Re: OsX compared to Linux and BeOS

From: TravelinMan (Nowhere_at_spamfree.com)
Date: 04/28/05

  • Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: OsX compared to Linux and BeOS" 
    Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:28:18 -0500

    In article <MPG.1cd9c21b28e74c0698a4e6@news.verizon.net>,
     Randy Howard <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

    > In article <znu-52A4FE.17275627042005@individual.net>,
    > znu@fake.invalid says...
    > > In article <MPG.1cd9ae329e80738d98a4d6@news.verizon.net>,
    > > Randy Howard <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <znu-52F06C.15582727042005@individual.net>,
    > > > znu@fake.invalid says...
    > > > > Dual core will matter to the markets targeted by Xserves and G5 towers.
    > > >
    > > > People with a dual-processor box like a G5 tower don't need dual core
    > > > at all, unless you think that multithreaded apps on the G5 are so
    > > > slow they need 4 CPUs to get there.
    > >
    > > A lot of the tasks for which people buy G5 towers still push the
    > > capabilities of today's hardware quite a bit. HD video editing, for
    > > instance. Of course, Apple is trying to unload some of this sort of
    > > thing on the GPU, but fast processors are still a must. And four fast
    > > processors (effectively) are better than two.
    >
    > True, but I doubt that the majority of people with G5 dual towers are
    > running high load averages currently.

    Why would the average matter? What matters in determining if a faster
    system will help is the peak.

  • Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: OsX compared to Linux and BeOS"