Apple G5

[dingoBaby]

Well, do you have any thoughts on the new machine from Apple?

Even though I have always been a pc/windows guy (well post-Apple IIe anyway), I think it looks very cool....and FAST.

Power Mac G5 (http://www.apple.com/powermac/)

[Pitbul]

to bad its not the fastest Computer like they claim. i for one now see how un-trustworthy and that reason alone i hope Mac falls under.

[Mr. Blunt]

I think mac's kick ass. It's just that they cost so damn much.

If I had the money for one, i would throw out my PC and Windows so damn fast.

[Enigma2003]

"to bad its not the fastest Computer like they claim. i for one now see how un-trustworthy and that reason alone i hope Mac falls under"

What!?!?!?!?!

Going on my personal experience with Macs, Macs are so much quicker than PCs in almost everyway! The one and almost only problem with Macs is their lack of support from other software developers.

If you use a resource hungry program such as Adobe Photoshop 7 on the PC and the Mac, both are put under stress but the Mac will be twice as fast and will outperform the PC in almost everyway.

The G5 is just the iceing on the cake with two 2Ghz processors and up to 8GB RAM possible.

If you're a PC user and haven't used a Mac then you have no rights to diss.
If you use a Mac and still diss it, then you must be using it for the wrong reasons and applications.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Um...i just dont like macs...they claim its the FASTEST computer...i dont believe that bullshit..and it might be the fastest for the stuff it can ACTUALLY run...which isnt much! im pretty sure that you cant even have kazaa on a mac.....there like AOL with internet...its limited...so i just say stick with PC...if ya want the best ;)

[Enigma2003]

i'm sorry i sorta went off on one BDF.

i just think that people knock Macs b4 they can actually see what they can do.

At the end of the day, PCs and Macs are 2 very, very different machines.
One of the only reasons that Macs are behind in terms of popularity is because of other sotware developers not developing software for them.

They each have their own uses. If you're a big time graphics renderer or make a living out of making and manipulating photos then the sight of a PC would make you sick, because a Mac is just so much better at graphics.

But I understand that each for their own.

[downloader2008]

Originally posted by Enigma2003@12 August 2003 - 18:15
i'm sorry i sorta went off on one BDF.

i just think that people knock Macs b4 they can actually see what they can do.

At the end of the day, PCs and Macs are 2 very, very different machines.
One of the only reasons that Macs are behind in terms of popularity is because of other sotware developers not developing software for them.

They each have their own uses. If you're a big time graphics renderer or make a living out of making and manipulating photos then the sight of a PC would make you sick, because a Mac is just so much better at graphics.

But I understand that each for their own.
I agree. ;) The only thing is that nothing works on them. [programs] And from what I know (not much about macs) is that if the computer freezes, there is no way of terminating the process.... is there?

[EnJoi]

i agree macs suck ass

[wolfman10_2000]

Macs are used more in Graphics design becuase they can support alot of the ADOBE stuff and Marcomedia ect. also the edges on a mac are far more smoother and a higher resolution than PC. Although the MAC is this the PC is more for personal use and for downloading pirate game or movies lol.




-Mike

[slammy_dunken]

Though Macs are the first most popular PC before Microsoft, I still think that Macs suck. But they just LOOK cool. :D

[dingoBaby]

Originally posted by slammy_dunken@12 August 2003 - 20:53
Though Macs are the first most popular PC before Microsoft, I still think that Macs suck. But they just LOOK cool. :D
Why do they suck? Please explain.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

The G5 is a pos...

its all eye candy.

apple worked up a bunch of shitty benchmarks, trust me, i read about them... the one side used a a linux emulation of sorts, or something, there was a big uproar when the truth about them came out... it wasnt a fair test bed.

if you buy a mac... you deserve all the problems and incompatibilities you will get...

[Enigma2003]

does anyone in hear that is knocking Macs, actually own a Mac???

if you could actually use a Mac for what it is meant to be used for then you could see just how phenominally quick they are. Their colour support is much higher than PCs which makes them again better for graphics work.

i have a new mac and also an old G4 500Mhz and it runs noticably faster than a 1Ghz P3 PC i have. They're not just quicker with software made by companies such as Adobe and Macromedia, they are quicker full stop.

As for the benchmarking, how can a company that size get away with cheating on benchmarks?
They can't.
Why would they need to cheat when they have two 64-bit processors sitting under box?
They wouldn't.

[Amarjit]

With only 512MB of RAM for a 64-Bit computer? :lol:
The Armari is the best 64-Bit computer out at the moment, there's the Xeon and the Opteron version.

And they claim it's the first 64-b computer out, well a 64-Bit computer was manufactured 10 years ago and the Armari was built before the G5. :P

Edit: 8GB of RAM? Is that it? 64-Bit processors are capable of TBs of RAM, not 8GB. And the momory is only clocked at 400MHz, the Quadro FX 2000 has 1GHz DDR2 RAM. The only special bit is an increase in an FSB by 200MHz. And how can 2x 2GHz Processors beat 2x 3.06GHz Xeons, which I suppose they're referring to the Armari, the Armari processors run individually, so you're guarenteed 6.12GHz rather than 4GHz. :P :P

[neevakee]

well i just priced one and it ended up being over $12,000 but most of the cost was the 8gb of ram and the two 23" displays

[bob_the_alien]

Except for like gaming, Macs are great,
the OS is actually stable, they run graphics and movies tremendously better than PCs.

And their is plenty of Peer to Peer programs out their for MAC.
Mac's have pretty much everything a PC has except for gaming, but that's because no one creates games for Macs.
When you only have 10% of the market, its hard to get companies to program for your OS, when the other 90% is already waiting, and has the cash.

My only thought about the G5, I want one, but they are way to damn expensive.

[theprisoner]

Theres one thing you really need that kind of speed for-thats gaming. But the problem is MACs have very few games....

[_John_Lennon_]

History wise, Mac's have always been ahead of the curve, but when no one to follow, your just running by yourself. I mean come on, they put out a personal computer before IBM's in 81', but, it was confusing as hell, and average people couldnt understand how to use it.

They put out the first Handheld last time I checked, the Newton, but, once again, first out usually has alot to improve on.

But yes, I mean, the lack of software support completly undermines the now 'rock solid' OS that Apple has built. But on the flip side, there are few virses that are written for the mac's, same goes for spyware. But, if your a gamer, I know you say you HAVE to go with the PC's, but my friend juse has a virtual PC setup on his mac, that he is running 2k off of......


Speaking of which, why the hell hasnt Apple made anymore hand helds? Oh wait, yeah, Palm. :rolleyes:

[Keikan]

for $1999usd i could get a

Intel pentium4 3.0ghz 800fsb
1024mb ram
saffire ati radeon 9800 256mb OR geforce 5900 256mb (same price)
cable connection
80gb hard drive

ya thats bout the best of it the rest is just basic crap

[adamp2p]

Hey guys, I'm back, just took my final in calculus, it's finally over...

Anyways, about the Macintosh...I really do not understand people who like to dog the Mac. Here is the real issue: those who have Macs have particular uses for them that are either unavailable in the Windows' world, or are just plain inferior.

Like take, for example, a movie editor or a photogapher. They all have Macs. I live in Los Angeles, California, and although I am not a moviestar or other such hotshot, I do encounter the type, that is, who are dedicated Macintosh users for good reason. The Macintosh platform supports better programs for such purposes, there is no doubt about that; final cut and photoshop for the Mac world is superior by a scalar multiple to the Windows edition.

However, that is not to say that Windows does not have its advantages. For one, there is simply no way that you could aquire the vast dedadence available for Windows OS for general purposes; filesharing among Macintosh users, for one, is, shall I say, limited? Well I can tell you one thing, and that is there is no Kazaa or
cornocopia of compatable 1's and 0's streaming on the internet to such unbounded volumes on the Internet available for the Mac platform.

Personally, I prefer Windows, because, for one, there is simply no way that I could afford the thousands of dollars of pirated 1's and 0's just yet. Although you may take for granted vast amount of intellectual property that is avaiable at no cost* for us in the Windows world...more later... :rolleyes:

[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 :D

[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.

[adamp2p]

Okay, okay...

Personally, I really like Windows. I have no use whatsoever for the Mac.

I was just trying to state that the Mac deserves credit where it is due.

[Wolfmight]

my friend has a G4 mac with flatscreen (said it cost him a fourntune) and i used it for awhile.. Compareing it to mine by playing UT2K3 and Warcraft 3. The graphics look and proccess the same speed really.. i didnt get a chance to benchmark.. but the playing experience was the same.

[adamp2p]

For gaming, Windows XP is plain unbeatable. There is no arguement about that.

But those big time movie editors, they really like Macs. The artsy-fartsy types.

Cute girls tend to like Macs too. Don&#39;t ask me, I have no idea why.

I am very happy that the Macintosh platform exists. I simply have no use for it.

Pro Tools, Final Cut, and, Photoshop are all programs that I seldom, if ever use.

However, if I spent the majority of my time using those programs, I would want a Mac for sure...for obvious reasons...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

More shit from apple... (http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/)

BS benchmarks (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,2136537,00.htm)

Theres your proof... just google for "apple G5 false benchmarks" and get all the news. They fudged shit big time to get what they wanted.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@19 August 2003 - 20:03
More shit from apple... (http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/)

BS benchmarks (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,2136537,00.htm)

Theres your proof... just google for "apple G5 false benchmarks" and get all the news. They fudged shit big time to get what they wanted.
So at least pretend to like Macs, dude...

[Twist3r]

i dont know about G5s but all the macs i have used FREEZE every 5 minutes there bullshit if u ask me

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by Twister@19 August 2003 - 16:44
i dont know about G5s but all the macs i have used FREEZE every 5 minutes there bullshit if u ask me
Umm, and u came onto the windows scene when? Come on, my gf crashed MS paint before........

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by adamp2p@19 August 2003 - 14:08

So at least pretend to like Macs, dude...
sarcasm noted... but earlier someone called me on it, saying my news on their benchmarks was bs... it was enigma i believe... i was just pointing out evidence.

Have I used macs, yes, only when i had to. would i recommend them to any one? no. 98% of things you can do on a MAC, can be done on a faster pc, at a cheaper price. So why waste the money? macs are all eye candy, nothing more, and any decent system builder can make their set up look just as good as a mac... ill take the slight RGB slow down on a pc for the compatability any day.

[Enigma2003]

sarcasm noted... but earlier someone called me on it, saying my news on their benchmarks was bs... it was enigma i believe... i was just pointing out evidence

Sorry Schmiggy :unsure:

[the-ninja69]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@19 August 2003 - 12:03
More shit from apple... (http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/)

BS benchmarks (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,2136537,00.htm)

Theres your proof... just google for "apple G5 false benchmarks" and get all the news. They fudged shit big time to get what they wanted.
Ya, that really shows how the mac G5 is not the fastest and its all bullshit.

[MadDog-2000]

I think the best part of the new Apple G5 computer is that cool aluminium case&#33; And I also really like that huge Cinema LCD display&#33; If I had the money I would buy the display and the computer but throw out all the components inside the case and replace them with some real PC hardware&#33; :D

[Schmiggy_JK23]

excellent point.

ya, they look great. my buddy&#39;s dad has one, its really sharp, and that big ass lcd display is gorgeous... but still, they dont compare =]

enimga, dont worry about it. i get paid to keep up on alot of the stuff, being a part time system builder an all.

[Wolfmight]

A hot simi-nude girl goes good with a macintosh g5 flatscreen.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by Wolfmight@20 August 2003 - 22:37
A hot simi-nude girl goes good with a macintosh g5 flatscreen.
I do say, Wolfmight...

Have you noticed that the hottest ladies all like Macs???

I have learned to like Macs for that sole purpose...

Macs have better curves...

I have so often seduced a woman into bed by impressing her with my knowledge of Macs... :rolleyes: :D

[Wolfmight]

lol, well they are more like the female computers.. and pcs are of course male computers.

Steve Jobs should have been a woman.. then everything would be perfect.