The point I'm making is that new applications are usually developed in Cocoa and then they use Apple's tool set (and GCC). Older applications are being updated to Carbon (so called Carbonized) and there is no merit in making that job harder be switching toolsets (you a start you need to learn the new ide) and so they stick with CodeWarrior.
Of course new Carbon apps are a different thing, but Apple are "encouraging" that new applications are written to Cocoa. For a new application then Apple's tools are a perfectly good choice. (And have the benefit of being free)
That's actually part of my point SOME applications look better on the G4 than others (I'm highlighting Photoshop as an example that makes the G4 "look good" - of course if you run Photoshop a lot then this might be the metric that gives the best impression).
I'm sure someone out there will be able to find applications that really DON'T make the G4 look good. My point is that (warning: possible bad spelling) Sorenson Encoding is one thing that really needs the AltiVec to run well (another example is BLAST, but I guess fewer of us will want to run that).
As to a twin G4 1GHz being slower on benchmarks than a 2GMz P4 - yeah if you choose your benchmark carefully that'll be true (of course that "carefull choosing" might actually indicate the performance of the application you're interested in - it's the converse of the Photoshop example above).
Of course in most applications on modern machines G4s and P4s aren't the limiting factors. But that's whole different can of worms.
The only sensible advice about benchmarking is: test the application you want to use, with the operations that will take you the most time.
If one is talking about Linux the kernel (as I am here) then I think GNU/Linux is wrong. If we're talking about a typical distribution then GNU/Linux is a better description (as in most there is a vast amount of GNU software). Of course there is always a danger that people who are less equainted with the subject will think that GNU/Linux is something different to Linux.
They use GCC for all Darwin and TO IMPLEMENT (the words I forgot!) Cocoa.
They use the CodeWarrior toolset (here I am confused - if I still have the name wrong, I'm talking about the compiler that comes in the box that has CodeWarrior on it, I just assumed it was called CodeWarrior: my bad) for the old Mac derived stuff.
Well that's what they suggest developers do anyway. Darwin IS built with GCC.
Look at encoding video so it can be written to a DVD (and played on a normal player) this is one example where the AltiVec blows x86 away. Don't forget iDVD needs to do this, also the video transitions in iMovie are another area where the AltiVec helps a great deal, and extra speed is helpful. I agree that there are problems out there where the AltiVec isn't at all useful, but a suprising number where it is. The Mac hardware uses other "tricks" to get better performance - Quartz Extreem, makes use of the compositing in the GPU to lighten the load on the CPU.
The G4 also has a very short pipeline that helps on "normal" code as well. Lastly all the Mac Towers use 2 G4s, making use of the fact that Mach is well optimized for SMP.
No it's not, it's different - sure it has different strengths and might even be better for different jobs (this isn't a my Mac's better than your PC rant) but the way that Apple have solved these problems are deeply AltiVec.
That's also true for BLAST, and why the work was done on the PPC. G4s just have the edge over x86 in this. it's also true for Photoshop (that's why Apple often bring that to the demo table so often) it is written to make best use of whatever platform and it always does better on the Mac.
Heh, It's a suite of tools that includes a compiler - so I understand. I'm not from the Mac side of the tree so, I get stuff like this wrong. Anyway people from the Mac side use this stuff (whatever it's called) and I think Apple do too for stuff that's come from old style Mac OS.
Open Source - hello!!! This is WHY it's open source so you (or someone else) can fix it. Do you think Linux just emerged supporting almost every configuration?
As this is a "known problem" then I guess someone is busy fixing it as I type this.
Your logic is flawless, and that is indeed true. You can use a GPL compiler and the binaries aren't GPL (bacause they aren't extentions to the code in the compiler, they are the output from the compiler). Linking is a grey area. Say you subclass an object that's GPL, then the subclass is also GPL even though your code is in a different file. But this is a library issue, not a compiler one, this could happen if you used a GPL library with Visual C++!
I think the issues are generally overstated, but of course you do have to check what you're doing. Of course if you're happy to use the GPL for your code then this isn't an issue!
Actually it matters a lot. Small differences they might be, but as the old saying goes: "The Devil's in the details". GCC is the best choice, because it's a damn fine compiler (I've used it for years, it's great) and because it's so widespread, especially useful if you want to create code that's portable (Linux is a great advert for portability of GCC developed code).
The other compiler that Apple advocate is CodeWarrior this has a long history with Mac developers, and is used for Carbon projects (again they're probably derived from Classic code originally developed with CodeWarrior. There is nothing wrong with that compiler either, so as the old saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it"). Mac developers are used to that compiler so switching doesn't make any sense. Again if you have an application like Office or Photoshop it doesn't make sense to get bitten by lots of compiler issues.
But it is open source - so these problems are in our power to fix, right? I mean Linux only ran on a couple of hardware configs to begin with, look at it now. (Runs on pretty much everything)
And miss out on AltiVec, many of the iApps (iMovie, iDVD) need AltiVec to run at a reasonable speed. They would be far too slow on an Intel or AMD based system. This is of course deliberate on the part of Apple, to play to their strengths (AltiVec in this case).
Of course iTunes is also optimized to make heavy use of the AltiVec, but MP3s don't actually stress a modern processor at all so AltiVec isn't important here.
Err... I'm guessing that to a lot of Unix guys - the kernel doesn't really matter a jot. Afterall we use the Unix calls and as long as it does what the man page says it should that's fine. So a lot of this is redundant.
But there are a lot of reasons you might want to use Darwin over GNU/Linux. You can add X to it, and compile up lots of software, from three feet away who'd guess it wasn't Linux or some other form of BSD?
If that's true (and I think it is) then why is this less useful than Linux?
If you want to see a Unix-like OS that's implemented in quite a different way to Linux take a look at this. On a related note - you don't need a Mac to do this, Darwin also runs on a PC. Of course if you want to run Mac OS (9 or X) software you'll need a Mac with a full copy, but that's another story.
Of course there is a slew of Open Source OSes for PC (and Macs) out there so Linux ISN'T your only choice (not that it's a bad one).
Yeah they probably just wiped the mud off and plugged it back in!
And Macs run other OSes too. Including Linux - maybe it's a Mac? Anyway is this actually important? Who said it was their server?
Aren't we all taking this too seriously? It's meant to be funny - and a huge excuse to drink beer from the looks of those pictures (and that doesn't sound all bad to me).
That's those evil Mac peeps and their Photoshop - probably used it to show how fast their systems are. (Did the composite before the PC hit the ground or something).
(Serious question - why would anyone super impose the PCs in the picture?)
You're obviously confused - weight doesn't tell you much about a systems speed. You're confused by Intel's Mega-Weight Myth. You have to consider pipeline length as well.
Yeah, I have a copy. I'd recommend it too, Robert is actually pretty engaging himself. It was shot while Steve was at NeXT. Of course Steve is pretty cool in it, and I think given what's happened since Jobs returned to Apple Mr Cringely's statement appear more justified than ever.
Of course, I remember the Apple II, and the Lisa. I have a small number of NeXT boxes, so I know Steve's machines pretty well. To really understand what happened after the Mac, you need to have seen (and preferably developed on) the NeXT. Maybe not a comercial success, but it's the machine that changed everything. (And now it's morphed into Mac OS X, it's still doing it!)
I'm sure that's right - but why's it called Blue Gene?
What ever that's one big system, and represents a huge investment in Linux. Fanstastic stuff! I'm not sure how I feel about the use though, good we don't need to blow things up, but seems a shame that such a wonderful computer is only used to research ways of killing people rather than helping them. I just think it would be a little more romantic to think of this beast trying to figure out a cure for cancer or something.
Slashdot Mirror
The point I'm making is that new applications are usually developed in Cocoa and then they use Apple's tool set (and GCC). Older applications are being updated to Carbon (so called Carbonized) and there is no merit in making that job harder be switching toolsets (you a start you need to learn the new ide) and so they stick with CodeWarrior.
Of course new Carbon apps are a different thing, but Apple are "encouraging" that new applications are written to Cocoa. For a new application then Apple's tools are a perfectly good choice. (And have the benefit of being free)
That's actually part of my point SOME applications look better on the G4 than others (I'm highlighting Photoshop as an example that makes the G4 "look good" - of course if you run Photoshop a lot then this might be the metric that gives the best impression).
I'm sure someone out there will be able to find applications that really DON'T make the G4 look good. My point is that (warning: possible bad spelling) Sorenson Encoding is one thing that really needs the AltiVec to run well (another example is BLAST, but I guess fewer of us will want to run that).
As to a twin G4 1GHz being slower on benchmarks than a 2GMz P4 - yeah if you choose your benchmark carefully that'll be true (of course that "carefull choosing" might actually indicate the performance of the application you're interested in - it's the converse of the Photoshop example above).
Of course in most applications on modern machines G4s and P4s aren't the limiting factors. But that's whole different can of worms.
The only sensible advice about benchmarking is: test the application you want to use, with the operations that will take you the most time.
If one is talking about Linux the kernel (as I am here) then I think GNU/Linux is wrong. If we're talking about a typical distribution then GNU/Linux is a better description (as in most there is a vast amount of GNU software). Of course there is always a danger that people who are less equainted with the subject will think that GNU/Linux is something different to Linux.
Yeah sorry - I was REALLY unclear.
They use GCC for all Darwin and TO IMPLEMENT (the words I forgot!) Cocoa.
They use the CodeWarrior toolset (here I am confused - if I still have the name wrong, I'm talking about the compiler that comes in the box that has CodeWarrior on it, I just assumed it was called CodeWarrior: my bad) for the old Mac derived stuff.
Well that's what they suggest developers do anyway. Darwin IS built with GCC.
As far as I understand this is a problem that's limited to CD-Rom drives. I don't run Darwin on x86 so I'm not sure, but that's what I understand.
Look at encoding video so it can be written to a DVD (and played on a normal player) this is one example where the AltiVec blows x86 away. Don't forget iDVD needs to do this, also the video transitions in iMovie are another area where the AltiVec helps a great deal, and extra speed is helpful. I agree that there are problems out there where the AltiVec isn't at all useful, but a suprising number where it is. The Mac hardware uses other "tricks" to get better performance - Quartz Extreem, makes use of the compositing in the GPU to lighten the load on the CPU.
The G4 also has a very short pipeline that helps on "normal" code as well. Lastly all the Mac Towers use 2 G4s, making use of the fact that Mach is well optimized for SMP.
No it's not, it's different - sure it has different strengths and might even be better for different jobs (this isn't a my Mac's better than your PC rant) but the way that Apple have solved these problems are deeply AltiVec.
That's also true for BLAST, and why the work was done on the PPC. G4s just have the edge over x86 in this. it's also true for Photoshop (that's why Apple often bring that to the demo table so often) it is written to make best use of whatever platform and it always does better on the Mac.
Heh, It's a suite of tools that includes a compiler - so I understand. I'm not from the Mac side of the tree so, I get stuff like this wrong. Anyway people from the Mac side use this stuff (whatever it's called) and I think Apple do too for stuff that's come from old style Mac OS.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion!
Open Source - hello!!! This is WHY it's open source so you (or someone else) can fix it. Do you think Linux just emerged supporting almost every configuration?
As this is a "known problem" then I guess someone is busy fixing it as I type this.
Your logic is flawless, and that is indeed true. You can use a GPL compiler and the binaries aren't GPL (bacause they aren't extentions to the code in the compiler, they are the output from the compiler). Linking is a grey area. Say you subclass an object that's GPL, then the subclass is also GPL even though your code is in a different file. But this is a library issue, not a compiler one, this could happen if you used a GPL library with Visual C++!
I think the issues are generally overstated, but of course you do have to check what you're doing. Of course if you're happy to use the GPL for your code then this isn't an issue!
Actually it matters a lot. Small differences they might be, but as the old saying goes: "The Devil's in the details". GCC is the best choice, because it's a damn fine compiler (I've used it for years, it's great) and because it's so widespread, especially useful if you want to create code that's portable (Linux is a great advert for portability of GCC developed code).
The other compiler that Apple advocate is CodeWarrior this has a long history with Mac developers, and is used for Carbon projects (again they're probably derived from Classic code originally developed with CodeWarrior. There is nothing wrong with that compiler either, so as the old saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it"). Mac developers are used to that compiler so switching doesn't make any sense. Again if you have an application like Office or Photoshop it doesn't make sense to get bitten by lots of compiler issues.
It seems (from a developer's point of view) that they use GCC for Darwin and Cocoa and CodeWarrior for Carbon.
This makes sense - Mac developers have used CodeWarrior on "classic Mac OS" for quite some time.
NeXT always used GCC (in fact I think they helped to add Objective-C to GCC in the first place).
It's a safe bet they use GCC for the Intel builds too - that's how you get portability for Kernels (that's how Linux does it too).
It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of open source, and Linux in particular.
But it is open source - so these problems are in our power to fix, right? I mean Linux only ran on a couple of hardware configs to begin with, look at it now. (Runs on pretty much everything)
Wasn't there some legal reason for this? (I'm pretty sure there was) So while I agree with you, I don't think Apple are to blame.
As I remember it was something about someone under that age could be held to the licence or something?
Someone help me out here.
And miss out on AltiVec, many of the iApps (iMovie, iDVD) need AltiVec to run at a reasonable speed. They would be far too slow on an Intel or AMD based system. This is of course deliberate on the part of Apple, to play to their strengths (AltiVec in this case).
Of course iTunes is also optimized to make heavy use of the AltiVec, but MP3s don't actually stress a modern processor at all so AltiVec isn't important here.
Err... I'm guessing that to a lot of Unix guys - the kernel doesn't really matter a jot. Afterall we use the Unix calls and as long as it does what the man page says it should that's fine. So a lot of this is redundant.
But there are a lot of reasons you might want to use Darwin over GNU/Linux. You can add X to it, and compile up lots of software, from three feet away who'd guess it wasn't Linux or some other form of BSD?
If that's true (and I think it is) then why is this less useful than Linux?
You can't get hold of old Macs, they've all got fish in them.
Darwin (the core) of Mac OS X is Open Source.
If you want to see a Unix-like OS that's implemented in quite a different way to Linux take a look at this. On a related note - you don't need a Mac to do this, Darwin also runs on a PC. Of course if you want to run Mac OS (9 or X) software you'll need a Mac with a full copy, but that's another story.
Of course there is a slew of Open Source OSes for PC (and Macs) out there so Linux ISN'T your only choice (not that it's a bad one).
Yeah they probably just wiped the mud off and plugged it back in!
And Macs run other OSes too. Including Linux - maybe it's a Mac? Anyway is this actually important? Who said it was their server?
Aren't we all taking this too seriously? It's meant to be funny - and a huge excuse to drink beer from the looks of those pictures (and that doesn't sound all bad to me).
That's those evil Mac peeps and their Photoshop - probably used it to show how fast their systems are. (Did the composite before the PC hit the ground or something).
(Serious question - why would anyone super impose the PCs in the picture?)
You're obviously confused - weight doesn't tell you much about a systems speed. You're confused by Intel's Mega-Weight Myth. You have to consider pipeline length as well.
Yeah, I have a copy. I'd recommend it too, Robert is actually pretty engaging himself. It was shot while Steve was at NeXT. Of course Steve is pretty cool in it, and I think given what's happened since Jobs returned to Apple Mr Cringely's statement appear more justified than ever.
Of course, I remember the Apple II, and the Lisa. I have a small number of NeXT boxes, so I know Steve's machines pretty well. To really understand what happened after the Mac, you need to have seen (and preferably developed on) the NeXT. Maybe not a comercial success, but it's the machine that changed everything. (And now it's morphed into Mac OS X, it's still doing it!)
Ha HA!
I just got a mental image of a big fat bald butterfly, sweating profusely surrounded by medics on a street corner.
Thanks gaudior, very VERY funny!
I'm sure that's right - but why's it called Blue Gene?
What ever that's one big system, and represents a huge investment in Linux. Fanstastic stuff! I'm not sure how I feel about the use though, good we don't need to blow things up, but seems a shame that such a wonderful computer is only used to research ways of killing people rather than helping them. I just think it would be a little more romantic to think of this beast trying to figure out a cure for cancer or something.
The one person that really comes to mind here is Steve Jobs. He got forced out in a board room coup and the company went to hell in a hand basket.
Now he's back at Apple and things look golden again.
Perhaps the cure for some of these "sick" companies is to get the founder back to inject some of the old passion back into the company?
Like him or loath him, Steve Jobs has passion - and that shows in the products. Probably more than anyone else. (I still have my old NeXT boxes)