UNff...I wonder that they will be like, what the new specs will be, the way they look.

I can't wait.

NEW IBOOKS ARE OUT!!!!!

UNF!!! NEW POWERBOOKS TOO

*dies*

edit: <a href='http://www.apple.com/ca/powerbook/' target='_blank'>http://www.apple.com/ca/powerbook/</a>

edit 2: <a href='http://www.apple.com/ca/ibook/' target='_blank'>http://www.apple.com/ca/ibook/</a>

The new iBooks are like my PB is. Damn &#036;400 cheaper now.

Figures dunnit? You get something, then they drop the price really quickly afterwards. Meh, I'm not much of a mac person myself. I like my good old unstable windows

<!--QuoteBegin-Tha Masster+Apr 19 2004, 04:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tha Masster @ Apr 19 2004, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The new iBooks are like my PB is. Damn &#036;400 cheaper now. [/quote]
!!!! Hahahah, now you know why I waited

256k more cache, 333mhz more, 4x superdrive, built in Aex...ahh yes

I thought you waited because you didn't have enough money, quit making excuses!

I got the 12" Superdrive PowerBook, thing's god damn amazing. Running the mini DVI to one of them new 20 inch displays, looks just left of Godly. To make it godly I'll need to figure out how to get a DDL Vid card in this tiny ass thing so I can hook up a 30" or two...

tbh I don't like Macs anymore since I used them in a P2P network when I was at college.... plus they have been benchmarked against PCs and do EVERYTHING including rendering graphics and sound slower than PC's.... I wouldn't want to waste all that money on one really....

<!--QuoteBegin-NaTaKu+Aug 8 2004, 06:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NaTaKu @ Aug 8 2004, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> tbh I don't like Macs anymore since I used them in a P2P network when I was at college.... plus they have been benchmarked against PCs and do EVERYTHING including rendering graphics and sound slower than PC's.... I wouldn't want to waste all that money on one really.... [/quote]
ignorance is bliss

i've never been able to crash OSX. no matter how i try, the damn thing wont freeze. so huzzah to apple.

My Powerbooks uptime is 49 days and 1 hour and 10 minutes... and it's only that low becuase of the last update I installed.

<!--QuoteBegin-NaTaKu+Aug 8 2004, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NaTaKu &#064; Aug 8 2004, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->tbh I don't like Macs anymore since I used them in a P2P network when I was at college.... plus they have been benchmarked against PCs and do EVERYTHING including rendering graphics and sound slower than PC's.... I wouldn't want to waste all that money on one really....[/quote]
Well...

Nat, avoid speaking through the ass if you can . . .

Though, he makes the good point that the things are horrifically expensive. If I could afford the pricetag though, I'd buy one and love it.

I can't say really good or bad about Imac's since I haven't used them very much. Not real fond of them myself, but I wouldn't get my panties up in a bunch if I am required to use them.

fuck you guys, firsty all the PCs there had ONE processor in them and secondly I was refering to a test on a British program called 'The Gadget Shoiw' where they benhmarked a 'top-end' dual 2.4 G5 vs an 'ultimate PC' (basically a top end P4' both had 2GB DDR, ect and the Mac had the best ATi card u can buy and the PC had a 6800.... put it this way the Mac was only geting 70-120fps on UT2004 and the PC was getting 180-250fps... they the tried rendering an image from normal to chrome.. it took twice as long on the mac so I ain't talking out of my ass u twat if u'd seen the program u'd realise what I was on about and this test was designed for home use rather than stupidly large files being filtered in 45 different ways, because lets face it unless any of you are professional graphical designers or commercial digital photographers you ain't gonna need that kinda benchmark.... tbh I'd only trust benchmarks that I could see myself doing.... UT2004 fps comparison yes, image batch processing no. It doesn't matter if the machine can do it, in my eyes if I have to pay nearly twice as much for a Mac (seriously go on mac.uk and see the prices for us Brits) I want a supirior machine that can do everything better than the alternative.....

<!--QuoteBegin-NaTaKu+Aug 9 2004, 09:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NaTaKu @ Aug 9 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> fuck you guys, firsty all the PCs there had ONE processor in them and secondly I was refering to a test on a British program called 'The Gadget Shoiw' where they benhmarked a 'top-end' dual 2.4 G5 vs an 'ultimate PC' (basically a top end P4' both had 2GB DDR, ect and the Mac had the best ATi card u can buy and the PC had a 6800.... put it this way the Mac was only geting 70-120fps on UT2004 and the PC was getting 180-250fps... they the tried rendering an image from normal to chrome.. it took twice as long on the mac so I ain't talking out of my ass u twat if u'd seen the program u'd realise what I was on about and this test was designed for home use rather than stupidly large files being filtered in 45 different ways, because lets face it unless any of you are professional graphical designers or commercial digital photographers you ain't gonna need that kinda benchmark.... tbh I'd only trust benchmarks that I could see myself doing.... UT2004 fps comparison yes, image batch processing no. It doesn't matter if the machine can do it, in my eyes if I have to pay nearly twice as much for a Mac (seriously go on mac.uk and see the prices for us Brits) I want a supirior machine that can do everything better than the alternative..... [/quote]
. . . You refer to Dual Xeons as one processor? O_o;


Aside from that, you're arguing facts using your personal preferences . . . not cool.
<_<

shame you can't see anything above 60fps.

Amen! Sick of people worrying becuase they only get 100 fps in some game. It doesn't matter! 60 fps and 60 million fps looks exactly the same.

Unlesss...

YOU PLUG THE COMPUTER INTO YOUR EYES!!!!!

I'm still waiting for that technology.

And yeah, nothing changes after 60 FPS really.

<!--QuoteBegin-durnfoowidget+Aug 11 2004, 02:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (durnfoowidget @ Aug 11 2004, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unlesss...

YOU PLUG THE COMPUTER INTO YOUR EYES!!!!! [/quote]
I'm waiting for that attachment.





On the the frames per sec note. I know a few people that cap em' off at 30 or less because they puke on their keyboard or are very close to doing so (during first person shooters, even an N64 nauseated them).

If we had our Halos/UTs/CnCs on Macs with those specs LANned (if supported), then that 100 FPS would kill most of my competition.


I love the idea of Macs. But, in the past (dunno about now) it's like driving a Formula 1 racer on a road made for Chevys (love the Chevys by the way )

<!--QuoteBegin-Tetsuo+Aug 10 2004, 07:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tetsuo @ Aug 10 2004, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> shame you can't see anything above 60fps. [/quote]
If you are refering to your eye then you are correct..... but if you saw the shitty monitor I used to use you fucking well can tell the difference between 60 and 80Hz also games which are designed to run in 100Hz feel slugish whilst playing. Also no one answered my question of why would any of you want to use barch imaging processing or anything like that?? Also these benchmarks appear to be from the Apple site so I wouldn't trust them and as you've already pointed out I am basing stuff on my own opinion but if you like spending alot money, having slower fps on your games and having out of date games and gfx cards then by all means get a mac. I;d rather spend less and get a faster more compatible computer that won't go out of date and need completely replacing in the next two years.

<!--QuoteBegin-NaTaKu+Aug 15 2004, 08:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NaTaKu &#064; Aug 15 2004, 08:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you are refering to your eye then you are correct..... but if you saw the shitty monitor I used to use you fucking well can tell the difference between 60 and 80Hz also games which are designed to run in 100Hz feel slugish whilst playing. Also no one answered my question of why would any of you want to use barch imaging processing or anything like that?? Also these benchmarks appear to be from the Apple site so I wouldn't trust them and as you've already pointed out I am basing stuff on my own opinion but if you like spending alot money, having slower fps on your games and having out of date games and gfx cards then by all means get a mac. I;d rather spend less and get a faster more compatible computer that won't go out of date and need completely replacing in the next two years. [/quote]
of course there is a difference between 60 and 80hz you knob. but that has nothing to do with the fps.

batch processing saves you alot of time, if you are in the business of doing watermarking or resizing and doing the same thing over and over having a computer that is efficient at that will save you time and money.

the money is well spent, as long as it will run anything above 30fps who the fuck cares, macs get all the big name games anyways. out of date graphics cards? are you on crack? the macs got the 6800ultra BEFORE pc's did. goof.

speed...overrated. the only thing you need speed for nowadays is high end games and videoediting. more than what the average computer user needs. a 2ghz or equivalent machine is more than enough for anyone who uses the computer for day to day needs.

out of date...that is the stupidest comment i've ever heard. pc's are out of date 5 mins before you even lay down the cash to buy it or any of the components that are in it. macs will run for years only until new software comes out that requires you to upgrade in no way do you have to go out and replace the entire thing because it is "out of date"

666th Pwnage post

<!--QuoteBegin-NaTaKu+Aug 15 2004, 03:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NaTaKu @ Aug 15 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you are refering to your eye then you are correct..... but if you saw the shitty monitor I used to use you fucking well can tell the difference between 60 and 80Hz also games which are designed to run in 100Hz feel slugish whilst playing. Also no one answered my question of why would any of you want to use barch imaging processing or anything like that?? Also these benchmarks appear to be from the Apple site so I wouldn't trust them and as you've already pointed out I am basing stuff on my own opinion but if you like spending alot money, having slower fps on your games and having out of date games and gfx cards then by all means get a mac. I;d rather spend less and get a faster more compatible computer that won't go out of date and need completely replacing in the next two years. [/quote]
I can't beleive the things you keep trying to argue, Nat. You can't tell us that a number matters more because you used to use a shitty monitor - it doesn't work that way. That's like me telling you that your grandmother is insane because of the glasses she wears (hypothetical grandmother) with my reason being that my uncle had them, and he's crazy. Does that make sense to YOU? I sure as hell hope not, because it's the stupidest comparison I've ever heard!

I have my refresh set to 85Hz. Know what that has to do with FPS? Nothing. That means that my monitor refreshes 85 times each second, giving it a smoother appearance, much like flipping a flipbook faster, only with just duplicating the pages. Now, if you up the FPS along with that, you might be adding more pages to the flipbook as well. Basically, if I'm running a game at 60FPS, that's as fast as the human eye can compensate for, so if I run it at 1200FPS . . . I'm seein' 60. Now, if I run that 60FPS at 60Hz, then since my eyes can compensate for that, I'm going to see the refresh on the computer, which I don't want. High refresh makes it more smooth looking to you, because you can no longer see it as it refreshes, and high FPS hardly makes a damn difference at all to anything at all. Do you understand this Nat?

You also said that a game designed to run in 100Hz would feel sluggish while playing . . . again, that Hz number there doesn't effect speed whatsoever . . .

I, personally, would love to use batch image processing, and I do! It's a great thing. Aside from that, you're arguing with personal opinion and preference again. I sincerely hope that you never try to join a debate team, or run for office. You would fail so very, very miserably. You would basically say "You guys are all wrong, because it doesn't effect me." Which is absolutely blasphemous. Think about it, man. Just, stop . . . and think. If you want a PC . . . buy a damn PC . . . if you want that Powerbook or ibook . . . buy that . . . if you're like me and you're running your little Duron 950 with a GeForce FX 5200, then cry about it. Wah. Obviously . . .OH SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY, Macs were never designed to be targeted at YOU. So, don't buy. SIMPLE!