Macs and PCs

OK i have a friend who is Mac crazy.

He claims that there are macs out there that are faster then the fasted PC.

I told him he was cray because of chips like the AMD 64 FX series.

What is the fastet mac out there...and how does it compare to high end PCs?



cooked

 

G5 is pretty comparable to the Opterons.

Difference is pretty negligable, from what I've read, with the Opteron edging it out slightly.

Provided that the tests run on the MAC aren't MAC only

 

While im not against macs heres a funny image you might like, contains some curse words


CLick Here!

 

If you get a mac you cant upgrade anything but the memory I believe. You have to buy a whole new system to upgrade from what ive heard.

 

I have been checking this machine out and think it is pretty cool but it is also a little pricie.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/

 

See, that benchmark says it all.

Pit dual CPU Macs against single CPU PCs.




Lame.

 

Well their O/S supports 64 bit extensions which will increase speed, WIndows does not yet.

So your looking at dual 64 bit processor's on an o/s that supports 64 bit

Compared to a single amd 64 processor on an o/s that doesnt support 64 bit

Run this comparison again with two 64 bit amd's on 64 bit windows when its out.

 

Run an Apple against FreeBSD, and see which one wins, IMO.

This way you can test 64 bit for both machines.

My comment was referring to the fact that their test, just on that page alone is terribly biased, hardware wise.

 

BWahahah CtrlAltDel rocks

 

HEHEHE i got the swf version of that ages ago hillarious

 

that was a first for me

I can't stop myself from peeing all over the place

 

They make catheters for that.

 

Get outta the lounge, before the sofa's start to smell

 

Well its a photoshop benchmark that why I said windows. Linux also has 64 bit along with BSD but no native photoshop. You can emulate on Linux but I doubt you get full speed.

If you want to get into other benchmarks the MAC will lose, Mac's arent good for anything besides video and photo stuff. Their trying to get into the web server stuff but I dont see to many web servers that are mac around.

 

Oh man that video was hilarious

 

Actually, there are a few but I've only seen them in corporate intranets, which include... guess what .... more macs. They deliver pretty solid performance from what I've seen. 64-bit architechture gives a good boost to network services

http://www.apple.com/xserve/

 

yeah hopefully we'll see more AMD's hitting that market with the 64 bit. Only problem is they wont do any good on windows servers until Microsoft gets 64 bit out.

 

8 bit, 16, 32, 64, bit
it all happend so fast
so where's the 128 bit, huh?huh?

 

64 bit isnt new.... its just new to consumer/business CPU arcitechture.

Well.... Windows servers. You can run Opterons with a HyperThreading esque layer, which I've seen in some M$ white papers, but I'm not sure whether they're going to actually implement it.

128bit... haha, that could be FUN. Windows 128-bit

 

I know its not new
thats my point

hell, remember the N64? 64 and how old is that?
isn't about time we moved up a little

 

it will be exactly the same as XP, except it utilises 64-bit CPU arcitechture. What would be the point of using old technology to run new hardware??? Tell me what would be the advantage of using the older 2k system over the newer Whistler based OSes (XP home/pro and Server 2003)

 

I miss 95b

 

Well, if I was on decent hardware (which I am) I'd go for XP as it is optimised to run well on new hardware. If I was on a computer that didnt meet the XP recomended spec, I'd use 2k, as it uses the same kernel (NT) and it doesn't require as much resources.

But the point is Microsoft wouldn't develop an OS for NEW hardware using an old OS which they've all but stopped developing. XP is an improvement on 2000, so why waste all the improvements they've made?

 

Haha, I don't ... blue-screen lockups and dodgey drivers... no thanks!

 

Well, I dont know whats holding them up, the Itanium version of Xp 64 has been out for a while now.

 

Its Intel's 64 bit CPU offerring. XP 64 has been RTM for Intel, for quite some time.

http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/itanium/

 

Here are a couple

http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/index.html

 

I like the cheap one. Affordable 64 bit performance.

Just shy of 5 grand....

LOL....

 

It's hard to compare speed between Mac's and "regular" PC's because they use different OS's.
The fastest Power Mac G5 has dual 2.5Ghz 64-bit processors. But also an operating system designed for it.

My opinion (as an Apple tech support agent) is:
If you're new to computers, or if you are in designing and in any case you don't play that many / much games: get a Mac.

Hardcore gamer? Build your own PC.

 

Whats a mac?







(And for AbbySue.....)
I'm having a right old good PUN

 

Well, here's my 2c...

1) The market for Macs are mainly professional businesses (Like Lawyers, Insurance firms, etc).. Did PIXAR use these so called MAC's for providing endless power to create and transfer their creativity's of shrek, shrek 2? No, they used normal high end (Pentium 4) systems and high end XEON workstations. From what I can assatain, individual mac users are people who use one at work, or somewhere in there lifestyle they have to use one over a PC (Im talking about idividual mac users like us PC enthusiasts!)

2) I am not saying all FIRMS use macs either, majority use high end Pentium 4/P4 XEON/AMD Athlon systems for they're daily creativity and data duties... My local Senior colledge uses Pentium 4 and AMD systems throughout the whole building...

Pc's have always taken Apple back a grade or 2, you are indeed limited to upgradability with a mac, but thats mainly becuase you get a 'CONSOLE' in a sense, like the N64, with only memory upgradability.. Did people complain about the N64 itself? no, they complained about the software that was being fed out to the N64 consumers, just like the Apple macintosh...

I have nothing against Apple, but unless they turn their mac series into a system in comparison to the PC, (aka many diffrent types of cpu, mainboards, memory, videocards, hard drives) etc and create a software market that also comes comparison to the PC market, which would take a fair few developers a lot of productivity time, then Apple is going to sit where it is now and only be taken by that of people who can really utilize it's specifics, that being as above in '1'!

Thats just my 2c, I havent touched a mac in yonks, nor plan too, I am happy right here doing my 21' screen upgrades, diffrent case purchases, eagerly upgrading my CPU and mainboard each time something new that tickles my face..

If I was a mac user, I`d be sitting there day in and day out deciding which few games to play, how I could upgrade without a compatibility problem.... or alikes..

 

You can build a cheap system that does all your data and daily 'Buisness' duties for about $800 AUS these days (Celeron system), when you build a PC you can select your budget and how well that machine will in the end perform by doing a couple of hours research on parts and prices..

You cannot do either with a mac, sadly...

It would be good to have a really competitive OS to give M$ a race... time will tell in the next 20 to 30 odd years

 

but macs look so COOL!

 

you have the admit the GUI effects ARE awesome

 

Everything about the design of macs is absolutley fantastic. Apple make REALLY nice hardware (iPod, for example, that dial is awesome!). The ergonomics of the machines are fantastic.

 

The effects are cool, but I can't stand the interface. Messed around with it a few times at the stores. For me, the programs bar at the bottom is completely rediculous. Big icons.. yuck!

 

Kodo, you can change the settings (for instance: size) of the Dock (programs bar at the bottom) in the system preferences.

 

can you keep it from zooming when mousing over the icons?

 

Yes, and you can hide it or change it's location as well.

 

can you make it fit to the entire width of the screen?

 

Yes, BUT then the size of the icons is bigger as well. You can only change the size of the whole bar, not the icons seperately from the width of the bar.

Hmmm... Maybe a good idea for an update of the OS.
(I've seen a beta version of Mac OS X 10.4: Tiger, and you couldn't change it in there.)

Then again: just cram your Dock full with icons, the width changes then and you can still keep the icons small.

 

cool then. The GUI just jumped up a notch for me then.