On Wednesday 25 May 2005 10:03 am, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > And yet you seem to imply that PPC hardware is itself inferior. > > Nope. Just overpriced. I contend that x86 has a better price/ > performance, especially in the form of AMD chips.
Performance, at least in my writing of the equation, also includes such factors as: * will the case fail after N openings and closings? Dells cases are all plastic reinforced with aluminum spars here and there. After two years of use, my Dell developed significant cracks in the plastic casing, and after four years the lid hinges simply BROKE OFF from the rest of the computer. * will the case protect itself against minor mishaps? I know for a fact that the titanium and now aluminum cases of the PowerBook line have preserved these systems from incidents that would have been much more damaging to a plastic-encased notebook. One of my friends is very, very hard on notebooks, you see. * will the laptop last me six years, as my last one did, without requiring the cosmetic or structural surgery my last one did? I'll show you the pieces. > > And yet all the latest supercomputers seem to be built around Apple > > Xserves. Interesting. > > Did you look at those price tags? Remember: performance is half of > price/performance. If you ignore price, then we can all drive Ferraris! > (/me notes the Toyota Corolla sitting in the parking lot) If you look at the price tags, I suspect they'd be comparable to similar systems built on dual-Opteron or dual-Xeon nodes. > The big question would be is a 2GHz Pentium-M CPU comparable to a 1.5GHz > G4? I don't know, but I assume it is close enough for armchair > hypothesising! From practical experience in using such systems, yes, they are comparably equivalent in an overall system performance comparison. > > Overall, I ended up spending about $3k on my powerbook once I optioned > > it up the way I wanted. I also priced out a Dell notebook and ended up > > around $3k as well for what would make me happy. > > At those prices, would the Dell have performed better? And were they > similarly configured? The Dell I was looking at (don't have the specs anymore, sorry) would likely have been a tiny bit quicker in raw CPU, but real-world performance would likely have been the same. I.e., how long to start this app I need now? How responsive will my email client be? Will compiling an app take an appropriately short time? The other consideration that swayed me towards Apple over Dell for similar systems was the operating environment. The Dell would have required me to run Windows XP Pro if I wanted minimum hassle, or Linux with an unknown number of tweaks and workarounds if I wanted to be able to actually use all the hardware. As of yet, the wireless options supplied by Dell still have no native Linux support. The Apple system comes with, essentially, a real-world unix underneath a UI anybody can use. The Apple provides me with the best of both worlds (UNIX GEEK and CORPORATE BEAN), for just a couple hundred dollars more in the bargain. For me, it was a no-brainer. > Did you add pre-emptive kernel patched to the Linux system? That adds a > lot in apparent responsiveness. I shouldn't have to. I'm beyond the days of even wanting to muck about with the kernel to get a feature that I believe should have been there when I installed the OS. I don't need to do that with Solaris. Or Mac OS X. Didn't have to do it with HP-UX, either. So why, gods, why, is the solution in Linux-land, "simply patch the kernel!" I have far too much to do in my days to spend several of them getting a working kernel with all the necessary patches to support my needs. > Apple keeps a very narrow view of supported harware and architectures. > This is a limited menu mentality, and it works great in a lot of cases > (In N Out has a limited menu, and what they do is most excellent. Just > don't go there for Lobster Newburgh). Similarly, for what Apple does > they do excellently. Maybe I'm just too simple-minded, but when I go to Dell, trying to figure out which one of their 15 or so laptop models or 7 or so desktop models or 5 or so "workstation" models, ad nauseum, is the right one for what I need. Apple's "limited" line of products in terms of general-purpose computers, I believe, is a boon to someone trying to figure out what they'd need. Two lines of notebooks (who's primary variation within lines is screen size), one workstation line (PowerMac), two "desktop" lines (iMac and Mac Mini) which themselves serve completely different markets, and one server line. > I am just of the impression that they are overpriced. It may also be > because they package their computers with good stuff, so you don;t end > up getting a crappy system. They are not trying to lure you in with > cheap prices, then charge you as you build it to be usefull. I did see > that Dell did do that with their ``starting at!'' prices. I have yet to be able to have a Dell salesperson sell me a Dell at the "starting at" price without either forcing me to purchase XP or the system being a complete peice of junk requiring after-market upgrades. > Perhaps Apple is not as overpriced as I am thinking. I know that I think > they do produce wonderful hardware. Except that to buy one, one would > have to buy one with the supported Airport card. I can't even find those > in the Refurb section. Try your luck with EBay or Craigs List? This may not even be a requirement, especially if you're not goign to run Mac OS X on it. In my 15" powerbook, the Airport card sits in a hidden PC-Card (PCMCIA) slot behind the battery, with an antenna lead to connect to it. Any similarly sized WiFi card with an antenna connector _should_ work. I'm not going to tear my PB apart to test that theory, though. :) Gregory -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
pgpCDM4bkxLUx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
