Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 4 August 2002, 04:23
-
This article pits a dual 1ghz G4 machine against a Dual Athlon MP 2000+ machine and a Dell 2.53ghz Pentium 4 Northwood machine. Guess what, the Mac gets its' scrawny lil ass kicked. With that in mind, I don't see how you people can claim PPC is superior to x86. ;P
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm)
-
I will compare my PC PIII 850mhz with a mac classic (68k)
Anyway:
Overall the mac is better because it can eject floppys from the software!
-
oh gee, I wonder what computer will be faster.
-
This guy (and the whole site) is VERY biased:
1) The main page is very Mac-browser unfriendly (Craploads of pictures, wierd frames).
2) "As expected the Mac did worse....." The "As expected" makes it biased.
3) If he put up a PIII 1 GHz, a dual Athlon 1.4 GHz, and a Dual 1 GHz, and a single 1 GHz Mac, the Macs would OWN the other two. "Macs are much faster than PCs at comparable speeds" The comparable speeds part makes the statement correct.
4) Duh! If you put something about 4 months old up against something else of TWICE the raw speed and that JUST came out against each other, which do you think will win?
5) The reviewer stated that the same settings and codecs were used in all tests. That means that the Mac was stripped of it's dual processor capabilities and it's G4 optimizations, totally crippling the thing! but that would ALSO cripple the P4, as P4 optimizations would be turned off, and the Dual capabilities of the Athlon would be turned off too. If the settings were any different, than it should be marked as such.
6) I am unable to reproduce anything even CLOSE to these numbers, with the same hardware and settings.
So, to sum it all up this guy is totally full of shit somewhere.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
Anyway:
Overall the mac is better because it can eject floppys from the software!
it looks like Windows caught up with CD-ROMS, by right-clicking a CD-ROM in Windows and picking 'Eject' it will eject. But, nope, Windows won't eject floppies. (http://smile.gif) Because x86 floppy drives suck.
-
I read about half the article, I mean I could really care less about all this benchmark crap and everyone that isint a complete moron knows OS10 is 100 times better then any version of windows to date. Bottom line it dosent matter witch one was 1.3 seconds faster, it matters how the finished product came out and im willing to bet that overall it looked better on the mac. Not to mention that it was on a computer with windows, so I dont care how much faster it was it still sucks.
[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: trc3 ]
-
Do I have to remind you people again that you cannot compare Mac and PC speed. They are two different configurations. The Mac's processor does move more slowly, but it is also more efficient. PCs have to move more quickly and they still don't measure up to the Mac. So zombie, you're right. In many cases PCs' processors are faster, but only because they have to work harder.
Zombie, you are an idiot! Everything you've posted here has been countered by us. You know this as well as I do, so please quit fighting us just to fight.
-
ateast he tries harder then xpissant does, we have to give him credit there. and besides, my new saying is, IF IT INSNT MADE FROM UNIX, FUCK IT
-
or, howaboit lets pit all those machines agianst a four processor dec alpha setup, 1 ghz, hmmmmm..... or howabout an origin 2k, howabout motorala isn't delivering right, now, ibm already has way faster ppc chips RIGHT NOW, now maybe if apple went with ibm, the mhz woes would be over. and not only would it be a more effeicent processor, it would have more mhz, thus kicking even more ass
-
Like any of the professional video editors or Photoshop experts will even care. Graphics and Video professionals are more concerned with the user interface, stability, and lack of hardware and OS headaches than crap like benchmarks.
It's like a guy who is constantly bragging that his dick is big but still has no idea how to please a woman. (http://tongue.gif)
-
hey, its not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean
-
If this is so true then why are macs stated as the best for digital design (2D/3D), and also why are companies such as ILM starting to use apple, and quote on DVD Documentarys thats they don't have to go to a render farm for most of there production period, only for the final "big" render do they go to a render farm and these are usually "a couple of hundred linked Linux boxes". i think that shows what i mean. If i can play Unreal in windows XP through Virtual PC on a 350mhz G4 and still get around 40 frames no one can dis it.
-
who fucking cares about some random numbers?
hey, zombie542863654782, i have this to say:
456 gyugre78989 re45646fghz
ghd86547954 yuy554564 09543
jfiore8564756g 6t4b n665 5
ha ha! that proves you are completely wrong!
what bullshit! if somebody wants to use a mac, why make up some loser test with an older machine, that the reviewer is too thick to know how to work properly?
what a waste of time.
-
quote:
1) The main page is very Mac-browser unfriendly (Craploads of pictures, wierd frames).
I'm sorry your mediocre Macintosh can't handle web pages with frames and pictures, but don't take it out on us Windows users.
quote:
who fucking cares about some random numbers?
hey, zombie542863654782, i have this to say:
456 gyugre78989 re45646fghz
ghd86547954 yuy554564 09543
jfiore8564756g 6t4b n665 5
ha ha! that proves you are completely wrong!
Don't be a fool, Stephanie.
quote:
Like any of the professional video editors or Photoshop experts will even care. Graphics and Video professionals are more concerned with the user interface, stability, and lack of hardware and OS headaches than crap like benchmarks.
They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful.
PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses
-
i have personal experiance on winxp, and it does crash
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful.
Yeah, so they can run LINUX clusters at Rendering Farms. The real creative work is still done on Macs.
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses
I guess all there are fake, eh? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=XP+BSOD&btnG=Google+Search)
-
yeah, x86, i would rather use a dual 233 mhz ibm rs/6000 then a dual athlon thank you
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses
HA!! HAHA!!! Good one...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
I'm sorry your mediocre Macintosh can't handle web pages with frames and pictures, but don't take it out on us Windows users.
Are you serious? That's the only one you can come up with a response to?
If you want to argue something make it half-way decent please, and stop wasting the world's time with your idiocy.
PS: Windows crashed when I tried to load the site. No BSOD's in XP? BS!
-
XP!! The installer crashed twice
And within a day it had crashed three times, once it totally froze - i could not do anything, the other two imes it scrolled a heap of text across the screen then restarted, i would tell you what the text said but it scrolled too fast for me to read it.
This is extremely similiar to a Mac OS X Kernel panic (i randomly deleted things out of core services (http://tongue.gif) )
Windows displays graphics extremely badly compared to an apple, get exactly the same image and look at it on a mac and then look at in windows and you will see a difference.
-
quote:
Originally posted by the_black_angel:
XP!! The installer crashed twice
And within a day it had crashed three times, once it totally froze - i could not do anything, the other two imes it scrolled a heap of text across the screen then restarted, i would tell you what the text said but it scrolled too fast for me to read it.
This is extremely similiar to a Mac OS X Kernel panic (i randomly deleted things out of core services (http://tongue.gif) )
Windows displays graphics extremely badly compared to an apple, get exactly the same image and look at it on a mac and then look at in windows and you will see a difference.
Yes, and Windows has problems with color. A page will look entirely different when rendered in Windows.
The XP installer crashed when it ran out of disk space half way through the install. Shouldn't it... you know... CHECK?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ravuya:
it looks like Windows caught up with CD-ROMS, by right-clicking a CD-ROM in Windows and picking 'Eject' it will eject. But, nope, Windows won't eject floppies. (http://smile.gif) Because x86 floppy drives suck.
Im working on building one that does. Maybe even writing some software to eject if via ParaPort.
Im going to compare a Z/80 based machine with a pushbutton for a cpu (hit rapidly) with a P-IV 2.0ghz
Compare a G4-1ghz with a P-3 1 ghz and see who wins!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful.
PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses
Windows XP does crash, Linux does crash, Mac does crash, everything can crash... unplug your CPU well the system is running... it will crash!
You are an idiot because i had XP and it kept crashing and i know what your thinking "Screwy Hardware" well its not my fault XP cant handle my setup, but dont take it out on us Linux users.
So why do you post here XP Luser?
-
Anyway XP Luser was saying XP starts faster than KDE, so i timed them all....
SCSI Enabled:
XP: 49.7 secs
KDE: 7.8 secs
LINUX: 45.2 secs
GNOME: 4.2 secs
No SCSI:
XP: 15.2 secs
KDE: 7.8 secs
LINUX: 35.2 secs
GNOME: 4.2 secs
The fact is that XP does start faster but i have a dodgy SCSI controller that needs a delay on XP and Win2k to stop crashes. And Linux it just takes extra time, same with XP.
Anyway I think i have proven that XP Luser is a bullshit artist, everyone post your times!
-
I don't have to post my times, I never turn my computers off. I guess that would be "0" seconds.
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
I don't have to post my times, I never turn my computers off. I guess that would be "0" seconds.
Wow, how much is your bill? :D
-
i do the same thing, the only machine i knows boot time is mine, with Redhat 7.3, it boots in about a minute or so. with FreeBSD, it boots in under 20 seconds, ChoasNETOS is he fastest but ive never measured it
-
quote:
Originally posted by Macman:
Do I have to remind you people again that you cannot compare Mac and PC speed. They are two different configurations. The Mac's processor does move more slowly, but it is also more efficient. PCs have to move more quickly and they still don't measure up to the Mac. So zombie, you're right. In many cases PCs' processors are faster, but only because they have to work harder.
Zombie, you are an idiot! Everything you've posted here has been countered by us. You know this as well as I do, so please quit fighting us just to fight.
Ehhh? It is more like Macs don't measure up to the x86 PC. I think that it is perfectly clear that the fastest PC's available right now kick the dog shit out of the fastest Macs available now. The PC's will only continue to keep getting faster while your beloved Macs are still struggling to get faster than 1 ghz. The fastest PC's available today(the ones that whip the shit out of the Macs) are also cheaper than the fastest Macs. PC's are better by a longshot because they are faster, cheaper, keep evolving, have more hardware available to them(and more faster hardware being made every week), have more software and more OS chioces than the Mac.
Macs are overpriced hunks of junk that are made for fools who believe Steve Jobs' propoganda. It is no wonder why PC's have so much more market share than Macs.
PS. You haven't countered a damn thing buddy. This post was made to show that Macs are not "all that". Nothing that has been posted in this topic counters that either. Face the fact...your Mac is a dinosaur compared to state of the art PC's. The truth is a bitter pill to swallow.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Winblows XP User:
"I'm sorry your mediocre Macintosh can't handle web pages with frames and pictures, but don't take it out on us Windows users."
What an idiot. My god. Even the most novice of computer users would realize that is has EVERYTHING to do with the browser app, and NOTHING to do with the OS with regard to page rendering. What an idiot.
quote: Like any of the professional video editors or Photoshop experts will even care. Graphics and Video professionals are more concerned with the user interface, stability, and lack of hardware and OS headaches than crap like benchmarks.
"They should be concerened since x86 hardware is cheaper and more powerful."
Holy crap. Of COURSE their cheaper, they SUCK! They're power hungry heat machines. Anyone can make something faster by adding more crap to the crap. That's without mentioning the simple fact that more are made. Supply/demand.
"PS Windows XP doesn't crash, you silly gooses"
:) I'll let that one lie... *sigh*
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
your beloved Macs are still struggling to get faster than 1 ghz.
Too bad you haven't been keeping up. We went to dual 1.25GHz + DDR about a week ago. If there's something I hate more than an obvious troll (which you are), it's an obvious troll who can't even bother to keep up with what he's bashing.
-
Ok, now I'm mad.
It is common knowledge that the current Macs are much faster. All you PC Fuckers care about is megahertz and video cards! And why do you need so many joysticks? It would be humorous if only your blind ignorance did not interfere with our computing experience. Those beige boxes of crap you spend more time troubleshooting than working with are inconveniencing those who actually are able to have a positive experience with their computers.
And don't start preeching market share to me. You PC lusers cling to that because you think it's Apple's only legitimate weakness. Well take a look at PC companies who have gone under in the past twenty years whos market shares were many times Apple's. Packard Bell was the leader of market share, but unlike Apple, they were no longer able to make profit. The PC companies that are actually still in one piece (which will not include Compaq very soon, which also had a sizable market share) are posting record losses quarter after quarter and are having massive layoffs. Yet Apple remains virtually untouched by the current slump.
The amount of software out there for Mac has been enormously underestimated. People today are so programmed to predict Apple's doom that when a hybrid piece of software (that means made for both OSs for our dumber readers such as zombie) is purchased it is counted as a point for windows.
And don't go for that overpriced crap. You dumbasses have been using that and the one button mouse thing as a justification for your argument since the earliest days of this battle. I hold to my earlier argument that you are an idiot zombie. The proof is out there (my site (http://macrevolution.cjb.net), for example) but you just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.
-
I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm getting a Mac just because I like'em. They're fast enough for me and I love Mac OS X. I don't care what anyone else says.
-
The current Power Macintosh G4 tops out at dual 1.25 GHz MPC7450 processors, and is the only model that should be compared with the new 2.53 GHz P4s.
To WinXP User #somethinghowdoesheknowanyway:
If WinXP is so excellent, why does PC World magazine spend so much space trying to decide whether or not it's worth its bloated price of $200? Anyway, the problem Apple had to fix with is "21st-Century OS" was stability. They did that. Microsoft claims Windows XP's interface is all new, but it's just a slightly tweaked Windows Me interface with a ridiculous new paint job. They have done NOTHING to get rid of existing Win95 interface issues OR the "web-integration" madness from Win98 OR the nag-screen insanity from Windows Me.
And why can't MS stop naming products after years and use version numbers that make sense like everyone else? "Windows 98 version 4.10.2222"? That number has no meaning! Look:
Win 95: 4.00.950 (950 for '95)
OSR2: 4.00.1996 (1996 for the year it came out)
98: 4.10.1998 (1998 for the year it came out)
98SE: 4.10.2222 (2222 for Second Edition)
Me: 4.90.3000 (3000 for who knows what?)
MS needs to stop playing with their version numbers and use serious ones (putting them on thew box somewhere among that fancy cover design would make sense, too).
Mr. Nobody :mad: