Apple Goes GHz

[FlameFlash]

originally posted by asher
Where do you buy G4 processors to upgrade? Like say I want to upgrade my computer from a G4 500 to an 866, how would I go about doing that?

Sonnet provides many G4 ZIF card upgrade possibilities, and some non-ZIF card upgrade capabilities for the older Macs.

My point was changing to a case that provided more expansion room and whatnot. Like buying a PC case that has space for four hard drives, etc. I've not seen any Mac cases that let you do that kind of stuff.

More expansion room? Let's see, all you have to do to HAVE four hard drives in a G4 case is get another ATA card... if you've ever cracked open a G4, you'll see there's already automatic support for a second one.

Because there are cases that are essentially noiseproof, if you cared about that. More expansion room for IDE drives. More room for over-sized PCI/AGP cards (think Voodoo2 size...ow). And most importantly: ability to change motherboards.

Again, you're trying to compare a Win-tell style user to a Mac-style user. Has it ever occured to you that Mac users don't care about changing their cases? They get everything they would want normally with the computer and case they buy, if they want more, they buy a higher level system.

Cases essentially noiseproof? What, are you trying to sleep with your computer turned on and acting as your pillow? I don't understand... and if you've ever listened to a Mac, you'll see that they don't grind very much... maybe that's why PC users have to have noiseless cases: because their computers grind too much.

Just because I've given you the motherboard point doesn't mean you have to continue to bring it up... I'll repeat from above that a Mac generally comes with whatever you'll want/need with a system... it's no wonder they therefore make their cases more sturdy, compact, and get this: user friendly.

Why would I want a VooDoo 2 card? The GeForce ones are just fine for my needs.

The reason those prices are so cheap is because they're compatible with PC parts.
Try finding an affordable G4 chip, Apple monitor, etc. Apple/Motorolla/IBM places a huge markup on those. The G4 chip is estimated to cost about $20-30 to make these days, but you wouldn't think that by the huge prices you pay for those G4 computers. By contrast, the new Pentium 4s cost $50 to make and they're still cheaper to the consumer.

I'm simply going to mention the old addage: you get what you pay for. Maybe the reason Pentium 4s cost $50 to make, yet people aren't willing to buy the computers at Mac level prices is because they aren't as good of quality. All a Pentium 4 is, after all, is an over-clocked 3 thanks to that goof up with the advertising department at Intel announcing the release before the chip was ready.

Airport is practically useless, even for the consumers. Its range is pathetic, its speed is pathetic, its security is nonexistant. That's why it hasn't exactly caught on.

Have you ever used an airport network? Have you ever set one up? I have a G4 tower and an old G3 433 iBook... both have airport cards, and in a building where television signals (oh look, radio waves!) couldn't get through anything in the building, I could take my laptop anywhere in that building and still check my e-mail, access my G4's hard drive, etc. It's security is nonexistant? I think that's the best one... a lot of people don't know how to access an airported system, and unless you're a Mac hacker (not very many of those around) I don't see what you're talking about. There doesn't need to be any security because PCs can't access the network unless they have higher priced equipment and a Mac emulator to get through directories and such since Windows still doesn't like even looking at Mac files and folders.

I could rant on and on about all of the points you are wrong about Asher... you are "tearing down" Mac users... go back to threads where your computer (in the cultural relativist case) is outclassed.

[FlameFlash]

Asher, go home!

Originally ignorantly posted by Asher
What I do ask is why you make judgement on me "tearing down Mac users" when you're in here "tearing down PC users". Pot...kettle...black, etc.

I couldn't help but go after this one... especially since it was directed at Bradman.

You're in a MAC FORUM we're supposed to be "tearing down" PCs just like you can go over to your happy PC realm and "tear down" Macs.

You're talking to brick walls... you're never going to shake our Mac resolve... go home.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
More expansion room? Let's see, all you have to do to HAVE four hard drives in a G4 case is get another ATA card... if you've ever cracked open a G4, you'll see there's already automatic support for a second one.

Yes, a second one. But that's not what I asked. What if, say, I wanted dual SCSI drives as well as my two IDE hard drives?

Again, you're trying to compare a Win-tell style user to a Mac-style user. Has it ever occured to you that Mac users don't care about changing their cases?

I already established in a previous post that Mac users and PC users are inherently different. I believe I said that as a PC user, I enjoy having lots of control over my system.

Cases essentially noiseproof? What, are you trying to sleep with your computer turned on and acting as your pillow? I don't understand... and if you've ever listened to a Mac, you'll see that they don't grind very much... maybe that's why PC users have to have noiseless cases: because their computers grind too much.

Yeah, that's right. PCs are sooooooo much noisier. My Pentium III doesn't even have a fan on it, only a heatsink. And "grinding" is caused by the HDs, which are the same across all platforms.

Just because I've given you the motherboard point doesn't mean you have to continue to bring it up... I'll repeat from above that a Mac generally comes with whatever you'll want/need with a system... it's no wonder they therefore make their cases more sturdy, compact, and get this: user friendly.

Of course the Mac comes with what you need in a system -- today. Take, for example, these new AGP 8x cards. AGP 4x isn't enough for modern video cards to be used to their full potential. What if I wanted to upgrade my frontside bus and memory to 533MHz instead of 400MHz on a Pentium 4? Buy a $40 motherboard and replace it, and have a much faster system as a result. You simply can't do that with Macs, which is a main reason why I don't buy Mac desktops.

Why would I want a VooDoo 2 card? The GeForce ones are just fine for my needs.

I was using it as an example of how huge cards can get. Not as a specific video card example...

I'm simply going to mention the old addage: you get what you pay for.

No, not true at all.
You actually get far less with Macs than what you pay for. 133MHz system bus ( ), PC133 RAM ( ), ATA/66 HD ( ), etc. You're paying for the looks of the machine and for the operating system. That's fine for the niche market that cares for OS X and the Mac styling, but evidently most of the market does not.

Maybe the reason Pentium 4s cost $50 to make, yet people aren't willing to buy the computers at Mac level prices is because they aren't as good of quality. All a Pentium 4 is, after all, is an over-clocked 3 thanks to that goof up with the advertising department at Intel announcing the release before the chip was ready.

! Dear lord.
First, the Pentium 4 is NOTHING like a Pentium III. It's an ENTIRELY new core.
Second, you don't seem to understand the differences between "cost" and "price". Pentium 4s are more expensive to make, but because there are so many vendors selling them and competition from AMD, the prices are actually fairly low compared to the G4. There's essentially a monopoly with G4s, so they can price them as high as they realistically want.
Don't argue in this area, it's quite clear you don't know much of it. Leave that to bradman.

Have you ever used an airport network? Have you ever set one up? I have a G4 tower and an old G3 433 iBook... both have airport cards, and in a building where television signals (oh look, radio waves!) couldn't get through anything in the building, I could take my laptop anywhere in that building and still check my e-mail, access my G4's hard drive, etc.

One of my mac-freak computer science friends has an Airport network. It only worked in certain rooms in his house, and the speed reminded me of a 56k modem.

It's security is nonexistant? I think that's the best one... a lot of people don't know how to access an airported system, and unless you're a Mac hacker (not very many of those around) I don't see what you're talking about. There doesn't need to be any security because PCs can't access the network unless they have higher priced equipment and a Mac emulator to get through directories and such since Windows still doesn't like even looking at Mac files and folders.

Security IS nonexistant. There is NO encryption of it, it's sending data (and your passwords, no doubt) unencrypted over the air. It's an accident waiting to happen, and if the Macs had any kind of real market penetration that would certainly be exploited constantly. Secure wireless protocols are like 802.11b, which are encrypted. That's what I mean by nonexistant security. Security cannot be described by "not many people will want to hack it". That's a very Mac-esque argument, though.

I could rant on and on about all of the points you are wrong about Asher... you are "tearing down" Mac users... go back to threads where your computer (in the cultural relativist case) is outclassed.

Let's face it, anyone who knew anything about computers would have a major issue with your post. It's quite clear you're not in computer science or engineering, but talking from the generic end user perspective. That's fine, as long as you restrict your argument to things like aesthetics. You look like a bumbling idiot when you start saying the Pentium 4 is an overclocked Pentium III and the Airport has the "best" security. Let bradman handle that area.

You're in a MAC FORUM we're supposed to be "tearing down" PCs just like you can go over to your happy PC realm and "tear down" Macs.

You're talking to brick walls... you're never going to shake our Mac resolve... go home.

Hey, when you guys are getting your rocks off by "tearing down PCs" don't start crying when a PC user starts making fun of your inaccurate statements.

If you don't want PC users to debate you, don't troll them. I don't care what forum this is in, I'm bored.

[Wiglaf]

What can I say but PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair). I've known no one except you to have problems like that, so I'm finding it really hard to believe. Sorry bud.

That's not an arguement in any way shape or form, asher. You haven't answered any of my rather important questions either (when the keyboard is non-responsive during a crash, how does XP access the task manager?). I'm constantly forced to reboot the PC when it locks up browsing the net or using Word. Actually, I'm extremely interested as to what exactly the problem is and a solution if there is one. It'd save me a LOT of trouble...

Go ahead and ask in the Apolyton Off-Topic people's experiences with Windows XP. The only person on Apolyton with stability problems is Wiglaf. The other dissastisfied user is faded glory, who is pissed off because NT doesn't play his 1992 DOS games.

XP crashes about two to three times a week on average now. While others in the OT are quite pleased at that I'm sure, that's hardly acceptable coming from OS9 (again, a big improvement from the not quite so hot 8.6), which crashed maybe once every two and a half weeks or so.

I've had driver meltdowns. I've had the whole computer just "turn off" on me (nothing at all functions). Protected memory my ass, the only way out of it is to pull the plug or try the power button.

XP is nowhere near the stability of OSX.1. "Sorry Bud" just doesn't cut it...and since you're asking us if we know what we're talking about, well, you look pretty bad keeping so quiet.

[MacHatter]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, a second one. But that's not what I asked. What if, say, I wanted dual SCSI drives as well as my two IDE hard drives?

[snip]

One of my mac-freak computer science friends has an Airport network. It only worked in certain rooms in his house, and the speed reminded me of a 56k modem.


Security IS nonexistant. There is NO encryption of it, it's sending data (and your passwords, no doubt) unencrypted over the air. It's an accident waiting to happen, and if the Macs had any kind of real market penetration that would certainly be exploited constantly. Secure wireless protocols are like 802.11b, which are encrypted. That's what I mean by nonexistant security. Security cannot be described by "not many people will want to hack it". That's a very Mac-esque argument, though.
[snip]

Couple of points. When you purchase a Built to Order mac, you can get a SCSI card. At least it was that way when I got my mac (~1.5 years ago). That card includes an internal SCSI port. alternatly, you can purchase a SCSI card, install it and do the same thing.

Second, Airport IS 802.11b. Airport is Apple's marketing name, just like Firewire is Apple's name for that interface. You can set up WEP encryption for airport devices if you like.

Andy

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
That's not an arguement in any way shape or form, asher. You haven't answered any of my rather important questions either (when the keyboard is non-responsive during a crash, how does XP access the task manager?). I'm constantly forced to reboot the PC when it locks up browsing the net or using Word. Actually, I'm extremely interested as to what exactly the problem is and a solution if there is one. It'd save me a LOT of trouble...

I never said it was an argument. Frankly, Wiglaf, I've never once seen you post anything credible related to any subject.

E-mail me your memory dump (figure out how to get it, if you wanna know how to fix your problems), and I'll tell you what the problem is. If you don't want to e-mail it to me, then stop whining because I'm assuming you can't (ie: no crashes).

XP crashes about two to three times a week on average now. While others in the OT are quite pleased at that I'm sure, that's hardly acceptable coming from OS9 (again, a big improvement from the not quite so hot 8.6), which crashed maybe once every two and a half weeks or so.

Maybe you have bad hardware, if this is true?
Do you have value RAM, by chance?
Send me your memory dumps, we'll talk then.

I've had driver meltdowns. I've had the whole computer just "turn off" on me (nothing at all functions). Protected memory my ass, the only way out of it is to pull the plug or try the power button.

Look up what protected memory does. You act like it prevents crashing...

XP is nowhere near the stability of OSX.1. "Sorry Bud" just doesn't cut it...and since you're asking us if we know what we're talking about, well, you look pretty bad keeping so quiet.

I don't think you're in a position to talk about that.
My computer science Mac-using friend has an external USB CD-RW (I think Que made it). Whenever it's plugged in and OS X.1 starts up, the system crashes. No exceptions. If he removes the CD-RW drive, it'll boot up fine, and he can then plug in the drive an use it.

I'm sure this is the exception to the rule, because other than that I've heard OS X.1 is extremely stable.

So please cut it with the "XP is unstable because it crashes on me!" junk, because you've yet to substantiate that and 99% of the people on here who use XP regularly would disagree with you.

Couple of points. When you purchase a Built to Order mac, you can get a SCSI card. At least it was that way when I got my mac (~1.5 years ago). That card includes an internal SCSI port. alternatly, you can purchase a SCSI card, install it and do the same thing.

Yeah, I know. But that's not what I was saying: I was getting at installing 4 HDDs in one machine, as well as at least 1 or 2 CD/DVD drives. That's an option you have available to you, by buying larger cases on the PCs, and I've never seen one to let you do that with Macs. A minor point to some, but I think it says a lot about the flexibility of non-proprietary hardware.

Second, Airport IS 802.11b. Airport is Apple's marketing name, just like Firewire is Apple's name for that interface. You can set up WEP encryption for airport devices if you like.

Yes, apparently they're "b" now. Weren't the original versions "a", which are unencrypted? "b" is relatively new, IIRC, and Airport is 2 years old.

Anyway, the range still sucks. 150 feet max range?

[Killjoy]

Ashur, do you realize how pointless this whole rant is. Probably not. I think you enjoy slagging people off, with your 'holier than thou' attitude. Talk about calling the kettle black.

You've created this whole show for your own amusement.

You recently commented you only jumped into this thread because you were concerned about people posting misleading information to get other people to switch to macs just because they use them.

So, who posted this misleading information? I assume you must be refering to my first post, judging from the personnal attacks you made to that post in this thread. These 'posts' were your initial forays into this forum after all. Since those early posts though, you've gone off on a rant, all of your own making I might add. It was amusing for awhile, watching you taunt people into a war of words, just for a chance to show off your 'superior' knowledge, and defend 'uniformed' PC users everywhere.

But It's getting tired now.

And who really cares (obviously you do).

As far as I'm concerned you initially jumped into this thread looking to stir things up. Re-read my first posting and then re-read yours. To me you come across as a loud-mouthed kid looking for a scrap.

In case you can't remember, my initial post stated;

“...whether you are aware of it or not, macs are firmly entrenched throughout the entire communications spectrum. Almost every printed advertisement, book, billboard, CD booket, flyer, newspaper, POP, packaging, magazine, and a large chunk of the corporate web sites you visit were, and are, created using a Mac.”

Nowhere in that post did I mention anything about market share, quote sales figures, imply macs being better than PCs, or for that matter about macs taking over the world in my initial post. Nor did I attempt to convince anyone that they should switch computer brands because the one I happen to use I may, or may not think, is better?

I made comments only about what is the mac's traditional market area. Nothing more. That's it. End of post. So, which part didn't you understand, which part was misleading to you? Prior to your posts there were no other posts directed at "tearing down PCs."

You must be paranoid if you thought that an attack on PC users everywhere.

No, my friend, YOU decided to make this a MAC/PC showdown. And it appears that you've been doing the majority of the bashing here. This is YOUR arguement. So quit your own whining, and lose the attitude, or go back to your study group. YOU bore me (and probably everyone else by now).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Killjoy
So, who posted this misleading information? I assume you must be refering to my first post, judging from the personnal attacks you made to that post in this thread.

What personal attacks?

These 'posts' were your initial forays into this forum after all.

No, I've been here for quite some time. Mostly lurk.

Since those early posts though, you've gone off on a rant, all of your own making I might add. It was amusing for awhile, watching you taunt people into a war of words, just for a chance to show off your 'superior' knowledge, and defend 'uniformed' PC users everywhere.

In other words, you want me to stop replying to peoples post who reply to me?
As long as people keep making replies to mine I'll keep talking. If you want me to stop, stop replying.

As far as I'm concerned you initially jumped into this thread looking to stir things up. Re-read my first posting and then re-read yours. To me you come across as a loud-mouthed kid looking for a scrap.

For somebody who doesn't like personal attacks, you're spending a lot of time trying to slander me. Why don't you stick to the topics that we're debating here instead of attacking me?

Nowhere in that post did I mention anything about market share

"firmly entrenched throughout the entire communications spectrum" implies significant market share.

quote sales figures

See "market share".

imply macs being better than PCs

Why else would they use them over PCs? They're certainly not cheaper.

I made comments only about what is the mac's traditional market area. Nothing more. That's it. End of post. So, which part didn't you understand, which part was misleading to you? Prior to your posts there were no other posts directed at "tearing down PCs."

My own post that I replied to you with was fairly brief as well. Since your post this thread has branched several times with some of your friends making typical anti-PC comments and/or jokes, and I reply to those.

You must be paranoid if you thought that an attack on PC users everywhere.

I never said it was.
Where are you getting all this stuff?

No, my friend, YOU decided to make this a MAC/PC showdown.

IIRC, someone else brought up the MAC/PC showdown issue. I'm merely playing a part in it.

And it appears that you've been doing the majority of the bashing here.

Where? Show me an example where I've been "bashing" someone.

This is YOUR arguement. So quit your own whining, and lose the attitude, or go back to your study group. YOU bore me (and probably everyone else by now).

Look, man, you try to slander me for and accuse me of personal attacks. I've done no such thing, yet you've devoted an entire post to ranting about how you don't like me and how I bore you. I'd advise you to stop trying to either threadjack or discredit me, and try to debate the issues raised in the thread. If you've got nothing to contribute to the issues at hand, don't reply at all.

I don't enjoy people mudslinging at me while accusing me of mudslinging when I'm the one actually debating here.

[MacHatter]

Airport has always been 802.11b. I think the specs on airport are 11Mbps max speed. I think typical range is 300 feet, but that depends on the antenas that are used to some extent. I recall encountering a link off of Slashdot about someone doing some sophisticated things with antenas and geting a several mile range.

I recall reading that 802.11a was 2Mbps with a normal range of 3 miles. The story that mentioned that I also encountered off of slashdot.

Apple's recent change regarding Airport was the size of the WEP keys that could be used. origionally, you were limited to 56 bit keys with the apple supplied hardware. I recall reading articles about modifying an airport base station to use a card that supported 128 bit encryption. (Yet another slashdot story, I think) The newer hardware supports 128 bit keys.

Regardless of who makes the 802.11b card, it has to be configured with a key (of the generate your own kind) to use WEP. I don't know for certain, but I don't think many companies configure the cards with a key. This means that to make your 802.11b network (mac, PC or both) secure, you need to take the time to set up the key on the devices in question. This means that regardless of the platform you use, you need to take steps to secure the wireless connection.

Apple was just one of the first companies to embrace 802.11b and create a useful way to use it.

[edit: fix blotched URL, slight gramatical error fix]

[Asher]

Originally posted by MacHatter
Apple was just one of the first companies to embrace 802.11b and create a useful way to use it.

I suppose so, but wireless networking is still largely useless by most accounts. It's still quite costly compared to wired networking and slower at the same time. It has a niche market right now, and that's about it.

KillJoy: Take notes from MacHatter.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Asher
What personal attacks?

Let me remind you:

Originally posted by Asher
If you don't want to e-mail it to me, then stop whining because I'm assuming you can't (ie: no crashes).

That one was directed at Wiglaf... you implyed that he was lying with his situation while we're supposed to take you at your word for everything you say? There's one personal attack, and a question in response to it.

Originally posted by Asher
Let's face it, anyone who knew anything about computers would have a major issue with your post. It's quite clear you're not in computer science or engineering, but talking from the generic end user perspective. That's fine, as long as you restrict your argument to things like aesthetics. You look like a bumbling idiot when you start saying the Pentium 4 is an overclocked Pentium III and the Airport has the "best" security.

That one was posted toward me... please note the "bumbling idiot" part of your post. Replacing that with say "rather ignorant" would have made it not a personal attack, but simply saying I didn't know much in that area.

Moving on:

Originally posted by Asher
In other words, you want me to stop replying to peoples post who reply to me?
As long as people keep making replies to mine I'll keep talking. If you want me to stop, stop replying.

How can we stop replying when all you do is comment (like above) at us? Personally I wish somebody would just come in here and lock this thread, that would solve the problem good and quick since this isn't going to end with you constantly picking fights with the rest of us.

And now to respond to some things that you responded to me about that was serious and on-topic (if there is actually a topic to this thread past the original few posts.)

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, a second one. But that's not what I asked. What if, say, I wanted dual SCSI drives as well as my two IDE hard drives?

I think MacHatter already addressed this issue, and if you look at my response, I actually mentioned dropping in another card for the second two, so I don't even understand why you had to ask for further clarification.

Originally posted by Killjoy
These 'posts' were your initial forays into this forum after all.

Originally posted by Asher
No, I've been here for quite some time. Mostly lurk.

Fine, so he should have said "thread" but Killjoy was correct with everything he said, and I find it ironic that all you did was patronize him with your response.

Originally posted by Asher
Yeah, that's right. PCs are sooooooo much noisier. My Pentium III doesn't even have a fan on it, only a heatsink. And "grinding" is caused by the HDs, which are the same across all platforms.

Again, rather than patronizing me, you could simply have understood the fact that was a sarcastic response to your "need" for a noiseless case. I'm sorry I didn't state the question clearer: why in the world would somebody need a noiseless case? You're not trying to sleep with the thing after all... I hope.

Originally posted by Asher
One of my mac-freak computer science friends has an Airport network. It only worked in certain rooms in his house, and the speed reminded me of a 56k modem.

Ah, so just because you say that you have a mac-freak computer science friend who has an airport network we're supposed to take your word for the fact that it reminded you of a 56k while we're not supposed to take Wiglaf's word that his comp locks up rather often? Right... forgive me as I say: hipocrite.

This, to jog your memory, is what Killjoy was talking about (I belive... again, killjoy, beat me with the ugly stick if I'm wrong) regarding your emergence even into this thread... all you've done is picked fights. I'll continue to throw my punches right back, because I refuse to allow he who threw the first punch to keep me down.

This thread would be dead and dying now if it wasn't for you jumping in, Asher. You are all that has kept it alive, once you concede to the point that you joined this thread to start stirring up things and drop it, that's when I will drop it, when killjoy will probably drop it, and when Wiglaf will probably drop it.

Hopefully, somebody up above will just see that this thread has blown way out of the proportion that it was intended by the original poster who merely wanted to bring the fact that Apple finally broke the GHz barrier to the rest of the Mac fans in the area.

[edit: for job=jog, compouter=computer, and other minor typoes... Asher, I'm not an English major either ]

[FlameFlash]

Orginally post by Asher
Second, you don't seem to understand the differences between "cost" and "price". Pentium 4s are more expensive to make, but because there are so many vendors selling them and competition from AMD, the prices are actually fairly low compared to the G4. There's essentially a monopoly with G4s, so they can price them as high as they realistically want.

Oh no, I'm very familiar with the cost/price relationship... all this guessing at my major by you, I'm a business major, actually... Econ with a Poli Sci major mixed in.

But because I'm familiar with the cost/price relationship, let me share some things with you.

Macs can sell for so much more because of the cost diferrential... aka, people, for whatever reason, feel that it is more worth their money to buy a Mac because there's something inherently different about it versus an AMD or Pentium 4.

The price of the Pentium 4 computers is cheaper because there is an easy product substitute as you pointed out: AMD.

So yes, my "you get what you pay for" is still evident, because those who buy Macs (weather by your opinion they are getting a better computer or not) buy them because of the higher price.

Certainly Motorola and IBM (who actually make the chips, not Apple) have a slight monopoly since Apple is who puts the final price tag on the computers, but they can and do put the price tag that they do put on their computers because they can: many people (we're not talking super-computer literate here) look at the price tags, and if they have the money to afford it, they're going to pay more for a high priced convertable (Mac) than a Dodge Neon (Wintel computer).

Now for some patronizing of my own (and at least I admit to it):
Just because it is your "humble" opinion that Win-tel computers are better (I don't like using PC since that stands for "personal computer" or used to) doesn't mean they are. Certainly there aren't as many Mac users in the world... like you like to point out often... but that doesn't mean that simply because the majority of the population thinks something is right and good doesn't make it so. (Universalist philosophy therory as opposed to Cultural Relativist... okay, so I have an interest in philosophy too )

Crap... my wife just pointed out (after reading over my shoulder) that wasn't even patronizing... *sighs* but I hopefully still got the point across to you.

[Wiglaf]

E-mail me your memory dump (figure out how to get it, if you wanna know how to fix your problems), and I'll tell you what the problem is. If you don't want to e-mail it to me, then stop whining because I'm assuming you can't (ie: no crashes).

There are several problems with that. First off, IIRC memory dumps tend to be rather large and hefty files (they are, aren't they?). I can't stand those at the moment. Secondly, I'd have to recreate the crash for you, which would be rather difficult as I've uninstalled FS2002 a few weeks ago (I guess I'll put it back on for you later, but reinstalling 2 gigs worth of a bug infested, XP-killing and utterly broken flight simulator just to get a dump file is hardly appealing). Gettysburg isn't on this computer either, although honestly I could probably find the demo somewhere. And third, I'm not going to go through the trouble of using system restore again over this, which I'd probably have to do...then I'll have to put it into zip format...just not something I've got time for...Besides, simple non-responsive programs or teleports back to the desktop (fairly common in xp as well) wouldn't do much good for this purpose now would it...

See what a damn dirty headache not using a mac can be now, asher?

Ah, so just because you say that you have a mac-freak computer science friend who has an airport network we're supposed to take your word for the fact that it reminded you of a 56k while we're not supposed to take Wiglaf's word that his comp locks up rather often? Right... forgive me as I say: hipocrite.

That's actually an extremely good point. One word about Airport, though...it does cover some rather large houses glonky said it couldn't...the range extends through rooms as well, don't know how that could be a problem. Although for the purposes of arguement that can't be easily proven and is thus fairly worthless, I'm actually being as truthful as possible personally when I say Apple has accomplished what it set out to do with Airport and more.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
That one was directed at Wiglaf... you implyed that he was lying with his situation while we're supposed to take you at your word for everything you say? There's one personal attack, and a question in response to it.

Wiglaf doesn't count: We have a history. He calls me communist, says I hacked his account, etc.

That one was posted toward me... please note the "bumbling idiot" part of your post. Replacing that with say "rather ignorant" would have made it not a personal attack, but simply saying I didn't know much in that area.

Well, if you weren't acting like a bumbling idiot I wouldn't have said it though.
When you present things like "A Pentium 4 is just an overclocked Pentium III" as fact, when it's nowhere near being accurate, I believe I have judgement to laugh and make a silly comment that the person. But it may have been too far. Sorry.

How can we stop replying when all you do is comment (like above) at us?

That's not what I was doing. I'm trying to post about the topic at hand, it's actually you who comes in and makes entire posts attacking me about my "personal" attacks (Which amounted to Wiglaf, who doesn't count, and me calling you a bumbling idiot for getting a basic thing completely wrong).

Personally I wish somebody would just come in here and lock this thread, that would solve the problem good and quick since this isn't going to end with you constantly picking fights with the rest of us.

I've found that's how most Mac users end debates. They can't actually debate the topics, so they slowly get into personal attacks and ignore the debate to the point where the mods close the thread. You realize that means I win, right?

I think MacHatter already addressed this issue, and if you look at my response, I actually mentioned dropping in another card for the second two, so I don't even understand why you had to ask for further clarification.

No, you don't understand:
Where would you physically mount those drives? There's no space in the standard cases...

Again, rather than patronizing me, you could simply have understood the fact that was a sarcastic response to your "need" for a noiseless case. I'm sorry I didn't state the question clearer: why in the world would somebody need a noiseless case? You're not trying to sleep with the thing after all... I hope.

So why don't I start making sarcastic remarks about your "need" for a "nice" looking case and OS? Isn't that one of your arguments for the Macs? "They look nice"?

Ah, so just because you say that you have a mac-freak computer science friend who has an airport network we're supposed to take your word for the fact that it reminded you of a 56k while we're not supposed to take Wiglaf's word that his comp locks up rather often? Right... forgive me as I say: hipocrite.

You can try this for yourself. Put your airport thing on one level of the house, take your notebook up a level or two and try transfering a file. Look at the speeds: It's about the speed of a 56K.

Wiglaf's can't be backed up by any means without a memory dump.

[edit: for job=jog, compouter=computer, and other minor typoes... Asher, I'm not an English major either ]

I don't care about typos, everyone makes them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
Oh no, I'm very familiar with the cost/price relationship... all this guessing at my major by you, I'm a business major, actually... Econ with a Poli Sci major mixed in.

It's a safe to assume most people in this forum are in the social sciences.

So yes, my "you get what you pay for" is still evident, because those who buy Macs (weather by your opinion they are getting a better computer or not) buy them because of the higher price.

I don't see how that follows, at all.
Just because something is higher priced doesn't mean you're actually getting what you pay for. That statement implies that because Macs are usually more expensive than PCs, you're getting more. That's why it's false. A better statement would have been "You get what you want to pay for".

Certainly Motorola and IBM (who actually make the chips, not Apple) have a slight monopoly since Apple is who puts the final price tag on the computers, but they can and do put the price tag that they do put on their computers because they can: many people (we're not talking super-computer literate here) look at the price tags, and if they have the money to afford it, they're going to pay more for a high priced convertable (Mac) than a Dodge Neon (Wintel computer).

LOL!
I knew the car analogy would come through eventually.
If you're going to compare Macs to a high priced convertable, tell me why Macs are slower these days (until the G5 is out). Car analogies suck, it's a pet peve for anyone in computer science.

Crap... my wife just pointed out (after reading over my shoulder) that wasn't even patronizing... *sighs* but I hopefully still got the point across to you.

Your point hasn't been made.
Every single argument I ever see from the Mac user perspective is "We like it so we use it". Fair enough, more power to you.
But these days they certainly aren't superior to what you can get in the PC platform. That will probably change when the G5 finally comes out.

The reason why most PC users give you a hard time about it is because they look at the cost of the system, and could easilly configure a PC system for about half the cost. It just boggles our mind how somebody can pay so much more for a computer just because they prefer how it feels, many of which don't know you can make Windows feel like a Mac too with themes...