Corel Bryce has the code in both ports windows and mac.. on windos the library is called becasue the ativec is not there and they need to use a virtual ativec..
I don't think Bryce uses AltiVec at all.
I run Bryce in OS X, and I can attest that it's not all that fast.
Barefeats.com posted this comment:
"Although Corel claims it has been carbonized for OS X, but the rendering code does NOT take advantage of the G4 or multiple processors."
Have you had Aqua a "few years"? Has Aqua been OUT a "few years"? How many apps are you running on Aqua? Im not talking little 5 lines of code freeware proof of concept apps. Im talking big apps like Outlook and Flash.
I have a few friends that run W2K. One is an architect, another does 3D StudioMax work. Both of them have to reformat and reinstall Windows every six months. They say if they don't things start running slow, etc.
I've been running OS X since April 2001. Never had to reinstall. I do run "big apps" like FlashMX, Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, GoLive, MS Office, LightWave, Maya... nothing breaks. Very often I have half of those apps open at the same time, all day, all week.
In the 16 months I've been running OS X I have had about 6 "crashes" where I had to reboot. Four of those were kernel panics while running OS X 10.1.3, which was prone to kernel panics.
What model UMAX? I have an old 1220S and it works fine in OS X, via an OrangeMicro 930U SCSI card and VueScan (like we really think UMAX can write OS X drivers! Ha!). I have a G4/466 Digital Audio.
While its poor performance (read, slower than OS9 on the same system, much slower than Linux [i.e., Debian] on the same system) may not be a problem for you, it may be for other people.
Well as I said, I run OS X, and I don't see it being that much slower, and when it is, it's the Finder that's slower. But I don't do much work in the Finder as compared to other applications. I also disagree about Linux being faster on the same hardware, because I run both.
Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.
So why are so many scientist running OS X? I guess they don't care as much as you think! The Human Genome project was run on G4 clusters.
Also having a slow GUI doesn't stop you from running "reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times." They don't run in the GUI.
You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.
So has every OS made. So what exactly are you doing on your computer that needs so much resources? I can tell that you don't use Mac OS X. But if you did, I'd ask what is it preventing you from doing? I suppose you don't want a GUI? Boot into Single User Mode then.
I do graphic and web design and audio editing. I haven't seen any instance where I couldn't do any work because the OS was in my way. Care to extrapolate on that comment?
True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?
Okay, I'll talk slow here, so try and follow.
First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."
Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.
Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using. You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate. You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why? If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else. That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9. I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar. Photoshop, a program I use every day, runs faster in OS X than OS 9 at work.
Calling someone an "idiot" when you contradict yourself really shows a lack of credibility.
And yes, I understand your point, that the core OS is lean and you value that in an OS. But not everyone does, and just because YOU think OS X is too slow to be usable does not mean everyone agrees with you.
Obviously a lot of people in places like NASA don't. I would guess they are smarter then you are also.
On to another winner.
In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems...
What part of "computer systems" don't you understand? The same holds true of SGI and Sun. Most people who buy systems want the whole system. It's well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS.
Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little. You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.
You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS? If you can't get "serious work" done then you are doing something wrong. Don't blame it on the GUI being too slow. Of course your "serious work" is probably more serious than mine, even though it pays the bills.;)
Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever). I have always used a Mac because of Mac OS. What makes Mac OS so different from Windows or Linux or IRIX or Solarus? I have used all of those but prefer Macs. It's the GUI!
People also don't buy cars because of speed alone. Sure you can have a stripped down car that's basically a motor on wheels. It wont ride very well though, and you miss all the amenities.
OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!
Learn to accept that other opinions are as important as your own!
I do, every day as my main OS. I'm typing this in OS X.
But it still has problems.
Not as much as you seem to think! Every OS has some problems. But OS X has been very reliable for me. I don't have the newest Mac, and it runs great. It also supports a bunch of old peripherals, like a 3 year old UMAX 1220S SCSI scanner, a 7 year old Iomega Zip drive, a 2 year old Epson SP 870 printer, and an external LaCie SCSI CD-RW. The best part is showing friends that come over how they can plug their digital camera in, and OS X launches either iPhoto or ImageCapture and asks to download the pictures. My friend's PC running Win2K wont even work with her new Sony camera. You think you're going to get ease of use like that with any other Unix? Not likely.
OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.
Yeah, so? And how many people's OS X boxes have been exploited? I'm on a full time broad band connection. No one has gotten access to my Mac. And it does have a built in firewall too.
Plus Apple releases security updates once a month. I just downloaded one. Some of the information in the book is out of date.
That's one problem. The other problem is performance.
Once again it's not that big of an issue. It hasn't stopped me from using and working on my Mac in OS X at all. What it lacks in performance it makes up for in multitasking. And the little that I used Jaguar shows its faster still.
Nearly every comment you make about the OS X UI is factually wrong. Control-click was introduced in OS 8; hold-clicking was introduced in OS X. Command-tab and command-tilde work just the same in OS 9 and OS X. The separate control panels were replaced with one system preferences application because third-party programmers frequently made control panels that messed with the system.
Just a few corrections.
Control-clicking (or right clicking if you have a two button mouse) was indeed introduced with Mac OS 8. However OS X does not allow you to click and hold to get a menu. Web browsers like IE and Mozilla do, but that's been standard for a long time. There is a great free Control Panel for OS 8 and 9 called FinderPop that did that, and also let you add menu items.
Command-tab does switch between running apps in both OS's. I installed the free LiteSwichX, which give a list of icons when you switch. I use Option-Tab because it's less of a risk of hitting Command-Q and quitting your application.
Command-tilde on OS X pops down a menu from the title bar on a Finder window that allows you to Go To a folder. As you type the path in, OS X auto completes it based on directory names on your system. I think in OS 9 Command-Tilde switched between open windows.
I have been running OS X every day since 10.0 came out. Its a great OS... much better than OS 9 or Linux IMHO.
1. The GUI is not the OS. They are separate entities.
I have to disagree with this. People use OS X (or any Apple OS) because of the GUI. If you want a generic UNIX you can run Linux or *BSD and any of the awful WMs in X11. And you can do this on Apple hardware too. But do you notice none of the scientist quoted in the article are doing that?
People use Macs because of the OS, especially the GUI.
2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.
One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.
A quote from the article:
"If I put together 64 G4s, we'll get the same performance as the Cray for a lot less money," he said. Indeed, Hunter's department has purchased seven Apple XServes -- rack-mounted Macs designed for use as servers -- to link in a high-speed computing cluster.
If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?
Bottom line is, you don't get it. Some people like OS X, AND its GUI. You don't have to.
Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.
Any who has used Macs for a while knows that each OS release since 8.0 got faster than the last, even thought they added more features and the OS used more RAM. "Bloat" does not always equal slow.
I saw a video of woz saying that the name Apple was chosen because it came before Atari in the phone book.
He either worked there or had a rivalry with them over something, whatever the case the name came about with that in mind.
Jobs worked for Atari. He was one of the first 50 employees. In fact Jobs worked on the game Pong. Later he was commissioned to create the game breakout, but was in over his head, so he called Woz in to help.
Woz designed a circuit so brilliant that no one at Atari could figure it out, so it had to be redesigned before it shipped.
After the game was delivered, Jobs called Woz and said there was a problem getting paid, but he finally wrote Woz a check for $350, saying that if Woz could design the circuit was fewer than 50 chips (and Woz got it down to 42), Jobs would get paid $700 and split it with Woz.
Later on Woz found out they paid Jobs $5,000!
Woz was working for HP and didn't want to leave his job to sell the Apple I, so since Jobs worked for Atari they showed it to Al Alcorn at Atari. Atari thought it was great, but was busy selling home Pong games.
The closest Moto has gotten is a 8xxx series "G5" processor that supports a RapidIO interconnect. However, this new processor, despite the existence of demo units dating back years, is still effectively vaporware.
Motorola already has a G5 out... the MPC8560 : PowerQUICC III Integrated Communications Processor
It's an embeded processor, not very fast either, 600 MHz - 1 GHz, but this is of interest:
The PowerQUICC III also offers two integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet controllers,
a DDR SDRAM memory controller, a 64-bit PCI-X/PCI controller,
and a RapidIO(TM) interconnect.
/. keeps down-modding my posts about this bit of info which I think is pretty informative... the holes on the front aren't vents, they are little speakers.
Did you just make this up or something?? Nowhere on Apple's page does it say it has more than one speaker. And it does say it has a "Built-in speaker"
They are air vents. It has ONE speaker. Same HK speaker as the Quicksilver, but near the top now. Why in hell would it have 5 speakers anyway? Mono at that!
The fact that you refer to the 4 new speakers on the computer as "holes for firewire or usb" pretty much sums up the value of all the comments you just made.:-)
Sorry, but they are not speakers. Those are air vents. It still has one speaker in front, near the top.
If you look at the QuickTime VR movie of the case opening, you can see where the bottom vent holes are, there is a mesh screen inside the case close to them.
Peripherals and audio
Two 400Mbps FireWire ports (15W total power)(7)
Four USB ports (two on system, two on keyboard)
Front headphone jack
Built-in speaker
Stereo audio line in and line out minijacks
Apple speaker minijack for connection to optional Apple Pro Speakers
I don't know about the Athlon, but with the P4, the FP unit doubles as the vector unit, so it can only do one, or the other, not both. So you have a switching penalty.
The G4 already has a double precision FP unit separate from AltiVec. Plus the MPC 7450 has four AltiVec units. Each AltiVec unit processes data at 128-bits. The G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Look what happened to Be after they switched to x86.
AND the kernel in question is open source.
Microsoft put Apple out of business? When did that happen?
YOUR spelling isn't so good either ;)
I don't think Bryce uses AltiVec at all.
I run Bryce in OS X, and I can attest that it's not all that fast.
Barefeats.com posted this comment:
I have a few friends that run W2K. One is an architect, another does 3D StudioMax work. Both of them have to reformat and reinstall Windows every six months. They say if they don't things start running slow, etc.
I've been running OS X since April 2001. Never had to reinstall. I do run "big apps" like FlashMX, Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, GoLive, MS Office, LightWave, Maya... nothing breaks. Very often I have half of those apps open at the same time, all day, all week.
In the 16 months I've been running OS X I have had about 6 "crashes" where I had to reboot. Four of those were kernel panics while running OS X 10.1.3, which was prone to kernel panics.
Sushi is not just fish. There is vegan sushi. Then again some vegetarians eat fish.
Go figure.
Did you give it a name? You have to give your Mac a name... it's in the rule book! :)
I have 12 Macs... mostly old ones. Only named the newest two however (Ramona and Rachemia)...
The NYTimes article says OS X borrows anti aliased type from Windows, which is nonsense of course, since OS 9 had that feature.
If you look at NeXTSTEP, and Windows 9x, you can see where Windows borrowed from NeXT.
The design of the window frame, including the title bar, and the close and minimize/maximize buttons.
The recycle bin.
The task bar.
The Windows file browser.
All these things were in NeXT STEP years before Win95.
It's Panther, not Puma.
Well as I said, I run OS X, and I don't see it being that much slower, and when it is, it's the Finder that's slower. But I don't do much work in the Finder as compared to other applications. I also disagree about Linux being faster on the same hardware, because I run both.
Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.
So why are so many scientist running OS X? I guess they don't care as much as you think! The Human Genome project was run on G4 clusters.
Also having a slow GUI doesn't stop you from running "reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times." They don't run in the GUI.
Only an idiot would say "Mac hardware." Who is Mac? They make cosmetics!
Only an idiot wouldn't know that Apple makes computers, not Mac. Well at least you didn't write "MAC."
Again, another idiotic comment. Slow is relative.
So is fast. So your statement is a circular argument. I think that's a pretty itiotic statement.
MacOS' are just resource hogs, be it CPU, GPU, or RAM.
Do you have some data to back that up?
I dont see it... sorry.
You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.
So has every OS made. So what exactly are you doing on your computer that needs so much resources? I can tell that you don't use Mac OS X. But if you did, I'd ask what is it preventing you from doing? I suppose you don't want a GUI? Boot into Single User Mode then.
I do graphic and web design and audio editing. I haven't seen any instance where I couldn't do any work because the OS was in my way. Care to extrapolate on that comment?
True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?
Okay, I'll talk slow here, so try and follow.
First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."
Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.
Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using. You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate. You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why? If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else. That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9. I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar. Photoshop, a program I use every day, runs faster in OS X than OS 9 at work.
Calling someone an "idiot" when you contradict yourself really shows a lack of credibility.
And yes, I understand your point, that the core OS is lean and you value that in an OS. But not everyone does, and just because YOU think OS X is too slow to be usable does not mean everyone agrees with you.
Obviously a lot of people in places like NASA don't. I would guess they are smarter then you are also.
On to another winner.
In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems...
What part of "computer systems" don't you understand? The same holds true of SGI and Sun. Most people who buy systems want the whole system. It's well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS.
Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little. You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.
You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS? If you can't get "serious work" done then you are doing something wrong. Don't blame it on the GUI being too slow. Of course your "serious work" is probably more serious than mine, even though it pays the bills. ;)
Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever). I have always used a Mac because of Mac OS. What makes Mac OS so different from Windows or Linux or IRIX or Solarus? I have used all of those but prefer Macs. It's the GUI!
People also don't buy cars because of speed alone. Sure you can have a stripped down car that's basically a motor on wheels. It wont ride very well though, and you miss all the amenities.
OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!
Learn to accept that other opinions are as important as your own!
NeXTSTEP was quite pretty too.
I always loved NeXTSTEP, almost bought a slab NeXT station once.
But OS X is NeXTSTEP, or as close as you can get without the real OS. ;)
I do, every day as my main OS. I'm typing this in OS X.
But it still has problems.
Not as much as you seem to think! Every OS has some problems. But OS X has been very reliable for me. I don't have the newest Mac, and it runs great. It also supports a bunch of old peripherals, like a 3 year old UMAX 1220S SCSI scanner, a 7 year old Iomega Zip drive, a 2 year old Epson SP 870 printer, and an external LaCie SCSI CD-RW. The best part is showing friends that come over how they can plug their digital camera in, and OS X launches either iPhoto or ImageCapture and asks to download the pictures. My friend's PC running Win2K wont even work with her new Sony camera. You think you're going to get ease of use like that with any other Unix? Not likely.
OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.
Yeah, so? And how many people's OS X boxes have been exploited? I'm on a full time broad band connection. No one has gotten access to my Mac. And it does have a built in firewall too.
Plus Apple releases security updates once a month. I just downloaded one. Some of the information in the book is out of date.
That's one problem. The other problem is performance.
Once again it's not that big of an issue. It hasn't stopped me from using and working on my Mac in OS X at all. What it lacks in performance it makes up for in multitasking. And the little that I used Jaguar shows its faster still.
Just a few corrections.
Control-clicking (or right clicking if you have a two button mouse) was indeed introduced with Mac OS 8. However OS X does not allow you to click and hold to get a menu. Web browsers like IE and Mozilla do, but that's been standard for a long time. There is a great free Control Panel for OS 8 and 9 called FinderPop that did that, and also let you add menu items.
Command-tab does switch between running apps in both OS's. I installed the free LiteSwichX, which give a list of icons when you switch. I use Option-Tab because it's less of a risk of hitting Command-Q and quitting your application.
Command-tilde on OS X pops down a menu from the title bar on a Finder window that allows you to Go To a folder. As you type the path in, OS X auto completes it based on directory names on your system. I think in OS 9 Command-Tilde switched between open windows.
I have been running OS X every day since 10.0 came out. Its a great OS... much better than OS 9 or Linux IMHO.
I have to disagree with this. People use OS X (or any Apple OS) because of the GUI. If you want a generic UNIX you can run Linux or *BSD and any of the awful WMs in X11. And you can do this on Apple hardware too. But do you notice none of the scientist quoted in the article are doing that?
People use Macs because of the OS, especially the GUI.
2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.
One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.
A quote from the article:
If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?
Bottom line is, you don't get it. Some people like OS X, AND its GUI. You don't have to.
Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.
Any who has used Macs for a while knows that each OS release since 8.0 got faster than the last, even thought they added more features and the OS used more RAM. "Bloat" does not always equal slow.
The bite was supposed to make it look less like a tomato, and it signified knowledge, as in Eden.
Also the Apple I went for a list price of $666!
He either worked there or had a rivalry with them over something, whatever the case the name came about with that in mind.
Jobs worked for Atari. He was one of the first 50 employees. In fact Jobs worked on the game Pong. Later he was commissioned to create the game breakout, but was in over his head, so he called Woz in to help.
Woz designed a circuit so brilliant that no one at Atari could figure it out, so it had to be redesigned before it shipped.
After the game was delivered, Jobs called Woz and said there was a problem getting paid, but he finally wrote Woz a check for $350, saying that if Woz could design the circuit was fewer than 50 chips (and Woz got it down to 42), Jobs would get paid $700 and split it with Woz.
Later on Woz found out they paid Jobs $5,000!
Woz was working for HP and didn't want to leave his job to sell the Apple I, so since Jobs worked for Atari they showed it to Al Alcorn at Atari. Atari thought it was great, but was busy selling home Pong games.
Yes and before that the whole company ran on Macs (both Apple and Mot)... after the clone fiasco they started switching to PCs.
Motorola already has a G5 out... the MPC8560 : PowerQUICC III Integrated Communications Processor
It's an embeded processor, not very fast either, 600 MHz - 1 GHz, but this is of interest:
Did you just make this up or something?? Nowhere on Apple's page does it say it has more than one speaker. And it does say it has a "Built-in speaker"
They are air vents. It has ONE speaker. Same HK speaker as the Quicksilver, but near the top now. Why in hell would it have 5 speakers anyway? Mono at that!
Sorry, but they are not speakers. Those are air vents. It still has one speaker in front, near the top.
If you look at the QuickTime VR movie of the case opening, you can see where the bottom vent holes are, there is a mesh screen inside the case close to them.
Don't you know anything?!?!? Blue motherboards are faster! ;)
I don't know about the Athlon, but with the P4, the FP unit doubles as the vector unit, so it can only do one, or the other, not both. So you have a switching penalty.
The G4 already has a double precision FP unit separate from AltiVec. Plus the MPC 7450 has four AltiVec units. Each AltiVec unit processes data at 128-bits. The G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle.