Re: TI-H: OT: The Ad I saw

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: OT: The Ad I saw


>----Original Message Follows----
>That specific model is...old.  You also can't compare MIPS between a SUN
>and other platforms.  Suns are just nasty fast.
>
>No, when I say they're out of production, I MEAN they're out of production.
>As in not to be found on their website.

Well, if you want to buy a Sun Sparc 10 will you find it from sun?  No, but
it will still be one of the fastest desktops for sale.

>NO no no no.  I'm not talking one flavor of Unix as opposed to another.  I'm
>talking Unix, PERIOD.  A) I'm not experienced with the OS B) Emulation is a
>LOT harder with Unix.  Look how long it's taking them to get WINE working,
>for God's sake.

Wine is POS.  Look at vmware.  Wine doesn't work with anything but i386.

SheepShaver has been ported to the PPC.  That means you can run all
Macintosh and Linux programs with the mac programs running under a real
runtime of the MacOS.  No emulation going on.

>Which includes games which need Direct3D support.

Its been emulated.

>OH GOD.  Pardon me whilst I hurl!
>I love any computer that I've bought with my own money, thank you very much.

I love my HP 9000/400.

> >Listen, I really have nothing personal against the Mac.  If Jobs would
>wisen
> >up and license the hardware tech out to clone companies, the Mac platform
> >would get a shot of adrenaline in the ass and quite possibly knock Wintel
> >for a loop.  Hardware development would be stimulated and they might just
> >become good enough to effortlessly emulate Win98 and scream through their
> >own applications, AT A PRICE I CAN AFFORD.
>
>If you want to afford it, get an old one.
>
>Which kind of negates the whole point, doesn't it?  And you JUST admitted
>that they're too damn expensive.

No, they're not too expensive for the performance you get.  Just like a
175MHz Indigo and a PII| 500.

>I recall reading somewhere that it's impossible (without a lot of extra
>hardware, of course) to shift clock speeds in mid-operation.  That makes an
>awful lot of sense to me given what I know about computer architecture, so
>I'd like you to convince me otherwise.
>Perhaps rather than shifting clock speeds the proc simply inserts a bunch of
>NOOPs?  Do those generate less heat?

No, watts are watts.

You have to understand that things have changed and processors have what
they need.  Its no more expensive to throw on active clocking than it is to
leave it off.

Its expensive to get the clock though...$15.  It has to change the freq.
within 1/10th of the current clock.

I also do this to my AVRs to acheive 25MHz and above with 4MHz chips.
THere are some external components required (the extra PCB makes the
processor take up ~3 more in^2.

>I'll tell you what, Grant.  I'll go to Pricewatch and look up Powerbooks.
>Maybe, JUST maybe, I'll find something I can use.

No...For you the Toshiba is going to do what you need.  The PowerBook would
do what you need, but when it comes to things like the occasional failure,
you wouldn't have the experience.  Its good to go with what you know.  If
you were to start with macs now, I'd recomend you go with a $5 model, then
get an expensive model.

The reason I started defending the powerbook is when you said you needed a
computer with more than 300MHz.  The HP PA RISC is 160MHz and beats both
the 300MHz PPC and 500MHz PIII.

Grant
48656C6C6F212054656C6C206D6520696620796F7520676F742074686973206D6573736167652EÏ
Follow-Ups: References: