Wants to not look stupid

Discussion in 'Community' started by STeVeDaVe, Nov 30, 2003.

  1. STeVeDaVe macrumors newbie

    Nov 30, 2003
    Well...this is probably pointless, but I'm sure that someone who reads this thread will have posted in a thread last year that was titled 'Worst question a Windows user has asked' or something along those lines. Well oddly enough, a very uninformed and fanboyish report I wrote was referenced in that thread! I think it's amazing that it showed up there, but anyways, for anyone who read it, I'm sure it makes me look like an uninformed Windows fanboy. Well I still am, minus the uninformed and change the fanboy to user. Now I gotta say that that lame report I wrote was on pure performance, and I compared the two top end machines at the time. Now the person who said something about the document was obviosly a fanboy, ever touting the 'eyes can't see faster than 60 fps', and saying it didn't matter. Realisticly, it doesn't, but the benchmark showed performance. I'm just defending my conclusions. Now I could go on a lot more, but fact is, the situation is still the same today. Now this is the part where I attempt to throw a few things back at the poster who made me look stupid.

    Here's the quote I'm referencing, by barefootchef:
    They compare a Dual Processor G4 running at 1.42 GHz per processor to a single processor Pentium 4 running at 3.06 GHz. Right there there is already a problem. The total GHz of the G4s equals only 2.84 GHz. That's 220 MHz slower than the pentium. Second, no matter how efficient the operating system utilizing the multi-processors, some of those Hz will always be lost in the process. It used to be a whopping 50% of the processing power of the second chip. I believe it has since gotten down to 10-25% lost. At the least that's another 142 MHz lost. So, already the processing speed is 362 MHz slower. It doesn't sound like much, but it all adds up.

    Well lets use that excuse now. A P4EE at 3.2GHz and and Athlon 64 FX-51 at 2.2GHz. Hmm...they both bested the Dual G5 2GHz in a 12 benchmark test run by Maximum PC Magazine. The Dual G5 2GHz (which, just to say, adds up to 4GHz!) is bested in 8 out of 12 of them, by both x86 chips. Now going by Barefootchef's calculations, these speeds mean that the Mac should win, no? Well, no matter, I think that someone should've checked if speed mattered just as much as architecture...oh wait...it does. Anyways, I don't want to start a flame-war, just trying to make myself not look like a total loser...seeing as the thread...actually the exact post...shows up on the first page of a google search. Feel free to diss me, I probably deserve it. But let it be known that I still think that the PC is the best deal for the money, and the better performer when it comes down to the same price. The PC also takes the lead at the top end. Anyways...peace out. Maybe I can learn something from the persons who reply to this post.
  2. tazo macrumors 68040


    Apr 6, 2003
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    Well as the creator of the illusive and wellknown 'Worst Question a pc user has aksed you' thread, I dont quite remember the document you are referencing. However with like 700 replies from a ton of people, plus being so long ago, it would be kind of difficult anyway.

    I dont really know how to respond to your statements, but I think that if this is about zealotism than I am far from it; I think both platforms have equally good aspects to them, and equally poor ones. Both have areas in which they excell, and those in which they do not.

    "...Once we can accept that either platform has something the other does not, is the same day the new HP tower doesnt cause us to stab ourselves in the eye..." -me [tazo]
  3. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816


    Mar 27, 2003
    To me benchmarks are meaningless. Until Panther, Windows and OS 9 were still much snappier and seemed faster. However, Macs (especially OS X) are still better at multitasking, which is what I prefer over doing one thing at a time at a slightly higher pace.
  4. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    [side comment: Is the title Grammatically sound? Shouldn't it be something like 'I don't want to look stupid... anyway]

    We on the Mac Side have admitted defeat in the Preformance sector, and if you want pure speed:
    Get a Pc.

    Getting a Mac is more then Speed, its being able to use it. Its like... Everything works, and if it doesn't work -- There is a fix.

    Not like Internet Exploreres 30 new Security Flaws that Microsoft *might* fix...

    Or the new virus for XP... we have none of that.

    Its not running Photoshop and getting the work done. Its being satisfied that you did the work and sent it to your new printer without running to the CD rack for new drivers.

    Its easy on the eyes, I like to work at my computer, I don't dread it.

    I may not get an extra 300 FPS on the latest game, but heck I can probably run it just fine.
  5. STeVeDaVe thread starter macrumors newbie

    Nov 30, 2003
    X...whatever your handle was, Would you mind specifying what you mean by multitasking? My Windows machines multitask just fine. That's basically the same general statement you made, except from a different point of view. Macs multitask better...hah...what it really comes down to is the hardware being able to handle it. If you're referencing multiple processors helping with that, do realize that Windows users can do the same thing. Or are you saying that OS X utilizes memory better? Is the code tighter allowing for better multitasking? With a statement like that, you're giving an excellent example of part of the reason why I started this thread: fanboyism
    Wow...your statement, doesn't even reference any evidence...oh wait...I don't suppose any benchmarks would be of any use. gaaah! I'm not a freaking fanboy (don't call me Wintel fanboy either, I'm all for AMD :)), but don't make such blatantly general and thoughtless comments!

    MrMacMan, I hear ya, and I must agree, most people are like that. But hey...with viruses, realize that of course more viruses exist because of the huge user base. Same goes for flaws and patches. With a mac OS, there aren't as many people searching for them, and maybe Apple is good with keeping security top-notch. But we'll never know that unless OS X becomes the dominant OS to use. More people looking for flaws means more people are bound to find them. Printer drivers? I've never had to install printer drivers off a CD since Windows 95. Unlike the common user, there are windows users who know how to protect and use their machines safely. I can. But you got it right on for 99% of people.
  6. scem0 macrumors 604


    Jul 16, 2002
    back in NYC!
    Macs are slower at most tasks. Even with the new G5.

    Its the fact.

    But its not important and anybody who gets a computer because it is a fraction of a second faster at certain tasks is stupid.

    I'd save more time if I had a G5, rather than my current PC, because Mac OS X is more efficiant than Windows at 99% of all tasks.

    I really think that a Mac > PC for everything except gaming and programming (for Windows at least ;)).

  7. judith macrumors regular


    Jul 27, 2003
    Mt. Baker - Washington State USA
    WANTS not to look stupid

    How's that saying go again...
    Want in one hand...?;)
  8. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Feb 24, 2001
    Speed will cease to be an issue in about 5 years. Over the next decade we will see the tech industry reach the physical limits of processor speeds and magnetic hard drive capacities among other things. When we reach this barrier we will see mass layoffs from tech giants like IBM and Intel that will put the current round of layoffs to shame. Faltering PC companies like Gateway will find themselves completely decimated when they can no longer claim a speed advantage. Consumers will flock to companies that provide compelling software and stylish designed computers. Companies like Apple, HP and Sony will flourish and the computer industry will become consolidated under a few companies much like the car industry. Beige box PCs will go extinct except for custom built PCs as the computer becomes a fully mainstream appliance.
  9. themadchemist macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    I don't think that's a fact. It seems too close to call with the Intel processors. AMD comes out on top, though.

    Of course, we can't really tell much yet. Applications are only just being optimized for the G5 processor. AMD will still probably be ahead, but I see Intel trailing in the processor wars in the future.

    The baggage from their overly inefficient chips has begun to show. Hey, even Microsoft is dumping the Intel design and looking to IBM for the goods in the next XBox.
  10. revenuee macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2003
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    Physical Limits have been broken ... just not implemented yet as the technology is very new ... Sun did it ... they thought like you thought

    here is the link

  11. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816


    Mar 27, 2003
    Benchmarks mean almost nothing. Every site you look at gives you different benchmarks. I'm talking more along the lines of the OS. I've used PC's that have an obvious technological advantage; 2 GHz P4 as opposed to my Dual 867 G4. If they were both running an equivelent brand of Linux, then the P4 would be faster than my G4. However, my Mac runs OS X 10.3, and from my experience, that gets the job done faster than Windows can, regardless of whether the Windows machine is running at 500 MHz or 2 GHz.
    However, if you prefer your AMD machine, good for you. If you use Windows or Linux, good for you. I will continue to use Macs, as you will most likely continue to use PC's.
  12. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Jun 25, 2002
    Gone but not forgotten.
    If you have to use benchmark testing because you can't tell the speed difference between two machines, is one really all that much faster for you?

    If the majority of the users are surfing the web, writing letters to relatives, and editing photos occasionally, will they notice the difference between a 2 GHz machine and a 3 GHz machine of the same design?

    It's almost like a hit-and-run accident where one person sees a blue car, another sees a green car, and someone else sees a brown car.

    Benchmarks can mean anything you want them to mean and are rarely useful.

Share This Page