Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nixd2001

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2002
179
0
UK
Originally posted by jefhatfield

one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading

True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p


my overclocked 2 cents;)

So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
I completely agree. As a software guy myself (maybe I'm a bit biased :)) I think the real magic is software. I think most would agree with me that Apple has a rather "unique" approach to software engineering, that sets it apart from the rest of the pack. Afterall, this is the biggest reason we use Macintosh. In my opinion, this is much more important than speed.
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.

As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.

I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.

To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
 

UnixMac

macrumors 6502
Oct 1, 2002
326
0
Phoenix, AZ
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...

I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
Sorry about the rant earlier, but I had to address Backtothemac's logical fallacies.

I always tell people if you want to make an argument for the Mac, make it in software. Despite XP being rock solid, in my opinion it lacks the passion of 10. Everytime I turn on my Mac I can feel the amount of passion that was put into it, and think passion is a very important quality. Without passion you are doomed. This becomes obvious when you compare something like compare Windows Media Player (even 9 beta) to iTunes. I'm not going to go into details but IMO, there is no comparison. This is why we use Macintosh.

Passion is clearly Apple's best strength. Microsoft still has a long way to go in this, but they are starting to learn, too.
 

hvfsl

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2001
1,867
185
London, UK
Linux runs programs faster than windows on intel hardware so Apple has a fast OS, just not fast hardware. Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding and photoshop. But PCs are faster in games and 3D graphics. I have top of the range Macs and PCs at home and have done the tests. But the Macs speed is all thanks to AltiVec, if not a $1000 PC would be faster in PhotoShop than a top of the range Mac.
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding ...[/B][/QUOTE]

1) DiVX performance on the mac absolutely blows.

2) After I read your little post I ran a simple benchmark comparing my $3500 top of the line PowerBook:


The P4 ripped and encoded a 6:20 song @ 128kbit/s in a total of 12 seconds. The same process (same song) @ 128kbit/s in iTunes took 47 seconds.

What does that say?
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
Originally posted by ryme4reson
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference


Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by nixd2001


True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p



So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?

no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
 

UnixMac

macrumors 6502
Oct 1, 2002
326
0
Phoenix, AZ
I just got off the phone with an Apple tech and had a long discussion with him about my "concerns" about apple Hardware Tech. He basically all but agreed, and told me to pass my comments to Customer Care, and that he would not my arguements.

I know that I'm basically pissing in the wind, but I had to get it off my chest.


Now, Give me a PB worth my $3500 damn it!
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,229
3,792
South Dakota, USA
Who really gives a damn?

I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.

Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.

So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.

I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.

And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.

Alex
 

UnixMac

macrumors 6502
Oct 1, 2002
326
0
Phoenix, AZ

- but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.

Alex

This was exactly my point when I called Apple. I mean, we have lower tech everything, bus, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics cars, etc.....so where is the money going?

I'll tell you where, Apple and Dell are the only two hardware makers to post profits in the worst economy since 1980. The stock market is down 30% and Apple stock has not kept pace.

Also, Abercombieboy, go back to page two of this thread, and re-read my Hitler analogy, this is not about bashing Apple. I am a mac guy, it's about calling a spade a spade.
 

javajedi

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2002
34
0
Originally posted by alex_ant

I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.

And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex

I agree with you 110% all the way! Like I was saying earlier, my XP machine has never BSOD'd me. I used to have a shirt a long time ago that said, Macintosh 89' = Windows 95'. Now longer can I make this argument. Also very good point about the components.

Bewarned, ppl are going to flame us, but I don't care. I think you and I are being completely honost. Many of us here really want to see Apple lead the pack again in hardware.
 

AtomBoy

macrumors newbie
Oct 7, 2002
16
0
Japan
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Who really gives a damn?


I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying, it's similar to my earlier post. What worries me is that most of my friends are telling me that XP is very stable (I haven't used it yet) and, if so, this negates a large part of our argument.

Years of crap MS OS's made me switch to Mac. I love OSX, and most PC fans with a decent working knowledge would agree that it's the best around. But Apple HAS to address the hardware issues in the Mac as soon as possible.

More and more ordinary people are using their computers for CD creation and video editing and for many, speed DOES matter.
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,229
3,792
South Dakota, USA
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.

I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?

I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
 

vniow

macrumors G4
Jul 18, 2002
10,266
1
I accidentally my whole location.
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.

Some facts and opinions based off of personal experience.:)

Yes, PCs are faster. Mhz or Ghz still isn't the best way of determining the power of the chip, you just can't compare 3Ghz with 1.25 Ghz, duals or not.
Granted the 1.25s aren't THAT slow, but if you just look at the numbers, one 3Ghz PIV looks a helluva lot faster than dual 1.25, and that does not look good. The Mhz myth may have worked in the past when it was actually true, but I hear nothing of it now.

As for stability, well, that all depends on a couple things.

1. I've heard a lot more problems with XP Home than I have XP Pro.
I don't know the exact details, but that's just what I've read.
Only occasionally does a person have a serious problem with Pro, but much more often with Home.

2. Hardware.
Specificaly, the right hardware. Apple's advantage is that they hand pick every piece of their hardware to make sure that everything works together right.
A PC manufacturer like Del, is not going to give you the best hardware because they are more concerned with cost over quality.
A manufacturer like Alienware for example, is more concerned with quality over cost. They too, like Apple, hand pick the right components to make sure everything works right, albeit mostly for gaming purposes, but the mission is still the same.

My personal experience with my PC has been good. The only time when it has ever crashed with XP Pro is when I installed RealOne. (what a POS program BTW)
After I removed it, no more crashes.
Sure various apps crash from time to time, but that can be said of any OS.
The reason being is that I picked the right combo of hardware and software (must be luck I guess) so I'm not going to be a switcher because my PC crashes all the time (that would be my parents, not me)
I'm going to be a switcher because I luuuuuuuuuuuuuuv the Cube. :D
It's what got me hooked on Macs in the first place and the reason I'm still here.
I like the community better. It's much tighter and friendlier than the PC community in my opinion.

The second reason why I'm going to be a switcher is because I don't trust Microsoft.
I don't like DRM, optional or not, it shouldn't be there in the first place, I don't like my media player spying on me, I don't like the fact that I can't uninstall a BETA, and I really don't like tha fact that I can't trust their updates.

Here's the EULA from a WMP 7.1 patch awhile ago:


You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

Like what you read?
Didn't think so.
Another thing about their updates you should know (this one was more of an annoyance than a DRM threat, but God was it annoying)
When I first installed XP on my PC, Windows Messenger kept popping up. I looked for a way to get rid of it but the only way I found was to edit a .sys file in Notepad.
Potentially dangerous had this been a critical file and I didn't know what I was doing. Luckily, I did iknow what I was doing and I got rid of it permenently, or so I thought.
When SP1 was released, I downloaded it just to fix the vast number of security holes.
When I restarted my computer, there was my good buddy, Windows Messenger.
Every time I would start Outlook Express, that little icon would pop up and ask me if I wanted to set up a .NET account.
I got rid of it (again) but it was even more of a bitch the second time around.

Personally, I've had it with MS.
I don't have any problem with PC hardware (other than they still unclude serial, parallel and floppies) it's the software, specifically, the maker of the software which I'm fed up with.

Sorry for the long rant, I just have to have my turn at the
soapbox.gif
every once in awhile.:)


Wow, that's a lot of blue.:eek:
 

macmax

macrumors regular
Sep 5, 2002
209
0
caribbean
Re: Re: Re: I love Macs but...

Originally posted by javajedi


Come on.. lets get real..

1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.

1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.

2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.

3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.


For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is “status-quo”. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac’s are slower - just accept it. I don’t like it any more than you do.

my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
 

Pants

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2001
194
9
Ive been using xp pro for 3 months here at work, and I have to say I'm quietly impressed. Its never crashed, nothing has unepectedly quit (and its running a bunch of custom pci cards, so if ever it was flakey, id have expected it to be so with this rig...). My only complaint is the 'look' of it - osX does look nicer, but then osX is a lot less snappy.

So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl£ - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....

oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
 

gopher

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 31, 2002
1,475
0
Maryland, USA
If Windows XP didn't have so much spyware attached to it, and required registration, and the insecurity that Microsoft is so famous for on its systems (yes there are still as many bugs and holes in XP for hackers to get through as in Windows 2000 and before), and the fact remains none of the source code is open, where at least some of Mac OS X is open and free for development purposes, I would have gone to Microsoft. Speed doesn't matter a hill of beans if your machine is so insecure you can't trust your bank numbers to it. Macs are faster in some cases than Windows XP, while slower in others and they maintain a level of security that doesn't require a firewall or anti-virus program anywhere near as much as Windows XP does.

I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.

What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
 

gopher

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 31, 2002
1,475
0
Maryland, USA
Originally posted by Pants
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful! [/B]

Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.

I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.