[quote]Originally posted by the cool gut:
Ah yes, the official mark of a P.C. advocat .... white papers ... which have absolutely Zero relevance in terms of real world applications. How big are those files ... 20mb?......
Funny, I tend to benchmark what the Mac crowd loves to use in terms of benchmark performance...Photoshop.
Now, it's irrelevant? Gimme a break.
[quote]When benchmarking those programs I benchmarked, HD speed is irrelevant due to the amount of RAM in all the systems.
Another sign that you need some experience in the real world. This may be correct if RAM where 100% efficient, but it's not. A general rule of thumb is to have 3X the ram, compared to the size of file your manipulating, plus extra for the system and application(s) We have a gig of RDRAM on a Dell at work, and while manipulating a 100mb file, if it runs out of swap space, it will not perform the action, despite having more then enough ram. Sorry, but the HD plays quite a vital role in manipulating large sizes of data, IN ANY APPLICATION.<hr></blockquote>
I build systems for a living, and, I can tell you with a straight face that even with 100MB files in Photoshop, I never hear my hard drive hit on my home machine.
[quote]On top of that, because of size and heat issuse, a mobile doesn't perform as well as desktops. Sure, applications may start nearly as fast, and navigation and web stuff are snappy, but they bog down faster when the file sizes start getting heavy.<hr></blockquote>
The whole idea was to see if a laptop could outperform a desktop, using Mac specific applications, no less, and, it did. If you're trying to paint me into a corner as some "zealot" or "advocate" it ain't gonna stick.
Besides, you claimed that XP cannot handle larger files well and you implied that it was slower than prior versions. Using the all time favorite Mac benchmark program, I showed that to be a completely ignorant statement.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: TheRoadWarrior ]</p>