Re: The wonderful Truth about iMac:

[Nick <n_marx@ix.netcom.com>]

Frank Carney wrote:

> How does it fall short and why would a P3 have a foot in the grave when
> it runs backward-compatible assembly language?  The pentium three would
> not barely outperform its predecessors if all the code was written for
> it in the first place.

The top of the line G3 processors have better raw integer and floating point
abilities than a Pentium III.  Rewriting code for the PIII processor would
basically improve graphics and multimedia capabilities, but not as much as
using a good high end graphics card.  There is almost zero business reason
to buy a PIII machine, unless the absolute fastest balls to the wall machine
is required, in which case buyng a SGI PII system would probably be the
appropriate solution anyway, due to their highly specialized graphic
hardware.

> >I challenge anyone to show me a comparable Pentium class machine from
> the same time period that can  > run windows NT 4.0 at the same level of
> responsiveness...
> First of all define responsiveness, then I will show you a 486DX2/66
> that can run the latest versions of Office or Office compatible
> softeware and  Netscape under not just one but two operating systems:
> Win and Linux.  With Linux being the most responsive.  Then I could take
> it a step further and run all those on a 486SX25 or earlier (maybe even
> a 386, though not as "responsive").
>

  What OS is Win?  I run x86 linux 2.0.3 on a P233 with StarOffice (Closest
package to MS Office on the UNIX platform and by far the most compatable)
and Netscape 4.06.  The performance of those applications (especially
netscape) is no better, and in fact, usually worse than Windows NT because a
lot of API optimization is not in place.  Linux can certainly run on a small
hardware profile, it is very stable, and process scheduling is unmatched for
desktop OSes, but it is by no means a performance screamer when running X
windows.  If you have a load of memory, and everything has been cached,
maybe it has a chance, but otherwise it does not measure up.

I define responsiveness as a combination of how long it takes application
and application components to launch and/or execute, how long I have to hold
down a mouse button before a menu pops up, whether a computer can keep up
with my typing (I can only smash out 35 wpm, so it is pathetic if it can't
keep up), how long screen redraws take when application switching, etc, and
just the overall "feel" of the environment.  With those criteria in mind,
Mac's definately out perform the comparable windows machine. (or linux for
that matter)