http://www.osnews.com/story/4204/Uncool_Switcher_Flirts_Back_With_The_PC Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:11 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree. Nuff said Wed, 06 Aug 2003 06:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 :-) Wed, 06 Aug 2003 06:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? --- "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? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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). Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Like the subject says it.
I question your technical abillities. The only purpose of this article is to make yourself known to the world and get some free publicity for your site. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/ Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? wow, nice trolling. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 :-) Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
read this asshole
APPLE HAS NOT INVENTED SHIT FOR THA PAST 5 YEARS
ALL COMPONENTS IN THE G-5 CAME FROM PC
AGP
PCI, PCI-x
USB
HyperTransport
SATA
ATA
SMP
DUEL Point to POIT bus came from PC side AMD 760MP
APPLE has not inventes shit for the past 5 years.
Show me one thing that is new in PC g-5
Nothing.
All came from Intel, IBM, AMD,
The only hting that Apple has Created is FIRE WIRE.
DO homework first.
ipod was not the first largest Mp3 Player on the market.
Micro Drive technology came from IBM lomg before APPLE. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? GO ahead and make fun of my spelling, English is not my language. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? EOM Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? right on man... right on... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As you can see Apple is not the SO called INVETORS.
What they do is they take the PC technology abd slap it in the some GOOD looking Case and Calling it the NEW INVENTION.
I will say
AGP technology was introduced to the market in the third quarter of 1997. The first support for this technology was from Intel's 440LX Pentium II chipset developed by Intel.
USB technology was unveiled by Intel in 1995.
Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus was developed by Intel and introduced in 1993.
PCI-X technology was developed jointly by IBM, HP, and Compaq. HyperTransport Technology was invented at AMD.
Point to Point FSB BUS was released with AMD760MP chipset in 2001.
This is what makes a regular PC clone. Parts from many different company's.
Apple people used to argue by making the point that "The reason why PC's are so crappy is because all company's take there parts and slap them together". Well, guess what? Apple is doing just that. Apple logic is so twisted.
I'm not talking about just CPU. I was talking about the entire architecture.
Name one thing in G5 that is truly revolutionary. What makes Apple G5 the "New Invention"? There is absolutely nothing in G5 box that was developed by Apple.
Apple is dead. PC's are taking over the world. Face the facts. Apple is no more
Apple=PC. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? is this worth on OS news? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "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? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 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.

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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 PCMAC comparison? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 memorynorthbridgeCPU 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Here is omething to read Apple users.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00410/
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_87... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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.

PCI
An evolution of previous busses, Apple II had a bus system before the PC even existed.

Um who cares as other computers had busses before the Apple II. PCI was designed for/by Intel (and others) and now Apples uses it. Big deal it was a good tech that needs to be replaced.

PCI-x - this is from the server world, it was never designed for PCs.

Mind you PCI-X is built upon PCI. PCI-X never took flight and is now rapidly becoming a doodo in face of PCI Express.

USB - USB does what ADB did before it.
Again a designed by intel for x86 tech used by Apple. It works and gets the thing done, BFD.

HyperTransport
This is based on technology previously in development at DEC for the Alpha.

Still, developed by AMD (partly by previously DEC engineers) for use in PC:s. An excellent PC tech that Apple wisely decided to adopt.

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.

Oh, the days when Mac users used to slander x86 PC for their use of ATA. How little would they guess that Macs would implement ATA and later SATA. Serial SCSI have yet to be released and SATA is here and works, Apple would be void of thinking people not to use it. Still a tech mainly developed for use in x86 systems tho.



SMP - Also from workstations, I believe this also existed before the first PCs.

Implemented on x86 systems way before Mac had it tho.

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.

Again implemented on x86 way ahead of Macs.

Look, this matters nil and nothing as long as you don't try to argue that Mac have better tech or quality than x86 PCs because the technological difference apart from the CPU and the OS is basically zilch, nada. It is funny thinking that if you'd be able to just replace the CPU in a Mac with an Athlon (just an example) you'd have a machine that you'd suddenly dislike, slander etc. That to me is looking very close to bigotry.

Again if the Mac suits you, then by god use it. I care neither Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ok I can imagine that and maybe I will try what you did.

/Neo Gigs Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is funny thinking that if you'd be able to just replace the CPU in a Mac with an Athlon (just an example) you'd have a machine that you'd suddenly dislike, slander etc. That to me is looking very close to bigotry.

Nail did a posting implying that nearly all the technology in a Mac comes from the PC world. I wrote a posting pointing out that many of these technologies are from outside the PC world.

Where did I say I dislike the Athlon?
Where exactly did I slander it?


By all means debate but do not put words into my mouth - especially words which I have not said and would not say. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? He can do what he wants, Macs suck, I dont like Macs and I disagreed with everything he said. Macs have no purpose and Apple will die. Sorry. I find everything to be faster on a PC, PC's are cheaper, they are more open in hardware terms and they are easier to service, and the TCO for a PC is way lower than what you have on Mac. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I JUST got a dual 1.25Ghz G4 w/2MB L3 Cache & ATI Raedon 9000 (it's the only vid card they had)And 1GB RAM... My PC is a 1.8Ghz Athlon XP, GeForce 4ti 128MB, and 512RAM.

The Mac runs normal applications faster, the OS runs faster and smoother than the PC.

The PC resizes ie (admitedly, I didn't try ie on the mac, I jumped straight for Safari). I find the mac laggy when you resize a window in Safari.

For Warcraft III, the PC runs quite a bit better than the Mac does... They loaded about the same (I noticed that I loaded slightly slower than a guy with a 1.8 P4 w/512RAM), and I had to turn down some graphics options for it to run smooth in battle. (I think this is the video card though, but I cannot be certain)

The software (including OSX) that comes with a mac blows anything PC out of the water... so my basic point is the software is what makes the mac a faster machine... you can get more accomplished in less time because of the mac's superior software.

Hardware wise, I'd put the my 1.8 Athlon XP slightly slower than my Dual 1.25 G4, that's not to say that a shiney new P4 3.06Ghz w/800MB FSB won't be substantially faster... however compare that then to a G5, and a G5 should be quite a bit quicker than the P4.

Then you have to compare price... apple's cost more, because you get a better product that doesn't lose 50% of it's value in it's first 6 months...

So all in all, I'm extremely pleased with my mac, and will probably never buy a PC again (I am typing this on my 1.8ghz laptop running linux atm =). Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm not usually one to whinge about the editorial decisions made on this site, but how was that "article" topical? Seems to me it would belong more on os opinion, because really, that's what it was. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Second, the author talks about the great quality of Macs.

Having looked after a lab of 40 iMacs (rev A/B's) I disagree. Over 4 years, only about 4 iMacs ever went in for service, and that was for spontaneous failure (ie, one day, just stopped working for whatever reason, wouldn't power on or boot no matter what etc). No infant failures either, it took ages for the first one to go.

We used an ASIP 6.3 server with Macintosh Manager with ANAT and Assimilator, coupled with a MacOS X Server 1.2. Any wierd OS problems? No worries, Assimilate it or push it with a new lab image from ANAT. Can't boot? Use NetBoot (and we had to, since we disabled the CD-ROM drives).

As a result, my actual work time on the iMac labs was a total of a grand total of a week. Per year. Most of it was actually just revising the software to handle patches, get virus scanning up to date, but in general, they worked reliably and exhibited none of the hardware issues you describe.

These labs were also used very frequently, during peak times students would complain they couldn't get a lab (ie, they were solid 24/7 for a week). Outside of peak times they were used moderately, but certainly not as much as the PC's.

Today, the original iMac's greatest weakness would have to be the CRT - after a while, they tend to start blurring out depending on use (this is over 4 years, mind you), but then again, I haven't seen a PC monitor not do this either unless you spend some decent cash on one. Being in-built, it probably is not worth fixing, but the newer iMac DV's support external monitors OK so they make decent server boxes now. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm pretty much in the same situation, a mac that's my main computing / developing environment an a PC that I occasionally use. Now I can tell you that pretty much nothing he said makes sense.

- Mozilla. Mozilla on the mac is a slug. Forget launch time (which is measured in minutes), the time to open a window alone is staggering. On Windows Mozilla's fast and responsive.

- Games. I'm not into Quake 3 but like people above have posted, he would have got much higher FPS on Windows if he'd bothered to figure out that Q3 caps it to 80. My favorite game is Counter Strike and it only exists for Windows. It doesn't look like half life 2 will be ported to the mac either.

- Photo Shop. This is just stupid. Even adobe says that Windows is the preferred environment. Maybe on a G5 PS would be faster but not on a 800MHz G4.

- Multi Tasking. It's true that Windows slows to a crawl when running lots of apps. But this is not a bug, it's a feature, seriously. My Mac is amazing at handling the 10 apps I always have open and that's because the OS was designed to run as a server. Normal windows was not designed to be a server, instead it give lots of CPU time to apps. Take a look at how the average user (Mac or PC) uses their computer. He has 1 or 2 apps with the window maximized. We geeks might need a server OS for our desktop but it would just slow things down for normal users.

This article makes no sense. He gives lots of reasons why he likes his mac, mentions the purchase of a new P4 and that's it. How is this flirting with switching ? Try playing some of the games that are PC only (i.e. Battle Field 1942) and then you'll be flirting. Those games are so good you'll never touch your mac again.

Leibowitz (who's typing this on a mac) Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " I'm 31 and an old school geek who started on computers with an Atari 800 as a kid "
... and therefore:
You have NO girlfriend and you have never had sex before and you're 31...
YOU WILL DIE ALONE MAN.
You wife/girlfriend is your computer....which one is better Mac'ky or Pc'y... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? lol - "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."

I mean that is just insanely hilarious!!! I don't care if you put out a new most insanely fast, best ui, most full featured OS and start marketing it you would still never get most windows users out there to switch to it in 5 years. I like Linux but i'd go insane if i had to use it as my only os simply because it's not as easy to use as Mac OS X or Windows.

For all of you out there who point out AMD operton specs I suppose you all will personally be buying one yourself? And loaded with the fastest specs and max ram, etc? No... your not really because there is a BIG difference between the Opteron and the G5 - most people can afford the G5 - whereas you will probably not be buying a loaded Opteron machine for $10,000.00.

As for the G5 tests and the people trying to discredit it, the only real reason i can see why is people crying about the GCC being used as the compiler for both. Essentially anyone crying about the tests is saying "Whaaa the PC side could be faster if only we used Intels C++ compiler and gave an edge to the pc" yeah and then people would still argue because your using different compilers and your back to a discussion simpilar to x86 vs PowerPC.

As far as "Mac's are using stuff invented by PC companies" and "PC's are using stuff made by Apple" i don't really care. If your able to take advantage of something thats already out there then great, it's impossible for any PC company to use nothing but technology they created themselves. They use stuff thats already out there because it creates a standard.

"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. "

You've found an installation process thats faster than dragging a file from 1 location to another? Wow i'd like to see this. Secondly thats great if you find a rpm that installs your software otherwise you have to compile everything in linux. If i had to spend 50% of my time compiling apps on windows or os x it'd take me a lot longer to re-build my systems and you get nothing better than simply downloading and running a regular installer. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/index.html Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? and somebody calling his hardware ancient and then stating he likes to play with new hardware all the time doesn't really go together. You certainly haven't played with new Mac hardware as there hasn't even been an awful lot of it to start with, but your Dual 860 isn't all that new either...
If you hardly ever touch your PC, then of course you may be more productive on your Mac. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I switched from Mac to x86 running Windows in 1987. I switched from Windows to Linux a couple of years ago. I switched from Linux to OS X this year.

I've never been happier. Safari is a kick-ass browser, iTunes is the best music/jukebox app out there, and iMovie and iDVD are commercial quality apps that are included free with OS X. You don't get anything like those apps with Windows or Linux.

For once, finally, everything is just *easy* with OS X. Even easier than Windows. Install a program? Just drag it into your Applications folder. Uninstall it? Just drag it to the trash. There is no Add/Remove Software type of program because you don't need it.

I enjoy Linux and still use it as a server, but man, it's just not there yet. I mean, just to use one example, installing mplayer and the damn codecs is a pain in the butt. There aren't very many major games out there that are native for Linux. At least Macs get most games, but not all of course. I've got Civ III, Jedi Knight, Sim City 4, Neverwinter Nights, No One Lives Forever, and Warcraft III all native for the Mac.

I've already got three people to switch in the last few months. They started by buying used Macs on Ebay. People like that won't show up in Apple's bottom line just yet but they will as they start to upgrade. There are more Mac users and more Mac switchers out there than you think.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. IMHO, OS X is the best OS out there, hands down. For me, I'm glad I switched. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Dude said...
" I'm 31 and an old school geek who started on computers with an Atari 800 as a kid "
... and therefore:
You have NO girlfriend and you have never had sex before and you're 31...
YOU WILL DIE ALONE MAN.
You wife/girlfriend is your computer....which one is better Mac'ky or Pc'y...


So what are you doing here anyway, gee you must be a geek too!!! Have some respect for others. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I love the smell of a flame-war in the morning
:D Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? *lol* "However, nowhere in the x86 pc industry will you find a 1 Ghz fsb"

EXACTLY -- nowhere in the *entire* industry, since there are no G5s to be bought anywhere. On the other hand, there is Abit with FSB 1200 MHz Rambus boards.

Put the crack-pipe down, will ya..? firstly, you ppl defend this "bench mark" notwithstanding the hilarious gap FSB-wise between the tested 800 Mhz P4 and the 100 of the Mac.

Then you start trumpetting about 1000 Mhz of non-existant G5s which are only slightly ahead of the 800, not to talk about the 1200 MHz I just mentioned (both of which can actually be head *now*). There is nothing wild about the G5.

PS: Talking about FSB -- do you care to remember that Apple were the only fools who managed to make their systems ***SLOWER*** with the new 133 FSB compared to the old 100 FSB? Go check it out at your beloved bearfeet (foot?!) *com. This, indeed, is truly an Apple innovation. *lol* Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't really know what is the implication on performance to compare a dual machine to a single processor one... What I know is that I make floating point calculations with intensive CPU loads for hours and hours... (I am a physicist). And, last time I had a MAC at work, it was an iMAC 400MHz. Using tools generated by Apple (MPW) I ran my Fortran code on it and it was slower than my home Celerom 300MHz using g77. So.. it is true the MHZ myth does not apply.. (AMFD shows that against Intel) but with me it was the other way around.
Everybody has different opinions, that's for sure. The only realistic thing nobody can argue with is that here in third world it is IMPOSSIBLE to work on a MAC. Even if you want.
It is a pity for everybody, you know? For PC users also. I am a PC user but also do not feel compelled to be loyal to PC's. I would like to have more choices and to see them fighting to give me the best for the few bucks I have.
And it is a pity that APPLE still does not care that most people around the planet does have FEW bucks. Just a hint: 800US$ is already an expensive machine here in Brazil. Try to guess the number of MACs here... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This site should should be renamed 'OS Opinions With Tech Blurbs From Other Sites'. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? MACS SUCK!!!

Got you attention didn't it...that's about the level of intelligence of just about any Apple post on OSNews.

While we're at it...Vi's better than Emacs, and KDE's better than Gnome, and FreeBSD is better than Linux, and Bananas and better than Oranges, and Salt & Vinegar is a better potato chip flavor than Barbeque, and Craftsman makes better tools than Snap-On, and Ronald Reagan was a better president than Bill Clinton, ...

Mac zealots: you love your Macs so much you'd have sex with them if they hadn't taken the floppy drives out of them. That's fine, doesn't mean we all have to love them too.

PC Users: Macs are technically BETTER than PCs at certain things and worse at others. It's OK. It'll be alright. Don't cry about it.

All these friggin threads ever seem to amount to is a penis measuring contest.

Use whatever works for you and be done with it. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? All these friggin threads ever seem to amount to is a penis measuring contest.

Sorry to say it but I completely agree with you.
It has aparantly become impossible to have anything even resembling a decent debate on the subject. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Quake 3?

what a joke. Quake 3 was designed to run great on the P3 system the guy gave to his dad. It's hardly a worthy test game almost 4 years after it came out. If you all remember the very first Quake 3 TEST released was for the Macintosh first! This was on 1999 era iMac's. And they handled the game with aplomb.

If you're going to compare gaming performance of computers, get some real games. The comparison is superfluous. Shit my Apple iMac 233Mhz can run Loderunner as fast as my 3.2Ghz P4. woo hoo!

Wait around for Unreal Tournament 2003 for the Macintosh and then start running comparisons.

Quake3. feh, gimme a break Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm not sure what the reference point is here. I use two computers at home, I suppose you could call them PCs, and they don't crash. Ever. One "PC" runs FreeBSD and I use it as a CVS, http, ssh, and database server. The other is an ancient laptop on which I run Suse Linux. And I can run 20+ emacs sessions, OpenOffice, Evolution, Mozilla, Gaim and pretty much whatever and it just doesn't crash.

Please don't conflate the operating system with the hardware. I don't particularly like Windows. OS X is nice (especially if you're coming from the *BSD world). I have no issues with Apple, although I do wish they would find a way to make their operating system run on, say, computers more than three years old. I still don't understand how people tolerate the Steve Jobs Upgrade Treadmill.

In the end, don't forget that you should be in control of what you buy. That sounds simple, maybe trite even, but it's harder than it sounds. The OS shouldn't be a carrot at the end of a stick. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The Front Side Bus is a term coined by intel and AMD to call the bus that connected the CPU to the North Bridge or bridge Chip. Before the Opteron, All AMD and Intel chipsets had the memory controller on the NorthBridge. So FSB was an apt term.

Now with the opteron having the memory controller(MC) on chip there are two buses the CPU talks to a) the memory controller and B) the hypertransport links to the NorthBridge and other CPUs.

The bus to the MC might be at processor speed but the MC still talks to the memmory dimms only at DDR 200/266/333. And there in lies the bottle neck. So the cpu can have the data ready to write to memory but the data to the physical location in memory will always be many magnitudes slower. Reads would be worst becuase the cpu has to wait a long time before the data is available to it.

So the AMD cpu speed front side bus is also a myth. If they had developed really fast memory that can talk at those speeds that would be something. But as of now it is just marketing BS. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just an added point. Sun's UltraSPARC cpus have had the MC onchip for the longest time. They also run at cpu speed. But the bottle neck is always slow memory. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The stuff that get's developped on OS X usually is a dream. I just hope more smaller niched software developers would do OS X version on softwares as I rely heavily on very niched stuff. I'm basically stuck to Windows in the office.

Hopefully I'll be able to use a Mac instead some day, if OBOS doesn't get out before I get a chance to buy one, 'cause then I'll be all OBOS.

Even though same problem is around there... Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? - Multi Tasking. It's true that Windows slows to a crawl when running lots of apps. But this is not a bug, it's a feature, seriously. My Mac is amazing at handling the 10 apps I always have open and that's because the OS was designed to run as a server. Normal windows was not designed to be a server, instead it give lots of CPU time to apps. Take a look at how the average user (Mac or PC) uses their computer. He has 1 or 2 apps with the window maximized. We geeks might need a server OS for our desktop but it would just slow things down for normal users.

I hope you're either talking about Win9x or 2k/XP running on 64MB RAM. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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.

I heard similar ideas with the original PCI. I didn't believe them then, I don't believe them now. Perhaps if there was a spec you could post regarding the actual speed of the thing that would be helpful. I don't doubt that it will be a step up from existing interfaces (perhaps a big one, after all the first PCI busses were).

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.

That may be...but there is nothing to say Apple wont use PCI Express.

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.

I agree, bus speed is relevant as a limiting factor. That is a nice way to put it. I actually am little turned off the choice Apple has made for memory. The G5 is designed as a bandwitdh machine. High bus speeds...but DDR 400, though it is good, high end RAMBUS might work better...especially since the PC industry isn't doing much with it (probably due to the IP infringement suits flying around). I have RDRAM on my system and I can tell there is a difference between mine and machines whose only difference is the DDR 333 memory (I haven't gotten to play with DDR 400...but if it is like what I have experienced with DDR 333...it will be a bottleneck compared to what you get with RDRAM). Perhaps DDR 400 will do the job...I'm just sceptical. RDRAM is available at higher speeds...more bandwidth which is what Apple wanted in the 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!

I agree with you actually. Before I did state the differences are the CPU and how the OS was written and optimized for their totally controlled line of hardware. Apple has great quality control, largely because they use a different CPU then the rest of the industry. Does that make the Mac a superior machine?! Good lord NO! Do PCs suck? NO! Is the G5 likely to perform well? Yes. Do Intel based systems perform well? Yes.

The whole key to Apple is the QC and the TCO. From a financial perspective...Macs do look better. In terms of raw performance, it is tough to say...depends on what your focus is.

I just want to see PC fans quit bashing Macs when they do the same things with same hardware. Hello...they aren't nearly as different as people think.

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.

Yep. I want a mac. Not because what steve has to say. Because of what I have read and experienced. Steve is a showman...anything he says MUST be taken with a grain of salt.

I think ultimately Macs and PCs are largely the same. Could the holy war of computers end?! Both macs and PCs run office and connect to networks, etc. They just have different approaches. Use what you like and quit bashing others for choosing what they like. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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.

I think you are one of the lucky ones. There are several NT machines at work...they all crash and burn. Unfortunately we had that happen during an experiment and lost some really valuable data.

Even XP on occassion loses it. Good for you though. Your experience with NT is a rarity. I don't doubt you, but it is rare. Just goes to show you need the right hardware for a computer to run correctly. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wait around for Unreal Tournament 2003 for the Macintosh and then start running comparisons.

Why wait? It's been shipping for a while now.

http://www.macsoftgames.com/products/ut2k3/MacSoft-UT2K3-Page.html

I have tried the demo and it runs very smoothly. MOHAA also runs without a hitch on my system (dual 867).

But these games are very graphics card intensive. And since I am using a Geforce4Ti 128 it stands to reason that they would run well. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The bus to the MC might be at processor speed but the MC still talks to the memmory dimms only at DDR 200/266/333. And there in lies the bottle neck. So the cpu can have the data ready to write to memory but the data to the physical location in memory will always be many magnitudes slower. Reads would be worst becuase the cpu has to wait a long time before the data is available to it.

What Bottle necks?
Do Homwork Body.
Tipical B.S by unagucated Apple Fan boy. Who practicly has no clue how the hardware works.
Try To learn about AMD's Opteron First then type your B.S
Post. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So the AMD CPU speed front side bus is also a myth.
Do you even know What FSB IS?
Or how it works?
What makes you the Export in that field?
Are you a CPU Designer? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? buddy you need to a) calm down b) learn a few things and c) try taking your own arguments for a while. aside from a few half wit bashing comments, what have you contributed to to explain your are the "Export" in any field except perhaps trolling?

now i could paste my resume here, but you will still call my post "Tipical B.S by unagucated Apple Fan boy. Who practicly has no clue how the hardware works" without even reading it, so why bother?

if you want to measure dick size, go right ahead. me i just want a machine that works. (it ain't the size/speed that matters, buddy, it is how you use it that counts!) OS X and Linux both work for me, and they both work on PPC hardware. if you don't like it, don't come to the party........ Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Do you even know What FSB IS?
Or how it works?
What makes you the Export in that field?
Are you a CPU Designer? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 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.

3 1/2 years ago i bought 4 imacs and 1 powermac for our office.
We also had one G3 powermac already.
As of yet none of them has been sent for repairs. granted on slot drive doesn't work on one of the imacs (kids stuck some pennies in it) and the G3 was thrown of a loading dock at an expo (it works fine, although the side panel is held closed with packing tape).

Before that the office had an old PM 8500 that was repaired once (kids stuck nachos in the disk drive-- those darn kids).

The only mac i ever had to ship for repairs is my own TiBook (btw never throw a TiBook down a flight of stairs, it breaks the screen

In the meantime the office has gone through 5-6 PCs (on seat) just to run auto-cad. Wish we could get some architects that could use a modern cad program such as VectorWorks or ArchieCAD (Auto CAD practically hasn't evolved in 10 years).

And as for all the trolling and flaming.

AMAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA

you don't have anything else to waste your time on Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First paragraph was supposed to be a quote from Modab

Duh! Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And where did I say that Apple SUCK? Why are you putting words in my mouth? You need to calm down. I'm no Windows fan boy ether. Do you think that I really like Windows? Boy, you are so confused. I would much rather Use OS X then Windows.
Why? Cause I like it, that's why. But sadly to say it is not available for PC users. Thanks to Apple. I'm not talking about the Apple's OS here, or how friendly the OS X works, or how "Unstable my Windows are" Fact is simple there is no such thing as Perfect OS.
I'm talking about Apple's attitude. Half ASS Explanations that they give to PC Enthusiast's that are building there own systems and are truly aware of how and what makes Computer Fast.

What Bugs me is that Apple Takes the latest PC Hardware and then turns around and trashes the entire PC architecture, the very sours of there successes. Most Apple People have very Limited Computer Understanding; the only thing they know is what Apple tells them. What Makes Apple Apple today? All Components came from some where else. What makes Apple So ADVANCED today, how can you surpass PC if you are in fact using Latest PC hardware. Please don't tell me that Apple has INVENTED PPC 970 or
The HyperTransport Technology, Or the AGP, PCI, USB, SATA, DDR and so on.
All of those things came from IBM, INTEL, and AMD. And you call as THEAFS?

And don't tell me about the MHZ Myth or Opteron's FSB Myth. The only Myth that exists today is Apple. Even though the G4 500Mhz has only 4 stage pipe line it is no where near as fast as 7 stage pipe line G4 1.2Ghz. Oh wait According to Steve Jobs it is other way around. Short pipe=Faster Performance. I wonder what happen to that explanation. Where is the logic? I just love how Apple contradicts its own statements. Fact is, MHz Duos matter end of story. Why? Cause 800Mhz G4 is faster then 500MHz G4 that is the fact.

What happen to the anti IBM Apple. How quickly Apple users have forgotten that. Apple was so anti IBM in 80's that they would not even employ former IBM People.
First you trash then, and then you praise them. Way to go Apple.
What exactly Apple has invited today to be SO Called "INOVATING COMPANY". What exactly they have invented with in 5 Years?
Problem is that Apple Users are driven by Loyalty and nothing more. "Well my Apple is better the your Apple". Whatever, use what the hell you want to use, I care less. It is your God given Freedom to do so, just don't tell me that MAC is better or faster, cause it not. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? well as everyone has already told ya undo the 80 fps limit the config files have set and then compare the 2. You'll see ur pc beating the mac hands down.

Now here's the reason I prefer PC's, price to performance is simply lower then the mac. Nothing else to it. No matter how fast they get, they'll keep raising the price to it so that it'll stay in its little niche. After all steve jobs said this that he believes people will pay a premium for his brand of computers. Doesn't look that way. PC's are cheaper because there are so many different sources to buy one from at a decent price that it keeps competition in check. After all if you wanted something that looks nice, you bet it will cost you more money. But if Mac's do become the norm, the trend of windows being targeted will change to mac's being targeted. Whatever is more popular will be targeted. No matter what you do. Then mac users will have to be constantly updating dealing with the latest e-mail virus being sent around. However I can't see this happening, as price is a factor first. Not the other way around. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Atari... how come everyone has to mention some freaking version of some freaking hardware that came from somewhere back in the day? Does that prove you're a geek? Well perhaps, but my version of a geek doesn't necessarily collide with someone that's smart, I guess the word "geek" has been used as a euphimism for nerd, but geeks aren't nerds, they're just dorky and like computers and are fascinated by science (not necessarily competent).

Do you think you're building up some kind of pathos (emotional appeal) by trying to selectively reminisce with ex-atari users (in this case masses refers to probably about a group of 3 or so people). Whenever I read articles like this, I shudder on the very first few lines. Sure, I used some really old stuff from back in the day like a TI something with keyboard and cartridge slots and smelled like burned circuit boards, but I don't go around using that as the logos (logical appeal) to why I'm a good candidate to write a computer article criticism.

And eugenia, you did well by purging the posts to some apple article where everyone went off topic, that gave me the biggest grin!

I guess the author has a point despite his tired and formulaic writing methodology, pc's are just cheaper to work with than apple (initial costs). I can do everything on my pc that I can do on my mac, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but always cheaper. Don't get me wrong, I've owned a few macs before, but I had to sell cause it was eating me out of house and home (just sold my powerbook 15.2").

Sure the apple is oodles more comfortable to look at especially if you use computers a lot like me. But I'm starting to become less attach to computers and actually finding life itself a lot more interesting. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I'm talking about Apple's attitude. Half ASS Explanations that they give to PC Enthusiast's that are building there own systems and are truly aware of how and what makes Computer Fast."

Apple gives you Spec benchmarks, independent research testing, and real world tests to show what makes their computers faster. What more do you want?


"What Bugs me is that Apple Takes the latest PC Hardware and then turns around and trashes the entire PC architecture, the very sours of there successes.

Apple doesn't "take" the "PC architecture", they use open technologies. That's not something that is specific to PCs. Its naieve for you to phrase your comment like this.



"Most Apple People have very Limited Computer Understanding; the only thing they know is what Apple tells them."

Am I to assume that you think that Most PC people have an advanced knowledge of their systems? The ratio of geeks to average users is probbaly roughly similar between platforms when putting each platforms overall user-base into perspective.


"What Makes Apple Apple today? All Components came from some where else."

That statement is incorrect. Some of the components used within Apple systems come from other places and some are those which Apple created.



"What makes Apple So ADVANCED today, how can you surpass PC if you are in fact using Latest PC hardware."

Apple uses the latest PC hardware as well as hardware that is not available on desktop PC systems. A couple examples include a GHz Bus and a G5 processor.



"Please don't tell me that Apple has INVENTED PPC 970 or
The HyperTransport Technology, Or the AGP, PCI, USB, SATA, DDR and so on."

Apple co-developed the PPC 970 with IBM and is a key member of the HyperTransport consortium... (they co-developed this technology as well)



"And don't tell me about the MHZ Myth"

Are you trying to say that no such myth exists? If so, you are incorrect.



"The only Myth that exists today is Apple."

Not at all. They are a genuine company.



"Even though the G4 500Mhz has only 4 stage pipe line it is no where near as fast as 7 stage pipe line G4 1.2Ghz.

Nobody ever said that the G4 500Mhz is anywhere near as fast as a G4 1.2Ghz.



"Oh wait According to Steve Jobs it is other way around.

Steve never said anything of the sort. The comparison why you are obviously mis-understanding is the lower MHz Macs compared to higher MHz PCs. For much of the G4's life, the G4 9with a lower MHz was faster or the same speed as a PC with an x86 chip with higher MHz.



"Short pipe=Faster Performance. I wonder what happen to that explanation."

You obviously misunderstood the statement that was made.



"Fact is, MHz Duos matter end of story."

MHz does matter when comparing chips of the same family, but is a useless gauge when comparing between two different ones.



"What happen to the anti IBM Apple."

It changed a long time ago when all that is IBM became all that which is Intel and Microsoft.



"What exactly Apple has invited today to be SO Called "INOVATING COMPANY"."

Apple has innovated several technologies.



"What exactly they have invented with in 5 Years? "

Firewire and Rendezvous are two technologies that you might be familiar with.


"Problem is that Apple Users are driven by Loyalty and nothing more."

That loyalty is earned by way of producing great technology.


"just don't tell me that MAC is better or faster, cause it not."

A Mac is better and faster. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not meaning to sound like a troll, but I really think Eugenia should think about setting up "blog.osnews.com" and sticking all these "articles" in there. I don't see how some-personal-experience-story-from-some-random-guy qualifies in any way as NEWS. It's a blog-entry; no more. All these "Why I use OSX" or "My Introduction to Red Hat 9" stories really aren't news-worthy... let's not call it that. I know it's not that big a deal...readers can always just skip the story altogether; but the increasing frequency in which these "stories" are getting posted is alarming. A typical day of OSNews headlines reads:

"More SCO FUD"
"Mozilla releases 1.4.01RC18"
"Some guy tries Linux"
"Mac Zealot says Macs are Kewl - PC guy disagrees"

It almost sounds more like headlines from http://bbspot.com
And I apologize if I sound ingrateful for the job being done here...I think this site is a wonderful resource. But when the comments being left are 1000x more interesting than the story itself, you've got to wonder. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I'm talking about Apple's attitude. Half ASS Explanations that they give to PC Enthusiast's that are building there own systems and are truly aware of how and what makes Computer Fast."

Apple gives you Spec benchmarks, independent research testing, and real world tests to show what makes their computers faster. What more do you want?


"What Bugs me is that Apple Takes the latest PC Hardware and then turns around and trashes the entire PC architecture, the very sours of there successes.

Apple doesn't "take" the "PC architecture", they use open technologies. That's not something that is specific to PCs. Its naieve for you to phrase your comment like this.



"Most Apple People have very Limited Computer Understanding; the only thing they know is what Apple tells them."

Am I to assume that you think that Most PC people have an advanced knowledge of their systems? The ratio of geeks to average users is probbaly roughly similar between platforms when putting each platforms overall user-base into perspective.


"What Makes Apple Apple today? All Components came from some where else."

That statement is incorrect. Some of the components used within Apple systems come from other places and some are those which Apple created.



"What makes Apple So ADVANCED today, how can you surpass PC if you are in fact using Latest PC hardware."

Apple uses the latest PC hardware as well as hardware that is not available on desktop PC systems. A couple examples include a GHz Bus and a G5 processor.



"Please don't tell me that Apple has INVENTED PPC 970 or
The HyperTransport Technology, Or the AGP, PCI, USB, SATA, DDR and so on."

Apple co-developed the PPC 970 with IBM and is a key member of the HyperTransport consortium... (they co-developed this technology as well)



"And don't tell me about the MHZ Myth"

Are you trying to say that no such myth exists? If so, you are incorrect.



"The only Myth that exists today is Apple."

Not at all. They are a genuine company.



"Even though the G4 500Mhz has only 4 stage pipe line it is no where near as fast as 7 stage pipe line G4 1.2Ghz.

Nobody ever said that the G4 500Mhz is anywhere near as fast as a G4 1.2Ghz.



"Oh wait According to Steve Jobs it is other way around.

Steve never said anything of the sort. The comparison why you are obviously mis-understanding is the lower MHz Macs compared to higher MHz PCs. For much of the G4's life, the G4 9with a lower MHz was faster or the same speed as a PC with an x86 chip with higher MHz.



"Short pipe=Faster Performance. I wonder what happen to that explanation."

You obviously misunderstood the statement that was made.



"Fact is, MHz Duos matter end of story."

MHz does matter when comparing chips of the same family, but is a useless gauge when comparing between two different ones.



"What happen to the anti IBM Apple."

It changed a long time ago when all that is IBM became all that which is Intel and Microsoft.



"What exactly Apple has invited today to be SO Called "INOVATING COMPANY"."

Apple has innovated several technologies.



"What exactly they have invented with in 5 Years? "

Firewire and Rendezvous are two technologies that you might be familiar with.


"Problem is that Apple Users are driven by Loyalty and nothing more."

That loyalty is earned by way of producing great technology.


"just don't tell me that MAC is better or faster, cause it not."

A Mac is better and faster.
Wow you obvisly know what you are talking about.
Great work.
Apple did not Developed anything for 5 years that is the fact. Fire Wire is the Only thing that was mad by Apple.
PPC 970 is not an Apple CO-DISIGHN, get it strait. Apple has no CPU design team to the recourses to do such a thing. PPC 970 is IBM not APLLE.
Second, you dual Busses are no match for Opteron. Also the Dual Busses came from Dec in the EV 6, Long before Apple and was adopted by AMD.
Last thing AGP, PCI, PCI-X Duel Channel Memory did
Not come from Apple. It came From AMD, INTEL and IBM.
Do your self a favor go on line, and do some research before
Posting your nonsense. Apple is using PC parts that is the fact don't believe me
HyperTrasport is made by AMD and it is in side your PC G5.
Yes, the truth Bytes Hard! WOW so difficult to admit that there are PC parts in the Mac Today, Particularly the AGP which was Infarct developed by Intel to overcome the bottle necks.

Steve never said anything of the sort. The comparison why you are obviously mis-understanding is the lower MHz Macs compared to higher MHz PCs. For much of the G4's life, the G4 9with a lower MHz was faster or the same speed as a PC with an x86 chip with higher MHz

Realy! Read again! Steve Jobs was saying in the his presentation that the shorter piple line=faster performance.
Read again!
Educate your self first.
http://www.flashua.com/maamdhyper.html
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020506S0019
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/buses/types/agp-c.html
http://support.premiopc.com/faqs/agp.htm
http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer/classes/473/notes/pci.html
http://www.macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://jhoover.weblogdog.com/archive/1/2003-6-9

Benchmarks! READ
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
Read
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
As you can see Apple has not DEVELOPED ANYTHING FOR 5 YEAES.
APPLE IS USING PC PART, FACE THE FACTS. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have been using PCs since the 8086, and have never owned a Mac, i also am a linux user so what i say is only an opinion. From the very little i have dabbled with mac i cannot say i think that they are a whole lot faster then the x86 platform. But then again i haven't had the opportunity to try out a new, state of the art Mac... The reason why i don't switch from PC to Mac is almost purely based on price alone, i'm not much to get into this fanatical stuff... my primary interest is linux, and i cannot justify spending alot of money to buy an extra fancy computer to run linux on that's no faster then my current PC. I am interested in this new ppc970 from ibm, i hope that ibm comes out with an inexpensive workstation with this processor in it, if they do i'll be in line to get it.

Just my two cents Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " I can run lots of applications at once without the machine slowing to a crawl or throwing up the blue screen of death"

What is he talking about ? Is that guy simply cut and pasted an old article from 1995 and just changed to computer model so it fit as of today ?

Blue screen of wha ???
Lots of application that slow down to a crawl on a TWO POINT FOUR GIGAHERTZ ??? Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Apple did not Developed anything for 5 years that is the fact. Fire Wire is the Only thing that was mad by Apple."

Aside from a huge number of innovations in-which Apple made dramatic improvements on already existent technologies, Apple created FireWire from scratch and also created Rendezvous from scratch and also created Quartz Extreme from scratch.


"PPC 970 is not an Apple CO-DISIGHN, get it strait."

Yes, The PPC970 was co-developed by Apple. Both Apple and IBM has said this. (IBM in the most recent Morld Wide Developers conference and Apple on their web page:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/



"Apple has no CPU design team to the recourses to do such a thing. PPC 970 is IBM not APLLE."

Apple does employ some CPU designers and The PPC 970 was jointly designed by IBM and Apple.


"Second, you dual Busses are no match for Opteron. Also the Dual Busses came from Dec in the EV 6, Long before Apple and was adopted by AMD."

I understand what you're trying to say... you just didn't say it very eloquently. What you said was that the G5's Dual busses aren't a match for AMD's chip. (A bus isn't meant to do that which a chip does... and vice versa) What you meant to say was that The G5 along with its dual busses will be no match for the AMD chip.

First of all, you can't make such a comparison because no such comparisons have been made yet. Most would argue that The XEON is a close match for AMD's Opteron and yet the G5 beat it. Secondly, should either chip outpace the other it will likely be so for only a small margin... so yes... but chips will be good matches for each other.



"Do your self a favor go on line, and do some research before Posting your nonsense."

Nothing in my post was nonsense, but I like your suggestion. perhaps you should apply it to your own statements some time.


"Apple is using PC parts that is the fact don't believe me"

Apple is using computer parts... parts that are a part of most every computing platform. They are not specific to x86 PCs and therefore can not be declared as such. However, Apple does use several technologies developed by companies that are specific to x86... not unlike many x86 PC manufacturers are using technologies that were developed by Apple.



"HyperTrasport is made by AMD and it is in side your PC G5."

HyperTrasport is made by AMD along with API Networks, Cisco, nVidia, PMC-Siera, Sun Microsystems, transmeta form, AS WELL AS APPLE... which, according to a HyperTrasport Consortium press release shows Apple as one of the technology's "leaders"


"Yes, the truth Bytes Hard!

Not at all. Apple is one among a handful of 180 companies (only 7 of which are leaders) throughout the computer and communications industries have been engaged with AMD in working with the HyperTransport technology.


"WOW so difficult to admit that there are PC parts in the Mac Today"

Not difficult at all, because these technologies aren't specific to the x86 PC.



"Realy! Read again! Steve Jobs was saying in the his presentation that the shorter piple line=faster performance."

Steve said that a shorter pipeline leads to faster error correction because the time in which to correct those "bubbles" take less time to complete the pipeline which results in the process being executed faster.

He said that a shorter pipeline could send instructions faster. As a matter of fact, Apple said that Intel's chips can send data through their pipeline fasters faster but because the error correction takes longer to execute, the end result was that the chips overall speed was roughly the same.

Towards the end of its lifetime, The P4 outpaced the G4 because Motorola didn't ram up clock speeds as quickly as they had done in the past, and therefore, Intel's chips were able to send data through their pipeline faster than the G4 even when factoring in error correction. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Mac is history... yes they are releasing there over priced g5 which some of you will buy and you try to defend your purchase by saying if you added up all the software etc but how many people actually use half of that? NOT MANY 1 might say they use it all but thats like 1 out of 10,000. Plus im sure in a year intel and amd will pass them again on speed ( i think intel already did with the 800mhz fsb chips ) and when will you see a new apple? 2 - 3 years sure they will be upgrades just to try to keep up with the intels etc. Apple will never get any market back releasing this bs, but maybe their not trying to. I think apples only chance to ever gain any ground is release the macos x for the x86 and do some kind of wine or something so companies can maybe recompile real easy for it or something! lots of people are fed up with ms and linux is great but not always the solution. I think apple has a chance there and could take some of the market but they would have to make the first release excellent. I have used a mac for about a year and never will own another one.
now lets hear the flames how you mac really wasnt that expensive when you add in all the other crap you will never use. SOME MIGHT MOST WONT! Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "From the very little i have dabbled with mac i cannot say i think that they are a whole lot faster then the x86 platform."

Actually, the G4 is not faster than the fastest x86. As a matter of fact, x86 is faster... (Although this is not the case when speaking of applications that take advantage altivec instructions inherent in the G4. The G5 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than x86.


"The reason why i don't switch from PC to Mac is almost purely based on price alone, i'm not much to get into this fanatical stuff... my primary interest is linux, and i cannot justify spending alot of money to buy an extra fancy computer to run linux on that's no faster then my current PC."

The advantage of the PC is not that it is cheaper... Rather, it allows you to buy less and therefore pay less. Apple only allows less configurability which requires you to buy more and therefore pay more. However, when both systems are compared with the same specs, the Mac will be similarly priced. Sometimes slightly more. Sometimes the same. Sometimes slightly less. and sometimes significantly less. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Jason (IP: ---.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net):
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?
--------
Great article here:
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1830

Also news:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8000
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10507
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10028 Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Apple did not Developed anything for 5 years that is the fact. Fire Wire is the Only thing that was mad by Apple."

Aside from a huge number of innovations in-which Apple made dramatic improvements on already existent technologies, Apple created FireWire from scratch and also created Rendezvous from scratch and also created Quartz Extreme from scratch.


"PPC 970 is not an Apple CO-DISIGHN, get it strait."

Yes, The PPC970 was co-developed by Apple. Both Apple and IBM has said this. (IBM in the most recent Morld Wide Developers conference and Apple on their web page:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/



"Apple has no CPU design team to the recourses to do such a thing. PPC 970 is IBM not APLLE."

Apple does employ some CPU designers and The PPC 970 was jointly designed by IBM and Apple.


"Second, you dual Busses are no match for Opteron. Also the Dual Busses came from Dec in the EV 6, Long before Apple and was adopted by AMD."

I understand what you're trying to say... you just didn't say it very eloquently. What you said was that the G5's Dual busses aren't a match for AMD's chip. (A bus isn't meant to do that which a chip does... and vice versa) What you meant to say was that The G5 along with its dual busses will be no match for the AMD chip.

First of all, you can't make such a comparison because no such comparisons have been made yet. Most would argue that The XEON is a close match for AMD's Opteron and yet the G5 beat it. Secondly, should either chip outpace the other it will likely be so for only a small margin... so yes... but chips will be good matches for each other.



"Do your self a favor go on line, and do some research before Posting your nonsense."

Nothing in my post was nonsense, but I like your suggestion. perhaps you should apply it to your own statements some time.


"Apple is using PC parts that is the fact don't believe me"

Apple is using computer parts... parts that are a part of most every computing platform. They are not specific to x86 PCs and therefore can not be declared as such. However, Apple does use several technologies developed by companies that are specific to x86... not unlike many x86 PC manufacturers are using technologies that were developed by Apple.



"HyperTrasport is made by AMD and it is in side your PC G5."

HyperTrasport is made by AMD along with API Networks, Cisco, nVidia, PMC-Siera, Sun Microsystems, transmeta form, AS WELL AS APPLE... which, according to a HyperTrasport Consortium press release shows Apple as one of the technology's "leaders"


"Yes, the truth Bytes Hard!

Not at all. Apple is one among a handful of 180 companies (only 7 of which are leaders) throughout the computer and communications industries have been engaged with AMD in working with the HyperTransport technology.


"WOW so difficult to admit that there are PC parts in the Mac Today"

Not difficult at all, because these technologies aren't specific to the x86 PC.



"Realy! Read again! Steve Jobs was saying in the his presentation that the shorter piple line=faster performance."

Steve said that a shorter pipeline leads to faster error correction because the time in which to correct those "bubbles" take less time to complete the pipeline which results in the process being executed faster.

He said that a shorter pipeline could send instructions faster. As a matter of fact, Apple said that Intel's chips can send data through their pipeline fasters faster but because the error correction takes longer to execute, the end result was that the chips overall speed was roughly the same.

Towards the end of its lifetime, The P4 outpaced the G4 because Motorola didn't ram up clock speeds as quickly as they had done in the past, and therefore, Intel's chips were able to send data through their pipeline faster than the G4 even when factoring in error correction.
You are prooving my point!
Your knolege is based on Steve Jobs's B.S.
Read My post againg.
Just read. Don't Post APPLE.com Show me some proof that Apple did infect Develovep somthing within 5 years.
Ill post this for you agan.
PPC 970 Was made from the IBM power 4. You folowing me.
PPC 970 is IBM CPU Apple has nothing to do with it.
They did not Co-developed it.
HyperTransport Was made by AMD. Apple hase nothing to do with it.
AGP, PCI, USB, WAS made by Intel.
READ AGAIN APPLE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY NEW TECH FOR A LONG TIME.

Show me the proof that APPLE DID CO-disighh the CPU or
HyperTrasport.
HERE READ!
Plese no more marketing Steve Jobs B.S from apple.com
Here read again. Plese just read it.

http://www.flashua.com/maamdhyper.html
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020506S0019
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/buses/types/agp-c.html
Like I have sad to youself a vafor learn about the HISTORY OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE before making posts. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Apple did not Developed anything for 5 years that is the fact. Fire Wire is the Only thing that was mad by Apple."

Aside from a huge number of innovations in-which Apple made dramatic improvements on already existent technologies, Apple created FireWire from scratch and also created Rendezvous from scratch and also created Quartz Extreme from scratch.


"PPC 970 is not an Apple CO-DISIGHN, get it strait."

Yes, The PPC970 was co-developed by Apple. Both Apple and IBM has said this. (IBM in the most recent Morld Wide Developers conference and Apple on their web page:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/



"Apple has no CPU design team to the recourses to do such a thing. PPC 970 is IBM not APLLE."

Apple does employ some CPU designers and The PPC 970 was jointly designed by IBM and Apple.


"Second, you dual Busses are no match for Opteron. Also the Dual Busses came from Dec in the EV 6, Long before Apple and was adopted by AMD."

I understand what you're trying to say... you just didn't say it very eloquently. What you said was that the G5's Dual busses aren't a match for AMD's chip. (A bus isn't meant to do that which a chip does... and vice versa) What you meant to say was that The G5 along with its dual busses will be no match for the AMD chip.

First of all, you can't make such a comparison because no such comparisons have been made yet. Most would argue that The XEON is a close match for AMD's Opteron and yet the G5 beat it. Secondly, should either chip outpace the other it will likely be so for only a small margin... so yes... but chips will be good matches for each other.



"Do your self a favor go on line, and do some research before Posting your nonsense."

Nothing in my post was nonsense, but I like your suggestion. perhaps you should apply it to your own statements some time.


"Apple is using PC parts that is the fact don't believe me"

Apple is using computer parts... parts that are a part of most every computing platform. They are not specific to x86 PCs and therefore can not be declared as such. However, Apple does use several technologies developed by companies that are specific to x86... not unlike many x86 PC manufacturers are using technologies that were developed by Apple.



"HyperTrasport is made by AMD and it is in side your PC G5."

HyperTrasport is made by AMD along with API Networks, Cisco, nVidia, PMC-Siera, Sun Microsystems, transmeta form, AS WELL AS APPLE... which, according to a HyperTrasport Consortium press release shows Apple as one of the technology's "leaders"


"Yes, the truth Bytes Hard!

Not at all. Apple is one among a handful of 180 companies (only 7 of which are leaders) throughout the computer and communications industries have been engaged with AMD in working with the HyperTransport technology.


"WOW so difficult to admit that there are PC parts in the Mac Today"

Not difficult at all, because these technologies aren't specific to the x86 PC.



"Realy! Read again! Steve Jobs was saying in the his presentation that the shorter piple line=faster performance."

Steve said that a shorter pipeline leads to faster error correction because the time in which to correct those "bubbles" take less time to complete the pipeline which results in the process being executed faster.

He said that a shorter pipeline could send instructions faster. As a matter of fact, Apple said that Intel's chips can send data through their pipeline fasters faster but because the error correction takes longer to execute, the end result was that the chips overall speed was roughly the same.

Towards the end of its lifetime, The P4 outpaced the G4 because Motorola didn't ram up clock speeds as quickly as they had done in the past, and therefore, Intel's chips were able to send data through their pipeline faster than the G4 even when factoring in error correction.
You are prooving my point!
Your knolege is based on Steve Jobs's B.S.
Read My post againg.
Just read. Don't Post APPLE.com Show me some proof that Apple did infect Develovep somthing within 5 years.
Ill post this for you agan.
PPC 970 Was made from the IBM power 4. You folowing me.
PPC 970 is IBM CPU Apple has nothing to do with it.
They did not Co-developed it.
HyperTransport Was made by AMD. Apple hase nothing to do with it.
AGP, PCI, USB, WAS made by Intel.
READ AGAIN APPLE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY NEW TECH FOR A LONG TIME.

Show me the proof that APPLE DID CO-disighh the CPU or
HyperTrasport.
HERE READ!
Plese no more marketing Steve Jobs B.S from apple.com
Here read again. Plese just read it.

http://www.flashua.com/maamdhyper.html
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020506S0019
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/buses/types/agp-c.html
Like I have sad to youself a vafor learn about the HISTORY OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE before making posts. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Mac is history..."

Not at all.


"Yes they are releasing there over priced g5"

If you think that is overpriced, you must also think that comparably equipped PCs are overpriced as they would typically cost you in excess of $1200 over that which Apple charges you.


"which some of you will buy and you try to defend your purchase by saying if you added up all the software etc"

We don't need to defend it. The specs speak for themselves. The software which comes with the G5 accounts for only $300 of an equivalently equipped PC. There's an additional $900 that a PC would cost you in hardware along if you were to buy a comparably equipped PC.



"but how many people actually use half of that [software]? NOT MANY"

The demographic that buys a G5 is not only likely to use that hardware, but they are likely to upgrade to the professional version of the bundled software.



"Plus im sure in a year intel and amd will pass them again on speed"

In a year, Intel and AMD might pass up the current G5, but in a years time, The G5 will have progressed significantly as well. The G5's roadmap is incredible.



"( i think intel already did with the 800mhz fsb chips )"

Forgive me if i don't just take your word for it.



"and when will you see a new apple? 2 - 3 years sure they will be upgrades just to try to keep up with the intels etc."

IBM has said that the next derivative of the G5 will be 400% faster than the current G5 and will be out in less than 12 months


"Apple will never get any market back releasing this bs,"

Apple is likely to generate a large amount of market share AND user base as a result of this truth (non BS)



" I think apples only chance to ever gain any ground is release the macos x for the x86"

And that is the perspective that makes you a 10 per hr. gofer at the company you work for and Steve Jobs a very rich man and Apple a profitable company.



"and do some kind of wine or something so companies can maybe recompile real easy for it or something!"

Apple may incorporate a WINE-like product in OS X.


"lots of people are fed up with ms and linux is great but not always the solution."

The problem is Microsoft's illegal control over PC OEMs and requiring that they not bundle any other OS with their hardware lest they loose their license to sell Windows. Everyone knows that OS pre-loads are the way to sell OSes... and not boxed copies. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sorry my English is bad as it is not my language. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not at all.


"Yes they are releasing there over priced g5"

If you think that is overpriced, you must also think that comparably equipped PCs are overpriced as they would typically cost you in excess of $1200 over that which Apple charges you.


"which some of you will buy and you try to defend your purchase by saying if you added up all the software etc"

We don't need to defend it. The specs speak for themselves. The software which comes with the G5 accounts for only $300 of an equivalently equipped PC. There's an additional $900 that a PC would cost you in hardware along if you were to buy a comparably equipped PC.



"but how many people actually use half of that [software]? NOT MANY"

The demographic that buys a G5 is not only likely to use that hardware, but they are likely to upgrade to the professional version of the bundled software.



"Plus im sure in a year intel and amd will pass them again on speed"

In a year, Intel and AMD might pass up the current G5, but in a years time, The G5 will have progressed significantly as well. The G5's roadmap is incredible.



"( i think intel already did with the 800mhz fsb chips )"

Forgive me if i don't just take your word for it.



"and when will you see a new apple? 2 - 3 years sure they will be upgrades just to try to keep up with the intels etc."

IBM has said that the next derivative of the G5 will be 400% faster than the current G5 and will be out in less than 12 months


"Apple will never get any market back releasing this bs,"

Apple is likely to generate a large amount of market share AND user base as a result of this truth (non BS)



" I think apples only chance to ever gain any ground is release the macos x for the x86"

And that is the perspective that makes you a 10 per hr. gofer at the company you work for and Steve Jobs a very rich man and Apple a profitable company.



"and do some kind of wine or something so companies can maybe recompile real easy for it or something!"

Apple may incorporate a WINE-like product in OS X.


"lots of people are fed up with ms and linux is great but not always the solution."

The problem is Microsoft's illegal control over PC OEMs and requiring that they not bundle any other OS with their hardware lest they loose their license to sell Windows. Everyone knows that OS pre-loads are the way to sell OSes... and not boxed copies.
You are so foul of shit.
Apple already is loosig on thamarket.
READ AGAIN.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/ Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? AMD is already beating G5 Wake up man! Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You are prooving my point! Your knolege is based on Steve Jobs's B.S. "

Nothing Job's comment was BS and my point is valid outside the comments made by Apple


"Read My post againg.
Just read. Don't Post APPLE.com Show me some proof that Apple did infect Develovep somthing within 5 years."

Ummm... I've already done that. Several times. you obviously aren't reading correctly



"PPC 970 Was made from the IBM power 4. You folowing me.
PPC 970 is IBM CPU Apple has nothing to do with it.
They did not Co-developed it."

The 970 is not the Power4. The changes that were made were co-developed by IBM and Apple. BOTH companies have said as much.


"HyperTransport Was made by AMD. Apple hase nothing to do with it."

Read this: http://www.hypertransport.org/pr_072401.htm

HyperTrasport is made by AMD along with API Networks, Cisco, nVidia, PMC-Siera, Sun Microsystems, transmeta form, AS WELL AS APPLE... which, according to a HyperTrasport Consortium press release shows Apple as one of the technology's "leaders"

Apple is one among a handful of 180 companies (only 7 of which are leaders) throughout the computer and communications industries have been engaged with AMD in working with the HyperTransport technology.



"AGP, PCI, USB, WAS made by Intel.
READ AGAIN APPLE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY NEW TECH FOR A LONG TIME."

All these technologies are general PC technologies. They are not specific to any one platform... hence the reason why Apple is using them. This is not unlike the PC industry using several Apple innovations that were developed within the past 5 years such as FireWire and Rendezvous



"Show me the proof that APPLE DID CO-disighh the CPU or HyperTrasport."

Hypertransport: http://www.hypertransport.org/pr_072401.htm
G5: See WWDC Video when IBM rep comes up: http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
G5: See this page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/ Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One more Time.
APPLE IS USING PC PARTS.
APPLE IS NOT FASTER THEN PC.
APPLE DID NOT DEVELOPED ANYTHING FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS.
APPLE IS PC.
SHOW ME THE PROOF THAT APPLE IS FASTER. I dont' read Steaves B.S apple.com WRONG.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
Apple will never be as fast or as Good then PC.
READ READ READ.

AGP technology was introduced to the market in the third quarter of 1997. The first support for this technology was from Intel's 440LX Pentium II chipset developed by Intel.
USB technology was unveiled by Intel in 1995.
Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus was developed by Intel and introduced in 1993.
PCI-X technology was developed jointly by IBM, HP, and Compaq. HyperTransport Technology was invented at AMD.
Point to Point FSB BUS was released with AMD760MP chipset in 2001. Originale came from DEC EV6.

Name one thing in G5 that is truly revolutionary. What makes Apple G5 the "New Invention"? There is absolutely nothing in G5 box that was developed by Apple.
Apple is dead. PC's are taking over the world. Face the facts. Apple is no more
Apple=PC. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You are so foul of shit."

Take a look in the mirror when you make that statement.


"Apple already is loosig on thamarket."

last quarter, Apple gained significant market share in every market they compete within except for desktop computers. However, because the G5 was not available and because the G4 was not up to par, consumers didn't buy them and so Apple's most significant market generator caused the company's OVERALL market to slide.

Remember, market share is a gauge of a company's sales in relation to how they perform in any given quarter (3 month period). it IS NOT a guage for overall userbase.

If Apple maintains the same stellar sales in every quarter like they did the last, and if because the G5 is now released thereby picking up lost sales for the desktop computer, Apple's market share will take a DRAMATIC rise next quarter.

Again, remember, market share is a gauge of a company's sales in relation to how they perform in any given quarter (3 month period). it IS NOT a guage for overall userbase. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The problem is Microsoft's illegal control over PC OEMs and requiring that they not bundle any other OS with their hardware lest they loose their license to sell Windows. Everyone knows that OS pre-loads are the way to sell OSes... and not boxed copies.

MS dosen't do that anymore. They can't.

Dell sells server systems with Linux or Windows right now. Dell will even sell you a system with no OS at all.

That kinda blows your theory out of the water. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "AMD is already beating G5 Wake up man!"

No its not. The G5 isn't even out!

[shakes head] Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Show me other websides that proof that Apple in fact developed somthing. apple.com is not a proof it is marketing B.S Just like ATI.com, Nvida.com, Intel.com.
Amd.com
SHow me the Real performaces test from some other web. Also show me where the Apple Co-disghn Anything
in G5
What proof do you have other then apple.com to back up your stamments?
I can copy paste all day long to you from other sorses that you are wrong.
Lets go again.
AGP, PCI, USB =INTEL.
PPC970 originated from Power 4 (asoming you know what that means)IBM not APPLE not Co-Apple not Apple.com.
Show me the proof that shows that apple is the Fastest on the market.
Alos PPC 970 was made as low cost server/warkstation cpu
Again From IBM, By IBM, Apple and Big Blue ton' mix. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "One more Time.
APPLE IS USING PC PARTS."

Apple is using computer parts that are also used by PCs.
PCs are also using computer parts made by Apple.


"APPLE IS NOT FASTER THEN PC."

Every test made thus far has shown that the G5 is faster than any desktop PC.


"APPLE DID NOT DEVELOPED ANYTHING FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS." Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I told you I'm not intereste in apple.com I do not read
Steve Job's BS.

Show me the proof. Proove me wrnog!
apple.com is not proof. It is marketing nothing more. Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>>"The problem is Microsoft's illegal control over PC OEMs and requiring that they not bundle any other OS with their hardware lest they loose their license to sell Windows. Everyone knows that OS pre-loads are the way to sell OSes... and not boxed copies." Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Show me other websides that proof that Apple in fact developed somthing. apple.com is not a proof it is marketing B.S Just like ATI.com, Nvida.com, Intel.com.
Amd.com"

If Apple creates something, and says so, what more could you possibly want. The job is on your shoulders to disprove that Apple created such technologies as FireWire, Rendezvous and Quartz Extreme.

I don;t care if you don't believe me (or Apple for that matter), I just wish you would stop spreading FUD.



"SHow me the Real performaces test from some other web."

http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/a67986e6dfb80d/www.apple.com/po...


Also show me where the Apple Co-disghn Anything in G5

Hypertransport: http://www.hypertransport.org/pr_072401.htm
G5: See WWDC Video when IBM rep comes up: http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
G5: See this page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/



"I can copy paste all day long to you from other sorses that you are wrong."

All those posts are incorrect.


"AGP, PCI, USB =INTEL."

These are Computer technologies that are used by several computer companies. They are not specific to the PC. Not unlike several technologies used within Apple systems are used within PCs.



"PPC970 originated from Power 4 (asoming you know what that means)IBM not APPLE not Co-Apple not Apple.com."

Yes, the PPC970 originated from the Power4. The 970 is a derivative of the Power 4.
Both Apple and IBM worked on those derivatives:
G5: See WWDC Video when IBM rep comes up: http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
G5: See this page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/



"Show me the proof that shows that apple is the Fastest on the market."

Apple never said that they had the fastest computer on the market. However, they did say that their G5 is faster in nearly every bechmark and real world test when compared to the Pentium 4 and XEON. This was backed by an independant research study and several spec benchmarks and real world tests:

http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/a67986e6dfb80d/www.apple.com/po...




"Alos PPC 970 was made as low cost server/warkstation cpu
Again From IBM, By IBM, Apple and Big Blue ton' mix."

The 970 was made as a low-cost DESKTOP, server and workstation CPU and was developed by IBM and Apple:

See WWDC Video when IBM rep comes up: http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
See this page: http://www.apple.com/powermac/ Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? well i finally understood Nail's comments after reading them a few times. first, and right off, what country are u from if English isn't your first language? no offense, i was just wondering..(maybe it's iraq or something and you've been told that anything the "enemy" says is BS!

anyways, u wanted sources outside apple. here's one
www.xvsxp.com Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? APPLE DID NOT DEVELOP ANYTHING FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS." Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? now SHUT THE FUCK UP about your queer subjectivist remarks. your entire attitude seems to be "what i think is right, everything else is BS"
The same can be sad about you Asshole.
get a life, and some brain cells, because your writings here sure point otherwise.
I was thingking the same thing about you.
Your anger is the idecation of frastration.
You can't proove me Wrong all you can do is BITCH Like a some cheep HORE. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? NAIL YOU ARE FUCKIN RETARDED

READ THE FUCKING POSTS

IVE POSTED FUCKING LINKS OUTSIDE APPLE

YOURE TOO FUCKIN RETARDED TO READ THEM BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW ANY ENGLISH

I COULD GO ON ABOUT WHAT APPLE DID INVENT, BUT YOU WOULDNT READ IT ANYWAY

NOW STFU AND GO HUMP A CAMEL YA FUCKIN SUBJECTIVIST MORONIC INVERTEBRAE! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You can't proove me Wrong all you can do is BITCH Like a some cheep HORE
What proove! Your forgoten to proove me wrong Bitch.
APPLE IS PC HAAAAA END OF LINE APPLE HAS NOTHING TO OFER TO THE APPLE PEOPLE EXAPT INTEL,IBM,AMD TECH.
NOW STFU AND GO HUMP A CAMEL YA FUCKIN SUBJECTIVIST MORONIC INVERTEBRAE!
PLeas do that and KISS YOUR STEVE JOBS IN HTE ASS FOR PROVIDING YOU WITH THE PC PARTS!
HAVE A NICE DAY ASSHOLE!
HAAAA
STUPID FUCK! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Stupid American SHIT HEAD!I'm not from Iraq you fuck!
I'm From Erope. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "What Apple did infect Invent? Yes I know FIRE Wire
Show me the True APPLE Architecture that came from APPLE
BY APPLE.

I've showed you several different technologies several times... all of which were totally-Apple created. the more and more you comment, the more I'm lead to believe that you're trying to bait me into saying something which you have a prepared statement for.


>>>"Now you name one thing in a PC that is truly revolutionary on a PC."
"Everything that you Apple have stolen from PC side."

Not true at all. (I noticed you didn't answer my question.



>>>"Name one thing in G5 that is truly revolutionary."OS X. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Erope? NEVER HEARD OF EROPE?! IS THAT SWAHILI FOR GAYLAND?

AND WHO SAID IM A YANK?!

HAH UR THE SHIT HEAD, AND STOP TAKING MY REMARKS, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE UR FUCKIN OWN ONES... Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "The same can be sad about you Asshole.
get a life, and some brain cells, because your writings here sure point otherwise."

Nope. its just you.


"Your anger is the idecation of frastration."

No, your trollings make his anger justified.


"You can't proove me Wrong all you can do is BITCH Like a some cheep HORE."

You have been proven wrong several times, and the whoreish bitching has been coming from you Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ITS "WHORE" ya DUMBASS

and now he's copy/pasting comments, because he can't speak decent english...and it's still wrong

last Nail's post grade: D- Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You can't proove me Wrong all you can do is BITCH Like a some cheep HORE
What proove! Your forgoten to proove me wrong Bitch.
APPLE IS PC HAAAAA END OF LINE APPLE HAS NOTHING TO OFER TO THE APPLE PEOPLE EXAPT INTEL,IBM,AMD TECH.
NOW STFU AND GO HUMP A CAMEL YA FUCKIN SUBJECTIVIST MORONIC INVERTEBRAE!
PLeas do that and KISS YOUR STEVE JOBS IN HTE ASS FOR PROVIDING YOU WITH THE PC PARTS!
HAVE A NICE DAY ASSHOLE!
HAAAA
STUPID FUCK!"

If there was any doubt before... this statement by itself is proof that this individual is a flame starting troll and should be banned from the internet. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? u said that already come up with something new beyotch Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? --Nail's Misspelled Words Count--

"cheep" (cheap)
"hore" (whore)
"proove" (proof, noun form)
"your" (should be "you've)

APPLE IS PC HAAAAA END OF LINE APPLE HAS NOTHING TO OFER TO THE APPLE PEOPLE EXAPT INTEL,IBM,AMD TECH.
(should be halfway competant words, constructed in a grammatical manner. that is just hopeless it seems)

"hte" (the)
"troll" (15th century degrading term, is this guy that old?)




who's the dumbass?
eheheh Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i agree with baz888 he knows all!!!!
and windows suxs ass
osx is god!!!! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? hey nail u still there man?

maybe his Winblows crashed on him and his motherboard fried, but hey PCs still rock right? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm not from Afghanistan FOOL!
And what deference it would make where I'm from.
.
If there was any doubt before... this statement by itself is proof that this individual is a flame starting troll and should be banned from the internet.

No shit! You are corect you shoud be band from the Internet.

Can't prove me wrong BITCH!
APPLE=PC.
NO APPE PARTS IN YOUR IBM COMATIBLE APPLE.
HHAA
"The same can be sad about you Asshole.
get a life, and some brain cells, because your writings here sure point otherwise."

Nope. its just you.


"Your anger is the idecation of frastration."

No, your trollings make his anger justified.


"You can't proove me Wrong all you can do is BITCH Like a some cheep HORE."

You have been proven wrong several times, and the whoreish bitching has been coming from you
OK
NAME ONE THING THAT WAS INVENTED BY APPLE'S G5 ARHITECTURE. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? NAME ON THING THAT WAS INVENTED BY APPLE IN G5?
WHAT APPLE HAS INVENTED WITH IN 5 YEARS?
WHAT APPLE MAKES TODAY THAT IS TRULLY FROM APPLE? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? NAME ONE THING THAT DELL INVENTED IN IT's COMPUTERS! HAH!

Also, Apple invented FIREWIRE! HAH! OWNED!

i'll fix your latest spelling later on, im gonna eat dinner now Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? nail your sad

u have to resort to cursing and swearing to vent your anger!!! that is sad man!! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just so you know My PC has been Rendering Animation for the last 2 WEEKS strait. and my system is very Sable.
However:YOU MACINTRASH IS SIMPLY CAN"T HADNLE LIGHTWAVE AS WELL AS MY PC DOUES. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "NAME ON THING THAT WAS INVENTED BY APPLE IN G5?"

Firewire.


"WHAT APPLE HAS INVENTED WITH IN 5 YEARS?"

Firewire, Quartz Extreme, Rendezvous are just a few. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Just so you know My PC has been Rendering Animation for the last 2 WEEKS strait. and my system is very Sable."

My Mac can render animation for 2 weeks strait and be very Sable as well.


"However:YOU MACINTRASH IS SIMPLY CAN"T HADNLE LIGHTWAVE AS WELL AS MY PC DOUES."

I prefer Maya Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ohhh... almost forgot to add "Exposé" to the list of Apple specific technologies that i was ratteling off the top of my head when I mentioned Firewire, Quartz Extreme and Rendezvous. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? nail your sad

On the contrary, I'm very happy right now.
My Animation is completed and I'm working on the post production right now.
My Workstations REDERING FAR FASTER THEN YOU MACINTRASH.
And since you are so smart I guess you know what Sub-d surface means or how to use it. Ever Used Any 3d Packages before?
Ever used Maya or LightWave before?

u have to resort to cursing and swearing to vent your anger!!! that is sad man!!

You are the one who started to Swear and making the Racial remarks first.
Or you head is so doped Right now that you can't even remember. You are the one who started to swear first not me. Is you G slow so really that Unstable, Causing you too lose track of you own statements.
My swearing was a direct response to you STUPIDITY.
READ YOUR POST FIRST JACKLE. YOU know You SHOULD STOP SMOKING POD IT IS NOT GOOD FOR YOUR BRAIN (if you have any)

Name ONE THING THAT WAS INVENTED BY APPLE IN G5
Fire Wire! WOW ONE THING AMAZING. I guess that would qualify APPLE AS "THE REAL INTETORS".
BUY for now! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? lol* "However, nowhere in the x86 pc industry will you find a 1 Ghz fsb"
EXACTLY -- nowhere in the *entire* industry, since there are no G5s to be bought anywhere. On the other hand, there is Abit with FSB 1200 MHz Rambus boards

This has already been gone over several times. You aren't contributing anything new.

Further, oh wow...you are talking about the G5 not being available but 800 Mhz bussed P4s are now. Who gives a crap?! The G5 is hitting shelves in a couple weeks anyhow.


Put the crack-pipe down, will ya..? firstly, you ppl defend this "bench mark" notwithstanding the hilarious gap FSB-wise between the tested 800 Mhz P4 and the 100 of the Mac.

WTF! How infantile can you be? Insulting someone like that really helps your cause. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Thank you! My sentiment exactly.

I don't understand why a holy war has to break out everytime and name calling must start.

They are computers. Why do people have to start insulting and acting barbaric over a thing like computers?

Shit...if people want to do that...why not select something else to get pissed about...something more important...like ketchup.

Why the hell is it that I can't go to a fast food joint and get a damned burger without ketchup? It seems like the people behind the counter go into shock if I say "no ketchup." I just hate the stuff. Oh then there is the spelling...ketchup vs. catsup.

Fuck...they are computers. Stop with the lame, hostile attitudes. Try acting like adults. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have been using PCs since the 8086, and have never owned a Mac, i also am a linux user so what i say is only an opinion. From the very little i have dabbled with mac i cannot say i think that they are a whole lot faster then the x86 platform. But then again i haven't had the opportunity to try out a new, state of the art Mac... The reason why i don't switch from PC to Mac is almost purely based on price alone, i'm not much to get into this fanatical stuff... my primary interest is linux, and i cannot justify spending alot of money to buy an extra fancy computer to run linux on that's no faster then my current PC. I am interested in this new ppc970 from ibm, i hope that ibm comes out with an inexpensive workstation with this processor in it, if they do i'll be in line to get it.

Just my two cents

Thank you for being a reasonable PC user. Its nice to see someone from the Linux side coming in here not trying spread FUD about Macs.

Don't worry about the ppc970. I hear waht you are saying about the price tag...it does seem steep. But keep in mind, Apple does sell on high margins. They have been doin very heavy R&D and restructuring, advertising, etc. I would suspect that since Apple finally seems to be getting to where they want to be technology-wise (essentially recovering from the gross mismanagement of the previous CEO) I wouldn't be surprised if the G5 price tag came down. IBM may even make their own workstation with the PPC970. Either way, you are talking about a product that hasn't really hit the shelves and the manufacturing plant is having trouble keeping up with demand. That means the price tag will be up for a while. It will come down...along with the margins. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please someone... Do it now!

BTW NAIL, you should buy a Mac and use Safari's integrated spell checker. Even if english isn't your native language it's no excuse for the poor spelling.

No company makes an entirely original system. not one. They all use more or less the same technologies. Imagine the nightmare otherwise.

Your assertion that Macs use PC parts is as stupid as saying Windows runs Mac apps (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Pagemaker were all published on the Mac first).

BTW, USB is an inferior technology that beat out the superior Firewire for purely marketing reasons. Hell, the USB2 standard isn't even as good as the original Firewire spec. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For the people saying Apple invented Rendevous, thats just not true.

Its just a renamed ZeroConf (zeroconf.org) that is an open standard developed for Linux.

It is currently shipping in Mandrake Linux. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And you can talk all day long about my spelling I can care less ok.
We are not discussing the PROPER GRAMER HERE. Or how to spell something properly.
What we are talking about is technology and where it came from.
What you have to realize that Apple is lying to you all. The claim that they have the best in the world, yet they have failed to admit that the Architecture is based entirely on pc.

Your assertion that Macs use PC parts is as stupid as saying Windows runs Mac apps (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Pagemaker were all published on the Mac first).

In is not assertion it is the fact. Deal with it. All components that make Apple today
Came from some one else deign and not from Apple.
You are comparing PC clones to APPLE. Since when Apple became a PC clone?

Apple people are quick to point out that FIRE WIRE in my PC was originally made
and Design by Apple. But when you are using PC architecture in the you Mac is it is totally ok

Fact is simple APPLE IS USING PC PARTS if you say no then you are simply wrong.
Ask yourself the simple Question Where the AGP came from, who came up with PCI bus
Who created USB? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "1 Ghz fsb. Apple has that. Nobody else"
Correction, Apple WILL have that. AND we'll see how the G5 performs when it's actually available for sale (If the benchmarks are so important to everyone).

But personally the only things that are preventing me from switching totally to Mac are the terrible quality control problems at Apple. Retailers were reporting a 60% failure rate on eMacs? Sounds like a good buy to me. For some interesting history go to http://www.netherworld.com/~mgabrys/clock/back.html
It only gets better! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What you have to realize that Apple is lying to you all

And why exactly is it your job to educate us about this?

The claim that they have the best in the world, yet they have failed to admit that the Architecture is based entirely on pc.

And yet you fail to explain why this is important.


Just because English isn't your first language doesn't mean you should not understand that this:
In is not assertion it is the fact. Deal with it. All components that make Apple today
Came from some one else deign and not from Apple.


...completely contradicts this:

Apple people are quick to point out that FIRE WIRE in my PC was originally made
and Design by Apple. But when you are using PC architecture in the you Mac is it is totally ok

And lastly.

Ask yourself the simple Question Where the AGP came from, who came up with PCI bus
Who created USB?


Again, tell me why I should care? Is this some kind of competition to see which company has the most patents or the most "innovation"? That's a useless exercise. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? wank wank wank wank wank

write artical about wanking

wank wank wank wank

oh and a few lies mistruths and general things only a person with an iq below 80 would believe. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I love my pc and its faster than the mac. I use more programs than any of my mac ppl.. all at once and it never crashes.. my friends osx box goes slow as a dog compared to mine. His got a 800 Mhz g4, mines a 700 Athlon, i can easily do more tracks with more effects and no droppouts than him on his mac in osx.


Oh oh its an osnews artical .. but only if its a puff piece about mac...

For gods sake stop printing this trite.. look at the user responces.. ppl wont come back to osnews if u continue to print this maninformed tripe. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Delete my mac masturbation post if u want, i think we should have a vote. Do we want articals like this in osnews.. i dont think we do.

I think osnews is about truth, not mac users masturbating lies about how their computers are faster.. and pcs crash all the time.

Who else thinks we shoudl have a vote as to if we want this crap passed of a news. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What else is Apple suppose to use the alien space technology that they have? They are saving that for G6.

It really burns you that Apple is going to be shipping G5s doesn't it?

Come on you know it does! Its like a PC but its not! Come on you know you want one! You feel the anger! I know it! Your thoughts betray you NAIL! Let your anger flow through your veins! Then your SWITCH to the dark side will be complete...my son! MUHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

So what if Apple borrows a little here and there? You can't blame them can you buddy? Its not like no one copied off of little ole Apple pal!

Back to the topic, the article is actually similiar to a lot of experiences I have seen with people trying out MacOSX for an extended period of time. Our HP/UX admin borrowed a Pismo G3 loaded with MacOSX for several weeks and now he wants one despite using many versions of Windows, Linux and Unix for many years. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think that articles like this one are kind of irrelevant. But, then, when I see an article like this one I simply don't bother to read all the posts. So I really don't care one way or the other.

What really bothers me is when a thread on Panther or something else meaningful gets into a flame war because someone says they like Macs/PCs better for some reason and then everyone and their grandmother feels the need to "correct" them. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>>"Name ONE THING THAT WAS INVENTED BY APPLE IN G5" Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Don't worry about the ppc970. I hear waht you are saying about the price tag...it does seem steep."

How is the the G5's price tag steep when a comparable PC would cost more than $1,200 MORE!


"But keep in mind, Apple does sell on high margins."

They sell with high margins not because they are selling high and giving less... Rather, they sell you more and there price fits accordingly. The difference to a PC is that Apple is less configurable. A PC allows you to buy less and pay less. That does not make it cheaper... just more configurable.



"I wouldn't be surprised if the G5 price tag came down."

I'm sure it will, but it wont be because the current price is out of proportion to the rest of the industry. Rather... its an incredible bargain. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "For the people saying Apple invented Rendevous, thats just not true.

Its just a renamed ZeroConf (zeroconf.org) that is an open standard developed for Linux.

It is currently shipping in Mandrake Linux."


Apple DID create Rendevous and released the technology to the open source community under the name ZeroConf. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "What you have to realize that Apple is lying to you all."

We don;t have to realize it because they are NOT lying to us.


"The claim that they have the best in the world"

They have never said that they have the best in the world.


"they have failed to admit that the Architecture is based entirely on pc.

They didn't "fail" to say it because the Macintosh is NOT "based entirely on pc."


"All components that make Apple today
Came from some one else deign and not from Apple."

That doesn't make them PC. If that's the only leg your argument is standing on, I'm sorry to say that it just fell.


You are comparing PC clones to APPLE. Since when Apple became a PC clone?"

Apple is not a PC clone.


"Apple people are quick to point out that FIRE WIRE in my PC was originally made and Design by Apple. But when you are using PC architecture in the you Mac is it is totally ok"

There is no such thing as "PC technology" other than perhaps an x86 processor and Windows as those are the only things that are specific to the PC. Anything other than that is COMPUTER technology as it was developed for computers. Just because Apple didn't invent something doesn't make it a PC technology.



"Fact is simple APPLE IS USING PC PARTS if you say no then you are simply wrong."

We are not wrong because Apple doesn't use x86 chips nor do they run Windows. everything else is COMPUTER technology.


"Ask yourself the simple Question Where the AGP came from, who came up with PCI bus Who created USB?

Computer technology companies Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " I can run lots of applications at once without the machine slowing to a crawl or throwing up the blue screen of death"

What is he talking about ? Is that guy simply cut and pasted an old article from 1995 and just changed to computer model so it fit as of today ?

Blue screen of wha ???
Lots of application that slow down to a crawl on a TWO POINT FOUR GIGAHERTZ ???

Ahh...actually this does happen. It will vary greatly on what you actually do though. I tend to run a lot of apps ata time (just come with the job) and I experience this frequently.

I have seen the same thing in a student lab.

My own machine hasn't blue screened on me. Instead it either drops explorer and restarts it and I sometimes lose work in the process, or I get to reboot. XP is certainly better than Win95...but as with any OS, there are flaws. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I liked this article. It's not often you get real usage opinions on Macs. This was not meant to be technical, or to show what's faster or more stable. It simple showed that the faults of Macs don't hurt them when doing regular tasks.

What I AM sick of is all the bullshit Linux articles. How many times do we need to read about some Linux zealot trying to convince us that Linux is ready for *insert your favorate coin phrase *.

It really doesn't matter if rabid Linux user #4359 thinks Linux is the shnitz. What matters is what happens in the market.

Now THOSE are stupid articles. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "What I AM sick of is all the bullshit Linux articles. How many times do we need to read about some Linux zealot trying to convince us that Linux is ready for *insert your favorate coin phrase *.

It really doesn't matter if rabid Linux user #4359 thinks Linux is the shnitz. What matters is what happens in the market."

I can sympathize with Linux users (partially because I am one) along with using OS X...

Its important to correct misconception about our preferred platform lest the trolls manipulate the masses into thinking something thats not true about our OS which would cause it to be unjustifiably harmed. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? We don't have to realize it because they are NOT lying to us.

Sure! Steve jobs is the most honest person in the world except that he did lied about the Benchmarks and that Mac is using pc parts.
READ THIS http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
OPEN YOUR
FACE WIDE OPEN.
AGP WAS DIGHN FOR THE PENTIUM II PROSESOR. FOR PC AND THAT MAKES IT A PC PART.

PCI WAS DEVELOPED BY INTEL IN 1993 TO REPLACE THE VLB IN HIGH END 486 MACHINES. THAT MAKES IT A PC PART.
MADE BY INTEL FOR PC NOT FOR MAC.
STOP WRITING B.S. LEARN THE HISTORY OF COMPUTER HARDWARE FIRST, BEFORE posting.

"All components that make Apple today
Came from some one else deign and not from Apple."

That doesn't make them PC. If that's the only leg your argument is standing on, I'm sorry to say that it just fell.

How SO! HyperTrasport is made and INVENTED BY AMD
Again PC PART for OPTERON not FOR APPLE.
PP970 IS IBM TECHMOLOGY A DERIVETEV OF THE POWER 4
AGAIN APPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

APPLE IS USING PC PARTS END OF LINE.

APPLE DID NOT MAKE AGP, NOR THAT THEY HAVE INVENTED THE PCI BUS OK STOP POSTING B.S.

There is no such thing as "PC technology" other than perhaps an x86 processor and Windows as those are the only things that are specific to the PC. Anything other than that is COMPUTER technology as it was developed for computers. Just because Apple didn't invent something doesn't make it a PC technology.

AGP WAS DIGHN FOR THE PENTIUM II PROSESOR. FOR PC AND THAT MAKES IT A PC PART. I

APPLE DID NOT MAKE AGP, NOR THAT THEY HAVE INVENTED THE PCI BUS OK STOP POSTING B.S.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE APPLE TODAY THAT CEME FROM APPL
IS THAT IBM COMPATIBLE YOU ARE USING? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? //
Apple DID create Rendevous and released the technology to the open source community under the name ZeroConf.
//

Yes, they made the name "Rendevous" ;-)

ZeroConf is a standard invented by the IETF (http://www.ietf.org). Rendevous is just the mac version of that standard. Its like saying that Apple invented Photoshop because there is a mac port. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just so you know My PC has been Rendering Animation for the last 2 WEEKS strait. and my system is very Sable.

That is interesting.

I have never heard of a computer being "sable" before.

Stable, yes.

Sable, no. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Stable, yes.

Sable, no.
WE HAVE ARE ENGLISH TEACHER HERE!
THANKS FOR CORETING MY GRAMMER FORM ME.
YOU SHOULD ENTER THE SPELING CONTEST, MABY YOU WILL WIN SOMETHING. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hey Anonymous

I want to make myself clear regarding the following posts and replies...I think I didn't make myself as clear as I should have since I was falling asleep at the time

"Don't worry about the ppc970. I hear waht you are saying about the price tag...it does seem steep."

How is the the G5's price tag steep when a comparable PC would cost more than $1,200 MORE!


"But keep in mind, Apple does sell on high margins."

They sell with high margins not because they are selling high and giving less... Rather, they sell you more and there price fits accordingly. The difference to a PC is that Apple is less configurable. A PC allows you to buy less and pay less. That does not make it cheaper... just more configurable.



"I wouldn't be surprised if the G5 price tag came down."

I'm sure it will, but it wont be because the current price is out of proportion to the rest of the industry. Rather... its an incredible bargain.

Believe it or not, we are in total agreement. There is a perception that Macs are expensive. It is true that you definately get more for a Mac and your $ ultimately goes farther. Further, the price is definately a good price for what you get.

What I was trying to get at is how Apple has had a very low operational profit margin due to operating costs and R&D - they have been restructuring and researching like mad.

From what I gather from people I know that are working at Apple, the restructuring for the most part is over. Further, the R&D that they have been pushing very hard on has paid off. I don't think they will scale significantly back on R&D if at all. They will down the road...but not yet.

Further, they have been busy with land improvements, invsetments, etc. End result, a very low operational profit margin. They are on a pile of $$$, but the % is a little low. Since restructruing and land improvements are done, and the kinks are being worked out of the fabrication lines, we can expect more G5s (and other products to roll out). Eventually Apple will be able make a drop in margins but maintain profitability...that time isn't here though. This would result in the "Macs suck because of the price tag" nothing to complain about. Apple knows there is a perception of a high price tag. Yes we know it is an illusion...but some people are easily hypnotized.

Of course, Apple could just keep getting more and more people and say "ahh...fuck the margins...we'll keep 'em wher they are at and dump the $$$ into R&D".

That was what I was getting at...dropping the price to fight an illusion. As much as we understand that Macs are worth the cost...most PC-only people don't. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? All your base are belong to us. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Steve jobs is the most honest person in the world except that he did lied about the Benchmarks and that Mac is using pc parts."

Apple did not lie about the bechmarks. Read this article... it contradicts the claims made by the link you supplied: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=...


"PCI WAS DEVELOPED BY INTEL IN 1993 TO REPLACE THE VLB IN HIGH END 486 MACHINES. THAT MAKES IT A PC PART.
MADE BY INTEL FOR PC NOT FOR MAC.
STOP WRITING B.S. LEARN THE HISTORY OF COMPUTER HARDWARE FIRST, BEFORE posting."

All this talk of Apple being a "PC" due to the fact that they use many parts that are common in x86 systems has caused me to ask if there is innovation in the "PC architecture"

The title of Innovative technology" within a platform can be attributed when that innovation is specific to that platform, otherwise its a computer innovation because it supports additional platforms.

When considering this perspective, the only technologies that are specific to the PC are x86 processors and Windows. Anything and everything else is a technology that can (or is) part of another platform. Therefore, the only true "innovations" that can be attributed to a PC are Windows and x86 chips. Everything else is a "computer technology.

Anything other than these two things are what can otherwise be regarded as the computer component business model. The x86 PC was founded on this ideology and later, Apple's Macintosh would later benefit from it.

However, there is a significant difference between the component business models (PCs) and the alternative.... We'll call them finished product suppliers.

Unlike "component suppliers" that produce a single element of a greater unit, "finished product suppliers" create completely centralized solutions that allow them to integrate many features that can be specific to that platform. Two examples of finished product suppliers are Apple Computer and Sun Microsystems.

The unfortunate truth underlying the component business model is that none companies which base their business on this model cannot differentiate themselves from their competition by integrating unique features, simply because the component architecture allows each element to be copied by the competition.

Alternatively, companies that adopt the finished product supplier business model can arrange every aspect of their product including technologies that are specific to that platform and can not be copied by the competition.

It's no wonder that the only element that does not follow these guidelines -- Windows -- is the one causing the marketplace so much grief. The component business model can work, but only if each of the finalized product's elements abides by the same rules.

Since its creation, Windows has become extremely multifaceted, so IMHO, it ought to abide by the same governing strategy that is required of PC hardware component manufacturers. As a major player within the component-based computer framework, Windows ought to be distributed to consumers in a way that is similar to the Linux distribution model.

The basic elements of Windows (media player, Web browser, kernel, GUI and applications) must be delivered to the consumer as identifiably separate -- but conveniently installable -- components if the company is to continue playing an active role in the IBM/PC-compatible marketplace.

For the past several years, I've held the opinion that the component architecture on which the PC marketplace is based -- and which, coincidentally, helped that market achieve great success -- eventually will lead to its downfall.

We've seen this theory in action over the past several months as all of the major PC manufacturers struggle to make a buck. The only ones surviving are those that have cannibalized the PC marketplace by accepting margins of less than 1 percent, thus killing healthy competition.

The unfortunate truth underlying the component business model is that none of these companies can differentiate itself from the competition by integrating unique features, simply because the component architecture allows each element to be copied by the competition.

Each of these companies has access to the same features as its competitors. This, of course, means that the only differentiating factor between companies that adopt this business model is price. Because of this, each company eventually will be forced to underprice itself right out of the market.

Alternatively, a non-component-based company that integrates third-party components can reap all of the benefits of the component business model, but also can benefit from advantages associated with being a single source for total integration. As long as the company is the sole supplier of its finished product, the end result is a win-win situation for both the company and consumers.

Companies like Apple and Sun get to benefit from all the benefits that are "computer technologies" (They are not PC technologies because they are not specific to the PC) yet they also get to benefit from technologies that are specific to their platform because they can and often are exclusive to that platform.


"HyperTrasport is made and INVENTED BY AMD
Again PC PART for OPTERON not FOR APPLE."

It is a computer component... not a PC component because the technology is not specific to the PC. Also, Apple help create hypertransport.


"PP970 IS IBM TECHMOLOGY A DERIVETEV OF THE POWER 4
AGAIN APPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."

Not true. Apple co developed the 970 with IBM


"APPLE IS USING PC PARTS END OF LINE."

Not true. Apple is using computer components as well as mac components.


"APPLE DID NOT MAKE AGP, NOR THAT THEY HAVE INVENTED THE PCI BUS OK STOP POSTING B.S."

No, they did not create those technologies and yet they are NOT "PC technologies" due to the fact that they are not specific to the PC.


"AGP WAS DIGHN FOR THE PENTIUM II PROSESOR. FOR PC AND THAT MAKES IT A PC PART.

There is no such thing as "PC technology" other than perhaps an x86 processor and Windows as those are the only things that are specific to the PC. Anything other than that is COMPUTER technology as it was developed for computers. Just because Apple didn't invent something doesn't make it a PC technology.



"THERE IS NOTHING IN THE APPLE TODAY THAT CEME FROM APPL"

There are plenty of technologies that came solely from Apple. We've already gone over this.


"IS THAT IBM COMPATIBLE YOU ARE USING?"

Actually, more so than yours... a PC is not an IBM compatible any more as IBM does not create x86 (although they will be fabbing some of AMD's chips in the near future). If anything, the Mac is the IBM compatible and the PC is anything but that. To answer the root of your comment... The Mac is a Mac... not a PC. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Yes, they made the name "Rendevous" ;-)"

Yes, they did that... and the underlying technology that is also known as ZeroConf.


"ZeroConf is a standard invented by the IETF ( http://www.ietf.org ). Rendevous is just the mac version of that standard."

Apple released it to a standards body (the one you mentioned) after developing it. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So you calim Apple uses PC parts. Yes apple uses PC parts. So what? why is that a bad thing?

It is a good thing for Apple and its customers. Apple gets to spend less on developeing every damn thing for scratch. It gets AGP based grephics cards made by Nvida and ATI the leaders in the field. Also PCI based host bus adapters and other peripherals. Consumers benefit from this.

In todays day it makes no sense to develop everything in house. Intel, Nvidia and other companies do things they do very well, it just makes sense to use thier expertise and bring your product out faster.

Apple does put in it's Intellectual Property (IP) into its products. To the enduser it makes a difference that MacOS X works seemlessy and supports many readily available third party components.

Oh and to answer your Question about my knowledge about FSB.
This link to the opteron spec should explain my point.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/305...

Look at the explaination of Memory bandwidth.
AMD themselves calim Intel uses FSB style cpu northbridge(with MC on it) whereas opteron doesn't, it has the memorycontroller integrated into the die, so it doesn't have the FSB like the athlon or intel based products. The memory interface on the opteron only talks DDR 200/266/333. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sofar I havent seen a single reply to the posts with the links with articles debunking the myth that G5 is the fastest home computer. I guess the truth hurts It is totally logical that PCs is faster(especially when you compare prices) when you think of the intense competition between AMD and Intel.

I am not a PC fanatic, I have used new and old Macs and I like them, a bit too confined for me. XP with blackbox is my current OS config. When will the Max ppl stop the total craptalk about the XP being so unstable?????? XP is rocksolid for me and all ppl that I know, PLEASE stop that BS. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Sofar I havent seen a single reply to the posts with the links with articles debunking the myth that G5 is the fastest home computer."

I've posted several links. Hers is another one:
http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/a67986e6dfb80d/www.apple.com/po...



"I guess the truth hurts "

I suppose it can... especially when it comes back to bite you the way this post does to you.



"It is totally logical that PCs is faster(especially when you compare prices) when you think of the intense competition between AMD and Intel."

Why would you think that this would cause PCs to be faster? Other chip manufacturers (such as IBM) compete for the same speed market that Intel and AMD do and are faced with the same requirements as far as price are concerned when compared with these companies.

When you consider this fact, its simply a "best man wins" type of scenareo. So far it looks like PPC is winning. (Again)



"When will the Max ppl stop the total craptalk about the XP being so unstable??????"

Maybe when the PC people stop referring to Macs as Max. (sigh)



"XP is rocksolid for me and all ppl that I know, PLEASE stop that BS."

it is far more stable than previous versions of the OS, but in my experience it is not as stable as OS X, Linux or the BSDs Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? EXPLAINING THE SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER TO YOU MAC TROLLS IS REALY BOARING. MAC HAS FAILED AS INOVATORS. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS APPLE WAS SLOWLY ADAPTING PC Architecture.
APPLE IS VERY INOVATIVE; NO REALY, ADOPTING PC HARDWARE TAKES SOME SERIOS INOVATIONS AND APPLE IS PRO IBM NOW.

APPLE PPC970 IS A GOOD COPADITIVE PC, BUT IT IS NOT THE FASTEST PC IN THE WORLD. http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/

TO ALL ENGLISH PROFESORS HERE! THANKS FOR CORECTING MY ENGLISH FOR ME. I DID'T REALIZE THAT WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS GRAMMER AND SPELING. THANKS VERY MUCH!

GOOD JOB APPLE!!! YOU HAVE FINALLY REALISED THAT APPLE WITHOUT AMD, IBM & INTEL IS NOTHING, BUT PISS IN THE WIND. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Just so you know the G-5 is driven by the AMD Chip set.
Just so you know AMD didn't develop Hyper-Transport by itself, Apple and others are part of the H-T consortium. Also the PPC was developed by AIM; the A stands for Apple. Apple and Sony developed Firewire together. Maybe Nail should do some homework. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've posted several links. Hers is another one:
http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/a67986e6dfb80d/www.apple.com/po.....



"I guess the truth hurts "

I suppose it can... especially when it comes back to bite you the way this post does to you.
HAAA FROM APPLE HAAAAA
WHERE IS YOUR REAL PROOF. APPLE.com IS CRAP TWISTED B.S NOT PROOF.
HERE IS THE REAL PROOF JACKL.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
WANNA SEE SOME GAMING SCORES FOR THE LATEST P4 3.2GHZ
It WILL MAKE YOU CRY.
I have posted the real test scores here
AND YOU ARE SHOWING ME THE MARKETING CRAP.
WAY TO GO.
APPLE IS LOW AS HELL.
LOOKE AT THE GAMING SCORE IT IS PATHETIC COMARE TO P4 3.2GHZ
HERE.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/pentium4-3.2/index.x?pg=8
WOW P4 at 412FPS and YOU G-SLOW only GETS 337FPS
MAN APPLE IS REALLY HONES HERE MAN NO SHIT USING appl.com
as PROOF GET A LIVE FREAK. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Just so you know the G-5 is driven by the AMD Chip set.
Just so you know AMD didn't develop Hyper-Transport by itself, Apple and others are part of the H-T consortium. Also the PPC was developed by AIM; the A stands for Apple. Apple and Sony developed Firewire together. Maybe Nail should do some homework.

GOOD IDEA DO THAT. YOU SHOULD DO THE HOME WORK.
READ MY POST BEFORE PRESING THE BUTTON.
Read again!
Educate your self first.
http://www.flashua.com/maamdhyper.html
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020506S0019
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/buses/types/agp-c.html
http://support.premiopc.com/faqs/agp.htm
http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer/classes/473/notes/pci.html
http://www.macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://jhoover.weblogdog.com/archive/1/2003-6-9

Benchmarks! READ
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
Read
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296 Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "EXPLAINING THE SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER TO YOU MAC TROLLS IS REALY BOARING."

Correcting your troll comments over and over is getting really boring.... BUT I WILL KEEP DOING IT.



"MAC HAS FAILED AS INOVATORS."

Mac is not a company. You are referring to Apple... and Apple has not failed as an innovator (nor has their macintosh failed as an innovative product). Quite the contrary... both the company and its products are very innovative.



"FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS APPLE WAS SLOWLY ADAPTING PC Architecture."

The only architectures that are specific to the PC is Windows and x86 chips. Everything else is a "COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY". Apple is incorporating computer technology that is not specific to the PC. (just because its not Apple-created... doesn't make it a PC technology). Its this type of thinking that has fueled your disillusioned thinking. I already explained this to you in a big long and detailed article.




"APPLE IS VERY INOVATIVE; NO REALY"

Apple is very innovative. Name some other computer manufacturers that have as many innovations as Apple. The only that I can think of is IBM.


"ADOPTING PC HARDWARE TAKES SOME SERIOS INOVATIONS

What PC hardware innovations has Apple adapted. There are no pc hardware innovations as none of them (except for x86 and Windows) are meant to be specific for PCs. This makes them "computer technologies... or computer innovations... not PC innovations



"AND APPLE IS PRO IBM NOW."

Considering the fact that IBM has supplied chips for Apple for approximately 10 years now... Apple and mac users have been pro IBM for quite some time. You are just now getting up to speed on this issue...


"APPLE PPC970 IS A GOOD COPADITIVE PC,

Apple G5 (utilizing the PPC970) is a good, competitive computer.


"BUT IT IS NOT THE FASTEST PC IN THE WORLD.

Nobody at Apple or IBM said that it was the fastest computer in the world.


"GOOD JOB APPLE!!! YOU HAVE FINALLY REALISED THAT APPLE WITHOUT AMD, IBM & INTEL IS NOTHING, BUT PISS IN THE WIND."

Not true. There are several technologies that are specific to Apple that make up far FAR more than what you give them credit for. Certainly more than piss in the wind.

Its important to recognize that AMD IBM and Intel's technologies are not specific to the PC (except for Intel and AMDs x86 chips)... everything else is computer technology.... which would make the PC industry far less than "Piss in the Wind" because the only two technologies that are specific to PCs are Windows and x86 chips. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Apple and Sony developed Firewire together. Maybe Nail should do some homework."

Actually, Firewire was solely created by Apple. Sony licensed the standard, re-named it then took away some of its benefits when it created iLink. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Its important to recognize that AMD IBM and Intel's technologies are not specific to the PC (except for Intel and AMDs x86 chips)... everything else is computer technology.... which would make the PC industry far less than "Piss in the Wind" because the only two technologies that are specific to PCs are Windows and x86 chips.
You are so fucked up.
AGP WAS MADE BY INTEL FOR PII NOT FOR APPLE
ARE YOU REALY THAT FUCKED UP.
PCI IS ALSO PC TECHNOLYGY MADE BY INTEL FOR THE INTEL
APPLE JUST OPTED THAT LATER. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://hypertransport.org/about.html

From the above website:
"The HyperTransport Technology Consortium manages and controls the HyperTransport technology specification and it promotes the business interests of consortium member companies. Consortium members include leading providers of computing, networking, communications, embedded, software and IP products and services.

Advanced Micro Devices, Alliance Semiconductors, Apple Computers, Broadcom Corporation, Cisco Systems, NVIDIA, PMC-Sierra, Sun Microsystems, and Transmeta are charter members and comprise the Executive Committee of the HyperTransport Technology Consortium."

Here is the pcisig website and its membership roster.
http://www.pcisig.com/membership/about_us/membership_roster/

Look at Apple computers in the list of members.

"What is the PCI-SIG?

Formed in 1992, the PCI-SIG is the industry organization chartered to develop and manage the PCI standard. With over 900 members, the PCI-SIG effectively places ownership and management of the PCI specifications in the hands of the developer community. A Board of Directors comprised of nine people, each elected by the membership, leads the PCI-SIG.
"

Both these sites are more credible than any of the ones you posted. all you posted were a bunch of maazines and opinion sites. I give you the official consortium websites. READ. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple is very innovative. Name some other computer manufacturers that have as many innovations as Apple. The only that I can think of is IBM.

NAME WHAT APPLE HAS INVENTED
NAME IT TROLL
WHAT APPE HAS INVENTED?
THANKS TO INTEL! MAC IS USING PC PARTS.
INTEL MADE ALL THE NEW INVATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR MAC TODAY.
NAME ONE THING THAT APPLE HAS INVENTED
I HAVE ASKD YOU THIS QUASTION AND YOU HAVE NEVER GIVEN ME ANY ASWERS. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oh look what the official source of PCI says about PCI.

pcisig.com

"What is PCI?

Peripheral component interconnect (PCI) delivers I/O functionality for computers ranging from servers to workstations, PCs, laptop PCs and mobile devices. PCI is also a standard, relying on a high-performance I/O interconnect to transfer data between a CPU and its peripherals. The PCI standard is defined for chip-level interconnects, adapter cards and device drivers. Its success as a standard is a result of its cost-effectiveness, backward compatibility, scalability and forward-thinking design."

Does it say developed for intel by intel PCS? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? AGP is a video card only slot developed by Intel. Because of today's and upcoming 3-D games and applications, even the PCI bus isn't enough to handle the high bandwidth required. So AGP was developed to offload the graphics I/O from the PCI bus.
The AGP slot is different from the ISA or PCI slots. AGP slots are usually brown in color; PCI slots are white, and ISA slots are black. You cannot put anything other than an AGP video card into the AGP slot.

An important point to remember is that the AGP slot was designed mainly to move large 3-D textures between the memory subsystem and the video card. Therefore, if your application is strictly 2-D, having an AGP video will not boost performance. PC Magazine ran some tests between an AGP video and a PCI version of the same card. In their Winbench graphics test (which is 2-D only), the results between the AGP and PCI video card are almost identical.

According to Intel, they will develop AGP only on Pentium II systems with the 440LX or future chipsets. Intel will not develop any Pentium class chipset with the AGP slot. Other chipset manufacturer such as VIA, SiS, etc. may come out with a Pentium class AGP chipset.

Both HyperTransport, initially developed by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., and PCI Express (formerly called 3GIO), led by Intel Corp., are seeking to reach beyond some of their legacy constructs from the PCI bus as they seek design wins in routers, switches and other communications gear.
APPLE JUST PUT THER ENAME IN THE MIX THEY DID NOT INVET HT Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "HAAA FROM APPLE HAAAAA
WHERE IS YOUR REAL PROOF. APPLE.com IS CRAP TWISTED B.S NOT PROOF."

That information came from an independent research company.... and Apple certinly isn't "CRAP TWISTED B.S NOT PROOF"


"HERE IS THE REAL PROOF JACKL.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/"

No, the "real proof" is the article that discredits those claims. Read this:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=...



"WANNA SEE SOME GAMING SCORES FOR THE LATEST P4 3.2GHZ
It WILL MAKE YOU CRY."

Wanna see the Gaming scores for the upcoming Dual Processor 2GHz G5? it will make you AND your P4 3.2GHZ cry.


"APPLE IS LOW AS HELL."

Not at all.



"LOOKE AT THE GAMING SCORE IT IS PATHETIC COMARE TO P4 3.2GHZ"

Im not concerned. I'm sure the G5 will compare favorably. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You are so fucked up."

I most certainly am not


"AGP WAS MADE BY INTEL FOR PII NOT FOR APPLE"

And yet because Apple can use AGP, it means that it is not a technology that is specific to PCs. Therefore, it is a "computer technology" not a PC technology. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Does it say developed for intel by intel PCS?
DEVELOPED BY INTEL in 1993
Can't you read.
Just type PCI in the serch engine you will fined that INTEL
DEVELOPED IT TO REPLACE VLV IN 486
MAN YOU APPLE PEOPLE ARE SO CONFUSED WHEN IT COME TO COPUTER HARDWARE.
NOW I KNOW WHY BUY APPLE. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And yet because Apple can use AGP, it means that it is not a technology that is specific to PCs. Therefore, it is a "computer technology" not a PC technology.
FINE! THEN FIRE WIRE IS NOT APPLE TECHNOLOGY IT IS "COMPUTER TECHOOLOGY". Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>>"Apple is very innovative. Name some other computer manufacturers that have as many innovations as Apple. The only that I can think of is IBM." Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And yet because Apple can use AGP, it means that it is not a technology that is specific to PCs. Therefore, it is a "computer technology" not a PC technology
IT IS INTEL TECH NOT APPLE TECH
MADE FOR PC BY INTEL.
I HAVE NAILED YOU HARD YOU CAN PROOVE ME WRONG
APPLE IS USING INTEL INSIDE WITHOUT INTEL APPLE IS USLESS.
THE OLY THING YOU DO IS TWISTING YOUR OWN STATMENTS.
APPLE IS PC
APPLE IS USING PC PARTS
APPLE HAS NO INOVATIONS
APPLE IS SLOWER THE PC Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "APPLE JUST PUT THER ENAME IN THE MIX THEY DID NOT INVET HT "

Apple can't "just put their name in the mix. The Hypertransport consortium put their name there.. and has regarded them as one of the 7 key developers of the technology. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Just type PCI in the serch engine you will fined that INTEL
DEVELOPED IT TO REPLACE VLV IN 486
MAN YOU APPLE PEOPLE ARE SO CONFUSED WHEN IT COME TO COPUTER HARDWARE."

Nobody ever said that Apple invented HyperTransport. What we have continually said is that Apple is a major contributor to the technology. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Does it say developed for intel by intel PCS?
DEVELOPED BY INTEL in 1993
Can't you read.
Just type PCI in the serch engine you will fined that INTEL
DEVELOPED IT TO REPLACE VLV IN 486
MAN YOU APPLE PEOPLE ARE SO CONFUSED WHEN IT COME TO COPUTER HARDWARE.
NOW I KNOW WHY BUY APPLE. "

I can read but you have proved you can't. The PCI-SIG was formed in 1992 and you claim PCI was invented by intel in 1993 for intel PC. It might as well have been but it is now a standard and intel is now one member of the 900 member standards body.

I gave you the official PCI resource for all things PCI. I even attended the PCI-SIG third annual developers conference. Intel had one booth with a a mother board demonstrating thier PCI-EXPRESS solution just like did xylinx, vmetro and other member companies intel was nowhere near ahead of the others.

You gave me some stupid online magazine that lacks any credibility in the field. PCI-SIG is the official source. So is the hypertransprot consortium for hypertransport.

Oh I am not a Mac person. I don't even own a Mac. I own two PCs one athlon built by myslef and a toshiba laptop. I will buy a mac soon. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The link that Nail keeps referring to:
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/

is just some guys personal site, that at the top level says are just his opinions. Give us a solid IT reporting site...not some dude's personal opinion site. For all we know, that site is yours and you're trying to
A) Increase traffic to your site
B) Spread more FUD by constantly linking us to it.

You haven't sent something that is confirmable, reliable, and possibly not valid

Note, I say "possibly". Yes, it is possible the site is truthful...but as far as can be told it is just a biased site. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Some technologies that Apple has invented are Firewire

IF AGP IS NOT PC TECH THEN FIREWIRE IS COMPUTER TECHOLOGY NOT APPLE TECH.
"INTEL MADE ALL THE NEW INVATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR MAC TODAY.

They did not.
WELL YES THYE DID.
YOUR MAC HAS AGP? WELL IT BELONS TO INTEL NOT APPLE.
YOUR MAC HAS PCI? WELL IT BELONS TO INTEL NOT APPLE.
YOUR MAC HAS PPC970? WELL IT BELONS TO IBM NOT APPLE.

NAME ONE THING THAT APPLE HAS INVENTED.
NAME ONE THING THAT APPLE HAS INVENTED.
WHAT?
WHAT EXACTLY THE INVENT HA?
WHAT?
YOU HAVE NO PROOF ALL YOU SAY THEY INVENT STUFF AND MANY OTHER THINGS, LIKE WHAT.
WHAT APPLE HAS IN VENTED IN G5
ALL PARTS CAME FROM AMD,IBM, INTEl. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "FINE! THEN FIRE WIRE IS NOT APPLE TECHNOLOGY IT IS "COMPUTER TECHOOLOGY"."

Yes! You are correct. It is a computer technology... One that Apple invented. (You asked if Apple invented anything.. I said yes a gave FireWire as an example)

In conclusion, Firewire is a "computer technology" that was developed by Apple. (I never said that the technologies you mentioned were not invented by those companies... I said that they were not PC innovations)

In the same way, Firewire is not a Mac innovation, but it is an Apple innovation. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? is just some guys personal site, that at the top level says are just his opinions. Give us a solid IT reporting site...not some dude's personal opinion site. For all we know, that site is yours and you're trying to
A) Increase traffic to your site
B) Spread more FUD by constantly linking us to it.

You haven't sent something that is confirmable, reliable, and possibly not valid

Note, I say "possibly". Yes, it is possible the site is truthful...but as far as can be told it is just a biased site.
THE site is not mine
I hate APPLE
WILL NEVER BUY A OVERPRICED PC PARTS.
FINE READ THIS THEN
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296 Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

The things you are saying are PC parts that were made for PC parts that Apple just opted to use is a total falsehood.

Several Apple inventions have been brought up. Further your claims of "PC parts" - whatever that really is - have been co-developed in some degree by Apple.

Do you actually read the replies?

Aren't you adult enough to admit that you may have been in error...I did earlier...why can't you? Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ">>>And yet because Apple can use AGP, it means that it is not a technology that is specific to PCs. Therefore, it is a "computer technology" not a PC technology Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Can anyone see statements in the blurb of FUD by Nail that contradict one another?:

APPLE IS PC
APPLE IS USING PC PARTS
APPLE HAS NO INOVATIONS
APPLE IS SLOWER THE PC

If Apple is a PC, how can it be slower than a PC? That would mean that a Mac would have to be slower than itself.

Please think for a minute before posting. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? it's obovious Nail is a teenager and really doesn't care to have an adult conversation. I have repeatedly given him highly precise and techincal rebuttals to his claims but he chose to ignore me or call me names and question my credibility.

Discussions with such people are not possible.We are wasting our time. Well it was obivous, iwas, but I can't seem to keepaway from a good flamewar:) Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "IF AGP IS NOT PC TECH THEN FIREWIRE IS COMPUTER TECHOLOGY NOT APPLE TECH."

You got this partially right. AGP is NOT PC tech because it is not specific to the PC. Firewire is not Macintosh technology because it is available for other platforms. That does not negate the fact that Firewire was solely developed by Apple.



>>>"INTEL MADE ALL THE NEW INVATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR MAC TODAY.""They did not." Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FINE!
YOU LIKE MAC? THAT'S FINE! I LIKE MY OPTERONS.
YOU BELIFE APPLE IS FASTER AND BETTER. FINE TOO.
I BELIFE MY OPTERONS ARE WAY FASTER and BETTER THEN G5.
I like MY OPTERONS. You LIKE MAC.
THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER EVER END. I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. THERE IS NO POINT ON WASTING TIME ON THIS CRAP.
I HAVE MODELING PROJECTS TO PHINISH AND I LOVE TO WORK IN LIGHTWAVE 3D. I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO DO AS WELL.

SO LETS JUST LEVE THIS ARGUMENT ALONG CAUSE IT WILL NEVER END. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "THE site is not mine
I hate APPLE"

Is that why you insist on spreading so much Apple Fud?


"WILL NEVER BUY A OVERPRICED PC PARTS."

Then don't. Apple doesn't sell you overpriced PC parts... (or overpriced Mac parts for that matter) Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I hate APPLE

Why?

You really haven't given us a reasonable explanation as to why you hate Apple.

You hate Apple. Fine. Go ahead. Hate them. Does that mean you have to be rude to people who have different opinions?

So what...you hate Apple. The reasons you have been giving have been easily countered.

I used to be like you once...I hated Macs...back in the Mac Classic days...

Times change...particularly in computers. OS X is fantastic and so is Apple's hardware...regardless of who invented the pieces of technology that comprise a Mac. It is, no matter how much you say you hate it, a great package for a lot of people. That seems to be something you aren't quite getting. Macs are not just hardware. Macs are not just software. It is the combination of the two which yeilds great user experiences.

You hate Macs. I say go ahead...keep hating them. Use a PC.

Would anyone here likely care about you using a PC? No.

Do people care about you ignoring replies to quesions you pose? Yes.

Do people here tend to get pissed by blind rage filled hatred of a platform without any real thought behind what your statements are? Yes.

All in all...please just calm down. I am starting to think you are about to have a heart attack.

Bottom line...computers are computers regardless of who makes them and what software they run...they all use the same basic technologies to get the same basic tasks done. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "FINE!
YOU LIKE MAC? THAT'S FINE! I LIKE MY OPTERONS.
YOU BELIFE APPLE IS FASTER AND BETTER. FINE TOO.
I BELIFE MY OPTERONS ARE WAY FASTER and BETTER THEN G5.
I like MY OPTERONS. You LIKE MAC.
THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER EVER END. I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. THERE IS NO POINT ON WASTING TIME ON THIS CRAP.
I HAVE MODELING PROJECTS TO PHINISH AND I LOVE TO WORK IN LIGHTWAVE 3D. I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO DO AS WELL.

SO LETS JUST LEVE THIS ARGUMENT ALONG CAUSE IT WILL NEVER END."


We're not trying to convince you to use a Mac... rather, we'd just prefer that you stop spreading Apple FUD. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 06:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Aside from being a raving lunatic, Nail does not understand how the industry works today. Open standards are the name of the game. All the technologies he points to are industry standards.

You can't create a technology without getting other companies on board. AGP was invented by Intel, but wouldn't be much good if other mobo makers (including Apple) and video card makers didn't support it. HyperTransport would simply be replaced by a competing technology if it didn't gain widespread support.

That's the same reason Firewire is an industry standard and not an Apple specific technology. Yes, there's a little PC in every Mac and a little Mac in every PC. BFD. What the hell is wrong with you? You keep pointing to all these technologies that Apple uses but didn't invent. WOW, Apple is not more innovative (by itself) than the entire computer industry! What an insight! I'm sure Apple could design every single component in its system, but what on earth for? Are you upset that you can't complain about how proprietary Apple is now?

NAME WHAT APPLE HAS INVENTED
Firewire (with Sony)
Rondezvous (by Stuart Cheshire, an Apple engineer who wanted to make IP as easy to use as AppleTalk)
Quartz Extreme (coming to a PC near you in 2005/2006)

INTEL MADE ALL THE NEW INVATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR MAC TODAY. All of these Intel "innovations" are simply solutions to engineering problems all computers faced (e.g. push more data). They are well designed, but not really innovative.

I HAVE ASKD YOU THIS QUASTION AND YOU HAVE NEVER GIVEN ME ANY ASWERS.
Several others have answered you several times. For whatever reason you prefer to go on ranting like a loon saying the same thing post after post.

Innovation isn't just making some new tech standard. Apples 1 Ghz FSB isn't innovative. Neither is Intel's 800 Mhz FSB. It can also be a combination of existing technologies that allow users to do new things.

iTunes Music Store is innovative because it allows users to legally purchase music with limited restrictions. The technology is nothing new, but the usage is. Using Rendezvous to speed up compile times by distributing the work to other machines without any configuration is innovative. Writing a slightly faster compiler is not. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? IF AGP IS NOT PC TECH THEN FIREWIRE IS COMPUTER TECHOLOGY NOT APPLE TECH.
"INTEL MADE ALL THE NEW INVATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR MAC TODAY.

They did not.
WELL YES THYE DID.
YOUR MAC HAS AGP? WELL IT BELONS TO INTEL NOT APPLE.
YOUR MAC HAS PCI? WELL IT BELONS TO INTEL NOT APPLE.
YOUR MAC HAS PPC970? WELL IT BELONS TO IBM NOT APPLE.

NAME ONE THING THAT APPLE HAS INVENTED.
NAME ONE THING THAT APPLE HAS INVENTED.
WHAT?
WHAT EXACTLY THE INVENT HA?
WHAT?
YOU HAVE NO PROOF ALL YOU SAY THEY INVENT STUFF AND MANY OTHER THINGS, LIKE WHAT.
WHAT APPLE HAS IN VENTED IN G5
ALL PARTS CAME FROM AMD,IBM, INTEl.

Apparently, the Caps Lock key is also "PC Tech" Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That link is just Apples own benchmarks.. which has been proven to be false over and over again.. *sigh* Have YOU even read the other links posted??? If you had you wouldnt had posted that useless link.

Sofar you havent debunked ANYthing at ALL.

Come one.. do you really believe that I spelled "Max ppl" on purpose?? *sigh right back atya* Take a look at EU keyboards.

Still waiting for a good answer Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Lets compare Mac and PC

More speed for less money, PC is clear winner
Fastest, PC is the CLEAR winner.

Usability: personal taste.
Compatability: PC is winner just because its way bigger.
Stability: Havent seen any scientific comparisons.(science doesnt mean perfectly objectivity)
More innovative: Mac IS very innovative, a fact that no PC fan can ignore. Then again Mac is much more easy to come up with smart stuff since its only one company and one standard instead of the myriad of companys and hardware makers in the PC world.

So the basic fact is that as far as I have seen Mac is more user friendly but that comes to the cost of freedom. PCs are simply more fun to tinker with

I read that so a socalled independent organization did the benchmarks for the Apple propaganda document. Well that has been debunked so many times now its ridicilus. The Macs were tweaked and the PCs werent. Strange of a "independed" org can have so vastly different benchmarks compared to what everyone else gets.. Hmmmm Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "That link is just Apples own benchmarks.. which has been proven to be false over and over again.. *sigh*"

No, the allegations suggesting that the benchmarks were false were later themselves proven false when this article was posted:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=...


"Have YOU even read the other links posted??? If you had you wouldnt had posted that useless link."

We've all read it, and know that the allegations aren't true. Read the link I listed above. it will explain everything.


"Sofar you havent debunked ANYthing at ALL."

Every incorrect remark that has been made since the discussion got real hot has been refuted... many times.


"Come one.. do you really believe that I spelled "Max ppl" on purpose?? *sigh right back atya* Take a look at EU keyboards."

I don't know if you can blame it on the keyboard. The comment was in tune with many other trollish comments made in the thread both before and after it.


"Still waiting for a good answer "

You've been given several already. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Lets compare Mac and PC

More speed for less money, PC is clear winner"

Less PC for less money. The PC is the winner?


"Fastest, PC is the CLEAR winner."

If you're going to make comparisons, make sure to spec the hardware the same. Speed isn't everything... this despite the fact that an Apple machine can boast the fastest processor


"Usability: personal taste."

Not at all. A computer can definitely be more usable than the other regardless of personal preference.


"So the basic fact is that as far as I have seen Mac is more user friendly but that comes to the cost of freedom."

Assuming you mean configurability when you say freedom.


"PCs are simply more fun to tinker with"

This is an example where personal taste can truly come into play.


"I read that so a socalled independent organization did the benchmarks for the Apple propaganda document. Well that has been debunked so many times now its ridicilus."

It was never debunked unless you consider the fact that Apple paid for the research being "debunked". (That is not a worthy argument)



"The Macs were tweaked and the PCs werent."

Not at all. Both systems were configured as equally as possible. The only point you might be able to content with is that they both used the GCC compiler... (An Intel compiler would have provided faster results for the PC) This article refutes that argument: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=...



"Strange of a "independed" org can have so vastly different benchmarks compared to what everyone else gets.. Hmmmm"

Every one elses benchmarks were using Intel's compiler. Intel doesn;t make a compiler for PPC, so that wouldn't be fair to compare with different compilers. A more accurate comparison is one where the compilers are the same. Yes, the Intel compiler would have given faster specs... but then, so would a different compiler built solely for PPC. That point is moot. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I know that some of you will be lazy and not read the article... so I'm listing it here:

"Joswiak went over the points in turn, but first said that they set out from the beginning to do a fair and even comparison, which is why they used an independent lab and provided full disclosure of the methods used in the tests, which would be "a silly way to do things" if Apple were intending to be deceptive.

He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.

He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.

Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores for the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.

In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems (Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).

As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags)." Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple creates a computer called a Mac which certainly is not a PC. Although it does you many technologies that can also be found in a PC, and are not specific to a PC.
The only parts that are specific to PCs are x86 chips and Windows. Apple uses neither of these in their computers. Your statement is false.

Uh ??!?! Let's get back to the basic.

PC = Personnal Computer.
Mac = Personnal Computer.

hence,

Mac = PC. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296&page=2

nuff said and there are probably 10x more articles which proves the same thing: Apple is afraid to post real benchmarks.

Seriously, I have read that article. Is there any comparison where each processor have its best compiler? That IMO is a more realworld scenario. Lets say for that Mac IS faster(which it is not) the PC is still clear winner when it comes to speed for money.

I think I can blame it on the keyboard, I dont read my posts 10 times before I post to be sure that they are correct.

I have been given answers, just not GOOD answers.

I will never get good answers from the maX Zeal0ts here since they only care for their maX computarz and not the fact. Be my guest and stay ignorant.

bottom line: PC is winner when it comes to most speed for money and it its still the speedking. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "PC = Personnal Computer.
Mac = Personnal Computer.

hence,

Mac = PC."


In that context you are correct, but in the context it was being referred to was that PC = x86 PC.

In that regard, my statement is correct, "the only parts that are specific to PCs are x86 chips and Windows. Apple uses neither of these in their computers. Your (his) statement is (was) false. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "nuff said and there are probably 10x more articles which proves the same thing: Apple is afraid to post real benchmarks."

Apple is not afraid to post real benchmarks as in fact they did/are doing.

In response to your link, read this:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=...


"I have read that article. Is there any comparison where each processor have its best compiler?"

No, not yet... Now should it be as it would not be an accurate way to compare systems. Instead, the only way to make logical comparisons is to use the same compilers.


"That IMO is a more realworld scenario."

Of course its not. Its like comparing how one track horse runs in mud as compared to another which runs on dry dirt. The results are meaningless... and not because I'm afraid the PPC would loose... but that its simply not an accurate way to make a comparison.



"Lets say for that Mac IS faster(which it is not) the PC is still clear winner when it comes to speed for money."

As displayed in the tests, the Mac IS the clear winner, and the PC only wins in the area of configurability. It allows you to buy less and therefore pay less. That does not mean that the PC is less expensive. Rather, just more configurable.


"I have been given answers, just not GOOD answers."

You have been given several good answers... whether or not you recognise them as such is irrelevant.


"I will never get good answers from the maX Zeal0ts here since they only care for their maX computarz and not the fact."

You have been getting good answers from Mac enthusiasts and professionals (not zealots) because we car about facts.


"Be my guest and stay ignorant.

Look in the mirror when you make that statement


"bottom line: PC is winner when it comes to most speed for money and it its still the speedking."

The PC allows you to buy less and therefore pay less. In this regard it is the winner... and no the PC is not the speed king Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You maX zealots can argue and refute all you like. Its till comes down to that PCs are more priceworhy, IS STILL THE KINGS OF SPEED, much more software, much more configable and not being run by a dope like Jobs.

"blabla thhe bencmarks was correct blabla" Noes it wasnt since the test didnt use the best compiler for each platform. And I still havent gotten a good answer to that, wanna know why? Cause the maX zealots doesnt like to admit that maX are still slower. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? IMO(thats right InMyOpinion something that you would know since you have posted opinions and not facts from the beginning.) is that each platform should use its best tools available. That is common sense IMO.

And wtf are you talking about PCs "buy less, pay less" THAT is PURE BS, even your non-fact twisted mind could go to any online store and just see how overpriced Macs are. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You maX zealots can argue and refute all you like."

Which Mac zealots are you referring to. There have been none thus far that I have seen in this thread.


"Its till comes down to that PCs are more priceworhy"

You mean my configurable... They allow you to buy less and pay less.


"IS STILL THE KINGS OF SPEED"

Except that they are not.


"much more software"

Most of which has an equivalent or better alternative on the Mac side... or is simply not worthy getting at all.


"much more configable"

Thats really your only major selling point.


"and not being run by a dope like Jobs."

This "dope" not only did what everyone said was impossible... (repair Apple) but also make it a leading technology force again.


""blabla thhe bencmarks was correct blabla"" Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Fine, fine. However, I DO miss something very important: Why didn't they benchmark against a Dual Opteron but Intel only? -- My guess is they did do that themselves because they are not that st00pid either... and then it was clear to have the Lab test against Intel only. Weak, weak, weak.... If you are bolstering about your new G5, which is the 2nd Dual 64bit CPU-not-yet-to-market-system, then PRETTY PLEASE benchmark it against that other Dual 64-bit-box, which is the first to market. ( I hope Apple PR-monkeys have gotten that straight by now...) Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "IMO(thats right InMyOpinion something that you would know since you have posted opinions and not facts from the beginning.)

All my most definitive points have all been facts.


"each platform should use its best tools available. That is common sense IMO."

Okay, then by that standard, we should use two equally biased individuals to fudge the benchmarks... as that is the best tool for the job.

Of course thats ridiculous... and that an equal... balanced individual should amke the comparison to test the hardware equally... the same way that a compiler which tests both platforms equally should be utilized.


"And wtf are you talking about PCs "buy less, pay less" THAT is PURE BS

No its not.


"even your non-fact twisted mind could go to any online store and just see how overpriced Macs are."

They are not overpriced at all. When you compare both systems exactly (or as close as possible) the Mac will either be only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Fine, fine. However, I DO miss something very important: Why didn't they benchmark against a Dual Opteron but Intel only?"

Probably because it wasn't available


"My guess is they did do that themselves because they are not that st00pid either... and then it was clear to have the Lab test against Intel only."

it seems more likely that they didn't compare it against the AMD chip because it wasn't available. However... maybe they did... who knows.


"Weak, weak, weak.... If you are bolstering about your new G5, which is the 2nd Dual 64bit CPU-not-yet-to-market-system, then PRETTY PLEASE benchmark it against that other Dual 64-bit-box, which is the first to market."

Considering the fact that it isn't available, (or only available from an obscure computer manufacturer... BOXX) it seems that the reason that the comparison was made the way it was, was because people are familair with the speeds of XEON. Very few are familiar with the speeds of the AMD chip. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Long live Apple! I cannot wait for my Dual G5/2GHz! All you Wintel/Amd droids can BS around as much as you like! G5+Panther owns your bottoms...

Bottoms up ladies and gentlemen! :p

Apple rules! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ""Fine, fine. However, I DO miss something very important: Why didn't they benchmark against a Dual Opteron but Intel only?"

Probably because it wasn't available "

You can have Dual Opterons since early June. Everybody can have them. Don't talk yourself into things, please. Apple is about to release/announce the single most important product in a decade and you think they are too st00pid to shop for a Dual Opteron for this very occasion? **LOL**

They know they are not up to par, plain and simple. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple is obscure. Obscure leader Jobs. Obscure gay design. Obscure prices. Obscure upgradeability...


Read in this recent article who the customers of BOXX are -- it's the people of which Apple wishes they had them:

"BOXX Technologies is a worldwide supplier of high-end workstations and pedestal/rackmount servers for the motion picture industry as well as for game development and otherwise resource intensive and mission critical tasks."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10853

Apple on the other hand is big in the low-end entertainment devices (iPod). The high end is long lost and the field where their profits are lacking. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Now that the troll battles have ruined this thread, I figure it is time to add my thoughts. ;o)

With all the benchmarking discussions and accusations going on, I thought there might be a way to compare the processors using figures from www.spec.org as they are the ones that are official (and comfirmed...)

The 3rd quarter submissions don't have any G5 processors, but there are numbers for Power4+ workstations from IBM itself.

Considering that the G5 is the "little brother" of the Power4+ it would be reasonable to assume that the results of these CPU dependant test results would be anywhere from a little to a lot higher that the G5 will achieve at a comparable Mhz speed.

The results:

IBM Corporation
IBM IntelliStation POWER 275 Workstation (1450 MHz, 1 CPU)
1.5 meg L2 cache, 8 meg L3 cache, 8 gig ram.

SPECfp_base2000 = 1129
SPECint_base2000 = 883

Intel Corporation
Intel D875PBZ motherboard (3.2 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with HT Technology)
1/2 meg L2 cache, no L3 cache, 512 meg ram.

SPECfp_base2000 = 1252
SPECint_base2000 = 1221  

(The Power4+ was about on par with a Dell P4 2.4GHz box)

Hmm... these are a lot different numbers than have been posted and defended by Apple. It seems that the Power4, running at 70% of the top G5 (1.45GHz - 2.0GHz) is almost equal to a P4 running at 70% of the top P4 (2.4GHz - 3.2GHz). This doesn't take into account the Power4 having large L3 cache and much more ram than the P4 boxes.

So, as the G5 can be considered to be the "Celeron" of the Power4 family, it is hard figure that the machine will be anything but a way to narrow the preformance gap that Apple has had for some time.

Check them out for the figures...
www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/

Oh, and for all the frequent posters here - Yes it is! No it's not! (that way you can just copy and paste in your replies) heh heh... Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why do all MAC users find/say MACs are better because of some thing trivial as "it looks better, it feels better then windows, no more BSODs" for one you still get BSOD? You must be using 98 or have problematic HARDWARE, for shame on you! Use windows 2000 or XP and a good setup then tell me you have BSOD still.

I hardly ever see side by side comparisons of the two platforms that look at things that can be tested with a benchmark or proper controlled tests as apposed to personal views and opinions. It's all ways got some thing to do with how they feel using the OS or what it looks like.

I like the look of OS X but it's going to take more then eye candy to get me to flock out more money for a whole new pc (again) when 99.9% things I'm interested in are ever only done or are far more supported on the pc. For example the in thing for me right now is emulation. There are more emulators for a verity of different systems that have heaps more support then on the Mac.

Now if apple made OS X for the pc I would give it a GOOD go. And if it even ran windows apps OUT OF THE BOX (witch we all know wouldn't happen due to it been UNIX based with out extra support).

all ao don't thick telling me your NOT an apple loyalist is going to provoke sympathy for you, because it's not. And what is with MAC users needing a label them self? "I'm a switcher"? You are? Good for you, your still a "user" in my eyes. let me just finish by saying "Hyper threading", that's I all I got to sayÂ… for now. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Nail go get Nailed.

You have way too much time and it looks like you understand very little about English, grammer or computers in general. You sure can cut and paste though.

Do you have some perverted fixation with Macs because you have posted MORE than anyone else on a Mac related articles yet you have nothing to say and have failed to convince anyone of anything except of the fact that you are filled with HATE.

I can also tell that you really like the G5 but its burns you that Apple makes it. Its actually funny how much it burns you and you make it so apparent.

You wouldn't last long in a real argument or debate because you are always yelling. Don't let your mouth write checks your body can't cash. It doesn't matter cause the moderators will fix you soon enough.


On Topic...

I've seen a lot of people switch with the same results, they like the Mac even if isn't a speed demon. The number one apps on ALL computers is web and email so a P4 3.2 with HT is not gonna feel any different than an eMac G4 at 700MHZ. I'm not saying they are same, far from it but the majority of people will not be able to tell the difference.

So MHZ DOES matter but its not everything. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'd love to get my hands on a G5, but there's just no way I'll pay $3000 for it when I can get an excellent x86 box for less than half the price.

To be completely honest, the only thing I got from the article was that some guy that who used to have an atari loves Macs and (quote) "praises them any time he gets the chance." That pretty much sums up the whole story. Though it did start a nice bonfire...

Mind you, the replies the so-called macusers have written here and at http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/ certainly haven't made me feel any more positive about Macs... lol. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Why do all MAC users find/say MACs are better because of some thing trivial as "it looks better, it feels better then windows, no more BSODs" for one you still get BSOD? You must be using 98 or have problematic HARDWARE, for shame on you! Use windows 2000 or XP and a good setup then tell me you have BSOD still. "

I use Windows 2000 on good hardware(toshiba laptop and Athlon PC soyo MB, mushkin ram, ATI radeon) and I still get occasional BSODs. Win2k service pack 4 kills my network subsytem on my laptop even after a clean install.

I know exactly what I am doing. I debug obscure hardware bugs with PCI, IDE, SCSI logic analysers and write device drivers for UNIX for a living. I spent 2 years maintaining windows and linux boxes for my engineering department. Not to mention the years playing with different OSes.

I still am going to buy a powerbook once panther is released. Why? Because I like what apple is doing. And all the peoples rants on osnews about PCs being better in performance isn't going to change that.

Let me give you an anlogy. A 5.0 v8 mustang has a more powerful engine(260+ hp) than a BMW 330i( 220 HP). I would still drive a BMW becuase I think it is better put together and more fun to drive. The mustang might be faster but I just don't enjoy driving it. No, I don't own either of the cars but have driven them. You can arfue all you want about speed but in the end it is the pleasure of experiencing the drive that is the differentiating factor.

Same can be said about an apple product. The ipod is just a pleasure to use simple, functional and elegant. I don't own one either. Same can be said about powerbooks. IA32 based PC vendors just want to keep costs low and put out functional but leave out elegance and don't pay attention to details that apple does. Some of us find that apealing in a product. Other don't.

That's why arguing here about how the pc is cheaper and fater is only going to make people who value other things more, defensive. To each his own. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Other don't.

That's why arguing here about how the pc is cheaper and fater is only going to make people who value other things more, defensive. To each his own. "


that should be other's don't.

and faster not fater.

I do think my toshiba laptop(800 Mhz celeron, 256 MB ram, shared memory graphics) is a good machine for the money $1000 2 years no problems runs win2k and linux pretty well.

I just like OS X and love apple's powerbooks. Would I run OS X on x86? maybe. But would dell make laptops as beautiful as apple? probably and they would cost just as much. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i am a Mac user but a couple of months ago I decided to try something different, so I installed YDL on my iMac. I loved it. It worked beatiful but my wife didn't like it. She was a Windows XP user but when she tried OS X, she decided to swich.

Personally , I liked the Bluecurve desktop theme but my wife didn't agree. She loves iPhoto, Print Explosion and iMovie. She could not do what she wanted with Linux.

I think it is a matter of taste. I like Linux but I think it needs to be more user friendly if it wants to make it in
the desktop market. I use Linux and Solaris at work and
I think LInux is the best for networking. The NTs are always crashing.

My wife is regular user. She told me that LInux needs a better installation program instead of using tar or rpm commands and more intuitive((more user frindly I guess)). I responded that it is just a matter of time. I guess in someway she is right. OS X is more easy to use and more intuitive.

And finally she was asking me about the mainstream software for Linux. That something that the Linux community needs to work on if they want to get more users.

Now she wants to keep my iMac and wants me to buy another Mac(a powerbook if I want) . well, that is fine with me. i will be getting a new 12" powerbook!!!!

-2501

ps: also i would like to try Zeta BeOS when it comes out!!!! Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BULL SHIT!
APPLE HAS NOT INVENTED NEW TECHNLOGY FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS
THE only thing that they have invented is FIREWIRE that's about it.
THANKS TO INTEL YOUR BELOVED MACINTRASH NOW HAS AGP & PCI.
LIKE IT OR NOT, APPLE IS USING PC PARTS. THAT IS THE FACT. SHOWING ME BENCHMARKS FROM Apple.com OR SOME BIASED WEB IS NOTHING MORE THEN A JOKE.
APPLE.COM IS THE VERY SOURS OF BULL SHIT. JUST LIKE nVIDIA.COM, ATI.COM or EVEN INTEL.COM.
NO COMMPANY IN THE WORLD WILL SAY THAT "WE SUCK"
REAL WORLD PERFORMACE IS WHAT COUNT'S. NOT SOME GREAT LOOKING ADD OR THE "WHITE PAPERS".
YOUR WORDS ARE PISS IN THE WIND.
YOU MACIDEOTS ARE USING INTEL, IBM & AMD TECHNOLOGY,
APPLE HAS NO CABABILITY TO INVENT OR MANUFACTURE CPU's. OR ARCITECHURE.
YOUR BELOVED MACINTRASH IS BASICALY A PC ARHITECTUER. YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR "INOVATION CLAIM".
YES IN THE OLD DAYS APPLE WAS REVOLUTINORY LIKE APPLE II
OR APPLE 1, BUT THOUS DAYS ARE LONG GONE!

THE MHZ MYTH!
APPLE CAN'T EVEN GET THE OWN STORY STRAIT.
FIRST THEY TELL YOU THAT MHZ DOT COUNT, THAT THE SHORTER PIPE LINE IS THE WAY TO GO, AND YET LATER G4 CAME OUT WITH UP TO 9 STAGE PIPE LINE. ALL YOU CAND DO NOW IS TO SAY "YOU DID UNERSTAD WHAT HE WAS SAYING." WHAT'S TO UNDERSTAD?
THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE SAD OVER NAD OVER.
WITH THE MUCH SHORTER ONLY 4 STAGE PIPLE LINE YOU CAN ACHIVE RESULTS FASTER. WAIT, THEN WHY IN THE HELL DID MOTOROLA INCRECED IT to 9. SO GOING BY APPLE WARDS G4 500MHZ (4 STAGE PIPE) IS FASTER THEN G4 1.2 MHz (9 STAGE PIPE) WHY? THE MHZ MYTH!!!
HERE IS THE REAL DEAL!
SHORT=LOW MHZ
LONG =HIGH MHZ
APPLE=BULL SHIT LIE.
I AGREE THAT MHZ IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO MESURE THE POWER OF THE CPU. ATHLON VS P4 WOULD BE THE GOOD EXAMPLE.
HOWEVER: EVEN THE LATEST ATHLON CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE HIGHER CLOKED P4.
MHZ DOUS METTER!
HIGHR=FASTER.

DUEL FSB
WHEN INTEL HAS ITRODUSED 800MHZ FSB YOU MACIDEOTS DID'T CARE AT ALL. MOUST OF YOU DID'T EVEN HEARD THE TURM "FSB",
UNTILE THE G5. EVEN NOW APPLE CLAMES THAT THEY HAVE THE FASTEST FSB IN THE WORLD! WRONG! AMD K8 CODE NAME SLAGEHAMMER HAS INTERNAL MEMMORY CONTROLLER.
THAT MEANS IT RUNS AT THE SPEED OF THE PORSESOR. MUCH LIKE THE L2 CASH.
SO IF OPTERON IS RUNNING AT 1.8GHZ=1.8GHZ FSB.
UNLIKE IN G5 INFORMATION HAS TO TRAVEL TO THE NORTH BRIDG FIRST. ONLY THEN IT CAN FINELLY GET TO THE MAIN MEMMORY.
ENOTHER WORDS: G5 HAS INDEPENTENDT DUEL FSB's THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE SINGLE MEMMORY CONTROLLER.
BASICALY THE MORE CPU's YOU HAVE, THE MORE BOTTLE NECKS YOU ARE CREATING.
OPTERON ON THE OTHER HAND IS A TOTTALY NEW BEAST.
WITH EACH MEMMORY CONTROLLER HANDELING ITS OWN INFO THE BANDTWITH IS ACUALLY INCREASES. EACH CPU CAN TALK TO THE
IT'S OWN MEMMORY BANK DERCETLY VIA AMD'S HYPERTRANSPORT.
AS YOU CAN SEE APPLE IS NOT THE WORLDS MOST ADVANCED FSB.
ALSO THE FSB IS NOT THE ALTIMATE MUSURE OF THE PERFORMANCE.

DUEL CHANNEL DDR
WITH THE INTRODACTION OF THE FASTER AND FASTER CPU'S MEMMORY IS BECOMING MORE OF A BOTTLE NECK.
SO NVIDIA HAS INTRODUST THE BRAND NEW CONCEPT CALLED
DUEL CHANELL MEMMORY IN THE FORM OF THE NFORCE CHIP SET
IN ENGLISH: TWO 64 BIT MEMMORY STICKS ARE COMBINED TO CREAT ONE 128BIT CHANNEL. http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/200106041/nforce-02.html

MARKIT
IF APPLE IS SO GOOD, THEN WHY ALMOST NO ONE IS USING IT?
1.9% OF THE TOTAL COMPUTER MARKIT. WOW THAT IS SOO "HIGH" FOR A COMPUTER "LEADER" & "INOVATOR"!
YOU ARE DRIVEN BY A DREAM THAT DOUES NOT EXIST.
YOU SAY MAC IS FASTER AND BETTER. IN WHAT WAY?
FROOTY MENU? SURE, IF YOU LIKE RAINBOW COLORS. FEEL? AND HOW DO FEELYOUR MAC, OR SHOULD I SAY WITH WHAT YOU ARE FEELING YOUR MAC? MORE LIKE MASTRUBATING WITH THE MAC?
MOST PEOPLE BUY THERE COMPUTERS TO PLAY GAMES OR INTERNET OR 3D LIKE MY SELF.

SPEED!
INTEL IS WAY FASTER IN ANY PROFESIONAL 3D PACKAGE.
XEONS SIMPLY RAPE YOUR APPLE IN HALF WHEN IT COMES TO
OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND RENDERING TIME.
THAT IS WHY MOST 3D HOUSES ARE USING INTEL AND SGI AND NOT MACINTRASH.
LIGHTWAVE AND MAYA SIMPLY SCREAMS ON THE PC
GAMES? WRONG AGAIN! PC IS WAY FASTER IN GAMING ALSO
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/pentium4-3.2/index.x?pg=8


CASE!
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CASE OF G5.
LOOKS GOOD ON THE INSIDE AND THE OUTSIDE,
BUT WAIT, WHAT IF I WANNA HAVE SCSI RAID SETUP WITH UP TO
6 OR MORE HARD DRIVES. OOPS, NO SPACE, THERE ARE 3 PCI+X SLOTS, BUT WHERE YOU GOING TO STICK THE DRIVES? THER IS NO MORE ROOM. COMPLITELY USLESS DISIGN.
SO HERE YOU HAVE 3 PCI-X SLOTS, BUT YOU CAN'T EVEN USE THEM FOR INTERNAL SCSI RAID SETUP.
HOWEVER: UNLIKE THE STANDART CASE THAT COMES WITH EVRY G5.
WE AT PC SIDE HAVE THE CHOISES, WAY MORE CHOISES.
I HAVE NO TROBLE AT ALL RUNNING MY INTERNAL SCSI RAID.


"INOVATORS"!
WHAT APPLE HAS INVENTED SO FAR?
LET'S JUST SEE WHO IS THE REAL INVETOR HERE SHELL WE.
PC SIDE
AGP=INTEL 1997 440LX CHIP SET FOR P2
PCI=Intel 1993 TO REPLASE VLB IN THE 486
PCI-X
FUTURE AGP replacement PCI EXPRESS=INTEL DON'T WORRY THAT TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT BE TO APPLE FIRST.
YOU WILL HAVE TO WAIT YOUR TURN.
HYPERTRASPORT=AMD http://www.alsc.com/htfaq.pdf
DUEL FSB=DEC EV6
DUEL CHANNEL DDR=NVIDIA
http://www.smartcomputing.com/articles/archive/c0206/37c06/37.pdf?g...
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296

FIREWIRE=APPLE

WOW SOME INVETORS. ONE THING IN 5 YEARS.
WAY TO GO MACINTRASH.

BTW I HAVE NAILED YOU ALL ON THE SOFT SPOT. CONDERDICTING YOUR OWN STATEMENTS JUST SHOWS ME HOW LITTLE INTELEGENS YOU REALY HAVE. POINTING TO MY SPELING CRAP AND MAKING FUN OF MY NATIONALITY REALLY SHOWS HOW LITTLE BRAIN POWER YOU REALY HAVE!
OTHER THEN THAT, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR.
CHEERS! AND WELCOM TO THE DARK SIDE!
YOU HAVE SERTANLY SWITHCED FORM MAC TO PC.
COMPONENTS IN THE PC G5 IS THE PROOF. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Nail got you all Nailed.

You have very little much time and it looks like you understand very little about computers in general. You are a RASIST.
Do you have some perverted fixation with PC's because you have posted LES than anyone else on a PC related articles yet you have nothing to say and have failed to convince anyone of anything except of the fact that you are filled with HATE.

I can also tell that you really like the PC but its burns you that Apple can't makes it. Its actually funny how much it burns you and you make it so apparent.

You wouldn't last long in a real argument or debate because you are always crying.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CRAMMER SUCKED AS WELL! I HAD TO FIX IT FOR YOU!
EVER HEARD THE TURM "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"?
LIITLE DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ME.
I HAVE MORE UNDERSTADNIG ABOUT COMPUTERS THEN YOU ARE.
ALL YOU CAN SAY IS THAT MY SPELLING IS BAD.
WHO THE CARES!
DON'T LIKE MY POST's THEN DON'T READ THEM. GO SOME PLACE QUAIT AND STROKE FOR A WHILE, THAT MIGHT ClEAR UP YOUR BRAIN A BIT.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAN't HANLDE THE NORMAL CONVERSTATION, POINTING TO MY GRAMMER AND LAPHING AT MY NATIONALITY SHOWS HOW STUPID YOU REALLY ARE.
YOU SURE KNOW HOW TO BE A RASIST AND IT SHOWS. Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Intel and AMD make computer components while Apple make computers. Most of the components and technologies that Apple use in their computers are made by other companies are invented and often further developed by other companies, such as Intel and AMD.

However, other computer manufacturers do the same thing, whether it's DELL, HP, Gateway... There are good reasons for this, connected to the cost and time that is needed to invent everything themself (and there would be much more incompability).

The most innovative thing that Apple has done, IMHO, is to create their own path for the future. While most other companies ship their computer's with Windows or some form of Linux, Apple has created their own OS based on Unix and lot of other open standards.

Anyone could have done the same thing, but Apple is one of the few companies that are innovative enough to do is. And the g5 and OS X are examples that prove that this is true! Instead of reinventing the wheel they use their innovative force to influence the makers of computer components by co-operation and partnerships with companies and also organisations that work towards common standards.

What Apple is doing it is doing very well, and there is no reason to ignore them just they use some of the same parts other computer manufacturers also use. It's how and what they are used for that make Apple innovative.

BTW, I wonder if Windows ever was an innovative product? Or Linux? Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Can't tell !

I'm using BeOS and i have no problems ! Internet and lan with DHCP works (really like OS X, and really not like Xp !), it can be installed on every plateforms (not like OS X nor Windows), it's not a copy of something else (like OS X is a UNIX adaptation), it's totally free (not like Xp or OS X), softwares are free too (having lots, don't ennoying me this way) .... and it never frozes (not like windows, Xp included ! ), having 0 virus (not like Windows and now OS X), we can choose between lots of releases (2 availables and 4 others in developpement...and only one not free), ..... ,

AND IT'S FAST AND RESPONSFULL ON A PII 333 Mhz WITH 256 Mo SDRAM 100 !!!

so, if you want to spend 4000 € just because 'mac is better', go on dude ! Me, i keep my money for Zeta (www.yellowtab.com) !

Have fun ! Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/
Nail, please educate yourself. Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Removed the framerate limit on BOTH machines as it is on by default on both. Framerates improved dramatically on both platforms. Running both machines at 1024x768, same map, etc... framerates are still almost identical. The whole processor argument is silly - both machines are really fast. UT 2003 runs awesome on the Mac at 1280x1024 all settings on maximum. That wouldn't happen if the Mac was a lousy game platform. Something of real value to point out is this - this new PC with clean install of XP has crashed apps, locked up and required a reboot three times in 12 days. My Mac has been running for a month plus. I think I rebooted then to use CandyBar. Reliability is king and the Mac has the PC beat hands down. Have a great day cybersurfers! Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments