intel = pwned

[aristotle-dude]

:huh:

Apparently I'm missing something here.

It's a fairly simple procedure to upgrade a CPU in a Dell or Gateway, etc. It's just a matter of opening the box and swapping the old one with a newly purchased one. :whistle:

I think we were talking about laptops here. Laptops generally are not upgradable. :)

As for the Steve Jobs question. Apple has grown in market share from 1.5% in June 2001 to 3.5% as of July 2003. Yes, Steve was also involved in the MS deal as well.

Mac laptops are not way overpriced. I've searched and cannot find any PC laptops with similar performance/battery life/features as the pbooks for less than the price of the pbooks. Maybe the situation is different somehow in the US.

Don't get me started on Dell laptops. They are a POS with the hinges on the screen breaking and the dead pixels.

There are very few PC laptops under the 2000 CAD mark and in that market, the ibooks stack up against the competition quite well.

In the laptop market, Apple has a significant market share and is very competitive price wise.

[Redestium]

:huh:

Apparently I'm missing something here.

It's a fairly simple procedure to upgrade a CPU in a Dell or Gateway, etc. It's just a matter of opening the box and swapping the old one with a newly purchased one. :whistle:

I think we were talking about laptops here. Laptops generally are not upgradable. :)

As for the Steve Jobs question. Apple has grown in market share from 1.5% in June 2001 to 3.5% as of July 2003. Yes, Steve was also involved in the MS deal as well.

Mac laptops are not way overpriced. I've searched and cannot find any PC laptops with similar performance/battery life/features as the pbooks for less than the price of the pbooks. Maybe the situation is different somehow in the US.

Don't get me started on Dell laptops. They are a POS with the hinges on the screen breaking and the dead pixels.

There are very few PC laptops under the 2000 CAD mark and in that market, the ibooks stack up against the competition quite well.

In the laptop market, Apple has a significant market share and is very competitive price wise.

Ah that would explain it. :laugh:

[frod]

i guess i'll jump in.

a while ago i priced a top of the line dell and a top of the line pbook. i listed all features on both and i tried to match features on both.

bottom line, i got way more for $2400 in my pbook than i would have gotten for $2700 in the dell. what do i mean by way more? well i got a dvd burner and more ram. i guess that isn't "way more" in some people's eyes, but to me having a slot loading dvd-r in my laptop is way more than having a $200 or whatever external usb2/firewire dvd-r for my dell would ever be. well i also got a laptop that was widescreen which i enjoy immensely and a laptop that weighed 1lb less or so and was about 1.5" thinner. i also got gigabit ethernet which would have been about $200 in dell through the use of a cardslot nic.

i do admit the low end g5s are over priced. however, the dual 2ghz is most likely cheaper than anything equivalent in the windows world. so i think we really need to give the "overpriced" bs a rest.

i think it's funny how all these people are like "what about the opteron". what about them? we're benchmarking CURRENT technology here. not technology that is being released tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. get over it.

and finally, to the guy that said "os x isn't designed for a two+ button mouse" i laugh at you. i have all the contextual right-click menus that you have. my middle mouse button opens links in new tabs. scrolling works in everything. when i installed the software for my 5 button microsoft mouse all 5 buttons worked in os x as they did in windows. so please don't say things that you don't know are true or not.

that's about all i have to say for now.

[macrosslover]

think it's funny how all these people are like "what about the opteron". what about them? we're benchmarking CURRENT technology here. not technology that is being released tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. get over it.

the opteron is out, has been out and was out before the G5. it is CURRENT, Apple is just choosing purposedly not to benchmark against it, simple as that. you must not have seen all the stories that mention the many supercomputers that are being built around the opteron. don't believe the opteron is out? look at these benchmarks.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1257388,00.asp

"It's apparent that the Opteron 146 is a natural born killer when it comes to gaming performance. The Pentium 4 only manages a dead heat in one test, Comanche 4, which had previously been a "no contest" lead for the P4. In all the other tests, the Opteron 146, running at a 1.2GHz deficit, walks all over the Intel CPU."

now of course the opteron doens't beat the p4 in all the tests, but these tests show that the opteron is no sorry chip. god forbid we put 2 of these in a machine and compare it to a dual g5 :whistle:

honestly who knows why Apple doesn't benchmark against it. it could be the fact that Apple and AMD aren't exactly fighting each other and they probably have tested their chips against each other internally just for kicks and more than likely the g5 probably beats in some benchmarks and the opteron probably beats in others and maybe they decided it's better for both parties if they don't release them at all, because after all they are both trying to take down Intel.

and i still think the whole overpriced argument is valid, comparing the dual g5 to a home desktop on the wintel side...the g5 is a desktop afterall right? :rolleyes:

you go to Apple's site and the dual starts at 2999 or somewhere around there, that doesn't even include the monitor. simply adding the cheapest Apple brand monitor jacks $500 to the price. you can easily get a dell with the latest Intel chip, high end video card etc...all that good stuff for under $3500. what Mac fans seem to forget is that the average joe buys computers and they do buy the high end systems here and there. now if the average joe barely if at needs the power that a 3ghz p4 gives him, he definately doesn't need the power of 2 chips. if that's the case, he's going to choose the cheaper solution, which will almost always be the wintel solution.

while Mac fans have a good argument that the g5 is cheaper than xeon based workstation solutions, there's no contest on the home desktop side.

[aaron901]

Do I really care if a mac is faster than my Windows baby? No. As long as I have the fastest machine in my circle of gaming friends, I'm happy.

And seriously.....

Most peple don't have high power machines anyway! As long as they can listen to their music, get e-mail and browse the web, they're happy. Only ubergeeks and die-hard gamers care about speed. As a windows user, macs don't even cross my mind when it comes to what I enjoy doing with a computer. Who has money to buy a new G5 anyway? Macs are way overpriced....always have been, probably always will be.

As for laptops, I'll take a Centrino ANY day over a powerbook.

dude.. it's not like we care what you like anyway. geez.. if you don't care about speed and all, just get out of here and go hug your PC.. instead of saying I DON'T CARE here! it's not cool. :no:

personally i don't care about those benchmarks, thats why i shut up and let others do the debate. cuz i have really no idea, and i don't really need those benchmarks to tell me what a Mac can do. so it would be great if you could shut the hell up too. nobody's asking whether you care about it or not, nobody's asking whether you like Mac or not. :sleep:

edit: hell, when Macs were slower than PCs, people just go around and shout Mac sucks. now the G5 is out, people say they don't care about speed. (Y)

Edited September 19, 2003 by aaron901

[CaKeY]

Yes, if they don't have to upgrade as often and if the resale value is higher. Macs have longer lifecycles than your average PC. Macs you may have bought 2 years ago are still fairly speedy machines.

I dont know about that. I think a 7+ year old computer is much more useful than a mac of the same age. Windows '98 or just about any flavor of Linux will run just fine on a 10 year old P200 with 64 megs of ram and makes a fine computer for the average user (internet/email/word processing).

Anyway, I think apple is 3 or 4 years late on marketing speed. You dont NEED the lastest and greatest hardware to run the latest and greatest software anymore, not even close. I've got a 1ghz PIII with a gforce 3 ti500 and it still does everything I want it to do, easily.

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

god forbid we put 2 of these in a machine and compare it to a dual g5  :whistle:

Note: The title says "intel = pwned" for a reason ;)

Also, enough crap about benchmarking on a "64-bit" OS versus a "32-bit" OS. There are a minimal set of uses for a 64-bit integer space, otherwise there would have been a push for 64-bit a long time ago. In addition, most 64 processors run no different when running 32 bit programs. The program doesn't know there's an extra 32 bits of integer space to work with, but the proccessor handles all integers as 64-bit ones. There's little difference, if any, when

64-bit means you can count higher, not that the processor's faster. It's faster simply because it's a new processor! Did you expect them to make the new processor slower than the last? :p

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

I dont know about that. I think a 7+ year old computer is much more useful than a mac of the same age. Windows '98 or just about any flavor of Linux will run just fine on a 10 year old P200 with 64 megs of ram and makes a fine computer for the average user (internet/email/word processing).

Ok, you can run OS9/8 and Linux on that old of a mac too, what's your point? :huh:

[aaron901]

Windows '98 or just about any flavor of Linux will run just fine on a 10 year old P200 with 64 megs of ram and makes a fine computer for the average user (internet/email/word processing).

10 years old??! :blink: i thought pentium 200 was released in 1996.. :unsure:

[CaKeY]

Ok, you can run OS9/8 and Linux on that old of a mac too, what's your point? :huh:

I dont know lol. I guess it would probably be alot easier to find, alot cheaper to buy and much easier to upgrade an old pentium box.

[kombolcha]

if it's going to reach 3.0 by next summer.. all that matters to me is if i can run XP or Longhorn on a G5

i'm sure it can be done.. i've seen win2000 on a mac laptop (new 17" ones)

[[xan]]

...

[/b]64-bit means you can count higher, not that the processor's faster.[/b] It's faster simply because it's a new processor! Did you expect them to make the new processor slower than the last? :p

Well not entirely true... You see on a 64-bit CPU transfer 64 bits in one cycle while a 32-bit CPU will transfer only 32.

Of course the 64-bit chip will not be twice as fast as a 32bit one (not even close :) ) but it will increase the memory transfer speed and if the benchmark contains memory intensive tests is not fair...

[Fusion]

What a gay thread. This thread was originally created to present some information on how the G5 benchmarks held up against other machines, not to turn into a flame war about which platform is better. Why does everyone feel the need to prove to someone else that his/her computer is faster or whatever.

PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.

Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up...

[Chad]

10 years old??! :blink: i thought pentium 200 was released in 1996.. :unsure:

Good memory. I got a Pentium Pro 180 when I went to college, back in July 1996. At that time, the Pentium Pro 200 has JUST come out. I'm not sure of the Pentium time frame, but they were pretty close. My college roommate bought a Pentium 166 in May 1996.

Ah, google is your friend :)

Family Name MHz Off. Release

P1 90 and 100 MHz Pentium 100 07.03.1994

P1 120 MHz Pentium 120 27.03.1995

P1 133 MHz Pentium 133 12.06.1995

P1 150 and 166 MHz Pentium 166 04.01.1996

P1 200 MHz Pentium 200 10.06.1996

P2 233, 266, and 300 MHz Pentium II 300 07.05.1997

P2 333 MHz Pentium II 333 26.01.1998

Note the line in BOLD Seems the Pentium 200 came out in October of 1996, almost 7 years ago.

[kairon]

i'm sure it can be done.. i've seen win2000 on a mac laptop (new 17" ones)

Uh yes it can be done and already is, through emulation software such as VirtualPC. But thats it. Macs aren't made for compatibility (and thank goodness, too!)

[aaron901]

Good memory. I got a Pentium Pro 180 when I went to college, back in July 1996. At that time, the Pentium Pro 200 has JUST come out. I'm not sure of the Pentium time frame, but they were pretty close. My college roommate bought a Pentium 166 in May 1996.

Ah, google is your friend :)

Family Name MHz Off. Release

P1 90 and 100 MHz Pentium 100 07.03.1994

P1 120 MHz Pentium 120 27.03.1995

P1 133 MHz Pentium 133 12.06.1995

P1 150 and 166 MHz Pentium 166 04.01.1996

P1 200 MHz Pentium 200 10.06.1996

P2 233, 266, and 300 MHz Pentium II 300 07.05.1997

P2 333 MHz Pentium II 333 26.01.1998

Note the line in BOLD Seems the Pentium 200 came out in October of 1996, almost 7 years ago.

haha coz i remember i bought my 2nd PC when i was in grade six, a pentium 166MHz and it was the best you could get back then. :D and 200MHz was not out at that time. :)

[macrosslover]

What a gay thread. This thread was originally created to present some information on how the G5 benchmarks held up against other machines, not to turn into a flame war about which platform is better. Why does everyone feel the need to prove to someone else that his/her computer is faster or whatever.

PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.

Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up...

i don't think this thread was to bad, people stated their opinions and didn't make personal attacks against each other, but you mention PC users and why they came here, maybe you neglected the title....

intel = pwned

god forbid that would attract pc users :rolleyes:

[Ecander]

just lock the thread then lmao

[PureEdit]

What a gay thread. This thread was originally created to present some information on how the G5 benchmarks held up against other machines, not to turn into a flame war about which platform is better. Why does everyone feel the need to prove to someone else that his/her computer is faster or whatever.

PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.

Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up...

i don't think this thread was to bad, people stated their opinions and didn't make personal attacks against each other, but you mention PC users and why they came here, maybe you neglected the title....

intel = pwned

god forbid that would attract pc users :rolleyes:

Many PC users use AMD CPUs :p

[Redestium]

edit: hell, when Macs were slower than PCs, people just go around and shout Mac sucks. now the G5 is out, people say they don't care about speed. (Y)

And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time. Double standard or what?

(Y)

[oldaccount1]

I'm a PC user and knwo what I think? WHo cares?

I used to run Avid XPress on my $3000 Mac that I needed to upgrade spending another $3000 every couple of years.

Now I run Avid XPress on my $1000 PC that I need to upgrade every couple of years spending another $600-$1000 max.

Both did what I needed it to do. Both work great. One allows me to play games too. One saves me a couple of grand every couple of years.

I don't think its a question of whats "BEST", its whats "BEST FOR YOU". If I ran a studio and had unlimited funds I'd probably have some G5's too just for cool factor.

In my last office setting I had one dual G4 and one P4. I used the G4 to edit and the P4 to number crunch (compress video) as the Software on the P4 was much faster. Batch COnverter from Sonic Foundry on my PC ran 10x faster than Media Cleaner 5 for Mac even if the mac was "faster".

Why do Mac's and PC's always have to be hating? Can't we all jsut get along...?

well said.

[the evn show]

Of course the 64-bit chip will not be twice as fast as a 32bit one (not even close  ) but it will increase the memory transfer speed and if the benchmark contains memory intensive tests is not fair...

Not true - well not in all cases anyway. For one, the size of the bus between processor and ram isn't automatically the same width as the registers in your processor. Even the old Pentium CPUs could use 64-memory-bit cycles to load data into cache. The reason the dual G5 performs so well is because it has a pair of 1ghz buses giving nearly 13gb/s of through-put. Where as intel is on what, 533mhz?

I dont know lol. I guess it would probably be alot easier to find, alot cheaper to buy and much easier to upgrade an old pentium box.

Well, let's look at that.

- First thing that has to go is that old Pentium CPU - so let's swap it out for say a P4 (not that it really matters here).

- But that CPU won't plug into the old motherboard so we'll need one of them.

EDIT: damn copy/paste:

- Then we'll need a new powersupply to feed that P4 (and the connector on the motherboard is different)

- And of course VLB doesn't work in that motherboard so we'll need an AGP graphics card

- But wait. 72 PIN SIMMs don't plug in where DDR-333 SDRAM is expected so we need ram.

-And that harddrive is probably in the 800m - 2gb range: not enough to install Windows XP and Office XP so we'll need another one there (as if you wanted to use that mode 3 IDE drive anyway)

- The ISA soundcard and network also won't work because that PC motherboard will have PCI expansion slots so we'll need some more new gear.

- Then we have the case which no longer holds the new powersupply, and motherboard so we'll have to swap that too.

- You could use that ancient 14" 800x600 monitor - though it's hardly useful (of course it it tops out at 640x480 because you kept it from your last upgrade it's useless with windows XP)

What are we left with after the upgrade? Well, the screws from the old case, the floppy drive (I heard PC's still have those), a serial mouse, and maybe the 6x CD-ROM. You saved maybe $20 over buying an entirely new system. How much is your time worth? Asuming 1 hour build time, 1 hour going to the store, 3 hours researching (you do research parts and prices before you buy right?), and 2 hours to install the OS. it's worth about $3/hour.

There is a point where it's not worth upgrading anything. For macintosh systems that's around the age of the beige G3 (they can be made reasonably quick G4s) though realisticly it's closer to the B&W G3 or early G4 systems For x86 PCs IMHO it's around 3 years ago. There isn't much use for that AWE 64 or Nvidia TNT2 card. If you've got less than a P4 or Socket-A Athlon you're going to need a new motherboard. At that point it's time to start looking at all new gear. This issue really doesn't matter.

Edited September 19, 2003 by the evn show

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

The reason the dual G5 performs so well is because it has a pair of 1ghz buses giving nearly 13gb/s of through-put. Where as intel is on what, 533mhz?

800mhz.

As is the Opteron.

[Chad]

And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time. Double standard or what?

(Y)

The Mhz myth has nothing to do with getting to a certain speed at a certain time, like you insinuate. It is merely saying that a higher megahertz processor doesn't necessarily perform better than a lower megahertz processor. And in this case, that hasn't changed. It's fairly obvious that Intel will be well above 3gigahertz next year when the 3gig G5 comes out. And guess what. The G5 will STILL be faster. The mhz myth continues. So no, there is obviously no double standard.

[Redestium]

And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time.  Double standard or what?

(Y)

The Mhz myth has nothing to do with getting to a certain speed at a certain time, like you insinuate. It is merely saying that a higher megahertz processor doesn't necessarily perform better than a lower megahertz processor. And in this case, that hasn't changed. It's fairly obvious that Intel will be well above 3gigahertz next year when the 3gig G5 comes out. And guess what. The G5 will STILL be faster. The mhz myth continues. So no, there is obviously no double standard.

Well I just find the marketing strategy a little funny.