must be a MAC

just picking and not my nose, this time

I have also, each post returns an error.

I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.

If Macs are so much better, then what are you doing on a Windows machine?

I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.

Your statements say otherwise. Here's a few:

Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one. The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.) And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4.

hey tech here a fact you can't argue with...MACS RAELY BREAK DOWN if at all like PC do.......

Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows.

Then we have:

Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news...

Just trying to report "news"....my butt! If you were simply trying to bring up the news, you would have simply posted a link and not started regurgitating Apple's FUD. Just let it go. You look more and more silly with each post.


Also, I've seen several incorrect references to combining processor speed in multi-processor systems. Example: 2x2Ghz processors does NOT equal 4Ghz in performance...not even close. First the OS must support SMP, then the application must support SMP (very few do). Even then, with both procs pegged at 100% usage, you won't see anywhere near a 4Ghz (clock) performance. Don't get me wrong, in the right conditions, have two or more procs is great, but you just can't add their clock speeds. (from my experience )

[Message Edited]

Calm down, kona....

Yes...historically, Unix-based systems were more stable than contemporary Windows OSs...but times change....Linux gets made to do more...to its peril...and Windows matures towards real stability.

Always remember that anything resembling a press-release is going to be slanted in favour of the product....Mac won't be claiming how inferior it is ....even if it were true...but WILL be claiming how superior it is...even if it IS false.

Before blindly following what you see posted on the net...remember the warning....

Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear.

It's a good maxim...

Kona, I think the problem is not what you say, but how you say it. You state your opinions as "Fact"....If you would just start your sentences with "In my opinion" or "It is my understanding" you would not get such a negative reaction to your posts.

Orion, I agree. But in the case I mentionned, the Dual 500Mhz G4's, they are running OSX (supports dual proc) and mainly use Photoshop (also support duals proc) and Quark XPress (not sure about that one).

I don't know if the combination of their two processors really equal 1Ghz or not, but I can tell you they are much faster than my P3 1.4 Ghz. But then again, as I said, they are 3 times the price.

Paxx: No argument there whatsoever. Mhz/Ghz is quite different between all these processors. Even when IPC (instructions per clock) is taken into account it's not 1 to 1. It doesn't shock me that your MAC was so much faster than your P3...I would expect that in the case you mentioned. Photoshop has historically done much better on a MAC. My comment about the 2x2Ghz != 4Ghz was aimed at same processor comparisons. I.E. G5 vs. G5, P4 vs. P4 etc.

Paxx Writes: But two things that are true is that the Macs are faster, and that the Macs are more expensive

Macs are faster? Than what? A slow PC? The fastest Mac is not faster than the fastest PC. And even for the Mhz they don't feel faster, that's for sure.

And the bang for the buck, like you mention, is not favorable to the Mac. I use my Mac to convert my home movies to DVD. It's a painful process and if I had to do it over again I would have bought a high end PC to do it because the Mac is so much slower.

OS X is very slick in a lot of ways, but it's definitely not fast.  My Mac is 800Mhz and it is definitely slower feeling than my 700Mhz laptop. A lot of that is because of the eye candy they have on there.

Road bikes aren't the problem, it's the riders - I can't have any respect for blokes who shave their legs...

Eye candy does tend to slow down OS performance. For example, when you load up Windows with all kinds of themes and visual effects like WindowsFX, X Desktop, and Object Dock: Windows slows down. Linux is even faster because you can turn off all eye candy and other features that slow down OS performance. Now I wonder wether a Mac or a PC would be faster if you load both with the same Linux distro (a version for PC and a version for Mac). I am sure that such a test would still prove that the fastest PCs beat the fastest Macs.

I recommend Mandrake because it supports the most hardware. If you do decide to support Mandrake by purchasing, get one of the power packs. The standard version has the compilers needed to compile softare straight from source removed. The standard version is just a dumbed down version that only offers compatibility with RPM packages for software installation. Experiment with different distros and use the distro you like best or works best for you.

Don't listen to David....he's a Tasmanian....and it's the wrong head doing the talking.....[actually, I'm a King Islander so I'm allowed to be nasty]...