BIOS, Windows, and Linux that I like to solve. Keeping Windows machines running optimally is another challenge I enjoy, fixing friends' computers and whatnot.

I think Windows has become the indefensible position at that point, owing to its prevalence in reverse relation to its inferiority to both Linux and OSX. Windows is a pain in the ass, though, and so for a hobby a kind of electronic puzzle-making, its fine. But, for work and for fun getting something else done, it's really an awful choice, IMHO.
But, even liking Windows doesn't make one a jerk; saying Windows is so much better than OSX for ? (fit in your favorite Dvorak reason) and that OSX sucks, does make one a jerk.
And just sad.

slooksterPSV
Jan 25, 2005, 11:50 AM
I think Windows has become the indefensible position at that point, owing to its prevalence in reverse relation to its inferiority to both Linux and OSX. Windows is a pain in the ass, though, and so for a hobby a kind of electronic puzzle-making, its fine. But, for work and for fun getting something else done, it's really an awful choice, IMHO.
But, even liking Windows doesn't make one a jerk; saying Windows is so much better than OSX for ? (fit in your favorite Dvorak reason) and that OSX sucks, does make one a jerk.
And just sad.

I agree with your statement mostly, working on it as an electronic hobby, yeah I'd like to do that (fixing them up and that later on for a job). But the job I really want it to fix up Macs when people have problems with them. That would be awesome.

hulugu
Jan 30, 2005, 10:33 PM
I agree with your statement mostly, working on it as an electronic hobby, yeah I'd like to do that (fixing them up and that later on for a job). But the job I really want it to fix up Macs when people have problems with them. That would be awesome.

That's essentially what I do, I help people put together systems so they can make art. I help write Applescripts, buy equipment, establish networks, etc. How did I start doing this?
I did it for free and asked people to refer me. Want a business fixing macs, get known as someone who is good at it. At some point I've got to get an ADC but I haven't had time.
I just sent someone out with a new iBook she bought after showing her how to do things including iTunes, iCal, etc. It took a lot of time, but was fun.

GorillaPaws
Jan 31, 2005, 03:17 AM
Congrats on your decision on the iBook. As a student, you should consider these suggestions:

Get the Educational Discount
Upgrade the RAM (really a must on a Mac, but cheaper if you go through a 3rd party i.e. Crucial.com)
Get a multi-button mouse with a scroll wheel (especially since the laptops only have the one button built in)
Get MS Office (there's a much cheaper student edition, that's almost as good as the pro version-- you shouldn't notice the difference in features with any educational needs)
Consider a membership to .Mac; you can't beat the seemless integration with OSX, and there are a lot of great features for students like posting your papers online and having the piece of mind of Backup for when your drunk roomate spills a beer all over your laptop

And, depending on your major, you may want to consider iWork (although I have no experience with it you can probably ask around and get a pretty good idea if it's worth the $79 for your needs), or some of the other great prosumer apps out there like Final Cut Express HD, Logic Express or Photoshop Elements. Anyways, congrats, and please feel free to ask me or any of us here at Macrumors for any of your computing questions. It really is a great online community here, and most people love to help others. Welcome.