Article View: comp.sys.powerpc
Article #1299Re: Prices and questions about direction of PPC hardware
From: Dan Pop
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 22:44
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 22:44
46 lines
3014 bytes
3014 bytes
In <docjoe-1808952118480001@ip198.wilmington.de.interramp.com> docjoe@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) writes: >In article <danpop.808786740@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote: > > >> >> Yes, but none of those ran MacOS, which is primary factor in slowing >> down a Mac. > >Which is why published studies demonstrate that the user has a 50% higher >productivity and 50% higher accuracy using a Mac than a Windows machine. >And Mac support costs are thousands less. And so on. Who cares about >computer speed when the real issue is how much work you can get done? I definitely get more work done on Linux than on MacOS, no matter how much faster the Mac processor is. Your studies are worth zilch to me. And ask Microsoft advocates for studies proving the opposite. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of them. Who cares? Each individual is different from the mythical "average user", whether the definition of the average user is coming from Microsoft or Apple. >Besides, if the MacOS is so slow, can you explain why the PowerMac 9500 >was approximately twice as fast as a fast Pentium in side-by-side >application tests? That's easy. What OS was the Pentium running? What applications were involved in the tests? You can prove anything you want to prove by using "real world" applications. All you have to do is to choose the applications according to what you want to prove. This is why the industry recognizes the SPEC suites and not "side-by-side application tests" as a measure of performance. Get a clue. BTW, there is no ideal way to test the performance of a machine as a general purpose system. It just happens that the SPEC benchmarks are the best we have right now. But they show the PPC to be too slow and the Pentium to be too fast for the Mac bigot's tastes, so let's screw them and go back to side-by-side application tests performed with a carefully chosen application set. Dan -- Dan Pop CERN, CN Division Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<danpop.808872265@rscernix>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!CERN.ch!rscernix!danpopReferences:
<stephenkDD9Ay3.H7D@netcom.com> <40ooq2$pm0@navajo.gate.net> <40or0h$15n6@navajo.gate.net> <40p4eo$qeo@caesar.ultra.net> <40pccd$61p@bug.rahul.net> <docjoe-1608950821470001@ip13.wilmington.de.interramp.com> <danpop.808603659@rscernix> <DDGy01.6tn@mail.auburn.edu> <danpop.808786740@rscernix> <docjoe-1808952118480001@ip198.wilmington.de.interramp.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600 Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!CERN.ch!rscernix!danpop From: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) Subject: Re: Prices and questions about direction of PPC hardware X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ues5.cern.ch Message-ID: <danpop.808872265@rscernix> Sender: news@news.cern.ch (USENET News System) Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #9 (NOV) References: <stephenkDD9Ay3.H7D@netcom.com> <40ooq2$pm0@navajo.gate.net> <40or0h$15n6@navajo.gate.net> <40p4eo$qeo@caesar.ultra.net> <40pccd$61p@bug.rahul.net> <docjoe-1608950821470001@ip13.wilmington.de.interramp.com> <danpop.808603659@rscernix> <DDGy01.6tn@mail.auburn.edu> <danpop.808786740@rscernix> <docjoe-1808952118480001@ip198.wilmington.de.interramp.com> Distribution: usa Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 22:44:25 GMT