Antony wrote:[img=right]http://sillydog.org/graph/temp/mhzmyth01.jpg[/img]It is hard to compare between them, because it's not just the speed of the clock, but also a number of other factors. Such as giga-flop and velocity engine in G4 chips.
According to Apple's megahertz myth video,
867MHz G4 against 1.7GHz Pentium 4. For the same exact task, G4 took 45 seconds and Pentium 4 took 82 seconds.
It is said, G4 876MHz is 80% faster than 1.7GHz P4.
The megahertz myth video chip, 17.1MB, QuickTime movie format.
Apple wrote:The 15-inch and 17-inch PowerBook G4 models were compared to the 1.7GHz Pentium Mâ€“based Dell Inspiron 8600.The 1.5GHz 15-inch and 17-inch PowerBook systems were 17 percent faster, while the 1.33GHz 15-inch PowerBook was 10 percent faster.The 1.33GHz 12-inch PowerBook was compared to a 1.4GHz Pentium Mâ€“based Sony VAIO PCG-V505DC1. In this case, the 12-inch PowerBook was 50 percent faster.
Testing conducted by Apple in March 2004 using preproduction PowerBook G4 units.The 15- and 17-inch models were configured with 1GB of memory and the 12-inch model was configured with 768MB of memory. Competitive systems were configured with equivalent memory. File size = 300MB.
Mandrake wrote:Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .
Mandrake wrote:BSD is NOT an OS for end users, it's primrarily a server OS - so of course OS X will be easier to use than it.
"Linux machines suffered 13,654 successful attacks, or 80 percent of the survey total. Windows based servers enjoyed a sharp decline in successful breaches, with only 2,005 attacks."
Security in Windows is getting much better, compared to Linux. There is also the factor of market share, since BSD/OS X is not used nearly as much as Linux or Windows on a server, of course they will suffer less attacks.
ryaxnb wrote:Mandrake wrote:Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .
Now. Explain why you feel the G5 is slower.
Explain where you're evidence is that Steve's benchmarks are wrong or insignificant.
When first G5 was announced, there was a very long delay as well. When they announced the first G5. You can claim such product was not available back then, but they do have a few machines available (pre-massive production)Mandrake wrote:The highest model that will be avaliable at WWDC 2004 is a Dual 2 GHz, because the 2.5GHz isn't out until July.
Are you kidding? Apple's Mac designs, including (original) iMac, new iMac (flat panel), G4 Cube, ... etc are frequent winner of whatever industry designs.900t wrote:As for looks, I think Macs look a little lame compared to IBM...
Antony wrote:Are you kidding? Apple's Mac designs, including (original) iMac, new iMac (flat panel), G4 Cube, ... etc are frequent winner of whatever industry designs.
Mandrake, you are comparing the wrong thing.Mandrake wrote:Memory management? Compare how much ram OS X needs compared to Windows XP! Windows XP runs fine with 256mb of ram, there is no denying that you need 512mb of ram to run OS X properly, it's a memory hog - it uses much more memory than Windows XP or a recent Linux distro with KDE. Keeping this in mind, I fail to see how you claim Windows is bloatware, when it is indeed OS X that is bloated.
Registered users: Google [Bot], psbot [Picsearch]