Newbie

[Charles Martin]

> From: Richard J Laue <rjlaue.lists at verizon.net>
>
> The 600mhz is noticeably faster in almost everything other than the
> simplest of tasks.  Especially when it comes to graphics, or music
> stuff.
>
> OSX definitely runs faster and smoother on the 600 -- not that it
> won't run on the 500, but somehow it just seems to be a more natural
> "fit" on the 600.  Does it run faster enough to justify spending a
> little more money?  My own opinion is definitely YES.  I don't like
> looking at spinning beach balls!
>
> It doesn't seem like the small jump between 500mhz and 600mhz would
> make so much difference, but as someone else pointed out, there is a
> jump in bus speed and also an improved video card.

The big difference you are feeling between the two machines is almost 
ENTIRELY due to that video card difference. With that, OS X can take 
advantage of "Quartz Extreme," meaning all the screen drawing (all the 
time) is handled by the video card -- freeing up the processor almost 
entirely from that "system overhead."

I remember reading somewhere that this increases the efficiency of the 
processor by about 30% in most tasks. Add the 20% bonus of the 100MHz 
extra processor speed and you have a machine that could be as much as 
50% more efficient than the 500MHz model. BIG difference.

_Chas_

"Microsoft has innovated nothing. The thing I find most contemptible is 
Bill's lying , this thing about innovating. It makes me want to puke. 
That's innovation a la Rockefeller, not innovation a la Edison."
-- Larry Elisson, Oracle CEO, 1998 interview with PC Week Online.