|
Post by moon on Sept 15, 2003 1:38:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ed1 on Sept 15, 2003 2:55:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by goldsmith on Sept 15, 2003 6:52:50 GMT -8
I'd love to have a 'mac', but the price is always way up there, compared to an equivalent 'PC'
When I bought my new box, a 'mac' with the same 'bells and whistles' was around a thousand dollars more.
|
|
|
Post by SirTfireball on Sept 15, 2003 7:45:40 GMT -8
How much & can I run it through my TV?
|
|
|
Post by ed1 on Sept 15, 2003 8:22:51 GMT -8
A mac through a tv what a sacrilege.
|
|
|
Post by edification on Sept 15, 2003 18:05:13 GMT -8
Question to your gents (ladies too ) Just how fast does it really need to be? Personally, I think I'm good for quite a bit......... I've simply nothing I need to run any faster.......
|
|
|
Post by ed1 on Sept 15, 2003 18:30:53 GMT -8
If you're doing any video processing 2G is nice. Anymore is just bragging rights for the average home user. I'm sure there are some applications, especially design and engineering that can eat up all of the processing power you can give them. So there is a need for power, but to a specific group. I personally upgraded from a AMD Athlon Classic 900Mhz to a AMD Athlon XP2700 mainly to run a web cam along with other apps and surfing simultaneously. The 900 just couldn't take all of the video demands.
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Sept 15, 2003 19:39:03 GMT -8
If you're doing any video processing 2G is nice. Anymore is just bragging rights for the average home user. I'm sure there are some applications, especially design and engineering that can eat up all of the processing power you can give them. So there is a need for power, but to a specific group. I personally upgraded from a AMD Athlon Classic 900Mhz to a AMD Athlon XP2700 mainly to run a web cam along with other apps and surfing simultaneously. The 900 just couldn't take all of the video demands. yeah yeah, you just wanted to be better than me!
|
|
|
Post by ed1 on Sept 15, 2003 19:46:40 GMT -8
Not hard, your Canadian. Besides I didn't take 2 vacations this summer.
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Sept 15, 2003 19:56:23 GMT -8
Oh!!!!!!! Ya, well.............................. my moms better then yours!!!
|
|
|
Post by edification on Sept 15, 2003 20:06:45 GMT -8
If you're doing any video processing 2G is nice. Anymore is just bragging rights for the average home user. Yep. I think the 64 will take quite some time to be worth the price tag....but maybe I'd change my tune if I had more money lol.......
|
|
|
Post by goldsmith on Sept 16, 2003 6:47:13 GMT -8
My brother Dave, works at penn state university, in the computer sciences department.
He's a graphic artist, and does a huge amount of their artwork, for the web, and various publications.
He presently uses a g4, with all the bells and whistles.
The 'mac's' have what it takes for the various graphic programs he uses in his work. They tried 'pc's', but they just can't cut it for the applications in use.
He should be upgrading to the g5 soon, since they always keep him supplied with top of the line equipment.
Naturally, he LOVES his work, and spends from 6:00am, til 7:00pm every day at the shop.
Must be nice!
|
|
|
Post by edification on Sept 16, 2003 15:49:28 GMT -8
I bet he does but he's the minority I think. Intel agrees with me : www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32839.html"How many [users] have seen the crippling 4GB limit on their desktop PCs?" he asked. Today, he claimed, there aren't apps that need more than the 4GB offered by virtual memory schemes, let alone however much physical memory is available. So when will 64-bit computing on the desktop become a necessity? "As a rule of thumb, address space [requirements] consume a bit every two years," he said. "We're at 1GB now and starting to see 2GB. So we're probably about three of four years away from really needing that 4GB "
|
|
|
Post by loren on Sept 16, 2003 16:27:58 GMT -8
there is almost nothing that requires more than 1.5GHz.... ( if there is a widely used program that has a minimum requirement of over 1GHz processor speed, please let me know: because I would love to have it!) unless you are hopeing to run competition with a CRAYII ...basically it boils down to bragging rights........ unless you are plotting the trajectory of an incoming nuke!, and desperately need to know whether you can run 5 or 7 or 9 feet before your 'butt' becomes 'ash' ! ...or work for a publicly funded institution that can get away with blowing the taxpayers hard earned money on unwarranted toys for those that have a "computer 'penis-envy' fixation". (don't hit me goldie! )
|
|
|
Post by goldsmith on Sept 16, 2003 19:32:21 GMT -8
You would be amazed at how much faster applications like adobe photoshop run on a faster computer.
Some of the pictures I work with run 30 or 40 megabytes. By the time I've got done manipulating them, the computer may be holding ten or fifteen copies in memory, at various 'undo' stages.
When I click save on a computer running at 233Mhz (this one) I have to wait ten or fifteen seconds till it's actually saved.
On my 2.35Ghz PC, maybe a second or so.
On my brothers G4 mac, pretty much as fast as he can click.
Do you need more than a Gig of speed? Well, that depends on what you do with your computer.
Try a faster computer, even for simple things, you won't want to go back.
Yep...I agree, some folks just want bragging rights. They want the biggest and the fastest. I don't think that's what the new G5 mac is about. Give it time, more 64 bit applications will be developed, and we'll all start feeling like we're back to running commodore 64's.
|
|