Why do Mac's exist?

[DaEezT]

Not really. The C64 BIOS never had the problems you highlight

Of course not, just trying to point out that just because a concept from 20 years worked exceedingly well on the problems from 20 years ago doesn't mean that if you multiply that concept by X you'll get a realistic picture of what that concept would be like today.

Any software which was available for both C64 and IBM PC, was better on the C64, and better still on the AMIGA. What made the C64 so strong was that it had a dedicated processor to every task: it could animate sprites, and play music, and make disk access, without slowing down it's number crunching. It lacked the memory to store the data of many tasks though.

The IBM PC had more number crunching potential, but because it relied on the CPU for everything (even to control addon components) the end result was much slower when running multi-media applications. Thus the concept of the IBM PC was flawed, and we are still stuck with these mistakes today: i.e. GeFORCE 6800 GT being bottle-necked by a CPU.

[...]

I choose to be realistic and keep comparissons to their respective eras. That makes the C64 an early 1980s computer, even if it continued to sell into 1996.

Although the hardware is old and slow, the C64 design concept can still be tested today. People have managed to get it running Linux, connect to the Internet, and display web pages. Results are fugly because it's hardware is so antiquated, but succesfully running the multi-tasking kernel is "proof of concept". I don't think an equally aged IBM PC can pull that off.

The PCs from 20 years ago didn't have today's bottleneck problem either and even tho it's founded on a "flaw" in the architecture that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been evaded. The different hardware manufacturers have been scaling their hardware out of porpotion (mostly CPU and GFX that is) without working together, thus we ended up with those severe imbalances at certain points (CPU/anything, GFX/anything ) aka bottlenecks.
Only now do they finally agree on something useful instead of working against each other withing the PC.

The concept of different processors for different task but still withing one nice architecture doesn't work for today's computing needs. The different areas like 3D GFX, sound, raw numbercrunching etc are too specialized to assume that an old all-in-one concept would work just as efficient today as is did 20 years ago.

I say let the specialist do their best in their field to make new GPUs, CPUs, Pizzas etc, but make them work together. I wouldn't want to give up my freedom of choice when it comes to hardware to make it fit my computing needs. Maybe that's why I don't own a Mac even tho Macs rock at video & picture editing

And just for the record: my first PC was a 166 MHz Pentium, until that it was Commodore and Amiga (had to change floppies 5 times before I even got over that bloody bridge in Monkey Island 2....).

Oh and: I bet someone did get a 20 year old PC to do that C64 thingie

 

[stormbind]

I call your bluff. Find me a link that shows a 20 year old PC running Linux, Internet, and Browser - I don't care about the quality, because quality is pretty abysmal on a C64 aswell

Graphics, sound, crunching, were always too specialist. It just took the PC industry 20 years to admit it

My computers (so you know) ... though I used other machines including the IBM PC, IBM PC2, and various clones.

Commodore 16
Commodore 64 (Final Cartridge III 80Kb GUI, GeOS)
Macintosh LC (Daystar FPU, Daystar fastcache, MacOS 7.1, 100% SCSI)
Pentium 200 MMX (3Dfx Voodoo, Windows 95)

Everything else I owned has been a PC. You should have bought yourself a HDD for that Amiga

The PC does offer choice. It always did! But back when it was designed, the choice for IBM PC owners looked like:

With monochrome video output... or, no video output!
With beeper sound output... or, no sound output!

Create Labs Sound Blaster was about the first thing to challenge the Commodore. That's when the C64 would have benefited from internal expansion slots (it had external ones), but this comparisson of sound capability isn't fair to the original year of release. The C64 really should have been discontinued a long time before the PC caught up!

The real pain in Commodore's aproach came later. Their software ran straight on the BIOS (no seperate OS) which made it difficult to port software to newer models...

When upgrading from VIC20... C16/Plus4... C64... the software from one system refused to work on the other systems. This really hurt customer loyalty.

Commodore tried to make things easier/cheaper for consumers by adding backwards-compatibility to newer models, but that only made things worse! The C128 had a "GO64" mode which effectively turned it into a C64.

This meant, all new software was written for the C64 and developers completely ignored the C128! So where was the incentive to upgrade? Consumers had gone from grudgingly upgrading, to not bothering.

That was still in the 1980s, but Commodore never found the solution.

With moden view: If they had some means of updating the existing BIOS, to patch the old C64 computers to handle C128 code (and run it very slowly), they would have been OK... but they didn't have a Website and Flash-Roms!

 

[Padma]

I remember when IBM joined the "Home computer" market, with the original IBM PC. My first thought was, "this is going to set the computer back by 20 years." And I was right. It wasn't until Win95 that the PC had anything close to the capabilities that my original Atari had.

 

[HAND]

I like apple macs.. although ive never owned one. I learned virtually everything on apple mac's.. About 90% of my old school computers were Macs... They only had a few PC's ..

 

[toh6wy]

I thought I'd run this by y'all. I have a PC. But some people I know have Macs. Can anyone explain why for Christs' Sake??? They hardly have any games, and half the time stuff isn't compatible from Mac to PC. I think Gates should just buy out Apple and get rid of it so I don't have to either work on a project entirely at home or entirely at school because the school has one and I have the other...

1. Macs have plenty of games, and even plenty that Windows doesn't - and if there is a game you must have that's Windows-only, there's always Virtual PC. (and the extra cost is worth it for the hardware design and OS interface and stability many, many times over)

2. Did you ever notice that while Macs can open standard files from Windows without significant problems most of the time, Windows can hardly ever even recognize files made on Macs? Or, that Macs detect files on Windows-only CD's, but Windows cannot detect files on Mac-only CD's? Which OS is at fault here?

Can anyone explain to me why *PC's* exist?! The only thing they have going for them are that they're the industry standard, usually slightly cheaper, and have more products made specifically for them. Macs are as good or better in every other way that I can think of.

 

[Thrawn]

Mac's exist because people use them.

 

[Verbose]

elfangor801:
Your Mac-owning friends, do they do graphics design? PC may be standard most everywhere else, but the graphics design people seem to be a solid Mac-community.

 

[DaEezT]

I call your bluff. Find me a link that shows a 20 year old PC running Linux, Internet, and Browser - I don't care about the quality, because quality is pretty abysmal on a C64 aswell

You win!

If I knew where to find a screenshot I would have posted it in the first place
And tbh my statement was more founded on my believe that Linux runs on anything that can run an OS than love for a 20 year old PC

 

[Nixnutz]

Macs exist because they are good....

I work with PC's and have both at home.

Best thing I can say about PCs and Windows is that Windows is keeping me gainfully employed.

Oh...and by the way...for all you who think PCs are cheaper than Macs...check out this link - http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

 

[Neomega]

Macs exist because they have marketing, and that is it. Something with that much marketing attached to it, and you are paying to be sold the product. That kind of marketing costs beaucoup bucks.

IBM compatible PCs exist because Apple thought they could corner the market by making their parts exclusive to apple.

Upgrading is good, and helpful. I only have 512 megs of ram from a previous pc in my new pc, in six months to a year, I plan to pop in 2 gigs of high speed ram, when it is cheaper, and I need it more.



But Mac lovers will always insist they have something better.

:devil2:

 

[Comraddict]

commodore 64 with 2.7MHz CPU is not better than anything. 16 colors, not 256, but not you cannot put any color on any pixel, because there is no enough video memory.

And OS is BASIC prompt.

You must be kidding dude. There is nothing as primitive as C-64. and comparing it to 1st step in PC history is not worth discussion.

 

[B-52]

I like the way Comraddict manages to be both condescending and barely coherent. It's very impressive.

Also, OS X sounds pretty damn spiffy. You've got a nice Unix backend if you need it, popular commercial software and hardware compatability isn't an issue. Or so I hear, I have yet to use it. If I were purchasing a new computer I would give the new Mac's some serious consideration.

 

[Nixnutz]

.....
But Mac lovers will always insist they have something better.

:devil2:

We Mac lovers insist we have something better.....cuz we do!!

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Macs exist mainly because of their looks. Their interface and their hardware are some of the most stylish available. They used to be superior for things like sound and video editing but recent benchmarks show that they have fallen behind. And most of those tests didn't include dual processor pc's even though the G-5 uses 2 processors. With a Mac you don't get any better than a G-5 so the quality of the components is mediocre when compared to an Alienware pc or a any hi-end pc's.

 

[Nixnutz]

Ah....the ol' benchmark argument...the looks...marketing???? Shees.

Tired arguments all...

I don't care about benchmark tests, they're all suspect...yes even the ones that say Macs are faster.

I don't care about the software thing. Any really good software or games, available for PC, are available for Mac. Gee, even Office is out there for Mac.

Marketing???? How many Microsoft ads are out there compared to Mac? One major reason that PCs hold such a huge lead is Microsoft's marketing of an inferior product during the 90's. (Yes, I do know and admit that Apple screwed up big time in that same period.)

The cost thing....check out that link I provided earlier.....and those Alienware game consoles are a more expensive than a top end dual processor Mac.

Uh, do I need remind the PC folks that the original Windows logo was created on a Mac????

I'd like to know how many of the PC backers have used Macs for an extended period of time in a real life work setting and not just silliness at home.

I reiterate...I worked with Macs from the start (graphics and photo) and will always have one at home. I have 8 years in on PC's (photo, website design and see below).

The only good thing I can say about PCs is that it keeps me gainfully employed.

With apologies to the Jeep marketers..."It's a Mac thing...you wouldn't understand."

And what do I do in real life?

Network Security.

You know...chasing hackers, viruses, adware, spyware.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Ah....the ol' benchmark argument...the looks...marketing???? Shees.

Tired arguments all...

I don't care about benchmark tests, they're all suspect...yes even the ones that say Macs are faster.

I don't care about the software thing. Any really good software or games, available for PC, are available for Mac. Gee, even Office is out there for Mac.

Marketing???? How many Microsoft ads are out there compared to Mac? One major reason that PCs hold such a huge lead is Microsoft's marketing of an inferior product during the 90's. (Yes, I do know and admit that Apple screwed up big time in that same period.)

The cost thing....check out that link I provided earlier.....and those Alienware game consoles are a more expensive than a top end dual processor Mac.

Uh, do I need remind the PC folks that the original Windows logo was created on a Mac????

I'd like to know how many of the PC backers have used Macs for an extended period of time in a real life work setting and not just silliness at home.

I reiterate...I worked with Macs from the start (graphics and photo) and will always have one at home. I have 8 years in on PC's (photo, website design and see below).

The only good thing I can say about PCs is that it keeps me gainfully employed.

With apologies to the Jeep marketers..."It's a Mac thing...you wouldn't understand."

And what do I do in real life?

Network Security.

You know...chasing hackers, viruses, adware, spyware.

No the G-5 is more expensive. The PowerMac G-5s start at almost $3000, the Alienware starts at around $2000. At the starting price the Alienware system has one 3.4ghz cpu and 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz. The G5 is starts with only 512 MB DDR SDRAM at 400 MHz. The only advantage for the G5 is that it starts with a 150gb hd vs 120gb. A top of the line $6300 G5 runs most Photoshop tasks 2 to 4 times slower then the top of the line PCs. Thats comparing a dual processing system which is made for sound and video editing vs a single cpu gaming system. A top line system starting at about 3 grand should not use old 400mghz DDR SDRAM. For the memory bandwidth intensive programs the G5 was built for it should be using better components entirely.

Alienware and most other pc makers make similar systems to the G5 which are much more powerfull and you get more for your money. They are called workstations. For $3500 you can get a dual 3.6ghz xeon system which will put a G5 to shame. And the dual opertons have lower clock speeds than the G5 and still render, rip, and encode faster then the G5.

Another problem with Macs is they have limited expansion: 1 optical drive, only 2 hard drives. Very important when working with large sound and video files.

Benchmarking arguments are not tired. You can view some good benchmarks from nuetral parties and none of recent ones are in favor of the G5. They are much more practical then your arguments which use zero data and basically no comparisons of the hardware you are talking about. When it comes to comparing the components such as the memory, expansion slots, power supplies etc well thats concrete evidence that you can't disregard.

You haven't made one good argument for the Mac as far as performance goes.

As far as using Macs goes, I started out on that platform and moved to the pc because I liked building my own systems and having a wider array of components. A lot of people started out with the Mac. I still use them sometimes when all the PCs in the computer lab are full. They are Nice looking, stable and the liquid cooling is a plus, but the box offers no real performance advantages. I have yet to hear a Mac person explain how last generation components are better then the newer ones. It still suprises me how many Mac users don't even know whats inside their boxes.

 

[Broken_Erika]

i have a tandy 1000, it's built like a tank, it has never been serviced and it still
runs as smooth as silk, thenagain it has spent 10 years in the closet

 

[MarineCorps]

I'd like to know how many of the PC backers have used Macs for an extended period of time in a real life work setting and not just silliness at home.

Me! My school system uses 98% macs. All the labs are filled with macs so I use them all the time. And I FRIGGIN hate them. Hate hate hate hate. Never enjoyed using them. Much happeor on a PC.

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly, I dont know how Macs would survive with the gaming industry. The Majority of the [computer] games made today are geared more twards windows computers. I have only seen on rare ocasions when there are games for Macs.

I know my College only use them for there graphics department since I heard that they do well with photographs and other graphic design.

I am much happier on a windows machine .