[MauiPalm]

Originally Posted by PDA Gerbil

You're a cruel and unusual man AhuhX. :wink:

Of course your're forgiven MauiPalm. Forgiveness is avaibile to anyone that asks. Now what was it we were forgiving you for? 8) (Oh yes - thy name).

Now how is my name so bad.
I live in "Maui," and the driveway to my Condo is lined with "Palm" trees. :wink:

[MauiPalm]

Originally Posted by PDA Gerbil

You're a cruel and unusual man AhuhX. :wink:

Of course your're forgiven MauiPalm. Forgiveness is avaibile to anyone that asks. Now what was it we were forgiving you for? 8) (Oh yes - thy name).

Now how is my name so bad.
I live in "Maui," and the driveway to my Condo is lined with "Palm" trees. :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Originally Posted by MauiPalm

Now how is my name so bad.
I live in "Maui," and the driveway to my Condo is lined with "Palm" trees. :wink:

Of course - of course dear boy. 8) Now I'l go an sign on to a pro-palm site with a name like PocketPCbooster and we'll see how I get on then.

[MauiPalm]

Originally Posted by PDA Gerbil

Of course - of course dear boy. 8) Now I'l go an sign on to a pro-palm site with a name like PocketPCbooster and we'll see how I get on then.

Ive showed how inocent my name is.
If Johnny Appleseed were around today, would you assume he was touting Macs? :wink:

BTW EVERY Palm site is bursting with PPC users.

[Timothy Rapson]

[quote="BigDaddyJ
The comparison isn't valid - the MMX processor had almost the exact same instruction set and cycle per instruction mix metrics of the regular P5 processor; it just added the additional MMX instructions and reduced die size, which let it run faster and cooler. A better performance comparison is the P5-to-P6 one; Windows 3.1 ran horribly slow on a PPro, so much so that a P-133 or P-166 was comparable to a PPro-200 until people started moving to Windows 95, or preferably, Windows NT/Unix.
--bdj[/quote]


This P5 to P6 comparison is not what I recall at all. But, even the fact that someone would reach 3-5 years back for it shows how unusual it is. And saying a P166 is as fast running Windows 3.1 as a PPro200 is when the MZ is only 17% faster while the Xscale promised 100% faster is a lot different.

At any rate, we agree at the bottom line. MS and Intel or whoever is at fault made a big error.

[Timothy Rapson]

[quote="Ed Hansberry"]

Originally Posted by Timothy Rapson

The PIII's running at 1.5GHz would blow away for most things P4's running up to 2GHz because Intel hadn't optimized the way old code was handled.

That is the question for me - how much optimization do MS and developers have to do and how much more work does Intel need to do?

And with the PIIIs and PIVs there was lots of warning that they would have to wait for optimized code. It was the same with MMC extensions. Intel has been claiming for almost two years that the XScales were magic. More speed, all the way up to 1000MZ, less power usage, MAGIC! Now, nothing. I think the poster above who thought the Zayo was simply overclocking the processor has the best explaination.

By the way, only a fool (ok, a fool or a rare person who have some very specialized early optimized software) would buy a P IV. If the OS and most programs are not optimized they run no faster than a PIII but the processor costs far more. By the time the software is generally out the P IV will cost half what it does now and one would have paid twice as much for it just to have it sitting in the case for 6-12 months? I don't follow such so closely, but I don't think there are many P IVs selling well. I don't know when they will be fully supported and selling well.

The bottom line is that Intel and everyone else knew that the P IV was a special case. They let us all think the X-Scale was a regular clock doubling and would run twice as fast out of the box.