If you think about it, AMD's business model was kind of suicidal.
Was?
I remember when PPC speeds were higher then Intel speeds, and all the Mac zealots were claming their chips superior based on that.
All Mac zealots were saying they were faster because they were faster. All the Introlls said that speed doesn't matter. At least not as long as the Mac is faster. Now they claim PCs are faster (because MHz is everything), and we are supposed to switch to PCs immediatly.
And speed is not an issue in the Switch adds, because for most things (raw processor) speed simply doesn't matter when it is beyond a certain level. Ease of use does.
Market: Apple has always sold to education and graphic design markets. The education market is, of course, likely to attract a number of well, educated consumers.
Well, yes, your average K12 pupil is smarter than the average PC buyer;-)
Many of those 90+% of people have made an intelligent choice once (or more more times) before, but the program did something not obvious. That's why they think "Better safe than sorry". And Windows is not great, because it is full of those gotchas.
Steel describes a lot of similar materials, many of them alloys. Chrome steel can contain close to 30% chromium, but that i far from the only metal used in steels.
Of course that would only make the Amiga cheaper for him, if he actually waited for all those thousands of friends of friends to buy their Amigas first. And how will he make them do it, if he doesn't do so first? "Hey, buy this here great Amiga!" - "How about you?" - "I'll wait till it gets cheaper."
They cost that much when you buy them from Dell. The price of $129 is from the page you gave, you little twirp.
Chassis Configuration Learn More
RapidRails for Dell Rack [add $129] VersaRails for Non-Dell 4-Post Rack [add $129] Rails for Non-Dell 2-post Rack [add $129] No Rails
The fact that your lame little DULL doesn't even come with a OS (and Linux will not run the software in question), add another "Windows 2000 Advanced Server with 25 Client Licenses [add $3295]". So the DULL is far more than the Xserve.
No go to your momma, and tell her the mean man made you cry.
He simply adds numbers from a PRNG into the encryption process. AFAIK that is not new. And if you know what RPNG and the seed(s), it's also not really safe.
The link to animation is very thin, you can use PRNG for "random movements" in computer animation. That's about it.
You don't get it, do you? This was a test by Xinet, testing their own product FullPress on several servers, including the Xserve, to give their customers a hint how those servers would perform. How would any "standard" benchmark be better than something that is nearly identical to what you will be doing with your machine?
Even under the most charitable assumptions, the G4 is in the ballpark of a PIII with similar clock frequencies.
For varying sizes of ballparks. On average. Unless you use AltiVec.
Well, the fact that nebulas are called nebulas and not "old supernovas" should give you a hint. A corpse rotting a grave is also not called an "old dying human".
IOW this is not a supernova, it's the remains of a supernova. It's not dying, it's dead.
For the last time (or rather, for the people without a brain) they did not test Photoshop on the Xserve.
As for the compiler, it may be bad, but it's the compiler almost all Windows software is compiled with. And where did you get the information that gcc 2.95 is "pretty much the best compiler there is" for PPC?
You forgott the rails (Xserve comes with them): $129. Actually (quoting Apple):
Rackmounting is easy
You'll find the necessary hardware in the box, right down to the last thumbscrew. That includes rack rails with sliders, mounting support for industry-standard four-post racks and telco center-post racks, and complete setup instructions. If you need to replace a server component, no problem. Each server unit slides out of the rack like a drawer, and the cable management arm allows the cables to travel with the system. Xserve is designed for instant access to drives, PCI cards and blowers -- no special tools required. In fact the only tool that doesn't come in the box with Xserve (and that you'll need for rackmounting your servers) is a medium-sized Phillips-head screwdriver.
Apache Web Server--Xserve can support 60 percent more connections on an Apache Web Server than an IBM eServer x330. Under industry standard WebBench* performance benchmarks, an Xserve running Apache on Mac® OS X Server can support 4,051 web connections per second compared to 2,547 connections per second on an IBM eServer x330 running Apache on Linux. Xserve provides an affordable and robust server platform for even the most industrial strength web applications.
No, he isn't criticizing the benchmark, he obviously didn't understand what was tested, and how it was tested. He read "Photoshop" and set his mind on cruise control - talk about fanaticism. But sure, even if your arguments have no basis, the others are the zealots.
First of all, this is a server benchmark. If you really believe that Photoshop is optimized in a way that it loads images faster from a server if that has G4 processor, all hope is lost.
But even if this were a local test on the client, if Photoshop can be programmed to load files faster using the G4, than any app can, which means that the Mac could win any such benchmark.
As for you not being able to grok how the benchmark works, what you wrote up to now gives me a hint why.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not if they cooperate or not, it's if they have fun doing whatever they do.
Who said anything about "dropping CRT support"?
Rated Stupid: 1 month setting up 10BASE5 networks.
Not that this would be bad per se. Why does a modern PC need to have the A20 gate?
Was?
I remember when PPC speeds were higher then Intel speeds, and all the Mac zealots were claming their chips superior based on that.
All Mac zealots were saying they were faster because they were faster. All the Introlls said that speed doesn't matter. At least not as long as the Mac is faster. Now they claim PCs are faster (because MHz is everything), and we are supposed to switch to PCs immediatly.
And speed is not an issue in the Switch adds, because for most things (raw processor) speed simply doesn't matter when it is beyond a certain level. Ease of use does.
Yeah, but how long is AMD going to be there? They are also bleeding. And if they are gone, even Motorola will again be faster than Intel.
Well, yes, your average K12 pupil is smarter than the average PC buyer ;-)
They don't have a problem using one.
Many of those 90+% of people have made an intelligent choice once (or more more times) before, but the program did something not obvious. That's why they think "Better safe than sorry". And Windows is not great, because it is full of those gotchas.
Steel describes a lot of similar materials, many of them alloys. Chrome steel can contain close to 30% chromium, but that i far from the only metal used in steels.
Of course that would only make the Amiga cheaper for him, if he actually waited for all those thousands of friends of friends to buy their Amigas first. And how will he make them do it, if he doesn't do so first? "Hey, buy this here great Amiga!" - "How about you?" - "I'll wait till it gets cheaper."
No go to your momma, and tell her the mean man made you cry.
The link to animation is very thin, you can use PRNG for "random movements" in computer animation. That's about it.
Even under the most charitable assumptions, the G4 is in the ballpark of a PIII with similar clock frequencies.
For varying sizes of ballparks. On average. Unless you use AltiVec.
IOW this is not a supernova, it's the remains of a supernova. It's not dying, it's dead.
As for the compiler, it may be bad, but it's the compiler almost all Windows software is compiled with. And where did you get the information that gcc 2.95 is "pretty much the best compiler there is" for PPC?
Sorry, wrong, try again next time. The best speed-up is actually for a word size of 10 (factor of 10, not 5), according to this PDF
As for the Heise tests: they also show that a 800MHz G4 is faster than a 1GHz P3. Which brings us to the issue of compilers...
Includes some benchmark results:
No, he isn't criticizing the benchmark, he obviously didn't understand what was tested, and how it was tested. He read "Photoshop" and set his mind on cruise control - talk about fanaticism. But sure, even if your arguments have no basis, the others are the zealots.
But even if this were a local test on the client, if Photoshop can be programmed to load files faster using the G4, than any app can, which means that the Mac could win any such benchmark.
As for you not being able to grok how the benchmark works, what you wrote up to now gives me a hint why.
HELLO, sombody home? The Apple that ended up "second to dead last" wasn't even a "real" server.
Somebody with an IQ above room temperature would probably notice that this is not "the" (or infact any) "Apple benchmark".
No, they used Photoshop to open and save large images from/to a network server. Can't you read?