MWNY: Apples last chance...

Comments

• Reply 1 of 17

  exercise in frivolity Posts: 233member

  May 9, 2002 7:51PM

  Since so many people before me have done it to many similar posts, I feel it is time I do too.
  
  
  
  Quit whining. If you really want to get a PC solely based on the fact that macs aren't quite as fast anymore, ignoring the long list of other reasons why people love macs, then just do it and shut up.
• Reply 2 of 17

  kali Posts: 634member

  May 9, 2002 8:05PM

  Exercice in frivolity, it is you, who should shut up. I really hate guys complaining about others complaining. Res has right to says what he's saying, even if you don't like it.
  
  
  
  Res, I agree with you. I own a 10 years old Mac IIci which I Iove. It's a dinosaur running sys 7.1, with 32 ram and it's a really efficient computer for what it does. I much prefer the MacOS over any others on the market. I need to use some PCs at work, so I know what are the differences.
  
  
  
  Me too, I'm waiting this summer to buy a new machine, and I'm pissed off about the power aspect of Mac vs PC. But actually, for all I need to do with the new computer, it just doesn't bother me that much. So I know I'll buy a Mac, even if I know there are faster PC machines. Computing isn't just about speed and pure power.
• Reply 3 of 17

  the cool gut Posts: 1,714member

  May 9, 2002 8:13PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Kali:
  
  <strong>Exercice in frivolity, it is you, who should shut up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  No, YOUshut up. Res is being a baby and Exercise in Frivolity called it correctly.
• Reply 4 of 17

  nx7oe Posts: 198member

  May 9, 2002 8:21PM

  no, ALL OF YOU SHUT UP
  
  
  
  
  
  (i needed to say that <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> )
• Reply 5 of 17

  soopadrive Posts: 182member

  May 9, 2002 8:28PM

  ... going back to the original subject, I honestly don't mind paying more $$$ for an Apple because what I am primarily worried about is the OS. Windows is so incredibly unstable I wouldn't trust implementing it into a toaster. Speed is the only issue I worry about with Apple, but they are gradually getting there. The reason Apple is slightly behind in speed is because CPU manufacturers such as Intel have the money for R & D to come out with better, faster processors in a short period of time. When it comes to paying for a computer, I worry more on reliability than speed. That's just my opinion anyway..
• Reply 6 of 17

  supermatt Posts: 55member

  May 9, 2002 8:29PM

  I think you should look at power in a different sense. To me, power is how much faster you can do your work. To me, I can work much faster on a Mac due to its interface. I found that it also keeps close enough speed-wise that you hardly notice the difference in speed. In fact, I find that my 500MHz Powerbook boots faster and does multitasking faster than an 800MHz Pentium III running Windows 2000 (the basic PC used at work). Also, for a laptop, the G4 is a fully functional G4. In a PC laptop, you get a chip that is considerably lower in processing power than its desktop counterpart.
  
  
  
  So, if the processor difference is debatable, that says to me that it's close enough that most users wouldn't notice one way or the other. It comes down to this: What do you use your computer for? Does the Mac allow you to do it more quickly, easily, and comfortably than a PC? If it does, get a Mac. I would look at Quartz Extreme as something that can really help the speed of a Mac. With screen drawing all taken by a separate chip, the processor (G4 or G5) will be able to concentrate solely on the work you're trying to get done. I know this will work because when I was in college, my roommate had an Amiga. It had the same 68000 processor in it as my Mac SE. However, it did almost everything faster. I mean, black-and-white games on my Mac SE were slow... whereas he could play games with better graphics than the available consoles of the time! The reason? Dedicated sound and graphics chips that did the "heavy lifting" so that the 68000 could just process data. I feel this Quartz Extreme will do this for the current Macs. It will make that much of a night and day difference.
  
  
  
  If you like using a Mac, I hope some of these points will sway you to consider that its power lies not only in MHz, but in how fast it lets you do your work.
  
  
  
  Matthew
• Reply 6 of 17

  kali Posts: 634member

  May 9, 2002 8:29PM

  Hehehe!
  
  
  
  People complaining about people complaining about people complaining about ...
  
  
  
  But I desagree with "the cool gut", Res has the right to say WHATEVER he wants. If you don't like it, just go read something else. If you don't like what I'm saying, just go read something else, or kiss your own ass hole (oups, sorry ! What a bad girl I am !).
• Reply 8 of 17

  kali Posts: 634member

  May 9, 2002 8:31PM

  Ok, I apologise for what I just said in my last post. I'm really a savage ! <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
• Reply 9 of 17

  gigawire Posts: 196member

  May 9, 2002 8:33PM

  Apple is the future.
• Reply 10 of 17

  kali Posts: 634member

  May 9, 2002 8:34PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Gigawire:
  
  <strong>Apple is the future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  There is no future.
• Reply 11 of 17

  timortis Posts: 149member

  May 9, 2002 8:43PM

  There's a very simple fact here that can not be ignored.
  
  
  
  There are a considerable amount of long-time Mac users, who have been considering switching platforms because of the performance disparity.
  
  
  
  You guys can call it whining and tell them all to go and buy Wintel. That doesn't mean Apple doesn't have a problem. Apple is clearly losing customers because of this and it can't be helping them win any converts either.
• Reply 12 of 17

  xaqtly Posts: 450member

  May 9, 2002 8:59PM

  I get the distinct feeling that some of the people complaining about how fast Macs are haven't actually tried using, say, a dual 1 GHz G4. I have, and it smokes. If that machine isn't fast enough for you, then you should be getting into 8 processor Sun workstations.
  
  
  
  I've noticed that a lot of people seem to think the slight lagginess of OS X's interface has something to do with how fast it can run filters in Photoshop or how fast it can do anything processor-intensive. I can tell you that it doesn't, and also that Jaguar seems to have fixed the interface speed problem.
  
  
  
  And I do agree with a couple sentiments already posted here... If you feel Wintels are faster, then buy one. This board is not a channel directly to Steve's ear, complaining here serves no purpose other than to hear yourself talk, and to provoke responses like this one.
  
  
  
  And finally, remember this: Numbers do not tell the whole story. They never have and they most likely never will. So when you talk about a dual 1.6 GHz Athlon box, do you really think it's significantly faster, or even faster at all than a dual 1 GHz G4 when it comes to actually doing things that require power? And if you think the dual 1.6 GHz Athlon box is that much faster, do you truly believe saving a second or two running a render or a filter is worth using Windows?
• Reply 13 of 17

  ptrash Posts: 296member

  May 9, 2002 9:02PM

  Check out this thread on <a href="http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001573.html"; target="_blank">xlr8yourmac</a>. In particular, the third post has a link to an excellent article on<a href="http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-1.html"; target="_blank">Arstechnica</a>.
  
  
  
  It's ironic that we spend so much time bitching about Mac hardware when it's the OS that's the real problem. In effect, what we 're asking for is faster hardware to make up for the perfomance lag that come from the slow software. And what Apple gives us is still slower software (I'm speaking in relative terms). So now we need even faster hardware, to catch up to where we were before they gave us the new OS. It's kind of pathetic.
  
  
  
  And we're pathetic for continuing to treat Apple like it's two guys doing guerilla engineering in a garage. Apple's a corporation. Like all corporations it primarily cares about the bottom line. It maintains that bottom line by pretending to be an anti-corporation. And we fall in line, just like the characters in the 1984 commercial.
  
  As lomg as we buy its stuff, it has little incentive to chamge. Of course the (percieved) danger is that if we stop buying its stuff, they go out of business before they have the time to change. That's their bluff. Maybe it's time we call them on it.
  
  
  
  [ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Ptrash ]</p>
• Reply 14 of 17

  the cool gut Posts: 1,714member

  May 9, 2002 9:04PM

  [quote] Originally posted by Kali:
  
  Hehehe!
  
  
  
  But I desagree with "the cool gut", Res has the right to say WHATEVER he wants. <hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  This is future hardware, little girl, what Res blathered was a rant ... and that belongs in GENERAL DISCUSSION
  
  
  
  [ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
• Reply 15 of 17

  timortis Posts: 149member

  May 9, 2002 9:16PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:
  
  <strong>I get the distinct feeling that some of the people complaining about how fast Macs are haven't actually tried using, say, a dual 1 GHz G4. </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Two links, first <a href="http://http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm"; target="_blank">how much faster a mid-range dual Athlon is than a top-of-the-line PowerMac at After Effects</a> , the kind of application that's Apple's bread and butter.
  
  
  
  And <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1615&p=9"; target="_blank">this</a> is how much faster than an Athlon the latest P4's are, especially now that most CC aplications are getting SSE2 support.
  
  
  
  Shouldn't be so hard for you to imagine how the latest dual Xeons tromp your dual 1 Ghz speed demon. Just a thought.
• Reply 16 of 17

  percolate Posts: 14member

  May 9, 2002 9:25PM

  [Ah, it seems this post became somewhat redundant while I was writing it. Oh well - sorry.]
  
  
  
  [quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:
  
  <strong>
  
  And finally, remember this: Numbers do not tell the whole story. They never have and they most likely never will. So when you talk about a dual 1.6 GHz Athlon box, do you really think it's significantly faster, or even faster at all than a dual 1 GHz G4 when it comes to actually doing things that require power? And if you think the dual 1.6 GHz Athlon box is that much faster, do you truly believe saving a second or two running a render or a filter is worth using Windows?</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  On point is this <a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm"; target="_blank">after effects showdown</a> which shows a comparison of a dual 1.533GHz Athlon computer versus a dual 1 GHz PowerMac. In summary the author writes:
  
  [quote]Not one of the objective tests we conducted using After Effects showed Apple's flagship machine to be superior. In fact, in most of the tests, the Mac was left lagging far behind. <hr></blockquote>
  
  And this was with Athlons that weren't even top of the line. This doesn't mean that I'll be switching to an x86 machine any time soon but it certainly doesn't look good towards enticing new users, especially people in calculation intensive work. Jobs' way of compensating for this is to pit a single high end x86 chip versus the dual 1 GHz PowerMac in his public tests. While it looks good initially it doesn't fool that many people in the end. After all, a dual Athlon system costs at least $800 less than the dual G4 Powermac.
  
  
  
  [ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: percolate ]</p>
• Reply 17 of 17

  amorph Posts: 7,112member

  May 9, 2002 9:36PM

  First, rants belong in General Discussion, so I'm moving this there.
  
  
  
  Second, some of the language in this thread is intolerable and poisonous. Be civil.