- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Chat > mac's or pc's
Login/Join to ParticipateNate
BRONZE Member since Aug 2004
![Nate]()
Groovy ga watashi no namae desu!
Location: Oxford, Oxfordshire, England
Total posts: 1530
BRONZE Member since Aug 2004
Groovy ga watashi no namae desu!
Location: Oxford, Oxfordshire, England
Total posts: 1530
Posted:right personally i have just fallen in love with my new computer which just happens to be a mac.......an ibook to be exact,
anywho what do you prefer and who here is a mac person like me......
anywho what do you prefer and who here is a mac person like me......
I like Languages.
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hug.gif" alt="" />
Posted:Sym, while that test might show a Mac is better at Photoshop which is a graphics program and what the machine was designed for, it does not show how a Mac performs on any sort of scientific piece of software.
Personally, I have found a Mac is crap at scientific pieces of software. A big whig above me at work is a sworn Mac user. He loves them and despises PC's. However, he does admit that any time he needs to run a computational piece of software, he does so on the PC in his office. Why? It's not always because the software wasn't written for his Mac. He's got a nice new snazzy one since he only started in Nov. So it's top of the line, yet his Mac usually balks at his computations or takes 3 times the length his PC does to run them.
Now to me, that's not worth running anything on a Mac. All I do all day long is computation heavy stuff. I analyze huge datasets and for a machine to balk at the huge matrices or take 3 times longer to run is just not acceptable.
So, I'd like to actually see a study done on how long it would take say Matlab or some other such computationally intensive piece of software to process a job on a Mac vs. a PC. Unfortunately, the big whig is out of the office for the next week and a half, or else I'd ask him to do so for me in the next hour.
Personally, I have found a Mac is crap at scientific pieces of software. A big whig above me at work is a sworn Mac user. He loves them and despises PC's. However, he does admit that any time he needs to run a computational piece of software, he does so on the PC in his office. Why? It's not always because the software wasn't written for his Mac. He's got a nice new snazzy one since he only started in Nov. So it's top of the line, yet his Mac usually balks at his computations or takes 3 times the length his PC does to run them.
Now to me, that's not worth running anything on a Mac. All I do all day long is computation heavy stuff. I analyze huge datasets and for a machine to balk at the huge matrices or take 3 times longer to run is just not acceptable.
So, I'd like to actually see a study done on how long it would take say Matlab or some other such computationally intensive piece of software to process a job on a Mac vs. a PC. Unfortunately, the big whig is out of the office for the next week and a half, or else I'd ask him to do so for me in the next hour.
Delete
Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
![Sym]()
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
Posted:I don't have any first hand results, but this seems to be what your talking about:
http://www.macintouch.com/g5bench.html#matlab
br>
He does say it's testing old AMD and intel hardware with a newer G5, but I guess it shows the lack of difference.
Also, G5s are using 64 bits while windows are still stuck with 32. That must speed things up loads!
Do you know if matlab was written for Mac or windows first? There is no reason for the software to run slower as the speeds are very close anyway. *i* think Macs are way faster for everything i do but you can't help it if the software isn't preforming as well on one system. This is the same as the photoshop test I guess, windows can't cope well with PS and Macs can't cope with matlab.
http://www.macintouch.com/g5bench.html#matlab
br>
He does say it's testing old AMD and intel hardware with a newer G5, but I guess it shows the lack of difference.
Also, G5s are using 64 bits while windows are still stuck with 32. That must speed things up loads!
Do you know if matlab was written for Mac or windows first? There is no reason for the software to run slower as the speeds are very close anyway. *i* think Macs are way faster for everything i do but you can't help it if the software isn't preforming as well on one system. This is the same as the photoshop test I guess, windows can't cope well with PS and Macs can't cope with matlab.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Deleteflid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
![flid]()
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
Posted:i hate comparing different architectures. Mac CPUs (RISC) arn't designed in the same way as PC CPUS (CISC). You can make comparisons compared on how long certain calculations take, but you can't reliably say that one piece of software will run faster on one, because it will probably be different. I'm sure you can write some c that will compile on both a PC and mac with minimal tweaking, but one may be optomised for the way in which one works. If you're comparing the speed at which you can do everyday tasks, using a system that you like, with a price point on both architectures, then I think you can make a comparison. But speed wise to say Macs are better than PCs or vice versa is just silly. If we're talking things like Total Cost of Ownership (which encompasses factors like how much power it draws, how expandable/upgradable/fixable it is etc) then that's another matter. I don't hate macs, I probably wouldn't be too upset if I was to use one at work, my PC used to have an apple keyboard, but I wouldn't buy one for reasons already mentioned in this and other threads.
Delete
Posted:If I use the same piece of software day in and day out, why is it unfair to compare the speed at which a various computer can run said software? I basically stick my data in and wait for the comp to crunch it. Thus I'm left twiddling my thumbs which can be quite frustrating at times if I'm on a deadline and can do nothing but wait. I'd like my results back as quickly as possible please. Matlab isn't the only piece of software that isn't as quick on a mac.
Delete
flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
![flid]()
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3136
Posted:This is a really bad explanation, but here goes 
Because there's more than one way to write a piece of software. The fact that we're talking about maths already makes it easier to explain. CISC processors (PC) have lots of different calculations they can perform. RISC processors (Mac) have a limited amount, but they are designed to do every calculation they can do in 1 clock cycle. So, a CISC may be able to do matrix multiplication, where as with a RISC you'd have to program it to do each step from simplier equations. If the CISC does it in 4 clock cycles, and the RISC does it in 4 clock cycles, and they both run at the same clock speed, then they are the same speed at doing that calculation. There's more to it than that, including pipelining (queing instructions) and the fact that different CPUs have different amounts of onchip cache (memory). In a lot of cases the CPU is idle whilst waiting for the data to come in, and a lot of clock cycles are spent moving data around.
Of course, no one in their right mind programs in assembly unless they have to (ie you need to get that last extra bit of juice out of a playstation2 which makes your game cutting edge), people code in languages like C and let a compiler convert it to assembly for them. Now, if you write code that is optomised for the way an Intel P4 chip works, it may compile on a G5, but it may not be optomised for it. If a piece of software is absolutely identical and ported from one platform to another, without rewritting algorithms it may not compile as efficient assembly for that architecture. So, as Sym said, if your piece of software is written by PC people who've ported it to a mac for a few extra bucks, but don't really know as much about them as they do PCs, I wouldn't be suprised if it's slower. That doesn't mean that's the fault of the computer itself.
And this is just assuming that the machines have exactly the same effective speed for the application you want, it doesn't take into consideration how much resources the OS uses, what other programs are running etc. Personally thou, if I was running matlab and I really cared about performance, dollar for dollar i'd much rather go for a linux server with as fast a cpu/ram as you can buy. Forget about the harddisk, cdrom, snazzy case, monitor etc, just control it from your normal computer. That's what most 3d rendering companies do these days. I've found setiathome running on identical PC hardware completing data units in double the time running linux compared to windows.
Because there's more than one way to write a piece of software. The fact that we're talking about maths already makes it easier to explain. CISC processors (PC) have lots of different calculations they can perform. RISC processors (Mac) have a limited amount, but they are designed to do every calculation they can do in 1 clock cycle. So, a CISC may be able to do matrix multiplication, where as with a RISC you'd have to program it to do each step from simplier equations. If the CISC does it in 4 clock cycles, and the RISC does it in 4 clock cycles, and they both run at the same clock speed, then they are the same speed at doing that calculation. There's more to it than that, including pipelining (queing instructions) and the fact that different CPUs have different amounts of onchip cache (memory). In a lot of cases the CPU is idle whilst waiting for the data to come in, and a lot of clock cycles are spent moving data around.
Of course, no one in their right mind programs in assembly unless they have to (ie you need to get that last extra bit of juice out of a playstation2 which makes your game cutting edge), people code in languages like C and let a compiler convert it to assembly for them. Now, if you write code that is optomised for the way an Intel P4 chip works, it may compile on a G5, but it may not be optomised for it. If a piece of software is absolutely identical and ported from one platform to another, without rewritting algorithms it may not compile as efficient assembly for that architecture. So, as Sym said, if your piece of software is written by PC people who've ported it to a mac for a few extra bucks, but don't really know as much about them as they do PCs, I wouldn't be suprised if it's slower. That doesn't mean that's the fault of the computer itself.
And this is just assuming that the machines have exactly the same effective speed for the application you want, it doesn't take into consideration how much resources the OS uses, what other programs are running etc. Personally thou, if I was running matlab and I really cared about performance, dollar for dollar i'd much rather go for a linux server with as fast a cpu/ram as you can buy. Forget about the harddisk, cdrom, snazzy case, monitor etc, just control it from your normal computer. That's what most 3d rendering companies do these days. I've found setiathome running on identical PC hardware completing data units in double the time running linux compared to windows.
Delete
Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
![Sym]()
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
Posted:And photoshop isn't the only slow windows software.
I think flid is right, it's an unfair was to judge a system.
Maybe we should be looking at the bigger picture here, rather than talking about one or two bits of software.
I think flid is right, it's an unfair was to judge a system.
Maybe we should be looking at the bigger picture here, rather than talking about one or two bits of software.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Delete
Posted:yeah - if you are buying a PC or a Mac, better to look at what you want to be doing with it, what your preferences are, what the strengths and weaknesses of both systems are, what you can afford, etc...
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
polarity
SILVER Member since May 2005
![polarity]()
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
SILVER Member since May 2005
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
Posted:After 16 years of using PCs and Microsoft almost exclusively I've discovered the joy of Mac/OSX.
If I wanted to continue screaming expletives at my computer, and beating the crap out of at least 2 keyboards a year, I'd go and buy a whole load of expensive parts, and put windows Vista on it.
I don't so I'm going save up a lot of money to buy my third mac. The first is the pretty green iBook I'm using at the moment, the second a PPC 7300 I got with a pallet load of Pentium IIIs. I'd like to point out that I have a VAIO and a Shuttle XPC that are much more powerful than this little thing, but after using PCs for so long I'm thoroughly sick of things being so complicated when they don't need to be, so I'm using the iBook a lot more.
At least with OSX I get a choice. I've been using OpenBSD for a couple of years, and I just love the way Unix can do anything. OSX being Unix gives me that option, but sticks the nicest GUI on top of it all, so I can point and click to my hearts content (even while drunk, which shows how easy it is).
The whole RISC / CISC thing is going to be redundant soon, as Apple are going to be using intel processors, as IBM can't make G5s that can be used in notebooks (although I hope they keep the openboot prom).
I used to think Macs were expensive, now I think my sanity is worth it.
If I wanted to continue screaming expletives at my computer, and beating the crap out of at least 2 keyboards a year, I'd go and buy a whole load of expensive parts, and put windows Vista on it.
I don't so I'm going save up a lot of money to buy my third mac. The first is the pretty green iBook I'm using at the moment, the second a PPC 7300 I got with a pallet load of Pentium IIIs. I'd like to point out that I have a VAIO and a Shuttle XPC that are much more powerful than this little thing, but after using PCs for so long I'm thoroughly sick of things being so complicated when they don't need to be, so I'm using the iBook a lot more.
At least with OSX I get a choice. I've been using OpenBSD for a couple of years, and I just love the way Unix can do anything. OSX being Unix gives me that option, but sticks the nicest GUI on top of it all, so I can point and click to my hearts content (even while drunk, which shows how easy it is).
The whole RISC / CISC thing is going to be redundant soon, as Apple are going to be using intel processors, as IBM can't make G5s that can be used in notebooks (although I hope they keep the openboot prom).
I used to think Macs were expensive, now I think my sanity is worth it.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Lost83spy
BRONZE Member since Sep 2005
![Lost83spy]()
Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!
Location: Somewhere, out there..., South...
Total posts: 587
BRONZE Member since Sep 2005
Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!
Location: Somewhere, out there..., South...
Total posts: 587
Posted:Being a graphic designer, macs are the norm. But I also use a pc to design, as well as play games.
So, when it comes to choosing, I dont really care. Over here in SA, both are damn expensive and both always have some sort of error on it no matter what.
I dont really mind which one I use, as long as it gets the job done, professionally.
So, when it comes to choosing, I dont really care. Over here in SA, both are damn expensive and both always have some sort of error on it no matter what.
I dont really mind which one I use, as long as it gets the job done, professionally.
It may be your sole purpose in life to serve as a warning to others
Founder and Official leader of the Curby Clan
*Owner of Brenn*
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted:I 
my Mac!
my Mac!-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:I have to fall in with the Mac crowd on this one (and not just because of this
Non-Https Image Link
)
I disagree with spritie in the generalization that the Mac is no good for scientific software - it depends on what you are trying to do. Can't really beat a G5 for doing 3D molecular analysis...
I do agree with Sym_, as a multi-platform user who returns to a mac because I've used the rest, and I like the best.
But, hey, some folk really groove on viruses and spyware - who am I to say that they can't have ready access to both?
Non-Https Image Link
)
I disagree with spritie in the generalization that the Mac is no good for scientific software - it depends on what you are trying to do. Can't really beat a G5 for doing 3D molecular analysis...
I do agree with Sym_, as a multi-platform user who returns to a mac because I've used the rest, and I like the best.
But, hey, some folk really groove on viruses and spyware - who am I to say that they can't have ready access to both?
Yellow and blue make green.
DeletePosted:PC's are cheaper, Linux is cooler. Altho I don't like the direction they've taken cedega... but thats cause i'm not normal.
Anyway
Anyway
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Posted:I use Microsoft. I hate it. But I like being able to play games. And I can't afford the Mac specific hardware.
Can't wait until Mac OS can be run on x86. I will be changing my laptop over to it.
Or better yet, I can';t wait until someone in the Linux community converts the GUI and such... I like Max being BSD based now and all, but I have always been a Linux person over Unix. I'd be more comfortable with a Mac that runs Linux undernieth instead of BSD. But then that's just personal preference.
Can't wait until Mac OS can be run on x86. I will be changing my laptop over to it.
Or better yet, I can';t wait until someone in the Linux community converts the GUI and such... I like Max being BSD based now and all, but I have always been a Linux person over Unix. I'd be more comfortable with a Mac that runs Linux undernieth instead of BSD. But then that's just personal preference.
Delete
Posted:Written by: jinvincible
I disagree with spritie in the generalization that the Mac is no good for scientific software - it depends on what you are trying to do. Can't really beat a G5 for doing 3D molecular analysis...
True, but thats only because of the sheer number of claculations per second that the processor can churn out. I mean there was a bit of a shock in the geek world when apple anounced that the G3 had beaten the 10 gflops barrier. Hopefuly when Apple switch to Intel at the end of next year there's a marked improvment in all processors.
As for reliablilty, I've been using macs since I learned to read and write (I learned on a Mac Plus). A few weeks ago, after almost 16 years of loyal service, my mac classic died on me. The hard drive, still the original 40mb drive, died and I can't get a replacement for love nor money. I've only ever had one other mac go wrong and that was an eMac that had a screen fault that Apple fixed very quickly.
Oh, and is anyone else here using Tiger yet?
I disagree with spritie in the generalization that the Mac is no good for scientific software - it depends on what you are trying to do. Can't really beat a G5 for doing 3D molecular analysis...
True, but thats only because of the sheer number of claculations per second that the processor can churn out. I mean there was a bit of a shock in the geek world when apple anounced that the G3 had beaten the 10 gflops barrier. Hopefuly when Apple switch to Intel at the end of next year there's a marked improvment in all processors.
As for reliablilty, I've been using macs since I learned to read and write (I learned on a Mac Plus). A few weeks ago, after almost 16 years of loyal service, my mac classic died on me. The hard drive, still the original 40mb drive, died and I can't get a replacement for love nor money. I've only ever had one other mac go wrong and that was an eMac that had a screen fault that Apple fixed very quickly.
Oh, and is anyone else here using Tiger yet?
Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't
Deletepolarity
SILVER Member since May 2005
![polarity]()
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
SILVER Member since May 2005
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
Posted:Written by:
Mac vs. PC
Weve all heard the arguments over which is better: the Macintosh, built by Apple Computer, or the standard-issue, hardworking PC, built by IBM, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and that guy who sells weed out of your garage. How to choose? Lets have a look at the histories of these two popular breeds of computer.
The first Apple computer was built in 1975 or 1976, by Steve Wozniak or Steve Jobs, while listening to the Bay City Rollers or the Steve Miller Band. The details are murky, the Steves are many, but the reason for all that tinkering could not have been clearer: It would be a killer way to score chicks.
The PC was invented for the very same reason, but its various inventors got really into their hardware and installed a whole lot more power. They wanted to build a computer that could do more calculations, and could perform multiple functions more rapidly. But it was at that very momentwhen computer inventors became more interested in their computers than sexthat the computer geek (or nerd, for short) was born.
Sothat choice is yours, really.
I've got Tiger on my Paris iBook (That's the lime-green clamshell with the 466Mhz G3, 12" 800x600 screen, DVD and firewire, although I've upgraded to 576Mb ram and a 40Gb HDD), and It's been sat on my lap all day, while I got more into using it, and more and more excited that I'll be able to afford a 17" PowerBook in a month. The much faster PC laptop and desktop sat idly by while I enjoyed the easy option.
Now what was that about chicks?
Mac vs. PC
Weve all heard the arguments over which is better: the Macintosh, built by Apple Computer, or the standard-issue, hardworking PC, built by IBM, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and that guy who sells weed out of your garage. How to choose? Lets have a look at the histories of these two popular breeds of computer.
The first Apple computer was built in 1975 or 1976, by Steve Wozniak or Steve Jobs, while listening to the Bay City Rollers or the Steve Miller Band. The details are murky, the Steves are many, but the reason for all that tinkering could not have been clearer: It would be a killer way to score chicks.
The PC was invented for the very same reason, but its various inventors got really into their hardware and installed a whole lot more power. They wanted to build a computer that could do more calculations, and could perform multiple functions more rapidly. But it was at that very momentwhen computer inventors became more interested in their computers than sexthat the computer geek (or nerd, for short) was born.
Sothat choice is yours, really.
I've got Tiger on my Paris iBook (That's the lime-green clamshell with the 466Mhz G3, 12" 800x600 screen, DVD and firewire, although I've upgraded to 576Mb ram and a 40Gb HDD), and It's been sat on my lap all day, while I got more into using it, and more and more excited that I'll be able to afford a 17" PowerBook in a month. The much faster PC laptop and desktop sat idly by while I enjoyed the easy option.
Now what was that about chicks?
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
PyroWill
GOLD Member since Aug 2004
![PyroWill]()
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Total posts: 4437
GOLD Member since Aug 2004
HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
Location: Staines, United Kingdom
Total posts: 4437
Posted:Guys it doesnt have a right click button!! god! 
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind
Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife
"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian
Posted:I just got myself a old blue bubble (iMac 400Mhz). I installed OS 10.4.2 and it works very well better then OS9.2 did thats for sure. I love os 10 but prefer my PC hardware as it was all hand selected for exactly my needs... This old mac is my "internet appliance" and works very well for that.
Robert Bruce
Poi Geek, Technologie Freak. Montreal, Quebec Canada
polarity
SILVER Member since May 2005
![polarity]()
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
SILVER Member since May 2005
veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...
Total posts: 1228
Posted:It'll have 10 buttons when I plug my MX1000 into it
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [mac pc] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Mac to PC conversion for Illustrator files [6 replies]
2. Forums > Why are some Mac users so arrogant? [26 replies]
3. Forums > Mac to PC progs [1 reply]
4. Forums > My PC won't connect to router [11 replies]
5. Forums > apple mac owners [236 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.