Operating Systems > macOS

Mac vs PC .info

<< < (2/4) > >>

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.
--- End quote ---


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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page