The Mac G5 kicks ass

[mj_1903]

mj_1903, thanks for the lame-ass response, as far as i know your just someone whos wasted 7 posts insisting that MACs or the G5 is kick_ass. I'd rather hear from someone who has tested the G5 in all aspects, not just speed..because speed is nothing if you haven't got the software to compliment it.

Oh I totally agree. In fact, I care about the software so much that I have written part of OS X (darwin) and every day I write OS X software exclusively.

In fact, I shall have one within a month for that reason...so I can write high end software to take advantage of that software.

Then again, as we all know, those benchmarks were made on an OS that beta, on hardware that was beta and with a benchmark that spec has yet to place on their website because they know those facts.

But if you are saying that the G5 has not software to run on it then you are slightly wrong as well...all old software runs on it, OS 9, OS X, FreeBSD/Linux and Windows.

 

[devlish96]

thanks for the info. but thats not going to entice me into buying a G5, because its still lame-ass, although my mom is considering of buying one. Weird isn't it. oh well. good to know that there is still a healthy competition between MAC users and PC users. bottom line,..Intel and AMD will kick MACs ass anytime, anywhere. and no..im not refering to a heavyweight fist fight.

 

[mj_1903]

hanks for the info. but thats not going to entice me into buying a G5, because its still lame-ass, although my mom is considering of buying one. Weird isn't it. oh well. good to know that there is still a healthy competition between MAC users and PC users. bottom line,..Intel and AMD will kick MACs ass anytime, anywhere. and no..im not refering to a heavyweight fist fight.

It was never my intention of convincing anyone to buy a Mac...that was and never will be my objective. People use computers and generally use what they are comfortable with. I was simply informing so that you would stop spreading FUD.

If you also want to say that an x86 machine will slog a G5, go ahead...but I know the truth and if you will not look at it, then enjoy.

As for Mac's vs. Intel...I will leave you with this:

Is it not funny that the company the designed the PC now produces the chips for the company that they used to compete head on with?

It used to be IBM & Intel vs. Apple. Now its IBM & Apple vs. Intel. Sad but true.

Oh btw, MAC is an acroynm for Media Access Control...and is generally associated with the ethernet address of a computer. Mac is a brand of computer made by Apple Computer. Just saving you some embarrassment down the road.

 

[g5orbust]

i rest my case.

on what grounds do you rest your case?

And please man, dont flatter yourself. Your 2.5GHz P4 is no match what-so-ever to a G5 chip. (A more equal matiching would be that of either a 1.25GHz G4 or 1.42Ghz G4 chip.) Apple chose a 3.0GHz pentium 4 for those tests because it was the fastest. It did not, however, choose your aging 2.5GHz processor for one simple reason: it would have gotten the bloody crap beaten out of it; absolutely out-classes. Know why? Take out an 800MHz FSB, Hyperthreading, dual channel DDR-SDRAM and other, more basic chip enhancements make with each newer model that the 3.0GHz Pentium 4 tested along with the G5 had, and clock it 500MHz slower. There, thats why.

Also, I must ask you not to interject yourself into a debate unless you know what you are even talking about and have evidence to back up your
[outragious] claims to PC superiority. Alexander did the same, except for he had reasonable claims and some evidence to back it up. He also came in offering supplementary comments and personal experiences. Perfect example you should follow. Debates are not really about opinions. They are about facts and the reasonable opinions they support.

 

[Apokalipse]

well i'm really glad I'm not the only one who likes the G5, we once had a really old "Mac 128" it was about 20 years ago we got it new, it had a 128 kb HDD, ran on 3.5" floppy's and had a Black & white 12" monitor, not once did it ever crash in it's entire operating existence - i should know because i used to own it (well not me personally but my family)

 

[Apokalipse]

on what grounds do you rest your case?

And please man, dont flatter yourself. Your 2.5GHz P4 is no match what-so-ever to a G5 chip. (A more equal matiching would be that of either a 1.25GHz G4 or 1.42Ghz G4 chip.) Apple chose a 3.0GHz pentium 4 for those tests because it was the fastest. It did not, however, choose your aging 2.5GHz processor for one simple reason: it would have gotten the bloody crap beaten out of it; absolutely out-classes. Know why? Take out an 800MHz FSB, Hyperthreading, dual channel DDR-SDRAM and other, more basic chip enhancements make with each newer model that the 3.0GHz Pentium 4 tested along with the G5 had, and clock it 500MHz slower. There, thats why.

Also, I must ask you not to interject yourself into a debate unless you know what you are even talking about and have evidence to back up your
[outragious] claims to PC superiority. Alexander did the same, except for he had reasonable claims and some evidence to back it up. He also came in offering supplementary comments and personal experiences. Perfect example you should follow. Debates are not really about opinions. They are about facts and the reasonable opinions they support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Devilish96, no offence dude but i think it would be really hard to combat that

 

[darthparth]

yea whatever, i only use my PC for storing / watching divx movie files, running a server, browsin the net, and playing games. Since little to no games are released on the MAC, media files can be played just as well on either, and my server is damn stable and my net connection is good, the G5 can suck my dick. That's my opinion, im sure others have their own.

 

[Apokalipse]

the Mac OS doesn't have many games?
1. that's if you don't look in a mac shop
2. the Mac can run the Windows OS AND Windows games.

you can get broadband and a LAN connection on a MAC as well

The MAC OS is a more stable OS than any Windows Version
check my poll: http://www.tech-heaven.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4928

 

[Alexander]

Puhhhlleease do not try and use this point against a Mac. We have tons of innovate software that cannot possibly appear on the Windows platform because it hooks deep into Mac OS X.

Two blatant examples are Hydra and OmniGraffle which truly cannot be reincarnated on a Windows boxen without heaps of work and don't exist in any form.

You've got to be kidding right? I know you must be kidding.. Because if you aren't kidding then you don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about..

Hydra - (basically) a networkable, sharable high end desktop publishing solution.

Lotus Notes has been doing the EXACT SAME THING since 1989...

http://www.lotus.com

OmniGraffle - (basically) A "drag and drop" linear logic design solution.

I used an extremely similar piece of software while in college that did the EXACT SAME THING 10 years ago on a PC.

Here's an example that I found in under 5 min on a search at tucows.com

http://www.smartdraw.com/

Now what was that again about how there is no way they could be reincarnated on a windows machine.. Keep in mind I did not say that windows had the SAME software..

I will restate my point. There is not a single piece of software that is available for the Mac that does not have a COMPARABLE product available for the PC. However, the reverse is not true.

I will back this up again with a simple statement about how the business world works. Companies don't make products that people don't want or have a specific use for. It's called supply and demand.... Maybe you've heard of it.

If there weren't a need or a demand for a windows emulator on a Mac then it wouldn't have been created.. Since the ONLY thing a windows emulator does is allow you to use windows software on a Mac computer then the need was to do just exactly that.

In the research I have done so far, I have found a few Mac emulators for a PC, but they won't run with anything higher than OS 8, and as far as I can tell they are mostly used either for testing Mac ports of software or for a cross platform network to share multimedia files (multimedia development being an application in which I have already stated that Macs are superior to PCs). I have seen some responses from people using them in a home environment, but I had to look for a while before I found those. Also considering that you have to have an Apple ROM (that you can only get on an Mac) to use anything higher than OS 8 you probably won't see any furthur updates to those emulators unless Mac opens the Apple ROM up for outside development (which it is notorious for NOT doing). If the market demand were there for a Mac emulator for OS 9 or OS X then it would be developed, but from what I have found so far..... The demand is not there... WHY? because.....

There is not a single piece of software that is available for the Mac that does not have a comparable product available for the PC.

Oh and considering the two titles that you meantioned... Do some research before you make a statement.. Not checking your facts is a poor way to defend your point.

Alexander

 

[mj_1903]

"Hydra - (basically) a networkable, sharable high end desktop publishing solution."

Yes, you could compare it to Lotus notes but then you would be missing the point. Lotus did not have auto-discovery via Rendezvous. Lotus did not have hooks into Project Builder. Lotus did not have the standard NSTextView features that are available in Cocoa and Lotus does not have real-time colloboration of all of the above.

Its a one of a kind app that does not exist in any form.

An example...could notes run seamlessly over a Wifi network (adhoc network at that) and allow 40 people to create notes on someone's speech? Could notes allow 4 programmers to extreme program one app in real time?

"OmniGraffle - (basically) A "drag and drop" linear logic design solution."

Again, a gross over-simplification. Sure, it is a linear logic design solution and I used one back on a 386 over a decade ago...but its not just that.

Take a look at the GUI of OmniGraffle. Take a look at the features. The number of hooks into Quartz (something that does not exist on Windows) is insane.

"I will back this up again with a simple statement about how the business world works. Companies don't make products that people don't want or have a specific use for. It's called supply and demand.... Maybe you've heard of it.

If there weren't a need or a demand for a windows emulator on a Mac then it wouldn't have been created.. Since the ONLY thing a windows emulator does is allow you to use windows software on a Mac computer then the need was to do just exactly that."

Funny how you mention it...but there is demand for Mac apps. I know a lot of people that would kill to run FCP on a PC, or iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes or iDVD.

There were Mac emulators...but there was a certain problem with building them. PPC platforms can support an IOP header at either the start or the rear of an IOP (the OS uses rear from memory). x86 can only support headers at the other end. Therefore, such companies as Connectix could create near real time emulation efficiently for the Mac...on the PC it was not doable as the amount of code needed to translate it was insane and the performance hit was immeasurable. (That information may be wrong as I am working from distant memory as I wanted to emulate Mac OS X on my 1ghz athlon before I switched...possibly 3 years old now).

Then again, the OS is all about the software. If people had no reason software reason to run OS X then why would there be switchers?