Who uses Apple computers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ma/T
  • Start date Start date
The latest Non-Apple computers that were comparable to the latest Apple computers have always had a higher Mhz number, but that hasn't necessarily meant that they are faster. I read in a magazine an analogy with pizza pies. In a Mac OS pizza parlor there are 7 people in an assembly line each with their own part or ingredient to making the pizza. In a PC pizza parlor there are 20. I believe what they were really talking about were how many parts make up a cycle for each computer. The "pizza" has to go through more people with the PC so it demands a higher Mhz number to get the job done in the same amount of time as it does to power the 7 "people" in the Mac at a lesser Mhz clock speed. Apple's design is just more efficient which would explain the brilliant performance with the lesser amount of Mhz. Today, PC may have made the first step into a faster computer, but you cannot determine how much faster their computer is than an Apple by the Mhz speed. I am not an expert but the way I explained it should let you understand how Apple has stayed above water all these years with those "lesser" speeds. They have been neck and neck speedwise really. What matters is how dependant they are at delivering those promised speeds and performance.
As far as dependability, well that goes to Apple hands down. On an independent research on consumer computers I saw on the news the other night, Apple had the least amount of trips to the repair shop for their computers out of all of the other computer brands out there. Out of the box with Apple you are getting Hardware and Software made by the same company, so compatability runs completely seemless behind the curtains. As far as viruses go, there is only one serious one for mac that should cause alarm. Now, how many are their for PC? I'll let you figure that one out. Apples new OS is UNIX based. I don't know too much about UNIX but from what I've heard it stands for 'solid' with a capital 'S'.
I get my fair share of time on PCs but when I am on a Mac and want to get work done, I don't feel like I am using a machine.
 
Ma/T said:
The latest Non-Apple computers that were comparable to the latest Apple computers have always had a higher Mhz number, but that hasn't necessarily meant that they are faster. I read in a magazine an analogy with pizza pies. In a Mac OS pizza parlor there are 7 people in an assembly line each with their own part or ingredient to making the pizza. In a PC pizza parlor there are 20. I believe what they were really talking about were how many parts make up a cycle for each computer. The "pizza" has to go through more people with the PC so it demands a higher Mhz number to get the job done in the same amount of time as it does to power the 7 "people" in the Mac at a lesser Mhz clock speed. Apple's design is just more efficient which would explain the brilliant performance with the lesser amount of Mhz. Today, PC may have made the first step into a faster computer, but you cannot determine how much faster their computer is than an Apple by the Mhz speed. I am not an expert but the way I explained it should let you understand how Apple has stayed above water all these years with those "lesser" speeds. They have been neck and neck speedwise really. What matters is how dependant they are at delivering those promised speeds and performance.
As far as dependability, well that goes to Apple hands down. On an independent research on consumer computers I saw on the news the other night, Apple had the least amount of trips to the repair shop for their computers out of all of the other computer brands out there. Out of the box with Apple you are getting Hardware and Software made by the same company, so compatability runs completely seemless behind the curtains. As far as viruses go, there is only one serious one for mac that should cause alarm. Now, how many are their for PC? I'll let you figure that one out. Apples new OS is UNIX based. I don't know too much about UNIX but from what I've heard it stands for 'solid' with a capital 'S'.
I get my fair share of time on PCs but when I am on a Mac and want to get work done, I don't feel like I am using a machine.
Click to expand...

The pizza parlor analogy may have made sense 6 months ago but now Intel has the newer P4's with Hyperthreading Technology.

http://www.intel.com/homepage/land/hyperthreading.htm?iid=ipp_dlc_procp4p+body_intro_ht&

I cannot agree with you about dependability based on personal experience and observations. Apple's rejection rate for the PowerPC Chip was lower than IBM's so that means they were content to use chips that did not meet IBM's QC standards...

Finally, OSX is based on the FreeBSD distribution of UNIX. UNIX is not an OS in itself and the NT Kernel which has been around for 10 years is just as solid with a capital 'S' as most UNIX distributions.

Oh, and BTW, the reason there are so many viruses for the PC and Windows is because it is the most widely used OS in the world. If Apple or anybody else were in Microsoft's/Intel's position, there would be just as many viruses for that platform...
 
Apple had the least amount of trips to the repair shop for
Click to expand...
That is totally misleading. The majority of Personal computers sold are IBM compatable. They way outsell apples. As far as the trip to the shop, Ill bet a lot of them delt with software not hardware. Most normal consumers are not going to try and fix their computer themselves. Then you have to add the fact of chip makers and a slew of MB companys. If AMD.VIA,SIS etc. chips were not around there would be less in the shop.
If Amiga ever went back into business you could problably kiss Apple goodbye!:D
 
Apple's design is just more efficient which would explain the brilliant performance with the lesser amount of Mhz. Today, PC may have made the first step into a faster computer, but you cannot determine how much faster their computer is than an Apple by the Mhz speed. I am not an expert but the way I explained it should let you understand how Apple has stayed above water all these years with those "lesser" speeds. They have been neck and neck speedwise really. What matters is how dependant they are at delivering those promised speeds and performance
Click to expand...
First of all, it's not Apple's design. Second, Apple's computers used to have clock speeds that were on par with x86 - sometimes ahead. In those days, Apple had the faster computer. Since that time x86 performance has been increasing at a faster rate than PPC performance, and today the gap is considerable - forcing Apple to rely on MP rigs to remain relevant.
 
Ma/T, you're making ludicrous arguments.

You want to know why Apple is able to stay above water even though their computers are dog slow compared to PC's?

FEAR.

Their ad campaings are all about fear. All their "Switch" campaign talks about is how scary and hard it is to use PCs, how they crash all the time, blah blah blah. This is true, PCs crash. So do Macs. I have owned 3 Macs, and they all crashed. I own a G4-933 right now, and I love it for what it does, but it was a $1700 computer, and if I hadn't had such a huge (~15k) investment in Mac plugins for Pro Tools, there's no question I would have gone with a $1000 PC that would have been faster and just as solid. I'm running Windows 2000 at my work; I've been here for 3 months, and the only time I have had to turn my computer off was when installing software that required a reboot. It is as solid as an OS can be. And NT was based on UNIX 10 years ago, it's not like that's some brilliant idea that Apple had out of nowhere. They're playing keep up, and pushing fear, and that's all they're doing right now.

Today, PC may have made the first step into a faster computer, but you cannot determine how much faster their computer is than an Apple by the Mhz speed.
Click to expand...
No, but you can tell by an actual speed comparison, which someone posted earlier in this thread. It's true, PCs are faster for the same price, get over it.


I have to say, you're new here, so people have obviously been cutting you slack, but now I think you should cut your losses. Your arguments make you look ignorant.
 
Apple's design is just more efficient which would explain the brilliant performance with the lesser amount of Mhz
Click to expand...
Some tests I ran comparing running Waves plugins on a G4 and on a PC with an AMD XP chip indicated that the XP has an edge over the G4 - on a MHz to MHz basis. That's forgetting for a moment AMD's huge edge over G4 in the actual MHz rate.
 
I dunno why this keeps coming up...


oh yeah... it's cause people like to hear themselves ramble on, ad nauseam.


So anywhoo... everybody knows Macs are over-priced, and that people buy them solely for "status", and that they're slower than PC's, and that they have ten times the proprietary "death grip" on their users that Micro$oft has on their users,... and blah blah blah... we might as well argue republican vs. democrat while we’re at it.. :rolleyes:


but since this guy just wants help regarding a choice in Macs....


My bro (bless his little heart) uses a dual 867 G4 tower to run a Pro Tools rig, and it works just fine. He can load that thing with butt-loads of tracks and all sorts of crazy (not to mention expensive) plug-ins and it handles it just fine. My advice would be to go with the dual G4 Tower... the eMac/iMac is not the best route to go for something like audio/video editing. You're basically sacrificing performance for a "pretty package"..... Well.... you're always sacrificing performance for a "pretty package" when you buy any Mac... but you're doing it more so when you buy an iMac. :D


WATYF
 
Duck,
Well of course for that repair shop fact, the data collected was based on percentages of the computers that were bought, not the number of computers actually in need of repair service.

charger,
ludicrous arguments? Major requested some opinions to which I replied my own in the same manor that any of you have. And I do believe I acknowledged PC's current advancement in their computers.
"No, but you can tell by an actual speed comparison, which someone posted earlier in this thread. It's true, PCs are faster for the same price, get over it"
I'm over it already, lol; your facts can't silence my preference and my right to voice them! The large response I got to my last post made what I said much more 'controversial' than it even is. You, like myself and everyone else all have their own experience with different computers which conjures opinions that makes discussion interesting. What's the big deal? Please don't be threatened; not by my 'vast knowledge' that you assumed I must think that I have, but from one man's post on a message board! I appreciate all of your posts, opinions and replies! Thank you all!

bdemenil,
cool, that's what I would have expected. I know that the newest PC's have an edge on the most advanced Macs available, but it isn't exactly what the numbers would have you believe, is it? I'm curious because I haven't personally made such comparisons, but was the G4 you ran them on a Dual processor? Thanks.

WATYF,
I appreciate your response. You are absolutely right. I didn't cause to stir up so much. It is probably pointless to even post this response (though I will only because I already wrote it up, lol). With 95% of users being PC, it's not easy for Mac user to validate their opinion, not to sound so oppressed, hehe. I am leaning towards Mac basically because I have been with them for a while and feel very comfortable and fluent with them. Right now it is a given that the best PC's are faster than the best Macs. Getting past that, people still like Apple computers for what they have always delivered. I look at it as just a plus that what I already love about using Macs is faster and more progressive than it ever has been with their newer models. Thank you WATYF for getting back to the subject! The computer you suggested is the one I am leaning towards. Your response is the kind that I find helpful. I definitely want to be able to stretch out my next computer to all of my needs and from what you said, it sounds very, very feasible withh the dual 867! Thanks!
 
Ma/T

I think that everyone here has forgotten that this cat is asking about which MAC to get... not weather or not he should get a Mac or a PC.

HE IS RUNNING LOGIC AUDIO PEOPLE!!!!!!!

If you wish to continue running the software that I am sure you #1 spent a lot of money for #2 love and enjoy as most Logic users do #3 don't want to spend $800 buying another software that runs on a PC, and #4 don't want to spend the next year learning another priogram... then you should stick with the Mac and just raise your middle finger at everyone that is fucking with you for it.

That all being said... you do present your arguments in a rather blunt skulled manor that just makes people want to bust your chops about it. You have admited that Macs offer an inferior performance than and highly spec'ed PC. And you also did mention that Macs tend to be more stable than PCs. I think that there are actually THREE sides to the whole story...

Apple vs. PC's vs. Specially Made for audio PC's.

Apple wins hand down over any old Dell machine that has parts in it from God knows where. Dell just buy the cheapest parts they can find at the time. I know for a fact that you can go and buy two identical store bought PC from the exact same company and open them up and they could very easily have a firewire card from company X and the other PC could have one from company Y. This all makes trouble shooting fuck off hard. Compatiability and stability suffer like a bitch.

NOW!!!! that being said... I think that a built from scratch PC for audio would mop the floor with a Mac in almost every aspect. Hell there are even specialty tower casing manufacturers if you want your PC to have a slick outside apperance. Also these Special PCs are going to be MUCH quieter than a Mac and you can easily have them built sideways in a rackmount format (which is what all Mac users wish they had!)

So in conclusion... if you do not need "cutting edge performance" (which I do not really think you do.) Few people really do! And if you are happy using the Mac platform (which you are knd of forced to be since eMagic sold the fuck out!)... then stick with the Mac... but yeah, do yourself the favor and spend a little bit more $$$ and get yourself a dual processor G4 powerMac. Forget about iMacs, eMacs, or iBooks.

You will be very pleased with the results if you get a tower Mac.
 
pisces
thanks for sticking up for me. Im all about constructive criticism and advice or corrections. I might arrange my sentences harshly but I mean no ill will, especially personally directed at anyone. I'm not buffed on my PC knowledge so when you inform me there is no need to execute me with it! hehe.
I am probably going to wait until after the January Macworld expo so I can see what apple has planned. THey should have already had their G5 chip out.
thanks all.
 
THey should have already had their G5 chip out.
Click to expand...
Is this going to happen? There's been G5 rumors flying for over a year now without any sign of its release. I tried searching for info on it and couldn't find anything substantiative. However I did find some great humor in the form of:

Apple to trounce PC's in 2002
Click to expand...
As for Apple's conquest in 2002. Our sources have been told that the G5 will scale rapidly in clock rate.
Click to expand...

That was dated November of last year.
 
I'd say for audio you need the fastest damn thing possible - no matter what plaform. So if you can get a dual G4, or a dual G5 when it comes out - go for that. IMac is junk - don't bother.



While we're on this subject, I've on several occasions run into a situation where I want to take high def (ie higher than CD quality) audio files from my computer (PC) and load them up onto a mac running protools. So I burn the files (48K, or 96K 24bit) to CD. Time and again, the protools mac doesn't recognize the audio files from the CD as legitimate for import. I've tried converting to AIFF, I've tried burning to more stringent ISO formats - nothing works. The Mac sees the files, but none of its audio apps can open them. The only way I've found so far is direct SPIDIF transfer - and that is far from ideal. Anyone here know the answer?
 
God I hope so...

I would love to see a bad ass Apple surge in performance. It makes no sence why they don't just get with it.

I think they should also shut the absolute fuck up about this whole "switch over to Mac". They fuel this whole "Light and Dark side of the force" bullshit. I have never heard Wintel make a direct marketing scheme aimed at shoving Apple in the dirt.

I mean when you type in www.apple.com you are greated in the face with "true confessions" from people that "made the switch." And they are always such terribly cheesy generated phrases like... "My PC wasn't Plug n Play... it was Plug n get mad!" This whole shit is just childish.

I guess maybe some people with the computer knowledge of my mother (which is little to nothing) might be persuaded by this type of marketing garbage. But people like my mom look at ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY when it comes to buying a computer... the fucking price tag. And until Apple can make their price tags look as nice as their fancy cases, they will always be sucking hind tit to the Wintel crowd.

But I still love my Mac. God bless em!
 
"My PC wasn't Plug n Play... it was Plug n get mad!"
Click to expand...
It seems like they're comparing computers running Windows 3.1 or Win95 at the latest, to Apple's latest and greatest. What would it look like if I compared the functionality of System 6 to WinXP?

Though there probably are still people using Win95...maybe even 3.1 (*shudder*), and maybe these ads are for these people. God knows they need to upgrade to something.
 
Pisces...good point on the apple vs. specialized windows-based comparison...so it takes a souped up Windows to match an off the assembly line mac?

Ma/T, Thanks for the pizza anology...I had heard that a mac at 1/2 the mghz was on par, but ddin't understand why.

I am still on the hunt myself...nice to know the iMac's are inadequate and to stay away from the Dell's. I am hearing alot of good about Athlon.
I'll keep reading.

But hey, this isn't my thread.
 
Ma/T, Thanks for the pizza anology...I had heard that a mac at 1/2 the mghz was on par, but ddin't understand why.
Click to expand...
This is no longer true. If anything, new PCs have an edge in a MHz to MHz comparison.
Pisces...good point on the apple vs. specialized windows-based comparison...so it takes a souped up Windows to match an off the assembly line mac?
Click to expand...
This isn't true either. Both Apple and the major PC manufacturers make low and high grade models. The imac, for instance, is pretty weak. An off the shelf Dell will generaly be pretty decent - definitely very competitive with an off-the-shelf mac. But it's true, of course, that you can get much better value and performance with a custom built PC.

AMD procs are good, but so are Intel. The new P4 with hyperthreading looks pretty bad ass.
 
Phew! I haven't been online in a while!

Seriously, Mac needed to get G5 out there to stay on the competitive edge. I heard that after the G5 there is no other way Apple can improve their current chip design and will than have to restart a new one from scratch (which I'm sure is already well underway). I am confident that Apple will take that opportunity to right their current wrongs in the presence of their competition and get back on the ball.

In all fairness to the humble iMacs I have to say that they are not all that bad, definitely not garbage. It could be because I am currently using my 400Mhz G3 and do not know the bliss of a faster Mac, but I have pushed this baby pretty far with a little elbow grease (a.k.a patience). Now that they have G4 iMacs at 800Mhz everything that I am currently doing would be cinch to handle with plenty of room to spare on one of those. They just don't make as much sense when it comes to being upgradable. They seem designed to be disposable once their technology becomes obsolete. But you can get some very decent results from them, depends on your aims and your budget. In the light of the Dual processor it doesn't seem like the right choice in the long run though to get an iMac.

major,
I cannot speak for pisces but when he made that Dell statement, well that same example can go for many PC companies. There is an uncertainty about everything that is inside of the computer with several of PC companies. Macs are hardware and software, inside and out with few exceptions.

Man I wish Apple would get in gear and at least give Mac users something to look forward to. I'm hoping that MWSF brings some info to the table. I do believe that Steve Jobs will be there so we will see what he has to say.
 
How often does this Mac World thing take place? I don't think that there will be anything coming out soon. As in the next 6 months over at Apple. I am sure they will try to continue selling their products with the whole "Switch from PC to Mac" ad campaign and they will start fucking with the price a little bit. Not the real price mind you... they just seem tobe fond of little marketing things like... "Buy one of our $2,500 flat screen displays when you buy a Mac and receive $400 back!" WOW!!!! So now I can spend $2,500 that I never would have spent in the first place only to get "the big savings".

Then they did the whole, "Double your memory for only $40!!!" bit. This way you can pay them only $40 for a memory stick that cost them probably around $20. They will install it for you though!!! That is how Apple make their big killing. They know that the average Mac shys away from opening their machine up as if it were brain surgery. That is where they step in and sell you an installed piece of $90 memory for $200. (Memory takes about 3 minutes to install.)

Mac knows that their niche market are professionals. And they know that professionals are almost all alike. They find a solution, learn that solution, become dependant on that solution, and rarely change. They are going to start cattering more and more to the PC crowd and pay less and less attention to people that need kick ass performance (like professionals do). They will soon enter the gHz game and start beefing up their processor speed just to have the numbers there. And worst of all, they will continue to package their products in state of the art "looking" designs just so they can jack the price up an extra $200-$300. The Macs case is PLASTIC!!!! How much can it really cost?

But I do love to work on Macs. There is deffinitly a love-hate relationship between me an Apple. I love the day to day use of a Mac but I HATE the marketing and politics that surround the Apple camp. I mean... at least Wintel are honest about desiring PC world domination. Apples' warm and fuzzy, "Come over to our camp because we care about you and your needs..." Makes me want to puke.
 
pisces7378 said:
The Macs case is PLASTIC!!!! How much can it really cost?
Click to expand...

The correct term would be Lexan/Polycarbonate. ;)

And, yes, it is VERY expensive when compared to something like ABS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top