A PC user's view of the G4 vs G5 debate

Jon B <jon.bradburyusenetspam@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:00:17 +0000,
> > real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

[eMac horror ;-)]

> Compartively to a iMac yes, to any other system I'd say not, the eMac is
> a tad bigger than any ordinary 17" monitor, it has a short throw crt
> which means it is no deeper than a 15" iMac, and it also doesn't require
> a dirty great tower sitting along side it which takes up x amount of
> desk/under desk space.

I agree that it's huge, it can't be denied! But the screen does not seem
terrible.

> > Didn't someone in here recently buy an eMac with a screen fault? Yes,
> > I am sure about that.
> >
> There goes Mike with his single digit samples again, 1 faulty eMac in
> one known does not make 100% problem area, here let me add another two
> samples to it, Bellas got a second one its fine (touch wood don't want
> to jinx her), a collegue of mine has got a 1ghz at home, thats also
> fine, see we've already dropped from your 100% failure rate figures to
> 33%, and I still don't class that as a large enough sample personally.

I am as yet unjinxed. :-) If this one goes tits-up, I will say 'Damn',
make a fuss, and then get an iMac. I agree with Mike, though, that there
does seem to be a large number of dodgy monitors around, and that Apple
should say something, as they did with the iBooks.

> > What computers do you listen to? It sounds like a vacuum cleaner. It
> > was even louder than my SFF PC which makes an horrific racket.
> >
> Noise on these varies in my experience, one of ours is pretty quiet, but
> the other does make a bit more noise but its still not as loud as a MDD
> G4

It's loud in the sense that a flock of bees in the distance might be
loud. I'm quite liking the fan noise, as it takes the edge off the
noises outside. It's in no way a distraction, and I almost miss it when
it's off.

> I've not worked at a 1ghz eMac but I'm sat here at a 933 G4 iBooks which
> has a slower HD, possibly a slightly faster sys bus and I still wouldn't
> say it was slow, for most tasks it is more than adequate. It gets used
> for day to day accounts/wp/web/photoshop [1]/tech, I've had no
> complaints about speed from the 700mhz eMacs except the time I forgot to
> stick the 256mb ram chip in it and it was still running 128mb, then I'll
> admit is was dog slow, but then most macs running 128mb and osX are dog
> slow.

No probs with photoshop etc here on 256mb, but I will be getting more
memory at some point soon.

NB I am not making the best of a bad job here. Budgets are budgets. Like
I said recently, technically I could have got a flasher one, but decided
not to.


--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk

Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:

> >> I would consider these factors to be indicative of
> >> an appallingly low quality product, but maybe I have very high
> >> expectations of £650 computers or something.
> >
> >And how many of those £650 computers are Macs?
>
> What has that got to do with anything? Is it OK for a slow, expensive,
> badly made box to be slow, expensive and badly made just because it
> has an Apple badge on it?

I still disagree with your assessment of the eMac, but never mind. I
don't see the point of comparing a Mac with another computer, only with
another Mac.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:41:59 +0000,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>I still disagree with your assessment of the eMac, but never mind. I
>don't see the point of comparing a Mac with another computer, only with
>another Mac.

Why on earth not? For someone who definitely hates Windows and all it
stands for I can sort of understand it, but for Average Computer Buyer
it's a valid comparison.

--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W49D31BA1

Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:

> >I still disagree with your assessment of the eMac, but never mind. I
> >don't see the point of comparing a Mac with another computer, only with
> >another Mac.
>
> Why on earth not?

Because another computer wouldn't be a Mac.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

Mike Jenkins wrote:
>
> Why on earth not? For someone who definitely hates Windows and all it
> stands for I can sort of understand it, but for Average Computer Buyer
> it's a valid comparison.

Average Computer Buyer is a Windows-user.


--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 MRC Lab of Mol Biol
rpg 'at' mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
-- Protein Crystals 'R' Us --

On 2 Mar 2004 15:39:58 GMT, rpg14@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P.
Grant) wrote:

>Mike Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> Why on earth not? For someone who definitely hates Windows and all it
>> stands for I can sort of understand it, but for Average Computer Buyer
>> it's a valid comparison.
>
>Average Computer Buyer is a Windows-user.

Why?

--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W49D31BA1

Mike Jenkins wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2004 15:39:58 GMT, rpg14@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P.
> Grant) wrote:
>
>>Mike Jenkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Why on earth not? For someone who definitely hates Windows and all it
>>> stands for I can sort of understand it, but for Average Computer Buyer
>>> it's a valid comparison.
>>
>>Average Computer Buyer is a Windows-user.
>
> Why?

Sturgeon, I guess.


--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 MRC Lab of Mol Biol
rpg 'at' mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
-- Number two section - Scramble! --

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:

> Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:
>
> > >I still disagree with your assessment of the eMac, but never mind. I
> > >don't see the point of comparing a Mac with another computer, only with
> > >another Mac.
> >
> > Why on earth not?
>
> Because another computer wouldn't be a Mac.

To exaggerate in order to prove a point, if Macs started at
£1,945,954.76 and Another Computers came free with a packet of Coco
Pops, would you still not see the point in comparing Macs with Another
Computers?

Whoever you are, at some point the price differential between Macs and
Another Computers will outweigh the advantages of owning a Mac. So it is
worth comparing, just to see whether that differential has been reached.


-z-

--
eh?

Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

> Jon B <jon.bradburyusenetspam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:00:17 +0000,
> > > real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
> [eMac horror ;-)]
>
> > Compartively to a iMac yes, to any other system I'd say not, the eMac is
> > a tad bigger than any ordinary 17" monitor, it has a short throw crt
> > which means it is no deeper than a 15" iMac, and it also doesn't require
> > a dirty great tower sitting along side it which takes up x amount of
> > desk/under desk space.
>
> I agree that it's huge, it can't be denied! But the screen does not seem
> terrible.
>
looked okay at the expo and when i've wandered though pc world etc....

> > > Didn't someone in here recently buy an eMac with a screen fault? Yes,
> > > I am sure about that.
> > >
> > There goes Mike with his single digit samples again, 1 faulty eMac in
> > one known does not make 100% problem area, here let me add another two
> > samples to it, Bellas got a second one its fine (touch wood don't want
> > to jinx her), a collegue of mine has got a 1ghz at home, thats also
> > fine, see we've already dropped from your 100% failure rate figures to
> > 33%, and I still don't class that as a large enough sample personally.
>
> I am as yet unjinxed. :-) If this one goes tits-up, I will say 'Damn',
> make a fuss, and then get an iMac. I agree with Mike, though, that there
> does seem to be a large number of dodgy monitors around, and that Apple
> should say something, as they did with the iBooks.
>
must sell more emacs though? compared to ibooks. though i would argue
that macs are stronger on the portable side rather than the desktopside.

> > > What computers do you listen to? It sounds like a vacuum cleaner. It
> > > was even louder than my SFF PC which makes an horrific racket.
> > >
> > Noise on these varies in my experience, one of ours is pretty quiet, but
> > the other does make a bit more noise but its still not as loud as a MDD
> > G4
>
> It's loud in the sense that a flock of bees in the distance might be
> loud. I'm quite liking the fan noise, as it takes the edge off the
> noises outside. It's in no way a distraction, and I almost miss it when
> it's off.
>
the 6400 had a nice low sounding fan which i quite liked sort of
soothing compared to lot of pc's which sound like they about to take
off...

> > I've not worked at a 1ghz eMac but I'm sat here at a 933 G4 iBooks which
> > has a slower HD, possibly a slightly faster sys bus and I still wouldn't
> > say it was slow, for most tasks it is more than adequate. It gets used
> > for day to day accounts/wp/web/photoshop [1]/tech, I've had no
> > complaints about speed from the 700mhz eMacs except the time I forgot to
> > stick the 256mb ram chip in it and it was still running 128mb, then I'll
> > admit is was dog slow, but then most macs running 128mb and osX are dog
> > slow.
>
> No probs with photoshop etc here on 256mb, but I will be getting more
> memory at some point soon.
>
yup memory helps when budget allows i might take powerbook to 1gb as i
do tend to page out at 640mb not that much but enought.

> NB I am not making the best of a bad job here. Budgets are budgets. Like
> I said recently, technically I could have got a flasher one, but decided
> not to.

well i made the choise with the powerbook that is the 15incher was
faster but older and more expesive i decied after a play with it at a
apple center that i could live with a tichy screen and that the power
loss would be neglibule really, and that i would gain with battery life
and other issues.

roger

zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Because another computer wouldn't be a Mac.
>
> To exaggerate in order to prove a point, if Macs started at
> £1,945,954.76 and Another Computers came free with a packet of Coco
> Pops, would you still not see the point in comparing Macs with Another
> Computers?

If it were the choice of (say) an up-to-date Windows machines with all
the bells and whistles against an SE/30, I would choose the SE/30.

So long as I could usefully do my work on it, the things I needed to do,
I'd always choose the Mac, because I could do my work more comfortably,
more happily, and faster.

Daniele "... and it would have a one-button mouse" Procida
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

Roger Merriman <wodgernews@fastmail.fm> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> > I agree that it's huge, it can't be denied! But the screen does not seem
> > terrible.
> >
> looked okay at the expo and when i've wandered though pc world etc....

Yes, me too. Although it did look a bit plasticky, it was very good for
the price. Just go and check out a budget PC tower case.

<Snipped Text>
> > I am as yet unjinxed. :-) If this one goes tits-up, I will say 'Damn',
> > make a fuss, and then get an iMac. I agree with Mike, though, that there
> > does seem to be a large number of dodgy monitors around, and that Apple
> > should say something, as they did with the iBooks.
> >
> must sell more emacs though? compared to ibooks. though i would argue
> that macs are stronger on the portable side rather than the desktopside.

Yes, they do come out higher in a lot of surveys.

<Snipped Text>
> the 6400 had a nice low sounding fan which i quite liked sort of
> soothing compared to lot of pc's which sound like they about to take
> off...

You never heard a 5200 then?

<Snipped Text>
> > No probs with photoshop etc here on 256mb, but I will be getting more
> > memory at some point soon.
> >
> yup memory helps when budget allows i might take powerbook to 1gb as i
> do tend to page out at 640mb not that much but enought.

You may not get any benefit if you're on Panther. My 1.5GB G5 pages out
a lot, and it's still only showing no more than 40% usage.

> > NB I am not making the best of a bad job here. Budgets are budgets. Like
> > I said recently, technically I could have got a flasher one, but decided
> > not to.
>
> well i made the choise with the powerbook that is the 15incher was
> faster but older and more expesive i decied after a play with it at a
> apple center that i could live with a tichy screen and that the power
> loss would be neglibule really, and that i would gain with battery life
> and other issues.

That's what it's all about, choices. You have to decide your own needs
and wants, and use that as a base on what to buy.

It's quite possible that a Mac may not be the best thing to buy.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >I still disagree with your assessment of the eMac, but never mind. I
> > > >don't see the point of comparing a Mac with another computer, only with
> > > >another Mac.
> > >
> > > Why on earth not?
> >
> > Because another computer wouldn't be a Mac.
>
> To exaggerate in order to prove a point, if Macs started at
> £1,945,954.76 and Another Computers came free with a packet of Coco
> Pops, would you still not see the point in comparing Macs with Another
> Computers?
>
> Whoever you are, at some point the price differential between Macs and
> Another Computers will outweigh the advantages of owning a Mac. So it is
> worth comparing, just to see whether that differential has been reached.

Good point that.

However, I honestly don't believe that there is an easy comparison in
price ranges between PC's and Macs. We already saw in a previous thread
that you could spend an awful lot more on a PC to get almost identical
features and performance.

For a start, what quality would you put the eMac screen at - £80 cheapy,
or £200 high level?

Then there's speakers, and USB, FireWire and a built in modem, as well
as Ethernet. Most of this you don't get at all in a low end PC.

Once you start to match feature for feature, you cannot buy a PC to
match the Macs for the price.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@spamcop.net> wrote:

> However, I honestly don't believe that there is an easy comparison in
> price ranges between PC's and Macs. We already saw in a previous thread
> that you could spend an awful lot more on a PC to get almost identical
> features and performance.

I thought we found that they cost roughly the same when you didn't go
ordering ultra high end CPUs and SCSI hardware for the PC.

> For a start, what quality would you put the eMac screen at - £80 cheapy,
> or £200 high level?

I would put it roughly at the same quality as an £80 LG monitor, which
funnily enough is exactly what it is. Even a £100 AOC offers a clearer
picture and higher refresh rates.

> Then there's speakers, and USB, FireWire and a built in modem, as well
> as Ethernet. Most of this you don't get at all in a low end PC.

Yes, you do.

> Once you start to match feature for feature, you cannot buy a PC to
> match the Macs for the price.

Yes, you could probably buy two for the same price as an eMac.

--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast / Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F20712757

Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Roger Merriman <wodgernews@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
> > > I agree that it's huge, it can't be denied! But the screen does not seem
> > > terrible.
> > >
> > looked okay at the expo and when i've wandered though pc world etc....
>
> Yes, me too. Although it did look a bit plasticky, it was very good for
> the price. Just go and check out a budget PC tower case.
>
well yes my mum has a cheap PC and it is cheap and tacky much more so
than a emac.

> <Snipped Text>
> > > I am as yet unjinxed. :-) If this one goes tits-up, I will say 'Damn',
> > > make a fuss, and then get an iMac. I agree with Mike, though, that there
> > > does seem to be a large number of dodgy monitors around, and that Apple
> > > should say something, as they did with the iBooks.
> > >
> > must sell more emacs though? compared to ibooks. though i would argue
> > that macs are stronger on the portable side rather than the desktopside.
>
> Yes, they do come out higher in a lot of surveys.
>
yup, and its that power/weight/batterlife ratio which the
powerbooks/ibooks have.

> <Snipped Text>
> > the 6400 had a nice low sounding fan which i quite liked sort of
> > soothing compared to lot of pc's which sound like they about to take
> > off...
>
> You never heard a 5200 then?
>
no are they noisy then?
> <Snipped Text>
> > > No probs with photoshop etc here on 256mb, but I will be getting more
> > > memory at some point soon.
> > >
> > yup memory helps when budget allows i might take powerbook to 1gb as i
> > do tend to page out at 640mb not that much but enought.
>
> You may not get any benefit if you're on Panther. My 1.5GB G5 pages out
> a lot, and it's still only showing no more than 40% usage.
>
just had a fiddle with the imac didn't page out once, loaded big apps
did stuff but no paging out its got 1gb of ram with Panther i'm guessing
your paging out is some G5 thing? the imac has a grant total of 9 page
outs, been running for a while now....since few weeks back when had a
powercut.

the powerbook runs with 20mb or less most of the time....so a 1gb chip
should help those load moments etc.



> > > NB I am not making the best of a bad job here. Budgets are budgets. Like
> > > I said recently, technically I could have got a flasher one, but decided
> > > not to.
> >
> > well i made the choise with the powerbook that is the 15incher was
> > faster but older and more expesive i decied after a play with it at a
> > apple center that i could live with a tichy screen and that the power
> > loss would be neglibule really, and that i would gain with battery life
> > and other issues.
>
> That's what it's all about, choices. You have to decide your own needs
> and wants, and use that as a base on what to buy.
>
> It's quite possible that a Mac may not be the best thing to buy.

indeed particully as apple suport is somewhat flaky away further away
from big cites you go.

roger

Roger Merriman <wodgernews@fastmail.fm> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> > Yes, me too. Although it did look a bit plasticky, it was very good for
> > the price. Just go and check out a budget PC tower case.
> >
> well yes my mum has a cheap PC and it is cheap and tacky much more so
> than a emac.

Exactly.

> > <Snipped Text>

> > <Snipped Text>
> > > the 6400 had a nice low sounding fan which i quite liked sort of
> > > soothing compared to lot of pc's which sound like they about to take
> > > off...
> >
> > You never heard a 5200 then?
> >
> no are they noisy then?

Eh?

Yes, noisy hard drives, and fans.

> > <Snipped Text>
> > > > No probs with photoshop etc here on 256mb, but I will be getting more
> > > > memory at some point soon.
> > > >
> > > yup memory helps when budget allows i might take powerbook to 1gb as i
> > > do tend to page out at 640mb not that much but enought.
> >
> > You may not get any benefit if you're on Panther. My 1.5GB G5 pages out
> > a lot, and it's still only showing no more than 40% usage.
> >
> just had a fiddle with the imac didn't page out once, loaded big apps
> did stuff but no paging out its got 1gb of ram with Panther i'm guessing
> your paging out is some G5 thing? the imac has a grant total of 9 page
> outs, been running for a while now....since few weeks back when had a
> powercut.

Could be right, looking on the Apple Forums does suggest this might be
the case.

However, it does also suggest that a few pageouts aren't too bad. You
also need to check how many swap files there are.

> the powerbook runs with 20mb or less most of the time....so a 1gb chip
> should help those load moments etc.

Indeed.

<Snipped Text>
> > That's what it's all about, choices. You have to decide your own needs
> > and wants, and use that as a base on what to buy.
> >
> > It's quite possible that a Mac may not be the best thing to buy.
>
> indeed particully as apple suport is somewhat flaky away further away
> from big cites you go.

Having owned a Mac for 10 years, I'm on my fourth, and there have been 9
in my immediate family altogether, I have yet to have a need for support
from Apple.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > However, I honestly don't believe that there is an easy comparison in
> > price ranges between PC's and Macs. We already saw in a previous thread
> > that you could spend an awful lot more on a PC to get almost identical
> > features and performance.
>
> I thought we found that they cost roughly the same when you didn't go
> ordering ultra high end CPUs and SCSI hardware for the PC.

Why wouldn't you order a high end CPU? Looking at most of the reviews it
would appear that the Xeon 3.2 GHZ is actually a fair comparison. There
are some things that each processor are better at, but it's a close call
overall - once you look through most of the reviews and balance up the
results.

I didn't include any SCSI hardware in the PC I made.

> > For a start, what quality would you put the eMac screen at - £80 cheapy,
> > or £200 high level?
>
> I would put it roughly at the same quality as an £80 LG monitor, which
> funnily enough is exactly what it is. Even a £100 AOC offers a clearer
> picture and higher refresh rates.

I must admit, having seen my iMac side by side with the Formac TFT, I
have to say that the iMac looks positively horrible.

> > Then there's speakers, and USB, FireWire and a built in modem, as well
> > as Ethernet. Most of this you don't get at all in a low end PC.
>
> Yes, you do.
>
> > Once you start to match feature for feature, you cannot buy a PC to
> > match the Macs for the price.
>
> Yes, you could probably buy two for the same price as an eMac.

Doubt it. I'm currently on the MacWarehouse web site doing a side by
side comparison between the cheapest HP Compaq (£375) and the eMac
(£649):

The main differences are:

Cache: HP= 128K - eMac= 256K
Optical drive: HP=CD ROM - eMac = CDR/DVD combo.
Comms: HP= None - eMac= 56k modem.
Graphics: HP= Intel - eMac= ATI 7500 32MB.

And of course there's no monitor with the HP.

So, add an ATI 7500 card, that another £100, and the monitor for another
£105, and say a £20 modem. that'll be another £225. Another £40 for a
combo drive. That's another £265.

So what have we now. Oh look £640. Add a FireWire card to that and you
tip over the top.

Allowing for probably getting a machine upgraded a bit cheaper, there
isn't so much in it. But it does show my point. Take a real close look
at what you are getting, and make a realistic matchup.

Of course you can go and get a PC for £250, but you don't get any OS
with that for a start.

-
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Why wouldn't you order a high end CPU? Looking at most of the reviews it
> would appear that the Xeon 3.2 GHZ is actually a fair comparison. There
> are some things that each processor are better at, but it's a close call
> overall - once you look through most of the reviews and balance up the
> results.

Intel charge a massive premium for their "fastest" CPU at any given time
so the 3.2Ghz one adds about £400 to the price over the 3.0Ghz one.

> I didn't include any SCSI hardware in the PC I made.

Yes you did (adding the highest capacity drive on the Dell site adds a
SCSI card as it is a SCSI drive. Adding 2 80GB SATA drives as a fair
comparison to the G5 makes it much less expensive). I made a G5
equivalent Dell (dual Xeon 3.0Ghz) for about £100 less than the G5 IIRC.

> > Yes, you could probably buy two for the same price as an eMac.
>
> Doubt it. I'm currently on the MacWarehouse web site doing a side by
> side comparison between the cheapest HP Compaq (£375) and the eMac
> (£649):
>
> The main differences are:
>
> Cache: HP= 128K - eMac= 256K
> Optical drive: HP=CD ROM - eMac = CDR/DVD combo.
> Comms: HP= None - eMac= 56k modem.
> Graphics: HP= Intel - eMac= ATI 7500 32MB.
>
> And of course there's no monitor with the HP.
>
> So, add an ATI 7500 card, that another £100, and the monitor for another
> £105, and say a £20 modem. that'll be another £225. Another £40 for a
> combo drive. That's another £265.
>
> So what have we now. Oh look £640. Add a FireWire card to that and you
> tip over the top.

And now let's have a look on the Dell site.

Dimension 2400c, 2.6Ghz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, Ethernet, 56k
modem, Combo drive (faster than eMac), speakers, 17" CRT = £370 inc. If
for any reason a PC user needed Firewire you can add a card for £20. A
Radeon 7500 would cost £20 tops if you were insane enough to want one.
Also the Dell comes with USB2, try and add that to an eMac.

> Allowing for probably getting a machine upgraded a bit cheaper, there
> isn't so much in it. But it does show my point. Take a real close look
> at what you are getting, and make a realistic matchup.

I did. And sorry, but you are completely wrong.

--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast / Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F20712757

Mike Jenkins <usenet_no_spam@kwik-e-mart.org> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Why wouldn't you order a high end CPU? Looking at most of the reviews it
> > would appear that the Xeon 3.2 GHZ is actually a fair comparison. There
> > are some things that each processor are better at, but it's a close call
> > overall - once you look through most of the reviews and balance up the
> > results.
>
> Intel charge a massive premium for their "fastest" CPU at any given time
> so the 3.2Ghz one adds about £400 to the price over the 3.0Ghz one.

Right, well the 3.2GHZ is now the lower spec, there is now a 3.4.
However.

> > I didn't include any SCSI hardware in the PC I made.
>
> Yes you did (adding the highest capacity drive on the Dell site adds a
> SCSI card as it is a SCSI drive. Adding 2 80GB SATA drives as a fair
> comparison to the G5 makes it much less expensive). I made a G5
> equivalent Dell (dual Xeon 3.0Ghz) for about £100 less than the G5 IIRC.

Hadn't spotted that, but so what? the HD I chose still wasn't as large
as the 160GB my G5 has.

> > > Yes, you could probably buy two for the same price as an eMac.
> >
> > Doubt it. I'm currently on the MacWarehouse web site doing a side by
> > side comparison between the cheapest HP Compaq (£375) and the eMac
> > (£649):
> >
> > The main differences are:
> >
> > Cache: HP= 128K - eMac= 256K
> > Optical drive: HP=CD ROM - eMac = CDR/DVD combo.
> > Comms: HP= None - eMac= 56k modem.
> > Graphics: HP= Intel - eMac= ATI 7500 32MB.
> >
> > And of course there's no monitor with the HP.
> >
> > So, add an ATI 7500 card, that another £100, and the monitor for another
> > £105, and say a £20 modem. that'll be another £225. Another £40 for a
> > combo drive. That's another £265.
> >
> > So what have we now. Oh look £640. Add a FireWire card to that and you
> > tip over the top.
>
> And now let's have a look on the Dell site.
>
> Dimension 2400c, 2.6Ghz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, Ethernet, 56k
> modem, Combo drive (faster than eMac), speakers, 17" CRT = £370 inc. If
> for any reason a PC user needed Firewire you can add a card for £20. A
> Radeon 7500 would cost £20 tops if you were insane enough to want one.
> Also the Dell comes with USB2, try and add that to an eMac.

The ATI 7500 is £105 on the MW site.

Yes, all it proves is there isn't a fair comparison. Each offers
different features. Each will suite different purposes.

However, there isn't even a PC that exists to compare with the eMac, or
indeed the iMac as nobody else produces a totally integrated computer
with an OS made for that hardware.

> > Allowing for probably getting a machine upgraded a bit cheaper, there
> > isn't so much in it. But it does show my point. Take a real close look
> > at what you are getting, and make a realistic matchup.
>
> I did. And sorry, but you are completely wrong.

No, I think you're missing the point about the Macs. I have used both
PCs and Macs that have similar specifications, and it's very clear that
at any time an Intel processor has to be about double the clock speed to
compete. There are also benefits from having a system built to be
integral, rather than put together piecemeal, and having an OS produced
to match that hardware.

I have seen enough PCs to know that they cannot possibly compare on
build quality at the lown end of the market. Hell, you can't even
guarantee that software will work on two identical machines (I recently
installed 17 networked Acers, and I know this the hard way).

Now as hard as I try, it's very difficult to match a PC to a Mac for
identical hardware specs, so as much as the old PC vs Mac war has raged
for many years, I guess arguing over minor technical differences is
going to be futile. There's certainly more to it than simple hardware
too.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

> > And now let's have a look on the Dell site.
> >
> > Dimension 2400c, 2.6Ghz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, Ethernet, 56k
> > modem, Combo drive (faster than eMac), speakers, 17" CRT = £370 inc. If
> > for any reason a PC user needed Firewire you can add a card for £20. A
> > Radeon 7500 would cost £20 tops if you were insane enough to want one.
> > Also the Dell comes with USB2, try and add that to an eMac.
>
> The ATI 7500 is £105 on the MW site.
>
> Yes, all it proves is there isn't a fair comparison. Each offers
> different features. Each will suite different purposes.
>
> However, there isn't even a PC that exists to compare with the eMac, or
> indeed the iMac as nobody else produces a totally integrated computer
> with an OS made for that hardware.
>

Isn't/wasn't there a Evesham machine that was an all in one inc crt? I
know there are a few companies now offering 'stylish' [1] all in one LCD
devices, one of which is in the Mac/Techno Warehouse catalogue

[1] Their words not mine
--
Jon
jon.bradbury@btinternet.com

Jon B <jon.bradburyusenetspam@btinternet.com> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> Isn't/wasn't there a Evesham machine that was an all in one inc crt? I
> know there are a few companies now offering 'stylish' [1] all in one LCD
> devices, one of which is in the Mac/Techno Warehouse catalogue
>
> [1] Their words not mine

I'll stand corrected - just as long as they are as stylish as an iMac
;-)

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online