Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 24th Jun 2003 15:32 UTC
I was present at Apple's WWDC yesterday and witnessed one of the historical moments in Apple's history, the introduction of their 64-bit platform. Am I impressed? The answer is complicated. I was happy to see Apple moving on and deliver. But I would have expected nothing less from a 4 billion tech company who had the need to catch up with the "other" platform, the 32-bit PC. You all heard by now what's new in yesterday's press releases and news coverings. But here is a wrap up of the first day of the conference and a commentary on what Apple really announced yesterday, underneath its surrounding distortion field.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
first you say:
"We were also not told if these Mac apps were specifically optimized for the G5, e.g. if they were versions that will never see the light of day on a retail box"
and later
" Apple did the SPEC benchmarks using GCC 3.3 on both x86 and PPC, while the vast majority of the C/C++ developers in the x86 Windows land actually use the much faster and much more optimized for P4/Xeons/HT Intel ICC compiler. Then, you will probably find out that Apple's numbers are not really that fair"
So, what is fair ? If Apple uses an optimised version of Photoshop and Mathematica for the G5 it isnt a fair comparison because the windows applications arent the same? But if Apple doesnt use the optimised Intel compilers, then the benchmarks arent fair because intel processors can score higher?
you can twist any benchmark in any way you want, because they are arbitrary. Using optimised compilers or applications is as ARBITRARY as using non-optimised applications or compilers. It is just marketing and hype to release a product. IBM, Sun, Intel, AMD, etc do this benchmark bending all the time but, for some weird reason, Apple is singled out more.