I find it quite entertaining everytime when someone is trying to promote macs on a 99% windows/pc based site, nevertheless

I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.

Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news...

you people disgust me.

must be a MAC

just picking and not my nose, this time

I have also, each post returns an error.

You will get good and bad comments, just take it as it comes and chill, your not promoting...why blow a fuse right?

I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.

If Macs are so much better, then what are you doing on a Windows machine?

You're contradicting yourself again kona. You criticize Windows PCs and boast fabricated 'facts' about how much faster and more stable a Mac is, and then get upset when someone says you're pro-Mac. It doesn't matter that you use an XP PC, the fact is that you're promoting Macs, for whatever reason, with your comments and comparisons. Nobody's going to criticize you for liking Macs, as I'm sure a large proportion of people here feel the same, but you will create upset by bashing PCs without hard facts to back up your claims.

I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.

Your statements say otherwise. Here's a few:

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.

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.

Then we have:

Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news...

Just trying to report "news"....my butt! If you were simply trying to bring up the news, you would have simply posted a link and not started regurgitating Apple's FUD. Just let it go. You look more and more silly with each post.


Also, I've seen several incorrect references to combining processor speed in multi-processor systems. Example: 2x2Ghz processors does NOT equal 4Ghz in performance...not even close. First the OS must support SMP, then the application must support SMP (very few do). Even then, with both procs pegged at 100% usage, you won't see anywhere near a 4Ghz (clock) performance. Don't get me wrong, in the right conditions, have two or more procs is great, but you just can't add their clock speeds. (from my experience )

[Message Edited]

OK....

HEY EVERYONE I AM FULL OF SH** I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT

I hope that makes you all happy cause I am SICK of being yelled at and critized for my opinions and such. What I said about Macs being more stable is from my own user experience. I always thought Unix based was more stable but I guess I am wrong.

Why don't you guys pick on Apple themselves instead of me for saying all they did?

I take back all my stupid comments

Now leave me alone >

Calm down, kona....

Yes...historically, Unix-based systems were more stable than contemporary Windows OSs...but times change....Linux gets made to do more...to its peril...and Windows matures towards real stability.

Always remember that anything resembling a press-release is going to be slanted in favour of the product....Mac won't be claiming how inferior it is ....even if it were true...but WILL be claiming how superior it is...even if it IS false.

Before blindly following what you see posted on the net...remember the warning....

Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear.

It's a good maxim...

always thought Unix based was more stable but I guess I am wrong.

This is more about hardware than software. I use a Unix based OS called Mandrake Linux 9.1. Both Windows XP and Mandrake Linux have been pretty stable to me. Each has it's pros and cons, so I use both.

I get upset when people bash PCs especially if they are saying that PCs suck because of the blue screen of death in Windows 98. In that case it is a fault in Windows and not a fault in hardware.

Kona, I think the problem is not what you say, but how you say it. You state your opinions as "Fact"....If you would just start your sentences with "In my opinion" or "It is my understanding" you would not get such a negative reaction to your posts.

Someone needs to take up Yoga

Orion, I agree. But in the case I mentionned, the Dual 500Mhz G4's, they are running OSX (supports dual proc) and mainly use Photoshop (also support duals proc) and Quark XPress (not sure about that one).

I don't know if the combination of their two processors really equal 1Ghz or not, but I can tell you they are much faster than my P3 1.4 Ghz. But then again, as I said, they are 3 times the price.

Oh sure bring the Force into it...

waist a sec, Yoga not Yoda

I want a Lemond Titainum//Carbon "Arrive"
I did exchange and upgrade to a Fisher "Fast City" two days ago

They were designed on MAC's so it is not off topic

Hey, it could happen

Paxx: No argument there whatsoever. Mhz/Ghz is quite different between all these processors. Even when IPC (instructions per clock) is taken into account it's not 1 to 1. It doesn't shock me that your MAC was so much faster than your P3...I would expect that in the case you mentioned. Photoshop has historically done much better on a MAC. My comment about the 2x2Ghz != 4Ghz was aimed at same processor comparisons. I.E. G5 vs. G5, P4 vs. P4 etc.

hehe ppl burning out cause of mac. I use pc cause mac cant do half the stuff I do on a pc and easier to mod case... mmm case ararrahhhggg

Paxx Writes: But two things that are true is that the Macs are faster, and that the Macs are more expensive

Macs are faster? Than what? A slow PC? The fastest Mac is not faster than the fastest PC. And even for the Mhz they don't feel faster, that's for sure.

And the bang for the buck, like you mention, is not favorable to the Mac. I use my Mac to convert my home movies to DVD. It's a painful process and if I had to do it over again I would have bought a high end PC to do it because the Mac is so much slower.

OS X is very slick in a lot of ways, but it's definitely not fast.  My Mac is 800Mhz and it is definitely slower feeling than my 700Mhz laptop. A lot of that is because of the eye candy they have on there.

I want a Lemond Titainum//Carbon "Arrive" I did exchange and upgrade to a Fisher "Fast City" two days ago

Three words for you: road bikes suck.

Road bikes aren't the problem, it's the riders - I can't have any respect for blokes who shave their legs...

I have no respect for any bike with skinny tires or the riders... especially lance armstong. I hate lance. he is not God.

There is only one type of bikes in my house and they all have 2.3 inch tires with big knobbies.

Nuff said, sorry to hijack my own thread

Eye candy does tend to slow down OS performance. For example, when you load up Windows with all kinds of themes and visual effects like WindowsFX, X Desktop, and Object Dock: Windows slows down. Linux is even faster because you can turn off all eye candy and other features that slow down OS performance. Now I wonder wether a Mac or a PC would be faster if you load both with the same Linux distro (a version for PC and a version for Mac). I am sure that such a test would still prove that the fastest PCs beat the fastest Macs.

hey tech, I really want to install linux. what distro you recommend?

I recommend Mandrake because it supports the most hardware. If you do decide to support Mandrake by purchasing, get one of the power packs. The standard version has the compilers needed to compile softare straight from source removed. The standard version is just a dumbed down version that only offers compatibility with RPM packages for software installation. Experiment with different distros and use the distro you like best or works best for you.

All i can say is "who cares?" as far as i know stardocks products only run on Windows systems !!
and this being stardock site why would we give a Dam about Apples G5s

Don't listen to David....he's a Tasmanian....and it's the wrong head doing the talking.....[actually, I'm a King Islander so I'm allowed to be nasty]...

Macs are faster? Than what? A slow PC?

Brad, as I said. A Dual 500Mhz G4 running OS 9 is faster than a P4 1.4 Ghrz. Much faster.
Opening Photoshop, openning a 1 Gig PSD, were 2 to 3 times faster on the Mac. But this could be in part because the speed of HD access is faster on SCSI. So we played the filter test. A large radiant blur on that same 1 Gig image. We figured that kind of operation was almost all processor power in action. Well, as I said the Mac did it rather fast, while I had to Ctrl-Alt-Del Photoshop on mine after a few minutes.