Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Depends on your metric. The processors are **capable** of running faster. That's the factor of n; but Apple etc would argue that you were hobbling it by not using 64-bit dual processor PS!! AS far as I am aware the only widely available s/w that can use the potential performance is gaming stuff. There's loads in labs and research programmes, but it isn't for consumer use. I am always wrily amused when I am told that I am getting Office as a bundle on a dual 64-bit machine running at 2.5 GHz. For a spreadsheet and a WP package?? But the G4/5 are well designed and more efficient in instructions per cycle terms than Intel's offerings on the whole. Peter Frank Dernie wrote: > I don't know Peter, > My most exigent software is Photoshop. I have a twin 1Ghz G4 Quicksilver > Mac with 1.5Gb of RAM. Whilst it is very much quicker with some software > the G5 twin 2.5GHz Mac is not twice as fast as my machine on Photoshop, > despite having 64-bit chips running 2.5 times faster with faster bus and > discs! > Frank > > On 26 Jan, 2005, at 19:08, Peter Dzwig wrote: > >> Simon, >> this aint actually true: at present we see a factor of 2 or so every >> 18 months (about)in processor performance. So when you move from a 500 >> Mhz machine you go to a 1GHz or 2 GHz machine in about 18 months. >> Order of magnitude performance changes come (very roughly) every 4 yrs >> if you look at it from the level of chip performance. But if you look >> at it from the overall performance perspective, so many factors change >> simultaneously that effective throughput changes at least that >> frequently. >> >> But sure as hell things are fed through on carefully pre-arranged >> timetables. I can think of many cases where a chip has sat in a lab >> (mine or those of others) and has been held back for more than simple >> manufacturing problems. >> >> Peter >> >> >> animal wrote: >> >>> I have to disagree,from what i was taught in university ,order of >>> magnitude steps in computing are roughly 6 years apart.The >>> improvements consumers can buy in that period are carefully fed in to >>> the market to maximise profits. >>> best regards >>> simon jessurun >>> amsterdam >>> the netherlands >>> >>>> Having spent the majority of my life working for technology >>>> manufacturing companies, I can assure you that this is absolutely >>>> untrue. >>>> >>>> While there may be industries in which there is planned >>>> obsolescence, the computer industry is not one of them. >>>> >>>> The issue in the computer industry is that the engineers keep coming >>>> up with new stuff that is very much better than what existed a year >>>> ago. If you don't sell it, then your competitors will. If you don't >>>> innovate, you go out of business. Relentless innovation leaves a >>>> trail of obsolete devices, but if you start feeling sorry for the >>>> people who have to buy new ones, and slow down a little, they'll >>>> just buy from your competitors. >>>> >>>> In fact, quite the opposite is true. Development in the technology >>>> industry is in general hindered by a desire to be compatible with >>>> the past. If the hardware and software companies didn't worry about >>>> compatibility with the past, they could probably innovate 20% faster >>>> than they are doing now. >>>> >>>> No one is forcing you to buy newer faster better cameras and >>>> computers. As many people have said here, a 2.1 megapixel camera >>>> still takes great pictures. So why are camera companies racing to >>>> make and sell cameras with more megapixels? Because people will buy >>>> them. People want them. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just market >>>> demand at work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I believe one of the basic premises of contemporary >>>>> technology development is the concept of "planned >>>>> obsolescence," with the deliberate goal of encouraging >>>>> consumers to buy new tools on a regular basis, in >>>>> lock-step with the constantly increasing profit motive >>>>> of the manufacturers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >