Buy a 17" Powerbook Right Now. You'll Love It

[gopher]

Originally posted by Likvid
gopher:

Actually you are wrong, LG makes Apple's Cinema Displays and not Samsung.

Why are Apple not showing the specs for their displays?

If the response times are so great, why hide it for the customer?

If i buy the 23" Apple Display i want to know the real specifications, this is not a smart move from Apple for an eventual switcher.

LG makes those displays? Hrmm...then what happened to Apple's displays being made by Samsung. I seem to remember that Samsung was making at least the Flat Panel iMac displays.

I checked the specs and you are right that they don't show response times. However they do show the color capabilities in the PDF documents at

http://www.apple.com/displays/

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is quite capable of outmuscling all Pentiums, even at 1 Ghz as the MTOP rating clearly shows.

Oh my god, please save us from this guy... Here he comes, emerging from the woodwork and spouting rabid zealotry as if he lives by the rule that "if you tell a lie enough times people will think it's the truth."

MTOPs are cleary Millions of Theoretical Operations per Second. Who gives a flying **** if the wheels on my car can spin at a theoretical 500 mph while it's up on blocks. All that matters is how fast it can go on real roads and real world situations.

To use the above example, if your car doesn't perform very well, do you call the government and complain that they should redesign all of the roads in the country so that your car can travel faster on them? Hell no.

Repeat after me: The only benchmarks that matter are the applications that you run on a daily basis.


mod edit...watch the language...this is your only warning...

 

[ibookin']

Originally posted by Likvid
Actually PC hardware is the winning factor between Mac and PC.

You can build a machine to your exact specifications with a PC.

Also, i don't really understand why people is saying the Apple Cinema Display range are so good, not even Apple is stating the specification for these displays, are they hiding the real response times for them?

I can buy Samsung 24" LCD which got much higher specifications than the Apple Cinema Display range, not to say the much lower response times.

I get the thinking that Apple users set the design as number one priority and performance second.

Design is not helping you to be more productive, performance does, and today a dual Xeon 3.06GHz machine with SCSI RAID is the workhorse to buy.

Correct me if i am wrong but i think i am telling some truth into it.

No doubt Apple got real nice design and the G5 is nice but you don't get the freedom as you get with a PC you built yourself.

If you are a non-technical person, go for Apple or PC, doesn't matter to you......


Not to mention the freedom to run almost any OS you want on your x86 hardware.

Actually you can make a screaming dual Xeon with FreeBSD better and faster than a Mac with MacOSX.

Don't mention Windows XP or any other alternative as i can agree with most of you that Windows is NOT freedom and it's boring to use, but Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft released compared to their older releases.

However, that doesn't make Microsoft any good.

You guys still use Microsoft software on your Macs, why?

If you have a Mac and run MacOSX, then you shouldn't install Microsoft Office or whatever, i don't get it

I use Microsoft software (Office) on my Mac because I have to be compatible with the thousands of PCs running Windows 2000 at my school.

The fact that I can build a PC myself is not enough reason for me to choose that over the Mac. I have built 2 PCs for my personal use and each one became a nightmare to use after 6 or so months. And, yes, they had dual boot Win 2K and Mandrake Linux.

These machines were Athlons, one 700MHz and one 1.46GHz (1700+), but the one that currently works (the 1700+) is not as enjoyable to use as my 700MHz G4 iMac or my 800MHz G3 iBook. I am more productive on my Macs because the OS is so much more fluid and intuitive. Sure, I can use Linux on my PC, but then I have to reboot or use WINE (or what have you) to run Office, which is essential to working in the Windows environment at my school. On my Mac, I have BSD and Office at the same time, both running natively.

What I do with my computer is helped more by a nice OS than it is helped by a Dual 3GHz machine. I need some power, but not that much.

You say that PCs are great because I have the freedom to run pretty much any OS I want, but PCs don't use the one OS I want to run the most, Mac OS X.

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by illumin8
mod edit...watch the language...this is your only warning...

Sorry, didn't know it was inappropriate to use common misspellings of curse words.

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by illumin8
Oh my god, please save us from this guy... Here he comes, emerging from the woodwork and spouting rabid zealotry as if he lives by the rule that "if you tell a lie enough times people will think it's the truth."

MTOPs are cleary Millions of Theoretical Operations per Second. Who gives a flying fsck if the wheels on my car can spin at a theoretical 500 mph while it's up on blocks. All that matters is how fast it can go on real roads and real world situations.

To use the above example, if your car doesn't perform very well, do you call the government and complain that they should redesign all of the roads in the country so that your car can travel faster on them? Hell no.

Repeat after me: The only benchmarks that matter are the applications that you run on a daily basis.

Not if those applications don't know how to utilize the processor in the most efficient way. We need to demand that the processor be used more and the hard disk less. Those MTOPS are good enough for the U.S. Government to consider whether or not to call the machines Supercomputers or not and allow or not allow export of those machines. It isn't as if those MTOPS are derived out of the blue. How else do you explain Genentech's Blast and RC5 going 4 to 5 times faster on a G4 than a Pentium IV? No, I'm sorry, but those theoretical calculations have been achieved in highly optimized applications. It is obvious programmers are not doing enough to optimize their applications. How long will it take before all applications are optimized for 64 bit? Well I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of the application benchmarks, because they are benchmarking applications that haven't done enough to be optimized for the G4s capabilities. Those that have, like Photoshop clearly have shown themselves superior in Apple's own benchmarks. And now with the G5, you have all the additional programs whose benchmarks proved faster at the WWDC conference. The more we get optimized applications, the less we can ignore the facts that the G4 is much faster than any Pentium IV or AMD and so is the G5. Inch for inch, those Apple desktop and notebook processors are much more efficient, and much faster than the PC counterparts at the same price. Unfortunately not enough software developers believe it enough to develop their code more for the G4 and G5. Granted how fast can you really type on a word processor (only as fast as you can type)? How fast can you really push a web browser (only as fast as the internet connection). There are variables for which the most common use of the machine is not determined by the processor, but the person behind the keyboard or the peripherals that are attached. You can attach faster peripherals to Macs, namely built-in Gigabit ethernet, built-in Firewire 800 on those 17" Powerbooks, and even Firewire 400 in everyday use is faster than USB 2, even though USB 2 is spec'ed higher. The point I'm trying to make is that if you really want to benchmark applications against hardware, you have to take the hardware to its most basic level, and what it can do at its most basic level. That's before any code attempts to program the process through. And if you don't believe the G4 is faster, that's your perogative, but nothing will make me believe otherwise.

 

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by illumin8
Sorry, didn't know it was inappropriate to use common misspellings of curse words.

maybe u should read the rules that are posted at the top of every thread AND also linked up in each reply page...

 

[arn]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
maybe u should read the rules that are posted at the top of every thread AND also linked up in each reply page...

this had become a touchy issue especially because in the past -- one user who kept pushing it, and eventually left (partially) because of my constant re-editing of his messages.

don't mean to sound harsh - but for consistency sake, we try to stick to it.

arn

 

[Source]

Originally posted by gopher
I gave those benchmarks earlier in the thread:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Gopher, MTOPS mean nothing in real time terms - If you measure the actual speed of a 1GHz G4 vs a 3GHz P4, at running applications, you'll see that the 1GHz G4 is far far slower than a 3GHz P4.

Originally posted by gopher
We need to demand that the processor be used more and the hard disk less.

lmfao - Funny. Who are you going to demand to and why should they listen to you?

As I said before:

1. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

2. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

Sorry Gopher, but you've made it obvious that you're a Mac zealot who will believe anything you read with regard to Macs being 'faster' than PCs and disregard anything you read that says PCs are faster than Macs.

It's pointless in having a conversation with someone like you on this subject, because you have no proof to back up your claims, except an article that talks about theoretical speeds that don't work the same way in the real world.

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by Source
Gopher, MTOPS mean nothing in real time terms - If you measure the actual speed of a 1GHz G4 vs a 3GHz P4, at running applications, you'll see that the 1GHz G4 is far far slower than a 3GHz P4.



lmfao - Funny. Who are you going to demand to and why should they listen to you?

As I said before:

1. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

2. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

Sorry Gopher, but you've made it obvious that you're a Mac zealot who will believe anything you read with regard to Mac being 'faster' than PCs and disregard anything you read that says PCs are faster than Macs.

It's pointless in having a conversation with someone like you on this subject, because you have no proof to back up your claims, except an article that talks about theoretical speeds that don't work the same way in the real world.

To answer #2 is quite simple. Enough Windows users are printing and saying FUD all over the place to claim that Mhz means everything. So Apple releases a G5 that has several specs that clearly are superior, and that is the 64 bitness of the G5, the faster 1 Ghz bus, the faster 8X AGP, the dual unidirectional buses preventing logjams from instructions going both directions simultaneously on the same bus, the upgradable to 8 GB of RAM and so many other facets, PC users are now jealous.

To answer number 1, that's where you and I disagree.

 

[Source]

Originally posted by gopher
To answer #2 is quite simple....

To answer number 1, that's where you and I disagree.

How can you disagree with the fact that when a PC and Mac run the same application, the PC runs the application faster. It's a fact, you can't disagree with it. lol

#2 - That's stupid. If Apple just thought people cared about MHz then why didn't Apple have a processor created that was 4GHz?

 

[WilliamGates]

My last 2 PC laptops were about $3200 each and they were 10 Lb "top of the line" plastic, 15" screen desktop replacement laptops. Areas of the plastic would melt due to the heat and they were fan blowing noisy. The 17" is the most fun laptop I have ever owned. Just wish I could run OS9.

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by Source
How can you disagree with the fact that when a PC and Mac run the same application, the PC runs the application faster. It's a fact, you can't disagree with it. lol

#2 - That's stupid. If Apple just thought people cared about MHz then why didn't Apple have a processor created that was 4GHz?

And where was Apple supposed to get a 4 Ghz processor to stop fears of potential switchers that it had fallen behind? It never did fall behind. It is the switcher who was never informed enough to realize that G4s are faster. Apple saught a compromise, and a very good one at that I might add.

 

[Source]

Originally posted by WilliamGates
My last 2 PC laptops were about $3200 each and they were 10 Lb "top of the line" plastic, 15" screen desktop replacement laptops. Areas of the plastic would melt due to the heat and they were fan blowing noisy. The 17" is the most fun laptop I have ever owned. Just wish I could run OS9.

Congrats, man! I agree, It's an incredible machine, I hope you enjoy it.

Originally posted by gopher
And where was Apple supposed to get a 4 Ghz processor to stop fears of potential switchers that it had fallen behind? It never did fall behind. It is the switcher who was never informed enough to realize that G4s are faster. Apple saught a compromise, and a very good one at that I might add.

I completely agree with you that it was an excellent move by Apple to get together with IBM to release the G5. But if switchers only cared about MHz as you stated two posts ago, then that still doesn't answer why they only went for a 2GHz processor.

An Apple DID fall behind. Applications ran far slower on the fastest Mac when compared to the fastes PCs. That means that Macs fell behind.

Oh and you completely avoided question 1, but I don't blame you.

 

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by gopher
To answer #2 is quite simple. Enough Windows users are printing and saying FUD all over the place to claim that Mhz means everything. So Apple releases a G5 that has several specs that clearly are superior...the faster 8X AGP

Ummm... I've had 8X AGP for almost a year...

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I've had 8X AGP for almost a year...

Really? My system administrator friend of mine must really be behind the times. He was really surprised to hear of AGP 8X.

 

[Source]

Originally posted by gopher
Really? My system administrator friend of mine must really be behind the times. He was really surprised to hear of AGP 8X.

Yah, that's a good point, actually. AGP 8X has been out for a very long time.

 

[Rezet]

Originally posted by arn
this had become a touchy issue especially because in the past -- one user who kept pushing it, and eventually left (partially) because of my constant re-editing of his messages.

don't mean to sound harsh - but for consistency sake, we try to stick to it.

arn

Isn't it a bit harsh to ban people for using curses that fit into context and are filtered anyways?
I personally don't care for curses at all, especially if all you see is "stars", but i didnt write the rules.
Maybe you could just silence people for lets say 24 hours if they used 2 or more curses in 1 thread?
Just a friendly suggestion...

 

[arn]

Originally posted by Rezet
Isn't it a bit harsh to ban people for using curses that fit into context and are filtered anyways?

I don't mind if they are filtered. The filter is there for that exact purpose. And honestly, I personally don't care about most curses in general... but other people do... and it's not that much of a strain on people - since they don't really have to watch what they say (within reason) - since the filter catches it anyway.

The problem is when people go out of their way to circumvent the filter.

for example: fün instead of fun.

arn