On 8 Dec 2003, at 03:00, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Why Apple fans always try to forgot the fact: Intel or AMD craps are
faster in the same space and time than Gx processors? And try to hide this
fact it behind the OS arena? I know, in hardware, it is not an MHz. issue.
But Intel and AMD craps are in fact faster and cheaper. In short you get
more for your bucks. :-D
I don't think Apple fans necessarily try to forget the Intel vs. PPC argument. To give some context: I recently went from a new (~ 8 months old) 2.4GHZ Pentium 4 laptop to a 1.25GHZ Powerbook. And I really don't regret it at all. Ok, so it takes 17 minutes to build cocoon rather than 4, but I don't rebuild cocoon often enough for that to be a problem. I've saved more time than I've lost.
These days, what you get for your bucks can't just be measured in raw speed. How about over 3 hours of _genuine_ battery life? (My intel was advertised as 2+ hours, and I never got more than 1 hour out of it even with full powersaving on.) Flawless suspend-resume?
I still have present the Stefano projection in 8 or more hours for converting to DIVx a 45 mins long conferences of GT2003.
Yes, this is a good example of one area where raw power does matter.
For me, OSS is here to stay and many of us are betting the farm in OSS.
Absolutely. I get a lot more OSS written using OS X than I do using Linux. (And don't forget that you can run Linux on Macs too.) When the Intel hardware manufacturers see people deserting the platform in droves, maybe they will make the hardware a little more open so that things work a little better in Linux.
I'd recommend any doubters to try a Mac for a couple of weeks. If you still don't like them, fair enough :-)
Andrew.
-- Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135 Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/ Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/
