I really do like OS X but . . .
howdy
real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed. My
intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
fanatics say, this is a very stable OS. The only thing Mac has to
offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system. When Intel
based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
arrived. Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
software/hardware compatibility problems. I'm ready for it. I'd love
to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
to using XP pro.
The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
dialup internet lines. Forget about quick page loading. I'd like to
think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
intel Macs are going to be out soon? Just how much faster is the G5
anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
chip that software will not be written for anymore? The reality about
computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
ahead. Comments welcome.
Fred Garvin
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
>
Hey, good luck with that! Seriously.
--
> Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can
never go back to Sea World."
Wegie
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed. My
> intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
> screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
> fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
it might be a stable os, but as soon as you start putting software on
it, it's an old horse that should be shot. the software selection in the
pc world is sub-par, so it's really not worth considering you desire the
best.
> The only thing Mac has to
> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
> machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
your time.
> When Intel
> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
> arrived.
it will? sure you don't mean it will run Windows software, that wouldn't
be good for the mac platform. Apple arrived long before the PC was even
around, about 5 full years in fact.
> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
> software/hardware compatibility problems. I'm ready for it. I'd love
> to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
> full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
> to using XP pro.
yes, the masses will soon be able to have the best of both worlds.
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
> dialup internet lines.
and what does that have to do with a Mac? PC's are identical in this
regard.
> Forget about quick page loading. I'd like to
> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
> intel Macs are going to be out soon? Just how much faster is the G5
> anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
> chip that software will not be written for anymore?
no. apple designs stuff for the long haul, a new processor is just a
gentle glide to a newer speed, nothing earth shattering is going to
occur. Today's G5 will hum along fine for the next 5-8 years, just like
all macs do. you need to learn more about the transition, only really
old "Classic" apps won't run, stuff written in the last 5 years and in
the future 5 years is going to run fine.
> The reality about
> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
> flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
> ahead. Comments welcome.
A PowerMac G5 with 17 Flat Panel screen is what? $1,299 at full retail,
Apple often has them for $1,050, so you clearly don't know what you are
talking about.
--
.
Jim Polaski
You sound like the Web Guy I spoke to today who claimed Apple is on the
way out, the stock price is at $3 and they have nothing to offer. Of
course his company offers a java based web product for folks to do their
own websites, and he has bad code which is by his measure, an Apple
problem, not anything else.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Elijah Baley
Spare us the histrionics, Howdy Doody. Your personal opinion is of no
value whatsoever in this forum, especially when it comes out of your ass.
--
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant
number of users want fixed." Bill Gates
Source: Focus Magazine, nr.43, pages 206-212, (October 23, 1995)
Snit
t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com on 12/30/05 6:32 PM:
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
In what way do you think Win XP Pro is more effective than other choices?
For that matter, why Intel and not AMD? And why put up with having to use
all sorts of anti-malware apps just to keep your machine from crashing?
> My intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue screened
> and has not locked up.
No modern OS locks up that often, no matter what you hear from anyone.
> Regardless of what all the Mac fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
XP is quite stable in the sense of not crashing. It is not stable in the
sense of allowing a user to add and remove applications as much as, for
example, I do.
> The only thing Mac has to offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger.
Depends on the hardware you are comparing it to.
> As the Mac pro machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer.
Wow. Pro machines have more power and speed! Who would have guessed? :)
> But, it still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
Do you have any comparisons that show that? Here are the comparisons I have
found, though they are getting a bit old. Several were added based on
suggestions from others: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices/>. And
that is just looking at purchase price.
> When Intel based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver problems or
> other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally arrived.
Er? Not sure what you mean here.
> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their work done on fast
> machines that cost less and don't have regular software/hardware compatibility
> problems.
What compatibility problems do you imagine people have on Macs?
> I'm ready for it. I'd love to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be
> fast and stable and full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer
> using OS X to using XP pro.
As do I. I certainly do not find XP to be more "effective".
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline applications but
> too slow on the net, particularly if you are on dialup internet lines. Forget
> about quick page loading. I'd like to think that the G5 is faster at it, but
> why invest the money when the intel Macs are going to be out soon?
No computer can make a dialup connection be as fast as, say, my cable
connection.
> Just how much faster is the G5 anyway, but why invest when soon it will start
> to become an obsolete chip that software will not be written for anymore?
Any chip you buy will be obsolete soon. Welcome to the computer market. I
can see, however, the argument for waiting for an Intel Mac if you have the
time to wait.
> The reality about computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a
> state of flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for
> someone who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too expensive for
> a conservative budget when the chip switch is just ahead. Comments welcome.
And you got them. :)
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
howdy
>In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>it might be a stable os, but as soon as you start putting software on
>it, it's an old horse that should be shot. the software selection in the
>pc world is sub-par, so it's really not worth considering you desire the
>best.
Total BS - I've loaded a lot of software to the factory pre-installed
and it works just fine. Agreed that a lot of Mac software is superior
to PC standard fare.
>> The only thing Mac has to
>> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
>> machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
>> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
>
>macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
>extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
>your time.
More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
that when you add a display.
>
>> When Intel
>> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all Mac software and
>> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
>> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
>> arrived.
>
>it will? sure you don't mean it will run Windows software, that wouldn't
>be good for the mac platform. Apple arrived long before the PC was even
>around, about 5 full years in fact.
>
Youre right, I dont mean that, you misunderstood what I said.
>> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
>> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
>> dialup internet lines.
>
>and what does that have to do with a Mac? PC's are identical in this
>regard.
>
They are not - all my PCs, even the older ones, download and write to
screen faster, even on dialup lines, internet web pages.
>A PowerMac G5 with 17 Flat Panel screen is what? $1,299 at full retail,
>Apple often has them for $1,050, so you clearly don't know what you are
>talking about.
You cant get a good PowerMac for less than $2000 and that is without a
display - you dont know what you're talking about.
Alan Baker
OK. Here's one:
You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
clueless...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
howdy
wrote:
>Spare us the histrionics, Howdy Doody. Your personal opinion is of no
>value whatsoever in this forum, especially when it comes out of your ass.
Typical reply from a brainwashed, Mac fanatic who can't even see
beyond the end of his own nose.
Snit
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:52:24 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
>> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> it might be a stable os, but as soon as you start putting software on
>> it, it's an old horse that should be shot. the software selection in the
>> pc world is sub-par, so it's really not worth considering you desire the
>> best.
>
> Total BS - I've loaded a lot of software to the factory pre-installed
> and it works just fine. Agreed that a lot of Mac software is superior
> to PC standard fare.
When you add and remove a lot of software to Windows you are much more
likely to run into conflicts, registry problems, and the like. On OS X such
things are essentially unheard of (some software with low level drivers
might conflict or something but that would be rare).
>
>>> The only thing Mac has to
>>> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
>>> machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
>>> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
>>
>> macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
>> extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
>> your time.
> More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
> that when you add a display.
Look at the comparisons I provided you. The difference is you can get a PC
without the software a Mac comes with so you can get the hardware cheaper.
>>
>>> When Intel
>>> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all Mac software and
>>> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
>>> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
>>> arrived.
>>
>> it will? sure you don't mean it will run Windows software, that wouldn't
>> be good for the mac platform. Apple arrived long before the PC was even
>> around, about 5 full years in fact.
>>
> Youre right, I dont mean that, you misunderstood what I said.
What did you mean?
>
>>> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
>>> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
>>> dialup internet lines.
>>
>> and what does that have to do with a Mac? PC's are identical in this
>> regard.
>>
> They are not - all my PCs, even the older ones, download and write to
> screen faster, even on dialup lines, internet web pages.
The bottleneck is the 56K connection.
>
>> A PowerMac G5 with 17 Flat Panel screen is what? $1,299 at full retail,
>> Apple often has them for $1,050, so you clearly don't know what you are
>> talking about.
> You cant get a good PowerMac for less than $2000 and that is without a
> display - you dont know what you're talking about.
By the time you add memory and the like, yeah, starting at about $2000. And
you need the PowerMacs to get dual displays. I will say *that* is a bummer.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
howdy
wrote:
>
>In what way do you think Win XP Pro is more effective than other choices?
>For that matter, why Intel and not AMD? And why put up with having to use
>all sorts of anti-malware apps just to keep your machine from crashing?
and works much better from my experince.
>XP is quite stable in the sense of not crashing. It is not stable in the
>sense of allowing a user to add and remove applications as much as, for
>example, I do.
>Do you have any comparisons that show that? Here are the comparisons I have
>found, though they are getting a bit old. Several were added based on
>suggestions from others: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices/>. And
>that is just looking at purchase price.
I can get a speedy PC system with monitor for less than 1K and even
less if I build the PC myself.
>What compatibility problems do you imagine people have on Macs?
running 10.3.9 and it crashed. Installed same printer on PC and it
ran smooth as butter and more software loaded to boot.
>No computer can make a dialup connection be as fast as, say, my cable
>connection.
the processor power to load the screen faster.
howdy
wrote:
>OK. Here's one:
>
>You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
>using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
>clueless...
Not at all - the faster the processor and the more memory is has the
faster it can draw the page to screen when it is downloaded. On an
eMac, I wait longer for the page to fully draw to screen if it ever
does than I do with an Intel PC which nearly always draws to screen
with all the graphics instead of empty boxes where the graphics should
be.
Alan Baker
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
That is usually a function of *how* the page is drawn, not how fast.
But you still think that the speed of the processor is important when on
a slow pipe. And you're still wrong.
Elijah Baley
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
Ok, let me make it clear. Nothing, absolutely nothing you proposed in
your post has any basis in fact. Nothing whatsoever. The entire scribble
was personal opinion and therefore of no value. It was typical Apple
hating blather.
And your post was the same old, tired drivel that has spewed from the
lips of closed-minded Windows lemmings for over twenty years now. It's
what you WISH were true. You claim Mac users are blind followers of the
Mac myth when it is YOU who lives in a fantasy world where only Windows
exists. You said that people can only get their work done on Windows.
That statement alone reveals your incredibly irrational view of life.
The herd mentality is at it's most virulent in the MS universe. You just
can't stand it that there are people who don't think you and your
opinion are worth arguing about.
And you have the audacity to call Mac users brainwashed fanatics. Pot,
kettle, black my ignorant friend. Look in the mirror, asshole.
Mojo
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
We get lots "real, consistent work" done using G5s at the company I work
for. Especially without needing any kind of anti-virus and malware sw.
Take a hike troll!
George Graves
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
...on alternate Tuesdays with your left foot in the air and your right
index finger making clockwise circles in the air. But seriously, you do
realize that the phrase "high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
or laptop running Windows XP Pro..." is an oxymoron, do you not?
> My intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
> screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
> fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
Mac fanatics, as you call them, like to yank you Windroids' collective
chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based PCs
BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really in
question at this juncture. Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
OSX doesn't share. Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
the OS, and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
features. This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
usability.
> The only thing Mac has to
> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger.
Since, at the moment, PowerMacs are all that Apple is purveying, I'd say
that was more than enough.
>
> As the Mac pro machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
That's not an issue to people who value what the OS has to offer. If you
are content with Windows, then machines which are damned cheap are
certainly available. Most of us who use Macs value our time far too much
to be beguiled by a low-cost piece of hardware that in the long run will
cost us much more in terms of frustration and wasted time.
>
> When Intel based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
> arrived.
Frankly, that's very unlikely. There will be third-party products which
will allow those who wish to run Windows on their Macs natively to do
so, and perhaps even run Windows concurrently with OSX so that one can
switch back and forth seamlessly and even directly share clipboards. But
I doubt seriously if one will ever be able to install Windows software
on a Mac and have it run natively under OSX.
> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
> software/hardware compatibility problems.
You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
slower, or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
any difference in productivity. These are all strawman arguments. There
is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
platforms.
> I'm ready for it. I'd love
> to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
> full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
> to using XP pro.
That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
on PCs is largely a myth.
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> applications but too slow on the net,
Since the speed of the connection is always going to be the limiting
factor on the internet, the need for speed on the intenet is a moot
point. Any modern computer is more than fast enough for that. And if
you're stuck with dial-up, the CPU speed becomes even more irrelevant.
> particularly if you are on
> dialup internet lines. Forget about quick page loading. I'd like to
> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
> intel Macs are going to be out soon?
I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
than PPC Macs.
> Just how much faster is the G5
> anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
> chip that software will not be written for anymore?
The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
either. The thing is that most modern computers are more than fast
enough for 99% of the market. If you are doing 3D rendering, video
compositing, or CAD design, then speed might be of the essence, as would
be true of gamers. If you are a gamer, then by all means you should be
buying or building the fastest Windows machines that there is, but for
anything else other than these aforementioned tasks, speed simply isn't
that important. It's sort of like a new Bugatti Vyron. Sure it'll do
more than 240 mph, but where? I can count on the fingers of one finger
the number of countries that will allow one to drive that fast on the
public roads. Otherwise, its simply bragging rights. The same with PCs.
a 3.6 GHz P-IV Windows PC is very fast, yes. But people won't notice
that speed reading and composing E-mail, surfing the web or reconciling
their checkbooks with Quicken. Most people never use the performance
they have now - and neither will most Bugatti Vyron owners.
> The reality about
> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
> flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
> ahead. Comments welcome.
Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
mean that Apple will go the same route. LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
notwithstanding.
As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
on going Intel until the next decade.
--
George Graves
ed
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> typed:
<snip>
> Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
> code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
> has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
> OSX doesn't share.
then i'm sure that you can point to specifics of how XP's code has its roots
firmly planted in dos, and the 'certain vulnerabilities' that result from
it.
<snip>
Snit
qqntf.60006$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 12/30/05 9:03 PM:
XP flaw allows for DOS attacks
http://snipurl.com/l6db
Microsoft: DOS Bug Not Limited To Windows XP
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/166400309
:)
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
>experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based PCs
>BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really in
>question at this juncture.
OK.
>Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
>code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
>has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
>OSX doesn't share.
George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
_nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
stop endlessly repeating this.
>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>the OS,
I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>features.
I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
talking about?
>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>usability.
And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
incremental changes for $130 each!
>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>slower,
They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
George, this is an old one too.
>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>any difference in productivity.
It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>These are all strawman arguments. There
>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
you.
>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>platforms.
Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
Mac systems.
>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>on PCs is largely a myth.
...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>than PPC Macs.
I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>either.
This is funny, George. Really.
>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>mean that Apple will go the same route.
You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
>notwithstanding.
One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
identically.
>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
What's new?
>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
>on going Intel until the next decade.
You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.
Wegie
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
> >macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
> >extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
> >your time.
> More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
> that when you add a display.
well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
features now days.
> >> When Intel
> >> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all Mac software and
> >> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
> >> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
> >> arrived.
> >
> >it will? surely you don't mean it will run Windows software, that wouldn't
> >be good for the mac platform. Apple arrived long before the PC was even
> >around, about 5 full years in fact.
> >
> Youre right, I dont mean that, you misunderstood what I said.
okay, but running "IBM Compatible" code just don't matter anymore, hate
to break, the news to you. The Computer Industry continues to come
around to Apple's way of doing things, not the other way around.
> >> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> >> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
> >> dialup internet lines.
> >
> >and what does that have to do with a Mac? PC's are identical in this
> >regard.
> >
> They are not - all my PCs, even the older ones, download and write to
> screen faster, even on dialup lines, internet web pages.
well, they don't download faster, that's absurd. and drawing to the
screen is related to the OS, not the physical connection speed. PC's
don't write as clearly to the screen, so if you are wanting an
unpolished web experience, PCs are the way to go. Maybe you are using
Safari? if so, get with the program and get Camino, much much faster.
> >A PowerMac G5 with 17 Flat Panel screen is what? $1,299 at full retail,
> >Apple often has them for $1,050, so you clearly don't know what you are
> >talking about.
> You cant get a good PowerMac for less than $2000 and that is without a
> display - you dont know what you're talking about.
No, do you even know what a PowerMac is? iMacs are PowerMacs, PowerBooks
are PowerMacs, iBooks too. The tower version is just for people needing
the ability to add cards, and that's about it. It really appears you are
lost in a twisted PC mentality when the Mac world has past you by.
--
.
Tim Murray
>> and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>> there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>> platforms.
>
> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
> Mac systems.
Sure, it's from 2002, but the basics have not changed: see
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/13/deal/
Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
Wally
"howdy" <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
At least the length of his nose remains constant! ;=)
howdy
>Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
I don't give a hoot, man about surveys . . . surveys, we don't need no
stinkin' surveys!
I'm talking about personal experience - in my personal experience, the
only Mac that can do the job of the average PC is the dual G5 PowerMac
that has at least 1gig memory and a reasonably good monitor
(unfortunately the great Apple display is over-priced - and for the
pleasure of having one you have to be willing to pay considerably
more. But you are getting the perhaps the best, easiest and most fun
to use software available for a computer and adequate hardware
resources that can be expanded. Not everyone can work within the
confines of a laptop, some require add on cards or at least firewire
or USB expansion from the laptop. With the relative slowness of a G4
or a single G5, PowerMac is the only answer for many. Apple users who
have never know the bliss of high-speed computing will hopefully get
to experience that with an Intel chip.
howdy
wrote:
>In article <d6tbr11lve4ke6cus...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:59 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >OK. Here's one:
>> >
>> >You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
>> >using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
>> >clueless...
>>
>> Not at all - the faster the processor and the more memory is has the
>> faster it can draw the page to screen when it is downloaded. On an
>> eMac, I wait longer for the page to fully draw to screen if it ever
>> does than I do with an Intel PC which nearly always draws to screen
>> with all the graphics instead of empty boxes where the graphics should
>> be.
>
>That is usually a function of *how* the page is drawn, not how fast.
>
>But you still think that the speed of the processor is important when on
>a slow pipe. And you're still wrong.
This problem is worse with IE 5.2 which is a dead horse on the Mac as
M$ has quit supporting or developing it, but occasionally also in
Safari. There is a website I visit that pops up a page stating that I
need to download the latest version of my browser, although I'm
running the lastest version of Safari, although I blame that on the
website code which doesn't recognize it. I don't have these problems
at all on the PC. I'd rather be using a Mac than going back to the PC
but until I decide that I can or should buy a PowerMac or an iMac G5,
I choose to use the machine that gets me through with my tasks
fastest. When I'm online, that machine is the PC. Regardless of why
that is, that is my experience with 32 and 64 bit PCs, desktop and
laptop, vs. and eMac G4 with 1G memory.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:06:02 -0500, f...@bar.com wrote:
>>> and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>> there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>> platforms.
>>
>> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>> Mac systems.
>
>Sure, it's from 2002, but the basics have not changed: see
>http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/13/deal/
Sorry but the shit hit the fan and everyone headed for the tall grass
when it got leaked that Apple had funded that study.
http://www.cio-today.com/perl/story/18338.html
>Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
There's never been a valid study comparing the two. The closest that
we have are the 'results' from the 'Gistics' study that Maccies like
to cite but can never prove actually happened. The results that
Maccies like to 'cite' showed that the TCO of Unix based systems like
MacOS X are twice what are for Windows.
--
"The next time you hear an alarming speech about
"global warming" on Earth Day, just remember that the
first Earth Day featured alarms about the danger of a
new ice age."
Thomas Sowell
howdy
wrote:
>In article <aosbr1p03k31stjdj...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:42:10 GMT, Elijah Baley <li...@foundation.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Spare us the histrionics, Howdy Doody. Your personal opinion is of no
>> >value whatsoever in this forum, especially when it comes out of your ass.
>> Typical reply from a brainwashed, Mac fanatic who can't even see
>> beyond the end of his own nose.
>
>Ok, let me make it clear-
Blather, blather, ad infinitum, ad nauseum ad bullshittium
Read my posts - I have a Mac, I wish I had a better Mac, I wish a
better Mac would be built and released. I work on both platforms,
sometimes I use a PC when I'd rather be using a Mac. Case in point,
Turbo Lister, which is not available for the Mac, is a free download
for PC users who sell on eBay. Recently, MarketBlast, a Mac and
Windows product, which appears to be superior to Turbo Lister, became
available and I'm hoping to give it a try when the 4D staff returns
from vacation on the 2nd and fixes the problem that is keeping me from
signing on to eBay with it. But it cost $99 - it was not free like
Turbo Lister. But the old saw "you get what you pay for" may be in
order here. Doing business in the Mac world is more expensive and
sometimes more problematic, like it or not. Mac has its set of
problems and PC has theirs. But to make ostrich-like pronouncements
that the using a Mac is an absolutely blissful experience, free of any
snags is just propaganda and not true. Or it's a position being
advocated by someone who just doesn't know any better - if you haven't
worked extensively on both platforms, you don't have the experience to
comment on the situation.
howdy
>No, do you even know what a PowerMac is? iMacs are PowerMacs, PowerBooks
>are PowerMacs, iBooks too. The tower version is just for people needing
>the ability to add cards, and that's about it. It really appears you are
>lost in a twisted PC mentality when the Mac world has past you by.
I really wish some of you Mac fanatics would learn about computers and
especially the Mac before you speak. The dual G5 tower is called the
PowerMac, the PowerBook is called a PowerBook and the iMac is called
an iMac. In addition to adding cards and other additional I/O
capabilities, the PowerMac dual G5 tower has considerably more
processing power and speed than any other Mac. Look at the spec cards
at your Apple dealer or do a little online research before you make
yourself look silly.
There are an awful lot of posters at this site that are very sensitive
and quick to respond to any even slightly negative post about the Mac.
Could this be because the Mac has flaws that you are unwilling to
accept or that you just have such an intense hatred of PC clones that
you can't see straight when confronted with facts? The PC may be a
boring OS with its security flaws, but it "just works" faster with the
hardware capabilities of the average PC desktop or laptop for far less
money. That is fact from the experience of one who has been building,
installing and upgrading systems for years. I've also serviced and
upgraded Mac systems although I've not had the pleasure of building a
system. I wasn't interested back in the days when you could build
your own Mac clone. The OS wasn't developed enough then to be
interesting. OS X is a powerful piece of software that deserves
better hardware at a lower price so that more users will have the
chance to experience it.
Unfortunately, too many Mac fans are like Amiga fans, having tunnel
vision when it comes to their computer being the only one. Well, we
all know what happened to the Amiga. It appears that Apple is on the
verge of doing something with the Mac that could greatly expand the
user base and bring it into the mainstream, although, unfortunately,
it probably will take a long time to even challenge the size of the
Windows user base. I don't take pride in this. I'm not a gloating
Wintroll or Winroid as I've been called. The only thing that I'm
passionate about here is to get a better Mac hardware machine that is
capable of running and deserving of the software that is written for
it.
howdy
wrote:
>When you add and remove a lot of software to Windows you are much more
>likely to run into conflicts, registry problems, and the like. On OS X such
>things are essentially unheard of (some software with low level drivers
>might conflict or something but that would be rare).
And this is not a problem if you completely remove the old software. I
go into the registry and search for bits and pieces. This is a bummer
because it's work that you really shouldn't have to do. Some software
developers provide guide sheets for complete removal, such as from
McAfee (you really do have to work to get complete rid of them) and
Norton. I agree, Mac is much easier to install and remove programs.
That's just one reason why I like Mac OS X. It is much easier and
more pleasant to use.
Snit
No argument here.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Elijah Baley
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
My, my, my. Aren't you the elitist uber-geek looking down his/her nose
at the unwashed masses. You, and you only, have been to the mountaintop
and have achieved digital Nirvana. Down the mountain you come to this
backwater newsgroup with the tablets of knowledge. You're guilty of the
very claims you make about alternate platform users. The king has no
clothes your highness. Do I have your permission to continue using the
computer of my own choice?
Now, continue to demonstrate your superior experience and knowledge.
We're all waiting on your next word, oh great one. Praise be to the
Howdy!
Timberwoof
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:22:37 -0500, Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:06:02 -0500, f...@bar.com wrote:
> >>> and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
> >>> there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
> >>> platforms.
> >>
> >> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
> >> Mac systems.
> >
> >Sure, it's from 2002, but the basics have not changed: see
> >http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/13/deal/
>
> Sorry but the shit hit the fan and everyone headed for the tall grass
Pffffftte! Hah! The clever use of "shit hit the fan" and "tall grass" is a
masterful stroke of humorous intent. Very good!
> when it got leaked that Apple had funded that study.
> http://www.cio-today.com/perl/story/18338.html
>
> >Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
>
> There's never been a valid study comparing the two. The closest that
> we have are the 'results' from the 'Gistics' study that Maccies like
> to cite but can never prove actually happened. The results that
> Maccies like to 'cite' showed that the TCO of Unix based systems like
> MacOS X are twice what are for Windows.
Hheeehee! Rofl, Mayor. Rofl.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Wegie
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:38:33 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>
> >No, do you even know what a PowerMac is? iMacs are PowerMacs, PowerBooks
> >are PowerMacs, iBooks too. The tower version is just for people needing
> >the ability to add cards, and that's about it. It really appears you are
> >lost in a twisted PC mentality when the Mac world has past you by.
>
> I really wish some of you Mac fanatics would learn about computers and
> especially the Mac before you speak. The dual G5 tower is called the
> PowerMac, the PowerBook is called a PowerBook and the iMac is called
> an iMac. In addition to adding cards and other additional I/O
> capabilities, the PowerMac dual G5 tower has considerably more
> processing power and speed than any other Mac. Look at the spec cards
> at your Apple dealer or do a little online research before you make
> yourself look silly.
well of course, but all current systems are based on the Power PC, thus
all are Power Macs, if you are confused by the pretty labels it's of no
concern to me. You are new to the Mac world, that's all.
> There are an awful lot of posters at this site that are very sensitive
> and quick to respond to any even slightly negative post about the Mac.
> Could this be because the Mac has flaws that you are unwilling to
> accept or that you just have such an intense hatred of PC clones that
> you can't see straight when confronted with facts?
You were the one that mistakenly called a PowerMac the only Power based
machine, that's clearly not the case. We spot errors and point them out
not out of sensitivity, but out of accuracy.
> The PC may be a
> boring OS with its security flaws, but it "just works" faster with the
> hardware capabilities of the average PC desktop or laptop for far less
> money. That is fact from the experience of one who has been building,
> installing and upgrading systems for years. I've also serviced and
> upgraded Mac systems although I've not had the pleasure of building a
> system. I wasn't interested back in the days when you could build
> your own Mac clone. The OS wasn't developed enough then to be
> interesting. OS X is a powerful piece of software that deserves
> better hardware at a lower price so that more users will have the
> chance to experience it.
Depends what you are doing, the Windows OS doesn't handle graphics very
well, so it is seemingly faster, but for 90% of the tasks in the world,
a PC and Mac are about the same. The Mac faster in some of that last
10%, the PC faster in some others. You could never build your own Mac
Clone by the way, where would you get the Roms?
> Unfortunately, too many Mac fans are like Amiga fans, having tunnel
> vision when it comes to their computer being the only one. Well, we
> all know what happened to the Amiga.
The Amiga never had a large userbase nor software selection, the two
camps are very unrelated. Apple users have always known they are leading
the PC industry forward since 76, 81, the Commodore users never thought
they were leading at anything except they had a poor man's Mac. The two
worlds were on opposite ends of the spectrum, with all the PC folk in
the middle somewhere.
> It appears that Apple is on the
> verge of doing something with the Mac that could greatly expand the
> user base and bring it into the mainstream, although, unfortunately,
> it probably will take a long time to even challenge the size of the
> Windows user base. I don't take pride in this. I'm not a gloating
> Wintroll or Winroid as I've been called. The only thing that I'm
> passionate about here is to get a better Mac hardware machine that is
> capable of running and deserving of the software that is written for
> it.
Yes, we are in for some interesting years as PC users can finally move
up to better hardware and software. Apple will now be the low cost
leader so that will also have interesting implications. It will be fun
to see how Apple uses the iPod to shim more users over to the Mac. Will
Apple have 70% PC share in 10 years? probably not, but 30% is entirely
possible.
--
.
LawsonE
"Wegie" <he...@northere.com> wrote in message
news:yPotf.45$rc1....@news.uswest.net...
> In article <fdsbr1leo1gupq0ls...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> >macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
>> >extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
>> >your time.
>> More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
>> that when you add a display.
>
> well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
> but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
> features now days.
Not at the ultra-high-end. You can't get a Mac that competes with the very
fastest Wintel workstations. That may change in a few years, but for pure 3D
graphics server work, you can't beat the current 4-processor Wintels...
LawsonE
[...]
> The Amiga never had a large userbase nor software selection, the two
> camps are very unrelated. Apple users have always known they are leading
> the PC industry forward since 76, 81, the Commodore users never thought
> they were leading at anything except they had a poor man's Mac. The two
> worlds were on opposite ends of the spectrum, with all the PC folk in
> the middle somewhere.
Cough. The Amigas were ground-breaking in many ways. They were used to make
Babylon 5 graphics, for instance.
LawsonE
"howdy" <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1qsbr1pmrcrvsbf0o...@4ax.com...
Which web browser do you use on which Mac? And how's your PC for using that
PDF plug-in to view PDF files online?
LawsonE
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-9A2F5...@news.telus.net...
> In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
>> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
>> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
>> intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
>> screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
>> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
>> machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
>> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
>> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
>> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
>> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
>> to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
>> full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
>> to using XP pro.
>> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
>> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
>> anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
>> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
>> flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
>> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
>> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
>> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
>> ahead. Comments welcome.
>
>
> You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
> using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
> clueless...
Some of the early PowerMac models used software emulation for their internal
modems. Processor speed was a BIG factor there.
LawsonE
Probably a function of memory and whatever browser you're using. MIE is no
longer supported on the Mac as of tomorrow, Jan 1, 2006 and its been very
nasty to use for quite some time before that. Have you tried Firefox
optimized for G4?
LawsonE
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-946AAB...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
>> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
>> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
>> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
>
> ...on alternate Tuesdays with your left foot in the air and your right
> index finger making clockwise circles in the air. But seriously, you do
> realize that the phrase "high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro..." is an oxymoron, do you not?
>
Up until the Quad-G5s were released, no Macintosh could use a high-end
graphics card.
The 4/8-processor Intel workstations run circles around the Quads even now.
Of course you pay for them, but you were the one speaking in absolutes...
LawsonE
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in message
news:qqntf.60006$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Not DOS, MIE libraries that are embedded in the kernel, making the entire OS
susceptible to internet hacking via the browser.
LawsonE
<f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:8u3cr1di602e4o23f...@4ax.com...
Minor changes that take about a year to produce. Think of them as X.0 X.1
X.2 releases, not as 10.1 etc.
f...@bar.com
>well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
>but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
>features now days.
If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
please.
f...@bar.com
Interesting. I'd love to read the actual study.
Wegie
> > The Amiga never had a large userbase nor software selection, the two
> > camps are very unrelated. Apple users have always known they are leading
> > the PC industry forward since 76, 81, the Commodore users never thought
> > they were leading at anything except they had a poor man's Mac. The two
> > worlds were on opposite ends of the spectrum, with all the PC folk in
> > the middle somewhere.
>
> Cough. The Amigas were ground-breaking in many ways. They were used to make
> Babylon 5 graphics, for instance.
yes, but they never brought anything new to the table, much less
anything we still use today.
--
.
Wegie
wrote:
> >well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
> >but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
> >features now days.
>
> If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
> are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
> for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
> please.
yes, but only if you mistakenly use a Tower to arrive at your numbers. A
G5 iMac has roughly the same power, comes with a great 20" screen,
camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
--
.
f...@bar.com
>In article <45udr1hj5fqssldjs...@4ax.com>, f...@bar.com
>wrote:
>
>> >well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
>> >but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
>> >features now days.
>>
>> If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
>> are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
>> for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
>> please.
>
>yes, but only if you mistakenly use a Tower to arrive at your numbers. A
>G5 iMac has roughly the same power,
Nope; can't expand the graphics card, so it's out. Tower, please.
>comes with a great 20" screen,
>camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
Did you miss the $579 bit?
TheLetterK
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro
AMD-based Shuttle PC, running some variant of Debian GNU/Linux.
> My
> intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
> screened and has not locked up.
Consider yourself blessed.
> Regardless of what all the Mac
> fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
No, no it isn't. You are confusing 'stable' with 'acceptable for use'.
Stable, used as an attribute, would imply exceptional
stability--something that Windows XP is not known for. FreeBSD is
stable. GNU/Linux is stable. Windows XP is almost usable. Though I will
admit that OS X kernel panics more than it should.
> The only thing Mac has to
> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
> machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
Comparable? No. PC OEMs overcharge you just as much as Apple does.
> When Intel
> based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
> arrived.
Well, I don't have any installer/driver problems on my Mac, and haven't
really encountered any problematic incompatibilities. Then again, I
actually pay attention to what I'm doing.
> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
> software/hardware compatibility problems.
And many of us go back to our *GNU/Linux* PCs for real work. The only
reason I have Windows on this box is for games, none of my other
machines even have it installed. I certainly don't trust it with
anything of marginal importance.
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
> dialup internet lines.
I've yet to encounter what you describe. I don't even have a G4 machine
with a gibibyte of RAM either.
> Forget about quick page loading.
Shiira and OmniWeb seem fast enough. I would definitely call it 'fast
page loading', even when compared with Konqueror on Linux or Opera on
Windows.
> I'd like to
> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
> intel Macs are going to be out soon?
A) Why would the G5s be faster at it? There's nothing about the G4 that
makes it particularly bad for this use.
B) Because you obviously want a tower, and the PowerMacs are probably
going to be the last Macs to 'go Intel'.
> Just how much faster is the G5
> anyway,
Depends on what your doing. For basic desktop tasks (word processing,
web browsing, e-mail, IM, etc) there should be no perceptible difference.
> but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
> chip that software will not be written for anymore?
There will be at least three years of software support from *Apple* for
the G5, and more like 5 or 6 for third party software.
> The reality about
> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
> flux.
Exactly, so stop trying to predict what machine will still have software
written for it in 10 years.
> Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
> ahead. Comments welcome.
The PowerMacs won't be moving to Intel chips this year. Apple would be
insane to move their pro workstations over to a platform with no
software. I don't think you'll even catch wind of an x86 PowerMac until
2007.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
TheLetterK
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:52:24 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
>>howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>it, it's an old horse that should be shot. the software selection in the
>>pc world is sub-par, so it's really not worth considering you desire the
>>best.
>
>
> Total BS - I've loaded a lot of software to the factory pre-installed
> and it works just fine. Agreed that a lot of Mac software is superior
> to PC standard fare.
>
>>>The only thing Mac has to
>>>offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger. As the Mac pro
>>>machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
>>>still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
>>
>>extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
>>your time.
>
> More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
> that when you add a display.
It's a couple thousand for a top of the line x86 box as well. And it is
indeed, more than it would be otherwise were you to add a display.
>
>>>When Intel
>>>based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all Mac software and
>>>hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
>>>problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
>>>arrived.
>>
>>it will? sure you don't mean it will run Windows software, that wouldn't
>>be good for the mac platform. Apple arrived long before the PC was even
>>around, about 5 full years in fact.
>>
>
> Youre right, I dont mean that, you misunderstood what I said.
>
>
>>>The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
>>>applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
>>>dialup internet lines.
>>
>>and what does that have to do with a Mac? PC's are identical in this
>>regard.
>>
>
> They are not - all my PCs, even the older ones, download and write to
> screen faster, even on dialup lines, internet web pages.
Then you have a configuration problem. OS X *is* a bit slower, but you
shouldn't be able to notice it without a timer.
>
>
>>A PowerMac G5 with 17 Flat Panel screen is what? $1,299 at full retail,
>>Apple often has them for $1,050, so you clearly don't know what you are
>>talking about.
>
> You cant get a good PowerMac for less than $2000 and that is without a
> display - you dont know what you're talking about.
All Macs these days are 'Power Macs'. An iMac seems like it would do
everything you've mentioned and more, for well under $2000.
TheLetterK
discussing. IMO, it was even more 'ground breaking' than Amiga, but for
different reasons.
TheLetterK
It's probably not even a wintel cluster, at that.
TheLetterK
TheLetterK
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:59 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>OK. Here's one:
>>
>>You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
>>using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
>>clueless...
>
>
> Not at all - the faster the processor and the more memory is has the
> faster it can draw the page to screen when it is downloaded.
Page rendering on even the slowest Mac Apple currently offers, is
trivial compared to the time taken to download the content...
> On an
> eMac, I wait longer for the page to fully draw to screen if it ever
> does than I do with an Intel PC which nearly always draws to screen
> with all the graphics instead of empty boxes where the graphics should
> be.
That's not a drawing delay, that's a delay in downloading. You can set
your browser not to display content until the whole page is downloaded,
if you wanted.
TheLetterK
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:08:25 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <d6tbr11lve4ke6cus...@4ax.com>,
>>howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:59 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. Here's one:
>>>>
>>>>You think that how fast a processor you have is in any way a factor in
>>>>using internet applications over a dialup connection. This shows you are
>>>>clueless...
>>>
>>>Not at all - the faster the processor and the more memory is has the
>>>eMac, I wait longer for the page to fully draw to screen if it ever
>>>does than I do with an Intel PC which nearly always draws to screen
>>>with all the graphics instead of empty boxes where the graphics should
>>>be.
>>
>>
>>But you still think that the speed of the processor is important when on
>>a slow pipe. And you're still wrong.
>
>
> This problem is worse with IE 5.2 which is a dead horse on the Mac as
> M$ has quit supporting or developing it,
Your using IE for Mac? No wonder you think it's slow. You could be using
a Mac three times as powerful as any PC on the market, and IE for Mac
would *still* be slow.
> but occasionally also in
> Safari. There is a website I visit that pops up a page stating that I
> need to download the latest version of my browser, although I'm
> running the lastest version of Safari, although I blame that on the
> website code which doesn't recognize it.
Enable the Debug menu and fake your useragent.
> I don't have these problems
> at all on the PC.
I've had page rendering delays on Windows and Linux too. It happens.
> I'd rather be using a Mac than going back to the PC
> but until I decide that I can or should buy a PowerMac or an iMac G5,
> I choose to use the machine that gets me through with my tasks
> fastest. When I'm online, that machine is the PC. Regardless of why
> that is, that is my experience with 32 and 64 bit PCs, desktop and
> laptop, vs. and eMac G4 with 1G memory.
Try configuring the eMac as you like it, before complaining about it's
inability to do something.
TheLetterK
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:43:37 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>In what way do you think Win XP Pro is more effective than other choices?
>>For that matter, why Intel and not AMD? And why put up with having to use
>>all sorts of anti-malware apps just to keep your machine from crashing?
>
> AMD is not 100 percent compatible with windows, never was - Intel is
> and works much better from my experince.
Excuse me? How could you possibly believe *that*?
>
>>XP is quite stable in the sense of not crashing. It is not stable in the
>>sense of allowing a user to add and remove applications as much as, for
>>example, I do.
>
> I've had no problems doing that often.
>
>>Do you have any comparisons that show that? Here are the comparisons I have
>>found, though they are getting a bit old. Several were added based on
>>suggestions from others: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices/>. And
>>that is just looking at purchase price.
>
> PowerMac basic system around 2K plus monitor.
> I can get a speedy PC system with monitor for less than 1K and even
> less if I build the PC myself.
You can get a speedy Mac with monitor for less than that too. This is
why Apple has something called an 'iMac', 'iBook', or 'Mac mini'.
>
>>What compatibility problems do you imagine people have on Macs?
>
> I dont imagine - I tried to install and HP 1410 AIO printer on my eMac
> running 10.3.9 and it crashed. Installed same printer on PC and it
> ran smooth as butter and more software loaded to boot.
You are using one badly written driver as evidence of how Macs aren't
compatible? Need I direct you to examples of bad Windows drivers? XGI's
drivers jump immediately to mind.
>
>>No computer can make a dialup connection be as fast as, say, my cable
>>connection.
>
> True, but some computers can make the most of a slow dialup and have
> the processor power to load the screen faster.
Rendering time (with any eMac) is trivial compared with the time taken
to download the content. This is true even on fast residential cable
connections, let alone dial-up.
TheLetterK
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:54:39 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
>>experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based PCs
>>BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really in
>>question at this juncture.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>>Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
>>code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
>>has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
>>OSX doesn't share.
>
>
> George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
> _nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
> OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
> origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
> a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
> stop endlessly repeating this.
I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
introduces a number of problems. Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
.NET...
>
>
>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>the OS,
>
>
> I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>
>
>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>features.
>
>
> I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
> talking about?
XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
>
>
>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>usability.
>
>
> And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
> incremental changes for $130 each!
You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
Windows XP == NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
>
>
>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>slower,
>
>
> They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
> George, this is an old one too.
>
>
>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>any difference in productivity.
>
>
> It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>
>
>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>
>
> Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
> you.
Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
optimized code.
>
>
>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>platforms.
>
>
> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
> Mac systems.
>
>
>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>
>
> ...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>
>
>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>than PPC Macs.
>
>
> I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
> Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
> seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
>
>
>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>either.
>
>
> This is funny, George. Really.
>
>
>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>
>
> You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
> Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
> fantasy world DO you live in, George?
Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
>
>
>>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
>>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
>>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
>>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
>>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
>>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
>>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
>>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
>>notwithstanding.
>
>
> One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
> identically.
Surely even you realize that there are other differences between the
case of your average PC and average PowerMac G5. Apple spends a lot more
on cases than most OEMs.
>
>
>>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
>>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
>>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
>>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
>>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
>>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
>>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
>>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
>>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
>>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
>>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
>>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
>
>
> What's new?
The lack of support.
>
>
>>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
>>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
>>on going Intel until the next decade.
>
>
> You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.
TheLetterK
>>Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
>
>
> stinkin' surveys!
> I'm talking about personal experience - in my personal experience, the
> only Mac that can do the job of the average PC is the dual G5 PowerMac
> that has at least 1gig memory and a reasonably good monitor
My iBook G4 does the same job as an average PC. There goes that theory.
> (unfortunately the great Apple display is over-priced - and for the
> pleasure of having one you have to be willing to pay considerably
> more.
I wouldn't consider Apple's 30" display 'overpriced'. 'Very Expensive',
but overpriced implies that it is worth less. Now, the other displays
are a complete waste of money.
> But you are getting the perhaps the best, easiest and most fun
> to use software available for a computer and adequate hardware
> resources that can be expanded.
Bah, I wouldn't even consider buying a PowerMac. Ever.
> Not everyone can work within the
> confines of a laptop, some require add on cards or at least firewire
> or USB expansion from the laptop.
And all Apple laptops have Firewire and USB...
> With the relative slowness of a G4
> or a single G5,
What relative slowness? They're fast enough for most people, after all
most people won't even do serious image editing, let alone something
that requires a dual-core or dual dual-core PowerMac. An MPC7447 @ 1ghz
is more than joe blow desktop user actually needs in the way of
processing power.
> Apple users who
> have never know the bliss of high-speed computing will hopefully get
> to experience that with an Intel chip.
Why would they need the intel processor to do so? Do you think most
people replace the processor that ships with their Mac with a
substantially slower model?
TheLetterK
for those sorts of applications.
George Graves
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> f...@bar.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:54:39 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
> >>experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based PCs
> >>BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really in
> >>question at this juncture.
> >
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> >>Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
> >>code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
> >>has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
> >>OSX doesn't share.
> >
> >
> > George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
> > _nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
> > OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
> > origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
> > a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
> > stop endlessly repeating this.
>
> I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
> I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
> compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
> introduces a number of problems. Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
> .NET...
Yes, that and the conventions of dot extensions rather than resource
forks, and letter names for mounted volumes. All of these things can be
traced back to DOS. But foo knows this, we've been down this road before
and yet he keeps insisting that I believe that modern Windows is still a
GUI shell built over DOS. I don't, but a lot of the Windows conventions
and backward compatibility do have their roots in DOS.
Where did foo get the idea that I don't think that Apple outsources to
China? I merely pointed out that China's ultra-cheap labor costs are one
of the factors allowing Dell et al to sell loss-leaders at ridiculously
low prices.
> Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
> price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
That's what I gather as well.
> >>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
> >>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
> >>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
> >>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
> >>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
> >>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
> >>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
> >>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
> >>notwithstanding.
> >
> >
> > One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
> > identically.
Then foo isn't looking very hard.
> Surely even you realize that there are other differences between the
> case of your average PC and average PowerMac G5. Apple spends a lot more
> on cases than most OEMs.
>
> >
> >
> >>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
> >>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
> >>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
> >>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
> >>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
> >>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
> >>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
> >>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
> >>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
> >>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
> >>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
> >>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
> >
> >
> > What's new?
>
> The lack of support.
>
> >
> >
> >>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
> >>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
> >>on going Intel until the next decade.
> >
> >
> > You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.
Not so. I just know that being an early adopter in this switch will
cripple me for a long time, and I cannot afford to do that. My dual
2-Gig G5 is quite fast enough for my immediate future needs, thank you
very much, and if I buy another in the next couple of years, it will
likely be a dual-core G5. Eventually, when everything is in place, I'll
migrate to an Intel Mac, but before the switch is complete with all
resources in place, there will have to be an awfully compelling reason
to switch, and I don't really know what that could be as I don't give a
damn about running Windows.
--
George Graves
George Graves
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what Howdy-Doody here is smoking. CPU and video card
performance is totally irrelevant because even the slowest computer is
always waiting for the page to download.
--
George Graves
George Graves
howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:38:33 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>
> >No, do you even know what a PowerMac is? iMacs are PowerMacs, PowerBooks
> >are PowerMacs, iBooks too. The tower version is just for people needing
> >the ability to add cards, and that's about it. It really appears you are
> >lost in a twisted PC mentality when the Mac world has past you by.
>
> I really wish some of you Mac fanatics would learn about computers and
> especially the Mac before you speak. The dual G5 tower is called the
> PowerMac, the PowerBook is called a PowerBook and the iMac is called
> an iMac.
No. That's wrong. All Macs running the PPC processor are PowerMacs by
definition. The towers, OTOH, are called Power Macs with a space between
the words. See the difference and hence, the confusion?
--
George Graves
Wegie
wrote:
> >> If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
> >> are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
> >> for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
> >> please.
> >
> >yes, but only if you mistakenly use a Tower to arrive at your numbers. A
> >G5 iMac has roughly the same power,
>
> Nope; can't expand the graphics card, so it's out. Tower, please.
then apple doesn't have an option in that space, not sure what upgrading
the graphics card is going to do for you besides games and uber high end
3D apps. most of the stuff south of 10K is going to work fine with what
apple provides as standard.
> >comes with a great 20" screen,
> >camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
>
> Did you miss the $579 bit?
you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
cannot. you missed that bit.
--
.
Josh McKee
<gmgraves-F90CAD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <83kcr19lj2cg3vdhj...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:38:33 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No, do you even know what a PowerMac is? iMacs are PowerMacs, PowerBooks
> > >are PowerMacs, iBooks too. The tower version is just for people needing
> > >the ability to add cards, and that's about it. It really appears you are
> > >lost in a twisted PC mentality when the Mac world has past you by.
> >
> > I really wish some of you Mac fanatics would learn about computers and
> > especially the Mac before you speak. The dual G5 tower is called the
> > PowerMac, the PowerBook is called a PowerBook and the iMac is called
> > an iMac.
>
> No. That's wrong.
No, he's right. Go to Apple's web site where you'll find exactly what he
detailed. Geez...not only do the Mac zealots need to be corrected on PC
issues they also need to be corrected on Mac related issues.
Josh
f...@bar.com
<thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>> George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>> _nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>> OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>> origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>> a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>> stop endlessly repeating this.
>
>I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>introduces a number of problems.
Huh? The NT VDM is well-documented and well-known, and I doubt MS has
anyone working on it anymore; why would they?
>Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
>.NET...
Huh? Win32 is just an environment, one of several. Don't like it?
Put in another one.
http://mipagina.cantv.net/jjaguilerap/w2k_arq.html
>>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>>the OS,
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>>
>>
>>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>>features.
>>
>>
>> I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
>> talking about?
>
>XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
How so?
>>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>>usability.
>>
>>
>> And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
>> incremental changes for $130 each!
>
>You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
>Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
>
>Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
>Windows XP == NT 5.1
>Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
>
>Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
>marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
$130 for this year's OS. Every year. Only Apple.
>>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>>slower,
>>
>>
>> They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
>> George, this is an old one too.
>>
>>
>>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>>any difference in productivity.
>>
>>
>> It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>>
>>
>>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>>
>>
>> Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
>> you.
>
>Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
>differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
>optimized code.
So clearly every application is poorly written.
Or else, as is vastly more likely, the CPU's slower.
>>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>>platforms.
>>
>>
>> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>> Mac systems.
>>
>>
>>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>>
>>
>> ...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>>
>>
>>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>>than PPC Macs.
>>
>>
>> I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
>> Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
>> seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>
>I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
>if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
Why?
>>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>>either.
>>
>>
>> This is funny, George. Really.
>>
>>
>>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>>
>>
>> You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>> Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>> fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>
>Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
>price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
Why?
>>>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
>>>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
>>>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
>>>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
>>>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
>>>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
>>>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
>>>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
>>>notwithstanding.
>>
>>
>> One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
>> identically.
>
>Surely even you realize that there are other differences between the
>case of your average PC and average PowerMac G5. Apple spends a lot more
>on cases than most OEMs.
Their loss.
>>>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
>>>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
>>>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
>>>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
>>>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
>>>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
>>>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
>>>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
>>>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
>>>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
>>>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
>>>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
>>
>>
>> What's new?
>
>The lack of support.
Again, what's new?
Michelle Ronn
Your assumption that Windows XP has a basis in DOS is incorrect.
Windows XP is Windows NT. This was a new architecture, completely
different than the Windows/DOS legacy.
As such, Windows XP is not very compatible with applications that need
direct hardware access. These applications used to run fine under
Windows ME and its predecessors.
On 2005-12-30 19:54:39 -0800, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> said:
> In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl...@4ax.com>,
> howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
>> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
>> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
>> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
>
> ...on alternate Tuesdays with your left foot in the air and your right
> index finger making clockwise circles in the air. But seriously, you do
> realize that the phrase "high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro..." is an oxymoron, do you not?
>
>
>> My intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
>> screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
>> fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
>
> Mac fanatics, as you call them, like to yank you Windroids' collective
> chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
> experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based
> PCs BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not
> really in question at this juncture. Yet, it seems that by building
> upon legacy code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in
> DOS, Microsoft has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain
> vulnerabilities that OSX doesn't share. Certainly, Microsoft's
> insistence that each new edition of Windows maintain a general
> compatibility with pre-existing software must compromise what they are
> able to do with new versions of the OS, and most assuredly handcuff the
> development team and limit new features. This is likely why each new
> version of Windows ends up being just a mild facelift with no real
> improvement in operability or usability.
>
>> The only thing Mac has to
>> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger.
>
> Since, at the moment, PowerMacs are all that Apple is purveying, I'd
> say that was more than enough.
>
>>
>> As the Mac pro machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can
>> offer. But, it
>> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
>
> That's not an issue to people who value what the OS has to offer. If
> you are content with Windows, then machines which are damned cheap are
> certainly available. Most of us who use Macs value our time far too
> much to be beguiled by a low-cost piece of hardware that in the long
> run will cost us much more in terms of frustration and wasted time.
>
>>
>> When Intel based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
>> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
>> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
>> arrived.
>
> Frankly, that's very unlikely. There will be third-party products which
> will allow those who wish to run Windows on their Macs natively to do
> so, and perhaps even run Windows concurrently with OSX so that one can
> switch back and forth seamlessly and even directly share clipboards.
> But I doubt seriously if one will ever be able to install Windows
> software on a Mac and have it run natively under OSX.
>
>> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
>> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
>> software/hardware compatibility problems.
>
> You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
> have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
> slower, or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to
> make any difference in productivity. These are all strawman arguments.
> There is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than
> are PCs, and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less
> productive. But there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE
> productive of the two platforms.
>
>
>> I'm ready for it. I'd love
>> to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
>> full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
>> to using XP pro.
>
> That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
> to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
> Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
> daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
> never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
> on PCs is largely a myth.
>
>> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
>> applications but too slow on the net,
>
> Since the speed of the connection is always going to be the limiting
> factor on the internet, the need for speed on the intenet is a moot
> point. Any modern computer is more than fast enough for that. And if
> you're stuck with dial-up, the CPU speed becomes even more irrelevant.
>
>> particularly if you are on
>> dialup internet lines. Forget about quick page loading. I'd like to
>> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
>> intel Macs are going to be out soon?
>
> I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
> than PPC Macs.
>> Just how much faster is the G5
>> anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
>> chip that software will not be written for anymore?
>
> The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
> either. The thing is that most modern computers are more than fast
> enough for 99% of the market. If you are doing 3D rendering, video
> compositing, or CAD design, then speed might be of the essence, as
> would be true of gamers. If you are a gamer, then by all means you
> should be buying or building the fastest Windows machines that there
> is, but for anything else other than these aforementioned tasks, speed
> simply isn't that important. It's sort of like a new Bugatti Vyron.
> Sure it'll do more than 240 mph, but where? I can count on the fingers
> of one finger the number of countries that will allow one to drive that
> fast on the public roads. Otherwise, its simply bragging rights. The
> same with PCs. a 3.6 GHz P-IV Windows PC is very fast, yes. But people
> won't notice that speed reading and composing E-mail, surfing the web
> or reconciling their checkbooks with Quicken. Most people never use the
> performance they have now - and neither will most Bugatti Vyron owners.
>
>
>> The reality about
>> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
>> flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
>> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
>> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
>> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
>> ahead. Comments welcome.
>
> Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
> where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
> than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
> made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
> manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
> mean that Apple will go the same route. LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
> sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
> and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
> difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
> tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
> they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
> nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often
> much more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor
> costs notwithstanding.
> As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be
> after the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
> computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the
> decade before Mac applications support and device driver support has
> migrated away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC
> Macs will remain the most viable products in the line until at least
> that time. Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K
> to PPC) and we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being
> an early adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply
> must have the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications
> in emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
> scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
>
Snit
gmgraves-F90CAD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 12/31/05 4:36
PM:
Where have you seen this?
--
BU__SH__
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>Yes, that
What, exactly? What *EXACTLY* were you talking about when you wrote:
> >>by building upon legacy
> >>code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
> >>has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista)
What did you mean by that, George, if not what it says?
>and the conventions of dot extensions rather than resource
>forks,
We've been through this. Find a PDF. Remove the extension. Go to
Finder's Advanced preferences, and turn on Always Show Extensions.
Remove the extension again of that file. Now notice you can't
doubleclick on it, and the Mac has no idea what to do.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107005
:
Tip: Because many files used in Mac OS X do not have Type or Creator
data, it is not an accurate way to search for files. Rather, try
searching for the applicable filename extensions such as ".jpg" (JPEG)
or ".cwk" (AppleWorks).
>and letter names for mounted volumes.
What's wrong with this? And what's wrong with \\servername\sharename?
Either are valid.
>All of these things can be
>traced back to DOS.
So? You've yet to give a reason.
>But foo knows this, we've been down this road before
>and yet he keeps insisting that I believe that modern Windows is still a
>GUI shell built over DOS. I don't, but a lot of the Windows conventions
>and backward compatibility do have their roots in DOS.
Show them, and differentiate between that and the Mac. You couldn't
do that for extensions, clearly showing they have nothing inherently
to do with DOS.
>> >>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>> >>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>> >>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>> >>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>> >>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>> >>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>> > Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>> > fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>
>Where did foo get the idea that I don't think that Apple outsources to
>China? I merely pointed out that China's ultra-cheap labor costs are one
>of the factors allowing Dell et al to sell loss-leaders at ridiculously
>low prices.
Your brain is taking a vacation today, George. Apple outsources to
the same place. They, too, have ultra-cheap labor costs that allow
them to sell loss-leaders at ridiculously low prices - but they'd
rather gouge you and the other faithful.
>> > One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
>> > identically.
>
>Then foo isn't looking very hard.
Then foo doesn't care what color the case is. It's made to be put
under a desk. If you want to blow a few hundred bucks on a colorful
case, that's your problem.
Michelle Ronn
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> qqntf.60006$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 12/30/05 9:03 PM:
>
>> In news:gmgraves-946AAB...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> typed:
>> <snip>
>>> Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
>>> code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
>>> has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
>>> OSX doesn't share.
>>
>> then i'm sure that you can point to specifics of how XP's code has its roots
>> firmly planted in dos, and the 'certain vulnerabilities' that result from
>> it.
>
> XP flaw allows for DOS attacks
> http://snipurl.com/l6db
>
> Microsoft: DOS Bug Not Limited To Windows XP
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/166400309
>
> :)
Nice PUN there....
f...@bar.com
Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
TheLetterK
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:46:00 -0500, TheLetterK
> <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>>>_nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>>>OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>>>origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>>>a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>>>stop endlessly repeating this.
>>
>>I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>>I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>>compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>>introduces a number of problems.
>
>
> Huh?
I'm not terribly surprised that you don't consider problems not of a
technical nature.
> The NT VDM is well-documented and well-known, and I doubt MS has
> anyone working on it anymore; why would they?
>
>
>>Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
>>.NET...
>
>
> Huh? Win32 is just an environment, one of several. Don't like it?
> Put in another one.
Win32 is also the name for a set of APIs. The only real competition on
Windows right now, would be from .NET or Java. Still, Win32 is, by far,
the most commonly used.
>
> http://mipagina.cantv.net/jjaguilerap/w2k_arq.html
I was speaking of the APIs, not the kernel and overall system
architecture. Win32 is a throwback to the MS-DOS shell days, and should
disappear.
>
>
>
>>>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>>>the OS,
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>>>features.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
>>>talking about?
>>
>>XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
>
>
> How so?
Microsoft took an excellent kernel like NT, and married it with absolute
shit for a userspace.
>
>
>>>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>>>usability.
>>>
>>>
>>>And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
>>>incremental changes for $130 each!
>>
>>You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
>>Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
>>
>>Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
>>Windows XP == NT 5.1
>>Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
>>
>>Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
>>marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
>
>
> $130 for this year's OS. Every year. Only Apple.
And until recently it was '$300' for Microsoft every 2-3 years. I
definitely prefer Apple's release model, even if it does cost more.
There's nothing I hate more than having to wait 4 years for an OS update.
>
>
>>>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>>>slower,
>>>
>>>
>>>They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
>>>George, this is an old one too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>>>any difference in productivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
>>>you.
>>
>>Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
>>differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
>>optimized code.
>
>
> So clearly every application is poorly written.
Every application? No. But a large majority of them, particularly
professional applications that receive a great deal of effort at being
optimized for specific hardware and Windows.
>
> Or else, as is vastly more likely, the CPU's slower.
I don't think there's any real reason to suspect that the G5 is
substantially slower, considering the fact that many highly optimized
applications *do* perform similarly to their Wintel counterparts.
>
>
>>>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>>>platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>>>Mac systems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>>>
>>>
>>>...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>>>than PPC Macs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
>>>Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
>>>seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>>
>>I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
>>if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
>
>
>
> Why?
The only reason anyone even looks at the Xserves, are because they use
G5s (which are very well suited to high performance clustering on the
'cheap'). Without that advantage, no one would give them the time of day.
>
>
>>>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is funny, George. Really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>>>Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>>>fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>>
>>Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
>>price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
>
>
> Why?
I don't see why the price would drop, when Apple switches to a
manufacturer that charges even more. Apple has no bargaining room with
Intel, like they had with IBM and Freescale.
Again, the lack of support.
>
>
>>>>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
>>>>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
>>>>on going Intel until the next decade.
>>>
>>>
>>>You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.
>
>
Snit
4j6er1pevqtcvm84d...@4ax.com on 12/31/05 4:55 PM:
Can you show a PC that meets that spec *and* has all the other goodies you
get with *any* Mac? Of course not.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
TheLetterK
and it came to $1267 + Shipping. Bringing it on-par with the high-end
iMac G5 would make it $1647 + Shipping.
Since I can't find an easy way to convert the configurations to
plaintext specification lists, I'm not going to list them--however, you
can do the same thing by configuring a Dimension E510 to match the
specifications of the iMac. Do remember that you will need a digital
flat panel, and Windows XP Pro to match the iMac (and Works is as close
as Dell offers to AppleWorks).
Wegie
> >> >comes with a great 20" screen,
> >> >camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
> >>
> >> Did you miss the $579 bit?
> >
> >you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
> >cannot. you missed that bit.
>
> Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
easy, mac mini for $389 and 19" LCD for $240, that's pretty close.
http://www.acnt.com/product.asp?pf_id=FP9A200S
--
.
Snit
naFtf.29186$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 12/31/05 5:18 PM:
>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>> cannot. you missed that bit.
> Funny. I just configured a Dell that almost resembles a basic iMac G5,
> and it came to $1267 + Shipping. Bringing it on-par with the high-end
> iMac G5 would make it $1647 + Shipping.
>
> Since I can't find an easy way to convert the configurations to
> plaintext specification lists, I'm not going to list them--however, you
> can do the same thing by configuring a Dimension E510 to match the
> specifications of the iMac. Do remember that you will need a digital
> flat panel, and Windows XP Pro to match the iMac (and Works is as close
> as Dell offers to AppleWorks).
Send me a PDF of the machine and I will post it.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Lars Träger
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:22:37 -0500, Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:06:02 -0500, f...@bar.com wrote:
> >> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
> >> Mac systems.
> >
> >Sure, it's from 2002, but the basics have not changed: see
> >http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/13/deal/
> >
> >Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
>
> Interesting. I'd love to read the actual study.
Go buy it.
--
Lars T.
Steve Mackay
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> stated in post
> naFtf.29186$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 12/31/05 5:18 PM:
>
>>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>>> cannot. you missed that bit.
>> Funny. I just configured a Dell that almost resembles a basic iMac G5,
>> and it came to $1267 + Shipping. Bringing it on-par with the high-end
>> iMac G5 would make it $1647 + Shipping.
>>
>> Since I can't find an easy way to convert the configurations to
>> plaintext specification lists, I'm not going to list them--however, you
>> can do the same thing by configuring a Dimension E510 to match the
>> specifications of the iMac. Do remember that you will need a digital
>> flat panel, and Windows XP Pro to match the iMac (and Works is as close
>> as Dell offers to AppleWorks).
>
> Send me a PDF of the machine and I will post it.
>
>
LOL!
Steve Mackay
Why does it *NEED* XP Pro to meet the Mac Specs?
Snit
rdGtf.22277$Dk....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 12/31/05 6:26 PM:
I just wanted you to know I said that largely just to get a reaction out of
you. Glad it worked. :)
Have a great new year, Steve.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> stated in post
>4j6er1pevqtcvm84d...@4ax.com on 12/31/05 4:55 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:35:07 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <260er1hh79ee27cr4...@4ax.com>, f...@bar.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
>>>>>> are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
>>>>>> for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
>>>>>> please.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, but only if you mistakenly use a Tower to arrive at your numbers. A
>>>>> G5 iMac has roughly the same power,
>>>>
>>>> Nope; can't expand the graphics card, so it's out. Tower, please.
>>>
>>> then apple doesn't have an option in that space, not sure what upgrading
>>> the graphics card is going to do for you besides games and uber high end
>>> 3D apps. most of the stuff south of 10K is going to work fine with what
>>> apple provides as standard.
>>>
>>>>> comes with a great 20" screen,
>>>>> camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
>>>>
>>>> Did you miss the $579 bit?
>>>
>>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>>> cannot. you missed that bit.
>>
>> Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
>
>Can you show a PC that meets that spec *and* has all the other goodies you
>get with *any* Mac? Of course not.
Many customers, shocking as it may seem, don't need firewire or a
white case. They want a PC, and they get one, with a 19" LCD, for
$579.
f...@bar.com
<thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>f...@bar.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:46:00 -0500, TheLetterK
>> <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>>>>_nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>>>>OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>>>>origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>>>>a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>>>>stop endlessly repeating this.
>>>
>>>I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>>>I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>>>compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>>>introduces a number of problems.
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>
>I'm not terribly surprised that you don't consider problems not of a
>technical nature.
Can you be more specific?
>> The NT VDM is well-documented and well-known, and I doubt MS has
>> anyone working on it anymore; why would they?
>>
>>
>>>Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
>>>.NET...
>>
>>
>> Huh? Win32 is just an environment, one of several. Don't like it?
>> Put in another one.
>
>Win32 is also the name for a set of APIs. The only real competition on
>Windows right now, would be from .NET or Java. Still, Win32 is, by far,
>the most commonly used.
So target for it if you want to.
>>
>> http://mipagina.cantv.net/jjaguilerap/w2k_arq.html
>
>I was speaking of the APIs, not the kernel and overall system
>architecture. Win32 is a throwback to the MS-DOS shell days, and should
>disappear.
Why?
>>>>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>>>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>>>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>>>>the OS,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>>>>features.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
>>>>talking about?
>>>
>>>XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>Microsoft took an excellent kernel like NT, and married it with absolute
>shit for a userspace.
This is getting tiresome. *How so*?
>>>>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>>>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>>>>usability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
>>>>incremental changes for $130 each!
>>>
>>>You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
>>>Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
>>>
>>>Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
>>>Windows XP == NT 5.1
>>>Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
>>>
>>>Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
>>>marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
>>
>>
>> $130 for this year's OS. Every year. Only Apple.
>
>And until recently it was '$300' for Microsoft every 2-3 years. I
1. Upgrades are available for far less than that. Heck, new
*machines* with the OS are available for less than that!
2. Software still works on Windows 2000; it isn't as if people are
forced to upgrade. The need to upgrade on the PC isn't nearly what it
is on the Mac due to the more mature Windows APIs in use.
>definitely prefer Apple's release model, even if it does cost more.
>There's nothing I hate more than having to wait 4 years for an OS update.
Why? As a developer it's vastly easier to support a simpler and more
mature release schedule, and I have to believe it's easier from a
support perspective too (both on Apple's part and on IT's part).
>>>>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>>>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>>>>slower,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
>>>>George, this is an old one too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>>>>any difference in productivity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>>>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
>>>differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
>>>optimized code.
>>
>>
>> So clearly every application is poorly written.
>
>Every application? No. But a large majority of them, particularly
>professional applications that receive a great deal of effort at being
>optimized for specific hardware and Windows.
>
>>
>> Or else, as is vastly more likely, the CPU's slower.
>
>I don't think there's any real reason to suspect that the G5 is
>substantially slower, considering the fact that many highly optimized
>applications *do* perform similarly to their Wintel counterparts.
And some don't. And generally speaking, more don't than do.
>>>>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>>>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>>>>platforms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>>>>Mac systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>>>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>>>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>>>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>>>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>>>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>>>>than PPC Macs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
>>>>Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
>>>>seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>>>
>>>I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
>>>if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>The only reason anyone even looks at the Xserves, are because they use
>G5s (which are very well suited to high performance clustering on the
>'cheap'). Without that advantage, no one would give them the time of day.
A particular label on the CPU isn't an advantage in and of itself.
What advantage does that G5 give you? How is it high performance
clustering on the cheap? Do you do a lot of said clustering, and what
do you do with it?
>>>>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is funny, George. Really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>>>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>>>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>>>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>>>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>>>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>>>>Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>>>>fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>>>
>>>Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
>>>price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>I don't see why the price would drop, when Apple switches to a
>manufacturer that charges even more. Apple has no bargaining room with
>Intel, like they had with IBM and Freescale.
You mean like saying they'll go to AMD?
Not new.
Snit
>>> Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
>>
>> Can you show a PC that meets that spec *and* has all the other goodies you
>> get with *any* Mac? Of course not.
>
> Many customers, shocking as it may seem, don't need firewire or a
> white case.
Why would that be "shocking"? Firewire is not used by all and your comment
about the white case is just silly.
> They want a PC, and they get one, with a 19" LCD, for $579.
When comparing similarly equipped machines Macs do quite well, but it is
true that you cannot get one "stripped down" and with little software. Not
sure what else you are trying to show.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
<SNIT />
>> I'm not terribly surprised that you don't consider problems not of a
>> technical nature.
>
> Can you be more specific?
Prediction: TLK will fail to do so.
>> I was speaking of the APIs, not the kernel and overall system
>> architecture. Win32 is a throwback to the MS-DOS shell days, and should
>> disappear.
<SNIT />
> Why?
Prediction: TLK will fail to give a reasonable answer.
<SNIT />
>> Microsoft took an excellent kernel like NT, and married it with absolute
>> shit for a userspace.
>
> This is getting tiresome. *How so*?
Prediction: TLK will fail to explain.
TLK makes all sorts of claims - some of them even correct - but he really is
not very good at supporting his views. If you keep pushing him he will sink
to lying, name calling, and attributing his own phrases to others.
f...@bar.com
<thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>>>Did you miss the $579 bit?
>>
>>
>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>> cannot. you missed that bit.
>Funny. I just configured a Dell that almost resembles a basic iMac G5,
>and it came to $1267 + Shipping. Bringing it on-par with the high-end
>iMac G5 would make it $1647 + Shipping.
>
>Since I can't find an easy way to convert the configurations to
>plaintext specification lists, I'm not going to list them--however, you
>can do the same thing by configuring a Dimension E510 to match the
>specifications of the iMac. Do remember that you will need a digital
>flat panel, and Windows XP Pro to match the iMac (and Works is as close
>as Dell offers to AppleWorks).
Works, which now includes Word, is better than AppleWorks. Hopefully
you included Word/Mac on the Mac side of your costs. Corel Office is
a fine product as well. Word or Corel Office are better than
AppleWorks, which hasn't been updated in how many years now?
XP Pro? OS X cannot join a domain, so I'll disgegard your comments
about XP Pro as price-padding on your part.
f...@bar.com
Very true. Now just add a mouse & keyboard. :)
$629 for a basic Mac setup isn't half bad, even though it's slower
than the Dell. G4/1.5 vs. P4/3.0 though.
Snit
AppleWorks is an embarrassment to Apple. When it was released in, what, the
mid '90s it was a pretty good product, one that competed well in the market
at the time. Now, well, it is just not acceptable. Heck, if anything it is
less stable on OS X.
Apple has stated that iWork is going to replace AppleWorks at some point,
but when? When was it last updated? And has anyone used Pages; it is
pretty bad itself. Keynote is not a bad program and even has some
advantages over PowerPoint (though the reverse is also very much true).
Apple has no real spreadsheet. A real shame in my book.
>
> XP Pro? OS X cannot join a domain, so I'll disgegard your comments
> about XP Pro as price-padding on your part.
Pro has all sorts of things other than that which Home lacks. This includes
a default fax package, personal web server, encryption, multi-language
support, 64 bit support, and several networking features.
Snit
a 19" LCD is hardly "basic".
--
"a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When
we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a
court order before we do so." - George W. Bush April 20, 2004
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>> XP Pro? OS X cannot join a domain, so I'll disgegard your comments
>> about XP Pro as price-padding on your part.
>
>Pro has all sorts of things other than that which Home lacks. This includes
>a default fax package, personal web server, encryption, multi-language
>support, 64 bit support, and several networking features.
Both have fax, if MS is to be believed.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;306550&sd=tech
PWS:
Download Apache free. Eventually MS will figure this out and include
it with Vista, even the basic one.
Encryption:
Who cares? What, are you going to hide something from others with
physical access to your computer who might crack into it? Otherwise,
it's not needed.
ML Support:
Who cares?
64 bit support:
Who cares? Only if you have a 64 bit platform would this matter, and
driver support still isn't quite there yet, so it's a nonissue.
"Several networking features" - like what?
f...@bar.com
wrote:
>"f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> stated in post
>tnger1l9qa386mgr7...@4ax.com on 12/31/05 7:56 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:20:54 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> f...@bar.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> comes with a great 20" screen,
>>>>>>> camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you miss the $579 bit?
>>>>>
>>>>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>>>>> cannot. you missed that bit.
>>>>
>>>> Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
>>>
>>> easy, mac mini for $389 and 19" LCD for $240, that's pretty close.
>>>
>>> http://www.acnt.com/product.asp?pf_id=FP9A200S
>>
>> Very true. Now just add a mouse & keyboard. :)
>>
>> $629 for a basic Mac setup isn't half bad, even though it's slower
>> than the Dell. G4/1.5 vs. P4/3.0 though.
>
>a 19" LCD is hardly "basic".
Agreed; a monitor is a necessity, and for just $240 it's not half bad.
Yep, $629 for a basic Mac setup isn't half bad. Apple badly needs to
make the Mac faster so it's competitive with the Dell, but it's a
start.
Snit
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:58:04 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>> XP Pro? OS X cannot join a domain, so I'll disgegard your comments
>>> about XP Pro as price-padding on your part.
>>
>> Pro has all sorts of things other than that which Home lacks. This includes
>> a default fax package, personal web server, encryption, multi-language
>> support, 64 bit support, and several networking features.
>
> Both have fax, if MS is to be believed.
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;306550&sd=tech
It is on the CD if you know to look for it. It is not installed by default.
>
> PWS:
> Download Apache free. Eventually MS will figure this out and include
> it with Vista, even the basic one.
Free is not included.
>
> Encryption:
> Who cares? What, are you going to hide something from others with
> physical access to your computer who might crack into it? Otherwise,
> it's not needed.
Others disagree.
>
> ML Support:
> Who cares?
People who speak other languages.
>
> 64 bit support:
> Who cares? Only if you have a 64 bit platform would this matter, and
> driver support still isn't quite there yet, so it's a nonissue.
>
> "Several networking features" - like what?
Look at the comparison page on MSs site.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Snit
Seems Apple is selling the mini quite well.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
ZnU
"LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Wegie" <he...@northere.com> wrote in message
> news:yPotf.45$rc1....@news.uswest.net...
> > In article <fdsbr1leo1gupq0ls...@4ax.com>,
> > howdy <n...@yo.spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >macs are around the same price as comparable pc's, maybe you spend an
> >> >extra couple hundred, but it's well worth the investment if you value
> >> >your time.
> >> More like a couple thousand for a top of the line powermac - more than
> >> that when you add a display.
> >
> > well sure if you want to unfairly skew the data to fit your argument.
> > but the FACTS are Macs and PCs are roughly the same in price for similar
> > features now days.
>
> Not at the ultra-high-end. You can't get a Mac that competes with the very
> fastest Wintel workstations. That may change in a few years, but for pure 3D
> graphics server work, you can't beat the current 4-processor Wintels...
I'm not sure this is true anymore with the latest round of tower
updates. A quad 2.5 GHz G5 with a Quadro FX 4500 is getting up there.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Mayor of R'lyeh
the following wisdom:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:18:03 -0500, TheLetterK
><thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Did you miss the $579 bit?
>>>
>>>
>>> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
>>> cannot. you missed that bit.
>>Funny. I just configured a Dell that almost resembles a basic iMac G5,
>>and it came to $1267 + Shipping. Bringing it on-par with the high-end
>>iMac G5 would make it $1647 + Shipping.
>>
>>Since I can't find an easy way to convert the configurations to
>>plaintext specification lists, I'm not going to list them--however, you
>>can do the same thing by configuring a Dimension E510 to match the
>>specifications of the iMac. Do remember that you will need a digital
>>flat panel, and Windows XP Pro to match the iMac (and Works is as close
>>as Dell offers to AppleWorks).
>
>Works, which now includes Word,
That's what I thought too. However the version of Works included with
my laptop did not have Word.
> is better than AppleWorks. Hopefully
>you included Word/Mac on the Mac side of your costs. Corel Office is
>a fine product as well. Word or Corel Office are better than
>AppleWorks, which hasn't been updated in how many years now?
Open Office beats the crap out of Appleworks, for that matter.
>XP Pro? OS X cannot join a domain, so I'll disgegard your comments
>about XP Pro as price-padding on your part.
>
The networking features in Home are more akin to the way the Mac does
networking anyway.
--
"The next time you hear an alarming speech about
"global warming" on Earth Day, just remember that the
first Earth Day featured alarms about the danger of a
new ice age."
Thomas Sowell
Timberwoof
Oh, that's just too much. I'm laughing so hard, OI can't ty[r straigh./
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Mayor of R'lyeh
<timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
Can ypu explain to us why you thought this group needed another Snit
and why you thought you were the man for the job?
LawsonE
"TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
news:2rDtf.28749$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...>> news:SXztf.15$1U1....@news.uswest.net...
>> [...]
>>
>>>The Amiga never had a large userbase nor software selection, the two
>>>camps are very unrelated. Apple users have always known they are leading
>>>the PC industry forward since 76, 81, the Commodore users never thought
>>>they were leading at anything except they had a poor man's Mac. The two
>>>worlds were on opposite ends of the spectrum, with all the PC folk in
>>>the middle somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Cough. The Amigas were ground-breaking in many ways. They were used to
>> make Babylon 5 graphics, for instance.
> Nextstep absolutely killed Mac OS during the time period we are
> discussing. IMO, it was even more 'ground breaking' than Amiga, but for
> different reasons.
Sure, but for what the Amigas were used for, they couldn't be beat during
the time they were still being sold new and actually for a few years after
that. You had to go to SGI workstations to get something better.
LawsonE
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-F608DD.0...@individual.net...
You can get 8-processor (4-dual processor?) workstations. The Quads are very
nice workhorses, but the 3D-only crown is still x86-based.
LawsonE
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BFDCB5B5.401D9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
It's really just a high-end iPod accessory...
LawsonE
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-62FD33...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <5QDtf.28757$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,>> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:54:39 GMT, George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
>> >>experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based
>> >>PCs
>> >>BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really
>> >>in
>> >>question at this juncture.
>> >
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
>> >>code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
>> >>has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
>> >>OSX doesn't share.
>> >
>> >
>> > George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>> > _nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>> > OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>> > origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>> > a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>> > stop endlessly repeating this.
>>
>> I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>> I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>> compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>> .NET...
>
> Yes, that and the conventions of dot extensions rather than resource
> forks, and letter names for mounted volumes. All of these things can be
> traced back to DOS. But foo knows this, we've been down this road before
> and yet he keeps insisting that I believe that modern Windows is still a
> GUI shell built over DOS. I don't, but a lot of the Windows conventions
> and backward compatibility do have their roots in DOS.
>
MacOS X uses dot-extensions for any MacOS X app. There's plusses and minuses
to doing it either way. I prefer the metafile idea which is basically
unlimited resource forks, but some make the argument that the .app extension
of MacOS X IS a metafile for most practical purposes...
>
Peter Hayes
> "f...@bar.com" <f...@bar.com> stated in post
> 4j6er1pevqtcvm84d...@4ax.com on 12/31/05 4:55 PM:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:35:07 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <260er1hh79ee27cr4...@4ax.com>, f...@bar.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> If that feature includes speed and expandability, you're wrong; PCs
> >>>>> are far less. Put together a basic Mac tower + 19" LCD (Dell's fine)
> >>>>> for the price of, say, a Dell 510 for $579 (with 19" LCD monitor),
> >>>>> please.
> >>>>
> >>>> yes, but only if you mistakenly use a Tower to arrive at your numbers. A
> >>>> G5 iMac has roughly the same power,
> >>>
> >>> Nope; can't expand the graphics card, so it's out. Tower, please.
> >>
> >> then apple doesn't have an option in that space, not sure what upgrading
> >> the graphics card is going to do for you besides games and uber high end
> >> 3D apps. most of the stuff south of 10K is going to work fine with what
> >> apple provides as standard.
> >>
> >>>> comes with a great 20" screen,
> >>>> camera, wireless and bluetooth for $1,799. a 17" model for $500 less.
> >>>
> >>> Did you miss the $579 bit?
> >>
> >> you can get a Dell that matches an iMac G5 for $579, obviously you
> >> cannot. you missed that bit.
> >
> > Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
>
> Can you show a PC that meets that spec *and* has all the other goodies you
> get with *any* Mac? Of course not.
Not every user wants iLife...
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> applications but too slow on the net, particularly if you are on
> dialup internet lines.
If you sincerely believe that a G4 is limited by the speed of a 56k
dialup connection then you're totally unqualified to pass comment on the
relative merits of Wintel and PowerMac.
OTOH, if you understand the limitations of a 56k dialup connection then
you're just trolling.
--
Peter
Snit
1h8hrz7.1a4k29ip7zoluN%not_i...@btinternet.com on 1/1/06 8:21 AM:
>>> Fine; give me a Mac with 19" LCD, new, for $579.
>>
>> Can you show a PC that meets that spec *and* has all the other goodies you
>> get with *any* Mac? Of course not.
>
> Not every user wants iLife...
Um, OK. So? Are you just agreeing with me?
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
Snit
1/1/06 8:00 AM:
>>>> a 19" LCD is hardly "basic".
>>>
>>> Agreed; a monitor is a necessity, and for just $240 it's not half bad.
>>> Yep, $629 for a basic Mac setup isn't half bad. Apple badly needs to
>>> make the Mac faster so it's competitive with the Dell, but it's a
>>> start.
>>
>> Seems Apple is selling the mini quite well.
>>
>
> It's really just a high-end iPod accessory...
LOL!
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
_________________________________________