Re: [FairfieldLife] Vista (was Re: Fwd: A PROGRESS REPORT)

[Vaj]

On Oct 15, 2006, at 9:15 PM, new.morning wrote: OK, thanks. The mac pro is less expensive than a similar Dell. Surprising, I want to study it more. But still, in the benchmarks, other aticle, a two core gateway killed the four core Mac running windows apps. Still not a contest yet. I've not seen that and it sounds incongruous with benchmarks and articles I've read--or you're most likely reading or misinterpeting something. New Mac systems, running XP, run apps as fast or faster than a comparable wintel machine. In Mac OS X, similar operations run faster in Mac OS X in Universal Apps. Non universal apps will take a performance cut. In fact the first article I sent had the following quote: The Mac Pro is a capable video transcoder in Windows XP under Boot Camp: Its Windows Media Encoder score of 4:42 using our standard video test file falls just behind our class leaders, the Falcon NW Mach V (Core 2 Extreme) (4:08) and the Gateway FX510XT (4:22). Keep in mind, however, that the Mac Pro completed this task with one hard drive, while both the Falcon and Gateway used faster dual-drive RAID 0 arrays. The Mac Pro powered through our Photoshop CS2 test in Windows XP in an astounding 26 seconds, our fastest time yet. The current standard for Photoshop CS2 is around 5 minutes for a budget machine (such as the eMachines T3120, which took 4:59), two minutes for a fast mainstream machine (the HP Slimline s7500y, 2:25), and under a minute for the fastest desktops (the Falcon NW Mach V (Core 2 Extreme), 0:29). The Mac Pro is a powerful graphics machine, even in Windows XP. (Because of a lack of comparison numbers, I wasn't able to run the QuickTime encoder test on the Mac Pro using Mac OS X. Thus, the results above are not representative of the system's video-encoding capability under Mac OS X. We hope to be able to run comparison tests to gauge those capabilities in the near future.) In other words, despite only one slower hard drive to read and write from, the Mac was comparable to top of the line PC's and faster in some instances. I bet with a comparable RAID array and HD speed, we'd see these number essentially identical. But understand, these are speeds of a Mac running a foreign operating system. We should naturally expect to see even faster results for OS X native operations. The Mac Pro's CineBench scores were through the roof, at 1,567 in Mac OS X and 1,463 in Microsoft Windows XP. Not surprisingly, these are the highest scores I've seen yet. The Falcon Northwest Mach V (Core 2 Extreme), by contrast, just broke 1,000 points. But this is not the end of the story, since XP is not 64 bit and is not fully tweaked for dual processors. I assume a 64-bit Vista, better optimized for dual core, and dual socket CPUS, running 64 bit software and software optimized for multiple cores, and on a PC with an upcoming Intel or AMD quad core (1x4), will kill even more drastically a  similarly confgure Mac running Win Aps. I'll believe it when I see it. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___