That's true - I'm sure it cost them much less than one primetime ad minute would so compared to that it makes sense. If you believe in the concept why not go that last little bit to complete it.
If we remember that this game was essentially designed as a recruitment tool - doesn't porting it to Linux seem an odd choice?
I understand the Army could certainly use more hackers in the ranks but how large is the intersection between your average Linux gamer and some one who might be convinced to enter the military because of a video game experience?
Maybe this just release just amplifies the weirdness (at least to me) of thinking that a video game will convince people to join up when you can see the real thing on TV at night and it's clearly NOT the same thing.
Do they mean me re-playing the news or we hear about "WMD found", "terror trailers", "children's prisons" and the "the noose is tightening" in headlines and then retractions, corrections, clarifications and caveats on page 32 under the fold?
It might be more than you're looking for but whenever CAD is mentioned don't forget an underappreciated Mac resource in architosh.com. The site for all things CAD.
This is the highest single praise I've ever heard given to any OS ever. I'm honored to be using it.
That and can someone PLEASE tell me how to open a unix console without having to pull up the help screen first.
Ummmm.... I have no idea how to open Terminal via the help menu. But Applications > Utilities > (double-click) Terminal.
Once Terminal is launched either [cntl]-click or clic-and-hold the mouse over the icon in the dock and select Keep in Dock. Now not only are you running Terminal it's stays in your dock forever so you can start it simply by clicking on it from the dock. What could be easier? Well, you can simply drag the Terminal icon to the dock and it's little icon will lodge itself there. Same with a document. Have a document you open all the time? Drag it to the dock and it'll live there for you as well. Want more? If you REALLY want access to a document or an application at anytime? Drag it to the toolbar at the top of any Finder window and it will live there. You can access it from any Finder window at any time.
For god's sake, I thought we established you had abandoned god with your choice of OS X. But anyway I've been using Macs for years, but I feel like a complete idiot using X
Okay - I'll be serious here for a second. Buy a book. OS X has packed with features and everyday I use it I like it more. It's wildly customizible and you can set it up any way you want - but you have to have the desire and the willingness to play with it or read a book and find out what you can do. I have friends whose set-ups are completely different then mine. They hide the harddrive(s) and work completely from columned file windows and they love it that way. (The interface of 10.3 is more like this.) How many people have never even used View > Customize Toolbar in the Finder? Want the Path of a current folder or Get Info or Burn commands in the toolbar? They're there along with hide or text-only display options. Also check out Finder > Preferences for some other cool stuff you can do. Hiding Hard drives as I mentioned before or even change the languages you are using when you searching file contents. OS X is amazingingly customizable but if you're not the kind of person who is going to find these things by tinkering and trying then think about buying a book and use someone else's work.
I've worked with people at ALL levels of Mac usage and I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who went from 7 to 8 to 9 and NEVER used any of the new features that were added to OS. They don't understand the power of aliases or they don't know that you can type in any window to automatically find the file you're looking for alphabetically. I always get "How'd you do that again?" when I'm just navigating the Finder or something simple. I guess it's a tribute to Apple that their OSes were so consistant that people could use each successive one without ever reading a manual but maybe the time has come to actually spend $20 or so to learn how to fully use the new OS.
Arrogant Apple Assholes, no ability to plan based on information from Apple, over priced hardware, bad market decisions.
Dude, if you think an x86 box serves your needs better then buy one - but what the f**k does it matter who else owns Apple boxes? You don't want to buy a computer because the other people who own them strike you as Arrogant Assholes? So if you think that a Makita or DeWalt was the best woodworking tool for you - but every one you knew who owned one of those sets was an ass you buy a Craftsman instead?
If you don't like Apple's secrecy that's a valid point. Their hardware mark-ups are public information - if you think wanting to make ~25% profit on your products is too greedy then that's a valid point as well but in the end that doesn't effect the product you actually buy.
It's a tool, it's an appliance, buy what suits you needs. It's not like you give other Apple owners your email address or have to invite them to your home - and other then the secret meetings every week in the - but I've said too much already...
I've been trying to start pantless Fridays at the office for quite some time... Hawaiian shirt Fridays is as far as I've gotten but it's just not the same.
Also, is there any way to learn these things other than by asking in a public forum like this?
The better question is, "Would please find another way to learn these things rather than asking in a public forum?"
In Finder - access the Help menu. (It's last menu item as in ALL applications.) In the search section type "eject CD" or "How do I eject a disk" or any other number of things and you'll get a list of responses. Second on the list is:
If your keyboard has an eject (F12) key, you can use that to eject a disc. If it doesn't, drag the disc icon the the eject icon in the Dock.
Please at least RTFHelp docs before spouting off. That's why they're there.
I'm sure the same thing works for "Universal Access" if you couldn't find it under System Preferences for some reason.
Thanks, mindstrm - I'd mod you up if I had points. I've never tried the access panel under OSX - it absolutely rocks. The "text zooming" dialogue options are huge, black and white and san-serif so they're easy to read. The "zoom panel options" automatically speaks to you - assuming if you are having trouble seeing the screen you might need some help. Damn, well done Apple. This is meant to solve exactly the type of thing the poster asked about. How well it works on LCDs I can't test but that would be the next step.
=tkk
PS If you're in OSX and want to try it out - [option][apple]8 will automatically toggle zoom on/off and then [opt][apple]+/- controls size and mouse scrolls.
I know your post was supposed to be funny but getting a criminal record and possibly going to jail isn't a laughing matter.
Getting a criminal record hasn't seemed to bother M$ _at all_ so I figure, "how bad could it be?";)
And what was the other thing.... oh yeah, it was a joke! Do I joke about making money off McDonalds coffee accidents? Or Pinto incidents? Yes! Cause it's a friggin' joke!
1) You buy a M$ product. 2) I'll sue the heck out of you while you represent yourself and run up a huge legal bill. 3) Profit!!! (Then we split the money!)
=tkk
PS This is even better than the M$'s "instant cash rebate" on a product you could then instantly return.
*cough* *cough* IBM's plan was ALWAYS to make the 970 for cheap linux boxen. Always. IBM didn't make the 970 for Apple - IBM was making the 970 and Steve Jobs used the Jobs-RDF to convince IBM to add the Altivec unit to it so Apple could use it too.
Remember the ARSTech report said the SIMD unit seemed "added on"? That's probably because it was added later in the design process to broaden the 970's appeal to include Apple. IBM gets a good customer that's paying market for the chips and IBM gets to use them as they were anyway.
As for Apple - I'm fully expecting 4way workstations and/or 2U rackmount machines next year - maybe after the GPUL2 mentioned in the article ships. (.9 process die shrink probably...) Don't forget Jobs run Pixar - he understands the needs of serious production houses. With 4way boxes like these Apple could end some serious Sun/SGI lunch if they handle it right...
at least talk about the recent one that fixes the screensaver character buffer bug that got plastered all over/. a few days ago
The update patch for this will ship in two days (7-14-03) as it is currently in QA testing. But I don't know what that has to do with 'closed betas' as it applies to current systems.
=tkk
PS Don't blame me - I submitted the patch story but it was rejected.
*sigh*. Never mind. Like I said, you've obviously never watched a SteveNote before.
Actually I've watched almost all of them. If you had seen this one you wouldn't be asking questions like:
are the examples that were shown indicative of real world activities ?
1) The recreation of the _Nemo_ movie poster.
The steps - as taken from the artist who created the poster - recreated on both machines. I'd say yes. (But since you're obviously hung up on Photoshop so I'll move on.)
2) Mathematica rendering a large series of fractal graphics based on a series of formulas. Yes, this is what Mathematica does - solves mathematical equations. (Unless somehow fractals formulas are somehow Mac-centric.)
3) Luxology demoing the processing of motion capture data mapped onto wire models and then a flyby with the wire frame models still looping the motion capture. Yes, this is what you do with this software - you import motion capture data and attach it to computer models.
4) Playing back the musical intro to Matrix:Reloaded from the various channels. Yes, the music was composed on computer and then played back through the computer. Well, it played back on the Mac while never breaking 60% CPU utilization - the Xeon machine stuttered and then choked and died when the number of channels became too high - about half way through.
How can you say that playing back the same piece of computer composed music on the same program on both machines is somehow unfair? Or is somehow not what people really do with the program that composes and plays back music.
All of these are high end apps doing what people do with them day in and day out. But you obviously didn't see it or you wouldn't dismiss the ENTIRE suite of applications as "a few well chosen photoshop filters".
Thing is - as the proper SPEC scores show - the chips *aren't* "essentially equal".
But they do - if you compare IBM's rigged results to Intel's rigged results they match up. The spec wizards at both companies can work their magic and produce ideal numbers for their respective chips. If you compare Apple's 3rd party tests together they match up in the same way - the scale is different but the ratios are the same as Apple's results.
My bet is they'll find a dual 2Ghz G5 is pretty much dead on par - overall - with a dual 3Ghz Xeon.
Once the subsystems of the Xeon systems catch-up and excluding Altivec I think they will be very close. Of course I can't afford one at the moment anyway.
Not the apps, the tests. As I said, Apple is *famous* for managing to find just the right combination of Photoshop operations to maximise the performance of a Mac and minimise the performance of a PC. To think they wouldn't do the same thing with other application tests is just silly.
So the opening music to the Matrix: Reloaded is somehow Mac-centric. And the series of Mathematic fractals is somehow Mac-centric as is the two people fighting in an arena demo from Luxology. Hey, only Mac-heads would ever render two people fighting in an arena. (And Macs have that special arena rendering chip. Cheaters!)
Okay - you're right - all the tests are cooked. Ignore industry standard apps doing what it is they do on a daily basis. Ignore that the chips are essentially equal and the between the machines tested the Mac has a better subsystem. (Serial ATA, AGP 8x, faster/wider bus, better PCI.) The only possible explanation is cheating. And rigging. And that bastard Steve! We hates him...
The thing left out of the comparisons is actually probably Altivec. The high-end programs tested probably are optimized for Altivec will get a big boost with the G5 now that the vector-unit is surrounded by fat pipes. (ARS Techa review estimated 2x.) Any programs optimized for Altivec will automatically gain the added accelleration of the improved perofrmance of the G5's subsystem. Of course that's probably cheating too.
And Apples cooked SPEC comparison is just another example of their extremely deceptive marketing
*COUGH* Pot to kettle - "You're black!"
Everyone cooks spec numbers - but Intel is probably the single biggest offender. Doesn't anyone remember that Intel's cheating - I mean specific optimization - was one of the big reasons that the Spec92 standard went to the Spec2000 standard using outside apps instead of tests you could tinker on in-house?
All of Intel's specmarks went up 20-30% across the board suddenly once. Then they were caught cheating and they had to roll their scores back. (It turns out they so unrolled some tests loops by hand that their "optimizing compiler" completely removed them resulting in a 30% increase.)
"I'm shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!"
we might have 5 or 6 Ghz P4 Xeons by the end of next year.
Well, we better if Intel is to continue to be "still winning".
Your logical support of "Intel's still winning because I said so" has finally won me over. Flying new 64bit chips derived from some of the fastest server chips on the planet on a brand new modern sub-system... "All that there fancy talk that don't mean nuthin'."
"Rigging" real world tests is *exactly* what they do, by carefully choosing specific application tests where $APP is disproportionately faster. Apple has been doing this with Photoshop comparisons for _years_.
Ummmm.... okay. So all the apps are rigged. Photoshop, Mathematica, Luxology, Emagic. Image processing, math, 3D and motion rendering and music creation. All cross-platform programs created and programmed by third party companies and all rigged. Okay.
Or the Mac is faster. Nope, rigged!!!!
None of that explains how "Intel is still winning" when the P4 @ 3Ghz is basically equal to a 970 @ 2Ghz (using whichever number set you want) except that the 970 does SMP while the P4 doesn't. So chip A equals chip B but chip B can do groupings of 2, 4, 8... Obviously chip A is vastly superior!
Apple only compared the dual 970 to the dual Xenon to keep _some_ shred of dignity for Intel. Wanna test the fastest P4 against the dual 970 in any of those tests? It won't do as well as the dual Xenon - that lost.
Also don't forget that the 970 just started. IBM promised 3Ghz within a year - Intel will need to ship 4.5Ghz+ Xenons to keep up. Oops, I mean to "keep winning".
At specbench.org, I see for the P4, using Intel's compiler
specint_base2000: 1164
specfp_base2000: 1200
And if you ask IBM for their spec marks for the 970 they'll trot out much higher numbers as well:
specint_base: 937
specfp_base: 1050 Note: These are IBMs conservative specs at announcement @ 1.8
At 2.0GHz they should be closer to:
specint_base: ~1040
specfp_base: ~1170
*Gasp* Imagine my shock and awe! These work out to almost exactly what Apple said! *Gasp*
Admittedly, this just proves that gcc sucks, but that's all you get from Apple. Nothing has changed, Intel is still winning and Apple is still lying about it.
No, what it means is - on an level playing field Apple did very well and you seem to be having some problem with that. Apple could have just tweaked the 970 machines to get numbers just like the Intel one's quoted here, but instead chose to have an trusted third party run exactly equal tests. Intel's rigged results and IBM's rigged results work out almost exactly to Apple's unrigged results. The scale changes but the relationship doesn't.
Even if you think that Apple rigged the test - what about all the real world applications they ran during the keynote? Real world app after app after app running more than 2x faster than the dual 3.06 Xenon box? Oh, Apple probably rigged those too.
And all this while the Xenon box was more expensive. Oh Apple rigging again. (Let me guess Dell's in on it?)
Intel's "still winning"? Because Intel's rigged spec is faster than the gcc results of a single processor 970? So I guess that dual P4 box that will kick the dual 970s ass is where?
=tkk
So let me get this straight...
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
1) You're accusing people of putting your secret code into the Linux kernel.
2) You'll show me the secret code in question IFF I sign an NDA.
3) The code for Linux is freely available.
What's in the secret code that I can't see by looking the kernel source? Are they the super secret comment statements that surround the code? Is the secret code surrounded by super-double-secret code?
What's next? I have to sign and NDA and wear a tin foil hat so Linus can't suck the super-double-secret code directly from my head and add it to the source?
Sounds like someone was sniffing glue and listening to the M$ FUD about the GPL over at SCO...
Slashdot Mirror
Microsofy story of the day - yet another hole that will get you owned that we're disclosing and patching after years of vulnerability.
Apple story of the day - bug disallows a certain character in little used Openfirmware password.
Slashdot spin - both platforms have bugs. Fair and Balanced - Slashdot News!
=tkk
That's true - I'm sure it cost them much less than one primetime ad minute would so compared to that it makes sense.
If you believe in the concept why not go that last little bit to complete it.
=tkk
If we remember that this game was essentially designed as a recruitment tool - doesn't porting it to Linux seem an odd choice?
I understand the Army could certainly use more hackers in the ranks but how large is the intersection between your average Linux gamer and some one who might be convinced to enter the military because of a video game experience?
Maybe this just release just amplifies the weirdness (at least to me) of thinking that a video game will convince people to join up when you can see the real thing on TV at night and it's clearly NOT the same thing.
=tkk
But if you measure the Hubble altitude in yards and the ISS altitude in meters the difference is much less...
Oh wait didn't that cause a problem already?
=tkk
Same with the pharse "playing the news"...
Do they mean me re-playing the news or we hear about "WMD found", "terror trailers", "children's prisons" and the "the noose is tightening" in headlines and then retractions, corrections, clarifications and caveats on page 32 under the fold?
=tkk
Are kids more or less points?
I could make a case for either way... it would nice to finally have that answered.
=tkk
It might be more than you're looking for but whenever CAD is mentioned don't forget an underappreciated Mac resource in architosh.com.
The site for all things CAD.
=tkk
This is the highest single praise I've ever heard given to any OS ever. I'm honored to be using it.
That and can someone PLEASE tell me how to open a unix console without having to pull up the help screen first.
Ummmm.... I have no idea how to open Terminal via the help menu. But
Applications > Utilities > (double-click) Terminal.
Once Terminal is launched either [cntl]-click or clic-and-hold the mouse over the icon in the dock and select Keep in Dock. Now not only are you running Terminal it's stays in your dock forever so you can start it simply by clicking on it from the dock.
What could be easier? Well, you can simply drag the Terminal icon to the dock and it's little icon will lodge itself there. Same with a document. Have a document you open all the time? Drag it to the dock and it'll live there for you as well.
Want more? If you REALLY want access to a document or an application at anytime? Drag it to the toolbar at the top of any Finder window and it will live there. You can access it from any Finder window at any time.
For god's sake, I thought we established you had abandoned god with your choice of OS X. But anyway I've been using Macs for years, but I feel like a complete idiot using X
Okay - I'll be serious here for a second. Buy a book. OS X has packed with features and everyday I use it I like it more. It's wildly customizible and you can set it up any way you want - but you have to have the desire and the willingness to play with it or read a book and find out what you can do. I have friends whose set-ups are completely different then mine. They hide the harddrive(s) and work completely from columned file windows and they love it that way. (The interface of 10.3 is more like this.)
How many people have never even used View > Customize Toolbar in the Finder? Want the Path of a current folder or Get Info or Burn commands in the toolbar? They're there along with hide or text-only display options. Also check out Finder > Preferences for some other cool stuff you can do. Hiding Hard drives as I mentioned before or even change the languages you are using when you searching file contents.
OS X is amazingingly customizable but if you're not the kind of person who is going to find these things by tinkering and trying then think about buying a book and use someone else's work.
I've worked with people at ALL levels of Mac usage and I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who went from 7 to 8 to 9 and NEVER used any of the new features that were added to OS. They don't understand the power of aliases or they don't know that you can type in any window to automatically find the file you're looking for alphabetically. I always get "How'd you do that again?" when I'm just navigating the Finder or something simple. I guess it's a tribute to Apple that their OSes were so consistant that people could use each successive one without ever reading a manual but maybe the time has come to actually spend $20 or so to learn how to fully use the new OS.
=tkk
Arrogant Apple Assholes, no ability to plan based on information from Apple, over priced hardware, bad market decisions.
Dude, if you think an x86 box serves your needs better then buy one - but what the f**k does it matter who else owns Apple boxes? You don't want to buy a computer because the other people who own them strike you as Arrogant Assholes? So if you think that a Makita or DeWalt was the best woodworking tool for you - but every one you knew who owned one of those sets was an ass you buy a Craftsman instead?
If you don't like Apple's secrecy that's a valid point. Their hardware mark-ups are public information - if you think wanting to make ~25% profit on your products is too greedy then that's a valid point as well but in the end that doesn't effect the product you actually buy.
It's a tool, it's an appliance, buy what suits you needs. It's not like you give other Apple owners your email address or have to invite them to your home - and other then the secret meetings every week in the - but I've said too much already...
Lighten up - it's a computer not a religion,
=TKK
Obl. Dilbert Reference:
"Welcome to Marketing!"
Two drink minimum.
Hawaiian shirt Fridays is as far as I've gotten but it's just not the same.
=tkk
The better question is, "Would please find another way to learn these things rather than asking in a public forum?"
In Finder - access the Help menu. (It's last menu item as in ALL applications.) In the search section type "eject CD" or "How do I eject a disk" or any other number of things and you'll get a list of responses. Second on the list is:
Please at least RTFHelp docs before spouting off. That's why they're there. I'm sure the same thing works for "Universal Access" if you couldn't find it under System Preferences for some reason.
Thanks, mindstrm - I'd mod you up if I had points. I've never tried the access panel under OSX - it absolutely rocks. The "text zooming" dialogue options are huge, black and white and san-serif so they're easy to read. The "zoom panel options" automatically speaks to you - assuming if you are having trouble seeing the screen you might need some help.
Damn, well done Apple. This is meant to solve exactly the type of thing the poster asked about. How well it works on LCDs I can't test but that would be the next step.
=tkk
PS If you're in OSX and want to try it out - [option][apple]8 will automatically toggle zoom on/off and then [opt][apple]+/- controls size and mouse scrolls.
"Mr. Potatohead, Mr. Potatohead! Remember when you asked me to tell you when you were behaving rudely and insensitively? Well, you're doing it now."
Sheesh!
=tkk
Last time I checked, fraud was still criminal.
;)
So is being a monopoly.
I know your post was supposed to be funny but getting a criminal record and possibly going to jail isn't a laughing matter.
Getting a criminal record hasn't seemed to bother M$ _at all_ so I figure, "how bad could it be?"
And what was the other thing.... oh yeah, it was a joke! Do I joke about making money off McDonalds coffee accidents? Or Pinto incidents? Yes! Cause it's a friggin' joke!
=tkk
1) You buy a M$ product.
2) I'll sue the heck out of you while you represent yourself and run up a huge legal bill.
3) Profit!!! (Then we split the money!)
=tkk
PS This is even better than the M$'s "instant cash rebate" on a product you could then instantly return.
Hence the old joke:
Q: What do you call a musician who just broke up with his girlfriend?
A:Homeless!
=tkk
*cough* *cough* IBM's plan was ALWAYS to make the 970 for cheap linux boxen. Always. IBM didn't make the 970 for Apple - IBM was making the 970 and Steve Jobs used the Jobs-RDF to convince IBM to add the Altivec unit to it so Apple could use it too.
Remember the ARSTech report said the SIMD unit seemed "added on"? That's probably because it was added later in the design process to broaden the 970's appeal to include Apple. IBM gets a good customer that's paying market for the chips and IBM gets to use them as they were anyway.
As for Apple - I'm fully expecting 4way workstations and/or 2U rackmount machines next year - maybe after the GPUL2 mentioned in the article ships. (.9 process die shrink probably...) Don't forget Jobs run Pixar - he understands the needs of serious production houses. With 4way boxes like these Apple could end some serious Sun/SGI lunch if they handle it right...
=tkk
"psthumous"?
What's that mean - he's whispering from beyond the grave?
<Rimshot> Sorry.
=TKK
The update patch for this will ship in two days (7-14-03) as it is currently in QA testing. But I don't know what that has to do with 'closed betas' as it applies to current systems.
=tkk
PS Don't blame me - I submitted the patch story but it was rejected.
Maybe .net isnt all that it could have been, but it is great tool for any developer... unless you dont have windows, then I guess your just screwed.
Ummmm... so if I don't have windows I'm screwed?
Sign me up for that screwing, please!
=tkk
PS But then again I might be biased - for my view of M$ check out my journal.
Actually I've watched almost all of them. If you had seen this one you wouldn't be asking questions like:
are the examples that were shown indicative of real world activities ?
1) The recreation of the _Nemo_ movie poster.
The steps - as taken from the artist who created the poster - recreated on both machines. I'd say yes. (But since you're obviously hung up on Photoshop so I'll move on.)
2) Mathematica rendering a large series of fractal graphics based on a series of formulas.
Yes, this is what Mathematica does - solves mathematical equations. (Unless somehow fractals formulas are somehow Mac-centric.)
3) Luxology demoing the processing of motion capture data mapped onto wire models and then a flyby with the wire frame models still looping the motion capture.
Yes, this is what you do with this software - you import motion capture data and attach it to computer models.
4) Playing back the musical intro to Matrix:Reloaded from the various channels.
Yes, the music was composed on computer and then played back through the computer. Well, it played back on the Mac while never breaking 60% CPU utilization - the Xeon machine stuttered and then choked and died when the number of channels became too high - about half way through.
How can you say that playing back the same piece of computer composed music on the same program on both machines is somehow unfair? Or is somehow not what people really do with the program that composes and plays back music.
All of these are high end apps doing what people do with them day in and day out. But you obviously didn't see it or you wouldn't dismiss the ENTIRE suite of applications as "a few well chosen photoshop filters".
Thing is - as the proper SPEC scores show - the chips *aren't* "essentially equal".
But they do - if you compare IBM's rigged results to Intel's rigged results they match up. The spec wizards at both companies can work their magic and produce ideal numbers for their respective chips.
If you compare Apple's 3rd party tests together they match up in the same way - the scale is different but the ratios are the same as Apple's results.
My bet is they'll find a dual 2Ghz G5 is pretty much dead on par - overall - with a dual 3Ghz Xeon.
Once the subsystems of the Xeon systems catch-up and excluding Altivec I think they will be very close.
Of course I can't afford one at the moment anyway.
=tkk
So the opening music to the Matrix: Reloaded is somehow Mac-centric. And the series of Mathematic fractals is somehow Mac-centric as is the two people fighting in an arena demo from Luxology. Hey, only Mac-heads would ever render two people fighting in an arena. (And Macs have that special arena rendering chip. Cheaters!)
Okay - you're right - all the tests are cooked. Ignore industry standard apps doing what it is they do on a daily basis. Ignore that the chips are essentially equal and the between the machines tested the Mac has a better subsystem. (Serial ATA, AGP 8x, faster/wider bus, better PCI.) The only possible explanation is cheating. And rigging. And that bastard Steve! We hates him...
The thing left out of the comparisons is actually probably Altivec. The high-end programs tested probably are optimized for Altivec will get a big boost with the G5 now that the vector-unit is surrounded by fat pipes. (ARS Techa review estimated 2x.) Any programs optimized for Altivec will automatically gain the added accelleration of the improved perofrmance of the G5's subsystem. Of course that's probably cheating too.
And Apples cooked SPEC comparison is just another example of their extremely deceptive marketing
*COUGH* Pot to kettle - "You're black!"
Everyone cooks spec numbers - but Intel is probably the single biggest offender. Doesn't anyone remember that Intel's cheating - I mean specific optimization - was one of the big reasons that the Spec92 standard went to the Spec2000 standard using outside apps instead of tests you could tinker on in-house?
All of Intel's specmarks went up 20-30% across the board suddenly once. Then they were caught cheating and they had to roll their scores back. (It turns out they so unrolled some tests loops by hand that their "optimizing compiler" completely removed them resulting in a 30% increase.)
"I'm shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!"
we might have 5 or 6 Ghz P4 Xeons by the end of next year.
Well, we better if Intel is to continue to be "still winning".
Your logical support of "Intel's still winning because I said so" has finally won me over. Flying new 64bit chips derived from some of the fastest server chips on the planet on a brand new modern sub-system... "All that there fancy talk that don't mean nuthin'."
Int3ls 4ll l33t - W00t!.
(Congrats your RDF must be as strong as Steve's!)
=tkk
Ummmm.... okay. So all the apps are rigged. Photoshop, Mathematica, Luxology, Emagic. Image processing, math, 3D and motion rendering and music creation. All cross-platform programs created and programmed by third party companies and all rigged. Okay.
Or the Mac is faster. Nope, rigged!!!!
None of that explains how "Intel is still winning" when the P4 @ 3Ghz is basically equal to a 970 @ 2Ghz (using whichever number set you want) except that the 970 does SMP while the P4 doesn't.
So chip A equals chip B but chip B can do groupings of 2, 4, 8... Obviously chip A is vastly superior!
Apple only compared the dual 970 to the dual Xenon to keep _some_ shred of dignity for Intel. Wanna test the fastest P4 against the dual 970 in any of those tests? It won't do as well as the dual Xenon - that lost.
Also don't forget that the 970 just started. IBM promised 3Ghz within a year - Intel will need to ship 4.5Ghz+ Xenons to keep up. Oops, I mean to "keep winning".
=tkk
At specbench.org, I see for the P4, using Intel's compiler
specint_base2000: 1164
specfp_base2000: 1200
And if you ask IBM for their spec marks for the 970 they'll trot out much higher numbers as well:
specint_base: 937
specfp_base: 1050
Note: These are IBMs conservative specs at announcement @ 1.8
At 2.0GHz they should be closer to:
specint_base: ~1040
specfp_base: ~1170
*Gasp* Imagine my shock and awe! These work out to almost exactly what Apple said! *Gasp*
Admittedly, this just proves that gcc sucks, but that's all you get from Apple. Nothing has changed, Intel is still winning and Apple is still lying about it.
No, what it means is - on an level playing field Apple did very well and you seem to be having some problem with that. Apple could have just tweaked the 970 machines to get numbers just like the Intel one's quoted here, but instead chose to have an trusted third party run exactly equal tests. Intel's rigged results and IBM's rigged results work out almost exactly to Apple's unrigged results. The scale changes but the relationship doesn't.
Even if you think that Apple rigged the test - what about all the real world applications they ran during the keynote?
Real world app after app after app running more than 2x faster than the dual 3.06 Xenon box? Oh, Apple probably rigged those too.
And all this while the Xenon box was more expensive. Oh Apple rigging again. (Let me guess Dell's in on it?)
Intel's "still winning"? Because Intel's rigged spec is faster than the gcc results of a single processor 970? So I guess that dual P4 box that will kick the dual 970s ass is where?
=tkk
2) You'll show me the secret code in question IFF I sign an NDA.
3) The code for Linux is freely available.
What's in the secret code that I can't see by looking the kernel source?
Are they the super secret comment statements that surround the code?
Is the secret code surrounded by super-double-secret code ?
What's next? I have to sign and NDA and wear a tin foil hat so Linus can't suck the super-double-secret code directly from my head and add it to the source?
Sounds like someone was sniffing glue and listening to the M$ FUD about the GPL over at SCO...
=tkk