A. Yes I have done benchmarks. Encode an MP3 under Be, try playing 12 MP3s under Be (at the same time) try editing video without waiting for previews, plug in new hardware and watch it magically work, feel the elegance of the UI. Look at the fact that BeOS is a hell of a lot more stable than any other OS except the *nixes, and it is pretty close to them too. (Linux 4 crashes 2 months, Be 3 crashes in 1.5 months. 1 due to the fact that I killed the app server, the other 2 due to a consistant bug in sound recorder.) And Be takes Apples refusal to help them as a sign that Apple is hostile to them. (Which they are) Linux people have an army of hackers working on LinuxPPC. Be has 100 engineers. What would be more important to you. Supporting a platform that %5 of people use and that doesn't want you or getting HW accelerated GL on an equally powerful platform (Look at the Athlon vs. G4 SPECs) that more people use? Or getting multi-user into the OS, or fixing that bug in sound recorder, or writing drivers, etc? PS. Spelling bigots point out bad spelling becuase they feel superior to you. Spelling does not really matter in this day and age as long as you get you message across.
Actually, why is it that when Linux people can't do something cuz they don't have specs they cry foul, but when Be can't do it they call it laziness. Apple does not WANT Be on their piece of junk platform. It has great hardware melded to a braindead OS. Your choice is to either use Linux, and give up media, or do media and put up with MacOS. Be was a glimmer of hope and if the iditots at apple had half a brain they would have realized that giving people an alternative would not hurt MacOS. The same people who use BeOS aren't the same people who would use MacOS. Home users would not use BeOS, they would stay on mac. Only the people who needed it, (Stienberg, all the manner of media companies porting to Be, etc.) would use it. Intel likes Be cuz it helps show of its hardware. Apple
A. As I recall the Alpha can juggle 80 out of order instructions, Intel 40, and AMD 70 something. B. Why are you comparing OSX to W2k, why not to BeOS, by far the fastest OS for x86. C. It compiles slower because Solaris 7 x86 is crap.
Funny how just a little above someone posted SPEC scores that show the PII kicking the G3s ass. And real world stuff backs this up. Boot did a test pitting a 300MHz GC against a 400MHZ PII. The PII was cheaper and had more ameneties (bigger monitor, better speakers, bigger hard-drive, better graphics card, etc.) They tested Inspire, Quake, Photoshop and some other stuff. The MAC won Photoshop. Lost inspire and really lost quake. Second the SPEC for a G4 costing 3000 is around the SPECS for an Athlon 700 costing 2000
Look who is being moronic. Game, to some extent, DO define the high end of PC programs. Games are the whole reason that PCs have enough power to run SoftImage instead of you having to buy an SGI to do it. The TNT2 was not built to run softimage. That does not make it any less powerfull however. Gaming cards are fill-rate optimized, Workstation cards are geometry optimized. Combine the fill-rate of a TNT 2 and the Geometry excess of a WildCat 4000 and you'd be in heaven. Try running a low poly high texture scene on your workstation card an you will see what I mean. A TNT2 could kick workstation ass if you want high texture, but gets beat on high polys, choose whatever floats your boat, but do not belittle a card that could beat your precious workstation card in fill-rate. Second, MMX was good. However, it focused on rasterizing, at a time when hardware rasterizers had been coming into the market. SSE and 3D Now! do wonders for geometry, and 3D Max will really fly on a K7 when they release a 3D Now! patch. With the K7s higher clock speed and bigger FPU, it is probably slightly faster than AltiVec. Although AltiVec is wider, K7 has a higher clock speed and a bigger FPU. Third, DirectX is the most increadible API ever. It is integrate, fairly low-level, and getting faster every day. Even some low-end 3D editors are using DirectX as their rendering engine. Don't put it down, becuase DX 6 and 7 are not your mother's directX. Lastly, many 3D editors are taking the ideas of gaming people to improve their programs. I know Truespace at least has made its rendering preview more game-like, thus increasing their speed 6 times. Finally, gamers are among the most computer knowledable people in the computing market, and in a world full of iMacs, you can't afford to insult them.
Why not have Slashdot automatically moderated by those grading programs some teachers are useing to grade student papers? (See slashdot from a few days ago.)
Damn sysadmins. EVERYONE NEEDS A VECTOR PROCESSOR. Vector procs rock for 3D. Even the ARM10 architeture is putting a vector engine in a proc made for handhelds. YOUR PALMPILOT NEEDS A VECTOR PROCESSOR!!!!
Okay, I'll buy that 233 MMX of ya from $100. Last I remembered it they were at least $300 or so. Second, Your G300 tower is reletivly recent. Current Macs are only at 400 or so now, (G4s are still pretty hard to find) or 450 if you want to quibble. PCs are at 700 MHz, so what do you think is going to happen to the price of the 233? Your G3 300 is comparable to a 450Mhz PII in terms of how out of date it is. Second, a mac does crash every 10 minutes. My windows install has not crashed in two days. (I was rendering in Truespace, while coding in Visual Studio.) Yes it is a piece of junk, but that is why you have things like BeOS. We have an old 180Mhz MacOS 7.6.x (which I hear is supposedly pretty stable) which has a problem running Netscape 4.0
Actually, no one seemed to notice the faux pas about the 128 meg swap file. They said The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM. Since when do you put your swap file in RAM? Well, with microsoft's swap algorithms you never know.
What are the 2 main reasons that Athlons are coming out. Gaming, media and servers. Surprisingly all three benefit immensly from SMP. Calculating transforms are fairly non linear, calculating masks, effects,and etc also are important for media, ie. Photoshop, etc. And a server handling multiple requests is a very non-linear situation. For example, a dual processor box runs 3D studio MAX 80-90% faster than a single processor box. You don't need a 700 MHz chip to run bussiness programs (as of yet) but they work very well from 3D, media and serving. That is another reason why the K7 architecture kicks so much ass. With 3 FP units, 3D goes much faster since 3D is very parallel. Lastly, there is an OS that can do fine grained threading. It is not a Unix, its called BeOS. Say it with me, BeOS. Hell, windows does better threading than any of the *Nixes. And BeOS threading is not costly and the compiler and debug tools are built in.
Although I love the BeOS, I have some problems with your statement. The BeOS is not a Real Time Operating System (RTOS) It is true that it has sheduling latencies so low that it comes close, but it is technically not. Everything else you say does mostly apply. I would like to also point out that BeOS thread overhead is 10th that of Linux and better than NT. (BTW NT also kicks linux's ass in threading.) Also the whole pervasive mutlithreading bit is really cool. Think of all the nifty stuff it could be made to do. Assuming they make the R5 OpenGL server multi-threaded a single-threaded program could make OpenGL calls whose processing would be distributed over multiple procs.
Its actually pretty simple. Essentially a PPro is emulating an x86, right? A PPro 200 is faster than a Pentium 200 and thus you get faster emulation than native!
Re:what "real" benchmarks? Please provide link/pro
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
Actually the G3s are faster at the same MHz for INTEGER MATH. But the G3 is based on the pile 'o shit 603e processor and has a floating point unit "whose math skills are so poor it must have come out of an urban high school" to put it in the word of boot. (So the quote was used in referance to a K6, you get the idea) In Quake, Inspire3D, rendering, and other benchmarks such as SPEC, the x86 is much faster. But face it integer math is plenty fast already. Make that FPU more powerful. Thus a 600MHz PIII is much faster than the fastest G3 even for integer (higher clock speed), not to mention that all the high performance hardware is made for x86 and since they are cheaper, you can afford more RAM/HD on the x86 machine. However, the G4 is based on the 604 and can whoop any x86 any day of the week.
Re:Hmmm. Is this encouraging?
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
Here is an idea. How 'bout the fact that PC and Mac based Unixs still do didly for media. BeOS has a lot of support in the media department and thus is a direct competitor to MacOS. Face it, except for hardware and software support, BeOS can do everything MacOS can do except better. Linux can't hold a candle to MacOS in the media depertment, but BeOS can, and thus threatens Apple. By supporting Linux, Apple gets its machines into servers and gets to have the media hype of Linux, but does not lose anything because Linux can not compete with MacOS.
Both wrong. Dragon is the code name for the Direct 5.1 version of WinCE. The propriotory Sega OS is a very low level type of thing. C'mon, these can't even be called full OSs. Basically a kernel with some support libraries. I think the PSX OS is like 30K or so. You really are programming directly to hardware (the only way that is good).
ITs increadible how you people completely forgot that DC whoops most current PCs. The graphics system is about the speed of a non Ultra TNT 2 (Its what the PVR Neon 250 is based on) In addition to an amazing CPU (The Hitachi based machines on the Top 500 super comps are number 2 and below. The #2 is a Hitachi 64 processor with half the performance of the Intel Teraflops which has 9000 200 mhz P Pros.) An emulator can barly emulate the 94.75 MHz Mips 4300i thats in the N64 (play goldeneye on HLE) well. Even a 1 GHz Athlon couldn't emulate a DC well. (It takes at least a Pentium 75 to emulate the 3.7 MHz SNES well and a 600MHz still can emulate a 33MHz PSX well.) This is dreamcast, PSX 2 will blow PCs even current then out of the water (import from Japan and learn Japaneese!)
Re:The Viability of Be and Linux
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
Mostly nice points, but seriously, you cannot think that MFC is nice to program? My DirectX demo program (draws lines and circles and arcs, does blits, etc) and written with the API is smaller than the MFC defualt "Hello World application." And the naming guys at MS are morons. Who though up stuff like stdafx.h and DIDDEVICEOBJECTINSTANCE as an object name! Aside from MFC, the Win32 API is nice to program. But what I like about be is the coherance. Programming QT is not like programming the rest of Linux. Neither is ALSA. At least with DirectX all the parts are similar. But Be is something else. It is entirly coherent, even the BSD sockes implementation has a Be-style wrapper!
Another reason why X should die. C'mon folk, do we need compatibility with a 15 year old protocol? XBill is cool and all that, but it could easily be ported to a new window system!
It is not hardware dependant. The G3 Mac should be able to run one, since the DPF connector is on the Rage 128 card. So should PCs, and SGI Visual Workstations.
Tell that to HP, they make everything from processors, to printers to stethescopes. I doubt they started making all those products, they expanded. And if you think HP is unsuccessfull, I'll be glade to take any stock you may have off your hands.
Slashdot Mirror
A. Yes I have done benchmarks. Encode an MP3 under Be, try playing 12 MP3s under Be (at the same time) try editing video without waiting for previews, plug in new hardware and watch it magically work, feel the elegance of the UI. Look at the fact that BeOS is a hell of a lot more stable than any other OS except the *nixes, and it is pretty close to them too. (Linux 4 crashes 2 months, Be 3 crashes in 1.5 months. 1 due to the fact that I killed the app server, the other 2 due to a consistant bug in sound recorder.) And Be takes Apples refusal to help them as a sign that Apple is hostile to them. (Which they are) Linux people have an army of hackers working on LinuxPPC. Be has 100 engineers. What would be more important to you. Supporting a platform that %5 of people use and that doesn't want you or getting HW accelerated GL on an equally powerful platform (Look at the Athlon vs. G4 SPECs) that more people use? Or getting multi-user into the OS, or fixing that bug in sound recorder, or writing drivers, etc? PS. Spelling bigots point out bad spelling becuase they feel superior to you. Spelling does not really matter in this day and age as long as you get you message across.
Actually, why is it that when Linux people can't do something cuz they don't have specs they cry foul, but when Be can't do it they call it laziness. Apple does not WANT Be on their piece of junk platform. It has great hardware melded to a braindead OS. Your choice is to either use Linux, and give up media, or do media and put up with MacOS. Be was a glimmer of hope and if the iditots at apple had half a brain they would have realized that giving people an alternative would not hurt MacOS. The same people who use BeOS aren't the same people who would use MacOS. Home users would not use BeOS, they would stay on mac. Only the people who needed it, (Stienberg, all the manner of media companies porting to Be, etc.) would use it. Intel likes Be cuz it helps show of its hardware. Apple
A. As I recall the Alpha can juggle 80 out of order instructions, Intel 40, and AMD 70 something. B. Why are you comparing OSX to W2k, why not to BeOS, by far the fastest OS for x86. C. It compiles slower because Solaris 7 x86 is crap.
Funny how just a little above someone posted SPEC scores that show the PII kicking the G3s ass. And real world stuff backs this up. Boot did a test pitting a 300MHz GC against a 400MHZ PII. The PII was cheaper and had more ameneties (bigger monitor, better speakers, bigger hard-drive, better graphics card, etc.) They tested Inspire, Quake, Photoshop and some other stuff. The MAC won Photoshop. Lost inspire and really lost quake.
Second the SPEC for a G4 costing 3000 is around the SPECS for an Athlon 700 costing 2000
Look who is being moronic. Game, to some extent, DO define the high end of PC programs. Games are the whole reason that PCs have enough power to run SoftImage instead of you having to buy an SGI to do it. The TNT2 was not built to run softimage. That does not make it any less powerfull however. Gaming cards are fill-rate optimized, Workstation cards are geometry optimized. Combine the fill-rate of a TNT 2 and the Geometry excess of a WildCat 4000 and you'd be in heaven. Try running a low poly high texture scene on your workstation card an you will see what I mean. A TNT2 could kick workstation ass if you want high texture, but gets beat on high polys, choose whatever floats your boat, but do not belittle a card that could beat your precious workstation card in fill-rate. Second, MMX was good. However, it focused on rasterizing, at a time when hardware rasterizers had been coming into the market. SSE and 3D Now! do wonders for geometry, and 3D Max will really fly on a K7 when they release a 3D Now! patch. With the K7s higher clock speed and bigger FPU, it is probably slightly faster than AltiVec. Although AltiVec is wider, K7 has a higher clock speed and a bigger FPU. Third, DirectX is the most increadible API ever. It is integrate, fairly low-level, and getting faster every day. Even some low-end 3D editors are using DirectX as their rendering engine. Don't put it down, becuase DX 6 and 7 are not your mother's directX. Lastly, many 3D editors are taking the ideas of gaming people to improve their programs. I know Truespace at least has made its rendering preview more game-like, thus increasing their speed 6 times. Finally, gamers are among the most computer knowledable people in the computing market, and in a world full of iMacs, you can't afford to insult them.
Why not have Slashdot automatically moderated by those grading programs some teachers are useing to grade student papers? (See slashdot from a few days ago.)
Damn sysadmins. EVERYONE NEEDS A VECTOR PROCESSOR. Vector procs rock for 3D. Even the ARM10 architeture is putting a vector engine in a proc made for handhelds. YOUR PALMPILOT NEEDS A VECTOR PROCESSOR!!!!
Yea you did. BeOS. Pure elegance.
Okay, I'll buy that 233 MMX of ya from $100. Last I remembered it they were at least $300 or so. Second, Your G300 tower is reletivly recent. Current Macs are only at 400 or so now, (G4s are still pretty hard to find) or 450 if you want to quibble. PCs are at 700 MHz, so what do you think is going to happen to the price of the 233? Your G3 300 is comparable to a 450Mhz PII in terms of how out of date it is. Second, a mac does crash every 10 minutes. My windows install has not crashed in two days. (I was rendering in Truespace, while coding in Visual Studio.) Yes it is a piece of junk, but that is why you have things like BeOS. We have an old 180Mhz MacOS 7.6.x (which I hear is supposedly pretty stable) which has a problem running Netscape 4.0
Actually, no one seemed to notice the faux pas about the 128 meg swap file. They said The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM. Since when do you put your swap file in RAM? Well, with microsoft's swap algorithms you never know.
What are the 2 main reasons that Athlons are coming out. Gaming, media and servers. Surprisingly all three benefit immensly from SMP. Calculating transforms are fairly non linear, calculating masks, effects,and etc also are important for media, ie. Photoshop, etc. And a server handling multiple requests is a very non-linear situation. For example, a dual processor box runs 3D studio MAX 80-90% faster than a single processor box. You don't need a 700 MHz chip to run bussiness programs (as of yet) but they work very well from 3D, media and serving. That is another reason why the K7 architecture kicks so much ass. With 3 FP units, 3D goes much faster since 3D is very parallel. Lastly, there is an OS that can do fine grained threading. It is not a Unix, its called BeOS. Say it with me, BeOS. Hell, windows does better threading than any of the *Nixes. And BeOS threading is not costly and the compiler and debug tools are built in.
Actually I think you are wrong. The Athlon has a 200 MHz bus clock, but the RAM is only 100 MHz.
Although I love the BeOS, I have some problems with your statement. The BeOS is not a Real Time Operating System (RTOS) It is true that it has sheduling latencies so low that it comes close, but it is technically not. Everything else you say does mostly apply. I would like to also point out that BeOS thread overhead is 10th that of Linux and better than NT. (BTW NT also kicks linux's ass in threading.) Also the whole pervasive mutlithreading bit is really cool. Think of all the nifty stuff it could be made to do. Assuming they make the R5 OpenGL server multi-threaded a single-threaded program could make OpenGL calls whose processing would be distributed over multiple procs.
Why hasn't they Linuxdotters moderated this post up? He has a very valid point about the jihad mindset of many people.
Its actually pretty simple. Essentially a PPro is emulating an x86, right? A PPro 200 is faster than a Pentium 200 and thus you get faster emulation than native!
Actually the G3s are faster at the same MHz for INTEGER MATH. But the G3 is based on the pile 'o shit 603e processor and has a floating point unit
"whose math skills are so poor it must have come out of an urban high school" to put it in the word of boot. (So the quote was used in referance to a K6, you get the idea) In Quake, Inspire3D, rendering, and other benchmarks such as SPEC, the x86 is much faster. But face it integer math is plenty fast already. Make that FPU more powerful. Thus a 600MHz PIII is much faster than the fastest G3 even for integer (higher clock speed), not to mention that all the high performance hardware is made for x86 and since they are cheaper, you can afford more RAM/HD on the x86 machine. However, the G4 is based on the 604 and can whoop any x86 any day of the week.
Here is an idea. How 'bout the fact that PC and Mac based Unixs still do didly for media. BeOS has a lot of support in the media department and thus is a direct competitor to MacOS. Face it, except for hardware and software support, BeOS can do everything MacOS can do except better. Linux can't hold a candle to MacOS in the media depertment, but BeOS can, and thus threatens Apple. By supporting Linux, Apple gets its machines into servers and gets to have the media hype of Linux, but does not lose anything because Linux can not compete with MacOS.
Both wrong. Dragon is the code name for the Direct 5.1 version of WinCE. The propriotory Sega OS is a very low level type of thing. C'mon, these can't even be called full OSs. Basically a kernel with some support libraries. I think the PSX OS is like 30K or so. You really are programming directly to hardware (the only way that is good).
ITs increadible how you people completely forgot that DC whoops most current PCs. The graphics system is about the speed of a non Ultra TNT 2 (Its what the PVR Neon 250 is based on) In addition to an amazing CPU (The Hitachi based machines on the Top 500 super comps are number 2 and below. The #2 is a Hitachi 64 processor with half the performance of the Intel Teraflops which has 9000 200 mhz P Pros.) An emulator can barly emulate the 94.75 MHz Mips 4300i thats in the N64 (play goldeneye on HLE) well. Even a 1 GHz Athlon couldn't emulate a DC well. (It takes at least a Pentium 75 to emulate the 3.7 MHz SNES well and a 600MHz still can emulate a 33MHz PSX well.) This is dreamcast, PSX 2 will blow PCs even current then out of the water (import from Japan and learn Japaneese!)
Mostly nice points, but seriously, you cannot think that MFC is nice to program? My DirectX demo program (draws lines and circles and arcs, does blits, etc) and written with the API is smaller than the MFC defualt "Hello World application." And the naming guys at MS are morons. Who though up stuff like stdafx.h and DIDDEVICEOBJECTINSTANCE as an object name! Aside from MFC, the Win32 API is nice to program. But what I like about be is the coherance. Programming QT is not like programming the rest of Linux. Neither is ALSA. At least with DirectX all the parts are similar. But Be is something else. It is entirly coherent, even the BSD sockes implementation has a Be-style wrapper!
Another reason why X should die. C'mon folk, do we need compatibility with a 15 year old protocol? XBill is cool and all that, but it could easily be ported to a new window system!
I belive the Rage 128 already has the connector built in, so any Rage 128 card on the market should support the display. Which inclues PC Rage128s.
It is not hardware dependant. The G3 Mac should be able to run one, since the DPF connector is on the Rage 128 card. So should PCs, and SGI Visual Workstations.
Acutally its the DPF connecter, and the Rage 128 and the #9 Revolution 4 has them.
Tell that to HP, they make everything from processors, to printers to stethescopes. I doubt they started making all those products, they expanded. And if you think HP is unsuccessfull, I'll be glade to take any stock you may have off your hands.