🚀 go-pugleaf

/ akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) /  1:08 pm  May 18, 1991 /
writes:

$ So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in
$ execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the
$ reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference?
$ 
Is it really so ?  First off, it is hard to determine what is a "comparable"
pc to a mac. Secondly, I tend to find that Windows has a greater minimum
requirement for things to start rolling. From my experience, for "properly"
configured system vs. "in-properly" configured system, a proper 25 MHz 
non-cached 386 can run (say PowerPoint) up to 5 times faster that a 33 Mhz 
cached 386.  This was clocked with printing to a PaintJet printer.

If you have been trying to get Windows to fly with 2 MB RAM, then you WILL
be disappointed even with a 33 Mhz 386. I would say, a minimum of 4 MB RAM
is preferred; with proper disk cache configuration --- then, Windows will
run very nicely.

It is not fair for me to say how it compares with the Mac (heck, I only
have a lowly Mac/SE original with 4 MB RAM). But, like I said above,
Windows need a lot more before it starts to fly. So, I would tend to say
it is not fair comparison for a mac and pc both equiped with 2 MB RAM.


Regards,     ___o``\________________________________________________ ___ __ _ _
Peter Lim.   V````\  @ @ . .. ... .- -> 76 MIPS at under US$20K !!   --- -- - -
                  /.------------------------------------------------ === == = =
             >--_//      . .. ... .- -> 57 MIPS at under US$12K !!
                `'       . If you guessed SUN, IBM or DEC, you are wrong !

E-mail:  plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM     Snail-mail:  Hewlett Packard Singapore,
Tel:     (065)-279-2289                      (ICDS, ICS)
Telnet:        520-2289                      1150 Depot Road,
                                             Singapore   0410.

#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>