Re: Re: Re: 3ghz
Originally posted by groovebuster
Stop telling those tales! Of course there was a lot of support needed in the older days. Since Windows2000 times changed dramatically.
...
Wonna know how many real problems she had during that time with her computer??? ZERO!!! She's knows **** about computers and it crashed maybe 5 or 6 times since then. She never had a BSOD
...
hehe, I'm glad you know so many happy windows users. I, on the other hand make my living fixing Macs, PCs and Unix/Linux boxes. Windows IS much more stable than it has ever been, but it also is a million more times susceptable to viruses... not just because there are more windows virus writers, but also because MS enables virus writers with their bad design decisions.
Windows also goes down much harder when there is a problem. When windows DOES go south, it is a lot harder to fix than a mac... again due to design decisions by Microsoft.
Microsoft's code is often much worse than its competetors, IMHO... If you want proof, lets not even bother with counting MS bug fixes because it could be argued that MS has more holes exposed because more people look for them. Rather, consider Microsoft's own testimony in front of the DOJ. When arguing against a proposal to open the Windows source code as a term of settlement in the DOJ antitrust case, MS first contended that this would raise security concerns. On questioning, however, MS admitted that its code was so loose and buggy that they couldn't release it for fear of divulging the security issues.
The Register link one
There is another such register article, but I'm unable to quickly find it and I don't have all day to look :-( The other article provided better examples of my above claims. :-(
I remember times when Mac users used the argument that a Mac is faster than a PC. Now that the Mac platform is so much behind on speed issues all the people say now that it doesn't matter anymore... So what?
Even Jobs was always using the Mhz myth to point out how fast the Macs are. Now it doesn't matter anymore?
yes, Macs did clock faster back in the day. Remember when the 604e was pushing past 300MHz and Intel users were overclocking PPros to 266MHz?
The difference now is that a 'slow' processor is pretty wicked fast. Back then, software was smaller, but you were still dealing with 200-300MHz. Now, a 'slow' processor is clocked at 3x that speed, with tons more bandwidth and video power that you couldn't imagine back then.
My argument was/is, integer performance on just about any modern processor is pretty damn fast. Altivec DOES actually make up for the G4s current lack luster FP performance. In short, not as fast, but fast enough in the stuff that matters.
And that thing said about the Alpha processor and UNIX is just stupid. In '97 you hardly got any of the professional standard apps for creative work for Alpha machines or UNIX.
You posted nothing in the original post about application support. You whined about P4 clock rates and indicated that PCs were faster so screw the Mac. I just responded to what YOU said. Don't call me stupid because I responded to your original, narrow post.
Tell me the difference between PS on the Mac and PS on Windows and how the OS is getting in your way then?!?!?! Or take any other app that is available for both platforms...
Well, I for one don't like the Windows design philosopy where all windows of an app run in a window. Seems silly to me.
But... I complained about an OS getting in the way and you ask for Application examples. ???
You are not responding to the your original point, or my response.
There are many examples of how windows interface 'gets in the way'. How it isn't efficient. The most overt example has to be the integrated 'help' system in XP though. Who the f*ck want's the OS to come up and pester the user, over and over.
'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?' 'hey, you want your .net account yet?'
You can't get any more 'in your way' than that.
A company I have a contract with is only using Windows machines (30 employees). I asked the sysad lately how much work he has with supporting the PCs and he said that it is normally almost nothing, he is normally responsible for the servers (since they are a .COM they have quite a few of them) and the support for the PCs is made by him just on request between the other stiff he has to do. Is he a liar? I don't think so...
No, he's not lying. He's good and/or lucky. Any competent tech can have an easy job if 1) he sets things up from the start, and 2) his coworkers aren't too inqusitive about there machine configs. This is true of a Mac or a PC.
I only claim that a) PCs are more problematic due to the underlying design of Windows, b) they are more likely to be infected, due to market share (attention from crackers) AND due to bad MS design, and c) Macs are significantly easier to fix than Wintel PCs when both go bad... given the techs have roughly similar respective PC and Mac troubleshooting skills.
What counts is the overall performance of the system. And by the way... I want to see the benchmark where Photoshop on a Mac beats a PC clocked twice as fast that is NOT from Apple marketing department! All the benchmarks made by independent sources say the opposite.
That isn't exactly an accurate statement. Independent benchmarks do show PCs pulling ahead of Macs in Photoshop benchmarks. SSE2 updates to code helps. This doesn't mean that Macs don't beat much higher clocked PCs in Photoshop benchmarks.
I did a search and found some examples. I could do better if I had more time. I was not able to find one pro-apple benchmark that I remember being published recently in one of the PC mags.
TechTV, P4 2GHz beats 867MHz G4 at photoshop, but not by much
There is another, recent (last month?), PC/Mac PShop shoot out at a major PC magazine, but I can't freaking find the link!!!! The Mac won almost all the benches. sorry, I can't locate it.
USA Today... Dual Gig G4 vs p4 vaio (author is mac user)
xinet's xServe benchmarks
...and to be fair, the Mac getting spanked in digital video
My only complaint with the video editing bench, is the use of OSX. Though it is coming along nicely, It obviously isn't nearly as fast enough as it could be. Use of a Jaguar beta points this out clearly. I'd like to see the benches run on OSX and OS9 to see if OSX is 'getting in the way' and to make sure the carbon versions of the apps are optimized well in X. It is, after all, supposed to be a HARDWARE benchmark.
As a matter of fact in real world a G4 performs like a PIII at the same clock speed. Many many tests by different sources confirmed that and it is backed up by what I experienced too.
yes, and a P4 performs SLOWER than a PIII at the same clock rate, unless SIMD2 is used on the P4. The PIII never performed that far behind the athlon either. In fact, when the PIII move to 512k L2 cache, it started outperforming similarly clocked Athlons (
Tom's Hardware P3 Tualatin review ). So your point is? The G4 runs most non-parallel code like a PIII, which runs non-parallel code like an Athlon, which runs non-parallel code faster than a similarly clocked P4?
Nice point.
Fact is, the chips are more similar in integer and FP performance than most people think. A little faster here, a little slower here. The only exception to this is the P4 which is quite a bit slower at the same clock as other processors.
The big difference has been clock speed. Sure, a 2.5 GHz P4 is going to smoke... even with the design choices Intel was required to make in order to get that fast. That doesn't mean that:
a) a 1GHz PPC 7460 isn't more than fast enough for most common tasks.
b) Altivec can't accelerate video/decryption/encryption and similar tasks far beyond the capabilities of other processors.
Thing is, the athlon hasn't scaled very well in clock speed in the last 6 months. I hate to talk in 'ifs', but this is a rumor site. 'If' Apple can release a dual 1.4 GHz next month, it will go a long way tword closing the performance gap. The fastest Athlon is (i believe) currently 1.7 GHz. That's a lot closer than when the Athlons were clocked twice as fast as the PPC chips.
If you would just stop to close your eyes from reality and would do the comparison yourself, instead of sticking with your fanatic opinion that Apple HAS to be better by definition, you would maybe start to understand from which direction the wind blows.
nice pun... wind blows
anyway, I entered my last post on my Duron 800, which is more than fast enough (after 2000 finishes loading) for everything I do on it. I actually have 2 running PCs at home and no running macs at the current time.
I consider myself to be very fair in my posts about everything, I tell people to buy PCs when they have experience or investment in that platform. That doesn't mean that I don't believe 100% in everything I've said:
Windows is more problematic than the mac, especially when something DOES go wrong on either platform
Any current processor is fast enough for just about any common task
Altivec does make a real difference in the tasks that most need a significant amount of computing power (encryption, decryption, video editing, image processing)
