PDA

View Full Version : Why are macs the better choice over PC's?


Arkman_1411
Jun 12, 2003, 02:56 PM
Hello everyone,
I recently joined this post hoping to find some answers. I have been haveing a struggle between choosing a mac or a pc. The reason I am confused is because I am looking for a Laptop and the most I can really spend is $1400 in that price range is the Ibook. Now the Ibook has SD ram and 2x graphics support. Along with a smaller screen. My question is why should I go with that over say a Dell or Gateway?

strider42
Jun 12, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Arkman_1411
Hello everyone,
I recently joined this post hoping to find some answers. I have been haveing a struggle between choosing a mac or a pc. The reason I am confused is because I am looking for a Laptop and the most I can really spend is $1400 in that price range is the Ibook. Now the Ibook has SD ram and 2x graphics support. Along with a smaller screen. My question is why should I go with that over say a Dell or Gateway?

Choose a computer based on what you will be using it for. In some cases a PC would be a better fit for some people. In others macs are better. Do you value how light and thin the notebook is. how about what kind of optical drive it has. Do you want a smaller notebook or a larger one (smaller screen isn't a bad thing for many people) Battery life (plan on not being by a power outlet most of the time or not), ruggedness, other connections like firewire, etc. All of these things are going to be important to evaluate based on what you want to do with the computer. I wouldn't not worry purely about speed specs.

jxyama
Jun 12, 2003, 03:24 PM
i agree. mac is not "automatically" better and vice versa. if you "switch" thinking that a mac will be the answer to all of your computing troubles, you are possibly setting yourself up to be disappointed.

many of us made a conscious decision on using a mac. hence we are here and generally think macs are better. but you need to make the decision yourself. without knowing your needs and desires, it's difficult for us to tell you why macs would be better than pcs for you.

go to an apple store or a compusa and play a little...

yzedf
Jun 12, 2003, 03:44 PM
Right now, a new Centrino laptop (PC) can be had for approx $1400 with no problem. It will have a bigger screen, DDR, 802.11 (b and g) etc etc. Dell is offering 2nd battery for free if you like. Centrino's last 4-8 hrs depending on usage and battery options (real world usage).

iBook is older tech, G3, that can also be had for $1400 no problem. Smaller screen, SDRAM, 802.11b only, extra battery for $129. Battery usage about 4-5 hrs.

Biggest difference besides the system architecture is the OS and the warranty. Apple makes the better OS, Dell seems to have the best warranty service.

In this price range, if you are not planning on doing serious coding / gaming, I would recommend the Mac.

If gaming or coding is a priority, the PC is probably the way to go.

solvs
Jun 12, 2003, 05:02 PM
You could pick up a nice refurbished machine directly from Apple, and use the savings to buy AppleCare. Maybe wait and see if there are price drops in a few weeks. But that does depend on what you want to do. If you want to play games, hate to say it, but you should probably buy a PC. If you're doing some light multimedia, or just web surfing/work proccessing, go with the Mac. Less hassle (not NO hassle, just less). BTW, Centrino's not that great. And in my experiance, iBooks have been a lot sturder and lighter than PC notebooks. ESPECIALLY Dells. Sony has a nice one, but it's expensive (and not THAT nice).

So, yeah, what do you need it for?

Arkman_1411
Jun 12, 2003, 05:15 PM
Thank you for answering my questions, I think I have a better outlook on things now. But if I were to get a PC it would probably be a P4 or a AMD athalon. Yes I would be using it for some games, games like warcraft III or stuff like that. Other than that I am just a student who would be useing it for homework and bringing it between houses. Word Proccesing, some gaming, and digital pictures.:D

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 12, 2003, 05:25 PM
you can game on macs, dont let anyone tell you cant. yeah there is a greater gaming market for the pc but all the top games do come to mac. And by the way my son loves warcraft3(demo) so it will be coming his way to be played on a mac. Macs are easier,more stylish and just plain cool. Add to that the great O.S. this is why they are a better choice.

mrjamin
Jun 12, 2003, 05:37 PM
new macs smell really nice too, pcs don't have a smell.

strider42
Jun 12, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Arkman_1411
Thank you for answering my questions, I think I have a better outlook on things now. But if I were to get a PC it would probably be a P4 or a AMD athalon. Yes I would be using it for some games, games like warcraft III or stuff like that. Other than that I am just a student who would be useing it for homework and bringing it between houses. Word Proccesing, some gaming, and digital pictures.:D

the iBook will handle all that very easily (depending on what games you want to play). Things like digital photos are going to be really easy with iPhoto and the like (the built in software is another thing that sets apple apart). And i personally think that when you look at everything you get, the iBook ends up being very competitively priced, with lots of features while remaining rugged and portable. you may want to go to a store and check them out and compare as someone suggested.

yzedf
Jun 12, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you can game on macs, dont let anyone tell you cant. yeah there is a greater gaming market for the pc but all the top games do come to mac. And by the way my son loves warcraft3(demo) so it will be coming his way to be played on a mac. Macs are easier,more stylish and just plain cool. Add to that the great O.S. this is why they are a better choice.
Oh yeah sure... 3-6 months later. By then the market has shifted to something else.

5300cs
Jun 12, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by mrjamin
new macs smell really nice too, pcs don't have a smell.

THANK YOU- I've been saying that for a while now. Nothing like the smell of a new iBook :)

And for dealing with digital photos and all that, nothing beats a Mac. Photos and such look smooth and sexy with Quartz Extreme, and it comes with iPhoto. I can't honestly see using XP to manage my digital photo collection.
BONUS: in the finder, you can setup views so that the icons for the images are little previews- without having to click on them. In XP they only show as generic icons.

What you are aiming for would be great on a Mac, in my opinion. Head to an Apple store and play around on one.

Hope that helps...

crazzyeddie
Jun 12, 2003, 11:45 PM
By the time you add in software costs that Dell charges extra for, youre talking 150 dollars that you save by getting the Mac. Sure DDR RAM is nice, but its over rated IMO. Plus, 2x AGP wont make a damn bit of difference for alot of the cards put into Dell's "discount" PC's. Sure, it has a 4x AGP interface... but the card doesn't take advantage of it, or it does no good because the card sucks.

redAPPLE
Jun 13, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
Right now, a new Centrino laptop (PC) can be had for approx $1400 with no problem. It will have a bigger screen, DDR, 802.11 (b and g) etc etc. Dell is offering 2nd battery for free if you like. Centrino's last 4-8 hrs depending on usage and battery options (real world usage).

iBook is older tech, G3, that can also be had for $1400 no problem. Smaller screen, SDRAM, 802.11b only, extra battery for $129. Battery usage about 4-5 hrs.



i would just like to say, the ibook is not only 802.11 b. it depends on the airport card you place in the iBook. and naturally, it also would depend on the base station, if the base station can only utilize 802.11b, then your "g" card, won't matter, you'd still get the "b" power.

redAPPLE
Jun 13, 2003, 12:36 AM
<hipnotize> listen to me... listen to me... see my words... buy a mac... buy a mac... it's better than crack... it smells better than crack... buy a mac...</hipnotize>

;)

btw: i don't do crack. just can't find a word that rhymes with mac ;)

anyways... maybe we will here a new switcher story...

skymaXimus
Jun 13, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by mrjamin
new macs smell really nice too, pcs don't have a smell.
I still crack open my 12" powerbook box and take a whiff from time to time. They should make a new mac fragrance for men, or maybe to spray in your car.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Jun 13, 2003, 01:30 AM
i own a first generation titanium g4 laptop, and a 600mhz g3 ibook. i can watch about 2 movies on a single battery on both, and the ibook is ded silent. i mean it's QUIET! my friend's dad has a dell, and it sounds like a frieght train everytime it turns on. as far as gaming goes, i can play wc3 just fine on both. it runs MUCH better if you reboot to os9, but on the g4 it runs fine w/o rebooting.

dunno. it's up to you really. i use ps7 frequently and it runs very fast on both.

for a quick comparison, that friend dad's laptop is 1.6ghz something (p4/athlon...dun care) and my lil ibook runs ps7 just as well. then again, he only has 256mb of ram, whereas my ibook has 384, and the ti-pb has 512....but anyways. the main concern is your OS preference. i think you should go to a store and toy with xp and osx just to see which you like better.

herr_neumann
Jun 13, 2003, 01:37 AM
i would save your cash for a month or two longer (school doesnt start for months, some of us are in finals still) and get the 12in powerbook. With the price drops and a student discount it is definatly worth it. And remember to get your ram third party, apple rapes on ram prices. If you can stretch you budget to 1699.00 (educational discount) get the super drive. Right now they have a rebate going with laptops and the ipod, $200. That makes the 10gig $69.....

PS you can always ebay the ipod to help fund the laptop..

RandomDeadHead
Jun 13, 2003, 02:10 AM
i would just like to say, the ibook is not only 802.11 b. it depends on the airport card you place in the iBook

I don't know what you have been sticking in your iBook but, the ones we have at work will only accept the regular 802.11 b airport cards. That reminds me of something my wife once said, "baby please dont stick THAT in THERE right now because it wont fit"

They should make a new mac fragrance for men, or maybe to spray in your car.

They could call it "Mackin"

gopher
Jun 13, 2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Arkman_1411
Hello everyone,
I recently joined this post hoping to find some answers. I have been haveing a struggle between choosing a mac or a pc. The reason I am confused is because I am looking for a Laptop and the most I can really spend is $1400 in that price range is the Ibook. Now the Ibook has SD ram and 2x graphics support. Along with a smaller screen. My question is why should I go with that over say a Dell or Gateway?

The answer is on:

http://www.macvspc.info/

kettle
Jun 13, 2003, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
Oh yeah sure... 3-6 months later. By then the market has shifted to something else.

This could be a problem if you can only find enjoyment in being "the latest thing", which leads me to wonder which part of the word "gaming" you actually enjoy.

I don't like to condone poor performance, for example - Apple thinking they can charge top dollar for top tech. I think until Mac users decide that paying 3x as much for "game" is a good thing, we shouldn't expect top tech in the form of game software. Until we get to about 25% market and developers can develop on a Mac at half the cost of a PC, then we should just buy a PC to play games on, or any other "one trick pony" console for that matter.

gopher
Jun 13, 2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by kettle
This could be a problem if you can only find enjoyment in being "the latest thing", which leads me to wonder which part of the word "gaming" you actually enjoy.

I don't like to condone poor performance, for example - Apple thinking they can charge top dollar for top tech. I think until Mac users decide that paying 3x as much for "game" is a good thing, we shouldn't expect top tech in the form of game software. Until we get to about 25% market and developers can develop on a Mac at half the cost of a PC, then we should just buy a PC to play games on, or any other "one trick pony" console for that matter.

The performance issue has to do with optimization. The processor on the Macs are plenty capable of outperforming any PC at a comparable price. The problem is developers who don't understand how to utilize altivec for their benefit. That site http://www.macvspc.info/ discusses which has better performance, and given the right optimizations, Macs are 4 to 5 times faster than a comparable PC. If your software developer isn't giving you the full speed you expect, send them to

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html
where they can learn how to optimize for the G4.

yzedf
Jun 13, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by redAPPLE
i would just like to say, the ibook is not only 802.11 b. it depends on the airport card you place in the iBook. and naturally, it also would depend on the base station, if the base station can only utilize 802.11b, then your "g" card, won't matter, you'd still get the "b" power.
*sigh*

I suppose you know that the current iBook has a internal Airport card, of the old style that is 802.11b only. The new Airport Extreme 802.11g cards are mini-PCI (different physical connector). There is no PCMCIA port on the current iBook so you can't go that route either.

http://www.apple.com/ibook/specs.html

http://www.apple.com/airport/specs.html

Gee whiz... the b card still runs at b speeds on a g router? Who'd of thunk dat?!

DeusOmnis
Jun 13, 2003, 11:08 AM
You dont need to get a p4 in order to do gaming unless you're hard core - and if you are you wont be getting a laptop nor be using a small budget like that.

For wordprocessing, we have office - it's great.
iPhoto is like the best app in the world for digital photos.
I play warcraft 3 all the time and it runs great, i'm sure it will run perfectly fine on an ibook.

gopher
Jun 13, 2003, 11:28 AM
Don't forget many Mac retailers offer 6 months same as cash, and up to 5 years financing to purchase a Mac. You don't have to limit yourself to a $1400 Mac if you can afford over 6 months more computer. Visit all these dealers and ask them:

http://www.macprices.com/

whooleytoo
Jun 13, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by gopher
The performance issue has to do with optimization. The processor on the Macs are plenty capable of outperforming any PC at a comparable price. The problem is developers who don't understand how to utilize altivec for their benefit. That site http://www.macvspc.info/ discusses which has better performance, and given the right optimizations, Macs are 4 to 5 times faster than a comparable PC.

Really? I'd be astonished if any Mac was 4 to 5 times faster than a comparable PC at any task! It's been a long time since I've seen any benchmark that claimed this.

And Altivec isn't a "fix all" solution, it only accelerates a select group of tasks (generally, repetitive operations on large vectors/arrays), though it does accelerate them greatly. For a lot of software, Altivec just isn't an option; it's not poor optimization, it just isn't suitable for the task.

Mike.

Independence
Jun 13, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by 5300cs
BONUS: in the finder, you can setup views so that the icons for the images are little previews- without having to click on them. In XP they only show as generic icons.
i don't know where you've been but you CAN do the same thing under windows XP. just like Mac OS X and K Desktop Environment, it just takes a little searching through menus.

MacBoyX
Jun 13, 2003, 12:49 PM
My two cents...

Don't forget about the different factor. I know it sounds dumb but I LIKE the fact that when I go to the coffee shop, I pull out a DIFFERENT machine than everyone else. I like my 12" iBook. It's sweet! It does everything I need it to and then some.

It's a great unit for taking notes, doing homework and playing games. It's fast and does everything I ask it to.

The fact that your posting here shows you are already interested at least in the "different" factor lol.

Also, I am a PC Support person who chose to use a Mac at home. I did this because of 2 things...MacOS X and the desire to spark some new interest in computing. It did both. The OS X/UNIX combo rocks because my Mac never crashes...honestly it never does, an app may die, but I haven't ever had to force reboot mine.

Truly I now have a "love affair" with my computer. I LOVE using my Mac, I LOVE showing it to people, and I really LOVE showing people how fast and fun it is.

To date...of the 200 or so people who have met my iBook...only 3 failed to be impressed by the OS. It just rocks.

Go with the iBook, max out the ram and dont look back!

MacBoyX

gopher
Jun 13, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by whooley
Really? I'd be astonished if any Mac was 4 to 5 times faster than a comparable PC at any task! It's been a long time since I've seen any benchmark that claimed this.

And Altivec isn't a "fix all" solution, it only accelerates a select group of tasks (generally, repetitive operations on large vectors/arrays), though it does accelerate them greatly. For a lot of software, Altivec just isn't an option; it's not poor optimization, it just isn't suitable for the task.

Mike.

Where speed is necessary, Altivec can frequently be coded to make a task faster. Unfortunately most developers don't bother to do this. If they did we wouldn't see complaints on these rumor boards.

Mac OS X though has other things which slow it down and those are covered here, and how to fix them:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

yzedf
Jun 13, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Where speed is necessary, Altivec can frequently be coded to make a task faster. Unfortunately most developers don't bother to do this. If they did we wouldn't see complaints on these rumor boards.

Mac OS X though has other things which slow it down and those are covered here, and how to fix them:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
That would be due to the number of machines without Altivec.

Les Kern
Jun 13, 2003, 02:14 PM
Why are macs the better choice over PC's?

Because I say so.

seamuskrat
Jun 13, 2003, 04:27 PM
The three stage guide to buyng a computer.
IMAGE/EMOTION
Think about each of the following questions. Answer YES or NO.
1) I am a leader, I like to be different, think different and act different.
2) Style and looks are importsnt to me. I like white and metal.
3) Productivity is key, having a pleasent environment to work in is often preferable to raw speed at the exspence of elegance,
4) I am not in the mood for hassles. I like things to work when I plug them in, and I need a dependable system that just DOES IT.
5) i consider myself trendy, fashionable, or cool.
6) I want to puke at the sight of Bill Gates and/or Micheal Dell.
USES/PRACTICAL
1) I use the machine for general office style applications, web surfing, online games, quality games (not cuting edge), music, photos and email.
2) Having fewer choices of better quality is better than many choices of lesser quality software.
3) I want a machine that my grandma could pick up in a few hours.
4) I do not liek to encounter problems when installign drivers.

FEATURES
1) innovation is cool
2) I like useful elegance over clunkyness
3) USB is for mice and printers, while Firewire is for burnes and data
4) An all around day for me includes using my laptop in school, carrying in a backpack, watching video and using software all without a plug nearby.

So, if you answerd YES to more than 6 you WANT A MAC.

Seriously, the above is a NON-SCIENTIFIC joke!

An iBook is a great little machine.
The current models have excelletn batterey life, are rather durable, can play games quite wel. When yo consider the majority ofgames are written to be compatible with the PC baseline of a GeForce 2 MX at 16 megs fo RAM, you should be all set with your iBook. Of course, more is better in this regard, but avoid SHARED video ram at ALL COSTS. iBoos comes with builtin wireless ability, USB, firewire. Not every laptop does. The screen is small but so is the machine. It hooks up to an external monitor just fine, and often, the resoluton of the 12 inch screen is the SAME as may 14 and 15 PC laptops. So you see the same amount of realestate, just in a more crisp smaller package.
The built in apps with OS X are truly unique. I have co-workers that have NEVER made a movie before and managed to make a decent film with iMovie on the first try. Its rather intuative, IMHO.
OS X is proving to be stable and robust. I notice ZERO speed issues on a modern Mac.
Lack of software. This depends. Often the newest versions of games and other apps will come to a PC first. In the case of games, consider yourself lucky. 9 out of 10 new suck. So, figure the ones that make it to Mac are the good ones. Many publishers do have Mac versions (Think Blizzard) at the same or very soon timeline. Office for Mac plays nice with Office for windows. There are nearly always excellent Mac solutions to any niche where a PC has software. Not always the SAME solution but often very good alternatives.
Downside to the iBook. Its a G3, so no altivec- Although Altivec is NOT the magic Pentium eater some think, it does have it uses. That said, most stuff does just fine without it and the G3 is quite a chip- even though somehere think its Old tech.
No one can truly tell you what machine will work best. I have usd Macs since 1984 and I prefer them. I also use PCs so i have a valid comparison. Macs have their moments, so do not think that Macs are problem free. But I can assure you they are far fewer in frequency and far less sever.
Good luck. Choose wisely ;-)

acj
Jun 13, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Arkman_1411
Thank you for answering my questions, I think I have a better outlook on things now. But if I were to get a PC it would probably be a P4 or a AMD athalon. Yes I would be using it for some games, games like warcraft III or stuff like that. Other than that I am just a student who would be useing it for homework and bringing it between houses. Word Proccesing, some gaming, and digital pictures.:D

The Pentium-M is a spectacular CPU. Buying anything else is old technology. Still, don't believe all the super battery claims. The Dell might only get 2 hours while gaming. It does do well for DVD watching and regular work. Better than the Macs.

Here's the thing. There are a few very good PC notebooks, even for reasonable cost. All the Mac notebooks are a good choice. So if you go PC, choose carefully, and NEVER buy a no name brand.

question fear
Jun 13, 2003, 05:35 PM
Here's the thing. There are a few very good PC notebooks, even for reasonable cost. All the Mac notebooks are a good choice. So if you go PC, choose carefully, and NEVER buy a no name brand.

well said.
I spent roughly a semester researching for a laptop, and i would have to agree...there is nothing good at the price point of an ibook, and even with applecare it came out point for point better than slightly more expensive computers with worse warranties. i had a very hard time finding a thin and light comp with firewire, a 12 in screen, decent battery life and something equivalent to the unix terminal (if i had gone pc i was thinking about setting up a partition for linux)-the only thin and light i foudn that was remotely comporable was fujitsu's lifebook series, and apparently fujitsu has terrible tech suppport....also, they wont send you the windows disks (or so ive read-so if windows breaks you have to send it back to them to fix it....or buy a new copy for gobs of money.)
anyhow, ibook good.
my roommate just informed me she thinks its attached to my legs.
teehee.
--carly

Cubeboy
Jun 13, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Where speed is necessary, Altivec can frequently be coded to make a task faster. Unfortunately most developers don't bother to do this. If they did we wouldn't see complaints on these rumor boards.

Mac OS X though has other things which slow it down and those are covered here, and how to fix them:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

So can SSE2, SSE, MMX, and any other instruction sets built into a microprocessor and by very large margins, you can develop compilers specifically for a processor, heck you can even write programs specifically for a certain processor (programs that are branch heavy will generally run faster on a processor with smaller mispredict penalties, and vice versa assuming higher clock rates on a comparable processors with larger mispredict penalties) the thing is, you can specially optimize the code all you want, it doesn't change the processing power of the core itself, and thats the problem right now. In terms of processing power, the G4 processor itself is simply too slow to compete with the current Pentium 4s and Athlons, slow to the point that it has serious problems competing with the P4 and Athlon even when using dual processors and specially optimized programs like photoshop. Now I can just as easily bring out some SSE2 optimized, single threaded program specially developed for the Pentium 4 and somehow reach a conclusion that the Pentium 4 is somewhere around 7 times faster than a G4 but that simply doesn't give the overall picture now does it? In terms of actual processing power, a Pentium 4 isn't anywhere near 7 times, in fact the only way your going to get that is by putting special code or "optimizing" your program for that specific processor. See my point?

ilben77
Jun 13, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by 5300cs
BONUS: in the finder, you can setup views so that the icons for the images are little previews- without having to click on them. In XP they only show as generic icons.



Funny how some people on this forum totally have no idea what they are talking about. "In XP they only show as generic icons"

In Xp there are many options to chose from how you want the os to show the views of images in a window; filmstrip, thumbnails, tiles, icons, list and details.

Filmstrip, shows the selected image large and it resizes itself if you change the size of the window, all the other images are shown in thumbnails laid out as a filmstrip beneath. It is a great way to browse through your images inside a folder.

Thumbnails does what is says, it shows all your images as thumbnails inside the window.

Tiles; makes tiled columns of your images and shows them as icons, if you select and icon, a thumbnail will be displayed in the lower leftside of the window under details.

Icons; shows all images as icons and again once selected a thumbnail will be displayed in the lower leftside of the window under details

List; shows all images in a list, once selected a thumbnail will be displayed in the lower leftside of the window under details

Details; shows all images in a detailed list with info regarding to; name, size, date, type and dimensions. and again once selected also a thumbnail will be displayed in in the lower leftside of the window under details

I love the filmstrip feature which is a great and very easy way to browse through your images, wish apple would also implement something that would make browsing through my images on my PB simpler.

gopher
Jun 13, 2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
So can SSE2, SSE, MMX, and any other instruction sets built into a microprocessor and by very large margins, you can develop compilers specifically for a processor, heck you can even write programs specifically for a certain processor (programs that are branch heavy will generally run faster on a processor with smaller mispredict penalties, and vice versa assuming higher clock rates on a comparable processors with larger mispredict penalties) the thing is, you can specially optimize the code all you want, it doesn't change the processing power of the core itself, and thats the problem right now. In terms of processing power, the G4 processor itself is simply too slow to compete with the current Pentium 4s and Athlons, slow to the point that it has serious problems competing with the P4 and Athlon even when using dual processors and specially optimized programs like photoshop. Now I can just as easily bring out some SSE2 optimized, single threaded program specially developed for the Pentium 4 and somehow reach a conclusion that the Pentium 4 is somewhere around 7 times faster than a G4 but that simply doesn't give the overall picture now does it? In terms of actual processing power, a Pentium 4 isn't anywhere near 7 times, in fact the only way your going to get that is by putting special code or "optimizing" your program for that specific processor. See my point?
I see your point but it is a faulty one in that the core of the Pentium IV has the problem of more stages meaning code branches that have errors are more likely to stall on the processor than on the G4 which has nearly three times less stages. A G4 will be finished with many tasks and bottlenecking much less on errors than a Pentium IV. Not to mention the G4 is a true RISC instruction set, meaning processes will be optimized even further even at the core, without the help of specialized instructions. Mhz doesn't give you the entire picture of even the core processor functions. Once you start considering stages, the G4 does more faster with less overhead to obstruct it.

Cubeboy
Jun 13, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by gopher
I see your point but it is a faulty one in that the core of the Pentium IV has the problem of more stages meaning code branches that have errors are more likely to stall on the processor than on the G4 which has nearly three times less stages. A G4 will be finished with many tasks and bottlenecking much less on errors than a Pentium IV. Not to mention the G4 is a true RISC instruction set, meaning processes will be optimized even further even at the core, without the help of specialized instructions. Mhz doesn't give you the entire picture of even the core processor functions. Once you start considering stages, the G4 does more faster with less overhead to obstruct it.

Apparently, it is not a faulty one, benchmark after benchmark used to measure core performance seem to prove that the Pentium 4 on the core level is indeed faster than the G4. This is all easily reflected in the difference in performance you see in unoptimized cpu intensive programs (games, scientific apps. engineering apps, HPC).

More stages means a greater penalty for a mispredict, thats assuming the processor will mispredict, the Pentium 4 has 4096 entries in it's Branch History Table, twice the number of entries the G4 has, combine that with the trace catch concept used by the Pentium 4 and you'll find that the Pentium 4 is far less likely to mispredict a branch than the G4 in the first place. It's ironic really, the current G4+ itself has far more stages than original G4, and yet by all accounts, it definitely outperforms the original, makes you wonder if pipeline is everything Apple sets it out to be.

Really, from a logical standpoint theirs only two aspects to processor performance

1) Instructions Per Cycle or IPC, commonly referred to as "efficiency", it's basically the number of instructions a cpu can execute and retire in one clock cycle. It's determined by a varierty of aspects (pipeline, branch prediction, fsb, latency, cache size etc etc).

2) Cycles Per Second or Hz, the number of cycles a processor can go through in one second, nowadays measured in millions of cycles (MHz) or billions of cycles (GHz).

The Pentium 4 can issue and retire up to 2 instructions per cycle (a typical x86 instruction is 1.5 micro-ops 3/1.5=2) and can go through up to 3066 cycles every second.

A G4 can issue and retire up to 3 instructions per cycle and can go through 1450 cycles every second.

Of course, not all instructions are equal and sustained values vary depending on the program so this is where benchmarks come in.

On the contrary the G4 isn't a "true" RISC instruction set, it actually has a relatively large instruction set compared to "true" RISC chips like the Alpha 21164.

Another contrary point, RISC chips actually put a greater burden on the software since the CPU is capable of executing only a very limited set of instructions.

Of course, current x86 chips are to some degree RISC. Both the Pentium 4 and Athlon have only one CISC external layer.

5300cs
Jun 13, 2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Independence
i don't know where you've been but you CAN do the same thing under windows XP. just like Mac OS X and K Desktop Environment, it just takes a little searching through menus.

:rolleyes: I've been using XP. and I don't want to "search through menus".. that's one of the reasons why the whole windows line has been so brain-damaging: one wastes a lot of time sifting through numerous menus. In Jaguar all I have to do is go to View>Show View Options or command-J That's a lot more intuitive than rooting around in menus.

Can XP then show those image previews at 128x128 ?

Independence
Jun 13, 2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by 5300cs
:rolleyes: I've been using XP. and I don't want to "search through menus".. that's one of the reasons why the whole windows line has been so brain-damaging: one wastes a lot of time sifting through numerous menus. In Jaguar all I have to do is go to View>Show View Options or command-J That's a lot more intuitive than rooting around in menus.

Can XP then show those image previews at 128x128 ?
really? all i have to do is go to view and select an option on my windows 2000 system. in case you dont believe me, you can find a screenshot at http://members.lycos.co.uk/independence55/win2k.png. windows xp has more options. so don't give me any of that "mac rulez cuz windoze blowz" garbage. windows isn't entirely bad just like mac os x isn't entirely good. there isn't a perfect operating system or platform.

note: quality of the image has been greatly reduced to decrease loading times.
note2: the green->blue color of the title bars are my own preferences so don't try to use that as ammunition.

gopher
Jun 14, 2003, 06:48 AM
If you are doing multimedia apps

http://www.apple.com/itunes
http://www.apple.com/idvd
http://www.apple.com/iphoto
http://www.apple.com/imovie

are the epiphany of simplicity for their field, and all have been highly regarded by the industry. Simplicity means you spend less time trying to find how to get things done, and more time getting things done. Regardless of benchmarks, they can't measure the result of simplicity on applications which is getting things done quicker. All the above applications are only found on the Mac.

And while emulation at first is slower on the Mac, if you save state, you can restart the PC environment in a split second with VirtualPC. A lot faster than going over to another computer and turning it on. You can do this with as many as 12 different PC compatible environments all of different operating systems with VirtualPC.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Jun 14, 2003, 02:48 PM
....all of you be quiet....

dude, listen, just got to a store, check out a computer with osx on it and a computer with xp on it. see which you like better. buy it. go home. have fun. send me a dollar.

gopher
Jun 14, 2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
....all of you be quiet....

dude, listen, just got to a store, check out a computer with osx on it and a computer with xp on it. see which you like better. buy it. go home. have fun. send me a dollar.
To second what G3-Pwnz says, you can find Apple retail stores here:
http://www.apple.com/retail

or go to http://www.apple.com/buy
authorized resellers near you.

Abstract
Jun 14, 2003, 07:23 PM
Why are Macs better than PC's? In most cases, they're not. It doesn't sound like it makes a big difference which laptop you choose for your needs. WinXP is reliable. Mac OSX is reliable. I think the iBook is the best laptop you can get at its price. For that price, you won't get a better PC laptop. This is why you want an Apple laptop.

Many people here will tell you about the "cool" factor, and the fact that "I enjoy pulling out a machine that's different than everyone elses". Its fairly shallow to buy a machine simply because you think it makes you look "cool", but lets face it, a computer doesn't make you cool. Its Mac Geek Speak to say that they enjoy the "coolness" factor of a Mac. Why purchase a computer for such a reason --- to show off? If you really want people to stare at you because of your computer, then go ahead, but I think its vain. Again, the iBook is competitive on a performance basis with PC laptops within it's price range, and has its strengths over a PC laptop. THIS is why you should consider an iBook.

Buy a PC laptop if you're seriously considering playing games on it.

gopher
Jun 14, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Abstract
Why are Macs better than PC's? In most cases, they're not. It doesn't sound like it makes a big difference which laptop you choose for your needs. WinXP is reliable. Mac OSX is reliable. I think the iBook is the best laptop you can get at its price. For that price, you won't get a better PC laptop. This is why you want an Apple laptop.

Many people here will tell you about the "cool" factor, and the fact that "I enjoy pulling out a machine that's different than everyone elses". Its fairly shallow to buy a machine simply because you think it makes you look "cool", but lets face it, a computer doesn't make you cool. Its Mac Geek Speak to say that they enjoy the "coolness" factor of a Mac. Why purchase a computer for such a reason --- to show off? If you really want people to stare at you because of your computer, then go ahead, but I think its vain. Again, the iBook is competitive on a performance basis with PC laptops within it's price range, and has its strengths over a PC laptop. THIS is why you should consider an iBook.

Buy a PC laptop if you're seriously considering playing games on it.

I wouldn't relegate all games to just PC laptops. There are plenty of good Mac games http://www.apple.com/games/

and numerous other Mac gaming sites:
http://www.macgamer.com/features/futurereleases/index.php
http://www.macgamer.com/
http://www.macgamefiles.com/
http://www.aspyr.com/
http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/0
http://www.idevgames.com/
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/games
http://www.versiontracker.com/macos/games
http://www.macupdate.com/games.php
http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Abstracts/game/HyperArchive.html

If games is what you want, you can get them on the Mac. People forget that once PC users criticized the Mac for just being a gaming machine. And they still can be.