| Author | Comment |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 15 Feb 2004
15:58 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I just caught sight of a news article that you guys might wan to check out. It turns out that the PowerPC 970FX (Apple's G5 processor) will be hitting 2.5 GHz next week. For those skeptics who view macs as slow, it seems that IBM's and Apple's coordinated efforst in the past few years seem to be paying off. Yes the machines are expensive, put the efficiency of the PPC processors rival that of AMD procs. Also given the fact that the chips use less power, I think that some of you should test drive some of the new computers Apple will be releasing in the future. Link |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Feb 2004
16:09 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I use Windox's XP, comcast high speed internet, and a Dell computer. My computer is fast, fast, fast.
I switched awhile back when some computer stuff was going on sale. So, yeah, I'm a switcher. |
SpoiledStiff
Probe
Posted: 15 Feb 2004
16:20 GMT
Total Posts: 3 | Yeah, i'm thinking about switching to MAC X OS... billions of MS users have just turned in their graves, they're not even dead yet and they're turning. As much as I love my Windows 2000, it is easily the target of viruses (blaster anyone?) and often falls apart after some use. But a switch to MAC is only because I realized I only use my computer for Imaging and Movie-Editing. Games are getting too expensive and the hardware for that isn't cheap either. I'm thinking that for the price of the G5 and Photoshop with all my video equipment and such, I can have a lot more fun making Flash videos and game parodies (Live Action Counter-strike...oh man...). Well, I'm not switching over to MAC until this computer is FUBAR. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Feb 2004
19:44 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | PPC makes me think of Pocket PC, not PowerPC. Even though I'll be getting a new computer soon, it won't be a mac, because mac's are expensive, and I don't really do any graphic or video work.
wha's the point of using less power except in a laptop though?
btw, i managed to figure out what FUBAR means by myself, go me! |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 17 Feb 2004
11:07 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Sorry these are out of order.
Lower electricity bill and less heat from the processor so the fans will go on less often and cooling will hardly be an issue. Yeah, the price is just a tad steap (sp?). I've learned PPC as PowerPC, one of us is backwards ;)
High speed internet doesn't mean a fast computer. Switcher is the common term for those who switch to Apple.
Mac OS X, I don't know how UT 2K3 runs on a PC and the appropriate specs, but the specs of my machine handle the game with everything turned up and 11 A.I. comfortably (noticable drop when it is 13+). That really isn't bad. I have a 1.25 GHz proc, 64MB Radeon 9600. I just wish the FSB was 3 or 4 times faster. Besides the HDD, that is the only bottle neck.
[Edited by Digital on 17-Feb-04 20:10] |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 18 Feb 2004
12:21 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | I want an AMD 64. Oh man, do I want one! But right now, my budget is looking at an Athlon XP 2100+. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 19 Feb 2004
12:57 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I don't like Macs. Sure it's better for graphics editing and maybe better for video's too, but I wouldn't ever do either on my PC. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 19 Feb 2004
14:26 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Well, now is the best time to point something out. Though Macs hold the idea of image and graphics editing as their primary use, that image is a really big misconception. Ev en doing the same tasks a PC would do, Macs are generally better. Thats my opinion. With the change to OS X, Apple made these computers much more user friendly while still keeping them advanced. If it can be done on a PC, it can be done on a Mac. From what I've seen, the past few years as OS X and the G5 proc have been developed, a Mac is very close to a mid to high end PC. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 23 Feb 2004
13:14 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | AOL is user friendly, and that doesn't make it good. Though a valid point for not-so-intelligent people, I think all of us here agree that's not very important. (Though linux can be quite confusing when using minimalist versions). Also, the software for Macs is just rediculously expensive; so that's a big turnaway from them as well. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 23 Feb 2004
18:46 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Some of the software is too expensive, yes. But have you tired any of it? Probably not. From what I've seen and used in the shareware end of third party software, the price guages its quality accurate to about 80%. That is a heck of a lot better than software on WIndows. Also, Apple and third parties usually employ WYSIWYG. I don't want to type it. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 23 Feb 2004
21:49 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I only had one friend with a Mac, and it was an old piece of garbage. He moved out of state anyways, so I never really used it much. So I tried a select few programs, but they weren't current up-to-date software programs; meaning I really can't put much judgement on the software. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 24 Feb 2004
07:15 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | If you live near an Apple store I suggest you take a look inside and mess around with one for a while. I was pleasantly supprised, though I know I can't speek for everyone. |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 24 Feb 2004
19:21 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I use MACS at school, the ones with a 2-button mouse (The right click is the command key). And I like the MAC OS-X better than XP. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 24 Feb 2004
22:21 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | I use PC at school, and I have Mozilla Firefox (new name of firebird) on a shared directory (every student login has one) so I can use it on all school computers :) |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 25 Feb 2004
17:02 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | My old high school cut the computer techs from 4 or 5 to down to 1 or 2, excluding one student assistant. Taking care of 20 laptops in 5 or 6 moble stations when the users have little regaurd for them is a pain and quite sad. Two or three were stolen and the labling was picked off by those who couldn't care less. BTW, that is similar to the model customer. Most of us here don't fall into that catigory from what I've heard. |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
21:18 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | "AOL is user friendly, and that doesn't make it good. Though a valid point for not-so-intelligent people, I think all of us here agree that's not very important." This is true. User-friendly usually means its for people who don't know how to turn the computer on w/out browsing the manual index. I, myself, am absolutely, all-the-way, never-gonna-change PC person. Besides, 2.5 gHz, while good, is nothing compared to the 3.4 gHz processor i saw the other day, and also whoever said macs are expensive is right. but Pc's vs. Mac's is like the Pwepsi vs. Coke argument, there will always be MANY supporters for each (don't discuss that on this thread plz)
P.S. i am also a total coke fan (the drink, not the drug)
[Edited by Lunchbox on 03-Mar-04 06:19] |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
16:45 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Raise your hand if you know about the MHz argument. Well I go to brign it up again. The PowerPC processor is more efficient than Intel. By that I mean, there are less steps taken to arrive at the same location each clock cycle. Do to this fact my 1.25 GHz PowerBook with a 167MHz FSB (I wish that were faster) out performs the desktop at home with a 1.4 GHz proc and faster (don't know the actualy speed) FSB. WHen comparing two types of hardware, don't generalize since they are two types of hardware. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:27 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Allow me to laugh even more today. BTW this is nothing personal to you PC people out there.
here |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:36 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | your desktop computer probably had a more "cluttered" RAM and therefore was running slower than your Apple *shudder* laptop because all the running processes/applications need RAM to run (as im sure you know). if that's not true, i don't knoww what to say...
Except maybe that PC'S RULE!!!1!!11!!!!! |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:42 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | It has more RAM than my laptop. It has a 512MB and a 128MB sticks while mine has 2-256MB sticks. I'm not talking program wise. Just doing simple stuff in the OS that does not require RAM to any significant degree (besides turning it on).
Edit: Did you even read the aricle in the link?
[Edited by Digital on 04-Mar-04 02:43] |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
21:03 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Intel is often less efficient compared to other manufacturers. The AMD chips are called 3000+ which is sort of used to denote their speed in comparison to Intel, which is usually fairly close, but at lower clock speed (mhz), Apple is similar. All computers (and even 1 handheld) I have are Intel Inside though. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
07:15 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | It is true that Intel does not manufacture the most efficient processors. It's just flaw in the architechure of the chip, slowing the pipeling transfer. AMD is a better alternative. They're cheaper, and they have been known to benchmark higher both in applications and games. However, I have been supporting Intel. After the release of those 64-bit AMD processors, I think I'm shifting my opinion in favor of AMD, unless things change at Intel soon.
EDIT: that article holds nothing new, I've known about the Xbox 2 using that CPU for a while now. from www.xbox-scene.com 8-)
[Edited by Billy on 04-Mar-04 16:16] |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
11:54 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Okay, I don't believe a word from that article of your's D. There's absolutely no way that Xbox 2 will have 6 processors and a Radeon 9800 chip and retail under $300. Besides, using the Apple CPU means a different instruction set than Intel and will render all Xbox games useless, a bad move if you ask me. Unless they'd put half of these 6 cpu's to emulate the regular Xbox. All of this sounds just a funny as PS3's cell processor. Cell processors are in such early stages right now that I doubt they'll make one by the end of 2005 and I'm not even talking about a cheap console version. Ever since Xbox was announced MS was spinning around AMD and Nvidia deal didn't work out coz Nvidia didn't like the price MS offered them for their NV40 chip (when it comes out...). From previous sentence it follows that MS tries to cut down on cost, and how the heck they'd do that with so many apple cpu's AND a radeon 9800 chip? Prices won't go down THIS much in one year, so I wouldn't believe any of this till they actually release it.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
14:28 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | The xbox2 is going to be using the PowerPC processor. That's finalized - MS has basically had it with Intel.
As for what graphics chip they are using, I'm pretty sure nobody knows as of yet. It's just rumor/assumption that it's going to be based upon the Radeon 9800 because they have had poor relations with nVidia and the current xbox's chip and price. All we do know graphics-wise is that the xbox2 will be amazing, and have DirectX 10 compatibility.
There are two problems possible for the xbox2. MS hasn't seen developers utilize the hard drive, and might cut it out of the xbox2. If they do, I won't buy it. The hard drive was among the primary reasons I bought my xbox console. The other problem lies in the fact that they don't think that backwords compatibility is all that important, and seems unlikely the xbox2 will be backwards compatible. That would be bad.
[Edited by Billy on 04-Mar-04 23:31] |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
14:39 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | 6 processors does seem like a bit much, but Microsoft does currently lose money with each xbox they sell, i wouldn't if xbox2 is similar.
That'd be cool to try 64-bit win xp w/ amd 64-bit, but i'm too poor to afford one :( |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
16:02 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | " There's absolutely no way that Xbox 2 will have 6 processors and a Radeon 9800 chip and retail under $300. Besides, using the Apple CPU means a different instruction set than Intel and will render all Xbox games useless, a bad move if you ask me."
Actually, this is a great marketing ploy for Apple, they impress people enough to buy it wwith the astounding graphics, hard drive, and other stuff and then they have to buy a whole nother set of games for the new console. and the game swill probably be much better too, if not just good enough to make you want to buy them.
BTW, not an Xbox fan: Gamecube is my fav, but they need better non-kid-like games, then PS2 comes in second |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
17:02 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Yes I do agree with what you guys say about the 6 procs bt there is something you don't know about the G5. Each proc has two cores so it is actually a triple proc system. I can't find it on Apple's site at the moment but I read about this when it first came out. Here is the quote from the article.
"As such, the current kits - which, interestingly, are actually branded with the Apple logo - are only similar to final Xbox 2 hardware in the broadest terms. Right now, neither the next-generation ATI part nor the 65nm IBM PowerPC chip - or, for that matter, the three-CPU board needed to hold them - actually exists, so Microsoft is shipping something based on current hardware in order to give developers a running start on the new platform."
Here are some other links confirming what I said. Type in XBox 2 in google.
The Register
Xbit Labs
IGN
After the IGN article I'd be supprosed if everyone is still sceptic.
[Edited by Digital on 05-Mar-04 02:15] |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
18:53 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Well D, even if its 3 procs what difference does it make? There's no possible way to make something as high end as this and price it under $300. Even next year the prices will not go that low. Look, even in current Xbox config which isn't so high end MS is losing money (they'd only gain money if they were to sell it at an excess of $280).
Everyone knows that powerpc procs are quite pricey and so is radeon 9800 chip, since there isn't any official specs this is purely speculation. Making a console that would cost more than $300 isn't likely to attract buyers. Most people who buy consoles get them for two reasons: affordable price and easy configuration/setup. Yes, I will remain being sceptic until MS releases actual system specs. Also, like Billy said, I won't get it if MS takes the HD out. Memory cards are a pain in the arse and many newer games take up a lot of save memory. Also, I would prefer backwards compatibility on Xbox 2 since I have quite a bit of good Xbox games. Its also a good marketing thing since many people would like an extensive game library (think PS2), that's why Nintendo GBA was so successful and N-Gage was not...in fact, speaking of game library I hope everyone can remember Xbox's start. It wasn't all that great and many didn't think it'd go this far.
BTW, info in your articles is very vague and can not be taken for anything yet...
[Edited by zkostik on 05-Mar-04 03:57]
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
19:07 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Amen (Hebrew for "so be it") |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
19:23 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | It's been confirmed that the Xbox2 won't have a hard drive by M-System's President and CEO Mr. Dov Moran. But, others at MS denounce it and say they aren't announcing anything yet.
"However, if Moran's statements are true, the Xbox Next will likely not be backwards compatible, since it would be almost impossible for it to emulate how some games dump data onto the Xbox's hard drive. "
- xbox-scene
Well I'm no longer buying another console. I only would have gotten xbox2, and without a HD in it no way I'm buying it. No point to, because my current xbox does everything I could ever ask a console to do. I was just hoping the extra power of the xbox2 (processor, ram) would be able to enhance what can be done with the xbox. It can already do a lot anyways, but it has certain limitations.
[Edited by Billy on 05-Mar-04 04:31] |
