Slashdot Mirror
Apple Demonstrates A Dual-G4 Power Mac
caligula writes: "Just saw this [macnn.com report]: 'Tuesday, May 17 updated 2:30 pm, top stories. During the hardware keynote of WWDC, which ended just minutes ago, Apple demonstrated a dual-processor G4 Power Mac running Mac OS X. Of note to developers is that Cocoa/Carbon applications do not need to be changed in any way to take advantage of multi-processors. Benchmark demonstrations ran roughly twice as fast on the dual-G4 system compared to the single-G4 Power Mac that was on stage. No mention was given as to when these multiprocessor G4s would ship, although it was stressed that it would not be happening any time soon but that they would definitely be out by next year's WWDC.'" JonahLee pointed out a related link on macosrumors.com, and migooch noted this slightly more informative ZDne t story. Mortals still must wait at least 'til January.
Drool...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Anyone currently using dual 604e / G3s care to comment on how well the Linux/PPC kernel handles dual Macintosh processors?
Can someone knowledgeable explain the issues behind getting a specific processor to work in tandem with itself? I've heard it said that AMD chips won't do this as well as Intel chips - is this just FUD? How different will a multiprocessor G4 be to the single processor version?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
nearware?
tcd004
Here's my Microsoft Parody, where's yours?
Will I be able to run Simple Text and Kid Pix on that?
It doesn't matter if the cup is half full or half empty. Whatever's inside it is evaporating either way.
Hopefully LinuxPPC on SMP macs will enable the Mac to perform well as a workgroup or web server. I wonder how pronounced the performance difference will be in standard desktop apps and whether it will justify what will probably an outrageous price difference.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Yup, that's the problem with a fairly closed hardware platform... there's been clone PCs for a long time, and any Joe can slap one together, but very few can build a Mac (where do I get that ROM again...).
OTOH, the hardware is something to be proud of (note my self-indulging first post). Clock-for-clock, these babys really cook (and with less heat than a lot of other chips [cough]). A great chip - I just wish I could build a system with them myself...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Ok so it's not going to be out for Xmas, but at least Apple is starting to realize that they can't just make it on the normal consumer market. Could this be a streatch before a full blown launch into the server market? I think so. An I think it's long over due.
I'll state now that I'm not a hardcore fan of any particular processor market, I'm just a hardware fan. And while this still has the smell of vaporware it still has the possibility of coming to life. With the forthcoming of OS-X and now SMP Macs I hope to eventually see some interesting new hardware/software to take advantage of this.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
i am guessing that you are not an image editor since i just spent a few hours on my PC doing what i could do in only one on my mac. i use tons of photoshop and after effects filters that take ten minutes or so on my PC that are like 30 seconds on a mac
http://www.fortyoz.org/lmbench/results.txt
The G4 does ok, not great.
Can someone explain why i'd want one again?
Insightful comment dude. I hope to see this moderated to +5. I wonder why you posted as anonymous when you are obviously the smartest person to have ever walked this glorious planet that we mortals call earth.
Joseph?
I heard that they would multitask much better in OS X, yet... that is being delayed..
Um, do you think BSD multitasks well? If the answer is 'yes' then, the answer to whether OS X will multitask well is also 'yes'.
And no, other MacOS versions didn't multitask 'well'. They multitasked differently, using a model called cooperative multitasking. Instead of the OS dolling out CPU time, the currently running process gets all the stuff the system doesn't use and it's up to that process to tell the OS that it's done with what it wanted to do. In the hands of good programmers, I find this vastly superior to pre-emptive (OS controled) multitasking, the program the user is running responds very nicely. In the hands of Microsoft, this is hell. They don't like to give up CPU time at *all*.
I believe the problem is that AMD have yet to release a memory controller with 2 CPU ports so that we can do 2-way SMP - K7 is supposed to be already to work it's just waiting for the chipset.
Sadly, because this memory controller chip will only be used for SMP systems and most systems are single CPU, this will mean that volumes on this chip will be low and it will likely cost more meaning dual motherboards will be more expensive than their Intel cousins :-(
Check out Maya for MacOS X.
Looks to me like Macintosh is (finally) taking some bold steps into the high-end 3d/production market.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Macs are great for some things. . .like running a system right out of the box, DV, and also for some kinds of developing (right, Carmack?)--gotta love/hate the closed system.
I personally use both where I work, and while I'd rather use a PC for some things, a Mac remains my choice for video editing (Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and Premiere form a competent studio), streaming (Quicktime), and graphics (Adobe).
Imagine a dual G4 for video editing and multimedia content creation! Now THAT would sell a few units--firewire built it as well.
- S
http://students.washington.edu/steve0/
steve0@u.washington.edu
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
<i>I wonder if, with MacOS X's dock, will it be possible to write applications to provide the same level of feedback as a Linux' docking app?</i><p>
A Mac user wants Mac OS to have functionality as good as Linux? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. How the times are changing..
>In the hands of good programmers, I find this vastly superior to pre-emptive (OS controled) multitasking
I'd agree (dot dot dot)... In the hands of anyone who is fallible, or doesn't fully test their code, this is a death sentence. Don't get me wrong, I wish it was that simple, but a good rule of programming (especially for lower-level OS design) is the same as when driving a car: Assume everyone else on the road (system) is an idiot. You usually end up being right, and you should never depend on anyone slowing down so that you can merge (or take control of your own OS back).
As Homer put is so eloquently "...in theory... Communism works - in THEORY."
Perfecly ideal worlds are hard to come by.
(note that I am in now way stating my opinions for or against communism, democracy, totalitarian oligarchy or any other form of government...)[/lame disclaimer]
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Just how I see it. =^)
(and this is my first post).
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
[Score:-25 ; Shameless Self-promotion]
/. record?
>Tower wins with a First Post plus a first B post.
>Is this a
Gee, I hope so - I've always wanted to win something. I was really hoping for the Pwerball or Big Game, but I'll take a few negative karma points instead.
I'd like to thank the people who made this possible...[random blathering, contributing to the 'N' in S/N...]...
Thank you.
(for some reason, I feel guilty writing that last bit... (where is good old Don Knotts?))
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I love my Mac, but the multitasking is shite these days.
.001% difference in peak speed. Preemptive multitasking is poor when done by Microsoft, but don't blame the technique, blame the implementors. I find my Linux box to be much more responsive under heavy load than my Mac, although the UI makes me cry.
It was good for when they were still 8MHz 68000, and it's true that preemptive multitasking is, in theory, marginally slower. However, that difference in speed is insignificant these days; we're talking like a
I will be dancing in the streets when full preemptive multitasking appears in MacOS.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Back in the day ('95-96 or so) there were dual-604e Macs and quad-604e Mac clones that ran Photoshop like nobody's bidness. The G4 was designed from the beginning (unlike the G3) to accept up to 4-way cache-coherency, IIRC. Four G4 cores on a single die were considered quite feasible when Motorola rolled out the design. Mmmmmm...four-way processing....[hrragglhh]
Hmmm. Could Apple be the first company to introduce a MP laptop?
(Or has somebody already done so?)
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
---
(where do I get that ROM again...).
---
You download it.
Some time back, Apple moved the ROM out of hardware and into software.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Project appleseed does this. More info can be found at http://www.apple.com/education/hed/aua0101/applese ed/
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
ah... missed that one 8^)
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
PowerLogix Announces First Dual G4 Upgrade Card
The advantages of the Apple machine are that it will run with a faster system bus and faster memory than an 8500 that has been upgraded with one of these cards, which has to access main memory at the same speed as the conventional 604 does in the original machine.
The advantage of the upgrade card is that you can run it with older system software - note that when Apple releases new machines, usually they require the latest system to run them so they're not a lot of help to developers wanting to maintain application compatibility with old systems.
And what's really cool is that it's possible that the BeOS will run on the cards, and BeOS applications and the whole BeOS system are pervasively multithreaded and so should take great advantage of these cards.
Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines. This is not a problem for an upgraded 8500 and in fact many people are currently using 8500's with G3 upgrade cards.
You can be sure Linux will work on the cards because PowerLogix includes a copy of LinuxPPC with each card they ship.
Sadly, a Be employee who bought a PowerLogix card for his Power Computing home machine found that it didn't work to run the BeOS - he's very happy with it on the MacOS. Many other G3 cards do work with the BeOS though.
I have very enthusiastically urged PowerLogix to support the BeOS in their cards and offered to beta test for them on my 8500.
They also have a USB/Firewire card that allows older mac owners to take advantage of all those spiffy peripherals and video editing software that's available for the new machines. I'm waiting until the dual G4 ships to purchase an upgrade but I'll be getting the rapidfire card so I can use an HP Deskjet USB printer on my mac.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I'm sure BMRT will be able to work on OS X.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
They list the compiler and all of the optimization flags, and the change in flags between base and peak for all runs...
The SPEC tests are great for requiring documentation, no doubt about it. And the base runs do allow a lot fewer compiler optimizations than the peak runs.
However, the base rules still allow running the suite, analyzing the data for optimization purposes, and recompiling for the "real" run. On all current architectures (that I can think of), this is not such a big deal. This is because branch prediction is handled by the CPU, not the compiler. On Itanium--where the ISA includes branch prediction "hints"--this means that Intel can run the suite once, find and record every branch taken, and then run it again having told the chip exactly which branches will be taken, always. No branch mispredictions at all. (If I understand correctly; in any case, there are certainly unfairly few with this technique.) And this is allowed under SPEC "base"!
Anyways, SPEC is a suspect benchmark in any case. The UltraSPARC has always underperformed the Alpha on SPEC, and yet does much better in the marketplace. Much of this is due to marketing, of course, but the fact is that a good SPEC performer does not necessarily make a good server, nor does it necessarily make a good consumer/enthusiast box.
Well said.
I don't mean to bait flames, but I don't understand why anyone would waste their money on a mac.
For $3499 you can get a Mac G4 500MHz with 256MB SDRAM, 27GB HDD, DVD, 8MB Rage Pro 129 (ug!!!) Zip drive, but No Monitor and No Modem.
Or for the same amount you can get a PC system with a 1000MHz Proc, 128MB RDRAM, 32MB GeForce (woohoo!) 30GB drive, DVD, CD-RW, SB Live, Speakers, and 19" Monitor. Plus other shit like an office suite. (quoted from DELL, but prices are about the same all around).
The only selling point for their mac is their OLD user interface. Every good graphics app you can get for the PC. They are surviving on hype alone.
http://overwhelmed.org
>No branch mispredictions at all.
Mommy, Intel isn't plaing nice again! 8^) But, hopefully, this does mark somewhat a rather useful advance... we'll see how everything turns out. Benchmarks aren't fair to everyone - I'll live. The idea was to point to a benchmark that attempts to be less biased than most. You win some, you lose some.
>The UltraSPARC has always underperformed the Alpha on SPEC, and yet does much better in the marketplace.
And part of it is due to the systems that are built around it. Sun's I/O is dramatically better than that of most Alpha boxes. Always has been, and given the way that Compaq has treated the Alpha... always will be. A system with great I/O (like S/390 or AS/400) will continue to be more valuable in the mass marketplace than a system which prides itself on FP performance. Lots of database transactions... hmmm, mostly integer, and a lot that doesn't involve the processor at all.
Sun says 'we power the web', DEC/Compaq say 'I think we have some resellers, and I hope *they* try to sell Alphas'. The Alpha has endured a long history of poor marketing... great R&D (until recently, but maybe that's picking up again), but horrible product placement...
Oh well...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
The best reason to get a Mac is if you prefer the look and feel of MacOS to Windows. Although MacOS X is going to be a radical change, I don't think the essential aesthetic rightness of the Mac is going to change as a result.
Certainly I find it more pleasing to work in Photoshop or Painter or any other graphics program on the Mac than to work in Windows, even though the software is basically the same. It has to do with design quality, just like a Mercedes-Benz feels better than a Chevy. The Mercedes might have the exact same statistics - speed to 60mph, quarter mile, etc - but it still feels better because it's better designed and built.
Curiously enough, my Mac has been a pretty cost-effective purchase, too. It's about three years and two generations old, and it still works well with current software. During the time I've owned it, Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000. In the PC universe, I've owned three different systems, which in total cost more than the Mac.
I'll probably replace this machine with one of the multiprocessor G4s (assuming the price isn't too ghastly, which admittedly might be a forlorn hope), and then it will go to serve another owner, or I'll use it to try Mac Linux or something. Either way, its useful lifetime is significantly longer than a PC.
I'll replace it because I enjoy the MacOS, and because I think MacOS X is going to be far superior to any version of Windows. It will be a quality multiprocessing system, unburdened by the tiresome flaws of the Windows world, but it will still run mainstream software like Photoshop and (dare I say it?) Word.
Sure, it's expensive - of course as I grow richer over the years, that's less and less important for me. And of course there's less software than for Windows, but who cares? You couldn't buy every piece of available software for either platform, anyway.
Of course the reality of it all is that I will always own multiple computers and multiple platforms. Right now, I have an old SGI workstation (currently awaiting repairs), a Windows NT 4 system, a Linux notebook, and the Mac. I use the Linux notebook for work-related stuff, and don't take it home every night. My Mac waits patiently for me, smoothly and reliably telling me that there is mainstream life in the computing world after Microsoft.
To me, that's something beyond price.
D
----
-c0y
(as if a plot were needed)
SimpleText: What, Emacs isn't simple enough for you? Its interface (under graphical systems such as X and Windows) is a knockoff of Windows's, which in turn is a knockoff of Mac OS's.
Kid Pix: Now that xfree runs on Darwin, GTK+/Glib, GNOME, and GIMP are coming very soon. GIMP is a near-Photoshop paint package (all it lacks is CMYK), yet kids love it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A dual-processor G4 is undoubtedly going to be a very fast machine. Sure, it's still vapourware but it indicates that multiprocessing can be achieved easily. This is surely the purpose of the demonstration.
Some of the commentary alluded to the following and I'd like to correct some minor points:
1. People are asserting that Linux would be better run on some other system.
A1. True. Apple is about the integration of proprietary software with specifically constructed hardware. If you want an open system then look elsewhere.
2. Assertions that Mac don't make good web/workgroup servers.
A2. This was correct in the first instance until the release of MacOS X Server around a year ago. At the time of release, a Power Macintosh G3 running Apache was the fastest Apache server available. As concerns the notion of "workgroup servers", AppleShare IP is a very good solution for small workgroups. The AFP server available on OS X is quite up to the demands of serving to hundreds (even thousands) of clients and Samba runs on OS X, too.
3. Macs don't multitask.
A3. Not strictly true. There is no protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking in MacOS X but they're quite capable of the standard time-slicing methods used when running multiple applications/services. OS X is, essentially BSD Unix and the beta is due out in a matter of months. If a platform does the job for which it was intended (and the Mac may not be the choice for you) then its cost is both justifiable and supremely irrelevant.
Mr Q. Z. D.
Systems admin, drinker, musician and all-round bastard. "Now we see the violence inherent in the sysadmin."
Note that 450 MHz G4 Macs outfitted with 256MB of RAM using the crappy old MacOS can beat the Dell system you quoted by aproximately 100% using tests run by Henry Norr. On a modern OS like Mac Ten or LinuxPPC, likely the same tests would show even more dramatic performance gains.
If the feild is leveled on those same tests and everyone has 256 MB of RAM, then the 450 G4 is only 30-50% faster. But still, that means that the G4 is potentially faster than a single processor i386 CPU at any price, even given the crappy old MacOS. That's just going to be more true with a modern OS running on that box.
And with the advent of MP G4s and Mac Ten, I think Macs may be much faster than any i386 PC of any type. granted, this will be only for certain tasks. However, those tasks are non-trivial things like web serving, video processing, graphic manipulation and perhaps even game performance. Sure, the 1000MHz CPUs will still be faster spellchecking in MS Word, but I don't think anyone cares.
-N
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
I just don't get excited anymore about Apple's overdue attempts at joining the game so damn late. 3 or 4 years ago, this would have been great, but to anyone but the Mac-Jihad, it's a big yawner and deserves a big "who (else) cares?"
The 9500/180MP was introduced August 5, 1996. Dual 180Mhz 604e; 6 PCI slots; officially supported up to 768Mb RAM, but was capable in reality of 1.5G of RAM; shipped with minimum 2G HD (not exactly small for the time); optional PC compatibility card.
The 9600/200MP shipped February 17, 1997, with similar overall specs (4G minimum HD).
Yes, you're right. Their attempt to join the game is long overdue.
--
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
I've been apple loyal since i got my first IIgs back in like 87. Since then I've gone from a 7200 to a B&W g3. Mac did multi processing back in the day with the 604 series chips, and they have been doing it on the windows side since the pentium pro's I believe. And you know what, I never really saw a huge push at any time with the market going nuts because they could get a multi-processor computer. And you know why, because the average user, the joe that buys a computer really doesn't give a rats ass, or have a need for more than one processor. And asuming the average person is the one buying computers. I find it hard to believe that a duel g4 are going to jump the sales of macs like you claim.
--Duck
Because they're *good* machines, quality all around. BTW, it's a 16MB Rage 128 Pro, not a simple 8 meg Rage 128. I know, still not top-of-the-line, but it's a functional card.
Also, why not give the PC 256 MB of memory? In my experience, a Mac is mroe fun with 128 than a PC will ever be, I get huge speedups between 128 and 256 on my PC.
Really, I can't argue with the cost. But the fact remains you are buying quality. Macs are nice machines. I'm not saying that Dells are the Festivas of the computer world, be they certainly aren't Lincolns either...
-Smitty
± 29 dB
True enough. I completely forgot the fact that NeXTStep is where the dock more or less appeared.
Linux has a lot of things, but most of its innovations come from its development paradigm rather than any one piece of technology...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
The rest of us should care for several reasons.
... for everybody.
Remember back when Apple actually innovated? The hardware was not just current, but advanced. Sadly, Apple never upgraded that hardware, at least not until 1994 and the PowerPC. Then it took until 1997 to get USB and until 1999 to get AGP. But the fact is that Apple has to get up to date before they can start actually innovating again. You can't pass a car until you actually reach it.
Apple getting on par with current offerings is the beginning. Once they get comfortable with their "new" systems, they will be free to update that hardware and innovate again. SMP Macs, while nothing new, are one more thing that's bringing Apple current. And that is just a Good Thing to have
Competition breeds gadgets. Gadgets breed less productivity. Less productivity breeds less need for Tums... =)
--
> Um, do you think BSD multitasks well?
Well, actual (free) BSDs do handle the need for multitasks, but the support for multi-procs is close to nothing. Free/BSD begins to support it (but with big bad locks) and there may be some code to run on _one_ multi-proc motherboard, somewhere, for the other BSDs. And i don't think even Mach did something interesting in that area. So, I doubt SMP support come from there.
seb.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried
If you have never used the MacOS enough to discover how functional and easy to use it is you will never understand. Sure there will probably always be a cheaper Wintel Box but I would gladly have well built, slightly behind the bleading edge systems that run a MacOS purely for the ease of getting what I need done on the system with minimal BS. The bottom line is that when you have a problem with a Wintel system, it takes an advanced user quite a while to sort it out without re-installing your system. Mac users can troubleshoot their systems with MUCH less hassle (of course this is partly due to the fact that fewer 3rd parties are breaking rules with their software on Macs as their are fewer third parties). Is its easier for the non-expert to get a highly configured system running on the Mac platform and frankly I hate wasting time trying to figure out how to get some peripheral working when I could be creating content. Thus I like MacOS. OTOH I am really looking forward to having a modern OS with the ability to configure anything the way I want it. I wonder just how easy OSX will be for the typical medium user to configure. OSX may be too much for the traditional Mac user to understand.
no sig.
I heard that they would multitask much better in OS X, yet... that is being delayed..
OS X is being delayed, but these machines aren't available yet either. The demo they just showed at the WWDC was running OS X, and it would be a good bet that these machines, when released, will require OS X.
joe
People keep saying that until MacOS X comes out, a multiprocessing machine won't be useful, however Apple recently released an updated SDK for multiprocessing development on MacOS 9, so perhaps this machine will see the light of day before the release of MacOS X next year. An announcement could even come as soon as two months from now, at Macworld New York in July.
Free Hans!
although macs are excllent at those things u mentioned..the best thing is how fast it'll run on rc5....dual g4..hm....8 mkeys? :-)
Oh, the mighty Steve has finally blessed us with dual PowerPC system. BIG F*CKING DEAL! I remember when we could get QUAD PowerPC systems and they didn't cost arm and a leg (well perhaps only an arm).
Yes, I'm pissed, the PowerPC was the only hope of giving the pathetic x86 some competition, but noo, little Steve had to have the PowerMacs all to himself...
Ugh, I need my caffine...
J.
Hmmm, Wow 1000mhz processors. Wouldn't ya know a G4 isn't meant for home???? A iMac is meant for the home people. But I'll play your game and this is what I have to say:. ................Dell . ..No 8 gigx3(scsi) . ...........None . ..............none . .........Controller Card . .............Yes* . ..Comprehensive
..............................G4...............
Proc. Speed..........500/1MB L2...............600mhz Pentium III
2nd Proc?............No..............................
RAM Type/Size.....1Gig SDRAM (4).........1GIG RDRAM (4)
HardDrives..........18Gigx3(scsi).............1
RAID......................None.................
Graphics Card.......1AGPRagePro 1PCI......1Matrox G400
RAM Size..............16&16(not cumulative) 32megs
Monitor...............15in LCD.......................15in LCD
OS.........................MacOS 9........................Win98SE
DVD/CD................DVD ROMw/Video..........DVD ROMw/video
SCSI......................Ultra SCSI card.............Internal SCSI (not addition)
Zip.......................None.................
Modem..................56k V.90........................56k V.90
IEEE1394............Yes........................
Floppy...................No....................
Service.................3year care.....................3year care
Installation...........Comprehensive...........
-----------------------------------------
Price: $8086 $8247
*denotes no other alternative, cannot remove.
all systems included keyboard, mouse, and cheapest speaker set possible
WHAT????
THE MAC IS CHEAPER???
I'll give the Wintel side this 100 more mhz, WAY better video card, and a floppy.
Is that worth $150 extra? Watch the benchmarks and a 500mhz G4 vs 600mhz PIII and the P3 gets whumped hard. Better Video Card, PC wins hands down. Floppy? Worth, what $10?
You make the choice, I tried to get a PC that supported up to 1.5Gig of RAM but the nearest they had was 2gig and that just KILLED the PC in price. You make the choice, these were matched as close as possible and I think I did a good job matching them up.
When you compare a PC to a Mac remember we can expand beyond 512megs of RAM, and we can go wireless.
Don't compare machines unless they are maxed out to their FULL potential EQUALY, that is a true test of price.
"demonstrations ran roughly twice as fast on the dual-G4 system compared to the single-G4 Power Mac"
I thought one of the basic facts about SMP is that parallel processors only give 60-70% or their total performance. So in this case the best that could be hoped for is %170 performance of a single CPU. Any ideas? Is this just another gimmick or abreviated benchmarking?
By the way - your comparison is silly since it comes down to comparing peripherla devices - otherwise in terms of architecture thay are too different to be compared and if you want to this at least be more precise:
From the website of Apple:
$3,499.00
500MHz PowerPC G4
1MB L2 cache
256MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
27GB Ultra ATA drive
Zip drive
DVD-RAM drive with DVD-Video
RAGE 128 Pro card - 16MB SDRAM
Three FireWire ports
For the same price you get the following from Dell's website:
Intel Pentium® III Processor 866 MHz
256KB L2 Cache
128MB RDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
19" Monitor
64MB DDR NVIDIA geFORCE Graphics Card
DVD-ROM
Speakers
Modem
Now some of differences you might notice:
The PC configuration seems to be more complete. The Power Mac does not ship with modem, speakers, monitor and its graphics card is may be inferior but it has:
3 Firwire ports
1 MB of L2 cache compared to just 256 KB
Zip drive
DVD RAM instead of just DVD-ROM
As for the "Every good graphics app you can get for the PC" - I really doubt that Photoshop? Illustrator, Quark, etc. perform better on the PC from DELL - you might be surprised how many times faster the G4 will be using the same graphics apps.
A hungry bear does not dance!
(I can feel the moderation now..)
Seriously, they've had dual processor machines in the past, just it seemed that the only application capable of taking advantage of it was Photoshop and some of its better written plugins. Not even the MacOS knew how to deal with the second CPU. Now BeOS on the other hand....
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
RAM Type/Size.....1Gig SDRAM (4).........1GIG RDRAM (4)i gx3(scsi)
HardDrives..........18Gigx3(scsi).............18g
OS.........................MacOS 9........................Win98SE
Wow, that's real smoov, how you put in a GIG of ram for two OS-ses which really really don't need it. (maybe for Photoshop it *could* be useful in extreme circumstances, but really...)
And wouldn't you know, 1 GIG of RDRAM would set you back more than 5000$, so well over half the cost is in the ram. If you put in a more realistic 256 MB Ram (for anything but Photoshop), then the price of the Max drops by an enormous 700 bucks while the PC drops by a mere 4200 bucks.
If you say you want to use it as a server, then why OS 9 and Win98, both of which basically are USELESS as server OS's.
(BTW, if you go to a non-DELL company, offering Gigahertz Athlons, you can even use SDRAM-modules, reducing the price of an equivalent system further).
I don't care much for OS wars and stuff, but this kind of "Manipulating the figures" is something I really dislike.
Say I wanted to make a thin server like a cobalt raq but using PowerPC chips and running Power PC Linux.
Where would I go about getting the motherboard etc? None of the regular PC outlets have anything for the PPC except iMacs.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
How is he manipulating the figures? You can go one each website and come up with the same prices. His point stands.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
OS X (aka NextStep) multitasks very well. I'm currently running OS X server on an older G4. The responsiveness of apps (and app switching) under a heavy load is quite zippy. I contrast that with my other box, a more expensive (honkin SCSI 3)NT 4 system, which at times has major brain farts trying to smoothly schedule under heavy loads. That's not to mention all of the weird things that can happen to display refresh on NT 4 under heavy load. OS X's display system is rock solid and lightning fast.
Yes, I've written some.
Yes, management wanted to ship based on how well it performed at the show.
No, I don't work for them anymore.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
[all OS 9 apps run in one virtual machine and] if one "Classic" app crashes, well, the rest can go with them
This is exactly how Windows 95 and NT run 3.1 apps, or how Wine runs Windows apps. Anything new about opening a VM for maximum compatibility?
Will I retire or break 10K?
To make GIMP easier to use, right-click a document window and left-click the dotted line at the top of the main menu. You now have a reasonably standard menubar-in-a-box.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Did it ever occur to you that there are other OSes in the world and you are free to use whichever one you wish. Some people choose to run Mac OS and Apple hardware because it is the best solution for their needs, not yours.
Don't be so damn close-minded, you're giving the other linux guys a bad name.
MacSlash: News for Mac Geeks
Well, it seems to me that the performance gain of a multi-processor system is greater with a mac than an x86 setup.
What a suprise!
Only the free version doesn't run on a PowerPC.
Be also offers PowerPC support for their BeIA internet appliance platform, which is rather intelligent considering that a powerpc is a much better choice for an embedded platform like an internet appliance (consumes less power).
See the bottom of BeIA Introduction at the bottom under hardware requirements where is says:
Processors: x86 (Pentium class or better), PowerPC (all)
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Kid pix was the software equivalent of potato cut-outs and poster paint.
Kids want to be able to scribble and stamp on a canvas that doesn't scroll. Anything more than 8 colours is overkill.
Also, emacs doesn't count because it has a "buffers" model, not a "documents" model. That's counterintuitive to a mac user. Its UI is also half-baked (try resizing, closing or moving a buffer around in the window without using the keyboard or the menus).
[flamebait] Why the fuck would you run Gnome when you have Aqua? [/flamebait]
Hands in my pocket
He's manipulating them this way :
- pick the part with the largest price differential between Mac en PIII (ie. Ram)
- add a ridiculous amount of it to the system
- quote the whole system price without nuances
the reason I call it "manipulation" is that the system presented is not a realistic system. Nobody in their right mind buys a computer outfitted with 1 Gig of memory unless it servers a very specific purpose (ie. large servers or people who have to edit really, really huge graphic files).
If you want, I could probably create the exactly opposite situation by looking for some fancy schmansy superduper Mac videocard costing 6000$ and putting that in place of the ATI Rage Pro, then claiming that the Mac was far more expensive then the PC.
I stand by the statement that this is "fudging the figures". Although the prices are technically accurate, they are extremely misleading.
I followed the link and can't find what you're referring to. I checked the FAQ page and I tried a search on "BeOS"; nothing. Could you be more specific? Perhaps a link directly to the relevant page, or a quote from it?
Apple lost my business due in large part to the fact that BeOS didn't run on the latest macs. A couple years ago when attending MacWorld I put off buying a G3 (or was it a G2? Probably a G2) because I wanted the option of playing with BeOS. I put that purchase off a long time and finally ended up getting a Windows PC (and installing various OSes on it). I've been buying WinTel boxes ever since.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Apple hijacked some incredible technology
Actually xerox management allowed Jobs to see the inner working of there GUI interface. The developers at xerox that where on the project told managment it was a bad idea, but there hands where tied. I understand the point you where making, but I think it's a disservice to apple to imply the took something with out permission.
what they took from xerox was more of an Idea. I mean the way the gui system was implemented on the Xerox machine would have cost the consumer $10,000.00 . The apple engineers took the gui Idea and hacked together some pretty good hardware in order to implement it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...................
...................
...................
However, Apple chose to entome that great chip into a closed system. That's like mumification: Unlike the PC which grows in features dynamically and inexpensively with the input of many creative people, the Mac stays the same. Very 80's looking by now in many ways.
(yes they were ahead of the game way back when. the problem is that they have not grown at the same pace as the PC.)
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
>>I just purchased an aqua colored iMac a few weeks ago and have to say I am underimpressed. My emachine was about half the cost, runs more of the software I need and has a better user interface. (Why do we have just one mouse button again? Using two to save navigation steps is too complicated?)>>
LOL! Soooo.... why did you buy it then?
emacs doesn't count because it has a "buffers" model, not a "documents" model.
They're equivalent models. Rename the "buffers" menu to "documents". For Emacs to truly fit in, however, its menubar will need to be reordered:
Eunuchs/NT Emacs: Buffers Files Tools Edit Search Help
Mac Emacs: File Edit Search Tools Documents Help
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/0 5/14/0519dronmp.html
I think it sums up pretty well lots of the posts here at /.
A hungry bear does not dance!
Good evening. I'm here because I just meta-modded the "flamebait" moderation to your post as "fair". I noticed that you claimed that your post was not flamebait, but your honest opinion. In light of that, I felt you deserved to know why I agree with the moderator here.
The reason is simple: your tone is inflammatory, and you use words that, intentionally or not, annoy other people instead of expressing your views. "So what" is an attack, "toys" is an attack, and the doubly-inclusive construct (other computers "better" AND "cheaper"; a fallacy because for any GIVEN computer, there exists an Apple machine that is EITHER better OR cheaper, and that is also true of any machine) is an attack.
Have a nice day.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
For a technical article to not report where he's gotten his benchmark data, his historical facts etc. is not just suspect, it's ludicrous.
The other thing that strikes a weird chord is the chorus of clock speed not being the same as but being strongly corelated to performance. This is a fallacy in chip design, propigated by the truth that clock speed is strongly corelated to chip performance within a chip family but outside the family, clock frequency is meaningless.
In the end, DeMone's article is no less Intel propaganda than Apple.com is Apple propaganda. I suspect many of his claims are erroneous, since they contradict statements from third party journals, but I can't contest them seriously without sources.
So there you are.
Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl