Hey man, calm down...your uber mac keyboard's shift key is stuck...

Don't be a hypocrit, you don't think your precious Mac is the best?

Not all PC's run Microsoft stuff, hence, no..they don't lick Bill Gates' ass

WHO EVER SAID MAC G4 PROCESSORS ARE SLOWER IS AN IDIOT. YOU OBVIOUSLY THINK YOU HAVE THE BEST PC ON THE MARKET, OR LICK BILL GATES ARSE, AND CAN'T STAND THE FACT THAT MACS ARE MUCH CLEVERER AND MORE CAPAPABLE. THEY MAKE PC'S LOOK RETARDED!!!!! MHZ MYTH OR WHATEVER, HOW MANY GIGAFLOPS PER SECOND CAN AN ATHLON 2000XP PRODUCE?? THE NEW DUAL G4 1,42 PROCESSOR FROM MAC CAN PRODUCE 21 GIGAFLOPS PER SECOND. DON'T GET ANNOYED AND TRY TO PROVE US MAC USERS WRONG WITH ALL THESE FANCY FIGURES OF YOURS. GO AND BUY A MAC AND STOP MOANING.....OR MAYBE YOU JUST CAN'T AFFORD ONE.......

LOL we need osx for the RS6000,then we can have 16 processor macs ;-)

You people are a bunch of geeks. Macs rock. (PC users have penis breath)

Originally Posted by XXXL Feet
The Macintosh is an amazing machine. It had an OS equevelent to Windows 95 before Windows was thought up. All the good ideas for Windows have always come from Mac OS. I used to be a PC person, but I have seen the light. Someone dared me to buy a Mac, and now I\'m never gonna buy another PC again. I admit, I used to think Macintoshes were crap, but I was SOOOOO wrong. You\'re PC world is not worth living in. Just commit PC suicide and switch. Just do it!!!! I DARE YOU!!! It\'s not like you think, it\'s so cool. Mac OS does everything that Windows claims it can do but can\'t. Come on people, theres a reason PCs are non-existant in Hollywood! Figure out what it is, you\'ll like it. You\'re missing out and I think it\'s so sad. You Mac-Haters are just like I once was, so stop it! Just get a Mac and get over it, before you really make yourself look stupid. When Windows turns to crap, the Mac will be the only thing standing. Please, just be open minded. These computers work as good as they look. Anyone who has one can tell you that. THEY JUST WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like my mac at home better than my PC at work. The PC is 1ghz T-bird running Win 2000. At home a G3 400 running OSX.1.5. The mac box is stable. 2000 crashes (but I think the mobo is shit in this box). I like the mac os better. This 2000 box starts to flail when 5 or 6 apps are open at once (plus the next service pack wants me to grant MS access my computer). I don't need a dual-boot system when I can run commercial apps on the same os that I can run open-source *nix projects and serve from. If I wanted to run linux though, that too is an option.

My dual 867 is in the mail and I can't wait. No, it's not the fastest. I might clock it to 1ghz per processor, might not. I really don't give a fuck cuz I know I will like working with it 100%; the clock speed is just a bonus.

Originally Posted by stealthy panther
What a funny exchange over nothing - no doubt inspired by nothing other than the original author\'s insertion of a meek anti-mac insult (which in its entirety was \"Ok, Mac freaks\") in this paragraph by Scott \"Damage\" Wasson:

... OK, Mac freaks. I will say this once clearly.
... Listen up. Read and comprehend.
... MHz matters.

The arguments from the anti-Mac side typically range from antidotal claims that Mac zealots say: MHz doesn\'t matter to citing Apple\'s/Jobs\' sales propaganda targeted at potential buyers.

Read and comprehend:
MHz matters and it doesn\'t matter.
Terrorism works and it doesn\'t work.

Both angles can be true. Get over it. PC extremists, like the persistent Gates Gerbils have nothing to worry about in terms of the (hated enemy) Mac\'s BLAZING SPEED in terms of CPU or OS X for the foreseeable feature. There are other things to worry about. If you want a challenge, a great many Mac users are equally knowledgeable of PC\'s. Don\'t be surprised if you get a fight when you go looking for one.

What a funny exchange over nothing - no doubt inspired by nothing other than the original author's insertion of a meek anti-mac insult (which in its entirety was "Ok, Mac freaks") in this paragraph by Scott "Damage" Wasson:

OK, Mac freaks. I will say this once clearly.
Listen up. Read and comprehend.
MHz matters.

The arguments from the anti-Mac side typically range from antidotal claims that Mac zealots say: MHz doesn't matter to citing Apple's/Jobs' sales propaganda targeted at potential buyers.

Read and comprehend:
MHz matters and it doesn't matter.
Terrorism works and it doesn't work.

Both angles can be true. Get over it. PC extremists, like the persistent (Gates') Gerbil have nothing to worry about in terms of the (hated enemy) Mac's BLAZING SPEED in terms of CPU or OS X for the foreseeable feature. There are other things to worry about. If you want a challenge, a great many Mac users are equally knowledgeable of PC's. Don't be surprised if you get a fight when you go looking for one.

Christ. You people don't know how to argue.
That is, you enter into an argument with your mind made up.

You know what this reminds me of? A bunch of rednecks, hillbillies, or whatever you want to call them arguing over ford vs. chevy trucks. Some drive fords, some drive chevys. It's not rocket science, and it's not freudian theory. It's just personal choice.

Of course, if you want an interesting topic, try Mustang Vs. Corvette. I've got my mind made up, but you ladies are more than welcome to flame it yourselves.

There are a few things that soldiers from both sides of the Mac v PC battle are missing.

Macs may have had an edge on graphics and sound editing and whatnot back in the days of the 200mhz processors, but now both computers are (or can be built) so damn fast that there is barely a noticible difference in processing time between them.

Besides, why compare PC's and G4's that are the same speed? That's insane. Compare by price. a 2.0 ghz G4 could be traded for a dual P4 2.0 ghz setup and would pale miserably in comparison for ALL applications.

So when I get the argument from a Mac fan:
"Ooh. Look at me. I have a Mac. My 2.0 ghz machine processes my homemade gay porn faster than your same-speed PC could!"

And someday I could say:
"Yes, but no Mac on Earth can stand against my Quad P4 Xeon with 2 gigs of RAMBUS, SCSI RAID 4 and a 3D Labs Oxygen Card."

A few things to consider:

If you like to get your applications first, go PC.

If you like unix/linux... DON'T go OS/X. Make a dual-boot Windows system. Now that's impressive. How many Mac users can do that?

If you like your games first, go PC.

If you like cold, hard, uncaring EVIL black and beige rather than Barbie pink and blue, go with PC.

If you'd rather mod your own PC Case instead of have an un-upgradable, plastic piece of crap, buy a PC.

Hell, if you like to do ANYTHING technical on your own, get a PC.

Macintosh's are for stupid people. Plain and simple. Ask one how to set up a RAID 4 or Overclock a processor and see how much they can tell you. Video editing? Psssssshhhhh. Every Mac owner claims it, but I bet less than half do anything serious.

By the way, the best 3D Hardware is for PC. See: Silicon Graphics, 3D Labs, etc... etc...

Hey! What does a Mac enthusiast do if he wants to set up a wicked internet backbone? OS/X? Can I get a resounding "Hell No!" ? Macs come in one flavor, multiple colors. PC's come in one color, multiple flavors. They can be made to do anything, or everything.

If I get any more comments that the originality beats the functionality, that just proves how stupid Mac users are.

I mean, sure it's a good computer if you're in elementary school and you need the pretty GUI to keep your attention and all, or if you're mentally crippled or retarded or something. God. Why buy a Mac? For the love of crap, Jobs has to make it look like a lamp to get people interested in it!

Ask yourself this: IF your Mac had been in a Beige PC box instead of a colorful, unique one, would you have bought it? No.

This reiterates my point that Hardcore Mac users are either stupid, or graphic artists. Hardcore PC users are technical, analytical, and get to have more fun screwing with various parts of their computer.

P.S. A motorola processor? Hahahahahahahahahhahaha! I bet your computer has the same chip as my pager. =)

i may actually be maturing. i find that i am no longer interested in the mac v pc debate.

the simple fact is that anyone with any real knowledge or experience knows that the pc is superior in every particular:

price. go to fryes. walk up the printer aisle. on the left, hp printer for mac, on the right hp printer for pc. 799 vs 899. and the computer itself? give me a break. i know hardware, and i know the prices thereof. rule of thumb 3XPC for a Mac.

for what?

slower performance?
no floppy?
no printer port?

ooh. ooh. pretty plastic. pretty, my ass. i would be embarrassed to walk into a business meeting with a computer that looks like my daughter's barbie case.

the macolytes somehow cannot grasp the fact that photoshop was ported to the pc, what?, 2 1/2 years ago, now? they still think they need a mac to run photoshop.

jesus, they sound like the people who upgrade to xp so that they can find their friends online (you mean, like instant messaging available for free, for 5 years?); or so they can use msn 3 (available for free for 2? years); or, gee, now we can edit photographs, and do video editing, and everything else one can do easily with the pc for years using software that is in many cases free.

guess that's why all the serious 3d software people (newtek, max) rushed out to port their apps to the mac.

they sound like the idiots who are still saying (trying to sound wise): "Yeah, netscrape 4x was the best browser ever. (sigh)."

don't worry, folks. the smart ones will figure it out on my own. my photoshop mentor, a confirmed macolyte, about a year and a half ago, bought a pc, and never looked back.

the dumb ones will continue to annoy us, if we allow them to. i read here earlier: "never argue with an idiot. first, they will drag you down to their level. then they will beat you with experience."

i never saw a computer crash until i used a mac. i never saw an out of memory error until i used a mac. granted, i am, shall we say, a bit more fastidious than most in choosing and installing hardware and software (in fact, i know no one personally whose eyes do not glaze over ... who do not lurch for garlic and crosses when i start to get wound up ...).

an olive branch ... hps, compaqs suck. if that's what they're comparing themselves to, well, okay, maybe they're not quite as delusional as i have come to wonder. even so, they are as tedious as the lds's who show up at your doorstep.

don't you get it? please, please ... just go away. do i have to get rude?

re-mac vs pc article,
do you actually use your computer for anything other than trying your little heart out to prove the fact that you can't afford a high-end mac???
you may be half way right with all your statistics but i can assure you that for people who use a computer everyday(all day/night) for audio production(professionally & personally) a Mac is the only option.
for sound/video production the G4 is King.
there is no argument.
keep at it though because you obviously have a flair for shining *hit.

This madness has to stop! All you bloody macolytes buy into this mac propaganda more than the germans did to Hitlers B.S.

It is pointless for me to write this because raw numbers (the only objective truth) fail to convince you poor and ignorant macophiles. Blind belief is great. Religion, government and now Apple manage to monopolize on the lack of common sense of the populace.

Apple uses huge (and expensive) advertising schemes to woo you(All hollywood movies have Macs in them, as well as many tv shows). A bunch of sheep hanging off of CEO steve's "benchmarks" What a joke!
Even the publicity stunt of Mr. Jobs being paid a buck a year.
Poor blind sheep.

The belief that apple is more reliable! I wont even comment. Of course the comparison is to the now defunct Compaq's equipment = Pile of junk.

I will pit my 1.4 thunderbird against any mac! The funny thing is I will win 99% of any benchmarks by a landslide except for 3 or 4 filters in photoshop. What a joke.

Heil Mein Fuhrur!
Heil Steve Jobs!

Anonymous Gerbil with post 65. I salute you. It is rare to see sense such as this on these flame boards.

Just to push his insights further, One would notice that for certain applications AMD beats the P4, and vice versa. These are supposed to be chips of the same architecture. The difference is in the design brief initially and in the end one has to choose the best processor for what he wants. (The male includes the female gender in case there are some sensitive peeps here).

If one does not need the unwarranted performance, then performance should be the least of his worries. Better concern yourself with having a computer that worksin the first place.

And who said mac is not good for gaming. Go to the mac website and look at their games list. And it being updated everyday.

Their display is the one. I am still waiting to see such from these pc manufacturers.

all apple products are quality. Compaq sells some really shitty pcs. so does hp and the whole lot of them. All your macs are built to the highest standards and are properly supported. Help is never far away and they cost less to maintain. You only pay US$70 a year for whenever you need the help, which is not often. What is it for wintels, $200+ for each call. And that could be very often. I will quote someone who summed it up rather aptly. 'mac machines tend to stay stable until you change something in th syytem. windows systems tend to degrade naturally through constant use' I have installed windows on the same pc about 6 times alone this year. that is not good. That it why i favour the macs above whatever wintel has to offer.

wake up and smell the coffee. apple is back and wintel's days are numbered. well not exactly. Not with people around like on this post.

I think all those benchmarks should incorporate systm downtime into the equation and see who wins. Come on, with mac osx10.1 you can burn cds in the [b]BACKGROUND[b]. That is what i expect from a good computer

Maynard

Well

I am sure there is no such thing as a Mhz myth. That Intel is by default the best processor and that AMD will never be as good.

Can we shut the c**p. Apple never said mhz do not matter. indeed i never heard them say they would much rather run a computer on no clock cycles at all 'like 0mhz'. They just said mhx is half the picture.

As long as office is deesigned to run by the clock cycle, it will always be faster on the wintel (winamd) machine than on macs. period. thats settled. photoshop requires raw processing power, and macs win period. I would much rather have a mac giving me tough performance in photoshop than have a pc better for checking mail. Lets face it. Most of us are never doing so much at once. its about time we had relevant benchmarks instead of comparing the most useless performance figures. who cares if a mac takes one second longer to open an excel file. with an application like photoshop, you will render something, not quite like it, and have to undo and render again so many times. It really matters is its faster there. Than than opening an internet explorer window which you do once and thats it.

Then there is the pizzaz factor. Macs really look cool and OSX 10.1 rocks, far more than windows XP. Better GUI, better all and rock solid stable (think - UNIX) and much less virus and hacker prone. I think macs still rule.

And, compare AMD Athlon XP to your 2ghz p4. Apparently, amd implicitly compared the Athlon XP 1800+ to the p41.8ghz, but it still kicks the p4 2ghz. its just much less conceivable that the macg4 866mhz kick the athlon 1.4ghz item. Stop bullshitting us.

Maynard

[i]#108 said, "Wham, bam, thank you Killcreek.

Whoosh... That's the sound of Athlon cleaning up that benchmark. Looks like it really lets that big beefy K7 x87 FPU shine, at a more than 50% increase over the P4 and G4, and an almost 25% lead over them in INT math. The only thing I don't understand is the relatively poor memory scores. Looking over it, I see AthlonMP and G4, are they both on PC133? Given that it's an MP, I'd assume it's on DDR, but it's impossible to say. It looks like G4 owns big time on the FFT, but loses on the other two tests. I guess that's big cache/slow ram doing what it does best...

Or something...

I'm tired, time for bed. "[/i]

Hardly, that was a comparison of the 1.4GHZ P4 against the top of line AthyMP. We all know P4 has lower IPC. However, its IPC should scale better with frequency then an Athy. Since we are going to pit a top of the line Athy against an obsolete P4, I think I should clear up these muddied waters.

Here are the spec scores for a Athy MP compared to P4 that I have read at various places. Each of these come from different sources.

REAL WORLD TECH (www.realworldtech.com):
SpecInt2000: Base Peak Base->Peak
[b]Athlon 1.2GHz[\b] 443 496 +12.0%
[b]Athlon MP 1.2GHz[\b] 495 522 +5.4%

SpecFp2000: Base Peak Base->Peak
[b]Athlon 1.2GHz[/b] 387 417 +7.8%
[b]Athlon MP 1.2GHz[/b] 433 481 +11.1%

[b]Itanium scores:[/b]
SPECint2k - 370
SPECfp2k - 711
STREAM- 1402

These numbers were posted on their forums by Paul. However, they were produced by other souces.

ZDNET (http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2668497,00.html):

Athlon (1.2 GHz) DDR P4 (1.5 GHz)
AMD 760 i850
----------------------------- -----------------
SPECint2k Peak: 461 535
SPECfp2k Peak: 412 558

REAL WORLD TECH (http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=141&Thread=1&roomID=13&entryID=987)

Here's SPECint/fp2k (base):

EV6/833 -- 518/590
PA8700 -- 569/526
P4/1700 -- 573/598
P4/1500 -- 524/549

And SPECint/fp2k (peak):

EV6/833 -- 544/658
PA8700 -- 603/581
P4/1700 -- 586/608
P4/1500 -- 536/558

And I could give more but will end on this post on real world tech:

(for what its worth the new P4/1800 scores (Intel):
SPECint2k base/peak 596/609
SPECfp2k base/peak 618/628)

These are Intel numbers so take them for what you want.

Anyway, say again how Althy cleans house at SPEC? When you compare top end to top end I think the results clearly show P4 is stronger. However, that doesn't mean anything. Obviously, software must be optimized to uses the P4's strength. In addition, not all applications require huge performance.

Kirk

heya, Charles (aka AAPLTalk chart guy) here again...

163--the handles are there so that you can move the tower around easily :))

I do this once in a while when I housesit for my sister & brother-in-law.

Oh, you guys might want to check out my last post over on the original message board for the shootout chart thing...the action seems to be over here now so I thought I'd mention it.

--Charles aka BlueDjinn (who doesn't have his password handy at the moment lol)...

Question: What's with the goofy looking handles on the front of the G4 case? Are they there for a reason?

http://homepage.mac.com/jeffery/

this is why you're fighting mac gerbils. go read it. they're tagteaming you.

their handlers organize it, and even tell them what to say.

say "baaaa" good little mac sheep

"Sorry, I apparently had a brain-fart"

Yeah. That was obvious! <:-) That applauding of Twofer smelled the worst.

Sorry, I apparently had a brain-fart when typing the end of the fourth-to last paragraph. It should read:

[q]If we are right and you are wrong, he will say so and (outside of a few over-excitable PC trolls out there) we can all get on with our lives. If you are right and we are wrong, (outside of a few over-excitable PC trolls out there) the PC community will accept that we were defeated and admit that the Mac is *still* an excellent computer.[/q]

There, that reads much better.

Let me first apologize for the length of this post. I just finished writing it and realized it's quite long.

TwoFer, I've made the gross miscalculation of reading both threads in their entirety over the past week and I just want to applaud you on your near single-handed defense against the onslaught of gerbils that have infested this site as of late. I, being a weaker person, probably would have buckled much sooner into a heap of overzealous babbling back at these trolls after exhausting my reserves of logical, ground based reasoning in trying to defend the truth against the onslaught of mis-informed market speak and flawed data.

Varying breeds of gerbils that hold the burning flame of Apple, please realize that we here at TR are not the PC loving zealots that you accuse us of being. We want, above anything else, hardware that gives us the best bang for the buck and it bothers us when marketing gorillas continue to spout bald-faced lies even after having their bluff called just to get people to spend more money. This goes for every company in the industry. I've seen Mr. Wasson, et. al. rip Intel a far bigger hole in the past six months than you could ever claim we did to Apple in the entire history of the site. We actually like most of the hardware in the Macs. Hell, most of the hardware in the Macs is what is in most of the PCs floating around lately. We also believe (since we are all hardware freaks) that the G4 processors are pretty solid for their design. Unfortunately, as powerful as their design is, it still has it's limitations as does every other piece of hardware on the face of this planet. Motorola has hit this limit, otherwise the PPC/Gx processors would still be keeping up, if not possibly leading, in it's ability to number crunch.

Our problem with Mr. Jobs claims is that by narrowing the test spectrum, he has effectively made the Mac appear stronger than it is. This isn't the first time he's stretched the truth to justify the price of his machines. Look at the dual G4 for example. Jobs claimed that he brought the first dual processor machine to the home market dispite the fact that people in the PC market have had duallies for years. I have a friend who's had a dual Pentium Pro 266 rig since early '97 that can still hold it's own. I could continue on, but if you had actually read the threads I'd only be beating on a dead horse.

What we want is what most scientists want when they do research, a broad spectrum of data from an independant source. Until we get that and view it with our own eyes, we can only extrapolate on what data has been released on spec, and that's not a true real-world measure of performance for anything. There is the software available to get this data from both platforms, and Mr. Wasson has wanted to see how well the modern Mac can perform against the modern x86 architecture for quite some time. Unfortunately the man is not independantly wealthy and capable of owning an island, that's why he reviews and benchmarks hardware that's leant out or donated by companies to him. The Macintosh is a very expensive machine in the high end market and is not something that can be bought on a whim.

Apple won't donate machines to independant sites for whatever reason for independant review of their hardware. They most likely do this because information is power and if they hold all the information about the product, then they wield all the power allowing them carte blanche control over what's said. If I was a small company with a proprietary product, I'd want to do the same thing if I possibly had something to hide.

Mac zealouts, please indulge us in our opinion until you can allow us the opportunity to get more than marketing numbers and controlled biased information from large companies. We hold these opinions because the burden of proof presented from your side has many holes big enough to throw a badger through. If you insist on badmouthing us further for this opinion and frustration in the claims made by Apple, please put your hardware where your mouth is. There can be legal documents drawn up and insurance that can be bought that can protect your machine. If you actually believe that the Macintosh is a superior product even for the money, send the thing without your harddrive (but with the exact hard drive make/model) to Mr. Wasson and let him put this machine through the number crunching wringer and collect the data to be posted. I assure you that the man can collect the data necessary and post it in an unbiased manner to finally put this argument to rest. If you are right and he is wrong, he will admit it and we can all get on with our lives. If we are right and you are wrong, (outside of a few over-excitable PC trolls out there) the PC community will accept that we were defeated and admit that the Mac is *still* an excellent computer. (Please not that I specifically said the word "still" in that last sentence, because they were still considered fine machines before the recent shift in marketing and design.)

Ultimately, put up or shut up. This war can't be settled until a line can be drawn in the sand, and I'm personally tired of wasing ammunition on something that won't agree to anything.

Any gerbils that want to flame me for what I've said and suggested, go right ahead and waste your time. All responses will be ignored as though sent to /dev/null, and I won't respond. I'm primarily a lurker and do not post unless I feel I have something important to say/contribute, and I'd prefer to stay that way.

On a separate note now that I'm finished ranting... I just want to welcome BlueDjinn to TR. I look forward to seeing what you have to contribute to the hardware community. :-)

"To the complete and utter paranoid idiot that spat out post #136:"

LOL! Sure got you riled up, didn't it? As others have suggested, this is just throwing back at the MacLots their own paranoid claims in reverse.

One thing, however, was absolutely true. AMD was not quoted as saying anything whatsoever about any supposed "MHz myth", in this article that was supposedly about AMD attacking Intel over the "MHz myth."

156: No, i don't think post 145 "did that pretty well"!..

Where exactly was *I* wrong about "my information"? You might criticize how they testes (it was obvious that 2fer would!) but you can't say the points i made (G4 cheaper, TechTV PC-oriented, G4 fater overall) are wrong!

But let's look a little closer into what you prolly mean, even though it wasn't "my information":

2fer, 145: "I'm familiar with that particular review. In fact, it's one with only six Photoshop filters, combined in a "benchmark" which should -- but doesn't -- weight the results"

Ofcourse.. TechTV did that to make the Mac look good! <:-)

"(it's a dead heat when you do), and Photoshop 6 is known to be broken with the P4;"

Ofcourse.. cause that suits your argumentation! 8) If there's an app that's faster on the G4 then obviously Adobe expecially tailored PS to work bad with the P4, neglecting the insignificant fact that they sell 60% of their licenses to PC Users! <:-)

"they provide no rationale for the filters chosen, nor any indication of their importance in real life; they use an uncharacteristically large file size, which has been repeatedly critcized by actual users but which is typical Apple's biased practice;"

And ofcourse PS-Users are known to work mostly on very small files! 8) One can clearly tell that you have no idea what Photoshop is about, but may it be known to you that most PS-Users (esp. print-people, who are still the largest part!) work on files that easily have several hundreds of MB, up to over 1GB e.g. for Film-scans in 2000 dpi or more!..

"and they also provide absolutely no information on the machines except to say that the memory is the same."

Okay, let's see: "Our test PC was running Windows 98SE and the G4 was set up to run OS 9.1 to insure the best software performance with our test program.
Using retail boxed versions of Photoshop 6, we installed the application on each computer and applied the latest patches available from Adobe's site (v 6.0.1). Besides updating each system's OS with the latest updates, we downloaded and added Adobe's CPU-optimized plug-ins and support for each platform respectively. As a final touch, we configured Photoshop 6 on each machine to use a similar amount of memory and to have similar program settings."

..it's pretty obvious that the P4 runs on PC-800 RDRAM and that there's no harddisk swapping involved (512MB are more than enough for a 86.1MB file, common knowledge for PS-users is that you need 3 times the size of the picture to work with it without swapping to HD! 3 x 86.1 = 258.3MB, half the physical RAM-size, more than enough left for Photoshop itself and the OS!
So what information are you exactly missing?

"To their credit they state, "Tests like these are not the best representation of overall performance. Nor do they accurately depict the end-user's experience."

ROTFL! ;-D But aceshardware test do! 8) Or any Benchmark for that Matter! 8)

"I suggest you read that carefully, because it's a flat admission that the test is inherently flawed, even if they had gotten their act together and done it properly."

No, they are just stating the obvious, something you still need to realize: That such Tests GENERALLY are moot, cause a Benchmark is just a benchmark, and every User's own focus and experience differs! <:-)

"Okay, please show me where i am wrong in my information!.. Oh pretty please!!.. Just ONE time give backup to what you're claiming!.."

i think post 145 did that pretty well, gerbil

Hopeless.. Twisting and bending like there was no tomorrow, refusing to actually answer to a single question i asked in a precise manner, instead babbling for the world championship!
That's cheap arguing in its purest form, but that won't get you anywhere and you know it.

But, stupid as i am, *I* am going to react precisely on what you said:

1) i never attemted to "dominate" no thread, only started posting here two days ago, must be different gerbil, sorry!

2) "but that they don't support outside, independent benchmarking." - ROTFLMAO!.. So THAT is the problem now? 8) You did read my sentence on how basically ALL benchmarks except for Cinebench and several Game-timedemos do simply NOT exist for the Mac!.. How exactly does Apple "not support outside independant benchmarking"? Do they refuse to sell Computers to people that wanna benchmark stuff?? How did the techTV-dudes get their hands on theirs then? 8) Do you blame Apple for not sending a G4 *for free* to aceshardware or whatever, a completely PC-dominated techie-page that NO potential Apple customer would probably ever visit? Has Apple ever said that someone isn't allowed to publish his benchmark-results? How come i read so many (more or less) independant tests Mac vs PC in the magazines all the time? What was your point again?

3) "But Jobs is insisting -- and this is what I referred to as the true "MHz myth" -- that they are in fact faster overall than the Intel/AMD offerings! (As a corollary, this is where Jobs effectively says "MHz doesn't matter" -- because he's extending a truth past the point where it's true.)"

I'm still waiting for ANY SINGLE QUOTE of Jobs where he said that "MHz don't matter"!.. Could you [b]PLEASE[/b] finally direct me to a page that shows he said that? Instead i suggest you watch the MHz-Myth Quicktime on Apple.com and see Jon Rubinstein saying that MHz is just one part of what makes a CPU fast!.. Why didn't i ever get any reaction on this? Are you IGNORING the facts??

4) "Your whole TechTV-related rant ignores these facts: a) you're wrong on much of your information, b) I've already shown you where and why, and c) you're simply not listening, so d) I'm not going to waste my breath."

Okay, please show me where i am wrong in my information!.. Oh pretty please!!.. Just ONE time give backup to what you're claiming!.. But i suspect I won't get an answer to this like the countless times i asked you before to cite anything to back up your claims!
Is the overall time of the Mac NOT less than the one on the PC?
Is the 733MHz G4 NOT the cheapest, slowest G4-Mac now while the 1.8GHz P4 is the fastest most expensive Top-Pentium?
Is TechTV NOT a PC-related site and did they NOT utter derogatory comment on Jobs' Pentium-Roast?

About my misspellings: Well, it's not my native language, thank you very much, have we reached the ultimate low now where we talk about typos? There's that law on usenet - criticize typos and you lose! <:-) Well, go figure...
btw: Atleast *I* get my tags right! >:-)

FYI: You won't ever see me babble shit about Supercomputers and other Apple-Marketing-Hype!.. Why? Well, simple: Cause i refuse to recite Marketing-Hype, be it from Intel, AMD or Apple!.. Maybe there are Mac-people that do, but please look around you: How many people do you know that buy their PCs solely based on the MHz of the CPU (telling every Apple-User "why he paid so much for so few MHz"!)? Is that any better? But that doesn't justify your constant ranting, putting every single Apple-User into your little drawer that says "conditioned drone" or "macolyte", calling EVERYTHING Jobs says "Reality Distortion Field", even going so far as to "extend" what he said ("MHz don't make a CPU fast") to whatever suits YOU best ("MHz don't matter").. That's so low and cheap, dude!

5) "You flame and sputter (fortunate you can't wilt electronic text with it -- it must be dangerous to be near you, though) and fume all you want, but you still fail to make a good argument... or even sense, much of the time."

I think we'd better leave it to the reader to make up their own minds who actually has the arguments here and who makes sense, thank you! <:-)

But chickening out when things get rough and people start to nail you down on your own words is exactly what i expected from you, thanks for proving me right there! ;-)

Dear Gerbil Troll -- because I'm now pretty sure that not only are you the same Gerbil (your emoticons are one giveaway, your breathless haste to accuse AMD, Intel & dog of precisely what Apple does is another, and your characteristic mispellings a third... and I'll just stop there) but probably the same Gerbil who attempted to dominate the "different thinking" thread early on -- I'd already answered your objections in fair detail earlier in this thread and in the "different thinking" one, and I'm not in the mood to waste my time reapeating myself. I think I can cover your basic objections in a few sentences, though, so here goes a summary:

The problem with Apple isn't that they bias their benchmarks -- that's common, even in the PC manufacturers, we know that, we admit it, and we're realistic enough to expect it -- but that they don't support outside, independent benchmarking. Read the word "independent" -- it's important.

We also recognize that the G4 calculates more Instructions-Per-Clock than the X86 CPU's, so it's "faster" than its MHz rating alone indicates; but (roughly) IPC*MHz means something (again roughly, total output) and the G4 unfortunately doesn't have a high enough clock speed to compete with the present Intel/AMD top-end CPU's. [b]But Jobs is insisting -- and this is what I referred to as the true "MHz myth" -- that they are in fact faster overall than the Intel/AMD offerings![b] (As a corollary, this is where Jobs effectively says "MHz doesn't matter" -- because he's extending a truth past the point where it's true.) That's simply wrong -- we know enough already through limited benchmarking to demonstrate that, and further benchmarking will cement the proof.

...Except Apple and Mac distributors and even Mac owners, it seems, are afraid to discover this, because -- totally unlike the available universe of PC's -- there appears to be no machine available for such testing. If this accusation disturbs you, [but your Mac where your mouth is.[/b] That's a direct challenge, Gerbil... :)

I agree that the P4 has significant problems, and that Intel hypes it anyway. I never said I didn't, and that doesn't affect my arguments one whit. Why do you insist on bring it up and saying it does? (BTW, greater clock speed than the G4 or G4+ architecture can [ive/i] attain, but which the P4 is designed for -- and hence some of those ugly characteristics at the "low" clock of 1.X GHz -- will allow the P4 to become a decent-enough CPU, but I don't expect you to believe that either.)

Your whole TechTV-related rant ignores these facts: a) you're wrong on much of your information, b) I've already shown you where and why, and c) you're simply not listening, so d) I'm not going to waste my breath. If you want to claim this means you win, go ahead -- I'm not worried about any of your claims, since you don't have a secure grip on your arguments, that's apparent to the casual reader, and vociferous spews simply don't make up for your being wrong.

And finally, [io/i] were the one who said you hated us techies for making your Mac-Community (your capitalization) look at benchmarks -- not I.

You flame and sputter (fortunate you can't wilt electronic text with it -- it must be dangerous to be near you, though) and fume all you want, but you still fail to make a good argument... or even sense, much of the time.

As I said, I've got more important things to do, so now you can have as many last words as you like. Troll away -- I simply don't care anymore.

Buh-bye! Have fun!

Gerbil 148 (Edgar):
Thanks for pointing me towards the benchmarks, i wonder why AMD didn't link them themselves! :)
Actually i love that page, cause it's very good ammunition! 8)
Let's see: Not a SINGLE test where the Athlon is SLOWER than the P4!.. Why is that? Since Apple seems to be the only company testing to their advantage?

As we all know the P4 rocks in Q3A, but on AMDs page it suddenly is just as fast as the Athlon!
And we all know the P4 can really show its shiny new SSE2 in Video-editing applications like Ulead and Flask, why does the Athlon kick its ass in Video editing all of a sudden??

Well *gasp*, maybe that's cause [b]AMD chose the tests that suit themselves best![/b] Holy shit, who would have expected that?? Just like Apple!.. The EXACT SAME THING, only that Apple didn't provide the hardware specs as exact, but then again a) what difference would that make, b) you seem to forget that a Mac is not a System made of several compounds but a ready configured all-in-one computer (which is what they used for the P4 aswell assumably!)?..

About AMD and lies: What about that heavily modified DLL AMD tried to sneak into the test of C't? 8) Did you forget about that?

As for the rest of your posts: I haven't had OS X crash on me just a single time!.. Even OS 9 at work refuses to crash for over 8 weeks now!
My Windows98-PC crashes 2-3 times a day though... What are you saying? I shouldn't take Win98 but Win2k? Oh, right, sorry to tell you, but the world is running Win9x! <:-) And when you compare the latest M$-OS with the Mac then please use the latest Apple-OS aswell to be fair! Taling about selective judgement!...

And about my/our "poor shopping skills": The money i invested in my Mac was the best money i ever spent on Computers, i haven't hat that much fun with a Computer since my good old c64! Thanks very much, but I/we don't need the oh-so-clever advice from morons like you that feel like telling us what to buy!

"I don't hear Intel or AMD or most tech sites making wild statements about Macs."

Well - not about Macs, but what about this: "The 1.4GHz AMD Athlon processor-based systems with Double Data Rate (DDR) memory continue to outperform 1.7GHz Intel Pentium™ 4 processor-based systems by up to 40 percent on a variety of benchmarks, including cutting-edge multimedia, desktop publishing, digital imaging and voice recognition applications."

Wild claims or no, considering the fact that the P4 smokes the Athlon in certain tasks? <:-)
The same things are found on the Intel site.. when will you guys finally admit that IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING?!

[q]Only techie lowlifes like yourself actually care about insignificant shit like benchmarks, and i hate you guys for making the Mac-Community indulge in shit like that aswell when they never cared about things like that before...[/q]

"That is either one of the most profound psychological insights into the Macolyte mind I've ever read, or a very artful troll which deserves applause for excellence in trollery (but nothing else). Did you actually read what you wrote? It's absolutely soul-baring: you hate me because I made you look at reality... stunning!"

Well.. I'm sorry to tell you, but I've long passed that stage! 8) Thinking *you* made me look at benchmarks etc is somewhat ultra-arrogant, don't you think?
I was like you a few years back, but one day i woke up and realiyed the utter insignificance of shit like that when i couldn't actually make USE of all the power ma system showed in Benchmarks cause most of the time i spent configuring the system in Soft- and Hardware..

Yes, i actually read what i wrote, maybe that's why i wrote it - noone needs you techheads to tell them what they should buy, sorry to bring it to you, but the things your life revolves around (benchmarks, fps, Spec-figures etc) are completely insignificant to the largest part of the world and hence you are serious lowlifes that waste precious time on totally superfluous shit! <:-)