In terms of raw speed, yes, I think most of us already knew that. What you're paying extra for is memory that doesn't flip bits, 64bit address space, graphics processors and drivers that don't stomp on kernel memory, and network controllers that manage to keep your packets intact.

 

OK...

You do realize that all those are available on the Intel architecture as well (granted 64-bit data lines came a little later). Granted, you pay more for those, but in the end, you still don't pay nearly as much as for Apple hardware. I must admit that vector processing instructions is a pretty cool feature, but apparently Intel processors are faster, even without it (or perhaps Intel processors have their version of it).

So anyway, why exactly are we paying for 64-bit address space?

 

You know, it's funny, I do want to get an Apple PowerBook. Still do (if it doesn't come with a backdoor, anyway). If I didn't, I would have bought a PC laptop now (instead of just a motherboard, processor etc to fit in my current chassis, that should last me another two to three years, when I'll have enough time to evaluate Apple's MacIntel machines).

I love the MacOS X for what it is - a rock solid UNIX operating system with an excellent user interface. But like John mentioned, there's no reason they can't make it a little more open (heck, they have to do extra work to make sure the OS won't run on other people's hardware). I understand their business model, and I'll probably by an Apple in spite of it. I don't blindly try to defend Apple for doing it. I know why they do it, I don't like it.

 

Well, yes, but in order to get all that with a PC for any kind of deal you generally need a lot of knowledge beforehand and need to do much research on the parts you're getting. It comes down to the 22kUSD Miata plus 11kUSD mods vs the 33kUSD S2000 again. With the Apple you pay a premium and leave the details to someone else.

You're right, a lot of people don't need to pay extra for 64bit capabilities. Most of the big Apple machines are targetted at design houses and other businesses that really are on the cutting edge of their respective industries. They don't mind paying extra, and in the time between now and the day of the cheap 64bit PC, they're profiting from their investment.

To most home users, it doesn't mean squat, and that's probably why the Mac Mini is still 32bit.

 

64-bit is what's selling well in the server space. It's only a matter of time before 64-bit becomes more common on the PC desktop.

AMD's architecture is really kick-ass. Intel made a huge mistake with IA-64, back oh-so-many years ago, and even though IA64's still kicking, it let AMD take the lead. Intel has a new IA64 processor coming out which is really great (Montecito); I just question whether anyone will ever care (kind of like a fast Apple ).

Now, Intel has EM64T, which is compatible with AMD64, but not quite as fast. My company builds CPUs with both EM64T and AMD64 (Opteron) processors, and the Opterons seem to be the best.

The leapfrog game continues.

 

I like this thread.

 

:waits patiently for Charlie's company to design the world's first 65-bit processor and server with 16.01 petabytes of memory:

 

 

i actually played with the mighty mouse a couple of weeks ago.. the scrolly thing isn't what i expected it to be. actually kind of hard to control. i was expecting it to be like the IBM thinkpad little mouse things, but the mighty mouse one barely stuck out.

 

I played with it last weekend as well. Didn't like it.

My finger kept catching between the joystick thingee and the hole around it.