ANY MAC OS VS windowsxp

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

MAC vs WindowsXP

Total votes : 30

Postby GuKorean » Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:44 pm

i am not disputing the fact that macs are overpriced, not nearly as coustomizable, not very upgradeable and due for a serious overhaul. i know that they have fallen way behind in performance and only share a verry small percentage of the market.


that is also what i wasnt doing in my previous post (did that make sense?). i was simply puting the point accross that its not fair to call people stupid for their platform of preference.

ps - overclock maximus
you must not understand processors verry well. lets fix that :D first off, you would be correct in assuming a g4 1.25ghz cpu is not as fast as a p42.8. now, in this case, it is true, the g4 is slower, but in many other cases, mhz isnt the determaning factor in speed. that naming system which amd uses for their athlon xp chips, which you so verry much detest, is, if you read reviews for the processors, quite acurate. another example where mhz is not a determaning factor is those $40,000 workstations from ibm that utilize, i believe, 4 350mhz processors. hrm, a rip off you say? i think not, those four 350mhz power3 ii processors can probably beat the pants off of a quad xeon system. (for $40,000 they damn well better :) ) i am not a defending macs here. but what i am trying to point out is that mhz doesnt matter. there are so many other factors that determin the speed at which a processor processes data. there will be a limit the the mhz a chip can push, and when that limit is reached, cpu manufacturers will have to find other ways to speed up their products. amd, ibm, and motorola are a few companies who do more than pump up clock speed to gain performance. it just gets me frustrated when somebody says, "hah! this chip is xMhz faster, therefore it must be better! screw everybody else that makes chips with lower clockspeed, they're stupid"

(wow, that took a bit longer than expected)
asus a7v333 w/raid
amd athlon xp 2100+
512mb ocz pc 2700 rev 3
40gb ibm 120gxp hdd
asus 40x12x48 cd-rw
panasonic floppy
ati radeon 64mb ddr vivo
Green Belt
Green Belt
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 8:05 pm

Postby overclock_maximus » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:44 pm

srry gukorean i didnt want to get into a shpeel as long as urs was. yes, ther are many other factors in determining how fast a cpu is besises core clock speed, fsb speed, and L2 cache. yes, amd obviously has the superior core architecture----but, the p4s --- just--- overwhelming speed(the 2600s arnt out quite yet but face it 2.8 vs 1.8?thats quite a gap). i know, the 1.8 athlon prefrms on par with a 2.2 p4, (though the p4 beats it in some places and the amd beats it in others) thats still a HUGE defecit when comparing to a 2.8 p4. wat im sayin tho, is that you can still have lots of other preformance factors but mhx and the other big 2 (fsb and L2 cache) can seriously outweigh the others. yes, i saw ur 4 350 wooping a quad xeon, but, how often does somthing so extreme like that occur?

until we post again
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:23 pm

Postby Zero » Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:05 pm

wow this thread is still alive i havent been in the hundred year war for awhile now ge back to MAC VS XP i will give u guys 3 words of wisdom listen carefuully........................MAC IS CRAP
that my word of wisdom hope u guy follow these words....... :lol: :lol: :lol:
ya i know i suck at typing
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 6:44 pm
Location: vancouver bc canada


Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests