Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Scrutchins who wrote (6832)	12/15/1997 12:56:00 AM
From: J R KARY	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213173

PMFJI Sam but here's some PowerPC info to help with the eval mot.com AAPL's chip is 64 bit RISC based whereas INTC's is 32 bit CISC . Essentially 8 cyls. v 4 cyls , plus Rhapsody (UNIX 64 bit) will be optomized for the PowerPC but , I suspect, not for the 32 bit INTC. Application comparisons are the ultimate "proof of the pudding" and with MSFT Office available to both platforms AAPL should "have at it" ASAP . Jim K.

To: Sam Scrutchins who wrote (6832)	12/15/1997 11:26:00 PM
From: Richard Habib	Respond to of 213173

Sam, ratings between computers should consist of task based comparisons between computers at the same price point. Taking into account architecture, components etc. have no interest to the average buyer or I would think to a corporate buyer. All that matters is how well a $1999 233 G3 compares in various tasks with a $1999 300 PII as they are sold at that price. IMHO. Funny though how few magazines or sites test across platforms. I also find it interesting that magazines rather arbitrarily cover only Wintel or only Mac with very little cross pollination. I understand how they developed this way but I don't see why it remains this way. I think thats one of the main reasons Wintel and Mac people are so divided over what should be basic facts. Mac people get there info from one place, Wintel from the other and neither trusts completely the others sources. Rich

To: Sam Scrutchins who wrote (6832)	12/16/1997 1:58:00 AM
From: Sowbug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213173

<<I suggest that you posit here on this thread what sort of a rating system would fairly present the attributes of Wintel vs Mac-based systems. I would assume such a rating system would account for all parts of the computer architecture, including the operating system or layers of operating systems as the case may be [I believe that I am dealing with the concept of throughput here, recognizing that different software applications will do better in different environments, but that there is some sort of defined starting point and finishing point]. Then perhaps you could take this rating system and sell it to the Wintel and Mac critics for their use. I really am serious about this.>> Sam, that would be a great idea, except for the fact that we would probably lose, and that's why I'm not so fond of a real-world comparison. There are several levels of tests, running along a continuum from (a) most indicative of hardware speed; and (b) most indicative of speed of everyday tasks. Example: I could write a small assembly language loop that tests how many milliseconds it takes for Computer X to count from 1 to 1 quadrillion. The G3 PowerMacs would win this test, I'm sure, but who wants to count to 1 quadrillion? Or you could see how long it takes to draw a million small circles on the screen. Again, the G3 probably wins, but it's not exactly a selling point that Macs draw circles faster than PCs. Finally, do a Microsoft Word spell check of a 100-page book. Here I suspect even a SLOWER Wintel machine completes the task faster than a Mac. Why? Microsoft wrote the app originally for the PC and did a half-assed port to the Mac, not taking the time to build it from the ground up to take advantage of the Mac's unique architecture. Office 98 for the Mac should be better, but I don't know whether it will be a native Mac application suite. Unfortunately, the last test is something you can sell: PCs spell check faster than Macs. People understand that. Once you change apps (e.g., compare good old WriteNow, written entirely in 680x0 assembly, to bloated MS Word 97), then it's a fairer battle, but it's more meaningless -- the average clueless shopper in Best Buy has no idea what a "WriteNow" is. So yeah, a real-world test would be wonderful, but only if we'd win, and I'm not sure we would. EXCEPTION: Adobe Photoshop is probably faster, operation-for-operation, on the Mac -- I think it's native on both platforms. And I think the relevant market (graphic designers et al.) are already well aware of that fact.