Welcome to Gaia! ::



wahmbulance *~*~*~*~*~! ! ! !~*~*~*~*~* wahmbulance

!!! ATTENTION !!!
I'd still like help in updating the thread, in case anyone was curious. Just check out the first post, and please PRIVATE MESSAGE me with any updates you may have. In can be updating an old rumor/myth/lie/fact, adding a new one, correcting, etc.

You are more than welcome (and encouraged) to post here as well anything that needs to be fixed. It's just that I check my PM's more often than I do check this thread.

This is open to everyone who wants to help.

Thanks. biggrin



wahmbulance *~*~*~*~*~! ! ! !~*~*~*~*~* wahmbulance




Macintosh Awareness
Last Update: 4/5/06


NOTICE:This thread is to promote and dispel common rumors and misconceptions about Apple Computers, and spread awareness about their functions and abilities. So, I came up with a handy-dandy list of comments I have heard, and have followed them up with facts, as well as adding other information.

This is an informative topic, so please, use this fire extinguisher in case you feel a flame coming on. *points* Also, in respect to this:


siskataya
For the official record, as a pre-imputative strike:

Spam comments or ridiculous "I HATE MAC!!!11" type comments will not be tolerated in this thread. This is a place to share information and learn things about Macs. Any unwanted comments will be rapidly smote, and I will issue warnings for spamming. Thanks in advance!

-Siskataya, Gaia Moderator-


This thread is considered by some the official Apple/Macintosh thread; As such, feel free to ask any questions, comments or opinions, as long as you read my little ramble below.

For tech help, you may get a quicker response in the main Computers and tech forum, and I would prefer not to turn this into tech support.

The purpose of this thread is to educate. Thats the whole point here. This thread is not meant to force my, or others, opinions onto others that post. If you don't like Macs, hey, thats fine by me. I just hope you read the first post at least, and at least feel a little more educated.

This is not a "OMG Macs are so Cool! Hooray!" thread. It is an Information Resource topic. You are free to post FACTUAL drawbacks if you feel the need to. Opinion is not Fact. Please make sure if you are posting what you consider factual information, it is indeed factual. Simply saying "OMGZ Macs suck! Boos!" is considered trolling, and a moderator will be informed.

The Above comes down to this:Trolling, Spamming, or flaming will not be tolerated, and a moderator will be contacted. This is your one and ONLY warning.

If in doubt, either PM me or one of the Tech Talk mods personally, or use Google.


Rumors and Lies

Myth 1. Macs have no software, other than what they come with.
Yes, Macs do have less software titles than Windows do, but why does that matter so much? A lot of productivity software titles are clones of each other on Windows, resulting in more choices. Sure, it's nice to have a large selection, but there is a point where too many choices are a bad thing. How many different word processors does a person really need? I can't imagine it can be a lot.

Mac OS has many comparable software titles, or even counterparts/ports of Windows software available for either download, or purchase. The Mac software library may have less, but unless it is highly specialized software, Mac OS has the same software categories as Windows does.

Furthermore, through X11, hundreds and thousands of Linux flavored applications can be run easily on OS X.

Myth 2. Macs are not as powerful as a Windows system.
Well, yes and no. Both systems, depending on the processes at hand excel in their own ways. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. A Mac may out preform a Windows system in one area, and vice versa.

Myth 3. There are no games.
Then get a console! Actually, Macs do have games, just not nearly as many as Windows. World of Warcraft, Unreal Tourney 2k4, Myst, Neverwinter Nights, and Everquest are all available right now, as well as many others. They just take longer to convert, because companies want the cash fast, so they release for Windows first in most cases. In other cases, some companies want to see how well their game does before porting it, and others release it at the same time as they do on other systems. It varies greatly on the company.

Myth 4. They only support a 1 button mouse.
For many years now, the Mac OS has supported multi-button mice, even with scroll wheels. Right clicking in Mac OS brings up similar options as Windows. If the mouse only has one button, you can emulate right clicking by holding down the control key on the keyboard while clicking.

Recently, Apple released a multi-button, feature rich, highly configurable mouse which can be found here: http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/ This ships now by default with all Mac models, except for the Mac mini, iBooks and Powerbooks.

Myth 5. Files from a Mac are incompatible with files from Windows
In some cases yes, in some cases no. Sure, system files wouldn't be able to be read very well, or at all on opposing systems, but things such as Word documents can be read, as long as you have software that can read it. PDF, jpg, mpeg, mp3, txt files, and a onslaught of others are all cross compatible between many different systems.

Myth 6. Macs and PCs can't communicate together.
Everyday, hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails are sent from PC to PC, and from Mac to Mac, and from PC to Mac. Even on networks, Macs can connect to a Windows machine to transfer files.

Myth 7. You can't use them for anything, or do anything on them
Unless it is a very specialized piece of hardware or software you are working with such as those in the scientific or engineering communities, Macs can pretty much do anything a comparable PC can do. They can Rip CD's, burn CD's and DVD's, play DVDs, surf the net, schoolwork, photo editing, moviemaking, sound and music editing, download files, get e-mail, create presentations, digital photography, writing, keep schedules, chat, accounting, programming, and even run Windows through an emulator. There are many, many more things they can do as well.

Myth 8. They are not user friendly, and hard to navigate
This is more of a matter of opinion. What is user friendly for one person, may not be for another. Same with navigation. People think differently, and so one interface may be easy for one person to use, and very hard for someone else. It depends entirely on the person.

Myth 9. They are a pain to fix
Again, this is matter of opinion. It also depends on how sever the problem is. Since Windows and the Mac OS are so different at the functioning level, it can be difficult for an avid user of one to fix the other, especially when it comes to system specific problems.

Myth 10. They crash all the time, and are unstable
This is a matter of use and maintenance. Macs don't require as much maintenance as Windows does (Like defragging), and tend to be more stable than Windows, on average. If you are using a Mac that hasn't been maintained, of course it will operate poorly. Same with Windows though. Same with a car. And the OS crashing is different than an application crashing, and bringing the rest of the system down with it.

Myth 11. They have no tech support.
They have lots of tech support, and come with a warranty, which can be extended for 3 years, and completely covers your system, just like a PC warranty. But, no tech support is perfect, and some Mac users have horrid tech support stories, while other users have raving reviews. Same with the PC side of things, too.

Also, as of the fall of 2005, Apple is being rated as having the best Tech support over companies like Dell and IBM. Link: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/11/04.9.shtml

Myth 12. They have no Plug and play
They do indeed. Most USB devices are automatically detected by the OS, and usable without installing any drivers. Many digital cameras, joysticks, mice, and even external drives are detected quickly, and loaded up so they can be used immediately. Most newer Macs also have Firewire or USB 2.0, and bluetooth as standard or optional.

Myth 13.The designs are stupid.
Still, a matter of opinion. Not everyone likes the same car, or food, or color for that matter. Apple designs their computers to look good to most people, not everyone.

Myth 14.They can't be upgraded
This, as well as PC's, really depends on the models. If its an all in one unit (iMac), or a compact unit (Mac Mini) then the parts that can be upgraded may be limited. With Desktops, most things can eventually be upgraded. I have seen a processor upgrade card for an old Powerbook, that upgraded it from a G3 processor to a G4. That's a very decent upgrade. Furthermore, the 7x00 series could also be upgraded to a Desktop G3 with some tinkering.

For a while now, Powermac's have been very good at using similar parts for things like CD drives, DVD drives, Hard drives, and PCI cards. In some instances, you can even swap parts between a PC and a Mac.

Some powerbook models even have a PC (PCMCIA) card slot, for expansion, for things like video, audio, and even wi-fi.

http://xlr8yourmac.com/ is a great site that offers all sorts of upgrades for old and new Macs.

Myth 15. They have to be pretty! Thats why they sell!
It may be part of it, but it isn't all of it. Take a look at some of the older Macs. Apple making pretty computers is actual relatively new, in comparison to how long they have been making the computers. It wasn't;' too long ago you could buy a Beige G3 tower, and many of them are still in use today. Their looks didn't sell them then.

Many companies also have tried to copy similar designs, such as the iMac design. Some have it copied exactly, others have a similar design, such as the Gateway Astro, or the Gateway Profile, both of which try to imitate different iMac models.

Myth 16. You can't do any cool case mods.
Ahem: http://applefritter.com/hacks/

Myth 17. The [brand x] Xillibit bit processor is faster than the new Mac!!!
Ok, so? Is it that surprising that newer hardware is faster than anything else on the market when it comes out? Besides, there is more to computing than a pissing contest. Megahertz don't matter all that much between the two systems, because the internal structuring is so different.

Macs and PCs are two different machines. They are made to run differently, and do things differently. Some things are better done on a PC, while others are more suited to a Mac.

In the end, it comes down to what you are more comfortable using.

Myth 18. Microsoft bought a bunch of G5's to take over the world.
No. Well, yes... I mean... well... MS is a software company too. They do develop for the Mac OS. They even have a Linux lab. Kinda hard to develop for a platform you don't have access to, right?

The Xbox 360 runs on a modified/customized triple core PPC processor, somewhat similar to what Powermacs have. The Xbox 360 demo units at E3 '05 were actually 2 dual g5 Powermacs. Most likely, they use the Macs as development kit.

Myth 19: The Switch to Intel.
This really isn't a myth, because its true. Link: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

Apple is switching their processing chips to the same format as what your typical PC uses. There are several reasons for this, and more speculation. The main reasons are that they are having trouble mass producing the current chips, and they also run very very hot. The Powerbooks that will eventually carry this chip will be almost 25% slimmer than the current Powerbooks, as they don't need to add so much in the lines of cooling.

Also, for the Powerbooks, the processors tend to be slower than what a PC laptop can be, also do to cooling issues. A faster processor means more cooling, which means more bulk. Switching to different processors will make portable models significantly faster as well.

Also, Apple has been on rocky ground with IBM because of problems and delays both in manufacturing the current G5 line of chips, as well as developing the lineup further.

As far as OS X on a regular PC goes, a leaked development only version of the updated Mac OS X was leaked out, and people figured out a way to get it to run on a regular system, using a handful of workarounds. Chances are, once the new OS X is released publicly, this will be fixed, but someone very possibly might find a new workaround. Apple has no plans to release Mac OS X to run on anything that is not specifically a Mac.

There is plenty of information out there on all this, so let me give a few resources:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/worktech/cst-fin-andy09.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1368
http://maconintel.com/
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html

Myth 20. They Don't run Windows!!1
SInce the Intel Macs came out, some people tried to get Windows to run on them, and did so successfully on their own. As of April 5th, 2006, Apple has released new software called Bootcamp and is currently in a Public Beta phase, and it easily allows you to install and run Windows nativley on the Intel Macs.

Keep in mind, running Windows on a Mac does not make Windows magically secure. That means, it is still fully possible for Windows to get infected with viruses and Malware, just the same as it is on a PC. Be sure to use proper protection. wink

Myth 21. iPod babble! Babble Babble Babble!
Please go to iPod Awareness for all things ipod. Link: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3879355




~*~ - - - ~*~ --- ~*~

Oh, and a few things I decided to throw in, that aren't exactly rumors, but everyone should know them.

Apple is the company. Macintosh is the computer.
It's Mac, not MAC, as capitalization implies it's an Acronym.

ALSO: Check out THIS LINK for most any Macintosh commercial, and even some parodies as well!
http://www.Apple.com for all your Mac needs.
http://apple-history.com For Hardware old and new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh For history and knowledge.
Me heart Kiretsu
3ntropy
Me heart Kiretsu


Heh. Thankies. Oh, and feel free to add to it as well. I know I didn;t get everything there is, but I think I got the big ones.
Yeah, you covered most of it, you did a great job of catching all of the common ones.

-Megahertz Doesn't Matter

Megahertz operates much like RPMs in a car - Just because a car has more revolutions per minute doesn't mean it's the most efficient, thus could very well be slower than another car that is much more efficient (See: Nissan Skyline)

Just like this, it doesn't matter how many clock cycles a computer has, if it needs to spend just half as many clock cycles than the other due to a great, efficient design.

Think of it as an Intel is a car that has to run 2 miles at 200 miles an hour, while an Apple is a car that has to run 1 mile at 100 miles an hour. They'd wind up finishing at the same time. Now make the Apple a 64 bit processor, and double the amount of processors, and you now have a computer faster than the Intel.

If you PC junkies don't believe me, soon enough Intel will be trying to convince you megahertz doesn't matter themselves because in their race to get the fastest megahertz, they kind of hit a wall in their processor architecture. How long have they been at 3.2 ghz now?
3ntropy
If you PC junkies don't believe me, soon enough Intel will be trying to convince you megahertz doesn't matter themselves because in their race to get the fastest megahertz, they kind of hit a wall in their processor architecture. How long have they been at 3.2 ghz now?


They already have made mention of it. Gotta love google.
Kiretsu
This thread is to promote and dispel common rumors and misconceptions about Macintosh Computers, and spread awareness about their functions and abilities. So, I came up with a handy-dandy list of comments I have heard, and have followed them up with facts.

This is an informative topic, so please, use this fire extinguisher in case you feel a flame coming on. *points*

1. Macs have no software, other than what they come with.
Yes, Macs do have less software titles than Windows do, but why does that matter so much? A lot of productivity software titles are clones of each other on Windows, resulting in more choices. Sure, it's nice to have a large selection, but there is a point where too many choices are a bad thing.

Mac OS has many software titles available for either download, or purchase, ranging from productivity titles, like Photoshop, to gaming titles like Sim City 4. Even Microsoft has a version of Office for OS X, which includes Word, Powerpoint, Entourage, and Excel.

2. Macs are not as powerful as a Windows system.
Well, yes and no. Both systems, depending on the processes at hand excel in their own ways. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. A Mac may outdo a Windows system in one area, and vice versa.

3. There are no games.
Then get a console! Actually, Macs do have games, just not nearly as many as Windows. Unreal Tourney 2k3, Sim City 4, Neverwinter Nights, and Everquest are all available right now. They just take longer to convert, because companies want the cash fast, so they release for Windows first.

4. They only support a 1 button mouse.
For many years now, the Mac OS has supported a 2 button mouse, even with scroll wheels. Right clicking brings up similar options as Windows. If the mouse only has one button, you can emulate right clicking by holding down the control key on the keyboard while clicking. They only make mice with 1 button, because it is simple in design. Hard to click the wrong button on a 1 button mouse.

5. Files from a Mac are incompatible with files from Windows
In some cases yes, in some cases no. Sure, system files wouldn't be able to be read very well, or at all, but things such as Word documents can be read, as long as you have the software. PDF files can also be read with ease, from one system to another.

6. Macs and PCs can't communicate together.
Everyday, hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails are sent from PC to PC, and from Mac to Mac, and from PC to Mac. Even on networks, Macs can connect to a Windows machine to transfer files.

7. You can't use them for anything, or do anything on them
Macs can do many things. Rip CD's, burn CD's and DVD's, play DVDs, surf the net, schoolwork, photo editing, moviemaking, sound and music editing, download files, get e-mail, presentations, digital photography, writting, keep schedules, chat, accounting, programming, and even run Windows through an emulator.

8. They are not user freindly, and hard to navigate in
Well, that is more of a matter of opinion. What's user freindly for one person, may not be for another. Same with navigation. I know people who can't read a map, but can find their way around forever if showed the area just once.

9. They are a pain to fix
Again, another matter of opinion. It also depends on how sever the problem is. Since Windows and the Mac OS are so different at the functioning level, it can be difficult for an avid user of one to fix the other.

10. They crash all the time, and are unstable
This is a matter of use and maintenance. Macs don't require as much maintenance as Windows does (Like defragging), and tend to be more stable than Windows, on average. If you are using a Mac that hasn't been maintained, of course it will operate poorly. Same with Windows though. Same with a car. And the OS crashing is different than an application crashing, and bringing the rest of the system down with it.

11. They have no tech support.
They have lots of tech support, and come with a warranty, which can be extended for 3 years, and completely covers your system, just like a PC warranty. But, no tech support is perfect, and some Mac users have horrid tech support stories, while other users have raving reviews. Same with the PC side of things, too.

12. They have no Plug and play
They do indeed. Most USB devices are automatically detected by the OS, and usable without installing any drivers. Many digital cameras, joysticks, mice, and even external drives are detected quickly, and loaded up so they can be used immediately.

13.The designs are stupid.
Still, a matter of opinion. Not everyone likes the same car, or food, or color for that matter. Apple designs their computers to look good to most people, not everyone.

14.They can't be upgraded
Yes they can, actually. Just not with PC hardware. I have seen a processor upgrade card for an old Powerbook, that upgraded it from a G3 processor to a G4. That's a very decent upgrade.

Oh, and a few things I decided to throw in, that aren't exactly rumors, but everyone should know them.

Apple is the company. Macintosh is the computer.
It's Mac, not MAC, as capitalization implies its an Acronym.


Just wanted to make my own comments, please take note these are not intended as flamings, they are just things I find inaccurate or disagree with in your post

1.I agree, Macs do have a load of software, especially in the area of graphics design. But all in all there are more titles out for windows, although some of them are of dubious usefullness.

2. Until very recently Macs couldn't hold a candle to a PC's computing power. Apparently the g5 is supposed to be lightning fast(faster then dual xeon's), but the way the benhcmarks were administered have come under heavy fire. The published benchmarks of it versus a dual xeon machine and a p4 machine were done by a company paid by apple...hmmmm, seems suspicious. So until I see some more independent benchmarks(lightwave render times etc.) I won't believe it.

3.Compared to windows, it has a non-existant library of games. Only the most popular or niche titles get ported. Also note that the games you mentioned are fairly well aged now(check out http://www.redvsblue.com and watch their apple switch ad, very funny stuff and it says everything I need to.)

4. This is just ignorance on part of the windows world, I apologize for the idiocy of some of my peers.

5. no comment, none really needed

6. You're right that they can communicate, but it seems you have never had to maintain a network using both. It is a pain in the a** to keep the network up. At my school we recently found out where all the worms were coming through...you guessed it, the macs were hemorraging windows viruses into our network. I didn't even know that was possible, but we still managed to fix the problem and eveything is good now.

7. Windows world ignorance again.

8.Hell, in my opinion Macs are way easier to operate than windows machines, but that's just my opinion.

9. Wouldn't know, I've never had to fix one.

10. OSX is far more stable then 98 but is more prone to crashes than XP(as long as clean systems are maintained). That's all I know on that subject.

11. Wouldn't know, but wouldn't doubt wide availabilty of tech support, Apple is usually pretty good about those kind of things. As for local tech support, you may be a little more hard-pressed, but there still shouldn't be a problem finding Mac nerds.

12.*shrug* I'll take your word for it

13. I think OSX is ugly, but very usable. But I pretty much hate any really flashy OS.(has Xp runnign with classic skin, nothing like the gray that was windows).

14. It's not that you can't upgrade Macs, it's just that the parts are so hard to find, and I'm pretty sure you void all your warranties doing a self upgrade(once again please refer to the redvsblue apple switch ad).

Well, this is my views on what you said. Keep in mind, I am not a harcore windows user, nor do I prefer Mac or Linux. It all depends on what I am doing. Each OS has their own strengths and you should choose the one that suits you best.

[/my2cents]

oh found some stuff on the g5 benchmarks here.
biggrin this is true macks in all r better than windows cuz they require less processing power and memory to run the only the problem everyone is used to useing windows and when we change over it is just too basic to use so we hate it. the only other problem i see in mac is the lack of games ...i am a gamer myself and i would never see myself buying a mac bucause of the lack of popular games that i play bye 4 now.....
Just a few things, so you know I'm not ignoring you. wink

In number 2 I really wasn't basing of any benchmarks I had seen, though I did look at the ones you linked. My opinion on thier cheating the benchmark is that it's marketing. You try to look better than what is available. Companies of all sorts do it all the time.

But it does depend on what you are doing, as I said. Something may run slow on a Athalon, or Intel chip, and run fast on a G4 or G5 chip. It just depends.

As for networking, I despise networking, as a rule of mine. wink We do have a home network, with 2 wireless laptops, a Linux box, an XP box, and 1 or 2 older Macs we use as email and webspace servers (Forgot if we condensed it into 1 a while back...) Things tend to work well, though it is a simple network, not a large one like a school would have. I stay away from the networking, since I despise it so much. I let my brother handle it all. So no, I have not maintained a network using both.

Yea, I know those are fairly old games, and popular ones. But I was using it as an example that those popular games did get ported, because some people think that all there is for games is "Puzzle" which isn't even in OS X at all.

I have seen that redvsblue. I always enjoy good parody. wink
Kiretsu
Just a few things, so you know I'm not ignoring you. wink

In number 2 I really wasn't basing of any benchmarks I had seen, though I did look at the ones you linked. My opinion on thier cheating the benchmark is that it's marketing. You try to look better than what is available. Companies of all sorts do it all the time.

But it does depend on what you are doing, as I said. Something may run slow on a Athalon, or Intel chip, and run fast on a G4 or G5 chip. It just depends.

As for networking, I despise networking, as a rule of mine. wink We do have a home network, with 2 wireless laptops, a Linux box, an XP box, and 1 or 2 older Macs we use as email and webspace servers (Forgot if we condensed it into 1 a while back...) Things tend to work well, though it is a simple network, not a large one like a school would have. I stay away from the networking, since I despise it so much. I let my brother handle it all. So no, I have not maintained a network using both.

Yea, I know those are fairly old games, and popular ones. But I was using it as an example that those popular games did get ported, because some people think that all there is for games is "Puzzle" which isn't even in OS X at all.

I have seen that redvsblue. I always enjoy good parody. wink


Ah, good to hear you're not a blind sheep Mac maniac, and you can form opinions to the contrary of what Apple says. And yes their benchmark thing is marketing and I wouldn't be angry, except they still claim that the g5 was the first personal 64 bit proc(opteron was, although it was made more for servers, it was readily available for home use) and that the g5 is the fastest computer in the world...when will the spin doctors learn...

As for networking, I don't like it either, but since I will most likely be the top dog student network admin next year I have to deal with it. Sigh...big networks are such a pain in th a***grumbles incoherently*
Kiretsu
6. Macs and PCs can't communicate together.
Everyday, hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails are sent from PC to PC, and from Mac to Mac, and from PC to Mac. Even on networks, Macs can connect to a Windows machine to transfer files.


Pre MacOS X, you needed additional software like Dave to join on to windows networks. There are still shortcomings... It's not too easy to use Domain logins to control access to your mac, for example. But yes, Macs can talk with SMB-based networks now thanks to Samba.

Kiretsu
9. They are a pain to fix
Again, another matter of opinion. It also depends on how sever the problem is. Since Windows and the Mac OS are so different at the functioning level, it can be difficult for an avid user of one to fix the other.


One thing that's traditionally been wonderful about Macs is you can reinstall the operating system without wiping the partition it resides on. This is possible but VERY difficult to do with Windows. Or so I'm told. I always just wipe the partition. Less hassle than trying to find a how-to.

Kiretsu
10. They crash all the time, and are unstable
This is a matter of use and maintenance. Macs don't require as much maintenance as Windows does (Like defragging), and tend to be more stable than Windows, on average. If you are using a Mac that hasn't been maintained, of course it will operate poorly. Same with Windows though. Same with a car. And the OS crashing is different than an application crashing, and bringing the rest of the system down with it.


Actually, requiring defragging is a function of the filesystem in use on the partition. UFS is unix-based and will (theoretically) receive little or no benefit from defragging. HFS+ still fragments badly. NTFS is better than FAT but not as good as, say, EXT3.

Kiretsu
14.They can't be upgraded
Yes they can, actually. Just not with PC hardware. I have seen a processor upgrade card for an old Powerbook, that upgraded it from a G3 processor to a G4. That's a very decent upgrade.


Apple has always tried to make it more difficult for people who want to upgrade. It's not just a simple processor-swap - someone has to design a new daughter-card for whatever speed processor they want to sell. Audio is built in. There are very few components made for mac, comparitively. But the quality of what's onboard is pretty darned good, so you often don't need to upgrade beyond RAM, processor and video card.

-V
I own both a G4 400 Macintosh and a AMD 3000+ and I find the Mac to be much better for today's masses. The PC is better for those who know what they are doing and already have experience. I work as a tech support monkey and we get about 90% of our calls from PC users and they turn out to be the PC user or the PC itself having a problem, whereas our Mac users (yes, we keep track) rarely ever call and when they do, it's something easy to walk though and is more our problem then a problem with the Mac.

From what I know, here's the good and the bad about a Mac, from my research. The good points are simple: Macs rarely if ever crash, they're fool-proof, and they're prettier than Macs. There aren't no sudden freezes like with Windows (especially Windows XP Pro addition if you know what I mean), and as far as aesthetics, Steve Jobs has the nicest looking computer models I've ever seen. Have you seen the 17in Powerbooks with their metal exterior? How about the new G4 desktops? The iMacs? The eMacs? Do you remember the very stylish iBook G3 300, 366, and 466 "clamshell" models? Were they not the prettiest computers you've ever seen?

And processor power: it takes fewer clock cycles on a Mac power PC processor than a Pentium processor. The reason why you see three thousand gigahertz processors with Pentium processors is because they use 20 clock cycles to run, where a power PC (Mac) only takes three. A PC needs more power to run than a Mac does.

However -- Mac has two fatal errors. The first is most obvious: hardly anyone uses a Mac any more. I still have a bad taste in my mouth with a Mac due to the stupid Centras and Quadras I had to use in my computers class in high school. All the new iMacs went to the yearbook squad, while the computer club got the old useless ones, so I know I'll always have problems with Macs. Even one of the nice iBooks I might get.

The second reason is also quite obvious: Macs are pretty damned expensive. The new 17" Powerbook runs a cool $3000, so whip out your check book right away if you can afford it. The good news is that the new iBook Snow is now the first sub-one thousand dollar laptop. Hell, even the old iBooks run a thousand dollars.

I'm a gamer and I use my Mac more then my AMD machine, I feel more of a personal bond with my Mac.

14 is wrong by the way. You can use some PC hardware in a Mac if you know how to flash the BIOS of whatever you are installing. (cept for the CPU)

NinaV> You still need Dave most of the time. XP made it a b***h to talk to PCs from a Mac, it's always been kinda one way compatibly thing with Macs and PCs, Macs making more of a push.
Lil Panda
And processor power: it takes fewer clock cycles on a Mac power PC processor than a Pentium processor. The reason why you see three thousand gigahertz processors with Pentium processors is because they use 20 clock cycles to run, where a power PC (Mac) only takes three. A PC needs more power to run than a Mac does.


Ah, it's so much more complex than this. First, the PPC chips are RISC. Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Pentium/AMD are CISC (Complex). RISC chips have smaller instruction sets... Fewer commands the processor can run, but as Lil Panda said, on the average, any given instruction requires fewer clock cycles. So clock speed is a bad measurement. It's better to find out how many instructions per second can be run... Not that this is a good count either.

Another difference - the pipeline. The Pentium chips have a pipeline of about 20 positions, the G4 was, if I remember correctly, 10 and I believe they were saying they would increase it to 14 for the G5. The pipeline fills up with what the computer expects to be the next 20 things to be executed. When you hit a decision (if A < B or whatever)... if the predictive system that is filling your pipeline guessed incorrectly, the entire pipeline has to empty and start filling up again. Which means a number of clock cycles go past equal to the length of the pipeline before the processor starts executing commands.

Some studies have suggested that the PowerPC predictor logic tends to yeild more accurate guesses AND the shorter pipeline means that the processor will be executing commands more quickly after a bad decision.

It also depends on what is being done. CISC chips have big, bloated instructions specifically meant for doing things with strings. RISC chips concentrate on number-crunching functions. For things like handling strings, Mac programmers need to have functions (usually in the library of the programming language, already built) to mimic the same functionality with the reduced instruction set. Those functions can, at least, maybe be somewhat optomized. The string functions in CISC are only as good as they're written into the chip itself.

And I'm not even going to touch on Floating Point Units... other than to point out that the G5 has vector processing engines while I believe the P4 is still stuck in standard FPU land... I'm not sure how many FPU engines the G5 and P4 have, but it's easy enough to look up. I've seen it before, I think in an ArsTechnica article.

Er... Okay. Maybe I went too far. wink

If that's not enough, try comparing P4s to AMDs... You'll get the same performance out of different clock speeds there, too. Because of how the chips where engineered. surprised
NinaV
Lil Panda
And processor power: it takes fewer clock cycles on a Mac power PC processor than a Pentium processor. The reason why you see three thousand gigahertz processors with Pentium processors is because they use 20 clock cycles to run, where a power PC (Mac) only takes three. A PC needs more power to run than a Mac does.


Ah, it's so much more complex than this. First, the PPC chips are RISC. Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Pentium/AMD are CISC (Complex). RISC chips have smaller instruction sets... Fewer commands the processor can run, but as Lil Panda said, on the average, any given instruction requires fewer clock cycles. So clock speed is a bad measurement. It's better to find out how many instructions per second can be run... Not that this is a good count either.

Another difference - the pipeline. The Pentium chips have a pipeline of about 20 positions, the G4 was, if I remember correctly, 10 and I believe they were saying they would increase it to 14 for the G5. The pipeline fills up with what the computer expects to be the next 20 things to be executed. When you hit a decision (if A < B or whatever)... if the predictive system that is filling your pipeline guessed incorrectly, the entire pipeline has to empty and start filling up again. Which means a number of clock cycles go past equal to the length of the pipeline before the processor starts executing commands.

Some studies have suggested that the PowerPC predictor logic tends to yeild more accurate guesses AND the shorter pipeline means that the processor will be executing commands more quickly after a bad decision.

It also depends on what is being done. CISC chips have big, bloated instructions specifically meant for doing things with strings. RISC chips concentrate on number-crunching functions. For things like handling strings, Mac programmers need to have functions (usually in the library of the programming language, already built) to mimic the same functionality with the reduced instruction set. Those functions can, at least, maybe be somewhat optomized. The string functions in CISC are only as good as they're written into the chip itself.

And I'm not even going to touch on Floating Point Units... other than to point out that the G5 has vector processing engines while I believe the P4 is still stuck in standard FPU land... I'm not sure how many FPU engines the G5 and P4 have, but it's easy enough to look up. I've seen it before, I think in an ArsTechnica article.

Er... Okay. Maybe I went too far. wink

If that's not enough, try comparing P4s to AMDs... You'll get the same performance out of different clock speeds there, too. Because of how the chips where engineered. surprised


I hope I'm not the only one who finds such technical language from a girl(I hope...) really really sexy...

*smiles happily knowing there are chicks out there that like comps and goes on his merry way*
ramiel.sheep.of.lightning
I hope I'm not the only one who finds such technical language from a girl(I hope...) really really sexy...

*smiles happily knowing there are chicks out there that like comps and goes on his merry way*


ThinkGeek.com wouldn't make their "Chicks Dig Unix" tees if people didn't buy them.

-V
NinaV
Lil Panda
And processor power: it takes fewer clock cycles on a Mac power PC processor than a Pentium processor. The reason why you see three thousand gigahertz processors with Pentium processors is because they use 20 clock cycles to run, where a power PC (Mac) only takes three. A PC needs more power to run than a Mac does.


Ah, it's so much more complex than this. First, the PPC chips are RISC. Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Pentium/AMD are CISC (Complex). RISC chips have smaller instruction sets... Fewer commands the processor can run, but as Lil Panda said, on the average, any given instruction requires fewer clock cycles. So clock speed is a bad measurement. It's better to find out how many instructions per second can be run... Not that this is a good count either.

Another difference - the pipeline. The Pentium chips have a pipeline of about 20 positions, the G4 was, if I remember correctly, 10 and I believe they were saying they would increase it to 14 for the G5. The pipeline fills up with what the computer expects to be the next 20 things to be executed. When you hit a decision (if A < B or whatever)... if the predictive system that is filling your pipeline guessed incorrectly, the entire pipeline has to empty and start filling up again. Which means a number of clock cycles go past equal to the length of the pipeline before the processor starts executing commands.

Some studies have suggested that the PowerPC predictor logic tends to yeild more accurate guesses AND the shorter pipeline means that the processor will be executing commands more quickly after a bad decision.

It also depends on what is being done. CISC chips have big, bloated instructions specifically meant for doing things with strings. RISC chips concentrate on number-crunching functions. For things like handling strings, Mac programmers need to have functions (usually in the library of the programming language, already built) to mimic the same functionality with the reduced instruction set. Those functions can, at least, maybe be somewhat optomized. The string functions in CISC are only as good as they're written into the chip itself.

And I'm not even going to touch on Floating Point Units... other than to point out that the G5 has vector processing engines while I believe the P4 is still stuck in standard FPU land... I'm not sure how many FPU engines the G5 and P4 have, but it's easy enough to look up. I've seen it before, I think in an ArsTechnica article.

Er... Okay. Maybe I went too far. wink

If that's not enough, try comparing P4s to AMDs... You'll get the same performance out of different clock speeds there, too. Because of how the chips where engineered. surprised


Ah I didn't know that people actually cared about what I said, it's news to me. Yah I had this same conversation with a friend of mine about two years ago (I remember a lot because I have no track of my childhood) and I suppose I could have just said what you just did but I'm so lazy.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum