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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Time Traveler who wrote (47610)	2/11/1998 6:33:00 AM
From: Eric Yang	Respond to of 186894

<<...your lengthy and Apple-advertising post of #47569>> Look, you asked why Macs can cost a few more bucks...I was merely point out features that are generally bundled in Macs that people often overlook. <<I really do not give a damn about how nice of a box a computer comes in!>> That's nice to know John.I'm not surprised..Now we can all admire your good taste. <<You made a faulty claim and expected to walk away as if nothing has happened! In fact, you wished you had never made that faulty claim after all.>> What faulty claim? Care to elaborate? <<I [Eric Yang] wasn't the one who made process feature size an issue in the first place." You did it and tried to deny it. Don't underestimate your conscience.>> Let's leave the "conscience" crap out of this. Look..if you read my original post #47523 you'll notice that I didn't mention anything about feature size. YOU made it an issue in #47531 which I later responded. <<..nonsense deleted..Well, that showed me that deeply down in your conscience you really do not believe this PPC-750 can out-perform a P-II/333MHz! Remember "high benchmark" only lies in the eyes of the claimer!>> Trust me, I fully believe that PPC750 and 604e can outperform PII 333. As I said earlier, Paul is correct in that as far as SPEC 95 figures goes PPC's lead over Pentium II is marginal at about 10-15% range. However, performance differences in real-world applications is significantly larger. For example 300MHz 604e is scores 5% or so higher than a 266MHz PPC 750. However, Macs based on PPC 750 are 20% faster than 300MHz 604e systems. Please read #47523 again to see why before you jump into anymore of your creative conclusions. << I said: "The high-end machines [Mac's] based on PPC 750 will be out in a few months." You said: This one is far the biggest confession to your faulty claims. You have been faultily comparing this PPC-750 with P-II on 0.35um, and yet this PPC-750 is not even out yet (do not remember what you posted?)! >> John, learn how to read. We've been comparing G3 systems with 266MHz PPC750 against Pentium II 300/333 systems. These G3 PowerMacs with 266MHz PPC750 ARE the popular machines that beat PII 300 and 333s by a factor of 2 in BYTEmark integer test.How many times do I have to tell you that these computers have been out for months. Did you even bother clicking on the online purchase link that I posted? All I said is that we are expecting Apple to come out with even faster models to fill the high-end. Apple consider the current G3s its mid range machines.I don't think anyone else here is getting confused over this point. John..it might not be too late to try Hooked on Phonics. I have read in a post with a link showing how IBM is the only one fabricating PPC on 0.25um. If you are so stubborn that all you want to believe is that only IBM has .25um fab..by all means. But I'd really appreciate it if you do some homework before you open your mouth next time. Okay..here. See if you can find the feature size reference. mot.com This shows an excellent R&D work by IBM with this new copper technology. Well, how much do you know about it? Can you list a pros-and-cons table versus traditional aluminum? Would this copper technology be suitable for super mass-production today? John, it's not my job to lecture you about pro and con of copper vs aluminum. What does this and other silly points of yours have to do with what we were talking about? You're acting like a little school kid that tries to divert attention away from the point when he senses that he's losing an argument.If you really want to learn about the advantage of copper interconnects, try "Microchip Fabrication" by Van Zant page 391-393, 397-398. I expect a book report from you in my email box by Friday. <g> Since apparently you are not concerned about "readily available" software, you should really consider the superior, and of course younger, DEC's Alpha. How come Alpha is not your hobby but this inferior Mac is Software availability issue is a major myth circulated among people who aren't familiar with Macs. I use more software and do more on my computer than every PC user I know. Some of the best softwares originated on the Mac. The stuff I heard regarding lack of development software on the Mac is also inaccurate. CodeWarrior is one of the most powerful development software. And Mac is its main platform. I can go on but this kind of Mac vs PC discussion really belongs in Usenet..not here. What makes you think that Macs are inferior to machines powered by Alpha? What I need is a _personal_ computer. I want the elegance of MacOS as well as flexibility, expandability and power from the hardware. I've got a CD-burner, scanner, digital camera, 230MB MO, laser printer, external SCSI HD,2 internal SCSI HD, and ZIP to my G3/266 which is networked to my PowerMac 7600 by ethernet. It was a piece of cake. Trying to configure a Alpha workstation that way and you'll have a nightmare. Even if I were to do floating-point intensive graphic rendering for a living I'd probably still choose a quad processor 604e based Mac over Alpha. Eric