In article <en_Kc.136513$XM6.59462@attbi_s53>, Mark Leuck
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> "Slugger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:190720041608203926%[email protected]...
> > In article <saIKc.117664$IQ4.50374@attbi_s02>, Mark Leuck
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Slugger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:180720042037201523%[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > Macs don't even compete with windows. Apple innovates and M$ theives.
> > > > Plain and simple.
> > >
> > > One could say Apple does the same thing, in the case of the mac they got
> > > much of the technology from Xerox, even the Ipod was somewhat based on
> > > existing MP3 players, they do have a great design but also got exclusive
> use
> > > of new and smaller hard drives which other companies couldn't get when
> they
> > > created the first hard drive based players
> >
> > Apple innovated this field..i never said they started it.
> > Apple never stole the Xerox stuff. They paid for it.
>
> I never said Apple stole it and you are correct they made it popular
> although in my opinion much of what Apple does is popular almost as a fad
> instead of a great product, the original Imac comes to mind
The original imac was a great product.
An esthetic all in one unit for cheap. Perfect for kids and families to
explore the mac OS on a friendly computer. Perfect for schools to have
in mac labs. That computer single handedly took Apple out of the
crapper. And i think the current emac sells very well too.
>
> > > Wanna know WHY Apples only offers dual processor models? Because IBM
> can't
> > > produce anything as fast as what Intel and AMD currently put out (yet).
> The
> > > only way Apple can even come close speedwise is with the dualies, note
> they
> > > are also all water cooled because it is almost a requirement with the G5
> but
> > > isn't with AMD (note Intel now is running into heat problems on the new
> > > Northgate processors)
> >
> > Actually thats not true.
> > The single 1.8ghz is comparable to the single pentiums and AMD's.
> > My point was that you get 2 CPU's for the price of one of Dell's single
> > CPU.
>
> And again that is the ONLY way Apple can currently compete, had the PowerPC
> processor been faster Apple wouldn't need to go to a dual processor
No Mark, i am saying a single G5 1.8ghz can compete with any AMD or
Pentium. If not that chip then a single 2.5ghz can.
>
> > Two CPU's don't make the mac twice as fast but it helps with apps that
> > have SMP specific code. Heavy rendering apps specifically, which is
> > where speed really counts. Also it shines in multitasking.
>
> Yes it does and I too would love to have dual AMD Opteron processors instead
> of these old 2000+'s 
I'd like a pair of G5's cooling by the liquid :cD
>
> > Only the 2.5 dually is liquid cooled. (thermally conductive fluid)
> > Many PC's have that feature.
>
> By choice tho not by design, a stock out of the box AMD or Intel chip
> doesn't require liquid cooling although AMD's previous chips and Intel's
> current ones almost do
> > Cooling is always going to be an issue
> > with computing as processors are made faster/hotter. So no they are
> > not all liquid cooled..i wish they were though because they would all
> > run a bit faster. You make it sound like thats a bad feature! Its an
> > advantage.
>
> Considering the lower performance that the PowerPC chips give it is, when
> IBM can start designing the chips to run cooler like AMD has then liquid
> coolant will be a optional bonus
Sorry but the IBM chips are bad ass. And cooling is always a bonus on
any chip.
>
> > > Apple has in the past made outlandish claims as far as performance that
> has
> > > never been backed up and refuted many times dating back to the original
> > > imac, while the G4 and 5 are good processors they aren't nearly as
> powerful
> > > as Intel or AMD. (remember last years "fastest desktop made?" campaign?
> It
> > > was bogus when actual independent tests were done
> >
> > I agree whole heartedly that apple overstated the G5 but the CPU is
> > comparable and competitive to any Pentium/AMD on the market, single CPU
> > 32 bit or 64 bit.
>
> depends on how you define comparable, yes it will run the code and who knows
> if the differences in performance are noticable but if both machines cost
> the same I'd think I'd rather have the faster one especially when the
> current faster one runs far more software
Again i say the single CPU is just as fast but i note that a duel
1.8ghz G5 is cheaper than a single intel chip 3.4 bad boy from Dell.
So i say again the price/performance is better with the mac.
And so does Virginia Tech.
http://www.computing.vt.edu/research_computing/terascale/
Quite an endeavor to build a supercomputer with fullsized G5 desktops.
Only 2200 CPU's. 1100 dualies. Sahweet. They are now upgrading to
Xserves.
>
> > >
> > > Here's a few benchmarks from a quick Google search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.alienware.com/review_pages/review_template.aspx?FileName=review_mac
> > > world_1203.asp
> > >
> > > http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/desktops/0,39023846,39117451,00.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp
> > >
> > > Look em up all you want, the result is the same, while it is a step up
> for
> > > Apple it still doesn't beat a high end PC
> > >
> > Sure from PCworld and PC manufacturers.
> > zdnet is also anti mac.
> > http://www.barefeats.com will give you some mac specific benchmarks
> > against the PC. Yes its a mac info site. No the mac doesn't win in all
> > tests. Yes they are configured fairly.
I don't think we need to go back to the specs again, but i will just
this once.
They are close. Even the single CPU configurations as you can see in
the link i sent.
http://www.barefeats.com
>
> Actually the first one is a repost from MacWorld, feel free to raise the
> anti-mac bias but I seriously doubt it's there and again that was a very
> small sample that I pulled up from Google, many many more exist
For both sides of the tape
>
> >
> > >
> > > > top of the line XPS is 3.2ghz for 1999.00 add 3.4ghz upgrade the the
> > > > Dell for another 760.00 because it will need a speed boost(not that it
> > > > will make much difference.). There was no option to add a second CPU
> to
> > > > match the Dual CPU's on the low end mac so i just upgraded the XPS to
> > > > 3.4ghz, i'm sure adding another similar CPU would cost another 700
> > > > bux.)
> > >
> > > Yes if you went Intel, if you went AMD it would be much cheaper and far
> more
> > > powerful. And Dell doesn't deal with dual processors for regular
> customers
> > > however we have quite a few dual and quad Dells at work
> >
> > Bet they cost an arm and a leg too.
>
> True and so does the servers Apple makes, thats a different market. Heck one
> of my servers is a Dell single Intel 1 gig with IDE drives and 512 megs,
> damn thing is like $2500
Yup, and i am saying the mac desktop is cheap enough and compares to a
Dell server system. Refer again to VT.
>
> I could build my own dual Opteron for far less than either Apple or Dell
Thats sweet. I have never built my own computer but i have added some
parts and removed some dead parts.
No sweat.
>
> > > Don't need to, the vast majority use USB
> >
> > I guess you don't own a DV cam then?
>
> Nope but that is one of the few devices that require FireWire, on the other
> hand I have a Sony camera, 3 external hard drives, 2 memory drives, a mouse
> and memory reader that do USB.
>
> I'll bet you more people have the same devices I have than yours
Well i'm not trying to have a pissing contest about firewire but you
seem to think apple shot itself in the foot so i'll defend it.
FW has very good uses. High bandwidth applications like HD's and video
camera's and even some pro cameras use FW exclusively. Some Fw800 HD's
are also available. My iPod is FW, i can install an OS on it and boot
from it. I don't think you can boot with USB.
> > > Apple shot themselves in the foot with firewire, one of the reasons USB
> > > became so popular even when it wasn't as good was because of the high
> > > royalty price Apple wanted for it, motherboard makers chose USB instead
> >
> > On the contrary,
> > Every PC/DV owner that didn't get a FW card in their PC has to go and
> > buy one. Apple didn't shoot themselves in the foot.
Firewire is an IEEE standard.
Its free to use in a product. I think you have to pay for the name
though. Or call it something like iLink or 1394e or whatever the hell.
>
> Yes they did, part of the reason USB is more dominant is because of its
> early inclusion onto motherboards which is where much of the royalties come
> from, when you have a dog-eat-dog environment like motherboard
> manufacturing, a slightly higher royalty price means that option won't make
> it onto the board which is what happened for a long time with FireWire,
> instead they chose USB
>
> > They won a freaking oscar for the FW port.
>
> Wooo, I'm trying to think of several lousy movies that also won oscars (not
> meant that as a comparison to firewire). FireWire is good but the fact is it
> isn't nearly as popular as USB for very good reasons unrelated to the actual
> hardware
I don't think anybody shot anybody in the toe over USB. I have no
problem with it at all.
>
> Its the same argument between SCSI and IDE, SCSI has more bandwith but is
> also more expensive which is why most PC's are IDE
>
> > All DV cam companies
> > support FW as a standard. Forget the motherboard, its the peripheral
> > companies that drive port adoption.
>
> Not true, if you look at the OEM world you will find the vast majority of
> computer customers never open the box, at this time the big move in the PC
> world is for PCI-Express which will get rid of the AGP graphics port, this
> is being driven by Intel and AMD and not peripheral companies, they tend to
> only change when they have to
DV cams based on their need for higher bandwidth chose firewire. This
had nothing to do with mobos. The FW PCI card is there or you can buy a
computer with one on board. There was a need and firewire fit quite
nicely. Kudos to Apple for developing such a great product for the
video industry.
>
>
> > You will not find USB on any
> > HDDVcams as it won't be able to handle the bandwidth that HDDV will
> > require. Thanks to Apple, FW800 is available to those who want to edit
> > high def. digital video straight off the camera.
> > Apple wins over hollywood.
>
> Actually Linux wins over hollywood especially when it comes to animation
Yes linux works best for animation. But Pixar, the best digital
animation company in the business recently switched over to G5's for
their workflow. Linux boxes were in Pixar long before Apples were, so
one can not claim that Steve had anything to do with it. Yeah you know
the Steve i speak of.
The G4 just wasn't up to the task.
>
> > I'm not saying there is no use for USB but it loses in the
> > highbandwidth products.
>
> Depends on the product, I also have a hard drive that does both USB and
> Firewire, I saw no real difference I could see in performance myself and
> other benchmarks also bear that out, while Firewire is faster its not enough
> to notice, note this doesn't include the new Firewire 800 standard.
