Operating Systems > macOS
why are macs so damn expensive??
the_black_angel:
Windows XP User #9484679812983614298216421 I am currently running a 350Mhz G4 with 128Mhz of RAM (SD) and i am currently Multitasking between The Gimp, Bryce 5, and watching Dungeons and Dragons, while MacMPEG2Decoder is converting a .m2v into a Sorenson 3 .mov in the background. (1600x1200)
Try doing that on your 'great" X86 system, thats with a 2 year old graphics card as well loser, i have not come across any 2 year X86 system that can do that.
Also that game that you are going on about sounds alright, although the fact that they included the editor they used to create the game comes mighty close to being an opensourced game does it not? you would be able to totally recreate the game? make new games?
I don't play any of the latest and greatest games anyway, they all just seem too similar to me i would rather play a game of StarCraft or Diablo 2 over a 1st person shooter any day.
By the way Apples rule, Windows is shit. And almost any flavor of UNIX is good.
Chooco:
i used to play Diablo2 LOTS, i mean like 20 hours per day. i would go to bed at like 3PM and wake up at like 11PM then start playing....
i have to log in, seriously. i have 2 baranar's star and i would hate to lose them, just chill out AFK for 2 hours eheheheheh
slave:
quote: Windows XP User #9484679812983614298216421 I am currently running a 350Mhz G4 with 128Mhz of RAM (SD) and i am currently Multitasking between The Gimp, Bryce 5, and watching Dungeons and Dragons, while MacMPEG2Decoder is converting a .m2v into a Sorenson 3 .mov in the background. (1600x1200)
--- End quote ---
Actually, I used to multitask between 3ds max 4, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and WMP on my 2.5 year old 700 mhz PC all the time. And that was in WINDOWS 98.
PS This G4 must be running OS X; everyone knows OS 9 is shit at multitasking.
In terms of raw power, I'll bet my PC can beat anyone's macintosh here (single processor) at practically any task. Just give me some way to benchmark my system to compare it to a Mac, especially a photoshop one; I'd like to see if Apple is telling the truth about that. I could have gotten an Athlon MP system but thats getting up there in price (although a dual 1900 mhz processor system would still be cheaper than a dual 1ghz g4 system)
cocoamix:
Can I run OS X on it? No?
Fuck it then.
Hey Windoze XP user, nice sig. "Go Banana!"
the_black_angel:
Actually it was in both Mac OS 9 and OS X, as MacMPEG2Decoder and Bryce 5 only work in classic environments.
What are the specs on your system?
Mines:
350Mhz G4
Bus: 100Mhz
128Mb PC100 SDRAM
ATI rage 128 Pro (2x AGP)
1 mb Backside cache
10 Gb HD Ultra ATA/66 7200 RPM
20 Gb external HD firewire 7200 RPM (no Apps running of it)
DVD-ROM
Gigaflops: 0.7 - 2.8
Its rated at about a 1Ghz P3 by the way.
On my machine the encoding takes about Double actual movie time. But thats the price i pay for having DVD quality movies fitting on 1 CD-R, in the original size that is.
Why would i run Photoshop in windows it looks like crap and takes forever to do anything.
A true test would be to get the latest systems from Apple, Intel and AMD with the most popular peloaded system on it and run 3-4 apps at once and see things like CPU and memory usauge, time to complete tasks in the background, and time to complete task in the foreground because this is what the majority of users actually do.
Then we will see what system is actually faster. instead of just refering to figures on a peice of paper/in a file.
Send me the systems and i will willingly do it for you
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version