What is Digg?153 Comments
- Jarda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Remember guys... Apple isn't about logic. It's about passion.
Mac users don't care. They'll hate whatever company Steve Jobs will tell them to hate. - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A few years ago they would advertise their machines as almost twice as fast as intel based machines. Now that they're intel based, they are 2-93843984 times faster than the old Macs.
Great. - coolfrood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I like their benchmarks: run integer operations 4 times faster. Yes that's what I use my computer for, to find out how fast I can churn integers and floats. Real-world applications are so-2005.
- snowwrestler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This post is so bad I actually just registered with Digg to comment on it.
My first point is that the post links to an article from 2003 to support its point on the old benchmark, yet there is no second link that breaks down the SPEC benchmarking of the new systems. In other words there is literally no analysis of the current Intel Mac benchmark whatsoever. The poster asserts that the new benchmarks were done a certain way but offers no proof at all.
My next point is that the linked article is far from conclusive; if anyone takes the time to read they will see lots of speculation and questions, not a lot of answers. In fact the most damning conclusion the article is that the benchmarking process is not transparent enough, not that it is obviously rigged.
The actual quote with respect to the compiler issue is: "In some sense, it's a judgment call." The article acknowledges the point that it makes sense that a benchmark designed to use similar compilers are both going to use the same compiler (GCC) on both machines. Intel did indeed have a custom compiler for Windows, but guess what, it wasn't GCC. That's a wild difference to introduce into a benchmark. Again a quote: "Of course, the purpose of benchmarking is to eliminate or make equal all other vectors besides the test in question, and using a GCC compiler across all of the testbeds seems reasonably fair."
My next point is that it is a system benchmark, not a processor benchmark. Apple is claiming that its new *computers* are 2x-4x faster than their old *computers*. That's very different from claiming the new Intel processor is 2x-4x faster (by itself) than the G5. There's a lot that is different in the new machines. A glaringly obvious example is that the Intel chip in the new laptop are actually running at a higher clock speed.
My next point is that the tests performed in 2003 were done by an independent lab for Apple, whereas the benchmarks of the new systems were estimated by Apple using pre-production machines...so it's not even a real benchmark comparison! Something the poster did not seem to realize.
Finally let's address the optimized compiler idea head-on...let's assume that the poster is right, that Apple uses optimized compilers during their benchmarks. That makes the most recent comparison *more* reliable than the old ones, since unlike the old ones, Apple is comparing benchmarks of their own machines against their own machines. Every machine is likely to be running an optimized compiler anyway in the new comparisons, so it's less likely to be a factor in the final conclusion. If it's a factor at all, it will simply show for which platform it is easier/more effective to optimize...which of course is an important performance difference in its own right.
Coolfrood then made this comment: "I like their benchmarks: run integer operations 4 times faster. Yes that's what I use my computer for, to find out how fast I can churn integers and floats. Real-world applications are so-2005." That is pretty interesting considering this quote from the article he submitted:
"In addition to the SPEC benchmarks Jobs provided, Apple also showed real-world applications, such as Wolfram Research's Mathematica and Adobe's PhotoShop, where the G5 demonstrated dramatic increases in performance over the Pentium 4 and/or the Xeon. Although it's probable that those applications were optimized for the G5, that seems perfectly reasonable; many, many applications are optimized for the X86 architecture, and Intel's processors in general."
In fact anyone working with photographs knows that for processor-intensive tasks such as filters, the Powermacs kept up with the Intel P4 machines despite running at about 1GHz slower clock speed. It was only at repetition-intensive tasks, such as batch processing, that the Intel computers showed their speed advantage. - xerox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"where's the fan boi's now?"
in the 5-10 stories about any and all apple products or rumors that are on the front page daily. - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It really is amazing to me how the burning unadulterated hatred that most Apple users had for Intel has completely faded away and, where once there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, all that can be heard from those same users is the sound of them reaching for their wallets to buy up the new Mactels.
- Polymira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dude, the G5 was the better processor back when they touted that.....
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am a mac user/fanboy and I DO care...
I watched the whole keynote and felt empty/betrayed/whathaveyou
A sad day. - Aero1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2all the fan boys must be on vacation today.
- jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Watch macworld.. I think the performance per watt graph showed why they cut off IBM, no matter how good the power processor may have been.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you compare the specs of the CPU's (iMac G5 vs. new iMac):
G5
CPU Speed: 1.8/2.0 GHz
Bus Speed: 600/667 MHz
Minimum RAM Speed: 400 MHz
Maximum RAM: 2 GB
Level 1 Cache: 32 kB data, 64 kB instruction
Level 2 Cache: 512 kB on-chip, 1:1
Yonah
1.83GHz or 2GHz Intel Core Duo processor
2MB shared L2 cache at full processor speed
667MHz system bus
512MB of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 SDRAM expandable to 2GB
*There is an increase memory bandwidth (400 vs. 667 DDR), though this is somewhat needed since x86 machine code generally requires more memory bandwidth than PPC code.
*There is twice as much aggregate cache per processor core in Yonah vs. the G5, though, again, gains are somewhat offset by x86 machine code bandwidth requirements.
*The G5 has a 64 bit internal architecture vs. Yonah's 32 bit internal registers. Theoretically, this is a major hit on performance, but for real world Mac apps, most of which are not 64 bit, this is not a major issue in assessing overall system equivalence.
*Both machines max out at 2GB.
IMHO, real world performance for things like media encoding, Yonah will smoke a similarly clocked G5 running 32 bit code by as much as 50%. But, since the memory subsystem is shared by both cores, alot of the multithreading/multitasking 'goodness' associated with running multithreaded apps on multicore machines will be lost to bus contention due to Yonah's lack of built-in memory manager.
I'm praying that Apple will put out PowerMac G5 class x86 machines built with high end AMD chips.... either that, or just wait for OS X to be h4x0r3d to run on Mactel mobos. Apple was very shrewd in going to x86... They can sit back while Intel and AMD slug it out and pick the best processor for any given machine. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i see how Microsoft gets over on you guys. you can't seem to parse things out. its true. the PPC chip is very fast... very good. yes when a new rev PPC comes out it is faster than the rivals. no you can't compare them directly. and yes the latest greatest from intel can likely beat the last gen PPC chip. whats new about any of that. maybe what you should be noticing is that the console game machines are all switching to PPC. i'm sure that's because they are way lamer than intel chips.
so heres the deal... chumps. they are and have always compared Windows... on an intel box to the Mac OS on a PPC box. when is it that microsoft started optimizing windows for each different chip you might use. like... when compiling... so now intel finally has a big-time OS that can be compiled to run on their best... instead of making chips that are knee capped to run windows.
not hard to figure. windows. sucks. can't be optimized for modern CPUs. wasn't going to beat apple producing a modern operating system. apple is optimized. still kills windows.
duh. - coolfrood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a friend of mine reminded me, Apple used to trump Intel on "real-world" benchmarks like video editing when they were touting the Power platform. Now, suddenly, all that is history because a Pentium processor can do better synthetic benchmarks.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>Remember guys... Apple isn't about logic. It's about passion.
>Mac users don't care. They'll hate whatever company Steve Jobs will tell them to hate.
you'all say that *****. but the truth is that us mac users have always been the only ones with the experience to have an informed opinion. so... here's that little bit of stupidity revealed... again.
logic. i hate macs. i won't use macs. they are too pretty. they are too well designed. and they don't break enough for me to have to take apart... i mean on my PCs i never put the side back on. see how much better that is?
logic. mac user. the PC is broken. again. thats ok. i can do it faster on my mac. no deal.
*slap slap* you know you guys have a lot in common with the Intelligent Design folks. same logic. same mentality. - brammator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel is for integer processing, AMD is for float processing, G5 is for passion processing.
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2where's the fan boi's now?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mac OS has zero usability "df0notfound" (you fool).
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This goes to show that hardware is hardware. Hardware is nothing without software. This is what Bill Gates realized and he used it to create the software giant Microsoft.
Remember the old Apple G5 commercials that touted that their machine was the fastest personal computer? Remember how quickly they stopped showing them?
Yes, Vista takes a lot of visual and feature design concepts from OS X. So what!?!?. OS X's entire framework is based on linux. Hardly the innovative OS that Apple implies that it is. So, what does that mean? Does it mean that Windows is better than Mac or vice versa? No. It just means that companies are companies and that means making a product that will sell. They will take features that they notice will sell and they put them into their product. If someone thought of it first, well that's just life. It's hard to constantly re-invent the wheel over and over when so many people have arleady done so already.
That still doesn't change the fact that Apple seems to lie every time they come out with a new computer by saying it is far superior and more powerful than the PC.
Any person with a computer science, computer engineering, or even electrical engineering background can tell you that it's all a load of crap to woo customers who don't know anything about how computers work.
Apple does make very powerful computers, but so do a lot of PC manufacturers. - JohnBooty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2-------------------------------------------
It really is amazing to me how the burning unadulterated hatred that most Apple users had for Intel has completely faded away and, where once there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, all that can be heard from those same users is the sound of them reaching for their wallets to buy up the new Mactels.
------------------------------------------
For a while, it really looked like PowerPC chips were superior. They were smaller and more efficient than x86 chips thanks to their pure RISC designs, and the G4's Altivec SIMD engine was far ahead of Intel's MMX/SSE.
Then things changed. The G4 and G5 lines really stagnated compared to the rapid progress of Intel and AMD. AMD made amazing gains on the desktop performance front, and the Pentium-M/Centrino combination brought amazing gains to notebook performance.
So how, exactly is it "hypocritical" to be a fan of PPC a few years ago and an x86 fan today? The balance of power has shifted from a situation where each architecture had some compelling strengths to a situation where x86 has clearly taken the lead.
The Intel Core Duo chip is clearly superior to any laptop PPC chip, even rumored PPC chips that never made it into Apple production designs such as Freescale's dual-core G4 or IBM's low-power G5.
You say "hypocritical", I saw "wanting the best technology currently available". Processors are not religions you permanently commit to. Things change. - jicon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those new laptops need a new 60WattHour battery, compared to the old 50WattHour battery on the Powerbook.
85W vs 65W power input... Hmmm.... wanna bet the Intel machine chews up more power than the PowerPC G4? You can claim it is the monitor or whatever, but performance per watt bs is really something to behold. - plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Back then, it looked better, but the reality was that IBM failed to live up to expectations and Intel did."
Intel and IBM ran into the exact same problem, which is why they've abandoned NetBurst in favor of revitalizing the Pentium 3 through continuing the development of the Pentium M. The difference between IBM and Intel is that IBM doesn't care about the desktop market, and Intel does. The cost of developing competitive desktop processors by IBM would have to fall squarely on the shoulders of Apple, and their market share is too small to support that. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems everyone here forgets that the current intel processor is very different from the original processors G4 and G5 were being compared to.
- macman81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1After reading every comment on here up until this point, I have concluded that it's all a bunch of Hoopla!
:P - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1starmanjones, you're so witty! And you're so much better than all of us too!
- ktrainman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What nobody has mentioned is that the Intel Duo Core processor, if you account for the fact it has two cores, is not significantly faster than what Intel was putting out in 2003 or even 2002 for that matter. Those of you in the PC community should know well that the Centrino, which the Core is based off of, is slower than the P4 in many areas.
It is still an impressive feat from Intel to have a chip that runs at 60-70% of the clock speed of the P4 and yet perform nearly the same. It is a testament to the advances in efficiency Intel has made. Or maybe how in-efficient the P4 is.
So in 2003 Apple touted the PPC970 as being leaps and bounds faster than anything Intel had. And today Apple says Intel newest processors are an incredible advance over the G5 despite Intel's processors not having changed much performance wise over the years. Which is true? If you think about it, it really doesn't matter.
Anyhow, as may people have said, it's marketing and you can't fault Apple for it. The fault lies with any Mac user who forgets that Apple is a company trying to make a profit and sell computers and hence what it says is not necessarily the truth. - tannergdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@sandrino nailed it.
It IS about marketing. Marketing is never about truth. It is about convincing you that what I have is better than the other so you will buy my product. Marketing is based on a 'bent truth' at best, and at worst a flat lie. Would you honestly expect anybody selling something to claim that their product merely measures up? No way. They are going to shout to the world that they have the best product regardless of how much "truth" exists in the statement. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Remember all you MS fanboys bashing Apple for touting the G5... the XBox 360 uses 'em. Certainly if your beloved Bill Gates deems it a good enough chip for gaming then you shouldn't go too hard on Apple for thinking highly of them at some point in the past too.
Or is Apple the only one with a short memory? - hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So, *yawn* this article says nothing new"
You didn't read the article, DID you? - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ugh. You guys just don't get it. I understand usability. It's irrelevant economically and therefore bound not to happen.
- Apricot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Grow up all you fanboys and anti-fanboys.
First, the article makes a legitimate critique of the benchmarks, showing that (like most computer companies) Apple was fudging its benchmarks.
However, most of us actually *use* computers and don't benchmark them. People who like Macs are not going to be swayed by a 10% difference in raw processing. I've already ordered a Macbook Pro because it will run OS X and be faster than my current pokey PBG4.
And the laughable part is that you sad anti-mac-fanboys are missing the boat on what is likely the biggest issue with the new Macbook: battery life. Notice how no one will go on the record about it; I suspect it is three hours or less. This is annoying, but not a killer for me.
But all you who like to brag about your computers like teenagers bragging about their cars, go ahead. Maybe they should start teenDigg. - cypher073, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yup, like the poster above me (JohnBooty) pointed out, technology changes. Intel chips have advanced much faster than their PowerPC counterparts. Two years ago, when the dugg article was written, perhaps PPC chips *were* superior to the Intel chips. Things change.
- MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Do I see some fanboys defending PPC? Didn't you guys hear your jobsness overlord? When he says Intel is your friend, you listen and then bow down and hail.
Now, on to newest info leaked from Apple: "MacBook Pros now with HD-DVD technology. Up to 10X FASTER!"
... - evil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why would anyone EVER trust benchmarks released by a company as part of their marketing effort? Of course they're skewed. Why would any company release info that made their new product look inferior? Do you really expect Apple to launch a product saying its not as good as their old product? Does anyone here honestly believe Steve J. is some altruistic saint who cares only for the benefit of mankind and not about making himself and his company money? Wake up.
- VesperDEM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've been commenting about this all day. :) I keep chuckling under my breath everytime I think of their new claims that their new Intel machines are 2-4 times faster than their older PowerPC counterparts. Yet not that long ago, they were claiming that their PowerPC computers were "Super Computers". :)
- geezusfreeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, the old benchmarks for when the G5 first came out used GCC for both processors because it was neutral and resulted in no unfair bias (Apple's GCC was probably used because it was on their test machines and was probably less buggy for Apple's uses; generic GCC was probably used for the x86 chips because it was the most readily available for PC). These new benchmarks use different compilers, probably both with their ideal optimization settings. This does include bias, but I'm not so sure that it's unfair. Since both architectures can reliably run OS X now, it's probably better to compare using on the best compiler technology that is available. Basically, the old x86 vs. G5 tests were for raw power, but the new G5 vs. Intel tests are a bit more geared to real-life binaries.
Just speculation based on what I knew about the previous benchmarks. I have no real evidence of my speculation for these newer tests though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This has gone too far, as your leader, I command my apple faithfull to come with me now and leave digg.com forever.
steve - adamcarrington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So... quick question... are any of the new Intel iMacs faster than a dual 2.3 G5 tower?
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"AS IF any company isn't going to tout their product as the latest and greatest. This is pointless, the poster of this article is pointless."
People like you are disturbing. He points out the hypocrisy of Apple using GCC on the x86 for comparing SPEC numbers when the IBM compiler wouldn't be available in time to meet the requirements for SPEC (published results must be completed with an availabile compiler) when it suited their purposes (and Steve Jobs actually rationalized this by suggesting that everyone uses GCC anyway), but then uses Intel's compiler when it improves their margins over their previous products (when most programs for OS X won't be using Intel's compiler anyway, because it doesn't support Objective-C). Yes, companies will do whatever they can to market their products. You don't have to sit there like a vegetable and take it in. If you want to, then good for you.
"The new processors are Intel's latest technology. They can't be compared to the pentium line or any of there other products for that matter."
The Core Duo is currently just a brand name for Yonah, which is the latest revision of the Pentium M.
"85W vs 65W power input... Hmmm.... wanna bet the Intel machine chews up more power than the PowerPC G4?"
Total potential power consumption is different than a performance-per-watt metric. The Saturn processor in my HP48GX uses a lot less power than a G4 in an iBook. If you think it's more efficient in terms of performance-per-watt I'll trade with you.
"They both have their uses. G5 is now in the new game systems (Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution), and the Quad G5 is still quite more powerful than any consumer workstation you can buy."
This is incorrect. The Xbox 360 uses a custom multicore PPC processor called Xenon.
The Revolution will use another custom PPC processor whose details have not been disclosed.
And the PS3 uses a custom PPC processor called Cell.
"The Quad G5 also makes quite the nice Linux box which can actually take fuill advantage of the 64-bit and speed."
Code compiled to use 64-bit pointers is slower on the G5, so unless you need the address space there is little reason to bother with this. - dmoffitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wtf, 2003 article?
- Ace25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know how many people here have been toying around with the x86 Mac OSX on their PCs, but I have on a 3.2Ghz Intel. I even brought it into work and showed our graphics dept (which all run OSX on Dual CPU G5's) and EVERYTHING from booting up to Photoshop ran at least 2x faster on the Intel than a Dual G5!! The Mac "freaks" as I like the call them were so impressed that they went out, spent the minimum $200 on a CeleronD system, and they are using that side by side with their Dual G5s and swear the celeron is just as fast as their $2500 G5 in processing. Video is another story, but thats because they are using the onboard video for their intels and I bet if they put an ATI or Nvidia card in there video would be up to spec with the G5.
As we see yet again, benchmarks mean NOTHING as they are almost always "tweaked" to get the best performance to the company that paid for the test and included their own libraries. Anyone now a days who buys anything based on a benchmark paid by the company selling the product gets what they deserve because its been proven repeatedly over decades that no benchmark can be trusted, especially if its for PR purposes (which is 99.9% of the time). - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They both have their uses. G5 is now in the new game systems (Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution), and the Quad G5 is still quite more powerful than any consumer workstation you can buy.
The Quad G5 also makes quite the nice Linux box which can actually take fuill advantage of the 64-bit and speed. - galfridus73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's some news: Apple is a for-profit corporation. Apple is in business to make money for the company and its shareholders. Apple, like almost every other comany in the world, will use marketing hype in any way that it can (marketing is not lying - Apple never lied about their numbers or how they got them).
I use a Mac, I use an iPod, and I'm not turning my back on the company just because their hype has changed and they changed a processor vendor (BIG DEAL). Marketing tacts can change, vendors can change, but product still has too move. That's the reality of business.
No digg. - hexix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wasn't able to read all the comments, but after going through quite a bit I haven't seen anyone debunking this story. This story links to an article from 2003 wondering if Apple's benchmarks that were used in an ad were legitimate. If you want to talk about what happened in 2003, then go ahead, Apple may have been up to no good.
However, the summary goes on to say that they're doing the reverse now, using an optimized compiler for the intel and not for PPC. The submitter offers no proof of this, and apparently didn't even watch the keynote. Steve Jobs actually stated that the benchmarks showing 4% after integer performance and 5% faster floating point performance were achieved using Intel's optimized compiler on the intel side and IBM's optimized compiler on the PPC side. Perhaps Steve Jobs is lying, but this story doesn't bother to provide proof.
This is the type of stuff that is going to kill digg. People got pissed at Wikipedia for being untrustworthy, I have a feeling digg is next in line. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"logic. i hate macs. i won't use macs. they are too pretty. they are too well designed. and they don't break enough for me to have to take apart... i mean on my PCs i never put the side back on. see how much better that is?"
Good lord, that was the best laugh I've had this year. What a complete moron! Apple gear is not well designed. It's designed in a flashy, non-functional manner that attracts irrational impulse buyers and then becomes an absolute pain. I mean, the iBooks' keyboard is completely white. It gets dirty in about three uses. The iPods all scratch, the back cover falls off, the wheel is erratic and poor quality. Shuffle. No screen. iMac G5, not upgradable, crappy 'mighty' mouse. The new MacBook has no svideo, RCA, VGA or modem, restricting laptop mobility. The MacOS is shiny and well animated but hides functionality and does not account for many situations.
You wanna know why the world uses Windows? The answer is simple. Switching for large businesses:
1. Not economically very benifical
2. Impossible in large organisations with legacy software
3. A Massive re-training effort
4. A Hacker's dream
5. A Massive shift for programmers and developers
6. Placing trust in a total monopoly from development thru manufacturing to accesories. No way to switch suppliers
7. Switching to an inferior operating system from the business perspective
7.1 Not task-oriented
7.2 Less third party software available
7.3 Less third party hardware compatible
7.4 The usual arguments against OSX
8. Placing the global computing infrastructure from development to sale in the hands of a cult-leading control freak rather than placing software with a man too timid to use it to his advantage and hardware with the free market.
Switching for home users:
1. Have to use two operating systems to do one set of tasks.
2. Upgradability
3. Can't interoperate with work.
4. It costs more
5. Re-training, what software do I install, etc?
6. What about IM?
7. Napster etc
8. Games
9. Looks shiny. Occasionally better interface design.
==
"Vista are features universally accepted as being ripped from OS X. "
If you do your research carefully you'll find that most of the OSX features were released in response to the announcements that the features were being developed for Longhorn/Vista. Spotlight is one such example. The 3D operating system is a natural progression and is to be expected for any OS that is going to continue to survive in the modern era. If you've got more powerful 3D graphics capabilities than 2D, why not use them? Microsoft dosent give a damn about Mac. It's only 3-4% of the market, and it's self defeating. If Mac were defacto, it would end up just like Windows and those 3-4% fan base would go elsewhere. Large companies that have to make sure every release is global, backwards-compatible and a universal improvement for 90% of the PC market will always take longer to develop than nimble companies like Apple. - fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1starmanjones wrote:
> you'all say that *****. but the truth is that us mac users have always
> been the only ones with the experience to have an informed opinion.
Most Mac users have little knowledge of computers and their experience is limited to clicking a handful of icons on their Mac screens. Hell, it was the Mac that popularized the idea of selling computers to people with no computer expertise.
> logic. i hate macs. i won't use macs. they are too pretty. they are too well designed.
Logic: I hate macs. I won't use macs. They are too slow. The GUI is unresponsive. They are too expensive for what you get. Upgrades range from expensive to impossible. All the shiny white plastic in the world didn't make up for the fact that Macs were dog-slow. That's why Apple had to switch processor lines -- again.
> logic. mac user. the PC is broken. again.
And being a Mac user, I'm too damned dumb to fix it or even figure out what I did to break it in the first place.
> thats ok. i can do it faster on my mac. no deal.
Yeah, tell us about that when you're trying to do video rendering on a G4/G5 Mac.
> and they don't break enough for me to have to take apart... i mean on my
> PCs i never put the side back on.
What's the point in taking the side off of a Mac? You can't go out to a local computer store and buy a new motherboard in a year or two when you want more performance. By the way, if the hardware in your PC broke that often, you are a complete ignoramous since the majority of PCs run for years without a hardware failure.
> *slap slap* you know you guys have a lot in common with the Intelligent Design
> folks. same logic. same mentality.
You Mac users are the ones into faith-based computing. Steve Jobs tells you that the G5 is faster than the Pentium, and you believe him -- facts and industry-standard benchmarks be damned. Now he says that the Pentium is faster than the G5 and you believe him again. Praise the Jobs! Where can I sign up to pay $2000 for a Mac that's as fast as a $750 PC? - ~MDK~, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article was written 3 years ago!!!
Who ever posted this wasnt thinking where they? - newpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i got the macbookpro 2 days ago and cant tell if its faster or slower, then wat?? its definetly as fast as my desk tops at home n the office, there pc's.. not 1 person ever told me how cool or stylish either of them r, however every 1 whos seen my new mac book cant stop touching it.. esthetically the new colored sony vios is the only 1 close, dell or compac?? pleez... my mac book pro is like a piece of jewlrey! wat else can your rolex do?
- sunmicroman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>At first when I heard Apple was claiming the Intel processors to be so much faster than their PowerPC ones, I thought it was ridiculous that they could make these claims since not long ago they talked about how their PowerPC chips were so much faster than the Intel ones.
I then realized that they weren't claiming their new processors to be so much better because now they're actually comparing the dual processor Intel Core Duo chips with their previous single processor G5 iMac. It's not so amazing that their new dual processor iMac is 2x faster than their previous single processor iMac when the benchmark is fully optimized to take advantage of multi-processor machines.
Exactly. ;) - Hypnos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Windows/Mac jihad lives on. Can't you guys just have a war kill each other off so the rest of us can just enjoy talking about technology.
- jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple sales to its customers and not to its programers and designers. They are willing to fail. even with the iPod Mini outselling other flash based players it was deemed a failure by Apple because its customers didn't like it as much as the iPod and so the micro was released to usurp it.
Processors have been changed by Apple many times. The original Apple computer was based on a processor so cheep that they could get the computer to their target market. The PowerPC processor was compared to Intel to justify why they went with it instead of the x86 processors. Now the intel chip is shown how the best intel chip they can fit into a thin mac laptop is 4x better than the best PPC that can fit.
Well i think that Apple is not about having the fastest hardware, my desktop P4 smokes my powerbook. They excel in me wanting to use my powerbook whenever I have the choice between the two. Now if i could just find a 2.5 grand lying about, that MacBook Pro would be mine :) -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is