does anybody think mac will make a great came back

Quote:

---

my AMD Athlon XP 1.4GHz CPU w. FIC AD11 Mobo and 256MB PC2100 ram cost me 300 bux

---

Ok, see that isn't a good comparison, why? Because a 1.4 Ghz isn't one of the top three newest Athlons, and it isn't pre-built from a name-brand company. Apple only sells computers with select configurations, all within the top 3 or for of there class. Go look at Apples website, an older G3 iMac will cost you less than a thousand, because they are being phased out, sonce the new G4 iMac made its debut.

You are comparing last years oranges to this years Apples...

And comparing Mac OS X to Linux is like comparing Win98/2k/XP, they are end-user OS's, not geek/server OS's. If you want to compare something to Linux compare Darwin to it, since even though it is the core of OS X, it is open-source, free, and tougher than hell to set up if you aren't familiar with Unix(and slightly confusing if you are since you have to figure out some NeXTish doodads...).

I like Macs, I bought a PowerBook a bit ago, nice 400mhz G3, its got a Gig of RAM now, and I bought a Firewire CD-RW, next addition is going to be a bigger HD, as the 6gig is getting a little small. Is it a little slow now? Yes, sure it is, it is "outdated" in the computer world these days, but it still plays UT, and it still allows me to open up M$ Office and do my work, but now with OS X, I can compile BSD apps, and run them in the command line.

I agree, Macs are pricey, even when you compare this years oranges to this years Apples, but not the 3000 to 300 difference, that is just rediculous sophistry. I will be building myself a new PC one of these days, because I intend on having beasty BSD machine, and since you can save a ton of money building your own, it is the only route I can go now that I know what I am doing. Building your own machine requires more knowledge of computers than someone who wants to "just check their e-mail" is willing to obtain, hense why Gateway/Dell/etc are still in business, same with Apple. If I could get Apple hardware to build my own, and could do it with the significant savings of the PC world, I would so much rather have a RISC box...

Comparisons are powerful means of persuasion, particularly if the comparators aren't really that comparable, and when the parties involved are biased, as most people are to Win, some to *nix, and fewer to Mac. IMO, those that favor *nix have the best argument out of all of use, as it is platform independant, open-source, and stable as hell.

Mac has shaken up the Windows world, just look at the gooeyness of the GUI in XP, or the plethora of all-in-ones that creeped out of the woodwork after Apple really pushed the iMac. Apple will probably never be mainstream, but it will forever plague the computer industry by introducing new ideas / new executions / and more "stylishness" (I am not a big fan of this, but you have to admit that the TiBook is pretty, and that the G4 iMacs are definately "stylized", but as to this is important, to me not so much, but to some people I imagine that they would go out of their wayfro something that looks better and costs more, than something that performs better and costs less).

I like Macs, both hardware and software, I don't like the price. I won't probably buy another Mac, because I am poor, and I need more bang for my buck, so I will be by-passing the pre-builts for a home-brew. And I will hyphenate ever-thing (sorry, just noticed that my hyphenating got out of control).

I have to go to class, and this argument has gone on forever, and will continue one forever, so I don't plan on sticking around to see it end. I have better things to do.

Peace,
Dhej

I played around with macosx and felt quite enclosed.
I think a mac is good for doing what macs are made for,
Graphics, Design and stuff, So I can't see the point why yall r fighting over this kinda crapp...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Focmaester
The Mac may be a high priced computer, but since 1997 when they introduced the iMac the prices went down. If I look at what I pay for the Powerbook and what I get it is really worth the money. How many laptops come with a 10/100/1000 mb nic? or large amounts of memory etc.
Apple launched great products with great technology when the PC couldn't keep up.

---

Foc, I've priced this out time and again, and as time goes on, I can equip Two PCs with faster processors, higher speed system busses, more memory, bigger hard drives, better Multimedia options, and yes, even a DVD-RW. I worked it out back when AMD launched the original Athlon XP @ 1.333GHz (1500+). The fastest G4 at the time was an 800 or 733, IIRC, and I could build two identical Athlons with identical setups to the high end G4 Destkops that Apple was offering for $500 less than the single G4 was gonna cost. I compared the prices from Apple.com to Pricewatch.com, and for that extra $250/machine I could upgrade to the new (at the time) GeForce 3...

Pricewise, Apple is wayy too expensive.

Simply because Apple is an early adopter of peripheral technologies (notice that they have yet to adopt a DDR system bus) to try and improve their image does not make their computers any better. To be honest, I have not tried Mac OSX, but I am not overall impressed with their offering. So I can do vectoring calculations faster on a PC. That basically only translates into higher graphics modification performance (IOW: Faster at Photoshop and other graphics and Video MANIPULATION apps), but the core technologies they are using are still the same ones that have been in place with Apple since the original G3 came along. Apple got left behind on AGP, USB, and etc., and only realised recently that they should be adopting new technologies sooner.

And yes, they didn't include onboard USB support until after it started becoming popular in the PC market. Only then did they decide that they were going to foist it on iMac users as their only peripheral connection style.

Face it, Apple's MacIntosh line of computers is essentially for graphic designers only, or those who want to use the mac for ONLY word processing and email (very uncommon nowadays -- more and more people are using their computers to play games). It's terrible for gaming, it's not that good at non-vector math, and worst of all (to consumers) it's high priced. I'd rather put up with the occasional crash and be able to play all the games I like (and have an acceptable upgrade path) and save myself an easy $1000 than spend that extra $1000 and get a machine that while the OS is stable, it doesn't let me do what I want/need it to.

I don't know too many computer enthusiasts who actually use Macs. The premium that is paid on an apple box for each extra little thing they add is not useful to most people. Most people don't need a firewire port. Most people don't need 1Gbit NICs (which is a waste to put on a computer limited by an 800Mbit system bus), and most of all, most people don't need to pay extra for those things.

If what I'm saying is false and the Mac was truly superior to the PC in every respect except price, then it would be on everyone's desktop. I have the utmost respect for Apple and their technologies. They helped develop firewire, and yes, it looks to be a (slowly) emerging standard. Great for them. Too bad it doesn't help their Mac sales much.

Notice how when Apple released the iMac, it was the #1 selling Computer that year ('97), but it didn't budge their market share even a tenth of a percentage point? All those iMacs were bought by people who already owned Macs. The problem is that Apple just doesn't understand that price drives sales. That's why dell overtook the server market crown this year in terms of x86 server sales. Their servers are simply cheaper (both in price and in quality, IMO).

Well, I've ranted enough for now. :)

Even in my short time here, even I can say this has been discussed before. LoL :)

Well, anyway, I'd like to point out how absurd it feels to even boher comparing in measurments of MHZ or even sometimes RAM. Processor architectures and other issues akin to social security reform aside, if I'm gonna write a program for the PC, I write it for the current hardware capabilites of the platform. If I'm going to write a program for the Mac, then i'll write it for the hardware capabilites of that platform.

To further illustrate my point, look at the PS2. Those guys have processors at around 200-250 mhz, but it doesn't mean the tasks they perform are done any slower or any worse than different tasks performed on a 2.2 ghz Pxx.

...Just idle rambling...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Nine Volt
To further illustrate my point, look at the PS2. Those guys have processors at around 200-250 mhz, but it doesn't mean the tasks they perform are done any slower or any worse than different tasks performed on a 2.2 ghz Pxx.

...Just idle rambling...

---

Ahh, but see, that's a very different situation. The PS2 is dedicated only to one thing. You could compare the PS2 processor to your Video Card (which may in fact be clocked faster), as your Video Card is designed to do one specific task well.

That's really the problem with the Mac, IMO. The G4 processor (and most RISC processors) are design to do pretty much one thing very well: vector calculations. This is the thing upon which Apple based their 'Supercomputer in a box' campaign. The X86 (and upcoming X87) processors have been designed to be as capable at different tasks as possible. I've used PCs to do everything from Video Editing to Gaming to Server apps (databases, webservers, etc) to Browsing and Email. It's got a lot of range in what you can do and still get lots of speed out of the processor. Unfortunately, the Mac has a tendency to choke and slow down when you try and do things other than Graphics & Video Manipulation. It has not kept up with the times with Memory standards, system bus standards, and Apple would really be stretching it at this point to claim that their 1GHz G4 can outpace an Athlon XP 2000+ or a P4A 2GHz.

PCs are designed from the ground up to be able to do many different varieties of tasks well. The Mac doesn't have that capability.

It doesn't really matter though, people will buy what they will buy, as it should be.

Mac advocates think PC advocates should 'think different'.
PC advocates think Mac Advocates should 'think the same'.
I think it's time they both learned to look beyond the platform of their choice. There are larger things in life to worry about than which platform is best.

Which is a better vehicle? A Porche or a Hummer?

Which is a better computer? Windows or Mac?

Each of these questions requires additional information to be supplied befor an appropriate answer can be reached.

- What are you using the car/computer for?
- How much are you willing to pay for the car/computer?
- How much support will you need for the car/computer?
- Are you willing to spend money to upgrade your car/computer?
- How long do you plan to keep the car/computer?
- What color of car/computer are you looking for?
- etc...

Get the picture? Depending on our requirements and personal preferences, each of us will come up with our own answer to which car/computer is better.

Getting back to the original question... Will Mac make a comeback?

My opinion is no, Mac will not make a substantial comeback.. this is based on my belief that there is not as much general software available for the Mac platform as is available for the Windows platform. This may or may not be accurate, but it is a widely held conviction that I believe will continue to limit the large scale acceptance of the Mac platform.

why is it everytime brings up macs... it turns into a which is better arguement...