IBM vs. Intel [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Naimfan

Mar 5, 2004, 12:12 PM

Remember: Moore's law technically applies to transistor counts; not speed. Just being a specific nitpicker.

Stolid--Nit taken! You'd make a good lawyer..... ;-)

Seriously, though, my impression is that PCs haven't seen the kinds of speed increases they have in the past, and I've read a lot about Intel having trouble getting past 4 GHz. And the fastest consumer machines I typically see are usually 3.06 or 3.2 GHz (please don't get me wrong--very fast indeed!).

I do think IBM is the one company Intel should be scared of--IBM has the resources, financially, scientifically, engineering-wise, and management, to take on Intel head to head and win. IBM would obviously not compete in the x86 arena, which has had its run, but rather in more advanced chips where they have a clear advantage (from what I've read) over Intel. And IBM has, as the saying goes, an annoying habit of doing what they say they will....

Best,

Bob

Snowy_River

Mar 5, 2004, 12:15 PM

... Now if Dell or other large PC box makers start thinking about it, we'll really have a story!

Bob

Well, we know that M$ has a version of WinNT that will run on the 970. So, maybe other major computer mfg.s will consider it if M$ offers one of their OSes for general consumption on the 970 (whether it be the Mac G5, or a 970 based Dell).

1macker1

Mar 5, 2004, 12:15 PM

I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.

Frisco

Mar 5, 2004, 12:21 PM

I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.

And that would be a mistake by Intel that just may come back to bite them in the Ass!

Snowy_River

Mar 5, 2004, 12:23 PM

Yeah, they're fully compatible with x86 :p Somehow I think you meant something different :rolleyes: ;)

Yeah, I think he was wondering if Apple would be looking at Intel's x86 vs. having Intel make a PPC processor. However, I doubt that Intel would have made a PPC processor.
;)

wrldwzrd89

Mar 5, 2004, 12:28 PM

Well, we know that M$ has a version of WinNT that will run on the 970. So, maybe other major computer mfg.s will consider it if M$ offers one of their OSes for general consumption on the 970 (whether it be the Mac G5, or a 970 based Dell).
Now that would be something (Dell and other PC manufacturers making PowerPC-based computers). It's too bad, then, that the odds of it happening are rather low (at least right now they are). With Intel being where they are (despite the fact that they're struggling to make Pentiums better), PC makers don't have any incentive to make PowerPC boxes.

dukemeiser

Mar 5, 2004, 12:35 PM

It is certainly good to know that IBM values Apple as a customer.

Mac-Xpert

Mar 5, 2004, 12:38 PM

Yeah, I think he was wondering if Apple would be looking at Intel's x86 vs. having Intel make a PPC processor. However, I doubt that Intel would have made a PPC processor.
;)I don't think Intel would ever build a PPC. Why would they bother with all the necessary research needed if the PPC in a Mac only has about 3-4 percent market share, while their x86 holds the majority of the rest of the market. Also they might not be able duo to patents hold by Motorola and IBM.

MacsRgr8

Mar 5, 2004, 12:38 PM

The Inquirer posts (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12552) an internal IBM memo in which IBM their major win in beating Intel at providing technology for Microsoft's upcoming Xbox as well as Apple's PowerMac:

The fact that Apple had considered using the Intel processors for their PowerMac line was previously revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) in another internal IBM publication.

Wow.... Mac OS on x86 really was pretty close then.
No tnx to Moto...

Snowy_River

Mar 5, 2004, 12:42 PM

...Seriously, though, my impression is that PCs haven't seen the kinds of speed increases they have in the past, and I've read a lot about Intel having trouble getting past 4 GHz. And the fastest consumer machines I typically see are usually 3.06 or 3.2 GHz (please don't get me wrong--very fast indeed!)...

Well, you're right. Since August of 2002, when the 2.8 GHz P4 was released, the overall rate of speed increase has dropped. Consider the attachement. For almost the past two years, Intel's ability to release faster processors has been rather diminished...

Snowy_River

Mar 5, 2004, 12:45 PM

I don't think Intel would ever build a PPC. Why would they bother with all the necessary research needed if the PPC in a Mac only has about 3-4 percent market share, while their x86 holds the majority of the rest of the market. Also they might not be able duo to patents hold by Motorola and IBM.

Well, more or less, that's my point.

Mac-Xpert

Mar 5, 2004, 12:48 PM

I'm really happy that we didn't have to go with x86. Just think of the terrible transition we would've had to make. Non of your favorite Mac apps would have worked out of the box. You would've had to wait till either the software companies made a x86 Mac version or you would have had to use a awfully slow PPC emulator that would have made the G4 look like a speed king.

MikeAtari

Mar 5, 2004, 12:54 PM

iggyb

Mar 5, 2004, 01:00 PM

Grimace

Mar 5, 2004, 01:03 PM

Don't be so quick to compare Microsoft and Intel is equal evils. They are certainly not - MS has a dangerous monopoly. Intel has a large marketshare. IBM will bring healthy competition to Intel.

bit density

Mar 5, 2004, 01:11 PM

Well, now that we've seen how Microsoft has SCREWED AMD,
by stalling the release of Windows64 for AMD,
I hope this finally ends the wishes to port to x86.

Well, except that Microsoft has released the beta version, for free, to anyone that wants to download it. And that there are hardly any drivers, nor ANY software that is 64bit...

But the beauty of the AMD chip is not that it is just 64 bit, but also the most kick-ass 32 bit chip out there.

Microsoft would love the transition to 64 bit. It means more operating system and office sales.

Snowy_River

Mar 5, 2004, 01:20 PM

I was watching some IBM commercial the other night, and they were talking about their Blade Servers running Intel Xeon processors. This made me wonder, why aren't they offering servers with their own processors? Does it have to do with the software involved :confused: ?

I think that they are. Those commercials are for the general public that sees the "Intel Inside" tag line as a good thing.

army_guy

Mar 5, 2004, 01:21 PM

But then again INTEL didnt build ide hard drives (60/70GXP and some 120GXP)using faulty components and also knew about them at the same time, talk about being cheap.

army_guy

Mar 5, 2004, 01:29 PM

WINXP 64 is on the way, the drivers are there allready there video/sound/scsi etc...

You also have to remember that Opteron is getting SOLARIS 10, which will in turn incur a flood of ports of the EDA tools that run on the SPARC machines. (Cadence has released a handfull of 64-bit apps allready for LINUX for Opteron) THis is good for us engineers who wanted performance but didnt want to mess with Itanium.

TrenchMouth

Mar 5, 2004, 01:33 PM

i dont like to give human like qualities to large organizations, but it works well when talking about these few companies in particular, mostly because we can see how active they are in the news pretty much every day, it becomes easier to build a certain type of image about a company.

dont think for a second that if it wasnt in IBMs best intrest to somehow screw Apple that they wouldnt. Its not a friendship we are talking about here. Apple happens to find itself in a good place right now, riding on the technology that IBM is capable of producing. It is very nice to see such great things coming from it, but lets face it, in the end what one of you posted was right: what we want to see here is competition.
the last thing i would like to see is a longterm switch to IBM being back on the top again.

dont get me wrong though, i am still very enthusiastic about Apple being in such a good possition right now. And given the fantastic performance of recent IBM products, i might even find myself buying up a few of these upcoming console systems.

Rocketman

Mar 5, 2004, 01:39 PM

I still to this day find it funny (and ironic) that we Apple fans are cheering on "Big Blue."

Hee hee.... ahh how the world has changed!

As I stated in my previous posts regarding XBox Next (and other game consoles), the one true winner in the upcoming console wars is: IBM.

w00master

Even more ironic was Apple's choice was between Intel and IBM :)

I want to see the Intel G5 prototypes in the Apple museum for sure!

Rocketman

Rocketman

Mar 5, 2004, 01:43 PM

but lets face it, in the end what one of you posted was right: what we want to see here is competition.
the last thing i would like to see is a longterm switch to IBM being back on the top again.

I think IBM is managed as a benevolent dictator of the Skunkworks model.

Rocketman

daveL

Mar 5, 2004, 02:17 PM

I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.
Well, a look at the numbers shows IBM with $89B in revenue and $4.93 in EPS. Meanwhile AMD was revenue of $3.5B and an EPS of $0.34. Now, tell me again, who's Intel worried about? IBM is currently ahead of AMD in the fabs arena, which is why AMD is starting to partner with IBM on future chip production, as is Nvidia.

1macker1

Mar 5, 2004, 02:19 PM

IBM is not threat to INTEL, as far as it coming back on them, I dont think so. But I cant see the future.
And that would be a mistake by Intel that just may come back to bite them in the Ass!

1macker1

Mar 5, 2004, 02:20 PM

You left out IBM"s numbers.
Well, a look at the numbers shows IBM with $89B in revenue and $4.93 in EPS. Meanwhile AMD was revenue of $3.5B and an EPS of $0.34. Now, tell me again, who's Intel worried about? IBM is currently ahead of AMD in the fabs arena, which is why AMD is starting to partner with IBM on future chip production, as is Nvidia.

army_guy

Mar 5, 2004, 02:57 PM

Well, a look at the numbers shows IBM with $89B in revenue and $4.93 in EPS. Meanwhile AMD was revenue of $3.5B and an EPS of $0.34. Now, tell me again, who's Intel worried about? IBM is currently ahead of AMD in the fabs arena, which is why AMD is starting to partner with IBM on future chip production, as is Nvidia.

Nvidia?

SO far its only the so called lowend chips that IBM will be fabbing, a GPU isnt the same as a CPU in terms of manufacturing (50M transistors VS 200M), IBM doesnt have the experience to produce the top of the line GPUS. Its still TSMC that are producing the NV30-NV38 and the new NV40-NV48 not IBM as people think.

daveL

Mar 5, 2004, 02:58 PM

You left out IBM"s numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean? IBM's revenue and EPS are in the post, as
are AMD's. Did you mean I left out Intel's numbers? If so, I didn't consider them to be relevant. Your original post was about who Intel should be worried about: IBM or AMD. AMD has always been struggling to stay alive. IBM is the largest computer company in the world and isn't going to be declaring bankruptcy any time soon :)

For completeness, INTC's revenue is $30.1B and EPS is $0.85. Although, INTC has a pile of cash ($15B) after taking into account a small debt load. IBM actually has more debt than cash.

Anyway, I just feel that IBM is a very formidable opponent, with many more weapons at their disposal, compared to AMD. If Intel isn't worried about IBM, then they're being arrogant and shortsighted, IMO.

army_guy

Mar 5, 2004, 03:04 PM

1macker1

Mar 5, 2004, 03:09 PM

I agree IBM is a company to watch out for. But not just on the fact that they make fast chips. They are the number 1 computer company because they have other goods besides computer chips. I think Intel will stay ahead of the game due to the fact that they concentrate soley on chips.

daveL

Mar 5, 2004, 03:28 PM

INTELS so called bread and butter is in the enterprise sector not the consumer, they are a big player as they provide the bulk of the CPUS used in most of the servers in the world and I should note that IBM also uses them in thier servers hence that also provides IBM with alot if not most of thier revenue. I dont see Power4/5 machines matching xeon servers on price or volume do you?
I really wish you would look beyond your nose before you post. IBM makes most of its revenue from services, not HW or SW, so making the statement: "...I should note that IBM also uses them [Intel CPUs] in thier servers hence that also provides IBM with alot if not most of thier revenue" is simply not true. Also, Intel processors are a commodity and don't have anything close to the margins that Power4/5 servers maintain. Intel ends up in a large number of small boxes with equally small margins. Power4/5, UltraSPARC3/4 and PA-RISC end up in a significantly smaller number of larger machines with correspondingly large margins. IBM, Sun and HP don't pour money into developing their own server processors simply for the hell of it. The fact of the matter is Intel CPUs still don't scale well beyond dual CPU configurations. That's not to say 4 CPU Intel boxes don't exist, it just means the competing Power4/5 and UltraSPARC3/4 blow them away. Not to mention the power budget problems Intel has in larger SMP systems and blade configurations, compared to the competition. You may not believe this, but data centers care about power consumption, floor space and A/C loads.

SiliconAddict

Mar 5, 2004, 03:34 PM

Well, now that we've seen how Microsoft has SCREWED AMD,
by stalling the release of Windows64 for AMD,
I hope this finally ends the wishes to port to x86.

I don't believe you can trust Microsoft or Intel as a business partner if you might upset their monolopolistic relationship. Each one will bring significant pressure to bare to preserve their marketshare.

What the heck are you talking about?!?!!? You can get Windows64 right now from Microsoft for free for 1 year. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/) It may not be 100% ready for prime time but neither is OS X –64bit :p That and consider the fact that AMD's 64-bit processors accounts for a miniscule part of the market. Of course they aren't going to push a 64-bit OS. There's next to NO demand for it!!! God I'm sick of people talking out of their butts as if its fact.

daveL

Mar 5, 2004, 03:45 PM

What the heck are you talking about?!?!!? You can get Windows64 right now from Microsoft for free for 1 year. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/) It may not be 100% ready for prime time but neither is OS X –64bit :p That and consider the fact that AMD's 64-bit processors accounts for a miniscule part of the market. Of course they aren't going to push a 64-bit OS. There's next to NO demand for it!!! God I'm sick of people talking out of their butts as if its fact.
Let's not forget about 64-bit Linux. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that there are a lot more Opteron servers out there running Linux-64 than XP-64, and I don't expect that that will change in the future.

Also, I couldn't agree more about people talking out the wrong orifice :)

army_guy

Mar 5, 2004, 03:51 PM

Let's not forget about 64-bit Linux. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that there are a lot more Opteron servers out there running Linux-64 than XP-64, and I don't expect that that will change in the future.

Also, I couldn't agree more about people talking out the wrong orifice :)

XP64 is a consumer OS, I assume you were mentioning Windows 2003 server (64-bit Opteron)

Lets also not forget SOLARIS 10.

Savage Henry

Mar 5, 2004, 03:57 PM

And that would be a mistake by Intel that just may come back to bite them in the Ass!

Sure, you don't want to get too complacent considering they had to re-adjust their quarterly forecast revenue.

But I doubt Intel are too worried. When Londrawn rears it's bad-ugly head I'll expect an inrease in hardware sales of PCs which averyone out in the chip market will milk.

Opteron

Mar 5, 2004, 04:07 PM

I still to this day find it funny (and ironic) that we Apple fans are cheering on "Big Blue."

Hee hee.... ahh how the world has changed!

How indeed:p

blackfox

Mar 5, 2004, 04:15 PM

yeah really. IBM's commitment to Apple is only five years. who knows what will happen after that. don't be so quick to dismiss intel.
This always worries me, w/ Apple being a niche computer company, in terms of incentive and leverage for getting chip manufacturers to provide viable products...Apple was stuck with Motorola(generally bad), now w/IBM(seems great)...what in the future...I guess I am a pessimist, is all...if ppc is the minority in the computer world, this seems the reality, if somehow it wasn't(or we were all x86), then Apple could no longer differentiate its' hardware (or pricing)...ramble...sorry

stingerman

Mar 5, 2004, 04:38 PM

Don't be so quick to compare Microsoft and Intel is equal evils. They are certainly not - MS has a dangerous monopoly. Intel has a large marketshare. IBM will bring healthy competition to Intel.

It's a leader, it gets IBM into the Intel based corporation then they push Linux on the Server which then eventually allows them to push their bigger iron Power4 and now Power5 plaforms; from which the 970 was derive.

rdowns

Mar 5, 2004, 07:32 PM

Interesting. Especially that Intel would consider IBM "trivial" when IBM is the one company that has the resources and management to not only compete but surpass them...

Also suggests that IBM is promising and/or delivering more than Intel, which appears to have fallen far behind Moore's law, even if clock speed has always been only part of the overall throughput equation. Now if Dell or other large PC box makers start thinking about it, we'll really have a story!

Bob

What OS would these large PC box makers run on a PPC?

billyboy

Mar 5, 2004, 08:13 PM

[B
This always worries me, w/ Apple being a niche computer company, in terms of incentive and leverage for getting chip manufacturers to provide viable products...Apple was stuck with Motorola(generally bad), now w/IBM(seems great)...what in the future...I guess I am a pessimist, is all...if ppc is the minority in the computer world, this seems the reality, if somehow it wasn't(or we were all x86), then Apple could no longer differentiate its' hardware (or pricing)...ramble...sorry

Companies set up up alliances and acquire businesses in order to control as many factors as possible in their business environment. Apple have about as much control over their product range as anyone out there - OS, software packages, music store and player, and the minor aspect of their business - hardware design and manufacture. The way things are heading with what seems to be a very well thought out strategy stretching back to Steve Jobs reappearance, if Apple thought that by 2010 they were going to be in trouble because of chip suppliers, I would not bank against them having a contingency to invest the equivalent of the $2bn that IBM just invested to maybe go into an alliance way before then with an AMD type company (ie relatively little but technically very good) and secure their supplies for a whole lot longer . By not wanting to dominate the world, Apple can get into a great position of designing producing and delivering anything they want.

Frohickey

Mar 5, 2004, 09:14 PM

Now this is interesting. Apple really was prepared to make the jump to x86 until IBM reeled them back in.

Nope. Apple was not prepared to make the jump to x86. I think someone has been munging the internal memo to make it juicier.

G4s did have Intel inside, actually, it started out as DEC inside, but DEC got split and bought, and it turned into Intel.

Subsequent G4s had Intel inside as well, in the form of flash memory.

G5s don't have Intel inside, unless its flash memory again.

Frohickey

Mar 5, 2004, 09:15 PM

I was watching some IBM commercial the other night, and they were talking about their Blade Servers running Intel Xeon processors. This made me wonder, why aren't they offering servers with their own processors? Does it have to do with the software involved :confused: ?

They do.

RS/6000 servers from IBM are one of the fastest and cost effective servers.
Plus, IBM the server company, is the biggest customer of IBM the chip company.

AidenShaw

Mar 5, 2004, 09:40 PM

RS/6000 servers from IBM are one of the fastest and cost effective servers.

The name of the line changed to "pSeries" in the last few years, RS/6000 is history.

"p" means "POWER" - the "pSeries" servers use the POWER architecture.

http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/pSeries.html

The JS20 Blade Server

http://www-132.ibm.com/content/product_images/en_US/bladectr_js20_all_hero.jpg

contains two PowerPC® 970 processors at up to 1.6GHz. This is the only current IBM offering with the PPC970 chip.

The picture looks like a 1U, but it's really a module in the BladeCenter chassis:

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/i/bladectr_svr_hmpg_hero.jpg

14 dual CPU blades fit in a 7U chassis, so it's effectively a 0.5U dualie.

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?categoryId=2586156&storeId=1&catalogId=-840&langId=-1

Grimace

Mar 5, 2004, 10:25 PM

and to think that IBM was in bankruptcy....

Frohickey

Mar 5, 2004, 10:50 PM

The name of the line changed to "pSeries" in the last few years, RS/6000 is history.

"p" means "POWER" - the "pSeries" servers use the POWER architecture.

Erp. I guess I haven't kept up with IBM's offerings lately.

The last time I worked on one was with IBM's debug system for PowerPC chips. I haven't worked on the latest one. :o

Pretty neat really, you use a PowerPC machine to debug another PowerPC machine.

dex22

Mar 5, 2004, 11:29 PM

Nobody seems to have pointed out yet that this was posted by The Inquirer on, um...

"By INQUIRER staff: Friday 07 November 2003, 07:57"

So it's ages old... Hardly news...

MacAficionado

Mar 6, 2004, 12:37 AM

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/05/HNsams_1.html

Seems like good days ahead for the PowerPC.

markie

Mar 6, 2004, 01:52 AM

Let's see (for those who worry about PowerPC's future):

PowerPC users:

Apple
Nintendo (GameCube / GameCube 2)
Sony (PlayStation 3)
Microsoft (XBox 2)

Most interesting is the Xbox 2. The current Xbox runs a trimmed down copy of Windows 2000. Microsoft has essentially 5 choices for the Xbox2's OS:

Linux (possible, but unlikely)
BSD (MacOS core - possible but unlikely)
MacOS in an Apple partnership (yeah, right!)
Entirely new OS (hmmm... possible, but let's see what 5 is)
Port Windows NT kernel to PowerPC... (yeah, that's more like it)

If this happens, one must wonder if they'll end up releasing Windows XP (or the next Windows Longhorn) in a PowerPC version - at least the server edition. It really would make sense. PowerPC is really a much newer architecture than x86. Not to mention that except for basic functions the compatibility aspect of x86 is going away... first with mfg-specific extensions, and now with two different hybrid 32/64 instruction sets (AMD's being by far the first to market, but Intel is supposedly planning one too). I think IBM's processor business will be healthy for years to come...

themadchemist

Mar 6, 2004, 03:47 AM

I think IBM is exaggerating how much Apple was actually considering Intel. If IBM can show multiple showdowns with Intel in which IBM wins, that can prove that IBM is the superior chip maker. It wouldn't be as impressive if Apple was only considering IBM or only considering PowerPC chip makers. Rather, IBM now spins it to say that Apple was thinking about Intel, the chip powerhouse, but that IBM's brilliant technology convinced Apple to go in the other direction in a BIG way. It looks good for IBM.

So honestly, I think that Apple's actual consideration of Intel was probably less than IBM's spin would suggest.

the future

Mar 6, 2004, 04:21 AM

So honestly, I think that Apple's actual consideration of Intel was probably less than IBM's spin would suggest.

Why would IBM do this in an internal memo?

spinko

Mar 6, 2004, 04:49 AM

Now that would be something (Dell and other PC manufacturers making PowerPC-based computers). It's too bad, then, that the odds of it happening are rather low (at least right now they are). With Intel being where they are (despite the fact that they're struggling to make Pentiums better), PC makers don't have any incentive to make PowerPC boxes.

Dell and the other big computer manufacturers could decide to offer a Linux/PowerPC based computer instead of - or next to - a Intel/Windows based one. Wouldn't that make an eventual transition smoother ?

rdowns

Mar 6, 2004, 07:10 AM

Why would IBM do this in an internal memo?

Could simply be an internal, rah-rah message.

Savage Henry

Mar 6, 2004, 07:20 AM

Could simply be an internal, rah-rah message.

I'd say that is exactly what it is.

If any of my company's internal messages were relied on as being fact-based instruments of information and not the rose-tinted view on the performance and prospects of our great business, then I wouldn't immediately trash the mails and perhaps even read one of them.

Perhaps.

jouster

Mar 6, 2004, 10:58 AM

What OS would these large PC box makers run on a PPC?

Wow. It took three pages of posts before someone asked this.

spinko

Mar 6, 2004, 11:25 AM

Wow. It took three pages of posts before someone asked this.

Linux

AidenShaw

Mar 6, 2004, 11:30 AM

Port Windows NT kernel to PowerPC... (yeah, that's more like it)

Windows NT was supported on PowerPC systems up until Service Pack 3 of Windows NT 4.0.

It also supported the Alpha and MIPS architectures at various times. It currently runs on three different ISAs - IA32 (x86), IA64 (Itanium), and x86 Extended (AMD64).

Microsoft compilers support PPC code generation for the Pocket PC version of Windows.

Resurrecting the PPC code is probably quite easy - especially for a subset of Windows to run on a console.

If this happens, one must wonder if they'll end up releasing Windows XP (or the next Windows Longhorn) in a PowerPC version - at least the server edition. It really would make sense.

The problem would be that there would be no applications available. It's hard to market an operating system if there's nothing that runs on it.

Not to mention that except for basic functions the compatibility aspect of x86 is going away... first with mfg-specific extensions, and now with two different hybrid 32/64 instruction sets (AMD's being by far the first to market, but Intel is supposedly planning one too).

Intel will be completely compatible with AMD64. The "compatibility" aspect of x86 is extremely important, which is exactly why Intel took the embarrassing step of creating a Pentium that runs the AMD64 extensions.

Think of everything that's gone wrong with Intel's Itanium push - PowerPC would have all those problems and more. After several years and a huge and expensive effort, a modest number of high-end applications have been ported to Itanium.

The only way you'll see Dell building a PowerPC system is if Dell can install Mac OS X on it....

You may see some PPC systems built for PPC Linux, but even that is a backwater right now. If you have your own applications, you might build them for PPC Linux. If all you need is already in Linux (like Apache) you could use a PPC - but an x86 box is fast enough and probably cheaper.

You can't find many of the important commercial apps running on PPC Linux, however.

jouster

Mar 6, 2004, 11:38 AM

Linux

Ahh..because LotD has been such a roaring success?

Sun Baked

Mar 6, 2004, 11:47 AM

You may see some PPC systems built for PPC Linux, but even that is a backwater right now. If you have your own applications, you might build them for PPC Linux. If all you need is already in Linux (like Apache) you could use a PPC - but an x86 box is fast enough and probably cheaper.

You can't find many of the important commercial apps running on PPC Linux, however.Everybody keeps forgetting AmigaOS 4.0 for PPC, but that's because they've been promising a new PPC based Amiga for a couple years -- delivered the hardware a year ago, but no OS (ooops).

We'll probably see IBM reintroduce a PPC-based workstation soon, but the PowerPC Platform systems are gaining ground on Apple rather quickly (technology parity).

Though the OS of choice for them would be Linux.

I would include Amiga, but they're still having a cashflow problem -- and two divergent OSs for the PowerPC Platform (MorphOS and AmigaOS 4.0 beta).

iLilana

Mar 6, 2004, 02:10 PM

jouster

Mar 6, 2004, 02:31 PM

I would include Amiga, but they're still having a cashflow problem....

Not to mention a credibility problem. And a most-people-have-never-heard-of-them problem.

Prom1

Mar 6, 2004, 02:36 PM

I think IBM is wisely using Apple as a product launcher for a more common place in the linux/unix arena. We must not forget IBM used to be in MS's position and they are in it for the money. They want EVERYBODY'S market share. I am not sure what the are doing with Microsoft though. Getting the xbox is a definite coup but supposing MS in behind the SCO lawsuits could mean that MS is actually trying to flank IBM. Its possibly something that could definitely work against them by giving MS the leverage to control where IBM directs future chip research, business models and affecting present/future business alliances.

Interesting. But lets not forget Fridays recent report that Intel is now moving to 300mm wafers - an announcement that did nothing to their stock price - actually dropped - and their forecast of reduced costs and higher margins of chip revenue still did nothing. WHy? Finally analysts are realizing IBM is now the leader, probably. Also note that Micheal Dell is leaving CEO title in April to someone else in the company who's already been doing that role (without the title), letting Mr. Dell to be the chairman. I'm hoping this will significantly hurt sales & management of the company or misdirect their focus.

If MS ports the NT kernel to the XBox2 for a gaming OS then this could be a good step for us Mac lovers. This porting may improve future functionality of Virtual PC -god I hope so. IBM I don't think will hurt either way because their leading in chip contracts.

I would like to see a campaign of Mac desktops being able to work in harmony with IBM server environment or reselling Mac OS X under IBM products (only that using G5 chips).

Ahh think I'm crazy. Lastly though remember the court case in the eighties that allowed cross-over technology use of AMD x86 to Intel & vice-versa. We will see Intels version of x86-64 chip to compete with AMD.

IBM I want imbedded memory controllers with their own direct hypertransport connection to memory chips/HDD/PCI-X/PCI-Express components!!!!
:p

AidenShaw

Mar 6, 2004, 03:03 PM

I want imbedded memory controllers with their own direct hypertransport connection to memory chips/HDD/PCI-X/PCI-Express components!!!!

You probably don't want this....

Even AMD with the three HT links on the chip is using direct DDR controllers - the memory is *not* on the HT bus. Apple didn't use HT for memory in the G5 NorthBridge - HT is used to connect the I/O busses.

HT seems optimized for I/O bus operations, where a lot of "streaming" is done (relatively large data moves). It isn't used for memory, where low latency on random operations is important.

X-Baz

Mar 6, 2004, 03:10 PM

The problem would be that there would be no applications available. It's hard to market an operating system if there's nothing that runs on it.

That's entirely the point of .NET - they didn't copy Java for nothing ...

AidenShaw

Mar 6, 2004, 03:43 PM

That's entirely the point of .NET - they didn't copy Java for nothing ...

Have I been wrong in believing that .NET was high-performance native compiled code, and not pig-slow bloated interpreted byte-code?

Stolid

Mar 6, 2004, 03:48 PM

Have I been wrong in believing that .NET was high-performance native compiled code, and not pig-slow bloated interpreted byte-code?
.NET is really neat that way; It has really 3 ways to run: native compile, a really nice JIT compiled (default), and an 'interpreted' mode.
Reason for that being is you can write C# code, VB code, and managed C++ code and tie them all into one program; so you need some 'mid level' interpreter for all 3 so they just opened that up instead of making it an internal feature of the compiler.

X-Baz

Mar 6, 2004, 03:51 PM

Have I been wrong in believing that .NET was high-performance native compiled code, and not pig-slow bloated interpreted byte-code?
it's a bit of both - it is an implementation detail as to how it is run - interpreted, JIT-compiled or compile on install.

ipiloot

Mar 6, 2004, 04:28 PM

Afaik, the original agreement between Intel and IBM, stating the presence of Intel chip inside of the IBM PC, said amongst other things that IBM can't sell their own processor with x86-compatible microcode. IBM tried once even going around it via offering processor cards with their own 486 clone (or was it 386?). Do I remember the things right? Anyone else recalling similar stuff? This may explain pretty much, why IBM is pushing PPC so heavily.

rdowns

Mar 6, 2004, 04:35 PM

Linux

Right, consumers running Linux.

ginoledesma

Mar 6, 2004, 09:17 PM

IBM need not go "head to head" with Intel in the x86 arena specific to the consumer market (that is, the Pentium/Centrino series). What they can go after is the high-end Xeon servers, which they are doing now with the POWER Series. Even Sun has learned not to go against Intel in the low-end server division, where they now are selling Intel-based solutions, delegating the SPARC-series to the high-end market (again, competing with Xeon and POWER). They can also go head-to-head with Intel in the embedded chips arena, where Motorola is also trying to regain (?) its foothold. Intel has always been the giant in that market, powering up millions of devices released each year, from cellphones, to teleivions, etc.

Actually, it wouldn't make too much sense for IBM to even produce an x86-compatible chip much like AMD does. They have Apple now for the "consumer market" (in terms of competing with Intel at that level), and I doubt Microsoft would fancy yet-another-chip to support (since it won't entirely allow them to crush the competition).

But in all this, its IBM who ends up the winner. At the end of the day, what matters most to them anyway is products/services being sold. So long as their customers are happy with their products, they're happy (since its money in).

non fiction

Mar 6, 2004, 10:05 PM

Even though the PPC and x86 are significantly different architectures, they both provide the same end result - they power our computers. The tide always turns and aside from Motorola perhaps failing in its chip manufacturing devision, the PPC is on the crest of a wave and IBM and Apple both had the vision to pursue this relatively young architecture. x86 is old and perhaps AMD and Intel are hitting some development barriers. It is good to see so much interest in PPC in other mainstream products.

Just as makers like AMD are important in keeping competition alive in the x86 arena, IBM is now offerring real competition to x86 with some fantastic PPC chips. This is all good for the consumer - more speed and hopefully more competitive prices. Healthy competition I say !

rt_brained

Mar 7, 2004, 12:46 AM

The fact that Apple had considered using the Intel processors for their PowerMac line was previously revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) in another internal IBM publication.Thank you IBM for stepping up to the plate.

Back when the rumors were going around, I had faith that Steve Jobs, like the rest of us, had enough pride left in him to prevent Apple from becoming the whipping boy of the personal computer world.

We may have been knocked down for a while, but I'm glad we found the energy to keep fighting.

spinko

Mar 7, 2004, 08:05 AM

Ahh..because LotD has been such a roaring success?

If LotD means "Linux on the Desktop" then I would say yes, very much so. It has most all of the same type of office programs that the vast majority of corporate staff or people in education and other sectors would use. Plus it is supported by a very large, dedicated base, is mostly hardware independant and quite cheap to acquire. (I don't know about the running costs). The only reason I'm not using Linux (as a backup) is because Macromedia and Adobe havn't ported their apps. Not that I dislike MacOSX :)

Judo

Mar 7, 2004, 03:52 PM

Did any one else click on the picture of the processor card left of the title?
There's two different picture that come up (do a refresh). One with some fingers in them which sends you to an Intel page and one with out which sends you to a flash animated page of bunnies doing a 30 sec re-enactement of the Exorcist.

I found that kind of strange.
Amusing though.

FriarTuck

Mar 7, 2004, 04:37 PM

I feel like the nerd boy at the homecoming dance being fought over by the head cheerleader and the prom queen.

Good times...good times.

Snowy_River

Mar 7, 2004, 06:17 PM

...
You can't find many of the important commercial apps running on PPC Linux, however.

Well, given that there is little more difficulty than a simple recompile involved in going from x86 Linux to PPC Linux, I think that if there were some major manufacturers making PPC Linux boxes, I think that many of the 'important commercial' Linux apps would be released for them.

(Similar to the fact that a lot of the 'important commercial' Linux apps, as well as many scientific apps (which are, effectively, free), are being recompiled - with some minor modifications - to run under Mac OS X.)

Catfish_Man

Mar 8, 2004, 11:00 PM

I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.

IBM is a heck of a lot bigger threat than AMD is. AMD has one fab and two high performance chip architectures. I have no idea how many of each IBM has, but I can think of three high end chip architectures off the top of my head: POWER4, POWER5, and 970 (750GX doesn't really count as high performance at this point). AMD is doing pretty well right now (beating or matching both Intel and IBM), but they're still a lot smaller than IBM, as well as having a less advanced manufacturing process.

bousozoku

Mar 9, 2004, 12:10 AM

IBM is a heck of a lot bigger threat than AMD is. AMD has one fab and two high performance chip architectures. I have no idea how many of each IBM has, but I can think of three high end chip architectures off the top of my head: POWER4, POWER5, and 970 (750GX doesn't really count as high performance at this point). AMD is doing pretty well right now (beating or matching both Intel and IBM), but they're still a lot smaller than IBM, as well as having a less advanced manufacturing process.

IBM could be a threat, if they wanted to be. However, the internal strategy changes far too often and they will most likely move back into the shadows, rather than compete one-on-one with Intel. AMD designs with IBM processes will provide a better threat.

reorx

Mar 9, 2004, 01:29 AM

Have I been wrong in believing that .NET was high-performance native compiled code, and not pig-slow bloated interpreted byte-code?

JIT compiled byte-code isn't slow, btw -- specially for "Enterprise" Type applications. In this day and age, the only benefit to machine-speicifc compiled code is if you're doing serious number crunching and need the CPU specific instructions for pure computational efficiency. Distributed computing (a-la .NET, J2EE, TPMs in general) don't need it. Plus, if I can have far better hardware independence. (Dev on Intel, Deploy on Intel, Sun or IBM)

Pig slow applications in Java are "designed" that way... Good software runs just perfectly fine fully interpreted -- even 7 year old Smalltalk applications!!

3Dfx_man

Mar 15, 2004, 11:11 AM

i just wonder where/how IBM is going to expand next? they are an interesting company but i have never really kept tabs on them too much, i wonder if they are going to try to go head to head with intel?
---------------------
Havent you guys around here heard about the promising "Cell" processor
which will be out in 2005 ? Is being developed by IBM, Sony & Toshiba !!!
Will be in Playstation 3, and coming computers. 1 Teraflop ANYONE ???
IBM is now looking for someone to develop an OS for the coming systems.

I beginning to love Apple and am going to purchase a Mac G5 somtime.
But news as the "Cell" processor being out in 2005 leaves me a little
annoyed.. since well.. not all is bout processing power but i really need
it since im drooling complex 3D scenes in 3D applications such as Cinema 4D.

:confused:

jouster

Mar 15, 2004, 11:47 AM

If LotD means "Linux on the Desktop" then I would say yes, very much so. It has most all of the same type of office programs that the vast majority of corporate staff or people in education and other sectors would use. Plus it is supported by a very large, dedicated base, is mostly hardware independant and quite cheap to acquire. (I don't know about the running costs). The only reason I'm not using Linux (as a backup) is because Macromedia and Adobe havn't ported their apps. Not that I dislike MacOSX :)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think suggesting Linux as such an OS is in any way a bad idea. That said, and despite all the sensible points you make re corporate computing, the Linux-on-the-desktop revolution always seems to be real soon now.

If Linux is supported by a 'very large, dedicated base' then Windows is supported by a Gigantic, dedicated (in the sense that people are unaware of any alternative) base.

What will change that, however good a new processor turns out to be?

jouster

Mar 15, 2004, 12:11 PM

---------------------
Havent you guys around here heard about the promising "Cell" processor
which will be out in 2005 ? Is being developed by IBM, Sony & Toshiba !!!
Will be in Playstation 3, and coming computers. 1 Teraflop ANYONE ???
IBM is now looking for someone to develop an OS for the coming systems.

I beginning to love Apple and am going to purchase a Mac G5 somtime.
But news as the "Cell" processor being out in 2005 leaves me a little
annoyed.. since well.. not all is bout processing power but i really need
it since im drooling complex 3D scenes in 3D applications such as Cinema 4D.

:confused:

I'm sure everyone has heard of it, but there are lots of unkowns that hamper serious debate:

1. Most rumors (fwiw) have it arriving at least a year late. This would seem to be reasonable - when was the last time such a huge project was completed early? The fact that it might have to wait for the 65nM process to get acceptable yields for its high end one billion transistor (!) procs would seem to support this. It is one of the main objections that can be found at a number of sites: if the most powerful (16 core as far as we know) version has 1 bn transistors, how can it be produced cheaply enough for a console? Or for a personal computer? Or, if the intended processor is scaled down (say, 4 or 8 cores), will it really be a big win over whatever speed non cell architecture will by then have reached?

2. There is now a lot of confusion surrounding its use in the PS. Some say PS3, some say PS4.

3. There is a lot of skepticism over the 1tflop claims - just go to ars for example. That's understandable too; it's one thing to stretch Moore's law, but quite another to shatter it - even with such a new architecture.

4. There are no confirmed customers, just rather vague statements concerning scalable use in anything from PDAs to clusters.

5. As you point out, there is no mention of anyone developing an OS, though one would assume that the PPC architecture would make it viable for Apple.

6. What about altivec? Would one of the cores be a vector processor? Would the multi-core architecture rule out the need for it?

7. How would the OS need to be altered to take advantage of the parallelization? Would it be able to do so without a major rewrite? Remember, being multi-processor aware is not the same as being multi-core aware. One of the main problems foreseen for the Cell based PS is the complexity of the planned software. PS2 software was apparently a nightmare to write; most tech sites think that having decent SDKs and other tools would be absolutely essential for Cell.

The best bit of information we have is simply that it really exists. Even the G5 remained a rumor (GPUL anyone?) for such a long time. I think its an exciting prospect, and with so much money and expertise being pumped into the project, I'm sure it will succeed. But I would bet that: (a) it won't achieve these outlandish specs until at least its second gen, and (b) it'll take a lot more than impressive specs to make a PPC platform outperform whatever Intel has by then - at least in the marketplace.

Maybe its scalability is the answer. We'll see. Like most here, I would love to see a proc like this in a Mac - anything to counter this insane power/heat/Mhz curve.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 08:27 AM

its very funny how everyone dismisses Intel or AMD. Its still true that Macs are being hammered by the otherside, G4 i wont even go there why bother. G5 we still compare 2 of those vs 1 of the otherside and the otherside can still match those 2 G5s in most aspects and even beat them in others. I noticed know one is mentioning that Intel has chips using light in prototypes while we are pushing electrons. Microsoft is like a big bully and when someone else gets big they dont know what to do. Intel has gotton so big that microsoft cant dictate to them. Intel is still #1 and it didnt come by selling slow cpu's such Apple has pushed on us for years. It came by selling fast cpu's and by having more and more of the market wanting their product. seen any G5 is the fastest PC commercials lately? I didnt think so.

Snowy_River

Mar 16, 2004, 11:40 AM

...G5 we still compare 2 of those vs 1 of the otherside and the otherside can still match those 2 G5s in most aspects and even beat them in others...

Gee, if you look at the comparisons on this Apple page (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/), it certainly seems that they are comparing singles to singles and duals to duals, such as

http://a224.g.akamai.net/7/224/51/a86baf979a7758/www.apple.com/powermac/images/charthmmer_11172003.jpg

Or

http://a256.g.akamai.net/7/256/51/ad3096b688e7af/www.apple.com/powermac/images/chartbibble_11172003.jpg

... seen any G5 is the fastest PC commercials lately?...

As a matter of fact, yes. I saw one about a week and a half ago.

...Go troll somewhere else...

Mac-Xpert

Mar 16, 2004, 11:51 AM

Gee, if you look at the comparisons on this Apple page (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/), it certainly seems that they are comparing singles to singles and duals to duals, such as

http://a224.g.akamai.net/7/224/51/a86baf979a7758/www.apple.com/powermac/images/charthmmer_11172003.jpg

Or

http://a256.g.akamai.net/7/256/51/ad3096b688e7af/www.apple.com/powermac/images/chartbibble_11172003.jpg

As a matter of fact, yes. I saw one about a week and a half ago.

...Go troll somewhere else...
And now we only have to wait till someone comes in and says: But Apple crippled the PC's scores, to make them look bad and the G5 look good. :rolleyes: But it won't be me :p

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 11:53 AM

if you want to pull benches dont get them from Apple. they spin more then my quicksilvers fans. go to some real world places such as Mac World magazine, Mac Addict Magazine and ARNS or Toms Hardware. Apple stretches a lot of stuff and has a very bad habit of finding those benches that favors their product. Remember the fastest computer adds? Ill go look for a few benches.

ingenious

Mar 16, 2004, 12:01 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 12:10 PM

Naimfan

Mar 16, 2004, 02:22 PM

I decided to not bother with benches, you can pull benches to show pc is faster and pull them to show 2 G5s are faster. what it boils down to is we still use 2 cpu's to compare with 1 from the otherside. that alone should tell you something and i have yet to see real world benches where single G5s can match single cpus the otherside has. Intel is number 1 and there are many reasons for it. Apple isnt running those fastest PC adds and there are reasons for that.

I know what you mean about benches--I saw a bunch and the only thing I can reasonably conclude is that there is a lot of variation. I found some where the dual G5s smoked the fastest Intels, and vice versa. What I did find interesting is that the single 1.8 G5 is generally only a bit slower than a P4 at 3 or 3.2 GHz. From other benchmarks I've seen for other Intel based machines, I'd expect the 1.8 to be faster than most of the Intel/Windows machines that are for sale.

Intel is number one in terms of sales to the desktop market but is not remotely competitive in the high end. Since the high end is now migrating to the desktop (and laptop), Intel has good cause to be concerned. Technologically speaking, in general it has been easier for technology to trickle down than up--and Intel is trying to "trickle up." Of course, Intel understands that and is taking steps to move upmarket, which is eminently sensible. But in a war between IBM and Intel, give me IBM.

Best,

Bob

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 02:58 PM

I hear you Bob, I like the AMD stuff. its fast but at lower clocks like G5. they have it running cooler and slower when no work load like the G5s performance settings and its beating and or matching the Intels in Gaming. All three of these chips can kick butt and do what you want now how long will it take for Apple to give G4 the boot in powerbook and Imac and update those 1.6/1.8 machines? I hope it wont be June WWDC.

Naimfan

Mar 16, 2004, 03:25 PM

How long will it take for Apple to give G4 the boot in powerbook and Imac and update those 1.6/1.8 machines? I hope it wont be June WWDC.

I'm with you on hoping it won't be WWDC before the PB and iMac get G5s, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath! My feeling is that we'll see one more revision of the PB with a G4--perhaps the 1.5 chip mentioned elsewhere. I actually think the iMac might get the G5 before the PB, and I've got to say the iMac desperately needs it--I don't think they are competitive pricewise. A friend of mine has an eMachines PC which has been nothing but trouble, and I told her to look at the Apple Store. Her first question, after seeing the 17" iMac was "Wow! Cool! Does it do the dishes for that much money?" She would be much better off with an eMac, or buying one of the 1.8 GHz PMs with a display. (Sorry--I know--preaching to the choir!)

The PBs I think are still very competitive in terms of price/performance/engineering/etc. (I understand we probably disagree on this....) My guess is that a G5 PB will happen later rather than sooner, and that when it does happen it might not be a killer leap forward performance wise anyway. A G4 PB at 1.5 GHz, with a 5400 or 7200 RPM HD, would represent a significant upgrade. That said, I also think that would be as far as the G4 could ever go in a PB--anything short of a G5 after that would be a disaster.

Best,

Bob

Snowy_River

Mar 16, 2004, 06:18 PM

... what it boils down to is we still use 2 cpu's to compare with 1 from the otherside...

You know, it's funny, I didn't post that link or those benchmarks claiming that they were unbiased, but that was all anyone could say about them. Yes, I know that benchmarks cover a wide range. The point that I was trying to make, which it seems based on some of your continuing comments you completely missed, is that the duals are compared to duals, and the singles are compared to singles. This has been, more or less, typical of many, if not most, of the benchmarks that I've seen.

Want to compare a dual 2GHz G5 to something? Better make it a dual 3.2GHz Xeon. Want to compare a single 3.2GHz P4 to something? Better make it the single 1.6GHz G5 (or maybe, maybe, the dual 1.8GHz G5, as we don't have a single 1.8GHz G5 to compare anymore).

Making such comparisons, some benchmarks will show the G5s in the lead, and some will show the Intel/AMD in the lead. On the whole, they're probably about even. And, you know what? That means that we're right there! It's not quite the good old days when the G3 was beating the pants off the P2, but it's a far cry better than where we were a year ago, when the P4 was beating the pants off the G4.

I decided to not bother with benches.... Intel is number 1 and there are many reasons for it...

You know, at least I provided some kind of reference for the point that I was making.

...Apple isnt running those fastest PC adds and there are reasons for that.

That's funny, given that I already told you that I saw one about a week and a half ago.

... like I said, go troll somewhere else ...

Snowy_River

Mar 16, 2004, 06:25 PM

...A friend of mine has an eMachines PC which has been nothing but trouble, and I told her to look at the Apple Store. Her first question, after seeing the 17" iMac was "Wow! Cool! Does it do the dishes for that much money?"...

Hi Bob,

Has your friend ever heard of 'buyer beware'? She spends a little bit of money on an eMachine, and it's nothing but trouble. She has the option of getting an iMac but balks at the price. If she doesn't want to pay for a quality computer (whether it's a PC or a Mac), then she shouldn't complain when her machine doesn't behave itself. After all, 'you get what you pay for'.

...The PBs I think are still very competitive in terms of price/performance/engineering/etc. (I understand we probably disagree on this....) My guess is that a G5 PB will happen later rather than sooner, and that when it does happen it might not be a killer leap forward performance wise anyway. A G4 PB at 1.5 GHz, with a 5400 or 7200 RPM HD, would represent a significant upgrade...

I'd actually, to some extent, disagree as well. I think that the PBs are rather long in the tooth at this point. Unfortunately, Apple is between a rock and a hard place with them. They can't reduce prices, or they'd have a PR nightmare when the PB G5s come out and they have to raise prices again. So, I'm guessing that the PB G5 is just about the highest item on their priority list right now. Also, that 1.5GHz G4 isn't supposed to be available until this Fall. That's an awefully long time to wait for a G4 update. No, I think those are targetted at the G4 iBooks.

Cheers!

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 06:39 PM

I suggest you read december issue of MacWorld or Mac Addict if you are so confident of the G5. Bank of America has predicted G5 sales will fall again to around 195,000 this qtr. down from 205,000 last qtr which was down from the one prior. If G5 is so great then why are sales getting less and less? Rdowns I wish you were in here and could tell us what Macworld said. I have MacAddict and they admitted that those 2 g5s you are bragging about didnt win every test and split the benches and that again was vs 1 cpu from the otherside.( gaming benches were not even close except for 1 title quake3. G5 is nice but if Apple continues its stingy ways of handing out technology its future isnt going to be as bright as you may hope. we should be talking about G5 Imacs and updated Powermacs by now but we are not. its been 8 months. Apple is wasting time or has gotten use to motorola's do nothing ways. (edit) January issue and they split the benches

Naimfan

Mar 16, 2004, 07:06 PM

Snowy--

Fair points.

My friend does understand the idea of "You (mostly) get what you pay for. And in her defense, it was her ex-husband who bought the eMachines. But I think her reaction a valid one, that has been pointed out by many others--it is awfully difficult to explain to someone why they have to pay more for what looks like (and is) a slower machine. There is a HP Pavilion advertised in the Sunday CompUSA flyer--it's a 3 GHz P4, 512 ram, 160 gig HD, and Superdrive, complete with 17" flat panel screen, for $1379. Oh, and it includes a printer (which I'm sure is worth every penny! ;-) ). Compare that to a 17" iMac, which has half the ram, half the HD space, and a processor that LOOKS like it is only 40% as fast. You and I know it's not QUITE that simple, but in value terms, the vast majority of the population would look at those two and pick the HP. And I'd be astonished if the HP didn't annihilate the iMac on the test bench.

On PBs: The current 1.25 GHz PB is bettered by roughly 25% by the desktop G5 1.6. That's it. Some of that gap can be closed by putting in a faster HD, and more of it can be closed by upping the G4 to 1.5 GHz (which was guessed to be available in quantity by Q2/Q3). If there's a better laptop out there for the money, I've not seen it, though I accept that is a value judgment that others might well make differently.

I'd love to see a G5 PB, but I think it will be later rather than sooner. And I don't think a G5 PB will offer all that much of a performance leap over the existing line unless Apple puts faster HDs and something like a 2.0 GHz G5 in it--the G5 doesn't appear to be any faster, clock for clock, than the G4.

Best,

Bob

avkills

Mar 16, 2004, 07:17 PM

--the G5 doesn't appear to be any faster, clock for clock, than the G4.

Best,

Bob

I think it all depends on the software and how well it is optimized and what you are doing. Barefeats shows a Dual 2Ghz G5 with one processor disabled still beating a dual 1.42 Ghz G4 at FCP rendering. With both processors it spanks the G4 big time.

Games are not going to benefit all that much from dual processors. Quake does because they made it SMP aware. I also believe the way Apple interfaces to the graphics card is a bit different than on the PC side. Most PC games are written for DirectX and not OpenGL. Game benches do not mean much to me.

My Dual G5 matched a Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz machine at Cinebench, so I am not disappointed with the G5 performance at all. It is fast, much faster than any G4 machine. Apple is in the game with the G5. A pre-built Dual Xeon machine with the same specs costs just as much.

-mark

Snowy_River

Mar 16, 2004, 07:40 PM

... Game benches do not mean much to me...

Me neither. I don't use my computer much for gaming. If I wanted to game, I'd buy a console system.

...Apple is in the game with the G5. A pre-built Dual Xeon machine with the same specs costs just as much.

-mark

I completely agree.

Cheers!

Prom1

Mar 16, 2004, 10:11 PM

I just had a conversation with someone at work (an annoying fellow, but knowledgeable all the same) whom used to work at IBM Canada.

He, overhearing a conversation between someone else and myself over IBM and their innovation, mentioned that IBM "does not make any computer components themselves". ???? He went on to further mention "just look at their computer line they don't use their own chips, they don't use.......any of their own parts in any of their computers". Now take note that the pause just above in that last quote was due to me quickly (possibly rudely with a polite tone mixed with confusion) interrupting him stating "IBM currently does use their own chips/cpu's into some of their Blade Server products its the PowerPC 970". Although I did interrupt it seemed that I did cause him to pause with a little thought - just my perception.

Now he may have something here, he mentioned "IBM just acquires resources and technology from other companies it swallows up; now you may see an IBM lab but the personnel is still part of the said company it swallowed up, and IBM has little input over what kind/direction of research by those employees. IBM hasn't innovated nor made anything since the AS/400 computers." Now the AS/400 system might be my error in remembering the correct system, but I believe that Im not too far off of the system he mentioned.

Is he correct????? Or is this just related to IBM Canada. Sorry if this seems off topic, but its IBM related and the conversation does have some bearing onto IBM's technology vs Intel, no???

Cheers

Snowy_River

Mar 17, 2004, 06:34 PM

...I have MacAddict and they admitted that those 2 g5s you are bragging about didnt win every test...

Who's bragging? Since when is saying that the G5 can go toe-to-toe with the P4 bragging? If I were saying that the G5 could absolutely smoke the P4 across the board, that would be bragging (and I should have my head examined - I know that the G5 isn't quite that good). As you pointed out, the G5 didn't win every test. But, by implication, it didn't lose every test either. It seems reasonably clear that the G5 is a contender in the modern chip market.

Oh, and here's (http://www.architosh.com/features/2004/g5-interview/2004-interv-g5nem-1.phtml) an article concerning one of the primary heavy hitter applications that I use, VectorWorks (a completely cross-platform 2D/3D CAD application), and how it's performance compares. Just to summ it up:
Looking at the scores the single [1.8GHz] G5 turned in a combined total score of 240 compared to the 2.8Ghz Intel Xeon processor's score of 306.3 (lower is better); that's a 28 percent faster difference.
http://www.architosh.com/features/2003/nem-benchmark/lg-overall.gif

So, the single G5 is faster, over all, than the single Xeon. By extrapolation, even if a 3.2GHz Xeon were used, it's total score would be something like 268, still leaving the 1.8GHz G5 11% faster.

My point is that there are a lot of factors to consider, and it's always going to be a horse race anyway. For someone using VectorWorks, the G5 seems to be, hands down, the superior processor right now. But, who knows where it'll be in a year or two. For gaming, Intel/AMD based machines are the better choice right now (excluding consideration of consoles), who knows where that will be in a year or two.

In any event, the G5 is a competitive machine. Apple is back where it should be.

As far as them having 'stingy ways of handing out technology', do you have any idea what goes into developing a new machine? Do you think that they wanted to let the G4 languish as their top-of-the-line for so long? Don't you think that they're working their arses off to get the upgraded G5s out ASAP? If so, you're far more cynical than even I would have guessed...
:rolleyes:

In any event, Cheers!
:cool:

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 17, 2004, 06:44 PM

Snowy_River

Mar 17, 2004, 07:00 PM

Cheers snowy, but if you are going to post benches i can help this then, If I buy a 2 thousand dollar machine I want it to do EVERYTHING including games. the dual G5s are running about 70 frames from what i seen so they would be lower then the lowest machine on this bench. In case you cant see it the top mark is almost 300 frames per second.

Well, you can expect that, but I don't know that you can blame all of that on Apple. As I understand it (though I don't follow these issues much, as I'm not much of a 'gamer'), Unreal Tournament has some bugs in it that prevent it from running well on any Mac, including the G5. Most PC games these days are written for DirectX, not OpenGL, so, unless MS ports DirectX to the Mac, Mac gamer's are behind the 8-ball to begin with. It's not that the capability isn't there (as you observed with your post noting that Quake3 actually runs faster on a G5 than on an Intel/AMD - I saw that same benchmark somewhere else, too), it's that the programmers aren't taking the time to rewrite their code to take advantage of the capability. So, I'd say that if you want a hard-core gaming computer that can also do regular computer stuff, get a top-end PC. Until the game makers decide to properly port their code to the Mac (i.e. write it from the ground up for both platforms, rather than writing for one then trying to shoe-horn it into the other later), a Mac isn't going to be a machine you'll be satisfied with.

For me, doing my professional work, it's more than just satisfactory...

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 17, 2004, 07:12 PM

I agree, seems for the pros the duals are just fine for what they need. I have my own business but all i need for it is a g3. bills & letters etc. I really love Mac OS but i like to come home sometimes and do some fun gaming. Having to wait 6 months to a year for a favorite title on mac is a bitch and then to find out it runs like crap is even worse. Though iam still waiting and will wait to see if they get off their corporate cans and make a decent Imac the Alienware Aurora with a AMD64 3400 in it and a 9800xt would be the ticket. same price as a 1.6 . I guess we will keep waiting for those new Macs and see what Apple does.

crazzyeddie

Mar 26, 2004, 09:53 AM

blue&whiteman

Mar 26, 2004, 09:56 AM

I would say that intels biggest threat is amd

Snowy_River

Mar 26, 2004, 11:56 AM

Dont Hurt Me, you're the one who should be embarrassed by your benchmarks. Those are all using DirectX... so why not post some comparative OpenGL benchmarks using Quake3, since that is so well developed on both platforms... Oh, wait, I might just have some (http://barefeats.com/g5op2.html)...

You can see that even that Opteron is running UT2k3 on DirectX, so just scroll down to that Quake3 benchmark, and do some reading while youre at it.

Hi CrazzyEddie. DHM's point is that he wants a machine that will run the games that he wants to run. Apparently URT2k3 is one of them. Given that, the performance of the G5 isn't that great. And, if that's what he's after, then I have to agree with him. He doesn't want a G5. In a side-by-side comparison, using that as a benchmark, the G5 fails miserably.

Now, as I've already said, I don't see that as being a problem with the G5 or Apple, but with the game makers. However, regardless of where the fault lies, for someone like DHM who wants the gaming performance, the G5 falls short of the mark. For him, I'd say get an Opteron, or something similar, and more power to him.

(Gee, who'd have thought with the way that DHM and I were haranguing each other for a while there that I would have stepped in to defend his point of view? ;))

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 06:46 PM

the dual G5s are running about 70 frames from what i seen so they would be lower then the lowest machine on this bench. In case you cant see it the top mark is almost 300 frames per second.

Using an overclocked Athlon FX-53, a Radeon 9800 XT, and DirectX9... Way to tell the whole story. DHM. :rolleyes:

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head, because you don't ever seem to get this point. The reason that macs are behind on graphics cards is that Apple has to secure drivers, ADC connectors, and a sufficient production of the altered GPUs to stock t heir machines. In other words, in a cost/benefit analysis, the sheer expense of keeping right at the curve on materials is going to be a waste, because we can do everything we need to on Radeon 9800 Pros, and the gaming market isn't going to suddenly come to us without the development environments and hardware they want. Since we don't have it, you're better off buying your Alienware and stopping this cluttering of the boards with your inane repetition and misinformation. :cool:

Having to wait 6 months to a year for a favorite title on mac is a bitch and then to find out it runs like crap is even worse.

Buy a console, because it's cheaper and the release cycle is even faster than on PCs.

Who's bragging? Since when is saying that the G5 can go toe-to-toe with the P4 bragging? If I were saying that the G5 could absolutely smoke the P4 across the board, that would be bragging (and I should have my head examined - I know that the G5 isn't quite that good). As you pointed out, the G5 didn't win every test. But, by implication, it didn't lose every test either. It seems reasonably clear that the G5 is a contender in the modern chip market.

...

As far as them having 'stingy ways of handing out technology', do you have any idea what goes into developing a new machine? Do you think that they wanted to let the G4 languish as their top-of-the-line for so long? Don't you think that they're working their arses off to get the upgraded G5s out ASAP? If so, you're far more cynical than even I would have guessed...
:rolleyes:

Hi, Snowy. I've read some of your posts, and I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. Since it looks like you've not met one of the resident turncoats, I think I'll step in for a moment and tell you about DHM.

First, he does, in fact, think he knows what goes into designing a machine. It's a magic process that takes a matter of minutes, and only Apple's stingy and flint-hearted nature keeps it from releasing 8.0ghz quad processor machines with the unreleased R450 graphics cards, PC9000 RAM, and full RAID-5 terrabyte arrays. If they weren't so selfish, these machines would cost about the same as a pizza, do your laundry for you, and be sure you never miss an anniversary or birthday again. Since Apple is sitting on this wondrous hardware, it's obvious that AMD is the saviour of mankind, and anyone who defends the macintosh platform from unsubstantiated claims that it's being trounced is obviously a pathetic sycophant who wants to have Steve Jobs' children. As if that weren't damning enough, these same sad individuals also wish that all macs were back on G4s, and would gladly peel off their own skin and sell it so that they could buy one. :rolleyes: :p

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 07:04 PM

boomtopper

Mar 26, 2004, 07:19 PM

it is so ironic that IBM were the company that set out the standard for the x86 architecture. That was back in the day when risc and cisc processors were batteling it out for superiorty but we all know that cisc won out in the battle for most common processor. And now IBM has now sided with power pc architecture and are building some ingenious processors.

thatwendigo

Mar 26, 2004, 08:36 PM

thatwendigo you are something special!, looking at AMD64 3400 or 3200 or even P4s at 3.0 with directx these things are pushing 100 to 200 FPS then a dual G5 pushing open GL can. when comparing the 1 AMDfx51 to 2 2.0 G5s running a open gl game as quake3 Mac world showed at 1024x768 the dual G5 at 294 and Aurora AMDfx51 getting 335 and thats the one Gaming test that Mac can run well.

Citations, DHM. Show us the numbers or shut up.

If you go back to the thread that you started, I quote anandtech's numbers for Quake III FPS. For the P4EE 3.4 with a 9800XT tops out at 570.7 FPS, which is a lead of 35 frames over the FX-53's 525.7, and a lead of 81.6 frames over the 3400+'s 489.1. If you're going to throw numbers, get them right. Barefeats (http://www.barefeats.com/g5b.html) clocks the dual 2.0 G5 at 226 FPS at a higher resolution than used in the anandtech tests, so the comparison is a little flawed. I need numbers for the Athlon 64 3400+ at 1280x768, preferably on a 9800 Pro rather than an XT, to get a real comparison between the two.

However, you said something that really ought to make you stop anyways. You're talking about PCs with twice the graphics card and DirectX. We get ports that try to mirror DirectX calls onto OpenGL, or that don't properly implement OpenGL APIs. As such, we are going to have lower games performance... So what? I admit that, and I've never denied it.

Apple has to address this problem of selling behind the times hardware or risks loosing it all one day. Look I have had Macs for years and was supporting them but this hardware thing of theirs has bothered me since getting my first Performa and finding out I had to run wolfentein 3d in a little window. That was a great game by the way.

Everyone risks losing it all, all the time. Your arguments hold no water for most of the mac users on this board, because you keep hammering on a point most of us don't care about, and you do it poorly. Learn to argue, man.

reorx

Mar 26, 2004, 09:22 PM

The PowerMac is not a gaming platform. Period. End of story.

Bringing up all these BS gaming benchmarks for a machine with a fraction of the fraction of the market which supports all the FPS gamers out there is absolutely missing the point. If you want a DirectX gaming machine, there is only one solution that matters: x86/Windows.

The consoles are killing the PC gaming market, so its a dying market anyway.

I think I mentioned it before: All these current machines can generate FPS numbers well above what any LCD monitor can on the planet can sustain, so its absolutely wasted ability. That Alienware machine you buy will be eclipsed by something bigger and faster in less that 6 months anyway. So what happens then?

You can't run a business on playing games faster than your synapses can fire.

Frohickey

Mar 26, 2004, 10:07 PM

geeeez.... when is this thread gonna die?!!! :p

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 26, 2004, 10:35 PM

when Apple release new hardware next tuesday, anyways thatwendigo its not polite to tell someone to shut up so grow up would you, and using a how many year old game for benches like quake 3 is rather mute. I would love someone to post benches from MacWorld & MacAddict but since i dont have it in my computer I cant. Some people still read a thing called magazines. also in 6 months current macs will be eclipsed so what your point reorx?

Ensoniq

Mar 26, 2004, 11:03 PM

The PowerMac is not a gaming platform. Period. End of story.

...(removed)...

You can't run a business on playing games faster than your synapses can fire.

Reorx ... "you da man!" You said what I've thought a million times but never posted because I didn't want the gaming hoards to freak out.

Ladies and Gentlemen - The Mac is not a super-mega gaming platform, never will be, and was never meant to be. Anyone buying a Dual 2 GHz G5 in order to see how high their Quake FPS scores will be has way too much time AND money on their hands. Get a GameCube or PS2 or XBox for under $200. Or buy a kick-ass PC gaming system for under $2000. (Why anyone would pay 10 times as much as the game console I don't understand though...) Either way, you'll get better performance and more options than you will on a Mac. It's just a fact.

Apple designed the Dual G5 systems for video, animation, music creation, data manipulation, scientific and mathematical calculations, etc. They are amazing machines for their intended purpose. Sure, they can play games well. So can the eMac/iMac/iBook G4 machines. No one needs a $3000-$4000 top of the line PowerMac G5 to play games. They just WANT one.

The obsession with newer graphic cards and game performance that cannot be measured within normal human visual perceptability is just insanity.

STOP THE INSANITY! :)

Snowy_River

Mar 26, 2004, 11:19 PM

thatwendigo you are something special!, looking at AMD64 3400 or 3200 or even P4s at 3.0 with directx these things are pushing 100 to 200 FPS then a dual G5 pushing open GL can. when comparing the 1 AMDfx51 to 2 2.0 G5s running a open gl game as quake3 Mac world showed at 1024x768 the dual G5 at 294 and Aurora AMDfx51 getting 335 and thats the one Gaming test that Mac can run well. I dont play Quake3 anyways. Thatwendigo just admit it! Mac Hardware doesnt match the otherside unless you are running Photoshop. Apple has to address this problem of selling behind the times hardware or risks loosing it all one day. Look I have had Macs for years and was supporting them but this hardware thing of theirs has bothered me since getting my first Performa and finding out I had to run wolfentein 3d in a little window. That was a great game by the way.

Hey, DHM, I'm afraid that you're wrong. I have to call a spade a spade, and you are completely wrong. There are a lot of issues here that Apple is not directly responsible for that effect the performance on your precious games. First, as I've already pointed out, games aren't written well for Macs. They're written for Windows and then ported (usually poorly, as I already said) to the Mac. This, by its very nature, is a detriment to performance on the Mac.

Second, video card companies don't write drivers for all of their cards, and frequently not for their best cards, for the Mac. Now, I will say that I aim a little bit of criticism at Apple here, as they could try to make it more worthwhile for ATi and others to simply provide drivers (not need to create a whole new card with the ADC). Even with that, though, there is a little bit of a chicken and egg problem here. One of the primary uses for such cards is for gaming (realtime 3D rendering in CAD and other environments is well taken care of with the cards that are currently available). If the only games that could take advantage of these cards are so poorly ported that, even taking advantage of the best, most expensive graphics cards, they can't get the same performance that an off the shelf PC could give, what gamer would spend the money on them? So, again, the primary blame falls at the feet of the game makers.

While I fully support the fact that Macs don't do what you want them to, I really find it incomprehensible why you keep saying that it's because Apple is shipping old, obsolete, faulty, or otherwise bad hardware.

(P.S. Scroll back a bit and you'll recall that I showed you that Mac hardware did better in something other than Photoshop... )

thatwendigo

Mar 27, 2004, 02:11 AM

anyways thatwendigo its not polite to tell someone to shut up so grow up would you,

Neither are your constant ad hominem attacks on me, but you didn't see me saying much about them when you kept making them. Besides, there's a common aphorism I was paraphrasing: Put up or shut up.

and using a how many year old game for benches like quake 3 is rather mute. I would love someone to post benches from MacWorld & MacAddict but since i dont have it in my computer I cant. Some people still read a thing called magazines. also in 6 months current macs will be eclipsed so what your point reorx?

Moot. The word is moot. Jesus.

Well, some people are using benchmarks that are in a source that's note easily verifiable. That puts the burden of proof on them, which in this case, translates to you. You can't even cite us the relevant information on the print version, though, so why should I even take you seriously?

Snowy_River

Mar 27, 2004, 03:22 AM

... so why should I even take you seriously?

TW, could I recommend a few deep breaths? For being not to take DHM seriously, you seem to take him very seriously. Suffice that he has his point of view, his expectations about what constitutes computer performance, etc. To the extent to which his ideas are flawed, point them out.

However, I assure you that somewhere, within each of our points of view, there is a truth. It may not be what we think it is, but there is a truth there.

From what I can tell, DHM's truth is that he expects his computer to handle being both a business machine and an entertainment center. He doesn't want to have multiple devices (i.e. computer + gaming console + whatever). So, for him a Mac isn't a good option.

Now, this truth seems to sometimes get obscured with the false leap of logic that because a Mac won't do what he wants it to, that means that Macs are in some sense inferior, 'behind the times technology', etc.

Of course this logic is flawed. Perhaps DHM can't see it. I don't know. But, in any event, you don't need to feel assaulted by DHM. Just point out flawed logic when it comes up. Then let it go...

(BTW, it irritates me, too, a bit when people say/write things like 'it's a mute point'. But, then, I didn't get the nickname 'the wordsmith' for nothing... ;) )

Rower_CPU

Mar 27, 2004, 03:33 AM

...I didn't get the nickname 'the wordsmith' for nothing...

"Wordsmith"? I thought it was poopsmith (http://homestarrunner.com/vcr_poop.html)...:confused: ;)

thatwendigo

Mar 27, 2004, 07:06 AM

TW, could I recommend a few deep breaths? For being not to take DHM seriously, you seem to take him very seriously. Suffice that he has his point of view, his expectations about what constitutes computer performance, etc. To the extent to which his ideas are flawed, point them out.

There's a history here, unfortunately, and it consists of my making solid, backed, reasoned points, only to have DHM come back and call me a 'G4 lover,' 'Apple zealot,' and a lot of things are are even less rational or polite. I don't tend to just unload on people for no reason, and I've been biting my tongue with this guy for a long time, now. Take a look through my older posts, specifically anything to do with the iMac and eMac, and you'll see why I'm having a little trouble with this guy.

As for not taking him seriously... I don't take his arguments at all seriously, because he never, ever backs anything and resorts to the kind of rhetorical games people played in elementary school. "You don't agree? Well you're a poopie-head!" might as well be subsitituted for most of what he replies with. The reason I get so incandescently pissed, though, is that I worry someone who knows less than I do might fall for it. We have enough ignorance about the mac platform without someone who claims to be a mac supported and user spreading even more.

From what I can tell, DHM's truth is that he expects his computer to handle being both a business machine and an entertainment center. He doesn't want to have multiple devices (i.e. computer + gaming console + whatever). So, for him a Mac isn't a good option.

That's not a truth, just an opinion. I'm a philosophy major, and truth is something we still haven't managed to nail down yet, even after thousands of years of effort.

Of course this logic is flawed. Perhaps DHM can't see it. I don't know. But, in any event, you don't need to feel assaulted by DHM. Just point out flawed logic when it comes up. Then let it go...

But I am assaulted by the guy on a regular basis. Granted, I've grown more and more confrontational as time has gone on, but that's because I already have a great disdain for rednecks of all kinds, and he acts exactly like the people who frequently make my offline life a living hell. Personal issue? Perhaps, but it's exacerbated by his deliberate ignorance, the willful spread thereof, and the way that he doesn't ever seem to learn anything from talking to people.

(BTW, it irritates me, too, a bit when people say/write things like 'it's a mute point'. But, then, I didn't get the nickname 'the wordsmith' for nothing... ;) )

It irritates me even more when people are gently corrected once or twice, but come back with some statement that they don't need to try and that the correction is some kind of diversion.

Snowy_River

Mar 27, 2004, 12:37 PM

Well, I can understand your frustration. DHM and I actually had a 'conversation' earlier in this thread in which he admitted that the G5 is a good machine for professional uses, just not for gaming. Then, just a few posts later, he started railing on about Apple selling outdated hardware. It certainly is annoying. I was only trying to suggest not taking things so personally.

I can understand, also, worrying about others who are less informed taking what DHM says as being correct. To that, I'd simply offer corrections. Anyone worth their salt will see two contradicting points of view and either conclude that the jury's still out or do more reading. In any event, it gets the point across.

...That's not a truth, just an opinion. I'm a philosophy major, and truth is something we still haven't managed to nail down yet, even after thousands of years of effort...

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. Unless you want to get truly pedantic, truth isn't at all hard to define. It is true that DHM expects his computer to act as a high end gaming machine, as well. It is true that he doesn't want to have to buy a gaming console in addition to his computer. These are truths. Given these truths, a Mac isn't a good computer for him to buy. Macs can play games, but they can't go toe-to-toe against PCs when the games are poorly ported to the Mac. This isn't a matter of performance, just of how well a given game is implemented on the Mac vs. Windows.

MikeAtari

Mar 27, 2004, 03:21 PM

Hope of Apple becoming the best game platform may drive us all crazy.
We are lucky with just 4% of the market(?) that Apple still has the best games, at least, ported to it. The gaming market doesn't follow the best hardware just because it's released and in production.

For me the best "game" is Java with JBuilder X.
Or, X-Plane, ILife's GarageBand, or A.v.Preditor.
Or, Microsoft's Word on the Mac.
I haven't got the time to follow gaming so consumingly.

The only thing we can do is accept Fate.
Accept our Fate that the Universe is telling us, we Mac users must do something Else with our Lives. ;) We were put on this earth to follow the Best, use the Best and enjoy the Best.