Mac vs PC .info

[Pissed_Macman]

For those who didn't see this at the backup forums, here's a site that blows every anti-Mac argument to hell. I aim for the same thing at the Mac Revolution, but this is much more in-depth. No idea why this site isn't more well-known.

http://macvspc.info

[Pantso]

Yep. I came across this page a couple of months ago. Nice one and pretty informative as well.

[cahult]

I like this information a lot but he makes the same mistake as everybody else. The term PC!!! Let

[slave]

I prefer the term "Wintel" to PC.

[xyle_one]

The article does explain that it is common to see the term PC when speaking of Windows PCs. He goes on to say that for the rest of the article, he will use the term PC to refer to WinTel boxes...
 

quote: We realize that "PC" stands for "Personal Computer" ? which means that Macs are PCs. However, since common usage implies that PC means an Intel (or similar) microprocessor with Microsoft Windows as the operating system (aka Wintel), that is what we will mean when we say PC here.

I try to use the term wintel when talking about windows, but i do slip up...

[Pissed_Macman]

If you're going to talk about processor speed and stuff there's nothing wrong with using the term PC, but you can't compare Mac and PC processor speed anyway, so I don't know why the site would.

[voidmain]

You can compare MAC processors with Intel and AMD, but you can't do it by using Mhz which is where most people make their mistake. You need to use something more useful like transactions per second, floating point operations per second, integer operations per second, etc, etc. Unfortunately you don't find too many comparisons of these architectures using these measurements. Conversely, all the big iron commonly use these measurements along with many others to benchmark processing power. Or you could use LINPAK benchmarks like they do for supercomputer clusters and measure FLOPS, megaFLOPS, and teraFLOPS (yeah right, maybe somewhere behind a decimal point with a leading 0):

http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?sid=2871

[Calum]

i think we do need to make mac users aware that talking about 'PC's was made obsolete and unnecesary for their purposes sometime in the early nineties. I think this point must be made repeatedly until they learn the simple lesson to include the word 'windows in front of 'PC'. It's onl seven letters each time you want to say PC, and it saves you all that hassle of having to justify yourself in public all the time.

Also, having that disclaimer on your page is fine too, i have no problem with that excellent mac site talking about PCs when they have that disclaimer in full view (note: full view does not mean 'available by clicking a link in the small print at the bottom of a page').

[preacher]

According to the little chart that they show on the site, a 867 mhz G4 iMac is more powerful than a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 because it has better MTOPS performance. I just don't know if I can believe this.

Then there was this attack against linux.

 

quote:  Also included in the information Apple provided to NewsFactor were details of a test involving BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool), an open source biotechnology application used to find similarities in DNA and protein sequences.

Apple compared the performance of its dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4 running A/G BLAST to that of a Linux workstation with a 2 GHz Pentium 4 processor running NCBI BLAST. Both computers given the task of seeking similarities between human and mouse chromosomes.

Depending on the type of search performed the Power Mac delivered anywhere from 3 to 50 times the performance of the Linux workstation.

First of all if you read it correctly, you will see that they werent even using the same program in the tests. The linux BLAST program could be less efficient than the one for the mac. Also they are comparing a dual processor system with a single processor system. That alone is unfair. I have no clue what the program does, but I do know what high frame rates at high resolutions on games mean, and that is where the mac lags behind and where pc's shine.

Why is it everyone picks on linux. As if we dont get enough heat from Microsoft, now we are getting negatives from Apple too.

[Calum]

always have done. many mac users love to take a pop at linux because it's nothing to do with apple computer. then the same ones have the cheek to come out and criticise linux users for saying that apple's software is overpriced and closed source and that mac users wrongly blanket all pc users together. You can't please zealots. I do wish people would realise that your choice of operating system should not be a religion.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:
According to the little chart that they show on the site, a 867 mhz G4 iMac is more powerful than a 2.8 ghz Pentium 4 because it has better MTOPS performance. I just don't know if I can believe this.

Then there was this attack against linux.

First of all if you read it correctly, you will see that they werent even using the same program in the tests. The linux BLAST program could be less efficient than the one for the mac. Also they are comparing a dual processor system with a single processor system. That alone is unfair. I have no clue what the program does, but I do know what high frame rates at high resolutions on games mean, and that is where the mac lags behind and where pc's shine.

Why is it everyone picks on linux. As if we dont get enough heat from Microsoft, now we are getting negatives from Apple too.

I wouldn't doubt that the tests that were done are accurate. That's why you need to use benchmarks that are an accumulation and many smaller specific tests. I'm sure someone could find a test where a Commodore 64 can win. I am not partial to either platform in question. On desktop platforms (I'll avoid the term PC) the best benchmarks are which machine performs the best for the applications needed to do the work the user needs to get done. Now I'm sure most users aren't going to be looking for similarities between mouse and human chromosomes. If they do, the type of desktop they are using doesn't really matter because they will be most likely be connecting to some type of processing cluster.

If a user is a graphics artist and can accomplish their work more efficiently using OS X and associated applications, they should have a Mac, regardless of the speed of the processor. If a person is a systems administrator and can accomplish their work faster using Linux, the architecture isn't really that important. I am not partial to any hardware. I am partial to operating systems and software. I have no use for Microsoft in any capacity. I use many other operating systems and Microsoft are the only ones that are not in my "ok" book.

I do believe it is important to separate the hardware from the software when making arguments. If one combination allows you to do what you need done more efficiently, use it. If it's the only combination you have ever used then you probably shouldn't be involved in a debate.

[Pissed_Macman]

Can't we just go back to calling them IBMs?

[rtgwbmsr]

That article has been on LEM for quite a while. Very good, but doesn't work when the admins are as stubborn as they are over here.   :rolleyes:  

The way to get something voted "No" here:
"But it'll cost money"

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Macman: Mac Tro0per / boB:
Can't we just go back to calling them IBMs?

Only if they are IBMs which most aren't. And even then the IBM "PC" is only a tiny fraction of IBM's hardware business. I certainly hope you wouldn't be comparing with an IBM RS/6000 SP, or other machines in the pSeries or zSeries line.

I still believe it's not so much the hardware that you have a beef with but the operating system. So why don't you just say "Windows" when that's what you really mean?

[cocoamix]

quote:Originally posted by Macman: Mac Tro0per / boB:
Can't we just go back to calling them IBMs?

My Blue and WHite G3 has an IBM processor in it.