Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Demonstrates A Dual-G4 Power Mac 139

Posted by timothy from the toldja-so-toldja-so-did-not-did-not dept.
caligula writes: "Just saw this [macnn.com report]: 'Tuesday, May 17 updated 2:30 pm, top stories. During the hardware keynote of WWDC, which ended just minutes ago, Apple demonstrated a dual-processor G4 Power Mac running Mac OS X. Of note to developers is that Cocoa/Carbon applications do not need to be changed in any way to take advantage of multi-processors. Benchmark demonstrations ran roughly twice as fast on the dual-G4 system compared to the single-G4 Power Mac that was on stage. No mention was given as to when these multiprocessor G4s would ship, although it was stressed that it would not be happening any time soon but that they would definitely be out by next year's WWDC.'" JonahLee pointed out a related link on macosrumors.com, and migooch noted this slightly more informative ZDne t story. Mortals still must wait at least 'til January.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Demonstrates A Dual-G4 Power Mac More

Apple Demonstrates A Dual-G4 Power Mac

Comments Filter:

  • Linux/PPC support? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anyone currently using dual 604e / G3s care to comment on how well the Linux/PPC kernel handles dual Macintosh processors?
  • (after First Post)

    seriously - these are some really kicking processors, and the box would look nice next to the Alpha and K6 boxen. I'm still waiting for somebody to make some generic PPC motherboards (ATX, preferably). I'm a big fan of the hardware, but never been nuts about Macs in general - though they have turned my head a few times, I still think the system stability needs some work (as do they all). I might have to play with OSX sometime...

    (oh, did I mention a Beowulf cluster of these would rock)
  • Can someone knowledgeable explain the issues behind getting a specific processor to work in tandem with itself? I've heard it said that AMD chips won't do this as well as Intel chips - is this just FUD? How different will a multiprocessor G4 be to the single processor version?

  • Somewhere between vaporware and.. (Score:4)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:27PM (#1067908) Homepage
    We need a new name for tech that's slapped together for a trade show, looks great on stage, but won't hit consumers hands for at least a year. How about nearhereware?

    nearware?

    tcd004

    Here's my Microsoft Parody [lostbrain.com], where's yours?

  • Re:How hard is SMP support? (Score:3)

    by Tower ( 37395 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:33PM (#1067909)
    Intel chips work on a shared bus architecture - real easy, like any other bus. Request and grant. Each processor requests bus mastering, and they share. Nice, but one (or more) can get held off.

    The Athlon is based on the same SMP style as the Alphas (see earlier /. article today). Each proc gets it's own dedicated path to the chipset, where there's a switching fabric. This is essentially the same difference between a LAN hub and a switch. One Athlon could be bursting to memory at peak bandwidth while another talks to the AGP bus... good stuff. You only have to wait if the actual resource you are waiting for is being used. This is considerably more dificult (and more costly) to implement than a shared bus.

    The G4 can use a shared bus (as the earlier PowerPCs could. I'm not privy to the specifics of this new chipset, but it stands to reason that anything priced in the consumer marketspace (ooh, buzzword!) would need to be a shared bus to stay cost-efficient.

    The K6 was SMP capable, but not with Intel's chipsets and SMP structure. Therefore, it is essentially non-SMP capable, since nobody supported it. The Athlon has yet to be proven in this arena, but several boards are in the works (or so the rumor mill would have us believe)...
  • Will I be able to run Simple Text and Kid Pix on that?
  • Hopefully LinuxPPC on SMP macs will enable the Mac to perform well as a workgroup or web server. I wonder how pronounced the performance difference will be in standard desktop apps and whether it will justify what will probably an outrageous price difference.
  • Yup, that's the problem with a fairly closed hardware platform... there's been clone PCs for a long time, and any Joe can slap one together, but very few can build a Mac (where do I get that ROM again...).

    OTOH, the hardware is something to be proud of (note my self-indulging first post). Clock-for-clock, these babys really cook (and with less heat than a lot of other chips [cough]). A great chip - I just wish I could build a system with them myself...
  • Ok so it's not going to be out for Xmas, but at least Apple is starting to realize that they can't just make it on the normal consumer market. Could this be a streatch before a full blown launch into the server market? I think so. An I think it's long over due.

    I'll state now that I'm not a hardcore fan of any particular processor market, I'm just a hardware fan. And while this still has the smell of vaporware it still has the possibility of coming to life. With the forthcoming of OS-X and now SMP Macs I hope to eventually see some interesting new hardware/software to take advantage of this.

  • How about CantTouchitware?
    | Cunning Pike... Good Guy...
  • i am guessing that you are not an image editor since i just spent a few hours on my PC doing what i could do in only one on my mac. i use tons of photoshop and after effects filters that take ten minutes or so on my PC that are like 30 seconds on a mac
  • Almostthereware?
    WhereWare?
  • http://www.fortyoz.org/lmbench/results.txt

    The G4 does ok, not great.

    Can someone explain why i'd want one again?
  • Can someone knowledgeable explain the issues behind getting a specific processor to work in tandem with itself? I've heard it said that AMD chips won't do this as well as Intel chips - is this just FUD? How different will a multiprocessor G4 be to the single processor version?

    To get more than one processor to work on a machine, obviously some cooperation is required. Chips intended for SMP include much of this on chip, so little additional hardware is necessary. However, if the chips do not include this, it must somehow be performed off chip. (Off chip = more expensive.)

    The "cooperation" required is based mainly around the fact that two processors editing the same value in memory could cause BIG PROBLEMS. Therefore, there needs to be a way to "lock" memory values so the second processor keeps its hands off while the first processor is writing. This locking mechanism isn't an issue when dealing with a small number of processors. (I beleive 20 is the upper limit.) As you increase the number of processors, the locking mechanism becomes more and more resource hungry. Getting past twenty processors is what makes a super computer truly super. :)

  • Insightful comment dude. I hope to see this moderated to +5. I wonder why you posted as anonymous when you are obviously the smartest person to have ever walked this glorious planet that we mortals call earth.
  • I heard that they would multitask much better in OS X, yet... that is being delayed..

    Um, do you think BSD multitasks well? If the answer is 'yes' then, the answer to whether OS X will multitask well is also 'yes'.

    And no, other MacOS versions didn't multitask 'well'. They multitasked differently, using a model called cooperative multitasking. Instead of the OS dolling out CPU time, the currently running process gets all the stuff the system doesn't use and it's up to that process to tell the OS that it's done with what it wanted to do. In the hands of good programmers, I find this vastly superior to pre-emptive (OS controled) multitasking, the program the user is running responds very nicely. In the hands of Microsoft, this is hell. They don't like to give up CPU time at *all*.

  • Re:Some G4 LinuxPPC Benchmarks VS misc X86 (Score:3)

    by Penrif ( 33473 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:49PM (#1067921) Homepage
    AltiVec vector processing is absolutly killer. Anything dealing with graphics manipulation or signal processesing (amungst others) runs insanely well on a G4 when it uses AltiVec.

  • Re:How hard is SMP support? (Score:3)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:50PM (#1067922)
    It's hard to answer this question in a single post, but I'll try.

    In a word, it boils down to coordination. The CPU's need to coordinate their activities. With two CPU's, you no longer have a single "master" that always knows what's going on.

    For example, cache coherency is a problem. Each CPU has a write-back cache, which means that the data is not writting to memory right away, but held until it can be written in a burst. If one CPU has unwritten data in its internal cache, the other CPU doesn't normally know about it. So the two CPU's need to talk to each other.

    Another issue is interrupts. Some SMP systems let interrupts go to any CPU. Some force all interrupts to go to one CPU. Obviously, the former is more complex.

    On recent Intel CPU's, there is something called a system management interrupt (SMI) which is like a super-interrupt that the OS doesn't know anything about. It's meant for the BIOS only. SMI's run in "SMI mode", where all interrupts are turned off, and all CPU's jump the SMI handler simultaneously. Getting all CPU's to exit the SMI handler simultaneously is difficult.

    Another issue is the chipset. The system bus needs to be able to handle multiple CPU's vying for PCI and memory devices.

    Anyway, that's just a brief list. Maybe someone who's worked on the SMP support for an operating system could chime in.

  • Re:Some G4 LinuxPPC Benchmarks VS misc X86 (Score:3)

    by Tower ( 37395 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:50PM (#1067923)
    Hmmm... well, remember (like the Alpha), GCC isn't optimized as well for the PowerPC line as it is for the Intel Architecture (more people, more time). Of course, that isn't the whole story (nothing ever is).

    That aside, I still can't find any specInt or specFP #s... which are a fairly good representation...

    Anybody else know of them (and have a source)?
  • WWDC is not a trade show.

    World Wide Developer Conference. They tend to show off things coming down the pipeline so Mac developers can keep ahead of them.

  • K7 needs chipset support .... (Score:3)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @05:52PM (#1067925) Homepage Journal
    Basicly most CPUs use a shared CPU bus to memory over which things like cache coherency is done - K7 (and DEC's Alpha) use a bus that's point-to point and rely on the memory controller to manage the cache coherency for them.

    I believe the problem is that AMD have yet to release a memory controller with 2 CPU ports so that we can do 2-way SMP - K7 is supposed to be already to work it's just waiting for the chipset.

    Sadly, because this memory controller chip will only be used for SMP systems and most systems are single CPU, this will mean that volumes on this chip will be low and it will likely cost more meaning dual motherboards will be more expensive than their Intel cousins :-(

  • A multiprocessing G4 by itself may not be any great shakes. But put one into a 3d animation pipeline with Maya and RenderMan on it and you've got a killer production machine. I'm not aware of a RenderMan port to the MacOS, but the political clout for it is certainly there. (Given the Steve Jobs/Pixar relationship, I mean.)

    Check out Maya for MacOS X [aliaswavefront.com].

    Looks to me like Macintosh is (finally) taking some bold steps into the high-end 3d/production market.

  • Macs are great for some things. . .like running a system right out of the box, DV, and also for some kinds of developing (right, Carmack?)--gotta love/hate the closed system.

    I personally use both where I work, and while I'd rather use a PC for some things, a Mac remains my choice for video editing (Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and Premiere form a competent studio), streaming (Quicktime), and graphics (Adobe).

    Imagine a dual G4 for video editing and multimedia content creation! Now THAT would sell a few units--firewire built it as well.

    - S

    http://students.washington.edu/steve0/ [washington.edu]
    steve0@u.washington.edu
  • All very good points - mod this one up a few...

    The memory contention is dealt with via 'snoops' on PowerPCs (probably a similar mechanism on the Intel Arch). For example, if you have a PCI network card DMA'ng some data to main memory, the chipset can issue a snoop to the processor, asking if he has any data from that address. The processor can then cast out data from his internal cache, and the chipset can combine the data with the incoming PCI write, so coherency is maintained. The actual process and timing is interesting, but the system is fairly simple from a top level view. With extra processors, this can be an additional burder, and could get rather interesting...

    Interrupts... well... there's a nasty rat's nest... I'll leave that one alone for now. Suffice it to say, the PPC has a few different kinds of interrupts (including an SMI)... Not sure about the full SMP actions there, but again, it all depends on the OS structure.

    Asymetrical MP is so much *easie*, when you think about it... but it's not very useful with only 2 procs...
  • From the macosrumors article:<p>

    <i>I wonder if, with MacOS X's dock, will it be possible to write applications to provide the same level of feedback as a Linux' docking app?</i><p>

    A Mac user wants Mac OS to have functionality as good as Linux? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. How the times are changing..

  • I vote for WhereWare. It rhymes with "Where, where?" :-)


    ---
  • >In the hands of good programmers, I find this vastly superior to pre-emptive (OS controled) multitasking

    I'd agree (dot dot dot)... In the hands of anyone who is fallible, or doesn't fully test their code, this is a death sentence. Don't get me wrong, I wish it was that simple, but a good rule of programming (especially for lower-level OS design) is the same as when driving a car: Assume everyone else on the road (system) is an idiot. You usually end up being right, and you should never depend on anyone slowing down so that you can merge (or take control of your own OS back).

    As Homer put is so eloquently "...in theory... Communism works - in THEORY."

    Perfecly ideal worlds are hard to come by.

    (note that I am in now way stating my opinions for or against communism, democracy, totalitarian oligarchy or any other form of government...)[/lame disclaimer]
  • In terms of auto shows any sexy, gotta have it, gee isn't that AWESOME vehicle that will never see the light of day in the same incarnation is a concept car.

    So, how about ConceptWare?

  • yeah, lemme just bust out Photoshop and Illustrator in Linux...

    good call

    not


    djsw
  • I'm working in cross-platform programming, and our company chose to go with Apple (we each have an iBook and we have some iMacs). At first, I was skeptical about it. However, after some use (and putting LinuxPPC on it), I don't really want anything else (except for more mouse buttons). We've also got a PIII 500, and in comparison, the iBook is pretty speedy, considering it's a laptop (for only $2500 CDN, which is a deal). I wrote Apple off in the past, but if they can get MacOS X together (since the hardware is willing, but MacOS is still weak... i mean, whenever anything on the network goes for DHCP, or anything on Firewall reboots, the iMacs freezes for a few seconds and skips our playing CD ;^), I would be willing to abandon Intel entirely.
    Just how I see it. =^)
    (and this is my first post).

    i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

  • [Score:-25 ; Shameless Self-promotion]
    >Tower wins with a First Post plus a first B post.

    >Is this a /. record?

    Gee, I hope so - I've always wanted to win something. I was really hoping for the Pwerball or Big Game, but I'll take a few negative karma points instead.

    I'd like to thank the people who made this possible...[random blathering, contributing to the 'N' in S/N...]...

    Thank you.
    (for some reason, I feel guilty writing that last bit... (where is good old Don Knotts?))

  • Re:Somewhere between vaporware and.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    whereware
    journalistware
  • I love my Mac, but the multitasking is shite these days.

    It was good for when they were still 8MHz 68000, and it's true that preemptive multitasking is, in theory, marginally slower. However, that difference in speed is insignificant these days; we're talking like a .001% difference in peak speed. Preemptive multitasking is poor when done by Microsoft, but don't blame the technique, blame the implementors. I find my Linux box to be much more responsive under heavy load than my Mac, although the UI makes me cry.

    I will be dancing in the streets when full preemptive multitasking appears in MacOS.
  • Photoshop benchmarks between G4 and x86 would be useful, but the reference to Linux doesn't make too much sense. It's the hardware, not the OS that seems to be debated at the moment (so Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux strikes again, oh well)...
  • Have you thought that if these Mac people preferred the functionality of Linux, they would consider switching to it?

    I run LinuxPPC myself, and it's pretty good - but for one reason I find myself switching back to the MacOS regularly (and it's not just app support either).

    Unix/Linux have some damn good ideas, but a UI that doesn't fight you every step of the way isn't one of them (and yeah, I know there is no one UI out there).

    Docked apps are a good thing, though.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])

  • wait, it gets better... (Score:4)

    by imac.usr ( 58845 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @06:22PM (#1067940) Homepage
    Back in the day ('95-96 or so) there were dual-604e Macs and quad-604e Mac clones that ran Photoshop like nobody's bidness. The G4 was designed from the beginning (unlike the G3) to accept up to 4-way cache-coherency, IIRC. Four G4 cores on a single die were considered quite feasible when Motorola rolled out the design. Mmmmmm...four-way processing....[hrragglhh]

    Hmmm. Could Apple be the first company to introduce a MP laptop?
    (Or has somebody already done so?)

  • ---
    (where do I get that ROM again...).
    ---

    You download [apple.com] it.

    Some time back, Apple moved the ROM out of hardware and into software.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])

  • Re:Some G4 LinuxPPC Benchmarks VS misc X86 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You can't find them because Apple won't publish them. Here is the URL to Motorola's pdf document showing their G4-450 numbers: http://ebus.mot-sps.com/brdata/PDFDB/MICROPROCESSO RS/32_BIT/POWERPC/MPC7XX/M951446479748co llateral.pdf For the lazy, Motorola claims SpecInt of 21.4 and SpecFP of 20.4. These are about half of what the latest Athlon and Coppermine chips achieve. This is pretty definitive evidence that the G4's ARE NOT just as fast as x86 processors at twice their clock rates, but I doubt if it will dent the religion of the Mac faithful. If Photoshop didn't exist, Apple wouldn't exist. All of those bogus comparisons of an application architected and build to perform well on Macs against a crappy PC port allow Mac fans to continue believing that they have a better machine. After all, it was the first computer to have a theoretical performance of 1GFLOP, right? And Apple has to have a special license to export them, right, because they are munitions? Sure..... Another bogus Mac publicity stunt: http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html This is the infamous "we are twice as fast as Intel ON THEIR OWN BENCHMARK!!!" claim. They compare the "representative clocks required" for various operations using the Intel libraries against hand optimized routines on the Mac. This isn't Intel's performance on a benchmark; this is what they say it will usually take to run an FFT, for example, using their libraries! (I assume that /. readers know the difference between benchmarking an optimized assembly routine and giving expected library performance.)
  • Benchmark demonstrations ran roughly twice as fast on the dual-G4 system compared to the single-G4 Power Mac that was on stage. I don't know if it's time to drool yet. This seems a little fishy. With current multi-processing systems, each processor does not do alternate operations rather each processes a different thread. Of course, if you're running a program that has only one thread that requires 80% of a CPU's power, then the speed increase using two processors will be negligible since one will have an 80% load while the other will have a 1% load doing the background operations (like OS, etc.) Twice the speed doesn't sound right.

  • Re:Mandatory post... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Project appleseed does this. More info can be found at http://www.apple.com/education/hed/aua0101/applese ed/
  • I don't know which Apple official said they never introduce new hardware at WWDC, but obviously he wasn't around for last year's PowerBook launch [apple.com]. D'oh!

  • >http://199.104.132.208/brdata/PDFDB/MICROPROCESSO RS/32_BIT/POWERPC/MPC7XX/M951446479748co llateral.pdf

    Thanks for the link.

    specbench.org lists a Dell 450MHz P-II:
    SPECfp95 13.1
    SPECfp_base95 11.8
    Yup, an estimated 21.4 and 20 aren't that much better...(~63.3% for Int and ~72.9% better for FP)
    Fairly dramatic, though...
    Note that a 466MHz Alpha 21164 rated a 19.2 specFP
    a 466MHz 21264 rates a 24.6...

    So, much better than the IA-32 - close to the Alpha...

    I think most of Apple's propaganda is pretty funny, but hey - somebody's gotta do it 8^)
  • True, true, true... but apps like Photoshop that support MP while applying filters and the like can gain quite a bit from this. As usual, servers gain more than just about anybody.

    I suppose it would be useful to encode some mp3s on one proc while image manipulating or whatever elsing on the other... and of course, Q-III (and whatever else) smp abilties get people fairly happy...
  • ah... missed that one 8^)

  • Dual G4 Board from PowerLogix (Score:3)

    by goingware ( 85213 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @06:44PM (#1067949) Homepage
    PowerLogix [powerlogix.com], vendor of G3 [powerlogix.com] and G4 upgrade boards [powerlogix.com] that go into both 7500/8500 class PowerMacs, as well as G4 ZIF upgrades [powerlogix.com] for the G3 macintoshes, is working on a dual G4 upgrade card:

    PowerLogix Announces First Dual G4 Upgrade Card [powerlogix.com]

    The advantages of the Apple machine are that it will run with a faster system bus and faster memory than an 8500 that has been upgraded with one of these cards, which has to access main memory at the same speed as the conventional 604 does in the original machine.

    The advantage of the upgrade card is that you can run it with older system software - note that when Apple releases new machines, usually they require the latest system to run them so they're not a lot of help to developers wanting to maintain application compatibility with old systems.

    And what's really cool is that it's possible that the BeOS will run on the cards, and BeOS applications and the whole BeOS system are pervasively multithreaded and so should take great advantage of these cards.

    Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines. This is not a problem for an upgraded 8500 and in fact many people are currently using 8500's with G3 upgrade cards.

    You can be sure Linux will work on the cards because PowerLogix includes a copy of LinuxPPC with each card they ship.

    Sadly, a Be employee who bought a PowerLogix card for his Power Computing home machine found that it didn't work to run the BeOS - he's very happy with it on the MacOS. Many other G3 cards do work with the BeOS though.

    I have very enthusiastically urged PowerLogix to support the BeOS in their cards and offered to beta test for them on my 8500.

    They also have a USB/Firewire card [powerlogix.com] that allows older mac owners to take advantage of all those spiffy peripherals and video editing software that's available for the new machines. I'm waiting until the dual G4 ships to purchase an upgrade but I'll be getting the rapidfire card so I can use an HP Deskjet USB printer on my mac.

  • I'm sure BMRT will be able to work on OS X.

  • That aside, I still can't find any specInt or specFP #s... which are a fairly good representation...

    That's because SPEC doesn't run on MacOS. Thus the only PowerPC SPEC scores available are for high end IBM type systems, which have far superior i/o systems to Macs, and thus ought to perform much better on memory-intensive benchmarks like SPEC.

    Unfortunately, the latest high-speed PIIIs kick the crap out of them, as do the actually-purchasable GHz Athlons. AltiVec is a great SIMD design, but even if there was enough software to take advantage of it, it'd be starved for data by the Mac's pitiful system bus in most real world conditions.

    Basically, the only reasons to buy a Mac for your desktop is the OS, the color, or the fact that the new iMacs don't need fans. The only good points of the PowerPC architecture are low power consumption (which makes it a great laptop chip, and allows for the lack of a fan) and AltiVec (which, again, is starved by the poor i/o system).

    For a much more detailed explanation of what I just said (including PPC vs. x86 SPEC comparisons), see Paul DeMone's excellent article [realworldtech.com].

    As for the best SPEC/$ platform, right now it's far and away the GHz PIII. In the near future, it will be the Thunderbird on the low end and the new high-clocked Alphas (finally) for FP stuff. In the medium term, Willamette just might post some amazing SPEC results, although it's too early to tell. In any case, it's clear that the PPC architecture will lose badly for at least the next 12 months or so.

    Besides, SPEC has a lot of things wrong with it as a benchmark, not least of which is the fact that even the SPEC "base" tests can be compiled based on optimizations from a previous test run (this is why Itanium will have good SPEC scores but terrible performance), and that it has no graphical component, and that it doesn't model typical code very well, unless you spend your time running scientific simulations all day.

    On the other hand, if there were a better cross-platform benchmark, it would also show that the PPC sucks. As a CPU for a personal computer, that is. As well it should: it's designed for embedded/signal-processing applications.
  • The RS/6k numbers are fairly impressive 8^)

    I'll certainly admit that the newer x86 chips can certainly outduel the PowerPC in terms of raw speed... Athlon 900 - 37.8 Int, 27.9(base) FP (oddly, the 1GHz lists at 42.9 Int (no FP listed)). They list the compiler and all of the optimization flags, and the change in flags between base and peak for all runs...

    And yeah, there are ways around any benchmark... but that's why various tests get kicked out of the spec set, and why new ones are put in. Not a perfect system by any stretch, but a little better than one designed by the processer designers 8^)

    My use of the PPC is all embedded, I've never owned a Mac. I personally don't care what happens to Apple (aside from the usual tripe about competition, but face it, the Intel/AMD war has pushed those two far faster than it can force Apple to beg for faster procs...), but the Power architecture is goodness, if not fully realized in Mac systems.
  • They list the compiler and all of the optimization flags, and the change in flags between base and peak for all runs...

    The SPEC tests are great for requiring documentation, no doubt about it. And the base runs do allow a lot fewer compiler optimizations than the peak runs.

    However, the base rules still allow running the suite, analyzing the data for optimization purposes, and recompiling for the "real" run. On all current architectures (that I can think of), this is not such a big deal. This is because branch prediction is handled by the CPU, not the compiler. On Itanium--where the ISA includes branch prediction "hints"--this means that Intel can run the suite once, find and record every branch taken, and then run it again having told the chip exactly which branches will be taken, always. No branch mispredictions at all. (If I understand correctly; in any case, there are certainly unfairly few with this technique.) And this is allowed under SPEC "base"!

    Anyways, SPEC is a suspect benchmark in any case. The UltraSPARC has always underperformed the Alpha on SPEC, and yet does much better in the marketplace. Much of this is due to marketing, of course, but the fact is that a good SPEC performer does not necessarily make a good server, nor does it necessarily make a good consumer/enthusiast box.
  • Well said.

    I don't mean to bait flames, but I don't understand why anyone would waste their money on a mac.

    For $3499 you can get a Mac G4 500MHz with 256MB SDRAM, 27GB HDD, DVD, 8MB Rage Pro 129 (ug!!!) Zip drive, but No Monitor and No Modem.

    Or for the same amount you can get a PC system with a 1000MHz Proc, 128MB RDRAM, 32MB GeForce (woohoo!) 30GB drive, DVD, CD-RW, SB Live, Speakers, and 19" Monitor. Plus other shit like an office suite. (quoted from DELL, but prices are about the same all around).

    The only selling point for their mac is their OLD user interface. Every good graphics app you can get for the PC. They are surviving on hype alone.
  • >No branch mispredictions at all.
    Mommy, Intel isn't plaing nice again! 8^) But, hopefully, this does mark somewhat a rather useful advance... we'll see how everything turns out. Benchmarks aren't fair to everyone - I'll live. The idea was to point to a benchmark that attempts to be less biased than most. You win some, you lose some.

    >The UltraSPARC has always underperformed the Alpha on SPEC, and yet does much better in the marketplace.

    And part of it is due to the systems that are built around it. Sun's I/O is dramatically better than that of most Alpha boxes. Always has been, and given the way that Compaq has treated the Alpha... always will be. A system with great I/O (like S/390 or AS/400) will continue to be more valuable in the mass marketplace than a system which prides itself on FP performance. Lots of database transactions... hmmm, mostly integer, and a lot that doesn't involve the processor at all.

    Sun says 'we power the web', DEC/Compaq say 'I think we have some resellers, and I hope *they* try to sell Alphas'. The Alpha has endured a long history of poor marketing... great R&D (until recently, but maybe that's picking up again), but horrible product placement...

    Oh well...
  • The best reason to get a Mac is if you prefer the look and feel of MacOS to Windows. Although MacOS X is going to be a radical change, I don't think the essential aesthetic rightness of the Mac is going to change as a result.

    Certainly I find it more pleasing to work in Photoshop or Painter or any other graphics program on the Mac than to work in Windows, even though the software is basically the same. It has to do with design quality, just like a Mercedes-Benz feels better than a Chevy. The Mercedes might have the exact same statistics - speed to 60mph, quarter mile, etc - but it still feels better because it's better designed and built.

    Curiously enough, my Mac has been a pretty cost-effective purchase, too. It's about three years and two generations old, and it still works well with current software. During the time I've owned it, Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000. In the PC universe, I've owned three different systems, which in total cost more than the Mac.

    I'll probably replace this machine with one of the multiprocessor G4s (assuming the price isn't too ghastly, which admittedly might be a forlorn hope), and then it will go to serve another owner, or I'll use it to try Mac Linux or something. Either way, its useful lifetime is significantly longer than a PC.

    I'll replace it because I enjoy the MacOS, and because I think MacOS X is going to be far superior to any version of Windows. It will be a quality multiprocessing system, unburdened by the tiresome flaws of the Windows world, but it will still run mainstream software like Photoshop and (dare I say it?) Word.

    Sure, it's expensive - of course as I grow richer over the years, that's less and less important for me. And of course there's less software than for Windows, but who cares? You couldn't buy every piece of available software for either platform, anyway.

    Of course the reality of it all is that I will always own multiple computers and multiple platforms. Right now, I have an old SGI workstation (currently awaiting repairs), a Windows NT 4 system, a Linux notebook, and the Mac. I use the Linux notebook for work-related stuff, and don't take it home every night. My Mac waits patiently for me, smoothly and reliably telling me that there is mainstream life in the computing world after Microsoft.

    To me, that's something beyond price.

    D


    ----
  • Actually, the Quicktime movies [apple.com] of Aqua, the new GUI, look pretty slick (well, the ones that will play on my windoz box anyway.... some only display the top few pixels of the whole thing?) It's all a vicious plot to make M$ look lame I'm sure!

    -c0y
    (as if a plot were needed)

  • The G3 does not support SMP so there are no dual G3's, but dual 604e's are supported by LinuxPPC. How well the SMP actually works, I'm not sure of, though.

  • SimpleText: What, Emacs isn't simple enough for you? Its interface (under graphical systems such as X and Windows) is a knockoff of Windows's, which in turn is a knockoff of Mac OS's.

    Kid Pix: Now that xfree runs on Darwin [slashdot.org], GTK+/Glib, GNOME, and GIMP are coming very soon. GIMP is a near-Photoshop paint package (all it lacks is CMYK), yet kids love it.

  • >You are comparing the fastest G4 to a 2 year old P2?

    Yes, but I was doing it for a reason:I was comparing ~equal MHz procs... Something to do with architecture... (this is also more evidence that you can say just about anything you want by quoting the right #s
    That was re: >This is pretty definitive evidence that the G4's ARE NOT just as fast as x86 processors at twice their clock rates

    Now, if we got some 800/900 MHz G4 equivalents, the architecture trend suggests that they would be superior again... of course, that's even less than vaporware at this point, so it doesn't matter.

    These are your Int #s
    >The G4-450 gets 21.4 20.4
    >The P3-866 gets 41.7 41.5
    >The Athlon-1000 gets 42.9 42.9

    The corresponding FP#s are
    G4-450: 20.4
    P3-866: 33.6 33.5
    A-1000: 29.4
    Alpha 700: 68.1 54.5 (just to prove *it* can still kick some butt)

    No, the G4 *doesn't* beat out x86 chips of twice the clock speed. But at equivalent clock speeds, it gets the job done, and with the right I/O structure around it, it can be rather competetive. I've also commented elsewhere about the fact that AMD and Intel have pushed each other rather well, but this doesn't push the PowerPC line in quite the same way. This isn't to say that the PowerPC isn't being looked at for improvement, just that it still belongs to a different market segment (especially the embedded market). Can't put a small heatsink on a PII/!!! without a fan and hope it still works in the morning either...

    (note again, I have never owned a Mac, and don't plan on it soon)
  • A dual-processor G4 is undoubtedly going to be a very fast machine. Sure, it's still vapourware but it indicates that multiprocessing can be achieved easily. This is surely the purpose of the demonstration.

    Some of the commentary alluded to the following and I'd like to correct some minor points:

    1. People are asserting that Linux would be better run on some other system.

    A1. True. Apple is about the integration of proprietary software with specifically constructed hardware. If you want an open system then look elsewhere.

    2. Assertions that Mac don't make good web/workgroup servers.

    A2. This was correct in the first instance until the release of MacOS X Server around a year ago. At the time of release, a Power Macintosh G3 running Apache was the fastest Apache server available. As concerns the notion of "workgroup servers", AppleShare IP is a very good solution for small workgroups. The AFP server available on OS X is quite up to the demands of serving to hundreds (even thousands) of clients and Samba runs on OS X, too.

    3. Macs don't multitask.

    A3. Not strictly true. There is no protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking in MacOS X but they're quite capable of the standard time-slicing methods used when running multiple applications/services. OS X is, essentially BSD Unix and the beta is due out in a matter of months. If a platform does the job for which it was intended (and the Mac may not be the choice for you) then its cost is both justifiable and supremely irrelevant.

    Mr Q. Z. D.
  • I don't think that an SMP notebook would be such a good idea. It would suck up lots of power, despite being somewhat famous for its low power requirements.

    There was a microSPARC-based notebook from Sun a number of years ago. I don't think microSPARCs come in dual processor configurations, though.

    It would indeed be pretty cool to see a specially engineered SMP notebook, though. I would love to work on such a project.
  • Note that 450 MHz G4 Macs outfitted with 256MB of RAM using the crappy old MacOS can beat the Dell system you quoted by aproximately 100% using tests run by Henry Norr. On a modern OS like Mac Ten or LinuxPPC, likely the same tests would show even more dramatic performance gains.

    If the feild is leveled on those same tests and everyone has 256 MB of RAM, then the 450 G4 is only 30-50% faster. But still, that means that the G4 is potentially faster than a single processor i386 CPU at any price, even given the crappy old MacOS. That's just going to be more true with a modern OS running on that box.

    And with the advent of MP G4s and Mac Ten, I think Macs may be much faster than any i386 PC of any type. granted, this will be only for certain tasks. However, those tasks are non-trivial things like web serving, video processing, graphic manipulation and perhaps even game performance. Sure, the 1000MHz CPUs will still be faster spellchecking in MS Word, but I don't think anyone cares.

    -N

  • Emacs: And somewhere down the line of knockoffs it lost track of what the heck it was supposed to be in the first place.

    The Gimp: For children? You massochistic ... person ... you. Sheesh. Ever seen Kid Pix? It was a JOKE, silly. A joke. Like MacOS 9 "SMP Enabled." Or Windows 98 actually staying UP for those 200+ days for it to crash. Just a joke.

    But for those who really want to know about old apps on OS X, it has a compatability layer (aka it boots MacOS 9 into a window then hides it, stealing the output from it and sending input to it). Now, of course, this takes twice the RAM and if one "Classic" app crashes, well, the rest can go with them, just like the wonderful current OS (that I'm posting from).

    No, I can't wait. And I installed Darwin. And I can wait on that... Ick. No video acceleration yet.

    --

  • I just don't get excited anymore about Apple's overdue attempts at joining the game so damn late. 3 or 4 years ago, this would have been great, but to anyone but the Mac-Jihad, it's a big yawner and deserves a big "who (else) cares?"

    The 9500/180MP was introduced August 5, 1996. Dual 180Mhz 604e; 6 PCI slots; officially supported up to 768Mb RAM, but was capable in reality of 1.5G of RAM; shipped with minimum 2G HD (not exactly small for the time); optional PC compatibility card.

    The 9600/200MP shipped February 17, 1997, with similar overall specs (4G minimum HD).

    Yes, you're right. Their attempt to join the game is long overdue.


    --
  • I've been apple loyal since i got my first IIgs back in like 87. Since then I've gone from a 7200 to a B&W g3. Mac did multi processing back in the day with the 604 series chips, and they have been doing it on the windows side since the pentium pro's I believe. And you know what, I never really saw a huge push at any time with the market going nuts because they could get a multi-processor computer. And you know why, because the average user, the joe that buys a computer really doesn't give a rats ass, or have a need for more than one processor. And asuming the average person is the one buying computers. I find it hard to believe that a duel g4 are going to jump the sales of macs like you claim.

    --Duck
  • Because they're *good* machines, quality all around. BTW, it's a 16MB Rage 128 Pro, not a simple 8 meg Rage 128. I know, still not top-of-the-line, but it's a functional card.

    Also, why not give the PC 256 MB of memory? In my experience, a Mac is mroe fun with 128 than a PC will ever be, I get huge speedups between 128 and 256 on my PC.

    Really, I can't argue with the cost. But the fact remains you are buying quality. Macs are nice machines. I'm not saying that Dells are the Festivas of the computer world, be they certainly aren't Lincolns either...

    -Smitty
  • True enough. I completely forgot the fact that NeXTStep is where the dock more or less appeared.

    Linux has a lot of things, but most of its innovations come from its development paradigm rather than any one piece of technology...

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • The rest of us should care for several reasons.

    Remember back when Apple actually innovated? The hardware was not just current, but advanced. Sadly, Apple never upgraded that hardware, at least not until 1994 and the PowerPC. Then it took until 1997 to get USB and until 1999 to get AGP. But the fact is that Apple has to get up to date before they can start actually innovating again. You can't pass a car until you actually reach it.

    Apple getting on par with current offerings is the beginning. Once they get comfortable with their "new" systems, they will be free to update that hardware and innovate again. SMP Macs, while nothing new, are one more thing that's bringing Apple current. And that is just a Good Thing to have ... for everybody.

    Competition breeds gadgets. Gadgets breed less productivity. Less productivity breeds less need for Tums... =)

    --
  • > Um, do you think BSD multitasks well?

    Well, actual (free) BSDs do handle the need for multitasks, but the support for multi-procs is close to nothing. Free/BSD begins to support it (but with big bad locks) and there may be some code to run on _one_ multi-proc motherboard, somewhere, for the other BSDs. And i don't think even Mach did something interesting in that area. So, I doubt SMP support come from there.

    seb.

    --

  • Re:Dual G4 Board from PowerLogix (Score:4)

    by Darchmare ( 5387 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2000 @09:04PM (#1067971)
    ---
    Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines.
    ---

    Ah yes. Apple has been terrible about releasing the information used in order to port alternative operating systems on their hardware, eh?

    Darwin [apple.com]
    MkLinux [mklinux.org]
    LinuxPPC [linuxppc.com]
    NetBSD [netbsd.org]
    Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com]
    Debian [debian.org]
    SuSE [www.suse.de]

    Think for yourself. No matter what Be's propaganda says, Apple has nothing to lose from Be porting their OS to their hardware, since they still gain sales either way. Perhaps they don't want to subsidize Be's development, but that's besides the point. Be's argument was questionable from the beginning, and is twice as questionable now that Apple has released Darwin.

    Don't get me wrong - I love BeOS, but the company behind it doesn't seem to have any trouble hiding reality from their userbase. They got seduced by Wintel and they know it.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • No, you do the profiling/FDPR on the train workload, which may or may not be similar to the ref workload, which is the input you run against for the report.

    Thanks for the info. Still, the point stands: the Itanium (and any other VLIW processor which includes branch prediction hints in its ISA) will gain a hugely unfair advantage from this rule compared to any processor which does its branch prediction itself instead of relying on the compiler to do it for it. While ISV's will technically be able to do this sort of optimization on their own code, it is very unlikely that any will (most don't even use "normal" compiler optimizations now), and if they do, their programs will need to be reprofiled and then recompiled to take advantage of any new IA-64 chips. (Of course, I suppose that's the case anyways. ;)
  • Actually, I remember reading about a company that had introduced dual G3 cards that would run under the AmigaDOS a while back. The problems encountered with cache corruption were fixed in software. However, I don't have a link to the article, nor am I sure if they actually shipped.

    just my 2 cents
    sternn

    I am Dyslexic of Borg
    Resemblance is fertile
    Your ass will be laminated

  • If you have never used the MacOS enough to discover how functional and easy to use it is you will never understand. Sure there will probably always be a cheaper Wintel Box but I would gladly have well built, slightly behind the bleading edge systems that run a MacOS purely for the ease of getting what I need done on the system with minimal BS. The bottom line is that when you have a problem with a Wintel system, it takes an advanced user quite a while to sort it out without re-installing your system. Mac users can troubleshoot their systems with MUCH less hassle (of course this is partly due to the fact that fewer 3rd parties are breaking rules with their software on Macs as their are fewer third parties). Is its easier for the non-expert to get a highly configured system running on the Mac platform and frankly I hate wasting time trying to figure out how to get some peripheral working when I could be creating content. Thus I like MacOS. OTOH I am really looking forward to having a modern OS with the ability to configure anything the way I want it. I wonder just how easy OSX will be for the typical medium user to configure. OSX may be too much for the traditional Mac user to understand.
  • just wanted to let you know that there is indeed protected memory and preemptive multitasking in OS X...

    if you're thinking of OS8 or OS9, then no there is sadly no protected memory (but my Mac hasn't crashed in ages anyways) although there is cooperative multitasking

    just my 2 (cdn) cents
    sternn

    I am Dyslexic of Borg
    Resemblance is fertile
    Your ass will be laminated

  • No, the G4 *doesn't* beat out x86 chips of twice the clock speed. But at equivalent clock speeds, it gets the job done, and with the right I/O structure around it, it can be rather competetive.

    but the fact is that you can't get a G4 that is clock speed comparable to an x86 chip. it doesn't matter how damn fast a G4 is at 450MHz...the reality is that the top end G4 is only 450-500MHz, and the top end x86 chip is 1GHz.
  • I heard that they would multitask much better in OS X, yet... that is being delayed..

    OS X is being delayed, but these machines aren't available yet either. The demo they just showed at the WWDC was running OS X, and it would be a good bet that these machines, when released, will require OS X.

    joe
  • Want But Can't Have Yet Ware

    WBCHYW

    Maybe people can grunt, "weeb-chew" in frustration.
  • People keep saying that until MacOS X comes out, a multiprocessing machine won't be useful, however Apple recently released an updated SDK [apple.com] for multiprocessing development on MacOS 9, so perhaps this machine will see the light of day before the release of MacOS X next year. An announcement could even come as soon as two months from now, at Macworld New York in July.
  • although macs are excllent at those things u mentioned..the best thing is how fast it'll run on rc5....dual g4..hm....8 mkeys? :-)
  • Posted by Nr9:

    photoshop on pc is not a crappy port. it is as optimized on the pc as it is on the mac. It even has SSE optimization.
  • Oh, the mighty Steve has finally blessed us with dual PowerPC system. BIG F*CKING DEAL! I remember when we could get QUAD PowerPC systems and they didn't cost arm and a leg (well perhaps only an arm).
    Yes, I'm pissed, the PowerPC was the only hope of giving the pathetic x86 [intel.com] some competition, but noo, little Steve had to have the PowerMacs all to himself...
    Ugh, I need my caffine...
    J.
  • Posted by Nr9:

    although paul demone is a smart guy, he's wrong on several points. First of all, the computers SPEC95 is run on is very similar to Apple Power macs(during the 604 era). of course, macs were also much more expensive back then. I do not know of any IBM workstations that use the PPC 750 chip so it is probable that they use Apple's platform.
    it would be helpful if you don't just plagiarize off demone's web page and say this like you are the original source.

    second, it is wrong to assume that the PPC will suck for a personal computer. Altivec is designed for DSP usage but many apps demonstrate its potential as a desktop SIMD. As a desktop SIMD, its also much faster than x86 SIMD extensions.

    I find the attitude of many people strange.
    When they see x86 vs ppc spec95 scores, they automatically assume that they are representative of real world performance

    When they see pentium III with irc 4.5 vs an athlon, they say that the pentium III wins because of compiler optimizations.

    It is known that intel optimizes the hell out of hteir compilers just for spec95. This is even before prefetch. Here are a list of apps in which the software is probably as optimized for ppc as x86

    Photoshop 5.5: mac wins most, GHz PCs win photoshop 5 isn't just a crappy port. I would be surprised to see GIMP doing faster stuff than it,(GIMP is also not suitable for professional image editing because it lacks standard color correction tools), especially the SSE optimized filters.

    Quake 3: PCs win--partly due to lack of good mac video cards and bad drivers.

    RC5: Macs win
    this algorithm is almost completely optimized. It is written in ASM and performance is critical.
    However, it may be argued that this is a poor benchmark and is not representative of real world performance.

    this said, I do not believe that the current PPC's scalar math can compare with taht of current x86 processors. It is slower. However, the DSP nature of altivec does not make it a bad choice for desktop applications. It would be safe to say that even the 500MHz Altivec can keep up with a 1GHz SSE or 3DNow

  • Hmmm, Wow 1000mhz processors. Wouldn't ya know a G4 isn't meant for home???? A iMac is meant for the home people. But I'll play your game and this is what I have to say:
    ..............................G4................ ................Dell
    Proc. Speed..........500/1MB L2...............600mhz Pentium III
    2nd Proc?............No............................... ..No
    RAM Type/Size.....1Gig SDRAM (4).........1GIG RDRAM (4)
    HardDrives..........18Gigx3(scsi).............18 gigx3(scsi)
    RAID......................None.................. ...........None
    Graphics Card.......1AGPRagePro 1PCI......1Matrox G400
    RAM Size..............16&16(not cumulative) 32megs
    Monitor...............15in LCD.......................15in LCD
    OS.........................MacOS 9........................Win98SE
    DVD/CD................DVD ROMw/Video..........DVD ROMw/video
    SCSI......................Ultra SCSI card.............Internal SCSI (not addition)
    Zip.......................None.................. ..............none
    Modem..................56k V.90........................56k V.90
    IEEE1394............Yes......................... .........Controller Card
    Floppy...................No..................... .............Yes*
    Service.................3year care.....................3year care
    Installation...........Comprehensive............ ..Comprehensive
    -----------------------------------------
    Price: $8086 $8247

    *denotes no other alternative, cannot remove.
    all systems included keyboard, mouse, and cheapest speaker set possible

    WHAT????
    THE MAC IS CHEAPER???

    I'll give the Wintel side this 100 more mhz, WAY better video card, and a floppy.

    Is that worth $150 extra? Watch the benchmarks and a 500mhz G4 vs 600mhz PIII and the P3 gets whumped hard. Better Video Card, PC wins hands down. Floppy? Worth, what $10?

    You make the choice, I tried to get a PC that supported up to 1.5Gig of RAM but the nearest they had was 2gig and that just KILLED the PC in price. You make the choice, these were matched as close as possible and I think I did a good job matching them up.

    When you compare a PC to a Mac remember we can expand beyond 512megs of RAM, and we can go wireless.

    Don't compare machines unless they are maxed out to their FULL potential EQUALY, that is a true test of price.
  • You're absolutely wrong to imply that somehow Be are hiding the truth here. The reason why Linux gets the necessary specs is because the commercial interest is tiny or non-existent, and Linux is not seen as a threat. Be however would stand to make profits, and make Mac OS look old fashioned, crufty and slow. which it is. Secondly, Apple have never once challenged Be's oft-stated claim that the necessary specs have been witheld. Don't you think they might have by now if it was just Be propaganda?
  • Yes, your statement is actually correct. Apple hasn't been too supportive of alternative OS's for their Macs. Those Linux distros are more or less hacked, without any noteworthy support from Apple. However, Apple seems to have gotten its act together and realised (that's realized for you Americans.) that the Open Source thing is here to stay and is now pledging their support etc. yadi, yadi, yadi. They even put up a Linux website, although it is somewhat meagre. check it out here:PPC Linux at Apple [apple.com]
  • GIMP is nice, and the name is the coolest around, but sorry guys, it just ain't 10% as good as Photoshop, mostly because of the clumsy UI.
  • >but the fact is that you can't get a G4 that is clock speed comparable to an x86 chip

    Like I said...
    >>of course,that's even less than vaporware at this point, so it doesn't matter.

  • "demonstrations ran roughly twice as fast on the dual-G4 system compared to the single-G4 Power Mac"

    I thought one of the basic facts about SMP is that parallel processors only give 60-70% or their total performance. So in this case the best that could be hoped for is %170 performance of a single CPU. Any ideas? Is this just another gimmick or abreviated benchmarking?

  • Linux/PPC handles multiple processors just fine. There are hardware limitations inherent in the way the system bus works, but that's unavoidable and any operating system on multiprocessor hardware is subject to it. LinuxPPC (the distribution) officially supports multiproc 603(e)s including IBM RS/6000 quad-cpu boxes and the more common Apple and Be machines of a few years back.
  • Anyone with a MP Mac (like the 9500MP or the DayStar Genesis) was advised to upgrade to OS 9 mainly because the MP libraries got a big overhaul.

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • ---
    It's probably relevant that Apple killed the CHRP platform that was the basis of Be's entire business.
    ---

    Apple never killed CHRP. Nobody bit on CHRP (and as far as I know, few/none of the MacOS licensees were CHRP).

    ---
    Given that Apple made it clear that they didn't want to help Be, and Intel did (with info and money), it probably became a pretty easy choice...
    ---

    This may be a better way to put it. Apple didn't deny Be anything, they simply didn't subsidize their development. Be was lured by the siren song of Intel, and needed an excuse to move away from the PPC space.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Actually, Apple had a Linux distribution they were pushing long before Darwin came out. Apple certainly helped there.

    Did they base the company on it? Nope, but I don't think you can say that support on those operating systems was hacked when Apple had at least 1-2 people working on it.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • "... twice as fast." to a reporter sitting in a chair watching a trade-show presentation - we're not talking about benchmarks here.

    Two processors doesn't mean 2x speed. However Apple has moved to a microkernel design in the past year (hey - nobody noticed!) and Photoshop was redesigned for multi-processing years ago when Daystar developed the technology for Apple.

    Thus it could well be approximately twice as fast for some operations in some applications.

    Now, since there are only a very few applications that even begin to warm up a G4 this isn't that big a deal to the general public. However for those who are running cycle-eaters like Photoshop it is great to see this technology back on Apple's roadmap.

    -- Michael

  • Re:Dual G4 Board from PowerLogix (Score:3)

    by Darchmare ( 5387 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2000 @04:57AM (#1068007)
    ---
    The reason why Linux gets the necessary specs is because the commercial interest is tiny or non-existent, and Linux is not seen as a threat.
    ---

    Are you serious? Linux is a much bigger threat than BeOS. I'm not going to argue technological specs with you (as I'd say BeOS has lots of things over MacOS and Linux in that respect), but I'd say Linux has multiple times the amount of commercial support that the BeOS has. Linus Torvalds - not JLG - is on the cover of Money magazine this month. Who do you think has more commercial support?

    Last I checked, the major Linux companies haven't had to repurpose their OS efforts into the phantom 'Internet Appliance' market.

    ---
    Be however would stand to make profits, and make Mac OS look old fashioned, crufty and slow.
    ---

    Other than interface, Linux makes the current MacOS look pretty crufty in many ways (most notable are stability issues). Does Apple worry? Not really. To use Linux or BeOS on their hardware you have to buy their boxes AND their OS. Sure, they may lose somewhat in OS upgrade sales and 3rd parties may mis out, but really it's a no-brainer.

    I mean, think about it: If you can sell 10 machines running one OS or 12 machines with the other 2 moving to an alternative OS, wouldn't you? These aren't as good to Apple as those who stick with MacOS, but they're not _hurting_ in the slightest. When 90% of the world already runs something else other than MacOS already, it's not like they're keeping a big secret about those other operating systems anyhow.

    ---
    Secondly, Apple have never once challenged Be's oft-stated claim that the necessary specs have been witheld.
    ---

    Actually, they have [apple.com].

    If you're expecting a press release, though, you're probably not going to get it (Apple doesn't respond to damn near anything, especially rumors - call their PR group, it's their policy).


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])

  • [all OS 9 apps run in one virtual machine and] if one "Classic" app crashes, well, the rest can go with them

    This is exactly how Windows 95 and NT run 3.1 apps, or how Wine runs Windows apps. Anything new about opening a VM for maximum compatibility?

  • To make GIMP easier to use, right-click a document window and left-click the dotted line at the top of the main menu. You now have a reasonably standard menubar-in-a-box.
  • Well, it seems to me that the performance gain of a multi-processor system is greater with a mac than an x86 setup.

    What a suprise!



  • BeOS 5 Professional Edition runs on a PowerPC.

    Only the free version doesn't run on a PowerPC.

    Be also offers PowerPC support for their BeIA internet appliance platform, which is rather intelligent considering that a powerpc is a much better choice for an embedded platform like an internet appliance (consumes less power).

    See the bottom of BeIA Introduction [be.com] at the bottom under hardware requirements where is says:

    Processors: x86 (Pentium class or better), PowerPC (all)

  • ---
    Power Computing demonstrated a CHRP based laptop shortly before Apple (Jobs) killed CHRP and took them over.
    ---

    First, you can't kill CHRP - it's a standard, not a company. What Apple did was refuse to license the MacOS. Power Computing could very easily have produced CHRP compliant BeOS powered machine.

    Of course, this completely ignores the market viability of such a move, but that's not Apple's problem. Apple pretty much killed Power Computing, but CHRP was and is an open standard that anyone could work with.

    ---
    Apple wanted to raise licensing fees, so it (Jobs) killed CHRP rather than lose that source of income.
    ---

    This is true, if you replace CHRP with MacOS licensing. Apple changed their mind on who they wanted to license their OS to. I didn't like it either (I was a big Power Computing fan, and own a PTP 225 myself) but in hindsight it's hard to argue with the turnaround Apple made soon after.

    But either way, Apple did not kill CHRP. Apple doesn't even 'own' CHRP. CHRP is still there, waiting for someone to use it (in fact, didn't Umax come out with a 'mostly' CHRP compliant box some time back?).

    ---
    How wrong you are: Be was already porting before Jobs killed CHRP. Even BeOS 5 runs on PPC, so they never really left PPC space.
    ---

    I never said Be did it because Apple stopped licensing the MacOS out. Be did it because X86 machines outnumber PowerPC machines 10 to 1, and Intel sold them on the idea. The MacOS licensing issue was just convenient timing, but in the end it didn't matter that much other than in the platform's viability as a whole (Be wouldn't have cared one way or the other - it's not like Power Computing was going to sell BeOS-only machines any time soon, and BeOS ran just fine on Apple's boxen).


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])

  • emacs doesn't count because it has a "buffers" model, not a "documents" model.

    They're equivalent models. Rename the "buffers" menu to "documents". For Emacs to truly fit in, however, its menubar will need to be reordered:

    Eunuchs/NT Emacs: Buffers Files Tools Edit Search Help
    Mac Emacs: File Edit Search Tools Documents Help

  • Look harder. Everything Be needed is contained within the code for Darwin. Sure, they can't actually use the code, but they could certainly find out whatever boot parameters or 'secret stuff' they needed. Obviously the LinuxPPC [linuxppc.com] people (as well as those in the lengthy list I mentioned) aren't having any trouble. In fact, they've received direct assistance from Apple as well.

    Be needed an excuse to abandon their PPC userbase, and Apple was convenient. If they had simply said "Sorry, the volume in the Mac market just isn't enough" I wouldn't have blamed them. The foisting of blame on a 3rd party, though, is about as lame as you can get.

    Apple obviously has no intent on blocking Be, and why should they? They'd sell boxes either way, including a copy of the MacOS. Much better than having Be leave their platform.

    It's like pinning a murder on someone who has absolutely no motive, and basing your opinion on the words of someone who suddenly got a major cash infusion from a 3rd party (Intel). Apple had no reason to kill BeOS/PPC.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • ---
    I would point out, though, that the version of Disk Setup that comes with MacOS 9 includes an option for recommended LinuxPPC setup
    ---

    Yep. Doesn't sound like the actions of A Great Evil Apple Conspiracy, does it? Sure, it probably took some guy a day to write support for that (if that), but it's still a nice token gesture. Apple's not going to subsidize the development of 3rd party operating systems - which is what I think Be expected - but they're not standing in anyone's way either.

    ---
    For the record, I do subscribe to the view that, whatever Apple did or didn't do, Be was looking for an excuse to drop PowerPC support once they had committed to x86.
    ---

    Right. If they had simply said that they were needing more cash and the PPC space wasn't providing, that would have made more sense. Now I wouldn't agree so much, but at the time the Mac market was pretty downbeat and nobody even knew if Apple would be making PPC-based machines in the future.

    Be understood the PR hit they'd take was nothing compared to the new people they'd get from the "other" platform, so pissing off their PPC developers was an acceptable casualty.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close