Considering that I doubt gcc is fully optimized for it (and certainly wasn't at the time of that test), the operating system isn't full optimized for it, and 3rd parties (such as Metrowerks) haven't had a chance to play with building a compiler for it, I think it will be a little while before we see "the best it can do."
Beyond all of that, SPEC is largely irrelevant and has serious design flaws in how it is put together and implemented, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
"Either way, go point one in your face and pull the fucking trigger."
Damned stupid argument.
Either way, set off a thermite reaction on your scalp and see how quickly you melt.
Just because something will kill you doesn't mean it isn't functionall different from something else that will kill you (and, yes, I know a revolver or a.270 Winchester would have been a closer comparison).
"So what is stopping you from adding these features?"
This is a bogus argument and you know it.
If the cost of adding a feature is less than the cost of purchasing the full package (in both time and money) then you might have a point, providing that the individual in question has the skill set to to do it.
However, lets take me as an example. I donate a significant portion of my time to OpenSource products, however, if I needed a photoshop-like package I would check GIMP out, briefly, note that it doesn't have the things that I need, and move on to Photoshop.
I wouldn't say "well, I could spend my time adding these..." when, frankly, I rather put my time into other things--like a job, finding a job (for the unemployed), studying to keep myself sharp in the field I am in (which programming GIMP would not help me with), or working on Open Source projects which I do enjoy working on, will help me in the future, and which also need work.
This is particularly true if I need that ability *now*, not in whenever-I-can-get-it-finished-and-roughly-stable (RSN).
Yep, and the current version of GIMP, while far superior, *still* can't compete with Photoshop. Comparing them is, as one person on ArsT put it, like comparing a canoe and a battleship.
"These may be a ways away but they are coming."
I'm not so sure. These are valuable for the amateurs and the people who need it for flyers and such, but I doubt they will ever compete with Quark on such a large scale.
R competes decently well with some of the professional statistical packages out there (though not completely--it still is lacking in a few areas), but I don't see xcircuit/SPICE taking over OrCAD anytime soon, or SciLab dominanting the reaches that MatLab has climed.
These tools are wonderful, but some things will always be worth paying for.
IANAL, but its because different implementations are, well, different.
For instance, there is more than one way to compress music. Company A figures out a way to do it, Company B sees this and goes "ah, we can do better than that". Both can patent their own technologies so long as they are sufficiently different.
There is some grey zone here, but obviously Apple believes that their implementation is sufficiently different from MS's or any other's that it merits a patent.
Having not used Panther, I am not qualified to judge.
John von Neumann is another sterling example--married twice, child out of the first marriage, many great accomplishments (including Game Theory) came later in life.
Price is not the sole determiner of what product shall be used, particularly professionally where the extra $450 is considered a very small price to pay for the interface and features in FCP.
According to the license agreements the only way you can do this is if that individual song is over 7 minutes (or so) long, that is the only exception to their "album only tracks"
Those systems aren't *exactly* what I would call comparable. A HD that is 4x bigger, a superdrive, and thats just the stats you posted (I'm sure I could draw it out with things like the Airport Antenna).
"I still haven't seen reliable benchmarks with the dual 2.0GHz facing a P4/3.2GHz with Hyperthreading on"
Veritest disabled HT for tests where the system would be slower, left it on where it was faster. They also enabled SSE2. You can check all of that in their report off of their website.
"if they are three times the cost of a PC, buyers will have a hard time justifiying it."
Apple doesn't sell in the low-range (exempting iBooks), they sell mid-range and up. For those of us who purchase Apple systems, we don't want the cheapest system we can get, we want a system that/just works/.
Re:George R. R. Martin
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 1, Informative
If you've enjoyed the series so far, try and find a copy of Windhaven by him and Lisa Tuttle. Its an absolutely piece of work.
Re:Not for the more *less* experienced reader
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"When the shock-effect of something happened is largest, that is when you know beyond a doubt that it will happen. "
Actually I did not find this to be true at all. I also found that he foreshadows everything that is going to happen--he is just not always obvious or heavy-handed with how he brings it to come.
The story tastes *real*: characters die, the line between good and evil is blurred, and there is an appropriate mix of what you can predict absolutely and what was simply led up to without ceremony.
He doesn't give us any information we wouldn't know from the points of view of each of the characters, nor does he give us everything that is going to happen in advance. He assumes that we are intelligent enough to be able to handle.
Yes, the depravity is rife in this world, yes, he uses elements from other stories, however, nothing that happens is out of whack with the way the world has been set up.
Yep, I personally think the best examples of this are the Lannisters (exempting Joffery). Almost every character--good or evil--is painted with attention to detail and with a rich and dynamic personality. Their motives are present and he uses a large degree of foreshadowing to hint the direction that things might take.
2) "Billions" may be an exageration to the point done either by him to make a point or through my faulty memory--it has been three years since I took the class. It may also represent many years worth of expenditures.
"In addition, are we expected to believe that a company that would invest megabucks would be completely ignorant of the demographics of their target market?"
Have you ever studied Brazil?
Brazil is a neomercantalist economy which has an unbelievable disparity between its rich and its poor. There are areas of Brazil which are extremely wealthy and in which this product was doing very well,
It is not particularly unbelievable that a company would research the economy, find that it has a strong (trillion dollar) economy overall, and fail to notice that there are regions which are semi-periphery and others which are truly and completely periphery.
Its odd, but sometimes the most obvious solutions are the ones that are almost blatantly ignored in marketing (and in many other fields, I would imagine).
For instance, my International Political Economy professor at one point was on a plane heading for Brazil (he was studying something or other while there) and sat next to a guy who worked in the marketing department for the lab that produces and develops Mallox (or was it Alka-Seltzer?).
They got to talking and it turned out the guy was going down there to help figure out this problem they were having in sales. In some areas their product was selling very well, but in other areas it wasn't selling at all. Marketing had spent billions of dollars (litterally) and said "people in those areas like products that are from the US, so we should put a little American Flag on the packages" and he was going down to do something of a feasability check on this.
My professor turned to him and said, evidently without missing a beat "your product isn't selling well in those areas because your product provides relief for over-eating and the people in those areas are starving!"
The guy's face dropped and shortly thereafter was taking down contact information and writing notes.
You would think this would be obvious, but sometimes that is exactly the solution is hiding.
"Lies, damned lies and benchmarks" -- Benjamin Disraeli
Yes, I do know what goes into it, and the question isn't "whether" but "does it."
All models are wrong, but some are useful. SPEC is a model of real world performance, having seen the numbers it generates in comparison to how real world apps perform, I can safely say that it does not universally reflect it for the set of tasks that matter to me.
For instance, the ability to interpret Fortran quickly plays a major role in the SPEC scores. Yet, in those cases where I am doing anything that vaguely relates to fortran, I do not care one whit about the speed so long as it gets done within my lifetime (which, for many of the things I use fortran for, matters more with respect to how much memory I have than how fast my computer chip is).
There is, of course, more to it than that, but that's a good example of how SPEC scores to not reflect real world performance.
The best, and only, truly relevant benchmark is the application you want to use.
"This is true to a certain extent, but how is it for them who absolutely need to use a penis that is as big as possible to get their work done as fast as possible?"
Then either:
1) A 10% difference is not going to matter.
2) They are going to use clusters, which mitigates the speed hit of the single system dramatically.
3) They will likely be looking at those things which are specific to what they are doing.
That being said, for the vast majority of people buying systems, a slight speed difference is not going to matter.
I do mathematical modeling, the ability to run those models faster is great, however, I cannot afford the best-of-the-best and the speed is not my primary concern--just/a/ concern. I imagine that most people in the market for scientific apps (mathematica users, matlab users, &c) fall under that same category.
" Thanks to the technology speed improvements over the years we've been able to watch crystal sparkling quality movies on our computer screens, play pirated betas of Doom 3 and download porn faster."
Absolutely true and completely irrelevant.
The original poster said:
"does it really matter if Intel, AMD, or Apple is the slightly faster computer?"
This, as well as what I said above, do not say "speed doesn't matter": we are saying "speed is not the most important thing that there is and a slight difference between the systems is not worth worrying about"
Piled Higher and Deeper Weighs In
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that I doubt gcc is fully optimized for it (and certainly wasn't at the time of that test), the operating system isn't full optimized for it, and 3rd parties (such as Metrowerks) haven't had a chance to play with building a compiler for it, I think it will be a little while before we see "the best it can do."
Beyond all of that, SPEC is largely irrelevant and has serious design flaws in how it is put together and implemented, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Must... not... feed... troll...
.270 Winchester would have been a closer comparison).
argh!
"Either way, go point one in your face and pull the fucking trigger."
Damned stupid argument.
Either way, set off a thermite reaction on your scalp and see how quickly you melt.
Just because something will kill you doesn't mean it isn't functionall different from something else that will kill you (and, yes, I know a revolver or a
It is a former of "humor" called a "joke".
Come on, you apes! You wanta live forever?
"So what is stopping you from adding these features?"
This is a bogus argument and you know it.
If the cost of adding a feature is less than the cost of purchasing the full package (in both time and money) then you might have a point, providing that the individual in question has the skill set to to do it.
However, lets take me as an example. I donate a significant portion of my time to OpenSource products, however, if I needed a photoshop-like package I would check GIMP out, briefly, note that it doesn't have the things that I need, and move on to Photoshop.
I wouldn't say "well, I could spend my time adding these..." when, frankly, I rather put my time into other things--like a job, finding a job (for the unemployed), studying to keep myself sharp in the field I am in (which programming GIMP would not help me with), or working on Open Source projects which I do enjoy working on, will help me in the future, and which also need work.
This is particularly true if I need that ability *now*, not in whenever-I-can-get-it-finished-and-roughly-stable (RSN).
> Remember GIMP 1.0?
Yep, and the current version of GIMP, while far superior, *still* can't compete with Photoshop. Comparing them is, as one person on ArsT put it, like comparing a canoe and a battleship.
"These may be a ways away but they are coming."
I'm not so sure. These are valuable for the amateurs and the people who need it for flyers and such, but I doubt they will ever compete with Quark on such a large scale.
R competes decently well with some of the professional statistical packages out there (though not completely--it still is lacking in a few areas), but I don't see xcircuit/SPICE taking over OrCAD anytime soon, or SciLab dominanting the reaches that MatLab has climed.
These tools are wonderful, but some things will always be worth paying for.
IANAL, but its because different implementations are, well, different.
For instance, there is more than one way to compress music. Company A figures out a way to do it, Company B sees this and goes "ah, we can do better than that". Both can patent their own technologies so long as they are sufficiently different.
There is some grey zone here, but obviously Apple believes that their implementation is sufficiently different from MS's or any other's that it merits a patent.
Having not used Panther, I am not qualified to judge.
John von Neumann is another sterling example--married twice, child out of the first marriage, many great accomplishments (including Game Theory) came later in life.
"and I'd really like to get into IBM.."
One difference, your chances with IBM are probably a lot better than they are with Carrie-Anne Moss--such is life.
Sigh.
Hm reminds me of a sticker in my sister's room...
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
>this was all mentioned in the C|NET article.
You mean you want us to actually *read* the articles that are being linked to?
>What if I prefer to buy my music in a more lasting form?
Then purchase it from the iTMS, insert a blank CDR, and burn a copy from the playlist.
Bad comparison. This is sort of like saying:
"BBEdit $180
Pico free"
Price is not the sole determiner of what product shall be used, particularly professionally where the extra $450 is considered a very small price to pay for the interface and features in FCP.
No, you can't.
According to the license agreements the only way you can do this is if that individual song is over 7 minutes (or so) long, that is the only exception to their "album only tracks"
"You'd have to take a die grinder, drill, or dremel tool to it to get it open."
Gives a new (old?) meaning to the term "hacking," doesn't it?
"The code used was developed on a G4, and the vector tests use Altivec, so these results are what you can expect for an optmized application."
They give both the optimized and the unoptimized results.
Oh boy.
/just works/.
Those systems aren't *exactly* what I would call comparable. A HD that is 4x bigger, a superdrive, and thats just the stats you posted (I'm sure I could draw it out with things like the Airport Antenna).
"I still haven't seen reliable benchmarks with the dual 2.0GHz facing a P4/3.2GHz with Hyperthreading on"
Veritest disabled HT for tests where the system would be slower, left it on where it was faster. They also enabled SSE2. You can check all of that in their report off of their website.
"if they are three times the cost of a PC, buyers will have a hard time justifiying it."
Apple doesn't sell in the low-range (exempting iBooks), they sell mid-range and up. For those of us who purchase Apple systems, we don't want the cheapest system we can get, we want a system that
If you've enjoyed the series so far, try and find a copy of Windhaven by him and Lisa Tuttle. Its an absolutely piece of work.
"When the shock-effect of something happened is largest, that is when you know beyond a doubt that it will happen. "
Actually I did not find this to be true at all. I also found that he foreshadows everything that is going to happen--he is just not always obvious or heavy-handed with how he brings it to come.
The story tastes *real*: characters die, the line between good and evil is blurred, and there is an appropriate mix of what you can predict absolutely and what was simply led up to without ceremony.
He doesn't give us any information we wouldn't know from the points of view of each of the characters, nor does he give us everything that is going to happen in advance. He assumes that we are intelligent enough to be able to handle.
Yes, the depravity is rife in this world, yes, he uses elements from other stories, however, nothing that happens is out of whack with the way the world has been set up.
Yep, I personally think the best examples of this are the Lannisters (exempting Joffery). Almost every character--good or evil--is painted with attention to detail and with a rich and dynamic personality. Their motives are present and he uses a large degree of foreshadowing to hint the direction that things might take.
1) The professors name is Eul-Soo Pang.
2) "Billions" may be an exageration to the point done either by him to make a point or through my faulty memory--it has been three years since I took the class. It may also represent many years worth of expenditures.
"In addition, are we expected to believe that a company that would invest megabucks would be completely ignorant of the demographics of their target market?"
Have you ever studied Brazil?
Brazil is a neomercantalist economy which has an unbelievable disparity between its rich and its poor. There are areas of Brazil which are extremely wealthy and in which this product was doing very well,
It is not particularly unbelievable that a company would research the economy, find that it has a strong (trillion dollar) economy overall, and fail to notice that there are regions which are semi-periphery and others which are truly and completely periphery.
Its odd, but sometimes the most obvious solutions are the ones that are almost blatantly ignored in marketing (and in many other fields, I would imagine).
For instance, my International Political Economy professor at one point was on a plane heading for Brazil (he was studying something or other while there) and sat next to a guy who worked in the marketing department for the lab that produces and develops Mallox (or was it Alka-Seltzer?).
They got to talking and it turned out the guy was going down there to help figure out this problem they were having in sales. In some areas their product was selling very well, but in other areas it wasn't selling at all. Marketing had spent billions of dollars (litterally) and said "people in those areas like products that are from the US, so we should put a little American Flag on the packages" and he was going down to do something of a feasability check on this.
My professor turned to him and said, evidently without missing a beat "your product isn't selling well in those areas because your product provides relief for over-eating and the people in those areas are starving!"
The guy's face dropped and shortly thereafter was taking down contact information and writing notes.
You would think this would be obvious, but sometimes that is exactly the solution is hiding.
"Lies, damned lies and benchmarks" -- Benjamin Disraeli
Yes, I do know what goes into it, and the question isn't "whether" but "does it."
All models are wrong, but some are useful. SPEC is a model of real world performance, having seen the numbers it generates in comparison to how real world apps perform, I can safely say that it does not universally reflect it for the set of tasks that matter to me.
For instance, the ability to interpret Fortran quickly plays a major role in the SPEC scores. Yet, in those cases where I am doing anything that vaguely relates to fortran, I do not care one whit about the speed so long as it gets done within my lifetime (which, for many of the things I use fortran for, matters more with respect to how much memory I have than how fast my computer chip is).
There is, of course, more to it than that, but that's a good example of how SPEC scores to not reflect real world performance.
The best, and only, truly relevant benchmark is the application you want to use.
"This is true to a certain extent, but how is it for them who absolutely need to use a penis that is as big as possible to get their work done as fast as possible?"
/a/ concern. I imagine that most people in the market for scientific apps (mathematica users, matlab users, &c) fall under that same category.
Then either:
1) A 10% difference is not going to matter.
2) They are going to use clusters, which mitigates the speed hit of the single system dramatically.
3) They will likely be looking at those things which are specific to what they are doing.
That being said, for the vast majority of people buying systems, a slight speed difference is not going to matter.
I do mathematical modeling, the ability to run those models faster is great, however, I cannot afford the best-of-the-best and the speed is not my primary concern--just
" Thanks to the technology speed improvements over the years we've been able to watch crystal sparkling quality movies on our computer screens, play pirated betas of Doom 3 and download porn faster."
Absolutely true and completely irrelevant.
The original poster said:
"does it really matter if Intel, AMD, or Apple is the slightly faster computer?"
This, as well as what I said above, do not say "speed doesn't matter": we are saying "speed is not the most important thing that there is and a slight difference between the systems is not worth worrying about"
Different points of view on the word Ironic
The Ironic Uses of "Irony"