Mac vs PC

[eyeslikefire]

Inferior in the performance sense,

Ok, as far as hardware...the PC (P4's I dunno about Athlon) have RIMM's as opposed to the SDRAM on the Mac also the Mac has a 133Mhz system bus opposed to the 200Mhz on the PC. OK, I'll give you those two.
But how about...

Cache...
2MB DDR SDRAM L3 cache per processor, with up to 4GB per second throughput.
Hard Drive....
7200-rpm Ultra ATA (same as PC)
CD Drives...
SuperDrive (combination DVD-R/CD-RW drive) it's an option I know,,, except for the 1 Gig
Expansion....
Two Built in 400Mbps FireWire ports
Networking....
Built in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet connector
And my personal favorite...
Support for up to three internal SCSI drives Support for a combination of internal SCSI and ATA drives.
Display....
Built in dual display support for extended desktop and video mirroring modes.

So the PC's have some advantages in Hardware, but the Macs also have some things going for it.
However, there is no argument from me as far as cost vs. performance. PC's still have the edge over the Macs.

 

[elevate]

But how about...

2MB DDR SDRAM L3 cache per processor, with up to 4GB per second throughput.

While it's good the G4 has a large amount of cache, you can see by the cpu benchmarks, that it just doesn't matter. The 4GB/sec throughput means nothing if your subsystems don't operate that fast, and in the Mac's case, they don't. The cache is just sitting there waiting for the lowly PC133 SDRAM to feed it something.

Hard Drive....
7200-rpm Ultra ATA (same as PC)

I don't believe Apple has ATA133 controllers, and they certainly do not offer any on-board RAID options, which are readily available on a slew of PC mobos.

CD Drives...
SuperDrive (combination DVD-R/CD-RW drive) it's an option I know,,, except for the 1 Gig

You want one on your PC? Buy one, and pay less than you will if you get it prebuilt in your Mac.

Expansion....
Two Built in 400Mbps FireWire ports

I'm not sure what this has to do with expansion. When I think of expansion, I think of PCI slots and drive bays; an area where Macs are lacking. Anyway, you want FireWire on your PC, buy a $22 card.

Networking....
Built in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet connector

I guess, chalk one up for the Mac. Regardless, Mac users are paying a premium now for something that isn't even usable.

And my personal favorite...
Support for up to three internal SCSI drives Support for a combination of internal SCSI and ATA drives.

How is this not an option that is available to PCs? I can right now go purchase a Tyan K7 mobo that will give me dual channel U160 SCSI and ATA100 (this means 6 SCSI drives and 2 ATA drives), dual 3Com 10/100 NICs, 5 64 bit PCI slots, 1 AGP Pro slot, support for up to 3GB of DDR RAM, 266Mhz bus speed, and slots for two Athlons.

OSX has some really good stuff going for it, but the hardware it runs on is not one of them.

 

[aaronscool]

Ok, as far as hardware...the PC (P4's I dunno about Athlon) have RIMM's as opposed to the SDRAM on the Mac also the Mac has a 133Mhz system bus opposed to the 200Mhz on the PC. OK, I'll give you those two.
But how about...

[bunch of stuff]

So the PC's have some advantages in Hardware, but the Macs also have some things going for it.
However, there is no argument from me as far as cost vs. performance. PC's still have the edge over the Macs.

Sadly it is information like this that keeps this kind of debate going. Everything you just described and more can or is in a PC. The parts that are proprietary to Macs are the parts that are slow (inferior). These parts include the the system bus/speed and the processor architecture/speed.

Mac's Processor/Ram/System bus designs are 2 years old and have been more than surpassed by PC's running Intel or AMD. With a Mac today you get a chip that runs half as fast, and processor to RAM bus that runs half as fast and RAM that runs half to a third as fast.

MAC's currently have a really cool OS and some proprietary apps (Final Cut Pro) that are their only real selling points aside from the cool computer designs. Performance and/or Price are no longer any reason to consider them.

 

[eyeslikefire]

OK I'm whipped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not that I cant keep on but this sh_t is gettin old)

Lets all say this in unison with a Borg type voice......
PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......

 

[elevate]

Lets all say this in unison with a Borg type voice......
PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......PC's RULE.....MACS SUCK......

Nobody said Macs suck. The OS ( > OS9) doesn't suck. The hardware doesn't suck - it's just not all that fast, but the tech is still good. PowerPC, PC133, and ATA are good technologies, just not cutting edge.

The only problem is you keep on trying to prove some kind of hardware superiority, or at least parity, and it's just impossible. The current state of Macs is such that the hardware is about a year behind current PC technology (and at about 1.5 times the cost), but that doesn't mean it sucks...or at least I don't think it sucks. It's just not a good value, if that's important to you.

 

[eyeslikefire]

Inferior in the performance sense, which nowadays is the only metric needed

Wait! who is trying to prove what..........
No, seriously man I wasn't try'n to prove anything, I'd be a fool to do so.....(NO COMMENTS OUT THERE NOW!)

I agree with your reply! (except the proving part))
Way back when they really kicked ass but now they've lagged behind so much that I really don't think they will ever catch up.

 

[eyeslikefire]

Sadly it is information like this that keeps this kind of debate going.

BTW....
Information and debates....
Isn't this what a FORUM is all about????

 

[elevate]

Wait! who is trying to prove what..........

All I was implying by that is that both platform's operating systems are pretty comparable, so the only quantifiable comparison is based on hardware. Everything else is personal preference, which is obviously enough for some to choose the slower hardware - Apple's still in business....aren't they?

Way back when they really kicked ass but now they've lagged behind so much that I really don't think they will ever catch up.

I agree that Macs used to kick ass. They had everything going for them, except a CEO with good business sense. All it would take for them to get back in the game is an economic model that will enable them to move to x86 and still survive....though that would probably be the most difficult strategy Apple has ever attempted.

 

[bdemenil]

I used to use Mac. They had a good thing going. They might even revive if they allow their new OS to run on PCs. I'd much prefer to be using a unix based OS than windows.

 

[eyeslikefire]

I agree that Macs used to kick ass. They had everything going for them, except a CEO with good business sense.

True! so true!!
It's a shame because RISC processors have a lot of potential.

 

[elevate]

I'd much prefer to be using a unix based OS than windows.

Why? If Windows was unix-based, would that make it better?

It's a shame because RISC processors have a lot of potential.

You mean like the P3 and P4 cores? I recommend a reading of this for the state of RISC and CISC cpu technology. The definitions have blurred a little.

 

[aaronscool]

BTW....
Information and debates....
Isn't this what a FORUM is all about????

True, I was aiming this comment at the apples/oranges crowd.

 

[eyeslikefire]

Why? If Windows was unix-based, would that make it better?

Yes it would as a matter of fact!
To start off it wouldn't bomb out as much..............


Wait! B4 U press the reply button.................
you're gonna say that the reason that happens is because of crappy drivers, still; I've seen Windows boxes go down right after a clean install with nothing on them, no sound card, nic card,,,,nothing!

 

[elevate]

Wait! B4 U press the reply button.................
you're gonna say that the reason that happens is because of crappy drivers, still; I've seen Windows boxes go down right after a clean install with nothing on them, no sound card, nic card,,,,nothing!

I'm assuming this was some Win9x flavor, no? If so, well...what do you expect? Back when I was doing web dev/programming/graphics I was using Win98. That lasted for about 3 months before I abandoned Win98 for NT4. I haven't installed Win9x for anything more than games since.

Since I've been using Win2k, the only crashes I've experienced have been related to SB Live drivers and SolidWorks telling my ATi vid card at work to do strange things.

By comparison, during the few months I fiddled with Linux, I had several OS crashes that were indeterminate (by me). Unix is not a guarantee of anything. If you've got crap drivers, you're gonna have an unstable OS, regardless of its underpinnings.

The problem with the Win9x line of poo, err, I mean operating systems, is that the OS allows software basically unlimited access to kernel space (I think this is also the case with MacOS < X). This is what makes the OS so unstable. With Linux, OSX, Solaris, BeOS (R.I.P.), and Win2k, the kernel is protected from software. So, when you have an errant program, you can just kill the process, instead of having the whole OS go down.

 

[bdemenil]

So, when you have an errant program, you can just kill the process, instead of having the whole OS go down.

I see win XP freeze all the time due to errant programs. It's task manager is not that great either. It is slow to respond, and sometimes processes won't die even when you repeatedly try to terminate them. Although I agree that win2K,XP are much better than win9X, there is still room for improvement. A well configured unix/linux box is more stable and more customizable. Unix is just a very well designed, very powerfull O.S. What Unix does not have is a great GUI.


I might add that Mac OS 9 is probably worse in my mind than even win95.

 

[elevate]

A well configured unix/linux box is more stable and more customizable.

That's even more debatable than the subject of this thread. You seem to have had more stability with linux (or did you just read that somebody else did?), while I've found Win2k to be much more stable than linux.

As to customization, I've had a much easier time customizing my Win2k install with LiteStep and other various mods, than I did with linux. It's cool that linux comes with a few GUIs, but that's also part of the problem - 'does this app run in KDE or GNOME'?

Unix is just a very well designed, very powerfull O.S. What Unix does not have is a great GUI.

Unix is not an OS. Tru64, Solaris, AIX, and BSD are examples of operating systems based on the Unix standard. Linux, Mach, OpenStep, and OSX are examples of operating systems loosely based on the Unix standard, still meeting POSIX requirements. NT4, Win2k, and WinXP can easily be made to meet POSIX requirements.

 

[bdemenil]

Unix is not an OS. Tru64, Solaris, AIX, and BSD are examples of operating systems based on the Unix standard.

I was refering to Unix based O.S. es in general. And yes I have had direct experience with Solaris and a variety of Linuxes. I have also developed software for both unix(based) and windows platforms. I stand by my earlier statement that when well configured, a good Unix based OS is more stable than Win2K/XP. It is true that every OS sometimes crashes, and that bad software can contribute to this. But I still find the unix based OSes I have worked on have been more resistant to programming errors than Windows 2K/XP.

In terms of customization, the options for Unix based O.S.es are virtually limitless. As far as Window Managers/Desktops, I'd much rather be working on just about any version of MS Windows than on the variety available for Unix based OSes. For ease of use, windows has unix hands down. That's why I'd like to see a comercial company, Apple for instance, put some serious effort into developing a unix windows manager aimed at the home consumer.

That's even more debatable than the subject of this thread.

I do agree that the subject is debatable. Windows has come a long way. Anyway, it's not realy appropriate for this forum, because for obvious reasons, few people today consider using Unix for audio.

 

[busted kitty]

I'm really enjoying this bantering. As a film and sound guy, I am really seeing the benefits of both PCs and Macs. I use both every day. My feeling is that neither platform is better, but rather, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I like to do audio recording on a PC (although others will tell you that I'm crazy), and I do all of my film work on Mac. Not that I can't do this on my PC, but I find there are much more hangups and other glitchy problems with importing and exporting film from the PC. Nevertheless, I like the upgradability of the PC for sound recording, and the wide selection of software.. The solution: buy both platforms! (no really!)

 

[elevate]

Not that I can't do this on my PC, but I find there are much more hangups and other glitchy problems with importing and exporting film from the PC.

I was wondering if you render on your PC. I think video on PC is a bit lacking at present, but feel that it's another one of those areas that PC use is bound to go up.

Have you tried Vegas Video? I don't do much video work at all (aside from chopping up my Tool bootlegs into managable sizes), but I've heard that Vegas matches up really well with FCP (and costs a whole lot less too). Anyway, rendering would definitely be faster on the PC, but I'm not really sure how you'd go about offloading work like that...in a renderfarm kinda way I suppose.

Anyway, this thread has been officially derailed.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

A friend of mine just got a Mac 933Hz G4. He uses protools LE (with digi 001). I have a PC with dual AMD XP1600s. We both have the Waves RVerb plug-in (a notorious CPU hog), and so we decided to compare CPU power. His Mac was only able to run 2 RVerb plugins simultaneously. My PC can run 7-8. So, even if you half the number that my PC can run to take into account the dual procs, my PC still has a significant performance advantage.

I bet you guys race camaro's against ferrari's too, don't you.

T,