MacOS X isn't built ontop of FreeBSD. It's built from a Mach kernel. It has roots in the NeXT OS. <p>MacOSX is build on top of the Mach Mikrokernel. Mach only provides the VERY BASICS of the kernel services. everything like networking, filesystems etc. is stolen from FBSD, just like most of the basic libraries....
Also, G4's are $1600 and up, not $2000. The older G3's are substatially cheaper. <p>A $1600 G4 is the 350 MHz variant. Why aren't they comparing those? Maybe because 350MHz ist TWO YEARS OLD TECHNOLOGY in the x86 World???? 450 MHz G4 are more like 5000$. And your "substatially cheaper" G3s aren't even available commercially any more, except on the used market. So what's the point? <p>Next time think before you cry out, f*cking Mac Zealot!!!!!!!
crus0e, G4, x86, even Alpha - it does n0t matter
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 0
Mac0S is cr4p on ANY HARDWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TI is like Windows, it's the basic standard that everybody uses.
might but true, but does that make the TI a good device???
HP is like Macintosh, it's the longtime runner-up
this is BS. the HP is more like a trusty UNIX box. it has been around much longer than the TI. HPs may look a little awkward at first, but they can do EVERYTHING the TIs can do, only more efficient. that's because they are STREAMLINED FOR EFFICIENCY, NOT FOR FLASHY GRAPHICS!!! this is because decades (YES!) of experience is contained in the HPs, proven concepts and experience, combined with all the modern features you can expect today.
PROFESSIONALS AND GEEKS USE HP! TI IS FOR SISSIES AND COLLEGE KIDS!!!!!!!
my single cpu G4 350 will do about 3.2k keys a sec, becuase of the altivec core.
please educate yourself and realize that rc5 cracking is a pure integer task. Altivec does not help the slightest little bit. rc5 cracking is also *completely* worthless as a cross platform benchmark.
s there some sort of overhead or any other drawback that would make it non-optimal for simple desktop usage?
Yes! Hard RT puts severe restrictions on the OS functionality which are not acceptable on the Desktop. One such limitation is virtual memory. There usually is no way to meet the deadline when paging takes place. This is one hardware limit that effects the functionality of a real time system.
Fortran is still in use, but only because lots of people believe, it is cheaper (time wise) to fix existing code than make a paradigm shift.
This is nonsense. FORTRAN ist still in use, because it is the fastest compiled HLL (often much faster than C) and it is much easier to write fast numerical cores in FORTRAN than in C/C++.
I spend days debugging code, since prototyping does not exist and subroutine calling sequence did not match after some changes.
I think its more like you spend days with debugging because you didn't get your code right in the first place. Don't blame FORTRAN for your sloppy programming.
I do not look back on the times, I was programming FORTRAN. FORTRAN is not clean and nice. It is dirty, has lots of memory problems, since FORTRAN does only know pointers in calling sequences and therefore the subroutine has no change to check consistency of the arguments.
Let me suggest the following practice: Write your numerical cores in FORTRAN, and use C/C++ or whatever for data structure handling and everything else. It really pays off, especially if you consider the pricy high end hardware and the fact that it is relatively easy to write FORTRAN code wich is 20% faster than its 1:1 C counterpart (20% is a difference in number crunching).
I have the pleasure to work on PA RISC Systems from time to time, and I absolutely love them. PA-RISC is a beatiful, somehow strange and verrrry fast CPU, the only one to keep up with the Alpha lately.
All other RISC CPUs (MIPS, USPARC, and esp. Power(PC),...) have fallen behind the Alpha and PA-RISC, and if I had to chose one of the two for my desktop, I think I would chose the PA-RISC. Sure, the Alpha 21264 is a little faster, but the overall Quality of the HP hardware is hard to beat.
We have some really old PA-RISC Workstations (~1990) and they are still in best condition and fun to work with. These machines are astonishingly fast for their time. An ancient PA-RISC 7100 is as fast (INT) as a PPro at half the clock speed, and competes with a P2/400 at FP - running at a 5th of the clock speed!
P.S.: Don't be fooled by the PowerPC and Apples stupid "supercomputer" campaign. Even the G4 is horribly slooowwww for a RISC CPU, even in FP. A fast CISC Athlon still beats it any day of the week. And x86 have broken the GFLOP barrier almost a year before Apple with their G4. If you want a real computer, don't go for Apple toys.
For most programs source level optimization does not make a major difference, but for some problems it is an absolute must. I have hand tweaked numerical codes and observed improvements of 500+ percent, just by interchanging loops, intelligent dereferencing, linear memory access and other minor tweaks . Yes, that's more than 5 times faster - and thats a lot. Think of reducing the running time from 1h to 10min.
For most applications however source level optimization is not necessary, either because processing speed is not the bottleneck, or because the code does not require a lot of time to run.
Slashdot Mirror
MacOS X isn't built ontop of FreeBSD. It's built from a Mach kernel. It has roots in the NeXT OS.
<p>MacOSX is build on top of the Mach Mikrokernel. Mach only provides the VERY BASICS of the kernel services. everything like networking, filesystems etc. is stolen from FBSD, just like most of the basic libraries....
I'm sure you mispelled. Would't that be THE WORLD'S UGLIEST BE0W0LF CLUSTER???????
Also, G4's are $1600 and up, not $2000. The older G3's are substatially cheaper.
<p>A $1600 G4 is the 350 MHz variant. Why aren't they comparing those? Maybe because 350MHz ist TWO YEARS OLD TECHNOLOGY in the x86 World???? 450 MHz G4 are more like 5000$. And your "substatially cheaper" G3s aren't even available commercially any more, except on the used market. So what's the point?
<p>Next time think before you cry out, f*cking Mac Zealot!!!!!!!
Mac0S is cr4p on ANY HARDWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, as of 1998 AWARD IS PHOENIX. Or a subsidiary of. Go read http://www.award.com/
might but true, but does that make the TI a good device???
HP is like Macintosh, it's the longtime runner-up
this is BS. the HP is more like a trusty UNIX box. it has been around much longer than the TI. HPs may look a little awkward at first, but they can do EVERYTHING the TIs can do, only more efficient. that's because they are STREAMLINED FOR EFFICIENCY, NOT FOR FLASHY GRAPHICS!!! this is because decades (YES!) of experience is contained in the HPs, proven concepts and experience, combined with all the modern features you can expect today.
PROFESSIONALS AND GEEKS USE HP! TI IS FOR SISSIES AND COLLEGE KIDS!!!!!!!
A site for the needs of REAL NERDS!!!
please educate yourself and realize that rc5 cracking is a pure integer task. Altivec does not help the slightest little bit. rc5 cracking is also *completely* worthless as a cross platform benchmark.
Yes! Hard RT puts severe restrictions on the OS functionality which are not acceptable on the Desktop. One such limitation is virtual memory. There usually is no way to meet the deadline when paging takes place. This is one hardware limit that effects the functionality of a real time system.
This is nonsense. FORTRAN ist still in use, because it is the fastest compiled HLL (often much faster than C) and it is much easier to write fast numerical cores in FORTRAN than in C/C++.
I spend days debugging code, since prototyping does not exist and subroutine calling sequence did not match after some changes.
I think its more like you spend days with debugging because you didn't get your code right in the first place. Don't blame FORTRAN for your sloppy programming.
I do not look back on the times, I was programming FORTRAN. FORTRAN is not clean and nice. It is dirty, has lots of memory problems, since FORTRAN does only know pointers in calling sequences and therefore the subroutine has no change to check consistency of the arguments.
Let me suggest the following practice: Write your numerical cores in FORTRAN, and use C/C++ or whatever for data structure handling and everything else. It really pays off, especially if you consider the pricy high end hardware and the fact that it is relatively easy to write FORTRAN code wich is 20% faster than its 1:1 C counterpart (20% is a difference in number crunching).
All other RISC CPUs (MIPS, USPARC, and esp. Power(PC),...) have fallen behind the Alpha and PA-RISC, and if I had to chose one of the two for my desktop, I think I would chose the PA-RISC. Sure, the Alpha 21264 is a little faster, but the overall Quality of the HP hardware is hard to beat.
We have some really old PA-RISC Workstations (~1990) and they are still in best condition and fun to work with. These machines are astonishingly fast for their time. An ancient PA-RISC 7100 is as fast (INT) as a PPro at half the clock speed, and competes with a P2/400 at FP - running at a 5th of the clock speed!
P.S.: Don't be fooled by the PowerPC and Apples stupid "supercomputer" campaign. Even the G4 is horribly slooowwww for a RISC CPU, even in FP. A fast CISC Athlon still beats it any day of the week. And x86 have broken the GFLOP barrier almost a year before Apple with their G4. If you want a real computer, don't go for Apple toys.
For most applications however source level optimization is not necessary, either because processing speed is not the bottleneck, or because the code does not require a lot of time to run.