laptop

DaNuKa_SAN · Post by **DaNuKa_SAN** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:13 pm

guess when u stick aroun ppl using the powerPC architecture to emulate the NGC...thing like this tend to happen...

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:15 pm

DaNuKa_SAN wrote:two words my friend...

powerPC architecture

makes up for the loss in power...

ill put up some benchmarks once i find some...
(i have plenty for G4/5 and PCs though)

Uhm...you said "iBook" not, powerbook. There's a HUGE difference in performance there hence my "what?" statement.

As for your benchmarks, you're not gonna go dig up those benchmarks that were ridiculous ones that the entire industry was laughing at are you?

I seem to recall Apple being *SUED* for printing false and unfair benchmarks and in some *COUNTRIES* Apple ads being banned since they were lying. So you're going to take those benchmarks as truth? Ha! Laughable.

*looks at pictures*

OK wait...you're a retard and didn't even find those benchmarks. Did you even read the article you're trying to use to defend your point? Let me point you to a good little quote:

Conclusion
As you see, the dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we've tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind.

You effectively just proved that Apples suck for media and that Athlons are better. You do realize that the higher the time, the worse it is right? The fact Apple has the biggest bars is a bad thing. It means it took the most time...even when it had two processors against a single PC processor. That should tell you something about efficency. As I said, Apple is less efficient than an Athlon core. You just proved it.

At the same time, I dont' take these benchmarks as fact. They're not from a reputable site/company (hell sites are biased and not scientific) and their "tests" are hardly benchmarks. They just took the programs and did things on them and timed them with a watch. That's not a benchmark. That's something any Joe Shmoe can do and again, is hardly scientific.

Regardless though, you just posted benchmarks that supported me. Way to go?

DaNuKa_SAN · Post by **DaNuKa_SAN** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:17 pm

read the rest i feel ashamed...

ive had plenty of gtraphic artists tell me macs were better b4 for grphic work...oh well times change...

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:22 pm

DaNuKa_SAN wrote:read the rest i feel ashamed...

ive had plenty of gtraphic artists tell me macs were better b4 for grphic work...oh well times change...

First off, why are you posting something without even reading it? All you effectively did was show that you don't know what you're talking about

. I know it's harsh, but honestly, read what you wrote and how quickly it was shot down. Think before you post.

Secondly, why did you post like 10 times in a row?

Thirdly, your graphic artist friends are either lying or don't know any better. Apple has been dead last in performance for years, so it's not a "times change" thing. Times have stayed the same, but some people still believe media hype like "The world's first 64-bit and fastest computer." When in fact, 64-bit computing has been around for a long time and they are hardly the fastest.

As I alluded, Apple got sued for this and their ads are banned in some countries for *lying.* Your friends obviously believe such lies and probably don't read benchmarks (or read them incorrectly *cough*).

DaNuKa_SAN · Post by **DaNuKa_SAN** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:47 pm

dude we technically even have 128 bit CPUs...just not in PCs....

and yes i do know wat im talkin about ...just when it comes to PCs...not MACs^^'

go ahead flame me all u want....

DaNuKa_SAN · Post by **DaNuKa_SAN** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:50 pm

though ive never programmed for macs...would have probably made me realise wat pieces of shit they are if i did^^

and an edit button should be a top priority....

aznfs · Post by **aznfs** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:56 pm

wow... arguements over a MAC.... mark my words i have had such bad experineces with MAC i will never buy one, even if i have to work with one i would never touch one if i had the choice, lets see preimere for a MAC costs with 2 years wasted and imovie countless hours spanning 4 years of high school. rendering times took forever and u could even customize what u were rendering to, only high, medium, and low or dv quality... i think there was a time where i got to tweak the controls and set the thing to output as dv but came out as uncompressed

and when MACs crash that little mouse icon keeps spinning... windows gives the kindness of producing a much hated blue screen but a mac keeps spinning

oi rant about a mac = crap... i did try final cut pro; shiz i wish there was a final cut for windows

ok now i have:
1// 1.8-2.4ghz p4<-- dunno if that is good still debating
2// 60-80gb 5400rpm harddrive down
3// 256-512ddr ram
4// firewire fw800 and usb 2.0 ports
5// xtra battery pak
6// ice pack for cooling

what else? *looks at price tag*

madmag9999 · Post by **madmag9999** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:39 pm

aznfs wrote:
ok now i have:
1// 1.8-2.4ghz p4<-- dunno if that is good still debating
2// 60-80gb 5400rpm harddrive down
3// 256-512ddr ram
4// firewire fw800 and usb 2.0 ports
5// xtra battery pak
6// ice pack for cooling

i suggest a 2.4 - 3..0ghz AMD
hdd is ok
id suggest 512 - 1gig of ram
firewire is ok
xtra batter maybe 2

ice pack? i hope your not seriouse

aznfs · Post by **aznfs** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:49 pm

madmag9999 wrote:
aznfs wrote:
ok now i have:
1// 1.8-2.4ghz p4<-- dunno if that is good still debating
2// 60-80gb 5400rpm harddrive down
3// 256-512ddr ram
4// firewire fw800 and usb 2.0 ports
5// xtra battery pak
6// ice pack for cooling

i suggest a 2.4 - 3..0ghz AMD
hdd is ok
id suggest 512 - 1gig of ram
firewire is ok
xtra batter maybe 2
ice pack? i hope your not seriouse

whoops! i didnt mean to write 256-512 it was just that most of the sites i saw only had 256 to 512 as options

yeah i may just go for the AMDs since everyone is telling me to get it

ice pack didnt u see my eyes rolling?

though it wouldnt be too bad rite cause i wont have much money left over i could just stick an ice pack striaght out of the freezer on the bottom of the laptop

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:13 pm

How much do you want to spend?

Sager & IBM offers 7200RPM drives. Hitachi makes a <a href="http://www.srsystems.com/product_info.p ... 0">7200RPM 60GB drive</a> that you can add after purchase.

Ebay sometimes has good laptop deals, maybe a refurb would work for you too. You can find cheap batteries on eBay as well.