SillyDog701

by **Mandrake** » Fri 31 Jan, 2003 4:33 am

Preformance would be on par, roughly. I would predict the Pentium 4 CPU to run better in games, but the mac to run better in things like Photoshop.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030129

by **DJGM** » Fri 31 Jan, 2003 11:41 am

The following was written about 18 months ago . . .

LowEndMac.com wrote:G4 vs. Pentium 4

How does an 867 MHz G4 compare with a 1.7 GHz P4, the
fastest Intel CPU currently available on the open market.
The two computers had exactly the same hard drives
and other components, as far as possible.

The first demo rendered an NTSC video - and the G4
smoked the Pentium, completing the job over twice
as fast. Then on to Photoshop. Same old story.

MHz isn't everything. In fact, the G4/867 is 84%
faster than the P4/1.7 at rendering exactly the
same Photoshop project.

So, the G4 Mac CPU, is clearly the runaway winner, when working on
a digital video project or (as you said) a Photoshop project. The only
thing that makes a PC a better machine for games, is that there's a
much wider range of games for Wintel PC's, than there is for Macs.
Of course, if all you want is a computer for playing games, don't
buy a PC or a Mac. Save yourself a few hundred (Â£-$-â‚¬) and get
a dedicated gaming machine, like X-Box, PS-2 or a GameCube!

As for overall performance, again the G4 will outclass the P4, due to
the more efficient way in which the G4 CPU processes data. As they
used to say in the L'Oreal ads on TV, here's comes the science bit!

LowEndMac.com wrote:MHz Does Not Equal Performance

Shooting down the MHz Myth, there are 4
factors that contribute to performance:

process:
G4, P4, Itanium, and UltraSparc are all 0.18 micron designs

size:
the G4 is much smaller physically than the P4

pipeline:
G4 has a seven-stage pipeline, while the P4 has 20
stages. It takes more cycles to complete a longer
pipleline. (With Itanium, Intel has dropped to 10
pipeline stages at 800 MHz.)

cache:
pretty much the same for all processors

Of course, two 800 MHz G4s (referring to dual CPU's) are even faster!

This information proves that even though Macs have an apparently slower
processor, Macintosh computers will always be technically superior to PC's!
(If only Macs weren't so damn expensive, they'd certainly sell a lot more than they do now . . . !)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)

by **Mandrake** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 4:27 am

How bout I get an Athlon 2700 XP, with a gig of DDR ram, and a GeForce Ti4600? Beat that with a mac!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030129

by **DJGM** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 7:19 am

Now you're being silly, or overly optimistic! Anyway, that's just SO easy,
A PowerMac G4 with about 1GB of SDRAM, or about 512MB of DDR RAM,
installed, would literally leave the Athlon XP2700 system standing at the
altar! This is with just with a single 1.42Ghz G4 CPU, not one of those
dual 1.42Ghz CPU G4 systems. Any Pentium and/or Athlon, would
need to have smashed through the 4Ghz barrier with about 1.5GB
of RAM, before it can dream of beating a dual 1.42Ghz G4 CPU!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20030101 Phoenix/0.5

by **Mandrake** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 9:23 am

Fine then Mr DJGM. Beat this: This is the fastest computer I have ever seen. Its a Quad Processor Sun Workstation, Ultra Sparc 2, with 8gb of ram. Try beating that with any apple processor

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030129

by **DJGM** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 11:39 am

Well that obviously outshines both PC and Macs put together, and as it's
not a machine that's generally designed for homes as well as business
use, that "industrial strength" Sun Workstation isn't a fair comparison.

That's like putting an 64bit Itanium machine up against an old Amiga!
:roll:

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20030101 Phoenix/0.5

by **Shark Daddy** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 1:37 pm

Those are very misleading. G4s I admit are better in some ways, but in the end it still does come down to clock speed (for me at least, being an avid gamer). If you are doing math calculations (i.e. some programs) and/or image editing and/or 3D CADing, a G4 is a good choice. Otherwise, unless you're an AOL-using n00b, there's no real reason to get a Mac (well, that's a bit biased, but really, there isn't a good argument for Macs other than their prettyness and ease of use). Mac OS X is a good start to get Apple competitive again, but it's got a while to go. And talking about same HD and memory in that test is also misleading as both are less efficient on Macs. Oh well, I guess I'm just bitter that I can't use my iSomething.

I'm sorry to say, but since Apple takes over your Mac in more ways than Microsoft your computer, there is no diversity or competition in that niche, and no possible way one line of machines can compete with my computers.

/me ducks

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030125

by **Mr. Tinkles** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 1:44 pm

DJGM wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Ah, still Linux

Linux is good. Although Linux is not UNIX, but is only based upon UNIX, in
much the same way as Mac OS X is based upon UNIX. Oh, and Macs can
run Linux, so you don't really have to use Mac OS X, if you want to run
a stable and up to date UNIX based operating system on a Macintosh.

Actually, I would say Apple is closer to Unix than Linux is. FreeBSD, which Apple OS X is based on, is about as close to Unix as you can get. Btw, Apple now offers an X11 system for Mac OS X. I bet you could run a unix build of Netscape (or any other unix type X11 app) on Mac now!! I'll tell ya, more and more, I am thinking my next system should be a Mac

http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/

Note: Edited content moments after initial post.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131

by **Mandrake** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 7:00 pm

I actually had a friend that said What? Your Sun Workstation is only that fast? Thats slow. He actually thought that 1mhz of UltraSparc is equal to 1 mhz of x86 lol

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131

by **Antony** » Sat 01 Feb, 2003 11:33 pm

You can't beat the stylish (or sexy) looking of a new Mac.
Simple and elegant.

G4 Cube is still in the top list.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)

by **Edward** » Sun 02 Feb, 2003 8:40 pm

Any thoughts on this computer?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

by **Antony** » Sun 02 Feb, 2003 8:58 pm

Edward wrote:Any thoughts on this computer?

Ed, we look at outside of the computer.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)

by **DJGM** » Sun 02 Feb, 2003 9:18 pm

Ideally, this particular computer doesn't HAVE an outside! It seems to me,
to be a special mainboard you put inside an ATX PC tower case, and it acts
as a modern day harware emulation of the 1980's home micro-computer,
the Commodore 64. It seems to run only a specific type of OS, the type
of which is perhaps a modern day variation of the OS that used to run on
the C-64, but by today's standard, especially compared with modern OSes
like Windows, Mac OS X, and UNIX variants like Linux and BSD, technically,
is obsolete, and rather useless, if you don't have a C-64 micro-computer!

I had the Amstrad CPC464 micro-computer during the 1980's, and I always
considered it technically superior to the C-64. Nearly 20 yrs later, I still do!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)

by **Edward** » Sun 02 Feb, 2003 9:36 pm

DJGM wrote:Ideally, this particular computer doesn't HAVE an outside! It seems to me,
to be a special mainboard you put inside an ATX PC tower case, and it acts
as a modern day harware emulation of the 1980's home micro-computer,
the Commodore 64. It seems to run only a specific type of OS, the type
of which is perhaps a modern day variation of the OS that used to run on
the C-64, but by today's standard, especially compared with modern OSes
like Windows, Mac OS X, and UNIX variants like Linux and BSD, technically,
is obsolete, and rather useless, if you don't have a C-64 micro-computer!

I had the Amstrad CPC464 micro-computer during the 1980's, and I always
considered it technically superior to the C-64. Nearly 20 yrs later, I still do!

The C=64 ran both BASIC and machine language programs. The user had to tell it what type of program it was:

Code: Select all: LOAD "SILLYDOG",8

for a BASIC program, and

Code: Select all: LOAD "SILLYDOG",8,1

for a machine language program.

(where 8 was the disk drive number)

OTOH, GEOS was a great GUI on the C=64, I enjoyed using it. On the Commodore, GEOS was definitely a big plus.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

by **DJGM** » Mon 03 Feb, 2003 4:59 pm

Shark Daddy wrote:Those are very misleading. G4s I admit are better in some
ways, but in the end it still does come down to clock speed

Er, no. it is not down to clock speed at all. Please re-read my previous
post where I've quoted about "MHz Does Not Equal Performance". Also,
read the following, taken from http://apple.com/pwermac/processor.html . . .

Apple Computer wrote:The Velocity Engine
Behind the PowerPC G4â€™s phenomenal performance is its aptly
named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in
huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit
chunks used in traditional processors (itâ€™s the 128-bit vector
processing technology used in scientific supercomputers -
except that weâ€™ve added 162 new instructions to speed
up computations). In addition, the PowerPC G4 can
perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point
calculations in a single cycle â€” two to four times faster
than processors found in PCs.

Shark Daddy wrote:I'm sorry to say, but since Apple takes over your Mac in more
ways than Microsoft your computer, there is no diversity or
competition in that niche, and no possible way one line of
machines can compete with my computers.

Now that's just complete rubbish! If you have a Mac with Mac OS X, and
the bundled "iApps" like iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, etc . . . and the new Safari
web browser, you can easily remove any of these iApps if, for whatever
reason you decide you don't want to use of them. Doing so, won't cause
any harm to either the OS or the computer. Try removing all the junk
that Microsoft bundle with Windows XP as easily. Then see how long it
takes forWindows to complain that essential system are missing and
you need to insert your Windows CD to restore them. If Apple took
over your Mac in a way that's worse than the way Microsoft apps
take over your PC, removal of the iApps would most likley cause
serious system problems, forcing a total re-install of Mac OS X!
To say Apple take over your Mac in a way that's comparable to,
or even worse than MS apps bundled with WindowsXP taking
over your PC, is rather a stupid and very ignorant argument.
As for competition, MS considers that to be a very bad word!

Ok, rant over . . . let's carry on regardless . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030203 Phoenix/0.5

SillyDog701

The most useful keyboard

Who is online