Why Mac Page Five

Why Mac?: 5 of 11

Questions and Answers

Do you think ANYONE should buy a Wintel PC?

Sure, we recommend Wintel PCs for any company that has invested in custom-written software for their business. The cost of rewriting those programs would probably outweigh the productivity and profitability benefits of the Macintosh platform. (NOTE: This is a double-edged sword. These are the very companies that face the most potential damage - and repair expense - from the Year 2000 Bug.)

Since you brought it up, what is this "Year 2000 Bug"?

The Year 2000 Bug (Y2K) isn't actually a "bug" at all. It's the logical end result of the technical limitations of many older systems, and software programmers who wanted to be "right."

Years ago, when computers were slow and memory was expensive, programmers used any method possible to speed up machines and reduce memory requirements. One solution was to represent the current year using only two digits (Why type "1980" when you can type "80"?) The problem now is the Year 2000. When the computer sees the year "00," it's not sure if that represents the year 1900 or 2000. Since many systems are date-sensitive, experts expect to see problems if computers think the year is 1900.

As for the second half of the problem, it's important to realize that all the panic and expense currently surrounding the Y2K issue COULD have been avoided. As early as 1984, programmers knew about problems with 2-digit dates in the year 2000. However, since correcting these problems might have required modest reprogramming expenses and the need to temporarily shut down certain systems, the programmers chose to not admit the "mistake" to their employers. Instead, they ignored all the warnings and kept the bad news to themselves.

Now for the good news: Macs are immune to the "Y2K bug." Macintosh hardware has always used 4-digit dates. And most Macintosh software titles were corrected long ago, so you have nothing to worry about. (NOTE: If you still use VERY old versions of software, or if your Macs run custom software that was written especially for your company, you should check with the original publishers to make sure THEY didn't use the 2-digit date shortcut in your software!)

What about prices? Aren't Macs more expensive than PCs?

This is a tough question to answer because no PC is fast enough to be "comparable" to a modern Macintosh. (Or, should I say, no Macintosh is SLOW enough to be compared to a PC.) It's like comparing Apples to lemons. But, you should consider these facts:

If you compare clock speeds (MHz) and basic features, a Mac will usually cost 15-20% more than a Pentium II PC from a reputable manufacturer. But, if you compare the actual PERFORMANCE of each machine, the prices are about the same. (NOTE: The Apple iMac is an obvious exception to this rule. No budget PC can match the price vs. performance ratio of this little powerhouse!)

PCs components enjoy higher sales volumes and see more price competition between manufacturers, so they are cheaper per unit. As a result, PC manufacturers can make computers look more impressive by adding low-cost "commodity" parts (hard drives and RAM) that are "bigger" than what you'll find inside similar Macs.

PC manufacturers constantly have to look for ways to make their systems cheaper, just to stay competitive. Apple has the freedom to spend a little more on higher quality drives, RAM, graphics processors, etc. (NOTE: Industry research confirms that Macs experience only a fraction of the hardware failures common to PCs.)

Apple builds in many powerful components and enhanced abilities (stereo circuitry, graphics, SCSI ports, etc.) which are only available on PCs through the purchase of upgrades and add-on cards.

Research suggests that the average life span of an office PC is about 30 months. The average Macintosh life span is 50 months. If you factor this into your equation, Macs save you about 40%.

Apple has recently made great efforts to lower its prices to be more competitive with PCs. Be sure to take a look at current prices in your local computer store or mail order catalog.

I don't understand. I thought "megahertz" was the measure of a computer's performance.

Not exactly. Clock speed (megahertz - MHz) can only be used to compare the performance of IDENTICAL processors. (For example, a 300 MHz Pentium II will outperform a 200 MHz Pentium II.) But, you can't make that kind of comparison between Macs and Wintel machines because a Macintosh PowerPC G3 processor provides far more performance than a Pentium II running at the same clock speed.

As an analogy, let's compare two different cars: One is a Chevrolet Corvette with an 8-cylinder engine. The other is a Ford Tempo with a weaker 4-cylinder engine. If you place them side by side on a test track and instruct the drivers to maintain a constant engine SPEED of 2,000 RPMs, it won't take long for the Corvette to blast ahead of the Tempo. Why? At the same engine speed in RPMs (similar to a processor's clock speed in MHz) the two engines produce vastly different amounts of horsepower, the true measure of a car's power and performance.

While research shows that a PowerPC G3 chip provides nearly TWICE the "horsepower" of a Pentium II running at the same clock speed, our real-world testing show that you'll consistently see about 50% faster performance from a PowerPC G3 Mac processor. (For example, you need a top of the line 450 MHz Pentium II to get the same "real-world" performance as a less expensive 300 MHz PowerPC G3.)

What about Intel's Celeron processor?

The Celeron chip is "optimized for home computing." (Translation: It is slower and less powerful.) We believe the Celeron is Intel's attempt to stay price competitive in the home computer market because its Pentium II chips have become too expensive.

The engineering of a microprocessor is an ongoing compromise between performance, price and HEAT. It's a fact of physics. The more circuits you pack on a CPU, the more heat you produce. The more heat you produce, the larger the chip has to be to dissipate that heat. (Heat slows down the processor and can burn out tiny circuits.) The larger the chip, the more it costs to produce because doped silicon, the raw material used to make processors, is VERY expensive. So, by making the Celeron less powerful, Intel can keep the size a little smaller and reduce their costs. That allows computer manufacturers to sell cheaper systems.

Don't heat problems affect the Mac's PowerPC chip?

They do, but to a lesser extent. The reason is because the PowerPC processors inside all new Macs are RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) processors. Intel's Celeron and Pentium II chips (and the compatibles) still use old-fashioned CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) commands.

What's the difference?

It's technical, but I think this analogy will make it easier to understand: Imagine that the processor inside your computer is like a toll road, and the objective is to get as many cars (software instructions) in one end of the road and out the other end as quickly as possible. The only problem is that the toll gate automatically opens and closes on a very precise and consistent schedule (determined by the clock speed), regardless of the size of each instruction coming through.

In a RISC processor, the instructions are small, so each time a toll gate opens another instruction can zip through on each open lane of traffic. By comparison, big and bulky CISC instructions can't make it through the toll gate all at once, so the gate has to open and close several times before the full instruction can pass. That slows down traffic on the whole road.

Ten years ago, the size of each instruction didn't make much of a difference. But, today's processors are so fast (the toll gates open and close millions of times each second) that it's more efficient to process a string of small instructions than it is to process one large instruction. As a result, even though a RISC processor uses less electrical power and measures only half the size (thereby costing less to produce AND generating less heat), it can complete at least three times the number of instructions a CISC processor can handle, each and every second.

BACK

NEXT

HOME . SERVICES . HELP DESK . RESOURCES . WHY MAC . CREDENTIALS

Copyright 1998, 5-Minute Mac Consulting, Wampum, Pennsylvania, USA

Why Mac?: 5 of 11
Questions and Answers Do you think ANYONE should buy a Wintel PC? Sure, we recommend Wintel PCs for any company that has invested in custom-written software for their business. The cost of rewriting those programs would probably outweigh the productivity and profitability benefits of the Macintosh platform. (NOTE: This is a double-edged sword. These are the very companies that face the most potential damage - and repair expense - from the Year 2000 Bug.) Since you brought it up, what is this "Year 2000 Bug"? The Year 2000 Bug (Y2K) isn't actually a "bug" at all. It's the logical end result of the technical limitations of many older systems, and software programmers who wanted to be "right." Years ago, when computers were slow and memory was expensive, programmers used any method possible to speed up machines and reduce memory requirements. One solution was to represent the current year using only two digits (Why type "1980" when you can type "80"?) The problem now is the Year 2000. When the computer sees the year "00," it's not sure if that represents the year 1900 or 2000. Since many systems are date-sensitive, experts expect to see problems if computers think the year is 1900. As for the second half of the problem, it's important to realize that all the panic and expense currently surrounding the Y2K issue COULD have been avoided. As early as 1984, programmers knew about problems with 2-digit dates in the year 2000. However, since correcting these problems might have required modest reprogramming expenses and the need to temporarily shut down certain systems, the programmers chose to not admit the "mistake" to their employers. Instead, they ignored all the warnings and kept the bad news to themselves. Now for the good news: Macs are immune to the "Y2K bug." Macintosh hardware has always used 4-digit dates. And most Macintosh software titles were corrected long ago, so you have nothing to worry about. (NOTE: If you still use VERY old versions of software, or if your Macs run custom software that was written especially for your company, you should check with the original publishers to make sure THEY didn't use the 2-digit date shortcut in your software!) What about prices? Aren't Macs more expensive than PCs? This is a tough question to answer because no PC is fast enough to be "comparable" to a modern Macintosh. (Or, should I say, no Macintosh is SLOW enough to be compared to a PC.) It's like comparing Apples to lemons. But, you should consider these facts: If you compare clock speeds (MHz) and basic features, a Mac will usually cost 15-20% more than a Pentium II PC from a reputable manufacturer. But, if you compare the actual PERFORMANCE of each machine, the prices are about the same. (NOTE: The Apple iMac is an obvious exception to this rule. No budget PC can match the price vs. performance ratio of this little powerhouse!) PCs components enjoy higher sales volumes and see more price competition between manufacturers, so they are cheaper per unit. As a result, PC manufacturers can make computers look more impressive by adding low-cost "commodity" parts (hard drives and RAM) that are "bigger" than what you'll find inside similar Macs. PC manufacturers constantly have to look for ways to make their systems cheaper, just to stay competitive. Apple has the freedom to spend a little more on higher quality drives, RAM, graphics processors, etc. (NOTE: Industry research confirms that Macs experience only a fraction of the hardware failures common to PCs.) Apple builds in many powerful components and enhanced abilities (stereo circuitry, graphics, SCSI ports, etc.) which are only available on PCs through the purchase of upgrades and add-on cards. Research suggests that the average life span of an office PC is about 30 months. The average Macintosh life span is 50 months. If you factor this into your equation, Macs save you about 40%. Apple has recently made great efforts to lower its prices to be more competitive with PCs. Be sure to take a look at current prices in your local computer store or mail order catalog. I don't understand. I thought "megahertz" was the measure of a computer's performance. Not exactly. Clock speed (megahertz - MHz) can only be used to compare the performance of IDENTICAL processors. (For example, a 300 MHz Pentium II will outperform a 200 MHz Pentium II.) But, you can't make that kind of comparison between Macs and Wintel machines because a Macintosh PowerPC G3 processor provides far more performance than a Pentium II running at the same clock speed. As an analogy, let's compare two different cars: One is a Chevrolet Corvette with an 8-cylinder engine. The other is a Ford Tempo with a weaker 4-cylinder engine. If you place them side by side on a test track and instruct the drivers to maintain a constant engine SPEED of 2,000 RPMs, it won't take long for the Corvette to blast ahead of the Tempo. Why? At the same engine speed in RPMs (similar to a processor's clock speed in MHz) the two engines produce vastly different amounts of horsepower, the true measure of a car's power and performance. While research shows that a PowerPC G3 chip provides nearly TWICE the "horsepower" of a Pentium II running at the same clock speed, our real-world testing show that you'll consistently see about 50% faster performance from a PowerPC G3 Mac processor. (For example, you need a top of the line 450 MHz Pentium II to get the same "real-world" performance as a less expensive 300 MHz PowerPC G3.) What about Intel's Celeron processor? The Celeron chip is "optimized for home computing." (Translation: It is slower and less powerful.) We believe the Celeron is Intel's attempt to stay price competitive in the home computer market because its Pentium II chips have become too expensive. The engineering of a microprocessor is an ongoing compromise between performance, price and HEAT. It's a fact of physics. The more circuits you pack on a CPU, the more heat you produce. The more heat you produce, the larger the chip has to be to dissipate that heat. (Heat slows down the processor and can burn out tiny circuits.) The larger the chip, the more it costs to produce because doped silicon, the raw material used to make processors, is VERY expensive. So, by making the Celeron less powerful, Intel can keep the size a little smaller and reduce their costs. That allows computer manufacturers to sell cheaper systems. Don't heat problems affect the Mac's PowerPC chip? They do, but to a lesser extent. The reason is because the PowerPC processors inside all new Macs are RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) processors. Intel's Celeron and Pentium II chips (and the compatibles) still use old-fashioned CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) commands. What's the difference? It's technical, but I think this analogy will make it easier to understand: Imagine that the processor inside your computer is like a toll road, and the objective is to get as many cars (software instructions) in one end of the road and out the other end as quickly as possible. The only problem is that the toll gate automatically opens and closes on a very precise and consistent schedule (determined by the clock speed), regardless of the size of each instruction coming through. In a RISC processor, the instructions are small, so each time a toll gate opens another instruction can zip through on each open lane of traffic. By comparison, big and bulky CISC instructions can't make it through the toll gate all at once, so the gate has to open and close several times before the full instruction can pass. That slows down traffic on the whole road. Ten years ago, the size of each instruction didn't make much of a difference. But, today's processors are so fast (the toll gates open and close millions of times each second) that it's more efficient to process a string of small instructions than it is to process one large instruction. As a result, even though a RISC processor uses less electrical power and measures only half the size (thereby costing less to produce AND generating less heat), it can complete at least three times the number of instructions a CISC processor can handle, each and every second.
BACK		NEXT

HOME . SERVICES . HELP DESK . RESOURCES . WHY MAC . CREDENTIALS
Copyright 1998, 5-Minute Mac Consulting, Wampum, Pennsylvania, USA