Oh, and benchmarks are not? Always take real-life performance test if they are similar to your work before benchmarks.
Certainly - if you can tailor your benchmark to your work, by all means do so. If you use photoshop a ton, and it's faster on the mac, get a mac. But what we're talking about are public benchmarks, applicable very generally to people who supposedly don't have uniform work habits or environments.
Given that, about the fairest comparison is taking a whole lot of different code examples, compiling on both machines, and running it. Is it a perfect indicator? No, and no one's saying it is. But it's the best you can do without attempting to artificially favor one or the other. If everyone picks their own benchmarks, everyone gets different results.
Benchmarks are only a substitute for real-life test, not better than.
Do your homework. Apple modified the tests to reflect the actual shipping models, since they were running on prototype G5's. These issues have long been put to rest and Apple just updated their results the other day with actual shipping G5's
And their modifications to the Dell? Since they got it as it shipped, and they modified it, they didn't test it as it shipped.
Get out of denial, x8 is not a religion, it's a processor for goodness sake.
Interesting. You seem to be much more riled up than me - I would advise you to consider the same. Btw, I use both macs and intel machines at work, and I don't have any preference at all, so it would be hard for any actual denial to exist. I might question you on the same basis, however.
For what it's worth, you'll never see a PC user really get upset because someone insulted his processor, but I could point to numerous examples of this phenomenon with some mac users, though obviously not all.
That's certainly a good way to evaluate your happiness with the computer, but if so, I doubt you really care how the apple stacks up to the dell in terms of absolute performance.
Photoshop is also native to x86. Claiming that Apple shouldn't use good code that runs well on their computers is idiotic if the x86 code is equally good.
I would wager, although I don't know, that adobe focusses on optimizing the mac version better. Like I said, I could find a program that was the opposite - faster on PC. The code simply isn't the same for versions of the same program on different platforms.
It almost sounds to me like you think that Apple should use flaky code for their tests. That would hardly be fair.
Agreed, it wouldn't. My point was that "real-world" benchmarks fail because it's impossible to determine the level of optimization of both machines, and depending on the program, will artificially favor one platform or the other.
Lest anyone forget, Apple beat Intel in real world benchmarks
What's a "real-world" benchmark? Comparing the function of photoshop on mac vs. pc, when it's developed natively for the mac? That's not really fair. It's simply not the same code. We could take any of the many programs made natively on PC (which are then ported to mac) and do the same trick.
so the PC fanboys cried that SPEC benchmarks are the real measurement to gague speed... (probably because the comparisons were much closer when conducted this way).
And I'm sure that the macheads don't favor the "photoshop test" for the same reason? We need some objectivity here. Nothing wrong with a fair benchmark, and I'll go on record as always preferring a benchmark, regardless of who it favors.
Apple replied that its fairer to normalize the compiler between platforms and that while Intel could have achieved higher results when their compiler was used
Why fairer? Shouldn't tests use whatever compiler will *actually be used*? If apple/IBM made a chip without a decent compiler to support it, that's their problem. I'd say it was fair to use Intel's compiler for intel's chip. Now it will be fair to use IBM's compiler for IBM's chip. Also interesting was how you suspect the "fanboys" of being biased when they wanted benchmarks instead of "real-world" tests, but Apple just "realized that it's fairer" to do something that benefited them. It works both ways.
Apple could do the same. So, here is that compiler. When/if the G5 outperforms Intel's best, what will the fanboys rally cry be next?
That's perfectly fair. Let's use the best compiler for each machine. I've no problem with it.
Now, to ensure a completely fair test, let's make sure Apple uses both machines as they ship, and everything will be fine. But the pc "fanboys" as you call them were right to criticize a test in which Apple modified the machines, both their own and Dell's, fom the way they shipped. The changes it made to the Apple were beneficial, the ones to the Dell were all detrimental. That's not science.
I honestly like Apples, this is just a matter of scientific method to me. I really could give a shit who wins.
But those who use it will know they have pirated software (because there will be no need for activation).
That's only true if the average user knew enough about Symantec to know that their product typically requires activation, and I doubt that's the case. You could make an argument that the manual would mention it, but 1) nobody reads them and 2) that would be pirated as well, so pirates would just change it in the process (assuming they bothered including it).
This is trying to protect users that try to buy a legitimate product and find out that they have an illegal copy instead. This is IMHO a Good Thing if implemented correctly.
Usually I'd disagree, as it requires an internet connection, which one may for whatever reason not have available when installing. In this case, though, antivirus is generally most necessary for the internet anyway, so I'm cool with it.
As long as they keep their grubby hands off my boot sector, and as long as I can change hardware without it stopping working, I'm OK with it.
I do question whether it will work, however, as I mentioned.
I think Levi's being overly vulgar and offensive, but really you shouldn't use a phrase until you understand it. What is "begging the question?" It's certainly not a question begging to be asked. You would say "which invites the question: $QUESTION".
I apologize to all grammar police out there, but given how many times I've seen this on slashdot, I'm probably using the phrase in the same vernacular as most of the rest of the people here.
Interestingly enough, your own source listed my use in the definition, though it advised that such usage is "substandard" for "academics." As I'm not an academic in grammar, rather chemistry, I'll readily accept that.
Before you jump on your Grammar Nazi bandwagon: languages, like other protocols, are for communicating. If you bugger up the protocol, expect to get poor results out of the communication
No, I'll actually stick with the grammar nazi bit. This isn't a publication, and everyone understood what I meant. That's good enough for me, as I'm not a copy editor. I might also introduce you to the concept of "vernacular." Sometimes when your grammar is too correct, it's intimidating and completely unconversational.
(QED - and if you don't understand what QED means, now would be a good time to look that up too).
Quantum ElectroDynamics. And I also know how to do proofs, also, thanks.
If you don't understand all of a protocol, stick to the bits you do understand. That's not anally retentive, that's common sense.
First, people learn by doing, so if you never try new things and screw up, you don't learn, and I don't find that to be a tenable position. Second, yes, that actually is quite anal-retentive. People don't usually like people who criticize widely-accepted, if technically incorrect, usages of words.
Trying to make yourself sound posh by lacing your posts with semi-understood "in" phrases generally ends up with you looking like a bozo, even if nobody overtly calls you on your presumptions.
See above. I also really don't care what people on slashdot think about me, as I'm quite secure with my intellect. If it gives someone a better day because they're able to increase their sense of self-superiority at my expense, I'm glad to oblige.
Considering that Apple's already announced a 64-bit 3GHz processor as being 1 year away, that would put it about 6 years ahead of your schedule. and so far these operate on an only 2x bus...
enlightened. Just because you think a phrase means something doesn't mean that it means that.
Oh, I get it. You're being one of those little anal-retentive shits that abound on slashdot. Then replace the offending phrase with something that gets your panties unbunched.
Try refraining from posting until you have a modicum of understanding of what you're saying.
What the fuck is your problem? Is it ragtime over there? This is a message board, that's what it's for. It's not a fucking doctoral dissertation. It's a discussion.
Actually, it doesn't. Know what the fuck you're talking about before you post.
Then I'd refrain if I were you. Slashdot needs fewer assholes. Seriously, where do you think you get off?
Short answer: yes. IIRC, when the subscription bits were announced yesterday, included with the announcement was that Slashdot would be willing to sell stories
Will there be a computer with a bus that can transmit data that fast? To hell with read/write - I'll concede it's all in memory. I don't think computers will be able to do (10^13)/64 bus cycles by 2010, assuming Moore's is loosely adhered to. As I calculate it, 7 years at 1.5 years/doubling cycle leaves 4.8 doubling cycles. Assuming a top speed of 3 GHz and 64 bit architecture, 1 get 1E13bits/(64bits/clock)/((2^4.8)*3E9clocks) = 1.87, or 87% overcapacity.
And that assumes that transfer occurs at chip speed, which it doesn't. Assuming a modest clock multiplier of 8 between system bus and chip, that's a 15x overcapacity, even if the entire computer were used to transmit.
Not at all. If Intel releases a new chip and someone prints their press release, that's news.
Journalists tend not to blindly run press releases. Even then, they're clearly tagged. This one wasn't.
Or, if you wish to see it this way, it's news that Intel thinks it's got a newsworthy product.
By that incredibly low standard, there's no commercial that's *not* news. So it defeats the purpose of having a disctinction. I'm not buying it.
That mandrake 9.2rc1 is out is news, and that there's a company that'll burn a CD and fedex it to you is also news.
If this company were new,I'd agree. It's not. Therefore, it's not news. It's an advertisement attached to a story.
The same thing happened about 5 years ago to the LA Times. They ran a story about the staples center, new home of the Lakers, near a story about the lakers. The Staples story was bought. It wasn't labeled as such. The LA Times was lambasted by the major journalism associations. They later apologized.
Naturally, this begs the question: was the mandrake thing just a friendly plug, or can those be bought too?
You must be new to Slashdot... Other neat Slashdotisms you'll soon be familiar with: Duplicate stories, spelling and grammar errors posted by the "editors", and posting of articles that the editors clearly hasn't even read. Still, it's all in good fun.
You forgot my all-time favorite, the "You must be new to slashdot" joke. Yeah, I'm talkin' to you.
nd a number of game ports do explicitly take advantage of them.
Ports being the operative word here. The big stumbling block to gaming on the mac isn't performance, it's titles. Only the very biggest games (read: blizzard) release concurrently for the mac and PC.
Re:I doubt that this will be seen, but...
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
They have incredible sparkle, and don't carry the outrageous price tag of DeBeers' homogenized offerings. (And yes, there's one on my finger, so I know of what I write.)
Of course, that's limited both their volume and margin. I bet you won't find many Aussie diamond sold in Europe, for example. And as you say, they're cheap. These guys only make money by undercutting deBeers. Most companies find it financially more lucrative to work with deBeers, even if you have to take a shower after meeting the guys.
Based on that, I'm not so sure how much of a success story the Aussies are. If they could sell those rocks for deBeers prices, wherever they want - *that* would be success. Though clearly it worked out well for you, as you have one.
I don't know, I'd say M$ware works at least as well as tobacco. Both give decent results in the short term, but eventually result in a fatal process crash. And hey, at least you can reboot your computer. I suppose if you're Hindu you believe you can reboot yourself, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and benchmarks are not? Always take real-life performance test if they are similar to your work before benchmarks.
Certainly - if you can tailor your benchmark to your work, by all means do so. If you use photoshop a ton, and it's faster on the mac, get a mac. But what we're talking about are public benchmarks, applicable very generally to people who supposedly don't have uniform work habits or environments.
Given that, about the fairest comparison is taking a whole lot of different code examples, compiling on both machines, and running it. Is it a perfect indicator? No, and no one's saying it is. But it's the best you can do without attempting to artificially favor one or the other. If everyone picks their own benchmarks, everyone gets different results.
Benchmarks are only a substitute for real-life test, not better than.
Couldn't agree more.
And their modifications to the Dell? Since they got it as it shipped, and they modified it, they didn't test it as it shipped.
Get out of denial, x8 is not a religion, it's a processor for goodness sake.
Interesting. You seem to be much more riled up than me - I would advise you to consider the same. Btw, I use both macs and intel machines at work, and I don't have any preference at all, so it would be hard for any actual denial to exist. I might question you on the same basis, however.
For what it's worth, you'll never see a PC user really get upset because someone insulted his processor, but I could point to numerous examples of this phenomenon with some mac users, though obviously not all.
That's certainly a good way to evaluate your happiness with the computer, but if so, I doubt you really care how the apple stacks up to the dell in terms of absolute performance.
I would wager, although I don't know, that adobe focusses on optimizing the mac version better. Like I said, I could find a program that was the opposite - faster on PC. The code simply isn't the same for versions of the same program on different platforms.
It almost sounds to me like you think that Apple should use flaky code for their tests. That would hardly be fair.
Agreed, it wouldn't. My point was that "real-world" benchmarks fail because it's impossible to determine the level of optimization of both machines, and depending on the program, will artificially favor one platform or the other.
What's a "real-world" benchmark? Comparing the function of photoshop on mac vs. pc, when it's developed natively for the mac? That's not really fair. It's simply not the same code. We could take any of the many programs made natively on PC (which are then ported to mac) and do the same trick.
so the PC fanboys cried that SPEC benchmarks are the real measurement to gague speed... (probably because the comparisons were much closer when conducted this way).
And I'm sure that the macheads don't favor the "photoshop test" for the same reason? We need some objectivity here. Nothing wrong with a fair benchmark, and I'll go on record as always preferring a benchmark, regardless of who it favors.
Apple replied that its fairer to normalize the compiler between platforms and that while Intel could have achieved higher results when their compiler was used
Why fairer? Shouldn't tests use whatever compiler will *actually be used*? If apple/IBM made a chip without a decent compiler to support it, that's their problem. I'd say it was fair to use Intel's compiler for intel's chip. Now it will be fair to use IBM's compiler for IBM's chip. Also interesting was how you suspect the "fanboys" of being biased when they wanted benchmarks instead of "real-world" tests, but Apple just "realized that it's fairer" to do something that benefited them. It works both ways.
Apple could do the same. So, here is that compiler. When/if the G5 outperforms Intel's best, what will the fanboys rally cry be next?
That's perfectly fair. Let's use the best compiler for each machine. I've no problem with it.
Now, to ensure a completely fair test, let's make sure Apple uses both machines as they ship, and everything will be fine. But the pc "fanboys" as you call them were right to criticize a test in which Apple modified the machines, both their own and Dell's, fom the way they shipped. The changes it made to the Apple were beneficial, the ones to the Dell were all detrimental. That's not science.
I honestly like Apples, this is just a matter of scientific method to me. I really could give a shit who wins.
Yeah, in the PC version. The port will have its own set. Or, I could wait a few months, buy the PC version which is now $20, and have no bugs.
Not to mention which, it's frequently not just a few months - many great games never get to Mac.
Go to any games store and notice the disparity in titles. You'd have to really be rationalizing to consider that an advantage.
That's only true if the average user knew enough about Symantec to know that their product typically requires activation, and I doubt that's the case. You could make an argument that the manual would mention it, but 1) nobody reads them and 2) that would be pirated as well, so pirates would just change it in the process (assuming they bothered including it).
This is trying to protect users that try to buy a legitimate product and find out that they have an illegal copy instead. This is IMHO a Good Thing if implemented correctly.
Usually I'd disagree, as it requires an internet connection, which one may for whatever reason not have available when installing. In this case, though, antivirus is generally most necessary for the internet anyway, so I'm cool with it.
As long as they keep their grubby hands off my boot sector, and as long as I can change hardware without it stopping working, I'm OK with it.
I do question whether it will work, however, as I mentioned.
Is it connected to the ethernet point? If not, then it's irrelevant.
Be the Bastard.
I apologize to all grammar police out there, but given how many times I've seen this on slashdot, I'm probably using the phrase in the same vernacular as most of the rest of the people here.
Interestingly enough, your own source listed my use in the definition, though it advised that such usage is "substandard" for "academics." As I'm not an academic in grammar, rather chemistry, I'll readily accept that.
Before you jump on your Grammar Nazi bandwagon: languages, like other protocols, are for communicating. If you bugger up the protocol, expect to get poor results out of the communication
No, I'll actually stick with the grammar nazi bit. This isn't a publication, and everyone understood what I meant. That's good enough for me, as I'm not a copy editor. I might also introduce you to the concept of "vernacular." Sometimes when your grammar is too correct, it's intimidating and completely unconversational.
(QED - and if you don't understand what QED means, now would be a good time to look that up too).
Quantum ElectroDynamics. And I also know how to do proofs, also, thanks.
If you don't understand all of a protocol, stick to the bits you do understand. That's not anally retentive, that's common sense.
First, people learn by doing, so if you never try new things and screw up, you don't learn, and I don't find that to be a tenable position. Second, yes, that actually is quite anal-retentive. People don't usually like people who criticize widely-accepted, if technically incorrect, usages of words.
Trying to make yourself sound posh by lacing your posts with semi-understood "in" phrases generally ends up with you looking like a bozo, even if nobody overtly calls you on your presumptions.
See above. I also really don't care what people on slashdot think about me, as I'm quite secure with my intellect. If it gives someone a better day because they're able to increase their sense of self-superiority at my expense, I'm glad to oblige.
Really? When?
Is that a 3 GHz system bus? I don't think so.
Oh, I get it. You're being one of those little anal-retentive shits that abound on slashdot. Then replace the offending phrase with something that gets your panties unbunched.
Try refraining from posting until you have a modicum of understanding of what you're saying.
What the fuck is your problem? Is it ragtime over there? This is a message board, that's what it's for. It's not a fucking doctoral dissertation. It's a discussion.
Idiot.
Talk to me again when you get out of high school.
Quite true (I was granting obscene best-case scenarios). I don't see how that 10 terabits is getting used.
Then I'd refrain if I were you. Slashdot needs fewer assholes. Seriously, where do you think you get off?
Short answer: yes. IIRC, when the subscription bits were announced yesterday, included with the announcement was that Slashdot would be willing to sell stories
And that's not an ad...how?
And that assumes that transfer occurs at chip speed, which it doesn't. Assuming a modest clock multiplier of 8 between system bus and chip, that's a 15x overcapacity, even if the entire computer were used to transmit.
Journalists tend not to blindly run press releases. Even then, they're clearly tagged. This one wasn't.
Or, if you wish to see it this way, it's news that Intel thinks it's got a newsworthy product.
By that incredibly low standard, there's no commercial that's *not* news. So it defeats the purpose of having a disctinction. I'm not buying it.
That mandrake 9.2rc1 is out is news, and that there's a company that'll burn a CD and fedex it to you is also news.
If this company were new,I'd agree. It's not. Therefore, it's not news. It's an advertisement attached to a story.
The same thing happened about 5 years ago to the LA Times. They ran a story about the staples center, new home of the Lakers, near a story about the lakers. The Staples story was bought. It wasn't labeled as such. The LA Times was lambasted by the major journalism associations. They later apologized.
Naturally, this begs the question: was the mandrake thing just a friendly plug, or can those be bought too?
You forgot my all-time favorite, the "You must be new to slashdot" joke. Yeah, I'm talkin' to you.
At least the maczealots are out of modpoints by now. Except for the three of them that will hit me. ;)
...when it's masquerading as journalism.
Bwahahahahaha!
(Insert obligatory Duke Nukem reference here)
Ports being the operative word here. The big stumbling block to gaming on the mac isn't performance, it's titles. Only the very biggest games (read: blizzard) release concurrently for the mac and PC.
Of course, that's limited both their volume and margin. I bet you won't find many Aussie diamond sold in Europe, for example. And as you say, they're cheap. These guys only make money by undercutting deBeers. Most companies find it financially more lucrative to work with deBeers, even if you have to take a shower after meeting the guys.
Based on that, I'm not so sure how much of a success story the Aussies are. If they could sell those rocks for deBeers prices, wherever they want - *that* would be success. Though clearly it worked out well for you, as you have one.
I don't know, I'd say M$ware works at least as well as tobacco. Both give decent results in the short term, but eventually result in a fatal process crash. And hey, at least you can reboot your computer. I suppose if you're Hindu you believe you can reboot yourself, as well.