Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » So then, I can't stop myself
| So then, I can't stop myself [message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 09:09  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I chimed
in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
urban myths of the platform irrational.
Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's see,
a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62866 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 08:13  |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sooo..........Macs do suck, as I always suspected?
;o)
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62868 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 09:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad,
I'm with you buddy..!! All of that Mac crap about G4 this G5 that from Apple
more specifically Mr Jobs was just lies!!
To think most MAc users just bought into that baloney instead of investigating
on their own speaks volume. Bashing PC's at evey turn. I know Mr jobs just
wave'd the "white flag", but it seems that most MAc user's still don;t understand
the ramifications of what just happended or their in denial that now more
so than ever their beloved Apple PC is just a PC..
P.S.
It not even a top of the line PC.. To do that, they would have wnt with AMD's
dual cores. Nope. A MAc PC is just middle of the pac PC not worht the price
their asking, but hey. A Tiger (wink wink!!) can't change it's stripes over
night...Can they???
LaMont
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62873 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 09:54 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
“So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
agrees with me, right?”
I didn’t say that about you but:
No.
Jobs said the new IMac is 2X-3X times faster than the old IMac.
The new IMac has a dual processor.
It is faster because it is a dual …and a faster processor.
It is true that OSX is reported to run faster on the Intel chip.
“So then, did the PPC chips suck?”
Never stopped me from getting covers, production deals etc. It also never
stopped me from enjoying the Mac as a creative tool.
I don’t know why you are so upset about what is obviously just marketing.
Do you know that all cars don’t actually get the listed MPG on the sticker?
Does that make Toyota suck, because they show the same lack of accuracy as
Ford?
AMD and Intel both lie in marketing literature. So what!
If you are angered by lies and misrepresentations, we should talk about our
government. That’s where lives are at risk. This stuff is old and silly.
Gene
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62874 is a reply to message #62873] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 10:01 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
>I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
>
>“So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?”
>
>I didn’t say that about you but:
>
>No.
>
>Jobs said the new IMac is 2X-3X times faster than the old IMac.
>The new IMac has a dual processor.
>It is faster because it is a dual …and a faster processor.
>
>It is true that OSX is reported to run faster on the Intel chip.
>
>
>“So then, did the PPC chips suck?”
>
>Never stopped me from getting covers, production deals etc. It also never
>stopped me from enjoying the Mac as a creative tool.
Of course the chips don't suck, if they did why would Sony put a derivative
of the same line in the PS3? We're not talking about usability, we're talking
about architicture.
TCB
>I don’t know why you are so upset about what is obviously just marketing.
>
>
>Do you know that all cars don’t actually get the listed MPG on the sticker?
>Does that make Toyota suck, because they show the same lack of accuracy
as
>Ford?
>
>AMD and Intel both lie in marketing literature. So what!
>
>If you are angered by lies and misrepresentations, we should talk about
our
>government. That’s where lives are at risk. This stuff is old and silly.
>
>Gene
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
>chimed
>>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>
>>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
>>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>see,
>>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
>>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>>
>>
>>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>
>>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>>agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62880 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 10:12 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
Macsters, see above for further insight.
El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62882 is a reply to message #62873] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 10:27 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this.
> I will stay out of this. I will stay out of this. Shit.
Like the moth to the flame...! Heehee...
For a long time now (actually, a decade or more) I have chosen my operating
system and hardware AFTER I have chosen my application. I have used
Altiverb, Digital Performer, Logic, Final Cut Pro and other apps that only
work on Macs. Sure, we can argue about speeds and costs forever more, amen,
but when it comes down to it, isn't it the app that really matters?
Long time quote from my ParisFAQs site:
<quote>
I've come here for an argument!
Which OS is better??? X vs. XP
My answer? If you can run Paris, who cares?!!
</quote>
--
-Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62883 is a reply to message #62880] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 11:35 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Another brainwashed zealot!
"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>
>
>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>
>
>
>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>
>
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>
>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>Celeron
>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
I
>chimed
>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
that
>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>zealot--clearly
>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>
>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>urban
>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>see,
>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>line
>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>>
>>
>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
and
>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>unintentionally)
>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>
>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>> agrees with me, right?
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62886 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 10:51 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For me the new laptop looks particularly interesting. Since Apple
laptops never got the benefit of the G5 due to power/heat/battery
issues, they've lagged with the G4. So the jump in processing speed with
a dual Intel using a brand spankin new chip design seems to offer a
pretty compelling jump in speed. Of course the speed jump depends on
having software compiled for it so it won't kick in for another month or
longer for some some software.
The new Intel chips will also be interesting with other operating systems.
I look forward to finding out about Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office
and other open source project plans for running on OSX with Intel.
TCB wrote:
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
Well, now you're an exaggerator, too. ;^)
Heh, no matter how you deny it, I think you're still a writer at your
core. From the Hunter S. school, most likely. :^)
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
(grin) Well it seems fairly probable that a dual processor chip could
possibly be twice as fast as a single processor chip, minus the overhead
but plus any advantages from the newer design. Let us know if you
discover anything about design problems or improvements with the new
chips, OSX upgrade and compiler upgrades.
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
Let us know what you find out.
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?
It was only lil' ol' me that said you said something that sounded like
an urban myth. But we settled all that already. Nothing left to take
back. Oh, and I also called you dude. I take that back. Oh, and I think
I called you an Linux zealot. But that's a complement, so I'll let that
stand.
Not the brainwashed bit, though, that was someone else.
If you find out further info about kernel or compiler issues or
improvements during the Intel transition, please keep us posted.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62888 is a reply to message #62863] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 11:15 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yawn.
Thad, I use Macs at home (for music,etc.) and PC's at work so my comments
are based on my experiences with both OSX and XP. I haven't used an open
source OS yet, so I can't speak to that. I also don't dispute any factual
observations you make about computer code. How can I? I'm not a programmer.
I just plain like OSX better than XP. The speed of the machine in my case is
almost a moot point, as long as it does what I want it to reasonably
quickly. I don't care if I have to wait 3 seconds longer to process a file.
I don't care if I can only run 50 VST plug ins vs. 70. For me, it's all
about comfort, and I'm more comfortable with OSX.
I'm not an expert on benchmark testing so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure when Apple puts up benchmark results, that they choose those tests
that show the Mac in the best light. What company wouldn't? To my
recollection, the benchmark tests shown by Apple show how the Mac performs
certain things (usually Photoshop processes) compared to much higher clock
rate PC's. So if Apple shows a dual 2.0 GHz G5 benchmarks faster in a
certain task than a dual 2.0 GHz (or faster) P4, Xeon, etc. are they lying?
If Apple says they make the fastest personal computers and they are lying,
why haven't Intel, Microsoft, Dell, etc. sued their ass into oblivion? Mind
you, I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious. It's a pretty big claim,
so I'd think these much bigger companies would call them on it.
Now, about the new Intel Macs. I don't dispute with you that Apple may have
crappy code or kernel or whatever running the PPC. I remember the promise of
RISC chips was always touted over CISC chips and I suppose this "bad" kernel
implementation by Apple could explain why the promised potential was never
realized. Again, I'm not an expert in this area. So now we find that OSX
runs much faster on Intel chips. I don't see the downside here. Yippee for
us Mac guys! I just bought a NOS Dual 2GHz G5 a month ago. I knew the Intel
boxes were coming, but I also knew there could be some bugs to work out and
some wait for the software vendors to catch up and I don't like to be a beta
tester when that much money is involved. I got the G5 at a good price and
the speed increase over my G4 is very noticeable. I'm happy with my
purchase. In 18 months or so I'll probably go for the fastest Intel Mac
available. Not because I'll necessarily need it, but because I'm a gear slut
and that's just what we do. Plus, by then I'm sure there will be some cool
super demanding app out there that might require more horsepower.
Anyway, I know your post wasn't directed at me, as I didn't dispute any of
your previous comments, but I can see how you can be viewed as a Mac basher.
Maybe it's just your style of communicating and maybe it's an unfair
characterization, but I can see why some Mac users could take offense. I
think both Mac and PC users have a certain sense of pride in their gear and
it's hard not to take an attack on that gear as somewhat personal. My two
cents anyway.
Tony
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>
> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
> Celeron
> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
> chimed
> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
> zealot--clearly
> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
> urban
> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
> see,
> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
> line
> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
> unintentionally)
> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62901 is a reply to message #62886] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 14:54 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>For me the new laptop looks particularly interesting. Since Apple
>laptops never got the benefit of the G5 due to power/heat/battery
>issues, they've lagged with the G4. So the jump in processing speed with
>a dual Intel using a brand spankin new chip design seems to offer a
>pretty compelling jump in speed. Of course the speed jump depends on
>having software compiled for it so it won't kick in for another month or
>longer for some some software.
>
>The new Intel chips will also be interesting with other operating systems.
>
>I look forward to finding out about Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office
>and other open source project plans for running on OSX with Intel.
Since those apps use X86 compilers with a long and superb development tree
I can't imagine it will be that long before they move over. In fact, I would
expect things like Firefox the be running nearly bug free on Intel OS X before
most commercial apps get there.
>TCB wrote:
>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
I chimed
>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
that
>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Well, now you're an exaggerator, too. ;^)
>
>Heh, no matter how you deny it, I think you're still a writer at your
>core. From the Hunter S. school, most likely. :^)
>
>
>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>(grin) Well it seems fairly probable that a dual processor chip could
>possibly be twice as fast as a single processor chip, minus the overhead
>but plus any advantages from the newer design. Let us know if you
>discover anything about design problems or improvements with the new
>chips, OSX upgrade and compiler upgrades.
>
Come now, Jamie, you know better than that. Dual processor machines don't
get anywhere near twice the performance in the absolute best of situations.
Getting 1.5X is considered very good unless apps are specifically designed
for many processors. And the more processes one tacks on the board the less
the performance improvement until essentially all that's left is some advantages
in multi-threading when some processes can just take their own chip to run
on.
Now then, I went back and checked the original post and I got it only partially
right. It was a 3 Ghz Celeron that "spanked a Dual G5 in a HUGE way." This
comes from Pete Leoni, who has forgotten more about computer hardware than
I'll ever know. It would not surprise me at all to find that Apple is the
first computer company ever to under report their performance. We'll see.
>
>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
and
>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>Let us know what you find out.
I think that will be the most interesting piece of this puzzle, for sure.
>
>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>> agrees with me, right?
>
>It was only lil' ol' me that said you said something that sounded like
>an urban myth. But we settled all that already. Nothing left to take
>back. Oh, and I also called you dude. I take that back. Oh, and I think
>I called you an Linux zealot. But that's a complement, so I'll let that
>stand.
>
>Not the brainwashed bit, though, that was someone else.
>
>If you find out further info about kernel or compiler issues or
>improvements during the Intel transition, please keep us posted.
Will do.
TCB
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62910 is a reply to message #62901] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 15:38 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>I look forward to finding out about Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office
>>and other open source project plans for running on OSX with Intel.
>
> Since those apps use X86 compilers with a long and superb development tree
> I can't imagine it will be that long before they move over. In fact, I would
> expect things like Firefox the be running nearly bug free on Intel OS X before
> most commercial apps get there.
That would be great, they are very useful cross-platform apps.
>>(grin) Well it seems fairly probable that a dual processor chip could
>>possibly be twice as fast as a single processor chip, minus the overhead
>>but plus any advantages from the newer design. Let us know if you
>>discover anything about design problems or improvements with the new
>>chips, OSX upgrade and compiler upgrades.
>
> Come now, Jamie, you know better than that. Dual processor machines don't
> get anywhere near twice the performance in the absolute best of situations.
That's why I mentioned "minus the overhead." Although I _have_ seen some
tests where some apps did do surprisingly close to double the speed but
I can't remember the specifics. Might've been BeOS. Alzheimer's is
kicking in...
> Getting 1.5X is considered very good unless apps are specifically designed
> for many processors. And the more processes one tacks on the board the less
> the performance improvement until essentially all that's left is some advantages
> in multi-threading when some processes can just take their own chip to run
> on.
>
> Now then, I went back and checked the original post and I got it only partially
> right. It was a 3 Ghz Celeron that "spanked a Dual G5 in a HUGE way." This
> comes from Pete Leoni, who has forgotten more about computer hardware than
> I'll ever know. It would not surprise me at all to find that Apple is the
> first computer company ever to under report their performance. We'll see.
From what you posted before, we were talking about a test where the
Intel running Linux (wasn't it?) beat a dual G5 (2GHZ only?) with the
then-current version of OSX in a specific multi-threading situation. It
didn't spank on every test, and where Altivec was used the G5 won out.
If we're talking about the same test.
Of course there's lies, damn lies and benchmarks. For which you rightly
criticize Jobs as a cherry-picker, as are many people when the time
comes to market a system. Where benchmarks are most useful though is
when a benchmark can closely represent a real-world situation, such as
rendering tests with a 3D app, speed of oft-used image filters (although
those are moving to real time performance with the GPU under OSX's
core-image) or testing other actual apps under high loads (like your
threading test apparently did).
>>Let us know what you find out.
> I think that will be the most interesting piece of this puzzle, for sure.
It will be interesting to see how OSX/Intel does on threading compared
with OSX/PPC, using the latest versions and chips. And of course the
other stuff folks around here are likely to do such as track/plugin
counts with a sequencer, 3D rendering, multiple real-time HD video
streams, etc.
The upside is it all gets faster over time.
>>If you find out further info about kernel or compiler issues or
>>improvements during the Intel transition, please keep us posted.
>
>
> Will do.
Cool, thanks.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62912 is a reply to message #62883] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 19:01 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple computer,
Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
old! But I'll Play!
As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are faster
than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in both
models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros yet!!!
Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based machines
available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first. Give
it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get faster.
Right now it's Apples first offering.
Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for yourself,
and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of information
and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the keynote
speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for releasing
faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold war.
Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and product
development. Well that's my opinion.
As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested against
a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using industry
standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4 1.42
MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent testing,
If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I have
my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE BULLSHIT!!!
I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's hearsay.
I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly equipped???
Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
I think people can see from the test above that something is not right about
the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other way
around.
Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Another brainwashed zealot!
That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
>"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>>
>>
>>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>>
>>
>>
>>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>>
>>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>>Celeron
>>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
>I
>>chimed
>>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>that
>>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>>zealot--clearly
>>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>>
>>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>>urban
>>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>>see,
>>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>>line
>>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>>>
>>>
>>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
>and
>>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>>unintentionally)
>>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>>
>>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>>> agrees with me, right?
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62915 is a reply to message #62912] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 19:16 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's hearsay.
I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
equipped???
I'd like to know this too, but the *guy* you refer to, Pete Leoni, isn't
some wanker. He's been at this computer stuff since a lot of us were
molecular tidbits in the primordial ooze and I'm confident that Morgan
wouldn't come here and pound sand about something like this......unless it
wasn't really Morgan....... maybe it was George Bush lying again.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c5b865$1@linux...
>
> Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
> Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
> lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
> it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
> and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple
computer,
> Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
> What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
> this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
> old! But I'll Play!
>
> As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
> designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are
faster
> than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
both
> models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
> The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
yet!!!
> Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
machines
> available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>
> It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
> is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
Give
> it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get
faster.
> Right now it's Apples first offering.
>
> Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
> their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for
yourself,
> and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of
information
> and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the
keynote
> speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
> Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
> out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
releasing
> faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
> be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
> part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
> five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
> event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
> based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
war.
> Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
product
> development. Well that's my opinion.
>
>
> As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>
> In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested
against
> a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using
industry
> standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
> tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4
1.42
> MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
> about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent
testing,
> If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
have
> my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>
>
> Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>
> Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
> the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>
> http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>
> It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
> a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE
BULLSHIT!!!
> I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's
hearsay.
> I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
> to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
equipped???
>
> Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
> more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
> usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>
> Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
> it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
> to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>
> I think people can see from the test above that something is not right
about
> the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
way
> around.
>
> Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
> >
> >Another brainwashed zealot!
>
> That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
> >
> >"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=10
98
> >>
> >>
> >>Macsters, see above for further insight.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
> >>>
> >>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
> >>Celeron
> >>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
> >I
> >>chimed
> >>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
> >that
> >>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
> >>zealot--clearly
> >>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie
peddling
> >>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
> >>>
> >>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
> >>urban
> >>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And
we're
> >>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So,
let's
> >>see,
> >>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
> >>line
> >>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
World.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
railroad
> >>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly
parallel
> >>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a
decade,
> >>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
> >and
> >>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
> >>unintentionally)
> >>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
> >>>
> >>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that
Steve
> >>> agrees with me, right?
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62918 is a reply to message #62912] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 20:06 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Give it a rest James, this is all getting really tiresome.
WHO CARES.....
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43c5b865$1@linux...
>
> Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
> Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
> lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
> it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
> and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple
> computer,
> Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
> What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
> this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
> old! But I'll Play!
>
> As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
> designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are
> faster
> than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
> both
> models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
> The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
> yet!!!
> Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
> machines
> available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>
> It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
> is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
> Give
> it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get
> faster.
> Right now it's Apples first offering.
>
> Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
> their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for
> yourself,
> and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of
> information
> and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the
> keynote
> speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
> Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
> out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
> releasing
> faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
> be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
> part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
> five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
> event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
> based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
> war.
> Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
> product
> development. Well that's my opinion.
>
>
> As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>
> In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested
> against
> a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using
> industry
> standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
> tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4
> 1.42
> MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
> about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent
> testing,
> If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
> have
> my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>
>
> Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>
> Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
> the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>
> http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>
> It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
> a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE
> BULLSHIT!!!
> I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's
> hearsay.
> I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
> to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly
> equipped???
>
> Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
> more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
> usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>
> Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
> it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
> to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>
> I think people can see from the test above that something is not right
> about
> the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
> way
> around.
>
> Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Another brainwashed zealot!
>
> That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
>>
>>"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>>>
>>>
>>>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>>>Celeron
>>>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
>>I
>>>chimed
>>>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>>that
>>>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>>>zealot--clearly
>>>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie
>>>> peddling
>>>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>>>
>>>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>>>urban
>>>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And
>>>> we're
>>>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>>>see,
>>>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>>>line
>>>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
>>>> World.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
>>>> railroad
>>>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly
>>>> parallel
>>>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a
>>>> decade,
>>>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
>>and
>>>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>>>unintentionally)
>>>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>>>
>>>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that
>>>> Steve
>>>> agrees with me, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62924 is a reply to message #62912] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 22:27 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey James,
Just to be clear, I did *not* respond to your post, I started a new thread.
Thread, of course, rhymes with red, which was the color of the most famous
cars made by Enzo Ferrari, and Ferrari rhymes with Campari (and they're both
red and Italian too). Campari of course is a drink, and drink rhymes with
think, and think is something I always do before I start to write. Think
I did before I posted on the original thread (which rhymes with red . . .)
in which I offered (at the point polite) references to how using OS X and
Yellow Dog Linux on the same Apple hardware showed, in some situatoins, DRASTIC
differences in performance and none of them good for OS X. Knowing a bit
about computers I tossed out some explanations for why this might be true,
centering on kernel design. Jamie gamely gave me a few good links that talked
about other things that argued against kernel issues and for potential problems
wtih compilers. You called me names.
So, we now had two pieces of evidence at hand. First, *proof* that OS X was
extremely inefficient in some not in any way unusual computing scenarios
*when compared to another operating system on the same Apple hardware.* Second
was a report from Morgan Pettinato that Pete Leoni had found some incredible
performance on pretty junky Intel hardware running a developer version of
OS X. If arguing about computers with me is usually a losing battle, arguing
with Pete is like trying to stop an airplane with a tennis racquet.
What I will find most interesting if is this guy Pete Leoni will post his
results comparing a non-developer version of OS X to the one he was using.
THAT would be insightful, because we could get an idea of whether Apple was
making some "quick and dirty" stuff available to developers to get going
on OS X Intel that wouldn't go to the end users, and would help us understand
if it's kernel changes or compiler changes that are making the OS run fast
on Intel hardware. Then again, judging by the links you've provided your
primary source for information about Apple performance comes from . . . apple.com.
Because, as I've said, the underlying technology in the Power family is great
stuff. One of the reasons the G4 and G5 chips have been so successful in
academia is that the vector units are truly something special. Code your
app for those and they'll chew through other processors like butter. Apparently
they weren't easy to code for (compilers again?) but I remenber a few years
back talking to a developer friend of mine. This guy was a REAL geek, he
built command line audio applications on SGI boxes back when adding reverb
to a file was an overnight process. He said to me, in essence over a long
dinner, "That vector unit on the G4s is incredible. I rewrote the filter
algorithms in [plug-in I can't name] just for fun and I could have gotten
at least 8 filters running instead of two. Maybe more, because it was pretty
ugly assembly code I wrote, but I can't move the assembly code to any other
processors [back then this meant both other PPC chips and X86 chips] so until
there are tools to really use those vector units I just can't really."
Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen this time.
TCB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
>Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
>lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
>it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
>and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple computer,
>Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
> What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
>this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
>old! But I'll Play!
>
>As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
>designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are faster
>than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
both
>models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
> The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
yet!!!
> Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
machines
>available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>
>It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
>is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
Give
>it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get faster.
> Right now it's Apples first offering.
>
>Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
>their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for yourself,
>and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of information
>and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the keynote
>speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
>Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
>out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
releasing
>faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
>be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
>part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
>five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
>event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
>based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
war.
> Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
product
>development. Well that's my opinion.
>
>
>As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>
>In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested against
>a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using industry
>standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
>tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4 1.42
>MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
>about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent testing,
>If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
have
>my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>
>
>Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>
>http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>
>Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
>the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>
>http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>
>It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
>a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE BULLSHIT!!!
> I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's hearsay.
> I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
>to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly equipped???
>
>Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
>more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
>usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>
>Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
>it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
>to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>
>I think people can see from the test above that something is not right about
>the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
way
>around.
>
>Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Another brainwashed zealot!
>
>That's the pot calling kettle black!
>
>>
>>"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>>>
>>>
>>>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>>>Celeron
>>>> system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
>>I
>>>chimed
>>>> in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>>that
>>>> I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>>>zealot--clearly
>>>> far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>>>> urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>>>
>>>> Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>>>urban
>>>> M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>>>> hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>>>see,
>>>> a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right
in
>>>line
>>>> with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
World.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>>>> right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>>>> version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>>>> the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
>>and
>>>> so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>>>unintentionally)
>>>> raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>>>
>>>> So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>>>> agrees with me, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62930 is a reply to message #62924] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 23:10 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad, most of those links I gave you were to help answer your
question about how difficult (or not) it will be to create Intel
binaries for OSX. I hope they were useful for that, as well as any
compiler insights.
The next couple of months should be interesting...
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> Hey James,
>
> Just to be clear, I did *not* respond to your post, I started a new thread.
> Thread, of course, rhymes with red, which was the color of the most famous
> cars made by Enzo Ferrari, and Ferrari rhymes with Campari (and they're both
> red and Italian too). Campari of course is a drink, and drink rhymes with
> think, and think is something I always do before I start to write. Think
> I did before I posted on the original thread (which rhymes with red . . .)
> in which I offered (at the point polite) references to how using OS X and
> Yellow Dog Linux on the same Apple hardware showed, in some situatoins, DRASTIC
> differences in performance and none of them good for OS X. Knowing a bit
> about computers I tossed out some explanations for why this might be true,
> centering on kernel design. Jamie gamely gave me a few good links that talked
> about other things that argued against kernel issues and for potential problems
> wtih compilers. You called me names.
>
> So, we now had two pieces of evidence at hand. First, *proof* that OS X was
> extremely inefficient in some not in any way unusual computing scenarios
> *when compared to another operating system on the same Apple hardware.* Second
> was a report from Morgan Pettinato that Pete Leoni had found some incredible
> performance on pretty junky Intel hardware running a developer version of
> OS X. If arguing about computers with me is usually a losing battle, arguing
> with Pete is like trying to stop an airplane with a tennis racquet.
>
> What I will find most interesting if is this guy Pete Leoni will post his
> results comparing a non-developer version of OS X to the one he was using.
> THAT would be insightful, because we could get an idea of whether Apple was
> making some "quick and dirty" stuff available to developers to get going
> on OS X Intel that wouldn't go to the end users, and would help us understand
> if it's kernel changes or compiler changes that are making the OS run fast
> on Intel hardware. Then again, judging by the links you've provided your
> primary source for information about Apple performance comes from . . . apple.com.
>
> Because, as I've said, the underlying technology in the Power family is great
> stuff. One of the reasons the G4 and G5 chips have been so successful in
> academia is that the vector units are truly something special. Code your
> app for those and they'll chew through other processors like butter. Apparently
> they weren't easy to code for (compilers again?) but I remenber a few years
> back talking to a developer friend of mine. This guy was a REAL geek, he
> built command line audio applications on SGI boxes back when adding reverb
> to a file was an overnight process. He said to me, in essence over a long
> dinner, "That vector unit on the G4s is incredible. I rewrote the filter
> algorithms in [plug-in I can't name] just for fun and I could have gotten
> at least 8 filters running instead of two. Maybe more, because it was pretty
> ugly assembly code I wrote, but I can't move the assembly code to any other
> processors [back then this meant both other PPC chips and X86 chips] so until
> there are tools to really use those vector units I just can't really."
>
> Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen this time.
>
> TCB
>
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Once again, I just posted information about what is going on with the new
>>Macs. I wasn't looking for an argument on what is faster, better, who is
>>lying. So here we go again, somebody mentions something about Apple, and
>>it's bash time! Well I'm glad at least some people can see through this
>>and clearly see the axe you grind. It's Ok if you don't like Apple computer,
>>Steve Jobs, Mac OSX, Apple hardware, Apple software, or the G5 processor.
>>What's not Ok is anytime any of these things or people are mentioned on
>>this NG it turns in to a mud slinging fest. That sucks! This is getting
>>old! But I'll Play!
>>
>>As for Apples announcements, it doesn't prove a thing accept that , newer
>>designs, faster bussing speeds, faster memory, and two processors are faster
>>than one. Apple went with the first processor available and used it in
>
> both
>
>>models. It's not the fastest Intel chip that will be available to them.
>>The iMac is a consumer model, they haven't released the Mac Tower Pros
>
> yet!!!
>
>>Although, when they do, I'll bet they won't be the fastest Intel based
>
> machines
>
>>available. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
>>
>>It's no secret that the PowerBook was lagging way behind. I believe that
>>is why the got the Mac Book pro out to their business customers first.
>
> Give
>
>>it time, Intel will release faster chips and the Mac Book Pro will get faster.
>>Right now it's Apples first offering.
>>
>>Jobs does a great job as CEO, and he does know how to put a good spin on
>>their products, he just did it yesterday! You should go find out for yourself,
>>and find out what he really did say, instead of hearing a tidbit of information
>>and jumping to a lot of wrong conclusions! I recommend watching the keynote
>>speech, although the PC zealots wouldn't be able to stomach the truth.
>
>
>>Apple had to do what Apple had to do. IBM couldn't get a G5 mobile chip
>>out that worked. On the desk top, IBM did not meet their time line for
>
> releasing
>
>>faster G5 chips, and I don't think they could tell Apple when they would
>>be able to. Apple always knew that this would be a possibility, that is
>>part of why they have been running Mac OSX on Intel systems for the past
>>five years now. The other reason I believe they were doing this is in the
>>event MS dropped Office for the Mac they would be ready to roll out Intel
>>based Macs and or Mac OSX for the PC. sort of a computer software cold
>
> war.
>
>>Notice they signed a five year plus operating agreement on support and
>
> product
>
>>development. Well that's my opinion.
>>
>>
>>As for the question on Apples past processor performance.
>>
>>In the past the Apple PowerMac G4 with a single processor were tested against
>>a standard Intel Pentium 4, by independent computer test labs, using industry
>>standard test software. An Apple PowerMac G4 1.25 single processor model
>>tested in the speed range of a Pentium 4 2.8 to 3.0 GHz. Later the G4 1.42
>>MHz's were tested against the original 1.6 to 2.0MHz G 5s. The G5s were
>>about 70% faster than the G4. There has been all kinds of independent testing,
>>If Apple was lying about performance they would have gotten sued. So I
>
> have
>
>>my doubts about Celerons eating G 5s. Check out both links.
>>
>>
>>Here is some performance info on the G5 dual 2.7GHz.
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
>>
>>Here is info on the performance of the Apple G5 quad 2.5 GHz compared to
>>the G5 dual 2.7. About 70% faster performance.
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/au/powermac/
>>
>>It's not logical to think that a Celeron could eat a G5. So when I hear
>>a rumor that a 2.8GHz Celeron ate a G5, it makes me think it's PURE BULLSHIT!!!
>>I asked Morgan to get the guy to post on the NG. Until then, it's hearsay.
>>I'd like to know what scientific testing standards he used??? I'd like
>>to know which model G5 was tested??? Where the machines similarly equipped???
>>
>>Anything is possible, but I think it is just another PC zealot spreading
>>more bogus rumors about Macs. I'll stick with lab testing and real world
>>usefulness, not B.S. rumors.
>>
>>Just because some guy says something is so, and ten thousand people repeat
>>it, doesn't mean it's true. Even a bad rumor with one leg will find away
>>to get around! Even though it has nothing to stand on!
>>
>>I think people can see from the test above that something is not right about
>>the rumors, but of corse the PC zealots will argue that it is the other
>
> way
>
>>around.
>>
>>Some people just won't let the facts get in the way of their opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Another brainwashed zealot!
>>
>>That's the pot calling kettle black!
>>
>>
>>>"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&a mp;task=view&id=1098
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Macsters, see above for further insight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>El Miguel (yes, Thad's a cad, but for other reasons entirely :)-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43c52db6$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>>>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>>>>
>>>>Celeron
>>>>
>>>>>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed,
>>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>>chimed
>>>>
>>>>>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>>>>
>>>>zealot--clearly
>>>>
>>>>>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>>>>>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>>>>>
>>>>>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>>>>
>>>>urban
>>>>
>>>>>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>>>>>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>>>>
>>>>see,
>>>>
>>>>>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right
>
> in
>
>>>>line
>>>>
>>>>>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
>
> World.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>>>>>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>>>>>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>>>>>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches,
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>>>>
>>>>unintentionally)
>>>>
>>>>>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>>>>>
>>>>>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>>>>>agrees with me, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62931 is a reply to message #62863] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 02:24 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more 96k
tracks, vsti instruments and plugins than my g4 at 48k...phew.
On 12 Jan 2006 03:09:26 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz Celeron
>system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I chimed
>in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For that
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software zealot--clearly
>far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>urban myths of the platform irrational.
>
>Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed urban
>M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's see,
>a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in line
>with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac World.
>
>
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the railroad
>right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps unintentionally)
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>
>So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>agrees with me, right?
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62943 is a reply to message #62931] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 07:27 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more 96k
nah, you is just crazy
El Loco
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:febcs19m570d8gsnu1iap4h089ql6fl7pp@4ax.com...
> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more 96k
> tracks, vsti instruments and plugins than my g4 at 48k...phew.
>
> On 12 Jan 2006 03:09:26 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> >system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
chimed
> >in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
that
> >I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> >far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
> >urban myths of the platform irrational.
> >
> >Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
urban
> >M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
> >hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
see,
> >a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
line
> >with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
World.
> >
> >
> >So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
railroad
> >right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
> >version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
> >the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
> >so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> >raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
> >
> >So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
> >agrees with me, right?
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62964 is a reply to message #62943] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 11:56 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C61788.593A4560
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm sticking with my Amiga 2000.
"Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message =
news:43c675c3@linux...
> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more =
96k
nah, you is just crazy
El Loco
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:febcs19m570d8gsnu1iap4h089ql6fl7pp@4ax.com...
> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more =
96k
> tracks, vsti instruments and plugins than my g4 at 48k...phew.
>
> On 12 Jan 2006 03:09:26 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
Celeron
> >system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful =
scoffed, I
chimed
> >in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. =
For
that
> >I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
zealot--clearly
> >far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie =
peddling
> >urban myths of the platform irrational.
> >
> >Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his =
brainwashed
urban
> >M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And =
we're
> >hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, =
let's
see,
> >a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right =
in
line
> >with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
World.
> >
> >
> >So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
railroad
> >right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly =
parallel
> >version of it in the most important product they've launched in a =
decade,
> >the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network =
switches, and
> >so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
unintentionally)
> >raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
> >
> >So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that =
Steve
> >agrees with me, right?
>
------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C61788.593A4560
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm sticking with my Amiga =
2000.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Miguel Vigil" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:nospam@nospam.com">nospam@nospam.com</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
href=3D"news:43c675c3@linux">news:43c675c3@linux</A>...</DIV>> so =
then i'm=20
not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more =
96k<BR><BR><BR>nah, you=20
is just crazy<BR><BR><BR>El=20
Loco<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR ><BR><BR>"rick" =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:parnell68@hotmail.com">parnell68@hotmail.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:febcs19m570d8gsnu1iap4h089ql6fl7pp@4ax.com">news:febcs19m570=
d8gsnu1iap4h089ql6fl7pp@4ax.com</A>...<BR>>=20
so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more =
96k<BR>>=20
tracks, vsti instruments and plugins than my g4 at =
48k...phew.<BR>><BR>>=20
On 12 Jan 2006 03:09:26 +1000, "TCB" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:nobody@ishere.com">nobody@ishere.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>><BR>> ><BR>> >A few weeks back someone =
posted that=20
Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz<BR>Celeron<BR>> >system =
outperforming top=20
flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I<BR>chimed<BR>> =
>in that=20
there were good technical reasons why this might be true. =
For<BR>that<BR>>=20
>I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free=20
software<BR>zealot--clearly<BR>> >far too biased to take =
all THAT=20
seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling<BR>> >urban myths of =
the=20
platform irrational.<BR>> ><BR>> >Flash forward a bit, and =
now=20
it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed<BR>urban<BR>> =
>M$oft/linux=20
pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're<BR>>=20
>hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So,=20
let's<BR>see,<BR>> >a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz =
PPC=20
seems, well, right in<BR>line<BR>> >with El Presidente for Life =
Estebahn=20
Jobs is saying on stage at Mac<BR>World.<BR>> ><BR>> =
><BR>>=20
>So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony=20
the<BR>railroad<BR>> >right of way under Lake Superior since =
they're=20
using a massivly parallel<BR>> >version of it in the most =
important=20
product they've launched in a decade,<BR>> >the PS. Oh, and =
they're all=20
over the place in cars, network switches, and<BR>> >so on. I =
guessed=20
kernel changes on OS X, though others =
(perhaps<BR>unintentionally)<BR>>=20
>raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the =
race.<BR>>=20
><BR>> >So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth =
stuff now=20
that Steve<BR>> >agrees with me,=20
right?<BR>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C61788.593A4560--
|
|
|
|
| Re: So then, I can't stop myself [message #62994 is a reply to message #62943] |
Fri, 13 January 2006 01:35 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
if my arms weren't strapped behind my back i'd type something
clever...man, this is killing my nose.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:27:08 -0700, "Miguel Vigil" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more 96k
>
>
>nah, you is just crazy
>
>
>El Loco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:febcs19m570d8gsnu1iap4h089ql6fl7pp@4ax.com...
>> so then i'm not crazy that my 2.4 single processor p4 can run more 96k
>> tracks, vsti instruments and plugins than my g4 at 48k...phew.
>>
>> On 12 Jan 2006 03:09:26 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >A few weeks back someone posted that Pete Leoni had a roughly 2 Ghz
>Celeron
>> >system outperforming top flight G5 systems. The Mac faithful scoffed, I
>chimed
>> >in that there were good technical reasons why this might be true. For
>that
>> >I was alternately called a M$oft zealout and a free software
>zealot--clearly
>> >far too biased to take all THAT seriously. A brainwashed zombie peddling
>> >urban myths of the platform irrational.
>> >
>> >Flash forward a bit, and now it's not nut job Thad and his brainwashed
>urban
>> >M$oft/linux pablum talking about performance, it's Steve Jobs! And we're
>> >hearing that Intel chips will be "2X-5X" faster than the G5s! So, let's
>see,
>> >a 2 Ghz Cele outperforming a dual quad 2 Ghz PPC seems, well, right in
>line
>> >with El Presidente for Life Estebahn Jobs is saying on stage at Mac
>World.
>> >
>> >
>> >So then, did the PPC chips suck? If they do someone sold Sony the
>railroad
>> >right of way under Lake Superior since they're using a massivly parallel
>> >version of it in the most important product they've launched in a decade,
>> >the PS. Oh, and they're all over the place in cars, network switches, and
>> >so on. I guessed kernel changes on OS X, though others (perhaps
>unintentionally)
>> >raised hideously bad compilers as another pony in the race.
>> >
>> >So everyone takes back that brainwashed, urban myth stuff now that Steve
>> >agrees with me, right?
>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 12 23:58:33 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02646 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
