Apple is implying that software-based prefetching will be turned on by default for the shipping systems, yet it was turned off for the benchmark. This suggests that turning software-based prefetching off was another trick that won't work in the real world, like the special malloc.
(Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).
Why didn't you find out then?? If the issue was important enough to respond, why didn't you take 5 minutes to call someone who would know the answer to that question? Because you already knew the answer to the question, but didn't want to say it, because it is embarrassing. The answer to the question is tucked away in the Veritest report, where you hoped that most people wouldn't read it. The Veritest report says that the malloc used is "unsuitable for many uses". Furthermore, even if the malloc WAS suitable for real-world use, Apple's credibility is shot to pieces because they used it for the G5 benchmark but NOT for the Dell benchmark.
You would get more respect from people if you would just be honest. I'm NOT saying you have to list all the negative points about your products. Reviewers and your competitors can do that. But when you list positive points about your products, they should be honest.
What is your target market? With the price of those G5's, you must be targeting professionals. Therefore, professionals would appreciate it if you treated them like intelligent people.
I challenge Apple to show the world what they are made of. Go on, show the world that you are a company of integrity. Remove the claim "The Power Mac G5 is the world's fastest personal computer". Replace it with something more accurate, for example something like, "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers." That is still an impressive statement. You should be PROUD that you have ONE of the world's fastest personal computers. There is no need to deliberately mislead people.
Everyone makes mistakes, I know I've made plenty. People will quickly forgive you for this mistake if you correct it. Show the world how much you respect your customers by amending your claim to "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers."
On the other hand, if you continue to claim that the G5 is "THE world's fastest personal computer", then the message you are sending to the world is that honesty and accuracy in marketing is unimportant to you, and you couldn't care less about your customers, provided that they keep spending money on your products.
Before we examine the SPEC results that Apple/Veritest claims, it must be noted that Apple/Veritest have used a few "cheats" to make the G5 look better. So whenever you see a Apple/Veritest result in the following tables, be aware that it has been affected by the following "cheats".
Apple/Veritest used a special fast malloc library on the G5 benchmark, but did not use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes)."
(Page 5, also see Appendix E, Page 26, Veritest PDF)
For both the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Dell Precision 650, Apple/Veritest performed the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks with hyperthreading DISABLED. They had hyperthreading ENABLED for the single-processor benchmarks, but DISABLED for the multi-processor benchmarks, despite the fact that hyperthreading would have improved the performance of the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks, while having little or no effect on the single-processor benchmarks. In either case, this performance-enhancing feature of the Intel processors should not have been disabled. Here is the quote:
Dell Dimension 8300 Configuration for SPEC CPU2000 Rate Base Testing
[...]
Use the system setup utility to disable hyperthreading in the system.
[...]
Dell Precision 650 Configuration for SPEC CPU2000 Rate Base Testing
[...]
Use the system setup utility to disable hyperthreading in the system.
(Pages 7-8, Veritest PDF)
Apple/Veritest used a special fast "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option on the G5 benchmark, but did NOT use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage in floating-point operations. If you are going to use a performance-enhancing trick on one computer, then to be fair you must use it on the other computer as well. The equivalent option in GCC for the Dell/Intel computers is "-ffast-math", but Apple/Veritest did not use it. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Appendix E. Apple Power Mac G5 GCC 3.3 Compiler and Linking Option Descriptions
-fast [...] also enables the use of C99 aliasing rules and relaxed IEEE math operations.
-fastf [...] also enables the use of C99 aliasing rules and relaxed IEEE math operations."
(Page 26, Veritest PDF)
It would be pragmatic to kill all those that can not survive on their own, would it not? So should we round up all thost that use artificial means to survive and kill them too?
Are you as upset that the MythTV project doesn't give credit for what tech/work of others it is built on? I found links in the docs, but I do not see any notice or credit given to the tech that MythTV uses.
Where does it stop? Does a project have to name every other project they get code from on their main page?
You accused them of being shady and of being in a 'grey' area. They are neither, they are following the GPL and if the MythTv people get upset about it, then perhaps they should have used another license.
Of course, you are doing the same think of the page linked to in your sig.
I notice that on your site (at least the one linked to from your/. profile) that the Movible Type Identifer is down at the bottom of the page. On my 21" 1280x1024 monitor in a maximized window I can not see it unless I shrink the text size down. So does that make your site shady?
The cox-internet cable modem only fee is 15.00 USD. Basic cable is 1.47 cents more.
Now, it wouldn't be so bad if Cox would just quit running ads for servies they do not provide in this area. And don't suggest that I sue them, I don't have the money to waste on it & a lawyer would not make enough to take it on contigency.
What laws forbid the WRITING of malicous code? I know their are laws that forbid the USE of malicous on systems that are not yours, but I am not aware of ay laws that prohibit the writing of malicous code.
This is the same UN that could not manage the Oil for Food program in Iraq. You know the same program that SH stole 5-10 BILLION USD from.
Yea, I want a bunch of petty dictators controling the future of the net. Would it then fall under the US charter/UNDHR there by outlawing any speach that the UN feels is contray to the goals of the UN?
Perhaps if the telcos hadn't forgotten/not upgrade their networks in these small towns then they small towns would not be thinking of building their own networks.
Hell, verizon keeps telling me, via their online system, that I can get DSL even though I don't qualify. Cox provides cable internet in this area, but it is only 1024/128 compared to 3000/256 for most of the rest of their network. And Cox doesn't have any plans to upgrade our connetions for the next 3-5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
About 200 Bharti computer engineers will be transferred to IBM's Indian unit. However, some of the work will be transfered to the US and elsewhere.
Most of that work will still be done in India.
When they published those benchmarks in an ad. People have the right to assume that a fact mentioned in an ad will be true.
Maybe so, but why didn't you refute any of the other claims from that site?
Apple is implying that software-based prefetching will be turned on by default for the shipping systems, yet it was turned off for the benchmark. This suggests that turning software-based prefetching off was another trick that won't work in the real world, like the special malloc.
(Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).
Why didn't you find out then?? If the issue was important enough to respond, why didn't you take 5 minutes to call someone who would know the answer to that question? Because you already knew the answer to the question, but didn't want to say it, because it is embarrassing. The answer to the question is tucked away in the Veritest report, where you hoped that most people wouldn't read it. The Veritest report says that the malloc used is "unsuitable for many uses". Furthermore, even if the malloc WAS suitable for real-world use, Apple's credibility is shot to pieces because they used it for the G5 benchmark but NOT for the Dell benchmark.
You would get more respect from people if you would just be honest. I'm NOT saying you have to list all the negative points about your products. Reviewers and your competitors can do that. But when you list positive points about your products, they should be honest.
What is your target market? With the price of those G5's, you must be targeting professionals. Therefore, professionals would appreciate it if you treated them like intelligent people.
I challenge Apple to show the world what they are made of. Go on, show the world that you are a company of integrity. Remove the claim "The Power Mac G5 is the world's fastest personal computer". Replace it with something more accurate, for example something like, "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers." That is still an impressive statement. You should be PROUD that you have ONE of the world's fastest personal computers. There is no need to deliberately mislead people.
Everyone makes mistakes, I know I've made plenty. People will quickly forgive you for this mistake if you correct it. Show the world how much you respect your customers by amending your claim to "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers."
On the other hand, if you continue to claim that the G5 is "THE world's fastest personal computer", then the message you are sending to the world is that honesty and accuracy in marketing is unimportant to you, and you couldn't care less about your customers, provided that they keep spending money on your products.
Apple Manipulating the Results
From http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/
Before we examine the SPEC results that Apple/Veritest claims, it must be noted that Apple/Veritest have used a few "cheats" to make the G5 look better. So whenever you see a Apple/Veritest result in the following tables, be aware that it has been affected by the following "cheats".
Apple/Veritest used a special fast malloc library on the G5 benchmark, but did not use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes)."
(Page 5, also see Appendix E, Page 26, Veritest PDF)
For both the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Dell Precision 650, Apple/Veritest performed the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks with hyperthreading DISABLED. They had hyperthreading ENABLED for the single-processor benchmarks, but DISABLED for the multi-processor benchmarks, despite the fact that hyperthreading would have improved the performance of the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks, while having little or no effect on the single-processor benchmarks. In either case, this performance-enhancing feature of the Intel processors should not have been disabled. Here is the quote:
Dell Dimension 8300 Configuration for SPEC CPU2000 Rate Base Testing
[...]
Use the system setup utility to disable hyperthreading in the system.
[...]
Dell Precision 650 Configuration for SPEC CPU2000 Rate Base Testing
[...]
Use the system setup utility to disable hyperthreading in the system.
(Pages 7-8, Veritest PDF)
Apple/Veritest used a special fast "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option on the G5 benchmark, but did NOT use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage in floating-point operations. If you are going to use a performance-enhancing trick on one computer, then to be fair you must use it on the other computer as well. The equivalent option in GCC for the Dell/Intel computers is "-ffast-math", but Apple/Veritest did not use it. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Appendix E. Apple Power Mac G5 GCC 3.3 Compiler and Linking Option Descriptions
-fast [...] also enables the use of C99 aliasing rules and relaxed IEEE math operations.
-fastf [...] also enables the use of C99 aliasing rules and relaxed IEEE math operations."
(Page 26, Veritest PDF)
You just said that every senior citizen who is in a nursing home that is support by tax dollars should be killed...
Name one nation on the planet that could take out the USA and survive our counterattack.
Name one.
It would be pragmatic to kill all those that can not survive on their own, would it not? So should we round up all thost that use artificial means to survive and kill them too?
Gambling and drinking do not have the direct result of killing someone so they should be legal.
Abortion kills someone so it should not be legal.
Are you as upset that the MythTV project doesn't give credit for what tech/work of others it is built on? I found links in the docs, but I do not see any notice or credit given to the tech that MythTV uses.
Where does it stop? Does a project have to name every other project they get code from on their main page?
You accused them of being shady and of being in a 'grey' area. They are neither, they are following the GPL and if the MythTv people get upset about it, then perhaps they should have used another license.
Of course, you are doing the same think of the page linked to in your sig.
I notice that on your site (at least the one linked to from your /. profile) that the Movible Type Identifer is down at the bottom of the page. On my 21" 1280x1024 monitor in a maximized window I can not see it unless I shrink the text size down. So does that make your site shady?
They do not have to mention the MythTv name. The GPL doesn't require it.
The cox-internet cable modem only fee is 15.00 USD. Basic cable is 1.47 cents more.
Now, it wouldn't be so bad if Cox would just quit running ads for servies they do not provide in this area. And don't suggest that I sue them, I don't have the money to waste on it & a lawyer would not make enough to take it on contigency.
What laws forbid the WRITING of malicous code? I know their are laws that forbid the USE of malicous on systems that are not yours, but I am not aware of ay laws that prohibit the writing of malicous code.
Like the way Cox forces me to pay for basic cable even if I don't use it?
This is the same UN that could not manage the Oil for Food program in Iraq. You know the same program that SH stole 5-10 BILLION USD from.
Yea, I want a bunch of petty dictators controling the future of the net. Would it then fall under the US charter/UNDHR there by outlawing any speach that the UN feels is contray to the goals of the UN?
Like the UN could do any better.
Most Americans get TV via Cable and/or Sat. The pulling of the OTA licenses will not effect them.
Perhaps if the telcos hadn't forgotten/not upgrade their networks in these small towns then they small towns would not be thinking of building their own networks.
Hell, verizon keeps telling me, via their online system, that I can get DSL even though I don't qualify. Cox provides cable internet in this area, but it is only 1024/128 compared to 3000/256 for most of the rest of their network. And Cox doesn't have any plans to upgrade our connetions for the next 3-5 years.
What has gotten cheaper?
Can it display PDF's? Lack of PDF support is the only thing that stopped me from buying one of the current Ebook readers.
No, they should have done it correctly the first time, or at least caught it during the after assemble inspection for that job.
No he could not. The parent post I responded to mentioned shipping it to the UK from the NY UPS Store. I think customs could figure it out.
No. Customs can inpound the laptop before it arives at his house. He would have to pay before he could get it back.