Which is better Mac or P.C. [Archive]

TimP

03-31-2004, 7:29 PM

It's quite simple, and I doubt many would disagree, even AJ. For reliability and graphics applications, the MAC would be superior, for ease of use and versatility, the PC would win out.

Now of course, there are exceptions to these concepts as always.

I can say these things since I own both a MAC and a PC. ;)I've been a Mac and PC user for more than a decade and since I started using XP (about a year and a half ago), I've found it to be much more stable than OS 9 or OS X. It could just be a unique case on my Mac, but I still consider XP more stable.

Netrunner

03-31-2004, 8:35 PM

XP Stable What are you talking about. Again, OS: Niether LINUX LINUX for my sake of mind LINUX
Hardware: G5 Most uses (not counting 120 dollar linux that can run all windows things too) XP Stability LINUX
Most other things: LINUX

Once again LINUX LINUX for fuck's sake LINUX

03-31-2004, 9:47 PM

Would you relax?
I agree with both Tim and Nuts in most cases.. however I still feel more comfortable using OS X's GUI.. and I find it more intuitive and with that so often marketed 'ease-of-use.'

Btw, Nuts, would you mind not typing Mac in all caps? Pet Peeve.. definitely not the proper abbreviation. =] Unless we're talking networking and you want my MAC address. ;)

OboeGuru

03-31-2004, 10:43 PM

Yeah, I really wish I could get a good Mac to do all my graphics, video editing, and music composition on, but alas, no moolah.

I was the biggest biased PC freak forever. Then I researched Macs for a speech.

I saw the light, an apple-shapped light.

If I don't own an iBook once in my life, I will cry.

04-01-2004, 5:16 PM

I'd personally prefer a PowerBook, but rar.

Fenguin

04-01-2004, 8:12 PM

I am subject to Xtreme Pain as I use Wonderously Imbecilic Nates Dying On Wooden Swords.
Haha, actually, Windows isn't that bad. But I would give anything for a yummy Mac... :ninja:

XP Stable What are you talking about. Again, OS: Niether LINUX LINUX for my sake of mind LINUX
Hardware: G5 Most uses (not counting 120 dollar linux that can run all windows things too) XP Stability LINUX
Most other things: LINUX

Once again LINUX LINUX for fuck's sake LINUX
I thought you wrote your own operating systems. :p And plus, Linux is overrated. :)

TimP

04-01-2004, 8:38 PM

And plus, Linux is overrated. I would tend to agree. When you ask most people what they use Linux for, you'll get a wide variety of answers from word processing, listening to music, browsing the internet, and chatting to hosting a website. All of which can be accomplished equally well, or better on Windows. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me something that they do on Linux that I absolutely cannot do on Windows.

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but penny for penny you can get a much better graphics/video PC than you can if you spent the same amount on a Mac. A midrange G5 costs about $2,500. If money is no object, you can get a really great G5 but it's going to cost you between $3,000 and $5,000.

04-01-2004, 8:56 PM

Yes, well.. bang-for-buck, is also important. And I find my productivity and general ability to produce better product is much higher when I'm doing post-production in FCP4 on my G4, than when having to deal with a similar product on a Wintel machine.

pixels

04-01-2004, 9:03 PM

i want a mac

but i dont have the monnies

so i upgrade my crapdows box with L33TNESS

-- however if i somehow get 1000$ ill get a mac laptop kthx

04-01-2004, 9:07 PM

I understand the practicality of being able to purchase a brand-new Macintosh.. However I find that anyone who can afford one and simply shrugs it off due to previous bias deserves to be shot.

Anyhow, a good read:
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/

Rather technical for those of you looking for a simple blow-by-blow comparisons, some harder to understand concepts for non-programmers, or those unfamilar with the flow of development on some of today's modern OS'.

blkmage

04-01-2004, 9:08 PM

A Mac looks like it would be fun to use. It certainly looks prettier.
Of course, it's way out of my price range for the next few years.

TimP

04-01-2004, 9:11 PM

Final Cut Pro is one program that really doesn't have a PC equivalent except for Adobe Premiere (which is also on the Mac). Other than that I don't find myself any more productive using a Photoshop on Mac than using it on a PC. Quite the contrary actually, because my P4 2.8 GHZ smokes my G3 350 MHZ (not that I'm surprised). I do applaud Apple for having their own chip rather than putting in an Intel or AMD chip and the 1 GHZ FSB on the high end G5 beats the P4EE.

Nuts

04-01-2004, 9:15 PM

I use my Mac (not MAC, thanks AJ ;) ) for publishing. I work with Adobe Photoshop files that exceed 100 megs and require a rather intelligent graphics driven machine, which the Mac seems to be. The Windows version of Pagemaker crashed almost rountinely and wasn't capable of working dealing with Excel spreadsheets.... something about metafiles... yes, metafiles are bad!

04-01-2004, 9:19 PM

Believe me, I understand video editing Tim.. i've invested a major portion of both my time and money into it. More of an obsession than a hobby, really.

Anyhow, Avid is close enough for comparison to FCP. Regardless, yeah. Comparing those machines you have running Photoshop is like me unboxing my Performa and complaining at its ability to process requests slower than my G4.

As for Apple having their own chip, let's not mislead the uninformed here. Apple currently uses the PowerPC 970 and 970FX chips produced by IBM. As well as a minute amount of G4 processors still being made by Motorola. They plan to shift entirely to IBM in due time.

TimP

04-01-2004, 9:22 PM

For all practical purposes it's their own proprietary chip, regardless if they manufacture it or not. I don't think we'll see a G5 chip running Windows anytime soon. :)

04-01-2004, 9:29 PM

The PowerPC processor is made from the Power4 line of processors that IBM produces. These chips run a full gambit of OS' .. and OS X is made up of components from several former OS projects that were running on x86 processors at one time. And Apple is rumored to have prototypes of said designs in office, anyway.

Anyhow, I agree that we won't be seeing any wintel machines running OS X soon, it shouldn't be written off .. and I again wish to point out that Apple in no way is involved in the manufactor or design of the processors they utilize.. that's entirely IBM.

Neo

04-01-2004, 9:42 PM

In the past werent those iMac things able to come with Windows 98 on them?

Or some such?

I think in this day and age anything you can do on a <insert: Mac, Wintel> you can do on a <insert: Wintel, Mac>.

Basically each can accomplish the same thing. If one uses a 350mhz G3, and a P3 2.4ghz, then your Pentium is going to beat the mac hands down for most things.

But if you compare (practically, not that creepy G5 is most powerful desktop in the computer "tests") a G5 and like, I dont know, Top of the line IBM / Dells and I strongly doulbt youll see any major improvement between the two.

One runs Mac OSX and looks pretty, the other runs Windows and looks black ;)

Nowadays its all down to preference and if you have the money ^_~

-Neo

EDIT: Currently I am considering saving for a Notebook/laptop. Only problem is should I look at Macs or continue my obsession with Windows Stuff :p

04-01-2004, 9:44 PM

I don't know what you're talking about.. perhaps an advertisement for Virtual PC?

Nuts

04-01-2004, 9:44 PM

Well, I couldn't export pagemaker files to PDF with embedded excel spreadsheets on a PC, yet it worked flawlessly with my Mac. Metafiles once again, damn metafiles.

TimP

04-01-2004, 9:50 PM

Yes, probably Virtual PC.

"One runs Mac OSX and looks pretty, the other runs Windows and looks black"

Wait for Avalon in Windows Longhorn. :cool:

Netrunner

04-03-2004, 9:48 AM

Again, linux kicks all of the other OSes ass up the great wall of china :)
LINUX
LINUX
Don't make me say it again LINUX

04-03-2004, 10:00 AM

You're just further proving why no one should listen to you, unless you start to provide some actual backing to your opinion.. else, I'd say we've already basically blown you out of the water. ;)

Netrunner

04-04-2004, 6:26 PM

Fenguin

04-04-2004, 7:13 PM

Linux is more stable, more efficient, it can run Anything programmed for XP (at least the version I'm talking about) Costs way way less, doesn't mess with your dlls by installing programs.
how's that for getting "blown out of the water"
I am going to add one more crazy thought
LINUX
LI-I-NUX
LI-I_I_I_I_I_I_NUX
And what is this version you're talking about? I know for a fact that Macromedia Shockwave cannot run on Linux [update: there's a third party program that claims to do that, but I haven't seen it mentioned on any Linux forums yet. Hrm.]. Ever wonder why there's so many petitions going around asking for that?
Also, I've never heard of Windows "installing programs." So you're saying that Windows randomly installs programs on your computer without asking you? Last time I heard, it's you who installs programs.
Finally, as said before, Linux servers are more attack-prone than Windows servers. How's that for security.

EDIT: One more thing, Mac OS X is based off linux
And where did you find that information? Looky here: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2123668,00.htm
It says that "Mac OS X is based on BSD." Just because Linux might also be based on BSD doesn't mean that OS X is based on Linux. QED.

edit: and what AJ said below ;)

04-04-2004, 7:13 PM

Mac OS X, is based off of FreeBSD. Running on their own Darwin codebase.
That's UNIX, bub.

I'd get more technical, but I'd hate to get too advanced for yeh. ;)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

Netrunner

04-04-2004, 10:23 PM

Most things are based off linux/windows/everything, notice, almost all early developers stole from each other, that's why everything seems so similar, but yes, they are both very similar, I just don't keep up with OS war news, yes I run shockwave on my computer run by linux.
linux is unix with a GUI, so technically they are the same, only linux can be freeware (non XP programs) or 120$ (seamless emulator) Or use WinE for normal linux which is free

SoldierPrime

04-04-2004, 10:37 PM

I don't even want to touch these OS threads but i guess i will.... they're all nice, what works for you works for you. :D I use XP, have an old computer which i am going to try and learn linux, i have download so many lol; next i need a mac :)

^_^ and here's a joke for you guys so you don't get to mad at each other :)

So God summons George Bush, Vladimir Putin, and Bill Gates to heaven and informs them that the world is ending tomorrow and sends them back to earth.

Bush goes on national television and says "My fellow Americans, I have good news and bad news. The good news is we were right, there is a God. The bad news is the world's ending tomorrow."

Putin says to the Russian people "I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is we were wrong, there is a God. The worse news is that the world's ending tomorrow."

Bill Gates sends out a memo to everyone in Microsoft, saying "I've got good news and better news. The good news is that God thinks I'm important. The better news is that tomorrow, Steve Jobs is going down."

zergstain

04-04-2004, 10:52 PM

So yeah, I've been a Mac user my whole life, and I have to say Mac. I will admit there were some things Windows does better, but between OS X and XP Pro, not much. We actually have pretty similar Mac models, AJ.

And would people stop typing MAC!? That annoys me as well, not that it was being done that much in this thread. I hope no one minds me just jumping into this conversation.

Edit: Here's a better question. How much better is Linux for servers than OS X server? Probably less than people say.

TimP

04-04-2004, 11:45 PM

Edit: Here's a better question. How much better is Linux for servers than OS X server? Probably less than people say.
OS X Server came out on top in a recent report about security, the same report that Linux came in last in.

Linux is no more stable than my XP config. If both will run without crashing, who's to say that yours is more stable than mine? It can run anything programmed for XP in theory, but trying to run something like UT2004 on it will absolutely destroy your system. A pure OS will always run faster than an OS shell running inside another OS. Windows "Messing with your DLL's" was a problem 8-10 years ago, get your facts straight before you bring in that argument. Modern versions of Windows will check DLL's to be absolutely sure that they will never conflict/break eachother. "How's that for blown out of the water?" I'm not the least bit convinced to use Linux. Linux fanboys need to stop comparing Linux to decade old technology like Win 3.1 and 95 and start comparing it to the latest NT based OS's.

MrMer

04-05-2004, 12:21 AM

Windows rules, will rule, and has always ruled.

OboeGuru

04-05-2004, 12:28 AM

Good argument there, MrMer! [/sarcasm]

I'm gonna have to just agree with everything TimP says... waaaaay smarter than me.

zergstain

04-06-2004, 9:34 AM

I think it was on some stupid anti-Mac site somewhere, but there was stuff on how OS X Server was so unstable that certain international Apple sites were running on some Linux distro. So as far as stability, how does that go? Just about any system can probably be secure if configured properly.

OS X isn't quite as stable as Apple claims, and I have had the occasional lockup where the only option was a hard restart. I don't think I've had a full-blown panic in a long time, however. AJ, you're the biggest Mac expert here, how deep in the system do you think those crashes might have been? Restarting may not be as nerdy, but it's a lot simpler than going to the other computer and SSHing into the crashed one and killing the offending process.

TimP

04-06-2004, 8:21 PM

Here's the article. It may look suspicious that it's hosted on a Mac site, but I originally read it at Yahoo! News so it's not just blind Mac praise.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/02/20/osxserver/?lsrc=mcrss-0204

"British cyber security firm mi2g recently announced the results of a study that names Mac OS X one of the most secure online server operating systems in the world, alongside the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) family of Open Source systems. The study also showed that Linux is currently the most-breached online server OS."

zergstain

04-07-2004, 12:17 PM

Nice article. It seems like most of those Linux boxes weren't really configured all that well. I was wondering about how OS X server rates in stability, I've always known OS X is a quite secure OS.

You may have heard people say that if Mac OS had Windows' market share their would be as many Mac viruses as there are Windows viruses. While I know there would be a lot more, I'm pretty sure that there wouldn't be quite as many. Maybe I'm just being a blind Mac zealot (if the next word that comes into your head is Protoss, congratulations you're a nerd), but I've always thought it was easier to code a Windows virus.

Fenguin

04-07-2004, 4:21 PM

And it doesn't help at all that some yummy Windows source code is floating around... ;)

Duddits

04-07-2004, 5:00 PM

-shivers- My other computer is running on 2000. I have yet to downlo-- buy XP for it.

I hope they don't find some kinda fatal flaw in the system and exploit it. All of my 'pretty pictures' are on that computer, as it is in my room.

TimP

04-07-2004, 7:04 PM

It's been several months since the leak and no major flaws have been exploited. Win 2K is a solid OS and I wouldn't upgrade to XP unless it was XP Pro.

Whiteknight

04-08-2004, 12:48 AM

*Wants to show how G5 stacks against competitors. Information:
....although this isn't really in line with the OS vs XP debate.
I had the link to the site that had this, but I lost it. I had grouped together the images and lost the link. Sorry.

http://sigs.kupatrix.com/Comparison.jpg

edit: stretching the page, edited out the inline image. ;)

Netrunner

04-09-2004, 1:37 PM

XP Pro is worse, 2000 is decent to good (depends on use) 98 again, decent to god
XP home do not buy.

TimP

04-09-2004, 4:48 PM

They're comparing a 64-bit G5 to a 32-bit P4. I'd like to see how the G5 compares to the Athlon 64 or Intel Itanium.

OboeGuru

04-09-2004, 5:25 PM

Personally, I wouldn't even pay attention to the stats in the "Cinebench 2003 - Room Fly-Thru."

Using different graphics cards, no matter how close the models are, really skews the stats.
Why the hell did they put in a GeForceFX 5900? It completely invalidates the comparison.

Whiteknight

04-09-2004, 6:30 PM

The stats are about a month old. I could look for newer ones, but I don't really want to.

For me, OSX rarely crashed accidentally (although I purposely created a few kernel crashes, just because it's sometimes funny that you know how to make a computer crash on que. No harm done.)

With XP for me, it crashes for things where OSX would not. I prefer OSX.

zergstain

04-09-2004, 7:41 PM

When do you suppose the Powerbook G5 will be out?

Muse

04-09-2004, 10:12 PM

Well, I've had horrible experiences in the past with Macs.

Please do not make me speak of them. I'll tell you this.

Macs are terrible, TERRIBLE network computers. I've used Macs on about 4 different networks at different points in my life, I've HATED them, they constantly don't load sites, the internet crashes repeatedly, Netscape won't open. It is horrible. With the PC's however, the internet never shuts off unless the internet or school network gets f'ed up which happens. IE never fails to open. I just like the general look and feel of PC's better, and they are better for gaming, no matter how powerful the G5 is, it still isn't as good a gaming computer as a well-built PC. Mine is a piece of crap and works fine anyway, but some Macs are just so bad it hurts. Sure Macs are fine for running programs such as Photoshop, but it rns fine on my computer. I enjoy the programs that come with OS's such as Windows, and the look of XP is more friendly to me, and I think the orientation of icons and toolbars is better on Windows. I vote PC, even though PC's and Windows have large security flaws. I have Home XP but I have all this Symantec Security on it, and it keeps telling me all this crap about trojan horses, it's good times here. Now I just need to speed up my PC.

BTW : Don't go throwing statistics at me, this is mostly from personal experience.

Whiteknight

04-09-2004, 10:47 PM

Ahem, could the not loading sites be because you were using a slow internet or perhaps the site was down? If Netscape wouldn't open, might it be a corrupted program? Did you try IE on Macs? Could the slow part of the Mac be that you used a slow/earlier mac earlier in your life, then used a faster machine for window's later in your life?

So many things could account for those bad experiences, and I just listed a few. The one question I want answered is if you experienced those things on OSX? The other OS's are much different from X.

Personally, I think that only OSX should be compared to XP. If you, say, compare OS 9 to XP and compare them in a way that you say windows is better, then that's like comparing, say, a normal NES to a PS2 and saying the PS2 is better.

In my opinion, anyways.

TimP

04-09-2004, 10:52 PM

"Macintosh security specialists, Intego on Thursday issued a security warning to its customers for the first Trojan horse to affect Mac OS X ... the Trojan horse has the potential to delete all of a user's personal files; send an e-mail message containing a copy of itself to other users; and infect other MP3, JPEG, GIF or QuickTime files."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=7&u=/mc/integoissuesmacosxtrojanhorsewarning

04-09-2004, 11:17 PM

Don't make me start posting every security notice I find about Windows. ;)
Considering that's being considered the first trojan on a major operating system that's been out 2+ years.. i'd say that's quite good. =p

TimP

04-09-2004, 11:39 PM

I realize that. It's just some food for thought for the for the anti-MS crusaders who think that Windows is the only operating system with security holes. There is no invulnerable operating system.

WeekendLazyness

04-10-2004, 12:05 AM

I do applaud Apple for having their own chip rather than putting in an Intel or AMD chip and the 1 GHZ FSB on the high end G5 beats the P4EE.
Apple either uses IBM PowerPC chips or some Motorola chip. The AMD Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX-51 don't even have and FSB.

They're comparing a 64-bit G5 to a 32-bit P4. I'd like to see how the G5 compares to the Athlon 64 or Intel Itanium.
The AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 would blow the G5 out of the water, and would be neck and neck with the Itanium. Going along with tradition, the AMD core is better at random computations, as the Intel core is better at more predictable ones. This is mostly evidenced by a comparison of the FX-51 to a P4EE which is based off of the Itanium core.
From MaximumPC: http://www.weekendlazyness.com/img/misc/64fxP4eeG5.jpg
(Note how close the scores are.)

A pure OS will always run faster than an OS shell running inside another OS. Windows "Messing with your DLL's" was a problem 8-10 years ago, get your facts straight before you bring in that argument. Modern versions of Windows will check DLL's to be absolutely sure that they will never conflict/break eachother.
Yeah, look at Windows 4.0 - 4.8 (I've never crashed a pre 95 Windows OS). And he's right about that DLL thing.

And it doesn't help at all that some yummy Windows source code is floating around... ;)
OH NO! There's another IE 5 exploit!

XP Pro is worse, 2000 is decent to good (depends on use) 98 again, decent to god
XP home do not buy.
Now how would you know what you are talking about if you are the Linux fanboy? Those OS's you list are all used for different purposes (except 98, which is out of date and shouldn't even be listed).

I'd also like to add when Apple announced that the G5 was the fastest desktop computer in the world when it was launced, it probably wasn't true. There aren't any good PC and Mac compatible benchmarks and the ones they did use (including the test rigs [hardware and software]) were biased.

Just my two cents.

04-10-2004, 12:27 AM

Of course the testing parameters and advertising were rigged in their favor.
Every company on the face of this earth is trying to make people think they're the best and only solution for your problems.

I'll freely admit that their most recent "fastest personal computer" advertising campaign was inaccurate.

TimP

04-10-2004, 12:30 AM

How about this for an ad?

"The fastest personal computer in several of benchmark tests"

I don't think that would sell as well.

04-10-2004, 12:32 AM

Heh, of course. But misleading advertising is a whole 'nother topic altogether.

edit: by the way, regarding that OS X trojan. there's not a virus spreading that infects the computers.. it's what's what a proof-of-concept virus, one that the security industry created to show to Apple a loophole in their operating system. not something you see too much on Windows. ;)

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/04/09/appletrojan/index.php?redirect=1081550579000

Whiteknight

04-10-2004, 1:44 AM

The thing with all the 64-bit microprocessors out there, is that they will all be exponentially faster than any 32-bit. The differences in speed will be so slight compared to what we have now that it will not be noticable, unless you are doing some hardcore moviemaking and the like. All 64-bit has 2^64 switches, compared to 2^32 switches. Thats 18446744073709551616 compared to 4294967296. Note the incredible difference. At this point, it's basically personal preference, although some things will be slightly faster on different chips.

04-10-2004, 10:20 AM

Umm.. you need to keep in mind that when both OS' are not optimized for 64-bit processing, and neiher are any of the major applications out there.. they really aren't doing anything except running in a legacy-mode that allows them to compute things simply as fast 32-bit processors.

Hydralisk98

04-16-2004, 5:36 PM

:banana:If you got a sucky operating system or harddrive it could make macs alot better, but if thje Mac has the best operating system possible for that computer or hardrive space... Mac Would Again be better but for a normal answer in this reply, if they both had average stuff P.C. Is alot better! :þ

Edgewize

04-16-2004, 6:26 PM

64 bits is not necessarily faster than 32 bits. Dreamcast was 128 bits but it was slower for most game tasks than the 32-bit gamecube, the 32-bit XBox, or the 32-bit (+some-weird-bit vector unit) PS2.

When you are count from 1 to 10000, it doesn't matter how many bits you have, you're still gonna go 1, 2, 3, ... so 64-bit processers aren't necessarily faster. (But if you write graphics code that is designed to do parallel processing on 64-bit systems, by doing two 32-bit operations at once, of course that'll be faster. But there isn't too much of that going on yet.)

Back to the main topic:

Macs are better if you're rich and you don't need to play the latest games, or if you are big on graphics and video.

PCs are better if you're on a budget, or if you're a hardcore gamer, or if you do a lot of business-related tasks.

Both Macs and PCs can be stable or unstable depending on your software, your hardware, and your drivers. Windows XP is (in general) a lot less stable because of incompatible hardware or drivers. With a Mac, Apple makes almost all the parts and they know it will work flawlessly. Your PC has a motherboard, a CPU, a hard drive, a mouse, a video card, and a memory chip ... all from different vendors. In some ways, it's a miracle that PCs work at all :)

Security - Windows is prone to viruses (a lot of them) because of some poor design decisions back in the DOS/Windows3.1 days that have stuck around. Also, there is way too much integration between the core of the Windows OS and the various applications. (One flaw in Internet Explorer means that your whole computer is vulnerable, right down to the file browsing interface.) The Mac has better separation because OSX is based on the UNIX model, which was designed to be secure and robust - after all, it was written before there ever WAS a "graphical interface". The Mac is not "virus proof" but it is a hell of a lot safer (in theory anyway) than a Windows box.

Cost effectiveness: here's where PCs win out. You can get a great computer fom Dell for under $600 if you include some rebates. You'll have to triple that for a good Mac system.

I personally think that for what I do, a Mac would be better... but I'm nearly broke, so instead I've got a PC that's hacked together like a Frankenstein monster.

When I'm rich and famous, and President of the US, I'm gonna put a Mac in every home.

TimP

04-16-2004, 7:52 PM

Good post, but I disagree on one thing.

64 bits is not necessarily faster than 32 bits. Dreamcast was 128 bits but it was slower for most game tasks than the 32-bit gamecube, the 32-bit XBox, or the 32-bit (+some-weird-bit vector unit) PS2.Don't get video card bit rates and CPU bit rates confused. My Radeon 9700 is said to be 256-bit, but my P4 is 32-bit. The N64 couldn't possibly have had a 64-bit processor nearly ten years ago. It would have cost a heap of money to produce back then and probably would've bankrupted Nintendo, considering that 64-bit processors alone range from around $300-$700. The 128-bit probably refers the Dreamcast's video processing.

Fenguin

04-16-2004, 10:19 PM

The 128-bit on the Dreamcast is actually four 32-bit CPU instructions which are somehow used as a whole. So it's fake 128-bit, and that's why it's comparable in power to the 32-bit Xbox thing. :)

HackingVictim

04-16-2004, 10:31 PM

Mac is good for movie creation and editing but freezes alot and is hard to use.

On the other hand PC has great games and is easy to use.

Moral: Both are good.

( I am not a computer expert so you don't have to take what I say to hearthttp://www.warboards.org/images/icons/icon10.gif )

WeekendLazyness

04-16-2004, 11:13 PM

ac is good for movie creation and editing but freezes alot and is hard to use.

On the other hand PC has great games and is easy to use.
I could say that a PC could be used for good movie editing given the right software, and say that the Mac has a nice UI.

Whiteknight

04-17-2004, 1:06 AM

Why do people always use 'PC' when referring to windows? PC means personal computers. All deskop computers are personal computers, hence macs = PC, hence the mac term PPC, or power PC. It just sort of irks me when people do that. Unless I'm somehow wrong...

BTW, Hacking, macs have a more user-friendly interface, and they freeze a lot less than windows. Windows, I have to admit, are better for gamers because so many games come out for it, especially a few months before macs (except for Blizzard :)). Both can have fairly good movie creation and editing programs, although a lot of people prefer macs because of the slightly more advance program.

I want to point out that Finding Nemo was made on a Mac G5 :). I don't really mean anything by that, I just like giving out useless mac tidbits :).

Exedore

04-17-2004, 3:05 AM

The N64 couldn't possibly have had a 64-bit processor nearly ten years ago. It would have cost a heap of money to produce back then and probably would've bankrupted Nintendo, considering that 64-bit processors alone range from around $300-$700.

I'd have to say that you're wrong. The N64 (which is not 10 years old - more like 6 or 7) uses a customized MIPS R4300 processor, which is most certainly 64 bits. Just because the 80x86 architecture has taken this long to implement 64 bit and it costs so much now, doesn't mean that other architectures have supported 64 bit processing for years for less

The 128-bit probably refers the Dreamcast's video processing.

This is a valid statement. The dreamcast used a 128 bit NEC PowerVR 2DC graphics card. However, it also used a partially 64 bit processor - a 64-bit Hitachi SH-4, which had a 64 bit FPU, but only a 32 bit Integer unit. I couldn't find much information about the video card, but it's possible that it could have had a full 128 bit FPU.

XTERMIN8OR1

04-17-2004, 3:46 AM

When I'm rich and famous, and President of the US, I'm gonna put a Mac in every home.
Edgewize for president!!!!!

DarkNessX

04-17-2004, 11:07 AM

linux is for newbs. personally I'll only use an OS I've programmed myself.

TimP

04-17-2004, 1:49 PM

N64 debuted in 1996, which means it was probably in development for atleast 1-2 years, so yes, the chip is almost ten years old.

WhiteKnight, the whole PC terminology thing has been brought up many times before. Just accept it as it is because it's not going to change. Computers running Windows will be called PCs and Macs will be called..Macs.

WeekendLazyness

04-17-2004, 2:09 PM

From now on I will be sure to state "IBM compatible PC's."

04-17-2004, 6:36 PM

Proper term is Wintels, by the way. ;)

WeekendLazyness

04-17-2004, 7:20 PM

Proper term is Wintels, by the way. ;)
I've never heard that before.

Whiteknight

04-17-2004, 9:06 PM

I have, but I forgot it. Thanks for the refresher.

Modred

04-17-2004, 9:51 PM

64 bits is not necessarily faster than 32 bits. Dreamcast was 128 bits but it was slower for most game tasks than the 32-bit gamecube, the 32-bit XBox, or the 32-bit (+some-weird-bit vector unit) PS2.

Sources for those bit-rates?

Just because the 80x86 architecture has taken this long to implement 64 bit and it costs so much now, doesn't mean that other architectures have supported 64 bit processing for years for less

True. People should remember that video game consoles are an entirely differnet world than computers. At least they used to be. While I'm sure Nintendo could make a decent computer, their resources are better spent working on upgrades that are specific to the Nintendo systems, meaning that they don't necessarily follow the same logic as PC builders.

Now, to be on topic.

I find earlier versions of Macintosh incredibly difficult to use. I used to use nothing but Mac, as it was the standard for networking (and just about everything) before Win95, however years of Windows use has dulled my Mac skills. OSX is quite good, and a bit easier to pick up on, however I still don't like some of the button icons...

As for Win98, I personally prefer it to other Windows systems, however, as has been pointed out, it is outdated and several pieces of new software will not run on it. I have not used Win2000, although I have a copy of it just sitting in my room, collecting dust. The stuff people throw away. On my current computer I have Win XPhome. I'm not complaining, but it isn't the greatest OS ever. It can be quite glitchy (although less so than 95 or 98), however it is overal a good OS. I haven't use OSX enough to attest to its stability, however I have heard that it is incredibly good in this regard.

As for processors, might I point out that the differences Apple posted between a PowerMacG5 and some Intel-based PC were miniscule (at least the last time I was at apple.com). A few seconds here, a couple of split seconds off there. Not much of an advantage.