So potential Iranian terrorists can now go snooping around the net anonymously
Sounds like a good way to get rid of them. Hell, I say we have VoA directly link to the anarchist's cookbook. Get rid of 20 terrorists an hour that way.
First, thanks for linking me to the opinion - I missed this post originally.
regarding your specific post...
If a cooperative software vendor wanted to speed the case to a victorious conclusion, he could just modify 1% of his shrinkwrap EULAs to include an extra provision- something outlandish like an additional $1000 monthly fee as long as the product is installed. The ensuing lawsuit would clearly demonstrate the folly of the ProCD position.
As annoying as the decision was, they did mention that a EULA that says "You owe us an extra $10,000" would NOT be enforceable. See, they're reasonable!;)
Regarding other aspects of the decision and the Dell story...
First, the decision did put some pretty strong requirements on the legality of EULA's. One was the refund part - otherwise, the decision hinted that a EULA might not be enforceable if the buyer had no ability to terminate upon reviewing the final contract. Seems that MS is certainly obligated to refund for OEM windows. Also, would Dell's refusal to refund shipping be illegal? One wouldn't care too much about shipping, I expect, but it is the principle, isn't it?
Second, the decision discussed that, for the ProCD EULA, there was mention of a further license on the box, and they likened this to insurance sales, where the full policy follows the transaction. Seems to me that any company would be at least required to notify you that further terms were forthcoming. I'm sure that microsoft does this as a matter of course - but I wonder, did Dell? if not, how would that be treated?
Third, Dell absolutely refused to provide the actual license! If this is the case, and the screen says "You agree to every license in the box," but there are none in the box, what then? This isn't a EULA-general argument, more for the specific story. However, I don't see that as being a one-time incident, so it would be nice to know.
I've heard this bandied about many times, and I've never heard a really satisfactory answer as to why they're legal *now*. Like everyone else here, I'm not a lawyer...though all my friends are.;) But, technically, shouldn't all terms of a contract be in place *before* it's execution?
Seems to me, at the point where they have my money, and I have their computer, the transaction is finished. At this point, a EULA seems like an attempt to change the terms of the tacit contract (ie, the transaction) after the fact, and I should have absolutely no obligation to pay it a bit of attention.
If they showed you a copy of the EULA on their website, it might be different. At that point, I could read it and tell them to piss off. Or I could not read it, click past it, and then it really would be my fault and problem for not reading it.
Anyone have an informed opinion on this (as opposed to my barely slightly educated guess)??? I've heard that courts have upheld them, but I can't find a judge's opinion on the matter.
1) filled out the compaint form on the SEC.
2) Contacted my AG.,p>Rock on!
The Media ploy is a hail mary. Most media today is so rabidly pro corporations they won't ever look into shenanigans but I figured it may be worth trying.
Wow, I don't know about that - at most, I'd say "it depends on if the corporations in question are advertisers." If not, the "evil corporation" story is a *huge* ratings draw - people love 'em. The problem here is that the story is too obscure. But if 1) we can make the media understand it and 2) they can get the public pissed about it, it would be picked up in a second. And I really don't think any media would back SCO - do they advertise anywhere? Does Canopy own anything that advertises a lot?
of course you can sue in civil court for this (at least in the US). You can't get someone in jail, but you most definetely sue for money. There are been hundreds (thousands?) of shareholder civil lawsuits (class action usually) in the last few years.
Yes, but that option is only open to SCO shareholders, not the general linux community who would rather burn in hell than own SCO stock.
I *suppose* you could get 50,000 linux users to all buy a share, but you wouldn't have any actual *damages* until SCO's stock tanks, by which time the whole point of the suit is moot because the war would have been won.
See the problem? It's hard to sue in civil court for manipulation when you're currently benefiting from it.
Why not write a letter to your states attorney general. There are shareholders of Linux companies and linux users in your state and they can all be effected by this crap.
Actually not a bad idea. Of course, I do believe it's covered under my "sit on your ass and bitch." You're sitting in a chair (on your ass) at a desk, writing a letter (bitching). I'll probably end up whining at by cat's though. I think I'll rename the cat's ass "SCO."
I'd like to see a class action suit from shareholders of Linux companies against the SCO executives, for fraudulent stock manipulation.
Stock manipulation's a crime, so it would have to be the DA (ie, criminal court). Class-actions are civil. You can't do anything but sit on your ass and bitch about it, just like me.;)
You're not the attorney general of, say, Utah, are you?
You made a claim that didn't make much sense, than changed it after people called you on it
To you and your warped religion. The world doesn't make much sense to scientologists either. Actually I was backed up on the adobe thing, follow the thread. And I claimed it as an assumption at the time, not a hard fact. Look it up.
and later said it was just a wild guess which was "completely rational" because you'ld "do the same thing."
You call for an objective test, which means nothing more than a test where the Mac doesn't come out ahead.
Damn you're psychotic. Put the damned tinfoil hat on. I USE MACS.
You even doubt that there are no "winzealots who don't live in Redmond".
A winzealot to you being someone who doesn't pray to Wozniak?
You repeat the same old claims about how Apple cheated on the benchmarks even after they had been proven false.
Proven to you because in your eyes nothing apple ever does is cheating.
And you lack humour - that's the worst part.
I have to give you that, your paranoid-delusional lunatic ravings are damned funny, if nothing else. Nutjob.
If "real-world" is your thang, it's a graphics-intensive (but non-Adobe) app that really benefits from fast CPUs. It has versions on x86 (albeit pre-V3), PPC and MIPS. Supports SMP systems too.
I'd groove to that. Sounds as fair as anything I've heard.
Gee, why are you MAC whiners all so defensive? - Because you Wintrolls are all so offensive.
Either you're trolling or you have a completely distorted picture of the universe. What did I say that was offensive? Was it when I questioned, politely I might add, if the comparisons were "apples-to-apples?" If you are threatened or offended by that you truly have some psychological problems. By the way, I don't use windows.
As for your yet unsuported claim - it must be tough to be you.
Riiiight. You know you're fucking nuts, right? For what it's worth, I haven't made a claim. That would be "apples are slower." I didn't say that. I actually don't know. But I suspect you've "known" since before you saw the benchmarks. Because you hit every definition of zealot, down to actually going to the trouble of putting someone on your freaks list because they have a differing opinion. That's quite a head case you got there.
How does using a complier that is platform-agnostic benefit one side or the other?
Because little or no commercial software will ever be compiled for Intel chips using gcc, rather Intel's compiler. It would be like saying apple should force their system to emulate 32 bits since that's all the PC has. I see the availablity of a completely superior compiler to be a fair advantage. Even now that IBM's made a kick-ass compiler for Apple.
And it seems to me that you can't get over the fact that maybe, just maybe, Intel isn't the top of heap (again).
I have no idea where you get this from. Did you miss what I said last post? Can people actually just discuss this? I've said it twelve times - I don't care who "wins." I'm a scientist, and as such, I considered Apple's methodology deceptive. It doesn't affect me as a computer user. Put it this way - I've never been the guy with the fastest computer anyway. In fact, I don't own an Intel. I run an AMD-900, so that should tell you something about how much of a speed freak I am.
I'm one of the few Mac fanboys who will admit that for the last two years or so, the G4 (#@!#$! Motorola) and corresponding architecture has lagged behind the Intel world in terms of raw speed.
Hey, that's great. But you indeed are a fanboy, as evidenced by the fact that you overly criticize those who aren't apple fans.
Yep. They modified. For better performance on their tests
Interesting, as I heard it they did some things to make floating point calculations slower. Makes me wonder why they didn't even try a stock Dell? A perfectly fair comparison, yet I haven't heard it resported at all.
from using the same compiler
That was to benefit apple, at the time the intel compiler was much faster. This changes now, with parent story, obviously.
Get over it. x86 hasn't always been the reigning speed champ.
And I would say the same to you. Is it possible to actually discuss this story without accusing people of being in denial? I *don't care* who wins, it's about experimental methodology for me.
And this is how all the apple posts go:
PC user: I don't know - isn't it possible that the apple isn't the fastest machine on the planet?
Apple user: Shutup you PC-fanboy zealot! You need to get out of denial and face the fact that the apple is faster. x86 sucks!
I mean, why is it impossible to rationally discuss this story with mac users?
Maybe we should use a word processor? Graphics and video are the biggest things to tax a CPU so they are the best for benchmarking.
Why don't we try Unreal Tournament with the same vid card then?
Apple's synthetic benchmarks which eliminated the compiler on the G5 side (GCC optimizes better for the Intel) showed the G5 to be faster at FP and Int operations on a per clock cycle basis. This is a fact.
I don't think synthetic benchmarks can be called fact. That said, if they hold up, it is damned exciting.
The G5 is a superior design because it is a newer design.
Most certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "The apple is slower." I'm just saying, let's get a flat comparison, and see what the results are. And I readily admit the apple might be faster. I don't even have a pentium (I run AMD, because I'm cheap) so I don't really care.
The Intel is simply showing its age, no reflection on its Engineers, I'm sure Intel engineers would love to be able to walk away from the legacy crap
I'm sure they did when they retired 20 years ago.;) Oh, you mean their current designers...yeah, that must suck.
Now, an optimized Compiler for the G5 family is making its way to release and showing considerable promise to the PPC community.
Damn straight, and it's about time too. If IBM's numbers are right, it's gonna rock.
One would expect that a newer G5 with an optimized compiler should beat an aging Pentium with its optimized compiler, right?
I generally would, the skepticism is just that, in years past, apple's chips were *so* underwhelming. It's simply hard to scale up that fast. Also, Apple has in the past claimed speed equality with PC's when it simply wasn't the case. I think that's why people sometimes hear Apple's boasts and go "Yeah right."
And, it appears that Intel has some real competition now. Isn't that a good thing for both the camps? it certainly is.
You'll get no argument here. I don't want to start another flamewar, but I'd honestly buy a mac if they were cheaper. I love aqua - beats the hell out of what I'm looking at now (gnome, incidentally).
Sure. Adobe is going to sabotage a product that makes about half the money on the PC (before we go into support issues). They do this by not allowing Intel to put several of their engineers on the task and also not doing more improvements
First, any reason why you're so cranky about this?
Second, it's not about sabotage. It's simply about spending more effort on the mac version since that's where their most ardent support is. It's completely rational of them - I'd do the same thing.
There are people in the world who HAVE to use programs like Photoshop, because there are no competitive products. If they would like to pick the platform it runs fastest on (as the only requirement), then it's not the fault of the hardware people because some third party makes their software faster for that platform.
For God's sake, I'm readily granting that there are people out there who are using photoshop and this is important to them. Fine. However, it is not a general test of the ability of the mac vs. dell. Put it this way - do you have a problem if we use another program instead?
Umm where have you been, a large part of the problem with SPEWs was that they were placing large IP blocks on the blacklist for no apparrent reason. I personally was involved in a case where they blocked an entire server farm because one server was behaving badly.
Unfortunately, spammers are like bad apples - when they find a spam-friendly ISP, they tend to conglomerate. Second, you don't think that individual SysAdmins will do worse? At least with centralized blocklists, you can be removed. Try that with a ton of individual admins.
IOW, the PC fanboys are just going to claim that SPEC was "developed natively for the mac".
Huh? I can't speak for any "pc fanboys," if such a thing exists, but I would be simply interested, from a scientific standpoint, if Apple's made up all that ground after a long period of Motorola being pretty bad. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really care which one wins.
Just for the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, are you a mac "fanboy?" I myself use both platforms (apple and intel) regularly, counting Linux, BSD, and Windows on the PC.
The point of the Photoshop test is not to show that the G5 is generally faster than the P4 (that's what SPEC is for).
I completely agree, and if it weren't for people in this thread using the photoshop test to counter the SPEC results, I wouldn't have made the post. However, there is a large contingent claiming that the photoshop test is a fair, accurate, platform-neutral test. I believe otherwise.
Why would Adobe do that? They've already gone right out and said that they prefer when PC's use their software. Also, it's not like the PC has a small market share among photoshop users.
What's Apple's marketshare among graphic designers and "power" photoshop users?
Don't claim fact to something you "would wager" on.
I didn't claim fact, that's why I stated it as I did to disclaim firsthand knowledge. Although, from others in the thread, it does look like I was right.
I'm interested - *are* there winzealots who don't live in Redmond? I've never known anyone who gave half a shit about their windows. I've known PC-zealots who happen to run windows, but they're usually graphics-card zealots, or case-mod guys.
But I have yet to meet a true fan of the windows way of life.
The only place where they have focused on one platform or the other have been in filters (arguably where the real heavy lifting is).
That's what I thought, and indeed, that's where you need the G5. I can draw circles on an old PPC.;)
It is true that Altivec has given a bigger boost than the MMX family, but this is simply due to the quality of the Altivec units. Intel actually paid for a 2bit gausian blur filter for MMX for demo purposes. If you stuck with exactly a 2 bit blur (not real common) you got a great result on the Pentium, but off that magic number the PPC (604 at the time) won.
I'd say that's cyclical. Apple's always had great support among the design community. They'd be retarded to let Intel usurp that. So I'd say that designers/Apple have a mutually beneficial situation - you buy exclusively our stuff, and we'll design our chip to do cool stuff for you.
Executive summary: Photoshop with a broad array of filters/actions is about as good a general test as you can devise (for graphics artists).
I think we'd all agree that if the world consisted of graphic artists, intel would go out of business. But, for instance, I'm a chemist, so I could care less about filters and such. And as above, apple's simply worked harder specifically to woo artists and such. Intel doesn't - so I'm not surprised in the least that the mac might win.
Put it this way - why is the general mac community against using a non-graphics, non-adobe product as a "real-world" benchmark?
No, the bugs are worked out of the mac version too.
Right...eventually...a few months after the *port* is released. By which time the PC version is long-since stable.
Recently, very few great games have never made it to mac.
Well, you'd hardly know, would you?;)
And as for games in stores, shelf space costs money, and goes to what is most likely going to be purchased. A PC game is more likely to be purchased, and as such gets more space.
Hey, I never said it wasn't a vicous cycle. But such it is, and I'll use my PC for gaming. Nothing else, mind you, but I'll use it for gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
I see I'm not the only one who puts a "+5" on my "troll" preferences. ;)
Sounds like a good way to get rid of them. Hell, I say we have VoA directly link to the anarchist's cookbook. Get rid of 20 terrorists an hour that way.
First, thanks for linking me to the opinion - I missed this post originally.
regarding your specific post...
If a cooperative software vendor wanted to speed the case to a victorious conclusion, he could just modify 1% of his shrinkwrap EULAs to include an extra provision- something outlandish like an additional $1000 monthly fee as long as the product is installed. The ensuing lawsuit would clearly demonstrate the folly of the ProCD position.
As annoying as the decision was, they did mention that a EULA that says "You owe us an extra $10,000" would NOT be enforceable. See, they're reasonable! ;)
Regarding other aspects of the decision and the Dell story...
First, the decision did put some pretty strong requirements on the legality of EULA's. One was the refund part - otherwise, the decision hinted that a EULA might not be enforceable if the buyer had no ability to terminate upon reviewing the final contract. Seems that MS is certainly obligated to refund for OEM windows. Also, would Dell's refusal to refund shipping be illegal? One wouldn't care too much about shipping, I expect, but it is the principle, isn't it?
Second, the decision discussed that, for the ProCD EULA, there was mention of a further license on the box, and they likened this to insurance sales, where the full policy follows the transaction. Seems to me that any company would be at least required to notify you that further terms were forthcoming. I'm sure that microsoft does this as a matter of course - but I wonder, did Dell? if not, how would that be treated?
Third, Dell absolutely refused to provide the actual license! If this is the case, and the screen says "You agree to every license in the box," but there are none in the box, what then? This isn't a EULA-general argument, more for the specific story. However, I don't see that as being a one-time incident, so it would be nice to know.
I've heard this bandied about many times, and I've never heard a really satisfactory answer as to why they're legal *now*. Like everyone else here, I'm not a lawyer...though all my friends are. ;) But, technically, shouldn't all terms of a contract be in place *before* it's execution?
Seems to me, at the point where they have my money, and I have their computer, the transaction is finished. At this point, a EULA seems like an attempt to change the terms of the tacit contract (ie, the transaction) after the fact, and I should have absolutely no obligation to pay it a bit of attention.
If they showed you a copy of the EULA on their website, it might be different. At that point, I could read it and tell them to piss off. Or I could not read it, click past it, and then it really would be my fault and problem for not reading it.
Anyone have an informed opinion on this (as opposed to my barely slightly educated guess)??? I've heard that courts have upheld them, but I can't find a judge's opinion on the matter.
1) filled out the compaint form on the SEC.
2) Contacted my AG.
The Media ploy is a hail mary. Most media today is so rabidly pro corporations they won't ever look into shenanigans but I figured it may be worth trying.
Wow, I don't know about that - at most, I'd say "it depends on if the corporations in question are advertisers." If not, the "evil corporation" story is a *huge* ratings draw - people love 'em. The problem here is that the story is too obscure. But if 1) we can make the media understand it and 2) they can get the public pissed about it, it would be picked up in a second. And I really don't think any media would back SCO - do they advertise anywhere? Does Canopy own anything that advertises a lot?
Yes, but that option is only open to SCO shareholders, not the general linux community who would rather burn in hell than own SCO stock.
I *suppose* you could get 50,000 linux users to all buy a share, but you wouldn't have any actual *damages* until SCO's stock tanks, by which time the whole point of the suit is moot because the war would have been won.
See the problem? It's hard to sue in civil court for manipulation when you're currently benefiting from it.
Actually not a bad idea. Of course, I do believe it's covered under my "sit on your ass and bitch." You're sitting in a chair (on your ass) at a desk, writing a letter (bitching). I'll probably end up whining at by cat's though. I think I'll rename the cat's ass "SCO."
On a more serious note, can one write to the SEC?
Stock manipulation's a crime, so it would have to be the DA (ie, criminal court). Class-actions are civil. You can't do anything but sit on your ass and bitch about it, just like me. ;)
You're not the attorney general of, say, Utah, are you?
Well, I'd say it's for 1) more publicity and 2) the unpredictability (aka OJ) factor, since they'd never have a chance with a judge.
To you and your warped religion. The world doesn't make much sense to scientologists either. Actually I was backed up on the adobe thing, follow the thread. And I claimed it as an assumption at the time, not a hard fact. Look it up.
and later said it was just a wild guess which was "completely rational" because you'ld "do the same thing."
You call for an objective test, which means nothing more than a test where the Mac doesn't come out ahead.
Damn you're psychotic. Put the damned tinfoil hat on. I USE MACS.
You even doubt that there are no "winzealots who don't live in Redmond".
A winzealot to you being someone who doesn't pray to Wozniak?
You repeat the same old claims about how Apple cheated on the benchmarks even after they had been proven false.
Proven to you because in your eyes nothing apple ever does is cheating.
And you lack humour - that's the worst part.
I have to give you that, your paranoid-delusional lunatic ravings are damned funny, if nothing else. Nutjob.
I'd groove to that. Sounds as fair as anything I've heard.
...SCO can't be seen as an IT company* without a functioning web site. ;)
Discalimer: yes, I know they're in the lawsuit business now. By reading this post, you acknoqledge that all joke replies are to at least be original.
Either you're trolling or you have a completely distorted picture of the universe. What did I say that was offensive? Was it when I questioned, politely I might add, if the comparisons were "apples-to-apples?" If you are threatened or offended by that you truly have some psychological problems. By the way, I don't use windows.
As for your yet unsuported claim - it must be tough to be you.
Riiiight. You know you're fucking nuts, right? For what it's worth, I haven't made a claim. That would be "apples are slower." I didn't say that. I actually don't know. But I suspect you've "known" since before you saw the benchmarks. Because you hit every definition of zealot, down to actually going to the trouble of putting someone on your freaks list because they have a differing opinion. That's quite a head case you got there.
Because little or no commercial software will ever be compiled for Intel chips using gcc, rather Intel's compiler. It would be like saying apple should force their system to emulate 32 bits since that's all the PC has. I see the availablity of a completely superior compiler to be a fair advantage. Even now that IBM's made a kick-ass compiler for Apple.
And it seems to me that you can't get over the fact that maybe, just maybe, Intel isn't the top of heap (again).
I have no idea where you get this from. Did you miss what I said last post? Can people actually just discuss this? I've said it twelve times - I don't care who "wins." I'm a scientist, and as such, I considered Apple's methodology deceptive. It doesn't affect me as a computer user. Put it this way - I've never been the guy with the fastest computer anyway. In fact, I don't own an Intel. I run an AMD-900, so that should tell you something about how much of a speed freak I am.
I'm one of the few Mac fanboys who will admit that for the last two years or so, the G4 (#@!#$! Motorola) and corresponding architecture has lagged behind the Intel world in terms of raw speed.
Hey, that's great. But you indeed are a fanboy, as evidenced by the fact that you overly criticize those who aren't apple fans.
Interesting, as I heard it they did some things to make floating point calculations slower. Makes me wonder why they didn't even try a stock Dell? A perfectly fair comparison, yet I haven't heard it resported at all.
from using the same compiler
That was to benefit apple, at the time the intel compiler was much faster. This changes now, with parent story, obviously.
Get over it. x86 hasn't always been the reigning speed champ.
And I would say the same to you. Is it possible to actually discuss this story without accusing people of being in denial? I *don't care* who wins, it's about experimental methodology for me.
And this is how all the apple posts go:
PC user: I don't know - isn't it possible that the apple isn't the fastest machine on the planet?
Apple user: Shutup you PC-fanboy zealot! You need to get out of denial and face the fact that the apple is faster. x86 sucks!
I mean, why is it impossible to rationally discuss this story with mac users?
Why don't we try Unreal Tournament with the same vid card then?
Apple's synthetic benchmarks which eliminated the compiler on the G5 side (GCC optimizes better for the Intel) showed the G5 to be faster at FP and Int operations on a per clock cycle basis. This is a fact.
I don't think synthetic benchmarks can be called fact. That said, if they hold up, it is damned exciting.
The G5 is a superior design because it is a newer design.
Most certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "The apple is slower." I'm just saying, let's get a flat comparison, and see what the results are. And I readily admit the apple might be faster. I don't even have a pentium (I run AMD, because I'm cheap) so I don't really care.
The Intel is simply showing its age, no reflection on its Engineers, I'm sure Intel engineers would love to be able to walk away from the legacy crap
I'm sure they did when they retired 20 years ago. ;) Oh, you mean their current designers...yeah, that must suck.
Now, an optimized Compiler for the G5 family is making its way to release and showing considerable promise to the PPC community.
Damn straight, and it's about time too. If IBM's numbers are right, it's gonna rock.
One would expect that a newer G5 with an optimized compiler should beat an aging Pentium with its optimized compiler, right?
I generally would, the skepticism is just that, in years past, apple's chips were *so* underwhelming. It's simply hard to scale up that fast. Also, Apple has in the past claimed speed equality with PC's when it simply wasn't the case. I think that's why people sometimes hear Apple's boasts and go "Yeah right."
And, it appears that Intel has some real competition now. Isn't that a good thing for both the camps? it certainly is.
You'll get no argument here. I don't want to start another flamewar, but I'd honestly buy a mac if they were cheaper. I love aqua - beats the hell out of what I'm looking at now (gnome, incidentally).
First, any reason why you're so cranky about this?
Second, it's not about sabotage. It's simply about spending more effort on the mac version since that's where their most ardent support is. It's completely rational of them - I'd do the same thing.
For God's sake, I'm readily granting that there are people out there who are using photoshop and this is important to them. Fine. However, it is not a general test of the ability of the mac vs. dell. Put it this way - do you have a problem if we use another program instead?
Unfortunately, spammers are like bad apples - when they find a spam-friendly ISP, they tend to conglomerate. Second, you don't think that individual SysAdmins will do worse? At least with centralized blocklists, you can be removed. Try that with a ton of individual admins.
Huh? I can't speak for any "pc fanboys," if such a thing exists, but I would be simply interested, from a scientific standpoint, if Apple's made up all that ground after a long period of Motorola being pretty bad. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really care which one wins.
Just for the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, are you a mac "fanboy?" I myself use both platforms (apple and intel) regularly, counting Linux, BSD, and Windows on the PC.
I completely agree, and if it weren't for people in this thread using the photoshop test to counter the SPEC results, I wouldn't have made the post. However, there is a large contingent claiming that the photoshop test is a fair, accurate, platform-neutral test. I believe otherwise.
What's Apple's marketshare among graphic designers and "power" photoshop users?
Don't claim fact to something you "would wager" on.
I didn't claim fact, that's why I stated it as I did to disclaim firsthand knowledge. Although, from others in the thread, it does look like I was right.
I'm interested - *are* there winzealots who don't live in Redmond? I've never known anyone who gave half a shit about their windows. I've known PC-zealots who happen to run windows, but they're usually graphics-card zealots, or case-mod guys.
But I have yet to meet a true fan of the windows way of life.
That's what I thought, and indeed, that's where you need the G5. I can draw circles on an old PPC. ;)
It is true that Altivec has given a bigger boost than the MMX family, but this is simply due to the quality of the Altivec units. Intel actually paid for a 2bit gausian blur filter for MMX for demo purposes. If you stuck with exactly a 2 bit blur (not real common) you got a great result on the Pentium, but off that magic number the PPC (604 at the time) won.
I'd say that's cyclical. Apple's always had great support among the design community. They'd be retarded to let Intel usurp that. So I'd say that designers/Apple have a mutually beneficial situation - you buy exclusively our stuff, and we'll design our chip to do cool stuff for you.
Executive summary: Photoshop with a broad array of filters/actions is about as good a general test as you can devise (for graphics artists).
I think we'd all agree that if the world consisted of graphic artists, intel would go out of business. But, for instance, I'm a chemist, so I could care less about filters and such. And as above, apple's simply worked harder specifically to woo artists and such. Intel doesn't - so I'm not surprised in the least that the mac might win.
Put it this way - why is the general mac community against using a non-graphics, non-adobe product as a "real-world" benchmark?
Right...eventually...a few months after the *port* is released. By which time the PC version is long-since stable.
Recently, very few great games have never made it to mac.
Well, you'd hardly know, would you? ;)
And as for games in stores, shelf space costs money, and goes to what is most likely going to be purchased. A PC game is more likely to be purchased, and as such gets more space.
Hey, I never said it wasn't a vicous cycle. But such it is, and I'll use my PC for gaming. Nothing else, mind you, but I'll use it for gaming.