PDA

View Full Version : Power5 four times faster than Power4


3G4N
Jun 27, 2003, 04:25 PM
IBM: Power5 four times faster than Power4
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31467.html

this bodes well for the rumored 980.

hvfsl
Jun 27, 2003, 04:33 PM
But don't expect the PPC980 before 2005. Sony and Nintendo are meant to be also using it for their new consoles to be released at Christmas 2005.

icetraxxg5
Jun 27, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
But don't expect the PPC980 before 2005. Sony and Nintendo are meant to be also using it for their new consoles to be released at Christmas 2005.

How do you know if Sony/Nintendo or Sony AND Nintendo will be using this chip? Wouldn't it be a little to expensive for a game console?

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 07:09 PM
3G4N:

No, they didn't say that. They said something more like this:

And it boasted that they're up to four times as powerful as the first generation of Power4 CPUs.
What you have done with their claim is equivelent to taking the statement that "a G5 clocks up to 5 times as high as a first generation G4", and interpreting it as "the G5 clocks 5 times as high as the G4". Thats the difference between a 2.0ghz G5 and a 7.1ghz G5.

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
3G4N:

No, they didn't say that. They said something more like this:


What you have done with their claim is equivelent to taking the statement that "a G5 clocks up to 5 times as high as a first generation G4", and interpreting it as "the G5 clocks 5 times as high as the G4". Thats the difference between a 2.0ghz G5 and a 7.1ghz G5. this performance boost doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the clock rate. it won't be clocked four times higher, or even four times higher than the slowest power4: the Power4+, the Power5 will be fabbed at 0.13 micron. It is expected to ship at 1.4GHz to 2GHz, taking it above the Power4+, which will probably peak at 1.8GHz. i would imagine they are using different features (better cache structures, more cache, faster cache, more processing units in the core, and so on) to get the quadrupling of performance. they said IBM said earlier this year that it expects such a quadrupling of performance. performance=speed, whether that be by doing more things faster, or by doing more things at the same speed at the same time. the net result of performance increase is that more gets done in the same time, meaning a speed boost. 34GN never said anything about clock speeds of any processor.

and i would imagine that the PPC980, if based on the power5, will be clocked much, much higher than the 2.0 GHz the Power5 is expected to be at. they weaken the chemical bonds between the transistors, allowing the cores to be clocked much higher, just like the PPC970, so we may well see a pretty good clocking boost as well as performance boost.

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 08:27 PM
Shadowfax:

Yeah I know, I used clockrate as an example because the performance delta between the G4 and G5 is unknown and therefore not suitable.

they weaken the chemical bonds between the transistors, allowing the cores to be clocked much higher, just like the PPC970
The PPC970 hardly clocks higher than the Power4+, 2.0ghz in a few months vs 1.7ghz right now.

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
The PPC970 hardly clocks higher than the Power4+, 2.0ghz in a few months vs 1.7ghz right now. yes, but i think that the 970 will go mich higher in the end than the Power4 will.

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 09:00 PM
At this point that seems to be a matter of faith. ;)

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
At this point that seems to be a matter of faith. ;) hah! good call. well, IBM is a lot bigger than motorola, and they don't piss around in stupid telephone technology at the expense of their business obligations. IBM is an R&D giant, and by being hooked to them, i think we will see a lot better progress. that's the best part of this.

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I have a lot of confidence that IBM means buisiness with future desktop PPC chips. I think it fits in very well with a performance-oriented product lineup by allowing IBM to dillute the considerable R&D cost of the Power series, which IBM pretty much needs to do in order to fend off the Itanium. (A new Itanium2 is being launched Monday, I hear.)

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Yeah, I have a lot of confidence that IBM means buisiness with future desktop PPC chips. I think it fits in very well with a performance-oriented product lineup by allowing IBM to dillute the considerable R&D cost of the Power series, which IBM pretty much needs to do in order to fend off the Itanium. (A new Itanium2 is being launched Monday, I hear.) itanium must die, methinks. heh.

off topic, why don't you have an avatar?

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 09:44 PM
off topic, why don't you have an avatar?
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere.

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere. lol. does it not have image support? what does macrumors look like?

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 10:03 PM
I run mozilla in it, launched from a terminal of course, so things look normal. Thats not what I meant by "icons or pictures" though, I was referring to window/file manager types of icons and pictures, which I do lack.

shadowfax
Jun 27, 2003, 10:11 PM
that's pretty interesting. i am a big fan of minimalism, i suppose, but what does that you have no icons on your WM have to do with that you won't put an icon up here?

e-coli
Jun 27, 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Rather than answer that, I'll just confuse things more by telling you that I also run Blackbox on Linux ( http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/ ) without any icons or pictures anywhere.

Doesn't that make things needlessly difficult? It is 2003.

ddtlm
Jun 27, 2003, 10:44 PM
e-coli:

You might be amazed by the power of the command line. In Linux you can basically live on it, though sadly the OSX version is not so hearty.

MisterMe
Jun 28, 2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
e-coli:

You might be amazed by the power of the command line. In Linux you can basically live on it, though sadly the OSX version is not so hearty. Do you even know what MacOS X is? If you do, list ten commands available on Linux that are missing in MacOS X.

nuckinfutz
Jun 28, 2003, 02:55 PM
Also remember the POWER5 will usher in IBM Simultaneous Multithreading as well. They claim up to %80 efficiency. This has to play a big part in the 4x as fast as the POWER4.

I don't care really I'll be happy with 3x increase on the average. Whenever the 980 comes we'll be in for another suprise. I expect that to be an ass kickin chip. Altivec done right. Hopefully SMT and improved Caching.

gopher
Jun 28, 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
e-coli:

You might be amazed by the power of the command line. In Linux you can basically live on it, though sadly the OSX version is not so hearty.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/finkcommander

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=18034

http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=221

Will give you XWindowing on top of a command line that Linux users would love. And it works in Mac OS X. Install the Developer Tools for more stuff that makes Mac OS X just like Linux. Did someone say you can't live with the command line in X? Actually X even has nice drag and drop of Finder folders to the Terminal window making possible to do command line things to Finder Folders without having to type out the full path. Goodness, Linux is fine, but it still isn't as simple or friendly as Mac OS X. X is the best of both worlds. It is crossplatform, it integrates tools found on most common Unix platforms, and compatibility with over 20,000 software titles for the Mac.

ouketii
Jun 28, 2003, 03:43 PM
funny how quickly ibm has gone from evil to good for apple. kind of like how apple has gone from flowerpower imac to industrial cheesegrater. go figure.

i thougt sony was developing their own proc for the ps3, which they said will be crazy-fast, based on 'core' or something? nintendo uses ppc for it's gamecube i htink. also, funny how pc and game consoles are converging so quickly. you can run linux on xbox and ps2, so since linux is such a flexible OS, it is reasonable to think that it would be able to run on a power5-based console, and since linux is like unix is like OS X, WHERE IS MY OS X XBOX? now that would kick microsoft ;) and, uh, off topic a little, sorry

Supa_Fly
Jun 28, 2003, 04:05 PM
What we all haven't thought about is when the 980 chip arrives, if it does, is what RAM will it use?

So far the fastest ram available is the DDR3200. And just like the problems of carrying high data across a parallel (my god I spelt it wrong I think, lol) path in ATA HDD, so does the problem occur in RAM. DDR II might be around but nobody knows for sure.

ddtlm
Jun 28, 2003, 04:27 PM
MisterMe:

What do you think I'm an idiot? There aren't just ten, there are hundreds of command line abilities in Linux not found on OSX. Being able to compile command line tools in OSX means squat. In OSX some things appear to only be possible in the GUI, in Linux everything is easily accessed from the command line (well some KDE/Gnome stuff may not be, but I don't use those, and they aren't actually part of Linux besides).

Consider, for a moment, the entire suite of commands and configuration files in Linux intended for system management. In Redhat there are vital tools such as rpm and up2date, there are the /etc/init.d/ scripts, there are config files that are actualy used like /etc/raidtab, /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, and the entire wealth of things in /etc/sysconfig/. OSX is missing the entire /proc filesystem, which is an awesome way to check on a lot of system statuses. (For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)

I can run a fair number of Linux GUI tools in OSX by using the X11 server, at a reduced speed compared to my older Linux machine. However this really fails to do the trick, because now I have two whole classes of GUI tools which don't work well together, that don't launch the same or look the same, and because the X11 tools are at a severe window manager disadvantage. I've tried running apps that way, but if I launch very many the X11 "desktop" becomes a lost cause.

OSX GUI tools dissapoint me because I can't easily launch them from the command line. Sure there's an executable a few layers down into the .app file, but I'm not gona waste my time digging for that when all I wanted to do was type "iCal" in any terminal and have it launch the correct program.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that top on OSX is far inferior to top on Linux, and I can't just compile the Linux top on OSX because the Linux one relies on the /proc filesystem. Oh, lets not make that the last complaint. I'd like also add that OSX has an inferior version of tar, one that does not support the j parameter. This annoys me often. How many other OSX tools are inferior? Who knows, I've had enough bad experiences that I mostly stick to the Linux command line.

gopher:

Install the Developer Tools for more stuff that makes Mac OS X just like Linux.
I have them installed, and have since I got OSX 10.1.

Did someone say you can't live with the command line in X?
Yes. I can repeat it if you'd like.

Actually X even has nice drag and drop of Finder folders to the Terminal window making possible to do command line things to Finder Folders without having to type out the full path.
Yeah I know that too, and I've even used it on occasion, however I find that simple organization of file names and directories makes it rather unimportant. For example, if I want to copy and mishmash of things I just downloaded on my Mac to my Linux machine or the other way, I just use rsych. The need to have all the files and the terminal visible is also a drawback, because it requires a good deal of extra clicking and moving on a busy machine.

gopher
Jun 28, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
[b]MisterMe:

What do you think I'm an idiot?

No...just uninformed of what's in Mac OS X. Some stuff appears under the home directory, some stuff only appears in the command line because Apple makes a lot of files invisible under the GUI.

/etc/init.d/ scripts, there are config files that are actualy used like /etc/raidtab, /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, and the entire wealth of things in /etc/sysconfig/.

OK, have you looked at /etc under Mac OS X? The names of files may be slightly different but then again the file system is slightly different.


OSX is missing the entire /proc filesystem, which is an awesome way to check on a lot of system statuses. (For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)

It isn't like Mac OS X doesn't support RAID. It uses the Disk Utility to support RAID under Mac OS X 10.2.

While many of your objections are definitely valid, I suggest looking more closely at the Mac OS X developer community on Apple's discussion board http://discussions.info.apple.com/ and discussing with them what you desire, and I think you'll be surprised how accomodating they can be. The discussion board is down today as far as posting, but you can look through the Developer and Unix boards below:

http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?13@47.ER1takKsnir.0@.eeeb8d4

http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?13@47.ER1takKsnir.0@.eee3b3a

Also don't forget Apple has two points of feedback for Mac OS X:

http://bugreporter.apple.com/ (free membership required)

and

http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/

Mac OS X gives you a lot of things under the hood you don't know are there, and it takes talking with people who have used it extensively to find out what those are.

http://www.osxfaq.com/

http://www.macosxhints.com/

are also good places to learn what people have done.

I've got more links on http://www.macmaps.com/macx.php

I've seen some power users who can do some pretty incredible things with X like enable PHP, and use MySQL. There is a lot there, just not where you always expect it.

Supa_Fly
Jun 28, 2003, 04:48 PM
ddtlm, man your a wealth of freekin knowledge.

I'm assuming you still only use OS X 10.1 and haven't made the move to OS X 10.2 and compiled the Linux things you've currently done. Is it possible to install the "For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)" along with the Proc system file onto OS X 10.2 and have it run or execute.

I'm really interested in more software RAID tools to be used on OS X (i.e. via BSD Unix Terminal). ALso I want to be able to see whom is logged into my machine, what software they are using, what files they've modified, and what other resources they're using, remotely via VPN over IP. Is this supported comprehensively in a shell or program?

Again how can IBM state that the performance of the PowerPC5 is much higher than the PowerPC4 if the same ram isn't used? let alone the memory bandwidth and bus speeds.

pseudobrit
Jun 28, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by ouketii
funny how quickly ibm has gone from evil to good for apple.

Where have you been for the past 10 years? IBM and Apple have been in an alliance since 1995. My two year-old Apple is powered by an IBM chip.

ddtlm
Jun 28, 2003, 05:29 PM
Prom1:

I'm typing this on my Linux machine, but the other input to the screen is my OSX 10.2 machine. Unfortunately the /proc filesystem is part of the OS itself, so a true equivelent would require kernel modifications to OSX. I bet OSX has all of the /proc info available somewhere, just in system calls or something.

Is this supported comprehensively in a shell or program?
OSX probably allows all of the user stuff you mentioned. I'm not sure how much you know already, so I'll just pretend that you're just a little familiar with the command line. If you want to do this remotely you should connect (command line) with 'ssh', which is secure so long as you keep it up to date, and so long as you don't let anyone pull off a "man in the middle" attack (which ssh will warn you about if it thinks it could be happening). The 'who' command reveals who is logged in, and its probably logged somewhere too (it is in Linux at least). The 'ps' command can reveal what everyone is running (check its man page), and so can 'top' but I like ps better under OSX. Not sure how you can check what "other resources" they are using beyond processor and RAM. Well, you can check on their network connections using 'netstat'. And of course, a real Unix admin would probably know a thing or two I don't, since its not my job to know these things.

Again how can IBM state that the performance of the PowerPC5 is much higher than the PowerPC4 if the same ram isn't used? let alone the memory bandwidth and bus speeds.
Processor speed claims pretty much always include the effects of the faster FSB/RAM and better compilers.

gopher:

I do appreciate you being a good sport and bringing up all these links for me, though so far it hasn't had too much effect on my viewpoint. ;) I'll go check out osxfaq and macoshints after I do this post.

OK, have you looked at /etc under Mac OS X? The names of files may be slightly different but then again the file system is slightly different.
Yes, but AFAIK files such as /etc/hosts are not typically used by OSX. I could be wrong about some of them, but on the other hand I've almost certainly overlooked some more that are unique to Linux. Honestly I'm not a very good OSX admin, partly cause I don't know anyone who knows more about it than me, so its hard for things to rub off.

It isn't like Mac OS X doesn't support RAID. It uses the Disk Utility to support RAID under Mac OS X 10.2.
Yeah, I even RAID'ed my disks on my Mac. I don't think it's as powerful a system though, yet. Linux software raid would allow me to do insane things like take two smallish disks of different sizes, stripe between a partition on each to make a single larger partition, and then mirror that virtual partition with another one on a 3rd disk. More realistically, I use Linux softraid to mirror matched "mission critical" partitions on a pair of matched disks, with each individual disk having a separate swap partition, one having the a partition with the / filesystem, and the other having the /usr filesystem.

I've seen some power users who can do some pretty incredible things with X like enable PHP, and use MySQL. There is a lot there, just not where you always expect it.
I haven't tried PHP or MySQL under OSX for a while, but I've done Apache/PHP/MySQL installs on many Linux machines (all Redhat) and two or three Windows machines. :) (I volenteer for a charity and run their server with that stuff.)

gopher
Jun 28, 2003, 06:34 PM
I discovered that under ~/.ssh/known_hosts that you could control what hosts you could connect via sftp and ssh and intriguingly if the server you were connecting to did some changes you had to delete some files to be able to sftp again to them. It is indeed a wild world out there with Unix, and while I haven't had much Linux experience, I have played around with DG AViion, Solaris, and SGI systems in the past before using Mac OS X. I have vi, and pico and appreciate how much they brought over. Granted no Unix is identical to another Unix, but the basic tools are pretty much the same. Every so frequently I play under the hood, but I enjoy the GUI so much it is only when I find there is something I need to do that Mac OS X doesn't normally give me.

ddtlm
Jun 28, 2003, 06:52 PM
gopher:

if the server you were connecting to did some changes you had to delete some files to be able to sftp again to them
Yeah if the other server changes their public key then (depending on configuration) you need to delete a line in the .ssh/known_hosts file to connect again. This was done because the "man in the middle" attack relies on a "bad" server pretending to be the server you wanted to connect to, and simply forwarding your connection to it on to the real server, so that you never notice anything is amiss. Unfortuneately the server in the middle now has access to your unencrypted connection, and knows your login/password to the real server.

Someone who is very security oriented would never connect to a server through ssh unless they could verify that the public key presented is the right public key.

BTW, I liked the 'pidof' command over at macosxhints. :)

MisterMe
Jun 28, 2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MisterMe:

What do you think I'm an idiot?

....
Yes.

ddtlm
Jun 28, 2003, 07:36 PM
MisterMe:

Heh. Good of you to share your feelings on the matter.

Sedulous
Jun 28, 2003, 07:44 PM
So the guy likes command line stuff... great, I wouldn't sweat that.

gopher
Jun 28, 2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
gopher:


Yeah if the other server changes their public key then (depending on configuration) you need to delete a line in the .ssh/known_hosts file to connect again. This was done because the "man in the middle" attack relies on a "bad" server pretending to be the server you wanted to connect to, and simply forwarding your connection to it on to the real server, so that you never notice anything is amiss. Unfortuneately the server in the middle now has access to your unencrypted connection, and knows your login/password to the real server.

Someone who is very security oriented would never connect to a server through ssh unless they could verify that the public key presented is the right public key.

BTW, I liked the 'pidof' command over at macosxhints. :)

Oh neat! now that is nice. Finding the process number can be a pain. Nice to see someone has figured out a workaround. I found that you could issue administrative commands with a simple Applescript. http://www.macmaps.com/software.html

So you could expand that to help kill off some really naughty administrative processes too!

encro
Jun 28, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm

Yes, but AFAIK files such as /etc/hosts are not typically used by OSX. I could be wrong about some of them, but on the other hand I've almost certainly overlooked some more that are unique to Linux. Honestly I'm not a very good OSX admin, partly cause I don't know anyone who knows more about it than me, so its hard for things to rub off.

Actually I was looking this up the other day:

[encro:~]cd ~
[encro:~]sudo mkdir /etc/lookupd
[encro:~]sudo cp /etc/lookupd/hosts/etc/lookupd/hosts.original
[encro:~]sudo echo LookupOrder Cache NI FF DNS DS YP NIL > hosts
[encro:~]sudo cp hosts /etc/lookupd
[encro:~]nidump -r /locations/lookupd / > lookupd.original
[encro:~]nidump -r /machines / > machines.original
[encro:~]sudo niload -r /locations/lookupd / < lookupd.jaguar
[encro:~]exit

Optionally, you can switch the above order so that flat files get referenced first, like generic unix:
[encro:~]sudo echo LookupOrder Cache FF NI DNS DS YP NIL > hosts

You'll need to reboot for the changes to take effect. Hotshot unix aficionados can restart lookupd themselves from the command line without rebooting.

your lookupd.jaguar flat file should contain the following:
{
"LookupOrder" = ( "Cache", "NI", "DS", "YP" );
"name" = ( "lookupd" );
"MaxThreads" = ( "12" );
CHILDREN = (
{
"name" = ( "hosts" );
"LookupOrder" = ( "Cache", "NI", "FF", "DNS", "DS", "YP", "NIL" );
}
)
}

ALTERNATIVE METHOD

You can load your /etc/hosts into NetInfoManager's database like this...

[encro:~]niload -m hosts / < /etc/hosts
(run as root if your admin doesn't have enough privileges).

The '-m' means merge the new hosts in with the existing ones.

The same procedure also works for these files:
aliases, bootptab, bootparams, ethers, exports, fstab, group, hosts, networks, passwd, printcap, protocols, resolv.conf, rpc, services, mountmaps.

Check out Damian Gallop's column @macwrite.com for all this info and more: Critical Mass (http://www.macwrite.com/criticalmass/)

I haven't tried PHP or MySQL under OSX for a while, but I've done Apache/PHP/MySQL installs on many Linux machines (all Redhat) and two or three Windows machines. :) (I volunteer for a charity and run their server with that stuff.)

Marc Liyanage MySQL (http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/mysql/)
Marc Liyanage PHP (http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/)

note that PHP is installed as default on OS X, just needs to be enabled in the apache config files.

Also with regard to opening applications from the terminal add an alias to your /etc/csh.login (or ~/.tcshrc file such as:
alias ical "open /Applications/iCal.app"
logout and back in or enter in the terminal:
[encro:~]rehash
[encro:~]tsch

Cheers

P.S. if your interested in net admin you should also check out macosxlabs.org (http://macosxlabs.org)

hacurio1
Jun 28, 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MisterMe:

What do you think I'm an idiot? There aren't just ten, there are hundreds of command line abilities in Linux not found on OSX. Being able to compile command line tools in OSX means squat. In OSX some things appear to only be possible in the GUI, in Linux everything is easily accessed from the command line (well some KDE/Gnome stuff may not be, but I don't use those, and they aren't actually part of Linux besides).

Consider, for a moment, the entire suite of commands and configuration files in Linux intended for system management. In Redhat there are vital tools such as rpm and up2date, there are the /etc/init.d/ scripts, there are config files that are actualy used like /etc/raidtab, /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, and the entire wealth of things in /etc/sysconfig/. OSX is missing the entire /proc filesystem, which is an awesome way to check on a lot of system statuses. (For example, I can simply cat /proc/mdstat to see what my software raids are up to.)

I can run a fair number of Linux GUI tools in OSX by using the X11 server, at a reduced speed compared to my older Linux machine. However this really fails to do the trick, because now I have two whole classes of GUI tools which don't work well together, that don't launch the same or look the same, and because the X11 tools are at a severe window manager disadvantage. I've tried running apps that way, but if I launch very many the X11 "desktop" becomes a lost cause.

OSX GUI tools dissapoint me because I can't easily launch them from the command line. Sure there's an executable a few layers down into the .app file, but I'm not gona waste my time digging for that when all I wanted to do was type "iCal" in any terminal and have it launch the correct program.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that top on OSX is far inferior to top on Linux, and I can't just compile the Linux top on OSX because the Linux one relies on the /proc filesystem. Oh, lets not make that the last complaint. I'd like also add that OSX has an inferior version of tar, one that does not support the j parameter. This annoys me often. How many other OSX tools are inferior? Who knows, I've had enough bad experiences that I mostly stick to the Linux command line.

gopher:


I have them installed, and have since I got OSX 10.1.


Yes. I can repeat it if you'd like.


Yeah I know that too, and I've even used it on occasion, however I find that simple organization of file names and directories makes it rather unimportant. For example, if I want to copy and mishmash of things I just downloaded on my Mac to my Linux machine or the other way, I just use rsych. The need to have all the files and the terminal visible is also a drawback, because it requires a good deal of extra clicking and moving on a busy machine.

Hey ddtml, Iíve been dying to learn some command line, could you recommend a good book, guide. I know some basic commands, but that doesnít cut it off, I want to learn more. I know it takes years of experience, but if you can recommend a beginners guide or something, Iíll be very thankful.

ddtlm
Jun 29, 2003, 12:08 AM
hacurio1:

I really have never used books much; I just ask friends. You might make a thread asking about this is the messageboards somewhere...

ddtlm
Jun 29, 2003, 12:10 AM
encro:

Eek, all those commands might be obscure enough for me to like. :) Might try that out sometime (right now I'm supposed to be working).

gopher
Jun 29, 2003, 07:42 AM
More on hosts:

http://www.macwrite.com/criticalmass/mac-os-x-hosts-regrouped.php

encro
Jun 29, 2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by gopher
More on hosts:

http://www.macwrite.com/criticalmass/mac-os-x-hosts-regrouped.php

Yep thats a good reference article too. Blocking all those nasty advertisers :cool:

encro
Jun 29, 2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by hacurio1
Hey ddtml, Iíve been dying to learn some command line, could you recommend a good book, guide. I know some basic commands, but that doesnít cut it off, I want to learn more. I know it takes years of experience, but if you can recommend a beginners guide or something, Iíll be very thankful.

Guide to UNIX Using Linux - Second Edition
Palmer Dent & Gaddis
www.course.com/networking (http://www.course.com/networking)
www.thomsonlearning.com (http://www.thomsonlearning.com)

It was my course book this year, quite a good one with a few little mistakes that you can sus out easily anyway. Also comes with RedHat Linux 7.2 Publisher Edition.

3G4N
Jun 30, 2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
3G4N:
No, they didn't say that. They said something more like this:
...
What you have done with their claim is equivelent to taking the statement that "a G5 clocks up to 5 times as high as a first generation G4", and interpreting it as "the G5 clocks 5 times as high as the G4". Thats the difference between a 2.0ghz G5 and a 7.1ghz G5.

Yes, they did say that.

All I did was copy and paste the
Title and URL.

So friggin sue me, jeez.

ddtlm
Jun 30, 2003, 07:47 PM
3G4N:

That was the title but was not an accurate statement about the article. You shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along and points that out to you, because there was/is no sign that you already understood.

sjjordan
Jul 1, 2003, 01:23 PM
They mentioned it'll be made using the 0.13 micron process. Does anyone know when they're going to the 90 nm process?

3G4N
Jul 2, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
That was the title but was not an accurate statement about the article.You shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along and points that out to you, because there was/is no sign that you already understood.

Well, thanks for putting all those words in my mouth for me. I'm glad you were here to "explain" what I understood,
the way you did. Now I understand.

And you're right. I shouldn't be suprised when people over-react on this forum.
I mean, just look around...

...or in the mirror.

ddtlm
Jul 2, 2003, 08:38 PM
3G4N:

Yes, put that mirror to use on yourself. I find it funny that you should accuse me of overreaction.

Anyway, if you don't like being treated like you don't know whats going on then you should try to demonstrate some understanding next time, rather than posting blatantly a false statement under the cover of them being someone else's soundbite. If you know what your talking about then use that knowledge to craft something of substance. Looking at your post, not only is your title the soundbite but so is your entire content. You give no hint of any further knowledge, in fact the way you presented things I think was reasonable to assume that you believed it. The way I see it, its quite an achievment of yours to not only make a stupid post but then to get pissy with me what I treat you exactly how you invited. I wonder how much further effort you intend to sink into this.

3G4N
Jul 3, 2003, 02:43 PM
If anything, you seem to accuse me of under-reaction --
that I didn't "demonstrate enough understanding".

My intent was not to demonstrate knowledge.
My intent was to share a URL, and the content
contained in that URL, and possibly have others
comment on that article. I intentionally
kept what I said to a minimum, to let the
article speak for itself.

Sorry if you think that is "hiding".

Leave it to you to take something out of context
(maybe partially my fault), and then over-react to it
by putting stretched words in my mouth. That's what
I didn't like. I did like how you called it a
"stupid post" though. Eloquent.

You really ought to relax, and stop reading so much
into things. Sometimes when someone says "faster"
they don't necessarily mean "clock frequency".

Criticize the article, not the messenger.


if you don't like being treated like you don't know
whats going on then you should try to demonstrate
some understanding next time


Like I said above, it was so nice of you to assume
what I know and what I don't, and treat me like
I don't know what I'm talking about, all from
one line of copied text. Thanks for making us
both look bad (the ASSUME saying). Your way is
an exemplary way to proceed through life, assuming
others know nothing when they say very little.

Well, I bet I pressed some of your buttons, and now
you want to retort. Please be sure to explain how
I "invited" you to treat me as you did, putting
words in my mouth, based on my first post.


Looking at your post, not only is your title the
soundbite but so is your entire content.


My entire content?!! Dear me! You make one line
sound like sooo much! And yet, you glean everything
about me, everything I know, through this one-sentance
post. Again, testament to your skills of stretching.
Do you take yoga classes?


If you know what your talking about then use that
knowledge to craft something of substance.


What are you, my High School English teacher?
I post a URL and you want an essay?

It seems to me that you were looking to make a
straw man to knock down, so that you could
demonstrate your knowledge. You thought you
found that straw man in my post. When I point out
that you didn't notice that all I did was copy
the title of the article, you were caught
looking (and acting) foolish and had to defend
yourself by belittling and blaming me for your
assumptions.

Anyway, my over-reaction to this over-reaction is
done. Say all you want. I'm going out to have a
great Fourth of July! I hope you use this
relaxation time wisely, ddtlm.

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 3, 2003, 03:02 PM
I don't know much about Unix commands, but I have tried them before. May I ask why one would want to live off of a command line? If you want to open iCal, just put it, the Applications folder, or both, into the dock, and click them when you need them. I don't mean to be offensive, as I don't know much of this area, but why type a long command for something you can do with a single click?

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2003, 09:48 PM
3G4N:

I don't know how this is so hard for you to see, but you could have posted almost anything other than that one-liner, twice, and illustrated understanding. As I said, posting it as your title and your entire content implied that it was the entirety of your point.

I hope you use this relaxation time wisely, ddtlm.
I don't think that there is or was a problem with my relaxation. But yes that is what I intend to do most of the weekend...

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2003, 09:50 PM
XnavxeMiyyep:

On a single command line you can have access to hundreds of programs without so much as moving a mouse. You can alternate between file browsing, file editing and starting more advanced GUIs on files without moving more than your fingers.

macrumors12345
Jul 3, 2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by sjjordan
They mentioned it'll be made using the 0.13 micron process. Does anyone know when they're going to the 90 nm process?

Apparently in less than 12 months, because I sure don't think that the 970 will hit 3 Ghz on a 130 nm process! (that would imply that it could clock almost as high as a Pentium 4 on an equivalent process...with 50% better IPC too!)