a price/comparrison between a "platform OSX runs on" and "a platform OSX does not run on" will necessarily not involve any applications that _only_ run on OSX. Or at least, it will only involve OSX-specific applications in the event that a suitable substitute can be agreed upon for the platform OSX does not run on.
*sigh.. I don't see how what I personally do with my system is going to be relevant for the general case, but I'll indulge you nonetheless:
I have about 331gb of used hard drive space on one of my workstations. I rip and transcode at least four DVDs a week,and also play a bit of UT2004 when I have the extra free time.
As far as real work goes, it's the usual internet/email/office stuff along with some occasional at home postgresql development for my job as a sort of one man Database+Network admin for a local healthcare business.
For my academic CS coursework, I mostly code in C, Python, or Java, with a lot of extra C on the side since i'm trying to get a feal for the layout of the kernel. I'll occasionally change small things here and there and recompile and run to see what happens.
I should note that my total system price was more on the order of $1100, but I could have easily gotten a slightly slower processor, less memory et.al.for this system and only spent around $800, as testing124 suggests.
I wasn't asking about anything related to your definition of `usability'.
I was asking about comparable price/performance to an $800 system. This is not equivalent to your vague notion of "bang for the buck". It is a question of mathematics.
Go ahead and continue to refuse to address the issue at hand; I shan't respond again until you choose to do so.
When MAC announced their "Mini", it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found were more than the humble US$499 of the "Mini", often much more. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.
My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?
Any number of good reasons, but that's not the point of the $800 question. The point is, can these manufacturers with all this purchasing clout you speak of hope to match the price/performance vaule of a complete $800 system using, say, an $130 Athlon chip?
From what I understand, the answer is no. If price/performance + compatibility are the main concerns (and not some quasi-religious fascination with OSX), PPCs are hopelessly inferior to the AMD64 lineup when comparing apples to apples.
/me waits for another mac fanatic to link back to the mini and point out that it costs less, when in reality that doesn't even come close to answering the question because an $800 desktop would eat its liver.
The other car runs on only 5 percent of all roads, but those roads go to every destination in which you're interested, including some destinations that aren't accessible by the other 95 percent of all roads. And they're all twelve lanes wide with no speed limits and paved with concrete that's smooth as glass.
> If your price/performance relevance was correctIt is correct. Just not for what you are applying it to. Assuming we are talking about NEW hardware that can be bought of the shelf, this:
1. Browse on http 2. email, but many find MUAs too difficult (POP server config: witchcraft!) and stick to webmail. 3. Type crap on Word. 4. Occasionally tinker with cretinous software bundled with the new crackpipe-inkjet priner. 5. Indulge in CD/DVD duplication.
Has little to do with the maximum performance of a processor. Aside from DeCSS, all of those things would probably only put a load on a processor equivalent to about 20% continuous, if that.
And for the last one:
6. Games, but apart from computer literates & fanatics most don't care or prefer simple consoles.
Processor performance becomes more important, though certainly not as much as that of the video card.
> Ah, only specific comparisons where it favours your pet architecture. I see
Nope. Only specific when compareing related architectures. As I pointed out, your register comparison between PPC and x86 is just as irrelevant as a "Ghz" comparrison between an Intel and a PPC would be.
> BTW, have you noticed how all of the games consoles manufacturers are moving to PowerPC derived processors. Guess why?
Easy: to encourage sales by limiting consumer freedom.
If console games used an x86 architecture, it would be cake to write PC emulators for them and fewer people would buy real consoles. This is a textbook case of a non-standard architecture being advantageous to the company that both makes the hardware and licenses the software, but not advantageous to the consumer because it locks one down to a proprietary solution and limits what you can do with the software you buy.
In the case of Microsft's Xbox and Apple computers, using PPC deliberately limits one's freedom to use software on commodity hardware. Microsoft encourages the sale of video games and Xbox Live! (the real money makers) by selling the Xbox hardware cheaply at or below cost. In the case of Apple, they use the slick OSX interface to encourage the sale of overpriced, non-standard computers. In fact, to my knowledge this new Mac mini is the very first Apple product to not have a ridiculously expensive price/performance ratio.
Humorously, developers of Xbox games are forced to use Microsoft's Xbox SDK which requires an Apple machine.
> So PPC Linux is primarily a no-go for you because of lack of software?
It is half the reason, yes.
> Funny, I notice people saying the same thing when thinking about switching from Windows to Linux on x86.:-)
Of course, but the other half of my reason is that PPC is inferior in terms of price/performance and hardware compatibility.
I acknowledge that the reasons to switch from $OTHER_OS to OSX can be just as compeling as those to switch from $OTHER_OS to Linux. But at least switching to Linux significantly broadens your horizons in terms of architectural hardware compatibility, whereas switching to OSX locks you down tight:(
I was pointing out how it fixed one of legacy x86's failings, which is admirable.
It's nice that PPC has a lot of registers, but I could just as soon say Intel has a lot of "Ghz".
Playing the numbers game with an individual spec when comparing two vastly dissimilar architectures (PPC and any flavor of x86) is not relevant. Doing so between two very similar architectures (x86 and AMD64, the later being a superset of the former) is not only valid, it's the main way to differentiate them!
Anyone with half a brain can see I was responding to testing124's post which was comparing x86 to AMD64 directly.
PPC cannot be compared in such a direct manner. We must fall back to more general price/performance comparisons for that.
1. Linux x86_64 does not support all Linux x86 features right now. Some drivers (ATI) don't work on x86_64 that do work on x86.
It would seem your information is happily out of date. Though only very recently.
2. If you plan to use commercial software (such as an application server), some of the Linux packages refuse to install on anything other than plain, vanilla, 32-bit x86. Sure you can manually rip apart the package, but a lot of software I run on Linux will not install on x86_64, much less be supported by the developer.
There are the emul- libraries which are beginning to work rather well. But the beauty of x86_64 is that you can always install a 32-bit OS and be fine. Having the option to upgrade to 64-bit later is just a bonus.
As for tweaking Linux for PPC, I am all for it. Not because I like PPC, but because I think it is important to keep the code portable... and simultaneously supporing a lot of different architectures tends to do that rather well;)
> It would be more standard and less expensive if schmucks like you bought it.
By analogy, English Customary Units would be more standard and less difficult to deal with if schmucks in the rest of the world used them (as opposed to only the USA).
Excuse me, but do you honestly believe one should take into account the "day to day running of a computer" when discussing the relative merits of processor architectures?
Here's a clue: asside from general software availability (something PPC and most especially PPC64 fall painfully short in), price/performance considerations are the ONLY relevant way to compare architectures.
As for the operating system, that's getting off-topic but since you are walking right into this one...
> You might as well choose which car you drive based on the carburetor it uses, rather than whether it's a sports car or an SUV.
Nope. Not if that "carburetor" makes that "sports car or SUV" only work on 5% of the roads.
It is humorous how clearly your posts evince the shallow thinking of a typical Mac enthusiast.
Ummm, you shouldn't? He didn't cite incompatibility for Linux, so he must mean hardware, not software.
Correct, except for the fact that that "tinkering" with Linux involves getting software that should work to actually work. Naturally, this is distinct from software being 100% incompatible to begin with (i.e. win32 apps that won't run on their Linux or OSX)
Slashdot Mirror
none of which has anything to do with the hardware
but thanks anyway
I think what he wants is a standalone PCI ramdisk. Not a RAID controller.
a price/comparrison between a "platform OSX runs on"
and "a platform OSX does not run on" will necessarily not involve any applications that _only_ run on OSX. Or at least, it will only involve OSX-specific applications in the event that a suitable substitute can be agreed upon for the platform OSX does not run on.
the logic here is elementary
*sigh.. I don't see how what I personally do with my system is going to be relevant for the general case, but I'll indulge you nonetheless:
I have about 331gb of used hard drive space on one of my workstations. I rip and transcode at least four DVDs a week,and also play a bit of UT2004 when I have the extra free time.
As far as real work goes, it's the usual internet/email/office stuff along with some occasional at home postgresql development for my job as a sort of one man Database+Network admin for a local healthcare business.
For my academic CS coursework, I mostly code in C, Python, or Java, with a lot of extra C on the side since i'm trying to get a feal for the layout of the kernel. I'll occasionally change small things here and there and recompile and run to see what happens.
I should note that my total system price was more on the order of $1100, but I could have easily gotten a slightly slower processor, less memory et.al.for this system and only spent around $800, as testing124 suggests.
I wasn't asking about anything related to your definition of `usability'.
I was asking about comparable price/performance to an $800 system. This is not equivalent to your vague notion of "bang for the buck". It is a question of mathematics.
Go ahead and continue to refuse to address the issue at hand; I shan't respond again until you choose to do so.
But lucky for you
this very question
has been discussed before!
Quite a happy coincidence, wouldn't you say?
The technical superiority would come in the area price/performance... as mentioned many times in this thread.
Any number of good reasons, but that's not the point of the $800 question. The point is, can these manufacturers with all this purchasing clout you speak of hope to match the price/performance vaule of a complete $800 system using, say, an $130 Athlon chip?
From what I understand, the answer is no. If price/performance + compatibility are the main concerns (and not some quasi-religious fascination with OSX), PPCs are hopelessly inferior to the AMD64 lineup when comparing apples to apples.
End of story.
/me waits for another mac fanatic to link back to the mini and point out that it costs less, when in reality that doesn't even come close to answering the question because an $800 desktop would eat its liver.
Oh wait... damn. You almost made me forget.
My friends live on the other 95% of the roads.
And for the last one:Processor performance becomes more important, though certainly not as much as that of the video card.
> Hate to break it to you, but 970fx parts are roughly 1/3 the price of AMD64 parts.
Interesting. I must confess I had never heard of the term "970fx" before Alan posted.
So tell me, what exactly am I doing wrong?
> Ah, only specific comparisons where it favours your pet architecture. I see
Nope. Only specific when compareing related architectures. As I pointed out, your register comparison between PPC and x86 is just as irrelevant as a "Ghz" comparrison between an Intel and a PPC would be.
> BTW, have you noticed how all of the games consoles manufacturers are moving to PowerPC derived processors. Guess why?
Easy: to encourage sales by limiting consumer freedom.
If console games used an x86 architecture, it would be cake to write PC emulators for them and fewer people would buy real consoles. This is a textbook case of a non-standard architecture being advantageous to the company that both makes the hardware and licenses the software, but not advantageous to the consumer because it locks one down to a proprietary solution and limits what you can do with the software you buy.
In the case of Microsft's Xbox and Apple computers, using PPC deliberately limits one's freedom to use software on commodity hardware. Microsoft encourages the sale of video games and Xbox Live! (the real money makers) by selling the Xbox hardware cheaply at or below cost. In the case of Apple, they use the slick OSX interface to encourage the sale of overpriced, non-standard computers. In fact, to my knowledge this new Mac mini is the very first Apple product to not have a ridiculously expensive price/performance ratio.
Humorously, developers of Xbox games are forced to use Microsoft's Xbox SDK which requires an Apple machine.
> So PPC Linux is primarily a no-go for you because of lack of software?
:-)
:(
It is half the reason, yes.
> Funny, I notice people saying the same thing when thinking about switching from Windows to Linux on x86.
Of course, but the other half of my reason is that PPC is inferior in terms of price/performance and hardware compatibility.
I acknowledge that the reasons to switch from $OTHER_OS to OSX can be just as compeling as those to switch from $OTHER_OS to Linux. But at least switching to Linux significantly broadens your horizons in terms of architectural hardware compatibility, whereas switching to OSX locks you down tight
I was pointing out how it fixed one of legacy x86's failings, which is admirable.
It's nice that PPC has a lot of registers, but I could just as soon say Intel has a lot of "Ghz".
Playing the numbers game with an individual spec when comparing two vastly dissimilar architectures (PPC and any flavor of x86) is not relevant. Doing so between two very similar architectures (x86 and AMD64, the later being a superset of the former) is not only valid, it's the main way to differentiate them!
Anyone with half a brain can see I was responding to testing124's post which was comparing x86 to AMD64 directly.
PPC cannot be compared in such a direct manner. We must fall back to more general price/performance comparisons for that.
As for tweaking Linux for PPC, I am all for it. Not because I like PPC, but because I think it is important to keep the code portable... and simultaneously supporing a lot of different architectures tends to do that rather well
Excuse me, but the sub thread starting here is about processor architectures. Someone asked why I don't like PPC, and I answered.
Please take your "domestic environment" stuff elsewhere. Or if you insist on staying, at least acknowledge that your car analogy fails miserably.
Eh, no one is claiming the 970fx CPUs are not competent. Just outrageously expensive and hyped (in the case of the G5, anyway).
> It would be more standard and less expensive if schmucks like you bought it.
By analogy, English Customary Units would be more standard and less difficult to deal with if schmucks in the rest of the world used them (as opposed to only the USA).
I'll take the much nicer to use computer that I don't have to bother building any day.
/me looks up from tweaking the placement of his hard drives in a new server tower
Alright dude. I think this is where we say "to each his own" and part ways.
Excuse me, but do you honestly believe one should take into account the "day to day running of a computer" when discussing the relative merits of processor architectures?
Here's a clue: asside from general software availability (something PPC and most especially PPC64 fall painfully short in), price/performance considerations are the ONLY relevant way to compare architectures.
As for the operating system, that's getting off-topic but since you are walking right into this one...
> You might as well choose which car you drive based on the carburetor it uses, rather than whether it's a sports car or an SUV.
Nope. Not if that "carburetor" makes that "sports car or SUV" only work on 5% of the roads.
It is humorous how clearly your posts evince the shallow thinking of a typical Mac enthusiast.
Yes, so wifey will be disappointed when she can't run OSX
. . . If you are going to build a PC for your "wifey", it is assumed you will take into account OS needs and preferences.
And as for putting "cool" hardware together, slotting a PC together got boring about 1995. There's nothing "cool" about it.
You are truly fortunate, sir, to have had access to Shuttle-like hardware in 1995!
Ummm, you shouldn't? He didn't cite incompatibility for Linux, so he must mean hardware, not software.
Correct, except for the fact that that "tinkering" with Linux involves getting software that should work to actually work. Naturally, this is distinct from software being 100% incompatible to begin with (i.e. win32 apps that won't run on their Linux or OSX)
Don't forget to mention the 8 additional registers. That's 2x more than x86, fixing one of it's biggest weaknesses.