|
Mac processors are risc processors. They take large complex equations and break them down into simpler problems. PC processors are becoming more and more risc, that's why Intel and AMD processors have been able to reach such high speeds so fast.
The reason Mac's have been the choice for graphics applications is because they could break down the large instructions and process them faster. And since graphics applications usually have really large instructions, it benefited even more from this.
With the newer Intel and AMD chips, they are now breaking down really complex instructions into smaller instructions in a similar fashion. They are not pure risc chips, but they are a hybrid.
So yes, Mac's are better for graphics, and maybe a few other things. But when it cuts down to it, the hybrid chips of Intel and AMD are starting to outperform the Mac's.
As for if Mac's are better, why don't you see more of them in the buisness field? The only time I've ever seen a buisness use macs is in a graphics department. And trust me, if we wanted to run the software that we run on a PC on a mac, we could. Most everything we run is in Java, and can be run on anything from our AS/400's to our macs. But mac's are too expensive and too difficult to customize the way you can Linux or Windows to be practical in a buisness enviroment. For the same, if not faster, speed, you can pay 1/4 to a 1/2 for a pc of what you would pay for a mac.
Ok, so I know this thread was supposed to be about software, not hardware....
There are plenty of choices besides Windows 2000 and XP. There are countless dist. of Linux, Unix, BEos, bsd's.... and most of them arn't very hard to learn, espically the newer releases of Linux. Out of all of them, I perfer Win2k. It's fast, stable, and highly configurable. I also run Xp and Redhat occassionally. They all have their own uses.
And as for knocking Motorola for making "weak" processors, oh well. I'm not here to be politically correct, and it's no different from saying Ford is better then GM
|