Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by b1lanceman:
    YES MATTY I HAVE USED AN IMAC. I still havent recovered, imacs are the only thing my school uses now. I can use it for maybe 10 or 15 minutes before it crashes... thank god im changing schools next year.
    wow... that sucks, man, but, pretty obviously, imacs aren't built to crash... perhaps instead of blaming the machine, you might bring it up with the sys admin at your school, who might then be able to address the issue. don't blame the machine. there is definite human error at work here. as an (older) imac user who happily uses his machine on a daily basis, i know whereof i speak.
  2. #62  
    err heard of quake? it uses both.
    and look @ cost
    how much is 1 athalon + MB for it vs my setup
    like i said it's cheeper.
    same with halflife/counterstrike it utilizes both cpus.

    bsides i'm gona upgrade my system
    two new PIII 7??'s

    like i said befor my system mops the floor with my buddies athalons and pIII's without trying!

    what system do you havE?

    PS: the more power the better! i want 2 GHZ!
  3. #63  
    but i cant stand apple getting customers to buy computers that look good but perform badly
    How do iMac's perform "badly." They perform as advertised. I'm not sure why you are against that.

    Yes, I can get a more powerful machine for less $$...but so what? You are making this assumption that performance is first and foremost in everyone's mind when it comes to making a decision on a purchase. Just because style is not of interest to you does not mean that it isn't a very important factor for other people. You may shop at WalMart for the practical engineering, if somewhat pedestrian styling of their products while others will pay a hell of a lot more money and go to Dayton's simply because they prefer the more elegant stylings. Either option is acceptable. Just different.

    As for the iMac crashing every 15 minutes, that has everything to do with the software on the machine either not being updated, or severly mismanaged. That's your IT person's fault...not the machine's.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by piloteer:
    err heard of quake? it uses both.
    and look @ cost
    how much is 1 athalon + MB for it vs my setup
    like i said it's cheeper.
    same with halflife/counterstrike it utilizes both cpus.

    bsides i'm gona upgrade my system
    two new PIII 7??'s

    like i said befor my system mops the floor with my buddies athalons and pIII's without trying!
    I really can't trust what your saying in this post for two reasons.
    1: Only specially modified versions of Quake are capable of running two CPU's. I'm pretty sure that you don't have one of these modified versions because the only one that I've seen in action was at MIT where they were displaying a virtual reality machine. One of the processors was used to rune Quake (I beleive it was a PIII 733) and the other processor was used to run the virtual realtity (Goggles, gloves and assorted weapons)(This machine was some sort of Xenon PIII).
    2: This reason has to deal with the fact that you used a game to benchmark your system. Games (like Quake) use intense math equations to run faster. These operations are only found on the PII, PIII, K6-2(3D-Now), and Athalon processors. This is the reason that they have a higher price than the Celerons which do not contain these equations. I have a K6-2 350 that is overclocked to roughly 400-450 and it is faster on games than my celeron 550 (or 533, I'm not exactly sure of the speed) for the one reason that it contains the instructions needed to run the games more efficently than the celeron.

    [This message has been edited by BEN (edited 06-25-2000).]
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by Hoser_in_USA:
    i'll remember that the next time i see you driving down the street in your biege 1982 Suburban. that MUST be what you drive with an attitude like that.
    No, not a beige 1982 Suburban, but a practical, middle of the road 2000 Saturn SL1. When I set out to buy my car the #1 factors were reliability, safety, customer service, and consistent performance over the long term. Sure, style was also a factor, but not the first.

    The last car I bought, I bought for looks - a 1966 Ford Mustang. Looked great, was nothing but a pain in the ***.

    My car I have to look at every day, and sure, I'm glad it's a nice shiny silver in addition to being reliable and safe. My computer sits under my desk because it's NOT an objet d'art.
  6. mc9
    mc9 is offline
    mc9's Avatar
    59 Posts
    It's the same thing as Visor/Palm vs. PocketPC - fortunately not everybody has the same taste and same preferences when it comes to buying computers (or cars or clothes or whatever). Otherwise, we would not have one thing when we step into a store: choice. What is good or perfect for one's needs does not have to be as good for somebody else's needs.
    There is a market for the imac - as there is for every other computer brand (even HP's with shared RAM for Video and MB - yuck! ).

    There is no use trying to convince a build-it-yourself-freak that upgrades his system on a monthly basis (no insult intended - I also built my desktop system myself) to buy an all-in-one solution or somebody who just wants to send some emails, browse the web and do some word-processing to build a high-end system with premium components.
    Both sides have a point. With a system la imac you get an easy-to-use, nice-looking (depends on your taste, as I said, I don't like the design) system, the power user does extensive research and "composes" a system that has superior performance and possibily a better value for the money but when it comes to assembly and setup is on his own.

    You can argue for another 500 posts - BTW the original topic was computer design, not performance, but that's the cool thing about threads: you never know what will come out at the end - and you will not be able to proselytise (sp?) anybody...

    But I agree with Foo, a little more design wouldn't hurt, at least to have some choice...

    just my 2 cents...


    [This message has been edited by mc9 (edited 06-25-2000).]
  7. #67  
    Here's an idea for all of you "I'm gonna pay twice as much so I can get color" people!

    Step 1: Buy a can of spray paint in the color you want your computer to be.

    Step 2: remove your computer shell (assuming you have a minitower with a removable cover, if not, you may want some masking tape for all the cracks and such in your system.)

    Step 3: paint the cover! (not near your PC of course)

    I have a friend who wanted a black PC, and his machine looks great (he's an avid mac user who had to get a PC for school).

    On another note, all of you people who said a while back that "windows is stable" and "linux doesn't have a pretty gui environment": Windows is NOT stable. After using MS products for years now, I know, as should anyone else who's worked in windows for a while. And about linux not being pretty? Ever heard of the Linux interface Xwindows? Try it some time.

  8. #68  

    I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but keep in mind that this is not just about "color." It's about design in general. Color is merely one element of that. The Macs are well designed in several ways, the least of which is color. The iMac's have a great form to them, making them ideal for desktop display. They do not have any fans, making them exceptionally quit, they perform quite well, and, for being a full computer system, are fairly portable.

    As for Xwindows being pretty, I would say it is simply a bad implementation of Windows, which is really a half-assed implementation of the MacOS, which is really a take-off of Xerox PARC's initial GUIs. We're long overdue for a totallly new concpet in OS GUIs.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions