What were the standard computer specs from 2000-2009?

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by ZebraineZ, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. ZebraineZ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #1
    Just curious about the standard specs for computers, like for both PC and Mac, like compare a laptop/desktop from 2000 (PC) to a Mac at that time, all the way to 2009, well most of the mac stuff would probably be easy but I want to see compare and contrast stuff sort of thing between the 2, since PC's are admittedly, if you have as much money to buy a mac, have really powerful specs compared to an iMac/Mac Pro, but almost every PC laptop pretty much sucks (except alienware, in terms of power and sexiness macbooks/pro win in every aspect, but are still more expensive).

    Yeah I know it's a confusing thing but I just hope you guys get what I'm saying.. I just want to know if PC's back then had as good specs compared to a mac back then, to see if this PC has more RAM ect debate was valid back then.
     
  2. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #2
    The iMac since the Intel switch have used laptop parts, they are laptops that sit on a desk.

    Compared to other laptop-based AIOs, they aren't too far off.

    Compared to desktop PCs, they are.

    But the same can be said for most PC laptops with mobile parts vs. premium desktops.
     
  3. ZebraineZ thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #3
    No I mean like, as of 2009 the standard for a powerful PC would basically be nvidia gtx 295 (I think...) as the GPU, around 4-8gb ram (since anything more is overkill) and the processor would be an intel core 2 quad, i5 or i7, and the harddrive is around 1TB standard right?

    The new iMac's have 1tb standard, they have core 2 duo (not quad) and i5 or i7 I think, but I don't know if the GPU is too good or not, I mean did PC's still have like 4gb ram standard during the intel switch in 2005/2006? Like when vista was released too, because Mac's had around 512mb of ram...which isn't good, the GPU was a realllllly bad one.
     
  4. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #4
    As I said, it is pointless to compare a laptop to a powerful desktop ...

    Even if you are comparing a PC laptop using the mid-range chipset to a performance PC desktop using a premium chipset ... you'd get the same out of whack figures.

    The iMac is a laptop .... has been since the switch to intel. SO-DIMMs, laptop GPUs, laptop CPUs, laptop chipset, etc

    Until someone tears down the new i5 and i7, and looks at the sockets, GPUs, chipset etc. don't know on that front ... personally I'm expecting the PGA-988 laptop sockets for the iMacs.
     
  5. ZebraineZ thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #5
    i5 and i7 CPU's are the first time a desktop CPU has been used on the imac ;o
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    Still waiting for people to look closely, and void the warranty.
     
  7. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #7
    The best way to find out the general specs of the machines is to look at the minimum system requirements for the operating systems that they were running.

    I don't know how you're really going to compare between Mac and PC prior to the intel switch in 2006. Also, it already seems like you're already leaning to one side of this "argument" based upon your opening statement. Not sure if you're looking for facts or opinions - but in general until this last set of upgrades by Apple (2009), PC makers have always offered more RAM standard than Apple.
     
  8. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #8
    Ironically, I bought two laptops for Christmas in 1999. An iBook listed at $1599 and a Compaq PC laptop in roughly the same price range.

    They were similar.

    iBook:

    300 Mhz G3, 32 megs RAM, 3 gig hard drive, 4 meg video card, active matrix LCD, usb port

    PC laptop:

    366 Mhz AMD K-6 II, 32 megs RAM, 4.3 gig hard drive, 2 meg video card, passive matrix LCD, usb/serial/parallel/PCMCIA ports

    The iBook had more video RAM and an active matrix LCD as superior specs. The PC laptop had a bigger hard drive, and more ports. They were basically equal but I liked the iBook better.
     
  9. ZebraineZ thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #9
    See that's sort of what I mean like PC's used to be pretty much sucky in both design and power and then I want to know what time it really was when they became 'good' and 'cheap'.
     
  10. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #10
    For me, the iBook was fine when I added RAM to it. In early 2000 when they put a 6 gig hard drive into the laptop, things were humming and they left any PC laptop in the same price range in the dust.

    The PC laptops became good when Centrino came along. Before that, they sucked battery life too quickly.

    Today, I think both a Macbook or a PC laptop are good choices and I don't strongly prefer one over the other. They both do more than I require them to do.

    Back when I bought the iBook, that computer drew crowds and people definitely thought it was a lot better than a PC laptop. But today, anyone with a Macbook or Macbook Pro have just another laptop. I think a game playing Alien laptop would get more attention for cool factor.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #11
    Man, in 2000 I had a 66 MHz Pentium HP Pavillion running Windows 95. Good times. :D (Of course, it was a hand-me down. But if I remember correctly, my dad bought an HP laptop around that time with a 933 MHz Pentium III in it. It ran ME, so it had to be somewhere around that era...)
     
  12. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #12
    I remember 1999 and 2000 really well when the speed wars were going between AMD and Intel. My wife and I were computer technician students in Silicon Valley and the super geeks in the class (some of who worked at those two) that "knew it all" in class were speculating like crazy. There was an all out speed war.

    AMD hit 1 Ghz on a desktop first in March of 2000, but I can't remember who hit that speed on a laptop first. While laptops lagged in speed compared to desktops then, I didn't know that Intel had reached 933 MHz on a laptop in 2000. That's very impressive for that time. In early 2000, I looked at a Compaq laptop I could not afford, one that clocked at 733 Mhz and weighed less than five pounds.

    As for Windows ME, that wasn't so impressive. ;)

    By mid decade, most of the people I talked to who were fellow mobile users were very concerned about battery time, not speed. Since I had a 4 hr. battery time (not the advertised 6 hrs.) on my 1999 iBook vs. a 1 hr. battery time on my 1999 Compaq Presario, I had realized that battery time was key before most people really cared about it. I always had to keep my charger with me when using the Presario.
     
  13. Bennieboy© macrumors 65816

    Bennieboy©

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Location:
    england
    #13
    1999 god long time ago lol

    my dad bought our first PC back then,
    the specs
    cpu : AMD K6-2 333Mhz
    Ram: 32Mb ( we upgraded to 64)
    15Gb HD prolly EIDE
    dvd reader and cd-rw twin drive set up
    and i upgraded the gfx card the next year, 3dfx voodoo 4-4500

    think all in it cost about £2000 without the upgrades lol
    running windows 98!! haha
     
  14. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #14
    It does seem a bit fast for that era, but it has the original "Made for Windows ME/2000" And XP came out in what, 2001? Of course I do believe the laptop itself cost $4000 or so... what with that processor and a DVD reading optical drive :rolleyes: (It's also possible I'm overestimating the proc speed, but I'm certain it was at least 800 MHz, and IIRC it was at least 900.)
     
  15. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #15
    At that price, I know there were full sized laptops in the 800+ MHz range. The 733 MHz Compaq was a light and thin travel laptop for executives and had limited features yet cost $2,000 dollars.

    I would think late in 2000 there could have been a laptop announced over 900 MHz and maybe even at 1 Ghz, but in a more heavy duty body which would allow a lot of air flow. It was around March, 2000 that the desktops reached 1 GHz so any laptop in that range would have to be very expensive.
     

Share This Page