Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: macbuyersguide.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to macbuyersguide.com.

Comments · 9

  1. Re:Let's get rid of sendmail too by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · · Score: 1 · on Apple Switches tcsh for bash

    Both the Mac OS X 10.3 Server and Mac OS X 10.3 replace Sendmail with Postfix.

  2. Panther / Mac OS X 10.3 (11?) will use Postfix by tm2b · · Score: 4, Informative · on Postfix: A Secure and Easy-to-Use MTA

    Just as a heads up to Mac users... the next major revision of Mac OS X, Panther, will be changing from Sendmail to Postfix. So if you use Mac OS X, you don't need to do anything special other than buy Panther when it becomes available.

    Personally, that's what is pushing me over the edge to learn Postfix and use it on my OpenBSD servers. In a nostalgic way, it's too bad... I once made some seriously good money writing custom sendmail.cf files on a consulting basis.

  3. Re:Yay! by yomegaman · · Score: 1 · on Apple Marketing Hypes New PowerMacs

    Where are you getting the numbers (which you didn't bother to quote)? A quick google for the first thing that looked promising turned up this page, which states:

    Based on information supplied by IBM, a PPC 970 running at 1.8 GHz is estimated at:
    SPECfp - 1051
    SPECint - 937

    For comparison, 3.06GHz Pentium4 scores roughly:
    SPECfp - 1077
    SPECint - 1099

    So much for "trashing" the P4...

  4. Re:Insane speed! by Glock27 · · Score: 1 · on Apple Marketing Hypes New PowerMacs
    The x86 Photoshop filters weren't even using SIMD or other equivalent technologies.

    What makes you think this? Many of the x86 Photoshop filters use SSE/SSE2.

    So again, lets see how REAL applications run on these machines and lets see the sticker price.

    From an article at macbuyersguide.com:

    SPECfp and SPECint are based on real user applications. These benchmarks measure the performance of the processor, memory and compiler on the tested system. They are the most widely used benchmark suites for microprocessor performance.

    Based on information supplied by IBM, a PPC 970 running at 1.8 GHz is estimated at:
    SPECfp - 1051
    SPECint - 937

    For comparison, 3.06GHz Pentium4 scores roughly:
    SPECfp - 1077
    SPECint - 1099

    These new PowerMacs should be very competitive with the fastest Intel boxes, and right in line with Opteron.

    It's very interesting seeing Apple and AMD both outpace Intel with faster, more affordable 64-bit systems. I'm going to budget a new Mac within three months.

  5. Re:competitive, sure... by bedizened · · Score: 1 · on More on the PowerPC 970
    I came upon this article, "PPC 970: is it enough?", when looking into the 970 a while ago, which looks at the performance of the chip using SPECfp and SPECint tests. There are a few similar articles on the web as well. It goes through a bit of performance testing, but here's the spoiler:
    ... if the PowerPC 74xx/75xx running at 1GHz roughly equals the performance of a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4, a PowerPC 970 at 1GHz equals a 2 GHz Pentium 4.
    This means, a 1.8 GHz 970 would compare to a 3.6 GHz PIV, putting the two chips on very close to the the same standing when the 970 is released.

    Of course, it appears that the tests do not look at the Altivec optimized code, which could make a huge difference, especially considering just how much Altivec (or "velocity engine") code has been integrated into Apple software.

    The chip could still be quite impressive, especially compared with the g4 ... I was a little disappointed, though, being under the impression that it would blow everything else out of the water, when in reality, all the 970 does is compete favorably.

  6. Re:Stolen, but insightful. by Glock27 · · Score: 1 · on Intel's Itanium Will Get x86 Emulation
    One last link for you to check out. This person basically agrees with my position, and marshals a lot of evidence to support his views:

    Mac OS on x86... or PowerPC 970?

  7. WiebeTech has 1394b too by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Informative · on Slashback: Embed, Dougal, FireWire
    Here are articles about WiebeTech's announcement of 1394b support:

    WiebeTech also now supports ATA-6 (large IDE drives) in its FireWire bridge product line.

    (WiebeTech is my consulting client. I did the firmware and user interface for FireWire Encrypt).

  8. Reminds me of the original iMac. by alernon · · Score: 1 · on Handspring Hides Flash ROM in Handspring Treo
    Remember when the original iMac (bondi blue) came with a infrared port on the front and a mezzanine port hidden inside (PCI varient)

    from the article:

    "At the time of its release, Apple wouldn't say what -- if anything -- an unlabeled "Bondi blue" port cover on the right side of the Revision A and B machines might be for. As it turns out, the closed architecture design of the iMac hides a 160-pin connector clearly labeled "MEZZANINE" on the motherboard. This connector is basically a sort of PCI variant (PCI is known as a "mezzanine bus.") Although Apple says the connector says the connector is for internal development only and shouldn't be used, a few third-party companies supplied expansion connectors for Voodoo2 video cards and other expansion options. Some postulated that this bus could someday provide a connector for a video capture system, based on hardware designed to support the "Final Cut" video editing software that Apple bought from Macromedia, but Apple discontinued the mezzanine bus and infrared port on Rev. C and later iMac models."

    These were included in the iMac, but apple issued warnings to third party developers to *not* develop peripherals that used these ports, and a couple of revisions later they were dropped.

    I'm guessing things like this happen when developers are still in the process of 'tweaking' their designs. Although the flash is more integral than a couple of ports maybe it will be dropped in later revisions of the treo?

  9. FireWire vs. USB 2.0 (resources) by webword · · Score: 5 · on FireWire For Windows XP, But No USB 2.0

    USB 2.0 versus FireWire (MacCentral Online) -- Solid article. Check it out.

    Face-off between USB and FireWire Flash Card readers -- "Translation: Do NOT expect the gap between FireWire and USB readers to close when USB 2.0 readers start shipping. Do expect FireWire to be updated soon to achieve 800Mbit/sec... possibly 1600Mbit/sec, Moral: Use FireWire any time the device can handle the speed." (Somewhat useful.)

    Will USB or FireWire connect with consumers (CNET) -- "In the end, FireWire may take the lead for storage devices, scanners, video cameras and consumer electronic devices, while USB continues to dominate mice, keyboards and other peripherals." (Comments: Some fluff, but useful.)

    USB 2.0 versus 1394 (Japanese) -- I don't read Japanese, but this is an article comparing USB 2.0 and 1394 . . .

    Tom's Hardware Comparison (via Google) -- "In the FireWire versus USB debate, currently it is no contest. USB is cheap and well suited for inexpensive devices like keyboards and mice, while IEEE1394 is far, far faster, more user friendly and a bit more robust, but is also a little more expensive to implement."

    SCSI versus IDE, FireWire, USB, etc. (Mac Buyer's Guide) -- "Indeed, Apple specifically recommends against FireWire drives, for use with its high-end video editor, Final Cut Pro." (Comments: Other interesting stuff is in this article. Check it out.)