dual processor tibook

[jefhatfield]

and here it comes again,

someone told me that the beatles were better than the rolling stones?

sheesh, does that make sense?:p

[King Cobra]

Essay: One vs. Two Processors in a Powerbook G4.

In my argument of dual G4 powerbooks vs. single processor G4s I am going to prove that the use of high speed processors in a dual processor mode would be inadequate by means of battery life and the meaning of having a powerbook defined as a portable. I also intend to prove that although the use of a dual processor G4 would accelerate mechanics and other activities within the Powerbook, the overall efficiency of having a dual processor would not cut the time for an operation to complete in half.

Two of the less potent issues for having a dual processor as a problem would be the extra chip's weight and heat. Currently, the Powerbook weighs 5.3 pounds. A portable computer, or handheld, is given the name "portable" if you can carry it from place to place. The extra weight of the processor would increase the weight of the Powerbook by, maybe, four to six ounces. That means that the Powerbook would weigh more than five and a half pounds. And even that little chip can throw off a large amount of heat. A dual processor chip throws off an incredible amount of heat. According to a source (maybe on xlr8yourmac.com ) one person installed a dual 450MHz chip into their Cube, and the temperature rose to 130 degrees Far. If a faster, but less power-consuming dual chip was placed in the Powerbook, you are still looking at a minimum of 120 degrees Far. inside the Powerbook, resulting in possible burnout of internal electronics and equipment.

Second, the power consumption and usage in a dual powerbook would defeat the purpose of the powerbook becoming portable. Currently, the Powerbook G4s use around 50 watts of electricity maximum. Also, the battery length of the Powerbook has a maximum of five hours. Second, a high speed, low powered G4 processor, added to what is currently built in would increase the electricity flow from 50 watts to around 60. Because of this, the battery life of the powerbook G4 would be shortened significantly to a little more than four hours. A portable computer is supposed to have an extended battery life. If we had to use the hard drive constantly in a Powerbook, that means the four hour battery life would be diminished to approx. two and a half hours. As a result, the Powerbook must constantly be charged and plugged into an outlet, which means that the Powerbook becomes a desktop computer, and not a portable. Finally, if one continues to use the powerbook when charging, the charge may last over four hours, resulting in the lack of a purpose for a Powerbook becoming a portable.

Finally, although a dual processor may shorten the time length for certain operations to occur, it does not cut the time in half. This is because other factors hold back the speedy operations from being any faster. When duplicating a large file, opening an application, or sending information to an application for immediate use, you use other factors than the processors that are slower. The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz. When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz. Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive. And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors. The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU. So you use the extra watts from the second processor only to speed up some of the operations that must be performed within electrical communication.

Overall, a dual processor powerbook may seem productive, but there really is no production in the end. You use an incredible amount of power, you let off too much heat, and you do not exactly cut time in half. It would be much safer to insert a single processor into the processor that is low in power consumption, high in speed, and holds a very light capacity.

Let me just cite www.apple-history.com and www.apple.com so that I do not get plagiarized.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[whfsdude]

Too hot

[bonehead]

Is there a need or is there a desire? I think a lot of people would say need when they mean desire. I can do my job without one so I don't need one but if they made it I would buy it. FCP and DP3 both get a boost from additional processors so it would allow me to do more in less time but those apps will work on slower machines. Having said that, I think King Cobra is right.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
Two of the less potent issues for having a dual processor as a problem would be the extra chip's weight and heat. Currently, the Powerbook weighs 5.3 pounds. A portable computer, or handheld, is given the name "portable" if you can carry it from place to place. The extra weight of the processor would increase the weight of the Powerbook by, maybe, four to six ounces. That means that the Powerbook would weigh more than five and a half pounds.
First of all, I think you're overstating the weight of a mobile G4. Lift up the keyboard and look at how small the thing is - it's much smaller than the graphics chip, and much smaller/lighter than the desktop G4s with their huge heatsinks and ceramic enclosures. So what if the dual-processor PowerBook weighs an extra two ounces? I think the substantial performance advantages possible would more than justify this "extra weight." Adding a second processor in terms of weight would be like adding an AirPort card.
And even that little chip can throw off a large amount of heat. A dual processor chip throws off an incredible amount of heat. According to a source (maybe on xlr8yourmac.com ) one person installed a dual 450MHz chip into their Cube, and the temperature rose to 130 degrees Far.
That's like saying, "this lemonade is yellow, therefore, I do not think the top speed of a Ford Escort is more than 90mph." Not only are they completely different computers with completely different form factors and made of entirely different materials, they also use very different processors, although the MHz might be similar.
If a faster, but less power-consuming dual chip was placed in the Powerbook, you are still looking at a minimum of 120 degrees Far. inside the Powerbook, resulting in possible burnout of internal electronics and equipment.
Where are you getting this information? I agree that heat would be an issue - in fact, I think it would be by far the biggest issue. But I think it could be made less of an issue by 1) using low-power CPUs, of course, and 2) spacing the CPUs apart from each other on opposite sides of the keyboard, thus increasing the total area available to distribute the heat produced.
Second, the power consumption and usage in a dual powerbook would defeat the purpose of the powerbook becoming portable. Currently, the Powerbook G4s use around 50 watts of electricity maximum. Also, the battery length of the Powerbook has a maximum of five hours. Second, a high speed, low powered G4 processor, added to what is currently built in would increase the electricity flow from 50 watts to around 60. Because of this, the battery life of the powerbook G4 would be shortened significantly to a little more than four hours. A portable computer is supposed to have an extended battery life. If we had to use the hard drive constantly in a Powerbook, that means the four hour battery life would be diminished to approx. two and a half hours. As a result, the Powerbook must constantly be charged and plugged into an outlet, which means that the Powerbook becomes a desktop computer, and not a portable. Finally, if one continues to use the powerbook when charging, the charge may last over four hours, resulting in the lack of a purpose for a Powerbook becoming a portable.
So, what you do in this case is, if you want to save your battery life, you open up the Energy Saver control panel and 1) click the "Disable 2nd CPU" option, and 2) click the "enable processor cycling" option. (Yes, I am aware that neither of these are available yet, but presumably Apple would add them upon the dual-processor PowerBook's release.) Voila, same battery life as a single-CPU PowerBook when on the road. (If you want.)


Finally, although a dual processor may shorten the time length for certain operations to occur, it does not cut the time in half.
Who ever said it did, and so what if it doesn't? I think most PowerBook owners would be content with any substantial speed increase.
This is because other factors hold back the speedy operations from being any faster. When duplicating a large file, opening an application, or sending information to an application for immediate use, you use other factors than the processors that are slower. The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz. When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz. Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive. And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors. The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU. So you use the extra watts from the second processor only to speed up some of the operations that must be performed within electrical communication.
I must say, you do a fine job spouting off about a topic you obviously know nothing about. I'm not even going to reply to this because it's simply too absurd.
Overall, a dual processor powerbook may seem productive, but there really is no production in the end. You use an incredible amount of power, you let off too much heat, and you do not exactly cut time in half. It would be much safer to insert a single processor into the processor that is low in power consumption, high in speed, and holds a very light capacity.
Yes, of course it would be "safer" to insert such a processor. However, if you've been paying attention to Motorola lately no such processor of theirs really exists. I'm not sure what you mean by "holding a light capacity." I'm presuming you don't know what you mean either.
Let me just cite www.apple-history.com and www.apple.com so that I do not get plagiarized.
This paper only needs one citation: "My rectum." I'm sorry to be so rude, but I simply cannot stand it when those who haven't the faintest clue stand up and blather on so laughably. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet. I'm not saying *I* know what I'm talking about either, but at least I don't stand up and spout out complete BS and pass it off as fact.

Alex

[PCUser]

Firstly, I have to wonder... how did this guy add a second chip to a single chip motherboard? I conclude that it is a single chip motherboard from looking at http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=g4cube.html. If I'm wrong, I apolgize for the inconvience. Anyway, if it's a single chip motherboard, it's a single chip motherboard, period. You'd have to move things around, somehow make contacts for this new chip, etc. Not likely that this person really was able to put a second chip in there.

I'm not an expert, but I do know the reason why dual processors don't speed up the system 2x has nothing to do with anything that you mentioned. AFAIK it has to do with threading of applications. You will only be able to run each thread ar 1GHz, but you'll be able to run two threads at 1GHz truly simultaneously, so you will see speed increases. A single-threaded app would see no speed increases from dual processors because it would only run on one processor. Make sense?

The processor does add a lot of heat, yes, and that would be a big concern. However, 120 degrees? Where did you come by such an exact number?

Also, just a nit-pick, but a citation is where you credit a paticular item (such as the 120 degrees) to a specific source. Saying "www.apple.com" is useless, and isn't a citation. A citation makes it so that a reader can look up the source themselves and check it out.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and here it comes again,

...but do you guys think that there is a real need for a dual g4 tibook?


I'm going to avoid the physical limitations/issues that were addressed in the 'papers' above and go right to the point.

If it had been available in a dual mode and was a viable machine (not heat, energy issues, etc.) I would have bought one. For me, yes, there would have been a need. It basically comes down to how fast the computer can process animation and DV rendering.

Damn the physics, just give me speed!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by PCUser
I'm not an expert, but I do know the reason why dual processors don't speed up the system 2x has nothing to do with anything that you mentioned. AFAIK it has to do with threading of applications. You will only be able to run each thread ar 1GHz, but you'll be able to run two threads at 1GHz truly simultaneously, so you will see speed increases. A single-threaded app would see no speed increases from dual processors because it would only run on one processor. Make sense?
Multithreaded Classic and Carbon apps like Photoshop and FCP, and all Cocoa apps, will benefit from multiple processors.

Alex

[PCUser]

Well, I'm not too familiar with the specifics on the Mac side, but I do know that I have to write multi-threading into my apps to make them work on multiple processors in Linux for x86. Are the Cocoa API's multithreaded, then? Just curious how the Cocoa apps benefit from dual processors if they aren't multi-threaded themselves...

[tobyglyn]

[B]Firstly, I have to wonder... how did this guy add a second chip to a single chip motherboard?

The Cube uses the same processor card as a Sawtooth (AGP) desktop Macintosh. There are no logic board differences with single and dual processor Macs, just the CPU daughter card and in the older generation AGP Macs, a larger heat sink for the DP. The new Quicksilver models however have the same heat sink on both single and dual models.
I have modified my own Cube with a dual 500mhz CPU module from a DP 500 tower and installed a super low noise fan in the factory fan location..Apple must have been expecting to make faster and maybe DP Cubes. It's now a dream with OSX. So much for the Cube not being upgradable.

[PCUser]

Ahh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for correcting me. I'm used to PC motherboards where the chip's socket is on the motherboard itself, and dual motherboards have two sockets as opposed to one.

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by PCUser
Ahh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for correcting me. I'm used to PC motherboards where the chip's socket is on the motherboard itself, and dual motherboards have two sockets as opposed to one.

No problem, I know practically nothing about PCs myself:) and Apple don't give out much real info anyway and in the case of the Cube also did a dismal marketing job.

[mmmdreg]

Doesn't OSX have really bad threading or something? i think I remember Linus Torvald saying so...anyway, that's quite irrelevant to the topic..

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by mmmdreg
Doesn't OSX have really bad threading or something? i think I remember Linus Torvald saying so...anyway, that's quite irrelevant to the topic..

OSX has only really started to grab me since I put the dual 500 in my Cube. The Cube feels far more responsive overall than when it was a single 500. Also, having played with a single 933 clocked to 1ghz and a dual 1ghz, there is no way I would go single if I could stretch to the DP.

[mc68k]

Originally posted by PCUser
Well, I'm not too familiar with the specifics on the Mac side, but I do know that I have to write multi-threading into my apps to make them work on multiple processors in Linux for x86. Are the Cocoa API's multithreaded, then? Just curious how the Cocoa apps benefit from dual processors if they aren't multi-threaded themselves...

OS X is supposed to have symmetrical multiprocessing support on the kernel level. This is where all processes eventually go, so if this is true then everything would benefit from 2 processors. I know you have to write multi-threading into Carbon apps...not sure about Cocoa though.

[cb911]

good point King Cobra. but if the heat wasn't such an issue, i think that there would be alot of people that would use the dual processor TiBook. then people wouldn't need a desktop computer at all!:D

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Alex [/B]

Hear Hear Alex_Ant. i didnt have the time or patience to say it as well as you did.

actually i think the biggest obstacle is space. But this and all the obstacles are just that—obstacle, which does not mean the prohibit it ever happening they are merely things that need to be overcome. I honestly believe that we will eventually see a dual laptop. I think it might be some time off but i think it will likley occur. The current Tipowerbooks form factor will likely have to be abandoned in order to accomodate a second processor but form factors get upgraded every few years anyway so no big deal.

And as far as a need/want. Well first to respond to the "bonehead" (for those who didnt notice his post thats his name, im not just being a jerk) no there isnt a need for a dual processor laptop, but to ditinguish between need and desire is stupid. NO ONE NEEDS a computer of any kind AND whether they will sell or not has nothing to do whether there is a need for the item or not. The question is will people buy them. If properly priced the things will sell like hotcakes (as far as i understand hotcakes sell very well). OSX and ANY application that would need to use a dual processor (FCP, PAUP, etc) already has the ability to take advantage of two processors, so any dual processor machine will provide significant boosts in productivity.

so they only problem is physics... how we gonna get the darn thing to work. And in my experience technology advances seem to make such questions trivial given time (with words of an self proclaimed "expert" such as KingCobra still echoing in my head after all these years..."computer CPUs will NEVER exceed 100mhz, its physically impossible because...")

[jefhatfield]

for these rumor boards, i consider you and king cobra among the more technically inclined people of this mostly techie forum...both you guys make great points

sure, technology will give us the possibility of a low wattage dual tibook, but when?

that is the question here

[iGav]

Well I'd love a dual TiBook.... the increase in horsepower would be great..... and would certainly be handy when you need to do rendering, certainly when travelling on trains, I find myself rendering alot..... a dual option would make this faster which can only be a good thing!! If it came down to not ruining the form factor, I'd say to Apple... junk the PC Card/CardBus slot and shoehorn in another G4....... I would say the space is just about there!! I've had my TiBook for 14 months now and I've never used this slot..... so I personally don't have a use for this slot...... those that do, the option should be there to buy a TiBook with it.... (only if Apple couldn't squeeze the G4 in without removing it!!) although something tells me Apple would sell more dualies than single processor PC slotted ones!!

However the one thing I've learned with Apple.... is never say "it can't" as I think Apple have proved on may occasion they most certainly can......

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
actually i think the biggest obstacle is space.
I don't wanna nitpick, but I honestly do believe there is enough space inside the current Ti enclosure to house a second processor. If you lift up the keyboard and look behind the combo drive, there is an approx. 3 1/2" x 3/4" gap there. It might be a bit of work to expand the motherboard into this area and add a second CPU, but I think it could be done.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
for these rumor boards, i consider you and king cobra among the more technically inclined people of this mostly techie forum...both you guys make great points
Aieeeee! King Cobra?!?
Originally posted by King Cobra
The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz.
What?
When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz.
Huh?
Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive.
Yes, and?
And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors.
What do you mean, "entirely use the processors?"
The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU.
Bahahahaha!
So you use the extra watts from the second processor only to speed up some of the operations that must be performed within electrical communication.
This is too much!

If THAT's technical inclination, then I don't know what isn't. King Cobra is the best BSer I've ever seen on these forums.

Alex

[King Cobra]

Let me go one step at a time correcting some of the controversy surrounding my essay.

I stated that "one person installed a dual 450MHz chip into their Cube, and the temperature rose to 130 degrees Far. If a faster, but less power-consuming dual chip was placed in the Powerbook, you are still looking at a minimum of 120 degrees Far."

What I meant to say that depending on the use, size and speed of the chip, there may be less heat thrown off by a single processor CPU rather than a dual processor chip. 120 degrees is just a possibility.

Now, alex_ant, I try to respect other's opinions on the forums. And although my essay varies on opinion on a single person or many people, it does not give any one of those people that in one's mind, if my words seem inaccurate, that person can accuse that person in such a harsh way. Being called a BSer does not satisfy an opinion, but rather a form of verbal insult. If you want to post an opposing opinion, camly argue against it. Do not accuse anyone directly and harshly if their comments seem inaccurate.

To respond to your comments on my essay, let's go one at a time.

KC: "The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz." What I mean is that the Hard Drive spins at a rate of around 5400RPM, maybe slower, depending on the portable computer. RAM chips and CPUs do not spin, so you do not need to wait for a certain point on the Hard Drive to spin around again so that more data can be copied, transfered, saved, whatever. On chips with no spinning hardware you transfer commands directly into and out of the chip, without having the computer to wait for a certain point on spinning hardware to come back to where data was first transfered.

KC: "When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz." ANY application you use on a computer requires a RAM Cache, so that you can transfer data from the application back and forth from the RAM, instead of from the slower Hard Drive. And the fastest Powerbooks use RAM chips of type PC133, which are compatible with the 133MHz System Bus.

KC: "Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive." Again, the RAM and the Hard Drive are being used to do some of these tasks, so you do not get the total benefit of both processors.

KC: "And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors." What happens in a computer command sequence is information is carried from the Hard Drive at some speed, then the CPU sends the data through its chip at that speed, then to the RAM chips. However, the Bus Speed for the RAM chips only operate at 133MHz, so the faster data that is between the RAM and the CPU has to wait for the data going into the RAM to be rendered and, either, stored or rejected.

KC: "The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU." Again, the data sent through the CPU has to wait for the data in the RAM chips to be either rendered or rejected, since the Bus Speed operates slower than the CPU chips.

I will not admit to being perfect, since I never really observed the minimal size and weight of a G4 processor. And when I said speed of the RAM chip, I meant how fast the Bus is in rendering the memory chips.

But from now on, alex_ant, try to argue less harsh against anything I have posted in the essay, or anywhere else.

I appreciate the support I got from my essay, jefhatfield and cb911. But I can tell you guys right now: I am not even 17 and have only looked close up at a computer's internal structure once. So I really have a while to go.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by King Cobra
Now, alex_ant, I try to respect other's opinions on the forums. And although my essay varies on opinion on a single person or many people, it does not give any one of those people that in one's mind, if my words seem inaccurate, that person can accuse that person in such a harsh way. Being called a BSer does not satisfy an opinion, but rather a form of verbal insult. If you want to post an opposing opinion, camly argue against it. Do not accuse anyone directly and harshly if their comments seem inaccurate.
***
But from now on, alex_ant, try to argue less harsh against anything I have posted in the essay, or anywhere else.

I appreciate the support I got from my essay, jefhatfield and cb911. But I can tell you guys right now: I am not even 17 and have only looked close up at a computer's internal structure once. So I really have a while to go.

Hey Kid, yeah, you, the child who's still working on his first computer...

I can tell you this from experience, if you get on the soap box, you might as well expect to be challenged. That challenge can come in many forms, including harsh responses. If you can't handle defending yourself against a harsh reply, then grow up or get in the sanitation engineering business.

I'm a lawyer, and part of my job is to calmly and intelligently reply to arguments. Some times, however, that is innappropriate. Sort of like here, where I have to agree with Alex and say that your arguments sound like horse *****.

You've basically said that a dual processor notebook won't be worth doing because the ram is SDRAM and the hard drive spins too slow.

So, what if they replace the ram with DDR ram, up the system bus above 133 and then make the faster hard-drive standard? What then? Is a dual processor notebook still no good? What if they use low heat apollo chips?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Well, your essay looks like *****, smells like *****, maybe it is.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be mean, just showing you that an intelligent argument can be harsh. Deal with it.

[King Cobra]

You know, mcrain, with the possible options that you have mentioned that may belong in a better Powerbook, that leads to another issue: Price.

With the possibility of having a dual processor in a Powerbook with high speeds, low power, DDR-RAM and a much improved faster Hard Drive, this all adds up to cost. And I don't see why Apple consumers would want to spend more than the current $3000 maximum for their current top of the line model, which lacks ALL of these features.

If Apple could find a way to keep the price of their products down, especially below $3000, while managing to import all of the necessary technology that would make the dual processor as effective as possible, then I would be for it.

Then Apple would be left with one other problem: the PowerMac lineup. Apple would have to incorporate all of the features plus extra speed in order to keep the Pro Line of products superior to their portable cousins.

Now, mcrain, the only reason I accused alex_ant of his comment was his particular way of expressing it. I simply thought it was somewhat aggressive in my view.

My essay was only supposed to reflect an opinion on what I think would be most logical (currently). Once the prices on certain advanced equipment dropped, and Apple found a CPU chip that produces little heat and uses little power, I would have changed my essay to express a progression towards dual processor Powerbooks.

But, currently, it would not be logical. That is why I argued against it.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
I stated that "one person installed a dual 450MHz chip into their Cube, and the temperature rose to 130 degrees Far. If a faster, but less power-consuming dual chip was placed in the Powerbook, you are still looking at a minimum of 120 degrees Far."

What I meant to say that depending on the use, size and speed of the chip, there may be less heat thrown off by a single processor CPU rather than a dual processor chip. 120 degrees is just a possibility.
Oh, what you meant to say. Very well then, I'll remember not to take your posts so literally next time, and try to do a better job of reading your mind. As if your correction makes any more sense.
Now, alex_ant, I try to respect other's opinions on the forums. And although my essay varies on opinion on a single person or many people, it does not give any one of those people that in one's mind, if my words seem inaccurate, that person can accuse that person in such a harsh way. Being called a BSer does not satisfy an opinion, but rather a form of verbal insult. If you want to post an opposing opinion, camly argue against it. Do not accuse anyone directly and harshly if their comments seem inaccurate.
I repeat: You are a BSer. I don't know you and I have nothing against you, and as such you shouldn't take anything I say personally - but anyone who spouts off such meaningless, baseless nonsense under the pretense of having any inkling of knowledge on any particular subject, as you have done, is a BSer. I never criticized your opinions - I criticized your ridiculous "facts." Now, if you had re-phrased what you had said - for example, "I'm not sure, but..." or, "as I understand it...", I would never have "attacked" you. Frankly I'm not sorry, and you deserved everything you got.

KC: "The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz." What I mean
Again, perhaps it's a telepathy thing that none of us have. You ought to be clearer as to what you really mean to begin with.

is that the Hard Drive spins at a rate of around 5400RPM, maybe slower, depending on the portable computer. RAM chips and CPUs do not spin, so you do not need to wait for a certain point on the Hard Drive to spin around again so that more data can be copied, transfered, saved, whatever. On chips with no spinning hardware you transfer commands directly into and out of the chip, without having the computer to wait for a certain point on spinning hardware to come back to where data was first transfered.
And yet you continue to blather on nonsensically! Are you taking into account cache on the HD? No. Are you take into account FIFOs, streams, data fragmentation, and/or cache hit/miss rate? No. Are you taking into account the fact that the ATA subsystem varies in criticality depending on the task at hand? No. In short, you either 1) graduated from the Captain Kangaroo School of Computer Pseudoscience, and think you know what you're talking about, or 2) have no idea what you're talking about and are trying to fake this fact.
KC: "When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz." ANY application you use on a computer requires a RAM Cache, so that you can transfer data from the application back and forth from the RAM, instead of from the slower Hard Drive. And the fastest Powerbooks use RAM chips of type PC133, which are compatible with the 133MHz System Bus.

KC: "Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive." Again, the RAM and the Hard Drive are being used to do some of these tasks, so you do not get the total benefit of both processors.

KC: "And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors." What happens in a computer command sequence is information is carried from the Hard Drive at some speed, then the CPU sends the data through its chip at that speed, then to the RAM chips. However, the Bus Speed for the RAM chips only operate at 133MHz, so the faster data that is between the RAM and the CPU has to wait for the data going into the RAM to be rendered and, either, stored or rejected.

KC: "The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU." Again, the data sent through the CPU has to wait for the data in the RAM chips to be either rendered or rejected, since the Bus Speed operates slower than the CPU chips.
This tripe has already been dealt with.
I will not admit to being perfect, since I never really observed the minimal size and weight of a G4 processor.
Okay, so let me get this straight. "I think the G4 would add unnecessary weight to the PowerBook, even though I've never seen one and I have no idea how much it weighs."
And when I said speed of the RAM chip, I meant how fast the Bus is in rendering the memory chips.
Oh, my mistake.
But from now on, alex_ant, try to argue less harsh against anything I have posted in the essay, or anywhere else.
I'll argue as "harshly" as I want to, and if you can't take it, stop posting ************. For the record, I am never this harsh to anyone else not as full of it as you are. I give everyone the respect I think they deserve. Now, not only have you not retracted your original rubbish post, you've appended even more rubbish onto it under the guise of "what I meant to say" and you have the indecency to tell ME I'm out of line. I won't be having any of that.
I appreciate the support I got from my essay, jefhatfield and cb911. But I can tell you guys right now: I am not even 17 and have only looked close up at a computer's internal structure once. So I really have a while to go.
Well, that just explains everything, doesn't it. "I'm only 17 and I've never taken an anatomy class nor been exposed to any such equivalent in my entire life, but let me explain the structure and functionality of the human digestive system to you anyway." Unbelievable.

Alex

[King Cobra]

All right, alex_ant.

Let's assume my information is false. Can you write anything better that what I have done? I would like to here this...because all you seem to say is that KC is a BSer, KC is this, KC is that...I mean, what the heck do you want out of me? I don't see you posting any real information, just unneeded comments.

I think that if you can't back up your arguments, don't bring them up. Simple as that.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
With the possibility of having a dual processor in a Powerbook with high speeds, low power DDR-RAM
Fast DDR SDRAM costs not much more than PC133 SDR SDRAM. Figure an extra $25 per 256MB.
and a much improved faster Hard Drive
Why?
this all adds up to cost. And I don't see why Apple consumers would want to spend more than the current $3000 maximum for their current top of the line model, which lacks ALL of these features.
Who says they would have to? The current models are overpriced anyway. Apple is making at least a $1k profit off of every 667MHz PowerBook. (If you don't believe me, look at the 550MHz model and notice that the only difference is the position of a few resistors soldered into place on the motherboard.)

The 1GHz G4s Apple is selling in its Power Macs, which I'm assuming (<--- see, the difference between stating fact and guessing) are not the same time that would be used in a notebook, cost around $250 each in quantities of 10,000. If we can use that price as a ballpark figure, I don't think the cost factors involved in a high-end dual-CPU PowerBook would be prohibitive.

If Apple could find a way to keep the price of their products down, especially below $3000, while managing to import all of the necessary technology that would make the dual processor as effective as possible, then I would be for it.
What necessary technology? It's all there already.

Then Apple would be left with one other problem: the PowerMac lineup. Apple would have to incorporate all of the features plus extra speed in order to keep the Pro Line of products superior to their portable cousins.
Well, a Power Mac speed bump is due soon. And I don't think a $3000 DP laptop (if that is indeed what it would cost), assuming dual 800MHz CPUs, would cannibalize Power Mac sales much.


My essay was only supposed to reflect an opinion on what I think would be most logical (currently). Once the prices on certain advanced equipment dropped, and Apple found a CPU chip that produces little heat and uses little power, I would have changed my essay to express a progression towards dual processor Powerbooks.

But, currently, it would not be logical. That is why I argued against it.
Good golly, I hear about the world going to **** on CNN and I think if these are the kinds of critical thinking skills being taught to our youths today, we're in a lot more trouble than we think.

Alex

[King Cobra]

KC: If Apple could find a way to keep the price of their products down, especially below $3000, while managing to import all of the necessary technology that would make the dual processor as effective as possible, then I would be for it.

alex_ant: What necessary technology? It's all there already.

Now, wait a minute! So all the technology is there right for Apple to grab and use in their Powerbooks. So why exactly doesn't Apple resort to using this technology?
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
All right, alex_ant.

Let's assume my information is false. Can you write anything better that what I have done?
Could I? Most certainly. Will I? No. Spouting off mountains of nebulous garbage to your heart's content, and then daring anyone to prove you wrong is NOT the way to conduct a logical argument. In a way, I already have responded - every quote of yours I've responded to with "What? or "Huh?" or "Hahaha!" is one that is patently false. And that's not just my opinion - that's fact. Correct yourself if you wish, but I'm not your own personal friggin' CS prof.
I would like to here this...because all you seem to say is that KC is a BSer, KC is this, KC is that...I mean, what the heck do you want out of me?
Take a step back and look at yourself. The only reason you're being called a BSer is because you're posting pure false information under the pretense that it is in fact not false at all. You're pasing around your half-baked "knowledge" around as if it's straight out of the CS textbook, yet you fail to indicate that what you're discussing is, in fact, nonsense. This is why you are being called a BSer, dear KC. If being called a BSer hurts, then 1) stop posting BS immediately, and 2) pledge never to post BS again. If you do both of those things, I promise that neither I nor anyone else will never call you a BSer ever, every again.
I don't see you posting any real information, just unneeded comments.
Unneeded? I beg to differ. I won't stand for BS, and where I see it, I'll do my best to stamp it out. It's my duty - it's EVERYONE's duty. Who cares if I haven't posted any real information? I don't have to "post real information" in order to enlighten you to the fact that you're full of it.
I think that if you can't back up your arguments, don't bring them up. Simple as that.
90% of the "arguments" you've presented have holes in them big enough to drive a friggin' oil tanker through, as any first-year undergraduate computer engineering student would be merrily inclined to point out, and the burden of proof is on ME to rebut your utter rubbish? I don't think so.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
Now, wait a minute! So all the technology is there right for Apple to grab and use in their Powerbooks. So why exactly doesn't Apple resort to using this technology?
Well, that's what we're trying to figure out, isn't it? :) As I've pointed out, the motherboard would need to be redesigned to accomodate the 2nd CPU, and heat issues would need to be dealt with. But I do not think a DP PowerBook is technologically unfeasible.

Alex

[King Cobra]

At least if Apple does come out with a dual processor Powerbook, it would sure be faster than the mobile P4 chips.

And I don't think heat would be much of an issue by then. Funkatation posted that "DDR RAM actually runs cooler and uses less power than SDRAM.. newer technology =)". So I THINK that means that dual processor Powerbooks will use somewhat less power than the current Powerbooks.

So, with the argument of dual Powerbooks, I am all for it!
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
So I THINK that means that dual processor Powerbooks will use somewhat less power than the current Powerbooks.
That's very good. Even better would be "I'm guessing" or I will assume." But I think you're getting the hang of making the distinction between what you know as fact and what you think might be fact.
So, with the argument of dual Powerbooks, I am all for it!
How rationality can change one's mind so quickly. :)

Alex

[mmmdreg]

Grow up Alex...

[jefhatfield]

you know, the individual beatles had better solo careers

i mean, would you buy mick's solo albums?:D

[alex_ant]

He's not dead yet... he could pull out a surprise :)

[King Cobra]

mmmdreg, I actually have to admit alex_ant really put it to me, although, at this point in time, has a few less posts than me. And I was not even posting exactly the information I had in mind, in which he corrected me. So go lightly on him.

jef, I got your email about the powerbook battery life. I didn't want to send anything back because
(1) I just saw it a few minutes ago :)
(2) My email address is actually messed up with someone else. My father and I are using the same service provider, and we are getting many problems.

So, there were three firsts today for me:
(1) I got shut down by someone with less posts.
(2) I got an email from someone who actually uses a Mac (unlike my cousin).
(3) I am halfway to avatar status. I haven't even decided what it will be. I will try to find something nice.
__________________

250 posts in about 50 days.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
mmmdreg, I actually have to admit alex_ant really put it to me, although, at this point in time, has a few less posts than me.
I'm just curious, but of what significance is our number of posts?

Alex

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant
He's not dead yet... he could pull out a surprise :)

george harrison died of cancer this year and john lennon was shot by a deranged fan

brian jones died in his pool in 1969 and the stones gave a concert at hyde park in his honor

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
george harrison died of cancer this year and john lennon was shot by a deranged fan

brian jones died in his pool in 1969 and the stones gave a concert at hyde park in his honor
Okay... ... He could pull out a surprise if he doesn't die soon. :)

[King Cobra]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I'm just curious, but of what significance is our number of posts?

Alex

From my last 6 posts, none :)

But I like to think that those with more posts usually are thought of higher authority figures. I am not sure if that is true or not, but that is how I think.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Okay... ... He could pull out a surprise if he doesn't die soon. :)

stu sutcliffe was the first beatle who died and when paul mccartney replaced him on bass, paul was rumored to be dead a few years later culminating in some hidden signs of his demise on the cover of the abbey road album

there are said to be a lot of signs pointing to that mystery

one one of the beatles songs, i think "a day in the life", john lennon says something like "i buried paul" when the song is played backwards but john lennon said he simply said, "cranberry sauce":confused:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by King Cobra


From my last 6 posts, none :)

But I like to think that those with more posts usually are thought of higher authority figures. I am not sure if that is true or not, but that is how I think.
__________________

Any time is a great time for iPod.

i have a lot of posts, but why is it only me that is talking about 60s icons:p

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i have a lot of posts, but why is it only me that is talking about 60s icons:p

Don't feel bad 'cause you're one of the few "old-timers" here.

Heck, since most of the guys here seem to be in their teens, I feel old and I'm only 23! :eek:

Paul McCartney is like Cal Ripken Jr., he's just gonna keep on playing...and playing...and playing...

As for Ringo...I never really liked him much...


KC - Post count should not be taken as an indicator of knowledge/sagacity/authority or anything else. There are many people with 500+ posts (myself included) that can spout complete BS at times, or just reply with 3 or 4 word responses in order to get another post without really adding to the conversation. The only people with authority around here are arn and blakespot, because they run the place. Don't forget that.


800...so there!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
But I like to think that those with more posts usually are thought of higher authority figures. I am not sure if that is true or not, but that is how I think.
I really don't think the concept of authority applies here, except to the people who run the site. I've seen some very intelligent posts here from people who have very few posts (eirik comes to mind). Likewise, I've seen some extremely dumb posts by people with lots and lots of posts (not to mention any names :)) I still would have reacted the way I did to your "essay" even if you had had 1000+ posts and I had had 2. It's not about how many posts you have, it's about how worthwhile your posts are.

Maybe I'm just rambling about something nobody cares about, but that's my view, anyway... although I would like an avatar as well. :)

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i have a lot of posts, but why is it only me that is talking about 60s icons:p
That is a very, very good question... Alzheimer's? :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Don't feel bad 'cause you're one of the few "old-timers" here.

Heck, since most of the guys here seem to be in their teens, I feel old and I'm only 23! :eek:

Paul McCartney is like Cal Ripken Jr., he's just gonna keep on playing...and playing...and playing...

As for Ringo...I never really liked him much...


KC - Post count should not be taken as an indicator of knowledge/sagacity/authority or anything else. There are many people with 500+ posts (myself included) that can spout complete BS at times, or just reply with 3 or 4 word responses in order to get another post without really adding to the conversation. The only people with authority around here are arn and blakespot, because they run the place. Don't forget that.


800...so there!

wow, congrats on 800

you are like cal ripken and paul mccartney!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant

That is a very, very good question... Alzheimer's? :D

say wha?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
800...so there!
It's 801 now :)

According to the Onion, Ringo is next to kick the bucket. He's in pretty good shape, so it looks like Paul has a while left to go.

You know who's having a really great solo career, though? Pete Townshend. And Daltrey is looking really great for his age. He's like Robert Redford or Harrison Ford... still a stud after all these years. I can only hope to age that gracefully.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
say wha?
Exactly :)

[chmorley]

1. Having 200+ posts in such a short period of time only demonstrates you have lots of time on your hands. Those aren't the people I look to for "authority". Maybe I have a bit more respect (generally) for people who have been posting for a longer time. Mostly, though, you can smell bullshît a mile away. I respect the ones who write only about what they know and ask questions about what they don't.

2. What about the Who or Led Zeppelin ? The moptops got is started, and the Stones roughed it up a bit, for sure. Zep, though, brought it to a new level. Besides, to be a real rock and roll band don't you have lost at least one drummer? This eliminates the Beatles.

Which brings to mind another thing--anyone ever see "This is Spinal Tap"? Now they knew how to knock off drummers! Between spontaneous combustion and a "horrible gardening accident" they went through a whole BOC's worth of band members.

Chris
_____________
"What's wrong with being sexy?"
--Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap

[bonehead]

Mr. Lemon:

And as far as a need/want. Well first to respond to the "bonehead" (for those who didnt notice his post thats his name, im not just being a jerk) no there isnt a need for a dual processor laptop, but to ditinguish between need and desire is stupid. NO ONE NEEDS a computer of any kind AND whether they will sell or not has nothing to do whether there is a need for the item or not.

I'm glad you agree with me. However, my point is not that a computer's commercial viability is based on a need for it. Rather I suggest that most users could get by with existing machines even though they say there is a need for new ones.

As far as no one needing a computer I would say that if you are a 3D animator you do need a computer. My field is video/film and even though it is technically possible to do my job without a computer, I need one. Clients couldn't stand not being able to see a rough composite let alone a simple dissolve or even multiple versions quickly. I would have a very hard time getting jobs. I'm sure people in other professions could offer other examples but I hope you see my point.

[bonehead]

Stones: better guitar players
more soul
great singer

Beatles: better songwriters
more innovative
great singers

I love them both. The Beatles though had the most consistently brilliant output. The Stones have had some spotty albums but then again what would The Beatles have done if their career was a long?

[alex_ant]

You know, it's amazing considering all the miscellaneous substances Keith Richards has taken over the years that he can still play guitar. That man is baked, yet he still puts quite a few of these nu-metal wankers to shame.

Alex

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by alex_ant
You know, it's amazing considering all the miscellaneous substances Keith Richards has taken over the years that he can still play guitar. That man is baked, yet he still puts quite a few of these nu-metal wankers to shame.

Alex

Speaking of baked, how about that Ozzy Osbourne? Funny thing is, I can only understand him when he's singing (anyone see SNL this weekend...;) )...

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Speaking of baked, how about that Ozzy Osbourne? Funny thing is, I can only understand him when he's singing (anyone see SNL this weekend...;) )...
I wonder: Were Keith and Ozzy ever coherent? I'm not old enough to know... The reason I ask is, if they used to be understandable, then I wonder what Liam Gallagher is going to be like in 30 more years. They had to subtitle his Behind the Music interview and he wasn't even far past 25 at the time. It's staggering to think of what his speech will be like after all the lines he's done (and is doing) really start to affect his brain...

Alex

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I wonder: Were Keith and Ozzy ever coherent? I'm not old enough to know... The reason I ask is, if they used to be understandable, then I wonder what Liam Gallagher is going to be like in 30 more years. They had to subtitle his Behind the Music interview and he wasn't even far past 25 at the time. It's staggering to think of what his speech will be like after all the lines he's done (and is doing) really start to affect his brain...

Alex

since the 70s ozzy has been a little slow...keith looks bad and has a crooked gait, but his mind is still sharp if you can get past his looks

i think ozzy is that way naturally even though he has done tons of drugs...even during the earlist black sabbath clips, ozzy never moved the stage like jagger or daltrey

this is bad but since i am an oldie, i have no idea who liam gallgher is and i think he is in oasis but that is all i know and some say the are beatles-like...is that true...

help me out on this one

[iGav]

Liam Gallagher is the lead singer with Oasis and is a complete c**t......

I'm affraid I can't stand either the Beatles or Oasis, so neither will get a nice ride from me....

Oasis are just way over hyped, the main songwriting brother Noel Gallagher rips off everybody and anybody.... and it's true, they are completely stuck in the Beatles tribute wannabe mould!! The only reason you could say they were Beatles like is because A: they've covered most of the Beatles songs and B; they've stolen most of the Beatles music aswell!! C one of the brothers called their son Lennon...... :rolleyes:

They believe they're the new Beatles of our time, or just as important as, now I hate the Beatles with a vengence, and I really believe that Lennon and McCartney to be the 2 most overated songwriters in history..... but the one thing you can say about the Beatles is that they atleast innovated, and thought outside the Mainstream, well, Sgt Peppers did...... they atleast tried to do different things in the name of creativity, and for this I respect the Beatles..... how ever Oasis, just steal peoples riffs......such as Get It On by T-Tex, or Shakermaker, where they stole alot of I'd Like to Teach the world to sing these are just 2 that spring off the top of my head.....

Basically Oasis are running very rapidly out of other peoples idea's....... the music they are churning out is still the same style pap they were releasing 8 years ago, still dressed in duffle coats, and with mop tops.......

They probably still believe Carnaby Street is cool too!!! :p

Sorry about the rant........ I just hate mediocrity!!

[alex_ant]

OK iGAV, I'm going to take the bait here. :)
Originally posted by iGAV
Liam Gallagher is the lead singer with Oasis and is a complete c**t......
Just like any good rock & roll star should be. There's this ethos nowadays that says all rock stars have to be well-behaved and humble and modest. Good lord, even the metal-heads! Oasis is and always has been supremely arrogant and proud of it. I guess some people don't like that and some people do.
Oasis are just way over hyped, the main songwriting brother Noel Gallagher rips off everybody and anybody....
Who doesn't? Noel freely admits to this and is better at it than anyone, although I think you're exaggerating it greatly.
and it's true, they are completely stuck in the Beatles tribute wannabe mould!! The only reason you could say they were Beatles like is because A: they've covered most of the Beatles songs and B; they've stolen most of the Beatles music aswell!!
The Beatles covers they've done are totally rocking and sound nothing like the original Beatles material. And they haven't copied nearly "all" of the Beatles' songs... they've done Walrus, Helter Skelter, Ticket to Ride, and a few others. (All live or on b-sides, mind you.) Who doesn't play covers? The only thing Oasis has ever had in common with the Beatles is a couple mop-tops early on, and a few copped chords. Can you name any specific examples of how they rip off the Beatles? Whenever I ask someone this question they can never answer it. In any case - better to rip off the greatest band of all time than to rip off ******** Creed. :)
C one of the brothers called their son Lennon...... :rolleyes:
What does this have to do with their music? Liam is pretty much nuts anyway... although he does make a great rock star.
They believe they're the new Beatles of our time, or just as important as, now I hate the Beatles with a vengence, and I really believe that Lennon and McCartney to be the 2 most overated songwriters in history.....
Okay, this explains pretty much your whole post I suppose. :)
but the one thing you can say about the Beatles is that they atleast innovated, and thought outside the Mainstream, well, Sgt Peppers did...... they atleast tried to do different things in the name of creativity, and for this I respect the Beatles..... how ever Oasis, just steal peoples riffs......such as Get It On by T-Tex, or Shakermaker, where they stole alot of I'd Like to Teach the world to sing these are just 2 that spring off the top of my head.....
Yup, they do steal riffs. Damn good riffs, and I don't blame 'em. 100% of their material doesn't have to be original for it to be great. I can name plenty of bands who "innovate" like crazy and still suck arse.
Basically Oasis are running very rapidly out of other peoples idea's....... the music they are churning out is still the same style pap they were releasing 8 years ago, still dressed in duffle coats, and with mop tops.......
Good golly, the mop tops have been gone for at least 4 years now. And what does hairstyle have to do with music anyway? If I shave my head am I a Michael Stipe wannabe? If I grow dreadlocks am I nothing but an Adam Duritz ripoff artist? I don't understand. And the music has changed substantially in the past couple years as well. (Although in my opinion the earlier stuff was better.)

I didn't always like Oasis either. I basically had all the same misconceptions you did. I never knew Oasis were still massive in the UK. I thought they were a bunch of Beatles ripoff has-beens. Then I heard their gig at Rock in Rio, and, WOW. That is some ******** good rock & roll. Oasis are alright in my book. They're bigger now than they ever have been in the UK, and it's a shame that the US is settling for nothing but this nu-metal and post-grunge dreck.

Alex

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I didn't always like Oasis either. I basically had all the same misconceptions you did. I never knew Oasis were still massive in the UK. I thought they were a bunch of Beatles ripoff has-beens. Then I heard their gig at Rock in Rio, and, WOW. That is some ******** good rock & roll. Oasis are alright in my book. They're bigger now than they ever have been in the UK, and it's a shame that the US is settling for nothing but this nu-metal and post-grunge dreck.

Alex

oh my god, new metal sucks

i liked kiss, aerosmith, led zep, and skynard (the original hard rock that gave birth to heavy metal that gave birth to new metal)

while some of the chord progressions of new metal borrows from the classic stuff and the seattle grunge stylings using a lot of 1/2 step progressions and lack of lead guitar, i don't like the cookie monster growling

kitty from canada are a truly great band that mixes the classic, the grunge, and their own new take on new metal and besides slipnot, they are the top record sellers in this genre, but when i hear the vocalist(s) sing, then i hear that growl which just leaves me confused

i must be old or something because metallica and seattle grunge thing of the 90s is the latest stuff i can relate to

hey, 1,200...am i caught up with eyelikeart yet?

[alex_ant]

So - how about those dualie PowerBooks? :)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
hey, 1,200...am i caught up with eyelikeart yet?

Sorry...he's still got about 700 on you...he's not human.