Mac vs Windows

[randy_oz]

Ya que ultimamente se habla mucho del tema, por que no intentamos buscar "estudios" y "noticias" que nos permitan comparar las dos plataformas?

Mirando por internet he encontrado unas cuantas (aunque en ingles, y la verdad, no tengo tiempo para traducirlas...). Ahora las pongo, y a ver si la gente le gusta comentarlas...

Salu2 ;-)

 

[randy_oz]

PRO-MAC; Totalmente "standard" en los pros y ventajas sobre Windows

Buying a Home Computer (Mac vs. Windows) - Technology - Lifestyles - Family Resource

One of the most daunting tasks for many families is buying a home computer. There is the stress of trying to find the right computer, getting everything you want on it, and not spending too much.
Windows & Macs

Historically, there have been two viable choices for computing; Windows and Macs. windows has been wildly popular, and has, for the most part, controlled the PC (personal computer) industry. windows based PCs have traditionally been cheaper than Macs, and have had more software titles. Macs, on the other hand, have traditionally cost a little more than windows based pcs, and have had a much more limited selection of software titles. However, this tradition has been changing dramatically within the past couple of years.


Apple, the company that makes Mac computers, introduced an operating system called OS X. They based OS X on one of the most secure and stable operating systems ever made, Unix. They then programmed a powerful graphics system and software architecture that turned OS X into multimedia marvel. OS X is now in its fifth version (10.4), and is considered by many technology experts as the most advanced commercial operating system on the market.
Stability

Almost all Windows users have experienced the poor stability that comes with Windows. Many users have to restart their computer at least once a day. Also, when a program locks up, the entire computer usually quits functioning (requiring another restart). This is often due to the fact that all of Windows' software components are connected (married) to each other. For example, if Internet Explorer quits working, the rest of the computer usually quits working too.


OS X doesn't work anything like Windows. Instead, it separates most programs from each other, and from the operating system itself. What this means is that if one program quits working, the rest of the computer keeps working. In fact, you can use a feature in OS X called, "Force Quit" that will immediately close the offending program without affecting any other programs that you're running. You can also restart the program that you closed, and it should work as if there was never a problem to begin with.
Security

Windows is notorious for viruses and security problems. This poses a threat to all Windows users, because a virus can wipe out a person's hard drive (where all of your files are stored), and security holes can allow crackers (often referred to as hackers) to control and sabotage your computer.
Viruses and security holes on the Mac are almost nonexistent with OS X. Because OS X is built on Unix, and Unix is an extremely secure operating system, OS X has yet to be threatened by a virus or have a major security hole.
Reliability

To put it simply, Windows is easy to break. If you move the wrong file or folder, the entire computer can quit working. This is not so with OS X. OS X is so smart, that you can move a program file/folder anywhere on the hard drive, and it won't break. In fact, it will also update any shortcuts (icons) that you had pointed to it. If you did this on Windows, you would have to completely reinstall the software, and it might even make Windows quit working altogether.
Mac computers are also easy to problem solve and fix, whereas Windows computers often need the help of a paid computer technician.
Compatibility

Historically, Macs have not been very compatible with Windows computers. In particular, Microsoft Office documents had difficulty translating correctly between Macs and Windows based PCs. Today, this is no longer an issue. Not only does Microsoft make a version of Office (Word, Excel, etc...) for OS X, they (Microsoft) also consider it to be better than Office for Windows! You can also open and save native Word documents using Apple's word processor, Pages (a part of the iWork software bundle).
OS X is Windows network friendly too. OS X can share printers and files over a network with Windows based PCs.
Multimedia

Windows based PCs are certainly more multimedia equipped than they have ever been, but they are still unparalleled when it comes to the ease of use that OS X provides. It's well known and recognized by Windows and Mac enthusiasts alike, that Macs offer an unprecedented group of applications and hardware for music, photos, and video editing.
Apple provides a suite of applications called iLife. The package contains iTunes (an MP3 encoder/player), iPhoto (a digital photography manager), iMovie (easy to use movie editing), iDVD (creates professional looking DVDs from your movies), GarageBand (studio recording software for the masses), and iWeb (create websites and blogs). All six programs are designed to work together seamlessly. They are also award-winning programs for ease of use and features, where Windows' offerings (Movie Maker & Media Player) are not.
Affordable

Now to the important issue, cost! Windows and Mac computers are now almost equal in cost. Whereas you can buy a Windows based PC for less than $500, you will not get the multimedia hardware and software that you will want and need. In fact, to do so would cost equal or more to the cost of a Mac. You would also end up spending more than you would on a Mac just to get software that could come close to doing what iLife does (which comes bundled free with all new Macs).
Apple now provides an entry level computer called the Mac mini, which is intended to replace an existing Windows based PC. The Mac mini starts at $599, is a stand alone computer, and is designed to use the monitor, mouse and keyboard from the old PC.
It's beyond obvious that I prefer Macs over Windows based PCs. However, you should know that I've used Windows for 11 years. In fact, I've taught Windows classes, I've run Windows servers, and I used to be a Windows advocate. All of this changed when OS X came out. I have never been more thrilled and pleased with a computer than I have with OS X. I used to loath using my Windows based PCs (even Windows XP), but now I thoroughly enjoy not only using OS X, but also using its software, like iLife. I would never go back Windows, and I doubt you will either if and when you give Mac a try.

 

[randy_oz]

Esta noticia, avisa a Apple que espavile, y deje de hacer marketing criticando a Windows...

TG Daily - Windows vs. Mac ads: Negative isn’t funny anymore

Tuesday, November 04, 2008 00:01

​

We seem to be awash in both negative campaigning and stupidity this fall season. I am sure that, at least here in the U.S., there is little on all our minds other than how this historic election will turn out. There a better opportunity to weave that into this week’s column and draw comparisons to the IT world.

I am not a fan of negative advertising. I believe that negative advertising trades trust for tactical advantages and trading a strategic advantage for a tactical one is, in my book, both short sighted and stupid. Sure, negative advertising has its place and for the first year these were done I was actually a fan. But the market has gone south, the Republican presidential candidate has, at this writing, virtually lost because of them, and, frankly, I would like Apple to move on and focus on getting people into stores and sell its PCs as well as Apple sells its iPods.


Apple’s aims at Microsoft and shoots itself in the foot

Apple’s latest Mac vs. Windows spots argue that Microsoft is spending all of its money on advertising and Microsoft is eliminating the Vista name to hide Vista’s problems. Both are not only untrue, but they actually relate more to Apple’s own behavior than Microsoft’s. Microsoft is about to release its second major service pack for Vista to beta and just showcased the follow-on product Windows 7. In fact, Microsoft is spending billions to move its platforms forward. On the name, Microsoft has a consistency problem. We went from Windows NT to Windows 2000 to Windows XP to Windows Vista and now we are moving to Windows 7. It just reflects that Microsoft lacks the same marketing consistency that Apple has.

Now, on the other hand, Apple spends, as a percentage, more on marketing than any other vendor. This means, in reality, that Apple spends more on marketing than it does on fixing its own problems, which has actually turned out to be an advantage. In addition, Apple uses unique names to designate its operating systems, too. And just because Apple calls one Tiger and the next Leopard doesn’t mean Apple is trying to hide problems with MacOS (they used to use numbers - remember MacOS 9?) or Tiger. Apple is just more systematic and better in this discipline than Microsoft.

In effect, these latest ads make fun of Microsoft doing similar things to what Apple has done historically. The subtle message is that you should avoid companies that spend more money on marketing or change their product names - both of which Apple does more regularly than Microsoft does. Apple must truly think people are stupid.

To me that is actually pretty stupid and that is why Apple’s quarter may not be one for the record books. The lesson here is that focusing on the negative is just a bad strategy regardless of who does it. I actually think we’d like the world that Obama envisions better and would like to drive to that. What is funny is that Apple, and every tech vendor's employees (including Microsoft, by the way) support Barack Obama - who hasn't been exclusively negative and tried not to go in that direction at all. That, of course suggests that if he were to run Apple, he might disagree with Apple’s current approach, or at least disagree with Apple going nearly 100% negative.


The real problem with negative

Part of what makes Apple successful is that the company typically has the strongest demand generation marketing in the segment. Hyundai is one of the few firms that succeed in this discipline as well (check out this French ad). Hyundai’s ads are elegant fun and drive people into stores or dealerships. Negative ads don't. They get people who are already thinking of buying something else to consider you. But right now, folks aren't thinking of buying much of anything.

In addition, negative ads tend to focus on what the other guy does badly. The new Apple laptops are not only too expensive for the current market, especially when compared to most other offerings. They have issues like bad keyboards and being more prone to scratching and damage (the downside of soft metals like aluminum). For instance, the difference between a Lenovo laptop and an Apple device in hardware is that the Lenovo is much better built and the Apple is much more attractive visually. The goal is to be both well built and good looking.

Finally, Sun also focused on taking shots at Microsoft and, for a while, it worked for them. But look at them today. For instance, while Apple is focused on Microsoft's negatives, other PC vendors came out with Netbooks that provide high margins and very aggressive $500 prices - and Apple is focused on spending lots of money pointing out Microsoft practices that mirror Apple’s own market leading practices.

In the end, you need to tell people about your advantages and not constantly point to the other guy's faults, particularly when you start to pick things that also reflect badly on you. I believe that Apple should take a page from its own iPod campaign and emulate the candidate they apparently like the best and go more positive.

Frankly, no matter how funny these ads are, after this election I'm simply sick of negative untruthful advertising.

 

[randy_oz]

Y los antivirus llegan a Apple...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10110852-83.html?subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20∂=sphere

Apple suggests Mac users install antivirus software

Updated 10:50 a.m. PST December 2 to correct that Apple previously recommended antivirus software to Mac users, and at 1:50 p.m. PST with call back from Apple and link to 2002 Apple anti-virus item. A follow-up blog will be posted that goes into more detail about the coverage.


Apple is recommending that Mac users install antivirus software.
But don't read this as an admission that the Mac operating system is suddenly insecure. It's more a recognition that Mac users are vulnerable to Web application exploits, which have replaced operating system vulnerabilities as the bigger threat to computer users.


On November 21 Apple updated a technical note on its Support Web site that says: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult."
The item offers three software suggestions: Intego VirusBarrier X5 and Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 11 for Macintosh, both available from the Apple Online Store, and McAfee VirusScan for Mac.



MacDailyNews unearthed the same note posted by Apple in June 2007 and published it on Tuesday,a long with a link to a March 2002 note from Apple urging people to use an anti-virus program.
Apple representatives did not respond to e-mails seeking comment on Monday, but did return a call on Tuesday. A spokesman said he would look into the matter.
Brian Krebs, who first reported on the Apple antivirus recommendationThe Washington Post, said an Apple store employee told him he didn't need antivirus software when he purchased a MacBook three months ago. Monday in his Security Fix blog at

 

[randy_oz]

Bastante plana, aunque igual es un poco antigua...

Windows vs. Macintosh

This controversy often sparks heated arguments to say the least. Moreover, there have also been instances of fights, vandalism and worse over which is the best. Windows users claim that Mac users are arrogant, citing that old "computer for the rest of us" advertising while Mac users claim the same about Windows users. Who really cares?
The truth of the matter is that both are about the same. All they are, are different GUIs; slightly different ways of opening applications. Once the application is open, the only differences might be whether you use a single button mouse or a multi-button mouse, and even that difference vanishes with third party hardware.
First of all, we'll look at some pros and cons for each, then we'll dispel some myths perpetuated about both platforms. We'll also see how this plays into which might be better suited for Web design.
Remember, also, that both Microsoft and Apple share a good deal of technology. Both Windows and MacOS use hundreds of patents shared between the two. Also remember that Microsoft makes a lot of software for the Mac including Microsoft Office which was created by a separate department for the Mac.
Typography - Mac's support of typography is a result of years and years involvement with the pre-press industry. Type-styles rendered with a Mac just plain transfer better when submitted to a service bureau. You get what you saw. If you're into pre-press Mac is the clear winner here.
Video Subsystem - Windows open architecture and PCI bus allow a wide non-saturated video subsystem. Video cards are made which exceed 6 Gigaflops of geometric rendering. Mac, though PCI, has a severely bottle-necked video subsystem so if you're into advanced 3-D rendering, Windows is the clear winner here.
Postscript Support - Mac natively supports both postscipt and PDF formats making them the clear winning here. Again, if you're into pre-press, Mac makes a lot of sense.
Raw Speed - Windows PCs have a serious edge here. Where time is money, processor speed can be very important. Regardless of how hard Mac advertising attempts to claim that the slower clock speed Macs are really just as fast as a PC, it just ain't so and proven so by every bench test out there. If you have the "need for speed" in gaming, software development, 3D rendering and other applications, Windows is the clear winner here. Color Matching - Apple is the only OS and hardware which supports Colorsync™, the industry standard for "what you see is what you get" color matching. If you want your advertising copy of an egg to come out of the press with the same yellow you saw on the screen, Mac is for you. Web Design - Now this will be a hot one. In my opinion the clear choice here is Windows. I say this for two reasons.

• First, 95% of the people surfing the Web use Windows on PCs. If you want to be able to design in an atmosphere where you see pretty much what that 95% sees, then Windows just plain makes sense.
• Secondly, though many technologies are available for the Mac, Windows technology isn't and much of the Web uses this technology. If you want to take advantage of .NET technology or ASP, it's just way easier to implement from a Windows platform.

Ease of Use - I give Mac the edge here, though the difference is pretty small with the release of Windows XP. Windows binary Plug-in-Play is no longer "Plug-n-Pray" and though technologically superior to Mac doesn't get the job done as nicely. By using nearly draconian messures and monopolistic threats, Apple has been able to maintain tight control over makers of third party hardware. What this means to you is an easier to use system, but with much less choice in add-ons.
Software Availability - Though many might argue that anything you might need is available for Mac, and though almost all generic task software is, industry specific software is not. For example, if you own.. say a lawnmower repair shop, you might want software written exclusively to run lawn mower repair shops. You just won't find it on the shelf or by mail order for the Mac, while you have several to choose from for Windows, maybe even for free or cheap as shareware downloads.
You might argue that you can adapt database and spreadsheet software to need, but it's just not as easy. Advantage to Windows.
Coolness Factor - What can I say? Mac wins. Look at that new i-Mac or the i-Pod. It beats a biege box.
Geek Factor (I'm one) - Windows wins (Linux beats that and BSD might beat Linux)

 

[randy_oz]

Discute sobre el precio de los Macs. Segun el, no son caros, simplemente, que no tienen de baratos... Aunque, puede ser que no todo el mundo necesite todo lo que llevan.

Windows vs. Mac: Is the Price Debate Still Relevant?

Whenever there’s a Windows vs. Mac debate, the question of whether Macs are overpriced inevitably comes up. Phrases such as “Apple tax” and “Windows tax” will be thrown around liberally, and if it weren’t for the distance and isolation offered by the Internet, these flame wars could well end with someone getting hurt.
But are Mac systems pricier than Windows systems? And more importantly, is the price debate even relevant? Let’s see …



Let’s begin at the beginning – Are Mac systems pricier than Windows-based systems. That means a trip to the Apple Store and Dell’s website. From what I can see, the cheapest Apple notebook is the 13” “white” MacBook, priced at $999, and the cheapest desktop system (excluding the Mac mini) is the 20” iMac, priced at $1,199.


From the Dell site the cheapest Windows Vista systems I found were the Inspiron 15 notebook, priced at $479, and the Inspiron 530e which with a 17” monitor came to $439. In both instances, the Mac offering was more than twice the price of the Dell offering.
Conclusion – Macs are dearer than Windows-based systems.



Ahhh, but wait a minute. There’s a heck of a lot of difference between the spec of the Macs I chose and those of the Dell systems.
• 13” “white” MacBook – 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo | 13” screen | 1GB RAM | 120GB hard drive | Intel GMA X3100 graphics
Related Articles



• 20” iMac – 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo | 1GB RAM | 250GB hard drive | ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT
• Inspiron 15 – 2.0GHz Celeron 550 | 15.4” screen | 1GB RAM | 120GB hard drive | Intel GMA X3100 graphics
• Inspiron 530e (plus 17” monitor) – 2.2GHz Celeron 450 | 2GB RAM | 320GB hard drive | Intel GMA X3100 graphics


Things aren’t as clear cut now, are they?
Apple’s system have better CPUs than the Dell systems, and the desktop has a better GPU, but the Dell rigs come with bigger screens and the desktop has more RAM. Here the advantage is far from clear.


Put the Dell systems next to those from Apple and start using the systems and you quickly realize that the Mac systems are superior systems, while the Dell systems scream “budget!”



This gives us an interesting insight into Apple – that the company doesn’t cater to the lower-end of the market. In fact, during the company’s last investor conference call Steve Jobs said, and I quote:
“… we choose to be in certain segments of the market and we choose not to be in certain segments of the market.”
And:
“There are some customers which we choose not to serve. We don’t know how to make a $500 computer that’s not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that.”


So, Apple chooses to be in the higher-end segments of the market and chooses not to cater to the lower end. It also chooses not to serve those looking for a sub-$500 system. Apple doesn’t have a budget system, so when you compare purely on price you’re comparing Dell’s budget PCs to Apple’s mid-range systems.



Yes, Dell systems work out cheaper overall, but cheaper doesn’t mean better. Start comparing systems with a similar spec (or performance), for example, the “white” MacBook with, say, an Inspiron 13 from the Dell range, and the price difference starts to collapse ($999 vs. $820 after discount).
And bear in mind that Dell is probably the cheapest OEM out there. Compare Mac systems with like-for-like Sony, HO or Lenovo systems and the Apple rigs might actually win on price.



Side note: One significant difference between Apple and other OEMs is that you get less choice with Apple. When buying from Dell, HP, or Lenovo for example, you get the option to configure your system so you only pay for what you want. Depending on your needs, this can work out cheaper.



But do Apple prices matter? I don’t think that they do. Sure, if you’re price sensitive and you’d like to own the latest Mac but don’t have enough in the piggy bank to make that possible, then price comes into it. But when you consider that Apple is shipping some two and a half million Mac systems a quarter, it doesn’t look like your average Mac buyer is all that price sensitive.



Bear I mind that there are only so many Macs that Apple can make and ship in a quarter, and dropping the price might not increase overall sales by that much. People spend what they’re willing to spend on something, and depending on individual buyers Macs either fall into this price range or don’t.
However, what’s clear is that on the whole, Apple has priced its systems in such a way that it can both create demand and then keep up with demand, without devaluing the price of the product (a trap that Dell fell into years ago, where it cut the price of PCs so much that there was hardly any money to be made by any company, no matter what the size).
Apple has managed to maintain the image of a designer label product on what is rapidly becoming mainstream and mass market. Given it’s selling products with a pretty hefty price tag, that’s no small task under the current climate.

 

[randy_oz]

Resumen del 2007; el Leopard es un agujero, contrario a lo que la gente se piensa...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758
December 18th, 2007

Mac versus Windows vulnerability stats for 2007

The year 2007 has been an interesting year that brought us improved security with Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard (10.5). But to get some perspective of how many publicly known holes found in these two operating systems, I’ve compiled all the security flaws in Mac OS X and Windows XP and Vista and placed them side by side. This is significant because it shows a trend that can give us a good estimate for how many flaws we can expect to find in the coming months. The more monthly flaws there are in the historical trend, the more likely it is that someone will find a hole to exploit in the future. For example back in April of this year, hackers took over a fully patched Macbook and won $10,000 plus the Macbook they hacked.

I used vulnerability statistics from an impartial third party vendor SecuniaWindows XP flaws, Vista flaws, and Mac OS X flaws. Since Secunia doesn’t offer individual numbers for Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.4, I merged the XP and Vista vulnerabilities so that we can compare Vista + XP flaws to Mac OS X. In case you’re wondering how 19 plus 12 could equal 23, this is because there are many overlapping flaws that is shared between XP and Vista so those don’t get counted twice just as I don’t count something that affects Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 twice.
and I broke them down by Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
XP || Vista || XP + Vista || Mac OS X
Total extremely critical 3 1 4 0
Total highly critical 19 12 23 234
Total moderately critical 2 1 3 2
Total less critical 3 1 4 7
Total flaws 34 20 44 243
X Extremely critical
H Highly critical
M Moderately critical
L Less critical

So this shows that Apple had more than 5 times the number of flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista in 2007, and most of these flaws are serious. Clearly this goes against conventional wisdom because the numbers show just the opposite and it isn’t even close.

Also noteworthy is that while Windows Vista shows fewer flaws than Windows XP and has more mitigating factors against exploitation, the addition of Windows Defender and Sidebar added 4 highly critical flaws to Vista that weren’t present in Windows XP. Sidebar accounted for three of those additional vulnerabilities and it’s something I am glad I don’t use. The lone Defender critical vulnerability that was supposed to defend Windows Vista was ironically the first critical vulnerability for Windows Vista.

 

[nachogemma]

Randy... busca precios de ordenadores portatiles o fijos que sean comparables a las prestaciones de los mac... y luego dime si hay mucha diferencia... y si hay diferencia te pongo un dato REAL de mercado... cuando lo vendas sacaras esa diferencia... mira a ver cuanto te dan por un fijo o un portatil con Windows

 

[i_minex]

Este post traera cola...

Saludos! ;-)

 

[randy_oz]

Randy... busca precios de ordenadores portatiles o fijos que sean comparables a las prestaciones de los mac... y luego dime si hay mucha diferencia... y si hay diferencia te pongo un dato REAL de mercado... cuando lo vendas sacaras esa diferencia... mira a ver cuanto te dan por un fijo o un portatil con Windows

Esta discusion esta en el post #6 ;-)

Lo del precio de reventa... es como los diesel en coches. No digo que no, pero aun no ha llegado el momento en que me compre el portatil pensando en el momento en que lo vendere, ya que no lo he hecho con ninguno, y con la vida media que tienen, no es que tenga mucho sentido ;-)

Si encontrais mas comparativas o similares, ponedlas, que sera divertido. Yo he intentado poner des de las dos perspectivas y de temas diversos.

Salu2 ;-)

 

[McClane]

Ya que ultimamente se habla mucho del tema, por que no intentamos buscar "estudios" y "noticias" que nos permitan comparar las dos plataformas?

Mirando por internet he encontrado unas cuantas (aunque en ingles, y la verdad, no tengo tiempo para traducirlas...). Ahora las pongo, y a ver si la gente le gusta comentarlas...

Salu2 ;-)

Hombre, teniendo en cuenta que no conozco el idioma de las ingles y que no tengo porqué saberlo, no creo que mucha gente comente. No sabía que para navegar por este foro necesite hablar inglÉs al 100%. Es como si me pongo a comentar uno de tus reportes en vasco: no se entera ni el tato. ;-)

 

[kanuto]

COMPARATIVA: Apple MacIntosh (1986) Vs. AMD DualCore (2007)

Por: Ariel Palazzesi @ viernes, 01 de junio de 2007 Nota vista 7878 veces
Hal Licino, de Canadá, ha realizado esta comparativa. Lo que a primera vista parece una batalla perdida para la Mac, se transforma en la versión moderna de David contra Goliat. ¿Puede un ordenador mil veces más veloz que otro….ser a la vez más lento?

La comparativa fue publicada en el blog HubPages.com . Hal tomo una vieja Apple MacIntosh de 1986, con un disco duro externo (SCSI) de 40MB (si, tu pendrive tiene 50 veces más capacidad que eso), monitor monocromático de 9 pulgadas y 4MB de RAM,el máximo posible para esa máquina. El microprocesador de la Apple es un “poderoso” Motorola 68000 CPU a 8MHz. El sistema operativo empleado fue el System 6.0.8.

El otro contendiente fue un ordenador de última generación, equipado con un micro AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ con dos núcleos corriendo a 2.4GHz.Su disco duro SATA tenía una capacidad de 120GB, y se lo dotó con 1024MB de RAM (1 GB). El sistema operativo elegido fue Windows XP SP2, que se ve maravilloso en un monitor de 21 pulgadas.

Miremos un poco estos números: el ordenador moderno tiene 250 veces más memoria RAM, un disco duro más veloz y con 3000 veces más espacio, y su procesador corre 300 veces más rápido por núcleo, lo que significa que el AMD es 600 veces más veloz que el viejo Motorola. Y aún más: la arquitectura de AMD es mucho más eficiente que la del 68000, por lo que rinde más por cada MHZ. Podemos considerar que el procesador de Motorola es casi 1000 veces más lento que el de AMD.

Ambos discos duros tenían ocupados aproximadamente un 10% de su espacio: mientras que el System 6.0.8 cabe en un MB, Windows Vista necesitaria15GB para alojarse en el disco duro. ¡Eso es 1500 veces más espacio!

Licino diseñó las pruebas para ser lo más justas y equitativas posible. Si utilizaba algún software como PCMark, el AMD seria el vencedor indiscutido, ya que se basan en las características técnicas que mencionamos antes. En lugar de eso, realizó pruebas corrientes que reflejan cómo el usuario emplea su ordenador. Tiene sentido: la mayoría de los usuarios no saben (ni les preocupa) si su CPU es un dualcore de 65nm o un enano que devora bites.

Seleccionó aplicaciones utilizadas en los 80 y en la actualidad, como Microsoft Word. En el AMD se instaló Word y Excel de Microsoft Office 2007, y en el Mac Word 3.01 y Excel 1.5 de 1986.Las pruebas fueron realizadas por las mismas personas, y los ordenadores solo tenían instalado el software necesario, configurados para que den su mejor rendimiento. No se conectaron a una red o a internet.

El test consistió en cronometrar el tiempo necesario para arrancar las aplicaciones, escribir un texto, realizar tareas cotidianas como búsquedas y reemplazos, contar palabras, realizar subtotales o seleccionar rangos de celdas, y todas esas cosas que haces diariamente en tu ordenador. También se tomo en cuenta el tiempo que demoró cada ordenador en estar listo para trabajar.

Los resultados, como ya debes estar imaginando, fueron sumamente parejos. Es más: de las 17 pruebas realizadas, el antiguo Mac derroto al AMD en 9 ocasiones, es decir, el 53% de las veces. Por ejemplo, demoro 52 segundos menos en encender que la maquina del 2007.

¿Qué significan estos resultados? Por supuesto, lo que NO significan es que un Mac de 1984 sea mejor que un ordenador moderno. En los 20 años transcurridos desde su lanzamiento, los avances tecnológicos han hecho que el AMD pueda hacer muchas cosas que el Mac no puede. La interfaz del Mac era completamente espartana si la comparamos con la de Windows XP o Vista.

Pero en el fondo, el que usa un ordenador para escribir textos o procesar números con una planilla de cálculos hacia su trabajo más rápido hace 20 años que hoy. Hal encuentra la explicación en el software. Mientras que el hardware ha evolucionado de una forma realmente increíble, el software (si dejamos de lado los colores y gráficos de las interfaces) sigue haciendo básicamente lo mismo. No se ha producido una revolución a nivel software que nos permita evitar el trabajo repetitivo, o contar con el ordenador para llevar a cabo nuestras tareas aunque sea 10 veces más rápido que hace 20 años.

Evidentemente, es una comparativa polémica. Y nos alegra que Licino se haya tomado el trabajo de realizarla, ya que nos sirve para mirar a nuestro ¿potente? ordenador con otros ojos. Y tu ¿Qué crees?

FUENTE: NEOTEO
LINK NOTICIA: AQUI

 

[randy_oz]

Hombre, teniendo en cuenta que no conozco el idioma de las ingles y que no tengo porqué saberlo, no creo que mucha gente comente. No sabía que para navegar por este foro necesite hablar inglÉs al 100%. Es como si me pongo a comentar uno de tus reportes en vasco: no se entera ni el tato. ;-)

Sinceramente, no se a que viene el tono de tu comentario; no te los he puesto en catalan, ni en vasco, ni lengua minoritaria para tocar las pelotas. Los he puesto en la lengua en que los he encontrado, porque no he sido capaz de encontrar nada en castellano, y creia que sin saber un 100%, pues la mayoria podria entender de que van, y enriqueceria el foro. Tambien he intentado poner resumenes arriba. Pero ya lo dicen, el aprender no tiene limites... si se tiene ganas, y se es abierto ;-)

Te aseguro que si se me ha pasado por la cabeza traducir alguno, se me ha pasado rapidito [-X[-X

PS: Y ademas, como soy tan inutil que tengo teclado y sistema ingles (y no me apetece poner el "simulador de teclado spanish"), pues ni pongo acentos, ni enyes, ni nada...

 

[randy_oz]

Pero en el fondo, el que usa un ordenador para escribir textos o procesar números con una planilla de cálculos hacia su trabajo más rápido hace 20 años que hoy. Hal encuentra la explicación en el software. Mientras que el hardware ha evolucionado de una forma realmente increíble, el software (si dejamos de lado los colores y gráficos de las interfaces) sigue haciendo básicamente lo mismo. No se ha producido una revolución a nivel software que nos permita evitar el trabajo repetitivo, o contar con el ordenador para llevar a cabo nuestras tareas aunque sea 10 veces más rápido que hace 20 años.

Evidentemente, es una comparativa polémica. Y nos alegra que Licino se haya tomado el trabajo de realizarla, ya que nos sirve para mirar a nuestro ¿potente? ordenador con otros ojos. Y tu ¿Qué crees?

Estaria interesante ver lo mismo con un PC de la epoca del Mac, y anyadir un Mac moderno tambien. Lo que parece, es que el software se come todo lo que le das; da igual lo que tengas de hardware (como es en castellano catizo, maquinario???), que el software te lo comera todo, con lo que nunca "vas sobrado".

Gracias por el post!

 

[nachogemma]

Sin Apple no existiria Windows ni DOS

 

[neoBMW]

Sin Apple no existiria Windows ni DOS

Que razón tienes apañero.:-({|=:-({|=

De todas maneras la comparativa del MAC y el AMD es polñémica pero tiene toda la razón, aún no conozco un sistema operativo de uso doméstico que sepa usar todo el mundo, y cuando digo "todo" es todo, que vaya realmente rápido.

Evoluciona el hardware, pero el soft se queda atrás cada vez más, los micros soportan 64 bits desde hace mucho tiempo, y aún hay aplicacion que no tienen variante para trabajar sobre esta arquitectura.... es una pena, porque los 64 bits son un potencial muy muy grande.

Si hablamos de Linux está claro que su potencial se vasa en la consola de comandos, ya que las X relentizan mucho el sistema, todo lo gráfico lo hace, (aunque reconozco que las versiones de 64 bits que últimamente han aparecido son autenticos aviones), a parte de que no es un SO implantado a nivel masivo doméstico y empresarial, efectuando servidores y demás; soy programador y de momento todavía no he trabajado en ninguna empresa que me permitiera usar Linux, todas Windows, Mac si diseñas pero nada más.

Que me desvio del tema, el caso, que si las aplicaciones tubieran un componente de desarrollo externo a las empresas propietarias evolucionarian casi al mismo ritmo que el hardware que usan porque la evolución requiere evolución.

Perdon por el tocho, pero me ha tocado la fibra,.,:flip::flip::flip:

 

[randy_oz]

Sin Apple no existiria Windows ni DOS

Podrias poner un link, o copiar el articulo o historia que lo explique?

Sobretodo la parte del DOS, que no conozco ni puedo intuir; si no estoy equivocado, DOS es del 81, y aunque Apple ya existia, no tengo constancia que IBM creara su PC para hacerle la competencia. Tampoco que el CP/M, el gran sistema operativo del momento, fuera de Apple.

Lo de Windows supongo que te refieres a la GUI que inventaron en Xerox, y que despues "uso"/"copio" Apple y Microsoft, no? (antes Apple, seguro)

Gracias!

 

[little_homer]

Sin Apple no existiria Windows ni DOS

Por? mira que soy bastante aficionado a la historia de la informática y no puedo entender a que viene esa información por la parte del DOS este se inspirava clarisimamente en el cpm y si te refieres al entorno "windows" tanto microsoft como apple se inspiravan claramente el las GUI gráficas de los laboratorios Xerox Interfaz gráfica de usuario - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

 

[SPTR]

Como siempre, si queréis ver una peli guapa sobre eso:

PIRATES OF SILLICON VALLEY.

 

[Danny]

Podrias poner un link, o copiar el articulo o historia que lo explique?

Sobretodo la parte del DOS, que no conozco ni puedo intuir; si no estoy equivocado, DOS es del 81, y aunque Apple ya existia, no tengo constancia que IBM creara su PC para hacerle la competencia. Tampoco que el CP/M, el gran sistema operativo del momento, fuera de Apple.

Lo de Windows supongo que te refieres a la GUI que inventaron en Xerox, y que despues "uso"/"copio" Apple y Microsoft, no? (antes Apple, seguro)

Gracias!

La historia no es así no mezclemos cosas, Bill Gates le compró por 25.000 dólares el sistema operativo (Dos) a un tio que tenía una empresa lamada Seattle Software, lo que copío Bill Gates a la gente de Xerox es como habilitar el cursor del ratón, el ioputa no sabía que podía hacerlo a través de las interrupciones del puerto

 

[vitu]

La historia es que comparando las maquinas, los sistemas operativos, los programas,...etc me quedo con apple.

 

[nachogemma]

podrias poner un link, o copiar el articulo o historia que lo explique?!

Una de las películas que todo aficionado a la informática, y en especial a Apple, tiene que ver es sin lugar a duda Piratas de Silicon Valley. Trata de la historia de unos jóvenes Stever Jobs, Steve Wozniak (creadores de Apple Computer Inc) y Bill Gates, Paul Allen y Steve Ballmer (creadores de MicroSoft) y de como crean lo que hoy en día son dos de las empresas más importantes en el mundo de la informática, si no las más grandes.
Es bastante interesante ya que es la historia real, tal y como sucedío y por ello te das cuenta que Steve Jobs tuvo en sus manos, en cierta medida, a Microsoft, y que si se hubiera dado cuenta, ahora las cosas serían muy distintas. Por si no conocéis la historia, Bill se aprovechó de la buena fe de Steve Jobs y le copió su sistema operativo, creando el tan conocido Windows.
En resumen, es una película que merece la pena ver y de la cual me quedo con unas frases de Steve Jobs y Bill Gates al final de la película.

Steve Jobs: “Somos mejores que vosotros. Nuestro producto es superior.”
Bill Gates: “No lo entiendes Steve, eso no importa.”
​

[gv]=-5502952382175128878[/gv]

 

[randy_oz]

La historia no es así no mezclemos cosas, Bill Gates le compró por 25.000 dólares el sistema operativo (Dos) a un tio que tenía una empresa lamada Seattle Software, lo que copío Bill Gates a la gente de Xerox es como habilitar el cursor del ratón, el ioputa no sabía que podía hacerlo a través de las interrupciones del puerto

Despues de que el creador de CP/M no aceptara firmar un NDA con IBM... A manos llenas le daria, a manos llenas

El tio ese de Seattle Software acabo en M$, no? ;-)

Salu2 ;-)

 

[randy_oz]

Una de las películas que todo aficionado a la informática, y en especial a Apple, tiene que ver es sin lugar a duda Piratas de Silicon Valley.
(...) Por si no conocéis la historia, Bill se aprovechó de la buena fe de Steve Jobs y le copió su sistema operativo, creando el tan conocido Windows.

OK, la voy a mirar.

Respecto tu comentario de que Bill Gates se aprovecho de la buena fe de Jobs... lo que he leido por ahi,visto desde el otro angulo, es (abajo el original en ingles):

Gates se refiere al suceso en el que discute con Jobs y le dice: "Tu y yo eramos esos chicos que tenian ese vecino super rico -Xerox-, que tenia la puerta de atras siempre abierta. Tu entraste a meter las narices, a ver si podias robar un TV, solo para darte cuenta de que yo entre primero, y ya lo habia robado!!!" (segun el tio de Xerox, Jobs no entro a "robar", si no que se le permitio entrar a cambio de acciones de Apple)

Gates would later refer to this event when he tells Jobs during an argument, "You and I are both like guys who had this rich neighbor—Xerox—who left the door open all the time. And you go sneakin' in to steal a TV set, only when you get there, you realize I got there first. And you're yelling? That's not fair! I wanted to try and steal it first!" (the director of the Xerox PARCJohn Seely Brown, after seeing this clip stated in an interview that it was not entirely accurate as Steve Jobs was invited by PARC to view their technology in exchange for Apple shares)

Creo que esto es como el fichaje de Di Stefano: el Barca fue de cara, el Madrid por atras... y ya sabemos quien se lo llevo, y quien lloro durante muchos anyos...

Salu2 ;-)

 

[little_homer]

OK, la voy a mirar.

Respecto tu comentario de que Bill Gates se aprovecho de la buena fe de Jobs... lo que he leido por ahi,visto desde el otro angulo, es (abajo el original en ingles):

Gates se refiere al suceso en el que discute con Jobs y le dice: "Tu y yo eramos esos chicos que tenian ese vecino super rico -Xerox-, que tenia la puerta de atras siempre abierta. Tu entraste a meter las narices, a ver si podias robar un TV, solo para darte cuenta de que yo entre primero, y ya lo habia robado!!!" (segun el tio de Xerox, Jobs no entro a "robar", si no que se le permitio entrar a cambio de acciones de Apple)

Gates would later refer to this event when he tells Jobs during an argument, "You and I are both like guys who had this rich neighbor—Xerox—who left the door open all the time. And you go sneakin' in to steal a TV set, only when you get there, you realize I got there first. And you're yelling? That's not fair! I wanted to try and steal it first!" (the director of the Xerox PARCJohn Seely Brown, after seeing this clip stated in an interview that it was not entirely accurate as Steve Jobs was invited by PARC to view their technology in exchange for Apple shares)

Creo que esto es como el fichaje de Di Stefano: el Barca fue de cara, el Madrid por atras... y ya sabemos quien se lo llevo, y quien lloro durante muchos anyos...

Salu2 ;-)

Buen símil sin duda.
Por cierto Jobs no tiene nada de inocente, es una los joputas del mercado informático más grandes que hay.

 

[Danny]

Despues de que el creador de CP/M no aceptara firmar un NDA con IBM... A manos llenas le daria, a manos llenas

El tio ese de Seattle Software acabo en M$, no? ;-)

Salu2 ;-)

Juasss siempre estamos de acuerdo tio
Si así es Tim Paterson acabó en Microsoft, lo que no sabía es que ayudo en el desarrollo de Visual Basic

Tim Paterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vitu]

Windows Vista es el SO con peor rendimiento en una conexión de 100 megas

No está mal,

 

[guakarimaso]

usuario informatico(yo mesmo) desde la epoca del spectrum pasando por amiga atari msx..hasta legar a pc...286...386dx me salte el 486...pentium 1..2...3.....4

esperiencia PC ..format C: y reinstalcion del sistema cada dos o tras meses invariablemente por indescifrables caidas de rendimineto y/o funcionaminetos anomalos no graves pero que soy incapaz de soportar....necesidad de cambiaR equipo con frecuencia ya que avance de soft=mas requeriminetos

hace cuatro años ibook g4 aun funcionado diariamente es el de guerra pa usar de curro arriba y abajo ...hace un año mackbook intel.0 formateos o reinstalaciones cambio de ordenador por capricho el ibook de 4 años mueve el leopardo tranquilamente
esto sin entrar en configurar culaquier dispositivo ,mas aun si este es wifi o bluethoot

windows=agrege hardware..emparej dispositivos...vaya a configuacion de red ...pongase un dedo en la nariz...sonria....vuelva al paso uno...abrase de piernas...controladores no encontrados...


mac=el ibook ha encontrado una nueva red desea conectarse????

....no vuelvo a windows salvo por obligacion profesional;-)

 

[Tizon]

usuario informatico(yo mesmo) desde la epoca del spectrum pasando por amiga atari msx..hasta legar a pc...286...386dx me salte el 486...pentium 1..2...3.....4

esperiencia PC ..format C: y reinstalcion del sistema cada dos o tras meses invariablemente por indescifrables caidas de rendimineto y/o funcionaminetos anomalos no graves pero que soy incapaz de soportar....necesidad de cambiaR equipo con frecuencia ya que avance de soft=mas requeriminetos

hace cuatro años ibook g4 aun funcionado diariamente es el de guerra pa usar de curro arriba y abajo ...hace un año mackbook intel.0 formateos o reinstalaciones cambio de ordenador por capricho el ibook de 4 años mueve el leopardo tranquilamente
esto sin entrar en configurar culaquier dispositivo ,mas aun si este es wifi o bluethoot

windows=agrege hardware..emparej dispositivos...vaya a configuacion de red ...pongase un dedo en la nariz...sonria....vuelva al paso uno...abrase de piernas...controladores no encontrados...


mac=el ibook ha encontrado una nueva red desea conectarse????

....no vuelvo a windows salvo por obligacion profesional;-)

completamente de acuerdo excepto que sigo trabajando con los 2 sistemas, ni uno es tan bueno ni el otro tan malo. :wink:

 

[randy_oz]

windows=agrege hardware..emparej dispositivos...vaya a configuacion de red ...pongase un dedo en la nariz...sonria....vuelva al paso uno...abrase de piernas...controladores no encontrados...


mac=el ibook ha encontrado una nueva red desea conectarse????

no te digo que no, pero el ejemplo es un poco desafortunado, porque cualquier equipo que venga con el wireless integrado, no te dara ningun problema, ni con Windows, ni con OS X. Con BT no se que tal va el Mac (no se ni si lleva BT...)

Salu2 ;-)