Athlon 64 runs rings around a G5? Really? Have you got both to demonstrate this, or is this from reading reviews on the web?
I write DSP code, and i've got some very impressive results from a G5 when running code which previously gave less than exciting results on a G4. The G5 really is a class act.
I've not tested the code on an Athlon 64, but only on an Athlon XP 2500. DSP code tends to be FPU or memory bound, sometimes both in different parts of the algorithm so it is pretty good at giving a machine a proper workout.
My XP 2500 is running roughly at 2Ghz, and compared to a G5 at 2Ghz the Athlon takes around 50 to 100% longer to run the same tests. That's comparing a G5/gcc 3.3 build against a x86/VC7 build. Neither is the best compiler for the platform, but both are pretty useful, and possibly typical for currently released software.
I'd be very interested in running this build on an Athlon 64 - that'll still be a 32 bit test, but it would be interesting for me to see the benefits of the on chip memory interface. Rebuilding for 64 bits might take a while since the code is large (and ugly). Anyone with a spare 5 minutes willing to run a binary for me?
Well it isn't quite as simple as that. The game of cat and mouse between companies over brands has been played out for a number of years and there are plenty of ways of ways that Microsoft could tackle this domain.
Off the top of my head, I would have thought Microsoft could say:
1) This is trademark infringement - the name is confusingly similar.
2) They could say the domain registration was made in bad faith (Mike Rowe is aware of the Microsoft name and has registered a domain which he knows is similar to theirs).
3) They could accuse him of passing off (trading off their reputation - not sure if any product is sold at the MikeRoweSoft site).
4) If he provides any services based on microsoft products, he could be accused of reverse passing off (passing Microsoft's products off as his own, hence enhancing his own reputation).
5) They could accuse him of damaging their reputation (although I'm guessing their customers are unlikely to mistake his site for theirs).
There are probably a dozen other things, but you get the idea.
BTW, you're assertion that Mike Rowe can setup a company because it is his name isn't true. How far do you think i'd get setting up a company using my name which had anything to do with motor cars? They'd be lawyers parachuting out of the sky...:-)
It isn't clear exactly what benefit you get from it all being in one box. If it is a performance synth, the keyboard screen etc aren't particularly useful - if it is a composition tool then what are the benefits over a traditional DAW?
The bundle certainly seems to be at a price premium, so someone thinks there is a market for this.
I'd be interested to know how long the thing takes to boot. The last thing you want in the middle of a gig is a BSOD (and let's face it, with XP inside this is a distinct possibility).
Personally, I'll stick with my Powerbook, hanging it off a keyboard when i'm sequencing, and sitting in the park with a pair of headphones when i'm mixing.
Successful would be defined as sold millions, made billions, still in business producing their product today. Maybe bought out, but the concept is still around.
So then the PDP-11 was a bit of a flop then wasn't it? Never sold millions, etc etc. I think there is more to it than this.
There is no breaking down of instructions as you mention - there is an extended instruction set which is either available or not on the PPC (so PPC processors which support 64 bit instructions support the full instruction set, whilst the 32 bit processors throw an illegal instruction).
The measure of the processor 'bitness' is when addressing memory, whether you are limited to a 32 or 64 bit address space. In effect the size of a pointer will tell you. Now the impact of moving to a 64 bit address space is usually detrimental to the speed of the application (I would expect that the G5 will be slower in 64 bit mode) due to the increased memory bandwidth required (if pointers are wider, you need more stack/memory to store them, so you have, say, a 10% increase in memory requirement for an application). If I remember correctly, the HP PA RISC systems were slower running 64 bit code than 32 bit. I'm thinking back a couple of years here, so it may be different for the latest generation of their processors.
It isn't all bad for the Opteron though - the instruction set has been altered to provide more processor registers. This may mean the compiler can do a better job of optimising code, reducing the number of load/store instructions, so increasing the IPC.
So, just don't assume that if the Opteron gets a performance benefit from 64 bit code, so will the G5. As other people have mentioned, you need to test both with a 64 bit OS to really know the results - extrapolating won't get you the answers.
Your comment about the IBM compiler is spot on. With any luck the IBM changes will make it into the gcc code for other non-apple PPC platforms.
When I was young we used to hang out in the department stores where we lived looking at all the new computer systems. If I remember correctly the shop had a display of Atari 400s, and TI99/4a machines, all playing various games. You could just walk up and play with them till you got hassled by one of the shop staff.
They didn't have any Commodore machines, so no VICs for some reason.
This would have been back in the early 80s, not sure which year though.
Well, here in the UK we have digital TV broadcast over standard aerials. It's being used to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth so that the spare capacity can be sold off for other purposes.
Anyhow, this doesn't lead to targetted advertising, since the service doesn't have any upstream capability. It does mean that we get more channels of rubbish into our homes though, so it isn't all bad.
The really odd thing is that the defence of the GPL licence will ultimately benefit companies like Cisco if they played the game correctly. These are commodity items, routers, switches etc. By moving to a GPL software base they reduce cost, risk in producing the software for their products, and then can concentrate on the value added parts. Config tools, reliability etc.
For example, take the disputed Linksys router. I would have expected Linksys to have plenty ways of defending their product from competition rather than withholding the GPL updates (design rights, patents, trademarks etc). Ok, so it looks like they have messed up in this case with the way they have written their driver, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that *if* they had correctly written their driver they would be able to keep it proprietry.
My mom rang the other day and said that her machine had gone wrong 'the screen has gone blue'.
Now if I had got her a windows machine, this would be bad and I would have a BSOD to try and work through remotely (lots of fun fun fun).
As it is she is running an iBook. The desktop pattern is blue. Turns out she had apple-H'ed her mail app.
Trademark law is complicated wrt when a term becomes generic - it is obviously to some extent a matter of opinion.
In general terms though the idea is that if the trade uses the term generically, then it is generic. This is distinct from whether an average end user uses the term generically.
For example, I own a vacuum cleaner, but it isn't a Hoover. I might mention that I am going to hoover the front room, but this doesn't mean that the term is generlc. The distinction is when resellers use the term generically, so if I walk into a shop and there is a big sign saying 'Hoovers' but there are various makes of vacuum cleaner underneath it.
So, in order to stop a trademark becoming generic, the trademark owner has to be consistent with it's efforts to stop the term being used generically. Trademark agents send out plenty of letters each week defending their clients products to avoid this happening.
So in the UNIX case, if I as a programmer use the term UNIX generically, this isn't a problem for the trademark owner, it is when people like Apple start using the term generically that fur flies. If on the other hand other companies have been using the term generically on the web for years without receiving notices from the trademark own telling them to stop, then things become much more interesting, and the term may then be generic.
I would say Apple have a reasonably good case.
Another thing, here in the UK the UNIX mark would be described as a service mark, not a trade mark. It in effect represents a trade bodies stamp of approval of a product complying with a set of rules. In this way service marks can be applied to multiple products (a good example would be 'champagne' which is produced by more than one company).
Slashdot Mirror
Athlon 64 runs rings around a G5? Really? Have you got both to demonstrate this, or is this from reading reviews on the web?
I write DSP code, and i've got some very impressive results from a G5 when running code which previously gave less than exciting results on a G4. The G5 really is a class act.
I've not tested the code on an Athlon 64, but only on an Athlon XP 2500. DSP code tends to be FPU or memory bound, sometimes both in different parts of the algorithm so it is pretty good at giving a machine a proper workout.
My XP 2500 is running roughly at 2Ghz, and compared to a G5 at 2Ghz the Athlon takes around 50 to 100% longer to run the same tests. That's comparing a G5/gcc 3.3 build against a x86/VC7 build. Neither is the best compiler for the platform, but both are pretty useful, and possibly typical for currently released software.
I'd be very interested in running this build on an Athlon 64 - that'll still be a 32 bit test, but it would be interesting for me to see the benefits of the on chip memory interface. Rebuilding for 64 bits might take a while since the code is large (and ugly). Anyone with a spare 5 minutes willing to run a binary for me?
Logic
Well it isn't quite as simple as that. The game of cat and mouse between companies over brands has been played out for a number of years and there are plenty of ways of ways that Microsoft could tackle this domain.
:-)
Off the top of my head, I would have thought Microsoft could say:
1) This is trademark infringement - the name is confusingly similar.
2) They could say the domain registration was made in bad faith (Mike Rowe is aware of the Microsoft name and has registered a domain which he knows is similar to theirs).
3) They could accuse him of passing off (trading off their reputation - not sure if any product is sold at the MikeRoweSoft site).
4) If he provides any services based on microsoft products, he could be accused of reverse passing off (passing Microsoft's products off as his own, hence enhancing his own reputation).
5) They could accuse him of damaging their reputation (although I'm guessing their customers are unlikely to mistake his site for theirs).
There are probably a dozen other things, but you get the idea.
BTW, you're assertion that Mike Rowe can setup a company because it is his name isn't true. How far do you think i'd get setting up a company using my name which had anything to do with motor cars? They'd be lawyers parachuting out of the sky...
It isn't clear exactly what benefit you get from it all being in one box. If it is a performance synth, the keyboard screen etc aren't particularly useful - if it is a composition tool then what are the benefits over a traditional DAW?
The bundle certainly seems to be at a price premium, so someone thinks there is a market for this.
I'd be interested to know how long the thing takes to boot. The last thing you want in the middle of a gig is a BSOD (and let's face it, with XP inside this is a distinct possibility).
Personally, I'll stick with my Powerbook, hanging it off a keyboard when i'm sequencing, and sitting in the park with a pair of headphones when i'm mixing.
So then the PDP-11 was a bit of a flop then wasn't it? Never sold millions, etc etc. I think there is more to it than this.
There is no breaking down of instructions as you mention - there is an extended instruction set which is either available or not on the PPC (so PPC processors which support 64 bit instructions support the full instruction set, whilst the 32 bit processors throw an illegal instruction).
The measure of the processor 'bitness' is when addressing memory, whether you are limited to a 32 or 64 bit address space. In effect the size of a pointer will tell you. Now the impact of moving to a 64 bit address space is usually detrimental to the speed of the application (I would expect that the G5 will be slower in 64 bit mode) due to the increased memory bandwidth required (if pointers are wider, you need more stack/memory to store them, so you have, say, a 10% increase in memory requirement for an application). If I remember correctly, the HP PA RISC systems were slower running 64 bit code than 32 bit. I'm thinking back a couple of years here, so it may be different for the latest generation of their processors.
It isn't all bad for the Opteron though - the instruction set has been altered to provide more processor registers. This may mean the compiler can do a better job of optimising code, reducing the number of load/store instructions, so increasing the IPC.
So, just don't assume that if the Opteron gets a performance benefit from 64 bit code, so will the G5. As other people have mentioned, you need to test both with a 64 bit OS to really know the results - extrapolating won't get you the answers.
Your comment about the IBM compiler is spot on. With any luck the IBM changes will make it into the gcc code for other non-apple PPC platforms.
When I was young we used to hang out in the department stores where we lived looking at all the new computer systems. If I remember correctly the shop had a display of Atari 400s, and TI99/4a machines, all playing various games. You could just walk up and play with them till you got hassled by one of the shop staff.
They didn't have any Commodore machines, so no VICs for some reason.
This would have been back in the early 80s, not sure which year though.
Well, here in the UK we have digital TV broadcast over standard aerials. It's being used to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth so that the spare capacity can be sold off for other purposes.
Anyhow, this doesn't lead to targetted advertising, since the service doesn't have any upstream capability. It does mean that we get more channels of rubbish into our homes though, so it isn't all bad.
The really odd thing is that the defence of the GPL licence will ultimately benefit companies like Cisco if they played the game correctly. These are commodity items, routers, switches etc. By moving to a GPL software base they reduce cost, risk in producing the software for their products, and then can concentrate on the value added parts. Config tools, reliability etc. For example, take the disputed Linksys router. I would have expected Linksys to have plenty ways of defending their product from competition rather than withholding the GPL updates (design rights, patents, trademarks etc). Ok, so it looks like they have messed up in this case with the way they have written their driver, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that *if* they had correctly written their driver they would be able to keep it proprietry.
My mom rang the other day and said that her machine had gone wrong 'the screen has gone blue'. Now if I had got her a windows machine, this would be bad and I would have a BSOD to try and work through remotely (lots of fun fun fun). As it is she is running an iBook. The desktop pattern is blue. Turns out she had apple-H'ed her mail app.
yes | gcc .....
Trademark law is complicated wrt when a term becomes generic - it is obviously to some extent a matter of opinion.
In general terms though the idea is that if the trade uses the term generically, then it is generic. This is distinct from whether an average end user uses the term generically.
For example, I own a vacuum cleaner, but it isn't a Hoover. I might mention that I am going to hoover the front room, but this doesn't mean that the term is generlc. The distinction is when resellers use the term generically, so if I walk into a shop and there is a big sign saying 'Hoovers' but there are various makes of vacuum cleaner underneath it.
So, in order to stop a trademark becoming generic, the trademark owner has to be consistent with it's efforts to stop the term being used generically. Trademark agents send out plenty of letters each week defending their clients products to avoid this happening.
So in the UNIX case, if I as a programmer use the term UNIX generically, this isn't a problem for the trademark owner, it is when people like Apple start using the term generically that fur flies. If on the other hand other companies have been using the term generically on the web for years without receiving notices from the trademark own telling them to stop, then things become much more interesting, and the term may then be generic.
I would say Apple have a reasonably good case.
Another thing, here in the UK the UNIX mark would be described as a service mark, not a trade mark. It in effect represents a trade bodies stamp of approval of a product complying with a set of rules. In this way service marks can be applied to multiple products (a good example would be 'champagne' which is produced by more than one company).