Windows vs. Mac

[mikey101]

2. G5's are "twice as fast" as duel xeon processors only becuase they utilize 64 bit processors..the problem with that right now is that almost all apps are written in 32 bit environments which means it's only as fast as the source. The only reason macs are good with editing is because the 1gig FSB speed, and since most editing software (photoshop, final cut pro, premiere) are memory hogs, it's much faster to access the memory and locate each reference.

not quite sure where you got this info either..when duel xeons went up against the G5 procs, the xeons beat it in some aspects of photoshop, video rendering etc.. (according to pc magazine: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274182,00.asp )

3. macs are user friendly:)

4. so why would you want to use an emulator to run things when you could buy a pc and run the same apps under their normal runtime environment?

5. anyone else wanna vouche for XP's stability? like i said 98 was the os with problems

6/7. you're comparing an OS to a manufacturer, and apple doesn't make their own line of vid, sound cards, they use third party services like anyone else does, i can get a radeon 9600 too!

8. the real reason windows is subject to so many virus' is because 90% of the world runs windows..why would someone waste their time infecting 10% of the people, when the could have 90% launching dos attacks, or have 90% of the people wide open for exploiting.

well that's enough of my ranting..i decided that backing up my statements would help a little more with this discussion, rather than just saying what i think. btw: i am more partial to windows over osx, but i think they're both great os's, each has their positives and negatives so while one is suited for one person, it may not be the case for another person.:)

[Miscue]

There really isn't a whole lot of difference between a PC and Mac at a hardware level. The CPUs have different architectures, and somethings are different... but they share more similarities than differences.

Streamlined RISCs are going to be faster overall (but not with everything) than similarly clocked high end CISCs, because of lower CPIs... and the nature of a load/store machine. That's where the Mac is getting a nice kick in the pants with performance.

90%+ of Mac/PC arguments really is about the operating system, and not the machine itself... and stuff that really isn't indicative of the machine's abilities. The main problem with the Mac is the price, lack of PCish customizability, and lack of popularity... which impacts who develops what for the Mac platform.

OS X is a really nice touch... BSD based OS with a Mac interface. Without OS X, I personally have no justification to buy a Mac other than I've always wanted one and like them. However, I think a PC is a better 'value'... unless you are really taking advantage of a Mac.

I've always liked the Mac OS over Windows, I think it is a smarter OS. XP crashes, doesn't crash, Macs crash, Macs don't crash... to me that's all hogwash. I've used both machines, where they crashed... or didn't crash a lot... and they both crash for similar reasons that neither is completely immune to.

I think the Mac vs. PC argument is similar to a car vs. truck argument. It's kinda silly to point out that a car turns corners better, and a truck can offroad and haul stuff. They're two different things, and it's stupid to say that one is 'better' because of some particular thing. Each has its pros and cons... each has its uses... and is really good at what it does well.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by mikey101
2. G5's are "twice as fast" as duel xeon processors only becuase they utilize 64 bit processors..

That's incorrect. Most of the performance gain is due to the RISC architecture, versus a CISC. A RISC has lower CPIs, accesses memory much less often (because it's a load/store design). Being 64-bit or high speed FSB... etc... just makes it that much faster - but not the main reason for why it's faster.

IMO, the G5 is superior to the x86s... and I really wish they would work on PCs.

[phantomhitman]

Originally posted by sps16
please phantomhitman stop talking, your making it too easy for the mac users. The most obvious mistake you made was "pcs do have better video cards, so that takes care of graphics cards". Last time i checked, the G5 comes with a 9800 pro, the best gc on the market. We can sit around all day arguing which is faster but i have never seen a fair test between a mac g5 and a pc. There is always something biased. Really both macs and pcs are great. However i think apple, caters to people with a little more money and looking for style rather then customization. Where as a pc is customizable to the tooth, you can build your own from whatever parts you want to. What it really comes down to is Functionability vs. Customization.

i do agree with you on alot of your subjects, except for me not talking anymore as i said in my first post mac is just too gimicky for me. that is my main beef with them. no side will ever win but it is just fun to argue i guess

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Miscue
However, I think a PC is a better 'value'... unless you are really taking advantage of a Mac.

You forgot the "other reason".

If your Boss is a Mac addict and he is buying. And he says you can have any one you want... and they taking preorders on Dual G5's.....

[Miscue]

Originally posted by cphilip


You forgot the "other reason".

If your Boss is a Mac addict and he is buying. And he says you can have any one you want... and they taking preorders on Dual G5's.....

I would take that in a heartbeat! I'd love to have a dual G5... I'm jealous! I'm seriously considering a Mac laptop... those are actually not priced too bad. I'd like to have a rack full of XServers too... just because.

[mikey101]

Originally posted by Miscue


That's incorrect. Most of the performance gain is due to the RISC architecture, versus a CISC. A RISC has lower CPIs, accesses memory much less often (because it's a load/store design). Being 64-bit or high speed FSB... etc... just makes it that much faster - but not the main reason for why it's faster.

IMO, the G5 is superior to the x86s... and I really wish they would work on PCs.

the problem with the RISC architecture though is that since it's CPI is only one cycle, it takes multiple simple instructions which requires much more RAM to load/command/store the values. even though it may access the RAM less often, it seems there are more CAS to RAS delays causing a higher latency per clock cylce. where the same task could be done with the CISC architecture in one complex instruction which combines all the simple instructions the RISC architecture uses, which requires less memory locations. so in one area, the RISC architecture does accell by only using one cycle per CPI, but this also requires more memory allocation to get the job done.

i guess you're right in saying that it does make it much faster though.

[Z-man]

Grew up on them, still use them by choice. I think the reason people like PCs is that they are the game machines. If games are what you bought the computer for the PC is your box. Either that or an Xbox... thing is a FREAKING computer anyhow...

[Miscue]

Originally posted by mikey101


the problem with the RISC architecture though is that since it's CPI is only one cycle, it takes multiple simple instructions which requires much more RAM to load/command/store the values. even though it may access the RAM less often, it seems there are more CAS to RAS delays causing a higher latency per clock cylce. where the same task could be done with the CISC architecture in one complex instruction which combines all the simple instructions the RISC architecture uses, which requires less memory locations. so in one area, the RISC architecture does accell by only using one cycle per CPI, but this also requires more memory allocation to get the job done.

i guess you're right in saying that it does make it much faster though.

Calling the G-series a RISC and a modern x86 a CISC is a bit of a misnomer - I should not have generalized. Both have RISC and non-RISC features... and they share many of the same features. It isn't accurate to label them as one or the other anymore. There are a lot of subtleties as for why one is faster than the other for particular things. Compiler optimization is another issue, each architecture with its particulars.

So, it was lazy of me to attribute the speed difference by separating things as RISC or CISC. With these new CPUs, there is a lot more to it than that. Regardless, I think the G5's have a better architecture... with a combination of subtle technical reasons that make them faster.

[phantomhitman]

well games and .......um......to do papers when needed. ok you got me, games mainly. and the fact that 3d studio max and maya are pc only. they may have changed this now, so do not hold me to that.
and with the architecture discusion, i have never seen it go this far!!! I am learning more about macs now.
i also donot think the 9800 is the fastest card anymore, but correct if i am wrong.

[shartley]

[LudavicoSoldier]

Each platform has its use. I use my mac(s) as my surfing/email/music machine. I simply refuse to do anything aside from game on my PC.

[Patron God of Pirates]

I'm a MAC guy myself.


Under the right amount of stress, OSX and XP both crash. The big difference I see is that apps for Macintosh just seem to be held to a higher standard, so the applications themselves cause crashes less frequently.

May or not be the case, but it's an observation that has held true in my experience.

Add to that, all computers suck for gaming.

[strongbadfan]

http://www.redvsblue.com/appleswitch.shtml

[Vash02]

I would love to get more acquainted with a mac and im sure i will in the next few years but today just pissed me off. I was working on a video project today in school. Worked for about an hour and a half and then, stupid me, i tried to render a transition and BOOM the ol' lock-up. Restarted it only to find that all of my work was gone...yay!
Maybe i shoulda saved more often but im just used to workin on my pc with xp that has NEVER locked up in the one year that i've had it.