PC owners are dumb

[mac15]

I went to a friends place last week and I showed the new imac I was going to get and he laughed and said wow and dome with ears.
Then I thought you have the basicaly the same thing but a beige box with ears

I have no ending to this story but PC owners suck

 

[Hemingray]

Such is life... although imagine how I felt when I helped my friend buy a PC off of eBay for $500 that toasts my G4 400 that I bought for $3000... his computer gets insane FPS in Q3A, and I'm stuck at 25 or something... with MAP lighting and low texture! It's ridiculous! Damn Rage128... oohh I'm REALLY itching to buy a G5. Now if only they'd come out with one.

 

[Mindtrics]

Originally posted by Hemingray
his computer gets insane FPS in Q3A, and I'm stuck at 25 or something... with MAP lighting and low texture!

I've always wondered how a Mac would do in q3(with an ATI Rage card). Thats just crazy that your only getting 25 fps, I would personally be pulling my hair out if I was stuck with that.

I feel for ya man, I too am waiting on that PowerMac g5 to be released, possibly too save us both.

 

[LethalWolfe]

1. I think dumb people make broad generalizations.

2. A G5 w/a Rage 128 won't get you anymore FPS in Q3A
2a. Spring for a better vid card if you want better gaming
performance
2b. Unless something drastically changes Macs will never be
the gaming rigs PCs are.


Lethal

 

[Beej]

Yeah fork out the bucks for a cheap PC GF2 MX. It'll double your performance in games.

 

[krossfyter]

at the risk of sounding stupid or irrevrant.... why the hell hasnt apple fixed this gaming problem? i mean cant they hook up a good vid card in thier comps or something? or is the problem comming from somewhere else?

 

[blakespot]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
1. I think dumb people make broad generalizations.

2. A G5 w/a Rage 128 won't get you anymore FPS in Q3A
2a. Spring for a better vid card if you want better gaming
performance
2b. Unless something drastically changes Macs will never be
the gaming rigs PCs are.

Lethal

When OmniGroup ported "Giants: Citizen Kabuto" to the Mac, they made it multithreaded so that it would take advantage of dual processors. As they put it:

This is the only version of Giants that can use multiple processors. We actually added multi-processing support while we were doing the port, as well as doing various optimizations on the graphics routines (and changing the graphics library from Direct3D to OpenGL). The end result is we're getting the same framerates on our Macintosh dual 500 MHz G4s with a GeForce 2 on an AGP 2x bus as we do on a brand-new, top of the line Wintel AMD 1.3 GHz Ahtlon with a GeForce 3 on an AGP 4x bus and DDR RAM [the fastest PC at the time of the benchmark].

That's faster gameplay on massively less video hardware. Imagine what that game looks like on my dual G4 800 w/ GeForce 3. So...let's not assume Macs are bad at gaming.


blakespot

 

[PCUser]

I'd like to stand up for the intelligent PC owners (since I consider myself one). Not all of us dismiss Macs as sucking.


OpenGL beats DirectX. When I play Descent3 in Windows, OpenGL gets at the LEAST 50 more fps in benchmark (running the --timetest secret2.dem switch). OpenGL gets over 225, and Directx gets around 175 (1024x768x32, highest detail settings).

Also, a multi-threaded game will generally get better perfomance then a single-threaded one... simply because it can do more at the same time... the processor in a single-thread situation has to do the same work as two processors.

What it says is that games should be better optimized.

 

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by Beej
Yeah fork out the bucks for a cheap PC GF2 MX. It'll double your performance in games.

I would love to do that, but something sticks out in my head about limitations on the G4 Yikes! motherboard that won't allow me to do that. Maybe I'm wrong? But I'm pretty sure it just wouldn't be worth it at this point. I'm getting by in Quake, I just wish it was a little faster.

 

[Taft]

G4 400 for $3000?

I don't think so. Not unless you bought a hugely expensive monitor with it or beefed up the specs directly from the Apple store. Either way it would've been your own mistake.

Price points on the Apple pro lines generally hover around 1500, 2500, and 3500 (give or take $100). The 400MHz G4 has never been the top of the line Mac pro desktop. As I recall there was a snaffu around the original release of the G4s (which started out at 350, 400, and 450 MHz). I believe shortly after that they were bumped up to 400, 450 and 500.

I won't dispute the general suckiness of the rage 128. However, I just replaced mine with a Radeon with 32 MB and am getting way better framerates at way higher detail in Black and White. My G4 400 is more than enough computer to handle the game.

Also, I think some of the blame for crappy framerates can be put on the people porting the games. Some companies (like Omnigroup) are able to get great framerates out of games. Others aren't. Why? I'd put my money on a bad job of porting.

Matthew

 

[eyelikeart]

PC owners...

I hate to say that in general PC owners are just dumb....mainly because most just don't understand...

my step-dad is a tech working for the USDA...he works on all PC...goes to Windoze training....has certifications out of the @ss....blah blah blah...

and he honestly has the utmost respect for me and what I can do with a Macintosh...he's even stuck up for my/our case when he was telling his coworkers about the "Titanium Laptop" I had just received...the rest made fun and laughed...but he better...he he he...

the point is....there are many closed-minded people who will just write of the Macintosh cause without blinking and eye....and there are some (very few) who will sit and listen and understand where we are coming from...

 

[jefhatfield]

macs are great but sometimes mac users get a little "too excited" about their gear and make the mac world of users look like some over zealous cult

...thus my signature

 

[PCUser]

If the numbers of computer users using PC's are right... most people use PC's.

If the numbers of IQ scores are correct (96% of scores are average or less), most people are idiots.

It's only understandable that a large percent of the populace who happen to use PC's will be idiots about it.

However, since I technically am a PC user and know quite a bit about computers, I do not wish to be lumped into the group of 'PC users' who are idiots and use Windows.

 

[jefhatfield]

i have definitely seen a lot of intelligent pc-only users who, for one reason or another, just think the mac is not for them

 

[Hemingray]

Re: G4 400 for $3000?

Originally posted by mrtrumbe
I don't think so. Not unless you bought a hugely expensive monitor with it or beefed up the specs directly from the Apple store. Either way it would've been your own mistake.

Well let's see now. I bought the first model G4 400 (PCI graphics) for $1599. Added a Zip drive for $100. Added a SCSI card w/adapter for $50. Upped the RAM to 256 for $100?. Upped the 10gig drive to a 20gig drive for $150? Upgraded CD-ROM to DVD-ROM for $200? Add a 17" Studio Display for $500. There's about an extra $1100 right there.

So $2700. MY BAD. Now add in the tax and shipping I ended up paying, plus the INTEREST on my loan, and it comes out WELL over $3,000.

Sorry, there's no mistakes involved. That was (and still is) the going price for a PowerMac with somewhat decent specs. I'd like to see you work with a G4 400 PCI with original specs in a graphic design environment. Then you can tell me I made a mistake.

 

[eyelikeart]

re: IQ

since the average person has an IQ between 70-130 (95%, in fact, according to The Ultimate IQ Test)...it makes sense of the 5% of computer users to be on Mac....he he he...

all kidding aside...jef has a point...we can be a bit over-zealous...

I mean...damn...we're the underdogs in the industry...it really shows why many Mac users get defensive when it comes to the classic flamewar of who's got better equipment...

out of curiosity....who here has taken an IQ test at all?!

 

[Backtothemac]

Off topic

Me, high enough that people say BS when they hear the score.

 

[Smasher]

Originally posted by PCUser
If the numbers of IQ scores are correct (96% of scores are average or less), most people are idiots.

Hello? How are 96% of scores at or below average?

And if you mean 96% of people have an IQ of less than 100, I seriously doubt that number (which came from...where?) is accurate.

 

[mischief]

Nope, the numbers are correct:

He neglected to mention the demographic.

96% of AMERICANS are at or below the 100 point average for the species.

So not PEOPLE but AMERICANS are idiots.

Personally I think it's just that Americans have let their brains atrophy for lack of stimulus. A whole county of "Gammas". Ick.

 

[mischief]

Mine was around 180.

By Mental Age measure I get up around 200.


Proof that one can be 25 with a mental age of 50 and still enjoy poop jokes like a 5 year old.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Re: Nope, the numbers are correct:

Originally posted by mischief
He neglected to mention the demographic.

96% of AMERICANS are at or below the 100 point average for the species.

So not PEOPLE but AMERICANS are idiots.

We're did this info come from? Show me a source.

 

[eyelikeart]

Re: Mine was around 180.

Originally posted by mischief
By Mental Age measure I get up around 200.


Proof that one can be 25 with a mental age of 50 and still enjoy poop jokes like a 5 year old.

poop jokes...he he he.....only from mischief!

mine is 142....at least I was above average....

 

[Weaky]

On a PC, you can get a system with a crappy CRT display and a lot of people will be happy with it, on a mac, you HAVE to pay for a LCD display on an "entry-level" computer and get a screen with 50ms response time, so no matter how fast is the computer, you can't play most games and benefit of the 1265 fps you get (by the way, the LCD makes the "entry-level" computer a slow computer with a pro-level price). The other option is to get an expensive PowerMac, buy a CRT and an adapter because you have a proprietary connector...
Many other details why PC users are not that stupid are, for example: they can get a mouse with a scroll wheel without having to buy another one.etc etc....

I'm getting sick of their new "features" that you have to afford even if they don't suit your needs.
Sure, I consider Apple one of the most innovative company out there but they must be realitic.. I love OS X, I love the mac's look... but at what price? It's not about the market share (but it could be an issue) I'ts about the fact that you can get a PC that is twice as fast for half the price..

 

[Taft]

Re: Re: G4 400 for $3000?

Originally posted by Hemingray
Sorry, there's no mistakes involved. That was (and still is) the going price for a PowerMac with somewhat decent specs. I'd like to see you work with a G4 400 PCI with original specs in a graphic design environment. Then you can tell me I made a mistake.

Your right, upgrading your machine was not a mistake. Your mistake was buying the upgrades from Apple. Some of those you might not have had a choice (A zip drive or DVD player might fall under those categories--though did you *need* a DVD player in a graphics environmet? Maybe you did, but maybe you just wanted to watch DVDs). Others, you certainly do have a choice (the monitor for instance).

And really my original objection (not that I vocalized all that well) is that your price comparison to a $500 eBay find is a bit skewed. *Especially* if you are talking about a machine you've upgraded to be suitable for a graphics environment and if bought the machines in completely different time periods. As an example, I assume you require a better monitor than a default monitor included with a Gateway. And a Gateway machine bought at the same time as your G4 and then resold over eBay is sure to be at a *huge* discount--plus, no warranty (which your Mac undoubtedly came with).

I'm not trying to be a Mac zealot. I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways to save money when buying a Mac (I have). Also, comparing prices vs. performance between the offereings of two different companies in the same time period is hard enough. Comparing computers from two different time period is next to impossible. Market conditions have changed, resale value is obviously lower (check out the prices of older Mac models on eBay), and the problems with judging performance still exist in this scenario.

I'll face facts: PCs tend to be cheaper than equivalent Macs. Its true. However, your comparison has some problems.

Matthew

 

[Taft]

Bah!

Originally posted by Weaky
It's not about the market share (but it could be an issue) I'ts about the fact that you can get a PC that is twice as fast for half the price..

If you would have said, you can get a faster PC for less money, I wouldn't have a problem. This statement is just friggin' rediculous.

Fact is, Apple doesn't have a computer with a comparible speed to the fastest Intel or AMD computer. However those computers that are faster than the fastest Mac are priced higher. This is at least true when buying from major computer manufacturors that offer prebuilt, designed computers with service and a warranty. Building your own computer really isn't comparible to a Mac.

I'm not deluding myself as to the speed of Macs compared to PCs, nor about the price of Macs being overall a bit higher than that of comparable PCs. Not maybe you should use that ability to reason most humans have to make intelligent statements about the price/performance ratio of Macs.

Matthew