In unrelated news, pigs have evolved the ability to fly.

http://filemaker.com/products/fms/benchmark.html

Has Steve seen this????? I never thought I would, that's for sure. I
guess Apple can say "that's why we're switching to Intel".

You must have missed the sentence on that page that says:

Note: This benchmark test is not a good judge of the relative speed of
Mac vs Windows performance as the hardware used for each test was not
equivalent.


Paul Bruneau wrote:
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg (818) 883-2846
FM Pro Solutions Los Angeles, California

FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
Associate Member, FileMaker Solutions Alliance

In article <11kqopnl5objs81 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
howard (AT) antispahm (DOT) fmprosolutions.com says...
How would you define "equivalent hardware" when testing Mac's vs PC's?

Is it even meaningful? How much G5 MHz is "equivalent" to Xeon MHz...how
to you factor in hyperthreading? How much RAM on a G5/OSX box is
"equivalent" on a Xeon/2003 box? (The OSes use RAM with differing
degrees of efficiency after all...) What about the hard disk subsystems?

If we do come up with a definition of equivalent hardware and there is a
$3,500 price difference between them is it still "equivalent hardware"??
What if the cost of licensing windows adds $10,000 to the microsoft
solution?

I agree that we can't read too much into these benchmarks. However these
issues are so intractable that no benchmark can overcome them. When
comparing apples to oranges (or as in this case to PCs) we have to start
SOMEHWERE.

This is as good a place as any.

Can anyone quickly ballpark how much the two systems would cost relative
to each other?

-regards,
Dave

No I didn't miss it. It's BS.

Of course the hardware wasn't equivalent, because Apple doesn't have
available to it chips that can go as fast as Intel's.

The fact is that each system is about as fast as you can get for that
platform, so therefore, the fastest PC server blows away the fastest
Mac server. I think it is amazing that they published it, especially
because for years people have been asking for just such a benchmark
from FM, but they have always resisted. I'm guessing they were
desperate to show a benefit of Server 8 to those Server 7 owners out
there so that FM could make some sales. Then the next question was "but
which platform do we show?"

I'm not trying to say that Macs suck (it's PCs that suck --I'm just
shocked that they published the benchmark. I am the biggest Mac fan in
Michigan, and I'll still run FM Server 8 and as many users as possible
on Macs, but facts is facts--FM runs faster on a PC--long suspected,
now verified by FM, wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc.

I just had to go shopping!

Here's a quick-and-dirty quote on the two platforms described in the
benchmark at http://filemaker.com/products/fms/benchmark.html

(No guarantee I found the cheapest Intel hardware available)

PowerMac G5:
- Dual 2.3GHz PowerPC G5
- 2GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 4x512
- 250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
- ATI Radeon 9600 w/128MB DDR SDRAM
- 16x SuperDrive double-layer (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
- Mac OS X - U.S. English
- Mac OS X Server (Unlimited-Client)
=======
$3,848

[Mac OS X Server with unlimited client accounts for $999 of the Apple price]

Dell PowerEdge 1800:
- Dual Intel® XeonT processors at 3.6GHz/2MB Cache, 800MHz FSB
- Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, Includes 25 CAL's
- 25-pack of Windows® Server 2003 Device CALs (Standard or Enterprise)
- 4GB DDR2 400MHz (2X2GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs
- Add-in SCSI card RAID 5, with SCSI Backplane, minimum 3 drives required
- PERC4eDC-PCI Express, 128MB Cache, 1-Internal 1-External Channel
- 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive
- 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive
- 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive
- 48X IDE CD-ROM
- Dell Quietkey USB Keyboard & USB 2-button Mouse
=======
$10,863

[Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition with 50 CALs accounts for $4140 of
the Dell price]

Bill

"Paul Bruneau" <paul (AT) ethicalpaul (DOT) com> wrote

In article <abadnYPkpvL359DeRVn-tA (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org says...
Thanks Bill.

Hard to call that a clear win for Windows...sure if you need the fastest
machine you can buy... go windows... otherwise... it probably doesn't
matter.

Hmmm... I'm no networking genius, but I'm pretty much almost completely
sure that you don't need the 25-pack of Windows® Server 2003 Device CALs
(Standard or Enterprise). This would be a valid requirement for users
accessing the server with authentication, but this should not at all be
necessary for using it as a data server. Remember that users are
accessing it through FileMaker Server's TCP/IP connection, not through
regular authenticated file-sharing. I've got to imagine this cuts the
price significantly.




Bill Marriott wrote:
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg (818) 883-2846
FM Pro Solutions Los Angeles, California

FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
Associate Member, FileMaker Solutions Alliance

In article <MPG.1db71cb34e88223c989d6a (AT) shawnews (DOT) vf.shawcable.net>, 42
<nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:
Pretty irrelevant since Apple is moving to Intel chips (which is
probably why the benchmarks were released).

Once you get an Intel Mac comparing the two will mean more and will let
the underlaying hard drive speed, BUS speed, etc. show through.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

That's exactly right, Harry... could be a last-minute jab at Motorola,
especially if they should release a third set of results that show the
MacIntel outperforming both!

I asked the kind folks at the "microsoft.public.windows.server.general"
newsgroup about the CAL/licensing issue. I'll let everyone know what they
tell me. Microsoft's web site doesn't address this issue "for some reason."

Whatever happened to FileMaker Server running on Linux?

Bill

"Helpful Harry" <helpful_harry (AT) nom (DOT) de.plume.com> wrote

Paul Bruneau wrote:

Not only FM
As a photographer some years ago I noticed already a big difference to
camera capture software either from which brand. PC runs much faster.


--
Vr.groet - regards, Léon Obers

Reacties per mail, vervang "invalid" door "cc" in het adres.
Reactions by mail, exchange "invalid" by "cc" within address.