Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactHome | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactOn Feb 6, 2004, at 11:17 AM, F Vernon Green wrote: > While I hear all these good things about the worlds "fastest computer" > I > just don't see it. > > I have a 1.9 ghz Pentium 4 here in the office. The bosses son bought a > new > Mac the 2 ghz one. While that machine might be considered the fastest > while > running a specialized program to test speed. When it came down to > everyday > actions the Pentium was still faster. It depends on the action, and whether the system is compiled to make use of Altivec or other processor technologies. Look at any app compiled that makes use of the stuff, such as scientific apps or similar with large floating point usage, and it'll blow any PC away. Further, if you then add threaded support into that app, it's unreal how fast it can be. Most of the stuff you're talking about uses only one processor. At that point, a single 2ghz G5 is equivalent to a dual 2ghz G5. Once you get an app using both processors, using that app rocks. > I don't know if the OS from Apple is the problem, maybe they are much > much > better if you put Linux on them. The problem is like any other app - it depends on how it's compiled. Not so much the OS itself. > I will have to admit that programs that are specially written for the > Mac > experience may have some benefit. Mainly in the area of video editing, > he > could render a 2 minute video clip faster than I could. Launching > browser > programs, word processing programs, and just opening and closing > Windows > were way slower. Video clips, photoshop, and some other similar things on Mac's tend to smoke PC's when using the G5's. As for browser programs, word processing, etc. My experience has been that it's very much the app itself not making use of the processor. i.e. look at the opteron or other 64 bit processors - there isn't a huge boost on performance for those processors until the vendor releases an update which makes full use of the 64 bit processor. For most things, my experience has been though that the G5's are at least equivalent if not better in most areas even without recompiles. Second note - closing, opening windows from what I've seen is blazingly fast on a Mac G5, even compared to a windblows program. Look at safari - that thing renders and loads pages quicker than ANY Internet Explorer browser on any system I've seen. > This is just my experience. The bosses son went home with his tail > between > his legs as well since my 1.9 gig Pentium costs about half of what he > paid > for that Mac. Perhaps he went home with "his tail between his legs" but he shouldn't have. Most of those apps are only using one processor, and the half as much doesn't even cover the PCI-X slots, enahnced architecture, etc. The twice as much buys at least twice as much machine. You're talking about performance, but again, the difference on most things between a 1.9Ghz P4, vs a 2Ghz G5, the difference is more in the harddrive speed and other factors for loading applications, and as said, Apple's still perform amazingly. It's like comparing apples to oranges, what you're comparing in your 1.9P4 to the G5. The G5 has a LOT more to it. Seriously - do some benchmarks on a compiled app through a command line - just straight benchmarks on apps that can make use of the G5. You'll find that they tend to smoke the P4's in most scenarios. Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: EMAIL:PROTECTED > [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > EMAIL:PROTECTED > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 8:19 AM > To: MLUG Members > Subject: Re: [MLUG] apple?? mac?? Opinions please??? > > The emac's use 802.11b/g and desktop ram PC133 memory > <http://dealram.com/prices/systems/22003/512MB.html> > About $100 for a 512meg module. > > The G3 iBooks has been replaced (about 4 months ago) with > a new G4 iBook. Different improved memory, video and a few > other items. > > Michael > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:21:30 -0600 (CST) > Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 EMAIL:PROTECTED wrote: >> >>> Apple also has eMac's (17inch CRT) machines forsale for >>> non-students for around $600. I don't remember who had >>> that price but I just saw it in the last day or two. >>> >>> <http://www.apple.com/emac/> >>> >>> Some of the laptop's have also been in the $600 - $800 >>> price range for new and factory referbished. >> >> OK, so the Computer Spectrum has an eMac (combo drive) >> special for >> $599. With that, you do need more memory; oddly, the >> Crucial.com >> price for 512MB is up to $140. Also, the swivel stand is >> pretty >> key, and 802.11b is handy if you like wireless. >> >> Of course, the special pricing also makes one believe >> that they're >> clearing old inventory. >> >> Oh: the 'Spectrum also has the 12-inch iBook for $899. >> That also >> wants more RAM for $100 (why cheaper than for an eMac?). >> My guess >> is that they're going to come out with a slightly better >> iBook soon; >> the stock hard drive is only 30 GB, and anything less >> than 60 GB >> these days is pretty silly. >> >> jking >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members mailing list >> EMAIL:PROTECTED >> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > EMAIL:PROTECTED > http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > EMAIL:PROTECTED > http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ members mailing list EMAIL:PROTECTED http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members