Are there any benchmarks to prove this claim? It would be interesting to see a comparison - especially if made by an independent party.
Clock for clock, proving that MHz is not an absolute comparable measure, here you can see both G4's and G3's of lower MHz beating Intel Pentium III's which are clocked 50% higher than the G3 beating them!
In fact, when the code is RISC optimized, a 450MHz G3 manages to run 74% faster than a 450MHz PII.
Now imagine a program optimized for SMP and AltiVec on Dual 1.25GHz G4's. I know the cheapest Dell can most likely beat the most expensive Apple, but the current situation leaves Apple with little it can do.
(Currently, according to benchmarks not done by apple, it seems that you dont even need the absolute fastest P4s to beat the fastest Macs)
Agreed and a sad state of affairs.
Seems to me, with the DDR hack and Apples reliance on SMP now, that they are really trying to hold out before some new CPU's with greater performance and memory bandwidth are available.
I shall be avoiding the first lot, in case Apple tries to rush them to market too quickly.
I hope they survive, I rather love OSX and I would HATE to see them move to x86 (which I highly doubt).
PPC chips can only work on one swing of the computing "cycle", not on the up and down like an Athlon can for example
It's called positive and negative edge triggering. It's not a new technology either. I was dealing with it in the 80's at the discrete logic level.
AGP 2x uses this and 4x uses positive, negative, high and low triggering. Certain UDMA modes make use of this clocking technique also.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
His arguement DOES hold water. PPC CPU's DO outperform Intel x86 CPU's by a good margin when compared clock for clock (showing the MHz Myth for what it is). Especially the G4 and boy when AltiVec can and is exploited... Wow. There IS more to CPU design than smaller die and deeper piplining for higher MHz.
As far as I can tell, Apple seem to be in a position where they have to make the best of what they can get, due to Motorolla dropping the ball pretty baddly.
The MHz Myth that Apple talks about is not about trying to say that "Mhz doesn't matter", it's about the fact that MHz cannot be used as a direct comparison between architectures.
Of course MHz (brute force) matters. But what also matters is smart design.
I think showing a 333MHz G3 running faster than a 500MHz Pentium III, kinda proves the MHz Myth is just that. Bear in mind, that the G3 is not AltiVec equiped! So not getting a huge vectorized benefit here.
If you think that's impressive, look at the G4! I can't wait to see what CPU Apple actually unleashes next.
I'm astonished that there are actually people who think MHz is THE sole number to go by.
One remote hole in the default install in almost 6 years? I bet you were'nt even out of school 6 years ago.
I mostly use OpenBSD for routers and firewalls (since 2.5), on which I disable ssh. Running *any* service (other than packet filtering or routing) on a firewall or router is not a good idea IMHO.
It's certainly not the security, given the recent spate of r00tings.
Anyone, who watched the errata page or read the lists and bothered to heed the bloody warnings WAS NOT ROOTED.
It's certainly not performance.
Do tell then...
Oh...it's because Theo an cr3w are |33+, of course...
They're a whole lot more |33+ than you arsehole. Where is your more secure OS then?
In short; donate early and often to worthwhile open source projects (suse? mysql?) early and often...
WTF!? SUSE? Why SUSE? I've got nothing against SUSE but why not Debian or Gentoo? If I was going to advocate supporting a Linux distro, it would be Debian or Gentoo. I have donated money to Debian in the past, BTW, in addition to official OpenBSD purchases.
and let the prima donna ridden WANK FEST known as OpenBSD sink to oblivion.
As for your 300MHz G3 running OS X, I feel sorry for you.
I'm an impatient person.
I feel sorry for you. Sounds to me, that you will always be unhappy with performance.
I've used OS X on a 800MHz G4 (512MB) and it's unusably slow.
How ridiculous. When OSX was at 10.1.4 on my 300MHz G3 (128MB) it was annoyingly slow. But the upgrade to 10.1.5 was a MASSIVE improvement, making it a joy to use. Jaguar is even faster, even though Quartz Extreme does not support my video controller.
Thus you can see why KDE 3.x on a 2GHz P4 is only barely usable to me.
If KDE3 is "barely" usable for you on your 2GHz P4, why the hell are you using it? Go WindowMaker, AfterStep, etc if you want lightning fast.
To think I used to use Linux on a 486DX33 with a badly supported Diamond SpeedStar 24X.
You said, "a complete lie", "megahertz myth" and then go on with a single example which has already been pointed out by others to be quite unfair for more than one reason.
Don't say the "MHz Myth" is a lie when you actually mean the "MHz Myth" groupies are a bunch of exagerating liars. I've pointed out somewhere here one of the guys making benchmarks finds the G4 comes last 3 times out of 4 times and then proclaims it the overall fastest. Blame people like him, not the MHz Myth.
The "MHz Myth" is for example, the belief amongst plebs, that a 1GHz Intel will have the same computing power as a 1GHz PPC. It is a myth.
I agree that Apple has and will continue to fall behind until the next CPU revision. The current memory speeds are really crap, comparatively speaking.
Incidentally, the benchmark in which apple modified the NCBI Blast (which I admittedly know nothing at all about) to run much faster on their own architecture seems a bit of an unfair comparison to the standard blast procedure (which only used gcc's optimizations) running on an Intel chip.
I know little about BLAST also. Apple would be stupid if they didn't try to use AltiVec for this "embarassingly parallel" task though. If Intel is worried, they can alter the standard to get better performance on x86. If anyone can find MMX/SSE BLAST benchmarks, I'd like to see them.
so you can stop drawing one thousand conclusions about my intelligence from one paragraph
Let me assure you, I'm not drawing any conclusion about your intelligence based on your paragraph. I've mouthed off here plenty of times in the past without being verbose enough to keep me out of flames.
However, make short, agressive posts that appear to proclaim obvious untruths without fully explaining yourself, and you have to expect loads of moderation and replies.
If you're getting 150 fps in a game, you're not turning the detail high enough.
Not always the case. If someone has their game set to max details, colour depth and practical resolution and they're getting multiple frames per refresh, then they hardly need an upgrade. If they're running a game that becomes perceivably choppy, then it's time to upgrade. Kinda proves my point.
Also, if you do stuff like DivX encoding, Ogg encoding, etc, you need those gigahertz.
I don't disagree. However, my old PII-300 encodes MP3's using LAME faster than realtime (single speed CD audio extraction). For me this was adequate, but the offer of a P3-500 CPU for $40.au was too good to pass. : )
Don't get me started on GCC.
Obviously the domain of the CPU power hungry user.
Lastly, GNOME and KDE eat up those processor cycles.
My nice WindowMaker desktop flies.
Even my P4 2GHz is only barely satisfactory running KDE 3.x
Why run KDE3 if it requires greater than a 2GHz P4?!?
I run OSX 10.1 on an old 300MHz G3 with ATI Rage, I find it quick. So what is wrong with KDE3 if it can't deal with a 2GHz P4?
(two seconds just to launch Konqueror from cache!).
2 whole seconds?! Bloody hell!
Seeing people pay big bucks for number smashers so that they can surf the web and run winword.exe just cracks me up.
Is it not obvious that I'm trying to say that not everyone needs these ultra powerful machines? I didn't say nobody needs them.
Well, of course it is great for some things. Obvously the top of the list would be 3D rendering and manipulation, 2D graphics rendering and manipulation, scientific computing and typical 3D gaming.
But, if you're getting frame rates in your games that are in the hundreds at the maximum practical resolution of your monitor in true colour (I would'nt run a 17" over 1024x768) or not ever doing anything that pegs your CPU at 100% for an appreciable amount of time, then if these people shell out big bucks to go from a 1GHz P4 to a 2GHz P4, they are either ignorant and/or stupid.
Upgrading (CPU) a machine that spends 95% of it's life at 5% processor occupancy is nuts. Seeing people pay big bucks for number smashers so that they can surf the web and run winword.exe just cracks me up.
However, I love it when people do it! Because I pick up PC's off the street, thrown out, which have always been in perfect working order. I've always found Windows OS to get slower and slower with registry rot as time goes on, meaning that a fresh Windows install makes a huge difference. But the average Joe perhaps is not aware of this and ends up throwing out his "awfully slow" PC, which I then pick up and use for OpenBSD, Linux or W2K.
My current server is a Pentium 200MMX with 128MB SDRAM which someone just threw out! Running OpenBSD 3.1 with two 40GB UDMA drives, it saturates fast ethernet easily. I actually install all my apps to it and even run Diablo II LOD off it over the ethernet with good speed. I'd love to see how it performs with some GigE cards, but that will have to wait...
That guy at barefeats would appear to be a little biased.
In his section comparing games performance, the G4 machines come last in 3 out of 4 tests and he then proclaims the G4 to be the overall fastest.
Fact is, (and I love PPC) that the memory architecture is a severe bottleneck that must be smashed. AltiVec is a beast, but is wasted for anything non cache bound.
I strongly get the impression IBM has some other ideas in mind for these chips other than simply being a supplier for Apple.
Interesting. Perhaps they are going to release a 64-bit IBM workstation with their own custom Linux to go head to head with 64-bit offerings from Sun and HP.
I rather like the thought of putting them in Apples, though. : )
This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
Therefore, with my minimum sample size of 2 machines, I can deduce that all processors can be compared with MHz alone. Further, all architectures perform exactly the same, MHz for MHz across the board for similar instructions and they all scale in a linear fashion regardless of the ratio of core speed to main memory speed or other similar limitations. There is also no such thing as this "bottleneck" crap. Bottlenecks r what yer get when your old Chev brakes down on tha intastate and bloks a lane.
AltiVec is a beast. A 500MHz G4 using AltiVec ran 6.9 times faster than a P3 800 and 3.7 times faster than a 500MHz Alpha 21264. The G4 worked out to be 5.3 times cheaper per FLOP than the P3 and 8.4 times cheaper than the Alpha. Although there is no mention of Intels SIMD within this documents and the FORTRAN compilers at the time of the documents writing were very limited in their abilities to vectorize FORTRAN code to make better use of the AltiVec.
Here is a 1GHz G4 performing up to 10 times faster than a 2GHz P4 while querying a DNA database and 2 times faster at their fastest measured rates.
Saying that the MHz Myth is a Myth, based on a single experience is really idiotic. Anyone who has at least failed the first semester of a CS course would know that different architectures cannot be judged on MHz alone. Hell, even comparing different revisions of the same architecture family cannot be judged on MHz alone (a 33MHz 486DX is much faster than a 33MHz 386 for example, ignoring floating point of course). Wanna talk about CISC vs RISC vs CISC-wrapped-around-RISC?
Here are some G3's (as low as 333MHz) and a 450MHz G4 running faster than a P3 500MHz. There are plenty of graphs and numbers here which might put a fright into you Hrothgar.
How do you intend to make a one time pad without a pad?
Huh!? What part of, "A strong, proper OTP would not be generated from a key at all.", leads you to believe that I am saying a OTP should not include a P? You think the only way to make a pad is algorithmically with a key? A key generated OTP of ANY length can only be as strong as the key length assuming the algorithm used can provide at least a maximal length pseudo random stream for that key size (if not, then it will be weaker than the key length).
Focus on pseudo and key length!
If any part of the OTP can be revealed through statistics (trivial with typical plain text having plenty of white space), then this can result in successful brute force attacks against the OTP itself. However, if the OTP is non-machine generated, with no patterns or matches to known generators, it cannot, EVER be brute force attacked with any evidence providing weight to the authenticity of the decrypted plain text. Evidence like the OTP matching the output of any part of any given PRNG resulting in flawless plain text. This could be statistically overwhelming evidence. A real random OTP should not match any part of any PRNG output, although you'd be pretty astronomically unlucky for that to ever occur. All OTP encrypted cipher texts can be brute force cracked to the original and many other "plain texts", but without ANY evidence there can be no way to know which "plain text" is actually the real original.
I can provide you with a OTP encrypted cipher text, and then many different OTP's that can decrypt that cipher text into many different plain texts. But which is the real plain text? Without evidence, it is impossible to tell. However, thankfully you are using a OTP which was generated with a key smaller than the plain text and a mathematical algorithm, and thus, we have our evidence! (and yes, a full random OTP can be considered a "key", but the context of this thread is specifically regarding "key" and "generate" together, implying that the OTP is algorithmically generated from that "key".)
And how would doing so make it strong and proper?
Generating a OTP with a key, kind of negates the whole reason of using a OTP at all.
And here is the clue, ONE - TIME - PAD. If the OTP can be generated easily with a given algorithm... then it CANNOT EVER be a ONE TIME PAD because it can be revealed mathematically over and over again no matter where in the universe you are performing this math! And to add insult to injury, this "ONE" TIME PAD can be represented and REPEATED with an algorithm smaller than the OTP itself! A stream of numbers that are not only non unique, but a stream that existed and will exist, before and after the existence of man on Earth.
Nobody who has ever existed, or who ever will exist, should be arrogant about encryption. Because every practical approach to mathematically hiding information can be broken. I say this because OTP's done properly are not practical.
You ought to think twice next time before hitting Submit.
For instance, *no* ammount of time is sufficient to break an OTP without the key.
A strong, proper OTP would not be generated from a key at all.
So one could brute force the cipher text into the original plain text, but along with every other combination of possible "plain texts" of the same length. Meaning they wouldn't know they had the real plain text even if they did have it.
Real random OTP's are impossible to break to the plain text with any certaintly the same way a broken watch can tell the time correctly twice per day. : )
Ok, it might feel really great touching that great, plastic surface, but I dont think that your "hand" will hold a rocket-launcher or a rail gin very well.
I have an old clamshell iBook, on which I write this. I realise your post touches on the poor accuracy and speed of pads within games, but I think you also unknowingly touch on something else...
When I'm finished with my typically long sessions with my iBook, my hand hurts and I don't feel like holding anything shortly after that.
I wonder how most people use trackpads? I'm right handed, I touch my pointing finger with my thumb as if holding a pen, the other fingers are folded in fist like while my pointing finger touches the pad with movement assistance from my thumb (which I find gives less jerky movement). If I ever need small accurate movements, I find rolling my finger around on one spot works very well.
Is this typical? I think my pain is from the fact that my hand is quite tense during usage in this position. I'd use my logitech optical wheel mouse, but I'm having too much fun using it with WindowMaker under OpenBSD. Which will hopefully soon also be on my iBook.
I can think of plenty of cases where this is apparently the case. How else can you explain the fact that tee-shirts which turn people into walking ads for Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc. sell for so much more than a blank tee-shirt?
Customer percieved value does not necessarily mean true added value to the customer.
They think it looks cool, because lots of other people think it looks cool, so they pay a much higher price. I don't see how this is any added value.
With Unix, you setup a system, and unless someone intentionally changes something, your system will work perfectly until the end of time.
With Windows, you can install it on two identical system, with the same settings both times, one might work without a hitch, and the other will be so slow it's unusable. One might accept new hardware, the other might give you a blue-screen with that exact same card.
you have no choice but to reinstall
*** you've got to wonder how a system file would get corrupted when Admin never logs in ***
Windows NT/2000/XP has tons of services starting by default that should be disabled
with over 100 Windows 2000 machines, I've seen more action than you can imagine. I know the layout of the registry by heart... I know why Windows machines crash, and can recover machines that most of the so-called experts can't do anything with.
I've been around too. I've been taking care of NT since 3.51 for major.gov depts. Some entities having machines numbered in the thousands for single sites and server rooms filled with machines (from Dell's to big iron) and networking gear that are well into 8 figures. I can absolutely back up your experiences.
Windows is for all intents and purposes, is an enigma to those that need to keep it working.
Unix of all flavours on the other hand, just keep going and going.
Look at OSX. An infant on the Apple desktop, it has made incredible strides in a few years. Apple has been able to leverage the best parts of Unix into a super stable, super usable system that seems to have solved problems that Windows would appear will always have, whilst allowing a temporary bridge over from Apple legacy.
Microsoft tried, basing NT on VMS, but it looks like they'll never allow a good balance between usability and features.
ummm.. I've patched openssh on all my freebsd boxes more times than I've had to patch apache, sendmail and bind put together. Don't belive Theo's "auditing" propaganda.
OpenBSD is currently moving in directions to make even possibly future remotely exploitable services limited in the havoc they may wreak.
If the FreeBSD team have put together a more secure "FreeSSH", please point me to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any benchmarks to prove this claim? It would be interesting to see a comparison - especially if made by an independent party.
Clock for clock, proving that MHz is not an absolute comparable measure, here you can see both G4's and G3's of lower MHz beating Intel Pentium III's which are clocked 50% higher than the G3 beating them!
In fact, when the code is RISC optimized, a 450MHz G3 manages to run 74% faster than a 450MHz PII.
Now imagine a program optimized for SMP and AltiVec on Dual 1.25GHz G4's. I know the cheapest Dell can most likely beat the most expensive Apple, but the current situation leaves Apple with little it can do.
(Currently, according to benchmarks not done by apple, it seems that you dont even need the absolute fastest P4s to beat the fastest Macs)
Agreed and a sad state of affairs.
Seems to me, with the DDR hack and Apples reliance on SMP now, that they are really trying to hold out before some new CPU's with greater performance and memory bandwidth are available.
I shall be avoiding the first lot, in case Apple tries to rush them to market too quickly.
I hope they survive, I rather love OSX and I would HATE to see them move to x86 (which I highly doubt).
PPC chips can only work on one swing of the computing "cycle", not on the up and down like an Athlon can for example
It's called positive and negative edge triggering. It's not a new technology either. I was dealing with it in the 80's at the discrete logic level.
AGP 2x uses this and 4x uses positive, negative, high and low triggering. Certain UDMA modes make use of this clocking technique also.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
His arguement DOES hold water. PPC CPU's DO outperform Intel x86 CPU's by a good margin when compared clock for clock (showing the MHz Myth for what it is). Especially the G4 and boy when AltiVec can and is exploited... Wow. There IS more to CPU design than smaller die and deeper piplining for higher MHz.
As far as I can tell, Apple seem to be in a position where they have to make the best of what they can get, due to Motorolla dropping the ball pretty baddly.
I hope IBM comes to their rescue. How ironic.
"Mhz doesn't matter"
The MHz Myth that Apple talks about is not about trying to say that "Mhz doesn't matter", it's about the fact that MHz cannot be used as a direct comparison between architectures.
Of course MHz (brute force) matters. But what also matters is smart design.
I think showing a 333MHz G3 running faster than a 500MHz Pentium III, kinda proves the MHz Myth is just that. Bear in mind, that the G3 is not AltiVec equiped! So not getting a huge vectorized benefit here.
If you think that's impressive, look at the G4! I can't wait to see what CPU Apple actually unleashes next.
I'm astonished that there are actually people who think MHz is THE sole number to go by.
WHAT makes Obsd worth purchasing or supporting?
One remote hole in the default install in almost 6 years? I bet you were'nt even out of school 6 years ago.
I mostly use OpenBSD for routers and firewalls (since 2.5), on which I disable ssh. Running *any* service (other than packet filtering or routing) on a firewall or router is not a good idea IMHO.
It's certainly not the security, given the recent spate of r00tings.
Anyone, who watched the errata page or read the lists and bothered to heed the bloody warnings WAS NOT ROOTED.
It's certainly not performance.
Do tell then...
Oh...it's because Theo an cr3w are |33+, of course...
They're a whole lot more |33+ than you arsehole. Where is your more secure OS then?
In short; donate early and often to worthwhile open source projects (suse? mysql?) early and often...
WTF!? SUSE? Why SUSE? I've got nothing against SUSE but why not Debian or Gentoo? If I was going to advocate supporting a Linux distro, it would be Debian or Gentoo. I have donated money to Debian in the past, BTW, in addition to official OpenBSD purchases.
and let the prima donna ridden WANK FEST known as OpenBSD sink to oblivion.
Thank you, and have a GNU/night.
You are a moron.
I'm going to wait for the kickass new artwork to show up on a poster.
Me too. Well kinda. I've pre-ordered 3.2. I've purchased the CD's when I could since 2.5. But I also want some shirts and maybe a poster.
I'd love to make use of the discount for volume shirt purchases, but I don't like 12 enough to buy them. More like 8.
So I wish they'd make more shirts.
As for your 300MHz G3 running OS X, I feel sorry for you.
I'm an impatient person.
I feel sorry for you. Sounds to me, that you will always be unhappy with performance.
I've used OS X on a 800MHz G4 (512MB) and it's unusably slow.
How ridiculous. When OSX was at 10.1.4 on my 300MHz G3 (128MB) it was annoyingly slow. But the upgrade to 10.1.5 was a MASSIVE improvement, making it a joy to use. Jaguar is even faster, even though Quartz Extreme does not support my video controller.
Thus you can see why KDE 3.x on a 2GHz P4 is only barely usable to me.
If KDE3 is "barely" usable for you on your 2GHz P4, why the hell are you using it? Go WindowMaker, AfterStep, etc if you want lightning fast.
To think I used to use Linux on a 486DX33 with a badly supported Diamond SpeedStar 24X.
However, the guy I was responding to, I guess I just found myself not caring quite as much.
Completely understandable. I'll *try* not to jump the gun next time. ; )
Hold on there, speedy. I never said any of that.
You said, "a complete lie", "megahertz myth" and then go on with a single example which has already been pointed out by others to be quite unfair for more than one reason.
Don't say the "MHz Myth" is a lie when you actually mean the "MHz Myth" groupies are a bunch of exagerating liars. I've pointed out somewhere here one of the guys making benchmarks finds the G4 comes last 3 times out of 4 times and then proclaims it the overall fastest. Blame people like him, not the MHz Myth.
The "MHz Myth" is for example, the belief amongst plebs, that a 1GHz Intel will have the same computing power as a 1GHz PPC. It is a myth.
I agree that Apple has and will continue to fall behind until the next CPU revision. The current memory speeds are really crap, comparatively speaking.
Incidentally, the benchmark in which apple modified the NCBI Blast (which I admittedly know nothing at all about) to run much faster on their own architecture seems a bit of an unfair comparison to the standard blast procedure (which only used gcc's optimizations) running on an Intel chip.
I know little about BLAST also. Apple would be stupid if they didn't try to use AltiVec for this "embarassingly parallel" task though. If Intel is worried, they can alter the standard to get better performance on x86. If anyone can find MMX/SSE BLAST benchmarks, I'd like to see them.
so you can stop drawing one thousand conclusions about my intelligence from one paragraph
Let me assure you, I'm not drawing any conclusion about your intelligence based on your paragraph. I've mouthed off here plenty of times in the past without being verbose enough to keep me out of flames.
However, make short, agressive posts that appear to proclaim obvious untruths without fully explaining yourself, and you have to expect loads of moderation and replies.
If you're getting 150 fps in a game, you're not turning the detail high enough.
.au was too good to pass. : )
Not always the case. If someone has their game set to max details, colour depth and practical resolution and they're getting multiple frames per refresh, then they hardly need an upgrade. If they're running a game that becomes perceivably choppy, then it's time to upgrade. Kinda proves my point.
Also, if you do stuff like DivX encoding, Ogg encoding, etc, you need those gigahertz.
I don't disagree. However, my old PII-300 encodes MP3's using LAME faster than realtime (single speed CD audio extraction). For me this was adequate, but the offer of a P3-500 CPU for $40
Don't get me started on GCC.
Obviously the domain of the CPU power hungry user.
Lastly, GNOME and KDE eat up those processor cycles.
My nice WindowMaker desktop flies.
Even my P4 2GHz is only barely satisfactory running KDE 3.x
Why run KDE3 if it requires greater than a 2GHz P4?!?
I run OSX 10.1 on an old 300MHz G3 with ATI Rage, I find it quick. So what is wrong with KDE3 if it can't deal with a 2GHz P4?
(two seconds just to launch Konqueror from cache!).
2 whole seconds?! Bloody hell!
Seeing people pay big bucks for number smashers so that they can surf the web and run winword.exe just cracks me up.
Is it not obvious that I'm trying to say that not everyone needs these ultra powerful machines? I didn't say nobody needs them.
2.8 GHz? Who needs that?
Well, of course it is great for some things. Obvously the top of the list would be 3D rendering and manipulation, 2D graphics rendering and manipulation, scientific computing and typical 3D gaming.
But, if you're getting frame rates in your games that are in the hundreds at the maximum practical resolution of your monitor in true colour (I would'nt run a 17" over 1024x768) or not ever doing anything that pegs your CPU at 100% for an appreciable amount of time, then if these people shell out big bucks to go from a 1GHz P4 to a 2GHz P4, they are either ignorant and/or stupid.
Upgrading (CPU) a machine that spends 95% of it's life at 5% processor occupancy is nuts. Seeing people pay big bucks for number smashers so that they can surf the web and run winword.exe just cracks me up.
However, I love it when people do it! Because I pick up PC's off the street, thrown out, which have always been in perfect working order. I've always found Windows OS to get slower and slower with registry rot as time goes on, meaning that a fresh Windows install makes a huge difference. But the average Joe perhaps is not aware of this and ends up throwing out his "awfully slow" PC, which I then pick up and use for OpenBSD, Linux or W2K.
My current server is a Pentium 200MMX with 128MB SDRAM which someone just threw out! Running OpenBSD 3.1 with two 40GB UDMA drives, it saturates fast ethernet easily. I actually install all my apps to it and even run Diablo II LOD off it over the ethernet with good speed. I'd love to see how it performs with some GigE cards, but that will have to wait...
That guy at barefeats would appear to be a little biased.
In his section comparing games performance, the G4 machines come last in 3 out of 4 tests and he then proclaims the G4 to be the overall fastest.
Fact is, (and I love PPC) that the memory architecture is a severe bottleneck that must be smashed. AltiVec is a beast, but is wasted for anything non cache bound.
I strongly get the impression IBM has some other ideas in mind for these chips other than simply being a supplier for Apple.
Interesting. Perhaps they are going to release a 64-bit IBM workstation with their own custom Linux to go head to head with 64-bit offerings from Sun and HP.
I rather like the thought of putting them in Apples, though. : )
This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
Therefore, with my minimum sample size of 2 machines, I can deduce that all processors can be compared with MHz alone. Further, all architectures perform exactly the same, MHz for MHz across the board for similar instructions and they all scale in a linear fashion regardless of the ratio of core speed to main memory speed or other similar limitations. There is also no such thing as this "bottleneck" crap. Bottlenecks r what yer get when your old Chev brakes down on tha intastate and bloks a lane.
PS, this is sarcasm.
NASA did a study to find the best cost/performance for their Fortran number crunching.
AltiVec is a beast. A 500MHz G4 using AltiVec ran 6.9 times faster than a P3 800 and 3.7 times faster than a 500MHz Alpha 21264. The G4 worked out to be 5.3 times cheaper per FLOP than the P3 and 8.4 times cheaper than the Alpha. Although there is no mention of Intels SIMD within this documents and the FORTRAN compilers at the time of the documents writing were very limited in their abilities to vectorize FORTRAN code to make better use of the AltiVec.
Here is a 1GHz G4 performing up to 10 times faster than a 2GHz P4 while querying a DNA database and 2 times faster at their fastest measured rates.
Saying that the MHz Myth is a Myth, based on a single experience is really idiotic. Anyone who has at least failed the first semester of a CS course would know that different architectures cannot be judged on MHz alone. Hell, even comparing different revisions of the same architecture family cannot be judged on MHz alone (a 33MHz 486DX is much faster than a 33MHz 386 for example, ignoring floating point of course). Wanna talk about CISC vs RISC vs CISC-wrapped-around-RISC?
Here are some G3's (as low as 333MHz) and a 450MHz G4 running faster than a P3 500MHz. There are plenty of graphs and numbers here which might put a fright into you Hrothgar.
I'm amused that the radiator is almost as large as the computer itself.
I used to be a network admin for a stock exchange disaster recovery site in the mid 90's.
We had BIG VAXen, as in *large*-double-door-fridge size.
A big chunk of the size of these boxes, was actually the cooling system itself. : )
"see and use hundreds of short-run helicopter bus services."
There have been short run helicopter services in US cities which used heli pads on top of city buildings.
He goes on to write about personal helicopters which fit in large garages and that helicopters that are easier to drive than cars, etc..
There are cheap helicopters that are built with small budget in mind which are marketed towards individuals and give good milage.
Lamborghini made a VERY small heli which only holds one man (very snuggly). Robinson R22's are really cheap too.
I've flown an R22. Starting it up sounds like starting up a lawnmower.
Helicopters as easy to pilot as cars? OK, now that is wildly wrong. : )
How do you intend to make a one time pad without a pad?
Huh!? What part of, "A strong, proper OTP would not be generated from a key at all.", leads you to believe that I am saying a OTP should not include a P? You think the only way to make a pad is algorithmically with a key? A key generated OTP of ANY length can only be as strong as the key length assuming the algorithm used can provide at least a maximal length pseudo random stream for that key size (if not, then it will be weaker than the key length).
Focus on pseudo and key length!
If any part of the OTP can be revealed through statistics (trivial with typical plain text having plenty of white space), then this can result in successful brute force attacks against the OTP itself. However, if the OTP is non-machine generated, with no patterns or matches to known generators, it cannot, EVER be brute force attacked with any evidence providing weight to the authenticity of the decrypted plain text. Evidence like the OTP matching the output of any part of any given PRNG resulting in flawless plain text. This could be statistically overwhelming evidence. A real random OTP should not match any part of any PRNG output, although you'd be pretty astronomically unlucky for that to ever occur. All OTP encrypted cipher texts can be brute force cracked to the original and many other "plain texts", but without ANY evidence there can be no way to know which "plain text" is actually the real original.
I can provide you with a OTP encrypted cipher text, and then many different OTP's that can decrypt that cipher text into many different plain texts. But which is the real plain text? Without evidence, it is impossible to tell. However, thankfully you are using a OTP which was generated with a key smaller than the plain text and a mathematical algorithm, and thus, we have our evidence! (and yes, a full random OTP can be considered a "key", but the context of this thread is specifically regarding "key" and "generate" together, implying that the OTP is algorithmically generated from that "key".)
And how would doing so make it strong and proper?
Generating a OTP with a key, kind of negates the whole reason of using a OTP at all.
And here is the clue, ONE - TIME - PAD. If the OTP can be generated easily with a given algorithm... then it CANNOT EVER be a ONE TIME PAD because it can be revealed mathematically over and over again no matter where in the universe you are performing this math! And to add insult to injury, this "ONE" TIME PAD can be represented and REPEATED with an algorithm smaller than the OTP itself! A stream of numbers that are not only non unique, but a stream that existed and will exist, before and after the existence of man on Earth.
Nobody who has ever existed, or who ever will exist, should be arrogant about encryption. Because every practical approach to mathematically hiding information can be broken. I say this because OTP's done properly are not practical.
You ought to think twice next time before hitting Submit.
For instance, *no* ammount of time is sufficient to break an OTP without the key.
A strong, proper OTP would not be generated from a key at all.
So one could brute force the cipher text into the original plain text, but along with every other combination of possible "plain texts" of the same length. Meaning they wouldn't know they had the real plain text even if they did have it.
Real random OTP's are impossible to break to the plain text with any certaintly the same way a broken watch can tell the time correctly twice per day. : )
It is all in mp3 or ogg format and it is all from CDs that I personally own
Well thank God for that, eh!
or have borrowed from friends.
What was the point in telling us this? Downloading music is somehow worse morally than ripping from friends CD's?
Ok, it might feel really great touching that great, plastic surface, but I dont think that your "hand" will hold a rocket-launcher or a rail gin very well.
I have an old clamshell iBook, on which I write this. I realise your post touches on the poor accuracy and speed of pads within games, but I think you also unknowingly touch on something else...
When I'm finished with my typically long sessions with my iBook, my hand hurts and I don't feel like holding anything shortly after that.
I wonder how most people use trackpads? I'm right handed, I touch my pointing finger with my thumb as if holding a pen, the other fingers are folded in fist like while my pointing finger touches the pad with movement assistance from my thumb (which I find gives less jerky movement). If I ever need small accurate movements, I find rolling my finger around on one spot works very well.
Is this typical? I think my pain is from the fact that my hand is quite tense during usage in this position. I'd use my logitech optical wheel mouse, but I'm having too much fun using it with WindowMaker under OpenBSD. Which will hopefully soon also be on my iBook.
I can think of plenty of cases where this is apparently the case. How else can you explain the fact that tee-shirts which turn people into walking ads for Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc. sell for so much more than a blank tee-shirt?
Customer percieved value does not necessarily mean true added value to the customer.
They think it looks cool, because lots of other people think it looks cool, so they pay a much higher price. I don't see how this is any added value.
Those customers are merely victims.
Sorry.
You have to admit, it can be pretty hard around here telling the difference between the sarcastic (usually me), the stupid and the trolls.
Amen brother!
.gov depts. Some entities having machines numbered in the thousands for single sites and server rooms filled with machines (from Dell's to big iron) and networking gear that are well into 8 figures. I can absolutely back up your experiences.
Windows drags it down!
it's got some horrible quirks to it
With Unix, you setup a system, and unless someone intentionally changes something, your system will work perfectly until the end of time.
With Windows, you can install it on two identical system, with the same settings both times, one might work without a hitch, and the other will be so slow it's unusable. One might accept new hardware, the other might give you a blue-screen with that exact same card.
you have no choice but to reinstall
*** you've got to wonder how a system file would get corrupted when Admin never logs in ***
Windows NT/2000/XP has tons of services starting by default that should be disabled
with over 100 Windows 2000 machines, I've seen more action than you can imagine. I know the layout of the registry by heart... I know why Windows machines crash, and can recover machines that most of the so-called experts can't do anything with.
I've been around too. I've been taking care of NT since 3.51 for major
Windows is for all intents and purposes, is an enigma to those that need to keep it working.
Unix of all flavours on the other hand, just keep going and going.
Look at OSX. An infant on the Apple desktop, it has made incredible strides in a few years. Apple has been able to leverage the best parts of Unix into a super stable, super usable system that seems to have solved problems that Windows would appear will always have, whilst allowing a temporary bridge over from Apple legacy.
Microsoft tried, basing NT on VMS, but it looks like they'll never allow a good balance between usability and features.
ummm.. I've patched openssh on all my freebsd boxes more times than I've had to patch apache, sendmail and bind put together. Don't belive Theo's "auditing" propaganda.
OpenBSD is currently moving in directions to make even possibly future remotely exploitable services limited in the havoc they may wreak.
If the FreeBSD team have put together a more secure "FreeSSH", please point me to it.
Pop ups in games add value to the product. You are lucky the price isn't going up for these features.
Yeah, value to the producers. Which is why the game should be cheaper.
If it adds value to the consumer, I'd like to hear about it.