No, they were trying to use the same compiler to get a better comparison. If they really wanted to cheat they would have used an IBM compiler for their tests and Visual C++ for the PC's.
and made various hacks on their own system to boost the performance.
Oh, like disabling Altivec on the 970?
Look, its certainaly possible that Apple should have enabled this flag or that flag, but its not the hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar type cheating that the article author makes it out to be. Hell, most of his so-called "hate mail" he actually got from forums.
I find it interesting that the author of the article harps all over fact that Apple disabled SSE2 instructions, but didn't bother to mention that Apple also disabled Altivec. Makes me wonder what else he missed.
To everybody else in this thread pointing to other sites showing the P4 with higher frame rates: anti aliasing. We don't know for sure because Apple didn't say what flags they used, but something like anti-aliasing could account for the discrepancy.
I notice that it took a dual processor G5 to beat the single P4.
Games are a perfect example where a dual proc can actually be a little slower than a single. Quake 3 is about the only game out there that supports multiprocs, so it really would be cheating on Apple's part if they did that. But in my experience, Quake 3 is soooo unstable with r_smp 1 that you're lucky to get in a timedemo before it crashes on you.
As other people have pointed out, Altivec was also disabled, so the SSE2 argument is a red herring. This also makes the rest of the article suspect: the guy looks at what was disabled on the PC, but ignores what was disabled on the Mac.
What I would like to see, is someone from SPEC to comment on what flags they used/didn't use.
As other people have pointed out, Win2k didn't have fast user switching, but I would also like to point out that Apple has had encryption since OS 9. Not as easy has having your home directory automatically encrypted (though people have done it with scripts and Apple's disk image software, which supports encryption) but they *have* had it.
Where do you live? Stallmanville?:) I don't see that as happening very soon, as Linux generally takes more effort and training to set up and maintain than Windows or OS X. My university is pretty big on computer science and engeneering, and we only have one Red Hat cluster for students compared to 30 or so clusters with Macs and PC's. Server side is a different story however; I can think of only two servers that don't run Linux: an NT server for EMS, and the Mac server for the Mac clusters. Everything else runs on Red Hat AFAIK: email, web, file and printing, etc.
Oh? I wasn't aware the parent poster was comparing the new Macs to 1995 hardware from Sun or SGI. My impression was that he was saying that these new Macs will perform about as well or better as current systems from those other companies for far less money. My mistake.
They might not ship with it, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't buy your own. You don't want to get your memory from Apple anyway, as it tends to be 3x to 4x the price you'd pay for good memory somewhere else.
You might not, but I do. I have a speedy 1.73 ghz Athalon and I still wait and wait for video to encode. The thought of a dual 970 system with 8 gigs of ram makes me want to cream my pants.
What a load a crap. The Intel compiler is available for both Windows and Linux and people have seen improvements by using Intel.
(rolls eyes)
Just because it runs on both Windows and Linux doens't mean its proprietary. And as most Linux boxes run on Intel chips, Intel has every reason to optimize it as much as the Windows version.
The only place I think OSX loses to Linux is in the school.
You're talking about servers, right? Because in the school desktop market, Apple is usually in the lead or neck and neck with Dell. And for the n00b administator types that Microsoft targeted with Windows NT would probably be better served with OS X than either Linux or NT/2k/XP.
It implication of 'downloading an mp3 is, at most, a copyright violation.' is that dl-ing one is probably less serious than copyright violation and really not something to make a big deal out of.
The only one who's making that implication is you, because what the AC said is the truth. Its not stealing, theft or larceny, at most its a copyright infringment.
taking something which is not rightfully yours.
If you're downloading something from Kazaa, you are copying, not taking.
I'm saying it's just as wrong to violate the copyright of a song as it is to steal
No, its not. With stealing somebody *loses* something they already have. Thats not the case with copyright; then you're violating the contract between copyright owners and society that gives the owners exclusivity. In other words, if I steal 10 cd's from Best Buy, thats 10 cd's they wont be able to sell to someone else, and they've lost the physical investment to boot. Whereas if I download the cd from Kazaa and make 9 copys for my friends, it is extremely unlikely that all 10 of us would have bought it in the first place. 10 real world losses of physical property versus 10 theoretical lost sales.
There is no justification for piracy.
Of course there are a great many justifications, you just choose to ignore them. I probably wouldn't have gone to 3 Marilyn Manson concerts and bought 4 of his albums if someone hadn't shared Manson's first album with me. The only reason I ever heard of Juno Reactor (and bought two of their albums) is because I heard someone playing a song downloaded with Napster. My roomate has bought at least 50-60 albums where he discovered the band with some form of p2p or other.
Then there's the whole argument that labels typically screw artists over on their contracts. If I download a bands music and decide to go to one of their concerts, thats a lot more money for them and less in the hands of greedy labels.
P2p makes the intruduction of a new customer to a new kind of music cheap and easy. Very, very few people just randomly buy cd's whilst walking through a store. They need to hear it before they'll buy it, which usually means radio, and today most radio is homogonized shit. There is no station in my town that will play a rap or techno song, or play a new song that isn't backed by payola. With p2p, I can sample before I buy and hear new music that would never make it across the local airwaves. And if I haven't heard it I wont buy it.
Actualy, the point he was making was that he didn't think it was that serious.
Show me what part of his post said that.
If sometihng isn't physically beign stolen then it isn't really that wrong.
Alright then. By that line of reasoning, murder, arson and rape aren't "that wrong" because they aren't stealing.
It's the kind of rubbish that gets sprouted every week here.
The real "rubbish" are spouted by people who insist that copyright infringment and theft are one in the same because they are morally and legally wrong, despite any resoning or proof to the contrary.
Um. Anyone can say as loud as they want how they want you to run your life. People do it all the time, from every side. It's up to *you* to make up your own mind. If bennet tells you to do something, and you do, don't blame *him* for it.
(rolls eyes) Of course he can say what ever he wants, but then we are also perfectly free to say he's a hypocryte when he's outed as one. Dddddddduh.
Also, some people find dancing to be immoral, does that mean that bennet should be against this perfectly legal activity just because hes 'a general in the morality army'?
The problem is that he critisizes celebrities and politicians for the laundry list of vices, but this one just doesn't seem to apply to him. How convenient.
you still haven't fully explained to my satisfaction what makes gambling immoral to bill bennet.
Okay, since you want it SO DAMN BAD, here you go: on empower.org, a site run by him and Jack Kemp, he has a pdf on culturalal statistics and problems such as pornography. Also listed are stats on gambling, with 3 million people listed as 'problem gamblers'. Elsewhere on the site, they are supporting restricting internet gambling. Or look at his 'The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family' where he warns how "wealth and luxury... often make it harder to deny the quest for instant gratification" because "the more we attain, the more we want." Eat it, beyach.
Now, if bill bennet starts *physically forcing* people to change their lifestyles, then I'll have something to say against him.
How about legally forcing? He was the Secretary of Education under Regean and the drug czar for the first Bush. He pushed for longer sentences for drug users, a victumless crime to begin with, but especially for marajuana which can arguably be said to be less dangerous than alchohol or cigarettes. While he's no longer a government official, he can use his considerable clout with the GOP to support stuff like COPA, restrictions on the sale of violent movies and video games, etc. Check out the list of proposed legislation on his site, some of which he supports. No doubt you'll come back with some bullshit rationalization that "he's free to support whatever he wants", but we are also free to castigate him for it, something you don't seem to think that *we* can do.
I'm sorry. It's just so damn funny to me that you say this like it's the ultimate evil.
Right. If you've been paying attention thats not what I've been saying, but then logic, common sense and consistency are anethma to the typical Liberterian, aren't they?
Say 50 people download a bands album without paying for it, and their take home royalty is 5 cents per album. Thats $2.50 in profits gone. One person out of that 50 buys a concert ticket for $35; even if the band only gets 5 bucks from that ticket sale, they've doubled their money vs album sales.
I didn't realize that bennet was a general in the morality army.
Well now you know. Just do a search for him and see what you turn up.
You are asserting that mr bennet supports a position, even though he *never* has
You just don't get it, do you? Its not that his own moral tenets might be in conflict in his personal life. Its that he's telling other people how they should their lives. As a Liberterian I would think you'd find this sort of person repugnant. When you are loudly (and profitably) telling other people that they should lead virtuous, moral lives, you come off as a bit of a hypocryte when its revealed that you've lost 8 million dollars by gambling.
Again, in case I haven't made this clear enough, he isn't catching hell because he's a man who was caught gambling, which as you say is perfectly legal. He's catching hell because he wants Americans to meet a high standard of morality and then its revealed that he doesn't meet that standard himself.
Its the opninion of the morality industry that it is evil. And as one of the primary generals in that industry, yes that damn well makes Benet a hypocrite. Wether or not he specifically ranted on the subject is irrelevant. You don't hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue and lecture others and then excuse your own actions by saying shit like "well, I never said that marrying your 14 year old cousin was immoral, so you can't complain when I do it!" Same thing goes for gambling.
We are still talking about software that's legal for his staff to use for free.
No, we aren't. They said his site would "probably" qualify as a non-profit, but to make sure of that Hatch's staff needs to talk to the developers, which they've neglected to do.
Forgetting a freeware registration is in no way analogous to downloading the entire Photoshop CD image and using a cracked serial number from a warez site to run it, nor gathering up the entire Led Zeppelin catalog on your MP3 player without paying for a single album.
Tell that to the BSA, and it might be freeware, or it might be almost a thousand dollars. The point that you seem to be missing is that before Hatch goes on the warpath for copyrights, he had better make sure his own ducks are all in a row. He didn't, which is why he's being (deservedly) lambasted.
If you can't comprehend the difference between blatantly ripping off software & music and happening to employ some snot-nosed MCSE to admin your web server who forgot to register some free software, then you are either as clueless as Senator Hatch was when he made his statement about damaging computers, or else you are willfully choosing to ignore the difference, because you want to see hypocricy so badly in a politician you happen to dislike.
Irrelevant. He's the boss; the buck stops with him. It doesn't matter whether he installed himself or had some "snot-nosed MCSE" do it for him, Hatch is still responsible for his site. And why are we expecting a higher standard from him than from some pimply faced kid "blatantly ripping off software & music"? Because he's a Senator, and the chair of the fucking Judiciary Committee! You're damn right we're going to expect more from him!:)
Slashdot Mirror
They used underpowered compilers
No, they were trying to use the same compiler to get a better comparison. If they really wanted to cheat they would have used an IBM compiler for their tests and Visual C++ for the PC's.
and made various hacks on their own system to boost the performance.
Oh, like disabling Altivec on the 970?
Look, its certainaly possible that Apple should have enabled this flag or that flag, but its not the hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar type cheating that the article author makes it out to be. Hell, most of his so-called "hate mail" he actually got from forums.
I find it interesting that the author of the article harps all over fact that Apple disabled SSE2 instructions, but didn't bother to mention that Apple also disabled Altivec. Makes me wonder what else he missed.
To everybody else in this thread pointing to other sites showing the P4 with higher frame rates: anti aliasing. We don't know for sure because Apple didn't say what flags they used, but something like anti-aliasing could account for the discrepancy.
I notice that it took a dual processor G5 to beat the single P4.
Games are a perfect example where a dual proc can actually be a little slower than a single. Quake 3 is about the only game out there that supports multiprocs, so it really would be cheating on Apple's part if they did that. But in my experience, Quake 3 is soooo unstable with r_smp 1 that you're lucky to get in a timedemo before it crashes on you.
(read other fucking articles) :)
As other people have pointed out, Altivec was also disabled, so the SSE2 argument is a red herring. This also makes the rest of the article suspect: the guy looks at what was disabled on the PC, but ignores what was disabled on the Mac.
What I would like to see, is someone from SPEC to comment on what flags they used/didn't use.
As other people have pointed out, Win2k didn't have fast user switching, but I would also like to point out that Apple has had encryption since OS 9. Not as easy has having your home directory automatically encrypted (though people have done it with scripts and Apple's disk image software, which supports encryption) but they *have* had it.
Where do you live? Stallmanville? :) I don't see that as happening very soon, as Linux generally takes more effort and training to set up and maintain than Windows or OS X. My university is pretty big on computer science and engeneering, and we only have one Red Hat cluster for students compared to 30 or so clusters with Macs and PC's. Server side is a different story however; I can think of only two servers that don't run Linux: an NT server for EMS, and the Mac server for the Mac clusters. Everything else runs on Red Hat AFAIK: email, web, file and printing, etc.
I remember looking at Sun's webpage for the "free" x86 version of Solaris....Sun wanted something like $75 for the cost of media and S&H.
After I complained, one of my friends pointed out, "$75 probably *is* free to Sun".
Oh? I wasn't aware the parent poster was comparing the new Macs to 1995 hardware from Sun or SGI. My impression was that he was saying that these new Macs will perform about as well or better as current systems from those other companies for far less money. My mistake.
They might not ship with it, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't buy your own. You don't want to get your memory from Apple anyway, as it tends to be 3x to 4x the price you'd pay for good memory somewhere else.
do I ever really wait on my processor anymore?
You might not, but I do. I have a speedy 1.73 ghz Athalon and I still wait and wait for video to encode. The thought of a dual 970 system with 8 gigs of ram makes me want to cream my pants.
What a load a crap. The Intel compiler is available for both Windows and Linux and people have seen improvements by using Intel.
(rolls eyes)
Just because it runs on both Windows and Linux doens't mean its proprietary. And as most Linux boxes run on Intel chips, Intel has every reason to optimize it as much as the Windows version.
The only place I think OSX loses to Linux is in the school.
You're talking about servers, right? Because in the school desktop market, Apple is usually in the lead or neck and neck with Dell. And for the n00b administator types that Microsoft targeted with Windows NT would probably be better served with OS X than either Linux or NT/2k/XP.
It implication of 'downloading an mp3 is, at most, a copyright violation.' is that dl-ing one is probably less serious than copyright violation and really not something to make a big deal out of.
The only one who's making that implication is you, because what the AC said is the truth. Its not stealing, theft or larceny, at most its a copyright infringment.
taking something which is not rightfully yours.
If you're downloading something from Kazaa, you are copying, not taking.
I'm saying it's just as wrong to violate the copyright of a song as it is to steal
No, its not. With stealing somebody *loses* something they already have. Thats not the case with copyright; then you're violating the contract between copyright owners and society that gives the owners exclusivity. In other words, if I steal 10 cd's from Best Buy, thats 10 cd's they wont be able to sell to someone else, and they've lost the physical investment to boot. Whereas if I download the cd from Kazaa and make 9 copys for my friends, it is extremely unlikely that all 10 of us would have bought it in the first place. 10 real world losses of physical property versus 10 theoretical lost sales.
There is no justification for piracy.
Of course there are a great many justifications, you just choose to ignore them. I probably wouldn't have gone to 3 Marilyn Manson concerts and bought 4 of his albums if someone hadn't shared Manson's first album with me. The only reason I ever heard of Juno Reactor (and bought two of their albums) is because I heard someone playing a song downloaded with Napster. My roomate has bought at least 50-60 albums where he discovered the band with some form of p2p or other.
Then there's the whole argument that labels typically screw artists over on their contracts. If I download a bands music and decide to go to one of their concerts, thats a lot more money for them and less in the hands of greedy labels.
P2p makes the intruduction of a new customer to a new kind of music cheap and easy. Very, very few people just randomly buy cd's whilst walking through a store. They need to hear it before they'll buy it, which usually means radio, and today most radio is homogonized shit. There is no station in my town that will play a rap or techno song, or play a new song that isn't backed by payola. With p2p, I can sample before I buy and hear new music that would never make it across the local airwaves. And if I haven't heard it I wont buy it.
Actualy, the point he was making was that he didn't think it was that serious.
Show me what part of his post said that.
If sometihng isn't physically beign stolen then it isn't really that wrong.
Alright then. By that line of reasoning, murder, arson and rape aren't "that wrong" because they aren't stealing.
It's the kind of rubbish that gets sprouted every week here.
The real "rubbish" are spouted by people who insist that copyright infringment and theft are one in the same because they are morally and legally wrong, despite any resoning or proof to the contrary.
steal music
That would be "copy music without paying for it", not stealing.
Thank you.
The point that you either missed or ignored was that copying might be illegal, but it's not theft.
Um. Anyone can say as loud as they want how they want you to run your life. People do it all the time, from every side. It's up to *you* to make up your own mind. If bennet tells you to do something, and you do, don't blame *him* for it.
... often make it harder to deny the quest for instant gratification" because "the more we attain, the more we want." Eat it, beyach.
(rolls eyes) Of course he can say what ever he wants, but then we are also perfectly free to say he's a hypocryte when he's outed as one. Dddddddduh.
Also, some people find dancing to be immoral, does that mean that bennet should be against this perfectly legal activity just because hes 'a general in the morality army'?
The problem is that he critisizes celebrities and politicians for the laundry list of vices, but this one just doesn't seem to apply to him. How convenient.
you still haven't fully explained to my satisfaction what makes gambling immoral to bill bennet.
Okay, since you want it SO DAMN BAD, here you go: on empower.org, a site run by him and Jack Kemp, he has a pdf on culturalal statistics and problems such as pornography. Also listed are stats on gambling, with 3 million people listed as 'problem gamblers'. Elsewhere on the site, they are supporting restricting internet gambling. Or look at his 'The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family' where he warns how "wealth and luxury
Now, if bill bennet starts *physically forcing* people to change their lifestyles, then I'll have something to say against him.
How about legally forcing? He was the Secretary of Education under Regean and the drug czar for the first Bush. He pushed for longer sentences for drug users, a victumless crime to begin with, but especially for marajuana which can arguably be said to be less dangerous than alchohol or cigarettes. While he's no longer a government official, he can use his considerable clout with the GOP to support stuff like COPA, restrictions on the sale of violent movies and video games, etc. Check out the list of proposed legislation on his site, some of which he supports. No doubt you'll come back with some bullshit rationalization that "he's free to support whatever he wants", but we are also free to castigate him for it, something you don't seem to think that *we* can do.
I'm sorry. It's just so damn funny to me that you say this like it's the ultimate evil.
Right. If you've been paying attention thats not what I've been saying, but then logic, common sense and consistency are anethma to the typical Liberterian, aren't they?
It's closer to a dollar a CD.
For who? Maybe for established bands with good contracts and industry clout (i.e. Metallica, Aerosmith), but certainaly not for Joe Smoe Band.
Say 50 people download a bands album without paying for it, and their take home royalty is 5 cents per album. Thats $2.50 in profits gone. One person out of that 50 buys a concert ticket for $35; even if the band only gets 5 bucks from that ticket sale, they've doubled their money vs album sales.
I didn't realize that bennet was a general in the morality army.
Well now you know. Just do a search for him and see what you turn up.
You are asserting that mr bennet supports a position, even though he *never* has
You just don't get it, do you? Its not that his own moral tenets might be in conflict in his personal life. Its that he's telling other people how they should their lives. As a Liberterian I would think you'd find this sort of person repugnant. When you are loudly (and profitably) telling other people that they should lead virtuous, moral lives, you come off as a bit of a hypocryte when its revealed that you've lost 8 million dollars by gambling.
Again, in case I haven't made this clear enough, he isn't catching hell because he's a man who was caught gambling, which as you say is perfectly legal. He's catching hell because he wants Americans to meet a high standard of morality and then its revealed that he doesn't meet that standard himself.
Only if it's your opinion that gambling is evil.
Its the opninion of the morality industry that it is evil. And as one of the primary generals in that industry, yes that damn well makes Benet a hypocrite. Wether or not he specifically ranted on the subject is irrelevant. You don't hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue and lecture others and then excuse your own actions by saying shit like "well, I never said that marrying your 14 year old cousin was immoral, so you can't complain when I do it!" Same thing goes for gambling.
We are still talking about software that's legal for his staff to use for free.
No, we aren't. They said his site would "probably" qualify as a non-profit, but to make sure of that Hatch's staff needs to talk to the developers, which they've neglected to do.
Forgetting a freeware registration is in no way analogous to downloading the entire Photoshop CD image and using a cracked serial number from a warez site to run it, nor gathering up the entire Led Zeppelin catalog on your MP3 player without paying for a single album.
Tell that to the BSA, and it might be freeware, or it might be almost a thousand dollars. The point that you seem to be missing is that before Hatch goes on the warpath for copyrights, he had better make sure his own ducks are all in a row. He didn't, which is why he's being (deservedly) lambasted.
I want a quad sensor optical mouse with its own PowerPC processor that would of course be hooked up via Firewire. :)
If you can't comprehend the difference between blatantly ripping off software & music and happening to employ some snot-nosed MCSE to admin your web server who forgot to register some free software, then you are either as clueless as Senator Hatch was when he made his statement about damaging computers, or else you are willfully choosing to ignore the difference, because you want to see hypocricy so badly in a politician you happen to dislike.
:)
Irrelevant. He's the boss; the buck stops with him. It doesn't matter whether he installed himself or had some "snot-nosed MCSE" do it for him, Hatch is still responsible for his site. And why are we expecting a higher standard from him than from some pimply faced kid "blatantly ripping off software & music"? Because he's a Senator, and the chair of the fucking Judiciary Committee! You're damn right we're going to expect more from him!