You just don't even read my posts, do you? The AlienWare: $4195. The PowerMac: $4548. 8.4% more. Not even a fucking tenth more. [moderated] As for the other systems I mentioned, 37% and 48% cheaper.



You don't get it. People are switching to the Mac in droves. Their marketshare went up 1% over the past year, mostly due to Mac OS X. That may not seem like a lot, but when you consider how many computers are sold in the industry a lot, it's quite a bit.



Actually right now it's working to Apple's and the end user's benefit. Most Mac users make more money anyway, so they don't care about spending more money (not much more, as I pointed out before).

The thing is, Apple knows what future hardware will be released. They know all of their past and current hardware.

That way, they don't have to spend a lot of time making the OS compatable, and can spend more time making it freaking awesome.

You really aren't gettting anywhere by arguing with me. And you keep being proven wrong time and time again. When are you going to start ripping on my list of 'opinions?'



Actually they have the one small advantage of making the icon into a small thumbnail of the image, instead of displaying a default icon.

Oh, and it doesn't rely on the extension of the file to see what application opens it. Rather you can get info on it and change it from a nice list of applications that have the ability to read it, and choose another app if its not on the list.

Plus, when you minimize say a Photoshop window to the dock a small thumbnail of the image is used as the icon. Makes it easier to tell things apart.

Don't forget that when you are in column mode, and you select a document (say an image) the right-most column displays info about the file such as size, what application opens the file, if it is an image a 128x128 thumbnail of it, when it was last modified and when it was created.

Oh, and if you take a file and drag it over applications stored/running in the Dock or elsewhere, if the application can read the file it's icon will hilight. You can then easily open files even in un-opened applications, or save your self the trouble of using a dialog to navigate to a file. This comes in REAL handy.

Oh, and you can quickly find out the size of a group of files (images, folders and images, drives and images, images and movies, whatever you want) by selecting them and using the dynamic info window.

One other thing...you also get the kick ass previews in Photoshop thanks to the system-wide open/save dialog. And Dreamweaver, and Fireworks, and Illustrator, and Flash...

sure the prices add up when you add a bunch of crap that noone really needs. that[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]s the beauty of a PC, you don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t have to buy something you don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t want.



but then again if your spending 4000+ on a system your probably going to go for the best you can get, and the highest level intel chips have been kicking the moto chips ass since pentium.

1% is not enough to say they are growing, seeing as how they were 10% just a few short years ago.

oh and about Mac users making more- that[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]s utter rubbish and you know it. If people didn[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t care about spending money then they would not even go near a Mac, as a high end pentuim has always been better.

I know i wont get anywhere arguing with you, you are a member of the cult of the Mac. Its like trying to convince a bible thumper that there is no evidence of god.

Ah, look at the nerds argue.

sorry just trying to stop the invasion of the cult of mac.

Right. No one needs ethernet. LAN parties? Ho ho, don't need it in case I want to easily transfer files over from my old computer. Firewire? what for? I'll just spend ten times more time than I need to to transfer that file. what? Sound! We don't need no freaking sound! Games? Well hell no I'll take that cheap 'Intel Graphics' chipset. what's this? A modem? Well, no one uses their computer with the internet so I can ditch that...RAM? RAM! Dood! That stuff is sooo expensive. what? My computer is faster with more RAM! Pah!

Right. And 640k of memory is enough for everyone. You just aren't getting it dude.



Since the Pentium? I laugh at your stupidity. There was a time when the G3's and 9600's were the fucking kings of the block. It was just known that they were faster. Hell, even the PowerBook laptops were eating some of the desktops for lunch, and beating all the other laptops There was a time when the PowerMac G4 was considered a lethal weapon because it performed so well that it was classed as a supercomputer by the U.S. government, and therefore illegal to import/export without licensing. There was a time when Cray was using a PowerMac to demonstrate what a low end Cray supercomputer could do.

Then Motorola hit a wall at 500MHz with the G4. Truth be told, they should have went with IBM. IBM offered a chip with no AltiVec (the great little vector unit that helps the G4 kick a chip with twice its clock speed in the balls.), but higher megahertz. At the time, Apple thought it was the better deal to go with lower MHz and better performance. So the signed a 5 year contract with Motorola and Motorola tripped over its own feet. Oh well, the G4 has been scaling pretty well since they stood back up, as it stands they are doubling clock speed every 18 months, about what the P4 is doing. Its too bad that the P4 isn't really seeing linear gains in performance as it scales, or it would really be a monster. Little factoid for you: P4's clocked at 2.0GHz are 25%, 25% faster than P4's clocked at 1.0GHz. The P4 scales like a thouroghbred, but when it comes to sheer performance it is quite lacking (compared with the PIII, which is scaling like crap but gets a lot performance with less MHz when compared with P4 chips of the same clock speed.)

The AMD Hammer/Opteron is coming, but the question is what will run on it? Something in me says Microsoft wont be able to pump out a 64 bit version of XP very fast. Windows may turn out to be the biggest bottleneck ever.



Few short years? Try back in 95. If that. With 1% every year, we will be to 10% in 5 years. And I for one don't think it will take that long to get there. If we do, you will start seeing Microsoft look into being friendly with customers.



Actually it's true. A lot of Mac users are graphic artists, filmmakers, even lawyers (25% of all lawyers use a Mac.) On average, Mac users make more. I will find that C|Net article some time or another.



You aren't getting anywhere arguing with me because you have not put up a single valid point. If something's quality was judged upon price, generic peanut butter would be better than the more expensive brands, Porches would be low performance family cars, and Rolexes would be those cheap watches that you buy at Walmart. Face it, you get what you pay for.



I think we prefer the term 'geek.' Nerds are retarded geeks. Xulien and I obviously know what we are talking about (well...okay I'm making an excuse for Xulien but just play along.)

In any event, I may be a competent computer user and able to program my VCR, but I also play football. Place kicking = good. Kicking you in the balls with all the might I put into punting a ball 50 yards, good for me, bad for you.



It's true that we have a cult like following. Just like Harley Davidson, or any other company that makes expensive, high quality products. But there are also plenty of Mac users who are loyal enough to the brand, but not Cult-like about it. Don't mistake brand loyalty for a herd of sheep.

Now if you have a valid argument or criticism, please voice it.

read what i wrote, it usually helps in a debate.

oh and you can stop with the ad hominem attacks.

it just makes you look desperate....

Addendum:

you say that pentiums don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t scale well- yet you don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t acknowledge that despite wether or not they scale the same, they are still faster.

Currently the fastest system for all around applications is the dual xeon.

And its highly unlikely that Crapple will be able to find anything to topple chipzilla for a good long time. AMD may be able to keep up the pace but with the new chips flying out of the labs these days, moto doesn[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t have the resources to keep up.

Man, you haven't been reading any of my posts, have you? I read every little piece and explain why you are wrong on every point with a chunk of text. That very statement is hipocritcal of you. :p



Right now you look pretty desperate. I've shot down every point you've made but one. That was that the PowerMac G4 did hardware RAID, and I was mistaken on that, It does software RAID.

Bring it on. Tear my list of reasons why Mac OS X is better and more featured to shreads.

Where are those displays I asked you to find places for? Since you seem to be so much of a price freak, I have confidence that you can find quite good deals.

My 'attacks' are simply showing you that you are wrong. And you don't like it, so you get defensive and start saying I'm being to harsh. I'm not being as harsh as I can be, you just can't hold your own.

im not going to dignify you with an argument until you actually bring something to the table.

For every "feature" on a mac i can find something a PC has that a mac doesn[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t.

Ultimatly it is a cost issue, and cheaper=better.

I brought 100 things to the table. I brought a strong argument over cost to the table. I posted a bunch of reasons why Mac OS X makes working with images better and more efficient. I brought it all, and you can't fight back so you say what I've brought is nothing. If that's true, what you have brought is less than nothing.



Why put feature in quotes? You know it's true. I listed ones that I make use of all the time. Fire away with your features.



Dude. Read my fucking posts.

Of the systems we were speaking of, equally featured, the PowerMac cost 8% more and the other ones costed around 50% less. Since 'cheaper=better', doesn't it make sense that the cheaper Macs are better? Come on, you are proving yourself wrong. You might as well give up the cost issue cause it's going nowhere fast for you.

At least 100! Shit I spend a half hour reading all that. Actually, I didn't even skim it. As for the uh, Mac Cult thing, I think one does exist in the south pacific some place. But that's basically made up coming off the top of my head. So uh, don't pay any attention to the psycho-man, kids.

Uh hrmidy,
I'd also like to point out that my Dell Dimension with a 700mhz PIII and 192 megs of ram gets it's arse smoked by Spart's iMac, 233MHz G3, 384MB RAM, 40 GB HD. Sure there is a small RAM difference but still.

Then again i'm running 'doze ME so uh....hrm.

the fact is that those "equal" systems are not really equal at all. The AMD and to a lesser extent Intel dual systems have shown to blow the doors off a dual G4 system.

http://barefeats.com/pentium4.html
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002 ... owdown.htm

As soon as you get out of photoshop benchmarks, the G4 really shows its power, or lack thereof.

In Photoshop yea.

It's kind of sad too. My machine is nearing on 5 years old. Yours is what like 2?

ok since you asked i will type up a reply to that waste of space you call a list.

I will wait till tomorow and if i don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t see any objections to it i will post it.

is anyone actually going to read this?

im not going to waste my time if nobody cares....

You really shouldn't, either of you. :)

With both, it depends what you want. Macs are more stable, but have relatively few software add ons or updates. You buy a mac and essentially it won't change much, which is fine if you don't use it for much (personally, I should have bought one - I'd prefer a stable set up because I don't think I'll ever do a proper system update. All I use this thing for is saving pictures and connecting to the internet.) but otherwise it'd be quickly outdated.

Plus, the switch from PC to mac makes most of the key commands a lot more complicated, confusing etc. for a PC user - and vice versa in that respect.

So it's all a matter of personal preference, really.

Heh. A nice little quote from the first article:



The tests were also run under Mac OS X 10.1, which is slower than Mac OS X 10.2 by quite a bit (less OS overhead so xxx application gets that much more processing power.) I've also heard reports that 10.2 speeds up game performance a lot (the Quartz rendering engine and what not was worked on quite a bit.)

Keep in mind the newer G4's have faster busses, processors, RAM, everything.

As for the second link, It's a well known fact that the RISC PPC isn't the greatest at 3D, but it excells at 2D and many forms of number crunching. In any event, the better scaling G4 has a new breed and a faster operating system is available, I'd like to see all of those tests redone with current machines.

There are other places where a Mac will blow the doors off of everything else, for example the Xserve in a web server environment kills everything else in the 1U rackmount class. Even machines that cost more than twice as much.

For every spec and application you can show me where the PC beats the Mac, I can show you one where the Mac beats the PC. The G4 with AltiVec excels in biotech and many other fields.

And as for Motorola, they are hated by many, even though given their resources, the fact that they can make processors that come so close and many times beat the ones from Intel and AMD should be surprising to you. Motorola isn't built around making desktop chips like they are and they are pretty cash strapped.

Which is why IBM, which just completed a .09 micron process chip making facility, will be making the next generation of processors for Apple. Not Motorola. The G4 is a chip destined for the low end.[/code]

Go ahead, I'll read through and reply to it. [url=mailto:spartian@myrealbox.com]Email[/url] it to me if you want.

Going to reply to the list or what?

So what you're saying is that you've never used XP, otherwise you'd know that you can choose to display a thumbnail instead of the default file image.

You can do that in 2000 too. It's a lifesaver when lookign for images.

Now, open your books and begin memorizing the copyright information. You will be quizzed on this.

[s]

I've used XP a bit and 2000 quite a lot and never found how to do this...you don't have to turn it on for each file, right?

I'd like to know how to do that, actually.

Still doesn't beat the previews of OS X, or the drag and drop functionality.

It's a view option, Along with the ones form 98 (Large Icon, Small Icon, List, and Detail), Thumbnails was added to 2000, and XP by default.

[s]