Mac vs. PC

[Heltik]

I've been reading a few threads lately about the performance of particular specifications of computer, in particular notebook performance. People have been saying that the Centrino based IBM compatibles perform better than G4 PB's, and it strikes me that there are some serious issues here.

I don't feel that it's fair to compare a mac to a pc at all in terms of "performance". The important thing to me, is that for general use, performance is not about raw gigahertz. It's about the symbiosis between the user and the device in question. When I use a Mac, I work far more in harmony with the equipment than when I use a pc. My productivity is increased as I flow through my workload. In that way, the performance of the overall system (of which I am a constituent) is higher.

Also, going back to the notebooks. How much time is wasted because various devices crash the windows computer? They're still not plug and play! How much 'performance' is wasted whilst setting up a printer?

Another argument that PC users come up with is "okay windows is bad, but I can use linux". What a load of nonsense. The thing that makes PC's appealing is that they have a standard OS, as soon as Linux is used, this is lost. PC users have to stop claiming that the architecture is better based on compatability of a standard OS that they admit is junk, and stability of an OS that is not even their working environment. And I believe, also that I am right in saying that OSX is now the most widely used Unix based OS?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that, as exemplified by Apple's digital hub strategy, a computer is a device for making your life easier. It's a tool for humans to interact with to derive benefit in their lives, and too many people miss the point, that when gauging performance of the system, they have to consider their own interaction with it.

[KershMan]

I couldn't agree more. I have a real-world example between my office and home. At the office I am forced to use a Dell P4 at ~1.4Ghz (do not remember exactly). It has 512MB of RAM. Although Ghz wise it is faster than my 12" Powerbook, I get much more done on my Powerbook at home.

The Dell runs W2K and Office 2000. We use Outlook for our PIM. When I have Outlook, IE, and about 4-5 Word documents open (this is the norm) The Dell comes crawling to its knees and becomes very unstable. If I actively work (like cut and paste) from one Word document to the other I can usually get Word to crash on Windows.

Now, I go home and do the same type of work on my Powerbook. I have Safari with multiple tabs open, Mail, and several Word documents. Sometimes I even have Virtual PC running W2K in the dock. I need W2K to run Oracle for one of the classes I am taking (school only provided Windows version). I can cut and paste from one Word document and do all my other tasks no problem. Granted, Word speed, especially for scrolling through large documents, is not always that good but my computer is stable and Word rarely crashes.

[tazo]

XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.

[KershMan]

Originally posted by tazo
XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.

I agree, but unfortunately many businesses are not quick to upgrade to XP. Microsoft's new license model is not very palatable. I work as a contractor for the Army. Both the Army and my company use W2K. Neither will upgrade to XP soon.

[Mav451]

wow you guys made a good point actually.

I'm a regular at nforcershq.com -- it's basically an enthusiast site for PC users who are running the nVidia NFORCE2 motherboards.

Anyway, the funny thing is, most people go to the thread who the usual hardware problems--most of course being cured by "computer" common-sense (switch jumpers/cables around/using 2nd-rate generic computer parts/etc.)

Of course on top of that is tweaking--most Apple Users i can say do not concern themselves that much with tweakin :)

Even funnier is that a thread was started on that forum regarding what to "do" after they found the fastest stable overclock (stable memory timings, sufficient voltages settings in dimm vcore and vdd, etc.).

I asked them, rhetorically--why do we go to all this trouble to tweak if we don't do anything with the very processing power we're trying to increase?

Of course most if not all of the nforcershq.com users play games and i can see where you "may" need more fps, though the videocard tends to be the limiting factor (mobo cpu tweakin is uninvolved then).

A small niche might actually use it for business/3d software/or other purposes besides the "regular" mp3 storing or encoding/divx/photoshop multimedia center.

I want to pose the question to all mac users and perhaps pc users--what if the Mac OS was brought over to PC's as well?

I don't think it's the chips (g4 and g5) that mac users value the most--it's consistently mentioned how much they love the OS.

It'd be really good to try it out--(Mac acting as a software/OS company vs. competing computer firm)

How if PC users were given the chance to try it? I know it sounds funny, but if this drove MS to make XP better, i'd be all for it.

Many Mac users talk about how bloated XP is--and i DEFINITELY agree.

The average user IS NOT literate enough to know how to disable half of the UNNECESSARY things that MS includes in XP.

Many gaming sites offer a registry tweak--when loaded, essentially disables most of the useless apps/bg progs that windows xp tends to load for novices... this frees an incredible amount of memory that is ordinarily wasted on "M$" progs.

After this tweaking, i find that XP is that much faster and stable--many errors originate from these unnecessary background progs that are loaded on default.

On the flip side--i doubt many Mac users would like to use XP -_-

*(a small comment to the one with the 1.4ghz Dell
My friend had the exact same system. It was also incredibly slow compared to an equally clocked AMD system.

I believe that the Dell system you were using was based on the aging Williamette core--that core was even surpassed by old pentium 3's that were lower clocked!

I believe your experience with a 1.8A Northwood would have been alot different)

[Sabenth]

Up untill a month ago i was on the verig of quiting computers altogether thanks to the problems i have had with windows lattly then i came across an old i mac on e bay and decided hell cant be any worse than using this crap can well i was wrong ive had this mac just over a week now and can safly say that i have now placed an order for a new e mac with supper drive reason been i am running mac osx 10.2 on this i mac it only has 128 sdram but it s fantastic no matter what it runs slow on some items like i movie but its runing at the same speed as my windows machine when i work on movie files for home cds in the music side of things i use reason and cubase to make music its a hobby that iam taking mahybe a bit to seriously the windows machine strugles to do the simpliest of tasks were as this i mac ive only got demos of things so far but its out doing itself already the diffrance in how the mac works to the windows box is well the only way i can put it is less time trying to fix things and more time working its a pleasure to have the mac were as the windows machine its a night mare from start up if it starts up..

i know that the i mac is old my pc is only a year old and i can say that i dont think the pc will be here much longer... i only use the pc to store files on now as the i mac has only got 6 gig on it ...

but even that was a challange from the windows end that is the i mac found the windows machine without even thinking about it the windows xp machine cant even see it....

well thats my line for today

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by tazo
XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.


As long as Macs have a closed system controlled by Apple and an OS made by Apple an out of the box Mac will always be more stable than an out of the box PC running Windows. If you put OS X and XP, or even 2k, on the exact same hardware I think you will get simliar performance. But as long as Macs stay a closed system and Windows has to attempt to work w/millions of possible hardware/software/chipset combinations you are always going to end up w/more conflicts and stability problems on the Windows platform. There are just too many variables in the x86 Windows world.


Lethal

[Nermal]

Mav451, I hate to nitpick, but this annoys a lot of people so I'm gonna say it before someone else does: It's Mac, not MAC.

[Mav451]

wow well said--i think you summarized the reasoning behind the "bugs" and instability issues that are always pointed out with the windows environment.

It's extremely hard to be a jack-of-all-trades (which is what the windows driver environment is like--some drivers that hardware firms provide are bad, some are good--there's not a single standard).

[jefhatfield]

i don't want to admit this, but the windows crashing issues of windows 95 98 ME are basically a thing of the past and windows xp is actually pretty decent

and yes, pc laptops are faster and cheaper than mac laptops

i see that the mac laptops have two advantages

in almost every case, macs a way tougher for mobile use...esp in a backpack

and in a small way, macs still have the edge on basic ease of use...but windows is continuing to bridge the user friendly gap

now if the pb 12" was 1299 usd and the basic ibook was under 800 usd, then things would look better for macs

too many potential laptop users are prolly turned off by mac laptops being more expensive and dollar for dollar, offering less...at lest on paper

but in real world terms, i choose the mac

btw...i have an ibook and a compaq pc laptop...bought just one day apart

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by KershMan
I agree, but unfortunately many businesses are not quick to upgrade to XP. Microsoft's new license model is not very palatable. I work as a contractor for the Army. Both the Army and my company use W2K. Neither will upgrade to XP soon. Win2K is about 30 times as stable as 98. it's just as rock solid as XP or more. XP moved from the win95 codebase to the NT/W2K codebase, and that's the only reason it is stable at all. W2k is the same on that level. just missing some multimedia features, really.

[jefhatfield]

w2k had weak 3rd party support and a small hcl (hardware compatability list), but overall it's just as stable as windows xp

there really is no reason to get w2k now that xp is what 3rd party people make drivers for

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
w2k had weak 3rd party support and a small hcl (hardware compatability list), but overall it's just as stable as windows xp

there really is no reason to get w2k now that xp is what 3rd party people make drivers for true, but if you already have W2k and you run a business that doesn't rely on multimedia there is no reason to upgrade that is justifiable given the cost. unless you have unsupported hardware.

[jefhatfield]

if i mostly ran microsoft office and the internet and email most of the time, w2k is fine and there prolly won't be a need to migrate until the next major release of a microsoft operating system

i think w2k server will be around for a long time and windows server 2003 won't overtake it since there seems to be little need to migrate there, too

w2k had the unfortunate fate of falling after a hugely popular windows 98 and before a hugely popular windows xp...microsoft put many home users, during that time, with windows me, so many pc buyers in 2000 and 2001 got windows me on their pcs and only got w2k as a special order or more expensive upgrade...that's too bad since windows me is not microsoft's best os

[solvs]

WindowsME was terrible. 98 without the DOS underpinnings (turns out that was what was holding it up). I constantly had problems with 98 - 1st, 2nd, and 4th (WinME - that's what it says it is, Win98 4th edition). So I upgraded to 2000. And things were ok. For awhile. But yeah, I did have a lot of hardware incompatibilities and issues. Multimedia's not so great.

But there is no way I'm upgrading to XP. I though 2000 was ugly. Maybe XP Pro is better, but after playing with XP for awhile on several machines (and spending hours fixing my Moms Sony), you will never see me use XP. Even if it looked better. I'm sure other people have had better luck, but color me unimpressed.

Sometimes I wish I still had my old Performa 6400 with OS 8. Thing was slow as heck, but it ran circles around my 166 MHz Win95 P1. Still works too, after all these years. Long since my 166 kicked the bucket. Moms got it at her school.

Can't wait to get my new Mac with OS X. The best OS I've ever used.

Hardware's hardware.

[hvfsl]

Well I need to compare PCs and Macs in terms of performance because I do things that require a lot of power (3D modelling, games, video editing etc). I will probably always get a Mac because I prefer them, but for me to get rid of my PC, I would need to be able to get a cheap powerful Mac. The current iMac/eMacs are just too slow for anything other than office/internet work. The iMac is only about as fast as a 2Ghz P4 costing the same as a 3Ghz P4, but the iMac also has a rubbish graphics card. The current G5 Macs are a joke in terms of graphics. I don't know if Apple knows it, but the radeon 9000 in older Macs is faster than the Geforce 5200FX and at those prices, the ATI Radeon 9800 should come as standard.

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by KershMan
I agree, but unfortunately many businesses are not quick to upgrade to XP. Microsoft's new license model is not very palatable. I work as a contractor for the Army. Both the Army and my company use W2K. Neither will upgrade to XP soon.

Well, W2K is essentially XP pro minus the my-first interface look, so the difference between XP and W2K isn't all that big...

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by solvs

But there is no way I'm upgrading to XP. I though 2000 was ugly. Maybe XP Pro is better, but after playing with XP for awhile on several machines (and spending hours fixing my Moms Sony), you will never see me use XP.


Don't let looks keep you away from XP - you can pretty much make it look any way you want. (The included silver/metallic theme is pretty acceptable). Sure, not OS X, but if you are using a PC, you should be using XP Pro.

[solvs]

Originally posted by GulGnu
Don't let looks keep you away from XP - you can pretty much make it look any way you want. (The included silver/metallic theme is pretty acceptable). Sure, not OS X, but if you are using a PC, you should be using XP Pro.

It's not because of the way it looks, I have changed the way 2000 looks (slightly). I can take physically ugly. I should have been more specific. The interface is ugly, the design is ugly, and I had problems with it. It might have been Sony's doing, but my experiance with XP so far has been negative. My experiance with 2000 hasn't exactly been good, but it's better than 98, and less restrictive than XP.

I ain't paying for XP. ;)

Can't wait to get a new OS X machine.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by solvs
I ain't paying for XP. ;) who said anything about paying?

[solvs]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
who said anything about paying?

Well I didn't exactly pay for 2000 either. I know that Product Activation can be circumvented, and was actually offered a hacked version of XP for free. Turned it down.

2000 works ok for now. Won't have to worry about it much longer, though.

[brandon_deal]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
who said anything about paying?


thats what im thinking

[jefhatfield]

w2k is great if all your hardware and software works with it...there was not a big push to make w2k work well with a lot

but you don't need a lot...just the right parts

my pc laptop was six months too old to be 100 percent compatible with that operating system so some stuff does not work...like the modem...but it's ok for coding and for ms office stuff

for cruising around on the net, i need my modem so i use windows 98, even though it crashes more than w2k

one can only make an old machine go so far, so when i go get a pc replacement for my old compaq, i will make sure it has windows xp pro on it and if i can afford it, i would like centrino technology...but it's still new so it's price of centrino laptops is still artificially high

[janey]

Originally posted by tazo
XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.
we should all switch back to system 7 heehee :D
anyway, windows millennium, 9x and previous versions all SUCKED.
win nt/2k were okay
XP == the worst operating system on the face of this planet
i cant help but puke when i look at the heinous color of the start button
personally i'm a win2k user. xp is too damn ugly to use, plus it's not as stable as 2k
windows 2k has got to be the best operating system ever to come out of redmond.

[Mav451]

haha you know i used to agree that xp just plain sucked--and that was coming from a user who used 98se (but tweaked).

Compared to most people, having spent almost 3 years using it, i basically did not experience a blue screen in the last 2 years (basic via 4-in-1 drivers were the problem).

In fact, i consider it almost like the energy degredation--95 has 100% probability of BSOD's...98se reduces it significantly (i would say 10fold nearly--95 was daily bsod essentially).

XP pro- not once in the 5 months has it BSODed.
I have to agree that the blue start button and all is ugly--that's why i use classic color/interface.

You go to advanced system settings and remove all the "shadows' or other system taxing visualities.

Load the gamingregstart registry file (eliminates nearly half of unused MS services).

And voila -- you got a stable OS w/o the bloated services running in the background.

*many of my friends ran into problems with win2k--mostly software/hardware support--with xp, those issues were virtually eliminated.

[janey]

Originally posted by Mav451
And voila -- you got a stable OS w/o the bloated services running in the background.

*many of my friends ran into problems with win2k--mostly software/hardware support--with xp, those issues were virtually eliminated.
true...but for me win2k does everything i want it to do, plus i'm not in the mood to install yet another operating system on my PC so i'm sticking with 2k until something better than xp comes out

[solvs]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
my pc laptop was six months too old to be 100 percent compatible with that operating system so some stuff does not work...like the modem...but it's ok for coding and for ms office stuff

for cruising around on the net, i need my modem so i use windows 98, even though it crashes more than w2k


Have you tried e-mailing the company, or http://www.driverguide.com/ for those drivers? Worked for me with old modems. What kind of Laptop do you have?

Even with different themes and hacks, XP still sucks. :D

[solvs]

And while I was typing this, Explorer crashed for no reason.

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by übergeek
we should all switch back to system 7 heehee :D
anyway, windows millennium, 9x and previous versions all SUCKED.
win nt/2k were okay
XP == the worst operating system on the face of this planet
i cant help but puke when i look at the heinous color of the start button
personally i'm a win2k user. xp is too damn ugly to use, plus it's not as stable as 2k
windows 2k has got to be the best operating system ever to come out of redmond.

You do know you can change the color of the start button? Hell, you can put XP in "classic mode" or whatever it's called, and it looks pretty much like 2K. Still, if you have 2K there aren't very many compelling reasons to switch to XP.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[tazo]

i think that there is not much of a difference between 98se and 2k if the ram used with them is the same. i have ran 2k before on a 667 PIII with 384mb of ram, and 2k still crashed on plenty of applications; well actually just word, a mp3 player, and IE6.

I think there is this big myth that needs to be debunked that 2k is so much better than 98SE

[dstorey]

A lot of security experts seem to say never update past w2k...what with all the major security problems like univeral plug and play that you cant deactivate cause m$ uto reactivates it, to the policy you have to sign to allow m$ access to all you files, to the spyware thats built in all over xp...i guess w2k came out before all that spyware stuff that was built into media player 8 etc etc. Though i guess previous ms os's have it all over...hell my firewall even warns me that my kernal and myt ms mouse try to connect to ms servers, and its only 98 2nd editon....like why the hell does a mouse need to connect to the net? i havnt got os or software auto updates on so it cant be that...

[solvs]

My Win2000 firewall is always asking me if weird programs can access the internet. Makes me nervous.

UPDATE THIS SPYWARE!!!

Ok, chill pill. Mostly it's just programs wanting to update themselves. But still. Never had this problem on my 28.8 and 56K OS 8 and 9 systems (Win9x was another story).

People wonder why I like Macs. You don't have to run a billion programs all the time to make sure it works right - virus scanner, firewalls, regcleaner, spyware remover, various haxies...

Macs don't seem so slow after all.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by solvs
Have you tried e-mailing the company, or http://www.driverguide.com/ for those drivers? Worked for me with old modems. What kind of Laptop do you have?

Even with different themes and hacks, XP still sucks. :D

drivers are available for slightly newer stuff

i would have to write my own...and many old pc techs do with nt technology based operating systems...it was once a highly needed skill

[SiliconAddict]

A little rant I posted to zdnet a few days ago:

My first and only Mac was an Apple ][e oh so long ago. It was no great shake. My first PC was a (God help me.) Packard Bell Pent 90 with an 810 hard drive. Since then all I've ever used has been Wintel and all laptops. A Compaq Presario first then a Toshiba Sat, now a Dell Latitude. Nice system. Throughout this entire time I've played with Macs from time to time. OS 8 OS 9, etc. I've never been impressed. Always thought Mac OS was a huge joke Jobs was playing on the Mac user base. If someone mentioned Mac OS as being better then Windows I would point them to WinNT and tell them otherwise. When W2K came out I thought it was a godsend. MS took the best of NT and the best GUI aspects of 98 and smashed it together to make one heck of a fine OS. Still insecure as heck but what OS is perfect right? Last fall a friend of mine purchased a used iBook with OSX 1. I'm sorry but it’s a sexy beast. The underpinnings of the system have Unix that is synonymous with a strong stable secure OS. Still I wasn’t that interested.
It wasn’t until Jaguar made its way onto the scene with little refinements that my interest was perked. Most times I didn’t jump onto the newest version of Windows until SP1 at least came out. Jaguar was SP1+ for OSX. About 2 months ago, I think, I was walking through the Mall of America and ran across an Apple Store. (heh Didn’t know they had one in there.) Figured what the heck and went in. 3 Word. 17 inch PowerBook. Oh my god is that laptop sexy. It’s the Porsche of the laptop world with the engine of a Geo Metro :-P I realized it was time to get myself my first Mac since my ][e. However the system itself is in need of a major tune-up IMHO. With the G5’s soon to be released I expect some revamps this fall in the laptop product line. Probably not a G5, wishful thinking, but from the rumor sites it may be a revamped G4 1.3Ghz chip. Assuming it gives the system a decent performance boost I’m getting one.

Apple still has the potential to be a player in the PC game. 3 things NEED to happen, IMHO.

First they need to stop being so damn stubborn about change. It has taken apple how long to update the architecture of their desktop line?!?! It’s insane. Hardware needs to be revamped on a more frequent basis. I’m not talking once every 6 months but enough to stay abreast with PC hardware in terms of speed.
They NEED a cheaper G5 model to attract the price conscious family. The G4 simply doesn’t get it done in comparison to PC hardware. If Apple could produce a G5 around $1,500 with a monitor you would have a sweet machine.
Finally software selection. I stick to my notion that without more software backing the Mac platform Apple has no place to go but down. Therein lies the problem. It’s a standard catch 22. Software developers aren’t going to develop for a platform that doesn’t have a decent user base and the average consumer isn’t going to touch a device that has limited software support. Mac users claim that the software on a Mac is quality and PC’s software has quality but also has a lot of filler. This may be the case but the appearance of having a large software selection (Show me quality software by walking down the rows of Best Buy or CompUSA.) is going to further kill Apple. Not all it once. A slow death.

So why am I even bothering with a Mac if I think its dieing? Simple. It ain’t dead yet and with Virtual PC I can run Windows 2K perfectly fine. I also have another reason. Actually I have 2,557 reasons. That is the number of security patches, bug hole fixes in Windows 2000 SP1-4. This isn’t even bothering with SP’s for EI. How many more hundred would that encompass? Its ridiculous that end users have to be beta testers for MS Operating systems. Sure I have few problems with 2K but there it it in black and white. I compiled a spreadsheet of all 4 SP updates. Go to MS’s site sometime and scroll through the list of what is fixed in each SP. Its insane stuff like: Error Message: The Event Log File Is Corrupt, Deadlock in USB Stack While Resuming from Suspend, You May Not Be Able to Install Game Controllers on Some Windows 2000-Based Computers, Write Caching Settings for Hard Disk May Not Persist After You Restart Your Computer, OL2000: Error Message: "Explorer.exe Has Generated Errors ..." When You Search for Files or Folders, Explorer.exe Hangs on ALT+F4 If Shutdown Restrictions Are in Use, Explorer.exe Generates Errors During Search on Remote Computer That Has No Shared Folders. And on and on and on and on and ON!! Sure. I don’t expect an OS to be perfect but hell I’m surprised W2K even freaking runs let alone the fact that I’m had my desktop up for months without a problem. I’m sick of dealing with patches. I’m sick of dealing with heavy handed tactics *coughs*Paladium*coughs*Product Activation*coughs*DRM*coughs* Honestly I’m just sick of dealing with windows and having to go over to my relatives houses once every 6 months to fix something that broke in XP or ME.
My argument with anyone who defended Apple was look at NT and 2K. They are stable. They don’t crash!! It’s no longer about stability. The kernel may stay up but how many other things can break in the OS? My favorite is having Explorer.exe blow up on me because I’m browsing a website which ends up taking down my entire GUI. (Hence the reason I no longer use IE at all.) What do I do? ctrl-alt-del. Task manager. Run. Explorer.exe. I equate that with having your car stall on you while its still rolling. I will keep my desktop around simply because I want to play windows games. There are a few that I like that can’t be found on a console or on the Mac but other then that I see no reason to stick with Windows. The next major revamp of Windows will be with Longhorn in 2005. I use to get onboard with the Consumer Preview release of ANY version of MS Windows I got excited over it because I expected better, stronger, faster. Frankly at this point I just don’t give a damn about Windows anymore.

This is how I'm starting to feel about Windows and is why OSX has started to peek my interest. My main concern isn't with the OS but the hardware. I don't care what anyone says I've looked at the Specs on the 17" PB. They are very weak for a notebook that costs OVER 3 grand. I have no problems paying 3 grand on a laptop, OK I do have problems but I can live with it :-P , but the hardware has to be good. Look at the specs.

-The hard drive is a large one at 60GB but its only 4200RPM. Most PC laptops are at 5400 now with 7200 now showing up.

-The system bus speeds is highly lacking at 166Mhz. Looking at the memory speed of 333 there IS a major bottleneck there. This needs to be fixed. It’s a no brainer that you wouldn’t expect something like the new PowerMacs 1Ghz bus but make it respectable. Maybe 300Mhz? 400Mhz?

-Dell laptops have the ability to go up to 1920x1200 on their wide aspect screen. Apple needs to jack up the res on their 17” PowerBook. Is this not their baby? Their top of the line? I suppose it could be argued that the current res is enough for mobile pros and would most likely affect battery life. If someone what’s something higher they can attach an external monitor. But still. I’ve seen Dell’s Inspiron 8500. The screen is beautiful at that resolution. Again. $3,000 I really expect the best.

-On the CPU side of things…Who knows. I have yet to see any real world speeds tests matching a 17” PB G4 1Ghz against a new Pentium M chip. This is what is going to gauge when\if I switch. This “speed is relative” crap is just that. I don’t see Mac users now saying speed is relative anymore now that the G5 is about to smoke a P4. The same can be said of the Powerbook. Show me some benchmarks.


It boils down to this: Apple released a new series of notebooks this spring. Now they are releasing a new series of desktops. The desktops are revolutionary in speed, and design. Can the same be said of their notebook line? The specs I’ve seen in that little 17” PowerBook brochure in the Apple store tells me no. It was a refresh of the laptop line. A speedbump as you guys call it. But overall it’s not an enhancement like we saw in the PowerMac line. Until that occurs (Be it a G4 or a G5 that is contained in its guts.) I feel like I’d be throwing my money away by purchasing a $3,000 that has $2,500 specs at best. I guess my biggest beef is that in the past when I go out to buy a new PC I try and future proof it as best as possible by doing my homework on the various models. Reading the reviews. Checking things out. Anyone who spends that kinda money should do this right? The PowerBook line seems like its last years model in some ways. I get twitchy thinking that I'm getting something that won't be able to run Apple's next OS after Panther.
*shrugs* Then again it maybe my PC mindframe that is the problem there. From everything I've read Macs age more gracefully then PC's.

[Pete_Hoover]

Originally posted by solvs
WindowsME was terrible. 98 without the DOS underpinnings (turns out that was what was holding it up). I constantly had problems with 98 - 1st, 2nd, and 4th (WinME - that's what it says it is, Win98 4th edition). So I upgraded to 2000. And things were ok. For awhile. But yeah, I did have a lot of hardware incompatibilities and issues. Multimedia's not so great.

But there is no way I'm upgrading to XP. I though 2000 was ugly. Maybe XP Pro is better, but after playing with XP for awhile on several machines (and spending hours fixing my Moms Sony), you will never see me use XP. Even if it looked better. I'm sure other people have had better luck, but color me unimpressed.

Sometimes I wish I still had my old Performa 6400 with OS 8. Thing was slow as heck, but it ran circles around my 166 MHz Win95 P1. Still works too, after all these years. Long since my 166 kicked the bucket. Moms got it at her school.

Can't wait to get my new Mac with OS X. The best OS I've ever used.

Hardware's hardware.

If you don't like the way XP looks, swtch to the classic windows theme. As for the bugs in XP, the magic word is reinstall.

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I guess my biggest beef is that in the past when I go out to buy a new PC I try and future proof it as best as possible by doing my homework on the various models. Reading the reviews. Checking things out. Anyone who spends that kinda money should do this right? The PowerBook line seems like its last years model in some ways. I get twitchy thinking that I'm getting something that won't be able to run Apple's next OS after Panther.
*shrugs* Then again it maybe my PC mindframe that is the problem there. From everything I've read Macs age more gracefully then PC's.

I totally agree with ya. Buying a current G4 notebook is hardly future-proof. Its very hard to say a laptop is future proof when the desktops just took a huge jump in processor architecture and speed. I don't care what anyone whines in here, the G4 notebooks are a screw at their current price and specs.

[G4scott]

While microsoft may be catching up to Apple in turns of OS usability and friendliness, microsoft is about to take a huge leap in the wrong direction. Windows Longhorn seems to have everything it needs to compete with the Mac OS of today, being only 2 years late. The only problem with longhorn is Microsoft's digital rights management, or DRM. You see, they want to restrict computer usage so much, you might possibly have to pay every time you want to watch a DVD on your computer, or play a certain song. Microsoft may be doing this to get on better terms with software and content providers, but it does almost nothing for the user. They are taking the human element out of computing.

That's where Apple beats microsoft in every way possible. You can have the best technology, but if it doesn't work well with people, it's worthless.

I see the release of longhorn, or whatever m$ is going to call it, as a very huge opportunity for Apple to reclaim market share. They need a massive advertising campaign like no ad campaign seen to date. Apple needs to show the blind followers of microsoft that there is an alternative, and that it works. By the time longhorn is ready for release, and many people are looking to upgrade their windows boxes, Apple should hopefully be poised to strike.

The Mac vs. PC argument is no longer about hardware, but about the software. The ease of use. The productivity. Apple is far ahead of the competition. M$ is stuck in corporate la-la-land, and Linux has almost nothing to give to simple computer users. Apple needs to get to work...

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by Mav451
...I want to pose the question to all mac users and perhaps pc users--what if the Mac OS was brought over to PC's as well?

I don't think it's the chips (g4 and g5) that mac users value the most--it's consistently mentioned how much they love the OS....


I've made simular comments myself.

1. I don't care what chip Apple uses as long as the OS X is stable and fast. It's about the OS not the chip.

2. Very rarely do you hear a PC user say "You know, I really like Windows." With them it's about the hardware. "I have alot of options" "I can build it myself." ...yadda yadda yadda...

3. But Windows has more games. a) Alot of which is crap. b) Only the better ones make to the Mac. 3) When playing a game, how much interaction with Windows do REALLY have or need...not much.

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I totally agree with ya. Buying a current G4 notebook is hardly future-proof. Its very hard to say a laptop is future proof when the desktops just took a huge jump in processor architecture and speed. I don't care what anyone whines in here, the G4 notebooks are a screw at their current price and specs.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that Apple must be quick to revamp all their computers, not just the PowerMac. The iBook and PowerBook have been Apple's best sellers the past few years and the iMacs haven't done bad. I have a feeling alot of buyers will wait to see what Apple does next before making their next purchase. I know I am.

"I can't make up mind between the PowerBook or the iMac. Ohh! Apple just announced their G5. Maybe I should wait." This means sales well drop fast.

The G5 is not just a speed up. It's a major overhaul that Mac users have been begging for. Apple can't afford to let the rest of their products get left behind.

If Apple does not revamp the rest of their line, it will not be about Apple keeping up with Intel. It will be about Apple keeping up with Apple.

[blogo]

Originally posted by tazo
XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.

Ths OS is mostly stable, but compared to my mac i got more application crashes and bugs under XP, than OSX, maybe it is how well they are programmed or how the OS handles them, anyway when you think about overall system operations a mac is more stable, atleast in my life :)

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by Fender2112
3. But Windows has more games. a) Alot of which is crap. b) Only the better ones make to the Mac. 3) When playing a game, how much interaction with Windows do REALLY have or need...not much.

What about Half-Life... huh?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
What about Half-Life... huh? seriously, that game should have been ported a long time ago. i wonder if they will get off their balls and make HL2 mac released at the same time.

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
seriously, that game should have been ported a long time ago. i wonder if they will get off their balls and make HL2 mac released at the same time.

I'm sure it won't get released on the mac at the same time... I was kind of hoping HL1 would get leaked out sort of like how HL1 got leaked out for DC years after development ended... oh well, one can dream.

[jefhatfield]

apple has closed the gap about fifty percent for me compared to the best pc boxes and laptops

to complete the job, it would be nice to see G5 powerbooks and G4 ibooks by christmas and keep the prices the same

the imac and emac could stay G4 maybe a little longer than that, but have the speed and ram upped and realize nobody wants just 256 MB of ram on any machine these days...and a better video card would not hurt either

if those things happen late this year and early next year, a new computer user may see the mac as equal to the pc and we won't have to be the "slower" or "weaker" alternative in home computing

and who knows? some pc people may actually make the switch

[solvs]

Originally posted by Pete_Hoover
If you don't like the way XP looks, swtch to the classic windows theme. As for the bugs in XP, the magic word is reinstall.

Apparently you missed my next post. I know about themes, and changing the way it looks. It still an ugly interface. And very bloated IMO. OS X gets faster as it adds more features, Windows gets slower and less user-centric.

And why would I want to reinstall on a fairly new machine? Why should I have to? Besides the fact that if you reinstall the OS, it reformats the hard drive. I know that's Sony and other OEMs, not Windows, but it's a stupid idea and I don't know why they ever allowed it. Probably so you'd pay for an upgrade when things invariably go to Hell. Then the computer is no longer supported.

As you can see, a lot of my problems come with OEMs. And there are more. But if I'm building my own machine, I also don't want to have to ask M$s permission to make changes to my system. I don't care how many times I can change things, the fact that they do this at all bugs me. Removes the one good thing about PCs - being able to build and upgrade as you wish (if you can get drivers... that work).

Now with Palladium and DRM... how can that not scare you?

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by solvs
And why would I want to reinstall on a fairly new machine? Why should I have to? Besides the fact that if you reinstall the OS, it reformats the hard drive. I know that's Sony and other OEMs, not Windows, but it's a stupid idea and I don't know why they ever allowed it. Probably so you'd pay for an upgrade when things invariably go to Hell. Then the computer is no longer supported.


You'd want to reinstall a new machine because you bought it from a vendor instead of building it yourself. People wonder why Dells and Compaqs run like crap, they put crap in the OS. If you have a real Windows XP CD, you don't have to format to reinstall, you can either install it over itself and it keeps all your settings, or you can do a repair. But if you really bought it from a vendor I'd format it the second it hit my hands... plus if you hate the hardware activation of MS, just buy a Pro version of XP and use a corporate CD key, it bypasses activation and that's not piracy in my book.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by solvs
Apparently you missed my next post. I know about themes, and changing the way it looks. It still an ugly interface. And very bloated IMO. OS X gets faster as it adds more features, Windows gets slower and less user-centric. i dunno about that, XP has a lot of user centric features. the style for explorer has been mimicked by apple in the new finder. the start menu is pretty user-centric too, especially the XP version. XP is the most user centric OS that MS has put out. by far.

problem is, i don't believe in user centrism. i don't want a computer that has some formulaic user cetrism that is supposed to work for everyone. i organize my computer the way i like it, put things where i can find them, not so that they get put in some place via an algorithm based on how often i use them. i don't appreciate that apple is following suit with that stupid finder. Steve talks about how the user folder is badly designed because it is 3 levels in, but that's bull. on my jag finder, it's right up on the toolbar on top, as is anything else i want up there. why would i want it to take up a whole column? and what makes it so user centric, anyway? it's just more bunk to get around, for me, and XP was better at letting you revert, allowing for the "classic" start menu style.

also, i don't see how the OS GUI is bloated. i agree that the OS is, but most of the interface has all the basic functionality of OS X... the file etc menus are on a per window basis and the interface depends on right clicking (though rarely), but it isn't bloated...

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i dunno about that, XP has a lot of user centric features. the style for explorer has been mimicked by apple in the new finder. the start menu is pretty user-centric too, especially the XP version.


The start menu is a damn mess. I kid you not. The shortcuts for programs are all over the place. I mentioned above that I support my uncle's XP box right? Well NT, 2K, XP all use individual profiles for each user so when they log onto the system they have their own settings. This isn't anything you guys didn't know right?
Where is becomes a PITA is when you log into a users profile, in the case of my uncle he has 2 kids, himself and his wife, and install software. Good programmers give you the option of “for just this user” or everyone. However most programs don't do this and install it in that users profile. Consequently when another user logs in they are scratching their head wondering why the program Josh installed isn't there.
I would question the user centricness (Woot I made a new word.) of the Start Menu. The only revamp they really did was to add the most commonly used apps to the root of the start menu. How is this diff from adding the apps you use most to a toolbar in Windows or the bar in OSX (Sorry don't know the name of it. Remember newbie here. :-P )
The start menu as a whole I think is a cool Idea but once again it wasn't thought up by MS. They "borrowed" the idea.

[nuckinfutz]

I like both platforms. Honestly I cannot understand why people limit themselves to one platform.

For instance you could scrape together a 2.4-2.6Ghz PC for $500

You can get a G4 machine with a 700Mhz processor for $799. Nothing beats being cross platform. I can run anything.

However what I think Mac users will find is that PC Developers can be somewhat rogueish. Just yesterday I had to use Ad-aware and remove copious amounts of Data Miners(Gator, Bonzi Buddy etc) from my Mothers PC. I routinely have to do this because she likes downloading all these "cute" little things for her PC. She doesn't realize that they could potentially be giving more info about her than she expected.

I also had to shut down Net Send. My God she had a Netsend popup coming every time she logged in and out. Rediculous. If this is the kind of treatment users get from being a member of the %95 Windows users then I'll happily enjoy Apple as less than %10. Users shouldn't have to cripple their OS to prevent annoyances.

Both Win2k/XP/OSX are all stable. However the dearth of viruses and rogue Developers makes Macintosh computing so much more of a joy IMO. Both have their place but I honestly believe that Apple will be much easier to get along with for the neophyte.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The start menu is a damn mess. I kid you not. The shortcuts for programs are all over the place. I mentioned above that I support my uncle's XP box right? Well NT, 2K, XP all use individual profiles for each user so when they log onto the system they have their own settings. This isn't anything you guys didn't know right?
Where is becomes a PITA is when you log into a users profile, in the case of my uncle he has 2 kids, himself and his wife, and install software. Good programmers give you the option of “for just this user” or everyone. However most programs don't do this and install it in that users profile. Consequently when another user logs in they are scratching their head wondering why the program Josh installed isn't there.
I would question the user centricness (Woot I made a new word.) of the Start Menu. The only revamp they really did was to add the most commonly used apps to the root of the start menu. How is this diff from adding the apps you use most to a toolbar in Windows or the bar in OSX (Sorry don't know the name of it. Remember newbie here. :-P )
The start menu as a whole I think is a cool Idea but once again it wasn't thought up by MS. They "borrowed" the idea. true, that "user only" thing is badly implemented, but that actually traces back to problems with the 3rd party programmers who don't have the brains to follow program guidelines. i don't think that the new start menu is a cool idea, myself, but i agree that either way MS implemented it verypoorly.

[GulGnu]

"why would i want it to take up a whole column? "

If you don't - shut it down. Takes an entire click =P

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
true, that "user only" thing is badly implemented, but that actually traces back to problems with the 3rd party programmers who don't have the brains to follow program guidelines. i don't think that the new start menu is a cool idea, myself, but i agree that either way MS implemented it verypoorly.

even with the best programmers, it takes great coordination between a lot of programmers, project managers, and suits to make even the smallest thing come together on the final software product

apple has a certain mindset where they want to get it right and in the end that matters more to them than dollars and cents

microsoft is about money much more and in the end, that also shows in their products

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
even with the best programmers, it takes great coordination between a lot of programmers, project managers, and suits to make even the smallest thing come together on the final software product regardless, though, only an idiot would write a windows application without following the windows application development guidelines. apple has some too. complaining that they have an aspect to their structure that a lot of computer programmers are too dumb to remember to implement in their installations is kinda... well, moot, anyways.