PC vs MAC - Continued

[FUGGER]

This is innovation at its best.

"Think Different" should be "Think what else can we copy" All major advancements have been adoption from PC arena.

Apple adopts PCI
Apple adopts USB on all models
Apple adopts ATX case standard
Apple Adopts AGP
Apple Adopts SDRAM
Apple Adopts optical mouse
Apple Adopts IDE/removes SCSI from all models
Year 2k Apple broke 100Mhz FSB (LMAO)
Year 2001 still no CPU upgrade path.
1999 Apple removes the floppy drive, 2001 floppy is back

Apple engineers new GUI for FreeBSD Linux incorporating sprockets to complete legacy support.

Apple supports 1 video card manufacturer in beta OS X (ATI)
Apple has extreamly limited printer support for OS X
Apple added a little neat tricks with GUI and claims that OS X is really something new and innovative.

Only thing new in the past 10 years by apple is firewire IEEE 1394 standard. and Apple has worst compatability with 1394 devices. ASUS-1394 owns any Apple machine using firewire.

Now if you buy an Apple computer and want to use your existing monitor you need a "ADC adapter" for a mere $35 bucks (RAPE)

Base model 733 is $3,500 and no, that doesnt include monitor, software, ISP, or applecare warrenty.
It does include cheapest video card option, no RAM, uber small HD, no SCSI, DVD-RAM combo drive w/CD-RW, firewire, Gigabit ethernet, fancy case, 1 button optical mouse.

Add some options and BAM! your at $17,000 =), at least the display is nice.

To top this all off, the wonderous OS X, revolutionizing the "internet appliance" era ships with.... don't laugh...
Internet Explorer 5!!

One last thing, Its the graphic artist who does the graphics not the machine. so saying macs are better at graphics is not correct. the mouse just moves itself thru brain waves intecepted by mystical Apple inc.
You can keep preaching the "macs are better at graphics" but we all kow the truth. give the artist some credit or we would hire a monkey and get him wasted for great artwork for much less than a professional. since macs are so great at graphics.

Have you rebuilt your desktop today?

 

[Guest]

You can slag off Apple all you like but they had the first GUI os when we were still crawling around in dos

 

[FUGGER]

OMFG, I cannot even believe you brought that old rumor up.

That must be the first thing apple losers/users learn. Is that printed on ever Apple sold?

Well sorry to burst your bubble, xerox ventura publiser had GUI before apple.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FUGGER on 01/15/01 09:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

"...they had the first GUI os when we were still crawling around in dos...

True, but I could really care less who did what first! What I really care about is what I can buy now.

 

[rcf84]

me too

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos

 

[rcf84]

-------------------------------------
Actually ATX comes from Apple not PC.
-------------------------------------

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!


ATX is a Modify from IBM's AT model motherboard.

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos

 

[Guest]

But I kind liked DOS. What's more, I like Linux! It's really a matter of preference, but I always felt that the GUI's were just for the computer-illiterate because they didn't know how to move around in the actual computer. HOWEVER, I would like to think I've matured a bit since I was 12 and don't hold that same opinion. It's been a decade after all! But might I remind you that there were a lot of people who made the first, but it wasn't necessarily the best. Unquestionably though, Windows is a rip from the Mac OS.

Charles

 

[Guest]

Dear Fugger

you are a funny man, at times you are hateable, but at times you are adorable, one things for sure, your post has always been interesting! and I always make sure I read yours when I see one.

Best regards
cx5

 

[Sojourn]

Apple and Microsoft both stole the GUI from Xerox. Apple has always taken the best performing hardware from the PC industry and forced their users to use it, despite the poor cost/performance ratio. All of this is moot, though. The Apples of today are horribly overpriced, the processors are NOT keeping pace with x86 processor advancements. How long has mac been at 500MHz? OS 9* is even less stable than Win95. Everything is integrated, limiting your upgradability. The PPC processor may have a higher IPC than an x86 processor due to its design, and some of the best imaging software is written and optimized for mac, but unfortunately for Apple this is such a small niche of the entire computing industry that its no wonder Apple is floundering despite lots of pretty new boxes and glowy thingies that appeal to the often fruity graphical artist. Apple just can't be consistant, constantly flip flopping on policies and hardware specs and corporate direction. I don't see them disappearing any time soon, but they peaked a long time ago and are now on the long and slippery slope to total insignificance.

 

[bdaley]

Wow, and I thought the Intel v. AMD threads were bad!

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"

 

[rcf84]

Pc VS. mac - is a warzone, all the mac boards talk about us and there super "fast"(i think "slow") macs.

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos

 

[Guest]

Actually the 733 model comes with 256 PC-133 RAM, 60 gig hd, and you could switch to the Radeon ddr at no extra cost. And it comes with DVD-R and CD-RW combo drive, not DVD-RAM. You could write dvds that can be played on regular dvd players. This drive alone used to cost thousands of dollars.

As for PCI (which is 64-bit instead of your usual 32-bit), sdram, agp, ide HD and cd or dvd rom drives, Apple had them for years. And check your facts first before you start posting BS.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by stimsen1 on 01/23/01 05:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

This thread made me remember a friend I had who had a Mac laptop of wich I can't remember the name. He was always telling me about how the new mac was 2x or 3x faster than a P3-500mhz, but I never really considered it since he probably read it from those mac magazines. And I knew that it was probably marketing crap just like the flashy designs.

But, since I never used a mac for games or anything I couln't really judge if it was really that fast. And talking about PC's vs MAC's in a site about PC hardware would probably be just like the MAC vs PC benchmarks in those MAC magazines. Just my opinion...

 

[Guest]

"Well sorry to burst your bubble, xerox ventura publiser had GUI before apple"
Really Fugger, well where are they now?, Can you deny that Apple had a gui when ms only had dos?, Huh?, Im waiting, didnt think so, I dont own a Apple and I probably never will, but credit where credit is due, The entire computer industry was based on someone taking someone elses idea, Wait!, You dont think Microsoft ACTUALLY invented dos do you?

 

[Hit]

I agree with you amr.

I became a MAC convert for a short time. I thought the OS, hardware, and looks made up the best machine available. Being the intellectual that I’ am I thought I would research the difference between the machines and truly test what makes MAC better. My conclusion was that MAC is not better, only a different solution for the same thing. I wish I cold share what I found with the form but most of the links and info has moved or no longer exists. It was quite a while ago.

The conclusive info came from an article that outlined the differences between the X86 processor architecture vs. the RISC processor architecture. After all the processor is the brain of the computer. Any way, the basic difference is that the X86 processor deals with software complexity with micro code, and the RISC processor of the MAC deals with software complexity at compilation.

The micro code of a X86 processor allows software to be compiled using fewer instructions. The full instruction set is completed by the micro code at runtime.

The advantage of the RISC processor was that it remained simple. The full instruction set was produced at the compilation of the software.

An example was provided using read and a write functions. I don't remember exactly how it worked, they where using Assembler. At any rate, they showed that a RISC processor would complete a task faster because of the lack of micro code. The micro code acted as overhead to the X86 processor.

The article finally demonstrated how the two processors have become more and more complex as time passed. Today both architectures are arguably at the same complexity. Intel has added MMX, SSE, and SSE2 to the X86 processor, while IBM and Motorola have added Velocity Engine to the G4 PowerPC RISC processor.

I may have my facts messed up a bit, but it's mostly the truth. Although PC's and MAC's are different solutions they accomplish the same thing.

 

[walkr]

Mac's are Crap and thats that.

no more to be said.

 

[Guest]

Hey I thought those new apples with those dvdram burners were pretty nifty. But I just read on the register that they won't allow you to copy any copy protected media. What the hell is it good for then? [-peep-] I'll take my 1210a that can copy almost anything that I am legally allowed to copy any day of the week.

Apple is totally going down hill. I think they will end up like sega. Ditching the hardware business and moving into OSs/software. They obviously don't have the balls or brains(anymore) to create an innovative product that consumers want.

My $.02 on the subject of apple. Damn!!! how stupid, it won't copy copy protected media(a legal right in many a country).

 

[Guest]

Macs have their advantages and disadvantages. I personally think Macs have a much simpler OS. I can do almost literally anything with a Mac. Also, Macs are more secure. When was the last time you heard a Mac-user saying he was infected by the "I Love You" virus? Furthermore (and I'm VERY disappointed in you people), MHz means NOTHING. Look at the P4.. Slow as hell, but "Ooh, 1.5GHz".. It's like a V8 engine with no gas.

Now, PC's have their good sides too. First of all (and we're most aware of this), they have a larger market share in just about everything. They are much cheaper, but again security and viruses are an issue. I've had my PC for only a little while now (VirtualPC was too slow on my 266MHz iMac) and I must admit, I'm thuroughly satisfied with it. I made it with much help from this beloved site.

I still love my iMac, though. Like I said, I can do just about anything on it. I know the OS much better. I personally still have my heart for Apple, but their prices are still an issue.

.. And anyone remember when you could by Mac "clones"? I've always wondered what happened to those. If I recall correctly, they were a bit cheaper than "traditional" Macs.

So, I say Mac is better, but by a nose.

 

[Guest]

Macs suck
Notice how if you ever go into a hardware/software store, it is filled with PC stuff, and over in the corner on a little rack has all the mac software? Sure, you can go to an all mac store, but it's the same crap just spread out. Also, apple did steal the GUI from xerox. (there's a neat movie from TNT, pirates of silicon valley, allthough it's a movie though, it's based on true facts, and it talks about this a little).

The #1 thing I hate about macs is that just about all software doesn't work for it. I can browse the web for damn near 10 hours, and MAYBE if i'm lucky i'll come across a website that has a program for the mac. In order to get mac [-peep-], you have to browse around the small little mac community on the net which consists of about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the net in total. iMac, built for the internet, but can't handle it.

 

[Quake110]

Even BeOS (www.be.com) is better than MacOS

Visit my site at www.coolgames4u.com

 

[lakedude]

I hate Apples with a passion!

Apple was the first to a mass market with a GUI, the company they stole it from had no plans for it. Apple has been first in many things and has had way less compatibility problems (because they make everything themselves). They are quiet, cute and their widescreen display kicks butt.

The reason I hate Apple is because PCs are not innovative, they follow Apple’s lead and now you can’t buy a GD PC without having to decide which GD color you want. The fact that my super fast DVD in white does not match my new black computer does not bother me BUT the other day I went computer shopping with a girl and all she cared about is if the GD computer came in ORANGE!!! Apple is to blame for this, I hate them.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by lakedude on 01/25/01 02:58 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[FUGGER]

Lakedude. that old "first GUI" rumor is wrong. please refrain from posting bad info like that again. it gets newbies very confused.

Xerox ventura publisher was out before the first mac. it had a GUI.

Please don't quote false facts because you heard it in a AOL chat room.

Apple has not been innovatinve in 10+ years. please read the first post that started this thread thanks.

The beeper/cellular sales kept motorola alive through the worst of times. the downside is that Apple didnt have a CPU Mhz increase in almost 2 years.

How is this for marketing:

Apple online store removed the single CPU 500Mhz machines from price lists and replaced it with dual 500Mhz so that you could not buy a single CPU 500Mhz G4. you could buy a 450Mhz or a dual 500. So if you wanted that extra 50Mhz you had to spend $1000.00+ to get it.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Oooh! Mac bashing! How could I have missed this thread for so long? He he he he he.

1) Has everyone forgetten the poor lost Amiga? It had a GUI before Windows too. (Maybe even before Mac ... I'm not sure.)

2) PCs may not have had WINDOWS before Mac had their OS, but anyone old enough to remember that Microsoft was NOT the first company to make DOS will remember that DOS Shells existed LONG before the Mac. They TECHNICALLY are GUI OSs because the user would interface with them graphically, not by just a command prompt. They were just limited to ANSI graphics. So NYAH!

3) There's no way in the Bloody Lands of Xandim that ANYONE can fairly use a P4 1.5GHz as the example of the FASTEST PC. Anyone who does has already proven their stupidity by NOT suggesting the 1.2GHz Thunderbird for a comparison. The P4 is a very different design to standard x86 processors and frankly will never run today's software as well as even a 1GHz x86 chip. However, future software may be a different story. And in all of these comparisons to the P4, has ANYONE ever given the statistics of the OTHER hardware in the system? Even just giving the P4 PC600 RDRAM would cause it to be slower than mud. I find it highly convenient for Mac lovers that stats like that were never given out.

4) Anyone who thinks that a Mac is better because it compiles it's lines into fully usable commands and a PC is worse because it's based on a microcode architecture that induces overhead needs to be smacked upside the head. Yes, every so often there may be a tiny bit of overhead. HOWEVER, no 733MHz Mac is going to threaten even an 800MHz x86 chip. (Except maybe a Cyrix chip because they suck...) The overhead simply isn't that much. The only time people might have ever noticed it would be on a 8086 processor compared to a Mac Classic. Maybe.

5) Macs are not more secure because they are better. Macs are more secure because their software is behind in advancements. A 486 running DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 is ten times more secure than a Mac. That doesn't make it any better. Things like the 'I Love You' virus work ONLY because: A)Microsoft was stupid in creating the ability to do scripting in things like email letters when Word and Excel were enough. B)People are stupid and no amount of hardware or software will EVER fix that.

I think that's enough to go into a single post.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Oh yeah, and anyone who thinks that Microsoft was copying the Mac OS when they wrote Windows is just a tad egocentric.

It's a fact that there were multiple other computers with their own GUI OSs before MS did theirs for the PC, meaning that MS could have been copying ANY of those IF they were copying...

There is also the fact that even the PC was heading in that direction already as DOS Shells were evidence of. And that the Windows OS was a logical progression to the next stage of the DOS Shell.

So anyone that thinks PCs are copying Macs because of Windows obviously doesn't know drek.

And anyone who thinks that PCs are copying Macs because of those stupid colored cases and crap, most PC users hate those and the fad is dying just as fast as it came in. Besides, companies like Intel and AMD weren't involved in that stupid case crap anyway.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.

 

[tfbww]

Well, let's not forget the OS2 gui, proving again IBM's marketing "accumen" at the end of the 80s. Not the first, but, frankly Scarlet, who gives a damn?

Is any Mac fan out there begging to get an 8080 because it was the "first" pc? (or close to, regardless, you get my point) Nope.

I actually DISLIKE the Mac OS. I don't feel in control of it. It's always seemed harder to tweak. I'm an engineer, for crissake, I have to mess with the machines!

And, Most importantly, ONE MOUSE BUTTON! Ugh! It's bad enough going from a Sparc and a three-button mouse to the 2+roller of PCs. I feel crippled with only one. Don't they think I'm intelligent enough and have the motor skills to click with BOTH my index AND middle finger?

I also like having the bevy of alternate keys on my PC keyboard. Now, if I can only figure out what that damn scroll lock key can do for me...