Apple Mac vs PC

Apple products and Mac operating systems. Including discussions on Virtual PC for Mac, Parallels Desktop for Mac, all Apple hardware and everything relating to Apple and Mac!
(MacCentre701)

Postby Mandrake » Wed 26 May, 2004 2:27 am

Sure you can, a computer shop near here is selling blue cases with translucent side panels and everything for just over $200 (AUD). See here and here. Of course you can find the mouse/keyboard and monitor for fairly cheap prices. I bought a sliver keyboard for $40 a few months ago, it goes nicely with my silver Microsoft mouse.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040523 Firefox/0.8.0+
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby toecutter » Wed 02 Jun, 2004 10:16 pm

For what it is worth, comparing Macintosh and Microsoft is an arguement /debate that can never be settled.

Macintosh are software /hardware vendors, Microsoft are not. Both have different goals for their products and both have good and bad points.

It really boils down to what you want to use them for and what you feel comfortable with.

Mac OS X is 'breakaway' from the past leaving users of older machines with little option to either upgrade completely or stick with OS 7 /9.

WIndows XP is a good stable system if you run it in 'classic' mode and turn off all the needless extras. However, it is stilll basically Win 95 on steriods!

Whether 'Longhorn' will be Microsoft's attempt at a new system or more of the same remains to be seen.

They both can co -exist and, in my experience, when you use them together, you get the best of both
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
toecutter
new member
new member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 02 Jun, 2004 9:58 pm

more megahertz myth (or gigahertz myth)

Postby Antony » Sun 06 Jun, 2004 9:06 pm

More on Megahertz Myth (or Gigahertz Myth)

I posted following in Shark Daddy's new computer thread. I think it's a good idea to make a copy to this thread.
Antony wrote:[img=right]http://sillydog.org/graph/temp/mhzmyth01.jpg[/img]It is hard to compare between them, because it's not just the speed of the clock, but also a number of other factors. Such as giga-flop and velocity engine in G4 chips.

According to Apple's megahertz myth video,

867MHz G4 against 1.7GHz Pentium 4. For the same exact task, G4 took 45 seconds and Pentium 4 took 82 seconds.
Image
It is said, G4 876MHz is 80% faster than 1.7GHz P4.
Image

The megahertz myth video chip, 17.1MB, QuickTime movie format.


The Megahertz Myth video was a bit outdated. Now let's check current speed comparison.
Performance of PowerBook G4 comparing to Pentium M based notebooks
Image
Apple wrote:The 15-inch and 17-inch PowerBook G4 models were compared to the 1.7GHz Pentium M–based Dell Inspiron 8600.The 1.5GHz 15-inch and 17-inch PowerBook systems were 17 percent faster, while the 1.33GHz 15-inch PowerBook was 10 percent faster.The 1.33GHz 12-inch PowerBook was compared to a 1.4GHz Pentium M–based Sony VAIO PCG-V505DC1. In this case, the 12-inch PowerBook was 50 percent faster.
Testing conducted by Apple in March 2004 using preproduction PowerBook G4 units.The 15- and 17-inch models were configured with 1GB of memory and the 12-inch model was configured with 768MB of memory. Competitive systems were configured with equivalent memory. File size = 300MB.

Please note those are all notebooks, and the speed of notebook is not as fast as desktops even with the same clock CPU speed, mainly due to the speed of RAM and speed of HDD used.
It is surprised to see 1.33GHz G4 is 50% faster than 1.4GHz Pentium-M.

Not working on the graphics? G4 is also good for intensive scientific analysis.

Performance of DNA calculating (BLAST)
Image
Please note, in this case, PowerBook G4 was competing with (desktop) Dell 3.2GHz Pentium 4. Even a notebook (PowerBook G4) at less than half of the clock speed of the Pentium 4, the G4 chip clearly outperforms Pentium 4. That's notebook against desktop!

Data taken from Apple's PowerBook G4 Technology Overview (April 2004) (pdf), you can find the paper through Apple - PowerBook G4 - Technology Specification page.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.7
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15262
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Antony » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 9:45 am

Also, according to Best of 2004, PC World awards, Apple Mac OS X Panther 10.3 is the winner of Operating System category.

(thanks to Edward for posting the PCWorld awards link in Opera forum)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15262
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby ryaxnb » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 1:49 pm

Mandrake wrote:Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .

Image



Now. Explain why you feel the G5 is slower.
Explain where you're evidence is that Steve's benchmarks are wrong or insignificant.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
ryaxnb
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 13 Nov, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Felton, CA

Postby ryaxnb » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 1:50 pm

Mandrake wrote:BSD is NOT an OS for end users, it's primrarily a server OS - so of course OS X will be easier to use than it.

"Linux machines suffered 13,654 successful attacks, or 80 percent of the survey total. Windows based servers enjoyed a sharp decline in successful breaches, with only 2,005 attacks."

Security in Windows is getting much better, compared to Linux. There is also the factor of market share, since BSD/OS X is not used nearly as much as Linux or Windows on a server, of course they will suffer less attacks.


Security on Windows is getting better. But that's like saying eggs are getting tougher to crack, as such they're better then steel as a defense wall.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
ryaxnb
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 13 Nov, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Felton, CA

Postby Mandrake » Thu 10 Jun, 2004 4:14 am

ryaxnb wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .

Image



Now. Explain why you feel the G5 is slower.
Explain where you're evidence is that Steve's benchmarks are wrong or insignificant.


Well, let’s see. On the original G5 benchmarks that Apple performed last year at WWDC 2003, the G5s use SATA, while they made sure the Pentium 4 system used plain old ATA, resulting in a performance lost. Apple disabled Hyper-Threading on the Pentium 4, a feature that boosts performance in most cases. They also used a 3 GHz Pentium 4, despite the fact that a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 had been available for several months.

Don't you also find it strange that when, after WWDC 2003, people did their own benchmarks with the Dual 2Ghz G5, and a top-of-the-line Intel or AMD system - and the Intel and AMD systems smoked the G5 in almost all tests.

Then, until very recently, Apple had a page on its G5 site about the G5 for gaming. They showed a single benchmark that the G5 beat a Pentium 4, that game was Quake 3. They said Quake 3 is a game that everyone uses for benchmarks, because it is so demanding on hardware. That's a lie too. Quake 3 was released in 1999, and only uses the capabilities of new hardware, if you turn up the resolution to something like 1600x1200 with full details (Apple used 1024x768 - my old P2-400MHz with a Voodoo 2 can do that!). Check out these benchmarks to see how a Dual 2 GHz G5 really fairs in some game benchmarks. The Dual 2 GHz G5 is beaten by the Pentium 4 or Athlon in every test bar one Quake 3 test. Guess what? The P4 is a LOT cheaper too. You can also get a Radeon X800 XT for a PC, for up-to twice as fast gaming. No such card for Mac.

Last, but not least, Steve Jobs promised the 3 GHz G5 12 months after WWDC 2003... The upgrade is a meager 2.5 GHz model. I won't go on about this - you can go to any Mac site and read that Steve Jobs has failed to live up to his promise. The highest model that will be avaliable at WWDC 2004 is a Dual 2 GHz, because the 2.5GHz isn't out until July.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040601 Firefox/0.8.0+
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Thu 10 Jun, 2004 4:58 am

Mandrake wrote:The highest model that will be avaliable at WWDC 2004 is a Dual 2 GHz, because the 2.5GHz isn't out until July.
When first G5 was announced, there was a very long delay as well. When they announced the first G5. You can claim such product was not available back then, but they do have a few machines available (pre-massive production)

The new G5 (dual 2.5GHz) benchmark Report is available here (pdf)

And a detailed version is available from Pfeiffer DTA Labs (pdf)

You will be surprised on the new benchmarks... comparing with G3, G4 and the new G5... not against PC.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15262
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby 900t » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 7:55 pm

As for looks, I think Macs look a little lame compared to IBM...

Image
Image
Image

That just looks plain c o o l
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; fr-FR; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
User avatar
900t
member
member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue 10 Jun, 2003 7:07 pm
Location: Montréal, Québec

Postby Antony » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 8:08 pm

900t wrote:As for looks, I think Macs look a little lame compared to IBM...
Are you kidding? Apple's Mac designs, including (original) iMac, new iMac (flat panel), G4 Cube, ... etc are frequent winner of whatever industry designs.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15262
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Don_HH2K » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 8:21 pm

Antony wrote:Are you kidding? Apple's Mac designs, including (original) iMac, new iMac (flat panel), G4 Cube, ... etc are frequent winner of whatever industry designs.

..and Apple iPod
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
User avatar
Don_HH2K
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5112
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2004 3:59 pm

Postby ianian » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:28 am

sorry, just wanna share my two cents here.

i have a PC, an iBook and a Powerbook G4.

here are the specs :Packard Bell, 640MB RAM, 40GB HD, P4 2Ghz
Pbook G4 768MB RAM 1.33Ghz 12" 60GB
iBook G3 640MB RAM 800Mhz G3 12" 30GB

Generally speaking, windows XP has been an improvement over the 98. a big one. However, the OS is still filled with sloppy coding (don't deny that) and generally, windows is an extremely inefficient OS.

why?

Besides the fact that it is bloatware, the Memory management system of windows sucks. Period. Have you tried launching multiple applications on windows at start up? The system slows down to a crawl, with white screens appearing, and it threatens to hang.

compare that to

OS X 10.3.4, where the multi tasking is undeniably superior. OS X allows you to launch multiple programs at once, and still perform expose at the same time. Most would agree that expose taxes the system resources much more then your standard ctrl-tab.

Windows has a registry. and a horrible one at that. With virtually ZERO password and safeguard features, viruses constantly install themselves onto the registry and screw you up the rear. Patches and registry first aid programs simply worsen the problem, cos when they mess with you registry, windows doesn't like it. and it starts to puke.

and what does a windows user do then? System restore. which is crap. when it overwrites the registry, it tends to make some changes to the registry that is EXTREMELY detrimental to your system. completely reversible? BS. i've tried reversing my system restore and i still see directories, DLLs, everything from years ago.

The common argument that noone wants to create viruses for OS X is simply bull. Face it. an Mp3 file or an attachment that asks you for your password to install itself in root would be rather out of the ordinary, would it? everyone, especially Secunia, is constantly smashing OS X for its security updates. Be thankful Apple patches systems BEFORE the mass attacks happen. Not after. Microsoft patches the patches of the patches that they have patched.

as i speak, my wintel box needs reformatting. simply because the registry got screwed up by the latest update of IE.

just my 2 cents.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
ianian
junior member
junior member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:16 am

Postby Mandrake » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 9:24 pm

Memory management? Compare how much ram OS X needs compared to Windows XP! Windows XP runs fine with 256mb of ram, there is no denying that you need 512mb of ram to run OS X properly, it's a memory hog - it uses much more memory than Windows XP or a recent Linux distro with KDE. Keeping this in mind, I fail to see how you claim Windows is bloatware, when it is indeed OS X that is bloated.

That and we can compare prices on machines too. I picked the cheapest G5 you can buy, the dual 1.8Ghz, with the default specifications. (All prices are in AUD)

Here are those specs (straight off apple.com.au)

:arrow: Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
:arrow: 256MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x128
:arrow: 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
:arrow: 8x SuperDrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
:arrow: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
:arrow: 56K V.92 internal modem
:arrow: Apple Keyboard + Apple Mouse
:arrow: Mac OS X [default]

Grand total: $3599.00

Now we'll see what we can buy for around the same price ($3599 AUD), but a PC instead of a Macintosh.

These are the specifications, and prices:

:arrow: Processor: INTEL Pentium 4 3.0Ghz 800Mhz FSB 478 Pin 1MB Processor: (Prescott) $375.10
:arrow: Mainboard: INTEL 875PBZLK 800FSB DDR400 8XAGP USB2 GLAN SATA Mainboard $271.98
:arrow: Memory: CORSAIR DDR VS 1024MB Kit PC3200 2x 512 MB $338.32
:arrow: Video Card: ATI Radeon X800 Pro 256MB 8xAGP Video Card $799.57
:arrow: Case: TASK A691 Aluminium Silver Midi Tower 400W P4 PSU USB2 1394 $197.34
:arrow: Hard: Disk IDE SEAGATE Barracuda 200GB HDD SATA 8MB Cache 7200RPM 3Yr Wty $239.01
:arrow: DVD-Writer: PIONEER DVR-107DS 8xDVD-+R 4xRW+- CDR/RW $176.87
:arrow: Sound Card: CREATIVE Ectiva 5.1 OEM Sound Card $46.20
:arrow: Speakers: LOGITECH X-620 6.1 70Watts Subwoofer & Satellite Speakers $173.56
:arrow: Monitor: PHILIPS 109B 19inch Digital Monitor 3Yr Onsite Warranty $429.66
:arrow: Floppy Drive: 1.44 MB Floppy Disk Drive - Black $24.95
:arrow: Operating System: MICROSOFT Windows XP Professional -OEM- $279.93
:arrow: Keyboard: MICROSOFT Wireless Desktop Pro Kbd & Optical Mouse -Retail- $168.96

Grand total: $3521.45

So for slightly less than the $3599 AUD we pay for the G5 I can get a machine with four times the memory, 2.5x the storage space, a much faster video card (Easily 3 or 4 times faster), and it includes a monitor and 6.1 speakers! Enough of a price difference for you?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:04 pm

Mandrake wrote:Memory management? Compare how much ram OS X needs compared to Windows XP! Windows XP runs fine with 256mb of ram, there is no denying that you need 512mb of ram to run OS X properly, it's a memory hog - it uses much more memory than Windows XP or a recent Linux distro with KDE. Keeping this in mind, I fail to see how you claim Windows is bloatware, when it is indeed OS X that is bloated.
Mandrake, you are comparing the wrong thing.
The maximum allocated RAM for a single application in OS X is 8GB, not the 4GB in Windows XP.

And when you compare about the price, please compare the cost of Power Mac with a professional level of branded PC. It is not fair to compare it with DIY model.

Otherwise, use the price of eMac or iMac to compare it with a PC entry level or game machine.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15262
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby ianian » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:32 pm

Mandrake. Obviously you don't know the difference between minimum memory requirements and efficient memory usage. its simple.

if you want to use OS X without the genie effects, drop shadows, i am VERY sure that you can run it with 128 MB of ram without getting any major honks. But noone will do that. Why? because OS X was designed to be tight and work beautifully. it was meant to LOOK good. *cough* unlike the kindergarten luna*cough* However, OS X (especially panther) makes good use of its memory, when it comes to launching multiple apps. windows just grabs, and grabs and grabs and uh oh. the program crashes. and so, the os realises it doesn't have enough memory. so uh oh. the OS crashes. Yes.i run my XP in classic mode. why? cos its simply too laggy to run it in LUNA.

OS X users tend to max out their RAM. why? because the OS X is beautiful, and they don't want to limit its GUI capabilities. When you're running Photoshop, application expose is extremely useful for looking at your layers all at once.its these features that we WANT, and not some unknown feature that microsoft claims to have put in but you don't really see the benefits.

OS X is great for multi tasking. i don't see why i shouldn't add additional RAM to see the system fly at doing multiple tasks. that doesn't constitute bloatware. the money i saved from buying Norton Systemworks or antivirus or whatever is better spent on RAM.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
ianian
junior member
junior member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]
cron