How sad...

<a href='http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232&p=8' target='_blank'>http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232&p=8</a>

Wow, look at all those benchmarks posted with the article!! Man, I'm certainly convinced :rolleyes:


Did you read the whole review? Turns out Mac's aren't the spawn of satan you all think they are.


And just to clarify, his computer was $2500 not $3000



I really don't like to get into these "holy wars" like I used to. Because it all comes down to what works for you and what you need from your computer. For me, I need a Mac for all the pro software I am running. I have also mastered OS X and know it like the back of my hand, so I'm pretty efficient on it. When I sit down at a Windowze computer, they might as well put everything in Russian because it makes no sense to me.

But most people could care less about pro software. All they need is to write a few emails, type up a few documents and access the internet.

Whatever, that's just my

tarheelsben1 Wrote:Wow, look at all those benchmarks posted with the article!! Man, I'm certainly convinced :rolleyes:


Did you read the whole review? Turns out Mac's aren't the spawn of satan you all think they are.


And just to clarify, his computer was $2500 not $3000



I really don't like to get into these "holy wars" like I used to. Because it all comes down to what works for you and what you need from your computer. For me, I need a Mac for all the pro software I am running. I have also mastered OS X and know it like the back of my hand, so I'm pretty efficient on it. When I sit down at a Windowze computer, they might as well put everything in Russian because it makes no sense to me.

But most people could care less about pro software. All they need is to write a few emails, type up a few documents and access the internet.

Whatever, that's just my

that's definitely the best way to sum it up. It's completely true. Personally, I fall into the "But most people could care less about pro software. All they need is to write a few emails, type up a few documents and access the internet" category.

I'm referring to the very first paragraph. It's obvious Mac OS X is based off the old old 2.2 or early 2.4 branch Linux kernels, or the rough UNIX equivalent. Then the processing was not very time sensitive at all. At times you could feel a lag or delay between command and command being processed.

What I'm pointing out is that Apple needs to do what Linux has done in the 2.6 branch.... dramatically speed up the processing. If (when) the real time patches make it into the Linux kernel, there will be another massive speed increase in process handling.

I could build $1,200 PC that would outbenchmark/perform a top of the line G5, but that's another story, and profess that somebody with money lying around and no computer knowledge might find the G5 an attractive option given their inability to custom build a PC.

I look forward to the enhancements Tiger will bring for OS X. This will be the first OS(for apple) to actually fully utilize the 64-bit technology. This will also bring more 64-bit "compatible" apps. This will make a huge difference in how fast the OS and computer as a whole feel.

<a href='http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I'm referring to the very first paragraph. It's obvious Mac OS X is based off the old old 2.2 or early 2.4 branch Linux kernels, or the rough UNIX equivalent. Then the processing was not very time sensitive at all. At times you could feel a lag or delay between command and command being processed.

What I'm pointing out is that Apple needs to do what Linux has done in the 2.6 branch.... dramatically speed up the processing. If (when) the real time patches make it into the Linux kernel, there will be another massive speed increase in process handling.

I could build $1,200 PC that would outbenchmark/perform a top of the line G5, but that's another story, and profess that somebody with money lying around and no computer knowledge might find the G5 an attractive option given their inability to custom build a PC.

OSX is based off FreeBSD, not Linux.

yakko Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I'm referring to the very first paragraph.&nbsp; It's obvious Mac OS X is based off the old old 2.2 or early 2.4 branch Linux kernels, or the rough UNIX equivalent.&nbsp; Then the processing was not very time sensitive at all.&nbsp; At times you could feel a lag or delay between command and command being processed.

What I'm pointing out is that Apple needs to do what Linux has done in the 2.6 branch.... dramatically speed up the processing.&nbsp; If (when) the real time patches make it into the Linux kernel, there will be another massive speed increase in process handling.

I could build $1,200 PC that would outbenchmark/perform a top of the line G5, but that's another story, and profess that somebody with money lying around and no computer knowledge might find the G5 an attractive option given their inability to custom build a PC.

OSX is based off FreeBSD, not Linux.

FreeBSD handles itself much like a 2.2 / early 2.4 Linux kernel, then.