James Murphy said:
wonder if you'd care to back up that "many users" statement and quantify exactly what G5's all of them owned and were outperforming with the AMD emulating osx. this kind of nonsense irritates me.
It's both AMD and Intel PC users and it's not a huge number by any means actually, but several people have. The osx86 is still buggy and weekly it's getting better. But I'd say 6 to a dozen on the osx86 project forums have had results comparable to PPCs.
They used
xbench.
It's not really emulating either (not anymore they've gotten past vmware), it's the MacOS that they're using to test MacIntels for bugs. It's a harddrive install and boots up just like your Mac would when you turn it on. Emulating is more along the lines of VirtualPC.
Also osx86 isn't optimised to take advantage of 64bit processors yet or threading, and more than not had low benchmarks so they weren't blowing the Apples out of the water or anything though. Many users seemed to say that osx86 seemed to run quicker than their Apple counterparts.
There's videos of people booting up and using it (though Apple threatened many of them to stop hosting), and it seems a lot quicker (especially startup) in many regards to my own experience with Apples (I've been using dual G4/dual G5's exclusively for the past 3 years) and I really do love Apples so I'm not really trying to slag them or anything. I've yet to try it out myself, but look forward to.
My next computer was going to be a G5 but I think I might go PC instead, but who knows, maybe the new Quad will impress me and I'll swing back over.
Personally I don't think either one is better or worse, they both are equally flawed.
If I swing Mac I'll probably buy a cheap PC anyways, if just for PC only programs and stuff like web surfing. Surfing on a Mac is terrible IMO, weird formatting problems which I dont seem to have a problem with using a PC and Safari and Firefox seem to crash on me quite a bit, especially using Myspace.
Macs are just more elegant machines with better integration and stability beetween all the components.. always have been, always will be.. much like the Mac OS has ALWAYS been more powerful and graceful than Windblowz.
Product control has a reason behind that. If OS X was introduced in the same fashion Windows was it'd be just as problematic. I don't know if I can agree with more powerful, but more graceful yes.
I really do love Mac OS though, it's nice and sleek, well layed out and easier on the eyes. Many PC people on that forum said they've enjoyed fooling around with OS X on their PCs so much that they're going to buy one when the MacIntels come out. That alone shows how great the OS really is.
But maybe it's those overpriced Cinema Displays though I've been starring at which are the same as Dells but with a different case and some ports and such
They took them apart, same model numbers inside. My friend bought a Dell one and we compared it to the cinema displays at school and couldn't tell much of a difference and he paid on special $460 (it's $503 now) vs $800. So if you're in the market for the cinema display
i question the integrity and objectivity of the tests... full stop.
I question all the ones on the Apple website as well. Especially since they don't tell the specs of the PowerMacs or the PCs that they compared anywhere I can see on their website beyond what the processor was.
Who knows, that plug-in thing above, the PC could have 512mb of ram and the Apple maxxed out... And seeing that it's coming from an Apple website... They'd never hype their own product!
I question every test I see though whether it's Pro-PC or Pro-Apple. I like to pick fun at both groups. I usually play devils advocate, argue the PC side on Pro-Apple threads and the mac side on Pro-PC threads.
look
here for info on why Apple chose Intel over AMD.
Interesting, but I personally would buy an AMD over an Intel. But then again I don't use laptops which is what the whole low voltage thing is about and the Apple laptops are a huge seller for them, AMD doesn't cater as much to that market.
A couple other reasons I think they chose Intel is price and amount they can ship. Intel can surely offer a lower pricepoint and I'm not sure if AMD could really deliver the amount of processors Apple would require. Plus Intel has loads more R&D money they can swing Apple's way (which was also mentioned.)
AMD is more innovative though in my opinion. Intel always seems a step behind them in performance.
Sorry to hear your friend is having problems with the AMD's he built, I really don't know anyone who has personally and I know plenty of hardcore gamers, I'm not one for games myself though. My parents AMD PC that I built for them...6 years ago is still alive and kicking just fine.
