PDA

View Full Version : Which Mac is comparable to my current PC system?


Gary King
May 29, 2005, 04:44 PM
Which Mac is comparable to my current PC system?

Because I don't want to move to a Mac and suddenly feel as though the Mac is slower :)

My current PC system is fairly weak and old; it is nearly 3 years old. Here it is:

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200

ASUS P4 DDR 3PCI AGP Audio LAN VGA
Intel Pentium 4 - 1.8 GHz
512 MB DDR RAM PC2100
Maxtor 60 GB 7200 RPM
Maxtor 80 GB 7200 RPM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128 MB
Samsung 15" LCD
LG 16X DVD IDE
LG 32X10X40 CD RE-WRITER
Soundblaster Live 5.1 Digital Audio
1.44MB Floppy Drive
PENT-4 Midtower 300W, USB Front

500W PMPO with subwoofer 3 pcs.
Microsoft PS/2 Keyboard Combo C59-00092
Logitech Opti Bulk PS2 mouse

I'm a high school student, so I have a tight budget as well. And if you suggest something, like say a Mac Mini, then I can keep my old monitor for it.

Thanks! :D

lexfuzo
May 29, 2005, 05:08 PM
Which Mac is comparable to my current PC system?

Because I don't want to move to a Mac and suddenly feel as though the Mac is slower :)
I'm a high school student, so I have a tight budget as well. And if you suggest something, like say a Mac Mini, then I can keep my old monitor for it.

Thanks! :D

I guess a Mac mini shouldn't feel much slower than the PC you described You have to stick in a lot of RAM, though.
I have a P4-2.4 with 512 MB and a mini 1.25 with 1 GB RAM.
The mini competes quite well in comparison.

dmw007
May 29, 2005, 06:15 PM
I guess a Mac mini shouldn't feel much slower than the PC you described You have to stick in a lot of RAM, though.
I have a P4-2.4 with 512 MB and a mini 1.25 with 1 GB RAM.
The mini competes quite well in comparison.

I agree, the 1.25GHz G4 mini is probably a close match for your pc (the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 that is). For the 1.8GHz Pentium 4 the mini should be faster, depends on what you do with your system. A ~1GHz G4 would probably be closer to your 1.8GHz P4.

freiheit
May 29, 2005, 06:25 PM
If you're looking to keep your monitor, then the Mac mini or possibly the single processor 1.8GHz G5 PowerMac (which has more internal upgradability than the mini -- comparable to your P4 tower). If you're okay with not keeping the monitor, there's the lovely new 2GHz iMac G5 with 17" LCD built-in and the graphics (Radeon 9600) are better than your current FX5200.

minimax
May 29, 2005, 06:56 PM
I agree, the 1.25GHz G4 mini is probably a close match for your pc (the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 that is). For the 1.8GHz Pentium 4 the mini should be faster, depends on what you do with your system. A ~1GHz G4 would probably be closer to your 1.8GHz P4.

that's all a bit optimistic. Benchmarks show the G4+ have roughly 150% the performance of a P4, so the G4 1.25 Ghz should be a close match to your P4 1.8 Ghz. The graphics for the mac mini will be weaker though, and you'll loose HD space. If you tend to feel you are outgrowing your current system the mac mini will be out of the question, or you could wait for the next (first) revision.

JonMaker
May 29, 2005, 07:38 PM
Have you considered an iBook? It should be comparable to your current system (with enough RAM), and it's a relatively inexpensive Mac.
I'm graduating this month, and I'll need a portable for University. I assume you're in a similar situation.
This should coincide with the iBook updates I expect for WWDC on June 6.

dotdotdot
May 29, 2005, 07:39 PM
Are you all kidding me?

Reccomending a Mac mini for that Machine!?

My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 Processor and its pretty fast... nowhere NEAR as slow as a 1.42 GHz G4...

I reccomend the 1.8 GHz iMac G5 for you! Plus, with the screen spanning hack, your computer monitor can act as a second monitor - if you want it, the G4 PowerBook is almost as good as the PC you described. The iMac will shoot WAY ahead of it.

dotdotdot
May 29, 2005, 07:57 PM
BEST DEAL!!!

Apple Sale:

iMac G5 17" 1.6GHz Combo Drive
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive

WAS: $1,299, IS: $999

Rocksaurus
May 29, 2005, 09:29 PM
BEST DEAL!!!

Apple Sale:

iMac G5 17" 1.6GHz Combo Drive
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive

WAS: $1,299, IS: $999

He already has a monitor and some hard drives, so perhaps a better deal would be a used G4 tower. OP - are you looking to replace the PC or use both of them? If you're going to replace you'll want to take the HDs with you, I assume...

Also note that certain GUI actions in OS X respond slower than in Windows, so in some instances you may "feel" like you have a slower computer... Hopefully this doesn't bug you...

dmw007
May 29, 2005, 09:38 PM
BEST DEAL!!!

Apple Sale:

iMac G5 17" 1.6GHz Combo Drive
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive

WAS: $1,299, IS: $999

I agree, the iMac G5 is the better choice and at that price its an awesome deal. However, I think that Gary King wants to use his current monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc..., in order to save $$$ since he is on a budget.

dmw007
May 29, 2005, 09:39 PM
BEST DEAL!!!

Apple Sale:

iMac G5 17" 1.6GHz Combo Drive
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive

WAS: $1,299, IS: $999

I agree, the iMac G5 is the better choice and at that price its an awesome deal. However, I think that Gary King wants to use his current monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc..., in order to save $$$ since he is on a budget. Hence the mini.

Edit* sorry i dont know why this posted twice, i stopped from submitting it to add a line and it posted twice. sorry

dotdotdot
May 29, 2005, 10:10 PM
You know that the iMac I said is the Rev. A, which is 16" and compatible with the screen spanning hack - so you can have a cheap two monitor setup... for only $1000

yellow
May 30, 2005, 06:16 AM
Don't forget, quite a bit of your software will have to be repurchased, or you'll have to find new Mac versions of it. This can get pretty expensive. So your jump from Windows to OS X shouldn't be half-assed. It should be a concerted effort.

Abstract
May 30, 2005, 07:09 AM
A Mac Mini won't feel slower, but a Mac mini WILL be slower at processing, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, I wish there was an "in-between" machine to recommend you, but there isn't, so the iMac deal above may be the best. :)

Gary King
May 30, 2005, 07:30 AM
BEST DEAL!!!

Apple Sale:

iMac G5 17" 1.6GHz Combo Drive
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive

WAS: $1,299, IS: $999Where is this Apple sale? At http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore/ , it says 'iMac from $1599'. This is all Canadian. But even at http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore it is only $1299.

law guy
May 30, 2005, 07:55 AM
Are you all kidding me?

Reccomending a Mac mini for that Machine!?

My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 Processor and its pretty fast... nowhere NEAR as slow as a 1.42 GHz G4...

I reccomend the 1.8 GHz iMac G5 for you! Plus, with the screen spanning hack, your computer monitor can act as a second monitor - if you want it, the G4 PowerBook is almost as good as the PC you described. The iMac will shoot WAY ahead of it.

I've found the 1.42 to be quite zippy - much faster than the 2.4 GHz P4 IBM I used to have at the office, but I do have a DUAL set up, so it's hard to judge. (keep in mind the difference dual makes - my 1.5 GHz PB is MUCH slower than my dual 1.42 PM - you may want to get a dual machine if you can strech it) - my suggestions:

At the upper end, recent but no longer in production PMs seem to be good values - some sellers have stock of the DUAL 1.8 G5s still - they're a bit over $1,600.00 so that might be too much for you and not justify keeping your KB, monitor, etc. - here's the Macmall link: http://www.macmall.com/macmall/families/powermac_g5/ ; they also have a SINGLE 1.8 G5 for $1494. - If I was looking at packing a Mini with BTO options, I wouldn't spend the $900 on it and I'd probably just keep saving $500 more for the single 1.8 G5 (at which point, I'd probably save just a wee bit more for the dual 1.8).

As a general matter - it pays to probably wait a week and see what kind of price drops on out of production macs might follow WWDC if new products come out / current prices lower on in production models.

Platform
May 30, 2005, 08:07 AM
He already has a monitor and some hard drives, so perhaps a better deal would be a used G4 tower. OP - are you looking to replace the PC or use both of them? If you're going to replace you'll want to take the HDs with you, I assume...

Also note that certain GUI actions in OS X respond slower than in Windows, so in some instances you may "feel" like you have a slower computer... Hopefully this doesn't bug you...

Well that is good........then he can have a dual display set-up ;)

solvs
May 30, 2005, 08:47 AM
My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 Processor and its pretty fast... nowhere NEAR as slow as a 1.42 GHz G4...
Have you ever used a 1.42GHz Mac? Because I had a 1.2GHz upgraded G4 that was faster than the 1.8 P4s we had at my last job. Same amount of RAM, 512MB. I've used a P3 that was faster than most of the lower than 2GHz P4s I've used.

Get the 1.4GHz mini and add 1GB of third party RAM (very carefully, or pay to have an authorized dealer do it). The 1.2 is fine, and I hear the hard drive is the faster 5400RPM variety (the 1.4 uses the 4200 one). If you can afford it, get a 7200RPM drive to match what you have now to add at the same time as the RAM. The only real issue is the video card. It's only a 32MB Radeon 9200. If you can, maybe wait a week for the new iBooks. Then you can use the mouse and kb as externals, and use the hack to get dual monitors. Maybe an external fw and/or usb case for one of your drives as a backup. Or wait for the new single G5 that should be coming out soon. Or a refurb single 1.8G5. It's a little cheaper, and would kick the *** of what you have now, even with a 64MB card vs. your current 128MB one. Just buy more third party PC3200 DDR RAM as you can afford it (I recommend Newegg.com).

And if you've been accepted to a college, Apple counts that as being able to use the educational discount. Either that, or you have to be a person who works for a school system. They do have other discounts though, like if someone in your family is a government employee.

zach
May 30, 2005, 10:56 AM
Are you all kidding me?

Reccomending a Mac mini for that Machine!?

My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 Processor and its pretty fast... nowhere NEAR as slow as a 1.42 GHz G4...

I reccomend the 1.8 GHz iMac G5 for you! Plus, with the screen spanning hack, your computer monitor can act as a second monitor - if you want it, the G4 PowerBook is almost as good as the PC you described. The iMac will shoot WAY ahead of it.

dotdotdot, I hate to sound like an *******... But have you ever actually USED a mac?

A 1.42 GHz G4 beats the pants off a 1.8 P4.

dotdotdot
May 30, 2005, 11:00 AM
Where is this Apple sale? At http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore/ , it says 'iMac from $1599'. This is all Canadian. But even at http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore it is only $1299.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70307/wo/Rl6vrwOyHAwH235DKJ426xOTDmz/1.0.0.11.1.0.6.7.1.1.1.1

It should be the first computer on the list of iMacs.

dotdotdot
May 30, 2005, 11:03 AM
dotdotdot, I hate to sound like an *******... But have you ever actually USED a mac?

A 1.42 GHz G4 beats the pants off a 1.8 P4.

I have used a Mac - I never owned one, but I go to the Apple store at least once every two weeks...

My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 and it is not incredibly fast, but it is pretty fast.
Before I wanted an iMac, I wanted the Mac mini - it was so affordable. I used the 1.42 GHz with 512 MB RAM at the Apple store and it was also pretty fast.

But with my dad, and Gary King's system, their computers are faster than the Mac mini.

nightdweller25
May 30, 2005, 11:29 AM
Hmmm, is it just me or is dotdotdot underestimating the G4?

minimax
May 30, 2005, 11:37 AM
I have used a Mac - I never owned one, but I go to the Apple store at least once every two weeks...

My dad has a 1.8 GHz P4 and it is not incredibly fast, but it is pretty fast.
Before I wanted an iMac, I wanted the Mac mini - it was so affordable. I used the 1.42 GHz with 512 MB RAM at the Apple store and it was also pretty fast.

But with my dad, and Gary King's system, their computers are faster than the Mac mini.

Perhaps it may come as a shock to you, but playing around on a computer in a shop does not give you any information about the speed of the processor. Especially when you are comparing two different systems, with a GUI that responds in a different way.
For a proper judgement you'll have to work your computer, video encoding, rendering etc. Also, you can only judge acurately if you have good reference (making your own benchmarks of certain similar actions you can repeat on both mac and pc). Otherwise you are just talking *****.

shadowmoses
May 30, 2005, 12:30 PM
Perhaps it may come as a shock to you, but playing around on a computer in a shop does not give you any information about the speed of the processor. Especially when you are comparing two different systems, with a GUI that responds in a different way.
For a proper judgement you'll have to work your computer, video encoding, rendering etc. Also, you can only judge acurately if you have good reference (making your own benchmarks of certain similar actions you can repeat on both mac and pc). Otherwise you are just talking *****.

Well said!! a G4 1.42 or even 1.25 is definatly faster than a P4 1.8ghz and that is not mac fan boy talk

Zeekium
May 30, 2005, 12:50 PM
Everyone is suggesting an iMac or mini....what about the emac. Has 1.42GHz, 160gb hard drive, and can have superdrive for a cheap price. And he is a student so he can get the superdrive for $900 instead of $999.

nightdweller25
May 30, 2005, 01:23 PM
Perhaps it may come as a shock to you, but playing around on a computer in a shop does not give you any information about the speed of the processor. Especially when you are comparing two different systems, with a GUI that responds in a different way.
For a proper judgement you'll have to work your computer, video encoding, rendering etc. Also, you can only judge acurately if you have good reference (making your own benchmarks of certain similar actions you can repeat on both mac and pc). Otherwise you are just talking *****.

I agree completely!

Mav451
May 30, 2005, 01:41 PM
Perhaps it may come as a shock to you, but playing around on a computer in a shop does not give you any information about the speed of the processor. Especially when you are comparing two different systems, with a GUI that responds in a different way.
For a proper judgement you'll have to work your computer, video encoding, rendering etc. Also, you can only judge acurately if you have good reference (making your own benchmarks of certain similar actions you can repeat on both mac and pc). Otherwise you are just talking *****.

Did it occur to you that Gary did not say he does any video encoding or rendering? How does that have any relevancy at all to this discussion? If he is doing simply email/word processing/browsing, then honestly that kind of performance does not matter. He certainly didn't put that out in his first post.

Regarding GUI "responsiveness", I strongly suggest he used Tiger though. It is significantly more responsive than Panther and especially Jaguar. Areas such as resizing windows, moving with the scrollbar, very basic here...

That said...while a G4 is nice, I'm certain those who have used a G5 can certainly agree with me that if given the option, you would not go back to the G4. Using my iBook at home is an extremely painful experience, you might imagine (coming from my PC). **However...if he simply wants to get a comparable (not an upgrade) to his current system, then yes a G4 will suffice**

I just don't think that he should be using that when G5's are so much more affordable than they were 2 years ago since its launch.

weg
May 30, 2005, 02:24 PM
dotdotdot, I hate to sound like an *******... But have you ever actually USED a mac?

A 1.42 GHz G4 beats the pants off a 1.8 P4.

That's a weird discussion.. what does 'beats the pants off' mean? I've had a PB 1.33GHz (12") and I'm did some computational stuff on it (compiling programs, model checking) and it was definitely NOT faster than my 1.8 GHz P4 at work (the P4 had 1GB of RAM, the PB had 768MB). I have updated to a PB 1.5 12" last week, but I haven't worked on it much yet (well, I'm writing this post on my new Powerbook).
I can't talk about video processing.. however, if the G4 is faster than the P4 depends very much on the application, don't you think?
The G4 is a decent processor.. but it definitely doesn't 'beat the pants off' a x86 P4 1.8GHz.

zach
May 30, 2005, 03:20 PM
I find that using my 1.67 GHz PowerBook (granted, slightly faster than the 1.42 GHz I talked about) is ::much:: snappier than my father's 2.6 GHz P4 (with a gig of RAM in both machines).

I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions so fast, nor used that phrase.

Statement retracted ;)

minimax
May 30, 2005, 03:25 PM
Did it occur to you that Gary did not say he does any video encoding or rendering? How does that have any relevancy at all to this discussion? If he is doing simply email/word processing/browsing, then honestly that kind of performance does not matter. He certainly didn't put that out in his first post.


Excuse me? The original question is about Mac performance versus PC performance. How can the performance of a computer, which is best benchmarked by heavy applications like rendering and encoding, not be relevant to this discussion?
If he actually uses these applications is not relevant, but in order to compare the performance of two different systems, it is.

Besides that your point would only remotely be valid if Gary explicitly mentioned he was expecting to do only very light work on his computer, which he didnt. Now you are just making that assumption to hold your argument together.

nagromme
May 30, 2005, 04:17 PM
Best by far: iMac G5 or PowerMac (costs more, but upgradable GPU etc).

Second-best: eMac but you can't keep the monitor.

A good match for your current machine... but with a better OS and worse graphics board: Mac Mini.

Whatever you get, keep your old drives... they'll mount up on Mac without reformatting. Just get an external USB2 drive case from eshop.macsales.com and you can shuttle stuff back and forth between your two computers easily.

Gary King
May 30, 2005, 04:43 PM
Best by far: iMac G5 or PowerMac (costs more, but upgradable GPU etc).

Second-best: eMac but you can't keep the monitor.

A good match for your current machine... but with a better OS and worse graphics board: Mac Mini.

Whatever you get, keep your old drives... they'll mount up on Mac without reformatting. Just get an external USB2 drive case from eshop.macsales.com and you can shuttle stuff back and forth between your two computers easily.
Are you talking about external drive enclosures?

Mav451
May 30, 2005, 04:50 PM
Are you talking about external drive enclosures?

Yes he is. In fact...it may actually be easier to get a new HD for your Mac, since OSX can read NTFS/FAT32 (but it cannot write to it). This way, you can have a backup drive after you move over your files (media, movies/photos, that sort of thing). The only problem I foresee is files that have extensions with Windows only software. Photoshop/MS Office files should have no problem going from Windows to Mac. Ditto to .mp3, .mpg, .mp4, .avi (you get the picture)

So yes, he does mean an external drive enclosure. They usually have a small fan inside to provide cooling, not to mention that this makes your HD's surprisingly mobile (move them from room-to-room, or even take them with you).

risc
May 30, 2005, 06:15 PM
Which Mac is comparable to my current PC system? Because I don't want to move to a Mac and suddenly feel as though the Mac is slower :)

I know you've said you only have a bit of money but if I was you I'd just save up a bit more cash and get one of the new Rev B iMac G5s they are amazing machines. Why go for something comparable to 3 year old hardware when most of the Macs available today will beat the pants off it??

Or as is suggested above the Rev A iMac G5 1.6 GHz my GF has one of them it's an amazing machine I couldn't really compare it to anything I use at work because the OSes are completely different but it sure seems to run a lot faster than the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz I use at work.

Gary King
May 30, 2005, 09:06 PM
I know you've said you only have a bit of money but if I was you I'd just save up a bit more cash and get one of the new Rev B iMac G5s they are amazing machines. Why go for something comparable to 3 year old hardware when most of the Macs available today will beat the pants off it??

Or as is suggested above the Rev A iMac G5 1.6 GHz my GF has one of them it's an amazing machine I couldn't really compare it to anything I use at work because the OSes are completely different but it sure seems to run a lot faster than the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz I use at work.
Mostly because my current system is more than adequate for what I want to do.

Mav451
May 30, 2005, 09:29 PM
I know you've said you only have a bit of money but if I was you I'd just save up a bit more cash and get one of the new Rev B iMac G5s they are amazing machines. Why go for something comparable to 3 year old hardware when most of the Macs available today will beat the pants off it??

Or as is suggested above the Rev A iMac G5 1.6 GHz my GF has one of them it's an amazing machine I couldn't really compare it to anything I use at work because the OSes are completely different but it sure seems to run a lot faster than the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz I use at work.

This is, I think, an unfair comparison. Playing devil's advocate, b/c I know the G5's are nice, but at my mother's workplace for example (government), they load those computers with so much AV/Firewall/keylogging "security" junk, that it really eats up the RAM. Most of these machines only have 512MB, and some are worse with only 384 or god forbid 256MB.

I'd bet that if those PC's didn't have to load that junk, they'd perform much faster. My friend had a P4 2.8 since my freshmen year, 2002, and that thing was, and is still top of the line. I think one of the Mini's biggest weaknesses is the I/O disadvantage of its laptop drives. If the Mini was slightly bigger, it would be able to natively house a standard size, ATA drive. Yes, you can do FW400/800 but if we are talking about switchers, how many do you know have a FW enclosure? Hmmm?

Hell, I know a few Mac users, and none of them have FW enclosures either, which makes the chances of PC switchers having one even less. Had the Mini had a standard 7200RPM ATA HD (e.g. 160GB), this would not be an issue.

What are the [2] most important factors in "responsiveness" (besides using Tiger of course)?

HD speed (interface: ATA/SATA/SCSI/RAID; rotational speed: 4200/5400/7200/10k; and size).
-All 3 of those are commonly lower on laptop drives
RAM size
-default of 256MB, SO-DIMM's only. This makes your existing DIMM's useless here. More money spent.


Both of these are negatively impacted by using laptop sized components. While, in general, the "headless iMac" need has been satisfied...I see it as only being fully satisfied when we see desktop-sized components in a slightly bigger version.

But maybe I'm in the minority here =D.

solvs
May 31, 2005, 03:00 AM
In fact...it may actually be easier to get a new HD for your Mac, since OSX can read NTFS/FAT32 (but it cannot write to it).
OS X can read and write to FAT32. You can even format a disk as FAT in Disk Utility.

Platform
May 31, 2005, 03:55 AM
That's a weird discussion.. what does 'beats the pants off' mean?

I would think that mean that it "beats" the P4 machine :p ;)

risc
May 31, 2005, 03:57 AM
I'd bet that if those PC's didn't have to load that junk, they'd perform much faster.

Yeah and if you didn't they couldn't safely go online - so yeah NEXT!

weg
May 31, 2005, 04:20 AM
I would think that mean that it "beats" the P4 machine :p ;)

Yeah.. meaning it hits the floor earlier than the PC when you throw both out of a window? :confused:

weg
May 31, 2005, 04:27 AM
Yeah and if you didn't they couldn't safetly go online - so yeah NEXT!

Yeah, I know that Macs are lagging a bit behind with this kind of applications (spyware, etc.), but believe me: Once Macs reach a market share of 10% someone will take care of this... Macs DO have security leaks as well (or do you really think that Apple is providing these updates just for fun?).

Platform
May 31, 2005, 04:39 AM
Yeah.. meaning it hits the floor earlier than the PC when you throw both out of a window? :confused:

Well actually the PC would hit the floor faster = more wight ;)

But I know that a 1.42Ghz G4 is faster than a P4 ;)

The G4 is a very good CPU in terms of efficiency...even better than the G5 ;)

weg
May 31, 2005, 04:45 AM
Well actually the PC would hit the floor faster = more wight ;)


Against all physical laws? ;) (s = g/2*t^2, with g= 9.807 m/s^2)

zyuzin4
May 31, 2005, 04:55 AM
my 800mhz felt comparable to my Athlon XP 1800+ it felt slower than my Athlon XP 2400+ system.

my 1.25 Mac mini with stock ram felt comparable to the XP 2400+ with 1GB of ram though it feels faster.

I recently got a 3100+ processor and now my PC feels a little bit faster again

Platform
May 31, 2005, 06:45 AM
Against all physical laws? ;) (s = g/2*t^2, with g= 9.807 m/s^2)

I don't need a forumla....try dropping a feather and a stone [duh]

Well anyway....if you need a new computer go with an iMac...it can do anything and supports all new apps ;)

deebster
May 31, 2005, 08:43 AM
You want to argue with the law of gravity? Go ahead, but you will lose.

The feather falls slower than the stone because of wind resistance mate. Drop two stones of different weights and *they will hit the ground at the same time*.

As Bill Hicks said, "Not a physics major"

:D

Platform
May 31, 2005, 09:01 AM
You want to argue with the law of gravity? Go ahead, but you will lose.

The feather falls slower than the stone because of wind resistance mate. Drop two stones of different weights and *they will hit the ground at the same time*.

As Bill Hicks said, "Not a physics major"

:D

That is what I'm saying :p