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 hartlandcat » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 1:45 pm

Mandrake wrote:Perhaps I should have worded that better, but I mean to say that OS X needs a G3 or better. That means, older Macs are cut off from using OS X. Particularly 604e PPC Macs.

Try running Windows XP on a Pentium I. Okay, so it might *work*, but it'll be very slow.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85
Mac OS X Panther :: iBook G4
My SF Site | My Browser Reference Chart
User avatar
hartlandcat
silver member
silver member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 8:51 am
Location: England

Postby DJGM » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 2:19 pm

More to the point . . . try running Windows XP on a 486! It'd go into meltdown!
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Mandrake » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 5:51 pm

I have, personally, seen Windows XP Professional running on a 486 DX2/66mhz with 64mb of ram, it ran, although it was incredibly slow. After turning off virtually every service and things like prefetch it was still a little better, but it was like running Windows 95 on a machine with ony 4mb of ram VERY slow!

Then we tried another machine: A Pentium 133mhz with 512mb ram and a GeForce 4 Ti4600. That machine was actually suprisingly usable.

The 604e was used in 1997, and you cannot run Mac OS X on it without installing a new processor then some third party hacks to make it work. On the other hand, a Pentium 2 - 266mhz with enough ram and a decent vid card, and a bit of tweaking can be set to use Windows 2000 or XP fine.

I believe PCs have more life, if this doesn't prove it, then what does?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Mandrake » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 6:13 pm

Market share is almost everything Antony, while computers sales in general have risen massively since 10 years ago, Apple's popularity has dropped to 1/4 of what it was!

Alright, a Mac costs say $3500, for a half decent one, a PC similarly configured costs $1500 - I have $2000 left over, whether I have slightly better software on the Mac or not is irrelevant. I can get Office 2003 installed by the OEM for $350, still got $1650, I can buy Adobe Photoshop Album, all of that kind of software, and for the same price - I have *better* software than what you get on the Mac, *and* MS Office. (Prices in AUD)

Windows 95 was hardly a ripoff of Mac OS, which was at version 7 at the time I believe. Windows 95 blew MacOS 7 away, as did the other various releases of Windows, until Apple releases a beta quality OS, OS 10.0, a few months later Microsoft releases Windows XP, good quality software, not beta quality. Then Apple fixes OS X with 10.1 so it is usable - but then makes you pay $129 USD for it! That'd be like MS saying 'Pay up!' every time a Service Pack was released. If someone buys a computer just before a new version of Windows is released, you generally get a free upgrade. If it was a while before the new version, say Windows ME on your Dell, you pay $99 USD for the upgrade to XP Home, and that's all you pay until Longhorn! Then Apple, unfairly trying to maximize profits by making their users pay every year if they want the latest updates.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 1:48 am

A few posts back,
Mandrake wrote:As for the Mac, they have totally switched code bases, meaning people had to use Classic Mode emulation, much slower than normal apps.
I am afraid, you are wrong again.
Classic Mode is not an emulation, it it a few Classic (a.k.a. Mac OS 9) running under OS X. So all the applications written for OS 9 can still run under Mac OS X smoothly and independently.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15226
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 2:10 am

I'm afraid you are wrong. I tried loading Netscape Communicator on an iMac with 320mb of ram, running OS X 10.1.5 (NOT 10.5! :wink:) It did not run smoothly, the machine had to loaded literally an entire OS to launch Communicator. It took rougly a minute to load the Classic Mode, then the time to load Communicator. Communicator loads insantly under Windows XP on my computer, and in roughly five seconds on my old Windows 95 machine. Compared to an entire minute under OS X? Not very smooth. This proves PCs have far better application compatability, infact Microsoft recently showed off VisiOn Calc, a 20+ year old spreadsheet application running perfectly under the 'PDC' Longhorn Alpha build.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 2:30 am

Well, you don't count Classical Environment loading time as your application launching time, do you?

There are a few setting in the Preference for the Classical Environment.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15226
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 2:51 am

You may not count it in the application loading time, but it is extra stuff that has to be loaded, resulting in wasted time, and having another OS loaded takes up a LOT of memory.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 3:01 am

Mandrake wrote:the machine had to loaded literally an entire OS to launch Communicator.
That's the art of it. Running in the real environment, the environment is nicely integrated.

If you let Classic Environment load into OS at time of booting up your Mac OS X.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15226
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 9:08 am

It's still pointless. If I tell it load it at Startup, I am adding time to the boot time, which is not a good thing. With Windows XP, I can run virtually any Windows or DOS application without doing a thing. Sometimes you need to set compatability mode to an earlier version of Windows, that's all. It does not load any old version of Windows if you do that, unlike OS X .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby hartlandcat » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 3:20 pm

Mandrake wrote:The 604e was used in 1997, and you cannot run Mac OS X on it without installing a new processor then some third party hacks to make it work.

I find it somehow unlikely that someone using a 7-year-old beige Mac is going to be particularly bothered about whether they have the latest version of their OS or not.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85
Mac OS X Panther :: iBook G4
My SF Site | My Browser Reference Chart
User avatar
hartlandcat
silver member
silver member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 8:51 am
Location: England

Postby Mandrake » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 7:16 pm

Merely making a point, because, a machine from back then CAN run Windows 2000 or XP with just a bit of extra memory. Those Macs, based on the 604e PPC processor went as high as 350mhz, but OS X will still not run on them, pretty shoddy if you ask me. This was just in response into Antony's claim that Macs have a longer life-span that PCs.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 7:58 pm

Mandrake wrote:This was just in response into Antony's claim that Macs have a longer life-span that PCs.
Longer life-span does not indicate you need to run whichever the latest operating systems or applications.

Most people don't need to run the latest version of software, I don't.

Okay back to topic, back in 2000, when I was in University of Auckland, computer and mathematics departments were still using Macintosh Classic and Macintosh LCs to handle booking of computers and queuing of printing jobs.
Using IBM-compatible XT to do such job? Forget about it.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15226
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Antony » Wed 10 Dec, 2003 8:43 pm

Mandrake wrote:Alright, a Mac costs say $3500, for a half decent one, a PC similarly configured costs $1500 - I have $2000 left over, whether I have slightly better software on the Mac or not is irrelevant.
...
So you are comparing an out-of-shelf Macintosh from Apple Computers with unknown branded or home-built PC?

Check the price from HP, not much cheaper.

Why don't you take A$1,349(*) eMac which is a digital hub already, plugs in and it really plays.
(*) list price. Not bargained price.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15226
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Thu 11 Dec, 2003 6:38 pm

I was considering a price from Dell Computer.

Here we go, from PC Authority Australia, January 2004 issue.

Dimension 8300

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz with HyperThreading
WinXP Home Edition
1GB Memory
80GB HD
128mb DDR GeForce FX 5200
Sound Blaster Live 5.1 Surround Sound
48X Max CD-RW
16X Max DVD-Rom
19" CRT Monitor
5.1 Sound System with Subwoofer
56k Modem

For $1999 AUD. I'd love you to try and find a Mac with nearly that much power for a price near that.

Then for half that price Dell has another computer:

Dimension 2400

Intel Pentium 4 2.26GHz
512mb DDR Ram (That 20" iMac still only has 256mb)
40GB
Intergrated Graphics
48X Max CD-RW
17" CRT Monitor

For $999, I don't think Apple has a budget Mac near that price. Dell also has a 3.2Ghz P4 for $2700, with an ATi Radeon 9800 XT card in it. Meanwhile, in an effort to keep an already overpriced box (G5) cheaper, Apple cuts costs by only putting a mid-range ATi Radeon 9600 in, rather than a 9800 like Dell.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]
cron