[geeks] RE: Reevaluating Macintosh (was Dual Xeon vs Dual G4)

[Frank Van Damme]

On Sunday 02 February 2003 05:58, Nathaniel Grady wrote:

<SNIP long live OsX, ditch MuckOS classic>

Who would run an OS with no multitasking or decent memory protection anway? 
I would rather run NT then MacOS (and I rather wouldn't run EITHER of 
them).

> command line, etc, etc, etc... The ironic part? My molecular biologist
> relatives who all used to use macs, are switching to PC's because
> they're slightly cheaper and their students were more comfortable with
> them, while my "why can't we all go back to VMS" father now says he's
> going to ask for a mac instead of a PC for his next computer (he does a
> lot of computational physics stuff - the G4 should kick the crap outa a
> P4. Now if only apple would get their act together and fix that whole
> memory bandwidth thing...).

http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/ might be an interesting read. It's 
a benchmark comparing intel and G4 cpu's number crunching capabilities, 
overall the G4 is just a bit faster. But as far as I understand the 
article:

- they compare G4's with Pentium 3's (not 4's)
- with an equal clockspeed (meaning: relatively older PC's)
- did they use dual cpu boxen for the Apple's and singles for the PC's or am 
I wrong?? 

> Sorry this is getting kind-of long. I think I'm going to put it on my
> webpage and consider it the first draft of an essay!
> http://nate.grady.is-a-geek.com/mac.html Hm, maybe I should make a wiki
> or something so we can construct an open-source essay on the topic :)


-- 
Frank Van Damme
http://www.openstandaarden.be