[Ti] Apple's True Market Share!

[Mark C. Langston]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:51:42PM -0600, Chris Olson wrote:
> Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> > Oh, come now.  Are you claiming that the x86 instruction set has been
> > optimized for an operating system?  That's like claiming that LEGOs
> > are optimized for a particular model
> 
> AMD's benchmark resources webpage - note the reference to Windows for 
> the benchmarks.  How come they don't use linux or FreeBSD, which both 
> have better tools than Windows for establishing processor performance data?:
> 
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_863_1972,00.html


Just because a CPU vendor's marketing pap references Windows doesn't
mean the cores are engineered for Windows, or that the opcodes are
structured to give Windows great performance (c'mon...have you USED
Windows lately?  Are you seriously trying to tell me that's OPTIMIZED
at the machine-code level?  Do you buy your crack in bulk, or have
you been saving it up for just such an occasion as this?)

If you're going to randomly throw up URLs as evidence, I strongly
suggest you consider the results of the following googles:

"site:www.amd.com solaris"
"site:www.amd.com linux"
"site:www.amd.com bsd"

...and feel free to do the same, s/amd/intel/g in the above.


You whip out a single page of marketing benchmarks for a processor that's what,
two years old, out of an entire product line?  And this is supposed
to support your argument that the processors at the core and opcode
level are engineered in lockstep with Redmond's demands?

Fear a person who knows how to use a search engine, for your arguments
will quickly fall if they aren't impeccably supported.


-- 
Mark C. Langston                                    Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark at bitshift.org                                       mark at seti.org
Systems & Network Admin                                SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org                               http://www.seti.org