Macintosh Forums

[Wiglaf]

First of all, you're buying the fastest PC you can get, and you're comparing this to buying a low or mid ranged Mac.

for $1700 I could hook you up with about a 600-800 MHz G4. and what makes the G4 a bad processor? I've heard you bashing apple for their marketing of it for weeks, and at the same time you rave over the P4 like a fanatic. what's up with that?

Even then, with a full warranty and RDRAM, it's a bit under $1700.
For quite a bit more hardware than the Mac.

again, macs have the advantages of ease of use, stability, OS, and innovation. apples are also very easy to expand nowadays, too, and come with a reliable warranty. basically, it's a good package.

And it's not a "skimpy" warranty, the one I chose is a "short" warranty.
To be completely honest, you'd pretty much never need to call Dell tech support for anything except incase they didn't ship it right.
Which is why I went with the one year...

actually Dell computers do break. once again, I highly doubt that the service and support reputation of the company would even be around if people didn't call constantly demanding new keyboards, etc.

Still, $1700 for a top end PC vs. $3500 for a top end Mac (which is still slower).

that's debatable, isn't it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
for $1700 I could hook you up with about a 600-800 MHz G4. and what makes the G4 a bad processor? I've heard you bashing apple for their marketing of it for weeks, and at the same time you rave over the P4 like a fanatic. what's up with that?

The G4 isn't a bad processor as much as it is an obsolete and overpriced one. It was a really, really great processor relative to PCs when it was released.
Unfortunately they can't ramp the speed up fast enough to keep up with modern PC processors.
The G5 may change that, though...but it's too soon to tell.

again, macs have the advantages of ease of use, stability, OS, and innovation. apples are also very easy to expand nowadays, too, and come with a reliable warranty. basically, it's a good package.

Wiglaf, that argument is getting really boring.
There is no inherent advantage in any of the above you mentioned in the Mac, it's purely opinion (and most of which seems to be unfounded).
By innovation on the Mac, do you call that using a 133MHz system bus, PC133 memory, slow-ass L2 cache, and based on a dinosaur BSD kernel instead of making their own? They're not very innovative like that.
They ARE, however, very innovative in marketing and packaging...

actually Dell computers do break. once again, I highly doubt that the service and support reputation of the company would even be around if people didn't call constantly demanding new keyboards, etc.

I don't know anyone with a Dell computer that "broke". Can you refer me to some that have?
The vast majority of people who call tech support do so because of something not even related to their hardware.
Some people don't have the computer plugged in, others have loose cables, etc.

that's debatable, isn't it?

No, not really.
I've already supplied benchmarks, and I don't think anyone's denying it.
The G4 used to be a speed demon in comparison, but Motorola dropped the ball. It's pretty damn slow in comparison, now.

[bradman]

Originally posted by Asher

You're making really weird comparisons to try to make unrelated points.
It's not consistent to allow some things like that, so the file system forbids it. It's as simple as that.

On the contrary, I think it's very consistent. The notion of a filename path as a unique identifier is very antiquated, IMHO. I fail to see how this would confuse a user more than the act of renaming an intermediate directory and then watching the OS go completely senile about where all the files below the rename are. I would think this would inspire fear in users of just how much control they have over their computer rather than welcome them to customize it with so simple a step as renaming stuff or moving stuff around to suit the way they want it.

It's as simple as that.

Rather: NTFS can cope, it's just that there's no real reason to do that.

Can it? I haven't seen any spec that says so. Show me, please.

1) How are shortcuts evil? They point to a section on the hard drive to alias with another application.

They maintain a fixed path. If you rename or move the file the shortcut points to, the shortcut is usually broken. The Mac, not being path-based, does not break the alias when the original file is moved, only when it is deleted from the partition entirely.

2) Can MacOS's FS even do symlinks (or junctions) ala NTFS?

Yes, under MacOS X it is commonplace particularly with a lot of the Unix stuff.

3) How is the alias implementation on the Mac make it a "less fragile OS"?

Acutally, what I said was that shortcuts were a very fragile OS feature. I find it interesting that you carried that thought through to extend to the entire OS.

So, pray tell, how is having a simple extension (not restricted to 3, it can be any length you want) that tells the filetype evil?

For starters, it limits you greatly. If you have 200 gif files you want to open in one app and 200 in another, you're limited to opening those files inside the app in question. Explorer only maintains a 1:1 mapping. Such power and flexibility...

It's much easier to just change which application you want to associate with each extension. How would you do something like that on the Mac?

Ignoring for the moment that a 1:1 mapping for all files with the same extension isn't necessarily desirable, you select a file. Command-I. Choose "Open with Application" from the menu in the dialog. Choose the application.

I do have one question about how OS X handles things, though. What if I wanted to change which application I wanted to load .txt files with? Like say from Notepad to Wordpad?

See above. What I typically do under 10 (and did under 9) was to drag the files onto the app icons in the dock (under 10) or a launcher bar (under 9). The issue of file ownership becomes important mainly if you want to be able to double-click on the file in the Finder/Explorer. Perhaps most windows users are too scared of the Explorer and the mysteries of extension mapping to even fathom this possibility as useful.

Brad

[Asher]

Originally posted by bradman
Can it? I haven't seen any spec that says so. Show me, please.

I'll dig up documentation on NTFS next time I'm at school for you.

They maintain a fixed path. If you rename or move the file the shortcut points to, the shortcut is usually broken. The Mac, not being path-based, does not break the alias when the original file is moved, only when it is deleted from the partition entirely.

So how does this work? Do you basically make a global alias to it much like one did in DOS?

Acutally, what I said was that shortcuts were a very fragile OS feature. I find it interesting that you carried that thought through to extend to the entire OS.

An OS is basically a collection of features, so naturally that does extend.

For starters, it limits you greatly. If you have 200 gif files you want to open in one app and 200 in another, you're limited to opening those files inside the app in question. Explorer only maintains a 1:1 mapping. Such power and flexibility...

What I do is right click on the specific files I want to open with a different editor, go to the 'Open With' menu, and it shows which applications I've used to open .gif files, as long with a 'Select application' feature.
That seems quite useful to me.

Ignoring for the moment that a 1:1 mapping for all files with the same extension isn't necessarily desirable, you select a file. Command-I. Choose "Open with Application" from the menu in the dialog. Choose the application.

But you can do that under Windows too. What's the advantage here?

See above. What I typically do under 10 (and did under 9) was to drag the files onto the app icons in the dock (under 10) or a launcher bar (under 9).

Did you know you can do this under XP as well?
For example, I drag a .txt file or .html file over to my MS Word quicklaunch icon, and Word opens with the file. Nifty!

The issue of file ownership becomes important mainly if you want to be able to double-click on the file in the Finder/Explorer. Perhaps most windows users are too scared of the Explorer and the mysteries of extension mapping to even fathom this possibility as useful.

From what you've said, you can handle it similar to the way Mac does it, only with the option to have it be much more convenient (to me anyway) by mapping default file extensions.

[Wiglaf]

I don't know anyone with a Dell computer that "broke". Can you refer me to some that have?
The vast majority of people who call tech support do so because of something not even related to their hardware.
Some people don't have the computer plugged in, others have loose cables, etc.

again, most problems come in with the keyboard, mouse, or speakers (gateway OTOH usually explodes internally for whatever reason). I've had the sound system on a Dell go completely dead about half a year ago. it happens.

No, not really.
I've already supplied benchmarks, and I don't think anyone's denying it.

please repost

[Asher]

http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,24195,3339307,00.html

BTW, you thought the old theme looked like MacOS?
Check out this theme I just found:

[Wiglaf]

The overall times recorded to complete our six Photoshop tests favored the Mac G4 by a slim three percent. If we ignored the RGB to CMYK conversion test results, the Pentium 4 would have swept this competition and left the G4 behind by a healthy 34 percent.
The dark side of benchmarking computers is that anyone can put together a scenario in which one computer is shown to dominate another -- aka selective benchmarking. Only with well-written and equally optimized applications for differing platforms can one hope to come away with any meaningful results.
This particular benchmark focused on photo editing. Tests like these are not the best representation of overall performance. Nor do they accurately depict the end-user's experience. You can be sure that this topic will be constantly revisited and updated by TechTV Labs.

what's your point? the G4 won, and even if it didn't there's the biggest disclaimer imagineable tacked on at the end anyway. hardly evidence that it's so horribly outdated - and it was going up against a 2.0 GHz PC!

was the mac setup even using dual processors?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
what's your point? the G4 won, and even if it didn't there's the biggest disclaimer imagineable tacked on at the end anyway. hardly evidence that it's so horribly outdated - and it was going up against a 2.0 GHz PC!

My point is Photoshop is the only app that consistently ran faster on the G4 rather than the PC.
And now in 4/5 tests it lost, but averaged out slightly ahead due to the color conversion thingie.

was the mac setup even using dual processors?

I'm not sure, but I do know the Pentium 4 wasn't a dual processor either.
You know, the P4 core can do that, that's not a G4 specific feature.

[Wiglaf]

that's a 733 MHz single processor G4 against the fastest P4 money can buy. if you're using the most powerful PC, it's only natural to use the most powerful mac. so much for that, I guess.

My point is Photoshop is the only app that consistently ran faster on the G4 rather than the PC.
And now in 4/5 tests it lost, but averaged out slightly ahead due to the color conversion thingie.

this little test you dug up isn't exactly final or conclusive, and it VERY clearly states that at the end. even so, the G4 won (because of that little 'thingie' or not), so I still don't see what your point is. the mac beat out an unfair test. thanks for the link.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
that's a 733 MHz single processor G4 against the fastest P4 money can buy. if you're using the most powerful PC, it's only natural to use the most powerful mac. so much for that, I guess.

Read the update, it clearly indicates that the original review was a 1.8GHz P4 vs. 733MHz G4. The update says it's a 2GHz P4 vs. 867MHz G4.
Fastest from both sides.
That is completely fair.

this little test you dug up isn't exactly final or conclusive, and it VERY clearly states that at the end. even so, the G4 won (because of that little 'thingie' or not), so I still don't see what your point is. the mac beat out an unfair test. thanks for the link.

It's logic like that which is why I referred to this forum as the kiddie table.

You don't want to be called that? Well, the shoe fits.

Oh, and feel free to post me some benchmarks showing the G4 winning some tests.

[Wiglaf]

http://maccentral.macworld.com/storyforum/forums/2001/07/30/hypertransport/?read=15

is a good little response to the article you posted above. evidently techtv gets around.

[Asher]

Wiglaf, really, that "article" you posted to is complete trash.

It's making it seem like it's an amazing feat that the 733MHz mac beat a "1067MHz faster behemoth". MHz isn't everything, you go by the top available on each end. They kept stressing this point, too. Lame. But if they do want to play this game, why don't they compare it to the Intel McKinley? It's about twice as fast than a G4 867MHz Mac at 800MHz.

They flaunt around that the Mac did the colorconversion thing 41% faster, but when the P4 is 56% faster in another benchmark they make sarcastic remarks like: "from a machine that's supposed to be the latest and greatest and 1067 MHz. faster?! ". (the funny thing here is they tried to correct the math of the article by saying it was 42%, not 41%. however, last time I checked 41.2% rounds to 41% not 42% )

Really, I can't believe you'd honestly cite that article.
It's akin to citing the Weekly World News about some celebrity gossip.

Oh, and if you ever have watched TechTV, you'd see they aren't biased for the PC. Just watch the video to see for yourself, they praise the G4 in many aspects.

[Wiglaf]

It's making it seem like it's an amazing feat that the 733MHz mac beat a "1067MHz faster behemoth". MHz isn't everything, you go by the top available on each end.

actually macs go up to dual 800MHz processors...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
actually macs go up to dual 800MHz processors...

And you can get 2.0GHz dual P4s. What is your point?

[Wiglaf]

obviously we aren't going by the 'top available speeds' then.

and since when were dual P4s widely purchased?