VisorCentral.com - Apple Stores

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Apple Stores (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=14798)

Posted by bblue on 05-19-2001 03:32 AM:

Yeah

Being a complete mac loyalist, all I can say is that Apple's stores are pure brilliance! I HATED going to CompUSA and having some PC guy try to explain a product I know more about than him! Micro Center has something like this, their own Mac section with Mac people in it. Hey, it works! I think the Apple stores have the flair, the know-how , and the actual accessories needed to make it a success. Apple put some thought behind its retail strategy.

Now, the question remains:
Will it soar like the G4 Powerbook, or crash like the ever-so-cool cube?

__________________
"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by PastaGrrrl on 05-19-2001 02:01 PM:

Hey now. I'm a graphic designer, and I used to be a total Mac loyalist. Until I got my PC that is. Believe me. Macs have more style, more grace, more pinache... shall I go on? But they also cost more money for a machine that's simply not as fast as the fastest PC. Software for Macs costs more. Parts/replacements cost more. Although I will admit, if I were on the market for a laptop, Mac would probably have me down pat with their new iBooks.

__________________
www.studio1809.com
P.S. I feel at home with geeks like you.

Posted by homer on 05-19-2001 03:27 PM:

quote:
Software for Macs costs more.

It does? Since when?

Damn. I've been getting screwed all these years, I guess.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by PastaGrrrl on 05-19-2001 03:49 PM:

Yes sir, on average Mac applications cost $10 more. I'm talking about Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive. At least last time I looked they did.

__________________
www.studio1809.com
P.S. I feel at home with geeks like you.

Posted by bblue on 05-19-2001 04:08 PM:

Well,

Depends where you shop. I paid LESS for my copy of Flash for Mac than for the PC version.

You're also very wrong about the speed, and I constantly have to tell PC users about this: it's possible for a 500mhz mac to blow the socks off of a 1Gz Pentium. The reason is because of the Processor design, and the bitrate. (which is MUCH higher on Macs than PC's, which is why looking at the Mhz factor alone is like saying 1/2 is less than 2/16 because 2 is greater than 1!!!)

Next, get the extended warranty. It's the best investment I've ever made, and with the costs of repairing Macs, it's a steal!

(hey, it covers acts of stupidity! )

__________________
"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by homer on 05-19-2001 08:13 PM:

quote:
Yes sir, on average Mac applications cost $10 more. I'm talking about Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive. At least last time I looked they did.

Where are you shopping at? You were getting taken!

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by homer on 05-19-2001 08:15 PM:

quote:
You're also very wrong about the speed, and I constantly have to tell PC users about this: it's possible for a 500mhz mac to blow the socks off of a 1Gz Pentium.

Yes, but that is true for very specific things. On average, a PPC chip is faster than the same MHZ Intel chip, but rarely is it twice as fast.

So I would not say a 500 mhz PPC chip 'blows the socks off' of a 1ghz intel chip.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by BEN on 05-19-2001 08:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer

Yes, but that is true for very specific things. On average, a PPC chip is faster than the same MHZ Intel chip, but rarely is it twice as fast.

So I would not say a 500 mhz PPC chip 'blows the socks off' of a 1ghz intel chip.

I think that something that alot of people forget about processors when comparing PPC and Intels is that a MHz is a MHz. It's a measure of the speed that a processor can complete a calculation no matter what. So what we are compaing here is not the processor, but the OS, and the applications written for it. In no circumstances is a PPC processor (running @ 500MHz) faster than a Intel processor (running @ 500 mhZ) on calculating. They are both the same. I think that this is something that alot of people have forgotten when I read all of these debates when comparing speeds.

BEN

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-19-2001 10:12 PM:

edited

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-19-2001 10:18 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BEN

I think that something that alot of people forget about processors when comparing PPC and Intels is that a MHz is a MHz. It's a measure of the speed that a processor can complete a calculation no matter what. So what we are compaing here is not the processor, but the OS, and the applications written for it. In no circumstances is a PPC processor (running @ 500MHz) faster than a Intel processor (running @ 500 mhZ) on calculating. They are both the same. I think that this is something that alot of people have forgotten when I read all of these debates when comparing speeds.

BEN

It's a hell of a lot more than just the "OS, and the applications written for it." It's how fast the computer can pull the info from RAM, load it to RAM, compute it, move it between everything, etc. Mac are a lot more balanced in that regard, that's why a 500MHz G4 kicks the hell out of a 500MHz Intel. A lot of people haven't forgotten it, they just realize that actually completing the calculation is a very small part of the equation. It just happens to be the one that gets measured most often.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by bblue on 05-20-2001 12:16 AM:

Yeeahh

Yes, the OS and RAM do have stuff to do with it, but it's the Bitrate. Usually Apple demos show you this. My original iMac (233mhz) was clocked at the same speed as a 500mhz Pentium while running MDK. I was skeptical, until I actually USED a 500mhz Pentium. And the G4's are supposed to have even MORE of a lead.

Think of it like this. You have a corvette and a minivan taking 7 people from point A to point B. The corvette goes faster, but seats 1 passenger. The Minivan is slower, but seats 6 passengers.

__________________
"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by foo fighter on 05-20-2001 12:26 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BEN
I think that something that alot of people forget about processors when comparing PPC and Intels is that a MHz is a MHz. [.]...In no circumstances is a PPC processor (running @ 500MHz) faster than a Intel processor (running @ 500 mhZ) on calculating. BEN

Sorry, but your quite wrong. There are a number of factors that influence performance. First off, all x86 processors (including the Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon) are 32 bit. The PowerPC G4s are 64 bit, and they can perform more computations per cycle than a comparable x86. And PPC G4s can emulate a 128 bit architecture through its Altivec engine. That's not to say that a 500mhz G4 is faster than a 1.7GHZ P4 by any stretch, but 500MHZ on a G4 does not equal 500MHZ on Pentium III.

I don't believe that a 733mhz G4 can outperform a 1.7ghz P4 or Athlon anymore than you do. But your argument that MHZ = MHZ is wrong.

It may surprise you to know this, but even the AMD Athlon is built on the same RISC core as the PowerPC you claim is not faster than x86, which is why it whips the pants off the Pentium 4 per MHZ.

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by homer on 05-20-2001 02:36 PM:

quote:
In no circumstances is a PPC processor (running @ 500MHz) faster than a Intel processor (running @ 500 mhZ) on calculating.

The big speed gain in the PPC architecture is that it is a RISC processor, meaning that it has to process a lot less data than an intel cheap to accomplish the same task. So it is faster at overal task handling.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by dalamar70 on 05-21-2001 03:26 AM:

A 500MHz G4 may beat a 1GHz P3 sometimes, but a 500MHz P3 could beat a 1GHz G4 sometimes too. It all depends on the applications you're running and the rest of your system. Instead of arguing about which CPU is "better" overall, everybody should just buy whatever they want and stop defending/apologizing for it.

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter

The PowerPC G4s are 64 bit, and they can perform more computations per cycle than a comparable x86. And PPC G4s can emulate a 128 bit architecture through its Altivec engine. That's not to say that a 500mhz G4 is faster than a 1.7GHZ P4 by any stretch, but 500MHZ on a G4 does not equal 500MHZ on Pentium III.

It may surprise you to know this, but even the AMD Athlon is built on the same RISC core as the PowerPC you claim is not faster than x86, which is why it whips the pants off the Pentium 4 per MHZ.

The G4 has only 32-bit registers and is NOT a 64-bit processor by any standard definition. The P4 SSE2 can also handle 128-bit quantities. Pretty much every pipelined x86 since the original Pentium uses a RISC core, including the P4 which goes so far as to cache only RISC "micro-ops," not x86 instructions.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page