View Single Post
  #80   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-07-2002, 18:06
Kyle Fenton Kyle Fenton is offline
GET IT ON!!
FRC #0121 (Rhode Warrior)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Middletown, R.I.
Posts: 785
Kyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud ofKyle Fenton has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to Kyle Fenton
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hurt
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 business field? The only time I've ever seen a business 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 business environment. 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 list. of Linux, Unix, BEos, bsd's.... and most of them aren’t very hard to learn, espically the newer releases of Linux. Out of all of them, I prefer Win2k. It's fast, stable, and highly configurable. I also run Xp and Redhat occasionally. 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
I have never heard RISC ever in my life. I am not saying your wrong, but I never seen it.

Anyways, Pro Users turn to Macintosh not really for its hardware, but its software. Apple uses Color Sync, which displays a better color than a Microsoft Windows pallete. Macs also use Quartz, Open GL, PDF, etc. that make creative pro users flock to the mac than to the PC. There are a bunch of other reasons that creative users choose Macintosh, but I won't get into that.

How fast a computer goes depends on several factors, both in software and in hardware.
Mhz, or the yield, is really kind of a stupid way to measure power in a computer. Because Mhz is really like the RPM meter in your car, it doesn't tell you how fast your going, it just tells you how fast the pistons are revolving. There are so many ways you can measure speed for a processor (MHz, Gigaflops, and some company invent their own way of measuring speed, like AMD). But the most accurate test is a fair benchmark test.
In hardware you can't say "What is the fastest thing in my computer," but you have to ask yourself "What is the slowest thing in my computer" because that limiting factor really determines what your actual speed is going to be. For example say you have the latest and greatest P4 2.5 Ghz, but you have 133 mhz SD-RAM, the end result will be that you can only harvest about 1.33 Ghz of that power. There are so many other things that can hinder performance too.

The top 7 reasons that I have noticed that Macs are not common in the business field are:

1. LAN administrators will criticize you if you try to put a Mac on a Windows Network.

2. Companies try to cut cost by only offering service and support to Wintel Machines.

3. Business don't want to buy 2 licensees for the same product.

4. Companies want everything standardized computers so they can get tech support from one company.

5. The high initial cost of Macs, sometimes deters them from buying it.

6. There is a specific piece of software that everyone has to run, and its not Mac

7. Most business usually use computers for applications like Office, databases, the internet, e-mail, and other simple tasks that PCs can do as well as Macs