Re: Re: 3ghz
I can't hear it anymore... is it that hard for a lot of Mac users to accept that there is a world outside Apple and that is isn't all bad?
Originally posted by ffakr
Enjoy. If it weren't for Wintel users, there'd be no Tech Support Jobs (at least a lot less). Wintel pays the bills.
Stop telling those tales! Of course there was a lot of support needed in the older days. Since Windows2000 times changed dramatically. My wife works with a Dell Computer (700MHz Celeron) that costed 600$ since more than 2 years now (Yes, there are people who don't like to work on a Mac!). Wonna know how many real problems she had during that time with her computer??? ZERO!!! She's knows **** about computers and it crashed maybe 5 or 6 times since then. She never had a BSOD and she runs Office, Photoshop, etc... pp.. on it. I just installed her a new graphic card last year, because the onboard video was too slow for some stuff. It was a snap, no problems either.
Some friends of mine who are self-employed like me are only using Windows machines in their studios, so I can compare pretty well my work with what they are doing. And know what? None of them had really serious problems with their machines as well, since they use Windows2000. When you set up your system carefully in the beginning, a Windows system is usually very stable.
Originally posted by ffakr
If all you care about is MHz, your a perfect windows user. There is a lot more to a great computer than MHz (or even raw power). If it was all about clock or even SPEC, we'd all have switched to the Alpha and Unix back around '97.
A computer is only as good as it's ability to let you get work done. This quality is expressed in stability, quality, and user interface. You can have the fastest machine in the world, but it isn't worth a crap if you can't get any work done on it because it is GPF'ing or always getting in your way when you try and work.
I remember times when Mac users used the argument that a Mac is faster than a PC. Now that the Mac platform is so much behind on speed issues all the people say now that it doesn't matter anymore... So what?
Even Jobs was always using the Mhz myth to point out how fast the Macs are. Now it doesn't matter anymore?
And that thing said about the Alpha processor and UNIX is just stupid. In '97 you hardly got any of the professional standard apps for creative work for Alpha machines or UNIX. But you get all the major apps for Windows these days (excpet those that got bought by Apple lately) They are 1:1 identical and sometimes they run even smoother than on the Mac, because they are developped on Windows normally these days and then they cross-compile for the Mac.
Tell me the difference between PS on the Mac and PS on Windows and how the OS is getting in your way then?!?!?! Or take any other app that is available for both platforms... I don't work with the OS the whole day, I work within the apps. And there I can't see any difference usually. The OS is running in the back and the most important thing is that it is stable and gives me the frame to run apps in it. Of course is the UI of Windows a nightmare, but when you got used to it there is now reason why you should be slower using it than on a Mac.
Oh, and to refer to the PC of my wife again... To surf the internet with it is a dream (we have a high bandwidth connection). Comparing my "high-end" Macs with that old and "slow" Windows machine is embarassing, no matter which browser I use.
A company I have a contract with is only using Windows machines (30 employees). I asked the sysad lately how much work he has with supporting the PCs and he said that it is normally almost nothing, he is normally responsible for the servers (since they are a .COM they have quite a few of them) and the support for the PCs is made by him just on request between the other stiff he has to do. Is he a liar? I don't think so...
Originally posted by ffakr
BTW, what's your performance standard? MHz? SPEC? ByteMark? Photoshop scripts? RC5? Seti? Blast? You'll get really different results depending on what bench runs on any particular processor. Why do x86 processors spank G4s in SPEC when G4s are 3X faster in RC5? What about Photoshop scores, where G4s beat P4s clocked twice as fast? ... Blast, where large genome searches are 15X faster on a PPC than an x86 PC?
Everyone knows Altivec is just propaganda right?
All those peformance standards matter! Blast and RC5 are so special that even the organisations say that a benchmark based on those numbers can't be used as comparison for real life performance. The PPC is just that fast on those things because the code fits perfectly into the cache of the processor and Altivec can go crazy then. As soon as the RAM is involved even Altivec can't pull it anymore.
What counts is the overall performance of the system. And by the way... I want to see the benchmark where Photoshop on a Mac beats a PC clocked twice as fast that is NOT from Apple marketing department! All the benchmarks made by independent sources say the opposite.
As a matter of fact in real world a G4 performs like a PIII at the same clock speed. Many many tests by different sources confirmed that and it is backed up by what I experienced too.
Originally posted by ffakr
Altivec sure as hell isn't a cure for all the current PPC woes, but it goes a long way in the tasks that really need a fast CPU. I need the really intensive stuff to be fast, like the photoshop filters. I don't give 2 craps is a P4 2.8GHz runs Word code 50X faster than a Mac... because the Mac doesn't need to run Word any faster than it currently does. It already keeps up with my typing and spell checks on the fly.
If you would just stop to close your eyes from reality and would do the comparison yourself, instead of sticking with your fanatic opinion that Apple HAS to be better by definition, you would maybe start to understand from which direction the wind blows.
There are users out there that need all the performance in a system they can get. And it is a fact that at the moment the PowerMacs are not able to compete with Intel/AMD systems, like it or not. The funny part is that Apple is heading for the high-end video and audio production field and so far has no competetive workstation to run the stuff on. For that stuff you need friggin' powerful equipment to keep up with the standards of the industry.
Of course I am curious how the new PowerMacs (so if they will arrive one day) will perform finally. But also I am tempted meanwhile to try out the Windows world for my stuff, by putting a windows set up right beside and doing the performance hungry stuff on the PC, especially when the new PowerMacs turn out to be another disappointment. As soon as Apple gives me what I want and need (and not the other way around), I am back on the band waggon, but til then I invest my money probably in gear that gives me a way better performance than any Mac that is available at the moment.
Don't get me wrong, I still hope that finally Apple can provide some decent hardware again, since I prefer the Mac as a platform (16 years user, 14 years owner of Macs), but I am at a point to ask myself if it is just fanatism to stay or if it is rational...
Cheers!
groovebuster