Also notable is that the benchmarks that showed the macs to be significantly
faster were *specific" as opposed to general benchmarks. i.e. benchmark
Photoshop on the Mac vs. a same-speed Wintel machine, and the Mac benchmarks
faster. (BTW, I got the benchmark info from Apple's own site when this was
originally claimed in their advertising.
Benchmark for *general purpose use* and you get much, much different
results.
Just remember the old adage: MIPS does not equal "Millions of Instructions
Per Second", as it was originally intended. It's long since been corrupted
into "Marketing Interpretations Per Second". :-) So... YMMV, Not valid where
prohibited, etc. etc.
Personally, I agree with C.H. I don't know of a Mac that can approach
*overall* Wintel (or WinAMD) price/performance. That said, however, I also
know of applications (like *dedicated* graphics or compositing "engines")
where the Macs excel in terms of available applications and performance.
The biggest issue, IMHO, though, is in compatibility and support. If I want
something I can grab spares for anywhere on a moment's notice and help for
from just about anyone, I'll stick with the Wintel/WinAMD platform. Strictly
a function of market share, which doesn't address any inherent superiority
of either platform.
Like with doing anything else, you have to pick the right tool for the job.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: C.H.Ling [mailto:chling@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [OM] aaaaaaah, I'm soooooo weak!!!!!
Thanks for the information, I rare read about Mac.
I know the Mac could be faster with the same CPU speed, but Intel and AMD
just running very fast since there are lots of people using them, they have
the money to spend on development. They are now 2GHz and 1.4GHz
respectively. I really don't know if a Mac system of $3000 or below can work
faster than them.
C.H.Ling
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|