 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, panag, you do know that the CHEAPEST PCs are ones that you make yourself, right?
Dells are actually overpriced, because you can get all the parts at a much cheaper cost. With Dell, you are paying for labor costs to put it together as well. |
hi ,
the cheapest ones are the ones that are being sold by large firms after a short lease or so , .....
coNpaq is very good at it , .... 
why bother to build something yourself , pffff , all the troubles you have to go true , ..... all the time you waste , .... no 36 months guarantee , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
a better processor  |
The Pentium 4 is way faster than the G4. I'm sorry, but this is just absolute fact. Even most Mac zealots concede that the G4 is obsolete, and pin their hopes on the new IBM PowerPC 970.
Take a look at the SPEC benchmarks, they're widely watched and widely respected.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
These results were also taking not using Intel's highly optimized C++ compiler, both use GCC for the sake of fairness. They say Intel's compiler is about 20% faster.
quote:
With a SPECint_base value of 306 Apple's 1 GHz machine under Mac OS X ran almost head to head with the equally clocked Pentium III, combined with Linux and GCC, with a SPECint_base value of 309. |
quote:
With SPECfp2000 values of between 147 and 187 the Apple device lagged far behind its equally briskly clocked competitors in terms of floating-point operations values. Thus the Pentium III, for instance, in conjunction with Intel's Linux compilers achieved a SPECfp value of 297. What is more, a current Pentium 4 will achieve a value that exceeds the latter by a good deal more than twice that amount. |
The G4 can't even compete with the Pentium III.
FYI, a 3GHz P4 hits over 1000 in SPECfp2000 now. The 1GHz G4 peaks at 187.
The Apple marketing team is quite brilliant and managed to convince most Mac users that they're using some extremely efficient, supercomputer-esque type chip, which apparently some of you still believe.
Of course, people will be quick to point to select Photoshop benchmarks to "prove" the G4 is almost as fast. After all, Photoshop is a native Mac app and ported to x86, and they'll carefully select operations and filters with AltiVec optimizations but no SSE2 optimizations. Laughable from a computer scientists' perspective, amazing by a Mac user's perspective.
Then don't even get me started on other components. Pentium 4 has 800MHz FSB (6.4GB/s), the G4 has a 133MHz system bus with 1.06GB/s bandwidth. Not to mention the lower latencies on the PC, because the RAM used is DDR400 rather than DDR266...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
This just proves my point. The best people in America are the 5% that use Macs. We will rule the other 95% who aren't worthy of using a Mac. It's an exclusive club I'm glad to be a part of. |
The Mormon church says the same thing
quote:
in some places its 5 % , in others 30 % , ..... |
But in all, WINDOWS is the major majority
quote:
intresting how civ on a windows ( huge specs ) takes longer then on the mac , ... same map , same set up , smae scen , .... yet the mac beats it with more then half the time |
I also find it interesting how it takes about 10 seconds to load that Apple copy of Word on a mac, but it takes less than half the time to open an identical program on the PC
I also find it interesting how when playing a graphically intensive game, Macs suffer a HUGE performance loss compared to PCs
I also find it interesting how almost EVERYTHING is developed for PC first and then ported to mac (if they want to. Some things just never are )
I also find it interesting how the majority of computers in use are Windows.
I also find it interesting how the majority of computers sold are Windows.
I also find it interesting how Macs are quite pricey compared to PCs.
I also find it interesting how Apple forbid others from building macs and therefore drove prices up.
I also find it interesting how microsoft saved apple
I suppose there are a lot of interesting facts in this word
Have a nice WINDOWS Day, Panag 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The Pentium 4 is way faster than the G4. I'm sorry, but this is just absolute fact. Even most Mac zealots concede that the G4 is obsolete, and pin their hopes on the new IBM PowerPC 970.
Take a look at the SPEC benchmarks, they're widely watched and widely respected.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
These results were also taking not using Intel's highly optimized C++ compiler, both use GCC for the sake of fairness. They say Intel's compiler is about 20% faster.
quote:
With a SPECint_base value of 306 Apple's 1 GHz machine under Mac OS X ran almost head to head with the equally clocked Pentium III, combined with Linux and GCC, with a SPECint_base value of 309. |
quote:
With SPECfp2000 values of between 147 and 187 the Apple device lagged far behind its equally briskly clocked competitors in terms of floating-point operations values. Thus the Pentium III, for instance, in conjunction with Intel's Linux compilers achieved a SPECfp value of 297. What is more, a current Pentium 4 will achieve a value that exceeds the latter by a good deal more than twice that amount. |
The G4 can't even compete with the Pentium III.
FYI, a 3GHz P4 hits over 1000 in SPECfp2000 now. The 1GHz G4 peaks at 187.
The Apple marketing team is quite brilliant and managed to convince most Mac users that they're using some extremely efficient, supercomputer-esque type chip, which apparently some of you still believe.
Of course, people will be quick to point to select Photoshop benchmarks to "prove" the G4 is almost as fast. After all, Photoshop is a native Mac app and ported to x86, and they'll carefully select operations and filters with AltiVec optimizations but no SSE2 optimizations. Laughable from a computer scientists' perspective, amazing by a Mac user's perspective.
Then don't even get me started on other components. Pentium 4 has 800MHz FSB (6.4GB/s), the G4 has a 133MHz system bus with 1.06GB/s bandwidth. Not to mention the lower latencies on the PC, because the RAM used is DDR400 rather than DDR266... |
hi ,
one , the link takes no account in the new g4's , it does not count them in dual config , and last but not least , do you really believe that a processor is all that counts , .....
have a nice day
this is getting boring , ....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
One: It also doesn't take into account the new P4s, which are actually faster than the predecessors than the new G4+s are compared to the original G4. Consider yourself even luckier on this count.
Two: It also doesn't count the P4s in dual configus, what's your point?
Three: Of course processor speed isn't all that counts. Unfortunately for you, this hurts your case even more.
PCs have Serial-ATA rather than just UltraATA.
PCs have PCI-X rather than just PCI.
PCs have AGP8x rather than AGP4x.
PCs have far faster memory subsystems.
etc. |
hi ,
if you believe "herbert" , ..... 
good , so if herbert tells you , ....
pfffff, if you believe that guy , ....
and since when can someone look in the future , ....
not to mention , ....
this is boring , ... sjee , .....
have a nice day
another apple user walks away from boredom
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
if you believe "herbert" , .....
good , so if herbert tells you , ....
pfffff, if you believe that guy , .... |
I don't just believe him, I believe every single real benchmark I've seen about the Macs.
The Macs are not powerful machines. Get over it. They're pathetically slow by today's standards.
The only argument Mac users have for using a Mac is Apple's software, which Drake is trying to get you to argue about instead because I'm sure even he realizes you're getting your ass handed to you right now.
quote:
and since when can someone look in the future , .... |
Huh?
That article was from January 2002.
quote:
not to mention , ....
this is boring , ... sjee , .....
have a nice day
another apple user walks away from boredom |
This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Like OS X, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Mach BSD kernel?
Like Safari, which is a repackaged version of the freely-available Konqueror/KHTML engine?
Like iTunes, which was purchased and extended from a third party and is still nothing more than a run-of-the-mill media player that's too bloaty for its own good, including using freely-available visualization software like Geiss and G-Force.
Like QuickTime, which we've already addressed about its crappiness? |
hi ,
huh , have you read a newspaper in the last couple of months , ....
itunes , .... well visit the site and see
quicktime crappy , could be , but huh , then why is , ....
pfffff , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
huh , have you read a newspaper in the last couple of months , ....
itunes , .... well visit the site and see |
I know all about iTunes, and their music-store thing which has been done before, but Apple users act like it's revoluntionary.
quote:
quicktime crappy , could be , but huh , then why is , .... |
Then why does it crash all the time?
Why does the interface on the PC suck so much?
Why does it take forever to load?
Why do the codecs suck so much compared to WM9?
quote:
pfffff , ....
have a nice day |
is right
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I don't just believe him, I believe every single real benchmark I've seen about the Macs.
The Macs are not powerful machines. Get over it. They're pathetically slow by today's standards.
The only argument Mac users have for using a Mac is Apple's software, which Drake is trying to get you to argue about instead because I'm sure even he realizes you're getting your ass handed to you right now.
Huh?
That article was from January 2002.
This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring. |
hi ,
"This is boring to you because you're getting your ass kicked. You don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss all evidence that contradict's Apple's notoriously laughable marketing "benchmarks", and then when you start to learn the truth over your overpriced computer you plug your ears and walk away, saying it's boring. "
look in the mirror , ....
a mac user knows what he has , ... why would we try to talk with someone who does not even see to what is being presented , ...
overpriced , nope , .....
oh , btw , drake cant do zip to me , ....
as for the article , ..... well go with "herbert" the two of you woold make a great team , ...
and huh , my behind gets hadden out to no-one , ... are we clear on that , ... 
bye
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I know all about iTunes, and their music-store thing which has been done before, but Apple users act like it's revoluntionary.
Then why does it crash all the time?
Why does the interface on the PC suck so much?
Why does it take forever to load?
Why do the codecs suck so much compared to WM9?
is right |
input defines output , ....
ever wondered why all the other people dont have problems , ...
maybe the guy at the console is responsible for the crash , ...
it does not mean that because it loads to slow on your comp or that the codecs suck or the interface sucks on a pc that the product is bad , .... it could be that the person who handles it has done something to it , that his or her comp spec's aint great , .... that there is a software conflict , in short a thousand reasons , ....
ask herbert , he can write about stuff he has never touched , ....
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2003 02:56
Attachment: 
|
