What Runs Faster Please

[Semi On]

Apple computers are more expensive for a few reasons, but the main one is very simple: marketshare. Apple have about 3% of the worldwide market, so to make a profit with such low volume sales they need to charge more. However, this doesn't account for all of the price difference between a Mac and a PC. And in any case, comparing Apple to a company like Dell (or any PC vendor) is not a fair comparison. All a Dell PC is, is parts bought from other companies at high volumes for cheap, slapped into a case and a badge stuck on. Apple design and build many things themselves, such as:

Firewire (which Apple helped create), ethernet, sound, and USB chipsets
Memory and AGP controllers
Bus/switch/hub elements on the motherboard
Airport cards, maybe?
Power management chipsets
Enclosures
PCBs
Drivers
OS
Software

Companies like Dell don't have to worry about all that, and I bet research and design doesn't come cheap.

Originally Posted by Steve H

Apple decide there products are more special, hence they charge more

I really hope that was a joke.

Macs are marketed towards professionals, and many use them - music studio's and graphic design houses being the best example. They must use them for a reason, right? I can't believe they would shell out their cash on the strength of Apple saying "Buy a Mac - they're specialââ€à …¾Ã‚¢".

Simply, Apple make great quality products. Just pick up a Powerbook and compare it to a PC laptop in build quality - they're on a different planet. Even a Sony Vaio looks like the old titanium Powerbook. The only thing that has let them down in the past is what's under the hood, mainly the CPU, and that was Motorola's fault, not Apple. With the IBM G5 they now have a processor capable of competing with x86, and can start moving forward. If they can pick up some marketshare then prices will come down, but a PC will always be cheaper.

And, before anyone accuses me of being biased, I own a PC.

EDIT:

Also how many manufacturers are competing to produce CPU's to run Mac software?

It's the other way around. Software is written to run on the CPU.

[BBKing]

Worth mentioning that the OP was comparing an 800Mhz G4 with a 2.6Mhz unspecified Intel processor. Don't compare Mhz to Mhz except within the same processor design, it's completely pointless. For instance a 1.3 Mhz Pentium M will be comparable to a >2Ghz P4 in the same machine (I have a 2Ghz P4 laptop, and the newest models of the same laptop use Pentium M at 1.3 or 1.4Ghz, yet run faster).

Intel, who have always had the fastest speed in terms of raw Ghz, unsurprisingly have spent a vast amount of advertising budget promoting the myth that the greater the Ghz, the greater the processor, which is now untenable as their best chip (the Pentium M) is unfortunately clocked at similar speeds to the opposition, so they'll have to sell it on something else, like how it actually performs. Shame.

G4 is not the Apple version of P4, it's a totally different processor architecture called POWER made by Motorola/IBM (not 68000 any more, Proppin, that was a while ago!).

Other chip architectures such as the AMD K8 (Athlon64/Opteron), the Fujitsu SPARC64V and the Sun UltraSPARC are all clocked far lower than Intel's Pentium 4s, but can cream it in the real world (they're also all 64bit). So don't look at the raw speed to compare processors.

All of which being said, a Mac will be, price for price, slower than an equivalent Intel/AMD based machine. However you get a well designed, great looking system with a robust Unix based OS, less risk of security compromises, that can do pretty much anything a PC can do, with the glaring exception of any kind of proper gaming, beyond a few notable ports such as SimCity4.

Originally Posted by peachey

apple was the first to introduce the 'mouse' in 1984

I think Xerox might have something to say about the accuracy of that statement.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Worth mentioning that the OP was comparing an 800Mhz G4 with a 2.6Mhz unspecified Intel processor. Don't compare Mhz to Mhz except within the same processor design, it's completely pointless. For instance a 1.3 Mhz Pentium M will be comparable to a >2Ghz P4 in the same machine (I have a 2Ghz P4 laptop, and the newest models of the same laptop use Pentium M at 1.3 or 1.4Ghz, yet run faster).

Intel, who have always had the fastest speed in terms of raw Ghz, unsurprisingly have spent a vast amount of advertising budget promoting the myth that the greater the Ghz, the greater the processor, which is now untenable as their best chip (the Pentium M) is unfortunately clocked at similar speeds to the opposition, so they'll have to sell it on something else, like how it actually performs. Shame.

G4 is not the Apple version of P4, it's a totally different processor architecture called POWER made by Motorola/IBM (not 68000 any more, Proppin, that was a while ago!).

Other chip architectures such as the AMD K8 (Athlon64/Opteron), the Fujitsu SPARC64V and the Sun UltraSPARC are all clocked far lower than Intel's Pentium 4s, but can cream it in the real world (they're also all 64bit). So don't look at the raw speed to compare processors.

All of which being said, a Mac will be, price for price, slower than an equivalent Intel/AMD based machine. However you get a well designed, great looking system with a robust Unix based OS, less risk of security compromises, that can do pretty much anything a PC can do, with the glaring exception of any kind of proper gaming, beyond a few notable ports such as SimCity4.

In my day it was DOS and Intel 286's which ruled the roost (I studied 80286 assembly as part of Uni course), Macs were Motorola 6800's. Also did Pascal.
Course, this was all fields then.
Nearly retirement age. :o

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by Proppinupthebar

In my day it was DOS and Intel 286's which ruled the roost (I studied 80286 assembly as part of Uni course), Macs were Motorola 6800's. Also did Pascal.
Course, this was all fields then.
Nearly retirement age. :o

Pascal. That brings back a few memories.....

I cut my teeth on TP3, and still prefer delphi over other more modern languages....

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I think Xerox might have something to say about the accuracy of that statement.

Yes, they'd point out that the first mouse was around in 1954 or something, but I don't think xerox had it, I have a feeling it was one of us brits

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, they'd point out that the first mouse was around in 1954 or something, but I don't think xerox had it, I have a feeling it was one of us brits

The US airforce developed the early prototypes in the 1960s, but Xerox had the first commercially available computer with one.

[Xaccers]

I love talking about computer history
Must dig out my 8088 and see if it still works

Anyone got a difference engine lying about their loft?

[BBKing]

I've been known to suggest use of mercury delay lines as an explanation of slow-running expensive IT projects.

[Semi On]

Originally Posted by BBKing

G4 is not the Apple version of P4, it's a totally different processor architecture called POWER made by Motorola/IBM (not 68000 any more, Proppin, that was a while ago!).

Actually, the architecture is PowerPC. POWER is the name of a line of processors made by IBM that conform to the PowerPC architecture.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Other chip architectures such as the AMD K8 (Athlon64/Opteron), the Fujitsu SPARC64V and the Sun UltraSPARC are all clocked far lower than Intel's Pentium 4s, but can cream it in the real world (they're also all 64bit). So don't look at the raw speed to compare processors.

AMD K8 is not an architecture, it's a specific processor. There are quite a few architectures, but the main ones are x86(AMD/Intel), PowerPC and SPARC.

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Tell me if I've totally lost it, but is it better to have a jpg desktop picture or bmp? This is on windows xp with a large colorful pic.

BMP is far better IMO, it's quicker.
Of course, it could use up to 2MB of memory as opposed to 150K for a jpg.

It all depends on your CPU speeds/RAM ratio I suppose.

[Semi On]

Originally Posted by Semi On

AMD K8 is not an architecture, it's a specific processor. There are quite a few architectures, but the main ones are x86(AMD/Intel), PowerPC and SPARC.

Oops, just realised what I wrote there was poorly worded.

AMD K8 is a specific processor architecture, whereas x86, PowerPC and SPARC are platform architectures would have been clearer.

[John Smiths]

Originally Posted by BBKing

<snip!>

G4 is not the Apple version of P4, it's a totally different processor architecture called POWER made by Motorola/IBM (not 68000 any more, Proppin, that was a while ago!).

<snip!>

Yeah, the POWER series of processors that the PowerPC 970 is based on (specifically the POWER4)which is basically a G5 minus the velocity engine.

[ntlrocks]

You'll never guess............what ever since i started this thread, on apple.com/uk, an 800mhz G4 12inch iBook cost £849, now they have changed prices....

now it is , a 1Ghz G4 12inch iBook costs £799 .... coincidence?, or do they read these threads

Originally Posted by ntlrocks

You'll never guess............what ever since i started this thread, on apple.com/uk, an 800mhz G4 12inch iBook cost £849, now they have changed prices....

now it is , a 1Ghz G4 12inch iBook costs £799 .... coincidence?, or do they read these threads

Unlikely - a lot of Mac addicts accuse them of not even bothering to read their own support forums, let alone anyone else's ...

Originally Posted by Steve H

That mac would perform about the same as a P3 1.3ghz.. Apple just decide there products are more special

I do hope this is meant to be a joke Steve. I think the thread starter had a serious question, there's no need to drag it down to a pointless Mac v PC slanging match.

I think ntlrocks' question has prolly been answered actually. Macs and PCs use different kinds of processor. The Mac's PowerPC processor uses fewer instructions as it gets the job done, so works faster. So, the clock speed doesn't need to be as fast as an equivalent Pentium chip in order to process information at the same rate.

As others have said, the 'G' refers to which Generation of PowerPC chip you are using. Original iMacs came with a third-generation PowerPC chip (G3), current iMacs and mid-range systems have a G4, and the top of the range system is the G5. The G5 is the world's first desktop 64-bit processor.

As for the cost - yes, I think cost of designing and building your own system does push the cost up, as does lower sales volume. Market positioning has something to do with it as well - they are marketed as quality products to be compared with big-name PC manufacturers, so the cost will not compare with the cheapest PC on the high street, or one you build yourself.