Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Mac Buffs

  1. #1
    bigdawgfoxx's Avatar Big Dawg
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3,833
    Ok, in my computer class today there were some Apple technician people. I asked them if they thought Mac was much better then PC and they said there is no comparison.

    I told them about the Maximum PC review and that the Mac was the worst of the 3 CPUs (AMD, Intel, and Mac), but they said you cant base a mac on the benchmarks really....

    They told me PC is built on like one slate, which is really old, and Mac is built on a new slate that is laid out better and much faster. He pulled out his 17in. Apple Laptop and boy was it GORGEOUS! But I just dont like macs, nor do I want to get used to using them.

    They also said these exact words "On a PC nothing works...at all, but on mac everything always works" Of course I got in their face about this one and said that everything I have ever done on a PC has worked perfect, but they still said Mac is in a whole nother world then PC, and thats how good it is.

    Can someone explain this slate thing to me better? They said like X86 or something...
    [SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
    1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
    HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum

  2. Software & Hardware   -   #2
    tesco's Avatar woowoo
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    24,069
    what i know about x86 is that the first few pc processors, i think by intel, were called 186, 286, 486 and then the next was going to be 586 but they didnt name it that and they started doing pentium with whatever many mhz in the name (pentium 133mhz for example). but all processors are based on the x86.

    a friend told me they stopped calling them x86 because some guy had trademarked the name 586 thinking that intel would pay him lots of money for them to use the name but then intel didnt buy it so the guy was piseed (i would be too) and intel started the new naming system. This is what a friend told me but im not sure if it is right.

  3. Software & Hardware   -   #3
    _John_Lennon_'s Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Strawberry Fields
    Posts
    1,177
    Yes, also note. 586 = pentium...... 586 = Pentium..........

  4. Software & Hardware   -   #4
    tesco's Avatar woowoo
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    24,069
    Originally posted by _John_Lennon_@19 March 2004 - 22:35
    Yes, also note. 586 = pentium...... 586 = Pentium..........
    thats pretty cool. B)

  5. Software & Hardware   -   #5
    I like Macintoshes and I like Windows. However, I must say that there is less fun to be had with a Macintosh if your are a tweaker or do it yourselfer. The OS cannot be configured like Windows.

    OSX needs far less user administration. Overall, OSX is a great OS if all you plan on doing is working with your computer.

    For gaming, there simply is no comparison. Windows XP has the greatest APIs, Direct X and Open GL.

    And as far as value goes, there is no comparison to what can be done if you know a couple of things about the components of todays computers.

    For example, look at your system, big dawg, and compare what you paid for such high performance with what you find at Apple's website. It would cost you at least three times the price to buy a system from Apple. That is one of the reasons that Apple is really not an enthusiast computer yet. I probably should not talk because I have a Dell. Well I tell you my next baby wont be an OEM.

    Take for example what can be done with a 2.4 GHz Intel chip on default voltage, like for example, what Abu has done with his system. I have heard of several people who managed to overclock that chip to 3.4-6 GHz on air, and spent less than $1000 on a TOP END SYSTEM. To get similar performance in an Apple computer you would have to spend almost $9000.

    Sorry, I think I will stay with Windows for now.

  6. Software & Hardware   -   #6

  7. Software & Hardware   -   #7
    Chewie's Avatar Chew E. Bakke
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,883
    Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004@20 March 2004 - 03:05
    what i know about x86 is that the first few pc processors, i think by intel, were called 186, 286, 486 and then the next was going to be 586 but they didnt name it that and they started doing pentium with whatever many mhz in the name (pentium 133mhz for example). but all processors are based on the x86.

    a friend told me they stopped calling them x86 because some guy had trademarked the name 586 thinking that intel would pay him lots of money for them to use the name but then intel didnt buy it so the guy was piseed (i would be too) and intel started the new naming system. This is what a friend told me but im not sure if it is right.
    Intel named the successor to the 486 'Pentium' because they were fed up with rival chip manufacturers using the same names for their inferior CPUs, and they realised you can't copyright a number.
    AMD named their Pentium equivalent &#39;586&#39;, before catching on with the K6, while Cyrix named theirs &#39;P<mhz>+&#39; - P120+, P133+ etc.
    There isn't a bargepole long enough for me to work on [a Sony Viao] - clocker 2008

  8. Software & Hardware   -   #8
    Chewie's Avatar Chew E. Bakke
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,883
    Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@20 March 2004 - 02:44
    Can someone explain this slate thing to me better?&nbsp; They said like X86 or something...
    Intels current processors are the latest in this line:
    8086/8088, 80186 (not very popular), 80286 (286), 386 (80386), 486 (80486), Pentium, Pentium II, PIII, P4...
    The Pentium got a real name because Intel couldn&#39;t copyright &#39;586&#39; as it&#39;s a number, and they wanted to stop rival companies naming their own CPUs identically to theirs.
    Perhaps you can see the &#39;x86&#39; that the Mac guys were referring to.

    Back in the time of the 486, non-x86 based machines were running at 7-15MHz, 680x0 (Motorola 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030) processors while the Intel chips were running at up to 66MHz. This speed difference belies the power of the 680x0 line because they got more work done in the same time. Sounds a little like the Athlon/Pentium debate, eh?
    I was an Amiga owner in the late 80s & early 90s and my 7MHz played games a hell of a lot faster than the poxy 386 and as fast as the 486 PCs did.

    I don&#39;t understand how anyone can suggest you can&#39;t read too much into benchmarking when it sort of levels the playing field a bit. Unless, that is, they&#39;re benching Macs while they&#39;re running a Windows emulator to do it - a bit like poking Ronaldo&#39;s eyes out so he can play in Brazil&#39;s blind football team.
    There isn't a bargepole long enough for me to work on [a Sony Viao] - clocker 2008

  9. Software & Hardware   -   #9
    tesco's Avatar woowoo
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    24,069
    Originally posted by adamp2p@20 March 2004 - 00:51
    Configure one here and GASP at the outragous prices&#33;
    Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
    Save &#036;300 at checkout - 8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
    2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
    ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
    Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
    Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel) + Apple DVI to ADC Adapter
    SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
    Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
    Mac OS X - U.S. English
    iPod - 40GB
    Logitech Z-680 THX 5.1 Speakers & Monster 2-meter Cable


    Promotion Savings
    -&#036;300.00

    Subtotal &#036;13,384.95


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •