<strong>Overall, PC's are faster. There's no doubting this. If you do, you're deluding yourself. They are also cheaper. Again, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise..</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a programmer who has worked on both architectures, I will take a slight exception to this. An altivec optimized algorithm can do some extremely impressive stuff. I'd square a well-done altivec algorthim on an 800mhz G4 against a 2.2ghz P4 any day.
The unfortunate thing is that not every algoirthm can be altivec optimized well, nor do all programmers bother to do it.
Strip Altivec out of the equation alltogether, and I would agree that PCs are on the whole faster than Macs to in terms of raw processing power. The rub, of course, is that this doesn't translate into being more useful.
<strong>Apple got rid of colors and went with white, but i think they would be more successful if they also made a black version....................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Apple's design is clearly one of it's strengths. Apple combines the elegance of what a Mac is supposed to be with a great bundle of easy to use apps and sub par hardware which all makes a nice consumer computer. Apple really does need new hardware on the high end that compares in sheer megahertz with the pentium. If they do they do and if they dont they will be close enough in overall performance to compete. Apple needs to have hardware that is as cutting edge as its design and software is if it truly wants to call the machine a POWERMAC. The iMac though has stepped far beyond a consumer machines boundry and I do think software and design will sell it as much as the hardcore specs.
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just so you know, I agree with this post entirely, Macintosh. :cool:
BOttom Line: Apple is not going out of businewss anytime soon/ Macintosh computers will continue to come out for many years. I predict that the Apple Computer Company will live longer than I will. Microsoft ha always been suseceptible to the free market and willful consumers. Die, Microsquash and clean up before you're done.
Just so you know, I agree with this post entirely, Macintosh. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I was trying to be more reasonable in my wording. Your not so bad PCMan. I wish that Apple had 2.5 Ghz G4/G5 machines to round out the 3 piece puzzle to having a great computer. Specs,Price,Design.
Input/Output Jacks: Headphone/Speaker, Line-in and Microphone Jacks
Dimensions: 15.39" x 15.75" x 7" (WxHxD) and approximately 17.39lb.
Modem: HPNA/V.90 Combo Card
Limited Warranty Program: 3 Year Limited Parts / Labor / Lifetime Support
Adapter: AC Adapter
and ugly as all heck!!!
to keep fair---1299 iMac vs 1299 gateway
iMac wins in looks (by a freakin landslide)
processor (G4 vs celeron)
equal ram (but iMac goes to 1 gig vs 512 max on gateway)
equal size monitor
equal size HD
no floppy on iMac (50 buck for a usb iMation floppy if needed)
Windows ME vs OS X (X wins...even windows people hated ME)
CD rom vs CD Burner on iMac
etc etc etc ---looks like iMac wins or at least ties if you want floppy and pci cards etc...but man the looks of the iMac vs that thing...not close...g
In many ways you are right, but let's take a closer look. The 2Ghz P4s are faster than the G4s in many ways, but not in every way.
For example, iDVD. Altivec allows the G4 to encode MPEG2 (aka DVD encoding) 2.5 to 3 times faster than the fastest P4 on the market. This has been independently proven. See here:
In this case, the performance difference between the G4 and P4 is so great, that a P4 doesn't exist that is fast enough to match the G4 at this specific task.
"Big deal", you say? It is a big deal. iDVD is a core feature of these iMacs, so it is an important feature to the consumers who buy these machines.
Likewise, the G4's Altivec benefits all aspects of the iApps, which all stress Altivec's abilities.
In this light, the LCD iMac is an extremely good value for what it is meant to do.
Comments
<strong>Overall, PC's are faster. There's no doubting this. If you do, you're deluding yourself. They are also cheaper. Again, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise..</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a programmer who has worked on both architectures, I will take a slight exception to this. An altivec optimized algorithm can do some extremely impressive stuff. I'd square a well-done altivec algorthim on an 800mhz G4 against a 2.2ghz P4 any day.
The unfortunate thing is that not every algoirthm can be altivec optimized well, nor do all programmers bother to do it.
Strip Altivec out of the equation alltogether, and I would agree that PCs are on the whole faster than Macs to in terms of raw processing power. The rub, of course, is that this doesn't translate into being more useful.
<strong>Apple got rid of colors and went with white, but i think they would be more successful if they also made a black version....................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just The Man tryin' to keep us down!
No, just our hardware.
Shoo PC boy.
<strong>
No, just our hardware.
Shoo PC boy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, if the shoe fits. . .
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: PCMan ]</p>
<strong>Apple's design is clearly one of it's strengths. Apple combines the elegance of what a Mac is supposed to be with a great bundle of easy to use apps and sub par hardware which all makes a nice consumer computer. Apple really does need new hardware on the high end that compares in sheer megahertz with the pentium. If they do they do and if they dont they will be close enough in overall performance to compete. Apple needs to have hardware that is as cutting edge as its design and software is if it truly wants to call the machine a POWERMAC. The iMac though has stepped far beyond a consumer machines boundry and I do think software and design will sell it as much as the hardcore specs.
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just so you know, I agree with this post entirely, Macintosh. :cool:
<strong>
Just so you know, I agree with this post entirely, Macintosh. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I was trying to be more reasonable in my wording. Your not so bad PCMan. I wish that Apple had 2.5 Ghz G4/G5 machines to round out the 3 piece puzzle to having a great computer. Specs,Price,Design.
Processor: Intel® Celeron™ Processor 900MHz with 128K Cache
Screen: 15.0" XGA TFT Active Matrix
Memory: 128MB SDRAM expandable to 512MB
Hard Drive: 40GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Floppy Drive: Integrated 1.44MB 3.5" floppy diskette drive
CD-ROM or DVD: Integrated 10X min./24X max. CD-ROM drive
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® Millennium Edition
Application Software: Microsoft® Works Suite - Including Microsoft® Word and Encarta
Video: Integrated Intel® 3D Graphics
Keyboard: 104+ keyboard
Mouse: USB Mouse and Gateway Mouse Pad
Speakers: Integrated Speakers
Expansion Slots: (1) Type III PC Card Slot
External ports: (4) USB, Parallel, Serial, IEEE 1394 and (2) PS/2
Input/Output Jacks: Headphone/Speaker, Line-in and Microphone Jacks
Dimensions: 15.39" x 15.75" x 7" (WxHxD) and approximately 17.39lb.
Modem: HPNA/V.90 Combo Card
Limited Warranty Program: 3 Year Limited Parts / Labor / Lifetime Support
Adapter: AC Adapter
and ugly as all heck!!!
to keep fair---1299 iMac vs 1299 gateway
iMac wins in looks (by a freakin landslide)
processor (G4 vs celeron)
equal ram (but iMac goes to 1 gig vs 512 max on gateway)
equal size monitor
equal size HD
no floppy on iMac (50 buck for a usb iMation floppy if needed)
Windows ME vs OS X (X wins...even windows people hated ME)
CD rom vs CD Burner on iMac
etc etc etc ---looks like iMac wins or at least ties if you want floppy and pci cards etc...but man the looks of the iMac vs that thing...not close...g
<strong>
Video: Integrated Intel® 3D Graphics
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell is this?
<strong>Compare the iMac to this <a href="http://www.gateway.com/home/prod/hm_profile3sp_ProdDetail.shtml"; target="_blank">gateway</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL!
In many ways you are right, but let's take a closer look. The 2Ghz P4s are faster than the G4s in many ways, but not in every way.
For example, iDVD. Altivec allows the G4 to encode MPEG2 (aka DVD encoding) 2.5 to 3 times faster than the fastest P4 on the market. This has been independently proven. See here:
<a href="http://www.nstl.com/downloads/Apple Final iDVD Report.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nstl.com/downloads/Apple Final iDVD Report.pdf</a>
In this case, the performance difference between the G4 and P4 is so great, that a P4 doesn't exist that is fast enough to match the G4 at this specific task.
"Big deal", you say? It is a big deal. iDVD is a core feature of these iMacs, so it is an important feature to the consumers who buy these machines.
Likewise, the G4's Altivec benefits all aspects of the iApps, which all stress Altivec's abilities.
In this light, the LCD iMac is an extremely good value for what it is meant to do.
G'day.
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</p>
<strong>
What the hell is this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
u dont wanna know...its low end peice of crap even us mac users never got to use =\\