Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

d1abolic · Jul 21, 2002, 10:13 PM

I think the author of this article summarized it better than i can, so here goes:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind <hr /></blockquote><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_blank">Click here to read the article</a>

Superchicken · Jul 21, 2002, 10:23 PM

man... I pitty the guy that had to write that article... he touched a comp running windows.... poor guy... I should send him a get well soon card.

(David hugs his lil 333Mhz iMac)

PowerMatt · Jul 21, 2002, 10:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
I think the author of this article summarized it better than i can, so here goes:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind <hr /></blockquote><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_blank">Click here to read the article</a><hr /></blockquote>WHO CARES? Some tests say the Mac wins, some say the PC wins. WHO CARES?

KeilwerthSX90R · Jul 21, 2002, 11:38 PM

Since I'm not entirely familiar with the end-user benefits of various technologies, what would the performance benefits be of DDR-Ram and a faster FSB (plus other PC standards I haven't mentioned) combined with the current G4s? People keep saying that PPCs have performance benefits over x86 chips and of course people point out the Megahertz myth, so how much of the current lack of performance is based solely on Motos inability to produce faster chips, and how much of it is based on Apple's use of older generation technology?

This is in no way a complaint, etc. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Obviously I want Moto (or IBM) to come up with faster chips for use in Apple computers, but I'm also trying to figure out what Apple could do to realistically and economically speed things up with out a groundbreaking increase in chip performance.

d1abolic · Jul 21, 2002, 11:39 PM

Really, would you like to show me some benchmarks that show a similarly-priced Mac outperfor a PC? Didn't think so. They don't exist.

To answer your question, there are several reasons i'm posting this. I have nothing against Mac users themselves, it's the company i have a problem with. I remember visiting their site back in the mid-nineties and writing down a list of about two dozen complete and utter lies that were posted there. I hated Apple ever since for misleading their customers like that.

If you'd like to hear an example of these lies i speak of, how about Apple's benchmarks that compared FireWire speed in MEGABITS to SCSI speed in MEGABYTES? Their claim was that FireWire is 60% faster because it can transfer 60% more MEGABITS a second than SCSI can MEGABYTES. Of course, in the benchmarks, the units were abbreviated to MB. You'd have to read the fine print to find out that MBs for SCSI were actually 10.24 times larger than MBs for FireWire.

Furthermore, every Mac user i meet keeps telling me ballads about Apple's greatness. How Macs supposedly outperform PCs when it comes to graphics and audio editing, as well as video games. They tell me that anyone who knows anything uses a Mac. Well, i'm a hardcore gamer and use Photoshop and 3ds max on a day-to-day basis. I don't use a Mac (and never will), nor do i know anyone who does. This article goes to prove that those stories are utter lies. If you come up to me and make a claim, be prepared to back it up with some hard evidence.

Mac Zealot · Jul 21, 2002, 11:51 PM

You came all the way here to tell us something?

I think there's been an attack of PC zealots to here.. get a ****ing life you idiot.

Mac Zealot · Jul 21, 2002, 11:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />First, we'd like to settle a few arguments up front by letting you know that we've used the same codec on all the machines for rendering After Effects 5.5 files.<hr /></blockquote>What they said ^

What they meant >

First, we'd like to settle a few arguments up front by lettign you know that we are a bunch of idiotic lamers who have nothing to do but we are making up statistics so **** you mac zealots. PCs are better and always will be.

pal05 · Jul 22, 2002, 07:06 AM

If you need extrem speed and you are a geek - go buy a pc.
if you need to work - buy a mac!

=)

d1abolic · Jul 22, 2002, 07:12 AM

So this is the best Apple community can do to defend their platform? Misdirected anger and invalid arguments? Or do you just find it hard to tell fairy tales to someone who actually has an idea of what he's talking about?

DNA man · Jul 22, 2002, 07:17 AM

Does this really matter?

I can't type faster than I think, besides the comparison should be re-done with the hardware that comes out after August 12th or whenever.

I find this "my computer is faster than your computer "stuff all very boring now. Unless, you need a super powerful computer for maths etc, most computers (mac, Wintel etc) are more than fast enough.

The need for speed is greed! <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

suhail · Jul 22, 2002, 07:39 AM

I do agree "The need for speed is greed"

One of our clients, who has a studio for putting Books on tape / CD, had been using PCs for a very long time. The software and hardware he has, are mind boggling and now he is upgrading all his computers to Mac because, as he puts it, "they just feel better".

One thing about OS X that is still missing, is printing the contents of a Folder!!

suhail · Jul 22, 2002, 07:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you'd like to hear an example of these lies i speak of, how about Apple's benchmarks that compared FireWire speed in MEGABITS to SCSI speed in MEGABYTES? Their claim was that FireWire is 60% faster because it can transfer 60% more MEGABITS a second than SCSI can MEGABYTES. Of course, in the benchmarks, the units were abbreviated to MB. You'd have to read the fine print to find out that MBs for SCSI were actually 10.24 times larger than MBs for FireWire.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Where did you get that from?? I have just downloaded the FireWire Fact Sheet of 1999 (FireWireFS-b.pdf), which discusses every advantage of FireWire, and there is no mention of what you said!!
OH!! Wait a minute, it could be a conspiracy...

nat · Jul 22, 2002, 08:13 AM

You're kidding right? You have a problem with Apple so you use Microsoft products? This is a step up for you? Misleading customers is your criteria and you use Microsoft products? You later talk about misguided anger yet you claim you will NEVER use Apple products, so this is even handed on your part? I was under the impression at first that your argument was based on performance but clearly it is not because should Apple release a faster, bigger, better machine you will still not use it because it's from Apple. Seems a bit misguided to me. Tell me again, now, you choose to use Microsoft products because of ethics? There's something wrong here...

[ 07-22-2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: nat ]

solitere · Jul 22, 2002, 09:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
I think the author of this article summarized it better than i can, so here goes:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind <hr /></blockquote><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm" target="_blank">Click here to read the article</a><hr /></blockquote>Theres one more thing Mr. White and other PC. vs Tester often misses. In a production enviroment theres almost impossible today not having a anti-virus protection system of some kind for the Wintel-plattform. All antivirus systems running on servers, workstations seriously brings down their performance radically. So it will interesting to see the same benchmark results with Anti-Virus software turned on!

bigv · Jul 22, 2002, 10:13 AM

KeilwerthSX90R, from what I understand the current G4 is not designed to be compatible with DDR memory. The next iteration of the G4 is supposed to be compatible. A faster FSB and DDR ram would make a difference on the overall speed of the power macs. How much speed depends largely on how much data is being processed by whatever applications that are running at any given time. I personally think DDR ram, faster FSB and at least a 1.5 ghz G4 would be competitive speed wise.

I don't have any of the specifics on this but I have read numerous articles on the topic. Hope this helps.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 22, 2002, 10:15 AM

I don't know what the fixation on raw speed is all about. I must say that I'm a little jealous when it comes to some things on the PC side (2.4+ Ghz, 200Mhz buss DDR memory etc.) of the fence, but most of the time, I feel very comfortable with my setup, and it's nowhere near a 2x 1Ghz tower.

The only place that we (the Mac community) really take the hit is with games and high end video/digital editing. Everything else is just +2 seconds...

I would like to see the difference between surfing 20 web sites and sending 20 email on a G3 iMac vs. a 2x 1Ghz system vs. a PC would be (considering that is what a majority of us use our computers for). I bet it's almost identical...

mitchell_pgh · Jul 22, 2002, 10:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by suhail:
One thing about OS X that is still missing, is printing the contents of a Folder!!<hr /></blockquote>Ugh, I know, this is driving me crazy... cut, paste... cut, paste...

dwishbone · Jul 22, 2002, 10:19 AM

I have a three macs and a PC at home. I haul my little white iBook to work with me everyday so I can see the elegance that is OS X next to the POS that sits next to it...which I won't name any names...but it is spelled W-I-N-D-O-W-S.

Benchmarks are an important part in comparing computers, but it is not fare to compare Macs and PCs the way most people do.
Most benchmarks are done with either Photoshop. You need to do the following to get a true performance.
Take the same image and open it on a windows PC and a Mac.
Make sure the RAM is equal in both machines.
Run EVERY filter in timed mode and write down the time of each.
Total them up and see which is less. THe smaller is the faster one.
This way you can see which is faster overall.
The fact is certain filters runs faster on a Mac...and some on a PC.
My little 500 iBook can beat my 1 Ghz AMD K7 at home on many tests, but one some my PC smokes it. Overall I would say they are about the same.
It, as always, just boils down to which you like better. If you truely love the platform you are with benchmarks like those mean nothing to you.
You can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

gdiddy · Jul 22, 2002, 10:36 AM

All these PC trolls running around here is making me think these "Switch" ads may be working... People must be asking there local PC expert"What do you think of Macs?" and these guys are freaking out.

"Must... Slag... Mac... Forum...Sites.... For.... Bill......"

G.

Back up 15 and punt · Jul 22, 2002, 11:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
Really, would you like to show me some benchmarks that show a similarly-priced Mac outperfor a PC? Didn't think so. They don't exist.

To answer your question, there are several reasons i'm posting this. I have nothing against Mac users themselves, it's the company i have a problem with. I remember visiting their site back in the mid-nineties and writing down a list of about two dozen complete and utter lies that were posted there. I hated Apple ever since for misleading their customers like that.

If you'd like to hear an example of these lies i speak of, how about Apple's benchmarks that compared FireWire speed in MEGABITS to SCSI speed in MEGABYTES? Their claim was that FireWire is 60% faster because it can transfer 60% more MEGABITS a second than SCSI can MEGABYTES. Of course, in the benchmarks, the units were abbreviated to MB. You'd have to read the fine print to find out that MBs for SCSI were actually 10.24 times larger than MBs for FireWire.

Furthermore, every Mac user i meet keeps telling me ballads about Apple's greatness. How Macs supposedly outperform PCs when it comes to graphics and audio editing, as well as video games. They tell me that anyone who knows anything uses a Mac. Well, i'm a hardcore gamer and use Photoshop and 3ds max on a day-to-day basis. I don't use a Mac (and never will), nor do i know anyone who does. This article goes to prove that those stories are utter lies. If you come up to me and make a claim, be prepared to back it up with some hard evidence.<hr /></blockquote>Would like to point out the article that states were Apple says that Firewire is faster than SCSI. Firewire was/is meant to replace SCSI but there are no current native Firewire drives available. All current drives use a bridge chip.

Diggory Laycock · Jul 22, 2002, 11:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by suhail:
One thing about OS X that is still missing, is printing the contents of a Folder!!<hr /></blockquote>Ugh, I know, this is driving me crazy... cut, paste... cut, paste...<hr /></blockquote>try this:

open folder in the finder
Select all
copy
open Text Edit
paste.

(s)macintosh · Jul 22, 2002, 12:06 PM

similarly-priced Mac outperfor a PC

Where was that XServe benchmark?

That's a Mac, it was cheaper then nearly all the machines tested, and only a 4+ processor machine bested it. It's not a "consumer" Mac, but there's your comparision.

So...

Hinson · Jul 22, 2002, 12:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I don't know what the fixation on raw speed is all about. I must say that I'm a little jealous when it comes to some things on the PC side (2.4+ Ghz, 200Mhz buss DDR memory etc.) of the fence, but most of the time, I feel very comfortable with my setup, and it's nowhere near a 2x 1Ghz tower.
...<hr /></blockquote>Okay, here's the problem...

Raw speed will ALWAYS matter. Why? Because applications, even basic ones like web browsers and word processors, will ALWAYS find ways to use up power. If raw power doesn't matter, and today we can do just about anything we want on our macs without needing more power, then we should be happy even if there are no more speed increases for years to come, right? Of course that's not the case! Why? Because by that time programs on the Mac side will be jokes compared to those on the PC side.

Software will always crave more power! Think of the difference between running modern Mac programs on, say, an old PowerPC 604 from a few years back. Back then, they were great processors and could run all the latest software, but today software does more and requires more power.

I'm an avid Mac user and I really would like to upgrade my old Beige G3 soon. About 2 or 3 years later after I bought it, as expected, it was showing its age. I wanted to upgrade, but at that time it was looking like the G4 MIGHT be replaced by the G5 within a year or so. I do not want to spend big bucks to upgrade to a computer if within a year or so the processor will be replaced by a whole new line. But I've been waiting for a while now because the PowerPC road map has not produced speed increases as were originally envisioned. It�s become a problem, and as time goes on it will be a bigger and bigger problem if something doesn't change!

I feel like we're going to enter an age similar to the very early 90s (if I�m remembering correctly) when, regardless of their design, Mac processors simply couldn't keep up with PCs and yet Apple did not have enough pricing room to make macs cheaper than their PC counterparts. Mac users had to fall back on other important but less quantitative advantages of the Mac, and speed was portrayed as not such a big worry.

Then the PowerPC came along and suddenly it was great to be a Mac user because Macs were faster and would continue to outpace PCs for years and years to come! But now we're back to "Um... but speed doesn't REALLY matter that much." A speed deficit can only go on for so long before it becomes a (if not THE) major factor for declining market share. Let's hope there's a way out for Apple soon (e.g., either PowerPC processor power takes a big jump and keeps climbing, perhaps with the G5, or Apple finds a better alternative and a good way to migrate to it).

-Jay

d1abolic · Jul 23, 2002, 01:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I find this "my computer is faster than your computer "stuff all very boring now. Unless, you need a super powerful computer for maths etc, most computers (mac, Wintel etc) are more than fast enough.

The need for speed is greed!<hr /></blockquote>It's funny hearing this from a member of a group known so well for bragging about their machines' superiority to others. But I guess that for that same reason, you wouldn't really know what cutting-edge hardware is used for, since the most cutting-edge game available for the Mac is WarCraft III, which uses 250 polygons / model, something PC users haven't seen since the 90's. I need every single MHz i can get and then some. The day everyone can run games with all the graphics options maxed out at 1600x1200 is the day your statement will be true, but as far as i'm concerned, that day is at the very least half a decade away at this point.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />One of our clients, who has a studio for putting Books on tape / CD, had been using PCs for a very long time. The software and hardware he has, are mind boggling and now he is upgrading all his computers to Mac because, as he puts it, "they just feel better".<hr /></blockquote>I assume what he means by that is that they're easier to use. It's true, they are, but everyone knows that "easy-to-use software" is just a marketing term for software that lacks features.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Where did you get that from?? I have just downloaded the FireWire Fact Sheet of 1999 (FireWireFS-b.pdf), which discusses every advantage of FireWire, and there is no mention of what you said!!
OH!! Wait a minute, it could be a conspiracy...<hr /></blockquote>The information was on one of the main pages of the site, not the fact sheet. I think there is a site somewhere that serves as a web archive. See if you can get it to bring up a copy of Apple.com from 97 or 98 - you'll be in for a surprise.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You're kidding right? You have a problem with Apple so you use Microsoft products? This is a step up for you? Misleading customers is your criteria and you use Microsoft products? You later talk about misguided anger yet you claim you will NEVER use Apple products, so this is even handed on your part? I was under the impression at first that your argument was based on performance but clearly it is not because should Apple release a faster, bigger, better machine you will still not use it because it's from Apple. Seems a bit misguided to me. Tell me again, now, you choose to use Microsoft products because of ethics? There's something wrong here...<hr /></blockquote>Where did i say that i use Windows because i have a problem with Apple? I use what i like, and i like Windows XP. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft either, so if what you're saying was true, i would be using Linux. I've used MacOS many times and never liked it because it's the AOL of operating systems. Would i use an Apple machine if it was "faster, bigger, better"? No, i would save a thousand dollars, buy the parts they use for it and build it myself, just as i do with PCs.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Theres one more thing Mr. White and other PC. vs Tester often misses. In a production enviroment theres almost impossible today not having a anti-virus protection system of some kind for the Wintel-plattform. All antivirus systems running on servers, workstations seriously brings down their performance radically. So it will interesting to see the same benchmark results with Anti-Virus software turned on!<hr /></blockquote>I'm not even going to bother commenting on this. Everything you said is wrong and completely unheard of. Period.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I would like to see the difference between surfing 20 web sites and sending 20 email on a G3 iMac vs. a 2x 1Ghz system vs. a PC would be (considering that is what a majority of us use our computers for). I bet it's almost identical...<hr /></blockquote>You're right, if i didn't play games or use high-end graphics applications, i would probably be using my 450MHz PC from 2000. But i do use them. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having a slower machine if the speed satisfies you. However, there is something wrong with a company that manufactures those slower machines claiming that they are in fact faster, cheaper and more stable than the compatition, when they really aren't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have a three macs and a PC at home. I haul my little white iBook to work with me everyday so I can see the elegance that is OS X next to the POS that sits next to it...which I won't name any names...but it is spelled W-I-N-D-O-W-S.<hr /></blockquote>So you choose Macs over PCs because OS X looks better than Win XP? Well i got news for you, Win XP is so customizable that it can be made to look like almost anything your imagination can create, including OS X. Take a look <a href="http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?searchtext=&sort=DailyDownloads&order=De scending&library=1" target="_blank">here</a> and prapare to be amazed.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />All these PC trolls running around here is making me think these "Switch" ads may be working... People must be asking there local PC expert"What do you think of Macs?" and these guys are freaking out.<hr /></blockquote>Are you saying that i'm trying to make a profit by convincing people who are hundreds or even thousands of miles away from me to buy PCs?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Would like to point out the article that states were Apple says that Firewire is faster than SCSI. Firewire was/is meant to replace SCSI but there are no current native Firewire drives available. All current drives use a bridge chip.<hr /></blockquote>Since so many people are asking for it, i'm gonna try to dig it up tonight. And besides, why do you wanna read it so bad? I just visited apple.com and my head is starting to hirt from the amount of ******** written there. And all i did was visit one <a href="http://www.apple.com/switch/whyswitch/" target="_blank">page</a>.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Raw speed will ALWAYS matter. Why? Because applications, even basic ones like web browsers and word processors, will ALWAYS find ways to use up power. If raw power doesn't matter, and today we can do just about anything we want on our macs without needing more power, then we should be happy even if there are no more speed increases for years to come, right? Of course that's not the case! Why? Because by that time programs on the Mac side will be jokes compared to those on the PC side.<hr /></blockquote>The ONE person here who actually knows what he's talking about? One question: what are you doing here? You have the mindset of a PC users. Here's some advice for you. Load up Google.com and find yourself a guide on building a PC. You should know how to build one in less than an hour, unless you have an IQ similar to that of a few people above. For less than half the price of a "cutting-edge" G4, you will have a machine that, simply put, beats the hell out of it. Let me know how it goes.

skipjack · Jul 23, 2002, 04:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
So this is the best Apple community can do to defend their platform? Misdirected anger and invalid arguments? Or do you just find it hard to tell fairy tales to someone who actually has an idea of what he's talking about?<hr /></blockquote>It seems to me that you are the one with unsubstantiated arguments, even for the points that might be true. You obviously have a stereotype of both Apple as a company and Apple users which you don't want to give up. Why don't you take the time to look at the posts on this forum. You'll find plenty of arguments and intelligent debate on some of the topics you have brought up. You might even find some technical reasons to support your points instead of the broad generalizations.

d1abolic · Jul 23, 2002, 05:32 AM

Yeah i admit that i have a stereotype of your community. So why not prove me wrong? So far, all i've seen here are either posts by angry people who couldn't spell a sentence correctly right if their life depended on it, or posts by people who know nothing about technology, yet still love their Macs because the ads tell them they are superior. Both of these fit perfectly well within my stereotype. If you have some valid points to bring up here, go right ahead, my ears are open

(s)macintosh · Jul 23, 2002, 06:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
Yeah i admit that i have a stereotype of your community. So why not prove me wrong? So far, all i've seen here are either posts by angry people who couldn't spell a sentence correctly right if their life depended on it, or posts by people who know nothing about technology, yet still love their Macs because the ads tell them they are superior. Both of these fit perfectly well within my stereotype. If you have some valid points to bring up here, go right ahead, my ears are open

<hr /></blockquote>You still didn't answer my post about the Xserve.

people who couldn't spell a sentence correctly right if their life depended on it

Huh?

DNA man · Jul 23, 2002, 06:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
[QB][QUOTE]I find this "my computer is faster than your computer "stuff all very boring now. Unless, you need a super powerful computer for maths etc, most computers (mac, Wintel etc) are more than fast enough.

The need for speed is greed!<hr /></blockquote>It's funny hearing this from a member of a group known so well for bragging about their machines' superiority to others. But I guess that for that same reason, you wouldn't really know what cutting-edge hardware is used for, since the most cutting-edge game available for the Mac is WarCraft III, which uses 250 polygons / model, something PC users haven't seen since the 90's. I need every single MHz i can get and then some. The day everyone can run games with all the graphics options maxed out at 1600x1200 is the day your statement will be true, but as far as i'm concerned, that day is at the very least half a decade away at this point.

Really

. I think you are getting me confused with some one else. Care to post those quotes I made??

Dan Szwarc · Jul 23, 2002, 07:59 AM

I can't run iMovie or iDVD on a PC, therefore I am sticking with my "now proven to be slower than a PC" Mac.

Who needs a valid argument?

I prefer OSX. As it is, I am running on one year old Mac hardware and therefore it cannot possibly faster than the fastest of today's PCs. Therefore, the speed argument is invalid since all computers grow old and become slower compared to the latest.

Am I disappointed? Sure, but it won't stop me from using a Mac. I even bought my current DP800 refurbished and saved a bundle. My wife is still using here G4-400 sawtooth. Is she crazy? No, but her machine is paid for and has been running smoothly since April 2000. She doesn't need dual 2GHz P4s.

Enough already! <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

JLFanboy · Jul 23, 2002, 01:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I prefer OSX. As it is, I am running on one year old Mac hardware and therefore it cannot possibly faster than the fastest of today's PCs. Therefore, the speed argument is invalid since all computers grow old and become slower compared to the latest.

Am I disappointed? Sure, but it won't stop me from using a Mac. I even bought my current DP800 refurbished and saved a bundle. <hr /></blockquote>Wait...You found a good deal on a really fast computer that lets you do all of your work? I simply don't buy that. No Mac user could possibly have to IQ to perform such a task! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You should know how to build one in less than an hour, unless you have an IQ similar to that of a few people above. <hr /></blockquote>

L337 Cola · Jul 26, 2002, 01:59 AM

god....

all this wasted time...

ok, d1abolic, you like PCs, why, for your games, good for you. You don't like Apple, fine. The fact is, you have a preference, I'm not going to say wether your P R E F E N C E (and you know i can't stress this enough) ir ight or wrong, because you know thats impossible because its a PREFERENCE. I use macs, why? Because i'm interested in doing what I can do with it, i'm only 15, and I have made more money with my mac, WHICH IS MY PREFERENCE, over the course of this summer, than all of my PC using friends have, together, ever. I do freelance web and graphic design, and I do it, on a PowerBook G4 running at 500Mhz, it has 768 MB of RAM, and looking at it sitting next to my 17" flat panel, with it's multiple firewire external drives and other things, it's not that bad. I think people need to stop telling other whats best for them, and instread, figure out how they can USE their "better" computer rather than telling people why it is "better."

d1abolic, if you want to use a PC, just go ahead, and everyone else lets just stop waisting our breath.... and carpal tunnels. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

edit: and there is no "SUPERIOR SYSTEM" because every system has its stong points and its weaknessess. So unless you found your computer in a desert near or in new mexico, it must have flaws, and you might not have gotten my point..... STOP ARGUING

[ 07-26-2002, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: L337 Cola ]

moki · Jul 26, 2002, 05:52 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by d1abolic:
Yeah i admit that i have a stereotype of your community. So why not prove me wrong? So far, all i've seen here are either posts by angry people who couldn't spell a sentence correctly right if their life depended on it, or posts by people who know nothing about technology, yet still love their Macs because the ads tell them they are superior. Both of these fit perfectly well within my stereotype. If you have some valid points to bring up here, go right ahead, my ears are open

<hr /></blockquote>A little background for you -- I have been working as a programmer for well over a decade, using all sorts of computers, operating systems, etc. I prefer using Macs, and am especially jazzed about Mac OS X -- an easy to use GUI on top of Unix. A match made in heaven.

In any event, during the time I've been using computers, I have never once felt the compelling need to seek out a group of computer users, and attack them. I wonder what compells you to do so?

Regardless, if you enjoy using your PC with Windows XP, that's great. I find the ease of use of Mac OS X, the superior bundled applications, the powerful Unix layer, and the first-rate design to make Macs my prefered OS. I like that I can just get things done without effort, or I can peel it back and geek out with the bare metal of a nice BSD layer.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but seeking out a place such as this as an outlet for your incredibly biased and closed-minded opinions seems... pointless. You are not here to learn or even debate, but rather to attemp to gloat and start fights. Weak.

Scotttheking · Jul 26, 2002, 06:31 AM

congrats on the article.
We've been thru this many many times.
And it still is flame bait.

Thread closed.