< I assume taking longer on the benchmark means slower.>
Re: absolutemac.com
You are joking, yes? I read it as longer=better with the
old powermac as 100% reference baseline. Come on guys, I'm
not a mac expert but surely this url shows the new UMAX
will be 10 times the processor speed of an old powermac, not
the reverse. PLease somone confirm this. Thanks
By the way, the guy who is so sure Rhapsody will be speedy
should supply a reference. ALl logic dictates the opposite since
Unix has many more overheads. This is why WinNT runs slower than
Win95, which is fast because its stupid and checks the integrity
of the file system and things less often. You can't have the
magical robustness and scaleability of Rhapsody/Openstep without
overheads. On WIntel machines i know that Openstep 4.0 is much slower
than Win95. I know because I have both on my system. Of course
it will be much faster on a modern high speed RISC processor but
still slower than a less robust OS on the SAME processor.
BTW, Philip C. Lee: -- have to agree with you totally, this
worskation business at a fraction of the SUN price is where AAPL
will make a killing with Rhapsody, `workstations for the masses'
should be their ad campaign slogan. If not the masses, however, then
question is if SUN's workstation market at low prices will be
enough for profitability. You see, SUN only need to sell relatively
few units to make a ton of money, because they charge a hell of
a lot for each SPARC. AAPL with Rhapsody will be attractive if it
is a cheap workstation alternative but its margins will therefore be
lower.
Shahn |
