Originally posted by TEG
This question is Common, however there really isn't a comparison.
The Mac is more geared to processing the complex floating point numbers, where as PCs are geared toward simple Intergers.
However long story short... an 867 Powebook is slower than a PowerMac 867. A Powermac 867 with 512MB RAM and OSX is about equal to a 2.0-2.2 Ghz Pentium 4 running Windows XP or an 1800 Athlon XP/MP running Windows XP (Same RAM) (+/- 100Mhz)
Therefore an 867 Powerbook would be about equal to the same as above, however with the Pentium 4m or the Athlon4 processor.
The one great advantage a PB has over a PC is battery life, and ... IT WON'T BE OBSOLETE AFTER 2 YEARS.
TEG
If you know something about the machine and software you are running, this will take you about 2 minutes to fix.Originally posted by mymemory
In a PC world I would have to do it via network, that mean configuring each system, that can take easy 30 minutes, may be less if booth are expert and run the same version of the OS.
This is possible in the PC-world too! You can also use firewire as TCP/IP. This was possible on Windows long before Mac's. Seems like your arguments blew away . .Well he has OSX and I have OS9, what we did? I conected my computer via firewire with a function that only Macitosh computers with firewire ports have and in less than 1 minute we transfer 2 GB of information between booth computers.
Originally posted by TEG
This question is Common, however there really isn't a comparison.
However long story short... an 867 Powebook is slower than a PowerMac 867. A Powermac 867 with 512MB RAM and OSX is about equal to a 2.0-2.2 Ghz Pentium 4 running Windows XP or an 1800 Athlon XP/MP running Windows XP (Same RAM) (+/- 100Mhz)
Therefore an 867 Powerbook would be about equal to the same as above, however with the Pentium 4m or the Athlon4 processor.
Have you ever heard of Centrino machines using Pentium -M ? Many of these machines have more batterylife than all Apple portables!The one great advantage a PB has over a PC is battery life, and ... IT WON'T BE OBSOLETE AFTER 2 YEARS.
TEG
Originally posted by F/reW/re
If you know something about the machine and software you are running, this will take you about 2 minutes to fix.
This is possible in the PC-world too! You can also use firewire as TCP/IP. This was possible on Windows long before Mac's. Seems like your arguments blew away . .
(If it works properly on a PC is another ting! Mac's usually is a better plug and play machine)
I know how target mode works. To bad only one computer can be used at a time. There you lost 50% of your worktime! What would be great was if you just plugged in the firewire cable and each other HD came up in Finder. All you have to do is type in the password for shared folder or user.Originally posted by iJon
well no, your arguments blew away. Mac users have firewire target disk mode. While you can right click network places, and give each of your firewire ports an IP number and matching subnet, all us mac users have to do is hold down the T key. kind of like booting off a cd, us mac users hold down c key while windows users have to look at the ugly bios. sure our macs can do what your pcs can do, apple just thinks about it a little more and makes it much more easy and less time consuming.
iJon
This is not using Firewire as TCP/IP it is mounting one machine as a hard drive on the other. A much faster interfaceOriginally posted by F/reW/re
This is possible in the PC-world too! You can also use firewire as TCP/IP. This was possible on Windows long before Mac's. Seems like your arguments blew away . .
(If it works properly on a PC is another ting! Mac's usually is a better plug and play machine)
UMMM 1000Mhz bus, AGP 8, PCI extreme, Built in bluetooth,Originally posted by F/reW/re
Apple don't gamle with new hardware-technology!
Originally posted by F/reW/re
If you know something about the machine and software you are running, this will take you about 2 minutes to fix.
This is possible in the PC-world too! You can also use firewire as TCP/IP. This was possible on Windows long before Mac's. Seems like your arguments blew away . .
(If it works properly on a PC is another ting! Mac's usually is a better plug and play machine)
Originally posted by utdbear
In other words, an 867 Mac gives me the comparable performance of what speed of Wintel machine?
I have to disagree with you here.Originally posted by jxyama
you just said it yourself... "if you know something"
with macs, you don't really have to know much of anything to make things work, in general. (not always, but generally... which i think is the point mymemory was impling. i don't think he was saying these are things macs can do but pcs can't.)
centrino part, i agree. it's a great hardware. however, you are bordering on trolling when you say apple doesn't "gamble." ditching floppy, widely adopting usb and completely re-making the OS based on UNIX/BSD are pretty significant gambles.
Sorry My badOriginally posted by legion
mattmack:
correction, not "PCI extreme" but PCI-X (totally different technology) is what Apple is using
However, everything but the 1Ghz bus has been well tested (AGP 8 and bluetooth built-in are over a year old and PCI-X has existed in workstations for almost 2 yrs; I have seven PCI-X slots in a box right next to me from 2 yrs ago) Too bad Apple didn't go with PCI Extreme seeing as all the benefits of PCI-X have been nullified by the voltage requirements (making PCI-X not truly backwards compatible to PCI) and the Intel side will have PCI Extreme on the market during the 4thQ in consumer machines (and PCI Extreme is poised to replace all card interfaces including AGP because of its bandwidth-- I know there are already chipsets being developed to move PCI Extreme to laptops which means laptops will finaly matchup to desktops in bus performance)
Sorry My bad about PCI extreme.Originally posted by legion
mattmack:
correction, not "PCI extreme" but PCI-X (totally different technology) is what Apple is using
However, everything but the 1Ghz bus has been well tested (AGP 8 and bluetooth built-in are over a year old and PCI-X has existed in workstations for almost 2 yrs; I have seven PCI-X slots in a box right next to me from 2 yrs ago) Too bad Apple didn't go with PCI Extreme seeing as all the benefits of PCI-X have been nullified by the voltage requirements (making PCI-X not truly backwards compatible to PCI) and the Intel side will have PCI Extreme on the market during the 4thQ in consumer machines (and PCI Extreme is poised to replace all card interfaces including AGP because of its bandwidth-- I know there are already chipsets being developed to move PCI Extreme to laptops which means laptops will finaly matchup to desktops in bus performance)