The G5 4 Ghz Apple Computer is a reality!
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 by kona0197 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
check this out...
The Power Mac G5 is the world’s fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor — which means it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier and can use up to 8 gigabytes of main memory. The new G5 processor — available at speeds up to dual 2GHz with a new ultrahigh-bandwidth system architecture featuring AGP 8X and PCI-X — makes the Power Mac G5 a breakthrough in desktop processing power. And models start at just $1999.
here is the fulll story:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
The Power Mac G5 is the world’s fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor — which means it breaks the 4 gigabyte barrier and can use up to 8 gigabytes of main memory. The new G5 processor — available at speeds up to dual 2GHz with a new ultrahigh-bandwidth system architecture featuring AGP 8X and PCI-X — makes the Power Mac G5 a breakthrough in desktop processing power. And models start at just $1999.
here is the fulll story:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
 |
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Tech-Cat
Reply #42 Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:20 PM
Reply #42 Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:20 PM
I haven't had a PC break down on me yet.
Okay I have had a hard drive die on me before, but there is no difference between hard drives used by Macs and hard drives used by PCs. I remember I have asked a Mac user I know if he has ever had hard drives die on him and he has had it happen too.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
Okay I have had a hard drive die on me before, but there is no difference between hard drives used by Macs and hard drives used by PCs. I remember I have asked a Mac user I know if he has ever had hard drives die on him and he has had it happen too.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
kona0197
Reply #43 Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:06 AM
Reply #43 Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:06 AM
thats all good but go to your local pc repair shop and you will see 95% of those machines are PCs. no thanks. decides, linux might be good but OS X is more stable and has more programs for it. Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows.
For the record i am using a PC and XP.
For the record i am using a PC and XP.
Tech-Cat
Reply #44 Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:22 AM
Reply #44 Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:22 AM
Maybe 95% of the machines in the repair shop are PCs because the majority of computers used for home use are PCs. This does not prove that PC hardware is faultier than Mac hardware. Can you come up with better proof. Maybe perhaps take the number of PCs purchased in the last few months that broke down and divide that by the total number of PCs purchased in the last few months, then take the number of Macs in the last few months that broke down and divide that by the total number of Macs purchased in the last few months. Compare the two ratios. If on ratio is significantly larger than the other then the machine with the larger ratio is probably faultier, otherwise if there is not much difference between the two ratios then more than likely both PCs and Macs have the same quality of hardware.
paxx
Reply #45 Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:50 AM
Reply #45 Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:50 AM
We have both MAcs and PCs at work. Macs break down as much as PCs, and Macs crash as much as PCs. At least with OS 9 and Windows 9x. Now with OSX and XP, neither crash very often. They are both a very comparable system.
But two things that are true is that the Macs are faster, and that the Macs are more expensive. They Macs we have are dual 500 Mhz (for a total of 1 Ghz), and were purchased 2 yeras ago for a little $6,000 CA. On the other hand my 1.4 Ghz PC that we purchased around the same time was around $2,000. But sure, the Mac are much faster. We did a few test for fun. Photoshop opened twice as fast on the Macs. Openning a very large image was at least 3 times faster on the Macs. And finally, we applied a huge filter on a huge image. Well, hands down the Macs won. The filter was applied in 20 seconds on the Macs, while I Control-Alt-Deleted my Photoshop after 2 minutes, as it didn't seem to end.
But other than processor, the systems weren't conparable. The Macs have a SCSI hard drive, and about twice the RAM as my PC.
But I still prefer PCs. 
c242
Reply #46 Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:49 AM
Reply #46 Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:49 AM
I find it quite entertaining everytime when someone is trying to promote macs on a 99% windows/pc based site, nevertheless. 
And the greatest advantage of pc's is never discussed at all : Every machine I have owned since my very first pc in 1990 (a readymade one) was built together from single components I choosed myself. I wonder if this is possible with macs. (?)
And the greatest advantage of pc's is never discussed at all : Every machine I have owned since my very first pc in 1990 (a readymade one) was built together from single components I choosed myself. I wonder if this is possible with macs. (?)
Jafo
Reply #47 Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:56 AM
Reply #47 Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:56 AM
Considering my beta testing of stuff [eg the 1240C temp and 21 hrs showing in the 12 hour clock] and constant shell manipulation/switching....and continually online and open to all sorts of crud in the form of virii etc....an uptime of 18 days 20 hrs and 43 minutes looks pretty bloody stable to me...
Orion
Reply #48 Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:33 AM
Care to state the source of your "facts"? This is what I'm talking about kona. When you make statements like that, all you appear to be is uninformed and inexperienced. Both of your "facts" are complete and total hogwash. You sure as heck aren't going to convince anyone using "facts" that, in reality, are simply your distorted perceptions and opinions presented as “facts”. At least when I state something, it's based on 17 years of systems and network administration and a good 10 years prior to that of non-professional computer experience. I deal with a very heterogeneous enterprise environment and my experience has been that one platform is no more stable than the other. Largely, any instability is caused by the user, what they do, and what software they use…not the OS or the hardware.
Reply #48 Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:33 AM
| hey tech here a fact you can't argue with...MACS RAELY BREAK DOWN if at all like PC do....... |
| Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows. |
Care to state the source of your "facts"? This is what I'm talking about kona. When you make statements like that, all you appear to be is uninformed and inexperienced. Both of your "facts" are complete and total hogwash. You sure as heck aren't going to convince anyone using "facts" that, in reality, are simply your distorted perceptions and opinions presented as “facts”. At least when I state something, it's based on 17 years of systems and network administration and a good 10 years prior to that of non-professional computer experience. I deal with a very heterogeneous enterprise environment and my experience has been that one platform is no more stable than the other. Largely, any instability is caused by the user, what they do, and what software they use…not the OS or the hardware.
monkey biscuits
Reply #49 Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:22 AM
Reply #49 Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:22 AM
You could build yourself a linux beowulf cluster with a good 16 processors which would be roughly 10 times as fast as that mac for $3000, provided you know what you're doing.
Just my thoughts, seems pertinent.
Just my thoughts, seems pertinent.
PixelCargo
Reply #50 Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:49 AM
Reply #50 Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:49 AM
Ok il make things really simple, first fix windows put it on a mac , lower mac price everyone is happy.
kona0197
Reply #51 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:13 AM
I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.
Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news...
you people disgust me.
Reply #51 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:13 AM
| I find it quite entertaining everytime when someone is trying to promote macs on a 99% windows/pc based site, nevertheless |
I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP.
Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news...
you people disgust me.
IPlural
Reply #52 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:18 AM
Reply #52 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:18 AM
must be a MAC 
just picking and not my nose, this time
I have also, each post returns an error.
just picking and not my nose, this time
I have also, each post returns an error.
DarkMist
Reply #53 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:19 AM
Reply #53 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:19 AM
You will get good and bad comments, just take it as it comes and chill, your not promoting...why blow a fuse right?
Tech-Cat
Reply #54 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:28 AM
If Macs are so much better, then what are you doing on a Windows machine?
Reply #54 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:28 AM
| I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP. |
If Macs are so much better, then what are you doing on a Windows machine?
grayhaze
Reply #55 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:29 AM
Reply #55 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:29 AM
You're contradicting yourself again kona. You criticize Windows PCs and boast fabricated 'facts' about how much faster and more stable a Mac is, and then get upset when someone says you're pro-Mac. It doesn't matter that you use an XP PC, the fact is that you're promoting Macs, for whatever reason, with your comments and comparisons. Nobody's going to criticize you for liking Macs, as I'm sure a large proportion of people here feel the same, but you will create upset by bashing PCs without hard facts to back up your claims.
Orion
Reply #56 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:32 AM
Your statements say otherwise. Here's a few:
Then we have:
Just trying to report "news"....my butt! If you were simply trying to bring up the news, you would have simply posted a link and not started regurgitating Apple's FUD. Just let it go. You look more and more silly with each post.
Also, I've seen several incorrect references to combining processor speed in multi-processor systems. Example: 2x2Ghz processors does NOT equal 4Ghz in performance...not even close. First the OS must support SMP, then the application must support SMP (very few do). Even then, with both procs pegged at 100% usage, you won't see anywhere near a 4Ghz (clock) performance. Don't get me wrong, in the right conditions, have two or more procs is great, but you just can't add their clock speeds. (from my experience )
[Message Edited]
Reply #56 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:32 AM
| I aint promotin Sh**. I use a PC and XP. |
Your statements say otherwise. Here's a few:
| Show me a more powerful PC... You won't find one. The G5 uses 64 bit processors. PC do not (yet.) And it even outperformes the 3 ghz P4. |
| hey tech here a fact you can't argue with...MACS RAELY BREAK DOWN if at all like PC do....... |
| Both linux and OS X are more stable then windows. |
Then we have:
| Damn the things i go through just for bringing up a peice of news... |
Just trying to report "news"....my butt! If you were simply trying to bring up the news, you would have simply posted a link and not started regurgitating Apple's FUD. Just let it go. You look more and more silly with each post.
Also, I've seen several incorrect references to combining processor speed in multi-processor systems. Example: 2x2Ghz processors does NOT equal 4Ghz in performance...not even close. First the OS must support SMP, then the application must support SMP (very few do). Even then, with both procs pegged at 100% usage, you won't see anywhere near a 4Ghz (clock) performance. Don't get me wrong, in the right conditions, have two or more procs is great, but you just can't add their clock speeds. (from my experience
)[Message Edited]
kona0197
Reply #57 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:35 AM
Reply #57 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:35 AM
OK....
HEY EVERYONE I AM FULL OF SH** I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
I hope that makes you all happy cause I am SICK of being yelled at and critized for my opinions and such. What I said about Macs being more stable is from my own user experience. I always thought Unix based was more stable but I guess I am wrong.
Why don't you guys pick on Apple themselves instead of me for saying all they did?
I take back all my stupid comments
Now leave me alone >
HEY EVERYONE I AM FULL OF SH** I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
I hope that makes you all happy cause I am SICK of being yelled at and critized for my opinions and such. What I said about Macs being more stable is from my own user experience. I always thought Unix based was more stable but I guess I am wrong.
Why don't you guys pick on Apple themselves instead of me for saying all they did?
I take back all my stupid comments
Now leave me alone >
Jafo
Reply #58 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:45 AM
Reply #58 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:45 AM
Calm down, kona....
Yes...historically, Unix-based systems were more stable than contemporary Windows OSs...but times change....Linux gets made to do more...to its peril...and Windows matures towards real stability.
Always remember that anything resembling a press-release is going to be slanted in favour of the product....Mac won't be claiming how inferior it is ....even if it were true...but WILL be claiming how superior it is...even if it IS false.
Before blindly following what you see posted on the net...remember the warning....
Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear.
It's a good maxim...
Tech-Cat
Reply #59 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:46 AM
This is more about hardware than software. I use a Unix based OS called Mandrake Linux 9.1. Both Windows XP and Mandrake Linux have been pretty stable to me. Each has it's pros and cons, so I use both.
I get upset when people bash PCs especially if they are saying that PCs suck because of the blue screen of death in Windows 98. In that case it is a fault in Windows and not a fault in hardware.
Reply #59 Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:46 AM
| always thought Unix based was more stable but I guess I am wrong. |
This is more about hardware than software. I use a Unix based OS called Mandrake Linux 9.1. Both Windows XP and Mandrake Linux have been pretty stable to me. Each has it's pros and cons, so I use both.
I get upset when people bash PCs especially if they are saying that PCs suck because of the blue screen of death in Windows 98. In that case it is a fault in Windows and not a fault in hardware.
jebland
Reply #60 Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:04 AM
Reply #60 Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:04 AM
Kona, I think the problem is not what you say, but how you say it. You state your opinions as "Fact"....If you would just start your sentences with "In my opinion" or "It is my understanding" you would not get such a negative reaction to your posts.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:12 PM