24inch Imac or 15 inch Macbook pro ?

PB Forum :: Computers, Games & Technology
24inch Imac or 15 inch Macbook pro ?
  • Next Page
Author Message
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:27 Quote
zachk wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:


Because when I had my Dual Core white iMac,(sold it for cash to replace someones window I busted), it was helluva a lot faster than my current PC which is running a Q9300.

That means nothing at all...
What OS are you running on the PC? Did both computers have the same RAM amount and speed, and same brand hard drive(s) and speed? Define fast.

Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.

Well the RAM would have made a very noticable difference. And if you compared Mac against XP or Windows 7 they would school Mac hands down.
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 13:58 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:
SpikeX wrote:


That means nothing at all...
What OS are you running on the PC? Did both computers have the same RAM amount and speed, and same brand hard drive(s) and speed? Define fast.

Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.

Well the RAM would have made a very noticable difference. And if you compared Mac against XP or Windows 7 they would school Mac hands down.

And you know that how?
flag mistercrabb
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 14:23 Quote
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:


Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.

Well the RAM would have made a very noticable difference. And if you compared Mac against XP or Windows 7 they would school Mac hands down.

And you know that how?

Windows 7 RC1 is free for download.

Im thinking that a Mac would probably be faster than an identical PC, simply because of how easy it is to fill up a PC with wasteful background processes. Although Vista is pretty slow and a bit of a memory hog, im running Win7 now and its lightning fast (though still using 1GB of RAM for some reason).

Ultimately, the rift between Mac and PC is a balance between Aesthetics/Ergonomics and Functionality/Tweakability, and its up to personal preference. Its like the 24/26" wheel argument all over again.
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 14:56 Quote
mistercrabb wrote:
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:


Well the RAM would have made a very noticable difference. And if you compared Mac against XP or Windows 7 they would school Mac hands down.

And you know that how?

Windows 7 RC1 is free for download.

Im thinking that a Mac would probably be faster than an identical PC, simply because of how easy it is to fill up a PC with wasteful background processes. Although Vista is pretty slow and a bit of a memory hog, im running Win7 now and its lightning fast (though still using 1GB of RAM for some reason).

Ultimately, the rift between Mac and PC is a balance between Aesthetics/Ergonomics and Functionality/Tweakability, and its up to personal preference. Its like the 24/26" wheel argument all over again.

With Mac being the 26"
flag mistercrabb
Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 2:07 Quote
KBJohn wrote:
*snip*

With Mac being the 26"

Thought you wanted the 24" Imac.
flag atmos-fair
Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 10:06 Quote
zachk wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:


Because when I had my Dual Core white iMac,(sold it for cash to replace someones window I busted), it was helluva a lot faster than my current PC which is running a Q9300.

That means nothing at all...
What OS are you running on the PC? Did both computers have the same RAM amount and speed, and same brand hard drive(s) and speed? Define fast.

Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 10:59 Quote
TommahawkBike wrote:
Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.
[/Quote]

What's your point?
flag atmos-fair
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 13:40 Quote
That like you said the ram would have made a difference, but i didn't notice that you had already posted, so sorry for that.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 13:55 Quote
TommahawkBike wrote:
That like you said the ram would have made a difference, but i didn't notice that you had already posted, so sorry for that.

Ah OK. Sorry 'bout that then.
flag emarciniak
Posted: Jul 11, 2009 at 13:08 Quote
I would go the the MBP. I have an older MBP (Core 2 Duo, 2.16 GHz, 2 GB 667 DDR2, ATI x1600) and it still f*ckin shreads. I do a lot of HD editing with Final Cut Studio 2 and it's lightning fast. I think the 15" screen is plenty big enough as well. It's so nice having the portability of a laptop too. You will never regret it.
flag thecolonnadekid
Posted: Jul 14, 2009 at 22:49 Quote
build a desktop pc or buy a windows laptop. macs are overrated scams.
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.017738
Mobile Version of Website