PureBasic Forums - English

I thought you were looking for "serious reasons"

For one thing, try the touchpad on the new MacBooks. Its the best touchpad i used so far and i don't even bother to connect a mouse anymore.
Also i have found MacBooks (even the older models) to make much less noise than other notebooks. The only time you can actually hear anything is if you turn the CPU load up to a max, which does not happen often during usual work.

btw, why do you have a problem with the move to Intel processors. Got any solid reason for that ?
If your only aim is to be different or "opposit", then you best go with some weird flavor of BSD (other than OSX). A Mac probably isn't fancy enough for that anymore

freak wrote:I thought you were looking for "serious reasons"

And i were, sincerely, but since i found the more sincere and serious ones was those reported by Yoxola, then i turned sarcastic.

freak wrote:btw, why do you have a problem with the move to Intel processors. Got any solid reason for that ?

Well, not problem at all, but Apple had in the past: One of the Apple prestiges and difference was to boast to be different to any "Intel inside" machines.

However, i remember i have a thing agains intel: its i386 line grew and now is still growing onto an obsolete mnemonics, maintaining opcodes, respecting registers and its names, etc. all it to maintain ascending compatibility.
But the worst of all is that the current FPU is almost the same that the intel 8087 one, no more registers and no wider registers, even in x64

Psychophanta wrote:Mac have been "downgraded" to Intel.

I don't know a great deal about Macs but I read an article in a PC magazine at the time that said Apple had to switch to Intel, they were charging a fortune for their computers by marketing them as a premium brand product yet in terms of power much cheaper intel boxes were sprinting off into the distance. Jobs had been promising a 3-GHz PowerMac for two years and still hadn't managed to deliver it, he had a decision to make and so he swapped to Intel.

freak wrote:Also i have found MacBooks (even the older models) to make much less noise than other notebooks. The only time you can actually hear anything is if you turn the CPU load up to a max, which does not happen often during usual work.

Oh really? I bought one of the old ones (MacBook Pro) only because they were supposed to make less noise. The same specs as a normal laptop and twice the price, but I was willing to pay that to get rid of the noise.

Guess what? Not only did the HD make a lot of loud clicking noise (more than I thought was possible ever) it also had that high pitched buzz buzz noise which is common on cheap laptops. And I had payed about 800 euros extra just to get rid of that ********* buzzing sound!

Luckily I was able to return it and purchased a Dell Vostro instead. Here's the deal:
- The Vostro is 17 inches compared to the macbook's 15 inches
- It has similar hardware specs
- The fan is only slightly louder than on the MacBook (the fan was surprisingly loud on the MacBook)
- The HD can't be heard at all (unlike on the MacBook Pro, where it was a major annoyance)
- No buzz buzz buzz buzz sound on the Vostro
- Literally less than half the price

Overall I'd say the Vostro is more silent than the old MacBook Pro (although the fan is slightly louder).

Programmers should also note that Mac laptop keyboards lacks important keys like Home/End/Page Up/Page Down and even Delete (!).

Trond wrote:Guess what? Not only did the HD make a lot of loud clicking noise (more than I thought was possible ever) it also had that high pitched buzz buzz noise which is common on cheap laptops. And I had payed about 800 euros extra just to get rid of that ********* buzzing sound!

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. You seem to be able to have problems with everything

Yes I do! I'm so unlucky!

I.e. when I plugged my mouse into my mac, the cursor was all jittery and jumped all over the place. When I plugged it into another macbook pro, the cursor movement was all smooth! (This other macbook didn't have the buzzing sound either.)

I just don't get it, everything I buy is broken! I am cursed!

Psychophanta wrote:An example is: A amiga with a MC68040 is a 32 bit system and the difference with some 16bit systems is almost invisible.

What do you mean ? If you look at pure CPU performances, that isn't true! If you look at graphics, etc... you must consider the gfx chip as well! Besides, Amiga isn't slower than any other 16 bit systems.

Psychophanta wrote:And the difference between the 32bit amiga and a 32bit x86 is huge.

What ??? Which x86 ??? An Amiga with a 32-bit 68060@50Mhz performs just like an x86 32-bit of the same class, that is a 586 or a Pentium-I (less than 100MHz).

Seldon wrote:

Psychophanta wrote:An example is: A amiga with a MC68040 is a 32 bit system and the difference with some 16bit systems is almost invisible.

What do you mean ? If you look at pure CPU performances, that isn't true! If you look at graphics, etc... you must consider the gfx chip as well! Besides, Amiga isn't slower than any other 16 bit systems.

Psychophanta wrote:And the difference between the 32bit amiga and a 32bit x86 is huge.

What ??? Which x86 ??? An Amiga with a 32-bit 68060@50Mhz performs just like an x86 32-bit of the same class, that is a 586 or a Pentium-I (less than 100MHz).

Seldon, lets be sincere:
Lets compare a fully 32bit system against a fully 16bit system, for example: An Amiga1200 and those wellknown Sega megadrive or SNES, which are 16 bits systems with some of its buses at 8bit.
Amiga1200 is based on an an 68EC020 => it is a fully 32bit data buses system. It has all its internal data buses at 32bit or more (as long as i know).
Have you compared power against A1200 and Sega megadrive? is there large difference? No.

But surprisingly, as i wrote, the difference between a A1200 (full 32bit data buses) and a current 32bit x86 system PC, like for example a AMD Athlon based system PC, is huge. Isn't it?

What i mean with all this is that the power of a system depends on a lot of factors, and nowadays, the factor x86 vs x64 is far to be decisive and significative about real power differences, speed, etc. matters; in opposit to that said by Fred, Timo and others.
MC68020 is fully 32bit data and addresses system. IT is from 1984. Now we are in 2009. Intel x64 is from 1998. The evolution from 32bit processors was veery slow, the evolution of 64bit proccessors is being still slower. So please don't say the change in power and usefulness of a PC today has to do with to be or not to be 64bit, because it is a plain fallacy.

There can be said with a certain true is that point which decide the power and the usefulness of the computer systems is speed of the data, and not any other thing. Even everything is an adding, but the decisive point is the data transfer speed, which means a speed in calculations, etc.
And: the matter is that we are now at the top of the fisical capabilities of the materias are used in the systems. This means the ways now are open for new transistors, new materials, new techs like optical, etc.
BTW, if some of you are able to design an optical transistor you will receive a nobel price.

Psychophanta wrote:Seldon, lets be sincere

I am. As I've already written, you can't only look at CPU power. It could be possible that graphics performances of a 16-bit Megadrive were equal to a 32-bit Amiga-500 (but not an Amiga-1200 or 4000) , but you think a Megadrive could run a multitasking operating system like AmigaOS ? I don't think so.

Have you compared power against A1200 and Sega megadrive? is there large difference? No.

You seem to consider only games (low-res and mono-task applications). Try to run an operating system with higher resolutions on a Megadrive !

But surprisingly, as i wrote, the difference between a A1200 (full 32bit data buses) and a current 32bit x86 system PC, like for example a AMD Athlon based system PC, is huge. Isn't it?

A 'current' x86 ? Are you kidding ??? Don't you consider the clock of the CPU ? The best CPU Amiga had, was a 68060 at 50 MHz ! You have to look at comparable x86 CPUs of the time ! (i.e. fastest 486/586 or Pentium@75). As others said, with 64bit you can address a bigger amount of RAM and for some applications that can be important. But not only... the 64bit architecture gives more CPU registers to x86, reducing the need of stack, etc... So that is the way.

Psychophanta wrote:But surprisingly, as i wrote, the difference between a A1200 (full 32bit data buses) and a current 32bit x86 system PC, like for example a AMD Athlon based system PC, is huge. Isn't it?

Are you really telling us than a 2600 Mhz athlon is way faster than a 14 Mhz amiga ? Wow, i'm quite surprised

Reason to use x64:
Take time to prepare yourself for the next OSes. HW is important and goes fast but it goes fast basically because every day OS and apps need more resources... and maintain two versions is too expensive for OS developers and hw manufacturers (drivers) so take time to be prepared to the change. My opinion, of course I can be wrong. HW goes fast for science to do simulations... of course but this, I think, is another market, focus, niche...

Reason to use Mac:
Be "fashion", be cool and be "stable", be multiplatform, be open for every customer.

Jordi wrote:Reason to use Mac:
Be "fashion", be cool

Yeah, like Gok wan.

Jordi wrote:be "stable"

FreeBSD has a reputation for being stable but I've seen quite a few threads in the RB forums about people having issues with Mac OS X, maybe Apple shouldn't have fiddled with it.

Jordi wrote:be open for every customer.

In my opinion/experience it's good that Microsoft rule the world and not Apple.

If you want an iPhone you have to give all your details to Apple before you can make a phone call, if you have OS X your EULA states you can only use it on Mac hardware (despite the fact Apple lifted most of it from FreeBSD), if you want to develop apps for the iPhone you have to get a Mac to get the SDK and then when you've put the hours in Mac get to say whether your app is acceptable or not (unless the iPhone is jailbroken).

Fred wrote:

Psychophanta wrote:But surprisingly, as i wrote, the difference between a A1200 (full 32bit data buses) and a current 32bit x86 system PC, like for example a AMD Athlon based system PC, is huge. Isn't it?

Are you really telling us than a 2600 Mhz athlon is way faster than a 14 Mhz amiga ? Wow, i'm quite surprised

That's why...

Psychophanta wrote:There can be said with a certain true is that point which decide the power and the usefulness of the computer systems is speed of the data, and not any other thing.

@Seldon, i think that if we do a chart with the power and the machines, starting with ZXspectrum in 1982, and the other 8 bits machines (lets say Commodore 64 would be almost twice powerful than ZXspectrum64K... etc.) the result would be that the line is strongly vertical when 50 or 100 MHz was reached, and maintain a certain accused slope until 900MHz. After 900MHz or so, the line is surely more horizontal than the one which goes from ZXSpectrum 64K to the commodore64.

Jordi wrote:Reason to use x64:
Take time to prepare yourself for the next OSes. HW is important and goes fast but it goes fast basically because every day OS and apps need more resources... and maintain two versions is too expensive for OS developers and hw manufacturers (drivers) so take time to be prepared to the change. My opinion, of course I can be wrong. HW goes fast for science to do simulations... of course but this, I think, is another market, focus, niche...

Reason to use Mac:
Be "fashion", be cool and be "stable", be multiplatform, be open for every customer.

Good one Jordi (btw, are you in Cataluña?, i am in pucela city )
but, allow me an important notice that could be interesting:
you are a bit wrong, the most powerful computers used in science are more or less about the ones who you can find in a computer store, trust me. I am near of this knowledge, because of my collaboration with science divulgation.
Perhaps you know that one of the more powerful stations on all the world tday, which calculate lots of things about universe expansion causes (it for example calculates about Schwarzschild black holes virtual mass -the virtual mass only of a black hole is a Schwarzschild guesstimate and even it is virtual, there is believed it is very useful to calculate other things- ) is made with several cell processors, identical to the PS3 one, chained to work together. I don't know how it is built exactly, but i know the main processors are the PS3 cells. Well, such station is placed in Barcelona, Spain. Other similar stations, even not so powerful some of them are in Sweden, California, Denmark, Mexico, Egypt, etc. etc.

I've got a stupid question:
If we can make 4 Ghz 32-bit processors, could we make 8 Ghz 16-bit processors?

8GHz with Hafnium-oxide based transistors or with silicium-oxide transistors i guess not, but 4GHz 16bit or 4GHz 8bit uP, why not?
...but evolution is what it is, and there have not went over that happenings.