Slashdot Mirror
Preliminary OS X & PPC 970 Benchmarks
Dixie_Flatline writes "Macbidouille.com is reporting that they have
preliminary benchmarks involving PPC970 hardware. The results are seriously impressive. We're looking at a single processor PPC 970 1.4GHz machine quite strikingly outperforming a dual G4 1.42GHz machine. Don't worry, there's an English translation embedded in the page so you don't have to try to muddle through the French." Update: 05/05 19:58 GMT by T : Thanks to Eric from macbidouille.com, above link updated to a static page; hopefully you'll get better response this way.
It seems the benchmarks they ran all favour SIMD FPU performance. I'd be much more interested in integer (and integer-SIMD) performance, as this is used much more in mainstream video and audio compression work.
How does it compare to the AMD/Intel/Via processor families?
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
You got a little quickness in you, don'tcha?
Why do people spend time trying to do the "first post" thing? Is it a personal ego-boost? Or are there people out there that actually care? Posting as an AC, you even remove our ability to send you any personal congratulations, a glazed ham, or stinky excrement wrapped in old socks.
myselfmusic
As I bitch about buying a G4 less than a month ago.... I shoulda waited.
Remember that MacBidouille has a history of inaccurate rumors... remember their AMD rumor earlier this year. Check out their rating at www.macrumors.com
Merci de votre patience et de votre compréhension.
,mémoire centrale. La carte mère Mach 64 est optimisée au maximum pour l'usage de la DDR-SDRAM.- Le PPC 970 ne perd en aucun cas du temps en exécutant des applications 32 Bits.
:
Vous allez comprendre en lisant ces tests pourquoi il nous était impossible de les publier avant. Maintenant que nous avons appris que les ventes de G4 pro sont anémiques, la publication de ces tests ne risque plus d'avoir d'incidence sur le marché. Cette publication ne fera plus qu'une chose, inciter les MacUsers qui passent au PC en désespoir de cause à attendre pour acheter un Mac.
[By reading these benchmarks you'll understand that we couldn't publish them before.
Now we know that PM G4 sells are stuck at a very low level, the following test results won't have much incidence. It will however make the ones switching to PC wait for the next generation of Power Macs.]
Ces premiers tests datent de mi Mars 2003. Ils ont été réalisés sur un modèle de présérie à 1,4 GHz. Le système était une Alpha de Panther en version 7B5 et 7B8 optimisée 64 Bits mais les applications testées étaient en 32 Bits.
[The first benchmarks were done during March 2003 on a preview model running at 1.4 GHz. OS was an alpha version 7B5 and 7B8 of Panther, optimised for 64 bits processor, but the applications tested were only using 32 bits.]
Sous Photoshop, le PPC 970 Mono 1,4 est 87% plus rapide qu'un Dual G4 1,42 GHz.
Sous Final Cut Pro, le PPC 970 Mono 1,4 est 112% plus rapide qu'un Dual G4 1,42 GHz.
Sous Alias|Wavefront Maya Render, le PPC 970 Mono 1,4 est 254% plus rapide qu'un Dual G4 1,42 GHz.
[Photoshop : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 87% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz Final Cut Pro : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 112% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz Alias|Wavefront Maya Render : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 254% faster than a Dual 1.42 GHz]
Cette seconde série de tests a été réalisée sur des machines sorties de l'usine et donc identiques à celles qui seront en vente. Notez qu'il n'y a pas encore de certitude sur la mise en vente du modèle haut de gamme Dual 2.0 GHz, car la disponibilité en volume suffisants de ces puces n'est pas encore certain. Il reste donc possible qu'Apple ne fasse une gamme Mono 1,4,Dual 1,6, Dual 1,8 GHz.
[The second series of benchmarks were done on the same computers that will be sold. There is however a doubt on the presence of the up-market dual 2.0 GHz as the availability of these chips isn't sure. It seems Apple will surely be able to sell Mono 1.4 GHz, Dual 1.6 and Dual 1.8.]
Le commentaire est simple. Le PPC 970 relègue le G4 au rang de machines de secrétaire.
[The result is that the G4 compared to the PPC 970 is now a secretary computer.]
Voici les explications de ces résultats:
- L'altivec démontre une amélioration de performances de 80% sur le 970. Mais ce n'est pas à cause de la puce en elle même, mais grâce à l'accès extrèmement rapide du processeur à la
- L'optimisation de la carte mère est telle que le passage du mono au biprocesseur permet pratiquement de doubler la puissance effective. On arrive à 90% de performances en plus contre 50 pour le G4.
[A few explanations to the results
- The Altivec shows a 80% increase of performances with the 970. This is not due to the chip itself, but to the high speed access between processor and central memory. The Mach 64 motherboard is highly optimised for the use of DDR-SDRAM.
- There is no performance loss when the PPC 970 executes some 32 bits apps.
- The motherboard optimization almost allows dual processors to reach double performance. In fact it's about 90% efficiency gained with the second processor, compared to 50% for the G4.]
Lorsque l'on voit ces résultats on comprend mieux pourquoi
Mac fans, our wait will be rewarded. The fight is over and Apple will soon rule the world !
cause it makes the whole article sound silly. I've been a Mac user since 1989, but I really, really, really, really wish people would find something more interesting to argue over than which platform/OS you use.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Evidently, they should run the server on the PPC970.
...but as much as I'd like to believe this, I have a hard time believing that any of those apps have already been ported to 64-bit. I mean, my God, Apple already had the developers jump through hoops to port to OS X...now they want 64-bit apps two years later? Right.
blog |
Mirror list
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
I find in hard to believe that MacBidouille actually have been able to benchmark a computer not announced by Apple, based on a chip that's not available before the end of the year according to it's manufacturer IBM.
(Of course, IBM may have been willing to enter Steve Jobs' reality distortion field this time, and have been misleading us all this time - but personally I find that unlikely)
Is there a diff if I'm just going to run Gentoo with Gnome2? I'm wondering if the 32 has some 'can't live w/o' feature when running Linux. I'll only be doing web/email/unix admin-y stuff on it, so I'm leaning towards getting a (now old) 700Mhz for 896$US.
P
The roadmap is also interesting, though still just a rumeur, of course.
If those benchmarks can be believed... where can I get my dual 1.8 gigahertz PPC 970 ??
MORTAR COMBAT!
Macbduille must either:
a) have some really good contacts nobody knows about
or
b) is trying to cash in on money from adversiting on it's site and such, but is going to burn it's reputation to do so (come end of may we will know more).
I honestly hope thier reports are true. If they are, macbiduille will be given much status among mac rumor sites, if not, they will be ignored for a long time to come.
While I truly believe Apple will use the 970, and I'm sure it will be much faster that their current offerings, I still have to remain skeptical of this. Call me naive, but how am I to believe they not only have alpha releases of panther (very possible, since they are probably developer seeds), but they also somehow obtained unreleased hardware as well? "...were done on the same computers that will be sold." I can't imagine Apple is so loose to let out alpha/beta harware.
Then again, never underestimate the marketing power of 'hype'. Whether it's true or not, I hope the release is sooner than later.... I miss OS X.
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus
Maybe this should have been posted to the Apple section. I had to actually click on the /. logo to see this post! My home page is the apple section, to filter only what i really want to see ;-)
Is this high performance hardware described in French???
No no, I don't think so. This is Freedom hardware!
Finally vindicated for waiting "Until the G5 comes out ..." to buy a Mac. Good thing I just finished University too, so now I have a job where I could actually afford one when they come out.
Ho hum. Another /.'ing. Here's a mirror of of the French, and one for the Babelfish-translated English.
I see that the macs here dominated at everything they are already better then a PC at... but what will gaming be like? I am very sure that raw power the MACS far out-do PC's (even after the amd 64-bit comes out and closes the gap) but all of the enhancements and support on PC's make games better on them... I wonder where all the gaming benchmarks are...
Erutangis ym si siht.
Mirror
64 bits is mostly silly for 99% of applications. Sure its nice to have wider data paths, but that doesn't require any code changes. And sure, as with any radically different procressor implementation the code generator optimization rules need to be changed in the compiler...
But the 6 applications that could actually benefit from a process address space greater than 4GB, or were simulating 64 bit integer math are the only ones that need to be recoded. (Lets see, oracle server comes to mind, nothing like caching the whole database for performance. We do that regularly when possible. Is it on os-x yet? I'm not sure anything else comes to mind. I suppose the computational fluid dynamics folks and other simulations might appreciate it. In general it is the people who do a little bit of processing to large amount of data on a repetitive basis that benefit most from larger address spaces.)
Still, don't underestimate the importance of that code generator rework I mentioned before. I would presume that the applications benchmarked are the regular old 'optimized for motorola g4' versions and a recompile with the new code generator will result in 5-25% improvements. (You might wipe that number off before you use it anyplace else. It came out of my ass.)
I think the heavy duty Photoshop MAC vs Intel machines would be more useful if someone ran the same benchmarks with a Xeon with a (at least) 1 meg onboard cache, even an inexpensive PIII 550.
/1M for a video enthusiast 2 years ago; it was able to do video conversion ( create VCD from videos ) in about real time (ie 60 min to transform a 60 min video). That was an order of mag faster than non-xeon machines.
Usually the bottleneck is in fast memory access..
I remember re-building a Dell 610 Xeon 550
-------------------------------------------------
;)
What I can't stop thinking about is what this says about the performance of the G4s over the x86es, and about how trustworthy Apple's marketing really is...
However, what I'm most worried about is what this says about me, not being able to hold out for the 970s to be released and buying my Power Mac G4 MDD a month ago.
You're talking about a Mac OS 9 system, it sounds like, which is outdated and irrelevant. Mac OS X doesn't have these problems (other apps becoming unusueable while a file is copying, etc.).
Here
One thing that the new iTunes Music Store does for apple is smooth out the income curve.
Apple sell computers seasonally for back to school and Xmas. They also sell when they announce the availability of a new model (or is it when they ship it? -- not the same thing unfortunately).
Whether these benchmarks are true or not they are going to depress sales of G4's even further (tho the author rationalizes this by saying pretty much they can't go any lower).
Personally, I was thinking about specifying a refurbed dual Xserve for a customer, which are a really great deal right now if you can find them, but this makes me think that I'll be happy if I wait.
Tho this still hurts Apple it's not as bad as it could be because of the iTunes music store they can get income all year long in a fashion that follows neither back-to-school or holiday seasonality nor is it tied to product announcements.
Funny, the 970s MHz of 1.4 and 1.8 are equal to the MHz of the new Opterons. Also, isn't IBM building the new Opterons for AMD?
not only is this post offtopic, but shows blatant disregard for other factors. that's like saying "i don't know why anyone would want my BMW Z3. it runs slower than most chevy cavaliers, and the chevy cavaliers are a lot cheaper!" when your transmission is bad in your Z3. maybe you f***** up mac os with some rogue tweaks. and, like the other guy replied, mac os 9 does suck compared to X in speed and crash-resistance, that's no question. i currently have a PowerMac G4 350 with 128 MB PC100 RAM running OS X 10.2.5 and it has run more stable, been ten times faster than, and has proven to live longer than its windows counterpart.
If you're using OS8/9, that would explain it. Those systems were technological crap. Try OS X. Of course, that might not run on your hardware (just like WinXP isn't going to run on a ppro 200).
Actually, this exact text gets posted to every mac story. Check some of the archives.
The tests were said to have been performed on 32-bit apps on a 64-bit version of the OS. They also claimed no speed penalty in doing so. This is why (again stated in the article) Apple is choosing to release now instead of porting everything over to 64-bits first.
Granted, this is all still rumors and speculation as far as I am concerned.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The same site released pictures and specs of the Mirror Drive Door series Powermacs weeks before it was announced... and, it has also had a lot of correct info on numerous products and services in the past year. They do have a good veneer of credibility... well more so than the other rumor sites *cough* Spymac *cough*. While I take the rumor with a healthy pinch of salt, the specs do seem in the right ballpark from what I have heard so far...
Hmm...I mean that's a great idea and all...but what the hell are you doing HERE???
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"if you need to be productive and get the job done then buy a generic PC."
Productive? If you want productivity, 95% of it is interface. Apple's interface is still easier to use and manage.
Sorry
Yeah, cause, you know, those MacRumors guys are real grounded. Fact is, almost the entire crowd of Macintosh rumormongers NEVER get it right. There's usually the slimmest glimmer of commonality between what they claim, and what actually happens.
Remember the "definative" pictures of a new "Apple PDA", supposedly sitting on someone's desk at Apple, that turned out to be a complete hoax? Apple buying up a music company? The list goes on. These guys take a sniff of one little piece of info(like, maybe Apple execs meeting with music industry execs) and spin it into the most preposterous fiction(Apple buying a dying music company, supposedly for its wares). Instead of looking at their track record, everyone just keeps paying attention to them...which is stupid, because their dreaming is always more grand than the rabbit Steve pulls out of the top hat.
Fact is, the AMD rumors were the result of a numbskull who decided to get some free publicity through lying-by-omission-of-detail(summary: "Are you talking to Apple?" "We'll have to get back to you on whether we are allowed to talk about how we're talking to Apple.")
Please help metamoderate.
If it's taking you 20 minutes to copy a 17M file, you've clearly got something wrong. I routinely copy files that are in the area of multiple Gigs in size from one hard drive to another hard drive in a fraction of the time you describe. Your problem is not one of platform (yes, i'm in OS 9.2.2, and on an older machine - g3 266 beige). You might want to run a disk utility or assess the integrity of your drive.
For those of you replying to this message.
This is a troll, the same comment pops up on all the Mac stories.
rationalists do it by the rules
empiricists do it to the rules
> IBM may have been willing to enter Steve Jobs' reality
> distortion field this time, and have been misleading us
> all this time - but personally I find that unlikely
I've a couple of uncles who recently retired from IBM. And today's IBM isn't the "Big Blue" of the '80s. Things have changed.
For starters, the engineers, at least, don't wear suits anymore!
But that's not the important bit. The important bit is that ever since bill gates fucked them over, back in the early '90s, in the OS/2 incident, IBM has had an institutional hatred of microsoft the likes of which mere mortals can barely comprehend. They're nowhere near as rabidly vocal about it as the likes of Ellison, McNealy, or a big segment of the Linux community, of course. But, then, IBM has always been rathar understated. They don't bluster. But they *DO* remember!
Catch an IBM'er and have a frank discussion sometime. And you'll find that the prevailing attitude towards microsoft there is: "One day, maybe not soon, but one day... we WILL bend gates and his minions over a barrel and assrape them HARD. And as they say: 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'".
It wouldn't be suprising at all if the RDF had nothing to do do with it; and IBM sped up production, and got prototypes to Apple early, JUST to spite gates.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
the 970 is vapor? umm...sure....you on crack or something?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
You have to realize that most Mac users are really just Windows haters. Throughout the 90's Apple put out some of the worst computers and OSs ever. They finally have started getting things right recently and all of sudden they are forgiven for the years of torment they gave to their once loyal customers. I personally think that Apple was far more negligent than Microsoft ever was.
This strikes me as being odd, considering that an IBM chip shouldn't have an "Altivec" unit (Altivec is a Motorola brand name.) I know the 970 is supposed to have a vector processor, maybe the author's just screwed up. I'd certainly like to believe this article.
This site is wrong a majority of the time and their specs/benchmarks do not ring true.
Go to http://www.macrumors.com/ for a detailed analysis in the forums of why these are fake benchmarks.
Beyond that, the release dates they give are insane, apple is still producing G4 desktops.
Call me when the G5 desktops stop rolling off the line and apple starts depleting inventory.
Running any version of MacOS in 64MB of memory is rather constricting, but I think there's either something wrong with your hardware, you're running an older OS (Pre 9), or you have virtual memory turned on and the OS is attempting to use the swap space as a copy buffer (realted to tthe older OS issue and low-memory)
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
How did they do this dual processor test?
PPC970 does NOT support multi processors!!
Fake.
I don't trust this information at all. There are a lot of apple people that would like to see a processor that is significantly faster than intel's offering (I am one). Unfortunately there are people that will publish rumors that apple is going to do this soon without proof because they wish it were so now. The only apple rumor site that I would trust is Think Secret. Other than think secret or an announcement from apple, I refuse to believe that any of this information is true. This is merely wishful thinking.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
Seriously, do what now?
a Dual 1.4 "best of breed[term used laughingly]" Motorola G4 can't even beat a single P4
Uh. A dual 1.4 GHz system comes within a couple percentage points of tying a single CPU system that runs at MORE THAN TWICE THE CLOCK SPEED??
Sound to me like the G4 is a hell of a chip, and they just need to get the clock rate up.
Steve Jobs, the arrogant bastard
Hey, man, how many times have YOU changed the world? Steve Jobs did it TWICE. (Once with the Apple II, the first personal computer; and once with the Mac, the first easy-to-use personal computer. And from the looks of things the iTunes Music Store might be #3.) When you change the world a couple of times, you can accuse him of being an arrogant bastard.
Until then, you're just whining.
Dude!
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
explain to me how not being able to buy one NOW make it vapor?
vaporware menas it is probably not coming. the 970 IS coming, it will be ready by the end of the summer.
oh and I take offence to the zelot crap. if anything you are the zelot. I run not only Mac but I use an XP laptop and run Linux as well. I love all my OSes and get excited at each of their improovments (though MS is starting to worry me)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Apparently the French server surrendered to our requests ... like that's a surprise.
First they moved to a modern RISC-based ISA in 1994. Then they moved to a UNIX/NeXT-base OS with OSX in 2000. Now they're moving into a Power-4-workstation -derived 64-bit processor that will come out of the gate (at its lowest clockrate) neck-n-neck with the highest clockrate x86 CPU's in their prime.
Throw in things like brilliant X11 support, a desktop graphics subsystem only dreamed about for other OS's now, and even a Nightly Phoenix/Firebird build for OSX.
It's going to be a great time to upgrade a Mac, or buy one if you don't alreay have one.
If there's one thing Ive learned from upgrading over the years, its that software companies will find a way to make ANY new, impossilbe-to-utilize-100% processor come to its knees. Give 'em some time, and all new games/OSes/office apps will require 64bit processors as well as all the RAM you can afford.
Why didn't they test a dual PIV, why cause it might just win? They only tested a single PIV, this bench is just FUD for the Mac. Its uneven and unbalenced, when you test a dual PIV then I'll consider it legit . The gains are only marginal when comparing single processors. I would love to see a canterwood go up against this.
We've had some discussion of these in the Ars Mac forum, and the consensus is that they're bogus. I'm currently wrapping up part II of my 970 article, and I'm pretty certain that these numbers are made up.
Here's how it will break down clock-for-clock:
Floating-point: the 970 will spank the G4e
Integer: The G4e will spank the 970
Vector: it's a tie, even though the 970's Altivec hardware is inferior to that of the G4e. What gives the 970 a boost is Dual-channel DDR400 and a real FSB. If you were to put the G4e in a similar system, it would out perform the 970 clock-for-clock pretty handily.
Anyway, I could elaborate more, but I'd rather work on my article.
Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
The major developers were dragging their feet in converting to OSX. Apple told everyone years ago that OSX was coming, made their APIs avaliable, worked with developers and when OSX came out, there were a handfull of apps out there. Then a year went by and still nothing. Finally it seemed that Apple said enough is enough. All new Macs coming out now will be OSX ONLY....as if to say to developers and users "get off your asses and get into the 21st century. But users are the same way, they drag their heels. I worked at once pre-press shop once that still used an old Mac2fx running system 6. My jaw dropped when I saw that.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
What do you mean, not needed?
:D
How about Photoshop, which could *easily* swallow 4gb of RAM?
Or VirtualPC running Windows XP + some program?
Or Classic running OS 9 + some program?
Or a combination of all three of the above at once?
Sure, only *some* applications can use the 64bit data paths, but every program can take advantage of the faster bus
GPL Deconstructed
at least I will be logged in when I call you a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking idiot.
Man, that felt nice...
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
- Video/film editing. Current 32 bit systems are find for SDTV but HDTV has hit the threshold of quick adoption now. 4GB of RAM is simply not enough to manipulate uncompressed HD streams.
- High end visualization. Most scientists I work with who need to do high end visualization - molecular simulations, thermodynamics, and genomic data all use Macs. They don't use Macs for compute (this is usually done with PC clusters running Linux), but they do handle the rasterization on macs with multiple displays. These guys love the older 22" and newer 23" cinema displays.
No one will debate the notion that todays office applications need 64 bits. But your assertion that Macs don't need 64 bit mistakes the Mac market for the office PC market. The scientists I know are all looking at both the new Opteron w/Linux and the upcoming PPC970 w/MacOS X because they DO have data models which require VM sizes greater than 32 bits and don't want to invest any more money in dead desktop platforms like Alpha, MIPS, and Sparc (hardware/software too damn expensive; doesn't run common desktop software' etc etc etc.)So, while you may not need 64 bits, don't assume there aren't plenty of professionals out here who can't wait to buy the new commodity 64 bit platforms just being released. Times may be hard, but for a 50-70% performance boost at similar prices we're ready to chuck the old upgrade once again! --AC
ps - I will not mod my own post - promise!
You forgot Pixar, that would make the Music store #4
Now that the PPC-970s are confirmed for desktop, what happens with Apple's mobile line? Most unix admins that switched to Apple switched to a Powerbook G4. Are they going to make a 64 bits laptop? The marketing certainly would love it. What about the iBooks? Maybe they will be the G4's now... Just my .05 :-)
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT10150 2203725
Actually, fucking you in the ass with a curling iron sounds just about right. Thanks for the suggestion.
Steve Jobs MUST be a great man to be so vehemently hated by such idiots.
Should this not be PPC 3000+. Do they not know anything.
Again someone proves that the same performance can be done with a more efficient chip.
maybe even more fantasy idea, that they got the benchmark from a contact!
nah.... it is probably untrue.
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
The performance of the PowerPC 970 suggests that the x86 emulator would be equivalent to the Pentium 4 running at 2 GHz. The SPARC emulator would be equivalent to the UltraSPARC IV running at 1.5 GHz.
The Panther builds are not on the B build train yet, so this article is wrong. There is no such thing as Panther 7B6.
I went and looked it up because I was not 100% sure.
Power point presentation
This power point presentation in pdf form shows on page 10 that yes there are seperate 32-bit modes. It also explains the 'basic' differences.
DeveloperWorks page
This article explains in fairly basic manner the difference between 32 and 64 bit assembly under linux and from this you can derive that there are 2 seperate modes for the PPC 970 64-bit implementation. Also if you go and look at the PPC 64-bit ABI document at the bottom of the page you'll realize that the 64-bit mode cannot run 32-bit code.
Note that all the length of all instructions, regardless of mode (32,64) is always 32-bit. So just because you're running in 64-bit mode doesn't mean that all your instructions are twice as long (contrary to popular opinion). Just that all your addresses are twice as long.
Anyway, I don't want to come off as a PITA. But it bugs me that people don't understand the difference between 64 and 32 bit computing and really there isn't much difference at all in many cases.
For those of you replying to this message. This is a troll, the same comment pops up on all the Mac stories.
It's actually amazing the "Dear Father O'Day" letter did not appear yet. Hey dude - did you miss this story just because it did not have the APPLE logo?
As part of his agreement, they had to bring on Al Gore.
First off, most mac users have known that their platform has been behind the curve (in processing power) for a few years now. I don't know why you'd have to "try to tell" Mac zealots this. Mac users use Mac's because of the better usability, better UI, better hardware integration, etc. I could care less if my new Mac is 8months slower then a new Windows/Linux box.
Secondly, the 970 is far from vapor. It was first presented 6 months ago and they are now rumored to be falling off Hon Hai assembly lines. Not only was the PPC970 announced well -after- AMD and Intel's consumer 64bit solutions, it will most likely be the first 64bit CPU to appear in consumer desktops and laptops.
And finally, what good would an Opteron be to Mac users? Although Cocoa apps could probably be recompiled for a different CPU with minimal headaches, Carbon apps do not port well. Apple would have to create an emulation layer for Carbon apps. It would be a nightmare, it would take for ever to develop, there would be countless software incompatibilities at first, and Mac developers would throw a hissy fit. Shess, we're still coming out of a -major- OS migration.
I could go on and on about why an Apple AMD box would be technically impossible at this point in time...but hey, just trust me, ain't gon'a happen. The PPC970 is a smart move.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I've worked corporate meetings for IBM, and they would quite happily do quite a lot to frustrate Microsoft. Keeping the 970 secret would be right in line with their corporate attitude. You have to remember that Microsoft's screwing of IBM didn't stop with the selling of DOS to Compaq - it's been a habit for the last 20 years.
I'm going out on a limb, but I think you might have anger issues.
Calm down, man. It's a company with products and a CEO.
Buy some more RAM... RAM is almost as cheep as water, and will make that system scream.
128 MB is really minimal for OSX.
Not everyone deserves a 320i
Oddly enough, it sounds very much like the Big Brother speech from the famous first Macintosh commercial.
you need to kneel down and take all of steve's 3 inches in there boi.
ive seen around here in cupertino, you fucker. you could nab him in the bathroom at this sushi joint by apple.
cmon down for some fun, you can deep throat fuckin Jobs, thats what you want little fuckin faggit pussy bitch, isnt it?
yeah, all the high end apple equipment that competes with IBM, Sun, HP and SGI just leave me fuckin awestruck. yeah , such innovation, no high en presence whatsoever.
try lickin my dogs rim, you fuckin fag.
He wants people to think he knows what he's talking about by saying the mach kernel would be hard to port. That sounds technical right? He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wait. Did he just say there are no specs for the G4!? He's dumber than I took him for at first glance.
Just another schoolboy. Next.
As posted by some on macrumors, the benchmarks claim a performance increase in Bryce 3D with dual processors. Bryce 3D does not take advantage of dual CPU's. Don't trust these numbers. I think this website is just making some cash off of the banner ads on the site.
This ''benchmark'' is really bullsh*t.
When you do serious benchmarks, you post details about the hardware and the used OS.
Well, they gave a few details about the Mac they claim to have. But what about the P4-PC?
What kind of RAM did they use? 100MHz? 800MHz? Something in between?
Which Windows version did they use? Was Hyper Threading enabled?
The list could be a lot longer, but you get the point.
Also: Wasn't the PPC970 meant to be a competitor to Intel Xeon and AMD Opteron CPUs rather that just the plain P4 (by price and aimed market)? (I'm not sure about this one.)
Why didn't they benchmark these as well? (They could at least get a Xeon, an Opteron is harder to get.)
The last sentence (''The fight is over and Apple will soon rule the world!'') gives me an indication why they didn't do this: They seem not to be interested in an objective comparison.
the web site is not a credible source and you would do well to take any "news" from it with a grain of salt
the 970 is a chip shrouded in mystery and there is no way a site like that is going to have access to any real benchmarks
that said, the 970 is not vapor and it will come, but when it will come and at what speeds and whether or not it will even be used in Macs is still all speculation
"could go on and on about why an Apple AMD box would be technically impossible at this point in time..."
Yes, you could.
You'd be wrong.
It's highly feasible from a technical standpoint. It's not a good idea from an economic point of view, but it's certainly technically possible.
But I'm sure it wouldn't stop you going on and on.
Go to eBay and buy a Alpha computer.
Alpha is 64bit clean, meaning its entire life has been in 64bit processing and thus is much more logical to design software upon. Alpha computers with ev56 and below CPU arch can run Windows NT 4.0, Debian, RedHat, SuSE, LinuxFromScratch, netBSD, freeBSD, openBSD, Tru64, openVMS, and GNU/HURD. Alpha arch greater than ev56, such as ev6, ev7, and ev8 can run all the above with exception to Windows NT 4.0, but if you know the right people you can get ahold of a bootleg Windows 2000 for Alpha; but everyone with Alpha cringes at Microsoft software due to its inferiority.
A older 500MHz Alpha ev56, with subpar hardware that you can upgrade to latest SCSI et al would cost you about $350 to $450 on eBay --Alpha holds its value better than anything else, if you haven't recognized their demand.
A recently retired >600MHz Alpha ev6(.) , with yesterday's hardware that you can upgrade to the latest Radeon or SBLive or SCSI, would cost you about $700 on eBay --yes, they hold their value verry well.
A modern 700MHZ Alpha ev6 or ev7 will cost anywhere between $900 to $20,000 on eBay. These are the fastest computers made.
However, if you are interested in PowerPC hardware, I recommend purchasing a Power3 or Power4 -based computer. The Power3 is a little older and its performance is almost identical to a ev6. The Power4 is verry competitive to a Alpha ev7, but it simply does not come close to the performance of an Alpha. And don't bother with Sparc or PPC970, Sun and Apple always botch their scores. Alpha and Power3/4 owners always provide mathematical benchmark comparisons: the truth.
*ALL MEASURMENTS OF CURRENCY ARE MEASURED IN UNITED STATES DOMESTIC DOLLAR
> or were simulating 64 bit integer math
You mean like any program that needs to do dates/times for either a bigger range than 1901-2038 or at better resolution than 1 second?
For example, every single web browser (times in JS are precise to milliseconds).
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
oh , what a crock if shit, please abandon this old rumor, please I beg you. please prove this with numbers.
Even though the results may be/seem bogus, on HUGE thing to keep in mind is that these processors will be going in to a motherboard that will not castrate the performance of the chip. That alone could be the reason for the stellar results... Just something to chew on that no one seemed to mention.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
aye, but windows haters with good reason. ;-)
Yes. It is nice to use a 64bit integer for time when the semantics require integer math. But what percent of a web browser's time do you really think is consumed doing javascript time math? 0.001% would be a good guess, but i suspect probably several orders of magnitude too high. Speeding up time math by a factor of 6 (my high end guess at the improvement for a 64bit opcode versus the pair of 32bit opcodes) isn't going to be measurable.
(quoted from "you" here)
Well back you working on you're article, love me
Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
Video Editting and HD streams - The answer is in there... streams. video by its very nature is perfectly suited to being streamed. HDTV quality DV is 50Mbit/sec (I think), 2.5 minutes/gig. Unless your programmer is an idiot (and granted, lots are) you don't need to hold your whole scene in ram simultaneously. Effects only need the surrounding couple of frames. Non-linear jumps are a quick disk seek, easily fits in the vast surplus of disk speed. Sure you are working with lots of data, but it can come and go from your hard drive very nicely.
Visualization - depending on the dataset and processing, this can actually be one of the 6 programs that can use 64 bits. 'slicing' an N-dimensional dataset down to 2d is a good example. Huge pool of data, very little processing required on each sample.
Deeper instruction pipeline, cache size different and different instruction set makes clock to clock comparisions pointless. and this also goes to show you are the idiot here. P4 isnt a great thing, but its a good thing for a crutch to wait for more opteron. Cetainly a lot better than a piece of shit Motorola.
What was the first personal computer?
Was it the IBM 5100?
Good answer! But no, the IBM 5100, introduced in September 1975, was IBM's first personal computer, but it was priced too high for most people to have considered. Pricing was as follows:
Memory BASIC APL Both
16K $8,975 $9,975 $10,975
32K $11,975 $12,975 $13,975
48K $14,975 $15,975 $16,975
64K $17,975 $18,975 $19,975
The 5100 was just one of several personal computers IBM made before the PC. It was followed by the 5110, the 5120, the Datamaster, and then finally the 5150 PC.
Make Model Introduced Price Technology Form
IBM 5100 portable Computer September 1975 $9000-$20,000 LSI portable all-in-one
IBM 5110 1978 ? LSI? portable all-in-one
IBM 5120 1980 ? LSI? all-in-one with build-in 8" floppies
IBM Datamaster 1981 ? LSI/8085 all-in-one with build-in 8" floppies
Was it the MITS Altair?
You're way off! The Altair, introduced in January 1975, was the first computer to be produced in fairly high quantity, and it was the first computer to run Microsoft software, but we're not sure that's a good thing.
Unfortunately for computer history buffs, the Altair is often mistakenly called the first personal computer by Microsoft-loving journalists who don't know any better.
Make Model Introduced Price Technology Form
MITS Altair 8800 January 1975 $439 for kit, $621 assembled 8080/LSI S-100 desktop box
Was it the Mark-8?
Nope, but the Mark-8 (1974) was the first microcomputer kit with plans published in a popular magazine. The Mark-8 provided the first big spark that catalyzed the hobbyist movement.
Before the Mark-8 appeared, there was at least one hobbyist newsletter, the ACS Newsletter, published by the Amateur Computer Society, which focused primiarily on the PDP-8, the machine which inspired the Mark-8. The Mark-8 spawned a few more hobbyist newsletters, such as Hal Singer's Micro-8 and Hal Chamberlin's The Computer Hobbyist.
The machine was designed by Jon Titus.
* Jon Titus on the Mark-8
Make Model Introduced Price Technology Form
Radio Electronics Mark-8 July 1974 $5 for assembly plans 8008/LSI desktop kit
Was is the Scelbi-8H?
No, but the Scelbi-8H (1973) was another microcomputer that preceded the Altair. Like the Altair, it was available from the manufacturer both as a kit and as a pre-assembled computer.
The machine was designed by Nat Wadsworth.
Make Model Introduced Price Technology Form
Scelbi 8H 1973 $565 8008/LSI desktop
Here's a fixed link (with HTML in it): PowerPC 970 Annoucement
Wow. What a tool you are.
The phrase is PERSONAL COMPUTER. It has a meaning. Look it up.
but every Slashdotter needs one of these.
http://www.cafeshops.com/sharune_trolls.5837645
Did you just get blown out by ANOTHER shemale? If Slashdot is that important to you, maybe you should get some help.
Seriously, coz you're a real shithead.
That was classic intercourse!
i said before i hate the fuckin place, moron bitchfuck. why dont you go suck on hennifer lopez dick too fuckstick, because i dont swing that way.
you fuckin dirty asshole.
so alan, you can suck the carmelized dog shit sweaty puss infected diarhea out of a pigs ass, because the crap that would come out of your mouth after that would be fresher than the shit your talkin above. Fuckhead.
wrong again, bastard. you are fucking wrong. so go home, cry to mommie, you stupid fuck, the industry has seen many personal computer before the apple II. in fact, i remember when they came out, expensive, and nearly useless. so you dumb stupid bitch, you are wrong. i know someone who owned a PDP 8, for his own person. so you know nothing fuctardion, you little puke definition of personal computer is fucking defined, at the top.
:
personal computer
n : a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and
designed to be used by one person at a time [syn: PC, microcomputer]
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02)
personal computer (PC) A general-purpose single-user microcomputer designed to be operated by one person at a time.
This term and the concept has been successfully hijacked by IBM due to the huge market share of the IBM PC, despite its many obvious weaknesses when compared to other equally valid claimants to the term, e.g. the Acorn Archimedes, Amiga, Atari
I think there are many that fit that description, some before apple, FUCKERHEAD.
and, also note, FUCKERHEAD, the word microcomputer, or MicroComputerSystem, MCS, a name that dates all the way back to the 4004, so SUCK A FUCKING DONKEY DICK AND ILL DIRTY SANCHEZ YOUR FUCKING MOTHER, BASTARD.
Will Powerbooks start using these, or will they be a desktop thing? Basically, i'm asking it they run cool enough and use lttle enough power to be used in a portable. One thin i like about powerbooks is the battery, so i hope apple won't kill that with the new chip it it's a power hog. Though one of these in a laptosh would be sweeet.
Yes, this is probably true. The PPC 970 is awesome. It's RISC, it's 64-bit and 32-bit backward compatible so all of your old apps will work, but there's one little problem... cost.
Apple isn't known for being inexpensive, and these chips will not be cheap! Intel has cost down pat. Sure, Intel may not be quite as fast as this chip at first, but they'll still be cheaper, much cheaper and w/i a year of the 970's release, Intel will equal or exceed its performance for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.
How many of you can afford a 5,000 to 6,000 dollar apple/ibm ppc 970???
Why not buy a 3,000 dollar Intel Xeon and run Linux on it?
1. Bryce does not support multiple processors. So the MP results should NOT be significantly different.
l
2. The Pentium 4 and 1.42Ghz DP G4 numbers were lifted directly off of Barefeats website!!! The odds of them using theEXACT combination of hardware and software setup to receive exactly to the second numbers is *HIGHLY* suspicious.
See this page to see where they got some of the numbers...
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.htm
3. In general they have been hit and miss on rumors.
I wouldn't believe these numbers at all. Although, I would love for them to be true.
I find it particularly interesting that people who are wrong often run to find a dictionary. "I'm not wrong, because technically everything I said fits inside the unbelievably imprecise definition listed in this-here book!"
Whatever, dude. If it makes you feel better to think that you were right, then you go right ahead. The rest of us lurkers know better. The original AC was right, and you were WAY, WAY, WAY wrong.
Look. It's clear you've never actually used these tools to get real work done and are basing your opinion on a pre-determined 'best cast theoretical' example. Also, you clearly have no idea how large uncompressed HDTV is. Never mind the fact that you clearly don't understand the meaning of nonlinear editing, nor the fact that composting effects into a shot usually requires significant buffer space (certainly far more than just a few seconds worth of frames) - never mind being able to manipulate effects for slow motion shots. Really, you're a clueless twit about the requirements for editing HDTV and it shows.
And you didn't bother to respond to the many other users who require 64 bit VM space. If all you need is to write documents, edit spreadsheets, and browse the web you'll only need 32 bits for some years yet. Good for you, the hardware is cheap. For those of us doing work with our computers we'll spend the money because commodity 64 bit platforms promise the merging of commodity software combined with the memory models and CPU performance we need to get our real jobs done. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than buying both an SGI or Sun along with a PC (just so we can communicate with the rest of the company). I can't wait for this stuff to hit the market. I promise you, we'll buy - and it will be well worth the money.
I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Here's a few intelligent reasons:
1. No viruses
2. Integrated hw and sw
3. Stylish design
4. OS X's stability, speed and security
How's that?
I see -so- many things modded up today that are wrong. The 970 uses VMX or something, which is justanother way to say it uses Altivec. Its -VERY- easy to check and see that it's altivec compatible.
Research before you mod on someone...
Oh come on.
Apple isn't going to release new computers that are more expensive than current ones. They already have a power/performance problem!
IBM does have cheap chips, they also produce G3s. It's not like this is a normal expensive Power4 w/tons of cache, etc on it.
An acronym is an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word, and thus isn't generally spelled in all caps.
For example, 'laser' is an acronym. The original abbreviation was LASER = light amplification through the stimulated emission of radiation.
Same deal for 'scuba' = self contained underwater breathing apparatus.
They're acronyms NOT because the individual letters mean other words, but because together, they're pronounced as a new world.
IBM = pronounced as I B M - this is not an acronym, this is an abbreviation.
Have a nice day. (HAND)
Under 10 seconds here to duplicate a 175Mb folder under OS 9.2.2.
Check your system for Virii. Yes they have mac Virii. I've actually had one..... once! You might have that old worm that slows down disk writes, and no I can't remember the name of it.
I routinely open 300-500MB files in photoshop on my machines under OS9 and rarely if ever even see a scroll bar. Did I mention I don't own a G4 mac that's faster than 400Mhz in speed.
If these benchmarks are even close to true then sign me up for one click and stand back. These 400Mhz dogs are hitting the pavement to make room for some 970 based machines!
Doth the dictionary and real life computer history both totally debunk the myth that the Apple I or II were the first "PC."
Sorry, but that's not true. The Apple II was the first personal computer.
The ongoing rumour (you may want to treat it with as much suspicion as these benchmarks) is that if/when IBM gets the PPC 970 on to an 0.09-micron process, the chips will be able to run in all the PowerBook models at a good clip. I'm guessing that this would be at 1.2 and 1.4 GHz (maybe 1.5) to start with, since it's quite likely that the last PowerBook G4s will run at 1.0 and 1.25 GHz in the respective low-end and high-end models.
I thought Apple people didn't care how fast the machine was as long as it keeps smiling at you? Are Apple people becoming Geeks? We are thoroughly screwed when even artists become geeks!
Come on Apple people, go outside, toke up a little bit and stop using words like GHz! Now repeat after me... I will not say GHz anymore... just how super cool my macpple is!
Awesome benchmarks... hope this holds up for all types of applications and for the actual systems whenever they come out to the public.
Now i know you werent born even before 1976, when the Apple came out, but I can assure you that there were computers that did not rely on another computer to function and did everything the Apple II did before 1976.
You are just plain wrong here. And you're too young to even know how wrong you are.
Take care, Junior.
PBS:
Personal computer industry is launched
gaming has little to do with CPU and most to do with GPU these days. Look at gaming benchmarks of modern PCs, the only thing that makes more than a 5% difference in FPS (and the ONLY difference in quality) is the video card used. Gaming benchmarks are somewhat stupid unless you're comparing graphics cards.
The real question is "Will this get any more software houses publishing for the Mac?" and the answer is "Only if it helps the mac gain marketshare in the 15-30 year-old sector."
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Go read Jef Raskin's The Humane Interface
It's filled with the 'numbers' and science you so pedomorphically demand.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
The 970 in a 15" aluminum PowerBook will make this the Year of the Laptop alright.
"NVidia vient de changer la dénomination de ses cartes à base de NV 35. Ce ne sera pas Geforce 6800 et 6800 Ultra mais 5900 et 5900 Ultra. Ce revirement est purement commercial. En effet, il y avait un hiatus trop important avec les autres produits de la gamme (5200 à 5600) qui aurait pu laisser entendre que ces produits sont dépassés." ...I think that passage is probably talking about a Geforce 6800!?! Makes me question the credibility of this site just a little. :-/
THIS is why I read and love Slashdot. You guys are great! It's the arguments!
Comparing what the power4 gets on specint 2000 @ 1.45Ghz (Score of 935) versus Intel's P4 @ 3.06Ghz (Score of 1091), the power4 holds its own in integer performance and in fact, so should the 970. (AMD's athlon 3000+ comes in at 995, btw.) To claim that "clock-for-clock integer performance will be worse" is utterly bogus. (What are you talking about with resepect to a lack of FSB performance? The 970's 900Mhz blows away intel...)
Give the microarchitectures (and performance numbers) a glance next time before going on a dilettantish ramble about architectures.
Here's a hint, you big dork. Any computer you had to BUILD FROM PARTS yourself simply does not count as a personal computer. The Apple II was THE VERY FIRST PERSONAL COMPUTER ever created.
Mmm-kay?
Nope, you're still wrong. I dont want to hear your fucking definition. I'll go with PBS before I got with your god damn faggit definition.
So suck my nuts, assfuck. I'm not going to give props to a fuck who stole Xerox's IP.
You fucking litle bitch, dont use Mackey imitations either, you arent worthy of south park, fucker.
Hmm..
What makes me intertesting is that the PPC970 chip is quite efficient chip. 1.4Ghz version is almost comparable to the Intel Pentium 3Ghz chip!
It's whole lot faster than G4!
Problem is how long Apple can lead the tendency over Windows/Intel machines.
Anyway Apple catch up with Intel based machines with just one processor generation! Isn't it great? I thought that it would take another 2 or 3 generation to do so.
What's the next?
Problem of Apple so far is that Apple can't maintain its leadership in the industry steadily, like IBM, Compaq and Dell.
Will this be changed?
It's a coming first thing that some nerds never seem to get over ... :-)
You know, there are a lot of decaffeinated brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Actually, ignore this, it's just a posting test.
Too bad I'm out of mod points, but this brave coward (?!) points out something very important. The people who actually know if the rumor is true or false (that is, people who work for apple) can't speak out either way or they'll be fired.
The rumor sites have set themselves up as "THE SOURCE" of information because no one can dispute them! This AC (parent) broke his NDA by revealing this information, but of course the rumor sites will ignore him if he won't identify himself.
Watch, I'll make up a rumor on the spot:
"A source (who I can't reveal, of course), told me that Apple is already preparing a PPC 970 port-a-potty to compete with Microsoft's iLoo! It runs an alpha of OS X 10.6, called, uh, "tabby", and is version 12c53! Oh look, no one disputed my rumor (well, one guy did but he refused to tell me how he knew so I ignored him), therefore it is truth and you must accept it until Steve Jobs says otherwise! BUWAHAHAHAAHAHA.
These rumor site writers are pathetic people who get off on some sort of feeling of control for "being in the know" even though they make most of the stuff up.
It's a rumor that Apple is suing Motorola about faking G5 development.
And it's a rumour that Apple will even use this CPU.
The only thing that is certain is that the G4 replacement will be 64bit.
As for benchmarks, only idiots compare apples to lemons. Benchmark Intel hardware running MS Windows with a few BSODs (blue screens of death), then you start to get a "REAL WORLD" comparison with the Apple MacOS X computers.
As for Apple computers being expensive. Well you get what you pay for. And if Apple uses this processor, I'm certain the Apple diehards will fork out the money with smile at the performance not a frown at the price!
And finally, what good would an Opteron be to Mac users? Although Cocoa apps could probably be recompiled for a different CPU with minimal headaches, Carbon apps do not port well. Apple would have to create an emulation layer for Carbon apps. It would be a nightmare, it would take for ever to develop, there would be countless software incompatibilities at first, and Mac developers would throw a hissy fit. Shess, we're still coming out of a -major- OS migration.
Heh, with 10.1, and especially with 10.2 Apple put a lot of work into making it very, very hard to even have an all-cocoa app. A lot of the things you see that look like cocoa from a dev standpoint are really just cocoa wrappers for carbon routines...
The impression I got from some developers was that Apple did a bunch of the inter-mixing to appease a bunch of the bigger dev shops (Adobe, MS, etc) who were concerned that at some point Apple would just yank out carbon from underneath them, or let it stale out while improving cocoa. Intermingling them so much pretty much put that to rest, but has cost cocoa large parts of what made it so cool (ie, not going to see any quad-binaries anytime soon).
-Fucking Gay Fucking Goatfuq .___8',-',";. ._____h ._h
A_______________________8..A
s__Eat shit cuncasket__#~..s
s__Eat shit slashbots_8.',-s
_____________________#',-.
r__Mediocritomaton __8',-..r
a__fuckin loser_____#~',-..a
p__EAT SHIT NOW! ___8_',-..p
i__________________##',-',-i
n__Lick cock -_____8',-',";n
g__fuckface _____##',-',";g
__shitstain
c _suck a pig's ##',-',";.r
o__anus you _-__8',-',";,.i
c__PIECE of_____#'',-',";,.m
k__SHIT _______8(',-',";,.._
_____________#(',-',";,.,.f
l _________#8#8_',-',";,.,.e
o_________#',-.8',-',";,.,.l
v________8~',-..#',-',";,..c
i_______#'',-',";8_',-',";.h
n_____8=',-',";.+#+',-',";.i
g____#=',-',";,._8',-',";,.n
___#=',-',";,..(#',-',";.8g
r__8(',-',goat,.(8',-',";s#-
i_8(',-',fucker";#',-',-s8_p
m_#z',-',loser,";8',-..s#__i
_8_.,#',"ass',";~#,..88___e
f_#.##'philanderer~8,.8#___c
e_8##',-+~'',-',-~#'8______e
l_#.,..-',-',";.'=8#_______-
c_.8+_',-',";,.'88_________o
h___888',-',";~8___________f
e______8#888#88____________
r__________________________s
____.oO Suck My Dog
-_Suck my dogs dick, fag
F__________________________i
a___shit fucking ass t_____t
g_______motherfuck_________
__________________________a
__________________________a
Ass raping fucking queer ass
The topic I want to cover in this letter is big and complex, and I don't have much in the way of scientific data on it. Nor do I have a lot of hard statistics, just a number of general observations and a good bit of specific anecdotal material. First, the misinformation: Slashdotting mohterfuckin faggots suggests that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Where the heck did he come up with that? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. To top that off, he likes to imply that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. This is what his ideals amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of deluded drivel devised by his functionaries and mindlessly multiplied by unpleasant spoiled brats. We all have an obligation to stand up together and forcefully oppose his blasphemous platitudes. Surely, he is not too petty to realize that. A trip to your local library would reveal that if you've read any of the mudslinging slop that Slashdotting mohterfuckin faggots has concocted, you'll undoubtedly recall Slashdotting mohterfuckin faggots's description of his plan to assail all that is holy. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that the passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that Slashdotting mohterfuckin faggots's jokes are pockmarked with lackadaisical egotism and other assorted ills. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that there is something grievously wrong with those rabid nobodies who demand that loyalty to empty-headed hermits supersedes personal loyalty. Shame on the lot of them! It would be wrong to imply that Slashdotting mohterfuckin faggots is involved in some kind of conspiracy to appropriate sacred symbols f
Of course, isnt the P4, somebody remember when the PPC came to world? or the iMac? Apple is hard working in something that will take the world again, like 1984, is something that nobody have thinked until now, they have the technology ( steve) to do what he have did years ago running NeXT.
Their dirty. obnoxious. and cant really operate a computer. the fact is. panther may not even support 64 bit. and how could they get the hardware. do you really think that apple will give these guys an os that they deny exists. or even better do you think that apple would give then the hardware to run it. i cant read french but im sure that this is a fabrication.
*gack* I think the Mac zealots (of which I am one!) have seriously glossed over the issues we faced during these transitions. I missed System 6 -> System 7, but 68K -> PPC happened simultaneously with Nubus -> PCI and 7.1.x to 7.5.x. I don't know about all of you, but my 6100/7.5.0 _seriously_ sucked for a long time, at least until we got to 7.6.1.
G3->G4 was pretty seamless, except that it gave Apple the excuse/opportunity to write a GUI that is verrry sluggish on a G3.
And speaking of OS9 -> OSX, that wasn't/isn't all that rosy, either. There are far too many legacy periphs/apps/drivers that don't exist or don't work properly, and there are plenty of instances where Classic is confusing as hell for a new user.
Note that I'm NOT underestimating the massive technical challenges that all of these transitions involved; I just cringe when I read articles that say the 68K -> PPC transition was seamless. How many of you remember the "FPU not installed" crashes?
Never refuse a breath mint.
check ACs link it was a trouncing.
Much as I personally prefer clones to dells, way to go Mike.
(and it is a Mac site)
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Please. Don't be so quick to nitpick. I agree with you 110%.
I was trying to say that it would be technically impossible (at this point in time) to quickly develop a speedy, low cost , reliable solution to move PPC native mac software to AMD hardware.
Man, sometimes I feel that half the people that post here are "Nick Burns: Your Company's Computer Guy" (mooove)
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Whoever wrote this article must have just been making this crap up. They even posted as and AC so they can't be too credible. I am writing this on an iBook and while it isn't the fastest machine on the market, it is certainly adequate for my needs. It copies files with good speed, even over the network while performing other task simultaneously. It seems that every time someone posts a topic about Mac speed, some moron gets on here and talks about their 6 year old Mac and how slow it is at doing tasks they never would have asked it to do 6 years ago. All I have to say is stop it!
Smeghead every day of the week.
no need to shout... nobody's listening
how about this... shut the flying fuck up you fucking tird.