I'm 31 and an old school geek who started on computers with an Atari 800 as a kid. Growing up moved me into PC land until I became a "Switcher" before being a "Switcher" was cool. That's right - I got an original iMac when they first came out and I never looked back. I write software, and I bought the iMac thinking it was time to expand my horizons and maybe make a few more dollars by selling software on both platforms.
Post a Comment
One thing is sure, is that the experience you have with a computer isn't tied to the processor's speed :-)
And in fact, I think the recent processors, both PPC and x86, are largelly "fast enough" for the user. You don't see much a difference (in use) between them. Of course, in pure raw speed, x86 could be better, or the reverse (with G5) ... but it's irrelevant.
The user experience isn't much dependant of the processor now. What matters is more the graphic card, the subsystem IO, the hard disk... A computer is a sum, it's not simply the processor. My Indigo2 feels incredibly reactive for example ...
That's why what I love with the last apple's computers (G5) is the overall design, not just the processors. Much more bandwidth. Of course, you could (or you will be able to) build an x86 with a similar design (HyperTransfert, etc). But what's important is that the G5 for example are everything good already included. Apple's computers are very well engineered in general and feels integrated.
And MacOS X is a really good OS (Cocoa is a pleasure for development) -- even if I'm using debian most of the time :-)
You do know the frame rate is set at 80fps max in a configuration file which you have to edit before hand?
I know that a 2.4Ghz Pentium beats that Mac. I own a G4 and my Athlon 1.2Ghz has a better frame rate in Q3 than the G4 does. By far even.
Nice to see a realistic comparision rather than one fan boys scream at another fan boy about how great their GeForce 3 Trillion works better than their friends Radeon 2 Zillion.
RE: Nicolas Roard (IP: ---.net1.nerim.net
I agree, I'm a switcher, however, I chose to switch way before Steve Jobs hyped the idea. The choice was between a SUN Blade 150 or an Apple Mac. After having a look at what both provided, the software available and any other issues that could be taken into account, I chose to move to the Mac, and IMHO I don't regret the move.
You do know the frame rate is set at 80fps max in a configuration file which you have to edit before hand?
What is your point? We are talking about Joe Average. Joe average doesn't give a shit about text files and other crap, Joe average wants to use their game out of the box.
If there is a 80fps limitation, who gives a shit? what is the likelihood that Joe Gamer Fanboy can be bothered stuffing around.
I know that a 2.4Ghz Pentium beats that Mac. I own a G4 and my Athlon 1.2Ghz has a better frame rate in Q3 than the G4 does. By far even.
Please enlighten us as to the specifications of both your G4 and the Athalon. Since you are saying that your PC blows away your Mac, but the author is saying the exact opposite, perhaps there is something about the specs of your mac and your pc. Further, I would also be curious about what OSes you are running. If you are running OS X 10.0 on your mac, then I know immediately what the problem is.
Please note that what I wrote may seem as though I am sceptical of your claims. I really am curious what you are running and how it would compare to the author's system. I am considering getting a mac myself. What input you have may help me alter my specs a little.
--- "I own a G4 and my Athlon 1.2Ghz has a better frame rate in Q3 than the G4 does."
What speed is the G4?
Sean,
Congratulations on your wonderful ability to believe stuff that has no basis in reality. Yep, Mac 800Mhz is as fast as p4/2.4Ghz. You are right, megahertz are not everything. There is the memory speed, the bus speeds, etc... Compare the specs, will you? A standard p4/2.4Ghz Dell has a better spec all around. Assuming you are writing the truth, there can only be one explanation for the dismal performance of the 2.4Ghz box: you bought cheap components. Particularly you may have purchased the cheap (and slow) SDRAM instead of DDR or RDRAM memory. In a PC (as in iMac), often the slowest part determines the speed of the entire machine.
As someone here pointed out, there is a max frame rate. Otherwise, you are ignoring many benchmarks done by various outfits over the last year.
For games it's more about the video card than the CPU so tell us what your 1.2 GHZ system has as a graphics card.
FYI. He said it's a dual 800 G4. Depending on the application etc. it might be faster at times as a single 2.5 GHz P4.
It will completely bury the Pentium when doing RC5 cracking BTW (but that's one of the few thing where the G4 extraordinarily shines--call me unfair, biased etc).
I too am a switcher (and i did it long before that campaign started) and i've found that my G4 has matched and exceeded several of my friends Athlon boxes. SETI@home gets done much faster on my G4 than my friends pc's which run at more than 2x the mhz.
As people have noted above the processor speeds today almost don't matter that much. The only things that make me care about speed a lot are when I compile an app in cocoa,use virtul pc, or play a game (like Jedi Knight 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, etc.) My mac has always performed well against the pc's on campus even if it's mhz isn't near the pc's clock speed.
...exactly my own situation. Except that I didn't bought an iMac first - i bought a PowerBook. And in the meantime I don't own a PC anymore. In my "best PC times" I owned twelve (!). The only PC-usage I do today is at work. I am a Java (J2EE) and Web developer at the moment, doing work for large companies like DaimlerChrysler. And my Powerbook is always with me at work.
Yes, and I enjoy it at the end of the day when it's time to go home and playing on my Power Mac :-)
Ralf.
Sean has summed the experience of a lot of people I know. The look, feel and general reliability of the Mac often makes it a much preferred solution to all of the blitzing power available on PCs. Windows is often a frustrating platform to deal with, even just as a user. My Mac and my PC sit side by side on my desk, networked, doing lots of jobs together but the PC is the one most likely to hang. And this remains my experience in many of the studios I go into as a consultant.
I'm really curious as to how this is an equal comparison.
It compares a dual G4 800 to a single P4 2.4.
I don't really know any of the details, but I'm sure many factors are now introduced that a second proc is involved. How about context switches. Q3's usage of threads...
Yes, the megahertz myth is a myth. More Mhz != better performance. However this is really an odd way to go about demonstrating it. Why toss in extra variables?
Yamin
You have no clue on Computer Hardware.
It is Apple that is using PC hardware and not PC is trying to catch up to the Mac. Apple has not invented anything for the past 5 years. What they have done so far is taking the latest PC hardware and installing it in the Cooler Master Case with Apple LOGO, nothing more.
Just so you know the G-5 is driven by the AMD Chip set.
AGP, PCI, USB, Came from Intel. And as far as SPEED.
Your Duel 800Mhz G-4 is no were near as fast as P4 2.4 GHz CPU. Try rendering in Maya or Lightwave. Mac is also very slow in gaming. That is the proven Fact, but then again you Mac people have no clue about hardware and where it came from.
Do a little homework first.
When will people get it. Mhz is a myth.
I think it is hilarious when PC zealots come out and point at clock speeds and think that because a PC is running at 2.4 Ghz and a Mac G4 is running with 1.25 Ghz that the PC is faster. Yes, bussing makes a real difference. That is why I can't wait for the G5s to start shipping. PCs will look like total dinosaurs. Is there a 1 Ghz bus on P4s. No. Do most PC manufacturers offer DDR 400 as memory. Not really.
There may be times that Macs will be slower than PCs. I'll grant that. But pointing out the pro-pc comments made earlier, bussing makes big differences and the G5s are loaded on bandwidth.
Its also really funny when your realize that PC zealots make fun of macs and haven't really tried them. If they did, you usually find out it was a lower end mac several years ago and they are comparing it to their PC that they just got through building with all new hardware. Oh...that's the other thing. The upgrade cycles I see with blinders-on PC users.
I use a PC myself. Why? I made a foolish mistake when I bought my computer. I was thinking about the software I already had...which I later ended up buying upgrades for anyhow. If I had stopped and thought for a minute, I would have realized that I could have just thrown anthing I needed that was a PC title at VirtualPC. Not to mention that I could have bought any Mac OS X native titles at a discount either through school, friends at software companies, etc.
Luckily at work I get to use a G4 400 Mhz powerbook in addition to the P4 2.53 Ghz system that I have at the office. Guess what. When I am working on video rendering and web browsing the powerbook runs circles around the PC. Plus for some damned reason the PC likes to blow up when you have a few browser windows open, are working with Dreamweaver, and are trying to write an email. The little, and what PC zealots call "slow", powerbook does the same things just fine. No crashing unlike XP. Oh...and at the same time, the powerbook has Final Cut pro working on a video.
Go ahead, PC guys. Laugh it up at a totally superficially based comparison. Mhz means nothing. Bandwidth is important, and G4s don't have the bandwidth that PCs do...yet they seems to be able to get more things done. When the G5s hit the shelves, PC zealots will be crying about their pathetic 533 Mhz fsb when compared to the 1 Ghz FSB on Macs.
As usual, any time OSNews posts an article that's favorable to the Mac platform -- especially one written by "Joe User" -- the skeptics and trolls ooze out of the woodwork and sputter nonsense like:
You don't know what you're doing.
You're lying, or under Steve's RDF.
Your PC must have crappy components.
Some text file wasn't configured right.
My Mac is unbelievably slow compared to my blazing fast PC.
Benchmarks prove you wrong, you dolt.
You're just trying to publicize your Web site.
Etc., etc.
You know, you should really pick up Scott Kelby's book "Macintosh: the Naked Truth". Pretty much every single argument you can make has already been made. There is no original thought here. And you know what? Nobody cares, except other PC trolls.
Bye. Bye.
Thank you.
Jared
Go ahead, PC guys. Laugh it up at a totally superficially based comparison. Mhz means nothing. Bandwidth is important, and G4s don't have the bandwidth that PCs do...yet they seems to be able to get more things done. When the G5s hit the shelves, PC zealots will be crying about their pathetic 533 Mhz fsb when compared to the 1 Ghz FSB on Macs
MAC?
What makes G-5 a MAC?
All hardware came from PC side.
While I'm tempted to troll on your poor sentence construction and your peculiar insistence on capitalizing MAC as if it were an acronym (clue to the clue-impaired: the brand name is "Macintosh," and "Mac" is short for that), I'll just bash you for this kind of ridiculous question. Um, what makes it a Mac is that it's an Apple computer running an Apple operating system, and it's branded "Apple Macintosh." (What makes a Dell a Dell as distinct from an HP? It's like that, but more so.) The assertion that the G5 case is a "Cooler Master Case" shows you have no clue about one or both of those cases (oh, look, they're both aluminum! they must be the same!).
As for the observation that the G5 is using standards like the Intel-designed PCI and USB, and the AMD co-designed HyperTransport, one has to ask: so what? Isn't this like Apple partisans obsessing over the fact that PCs use the Apple-designed FireWire, Windows uses the Apple-designed TrueType font standard and, oh, little things like GUIs and mice that were first readily available on Macs? And for that matter, if Apple was using some modern versions of ADB, NuBus and other Apple-only standards, would you be applauding them--or would you be bashing them for being proprietary? Isn't your only point here just to bash Apple?
I think we know that answer already, though.
That was a bunch of silly ramblings from a disguised Mac fanatic.
When OS X has a better interface, better graphics drivers, etc. than Linux, then maybe I'll be a "switcher". I highly doubt that will ever succeed. Linux is just too far ahead of the competition. M$ is spending billions on research just to catch up to where Linux was a couple of years ago.
"Just so you know the G-5 is driven by the AMD Chip set.
AGP, PCI, USB, Came from Intel. And as far as SPEED..."
Wrong. The G5 features a system controller developed by Apple, manufactured by IBM. The I/O subsystem uses HyperTransport, which was originally developed by AMD (AFAIK) but is now an open standard shepherded by a non-profit organization of which Apple is a member.
USB was going nowhere until Apple adopted it as the sole external peripheral connector in the original iMac. Apple pushed USB like crazy and practically forced manufacturers to support it on the Mac -- thereby laying the groundwork for the later PC USB revolution. Same thing happened with 802.11b. Apple released Airport at a time when wireless networking was almost unknown among the masses. They spearheaded the WiFi revolution.
Let's see, Apple also INVENTED Firewire, Rendezvous (well, an Apple employee did in his spare time initially), and released the world's most compact yet large-capacity and full-featured digital music player: the iPod. There's still no better player at that size on the market today.
Apple even switched over to an all flat-panel display lineup when CRTs were still in vogue, thereby making a firm commitment to LCD technology. It may have taken a little time for an LCD iMac to appear, but it was well worth the wait: it's still the most innovative all-in-one computer and display mount system on the planet.
So, as usual, the PC troll has got it wrong, i. e., has no clue about hardware and where it came from.
Do a little homework first.
Jared
MAC?
What makes G-5 a MAC?
All hardware came from PC side.
Could you try and counter what I just stated with a question that is actually more related to what I actually wrote?
Yes, I know that the components that make up a Mac motherboard are the same ones you find in x86 PCs. However, nowhere in the x86 pc industry will you find a 1 Ghz fsb. Apple has that. Nobody else.
Further, what really makes Macs different is a two-fold question.
First there is the processor. Sorry, but if you know the architecture of x86 PCs vs. Macs, then you know that the entire concept behind the x86 is flawed. Why? x86 (CISC) based computers have mixed instruction lengths. Macs do not. Why is that important? Because CISC based computers end up with missmatched instruction execution times. Data flows through an x86 at different intervals. When you have several instrcutions getting passed through the CPU, x86 machines end up with the instructions processed at different times though they may all be part of one task in an operating system (opening a window for example).
When you compare that to a Mac, the instructions are of equal length. They are processed at the same time. There are no mismatched execution times for instructions. Hence things run more smoothly and actually yield higher performance. BTW, think about supercomputers for a minute. Can you really think of a supercomputer that is based on x86? And please don't bring up Beowulf clusters - they are not supercomputers - they are distributed computing systems. There is a reason that supercomputers DO NOT use x86...they use RISC processing because it is MUCH smoother and yields a higher performance even at lower clock cycles.
The second part is the OS. OS X was designed to work with one platform and one alone - the Mac. x86 based oses have a huge problem to contend with - hardware. There is so much in the way of hardware that it is difficult for x86 oses to have all the drivers needed to properly support the hardware. Macs don't really have that problem because there is one provider for the software...Apple. Yes, NVidia may make the video cards for PowerMacs, but Apple has full control over how the OS, the driver, and ultimately the hardware interact. Thus you end up with an overall higher quality product being produced. To sum up, quality control. Macs have it, PCs don't.
The PC is a 2.4GHz Intel (possibly a Celeron rather than the much faster P4).
How much RAM and what speed? Hard drive type? Motherboard model?
No specs for the G4 except dual 800MHZ.
Which OSes were used?
That was a bunch of silly ramblings from a disguised Mac fanatic.
When OS X has a better interface, better graphics drivers, etc. than Linux, then maybe I'll be a "switcher". I highly doubt that will ever succeed. Linux is just too far ahead of the competition. M$ is spending billions on research just to catch up to where Linux was a couple of years ago.
Honnestly, OS X has a far better interface than linux, you can't deny it. But anyway, not using OS X don't prevent you to use Apple hardware :-)
I personally rarely use OSX (sometimes to check things on IB, or use Keynote or Omnigraffle) and 98% of my time I'm using GNU/Linux, debian/ppc ...
I had previously a pc notebook. Well, all I can say is that I'm really happy with my ibook, and my next notebook will surely be a mac. Not using OS X and using linux only doesn't prevents you to use their nice hardware :-)
Interesting opinion... I think your comment about "PC upgrade" cycles is about the first intelligent thing I've read in a MacOS related news article for a while now. It does cost quite a bit to keep up to date these days with all the software etc. (Ie, 98 to 2000 to XP, plus all those .1 or whole new versions of software, or Symantec's update every year subscription deal). (NB: most of my PC friends never have bought any software that I know of, unless it was freebie stuff with hardware).
In any case, people should use the tool for the job. The famous saying "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is indicative of people who always push one type of OS/hardware combos. (That's both Mac and PC users...) These days, the best know how to get the job done on what's available, whether it be a PC or a Mac.
RE: MACINTRASH (IP: ---.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)
Great, overclockers, the lowest form. The only thing lower is a politian. Teenagers hanging around a PC with an opencase, jaw dropped and hypoventilating over the fact that they've been able to squeeze and extra 0.000000000001fps on Quake.
Great, a geek-a-thon. Guess what they use their computer for? games. Do they have a job in the IT industry? hell no! would you employ an hypoventilating halfwitt who is more clueless than GWB?
RE: Jared White (IP: ---.sonic.net)
Yes, I am read the book and I agree. Every PC fanboy should read it and see what they look like in the "mainstream" media. Not "IT gurus", but teenagers who have a chip on both sholder.
When OS X has a better interface, better graphics drivers, etc. than Linux, then maybe I'll be a "switcher". I highly doubt that will ever succeed. Linux is just too far ahead of the competition. M$ is spending billions on research just to catch up to where Linux was a couple of years ago.
Yeah, except that if you want to get a new piece of software, half the time you must compile it.
Plus there is that whole editing of config files to actually make the os useful, particularly in a networked environment.
Don't mistake me. I love Linux and I use it (RH 9 w/ XD 2 & sometimes SuSE 8.2). But it really isn't as advanced as you are making it sound. It truly hasn't reached consumer friendliness like the Mac has. You still have to monkey with things to get it really useful.
You also mention the "better graphics drivers." What exactly is it about Mac graphics drivers that you don't like? They work seemlessly without having to configure anything. Out-of -the-box and it is ready to use. Linux can't really do that. One day I am sure it will...but not quite yet. And if you don't like how Apple dummies down display settings, etc., there are tools and the same types of config files that your find in Linux...you can tweak it if you like.
If you don't like the GUI, don't use it. At work one of the Admins is running Mac OS X 10.3 developers preview and is using a variety of desktop interfaces that you find in Linux dsitros.
Essentially what you are asking for the Mac to have in OS X that you like in Linux is and has been available for sometime.
Firstly, let me thank Sean Rose for writing this very insightful and interesting article which mirrors my own experience in many ways.
For all of the PC users who discredit this article for whatever reason, I emplore you to use a Mac. The only explination I can think of for your reaction to this article is ignorance. Really, if you used a Mac, you would understand. Now, unfortunately, when I say use a Mac, I do not mean that you go to CompUSA or whatever and play with a Mac, because that will not give you the experience you need to make a fair judgement. You need to use a Mac as your main machine for at least a month before you can make a judgement about them. Unfortunately, the only easy way to do that is to buy one. I wish that Apple would start some sort of try a Mac for 90 days or get your money back promotion, because, if you did try a Mac for a month or so, you probably would not take it back. Since such a promotion does not exist, I ask you to take my word for it and go and buy a Mac, you will not regret it.
Skipp
Yep. I agree.
Whether you like a PC or you like a Mac, go with what you are more comfortable with and what suits your needs more.
I just can't stand the Mac bashing that goes on, particularly when the bashing is usually from those who don't really seem to grasp the differences and end up spouting useless, meaningless crap about Mhz.
Mac, PC, Windows, Linux, OS X - guess what, they all do essentially the same things just in different ways.
Yes, I know that the components that make up a Mac motherboard are the same ones you find in x86 PCs. However, nowhere in the x86 pc industry will you find a 1 Ghz fsb. Apple has that. Nobody else
Opteron has the 1:1 ratio.
The FSB runs at the Speed of the Processor.
MAC people learn about the hardware first before posting comments like that.
As for the observation that the G5 is using standards like the Intel-designed PCI and USB, and the AMD co-designed HyperTransport
HyperTransport came from AMD they have disghned it not co-designed.
Mac people learn about Hardware firstand were it came from before posting.
GO ahead and make fun of my spelling, English is not my language.
I must say that you are quite delusional. Is it really necessary to be spouting off Mac falsehoods so others will "switch"? It is totally uncalled for in my opinion.
How can it even be possible that people want OS X when Linux is free (beer and speech), most secure OS in history, more intuitive, has fastest gaining market share, and has all the best developers in the world working on it?
I don't mean to be rude, but in 5 years there will be no other OS's than Linux. The sooner everyone realises this, the better discussions we can have here at os news.
Dude, no matter what you anyone say, I still think the MAC is an overpriced piece of crap, especially considering what I can do on a PC with free software. I'm definately not Macs target. I'm rational and pragmatic, and most of all, I hate been restricted by anything or anyone. One reason I will always use Linux, free software, and the PC.
Regards,
Mystilleef
Hypertransport was not developed in any way by AMD, it is an old DEC technology. So it appears it a) made it to the mac first b) Originated in a more or less UNIX workstation shop.
Why is it that whenever you have a bunch of computer geeks discussing computers, the Mac vs. PC debate ineveitable ensnares and results in near violence?
WTF - they are computers?! They do the same tasks...they just approach them differently.
For once I would like to visit a site like this and see intelligent discussion about the subtleties of different OSes and hardware...where it could lead for in the industry as a whole.
For instance, I brought up CISC vs. RISC. Those out there who despise PCs and whine about Windows crashing everytime your turn around...guess what...Windows would probably run smoother on a RISC based system...same goes for Linux (you'll note that IBM produces very high performance Linux systems that use RISC processors...and there is YDL which, though does not have many users I have heard is smooth as glass).
Though I did just point out strengths for RISC and weaknesses for CISC, that doesn't mean that the reverse isn't true. RISC has its share of problems. For one they tend to cost more to produce (R&D + Manufacturing) whereas CISC tends to cost less for production.
OS X has a very simple user interface that is appealing to many who do not want to learn how to use Windows to configure a network or to use Linux and edit config files after pouring over documentation...but at the same time many "power users" (particularly Windows geeks who like registry hacks) feel a little confined by the Mac OS X gui.
The underlying principles still are the same. Software running on hardware. Whoopee!
I think it is refreshing to read an article from someone who is a "switcher." Not just because it is another person who is now a mac fan (that part is actually boring). What is interesting are the trends that are emerging. Lots of people are getting fed up with Windows...other platforms are coming in to fill the shoes. Linux and Mac OS X are examples of that. Microsoft also knows they are losing customers (not in droves...but a steady slow stream). Now Microsoft is forced to dump a ton into R&D to try and produce something to bring people back. At the same time MS is battling with Linux over Enterprise solutions.
Power is shifting. That is what I wish more people would realize. The Mac vs. PC debate really doesn't add anything new. Just stop...look around...realize that the economics of the IT industry are shifting. If you want to debate Mac vs. PC...fine...just realize they do the samethings and you are actually just spinning your wheels.
god damn, u people are NUCKING FUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JEEEEEEEEEEZZZZ!!!
Calm down... man... seriously...
and for god's sake, would kill y'all to gather some information and knowledge before you post some stupid pos that you f*cking think is the greatest thing in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!
i seriously wonder at the intelligence of some of the posters here...
man, use whatever is comfortable for you... me, i like macs, i got everything i need; but on occasion i use pcs. no problem... use whatever makes u feel comfortable...
i demand an end to all these stupid flamewars...
and do some godforsaken research before you type... god damn...
right on man... right on...
Whether you like a PC or you like a Mac, go with what you are more comfortable with and what suits your needs more.
Exactly. You get what suits your needs more. For instance, I can get a GNU/Linux box running as a wireless base station, but for all honesty, a embedded wireless base station is cheaper, smaller and more power efficient. (Though, I would like to see wireless base stations support something stronger than WEP, in-built, but I guess I could get a SNAPGear for that...)
When it comes to PC/Mac, depends what I need done. If I need a cheap server to do file serving, I get a GNU/FreeBSD box in the corner. For more exotic stuff, a GNU/Linux box (as some stuff isn't supported 100% under GNU/FreeBSD). If I just want to browse the web and do some word processing, the Mac is the go. Or the PC. Depends whatever is closer at hand that will get the job done as best as possible.
If I want some people who have absolutely no clue about computing to do word processing and some simple database work, I get them a Mac. Or a PC (depends which they prefer).
I just can't stand the Mac bashing that goes on, particularly when the bashing is usually from those who don't really seem to grasp the differences and end up spouting useless, meaningless crap about Mhz.
True, these are -probably- the same people who have near zero actual computing experience off their chosen platform. (If they did, they would accept that maybe their chosen platform isn't the one for -everyone- else).
Mac, PC, Windows, Linux, OS X - guess what, they all do essentially the same things just in different ways.
Sure do. People find the way that works best for them, and interestingly enough, sometime it's not PC's with Windows.
When you compare that to a Mac, the instructions are of equal length. They are processed at the same time. There are no mismatched execution times for instructions. Hence things run more smoothly and actually yield higher performance. BTW, think about supercomputers for a minute. Can you really think of a supercomputer that is based on x86? And please don't bring up Beowulf clusters - they are not supercomputers - they are distributed computing systems. There is a reason that supercomputers DO NOT use x86...they use RISC processing because it is MUCH smoother and yields a higher performance even at lower clock cycles.
Yes Opterons have yeld the Highest Score in the Super computer test.
Like I have sad before MAC People know very little about hardware. The reasons are simple, you buy one machine and you dont think about anything eles. You belive in Steve Jobs and his B.S. Fact is simple.
Let me ask you this. You say MHZ is the myth then why go with 2Ghz Cpu go with 1Hz insted right, who cares about MHZ it is only a myth. Also just look at the G-4 for example the original G-4 had 4 stage pipline. Short Fast Wright. Ok the Later G-4 had 7 stage pipe line.
Now acordig to Steve Job's explonation 4 stage is faster the 7.
Mhz dous matter, 800Mhz G4 is faster then G4 500Mhz that is the fact.
Now lets just Look at the Stve Job's explonation on MHZ myth.
The Original G4 500Mhz had only 4 stage pipe line. This means it is faster the the Higher staged CPU's. This is what Steve Jobs used to sell to the Mac people.
Now. G4 1.2Ghz has a 7 stage pipe line. Wait 4 is better then 7. So the G4 500Mhz acording to the MHZ myth should be faster then the G4 1.2Ghz.
Well where is the truth? Seve Jobs was telling to all of us that the G-4 with 4 stage pipe line is faster.
So acording to the Apple theary Shorter Pipe line=Faster
performance.
Now in the real world. We all know that even thoug the G-4 500Mhz has 4 stage pipe line is no were nere the performance of the 7 stage pipe line G-4 1.2Ghz.
Nice One apple.
When I upgraded my PC and seen the same framerate in Quake, I'm was in shock. But afterwards I discovered that Quake have clipped max framerate at 80 fps by default. That's why you don't see difference between Mac and PC.
Change line that says "set cl_maxfps" in your config.
Just quit the bashing and discuss like normal people (I mean it for some of you) 
, and I ask it polite 
.
Ontopic:
--------
I have worked a time with a Mac (G3 and G4) and it are very nice computers.
Mac OS X is just a better OS (if not the best).
(for games, stick to windows)
But I still like the x86 platform more.. It's just a personal taste I guess
MAC people learn about the hardware first before posting comments like that.
Again, I'll state it. I am not a Mac person. I running a dual boot configured P4 with Win XP and RH9 Linux.
I like Macs. I appreciate what they are doing for the industry...simplification of what may seem like difficult tasks in other OSes and working extensively on human factoring GUIs.
As far as your Opteron comment goes...so what. You are comparing a consumer/multimedia design based product vs. a server and high end workstation product. It isn't a very good comparison. Generally speaking you are not going to walk into Best Buy an pick up an Opteron. It just doesn't happen. An Athlon perhaps...it is a consumer level product.
As far as the bussing ratio that you bring up, can you please point it out on the AMD web site. If you give me something like Tom's Hardware, I'll ignore it because the site is just packed with lies.
I don't doubt for a minute that the Opteron could have a higher bus speed. But it is not something that consumers would even consider. Consumers have put in G5 orders and will be purchasing them at retailers, unlike opterons.
Jason (IP: ---.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net):
"When the G5s hit the shelves, PC zealots will be crying about their pathetic 533 Mhz fsb when compared to the 1 Ghz FSB on Macs."
---------
Today's P4s run at 800MHz FSB, FYI, with speeds beyond 1GHz planned. But again, FSB is only one tiny part of the equation, so focusing on FSB alone is irrelevant. There are far too many variables.
Jared White (IP: ---.sonic.net):
"USB was going nowhere until Apple adopted it as the sole external peripheral connector in the original iMac"
---------
I had USB headers on my 1997 Gigabyte TX mainboard. As far as I know, that was before the iMac, and they were being integrated on the TX-level-and-later chipsets in 1997. It was supported with 95 OSR2, and then really took off with Windows 98's native support the following year, and most of the millions of computers sold in the year prior were aleady USB ready.
As for the Quake benchmark. Isn't Quake one of the few games taking advantage of dual processors? Most games don't, I think. In fact, most games I want to play are not on Macs at all. I think it would be fair to compare 2 machines of equal price instead, with ALL specs listed.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_87...
Here read this about FSB
With the memory controller integrated onto the AMD Opteron processor, the front side bus (interface to memory) runs at the speed of the processor came from amd.
I guess you haven't really read my posts.
I don't use a Mac. I just get pissed about PC trolling.
As far as as me being delusional because I don't think Linux is simple and Mac OS X is...I'd have to say you are the delusional one.
Keep in mind...I use Linux. I also work in human factors research. Guess what, the results are in. Linux is NOT as easy to use as OS X. Sure, if you want something free...go for it.
Further, OS X market share + install base is rising. As is Linux. I'll say it again since you seem to have trouble understanding me...I love Linux. Perhaps in 5 years, there will be a drastic shift in the number of people using Linux. But it is not really a mainstream OS yet. It is certainly getting close...but not quite there.
Many many people who are not terribly familiar with computers have tried Linux and been displeased. Why...it is still fairly computer-centric. "Joe Average" isn't interested in something that is computer-centric.
Linux still has a ways to go. Mac OS X has consumer, "Joe Average" attention now.
I have no doubt that Linux will one day rip MS, and probably Apple a new one. That will be a great day. But guess what...it is a ways off.
Do specs really matter at all these days? Can anyone feel the difference between an p4 2ghz and p4 3ghz? Will you have saved more than 5 minutes time at the end of the day? A user friendly os, that just works, on the other hand, will easily save you atleast one hour each day.
I'd just like to point out, MHz DOES matter. It's just not the whole story is all. But a 300 MHz version of any chip is slower than the 500 MHz version.
The only catch is that, like bus speeds, memory, memory speeds, architectures, software versions, compiler optemizations, cache sizes, HD RPMs, AGP speeds, video chip architectures, FP units, data registers, video memory, levels of cache (1, 2, 3), and chipsets, MHz kinda becomes a wallflower when measuring the overall performance of a complete system.
Fine...I was in error about the upped speeds of x86 busses.
Given that I am an adult, I can admit that I was wrong. I will admit that I am no longer really looking at PCs anymore. I haven't heard anything that was enough to really get my interest about PCs. The last I heard was 533 Mhz. BFD. Will it make a difference to most.
Also, is that 800 Mhz bus available on all models of P4s are only 3 Ghz or higher. If it is the 3 Ghz or higher, how many people are actually buying that now? Sure the people who think Quake 3 is the best way to test the usability of a computer might...but chances are a school teacher really isn't interested in that.
Keep in mind, I don't really have anything against PCs...shit I am using one right now.
What I am sick of are people coming in and making anti-mac comments.
Good lord...would you get off it already. Focus on the article.
Use what you like. If that is PCs running Windows or Linux...fine...great...have a nice time. I have that right now. Whooppee!
Could you dispense with Opteron evangelism?
For those of you who nearly forgot what the article was really about: Something interesting happened. A guy switch from PCs to Macs and he was happy with the change.
What I wonder about is what it is about transition from a PC to a Mac that is difficult to deal with in terms of UI. The article mentions OS X. I myself have been a little confused by OS X at times but now that I know it, I find it task less time for me to do common tasks. Linux presented the same problem for me when I first started using it...particularly KDE.
Do you think you could have some sort of registration system...Log in...pasword...the usual.
And set up some sort of authentication system so that we could maybe put an end to flame wars. They can be entertaining...but there gets to a point where it is a bit much. If there was authentication and some basic guidelines for behavior, it might get some of the trolls of the site by locking them out by dumping their accounts.
Any thoughts? I would just like to see decent thought provoking discussions...not flameposts from hell. Authenticate...dump the trolls.
I like the article, it wasn't from a zealot from either side - unlike some of the comments.
read this asshole
APPLE HAS NOT INVENTED SHIT FOR THA PAST 5 YEARS
So who else uses display PDF or OpenGL to accellerate graphics???
ALL COMPONENTS IN THE G-5 CAME FROM PC
Remember that the PC was IBMs answer to the Apple II
AGP
Invented becasue VRAM chips were expensive at the time and they needed a fast way to transfer data from RAM to the gfx card.
Pretty much pointless these days due to cheap fast gfx RAM.
PCI
An evolution of previous busses, Apple II had a bus system before the PC even existed.
PCI-x - this is from the server world, it was never designed for PCs.
USB - USB does what ADB did before it.
HyperTransport
This is based on technology previously in development at DEC for the Alpha.
ATA - an evolution of previous HD technology which first appeared in mainframes many, many years ago.
Apple only use it because it costs less than SCSI.
SATA - an answer to serial SCSI which is also from the workstation/server world.
SMP - Also from workstations, I believe this also existed before the first PCs.
DUEL Point to POIT bus came from PC side AMD 760MP
Nope, this is also from the Alpha, AMD licenesed the EV6 bus from DEC.
APPLE has not inventes shit for the past 5 years.
It is irrelevant who invents what, what Apple is good at is taking technology and producing a package better than anyone else.
Opteron has the 1:1 ratio.
The FSB runs at the Speed of the Processor.
Opteron runs at 1.6GHz upwards, the memory busses run at 200MHz (DDR so 400 MHz effective), that is not a 1:1 ratio.
MAC people learn about the hardware first before posting comments like that.
DO homework first.
Good idea, you should try it sometime.
"How can it even be possible that people want OS X when Linux is free (beer and speech), most secure OS in history, more intuitive, has fastest gaining market share, and has all the best developers in the world working on it?"
Because usability of Linux just sucks compared to Windows and MacOS X. Sure, it is much better now but Linux still has a long way to go. I prefer to pay for quality than to get something free at lower quality.
"I don't mean to be rude, but in 5 years there will be no other OS's than Linux. The sooner everyone realises this, the better discussions we can have here at os news."
Sure, so everyone runs the same thing, eh? How interesting. What should we discuss then? In your opinion you only can have a good discussion when everyone shares the same opinion as you.
So in 5 years we can rename this site into Linux News, no?
quote:
About the author: Sean Rose (srose at cycline3.com) does programming, design and some unusual model rocketry products at Cycline3.com. He even sheds the nerd persona now and again for some hardcore mountain biking in the beautiful hills of West Virginia.
Do you mean you take of your glasses like Superman?
;)
But I have another question. Do you (or anyone else) know if the quake engine takes advantage of a 2 processor system?
Err, wait until the G5 is out. All theses comparisions are a bit premature for me.
Actually the G5 is not available yet, when it will be out, do your Spec FP2000 tests and whatever and compare with real life applications. Then you will be able to decide.
As I far I know, i've got a P4/2Ghz/Win2K 1Gb of Ram and a G4 1Ghz/512Mb and the G4 'feels' for me way faster than the P4 (internet, music, even 3D) and better looking and safer (viruses and worms and spywares). That's all I know.
ATA - an evolution of previous HD technology which first appeared in mainframes many, many years ago.
Apple only use it because it costs less than SCSI.
To add to that, Apple used to use SCSI. They switched to IDE/ATA because A) it was cheaper B) was easier on consumers to add a second drive in terms of cost
I am sure Apple had other motivations as well, but those are two easily identified reasons to go with ATA.
nicholas Blachford (IP: ---.66.241.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com):
AGP
Invented becasue VRAM chips were expensive at the time and they needed a fast way to transfer data from RAM to the gfx card.
Pretty much pointless these days due to cheap fast gfx RAM.
--------
PCI Express (an even faster interface) will be replacing AGP for the next generation graphics cards. Any ideas why they are doing this if bus speed is irrelevant now?
Today's P4s run at 800MHz FSB, FYI, with speeds beyond 1GHz planned. But again, FSB is only one tiny part of the equation, so focusing on FSB alone is irrelevant. There are far too many variables.
Ok...I was in error about the speed of the P4 bus. I didn't realize it was at 800 Mhz as I mentioned previously.
However, 800 Mhz is the starting speed of the G5. They have 800, 900 Mhz, and 1 Ghz. Intel is only planning to go to 1 Ghz. Apple is ready to ship that now. Further, Apple does plan on releasing systems with higher bus speeds (well duh). I wish I could remember where I read it, but I have heard talk of 2 Ghz in a year for the bus. Given that is in the future and requires further R&D, that might be a while longer...
The key is Apple already has the speeds that Intel is planning on but does not yet have with plans to go further.
I had USB headers on my 1997 Gigabyte TX mainboard. As far as I know, that was before the iMac, and they were being integrated on the TX-level-and-later chipsets in 1997. It was supported with 95 OSR2, and then really took off with Windows 98's native support the following year, and most of the millions of computers sold in the year prior were aleady USB ready.[i]
I too recall USB hitting and being standardized on macs before they were standard on PCs. You might have gotten a board that had USB on it...I don't doubt it...but most PC manufacturers weren't using USB until after Macs were.
[i]As for the Quake benchmark. Isn't Quake one of the few games taking advantage of dual processors? Most games don't, I think. In fact, most games I want to play are not on Macs at all. I think it would be fair to compare 2 machines of equal price instead, with ALL specs listed.
I don't think that is a very good way to compare machines. It has been established time and again, you pay more when you purchase a Mac but you get a lower TCO in the end. Running a comparison of a PC vs. a Mac of the same price will probably actually cloud the issue.
Further, benchmarks aren't everything. It has been said many times many ways. Though benchmark scores typically come back higher for PCs, Macs tend to "feel" faster. Benchmarking is only one tool to caompare products but it does not give the whole picture. Actually using the machines for an extended period of time will actually give you a better idea as to how well a machine performs.
he's the only person in the world who is switching over to Apple at this point.
Also... is Quake 3 still a bench mark? That game was released how long ago? How about we check fps for Doom 1 while were at it, or maybe Pong?
This isn't an anti PC or Mac, or Linux or whatever post; it's a "some guy bough a new computer and likes it, but really, who gives a rats ass?" post. I'm happy he likes mac, and if he didn't, I'm happy he likes his Pc, and if he liked them both, well, ain't life grand???
I wish this guy all the best, but unldess it's news regarding tech, or a new OS review, or an update in some sort of legal battle that will affect IT industry. or even maybe a nice programming tutorial, why post this stuff. Lots of people buy computers everyday. I don't want to see a new article everytime some reader here decides to upgrade his comp, or her brother goes away to college so she gets the old pc she never got to play with before....
we all have computers. We obviously like them, because hey, otherwise we wouldn't be in an OS News site. we'd be outside, playing frisbee with the dog, basking in the simple joys of life.
Man... I'm such a troll, and long winded to boot.
PCI Express (an even faster interface) will be replacing AGP for the next generation graphics cards. Any ideas why they are doing this if bus speed is irrelevant now?
I haven't heard of PCI Express. When is it due out? Will it actually be called PCI Express? How does that compare to PCI-X?
The G5 is going to have PCI-X. If PCI-X is not PCI Express, how different are they?
Bus speed is totally relevant. I can't understand why so many people seem to ignore it.
he's the only person in the world who is switching over to Apple at this point.
Huh?
Powerbooks have hit 20% market share. That is a hell of a lot given how many laptop manufacturers are out there. 1 out of every 5 new laptops is a Mac (and that is just counting Powerbooks against the rest of laptop sales...that doesn't account for the iBook).
You don't consider that the least bit significant, particularly since overall, in computer sales, desktop computers are on the decline and laptop sales are rising?
Go read Buisnessweek or another buisness journal. You'll start seeing that Apple's sales are doing well and are rising...particularly in the rising sector of the market which is laptops. That is a big deal. People are switching.
I work with Macs and PCs all day as a guy who fixes them in a student lab (about 40 macs, 100 PCs) so I hope my comments carry some validity.
First, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but whenever I hear someone claim that the old-generation macs (non-G5) are as fast as the latest pcs coming out, I just shake my head. If you play games, this is just not so, which made me madder when the reviewer talked about Quake 3 frame comparisons, as if that proved anything. This has already been talked about in above comments, nothing further to add there. As far as compute intensive apps go, the majority simply go faster on new PCs. Whether or not that really matters anymore is something I don't care to argue. It's pretty obvious that most GUI's run at the same speed, and if that's all you care about (majority of users) then speed is no big deal.
Second, the author talks about the great quality of Macs. I feel this is misleading, and most people don't realize just how misleading. Simply put: if you are buying towers, and powerbooks, (and perhaps I-books, haven't tested them) you are probably getting a quality machine. But I speak from experience when I say that I-Macs (of which our computer labs have a few varieties of) are the evillest things to work with. They all use cheap (=substandard) parts. They have all been in for hardware repair at some point in time, whether it was the CRT (on the older ones), hard-drive, motherboard... with an average failure rate over 5 times more than PCs which cost half their price. We have had 2 mac-specific techs in our lab who used to love Macs, and then left basically crying after a year, because of all the stress managing them brought.
Finally, I just want to say that I am not actually a Mac hater, I just enjoy disagreeing with people on principal. I LIKE OS X. Best *ix ever. I am optimistically looking forward to G5 computers, as they will probably make Macs the speed king once again, if only for a year. If you don't like computers in general, and are vaguely rich, I will always recommend a Mac.
P.S. To the guy who was talking about CISC vs. RISC, I will tell you flat out that optimizations in processor cores, compilers, and what have you, have made the differences between the two obsolete (for at least a few years). It's less of a difference than megahertz by an order of magnitude, and megahertz is already a "myth". read the articles at arstechnica.com for the in-depth comparisons. And they like Macs easily as much as they like PCs, so it's not some we-hate-RISC site.
Total FUD, his "performance comparison" has been shown to be totally the other way around by people all over who actually know what they are doing. Do us a favour and remove this post, it's a disgrace to the internet.
This is exactly why you can't compare a dual cpu system to a single cpu and tell wich one is better.
You would have the very same results when comparing a dual 800mhz 'inside flavour' with a single 2.4Ghz 'inside flavour'... I agree that the Mhz/Ghz race is a myth, but what does that have to do with a PC<->MAC comparison?
By Jason (IP: ---.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) - Posted on 2003-08-06 08:30:37: "Yeah, except that if you want to get a new piece of software, half the time you must compile it.
Plus there is that whole editing of config files to actually make the os useful, particularly in a networked environment."
Actually, I just need to point out problems here.
Half the time I want a piece of software, I don't have to compile it. I just select it, and it installs. Also, if you consider what Lindows 4.0 has done, it can be even easier than Mac or Windows (or other Linux distros) has for installing software. Having tried it, it's insanely easy.
As far as editing config files, while I do edit config files at times, when setting up a new computer, I don't have to. I just install everything, and everything works. From there, I don't have to edit any config files to get anything working. Networking with Windows computers is done automatically for me, printer setup is a breeze (and done on installation), even dual monitor support is easily done (and quickly accomplished).
I am not suggesting that Linux is easier to use then a Mac (or a Windows machine, though I think it is), however, I am saying that your previous statements are untrue. Or rather, they don't have to be true. Obviously, if you choose gentoo as your distrobution, you will have to do a few more things to get it moving.
For reference, I run SuSE 8.2 Personal with Ximian Desktop 2.
I haven't heard of PCI Express. When is it due out? Will it actually be called PCI Express? How does that compare to PCI-X?
The G5 is going to have PCI-X. If PCI-X is not PCI Express, how different are they?
PCI Express (3GIO 3rd Generation IO) is developed by intel (and others) as a true successor to PCI whereas PCI-X is basically a faster and wider version(s) of PCI. PCI Express is so much faster that PCI-X that it will change the way computers are built. An often touted idea is to just have a backplane with a PCI-Express bus and slots. In one of those slots you then attach a board with a CPU and memory on it. When you want to upgrade your CPU you just replace the CPU board. The idea of a mainboard will disappear. Think modular, think building computers like you build LEGO with PCI Express as the connector and glue instead of 1 chassis.
BTW implementing PCI-X now is if anything late to the point of almost pointless as PCI express is "just around the corner(tm)". My dual athlon board had PCI-X when I bought it in the beginning of 2002.
Bus speed is totally relevant. I can't understand why so many people seem to ignore it.
Yes and No. Bus speed is relevant only when it is a limiting factor. If the bus is fast enough then it is irrelevant. You have to think what the bus have to do, shuffle data. What data? Basically memory and IO (yes memory transfers IS IO but stick with me for a sec). Now the fastest memory for a PC (incl Mac) is DDR400 (RDRAM is dead for PCs ATM). The full bandwidth of that memory is 3.2GB/s for a single channel or 6.4GB/s for a dual channel. Now the G5 with 1Ghz bus have 8GB/s bandwidth which should give enough bandwidth.
In the case of the P4 at 800Mhz bus you have 6.4GB/s which is an exact match for dual DDR400 memory.
The bus speed is in both cases enough (as no real app uses or is able to use max memory bandwidth). The IO that is most intensive (apart from AGP transfers which is basicall memory transfers) is SATA and 1Gbps Ethernet and as an example 1Gb/s = 128MB/s so other IO than memory transfers are small in comparisons. This is all assuming you have the usual memory<->northbridge<->CPU setup that PC have used sofar. Now the Opteron-Athlon64 takes a different route as they have removed the memory transfers from the "CPU bus" (transfers memory-CPU that is) so they have a dedicated memory bus to the CPU and a separete Hypertransport link to the rest of the components. IMHO a better design.
Look, the G5 is a real galore of techs developed for main use in x86 systems (DDR mem, Hypertransport, SATA, PCI, AGP, USB etc) that Apple have adopted. Does this make the Mac bad?! Certainly not! Does that make it anything special or high quality compared to x86 PCs? No way! What sets the Mac apart is OS X and the PowerPC. THAT'S ALL!
Use whatever you like but use common sense when listening to the marchitechture speaches from Jobs as he want's only 1 thing; to sell Macs! Would you take everything a car salesperson says for a fact and 100% correct?! I sure don't.
I like the article, it wasn't from a zealot from either side - unlike some of the comments.
read this asshole
APPLE HAS NOT INVENTED SHIT FOR THA PAST 5 YEARS
So who else uses display PDF or OpenGL to accellerate graphics???
ALL COMPONENTS IN THE G-5 CAME FROM PC
Remember that the PC was IBMs answer to the Apple II
AGP
Invented becasue VRAM chips were expensive at the time and they needed a fast way to transfer data from RAM to the gfx card.
Pretty much pointless these days due to cheap fast gfx RAM.
PCI
An evolution of previous busses, Apple II had a bus system before the PC even existed.
PCI-x - this is from the server world, it was never designed for PCs.
USB - USB does what ADB did before it.
HyperTransport
This is based on technology previously in development at DEC for the Alpha.
ATA - an evolution of previous HD technology which first appeared in mainframes many, many years ago.
Apple only use it because it costs less than SCSI.
SATA - an answer to serial SCSI which is also from the workstation/server world.
SMP - Also from workstations, I believe this also existed before the first PCs.
DUEL Point to POIT bus came from PC side AMD 760MP
Nope, this is also from the Alpha, AMD licenesed the EV6 bus from DEC.
APPLE has not inventes shit for the past 5 years.
It is irrelevant who invents what, what Apple is good at is taking technology and producing a package better than anyone else.
Opteron has the 1:1 ratio.
The FSB runs at the Speed of the Processor.
Opteron runs at 1.6GHz upwards, the memory busses run at 200MHz (DDR so 400 MHz effective), that is not a 1:1 ratio.
MAC people learn about the hardware first before posting comments like that.
DO homework first.
Good idea, you should try it sometime.
You definatly have no clue about opteron dude.
Here go to this side.
And like I have sad Learn about hardware first before posting.
AMD IS 1:1 Ratio.
With the memory controller integrated onto the AMD Opteron processor, the front side bus (interface to memory) runs at the speed of the processor came from amd.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_87...
Why to discuss wich have the fast bus, or more Ghz or anything faster...
Note: this is my humble opinion, not a afirmation...
I agree with Sean Rose, because i have two computers too (a P4 1.6gh & a G4 1gh). Yes, i prefer the Mac interface (i'm a graphic designer), but i "feel" my Mac is faster over my P4 (sometimes much faster), using mainly graphic design apps, and i agree WindowsXP is much problematic when it runs many apps simultaneously.
My G4 cost (when i purchased this computer) 500$ more than the P4 /when i purchased it), but the Mac have plus hardware (DVD player, firewire, Ethernet, optical mousse, modem v92), and don't have scrolling mousse, stereo speakers&phone.
I guess more people don't purchase Mac computers, because their are so expensive, and they have reason.
I guess Windows is better for games, but it's better a xbox/ps2 for playing... in ps2 the games don't crash 
If you prefer a x86, use it, if you prefer a Mac use it. The modern computers can do the same, so it's a preference, not a obligation; Linux is good for intellectual purpose, but not for my productivity (graphic design), believe me, i really tried it many times without success; i'm not a geek, but i don't need to download a source, configure it without success, read the docs, install a library, configure it, etc, configure diverse links, install the last library, etc....
Personally, i prefer the Macs, after using booth after many years, and sometimes i use Windows (some secure sites can be only opened using Windows). But this don't mean i have reason, as this mean the PC geeks don't have reason.
Don't matter who developped the wheel, when it runs
Is he running Windows 95 on that PC hardware? I have not seen the blue screen of death since i switched to NT, and that was a long time ago.
AGP
Invented becasue VRAM chips were expensive at the time and they needed a fast way to transfer data from RAM to the gfx card. Pretty much pointless these days due to cheap fast gfx RAM.
Err, no textures and geometry data needs fast shuffling way faster than PCI and AGP 1 and 2 can transfer. AGP was not designed for editing spreadsheets or typing in Word, it was made for 3D graphics intensive apps such as games etc.
PC