OK well real utilization of 64-bit only came about in the mid-90s, went into practical use a little thereafter, and is still not utilized anywhere near its capacity today.
Maximum PC is really the last good PC mag out there. Wired is OK every now and then. Sites like HardOCP, Tom's Hardware and of course SlashDot are all essential.
I'll skip the "still run better" part because a top-of-the-line mac will get smoked by a maxed-out boutique PC as I've already stated multiple times.
Actually, if you want to get technical, there were 64-bit Itanium CPUs dating back to 2001 I think and Athlon 64s hit back in 2003.
I currently use a 64-bit install of XP and used Server 2003 for 3 months. There is a snappiness in these installs over the 32-counterparts. Most games even those that have to emulate a 32-bit environment run better, now that most of the drivers have been ironed out. And apps such as Office and the Adobe suits run better because they have been optimized.
Guess what? The speed of a CPU is fine and dandy, but it is by no means the ultimate determinate of a CPU's speed.
What would I tell you if I said a 2.66Ghz Pentium D (dual-core) runs faster than a 3.76Ghz Pentium 4? Wait, I suppose you would simply multiply 2.66 by 2 (dual-core, after all) to arrive at an effective "speed" of 5.32Ghz, roughly 71% faster than the 3.73Ghz Pentium 4, right?
OK. First off, "dll hell" is a catchphrase mindlessly thrown about by mac fanboys. Since the maturation of the NT filesystem and Windows 2000, Windows has been much, much more stable.
And all those "pc magazine(s)" are grossly misinformed if they think that a quad-core is just a dual core "times two". To say that is a gross simplification is a huge understatement.
And look to past issues of Maximum PC magazine, which does a "PC vs. mac" article every 16 months or so.
Despite its name, Maximum PC is actually pretty keen on macs. It acknowledges that while macs are technically closer to PCs than ever before they don't stand a chance against a PC from a boutique vendor such as Voodoo or Falcon NW or even a maxed-out Dell XPS.
I'd expect another "shootout" article in a few months. The mac will get clobbered once again, but unless the macs get DirectX 10 hardware, it won't even be close.
I used an OSX install for four months while studying abroad. It was usable, but I never had this "revelation" that all "switchers" rave about. I cut a few things with imovie, hung out with itunes for awhile. You know, standard fare.
That and all the benchmarks I run across featuring comparably-priced PCs knocking the hell out of macs running the same programs.
You can't just "add" the cores up. The CPUs are designed differently, the quads to be more efficient than the duals. So no, 2 duals don't "equal" a quad.
And it's pretty obvious if you abuse your install, be it Windows or mac, your computer will slow to a crawl. An operating system can not immunize itself permanently from a shitty user.
"dll hell"? "windoze"? Where do you get that, some anti-Microsoft newsgroup form 1998?
I love when you try to decry my computer usage and thus my character by saying "apparently games is all you are concerned about-i do much more in my computer". I'm not fucking impressed.
We all know that if you have a kick-ass gaming rig, it can perform all that "artsy" stuff that mac users rave about with aplomb - with the exception of a $1500 video card for the extreme stuff, which are available for PCs.
I cringe to think how much apple wants to charge for all this dated technology.
First off, your much better off losing the second Xeon and doubling up on the RAM. Besides, dual-core is sooooo 2006. Apple most likely wants about $800 for that. I'll take a quad-core Intel that can overclock, thanks.
That Radeon is a joke. It's midrange at best. I'm sure apple charges upwards of $400 for that part, money that can be better used on an 8800 GTS.
I'm betting that HDD has only an 8MB buffer. Gahhhh. It's like living in the middle ages. I'll take something with some 16MB flavor. And that optical. Ugghh. 18x drives are cheap. Seriously, one came in my box of Lucky Charms when I opened it up this morning.
It doesn't matter how many users own the best gear. It matters which platform allows them to do so. And no, I don't own an 8800. However, if I wanted one, the only obstacle would be lining up the cash to do so, not which platform I run. I built my PC roughly 18 months ago and it runs games better than macs that cost twice what it cost build my PC.
And BSD. Enjoy your CLI. I'll stay away, thanks. I neither have a want or need for that.
I love the corollary between a mac and a Ferrari. That's just too precious. You want a Ferrari? Configure a PC at Falcon NW or Voodoo.
Well, for one, macs can't run the most high-end gaming videocards, which allow users to play the best games. And the fact that almost every app that runs on both Windows and macs the PCs squarely dominate the macs in every benchmark.
Anyone who knows anything about computer tech knows that macs always, always lag behind PCs in hardware tech.
I'll just point to the 90% of all PCs that run Windows and the huge stable of high-end hardware that isn't even available for apple computers.
I will concede that macs are very pretty to look at and all of your cool "rebel" friends will definitely think you're a badass when they see your shiny, overpriced ibook lite or whatever.
juan or one
webgier 4 months ago
0:15 "We're the dancers!"
stainglassfox 1 year ago
Well, Juan If you used a "Windows Based" System for 15+ years and still never figured it out! Not sure, How your a project manager of anything.
xresx 2 years ago 8
@xresx You are right.
PM without supporting software?
Who writes the monologue for these commercials?
mozdonny 10 months ago
did you just say will smith is the head of the PC industry? i hope you get fucking shot and ran over you stupid fucking foreign motherfucker
Fliphouse089 5 years ago
OK well real utilization of 64-bit only came about in the mid-90s, went into practical use a little thereafter, and is still not utilized anywhere near its capacity today.
Maximum PC is really the last good PC mag out there. Wired is OK every now and then. Sites like HardOCP, Tom's Hardware and of course SlashDot are all essential.
I'll skip the "still run better" part because a top-of-the-line mac will get smoked by a maxed-out boutique PC as I've already stated multiple times.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Actually, if you want to get technical, there were 64-bit Itanium CPUs dating back to 2001 I think and Athlon 64s hit back in 2003.
I currently use a 64-bit install of XP and used Server 2003 for 3 months. There is a snappiness in these installs over the 32-counterparts. Most games even those that have to emulate a 32-bit environment run better, now that most of the drivers have been ironed out. And apps such as Office and the Adobe suits run better because they have been optimized.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Because you were fucking around with punchcards and waiting for those pieces of shit to spit an answer out while you ate lunch does not impress me.
You clearly have little grasp on modern computing other than what the occasional trip to Wikipedia and some shit publication like pc world tells you.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Sigh...
This is now getting painful.
Guess what? The speed of a CPU is fine and dandy, but it is by no means the ultimate determinate of a CPU's speed.
What would I tell you if I said a 2.66Ghz Pentium D (dual-core) runs faster than a 3.76Ghz Pentium 4? Wait, I suppose you would simply multiply 2.66 by 2 (dual-core, after all) to arrive at an effective "speed" of 5.32Ghz, roughly 71% faster than the 3.73Ghz Pentium 4, right?
Read up a little bit son and then get back to me.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Lol OK hold it right there junior.
There have been 64-bit (desktop) AMD or Intel CPUs for the better part of three years now and 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Vista.
I think we can end our conversation because "while i don't know exactly what that means, i know its the future for computing".
hikeskool 5 years ago
OK. First off, "dll hell" is a catchphrase mindlessly thrown about by mac fanboys. Since the maturation of the NT filesystem and Windows 2000, Windows has been much, much more stable.
And all those "pc magazine(s)" are grossly misinformed if they think that a quad-core is just a dual core "times two". To say that is a gross simplification is a huge understatement.
hikeskool 5 years ago
It was running natively on a g5.
And look to past issues of Maximum PC magazine, which does a "PC vs. mac" article every 16 months or so.
Despite its name, Maximum PC is actually pretty keen on macs. It acknowledges that while macs are technically closer to PCs than ever before they don't stand a chance against a PC from a boutique vendor such as Voodoo or Falcon NW or even a maxed-out Dell XPS.
hikeskool 5 years ago
I'd expect another "shootout" article in a few months. The mac will get clobbered once again, but unless the macs get DirectX 10 hardware, it won't even be close.
hikeskool 5 years ago
I used an OSX install for four months while studying abroad. It was usable, but I never had this "revelation" that all "switchers" rave about. I cut a few things with imovie, hung out with itunes for awhile. You know, standard fare.
That and all the benchmarks I run across featuring comparably-priced PCs knocking the hell out of macs running the same programs.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Lol no, not quite.
You can't just "add" the cores up. The CPUs are designed differently, the quads to be more efficient than the duals. So no, 2 duals don't "equal" a quad.
And it's pretty obvious if you abuse your install, be it Windows or mac, your computer will slow to a crawl. An operating system can not immunize itself permanently from a shitty user.
"dll hell"? "windoze"? Where do you get that, some anti-Microsoft newsgroup form 1998?
hikeskool 5 years ago
Zing! Here we go. I love this part.
I love when you try to decry my computer usage and thus my character by saying "apparently games is all you are concerned about-i do much more in my computer". I'm not fucking impressed.
We all know that if you have a kick-ass gaming rig, it can perform all that "artsy" stuff that mac users rave about with aplomb - with the exception of a $1500 video card for the extreme stuff, which are available for PCs.
hikeskool 5 years ago
We're still standing at the same place. Cutting edge PCs perform better running the same apps that macs run.
Try harder.
hikeskool 5 years ago
OK.
I cringe to think how much apple wants to charge for all this dated technology.
First off, your much better off losing the second Xeon and doubling up on the RAM. Besides, dual-core is sooooo 2006. Apple most likely wants about $800 for that. I'll take a quad-core Intel that can overclock, thanks.
That Radeon is a joke. It's midrange at best. I'm sure apple charges upwards of $400 for that part, money that can be better used on an 8800 GTS.
hikeskool 5 years ago
I'm betting that HDD has only an 8MB buffer. Gahhhh. It's like living in the middle ages. I'll take something with some 16MB flavor. And that optical. Ugghh. 18x drives are cheap. Seriously, one came in my box of Lucky Charms when I opened it up this morning.
Try harder.
hikeskool 5 years ago
It doesn't matter how many users own the best gear. It matters which platform allows them to do so. And no, I don't own an 8800. However, if I wanted one, the only obstacle would be lining up the cash to do so, not which platform I run. I built my PC roughly 18 months ago and it runs games better than macs that cost twice what it cost build my PC.
And BSD. Enjoy your CLI. I'll stay away, thanks. I neither have a want or need for that.
hikeskool 5 years ago
(Cue your whining about how apples have such a better "user experience" than PCs do.)
hikeskool 5 years ago
I love the corollary between a mac and a Ferrari. That's just too precious. You want a Ferrari? Configure a PC at Falcon NW or Voodoo.
Well, for one, macs can't run the most high-end gaming videocards, which allow users to play the best games. And the fact that almost every app that runs on both Windows and macs the PCs squarely dominate the macs in every benchmark.
Anyone who knows anything about computer tech knows that macs always, always lag behind PCs in hardware tech.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Nah that's OK.
I'll just point to the 90% of all PCs that run Windows and the huge stable of high-end hardware that isn't even available for apple computers.
I will concede that macs are very pretty to look at and all of your cool "rebel" friends will definitely think you're a badass when they see your shiny, overpriced ibook lite or whatever.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Let's see.
Of all those films, only Shaun of the Dead is worth anything, and that's due to its humor, not its editing or "technical achievements".
If you're trying to impress me, you're not doing a very good job.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Wow.
So I need to heed the advice of the makers one of the worst movies of 2004.
No. No thanks.
hikeskool 5 years ago
Sigh...
I would rather die than use final cut to throw together movies.
I can't think of any mac program I would use that is superior to a Windows counterpart.
hikeskool 5 years ago
"I do a lot more than I do on Windows."
What the hell does that mean?
There isn't anything you can do on a mac that you can't do on a PC.
Well, I guess you can play games on terribly dated (and overpriced) hardware through an emulated version of Windows.
That you can do. Is that what he was referring to?
hikeskool 5 years ago
i have try mac, it make me crazy!! I wish I never touch mac anymore
nasrulismail85 5 years ago
windows can suck my dick
hindu4life 5 years ago
actually it can't... yet...
but maybe when Vista comes out :P
RamzGT 5 years ago
lmao
Chamo21 5 years ago
Thanks ;)
RamzGT 5 years ago
It isn't about software, its the fact Mac Hardware sucks.
uberl337dave 5 years ago
prity kewl
spongey0007 5 years ago