Posted by
Hemos
on from the circle-round-round-and-again dept.
Stack_13 writes "Wall Street Journal reports that Apple will agree to use Intel chips. Neither Apple or Intel confirm this. Interestingly, PCMag's John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005. Are even cheaper Mac Minis coming?"
Please help an Intel Newbie
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Intel fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac running Intel (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Mac running Intel, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac running Intel that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Intel addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Intel over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
I'll believe it when...
by
mrch0mp3rs
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I can boot up Tiger on my craptacular 386.
-- ---
-a-
"I'd love to change the world, but it'd be easier if the universe exposed its API."
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet
by
dj_tsd
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Wow, that's funny. Mac's have always been expensive, because the value of their competitors is usually greater.
Mac's are great, but by the time they're in PC price range, they're 4 years old.
Re:Everyone else is moving away from Intel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Only Xbox out of those "moved away" from Intel, the others have "never used" Intel. Karma-whoring faggoty fag.
Re:Does this mean -
by
ZephyrXero
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Maybe because the Cell has ended up to be all hype...
I don't agree with the statement "it is dominant because the market favors a bad open architecture over a good closed one". A bad open architecture will beat a good closed architecture because of the increased competition in a free market with multiple actors will create a superior product. Saying that the market favors an open architecture makes it sound like a moral choice.
Sure the Mac has advantages because Apple knows and controls everything. But an open archiecture like x86 offer more performance, more software and more hardware. And it does it cheaper and more convenient.
Reply to the MAC coming onto x86
by
mitulc24
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Hey Guys,
Even though the MAC may ship on x86 architecture based chips, it can't beat the Windows based PCs in the real world as far as performance is concerned and lets be real. WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN THE MAC OS ANYDAY.
MITUL
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Intel fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac running Intel (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Mac running Intel, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac running Intel that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Intel addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Intel over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
I can boot up Tiger on my craptacular 386.
--- -a- "I'd love to change the world, but it'd be easier if the universe exposed its API."
Wow, that's funny. Mac's have always been expensive, because the value of their competitors is usually greater. Mac's are great, but by the time they're in PC price range, they're 4 years old.
Only Xbox out of those "moved away" from Intel, the others have "never used" Intel. Karma-whoring faggoty fag.
Maybe because the Cell has ended up to be all hype...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
I don't agree with the statement "it is dominant because the market favors a bad open architecture over a good closed one". A bad open architecture will beat a good closed architecture because of the increased competition in a free market with multiple actors will create a superior product. Saying that the market favors an open architecture makes it sound like a moral choice.
Sure the Mac has advantages because Apple knows and controls everything. But an open archiecture like x86 offer more performance, more software and more hardware. And it does it cheaper and more convenient.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Hey Guys, Even though the MAC may ship on x86 architecture based chips, it can't beat the Windows based PCs in the real world as far as performance is concerned and lets be real. WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN THE MAC OS ANYDAY. MITUL