|
|
|
Amstrad CPC 464
 
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 18/09/2008 16:29:41
Posts: 409,
Visits: 665
|
|
BigAlbie (11/04/2006)
Not wanting to take sides I err on Jason's comments more than Russell's. I have never been a fan of benchmarks proving anything much more than a PC will run at certain speeds doing certain tasks. I was referring to personal experience, not benchmarks. I have used all three solutions and can say with confidence that Nvidia's 430 chipset with 6150 IGP is best for games and video playback (including HD up to 1080p).
russell@micromart.co.uk
"That's two 'Ls' you numpty."
|
|
|
|
|
186
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 20/08/2006 10:44:45
Posts: 153,
Visits: 138
|
|
Now that Apple is another PC brand, and can support any operating system a PC can, let users use what they want. You want a pc with Mac flavoured unix? Go for it, you want to use linux on mac? You can, you want to use windows? That money could have gone on something useful, like charity 
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 27/04/2007 19:59:02
Posts: 1,900,
Visits: 1,336
|
|
This has been troubleing me for a while now.
Now that Macs are Intel based, does that mean we`ll be seein "Dual Core Apples?"
Time flies like an arrow.....Fruit flies like a banana!! 
'E' is for Ethernet. Used for catching Etherbunnies, Etherfish or Etherbutterflies.
 
No wonder there`s so much poop on my PC these days.
|
|
|
|
|
186
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/04/2006 21:16:02
Posts: 6,
Visits: 10
|
|
BigAlbie (10/04/2006)
With my extremely limited play with Vista its gonna have to be a very powerful PC to cope.... 
I had a muck around with vista, and as you said it needs a poky machine, I have a 2500XP AMD chip with 1GB of memory and it struggled with Vista, mainly due to the crap video card I think.
Vista looks nice, but if it take most of the CPU power to run, then it is reallly not worth having. If it was not for the fact that a couple of bits of software I got wll not work with Windows 98, I would have stayed with that.
|
|
|
|
|
186
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/04/2006 21:16:02
Posts: 6,
Visits: 10
|
|
Hi there again.
Sorry about the delay, but been a little busy, I hope no one thought that I was one of these people who post one message and stand back to watch the fireworks.
I have read all your responses and at the moment, still feel that the Mac is now just another P.C with another O/S.
Some people are saying about build quality, well you can get some P.C's that are built to a high quality with high quality hardware, but I prefer to make my own P.C anyway. I do not class Dell as high quality.
The problem with the P.C is the O/S, windows is not that great it is slow,bulky, insecure and full of bugs. Saying that XP is one of the better versions of Windows for stability. T6his is one of the reasons I thought about going over to the Mac, having used them a few times I like the way they work. I have dabbled around with Linux but it is limited on the hardware support and also on software.
The price of hardware and how easy it is to update the machines is another problem, AppleMacs are expensive to update and fix. If the main board goes in my computer, I can go out and get a new board at a good price. but then again maybe not, because my computer is still socket A, getting a new board is not easy, but I can get one mail order still.
I do video editing, something which the Mac is suppose to be very good at, but saying that my P.C does a good job at it as well. I also do a bit of Desktop publishing, again the Mac is better at it, with Quark. The pc version of quark is a pain to use. I was thinking about getting the Mac Mini, as I could use a switch to change the keyboard, mouse and monitor over frm the P.C to the Mac, but the Mini is once again very expensive for what it offers.
Is Apple going to make the Mini Mac Intel based as well?
|
|
|
|
|
286
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 29/12/2008 23:19:49
Posts: 287,
Visits: 1,581
|
|
Hi Liquidmetal
The Mac Mini already is Intel based. The PowerPC versions have all but sold out now. The current situation is that the Powerbook G4 laptops with 15" screens have been replaced by the Intel MacBookPro. The 17" widescreen should be on sale with Intel chips by mid summer. The G5 iMacs and Mac Mini's have been replaced by Intel versions. The Mac Mini comes in 2 flavours, one with a Core Solo chip at £449 and the other with a Core Duo at £599. And yes, that makes them expensive. However, they should be upgradeable as the processors are on sockets and not soldered as per the old G5 chips. The 64 bit Merom(?) processors due out in autumn should work inside the machines.
The other beauty is that you can now dual boot the machines so they will run either OS X or XP natively. Look at Apple's web site for info on Boot Camp for further details. There is also a virtualisation prgram called Workstation from Parallels that allows you to run XP as a window inside OS X at near native speeds (apparently).
Agree about XP being bloated. I much prefer W2K as there is a bit less bloat and it does most things I need. Its Vista that causes me concern. I know a few people who can't wait to get it but don't realise their machines are not really up to running it. You need around 1GB of RAM just to run it properly according to reports.
If you are interested in OS X keep your eye's open for a virtualisation app for Windows that will allow you to run any x86 OS on a Windows OS. I can see one coming out before too long which will let you run OS X within Windows. as Workstation does. Not heard of anything yet but its going to come at some point.....
|
|
|
|
|
286
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/12/2008 17:35:20
Posts: 415,
Visits: 1,554
|
|
Currently Vista won't be able run on an Intel Mac, because Microsoft don't allow it to boot on a motherboard using EFI - which Apple chose to replace the old BIOS technology. So unless they change their mind, it's XP or nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
286
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 29/12/2008 23:19:49
Posts: 287,
Visits: 1,581
|
|
Boot Camp plus a firmware upgrade for Intel Macs allows them to boot XP natively. Basically these 2 combined give these Macs BIOS support and allows the user to make an install disc with XP drivers. Combine this with an XP install disc and it takes around an hour to get a full working copy of XP on your Mac. XP runs natively, not as an emulation or virtualisatio (see Workstation for that). Boot Camp partitions the HDD so you get a genuine dual boot choice at start up.
Don't forget XP is BIOS only (to the best of my knowledge).....
And someone has already got a beta version of Vista running with Boot Camp on an Intel Mac.....
|
|
|
|