holy crap i'm on a mac

[RudeDawg]

Originally posted by Redblueflare: Uh oh and the Mac defender has spoken. Hey guess what? Mac's aren't the only computers that can burn DVD's now. Now PC's can do that too. It's only a matter of time before there is a PC processor capable of Mac speed. Bwhahahaha [img]graemlins/evillaughter2.gif[/img]

OH yes, the famous "We're not there yet, but we're right behind you!" argument that Widoze users love.

Mac is still the only PC that can burn DVDs, CDRWs, CDRs in the SAME drive!

And, even if Intel comes up with a processor that can catch the G4 (Yes, the P6 is capable of it, but it's still in the lab) Windows still doesn't DUAL very well. So, even if you had a P6 as fast as a G4, I'm still running a twice the speed you are, since my box had 2 of them, and the Mac OS can use BOTH! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Now, to be fair, I DID run a dual processor box in Windoze NT, but NT didn't support my DVD player, or any of my games.

Mac has supported dual processors since '86.

Funny thing is: every time a WinTel user says, "We'll have a processor as fast as yours soon." they somehow think that Apple and Motorola are sitting on their hands doing nothing. Faster G4s are coming out, and the newer processors are in the lab (like the P6).

Mac The only personal computer considered a Supercomputer by the US government. [img]graemlins/knightsmile.gif[/img] A lethal weapon, indeed.

[ 04-26-2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: RudeDawg ]

[AzureWolf]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Redblueflare: Uh oh and the Mac defender has spoken. Hey guess what? Mac's aren't the only computers that can burn DVD's now. Now PC's can do that too. It's only a matter of time before there is a PC processor capable of Mac speed. Bwhahahaha [img]graemlins/evillaughter2.gif[/img]

OH yes, the famous "We're not there yet, but we're right behind you!" argument that Widoze users love.

Mac is still the only PC that can burn DVDs, CDRWs, CDRs in the SAME drive!

And, even if Intel comes up with a processor that can catch the G4 (Yes, the P6 is capable of it, but it's still in the lab) Windows still doesn't DUAL very well. So, even if you had a P6 as fast as a G4, I'm still running a twice the speed you are, since my box had 2 of them, and the Mac OS can use BOTH! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Now, to be fair, I DID run a dual processor box in Windoze NT, but NT didn't support my DVD player, or any of my games.

Mac has supported dual processors since '86.

Funny thing is: every time a WinTel user says, "We'll have a processor as fast as yours soon." they somehow think that Apple and Motorola are sitting on their hands doing nothing. Faster G4s are coming out, and the newer processors are in the lab (like the P6).

Mac The only personal computer considered a Supercomputer by the US government. [img]graemlins/knightsmile.gif[/img] A lethal weapon, indeed.[/QUOTE]You poor deluded man

[Black Knight]

Just to throw this out there...

I think that MACs are better in some ways. Graphic design and Professional Music people are all using 'em. I've got a couple of friends who are in the music business up here and they love their macs. My GF uses one for the Newspaper design stuff she does and she loves the new operating system that just came out...

Gaming wise, I do give it up to the PC, but hey, that's my thought... [img]smile.gif[/img]

BK

[Sir Michael]

And, even if Intel comes up with a processor that can catch the G4 (Yes, the P6 is capable of it, but it's still in the lab) Windows still doesn't DUAL very well. So, even if you had a P6 as fast as a G4, I'm still running a twice the speed you are, since my box had 2 of them, and the Mac OS can use BOTH! Now, to be fair, I DID run a dual processor box in Windoze NT, but NT didn't support my DVD player, or any of my games. Mac has supported dual processors since '86. Funny thing is: every time a WinTel user says, "We'll have a processor as fast as yours soon." they somehow think that Apple and Motorola are sitting on their hands doing nothing. Faster G4s are coming out, and the newer processors are in the lab (like the P6).

Last time I checked, the fastest Mac was a dual 1 GHz machine. Your telling me that that can keep up with a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (which is the P6, BTW)? In a few Apple-centric graphics apps, maybe, but in real world applications, the Macs are dog slow. WinXP professional supports dual processors, but even so, test have found that even if you are running on an OS and apps which recognize that you have two CPUs, you only get a small performance boost from the second one. And you ignore the AMD Athlon processors. They run slightly slower clock speeds, but are even faster then the Intel chips.

Mac is still the only PC that can burn DVDs, CDRWs, CDRs in the SAME drive!

Who cares? If I want to burn DVDs, I buy a DVD burner. If I want to burn CDs, I buy a CD burner.

And, you ignore the cost issue. I can build a state of the art Wintel (or WinAMD) box for $1200...what can you get for that from Apple? A kick in the ass? A dog slow IMAC with a tiny screen, no expandability, and limited storage? Those combined DVD burners are still very expensive, too. Get one if you want, but I'll wait until they iron out standards war.

WinNT (and Win2000) are almost strictly business platforms, and should not be used to judge game performance, hardware compatibility, or anything else. Try Win9x or WinXP to compare to the apple OSes.

Mac The only personal computer considered a Supercomputer by the US government.

The government is about the only one left using Corel WordPerfect, too. Your point?

[MILAMBER]

OK, I was going to stay out of this but the gauntlet has been thrown.

1st: PC's most definately have drives available that will burn DVD's CDRW's and CDR's. In fact I have one.

2nd: PC's do have dual processing capabilities that rival if not surpass the Mac. The Athlon 760MPX chipset has TWO seperate system bus'. There is one for each processor. This allows much faster data throughput. Windows NT, XP, and even 2K can use dual processors, but much of the effeciency is determined by whether or not the software you are using can take advantage of both processors. I.E. photoshop can use 2 processors, but Quark Exp. couldn't.

PC's chips are currently faster then the current fastest Mototolla chip you Mac guys are running. I don't just mean mhz. either. I mean raw processing power using server tests and calculating computations per second. In fact, due to the fact that Motorolla has been so behind in releasing a new product, Apple has been talking about creating a partnership with AMD, and using AMD chips instead of Motorolla.

I'm not doggin Mac's, in fact I have two at my house. I have an older G3 and a G4 that's about a year old. I use them for my Audio work (Pro tools and Cubase). For this application, they are superior to the PC. For graphics, I use both. The PC has come a long way in graphics power.

OSX was built on a Unix core. That's very good. It is an extemely fast OS. NT, 2K, and now XP are built on derrivatives of Unix as well. It isn't actually using Unix like OSX is, but it's a MS equivalent to Unix (ms basically copied huge parts of unix and stole it). If we really want unix, we can use Linux. I can have a PC that will dual boot Red Hat and WinXP. With my PC I have freedom.

Which do I like more? PC. Hands down. Why? I can get ANY program to work on a pc. Everything is released for PC and only sometimes will things be released for Mac. I can play any game on a pc. I can customize and modify my pc. They both truly have their own merits, but were I to be stuck with one or the other, It'd be an easy choice.

[slackerboy]

just to clarify it was a rather bad experiance. first of all, i went from a mouse with 4 buttons and a wheel to 0buttons.
then i found i had to use function keys to open the programs i wanted. not that i knew what programs to open [img]smile.gif[/img]
its funny, i do techsupport and can waltz my way around a pc but once i sat down at a mac, i had to be shown around like a 5 year old by my non techie friend.
(btw rudy- the DVD-RW drive that my company has been selling does all three in the same drive. we've never sold one that didnt. the only reason we didnt start them when the mac did is we were waiting for some kind of standardization in the industry before we dedicated to one.)

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by slackerboy: i'm working on an imac at a friends house. its my first time ironicly i'm using Microsoft internet explorer weird. see yall later

Welcome to the GOOD SIDE of the Force

[Sir Goulum]

Gates 'Borrowed' Apples style for layout with the Desktop look and everything in the 80's. Then Apple sued em for not making it quite different from theirs a couple years later. So basically, Apple is better than cheapo PC's but Gates stole Apple's idea making it better. AND Apple was WAY BETTER over PC hands down.

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Sir Goulum: Gates 'Borrowed' Apples style for layout with the Desktop look and everything in the 80's. Then Apple sued em for not making it quite different from theirs a couple years later. So basically, Apple is better than cheapo PC's but Gates stole Apple's idea making it better. AND Apple was WAY BETTER over PC hands down.

I didn't really understand this. You are speaking in the past tense, implying that Apple was better but isn't anymore? You said that because Gates stole the GUI interface that Apple is somehow a superior machine?

[Sir Goulum]

Yep. Apples were way more user friendly and had more power in the 80's. Windows were entirly work related, no mouse or anything like that. I believe it just held information and did limited stuff. Apple INVENTED the mouse and it INVENTED the 'Desktop' idea and the Trash etc. Gates took it all from them and made it better.