xoder: (Default)
xoder ([personal profile] xoder) wrote2002-09-20 01:34 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] b55b55.livejournal.com 2002-09-20 05:28 am (UTC)(link)
it was reasonably intersting but i stopped reading when i realized the woman is comparing computers of compleately different specifications

[identity profile] ladyravn.livejournal.com 2002-09-20 05:53 am (UTC)(link)
Well Mac computers are supposedly "much faster," even though they have a lower processor speed.

Re:

[identity profile] xoder.livejournal.com 2002-09-20 06:35 am (UTC)(link)
Its much like the RISC vs. CISC debate. The answer is, they're both faster, just ask the right questions.

My entry was just a referral to the fact that such Mac-bashing was on a M$ site.

[identity profile] alexatrit.livejournal.com 2002-09-20 09:07 am (UTC)(link)
I may be wrong, but don't most Mac machines use a RISC-based Motorola chip? That would be, uh... explanatory.

.sig

[identity profile] alexatrit.livejournal.com 2002-09-20 09:11 am (UTC)(link)
I do wonder how those processors would fare under datacenter conditions. We know the the Alpha processors handle quite well under high use - even at a lower clockspeed. Example: Grace has three 533MHz Alpha-series processors - and look what it handles without issue.

I've never seen a Mac/Motorola combination used in any production server environment. Have you?

.sig
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only