SillyDog701

[ryaxnb]

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

Said one guy. I agree, but the real reason is we are all a stubbron bunch who will stick to their choice of OS with fervor

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[ryaxnb]

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




(EDIT by DJGM - third image no longer available.)

That just looks plain c o o l

ick

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Antony]

Another good reason why Mac OS is better than Windows.

In [sdt=6798]It's so easy to install an application in a Mac[/sdt] thread, I demonstrated installing Netscape 7.2 on Mac and then on Windows.

You only need 3 simple steps when you install an application in a Mac.
Under Windows, you will need 11 complicated steps.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9

[DJGM]

BUT, as was pointed out in that thread, on the Mac version of Netscape 7.2, you don't
get to choose a custom setup option and select the components you want to install.
I don't like installers that don't offer me the option to pick and choose components.

When installing an application (such as Netscape, Mozilla or similar) on someone
else's computer (with their prior permission of course) I usually demonstrate to
them, that it's always best to choose the Custom Setup option. The Windows
and Linux versions of Ns7.2 both offer this option. The Mac version does not.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)

[mrtrblmkr1]

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




(EDIT by DJGM - third image no longer available.)

That just looks plain c o o l

ick

ewww, you're comparing a BUSINESS pc supplier to a Mac?! what kind of unfair advantage is that plus, those pc's are quite pretty, since you could just stick them in the drawer... or underneath the desk...

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; MSN 9.0;MSN 9.1; MSNbVZ02; MSNmen-us; MSNcOTH; MPLUS)

[Mandrake]

A 64-bit PowerPC chip is still much faster than a 64-bit AMD64 chip.
In the event of the 32-bit G4, it's still faster than P4EE. That's just the difference between CISC and RISC.

Strange that here some older Pentium 4s (3.06 and 3Ghz) thrashed a dual processor 1.25Ghz G4 (Slightly slower dual processors would still be much faster than a single slightly faster processor).

As for the G5, the benchmarks are pretty even, with the Dual 2.5Ghz G5, the Athlon 64 FX 53 and Pentium 4 3.6Ghz or 3.4Ghz XE. Of course, you'll be able to get much better benchmarks with these processors when a 64bit version of Windows XP is released sometime next year, and all can be tested running in 64bit mode.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040911 Firefox/0.10.1

[Antony]

Jarrad,

you might want to re-read this post
And please remember to compare them in the same category, including the physical dimension.

That unfair article compares 800Mhz front side bus to the previous generation of PowerMac.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9

[Edward]

Why not a Mac OS vs. Linux thread?

UserAgent: Opera/7.54 (X11; Linux i586; U) [en]

[Mandrake]

Jarrad,

you might want to re-read this post
And please remember to compare them in the same category, including the physical dimension.

That unfair article compares 800Mhz front side bus to the previous generation of PowerMac.

It's not unfair at all. Now I'd expect a comparison with a G5, but at the time the article was written a 3.06 P4
and 1.25 G4 were the fastest machines that you could buy from either company, they tested both computers
with the same applications. That P4 they had was only a 533mhz FSB btw, the 2.4Ghz -> 3.2Ghz P4s with
the 800mhz FSB and HyperThreading were introduced a while after the 3.06Ghz.

As for that old 'Mhz Myth' video, it would have been helpful if they had told us what the task
actually was, and what other components were in these computers they tested with.

That guy acted like the long pipeline stage was responsible for slowing everything down and was the single
cause of high performance (he never mentioned the FSB, or the fact that the RDRAM the P4 used was MUCH
faster than the SDRAM the G4 used at the time). That said, Intel did say that the P4 was about 25% slower
than the P3 Mhz for Mhz, but because it could be scaled to over 3Ghz easily this was no problem.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

[Antony]

Who said Mac is more expensive and less applications?

Tera Patricks' Mac 360 shows you, Mac Users Sound Off On Mac vs. Dell Comparisons. (link to second page)
(8 Nov 2004)
Plenty of comparisons, both high end and load end.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Subir]

My two cents...

I think computers are just tools. As long as I can do my work (e.g. documents & spreadsheets) on it, I am as happy as dandy.

I am not one of thoose "Extreme Gamers" or anything. My computers are sufficent enough for my needs. Why waste good money on an expensive computer (not necesarily a Mac), when for £600 I can get one that is good enough for my needs?!?!

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

[Edward]

A computer will only do what you want it to do.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110

[dedanno]

I was very impressed reading though this debate.

Some of my comments are a little late, but here goes:

I have been a mac user for about 10 years, and have two macs at home (running panther) and a pc box at work (running xp). I find Windows to be a clunky operating system, and I hate the way it forces popups and balloons and *wizards* in my face telling me what it can do for me, or what I've done wrong. Apple expects their users to be pro-active: if the user wants something to be set up or modified, they are free to do so. Microsoft forces their customers to be reactive, by attempting to predict what the user wants to do, and slamming dialogue boxes in their face (I'm sure you're all familiar with the IE pop-ups about entering secure sites).

That being said, Apple and Microsoft are good for each other. Competition forces software and operating systems to improve. Both companies have obviously copied ideas from each other, and these have improved their products greatly. An example that comes to mind is the "Open With..." context menu that Apple put into OS X. This came straight from Windows but it was a necessary feature.

It is disappointing to see Apple not issuing two or three button mice with their computers, but I can understand their reasoning, and I appreciate that they still fully support these devices. I personally love my scroll wheel wheel and right click button.

The alt + Tab application switcher was not stolen from XP. It was actually implemented way back in OS 9.

Apple did release OS X early. But public testing is the fastest way to bring software past the beta stages. If a beta release of Long Horn was made available, I'm sure it would come onto the shelves much faster than the way it's going now.

Apple should not be charging as much as they are for the OS 10.x upgrades. They have virtually abandoned OS 10.1 and Jaguar (and OS 9, but this was necessary!) and should treat their customers with more loyalty by lowering the cost of the updates, and making money off the sales of new machines instead.

Someone said something about Apple losing a market share from 5% to 3%, and that being a 40% loss. This is not necessarily so. The 3 and 5% figures have obviously been rounded. It is possible, therefore that the real figues were closer to 3.4% and 4.5%, which brings the total loss towards 25%, much less than 40%.

A lot of this debate depends on how the machine running OS X or XP is set up. All these processor speed comparisons don't really matter; it's the way your computer is set up and used that will determine how fast it performs. And anyway, at the end of the day does it really matter that you've spent an extra 5 mins rendering? The fact is, that by the time you buy your computer, its successor has already been built and your machine is not the fastest. All this contradicting test data about processor speeds leads me to the conclusion that Macs and PCs perform at similar rates.

Cables? When strip down both PCs and Macs to a bare minimum, they're both fairly clean. My current setup is a mess, with my phone line and speakers and printer and iPod and DL burner all plugged into my iMac.

Mac OS X needs 512 Mb of memory to run? I have a five year old iMac with only 384 Mb of RAM and it runs very smoothly on Panther even when multitasking (and using exposé I might add).

Although this debate will never be decided, I do think Mac OS X is superior to Windows XP. My reason is stability (although I did find Jaguar more stable than Panther). The "Force Quit..." dialogue simply works when there is a hang, and you can recover immediately in OS X. The other day at work however, the XP task manager became listed as "Not Responding" when I tried to force Excell to quit. How can you end tasks when your task manager dies?

I will continue to support Apple. They're not perfect, but I believe they're thinking forwards, and so far it's been a smooth ride.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.7

[keith]

Hey. I joined this debate/discussion a little late, obviously, but heres the way i look at it. Because i have worked with the Windows OS so much, and so little with Mac, i am used to Windows. I know what its thinking, and whats going on, where as a mac, i am lost. and so tehrefore i prefer PC over Mac. thats my outlook on it.

Keith

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[izanbardprince]

So, Joe Blow upgrades from OS 9 to OS X, to 10.1 (Free) to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 (2004?) to 10.5 (2005?) - this means, if he pays $129 each time, he would have paid $645 to keep his Macintosh OS up to date.

Now Bob Jones upgrades to XP from Me, costs him $99. Then he upgrades to Longhorn Home in 2005 when it is released, it costs him another $99 - $645 compared to $198 to keep the OS up to date!.

I don't think a Windows Me era system would be appropriate to run Longhorn on when it comes out.

If you meant put together your own system for scratch and then buy the upgrade version of Longhorn and show it you have an old Me disc, then yeah, it's cheaper.

If they choose to include Me in their "upgrade path"

Otherwise you get to pay about $200 for the full version of Longhorn.

Also, are the point releases NECESSARY to maintain app compatability?

Otherwise the major upgrade cost between XP and Mac OS are comparable.

I do however agree that Apple should not charge for point releases as those are there to smooth out faults of THEIRS, not to add major functionality.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)