My Parents Hate Apple

[theyellowdart]

Gentoo is very good if you customize it correctly.

Sure, if you're a sadomasochist (Debian Fanboy here, just giving you a bit of a hard time )

 

[mosx]

You're going off on a complete tangent of what I was saying... all of that is good and nice, but means absolutly nothing to my point.

You said something about games.

I was bringing up the "big picture" that a cheaper PC gets you much better hardware and both more hardware and software capabilities.

Yet again... all good and nice, and I don't disagree with most of it (except for the fact that the difference wouldn't be noticable most of the time. I disagree, but don't feel like getting in a drawn out argument about it)

My point was pretty simple, D4F made the statement that one could buy a PC laptop that was half the price, and twice as good performance wise. I called him out on it... That's it.

Performance involves more than just the CPU.

A system with 4GB of RAM, 1.83GHz C2D, 320GB HDD, GeForce 8800M GTS is more likely to be faster in real world situations than the MacBook Pro's standard setup. Why? Because, in all likelyhood, someone who will buy that system wants to play games and watch high definition movies. Something the MacBook Pro can't do as well thanks to OS X and the GPU, and can't do at all in the case of high definition movies.

When it comes to 3D apps, video playback, gaming, that 1.83GHz C2D system with the 8800M GTS will have double the performance of the MacBook Pro.

I'm sorry, but coming to this message board and saying that a computer not having the ability to run OS X is an "Advantage" is not giving facts... it's simply trolling.

No, you conveniently ignored my facts. Such as the whole issue with Macs lacking HDCP support as well as system wide hardware acceleration for video. Someone who buys a notebook as their only computer will most likely want to watch movies and play games on it, two things that Mac OS X (and thanks to hardware, Macs in general) are not very good at.

That windows can't do everything OS X can... Thought I made that kind of obvious no?

Well, your reply was kind of stupid. "Windows can't do everything OS X can because it can't run OS X software!" No kidding? It can't run OS X software, but that doesn't mean it can't do the exact same things with software designed to run on Windows! *gasp* what a concept!

From what i've read and seen... not really. Just seems like his personal expereinces have differed from yours. It appears that if someone doesn't have the exact same experience you have had with something that they are inexperienced with it, or that your circumstantial evidence somehow outweighs theirs. I don't doubt that he has vista experience... why would he lie about it? it's not like he is out and out bashing it.

Its a good thing you bring up his Vista experience because that alone proves he doesn't know what he is talking about. He made outrageous claims and then posted out-dated and inaccurate articles about Vista's performance that didn't use finalized software and, in one case, were nearly a year old. Go through the digg comments for that top 10 story about Microsoft's new Windows advertising campaign and they had a good article showing exactly what I said, that Vista is just as fast and in some cases faster than XP on the same hardware thanks to SP1 and current drivers.

The 64-bit OS for example, he is correct that 64-bit applications, and the OS itself will use more ram due to 64bit variables... which take up more RAM space. When he points out this is what he meant, you come back with a "You don't know what you're talking about" instead of explaining "No, you're wrong and this is why *insert reason*" Otherwise it really makes you come off as if you don't know what you're talking about.

I guess you didn't read my entire post then, did you? Nor other other posts in the thread questioning his reasoning.

The Mac will still be able to load the most recent version of OS X. It might need some more RAM, or maybe a bigger HD, but it will still run it. And it will probably work just as it did when it was new.

The PC, however, will probably not be able to upgrade to Windows 7 because of new, insane requirements that are much higher than what was needed to run the previous OS. So, you will stay with the default OS. It will eventually become sluggish and bogged down with programs and bloatware.

First of all, Vista Home Premium and Leopard have very similar real world requirements. Both need 2GB of RAM and Intel Core Duos to "scream" and both are relatively bloated compared to the previous generation.

Also, if you read the news, you'd know that Windows 7, according to Microsoft, will have lower system requirements than Vista does today. Much the same way Snow Leopard is supposed to have lower system requirements compared to Leopard.

So anyway, your comments are completely untrue. 5 years ago we had 2GHz Pentium Ms, AMD Athlon Ms running at 2GHz, both in notebooks capable of reading 2GB of RAM with Radeon 9550 and 9700 GPUs as well as equivalent GeForce Go 5000 series GPUs. They also had upwards of 60GB HDDs.

By contrast, for most of 2003, you had http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86431 G3 iBooks running at 800 and 900MHz, shipping with 128MB of RAM and only capable of a max 640MB, and Radeon 7500 GPUs.

Then in late 2003, you had http://lowendmac.com/ibooks/12in-ibook-g4-800-mhz.html the G4 iBook with a Radeon 9200, 256MB of RAM (128MB on-board, up to 1.125GB) and Leopard not officially supported due to the low processor speed.

The funny thing is, eMachines in 2003 were sold around the same price as the iBooks. They included 2GHz and higher Athlon64 Ms, 512MB of RAM with the ability to use 2GB, 60GB HDDs, DVD writers, Radeon 9700s, memory card readers, and more.

Now things are different with Macs, but still the same in a sense. MacBooks and MacBook Pros can finally handle as much memory as the PC competition. They finally have processors that are as fast as the PC competition. But, for the price range, the GPUs are considerably worse. The X3100 is outperformed by the Radeon 3200 IGP in $579 HPs by more than 4x. The Radeon 3200 outperforms the X4500 by nearly the same amount. The GeForce 8600M GT in the MacBook Pro is roughly half of what you get in PCs costing half as much. You can get a $1200 HP with a GeForce 9600M GT with double the memory.

Macs also lack connectivity features and other hardware features that are standard.

And because of those two things, you will not be using a Mac for anything more than basic browsing, word processing, and maybe some music listening in 5 years. Because, even though they can use massive amounts of RAM and have fast processors, the rest of the hardware holds the overall system back and will significantly shorten the usability of the system.

My MacBook (2.16GHz C2D, 2.5GB of RAM, 120GB HDD, SuperDrive, GMA 950) is good for no more than browsing, listening to music, emailing, and the occasional video encode thanks to its integrated graphics and lack of hardware connectivyt. And its not even close to a year old yet.

My HP, which is the same age, can still play all modern games in high definition, I can use it for high definition movies, I can connect it to my HDTV, I can record HDTV with it, and do everything my MacBook can. Which do you think will last longer overall?

The main reason PCs are disliked is because the hardware doesn't work together with the OS in a seamless fashion. No matter what OS you try to install on it, it won't work seamlessly with little effort. (like a Mac)

Thats not true at all. The last system I built for myself in 2005 had a Via chipset, AMD processor, ATI GPU, Chaintech soundcard (with a Via chipset), Leadtek TV tuner, Lite-on optical drive, and a WD HDD.

The first time I turned it on I installed the chipset drivers. A couple of clicks, restart. Install the GPU drivers with a couple of clicks, restart. Install the Via Vinyl Audio drivers and restart. Leadtek drivers and restart. That was it. Everything worked beautifully. That thing could still play games today better than my MacBook. And I didn't have to reinstall Windows or even have a single crash the entire 2 years I owned it until I sold it to a friend who needed a computer for cheap.

 

[grym]

I only have to reinstall OS X so often because of the problems OS X has. If it didn't crash so often I wouldn't have to reinstall it to try to figure out what exactly the problem is.

All the while Windows has been sitting comfortably in its own partition without any issues of any kind.



Which is why my HP running Vista is my primary system

You must be truly lucky. My OS X never crashes. Only once I ever saw the message of the sort "fatal error. shut down your computer now" on a mac. On a PC, shutting down the computer because it freezes is a daily occurrence. And you know what's most irritating? When your PC freezes, you have to shut it down and start it all over again. It opens a blue screen and informs you "because your computer was not properly shut down, I need to perform disk check". When I see this message, I want to stick it up Bill Gates' you know what. Rich bastard. Wants me to spend all my life staring at his PCs doing the disk check.

Once the PC is over 1 year old, even simple tasks often freeze it. I know, I know, it's because software written by many different vendors start interfering with each other. Well, what if I need all this software? I don't care about issues software programmers face. I want a working computer, the one which does not need to be rebooted every 5 minutes.

I also want a computer where, if I feel like converting the computer into a wireless access point, all I need is do one click in the System Preferences. If I want to share the screen, one click does the job. If I want to share a printer, one click and it appears on the list of shared printers.

Why is it that on a PC it takes forever to enable printer sharing, because this involves navigating via multitude of menus whose sequence is not clear in advance and one needs to spend an hour just figuring out where to start? Yet, after all this work, when I try to print it says, "connection timed out"? I just don't understand. If Linux does something like this, I understand. It's free software written for the aficionados willing to spend their life learning its ins and outs. But I just paid a fortune for a copy of the latest windows software, and have to put up with this crap?

Sure PCs are cheap. That's because the software sucks and is pretty much useless for anything but perhaps a few games, e-mail writing, or secretarial repetitive tasks.

Apparently you didn't read these forums around the time Leopard was released Or Tiger, or Panther, etc. That is certainly not the case.

You know, when Leopard was released, people were reporting blue screens of death

Mine didn't do that. From what I heard, only those people who installed certain pretty serious software which interfered with the OS X in a crucial way (which most users didn't need anyway) experienced that. And Apple had a fix right away. The moral of the story, don't install the software you don't need unless you understand what you're doing.

 

[mosx]

On a PC, shutting down the computer because it freezes is a daily occurrence.

Take care of your computer.

I've built god knows how many PCs over the last decade and a half and not a single one of them has ever locked up or had any issues other than old age creeping up on the hardware.

When your PC freezes, you have to shut it down and start it all over again. It opens a blue screen and informs you "because your computer was not properly shut down, I need to perform disk check". When I see this message, I want to stick it up Bill Gates' you know what. Rich bastard. Wants me to spend all my life staring at his PCs doing the disk check.

That only happens on systems running FAT32. XP systems never shipped with FAT32, the only way you could have FAT32 on XP is if you upgraded from 98 or you actually chose to format the drive as FAT32 (dumb move if you have a drive over say.. 20GB) .

Your system must be both ancient and poorly taken care of for that to happen.

Once the PC is over 1 year old, even simple tasks often freeze it. I know, I know, it's because software written by many different vendors start interfering with each other. Well, what if I need all this software? I don't care about issues software programmers face. I want a working computer, the one which does not need to be rebooted every 5 minutes.]/quote]

Thats not true either. I had an eMachines of all things that I bought because it was cheap. For the first year I owned it, I had Windows 98 on it. No problems. For year 2 - 5 it had Windows XP. The only time I ever had to re-install was when I upgraded the HDD. No software created conflicts. No crashing occurred. Nothing like that.

You can tell when people only believe the lies that Apple fanboys spout when they go and say things like this. You've made it clear you don't use Windows and never have, because those statements are simply not true.

I also want a computer where, if I feel like converting the computer into a wireless access point, all I need is do one click in the System Preferences. If I want to share the screen, one click does the job. If I want to share a printer, one click and it appears on the list of shared printers.

Sounds a lot like Vista

Why is it that on a PC it takes forever to enable printer sharing, because this involves navigating via multitude of menus whose sequence is not clear in advance and one needs to spend an hour just figuring out where to start? Yet, after all this work, when I try to print it says, "connection timed out"? I just don't understand. If Linux does something like this, I understand. It's free software written for the aficionados willing to spend their life learning its ins and outs. But I just paid a fortune for a copy of the latest windows software, and have to put up with this crap?

Again, you make it clear you haven't used Windows. Its absolutely nothing like that and anyone who has even the smallest experience with Windows can tell you that.

Especially with Vista.

All you're doing is rehashing the same junk that Apple and the diehards have been regurgitating for years now. None of it has been true for the longest time and it needs to stop.

It was funny when Apple made fun of little things like this in the 90s. "Our stuff is easier!" While all of the Windows users asked "where is pre-emptive multi-tasking in Mac OS?" and neither the diehards or Apple ever replied to that question.

Sure PCs are cheap. That's because the software sucks and is pretty much useless for anything but perhaps a few games, e-mail writing, or secretarial repetitive tasks.

Again, you're spewing lies that haven't been true for what? A decade now? If ever?

OS X is good for what? Organizing pictures in iPhoto? Well, I can do that in Picassa or Photosmart Express (both free) or Windows Photo Gallery or Windows Live Photo Gallery (also both free, the first being included in Vista). Making movies in iMovie? Well I'm sorry, but most people aren't in a situation where they regularly film anything. Garageband? Reminds me of freeware I got with my old Hercules Fortissimo 2 soundcard way back in 2001.

Everything else OS X is "good" for, Windows does and a lot more. You can go from "working" to watching a high definition movie, legally, on either the built-in screen or connected to an HDTV via HDMI. You can play games. You can choose from endless amounts of video and music stores.

The best part is the cost. For $1,000 you can get a machine that has more graphics power than the MacBook Pro, a similar processor, 3GB or more of RAM, sometimes 250GB HDDs, DVD writers, HDCP HDMI outputs, fingerprint readers, memory card readers, 1680x1050 15.4" screens, etc. etc.

From what I heard, only those people who installed certain pretty serious software which interfered with the OS X in a crucial way (which most users didn't need anyway) experienced that. And Apple had a fix right away. The moral of the story, don't install the software you don't need unless you understand what you're doing.

"Don't install the software you don't need"

Funny, if software wasn't going to work with Vista before upgrading, Vista actually told you about it beforehand and it would disable the software or link you to where to get the updates. If you already installed Vista and tried to install incompatible software, it'd disable the software and tell you it wouldn't work.

Sorry, but everything you've said here makes it clear you're only a Mac user and haven't touched Windows in at least 15 years.

Especially going back to your earlier comments about how PC hardware doesn't last. Simply not true.

 

[theyellowdart]

You said something about games.

Actually no... you're the one who brought up games

No, you conveniently ignored my facts. Such as the whole issue with Macs lacking HDCP support as well as system wide hardware acceleration for video. Someone who buys a notebook as their only computer will most likely want to watch movies and play games on it, two things that Mac OS X (and thanks to hardware, Macs in general) are not very good at.

You can go on and on and on about this. I haven't once disagreed. (although, I can watch movies just fine on my macbook... meh)

It still doesn't change the fact that saying "a laptop not having the ability to run OS X is an advantage" is an obvious trolling attempt. You can try to give your "facts" all you want... it's still trolling.

IF you were to preface the statement with those facts, an example of "If the person buying the laptop wanted to play games on it, then not running OS X could be an advantage to them." That would come off much better.

Well, your reply was kind of stupid.

Pointing out that your comment was incorrect that's all. If vista could do everything OS X could, than it could run OS X applications. It can't, therefore it cant do everything OS X can. (Also, give me a call when I can re-compile the kernel on vista)

Go through the digg comments for that top 10 story about Microsoft's new Windows advertising campaign and they had a good article showing exactly what I said, that Vista is just as fast and in some cases faster than XP on the same hardware thanks to SP1 and current drivers.

If you want to prove your point... you should be the one finding the article.

Not to mention, just because his experience with vista is different than yours, doesn't mean he has never used vista. That would be the same as me saying "well OS X has never crashed like that for me... so you're lying and you've never used OS X."

I guess you didn't read my entire post then, did you? Nor other other posts in the thread questioning his reasoning.

No, I have... for the most part you went back and forth a tiny bit, then you just replyed with "You don't know what you're talking about" or "Obviously you're not experienced with it." Which, as I said, just makes you come off as the one who doesn't know, or isn't experienced... not the other way around.

 

[juswest]

Take care of your computer.

I've built god knows how many PCs over the last decade and a half and not a single one of them has ever locked up or had any issues other than old age creeping up on the hardware.



That only happens on systems running FAT32. XP systems never shipped with FAT32, the only way you could have FAT32 on XP is if you upgraded from 98 or you actually chose to format the drive as FAT32 (dumb move if you have a drive over say.. 20GB) .

Your system must be both ancient and poorly taken care of for that to happen.

Once the PC is over 1 year old, even simple tasks often freeze it. I know, I know, it's because software written by many different vendors start interfering with each other. Well, what if I need all this software? I don't care about issues software programmers face. I want a working computer, the one which does not need to be rebooted every 5 minutes.]/quote]

Thats not true either. I had an eMachines of all things that I bought because it was cheap. For the first year I owned it, I had Windows 98 on it. No problems. For year 2 - 5 it had Windows XP. The only time I ever had to re-install was when I upgraded the HDD. No software created conflicts. No crashing occurred. Nothing like that.

You can tell when people only believe the lies that Apple fanboys spout when they go and say things like this. You've made it clear you don't use Windows and never have, because those statements are simply not true.



Sounds a lot like Vista



Again, you make it clear you haven't used Windows. Its absolutely nothing like that and anyone who has even the smallest experience with Windows can tell you that.

Especially with Vista.

All you're doing is rehashing the same junk that Apple and the diehards have been regurgitating for years now. None of it has been true for the longest time and it needs to stop.

It was funny when Apple made fun of little things like this in the 90s. "Our stuff is easier!" While all of the Windows users asked "where is pre-emptive multi-tasking in Mac OS?" and neither the diehards or Apple ever replied to that question.



Again, you're spewing lies that haven't been true for what? A decade now? If ever?

OS X is good for what? Organizing pictures in iPhoto? Well, I can do that in Picassa or Photosmart Express (both free) or Windows Photo Gallery or Windows Live Photo Gallery (also both free, the first being included in Vista). Making movies in iMovie? Well I'm sorry, but most people aren't in a situation where they regularly film anything. Garageband? Reminds me of freeware I got with my old Hercules Fortissimo 2 soundcard way back in 2001.

Everything else OS X is "good" for, Windows does and a lot more. You can go from "working" to watching a high definition movie, legally, on either the built-in screen or connected to an HDTV via HDMI. You can play games. You can choose from endless amounts of video and music stores.

The best part is the cost. For $1,000 you can get a machine that has more graphics power than the MacBook Pro, a similar processor, 3GB or more of RAM, sometimes 250GB HDDs, DVD writers, HDCP HDMI outputs, fingerprint readers, memory card readers, 1680x1050 15.4" screens, etc. etc.



"Don't install the software you don't need"

Funny, if software wasn't going to work with Vista before upgrading, Vista actually told you about it beforehand and it would disable the software or link you to where to get the updates. If you already installed Vista and tried to install incompatible software, it'd disable the software and tell you it wouldn't work.

Sorry, but everything you've said here makes it clear you're only a Mac user and haven't touched Windows in at least 15 years.

Especially going back to your earlier comments about how PC hardware doesn't last. Simply not true.

I'm still laughing at this. Why don't you just give your macbook to somebody who needs a computer and can't afford one. Or better sell it to an Apple fanatic.

 

[zsft]

Haha I love this thread; it's like a fracking civil war!

I'm on summer break so I ain't gonna read all your essays, but I did catch a few things I feel I should mention.

From my superficial understanding of the computer system, there is a difference between "memory" as ya'll know and "instruction sets". Memory, ie: textures or data files a program uses, go into your RAM module. "Instruction sets" on the other hand, go to "Cache", which is inside your CPU (processor). When you compare a 32 bit and 64 bit OS, you're talking the latter doubling the instruction sets of the first...so what is all this talk about 64 bit using more RAM?

Also I read somewhere "up there" someone was saying something about a 1.83Ghz beating a 2.4Ghz MBP in "real world" performance. Um, no. There has been talks about developing programs that uses the GPU to process information running parallel with the CPU, but it's still on the drawing board...so I wouldn't think so. Generally CPU power will be more beneficial. In terms of games, again, depends. If you're playing a huge RTS game or any thing processor intensive, then the MBP will win. You know what I'm even going to bet that your Crysis gaming experience on the MBP will be better than on the 1.83Ghz with 8800M GTS, I'm thinking the CPU will not be able to catch up with all the processing needed, but I could have pulled that out of my rear end.

Next someone said that no matter how old your Apple is, you can install the latest Mac OS and it'll still fly, and that this is not the same for Windows. I say myth busted, the draw back of Vista SP1 or Windows 7 will be the intense GUI. Just turn all the animations off. The same for Apple, you can't run all OSX's animations in an ancient Apple and expect it to flow smoothly. All the core resources use to run the 2 OS's should be comparable.

There really need to be a description under everyone's name - "Attitude Towards Apple Computers: ". Cuz reading the essays here sometimes I get confused who each one of you are arguing for haha. I would be neutral, born Windows but open to new ideas.

 

[theyellowdart]

From my superficial understanding of the computer system, there is a difference between "memory" as ya'll know and "instruction sets". Memory, ie: textures or data files a program uses, go into your RAM module. "Instruction sets" on the other hand, go to "Cache", which is inside your CPU (processor). When you compare a 32 bit and 64 bit OS, you're talking the latter doubling the instruction sets of the first...so what is all this talk about 64 bit using more RAM?

You're correct, and that is (I assume) what Sabre was talking about too.

However, the RAM bit is true too, 64bit applications and a 64bit OSs variable as 64bit... which takes up more RAM. I think there has just been a TON of miscommunication in this topic.... where one person keeps assuming what the other is talking about (and being wrong) and vice versa.

It's been in interesting one... feel a little bad for the TC though.

 

[D4F]

My point was pretty simple, D4F made the statement that one could buy a PC laptop that was half the price, and twice as good performance wise. I called him out on it... That's it.

And I'm pretty sure I gave you two answers already but you're still following that typical Apple fanbo(Y) logic.

You can do anything more than twice faster on windows based system compared to a apple product - both at very similar $$ value.
It's a damn fact lol. I'm amazed how deep your Apple beliefs are.

 

[iShater]

And I'm pretty sure I gave you two answers already but you're still following that typical Apple fanbo(Y) logic.

You can do anything more than twice faster on windows based system compared to a apple product - both at very similar $$ value.
It's a damn fact lol. I'm amazed how deep your Apple beliefs are.

Can you give me a link to such a system please? I was looking at Dell's website, and I couldn't find one that was the same price but twice the speed. Thanks.

 

[theyellowdart]

And I'm pretty sure I gave you two answers already but you're still following that typical Apple fanbo(Y) logic.

You can do anything more than twice faster on windows based system compared to a apple product - both at very similar $$ value.
It's a damn fact lol. I'm amazed how deep your Apple beliefs are.

I've never disagreed with you once that you can get a better hardware spec PC laptop for less than the apple equivlant. No sane person would... I'm saying you can't get a laptop with 2x the performance for half the price. Something you've still been unable to produce.

You've posted laptops that cost the same (and slightly more) than a Macbook that would have far better performance in certain areas (mainly gaming) but overall I wouldn't say the laptop itself will give a 200% increase. even then, as mentioned, it's not half the price of the macbook.

So, i'll still wait for this magical laptop that costs half as much and will give people twice the performance... benchmarks to go with it too would be nice.

 

[stone315]

So do we have any word from the OP on what's going on with his laptop?

 

[theyellowdart]

So do we have any word from the OP on what's going on with his laptop?

I do believe the OP is now a grown man with two kids and a few macs of his own... given how long this topic has gone on.

 

[Tallest Skil]

I do believe the OP is now a grown man with two kids and a few Macs of his own... given how long this topic has gone on.

Well, that's settled, then!

Thread over! Yay!

 

[tsice19]

Please do not mix up PCs and Operation Systems; Gentoo is very good if you customize it correctly.

I'm not mixing up operating systems and PCs. I understand that Linux is good if you set it up correctly; I run Ubuntu myself and love it (on my old PC). However, for the average computer user, configuring Linux to run the way you want it to is a bit of an overwhelming task. Lots of times it can take an hour just to get it on the internet. However, I will admit that Ubuntu has come along way since when I first started using it a few years ago.

 

[mosx]

Actually no... you're the one who brought up games

Again, I'm bringing up the whole picture. That being the fact that you get more for less with a PC. You get faster and more capable hardware and software for sometimes as little as half the money compared to a Mac.

(although, I can watch movies just fine on my macbook... meh)

Yeah, DVDs at lower quality than my HP that cost several hundred less and has a larger screen and dedicated graphics, which help bring the quality up to the same level as an upscaling DVD player.

It still doesn't change the fact that saying "a laptop not having the ability to run OS X is an advantage" is an obvious trolling attempt. You can try to give your "facts" all you want... it's still trolling.

No, its not trolling. Its simply you not liking to hear the truth. You see, all of the Apple fanboys around here act the same. When someone points out OS X or Apple's shortcomings, they don't even try to argue. They just put their fingers in their ear and start yelling "TROLLING" like children.

Again, the fact that a more powerful (and half as expensive) PC does not run OS X is an advantage. Why? Because if it did run OS X it wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the hardware. That simple. Thats not trolling, thats the truth. Now please take your fingers out of yoru ears.

IF you were to preface the statement with those facts, an example of "If the person buying the laptop wanted to play games on it, then not running OS X could be an advantage to them." That would come off much better.

If you want to take advantage of hardware AT ALL, then you don't want to run OS X. Thats what I was implying. Its not my fault you can't handle that fact.

Pointing out that your comment was incorrect that's all. If vista could do everything OS X could, than it could run OS X applications. It can't, therefore it cant do everything OS X can. (Also, give me a call when I can re-compile the kernel on vista)

Again, this is stupid. If you don't be viewed as a major hypocrite, then you need to go into every thread on this forum where someone says "OS X can do everything WIndows can" and tell them "no, it can't because it can't run Windows native applications". You need to do that here, at Apple's own forums, Apple Insider, and every other Apple related forum on the internet.

Honestly, this is the stupidest argument I've ever heard from an Apple apologist. Obviously neither OS can run each other's native software. However, Windows CAN do everything OS X can with DIFFERENT software, and it can do MANY things that OS X canNOT. Such as handling multiple/external display properly on notebooks, hardware acceleration for video playback, etc.

If you want to prove your point... you should be the one finding the article.

You mean this article? http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

When people say things like what you just did, its proof that they know the truth but can't accept it. So they won't spend the 2 seconds getting the facts themselves, they'll try to "Call out" the person speaking the truth hoping that they'll back down. Its been going on since the early BBS days.

Not to mention, just because his experience with vista is different than yours, doesn't mean he has never used vista. That would be the same as me saying "well OS X has never crashed like that for me... so you're lying and you've never used OS X."

See, the thing is, when you actually own or use something on a regular basis, its easy to prove it. For example, if someone told me I never used a Mac, it'd be a simple matter of either taking a screenshot of me logged in here at macrumors while on my Mac or taking a picture and attaching it to my post.

Its not just his supposed "experience", but its also many statements he made both regarding Vista and computer hardware that were flat out wrong.

No, I have... for the most part you went back and forth a tiny bit, then you just replyed with "You don't know what you're talking about" or "Obviously you're not experienced with it." Which, as I said, just makes you come off as the one who doesn't know, or isn't experienced... not the other way around.

Maybe because I have better things to do than play into an Apple fanboys games? I mean, he made it clear to any Vista user that he was lying, plain and simple. The only reason he has any support from the likes of you is because you lack experience as well, so you believe him and think he is credible.

Why don't you just give your macbook to somebody who needs a computer and can't afford one. Or better sell it to an Apple fanatic.

Because this system cost me $1406 after taxes, so theres no way I'm going to "Give" it to someone or sell it for any less than its worth.

From my superficial understanding of the computer system, there is a difference between "memory" as ya'll know and "instruction sets". Memory, ie: textures or data files a program uses, go into your RAM module. "Instruction sets" on the other hand, go to "Cache", which is inside your CPU (processor). When you compare a 32 bit and 64 bit OS, you're talking the latter doubling the instruction sets of the first...so what is all this talk about 64 bit using more RAM?

Well at least you know a little bit about what you're talking about. Now please go explain that to the other guy who conveniently left this thread.

Also I read somewhere "up there" someone was saying something about a 1.83Ghz beating a 2.4Ghz MBP in "real world" performance. Um, no. There has been talks about developing programs that uses the GPU to process information running parallel with the CPU, but it's still on the drawing board...so I wouldn't think so. Generally CPU power will be more beneficial. In terms of games, again, depends. If you're playing a huge RTS game or any thing processor intensive, then the MBP will win. You know what I'm even going to bet that your Crysis gaming experience on the MBP will be better than on the 1.83Ghz with 8800M GTS, I'm thinking the CPU will not be able to catch up with all the processing needed, but I could have pulled that out of my rear end.

Yes you are pulling that out of your rear end. All of it. The CPU has very little importance these days. Thats why even the most graphically and action intensive games have low CPU requirements (like a P4 2.4GHz, or any Intel Core architecture with no speed requirement) but high GPU requirements.

A game WILL run better on a GeForce 8800M GTS with a 1.83GHz C2D than it will on a 2.4GHz C2D with a GeForce 8600M GT.

That 1.83GHz C2D/GeForce 8800M GTS system will also run other things better than the MacBook Pro. DVDs, for example. OS X has no system wide hardware acceleration for video, so the CPU has to do all of the work. That means the MacBook Pro has to run in a higher power mode to decode the video. While the Windows system can run in a reduced power state and provide better video quality. It can even run in a reduced power state and play blu-ray discs by offloading the decoding to the GPU, while the MBP wouldn't be able to play blu-ray discs at all, thanks to the lack of HDCP and GPU support in OS X.

You're correct, and that is (I assume) what Sabre was talking about too.

However, the RAM bit is true too, 64bit applications and a 64bit OSs variable as 64bit... which takes up more RAM. I think there has just been a TON of miscommunication in this topic.... where one person keeps assuming what the other is talking about (and being wrong) and vice versa.

No, he specifically said that you needed double the RAM to run 64 applications. Nothing more, nothing less. His entire argument was that ALL 64-bit applications take up double the "RAM" and failed to understand how software works at all.

OS X proves his entire argument wrong anyway. Leopard takes no more RAM at startup than Tiger does (both eat up ~400MB of RAM at startup on my system) and the system functions all eat up just as much memory in either OS.

Can you give me a link to such a system please? I was looking at Dell's website, and I couldn't find one that was the same price but twice the speed. Thanks.

As I've said, theres more to performance than just CPU speed.

One thing I've realized while using OS X over the last year and a half is that certain operations in OS X require nearly double the amount of CPU time compared to Windows.

You've posted laptops that cost the same (and slightly more) than a Macbook that would have far better performance in certain areas (mainly gaming) but overall I wouldn't say the laptop itself will give a 200% increase. even then, as mentioned, it's not half the price of the macbook.

So, i'll still wait for this magical laptop that costs half as much and will give people twice the performance... benchmarks to go with it too would be nice.

One thing you have to consider is how inefficient OS X is and how freely Apple and OS X software developers eat up CPU cycles with no regard for anything else.

Look at DVD playback as a perfect example. On Windows, DVD playback will peak at about 5% of 1 core on a 2GHz C2D. Yet in OS X DVD playback on a 2.16GHz C2D eats up 25% of 1 core.

Look at music playback too. I was watching iTunes CPU use the other day while playing my LAME encoded MP3s. It hovered around 4% CPU use on one core. However, get on Windows with anything that uses hardware acceleration for audio playback, like Winamp, and you'll see the CPU use occasionally peak at 1%.

You and other Apple fanboys are not taking enough variables into account when comparing overall system speed.

I do believe the OP is now a grown man with two kids and a few macs of his own... given how long this topic has gone on.

Not if he got that MacBook and used it on his lap The heat would have affected his fertility and he'd be unable to have kids.

 

[theyellowdart]

Again, I'm bringing up the whole picture. That being the fact that you get more for less with a PC. You get faster and more capable hardware and software for sometimes as little as half the money compared to a Mac.

And again... that's all good and nice but has NOTHING to do with my point. Going through this topic you've developed a tendency to respond to peoples post with things that have nothing to do with it... at all.

So you can stop bringing this up over and over and over... I don't disagree with this. I've NEVER disagreed with this... nor will I. You can always get a PC with better specs (or performance) than a Mac for cheaper.

Yeah, DVDs at lower quality than my HP that cost several hundred less and has a larger screen and dedicated graphics, which help bring the quality up to the same level as an upscaling DVD player.

Just curious if you have some proof to back that up? Not saying it isn't true, but I would like to see some form of legit comparison of a Macbook and an HP, or any other laptop really, playing a standard DVD with a noticeable difference in quality. Because, personally, the quality looks damn good to me.

No, its not trolling. Its simply you not liking to hear the truth. You see, all of the Apple fanboys around here act the same. When someone points out OS X or Apple's shortcomings, they don't even try to argue. They just put their fingers in their ear and start yelling "TROLLING" like children.

Pointing out OS X's short comings is one thing, and to me isn't trolling. But again, saying that not being able to run OS X... in turn giving the user LESS choice... is a good thing, is trolling. Like I said, if you were to preface it with a situation sure, but making it a broad statement will be trolling, anyway you slice it.

I won't address this one anymore since it's pointless. We aren't going to agree, I'll simply let the other posters who are still reading this (God help their souls) decide if you were, or were not trolling.

Again, this is stupid. If you don't be viewed as a major hypocrite, then you need to go into every thread on this forum where someone says "OS X can do everything WIndows can" and tell them "no, it can't because it can't run Windows native applications". You need to do that here, at Apple's own forums, Apple Insider, and every other Apple related forum on the internet.

Not really, I would be a hypocrite if I turned around and said OS X can do everything Vista can. I don't disagree that it's a pretty obvious, pointless statement... just pointing out the obvious that's all. (Also, in other message boards I post on I have pointed that out)

Also +1 on ignoring the statement about recompiling the kernel.

When people say things like what you just did, its proof that they know the truth but can't accept it. So they won't spend the 2 seconds getting the facts themselves, they'll try to "Call out" the person speaking the truth hoping that they'll back down. Its been going on since the early BBS days.

Oh please, that is such BS. I asked for the proof because it's not my responsibility to go dig for the article. I don't care at all if you are right or wrong about Vista being faster or slower than XP... it has ZERO impact on my life. I was simply pointing out if you are going to make the claim to back it up.

Maybe because I have better things to do than play into an Apple fanboys games? I mean, he made it clear to any Vista user that he was lying, plain and simple. The only reason he has any support from the likes of you is because you lack experience as well, so you believe him and think he is credible.

I'll openly admit I don't use Vista... never have... probably never will. However I do have many friends that do use vista, and what i've heard directly from their mouth echos more of what he is saying, and less of what you are saying.

Now, maybe they have poor drivers, maybe they aren't updated... don't know, really don't care to much. I just find it hard to believe he would start lying about such a pointless thing.

Look at DVD playback as a perfect example. On Windows, DVD playback will peak at about 5% of 1 core on a 2GHz C2D. Yet in OS X DVD playback on a 2.16GHz C2D eats up 25% of 1 core.

I didn't have quiet as drastic of a difference as this. (top had DVD Player bouncing between 13% -> 14% on a 2.4ghz C2D, Windows Media Player had it around 6% on an overlocked C2D 4300@ 3.3 VLC was around 4%) But you do have a decent point. I don't think it's going to make up anywhere close to the difference of D4F's original claim though

You and other Apple fanboys are not taking enough variables into account when comparing overall system speed.

I'm many many many things... One thing I'm certainly NOT is an Apple Fanboy. The only thing i've really done in this topic is state that someone can't buy a PC Laptop for half the price and get twice the performance out of it. If you believe that earns someone the label of "Apple Fanboy" you sure are liberal with that term

 

[monke]

Just tell them that Microsoft copied Apple.


The only other thing would to find a mall with an Apple Store and a Dell Store (or just an Apple Store would work) and tell them you want to go look at laptops. Just happen to walk by the Apple Store (maybe you're looking at something else, clothes, shoes, etc.) and go inside. Let you parents ask all the questions at the Apple Store. If they wont listen to you at home, odds are that they wont listen to you at the store, and hearing it from someone else might help.

 

[mixmacface]

seriously? what did ever happen to the OP? . . I wonder if he's still reading all this mumbo-jumbo crap. and seriously, the replies to replies to replies with wall of texts. . needs to stop. it's so silly.

and i don't think the OP's parents hate apple. . they just don't understand why a computer (in their minds are all the same) has to cost so much. that's how my parents are, but i told them, it's my money, i'm going to do what i need to do. and thus my macbook was ordered.

 

[mosx]

And again... that's all good and nice but has NOTHING to do with my point. Going through this topic you've developed a tendency to respond to peoples post with things that have nothing to do with it... at all.

So you can stop bringing this up over and over and over... I don't disagree with this. I've NEVER disagreed with this... nor will I. You can always get a PC with better specs (or performance) than a Mac for cheaper.

Translated: "Please stop showing that I was wrong!"

Thats kind of hard when you keep opening yourself up for it

Just curious if you have some proof to back that up? Not saying it isn't true, but I would like to see some form of legit comparison of a Macbook and an HP, or any other laptop really, playing a standard DVD with a noticeable difference in quality. Because, personally, the quality looks damn good to me.

As the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss". If you haven't seen truly good DVD playback then of course DVD Player in OS X will look good.

If you want to see the comparisons for yourself, head over to avsforum. Theres about 500,000 people there ready to back up my statements. You can dig around the older posts too. There was one thread that specifically compared DVD Player in Tiger to the most current versions of WinDVD and PowerDVD at that time. DVD Player in Tiger looked like a cross between broadcast TV and somewhat high quality streaming video.

However, Leopard is much better than Tiger but still very far behind Vista's built-in decoder, Theatertek, WinDVD, PowerDVD, and every piece of software that take advantage of DXVA.

In fact, if you were to go there in the past being a Mac owner and asking "how do I improve the image quality of DVDs on my Mac" the answer would have been "buy a Windows PC". Now the answer with Intel Macs is "install Windows through Boot Camp".

You see, Windows has this neat thing called "DXVA", DirectX Video Acceleration. In Vista its a bit more advanced than XP, but it essentially does the same thing in both OSes. Any piece of software can access it. What it does is, depending on the hardware, takes the video stream and offloads duties to the GPU. In the case of modern dedicated GPUs as well as newer IGPs from the last two generations from ATI and nVidia, the GPU can do ALL of the work. It can do full bitstream decoding, deblocking (cleaning it up), deinterlacing (hardware solution is always better than software), color correction, etc. And since GPUs are generally light years ahead of CPUs in terms of processing power (a GeForce 8400M GS can pump out completed units in F@H about 3x faster than the PS3's Cell), it means you not only get MUCH better video quality (home theater enthusiasts swear by custom built PCs with dedicated graphics), but it also means that the video work can all be done in a reduced power state.

While DVD Player and all video playing software in OS X is, unfortunately, completely software based.

You're at the mercy of the software player when it comes to video quality. But as I said, ignorance is bliss. If you haven't experienced good DVD playback, then DVD Player will look pretty decent. But for the rest of us who have upscaling DVD players or have PCs with dedicated GPUs, DVD Player is no better than youtube.

But again, saying that not being able to run OS X... in turn giving the user LESS choice... is a good thing, is trolling. Like I said, if you were to preface it with a situation sure, but making it a broad statement will be trolling, anyway you slice it.

Ah, but you see, running OS X gives the user fewer choices than if they were running Windows. You see, you're talking about choice but thats incredibly ironic if you want to discuss OS X giving you choices. Theres a much smaller amount of software available for OS X and many Windows applications have absolutely no equal on OS X (like Nero, DVD players, games). You also are essentially stuck with a handful of media players. You can only buy videos online from one place. You can't watch Netflix yet, if ever. You're essentially locked into iTunes (yeah theres Amazon but its not as integrated as it is on Windows). As someone from Microsoft put it "Its iWay or the Highway". Windows is actually all about choices, while OS X is all about doing things Apples way.

Also +1 on ignoring the statement about recompiling the kernel.

I forgot about it.

Because, honestly, how many times have you ever recompiled the kernel?

And just how useful is that feature to the average person? I guarantee you there are more people out there hooking their notebooks up to their HDTVs through an HDMI cable than there are people who have EVER recompiled OS X's kernel outside of Cupertino.

"Mac OS X is better because I can recompile the kernel!" "Excuse me? Sorry, I was busy playing HD games on my HDTV off my notebook hooked up with an HDMI cable. Now I feel like watching a blu-ray movie on it. You have fun recompiling your kernel".

Oh please, that is such BS. I asked for the proof because it's not my responsibility to go dig for the article. I don't care at all if you are right or wrong about Vista being faster or slower than XP... it has ZERO impact on my life. I was simply pointing out if you are going to make the claim to back it up.

Sure thing buddy Its your loss anyway.

I'll openly admit I don't use Vista... never have... probably never will. However I do have many friends that do use vista, and what i've heard directly from their mouth echos more of what he is saying, and less of what you are saying.

Which is also kind of funny because their opinions don't reflect the majority.

Let's not forget that Vista has already sold 5x as many copies as there are Mac users total.

Now, maybe they have poor drivers, maybe they aren't updated... don't know, really don't care to much. I just find it hard to believe he would start lying about such a pointless thing.

This is an Apple forum. I've seen all kinds of lies in this thread and in others regarding Windows. Let's not forget that in this thread you had people saying that PCs only last 18 months because of software issues.

I remember way back in 1999 I had an Apple fanboy tell me that Windows 98 couldn't multi-task! Which was incredibly hilarious because at that time, Mac OS was still stuck with co-operative multi-tasking while Windows was moving on to its 3rd OS revision with pre-emptive multi-tasking, a feature Mac OS didn't finally get until OS X.

I didn't have quiet as drastic of a difference as this. (top had DVD Player bouncing between 13% -> 14% on a 2.4ghz C2D, Windows Media Player had it around 6% on an overlocked C2D 4300@ 3.3 VLC was around 4%) But you do have a decent point. I don't think it's going to make up anywhere close to the difference of D4F's original claim though

Well, before I wrote this post I threw my Batman Begins DVD in my Mac (which I am typing on right now by the way). In DVD Player I had the deinterlacing quality set to "Better" because it does have a noticeable visual improvement over "Optimal" and "Good" (Optimal usually picks "Good" anyway). I also had to turn on the EQ and set it to "Bass and Vocal Boost" because DVD Player does NOT decode the LFE channel (the .1 in 5.1). In chapter 4 when Bruce (as a kid) and his family are on the train, a relatively high bitrate scene, the CPU use hovered around 27% of 1 core on my 2.16GHz C2D in my MacBook. The power settings are also set to a custom profile with "High Performance". On my HP with a 2GHz C2D and a GeForce 8400M GS, I had the power setting on "Power Saver" with custom settings to limit the CPU to 50% while on AC power, but set to maximum video quality. With hardware acceleration on and PowerDVD set to decode the LFE channel, CPU use peaked at 4% in a REDUCED power state.

The only thing i've really done in this topic is state that someone can't buy a PC Laptop for half the price and get twice the performance out of it.

And as I've said, there is a lot more to performance than just clock speed. Which reminds me

"+1 on ignoring my comments about CPU use variables".

Certain pieces of software in OS X, Flash, iTunes, DVD Player, Garage Band, iDVD, Safari even, are all horribly inefficient and use more CPU time than is necessary and would even be required in Windows. For example, Flash in Windows is capable of taking advantage of the GPU for video playback. Windows music players can use hardware acceleration. DVD players also use DXVA, freeing up CPU time while the GPU works in a reduced power state (as an example, nvidia GPUs can play blu-ray video with Aero enabled and no loss of performance on the desktop or spinning up of system fans). Garageband equivalents on Windows also take advantage of hardware acceleration. Video editing software like iDVD would use the GPU to both decode the video AND render the 3D effects for menus and such, not like OS X which has the CPU do all of the video work and THEN applies it to a 3D surface.

Thats one major difference between Windows and OS X. In Windows, you'll have MANY tasks offloaded to specific pieces of hardware. In doing this you not only increase the quality of the overall "experience" (better sound, higher quality video, smoother overall operations), but you also significantly free up system resources, which results in an all around faster system while doing more tasks at once AND the ability to do more at once because extremely fast pieces of hardware are doing the dedicated tasks they were designed for (and can handle more) which leaves the CPU free to do whatever it truly needs to do, instead of wasting 40% of its overall cycles on something like a flash ad on a webpage.

OS X is all software based. Which means the attitude that Apple and developers has is "throw more CPU at it" if you want to make your DVDs look better or edit a movie. Instead of "hey lets use the GPU for this". But guess what? Apple shot themselves in the foot in this regard anyway by switching to Intel integrated graphics. The same GPUs they once made fun of when they launched the original $499 Mac mini that HAD a DEDICATED GPU

 

[Skeletal-dæmon]

Just tell them that Microsoft copied Apple.

But Apple copied the Xerox Star*...

Man whatever happened to Xerox making computers? I mean... their printers are perfectly reliable (if only the bloody cartridges were) seems a pity they dropped out of the PC market so long ago.

But anyway yeah... Good luck to the OP, his children, and his laptop of course.

*At least I think it was the Star. PM me if I'm wrong instead of messing up the thread.

 

[theyellowdart]

Translated: "Please stop showing that I was wrong!"

Thats kind of hard when you keep opening yourself up for it

What the hell are you proving that I was wrong with?! I'm not disagreeing with you! My god.... You've got to be kidding me... You keep saying the same thing over and over that has nothing to do with my point, has nothing to do with anything i've disagreed with... it's just talking for the sake of talking.

As the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss". If you haven't seen truly good DVD playback then of course DVD Player in OS X will look good.

On laptops, possibly. I'll openly admit that the Macbook (and powerbook before that) are the only laptops i've really attempted to watch DVDs on... But the quality is good enough for me when the situation calls for it.

Of course, usually i'm watching them on my HDTV via Blu-ray or HD-DVD player (yea... I was impatient waiting for the war to end)

Because, honestly, how many times have you ever recompiled the kernel?

Me? Actually a whole lot... but I like to screw with stuff.

Sure thing buddy Its your loss anyway.

Naw, XP does what I need it to do... play the few games that I do play. I currently have no need to pay the money to upgrade to vista for a possible FPS or two more.

 

[juswest]

Again, I'm bringing up the whole picture. That being the fact that you get more for less with a PC. You get faster and more capable hardware and software for sometimes as little as half the money compared to a Mac.



Yeah, DVDs at lower quality than my HP that cost several hundred less and has a larger screen and dedicated graphics, which help bring the quality up to the same level as an upscaling DVD player.



No, its not trolling. Its simply you not liking to hear the truth. You see, all of the Apple fanboys around here act the same. When someone points out OS X or Apple's shortcomings, they don't even try to argue. They just put their fingers in their ear and start yelling "TROLLING" like children.

Again, the fact that a more powerful (and half as expensive) PC does not run OS X is an advantage. Why? Because if it did run OS X it wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the hardware. That simple. Thats not trolling, thats the truth. Now please take your fingers out of yoru ears.



If you want to take advantage of hardware AT ALL, then you don't want to run OS X. Thats what I was implying. Its not my fault you can't handle that fact.



Again, this is stupid. If you don't be viewed as a major hypocrite, then you need to go into every thread on this forum where someone says "OS X can do everything WIndows can" and tell them "no, it can't because it can't run Windows native applications". You need to do that here, at Apple's own forums, Apple Insider, and every other Apple related forum on the internet.

Honestly, this is the stupidest argument I've ever heard from an Apple apologist. Obviously neither OS can run each other's native software. However, Windows CAN do everything OS X can with DIFFERENT software, and it can do MANY things that OS X canNOT. Such as handling multiple/external display properly on notebooks, hardware acceleration for video playback, etc.



You mean this article? http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

When people say things like what you just did, its proof that they know the truth but can't accept it. So they won't spend the 2 seconds getting the facts themselves, they'll try to "Call out" the person speaking the truth hoping that they'll back down. Its been going on since the early BBS days.



See, the thing is, when you actually own or use something on a regular basis, its easy to prove it. For example, if someone told me I never used a Mac, it'd be a simple matter of either taking a screenshot of me logged in here at macrumors while on my Mac or taking a picture and attaching it to my post.

Its not just his supposed "experience", but its also many statements he made both regarding Vista and computer hardware that were flat out wrong.



Maybe because I have better things to do than play into an Apple fanboys games? I mean, he made it clear to any Vista user that he was lying, plain and simple. The only reason he has any support from the likes of you is because you lack experience as well, so you believe him and think he is credible.



Because this system cost me $1406 after taxes, so theres no way I'm going to "Give" it to someone or sell it for any less than its worth.



Well at least you know a little bit about what you're talking about. Now please go explain that to the other guy who conveniently left this thread.



Yes you are pulling that out of your rear end. All of it. The CPU has very little importance these days. Thats why even the most graphically and action intensive games have low CPU requirements (like a P4 2.4GHz, or any Intel Core architecture with no speed requirement) but high GPU requirements.

A game WILL run better on a GeForce 8800M GTS with a 1.83GHz C2D than it will on a 2.4GHz C2D with a GeForce 8600M GT.

That 1.83GHz C2D/GeForce 8800M GTS system will also run other things better than the MacBook Pro. DVDs, for example. OS X has no system wide hardware acceleration for video, so the CPU has to do all of the work. That means the MacBook Pro has to run in a higher power mode to decode the video. While the Windows system can run in a reduced power state and provide better video quality. It can even run in a reduced power state and play blu-ray discs by offloading the decoding to the GPU, while the MBP wouldn't be able to play blu-ray discs at all, thanks to the lack of HDCP and GPU support in OS X.



No, he specifically said that you needed double the RAM to run 64 applications. Nothing more, nothing less. His entire argument was that ALL 64-bit applications take up double the "RAM" and failed to understand how software works at all.

OS X proves his entire argument wrong anyway. Leopard takes no more RAM at startup than Tiger does (both eat up ~400MB of RAM at startup on my system) and the system functions all eat up just as much memory in either OS.



As I've said, theres more to performance than just CPU speed.

One thing I've realized while using OS X over the last year and a half is that certain operations in OS X require nearly double the amount of CPU time compared to Windows.



One thing you have to consider is how inefficient OS X is and how freely Apple and OS X software developers eat up CPU cycles with no regard for anything else.

Look at DVD playback as a perfect example. On Windows, DVD playback will peak at about 5% of 1 core on a 2GHz C2D. Yet in OS X DVD playback on a 2.16GHz C2D eats up 25% of 1 core.

Look at music playback too. I was watching iTunes CPU use the other day while playing my LAME encoded MP3s. It hovered around 4% CPU use on one core. However, get on Windows with anything that uses hardware acceleration for audio playback, like Winamp, and you'll see the CPU use occasionally peak at 1%.

You and other Apple fanboys are not taking enough variables into account when comparing overall system speed.



Not if he got that MacBook and used it on his lap The heat would have affected his fertility and he'd be unable to have kids.

lmao..well it doesn't seem like you think it's worth much. I feel you on the price thing though. I've been thinking about selling my macbook but it cost 1300 or so and yea getting atleast 80-90% of that it will be a stretch.

 

[tsice19]

OP... log in RIGHT NOW and tell us what is happening. It might just get some people back on topic and off the "pcs suck buy macs'" band wagon.

 

[grym]

Take care of your computer.

I've built god knows how many PCs over the last decade and a half and not a single one of them has ever locked up or had any issues other than old age creeping up on the hardware.

You're lucky. Or maybe that's because you yourself build them. Open your own business and sell them; you'll soon beat Dell. After all, their computers *do* freeze up all the time.

That only happens on systems running FAT32. XP systems never shipped with FAT32, the only way you could have FAT32 on XP is if you upgraded from 98 or you actually chose to format the drive as FAT32 (dumb move if you have a drive over say.. 20GB) .

Your system must be both ancient and poorly taken care of for that to happen.

********. This happens on my Thinkpad T43p. It's not particularly new, almost 3 years old, but it did come with XP preinstalled. I could not format it as FAT32 even if I wanted, because I do not know and do not want to know the difference. I do know that its hard drive is 100GB, so must not be FAT32 if what you're saying is right. Yet, freezes and gives that very stupid message, all the time.

By the way, I never had to format its hard disk. With one exception: when a year ago it got infected by some kind of malicious adware which no commercial antivirus I tried was able to remove. So I called Lenovo. They sent to me a set of 6 CDs which would automatically format the drive and bring the computer back to its factory preinstalled condition. And you know what? The first time I tried to use those CDs, the computer froze by the 3rd! Not that I did something wrong: I just kept popping CDs in and out precisely as instructed. I had to do it again, and this time I was lucky. After several hours sitting by the computer and removing and reinserting these CDs I did get back this thinkpad the way it used to be when I bought it. Of course, all my software and all my work had to be reinstalled from scratch. But this is the price of working with Windows. That's when I permanently switched to Macs. The only thing I regret is I should've switched sooner.

Here is one more Thinkpad T43p story. Soon after I bought it, about a month later, I noticed that when I turned it on, it would display this Windows XP logo with a moving bar underneath for about 10 minutes and only then the computer would start working. This was very irritating. Each time I restarted it I would have to wait 10 minutes. But well, I didn't know what to do about it so had to live with this. But a week later or so, I noticed that that my entire hard drive, 100GB, was filled with stuff. No space left for me! A first attempt to find out where this stuff sat didn't succeed. Somebody told me to download some software, forgot its name, which showed how much memory different folders take. After playing with it for a while, I found that there is some system folder where 70GB or so of stuff was located. With additional fiddling, I understood that this was some sort of automatic backup which comes with Windows XP, which went berserk on my laptop for an unknown reason. Each time I would restart the laptop it would do a backup copy of the entire hard drive and put it in this folder. No wonder, I had to wait 10 minutes for each restart. So I disabled the backup. As I was disabling, the warning message appeared "are you sure you want to disable this valuable backup designed by Bill Gates during one of his great revelations on how to design fabulous software?". You know, I wanted to smash the author of this message off the wall! Of course I want backups, but I do not want to have to sit in front of the computer for 10 minutes each time it restarts, and even more importantly, I cannot afford for the compute to fill 100GB of information per week and expect me to find storage for that! So I canceled that and never heard from it again.

Thats not true either. I had an eMachines of all things that I bought because it was cheap. For the first year I owned it, I had Windows 98 on it. No problems. For year 2 - 5 it had Windows XP. The only time I ever had to re-install was when I upgraded the HDD. No software created conflicts. No crashing occurred. Nothing like that.

The first computer I ever had was a 2000 Windows 98 PC. What a piece of crap this thing was. The most annoying thing: those little icons in the lower right corner of the screen, they are system tray icons, aren't they, or something of this sort. Well, every once in a while they would turn into a black square instead of an icon. This would happen randomly. As this would be happening, I would watch them in awe, because I knew, as soon as more than 2 of them turn black, the computer would freeze. I expected that I was buying a machine which would work, but this sucker just limped along. I asked the experts, professional software developers, and they told me, yes, yes, of course Windows 98 is known to be unstable system (then why did millions of suckers buy this crap of a software and put money in Bill Gates' pockets??). Upgrade to Windows 2000, they said, and these problems will go away. I never upgraded to Windows 2000, but I did try upgrading it to XP in the summer of 2003. The upgrade didn't go smoothly, to say the least. Eventually the power supply on this monster blew. By that time I already had my Thinkpad T30, so I cheerfully thew this desktop in the garbage. Little did I know that my windows saga was only beginning.

Again, you make it clear you haven't used Windows. Its absolutely nothing like that and anyone who has even the smallest experience with Windows can tell you that.

As you can see, I used Windows, and I used it a lot. It's just that I do not fix computers for a living. I use computers as tools. Computers for me (and for the vast majority of users) are means to the end, not the end itself. So I do not connect networked printers for a living. I do it once a year. By the time I do it next year, I already forgot how I did it last time. Now in Windows the process is so complicated, if you forgot it, it's as if you never knew it. In a Mac, it's so straightforward, even if you do this for the first time it still is straightforward and simple. No "connection timed out" messages.

OS X is good for what? Organizing pictures in iPhoto? Well, I can do that in Picassa or Photosmart Express (both free) or Windows Photo Gallery or Windows Live Photo Gallery (also both free, the first being included in Vista). Making movies in iMovie? Well I'm sorry, but most people aren't in a situation where they regularly film anything. Garageband? Reminds me of freeware I got with my old Hercules Fortissimo 2 soundcard way back in 2001.

OS X can do whatever windows can. Only it does it simpler, in a more straightforward fashion, so that if you forget you recall in a minute, not an hour or a day. Also it does not freeze.

And look, let's be fair. OS X is a graphic user interface build atop a UNIX OS. UNIX works because it works. The only thing OS X brings to it, if I want to enable a wireless printer I click one button while in UNIX I have to execute some obscure command which I won't remember unless I work with UNIX for a living. As for Windows, comparing it with UNIX is ridiculous. UNIX was a full fledged OS at the time when Bill Gates was still experimenting with Basic programming language.

The best part is the cost. For $1,000 you can get a machine that has more graphics power than the MacBook Pro, a similar processor, 3GB or more of RAM, sometimes 250GB HDDs, DVD writers, HDCP HDMI outputs, fingerprint readers, memory card readers, 1680x1050 15.4" screens, etc. etc.

Yes, this is true. Steve Jobs is not going to give you this fantastic software without you paying for it. And you're not paying for the software itself, you're paying via Apple's hardware. You are also limited in what hardware you can get - only what Jobs approves of is allowed. That's too bad. But in the end of the day, cheap hardware without software remains what it is: a piece of metal.