So, when you thought your stats were better (at going by clock speed in 2014), it was about stats. Once you sonned yourself, it's about "the visceral experience".
I guess that's what happens when you're a google scholar w/o any real knowledge of things, tho.
Google scholarship strikes again. Name one package that either of us can run that the other one can't. I'll wait. (sas 1 and 2).
Don't know. What's yours? If you think your additional 4 gigs of RAM (running at the same speed) is going to outperform twice as many cores, 2x the cache, and a discrete graphics card, then feel free to post it (this was your idea after all). I'll follow. We both know you aren't going to tho.
![]()
Name one package? Uh...whats the point in doing that? You'll say something obscure and I'll do the same.
Moot point.
That being said, I really do believe my computer is faster than yours.
Heres why:
Windows architecture of the software (unless you're running some freak desktop) is rarely optimized to associate with the hardware components as well as Apple does.
When you're making some generic shyt and trying to apply it across a vasty array of hardware requirements...results will (and as we see do) vary.
yeah apple computers have the best resale value, dont know what it is about these computers that people go crazy over. I sold my 2006 or 2007 MBP 17" for like 600 2 years ago. It had 2 GB of ram
your a OSX rookie brehthese windows shouldn't be this big and you can take snapshots of windows
when your preparing to take a snapshot, press space. So command-space-4, then space
i've been on OS X since 2005.
and my SS are so big because.....ITS A RETINA SCREEN
and its SHIFT + CMD + 4

at going by clock speed in 2014), it was about stats. Once you sonned yourself, it's about "the visceral experience". 


these windows shouldn't be this big and you can take snapshots of windows







You wouldn't.