Mac vs. PC thread
- Thread starter it290
- Start date
Bah.. iD's games and Blizzard's games are all I need. And they're all on Mac (except the the original Warcraft, and I'm pretty sure the Commander Keen games aren't on Mac OS either). The only reason why I'd want a Windows machine would be for Half-Life (original, not HL2. At least not until all the mods and stuff hit. Like TFC, CS, DoD, etc.). Even then, when I was forced to use Windows for a month or two a couple years ago, I didn't play very much of HL. So, I'm not gonna get a damn Windows machine just to play one damn game. Especially when Doom and Quake II are the greatest computer games of all time, and they're on Mac.
Who said the G5 is the most powerful consumer cpu out right now? They must be smokin crack and be a believer in the Word of Apple*Disclaimer Word of Apple ranges from 80% to 100% bullsh*t regularly, believe at your own risk*.
But anyways aside from the overpriced, understyled, underpowered Mac's to the moderately powered, overstyled, overpriced, pay for your patches Mac's. Its a simple thing of choice.
Mac's are in my life evil. All of the ones I've had to use were either ungodly slow, or were more crash happy than any WinPC I have ever had to deal with. Also its a proven fact that 90% of Windows crashes are caused by craptastically made software not the OS itself. Yawn... Anyways anyone that says Mac's are tools and PC's can't match them... well as times have gone that was the truth of old but is a falsehood of now. The fact is Apple dropped the ball and became a niche product. The constant upgrades the lack of backwards compatibility between even the .1's and .2's of thier Os's blew up in there faces.
The PC world has had to deal with competition which drove prices down and technology foreward. Meanwhile Apple became very wrapped up with self love and made sure there were only 1 type of anything made for there comp's which slowed development and jacked prices up. The Pc world is slowly adopting the cool look, Apple had to make an excuse for the insane prices and stylized there comps. Also final Nail in the Coffin as for price:
Power Mac G5
$2,399.00
1.8GHz PowerPC G5
512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI-X Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem
Dell Dimension XPS
Intel Pentium 4 processor at 2.80GHz w/ 800FSB
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
17" (16.0"vis) Monitor
80GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
16 Max DVD-ROM Drive
128MB Nvidia GeForce FX 5200
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Logitech Z-640 Speakers
WordPerfect Office 11
Price $1,699
Now add in:
1GB(total) of pc3200 in dual channel
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
120GB S-ATA
56K Modem
Win Xp Pro
CD-RW Drive
You get a new total of:
$2,556
Now you get the Idea. For A few dollars more you than the basic Mac you get a PC that would whoop its a** in everything. For ALOT less you get a pc that would keep the Mac on its toes!
Alas the price argument is still as valid as the day it was born.
This thread is designed for the sole purpose of pissing off Mac users. Some of the Information Provided may be false but its the way I've had it put to me and those prices are from there respected sites. Also the G5 cannot initialize its 64 bit parts until the Mac OS supports 64bit registers. So As Of Currently the PC is More Powerful. Alas once 64bit Windows comes out Mac will have its supposed crown stolen by a lil company called AMD. So Mac is
wned by the PC yet again.
Edit: DAMN thats a long post. Lotsa :blah in it I think. Oh well good for the general :argue.
But anyways aside from the overpriced, understyled, underpowered Mac's to the moderately powered, overstyled, overpriced, pay for your patches Mac's. Its a simple thing of choice.
Mac's are in my life evil. All of the ones I've had to use were either ungodly slow, or were more crash happy than any WinPC I have ever had to deal with. Also its a proven fact that 90% of Windows crashes are caused by craptastically made software not the OS itself. Yawn... Anyways anyone that says Mac's are tools and PC's can't match them... well as times have gone that was the truth of old but is a falsehood of now. The fact is Apple dropped the ball and became a niche product. The constant upgrades the lack of backwards compatibility between even the .1's and .2's of thier Os's blew up in there faces.
The PC world has had to deal with competition which drove prices down and technology foreward. Meanwhile Apple became very wrapped up with self love and made sure there were only 1 type of anything made for there comp's which slowed development and jacked prices up. The Pc world is slowly adopting the cool look, Apple had to make an excuse for the insane prices and stylized there comps. Also final Nail in the Coffin as for price:
Power Mac G5
$2,399.00
1.8GHz PowerPC G5
512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI-X Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem
Dell Dimension XPS
Intel Pentium 4 processor at 2.80GHz w/ 800FSB
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
17" (16.0"vis) Monitor
80GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
16 Max DVD-ROM Drive
128MB Nvidia GeForce FX 5200
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Logitech Z-640 Speakers
WordPerfect Office 11
Price $1,699
Now add in:
1GB(total) of pc3200 in dual channel
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
120GB S-ATA
56K Modem
Win Xp Pro
CD-RW Drive
You get a new total of:
$2,556
Now you get the Idea. For A few dollars more you than the basic Mac you get a PC that would whoop its a** in everything. For ALOT less you get a pc that would keep the Mac on its toes!
Alas the price argument is still as valid as the day it was born.
This thread is designed for the sole purpose of pissing off Mac users. Some of the Information Provided may be false but its the way I've had it put to me and those prices are from there respected sites. Also the G5 cannot initialize its 64 bit parts until the Mac OS supports 64bit registers. So As Of Currently the PC is More Powerful. Alas once 64bit Windows comes out Mac will have its supposed crown stolen by a lil company called AMD. So Mac is
wned by the PC yet again.Edit: DAMN thats a long post. Lotsa :blah in it I think. Oh well good for the general :argue.
Originally posted by gamefoo21@Oct 5, 2003 @ 02:12 AM
This thread is designed for the sole purpose of pissing off Mac users. Some of the Information Provided may be false but its the way I've had it put to me and those prices are from there respected sites. Also the G5 cannot initialize its 64 bit parts until the Mac OS supports 64bit registers. So As Of Currently the PC is More Powerful. Alas once 64bit Windows comes out Mac will have its supposed crown stolen by a lil company called AMD. So Mac is
Edit: DAMN thats a long post. Lotsa :blah in it I think. Oh well good for the general :argue.
Indeed amazing... how you state "Superdrive" ignoring what it is. It's a DVD-R/CD-RW drive, a it writes DVDs at 4x and reads them at 8x.
Let me also state that just Megahertz do not make a processor "faster" at all, the Pentium4 is still a 32bit processor, and it is not even completely RISC, while the PowerPC G5 is 64bit and RISC as well. And, according to Apple, their MacOSX Jaguar currently supports 64bit processing, while Windows only offers 32bit processing, and does not provide multiple processor support.
Architecture-wise, it is more than obvious that the PowerPC G5 is the best consumer processor on the market, you may build the best PC you can, but you will never get the performance of a Dual G5 system with 8Gb of 128bit SDRAM. (Do not forget than standard PCs cannot offer over 4Gb of RAM)
We should not even start talking about the different platforms (MacOS/Windows), because we all know which is much more stable and reliable (Unix based, anyone?).
Other than this, if you want to play games, you should get a PC, x86 and Windows/DirectX are both the most popular platforms for gaming, even considering that they are not the most powerful.
You seem to be ignoring a few basic facts there...
Windows does indeed offer multiprocessor support. The new range of AMD chips offers greater than 4Gb of memory.
Nobody but nobody has any need for 8Gig of RAM for anything short of an Enterprise-level server/data center. Aditionally, nobody can be expected to reasonably spend that amount of money on RAM alone.
There is no evidence to suggest that the x86 architecture is less powerful than the G5. Architectually the G5 may be more advanced, but that does not instatly make it the best consumer processor. Your average comsumer wants the best (usually fastest) system for the lowest price. Apple does not offer this.
RISC does not necessarily mean better.
Windows does indeed offer multiprocessor support. The new range of AMD chips offers greater than 4Gb of memory.
Nobody but nobody has any need for 8Gig of RAM for anything short of an Enterprise-level server/data center. Aditionally, nobody can be expected to reasonably spend that amount of money on RAM alone.
There is no evidence to suggest that the x86 architecture is less powerful than the G5. Architectually the G5 may be more advanced, but that does not instatly make it the best consumer processor. Your average comsumer wants the best (usually fastest) system for the lowest price. Apple does not offer this.
RISC does not necessarily mean better.
Windows XP offers multiple processor support? I thought only NT based versions had that feature, maybe I should read more.
I agree completely, no one needs that massive amount of RAM, still, I found that the member "gamefoo21" was talking about how "potentially", and "in the future" PC should offer better performance than IBM's G5, so I thought that I should also mention about how it is "potentially" better.
Not more powerful in all aspects, I would not really know, but the PowerPC architecture (when comparing latest processors) seems to perform better than x86 processors. I can turn things as well, there is no evidence that x86 performs better than PowerPC, or that a CISC/RISC hybrid is better than a RISC processor. I would not know... but high-end processors/systems such as MIPS RISC ones are (obviously) RISC, and not CISC for some reason.
Let me also add, that the point here seems to be which architecture/processor performs better, and not what the average consumer wants for his/her money.
I agree completely, no one needs that massive amount of RAM, still, I found that the member "gamefoo21" was talking about how "potentially", and "in the future" PC should offer better performance than IBM's G5, so I thought that I should also mention about how it is "potentially" better.
Not more powerful in all aspects, I would not really know, but the PowerPC architecture (when comparing latest processors) seems to perform better than x86 processors. I can turn things as well, there is no evidence that x86 performs better than PowerPC, or that a CISC/RISC hybrid is better than a RISC processor. I would not know... but high-end processors/systems such as MIPS RISC ones are (obviously) RISC, and not CISC for some reason.
Let me also add, that the point here seems to be which architecture/processor performs better, and not what the average consumer wants for his/her money.
It's really the definition of "better" that causes the most problems in arguements like this. Something is usually only "better" from ones own point of view. The figures I've seen indicate that the G5 (the latest and greatest from Apple) only performs marginally better than the current generation of Intel and AMD processors.
From the marks I've seen, it looks that the new Athlon64's just released have equal or better performance in most real-world than the best from Intel. i have not seen A64 vs G5 benchmarks.
XP Pro does indeed offer SMP, as does Win2k Pro. Also just about any distro of Linux you may choose.
For me, the "better" system is the one I am comfortable with. I've been using Macs consistantly for the past three years (initially on OS9, now onto OSX) and while I'm getting used to them, I don't really want to have to "get used to" something that is intuitive on a PC. There are things I can do on my PC that I can't do on a Mac. I just can't say that the inverse is also true.
Also I'm prepared to admit that Mac fanboys really get on my nerves. I've talked to one who claimed that the "Windows" brand name was stupid and bagged the "XP" label as unoriginal. It was like he thought Operating System 10 was a much more creative name or something...
That is why I bought up the consumer angle.
From the marks I've seen, it looks that the new Athlon64's just released have equal or better performance in most real-world than the best from Intel. i have not seen A64 vs G5 benchmarks.
XP Pro does indeed offer SMP, as does Win2k Pro. Also just about any distro of Linux you may choose.
For me, the "better" system is the one I am comfortable with. I've been using Macs consistantly for the past three years (initially on OS9, now onto OSX) and while I'm getting used to them, I don't really want to have to "get used to" something that is intuitive on a PC. There are things I can do on my PC that I can't do on a Mac. I just can't say that the inverse is also true.
Also I'm prepared to admit that Mac fanboys really get on my nerves. I've talked to one who claimed that the "Windows" brand name was stupid and bagged the "XP" label as unoriginal. It was like he thought Operating System 10 was a much more creative name or something...
That is why I bought up the consumer angle.
Regarding performance, there is no subjective point of view for things, something performs better than other thing, it is as simple as that.
I am not a Mac fangirl at all, I am currently using a AMD AthlonXP processor, running WindowsXP Professional, but I really dislike Windows itself, and I see the current x86 platform as terribly outdated and a little overrated.
(Off-topic)
I should also admit that PC fanboys get on my nerves, especially when it comes to Consoles vs PC game discussions... my god... people can be stupid.
I am not a Mac fangirl at all, I am currently using a AMD AthlonXP processor, running WindowsXP Professional, but I really dislike Windows itself, and I see the current x86 platform as terribly outdated and a little overrated.
(Off-topic)
I should also admit that PC fanboys get on my nerves, especially when it comes to Consoles vs PC game discussions... my god... people can be stupid.
No, but it's pretty telling that even on Apple's G5 page, a P4 gets a higher SPECint score. You can talk about IPC all you want, and it's a real issue, but the bigger one is what people can actually buy and run - sure, a 3GHz G5 would run circles around a 3GHz P3, but just try to find one.
No, it's not. I refer you back to Apple's own Pentium 4 SPECint scores.
I don't know what you mean by "standard" PCs, but Intel-based systems have been capable of > 4GB address space for about a decade now, starting with the introduction of the Pentium Pro. The fact that most boards don't support it is not a limitation of the platform, it's a limitation of demand. And for $3000, I could probably build a PC that makes the high-end Power Mac look like a joke. But the software would still suck compared to the Mac.
Well, strictly speaking that's true, but all versions of XP are NT-based. Some of them are just artificially crippled to keep the good consumers in their place. Like I said, software.
It's mostly because RISC processors are easier to design, and easier to optimize compilers for. There's nothing that inherently makes RISC faster than CISC, or the reverse - in the end the processor is only one piece that has to be supported by the entire system, and if you really look at high-end machines their most noteworthy features tend to be advanced memory and disk subsystems.
Yeah, I'm still baffled by a lot of the PC games that get rave reviews; sometimes it seems like any mediocre FPS with nice graphics gets lauded by the press and the fans; the last PC game I played and thought was really good is Starcraft. Maybe that means I don't play enough PC games, but I think it's mostly that the PC scene is driven more by technology than by artistry - everyone seems to talk about whose engine a game is based on or what graphics card you need to run it or how it's too easy for cheaters to ruin the game, but the level of real appreciation seems to be weak. I mean, when was the last time you saw a phenomenon like Ikaruga on PC, with people more or less swooning at its feet and writing sonnets about how impressive it is? This sort of thing seems to happen at least once every couple of years in the console scene...
Whoa! This topic exploded before I even got a chance to look at it. I just wanted to weigh in on the whole 64-bit issue.
1. True, you can buy a 64 bit x86 compatible processor.
2. 64-bit Windows is still beta. And, as stated above, there are no apps that are optimized for it yet other than high-end sci apps and the like, which I'm sure no one here cares about. You can run Linux and get full optimizations, which is great, but it's not really going to drive 64-bit processors into the home and workplace at a much greater speed.
3. Apple is in a similar position w/rt apps, but I personally believe that 64-bit versions of consumer apps will start to emerge on the Mac platform well before the PC equivalents show up.
4. True, the P4's integer performance _is_ better, but the majority of apps that people are going to want to run on these Macs mainly rely to a large extent upon floating point performance (photoshop, final cut, etc).
4. Yes, I agree that the P4 could do better if Intel's C compiler were being used instead of GCC on those tests.
Anyway, I'm sure it won't be long before PC's once again overtake the Mac in the performance arena (although it probably will be for some apps).. I was just contesting the point that they are any "less powerful" in any really tangible way.
Oh yeah.. as far as loading apps goes.. that has a lot more to do with HD speed than processor speed at this point in time IMHO.
1. True, you can buy a 64 bit x86 compatible processor.
2. 64-bit Windows is still beta. And, as stated above, there are no apps that are optimized for it yet other than high-end sci apps and the like, which I'm sure no one here cares about. You can run Linux and get full optimizations, which is great, but it's not really going to drive 64-bit processors into the home and workplace at a much greater speed.
3. Apple is in a similar position w/rt apps, but I personally believe that 64-bit versions of consumer apps will start to emerge on the Mac platform well before the PC equivalents show up.
4. True, the P4's integer performance _is_ better, but the majority of apps that people are going to want to run on these Macs mainly rely to a large extent upon floating point performance (photoshop, final cut, etc).
4. Yes, I agree that the P4 could do better if Intel's C compiler were being used instead of GCC on those tests.
Anyway, I'm sure it won't be long before PC's once again overtake the Mac in the performance arena (although it probably will be for some apps).. I was just contesting the point that they are any "less powerful" in any really tangible way.
Oh yeah.. as far as loading apps goes.. that has a lot more to do with HD speed than processor speed at this point in time IMHO.
MasterAkumaMatata
Established Member
A 3GHz P3? :lol:
A 64-bit processor doesn't grant you any real performance advantages over a 32-bit processor unless a) You use software that needs to do 64-bit integer math or B) you use software that could take advantage of >4GB of RAM. Now the G5 does have a number of features that improve performance over the G4, but these have little or nothing to do with the fact that the processor is 64-bit.
I use Macs and PCs on a regular basis and from a user's perspective I'm rather indifferent. It does seem to be a pain to fix problems in OS X because of it's BSD heritage and my boss tends to have problems with the GUI hanging, but it's not enough of a problem to sway me in either direction.
I'm a PC guy for two reasons, the first is that you get more bang for your buck with PC hardware than with Mac hardware. Regardless of which machine is actually faster, you can get more with less in the PC world. The second is that there is some software that I use that isn't available on the Mac whereas the reverse is not true.
I use Macs and PCs on a regular basis and from a user's perspective I'm rather indifferent. It does seem to be a pain to fix problems in OS X because of it's BSD heritage and my boss tends to have problems with the GUI hanging, but it's not enough of a problem to sway me in either direction.
I'm a PC guy for two reasons, the first is that you get more bang for your buck with PC hardware than with Mac hardware. Regardless of which machine is actually faster, you can get more with less in the PC world. The second is that there is some software that I use that isn't available on the Mac whereas the reverse is not true.
One of the interesting phenomenon (sp?) with the Mac and PC world are the advent of programs that allow you to run windows on a Mac, or the Mac os on a pc. With Virtual PC 6, you can even run win2kpro or XPpro on your Mac. It allows windows to address all the ports and hardware you have attached to a Mac. Basillik allows a PC to run up to Mac OS 8.1, with the same pot and harware addressing abilities. These allow a PC user to use progs and games from a Mac, and allow Mac users to run PC progs.
I really believe that the two platforms have moved a lot closer together thatn ever before. New Macs now use IDE drives only, not scsi, they also have pci slots instead of the nubus architecture. They use the same memory. Macs will run linux as well. No they are interchangably similar in all respects. But closer all the time. Apple is even working on a version of OS X that will purportably work on a PC.
I don't totally understand the animosity between users of the two platforms. It's a little like hating someone just because you drive a Honda and they a Nissan. It doesn't make sense. Just about no one here has a material stake in which is better or faster. Or is this the raging male hormones that makes fans get into fist fights at sporting events? Who cares! Use what you like and live and let live.
I really believe that the two platforms have moved a lot closer together thatn ever before. New Macs now use IDE drives only, not scsi, they also have pci slots instead of the nubus architecture. They use the same memory. Macs will run linux as well. No they are interchangably similar in all respects. But closer all the time. Apple is even working on a version of OS X that will purportably work on a PC.
I don't totally understand the animosity between users of the two platforms. It's a little like hating someone just because you drive a Honda and they a Nissan. It doesn't make sense. Just about no one here has a material stake in which is better or faster. Or is this the raging male hormones that makes fans get into fist fights at sporting events? Who cares! Use what you like and live and let live.
Similar threads
