by Mandrake » Wed 26 May, 2004 2:27 am
by toecutter » Wed 02 Jun, 2004 10:16 pm
by Antony » Sun 06 Jun, 2004 9:06 pm
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.
by Antony » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 9:45 am
by ryaxnb » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 1:49 pm
Mandrake wrote:Well, this Dilbert cartoon certainly does remind me of Steve Job's and the G5 . . .
by ryaxnb » Wed 09 Jun, 2004 1:50 pm
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.
by Mandrake » Thu 10 Jun, 2004 4:14 am
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.
by Antony » Thu 10 Jun, 2004 4:58 am
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.
by 900t » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 7:55 pm
by Antony » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 8:08 pm
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...
by Don_HH2K » Wed 14 Jul, 2004 8:21 pm
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.
by ianian » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:28 am
by Mandrake » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 9:24 pm
by Antony » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:04 pm
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.
by ianian » Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:32 pm