The G5 4 Ghz Apple Computer is a reality!

This isn't reality, it's fantasy...!

I fell sorry for you. I will NEVER buy a P4 system.I have a AMD system right now, and even it out performs a p4

Ah, I am assuming you meant *feel*

I have a P4 2.4 which I am on at this moment and it fast, stable and is fantastic in my opinion.

I also have various Intel and AMD systems I've put together and others that where taken as trade in's on network refab's.

P4 is a group os CPU's rated at various clock cycles, etc...
Stating AMD out runs Intel is like saying MAC beats PC or PC beats MAC.

System to system, Oranges to Oranges or as close as you can get is something to compare.

Besides each flavor has it's high points and low points.

Isn't it kind of saying, Imporats blow US cars away because yada yada ya, when it all comes down to personal choice and taste.

Heck if the I wants was all it is about, Santa I've been a good boy this year and I would like an SGI

Seems there was some 'creative accounting' in the benchmark tests...

ahhh yup

Simular of how defense contractors use creative pandering for a contract

the only staement I made was quoted from apple themselves.

Really...how about this?

Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one. The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.) And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4.

Apple didn't say that...

Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one.

I'm typing this on a more powerful PC right now. AthlonXP water-cooled at 2.8Ghz with 1GB of dual channel DDR running at 215Mhz. My system can EASILY eat both the G5 and a P4 for lunch and still have room for ice cream. Regardless, of my system being self-built and tweaked to the max, stock PC’s based on both Athlon and P4 procs will beat even the skewed results that Apple appears to have posted.

The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.)

I guess you’ve never heard of an Opteron or Itanium.

And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4.

Big deal...so does mine...and I have less than $1000 in it.

To Orion: who the hell cares? i was just trying to get the news out. I would like to be using a AMD 3000+ with 512 but I am using a older computer that has... well I will not say. Bottom line is ANYTHING is better than Intel. For the price of the 3 Ghz P4 I can build a complete AMD system.

You have your opinion, we have ours.
Personally AMD sucks big time. Its not what you have its what you do with it

I agree with you Dark Mist.

To Orion: who the hell cares?

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to upset you...I did use a in the original post. It was intended just to be friendly (albeit humorous) advice for the future so you don’t look silly. I guess it’s my pet peeve when someone states such things as if they were fact...my bad on that one. Statements like that don’t usually give one much credibility. As for anything being better than Intel, that’s hogwash. All three have their place in the world...and each is, in fact, the best at something.

Also, (not aimed at Kona) this garbage with benchmarks is ridiculous...just goes to prove that synthetic benchmarking sucks.

#2 by Developer wombat_1 - 6/24/2003 7:45:56 AM Convert that to roughly A$4000.00 and it's way too much for a fixed path system.

what is a fixed system? does that mean I can not add on stuff?

I never understood the push for higher and higher mhz when thier are other parts of the computer that make it faster or slower. What about the system BUS? What about the graphics card? What kind of hard drive is it using?

I think Apple's are ,ore expensive but are in allot of ways just as good as a PC (especially now with OS X)

PC's are cheaper and can run better than a MAC but the operative word is 'can'.

Personally, I see AMD processer chips as very good (and if it is about cost then its better than Intel but it is funny that they do not have more market share) and a Linux system as better and cheaper.

Anyway, I think I'll wait for the G5 thing to work itself out. As far as I am concerned depending on the computer configuration and the programs your going to run they all seem somewhat equal.

(PS, MAC's are not for rich people Keep in mind there was a time when PC's were for Rich people. Evn now if you want a top of the line pC you will spend more than 2000 USD)

Kind of ironic that the same people who expounded about the "Megahertz myth" would try to propogate that 64 bits is automatically better than 32 bits

ah, kimk, where applicable it is.

Servers, Workstations, Graphic Design systems will all make gains from 64bit CPU's and software. No myth about that, it's fact, but I do not see how the common consumer is going to gain from it.

Unless you have an application need for 64 bit, it pretty much turns into just being "Mines bigger than your's" kind of syndrome

'mine's'...

aardvark

hmmmm... isn't that why MAC's are preferred over PC's when it comes to graphics or 3D processing?

I wanted to switch to makes but after doing plenty of price hunting I found that Macs are way to expensive no matter where you buy them from. The ones I could afford were not exactly what I wanted in a computer so I stuck with the PC because I get more power for my money. I like being able to dual boot between Windows and Linux. At least I can run Windows natively on my PC while on a Mac Windows can only be run under an emulator.



[Message Edited]

hey tech here a fact you can't argue with...MACS RAELY BREAK DOWN if at all like PC do.......

I haven't had a PC break down on me yet.

Okay I have had a hard drive die on me before, but there is no difference between hard drives used by Macs and hard drives used by PCs. I remember I have asked a Mac user I know if he has ever had hard drives die on him and he has had it happen too.



[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

thats all good but go to your local pc repair shop and you will see 95% of those machines are PCs. no thanks. decides, linux might be good but OS X is more stable and has more programs for it. Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows.

For the record i am using a PC and XP.

Maybe 95% of the machines in the repair shop are PCs because the majority of computers used for home use are PCs. This does not prove that PC hardware is faultier than Mac hardware. Can you come up with better proof. Maybe perhaps take the number of PCs purchased in the last few months that broke down and divide that by the total number of PCs purchased in the last few months, then take the number of Macs in the last few months that broke down and divide that by the total number of Macs purchased in the last few months. Compare the two ratios. If on ratio is significantly larger than the other then the machine with the larger ratio is probably faultier, otherwise if there is not much difference between the two ratios then more than likely both PCs and Macs have the same quality of hardware.

We have both MAcs and PCs at work. Macs break down as much as PCs, and Macs crash as much as PCs. At least with OS 9 and Windows 9x. Now with OSX and XP, neither crash very often. They are both a very comparable system.

But two things that are true is that the Macs are faster, and that the Macs are more expensive. They Macs we have are dual 500 Mhz (for a total of 1 Ghz), and were purchased 2 yeras ago for a little $6,000 CA. On the other hand my 1.4 Ghz PC that we purchased around the same time was around $2,000. But sure, the Mac are much faster. We did a few test for fun. Photoshop opened twice as fast on the Macs. Openning a very large image was at least 3 times faster on the Macs. And finally, we applied a huge filter on a huge image. Well, hands down the Macs won. The filter was applied in 20 seconds on the Macs, while I Control-Alt-Deleted my Photoshop after 2 minutes, as it didn't seem to end.
But other than processor, the systems weren't conparable. The Macs have a SCSI hard drive, and about twice the RAM as my PC.

But I still prefer PCs.

I find it quite entertaining everytime when someone is trying to promote macs on a 99% windows/pc based site, nevertheless. And the greatest advantage of pc's is never discussed at all : Every machine I have owned since my very first pc in 1990 (a readymade one) was built together from single components I choosed myself. I wonder if this is possible with macs. (?)

Considering my beta testing of stuff [eg the 1240C temp and 21 hrs showing in the 12 hour clock] and constant shell manipulation/switching....and continually online and open to all sorts of crud in the form of virii etc....an uptime of 18 days 20 hrs and 43 minutes looks pretty bloody stable to me...

hey tech here a fact you can't argue with...MACS RAELY BREAK DOWN if at all like PC do.......

Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows.

Care to state the source of your "facts"? This is what I'm talking about kona. When you make statements like that, all you appear to be is uninformed and inexperienced. Both of your "facts" are complete and total hogwash. You sure as heck aren't going to convince anyone using "facts" that, in reality, are simply your distorted perceptions and opinions presented as “facts”. At least when I state something, it's based on 17 years of systems and network administration and a good 10 years prior to that of non-professional computer experience. I deal with a very heterogeneous enterprise environment and my experience has been that one platform is no more stable than the other. Largely, any instability is caused by the user, what they do, and what software they use…not the OS or the hardware.

You could build yourself a linux beowulf cluster with a good 16 processors which would be roughly 10 times as fast as that mac for $3000, provided you know what you're doing.

Just my thoughts, seems pertinent.

Ok il make things really simple, first fix windows put it on a mac , lower mac price everyone is happy.