StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Kernel wrote:

Praxis wrote: The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

You think that clockspeed is the absolute indicator of performace?

Sorry to break this to you but clockspeed only matters within a range of identical chips. For example, a 1.5 Ghz Itanium II still has 50%+ more FP performance then a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4, and a 1.2 Ghz G5 will still cream a 1.5 Ghz G4.

The Kernel wrote:

Praxis wrote: Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

A G4- even a G3- with enough RAM is EXTREMELY responsive. I've seen 500 mhz G3 iMacs with enough RAM running Photoshop at colleges perfectly.
G4's are extremely responsive with enough RAM.
A 1 GHz G4 about as fast as than a 1.5 GHz P3 or 4 in my experience.

What version of OSX are you using? 10.3 has a serious problem with anything short of dual G4's and a G5 is recommended for smooth performance.

BTW, the G4 I was using had 1GB of Ram in it.

Praxis wrote:

The Kernel wrote:

Praxis wrote: The 12" PB is 1.33 GHz, the 15" is 1.5. Why would they underclock to 1.2?

You think that clockspeed is the absolute indicator of performace?

Sorry to break this to you but clockspeed only matters within a range of identical chips. For example, a 1.5 Ghz Itanium II still has 50%+ more FP performance then a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4, and a 1.2 Ghz G5 will still cream a 1.5 Ghz G4.

Ah, I see the mistake.

I was referring to the new G4's in my post, and you were responding to my post about the G5s.
Nevermind.

A 1.2 Ghz G5 will probably cream a 1.5 G4 if the G5 has a good bus speed (The G4's have sucky bus speeds), since the G5 is 64 bit, has more cache, is 64 bit, etc, etc.
I've known about the MHz Myth for years, I just misread your post
You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

Praxis wrote: Not at all. In fact, 10.3 runs FASTER and more responsively than 10.2 (not just me, there are benchmarks to this effect).

The iMacs I saw were running 10.2, my PowerBook and my old Pismo G3 are running 10.3.

The Kernel wrote:Benchmarks can judge single applications, they do not gauge OS responsiveness.

Durandal knows more about the problem then I do; he said it was due to the GUI in 10.3 being very CPU intensive, I wouldn't really know and I didn't spend a whole lot of time with the machine in question.

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:But Macs are incompatible with the majority of software on hte market.

And for the non-power users, PC's are cheaper and more convienent.

The Kernel wrote:

Praxis wrote: Not at all. In fact, 10.3 runs FASTER and more responsively than 10.2 (not just me, there are benchmarks to this effect).

Benchmarks can judge single applications, they do not gauge OS responsiveness.

No user on the face of the planet would tell you that Panther is less responsive than Jaguar. It was a huge leap forward in terms of speed.

Praxis wrote:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/archives/2004/ ... herand.php
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/1030.html

There are programs that judge responsiveness, for example by opening and closing 1000 windows and judging the time it takes. Additionally, there's XBench (see first link).
Plus the fact that a number of the animations in Panther have less frames, so they go by faster.

Durandal wrote: Define "incompatible." You mean I can't run Bass Fishing Challenge XXIII on my Mac? Oh horrors ...

Except, of course, when they get overrun with viruses, worms, trojans and spyware because the OS and default web browser have security holes that you could drive a truck through. Then Joe Non-Power-User has to pay someone to remove all that shit, which takes hours if it can be repaired at all.

Praxis wrote:

The Kernel wrote:

Zaia wrote:I don't think there's anything unacceptable about my PowerBook.

It's processor is roughly equivalent to a five year old Pentium III. That is what is wrong with it. Of course if you aren't a power user, you may not notice but whenever I use a G4 and OSX it is unresponsive as hell.

Actually, that's because most Macs ship with only 256 MB of RAM, when 512 is what you need for fluid performance.

The Kernel wrote:

Durandal wrote: Define "incompatible." You mean I can't run Bass Fishing Challenge XXIII on my Mac? Oh horrors ...

Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

Praxis wrote:True. But it's cool.

The Kernel wrote:Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

It isn't just the security holes of Windows that are responsible for that, one can use a safe browser like Firefox and a great security suite like Pc-Cillin Internet Security and still run into problems. This is due, more than anything else, to the fact that Windows runs the majority of computers in the world and as such it is the prime target for virus, malware, spyware and spam makers.

Durandal wrote:

The Kernel wrote:Come now Durandal, you know better then that. There are plenty of useful applications and fun games that do not get ported because of the low install base of Macs. This is one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Mac platform, but it has strengths which can outweigh it for certain users.

And for just about any app you can think of on the PC side, there's an equivalent on the Mac side, except of course for games and some other highly specialized ones (like EPROM chip burners).

It isn't just the security holes of Windows that are responsible for that, one can use a safe browser like Firefox and a great security suite like Pc-Cillin Internet Security and still run into problems. This is due, more than anything else, to the fact that Windows runs the majority of computers in the world and as such it is the prime target for virus, malware, spyware and spam makers.

Not to mention stupid |users.

Windows' ubiquitousness makes it the prime target, but it is not responsible for the huge number of successes that people have had writing malware for it. The only thing responsible for the successful malware attacks on Windows is Microsoft's negligence and penchant for releasing half-assed software and then expecting massive service packs and untold amounts of patches, all distributed through a kludge of an update system, to make up for it.

The most disastrous worms and viruses on record for Windows have all been things that spread easily because of lax default security settings. If, say, OS X was in Windows' position, many of those types of worms wouldn't be problems. So no, Windows' dominance is not an excuse for its horrifyingly bad security track record.

Meest wrote:

Praxis wrote:True. But it's cool.

I think that's the problem with the whole Mac hype, never understood it. I guess I'm just a bang for the buck type.

Activision stopped making them because ST started constantly sucking much more than ever before.

You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

The Kernel wrote:What version of OSX are you using? 10.3 has a serious problem with anything short of dual G4's and a G5 is recommended for smooth performance.

Pu-239 wrote:Not to mention stupid |users.

Durandal wrote: And for just about any app you can think of on the PC side, there's an equivalent on the Mac side

BabelHuber wrote:I think it all comes down to market segments. I won't buy a Mac anytime soon, because it just would be the completely wrong choice for me. I like building my own high-end PC with RAID, a good graphics card, lots of RAM, a good analog sound card etc. OTOH, I have no use for SMP (yet).

Of course it's always fun to point out that my PC performs faster, looks cooler (at least not like a toy, it has a big aluminium tower) and runs more apps. But in the end, there is a reason why there is a niche market Apple delivers to.

I personally think that the new iMac is an over-prized toy, but if somebody wants a basic computer with OS X, or thinks the iMac has a stylish design, and is willing to spend the $$, why not?

SPOOFE wrote:

You know, the other day a guy told me he was building a computer but was gonna go with a 3 GHz P4 because the Athlon 64 is so slow. After my, "Huh?" he told me that his father has an Athlon 64, and it's only 2.4 GHz!

Don't be surprised. Cars have been around for a century, and the average consumer still considers only horsepower, and never gives a thought about torque.

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment. People who buy iMacs don't generally want to play games; they want to surf the internet, check e-mail, maybe IM here and there. In other words, they want to accomplish a set of very simple tasks and not have a hard time with them. iMacs are more like appliances.

Macs haven't looked like toys since the fruity iMacs, and the G5's are big, aluminum towers.

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment.