[Ti] x86 vs ppc

[coccolithophorid at earthlink.net]

Daniel Borge wrote:
Hi guys, Not to be nitpicking here, but there are big differences btw
winXP pc's too... Mine AMD 1200 have no problem to rip a CD and listen
to it at the same time (using RealPlayer One which is a great & nice
looking program too... hehe) and there are absoultely no "hangs" when I
browse on the net, download doozen files from Kazaa and watch a divx
film at the same time... Wounder what crap pc's u'r friends have :)
since my 1 & 1/2 year old pc can do all this. Daniel

Kevin wrote:
The crap pc (couldn't agree with you more there) is an HP Pavilion 
n5000 1.1 gHz. AMD athlon 4 256 mb ram Win. XP. Try this with the pc, 
next time a cd is burning, open up your email program and connect to 
the net, then open up your browser and load 4 or 5 pages at once, then 
convert 2 or 3 hundred cdda or aiff files to hi-res mp3's, while a 
movie transition is rendering, then switch between apps. Let me know 
what happens.

Original post by coccolithophorid at earthlink.net (Kevin):
First off I want to admit that I don't know much about x86 or PPC 
instruction sets, or if x86 chips are designed for Windows or a whole 
bunch of operating systems. What I do know is that I've used every 
version of Windows since 3.1 and every version of Mac OS since system 
7. I started studying information design and the teachings of Edward 
Tufte and came to realize that there is a way of dealing with 
information that is logical in all mediums. The Mac OS comes much 
closer to this logical way of dealing with information than Windows 
does. Maybe I'm windows bashing, but Windows deserves it, it is poorly 
designed and inefficient, The x86 chip seems to follow this way of 
thinking (handeling instruction sets?), in my experience, using XP 
straight out of the box on a 1 + gHz machine with 256 MB RAM seems slow 
when compared to my 500 mHz TiBook. How can that be? When I use a 
computer I don't think about how many applications I'm limited to 
opening (I haven't had to since os X) or how much processing the 
computer is capable of. I usually have 5 or so apps open and a lot of 
the time they are all doing something, When I use XP I am limited by 
the bad design, I bog down the computer when I try to use it the way I 
use my Mac, if iMovie is rendering a transition I go read my web sites, 
if iTunes is converting 300 AIFF's into 320 kbps mp3's then I go check 
my email, oh I can see by the progress bar in the dock that iMovie is 
almost done rendering, back to working on my movie. This way of working 
on a PC usually freezes Windows XP. Using a computer efficiently on os 
X is not the same as using a computer efficiently on XP, at least in my 
experience. I don't want to hear about the Sr. Unix SysAdmin or network 
administrator who went 300 clicks into Windows XP and changed a setting 
to make the computer more usable, that's not the real world.
PC users probably feel that their machines are so fast because it takes 
20 clicks to do something, freeing up the processor as it finishes up 
the last task. How do I turn off the computer? it's easy, just go to 
the start menu, where's the utility manager easy it's in the sub sub 
sub sub sub menu.

DESIGN IS A GOOD IDEA!

peace,
Kevin