[Ti] The reason we use Macs instead of PC's (long)

[Chris Olson]

On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:04 PM, kalirhe at umdnj.edu wrote:
> I'm a diehard Apple end-user, but how come that caller ratio that  
> you got does not translate into a 3:1 sales ratio in FAVOR of the Mac?

Possibly because desktop computing is monopolized by Microsoft.  And  
Windows is all the masses know.  I'd bet 50% of the computing public  
would ask "what's that?" if you mentioned Mac OS X.

> As far as the G5 is concerned - I've checked out the G5s on some of  
> the applications and, while faster than the G4s, there was not that  
> amazing difference in performance and speed that I recall when the  
> Mac moved from the 9600 series to the G3.

Well, one thing about that is that you're not going to download  
pictures of Steve Jobs off the internet, or read your email, any  
faster with a G5 than you will with a G3.

Try running something that's been written and optimized from the  
ground up for the G5, like a compiler.  Build OpenOffice once and see  
which one chokes and which one doesn't.

It takes a dual processor G4/1.42 about 5 hours to build it.

Our PowerMac quad 2.5 that we just got at the office a week ago will  
build OO.o 2 in ~25 minutes.

That's fast.  Real fast.  There ain't no Intel box that'll touch it.

OTOH, do a radial spin blur on a 350 MB Photoshop file.  The DP G4  
takes about 3 minutes.  The quad takes about 2 minutes.  Not near as  
dramatic.

Then do the same blur on a 5 MB Photoshop file.  The DP G4 takes  
about 20 seconds.  The quad takes about 15 seconds.  Even less dramatic.

It's all about code optimization.  All the benchmarks you see with  
PC's are done mostly with gamers and Photoshop - stuff all optimized  
for the x86 ISA.  Then when Apple uses a highly optimized version of  
GCC to blow the dual Xeon away with the new G5 at WWDC 2003, the PC  
weenies scream bloody murder that Apple "cheated" because they used  
GCC on both the Intel box and the G5.  The Intel weenies screamed  
that they should've been able to use the Intel compiler, which builds  
better code for x86.  Oh yeah?  Well, then Apple should've been able  
to use the IBM compiler, which builds better code yet for PowerPC.

You ever heard the term "circle jerk", Henry?  That's exactly what it  
is because marketing will always prevail over technology.
-- 
Chris

-------------------------
PGP Key:  http://astcomm.net/~chris/PGP_Public_Key/
-------------------------