That would be really funny to see. I'd bet you'd get an average 24fps over some period of time, but that doesn't mean you'd get a constant 24 frames * Hz (one frame every 1/24th second). It could be rather jerky unless sophisticated timing stuff is going on.
I made the mistake of selecting "no karma bonus" in my correction to this post.
There are only two base models of iMacs. The third is a CTO that Apple just selects everything on. You can't order bluetooth from any independent retailer as a built-in option.
Moderators, please realize that the parent post is factually incorrect.
Did I say it did? Nope. Both of those steps were described on Windows. Other factors play into this on MacOS vs Windows; some of them are more subtle.
Re:Double Bzzzt... you failed to check too
on
New iMacs (and iPods)
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nope. I was entirely, 100% correct. I am very, very familiar with Apple's product lines and offerings.
No base iMac comes with either of these options. Only CTO iMacs do. The fact that Apple just so happens to conveniently put a maxed-out CTO on their store page does not make it stock. You can't buy this iMac at the local Apple Store, nor can you add Bluetooth later if you don't buy the CTO.
Please, moderators, check the information yourself before moderating down because ignorant replies don't bother to check the facts themselves. There are only two stock iMac models; two SKUs that Apple sends out. Anything else is CTO.
This, my friend, is what makes you a geek. You are willing to adapt yourself to your computer in order to perform fewer physical actions (mouse moves, clicks, etc.) and call it "efficiency".
This is not most people work. Rather, they want the number of cognitive steps involved in doing something reduced. What do I mean by a cognitive step? It's a step in the translation of goal->action.
For instance, take the task of writing a letter on the computer. Here, the goal is to write a letter, and the sequence of physical actions are the mouse and keyboard movements / presses that cause Word to be opened. You know how to find Word, so you hit Windows-button P M downarrow downarrow downarrow enter. This is quite efficient compared to moving the mouse around and selecting something on the desktop. However, the number of cognitive steps here for someone who hasn't become intuitively familiar with that method of opening programs is high:
Remember that the program to write a letter in is Microsoft Word
Remember that Word is stored in the Start Menu
Remember that the windows key opens up the start menu
Remember that it's stored under "programs", and that "programs" can be keyed with the letter "p".
Remember that it's called "Microsoft Word" instead of "Word"
Remember that you can only scroll to the first item in the list with a given first letter.
Hit an "m" and start banging on the downarrow until it comes into view
Needless to say this is an incredibly complex operation for anyone who hasn't got it ingrained in their muscle memory. However, if a person has an icon for Word on their desktop, the number of steps is reduced vastly:
Remember that the program to write a letter in is Microsoft Word
Remember that Word is stored on the desktop
Aim the mouse at Word (this step alone probably takes more time than your key-sequence)
Execute a double-click on Word (once again a very time-consuming operation in the hands of someone who is not terribly dextrous)
But, surprise surprise, this is only four steps! This is what makes certain computer systems (like Mac OS X) easier than others (Windows, or Linux).
Slashdot once again displays its inability to perform even the most basic fact checking. The new iMacs do not come with AirPort Extreme or Bluetooth. They have internal slots you can fill in a CTO configuration.
Right, but they've successfully reduced their chances of being called on the carpet for it. In their world, if their scheme is successful they will never be prosecuted for stock manipulation.
Not everything is done as a preventative. They're just trying to avoid prosecution now.
Myrinet sucks. No, really. It does. It eats CPU when sending data. It generally does not perform as well as Infiniband. It has higher latency. Once you start using this for real work (outside of what are known as "embarassingly parallel" problems, which are fine with 10baseT), those factors will play into your performance to a huge degree.
AMD fanboys, take note: The G5 does have superior floating-point hardware, for either double precision superscalar or vector single precision work. If they're doing floating point the G5 is a clear win.
The memory bus on the G5 is a bit better than on the Opterons - especially once you start doing threaded work, the dual unidirectional buses essentially allow cache transfers at the same time as memory transfers, and a whole bunch of other possibilities.
Lastly, what are you smoking? The only way an AMD becomes competitive with a G5 (machine to machine here) is if you build the AMD yourself and leave out the stuff the G5 has in it. Are you suggesting that Virginia Tech build 1100 Opteron, no, 4400 Opteron systems (you said 4x, not me!) themselves? That's crazy. They want somebody else to build and test the machines, and that somebody to be responsible when they fail. Of course such a real-world advantage has little to do with the bubble most/.ers live in, because they build their Athlons themselves. Perhaps the reality distortion field merely applies to introducing reality to people who have never seen it before.
Oh, and I suppose you were asleep during the discussion of the G5's dual, independent double precision floating-point units? And the out-of-order-execution engine that makes them usable? And the memory architecture that will make it scream on large data sets?
The G5's floating point hardware is the most advanced to be found right now, either in standard double-precision or vector double precision.
(FYI: yes, this cluster exists, or will exist. Unfortunately I believe they will be using MPICH which might put a dent into their numbers.)
.)ecneuqes fo dnik rehto yna ro( sgnirts ruoy esrever ot "esrever" noitcnuf LC nitliub eht esu dna )/gro.lcbs.www//:ptth ta,LCBS esu I( noitatnemelpmi psiL nommoC ISNA doog a pu flesruoy kcip uoy taht tseggus I."form" ti lleps deedni did I
And what/. fails to appreciate is the fact that in the "real world" (defined as everywhere else, including other universities), nobody cares that much about the BS that MIT's putting out. Especially things like this.
Putting the name "MIT" on it gets funding, but that doesn't make it useful.
Nope. Apple worked with Genetech (a big customer of theirs) to create Apple/Genetech BLAST, which has AltiVec-izations in it. That was the source of some benchmarks for the Xserve last year.
What people forget when dealing with benchmarking vectorized code is how much the ease of vectorization plays into it. AltiVec is much easier to code for than SSE/SSE2. This matters a lot.
Nope. Not at all. I'm anal about it because it's being used by our legislatures and courts, who should know better. This is our lives they're screwing with, and we deserve people who at least can understand the legal differentiation.
The courts ruled in the 50's that copyright infringement is not stealing.
WRONG!
The G5 still implements full little-endian mode. MS's blowing smoke out their ass. Even if a few instructions were removed, that would not force them to rewrite it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry about groklaw. They're hosted by Userland, and I'm sure they have bandwidth to spare.
That would be really funny to see. I'd bet you'd get an average 24fps over some period of time, but that doesn't mean you'd get a constant 24 frames * Hz (one frame every 1/24th second). It could be rather jerky unless sophisticated timing stuff is going on.
So did a /lot/ of companies. It's been 58 years, and I doubt anybody who had anything to do with that decision is still working there.
These units are built separately by Apple. The retailers will only stock two SKUs for the iMac, and all CTO units are based on those stock units.
There are only two base models of iMacs. The third is a CTO that Apple just selects everything on. You can't order bluetooth from any independent retailer as a built-in option.
Moderators, please realize that the parent post is factually incorrect.
Did I say it did? Nope. Both of those steps were described on Windows. Other factors play into this on MacOS vs Windows; some of them are more subtle.
No base iMac comes with either of these options. Only CTO iMacs do. The fact that Apple just so happens to conveniently put a maxed-out CTO on their store page does not make it stock. You can't buy this iMac at the local Apple Store, nor can you add Bluetooth later if you don't buy the CTO.
Please, moderators, check the information yourself before moderating down because ignorant replies don't bother to check the facts themselves. There are only two stock iMac models; two SKUs that Apple sends out. Anything else is CTO.
This is not most people work. Rather, they want the number of cognitive steps involved in doing something reduced. What do I mean by a cognitive step? It's a step in the translation of goal->action.
For instance, take the task of writing a letter on the computer. Here, the goal is to write a letter, and the sequence of physical actions are the mouse and keyboard movements / presses that cause Word to be opened. You know how to find Word, so you hit Windows-button P M downarrow downarrow downarrow enter. This is quite efficient compared to moving the mouse around and selecting something on the desktop. However, the number of cognitive steps here for someone who hasn't become intuitively familiar with that method of opening programs is high:
- Remember that the program to write a letter in is Microsoft Word
- Remember that Word is stored in the Start Menu
- Remember that the windows key opens up the start menu
- Remember that it's stored under "programs", and that "programs" can be keyed with the letter "p".
- Remember that it's called "Microsoft Word" instead of "Word"
- Remember that you can only scroll to the first item in the list with a given first letter.
- Hit an "m" and start banging on the downarrow until it comes into view
Needless to say this is an incredibly complex operation for anyone who hasn't got it ingrained in their muscle memory. However, if a person has an icon for Word on their desktop, the number of steps is reduced vastly:- Remember that the program to write a letter in is Microsoft Word
- Remember that Word is stored on the desktop
- Aim the mouse at Word (this step alone probably takes more time than your key-sequence)
- Execute a double-click on Word (once again a very time-consuming operation in the hands of someone who is not terribly dextrous)
But, surprise surprise, this is only four steps! This is what makes certain computer systems (like Mac OS X) easier than others (Windows, or Linux).That's a CTO model.
Slashdot once again displays its inability to perform even the most basic fact checking. The new iMacs do not come with AirPort Extreme or Bluetooth. They have internal slots you can fill in a CTO configuration.
Right, but they've successfully reduced their chances of being called on the carpet for it. In their world, if their scheme is successful they will never be prosecuted for stock manipulation.
Not everything is done as a preventative. They're just trying to avoid prosecution now.
Sorry, that was a think-o. If you read it it's obvious I knew that and meant to say single there.
Oh, and I suppose you were asleep during the discussion of the G5's dual, independent double precision floating-point units? And the out-of-order-execution engine that makes them usable? And the memory architecture that will make it scream on large data sets?
The G5's floating point hardware is the most advanced to be found right now, either in standard double-precision or vector double precision.
(FYI: yes, this cluster exists, or will exist. Unfortunately I believe they will be using MPICH which might put a dent into their numbers.)
.)ecneuqes fo dnik rehto yna ro( sgnirts ruoy esrever ot "esrever" noitcnuf LC nitliub eht esu dna )/gro.lcbs.www//:ptth ta ,LCBS esu I( noitatnemelpmi psiL nommoC ISNA doog a pu flesruoy kcip uoy taht tseggus I ."form" ti lleps deedni did I
And what /. fails to appreciate is the fact that in the "real world" (defined as everywhere else, including other universities), nobody cares that much about the BS that MIT's putting out. Especially things like this.
Putting the name "MIT" on it gets funding, but that doesn't make it useful.
."s'ti" si rof gnikool er'uoy drow ehT ."sti" fo mrof evissesop eht si "stI"
One, because they were going to develop xlc optimized for the 970 anyway (for their own boxes) so the effort here was just in making it Mach-O savvy.
Two, they are working on gcc optimization fairly heavily with Apple. They are also working on AltiVec autovectorization.
You wouldn't bother to look up the facts first though, would you?
Nope. Apple worked with Genetech (a big customer of theirs) to create Apple/Genetech BLAST, which has AltiVec-izations in it. That was the source of some benchmarks for the Xserve last year.
What people forget when dealing with benchmarking vectorized code is how much the ease of vectorization plays into it. AltiVec is much easier to code for than SSE/SSE2. This matters a lot.
Nope. Not at all. I'm anal about it because it's being used by our legislatures and courts, who should know better. This is our lives they're screwing with, and we deserve people who at least can understand the legal differentiation.
The courts ruled in the 50's that copyright infringement is not stealing.
Well if the code truly was stolen SCO wouldn't have it.
I hate the current collusion of theft and copyright infringement.
WRONG! The G5 still implements full little-endian mode. MS's blowing smoke out their ass. Even if a few instructions were removed, that would not force them to rewrite it.
I seem to recall that Deep Impact actually bested Armageddon at the box office at once point.
Or have you not worked at a big company recently?
Can we test license termination and code misappropriation claims with a lie detector?