Aren't Macs Expensive??????

[madamimadam]

There is a myth out of the water when I tried just before to find a cheap machine for someone I know and the cheapest (keeping in mind I refusded to go to dell) was actually the IBM in at $AU1750+ running a celeron 1GHz and a 20GB HDD where as an iMac RRPs from $AU1900.

The difference between the machines:

IBM = celeron
Mac = G3 - Winner

IBM = 128KB L2 Cache
Mac = 256KB L2 Cache - Winner

Under video imaging the IBM has 4 USB ports
The mac, however has 2 USB and 2 Firewire - Winner

IBM = 3 yo OS, Win98
Mac = Up-to-date OS X and 9.2.2 - Winner

The only thing the IBM has over the mac is that its cheapest screen is 19"

[madamimadam]

I think I forgot to mention, that IBM doesn't have any sound btw.

[irmongoose]

haha. thats actually pretty funny.

well, i guess we wont see that kind of a competition once Apple gets rid of all the G3 iMacs....





irmongoose

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by irmongoose
haha. thats actually pretty funny.

well, i guess we wont see that kind of a competition once Apple gets rid of all the G3 iMacs....

I, for one, hope Apple keep up the CRT for a while yet and having such a low end processor is a FANTASTIC idea they should also persist with.

CRT iMacs just hit so many markets that the LCD ones are too pricey for.

[MacAztec]

I dont think they should get rid of it. It is still awesome for schools!

[alex_ant]

What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex

I will flame away, firstly, the celeron is a piece of ****; the worst of the worst processors Intel has and is not even half comparable to the rest of their range. What do you mean, what model, it is the model with a 1GHz Celeron and win98, there is only one.... one of the A-Class to be exact. Windows 98 is OLD technology, it would be like me buying a new iMac with the last release of OS 8, it would work well but would COMPLETELY lack compatibility. Also, you can not say that 98 is not sold anymore; just because you can not buy it from Microsoft does not mean that IBM does not have ****loads on hand to sell cheaply. Also, if it is not sold by Microsoft anymore it HEAVILY suggests it is outdated, unlike OSX. To finish off, twice the cache makes a HUGE difference... just compare the 800 iMac to the 800 Powermac.

[stfu_alex]

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex

I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want) - Windows is just useless, and Linux will never be great for the average desktop user. and you really should investigate before flaming, I have a 600mhz G3 at the moment, and oh my; OSX runs perfect! I had a 800mhz Celeron with WindowsME/98SE, I'd really have to say my G3 blows it away. Intel/Microsoft are both terrible companies, bad companies usually make bad products.

[eyelikeart]

is the Pope Catholic? ;)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Mac_User
I dont think they should get rid of it. It is still awesome for schools!

and perfect for pc techies like me who don't need a mac for income but still want to enjoy a mac experience when i get home after fixing pcs in the real world

i have said this since the beginning, but we need a cheaper mac yet and 699 dollars (usd) would be a move in the right direction enroute to 399 usd in two years to keep up with emachines level of pricing

too many consumers go by price and apple should ALSO accomodate those users, too on a limited bto option on their web site (at least)

mind you, the current 799 dollar imac is still a GREAT deal for many uers out there like me

i have an ibook and at 1599 dollars, it was a little steep since we don't use it professionally (that much) to generate income like we do with out two pc boxes

[eyelikeart]

I use Macs for production & design purposes....I make my living with them....
and my TiBook did cost a bit more than I would have wanted to spend...but I guess that goes with priority....

all of this said, I think there should be a low cost "entry level" portable available....as described on macrumors many times....$600 average price level....G3 processor......128-256 MB RAM.....8 MB VRAM....5-10 gig HD.....

of course what I described above I'm sure would cost at a minimum of $1000 according to Apple's standards....but it's nice to imagine the impact it could make :p

[idkew]

i, like eye, am a crative "pro" (i am actually a college student trying to be a pro)

anyway, the top of the line makes much sense to me, but for those students out there, a cheap crt imac makes sense.

Most students use their computer for three things, email, web and papers.

that works just fine with 64 mb ram, a 5 gig hd, cd-rom, no firewire, just usb, no upgradeablitiy.... just a cheap but reliable $500 machine.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I use Macs for production & design purposes....I make my living with them....
and my TiBook did cost a bit more than I would have wanted to spend...but I guess that goes with priority....

all of this said, I think there should be a low cost "entry level" portable available....as described on macrumors many times....$600 average price level....G3 processor......128-256 MB RAM.....8 MB VRAM....5-10 gig HD.....

of course what I described above I'm sure would cost at a minimum of $1000 according to Apple's standards....but it's nice to imagine the impact it could make :p

hey eye,

how does this sound

500 mhz g3
256 to 384 MB RAM
5 or 6 GB HD
12.1 active matrix screen
cd-ROM
1 usb
1 firewire
ac power adapter
headphone port
os x
netcaspe and internet explorer
appleworks
a couple of games to toss in
slightly larger form factor
airport compatibility with card sold seperately
only one speaker

total price $849.00

...and geared toward students and educators who have an additional 50 dollar discount

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen I will flame away, firstly, the celeron is a piece of ****; the worst of the worst processors Intel has and is not even half comparable to the rest of their range.
You'll get no arguments from me that the Celeron does not suck, but you still haven't specified what you're comparing it to. Is it in fact a 700MHz G3? If it is, and it's running OS X while the Celeron is running Win98, the Celeron will feel dramatically faster.

What do you mean, what model, it is the model with a 1GHz Celeron and win98, there is only one.... one of the A-Class to be exact.
Okay, then perhaps I just don't understand your comparison. What motivated you to compare this particular IBM to whichever iMac you're comparing it to? Why did you choose an IBM that was $150 less expensive? You also didn't say why you didn't look at Dell or any other PC manufacturers less expensive than IBM.

Windows 98 is OLD technology, it would be like me buying a new iMac with the last release of OS 8, it would work well but would COMPLETELY lack compatibility. Also, you can not say that 98 is not sold anymore; just because you can not buy it from Microsoft does not mean that IBM does not have ****loads on hand to sell cheaply. Also, if it is not sold by Microsoft anymore it HEAVILY suggests it is outdated, unlike OSX.
Yes, Windows 98 is old, and yes, it does suck. I sold my PC last week. It ran Linux. The guy who bought it wanted Win98 installed. I won't go into the 14+ hours of pain that entailed. However, despite Win98's outdatedness, despite its instability and its ugliness etc., there is no denying that it is MUCH faster than OS X, and even running on a slower CPU than an equivalent Mac's, it will cause the PC to feel faster. Also, Win98 is still capable of running orders of magnitude more software than the Mac. If you're not satisfied with that, though, and want to install XP, then you can simply spend the money you saved by buying the IBM to upgrade. Am I saying that because Win98 is faster, it is better than OS X? No. I'm saying that it's faster.

To finish off, twice the cache makes a HUGE difference... just compare the 800 iMac to the 800 Powermac.
This is not necessarily so. Compare a 200MHz MIPS R4400SC w/ 2MB of cache to the identical chip with 1MB cache. Barely any difference on anything but highly tuned code. Can more cache be better? Yes. But depending on the speed of the cache, the code being run, and the architecture of the CPU, less cache can also be better. The Celeron is a budget processor designed to skimp on areas like this, but basically, stating that "more cache automatically = better" is like stating that "more megahertz = better." It's an oversimplification.

Before you call me a PC weenie, I am a TiBook/OS X user. But, again, unless you can detail the reasoning you used in comparing the two computers you did, your comparison was retarded. Don't take it personally.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by ****_alex
I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want) - Windows is just useless, and Linux will never be great for the average desktop user. and you really should investigate before flaming, I have a 600mhz G3 at the moment, and oh my; OSX runs perfect! I had a 800mhz Celeron with WindowsME/98SE, I'd really have to say my G3 blows it away. Intel/Microsoft are both terrible companies, bad companies usually make bad products.
First of all, let me say that I love your nick. I am touched that someone found me so annoying that they saw fit to honor me in their own nick. Thanks. :)

To reply to the first part of your comment - I never said Windows 98 didn't suck. To me, it's positively wretched. However, in my previous comment, I didn't say it wasn't. I merely said it was faster. I have probably used just as many different operating systems as you have, ranging from all the Windows flavors to all the Mac OS versions to IRIX and Linux and BeOS and the various BSDs. I don't see how that's in any way relevant to the point I was trying to make, though.

Re your comment about the 600MHz G3 blowing away the 800MHz Celeron running Win98SE: I have a 550MHz PowerBook G4, which, according to most benchmarks, is faster than the 600MHz G3. I use OS X. I'm in OmniWeb right now, and as I scroll this web page, I feel like I'm on a P133 with a Trident video card. Mozilla and IE are a bit faster, but all in all, this OS is a dog. It's a beautiful dog, and there is no other dog I would rather be running, but it is a dog nonetheless. Unless you have 32MB of RAM in your Celeron, I find it very hard to believe that the speed of your G3 running OS X comes anywhere close to an 800MHz Celeron running Win98. My previous PC was a 550MHz AMD K6-2 running Linux with the same amount of ram as my TiBook (256MB). It absolutely blew the lid off this TiBook running OS X in terms of performance (not taking into account Altivec-accelerated apps, the only one of which I use is iTunes). OS 9 was a different story, of course, but I never use OS 9, so that's irrelevant.

No argument that Intel and Microsoft aren't bad companies, though. I agree 100%. No disagreement that they make bad products, either. But, again, I never said they didn't.

Alex

[jefhatfield]

actually, most comparisons i see in magazines or articles or posts comparing pcs to macs and vice versa are often exercies in "spin"

working towards my grad degree in pc hardware engineering (networking hardware, security, and support to be exact) made me realize that even comparisons of pcs to pcs and macs to macs is just not that easy

and i am just a hardware side guy, we would also need the input of an experienced software side person and someone else who could tie it all in together to try to make sense of it all

the phds i know in the field and in education tell me they seriously have no clue because in the IT field, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know

sometime look at mark minasi's books or scott mueller's books, or even a book on basic wafer design and one could see what i am talking about

but the two above posts, though against each other, are brave enough and get an idea of some general picture

i am just waiting for a full fledged chip engineer with some silicon valley experience (or equivalent) to step in and clarify some issues

dummmies such as me and a lot of posters here (not meant in a bad way---i should say newbies...most of us are learning the craft) a lot like to talk about processor speed, bus, and cache

so someone out there, please enlighten us!

[Backtothemac]

Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a *****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a *****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.

i tend to agree with you

but which apps are we talking about when we get both machines in front of us?

...i am sure that there are some posters here who have exactly those machines mentioned

...but you are right about windows...it's so much better to work with macs on most things and i use my ibook three out of every four times i boot up vs. my k6-II compaq laptop and my poor pentium desktop...well, i guess that puppy just collects dust :p

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a *****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.
Yes, I don't find it hard to believe that a 1GHz Celeron is slower than a 500MHz P3. So was my 550MHz K6-2, which should put it about on par with the Celeron. So in that case, please refer to my previous post about the K6-2 blowing the lid off the 550MHz G4 in non-Altivec apps.

I also agree that a 600MHz G3 is, theoretically, faster than a 1GHz Celeron. However, what I said was that, with the G3 running OS X and the Celeron running Win98, the Celeron will feel much, much faster. Win98 won't be more stable, or better looking, or more pleasurable to use, or anything else - and I didn't say it would be - but it will feel much faster. This is not taking into account OS 9, which completely changes the picture - I hope you were referring to the G3 being faster than the Celeron in OS 9 rather than OS X, although due to the extreme implausibility of it being faster in OS X, this is the only explanation I can come up with.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
working towards my grad degree in pc hardware engineering (networking hardware, security, and support to be exact) made me realize that even comparisons of pcs to pcs and macs to macs is just not that easy
...
i am just waiting for a full fledged chip engineer with some silicon valley experience (or equivalent) to step in and clarify some issues
...
dummmies such as me and a lot of posters here (not meant in a bad way---i should say newbies...most of us are learning the craft) a lot like to talk about processor speed, bus, and cache

I really agree with you here. The problem is, the discussions that could go on about this would require an MS in computer science and several volumes of books to understand. I think even if a Ph.D in computer engineering jumped in and enlightened us, he/she would have a hard time doing it in less than a few hundred pages. And an even harder time getting us to comprehend everything. I was a CS major. I'm now a geography major. That CS **** was not for me. :)

As a substitute, in my opinion, the closest approximation to a fair comparison would be to sit down in front of the machines being compared and weighing their respective benefits and shortcomings. Sure the "OmniWeb Scroll Test" above is not scientific, but I think it does get my point across rather effectively without being misleading. All in all, I think it all comes down to being fair.

Alex

[erova]

jef sounds like you describe the preTi black powerbooks...definitely a solid machine for only 800 if apple was to ever do that...

good to see you back, gocyrus. your insight here on this post is definitely fresh, original and thought provoking. i agree with you wholeheartedly that macs are expensive. so is a mercedes. now go throw your celeron into the trunk of your kia or fall down some stairs.

[oldMac]

While the original Celeron was a *total* piece of crap, they're not as bad as they used to be.

The real problem is that Celeron is the rock-bottom processor from Intel and nobody's going to put a Celeron in anything but their crappiest box. Meaning, crappiest motherboard, I/O, video, etc.

So, generally, I would guess that a G3 would be faster than a Celeron at anything within 30% clockspeed. But, then again, it really depends upon what you're trying to do with the machine. If you're talking about which machine feels "snappier", then the Win98 box will probably win even if it's only got a PII in there.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
hey eye,

how does this sound

500 mhz g3, 256 to 384 MB RAM, 5 or 6 GB HD, 12.1 active matrix screen, cd-ROM, 1 usb, 1 firewire, ac power adapter, headphone port, os x, netcaspe and internet explorer, appleworks, a couple of games to toss in, slightly larger form factor, airport compatibility with card sold seperately, only one speaker

total price $849.00

...and geared toward students and educators who have an additional 50 dollar discount

jef....reading that made me feel like a 12 year old boy looking at a nudie mag for the first time again! he he he...

yes I think that would be an incredible hardware feat for Apple to reach....I was actually scaling down on my RAM specs...glad to see u bumped them up! :p

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex

Windblows 98 is just butt nasty. More crash prone then OS 8.5 ever was.

As for not being able to buy it (why anyone would is beyond me), I guess you haven't been to either a Best Buy or CompUSA lately. They BOTH have copies on the shelves still. I believe that you can even find it in online and mail order catalogs.

Windblows me, and xp are just as nasty... Don't get either UNLESS it ships on a system. Even then, don't count on the drivers being there for the system. I lost count of how many reports of speakers not working for people after they 'upgraded' to me or xp.

If you are getting a computer... BUY A MAC!!. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' rings 100% true in this case. Pay the extra few dollars and get a system that you will be able to use for several years. Get a cheap peecee, and expect to replace it at least every couple of years, if you don't rip it's guts out and do updates on your own.

I am praying that m$ pulls windows from the shelves, or they get away from what hexpee does for registering. I would never purchase an OS that REQUIRES you to register with the maker in order to use it for more then 30 days... can you say monopoly??? The judges did... I know you can too.

[Beej]

Originally posted by ****_alex
I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want)Hey, I thought I was the only one in the world that even knew QNX existed, let alone thought it was any good! I'd be lying if I said it was even in the same league as OS X, though...

But hey, someone else knows what QNX is! He he! :D

[Beej]

Rather than designing a new low-end portable, Apple could do what they've done with the CRT iMacs. They could simply hold on to the current low-end iBook, and over the next few years let the price drop.

That would mean no costs in engineering a new machine, but you would still be getting a high quality machine that would run OS X nicely.

I guess the only down side is the wait (for the price to drop) but even if Apple were to start working on it today, it would be a year or more before it hit the market.

[foofan]

JUST REMEMBER "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR". SO IF LOW PRICE IS IMPORTANT TO TO YOU, GO OUT AN BUY AN E-MACHINE AND SEE HOW LONG IT LASTS, BEE-OTCH!!!!!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Yes, I don't find it hard to believe that a 1GHz Celeron is slower than a 500MHz P3. So was my 550MHz K6-2, which should put it about on par with the Celeron. So in that case, please refer to my previous post about the K6-2 blowing the lid off the 550MHz G4 in non-Altivec apps.

I also agree that a 600MHz G3 is, theoretically, faster than a 1GHz Celeron. However, what I said was that, with the G3 running OS X and the Celeron running Win98, the Celeron will feel much, much faster. Win98 won't be more stable, or better looking, or more pleasurable to use, or anything else - and I didn't say it would be - but it will feel much faster. This is not taking into account OS 9, which completely changes the picture - I hope you were referring to the G3 being faster than the Celeron in OS 9 rather than OS X, although due to the extreme implausibility of it being faster in OS X, this is the only explanation I can come up with.

Alex

1) Find a copy of non-Altivec Photoshop for X or 9, oops there isn't one. Wait, how about a copy of Illustrator, zip again. Office. Yep, it will feel faster on the Celeron, but wait there's a .dll error. Point is, the hardware, and software is superior on the Mac.

2) My G3s are faster than ANY Celeron is, and that is the case under 9 and X. My iMac has 1GB of ram, seperate swap partition, and I prebind once a week (now that I know how). My iBook is actually faster than the iMac is and it only has 384 MB of ram, but it has the new pangea controller in it.

3) Oh, one last thing, PCs do feel faster on many things than Macs especially ones running X. PCs hang faster, crash apps faster, blue screen faster, and run MICROSOFT programs faster than they do on a Mac. The reason they do so is that Mac software meshes with the OS and therefore takes longer to load than it does on a PC. The fact is that Windows will load programs faster than a Mac because the majority of the program resides in the oh so unstable .dll file.

I am not trying to start a war of words with you, in fact, I am enjoying this ;)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by PC > MACs
bump
Please stop doing that. If a thread is dying off, it means that most of the people here aren't interested.
Bumping is selfish, that's why we don't do it here. Besides you haven't even posted a comment to this thread. Just because you think the title implies a PC bias, doesn't mean that that's what it's about.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1) Find a copy of non-Altivec Photoshop for X or 9, oops there isn't one. Wait, how about a copy of Illustrator, zip again. Office. Yep, it will feel faster on the Celeron, but wait there's a .dll error. Point is, the hardware, and software is superior on the Mac.
You can magically get a copy of non-Altivec Photoshop or non-Altivec anything else by running it on a G3, which has no Altivec unit, and which is the CPU I was originally referring to. :)

2) My G3s are faster than ANY Celeron is, and that is the case under 9 and X. My iMac has 1GB of ram, seperate swap partition, and I prebind once a week (now that I know how). My iBook is actually faster than the iMac is and it only has 384 MB of ram, but it has the new pangea controller in it.
Your G3s are remarkable. I would trade my 550MHz G4 for one of your G3s any day because my G4, while it benchmarks much higher than a Celeron, does not feel faster in OS X than a Celeron running Win98 does. Only now that I've downloaded iCab can it scroll web pages seemingly as fast as IE on an Intel chip half as fast. (I am a Web Page Scroll Nazi.)

3) Oh, one last thing, PCs do feel faster on many things than Macs especially ones running X. PCs hang faster, crash apps faster, blue screen faster, and run MICROSOFT programs faster than they do on a Mac. The reason they do so is that Mac software meshes with the OS and therefore takes longer to load than it does on a PC. The fact is that Windows will load programs faster than a Mac because the majority of the program resides in the oh so unstable .dll file.
DLL files can only cause software to be unstable if poorly written. Most, especially by more reputable software companies, aren't. DLLs are a poor implementation of the concept of shared libraries, yes, but that doesn't affect software stability.

I don't know what you mean by Mac software "meshing" with the OS - please explain.

I've already agreed on this thread many times that Windows is a piece of arse, but I think you're exaggerating its crash-happiness a bit. You're right that it does crash, a lot, but I think the average Win98 user has at least a few good hours to get work done in between crashes. :)

I am not trying to start a war of words with you, in fact, I am enjoying this ;)
Well, that makes two of us, at least. I was originally trying to point out the unfairness of the originator of this thead, whoever he/she was. Then when attacking that poster's pro-Mac comparison, I was flagged as a PC using idiot. So then I bring my TiBook and the fact that I own no PCs into the picture, and people don't know what the hell to think. That's a Mac discussion forum for ya, I guess.

Alex

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by alex_ant
DLL files can only cause software to be unstable if poorly written. Most, especially by more reputable software companies, aren't. DLLs are a poor implementation of the concept of shared libraries, yes, but that doesn't affect software stability.



I have seen Office 2000 on a peecee with a single 'damaged' dll file totally ***** the computer.. just one file made the system so unstable it wasn't funny. I had to wipe the entire drive and install EVERYTHING fresh in order to get it to be halfway usable. It took most of a day to get everything back on, including the files I had to back up.

Mac's take about 2x-8x less time to fix, depending on the chip and age of the system. The new ones fly through the utilities, where the older ones tend to take longer (slower chips, cd drives, bus speeds and such then the newer ones).

If you get a Mac, not only go you get a superior OS, but the hardware rocks too. Most Mac issues (90%+) can be fixed in under 2-3 hours, unless it requires major replacement of hardware, or trying to retrieve critical data that the user has deleted :rolleyes: Peecee's on the other hand can take a full day or more to 'fix'. That also can require the dozen or so 'critical' updates and such that m$ has put out that you have to do a damned restart between each one.

I am VERY glad that we have many more Mac's at work then peecee's. If the numbers were reversed I would be in the looney bin by now.

[Backtothemac]

What can I use to capture a quicktime movie of me opening IE on my iMac and scrolling through a window? Let me know and I will post it for you Alex. I promise this thing scrolls faster than any of the PCs at my office, and one is a 1.4 GHZ P4.

[Xapplimatic]

Come on.. I have a 466 Celeron with 66 Mhz bus running Windows 98 here (which I rarely turn on except to make fun of it) and a 466 G3 iBook here with a 66 MHz bus running OS X.. The G3 on OS X is faster than the Celeron with Win98 in many operations at equal clockspeeds. It's faster on some disk operations, it's faster redrawing the screen (windows move as a whole piece on the Mac.. the "Win"tel flickers noticably), it's faster to shut down, it's faster running PhotoShop, heck -- it's faster emptying the trash! The only thing I'll give the Celeron is that Internet Explorer loads 1/2 sec faster. Other than that, the Celeron also wins in the "how many applications can I crash per hour" category! And is in it's own total category when it comes to something lovely called the "Blue Screen of Death".. which also seems to happen a lot when Windows can't resolve an application lockup (including Windows locking itself up!)..

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I have seen Office 2000 on a peecee with a single 'damaged' dll file totally ***** the computer.. just one file made the system so unstable it wasn't funny. I had to wipe the entire drive and install EVERYTHING fresh in order to get it to be halfway usable. It took most of a day to get everything back on, including the files I had to back up.
That's great, so how does that refute what I said about DLLs being a bad implementation of shared libraries but only being unstable when poorly written? Citing a single case does not prove, and does not even imply, a trend. Am I saying Office 2000, the concept of DLLs, or Windows 98 do not suck? No.

Mac's take about 2x-8x less time to fix, depending on the chip and age of the system. The new ones fly through the utilities, where the older ones tend to take longer (slower chips, cd drives, bus speeds and such then the newer ones).

If you get a Mac, not only go you get a superior OS, but the hardware rocks too. Most Mac issues (90%+) can be fixed in under 2-3 hours, unless it requires major replacement of hardware, or trying to retrieve critical data that the user has deleted :rolleyes: Peecee's on the other hand can take a full day or more to 'fix'. That also can require the dozen or so 'critical' updates and such that m$ has put out that you have to do a damned restart between each one.

I am VERY glad that we have many more Mac's at work then peecee's. If the numbers were reversed I would be in the looney bin by now.
All of this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Hopefully you didn't mean to imply that it did.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
What can I use to capture a quicktime movie of me opening IE on my iMac and scrolling through a window? Let me know and I will post it for you Alex. I promise this thing scrolls faster than any of the PCs at my office, and one is a 1.4 GHZ P4.
I don't think there's anything you could use to do that without affecting the speed of the scroll, but your point is taken. I must have a defective TiBook. The Apple System Profiler is telling me I have a 550MHz G4 and a Mobility Radeon graphics chip, but it is obviously lying, so I'll shut up now.

Alex

[Backtothemac]

Alex, how much memory do you have? Do you have a seperate swap partition? Do you prebind your system, or defrag your drive? I want to help you man. That system should scream. Let me know.
Chuck