View Full Version : PC vs. Apple Laptops (processor speed)
I was wondering why it is that when a new, faster Pentium chip is released, it is only a month or so before it appears in many of the higher-end PC laptops (Alienware, Dell, etc...); while on the other hand, Apple seems to take forever to release chips in their laptops that are comparable to their desktop offerings? I understand that they seem to be having some heat issues with the G5 chip, however it seems that PC vendors aren't having similar problems introducing their fastest chips to laptops. (AMD has already released a 64-bit chip for PC laptops, and Alienware is releasing a 64-bit laptop incorporating this chip in September.) If it is simply a 64-bit issue, then why not release new, faster 32-bit chips for laptops frequently, as Pentium does? I just cant seem to figure out why Apple seems to be neglecting to provide updates for their mobile customers..... :no:
Do you know how hot those chips are? Those laptops last only 1-2 hours! Plus there are a lot more companies for pc's than macs so naturally, pc's get more stuff in less time.
P.S macs still kick pc's ass regardless of how much they have.
alcimedes
2004-08-19, 17:05
most mac users would rather not have a 4" thick laptop with 3 hours of battery that weighs 8lbs.
there's not enough of a Mac market to go after the new users who truly want a desktop machine on their laps.
The high end laptops like the Alienware are useless as laptops. If you run them on battery power they'll be dead within an hour. They're massive, heavy, bulky and need to be plugged in all the time. Apple isn't interested in making laptops that aren't really usable without being plugged in, and Apple doesn't like making behemoth laptops either.
Also, don't forget that Apple is not a chip manufacturer. They get their processors from IBM and Motorola, so if there's a delay in chip production there's nothing Apple can do about that.
Quagmire
2004-08-19, 17:09
It is not only heat it is also battery life. The G5 in a 12" powerbook prototype got 55 minutes of battery. So when the G5 pbook comes out most likely it will be a different type of battery(fuel cell?). Also apple wants to deliver the thinnest and lightest pbook as possible. PC makers make there notebooks at least 1.5"-2" thick. They also use huge fans. There notebooks are also alot heavier. So they have more room to work with then apple does. Sure apple could intro a huge notebook. But, mac heads would be mad. Don't be fooled by the clockspeed. My 1 Ghz G4 is very competitive. In xbench it scored a 99.93(w/o the slowing of the HD 113.33).
Do you know how hot those chips are? Those laptops last only 1-2 hours! Plus there are a lot more companies for pc's than macs so naturally, pc's get more stuff in less time.
P.S macs still kick pc's ass regardless of how much they have.
Actually, i wasnt aware of the battery life. Thats something I clearly overlooked when posting.
But, ya macs do kick PC's asses. Thats why im looking to convert to a Powerbook. ;)
Messiahtosh
2004-08-19, 17:16
Are those truly 64-bit? Windows XP is not built for 64 bit computing, or is it?
Well, the mobile Athlon 64 chips and the mobile Pentium 4s are both extremely hot. They're fast, but the battery life suffers greatly and it requires a laptop so heavy and hot that you can't possibly keep it on your lap. However, the Pentium M actually is a very good chip. It's used by lightweight, thin PC notebooks and the computers that use the chip tend to get excellent battery life. Also, the Pentium M is extremely efficient - at 1.7 GHz, it's about as fast as a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. While you could make a case for certain 1.7-2.0 GHz Pentium 4s being inferior to the G4 used in the PowerBooks, the Pentium M is clearly ahead of the G4. It also has more L2 cache, which greatly helps performance.
The reason Apple is a bit behind doesn't have a whole lot to do with Apple itself... it's mainly because Apple relies on the advancement of PowerPC chips. PowerPC is not as widespread as x86 (the type of chips that Windows computers use), so they aren't developed quite as quickly as x86 chips. Still, the companies behind PowerPC (Motorola and IBM) are both very big, so they can definitely afford to develop better PowerPC chips.
And they are. Motorola has plans to come out with newer G4 chips, and IBM is continuing with their development of the G3, which keeps getting faster and faster despite being an old chip. If they were to add AltiVec to one of those fast G3s, it would be just as good as a G4.
So, Apple would certainly love to come out with faster PowerBooks all the time. They're just going as quick as they can.
Are those truly 64-bit? Windows XP is not built for 64 bit computing, or is it?
No different from the Mac OS. Windows is a 32-bit OS, as is OS X. It's just that the CPUs (either the Athlon 64 or the G5) support operation in both 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode. Now, there might be a few programs that can support 64-bit memory addressing so you can use more than 4 GB in that program, but they are rare. I mean, how many programs really need more than 4 GB? Not many.
nowayout11
2004-08-19, 18:12
No different from the Mac OS. Windows is a 32-bit OS, as is OS X. It's just that the CPUs (either the Athlon 64 or the G5) support operation in both 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode. Now, there might be a few programs that can support 64-bit memory addressing so you can use more than 4 GB in that program, but they are rare. I mean, how many programs really need more than 4 GB? Not many.
In addition, native 64-bit support in the OS is going to be critical for the release of 64-bit apps. This will be true for both platforms.
The 64-bit extended Windows XP is in beta, and won't be released until 1H '05.
dylsexic manupilator
2004-08-19, 19:38
Maybe the title of this thread should have been " PC mobile destops vs. Apple Laptops"
'nuff said
I know someone who just got the top of the line Dell.
I laughed in his face and told him he was crazy! :lol:
nowayout11
2004-08-19, 21:20
I was wondering why it is that when a new, faster Pentium chip is released, it is only a month or so before it appears in many of the higher-end PC laptops (Alienware, Dell, etc...); while on the other hand, Apple seems to take forever to release chips in their laptops that are comparable to their desktop offerings? I understand that they seem to be having some heat issues with the G5 chip, however it seems that PC vendors aren't having similar problems introducing their fastest chips to laptops. (AMD has already released a 64-bit chip for PC laptops, and Alienware is releasing a 64-bit laptop incorporating this chip in September.) If it is simply a 64-bit issue, then why not release new, faster 32-bit chips for laptops frequently, as Pentium does? I just cant seem to figure out why Apple seems to be neglecting to provide updates for their mobile customers..... :no:
To answer the question more directly, without the exaggerated "4-inch thick" claims, PC companies are quick to market with these super-powered laptops because the chips inside are literally the desktop chips.
Intel does make a portable line of CPUs, and they do take longer to reach the market, however PC OEMs have often ignored Intel's portable line because those CPUs have often been more expensive than the desktop counterpart... as well as arriving much later than the desktop chip.
That's the beauty of a competitive market where one company's idealism doesn't suppress options. They all have systems that are super fast, at the expense of battery life. However, they DO make battery-conscious laptops as well. You have the ability to choose your preference.
trailmaster308
2004-08-19, 21:48
I have an Alienware Area 51m laptop. The silver model. 3.2Ghz 512mb ram 60 gig hd and nvidia 5200 go 128mb. The laptop is huge compared to my powerbook and the battery will last about 1.5 hrs TOPS if I am only doing telnet stuff on remote servers. When playing a game like UT '04 it will last only about 20 minutes. It is thick but its designed to be a mobile gaming desktop/laptop, not a super thin looker. It does what it's designed to do VERY well. Also, the video card can be removed and upgraded and I can say Doom 3 is hurting on it.
BenRoethig
2004-08-19, 22:13
compare the powerbooks are in the same class as the centrino notebooks. Like others have said, the higher end machines are really mobile desktops rather than true notebooks.
Patchouly
2004-08-20, 23:41
Thanks to Centrino technology, the latest PC notebooks using Pentium M are smaller, thinner and last very long on a single charge. The updated Pentium M (Dothan) now has a whopping 2MB L2 Cache and is more efficient than the Banias even though they are clocked higher.
The large, huge PC Notebooks mentioned in this thread usually have desktop processors in them and are sold as "portable desktops" with monster CPUs, GPUs and other desktop features. The PC portable market is too diverse and offers too many options to be summed up in generalizations and blanketed remarks found in this thread.
I personally have a PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz) and a Centrino VAIO (1.7GHz). The PowerBook konks out in 2 hours with normal use, the screen is very nice, but looks bla and dull and fuzzy compared to (and next to) Xbrite and the overall performance is so so.
The VAIO's screen is liquid, razor sharp, clear and bright with deep saturated colors - you want to lick it. The battery lasts well OVER 4 hours with REAL usage and normal to high screen brightness. The speed is noticeably faster than the PowerBook and now the Dothan hits up to 2GHz.
Right now, many PC portables have better displays, faster more efficient processors and WAY longer battery life than the current PowerBook. Even the designs are getting nicer, cleaner and sleeker than previous (PC) notebooks.
I truly hope that the next PowerBook revision will offer better screens with an OPTION for higher resolutions, better speed and most importantly, better battery life. Why bother having a portable sleek PowerBook if it konks out in literally 2 hours?
bassplayinMacFiend
2004-08-21, 00:18
My G4 is almost a year old and I probably get between 3-4 hours on a battery charge. Of course, I lower my CPU speed, turn down the screen brightness some and I'm either coding or surfing the 'net, 2 activities that don't exactly stress the system.
I know if I were to turn on Airport, crank the screen brightness and pop in a DVD I'd certainly be lucky to hit the 2 hour mark. Personally, I've never had an issue with the battery life. I used it to take notes in my Saturday morning class last semester (8-10:40) and it never ran out of battery on me, I always had a good chunk left over.
Thanks for the feedback guys.....
As far as the processors go, I guess I'm just fustrated that such a large and wealthy corporation as IBM can't seem to build more efficient chips at a faster pace. (ex the effieicnt, frequently updated Pentium M's mentioned above)
Since I own neither a PC nor an Apple laptop I have little experience with them, and am clueless as to what a typical bettery life is.
Quagmire
2004-08-21, 00:23
I can get 4 hours of battery life with the screen turned down, ae on, and have the cpu setting on highest with my pbook. Movies yea, it its just above 2 hours. Patch, I would have a talk to apple about the poor battery life.
I got a Toshiba P20 (17" screen, 3.2 GHz h-t, 1.25 GB of ram, 80 gig HD with superdrive)
The thing flies and is very powerful, the battery life is about 2-3 hrs though. Its pretty thick, but combined with all the extras, I'm extremely happy with it.
alcimedes
2004-08-21, 03:20
The large, huge PC Notebooks mentioned in this thread usually have desktop processors in them and are sold as "portable desktops" with monster CPUs, GPUs and other desktop features. The PC portable market is too diverse and offers too many options to be summed up in generalizations and blanketed remarks found in this thread.
actually, the original poster was asking about exactly those.
I was wondering why it is that when a new, faster Pentium chip is released, it is only a month or so before it appears in many of the higher-end PC laptops (Alienware, Dell, etc...); while on the other hand, Apple seems to take forever to release chips in their laptops that are comparable to their desktop offerings?
the alienware laptops, as well as the new high end dell "gaming" laptops use desktop processors, not mobile processors. they are very large, and they have short battery lives. in the PC market, it takes months between when the desktop version of a CPU is released and when the similar mobile processor chip is released, just like with Apple.
Crusader
2004-08-21, 23:58
I love my 15" Powerbook. Recently, a friend of mine purchased a Dell Inspiron (Is it just me or is that a lame sounding name?) 9100. He spent a grand total of $1800, receiving such features as the 2.8 HT PIV processor, DVD Burner, wireless card, and an extra battery. I on the other hand had purchased an 1.5 Ghz GIV, blah blah, for $2400. I like my purchase, even thought I didn't add Applecare (That will bite me in the @ss).
Besides I get ~3 hours when I really try, he gets 65 Minutes. My laptop weights ~5-6 pounds. His tips the scales at 9-10. I think I can make it through several classes @ college with my laptop. I believe my friend will resort to a pad of paper.
It's all good :)
Patchouly
2004-08-22, 01:20
I can get 4 hours of battery life with the screen turned down, ae on, and have the cpu setting on highest with my pbook. Movies yea, it its just above 2 hours. Patch, I would have a talk to apple about the poor battery life.There isn't anything wrong with the battery. I would get 4 hours too (on my PowerBook) if I was starring at a dim screen and reading a word document. But, I didn't buy the PowerBook to be limited (especially on the go). The point is, I can do any task with pretty much any brightness level and get at LEAST 3.5 hours on my Dothan Centrino. If I were to look at a dim screen and do minimal tasks, I'd get close to 6 hours.
I am not bashing Apple - I am expressing how frustrated I am at their current portable offerings. Speed aside, PowerBooks need better displays with slightly higher resolutions and MUCH better battery life. I would love it if Apple kicked Centrino in the ass! So, here's hoping for the next revision. ;)
Patchouly
2004-08-22, 01:21
I love my 15" Powerbook. Recently, a friend of mine purchased a Dell Inspiron (Is it just me or is that a lame sounding name?) 9100. He spent a grand total of $1800, receiving such features as the 2.8 HT PIV processor, DVD Burner, wireless card, and an extra battery. I on the other hand had purchased an 1.5 Ghz GIV, blah blah, for $2400. I like my purchase, even thought I didn't add Applecare (That will bite me in the @ss).
Besides I get ~3 hours when I really try, he gets 65 Minutes. My laptop weights ~5-6 pounds. His tips the scales at 9-10. I think I can make it through several classes @ college with my laptop. I believe my friend will resort to a pad of paper.
It's all good :)He simply chose the wrong notebook. He bought a huge and powerful monster with a desktop processor. That model is sold as a portable desktop gaming machine - not something you'd buy to take notes with in class.
There are many options on the PC side, and he chose one that is big, heavy and bad on battery life. He could have easily opted for a thin and light PC Notebook with a gorgeous hi-res Xbrite type display, fast but efficient Pentium M chip, great graphics all with 4-5 (or more) hours of battery life.
Or, if we are just talking about taking notes, storing music and using wireless internet, he could have bought a 2 - 3lbs subnote with an outrageous wide screen and good battery life. Personally, that's would *I* would carry around campus, etc.
The options are endless - so we really can't pretend that the PC world only has Dell 9100's as portables.
Quagmire
2004-08-22, 03:12
There isn't anything wrong with the battery. I would get 4 hours too (on my PowerBook) if I was starring at a dim screen and reading a word document. But, I didn't buy the PowerBook to be limited (especially on the go). The point is, I can do any task with pretty much any brightness level and get at LEAST 3.5 hours on my Dothan Centrino. If I were to look at a dim screen and do minimal tasks, I'd get close to 6 hours.
I am not bashing Apple - I am expressing how frustrated I am at their current portable offerings. Speed aside, PowerBooks need better displays with slightly higher resolutions and MUCH better battery life. I would love it if Apple kicked Centrino in the ass! So, here's hoping for the next revision. ;)
I can get 3 hours and 20 minutes or even higher with the screen on high. I use my pbook for ims, web, and email. So you are doing something wrong or there is something wrong with the battery.
FallenFromTheTree
2004-08-22, 07:17
Several of you have mentioned crisper or sharper screens on the p/c
laptops when compared to the PowerBooks.
Is this due to the actual screen resolution or is it because
Apple continues to offer such terribly inferior graphics support on many of their machines?
nowayout11
2004-08-22, 09:40
Several of you have mentioned crisper or sharper screens on the p/c
laptops when compared to the PowerBooks.
Is this due to the actual screen resolution or is it because
Apple continues to offer such terribly inferior graphics support on many of their machines?
I can't speak for anybody else, but the display on the PC lappies I've used are better than my iBook G4 lappie. It's not the resolution as much as it is the limited viewing angle. The iBook display distorts color even if I am looking at it at a slight angle (sharing it to watch a DVD, for example). Even the corners are slightly distorted if I look straight at it. I don't know if the PB display is any better or not since I haven't seen the newer models in person yet.
The PC laptops distort too, but it seems like there is a greater view angle.
But with so many different PC laptops out there, anybody's mileage may vary.
I can't speak for anybody else, but the display on the PC lappies I've used are better than my iBook G4 lappie. It's not the resolution as much as it is the limited viewing angle. The iBook display distorts color even if I am looking at it at a slight angle (sharing it to watch a DVD, for example). Even the corners are slightly distorted if I look straight at it. I don't know if the PB display is any better or not since I haven't seen the newer models in person yet.
The PC laptops distort too, but it seems like there is a greater view angle.
But with so many different PC laptops out there, anybody's mileage may vary.
I must say I am quite suprised by what you are saying.
I agree Apples are typically lower resolution over the same screen real estate but both my old 14" iBook and my current 17" G4 offer probably the best variations in viewing angle I have ever seen....
Couple that with the quality of the sound coming out of the 17" when watching movies, doing music etc. and you would think you had a mini stereo system..
Just my opinion though,
scratt.
Is this due to the actual screen resolution or is it because
Apple continues to offer such terribly inferior graphics support on many of their machines?
Neither. When there are problems, they are from the LCD screens themselves and the LCD manufacturer (LG Electronics, as I recall). Neither the graphics chip nor the native resolution directly affect things like viewing angle.
Ya know, a friend of mine got a laptop recently, it's almost identical to my powerbook in features, except it has a 1.5 ghz chip, but it gets great battery life, it weighs only slightly more than my book, and is only slightly bigger. It's definitely a very nice laptop. While, apple still makes great notebooks, PC notebooks ARE getting better, and there are still many more options out there for PCs.
but whatever, I still can't stand using windows :p
Ya know, a friend of mine got a laptop recently, it's almost identical to my powerbook in features, except it has a 1.5 ghz chip, but it gets great battery life, it weighs only slightly more than my book, and is only slightly bigger. It's definitely a very nice laptop. While, apple still makes great notebooks, PC notebooks ARE getting better, and there are still many more options out there for PCs.
but whatever, I still can't stand using windows :p
Exactly, who cares how good pc notebooks are when they still can turn to crap from a virus attack and still dont have a good system to go with the good hardware.
Exactly, who cares how good pc notebooks are when they still can turn to crap from a virus attack and still dont have a good system to go with the good hardware.
Plus the fact that the powerbook & ibook are sexier looking ;)
nowayout11
2004-08-22, 17:25
Exactly, who cares how good pc notebooks are when they still can turn to crap from a virus attack and still dont have a good system to go with the good hardware.
These discussions falling back on the tired "virus" argument is getting kind of old, particularly when they're completely off the topic. You'd think there was never a PC that didn't have a virus of some kind.
The fact that they are suceptible to viruses and spyware is a hit against them, but I agree that as long as you maintain a PC regularly, you are in good shape and shouldn't have to worry about that stuff. I've seen some pretty messed-up Macs that got that way because the user had no idea how to maintain their computer.
The way I see it, PCs of any kind are simply tools to get a job done. They're cheap, boring, and ubiquitous. Macs are fun to use and can usually get things done better and easier than PCs can. Each one has a place.
I agree totally with Luca.
From novices to advanced users, though, the average Mac is far less prone to problems like viruses and adware/spyware and that translates directly into saved time. Time is money (and lost productivity, money spent on antivirus software, money spent on tech support staffing, etc). For most cases I see, Apple's relatively inflated price is easily offset by the user experience and significantly fewer headaches thanks to viruses et al.
Sure, viruses may be an everyday occurrence in the Windows PC world. How does that justify them and make them any less of a nuisance, though? If the corner convenience store gets robbed every week by a gang, does that mean the robbery is any less of a crime?
And, yes, we are drifting slightly off-topic, but not really too far. :)
Ugh, I wish I'd moved this thread earlier; it never belonged in the Speculation forum. I'm moving it now to General Discussion since the subject is a gray area.
Apart from all the obvious advantages of using a Mac which have been outlined above by Luca and Brad (among others) and the fact that the UI of Macs has always been superior, oh and lets not forget the price and reliability of the graphic, video and audio applications which are supplied by Apple themselves and others.... What I find really great about the Mac now is the Unix base it is on.
My other half is using my old 14" iBook. She has only ever used a PC at work and was forever calling 'technical' to have the machine repaired after it crashed and locked up. She is not mega technical and has never liked computers, but has found her way around that Mac in a really short time. Right now she is using Photoshop and Word and a whole host of things and finds it amazing that she can run all these things all day long and the worst that will happen is that one ap. might unexpectedly quit, and that is very rare.
I only briefly used Unix way back when I was programming and that was on Sun workstations. I found it a bit strange but gradually got to like it... I had previously been used to DOS for command line stuff at work and obviously didn't use any command line stuff on my Macs at home. Macs were my home and relaxation machine which I DID NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want to program...
More recently my work and interests have moved to freelance web design, internet activities and the plothora of languages that now coexist in that environment. Now before everyone jumps on me I know that what I am about to say can be done on PCs... but I don't think as easilly or with the same functionality and low cost... The ease with which I was able to set up one of my machines as an Apache server with PHP and MySQL all running on it for developing and debugging web installations is stunning.
The way youu can run the front end of OS X alongide terminal windows and use these things as 'real mens computers' ;) whilst still doing the 'artsy fartsy' Photoshop and Dreamweaver WYSIWYG alongside it is sooo coool!
scratt :)
The way youu can run the front end of OS X alongide terminal windows and use these things as 'real mens computers' ;) whilst still doing the 'artsy fartsy' Photoshop and Dreamweaver WYSIWYG alongside it is sooo coool!Best quote of the day! :D
Sadly, though, that's the same mentality that perpetuates management buying PCs and staffing lots of Microsoft-certified technicians; they often don't trust computers where you don't have to (or can't) configure every single last option to get it working its best. Granted, there are other reasons two, but this has some influence.
nowayout11
2004-08-22, 23:41
Ah, well actually the intent of the post was to get OFF the tired "virus" stuff. But whatever. ;)
Obviously if you're writing malicious code meant to cause damage, you're not going to bother with a platform that holds 5% or less of the desktop market, and even less of the server market. This can be slanted either way as positive or negative for Macs. My point is that people keep coming back to it.
"iMacs are weak for gaming."
But PCs have viruses!
"My iBook has a so-so viewing angle."
But PCs have viruses!
The connection is weak at best in either case. It really IS ok, and even possible, to discuss the pros and cons of the Apple platforms and its various issues without even mentioning PCs... It's just never actually done. ;) Of course, I'm no better in this message, but it's to respond to the same 'ol FUD over viruses, etc.
There are a lot of people that do little more than browse the web, play games, and write email with their computers... be it Mac or PC, and either platform will work. The platform doesn't really determine "fun" in those cases. But in all other cases, it's more or less subjective. I've not necessarily had any more fun on my iBook. All my systems are great for what I use them for. If your idea of fun is gaming, Mac is not a good choice. If you want music and DVD burning, iLife is sweet.
For maintenance, the two programs I have on my PC, firewall and anti-virus, basically self-maintain. Aside from installing them, it's been mindless. You don't have to be an IT pro to handle the situation, nor does it have to be a day-to-day concern.
The major worm problems are caused by dopes not protecting their servers or clients well enough. But there are dopes everywhere. It's not a PC issue. PC/Windows boxes just happen to have the biggest piece of the pie (and no, they're not dopes for using the platform) :)
I am happy with OSX as a platform overall, and UNIX under the hood, but I don't yet think UNIX is actually ready for prime time. With OS 9, I got some kind of error message I could generally understand. Many times in OSX I'll try something and get no response. Knowing some level of unix I can check the logs to see what is going on, but the average person doesn't know how do do that (and if I say so myself, it's rather PC-esque to have to do that). So there is still some work to be done, and I hope they make it a priority sooner than later, rather than focus on feature updates that are beginning to strain their usefulness. (I know it's early, but I'm not too excited about Tiger yet.)
I am happy with OSX as a platform overall, and UNIX under the hood, but I don't yet think UNIX is actually ready for prime time. With OS 9, I got some kind of error message I could generally understand. Many times in OSX I'll try something and get no response. Knowing some level of unix I can check the logs to see what is going on, but the average person doesn't know how do do that (and if I say so myself, it's rather PC-esque to have to do that).
I am not taking issue with most of your post at all... In fact I think it is reasoned and well rounded... I am interested in your last couple of points... specifically the one I have quoted...
If you read that again doesn't that tend to suggest that Windows is not ready for prime time either? ;)
nowayout11
2004-08-23, 09:35
I am not taking issue with most of your post at all... In fact I think it is reasoned and well rounded... I am interested in your last couple of points... specifically the one I have quoted...
If you read that again doesn't that tend to suggest that Windows is not ready for prime time either? ;)
Yeah, but my iBook has a so-so viewing angle, and iMacs are bad for gaming! :D
I am happy with OSX as a platform overall, and UNIX under the hood, but I don't yet think UNIX is actually ready for prime time. With OS 9, I got some kind of error message I could generally understand. Many times in OSX I'll try something and get no response.
Ah, but keep in mind that Mac OS 9 had many years of development behind it that added those friendlier descriptions (most of which only came about circa OS 8). Even still there are oodles of horrid numerical errors that simply say you should save all work and restart ASAP.
Most novices have no idea what a Type 2 error is in Mac OS 9 despite its extraordinarily occurance. Sure, there are lists or programs online that can describe the error to you, but that's no different than OSX.
The *only* differences between OS9 and OSX errors are that A) you may simply be more familiar with the OS9 errors and B) Mac OS 9 had many all those extra years of development behind it that documented those errors.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.