Article: Confessions of a soon-to-be ex-Mac user

[patrick0brien]

-All

Interesting take. Though methinks he's short on patience, understanding, not a big-picture fellow (how well it works), not very well informed (WWDC Next week), and not to mention histrionic.

Article (http://homepage.mac.com/dtournemille/resume/writing/column_mac_switch.html)

I can see his points, but he stops short of really thinking them all the way through.

Yes, Macs selling now are slower than PC's selling now. Note I said now. In a year, we'll be talking about those selling then. The speed difference is always a moving discussion. Besides, he's a writer. How much speed does he need?!?

Expensive? Clearly he's no experience in accounting. TCO buddy!

And I don't see a mention of OS X other than "adopt Unix as the base for Apple's modern operating system"

"welcoming PC-born technologies such as USB and Bluetooth into their home." - Umm. Who was the first to use them? And integrate them into their machines? "PC-born"? That's stretching it reeeeal thin guy!

He seems frustrated, and wants to share it with the world, but his logic seems only half-baked.

You think he's writing that to drum up hits and perhaps is using it to pinch a new Mac from his editors?

What do you guys think?

[unc32]

who cares? that is opinion and no matter how flawed his critical thinking and arguements are he isn't going to change. His problem.

[nuckinfutz]

What better than to joine the washed masses by writing typical anti Mac Pap.

Funny he makes his decision the weekend before WWDC which basically should announce Apples nextgen hardware.

Frankly I don't care about whether he buys a Mac, PC or HP Calculator but I do like good writing and this just ain't it.

[applemacdude]

Hmm, ten years. Has some points, Even though theyre more expensive x pays for that. Hes just lost. Forget him

[Daveman Deluxe]

I agree with you, patrick. His whole argument seems half-baked. I'm amazed that he quotes the top bus speed of the Mac being 167 MHz while Wintel buses are 533 MHz... but fails to mention that EVERY component on a Wintel system is sharing that bus, while the Mac puts at most a couple of devices on the bus.

That said, it is sadly true that a 1 GHz iMac will be slower than the Dell he is planning on buying. But when you consider the ASDF (Average Slowdown Due to Frustration) he's probably coming out on top of the game with the Mac.

As for the website issue... I've had a total of two problems in my entire Mac history getting a website to load. One of the websites has since been reprogrammed (although I got it to work with Camino), and the other worked since the second public beta of Safari came out.

That said, he is entitled to his opinion and I doubt anything we can say or do will change his mind. In the end, if he decides he is wrong and that after a year of using a PC he longs for a Mac, he will return to the fold.

Edit:

More about the bus issue:
A 167 MHz bus on a 1 GHz G4 will have the same clock multiplier (6x) as a 533 MHz bus on a 3 GHz P4. As a result, the same amount of data per clock cycle gets fed into the processor whether you have the former or the latter. The moral of the story: don't open your mouth about hardware design when you know nothing about hardware design.

"Fuh fuh superscalar megahertz on the pipelined CMOS bus fuh fuh."

[astray]

His argument is somewhat reasonable, the megahertz myth is a lie when compared to modern pc's (come on G5), however what really bugs me is when people have rendering issues with browsers. For a long time Microsoft have flouted W3C rules for CSS etc, by not implementing them correctly. The result most web sites are optimised for IE and any browser which follows the rules doesnt display them correctly. Indeed MS proved there bully-boy tactics when they blocked Opera users from seeing the normal Msn page, redirecting them to a lower quality version despite Opera being able to render the site properly. Normally i have no beefs with MS but i don't think they should have this much power over the internet.

astray

[patrick0brien]

-Daveman Deluxe

Thank you for the additional perspective.

We see this crap all of the time, though rarely from a fellow Mac user.

What really gets me is that the sheep read this drivel and take it for gospel - especially when it is written by a Mac user.

[GulGnu]

My take:

1. I surfed the websites he mentioned with Safari - worked swell. Perhaps there was some content deeper down that was problematic? Who knows.

2. The WWDC will hopefully make the speed discussion less relevant.

3. Well, 533 MHz busses are yesterdays tech on Intels, to be fair, 800MHz is hitting the whole line currently.

4. Well, I think I had another point, but nm =P

/GulGnu

[5300cs]

Is he really a Mac user? The generalizations he makes and comparisons to peecees make me think he's just pretending to be one. I would think a real Mac user (one that's been using Mac as long as he claimed) would know something about the 970 and have more faith in the company. Mac users on the whole know about their hardware, much more so than peecee users (at least, in my experience this has always been true.)
I agree his logic is flawed and his arguments are just weak.
I guess we're all in the "internet ghetto".. hahaha
:rolleyes: moron

[janey]

my lord..what a MORON
doesn't know s*it about anything but has the nerve to say all that :rolleyes:
his rant is so one-sided and so biased against Apple that I'm surprised that he is a Mac user.
His major mistake: he has an iMac DV. He complains that OS X won't run like OS 9 on it. Well, if you had a PC as old as the iMac DV would you be able to run Windows XP on it and would it be as fast as Windows 95/98?
I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!
thank god he's switching to a PC. the mac community doesn't need people like him :rolleyes:

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by übergeek
my lord..what a MORON
doesn't know s*it about anything but has the nerve to say all that :rolleyes:
his rant is so one-sided and so biased against Apple that I'm surprised that he is a Mac user.
His major mistake: he has an iMac DV. He complains that OS X won't run like OS 9 on it. Well, if you had a PC as old as the iMac DV would you be able to run Windows XP on it and would it be as fast as Windows 95/98?
I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!
thank god he's switching to a PC. the mac community doesn't need people like him :rolleyes:

Ummm... I bought a 1 Ghz AMD the same time my friend bought his iMac DV... Windows XP runs fantasic on mine :)

[whawho]

What a shame... I don't know.. I had started with windows and used that platform 3 years before I ever used a mac-->He sounds more like a windows user posing to be a mac user.... maybe he's trying to be on the "new winblows switch" campaign... :rolleyes:

[iJon]

i like his last paragraph regarding the g5, maybe he will rewrite that monday, he will just have to wait and see like the rest of us. if nothing changes all i have to say is bye, noboy is missing you.

iJon

[job]

Originally posted by übergeek

thank god he's switching to a PC. the mac community doesn't need people like him :rolleyes:

And the rest of the tech community wonders why Apple users are so elitist... :p :rolleyes:

[JackRipper]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I bought a 1 Ghz AMD the same time my friend bought his iMac DV... Windows XP runs fantasic on mine :)

Umm, yeah, but the iMac DV wasn't brand new at that time and if you're going to compare pcs to macs, at least compare them in the same category...
A 1 Ghz PC ( at the time ) was NOT an entry level consumer pc (400 Mhz) with more memory, disk space and a dvd-rom (which I bet that PC didn't come with)..... It was more close to the top of the line pc at the time, right??

I say ( like a few others have ) good riddance to bad rubbish.
And I feel the same about anyone that has used both and still prefer the PC for any reason. Using ANYTHING because everyone else is doing it is childish.

I have used Macintosh computers for longer than most here ( notice I said most, props to my long standing peeps out there, keep the faith ) and Apple and their products have been nothing but what they claim to be. How many currently running 16 Mhz Pcs do you know of that still run the way they did when they were bought? I know of at least one and it runs the best os available to 16 Mhz pcs ( Mac OS 7.5, which some would argue is better still than OS X )

I personally have an iMac 233 Rev A, and while I won't suffer through OS X on it, I revel in the fact that when I can afford a new mac ( in about 8 months ) I am going to have to find new ways to spend my time on it because it is going to be the fastest computer out there, even if it's just a measly 2 GHZ 970. The megahertz myth is TRULY a myth, anyone with experience on comparable computers can tell you that!

I have to agree with patrick0brien when he said
What really gets me is that the sheep read this drivel and take it for gospel - especially when it is written by a Mac user.

People like Dale Tournemille should not be given the priviledge of a podium to voice his opinion. I'm sure his lies gained him that priviledge!

Sorry, for the rant. I just can't swallow this type of crap anymore ( Don't get me started on MicroSoft ).

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by JackRipper
I have used Macintosh computers for longer than most here ( notice I said most, props to my long standing peeps out there, keep the faith ) and Apple and their products have been nothing but what they claim to be. How many currently running 16 Mhz Pcs do you know of that still run the way they did when they were bought? I know of at least one and it runs the best os available to 16 Mhz pcs ( Mac OS 7.5, which some would argue is better still than OS X )

I personally have an iMac 233 Rev A, and while I won't suffer through OS X on it, I revel in the fact that when I can afford a new mac ( in about 8 months ) I am going to have to find new ways to spend my time on it because it is going to be the fastest computer out there, even if it's just a measly 2 GHZ 970. The megahertz myth is TRULY a myth, anyone with experience on comparable computers can tell you that!

1) My first Mac was a Mac II with a 256-color graphics card. Screwed that one over with a ResEdit hack (edited a copy of the Finder with a "guaranteed" hack. Wouldn't restart, so I couldn't even replace the clean copy. No Disk Tools disk. Whoops!) I still remember playing Tristan, Crystal Caliburn, and Crystal Quest on that thing. It rox0red!

2) The Megahertz Myth still is a myth... but in all honesty, it doesn't stretch far enough to make up the difference between a 1.42 GHz G4e and a 3.06 GHz P4 in performance for the average user. However, OS X runs much leaner than XP does and all of those 1.42 GHz G4s are dualies. The problem is that the P4 kills the G4 in integer performance. That's why the Mac works better for Photoshoppers and 3D rendering. The G4 easily outstrips the P4, cycle for cycle, in FPU and vector operations. Unfortunately, it appears that unless the PPC 970 can maintain a roughly 2:3 clock speed ratio with the P4, the 970 will be the loser on integer execution as well.

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by JackRipper
Umm, yeah, but the iMac DV wasn't brand new at that time and if you're going to compare pcs to macs, at least compare them in the same category...
A 1 Ghz PC ( at the time ) was NOT an entry level consumer pc (400 Mhz) with more memory, disk space and a dvd-rom (which I bet that PC didn't come with)..... It was more close to the top of the line pc at the time, right??

I say ( like a few others have ) good riddance to bad rubbish.
And I feel the same about anyone that has used both and still prefer the PC for any reason. Using ANYTHING because everyone else is doing it is childish.

I have used Macintosh computers for longer than most here ( notice I said most, props to my long standing peeps out there, keep the faith ) and Apple and their products have been nothing but what they claim to be. How many currently running 16 Mhz Pcs do you know of that still run the way they did when they were bought? I know of at least one and it runs the best os available to 16 Mhz pcs ( Mac OS 7.5, which some would argue is better still than OS X )

I personally have an iMac 233 Rev A, and while I won't suffer through OS X on it, I revel in the fact that when I can afford a new mac ( in about 8 months ) I am going to have to find new ways to spend my time on it because it is going to be the fastest computer out there, even if it's just a measly 2 GHZ 970. The megahertz myth is TRULY a myth, anyone with experience on comparable computers can tell you that!

I have to agree with patrick0brien when he said


People like Dale Tournemille should not be given the priviledge of a podium to voice his opinion. I'm sure his lies gained him that priviledge!

Sorry, for the rant. I just can't swallow this type of crap anymore ( Don't get me started on MicroSoft ).

Just to clarify, he was the one making the analogy... but to be honest, I paid exactly the same amount that my friend did for his computer... :(

[JackRipper]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Just to clarify, he was the one making the analogy... but to be honest, I paid exactly the same amount that my friend did for his computer... :(
Yeah, once again, sorry about that. I had a rough night and that article set me off!

The price difference is disappointing to say the least, I'm now very interested in how the new PMs are going to be priced. *crosses fingers*

[sparkleytone]

If the G5 should suddenly come to Apple's rescue, pushing the price of a 1.4 Ghz G4 down substantially, then maybe I will reconsider. But it's doubtful that will happen anytime soon. And it certainly wouldn't solve the compatibility issue.

the loser gave himself an out. and it leaked the night he posted the article. so haha. way to get into a tizzie for nothing mr. bad writer guy.

[JackRipper]

Great new sig, sparkley! I wonder if anyone has fallen for that yet? :D

[matthew24]

Talking about timing, this is the worst timing to leave the Apple platform ever, see you all on the party coming monday!

[iindigo]

I run Jag on an indigo iMac DV 400 and don't think it runs bad at all. But, you've got to remember, I haven't been on a G4 yet. ;)

[chicagdan]

As someone who writes for a living, what I find most ridiculous about this column is the obsession about computer speed ... for a writer? What the hell does he need a 4 Ghz machine for if he's writing? Is he looking for some procrastination friendly games? Is he looking to change careers and become a video editor?

Personally, I think the 12" G4 PB is the greatest computer ever made for writers ... not only is it light, it has the best laptop keyboard I've ever used. And it runs MS Word, Final Draft or any other piece of writing software any magazine, studio or publisher would want you to use. And it's no more expensive than Windows laptops (I won't say similarly equipped, because there are no similarly equipped in the Windows world.)

As for his complaints about the iMac's price, it's a completely unique product ... please, find me a Windows machine with a 17", landscape, fully-adjustable screen. Any hard-working writer would love the way you can shift into any position on your chair and still have a perfect straight-on view with a small nudge of the screen.

I switched less than two years ago and I think the two Macs I own are the best career tools I've ever bought. Apple design trumps megahertz for me ... I couldn't care less that I can't render video as quickly on my PB as on a Dell.

[janey]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I bought a 1 Ghz AMD the same time my friend bought his iMac DV... Windows XP runs fantasic on mine :)
like jackripper said, i highly doubt that your PC was a sorta low-end, not so new computer. It might run Windows XP pretty well but will it run Windows XP as well as a 3ghz Pentium 4? Or on a dual Xeon machine? I highly doubt it. An iMac DV can run OS X, but not as well as a top of the line Power Mac or a high end flat panel iMac.
This moron isn't thinking. He's comparing the price of some high end Macs to some low end Dell PC's. That's pretty stupid.
Mac users aren't elitist. I suppose we're just like this because we have no need for people like him.

[GETOFDZNTZ]

well this guy needs to learn how to spell "Later, my LC 475 screamed along as a watched QuickTime clips and clicked about a snappy OS 7." as "I" not a, or is it? Then the websites he mentions are canadian, no offense to our canadian buddies, but that would only mostly affect the canadian users trying to access them, not the WHOLE rest of the WORLD. And as a writer, how many programs could he really use? it's not like if he needs to use quark for writing his articles and photoshop to make sure his paragraphs look good. Anyone heard of him before???

[ibookin']

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I bought a 1 Ghz AMD the same time my friend bought his iMac DV... Windows XP runs fantasic on mine :)

I have an AMD Athlon XP 1.46GHz (1700+) and it does not run XP "fantastic" with all the eye candy on. My iMac G4 700 was introduced around the same time I bought my Athlon and I consider the iMac to be a much more capable machine in terms of OS "snapiness" with all the eye candy on. You should see resizing non-browser windows on my PC vs. the Mac. XP is much, much slower interface-wise than 2K was for me, granted.

By the way, my PC is now headless and only used through RDC and as a file server. Long live the Mac!

[janey]

Originally posted by ibookin'
By the way, my PC is now headless and only used through RDC and as a file server. Long live the Mac!
congrats! it took you a long time...:p

[buffsldr]

I had no ideas SARS had neurological effects as well. J/K

My response... who cares. Do I approach the guy in the markey buying Dannon and tell him why I like Yoplait? Yes, I understand all the reasons that analogy is lame, but at the same time, buy/use what you like. I guess I am curious as to why he wrote such an article. Although I will say it does give a writer some attention, and that may be desireable for him. Hmmm.

I am going to sign off, assuming that all of you don't really care what product switches I have made as of late.

-BuffSldr

[adamcz]

It's really immature of you guys to think that anybody who expects different things from their computer is an idiot. I agree with most of the points this writer made, and I know some of you kids think that makes me an asshole, and that's fine.

Thing is, I have slightly more than $1,500 to spend on a new computer next week, and from Dell I can get a machine with 3Ghz P4/512M DDR/128M graphics.

The way things stand, it would $3,000 to get similar mac hardware (Dual 1.4/512/128), and as much as I want to use OS X and those nice "i" programs (trust me, I really do want to stay a mac user!) I can't spend $1,000 extra for that privelage.

I don't use Maya or Photoshop, but I do play video games, and when I spend $1,500+ on a computer (the biggest purchase I'll make this year) I need it to at least run current games at full settings. From what I've read on here the 1Ghz G4 systems don't do that, but I know for sure that P4 3Ghz systems do.

I really hope that whatever hardware Steve announces on Monday allows me to stay a mac user. Maybe the pricing of the G5 systems will push the Dual G4's into my price range.

By the way, if I do get a windows machine, is Dell a good way to go?

Thanks for not flaming.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by adamcz
By the way, if I do get a windows machine, is Dell a good way to go?

-adamcz

It's ok. It's a Chevy. Personally I prefer IBM machines as they are the most compatible with Windows. They's also fairly tough.

Infortunately, Windows will still slow down on you whatever machine you get.

[janey]

Originally posted by adamcz
I don't use Maya or Photoshop, but I do play video games, and when I spend $1,500+ on a computer (the biggest purchase I'll make this year) I need it to at least run current games at full settings. From what I've read on here the 1Ghz G4 systems don't do that, but I know for sure that P4 3Ghz systems do.
By the way, if I do get a windows machine, is Dell a good way to go?
i just really felt like flaming you until...
okay, if you're not gonna use something like PS or Maya, but you play video games, go for Dell, Alienware (similar to apple in the PC world, they have very pricey but nice and top of the line computers), Sony or your own custom built gaming PC. Macs were never meant for gaming.
Dell has good tech support. That's about it.

Oh you may think his comments are immature, however i'm serious when i say that his ignorance is dripping from every sentence...it's like he's trying to write an entire book about computers with the feeble knowledge of computers that he has. He's also comparing computers and technologies that have nothing to do with each other or else one's so much older than the other...Eh, we'll just have to wait until WWDC...he'll come crawling back to us on his knees *evil smile*

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
The Megahertz Myth still is a myth... but in all honesty, it doesn't stretch far enough to make up the difference between a 1.42 GHz G4e and a 3.06 GHz P4 in performance for the average user. However, OS X runs much leaner than XP does and all of those 1.42 GHz G4s are dualies. The problem is that the P4 kills the G4 in integer performance. That's why the Mac works better for Photoshoppers and 3D rendering. The G4 easily outstrips the P4, cycle for cycle, in FPU and vector operations. Unfortunately, it appears that unless the PPC 970 can maintain a roughly 2:3 clock speed ratio with the P4, the 970 will be the loser on integer execution as well.

The Pentium 4 and G4 can both issue only one floating point instruction every cycle, the Athlon is at a advantage here as it can issue up to three floating point instructions every cycle, the Pentium 4 can issue 4 single vector instructions or 2 double vector instructions every clock cycle, while the G4 can issue anywhere 2-4 single vector instructions every clockcycle depending on the conditions.

Considering that most integer code is branch heavy, the Pentium 4 is actually at a disadvantage here although it's integer issue rate (3 sustained instructions per cycle) is on par with that of the G4 and Athlon making it will still come out on top in most integer code.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
More about the bus issue:
A 167 MHz bus on a 1 GHz G4 will have the same clock multiplier (6x) as a 533 MHz bus on a 3 GHz P4. As a result, the same amount of data per clock cycle gets fed into the processor whether you have the former or the latter. The moral of the story: don't open your mouth about hardware design when you know nothing about hardware design.

Multipliers determine the clockspeed of the processor, and aren't affected by "pumping" the bus, therefore a 3 GHz P4 with a 533 mhz bus (133 mhz quad pumped) would have 23X multiplier (133*23), or a 15X multiplier (200*15) for the 800 mhz FSB model. It also has nothing to do with the sustained bandwidth of the bus itself, the 533 MHz bus will be able to feed far more than the 167 MHz bus because you have more data moving every clock cycle (the whole point of pumping a bus). The 800 MHz bus is both faster and also feeds more data every cycle.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Cubeboy:

Interesting. I never thought about it quite that way, and I wasn't informed about the fact the P4's bus is quad-pumped. That bit of information changes everything, actually (which, of course, was exactly your point).

It's interesting to note that the P4's branch predicting hardware is actually superior to the G4e's (more history registers, that sort of thing). The difference lies in the fact that the P4 has nearly three times as many stages in the pipe with which a branch prediction can turn out to be wrong.

Still refining my knowledge of processors. Thanks. :)

[Cheese]

iMacDV400 I will say it loud and say it proud. ANYONE that has experienced both winblows and Apple, and chooses MS/wintel has got their head so far up their gravy chamber that all hope for them is completely lost. iMac DV 400 totally kicks A$$ and I would know. I switched from an AST 486sx33 with 20mb RAM and a blisteringly huge 170mbHD running win3.1 (for which I paid nearly $1400.00 in 1992!) to get my iMac DV400 INDIGO in 2001 (for the measley sum of $649.99!). I have heard all kinds of crap about Apple from everyone I know in the wintel world, but if they could know the ease of use, and intuitive processes required to navigate through Jaguar, they would drop the S*&%!!!! I know there are WAAAYYYY faster macs (and peecee's) but as of right now, I know of no other user of a peecee who has over 24 months of solid use from a computer without buying ANY other software, or upgrading their system. Of course my mac was upgraded from OS9, but that is it. I take digital photos, record compilations of my favorite music from the Apple Music Store, or from my collection. I take digital video and make it enjoyable for anyone viewing it because of iMovie. There is nothing that I need other than AW6 to generate my work and manage my life, and I still don't need special software or adapters to do it all and to do it better than IO wpould on a peecee.. It is not we Mac users who are so smug and elitist, but it is the jealous denizens of peecee encumbered folks who are extremely jealous of the "Apple Experience", whom have made us out to be applethumping evangelists of "computing heaven according to the prophets Jobs and Woz. Gates may have the jack to purchase Apple right out from under us, literally overnight... but as I have long believed...
"think, think... it ain't illegal yet", George Clinton from "one nation under a groove"

[adamcz]

I have a 400Mhz iMac DV as well, but I don't think it kicks all that much ass. I have to constantly delete stuff to not fill up the 12 gig hard drive, and the 8 meg graphics card allows me to play exactly zero current games. It does run Sibelius well, which is one of the things I need it to do, but it's really time for me to move on. It will be great for my mom to browse the web and use appleworks though now, and it treated me well for the 3-4 years I've had it.

[Tommy!]

That guy pisses me off! ok he puts a nice little picture in his article, and at the end writes a little "Dale Tournemille is a Toronto-based journalist and author..." like its in a magazine or something. He's just a wannabe author and is too dumb to be a real writer, let alone a real mac user.

[iJon]

Originally posted by adamcz
I have a 400Mhz iMac DV as well, but I don't think it kicks all that much ass. I have to constantly delete stuff to not fill up the 12 gig hard drive, and the 8 meg graphics card allows me to play exactly zero current games. It does run Sibelius well, which is one of the things I need it to do, but it's really time for me to move on. It will be great for my mom to browse the web and use appleworks though now, and it treated me well for the 3-4 years I've had it.
strip that beast and slap a faster hd in there, or buy a firewire drive. dont let something that can be replaced stop you. if you have to delete stuff to add stuff your hd is too small.

iJon

[Cheese]

I agree with iJohn this time, get a firewire HD as an add on and if you want to play the newest games, how about using a gaming console for that? Hey, don't take advice from me... I'm happy with the games I play on dreamcast! Seriously, I can't find a peecee'r with anywhere two years on their machine who hasn't had to buy some serious apps or upgrades in order to run "off-the shelf" software.

[adamcz]

Thanks for your input, but I have an xbox to play sports games on. I still want to be able to play Blizzard games on my computer. I know original nintendo and dreamcast were fun (I owned them both), but better stuff is out there now, and I want to play it.

Certainly I know about the existence of firewire hard drives, but I'd also really like to upgrade to X, get one of those nice pro keyboards/optical mouse, and have a faster proccessor and graphics card. At some point you have to stop upgrading, and get a new system.



PS - Why do you guys turn PC into peecee? I don't get it.

[janey]

Originally posted by adamcz
PS - Why do you guys turn PC into peecee? I don't get it.
and why do i call computer illiterate people l/users?
i dunno :D
i suppose i do it because i read techtales (http://www.techtales.com)

[iJon]

Originally posted by adamcz
Thanks for your input, but I have an xbox to play sports games on. I still want to be able to play Blizzard games on my computer. I know original nintendo and dreamcast were fun (I owned them both), but better stuff is out there now, and I want to play it.

Certainly I know about the existence of firewire hard drives, but I'd also really like to upgrade to X, get one of those nice pro keyboards/optical mouse, and have a faster proccessor and graphics card. At some point you have to stop upgrading, and get a new system.



PS - Why do you guys turn PC into peecee? I don't get it.
buy the pro keyboard and skip the mouse, overpriced. get your self a nice logitech or microsoft mouse. unless apples comes out with a cool two button scroll mouse with bluetooth. maybe tomorrow at wwdc.

iJon

[adamcz]

Well iJon, I can see that you really don't want me to get a new computer, but I'm going to break your heart sometime in the next few days. There's nothing you can do about it.

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by JackRipper
Great new sig, sparkley! I wonder if anyone has fallen for that yet? :D

hehe a couple people. i've even gotten a pm about trying to connect to it...but he was new to the non-traditional mac world so i cut him some slack. i actually stole it from someone...i think on neowin. it just fits my personality.

[cubist]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
"welcoming PC-born technologies such as USB and Bluetooth into their home." - Umm. Who was the first to use them? And integrate them into their machines? "PC-born"? That's stretching it reeeeal thin guy!

Did an editor let that text pass? That's not opinion, it's just plain wrong. Any technical editor who isn't well aware that USB was a derivative of Apple's ADB and came out on the Mac first, is grossly incompetent.

But I think he's just writing flame bait. "Any publicity is good publicity..."

[cubist]

Originally posted by adamcz
...Thing is, I have slightly more than $1,500 to spend on a new computer next week, and from Dell I can get a machine with 3Ghz P4/512M DDR/128M graphics.
...

If your only purpose for the $1500 machine is to play games, then go ahead and get a PC. But consider:

(a) The Playstation II (or the PSX) is far less expensive and has a pretty good assortment of available games.

(b) A $1500 PC purchased today will be worth about $200 in two years, and $0 in four years. A $1500 Mac purchased today will be worth about $700 in two years, and $400 in four years. YMMV.

(c) The pre-built machines (e.g. Dell) always involve terrible compromises. Yes, there's motherboard ethernet, but aagh! the RAM is slow; or the video card is crippled, or something like that. Alienware machines are finely tuned for games, but they cost $3000. For your budget, a true gamer has to select each component for optimal performance. Go to newegg.com and build it. But remember, a true gamer has to get a new machine every year.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by cubist
Did an editor let that text pass? That's not opinion, it's just plain wrong. Any technical editor who isn't well aware that USB was a derivative of Apple's ADB and came out on the Mac first, is grossly incompetent.

But I think he's just writing flame bait. "Any publicity is good publicity..."
You need to check your facts actually. USB is Intel's own technology. It was on PCs way before the iMac/Windows 98 year. It was both the iMac and Windows 98 buzz that popularized USB. In fact, I have USB on my Pentium 2 which I built a couple days before WWDC '98 when they announced the iMac. However, USB has been available since around 1996.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
USB is Intel's own technology. It was on PCs way before the iMac/Windows 98 year.

-MacCoaster

Absolutely true. USB was a consortium of Intel, HP, Apple, MS and a few others, but it was Intel that sat at the head of the table - heck, they owned the table.

And yes, they were out on PC's first. However, Apple is credited with introducing it because they made USB necessary by using USB mice and Keyboards. Until the original iMac, computer manufacturers looked at the port, and scratched their heads. Then plugged in their PS/2 keyboards.

The use of the term "PC born" is stretched here as Apple was a part of the design committee. As for Bluetooth bein PC born, well, I beleive PDA's were the original intended consumers.

[NNO-Stephen]

Originally posted by übergeek
like jackripper said, i highly doubt that your PC was a sorta low-end, not so new computer. It might run Windows XP pretty well but will it run Windows XP as well as a 3ghz Pentium 4? Or on a dual Xeon machine? I highly doubt it. An iMac DV can run OS X, but not as well as a top of the line Power Mac or a high end flat panel iMac.
This moron isn't thinking. He's comparing the price of some high end Macs to some low end Dell PC's. That's pretty stupid.
Mac users aren't elitist. I suppose we're just like this because we have no need for people like him.

people always bring up the arguement that PC's are cheaper than Macs when several studdies have been done that prove the opposite. now the same people always compare the high-end PowerMacs wo the low end PC's and it's really not fair. but anyway, i'm gonna leave before I make a fool out of myself (more than I already have)