IBM's PowerPC 970FX... at 2.5GHz?

[ionas]

@ snowdog

quote:Originally posted by rweidmann

does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).


Quote:Originally posted by snowdog
Does it matter?
Does the intel run OSX?
Does the intel run iLife?
Does the intel look good?

it does matter, more than speed/clock does speed/watts matter.

intel does not run os x but only darwin, so its not usable for most of us, still it can look good (thoshiba, sony, and if you are excentric - ibm)

and the pentium-m is a great cpu; much better than all other intel cpus, though being a 32bit cpu even much better than the chips that amd offers for notebooks and quite workstations.

the opteron and co are great chips; for servers and high performance workstations; but not for much else.

this is the reason i want to see 90nm SoC clocked at 1.5-1.7ghz max (the actual centrino/pentium-m clocks like that)

i want to see 65nm fast so that we can have an even cooler system that goes up to 2ghz...

and pls apple - put in some really good displays and batteries - i want 5 hours work without cable at least!
i want 1400*1050 at 14,15" and 1680*1050 at 17".

1280*960 @ 12" would be nice (and possible, and no you can read the font fine, ppl saying otherwise didnt see the HP NX7010 yet (15" wide screen tft notebook with 1680*1050); now THAT might be too much, but anything else isnt.


apple/ibm - SUPRISE ME - please - once again.


else the "year of the notebook" continues - but NOT for apple.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false - if something has a flaw and someone has a reason to take advantage of it, it will be exploited. In the case of mydoom, it is a simple exploit based on the fact that 1) Problem between keyboard and chair, 2) That certain older (and still popular) versions of M$ e-mail clients allow clicked attachments to execute & install at will. Mydoom itself is actually a rather pathetically simple to write virus. To do the equivalent on Mac or Unix would require a LOT more knowledge and circumstances that simply aren't known to exist widely at this time.

So even if Mac OS X was 50% of the known computer universe, it is highly unlikely that something like Mydoom or it's friends would be inflicted on the community every 6-12 months.

lol, you are way off, it is all about the marketshare. I have written several programs that can render mac os x helpeless let alone unix is not as hard to hack as everyone thinks it is. It is all about the marketshare, yes unix is more secure that windows, but it is still very hackable. I would say the classic mac os is actualy harder to hack then unix, the only way to hack classic os is if you are running a server or remote desktop (and a few other things). With mac os x, it is a whole new system, a whole new thing. if someone did care about the 5% marketshare and wrote a virus for os x i personaly think apple would not know what to do.

 

[Fukui]

Originally posted by MorganX
They don't want to learn to program for the Mac either. They may not even have a Mac to learn on.

Whats to learn? Its all just BSD on the inside. If anything, you can learn more about how OS X works than windows does...for free!

And don't forget, the majority of servers world wide use Unix/Linux, hmm why is it still that the MINORITY OS - WINDOWS - is the one hacked on the most? The marketshare argument in this case falls apart.

People that write virusus do so because they H8 BIll Gates, H8 MS, and H8 Windows to such a degree that they'll do anything to make windows look bad IMO. Think about it, why is it that virusus/trojans on windows never delete the user's data or wipe thier HD, and instead send a DOS attach at MS's or reciently SCO's website?

Its not about market share. Really.

 

[snowdog]

The point I was trying to make was that if I want to run iLife I HAVE to choose a Mac.
It isn't available on anything else.
Same thing for OSX.

So it really doesn´t matter which cpu has the most Ghz.

 

[Fukui]

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
I would say the classic mac os is actualy harder to hack then unix...

Actually, I would say thats patently false.
Classic has NO MEMORY PROTECTION.
Classic has NO IDEA OF PERMISSIONS.
Classic has NO REAL MULT-TASKING.

If anyone could exploit a flaw in say a webservice running on clasic, the attacker would ALWAYS have ROOT priveleges and be able to just screw up anything running in memory, including the kernel. You could even just get the web server to hang, then the computer would freeze up! Not hard at all really.

the only way to hack classic os is if you are running a server or remote desktop (and a few other things).

Um, isnt that how windows and UNIX are hacked too?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

 

[Fukui]

I have written several programs that can render mac os x helpeless let alone unix is not as hard to hack as everyone thinks it is.

I would like to know what they are.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

(post removed by original poster as it was no longer necessary)

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by snowdog
The point I was trying to make was that if I want to run iLife I HAVE to choose a Mac.
It isn't available on anything else.
Same thing for OSX.

So it really doesn´t matter which cpu has the most Ghz.

But wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a computer from some one else that could run OS X, iLife, etc? You can't! Not because there are no companies that want to build OS X compatible machines... but because Apple won't let anyone else build OS X compatible machines.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

it is true.

Windows and unix generaly have tons of leaks that leave them suceptible (did i spell that right??) to attacks over the 'net. With classic mac os it was way different. Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses. os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions (aka: safe boot (apple copyed name from windows haha)) and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart, putting it into a never ending loop, unless you boot up in single user mode and so on. That is all I am going to say about about that cause i dont wanna get banned. Apple is actualy scaring people with os x i think, noone cared about security with os 9 and below but with x people are like "omfg a security download ahhh im gonna get hacked". The marketshare with with x released still is not much higher that when classic was out ( i believe it was higher then) so why do people get scared now?

 

[daveL]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

Also, well I admit, that Windows (particularly XP) has security problems. I hate when Mac users insist that Mac's are better because they don't get viruses. The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

I know it is a pain, but maybe you should read the whole thread before you comment on one message.

I did read the whole thread. I can't help it if you don't communicate what you intend.

 

[pgwalsh]

Way off topic

Okay... This thread is about IBM processors and Apple's possible use. It's tranformed into the ever long debate of which OS is more secure..... who gives a rats ass. We all know the world would be a better place if there were multiple OSes. Until that day comes the dominate OS will have more problems with jackasses then the obscure OS.

Not trying to tick anyone off, just trying to get back on the excitement trail of possible new PowerMacs and PowerBooks..


What's it going to be?
2.0, 2.2, 2.4?
or
2.4 2.6 2.8?

or 2.3?

 

[NusuniAdmin]

ok sir, the good ol' days

Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2+ ghz......wierd how time passes.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

But today's "extra-power" is tomorrow's outdated system. When you bought a 17" iMac you basically bought a two year old technology for $1800.
My point is that with Apple's pricing policy and product seperation only the high-end do you get what you pay for compared the PC world. Heck Apple even underclocks the G4 chips to keep their rigidly segmented product line intact.

Just because a computer is "fast enough" today. In two years you may not even be able to run iLife. If you bought a iBook pre-October you already cannot run iDVD (needs 733 GHz G4) or take full advantage of GarageBand (G4required for GarageBand software instruments). So 40% of it is useless. How long until you can't update anything?

True most people don't need the latest software. Heck my dad still types things in WordStar on an 8088 HeathKit Computer and prints it out on a TTX printer. Maybe I should go to my parents' house find my Commodore 64 in the basement hook up the 2400 Baud modem and write an email program in BASIC.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: ok sir, the good ol' days

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2 ghz......wierd how time passes.

It was two years ago that the first Mac reached 1 GHz, and Apple is still selling computers that haven't.

 

[Jonnod III]

Re: ok sir, the good ol' days

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2 ghz......wierd how time passes.

Hmmm, aren't we actually talking about 3ghz ones - we've got the 2ghz ones....

 

[Fukui]

Re: it is true.

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions (aka: safe boot (apple copyed name from windows haha)) and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart

Yea, and I can write a crappy Kernel Extention that crashes the kernel on boot up. Whats the revelation? You can do the same thing on windows with DLLs. And, in fact, if you wanna install a kernel extention YOU MUST ENTER YOUR PASSWORD and username. Also, kernel extentions don't suddenly activate when sent in mail attachments etc. Thats a long way off from a virus or a trojan horse I'm affraid.

Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses.

Whats different about classic? It has a stack, a buffer, its gets overrun, boom, hacked. How is that any different than any other OS? Unless apple was using some kind of runtime that has no stack? Not likely.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Re: Re: ok sir, the good ol' days

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Hmmm, aren't we actually talking about 3ghz ones - we've got the 2ghz ones....

Ya i ment to write 2+ghz sorry, fixed now

 

[MorganX]

Re: Way off topic

Originally posted by pgwalsh

Not trying to tick anyone off, just trying to get back on the excitement trail of possible new PowerMacs and PowerBooks..

Since iMac sales have dropped 30%, I have a feeling they may see these new processors soon as well.

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: it is [not] true.

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Windows and unix generaly have tons of leaks that leave them susceptible (did i spell that right?? - no) to attacks over the 'net. With classic mac os it was way different. Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses. os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart, putting it into a never ending loop, unless you boot up in single user mode and so on.

Yes, you could do that. Here's why no one would.

First, you have to learn how to write an kernel extension, Assuming you only want your intended effect (restart loop) then you have to actually write one that works. If your kext only causes a kernel panic, then the user will be told to reboot with extensions off and you'll be booted in short order.

Now that you have to deliver your kernel extension, you need to deliver it to the user somehow. A command line app will never work because most users won't be able to execute it (they would need knowledge of the cmd line). A normal application won't work because it will not be able to get permission to write to the required folder. You could write code to do that, but then the user may well wonder why they are being asked to enter their password to see your silly little app that they just saved from their inbox. So ok, we'll try an installer package. That will get you the admin password in a way the user is probably used to, but wait - why is the installer running for this stupid little toy I was sent again? And the list goes on and on. Sure you can do it, but you have to do so many things that entice the user into letting their guard down long enough for you to get that password *and* you have to wait for that first restart before your little bomb even goes off.

In the clients that MyDoom affected, you clicked on the attachment in your e-mail client and you were infected. It doesn't get much easier than that. And MyDoom can be put together by a 12 year old in Visual Basic in a day. So can the apple script that your using to reboot, but that is the least of your concerns in writing the Mac OS X virus you outlined.

Oh, and all the information you need to do this little virus is sitting there waiting on Apple's developer site. It takes you at most 5 minutes to find all the documentation you need to learn how to write a kernel extension. Actually learning to write one takes longer, but so goes life. The Apple script isn't hard to write, but neither is the unix code that does the same.

I never said it wasn't possible. But the techniques to do it are simply not as easy or straightforward as they are on Windows, and there aren't nearly as many Application/OS bugs for you to exploit to do it. The fact that Mac OS X is <5% isn't the reason it is secure, it's the fact that these things aren't left as low hanging fruit. And while many of us love to rib M$, they are slowly but surely trying to fix their issues - they just had a lot more to start with and would have less bad press on it if people actually kept their software up to date.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Re: Re: it is [not] true.

Originally posted by Rincewind42

I never said it wasn't possible. But the techniques to do it are simply not as easy or straightforward as they are on Windows, and there aren't nearly as many Application/OS bugs for you to exploit to do it. The fact that Mac OS X is <5% isn't the reason it is secure, it's the fact that these things aren't left as low hanging fruit. And while many of us love to rib M$, they are slowly but surely trying to fix their issues - they just had a lot more to start with and would have less bad press on it if people actually kept their software up to date.

Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that as long people keep flocking to a 10% speed bump on the G4 PB's why would Apple race to get the G5 into PB's. If the AlBook sales were slipping then Apple's R&D money would go to getting the G5 PowerBooks out ASAP.

Apple doesn't have a track record for pushing the hardware envelope. As previously mentioned, Apple killed the clones because the clone makers wanted to release the latest technology faster and cheaper than Apple.

I think that your argument is a little hollow. Yes, the offerings from Apple aren't terribly exciting right now (except the G5 and G5 xServe). That means that only the people who need a new machine will buy one. The rest of us are sitting on our hands. I'm sure that Apple is well aware of the lack of 'impulse' buys, and I'm sure that they are aware of the reason for that lack. If you think that just because some people are buying the current G4 based models that there isn't a drive at Apple to produce something better, I think that you have a very superficial view of market forces.

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: Re: it is [not] true.

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)

Not that I've heard, Windows is (and likely forever will be) a completely Microsoft venture. However, you may have heard them improving their POSIX layer (I can't confirm) which is something it has in coming with Unices of all kinds.

 

[Fukui]

Re: Re: Re: it is [not] true.

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)

Not Unix based, same kernel well mostly, but added stuff that supposedly bolts the security of windows to the CPU (Palladium/NGSB) so that there are segments of the RAM that are totally inaccessible from any application but the kernel, and apps that are not "certified" may not run at all...of course we'll see how far this goes when it comes out.

And MS is working on a Cocoa-like framework: .NET . Its actually more like Java, but since Java was designed to be like Cocoa (OPENSTEP), I guess you could call them siblings...though they don't get along very well....

 

[neilw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: G5 in a PowerBook

Originally posted by Rincewind42
The G5 uses a pair of unidirectional 32-bit busses effectively clocked at half the CPU speed (at least in Apple's machines thus far). The G4 uses a bidirectional 64-bit bus clocked at up to 166Mhz (in existing products at least).

I guess I should have originally said, more correctly, that the existing processors already have memory buses wider than their internal pipelines. G4 systems have 64-bit memory systems, while the dual-banked G5's effectively have 128 bits (I believe). 32-bit x86 systems have at least 64-bit memory buses as well.

Ditto to the rest of what Rincewind42 said.

We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion on Mac viruses or the lack thereof...