PC vs Mac

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-30 09:57pm

No. Listen. Closely.

Doom 3 is not just a game. Doom 3 is the Second Coming. Doom 3 is life, and life is Doom 3, for it is the son of the Holy Lord John Carmack.

For the game is Doom and Doom is the game.

When Doom 3 comes, the Mac users and the Linux users and all who have turned away from the grander glories of the pure PC will burn and writhe in agony - and those who speak callously of such holy instruments will rot away, unknowing, until they are nothing but a hard stump of geek.

Cast away thy turtlenecks! Begone, ye foul fruits! For the game is Doom 3, and Doom 3 is the game!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 10:05pm

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 10:27pm

And run Mac OS X through emulation? Are you insane?

With a powerful enough Rig its possible

I've already admitted this. What's your point? What are you nitpicking?

The Cost issue, IE a Equaly Priced PC will kick the shit out of a Mac

My nitpick is that the picture is alot worse than that
A PC the avarage person can build for 1/3 as much can kick the shit out of it

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-10-30 10:29pm

I download a bunch of video encoding software which runs on PC only. Therefore, PC.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 10:34pm

Mr Bean wrote:
And run Mac OS X through emulation? Are you insane?
With a powerful enough Rig its possible

No PC can emulate a Mac with sufficient speed to do that, today or projected.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 10:54pm

No PC can emulate a Mac with sufficient speed to do that, today or projected.

Ha Easy Enough, A OC P4 Running at 3.2GHTZ with 768 Megs of Ram on a 98SE/Linux/WinXP Quad Raid Set-up manages it fine and beats the G4 in 4/5 Benchmarks good enough?

All built BTW for 2,500$, Helped worked on it

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-30 11:11pm

I dare you to try and run Mac OS X at a usable speed under emulation on that PC.

By the way, Doom 3 is being developed simultaneously for Winblows, Linux and Mac OS X. The Linux and OS X releases won't be very far behind.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 11:19pm

I dare you to try and run Mac OS X at a usable speed under emulation on that PC.

HA! Easily done on the described system, However given I moved I can't short of a 600 Mile Drive go out there get you screenys off the system(Its not hooked up to the Internet but is for Video Extration and re-coding(Specficly taking MPG's AVI's and the like and converting them into DIVX format and similars)

I however will be upgrading come this June... So we will see then unless another job happens to come up letting me run wild with computer power(Budget of 3k Means I'm going Dual Proccesser this time)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 11:22pm

Mr Bean wrote:
No PC can emulate a Mac with sufficient speed to do that, today or projected.
Ha Easy Enough, A OC P4 Running at 3.2GHTZ with 768 Megs of Ram on a 98SE/Linux/WinXP Quad Raid Set-up manages it fine and beats the G4 in 4/5 Benchmarks good enough?

All built BTW for 2,500$, Helped worked on it

You can spout system specifications at me all day and it won't change the fact that emulation is slow. Especially when using two radically different architectures such as PPC and x86. Just translating the code takes a lot of power.

Then you get into the issue that it takes a great deal of work to process the GUI alone (MacOS 9 and Windows XP's GUIs are completely hardware accelerated. Only portions of MacOS X's is, as no video card can do those operations in hardware). You will also lose any AltiVec benefits, slowing you down even further.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 11:24pm

Mr Bean wrote:
I dare you to try and run Mac OS X at a usable speed under emulation on that PC.
HA! Easily done on the described system, However given I moved I can't short of a 600 Mile Drive go out there get you screenys off the system(Its not hooked up to the Internet but is for Video Extration and re-coding(Specficly taking MPG's AVI's and the like and converting them into DIVX format and similars)

I have a P3/650. It is dog slow at emulating even simple tasks like decompression. Your processor may be 4.6x as fast - but that won't be fast enough to emulate MacOS X, even if you could. (At the moment it is impossible to emulate MacOS X on x86).

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 11:31pm

You can spout system specifications at me all day and it won't change the fact that emulation is slow . Especially when using two radically different architectures such as PPC and x86. Just translating the code takes a lot of power.

Then you get into the issue that it takes a great deal of work to process the GUI alone (MacOS 9 and Windows XP's GUIs are completely hardware accelerated. Only portions of MacOS X's is, as no video card can do those operations in hardware). You will also lose any AltiVec benefits, slowing you down even further.

A P4 kicking over 3 Gightz and nearly a Gig of Ram?

And one failed to relise the benfits of Dual CPUs escilly if one used AMD MP chips, With the Linux Underlayer one can fully-benfit from those, espcilly with somthing like Emulation, Even if a Single 2.5GHTZ AMD CPU can only chug up the Desktop at 15 FPS there is still a whole other 2.5GHTZ of CPU power aviable, ESPCILY when bascing the system on a Dual Chip-setup one basicly has one chip for conversion and one chip for running everything else along with donating a few tens(Maybe twenty) to rendering the OS

Sure your going to take a hit from the the lack of Hardware Acceleration on the OS X desktop but that will be coded for sooner or later, just like every single secruity system will be broken for later, And given two of the major mac emulators have that in thier top ten lists of things to code I'm sure within a few months(Like say July

) it will be taken care off

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-30 11:31pm

Pricing is *the* major influence on my computer choices. Needless to say, I have gone PC all the way.

Besides, I am not happy with the lack of choices that are available for the MAC, hardware and software.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-30 11:32pm

And thats the last word of the night from me, Crips its midnight already!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-30 11:52pm

Mr Bean wrote:
You can spout system specifications at me all day and it won't change the fact that emulation is slow . Especially when using two radically different architectures such as PPC and x86. Just translating the code takes a lot of power.

Then you get into the issue that it takes a great deal of work to process the GUI alone (MacOS 9 and Windows XP's GUIs are completely hardware accelerated. Only portions of MacOS X's is, as no video card can do those operations in hardware). You will also lose any AltiVec benefits, slowing you down even further.
A P4 kicking over 3 Gightz and nearly a Gig of Ram?

[/b]

Using Apple Personal Diagnostics 1.1.3, my emulated Mac gets a score of 225. A Quadra 950 (33MHz 68040) gets a score of 87 and a PMac 8100 gets a score of 1717. Even if we assume a 10x boost from your P4, that won't be enough to run MacOS X.

And one failed to relise the benfits of Dual CPUs escilly if one used AMD MP chips, With the Linux Underlayer one can fully-benfit from those, espcilly with somthing like Emulation, Even if a Single 2.5GHTZ AMD CPU can only chug up the Desktop at 15 FPS there is still a whole other 2.5GHTZ of CPU power aviable, ESPCILY when bascing the system on a Dual Chip-setup one basicly has one chip for conversion and one chip for running everything else along with donating a few tens(Maybe twenty) to rendering the OS

I'm not quite sure how effective SMP would be at emulation. AFAIK at best it would only free up the second processor to do other tasks.

Sure your going to take a hit from the the lack of Hardware Acceleration on the OS X desktop but that will be coded for sooner or later, just like every single secruity system will be broken for later, And given two of the major mac emulators have that in thier top ten lists of things to code I'm sure within a few months(Like say July ) it will be taken care off

You can't code for hardware acceleration of Quartz2D. You might be able to get QuartzExtreme's OpenGL calls passed to your host hardware. You still get the massive performance hit for Quartz2D, which was heavily vectorized by Apple.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-10-31 12:08am

Macs and PCs are for different personality types, and when people get into bitter arguments regarding them, that's when one can see the different personalities clashing. I think there's actually something worth looking into from a psychological standpoint regarding preference.

Personally, since I use my computer for mainly gaming, internet access, and media playback, PC is definitely the best choice for me. Apple hardware is really freakin' expensive. And oddly priced...

For $1,700, going from their "Fastest" to their "Ultimate" Power Mac G4 models earns you 1.5 gigs of RAM, GF4 Ti, and a Combo Drive.

That seems a bit much.

I think that if people just up and wrote the damn software for PC that it'd be just as viable a platform for the media editing stuff that seems to be so popular on the Mac platform. But, since I have no interest in that field, I really don't care.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-31 12:12am

Adobe Premiere has been out for PC since v1.0. To be honest, lots of creative professional choose Macs because they feel more creative and productive in that environment. I can certainly vouch for it. To me, using Photoshop on my Mac is, for some reason, a better experience than using it on Windows. I just don't feel creative using Windows.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-31 02:42am

Durandal wrote:Adobe Premiere has been out for PC since v1.0. To be honest, lots of creative professional choose Macs because they feel more creative and productive in that environment. I can certainly vouch for it. To me, using Photoshop on my Mac is, for some reason, a better experience than using it on Windows. I just don't feel creative using Windows.

Artsy/bubblegum interface?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-31 02:50am

Just a better-looking, more aesthetic interface. The latest variation of Aqua in 10.2 is glassy, and extremely nice-looking.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-31 07:12am

By the way, Doom 3 is being developed simultaneously for Windows, Linux and Mac OSuX. The Linux and OS X releases won't be very far behind.

Yeah? So? The best performance will be gotten with a PC machine. Thats more blammage than you can possibily imagine.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-31 07:18am

Durandal wrote: So, the current dilemma is whether or not you want choice of hardware or better choice of software. If you prefer having hardware choices, go ahead and go with a PC running Windows. If you don't like having Microsoft track your every move and treat you like a criminal for buying their OS, then either install Linux or buy a Mac. The Mac user experience, in my opinion, justifies the cost.

Or just install Windows 98SE, like the rest of us do......and get 10 times the
speed of Linux and Mac OS X

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-31 07:20am

Cyril wrote:No. Listen. Closely.

Doom 3 is not just a game. Doom 3 is the Second Coming. Doom 3 is life, and life is Doom 3, for it is the son of the Holy Lord John Carmack.

For the game is Doom and Doom is the game.

When Doom 3 comes, the Mac users and the Linux users and all who have turned away from the grander glories of the pure PC will burn and writhe in agony - and those who speak callously of such holy instruments will rot away, unknowing, until they are nothing but a hard stump of geek.

Cast away thy turtlenecks! Begone, ye foul fruits! For the game is Doom 3, and Doom 3 is the game!

HALLEUJAH! LONG LIVE DOOM!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-31 07:23am

phongn wrote: I have a P3/650. It is dog slow at emulating even simple tasks like decompression. Your processor may be 4.6x as fast - but that won't be fast enough to emulate MacOS X, even if you could. (At the moment it is impossible to emulate MacOS X on x86).

I think I'll go with Mr. Bean's knowledge. If he says it can be done...it can be
done.....

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2002-10-31 08:07am

Cyril wrote:
By the way, Doom 3 is being developed simultaneously for Windows, Linux and Mac OSuX. The Linux and OS X releases won't be very far behind.
Yeah? So? The best performance will be gotten with a PC machine. Thats more blammage than you can possibily imagine.

The difference in perfomance between the OSes will be quite minimal, well for Linux and Windows at least - same hardware and all that. The renderer code will be totally cross platform as it's in OpenGL and Carmack is 1337

Mac well who knows and who cares? That 1 mac user out there maybe but no-one else

And emulation, well supposedly Apple maintain an internal x86 MacOs X port to make sure they haven't fucked anything up when they're working on new versions...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-10-31 08:27am

Durandal wrote:Even so, I'd never use Windows for print work, because it has no color correction, and it feels like I'm kludging through everything I do. Similarly, editing houses like Macs precisely because Apple provides everything, which guarantees complete compatibility

Strange, when I used MacOS I had that kludgy feeling, as if I was walking in mud or underwater, and the boot times.
I've heard multiple complains on OS X responsitivity(sp?) too on ars technica but I never had a chance to use it myself.

In contrast when I boot up my PC Windows XP is up and running in under half a minute and everything there is slick and fast and with fully changeable skins I can have look like whatever I want, I am running a beatiful modified skin now.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-10-31 08:29am

If one takes morality issues into the equation I find Apple to be many times worse than Microsoft and on that basis I really don't like them or their products.