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.
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?
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.
http://www.fortyoz.org/lmbench/results.txt
The G4 does ok, not great.
Can someone explain why i'd want one again?
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..
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...
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
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
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
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
----
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."
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
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
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!
"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?
[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?
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
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?
Look harder. Everything Be needed is contained within the code for Darwin. Sure, they can't actually use the code, but they could certainly find out whatever boot parameters or 'secret stuff' they needed. Obviously the LinuxPPC people (as well as those in the lengthy list I mentioned) aren't having any trouble. In fact, they've received direct assistance from Apple as well.
Be needed an excuse to abandon their PPC userbase, and Apple was convenient. If they had simply said "Sorry, the volume in the Mac market just isn't enough" I wouldn't have blamed them. The foisting of blame on a 3rd party, though, is about as lame as you can get.
Apple obviously has no intent on blocking Be, and why should they? They'd sell boxes either way, including a copy of the MacOS. Much better than having Be leave their platform.
It's like pinning a murder on someone who has absolutely no motive, and basing your opinion on the words of someone who suddenly got a major cash infusion from a 3rd party (Intel). Apple had no reason to kill BeOS/PPC.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff