A Nonny Moose Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 totally correct. But Apple's comparisons with PCs were bogus because they benchmarked the dubble-processor G5 with the "fastest available" single processor PC, and then saying that "the most current G5 is the fastest computer around". If they had correctly benchmarked against a dubble processor PC with the fastest available intel cpu the G5 would have looked like a dwarf! and the ones from Andandtech were similarly bogus. Things like that can and do happen when you're dealing with such beasts. True again. But what are people using their computers for? For 99% of that usage the fast intel architecture is much more appropriate. The advantages of PPC cannot outweigh the disadvantages anymore due to IBM/ (Motorola)'s lagging behind with developing the PPC speedwise. Most people use a computer system to: 1. Do word processing in Word, which a PC has an advantage on because Word is tightly integrated into a Windows system. These advantages aren't readily apparent until you use something on a 500 page document. 2. Surf the web. Given the two brosers already preinstalled in systems (Safari on Mac and IE in Windows), I'd much rather go with Safari. 3. Play a gamesuch as Sims, which any system with Intel Integrated Graphics will suck at (regardless of OS). 4. Play music. Again, given the stock configurations, iTunes is infinitely better than Winders Media. 5. Organize Photos. iPhoto is still such an easy option to use and it is on a stock system. 6. Chat online. In a stock config, you're limited to AOL (iChat) or MSN (MSN Messenger). Anything else requires a download. And that's what normal users do with their systems. For everything (includig that pesky gaming thing) a G4 Mac mini would suffice (but would be horribly slow with the game) and that same G4 mini would make a decent small web server (note the word decent). Unfortunately, Motorola refused to develop the G4 to become a monster chip. IBM also didn't go for monster chips (or at least ones that didn't need a monster cooling system). So Apple switched off to Intel, which offered faster, smaller, cooler chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuXb Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 @ A Nonny Moose: apart from one statement of yours I totally agree with all the things you say, especially that - with "stock config" - Macs with Mac OS X are nicer/ better/ prettier/ more efficient than stock windoze boxes. However, I think that it is quite a fortune [for us "86ers"] that Apple had to switch to Intel as the faster solution .. I have been around Apple-wise since "the old days" (Mac OS 7.x), and have benn using Emulation on PC (Basilisk for Classic 8.1, Sheepshaver for PPC 9.04), so I am *very* happy about all the development this marvelous community here has made/ carried together! Finally things around Mac OS are sparkling again, which - because of the PPC lagging severely behind - have not sparkled anymore in a long while. Running the Unix based Mac OS X on HARDWARE WHICH I CHOOSE FREELY (damnit .. :pirate2: ) AND running Windoze and Mac OS with FULL SPPED one ONE (!!) machine WITHOUT emulation is EXACTLY what I have been wanting & hoping for in a long while .. Anybody remember Jim Drew .. ? GreetZ, Bugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I'm one of the ones who still use a PPC Mac (and a G3 at that). It seems my old G3 system gets infinitely faster with every OS release. Now I wish I could say that about Virtual PC (grrr), but Mac OS X is fast enough for a lot of users using a higher end G3 iMac (600 or 700 MHz). It isn't as possible on Windows to run it on a 700 MHz machine than the Mac OS is. Now my next Mac will most likely be a Mactel, and most likely involve a MacBook not pro. I'm very intrigued by some relatively fast scores compared to the antiquated G4 systems (but the G4 still has some merits on its side, provided programmers optimize for Altivec). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retroz Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 While I think it's great that some can build a system and have quartz extreme (still have yet to figure this out (LOL)), not once have I seen any built Hackntosh run DUAL displays. For me, that is a killer. I have dual matching 17"LCD's side by side. So until then, I will either wait for the right driver or buy a mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceTea Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 "...not once have I seen any built Hackntosh run DUAL displays." Look here: http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=7393 It works with the onboard GMA950 and a DVI extension card... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatal-exception Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Just thought I would throw my opinion on the pile. I just bought a MacBook (not pro), expecting it to kill my mac mini as far as speed...not the case. It's been a few weeks now and all I can say is that it's hot, sluggish, and the spinning wheel of death seems to be the cursor most of the time. My old mac mini is far more responsive. This is all relative, but all I can say is that it's not 'blazingly' fast as advertized and I'm very dissapoionted in the overall performance while running OSX. On the flip side, it runs WinXP like a dream. It is very smooth and responsive. Go figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 My 2 cents ... for what it's worth: I have a dual 2.7 G5 for work, and it is mainly running heavyweight graphics applications and driving two screens. I also have Pentium D950 dual 3.4 desktop driving two screens which I use for all sorts of stuff but again mainly for my job, and that runs XP. Both systems have lots of RAM and disk and I've done a lot of optimising of the XP system. I don't play games on either machine (I play games but we have a dedicated 'super' machine for that) so they are 'real world' systems and support my job. Frankly there's not a lot of difference in the performance of the systems for what I do with them. The G5 is noticeably quicker in Photoshop with some complex image processing but the XP system seems 'cleaner' at starting applications and is certainly quicker with disk-intensive operations. The truth is that I do different things on the machines and apart from Photoshop I can't make a direct comparison. However the speed of either machine is more than adequate, I never sit around in frustration waiting for something to happen or think that something is too slow. I can't imagine replacing or significantly upgrading either for a long time. Regarding OSX on a PC, I've felt that the performance is at least as good as the G5 if not better. Certainly dollar for dollar the OSx86 homebrew route is a great way to go if you're prepared to hack a bit and accept that a few features may not work as intended. As a previous poster observed, unless you're killing aliens or computing polynomials for rocket engines, your spreadsheet, word processor or browser will run just fine on anything less then three or four years old. Unitl a couple of months back my mother was using W98 on a 550P3 and she was more than happy with it for the things she does - apps might have loaded slowly but ran perfectly well. Come to think of it, I was using Cubase on a P3 for a long time and had no issues. Just because a machine can go fast doesn't mean that you will use it at anything like its full potential. Think of all those Porsche owners who trail to work at 30mph every day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheerio Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I just had to reformat my 2400 because i screwed up again.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snackole Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 That is a great analogy Metrogirl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts