ATT: foo: Safari@iMac vs. IE@PC
Sandman
my iMac and my PC and show them to you David. You need to have a player that
supports mpeg4 to view them, I suggest Quicktime.
Remember that you claim that a G3 450Mhz would be "_very_ slow" at stuff like
email and web surfing? Well, I've done some 'benchmarking' that I would like to
show you. Given that any screengrabbing could be from any Mac, I decided to
shoot it with my DV cam. Both computers are connected to my 10Mbit internet
connection.
Now, I've divided the test into two different actions, launching the browser
and loading the page, and also loading the page once it already has been loaded.
iMac 400 Mhz OSX 10.2.6, launching and loading:
http://www.sandman.net/files/imac_launch.mp4
I launch Safari, and click on my toolbar link to sandman.net. You will
see the link highlight when I hover over it and see it become even darker
when I actually click it.
PC 2000 Mhz WXP Pro, launching and loading:
http://www.sandman.net/files/pc_launch.mp4
I launch IE, and click on the toolbar link. You will see the toolbar tip
appear quickly since it disappear as soon as I click the link.
So far the iMac is actually WAY faster. While I didn't time any of these clips,
I'd say that it's at least twice as fast. 400Mhz vs. 2000Mhz. Judge for
yourself.
iMac 400 Mhz OSX 10.2.6, loading:
http://www.sandman.net/files/imac_nolaunch.mp4
As you can see, sandman.net is already loaded in the existing window, and
I open a new one and click the link. Again, you see the link become even
darker as I actually click it.
PC 2000 Mhz WXP Pro, launching and loading:
http://www.sandman.net/files/pc_nolaunch.mp4
Again, sandman.net is loaded in the existinig browser. I open a new one
and click the link. Again, it's when the tooltip disappears that I actually
click the link.
This is more even, but to my eye, the iMac is a tad faster even here. And even
if you were to claim that they are just as fast as each other, it's a clear win
for Safari, given the difference in CPU speed.
I'd also like to mention that it would be next to impossible for me to tamper
with the videos, given that you see the scanlines on the monitors all the time.
Any "creative snipping" on my part would most certainly make them jump around.
I would also like to mention that this is a freshly installed Windows XP Pro on
my 2.0 Ghz Compaq PC. Since installing, I have only had time to install one
game on it.
And, to conclude, I'd like to share one more clip. During my testing, I had
some problems making the PC actually render the page, as this clip will show
you:
http://www.sandman.net/files/ooops.mp4
This, of course, didn't happen with Safari.
And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me telling me
that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite clear that the PC
isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Smith
> my iMac and my PC and show them to you David. You need to have a player
> that supports mpeg4 to view them, I suggest Quicktime.
mplayer on Linux plays them fine.
> http://www.sandman.net/files/imac_launch.mp4
...
> http://www.sandman.net/files/pc_launch.mp4
...
> So far the iMac is actually WAY faster. While I didn't time any of these
> clips, I'd say that it's at least twice as fast. 400Mhz vs. 2000Mhz. Judge
> for yourself.
Well, the clips themselves take 11 seconds for the Mac clip, and 12 seconds
for the PC clip.
...
> I'd also like to mention that it would be next to impossible for me to
> tamper with the videos, given that you see the scanlines on the monitors
> all the time. Any "creative snipping" on my part would most certainly
> make them jump around.
Actually, it would not be hard at all. Here's how it could be done:
1. Do the test using something that captures the screen video at full
resolution, rather than capturing it by pointing a camera at the screen.
2. Edit that video.
3. Play back that video full screen.
4. Capture that playback with your camera. That gives you the scan effect.
...
> And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me telling
> me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite clear that the
> PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
A more interesting comparison would be against Konqueror running on the PC,
since that uses basically the same renderer that Safari uses.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless: www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
ZnU
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <mr-F0B577.17...@news.fu-berlin.de>, Sandman wrote:
> > my iMac and my PC and show them to you David. You need to have a player
> > that supports mpeg4 to view them, I suggest Quicktime.
>
> mplayer on Linux plays them fine.
Does it really? Can it play streaming MPEG-4 (like MacWorld keynotes) as
well? If so, I'm impressed. It was my impression that "MPEG-4" still
meant something different to everyone.
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/imac_launch.mp4
> ...
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/pc_launch.mp4
> ...
> > So far the iMac is actually WAY faster. While I didn't time any of these
> > clips, I'd say that it's at least twice as fast. 400Mhz vs. 2000Mhz. Judge
> > for yourself.
>
> Well, the clips themselves take 11 seconds for the Mac clip, and 12 seconds
> for the PC clip.
>
> ...
> > I'd also like to mention that it would be next to impossible for me to
> > tamper with the videos, given that you see the scanlines on the monitors
> > all the time. Any "creative snipping" on my part would most certainly
> > make them jump around.
>
> Actually, it would not be hard at all. Here's how it could be done:
>
> 1. Do the test using something that captures the screen video at full
> resolution, rather than capturing it by pointing a camera at the screen.
>
> 2. Edit that video.
>
> 3. Play back that video full screen.
>
> 4. Capture that playback with your camera. That gives you the scan effect.
Or install Apple Remote Desktop, and set the iMac up to do remote
display for a dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac hiding in the closet <g>.
There has to be a certain level of trust, or discussion becomes
impossible.
> > And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me telling
> > me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite clear that the
> > PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>
> A more interesting comparison would be against Konqueror running on the PC,
> since that uses basically the same renderer that Safari uses.
Well, that might be more interesting. But foo is trying to claim that a
400 MHz iMac isn't fast enough for web browsing. Sandman's demo nicely
demonstrates that that's simply not true. Unless foo wants to claim that
IE on a 2 GHz PC also isn't fast enough.
--
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of [...] his willingness
to terrorize himself."
-George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
Sandman
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > my iMac and my PC and show them to you David. You need to have a player
> > that supports mpeg4 to view them, I suggest Quicktime.
>
> mplayer on Linux plays them fine.
Naturally, mplayer plays just about anything. :)
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/imac_launch.mp4
> ...
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/pc_launch.mp4
> ...
> > So far the iMac is actually WAY faster. While I didn't time any of these
> > clips, I'd say that it's at least twice as fast. 400Mhz vs. 2000Mhz. Judge
> > for yourself.
>
> Well, the clips themselves take 11 seconds for the Mac clip, and 12 seconds
> for the PC clip.
What I meant, of course, was that I didn't time the rendering.
> > I'd also like to mention that it would be next to impossible for me to
> > tamper with the videos, given that you see the scanlines on the monitors
> > all the time. Any "creative snipping" on my part would most certainly
> > make them jump around.
>
> Actually, it would not be hard at all. Here's how it could be done:
>
> 1. Do the test using something that captures the screen video at full
> resolution, rather than capturing it by pointing a camera at the screen.
>
> 2. Edit that video.
>
> 3. Play back that video full screen.
>
> 4. Capture that playback with your camera. That gives you the scan effect.
I'm not sure how that constitutes "not hard at all", but granted, there are
ways for me to tamper with the test if I was very determined to do it. I know
Snapz Pro (of which I doesn't own a license) does full-screen capturing
(allthough I don't think it does it good). I have no idea what kind of software
that would do this on the PC.
Anyway, if someone want to accuse me of doing the above, go right ahead, I'm
sure everybody would realize how desperate that would be.
> > And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me telling
> > me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite clear that the
> > PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>
> A more interesting comparison would be against Konqueror running on the PC,
> since that uses basically the same renderer that Safari uses.
That would be interesting indeed. Irrelevant in the context of this little
exercise, however. I am displaying how a "slow" iMac is in fact faster than a
"ultrafast" PC in web surfing, totally obliterating foo's claim.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Just for some more information, I'd like to share some specs on the machines.
The iMac has 5400 rpm HDD (which I suppose is a factor in rendering from cache)
and, get this; 192 MB of rams. Yes, you heard it, well under the recommended
amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory.
The PC, on the other hand, has a 80GB 7200 RPM HDD and 768 MB RAM and,
naturally, a vastly more superior GFX card (GeForec3 if I remember correctly).
Anyway, some trivia for the test, which I think even more underscores the point
I was trying to make.
--
Sandman[.net]
foo
>That would be interesting indeed. Irrelevant in the context of this little
>exercise, however. I am displaying how a "slow" iMac is in fact faster than a
>"ultrafast" PC in web surfing, totally obliterating foo's claim.
I wish my G3/450 were that fast, but it wasn't. Moving around in the
pages, rendering them, and just general web browsing just wasn't up to
the level of the PC.
foo
>Just for some more information, I'd like to share some specs on the machines.
>
>The iMac has 5400 rpm HDD (which I suppose is a factor in rendering from cache)
>and, get this; 192 MB of rams. Yes, you heard it, well under the recommended
>amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory.
Actually, it's 128MB:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
Confirm that your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar
Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac;
PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical
RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied
video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or
processor upgrade cards. Verify your hardware is supported from the
list below.
>The PC, on the other hand, has a 80GB 7200 RPM HDD and 768 MB RAM and,
>naturally, a vastly more superior GFX card (GeForec3 if I remember correctly).
>
>Anyway, some trivia for the test, which I think even more underscores the point
>I was trying to make.
When browsing with Macs at the local stores I get similar slow speeds.
Sorry, Jonas, but I'll stick with what I experienced.
foo
>On Sat, 24 May 2003 20:45:47 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>>Just for some more information, I'd like to share some specs on the machines.
>>
>>The iMac has 5400 rpm HDD (which I suppose is a factor in rendering from cache)
>>and, get this; 192 MB of rams. Yes, you heard it, well under the recommended
>>amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory.
>
>Actually, it's 128MB:
>http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
> Confirm that your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar
>Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac;
>PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical
>RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied
>video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or
>processor upgrade cards. Verify your hardware is supported from the
>list below.
(One would note that it would be very easy to have a Power Mac G4 in a
clone case that, per that definition, would be fully supported in OS
X.)
James Boswell
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 20:45:47 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> Just for some more information, I'd like to share some specs on the
>> machines.
>>
>> The iMac has 5400 rpm HDD (which I suppose is a factor in rendering from
>> cache) and, get this; 192 MB of rams. Yes, you heard it, well under the
>> recommended amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory.
>
> Actually, it's 128MB:
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
> Confirm that your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar
> Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac;
> PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical
> RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied
> video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or
> processor upgrade cards. Verify your hardware is supported from the
> list below.
he said "recommended amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory."
Not "minimum amount of ram OSX will run in"
the general concencus on OSX is that it needs >256MB to be satisfactory.
-JB
Sandman
wrote:
> >That would be interesting indeed. Irrelevant in the context of this little
> >exercise, however. I am displaying how a "slow" iMac is in fact faster than
> >a "ultrafast" PC in web surfing, totally obliterating foo's claim.
>
> I wish my G3/450 were that fast, but it wasn't.
Sure it was.
> Moving around in the pages, rendering them, and just general web browsing
> just wasn't up to the level of the PC.
It's quite apparent, however, that a 400 Mhz iMac totally smokes a 2 Ghz PC
when it comes to page rendering. Thanks for playing.
I note that you haven't dared to reply to the original post.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> >Just for some more information, I'd like to share some specs on the
> >machines.
> >
> >The iMac has 5400 rpm HDD (which I suppose is a factor in rendering from
> >cache) and, get this; 192 MB of rams. Yes, you heard it, well under the
> >recommended amount of RAM to run OSX satisfactory.
>
> Actually, it's 128MB:
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html
> Confirm that your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar
> Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac; PowerBook
> G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical RAM and a
> built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card. Mac
> OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or processor upgrade cards.
> Verify your hardware is supported from the list below.
It's generally said that you need at least 25 to run it satisfactory.
> >The PC, on the other hand, has a 80GB 7200 RPM HDD and 768 MB RAM and,
> >naturally, a vastly more superior GFX card (GeForec3 if I remember
> >correctly).
> >
> >Anyway, some trivia for the test, which I think even more underscores the
> >point I was trying to make.
>
> When browsing with Macs at the local stores I get similar slow speeds.
As you would with an iMac 400Mhz that's WAY faster than a PC (as I've just
demonstrated quite vividly)? You're selling the PC very short here.
> Sorry, Jonas, but I'll stick with what I experienced.
Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I have proven you
utterly wrong, face it and move on.
A Mac is ALOT faster than a PC at surfing the web, sorry.
--
Sandman[.net]
foo
>In article <gmgvcvs7s18ousjj2...@4ax.com>, foo <f...@foo.bar>
>wrote:
>
>> >That would be interesting indeed. Irrelevant in the context of this little
>> >exercise, however. I am displaying how a "slow" iMac is in fact faster than
>> >a "ultrafast" PC in web surfing, totally obliterating foo's claim.
>>
>> I wish my G3/450 were that fast, but it wasn't.
>
>Sure it was.
No, it wasn't.
>> Moving around in the pages, rendering them, and just general web browsing
>> just wasn't up to the level of the PC.
>
>It's quite apparent, however, that a 400 Mhz iMac totally smokes a 2 Ghz PC
>when it comes to page rendering. Thanks for playing.
In your particular test. I have a difficult time believing it.
>I note that you haven't dared to reply to the original post.
What's there to say? My results were notably worse on the part of the
Mac.
foo
>A Mac is ALOT faster than a PC at surfing the web, sorry.
Ah, no. It's faster at that one page, under circumstances you alone
controlled. For all we know you cached everything on the Mac, but not
the PC.
Look - I'm not saying you did; I don't know how you did it. But I do
know that my G3/450 was nowhere close to that fast... in Safari,
latest version, nothing else running in the background... compared to
a Dell 4550 PC, also with 640M of RAM, both running the latest
versions of their respective OSs.
flip
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
No, it wouldn't.
As you've already admitted, if anyone but Apple makes the computer, it's
not a Mac.
foo
I think the term I differentiate is the *marketing* of the machine -
they would have a difficult time marketing it as a Macintosh if it's
in a different case. It's still a Macintosh inside, given that it
uses the GigE MB and Apple parts.
ZnU
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
But it's not an "Apple-labeled computer", which is what the Mac OS
license requires. You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
was going on.
ZnU
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
Let's cut unpredictable Internet transfers out of the loop, and make
things reapeatable. I just saved a rather large Slashdot comments page;
324K of HTML. Grab a copy here: http://znu.home.acedsl.com/RenderTest.zip
In Safari, on a G3/400 running 10.2.6, this page fully renders in five
seconds. Maybe a 3.5 GHz Wintel box (or whatever you have on your desk)
will turn in faster results, but five seconds hardly seems unreasonable
for a page of this complexity.
(Interestingly, IE on this system takes 62 seconds. Yes, more than 12
times as long. Another great example of Microsoft quality.)
foo
I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
excluded when someone else does it?
>You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
>support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
>many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
>was going on.
Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full Apple
support.
James Boswell
> Let's cut unpredictable Internet transfers out of the loop, and make
> things reapeatable. I just saved a rather large Slashdot comments page;
> 324K of HTML. Grab a copy here: http://znu.home.acedsl.com/RenderTest.zip
>
> In Safari, on a G3/400 running 10.2.6, this page fully renders in five
> seconds. Maybe a 3.5 GHz Wintel box (or whatever you have on your desk)
> will turn in faster results, but five seconds hardly seems unreasonable
> for a page of this complexity.
in Firebird 0.6 and IE 6 (both on WinXP, 2.4Ghz AthlonXP) the page is loaded
and rendered in a blink of an eye longer than it takes for the browser
itself to open, I wouldn't want to even ATTEMPT clocking it with a
stopwatch, it's definately below .5 seconds
Of course, that's not exactly a 1:1 comparison of hardware, a current high
end powermac would also be one hell of a lot faster to render the page than
a G3/400 :)
-JB
flip
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
No, it's not a Macintosh. You've already admitted that.
flip
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
Read your license agreement. It says it must be installed in a Macintosh
computer.
Unless you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
and a computer, your cobbled together system is not a Macintosh.
>
> >You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
> >support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
> >many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
> >was going on.
>
> Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full Apple
> support.
Actually, no he didn't. He didn't buy a computer from a third party with
only one Apple part in side and ask for support.
foo
<JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
>ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>> Let's cut unpredictable Internet transfers out of the loop, and make
>> things reapeatable. I just saved a rather large Slashdot comments page;
>> 324K of HTML. Grab a copy here: http://znu.home.acedsl.com/RenderTest.zip
>>
>> In Safari, on a G3/400 running 10.2.6, this page fully renders in five
>> seconds. Maybe a 3.5 GHz Wintel box (or whatever you have on your desk)
>> will turn in faster results, but five seconds hardly seems unreasonable
>> for a page of this complexity.
>
>in Firebird 0.6 and IE 6 (both on WinXP, 2.4Ghz AthlonXP) the page is loaded
>and rendered in a blink of an eye longer than it takes for the browser
>itself to open, I wouldn't want to even ATTEMPT clocking it with a
>stopwatch, it's definately below .5 seconds
Takes between 1 and 2 seconds (give or take) on a P4/2.4... of
course, that's as I'm real-time capturing and compressing (DiVX and
MP3 for audio) The Agency TV show, which uses about 2/3->3/4 of the
CPU time and good chunks of hard drive time - and that includes
displaying the advertisements at the top of the page, which takes a
second to go out and grab via the internet. Remove the ads and you'll
have a better test, one would think.
foo
foo
>> I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
>> your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
>> Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
>> excluded when someone else does it?
>
>Read your license agreement. It says it must be installed in a Macintosh
>computer.
It is - in a new case.
>Unless you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
>and a computer, your cobbled together system is not a Macintosh.
Why not? I just moved all the components from my imaginary GigE Mac
into a new and improved case.
>> >You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
>> >support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
>> >many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
>> >was going on.
>>
>> Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full Apple
>> support.
>
>Actually, no he didn't. He didn't buy a computer from a third party with
>only one Apple part in side and ask for support.
Ah - so now you're back to being stuck on the case. Well, whatever
helps you sleep at night - but just realize that you're nit picking,
and you're already admitted you don't know what the cutoff is.
flip
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 02:16:06 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
> >> your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
> >> Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
> >> excluded when someone else does it?
> >
> >Read your license agreement. It says it must be installed in a Macintosh
> >computer.
>
> It is - in a new case.
No, it's not. It's a Macintosh motherboard moved to a new case.
I see you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
and a computer.
>
> >Unless you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
> >and a computer, your cobbled together system is not a Macintosh.
>
> Why not? I just moved all the components from my imaginary GigE Mac
> into a new and improved case.
Then it's not an Apple labelled computer. Read your license agreement.
>
> >> >You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
> >> >support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
> >> >many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
> >> >was going on.
> >>
> >> Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full Apple
> >> support.
> >
> >Actually, no he didn't. He didn't buy a computer from a third party with
> >only one Apple part in side and ask for support.
>
> Ah - so now you're back to being stuck on the case. Well, whatever
> helps you sleep at night - but just realize that you're nit picking,
> and you're already admitted you don't know what the cutoff is.
No, that's how you tell that it's an Apple-labeled computer.
As I said, you'll have to ask Apple about the cutoff. I would venture
that it's case plus motherboard plus CPU, but they may draw the line
slightly differently.
An Apple motherboard in a different case with no other Apple components
is clearly not a Macintosh - and the computer vendor who sells these
agrees with me.
foo
>In article <80a0dvokmvrq425jf...@4ax.com>,
> foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 May 2003 02:16:06 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
>> >> your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
>> >> Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
>> >> excluded when someone else does it?
>> >
>> >Read your license agreement. It says it must be installed in a Macintosh
>> >computer.
>>
>> It is - in a new case.
>
>No, it's not. It's a Macintosh motherboard moved to a new case.
Plus the Mac video card, CPU, fans, RAM, etc. Earlier you said you
weren't sure if this qualified as a Mac - why are you now saying it
doesn't? Because you're arguing with me, or do you actually have a
reason?
>> >Unless you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
>> >and a computer, your cobbled together system is not a Macintosh.
>>
>> Why not? I just moved all the components from my imaginary GigE Mac
>> into a new and improved case.
>
>Then it's not an Apple labelled computer. Read your license agreement.
Because I changed the case? Earlier you said you didn't know if that
would change the "Mac-ness" of the machine. Which is it?
>> >> >You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X
>> >> >support if you claim you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too
>> >> >many questions. But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what
>> >> >was going on.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full Apple
>> >> support.
>> >
>> >Actually, no he didn't. He didn't buy a computer from a third party with
>> >only one Apple part in side and ask for support.
>>
>> Ah - so now you're back to being stuck on the case. Well, whatever
>> helps you sleep at night - but just realize that you're nit picking,
>> and you're already admitted you don't know what the cutoff is.
>
>No, that's how you tell that it's an Apple-labeled computer.
What is? Whether the case is the original or not?
>As I said, you'll have to ask Apple about the cutoff. I would venture
>that it's case plus motherboard plus CPU, but they may draw the line
>slightly differently.
So really, you don't have any idea. Stop guessing.
>An Apple motherboard in a different case with no other Apple components
>is clearly not a Macintosh - and the computer vendor who sells these
>agrees with me.
And an Apple MB in a different case with all-Apple components, what
then? Are you going to change your answer again?
Sandman
wrote:
> >A Mac is ALOT faster than a PC at surfing the web, sorry.
>
> Ah, no. It's faster at that one page, under circumstances you alone
> controlled.
Absolutely. I very much controlled the mouse that clicked the link on both
computers. And I did so in favour of the Mac, naturally. Furthermore, when I
did the test on the PC, I squeezed it's ethernet cable, making the 1's and 0's
flow slower.
Sigh, how predictable aren't you?
> For all we know you cached everything on the Mac, but not the PC.
Muahaha!
> Look - I'm not saying you did; I don't know how you did it. But I do
> know that my G3/450 was nowhere close to that fast... in Safari,
> latest version, nothing else running in the background... compared to
> a Dell 4550 PC, also with 640M of RAM, both running the latest
> versions of their respective OSs.
But apparently, you're wrong about that, since a -slower- Mac than your G3/450
outperformed a 500% faster PC.
You can't win, David.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> >> >That would be interesting indeed. Irrelevant in the context of this
> >> >little exercise, however. I am displaying how a "slow" iMac is in fact
> >> >faster than a "ultrafast" PC in web surfing, totally obliterating foo's
> >> >claim.
> >>
> >> I wish my G3/450 were that fast, but it wasn't.
> >
> >Sure it was.
>
> No, it wasn't.
And your explanation to my iMac being alot faster than your faster Mac is? Are
you admitting to having messed your Mac up seriously?
> >> Moving around in the pages, rendering them, and just general web browsing
> >> just wasn't up to the level of the PC.
> >
> >It's quite apparent, however, that a 400 Mhz iMac totally smokes a 2 Ghz PC
> >when it comes to page rendering. Thanks for playing.
>
> In your particular test. I have a difficult time believing it.
I have it on video, clear and simple. Proving you wrong.
> >I note that you haven't dared to reply to the original post.
>
> What's there to say?
"Apparently, I was wrong about the Mac being very slow at web surfing compared
to a PC".
> My results were notably worse on the part of the Mac.
Apparently, your results didn't reflect reality, however. I suppose you're just
biased.
--
Sandman[.net]
Cyclical
----------
In article <mr-2F61A4.09...@news.fu-berlin.de>, Sandman
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
That's NEVER stopped him before ;+)
> --
> Sandman[.net]
Tim Smith
> Anyway, if someone want to accuse me of doing the above, go right ahead,
> I'm sure everybody would realize how desperate that would be.
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that you might have done that. Just
pointing out that it probably would not be as hard as you thought it would
be.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless: www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
flip
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 02:38:27 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <80a0dvokmvrq425jf...@4ax.com>,
> > foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 May 2003 02:16:06 GMT, flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
> >> >> your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
> >> >> Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
> >> >> excluded when someone else does it?
> >> >
> >> >Read your license agreement. It says it must be installed in a Macintosh
> >> >computer.
> >>
> >> It is - in a new case.
> >
> >No, it's not. It's a Macintosh motherboard moved to a new case.
>
> Plus the Mac video card, CPU, fans, RAM, etc. Earlier you said you
> weren't sure if this qualified as a Mac - why are you now saying it
> doesn't? Because you're arguing with me, or do you actually have a
> reason?
There go those goalposts.
We were talking about this company that sells systems based on a Mac
motherboard. The case is third party, as are all the other components.
As near as I can tell, the only genuine Apple part is the motherboard.
>
> >> >Unless you're still confused about the difference between a motherboard
> >> >and a computer, your cobbled together system is not a Macintosh.
> >>
> >> Why not? I just moved all the components from my imaginary GigE Mac
> >> into a new and improved case.
> >
> >Then it's not an Apple labelled computer. Read your license agreement.
>
> Because I changed the case? Earlier you said you didn't know if that
> would change the "Mac-ness" of the machine. Which is it?
If you buy a gray market Mac and try to get support, Apple may reject
it. That's a completely original Macintosh in its entirety except that
it doesn't have an authorized serial number.
So, yes, I would guess that Apple would have the right to refuse to
provide support for a computer that doesn't have any serial number at
all on the case.
ZnU
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 20:42:19 -0400, ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> I think the term I differentiate is the *marketing* of the machine -
> >> they would have a difficult time marketing it as a Macintosh if it's
> >> in a different case. It's still a Macintosh inside, given that it
> >> uses the GigE MB and Apple parts.
> >
> >But it's not an "Apple-labeled computer", which is what the Mac OS
> >license requires.
>
> I went to the Apple page, and I didn't see any exclusions about taking
> your own GigE board from a Mac, putting it in a case, and using it.
> Where was that exclusion? And if that's not excluded, why is it
> excluded when someone else does it?
So you're saying a system from 2khappyware can be described as an
"Apple-labeled computer" then? I think that's a very questionable
proposition.
> >You might be able to call up Apple and get OS X support if you claim
> >you've got a GigE machine, and they don't ask too many questions.
> >But there's no way they'd support you if they knew what was going
> >on.
>
> Actually, you're wrong. Steve did exactly that, and he got full
> Apple support.
That's a useless data point. The fact that a low-level member of Apple's
tech support staff decided to provide support for such a system tells us
absolutely nothing about how Apple's legal department would respond to
2khappyware pre-installing OS X.
flip
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
Actually, we already know the answer to that. In the original press
releases, this company called their computer a Macintosh. They're no
longer doing so.
ZnU
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 02:08:46 +0000 (UTC), "James Boswell"
> <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> Let's cut unpredictable Internet transfers out of the loop, and make
> >> things reapeatable. I just saved a rather large Slashdot comments page;
> >> 324K of HTML. Grab a copy here: http://znu.home.acedsl.com/RenderTest.zip
> >>
> >> In Safari, on a G3/400 running 10.2.6, this page fully renders in five
> >> seconds. Maybe a 3.5 GHz Wintel box (or whatever you have on your desk)
> >> will turn in faster results, but five seconds hardly seems unreasonable
> >> for a page of this complexity.
> >
> >in Firebird 0.6 and IE 6 (both on WinXP, 2.4Ghz AthlonXP) the page is loaded
> >and rendered in a blink of an eye longer than it takes for the browser
> >itself to open, I wouldn't want to even ATTEMPT clocking it with a
> >stopwatch, it's definately below .5 seconds
>
> Takes between 1 and 2 seconds (give or take) on a P4/2.4... of
> course, that's as I'm real-time capturing and compressing (DiVX and
> MP3 for audio) The Agency TV show, which uses about 2/3->3/4 of the
> CPU time and good chunks of hard drive time - and that includes
> displaying the advertisements at the top of the page, which takes a
> second to go out and grab via the internet. Remove the ads and you'll
> have a better test, one would think.
So, we're arguing about a difference of three or four seconds on a
gigantic page. Seems rather silly doesn't it? I doubt there's any
measurable difference at all on reasonably sized web pages. Will you
withdraw your claim that a Mac in this speed range is too slow for web
browsing?
> >Of course, that's not exactly a 1:1 comparison of hardware, a current high
> >end powermac would also be one hell of a lot faster to render the page than
> >a G3/400 :)
--
ZnU
foo <f...@foo.bar> wrote:
But the OS X license makes the distinction on marketing. Or on labeling,
at any rate. This was probably done specifically to prevent the sort of
arguments based around the vagueness of the definition of "Mac" that
you're trying to use in this thread. Apple's language makes everything
perfectly clear. If a computer is "Apple labeled", you're allowed to
install OS X on it. If it's not, you're not. Only Apple can "Apple
label" a computer; anyone else who does so can be sued for trademark
violation.
foo
>So, we're arguing about a difference of three or four seconds on a
>gigantic page. Seems rather silly doesn't it? I doubt there's any
>measurable difference at all on reasonably sized web pages. Will you
>withdraw your claim that a Mac in this speed range is too slow for web
>browsing?
If all Macs are represented by Sandman's test, and there were no other
issues (like slow scrolling and such) found in Safari, sure. I remain
unconvinced based on personal experience with the software.
Sandman
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, if someone want to accuse me of doing the above, go right ahead,
> > I'm sure everybody would realize how desperate that would be.
>
> Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that you might have done that. Just
> pointing out that it probably would not be as hard as you thought it would
> be.
Ok. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> >So, we're arguing about a difference of three or four seconds on a
> >gigantic page. Seems rather silly doesn't it? I doubt there's any
> >measurable difference at all on reasonably sized web pages. Will you
> >withdraw your claim that a Mac in this speed range is too slow for web
> >browsing?
>
> If all Macs are represented by Sandman's test, and there were no other
> issues (like slow scrolling and such) found in Safari, sure.
Apology accepted.
--
Sandman[.net]