Please talk me out of this!!!

[illumin8]

I, like everyone here, am desperately waiting for the new 970s to hit the market. In the meantime, I am desperately trying to avoid being tempted by the new Wintel machines that are just begging me to buy them:

Get this:

* Dell Dimension 8300, 2.6 Ghz. PIV with Hyperthreading
* 800 Mhz. FSB!!!
* 256 MB PC3200 (DDR 400 Dual Channel!) SDRAM
* 30GB HD
* 64MB ATI All-In-Wonder 9000 Pro

For a total price of $669 after shipping and tax!

The nice thing about this is that it's the new Intel chipset which has two banks of two DDR400 slots, to give you a full 800 mhz. of memory bandwidth...

So tell me please, why should I wait until June 23rd when the 970s might or might not be ready, then plonk down 2 g's, when I can get the same memory bandwidth that the new 970s theoretically have, and about twice as many gigahertz for only $669?

Apple better do something quick or they will lose the last 3% of their market share...

[Mr. Anderson]

Ah, it all depends on what you're going to do with it and what software you're using. If its such a good machine (the Dell) and you want your 30 gig drive, go buy it.

I'm waiting - all my software runs on a mac anyway.

D

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Ah, it all depends on what you're going to do with it and what software you're using. If its such a good machine (the Dell) and you want your 30 gig drive, go buy it.
D

Well, for the special price it's pretty much assumed that you just buy an after-market 120GB 8MB cache hard drive and upgrade it yourself.

I really want to switch from a mostly PC based (Linux and Windows) environment to Mac OS X, but it's getting really hard to justify the premium price just for a nice OS... Sure Winblows is fugly, but if you spend most of your time in one application the OS itself doesn't seem to make too much of a difference... But I did just buy an iPod and it's working it's switcher mojo on me... :D

I think I will just buy the Dell workstation and a new 970 PowerMac and have them sitting side by side with a KVM switch.

No Softwindows for me please, I'll just have the best of both worlds! ;)

[beez7777]

where did you find this price? i can't find it anywhere on dell's site. it seems pretty good, and i was lookin to get my brother a cheap pc (he only needs it for email, aim, and word processing, but i'd like to get him something that'll last).

[illumin8]

Originally posted by beez7777
where did you find this price? i can't find it anywhere on dell's site. it seems pretty good, and i was lookin to get my brother a cheap pc. Go to Hot Deals (http://www.hot-deals.org), then scroll about halfway down the page; there is a link. Follow the instructions on that site.

In order to get the deal you have to purchase a Dimension 8300 configured at $899 or higher. You put in a $100 off coupon code, then there is a $200 mail-in rebate.

Even with all the jumping through hoops it seems like a sweet deal.

[beez7777]

seems pretty decent, only there's no cd burner or moniter, which my brother would need. :(

[illumin8]

Originally posted by beez7777
seems pretty decent, only there's no cd burner or moniter, which my brother would need. :( You can add that stuff on if you want to, but it jacks the price up. The idea is to buy the computer for cheap, then upgrade it with generic parts later. That way you save a lot of money... You can upgrade to a Dell brand CD burner and monitor if you want, but you'll end up with a pretty expensive system quick... Far better just to use Pricewatch (http://www.pricewatch.com) to buy your components after the fact.

Edited to state the obvious: I didn't really intend for this thread to be a tutorial on how to buy a cheap PC, I just wanted to highlight the fact that Apple really needs to catch up fast before they are doomed to irrelevance, just like the great Amiga and SGI workstations of the past.

[MrMacMan]

Since when does the 2.6 P4 have hyperthreading?

I was pretty sure (unless they re-released the 2.6 P4) that they don't have hyperthreading.

I am probably wrong tho.

BTW, your never going to get the mail-in rebate, I read a report that they have such an absurdly long list of things you need to do to apply for the rebate and then wait... and wait... and wait...

Think about it this way, by June 23ed Intel might have released the 3.6 GHZ P4, and it is in the works.

edit: remember make sure the 2.6 has the '2.6c ' with it because according to, ----, that has the hyperthreadiung.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Since when does the 2.6 P4 have hyperthreading?

edit: remember make sure the 2.6 has the '2.6c ' with it because according to, ----, that has the hyperthreadiung. Aah.. I did check the specs listed on Dells site and it says:

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.60, 2.80 or 3GHz with Hyper-Threading Technology and 800MHz front side bus

Intel® 875P chipset

Sounds like the latest and greatest. Sure the 3.6 might be out soon... I could have gotten the 3.0, but you always pay a premium for the top of the line, and I can't imagine wanting to pay an additional $270 just for 400 more mhz... 2.6 is plenty.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by illumin8
Aah.. I did check the specs listed on Dells site and it says:

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.60, 2.80 or 3GHz with Hyper-Threading Technology and 800MHz front side bus

Intel® 875P chipset

Sounds like the latest and greatest. Sure the 3.6 might be out soon... I could have gotten the 3.0, but you always pay a premium for the top of the line, and I can't imagine wanting to pay an additional $270 just for 400 more mhz... 2.6 is plenty.

You might be able to afford th 3.0 Ghz model by then... ;)

[QCassidy352]

so... the 2.6 Ghz model does not have the 800 mhz fsb or hyperthreading? The ad reads like those things only apply to the last item in the list, the 3.0 Ghz machine.

Or did they mean all of them have the bus and hyperthreading, and just word it ambiguously?

[MacAztec]

Build your own frickin PC. Thats not so great of a deal. I built a P4 2.66GHz (533MHz Bus) with 1GB RAM, Radeon 9500 Pro, 80GB HD, CDRW/DVD, for like 650 dollars.

And this was a while ago. You can get better technology for the same price now. And, are you sure the graphics card is not soldered on teh mobo.

[ibookin']

Originally posted by MacAztec
And, are you sure the graphics card is not soldered on teh mobo.

Yeah, this sounds like too good a deal to have a replacable graphics card.

Look into it further before buying. If yu aren't playing games, though... it does seem like a decent deal.

MacAztec: He may want a warranty on his machine. I would have liked one when the motherboard failed on my Athlon 700 that I built myself. The mother board was under warranty, but the company wouldn't do anything because they said my power supply had done it. The haadn't even seen the motherboard and were somehow able to determine this :rolleyes:

Had I bought a system prebuilt I wouldn't have had the problem.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Back to the main topic. For one thing, that ad was worded carefully, as hyperthreading is only possible once you get up to 3GHz. Wait for the Mac. OS X is much nicer. It's more stable, it has iTunes, it looks nicer, more convinient layout. And when it comes to the speed...unless you're doing serious video rendering, even most G4s will run faster overall than that Pentium. You could just wait for the 970, then buy a G4 for real cheap.

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by MacAztec
Build your own frickin PC.

No, uh, don't.
One thing about Dell... three years worth of warrantee and on site for the first year (if I'm not mistaken).
Homebuilt PC's?
Bah.
Get the Dell. We don't have time to tinker (then call 5 companies if some widget fails)... we got work to do.

[Sun Baked]

Buy yourself a bunch of big Steven the Dell Dork posters, and plaster them all over your walls.

If that doesn't cure you of this cheap POS Dell envy, then it looks like illumin8's Getting a Dell.

---

Oops it's not cheap, it's only cheap if you even get a rebate check to cash -- so it looks like illumin8's getting screwed out of a Dell... Rebate.

[mnkeybsness]

Originally posted by MacAztec
Build your own frickin PC. Thats not so great of a deal. I built a P4 2.66GHz (533MHz Bus) with 1GB RAM, Radeon 9500 Pro, 80GB HD, CDRW/DVD, for like 650 dollars.

And this was a while ago. You can get better technology for the same price now. And, are you sure the graphics card is not soldered on teh mobo.

dude didn't you built that like a month ago? that's not very long

[tazo]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Back to the main topic. For one thing, that ad was worded carefully, as hyperthreading is only possible once you get up to 3GHz. Wait for the Mac. OS X is much nicer. It's more stable, it has iTunes, it looks nicer, more convinient layout. And when it comes to the speed...unless you're doing serious video rendering, even most G4s will run faster overall than that Pentium. You could just wait for the 970, then buy a G4 for real cheap.

what rhymes with beelit? starts with a Z? hint? Zealot. Don't act like one, its quite unappealing.

[beatle888]

hey im finally fed up. i say if the pc can keep up with your work flow and the mac cant. then DUMP the ********** mac. today is IT. my next system WILL be a junky clunky PC with POWER. im tired of the mac not keeping up with the work flow. TIRED. now its reflecting on me. AE's wondering what the hell is taking so long to get the job done. its the damn mac. im constantly waiting for it to catch up with me.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
so... the 2.6 Ghz model does not have the 800 mhz fsb or hyperthreading? The ad reads like those things only apply to the last item in the list, the 3.0 Ghz machine. I checked, all the processors that sell with that model, whether they are 2.6, 2.8, or 3.0 have both Hyperthreading and 800 mhz. FSB.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by MacAztec
Build your own frickin PC. Thats not so great of a deal. I built a P4 2.66GHz (533MHz Bus) with 1GB RAM, Radeon 9500 Pro, 80GB HD, CDRW/DVD, for like 650 dollars.

And this was a while ago. You can get better technology for the same price now. And, are you sure the graphics card is not soldered on teh mobo. The graphics card it comes with in that configuration is an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder 9000 with 64 MB of RAM. Not bad for such a cheap box. Also, the MB supports AGP 8x.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by illumin8
So tell me please, why should I wait

OSX

[illumin8]

I decided to go for it... The offer expired tonight so I took the plunge.

Hell, for $669 I can get one now and still afford the 970 when it is released.... One of the benefits of living in the sticks, making a big city salary, being single, and having a lot of expendable income.

I have been dying to get rid of the AMD Athlon XP 1700 leaf-blower that is slowly making me go deaf due to all of the fans I had to place in it to keep it cool.

In case anyone is interested, this is the final config I ended up with:

* PIV 2.6ghz. w/ Hyperthreading
* Intel 875P chipset with 800mhz. FSB
* 256MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
* 30GB Ultra ATA/100 7200rpm Hard Drive
* 128MB DDR ATI Radeon 9800 Graphics card with DVI, TV, and VGA out (upgraded this for only $110!)
* 16x DVD-ROM (upgraded this for $30)

Total price with shipping and tax is $989.00 - $200 MIR = $789.

Also went to Newegg.com and ordered:

* 120GB 7200 RPM Hitachi/IBM Hard Drive w/ 8MB cache and 8.5 ms seek time (to replace the small 30GB with) - $112
* 2 sticks of 512MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz (to bring the total up to 1280MB) - $138 (2 x $69)

Total upgrades - $250 + $10 shipping for $260

Total system price: $1049 shipped, plus about a half hour of my time to put in the new hard drive and upgrade the memory.

I think the upgrade to the ATI 9800 card was definitely worth it for only $110... I also already have a Firewire card (for my iPod) I'll throw in there and I have a Firewire DVD burner so the CD/DVD burning is taken care of...

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I can't wait to have this box sitting side-by-side with a new PowerMac 970 and a 23" Cinema Display... :D

MacAztec: I checked the "build it yourself" route, but if you price it out with one of the new 800mhz. FSB boards and the 800mhz. FSB processor it is more expensive. Besides, every system I've built on my own seems to have some type of nasty hardware conflicts that give me grief and my time and sanity is worth much more than that.

Beatle88: Patience, young grashopper... :) The Intel based PCs might be priced at the sweet spot right now due mostly to the failing tech economy and our ever insatiable need to keep following Moore's law, but Apple will once again regain their crown. When that day comes I'm definitely going to buy a Mac.

[Chimaera]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
so... the 2.6 Ghz model does not have the 800 mhz fsb or hyperthreading? The ad reads like those things only apply to the last item in the list, the 3.0 Ghz machine.

Or did they mean all of them have the bus and hyperthreading, and just word it ambiguously?

The new 800MHz FSB procs (which start at 2.6GHz) all have hyper threading, its the old 533MHz FSB procs that had it ONLY on the 3.06GHz part

[ozubahn]

Originally posted by tazo
what rhymes with beelit? starts with a Z? hint? Zealot. Don't act like one, its quite unappealing.

Whoa, hold on a second... How exactly are you pronouncing this new "beelit" word of yours?

[maradong]

the 2.4 ghz version ( with gfsb 800 ) has also got ht.

[Wardofsky]

Well, I use a PC at school and (obviously) a mac at home and I know that most Mac and PC users get on a bit roughly but, the PC I use at school shouldn't be classified as a computer, more over a advanced calculator.

I don't even know what Mhz it's running at.

Go for a Mac then but if you feel a PC suits you better, get a PC.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by illumin8
I decided to go for it... The offer expired tonight so I took the plunge.

Hook, line, and sinker.

You do realise these "special offers" are designed to generate impulse buys such as yours and the one that expired last night was most likely replaced with another one quite similar, no?

Hell, for $669 I can get one now and still afford the 970 when it is released...

I'm confused:

Total system price: $1049 shipped, plus about a half hour of my time to put in the new hard drive and upgrade the memory.


Plus $200 that you hope you get back eventually from the MIR, so make that $1249 for now.

You realise that, shipped and loaded, you paid nearly double what you thought you paid?

[yzedf]

$1049 shipped includes extra 120GB hdd (plus standard 30GB hdd) and extra 1GB of RAM (256MB standard), as well as upgrade to Radeon 9000 vid card. All in all, not bad, if you don't do the entire build it from scratch thing.

P4 is hyper thread for more than just the 3.06 GHz now...

http://www.googlegear.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80652-800

Appears to be summarized by Intel here:

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4/index.htm?iid=ipp_desk_proc+highlight_p4_ht&

HT seems to start at 2.4 GHz for the 800MHz bus. Wordage of the site is a bit ambiguous.... :(

[illumin8]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You realise that, shipped and loaded, you paid nearly double what you thought you paid? Like I said earlier, if you buy it you pretty much plan on upgrading it first thing. Those of you that bought an iBook with only 128MB of RAM probably popped a bigger stick in right away too. I still think I got a good deal for top of the line technology at an entry-level price...

Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.

[yzedf]

Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.
Very well said.

Hypocrisy is one of the reasons I am always on this message board...! ;)

[Funkatation]

hey illumina8... when you get your new dell and those 2 512mb sticks of ram... take out the 256 chip (or 2x128) whatever it is... the dual channel stuff is really finickey, and has to have all slots populated with the same ram (nforce2 isnt as bad, but the new intel stuff is) or it will run in single channel mode (cutting memory bandwith in half)

[mactastic]

I need to use both PC's and Macs. I sure could use a cheap pc box, but I'm still paying off my pbook. I end up having to use Autocad, and VPC doesn't cut it for that for so many reasons. So I still have a reason to need both platforms. However, as a previous poster said, if I had to buy all my software over just to switch, it would run another thousand or so, even with educational discounts. Not terribly appealing. Unless of course, you aren't paying for software...


Some of you... some of you like pcs exculsively, while myself I say there is not, nor ought there be anything so exaulted on the face of God's great earth as that prince of computers, the macintosh.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Funkatation
hey illumina8... when you get your new dell and those 2 512mb sticks of ram... take out the 256 chip (or 2x128) whatever it is... the dual channel stuff is really finickey, and has to have all slots populated with the same ram (nforce2 isnt as bad, but the new intel stuff is) or it will run in single channel mode (cutting memory bandwith in half) Cool, thanks for the tip. I guess 1 GB of memory should be enough. I want to make sure I'm running dual channel mode after all or the memory won't be keeping up with the processor.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by mactastic
I need to use both PC's and Macs. I sure could use a cheap pc box, but I'm still paying off my pbook. I end up having to use Autocad, and VPC doesn't cut it for that for so many reasons. So I still have a reason to need both platforms. However, as a previous poster said, if I had to buy all my software over just to switch, it would run another thousand or so, even with educational discounts. Not terribly appealing. Unless of course, you aren't paying for software...


Some of you... some of you like pcs exculsively, while myself I say there is not, nor ought there be anything so exaulted on the face of God's great earth as that prince of computers, the macintosh. Most of the programs I spend a lot of time in have both the PC and Mac versions included on the same disk (Reason is a good example). So an added benefit of switching is that I don't have to rebuy all of my software, just MS office, although OpenOffice is pretty good now and will probably do just fine on Mac OS X.

Just so you guys know, I've been really reaching the end of the life-cycle of my current PC (I record music and really need the latest and greatest), and although I would love to switch, it's looking to me now that I would be waiting at least until August or September before even the first release of 970 products are available in stores.

By buying a PC now, then waiting until possibly the second rev. of the 970 machines in December or January before I buy a Mac and make the switch, I should be getting a faster product for less money that won't have any problems that the early adopters are going to have to deal with.

If only Apple would have timed their 970 release around MY PC upgrade schedule, and not silly market realities... :D

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by illumin8
Like I said earlier, if you buy it you pretty much plan on upgrading it first thing. Those of you that bought an iBook with only 128MB of RAM probably popped a bigger stick in right away too. I still think I got a good deal for top of the line technology at an entry-level price...

Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.

Yeah but then three weeks after you buy it the thing is slow as bricks because you've installed programs, you'll wonder why people buy macs. Both my parent's HP laptops are dog slow, they lag opening IE and just about everything else. Sure XP brings up the desktop a minute before OS X but it takes an extra 5 minutes to load all the background programs that you can't turn off.

I don't even want to hear hardware spec comparisons to this new POS you bought and a new mac. I know my ibook 500 is smoking every PC in my house. Shoot, my dad's Fujitsu 233 P2 isn't much slower than his new Athalon 1800+ mobile.

All those specs are a marketing ploy to attract people who immediately assume that bigger is better. And you bought it. Paid twice what they said you'd pay too.

Bottom line is, though the hardware numbers are pretty sweet, they aren't implimented in an efficient way. Because Windows has to support a billion different chipsets, it's not optimized well to any hardware and is sluggish whether you have a 800 celeron or a 2.4 P4.

You can throw out hardware specs and benchmarks out the window. What it comes down to is sitting right in front of each machine and see which one cooperates. Sure you can get a dell for $700. But compare the percent of people who HATE computers and use pc's to the percent of people who love macs and own macs.

So enjoy your loud dead weight and we'll see you back in the mac camp in a few years... I'm sure of it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Yeah but then three weeks after you buy it the thing is slow as bricks because you've installed programs, you'll wonder why people buy macs. Both my parent's HP laptops are dog slow, they lag opening IE and just about everything else. Sure XP brings up the desktop a minute before OS X but it takes an extra 5 minutes to load all the background programs that you can't turn off.

I don't even want to hear hardware spec comparisons to this new POS you bought and a new mac. I know my ibook 500 is smoking every PC in my house. Shoot, my dad's Fujitsu 233 P2 isn't much slower than his new Athalon 1800+ mobile.

All those specs are a marketing ploy to attract people who immediately assume that bigger is better. And you bought it. Paid twice what they said you'd pay too.

Bottom line is, though the hardware numbers are pretty sweet, they aren't implimented in an efficient way. Because Windows has to support a billion different chipsets, it's not optimized well to any hardware and is sluggish whether you have a 800 celeron or a 2.4 P4.

You can throw out hardware specs and benchmarks out the window. What it comes down to is sitting right in front of each machine and see which one cooperates. Sure you can get a dell for $700. But compare the percent of people who HATE computers and use pc's to the percent of people who love macs and own macs.

So enjoy your loud dead weight and we'll see you back in the mac camp in a few years... I'm sure of it.

That's about what I was going to say. I bought my iBook for $1500. I spent another $40 on RAM. Total cost of hardware for two years of ownership: $1540, $40 more than what the unit itself cost.

It runs OSX faster than it did when new, and when I upgrade to a PowerMac (for ~ $1600 for the midline model, not $3000), I will keep it because it will remain a fully capable, albeit slower, companion to the PowerMac.

At three years old a PC can't run the latest basic software. At three years, a Mac is just getting broken in.

[Sun Baked]

Buy the inexpensive PC,

Buy the inexpensive PC,

Buy the inexpensive PC,

Be happy with your next several PC purchases,

Bill Gates NEEDs your money, his gold plated jewel encrusted bidet needs an upgrade.

---

Like the Saturn dealer always says, nobody ever buys the entry level car.

We got one, it's in the back covered in a layer of dust, but you really don't want to drive it -- but with a few more options like this baby here ...

[macphoria]

Why on earth would you want to waste your money on 32bit machine when 64bit machine is just around the corner?

[jxyama]

Why on earth would you want to waste your money on 32bit machine when 64bit machine is just around the corner?

Why on earth would you want to waste your time waiting for a machine you know nothing about when a useful machine you know everything about is available right now?



Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.

Spending over $1,000 after being enticed by an ad for $700 is pretty amazing to me too.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
At three years old a PC can't run the latest basic software. At three years, a Mac is just getting broken in.
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.

And for the record, my office is full of 3-5 year old computers (some P2 333MHz boxes) that run Office 2000 perfectly well, as well as the lastest Norton and other various office necessities.

Obviously any 3 yr old computer would be useless for gaming or hard core rendering type work...

[jxyama]

QE is not a vital OS function...

I'm working on a G3/266 from eons ago... OS X is working fine...

Try putting XP on your P2.

[NavyIntel007]

For a PC to even be reliable you have to do some sort of upgrades (ram, video, sound...) at least every six months. I've even had PC techs tell me that you have to reformat your hard drive every three months!!! I've run norton to defrag my hard drive and it actually runs SLOWER right after the defrag on my mac.

By the way, my dad can't even get the wireless card built in (or an add-on) to work with my Netgear router. No problem with my ibook.

Trust me dude, if you don't feel like a chump already, you will. Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer will ride ya'll all the way to the bank.

I'll tell you this... you get what you pay for. You're comparing the 2.0 Liter 4 cylinder engine in a Poniac Sunfire to the 1.6 Liter supercharged 4 cylinder engine in the Cooper Mini S. Sure the sunfire has a bigger engine, bigger fuel tank, bigger trunk... but it doesn't mean a damn thing! The Mini will drive circles around it and last twice as long (and will sell for 5 times what the Sunfire will used).

Wait till you get it before you start bragging about the deal you just got. I wonder how long that fantasy will last?

[zach]

Originally posted by illumin8
Cool, thanks for the tip. I guess 1 GB of memory should be enough. I want to make sure I'm running dual channel mode after all or the memory won't be keeping up with the processor.

Hmm... one more reason to stay away from Pee Cees.

Sure, macs cost "too" much and have "1998" era technology, but don't come crying to me when your P4 is running Windoze as slow as s--- cause all the drivers are out of date, the memory isn't running dual channel, and your hard drive is all fragmented. Meanwhile, i will be sitting working on my $1300 700 MHz iBook with 384 megs of ram, smoking every windoze machine in the area.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by yzedf
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.

And for the record, my office is full of 3-5 year old computers (some P2 333MHz boxes) that run Office 2000 perfectly well, as well as the lastest Norton and other various office necessities.

Obviously any 3 yr old computer would be useless for gaming or hard core rendering type work... If i rercollect the Pwer macs were at 350 to 500Mhz in 1999 and the cube was in 2000 which is three years ago and they all had a 16mb video card in them. I'm using a dual 450 from 2000 and it still runs wonderfully including most games (i upgraded the video card and the ram) and rus os X (10.2.6) without any slow downs.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by yzedf
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.

Think of something other than Quartz. I said basic software. My two year-old, 8MB VRAM iBook can run FCE and PS 7 and it doesn't have Quartz.

And for the record, my office is full of 3-5 year old computers (some P2 333MHz boxes) that run Office 2000 perfectly well, as well as the lastest Norton and other various office necessities.

For the record, Office 2000 is a three year-old piece of software, so I'd expect it to run perfectly well on your 3-5 year old computers.

Obviously any 3 yr old computer would be useless for gaming or hard core rendering type work...

Now that would depend on the base architecture and the graphics card, wouldn't it?

[yzedf]

Video card only can do so much on a slow ass bus system. Compare fps of any game on a PC to that of a Mac. ;)

Basic software, how is the OS rendering anything (window icon etc) not basic... open iTunes, Safari, and iChat at the same time, directly after reboot. How long is the wait? Why?

Office 2000 is older... but we are also running all current service packs and security patches, which has significantly degraded performance over the base install. :mad:

Dual channel is designed with something in mind, and that is bad? If it was a PowerMac you all would be praising its intelligent forward thinking design! :rolleyes:

Hardware wise, Macs are in the stone age. If we are lucky, IBM will be nice enough to let Apple use the 970... but there are no certainties until they actually ship.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by yzedf


Dual channel is designed with something in mind, and that is bad? If it was a PowerMac you all would be praising its intelligent forward thinking design! :rolleyes:

Hardware wise, Macs are in the stone age. If we are lucky, IBM will be nice enough to let Apple use the 970... but there are no certainties until they actually ship.
I agree with you that the hardware for the power mac is behind the times and lets face it windows is getting better at alot of things and if apple gets it together we could be looking at another revolution. If I was ever to buy a wintel box it would not be from a manufacturer. It is easy enough to buy your own components and throw them together. You dont get customer support on the whole box, but lets face it there ain't much support out there normally:)

[NavyIntel007]

X86 has some good features but if you're going to be running windows, you're wasting your time.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
X86 has some good features but if you're going to be running windows, you're wasting your time. TOO true

[gopher]

Originally posted by illumin8
I, like everyone here, am desperately waiting for the new 970s to hit the market. In the meantime, I am desperately trying to avoid being tempted by the new Wintel machines that are just begging me to buy them:

Get this:

* Dell Dimension 8300, 2.6 Ghz. PIV with Hyperthreading
* 800 Mhz. FSB!!!
* 256 MB PC3200 (DDR 400 Dual Channel!) SDRAM
* 30GB HD
* 64MB ATI All-In-Wonder 9000 Pro

For a total price of $669 after shipping and tax!

The nice thing about this is that it's the new Intel chipset which has two banks of two DDR400 slots, to give you a full 800 mhz. of memory bandwidth...

So tell me please, why should I wait until June 23rd when the 970s might or might not be ready, then plonk down 2 g's, when I can get the same memory bandwidth that the new 970s theoretically have, and about twice as many gigahertz for only $669?

Apple better do something quick or they will lose the last 3% of their market share...

What new desktop machine comes out today with ONLY 30 GB of hard disk space? Even the $799 eMac has 40 GB. And for $999 you get an eMac with 60 GB and a combo drive. Dell's just selling you something that you are going to upgrade anyway. Apple sells you the whole package.

[NavyIntel007]

Notice illumin8 hasn't posted in a while. Guess he realized he's been duped and doesn't want to admit it.

[Nutzoids]

I have worked and continue to work as an IT professional. I work on Win 2000 Networks for a living as well as spend alot of time upgrading PCs. This is my job, and I love it. But it is something I am so tired of doing at home. If you were a dishwasher at work...would you go home and wash your dishes first thing? Most likely NO! at one time at home I had a network of over 6 PCs. I baught an IBook and sold all but 2 of my PCs. After June 23rd I will be picking me up a new IMac...Still hoping they upgread them as well. Personal Preferance comes into play here. I love PCs but I don't want them in my home any more! After i get my new IMac those last 2 are gone! Apple is the future....there is no denying that...just read these rumor sites. Apple forever!:p

[CubeHacker]

My god, some of you people are either really ill informed, or really ignorant. Reinstall Windows every 3 months? What kind of crazy person told you this? I've been running the same install of XP for 1.5 years, and its still running great, and the OS has yet to crash ONCE on me.

And XP can run on a P2 just fine. Sure, it might not be the most pleasant of experiences, but then neither is running OS X on a low end G3. Remember, the G3 was a P2 competitor, and the G4 was a P3 competitor.

Most of you aren't giving wintels enough credit. Sure, windows might not be flawless, but they are cheap, and fast, and run 95% of apps available, which is what most people care about. Maybe Macs are better, but are they really worth the 2x pricetag for half the performance?

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by DOACleric
My god, some of you people are either really ill informed, or really ignorant. Reinstall Windows every 3 months? What kind of crazy person told you this? I've been running the same install of XP for 1.5 years, and its still running great, and the OS has yet to crash ONCE on me.

And XP can run on a P2 just fine. Sure, it might not be the most pleasant of experiences, but then neither is running OS X on a low end G3. Remember, the G3 was a P2 competitor, and the G4 was a P3 competitor.

Most of you aren't giving wintels enough credit. Sure, windows might not be flawless, but they are cheap, and fast, and run 95% of apps available, which is what most people care about. Maybe Macs are better, but are they really worth the 2x pricetag for half the performance?

Well clearly you are ill-informed too. Twice the price for half the performance? Hardly... check the spec scores. And your "95% of apps" theory is stupid because although the programmers for these 95% of apps (not all being good mind you) don't code for the mac, there is usually 95% of the time an app that does exactly the same thing (and won't slow your computer to a crawl on start up).

[CubeHacker]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Well clearly you are ill-informed too. Twice the price for half the performance? Hardly... check the spec scores. And your "95% of apps" theory is stupid because although the programmers for these 95% of apps (not all being good mind you) don't code for the mac, there is usually 95% of the time an app that does exactly the same thing (and won't slow your computer to a crawl on start up).

Spec scores? How about using a real benchmark, like UT2k3, or Cinebench. A dual G4 1.4ghz powermac only has about the power of a 2.4ghz P4. Now, you compare the prices - $2,699 for the Powermac, compared to a $1000 Dell. Apples cheapest $799 eMac would be eatten alive by a $799 Dell.

Don't get me wrong, I like Apple and I plan on switching soon as well. But Apples prices/speeds are laughable compared to wintels, and i think we can all agree on that. I mean, would any of us really complain if Apple slashed its prices in half?

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by DOACleric
Spec scores? How about using a real benchmark, like UT2k3, or Cinebench. A dual G4 1.4ghz powermac only has about the power of a 2.4ghz P4. Now, you compare the prices - $2,699 for the Powermac, compared to a $1000 Dell. Apples cheapest $799 eMac would be eatten alive by a $799 Dell.

Don't get me wrong, I like Apple and I plan on switching soon as well. But Apples prices/speeds are laughable compared to wintels, and i think we can all agree on that. I mean, would any of us really complain if Apple slashed its prices in half?

Again, you read the score wrong. The dual Xeon 2.4 setup is twice as fast on the cinebench scores. I've never seen a Dell dual Xeon for $1000 but you can believe what you like.

Actually just priced a Dual 2.8 Ghz Xeon Dell server for $4,641. So how about Twice the performance for twice the price?

edit: I don't find Apple's prices laughable at all. It's a luxury computer. Mercedes aren't as fast as say a Ford Mustang GT but people still buy them in droves even though they are slower and cost more. Is that laughable? I think not.

[ZeeOwl]

If all you want to do with the machine is render 3D animations (and I said render, not model). Go ahead, buy the Wintel box. It will be about 10% faster than a top-of-the-line Mac. And it's obviously much cheaper. But don't come crying to me when the problems start. :D

If you want to do anything else with it though, you'd be better off even with the current G4 PowerMacs. And that includes speed-wise. How long it takes you to get something done isn't only affected by processor speed. In fact, that's a very small part of the equation. Unless all you're doing is rendering... ;)

[totally_fly]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Notice illumin8 hasn't posted in a while. Guess he realized he's been duped and doesn't want to admit it.

What a hasty conclusion.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by illumin8
Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.

You can't be serious here...

This statement implies to me that Apple has gone nowhere since 1998. Also it says that a new Dual 1.42 runs no faster then a 350Mhz PII or a 233/266Mhz G3. No more memory, no better video cards, bus speed unchanged. 3-6 GB HD's. Before you make a statement like this you should match up 1998 era Mac or PC Specs against the new 1.42. I think you will see it is not 1998 tech. PC's have moved faster in speed areas, but new PowerMacs are A LOT (so much it is a joke) better then 1998 models of any computer.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Notice illumin8 hasn't posted in a while. Guess he realized he's been duped and doesn't want to admit it. No he probably started the threa intending to show the price differences between mac and pc. Trying to get peoples panties in a bunch

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by beatle888
hey im finally fed up. i say if the pc can keep up with your work flow and the mac cant. then DUMP the ********** mac. today is IT. my next system WILL be a junky clunky PC with POWER. im tired of the mac not keeping up with the work flow. TIRED. now its reflecting on me. AE's wondering what the hell is taking so long to get the job done. its the damn mac. im constantly waiting for it to catch up with me.

Curious what type of Mac do you have that cannot keep up? I would think a new Dual 1.25 or 1.42 should allow you to get your work done in very decent time.

[beatle888]

nope it doesnt. and im talking about about a dual 1.25 in photoshop with a gig file and two gigs of ram. also indesign is slow in long documents with lots of graphics, but so is quark. see need more power....were not talking web graphics here.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by beatle888
nope it doesnt. and im talking about about a dual 1.25 in photoshop with a gig file and two gigs of ram. also indesign is slow in long documents with lots of graphics, but so is quark. see need more power....were not talking web graphics here.

Ever thought that maybe that power doesn't exist yet? I mean you can always get a Cray if you really need it.

[beatle888]

well i believe that a nice althon dual system with loads of ram would be a relief compare to the 1.24 g4. im a mac user but im not blind to the facts.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by beatle888
well i believe that a nice althon dual system with loads of ram would be a relief compare to the 1.24 g4. im a mac user but im not blind to the facts.

Can you cook me some eggs with that?

edit: what I meant to say is that I don't know if you've slept in the same room as one of those... but it's not exactly cold.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Can you cook me some eggs with that?

edit: what I meant to say is that I don't know if you've slept in the same room as one of those... but it's not exactly cold. lol that's true. My brother-in law has a 2.4 Ghz intel chip with a 9700 pro in it and about 3 dozen fans in it(sarcasm) and it still will freeze in Battlefield 1942 if iit cranks up the heat

[NavyIntel007]

Actually there are probably about 6 fans.

I remember my celeron 800 was loud. The fans were loud and the door on the side vibrated. Not only that but it made my room warm. I live in Miami, so warmth isn't a problem.

My point is sure their fast whatever, I'm not disputing that. But their is no reason for all the loud fans and large power requirements.

[beefstu01]

Yo guys, chill here-

Remember, that $600 Dell is not intended for the power user. It is intended for the mom and dad who want to write a few documents and send a few e-mails, not to use Blender, Maya, Reason, Live, or any of the thousands of processor sucking, graphic card straining programs. That's an introductory machine. Do you have any idea how many Word documents can be stored in a 30 GB hard drive?

Lemme tell you what I'm running this second. I've got myself this nice, old Dell Inspiron 7000 laptop. It boasts a 400 MHz Pentium II processor, 128 MB RAM, and runs RH Linux 8. It's snappy, everything opens, everything runs, everything is fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a PC. It works, it gets its jobs done, and sometimes faster than a Mac. Go check Bare Feats if you don't believe me.

The Mac is a great machine too. I myself am waiting anxiouslly to get my hands on an updated 15" Powerbook. The Mac does everything I need it too, and it looks good too. I've been born and bred on Macs- I started with an SE, then graduated to a IIci, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, that machine illumin8 got was a decent machine for a decent price. On top of that, he got a damn fine tech support package with it, one that sure as hell beats Apple's 90 days, eh boys? He's probably waiting for the 970 to make it to the mainstream, but in the mean time, that Pentium IV will do just fine sending e-mails, writing reports, surfing the web, chatting to friends, and playing some games.

Good purchase. Congradulations.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
It will be about 10% faster than a top-of-the-line Mac. And it's obviously much cheaper.

Oops, mis-read the original post (sheepish grin). The above statement would be true with a 3 Ghz Pentium 4. With a 2.6 Ghz, the (raw number-crunching) speeds of the two machines would be about equal. Though the PC is still much cheaper.

[NavyIntel007]

It's still windows...

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It's still windows...
That argument is getting weaker and weaker :rolleyes:

I am about to build myself a kick arse wintel system:

Intel P4 3Ghz w/ 800Mhz FSB + Hyper-Threading (will be able to O/C to at least 3.5Ghz)
Thermaltake Xaser III case w/ 420W PSU
Thermaltake SubZero4G TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling)
Abit IC7-G Mother board
1GB OCZ DDR3500 434Mhz DDR RAM
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
120GB SATA150 hard disk
Gb-Ethernet
Pioneer 16x DVD
Plextor 24x BurnProof CD-RW
6.1 Sound

And all for around £1,500. This WILL (for raw speed) whip the dual 1.42Ghz G4 that costs approx. twice the price.

Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot :rolleyes:

[job]

Originally posted by edesignuk
(Thermo Electric Cooling)

I can't wait until they start cooling PCs with liquid nitrogen. :p

btw, thats an odd DDR speed. I've heard of DDR3700, but DDR3500?

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by job
I can't wait until they start cooling PCs with liquid nitrogen. :p

btw, thats an odd DDR speed. I've heard of DDR3700, but DDR3500?
Well, the 'extreme' O/C'ers already are using water and nitrogen to get 4Ghz out of the 3Ghz chips. Very fasy, but a little OTT for my liking.

DDR3700 is out, but is a big expense for very little benifit, DDR3500 will be enough to handle any O/C that I can cool.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by edesignuk
That argument is getting weaker and weaker :rolleyes:

I am about to build myself a kick arse wintel system:

Intel P4 3Ghz w/ 800Mhz FSB + Hyper-Threading (will be able to O/C to at least 3.5Ghz)
Thermaltake Xaser III case w/ 420W PSU
Thermaltake SubZero4G TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling)
Abit IC7-G Mother board
1GB OCZ DDR3500 434Mhz DDR RAM
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
120GB SATA150 hard disk
Gb-Ethernet
Pioneer 16x DVD
Plextor 24x BurnProof CD-RW
6.1 Sound

And all for around £1,500. This WILL (for raw speed) whip the dual 1.42Ghz G4 that costs approx. twice the price.

Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot :rolleyes:

Well, first of all, I would hardly call 10% faster "whipping". But then, everything is relative... As for twice the price, make that about 50% more.

In retort to the "It's still Windows" argument getting weaker, I think not. MicroSoft has recently announced that they will be releasing their newest Mac OS cloning attempt (Longhorn), which is apparently modelled on Jaguar (OS X 10.2). It will be ready in, drumroll... 2005! lmao Let's see, relying on Apple's track record, we poor Mac types should be running maybe 10.5 by then. If it's not 11.0. lol Which will make Longhorn look like XP as compared to Jaguar now. And I can just imagine the minimum system requirements for Longhorn:
8 GHz Pentium 5 with liquid nitrogen cooling system (lol, I love that post).
4 GiB of RAM.
128 MiB graphics card.
30 GB of hard-drive space and DVD-ROM drive for installation (comes on 4 DVDs).

Just as a reference for perspective, here's what I've got running Jaguar now:
350 Mhz PPC 750.
1 GiB of RAM (128 MiB is enough for Jaguar, but I use this system for rendering.).
32 MiB Radeon 7000.
80 GB hard drive (Jaguar uses up 2 GB).

For running Jaguar and mainstream apps, it's plenty fast. I could use more speed for rendering though. Never enough speed for that! :D

So I reinterate my original position. If all you want to do with the system is render, the Wintel box is a viable alternative to a PowerMac. If all you want to do is surf the Web, eMail and play Solitaire (and that is a sizeable chunk of the desktop market), a 400$ low-end PC is a viable alternative to an eMac or iMac FP. If you fall into any other category, you're
much better off with a Mac.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
X86 has some good features but if you're going to be running windows, you're wasting your time.
When did I mention Windows? I haven't run that on my personal machine at home since mid-1999 or so.

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/

http://www.redhat.com/

That is why I was so attracted to OS X. Started using linux back in the 2.2.x kernel days (not that long ago for some, I know), grew to appreciate command line, modules, system changes not requiring reboots, etc. Then I heard that Apple was going to a UNIX-type OS with much of the underpinnings I had started to grow accustomed to. Wham! I like Macs again? That is strange, I have hated them (more or less) since 1991 (newspaper layout class in highschool on Mac). Huh. Now they are kinda cool. And OS X is nicer to look at than the typical windows app / OS is. Wow. iPod looks cool, but too pricey. Refurbs? Cheap? Okay. Now all I need is the iBook to go on a good refurb deal and I am all set ;)

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Well, first of all, I would hardly call 10% faster "whipping". But then, everything is relative... As for twice the price, make that about 50% more.

U think it's only 10% faster? With a 800Mhz FSB & faster RAM?
And FYI, for the nearest match in a PowerMac it would cost approx. £2780...a little bit more than 50%, and besides, even if it was just 50%, that's still a MASSIVE price difference....just for an OS?

Is MR breading Mac zealots? :rolleyes:

We complain about how PC users wont open their mind to the Mac, it seems many Mac users have the same problem in admiting that right now, PC does have the edge on speed and value.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by edesignuk
That argument is getting weaker and weaker :rolleyes:


Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot :rolleyes:
In reality it is not an arguement as much as it is a personal statement. I personally cannot stand the interface that comes with windows. I also can not stand the fact that if I plug a generic card in to a windows machine I might have some hidden conflict that no one could ever predict. The problem is trying to be too much to too many. I much prefer a machine that is built to high standards and hardware that is integrated with the os not seperate from it. Yes I pay more for it, but I know that if I buy another card for my mac that it will 99.9% of the time work flawlessly.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by edesignuk
U think it's only 10% faster? With a 800Mhz FSB & faster RAM?
And FYI, for the nearest match in a PowerMac it would cost approx. £2780...a little bit more than 50%, and besides, even if it was just 50%, that's still a MASSIVE price difference....just for an OS?

Is MR breading Mac zealots? :rolleyes:

We complain about how PC users wont open their mind to the Mac, it seems many Mac users have the same problem in admiting that right now, PC does have the edge on speed and value.

Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003. A 3 GHz Pentium needs an 800 MHz FSB to keep it from starving. G4s only run at 1.42 GHz. And even they could use a faster bus.

OK on the price difference. I was using prices here for comparison. Looks like Macs are more expensive in the UK.

Yup, Macs are more expensive than a (speed) comparable PC. And it's mostly for the superior OS and accompanying (and purchaseable) Apple HIS-compliant apps. I think the added fun-factor, productivity gains and lesser headaches are worth the premium price. But if you don't, I won't argue with you :) As someone else mentioned here, Macs are luxury computers. Sure, a Ford Mustang with a 5 litre engine will out-accelerate the average Mercedes sedan. And they're much cheaper. But does that mean that Fords are a "better buy" than a Mercedes? I think not. :)

[totally_fly]

Sure, a Ford Mustang with a 5 litre engine will out-accelerate the average Mercedes sedan. And they're much cheaper. But does that mean that Fords are a "better buy" than a Mercedes? I think not. :)

I am all for macs, but I hate this analogy. In what way is a computer the same a car? List similarities, list explanations, but tell me, when you look at a car do you think of a computer?

They are completely different! I can compare myself to a peanut if you want me too.. doesn't mean we are the same and that I can use the fact that I'm similar to a peanut to prove a point.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003. A 3 GHz Pentium needs an 800 MHz FSB to keep it from starving. G4s only run at 1.42 GHz. And even they could use a faster bus.

Actually most predict we won't see the true benefits of the 800 mhz bus before Prescott (Pentium 5) arrives at significantly higher speeds than the current Pentium 4. The 800 mhz FSB 3 Ghz Pentium 4 is actually clocked slightly slower than the original 533 mhz FSB 3.066 Ghz Pentium 4 which is what was used for the comparisons done by Barefeats and Digital Video Editing etc. Of course, it's quite a bit faster, about the equivalent of a 3.2 Ghz 533 Mhz FSB Pentium 4.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by edesignuk
That argument is getting weaker and weaker :rolleyes:

I am about to build myself a kick arse wintel system:

Intel P4 3Ghz w/ 800Mhz FSB + Hyper-Threading (will be able to O/C to at least 3.5Ghz)
Thermaltake Xaser III case w/ 420W PSU
Thermaltake SubZero4G TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling)
Abit IC7-G Mother board
1GB OCZ DDR3500 434Mhz DDR RAM
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
120GB SATA150 hard disk
Gb-Ethernet
Pioneer 16x DVD
Plextor 24x BurnProof CD-RW
6.1 Sound

And all for around £1,500. This WILL (for raw speed) whip the dual 1.42Ghz G4 that costs approx. twice the price.

Now, I, like others, still love my Mac, but you just can't argue with this...unless you are a real Zealot :rolleyes:

First off... the THING you just specked out isn't windows. You didn't even mention windows. So try reading what I said. Using linux/FreeBSD, yeah that would be a good machine but I switched because windows is a piece of S--- and linux is too hard to maintain for me. However, try this out... Try to sleep in the same bed as that POS It will be noisy and hot I don't care what kind of freon thermal cooling crap you have.

Point is, until Chip/Chipset makers decide that there needs to be a balance between efficiency, the mac is the best choice.

[NavyIntel007]

Actually, I read somewhere that if they make processors in excess of 3.5 Ghz, that the computer cases will have to be shielded like a microwave to protect us from the radiation! So not only will it be hot, loud and run up all your power bills but it will eventually kill you... YAAAY PC where do I buy one?!?!!? :D :cool: :rolleyes:

edit: A Ford Excursion gets 9 miles per gallon (that sucks) but a VW Golf can get you 32 MPG. Sure you can tow more in an Excursion... but how often are you going to be towing something?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
A Ford Excursion gets 9 miles per gallon (that sucks) but a VW Golf can get you 32 MPG. Sure you can tow more in an Excursion... but how often are you going to be towing something?

It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff. Oh go back to Fred's TDI Page, and stop gloating about your fuel economy. ;)

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's 50mpg in a TDI Golf like I have. Plus you have the torque to tow stuff.

I've always heard that the TDI golfs are lacking in power. What do you think?

That might be my next car.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I've always heard that the TDI golfs are lacking in power. What do you think?

That might be my next car. Just check out tdiclub.com (http://tdiclub.com)

Of course there is the possibility of more TDIs coming into the line-up, see Part 5 at

http://www.vwvortex.com/features/index_tdiweek_03.html

don't know where the link is on Fred's

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Yup, about 10% faster. Try out some real-world apps that really push a processor if you don't believe me. Like CineBench 2003.

"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Dual Xeon is over twice as fast as Dual G4 in this benchmark
Pentium 4 3.06 is 43% faster than Dual G4
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz FSB) is around 8% faster than P4 3.06

UT 2003 Botmatch
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:63 fps
Pentium 4 3.06: 74 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 29 fps

Dual Xeon is again over twice as fast as Dual G4 in UT2003
Pentium 4 3.06 is over 2.5 times as fast as Dual G4

Quake 3 Arena (maximum settings, stock configuration)
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb): 403 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 375.7 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 300 fps (barefeats score)
Dual Xeon 2.4: 233 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 210 fps

Pentium 4 3.00 (Toms Hardware) is 191% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Toms Hardware) is 179% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Barefeat) is 43% faster than dual G4
Dual Xeon 2.4 (Barefeat) is 11% faster than dual G4

As I've mentioned before, a Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb) is on average, 8% faster than a Pentium 4 3.066. Just some "real"-world benchmarks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o :o

[solvs]

I don't know why I keep clicking on these. I should have gone to Karaoke tonight.

They're just computers people. Buy what you like, whatever works for you. Personally, I use both. I wish Macs were faster or cheaper or both, but they are what they are. If you want a PC, enjoy (ha! yeah right). If you want a Mac, you have to take the good with the bad.

I think we can all agree - M$/Windows sux, Motorola sux.

Hopefully, soon, IBM/Apple can settle this once and forever.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Interesting how Benchmark results vary so much... :D

Here's the results I've got:
Cinema 4D-XL R7
G4 1.42 GHz DP 33 seconds
Pentium 4 3 GHz 30 seconds

I have Cinebench 2003 results for several Mac models, but unfortunately no Pentium scores to compare them against. But I can't see why they would be much different from the R7 scores, unless Maxon optimized the x86 code, but not the PPC version.

As for the games, I can't comment on them, because fps depends as much on the graphics card as the processor, and I don't know what those test systems were equipped with. Anyways, to me, the important scores are for things like CineBench, Photoshop, video compression, things like that. Games are nice to have, but I doubt the average PowerMac buyer is using his system mostly to play games. That would be a pretty expensive gaming console. :)

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Interesting how Benchmark results vary so much... :D

Here's the results I've got:
Cinema 4D-XL R7
G4 1.42 GHz DP 33 seconds
Pentium 4 3 GHz 30 seconds

I have Cinebench 2003 results for several Mac models, but unfortunately no Pentium scores to compare them against. But I can't see why they would be much different from the R7 scores, unless Maxon optimized the x86 code, but not the PPC version.

As for the games, I can't comment on them, because fps depends as much on the graphics card as the processor, and I don't know what those test systems were equipped with. Anyways, to me, the important scores are for things like CineBench, Photoshop, video compression, things like that. Games are nice to have, but I doubt the average PowerMac buyer is using his system mostly to play games. That would be a pretty expensive gaming console. :)

UT Botmatch and Quake 3 are both widely accepted as being very CPU intensive, Botmatch being the more CPU intensive of the two (thus you see such varied results despite that all systems benched used the same video card) which is the reason I included them in the tests. Most people agree that benchmarking using cpu intensive games is a very accurate method of testing the capabilities of a cpu is since, they require strength in multiple aspects of the cpu and their are very few optimizations (SSE2, Altivec) that can be added to a game, unlike video editing/3D rendering. Looking at unoptimized standard benchmarks (spec, linpack, dhrystone, whetstone, cinebench, Pov-Ray) as well as the architectural limits of the G4 itself (i.e G4 has a floating point issue rate of 1 instruction/clock cycle, Athlon has a floating point issue rate of 3 instructions/clock cycle and is clocked significantly higher than G4), the only way the G4 can keep remotely competitive with a Pentium 4 or Athlon is through Altivec optimizations, otherwise simply comparing the capabilities of each core, theirs not much that the G4 has that can stand up to the current Intel and AMD processors.

[pgwalsh]

I agree with just about everything everyone here is saying. On both sides.

The arguments should either stress the benefits of OS X vs Windows vs Linux or hardware to hardware.

OS X is clearly a pretty and IMO a superior OS to Windows. OS X is the bomb!.

PC hardware clearly kicks arse over Apple hardware. Apple hardware looks better and that's how it differentiates itself.

For the hardware the performance isn't the only thing that kicks arse. The price of PC hardware is great. Just get quality hardware and you're off.

I laugh when I hear someone say PC's sucks because they run windows. If the PC ran OS X, would it suck? I don't think so, I think it would kick arse. It's all about the OS. Apple uses the same damn parts as a PC the only difference is the chipset and processor. PC processors have a risc backend and most of us know this.

If you think PC hardware sucks go tell that to 90% of the public. Go tell that to the engineers that design it. You think Intel is where it is because it sucks. Wakeup.... That argument is going to get you nowhere. You want to proved the merits of Apple. Prove is on the OS level. That's what sets itself apart from the PC.

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
However, try this out... Try to sleep in the same bed as that POS It will be noisy and hot I don't care what kind of freon thermal cooling crap you have.

It WILL NOT be noisy. Sure you may hear noisy 3Ghz wintels at the local store, wanna know why? Because big brand manufacturers just slap huge, loud fans on them for cooling, they use a regular PSU, and loud case fans, and all to save money so the PC can look an even better buy!
If you take the time to put together your own box you can get a 3Ghz + system running very quietly. Use a GOOD case, with quiet case fans (mine will cost £130, but it'll be worth it), get a GOOD, quiet PSU, and avoid a huge bloody great HSF, there are 2 other very good, easy options....TEC (Thermo Electric Cooling), or water cooling. And don't start talking crap about how this kind of cooling costs the earth, because it doesn't. A good TEC kit can be had for £94.99, and a water cooling kit for £66. Very good to get a near silent cooling system, and both are a dodle to setup.

edit: and BTW, I'll be running XP Po on that speed deamon, and probaly O/C it anywhere up to 4Ghz, depending on cooling (it can and has been done).

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I agree with just about everything everyone here is saying. On both sides.

The arguments should either stress the benefits of OS X vs Windows vs Linux or hardware to hardware.

OS X is clearly a pretty and IMO a superior OS to Windows. OS X is the bomb!.

PC hardware clearly kicks arse over Apple hardware. Apple hardware looks better and that's how it differentiates itself.

For the hardware the performance isn't the only thing that kicks arse. The price of PC hardware is great. Just get quality hardware and you're off.

Lol. Thanks :D

Obviously I won't argue that top-of-the line PCs are faster (I'm talking raw number crunching here, not OS related performance & layout efficiency) than top-of-the-line Macs. And I'm quite aware that they're much cheaper. If all I cared about was raw speed and price, I'd be writing this on a PC. :) But to me, what counts most is look & feel, HSI-standard software, stability & reliability, true plug & play, & yeah, I'll admit it, style & fun-factor. Sure I'd like more speed too (for rendering, that's the only place where that would be of any use to me), and more money in my bank account. But I'm not willing to give up all those other things to get it. Of course, that's my personal preference. To each his own :)

I still hope that the PPC 970 machines are coming out soon though, because I have this huge rendering job scheduled in a few months. hehe

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
"real"-world benchmark results from Barefeats Site:

Cinebench 2003 CPU render:
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:51 seconds
Pentium 4 3.06: 75 seconds
Dual G4 1.45: 107 seconds

Dual Xeon is over twice as fast as Dual G4 in this benchmark
Pentium 4 3.06 is 43% faster than Dual G4
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz FSB) is around 8% faster than P4 3.06

UT 2003 Botmatch
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz:63 fps
Pentium 4 3.06: 74 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 29 fps

Dual Xeon is again over twice as fast as Dual G4 in UT2003
Pentium 4 3.06 is over 2.5 times as fast as Dual G4

Quake 3 Arena (maximum settings, stock configuration)
Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb): 403 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 375.7 fps (Tom's Hardware score)
Pentium 4 3.06: 300 fps (barefeats score)
Dual Xeon 2.4: 233 fps
Dual G4 1.45: 210 fps

Pentium 4 3.00 (Toms Hardware) is 191% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Toms Hardware) is 179% faster than dual G4
Pentium 4 3.06 (Barefeat) is 43% faster than dual G4
Dual Xeon 2.4 (Barefeat) is 11% faster than dual G4

As I've mentioned before, a Pentium 4 3.00 (800 mhz fsb) is on average, 8% faster than a Pentium 4 3.066. Just some "real"-world benchmarks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o :o

Dual Xeon dells cost more than the Powermacs... so you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Dual Xeon dells cost more than the Powermacs... so you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

Theirs a reason I posted a Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz workstation and not a Dual 2.80 or 3.06 Ghz Xeon system, both of which are alot faster than the Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz (other than conveniece).

Custom Dell Precision Workstation 450:
Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz with Hyperthreading
512 MB Dual Channel DDR-226
Nvidia Quadro FX 500
48X/24X/48X IDE CD Read-Write Drive
36GB Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive (Expensive but extremely fast)
Harmon Kardon 206 Speakers
56K V.92 Data/Fax Modem
1.44MB Floppy Disc Drive
Standard Keyboard
Standard Mouse
Windows XP Professional
Office software

Total Price: $2235

Powermac Ultimate Configuration: $3800
Powemac Fastest Configuration: $2700
Powermac Faster Configuration: $2000
Powermac Fast Configuration: $1500

Let's see, that's cheaper than two of the four powermacs, both Dual 1.42 G4 Powermac models in fact. Every powermac but the ultimate configuration has a relatively cheap Radeon 9000 video card, the slowest model has a even cheaper Geforce4 MX video card, the last two models both have 256 MB Ram and relatively cheap hard drives. With a standard hard drive like what's in the current Powermacs, and slower video card (ATI FireGL E1 which is still far more expensive than even the most expensive consumer video card) I can drop the price down to around $1800. Of course, if you build it yourself it will be still cheaper than that.

[NavyIntel007]

It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.
The 36GB SCSI HDD in the Dell would easily be worth that of a 120/200GB IDE drive that the PM's use.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It's $3641. You forgot DVD burner and the equivilant sized hard drive. If you're going to try to spec out two machines, all the items must be the same or you're showing bias.

Listen NavyIntel007, I suggest you do a little research before you post next time. It's obvious you have no idea what your talking about.

The Ultra 360 SCSI hard drive costs at least $100 dollars more than a 120 GB Hard Drive with Databurst cache, it costs at least $200 dollars more than the standard 80 GB hard drive. Well, we're really racking up the costs now aren't we?

The Quadro FX costs around $450, thats far more than a Radeon 9000 pro (the pc version costs around $80) or a Radeon 9700 pro (the PC version costs around $250).

If you really want a DVD drive thats an extra $60. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

No, if I *really* wanted Powermac specs I'd save $370 dollars on the video card, $200 dollars on the hard drive, and if I really wanted to compare it with the low end powermacs, $119 dollars on the ram, and thats still dual channel DDR. Thats a total of $690 dollars in savings for "powermac specs" add 60$ for the dvd drive. What does that bring our new total to? $1635, woohoo, with "powermac" specs, the 2.4 GHz Dual Xeon workstation now costs $1635. Special thanks goes to mr NavyIntel 007 for that wonderous display of ignorance. :D :D :D

[illumin8]

Originally posted by macphoria
Why on earth would you want to waste your money on 32bit machine when 64bit machine is just around the corner? Because I don't have a use for more than 4GB of RAM for quite some time. 1GB of RAM should do me just fine for the next year or so, and if it starts to get a little slow I can cheaply upgrade to 2GB or 4GB.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by jxyama
Spending over $1,000 after being enticed by an ad for $700 is pretty amazing to me too. If you notice my breakdown, I only spent $700 and something on the PC; the extra $260 was for upgrades (1GB extra RAM, 120GB 8MB cache hard drive).

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by illumin8
If you notice my breakdown, I only spent $700 and something on the PC; the extra $260 was for upgrades (1GB extra RAM, 120GB 8MB cache hard drive). So you only spent $960 + whatever else they charges you ended up with.

I can see where you'd have trouble with the $1000 number -- after being enticed by the $700 sale price.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
For a PC to even be reliable you have to do some sort of upgrades (ram, video, sound...) at least every six months. I've even had PC techs tell me that you have to reformat your hard drive every three months!!! I've run norton to defrag my hard drive and it actually runs SLOWER right after the defrag on my mac.
This is plain and simple *********. You do not have to upgrade your PC, ever, if you don't want to. I could continue running on my AMD Athlon XP 1700 which I purchased over 18 months ago just fine. It clocks at 1466 mhz., 266 mhz. FSB, and 512 MB of PC2100 RAM. It is still a fast machine, with 4x 40GB hard drives in an IDE RAID 0 stripe.

I am a power user. I like to have one of the fastest machines around.

You made a comment earlier something like "try and install XP on your P2 and see how well it works". Well, for your information, I gave my friend an old Celeron 450 (same as a P2, just a little slower) with only 256 MB of RAM in it and it runs XP just great.

By the way, my dad can't even get the wireless card built in (or an add-on) to work with my Netgear router. No problem with my ibook.
Sounds like a personal problem.

Trust me dude, if you don't feel like a chump already, you will. Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer will ride ya'll all the way to the bank.

Wait till you get it before you start bragging about the deal you just got. I wonder how long that fantasy will last?
Ok, this is what I really take issue with. I just got the machine yesterday and I have to say, it is sweet! Works just as advertised. I ran SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks on it and these are some of the results (as a way of comparison):

RAM bandwidth (this is one of the best benchmarks):

PIV 2.6C w/ 800 mhz. FSB and 2x PC3200: 4503 MB/s

By comparison, a system with only 133 mhz. FSB can only pull around 1000 MB/s at theoretical maximum.

So trust me, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are not riding me all the way to the bank... I don't like supporting them, but what the hell, I got a machine that's arguably 4 times as fast as a PowerMac for 1/3rd the price.

[jxyama]

i said the thing about installing XP on a P2. impressive. check back with me in a month. :D

notice i said "enticed."

in your original post, you said talk me out of a $700 PC that's sweet, great, etc. etc. if you "had to" upgrade by spending $260, then you should have asked us to talk you out of a ~$1,000 PC.

"Ohh, look at this, a 2 door car is only $13,000... but i need a 4 door car, which is $17,000. but the car is only $13,000!! how can i pass it up?"

bad analogy? perhaps. but do you see my point?

[illumin8]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Notice illumin8 hasn't posted in a while. Guess he realized he's been duped and doesn't want to admit it.
I haven't posted in a while because I thought this thread was dead, but now that I received the machine yesterday I just want to say that I still think I got a good deal.

I filled out the rebate form and mailed it in right away. It was actually really easy, just print a .PDF file, write your name and address on it, and mail it in with a copy of the packing slip.

This machine is a screamer! In case any of you are interested, this is what I'm getting on CPU benchmarks:

Dhrystone ALU : 7590 MIPS
Whetstone FPU: 2211/4907 MFLOPS

RAM Bandwidth: 4503 MB/s out of 6400 MB/s theoretical maximum (with dual channel enabled).

HD Bandwidth: 33480 kB/s (I am pushing closed to SCSI U160 10,000 RPM performance with this 8MB cache IDE drive!)

Not to mention the ATI Radeon 9800 that I got with this system is one of the fastest cards out there, only beat by the 9800 pro. This thing smokes on games as well. I got a 3dmark03 score of 4825 without overclocking the graphics card at all.

So sorry to dissapoint the player-haters on this message board, but I am happy with my new PC.

I'm still waiting patiently for the 23rd when hopefully some of these new features (dual channel DDR 400 memory) will rub off on the PowerMac and I'll be able to buy one to stick next to my new Dell.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
You can't be serious here...

This statement implies to me that Apple has gone nowhere since 1998. Also it says that a new Dual 1.42 runs no faster then a 350Mhz PII or a 233/266Mhz G3. No more memory, no better video cards, bus speed unchanged. 3-6 GB HD's. Before you make a statement like this you should match up 1998 era Mac or PC Specs against the new 1.42. I think you will see it is not 1998 tech. PC's have moved faster in speed areas, but new PowerMacs are A LOT (so much it is a joke) better then 1998 models of any computer.
I mainly meant the bus speed, which has only seen an increase from 133 mhz. to 167 mhz. since 1998, where Intel has gone from 133 mhz. up to 800 mhz. in the same time.

This is what is really killing the Mac! The Mac should be able to smoke a PIV, even with only a G4 processor, if it weren't for the paltry FSB. Altivec kicks ass over SSE2 on the Intel, and if Apple can figure out a way to crank up the FSB (by going 970) the results will be different.

As it is, the FSB has been a big limitation on most PC platforms for some time now. When Pentium 100s were top of the line and the FSB was 100 mhz., there were no problems whatsoever. Memory was just as fast as CPU and you took no performance hit. Now that Moore's law has affected CPU speed the way it has, memory bandwidth has just not been able to keep up.

The Intel folks are starting to resolve these issues by upping the FSB speed and quad-pumping it. Now it is time for Apple to get their act in gear.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Actually, I read somewhere that if they make processors in excess of 3.5 Ghz, that the computer cases will have to be shielded like a microwave to protect us from the radiation! So not only will it be hot, loud and run up all your power bills but it will eventually kill you... YAAAY PC where do I buy one?!?!!? :D :cool: :rolleyes:

hahah! This is pretty funny because in other threads people here are just dreaming that someday in about 2005 or so when the IBM PPC 980 comes out it will clock at 3.5-4ghz.

My god, you are such a zealot. 3.5 ghz on a PC - It might cook your nads! 3.5 ghz on a Mac - bring it on!

What a double standard we live... Can't you just look at the advantages and disadvantages of both platforms without bringing so much emotion into it?

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
So you only spent $960 + whatever else they charges you ended up with.

I can see where you'd have trouble with the $1000 number -- after being enticed by the $700 sale price.
Actually, I think I got a pretty good deal for total price of $1049. I'd like to see you price even a single processor G4 1ghz. for anywhere close to that.

[VIREBEL661]

All I can say is that my Macs all stay totally usable well after the technology is 'obsolete'... My PowerMac G3 is my main system, and is plenty fast... I've upgraded the graphics card and hard drive over the years (bought it in 1999), and hell, if I have the money, Sonnet announced a 1GHZ G4 upgrade for my system... The relationship with a computer is different for different users... I'm very close to my Mac... I'm still running all the latest software, including OS X on my 4 year old G3!!! Thing about the Mac is, they're always like this... My old Performa runs 9.1.4 and works great! Use it mainly as a CD duplicator... Games? Buy a platform - you'll be much happier... Work? Buy a Mac... But then again, why not hold on for a couple of months? Makes a lot of sense... There's going to be a drastic (64-bit) leap on both sides of things... As for me - I'll hold out... I'm going to get a lot more use out of my Mac before I need to purchase another.. Anxious about Apple's next move. Can't do that as easily on a PC running windoze - but there's always Linux!

[jxyama]

well, illumin8, congrats on your new purchase...

i'm going to use "we" here and i think it's true for many of us, but if not, apologies.

you *did* ask us to talk you out of buying a machine most of us (i think) decided to switch away from. and many of us probably realizes that apple, for hardware, is slower/more expensive, etc. etc. than pcs. despite that, many of us decided to make the switch. i think it's a bit contradictory of you to ask us not to get emotional/defensive about a decision each of us personally made.

i am happy that you got a computer you like for a price you like. but don't come here and ask for our opinions and require them not be emotionally charged/biased when you are, to a degree, trying to discredit our personal decision go with a mac, inspite of "deficiencies" you cannot (apparently) tolerate.

some of us don't care for a pc. that doesn't make us a zealot. if you want to brag about your new dell, do it at a dell fan club site. (is there such a place?)

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
So you only spent $960 + whatever else they charges you ended up with.

I can see where you'd have trouble with the $1000 number -- after being enticed by the $700 sale price.
Hey now... it costs $350 to upgrade a eMac to 1GB of RAM. Don't spew the line of "buy it somewhere else" to me, it is still way overpriced. This is for a machine with a base price of $999.

Macs cost too much for what you get, that is all there is to it. The low end "deals" have cd-rom drive, the least amount of memory possible to run OS X, and not much else. Configure it in a way that you can play games and such, and you are looking at $1500 if you want a real warranty. Ludicrous.

Illumin8 - you made the proper choice. congrats! To get even close to those specs in a PowerMac you have to spend roughly $2,000.00

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by yzedf
Hey now... it costs $350 to upgrade a eMac to 1GB of RAM.

You're kidding right?

I upgraded my Blue & White G3 AND my flat-panel iMac to 1 GiB each about 6 months ago. Actually, I didn't upgrade them, I bought two complete matched sets of 1 GiB CL2 RAM for each of them (gave the original CL3 modules to my son, who's building himself a PowerMac from parts). Total cost: about 250$ for both machines.

[jxyama]

according to the online store, it does cost $350 to upgrade an eMac to 1 GB RAM. it's a common knowledge that Apple charges ridiculous amount for RAM upgrades - this in comparison to say, dell's upgrade online. (if you go to third party, the costs are the same, of course...)

i know you were a little incredulous but you should check relevant facts before you post, especially if it's disputing something someone else posted.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by jxyama
according to the online store, it does cost $350 to upgrade an eMac to 1 GB RAM. it's a common knowledge that Apple charges ridiculous amount for RAM upgrades

Oh, maybe from the Apple Store. Does anybody actually ever buy RAM from the online store? My point was just that it doesn't cost 350$ to upgrade an eMac. Unless you absolutely want it to cost that much. I'm a die-hard Mac fanatic, but even I wouldn't pay that much for RAM. I mean, this is just memory. Every brand is basically the same. The computer is another story :D

[illumin8]

Originally posted by jxyama
well, illumin8, congrats on your new purchase...

you *did* ask us to talk you out of buying a machine most of us (i think) decided to switch away from. and many of us probably realizes that apple, for hardware, is slower/more expensive, etc. etc. than pcs. despite that, many of us decided to make the switch. i think it's a bit contradictory of you to ask us not to get emotional/defensive about a decision each of us personally made.

i am happy that you got a computer you like for a price you like. but don't come here and ask for our opinions and require them not be emotionally charged/biased when you are, to a degree, trying to discredit our personal decision go with a mac, inspite of "deficiencies" you cannot (apparently) tolerate.

some of us don't care for a pc. that doesn't make us a zealot. if you want to brag about your new dell, do it at a dell fan club site. (is there such a place?)
Sorry, I don't mean to brag. I seriously would like to switch if the Mac hardware can become faster. I suffer from what most people might call "OS envy" ;)

Anyway, the majority of you have been very helpful, and I too am excited to see Apple possibly bridge the gap on June 23rd and hopefully I'll be able to buy a brand new PowerMac or updated 15" PowerBook so I can really use both side by side and see which one works better for me.

Also, I just want to make it clear that I'm not discrediting your decision to use whatever works best for you. If you find that a Mac is the best computing environment for you to get work done, I can totally respect that.

I guess I just need to realize that most people here have more emotional reasons that they like their computer than logical ones. Anyway, I'm not trying to offend anyone and I appreciate the input everyone has given.

If you read back farther in this thread you'll see I really started it to highlight how far Apple has fallen behind. I'm not some kind of Dell fanboy, as a matter of fact I usually build my own PCs. I'm just hoping that Apple can come out with a machine that will fit my needs sooner rather than later, and that would be great if it was close to the speed of an Intel based machine, but with a nice useable OS like OS X.

Thanks everyone. No hard feelings. We can let this thread die if you want to... :)

[mattmack]

Originally posted by illumin8


Thanks everyone. No hard feelings. We can let this thread die if you want to... :) A very cordial close. Thanks:)