On CBS.com: Watch Letterman's Top 10 at cbs.com
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 40:
Next »
Xenon limps along?
Judging by the specs, I'd have thought that the Xenon would be a screamer. Or do you mean that Windows on Xenon runs slowly?

I'm also puzzled by the idea that Intel chips are still inferior to PowerPC chips. Clockspeed aside, Apple just hasn't been able to show that Macs can show a clean pair of heels to Intel boxes. Sure they put out some impressive numbers here and there from time to time, but in general, real-world stuff, you don't pay a premium for a Mac for the raw performance.

I also think testing at Bare Feats has shown that it is the Apple OS that holds back Mac performance at the high end more than the chip (something in regard to poor multi-threading support or such). If Microsoft are also having issues wringing the utmost from PowerPC chips, maybe it ain't just an issue with Mac OS and Apple?

As for security, I think Apple's low profile is certainly responsible for a good part of their low hit-rate for virii, trojans, worms, et al. But some of it is also due to the overall architecture and mindset being a bit safer - what were Microsoft thinking when they allowed Outlook to run attached exe files by default?
Posted by: Fred Fredrickson   Posted on: 09/29/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Xenon limps along?  Fred Fredrickson | 09/29/05
Yes, Xenon is a screamer but..  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
Story by Fran Foo - interesting and applicable  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
Didn't you just say  John Zern | 09/29/05
It will become more vulnerable, it isn't now  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
Please tell me what those protections are.  ShadeTree | 09/29/05
don't rattle Mac users  yu_forum@... | 05/25/07
Hardware weaknesses  atatdotdot | 09/29/05
Sort of, yes  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
As you know why Apple did not go with Intel, why did they do it  balsover | 09/29/05
Scale economies  psschroe | 09/29/05
x86 instructions are going bye bye?  balsover | 09/29/05
x86  psschroe | 09/29/05
Keep dreaming  george_ou | 09/29/05
No dreaming involved.  psschroe | 09/29/05
Itanium is all but DOA  balsover | 09/29/05
using Itanium  yu_forum@... | 05/25/07
Mutli-core will be able to handle this  balsover | 09/29/05
Come to think of it isn't that exactly what they said about Itanium?  balsover | 09/29/05
Sad irony  jbroche18 | 09/29/05
AMD laid the trap  george_ou | 09/29/05
Checkout some earlier work for an answer  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
Software written for the G5...  balsover | 09/29/05
try SIMD vs Altivec  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/29/05
Zero specifics and zero proof  george_ou | 09/29/05
And if anyone knows bias... happy  MacCanuck | 09/29/05
Ou provides data  balsover | 09/29/05
kind of  doh123 | 09/29/05
sneaky?  balsover | 09/29/05
he considers to be facts  yu_forum@... | 05/25/07
Maybe it goes unreported...  Justin James | 09/30/05
Apple Mac OS X has tons of vulnerabilities  george_ou | 09/30/05
Unlike MS of course...  MacCanuck | 09/30/05
Yes, but no where near as many as OS X  george_ou | 09/30/05
Part 1 ~= Software; Part 2 ~= hardware  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 09/30/05
You're confused on what's really going on  george_ou | 09/30/05
By the way, x86 has NX (no execute)  george_ou | 09/30/05
Designed in from day one  murph_z ZDNet Moderator | 10/01/05
Still not answering the original question  george_ou | 10/02/05
Sparc has this feature  yu_forum@... | 05/25/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement