Originally posted by ketsueki15
i do know the machine dumb ass i have two comps...one mac for graphics and the pc for the games... and the claim of the Windows OS running faster than the linux.. i got that from the article at zdtv..im not gonna explain all the reasons just read the article urself...

if that's the case, CNET is full of crap:

Windows XP minimum system requirements:

• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
  


• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
  


• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
  


Linix minimum system requirements:

• No real processor requirement; one varity or another WILL run on your computer.
  


• 32 MB or RAM
  


• 400 MB hard disk space
  

...and about the right click most games that i play usualy the violent shooter require u 2 use the right click often not everyone has the cooridnation or watever need to hold the dam button down each time u use it

I guess I'm just gifted.

and about the apple shipping 64 bit and pcs shipping 32.. wrong.. the Intel's 64-bit Itanium is available for most PCs these day...

I'm talking system busses and motherboards here, not processors. So the Itanium is a 64 bit processor. Yippy-friggin'-do, my G4 is a 128 bit processor. Seriously, name me one name brand "Consumer" PC that will accept 8 gigs of RAM.

money comes to an issue to..yes macs are good for editing but the software for both mac/pc is way to expensive..700$ for adobe photshop.. and some of the macs are overpriced for wat they offer at apple.com..and yes i know there are overpriced Pc's as it is..

You pay for what you get. Apple overcharges a bit, but not as much as it seems when you consider that they use much higher quality components than most PC manufacturers. Tiger and Compaq computers are cheap because they don't care about quality. On top of that, Apple makes it's computers and their operating system, so both work together much more smoothly.

Of course, you can always build your own, but if you don't match all the components up well, you could be making a ton of trouble for yourself. A friend of mine once had a hell of a time finding a graphics card that would work with his motherboard. But that's what happens when you have thousands of manufacturers of every conceivable part on the computer; sometimes they aren't going to play nice together.

they dont get that high when it comes to megahertz either No, bits, mhz and so on are NOT rated differently. 1 Hz = 1 cycle per second no matter if your talking sound or processors..yes it probly sounds liek im hating on macs even tho i own one..probly cuz im been around pcs more and my mac gives me more problems..could jsut be my luck

You can't really compare PPC and x86 processors on a mhz/mhz basis. Yes, a clock cycle is a clock cycle and a hertz is a hertz. But the thing is that x86 and PPC processors use two totally different instruction sets and two totally different core designs. On paper, the PPC instruction set is 25% more efficient than the x86 instruction set; so in other words you give both a PPC and an x86 a job to do, call it "Task A," the x86 will use 100 operations to accomplish it, the PPC will use 75. That means on paper, the PPC can operate at 3/4 the clock speed of the x86 and perform equally well. The minute you start building processors though, the difference is exadurated; Intel has a "add it on now, make it work later" policy. For instance, initially, the MMX unit was attached to the same registers in the processor as the Integer Unit. That meant that the two parts could not function at the same time. On top of that; that costs you performance. Worse yet, the processor had to stop everything it was doing to switch between the two portions of the processor causing an even bigger performance hit. WORSE STILL, Intel never released the new MMX instructions to programmers, so it was up to programmers to figure out what it was. As I understand it, they finally fixed it with the P4, but that's just one small example of how Intel designs chips; they think about marketing THEN performance. In comparison, when Motorola developed AlitVec (which operates on the same principals of MMX), Motorola took the time to design the chip well, gave the AltiVec unit a nice beefy 128 bit set of registers so that all three units of the processor could work in unison and released not only the instructions, but also an emulator so that programmers could hit the grown running by the time the G4 came out. There are some operations where the AltiVec equipped PPC has a 40:1 performance advantage over any x86 processor. As a consequence, 500mhz G4s performed ON PAR with the first 1ghz Pentiums. And that's according to several PC magazines of the day. My computer nerd friend who I mentioned earlier estimates that a 2.8ghz P4 performs about on par with a theoretical 2ghz G4.

I'd keep going but I think this post is too long already.