Is it even worth trying to discuss the (in)accuracies of this statement? :rolleyes:
Hello, all.
Interesting debate. I think we Americans are too involved in it to be objective.
I asked a foreigner programmer what he thought. He said both had pluses and minuses. Macs are supposed to be more stable and better for anything in the graphic industry, while Wintels are more versatle, more software available, and definitely better for gaming.
Oddly enough, Macs are seen in many parts of the world as status symbols. (Partly because they are more expensive, no doubt). All of Hollywood, including most of the stars I’ve met, have Macs. (PCs are for the little people) Cliquish thinking, if you ask me.
rjung, how was my statement inaccurate? iMacs are inferior machines to most any PC you can buy for the same price. iMacs are inferior to other products Apple has. I don’t see average people buying up G4 towers or Cubes, only the stupid iMacs. iMacs have inferior hardware to what other Macs and most PC’s have. iMacs cannot be upgraded like a PC can. iMacs are low end, that’s their purpose, but it’s also the reason why they suck.
yosemitebabe wrote:
No you just get the “System Error” dialog with the little picture of a bomb on it, with no explanation of what went wrong. 
(Come to think of it, Windows has been heading in the direction of NOT telling you what’s wrong for a while now. They’re copying the drool-proof paper interface of the Mac! Make them sto-o-o-o-op! Mommeeee!)
Oh goody!!!
As to the opening post: No Apple was not there first with many of these innovations, though they may have been first to make them standard.
I’m just going to run down the list and poke holes in everything I see, 'cause I’m feeling in a rambunctious mood today… Brace yourself, this is going to be long…
But before I get started, let me just state that I use both platforms on a daily basis.
bernse wrote:
There is a shadow of a doubt. If you’re talking volume of software, then I agree that Wintel dominates. If you’re talking quality of software, then I have to disagree - Mac software is generally more reliable and usable. If you’re talking cost of software, it’s a toss up. If you’re talking availability of specific software, it probably goes both ways. However, I can name a half dozen titles that I use on the Mac platform that I can’t find a decent Windows equivalent for. I can’t think of a single Windows application that I use that doesn’t have a Mac version. (I’m sure the hardcore defenders of Wintel can caugh up a few examples, though).
Monster104:
Can’t say on R&D$, but Apple supposedly has the most patents of any computing OEM.
Speaking as someone who has been doing software development on the Mac since the beginning (not to mention software development for Wintel and unix architectures), I’m highly offended by this implication.
hansel:
I disagree. They are exactly about computing. Perhaps we have a difference in definition. When I think ‘computing’ I think “getting work done” and “productivity”. Being a long term user of both Wintel and MacOS, I have to say that I can be much more productive on the MacOS. If your definition of ‘computing’ is more akin to TheNerd, where you’d rather spend time assembling and tweeking your machine, then the Mac is probably not your box.
BTW, I feel the need to dispell the whole myth that Macs are more expensive than PCs. This is inaccurate on many levels. First, usually when I see Wintel/Mac price comparisons it’s with a Wintel box that I wouldn’t own. If you’re comparing low end PCs with low end Macs, or midrange PCs with midrange Macs, or highend PCs with highend Macs, I find that the price differential is not that great and, in fact, sometimes the Mac is the less expensive box. Fortunately for the Mac (and unfortunately for the PC) the true cost of your platform choice doesn’t stop there. There have been a number of independent studies that have shown the the true cost of ownership for Macintosh is significantly lower. Also, if I were inclined to disbelieve these studies, I have to look no further than my own family. I have three Macs at home, all still in service, none of them has ever seen a repair shop, and I spend very little time in software maintainence. My mom, my dad, my brother, and my sister all have chosen to go the PC route. All of them have unusable PCs that sit in closets. Some of them were merely rendered obsolete, others are broken. Everyone else in my family have had to either take their computers into service centers or have had service people come to their homes to remedy major catastrophies. All of them have had numerous major catastrophies. I’m always amazed at how much money they spend keeping their PCs in operation - yet they still maintain that they buy PCs because they are cheaper. BTW, as I said earlier, I have a PC too (actually two of them), but they are maintained by my employer and they too have been “in the shop” three times in the last year and a half.
Another observation, in this same vein: We used to be a Macintosh shop, but a while back my employer decided to save money by switching to PCs. Overnight, our system admin resources quadrupled to keep up with the increase in workload (and they’re not keeping up).
bernse:
Not true. SoftWindows on my 300MHz G3 outperformed RealWindows on my 366MHz Pentium II in nearly every benchmark that I threw at it. You may be right about the gaming performance, but I suspect that this has more to do with graphics accelerators than CPU/OS performance. This is not one of the benchmarks that I was able to perform because, when I’m not at the side-stree bistro or out buying designer jeans and foreign cars, I’m at home using my Macintosh for real work…
BTW, while I don’t play games much myself, my kids do. They seem to have plenty of high quality games to hold their interest. I also note that they have some that are not available in the PC world, that makes them the envy of some of their friends. Plus, a bit of a side note. The StarWars Pod Racer runs much faster on their iMac and with much higher graphical resolution than the equivalent version on our neighbors’ (supposedly) faster PC…
On the whole one-button mouse versus multi-button mice. While the Mac ships with a one button mouse, there are plenty of inexpensive multi-button mice available for them. One button is all you “need” for the MacOS. Windows “requires” more. I personally use and prefer a three button mouse on my Macs, but my wife and kids never use more than the one. Actually, most people find multi-button mice awkward and lack the coordination to use them effectively… unless they’re using the same finger to click on the different buttons as MAxTorque was.
BTW, Max: The little scroll wheels, if used properly, can save some wear and tear on your wrist. They’re actually pretty nice. They’re also available for the Mac.
TheNerd:
That pretty much shoots the whole “more software” argument in the foot, though, doesn’t it???
Mr2001:
I love these kinds of points because they show how you’ve been exposed to all of the hype and none of the fact. Windows (not even NT) is true preemptive multitasking. It’s a hybrid and not a very good one, at that. Windows does some preemptive multitasking, but relies on some cooperative multitasking, as well. The MacOS, on the other hand, does some cooperative multitasking, but relies on some preemptive multitasking, as well. Bottom line- they’re both hybrids. The difference: in the MacOS you’ll never be in the middle of navigating a pull-down menu only to have the OS interrupt what you’re doing to announce that a print job has just completed… I hate that kind of behavior in Windows. The OS should never preempt a GUI activity except in dire circumstances.
Hastur:
Excuse me? Your PC shipped with a three button trackball? That’s very extraordinary. Of course, you can purchase a nice Mac compatible three button trackball for the Mac, as well.
Hometownboy:
Sorry Homey - I hate that analogy because my Mac has seen a couple of processor upgrades, it has memory intended for use in PCs, it has a hard disk that was intended for PCs, I’ve souped up the buss speed, it’s got a PCI video capture card, and countless other tweeks and “J.C. Whitney pieces”…
bernse:
Not at all. First, not many Mac users hate Windows, they simply prefer MacOS. Second, as has already been pointed out, there are some good software titles out there exclusively for Windows (though I don’t use any of them). Fortunately for PC users that hate Macs, there’s no threat that someone is going to come out with a PowerPC emulator for Windows…
Mr2001:
I’ve found quite the opposite to be true.
My WindowsNT blue screens at least once a day, rarely in a harmless manner, while my Macs rarely crash. I once had a 3400c (laptop) alive for more than 90 days. I would put it to sleep, take it on the road, wake it up, install all sorts of unknown software, etc… I finally rebooted manually just to rebuild the desktop because I was getting nervous that something bad would happen at the most inopportune time.
Monster104:
Have you talked to TheNerd? He seems to have the opposite reason for why Macs are bad.
Not true. Not even close.
Yes, Apple does make superior products. What’s your point?
That’s their market space. Are you upset that they’re popular with average people?
Inferior in what way?
No, but it can be upgraded in other ways. What are the typical upgrades that most people do on other computers? Memory and storage - both of which are easily upgradable on iMac. At the next level, we have graphics and sound cards, but iMacs aren’t targeted to people who want this kind of upgrade path.
To a low end user, a low end computer is just right.
And I wrap up with this final observation for those of you who still think that Mac users start all of the Mac wars:
There is one thing that Windows is better at than Macs: Generating hate mongers:
http://www.slip.net/~unony/anti-mac/anti-mac.html
While I’ve seen a few Windoze hate pages, they pale in comparison to the amount of negative energy generated by the Mac hate folks. Also, most of the “I hate Macintosh” pages seem to be comparing the 1984 Mac with their 2000 Wintel computers, because some of the “Mac failings” are very outdated…
Actually, there are a few things about Windows I prefer. I like the fact that I can do file management operations in save dialogs. I kinda like the Network Neighborhood… I also like the Task Manager, but I can get equivalent functionality with a freeware Mac tool. You don’t even want to see my list of things about the MacOS that I prefer… Or my list of things that get me frothing about Windows…
But as I said earlier, I use them both… and in their own way, I’ve got an odd fondness for my Wintel boxes.
Joey, I think you misread just about every single “hole” in what I’ve posted.
First, you completely misread the second quote of mine. Read it again and figure it out. I never said Macs are for people who don’t like technical challenge. Rather, I said quite the opposite.
Second, TheNerd says PC’s are better for people who like to tweak their system. How does that conflict with my statement that Mac’s aren’t good Average Joe computers? iMacs are the only Apple computer geared to that market, and in every instance I’ve had to use an iMac, they’ve sucked. Just because PC’s are good for tweaking, it doesn’t mean it’s any more difficult for the Average Joe to use.
I can build an Athlon system that would be far superior to any iMac for about $600. The hardware in iMacs are not even close to top of the line, that’s how they’re inferior. If I can build a PC system built entirely of superior hardware with superior performance to an iMac, that’s how they’re inferior.
A low-end system is supposed to be performance for a buck. iMacs suck because they don’t offer as much performance as a low-end PC could (And I’m not talking about the lowest of the low-end Celerons and K6-2’s, those are trashier than any iMac. See - I’m not all biased)
I don’t hate Macs. I wish people would stop hinting that I do. I prefer PC’s for much the same reason as TheNerd. I don’t like Windows 98. ME is fair, but still just another upgrade. I don’t like the iMacs because I don’t like low-end machines. I like the G4 tower, and as soon as I get a good job to pay for one I might get one. But, until that happens, I’m going to point out what I dislike about Macs. Ask me, and I just might tell you what I dislike about PC’s (The list is probably as long).
Actually, I much prefer the three-button mouse, or the wheel mouse (with the middle wheel doubling as a middle button). I use AutoCAD quite a bit (try that on a Mac with the PC emulator :)). I use the index finger for the left button, middle finger for the wheel, and ring finger for the right button. It has greatly improved my finger dexterity, which has the added effect of pleasing a couple of lovers :D.
I guess that’s a great improvement from having to ask politely to get your floppy disk out of the drive. I never remembered to carry a paper clip to the computer lab in college… when the Mac would crash (and they did… often), I would have to ask one of the attendants to get my disk out. 
Joey, that was one heck of a post! You put way more time into that than I would have. I will try to make a couple of counter points:
**Disagree here. There is far, far FAR more quality software out there for windows, and as you mentioned at a better price. I am sure you would not use 99% of it, but that doesn’t make it true nevertheless. I found at one time a website devoted soley to Mac users petitions to try to make developers port there software to the Mac OS. I can’t find it now, but boy there was one hell of a wish list. **
**
**
I genuinely have **-no- **idea where you get that from…seriously. I seriously kick-ass wintel box could be had for far less than $2K.
**
bernse:
**
Did anybody here read my OP on the emulation topic? I said GRAPHIC intensive. I said myself right from the get go that I have little doubt that a Mac would have a hard time doing the crunching invoved in Word or something along those lines in an emulator.
The whole mouse issue is ludicrous. I am glad you pointed out you use a 3 button model yourself.
**
TheNerd:
**
Huh? How did you come up with that answer? MS is not the only maker of software for x86 machines. As a matter of fact I am quite aware that MS makes a great deal of its application software for Macs…which is I believe a large reason why MS bailed Apple out a couple years back.
**
**
You may think I am BSing you here, but I swear it is the gods honest truth. I cannot remember the last time Win98 crashed on me. Really. My buddy who is more of a tweaker than me (the same one with the Mac I mentioned earlier) has his crash a bit (a couple times a month) but he overclocks the shit out of his PC and tweaks his drivers and stuff more. He has told me, and I have witnessed it first hand, his Mac crashes more than his P3 on Win98. Honestly. This “myth” of the Mac OS being more stable is a bunch of bull.
To sum it up, you have a point with your hate-mongering sites. Look at it this way though, since there are so many more people in the world that use x86 based machines, we are bound to get more loons out there that see that they have to post crap sites like that…at least more so than Mac (which have there share of superiority sites too), which if you look at a per capita basis I would be willing to bet is about equal.
My $.03
I can only offer my perspective as a Mac newbie, and (probably) “Jane Average” computer user. I got my first computer in late '97, got my first Mac in late '99.
I have bought three (3) Macs off of eBay. As you know, you take your chances with eBay, but I did great, all three times. The only problem I had was the first Mac had a dead internal battery. About $7 to replace IIRC. That was it. I think those are pretty good odds, to buy THREE Macs off of eBay, and have them all work fine.
I have bought three (3) PCs from local vendors (not counting the laptops…several which died, didn’t work right.) The first PC was an old Pentium, and I have to say, it did OK. The second PC had this weird problem that no one could ever pinpoint. Required LOTS of angry calls to the computer shop, finally it required the whole motherboard to be replaced. The third PC was OK, but had some bad RAM, had to be fixed, and some other problems. Several trips to the shop. And, lots of blue screens of death. I love PCs, I do. But they are less stable than Mac(s), in my meagre experience. I just don’t buy the idea that Macs are not very stable. Sure, they have their problems, but they are less of a headache than PCs. At least in my estimation.
I bought my iMac from a graphic designer in San Diego. He was a busy professional, worked at one of the local San Diego TV stations, (where…they used Macs!) He sold his iMac to me because he wanted to get a newer model of…iMac. I don’t think he’d do that if they were just low-end machines that were only good for basic functions. He did a lot of WORK, professional WORK, on that iMac.
And as far as Macs getting errors - sure, I get them. Just not nearly as often. My Macs have not been flawless - just far more stable than my PCs. At least in my experience.
As far as software goes - sure, it is a little more difficult to find some software, but it isn’t that bad. You just have to look a little more. I have a good ftp application, several good web authoring applications, and definitely some good graphics applications! Sure, there are some PC programs that don’t have a Mac counterpart, but there are some Mac-only programs that make up for that. Nisus Writer is good word processor, BBEdit is a good HTML editor, and Page Spinner (which I just got) is supposed to be good as well. And then there’s Graphic Converter…thats a nifty program! I like the World of Mac software. I am not complaining. Of course, I am not a gamer. But as others have pointed out, there are still plenty of Mac games out there.
Found an old article on my hard drive. I don’t know exactly how old it is, but here y’all go:
Well, here’s something interesting about how “cheap” Macs are compared to PC’s (Note: Using high-end systems, I’ll get around to doing low-end). I took all the default Apple computers for comparison. Since I couldn’t find any default PC’s that even remotely came near those prices, I customized an Athlon from Gateway, a PIII and a Pentium 4 from Dell (Note: The Pentium 4 is crappy anyways, but I put it in just because people expect it to be the best, which it’s not). Notice how the PC systems are still less expensive, even after upgrading and having a monitor (and floppy drive).
Macs
$1,699.00
466MHz PowerPC G4 1MB L2 cache, 128MB SDRAM memory, 30GB Ultra ATA drive, CD-Read/Write Drive, RAGE 128 Pro graphics, Gigabit Ethernet, 56K internal modem
$2,199.00
533MHz PowerPC G4 1MB L2 cache, 128MB SDRAM memory, 40GB Ultra ATA drive, CD-Read/Write Drive, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, Gigabit Ethernet, 56K internal modem
$2,799.00
667MHz PowerPC G4 256K L2 & 1MB L3 cache, 256MB SDRAM memory, 60GB Ultra ATA drive, CD-Read/Write Drive, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, Gigabit Ethernet, 56K internal modem
$3,499.00
733MHz PowerPC G4 256K L2 & 1MB L3 cache, 256MB SDRAM memory, 60GB Ultra ATA drive, DVD-R & CD-RW Combo, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, Gigabit Ethernet, 56K internal modem
Dell PC
$2,487.00
Pentium lll Processor 1 GHz, 256MB 133MHz SDRAM, 19 in. Monitor, 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce2 ULTRA, 60GB Ultra ATA 7200, 3.5" Floppy Drive, 10/100 Fast Ethernet PC Card, V.90/56K Modem, CD-RW/DVD Combination Drive, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz DSP Sound Card, Altec Lansing ACS-340 Speakers with Subwoofer
$3,358.00
Pentium 4 Processor 1.5 GHz, 128MB PC800 RDRAM, 19 In. Monitor, 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce2 ULTRA, 60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM), 3.5 in Floppy Drive, V.90/56K Modem, 12X DVD ROM Drive, 12X/8X/32X CD-RW Drive, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz DSP Sound Card, Altec Lansing THX Certified ADA885 Dolby Digital Speakers with Subwoofer
Gateway
$2,579.00
AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz, 256MB 133MHz SDRAM, 75GB 7200RPM drive, 19" Color Monitor, 3.5" 1.44MB, 16X/40X DVD, 8x/4x/32x CD-RW, 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra w/TV Out, SoundBlaster Live w/ Digital Audio Output, Boston Acoustics®BA735 Digital Speakers with Subwoofer, Home Networking/56K Modem Combo Card, 10/100 Twisted Pair Adapter
I agree about the stability of Win98. The only time I have gotten a blue screen on my most used system in the last 7 months is once when playing a 6 year old DOS game on it, and even then I just OKd out of it and went back to playing. I do know how to maintain my OS, though, unlike a lot of PC users. I run scandisk and defrag about once a month, clean out the .tmp files when I suspect my wife has turned it off without going through the shutdown process, and keep useless crap software off of it.
A real problem for PCs reputation is that a large majority of PC users only have experience with machines bought from companies like Compaq and Dell, complete with OEM versions of the OS, weird unnecessary shells added on top of that, babysitter programs that try to update drivers and clean up ‘unecessary’ files without being prompted, and about 50 trial version programs they will never use installed. Apple at least makes sure the software on their machines out of the box is made for it.
If people found someone to build a machine for them and only installed what they needed, they would find that Windows systems can be VERY stable. They are also a LOT cheaper that way. That system I got 7 months ago that I mentioned is an 800Mhz PIII with 256Mb SDRAM, a SoundBlaster Live sound card, and a GeForce256 3D card, cost only $1600 and came with a 15" monitor, and I only paid that much for it because I was friends with the guy who built it and knew he needed the money, I could have talked him down another $300 or so.
Monster: I am a newbie and not a techie, but I am not terribly persuaded by your chart.
For one thing, they are (sorry) PCs. PCs are what they are, and you get what you pay for. (Just my opinion.) You get more errors, and weirdness from the PC OS than on the Mac OS. IMO. A more stable OS is worth something to me.
Also (just my opinion again) the processor speeds on Macs and PCs do not compare. My 266 MHz iMac runs Photoshop faster than my 450 AMD K6-2 PC. Sure, Photoshop runs real well on Macs, but I noticed other programs run faster on my lowly 266 iMac as well. Oh, I am sure that how the computers are configured have something to do with their overall speed, but still - as is, my Mac is faster.
Forgive me, I am Canadian and using Canadian prices. Here is an example. This is from an online computer store. All prices are CDN dollars. ($1CDN = .67c US)
**
Silver-Pro K7-Train (Web2001-D )
Abit KT7 motherboard, Socket-A AGP4x
Built in ATA100 controller and KX133
128MB PC133 SDRAM, 1.44 FD
Sound Blaster Live value,
52x CD-ROM
IBM 30GB ATA100 7200 HD
Abit/Asus/Leadtek Geforce-II MX 32M AGP4x
USR 56k voice fax modem v.90 or 3COM 10/100
Landmark SIlver ATX-296 300W w/ case fan
Microsoft IntelliMouse with wheel and pad
Fujitsu 8725 PS2
AMD K7 1200mhz…$1450.00
AMD K7 1100mhz…$1350.00
AMD K7 1000mhz…$1290.00
AMD K7 950mhz…$1250.00
AMD K7 900mhz…$1230.00
AMD K7 850mhz…$1210.00
AMD K7 800mhz…$1190.00
( Upgrade to 40GB ATA100 7200 HD …+$60)
( with Windows’98 ver.2 …+$125
Windows’Millinnum Edi…+$130
Windows’2000 Pro…+$195
with Office SBE …+$270 )
**
Any one of the about are damn powerful machines.
Yosimitebabe,
I am really, REALLY pleased that you love your iMac. (Did I say “really” yet?) Please though, Photoshop is not the only application in the world, and it was specifically coded to take advantage of the G CPUs. However, if that is all you run, Great! I guess it doesn’t make much of a difference!
Take it easy all,
Eric
Doh! I see it doesn’t have a monitor included in any of the prices I quoted there. Put another $200 for a decent 15/cheap 17" monitor on top of those prices.
Still cheap.
Monster:
You’re right. I guess I missed your second “don’t”. Sorry. My bad.
I’m assuming that the Average Joe computer user is NOT a tweaker. Therefore, paraphrasing TheNerd, “Macs are for Average Joes”.
My iMac, which I bought new for $1050 is a 500MHz G3 with integrated floating point coprocessor, DVD ROM, 128MB RAM, 10/100 base-T ethernet, 56K modem, 3D graphics accelerator with 8MB video RAM, 1024x768 video resolution, 16-bit sound, builtin Harmon Kardon sound system, 2 USB ports, 2 FireWire ports, 3 sound output ports, 1 sound input port, a built-in microphone, and a 20GB hard disk. The system shipped with iMovie, Quicken, AppleWorks, 3 commercial games, a CD-ROM based encyclopedia, and a DVD of “A Bug’s Life”.
If your $600 Athlon matches that, then I’m duely impressed.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re suggesting that, ignoring costs, you can build or find a higher performance, higher quality alternative to an iMac, then you’ll get no argument from me. If you’re suggesting you can do all that for the same price or cheaper, then I think you’d have to demonstrate your performance and quality claims…
bernse:
In hind sight, the concept of quality software is probably too subjective, therefore I won’t belabor the point.
My Dell Latitude CPx that I am currently using cost about $500 more than a similarly clocked Mac PowerBook that I tried to get my employer to buy. I firmly believe that the 450MHz G3 would smoke the 466MHz Pentium III, in any benchmark we cared to throw at it. In addition, the Mac would have come with a DVD-ROM - not essential, from a business perspective, but it sure would be nice on some of those long plane rides.
I can think of a few other cases where I’ve found the Mac to offer equal or better performance at equal or better price. If I find some free time, I’ll run a few quotes…
Yeah, I just wanted to emphasize that your concerns were biased towards game graphics - not generic graphics. One of the benchmarks that I ran involved screen updates on some very complex graphics generated in Canvas. However, Canvas doesn’t (or at least, didn’t at the time) use the graphics accelerator on my PC.
True, but the majority of software written for the x86 architecture is based on Microsoft Windows. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that there’s a lot more software and better games available for linux (or whatever other non Microsoft OS you choose to run) than on the Mac…
I’m not surprised. I have friends who claim marvelous up-time on their Wintel machines and frankly, I have friends who bitch about their Macs crashing all the time. I think it’s all a function of what software you choose to run and how adept you are at maintaining your system. I do, however think that the Macs tend to be more stable out of the box and you don’t have to be as knowledgable to troubleshoot them when things do go wrong. Most of my friends who do claim stable Windows configurations also claim that they had to do a lot of software tweaking from the OEM distribution to get to that level of stability and they all have to reload their OS from time-to-time. To an experienced Mac person, this is horrifying… BTW, I’ve had the hard disk wiped and the OS reloaded twice in the last 18 months on my Windows machine. You can argue that it was probably unnecessary, however these are the so-called “experts” that are doing it - not me.
This is not exactly true… on two levels.
First, Photoshop is optimized for vector processing. This applies not only to the G4, but also to the Pentium III and Pentium IV. The Pentium III vector processing engine has some performance issues, so the performance boost in Photoshop may not be as noticable. This actually one of the few areas where the Pentium IV shines, however.
Second, yosemitebabe specifically mentioned iMac which is G3 based and does not support Altivec. I don’t believe that there is any special coding going on for the G3 in Photoshop, aside from the normal optimizations that the complier does as a natural outcome of compiling for a RISC processor.
BTW, a final word (for this post) on Wintel stability… I had to type this damn long post twice because my Wintel machine went all blue on me near the end of the first revision! Also, I think it was a preemptive multitasking fault. The OS was starting to draw a dialog box to tell me about my backup being complete when I simultaneously (and accidentally) hit the menu key… why they put that stupid key right next to the shift key is beyond the limits of my understanding…
Yosemitebabe: I have no doubts any iMac could outperform a K6-2 or a Celeron. Those are cheap, crappy processors when compared to a PIII, Athlon, or Duron processor (The Duron is the new budget processor from AMD, and will often outperform a PIII for far less cost). There are many other things to take into consideration when gauging the speed of a system. First, how much RAM a system has. Then, what the bus speed of the system overall is. You also have to take into consideration the processor cache (The PowerG3 has a much larger cache than the K6-2, if I’m not mistaken).
Joey, you do have a point with the iMac 500 mhz. I had forgotten about the newer iMacs (Are they coming out with a PowerG4 iMac?). I don’t think I would be able to build an Athlon system that can beat that for $600, but I could for the same price (Most normal Athlon systems come at about $1,000-$1,200, depending on manufacturer and software packages. Hand built systems can often be built cheaper).
The notebook thing is odd, though. Looking at the Dell and Apple sites, I don’t see any Dell laptops that come near the prices of the Apple laptops. IMHO, the iBooks are worthless. 12.1" displays? Look how much space is wasted on those things. I think if you’re gonna go for an Apple laptop, you might as well go all out. I think it would be a far better investment (I mean, with G4’s in the new PowerBooks…wow). I noticed that the Dell Latitude’s are more expensive than the Dell Inspiron’s (probably because of more expensive software and smaller cases).
Oh, as to Windows stability…I had some issues when I was first building my PC. First the motherboard I got was a piece of shit, and kept having conflicts with installing the USB drivers. So, I formatted Windows, got a different motherboard, and started over. Then a conflict came out of the Soundblaster 16 emulator (It was conflicting with my modem, I think…they both wanted IRQ 5). Not having expected this, I formatted, removed all hardware except video card, and installed again, adding each piece of hardware after I finished installed the previous piece. Everything worked fine, and the only times my system has crashed since have been when I was using too many programs (On 3 or 4 occasions) or when I was playing a game that had a bug in it. The system overloads I resolved without having to reboot (I did eventually anyways, since I didn’t want a system crash later).
I’ve never seen a properly installed an managed NT workstation crash. I haven’t worked with ME long enough to see it crash (besides, I have a crappy OEM version). And, I have never experienced Win2k to be anything other than a very fast, VERY stable business OS.
A new guy at the office (the one with the newly purchased computer) has ME, and it crashes on him all the time. It is always related to doing one thing with one application. I haven’t had the heart to tell him the old gag (what was it… Marx Brothers?) about the guy at the doctor’s office:
Guy: Doc, I’ve got a problem. It hurts like hell when I do this (awkwardly distorting his body).
Doctor: Well, don’t do that.
JoeyBlades:
Call it what you want. The fact is that until a certain point (I assume it’s fixed now), MacOS relied entirely on the active application to yield time to the OS, and thus the other applications. A poorly written application can easily monopolize the system, and then it’s time for the three-finger salute.
But Windows 9x and NT are able to forcibly pause the running application and switch to a different one. Cooperative multitasking is only used for 16-bit applications.
Maybe not. But start compiling a large project or laying out a complex page, and suddenly you can’t provide any input or switch to another program.
Or try this… start an MP3 or MOD playing, then hold the mouse button down on the menu bar. See how long it takes before the music stops. Then let go and it’ll start again.
Of course, I’m hoping that this has been fixed in the newer releases.
Is there a difference? I mean, you get a hard drive, and it’s either SCSI or IDE. I don’t think I’ve seen one marked as “SCSI - Macs Only!”
It might have been provoked by all those “Windows 95 = Macintosh '85” T-shirts.