dual processor tibook

[jefhatfield]

and here it comes again,

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

sheesh, does that make sense?

 

[King Cobra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any time is a great time for iPod.

 

[whfsdude]

Too hot

 

[bonehead]

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

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by King Cobra
Two of the less potent issues for having a dual processor as a problem would be the extra chip's weight and heat. Currently, the Powerbook weighs 5.3 pounds. A portable computer, or handheld, is given the name "portable" if you can carry it from place to place. The extra weight of the processor would increase the weight of the Powerbook by, maybe, four to six ounces. That means that the Powerbook would weigh more than five and a half pounds.

First of all, I think you're overstating the weight of a mobile G4. Lift up the keyboard and look at how small the thing is - it's much smaller than the graphics chip, and much smaller/lighter than the desktop G4s with their huge heatsinks and ceramic enclosures. So what if the dual-processor PowerBook weighs an extra two ounces? I think the substantial performance advantages possible would more than justify this "extra weight." Adding a second processor in terms of weight would be like adding an AirPort card.

And even that little chip can throw off a large amount of heat. A dual processor chip throws off an incredible amount of heat. According to a source (maybe on xlr8yourmac.com ) one person installed a dual 450MHz chip into their Cube, and the temperature rose to 130 degrees Far.

That's like saying, "this lemonade is yellow, therefore, I do not think the top speed of a Ford Escort is more than 90mph." Not only are they completely different computers with completely different form factors and made of entirely different materials, they also use very different processors, although the MHz might be similar.

If a faster, but less power-consuming dual chip was placed in the Powerbook, you are still looking at a minimum of 120 degrees Far. inside the Powerbook, resulting in possible burnout of internal electronics and equipment.

Where are you getting this information? I agree that heat would be an issue - in fact, I think it would be by far the biggest issue. But I think it could be made less of an issue by 1) using low-power CPUs, of course, and 2) spacing the CPUs apart from each other on opposite sides of the keyboard, thus increasing the total area available to distribute the heat produced.

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

So, what you do in this case is, if you want to save your battery life, you open up the Energy Saver control panel and 1) click the "Disable 2nd CPU" option, and 2) click the "enable processor cycling" option. (Yes, I am aware that neither of these are available yet, but presumably Apple would add them upon the dual-processor PowerBook's release.) Voila, same battery life as a single-CPU PowerBook when on the road. (If you want.)

Finally, although a dual processor may shorten the time length for certain operations to occur, it does not cut the time in half.

Who ever said it did, and so what if it doesn't? I think most PowerBook owners would be content with any substantial speed increase.

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

I must say, you do a fine job spouting off about a topic you obviously know nothing about. I'm not even going to reply to this because it's simply too absurd.

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

Yes, of course it would be "safer" to insert such a processor. However, if you've been paying attention to Motorola lately no such processor of theirs really exists. I'm not sure what you mean by "holding a light capacity." I'm presuming you don't know what you mean either.

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

This paper only needs one citation: "My rectum." I'm sorry to be so rude, but I simply cannot stand it when those who haven't the faintest clue stand up and blather on so laughably. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet. I'm not saying *I* know what I'm talking about either, but at least I don't stand up and spout out complete BS and pass it off as fact.

Alex

 

[PCUser]

Re: King Cobra

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Re: dual processor tibook

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and here it comes again,

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

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

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

Damn the physics, just give me speed!

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: King Cobra

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

Multithreaded Classic and Carbon apps like Photoshop and FCP, and all Cocoa apps, will benefit from multiple processors.

Alex

 

[PCUser]

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

 

[tobyglyn]

Re: Re: King Cobra

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

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

 

[PCUser]

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

 

[tobyglyn]

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

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

 

[mmmdreg]

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

 

[tobyglyn]

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

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

 

[mc68k]

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

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

 

[cb911]

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

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Alex [/B]

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

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

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

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

 

[jefhatfield]

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

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

that is the question here

 

[iGav]

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

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

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
actually i think the biggest obstacle is space.

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

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

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

Aieeeee! King Cobra?!?

Originally posted by King Cobra
The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz.

What?

When opening an application, such as Photoshop, Director Shockwave, or Final Cut Pro, you are using the RAM, which operates only at 133MHz.

Huh?

Also, when you start up the computer from when it is off, the computer performs memory checks, and other verifications, that mostly use the RAM and the Hard Drive.

Yes, and?

And when you copy information from the hard drive to the RAM, you do not entirely use the processors.

What do you mean, "entirely use the processors?"

The dual processors only speed up the floating points between the Hard Drive and the RAM, but both the RAM and the Hard Drive must perform the final operations, leaving out the speeds of the CPU.

Bahahahaha!

So you use the extra watts from the second processor only to speed up some of the operations that must be performed within electrical communication.

This is too much!

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

Alex

 

[King Cobra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any time is a great time for iPod.

 

[mcrain]

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

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

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

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

I'm a lawyer, and part of my job is to calmly and intelligently reply to arguments. Some times, however, that is innappropriate. Sort of like here, where I have to agree with Alex and say that your arguments sound like horse sh*t.

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

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

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

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

 

[King Cobra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any time is a great time for iPod.

 

[alex_ant]

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

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

Oh, what you meant to say. Very well then, I'll remember not to take your posts so literally next time, and try to do a better job of reading your mind. As if your correction makes any more sense.

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

I repeat: You are a BSer. I don't know you and I have nothing against you, and as such you shouldn't take anything I say personally - but anyone who spouts off such meaningless, baseless nonsense under the pretense of having any inkling of knowledge on any particular subject, as you have done, is a BSer. I never criticized your opinions - I criticized your ridiculous "facts." Now, if you had re-phrased what you had said - for example, "I'm not sure, but..." or, "as I understand it...", I would never have "attacked" you. Frankly I'm not sorry, and you deserved everything you got.

KC: "The Hard Drive runs extremely slowly on a Powerbook, and does not operate in MHz." What I mean

Again, perhaps it's a telepathy thing that none of us have. You ought to be clearer as to what you really mean to begin with.

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

And yet you continue to blather on nonsensically! Are you taking into account cache on the HD? No. Are you take into account FIFOs, streams, data fragmentation, and/or cache hit/miss rate? No. Are you taking into account the fact that the ATA subsystem varies in criticality depending on the task at hand? No. In short, you either 1) graduated from the Captain Kangaroo School of Computer Pseudoscience, and think you know what you're talking about, or 2) have no idea what you're talking about and are trying to fake this fact.

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

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

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

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

This tripe has already been dealt with.

I will not admit to being perfect, since I never really observed the minimal size and weight of a G4 processor.

Okay, so let me get this straight. "I think the G4 would add unnecessary weight to the PowerBook, even though I've never seen one and I have no idea how much it weighs."

And when I said speed of the RAM chip, I meant how fast the Bus is in rendering the memory chips.

Oh, my mistake.

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

I'll argue as "harshly" as I want to, and if you can't take it, stop posting bull****. For the record, I am never this harsh to anyone else not as full of it as you are. I give everyone the respect I think they deserve. Now, not only have you not retracted your original rubbish post, you've appended even more rubbish onto it under the guise of "what I meant to say" and you have the indecency to tell ME I'm out of line. I won't be having any of that.

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

Well, that just explains everything, doesn't it. "I'm only 17 and I've never taken an anatomy class nor been exposed to any such equivalent in my entire life, but let me explain the structure and functionality of the human digestive system to you anyway." Unbelievable.

Alex