[foo2]

Originally Posted by Greenrobotics

Can you upgrade the disk to 7200 or is the interface not up to it?
Thanks, Harry

It's still just a 2.5" drive - expensive, slower than 3.5", and smaller in capacity too. I wish Apple would've gone to 3.5".

[chrisutley]

Look I'm a Mac user, have been since 1987. Oh and an Apple user since the IIplus. You people trying to beat up Dell on quality are wasting your time. I have been in Internet operations for nearly 10-years, and I've bought over a million dollars in Dell servers and workstations. The quality has been exceptional and the values they offer cannot be beat. Of course I run Linux on these machines, so I cannot speak to Windows reliability.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by foo2

Why is it a lack of quality by Dell? If you don't need it, you don't buy it. What's the problem? Is the fact that Apple only offers a 1-year warranty (I'll do what you did and ignore the fact you can buy a 3 year warranty) evidence of the lack of quality by Apple when some vendors offer a 3 year warranty?

Most of the others in the industry supply a 1 year warranty standard. Dell, however offers 90 days. Why is that? Could it be because they have little faith in their product?

What would you think if, say, Toyota only offered a 3 month/10k warranty on their cars? Would say a lot about the lack of faith in their products.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by foo2

$429 with Pentium 4/2.8 and 17" LCD, Dell 3000, 1 year warranty, in stark contrast to your $778 figure. And no Mac mini comes close, performancewise, so comparisons really aren't fair. A better comparison would be a G5 vs. the Dell with an upgraded video card.

No you didn't - I simply went to www.dell.com and spec'ed the system. No coupons or anything else which most people won't bother with. Most will go to www.dell.com or call their 800#.

If we're going to go that route, you could also use the 2% FatWallet rebate from the Apple store.

Dell quality is quite good; Apple and Dell both ship fairly reliable machines. Consumer Reports puts them at pretty similar levels.

Sorry, I've been in this business quite a while and Dell makes junk. Always has, always will. You can't build quality at their low price points. And the higher price points are as expensive as everyone else.

You are factually incorrect in everything you posted about XP Home. You can easily access AD resources with an XP Home machine. The only thing you cannot do is join the PC to the domain. It will network flawlessly on the AD network - something I cannot say for Macs.

Uh, yeah if you want to enter your password all the time, use a convoluted method for accessing resources, and not be able to change your password.

I do AD/Winblows for a living and know full well the limitations of XP Home WRT AD integration. I've had my Macs on our AD network - 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 - all working flawlessly as well....

Free programs are an issue only if they're an issue for you; for millions they work great.

Millions? Doubt that. Why would a company put out a free virus or spyware scanner without some ulterior motive? Makes no sense. Be very wary.

You wouldn't use a lock that came for free from Master, would you? Or a free safe from Diebold? Didn't think so. Same with security software.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by chrisutley

I have been in Internet operations for nearly 10-years, and I've bought over a million dollars in Dell servers and workstations. The quality has been exceptional and the values they offer cannot be beat. Of course I run Linux on these machines, so I cannot speak to Windows reliability.

I've been in IT for longer and if reliability is your concern, you shop anywhere but Dell. We're an IBM shop and have inherited some Dell crap servers and they have been nothing but trouble.

The Dell desktops are garbage as well (we now use them) dropping network connectivity at random and just being slow.

Don't get me started on the garbage that is the D600, D800 laptops.... A 72 Plymouth Volare has less squeaks and rattles.

[NEMMRRC]

I have been lusting after a Mac ever since the luxo lamp iMac was released. I waited and waited until the price came down. I have been trying to replace my 200MHz (yes, two hundred) Pentium MMX Dell machine for a long time now. When the Mac mini was released I jumped for joy

My girlfriend was so good to me and bought me a Mac mini for my b'day one month ago. I have been so pleased with the mini.

The way I see it, this Mac mini was made just for people like me. I have been wanting to switch from Windows to Mac but just couldn't see paying too much to do it. And I still get to use the Dell 17" display bundled with my old machine.

Even at $300 or less I wouldn't have replaced my 9 year old Dell with a new one. No way!

Thank you Apple for my Mac mini

Jaime

[foo2]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Most of the others in the industry supply a 1 year warranty standard. Dell, however offers 90 days. Why is that? Could it be because they have little faith in their product?

What would you think if, say, Toyota only offered a 3 month/10k warranty on their cars? Would say a lot about the lack of faith in their products.

re: warranty: Again, that's simply not correct. Dell offers all kinds of models at all kinds of price points. The warranty is just another product to buy - if you want a 90 day warranty, it's there; if you want a 3 year warranty, it's there. Why is offering a range of products a problem for you? Apple only offers a singy 90 day warranty for tech support unless you pay out the nose for AppleCare - and for their pro models, that can be $250. Dell offers 1 year of support for $23 extra for their cheapest models and 3 years for $103 (and 1 year is included on most of their models, in stark contrast to your comments above, which are wrong). Who's got the better deal? Dell, obviously. Your comments are (deliberately?) very misleading!

What would you say if Toyota, already being the quality and cost leader in their industry, dropped the price of their products even more so that their customers were offered the *choice* of whether to buy a 90 day, 1 year, or 3 year warranty? Major advantage, Toyota customers.

Look, if Dell were charging MORE money than other PC producers, you'd have a point. However, they obviously charge significantly less, so your points are absurd and foolish.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by itguy05

No you didn't - I simply went to www.dell.com and spec'ed the system. No coupons or anything else which most people won't bother with. Most will go to www.dell.com or call their 800#.
If we're going to go that route, you could also use the 2% FatWallet rebate from the Apple store.
Sorry, I've been in this business quite a while and Dell makes junk. Always has, always will. You can't build quality at their low price points. And the higher price points are as expensive as everyone else.
Uh, yeah if you want to enter your password all the time, use a convoluted method for accessing resources, and not be able to change your password.
I do AD/Winblows for a living and know full well the limitations of XP Home WRT AD integration. I've had my Macs on our AD network - 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 - all working flawlessly as well....
Millions? Doubt that. Why would a company put out a free virus or spyware scanner without some ulterior motive? Makes no sense. Be very wary.
You wouldn't use a lock that came for free from Master, would you? Or a free safe from Diebold? Didn't think so. Same with security software.

1. You state that you won't use coupons to cut prices. That's your problem. If you want to pay more to Dell, go for it. The rest of us normal people will enjoy the savings.
2. You state Dell makes junk. That can factually be proven to be wrong - Consumer Reports disagrees with you, as do almost every survey or guide from magazines I've ever seen. You keep repeating this "junk" allegation - can you find a reputable magazine that agrees with you? Can you give any reason at all why you believe this, aside from "in your experience"? I've worked with many fortune 500 companies; they disagree with you; Dell is *the* name in the large/enterprise space nowadays.
3. I have no idea what you're talking about with passwords - things work fine for me. If you're too lazy to save money, that's your problem - but I'm happy you're there to subsidize the rest of us.
4. Previous comments about XP Home and Windows networking were flat wrong. If it was you that made them, you were wrong.
5. Millions use it. Judge for yourself. http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article...,113462,00.asp -- PC World agrees with me. And Consumer Reports judges Microsoft's Antispyware as the best available. That's free too.

Your judgement of value based on price in this day and age of Linux is incredibly amusing, to say the least.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by itguy05

I've been in IT for longer and if reliability is your concern, you shop anywhere but Dell. We're an IBM shop and have inherited some Dell crap servers and they have been nothing but trouble.

The Dell desktops are garbage as well (we now use them) dropping network connectivity at random and just being slow.

Don't get me started on the garbage that is the D600, D800 laptops.... A 72 Plymouth Volare has less squeaks and rattles.

It's become pretty obvious you have something against Dell... I don't know what to tell you except that in industry survey after survey and in Consumer Reports and hosts of other magazines, your opinion runs counter to what others find.

[Hash]

Basically I do not care about Dell. They make PCs, thats all. All they do is basically creating a black box and then asking some Chinese companies to assemble similar black boxes cheaply and send them to US. There is zero creativity, and perhaps most of their R&D is devoted to finding out how various shades of grey can be painted on the next Dell creation to be then outsourced to Chinese.

Apple also outsources production, but it designs it Macs not only outside, but also inside: creates all software OS to work with the computer and try to design not only the box, but the whole computing experience and do it great. Even with some slow hardware (which is not Apple's fault), it designs such beautiful systems that consumers now buy them at higher growth rate than generic PC boxes with XP even if they cost more and slower than comparable Dell.

Because it happens that some people value their time, aestetics of their work and value security and easiness of use, while some like foo2 only count some cents missing the whole picture.

I am not blaming him for that, after all, I guess he is happy with his 299 Dell box with shared memory and XP, but each one deserves what he deserves, so maybe he deserves cheapest box Dell can ask Chinese to assemble.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Without being slow and laggy? For that matter, can you rotate the monitor on such displays?

Yes, you can rotate. There are plenty of 3rd party rotation tools available... my Viewsonic 20" even came with one that works well.

Is it still $500 after you apply that configuration?

Price doesn't change, as it is configured in the BIOS. You can choose 32megs, 64, or 128 of "shared" memory. Older integrated solutions were garbage -- but the latest easily outperform the Mini's Radeon 9200. Especially the Nvidia nForce MGPs.

I can't blame them for having high expectations, but most consumers have no idea of what the term "monitor resolution" even means, so that doesn't enter into their train of thought. Your expectations are pretty impressively over the top.

What do you think this is, 1995? With LCDs and fixed resolutions, people are far more savy than 10 years ago. Don't underestimate consumers.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Squozen

Because they were aiming for a $499 price point.

Bulls*it! The cost difference for Apple to include 64mb vs. 32 is slight to insignificant. They are simply trying to strip features to maintain it's low-end status. At launch, the iMac has a 64MB Geforce FX 5200 -- so they couldn't justify a better GPU in a lower-end computer.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Link

The mac mini is not a joke. Consider this:

The machine is 6.5x6.5x2" ... it has a 1.42ghz processor in the top end, a G4 -- not a Celeron or funky VIA chip, has a DEDICATED VIDEO CHIPSET -- not integrated graphics..

.

Where have you been? Today's Celeron easily bests a G4. Isn't the G4 still running on a 133mhz bus? LOL! Remember, Celeron = last year's P4.

JW

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by WOPR

I do wonder how many of the people whining about the mini have actually used one.

Bought one, used it for a week, returned it.

Months later bought a 1.8ghz PM G5. Nice machine, but annoyed there was nothing in-between that wasn't glued to an LCD panel.

[Hash]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Where have you been? Today's Celeron easily bests a G4. Isn't the G4 still running on a 133mhz bus? LOL! Remember, Celeron = last year's P4.

JW

care to provide some charts? I have Celeron 2.5 ghz notebook, quite new, and it cannot beat my G4 650 mhz in terms of use, but I'd like to see some numbers

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

care to provide some charts? I have Celeron 2.5 mhz notebook, quite new, and it cannot beat my G4 650 mhz in terms of use, but I'd like to see some numbers

That's laughable.

With what, 128M of RAM in the Celeron? C'mon!

[Hash]

C'mon, the notebook has 256 mb of RAM. And charts, please.

[Dale Sorel]

This thread has become a joke

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Where have you been? Today's Celeron easily bests a G4. Isn't the G4 still running on a 133mhz bus? LOL! Remember, Celeron = last year's P4.

JW

Are you so ignorant that you think the only thing that affects a processor's performance other than the clock speed is the bus? There are far more intricate details that have at least as much of an effect on performance as the bus speed. Cache; Not just the size, but the type of cache it is and how heavily the processor does or doesn't rely on it. Latency; How the processor communicates with memory, how often, how efficiently... etc. Pipeline stages. Vector performance. The G4 has the Celeron handily outclassed in all of the above categories.

Please educate yourself...

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

C'mon, the notebook has 256 mb of RAM. And charts, please.

Both have 256M? How about more details, please?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Are you so ignorant that you think the only thing that affects a processor's performance other than the clock speed is the bus? There are far more intricate details that have at least as much of an effect on performance as the bus speed. Cache; Not just the size, but the type of cache it is and how heavily the processor does or doesn't rely on it. Latency; How the processor communicates with memory, how often, how efficiently... etc. Pipeline stages. Vector performance. The G4 has the Celeron handily outclassed in all of the above categories.

Please educate yourself...

The Celeron is slower than a P4 at the same clockspeed. However, he's trying to compare a 2500 mhz Celeron and a 650 mhz G4. That's absurd!

If you believe this, http://macspeedzone.com/archive/4.0/...acSPECint.html, then a Celeron is within about 20% of the G4 at a given megahertz.

If you believe this, http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/powerbook...hop_tests.html, then the Mac G4/500 is significantly slower than a basic, consumer-level P3/1000 at Photoshop 5, a best-case scenario for the Mac, so obviously a Celeron D 2.5 would fare far better.

If you believe this, http://www.themacobserver.com/shooto...sor_notes.html, the G4/450 doesn't even register - too slow - compared with modern Intel CPUs, of which the Celeron 2.5 is one.

Bear in mind these are Mac *best case scenarios* - in the real world, the Mac won't do nearly as well.

Obviously, there's a Mac bias here, to say the least.

[Lateralus]

Admittedly, comparing a 650MHz G4 to anything with a 4x clock speed advantage is a bit absurd. But I would definitely pit a 7410 G4 in the 600-700MHz range against a Celeron in the 1.5GHz range.

Link 1) The tests were done four years ago on a G4 core that was dumped just as long ago. Additionally, they're not exactly broad benchmarks. SPEC testing is a fallback for people who want to make the most basic generalizations of processor comparisons.

Link 2) The Pentium 3 is in the same performance class as the Pentium M. Arguably, the Pentium M is a reworked Pentium 3. And as with the first link, you're referencing tests done four years ago on processors that have been out of production for just as long.

Link 3) This is the only modern test you've linked to, and it isn't doing a whole lot to back up the claim that a Celeron of any speed would handily defeat a G4. Taking into account the fact that it places a 1GHz G4 in the same performance realm as a 1.4GHz Pentium M, which performs nearly on par with a 2GHz Pentium 4, which would be faster than a 2GHz Celeron.

I hold no bias here. I just refuse to back a claim that cannot be substantiated and is false by every processor enthusiast's account.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Admittedly, comparing a 650MHz G4 to anything with a 4x clock speed advantage is a bit absurd. But I would definitely pit a 7410 G4 in the 600-700MHz range against a Celeron in the 1.5GHz range.

Link 1) The tests were done four years ago on a G4 core that was dumped just as long ago. Additionally, they're not exactly broad benchmarks. SPEC testing is a fallback for people who want to make the most basic generalizations of processor comparisons.

Link 2) The Pentium 3 is in the same performance class as the Pentium M. Arguably, the Pentium M is a reworked Pentium 3. And as with the first link, you're referencing tests done four years ago on processors that have been out of production for just as long.

Link 3) This is the only modern test you've linked to, and it isn't doing a whole lot to back up the claim that a Celeron of any speed would handily defeat a G4. Taking into account the fact that it places a 1GHz G4 in the same performance realm as a 1.4GHz Pentium M, which performs nearly on par with a 2GHz Pentium 4, which would be faster than a 2GHz Celeron.

I hold no bias here. I just refuse to back a claim that cannot be substantiated and is false by every processor enthusiast's account.

Of course the links are old - we're trying to compare with a G4/650!

A 1Ghz G4 isn't anywhere close to a 1.4Ghz Pentium M. I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. I own a G4/1.33 12.1" PB, and it's not even close to a Gateway with a 1.4Ghz CPU. The Gateway is vastly faster at everything, across the board.

A G4 is close, in some things, to a P4 at the same clockspeed. However, as you know, the Pentium M has a significantly faster architecture per clock, and it's correspondingly faster than the G4.

http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html demonstrates that Apple's most expensive duals have trouble keeping up with even the entry-level Pentium 4 dual core CPU in some tests. Bear in mind these apps are some of the most Mac-friendly apps that are available (Photoshop?) - in more typical applications, the Mac doesn't fare nearly as well.

Before you say (but- but- but- the G5 systems are twice as fast as the single-core P4/3.0), realize that we're comparing CPUs, not systems, and the Macs have dual-CPUs in tests that are custom-made to bring out the best in Mac dual-CPU systems. The tests thus clearly show that the G5 and the P4 are pretty close, mhz to mhz...the P4 lags a bit per Mhz, but of course makes that up with significantly higher mhz at significantly lower cost.

And then to normalize G5 to G4, use this: http://www.barefeats.com/g4up.html

Thus, the G4 is pretty similar to the P4, mhz to mhz, and the Pentium M is considerably faster per mhz.

Straight from Mac friendly benchmarks. And that's the most pro-Mac presentation of benchmarks that will probably ever exist. In the real world, the Mac doesn't fare nearly as well.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally Posted by foo2

Of course the links are old - we're trying to compare with a G4/650!

A 1Ghz G4 isn't anywhere close to a 1.4Ghz Pentium M. I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. I own a G4/1.33 12.1" PB, and it's not even close to a Gateway with a 1.4Ghz CPU. The Gateway is vastly faster at everything, across the board.

A G4 is close, in some things, to a P4 at the same clockspeed. However, as you know, the Pentium M has a significantly faster architecture per clock, and it's correspondingly faster than the G4.

http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html demonstrates that Apple's most expensive duals have trouble keeping up with even the entry-level Pentium 4 dual core CPU in some tests. Bear in mind these apps are some of the most Mac-friendly apps that are available (Photoshop?) - in more typical applications, the Mac doesn't fare nearly as well.

Before you say (but- but- but- the G5 systems are twice as fast as the single-core P4/3.0), realize that we're comparing CPUs, not systems, and the Macs have dual-CPUs in tests that are custom-made to bring out the best in Mac dual-CPU systems. The tests thus clearly show that the G5 and the P4 are pretty close, mhz to mhz...the P4 lags a bit per Mhz, but of course makes that up with significantly higher mhz at significantly lower cost.

And then to normalize G5 to G4, use this: http://www.barefeats.com/g4up.html

Thus, the G4 is pretty similar to the P4, mhz to mhz, and the Pentium M is considerably faster per mhz.

Straight from Mac friendly benchmarks. And that's the most pro-Mac presentation of benchmarks that will probably ever exist. In the real world, the Mac doesn't fare nearly as well.

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

debate = over.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

debate = over.

Don't forget p2 - even worse for the Mac:

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

I also find it interesting just how badly many other common applications run on a Mac. For example, The Sims 2, one of the best selling games of today, wants an 800 mhz PC and a fairly basic graphics card - or a 1.2 Ghz Mac with a more advanced graphics card. Why? Why do Macs run things so slowly? Aspyr's been programming on the Mac for years....

Requirements:
PC: http://eagames.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...i=&p_topview=1
Mac: http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/10880/

Same story with Rise of Nations and Age of Mythology - what you'd think would run well (a G4/1.33 and nVidia 5200/64MB) doesn't, yet a Pentium M 1.4 runs both flawlessly.

We shouldn't even talk about Safari performance....

[Lateralus]

I'm not even gonna bother dragging on a debate with you. The fact that you're using games and internet browsing speed for cross architectural comparisons shows exactly how little you understand the complexity of the comparison.

Not to mention you can't even read the benchmarks you're linking to, since you're drawing conclusions from them that their own numbers don't back up in the slightest.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm not even gonna bother dragging on a debate with you. The fact that you're using games and internet browsing speed for cross architectural comparisons shows exactly how little you understand the complexity of the comparison.

Not to mention you can't even read the benchmarks you're linking to, since you're drawing conclusions from them that their own numbers don't back up in the slightest.

Games are an interesting test - nothing more, nothing less. The fact that the Mac is soundly beaten at every one of the tests ought to tell you that either a) games aren't typical or b) the benchmarks of a few cherrypicked apps that Barefeats found aren't typical. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which is which.

But they do back up what I've been saying. Perhaps you didn't look at them. Barefeats own results agree with what I've been saying - the switch to Intel can't come soon enough. I think we're going to see some *amazing* increases in speed when that finally happens - the likes of which are going to be very surprising to many.

[pliny]

foo2's posts=

[foo2]

Originally Posted by pliny

foo2's posts=

Apple agrees with me. What more can be said?

[pliny]

Originally Posted by iREZ

you guys are ignorant...my cousin uses his mini on the older 23" HD cinema displays (plastic bezel) and it works just fine. i have to use it at my work place sometimes when i need bigger screen and it hasn't hiccuped on me yet. granted im comparing this to my 867ghz tower, but if i could use the mini for prepress work professionally im sure people at home can use it for most of their needs.

JUST BECAUSE EXPOSE IS CHOPPY DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT WORK!!!! F9 ALL MY PROGRAMS ARE RIGHT THERE, F11 EVERYTHING IS OFF SCREEN, AND F12 DASHBOARD IS UP AND ALL THIS IS IN LESS THAN A SECOND...HOW IS THIS SLOW? OR UNUSABLE?

yeah really.

i use expose on my imac g3 running at 400 mhz.

but wait, "omg omg , 400 mhz, don't you know that 400 mhz," blah blah.

[foo2]

Interesting notebook comparison:

http://barefeats.com/al15b.html

In Cinebench 2003, PB1.33 Ghz is almost 50% slower than Centrino 1.3Ghz.

In other words, at that benchmark, a Centrino (Pentium M) 1.0 Ghz is about as fast as a G4/1.5 Ghz.

Pentium 4M was fastest of the bunch.

Pentium M speeds have increased by 50% since that time; G4 speeds have not.

Again, these are straight from Mac-friendly websites, and likely to show the Mac in the best possible light.

[radii_22]

Originally Posted by foo2

Interesting notebook comparison:

http://barefeats.com/al15b.html

In Cinebench 2003, PB1.33 Ghz is almost 50% slower than Centrino 1.3Ghz.

In other words, at that benchmark, a Centrino (Pentium M) 1.0 Ghz is about as fast as a G4/1.5 Ghz.

Pentium 4M was fastest of the bunch.

Pentium M speeds have increased by 50% since that time; G4 speeds have not.

Again, these are straight from Mac-friendly websites, and likely to show the Mac in the best possible light.

Thanks heaven S. Jobs migrated to Intel!!... Hope to see a PB Centrino (Dark brilliant grey textured carbon fiber, increased screen resolution) next january.

[WOPR]

This really is the pointless thread from hell!

[Hash]

f002: I do not usually buy notebooks to play games and do not care about what FPS can the notebook get in a game. However, I have Sharp notebook, Athlon 1.1 Ghz, quite new, 512 mb of ram and it runs Unreal Tournament (original one) terribly bad. My BW G4 650 mhz (upgraded) just kills it. But it is because Sharp notebook as majority of PC notebooks, have shared video memory. So what? Alienware notebook mentioned in your barefeats benchmarks are very special machines, mainly for games and heavy as hell, they are really desktop replacement notebooks.

So your comparison is flawed.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

f002: I do not usually buy notebooks to play games and do not care about what FPS can the notebook get in a game. However, I have Sharp notebook, Athlon 1.1 Ghz, quite new, 512 mb of ram and it runs Unreal Tournament (original one) terribly bad. My BW G4 650 mhz (upgraded) just kills it. But it is because Sharp notebook as majority of PC notebooks, have shared video memory. So what? Alienware notebook mentioned in your barefeats benchmarks are very special machines, mainly for games and heavy as hell, they are really desktop replacement notebooks.

So your comparison is flawed.

You need to look again. Not only did the Mac lose in Cinebench 2003 to a basic Centrino, but it also lost in Unreal Tournament against a Centrino with basic, built-in Intel integrated graphics (the 855 item).

[Hash]

I also found this link

http://barefeats.com/macvpc.html

where G5 outscore Pentiums 3.0 Ghz by a factor of 100-150%, i.e. they are twice as fast as Pentium 4s and Centrino is nowhere close. So whats your point?

[Hash]

And also, these benchmarks show only hardware side of the computing, but they are useless for evaluating total computing experience brought by the systems. Thats why now Macs outsell Windows boxes EVEN given their relatively higher price and slower speed, cause, guess!, they deliver simply better computing experience.

Whats a point in having 3.0 ghz Pentium 4 if it has to work with bloated Windows XP which may be infected by thousands of virii and spyware in bare minutes after being connected to Internet? And they will slow down it to molasses. Even Windows itself slows down the PC hardware.

[foo2]

Hash - Mort posted that link a day or two ago - it shows the Mac losing in 4 of the 6 posted benchmarks compared to PCs - and all the apps are some of the most Mac-friendly apps you can find. Going to page 2 of that review show the Mac losing in all 6 of the benchmarks.

And let me repost a statement I made earlier:
Before you say (but- but- but- the G5 systems are twice as fast as the single-core P4/3.0), realize that we're comparing CPUs, not systems, and the Macs have dual-CPUs in tests that are custom-made to bring out the best in Mac dual-CPU systems. The tests thus clearly show that the G5 and the P4 are pretty close, mhz to mhz...the P4 lags a bit per Mhz, but of course makes that up with significantly higher mhz at significantly lower cost.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

Thats why now Macs outsell Windows boxes EVEN given their relatively higher price and slower speed, cause, guess!, they deliver simply better computing experience.

That's just too funny.

Macs don't outsell Windows boxes, Hash. Why do you post that they do?

[Hash]

Originally Posted by foo2

Hash - Mort posted that link a day or two ago - it shows the Mac losing in 4 of the 6 posted benchmarks compared to PCs - and all the apps are some of the most Mac-friendly apps you can find. Going to page 2 of that review show the Mac losing in all 6 of the benchmarks.

And let me repost a statement I made earlier:
Before you say (but- but- but- the G5 systems are twice as fast as the single-core P4/3.0), realize that we're comparing CPUs, not systems, and the Macs have dual-CPUs in tests that are custom-made to bring out the best in Mac dual-CPU systems. The tests thus clearly show that the G5 and the P4 are pretty close, mhz to mhz...the P4 lags a bit per Mhz, but of course makes that up with significantly higher mhz at significantly lower cost.

You are kidding, what the point of comparing CPU if actual computing involves not only CPU but all other components, and most importantly what makes them a computer, not a simple bunch of hardware boxes- OS and software? Do you want to say that when you surf web, you do it holding a Pentium 4 CPU on your head, right?

Also, whats the point of having a faster CPU in your box, if it constanly bogged down by viruses and spyware and bloated CPU as it happens in Windows PCs?

About benchmarks: in these tests G5 2.0 Ghz outperforms Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz by a very large margin and only slightly loses to HIGHER clock Itanium and Xeons with 2.6 ghz speed.
On page 2 Athlon FX55 trounces all others CPU, and PC boxes had PCI-E graphic cards with SLI mode, while Macs were older 2/2.5 Ghz AGP boxes. So again, it doesnt prove anything if not only that Macs do actually very well given their outdated architechture.


Lastly, Macs do outsell PC - for example read:

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1184/050721applesales/

Apple Europe unit sales up 48 percent
7/21/05

Apple has exceeded average PC market growth in the European markets in the second quarter 2005...The company achieved 48 percent market growth (year-on-year) in the European, Middle East and African (EMEA) markets...This contrasts with the 23 percent growth of the PC market as a whole, according to new research from analyst firm, IDC.

and here

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/07/19.3.shtml

Apple U.S. Marketshare Jumps to 4.5%; Worldwide Shipments Rocket 37%

by Brad Gibson, 4:00 AM EDT, July 19th, 2005

Apple Computer's share of the personal computer market in the U.S. took a dramatic 22% jump in the second quarter, surging to 4.5% from 3.7% a year ago, research company IDC has reported...
Apple's global unit shipments rose more than 37% year-on-year quarter, more than twice the 16.6% growth of the overall PC industry. "(Apple's) growth in retail, Europe, and Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan) all grew by more than twice the worldwide rate," IDC reported.

and in US:

http://informationweek.com/story/sho...leID=166401575


Apple has taken the fourth spot in the nation's computer seller rankings, data released earlier this week by both Gartner and IDC show...

In the U.S., Apple owned the fourth sales spot for the second quarter, behind Dell, HP, and Gateway...

Not only has Apple moved up the ranks, Gartner and IDC said, but it displayed the biggest year-to-year jump of any major U.S. manufacturer. By Gartner's figures, Apple increased sales 33 percent over 2004 (IDC pegged it at 31.4 percent).

[Hash]

And market does not lie, cause consumers actually vote for products with their money..

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

And market does not lie, cause consumers actually vote for products with their money..

Agreed, and hence the Mac does poorly. I hope it does better when it switches to Intel - ie faster CPU architecture.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

You are kidding, what the point of comparing CPU if actual computing involves not only CPU but all other components, and most importantly what makes them a computer, not a simple bunch of hardware boxes- OS and software? Do you want to say that when you surf web, you do it holding a Pentium 4 CPU on your head, right?

Also, whats the point of having a faster CPU in your box, if it constanly bogged down by viruses and spyware and bloated CPU as it happens in Windows PCs?

About benchmarks: in these tests G5 2.0 Ghz outperforms Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz by a very large margin and only slightly loses to HIGHER clock Itanium and Xeons with 2.6 ghz speed.
On page 2 Athlon FX55 trounces all others CPU, and PC boxes had PCI-E graphic cards with SLI mode, while Macs were older 2/2.5 Ghz AGP boxes. So again, it doesnt prove anything if not only that Macs do actually very well given their outdated architechture.

That's a backhanded compliment if there ever was one.

Yes, if you cram enough CPUs into the box, the Mac G5 isn't half bad. The problems occur when you run normal tasks on them, and when you compare them dollar for dollar vs. the Intel/AMD side.

[Hash]

What you agree with? With the fact that macs outsell PCs?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

Lastly, Macs do outsell PC - for example read:

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1184/050721applesales/

Apple Europe unit sales up 48 percent
7/21/05

Apple has exceeded average PC market growth in the European markets in the second quarter 2005...The company achieved 48 percent market growth (year-on-year) in the European, Middle East and African (EMEA) markets...This contrasts with the 23 percent growth of the PC market as a whole, according to new research from analyst firm, IDC.

and here

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/07/19.3.shtml

Apple U.S. Marketshare Jumps to 4.5%; Worldwide Shipments Rocket 37%

by Brad Gibson, 4:00 AM EDT, July 19th, 2005

Apple Computer's share of the personal computer market in the U.S. took a dramatic 22% jump in the second quarter, surging to 4.5% from 3.7% a year ago, research company IDC has reported...
Apple's global unit shipments rose more than 37% year-on-year quarter, more than twice the 16.6% growth of the overall PC industry. "(Apple's) growth in retail, Europe, and Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan) all grew by more than twice the worldwide rate," IDC reported.

and in US:

http://informationweek.com/story/sho...leID=166401575


Apple has taken the fourth spot in the nation's computer seller rankings, data released earlier this week by both Gartner and IDC show...

In the U.S., Apple owned the fourth sales spot for the second quarter, behind Dell, HP, and Gateway...

Not only has Apple moved up the ranks, Gartner and IDC said, but it displayed the biggest year-to-year jump of any major U.S. manufacturer. By Gartner's figures, Apple increased sales 33 percent over 2004 (IDC pegged it at 31.4 percent).

Either your reading comprehension is poor or your grasp of English is poor, or both. Market growth is not the same thing as sales. The Mac still has around 3-4% of the US market, and a bit less of the worldwide market. That means their sales compared to PCs is miniscule.

[Hash]

Or with the fact that consumers increasingly prefer Macs? I guess that if they do it, they already have calculated and compared them dollar for dollar and increasingly choose Macs

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

What you agree with? With the fact that macs outsell PCs?

Please explain how Macs, with 3-4% of the US market and less of the overseas market, "outsell" PCs.

(gets popcorn and finds comfortable seat) --- this should be good.

[Hash]

It means that Mac sales grow faster than PC sales - and in due time, it will result in higher market shares for Macs and lower Windows PC market shares. Understood?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

It means that Mac sales grow faster than PC sales - and in due time, it will result in higher market shares for Macs and lower Windows PC market shares. Understood?

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you said. You originally said Macs outsold PCs. Do you understand now why that was wrong?

Yes, Mac growth is doing well. It's also not a very good indication of much of anything unless it's repeatable, year over year. For example, if I go from 100 widgets sold per year to 200 widgets sold, that's a 100% growth rate. But if my competitors sell 10000 widgets per year, I'm still only a tiny part of the market, and even a 100% growth rate won't matter if I can't sustain it for many years - which most companies can't do.

Also, we're talking about a difference in growth of 16% vs. 40-ish percent - not terribly significant given the numbers involved.

Sorry....

[Hash]

Originally Posted by foo2

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you said. You originally said Macs outsold PCs. Do you understand now why that was wrong?

Yes, Mac growth is doing well. It's also not a very good indication of much of anything unless it's repeatable, year over year. For example, if I go from 100 widgets sold per year to 200 widgets sold, that's a 100% growth rate. But if my competitors sell 10000 widgets per year, I'm still only a tiny part of the market, and even a 100% growth rate won't matter if I can't sustain it for many years - which most companies can't do.

Also, we're talking about a difference in growth of 16% vs. 40-ish percent - not terribly significant given the numbers involved.

Sorry....

Yes, Macs outsold Windows PC in the PAST quarters of 2005 - do you understand why they outsold Windows PCs?

About the absolute size- as you yourself said- what is important is dollar to dollar comparison, even if you sell 10000 widgets, each for 1$ and earn meager 2% on each widget, Apple may sell fewer widgets but earn 30% on each sold box, then Apple is doing better, you know, cause if you lose money even with 10000 widgets sold, you gonna out of business, pal?