And remember, there isn't a native CS2 for Intel Macs yet, so this version
runs through a translation layer to the old code. I'd be willing to bet the
Windows version running under Parallels would actually run better!
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 5:06 PM
Subject: **SPAM** [OM] Re: iMac for Workflow
> I'd believe that if Macs had access to different processors than PC's
> do. But a Mac running Windoze has to run the same software running on
> the same processor and, in addition to the PC's workload, it has to pass
> through the Parallels translation layer at least part of the time.
>
> I suppose it's possible that Apple does their own motherboard support
> chips which might convey a performance advantage but I don't consider
> that likely given their historic cost/volume problems. Sounds like more
> Mac folk lore to me. But I'd consider it a resounding success if there
> was no more than 10% overhead and that is probably quite doable and
> pretty much unnoticeable.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Chris Barker wrote:
>
>
>> You can run Windoze on the Intel Macs (aaargh! ;-)) with a system
>> called Parallels, about USD60. Apparently it is faster than a PC
>> running the OS.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006
> 4:48 PM
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|