John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Gregory Ruiz-Ade wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 03:44 pm, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Unless you want to back up the word ``inferior'' with hard, fast numbers
then please leave the derisive language out.
And yet you seem to imply that PPC hardware is itself inferior.
Nope. Just overpriced. I contend that x86 has a better price/
performance, especially in the form of AMD chips.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997
However, there are no price/performace comparisons. Only performance.
And yet all the latest supercomputers seem to be built around Apple Xserves.
Interesting.
Did you look at those price tags? Remember: performance is half of
price/performance. If you ignore price, then we can all drive Ferraris!
(/me notes the Toyota Corolla sitting in the parking lot)
If anyone has any reference to a benchmark between similarly priced and
equipped PPC and x86 systems, that would be great.
If someone provides me with a Dell laptop... :)
I would feel a lot
better knowing that PPC's price/performance was on par with x86, however
looking at prices between Apple PowerBooks and Dells, I see that Dell
has Apple beat:
Apple: 15" LCD, 1.5GHz G4, 80GB drive for 1,999$.
Dell: 15" LCD, 1.5 GHz Intel Pentium M 715, 8o GB Drive for $1,187
See, I got a slightly different price. I purposefully sought out the
Inspiron line, which has always been Dell's slimmer notebook, and found
that the Inspiron 6000 was the closest match to what a PowerBook has. With
that in mind, I configured one to be as close as possible in stature as the
15" PowerBook, as offered in its default configuration by Apple.
Apple 15" PowerBook: $1,999
1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB HD @5400RPM, DVD-ROM/CD-RW,
Mac OS X 10.4, 802.11b/g, BlueTooth, etc.
http://unnerving.org/~gkade/misc/apple15inpb.pdf
Dell Inspiron 6000 (15" display): $1,670
2GHz Pentium-M, 512MB, 80GB HD @4200RPM, DVD-ROM/CD-RW,
XP Pro, 802.11b/g, no BlueTooth AFAIK
http://unnerving.org/~gkade/misc/dellinspiron6000.pdf
Overall, remarkably similar systems, though I suspect the performance of the
Dell might suffer a bit with a slightly slower hard drive, and there's a
few goodies that aren't on the Dell that you just get gratis on the
PowerBook.
That was the problem I was having, which is why I went for similar. I
think I looked at an Inspiron also. I closed the window, so I don't
know. I see you picked a higher MHz Intel CPU, which is probably a
fairer comparison. In your configuration, which I will accept as the
fairer comparison, the Dell is 16% less expensive. If the reduced
performace of the drive is less than ov overall performance, the Dell is
still winning the price/performace contest.
The big question would be is a 2GHz Pentium-M CPU comparable to a 1.5GHz
G4? I don't know, but I assume it is close enough for armchair
hypothesising!
This was with similar RAM, similar wireless and similar video card. I
do not know if the Dell had the DVI & S-Video out, Analog audio in/out,
FireWire 400 & 800 or Gigabit Ethernet.
Still haven't really sussed out the details on those goodies.
Overall, I ended up spending about $3k on my powerbook once I optioned it up
the way I wanted. I also priced out a Dell notebook and ended up around
$3k as well for what would make me happy.
At those prices, would the Dell have performed better? And were they
similarly configured?
Since the Intel is a CISC, it can do more per clock cycle than the RISC
PPC can. This makes the Dell a raw faster system by the numbers. A real
benchmark would provide better data.
CISC v. RISC is outdated as an argument. Modern PPC hardware can arguably
do more per clock cycle than x86 CPUs in real-world tests. In terms of
generic usability, my 1.5GHz Powerbook is often more responsive than my
2.4GHz P4 Linux machine at work.
Did you add pre-emptive kernel patched to the Linux system? That adds a
lot in apparent responsiveness.
People _like_ Apple because most of the time, It Just Works.
This is because of control of the OS and the hardware. Solaris SPARC
Just Works, but is not aimed at the consumer, unlike WIntel and Apple.
And your point is...?
Not much of one, obviously.
Why upset that apple (ha!) cart?
Why stagnate?
Demonstrate, to me, stagnation.
Apple keeps a very narrow view of supported harware and architectures.
This is a limited menu mentality, and it works great in a lot of cases
(In N Out has a limited menu, and what they do is most excellent. Just
don't go there for Lobster Newburgh). Similarly, for what Apple does
they do excellently.
This seems to be a point in Apples favor. I read your description of
what they do is to practice good quality control: limit and control the
number of unknowns. Add new components or options only when you know you
can support them or when you are compelled to do so because of market
pressures or proven technology advancements.
I am just of the impression that they are overpriced.
Somethings only overpriced when not enough people will purchase it in
order for you to continue production.
Obviously, Apple doesn't have this problem.
It may also be
because they package their computers with good stuff, so you don;t end
up getting a crappy system. They are not trying to lure you in with
cheap prices, then charge you as you build it to be usefull. I did see
that Dell did do that with their ``starting at!'' prices.
That description doesn't seem to suggest that Apple products are overpriced.
Perhaps Apple is not as overpriced as I am thinking.
There ya go! ;)
I know that I think
they do produce wonderful hardware. Except that to buy one, one would
have to buy one with the supported Airport card. I can't even find those
in the Refurb section. Try your luck with EBay or Craigs List?
So, Apple's got a wart after all. We certainly have no complaints on
that account in the x86 world. I assume that the Airport card works just
fine with the Apple-supplied OS. So, you must be complaining on behalf
of Linux users.
Certainly none of us has ever bought an x86 with manufacturer-supplied
hardware which didn't play nice with Linux.
I have an operating system from Apple that lets me run all the
"expected" office and productivity apps, while at the same time
letting me get as geeky as I want under the hood in the BSD layer.
Which leaves MS Windows as the only major non-UNIX based system left.
And Intel as the only ``pure'' CISC chip maker left. Hmm...
-john
Good point. But I suspect that Microsoft has, as we speak, one or more
boxes running a BSD-based version of Windows running in a test lab.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
