 |
| |
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
First of all, you're buying the fastest PC you can get, and you're comparing this to buying a low or mid ranged Mac. |
for $1700 I could hook you up with about a 600-800 MHz G4. and what makes the G4 a bad processor? I've heard you bashing apple for their marketing of it for weeks, and at the same time you rave over the P4 like a fanatic. what's up with that?
quote:
Even then, with a full warranty and RDRAM, it's a bit under $1700.
For quite a bit more hardware than the Mac. |
again, macs have the advantages of ease of use, stability, OS, and innovation. apples are also very easy to expand nowadays, too, and come with a reliable warranty. basically, it's a good package.
quote:
And it's not a "skimpy" warranty, the one I chose is a "short" warranty.
To be completely honest, you'd pretty much never need to call Dell tech support for anything except incase they didn't ship it right.
Which is why I went with the one year... |
actually Dell computers do break. once again, I highly doubt that the service and support reputation of the company would even be around if people didn't call constantly demanding new keyboards, etc.
quote:
Still, $1700 for a top end PC vs. $3500 for a top end Mac (which is still slower).  |
that's debatable, isn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
for $1700 I could hook you up with about a 600-800 MHz G4. and what makes the G4 a bad processor? I've heard you bashing apple for their marketing of it for weeks, and at the same time you rave over the P4 like a fanatic. what's up with that? |
The G4 isn't a bad processor as much as it is an obsolete and overpriced one. It was a really, really great processor relative to PCs when it was released.
Unfortunately they can't ramp the speed up fast enough to keep up with modern PC processors.
The G5 may change that, though...but it's too soon to tell.
quote:
again, macs have the advantages of ease of use, stability, OS, and innovation. apples are also very easy to expand nowadays, too, and come with a reliable warranty. basically, it's a good package. |
Wiglaf, that argument is getting really boring.
There is no inherent advantage in any of the above you mentioned in the Mac, it's purely opinion (and most of which seems to be unfounded).
By innovation on the Mac, do you call that using a 133MHz system bus, PC133 memory, slow-ass L2 cache, and based on a dinosaur BSD kernel instead of making their own? They're not very innovative like that.
They ARE, however, very innovative in marketing and packaging... 
quote:
actually Dell computers do break. once again, I highly doubt that the service and support reputation of the company would even be around if people didn't call constantly demanding new keyboards, etc. |
I don't know anyone with a Dell computer that "broke". Can you refer me to some that have?
The vast majority of people who call tech support do so because of something not even related to their hardware.
Some people don't have the computer plugged in, others have loose cables, etc.
quote:
that's debatable, isn't it? |
No, not really.
I've already supplied benchmarks, and I don't think anyone's denying it.
The G4 used to be a speed demon in comparison, but Motorola dropped the ball. It's pretty damn slow in comparison, now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bradman
|
|
Westlake Interactive, Civ3 Mac Programmer
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
Mar 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You're making really weird comparisons to try to make unrelated points.
It's not consistent to allow some things like that, so the file system forbids it. It's as simple as that. |
On the contrary, I think it's very consistent. The notion of a filename path as a unique identifier is very antiquated, IMHO. I fail to see how this would confuse a user more than the act of renaming an intermediate directory and then watching the OS go completely senile about where all the files below the rename are. I would think this would inspire fear in users of just how much control they have over their computer rather than welcome them to customize it with so simple a step as renaming stuff or moving stuff around to suit the way they want it.
It's as simple as that.
quote:
Rather: NTFS can cope, it's just that there's no real reason to do that. |
Can it? I haven't seen any spec that says so. Show me, please.
quote:
1) How are shortcuts evil? They point to a section on the hard drive to alias with another application. |
They maintain a fixed path. If you rename or move the file the shortcut points to, the shortcut is usually broken. The Mac, not being path-based, does not break the alias when the original file is moved, only when it is deleted from the partition entirely.
quote:
2) Can MacOS's FS even do symlinks (or junctions) ala NTFS? |
Yes, under MacOS X it is commonplace particularly with a lot of the Unix stuff.
quote:
3) How is the alias implementation on the Mac make it a "less fragile OS"? |
Acutally, what I said was that shortcuts were a very fragile OS feature. I find it interesting that you carried that thought through to extend to the entire OS.
quote:
So, pray tell, how is having a simple extension (not restricted to 3, it can be any length you want) that tells the filetype evil? |
For starters, it limits you greatly. If you have 200 gif files you want to open in one app and 200 in another, you're limited to opening those files inside the app in question. Explorer only maintains a 1:1 mapping. Such power and flexibility...
quote:
It's much easier to just change which application you want to associate with each extension. How would you do something like that on the Mac? |
Ignoring for the moment that a 1:1 mapping for all files with the same extension isn't necessarily desirable, you select a file. Command-I. Choose "Open with Application" from the menu in the dialog. Choose the application.
quote:
I do have one question about how OS X handles things, though. What if I wanted to change which application I wanted to load .txt files with? Like say from Notepad to Wordpad? |
See above. What I typically do under 10 (and did under 9) was to drag the files onto the app icons in the dock (under 10) or a launcher bar (under 9). The issue of file ownership becomes important mainly if you want to be able to double-click on the file in the Finder/Explorer. Perhaps most windows users are too scared of the Explorer and the mysteries of extension mapping to even fathom this possibility as useful.
Brad
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bradman
Can it? I haven't seen any spec that says so. Show me, please. |
I'll dig up documentation on NTFS next time I'm at school for you.
quote:
They maintain a fixed path. If you rename or move the file the shortcut points to, the shortcut is usually broken. The Mac, not being path-based, does not break the alias when the original file is moved, only when it is deleted from the partition entirely. |
So how does this work? Do you basically make a global alias to it much like one did in DOS?
quote:
Acutally, what I said was that shortcuts were a very fragile OS feature. I find it interesting that you carried that thought through to extend to the entire OS. |
An OS is basically a collection of features, so naturally that does extend.
quote:
For starters, it limits you greatly. If you have 200 gif files you want to open in one app and 200 in another, you're limited to opening those files inside the app in question. Explorer only maintains a 1:1 mapping. Such power and flexibility... |
What I do is right click on the specific files I want to open with a different editor, go to the 'Open With' menu, and it shows which applications I've used to open .gif files, as long with a 'Select application' feature.
That seems quite useful to me.
quote:
Ignoring for the moment that a 1:1 mapping for all files with the same extension isn't necessarily desirable, you select a file. Command-I. Choose "Open with Application" from the menu in the dialog. Choose the application. |
But you can do that under Windows too. What's the advantage here?
quote:
See above. What I typically do under 10 (and did under 9) was to drag the files onto the app icons in the dock (under 10) or a launcher bar (under 9). |
Did you know you can do this under XP as well?
For example, I drag a .txt file or .html file over to my MS Word quicklaunch icon, and Word opens with the file. Nifty!
quote:
The issue of file ownership becomes important mainly if you want to be able to double-click on the file in the Finder/Explorer. Perhaps most windows users are too scared of the Explorer and the mysteries of extension mapping to even fathom this possibility as useful. |
From what you've said, you can handle it similar to the way Mac does it, only with the option to have it be much more convenient (to me anyway) by mapping default file extensions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
Wiglaf, really, that "article" you posted to is complete trash.
It's making it seem like it's an amazing feat that the 733MHz mac beat a "1067MHz faster behemoth". MHz isn't everything, you go by the top available on each end. They kept stressing this point, too. Lame. But if they do want to play this game, why don't they compare it to the Intel McKinley? It's about twice as fast than a G4 867MHz Mac at 800MHz.
They flaunt around that the Mac did the colorconversion thing 41% faster, but when the P4 is 56% faster in another benchmark they make sarcastic remarks like: "from a machine that's supposed to be the latest and greatest and 1067 MHz. faster?! ". (the funny thing here is they tried to correct the math of the article by saying it was 42%, not 41%. however, last time I checked 41.2% rounds to 41% not 42% )
Really, I can't believe you'd honestly cite that article.
It's akin to citing the Weekly World News about some celebrity gossip.
Oh, and if you ever have watched TechTV, you'd see they aren't biased for the PC. Just watch the video to see for yourself, they praise the G4 in many aspects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
Wiglaf, I think what we have to do is agree to disagree.
Personally, I think it's stupid to compare a dual G4 to a single P4 because Apple HAS to do it to have any semblence of real speed.
I compare 1 on 1, or 2 on 2, since the cost of the chips are about equal. You go by what most people are buying.
Most people are buying single G4s, not dual G4s. By the same token, most PC people are buying single P4s, not dual G4s.
But unlike Apple, the PC seperates its "mainstream desktop" and its "workstation" markets.
You'd never need to have a dual CPU "mainstream desktop". It's for workstation-like applications or for high-end gaming. And yes, this is what both the dual G4 and dual P4 fall under.
The only difference is no major PC makers actively market the dual processor system for the desktop because it's rather pointless for most of the users.
But if you're going to run speed tests...by all means, dual G4 vs. dual P4, or G4 vs P4. You just want to slant the test so the G4 might win by some more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
for such a "slow ass" processor, a single G4 held up quite well when compared with a "top of the line" P4, didn't it? so I guess that's why you don't post any benchmarks when the mac's speed is doubled.
apple does separate its workstation/server market. desktops are advertised on a completely different section of their site, and each gets a very direct explanation from almost all certified retailers when I checked them out. whether or not the home user gets a huge amount of power out of their mac isn't apple's fault.
really, the speed isn't the issue here. |
I agree, the G4 did pretty well in Photoshop. One of the only apps in existence using Altivec and also one native to the Mac. But the P4 still beat it in 4/5 tests...
quote:
my comments to Asher r that if u wanna discuss something u should do some good research and u would find out that Mhz has nothing to do with speed comparing a 867 Mhz G4 with a 1,7 Ghz will not do the trick... |
I appreciate your stunning insight, but if you cared to look at the thread you'd see that I never equated raw MHz to speed. That's not the issue.
The issue is without Altivec the G4 is pitifully slow. In fact, it performs about the same clock for clock w/o altivec as an Athlon. And when the speeds max out at 867MHz, that's not a GoodThingTM.
MHz is not speed. Speed is determined by IPC x MHz. The G4 has a shorter pipeline (It's now at 7 stages), while the Athlon and Pentium III have a 10-stage. That means the G4 does slightly more per clock than a Pentium III or Athlon. A Pentium 4, however, has 18-20 stages (depending on what it's doing), which is why it's MHz rating is so very high. Some parts of the chip are double pumped (ie, a 2GHz chip has some parts running at 4GHz) so the performance hit per clock isn't as great as it could be.
quote:
the majority of the PeeCee user do not even know what a Mac is unless they would visit a website like this one. |
I think it's fairly safe to say that comment is way off the mark. Everyone knows what a Mac is (or nearly everyone)
quote:
My advise: play around on a mac and then tell me what sucks about it... |
Did you read any of this thread?
quote:
the price difference u discribe between PeeCee and Mac is simply because of the fact that a PeeCee is a product made by MANY compagnies while Mac has a few others wich have close ties with Apple and there a PeeCee is sold more then a mac it is more then logic that they can sell it for less... |
Precisely. When you've got one vendor you've got skyhigh prices. That's also been stated in this thread...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2001 08:12
Attachment: 
.... I must add though that I think u give crappy arguments.... 
as fast as he is thats how fast apple support is.
Attachment: 
|
