if that was the case, why isn't there a windows & a mac version of all the software in the market ? if it was as easy to do as you say, they'd all have versions for both OS's
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual G4 PowerBooks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
Re: Re: Great for Java Dev
He didn't say he needed duals to *run* multi-threaded code, he said he wanted them to *test* multi-threaded code.
If you are going to test multi-threaded "write once, run anywhere" code you have to assume it'll see multiple CPUs someday.
The world changes when different threads are running on different CPUs rather than being serialized on a single CPU.
He didn't say he needed duals to *run* multi-threaded code, he said he wanted them to *test* multi-threaded code.
If you are going to test multi-threaded "write once, run anywhere" code you have to assume it'll see multiple CPUs someday.
The world changes when different threads are running on different CPUs rather than being serialized on a single CPU.
Re: Re: Re: Great for Java Dev
You might assume that it will see multiple CPUs but you don't have to care. If you are using multi-threading in your application you have to take care of the synchronization of the threads for your application to work. From this perspective it doesn't matter whether the OS maps the Lightweight Processes to one or more CPUs. Sure you'll might get some performance improvements but the Java code is the same.
If you are planning to run your code, say as a server process, on a multiple CPU system then sure you have to test for odd behaviour (inappropriate synchronization) and stability. We once saw the JVM frequently crashing on dual CPU Solaris machines. So you better test thoroughly. But this was some 5 years ago. No problems with that any more.
You might assume that it will see multiple CPUs but you don't have to care. If you are using multi-threading in your application you have to take care of the synchronization of the threads for your application to work. From this perspective it doesn't matter whether the OS maps the Lightweight Processes to one or more CPUs. Sure you'll might get some performance improvements but the Java code is the same.
If you are planning to run your code, say as a server process, on a multiple CPU system then sure you have to test for odd behaviour (inappropriate synchronization) and stability. We once saw the JVM frequently crashing on dual CPU Solaris machines. So you better test thoroughly. But this was some 5 years ago. No problems with that any more.
iPC
macrumors 6502
Re: ???
Some simple test results here: http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html
The industry as a whole is selling more and more laptop machines. For those users that actually do need the most power possible, it isn't from the G4 (we knew that for some time with the desktop PowerMacs). Apple's laptops are (now) all G4 based....
Some simple test results here: http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html
I don't care much for a dual g4 powerbook. I would like to see a g5 powerbook out before the 04-05 school year. I would still buy it even if it ment increasing the formfactor from 1" to 1.5" if it means a huge speed boost. I think a lot of people are getting stuck up on asthetics rather than functionallity. I dont really think watercooling is the answer because you still have to get rid of the heat somehow and with a pump and radiator. I would be more in favor or an extruded bottom plate heat sink but i don't know if that is practical (cause a shock might break the processor core, fins getting dirty and impeading dissapation, etc.) Apple needs to ditch the g4 unless moto comes out with a breakthrough version with faster fsb and clock speeds.
The much repeated talk of grilling bacon and having 30 minute battery lives in these theoretical PBs is absurd. If they cannot be cooled to a reasonable level or if battery cannot be increased, why would they be produced in the first place? In other words, as processors change the cooling, weight, thickness, life, etc will also evolve so as to keep up.
you are both write.
I'd like to test and run multi-threaded code.
Yes, I know the threaded code works on a single processor,
but, I'd still like to actually see it, and feel it run on a dual processor. Just to see how effective it is.
I can imagine what it feels like to drive a Harley, while on my bicycle, still, only a Harley feels like a Harley.
A 64 bit processor, the G5 is a great idea, and it does have a future, but, if apple could build a dual G5 laptop even at 1ghz, I'd be very happy.
But, this would be a niche market, within a niche market.
The G5 does have some advantages for the JVM, Java Longs should increase in speed, running in real 64bit registers, instead of 2 32 bit registers.
I'll probably have to wait for the dual-core G5 of the future,
if it ever makes it into an Apple laptop.
But, isn't Apple about having the Future Now?
Firewire, Airport, Airport Extreme, OS X( Unix )....
I'd like to test and run multi-threaded code.
Yes, I know the threaded code works on a single processor,
but, I'd still like to actually see it, and feel it run on a dual processor. Just to see how effective it is.
I can imagine what it feels like to drive a Harley, while on my bicycle, still, only a Harley feels like a Harley.
A 64 bit processor, the G5 is a great idea, and it does have a future, but, if apple could build a dual G5 laptop even at 1ghz, I'd be very happy.
But, this would be a niche market, within a niche market.
The G5 does have some advantages for the JVM, Java Longs should increase in speed, running in real 64bit registers, instead of 2 32 bit registers.
I'll probably have to wait for the dual-core G5 of the future,
if it ever makes it into an Apple laptop.
But, isn't Apple about having the Future Now?
Firewire, Airport, Airport Extreme, OS X( Unix )....
Re: I don't know about this...
I'm with you, why waste money that could be spent developing the G5 chip for the Powerbooks, besides I just purchased a new 12" powerbook and I'm happy with it, its fast enough.🙂
I'm with you, why waste money that could be spent developing the G5 chip for the Powerbooks, besides I just purchased a new 12" powerbook and I'm happy with it, its fast enough.🙂
FightTheFuture
macrumors 68000
well, if this could turn out to be true - imagine the price drop on the current G4 powerbooks. it would throw the ibook to obsoletion!
billyboy
macrumors 65816
The G4 has a way to go yet, unless Apple get suckered by the super minority speed freaks and get really hung up on MHz numbers rather than pursue the other options that are available to increasing productivity.
Without a tweak of hardware, Panther has sped up Macs in general. Also if they could add faster hard drives, and stick 1GB RAM as standard, they get an appealing and extremely nippy PB - without doing any reengineering. Those modifications along with a few minor speed upgrades and PRICE DROPS could bring th ePB closer in line pricewise to PCs and also add many months life to the existing range, which is already selling in big numbers despite a vocal few saying oh no, Macs are soo slow compared to pcs.
I reckon Apple have until next summer befre they will have to introduce the next quantum leap in PBs - dual 2 ghx G4 PB or dual 1GHz G5 or whatever stuff they dream up.
Without a tweak of hardware, Panther has sped up Macs in general. Also if they could add faster hard drives, and stick 1GB RAM as standard, they get an appealing and extremely nippy PB - without doing any reengineering. Those modifications along with a few minor speed upgrades and PRICE DROPS could bring th ePB closer in line pricewise to PCs and also add many months life to the existing range, which is already selling in big numbers despite a vocal few saying oh no, Macs are soo slow compared to pcs.
I reckon Apple have until next summer befre they will have to introduce the next quantum leap in PBs - dual 2 ghx G4 PB or dual 1GHz G5 or whatever stuff they dream up.
To Laptop or Not To Laptop...
Sorry Billyboy... Think I private messaged my first one by accident...
My question for all the hardcore users here who know way more than me is this:
I'm looking to replace my desktop G4 with a laptop. Should I go for the high end 15" PB that's out now, wait for a possible dual processor version or wait for the G5 version?
There seems some different opinions over the (albeit possible) dual version being better or not than the early G5 version. I don't upgrade often so whatever I get has to last a while (no interm solutions). At the same time, I'm not waiting until mid 2005 to get free of my 'desktop shackles'. Also, I'm running all the standard Graphic and Web Design Apps and find Panther moves a tad slow on a 500mhz machine.
bd.
Sorry Billyboy... Think I private messaged my first one by accident...
My question for all the hardcore users here who know way more than me is this:
I'm looking to replace my desktop G4 with a laptop. Should I go for the high end 15" PB that's out now, wait for a possible dual processor version or wait for the G5 version?
There seems some different opinions over the (albeit possible) dual version being better or not than the early G5 version. I don't upgrade often so whatever I get has to last a while (no interm solutions). At the same time, I'm not waiting until mid 2005 to get free of my 'desktop shackles'. Also, I'm running all the standard Graphic and Web Design Apps and find Panther moves a tad slow on a 500mhz machine.
bd.
Re: Re: Dual G4 PowerBooks?
Not really dumb at all if the 970 can't hit the performace per watt figure required for the next rev something else would have to be considered. Considering that MAC/OS is high optimized for MSP a PowerBook could benefit from it greatly. Give the OS the ability to shut down one processor and we have an even better solution for the portable.
So we have Apple, who by the way has admitted that it will be a long time before the 970 is in a laptop, looking into alternatives. Is that so hard to believe?
What coud be the even bigger surprise is if Apple pulls out something completely differrent from the G4 and the 970. Would that be dumb? As long as Apple continues to move the PowerBook forward performance wise (in every way that it can be measure on a portable) then I will be happy. If the put in a slow 970 that goobles POWER quickly then I won't be to happy. Look at it this way every bench mark has indicated that a G4 running faster on a faster bus would be verycompetitive in the 32 bit areas with the 970, if Apple and Motorola can pull such a processor out of the hat why not use it?
Thanks
Dave
Not really dumb at all if the 970 can't hit the performace per watt figure required for the next rev something else would have to be considered. Considering that MAC/OS is high optimized for MSP a PowerBook could benefit from it greatly. Give the OS the ability to shut down one processor and we have an even better solution for the portable.
So we have Apple, who by the way has admitted that it will be a long time before the 970 is in a laptop, looking into alternatives. Is that so hard to believe?
What coud be the even bigger surprise is if Apple pulls out something completely differrent from the G4 and the 970. Would that be dumb? As long as Apple continues to move the PowerBook forward performance wise (in every way that it can be measure on a portable) then I will be happy. If the put in a slow 970 that goobles POWER quickly then I won't be to happy. Look at it this way every bench mark has indicated that a G4 running faster on a faster bus would be verycompetitive in the 32 bit areas with the 970, if Apple and Motorola can pull such a processor out of the hat why not use it?
Thanks
Dave
The only thing you have to realize is that ANY heat disipated via heat is lost battery capacity. Many of us are not willing to give up on battery time to support a faster processor.
Personally I think that Apple should be pushing both IBM and Motorola to come develope low power high speed 32 bit processors. And then take what ever is the best. They may already be working on a low power 64 bit machine but I still have this belief that the economics won't be right along iwth the power issue.
Thanks
Dave
Personally I think that Apple should be pushing both IBM and Motorola to come develope low power high speed 32 bit processors. And then take what ever is the best. They may already be working on a low power 64 bit machine but I still have this belief that the economics won't be right along iwth the power issue.
Thanks
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great for Java Dev
If your developing multi thread code that you believe will at some time run on a SMP machine then you have to test and possibly develop on an SMP machine. Considering we are talking about Apple hardware here there is a very high likely hood that your code will encounter multple processors, so prudence dictates at least through testing of the code in that environment.
As long as your multithread software has the ptotentila to run on an SMP you can not assume that it will work just because of previous efforts. Frankly it isn't a question of a little bit of an improvement, depending on application the improvement can be staggering. To really no how well you have parttioned your application for SMP support you have to run it on a SMP machine to determine overall improvement in execution.
Lastly not everyone is wrapped up in Java development.
Dave
If your developing multi thread code that you believe will at some time run on a SMP machine then you have to test and possibly develop on an SMP machine. Considering we are talking about Apple hardware here there is a very high likely hood that your code will encounter multple processors, so prudence dictates at least through testing of the code in that environment.
As long as your multithread software has the ptotentila to run on an SMP you can not assume that it will work just because of previous efforts. Frankly it isn't a question of a little bit of an improvement, depending on application the improvement can be staggering. To really no how well you have parttioned your application for SMP support you have to run it on a SMP machine to determine overall improvement in execution.
Lastly not everyone is wrapped up in Java development.
Dave
Well I have to disagree on a number of counts here.
First two processors are almost always more responsive than a single processor machine. That is from the users perspective. So if you want a snappy machine and often run a number of apps at once, or a few CPU bound ones, then a SMP machine is a very appealing machine.
Second; All single thread apps benefit to some degree from SMP. An app can beneift from having the CPU all to itself with a marginal improvement. Or it can beneift when using system services.
The proportion of SMP aware applications is steadly increasing. Even games are being writen to support SMP. Genreally yes they are more cpu intense programs anyways, but do you really need more than 1GHz to run an editor.
Fourth there are many applicaitons that at multithreaded that do benefit from SMP even though they may not be CPU bound.
So while there is a class of users and programs that do not beneift from SMP it is a vey small number. On top of this is OS/X that certainly does benefit all the time from SMP. SMP is actually a cheaper way to provide a responsive machne to people who use them intensely, actually easier on the wallet.
Finally why would anyone make use of single thread apps to test a SMP machine? Such tests are completely invalid from the user perspective. There are very few people nowadays that run only one app on a machine to squeeze out maximum performance. So test a SMP machine agianst a single processor running a mix of applications at the same time. Then tell me which machine produces the better results.
The story of the G5 pretty much spells out the desire for SMP in the market place. The 2GHz machine is far out stripping the other machines in sales. Many of these are professionals, do you really think that they would spend money on hardware that won't produce? Apple; through the G4, has trained a whole generation of computer users to expect the benefits of a dual processor machine. It is an education that won't be easily undone as it has been shown to be a benefit to many crafts.
Ask yourself this; will a single processor G5 at 2GHz be any match for the current 2X SMP machine? The answer is clearly no. Modern operating systems and other technologies suggest strongly that single processor machies are a thing of the past!!!
Thanks
Dave
First two processors are almost always more responsive than a single processor machine. That is from the users perspective. So if you want a snappy machine and often run a number of apps at once, or a few CPU bound ones, then a SMP machine is a very appealing machine.
Second; All single thread apps benefit to some degree from SMP. An app can beneift from having the CPU all to itself with a marginal improvement. Or it can beneift when using system services.
The proportion of SMP aware applications is steadly increasing. Even games are being writen to support SMP. Genreally yes they are more cpu intense programs anyways, but do you really need more than 1GHz to run an editor.
Fourth there are many applicaitons that at multithreaded that do benefit from SMP even though they may not be CPU bound.
So while there is a class of users and programs that do not beneift from SMP it is a vey small number. On top of this is OS/X that certainly does benefit all the time from SMP. SMP is actually a cheaper way to provide a responsive machne to people who use them intensely, actually easier on the wallet.
Finally why would anyone make use of single thread apps to test a SMP machine? Such tests are completely invalid from the user perspective. There are very few people nowadays that run only one app on a machine to squeeze out maximum performance. So test a SMP machine agianst a single processor running a mix of applications at the same time. Then tell me which machine produces the better results.
The story of the G5 pretty much spells out the desire for SMP in the market place. The 2GHz machine is far out stripping the other machines in sales. Many of these are professionals, do you really think that they would spend money on hardware that won't produce? Apple; through the G4, has trained a whole generation of computer users to expect the benefits of a dual processor machine. It is an education that won't be easily undone as it has been shown to be a benefit to many crafts.
Ask yourself this; will a single processor G5 at 2GHz be any match for the current 2X SMP machine? The answer is clearly no. Modern operating systems and other technologies suggest strongly that single processor machies are a thing of the past!!!
Thanks
Dave
it's called Marklar
ref: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp
Apparently it is already out there....probably as a backup plan had IBM/Motorola boinked up the deal. I don't like the idea either, for several reasons:
1: Apple is a HARDWARE company. The OS exists because you can't really sell the hardware without an operating system. Porting the OS over onto the generic X86 platform would inevitably lead to clones popping up everywhere....with no bucks going to Apple. Also, the huge variation of x86 motorboard/processor/video card etc is going to lead to some machines being less stable than, say, my venerable dual G4-450...which runs rings around some hot shot newer "Graphics Capable" PCs. That would lead to cries of "OSX sucks" from the x86 crowd, which would be annoying after just getting the OS9 folks settled down.
2: History has shown that it is a dead end road...remember Be.? Great little dual processor machines, but when the decision was made to port the BeOS over to X86 because of chip supply problems, the company is bankrupt a year later (I know there were a lot of other factors involved, but that is the basic sequence of events).
3. If you do a direct feature for feature comparison between a Mac and a "equivilent" PC, say a Dell, the price difference REALLY isn't that great (Priced any dual Xeon workstations lately??)....not great enough to accept the supstandard hardware that would come with it, not to mention the crap technical support.
And personally, I believe I'd be hotter for a dual G-4 laptop than a G-5 laptop, so long as I can keep my 12" PBook to cook grilled cheese sandwiches on...
ref: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp
Apparently it is already out there....probably as a backup plan had IBM/Motorola boinked up the deal. I don't like the idea either, for several reasons:
1: Apple is a HARDWARE company. The OS exists because you can't really sell the hardware without an operating system. Porting the OS over onto the generic X86 platform would inevitably lead to clones popping up everywhere....with no bucks going to Apple. Also, the huge variation of x86 motorboard/processor/video card etc is going to lead to some machines being less stable than, say, my venerable dual G4-450...which runs rings around some hot shot newer "Graphics Capable" PCs. That would lead to cries of "OSX sucks" from the x86 crowd, which would be annoying after just getting the OS9 folks settled down.
2: History has shown that it is a dead end road...remember Be.? Great little dual processor machines, but when the decision was made to port the BeOS over to X86 because of chip supply problems, the company is bankrupt a year later (I know there were a lot of other factors involved, but that is the basic sequence of events).
3. If you do a direct feature for feature comparison between a Mac and a "equivilent" PC, say a Dell, the price difference REALLY isn't that great (Priced any dual Xeon workstations lately??)....not great enough to accept the supstandard hardware that would come with it, not to mention the crap technical support.
And personally, I believe I'd be hotter for a dual G-4 laptop than a G-5 laptop, so long as I can keep my 12" PBook to cook grilled cheese sandwiches on...
Trekkie
macrumors 6502a
Well a couple of points come to mind.
A) Fastest Laptop from a Teir 1 Vendor.
B) No one else does it. Maybe it's time to set the bar again.
C) Putting a G5 into a laptop is a thermal challenge and they can't get it done by next Summer.
IANATE (I am not a thermal engineer) but I do work with servers all day long and I've seen the PowerPC 970 in a blade from IBM.
Knowing it's thermal output at Dual 1.6GHz, I would be pretty surprise (but nonetheless excstatic) to see one in a laptop that didn't roast your table or your lap while you worked on it.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
The new process for the G5 is supposed to ship in january in bulk so i would say we may see a G5 powerbook in March. I think staying with Moto in any form on the imac and powerbook lines would be a mistake unless they just need more time. It would be pretty easy in my mind to use a lower speed G5 say 1.2 & 1.4 ghz with say a reduced bus speed of 400 and the power consumption would be about the same of the last powerbooks.
~Shard~
macrumors P6
Just my hunch, but I think we'll see the G5 in the iMacs before the PBs - but not much sooner. I think that's the whole point - Apple will not update the consumer line in such a manner before the Pro line is updated, so when the G5 iMacs are released, the G5 PBs will be close behind. Who knows, maybe the G5 PBs will actually come out before the iMacs, but I guess we'll see. On the one hand, look how long it took for the G4 to make its way to the iMacs after it was released in the PMs - however, that was dealing with the painfully slow progression we had to endure with Apple. Now that it's an IBM world, updates will be better and more frequent.
However, I don't see the PBs going dual, when the G5 PBs will probably be coming late spring or in summer. A dual PB would be the type of model that resides at the top of the product line, i.e. the 17" PB, and when the PB G5s are released, I don't see them having a combination of G5s and G4s in the line-up - it'lll be all G5s. And with the G5 heating issues as they are, it will take enough engineering to put one of those chips in a PB, let alone 2, so we will definitely not see DP G5 PBs!
Plus, how much power do you really need? Right now the 17" PBs are pretty damn fast and efficient. I think this is another case of people wanting more power "just cuz" and not stopping to think if they really need it. But, I'm not trying to generalize here - I realize everyone has different needs and requirements. In the end though, I can't see Apple releasing DP PBs anytime soon. There would be too much to change and redesign on the insides of the machine to warrant a change, especially when the Apple engineers are already hard at work on designing the G5 PB.
However, I don't see the PBs going dual, when the G5 PBs will probably be coming late spring or in summer. A dual PB would be the type of model that resides at the top of the product line, i.e. the 17" PB, and when the PB G5s are released, I don't see them having a combination of G5s and G4s in the line-up - it'lll be all G5s. And with the G5 heating issues as they are, it will take enough engineering to put one of those chips in a PB, let alone 2, so we will definitely not see DP G5 PBs!
Plus, how much power do you really need? Right now the 17" PBs are pretty damn fast and efficient. I think this is another case of people wanting more power "just cuz" and not stopping to think if they really need it. But, I'm not trying to generalize here - I realize everyone has different needs and requirements. In the end though, I can't see Apple releasing DP PBs anytime soon. There would be too much to change and redesign on the insides of the machine to warrant a change, especially when the Apple engineers are already hard at work on designing the G5 PB.
Trekkie
macrumors 6502a
I agree. I personally run on the PB 12" with the 867MHz proc I bought back in March. I'm not complaining for speed.
Though on the iMac we could use more oomph for iMovie. Since we moved away from family we are making movies / burning to DVD a lot more and faster encode times would be nice.
Other than that my laptop works for me. I do want to get a G5 for a desktop to replace my last bastion of Windows in the house, but honestly I have problems with Quicken and need better features. It really amazes me they get away with the excuse for a money management. but I digress
dongmin
macrumors 68000
check out some of the barefeats tests. The G5 is NOT that much faster than the G4 at the same clockspeed, and the 7457 is definitely more power-efficient. We need more G5 optimizations before we can truly say the G5 is a better chip than the G4.
A dual 1.4 ghz G4 blows away the single 1.6 ghz and 1.8 ghz G5s in multiprocessor-aware tasks. So performance-wise, it's not a bad idea to stick with dual G4s for the time being. Of course, marketing-wise and perception-wise, it's hard to persuade people now days that the G4 gives you comparable, or better performance, than the G5. The best mobile solution right now is a dual G4 set-up where you purr along with just one processor using the battery and then step up to dual processors when you're plugged in.
We'll have to wait and see what the 970+ brings in terms of power-saving features. Assuming that it doesn't get overly hot, it'd be nice to have a 2.0 ghz 970 in a PB that can step down to 1.0 ghz in battery mode and crank back up to 2.0 ghz when plugged in.