Your logic is as follows: "Apple does things to improve their performance that everyone else does too, therefore Apple does more than everyone else." This is not a sound argument. Why should we believe that just because they do stuff everyone else does, that they also do things that other companies don't do?
My logic is "Apple does MORE things to improve performance than any other company that's working for similar target markets that I know of, and I like it". Those two are just ONE example of the many things they do, but not the only ones (as I keep stating but you seem to prefer to ignore). I wasn't trying to prove the whole point with those, just pointing out that the improvements coming from Apple are rarely just about raw CPU speed.
I like Apple because they give me the impression to be always looking for new ways to improve overall system performance over raw clock speed. They make systems that have an excellent balance between each one of it's components, and you will rarely find one component that doesn't match the quality of the product you bought. Apple gives me the impression that they care a lot on performance because with every new computer they make or article I read, I find out about a really load of cool enhancements. The fact that this article talks about two different optimizations that are going to further improve on G5s performance is just ANOTHER example of this. No THE example. And a compiler that improves the performance of programs by 50% IS an achievement, no matter how much you try to put it as something common.
Besides, it is IBM that is improving the PPC, not Apple. No, IBM is not doing it specifically for Apple, nor are they doing it because Apple asked them to. IBM is also improving the PPC for the sake of, for example, Nintendo (Game Cubes use PPC processors). Sorry, but all Apple is doing here is sitting by and saying "Yay! Faster processors!".
Of course it is IBM that is improving the processors, but Apple will take advantage of it because they are going to be using the PPC processor in their systems. I don't care about who builds the hardware Apple uses, in the end the new Macs will be taking advantage of such optimizations. If the PPC processor wasn't as good as it is, Apple would probably not be using it. So stating that Apple has nothing to do with how their systems perform sounds a bit misleading to me.
Now, I am a big Apple fan myself; not so much for speed as for the fact that their products are so elegantly designed at every level, from the processor to the hardware layout to the operating system to the applications. However, your argument is still bogus.
Oh yes they are. I don't know what your concept of elegance is but do you think you would have any of that elegance if the bases upon which it was built were not good enough?
As I said in my first post, RAW cpu speed is not all, and Apple learnt that. All those nifty features and design choices you take for granted are given by the way Apple decided to work, and that is to keep improving the system, not the CPU.
I don't agree. It is important to learn about a feasible 50% speed increase from compiler optimizations plus a CPU size / heat / voltage reduction in the same article. These optimizations are NOT comming from the same modification to the hardware / software, which means they are working on different sides to improve performance simultaneously.
You see, my whole point was that such news are not uncommon when you hear them coming from Apple developments, and I was pointing out those two as an example of what I meant. I understand that my post has been a bit missleading as many people thought I was talking exclusively about those two examples, but still my point stands. Apple concentrates a lot on optimizations. Much more than other companies do. Quality over quantity or something along those lines.
What I love about Apple (in this case it's IBM but they're doing it for Apple) is they how look for alternative ways to improve performance appart from the obvious CPU clock speed increase.
I was talking about optimizations and took those two quotes from the article as examples. You then said that every manufacturer does it, and I replied to you that they do, but the level of optimization you will find in a Macintosh is not only limited to those two examples I took for the occasion, and went on citing other differences that show how Apple cares about such optimizations.
Of course you can stick a Pentium processor in a case the size and shape of a Mac cube, and use passive cooling.
It is possible to keep a Pentium CPU cooled down and silent in a Cube nowadays, although I doubt it can keep as cool and as silent, but it wasn't feasible when the cube was first released in July 2000.
The question is: Who wants to?
Apparently the answer is: Not enough people give a crap about that kind of stuff. Otherwise, you'd see more demand for that kind of system.
I wasn't stating that the Cube is a computer people wants. Reread my post if you had trouble understanding it. My point was only that Apple was able to achieve that 3 years ago, while it was compleltely unfeasible to expect a Pentium or Athlon CPU to achieve something similar. And while you may think that having a CPU that could run under those conditions was nothing important, it was.
There is no way someone could claim a x86 CPU to be as optimized as a current PPC one.
The Athlon64/FX/look at my 64 bits line of CPU's has all that covered. I think that optimized compilers are pretty standard, and die shrinks too.
Agreed. I was not talking about these two improvements only tho, but rather about the fact that improving the overall system performance is a higher priority to Apple than I feel it is to other companies. Of course this may be just my impression but I am ready to bet that a PPC computer running at the same clock speed than that of it's Pentium or Athlon counterpart can heavily outshine it. For instance when you use a G4 or G5 you really feel the system to be much more responsive (I do).
Do you really need 3 Ghz to check email and chat on MSN?
We will always be wondering if we need more. The question is, will 3 Ghz be enough for tomorrow's MSN? I think not, and that's why overall system optimizations (in both hardware and software) are as important, if not more, as speed boosts in the CPU.
For instance, imagine having a multiprocessor computer with X processors of your choice. If you get a slightly better performance in each G5 processor you choose, over a Athlon or Pentium processor at the same speed, don't you think that will make a difference?
Of course they do, but not even close to the depth that Apple does (ie. on both hardware and software).
Take for instance the x86 architecture that Intel CPUs use. As opposed to Apple they decided to maintain compatibility with old processors thus sacrificing a lot in performance and development costs. Apple, instead, chose to offer the FAT file format and a sort of 68k emulation for the same purpose, thus sacrificing the speed for the old programs, but making new programs far easier to develop and far faster than they were previously. Right now, the level of optimization on a PPC CPU is far greater than that of current Pentium CPUs at same clock speeds.
But it's not only about hardware. Just take Mac OS X for example. As an OS I really feel it to be much faster in my 450 Mhz Cube than Windows XP is on my 850 Mhz PC. Just do simple things like opening windows, opening programs, accessing the network, and you'll see what I mean. Even the simple fact that Apple chose to take BSD as their OS's core is a clear sign that they are looking for ways to improve the quality of what they do on all sides.
What I love about Apple (in this case it's IBM but they're doing it for Apple) is they how look for alternative ways to improve performance appart from the obvious CPU clock speed increase. For instance:
"Shrinking the features on the chip allows it to consume less power even as it speeds up, making it easier to cool and easier to use."
and...
"An IBM compiler tailored to the PowerPC chips is already in the beta-testing phase, Glaskowsky says. Once it's released in its final form, software written to the Mac running on PowerMac G5 machines could speed up as much as 50%, he says."
Computers are more than raw CPU speed, and this is what Apple has learnt. I can only imagine how cool the 3 Ghz Macs will be when compared to other PCs. And the fact they're lagging behind on the Ghz race is not a big deal as long as they keep making high quality hardware/software that actually squeeze every single drop of potential our of your computer.
If they're making for-pay software, they should be willing to pay for their tools.
No. Why? Is this a new rule of some sort? I develop closed source commercial software and I would never choose a platform that makes me pay $1000 to develop for it. No matter how many people states that it is my duty to be willing to pay $1000. That's just nonsense.
Diego Rey
PS: I read the initial proposal of using only GNOME and not KDE at all, and this discussion we're having is NOT besides the point. The only reason why Perens wants GNOME and not KDE is because GNOME allows people to develop for free. Not a single other reason was given for his decision. I fully agree with it.
The point is KDE has a problem, the problem of making it harder to develop closed source applications for it. I can't see why this shouldn't be important to developers.
Developers are the root of all software, freedom is all they ask.
Christ, I am sick of people who rattle on about this without knowing what they are talking about.
I'd like to point out that you shouldn't read slashdot comments if you get "sick" of people expressing their ideas.
"A viable platform has to support closed applications" - no shit, Sherlock. You can write closed apps with Qt. Just buy a license and go to it. The thing is dual-licensed.
Pay that fee when I have a platform that lets me develop for free? And which one do you think that I, as a commercial developer, will be choosing? A platform's popularity can also increase by how many applications it offers to the end user and it should support whatever the coder wants to do. If it's closed sourced applications, so be it. The idea that you should enforce the open source choice to other people is just as mistaken as the idea that open source is bad. Freedom for the developer to choose and freedom for the end user to choose is the path.
The GPL is not "less free". The GPL enforces user freedoms. The LGPL gives developers freedom. Which do you care more about? (Hint: you aren't a developer).
Both the freedom of the developer, who works for a living, and the freedom of the end user. Neither one is less important. Freedom to develop as you wish, and to choose the applications you want.
Do you think that any MS Windows user would feel you are protecting their freedom if you wiped their drives and installed a linux distro on it?.
Think twice next time before telling other people they don't know what they're talking about, Diego Rey
You can have audio / video clips in your possesion even if you don't have the full song / video, as long as the clip is no more than a certain number of seconds (which I can't remember right now to be honest). Now can this reasoning be applied to p2p networks? No clue but think about this...
If packets were made of just 1 bit, then having that single bit in your computer would be copyright infringement? How could someone claim copyright over a single bit? Make that two bits, three, four... when does it become copyright infringement?
And this is the reason why in my opinion the future of computing is not so much in raw CPU speed as it is in the ammount of CPUs one will have.
A 1 Ghz CPU is nearly 5 million times faster than the clock speed of a neuron, but the human brain has nearly 100 billion brain cells, which makes it "faster" overall. What faster means is debatable but keep in mind that the brain is what let's you move your body, see, hear, listen, feel, think, identify, remember.
So imagine what we could do with incredibly big arrays of modern CPUs on our home PCs. And it will only become easier to achieve this goal as CPUs get smaller with new technologies. Take the nano-processors as an example.
I certainly look forward to the day when having several (maybe thousands) CPUs in our desktop computers will be quite normal.
Actually I think that it's this kind of people that will eventually make the patents system collapse. I think we will thank them for this in a hopefully-near future.
I would like to hear which reasonable rights, if any, patents are there to protect.
Like it or not, 90% of those people who have high bandwidth usage are using it for illicit activities.
Game demos, movie previews, trailers, free songs, linux distributions and similar free software, drivers, video and audio conferencing software, internet radio clients, multiplayer games, chatting software, swf animations, etc etc etc.
Nowadays "suspicious" means "guilty" to a lot of people, doesn't it?
While I do agree with you that coding elegantly is a must in the Unix world... I don't agree that coding closed source products means you're probably going to code badly. A good coder is good at what he does no matter how many people is going to see his work.
But yes, working in open source projects is probably the best way to learn and share knowledge.
Spamming is a problem, not a threat. System administrators that have to take care of mail servers do have to deal with the problem of spam. Nowadays the most popular solution to the problem is to have some sort of filtering software either in the server or in the client, but they are all far from being perfect and sometimes cause more damage than they actually fix.
The hatred you see is not the same thing as religious hatred as you call it. Most people just got plain tired of having to deal with spammers and spam, which in conclusion makes them hate spammers (me included). I see my mailbox as something for my personal use, and to be honest it really tires me to have to delete 50+ spam messages a day. I have little respect for those who have no respect for my private life and properties, so I have no respect at all for spammers.
Now, about spam being more than a general annoyance, yes. You would just need to have your own mail server to find out that this is real. And even if you don't, a lot of people has serious problems because of non-spam mails being filtered as spam messages. There are several ways in which spam can be proven to be harmful and not just a general annoyance.
Mosquitos are a general annoyance... spammers are a problem.
Absurd. We are still finding Egyptian mummies and artifacts that are several millenia-old buried in the desert. We could find Saddam's weapons 250 years from now buried somewhere.
What do egyptian mummies have to do with Saddam? Was that a joke? So you're saying that even tho the US has ZERO evidence about those weapons, nobody can point that out to them?
I agreed with the decision to attack him... but I still think that the weapons excuse was just that, an excuse. Bush needed to show the strength of the USA after the 11th september attack, and all of America was so angry about it as to push really hard for the attack. There are other countries in the world that are trying to react in similar ways to terrorism but find themselves completely blocked by decisions made by the US or the UN. That is what's wrong about USA. But hey, terrorism hurts more when it's closer to home, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
My logic is "Apple does MORE things to improve performance than any other company that's working for similar target markets that I know of, and I like it". Those two are just ONE example of the many things they do, but not the only ones (as I keep stating but you seem to prefer to ignore). I wasn't trying to prove the whole point with those, just pointing out that the improvements coming from Apple are rarely just about raw CPU speed.
I like Apple because they give me the impression to be always looking for new ways to improve overall system performance over raw clock speed. They make systems that have an excellent balance between each one of it's components, and you will rarely find one component that doesn't match the quality of the product you bought. Apple gives me the impression that they care a lot on performance because with every new computer they make or article I read, I find out about a really load of cool enhancements. The fact that this article talks about two different optimizations that are going to further improve on G5s performance is just ANOTHER example of this. No THE example. And a compiler that improves the performance of programs by 50% IS an achievement, no matter how much you try to put it as something common.
Of course it is IBM that is improving the processors, but Apple will take advantage of it because they are going to be using the PPC processor in their systems. I don't care about who builds the hardware Apple uses, in the end the new Macs will be taking advantage of such optimizations. If the PPC processor wasn't as good as it is, Apple would probably not be using it. So stating that Apple has nothing to do with how their systems perform sounds a bit misleading to me.
Oh yes they are. I don't know what your concept of elegance is but do you think you would have any of that elegance if the bases upon which it was built were not good enough?
As I said in my first post, RAW cpu speed is not all, and Apple learnt that. All those nifty features and design choices you take for granted are given by the way Apple decided to work, and that is to keep improving the system, not the CPU.
Diego Rey
I don't agree. It is important to learn about a feasible 50% speed increase from compiler optimizations plus a CPU size / heat / voltage reduction in the same article. These optimizations are NOT comming from the same modification to the hardware / software, which means they are working on different sides to improve performance simultaneously.
You see, my whole point was that such news are not uncommon when you hear them coming from Apple developments, and I was pointing out those two as an example of what I meant. I understand that my post has been a bit missleading as many people thought I was talking exclusively about those two examples, but still my point stands. Apple concentrates a lot on optimizations. Much more than other companies do. Quality over quantity or something along those lines.
Diego Rey
I was talking about optimizations and took those two quotes from the article as examples. You then said that every manufacturer does it, and I replied to you that they do, but the level of optimization you will find in a Macintosh is not only limited to those two examples I took for the occasion, and went on citing other differences that show how Apple cares about such optimizations.
Diego Rey
It is possible to keep a Pentium CPU cooled down and silent in a Cube nowadays, although I doubt it can keep as cool and as silent, but it wasn't feasible when the cube was first released in July 2000.
I wasn't stating that the Cube is a computer people wants. Reread my post if you had trouble understanding it. My point was only that Apple was able to achieve that 3 years ago, while it was compleltely unfeasible to expect a Pentium or Athlon CPU to achieve something similar. And while you may think that having a CPU that could run under those conditions was nothing important, it was.
There is no way someone could claim a x86 CPU to be as optimized as a current PPC one.
Diego Rey
Try to stick a pentium processor in a Mac Cube with no heatsinks and make sure it doesn't make any sound. That will answer your question.
Diego Rey
Agreed. I was not talking about these two improvements only tho, but rather about the fact that improving the overall system performance is a higher priority to Apple than I feel it is to other companies. Of course this may be just my impression but I am ready to bet that a PPC computer running at the same clock speed than that of it's Pentium or Athlon counterpart can heavily outshine it. For instance when you use a G4 or G5 you really feel the system to be much more responsive (I do).
We will always be wondering if we need more. The question is, will 3 Ghz be enough for tomorrow's MSN? I think not, and that's why overall system optimizations (in both hardware and software) are as important, if not more, as speed boosts in the CPU.
For instance, imagine having a multiprocessor computer with X processors of your choice. If you get a slightly better performance in each G5 processor you choose, over a Athlon or Pentium processor at the same speed, don't you think that will make a difference?
Diego Rey
Of course they do, but not even close to the depth that Apple does (ie. on both hardware and software).
Take for instance the x86 architecture that Intel CPUs use. As opposed to Apple they decided to maintain compatibility with old processors thus sacrificing a lot in performance and development costs. Apple, instead, chose to offer the FAT file format and a sort of 68k emulation for the same purpose, thus sacrificing the speed for the old programs, but making new programs far easier to develop and far faster than they were previously. Right now, the level of optimization on a PPC CPU is far greater than that of current Pentium CPUs at same clock speeds.
But it's not only about hardware. Just take Mac OS X for example. As an OS I really feel it to be much faster in my 450 Mhz Cube than Windows XP is on my 850 Mhz PC. Just do simple things like opening windows, opening programs, accessing the network, and you'll see what I mean. Even the simple fact that Apple chose to take BSD as their OS's core is a clear sign that they are looking for ways to improve the quality of what they do on all sides.
Diego Rey
and...
Computers are more than raw CPU speed, and this is what Apple has learnt. I can only imagine how cool the 3 Ghz Macs will be when compared to other PCs. And the fact they're lagging behind on the Ghz race is not a big deal as long as they keep making high quality hardware/software that actually squeeze every single drop of potential our of your computer.
Diego Rey
The point is I am not filling surveys with legal statements. The fact something is common doesn't make it right. Not to me anyway.
Diego Rey
No. Why? Is this a new rule of some sort? I develop closed source commercial software and I would never choose a platform that makes me pay $1000 to develop for it. No matter how many people states that it is my duty to be willing to pay $1000. That's just nonsense.
Diego Rey
PS: I read the initial proposal of using only GNOME and not KDE at all, and this discussion we're having is NOT besides the point. The only reason why Perens wants GNOME and not KDE is because GNOME allows people to develop for free. Not a single other reason was given for his decision. I fully agree with it.
The point is KDE has a problem, the problem of making it harder to develop closed source applications for it. I can't see why this shouldn't be important to developers.
Developers are the root of all software, freedom is all they ask.
Diego Rey
I'd like to point out that you shouldn't read slashdot comments if you get "sick" of people expressing their ideas.
Pay that fee when I have a platform that lets me develop for free? And which one do you think that I, as a commercial developer, will be choosing? A platform's popularity can also increase by how many applications it offers to the end user and it should support whatever the coder wants to do. If it's closed sourced applications, so be it. The idea that you should enforce the open source choice to other people is just as mistaken as the idea that open source is bad. Freedom for the developer to choose and freedom for the end user to choose is the path.
Both the freedom of the developer, who works for a living, and the freedom of the end user. Neither one is less important. Freedom to develop as you wish, and to choose the applications you want.
Do you think that any MS Windows user would feel you are protecting their freedom if you wiped their drives and installed a linux distro on it?.
Think twice next time before telling other people they don't know what they're talking about,
Diego Rey
You can have audio / video clips in your possesion even if you don't have the full song / video, as long as the clip is no more than a certain number of seconds (which I can't remember right now to be honest). Now can this reasoning be applied to p2p networks? No clue but think about this...
If packets were made of just 1 bit, then having that single bit in your computer would be copyright infringement? How could someone claim copyright over a single bit? Make that two bits, three, four... when does it become copyright infringement?
Diego Rey
Yes, quite weird. I just got the iTunes update on my software update now. Not a sign of Xcode 1.1 yet tho.
Seems like Apple's Software update tries to reduce bandwidth with this delayed-update method?
Diego Rey
If you mean Xcode 1.0.1 that's not new. I couldn't find a trace of v1.1 in Apple's site or through Software update.
Diego Rey
Still, proving such infringement against Microsoft could be a very very hard task.
Diego Rey
They see p2p networks as a cause, I see p2p networks as a result of their mistakes.
Diego Rey
And this is the reason why in my opinion the future of computing is not so much in raw CPU speed as it is in the ammount of CPUs one will have.
A 1 Ghz CPU is nearly 5 million times faster than the clock speed of a neuron, but the human brain has nearly 100 billion brain cells, which makes it "faster" overall. What faster means is debatable but keep in mind that the brain is what let's you move your body, see, hear, listen, feel, think, identify, remember.
So imagine what we could do with incredibly big arrays of modern CPUs on our home PCs. And it will only become easier to achieve this goal as CPUs get smaller with new technologies. Take the nano-processors as an example.
I certainly look forward to the day when having several (maybe thousands) CPUs in our desktop computers will be quite normal.
Diego Rey
Actually I think that it's this kind of people that will eventually make the patents system collapse. I think we will thank them for this in a hopefully-near future.
I would like to hear which reasonable rights, if any, patents are there to protect.
Diego Rey
Game demos, movie previews, trailers, free songs, linux distributions and similar free software, drivers, video and audio conferencing software, internet radio clients, multiplayer games, chatting software, swf animations, etc etc etc.
Nowadays "suspicious" means "guilty" to a lot of people, doesn't it?
Diego Rey
While I do agree with you that coding elegantly is a must in the Unix world... I don't agree that coding closed source products means you're probably going to code badly. A good coder is good at what he does no matter how many people is going to see his work.
But yes, working in open source projects is probably the best way to learn and share knowledge.
Diego Rey
You trying to sell something?
Diego Rey
Trigger happy?
Diego Rey
Spamming is a problem, not a threat. System administrators that have to take care of mail servers do have to deal with the problem of spam. Nowadays the most popular solution to the problem is to have some sort of filtering software either in the server or in the client, but they are all far from being perfect and sometimes cause more damage than they actually fix.
The hatred you see is not the same thing as religious hatred as you call it. Most people just got plain tired of having to deal with spammers and spam, which in conclusion makes them hate spammers (me included). I see my mailbox as something for my personal use, and to be honest it really tires me to have to delete 50+ spam messages a day. I have little respect for those who have no respect for my private life and properties, so I have no respect at all for spammers.
Now, about spam being more than a general annoyance, yes. You would just need to have your own mail server to find out that this is real. And even if you don't, a lot of people has serious problems because of non-spam mails being filtered as spam messages. There are several ways in which spam can be proven to be harmful and not just a general annoyance.
Mosquitos are a general annoyance... spammers are a problem.
Diego Rey
What do egyptian mummies have to do with Saddam? Was that a joke? So you're saying that even tho the US has ZERO evidence about those weapons, nobody can point that out to them?
I agreed with the decision to attack him... but I still think that the weapons excuse was just that, an excuse. Bush needed to show the strength of the USA after the 11th september attack, and all of America was so angry about it as to push really hard for the attack. There are other countries in the world that are trying to react in similar ways to terrorism but find themselves completely blocked by decisions made by the US or the UN. That is what's wrong about USA. But hey, terrorism hurts more when it's closer to home, doesn't it?
Diego Rey