[KellyHogan]

As for the guy who says my benchmarks are lies, I just bought a Ti-Book 550 today and will post benchmarks and videos on my site this week. I have done a quick test so far and in Photoshop the Ti-Book 550 is exactly the same as the Dual G4-450. But that is only around the speed of a Pentium III-750. Still very good for a 550 Mhz CPU. But apparently some fundies think a G4-550 is the same as a 10Ghz x86 CPU.

Also, I'm a bit worried about the performance of the Radeon Mobility under OSX. System Profiler lists the graphics chip as a Rage chip. I hope this doesn't mean generic ATI drivers are being used. As soon as I download Quake III and Castle Wolfenstein I can do the test.

Also, I had some big problems with the optical drive at first. It has to be worn in and you have to be very accurate placing a CD in. It already destroyed my 2001 DVD by scraping up one side of the disc.

I'm going to put up a side by side comparison of the Ti 550 and the Vaio GR. Of course the Ti looks nice and looks a more integrated system but it has it's problems too. So does the Vaio but it is faster than the Ti, cheaper and has a combo drive.

Wait for my unbiased reviews and comparisons of both machines.

[Surfer]

Cool!!!
Could you go to the xlr8yourmac.com site and download their PPC checker and see if your powerbook uses the 7450 chip? Also, some macbench scores would be nice... compared to the Ti 500.

Thanks

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>As for the guy who says my benchmarks are lies, I just bought a Ti-Book 550 today and will post benchmarks and videos on my site this week. I have done a quick test so far and in Photoshop the Ti-Book 550 is exactly the same as the Dual G4-450. But that is only around the speed of a Pentium III-750. Still very good for a 550 Mhz CPU. But apparently some fundies think a G4-550 is the same as a 10Ghz x86 CPU.

Also, I'm a bit worried about the performance of the Radeon Mobility under OSX. System Profiler lists the graphics chip as a Rage chip. I hope this doesn't mean generic ATI drivers are being used. As soon as I download Quake III and Castle Wolfenstein I can do the test.

Also, I had some big problems with the optical drive at first. It has to be worn in and you have to be very accurate placing a CD in. It already destroyed my 2001 DVD by scraping up one side of the disc.

I'm going to put up a side by side comparison of the Ti 550 and the Vaio GR. Of course the Ti looks nice and looks a more integrated system but it has it's problems too. So does the Vaio but it is faster than the Ti, cheaper and has a combo drive.

Wait for my unbiased reviews and comparisons of both machines.</STRONG>

Everyone may want to be wary of this guys posts. He's biased and total flame bait material. His previous posts speak for themselves.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Surfer:
<STRONG>Cool!!!
Could you go to the xlr8yourmac.com site and download their PPC checker and see if your powerbook uses the 7450 chip? Also, some macbench scores would be nice... compared to the Ti 500.

Thanks</STRONG>

OK. What other benchmark programs shall I run? Give me some websites to find some apps to run. I can't find Wolfenstein anywhere.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>


Everyone may want to be wary of this guys posts. He's biased and total flame bait material. His previous posts speak for themselves.</STRONG>

Sure. But who apart from me is going to post video benchmarks? You think I went and spent all that money on a Ti-Book so I could prove the Vaio is faster? I'm giving the Vaio to my brother!

No. That doesn't mean the Vaio is the worser system. I do a lot of writing (as you can tell) and that means I need anti-aliased fonts and a wide screen so that I can spread my work out a bit. The Vaio is a faster multimedia laptop no doubt. Video and image work is really fast. But when my preferred apps come out for OSX then I will move all my work over.

Anyway, wait for me to finish my reviews.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

No. That doesn't mean the Vaio is the worser system. I do a lot of writing (as you can tell)
</STRONG>

I hope that was a joke... Dost thou write Tragedies or Comedies?

I could understand your needing multimedia if you did a lot of publishing, but writing should be doable on almost any machine. (Unless you use MS Word with all of it's annoying features.)

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by absmiths:
<STRONG>

I hope that was a joke...

I could understand your needing multimedia if you did a lot of publishing, but writing should be doable on almost any machine. (Unless you use MS Word with all of it's annoying features.)

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]</STRONG>

Writing is just one of the things. But it simply feels better and it's better on my eyes to use a Mac for writing. XP has Clear Type but I'm not going to upgrade to XP.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Also, I'm a bit worried about the performance of the Radeon Mobility under OSX. System Profiler lists the graphics chip as a Rage chip. I hope this doesn't mean generic ATI drivers are being used. As soon as I download Quake III and Castle Wolfenstein I can do the test.
</STRONG>

Are you saying that you are worried because of the System Profiler reporting the chip is a Rage, or because of some other noticeable factor? Do you notice a big difference in graphics performance between OS 9 and OS X?

I don't plan to use OS 9 at all, but if it is significantly faster that can give me hope that OS X will catch up eventually.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by absmiths:
<STRONG>

Are you saying that you are worried because of the System Profiler reporting the chip is a Rage, or because of some other noticeable factor? Do you notice a big difference in graphics performance between OS 9 and OS X?

I don't plan to use OS 9 at all, but if it is significantly faster that can give me hope that OS X will catch up eventually.</STRONG>

So far I'm a little worried. Maybe the system needs wear and tear first to optimize. It feels slower than the Ti-Book 400 that I had. Photoshop is a faster in OS 9.2.1. The GUI is slower though. System Profiler says 'RageM'.

[Ryu]

RageM??? Huh??? I don't get it...

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

So far I'm a little worried. Maybe the system needs wear and tear first to optimize. It feels slower than the Ti-Book 400 that I had. Photoshop is a faster in OS 9.2.1. The GUI is slower though. System Profiler says 'RageM'.</STRONG>

As for System Profiler, I think it's OK to show as such.
My Pismo, which has Rage128Moblity inside, shows "RageM3p", and I hear M4&M5 is for RadeonMobility,
M6 for Radeon7500Mobility.
If you are talking about finder speed for "GUI", then it is probably because of 2nd cache size, my colleague's upgraded BeigeG3 with 300MHz-G3 2MB 2nd cache runs more swift than TiBook 500MHz.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

So far I'm a little worried. Maybe the system needs wear and tear first to optimize. It feels slower than the Ti-Book 400 that I had. Photoshop is a faster in OS 9.2.1. The GUI is slower though. System Profiler says 'RageM'.</STRONG>

Here we go. I warned you guys. It's all downhill from here.

This is the same guy that is comparing an iPod to Pocket PC.

[flyhigher]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Wait for my unbiased reviews and comparisons of both machines.</STRONG>

Please post your benchmarks here as soon as you have them. I too am concerned about the performance of the 550. We have to remember that Mhz for Mhz, the 7440 will be slower than the 7410 because of its longer pipeline.

I'm curious how it stacks up to a 400Mhz powerbook with 1MB of L2 cache. Especially on common document-handling tasks such as search & replace a string in a 1MB word file. There is no doubt in my mind that the old 400 model will be faster on some common tasks.

[thirsty]

Kelly you have -
to much time
to Much Money
And don't seem to have any real idea of what you want or require!
One day the Vaio is the best thing there is, the next your giving it to your brother.
Man do you have any credabilty left at all! If I based any of my desisions on your opinions I'd be just as confused as you. Thank God some people in this forum give true and beleivable views.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by thirsty:
<STRONG>Kelly you have -
to much time
to Much Money
And don't seem to have any real idea of what you want or require!
One day the Vaio is the best thing there is, the next your giving it to your brother.
Man do you have any credabilty left at all! If I based any of my desisions on your opinions I'd be just as confused as you. Thank God some people in this forum give true and beleivable views.</STRONG>

Not enough time or money actually when you think about it!

And my views are completely true. I don't go around lying about how DVD Player uses only 30% of the CPU power. Remember how for the past five years Mac fundies were harping about how much better Classic was at multitasking and memory management than Windows? Now 10.1 is here and it's still not as good.

[mycatsnameis]

OK so you noted in the other thread that DVD play is not different. That's not really a surprise since all the laggy behaviour (which did not occur if you just let the DVD play, of course, only if you were trying to do anything else at the same time) was a software issue and has been addressed in 10.1.

If you want an easy bench mark, just go into iTunes, start playing a track and then put the visualizer on full screen. Then hit F and the frame rate pops up in the top left corner. What is the range you observe?

catman

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by mycatsnameis:
<STRONG>OK so you noted in the other thread that DVD play is not different.
If you want an easy bench mark, just go into iTunes, start playing a track and then put the visualizer on full screen. Then hit F and the frame rate pops up in the top left corner. What is the range you observe?

catman</STRONG>

For sharp visuals, 15-16 frames. For rough visuals, around 25. I don't think that is any better than I've seen before. Perhaps the visuals don't really scale terribly much unless you go from 400Mhz to 800Mhz.

[mycatsnameis]

Well for my Ti 400 I would generally see around 11-12 so that's an improvement on the low end machine but not really an indication of whether it's GA or CPU related.

Have you tested battery life? How about popping in a DVD and running it full out (under OS9) at max brightness and full CPU speed. The running time (and also how much fan-on time) would be another interesting benchmark.

[PipelineStall]

And my views are completely true. I don't go around lying about how DVD Player uses only 30% of the CPU power. Remember how for the past five years Mac fundies were harping about how much better Classic was at multitasking and memory management than Windows? Now 10.1 is here and it's still not as good.

Your views are completely true. I thought that opinions were subjective and neither right nor wrong. Oh well.

Anyways, out of curiousity, how does Mac OS X 10.1 not have as good memory management and/or multitasking as Windows? Are you talking about performance, system stability, process starvation? There are many factors in multitasking and memory management, and many definitions of "good" when it comes to these.

[murbot]

I thought those numbers would be a little higher. Isn't iTunes optimized for AltiVec? I'm averaging 12-14 frames on a 600 MHz iMac.

I tried running it in OS 9 giving it 30 MB of RAM, then with 200 MB, and it made no real difference.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by mycatsnameis:
<STRONG>Have you tested battery life? How about popping in a DVD and running it full out (under OS9) at max brightness and full CPU speed. The running time (and also how much fan-on time) would be another interesting benchmark.</STRONG>

I'm going to do the power and run down tests tomorrow. Today I did hardware quality, boot up time, Photoshop tests, iTunes, iMovie, multi-tasking and DVD comparisons with Windows 2000. I wanted to test Return to Castle Wolfenstein but at the moment I don't know how to check the frames per second.

Also, there are no Alcatel ADSL USB drivers yet so I can't test pinging, internet related downloading and multitasking or multi-player Wolfenstein.

While I'm here, I'll just post the iMovie test. Can some of you do the same thing and post.

iMovie test
G4 Powerbook 550 with 512Mb RAM.

Load the six clips from the tutorial and assemble them in numerical order. Then export the movie to Quicktime format, CDROM, Medium setting.

The time I got was 2 minutes and 12 seconds.

[PeteWK]

Ignor this KellyHogan guy. He's nothing more than a 14 year old, PC using publicity whore. He doesn't have any Macs, he's just BSing his whole way through.

PeteWK

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: PeteWK ]

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by PeteWK:
<STRONG>Ignor this KellyHogan guy. He's nothing more than a 14 year old, PC using publicity whore. He doesn't have any Macs, he's just BSing his whole way through.

PeteWK

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: PeteWK ]</STRONG>

That coming from a person with nothing to say about anything. Go worship a computer, Pete. I'm 27 not 14. I've had four Macs in the last year and a half and it is impossible for me to lie about anything. I just resent lies.

[Macfreak7]

**YAWN**

does anyone care about a sony vaio?
if yes, you're in the wrong forum.. try sony.com maybe

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by PipelineStall:
<STRONG>

Anyways, out of curiousity, how does Mac OS X 10.1 not have as good memory management and/or multitasking as Windows? Are you talking about performance, system stability, process starvation? There are many factors in multitasking and memory management, and many definitions of "good" when it comes to these.</STRONG>

In terms of memory management, the OS itself swallows too much memory compared to previous OSes both Mac, Linux and Windows. Memory management has improved greatly with 10.1 though. Before, launching an app didn't show any speed increase on relaunching. Relaunching an app on 10.1 has improved. But relaunching on NT/W2K is instantaneous. So things can improve there.

Multi-tasking wise, 10.1 is solid. However, the GUI still has some slowness to it and that prevents it from being as smooth as multi-tasking on Windows. Also, if an app is doing a long render putting it in the background slows it down a lot. This is better in Windows too.

Again, I will be uploading a video of Windows running Premiere at full speed in the background while Yahoo chat, Internet Explorer, Media Player and WinAmp are running. If and when OSX's GUI runs as smoothly and quickly as Windows then there will be next to nothing to criticize. Oh, but I want my Finder labelling.

you said you went out and bought a 550. the 550 comes with 256 megs of ram, where did you get the other 256?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by &lt;me&gt;:
<STRONG>you said you went out and bought a 550. the 550 comes with 256 megs of ram, where did you get the other 256?</STRONG>

Uh, from the same shop. It cost me �30 UK for an extra 256MBs. Lucky I didn'y buy from the Apple Store where it the same amount of memory costs �150.

what is the name of this store? i thought stores other than Apple's were still waiting for shipments from apple.

[PeteWK]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

That coming from a person with nothing to say about anything. Go worship a computer, Pete. I'm 27 not 14. I've had four Macs in the last year and a half and it is impossible for me to lie about anything. I just resent lies.</STRONG>

A quick search of my posting will net you the fact that I spend my time on this forum actually helping people who have problems with their hardware. I have training in hardware support and consider it an honor to support Mac users. Oh yeah, I also enjoy dissing weenies like you who should have their computer taken away by their mothers.

PeteWK

[PipelineStall]

In terms of memory management, the OS itself swallows too much memory compared to previous OSes both Mac, Linux and Windows. Memory management has improved greatly with 10.1 though. Before, launching an app didn't show any speed increase on relaunching. Relaunching an app on 10.1 has improved. But relaunching on NT/W2K is instantaneous. So things can improve there.

How do you mean the OS swallows too much memory? Do you mean that WindowServer takes up too much memory? If you're just going by a display of how much memory (real + virtual) a process is taking in top, that's not really indicative of memory efficiency. A process can allocate a gig of memory, but if it only uses fifty megs of it regularly, I wouldn't call it inefficient (depending on the app of course). The remainder would mostly stay in the backing store, being paged occassionally in as needed.

Launch time doesn't have a one to one correspondence with the memory manager or with Mach. There are many factors here, including the loader which is still quite slow. (There were several optimizations with Puma, and they are continuing now).

Multi-tasking wise, 10.1 is solid. However, the GUI still has some slowness to it and that prevents it from being as smooth as multi-tasking on Windows. Also, if an app is doing a long render putting it in the background slows it down a lot. This is better in Windows too.

I actually haven't experienced a significant decrease in responsiveness under high system load, provided that there isn't a huge amount of paging activity going on. Builds in CodeWarrior always go pretty well for me in the background.

If you're noticing a slowdown in the background, that could simply be application specific. For example, Virtual PC for Mac OS X (and for Windows), which is the product I previously worked on, reduces the amount of CPU time it uses significantly if it's not the foreground app. That's a precaution taken so that the app is a "good citizen". Which rendering app are you talking about that slows down when it's in the background? Maybe it does the same thing.

But I agree that with a high amount of paging, the UI does become sluggish.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: PipelineStall ]

[absmiths]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

In terms of memory management, the OS itself swallows too much memory compared to previous OSes both Mac, Linux and Windows. Memory management has improved greatly with 10.1 though. Before, launching an app didn't show any speed increase on relaunching. Relaunching an app on 10.1 has improved. But relaunching on NT/W2K is instantaneous. So things can improve there.

Multi-tasking wise, 10.1 is solid. However, the GUI still has some slowness to it and that prevents it from being as smooth as multi-tasking on Windows. Also, if an app is doing a long render putting it in the background slows it down a lot. This is better in Windows too.
</STRONG>

You are describing somewhat best-case behavior in Windows, I think. I too use Windows NT and 2K constantly and this is my experience: Memory management - Windows has memory leaks which erode useable RAM that abound throughout the system. I can't validate your comment that OS X is so much worse - and Linux is almost identical - Unix systems typically eat up RAM like it's going out of style because it can so easily be paged; Process Control - I think your experience has been lucky if you have not encountered any problems with multitasking in Windows. We had a server running on NT, and occasionally we had to open IE on the server - no problem. We upgraded to W2K, and suddenly the server would stop running whenever IE was in the foreground (because of process starvation). BTW, we didn't write the software, it was a combination of IBM and Microsoft, so it wasn't our fault. We ended up having to change process priorities whenever we started the server to correct for the background problem (Changing process priority to favor the background didn't help since it merely reversed the problem).

In your defense, KellyHogan, I must say that you take all the crap you are getting admirably, without attacking back. That is appreciated regardless of your viewpoint.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]

[iamnotmad]

This kelly guy is flame-bait troll, any performance testing he may post will be skewed and all favor a windows machine. There may be one or two little tests that the mac wins just because he thinks it may increase it's believablity.

Hmmm. Let me get this straight... Retailers in the UK have the Ti 550? I find this very hard to believe. I'm 35 miles from Cupertino and no retailers around here have these yet (other than the Palo Alto Apple store). How exactly did "shops" in the UK leapfrog everyone else?

[absmiths]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Relaunching an app on 10.1 has improved. But relaunching on NT/W2K is instantaneous. So things can improve there.
</STRONG>

That depends on the App. IE is certainly instantaneous. Try Netscape 6 - not instant by a long shot. Try Forte for Java, same. I could say the same for Real Jukebox, Quicktime Player, all PVCS software, etc. The apps which launch the fastest seem to be the apps which use MFC predominantly, and of course almost all MS stuff.

[PipelineStall]

On the topic of app launches, it's very easy to cheat to get good launch times as well. The application stops bouncing in the dock, after you start receiving events (you don't have to handle them right away).

Eg: On a previous app I worked on, we put a ReceiveNextEvent() call before we loaded any libraries or anything. It was a non-blocking call, and didn't take any events off the queue (assuming an event was waiting). We were able to cut the bounce time from 6 bounces to 1.5 -2 bounces on debug builds. But the net launch time (calculated using timer routines, not with "bouncemarks") was actually substantially decreased; contrary to what you would think.

This leads me to believe that Mac OS X does some strange scheduling or prioritization. How if your app is supposedly ready to receive user events, any code fragment manager stuff or whatever is boosted. This is pure speculation, of course.

Originally posted by &lt;unregisteredMike&gt;:
<STRONG>Hmmm. Let me get this straight... Retailers in the UK have the Ti 550? I find this very hard to believe. I'm 35 miles from Cupertino and no retailers around here have these yet (other than the Palo Alto Apple store). How exactly did "shops" in the UK leapfrog everyone else?</STRONG>

The stores in Germany have no idea when the new TiBooks are coming. All the website retailers also tell me the same thing. Posts from guys in England say they've tracked their TiBooks coming in from Taiwan, and it takes a pretty circuitous route to get to them (breakfast in Amsterdam, coffee in Luxumbourg, tea in Ireland, etc.).

Just relaying what I know about European deliveries.

And one more thing... I checked Apples website yesterday, and they raised the price by �500 freakin' Euros. That puts it over �3500 for the regular 550 Mhz model. For those of you keeping track at home, the Euro is just under a US dollar, making this well over $1,000 more than in the States. Yikes!

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Uh, from the same shop. It cost me �30 UK for an extra 256MBs. Lucky I didn'y buy from the Apple Store where it the same amount of memory costs �150.</STRONG>

hmmm... I thought that the memory was split into two cards in Apple's Two for One offer. That meant if the TiBook came configured with 256MB, it had two 128MB cards. To upgrade to 512 MB, one would have to either replace both, or get a 384 MB card.

Just curious...

[scarab]

Come on now, lay off KellyHogan. He's kind enough to spend time answering our questions, and I am sure some of us benefit from it, even though I am not particularly interested.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: scarab ]

[John123]

Originally posted by &lt;Still Wacked&gt;:
<STRONG>

hmmm... I thought that the memory was split into two cards in Apple's Two for One offer. That meant if the TiBook came configured with 256MB, it had two 128MB cards. To upgrade to 512 MB, one would have to either replace both, or get a 384 MB card.

Just curious...</STRONG>

:o

No, this is altogether wrong.
FIRST, if you get the 550, you get a 256 module in there, all on one chip. If you get a 667, you get two 256 modules.

Second, there is no such thing as a 384 module. All RAM is based on powers of 2. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, that means that the possibilities are in the form of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. If you ever wondered why it is 1024 bytes in a kilobyte, or 1024 kb in a MB, or 1024 MB in a GB (instead of an even 1000), now you know.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: John123 ]

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by &lt;unregisteredMike&gt;:
<STRONG>Hmmm. Let me get this straight... Retailers in the UK have the Ti 550? I find this very hard to believe. I'm 35 miles from Cupertino and no retailers around here have these yet (other than the Palo Alto Apple store). How exactly did "shops" in the UK leapfrog everyone else?</STRONG>

They have the 550 but not the 667. In fact, they recieved so few 550s that they didn't put them on display because they were bound to sell out within a week.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by absmiths:
<STRONG>

In your defense, KellyHogan, I must say that you take all the crap you are getting admirably, without attacking back. That is appreciated regardless of your viewpoint.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]</STRONG>

Some people are making childish attacks because they want me to respond in anger so that anything I publish will be pushed under the carpet. But I'm not George Bush and I'm not a cowboy. I don't respond with the same thing.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


Some people are making childish attacks because they want me to respond in anger so that anything I publish will be pushed under the carpet. But I'm not George Bush and I'm not a cowboy. I don't respond with the same thing.</STRONG>

I just finished the Castle Wolfenstein tests. Pics and videos tomorrow.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein MP test

All defaults on, resolution 640x480. Don't connect to the net. Create a new server and then run around the edges of the beach.

Sony Vaio GR144 @ 933Mhz, Radeon 8MB
Average frame rate 45FPS

Apple Powerbook G4 @ 550Mhgz, Radeon 16MB
Average frame rate 35FPS

At 667Mhz the Powerbook probably matches the Sony. That's pretty good for a 667Mhz processor. Apple's site has the machines close too. I have to add two more observations.

-On the Vaio, the frame rate fluctuates between 15FPS up to 80FPS depending on how much detail and geometry there is on screen. On the Powerbook, the frame rate stays more or less constantly around 30-35FPS.

-The Powerbook's graphics don't have the same quality of the Windows version. The alpha blending, anti-aliasing and colors aren't as good. Screenshots and videos to come.

[maffioso]

Actually the 667Mhz will beat a 1Ghz Vaio by around the 10% range in fps, says the Apple web site. 44.7fps to 39.1

At 667Mhz the Powerbook probably matches the Sony. That's pretty good for a 667Mhz processor. Apple's site has the machines close too.

--
Maffioso

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by maffioso:
<STRONG>Actually the 667Mhz will beat a 1Ghz Vaio by around the 10% range in fps, says the Apple web site. 44.7fps to 39.1
--
Maffioso</STRONG>

But they didn't actually provide evidence like I can. Also, the frame counter in Wolfenstein constantly changes. How did they get 44.7 and 39.1 when there is no way to get those measurements? What command did they use?

Another point, the Vaio Radeon has half the memory yet handles the textures far better. Again, I have pictures that will be posted tomorrow. Put it this way, I've never seen white barbwire.

[maffioso]

First of all they are Quake 3 fps scores. And quake 3 is an equal game on both platforms. Unlike Wolfenstein... I would say it is an average of the fps for each computer. And i have no idea what command they used, im not Apple am i?

And hey maybe it could be something to do with the game being written for PC first then Mac. And you can show all the proof you want but it won't make a lick of differance, I have made my mind up that alot of **** comes out of your mouth. And i will wait for 3rd party reviews of the system before i draw conclusions on your results.

I have made up my mind and you have made up your mind...

Have A Nice Day

--
Maffioso

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by maffioso:
<STRONG>First of all they are Quake 3 fps scores. And quake 3 is an equal game
I have made up my mind and you have made up your mind...

Have A Nice Day

--
Maffioso</STRONG>

You made up your mind about a machine you haven't got or even touched or tested.

You didn't even bother to notice that Apple's scores don't tally with mine. They said that the 1Ghz Vaio GR did 39FPS. I've got mine, a 933, doing 45FPS average and sometimes that goes up to 70FPS. Again, I have video evidence for this.

Even more, I benched a 1.4 Ghz Athlon with a Geforce 2MX (supposed to be a slower chip than a Radeon) doing 90FPS average.

But you keep insulting me and keep trying to attack me when you haven't got knowledge of any of these tests, haven't seen the tests, don't know how to run the tests and haven't even seen the machines.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


You made up your mind about a machine you haven't got or even touched or tested.

You didn't even bother to notice that Apple's scores don't tally with mine. They said that the 1Ghz Vaio GR did 39FPS. I've got mine, a 933, doing 45FPS average and sometimes that goes up to 70FPS. Again, I have video evidence for this.

Even more, I benched a 1.4 Ghz Athlon with a Geforce 2MX (supposed to be a slower chip than a Radeon) doing 90FPS average.

But you keep insulting me and keep trying to attack me when you haven't got knowledge of any of these tests, haven't seen the tests, don't know how to run the tests and haven't even seen the machines.</STRONG>

I think everyone knows what kellys "tests" will reveal. I think we also know how meaningless and biased they are.


**edited to add the already clearly implied "I think" to avoid confusing flame-bait trolls.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: iamnotmad ]

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>


Everyone knows what kellys "tests" will reveal. We also know how meaningless and biased they are.</STRONG>

I find it remarkable when posters speak for 'everyone'.

[murbot]

You can type all the shit you want here Kelly, it's certainly no "proof".

You are obviously making this crap up for your enjoyment. Please turn off your PC, go into the corner, pick your nose, masturbate, or whatever you did for kicks before you started coming here.

Spare us your bullshit reviews please.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by murbot:
<STRONG>You can type all the shit you want here Kelly, it's certainly no "proof".

You are obviously making this crap up for your enjoyment. Please turn off your PC, go into the corner, pick your nose, masturbate, or whatever you did for kicks before you started coming here.

Spare us your bullshit reviews please.</STRONG>

Another person speaking for 'everyone' and 'us'. People have been asking for benchmarks. There are also open-minded 'non-religious' types here who want to see system comparisons. You haven't even read my conclusion or my reviews and yet you speak for 'everyone'. Have you been elected to think and speak for everyone? Or are you an Apple theocrat who decides what everyone should believe?

This is what I don't like to see. I like Macs, but I don't like the Mac community. If they replace Macs with a deity and Jobs with a priest, they could very well end up on your doorstep trying to convert you or kill you.