Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > macs behind pcs?

macs behind pcs?
Thread Tools
spb
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 10:11 AM
 
If macs are really so cutting edge - why are they still using such slow internal components compared to comparable pcs, Ram , HD's videocards , motherboard speeds etc..?

the cases are v.v . nice & the software is mostly exc but basic hardware wise most macs are a total rip-off.

The ibook's rage 128 & new imacs gef2mx spring to mind.. bit past it?

I am not anti-mac at all - i just wish that steve & the boys would get a move on and kick some ass pronto !
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 10:49 AM
 
I think the software is light years ahead.

I also do not think that the G4 is THAT far behind.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Blake Bowden
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 11:21 AM
 
Amen to the "old tech" hardware. Going from a homebox PC to a Mac is like traveling in time 2-3 years. SDRAM, 133MHZ bus, barely 1 GHZ CPU, etc. The ONLY reason I went with a mac is because of the software: iTunes, FCP, iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, and I really enjoy OSX. If it weren't for those, I would of skipped over mac without looking back. My 733@800MHZ mac compared to my watercooled 1.75GHZ athlon actually does a decent job. I use my mac to do work and creative stuff...the pc for general browsing and games. I could almost guarantee you that if Apple kept up just with the x86 processors I could convince 95% of my friends to switch. I know MHZ isn't EVERYTHING, but slow MHZ, crappy bus, limited expandability, slow ram combined DO broaden the performance gap. A pc friend of mine asked how fast are the macs now....I used to say "Take the fastest PC and divide that by half"....even more so now the gap is widening. As long as Apple continues shelling out the great software...whether free or not I'll continue to use them. I like the feel of the mac. I actually get MORE things done on it. With my PC, I spent almost half the time either troubleshooting problems or tweaking. It's refreshing to hop on my mac and it does exactly what it's supposed to. I enjoy both sides and they both have their pro's and cons.
     
cmoney
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 02:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Blake Bowden:
<STRONG>Amen to the "old tech" hardware. Going from a homebox PC to a Mac is like traveling in time 2-3 years. SDRAM, 133MHZ bus, barely 1 GHZ CPU, etc. The ONLY reason I went with a mac is because of the software: iTunes, FCP, iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, and I really enjoy OSX. If it weren't for those, I would of skipped over mac without looking back. My 733@800MHZ mac compared to my watercooled 1.75GHZ athlon actually does a decent job. I use my mac to do work and creative stuff...the pc for general browsing and games. I could almost guarantee you that if Apple kept up just with the x86 processors I could convince 95% of my friends to switch. I know MHZ isn't EVERYTHING, but slow MHZ, crappy bus, limited expandability, slow ram combined DO broaden the performance gap. A pc friend of mine asked how fast are the macs now....I used to say "Take the fastest PC and divide that by half"....even more so now the gap is widening. As long as Apple continues shelling out the great software...whether free or not I'll continue to use them. I like the feel of the mac. I actually get MORE things done on it. With my PC, I spent almost half the time either troubleshooting problems or tweaking. It's refreshing to hop on my mac and it does exactly what it's supposed to. I enjoy both sides and they both have their pro's and cons.</STRONG>

You can be sure some of that has to do with profit margins. PowerMacs are Apple's profit margin queen: they get alot of money from those machines.

Also consider that Apple's PowerMac customers got "used to" slower performance when, for close to a full year, Apple was able to go from around a measly 400MHz (which got downgraded to 350MHz) then up to around 500MHz or around there. Sure if they radically increased performance, it would be great and all, but why not pace the increase and get some higher profit margins for awhile...
     
Blake Bowden
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 05:41 PM
 
Because if Apple came out with a new 1.5GHZ cpu, I would instantly sell my "old" [email protected] they would get my cash I'am not going to buy a new 800, 933, much less a dual 1GHZ as I don't see *that* much of an improvement with the stuff that I use my mac for. But a fat increase in speed, DDR, faster bus, etc would do the trick for me and probably a good hadful of others. If motorola could actually ship processors that ran as fast as say..AMD they would. I guess only time will tell with the G5. With me though, the hardware isn't as important...it's the software.
     
NeoMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 08:40 PM
 
According to the latest Bare Feats shootout, a single 1.4Ghz AthlonXP wipes the floor with a Dual 1Ghz G4. Toss in the price difference, and it's down-right embarrasing!

OSX is Apple's saving grace, but eventually that won't be enough. Mac hardware needs to come up to par as well.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: NeoMac ]
"Last time the French asked for more evidence, it rolled through France with a German flag." - David Letterman
     
raferx
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver,BC,Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 09:47 PM
 
It doesn't matter how fast a PC is... is still a sh*tty PC running a total garbage OS. It's about the experience, I feel sorry for all the people who run windows boxes, they just don't get, and probably never will... let them keep their DDR and 400mhz FSBus, liquid cooled CPU's and fever pitched clock-cycles. "I need it for 3D rendering!" Great, have fun on your PC... it's so much faster! Most just listen to all the BS out there and always just go with "what I use at work" or "what everybody else is using..." I say let them. They will never know how enjoyable the computer using experience can be. That is their choice, and it's too bad more don'y know how great a Macintosh is to use. I like the comparison of Apple to BMW or Mercedes Benz, who cares if everybody doesn't own one. That doesn't make them a less superior machine. A PC is like a Hyundai (no offense to all Hyundai drivers out there) I'm sure there is a Hyundai that can go 130 mph, but would you rather go 130 mph in a Hyundai all day or 100 mph in a Mercedes all day? Which has more thoughtful USABLE features that impact the overall driving experience? C'mon, lets drop the whole PC vs. Mac debate, there is no comparison. Price will always be an issue. But you pay for what you get.


[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: raferx ]
Cheers,
raferx
     
Camelot
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2002, 10:37 PM
 
Originally posted by Blake Bowden:
<STRONG>A pc friend of mine asked how fast are the macs now....I used to say "Take the fastest PC and divide that by half"</STRONG>
So the Mac is twice as fast as the fastest PC? (dividing by half is the same as multiplying by 2) I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that, but you're probably not far off.
Gods don't kill people - people with Gods kill people.
     
Blake Bowden
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:18 AM
 
Originally posted by raferx:
<STRONG> I feel sorry for all the people who run windows boxes, they just don't get, and probably never will... let them keep their DDR and 400mhz FSBus, liquid cooled CPU's and fever pitched clock-cycles. ]</STRONG>
Yet I'am sure that you would be one of the people that would praise apple if they came out and supported DDR, 400MHZ's, higher clock, etc. You would be crazy not to. I want pc speed, but apples finesee
     
iKevin
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Blake Bowden:
<STRONG>

Yet I'am sure that you would be one of the people that would praise apple if they came out and supported DDR, 400MHZ's, higher clock, etc. You would be crazy not to. I want pc speed, but apples finesee </STRONG>
Ditto!

I want the best of both...and for the price Apple charges I should be getting better hardware...but they are FAR FAR behind. I love OS X, but it browses so slow I found myself using my 2kbox more and more for surfing....eventually I just gave up using the OS X system for Internet access.

Gimme some mhz to really crank it up a few notches and i'll never look back!
     
raferx
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver,BC,Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Blake Bowden:
<STRONG>

Yet I'am sure that you would be one of the people that would praise apple if they came out and supported DDR, 400MHZ's, higher clock, etc. You would be crazy not to. I want pc speed, but apples finesee </STRONG>
Agreed, but it will all be coming... soon. Until then my DP 1GHz is just fine.
Cheers,
raferx
     
seanyepez
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:50 AM
 
PC's are faster. Macs are higher quality. It's like a rice rocket versus a Porsche. Even if the rice rocket can do the quarter mile in 9 seconds flat, I would still take a 11-second Porsche Turbo.
     
TNproud2b
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Charlotte NC USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 01:45 AM
 
Originally posted by raferx:
<STRONG>.....I like the comparison of Apple to BMW or Mercedes Benz, who cares if everybody doesn't own one. That doesn't make them a less superior machine. A PC is like a Hyundai (no offense to all Hyundai drivers out there) I'm sure there is a Hyundai that can go 130 mph, but would you rather go 130 mph in a Hyundai all day or 100 mph in a Mercedes all day?
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: raferx ]</STRONG>
When you pop the hood on that Mercedes and see the 'Hyundai' script on the motor - you'll know you paid too much.
*empty space*
     
spb  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 02:27 AM
 
how easy would it be for apple to 'improve' the g4 line ?

basically , what component upgrades would give the gretest price / performance ratio increase?

apple seem to put off the meaningful upgrades such as faster motherboards for years - no doubt to save costs - but incremently increase mhz, ram etc..

will we have to wait another year for faster motherboards ??

while the average pc storms ahead - - into a brick wall , of course..?
     
zazou
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montana USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 02:39 AM
 
Speed?

Speed. Speed. Speed. Speed. Speed. Speed.

What is that? I always hear speed, but I rarely hear what that means? Maybe I am just too familiar with both.... and prefer the macs. That is surely a bias. Still...

File Browsing? Sorry, Explorer (PC finder) is so archaic any OS speed becomes lost in all the 'oops, wrong click" madness.

* Does this option exist in a contextual menu? Where are the Prefs for this program? Or is it called properties; Is it in the help menu, wait the Edit, no, File menu in this app. *

*Keystrokes? My god, have you ever tried to use them quickly on a PC with a hand still on the mouse? Cntrl+Z, X, C, V, anything else is finger yoga. Keystroke quit an App, Cntrl+F4, what the hell?!?! *

Complexity vs. Speed

Is the windows GUI faster? Physically, yes. Practically, no.
Sure the screen rendering is faster on 2k and XP. But that should be compared to OS 9, not 10.1. Why. The Win drawing engine and 9 engine are 10 years old built for 68k and 386/486 machines. The X drawing layer (Quartz) is a future foundation... it has a severe penalty but I do not fin it at all unbearable. And I still have to watch XP draw the windows in building blocks, fill in the icons and spend my quality moments with the task bar sifting through '{icon}Expl....' '{icon}Inte...' widgets

In apps I have not seen the same gaps. Mind you I mean right in Photoshop or Dreamweaver (classic) or Illustrator. Render and other performance is about the same on my stock DP 533/768mb and my Athlon XP 1800/512mb ddr with GF 3 card. PS in X is way faster. Internet is slower, granted

In the end the windows OS is faster... sort of. But I will take more productive any day.

(this will sound lke a tired Mac'er phrase, but here I think it really applies because we have unlike all the other 'you just wait' technologies)

OS X is ahead of the game, really. In 2 years when MS realizes the [n]need[/b] a new drawing layer the difference will really show. They already tried once in '98-99 with 'Chrome" and it failed terribly. Then X and Quartz speeds won't even be issues, but refined system pieces. And Windows, who knows...

On the Hardware side, yeah things are different, but short of the Ram and [i]maybe[i] the graphics card, you really are comparing Apple to Oranges. You can't compare the CPU Mhz directly (even AMD play that game), you can't compare the buses directly..they are just flat built on different principals. PC OEM's simply don't have the Apple level of integration...and that is where much of the additional expense goes.

My 2kb


(spelling edits)

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: zazou ]


Haven't you noticed? Chronic cynicism takes no skills, little energy, no education, and if you do it really well in poorly-lit coffee-houses, it gets you laid.
     
msc1974
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Blackburn, UK, but living in Auckland, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 02:46 AM
 
THANK YOU RAFERX

Its about time somebody spoke some sense...PC's suck...


What are you talking about ZAZOU. Is the windows GUI faster? Yes

How come when you go the the Start bar it has to think about it for a least 1 sec before it crashes...on any Winshite PC
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 05:13 AM
 
Originally posted by NeoMac:
<STRONG>According to the latest Bare Feats shootout, a single 1.4Ghz AthlonXP wipes the floor with a Dual 1Ghz G4. Toss in the price difference, and it's down-right embarrasing!

OSX is Apple's saving grace, but eventually that won't be enough. Mac hardware needs to come up to par as well.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</STRONG>
The poster is referring to this Barefeats article. I believe, to the contrary, that this article affirms my personal attitudes toward Mac superiority. The MHz Myth is indeed real, as both the dual 1000 and the Athlon 1400 demonstrate. If anything, this piece illustrates how incredibly pathetic the Pentium 4 is. The Mac really isn't that far behind at all. In fact, in the tests that it does lose, it's not the fault of the G4 but rather PC only optimized software or GPU disparities. These results are really instructive. A 1400MHz G4 would be quite nice nonetheless. God bless Robert Morgan for Barefeats.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
spb  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 07:48 AM
 
ok the g4 is supposedly superior to the p4 , but since apple buys its components from the same oem suppliers as pcs & gets many of its products outsourced & partly built by pc makers why does it take so long for apple to play catch up - they should be leading the pc sheep not following them !

People often compare apple to b&o - fair enuff - both look great and are superbly built but then again both lag behind the competition when it comes to using up to date components..

     
BobK
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 10:51 AM
 
I don't care how fast it says it is one the box, winn2000 still take 3 minutes to boot.
Every time I sit in front one one of these machines with a huge "speed" and turn it on it still takes 3 min to boot. WTF? They say they are so fast, faster, fastest- still boots slow as hell!!!!!!!!!!
Drives me nuts!!
     
Mac Zealot
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vallejo, Ca.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:20 PM
 
1. Read my sig
2. It's true
3. Compare windows to os x, does window have a terminal? No. Does windows have the most popular server OS in the world? No. Does windows use the most stable OS known? No. Does windows have layering so that if one app messes up the whole system doesn't go to hell? No!

I'll go on....

Does windows have the ability to run and FreeBSD code? No. Does windows have the ability to natively compile any code? NO! Does windows have the ability to burn a cd with 3 clicks? No (insert cd, drag files to cd-r, right click, click burn, click yes. [that is 3 clicks])

Can windows be run with anything else but Internet Explorer without facing bloody hell? No. Can windows telnet or SSH into a server natively? No. Is it easy to mount a CD image in windows? No. Did any PC come with 120 free songs? No!

I can go on with this all night. Windows sucks.

Funny how the answer to all those for OS X is yes!!! Yes you can!!!
In a realm beyond site, the sky shines gold, not blue, there the Triforce's might makes mortal dreams come true.
     
philzilla
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:35 PM
 
hey, McZhithead... have you heard about the DOS Prompt?

or, how about ctrl+alt+del, which lets you kill programs?

and did you know you can run Apache on Windoze too?

don't get me wrong here, i'm not sticking up for Windoze. i'm just pointing out that you don't know absolutely everything. maybe you shouldn't act like you do all the time, huh?
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
TNproud2b
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Charlotte NC USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 12:47 PM
 
Actually he was wrong on every point he tried to make...but I don't feel like breaking it all down for him.
*empty space*
     
iKevin
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 01:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
<STRONG>1. Read my sig
2. It's true
3. Compare windows to os x, does window have a terminal? No. Does windows have the most popular server OS in the world? No. Does windows use the most stable OS known? No. Does windows have layering so that if one app messes up the whole system doesn't go to hell? No!

I'll go on....

Does windows have the ability to run and FreeBSD code? No. Does windows have the ability to natively compile any code? NO! Does windows have the ability to burn a cd with 3 clicks? No (insert cd, drag files to cd-r, right click, click burn, click yes. [that is 3 clicks])

Can windows be run with anything else but Internet Explorer without facing bloody hell? No. Can windows telnet or SSH into a server natively? No. Is it easy to mount a CD image in windows? No. Did any PC come with 120 free songs? No!

I can go on with this all night. Windows sucks.

Funny how the answer to all those for OS X is yes!!! Yes you can!!! </STRONG>

Does windows have 90% of the market...yes
     
iKevin
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 01:03 PM
 
Originally posted by BobK:
<STRONG>I don't care how fast it says it is one the box, winn2000 still take 3 minutes to boot.
Every time I sit in front one one of these machines with a huge "speed" and turn it on it still takes 3 min to boot. WTF? They say they are so fast, faster, fastest- still boots slow as hell!!!!!!!!!!
Drives me nuts!!</STRONG>

Try winXP...boots fast as hell(although i'm not recommending it...still boots fast though)
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 01:22 PM
 
What's the point of Having Faster RAM when RAM is Crap anyway, It still runs about 1/3 the system bus. 1.5 GHz and your RAM is either 133 or 4-800MHz It's still slower than your processor. Until they can get RAM running the same speed it's all kind of moot anyway. I would prefer usablitiy. Don't get me wrong Speed does help but if your computer isn't that user friendly then what good is the speed?
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Danny Ricci
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Falls Church, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 01:52 PM
 
Amen to zazou. And who was it that was trying to compare a DOS prompt to a FreeBSD command prompt!? LOL don't make me laugh, please. You do know that the DOS prompt is emulated in NT, right? K.. just making sure.

I'll take Unix/BSD stability and openness over closed source IE ridden NT kernel with emulated DOS prompt toys any day.

Ah, what do you know. I just hit 13 days uptime. Why not longer, you ask? I had to upgrade to 10.1.3. You know, to add better support and new features? I know Windows users loose uptime to install updates, too, except theirs are to fix gaping security holes in IE and other things that make them a sitting duck to script kiddies.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 02:26 PM
 
Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>PC's are faster. Macs are higher quality. It's like a rice rocket versus a Porsche. Even if the rice rocket can do the quarter mile in 9 seconds flat, I would still take a 11-second Porsche Turbo. </STRONG>
Well the PowerMacs are nice, but a 933 MHz G4 with a 133 MHz FSB and SDR RAM do not a Porsche Turbo make. More like a car with an above average (but not top end) engine, but with plush leather seats, good handling, and nice curves.

Anyways, to suggest all PCs are low quality is simply strange. If you build a PC with high end parts, it will make a good quality PC obviously, still at a lower price point than a comparable PowerMac. The problem is people will buy a mom&pop store PC for 1/3rd the price of a PowerMac and expect it to work as well. No chance in hell (although for certain applications it still may be as fast).

Really, the OS (X, not 9) is where Apple shines, along with the bundled software. It's just too bad that the high end Apples are hobbled (to an extent) by the hardware. I'm starting to wonder if some of you have actually cracked the case of your machines. (Not talking about you specifically sean.) If you look inside, the overall build quality is good, but much of of the hardware is the exact same stuff you'll find in a mid-end PC.

The places I can see Apple hardware consistently outdueling PC hardware is in laptops and case design for desktops (at least recently).

<STRONG>Does windows have the ability to run and FreeBSD code?</STRONG>
That's kind of amusing. That's like asking if you can run FreeBSD under OS 9. And yes, obviously you can run *nix on a PC. Indeed, that's what all the PC geeks do (myself excluded). The GUI is not as nice as OS X though.
<STRONG>Amen to zazou. And who was it that was trying to compare a DOS prompt to a FreeBSD command prompt!? LOL don't make me laugh, please. You do know that the DOS prompt is emulated in NT, right? K.. just making sure.</STRONG>
The funny part is back in the old days Mac users used to say that the command prompt was archaic and Macs were so advanced to not need it. How soon we forget...

Anyways, it seems that a few of you take the Jobsian hype too seriously. Apples have great software but in some ways the hardware isn't the greatest. Get over it, or else demand better from Apple.

P.S. I forgot to mention... You can run *nix on a PC and run Windows with it dual boot (I've done this), or you can can run Windows ON TOP OF *nix with WINE (never tried this but it's supposed to be very fast).

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 03:40 PM
 
With an exponentially higher customer base, the Wintel world has the money and manpower to develop improved technologies and get them into computers faster. It has hundreds of parts vendors dealing in this stuff, so that even if Dell or Compaq can't sell you a PC with a 400 Mhz bus (or whatever) on the mobo, you can put one together yourself pretty easily. Apple, in contrast, is one relatively small company trying to do everything itself--it simply can't keep up on all fronts simultaneously. An ugly little lesson in the economies of scale, to be sure, and one of the many reasons the Mac has never been a geek platform. It's pretty much an immutable principle that if you want the newest and only the newest, you gotta build it yourself.

It costs my ego very little to admit Macs are behind PCs on the hardware performance curve. For one thing, I feel that Macs will catch up soon; they may not overtake PCs again, but as long as they're on or near par they'll remain competitive. I don't believe there was any kind of conspiracy behind the poor scaling of the G4; I think Motorola simply didn't have its sh!t together, and that is bound to change sooner or later. For another, as others have pointed out, Macs are about owning a machine you actually look forward to starting up every day. When I first used a Mac I had no idea what Mhz meant. I only knew that this was the first computer I'd seen that made sense to me, that seemed to be designed with my needs in mind. Faster hardware would be great, but either way it's not going to stop me from buying another Mac once it's time to go computer shopping again.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
iKevin
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 05:04 PM
 
"Macs are about owning a machine you actually look forward to starting up every day"

Well put NoSuch...well put!
     
spb  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 05:06 PM
 
so , apart from the obvious cpu ( mhz prob ) what single & fairly easy remedy to the current mac performance gap could & should apple apply ?

     
Blake Bowden
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 06:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>With an exponentially higher customer base, the Wintel world has the money and manpower to develop improved technologies and get them into computers faster. It has hundreds of parts vendors dealing in this stuff, so that even if Dell or Compaq can't sell you a PC with a 400 Mhz bus (or whatever) on the mobo, you can put one together yourself pretty easily. Apple, in contrast, is one relatively small company trying to do everything itself--it simply can't keep up on all fronts simultaneously. An ugly little lesson in the economies of scale, to be sure, and one of the many reasons the Mac has never been a geek platform. </STRONG>
Of course I don't think Apple can be a leader in cutting edge hardware on all fronts, but what about technology that's already established? DDR memory, faster bus, UDMA 100 or even 133 support...these aren't exactly far out of reach so it should be easy to implement this stuff as it would be using fairly current technology.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2002, 06:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Blake Bowden:
<STRONG>

Of course I don't think Apple can be a leader in cutting edge hardware on all fronts, but what about technology that's already established? DDR memory, faster bus, UDMA 100 or even 133 support...these aren't exactly far out of reach so it should be easy to implement this stuff as it would be using fairly current technology.</STRONG>
Well, if the G5 ever makes it to us, the faster bus and DDR memory should be in place. Mind by that time who knows what the PC world will have. As for UDMA 100 and 133, so far there are no IDE drives in existence that can make use of the bandwidth. ATA66 is fine, and although ATA100/133 would be a bonus, it'd be nice to see a jump straight to serial ATA, since that technology is Around The Corner (TM), esp. now that we know 800 Mbps Firewire ain't going to fill that niche.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,