Re: The apple 2, the PC, and the clones

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Raymond Wiker <Raymond.Wiker@fast.no> wrote:

>        Well, when *I* think of PC Power, it doesn't involve MS
>products, x86-architecture processors or SoundBlasters.
>
>       Note that the Macintosh had useable colour graphics before the
>PC, has *always* had a better processor architecture, has better
>quality sound cards than you get from a SoundBlaster (mind you, so
>do the x86 boxes), has good support for CD-RW and was the first to
>be supplied with DVD writers as a standard component.

And the Apple IIGS and Amiga had color graphics GUIs before
the Mac.  ;-)

Processor architecture: PowerPC might have been better at the
beginning but it is falling behind.  Granted, on a IPC basis
(instructions per clock) it may be faster than a Pentium IV.  I
mean, so is the Athlon XP processor. But architecture is always
a give a take.  The Pentium IV has a 20 stage pipeline, for
example, that allows for very high clock speeds.  The Athlon
has a much shorter pipeline but this allows it to have a much
higher IPC.  As a result, a 1.73Ghz Athlon XP will outperform
a 2.2Ghz Pentium IV and tests of production units by PC
magazines have always proved this.  But the 2.5Ghz P4 is
currently the fastest single processor PC part because even
though it sucks in terms of IPC the sheer clock speed
overcomes this.

That's why I think Mac users sometimes turn a blind eye to
the obvious.  Their processors ARE falling behind.