Forums | MacLife

Oops, there is a comparison here.  It clearly shows how sorry the P4 is compared to both a Dual 1.42 GHz and even a Dual 1.25 GHz.  Sweet!

Well first off, that Dell is about $1k cheeper once you set it up with features similar to the PowerMac. Secondly... Apple never seems to bench Power Macs againsts Athlons (gee, I wonder why?).  Not only are Athlons cheeper then Pentiums, but they typically handle apps like PhotoShop better as well.

Give me $1200 bucks, I'll go to a computer fair, and I'll build you something that will bench faster then a PowerMac. I'll even snag a nice Trinitron CRT for ya as well.

Funny how Apple NEVER actually says what the test was.  They don't even specify the PC system specs.  They just say "photoshop" while EVERY independent tests show the PowerMac is 50% to 100% slower than a PC. 

Here's a good example of an old school 1.6GHz PC giving the dual PowerMac a run afor it's money, while a 3GHz PC simple spanks it around like... a Mac.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/20 … c.html#raw

so... where are the gaussian blurs? the filters?  that seems to be mostly batch proccessing and changing of formats of photos... i use graphic converter to change my file types...and batch process most of my files... (faster and easier.)

Funny how Apple NEVER actually says what the test was.  They don't even specify the PC system specs.  They just say "photoshop" while EVERY independent tests show the PowerMac is 50% to 100% slower than a PC.

Speaking of bad math, if a Mac were 100 percent slower than a PC, it would mean that it was incapable of doing the task or was off entirely. I think you mean that the PC is 50-100 percent faster than the Mac.

So I can't make stupid jokes but you can? Humf.

Oh, wrong quote. Whatever.

What? This thread is useless.

I did. I am just trying to spam this thread to death since the point has been argued a million times and I see no point to it.

count($posts)++;

Unless you are clustering PCs or have a render farm wtf does it matter? The speed difference is in seconds not minutes. And the Mac has plenty of things besides speed that may or may not make it worth the cost to you. Mainly it has the best OS available. Sure I guess that is arguable but that is my opinion. They are integrating Firewire 2, Bluetooth, and Gigabit ethernet, as well as other things. It is about personal opinion, I like my Mac, mostly because of the OS. But the hardware, while lagging true, has its perks. I value it's integration and I despise Windows.

If OS X ran on x86 I would dump Mac hardware in an instant, but since it doesn't I will stick with Apple. And I will stick with it, until they truly cross the line where I think the price/performance ratio is to large to be ignored. I am not sure why the hell you care one or the other? Did a Mac violate you somewhere in your life? Is good industrial design an affront to your senses? Please tell us so we can understand why you give a smurf what Apple does or doesn't do.

Did a Mac violate you somewhere in your life? Is good industrial design an affront to your senses? Please tell us so we can understand why you give a poop what Apple does or doesn't do.

I think it was more like, he pulled it out. then the Mac just started laughing at him.

that's what I think anyway.

but a LOW END monitor at $700!  I mean don't get me wrong, I think it is a great deal, and I think that the price cuts are great, but having the entry level monitor priced at $700.oo is a bit high...  I love the price cuts, but you could also say that the low end monitor went UP $100.oo

you for get that 1) apple sells the best LCDs they can find. 2) you can walk in to any apple store and buy a CRT. it's just not an Apple CRT.

terrific, we're almost half way to where we should be...

displays?  wonderful.  PM updates?  great.  I'm pleased, but I won't be impressed until we start whooping some pentium ass again like when the G4 was a new processor... howevermany years ago.

I was reading through a tech magazine today, and they had roadmaps of all the major chips.  I couldn't help but notice that the G4 hit 1 Ghz 2 years after the first intel chip did.  And that the G4 is something like 5 years old.  Five years old is an eternity for any design, and I can't wait for the G4 to be burried. 

Man, I am so sick of loser PC jerks who for some unknown (although its undoubtedly some sort of low self esteem issues stemming from never succeeding in life so I guess only the specifics are actually unkown) reason feel the need to spew their troll fodder in ever happy Apple thread. Not to mention getting the thread off its original course without fail. Surely somebody can add an ignore button.

Anyway, its not a mind blowing update but Im sure it will help the bottom line. Man oh man are those LCDs looking sweet! Apple beat the rumor sites on those thats for sure!

Edited to add: I didnt really mean you rampant, the spacing is coincidental.

Of course not!  Uh... go Apple! 

Maybe I shouldn't care, but this post shouldn't be an "Apple vs. PC" war...it was started to talk about the lowered prices & changes on Apple's site...PC's have their pros/cons, Macs have their pros/cons.  That's why some people drive Ford's and some drive Chevy's, and some neither of the two.  No one will ever win the argument of which is better, cause it's allllllllllllllllll good

Yes, the PCs at significantly higher clock speeds tested faster, no doubt about that... but my  point is how come they didnt test faster with each and every single test they threw at them?  You would think a 3.06Ghz machine would test faster with *every single benchmark*, wouldnt you?

I see your point.  It is a good one.  If the Detroit Pistons played in a college league, you would expect them to go undefeated.  A bad team in the NBA that looses 6 out of 10 games is still a fine professional team.

On topic:  the price drop on the Cinema displays rocks.  The new price structure and speeds are cool too.  Since I bought a DP 867 in October for $1,699, the new speed and price structure do not make me feel like kicking myself, either.  Even if I had the new choices back on Oct, and I had to choose btw a 867DP for $1,699, a 1 Ghz single for $1,499 or a 1.25 DP for $1,999, I think I still would have made the same choice (mybe??), so I feel pretty good, especially since I have had the machine for 3 months now and got a lot of fun use in during those 3 months.  Ironically, that is one advantage of a more gradual rate of increase in the Mac speeds - your old machine doesn't seem obsolete as fast.

terrific, we're almost half way to where we should be...

displays?  wonderful.  PM updates?  great.  I'm pleased, but I won't be impressed until we start whooping some pentium ass again like when the G4 was a new processor... howevermany years ago.

Agreed. If whats-his-name is right, then this is the last Moto update until July or so when they unleash the 970 up to 1.8 Ghz and the new bus and all that other crap that makes the PM's wicked awesome D

If OS X ran on x86 I would dump Mac hardware in an instant, but since it doesn't I will stick with Apple. And I will stick with it, until they truly cross the line where I think the price/performance ratio is to large to be ignored.

that is a really good point, and I drew the line a couple months ago when I realized I could encode and rip a DVD twice as fast as a Mac, and working with After Effects is simply NO CONTEST.  I can now work at full res and preview my work in real time with even the most complex projects.  For me, a computer that allows my to see the results much faster as I work FAR outweighs pretty icons, and at 1/3 the price.

so I'm asking you people- at what point do you draw the line?