Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Re: Are Apple products too eXpensive?

Originally posted by iGAV
So are Ferrari's............ but I'd still want one........ :)

I wouldn't want a Ferrari with 100hp engine and scooter wheels. :(

You have to consider that when you compare a Mac with a Ferrari!

:(

groovebuster
 
G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!

Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world. Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide. The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed. Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla. Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.
 
Originally posted by gopher
G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!

Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world. Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide. The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed. Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla. Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.

Calm down and do a real world test with two machines side by side!

Check this out: http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

And those results are pretty close to what I experienced while comparing a Mac to a Windows-Box. Sorry dude, but just saying 1 million times in a row it can't be doesn't change the facts to a better.

By the way the... the same problem with "error free code" you have with the Mac, so what's the deal? And the 15 GFlops are a theoretical number, they just counted together all processing units in the G4. In real life you'll never reach that number. Learn a bit about the architecture of the G4, PIV and the Athlon and then we can go on talking, OK?

And before I forget... Intel and AMD are using SSE that is similar to Altivec, though not as efficient. But since the integer and FP specs of the PIV and especially the Athlon are way better than of the G4, it doesn't matter a lot. Not to forget that they arte clocked way faster than the G4...

Tell me how you want to do a FP calculation double precison on a G4??? Ooops! Doesn't work? Too bad...

Listen, there is a reason why benchmarks showed that a PIII is about the same as a G4 on integer and floating point operations without Altivec involved running at the same frequency. So a G4 running at 1GHz is the same as a PIII running at 1GHz. Of course the G4 would be faster as soon as SSE and Altivec would be involved, but today we are at 2.4 GHz PIV my friend. Even Altivec can't pull it anymore! And to compare a DP system to a SP system is a little bit unfair, don't you think? But even a single PIV smokes the G4 DP 1GHz in most disciplines.

Don't get me wrong, basically the G4 architecture is the better one, but even a DP 1GHZ G4 workstation can't compete against a state of the art DP Athlon or Intel System. Deal with the facts! Apple is stuck with Motorola and if they don't come up with something totally ground-braking it will do no good for Apple in the near future.

groovebuster

P.S.: Did you ever ask yourself why it became so quite around the "Megahertz Myth"??? Because the current PIVs and Athlons smoke the G4 in almost everything.
 
The comparison at barefeets seems to answer just a couple of truisms:

The Athlon is as good as (or maybe marginally better) than a G4 at clock for clock performance.

The PIV is a disgrace, though clocking at 2.4Ghz as it is now, it should be able to hold it's own.

And last but not least:
The Mac -is- bad value for money because it is working on an ageing architecture.. I would say the difference between the Athlon and the G4 performance could probably be answered in one fell swoop by giving the G4 a faster FSB and memory subsys, something that Motorola have dragged their feet over.

(Oh, and for those of you who don't know, the Athlon -is- a RISC machine at it's heart, and a very good one)
 
Afraid you are wrong sir. The G4 when altivec is running is equivalent to a 3 to 5 Ghz Pentium IV which doesn't yet exist. Barefeats doesn't tell the entire tale:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop look at the RC5 numbers.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

G4s are faster. And don't try and wiggle out of that one. 5 times faster is nothing to sneeze at. Until AMD and Intel lower the number of stages in their processor to that of the G4 and still maintain the same Mhz speed and go full RISC they are going to be behind. OK so AMD is full RISC, they still are fudging their name to try to match Intel's clock speed to say their processors are as fast as certain Intels. And they aren't even at 2.4 Ghz Pentium numbers.
 
Consumer products

I'm trying to convice a friend to buy an iBook. He just bought a cheap PC laptop and the screen quit after 5 days which he returned.

I showed him the switch ads, I always tell him about my iBook, the wireless network, how easy it is to sort digital pictures and he is very excited.

Now, he looked at the price.

No way will he pay 1500 for an iBook (/w cdrw). Not a chance in hell when he says he can walk into Best Buy and get another cheap pc laptop for 900.

It does not matter that the iBook is faster, more attractive and will last longer than a cheap pc laptop.
 
You can get a used iBook for $900 at the Apple Store and Macresq.com or Powermax.com

Perhaps that's what he wants. Plus it has more battery life, easier to setup, and less likely to fail.
 
Mr. Gopher, you -are- right. But the instances these stats point to are: 1) Altivec use, which is no question the leading vector unit in the field, and 2) Xserve systems that have (through fudge) increased that oh so holy memory throughput, and finally 3) BLAST being a tight algorithm that sits oh so nicely in that fat and fast L3 Cache.

So - come MacWorld (or just after) I think we are going to see the PowerMac being -very- competitive in performance again, not to mention all the aspects of Mac that were always a winner (such as software, case design etc) still being there. All that will remain is for the G4 to start reaching the 1.8 Ghz level similar to the Athlon and we should see a performance leader across the board.
 
Originally posted by gopher
Afraid you are wrong sir. The G4 when altivec is running is equivalent to a 3 to 5 Ghz Pentium IV which doesn't yet exist. Barefeats doesn't tell the entire tale:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop look at the RC5 numbers.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

G4s are faster. And don't try and wiggle out of that one. 5 times faster is nothing to sneeze at. Until AMD and Intel lower the number of stages in their processor to that of the G4 and still maintain the same Mhz speed and go full RISC they are going to be behind. OK so AMD is full RISC, they still are fudging their name to try to match Intel's clock speed to say their processors are as fast as certain Intels. And they aren't even at 2.4 Ghz Pentium numbers.

I really start to wonder, if you can understand what other people are telling you... :(

The examples you gave are specifically optimized for Altivec and don't have anything to do with the system overall perfomance in daily life. Got it?

How often do you use Blast in your daily work? Oh... never? And you should start to learn how to read between the lines! All that crap is marketing bla bla. They say 5 times faster than the standard implementation. I wonder what it would say, if they would have compared to an optimized version for the PIV as well... On top of that they compare the DP G4 with a single PIV...

The page for the megahrtz myth is a joke as well. The suite used for the performance comparison uses almost completely routines that take advantage of Altivec, I could build you another suite for Photoshop that shows exactly the opposite picture... So what? Play a little bit with the MHz numbers and tell me if you still think that an Athlon DP system would run slower than a DP G4 running at 1GHz...

The RC5 thing again is just a specific task when not a lot of data has to be shoveled around and it is taking full advantage of Altivec. So again something that doesn't have anything to do with the average workstation user out there. And do the same comparison on SETI and the G4 gets smoked.

By the way.. I never questioned if the Xserve is a fine machine, but we are talking WORKSTATION and not SERVER here.

So one last time... do a real life comparison yourself and stop pointing out super specific use cases of the G4. If you would do that the other way around it would be very embarassing for the G4.

And since you are claiming that the Macs are so superior for video. Compare a PowerMac with Windows-Box using Premiere and AfterEffects. You should be smart enough to find some benchmarks online yourself...

The system overall performance IS NOT RUNNING ONLY ALTIVEC OPTIMIZED CODE all the time.

groovebuster
 
Originally posted by danman
So - come MacWorld (or just after) I think we are going to see the PowerMac being -very- competitive in performance again, not to mention all the aspects of Mac that were always a winner (such as software, case design etc) still being there. All that will remain is for the G4 to start reaching the 1.8 Ghz level similar to the Athlon and we should see a performance leader across the board.

That's what I am waiting for since more than a year now... that Apple provides competetive gear again finally. So I hope there will be nice stuff coming out at the MWNY, but since I got disappointed again and again lately by Apple I willl only believe it when I can touch one of those performant machines and compare them to other solutions. Before I remain sceptical... And if there is nothing coming out that is highly improved in performance, I will maybe buy a DP Windows-Box for getting the stuff done that needs raw power and is time critical. When Apple has something again to offer after while I of course will be in line again for a high end system, but that still remains to happen...

So we'll see!

groovebuster
 
Originally posted by groovebuster


That's what I am waiting for since more than a year now... that Apple provides competetive gear again finally. So I hope there will be nice stuff coming out at the MWNY, but since I got disappointed again and again ...

Oh yes that man, do I second that. When the G4 first arrived I wasn't in a position to upgrade, and since it arrived the Mac has slipped further and further behind in performance. I'm sitting here with my B&W G3 400, still waiting for Apple to give me a good enough reason to fork out £2grand. I simply am not in a financial position to jump until they make a significant improvement. Still, this machine kinda runs X ok..

Dual 1.4 DDR Gf4Ti will do me fine thankyou very much.
 
There are real live tests showing DVD encoding 3 times faster on a Flat Panel iMac than any other PC. Adobe Premier? Why not use Final Cut or DVD Studio Pro? There are other video editing programs that are better optimized for Altivec. And if they aren't optimized they should be. It isn't that hard to do. Now when are you going to learn that Macs are nothing to sneeze at when it comes to speed. Go and try one of the modern Macs for yourself with optimized software. You will be glad you did. Even Deneba CAD is Altivec optimized. Black Lab Linux is Altivec optimized.

You just have to know where to look.

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/index.html

http://www.psrv.com/documents/VAST_AltiVec/VAST_AltiVec_FAQ.html

http://macspeedzone.com/archive/frames2000/g4applications.shtml

Altivec does wonders for programs. You have to think of it this way, what if your instructions could be issued 128 bit? Yes 128 bit. Now is that your double precision numbers or isn't it? It is. What's more it does this on a processor that uses less heat than an AMD or Intel. We are talking here less heat = greater potential speed. Granted parts of Mac OS X aren't Altivec optimized but Mac OS X is multithreaded and you can kill threads that are slowing you down. So now you see you can have your cake and eat it too. Become a programmer if you can't find code that is optimized for Altivec to do what you want, and use Apple's developer's link above to create your own optimized code.

Look at what Apple says about Altivec:

"Motorola's AltiVec Technology, embodied in the G4 processor, expands the current PowerPC architecture through addition of a 128-bit vector execution unit that operates concurrently with existing integer and floating-point units. This provides for highly parallel operations, allowing for simultaneous execution of up to 16 operations in a single clock cycle. This new approach expands the processor's capabilities to concurrently address high-bandwidth data processing (such as streaming video) and the algorithmic intensive computations which today are handled off-chip by other devices, such as graphics, audio, and modem functions.The AltiVec instruction set allows operation on multiple bits within the 128-bit wide registers. This combination of new instructions, operation in parallel on multiple bits, and wider registers, provide speed enhancements of up to 30x on operations that are common in media processing."

Originally posted by groovebuster


I really start to wonder, if you can understand what other people are telling you... :(

The examples you gave are specifically optimized for Altivec and don't have anything to do with the system overall perfomance in daily life. Got it?

How often do you use Blast in your daily work? Oh... never? And you should start to learn how to read between the lines! All that crap is marketing bla bla. They say 5 times faster than the standard implementation. I wonder what it would say, if they would have compared to an optimized version for the PIV as well... On top of that they compare the DP G4 with a single PIV...

The page for the megahrtz myth is a joke as well. The suite used for the performance comparison uses almost completely routines that take advantage of Altivec, I could build you another suite for Photoshop that shows exactly the opposite picture... So what? Play a little bit with the MHz numbers and tell me if you still think that an Athlon DP system would run slower than a DP G4 running at 1GHz...

The RC5 thing again is just a specific task when not a lot of data has to be shoveled around and it is taking full advantage of Altivec. So again something that doesn't have anything to do with the average workstation user out there. And do the same comparison on SETI and the G4 gets smoked.

By the way.. I never questioned if the Xserve is a fine machine, but we are talking WORKSTATION and not SERVER here.

So one last time... do a real life comparison yourself and stop pointing out super specific use cases of the G4. If you would do that the other way around it would be very embarassing for the G4.

And since you are claiming that the Macs are so superior for video. Compare a PowerMac with Windows-Box using Premiere and AfterEffects. You should be smart enough to find some benchmarks online yourself...

The system overall performance IS NOT RUNNING ONLY ALTIVEC OPTIMIZED CODE all the time.

groovebuster
 
Just for kicks and giggles, I went to Dell's website and the Apple Store and configured two computers that were SOMEWHAT similar. This is what I got

DELL:
P4 2.53Ghz
512Mb PC800 RDRAM (MUCH faster than SDRAM)
80Gb Hd
Harmon Kardon hk395 speakers
Soundblaster Live! card
DVD+RW/CDRW drive (superdrive equivalent)
Geforce 4 Ti 4400
15" LCD panel
56k modem
M$ office small business edition
Norton Antivirus
WinXP
and a 3 year warranty

$2656

Apple:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
$3407

I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.
 
Originally posted by topicolo
Just for kicks and giggles, I went to Dell's website and the Apple Store and configured two computers that were SOMEWHAT similar. This is what I got

DELL:
P4 2.53Ghz
512Mb PC800 RDRAM (MUCH faster than SDRAM)
80Gb Hd
Harmon Kardon hk395 speakers
Soundblaster Live! card
DVD+RW/CDRW drive (superdrive equivalent)
Geforce 4 Ti 4400
15" LCD panel
56k modem
M$ office small business edition
Norton Antivirus
WinXP
and a 3 year warranty

$2656

Apple:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
$3407

I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.

Dell's display isn't digital. Compare Apples with Apples.
DVD+RW isn't readable in as many DVD players DVD-RW drives are. You can attach the 15" SVGA LCD display to the Apple as well and save $200. Pro speakers can be replaced by Radio Shack speakers for $40 less. Is the RAM all that much faster if the processor has 3 times as many stages? It has to use that much faster RAM to even come close. And there is a 933 Mhz G4 for $2299 at Smalldog:

http://www.smalldog.com/product/40906

Total price $2599. Throw in the rebate on the 15" Apple display it comes out to $2399 + RAM and speakers which can be gotten for less than $100. Replacement warranty for 2 years at CompUSA is $30 even if you didn't buy it there. Dell lost there!
Next....
 
Re: Are Apple products too eXpensive?

Originally posted by elensil
I want to know what do you think about Apple pricing. Anyone thinks they are right on or way over board?

1) compared to the price of a home computer in the early 80s, any mac is a great deal

2) compared to those fast bus, ddr pc machines, macs are too expensive

here is my suggestion for apple to up marketshare

imac starting 1199 (i am referring to lcd imac)
ibook starting 999
emac 899
powermac starting 1399
tibook starting 1999

but here is what i think we will actually see next year or later

imac 1299
ibook 1099
emac 999
powermac 1499
tibook 2199

i bought my bare bones ibook for 1599 and gradually saw the basic ibook go down to 1199, but something tells me the buck will stop at 1099 and it will be years before we see any sub-1000 dollar apple laptop

come on, steve, prove me wrong:p
 
Originally posted by gopher
G4s don't suck a floating point calculations. Name one PC that can do 15 billion floating calculations a second. Name ONE!

Name one Mac that can do 15 billion double-precision FP calcs/sec. As a matter of fact, name one Mac that can do 2 double-precision GFLOPS/sec. The 15 GFLOPS number is for vectorized single-precision FP only.
Sorry I don't buy your fairy tales. The integer measurements of
the PC are biased because they rely on error free code which
is practically impossible to come by in the real world.

If you're referring to the most recent SPEC benchmarks (which had to be obtained for Macs unofficially because Apple was presumably too ashamed to do it themselves), why does the fastest (1GHz PPC) fall virtually dead last against ALL other CPUs tested? I mean, c'mon, it's dead even with the equivalently-clocked Pentium III and gets spanked by a MIPS R14000A at half the MHz. Not to mention the PA-RISC, Itanium, Power3/4, P4, Athlon, and UltraSPARC, which all destroy it. The 2.2GHz P4 is several times faster at both integer and fp.
Altivec optimization isn't that hard. Just tell your developers to follow O'Reilly publishing's Altivec guide.

Why should they expend such effort when they can write code that runs optimally on what ~95% of the world uses - x86 - with no extra effort on their part. You're a developer, and you want to write a piece of software. Are you going to write it in nice, portable, platform independent code that screams on x86, or are you going to write it in a weird proprietary vectorized manner which renders it dog-slow on all but some strange embedded processor used by 3% of the desktop market?
The G4 is faster than all PCs at video and image manipulation. That's where you need the speed.

To be more specific, it's faster than all PCs at vectorized single-precision floating point, and that's about it.
Oh and if you need a fast spell checker go with Nisus Writer. If you need fast web browsing go with Omniweb or Mozilla.

You must be joking. A 500MHz Celeron with a decent video card is so much smoother than a rev B TiBook at web browsing that it makes me, as a rev B TiBook user, want to cry.
Honestly, there isn't anything a PC can do faster than a Mac at all levels. There will be some things a PC is faster at in some calculations, others a Mac is faster at just because different portions of code are optimized for the processors differently. But where it counts, the Mac is faster.
If "where it counts" to you is in vectorized single-precision floating point code, then I agree. Unfortunately, the reality is that the G4's integer speed is terrible, and its double-precision floating point speed is ATROCIOUS.
 
Originally posted by topicolo
I would say that these are NOT similarly priced. Even though I have a soft spot for macs, the extra $751 for a slower CPU, slower RAM, and slower bus speed is hard to overlook.

Of course, some of you will say that the 933Mhz G4 will smoke the 2533Mhz P4, but that is highly unlikely in real world tests. In Quake III, a P4 like this will be able to get over 300fps at 640x480.

Does that peee4 come with L3 cache??? Didn't think so.. :p

Anyone that has used one of the Apple systems with the L3 cache KNOWS that is is like a hypercharger slapped onto the processor.

The Apple also gives you a svelte package design while the dell system, well, it's from dell dude... :p :D
 
i think most of us know that pcs are faster than mac these days

it would just be nice to catch up some day

as much as i think motorola is an overall good company, they have hindered apple's plans to keep pace with intel and amd

but i still prefer my mac to my pc
 
Re: Re: I'd have to agree with the previous posts

Originally posted by gopher
State of the art is in Altivec, RISC, level 2 and level 3 cache. All of which Macs have. PCs need a higher bus to overcome the limits of the Pentium and high number of stages on its processor.

And that they certainly do have.
And still they end up slower than Macs where it counts. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Macs are not state of the art.

State of the art?
- ATA-66
- PC133 SDRAM
- Integer and double-precision / non-vectorized fp benchmark scores dramatically lower than virtually all of their competition
- USB 1.0

If that's state of the art to you then welcome to 1999.
RISC is faster, no matter how you slice it. Until PCs start coming out with full RISC and vector processing Macs will always be faster at the tasks that count.

The Athlon and P4 ARE RISC. RISC vs. CISC has nothing to do with performance anyway, it's simply a difference in processor design philosophy. Fewer instructions / higher clock / lower complexity (RISC) vs. more instructions / lower clock / greater complexity (CISC). The debate is irrelevant today.
Oh and you can plug a ATA 133 card into the PCI slots of the PowerMac towers if that's what you really want. Speed of drives aren't only the ATA speed, it is also the RPM speed. Or you can plug in wide SCSI. So that leaves with the question of why not faster RAM? Again, you are mistaking bus for a requirement to have higher speeds. Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.

So tell me, from which community college did you obtain your associate's degree in computer engineering?
Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.
That's incredible - what an amazing coincidence that I can do it with a PC as well.

Alex
 
Then vectorize your code....it isn't that difficult and you will see the G4s jump by leaps and bounds over the PCs. Why are you comparing non-vectorized code? That's like telling me a jet is slower than a Ferrari on the runway because it doesn't run on standard car gasoline. The G4 is the jet. The Ferrari is the PC in this case. Get your code up to jet speed. Altivec it. You can add USB 2.0 cards to the Mac. You can add ATA 133 and Ultrawide SCSI to the Mac. If you really want all those options they are there. The RAM difference is there only because the PC is so slow and overburdened by its processor. And it still isn't as close to the processor as L2 and L3 cache, as it has to send signals from the RAM to the bus of the PC just to come close. Every leg of that equation slows the PC down. If the PC had L2 and L3 cache comparable to the Mac and as few pipelines as the Mac and it had that high speed RAM it would be faster, but no, they chose to use processors overly dependant on off processor bus RAM. No they chose to use processors overly dependent on off processor graphic cards. Where instead the Mac's floating point units on a G4 1 Ghz processor is 15 billion floating calculations a second. And that's on the processor itself! You have to think for a moment why the PC is so slow. People have made 42 massively parallel G4s run at 630 billion floating point calculations a second, and made that network setup in one hour. Try and do that on a PC. The point is you can't fathom how fast the Mac is.

16 floating point instructions per clock cycle is the limit it goes at. There is your double precision. SpecInt and SpecFP code was written for Pentiums, not for G4s. Until they are actually written for G4s your argument is fruitless.
 
macs are slower

but speed is not everything

steven tyler of aerosmith put it best

paraphrase:

"when you are young in your early 20s, you do [it] frantically and it's over in sixty seconds, but when you get older, you learn to work the thing and take your time and you get the most of it (and so does she)

it's about the quality, baby...and that's why i use a mac:p :eek: ;)
 
Originally posted by gopher
Then vectorize your code....it isn't that difficult and you will see the G4s jump by leaps and bounds over the PCs. Why are you comparing non-vectorized code? That's like telling me a jet is slower than a Ferrari on the runway because it doesn't run on standard car gasoline. The G4 is the jet. The Ferrari is the PC in this case. Get your code up to jet speed. Altivec it.
Do you work for Apple or Motorola PR or something? Are you ignoring me on purpose? I'll repeat myself for your convenience:
Why should they (developers) expend such effort when they can write code that runs optimally on what ~95% of the world uses - x86 - with no extra effort on their part. You're a developer, and you want to write a piece of software. Are you going to write it in nice, portable, platform independent code that screams on x86, or are you going to write it in a weird proprietary vectorized manner which renders it dog-slow on all but some strange embedded processor used by 3% of the desktop market?
 
Originally posted by jefhatfield
macs are slower

but speed is not everything

steven tyler of aerosmith put it best

paraphrase:

"when you are young in your early 20s, you do [it] frantically and it's over in sixty seconds, but when you get older, you learn to work the thing and take your time and you get the most of it (and so does she)

it's about the quality, baby...and that's why i use a mac:p :eek: ;)
I like that analogy a lot. :)
 
Originally posted by alex_ant

I like that analogy a lot. :)

it's cleaner than saying,

"i am better off working it with a few good mags than straddling a pillow and being done with it a few secs"

:eek:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.