Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:56PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . . What discussion? Everyone knows HP are the only scientific calculators to get. TI were for losers! HP-25 from 1975 to 1990 HP-15C from 1990 - current HP-48 emulator on the iMac RPN Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ [Microsoft’s Windows Vista] Beta 2 is a good looking operating system with a number of new features, which will be familiar to you if you’ve played with recent versions of Apple’s OS X. - Gary Krakow, Columnist, MSNBC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
At 12:55 PM Tuesday 9/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:56PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . . What discussion? I used that word to be polite (about both discussions). Everyone knows HP are the only scientific calculators to get. TI were for losers! HP-25 from 1975 to 1990 HP-15C from 1990 - current I still have one of those somewhere. (Haven't seen or used it in awhile.) I do know where my 16C is, and keep fresh batteries in it. Have a 28 somewhere also. And a 48GX. HP-48 emulator on the iMac Wrote an emulator of (more-or-less) the HP-45 in FORTRAN back in 80 or 81 because it was easier than getting the company to buy one. notationfix maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Andrew said: Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you linked. This seems somewhat unlikely when 2.66GHz Xeon 5150 processors cost around £470 each and the base Mac Pro configuration has two of them, as well as a relatively high-end graphics card. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 18:43, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you linked. This seems somewhat unlikely when 2.66GHz Xeon 5150 processors cost around £470 each and the base Mac Pro configuration has two of them, as well as a relatively high-end graphics card. The entire system price for the low-end MacPro is £1700. It comes with a Nvidia 7300 GT. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33model1=51 9model2=547chart=227 The 7300 GT scores 289. The card I would look at, the X9100XT, scores 1657, and is avaliable for well under £200. Draw your own conclusions. (Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT from Insight). Regardless, I do find it a little amusing that the Intel Mac's show such a radical degree of power increase over their PowerPC predecessors when said Intel was put down for years by Mac advocates. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Andrew said: (Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT from Insight). This Insight http://uk.insight.com/apps/nbs/index.php?K=xeon+5150lang=en- gbM=C=107S=1042 or some other one? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:36, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: (Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT from Insight). This Insight http://uk.insight.com/apps/nbs/index.php?K=xeon+5150lang=en- gbM=C=107S=1042 or some other one? Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an existing PC. (this page: http://uk.insight.com/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=FJ SOA03SJRcm_mmc=Froogle-_-OA-_-FJS-_-FJSOA03SJRsrc=FRO1 ) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Andrew said: Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an existing PC. That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz front-size bus, 512KB of cache, a single core, and is based on the obsolete Netburst microarchitecture. The 5150s in the Mac Pro have a 1333MHz front-size bus, 4MB of cache, two cores and are based on the new Core microarchitecture. The Core architecture has much better performance per clock cycle than NetBurst does too, so the fact that the two have the same clock speed is extremely misleading. (You may be interested to know - or may already know - that the Core microarchitecture was designed by Intel's team in Haifa.) I was pretty much astonished by the price and performance of the Mac Pro, especially as someone who spends quite a bit of money on Xeon servers to run Windows applications. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:50, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an existing PC. That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz front-size bus, 512KB of cache, a single core, and is based on the obsolete Netburst microarchitecture. The 5150s in the Mac Pro have a 1333MHz front-size bus, 4MB of cache, two cores and are based on the new Core microarchitecture. The Core architecture has much better performance per clock cycle than NetBurst does too, so the fact that the two have the same clock speed is extremely misleading. (You may be interested to know - or may already know - that the Core microarchitecture was designed by Intel's team in Haifa.) Yes, I did. I was pretty much astonished by the price and performance of the Mac Pro, especially as someone who spends quite a bit of money on Xeon servers to run Windows applications. And I don't know that much about them because for what I do, I'm nearly allways GPU-limited or bus-limited, not CPU-limited. So I'm looking at high-end graphics cards combined with a (dual core) 4600 Mhz Athlon X2. The only people (and of course, the high-performance servers..) who have Opteron/Xeon processors at work are the video specalists. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006 at 12:51, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin With all the things that you and I have to disagree about, it is nice that we have this in common. And I'm going to keep on using windows purely because it's what the programs I use run on, and the Mac's charge a stiff premium for their hardware. I'm not a technophile, which occasionally is a hinderance in an industry of little but technophiles - I use tech-as-a-tool, and my purchasing descisions are purely based on the programs I use, many of which are DirectX/.NET dependent and have no Linux/Max equivalent. (And the pricing issue). I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets used by friends of mine don't translate to Calc well. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And I'm going to keep on using windows purely because it's what the programs I use run on, and the Mac's charge a stiff premium for their hardware. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3 The recently released Mac Pro maintains the Apple shine in design, usability and software but also does something unexpected: It turns the old Mac versus Windows PC price equation on its head. A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a nearly identically configured Dell Precision Workstation 490. The Mac is about $947 cheaper — and the gap widens when you start piling on options such as more memory, faster processors and bigger hard drives. Best Value Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote: A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer. Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you linked. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:14AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote: A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer. So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then? Blue LEDs in the nose Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer.
So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their
own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then?
I build my own PC because when I was first doing it ('92) that was
the only realistic option. It remains far cheaper and I can ensure
build quality.
And I have Linux...I just don't use it as my primary OS.
That wasn't what I meant, however. That's just your take on what I
typed, running a post of multiple parts into one.
And yes, I despite blue LED's. My case sits beside my desk. Its a
utilitarian grey and pale blue, and its best features are the power
button is on the top front and it has a carry handle on top.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer.
So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their
own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then?
I build my own PC because when I was first doing it ('92) that was
the only realistic option. It remains far cheaper and I can ensure
build quality.
And I have Linux...I just don't use it as my primary OS.
That wasn't what I meant, however. That's just your take on what I
typed, running a post of multiple parts into one.
And yes, I despite blue LED's. My case sits beside my desk. Its a
utilitarian grey and pale blue, and its best features are the power
button is on the top front and it has a carry handle on top.
AndrewC
Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think
computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been
contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template
of Ars Technica's Hot Rod
(http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-200608.ars/3),
although I'd probably wait for a decent AMD replacement for the Core 2
Duo processors they reccomend - I just plain don't like Intel.
Something about them bugs me.)
~maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:30, maru dubshinki wrote: Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template Not really - it's a catch 22, I'm not buying anything for probably a year despite the fact my PC is aging because a lot depends on which platform the tools I use continue on (DX9 or DX10/Vista) and the first generation DX10 cards this Christmas are NOT going to be useable for a lot of DX10 functions in actual speed so that's not a consideration and it'll be summer at the earliest for the second gen ones which will be useful. In an ideal world the tools I'd use would go to OpenGL2, but they won't because of creator preferences and priorities. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
