[dandbj]

Yes, I am currently a PC user. And no, this is not an attempt to start a flame war.

It is about time for me to upgrade my PIII 500 (which for most things, runs exceptionally well). I follow Apple products and I take a hard, competitive look at them when considering new purchases. I want the most power my money can buy and I occasionally even require that much power. The last time I bought a new computer, I weighed Apple in the balance and found them wanting. Now it is that time again and I find them further behind than ever.

My question to you is, given the fact that they might be releasing new hardware soon, what do they need to release for you, loyal Mac users, believe the Mac is once again competitive with the PC of today and tomorrow. I am not interested in the OS issue or the ease of use issue or the stability issue or the compatibility issue. My only interest right now is processor and hardware performance equity.

For those of you who believe the Mac is ahead of the game, tell me what you think the PC side has do do to catch up. Your opinions are only one part of my decision making equation, but an important part nonetheless.

(No flame wars please.)

Thanks for you help.

[KeyLimePi]

You don't want a flame war, but you're posting the same question that got shut out of the AppleInsider Boards.

[fulmer]

This is a little outdated--instead of dual 800 MHz towers there are now dual 1 GHz machines, but the points still stand.

Read the wisdom here

[dreilly1]

Ok, I'll take the bait, although I really don't think you should dismiss the OS quite as easily as you have. Even the fastest processors can squirm under the load of bloated OS's and bloated applications. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out which OS's I'm talking about. (hint: it's not just one...)

As far as processor speeds go, I'm sure you realize the futility of comparing different processor families by raw megahertz, and are too intelligent to even try to go there. Especially here, of all places.

Admittedly, my hardware knowledge is a little bit dated, so I checked out A review of the latest in PC Motherboard technology from Abit, which I saw on slashhdot a few days ago. It's unfair to compare this not-quite-released motherboard with Mac systems that are currently shipping, but I will make a few points -

- Look, no legacy ports! Just USB, Firewire, Ethernet, and Audio. It took you PC guys long enough to come around... It still hasn't shedded the floppy, though. (Although it does support USB 2.0, which Apple will never do because it wants Firewire to run faster. It also supports Dolby 5.1, which I think is overkill for a computer, but other people don't, I guess.)
- It also have support for more disk drives than you can possibly ever use. What type of power supply would you put on this thing?
- More relevant for our discussion, It has support for DDR333 Ram. Isn't it odd that there's DDR Ram in the new Nvidia graphics card for the PowerMac G4, but not in the Powermac itself?

Maybe that would be a more worthy topic for this discussion : Does the fact that the PowerMac G4 only supports PC133 SDRAM make it less powerful than it's DDR-using PC counterparts? I'm afraid I know next to nothing about how DDR performs relative to PC133....

[dandbj]

I care about the other factors such as OS and stability. I just meant that I don't want to debate them here. I will look closely at what Apple releases as any smart shopper should. I just want to know from you experts on Apple hardware what equivilant Apple hardware to PC hardware is. This question is poorly structured but if you can help I would appreciate it. I post on several boards to get the broadest opinion base. Some boards don't care for this type of query, others welcome it.

When I'm in the right mood, I'll flame with the best of them. But I'm am seriously seeking your opinion so my shields are down and I am not powering up any weapons. I am at your mercy.

[Bigc]

Originally posted by dandbj:
<STRONG>I care about the other factors such as OS and stability. I just meant that I don't want to debate them here. I will look closely at what Apple releases as any smart shopper should. I just want to know from you experts on Apple hardware what equivilant Apple hardware to PC hardware is. This question is poorly structured but if you can help I would appreciate it. I post on several boards to get the broadest opinion base. Some boards don't care for this type of query, others welcome it.

When I'm in the right mood, I'll flame with the best of them. But I'm am seriously seeking your opinion so my shields are down and I am not powering up any weapons. I am at your mercy.</STRONG>

There is no way to explain the difference between the Mac and a PC. I suggest buying a fast used Mac G4 and trying it for awhile. You'll never go back. (or borrow an old one from a wise friend).

You can alway get some software by bringing your iPod along with you when you visit stores and friends.

[mefogus]

I really do not know if this is pertinant, but I have three computers at home: Dual 1GHz PIII running XP 1GB RAM, Dual 1GHz G4 1GB RAM running OSX (it not mine, but I use it all of the time), new iMac 700Mhz 512MB RAM running OSX. Of these three computers, the XP machine is the least responzive. As far as basic windowing tasks go (resize, minimize, drag, maximize, opening apps such as office, etc...), the speeds go like: MP1000, iMac, XP. Bear in mind that these observations are by no means scientifically proven and do not reflect my development work. However, if a typical user with even a vague notion of MHz and hardware were to sit down at these machines, then they may be inclined to say that the Macs/OSX were superior machines. I may be wrong about this, especially given that I have no idea how the P-IVs match up.

-m

[dandbj]

What I am gathering from other post is that the software (OS) is a part of the performance.

This is not a perfect analogy but is it something like Palm devices opening programs faster and performing some tasks quicker than a powerful desktop system? In that example, hardware is not the issue. It is the software and OS that give the device its performance. Would that be the case in the Mac world as well?

[e.c]

Just the way the file system is set up allows the macs to do the same jobs with less tasks basically...(i dont know how else to put it) making the operating system an intrical part of the overall performance.

[Bob Barlen]

I've got both a mac and a PC. The mac is a dual 450 running osx, with 288 megs of ram (not enough, I know). The PC is a P3 450, with 128 megs of RAM.

I've been using the mac for about a year, and there are a few things that are slower. When I'm in hotmail, and I want to check the checkboxes on multiple messages, I can do it easily on the PC. On the mac, under osx, I get the 'spinning wheel' after each click.

Is that a problem with IE, or with the mac? I know that IE on osX isn't considered the best product.

I find that I'm using the mac more and more, and the PC less and less. I just need to figure out how to network them with DAVE, and I'll be all set. The only thing that I don't like on the mac is internet. Again, maybe it's because I'm using IE, but the fonts are always too small (I know they can be changed, but still) and I just like having the full screen filled up with the web browser. I'm having trouble adapting to the lack of a 'maximize' feature.

Any mac/net tips to help me surf better?

Bob

[superfula]

I JUST switched from pc to Mac. I've used pcs for almost 20 years.

The biggest switching point for me was OS X. It's a work of art...it really is. Having been used to windows, this is sooo much easier to use. For example....this doesn't apply to all programs out there, but most of them it does...to install a program, you unpackage it, and drag the file to the applications folder. thats it...its installed. Some you have to go through the process, but its not a big deal. Small stuff like that got me.

As far as surfing the net...yeah it is slower. why? Dunno. I use omniweb. I find its use of fonts and speed are more desirable than IE. But omniweb is crashing on me a lot, so i've had to revert back to IE until that gets taken care of. Maybe someone else knows why internet speed is slower on a mac.

Like someone said, you can't use the megahertz to compare. The processors are too different.

I seriously doubt I will buy a pc. I use virtualpc for some things, and to help friends when their computers aren't working, but thats about it. I honestly thought I'd be using it a bit more.

there are some things that I don't like about macs...but none of it has to do with the hardware or the OS. Stuff like the internet speed, harder to find "free programs", not as many games (not that big of a gamer...just casual), a couple programs i used on pc aren't on the mac...but other than that, I have no complaints whatsoever.

As far as the price of the computer...they are more expensive. But if you look at the history, you can easily see that the macs do last longer. MS is always bringing out new OSs and you always have to get new hardware to run them. I also notice that Macs keep their value much much longer. A quick jaunt to ebay will prove that. I think it was Byte magazine did some research. they said the average pc is out of date in 2 years....the average mac is out of date in 4 years. In the long run, I see Macs as being much cheaper than pcs

So thats my take on it as a former pc user. My theory on why Macs don't have a very large market share is most pc users think Macs suck, and yet they've never used them. People think they know so much about computers, so they ask what to get. Of course they won't say Mac "because they suck", yet they really don't know. That is why I think Mac has a smaller market share. And of course program and game publishers flock to the money, so they go to pc.

I would say now more than ever, Apple is doing better. I would say they used to lag. For a long time they had some pretty crappy video cards. But with the G3, and now with OS X, there's no lag at all on the hardware side. sure there aren't all the programs for apple as there is for pc, but there is always an alternative to use. So yeah...to sum up...I would say pcs lag behind in speed, reliability, and ease of use. In my opinion, the only reason to use pcs are to play games.

[e.c]

Try mozilla for a web browser...it never crashes on me...it agrees very well with plugins and is VERY fast...blazing in comparison to omniweb,internet explorer, or any of the others floating around.
Eric

[seanyepez]

To justify getting a Mac desktop for intensive work, I would need DDR memory and two, 1.2-gigahertz G4 processors.

Compare a dual-processor G4 machine to a dual-processor PC. You can't compare a single-processor machine's "megahertz" rating to the total "megahertz" rating of a SMP box like the dual-CPU G4 Power Macs.

The current G4's are by no means slow. Right now, I use a single-processor iMac G4 (SuperDrive with 512 megabytes of memory). It's sluggish for basic OS tasks. However, the 1-gigahertz DP G4 at an Apple Store blew me away; the performance difference is remarkable.

Have you ever used a dual-processor Power Mac?

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Bob Barlen:
<STRONG>I've been using the mac for about a year, and there are a few things that are slower. When I'm in hotmail, and I want to check the checkboxes on multiple messages, I can do it easily on the PC. On the mac, under osx, I get the 'spinning wheel' after each click. </STRONG>

I think this might be a result of the work M$ did to get the net to work best with their browser/OS. It's their mail site, it's not very surprising that it was best with IE and windows.

As for performance, the G4 is a very good processor, but it really does depend on what task your doing.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by dandbj:
<STRONG>Yes, I am currently a PC user. And no, this is not an attempt to start a flame war.

It is about time for me to upgrade my PIII 500 (which for most things, runs exceptionally well). I follow Apple products and I take a hard, competitive look at them when considering new purchases. I want the most power my money can buy and I occasionally even require that much power. The last time I bought a new computer, I weighed Apple in the balance and found them wanting. Now it is that time again and I find them further behind than ever.

My question to you is, given the fact that they might be releasing new hardware soon, what do they need to release for you, loyal Mac users, believe the Mac is once again competitive with the PC of today and tomorrow. I am not interested in the OS issue or the ease of use issue or the stability issue or the compatibility issue. My only interest right now is processor and hardware performance equity.

For those of you who believe the Mac is ahead of the game, tell me what you think the PC side has do do to catch up. Your opinions are only one part of my decision making equation, but an important part nonetheless.

(No flame wars please.)

Thanks for you help.</STRONG>

I'll take a nibble. But I'm not the catch you're looking for.

What does Apple need to release to be competitive? An Athlon

But seriously, anyone who discounts the OS when comparing systems, raw power or not, is a moron. You fit that bill, incase you didn't realise (due to the fact that you're probably a moron, you may not have noticed).

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by dandbj:
<STRONG>What I am gathering from other post is that the software (OS) is a part of the performance.
</STRONG>

The software is definitely a part of the performance. You can quote all the benchmarks you want to prove one processor or system is "faster" than another (at a certain, limited type of calculation ,like the stupid ByteMark benchmarks Apple used to hype), but they're useless if there's a lot of overhead due to bloat in the OS. What matters to most people is real-world performance. Not "how many giga-flops is this processor capable of", but "how fast will my operation in Photoshop or Word run"? Notice how Apple is hyping Photoshop performance with the new G4 systems? That's because they understand that their current market has a lot of Photoshop users in it, and this is what matters to them.

Compare it to running a business. You might be able to sell something for more than you paid to make it, but you might have a lot of overhead in terms of setting up a shop, paying for employees and their health care, paying the Mafia for "protection", etc... This overhead may make your business unprofitable. Consider the OS like this overhead -- it's resources that go out the window immediately, just for the privelege of setting up shop. Minimizing this overhead will maximize your profit, even if all your other costs don't change.

This is why I have a philosophical argument with the Microsoft Tactic of folding every application under the sun (IE, WMP, etc...) into the "OS", like they're insisting in the trial. It simply puts too much overhead into the system. Substitute "Microsoft" for "The Mafia" in my analogy, and you might begin to see things the way we do!

(sorry, I couldn't resist! )

[wwworry]

same question also posted at macobserver forums. I wonder if it is some sort of test.

[dandbj]

wwworry,

No test. That post is also from me. I try to get as many opinions when I ask a question as possible. Some people offer facts and links that I can read to learn more. Not everyone has that kind of information. Other people offer real world experience that is priceless. Not all the great answers are in this forum but many are and I appreciate them all. I will have more questions as I draw closer to purchasing my new machine, likely a Mac. I will post on multiple boards to get the broadest of sampling as I can. I hope that does not break some sort of etiquette. If so, let me know so I can amend my strategy for fact finding. I'm not able to respond to often as I am constantly researching and processing what I'm told. But thank you all for your assistance.

[Nep2ne]

The only way for Apple to catch up to PCs performace is for them to create an ugly, bloated operating system and use it with processors and motherboards that continuously fail due to cheap manufacturing and total lack of quality control.

(Sorry, I know I know, I just couldn't resist )

"Dude! You got a ripoff!!"

(Sorry again, don't know what's with me tonight...)

[rampant]

Apple doesn't use photoshop for benchmarks because it's a large part of their buying audience, they do it because it's one of the few things that uses the velocity engine well and it fast. It's not a coincidence.

[omac]

re hardware on pc vs mac

its easy to seperate pc hardware from software beacuse thats the way it is , 5 versions of windows non of them fully inter-compatible , god knows how many motherboard , cpu variations etc

while , with the mac , apple have 100% control over both hardware & software. the user experience is much more pleasurable.

pc is akin to a big cheap custom v8 that breaks down a lot but is good in straight lines..

mac is like a porsche 911 - smaller engine etc but moves in complete synergy..and has been refined over time rather than been 'updated' at increasing frequency..never allowing software /hardware to fully synchronise..

[Mac Zealot]

Originally posted by rampant:
<STRONG>Apple doesn't use photoshop for benchmarks because it's a large part of their buying audience, they do it because it's one of the few things that uses the velocity engine well and it fast. It's not a coincidence.</STRONG>

This is what it's DESIGNED to do!

And, as a few comments, you can't get the sheer power of a G4 on any x86 processor, while I'm not completely sure about certain high level processors, such as the ones that IBM uses in the ASCII white, I still havent seen a dual 1ghz P3 that can do 16mkeys/sec, nor a dual P4.

Just a few simple thoughts, but even running an imac 800 last night I discovered it can do 8.5mkeys/sec, this is very close to the performance of a cray in rc5! What PC can do this?!

Currently we're looking at a very big jump in the Mac OS, instead of using the old proprietary OS, they now use an industry standard one with a phenominal job on the OS. To date, Apple has created one of the smoothest *n?x GUI's ever.

In functionality, the wintel platform is leaps and bounds behind. While you might have ghz and ddr, you don't have the capability of pulling the machine out of the box, plugging it in, pushing the power button, and seconds later be greeted by your desktop. You can't click a little terminal button from the dock watch it bounce twice and have it on your screen, without installing a bunch of apps that have cryptic instructions, you can't compile C code natively and you don't have a set of NICE pulsating buttons either,

Wintell (wintrash as I call it) machines use parts that were made to beat the competition's mhz and ghz performance, and make something faster. They use shoddy parts that wear out when the motherboard manufacturer wants them to wear out, and technology is obselete when something new comes out (no not just obselete, UNUSABLE).

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how when macs are leaps and bounds ahead of the wintel platform, every time some new little thing is released for PC that we've had for years, suddenly it's a great thing that macs don't have (whoops!)

PC users buff on and on about how great their USB devices are, yet we've seen them since the imac, in fact, that's all you can use! Macs were the first computers to utilize the 802.11b standard, and now it's one of the most popular things on the market. Macs were the first computers to use flat panel displays accross the whole line, yet now PC users are raving about them, and those who can't afford them (like cipher) bash them openly.

The only reason certain mac users, whose names I prefer not to mention, were lucky enough to get perfect support, and have great machines, but are wild geeks that would consider their old OSes and files far superior to the new thing. Is Windows 1.0 superior to 2000? I doubt it.

In my opinion, I can only admit that OS 9 sucked, but now I see windows and mac becoming the complete opposites they were before. Windows XP is an ugly OS with too many annoying features and lots of bloatware with a propretary core underneath it that you can't utilize, while OS X is based on an industry standard core you can use millions of utilities on.

Just recall these things, look at the big features, and get on with life. My computer may not have the highest FPS rating but it crunches fast enough to make most people drool, and in many programs, you can feel the 'force' of a powerful processor taking over.

Take a program like "Transporter" (versiontracker.com I bet has it), which simulates a 3d planet (and system), can a PC run this kind of thing as easily? Could Freeway 3.5 load as fast as it does on a dp800 (the title comes up, a shitload of loading things scorll through, and you're in), and such?

I've learned that one thing Apple kept well was the humble-look of macs, yet when you play with them they're a whole different world.

And no matter how many fans, or air conditioners you mount inside your PC, none of them look as cool as a dp800 with cinema display in a dim room on a glass table, the king of UFO effects! (The imac has the kickass in-your-face look!)

I have to admit, the mac isn't the sluggish naieve platform it was before!

[omac]

..and things can only get better and better and..

g5 , 10.2 , etc etc etc... ! AMD ..?

roll on 2003.!

once apple closes the hardware gap ( gap? ) !

x+g5=$

[gumby5647]

not to add gas to the fire or anything...

but i think the two biggest things apple could do to make the PowerMac's kick a$$ again is to get some sort of DDR RAM in there (and this will come pretty soon), but also go Dual G4's aross the line (sans education tower).

Return to the "two brains are better than one" thing

so yeah.
DDR and Dual's across the line.

[ArcAngel]

As a Mac user and PC user I am surprised by some of the comments although I shouldn't be.

Are Macs great computers, yes, are PC's yes but it depends on which PC you have.

All my PC's are custom built by myself so I use the better components in them, therefore they run faster and stable then say Compaq, IBM, Dell, various cheap clone PC's

Apple computers also have problems, if you look closely at Macs and PC's the really only difference between the hardware is the CPU (obviously the motherboard as well but really just to house the CPU as everything else fits like in a PC) and the OS, you can rip out the drive, RAM, CD, etc.. from a Mac and put it in a PC and vice versa nowadays.

I honestly believe that pretty soon there will be one unified hardware and software platform so everybody can develop for one platform and then watch technology move forward like never before

So please, lets stop this Mac vs PC thing as we all know that both are great platforms

[Drakino]

fulmer: "This is a little outdated--instead of dual 800 MHz towers there are now dual 1 GHz machines, but the points still stand.
Read the wisdom here"

I had so many problems with that presentation when I watched the live stream that I dismissed it as anything to ever show others. Here is a quote from the site:

"Overall system design and processor-architecture differences affect real-world application performance"

The goals of this campaign by Apple are to educate people that the Megahertz is not a peformance rating. That I can accept. But then to say the above, then proceed to have this long part about the pipeline in a processor with no discussion on any other part is not right. Things like the fact that processors have multiple pipelines, that certain tweaks help the long pipeline problem, and such were never even hinted to. Watching that presentation as an uninformed user would make me think that the G4 is fast because it has a 7 stage pipeline. Thats as bad as me as a new tech person saying the P4 is the fastest chip due to it being 2.4ghz. But I am a technical person, and I know that the G4 is fast due to programs using the Altivec instructions. And I know the P4 has it's own benefits as well, some that haven't seen the light of day yet since programmers haven't taken advantage of all the new features yet.

If Apple wants to educate their users, they need to do it right instead of using the same one sided discussions that others use. To me, it looks worse to try and fabricate a huge story on why the G4 is faster instead of trying to market it properly.


If Apple wants to stay "in the loop", they need to find a way to advance the platform easier. A 33mHz bump in the system bus over how many years now is not impressive. A stall at 500mhz is not impressive. Force IBM and Motorolla to compete, and reap the benefits. Keep up with modern technology advances and start speeding up the system as a whole, and not just the processor. And if this can't be done realisticially with the way Apple is run today, face the possibility of falling back into the fringe market even more then currently, or passing away completly. Apple pushes some amazing things like the idea that home users should be burning videos to DVD today, they just need to do more to push this vision out to the masses.

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by ArcAngel:
<STRONG>I honestly believe that pretty soon there will be one unified hardware and software platform so everybody can develop for one platform and then watch technology move forward like never before
</STRONG>

There already is this: Its called Windows.

We are just outcasts because we don't use Windows.

Technology only moves forward is Microsoft wants it to.

Apple doesnt play by the rules, however

[MindFad]

As I posted in another thread, Apple need the iFloppy to get things moving.

[rampant]

MZ:

I have never seen a dual Ghz G4 pull 15 gigaflops- not when using altivec on fractals and using both processors. It got about 7.5.

[TNproud2b]

In almost all cross-platform benchmarks/app-specific benchmarks, the G4 is roughly equal to a Pentium3 of equivalent clockspeed. The exceptions are the RC5 client (able to make use of the G4's vector unit), three specific Photoshop filters (again, the vector unit saves the day) and the now-defunct SETI v2.0-series client.

An Athlon scores about 10% higher than a G4, clock for clock.


And remember, before you flame me - prove I'm wrong.

edited to add: Apple would need to release a dual G4 @ something near 2GHz to be competitive with x86 on the basis of 'computing power'.

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: TNproud2b ]

[Gerson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>In almost all cross-platform benchmarks/app-specific benchmarks, the G4 is roughly equal to a Pentium3 of equivalent clockspeed.
</STRONG>

Where have you found these numbers? I don't doubt you, I'm just curious to know which websites you'd recommend for benchmarking info.

[derbs]

dude, you're obviously a guy who likes to "get his money's worth", whether it's standing the ketchup bottle on its end to get the last drop, or purchasing a new computer.

Either way you won't find what you're looking for on the Mac platform. A Cinebench benchmark score doesn't mean **** in the real world. A system that works with you does.

A few months ago we got a big new Ricoh laser printer/copier thing in our studio. It's a mixed enviroment, roughly 50/50 Mac and PC. We plugged it into the network, and powered it up. Us Mac users fired up our Choosers, selected the Laserwriter driver, and sure enough the printer appeared. Within literally 30 seconds we were printing.

I had to set a PC up to print on it. The installer broke half way through giving some cryptic error message, i arsed about for about an hour and a half, and finally managed to get something printing via TCP.

the point is, the Mac platform "just works", a priceless attribute that benchmarks just cannot include

[Graymalkin]

There's more to processing power than just raw speed, it all depends on your criteria. Firstly the Athlon has an excellent FPU, it has been top notch since the Athlon was first released. Everything but the most complex FP instructions only take a small handful of cycles to complete which leads to very high processing rates when it comes to FP math on an Athlon. A G4 coming within 10% of the Athlon's FPU performance clock for clock is actually pretty impressive. The P4 has a Dorito for a FPU processor and gets next to nothing done in a single clock tick. Clock for clock the Athlon's FPU would royally trounce the P4's, as would the G4. The only think keeping the P4 competitive with the Athlon is the extra Ghz or so in clock speed which is how the P4 was designed to work from the beginning. I don't think there's too much catching up needed with the PowerMacs. DDR memory would be nice but at the lower clock speeds the G4 is at right now, coupled with the larger L3 cache would just be a costly upgrade without a sizable performance increase. When the G4 hits 1.2 or 1.4 GHz DDR will make more sense, 800 and 933MHz machines won't see much of a throughput increase with DDR.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Originally posted by dandbj:
<STRONG>wwworry,

No test. That post is also from me. I try to get as many opinions when I ask a question as possible. Some people offer facts and links that I can read to learn more. Not everyone has that kind of information. Other people offer real world experience that is priceless. Not all the great answers are in this forum but many are and I appreciate them all. I will have more questions as I draw closer to purchasing my new machine, likely a Mac. I will post on multiple boards to get the broadest of sampling as I can. I hope that does not break some sort of etiquette. If so, let me know so I can amend my strategy for fact finding. I'm not able to respond to often as I am constantly researching and processing what I'm told. But thank you all for your assistance.</STRONG>

I think it's important to consider what you will do with your computer when deciding between Mac and Wintel.

Example: Games. Nobody buys a Mac for gaming. Macs offer MUCH more gaming performance than they did even a few years ago, and they are much more adept at gaming than their reputation suggests. Thus, if you are a "casual" gamer who likes to play games now and then but uses their computer for a variety of other tasks as well, a Mac is an excellent computer. Problems Macs face in gaming are availability of Mac ports, and the fact that many Mac games are in fact ports. The code is optimized for x86, not PPC, and thus performance on the Mac suffers.

3D animation and rendering: Macs aren't competitive with Wintels for this, either. They are simply too slow, in part due to their low floating point performance. Apple is targeting this market but it will be a few years before Macs are competitive in it.

Multimedia editing, recording: Macs have the edge in performance here. The G4's SIMD unit is incredibly efficient at processing these sorts of calculations, and Powermacs are faster than Pentium IVs at most tasks. Besides the performance advantage, Apple also has a software lead. Nothing in the Wintel world comes close to touching Final Cut Pro.

Graphic Arts: Macs own at Photoshop, they wipe the floor with Pentiums.

This list isn't intended to be a definitive analysis of Macs vs. Wintels, but what I want to get across is that depending on what you will use your computer for, Macs may be the superior choice, or they may not. It's also more subjective than benchmarks would make you think.

A final bit of advice...do not underestimate the brilliance of OS X. Apple's new OS is an amazing achievement that has Unix geeks totally stoked. Veteran mac haters are migrating to OS X in droves. It's that good. and it continues to get better. By an overwhelming margin, comparisons between Windows XP and Mac OS X done by journalists and technical writers all concur: OS X owns Windows XP.

And in a few months v10.2 will be released, which will be even BETTER! It's literally the best time to be a Mac user since the 80s.

[Simon]

&lt;entering rant/rage mode&gt;

What really pisses me off about all my fellow Mac collegues in discussions like this is the constant level of bitching about this and that.

Presently everybody is moaning about DDR. OK, let's say Apple implements it tomorrow. Will some of the bitching stop? No. Why? Because then it will be that we only have 1 gig G4s instead of 2 gig Athlons or the G5. OK, let's say Apple implements a five gig G5 the day after tomorrow. Will the freaking bitching stop? No. Why? Because then everybody will be bitching about the fact that an entry-level Mac costs 5 grand. OK, the day after Apple will reduce the price for a dual 5 gig G5 to a dime with the option of getting a free printer (color laser for five grand or so) when sending in the purchase receipt. Will the bitching stop? No. Why? Because by then Apple will be getting flushed down the toilet of chapter 11 and we all have to buy a Dell with XP and get to kiss Gate's butt everytime we want some bugs fixed. By then the former Mac guys will still be bitching. Apple is stupid, Steve is a mindless punk and this and that and most of all, why the heck didn't Apple stick with the 2 grand G3 system with sdram...

Do you guys not get laid enough or wtf is the matter? I mean, common, what does Apple have to do to be OK? Is having a good or in some way even better product not enough? Does it have to carry bigger numbers than Mike Dell's ugly-duckling boxes? Does it have to be dirt cheap so that every bum can afford one? If you can't be content with the Mac you have because you can't brag about big numbers in front of your friends, is that Apple's fault? Get a life.

And yes I have a Mac, yes I also work with PCs, no I don't think the Mac is superior at every task it does and yes, I love the Mac.

And hell yes, I use my Mac for a living and I do CPU intensive stuff, so don't tell me I don't have any idea about what I'm talking about.

[DrBoar]

While is hardly a platform independent bench mark, Quake 3 to dun open GL both on Mac and PC. At resolution were the graphical card is not the limiting factor the framerate is CPU bound. According to xlr8yourmac.com the fastest framrates is about , 130 fps for 1024x76 Increasing to about 150fps at 640x480 for dual 1GHz. For PCs according to Toms hardware guide the fps is about 200 at 1024x768 for the fastest AMD. ID software may have far more experience of tweeking out performance out of x86 code than PPC, but at least they have no reason to hobble the PPC code.

My conclusion is that apart from AltiVec the G4 and AMD is similar in performance per clock cycle. So yes we are behind the good thing is for most applications Office web browsing etc a 500 MHz CPU or a 2 GHz CPu in combination with a decent graphical card more or less saturate the 2D performance. That is as a user there is not much percived speed difference in these applications. In this regard Apple had more trouble when they were selling sluggish 030 performas for the same price as 486PC that was far snappier in Office etc.
The bad thing is in games and other CPU intensive applications the lagging G4 shows up.
The B&W G3 was a computer that inpressed PC users in both design and performance, it was also way ahead of previous genrations of Powermacs. We need that leap forward again as the current lineup basically is a that B&W G3 with faster CPU and a superdrive.

[bbt]

i'm mainly a pc user but i keep on trying to become a mac user, this has lasted for some years

for me it's not the mac os or the g4 cpu clock speed that i believe keeps some pc users from getting macs

i think that if apple could sell mobos with higher fsb speeds, higher rpm hdds, cases that allow more drives for comparable prices as pc makers or byo for many home users that would get more macs sold

also i find that the warranties are really important for businesses so extended warranties at regular costs are really tempting

[omac]

its not so much apples fault as the tech support gurus..

with a mac .. they're basically out of a job..

'nuff said.

[Graymalkin]

Comparing OpenGL performance between two different operating systems is not a good comparison of performance. Granted in this case it is sort of accurate, generally this isn't going to work very well. OpenGL performance is entirely dependent on both the implimentation and quality of the drivers on the OS. Say you're using a GeForce2 card on both the Mac and PC running Quake 3, the Detonator drivers on the PC perform pretty well whereas the nVidia Mac drivers aren't quite as mature. Also comparing a DP Mac to a SP Athlon system is just wrong. It doesn't matter that Quake is multi-threaded, a DP system has different characteristics of a SP system. When comparing two similar systems it is best to minimize the number of differences between your two similar systems. If you're comparing a bunch of different video cards you don't test each one using a different processors, memory speed, and motherboard and them say the Trident card was the best of the lot because the GeForce4 Ti was run on a P2 233 system and the Trident used an Athlon XP 2000+ with a gig of RAM.

[PeteWK]

Hi Dan. I'm happily cruising in a G3 Powerbook 500. I guess I could afford to buy the most expensive laptop out there, but the Mac continues to get it done. I completely made the switch in Sept. of 2000 with no regrets. Macs continue to remain usable about twice as long as a comparable IBM (article someone else will have to note).

If you buy an expensive import car instead of a domestic, you do so because of the overall owner experience. That is what owning an Apple is all about. My powerbook is fairly quick and the G4 is even faster. But the damn thing just works. It always does what I need it to do. It's stable, agreeable, attractive, ergnomic and far better thought out than any PC of it's time. I've never been this satisfied with any computer I've ever owned (about 15 of them and mostly PCs).

PeteWK

Once you go Mac, you'll never go back!

[NeoMac]

Apple needs to release Motorola.

[DanMacMan]

Apple needs to do something for sure. I for one am not getting any new hardware until they get their crap up to par with the wintel world. Such a large investment shouldnt be wasted on outdated stuff. So I'll stick with OS 9 and my rev d iMac until Apple pulls their head out.

[Superchicken]

You know what the funny thing is. Yes apple could do some things to make their computers even better.
Yes DDR Ram would increase the greatness of the system. And yes a G5 proccessor would be amazing and blah blah blah.

But now... How many people here do proffestional design?
Come on raise your hands. Go ahead don't be scared.

OK now look around, see all those people. Now can anyone say that their current system is not addiquite for the work they do?

See no hands up now. No one has a single complaint about their computer working well. They just want it to work better.

However the fact is. Do we NEED a better system? Not really. Do we want one? Heck yeah.
But we also don't want apple to go bankrupt trying to get us to buy a 23 inch HD display, with a dual 2Ghz G5, with a superdrive.
Why? Cause then people would stop making apps for the mac soon as apple went backrupt!

How much does apple have to do to catch up with the PC world?

Incress our speed so that we can get closer to lapping them again!

Apple dosn't need to catch up to a PC. Apple needs to focus on what apple is focusing on. Being the best at affordable video. Being the best at helping people do stuff easy. Being the best at letting people acctually have GOOD programs to run their digital life.

IE runs faster on PCs cause windows is designed to help out IE. Mac OS X isn't. They're made by two differnt companies. What can we expect pretty soon?

Mail does great. Apple cares about the users using the net. Microsoft has failed to come out with one kick butt app like htey did on the PC. So we all know Apple's going to build something to take advantage of all the awsome stuff than Mac OS X can do, and use that on the net.
The interface is going to be true aqua. The program will take advantage of as you type spell check. it will work in tandum with Mail. And it won't suck!

But right now apple only has so many people that it can afford. So we're gona keep waiting for apple to bail us out from the evils of microsoft.

Why does a Mac take longer to use Hotmail?
Isn't that obvious?
Why is a Mac user USING HOT MAIL!?
Use iTools and use Mail. You'll be mutch happier

Does hard ware need to get better. Yeah hard ware alwasy gets better.
Do we need the best the market can give. No.
Cause apple's last. They last and they don't cost you your first born.

My iMac's a Rev D, it's still working, it's about four years old. And it still runs circls around my PC user friends who have no clue how I do all the cool stuff I can on it.

Someone said that apple dosn't have a big market share cause people think Macs suck. And also because 95% of computer nerds are wintel brain washed and tell their parents Macs suck.
My mom envy's my iMac now. And she wishs she'd listened to me and bought herself an iMac instead of her compaq. She ahtes that thing and she realizes how much better the mac would have been now.

[Titanium667]

As far as Processor speed (MHZ) Apple will never catch up to Wintel. I'd expect 2 Ghz G5 and DDR Ram around Macworld SF in 2003. I personally would much rather give up a little price and performance than use Windows XP. As soon as Mac OS X is finally optimized for more speed the choice will be obvious!

[Superchicken]

That's right.
Then we shall truely be justified when we make the choise to shoot the ignorant!
... twich...

[SkiBikeSki]

Keep in mind that soon Apple will release OS 10.2. Which is no doubt going to be a huge step forward like 10.1 was. Alse eventually Apple will release OS 11 which will likely be far more responsive and more powerful than we could expect at this point. Apple has said that OS X is not as fast as they would like, but they had to get it shipping so that developers would start developing for it.

Also keep in mind that with Apple's new developer kits it's easier than ever for developers to make DP apps, or right apps that OS X can run on 2 CPU's due to multi-threading.

The speed really does lie in the OS.

BTW That anology with the palm is sort of right but to much of an exageration. I'd say it would be more like a P4 2.4GHz running the latest DOS vs. an Athlon XP 1.73GHz running the lastest Linux kernel. Because of the better engineering in the Athlon and Linux, they come out on top.

[The Duke of Alinor]

I am pretty heavy on the dark side (PC) as well as the Mac. The PC's get more time. They are more fun to play with. The hardware is cheap, the BIOS is made to hack (or trash as the case may be) and when it crashes you can always blame the drivers. Not to mention more games are available.

So why have the Macs? Because I can scan for days and touch up photos in Photoshop on the poor old overclocked 8600 300/350 with no fear of crashing. It has enough speed that I am the bottleneck, not the Mac. Windows XP will not run Photoshop for 3 days straight like the old Mac. The overclocked QS 867/1066 is faster than the 8600 300/350 and gets the nod when I need to render in Lightwave, or something that needs more CPU. But OSX is not as polished as OS9 so I lean towards the 8600 300/350 for most of my graphics. The QS 867.1066 never crashes except Thoth and Panorama, but the OS just ends them.

I tried the PC (Athlon 1.44/1.56 Abit RAID etc.) with Photoshop and it was quick, but the scanning was fickle and I spent more time in XP trying to get the drivers right than in Photoshop. Even after hours of tech support with the latest drivers it still locks up from time to time. The PC may be faster, but is not worth the setup time nor the instability. And yes, I did try all this at stock speed and settings on the PC with no better luck.

As was said earlier, what matters most is the bottlenick and there always is one. In order of annoyance for me they are:

1) OS (I can't do what I want/dammit they hid it/install drivers again)
2) Application (still not doing what I want)
3) Hardware compatibility (I cannot use that sound card with my scanner?)
4) Hardware speed (all is well, I know what I am doing, it will just take a little longer)

What does Apple need to do to catch up to the PC's?
Make the OS unstable, confuse the interface and speed up the hardware.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
<STRONG>You know what the funny thing is. Yes apple could do some things to make their computers even better.
Yes DDR Ram would increase the greatness of the system. And yes a G5 proccessor would be amazing and blah blah blah.

But now... How many people here do proffestional design?
Come on raise your hands. Go ahead don't be scared.

OK now look around, see all those people. Now can anyone say that their current system is not addiquite for the work they do?

See no hands up now. No one has a single complaint about their computer working well. They just want it to work better.

However the fact is. Do we NEED a better system? Not really. Do we want one? Heck yeah.
But we also don't want apple to go bankrupt trying to get us to buy a 23 inch HD display, with a dual 2Ghz G5, with a superdrive.
Why? Cause then people would stop making apps for the mac soon as apple went backrupt!

How much does apple have to do to catch up with the PC world?

Incress our speed so that we can get closer to lapping them again!

Apple dosn't need to catch up to a PC. Apple needs to focus on what apple is focusing on. Being the best at affordable video. Being the best at helping people do stuff easy. Being the best at letting people acctually have GOOD programs to run their digital life.

IE runs faster on PCs cause windows is designed to help out IE. Mac OS X isn't. They're made by two differnt companies. What can we expect pretty soon?

Mail does great. Apple cares about the users using the net. Microsoft has failed to come out with one kick butt app like htey did on the PC. So we all know Apple's going to build something to take advantage of all the awsome stuff than Mac OS X can do, and use that on the net.
The interface is going to be true aqua. The program will take advantage of as you type spell check. it will work in tandum with Mail. And it won't suck!

But right now apple only has so many people that it can afford. So we're gona keep waiting for apple to bail us out from the evils of microsoft.

Why does a Mac take longer to use Hotmail?
Isn't that obvious?
Why is a Mac user USING HOT MAIL!?
Use iTools and use Mail. You'll be mutch happier

Does hard ware need to get better. Yeah hard ware alwasy gets better.
Do we need the best the market can give. No.
Cause apple's last. They last and they don't cost you your first born.

My iMac's a Rev D, it's still working, it's about four years old. And it still runs circls around my PC user friends who have no clue how I do all the cool stuff I can on it.

Someone said that apple dosn't have a big market share cause people think Macs suck. And also because 95% of computer nerds are wintel brain washed and tell their parents Macs suck.
My mom envy's my iMac now. And she wishs she'd listened to me and bought herself an iMac instead of her compaq. She ahtes that thing and she realizes how much better the mac would have been now.</STRONG>

No.

I'll elaborate later.