A sada cu te pustiti da procitas ovo, pa cu da ti editujem dve poruke...

Ova slikica ima na sebi jednu, tebi, verovatno cudnu rec....

Reci cu ti tajnu, to sluzi kada pritisnes na to misem, mozes da izmenis tvoj post, tj. da ubacis sta si zaboravio. Pravilnikom burek foruma je zabranjeno postovanje vise vezanih poruka. Aj to procitaj, pa onda nastavi sa redovnim poslovima...

Da da ,a posebno si upoznat sa MECOS-om ,pa tako komentarises?Brzina MECA nije samo u surovoj snazi Motorolinih procesora ,kao i 9 puta brzoj komunikaciji izmedju Aritmeticko Logicke jedinice i kesa,kao ni bednoj magistrali koja je radila na 3000MHz-a(U vreme kad intel nije imao ni procesore te brzine),kao ni kompitabilnosti PCI sa ostalim periferijama(Pristup na MECU je linearan,dok na PC-ju se stalno obradjuje nova nanova),kao hardverskim resenjima memoriskih pristupa(Na PC-ju imas 3 dok na MEKU imas 2....na primer DDR550MHz 2X3X2 kod Meka je 12X6),kao i jednom od najbitnijih cinjenica ,a to je sam OS .

Izvinjavam se na multi-postovima zurio sam na vopi 

Tako brate  Herros  - svaka cast - priznajem i skidam kapu za memorijsku kontrolu - to nisam znao. Vrlo zanimljivo - ali i dalje stoje dve stvari

Hardware-ski update i upgrade

i raznovrsnost software-a i hardware. Ja lisno ne mogu da prihvatim da mi se uvaljuje jedna graficka karta a da znam da za PC mogu da biram izmedju 16 slicnih za manje pare.

Ja samo znam da je od prvog dual PowerPC benchmarka MAc daleko ispod u realnim performansama ispod ekvivalentnih PCjeva. Dajem vam samo primer moje DELL mashine - P4 3.2 Hyperthreading 2Gb RAM 72GB SCSI drive i QuadroFX1400 video karta pod XPijem. Krs star skoro tri godine pun prasine nikad se ne gasi - radi i danju i nocu - teram na njemu Solidworks CAD i Ansys FEA - baratam sa fajlovima od po 2 - 3Gb (da dobro ste videli Gb) - nikada ni jedan crash ni jedan BSOD. Stabilan ko crna zemlja. To je moje iskustvo - bez mnogo tupljenja 

Cekaj .....ti mislis da MEC ne mozes da upgredujes?Ama bas isto kao i sa PC-jem samo sto nemas muku sa driverima.Slazem se sa tobom oko softverske podrske,ali za ostalo ne.

pa da, bre je za pc bilo 4... a postoji update biosa, bolje verzije chipseta, samo sto su oni opet ispred pc-jevih... ipak noviji mac procesori ni nisu toliko losi.

Prenosim delove vrlo ozbiljnog review-a Mac dual G5 2.75Gz (najbrzi mac) vs dual Xeon 3.6GHz Dell ( koji nije najbrzi PC - mi teramo ovu masinu na poslu kao number cruncher za velike analize, tri godine star nista specijalno). Tabela na dnu nije ispala kako treba ali vremena su u sec. - lower is better - prva masina je opteron, druga stari G5 na 2.5, treca Dell Xeon i cetvrta novi G5 na 2.75.

After all that gushing praise, I do have one bone to pick. The only tone-deaf feature that has stubbornly stayed with Macs for many years is that idiotic button-less mouse. Is there anyone on this planet who’s still using this dopey thing? If so, please let me know why. I am positively baffled. I’ve also noticed that even when I plug in a typical two-button mouse with a mouse wheel, the mouse driver included with OS X, even when I have its speed turned up to 11, just can't get the cursor moving fast enough for my taste, nor does it have the ability to accelerate the cursor. Further, hasn’t anyone at Apple figured out that right-click functionality makes a computer much easier to use? Sure, you can use the right mouse button on a lot of Mac applications if you buy a third-party mouse, but even then, the right-click functionality on the Macintosh is still vastly inferior to that of Windows XP applications. When, oh when, will Apple finally abandon this misguided single-button fetish? Whenever I’m unpacking a new Mac for testing, I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t even take that goofy mouse out of the shipping container any more. Out of character for a company that prides itself in ease-of-use, Apple has inexplicably decided to lock its mouse technology in a time warp for 25 years, continuing to ship this beautiful but dumb-blond pointing device, which I think is nothing short of foolish.

Now that I’ve gotten that rant out of the way, let’s look at the nuts and bolts of the Power Mac G5’s hardware. Poking around inside the machine, I noticed that Apple has sent us its best graphics card this time. Known for its usually second-rate graphics cards (perhaps the company is reluctant to offer a workstation-class graphics card for fear of being labeled a “workstation” and then having to compete with other boxes with that same nomenclature), Apple has put a hot rod under the hood this time. It’s the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory on board. Even though its AGP 8x spec still falls far short of the best graphics cards available on the PC platform today, this $450 option is certainly better than the run-of-the-mill cards usually found inside Macs. The NVIDIA card is a behemoth, though, taking up the width of two slots, thus leaving just two expansion slots available. But the good thing is, its two DVI ports out back give you enough horsepower to run two of Apple’s 30-inch monitors. Now that’s what I call humongous screen real estate. The graphics coming out of this card were extraordinary and gave some fast refresh rates as well. Bravo, again.

After taking the scenic route through the insides of this veritable essay of industrial design, it was time to harness it to the test bench and see what it could do. For the first time ever, here at the Midwest Test Facility, could this new Mac beat the fastest PC? Well, yes and no. It came close, and beat our eight-month-old Dell dual Xeon 3.6GHz test machine in some of the benchmarks, but overall, it still isn’t as fast as our fastest, albeit elderly PC. It’s certainly telling that Intel’s Xeon chips from last year are still faster than the nearly speed-stuck IBM PowerPC chips inhabiting Macintoshes. We can only hope that somehow Apple will decide to start using Intel or even AMD chips in its computers and at the same time find a way to quickly and efficiently adapt all its magnificent software to a processor manufacturer that has proven to be a more dependable source of continuous speed and efficiency upgrades. It’s frustrating to see all this groundbreaking software innovation, such as the magnificent Final Cut Pro Studio (which I will soon be reviewing here on Digital Media Net), all brought to bear on a processor whose manufacturer for some reason can’t seem to upgrade it as fast as was once hoped. Irony of ironies, it’s IBM, that evil empire alluded to in Apple’s 1984 commercial so many years ago, that’s supplying these chips that can’t keep up and are holding Apple back from its true potential. All that said, it’s still worth it to use a Mac because of its excellent operating system, its futuristic industrial design, and its growing collection some of the best software in the world. Even better, the hardware and software are all now available at prices that are, at the high end, lower than those on the Windows platform.



Take a look at the table below, and you’ll see that on our battery of real-world After Effects benchmarks, the Mac won four of the tests, while the Xeon box won the other four. Was it a tie? Almost. When you add up the total seconds required to complete six of our original benchmarks (numbered 1-6 here), the Mac needed 432 seconds to complete them, while the PC only required 419. Looking further down the table, even with its juiced-up processors and that fancy NVIDIA graphics card, the Mac still couldn’t beat the PC in our CineBench tests. And yes, whining Mac fanatics, we did go to Energy Saver/Options and set processor performance at the highest level, which actually made the Power Mac slower on our battery of eight After Effects benchmarks and didn’t help much with the others, either. Included on the table below are the fastest scores from both settings. Next on the list were Brian Maffit’s TotalBenchmark tests, in which the Mac edged the PC on the first short test, but got solidly smacked down by a margin of 25% in the second, longer After Effects test.

Results in minutes: seconds
Boldface indicates winner Boxx Technologies 3DBOXX R4.2, Dual AMD Opteron 248 (2.21GHz), 2GB 333 ECC DDR RAM ($5728)
Apple Mac G5, Dual 2.5GHz, 4GB DDR 400 SD RAM ($4398) Dell Precision Workstation 470 Dual Intel Xeon 3.6, 2GB DDR2 RAM ($4639) Apple Mac G5, Dual 2.7GHz, 4GB DDR 400 SD RAM ($4598)
1. After Effects : Simple Animation :03 :06 :03 :05
2. After Effects : Video Composite :46 :42 :37 :40
3. After Effects : Data Project 1:23 1:21 1:16 1:15
4. After Effects : Gambler :21 :23 :19 :17
5. After Effects : Source Shapes 2:58 2:26 2:46 2:15
6. After Effects : Virtual Set 2:19 2:49 1:58 2:36
CineBench 2003 Rendering Time (lower is better) 45.3 sec. 45.3 sec. 39.2 sec. 40.0 sec.
CineBench 2003 Rendering (CB-CPU score -- higher is better) 581 581 672 658
TotalBenchmark comp 1 not tested 83 sec.  83 sec. 78 sec. 
TotalBenchmark comp 2 not tested 1277 sec.  960 sec. 1202 sec. 
Hard Disk Speed Read: 121MB/sec.
Write: 88MB/sec. Not tested  Read: 130MB/sec.
Write: 133MB/sec. Read: 52MB/sec.
Write: 66MB/sec.

Moj licni komentar na ovaj review je vrlo slican zakljucku coveka koji ga je radio:

- 4GB RAMa u Macovima dizu cenu u nebo sa 2Gb bi cena bila mnogo niza a perfomanse najverovatnije bolje

- brzine rada su vrlo slicne ali ne treba zaboraviti da testirani Dell nije njihova najbrza masina

- Dizajn Mac i inzenjering kucista i hladjenje je apsolutno savrseno sto je ne moze reci za Dell

- Bolji operativni sistem je cinjenica na Mac-u ali ne-raznovrsnost software-a posebno tehnickog je na strani Dell-a

- Video segment je najvise unazadjen kod Mac a posebno nemogucnost stavljanja bolje video karte za datu cenu - da dodam da je profesionalna Quadro 4500 karta dostupna za extra 1650$. Ovo je trik Mac-a ta karta u radnji kosta oko $1650 pa bi covek rekao to je posteno - problem sto 6600 Nvidia karta koja je vec unutra sama kosta oko 500$ sto cini Quadro cartu prakticno 500$ skupljom nego sto je mozete kupiti za PC.

- Sve u svemu obe masine su fenomenalne i Mac ne mozete tek tako lako zaobici ali mala mogucnost modifikovanja konfiguracije i manjak software-a ce mnoge naterati da se okrenu PCjevima.

- Da ne zaboravim Cinema Screens koje Apple nudi poprilicno kaskaju za poslednjim ekranima koje je Dell zajendo sa Samsungom izbacio

Ja mislim da sam bio ne pristrasan i da ce ovo nekom koristiti


Edited by Belgrade::Ne pisi postove zaredom,imas opciju izmeni u gornjem desnom delu poruke

mozda bas ja koristim intel na 3.2 ghz i znam da power mac radi brze...

Pa sta da ti kazem - sto ne kupis Power Mac. Uvek je pitanje sta radis sa njime i sta ocekujes - tj. kako definises brzinu. Ko sto rekose prethodnici - neko ce kupinti racunar samo zbog stabilnosti ili zato sto ima ovu ili onu mogucnost u OSu. Ja licno uvek gledam raw power i brut force pre bilo cega drugog za posao - za kuci uzimam onaj hardware koji odgovara nameni.

Prednost Mac-a je definitivno u dizajnu.  I sam sam dizajnirao elektronska kucista u proslosti i znam koliko je to bitno. Hladjenje isto tako. Ipak ja imam odlicno kuciste za PC sa odlicnim napajenjem koju cu koristiti bar za 3 PC konfiguracije. Da li je iko od Mac korisnika ikad izvadio maticnu plocu i procesor i otisao da kupi novu plocu i procesor - nije. Uvek se kupuje cela konfiguracija.

Stvar izbora kao sto sam vec rekao.

Hoces da kazes da dual video cards opravdavaju svoju cenu ?