My thoughts about the Apple Corporation

[gamehead200]

As far as processing power is concerned, the x86 platform is exceeding the PowerPC by leaps and bounds.  The new dual core AMD X2 processor runs circles around Intel's and IBMs lineup. 

You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case.  And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?"  Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief.

I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community.  And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share.

It's sad, but true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You obviously have not used a Mac for a long period of time. I bought an iBook in late February and have been amazed by its performance. It is a 1.33GHz laptop with 768MB of RAM and I must say that it is the most flawless machine I have ever used. Even after installing Apple's new operating system, Mac OS 10.4 or Tiger, it seems to run even faster than it did with Panther. I find that it runs a lot faster than my 2.53GHz machine with 512MB of RAM and Windows XP. Of course, I am still a PC fanatic and am still very much involved in the PC world.

A few of my friends have PowerMac G5s and are so happy they have them, because they run flawlessly. Sure, you might have a crash, but only once in a blue moon, probably because you set something wrong or are new to the OS. This happened to me once I got my iBook, but it was only because I was new to the OS. On the other hand, PCs seem to crash all the time usually because of driver or hardware problems.

You can't really compare processing power between a Mac and a PC. They are completely different from each other. GHz mean nothing when comparing speeds between the two platforms. It is the performance that matters.

[phex]

I will still argue that PC is just as good as a MAC for video editing and multimedia...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got the same opinion as you, but for everyday use, Wintel is far far better.

P.D. If you want a better Media player than Ipod, get a Rio Karma (I got one an it's awesome )

[svasutin]

PowerMac G5s ... run flawlessly. Sure, you might have a crash, but only once in a blue moon,

Huh ?

I can't remember the last time an system XP crashed, perhaps a beta release in 2000?

1.33GHz laptop with 768MB of RAM

w/ 768 all systems run well, of course XP only needs 512. On my Dell, with 512 and 1.3 Inspirion, dvd+r, uw disp ($ 2000) I get up to 7 hours on a single battery; of course I use a customized hardware profile. Watch the Matix and still have 2 hours battery life, again on a single battery.

faster than my 2.53GHz machine with 512MB

I would like to see a benchmark to back this up.

PCs seem to crash all the time usually because of driver or hardware problems.

Aahh yes, all the freedom msft provides. They should just restict compatibility and reduce functionality. It's a Msft problem when vendors have s/w and drivers with bugs.

You gotta be baiting us man.

[calyxman]

Hi gamehead,

I've used OS X since 2001 back in the days when I messed with the PowerMacs at the university computer lab. Before I purchased my iBook G3 in December of 2001, the last mac I had ever purchased was an all-in-one Performa 200 that ran System 7.

Back in the day when OS 10.0 first debuted, things were slow. As time progressed with the advent of Puma we saw performance enhancments in the user interface and added support for DVD burning. In fact, 10.0 was so rough that Apple offered the upgrade CD for 10.1 for $20 at the time.

I concur that Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger have increased the overall performance for OS X. It is still a very resource intensive OS, and one department you don't want to be lacking in is RAM. Nowadays, 512 MB is minimum and it actually is now standard on the consumer iMac, Powermac, and Powerbook. I expect the iBook to follow suit. I still feel the interface of OS X is not as responsive as Windows. Maybe OS 9 compares much better, but OS X is much heavier in the visual aesthetics department.

My contention isn't that the Powermac G5 or Powerbook G4 is not a fast machine. I think the G5 is a great processor indeed, and while I don't mind the G4, I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook.

I will argue, however, that for the price, I find it less compelling to buy another Mac when I can pay less and get the same performance and similar capabilities with a PC. I don't buy the argument that Windows is a bad operating system, as I've been running XP and 2000 for weeks without a crash. XP has run solid, and so has OS X for that matter. They're both great OSes.

If Apple does raise the bar with new products of its own, then I'd be happy to reconsider and may do all my windows and mac work on the same machine, as I own a copy of Virtual PC for the Mac.

[gamehead200]

I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apple is working on a G5 Powerbook! I wonder how expensive it will be when it first comes out...

[svasutin]

Hmmm,

Suddenly, Sony is in close competition for the worst company on the face of the planet.

Maybe this requires a poll

[keytotime]

Hmm to solve this problem, run mac on a intel pc. You'll see what works better. Mac has shot itself in the foot, by making the hardware so proprietary.

[Zxian]

Hmm to solve this problem, run mac on a intel pc. You'll see what works better. Mac has shot itself in the foot, by making the hardware so proprietary.

People seem to forget this about Apple... Apple was originally a hardware company! Their software was designed to run on their hardware.

It was interesting to see Apple make the switch to Intel. They're going to be using x86 processors, since they finally realized that that's where all the development is nowadays. There's just no competition to drive Motorola and IBM to develop a better G4/G5 chip.

Not to mention (although it's been said before), that OSX uses a LOT more memory than Windows XP. For the absolute basics (i.e. web browsing, writing documents, e-mail, the simple stuff) XP is just peachy with 256MB of RAM. Forget about running OSX 10.4 with 256MB RAM... it'll be slower than a turtle on valium.