First, Apple's iTunes Music Store name is on the face different and does not conflict with Apple Corps. Second, ITMS is a online retailer and in a different market than Apple Corps. Third, Apple and Apple Corps settled and the contract says that Apple cannot use that name as a music label, and they are not. Fourth, Apple computers have been used to create, record, distribute and play music since 1984 without at all interfering with Apple Corps business. Fifth, Apple Corps has not been harmed by ITNS in any way. Sixth, Apple Corps is using trying to illegally interfere in Apple Computers business. Seventh, Apple Corps is opportunistically trying to hold Apple hostage and coerce monies from Apple for the sole purpose of Apple Corps unlawful gain.
Personally, I prefer the USB-bluetooth adapter approach since it means that I can easily upgrade to newer standards as needed. There are also nice USB-802.11 plug-ins too.
One more very important point, in Windows the right click can be changed to do different things besides a context menu. So different users understand the right click to mean different things. So from a usability point of view, the original Mac OS approach was a better implementation.
>>Just wait until the "right-click" concept just blows them away.>>
This has always been a stupid discussion point. You need to know the history. One of the biggest complaints among users generally was that their were not more keyboard equivalents to pull-down menu options. So, in the early days using a keyboard combination with another key created standard menu equivalents. So it was natural for users to use a ctrl-mouse click for additional shortcuts as it was the way menu shortcuts worked as well. Thus Macs have always had context menus.
When a second mouse button was introduced, Mac users were already used to the keyboard-mouse click approach. A second button meant a different way to do the same thing and that violates usability rules of the time. Though rules are made to be broken if the underlying principle stays in tact. What has occurred over the last decade is that many users have learned to use the second button for contextual commands and for many shortcut keys. So now the second button is natural. That is why Apple supports two and three button and scroll wheel mouses in OS X.
So the question is, should Apple release a two-button scroll-wheel mouse with Mac purchases? I don't think so, I believe generally a user should be taught good user interface guidelines up front, and these will be portable to other platforms. Every manufacturer includes a cheap mouse with their systems and charges extra for better mice. Likewise, any user can buy a different mouse really cheap if they don't like the included mouse. Personally, I usually just use the optical mouse I bought a year ago and store away the mouse that comes with newer Wintel or Mac PC's.
>>A G5 PowerBook?!? Are you mad? Have you looked at the size of the heatsink in the new Power Macs? Have you looked at it's specs? It isn't ready for a laptop. There will not be a G5 laptop for months, if not a year..>>
Oh no not again, why don't these people do their homework? Asked and Answered is the reply to this. Your wrong, the G5 does not have a fan directly on the CPU so it needs a larger heatsink. Put a fan on it, heat sink goes away. Apple cjose to put the fan off to the side to create efficient cooling zones, the fans spin very slow and are very quiet. In any case, the 970 puts out very little heat by comparison to the Pentium's and Athlons. And at 1.3GHz, the 970 doesn't need a fan at all.
>>Is it not funny! Apple fanatics that allways tell that MegaHurtz does not matter, now has found that their bus speed is higher!!! >>
Apple Fanatics still feel that the core CPU clock speed of the Pentium 4 is a marketing gimmick and when compared to the P4, MHz doesn't matter. Both AMD and Apple has shown that similar performance can be achieved at lower MHz than a P4 at a higher MHz. Nothing has changed other than the G5 is way faster now even still at lower MHz to top of the line P4's.
Besides that, Mac users have felt for some time that Apple needed a faster FSB for multimedia production applications. And now they have it.
Anyone know if Apple upped the FSB in the new iMacs?
Well the only AMD alternative is the 2GHz Opteron whose processor alone costs about 900/processor. You won't be able to get a dual 2GHz Opteron for less than Apple's retail dual 2GHz G5. Too, you have to make sure PCI-X slots are there for the interconnect cards they are using.
But as was stated elsewhere, the G5's can process twice the scalar FP instructions of the Opteron or the Itanium per cycle. The University as also relies on vector math and the G5's have a significantly better SIMD unit.
Yesterday's news, we're talking about the next list update. With the XEON P4 at number 3, it should be easy for this new G5 cluster to be in the top 5.
From manufacturer's specs on the Infiniband cards being ordered for the Virginia tech project:
Tests have proven that these HCAs provide up to 8 times the bandwidth of gigabit Ethernet. Additionally, tests conducted by Ohio State University have shown over 820 MBytes of delivered MPI bandwidth which is up to three times the bandwidth of existing proprietary high performance computing clusters interconnect technologies. Zero Byte latencies achieved are as low as 7.5 usec and large message latencies are as low as 1/3 of proprietary HPCC interconnects.
If the money granted was earmarked for a specific project their is nothing the university can do to transfer it to another need. It is either they use it or lose it. Fortunately these grants usually include monies for maintenance of the systems and the staff required, which means that personnel can be put under this new grant area and alleviate costs from another area. So in the end, grants like this help other areas of the school and will attract and create other sources of revenue.
Doesn't it also depend on the interconnect technology they decide on? Since the G5 architecture uses hypertransport for the PCI-X connection and switches the communications to the processor, we are not talking about the same level of latency that older generation PC's had, are we?
Isn't it premature to draw conclusions until we better understand how Apple and Virginia Tech plan to architect this new super type computer cluster?
All the PowerPC processors are binary compatible. Even the Power series from the Power2 forward to the Power5. The beauty of the PPC architecture, is that the physical implementation can be radically different, but the instruction set remains the same. (For the most part, the PowerPC ISA is still revised to it keep modern.)
What is different is the performance you may get when targeting a processor. The compiler can optimize your code to a particular processors physical implementation. For example, code compiled for the G5 will be structured to work better knowing how the G5 processes instructions down its pipeline, how it makes its decisions, caching, etc. But the 32-bit code will still work on a G4 albeit at a slower rate.
IBM is in the best position to understand the physical design of the G5 and thus they can make sure that when compiling code, the compiler chooses and structures the instructions that will run optimally for it. In addition, IBM is pretty advanced in developing optimization techniques and they bring a lot of intellectual property to the table. All this makes for some pretty serious optimizations that rival anything a more generalized compiler may be able to do.
What this means is that the Mac developer has another weapon in his arsenal for conquering performance issues. Consider it a free upgrade for your processor, the results are showing significant improvements that will work there way into OS X and performance sensitive Apps.
This is a G5 compiler thread, whose trolling? Your preaching to the wrong choir. While the cost of software is a factor, the cost in productivity outweighs it. A G5 is a multi-media dream PC. Real time renders and all that will make for better output, giving the G5 user the edge over the competition. All the big shops, the real pros and the major movie and multimedia production houses are drooling over the G5...
And why is Intel struggling to make even incremental performance boosts to the their Pentium lines? Why are they throwing back their delivery schedules for Prescott, etc.? The Pentium is near its EOL, the G5 is only starting. Intel gambled on the new Itanium architecture and it is not working out for them either. MSFT doesn't plan to put in 64-bit extensions into XP till its SP2 later in 2004, so AMD is screwed as well. The Wintel world is carrying the x86 and Win32 monkey on its back and it is crwling under the weight. Longhorn the solution? We will have to wait till 2006. In the meantime, IBM and Apple are moving like a race car.
Maybe we should use a word processor? Graphics and video are the biggest things to tax a CPU so they are the best for benchmarking. Apple's synthetic benchmarks which eliminated the compiler on the G5 side (GCC optimizes better for the Intel) showed the G5 to be faster at FP and Int operations on a per clock cycle basis. This is a fact. It is so much faster in fact that a 2GHz G5 is comparable to a 3GHz Pentium on Int and faster on FP. Think about that. The G5 is a superior design because it is a newer design. The Intel is simply showing its age, no reflection on its Engineers, I'm sure Intel engineers would love to be able to walk away from the legacy crap as easily as IBM can with the PPC architecture.
Now, an optimized Compiler for the G5 family is making its way to release and showing considerable promise to the PPC community. One would expect that a newer G5 with an optimized compiler should beat an aging Pentium with its optimized compiler, right? I mean, it is about time isn't it? One would think. And, it appears that Intel has some real competition now. Isn't that a good thing for both the camps? it certainly is.
You're a bozo. Apple's benchmarks were of the CPU only using GCC. Try the same benchmark using IBM's new compiler and the dual G5 breaks 1500 without a sweat.
You can't be that ignorant, it must be intentional.
Slashdot Mirror
L2 cache is 512KB from 256. I imagine this must be a major performance boost, since it runs at the core speed, what do you think?
Panther will remedy that.
First, Apple's iTunes Music Store name is on the face different and does not conflict with Apple Corps. Second, ITMS is a online retailer and in a different market than Apple Corps. Third, Apple and Apple Corps settled and the contract says that Apple cannot use that name as a music label, and they are not. Fourth, Apple computers have been used to create, record, distribute and play music since 1984 without at all interfering with Apple Corps business. Fifth, Apple Corps has not been harmed by ITNS in any way. Sixth, Apple Corps is using trying to illegally interfere in Apple Computers business. Seventh, Apple Corps is opportunistically trying to hold Apple hostage and coerce monies from Apple for the sole purpose of Apple Corps unlawful gain.
especially since most gov't employees besides the military are dems (big govt is self-serving after-all).
XP-Pro - $199 Warranty and repair- $200 iLife Suite for Windows- None. equivalent ~ $200. Appleworks or equiv - $79 to name a few...
Personally, I prefer the USB-bluetooth adapter approach since it means that I can easily upgrade to newer standards as needed. There are also nice USB-802.11 plug-ins too.
One more very important point, in Windows the right click can be changed to do different things besides a context menu. So different users understand the right click to mean different things. So from a usability point of view, the original Mac OS approach was a better implementation.
>>Just wait until the "right-click" concept just blows them away.>>
This has always been a stupid discussion point. You need to know the history. One of the biggest complaints among users generally was that their were not more keyboard equivalents to pull-down menu options. So, in the early days using a keyboard combination with another key created standard menu equivalents. So it was natural for users to use a ctrl-mouse click for additional shortcuts as it was the way menu shortcuts worked as well. Thus Macs have always had context menus.
When a second mouse button was introduced, Mac users were already used to the keyboard-mouse click approach. A second button meant a different way to do the same thing and that violates usability rules of the time. Though rules are made to be broken if the underlying principle stays in tact. What has occurred over the last decade is that many users have learned to use the second button for contextual commands and for many shortcut keys. So now the second button is natural. That is why Apple supports two and three button and scroll wheel mouses in OS X.
So the question is, should Apple release a two-button scroll-wheel mouse with Mac purchases? I don't think so, I believe generally a user should be taught good user interface guidelines up front, and these will be portable to other platforms. Every manufacturer includes a cheap mouse with their systems and charges extra for better mice. Likewise, any user can buy a different mouse really cheap if they don't like the included mouse. Personally, I usually just use the optical mouse I bought a year ago and store away the mouse that comes with newer Wintel or Mac PC's.
>>A G5 PowerBook?!? Are you mad? Have you looked at the size of the heatsink in the new Power Macs? Have you looked at it's specs? It isn't ready for a laptop. There will not be a G5 laptop for months, if not a year..>>
Oh no not again, why don't these people do their homework? Asked and Answered is the reply to this. Your wrong, the G5 does not have a fan directly on the CPU so it needs a larger heatsink. Put a fan on it, heat sink goes away. Apple cjose to put the fan off to the side to create efficient cooling zones, the fans spin very slow and are very quiet. In any case, the 970 puts out very little heat by comparison to the Pentium's and Athlons. And at 1.3GHz, the 970 doesn't need a fan at all.
>>Is it not funny! Apple fanatics that allways tell that MegaHurtz does not matter, now has found that their bus speed is higher!!! >> Apple Fanatics still feel that the core CPU clock speed of the Pentium 4 is a marketing gimmick and when compared to the P4, MHz doesn't matter. Both AMD and Apple has shown that similar performance can be achieved at lower MHz than a P4 at a higher MHz. Nothing has changed other than the G5 is way faster now even still at lower MHz to top of the line P4's. Besides that, Mac users have felt for some time that Apple needed a faster FSB for multimedia production applications. And now they have it. Anyone know if Apple upped the FSB in the new iMacs?
Well the only AMD alternative is the 2GHz Opteron whose processor alone costs about 900/processor. You won't be able to get a dual 2GHz Opteron for less than Apple's retail dual 2GHz G5. Too, you have to make sure PCI-X slots are there for the interconnect cards they are using. But as was stated elsewhere, the G5's can process twice the scalar FP instructions of the Opteron or the Itanium per cycle. The University as also relies on vector math and the G5's have a significantly better SIMD unit.
Yesterday's news, we're talking about the next list update. With the XEON P4 at number 3, it should be easy for this new G5 cluster to be in the top 5.
http://www.mellanox.com/products/shared/HCA_PO_050 _all.pdf
From manufacturer's specs on the Infiniband cards being ordered for the Virginia tech project: Tests have proven that these HCAs provide up to 8 times the bandwidth of gigabit Ethernet. Additionally, tests conducted by Ohio State University have shown over 820 MBytes of delivered MPI bandwidth which is up to three times the bandwidth of existing proprietary high performance computing clusters interconnect technologies. Zero Byte latencies achieved are as low as 7.5 usec and large message latencies are as low as 1/3 of proprietary HPCC interconnects.
Delivery time was obviously the key issue. The grant probably depended on it happening within a time frame, and Apple jumped to meet it.
If the money granted was earmarked for a specific project their is nothing the university can do to transfer it to another need. It is either they use it or lose it. Fortunately these grants usually include monies for maintenance of the systems and the staff required, which means that personnel can be put under this new grant area and alleviate costs from another area. So in the end, grants like this help other areas of the school and will attract and create other sources of revenue.
Doesn't it also depend on the interconnect technology they decide on? Since the G5 architecture uses hypertransport for the PCI-X connection and switches the communications to the processor, we are not talking about the same level of latency that older generation PC's had, are we? Isn't it premature to draw conclusions until we better understand how Apple and Virginia Tech plan to architect this new super type computer cluster?
All the PowerPC processors are binary compatible. Even the Power series from the Power2 forward to the Power5. The beauty of the PPC architecture, is that the physical implementation can be radically different, but the instruction set remains the same. (For the most part, the PowerPC ISA is still revised to it keep modern.)
What is different is the performance you may get when targeting a processor. The compiler can optimize your code to a particular processors physical implementation. For example, code compiled for the G5 will be structured to work better knowing how the G5 processes instructions down its pipeline, how it makes its decisions, caching, etc. But the 32-bit code will still work on a G4 albeit at a slower rate.
IBM is in the best position to understand the physical design of the G5 and thus they can make sure that when compiling code, the compiler chooses and structures the instructions that will run optimally for it. In addition, IBM is pretty advanced in developing optimization techniques and they bring a lot of intellectual property to the table. All this makes for some pretty serious optimizations that rival anything a more generalized compiler may be able to do.
What this means is that the Mac developer has another weapon in his arsenal for conquering performance issues. Consider it a free upgrade for your processor, the results are showing significant improvements that will work there way into OS X and performance sensitive Apps.
The G5 is both big and little endian. It is part of the PPC architecture. MSFT needs to clear up their statement.
This is a G5 compiler thread, whose trolling? Your preaching to the wrong choir. While the cost of software is a factor, the cost in productivity outweighs it. A G5 is a multi-media dream PC. Real time renders and all that will make for better output, giving the G5 user the edge over the competition. All the big shops, the real pros and the major movie and multimedia production houses are drooling over the G5...
It's binary compatible, so you can link to it just fine. Profile your code and separate the pat you need IBM's compiler to do its magic on.
And why is Intel struggling to make even incremental performance boosts to the their Pentium lines? Why are they throwing back their delivery schedules for Prescott, etc.? The Pentium is near its EOL, the G5 is only starting. Intel gambled on the new Itanium architecture and it is not working out for them either. MSFT doesn't plan to put in 64-bit extensions into XP till its SP2 later in 2004, so AMD is screwed as well. The Wintel world is carrying the x86 and Win32 monkey on its back and it is crwling under the weight. Longhorn the solution? We will have to wait till 2006. In the meantime, IBM and Apple are moving like a race car.
MS Office is already on OS X and I actually think it is superior to Office for Windows. Many reviewers share my sentiments.
Maybe we should use a word processor? Graphics and video are the biggest things to tax a CPU so they are the best for benchmarking. Apple's synthetic benchmarks which eliminated the compiler on the G5 side (GCC optimizes better for the Intel) showed the G5 to be faster at FP and Int operations on a per clock cycle basis. This is a fact. It is so much faster in fact that a 2GHz G5 is comparable to a 3GHz Pentium on Int and faster on FP. Think about that. The G5 is a superior design because it is a newer design. The Intel is simply showing its age, no reflection on its Engineers, I'm sure Intel engineers would love to be able to walk away from the legacy crap as easily as IBM can with the PPC architecture. Now, an optimized Compiler for the G5 family is making its way to release and showing considerable promise to the PPC community. One would expect that a newer G5 with an optimized compiler should beat an aging Pentium with its optimized compiler, right? I mean, it is about time isn't it? One would think. And, it appears that Intel has some real competition now. Isn't that a good thing for both the camps? it certainly is.
You're a bozo. Apple's benchmarks were of the CPU only using GCC. Try the same benchmark using IBM's new compiler and the dual G5 breaks 1500 without a sweat. You can't be that ignorant, it must be intentional.