My stupid friend

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by mac15, Apr 16, 2002.

  1. mac15 macrumors 68040


    Dec 29, 2001
    I was just talking to a mate on the phone
    and he just recently bought a P4 1.7ghz with 256mb ram and a 17 inch CRT
    and he was saying how his computer would blow mine away cause it had a P4 in it and then I just looked over at my computer.
    Laughed and said "what the F*ck, your computer is piece of **** compared to my new iMac"
    and then he started going on the usual MHZ crap
    cause his has more its better and I laughed again
    and told him his computer is sh*t

    Thats why people don't go for macs cause everything sounds slower on paper. Apple should do some adds with the G4 in it. Like pentium did with their P4 and show how much the G4 kills it.

    come on apple
  2. Taft macrumors 65816


    Jan 31, 2002
    The only problem is that the G4 doesn't really blow the P4 away. In fact there isn't really a speed comparable G4 for the top level P4s. The G4 does do better than the MHz rating indicates, but it has problems too.

    What we really need is for Motorola to get off their hineys and produce a really kick-butt processor.

    Or IBM. I'd take IBM processors in Macs too.

  3. Beej macrumors 68020


    Jan 6, 2002
    Buffy's bedroom
    [Here we go again...]

    It depends what you're doing... A G4 will kick a P4s butt at some things, and vicky v.
  4. krossfyter macrumors 601


    Jan 13, 2002
    secret city
    my sentiments exactly beej. by the way ..hahahaheh...i dig your avatar.
  5. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030


    Sep 13, 2001
    Portland, OR
    At anything...

    ...Altivec heavy, the G4 wins. At anything else a top of the line P4 wins. Against a 1.7GHz P4, figure about an even match for non-Altivec tasks (a 1.7GHz P4 is somewhere around the speed of a 1.2GHz P3, but optimization, and the type of task have a lot of effect on that).
  6. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus


    Oct 5, 2001
    San Diego, CA
    Well...I'm not sure if y'all remember the G4 ads lambasting the P3...

    Maybe a G5 will warrant some similar comercials...
  7. chibianh macrumors 6502a


    Nov 6, 2001
    I had friends who all were Mac haters for one reason or another. Everytime I mentioned something about Apple or Macs, the first things out of their mouths would be "Macs suck!" "Why would you want a Mac?" etc...

    That was then... even though I haven't converted any of them, they have respect now. Maybe it's because I would kick their arses at QuakeIII... or maybe because they've spent some time on it. They compliment it and was actually surprised when I told them it was "just 667 mhz." Either way, they aren't so close-minded on the subject of computer platforms anymore.

    So, yeah, my point is, have your friend over and play with your iMac... he might rather enjoy it.

  8. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    Yah beej your avatar is cute, i only have to ask, what is it smoking??

  9. Taft macrumors 65816


    Jan 31, 2002
    From all of the benches, articles and studies I've seen, the top performing G4 is not equal to the top performing P4. The Altivec unit helps tremendously, but overall the G4 does lag. It especially lags in DP floating point tasks (though they aren't really important to most people) but also in plain old Integer arithmetic. Dual procs help Macs (especially with OS X's handling of them both) but processor vs. processor the G4 will still come up a bit short.

    You can't use the Altivec unit for everything. If only...

    This isn't to say the G4 doesn't kick butt--and I love the PowerPC technology. But I still want to see a Motorola processor that really flies. I want to see those little intel guys in the metallic suits burning again!
  10. krossfyter macrumors 601


    Jan 13, 2002
    secret city
    intel is a chump chip.

    they sacrificed QUALITY for QUANTITY (MHZ).

    screw um.
  11. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    There is no doubt that you would all agree that the G4 is showing its age. If Apple doesn't do something soon, they're going to start loosing the momentum they've gained over the past few months with the iPod and new iMac. There needs to be a serious upgrade, and not just a faster G4, especially with the new bus speed Intel's boasting.
  12. Geert macrumors 6502a


    May 28, 2001
    I can tell you exactly the same thing:
    My father in law bought a AMD1700+ with everything on it, because he felt like my imac (DV+450) was complicated, go figure...

    And you know what he says now after +- 2 months of use on his brand new ***, everything looks so much easier on your computer, how is that. (and then I remind him of me telling him to get a new imac, and that he refused, because his collegues at work really told him that his *** was far better)

    If I run os 9.2, compared to his XP, my 450 outruns his 1700+ system, with finder issues (switching apps, opening windows, even smaller apps run REAL fast)
    OK, I bet that running photoshop on both would certainly be faster on his brandnew peecee, seen that he's got a 128 MB RAM advantage:D

    I can tell you one thing though even my OSX feels more responsive than his XP.
    I now have 128MB RAM, I bet if I would add a 512 MB to it, would certainly narrow the gap when running apps like photoshop
  13. Taft macrumors 65816


    Jan 31, 2002
    I try to avoid counting the responsiveness of the UI when judging a computer's speed. If you've ever used BeOS you know that an OS can be incredibly responsive even on very old hardware.

    Also, while OS X seems to be a bit sluggish in some UI tasks, for computation intensive apps and general multitasking it seems to perform better than OS 9 did (my opinion). So unless I can see the UI redrawing elements (*that* would be slowwwww), I assume the UI is pretty acceptable. I'm sure other people use different standards though.

  14. AlphaTech macrumors 601


    Oct 4, 2001
    Natick, MA
    Just call that 'friend' Stimpy. See if he gets the reference :D.

    I have my G4 500MHz TiBook and a game peecee that I built (AMD T-bird @1.4GHz, 768MB ram yada yada yada... made to play games ONLY). With both of them connected to the same DSL connection, you cannot tell which comes up with ie first. They BOTH load the pages so close to the same amount of time, you can't perceive the difference. I don't have Photoshop or Illustrator on the peecee, since I only have the Mac versions (don't see a need to purchase the peecee versions).

    The Mac is running OS X (only) and the peecee has winblows 2000 (latest service back and 'critical update' :rolleyes: ).

    The bottom line is that I have found that for the tasks that most home users (not designers or power/heavy users) the speed difference between a G4 chip and AMD/intel chip will be essentially nil. Even if the peecee is rated at 2x to 3x faster then the Mac.

    I might be upgrading the processor inside the peecee to one of AMD's XP 2100+ chips in the near future, but haven't decided yet. If/when I do, I will test them again. I hope that I will have a G4 tower again, that has a single processor rated at over 1GHz. I want it to smoke the peecee :D

Share This Page