Oh, really? You got a pointer to this sub $3K desktop PC with 64G of ram?
Frankly, there's no way since the pentium cannot address 64G of ram.
JEsus you'd think slashdot users would at least know the basics of computer architecture.
My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance
You are bordering on moron and just showing everyone you are an ignorant ass.
As for the Mac that can encode MPEG4 in real-time, what the f***. We have media servers here running WindowsXP and Windows 2003 that range from 800mhz Pentium III to 2.2ghz Pentium 4 machines - and they ALL can encode MPEG4 in real-time from live sources.
Again I ask, what does it take? Do you want me to send you a bunch of pictures of the computers to 'SHOW YOU AN x86 THAT CAN DO THAT' so you will remove the MPEG4 line from your signature.
How lost in the 'all Macs are wonderful and superior' are you? Even Adobe posted benchmarks about PCs being a faster solution than Macs. (http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index .cfm?Ar ticleID=38445)
Since Jobs usually uses Adobe software to show how 'wonderful' the Mac is, don't you think that memo from Adobe was a 'bit' significant'?
Secondly, no I cannot show you a desktop computer that COMES with 64G of RAM for 3K, but I can show you a desktop computer that can support up to 64GB of RAM for under 3K.
Thanks for the little lecture on how the 'Pentium' cannot address 64G of RAM. However, you know what - everyone else here knows this...
First off, we are NOT just talking about 'Pentiums' here. How about the AMD Opteron or the Itanium that can address (access) at least 512GB - using only 48bit addressing? This is what a real 64bit processor with the RIGHT OS can and should be able to use.
WindowsXP 64bit Edition (the desktop version) for the Itanium CPU can use 16GB of RAM, and in the next service pack, will be able to access even more RAM.
Moreover, WindowsXP 64bit Edition has been shipping since last year. (And 16GB is something that even the 'new' panther edition of OSX cannot do, not to mention it isn't even a shipping product.)
Windows 2000 server can address and access 64GB of RAM on x86 (Pentium) based machines, and it has been shipping since Dec 1999/Jan 2000. (Oh my, how can it do this, see below.)
In addition, Windows 2003 can access and address 512GB of RAM on the Itanium CPUs and will be able to on the Opteron processors with its SP1/AMD update later this summer.
As for the JEsus you'd think slashdot users would at least know the basics of computer architecture.
Yeah Jesus, you would think you would know, but apparently, you DO NOT.
Even though the 'Pentium' or x86 processor architecture can only address 4GB of RAM because it is limited to 32bits of address space for memory, in dual processor configurations (like with the Pentium III or Xeon CPUs) it can use 36bit addressing. There by, 36bit addressing gives the system and OS access to 64GB of RAM.
Therefore, a Dual processor desktop with Pentium III or Xeon Processors can and often do use 64GBs of RAM. (Look it up at intel.com or microsoft.com)
So, yes I can show you SEVERAL dual & multi-processor machines that support up to 64GB of RAM that are Pentium III or Xeon based and cost under 3K.
I too thought that most 'slashdot' users would at least know the basics of computer architecture, but after reading your posts, I concur they do not.
Next time instead of bloviating about something you apparently do not understand, I suggest you resist the urge to post more meaningless information.
Microsoft Netmeeting (the MS conferencing standard before Messenger) was out in 1995-1996.
Apple had Video conferencing software back in 1995-1996 as well.
Additionally, Messenger has been doing Audio/Video for several years as well, including when it hooked into netmeeting and then provided integrated audio/video in WindowsXP.
So tell me again how Microsoft and Apple are 10 years behind?
Have you truly been in a cave for the past 10 years, or are you just pretending to be that stupid?
Either Apple expects no one to be using 1GB RAM or the motherboard does not support it. I guess we'll find out when the G5 comes out.
What would 'really' be nice to know if this is a constraint of the 'mainboard' in the G5, the CPU, or OSX itself? All three could be the cause of it supporting only 8GB of RAM with a 64bit CPU - which is pretty ridiculous.
If we do not push Apple to do better, who will? Especially if they believe their own marketing⦠- The Net Avenger
It is all semantics, the word 'Marketing' comes from the Latin words 'marke' which means 'to create false impressions of / on / for', and 'ting' which means 'thing'. To create false impressions of this thing. Simple.
Actually, marketing is Old French to Middle English and comes from the Latin word 'mercÄtus', which is the past participle of 'mercÄr', meaning 'to buy'. Latin 'merc' is merchandise.
So originally, marketing did not come from anything to do with creating a false impression.
Instead, it simply means, 'offering to buy' or 'merchandising a thing'.
Ok, rephrased... can we buy the parts to hand build a 64 bit (Intel or AMD cpu based) machine using commercially available (ie, something other than engineering samples provided to TomsHardware for review) chips, mobos, etc?
I wasn't slamming or trying hide meaning in my questions, I am genuinely curious. The new uberApple is interesting but until I am ready to abandon the software I use and develop, I sort of need a Wintel based solution.
Yes, the pieces are available. Go to amd.com and do a search for suppliers and vendors of the Opteron. They have recommended mainboards and suppliers by zip code that can get the Opteron and even sell Opteron assembled systems.
The G5 is attractive, but keep in mind that the numbers that Apple is using are primarily based upon flawed testing.
Additionally, they are touting the FP performance of the machine compared to the Intel Xeon, and even the AMD Athlon is much faster than the Xeon when it comes to FP operations.
There are many sites popping up that pull data directly from SPEC to demonstrate that the G5 is not as impressive as it sounds. In several cases, even a SINGLE CPU 32bit Athlon beats the DUAL G5 on both the INT and FP operations.
Also donâ(TM)t forget that with the Xeon tests that Jobs touted, they are from an older DELL model, and even DELL has faster performance numbers for this system now.
Add that to the fact that Apple turned off things like HyperThreading on the Xeon chips and other little mistakes to make the Xeonâ(TM)s performance less than what it really is.
Check out http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=39381 â" and do some investigating of your own, there are plenty of articles about the G5 performance claims popping up all over the web.
So if you are truly looking for the ultimate âdesktopâ(TM) computer, there are faster solutions (for less money) than the G5.
Also remember that the specs Jobs was using to demonstrate they had the fastest PC was a âdualâ(TM) processor 2.0ghz G5, which starts at 2999 without a monitor. For 2999, you can get a very fast dual processor AMD Althon or probably even a dual processor Opteron with better supporting hardware and even have a monitor. That WILL run fasterâ¦
Can we even buy commercial machines built on either the Itanium or Opteron just yet?
Just because a MAJOR vendor does not yet offer them in their line, does not mean they are NOT on the market.
Look for smaller companies to be putting them out first.
Additionally, it is very COMMON for pc users to build their own systems piece by piece. (A foreign concept to Mac Users, but none the less, very common in the PC world)
I would imagine that the Opteron will be widely available by major vendors by the time the G5 is shipping.
This isn't like we are talking about fictional CPUs, the Opteron and the Itanium are real and here.
Hence why it was a slap that Apple only used Xeon processors to compare their G5 too, they could of used Itanium or Operton just as easily - as the G5 itself is not shipping yet.
Then, go do some research on VM space. That 8 gigabytes, if you really wanted to, could be mapped into a _single process_. Try doing that on a 32 bit platform
Sorry, would rather just use Windows XP 64bit edition on the Intel Itanium and be able to use 16GB of 'addressable' RAM.
Alternatively, Windows 2003 Server and access from 64GB to 512GB of RAM on a 64bit CPU like the Itanium or the Opteron. Which both allow more than 8GB of addressable space into a single process, unlike OSX.
Geeshâ¦
Apple amazes me once again. The G5 is what it is; why not just bill it as what it is instead of standing on stage and telling the world that it is better than all other computers, which is plain marketing crap. Why is there even the need to demonstrate it is superior to anything, instead just tell the world what it can do?
It reminds me of speeches by Ellison, instead of telling us why his products are great or what they can do, he instead spends the whole time bashing Microsoft or trying to compare his products to Microsoft. If I was him, I would not have even mentioned Microsoft and just tell the world how great my software is. By even comparing it to Microsoftâ(TM)s products, he gives Microsoft credibility as the âstandardâ(TM) to un-throne.
Apple is almost doing the same thing, and it is just sad. The G5 is a great system, but Apple is going to make a fool of it by proclaiming it is the âgreatest, or firstâ(TM) ever. And the rest of the industry is going to challenge this in every aspect as we have been doing here at Slashdot instead of just evaluating it for what it is.
Sure the G5 is great, but it isnâ(TM)t the âfastestâ(TM) or the âfirstâ(TM) at any of the stuff Apple is proclaiming.
Besides, if the G5 processor is truly the best in the world, then maybe Microsoft will reopen the NT for the PPC development and there will be WindowsXP on the G5â(TM)s processor. Just like there was WinNT for the PowerPC in the mid 90s.:)
I wasn't telling the world that 32bit CPUS were better, or that they could address more than 4GB per process. I was just making a comparison.
Unless I read the article wrong, these clusters will not be operating on the same level as Windows and OSX. This is designed for research and heavy-duty number crunching, something that XP and OSX aren't
WindowsXP, um, maybe as the 64bit version also only does 16GB of RAM.:)
However, Windows 2003 Server(check the features for yourself, like the ability to use 512GB of RAM), then I would say no, it isn't in the same class as Windows, not close yet.:)
A 64 bit address space gives you access to 2^64 bytes of ram--................memory as hardware evolves will not be hard (probably mostly changing a few constants)
Thanks for posting the additional detailed information.
I was just going for the basics, I find that either my point or the readers easily get lost when I try the detailed specs type of posts.
It is nice to see that you are able to pull off the additional info without losing most users.
8GB is the max of the computer, not the processor. It has 8 slots for RAM and each one can take up to 1 GB up RAM.
Ok, Anyone find the specs of what OSX and the CPU actually support then? And if it can handle more in the future, why does Apple make the 8GB size sound like the upper end limit?
I've never seen RAM sold in sizes over 1 GB.
You may not have seen them, but 2GB chips are already available.
I don't know about "desktop" solutions, but definitely there are server class solutions, even with 32-bit processors, that surpass this. But I think the cool part is to bring this type of availability to the masses, hopefully eventually driving down RAM prices even more. I don't want to run a server OS -- I want to run XP/Mac OS X/whatever, have gobs of cheap ass RAM, and run everything in memory at a bargain basement price. These new Macs definitely aren't cheap, but it's a good trend to see, and things only get cheaper..
My following response is not only for your post, but also for many in this thread â" Iâ(TM)m using your post as a lead-in.
The thing wrong with what you said is that it is NOT Apple that has started this trend on the desktop. People just haven't been paying attention.
WindowsXP â" the 64bit version - has been shipping for almost a year now for Intel Itanium 64bit systems.
In addition, this is the Professional (Desktop) version of WindowsXP â" not the server. It also supports up to 16GB of RAM in the initial release, which is twice what you can get with OSX on the G5.
Therefore, I ask, how and why up to 8GB RAM and a 64bit CPU in the G5 is the 'first' in any respect for a desktop or as a personal computer? Moreover, how can you conclude that Apple is 'starting the trend' when it has been around already?
I'm not an anti-Apple person at all, but it is alarming that people are buying the hype around the G5, especially when this stuff has been available in the non-Mac PC world already.
Apple's OSX and the G5 are a formidable force, but they are NOT the first or the fastest, period.
As a side note, the new Panther update looks like a features list from Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Donâ(TM)t get me wrong, this is stuff that Apple needs to have in OSX, but they should not be so foolish to market this stuff as their 'innovative ideas'.
Features like Expose, File Vault, iChat, Faxing, Finder enhancements, and iDisk are all features that have been in the Windows world since the release of Windows 2000, and some of them years before hand. Additionally Fast User Switching has always been in Windows XP.
The G5 and Panther are news, but not the cutting edge of technology news, sorry.
4 GB is for the OS and application TOGETHER. The stock behaviour on Linux and Windows is to give 2 GB to the OS and 2 GB to the application. You can go as high as 3GB to the application Linux, but there are some serious warnings against going even that high.
WindowsNT, specifically XP/2K, gives 4GB of RAM per application, not the previous 2GB application limit. This only comes into play when used on dual CPU configurations that can have more than 4GB of RAM.
With Windows Server
With previous versions of WindowsNT, you were correct about the 4GB of RAM being split, giving 2GB to the OS, and 2GB to the Application.
Yes but your OS probably reserves some of it. I know Windows does, couldn't care less about what Linux does, but it probably does
You are right, it does; however, Windows 2003 Server can use up to 64GB of RAM on 32bit based systems (Source Microsoft.com) and 512GB of RAM on Intel and AMD 64bit processors.
Therefore, the 8GB of the 64bit Apple CPU is not using the full address range of a 64bit CPU for memory access â" or OSX is simply not capable of truly using the full 64bit memory addressing.
In fact for a 64bit chip, this is quite embarrassing. Even using 512GB on the Intel and AMD chips is using only 48bits of the 64 for addressing the memory. (Source microsoft.com & intel.com)
As for the OS using part of the RAM, yes it does, and so does Apple's OSX. They all do. Period.
Also to clarify some of the other posts here, 32bit CPUs can directly access 4GB of RAM. Multiprocessor 32bit systems can often have up to 64GB of RAM.
In addition, with WindowsNT XP specifically, the UserMode is NOT limited to 2GB as stated in another post, it is 4GB per application. (source Microsoft.com)
This is really getting to be quite funny in this thread. 8GB - like it is a big 'new' number for desktop PCs.
There are 32bit platform solutions today that already can use up to 64GB of RAM, and other vendors 64bit CPUs, such as AMD and Intel can use up to 512GB of RAM.
So the 'vast' 8GB of RAM is really not something to be touting, in fact, it is a little embarrassing.
Windows2003 Server for example supports 64GB of RAM on 32bit systems, and the full 512GB of RAM on Intel and AMD 64bit CPUS.
So 8GB, give me a break, what a disappointment - the limitation should be more like 128GB, 256GB or 512GB, not measly 8GB which is already available in 32bit based AMD/Intel systems.
I am embarrassed for Apple and the people that buy into this as being a âvastâ(TM) amount of RAM.
Not specifically responding to what you said, as this line is out of context, but it made me laugh that Apple is using the Geforce5200 on the G5 - the 'low end' GeforceFX video card. Even last year's Geforce4 cards are faster than the 5200.
Too funny for such a 'super computer' as the G5. LOL Even the new mobile GPUs from ATI and NVidia are faster than the Geforce 5200 card.
At least they do offer the ATI 9800 on the 'upper' end G5s.
Just thought it was funny they are putting such a low end (in the current market) video card in their 'super' Macs...
My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance.
You are kidding, right? I have a 1.7ghz Toshiba Laptop that can do MPEG4 in real-time. It can also do WMP9 at DVD resolutions in real-time. Do you need a picture of the computer?
Why on earth would you think a Mac is the only computer 'powerful' enough to do real-time MPEG4?
Besides the whole Jobs' stage performance was just that. Using a dual processor Xeon machine as the âultimate PCâ(TM) to compare the G5 to is way too funny. Only an idiot would use that as a comparison platform or truly believe their own hype and try to pass this to a room of people that have no idea about PC architecture.
How about a Dual Processor Athlon? They have been shipping for quite a while now. But of course they are just 32bit addressible CPUs, like the Xeon. (Even though they do have 64bit internal computing structures.)
On the other hand, how about a true 'apples to apples' comparison, and a Dual processor 64bit Desktop system using either the Opteron or Itanium, which are 64bit based CPUS and unfortunately, are JUST as âavailableâ(TM) as the G5 is today.
Taking this a step further, if you want to get technical on how laughable this stuff from Jobs is, just take a look at the Apple site itself. Here, I will just pick one line â" there are many that are quite funny.
From Apple.com⦠64-bit breakthrough... 64-bit processors enable the Power Mac G5 to break through the 4GB barrier and support up to 8GB of 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM â" four times more than a typical PC.
Wow, a whole 8GB of RAM and from a 64bit processor to get that 'vast' amount of RAM. Give me a freaking break. You can even get 32bit PC systems with up to 64GB of RAM today.
Let alone a 64bit CPU system like the Itanium or Opteron, where you can drop 512GB of RAM into a system. So where is all the 64bit power of the G5 going to in OSX? A 64bit CPU and an 8GB of RAM limitation â" Just too silly to even think about.
Even Windows 2003 supports 512GB of RAM on 64bit Intel or AMD CPUs, as well as 64GB of RAM on 32bit CPU configurations. (source intel.com, amd.com & microsoft.com)
This whole âfastestâ(TM) computer thing again with the G5 is just becoming as laughable as it was when they introduced the G4. The amazing G4, the âfirstâ(TM) 64bit desktop computer â" again was so laughable, a 64bit CPU with 32bit address space, basically just like the Athlon and Pentium 4 at the time.
I am not going to debate that the G5 is not a great system and does make some incredible inroads, especially for the Mac world, but Appleâ(TM)s âover the topâ(TM) marketing hype is incredulous.
The G5 may be the greatest Mac ever, but it is NOT the greatest desktop PC, there are many workstation class machines in the âsame price rangeâ(TM) that offer just as much and more than the G5.
If you really buy into the âJobsâ(TM) hype, then you are either a technical Newbie or a Mac Zealot.
Be careful with this. Windows NT 4 does not support INT13 extensions, meaning that if the boot files move beyond the first 7.8GB of a drive, you're going to get some ugly blue screens when it can't load the files. Many people have discovered this after defragging their extra large system volume and rebooted to a blue screen.
Actually The 32 GB limit is purely a microsoft thing to get you to use NTFS. FAT32 can format up to 2 TB. And microsoft will read drives that large it just wont format them that large for you. And there's actually something that will expand that to 4 TB but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head. And no I'm not talking about doublespace or any other compression technologies.
I won't go into the reasons why but I have personally created a 1.2 TB FAT32 partition. Funny thing is that the easiest way I found to format it was in linux.
I know that FAT32 can be used on larger partitions, but its 'original' specification as designed by Microsoft's implementation only allowed for 32GB. Since Microsoft created FAT32, it is their baby.
Disclaimer â" only going from their docs because I have not tested this; but, according to Microsoft, WindowsXP can create and format a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB, it is just during âinstallationâ(TM) of XP that it cannot.
As a side point, why would someone choose FAT32 for a large partition when there are other File Systems out there designed from the beginning for larger volumes, especially NTFS. The space lost in cluster size alone would be prohibitive.
That's what I was replying to. I was attempting to clarify that the limit (4GB, not 2GB) also applied to an NT install in which you specified NTFS (your post seemed to imply FAT16 only).
I don't think we're disagreeing. I was clarifying a point you made which could imply something which wasn't the case
True, I missed it. By being spacey tonight, I ended up bloviating over a point that was already made. I think I should call it a night before I completely lose it.
This is an odd scenario, just for curiosity, I will have a tech look into it.
I know that WindowsXP does translation and chipset testing of the drive to make sure that the main board can properly identify larger volumes.
It may have been picking up on incompatibility with the translation of the drive and the BIOS/Hardware support of the main board and preventing a FAT32 installation.
This would also explain why you then had errors and problems with the drive/partition after the install if a hardware conflict truly did exist.
If I find anything specific about this, I'll post it here.
However, as I have said quite often, unless the user has a specific need for the drive to be FAT32, there is NO reason not to use NTFS with WindowsXP.
In the NT4.0 days, there were concerns because of the lack of accessibility and failsafe measures, but Win2k and XP add tools for accessing the drive even if something were to happen to the NTFS boot partition.
And as I said before, users lose out on many of the great features of WinXP by not having the NTFS file system under it. It being a journalled file system, built in security, and faster access for larger volumes and files are just a few of the things.
People sometimes don't realize how important a journalled FS is, even for consumer users. People are always flipping a power switch or numerous other things that a journalled FS handle without a second thought.
The extra reliability alone is worth convincing people to switch over to NTFS. (Especially people that have seen the "Your system was shut down improperly" scandisk screens of Win9x days one too many times...)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, really? You got a pointer to this sub $3K desktop PC with 64G of ram?
x .cfm?Ar ticleID=38445)
Frankly, there's no way since the pentium cannot address 64G of ram.
JEsus you'd think slashdot users would at least know the basics of computer architecture.
My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance
You are bordering on moron and just showing everyone you are an ignorant ass.
As for the Mac that can encode MPEG4 in real-time, what the f***. We have media servers here running WindowsXP and Windows 2003 that range from 800mhz Pentium III to 2.2ghz Pentium 4 machines - and they ALL can encode MPEG4 in real-time from live sources.
Again I ask, what does it take? Do you want me to send you a bunch of pictures of the computers to 'SHOW YOU AN x86 THAT CAN DO THAT' so you will remove the MPEG4 line from your signature.
How lost in the 'all Macs are wonderful and superior' are you? Even Adobe posted benchmarks about PCs being a faster solution than Macs.
(http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Inde
Since Jobs usually uses Adobe software to show how 'wonderful' the Mac is, don't you think that memo from Adobe was a 'bit' significant'?
Secondly, no I cannot show you a desktop computer that COMES with 64G of RAM for 3K, but I can show you a desktop computer that can support up to 64GB of RAM for under 3K.
Thanks for the little lecture on how the 'Pentium' cannot address 64G of RAM. However, you know what - everyone else here knows this...
First off, we are NOT just talking about 'Pentiums' here. How about the AMD Opteron or the Itanium that can address (access) at least 512GB - using only 48bit addressing? This is what a real 64bit processor with the RIGHT OS can and should be able to use.
WindowsXP 64bit Edition (the desktop version) for the Itanium CPU can use 16GB of RAM, and in the next service pack, will be able to access even more RAM.
Moreover, WindowsXP 64bit Edition has been shipping since last year. (And 16GB is something that even the 'new' panther edition of OSX cannot do, not to mention it isn't even a shipping product.)
Windows 2000 server can address and access 64GB of RAM on x86 (Pentium) based machines, and it has been shipping since Dec 1999/Jan 2000. (Oh my, how can it do this, see below.)
In addition, Windows 2003 can access and address 512GB of RAM on the Itanium CPUs and will be able to on the Opteron processors with its SP1/AMD update later this summer.
As for the JEsus you'd think slashdot users would at least know the basics of computer architecture.
Yeah Jesus, you would think you would know, but apparently, you DO NOT.
Even though the 'Pentium' or x86 processor architecture can only address 4GB of RAM because it is limited to 32bits of address space for memory, in dual processor configurations (like with the Pentium III or Xeon CPUs) it can use 36bit addressing. There by, 36bit addressing gives the system and OS access to 64GB of RAM.
Therefore, a Dual processor desktop with Pentium III or Xeon Processors can and often do use 64GBs of RAM. (Look it up at intel.com or microsoft.com)
So, yes I can show you SEVERAL dual & multi-processor machines that support up to 64GB of RAM that are Pentium III or Xeon based and cost under 3K.
I too thought that most 'slashdot' users would at least know the basics of computer architecture, but after reading your posts, I concur they do not.
Next time instead of bloviating about something you apparently do not understand, I suggest you resist the urge to post more meaningless information.
I am truly embarrassed for you.
TheNetAvenger
Microsoft Netmeeting (the MS conferencing standard before Messenger) was out in 1995-1996.
Apple had Video conferencing software back in 1995-1996 as well.
Additionally, Messenger has been doing Audio/Video for several years as well, including when it hooked into netmeeting and then provided integrated audio/video in WindowsXP.
So tell me again how Microsoft and Apple are 10 years behind?
Have you truly been in a cave for the past 10 years, or are you just pretending to be that stupid?
Ok, sorry, didn't mean to go all Latin on you... :)
The Net Avenger
Either Apple expects no one to be using 1GB RAM or the motherboard does not support it. I guess we'll find out when the G5 comes out.
What would 'really' be nice to know if this is a constraint of the 'mainboard' in the G5, the CPU, or OSX itself? All three could be the cause of it supporting only 8GB of RAM with a 64bit CPU - which is pretty ridiculous.
If we do not push Apple to do better, who will? Especially if they believe their own marketing⦠- The Net Avenger
It is all semantics, the word 'Marketing' comes from the Latin words 'marke' which means 'to create false impressions of / on / for', and 'ting' which means 'thing'. To create false impressions of this thing. Simple.
Actually, marketing is Old French to Middle English and comes from the Latin word 'mercÄtus', which is the past participle of 'mercÄr', meaning 'to buy'. Latin 'merc' is merchandise.
So originally, marketing did not come from anything to do with creating a false impression.
Instead, it simply means, 'offering to buy' or 'merchandising a thing'.
The Net Avenger
Ok, rephrased ... can we buy the parts to hand build a 64 bit (Intel or AMD cpu based) machine using commercially available (ie, something other than engineering samples provided to TomsHardware for review) chips, mobos, etc?
t icleID=39381 â" and do some investigating of your own, there are plenty of articles about the G5 performance claims popping up all over the web.
I wasn't slamming or trying hide meaning in my questions, I am genuinely curious. The new uberApple is interesting but until I am ready to abandon the software I use and develop, I sort of need a Wintel based solution.
Yes, the pieces are available. Go to amd.com and do a search for suppliers and vendors of the Opteron. They have recommended mainboards and suppliers by zip code that can get the Opteron and even sell Opteron assembled systems.
The G5 is attractive, but keep in mind that the numbers that Apple is using are primarily based upon flawed testing.
Additionally, they are touting the FP performance of the machine compared to the Intel Xeon, and even the AMD Athlon is much faster than the Xeon when it comes to FP operations.
There are many sites popping up that pull data directly from SPEC to demonstrate that the G5 is not as impressive as it sounds. In several cases, even a SINGLE CPU 32bit Athlon beats the DUAL G5 on both the INT and FP operations.
Also donâ(TM)t forget that with the Xeon tests that Jobs touted, they are from an older DELL model, and even DELL has faster performance numbers for this system now.
Add that to the fact that Apple turned off things like HyperThreading on the Xeon chips and other little mistakes to make the Xeonâ(TM)s performance less than what it really is.
Check out http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Ar
So if you are truly looking for the ultimate âdesktopâ(TM) computer, there are faster solutions (for less money) than the G5.
Also remember that the specs Jobs was using to demonstrate they had the fastest PC was a âdualâ(TM) processor 2.0ghz G5, which starts at 2999 without a monitor. For 2999, you can get a very fast dual processor AMD Althon or probably even a dual processor Opteron with better supporting hardware and even have a monitor. That WILL run fasterâ¦
Can we even buy commercial machines built on either the Itanium or Opteron just yet?
Just because a MAJOR vendor does not yet offer them in their line, does not mean they are NOT on the market.
Look for smaller companies to be putting them out first.
Additionally, it is very COMMON for pc users to build their own systems piece by piece. (A foreign concept to Mac Users, but none the less, very common in the PC world)
I would imagine that the Opteron will be widely available by major vendors by the time the G5 is shipping.
This isn't like we are talking about fictional CPUs, the Opteron and the Itanium are real and here.
Hence why it was a slap that Apple only used Xeon processors to compare their G5 too, they could of used Itanium or Operton just as easily - as the G5 itself is not shipping yet.
Then, go do some research on VM space. That 8 gigabytes, if you really wanted to, could be mapped into a _single process_. Try doing that on a 32 bit platform
:)
Sorry, would rather just use Windows XP 64bit edition on the Intel Itanium and be able to use 16GB of 'addressable' RAM.
Alternatively, Windows 2003 Server and access from 64GB to 512GB of RAM on a 64bit CPU like the Itanium or the Opteron. Which both allow more than 8GB of addressable space into a single process, unlike OSX.
Geeshâ¦
Apple amazes me once again. The G5 is what it is; why not just bill it as what it is instead of standing on stage and telling the world that it is better than all other computers, which is plain marketing crap. Why is there even the need to demonstrate it is superior to anything, instead just tell the world what it can do?
It reminds me of speeches by Ellison, instead of telling us why his products are great or what they can do, he instead spends the whole time bashing Microsoft or trying to compare his products to Microsoft. If I was him, I would not have even mentioned Microsoft and just tell the world how great my software is. By even comparing it to Microsoftâ(TM)s products, he gives Microsoft credibility as the âstandardâ(TM) to un-throne.
Apple is almost doing the same thing, and it is just sad. The G5 is a great system, but Apple is going to make a fool of it by proclaiming it is the âgreatest, or firstâ(TM) ever. And the rest of the industry is going to challenge this in every aspect as we have been doing here at Slashdot instead of just evaluating it for what it is.
Sure the G5 is great, but it isnâ(TM)t the âfastestâ(TM) or the âfirstâ(TM) at any of the stuff Apple is proclaiming.
Besides, if the G5 processor is truly the best in the world, then maybe Microsoft will reopen the NT for the PPC development and there will be WindowsXP on the G5â(TM)s processor. Just like there was WinNT for the PowerPC in the mid 90s.
I wasn't telling the world that 32bit CPUS were better, or that they could address more than 4GB per process. I was just making a comparison.
Sorry you didn't understand.
Unless I read the article wrong, these clusters will not be operating on the same level as Windows and OSX. This is designed for research and heavy-duty number crunching, something that XP and OSX aren't
:)
:)
WindowsXP, um, maybe as the 64bit version also only does 16GB of RAM.
However, Windows 2003 Server(check the features for yourself, like the ability to use 512GB of RAM), then I would say no, it isn't in the same class as Windows, not close yet.
A 64 bit address space gives you access to 2^64 bytes of ram--................memory as hardware evolves will not be hard (probably mostly changing a few constants)
:)
Thanks for posting the additional detailed information.
I was just going for the basics, I find that either my point or the readers easily get lost when I try the detailed specs type of posts.
It is nice to see that you are able to pull off the additional info without losing most users.
You have a gift of geek to novice translation.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
8GB is the max of the computer, not the processor. It has 8 slots for RAM and each one can take up to 1 GB up RAM.
Ok, Anyone find the specs of what OSX and the CPU actually support then? And if it can handle more in the future, why does Apple make the 8GB size sound like the upper end limit?
I've never seen RAM sold in sizes over 1 GB.
You may not have seen them, but 2GB chips are already available.
Virus info: W32/Explorer.exe, Known aliases: Windows, Effect: Causes computer to crash often
:)
Disclaimer, this virus does not cause failure on Windows 2000 or WindowsXP.
LOL
"512 Gigs of RAM ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, Nov 13, 2003.
;)
LOL - Thanks for the laugh.
Definitely he was never known for his hardware of the future predictions.
I don't know about "desktop" solutions, but definitely there are server class solutions, even with 32-bit processors, that surpass this. But I think the cool part is to bring this type of availability to the masses, hopefully eventually driving down RAM prices even more. I don't want to run a server OS -- I want to run XP/Mac OS X/whatever, have gobs of cheap ass RAM, and run everything in memory at a bargain basement price. These new Macs definitely aren't cheap, but it's a good trend to see, and things only get cheaper. .
o n/overview.asp )
My following response is not only for your post, but also for many in this thread â" Iâ(TM)m using your post as a lead-in.
The thing wrong with what you said is that it is NOT Apple that has started this trend on the desktop. People just haven't been paying attention.
WindowsXP â" the 64bit version - has been shipping for almost a year now for Intel Itanium 64bit systems.
In addition, this is the Professional (Desktop) version of WindowsXP â" not the server. It also supports up to 16GB of RAM in the initial release, which is twice what you can get with OSX on the G5.
(Source link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluati
Therefore, I ask, how and why up to 8GB RAM and a 64bit CPU in the G5 is the 'first' in any respect for a desktop or as a personal computer? Moreover, how can you conclude that Apple is 'starting the trend' when it has been around already?
I'm not an anti-Apple person at all, but it is alarming that people are buying the hype around the G5, especially when this stuff has been available in the non-Mac PC world already.
Apple's OSX and the G5 are a formidable force, but they are NOT the first or the fastest, period.
As a side note, the new Panther update looks like a features list from Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Donâ(TM)t get me wrong, this is stuff that Apple needs to have in OSX, but they should not be so foolish to market this stuff as their 'innovative ideas'.
Features like Expose, File Vault, iChat, Faxing, Finder enhancements, and iDisk are all features that have been in the Windows world since the release of Windows 2000, and some of them years before hand. Additionally Fast User Switching has always been in Windows XP.
The G5 and Panther are news, but not the cutting edge of technology news, sorry.
4 GB is for the OS and application TOGETHER. The stock behaviour on Linux and Windows is to give 2 GB to the OS and 2 GB to the application. You can go as high as 3GB to the application Linux, but there are some serious warnings against going even that high.
WindowsNT, specifically XP/2K, gives 4GB of RAM per application, not the previous 2GB application limit. This only comes into play when used on dual CPU configurations that can have more than 4GB of RAM.
With Windows Server
With previous versions of WindowsNT, you were correct about the 4GB of RAM being split, giving 2GB to the OS, and 2GB to the Application.
Yes but your OS probably reserves some of it. I know Windows does, couldn't care less about what Linux does, but it probably does
You are right, it does; however, Windows 2003 Server can use up to 64GB of RAM on 32bit based systems (Source Microsoft.com) and 512GB of RAM on Intel and AMD 64bit processors.
Therefore, the 8GB of the 64bit Apple CPU is not using the full address range of a 64bit CPU for memory access â" or OSX is simply not capable of truly using the full 64bit memory addressing.
In fact for a 64bit chip, this is quite embarrassing. Even using 512GB on the Intel and AMD chips is using only 48bits of the 64 for addressing the memory. (Source microsoft.com & intel.com)
As for the OS using part of the RAM, yes it does, and so does Apple's OSX. They all do. Period.
Also to clarify some of the other posts here, 32bit CPUs can directly access 4GB of RAM. Multiprocessor 32bit systems can often have up to 64GB of RAM.
In addition, with WindowsNT XP specifically, the UserMode is NOT limited to 2GB as stated in another post, it is 4GB per application. (source Microsoft.com)
after all, with up to 8GB of addressable RAM
This is really getting to be quite funny in this thread. 8GB - like it is a big 'new' number for desktop PCs.
There are 32bit platform solutions today that already can use up to 64GB of RAM, and other vendors 64bit CPUs, such as AMD and Intel can use up to 512GB of RAM.
So the 'vast' 8GB of RAM is really not something to be touting, in fact, it is a little embarrassing.
Windows2003 Server for example supports 64GB of RAM on 32bit systems, and the full 512GB of RAM on Intel and AMD 64bit CPUS.
So 8GB, give me a break, what a disappointment - the limitation should be more like 128GB, 256GB or 512GB, not measly 8GB which is already available in 32bit based AMD/Intel systems.
I am embarrassed for Apple and the people that buy into this as being a âvastâ(TM) amount of RAM.
Sorry, I just had to point this out.
The Macs have a better video card.
Not specifically responding to what you said, as this line is out of context, but it made me laugh that Apple is using the Geforce5200 on the G5 - the 'low end' GeforceFX video card. Even last year's Geforce4 cards are faster than the 5200.
Too funny for such a 'super computer' as the G5. LOL Even the new mobile GPUs from ATI and NVidia are faster than the Geforce 5200 card.
At least they do offer the ATI 9800 on the 'upper' end G5s.
Just thought it was funny they are putting such a low end (in the current market) video card in their 'super' Macs...
My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance.
You are kidding, right? I have a 1.7ghz Toshiba Laptop that can do MPEG4 in real-time. It can also do WMP9 at DVD resolutions in real-time. Do you need a picture of the computer?
Why on earth would you think a Mac is the only computer 'powerful' enough to do real-time MPEG4?
Besides the whole Jobs' stage performance was just that. Using a dual processor Xeon machine as the âultimate PCâ(TM) to compare the G5 to is way too funny. Only an idiot would use that as a comparison platform or truly believe their own hype and try to pass this to a room of people that have no idea about PC architecture.
How about a Dual Processor Athlon? They have been shipping for quite a while now. But of course they are just 32bit addressible CPUs, like the Xeon. (Even though they do have 64bit internal computing structures.)
On the other hand, how about a true 'apples to apples' comparison, and a Dual processor 64bit Desktop system using either the Opteron or Itanium, which are 64bit based CPUS and unfortunately, are JUST as âavailableâ(TM) as the G5 is today.
Taking this a step further, if you want to get technical on how laughable this stuff from Jobs is, just take a look at the Apple site itself. Here, I will just pick one line â" there are many that are quite funny.
From Apple.comâ¦
64-bit breakthrough...
64-bit processors enable the Power Mac G5 to break through the 4GB barrier and support up to 8GB of 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM â" four times more than a typical PC.
Wow, a whole 8GB of RAM and from a 64bit processor to get that 'vast' amount of RAM. Give me a freaking break. You can even get 32bit PC systems with up to 64GB of RAM today.
Let alone a 64bit CPU system like the Itanium or Opteron, where you can drop 512GB of RAM into a system. So where is all the 64bit power of the G5 going to in OSX? A 64bit CPU and an 8GB of RAM limitation â" Just too silly to even think about.
Even Windows 2003 supports 512GB of RAM on 64bit Intel or AMD CPUs, as well as 64GB of RAM on 32bit CPU configurations. (source intel.com, amd.com & microsoft.com)
This whole âfastestâ(TM) computer thing again with the G5 is just becoming as laughable as it was when they introduced the G4. The amazing G4, the âfirstâ(TM) 64bit desktop computer â" again was so laughable, a 64bit CPU with 32bit address space, basically just like the Athlon and Pentium 4 at the time.
I am not going to debate that the G5 is not a great system and does make some incredible inroads, especially for the Mac world, but Appleâ(TM)s âover the topâ(TM) marketing hype is incredulous.
The G5 may be the greatest Mac ever, but it is NOT the greatest desktop PC, there are many workstation class machines in the âsame price rangeâ(TM) that offer just as much and more than the G5.
If you really buy into the âJobsâ(TM) hype, then you are either a technical Newbie or a Mac Zealot.
As a side note with the SPAM filtering...
It just kills me that people applaud Apple for adding 'features' to their OS and when MS does the same thing, they call it bloatware.
If this was a Microsoft feature, we would be seeing posts about them killing off the third party SPAM filter market.
Apple truly has more priorities in OSX than a SPAM filter, so I also hope that there are tons of bug fixes as well.
Be careful with this. Windows NT 4 does not support INT13 extensions, meaning that if the boot files move beyond the first 7.8GB of a drive, you're going to get some ugly blue screens when it can't load the files. Many people have discovered this after defragging their extra large system volume and rebooted to a blue screen.
Yep...
I am NT admin - HEAR ME ROAR!!!
roar...
Good for you, but I personally wouldn't limit my knowledge, even if professionally conducive to just WindowsNT.
Actually The 32 GB limit is purely a microsoft thing to get you to use NTFS. FAT32 can format up to 2 TB. And microsoft will read drives that large it just wont format them that large for you. And there's actually something that will expand that to 4 TB but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head. And no I'm not talking about doublespace or any other compression technologies.
I won't go into the reasons why but I have personally created a 1.2 TB FAT32 partition. Funny thing is that the easiest way I found to format it was in linux.
I know that FAT32 can be used on larger partitions, but its 'original' specification as designed by Microsoft's implementation only allowed for 32GB. Since Microsoft created FAT32, it is their baby.
Disclaimer â" only going from their docs because I have not tested this; but, according to Microsoft, WindowsXP can create and format a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB, it is just during âinstallationâ(TM) of XP that it cannot.
As a side point, why would someone choose FAT32 for a large partition when there are other File Systems out there designed from the beginning for larger volumes, especially NTFS. The space lost in cluster size alone would be prohibitive.
That's what I was replying to. I was attempting to clarify that the limit (4GB, not 2GB) also applied to an NT install in which you specified NTFS (your post seemed to imply FAT16 only).
I don't think we're disagreeing. I was clarifying a point you made which could imply something which wasn't the case
True, I missed it. By being spacey tonight, I ended up bloviating over a point that was already made. I think I should call it a night before I completely lose it.
I do thank you for your response.
Take care,
The Net Avenger
This is an odd scenario, just for curiosity, I will have a tech look into it.
I know that WindowsXP does translation and chipset testing of the drive to make sure that the main board can properly identify larger volumes.
It may have been picking up on incompatibility with the translation of the drive and the BIOS/Hardware support of the main board and preventing a FAT32 installation.
This would also explain why you then had errors and problems with the drive/partition after the install if a hardware conflict truly did exist.
If I find anything specific about this, I'll post it here.
However, as I have said quite often, unless the user has a specific need for the drive to be FAT32, there is NO reason not to use NTFS with WindowsXP.
In the NT4.0 days, there were concerns because of the lack of accessibility and failsafe measures, but Win2k and XP add tools for accessing the drive even if something were to happen to the NTFS boot partition.
And as I said before, users lose out on many of the great features of WinXP by not having the NTFS file system under it. It being a journalled file system, built in security, and faster access for larger volumes and files are just a few of the things.
People sometimes don't realize how important a journalled FS is, even for consumer users. People are always flipping a power switch or numerous other things that a journalled FS handle without a second thought.
The extra reliability alone is worth convincing people to switch over to NTFS. (Especially people that have seen the "Your system was shut down improperly" scandisk screens of Win9x days one too many times...)
Take care,
The Net Avenger