Slashdot Mirror
Domain: digitalvideoediting.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to digitalvideoediting.com.
Comments · 69
-
Re:18.3 Gigaflops!
Um. I'm no expert, but to me that sounds like any cache-resident vector function, like a 5x5 convolve or something. You take a small performance hit when you have to load the next cache line, but if you're lucky your pipeline is deep enough to keep the processor units going while that fetch happens.
Sorry, but I happen to be an expert on these things, and those 18 Gflops are just a theoretical peak of perfectly combined multiply-add operations in the vector unit. As soon as you can't match an add and a multiply your performance would drop in half. More important - that's the THEORETICAL peak. You will never see anything close to it in practice. Apple's own version of FFT performs at 1-2 gflops.
And the vector unit can't even do double precision, which is kind of important in science. For a double precision FFT the performance is LESS THAN HALF that of a current Athlon CPU.
And yet Apple still gets hell for using Photoshop as their metric.
Nobody is blaming Apple for using Photoshop. The problem is that they don't provide any details. In practice, it looks like they are only testing 3 or 4 filters that are heavily Altivec-optimized, so it is not typical for Photoshop performace. When third parties perform benchmarks based on a large set of Photoshop actions, the Apple machines are
much slower than current x86 offerings.
-
MOTOROLA-Power PC is a deprecated Processor.PERIOD END. Any moderators who mark this troll are show fascist totalitarian bias, will not look at the facts below, and are elitists who ignore facts to delude themselves another day further. Motorola PPC is DEAD.
Apple Zealot Alarm. All Points Bulletin.
You stupid zealot man-bitch. The only reason I might halfway believe your lying bullshit zealot plug for OS -SHIT X is that Motorola PPCs are so fucking slow they need a custom JVM. I would buy OS X to support Unix on the desktop, but dipshit Apple is still fucking off with gay lame shit mongoloid-tard PPCs. And fuck Altivec, you fucking zealots - check out the SPEC CPU2000 int and fp for the MOT-G4 - oh, wait, pussy Apple wont even publish them! HAHAHA. I have a G4. It was given to me for free. I gave it back to the owner because it sucked. Apple's stupid shit user base is still 80% on native classic. OS 9,8,7 whatever you want to call it is such fucking shit it bends the fabric of space and time. Apple's Xserve is a piece of shit, half the speed of a P4, twice the price, no ECC or SCSI. Dell 1650 and 2650 blow the doors of that shit. Even a P3-1400/512 beats a G4-1000. Look it up slut. Its in the SPEC marks, its on Digital Video Editing's site. Like Adobe says, Evidence that APPLE sucks balls is "everywhere you look."These are the best CINT2000-base and CFP2000-base results for various CPUs.
And here it is, the Apple's losing HORRIBLY to the PC in benchmarks where AltiVec is supposed to save the day
Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4-1000MHz 306/187
And here we go again, a fucking Dual MAC G4-1000 getting its fucking ass kicked hard by a single Dell P4 2.5GHz. Where your Altivec now, fuckheads?
An easy way to see if people say the truth or not when they speak about the respective speeds of their CPUs. I like to see what people say, and compare that to SPECCPU2000 results. The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine...
So, I guess that the only CPUs worth considering are Intel's. The Pentium4 rocks (I'm dreaming of buying a dual-Xeon 2200 MHz, but I'm not sure I want to afford the $2000 that such a beast costs). Itanium looks very promising, especially with an incredible FPU power (if you want numbers, well, how about 645 points on last year's hardware?).
-
MOTOROLA-Power PC is a deprecated Processor.PERIOD END. Any moderators who mark this troll are show fascist totalitarian bias, will not look at the facts below, and are elitists who ignore facts to delude themselves another day further. Motorola PPC is DEAD.
Apple Zealot Alarm. All Points Bulletin.
You stupid zealot man-bitch. The only reason I might halfway believe your lying bullshit zealot plug for OS -SHIT X is that Motorola PPCs are so fucking slow they need a custom JVM. I would buy OS X to support Unix on the desktop, but dipshit Apple is still fucking off with gay lame shit mongoloid-tard PPCs. And fuck Altivec, you fucking zealots - check out the SPEC CPU2000 int and fp for the MOT-G4 - oh, wait, pussy Apple wont even publish them! HAHAHA. I have a G4. It was given to me for free. I gave it back to the owner because it sucked. Apple's stupid shit user base is still 80% on native classic. OS 9,8,7 whatever you want to call it is such fucking shit it bends the fabric of space and time. Apple's Xserve is a piece of shit, half the speed of a P4, twice the price, no ECC or SCSI. Dell 1650 and 2650 blow the doors of that shit. Even a P3-1400/512 beats a G4-1000. Look it up slut. Its in the SPEC marks, its on Digital Video Editing's site. Like Adobe says, Evidence that APPLE sucks balls is "everywhere you look."These are the best CINT2000-base and CFP2000-base results for various CPUs.
And here it is, the Apple's losing HORRIBLY to the PC in benchmarks where AltiVec is supposed to save the day
Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4-1000MHz 306/187
And here we go again, a fucking Dual MAC G4-1000 getting its fucking ass kicked hard by a single Dell P4 2.5GHz. Where your Altivec now, fuckheads?
An easy way to see if people say the truth or not when they speak about the respective speeds of their CPUs. I like to see what people say, and compare that to SPECCPU2000 results. The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine...
So, I guess that the only CPUs worth considering are Intel's. The Pentium4 rocks (I'm dreaming of buying a dual-Xeon 2200 MHz, but I'm not sure I want to afford the $2000 that such a beast costs). Itanium looks very promising, especially with an incredible FPU power (if you want numbers, well, how about 645 points on last year's hardware?).
-
Re:The Mac OS X JVM has this alreadyNo, the Mac OS X JVM does not have "this." Apple Zealot Alarm. All Points Bulletin.
You stupid zealot man-bitch. The only reason I might halfway believe your lying bullshit zealot plug for OS -SHIT X is that Motorola PPCs are so fucking slow they need a custom JVM. I would buy OS X to support Unix on the desktop, but dipshit Apple is still fucking off with gay lame shit mongoloid-tard PPCs. And fuck Altivec, you fucking zealots - check out the SPEC CPU2000 int and fp for the MOT-G4 - oh, wait, pussy Apple wont even publish them! HAHAHA. I have a G4. It was given to me for free. I gave it back to the owner because it sucked. Apple's stupid shit user base is still 80% on native classic. OS 9,8,7 whatever you want to call it is such fucking shit it bends the fabric of space and time. Apple's Xserve is a piece of shit, half the speed of a P4, twice the price, no ECC or SCSI. Dell 1650 and 2650 blow the doors of that shit. Even a P3-1400/512 beats a G4-1000. Look it up slut. Its in the SPEC marks, its on Digital Video Editing's site. Like Adobe says, Evidence that APPLE sucks balls is "everywhere you look."These are the best CINT2000-base and CFP2000-base results for various CPUs.
And here it is, the Apple's losing HORRIBLY to the PC in benchmarks where AltiVec is supposed to save the day
Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4-1000MHz 306/187
And here we go again, a fucking Dual MAC G4-1000 getting its fucking ass kicked hard by a single Dell P4 2.5GHz. Where your Altivec now, fuckheads?
An easy way to see if people say the truth or not when they speak about the respective speeds of their CPUs. I like to see what people say, and compare that to SPECCPU2000 results. The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine...
So, I guess that the only CPUs worth considering are Intel's. The Pentium4 rocks (I'm dreaming of buying a dual-Xeon 2200 MHz, but I'm not sure I want to afford the $2000 that such a beast costs). Itanium looks very promising, especially with an incredible FPU power (if you want numbers, well, how about 645 points on last year's hardware?).
-
Re:The Mac OS X JVM has this alreadyNo, the Mac OS X JVM does not have "this." Apple Zealot Alarm. All Points Bulletin.
You stupid zealot man-bitch. The only reason I might halfway believe your lying bullshit zealot plug for OS -SHIT X is that Motorola PPCs are so fucking slow they need a custom JVM. I would buy OS X to support Unix on the desktop, but dipshit Apple is still fucking off with gay lame shit mongoloid-tard PPCs. And fuck Altivec, you fucking zealots - check out the SPEC CPU2000 int and fp for the MOT-G4 - oh, wait, pussy Apple wont even publish them! HAHAHA. I have a G4. It was given to me for free. I gave it back to the owner because it sucked. Apple's stupid shit user base is still 80% on native classic. OS 9,8,7 whatever you want to call it is such fucking shit it bends the fabric of space and time. Apple's Xserve is a piece of shit, half the speed of a P4, twice the price, no ECC or SCSI. Dell 1650 and 2650 blow the doors of that shit. Even a P3-1400/512 beats a G4-1000. Look it up slut. Its in the SPEC marks, its on Digital Video Editing's site. Like Adobe says, Evidence that APPLE sucks balls is "everywhere you look."These are the best CINT2000-base and CFP2000-base results for various CPUs.
And here it is, the Apple's losing HORRIBLY to the PC in benchmarks where AltiVec is supposed to save the day
Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4-1000MHz 306/187
And here we go again, a fucking Dual MAC G4-1000 getting its fucking ass kicked hard by a single Dell P4 2.5GHz. Where your Altivec now, fuckheads?
An easy way to see if people say the truth or not when they speak about the respective speeds of their CPUs. I like to see what people say, and compare that to SPECCPU2000 results. The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine...
So, I guess that the only CPUs worth considering are Intel's. The Pentium4 rocks (I'm dreaming of buying a dual-Xeon 2200 MHz, but I'm not sure I want to afford the $2000 that such a beast costs). Itanium looks very promising, especially with an incredible FPU power (if you want numbers, well, how about 645 points on last year's hardware?).
-
Re:"Performance Boost" a result of the MHz myth?
funny...a performance boost might refer to render times...i've seen measures of dual P4s, dual AMD MPs, and dual 1 ghz g4s in a comparison test of adobe photoshop 7 and premiere 6...and the P4s and MPs blow away the dual g4s. here...
So there appears to be a performance benefit from switching over...at least as far as rendering goes. -
Re:Hey SPEC marks done lieOh, it may be "inefficient", but the P4 northwoods sure clean up on the fucking SPEC marks. HAHAHA. The g4 sucks so much dick at them. I've run lots OSs on lots of hardware, and by far the Mot-PPC is the worst piece of shit. You SUCK.
You fucking Altivec ZEALOT loon tune.
The SpecCPU2000 says it all. apple never submits ebcause Altivec or not, they SUCK SHIT.
Stop being a fucking fool who ignores a fact, the sky is blue, the G4 is slow. PISS OFF.Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
The dual G4 gets its ASS KICKED in benchmakrs by a Single P4-2.5Ghz. HAHAHAHA.
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4 1000MHz: 306 / 187
The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine... Eugenia Loli is a fat pig fascist bitch -
Re:"Performance Boost" a result of the MHz myth?You fucking Altivec ZEALOT loon tune.
The SpecCPU2000 says it all. apple never submits ebcause Altivec or not, they SUCK SHIT.
Stop being a fucking fool who ignores a fact, the sky is blue, the G4 is slow. PISS OFF.Athlon XP 1800MHz ("2200+") : 738 / 624
The dual G4 gets its ASS KICKED in benchmakrs by a Single P4-2.5Ghz. HAHAHAHA.
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4 1000MHz: 306 / 187
The differences are sometimes very surprising. Well, are they so surprising? Let's have a look at the 3 major "vendors" of CPUs systems, Intel, AMD and... Apple (because Motorola doesn't seem to gloat about the performance on the PowerPC G4, only Apple does).
AMD has recently released their new Athlon XP 2200+. Is it really faster than a 2200 MHz CPU? On integer stuff, the AthlonXP is good for 738 points. The funny thing is, a Pentium4 at a mere 2GHz scores the same 738 points. Oh, yes, I know, that's because AMD has a superior floating-point performance. Sure. CFP2000, AthlonXP goes as high as 624 points. And the poor little Pentium4 at 2GHz with its slow FPU only gets 744 points. Please read that again. So, how much floating-point power is there in an Athlon XP 2200+ running at 1800 MHz? Well, about as much as in a Pentium4 running at 1600MHz. Man I wouldn't want to have just read that if I was an AMD zealot, that's gotta hurt.
Don't worry, my AMD friend, your CPU performs more than adequately. Wait until I talk about the "super-computer" G4 that is used by Apple.
G4 1000MHz: 306 points in integer. Just like a PIII at 667MHz. But, as you all know, The G4 is extremely good in floating point, capable of doing billion operations per second. G4 1000 MHz: 187 point in floating point. That's the level of a PIII at 500MHz. Oh my God, if I overclock three-year-old my dual-PIII from 450 to 504 MHz (where it is perfectly stable), I get as much FPU power as a top-of-the-line Mac. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I just feel sad for all the people who fall in for Apple's propaganda. If a Mac can do all that a "Wintel" PC can do (yeah, right), well, it'll be doing it much much much much slower.
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
A few comments before people flame me. Or maybe a few comments that'll cause people to flame me...
I picked the baseline results over the peak results. Because I only had baseline results for the G4, and because I think that they are more realistic to show real-world speed: if you're a developer, just use the same compiler flags as Intel, Dell or AMD used, they are published in the benchmark report.
The fact that the G4 benchmarks come from a magazine and are not official results. I would normally have put a disclaimer about that. Well, if you're not happy about the results, please go and put some pressure on Apple to publish official results. I monitor the SPEC results on a regular basis, and I'll be more than happy to take any official results into account.
Some zealots will say that the G4 can do better than that because gcc doesn't use Altivec. Well, now, it's not my fault if you don't have a decent compiler, is it? Do you think that someone with a mind would go spend some time hand-optimizing his/her code in assembly for a CPU that only has a few percent of market share? Imagine a team of 30 engineers trying to release an application simultaneously for Windows and MacOS. 28 engineers write the portable core of the application (and they all develop on Windows with Visual C++ and Purify), 1 engineer is responsible for the Windows adaptation layer and Windows optimization (like, tweak the compile flags for the intel compiler), 1 engineer is responsible for the MacOS adaptation layer, MacOS-specific issues and MacOS optimization (like, deal with a compiler that doesn't support the Visual C++ extensions, deal with a CPU that orders bytes differently, deal with an OS that'll do some things differently, like not have drive letters, use slashes instead of backslashes as a file separator, not support MDI, put the menubar at that top of the screen, and when there's a little bit of time left, re-write in assembly a routine that the original programmer will modify so much before the release date that it'll have to be re-written in assembly 5 times in the coming year). I wouldn't want to be the MacOS guy.
Oh yeah, I've also read that running SPEC benchmarks for PowerPC was unfair because the benchmarks are x86-specific. Well, I guess that the same benchmarks are also unfair for HP-PA CPUs, Itaniums, Sparcs, MIPS, Alphas, POWER... which all manage to beat the G4. The only reason why they're "unfair" for PowerPC is that those benchmarks are written in C, C++ and Fortran, and that the measure as much the compiler as the CPU. Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad SPEC results. Guess what? Got a sucky compiler? You'll get bad results on everything but the 3 routines that Apple will optimize by hand to make Altivec shine... Eugenia Loli is a fat pig fascist bitch
-
Re:After paying over $2000
"the CPU problem lies with Motorola"
You admit there is a problem. Motorola/Apple.. who gives a damn. you are the one who is paying for obsolete hardware, fool.
Not like your G4 has a zif socket so you can upgrade the CPU when apple gets over their "problem".
Why pay good money for something you KNOW has a serious flaw.
"I bought a Ferrari but it has an old yugo engine in it... but it IS a Farrari"
The G4 1000 is available now:
Encore/ST G4
Pre-order now
Available August, 2002
SG4-1000-2M
$699.95
700 bucks for a processor that is as fast as a 1Ghz PIII @ $104.
You have bought into a scam. They stick an old CPU into a shiny box and you go oooooh, prettty shiny... looks so fast. Slow. Again, slow -
my commercial (i'm a gamer)
i'm a gamer. i live on first person shooters and rpgs and even the occasional platformer. i've switched from my psx2 and xbox to a nice dual powermac g4. i only have 4 games right now but i'm sure more will come to this cute candy-raver plastic toy. it's certainly better than the last apple set-top box. with all the power at such a low price, i know i made the best price in the future of gaming.
-
Re:Give it a go - Zealot Liar.
Zealot. You are a lying Zealot. I have a G3 no one wanted. I got OS 10.1.5 running. It sucks ass, and G3 are slower than pig-shit. The OS is not Unix power user friendly. Its packaging system is HORRIBLE. You don't know what you are talking about - AT ALL.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
Go here to see it G4-1000, spec INT of 306 (SPEC-CPU2000), P3-1000 spec INT of 309. Hhahaha.
Dual G4 1000 Macs are getting DESTROYED by a SINGLE P4 in benchmarks. Zealots, deny this one. http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/fea tures/cw_macvspc2.htm
"Apple CEO Steve Jobs said this week that his company would consider moving to Intel chips, but that he would wait until at least 2003 because the transition to Mac OS X was more important. But with the speed of Power PC hardware increasingly falling behind Intel's chips--The Pentium 4 will hit 3 GHz this year--Apple would be wise to do a bit of research. I recommend AMD's upcoming 64-bit Opteron, which will give Apple a technological leg up on Windows and, perhaps, offer them Windows compatibility through the Opteron's full compatibility with 32-bit x86 code. Come on, Apple: Do the right thing." Read the blurb on WinInformant. Read more for a short commentary.
"The dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we've tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind." Read the benchmarks at DigitalVideoEditing.
A quick comparison, when using the better compilers for the x86 CPUs:
Integer Results:
Athlon 1666 (2000+) : 697
P4 2200 : 790
G4 1000 : 306
PIII 667 : 310
Floating Point Results:
Athlon 1666 : 596
P4 2200 : 779
G4 1000: 187
PIII 667 : 222
For the people who argue that Altivec was not enabled. This is true, but it is also unfair.
The compiler they used, gcc 2.95.2, doesn't know how to use MMX or SSE either, and barely knows how to use the PPro floating-point instructions FCOMI and FCMOVcc.
Fuck those Mongoloid retards. Never in my life have I seen a royal fuckup as them not being able to whip MSFT ass with OS X. But they had to fuck-face try to be a hardware vendor in a world of cheap chink knockoffs (where the hardware is commoditized to the point where there is little quality variance) where even Compaq died and shriveled up. Fucking idiots.
"Will Microsoft dump Mac support? Two firms slag off each other By INQUIRER staff: Wednesday 17 July 2002, 12:22 " http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4485
"Apple profits halve in Q2 Jobs predicts flatness ahead By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 16 July 2002, 22:05 " http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4467
" "bait and switch." Apple: Apple to Unveil
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/1 7/ 1134213&mode=nested&tid=107
Zealots. He used the word "magic" and excused unethical business practice, ignore their plunging profits and growing customer dissatisfaction, their complete loss of the educations market only to have their stake in things being upheld by horn-rimmed-glass wearing elitist "artists" and "musicians" who have to make it look like if you create art or music on anything but a Mac its amateurish and unprofessional because they don't know what the fuck they are doing and are being shown up by talented/poor people with PCs.
I have *never* met a Mac user that has taught me one things about computing. Ever.
Steve Jobs is egotistical, and he chose to not take on XP head to head with OS X. Now OS X is relegated to a niche processor, once Adobe and MSFT pull the plug (notice Adobe took considerable time to get OS X versions of their stuff out the door with CALL-HOME on all their apps for the Mac) there wont be much to speak of in terms of software. If OS X was for x86, there would be sex appeal, the would make more money and the x86 would finally get an Open Firmware and a vendor with a deep respect for building the right things (an the wrong video chipsets) on the motherboards.
The Apple ][ was it for them. After that, the TRASH-80 seems like a holy crusade.
I have a G3 here beside me, and I can't upgrade the CPU officially, they wont give a 4.X firmware for it, so much for OPEN-firmware, its slow as fucking SHIT with this horribly slow clock and HALF SPEED cache, and there is no SCSI. It's a PC with a slow CPU.
I never had any intention of running MacOSX server on it. Instead I wanted to run NetBSD.
The Xserve uses Motorola 7455 processor with 2MB of L3 cache and PC2100 RAM. Unfortunately, even though this is a "server" class machine, Apple skimped and did not allow you to use ECC memory. For a datacenter machine, this seems remarkably short sighted.
While the machine is quick, it still lags behind the high-end P4 and Athlon's when it comes to doing NetBSD builds. It is slightly slower the same speed as 1.4GHz Athlon.
If you need a lot of powerpc computing in a small form factor, the Xserve is a nice box but x86 still has it beat when it comes to price/performance.
One last thing, the Xserve is exceptionally loud. Granted it is a 1U box but it is louder than other 1U I've ever heard.
After having a (single CPU) Xserve to play for the past week, I thought I'd try to interject some of my experience with it.
I have to say that the Xserve is not the first dual processor RISC 1U machine. The Alpha powered CS20 precedes by well over a year (which can have two 833MHz 21264 (EV67) cpus).
Note: The Dell 1650 and 2650 are both cheaper, the 2650 has SMT, and ECC (and nice linux
ecc support as well, it logs ECC errors in syslog). They also include onboard RAID(option
via 7899 asic) and a U160 AIC-7899 by default. And you can buy retail CPUs and retail
memory for Dells often at half the price without voiding the warranty.
Apple charges $500 per 120GB EIDE drive. HAHAHAHA.
Apple is right about one thing, that Alpha has existed for some time, but have you ever
tried actually buying an Alpha? Its hard, I know an engineer who works for
DEC->/Compaq->/HP, and I was dying to buy one, and he couldnt find anyone to call me
about getting one.
Apple's New 1U servers: Sorry. Doesn't fit well in a market where the Dell 1550/1650 and
2550 and 2650 exist. Sorry. THEY DON'T PUBLISH SPEC numbers. Apple is a dying breed, I
just recently tried to revive my interest in them only to be disappointed. The Motorola
PPC architecture is embarrassingly slow, and they always are quick to point out the
near-useless Altivec and some obscure filter in Photoshop, but its not true. I have a Mac,
several PCs and a SPARC at *home*, so trust me people, this box is a bore. And OS X and
Open ClosedROM make putting regular memory, disks and CPU upgrades NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE, they
try to block it so you have to buy the same part from them 3x the cost. And the Dell 530
Dual P4-Xeon with SMT buries the fastest Mac by almost a factor of two.
OS X is no great shakes as of yet because even though most of the porting off of Classic
has been done, there are annoying remnants of classic everywhere, including a gamut of
Apple utilities. These are notoriously the worst Administrator-unfriendly boxes in the
industry, and I have used a few boxen in my time. OS X's Darwin kernel will be sorely
eclipsed by Linux 2.6, and 2.4.X is already superior in all the ways I can tell (This isnt
to say BSD it bad, but I dont think this OS demands a PREMIUM). I tried YellowDog, Madrake
and Debian on PPC as well, and they ran (even with aggressive G3 optimizations) rather
poorly - but interestingly far faster than native OS X.
This is a dying gasp of air from a dead Unix vendor, who has had to turn themselves into a
Microsoft VAR (most popular Mac Application: Microsoft Office X).
If you have an insatiable fetish for PPC, DON'T. Wait for Hammer. Remind yourself about
SMT, and 2.8GHz clock speeds before you go pay for obsolete/deprecated silicon. And the
term RISC? Pathetic.
I happily resell our product on a 1650 and 2650. We "configured" a Mac box
because we were genuinely curious. We laughed at the final price and moved on.
This isn't a troll, or a flame - its reality. What this box does can be done with a 1650,
with redundant power supplies, with SCSI and hardware raid build ON BOARD, dual gigabit
NICs onboard, dual 1400 MHZ/512cache Tualatin (with SPEC numbers to gauge the performance
by) (2650 gets high clock Xeons), two 64bit/66Mhz slots, onboard video, console
redirection, USB, etc. And for half the price. And you can use retail Intel CPUs,(cheap),
retail hard drives (if you don't want to buy the Dell ones at a modest premium), and
retail Crucial.com memory (the same memory Dell uses for Half the price). All in all, you
get a box, for half the price, with twice the features and performance. And this is coming
from a person who doesn't even LIKE Dell. (I feel I can always build better more reliable
systems than most of the PC vendors.)
BBBBBBZT. Apple, you lost, you lost, you will always be niche because OS X isn't where it
needs to be - on an X86.
TO give a better link for you, since you will have trouble finding this on your own, I'll put you right where you need to be to see Motorola PPC chips are, well, so horrible they wont publish industry standard Specmarks.
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cpu2000. ht ml
Sorry. Apple. Steve Jobs keeps them in business but his ego is trash. I know people who work there, personally . You pay for his ego.
Ok. Publish your findings. No, I didnt think so. So its as conjective as my assertations,
which are based on my whim in addition to evideince (or lacktherof), and the reading of
the CPU Report, EE Times, etc. I'm into this industry, and unless you are a zealot, you
would know PPC is IBM now. Motorola is in the dirt.
Bzzt. I like NeXT. Ahead of its time, over priced. Darwin is useless, I have 1.4.1, its
crap. OS X is nice looking, but it is *very* easy to "piss" the system off, its
package manager is so bad compared to RPM I wont even start, and it is, as as what I
consider a *nix to be, wholly inadequate and incomplete. Next.
About being content free, thats a snarky, trollish accusation. Now why dont you use Purify
on yourself and remove all the said cruft and actually say something in Apple's defense
besides naming Mach 3.0+ (like if it was 5.0+ would it make a shit bit of difference.) I
hate zealotry.
And about computing pleasure. This isnt fafenugen or a driving experience, dude, its about
stuff WORKING, well, for the lowest cost with the cheapest parts. There is no sex appeal
in server administration.
Funny, everytime I have gone to a Mac shop they have, for as long as I can ever remember,
always, ALWAYS had NT based servers. Unilaterally.
And I saw a few Mac shops in my time in New York.
You know what, not that I like NT, but they worked more reliably (generally Compaq
servers) than the Macs did. (Mostly these days non parity memory and no SCSI anymore, its
Funny. When I run a linux or *nix or NT based server I dont have a
Ever. Maybe a PDF reader if I can't figure something out using google, a few nesgroups and
other better-than-manuals-and-man-page sources.
For those wondering why
between Office X, XP and 2002 are very inconsistent. Its MSFT playing the upgrade me to
fix problems game. For complicated layout and manuals, use Framaker or a LaTeX backended
application or something realistic.
As far as OS X being "young", I think its probably the oldest feeling Unix there
is. Old kernel, old Unix specification (I happen to like what I find in a SYS V style
Apple does not know very well how to serve people who use unix.
I gave OS X a fair shot on a G3 with 1GB of memory. Its good. I wated to use it instead of
Microsoft crap for home use, but I wouldnt switch from Win2k after that. They also block
CPU upgrade cards, which are expensive. They try to block 3rd party memory. The included
keyboard and mouse always sucks. And they try not to partition non-apple drives with Drive
Setup, which is the WORST partitioning utility, and Apple's partition maps are screwed up
and stupid, and trying to run OS X without classic is diffcult because so many fools still
have ported thier stuff to OS X.
I'll stick to PCs for home computing, and think about other vendors for servers.
IS MICROSOFT CONTEMPLATING ditching support for Apple Macs?
That's the thrust of an article that appeared on Wininfo a day or two back, but if
Microsoft is getting out of the Mac market, it's not quite yet.
And all is not well in other respects, reports Mac Rumors, which has posted what it says
is an Apple FAQ saying people will have to pay for
Microsoft has already prepared a press release to time with the Macworld Expo saying that
it has announced a Microsoft Office V.x "triple header", this being an
announcement which offers better mobility with Palm handheld for Entourage X, a way to buy
Office v.X cheaper, and some Windows compatibility with the RDC client.
The Wininfo article, however, quotes Kevin Browne, who runs the Mac Business Unit at
Microsoft as saying Apple hasn't made much of an effort to promote Mac OSX, even though
there are opportunities.
He is quoted as saying that "if things don't dramatically turn round", it might
be Goodnight Mr Chips for Steve Jobs firm.
But the same article says that Apple blames Microsoft for sales problems with Office
v.X.
Jobs and Microsoft's Bill Gates have traditionally had a somewhat strained relationship.
Is this the beginning of the beginning of the end between the two companies?
Wininfo.
Mac Rumors is providing a blow-by-blow account of what's happening at MacExpo on the site
link above - it seems Apple may well announce support for Nforce 2, too.
On the Nvidia site, here, you'll see that Digital Vibrance Control is "currently
unavailable on Mac systems", which is more than just a hint, we guess.
*JOBS KICKS off MacWorld Expo at the Javitz Center at 09:00 Eastern time. There will be a
live Webcast using Quicktime, natch, here.
This is a good start (the buying public is sending a message to Apple, how do the intend
to GROW thier market share????????)
Apple profits halve in Q2
Jobs preducts flatness ahead
By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 16 July 2002, 22:05
APPLE MADE A NET profit of $32 million for its third quarter, almost half the profit it
made in the same period last year, and turnover fell three per cent to $1.43 billion
compared to the quarter in 2001.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4467
http://docs.info.apple.com/article2.html?artnum= 60 839
TITLE Firmware Update: Firmware Updates 4.1.7 and Later May Disable Out-of-Spec Third-Party RAM Article ID: Created: Modified: 60839 4/12/01 9/28/01
Read up. Apple is trying to make it harder and harder to use "out of spec" hahahaha memory. Luckily www.crucial.com always works. But imagine, a firmware update that DISABLES YOUR MEMORY.
Apple tried to block G3 owners from upgrading to G4. Nice guys.
PowerForce G4 ZIF
The PowerForce G4 ZIF (Zero Insertion Force) is the only G4 CPU upgrade you will want to upgrade your "Beige" Power Mac G3, "G3 All-in-One" educational model, Blue and White G3's and the Yikes Motherboard Graphite G4's. The PowerForce G4 ZIF is one of the highest performance CPU products when used with "AltiVec enhanced" software. Utilizing the second generation PowerPC 7410 processor ("G4") the PowerForce G4 includes a full 1 megabyte of backside cache running at up to 220MHz.
G4 ZIF Upgrade vs. 800MHz G4 Apple: PowerForce ZIF G4 550/220/1MB Apple G4 733 Price $289 $1599
The Bottom Line: If you already have quite a bit invested in your Power Mac G3, it just makes sense to upgrade the processor rather than opting for the new G4 systems from Apple. Apple has finally eliminated all of the legacy ports with the removal of the ADB port on the new G4 systems, not to mention the removal of the serial ports, and SCSI on the Blue and White G3 systems. So the choice is clear. PowerLogix saves you hundreds of dollars over the cost of buying a new system!
PowerLogix was the first to release a solution for the G4 ROM block for Blue and White G3s.
Bruising by Apple
Roland Miller III
One notable fact concerning Apple's customer base is that it has always tested very highly in the category of brand loyalty. "Once a Mac user, always a Mac user." Apple has depended on this customer loyalty to get it through some rough times. It could always count on a portion of the market to continue to buy Apple products and continue to upgrade with Apple products. Despite (or perhaps due to) this loyalty, Apple has subjected its customers to some decidedly anti-customer abuses.
The latest example of Apple bruising its customers is a doozy. Due to shortages of the higher speed G4 processors, Apple speed reduced its entire line by 50 MHz and kept the prices the same. On top of that, Apple unilaterally cancelled all outstanding G4 orders with instructions that customers should reorder their systems. This has the net effect of increasing everyone's cost for the same system.
Needless to say, this action produced a massive and immediate customer backlash. Based on what I have seen on the net, this uproar lasted a few hours before Apple backed down and started to rejoin reality. After about a day of total confusion and rampant rumors followed by a week of small clarifications, Apple made right and reinstated all G4 orders except the high end 500 MHz model. Those customers were offered the choice of purchasing the "new" 450 MHz model at the original 450 MHz price, which is what should have been done in the first place.
While it is possible for me to see some corporate logic behind the original decision, never the less, this bright idea should not have left the meeting room where it was hatched. It doesn't take an MBA (obviously) to predict the firestorm that was touched off when this decision was implemented. The only positive thing I can see in this fiasco was the speed at which corrective steps were implemented. The corporation responded to its customer's will and proved somewhat nimble in the process.
Another recent example of Apple bruising was with AppleShare IP 6.2. Apple decided to charge several hundred dollars for this upgrade (the previous being 6.1.) The only problem was that aside from a few new features, it was mainly seen as a bug-fix and compatibility upgrade for MacOS 8.6 (which itself was a free upgrade to 8.5.1.) You couldn't run ASIP 6.1 on 8.6 and you couldn't run the upgrade on 8.5. Again, the reaction was very predictable: customer outrage. Apple listened to its customers and eventually made 6.2 a free update to 6.1.
You may have also have heard about Apple purposefully preventing G3 owners from installing G4 CPU upgrades with a firmware upgrade that officially solved another problem. People were again outraged when the rumor was confirmed by all of the CPU upgrade companies. The outrage keyed on false advertising and speculation that Apple released a Trojan horse.
There were unofficial rumors from anonymous Apple employees that this firmware block will be removed with Mac OS 9. However, there has been no official word from Apple concerning this issue. In the meantime, all the CPU upgrade companies have announced that they have gotten around the block and that their respective upgrade will work fine when they ship.
While Apple has responded favorably to two of these examples, all of these misfires do take a toll. Many people simply will not tolerate this sort of behavior from a major corporation. A company simply cannot afford to make too many of these types of decisions and still remain in business.
Ultimately what can be learned from these examples?
The perception of the "bottom-line" doesn't always coincide with the needs of the consumer resulting in corporate mistakes of judgment. Some of them can be bad enough to make the pages of the Laramie Daily Boomerang. I can't speculate on whether these bad decisions were based on stupidity or on over estimating the loyalty of AppleÕs customers or both. Apple has taken concrete steps in most of these cases to defuse the situation. As long as Apple continues to admit that it is wrong and make things right immediately, I will still tolerate being one of its customers.
Until next time. .
It wasn't meant to be a troll. And thank you for your honesty.
I gave OS X a fair shake. I have many machines at home and with Gnucleus I was able to get
just about every Mac app compiled native for OS X in existence. (Thank god I wont be
keeping any of them or buying any of them - try before you buy, people)
I have to say that the total lack of incumbent middleware is horrible with OS X. Its
barely an OS out of the box. I hate having to boot from a CD to manage anything, and its
multiboot handling is inferior. The Norton set of tools is pathetically weak for the
money. Office X is admittedly excellent. But that's it. IE was mentioned not too long ago
as rendering incorrectly and having a huge security flaw that is fixed in 5.2.1, but the
response from MSFT took much longer than they do for x86.
If OS X was ported to x86 (looks like it has) I would buy it. Period. Forget buying a PPC
ripp off machine though.
I noticed on the OS X cd there is i386 directories littering the place and Darwin
(hahahah) works on like one computer with an intel chip deep in the belly of Apple, but
they are not trying to make Darwin/X86 more appealing than ANY ANY of the other BSDs, they
all destroy Darwin in usability, even when you get Darwin from
http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/.
I came, I saw, I mastered it, I left. Its BORING.
And as far as IPFW. IPF for OpenBSD is out. and there are no decent APP-firewalls for OS X
(Firewalk sucks), Brickhouse is a joke of a GUI.
I am thinking Kerio Winroute/Personal Firewall as a base comparison. The fact nothing
analogous exists in Mac OS X land make this platform more unusable. Also, if Apple like
fit and finish on Unix, why dont they make the more complicated things useable through
GUI (like Brickhouse did for IPF). Noo, the only people Apple caters to is those who die
their hair purple and sucks on pacifier and laugh at baby rattles while they are e-tarded
from their last bout with Xtasy after the cool rave for mac zealots.
: We can forget about this because its a pipe dream and it wont ever happen and it wont ever happen because its a pipe dream.
I think its clear its a pipe dream, we can forget about it because its a pipedreamery factory pumping out pipes and dreams.
: PIPE DREAM
: openfirmware is worst
its like you get a command line
: anything apple is worse
: its poop
: of something worse than unuseable
: you can run like 10 OSes on a pc
: well even suns have openfirmware
: its not like clear why its good
: crapple is like 3 oses, tops
: alpha SRM is good
: linBIOS (pipe Dream) would be good
: repairing remote filesystems over the network isnt gay
: like a real SRM would let you do
: but not going to happen in PC LAND
: its a pipe dream
: and openfirmware, while technically correct, is CRAP
: FUCKING CRAP
: zzzz
: it is
: its all crap
: like IOS is better for a boot loader
: but crapple is the crap of the crap
: cream of the crap
: creamy pussy
: nasty dirty
: creaming crud
-
Re:Openbios might be tha ticket
Pipe dream was made by Bullet Proof.
http://screenmania.retrogames.com/nes/01/nes_0023
Pipe Dream (US) - 1990 by Bullet-Proof Software/Lucasfilm. html
Now about a fucking PC with OpenBIOS, SRM, or LinBIOS. It won't fucking happen because its a Pipe Dream; and its a Pipe Dream therefore, it won't fucking happen.
LICK MY PIPE! YOU FAGGORSANDS!
I HATE PC BIOS BUT MACS SUCK MY FUCKING COCK SO BAD and that OpenROM/OpenFirmware is arguably SHITTIER than a PC BIOS.
Fuck APPLE. BTW, the Dual G4 is getting SLAUGHTERED by a Single P4 2.5GHz. HAHAHAHA. They wont even publish SPEC/CPU2000 results HAHAHA.
Go here to see the Mac MYTH die, ZEALOT FAGS. http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/fea tures/cw_macvspc2.htm
So much for Computers with a "real man's BIOS." They are slow as fucking shit.
-
Good Price
Renders take twice as long so it should cost half as much.
-
Re:I don't know...
Apple has had the advantage in video ever since Amiga died. There are a lot of video hardware manufacturers that only make hardware for Mac because the QuickTime framework makes it so easy to do so.
That said, though, I think that this move with Shake is an indication that Apple is coming to the realization that it may not matter given the fact that Apple is currently losing the hardware race.
I'm not writing Apple off, but I think it's time to recognize that IBM/Motorola aren't supporting them. PPC, despite being superior on a clock-for-clock basis, is now so far behind on clock speed that said superiority is no longer enough. My advice would be to start porting OS X to a 64-bit arch now. Naturally, I'd love to see OS X on Hammer, and it seems like that is the more likely choice, but considering that Apple has no legacy x86 code to support, maybe Itanium would be a better choice for them?
-
Re:No, you wouldn't...
You really should try to understand the difference between "trolling" and "fact". A fact isn't necessarily something you like, it's just something that's true.
The G4 is slower than the Intel / AMD alternatives (see this test, for example), and PCs are cheaper than Macs (especially if you run Linux and thus save the "Windows tax").
Once you're inside a compositing (or animation) program, the actual operating system isn't relevant. What matters is quality and speed. If a program exists for two platforms, then its quality will be the same. So it boils down to speed (or, more precisely, the price / speed ratio, because all these programs can be set up in render farms). So the platform that gives you more "bang for the buck" will inevitably win.
Now, Apple could gain market share by killing the competition, but there's no way they can kill all the competition. Discreet rules the high-end and there's no way Apple can buy them (Autodesk is far too big). So to be competitive, Apple must either sell very cheap render nodes (the Xserve could be a step in that direction) or come up with much faster hardware (wasn't the G5 supposed to be out yet?).
Unlike 99% of people writing in this thread, I actually do work in animation and post-production, so I have some clues as to what I'm talking about. Maybe that just doesn't fit in with
Will I go from "troll" to "insightful" if I say Bill Gates is the devil...? Personally, I think those posts should be modded as redundant. Everbody knows it already.
RMN
~~~ -
What Void for Windows?
There are no shortage of video editors out there and a quick search of Sourceforge for "video editing" shows a good chunk of projects rolling along.
-
What the fuck are YOU smoking?
Hmmm, for $4K I can buy 5 dual processor AMD Servers and fit them in the same 5 Us of rack space. That's 10 CPUs (With 50% more power per CPU, 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports, 5 unit redundancy, 10 GBs of RAM and space for 2.4 TBs of HD...
In other words, about 8 times the power for the same price. Do not use price/performance logic when talking about any apple. You will always loose. Focus on how pretty they are or how slick OS X is.
Why is NASA looking for 8086 chips? Because of proven reliability. Apple is the very new kid on this block. Sun is the proven reliable and accountable adult on this block. Show respect to your betters. If you are looking for price/performance only go with AMD. If image is everything, and reliability, accountability, price and performance is nothing, go with shiny apple.
What was your point again? -
Mac beats Athlon in After Effects
Read the article here.
-
Why are the moderators so biased?
Any special reason why every post saying "Macs aren't perfect" gets modded down as troll, flamebait, or offtopic, while every post that says "Macs rule" is modded up as insightful?
There are two posts on this thread, one about a guy making DVDs on a Mac, the other about a guy making DVDs on a PC, and comparing their system specs. The post about the Mac gets a ton of "insightful" and "interesting" points. The post about the PC gets modded down as a "troll".
Even funnier is how, on a discussion about Shake (a high-end program that most people know nothing about), the few relevant posts (ie, made by people who actually use Shake) are systematically being modded down because the moderators don't like what they're saying. Get a clue, idiots, this is a place for people to discuss and get information, not your stupid propaganda and obscurity.
The main page only posts news that are nice to Apple. Apple suing some company, Apple killing software on other platforms, some Mac that scores almost-as-good as some PC on some obscure test.
There's a real-world comparison between PCs and Macs running After Effects at Digital Video Editing. I submitted that as news and I know other people have as well. Does it get posted, even on a day without any other news? No. Because the results aren't "nice" (the Mac loses). But those are the real results (even on Adobe software!), and everyone who works in high-end graphics knows that.
Macs are fine for home use, especially for people who don't know or don't care about the technical details. But they are not able to perform at the same level as PCs (Win32/Linux/FreeBSD). It's a matter of hardware. The PC market has something called competition. That means PC hardware is faster and cheaper, and there's nothing Apple can do about that until they start playing by open-market rules.
I'll probably be modded down as a troll, or flamebait, or whatever, although none of the idiots moderating have the balls to answer, because they know the truth.