Ok you're making sense here, it a mater of preference.
it's a fact that MAC hasn't had the fastest
1.25G4 is as fast as a P4 2.5, so the gap is not enough to matter.
the best computers for about 10 years now.
Ok so its like arguing about blonds or brunettes (ie a matter of personal choice) yet you can say they are not the best as a statement of fact?
You are paying for a name.
No I paid for a system so stable I would never have to fix anything for my wife...
You MAC users are like liberals when you hear the facts about machine speed. Just accept the fact that a properly set up PC will blow the doors off your MAC in a speed test.
Please I have heard morons on this board compare the clock speed of two different processor architectures, PC's are no faster than Mac's. Now there might be some things one does better than the other and vise versa but to say that one 'smokes' the other is a joke. The right tool for the right job.
BTW if one has to 'properly set up a PC (read know optimization) it kinds looses its appeal to people who value their time. All the people who push macs as costing too much compare the to dell with crap integrated video cards, no firewire, ...
Your analogy was ok until you negated it in the next sentence. Is it also a fact that brunettes are better than blondes?
You are paying for a name.
No, I'm paying for the OS, and to a lesser extent the industrial design.
Just accpet the fact that a properly set up PC will blow the doors off your MAC in a speed test.
If the Mac (not an acronym, people) is a dual processor G5, I seriously doubt that. But even if you're right, so what? Computers spend most of their billions of cycles waiting on user input. A more efficient user experience can be worth far more than a faster CPU.
Matt Johnson writes "Well it looks like we finally have our first comparison of G5 vs. AMD Opteron, completed by none other than Charlie White, the individual which gained much oh his fame by publishing misleading benchmarks to make Apple's Final Cut Pro Software look like a bad performer. Mr. White's latest comparison shows the Opteron operating roughly 50% faster but what he doesn't say is which compiler was used to generate those SPEC scores. When Apple declared its benchmarks I feared that whoever made the first comparison would likely make this mistake. It seems only appropriate that Charlie White would be first."
An anonymous reader writes "In an ironic twist to the recent benchmark wars, Intel referred the Mac site MacFixIt to an analyst at Gartner Group who actually backed the PowerPC G5 platform with this assertion: 'These models certainly equal Intel's advanced 875 platform and should allow Apple to go until 2005 without a major platform refresh.'"
Another anonymous user writes, "While browsing the Xbench benchmark comparison site, I discovered some G5 benchmarks! The 'G5 Lab Machine at WWDC' got an overall score of 164.78, but much higher scores in certain areas. All of the tests are calibrated to give 100 on an 800MHz DP Quicksilver G4."
vitaboy writes "Sound Technology, one of the "leading UK distributors specialising in musical instruments, music software and pro-audio equipment," seems to have some data regarding the real-world performance of the G5 compared to the high-end PC. They state, 'The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051 ... More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.'"
..and it can go on, and on, and on, and on... but reality doesn't mean anything to you, I guess! Smoke some more of that stuff!