For those who think Apple OS security is a non-issue....

I hate religious debates.

In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:32:28 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

People who think that identical CPU speed means identical
performance don't know much of anything about computers.

Reading comprehension problem?

I stated that in testing, identical speed CPUs between Macs & PCs
showed that Macs consistantly outperformed the PCs in benchmarked tests
of identical tasks. Now you tell me that identical speeds don't mean
identical performances. Gee, where did I mess up on that?

--
Identical CPU speed does not mean identical CPUs.
Even you should know that slower AMD CPUs beat higher speed Intel
CPUs.

Yup.

Processor speed is no longer a reliable metric for performance.

Which was my point.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Rita Ä Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

BULL****! They only beat Intel when benchmarked using AMD based and biased
benchmarking programs. Real world performance on AMD is severly lacking.
Why didn't Apple select AMD as its processor of choice? Why was intel
selected as the processor of choice for the F1 racing team? It has
something to do with performance and reliability that only Intel can
deliver.

Because AMD sucks?

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:32:28 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

People who think that identical CPU speed means identical
performance don't know much of anything about computers.

Reading comprehension problem?

I stated that in testing, identical speed CPUs between Macs & PCs
showed that Macs consistantly outperformed the PCs in benchmarked tests
of identical tasks. Now you tell me that identical speeds don't mean
identical performances. Gee, where did I mess up on that?

--
Identical CPU speed does not mean identical CPUs.
Even you should know that slower AMD CPUs beat higher speed Intel
CPUs.
Processor speed is no longer a reliable metric for performance.

Absolutely true. AMD processors use their instruction pipelines better.

However, there are other issues. If cooling fails (say, the fan dies, or
the cooling fins come loose after a move) on AMD and Intel CPUs, the
Intel will shut itself down when it detects overheating. The AMD will
fry itself. Tom's Hardware did the tests maybe 3 years ago. That's the
main reason I'm still using a PC with a P4 processor.

http://www.tomshardware.com/

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:32:28 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

People who think that identical CPU speed means identical
performance don't know much of anything about computers.

Reading comprehension problem?
I stated that in testing, identical speed CPUs between Macs & PCs
showed that Macs consistantly outperformed the PCs in benchmarked tests
of identical tasks. Now you tell me that identical speeds don't mean
identical performances. Gee, where did I mess up on that?

--
Identical CPU speed does not mean identical CPUs.
Even you should know that slower AMD CPUs beat higher speed Intel
CPUs. Processor speed is no longer a reliable metric for performance.

Absolutely true. AMD processors use their instruction pipelines better.

However, there are other issues. If cooling fails (say, the fan dies, or
the cooling fins come loose after a move) on AMD and Intel CPUs, the
Intel will shut itself down when it detects overheating. The AMD will
fry itself. Tom's Hardware did the tests maybe 3 years ago. That's the
main reason I'm still using a PC with a P4 processor.

http://www.tomshardware.com/

Hi...

So will the AMD shut itself down at any (reasonable) temperature you
choose (selectable in bios). Have for several years.

Take care.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
However, there are other issues. If cooling fails (say, the
fan dies, or the cooling fins come loose after a move) on AMD
and Intel CPUs, the Intel will shut itself down when it
detects overheating. The AMD will fry itself. Tom's Hardware
did the tests maybe 3 years ago. That's the main reason I'm
still using a PC with a P4 processor.
http://www.tomshardware.com/

Hi...

So will the AMD shut itself down at any (reasonable) temperature
you choose (selectable in bios). Have for several years.

Take care.

True. And a decent OS can be configured to shut it down at
any given temperature too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Keith wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:
Scott Schuckert wrote:
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and their own way of doing
things, no matter how odd it might seem to others. I can assure you
that your experiences are far from typical. Honestly - for a long time
Apple paid me to convince educational customers to switch to Macintosh.
Over more than a decade, not one single customer, having tried a Mac,
claimed to prefer Windows.

I transitioned to OS X in mid-2005 and prefer it to WinXP. Cleaner
interface and more stable than my Win boxes.

I grew up writing machine code for IBMs in the 1950s, then for 8080
class machines. At 70 I'm past that stage, but still appreciate a
clean and stable GUI.

I've not abandoned Windows, though: my home server is set up in
WinXPPro and this MacBook will boot into WinXP when I need
functionality I don't have on the OS X side (e.g., support to my GPS
receiver for loading maps). Seems to happen less and less as time
goes on. The MacBook is the best Windows machine I've used, ironically.

Phil
I am somewhat surprised the Mac doesn't have GPS map support. Seems
right up their alley. There is no accounting for people who prefer one
type of system to the other. I gave up trying to figure that out long ago.
It's not a fault of the Mac. Garmin provides the
maps and the loading software. They promised full
OS X support by the end of 2006. I guess they
work to some different calendar than the one I use ;-)

Phil

I too am waiting for the OSX versions of the Garmin software, in the
meantime Parallels and Windooz ex pee works fine!

A sheepish looking Garmin employee *today* said he couldn't predict when
they'd release osX stuff, other than the whatever it is that's geared to
runners.

--
john mcwilliams

In article , John
McWilliams wrote:

Keith wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:
Scott Schuckert wrote:
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and their own way of doing
things, no matter how odd it might seem to others. I can assure you
that your experiences are far from typical. Honestly - for a long time
Apple paid me to convince educational customers to switch to Macintosh.
Over more than a decade, not one single customer, having tried a Mac,
claimed to prefer Windows.

I transitioned to OS X in mid-2005 and prefer it to WinXP. Cleaner
interface and more stable than my Win boxes.

I grew up writing machine code for IBMs in the 1950s, then for 8080
class machines. At 70 I'm past that stage, but still appreciate a
clean and stable GUI.

I've not abandoned Windows, though: my home server is set up in
WinXPPro and this MacBook will boot into WinXP when I need
functionality I don't have on the OS X side (e.g., support to my GPS
receiver for loading maps). Seems to happen less and less as time
goes on. The MacBook is the best Windows machine I've used, ironically.

Phil
I am somewhat surprised the Mac doesn't have GPS map support. Seems
right up their alley. There is no accounting for people who prefer one
type of system to the other. I gave up trying to figure that out long
ago.
It's not a fault of the Mac. Garmin provides the
maps and the loading software. They promised full
OS X support by the end of 2006. I guess they
work to some different calendar than the one I use ;-)

Phil

I too am waiting for the OSX versions of the Garmin software, in the
meantime Parallels and Windooz ex pee works fine!

A sheepish looking Garmin employee *today* said he couldn't predict when
they'd release osX stuff, other than the whatever it is that's geared to
runners.

Damn.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"Pat O'Connell" wrote in message
...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:32:28 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

People who think that identical CPU speed means identical
performance don't know much of anything about computers.

Reading comprehension problem?
I stated that in testing, identical speed CPUs between Macs & PCs
showed that Macs consistantly outperformed the PCs in benchmarked tests
of identical tasks. Now you tell me that identical speeds don't mean
identical performances. Gee, where did I mess up on that?

--
Identical CPU speed does not mean identical CPUs.
Even you should know that slower AMD CPUs beat higher speed Intel
CPUs. Processor speed is no longer a reliable metric for performance.

Absolutely true. AMD processors use their instruction pipelines better.

However, there are other issues. If cooling fails (say, the fan dies, or
the cooling fins come loose after a move) on AMD and Intel CPUs, the Intel
will shut itself down when it detects overheating. The AMD will fry
itself. Tom's Hardware did the tests maybe 3 years ago. That's the main
reason I'm still using a PC with a P4 processor.

http://www.tomshardware.com/

AMD introduced a thermal diode into the Athlon 4 "Palomino" back around
2001, this hasn't been an issue for years.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:28:51 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

Identical CPU speed does not mean identical CPUs.
Even you should know that slower AMD CPUs beat higher speed Intel
CPUs.
Processor speed is no longer a reliable metric for performance.

BULL****! They only beat Intel when benchmarked using AMD based and biased
benchmarking programs. Real world performance on AMD is severly lacking.
Why didn't Apple select AMD as its processor of choice? Why was intel
selected as the processor of choice for the F1 racing team? It has
something to do with performance and reliability that only Intel can
deliver.

What F1 chooses has to do with sponsorship money.
If you seriously think that AMD chips, MHz for MHz, don't perform
better, you're just not paying attention.
AMD's CPUs are consistently lower speed for the same performance
almost across the board.

http://driventoperform.intel.com/eng/team/default.aspx

Wow! You use Intel advertising to prove your point.







Rita

--
The Nixon Library honored
Elvis Presley's White House
meeting with President Nixon
Monday. He gave the president
a pistol. Elvis once shot a
TV set because he didn't like
what was on and today he's
known as the Father of the
emote Control.