PC Peripherals The Mac Thread
- Thread starter bottle
- Start date
Sonnenkinder
Disciple
TheMask said:exactly..
30k to listen to music and watch movies? or 10k to play all the latest 'kiddie' games at decent settings..
pick ur 'wise' choice :bleh:
besides, my 2 yr old Audigy2 that i bot for 4k will pwnz ur 30k Mac if u are a music buff..
<Off-topic>
What is this style with writing in white fonts?
It is not invisible but it creates eyestrain!!! What is the point in writing it like this?
anand said:
Hehe this is something i wholeheartedly agree with anand. The UI of macos is lightyears ahead of windows or anything else out there. Especially spotlight and expose are just amazing. Plus with the powermac lcd panel (the best lcd panel i've ever seen in a notebook) and the brilliant colors of mac os, the whole experience is amazing. Things are so intuitive that even a 5 year old kid can use mac os without too many worries. The interface is extremely smooth if u have 64 megs of video ram and 512 megs of ram, however it lags with the base 32meg 9200 cards that ship in mac mini/ibook. This is cos of the quartz engine which is totally 3d accelerated and runs on top of opengl. All mac os windows are 3d objects
. M$ is trying to copy the things in longhorn . I wonder if the 3d performance of the UI so good, why the 3d performance in games is bad . Probably gotta do with the higher number of levels of abstraction in the opengl ICD.
tracerbullet
Skilled
tracerbullet
Skilled
Okay do this then. Head over to www.mumbaimirror.com and under the 'select issue date' choose 22nd June and click on the International Business section. Now read the article 'Did IBM really lose out?'
Post comments if any.
Post comments if any.
Hehe it was pretty well known to the insiders in the industry that it was ibm that ditched apple. IBM didn't want to invest more R&D into the G5 chips as it wasnt getting enough returns for it. They refused to scale the G5 higher than the current 2.7GHz. In fact apple was left with no other option but to jump boat to x86. All the bs that jobs gave about better computing power per watt is total bullshit. In the current scenario, if that was the sole motive, they should have gone to AMD instead. Many are also hinting that the first x86 macs may come out with the next pentium-m (yonah, dual core) chip. But even thats unconfirmed.
AMD has better processors currently, but Intel has the better road map. More importantly, AMD has the same production capacity problem as IBM. the G5 chip was fast but IBM delayed the delivery on most occasions.... Steve, surely, must've looked at AMD too.. especially the x2 range.... btw IBm has unveiled newdual core G5 chips and some low end G5z with 512kb cache and less power consumption(12-14 W)... so maybe... maybe we might just see a G5 in the Pbook... neways, even steve said that the whole range wud be updated before the switch....
tracerbullet
Skilled
*sigh*Hitman said:It could also be that Intel could have paid Apple to not do buisness with AMD like they paid other OEMs
Apple isn't just any other OEM... they are a $35 billion worth company...
AMD has to depend upon other companies for their mobos, chipsets etc whereas Intel themselves make their chipsets.... AMD chips maybe faster now but what about the future? Will they be able to Match the desktop variants of the Pentium M/Centrino Chipset? Also AMD can't match the production capacity that Intel can boast of...
Well if they managed to do it to Sony/Dell/HP(according to AMD's doc), then apple is a small fish for them.anand said:
Chaos posted 2.72 minutes later:
Hehe since you mentioned chipsets, currently the fastest and most feature rich chipset for P4 is made by none other than nvidia
. AMD used to make chipsets but stopped since 3rd parties are doing a better job than them.
tracerbullet
Skilled
AMD doesn't make complete platforms; Intel does. In fact, that's what Intel's banking on: Platformisation.
Besides, Intel's sitting on a gold mine with their Pentium M design. Have you seen the performance of overclocked dothans? They give the FX-55s a run for their money.
Besides, Intel's sitting on a gold mine with their Pentium M design. Have you seen the performance of overclocked dothans? They give the FX-55s a run for their money.
tracerbullet said:
what exactly does it mean? Intel is the market leader mainly because most ppl blindly believe 'original' intel stuff is better. I have come across many ppl who wud settle for a 'original' intel motherboard over any other brand; even if its a 'original' Intel 845 compared to a 865based board from another manufacturer. Intel has good products but it's marketing executives are waaay better than that
That's it! AMD might make some really good quality processors but Apple will definitely have more confidence dealing with Intel because of the platformisation and the pentium M. Also except for the 64 bit beast most of the time AMD seems to be lagging behind intel on having new breakthroughs.tracerbullet said:
IF apple were to go with AMD, they mite as well stay with IBM. Road map for the future, mon ami.
Apple wanted some one who could provide them with adequate numbers and cud invest into R and D. Unfortunately, both AMD and IBM lack the funds available with Intel.
Masky, i guess Apple are a bit more intelligent than the average user. As tbf said, it's the platform. Intel will make customized chipsets for Apple. I hardly believe AMD with its allies cud do that when it lacked good on-board gfx solutions for so long.
Besides, g5 wasn;t slow or anything... it IS a fast processor.. but it is way too expensive... also the powerPC stuff in xbox isn't G5... or is it based on 970fx.... that's reserved for Apple.
For those who said G4 was a dead chipset, just compare a g4 1.25 ghz and a p4 2.4ghz clock by clock... u'll know what the G4 is.... g5 is basically g4 with 64 bit extensions.
Apple wanted some one who could provide them with adequate numbers and cud invest into R and D. Unfortunately, both AMD and IBM lack the funds available with Intel.
Masky, i guess Apple are a bit more intelligent than the average user. As tbf said, it's the platform. Intel will make customized chipsets for Apple. I hardly believe AMD with its allies cud do that when it lacked good on-board gfx solutions for so long.
Besides, g5 wasn;t slow or anything... it IS a fast processor.. but it is way too expensive... also the powerPC stuff in xbox isn't G5... or is it based on 970fx.... that's reserved for Apple.
For those who said G4 was a dead chipset, just compare a g4 1.25 ghz and a p4 2.4ghz clock by clock... u'll know what the G4 is.... g5 is basically g4 with 64 bit extensions.
Mac Mini will be worth the price if it costs some thing between 15 to 20k. If they are charging 30k for the old G4 proccy and paltry 256 MB ram and no monitor either then its definitely not worth it. If what you want is an OS like Mac OS, then try BeOS. It was originally written for the Mac Hardware as a replacement for Mac OS mainly because Mac OS was ugly and does not give good performance. and yes its available on both Mac and PC platforms. Its UI is one of the coolest and the OS itself boasts of very good features. Its touted as the Multimedia OS. Too bad Be dissolved after releasing BeOS 5.0 Now BeOS is being maintained as a Open Source Project.
tracerbullet
Skilled
Latest update to the Apple-Intel scene: Apparently, Intel's XScale processors for PDAs and the like will do a lot of good for the iPod, when they (Apple) release a version that supports video playback this fall.
So it makes sense why Apple upgraded all their iPods to photo versions. Their new flag-ship stuff will come with video support. Read about this here
So it makes sense why Apple upgraded all their iPods to photo versions. Their new flag-ship stuff will come with video support. Read about this here