Jump to content
10 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

 

I was making my customary visit to the Apple website to check out the new ads... saw the following interesting paragraph:

 

"Plus, since Apple designs and tests the operating system and new hardware at the same time, the company can optimise software and hardware to work well together. That means on such well-designed hardware, that MacBook Pro runs even some Windows software faster than PCs themselves, according to third-party results. (They’re able to get these results with beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard. Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.)"

 

from http://www.apple.com/uk/getamac/fast.html

 

If the grammar is as intended, this means there is "beta software" in "Leopard" which "runs even some Windows software faster than PCs themselves" Or am I getting over excited due to bad copywriting?

 

cy8erpunk

Link to comment
https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/19997-leopard-to-run-windows-software/
Share on other sites

They're referring to the fact that Leopard will come packaged with Boot Camp's predecessor. Technically, Boot Camp is a beta of software that will be found in Leopard. Just because they mention running Windows software doesn't mean it's necessarily within the Aqua GUI. They could be talking about a Macbook running Windows, and over-all, running the software faster than a Dell or Gateway could.

 

And this is very true. Even Mac Mini's are given excellent ratings by Vista's hardware compatability rater thing. You can't say the same for a Gateway or Dell. In the end, the PCs proved best suited for Vista are built by Apple. :P

Well, knowing Apple, they take two "Equivalent Systems", a Macbook Pro 17 and a Pentium 3/700, and compare benchmarks. See, the Macbook runs Windows faster than the PC!

 

God, can you stop (CENSORED) for a minute?

 

Back during the days of the PowerPC, Apple consistently showed that given the right software, that 500 MHz G4 would kill a Pentium system at twice the clock. That was the entire point of the "megahertz myth"--you can't compare two different processors just by looking at their clock speeds. As always, you take a lot of other things into account before saying "Yes, this processor is better than the other."

 

Now of course, there is the issue of comparing with Intel based Macs. Most people are going to say "Well, Mac's are so expensive and you get nothing for it." So why not compare it with a $299 Dell and show the celery processor really sucks? Then compare it with an actual "comparably equipped" PC?

God, can you stop (CENSORED) for a minute?

 

Back during the days of the PowerPC, Apple consistently showed that given the right software, that 500 MHz G4 would kill a Pentium system at twice the clock. That was the entire point of the "megahertz myth"--you can't compare two different processors just by looking at their clock speeds. As always, you take a lot of other things into account before saying "Yes, this processor is better than the other."

 

Now of course, there is the issue of comparing with Intel based Macs. Most people are going to say "Well, Mac's are so expensive and you get nothing for it." So why not compare it with a $299 Dell and show the celery processor really sucks? Then compare it with an actual "comparably equipped" PC?

 

 

Yes but blame Intel for that....sure Jobs was full of it sometimes, 3-4 times faster? Errrr, no!!!!

errrrrrr, double double no! I have seen no benchmarks or Xbench, Cinebench at 300% to 400% yet.

 

On the other hand, those in the know know Intel = megahertz myth...and AMD saw to it that they made Intel ROADKILL even though INTC has deep pockets - -AMD and APPLE (Motorola Power PC) chips proved this and killed it off.

 

However, you take a dual G5 (which by the way has to be water cooled) and it still gets clobbered by some AMD machines. Intel is finally catching up. In addition, I don't think AMD is sitting on it's laurels - think about it, Apple and AMD have been partners in the hypertransport consortium for years and years.....

 

If I where Apple, I would let Intel test the market, meet the demand, if there is any, leak the crack, (allowing beta testing with hardware) and eventially move to AMD as well when AMD pulls the rabbit out of the hat -

 

All sorts of possibilities - - and if not for AMD Athlon to reach 1.0GHZ first, who knows, Intel would still be selling us 50hz increases for several hundered dollars. But thanks to AMD, they had no choice but to price cut, price cut, price cut.

 

It's all good!

The megahertz myth is the one where when you (Apple) has a 250mhz processor and Intel has a 233, mhz matters. When Intel has 1.2ghz, and Apple only has 800mhz, then it's a "myth".

 

Lets get some cinebench scores for the mac mini vs the dell $299 celeron.

They're referring to the fact that Leopard will come packaged with Boot Camp's predecessor. Technically, Boot Camp is a beta of software that will be found in Leopard. Just because they mention running Windows software doesn't mean it's necessarily within the Aqua GUI. They could be talking about a Macbook running Windows, and over-all, running the software faster than a Dell or Gateway could.

 

And this is very true. Even Mac Mini's are given excellent ratings by Vista's hardware compatability rater thing. You can't say the same for a Gateway or Dell. In the end, the PCs proved best suited for Vista are built by Apple. :blink:

 

 

Hey Takuro, could you post that Apple HD image here? I would like to use that for my HD icons!

The one you have as a sig!

Thanks!

Apple had made it very clear they won't ever ship their product with windows with it. I'd say Tokuro is the most accurate on interpreting what Apple claims. I personally believe Vista will be best fit for something like a Dell but maybe future Macs will surprise me.

×
×
  • Create New...