dual G4-1GHz Xserve (single CPU only): 105
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (both CPUs): 207
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 129
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 256
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 254 dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 498
single P4 2GHz: 192
single P4 2.66GHz: 255
single P4 3.2GHz (extrapolated): 307
Not only did the score of the G5 with both CPUs make me say "Holy shit" out loud in front of my comp (seriously!), but it also kicks the piss out of the P4! So, Apple does have one of the fastest machines around!
YOU wouldn't go to jail; the people downloading/uploading your stuff would.
AND, it's easy to provide written consent. Just include on your website, on your CD, wherever, consent to copy/distribute the files as people please. For instance, put in in the lyrics sheet, or put it on the MP3 download page.
If you want to distibute things you own the copyright to, that's OK according to the bill. It expressivly states that "
19 purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing
20 of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of
21 the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-
22 sible to members of the public who are able to copy
23 the work through such access
which also allows you to connect to the internet, as you don't allow access to all your stuff to the WWW, do you?
As my representative (I live in Massachusetts and all), I'm writing to you in order to ask that you vote against the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003. While file sharing is a large concern, and does need to be taken care of, this bill is not the way to do it. For example:
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft-
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
By this definition, web browsers are "enabling software", which makes AOL, Microsoft, Apple, Opera, The Mozilla foundation, and others liable to be " 17 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than18 6 months, or both." This is due to the fact that web browsers allow 3rd parties to store data on the users computer ("cookies", which allow websites to store user data for retrieval in the future), and allow 3rd parties (the site owners) to search this data.
Yes, I agree file sharing is a large issue. However, this bill is much too broad to effectively stop file sharing without doing harm elsewhere. Please, do your best not to allow this bill to pass.
Both Wired News and Yahoo News Australia are covering a bill which, if passed, would "make it easier to slap criminal charges on Internet users who copy music, movies and other copyrighted files over "peer-to-peer" networks", by making it a felony to share files. Penalties include "...include up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine." The bill, known as the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS), is sponsored by John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.). Contact information is on their sites.
You know, I've always wondered what kind of people partake in these sort of auctions. Why not (and especially in a new game, where resources are still plentiful) EARN what you can in the game; it makes it much more worthwhile, and you earn a sense of accomplishment.
Sure, buying property in UO makes sense, because property is scarce. But in SWG or SB, you can still earn things. So go earn things, and feel good about them; not like you merely bought them.
Didja notice that overall the G4s were faster, too? Therefore the price of entry for a slower machine if $799, and it includes way more than that $900 PC.
PLUS, the G5 is a lot cheaper (A couple hundred) than other 64bit systems.
When comparing the price of a 32bit system to that of a 64bit, it's a bit pointless...as you're getting so much more with the 64bit chip.
I do admit, however, that the price of entry is a bit high. =p
Of course the IN-HOUSE tools are easy to give away, but NeXT has a long history of giving away their dev-tools...and, like I said, they've been using GCC for a long, long time.
IBM does have their own super-dooper compilers, the newest of which supports "...32-bit and 64-bit architecture and optimization technologies are supported.". It has gone through 6 revisions like this; the only issue is it is AIX only, hence Apple isn't using it.
But, the IBM AIX compiler does pump out some seriously good code. GCC, on the other hand, is well known for being a bit of a slow poke; the reason it is used everywhere isn't its quality, but its price.
Apple would have to buy just one copy of CodeWarrior to master Panther with it, so that can't be the reason.
WRONG. Apple would need multiple copies for dev/debugging purposes; you can't just code with GCC and then recompile with Metrowerk's CodeWarrior. You might get some funky issues due to the compiler swapage.
ALSO, MetroWerks CodeWarrior is a whole IDE suite..and now that I've checked the website, they're no longer supporting the Mac version (released early this year IIRC), so that may be why they're using GCC;)
I just remebered another reason. When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, they used GCC for their dev tools. Since Mac OS X has a long history of using GCC (Mac OS is basically a newer version of NeXT), they stick with what works.
Basically, after 10 or so years of using GCC, why change rather than go with works?
Of course, had they used something else, ya their results would have increased. They're not trying to run some specialized app in the benchmarks, they're just compiling the test app. And, for this, it would be very easy to switch compilers.
Why is Apple using GCC? Well, a few reasons. First off, it's free. Second off, notice how they're cutting their ties to Moto? IIRC, Metroworks is owned by Moto.
Also, they're (Apple) is working quite hard to improve GCC for the Macs. I bet that they did fall a bit behind, however, with 3.3 as it's a brand-y new platform; not much time to get it up to snuff.
Why they're not using IBM's compiler, I don't know. Possibly liscensing issues, or they just figure it's easier to save money, improve GCC, and earn goodwill among the OSS community.
1) Sure, Codewarrior may not have worked properly on the 970s. I've not even spoken about IBM's PPC970 compilers...
2) Panther is compiled with GCC, I think.
3) I don't know how much better Intel's compiler is. I'm sure it's a good deal better, but if it became Metroworks vs. Intel's compiler, I doubt Intel's compiler could have made up the differnce.
Note the Bytemark scores; Bytemark is widely held to be the best test of a compilers performance, and Codewarrior gets +130% and +24% on it respectively. I'd say that's a lot, and each is more than twenty.
Yes, they do both use GCC. That's so Apple can use the compiler freely; Metroworks isn't going to liscense out their compiler. It costs (IIRC) $299, and Apple would rather improve on a free compiler than pay through the nose.
Most professional applications are done with Metroworks' Codewarrier. Check out here for some (unofficial) tests; GCC only wins out on Dhrystone, & MFLOPS, and not by much.
Slashdot Mirror
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (both CPUs): 207
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 129
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 256
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 254
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 498 single P4 2GHz: 192 single P4 2.66GHz: 255 single P4 3.2GHz (extrapolated): 307
Not only did the score of the G5 with both CPUs make me say "Holy shit" out loud in front of my comp (seriously!), but it also kicks the piss out of the P4! So, Apple does have one of the fastest machines around!
The constitution is under the public domain...
Err, how exactly does this abridge your freedom of speech or press? Are you saying it is your constitutional right to steal from people?
No, it makes it a felony to do so without *consent* of the copyright owner, and I assume you give yourself consent to upload your stuffs. =p
AND, it's easy to provide written consent. Just include on your website, on your CD, wherever, consent to copy/distribute the files as people please. For instance, put in in the lyrics sheet, or put it on the MP3 download page.
Hope that helps!
19 purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing
20 of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of
21 the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-
22 sible to members of the public who are able to copy
23 the work through such access
which also allows you to connect to the internet, as you don't allow access to all your stuff to the WWW, do you?
RTFB (Read the F***ing Bill)
As my representative (I live in Massachusetts and all), I'm writing to you in order to ask that you vote against the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003. While file sharing is a large concern, and does need to be taken care of, this bill is not the way to do it. For example:
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft-
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
By this definition, web browsers are "enabling software", which makes AOL, Microsoft, Apple, Opera, The Mozilla foundation, and others liable to be " 17 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than18 6 months, or both." This is due to the fact that web browsers allow 3rd parties to store data on the users computer ("cookies", which allow websites to store user data for retrieval in the future), and allow 3rd parties (the site owners) to search this data.
Yes, I agree file sharing is a large issue. However, this bill is much too broad to effectively stop file sharing without doing harm elsewhere. Please, do your best not to allow this bill to pass.
Sincerly,
Will Henchy
Both Wired News and Yahoo News Australia are covering a bill which, if passed, would "make it easier to slap criminal charges on Internet users who copy music, movies and other copyrighted files over "peer-to-peer" networks", by making it a felony to share files. Penalties include "...include up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine." The bill, known as the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS), is sponsored by John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.). Contact information is on their sites.
Sure, buying property in UO makes sense, because property is scarce. But in SWG or SB, you can still earn things. So go earn things, and feel good about them; not like you merely bought them.
Facts, anyone?
RTFA.
Didja notice that overall the G4s were faster, too? Therefore the price of entry for a slower machine if $799, and it includes way more than that $900 PC.
PLUS, the G5 is a lot cheaper (A couple hundred) than other 64bit systems.
When comparing the price of a 32bit system to that of a 64bit, it's a bit pointless...as you're getting so much more with the 64bit chip.
I do admit, however, that the price of entry is a bit high. =p
Any mac with 16+mb VRAM supports QE. Any mac with less, well, time to upgrade the card or get a new mac. =p
IBM does have their own super-dooper compilers, the newest of which supports "...32-bit and 64-bit architecture and optimization technologies are supported.". It has gone through 6 revisions like this; the only issue is it is AIX only, hence Apple isn't using it.
But, the IBM AIX compiler does pump out some seriously good code. GCC, on the other hand, is well known for being a bit of a slow poke; the reason it is used everywhere isn't its quality, but its price.
And I think that they're using GCC so they can give out their dev tools; the money it would cost to give away Metrowerk's compiler... o.O
WRONG. Apple would need multiple copies for dev/debugging purposes; you can't just code with GCC and then recompile with Metrowerk's CodeWarrior. You might get some funky issues due to the compiler swapage.
ALSO, MetroWerks CodeWarrior is a whole IDE suite..and now that I've checked the website, they're no longer supporting the Mac version (released early this year IIRC), so that may be why they're using GCC ;)
As far as IBM's compiler, I dunno.
Champagne.ink? Has someone been coding in Java too much recently...? =p
I just remebered another reason. When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, they used GCC for their dev tools. Since Mac OS X has a long history of using GCC (Mac OS is basically a newer version of NeXT), they stick with what works.
Basically, after 10 or so years of using GCC, why change rather than go with works?
Of course, had they used something else, ya their results would have increased. They're not trying to run some specialized app in the benchmarks, they're just compiling the test app. And, for this, it would be very easy to switch compilers.
For their dev environment, however...
Why is Apple using GCC? Well, a few reasons. First off, it's free. Second off, notice how they're cutting their ties to Moto? IIRC, Metroworks is owned by Moto.
Also, they're (Apple) is working quite hard to improve GCC for the Macs. I bet that they did fall a bit behind, however, with 3.3 as it's a brand-y new platform; not much time to get it up to snuff.
Why they're not using IBM's compiler, I don't know. Possibly liscensing issues, or they just figure it's easier to save money, improve GCC, and earn goodwill among the OSS community.
(And damn the exception! I'd forgotten about that...)
But I meant _most_ professional Mac software, e.g. Adobe stuff, Alias|Wavefront stuff, etc.
1) Sure, Codewarrior may not have worked properly on the 970s. I've not even spoken about IBM's PPC970 compilers...
2) Panther is compiled with GCC, I think.
3) I don't know how much better Intel's compiler is. I'm sure it's a good deal better, but if it became Metroworks vs. Intel's compiler, I doubt Intel's compiler could have made up the differnce.
And, with that, I end this is in USENET fasion:
YOU NAZI!
So maybe I exaggerated. =p But still, as you can see, Apple's scores could have been much faster, too.
Integer Index: CW=22.77, GCC=9.75 (+130%)
Floating Point Index: CW=6.74, GCC=5.41 (+24%)
Note the Bytemark scores; Bytemark is widely held to be the best test of a compilers performance, and Codewarrior gets +130% and +24% on it respectively. I'd say that's a lot, and each is more than twenty.
Most professional applications are done with Metroworks' Codewarrier. Check out here for some (unofficial) tests; GCC only wins out on Dhrystone, & MFLOPS, and not by much.