Apple G5

[theprisoner]

lol, a 2000 dollar mac vs. ati radeon 9800 256mb, which would handle graphics better??? The radeon....

[Enigma2003]

there is absolutely no way any PC graphics card could begin to handle the sort of graphics that Macs can.

[Wolfmight]

today's pc's are faster than macs.. yes the macintosh was faster than any pc when windows 98 was out.. but that's changed.. Now we have 256mb graphics cards.. 3.0ghz.. 200gb hds... 1gb memz.. etc
There's no need to fight.. pc can achieve faster performance if the right hardware and the right user skills are applied.

Macintosh doesnt have a bunch of software and viruses that will work on it, so that's why it's allways soo clean like that.

Mac for newbies, PC for High-end users

[Wolfmight]

Originally posted by theprisoner@15 August 2003 - 11:02
lol, a 2000 dollar mac vs. ati radeon 9800 256mb, which would handle graphics better??? The radeon....

yea, i'd go for a 9800 pro+ whole new parts and i'd still pay less than $2000.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by Wolfmight+16 August 2003 - 01:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wolfmight @ 16 August 2003 - 01:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-theprisoner@15 August 2003 - 11:02
lol, a 2000 dollar mac vs. ati radeon 9800 256mb, which would handle graphics better??? The radeon....

yea, i&#39;d go for a 9800 pro+ whole new parts and i&#39;d still pay less than &#036;2000. [/b][/quote]
Mr. Wolfmight, I have noticed something peculiar about your observation. No offense intended; but let me disabuse you of a certain false perception: the Macintosh&#39;s RGB conversion specs have nothing whatsoever to do with the graphics renderer, or AGP card. In other words, whether you have a 9800, a FX 5900, etc., colors are rendered faster and in a more efficient manner by a Macintosh than by a Windows XP based machine.

One thing is for sure, colors look much more lively on the Mac, independent of the nature of the graphics card manufacturer.

If you took some time to carefully review the benchmarks you would conclude, as I have, as any other objective review would the same; that while the Windows platform may excel in certain key benchmarks, the Apple Power PC platform is a much better coverter of the RGB spectrum than the PC.

qed

[Enigma2003]

thank you adam

[chalkmongoose]

It&#39;s probably put best this way.
First there was Unix, developed by a group of programmers in the 70s, and also which started the development of the C programming language by Dennis Richie.
By the 1980s, Apple had begun to produce "prototypes" of various structural components needed for computing work. These "prototypes" were actually early forms of the first BW computing systems.
During the turbulant 80s, several independant computer manufactors all fought for control of the relatively new computing industry.
Apple already had a foothold, and Microsoft was also rising to the occasion.
"Big Blue," sadly, saw all the competition as frightening, and by the mid-80s, IBM had shut out a lot of manufactors.
By 1990, only two major developers were left. Ironically, "Big Blue" was NOT one of them. The brash young chairman of Microsoft had forced IBM&#39;s hand, and removed them from the home-computing business forever. Today, along with massive amounts of space in the server industry, they market OS/2 Warp, a sad shadow of the only IBM attempt to make an operating system.
It was around 1990 that the computing wars started to really heat up. Microsoft had taken IBM&#39;s place, and was forcing a staggering number of competitors off the opened-market. Shrewd, cruel marketing tactics had given Gates control of several key factors, including DOS and the Windows GUI. They had also landed a major license to market their products on the Apple Lisa, and later the Macintosh. The reverse of the license only came about several years later...
By 1991/2, Windows was already in the lead, with two Windows Operating Systems under its belt. 1.0, a horribly buggy yellow and black interface, was quickly replaced by 2.0, which had changed... a lot.
In fact, it changed so much that Apple decided to file a lawsuit again Microsoft, claiming that key features of its GUI had been stolen for use in the Windows OS.
Microsoft lost the suit, and had to remove a majority of its features. Then, by 1993, Gates had figured out how to change his OS enough so it didn&#39;t resemble Apples&#39;. His release of the much-heralded Windows 3.0 in 1993 came as a big shocker to Apple. The lawsuit they subsequently filed dropped flat, when Gates managed to show his compliance to the original demands by Apple.
By &#39;95, Apple had given up on Microsoft, and turned to IBM for help. Over the years, their rocky partnership, which ended in divorce, did manage to produce several new Macintosh OS versions.
Sadly, by &#39;95, Windows had already released 3.1 and 95, and had gained a permanent foothold on the industry. By convinced product manufacturing leaders, they gained exclusive (and some would say illegal) footholds on the software industry.
In 1990, Linus Thorvalds, a young university student from Eastern Europe, got fed up with Unix&#39;s lack of support for its users and made Linux. It has only recently gained support in the home community, but that support is strong. In 2002/3, Microsoft changed its long-standing view on Linux&#39;s "threat" by saying that Linux had become a serious competitor.
Does this some it up?

[bigdawgfoxx]

HAHAHA&#33; The only thing I have heard in this whole topic about macs being better is for animation and stuff to make movies with...which YES is true...but who the hell is gona spend MORE to have LESS performance..just so they can make a movie perfect? or have a brighter blue kazaa lite forum cuz the color is better...?? NOT ME&#33; You can do alot more with PCs...stick with them..there FASTER and CHEAPER...might not be as good as macs in movie making..but how many of your friends helped in designing T3 neways?

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@16 August 2003 - 14:30
HAHAHA&#33; The only thing I have heard in this whole topic about macs being better is for animation and stuff to make movies with...which YES is true...but who the hell is gona spend MORE to have LESS performance..just so they can make a movie perfect? or have a brighter blue kazaa lite forum cuz the color is better...?? NOT ME&#33; You can do alot more with PCs...stick with them..there FASTER and CHEAPER...might not be as good as macs in movie making..but how many of your friends helped in designing T3 neways?

U can run a virtual windows OS from inside your mac......... so whatever you can do with a PC you can do with windows, just get a Warez 98 or something, XP if you want, and u can run it off your mac, along with your OS X

[Wolfmight]

Originally posted by adamp2p+15 August 2003 - 18:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p &#064; 15 August 2003 - 18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Wolfmight@16 August 2003 - 01:39
<!--QuoteBegin-theprisoner

@15 August 2003 - 11:02
lol, a 2000 dollar mac vs. ati radeon 9800 256mb, which would handle graphics better??? The radeon....

yea, i&#39;d go for a 9800 pro+ whole new parts and i&#39;d still pay less than &#036;2000.

Mr. Wolfmight, I have noticed something peculiar about your observation. No offense intended; but let me disabuse you of a certain false perception: the Macintosh&#39;s RGB conversion specs have nothing whatsoever to do with the graphics renderer, or AGP card. In other words, whether you have a 9800, a FX 5900, etc., colors are rendered faster and in a more efficient manner by a Macintosh than by a Windows XP based machine.

One thing is for sure, colors look much more lively on the Mac, independent of the nature of the graphics card manufacturer.

If you took some time to carefully review the benchmarks you would conclude, as I have, as any other objective review would the same; that while the Windows platform may excel in certain key benchmarks, the Apple Power PC platform is a much better coverter of the RGB spectrum than the PC.

qed [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s just my opinion, not 100% the facts...
your thinking ahead of yourself there..
btw, i never said anything about the color or how pretty things looked.