Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Re: Re: Re: Which GPU do I want?

Originally posted by iJon

and the fx kills the 9700. and so on and so on. both companies will always be a step behind each other, it just depends if your talking to a ati or nvida person. on my mac i could care less who makes my video card but on my pc its nvidia all the way, ati has poor driver implentation on the pc said and the ti's and fx's beat em, wouldnt have anything else. now lets get those audigy drivers out for mac and our machines will kind of be gaming machines.

Read the benchmarks. The ATI 9700 smokes everything from nVidia but the 5800 Ultra and even those results are mixed. Some places find the 9700 slightly faster some places find the 5800 Ultra slightly faster. My guess though is that once nVidia has a chance to tune their drives, they will beat the 9700 in all of the benchmarks.

If you want to read more about the new nVidias versus the 9700, go to ArsTechnica and follow the links they assembled. There are about five or six comparison reviews.
 
Re: Regarding Multiprocessing and OS X

Originally posted by bentmywookie
Ok, for those arguing about the single processor vs. dual processor issue, all I want to say is that an OS (at its lowest level) needs to do resource allocation/management. It's the interface between the hardware and the software.

So, to characterize the scenario, a piece of software comes along and tells the OS, "hey I need to cook this meal, here's the recipe, now off ya go!" And the processor looks and sees, "well I have two ovens, 3 bowls, 5 fridges, etc." and basically it uses whatever it has to get the job done. Ok, enough with this analogy (for now).

So if an OS like OS X is multiprocessor capable, it knows how to distribute its labor so that two processors can do it instead of one. Of course, there is some overhead to multiprocessing, and certain programs will be better suited to multiprocessing than others. But all of this should be invisible to the software.

I'm not familiar with Mac programming though so I'm not sure if there are ways to code "hints" to the OS to indicate that these areas are optimized for MP or not.

But basially, that's how it works. So intuitively, you would think MP is always better, but its not necessarily so due to overhead and the nature of the task.

Also - to the person who said most apps are single threaded - what is your justification for that?

In a word, not even close.

Writting an application to take advantage of more than one processor is not invisible to the software. The software has to be specially written to break up the work in a way appropriate to the application. If you want to optimize for a dual processor system (and there is no reason not to since there are no quad processors Macs), you create two worker threads and try to split the work among the two threads as best as you can.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Obviously not. :D

iJon Have you seen the Benches for the FX Ultra? Most gamers are calling it a flop because it barely beats out the 9700 (10% difference or less and it does lose to the 9700 in some benches). It's also big, hot, loud, power hungry, and expensive. The FX is slated to hit stores next month and ATi's next card is due out in March. And even if ATi's next card is only an minor improvemnt over the 9700 it will still kill an FX Ultra.


Lethal
well from the benches i have seen the 9700 barely beats out the ti4600, so it depends how you look at it. plus many more games these days are being coded to perform better on the nvidia side. also, "hot,power hungry, and expensive" all i can say is that we have powermacs dont we. the fx has got ddr2 and a faster bus than the 9700, .13 micron and in all games i have seen the fx beating the 9700, but the higher rez's you go the less it shines.. I am no video card expert, thats why i dont like to get in arguements about it because i probably dont know what im talking about (i like mac arguements because i am a mac expert. :) ) but just from what ive read the fx looks pretty promising. they are both very wonderful cards but i choose to use nvidia because ati has poor drivers for the windows side and more and more programs are being written to take advantage of nvidias techs.

iJon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....

Originally posted by iJon

well from the benches i have seen the 9700 barely beats out the ti4600, so it depends how you look at it. plus many more games these days are being coded to perform better on the nvidia side. also, "hot,power hungry, and expensive" all i can say is that we have powermacs dont we. the fx has got ddr2 and a faster bus than the 9700, .13 micron and in all games i have seen the fx beating the 9700, but the higher rez's you go the less it shines.. I am no video card expert, thats why i dont like to get in arguements about it because i probably dont know what im talking about (i like mac arguements because i am a mac expert. :) ) but just from what ive read the fx looks pretty promising. they are both very wonderful cards but i choose to use nvidia because ati has poor drivers for the windows side and more and more programs are being written to take advantage of nvidias techs.

iJon

The thing you are missing is that the FX "LOOKS" promising. But it's a flop. Much more money for something that doesn't provide that much performance increase. Like was said earlier, all the current accurate benchmarks has the FX barely beating the 9700, and in some tests, the 9700 wins.

BTW, ATI drivers aren't crap anymore. I'd take them over Nvidia anyday. Nvidia may roll out new drivers, but it won't increase the performance enough to warrant the huge price difference.

The FX is dead even before it's released.
 
Did anyone else notice the irony that on the Apple.com main page, the LCD is shown with a Space Shuttle taking off, and that today is the 17th anniversary of the explosion of a Space Shuttle as it was taking off.
 
Re: Re: Regarding Multiprocessing and OS X

Originally posted by ktlx


In a word, not even close.

Writting an application to take advantage of more than one processor is not invisible to the software. The software has to be specially written to break up the work in a way appropriate to the application. If you want to optimize for a dual processor system (and there is no reason not to since there are no quad processors Macs), you create two worker threads and try to split the work among the two threads as best as you can.


Nor did I say this - it IS invisible to the software though whether or not the OS uses one or two processors. That's why Photoshop (which people say is MP-enhanced) runs on DP Powermacs and iMacs.

In the time it took you to write this cheeky response, you could have reread my post and seen that you would not refute anything I said.
 
Xservers in Tower cases!

correct me if I am wrong, but are these not Xserve boards (technology) in Powermac cases?
they have the new I/O bus etc from the xserve.

nobody read the tech spec pages? before spouting off? That would explain why they do not boot OS9 and why the low end model is still an improvement with only a single processor.

It also explains why there is a link to OS9 bootable machines using the old technology.

and don't bother feeding the trolls, they will never bother to go read the tech sheets, and wouldn't understand them if they did.
 
Originally posted by stocke2
I am dying to move to a mac... I am really fed up with PC's, and as much as I like Linux for a server... OSX really is the premier UNIX for the desktop.
does anyone have an idea how long I should wait?
Wait as long as you physically can.
If a SuperDrive 12" AlBook doesn't suit your tastes, and you can't afford the 17" (you aren't alone if you can't!), just wait.
15" Powerbook upgrades are in the near future. The advantages of a new Powerbook, like Firewire 800 (even if it isn't on the 12"), Airport Extreme, an Aluminum case, a possible backlit keyboard, a faster processor and SuperDrive, and DDR RAM, are worth the wait.
Keep an eye on those 15.4" Powerbook rumors (the current ones are 15.2", suggesting a minor case redesign, possibly just a side-effect of a stronger Aluminum case), as they should point to a release time.
I don't think new 15" PBs will be announced until the new ones ship (at least the 12" model), so a mid to late February/March time frame isn't unrealistic. I hope you can hold out that long.

BTW, I hope nobody bought a 23" Display yesterday! The new LCD prices are great! :)
 
Before I specifically respond to some comments, I just want to say that:
i) I own a number of PCs (I know - boo hiss !)
ii) I now own two Macs (soon to be 3), and have bought more for work
iii) This thread is neither intended to Apple bash or Wintel defend, just try and put some things in perspective from someone who uses both
iv) I still hold shares in Apple and Intel ;)

jettredmont
Okay, hold on a minute. Are you talking about upgrading your CPU? I can tell you that in 12 years of owning PCs I've only attempted to upgrade a CPU once (which was a failure), and have never otherwise seen any benefit in doing so.
Sorry this doesn't prove that PC are difficult to upgrade, only that you might not be too hot recognizing one end of a screwdriver from another ;)


jettredmont
I've always found that when I start wanting to upgrade my CPU it is cheaper and easier to just replace the whole box and relegate the old box/CPU to the basement server pasture.
That is not necessarily the case. There are a number of companies out there making a very healthy living from cpu upgrade cards. My 14 year old nephew recently upgraded my 3 year old Dell XPS-T500 (still going strong) from 500MHz to 1.3GHz for ~$120. It arrived, he took out old processor, slotted in upgrade processor card, ran suppled driver disk - the whole process took him less than half an hour, and couldn't have been much easier.


jettredmont
Back to upgrading a CPU. First, "$200" is not the price of your average CPU upgrade. Unless you bought a behind-the-curve CPU to start with, the motherboard you currently own will generally not accept the latest CPU.
WRONG - sorry your PC knowledge appears to be way out of date (read below)


jettredmont
You have to also replace the motherboard.
NOPE


jettredmont
Which often (in my experience, at least, from DIMMs to FPO to EDO to SDRAM to DDR to RAMBUS to DDR 2 ...) means replacing memory, which of course isn't as expensive as it used to be but it still doesn't come free. Nowadays you'll also likely have to add in a new fan/cooling system.
WRONG AGAIN - most upgrade processors come with additional fans/heat sinks built in


jettredmont
Take a new CPU at $200 and a new motherboard at $150 and a new gaggle of memory at $200 and you're quite a bit beyond what Mac users pay when they want to upgrade their CPU (with a daughtercard CPU that works on their existing motherboard). Granted, your $550 gave you the latest motherboard features as well, which is a nice side-effect, but in my experience working with PC upgrades, the $200 CPU upgrade is pure, unadulturated myth.
Boy are you digging a hole for yourself here ! ;) Check out www.Powerleap.com for info on their latest 1.4GHz upgrade offering @ $160 - enough said !


jettredmont
And don't just take my word for it. Look into it at Tom's Hardware and cNet/ExtremeTech and Ars Technica. It's rare to see someone arguing that a CPU upgrade is financially sound, and then it is with caveats such as "your current MB will accept the latest/greatest" and "you are adding 25%+ of frequency to your CPU".
No I won't take your word for it, because there are numerous articles giving detailed info on PC systems which are worth upgrading. Furthermore Powerleap (an unheard of Scandinavian outfit just a couple of few years ago) has already sold over 500,000 upgrade CPUs on its own, and in their own words have barely scratched the surface !


jettredmont
Hmmm. So I guess Dell is doing something horrendously wrong with its 2% of the PC market?
WRONG - I think someone has already corrected you on Dells current market share


jettredmont
Apple does not need to dominate the PC industry in order to succeed. It is doing quite well currently, reporting ongoing profits quarter after quarter.
Actually, as an Apple shareholder, I was sorry to see that Apple actually made a loss last quarter. So this is certainly no time for Apple (or its users) to become complacent ! Personally I am very excited about the direction that SJ is currently taking the company, so much so that I have increased my AAPL shareholding since MWSF.


Freg3000
I am going to make this very very simple. I don't care how cheap or expensive you can buy a PC for. The fact is, PC's cannot run iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, and iDVD.
Period.
So that's a no to buying PCs then ;)

Actually you help make a very good point Freg3000, and surely that is that once we get through all the marketing hype and froth computers are just tools - and NOT religious icons ! Although that distinction isn't always easy to see from some comments made by the more extreme pro-Mac and pro-Wintel camps. But at the end of the day it comes down to who provides the best tools for each end users job. And IMHO the answer to this question today is not simply black (Wintel) or white (Apple) !

Currently I believe that Apple provides the better multimedia solutions (even with lower CPU speeds), especially with movie editing and DV burning. That is why I have bought a superdrive iMac for home movies and ordererd eMacs for our hospital.
The recently introduced iLife upgrade looks like it will keep Apple ahead of the pack in this area.

But on the otherhand, for simple word processing, spreadsheets, database development, web browsing etc. I believe it is much harder for Apple to currently compete head to head on price performance with quality 3GHz+ Intel boxes from companies such as Dell.

However Apples's move into the DigitalHub looks very attractive, although there appears to be a lot of work still to be done until the iSync/iCal apps are as polished as iTunes. But I believe that Apple's great track record of innovation (vs Microsoft) could open up a huge market if they can execute fast enough in this area. Unfortunately articles such as PCMagazine recent "First Look: A Mixed Bag of Apples"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,847259,00.asp are not going to help Apple win over possible switchers. Actually I was very p#ssed off to read this article, as it seemed as biased against Apple as a few folk here are against W#ndows (but who haven't tried using a quality brand PC with the latest version of XP Pro preinstalled).

With the introduction of OS-X's improved connectivity with Jaguar, I believe (and hope) that more and more PC users are going to start buying Macs as PART of their home or office network solution - but will probably never completely "Switch" over to Macs until price/performance reaches near parity with Wintel equivalent. There again if Apple can get their G5 rolled out asap, they may still win the day ;)

Sorry for the long post folks, but it is really a cumulative response to numerous myopic Apple and Wintel bashing threads.

Anyway back to the thread title - GREAT NEWS ON THE DISPLAY PRICES APPLE - now that's how you win over more switchers !!!

P.S. and where is my PB 12" (SD) ;)

Andy
 
Originally posted by Nebrie
If you think Apple can serve the pc customization market that overclocks and watercools AND maintain quality, you must really be high. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

If you are referring to my quote where I asked if Apple was water cooling their chips it was a joke. I said it in the context that the 1.42GHz must be an overclocked 1.0GHz which would most likely need some serious cooling. I will refrain from futher comment.
 
wchamlet:

At least not all the time. In Maya 4.5, I can render faster just using one processor than I can using two.
I'd have to assume that main memory contention is the problem.

Which is kinda interestiing especially since it's a 1GHZ processor, when matched to AMD's or P4's, the G4 is actually faster at the same speed (mhz).
Actually, without AltiVec a G4 is probably slower per clock than an Athlon. The Athlon core is much more advanced.

Why can't they use Altivec and actually utilize the G4 for all it's worth?
Well from experience I have to say that vector instructions take extra planning and extra programming, and even if someone did use AltiVec really well, they might just find themselves bottlenecked on memory accessed. Varies a lot depending on the task at hand of course.

Shrek:

One thing that I'm impressed with is that this time the high-end PowerMac is not $5,000. Way to go, Apple!
$5000 gets you one spiffy Mac with 23" LCD. Very nice.

bentmywookie:

I'm not familiar with Mac programming though so I'm not sure if there are ways to code "hints" to the OS to indicate that these areas are optimized for MP or not.
Just like (most) AltiVec optimization, taking advantage of multiple CPUs (threading or forking) takes extra planning and extra programming. From experience, it is very possible to try to thread something and end up slower than you started. :) Threading is just like AltiVec in that it has some places it can be used, some places it can't, varying milage everywhere, and is generally a lot of extra work. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not.

Also - to the person who said most apps are single threaded - what is your justification for that?
Well other than the fact that programmers won't invest that effort unless they have to, I think that it is pretty easy on a dual CPU machine to see what apps are and what apps are not threaded. Here's how it is:

For the sake of completeness, I'll say that threading has two uses that I see, one is to increase application responsiveness by allowing input to continue while the app works, and the other is to speed up computation. The responsiveness one is not very interesting because its pretty easy to do with our without threads, and since only one thead is doing work anyway, it works fine on a single CPU machine. No benefit to a dual CPU machine here, unless taking mouse presses somehow is bogging down your CPU. :)

Anyway, the other use of threading is to get more work done by sending work to two processors. This should be easy to spot. First of all, there needs to be a fair amount of work to do, so forget an email program or ICQ or whatever, not meaningfully threaded for speed. If there is a lot of work to do, I ought to be able to fire up 'top' or some CPU monitor and see the app use both processors, even if for just a little while (else there's no real extra work being done so who cares about threading). So I do this, and I see that Mozilla doesn't use threads for speed when rendering pages. Other apps like games are generally known to be one way or the other, Quake3 can use two chips, WC3 can not. I can see this on 'top' or whatever tool. And so on... you can do this for every app you have and you'll find that most all of them are not using more than a single CPU. They may seem to be using 50% of both CPU's, but thats just the OS moving it around really fast. Look for an app using well over 50% of both for extended periods of time. Anyway, I've never spotted any common app doing that, not in OSX, not in Linux, not in Solaris or Irix... nowhere.

About the only hole in my argument is the possiblity of threading on bits of work so small that they flash by before the CPU monitor or anything else mentions them to me, and so infrequent that my odds of ever catching one in the act are small. I guess you can choose to believe this if you want, but I'd have a hard time imagineing anyone taking the time to thread anything like that, and in any case, I can't imagine that such a thing would benefit much from a dual-867 over a single 1000. Threads do have overhead, you know, and such a thing would actually be slower in any situation where only one CPU was available (two threads on one CPU == silly), even if the system was a dual, but was perhaps running something else on the other chip.

Anyway that probably ended up overly long and complex. :(

ktlx:

In a word, not even close. ...
Good response, says I.

bentmywookie:

In the time it took you to write this cheeky response, you could have reread my post and seen that you would not refute anything I said.
Ummm... I think he did address your following comment:

I'm not familiar with Mac programming though so I'm not sure if there are ways to code "hints" to the OS to indicate that these areas are optimized for MP or not.

kansaigaijin:

and don't bother feeding the trolls, they will never bother to go read the tech sheets, and wouldn't understand them if they did.
Eh? Perhaps if you had been tuned in earlier you would have seen Apple talking about using Xserve tech on the MDD's this past fall, which ran OS9 fine.
 
Originally posted by stocke2



I am dying to move to a mac... I am really fed up with PC's, and as much as I like Linux for a server... OSX really is the premier UNIX for the desktop.
does anyone have an idea how long I should wait?


Go to an Apple Store and play with teh 12" PowerBook, if I had the money and Apple still had the 6 month 0% financing, I would have walked out with one. Those baby are sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :D :D :D

I mean it! The pics of the machine do NOT do it justice, you have to see it and touch it to really appreciate it. Now, off to an Apple Store you go! go go go! :p :D
 
Originally posted by iShater



Go to an Apple Store and play with teh 12" PowerBook, if I had the money and Apple still had the 6 month 0% financing, I would have walked out with one. Those baby are sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :D :D :D

I mean it! The pics of the machine do NOT do it justice, you have to see it and touch it to really appreciate it. Now, off to an Apple Store you go! go go go! :p :D

I am sure it is nice...but is just not enough for me. the 17" is really nice, but shipping time too long, and is a little larger than I want... 12" too small 17" too big...15" really nice. ;)
 
Originally posted by stocke2


I am sure it is nice...but is just not enough for me. the 17" is really nice, but shipping time too long, and is a little larger than I want... 12" too small 17" too big...15" really nice. ;)

then get the 12" PB, get a bookendz dock, a nice 17" Apple display, keyboard, mouse, a viola! ;)

The 15" is guaranteed to be upgraded to match the other PBs, it is probably only a matter of time (when the systems in the distirbution channel are out). They are also probably doing the same thing they did for PMs, wait as long as they can to get as many sold as possible. So if you go for the current 15", you will be back here in a few months saying "man, I just got this!".

You can always resell the 12" if it is not good enough! :D
 
Small threads ARE used

Small threads are used all over the place. You seem to think that coding them is in some way difficult. It is not. You code your objects to be thread safe (fairly trivial if you know what you are doing), you instantiate one and tell it to run. Sometimes you create a bunch and (in Java terminology) put them in a thread pool, ordering all of them to fire off at the same time.

I've never looked at Mozilla's code but if you think about it, threads would be a obvious way to pull in images for an html page. You fire off 1 for each image and the independantly load the graphics without the main thread worrying about them.

I'd presume that Final Cut Pro does similar type things - firing off a pair of threads to render one frame each. Now - special code may exist to tell Final Cut Pro how many threads to issue at a time, there is a startup script that asks the OS what speed and number of processors exist. It uses that data to estimate how much real-time rendering power it should present to the user. It then can just fire off those threads at will, OS X puts them on the next available G4 time slice. This also allows a yet-to-be invented 4,6,8,etc processor machine to also be utilized to it's full extent.

Don't believe me about the browser point? Try OmniWeb and open the inspector that shows the page rendering status (I can't remeber it's actual window name) - each element of the page shows up and reports it progress - you can kill any one element. This is multithreading.

Now, I'm no game developer, and know nearly nothing about the craft, but I'd assume that the reason UT on x86 is so much faster than on a dual G4 is that the programmers have tuned it to that hardware much more - puting a lot more attention to any bottlenecks. I'd be willing to bet that hand tuned, assembly language is written in those 3d engines. Porting that to PPC and getting it to run as fast would be a major undertaking. They probably just take the c or c++ code and recomplie in with little or no asembly tuning. (Like I said, this is wild-arsed guessing ;) )
 
Re: Small threads ARE used

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Small threads are used all over the place. You seem to think that coding them is in some way difficult. It is not. You code your objects to be thread safe (fairly trivial if you know what you are doing), you instantiate one and tell it to run. Sometimes you create a bunch and (in Java terminology) put them in a thread pool, ordering all of them to fire off at the same time.

I've never looked at Mozilla's code but if you think about it, threads would be a obvious way to pull in images for an html page. You fire off 1 for each image and the independantly load the graphics without the main thread worrying about them.

I'd presume that Final Cut Pro does similar type things - firing off a pair of threads to render one frame each. Now - special code may exist to tell Final Cut Pro how many threads to issue at a time, there is a startup script that asks the OS what speed and number of processors exist. It uses that data to estimate how much real-time rendering power it should present to the user. It then can just fire off those threads at will, OS X puts them on the next available G4 time slice. This also allows a yet-to-be invented 4,6,8,etc processor machine to also be utilized to it's full extent.

Don't believe me about the browser point? Try OmniWeb and open the inspector that shows the page rendering status (I can't remeber it's actual window name) - each element of the page shows up and reports it progress - you can kill any one element. This is multithreading.


Thank you - couldn't have said it better.

ddtlm - your only possible hole about having threads so small that they fly by you on the CPU monitor is a pretty big hole as per the reasons above.
 
Re: Re: Small threads ARE used

Originally posted by bentmywookie


Thank you - couldn't have said it better.

ddtlm - your only possible hole about having threads so small that they fly by you on the CPU monitor is a pretty big hole as per the reasons above.
Years ago, when I was a pretty green programmer, I thought threading sounded complicated. Once you've done it, it can solve a lot of performace (or percieved :) ) performace problems.

Here's a real-world example. I wrote a simple JSP based app that would pull info off of Yahoo's NFL pick'em pages and compile all of my friends football picks into a nice table. Originally, it would loop through all 30 players, hitting the Yahoo! URL for each player and waiting for the response. To speed it up, I wrote a single Java class that did this for a single player. Then, in my main program I created a ThreadPool, created 30 instances of that new class, telling each one to "run" as I created it and added each one the the pool.

Then I waited for the pool to report that all of it's threads had died (or timed out). Then I could ask each object instance for the data it had stored.

Threads are great for IO bound things like that - fire and forget if you will.
 
eric_n_dfw:

You seem to think that coding them is in some way difficult. It is not.
I have coded things with threads on several occasions, and I've also done things with forks. Threads can be very difficult to apply.

I've never looked at Mozilla's code but if you think about it, threads would be a obvious way to pull in images for an html page. You fire off 1 for each image and the independantly load the graphics without the main thread worrying about them.
You're trying to tell me how things are, yet clearly did not underand my post: these (hypothetical) threads are not CPU-intensive. They spend 99% of their time waiting. Category #1: works just as well on a single-CPU machine.

In any case, this setup is probably not realistic because of the way networking works. Now, I'm not real up to date on the HTTP protocol, but it rides on top of TCP/IP and TCP/IP allows the browser to send off a bunch of packets (a HTTP request in this case) without needing to wait for return packets (HTTP data in this case). The returned data (web page, image or whatever) will pile up on the computer's buffers, and when the app goes to check on it the data is presented to it. This means that threads are not needed to endlessly poll for return data; a single thread can check at it's convienience. Mozilla's default mode actually is serial, one request after another and it does nothing till it has the previous bit of data. There is some other mode that they might call request pipelining that sends out lots of requests at once and theoretically boosts speed on fast networks. That fast mode can also be done without threads, because (if multiple sockets are needed) you could simply have, ta-da, multiple sockets that the browser writes requests to and checks for input from (when convienient). There is no reason that I can think of right now that this would benefit from threading, since I bet only one socket can actually be written to or read from at once anyway. Additional threads would spend most of their time sitting around doing nothing, so why not just do all in one thread?

As I've gotten more threading/networking experience, I actually have gotten less inclined to use threads.

I'd presume that Final Cut Pro does similar type things - firing off a pair of threads to render one frame each.
This falls into category #2, where substantial work is being done and I can probably see it happen in 'top' or something. I never claimed that multithreaded apps do not exist, I've simply claimed that they are not the common apps.

Don't believe me about the browser point? Try OmniWeb and open the inspector that shows the page rendering status (I can't remeber it's actual window name) - each element of the page shows up and reports it progress - you can kill any one element. This is multithreading.
I've never used that app and really can't comment either way. You could be right about it, or not.

bentmywookie:

ddtlm - your only possible hole about having threads so small that they fly by you on the CPU monitor is a pretty big hole as per the reasons above.
Sheesh, does noone understand what I wrote?

eric_n_dfw:

Years ago, when I was a pretty green programmer, I thought threading sounded complicated. Once you've done it, it can solve a lot of performace (or percieved) performace problems.
Tell me when you realize that you don't need threading for most of it. :)
 
TH# in top

Just in case this horse is not dead yet -- in the Terminal, run "top"

The "#TH" column shows how may threads the process is using.

ps -M will show threads and the stats for each process as will
 
eric_n_dfw:

Just in case this horse is not dead yet
No, not dead.

The "#TH" column shows how may threads the process is using.

ps -M will show threads and the stats for each process as will
Yes, but which are category #1, and which are #2? The existence of threads means very little, you still have to prove that there is significant work being done in paralell.
 
Originally posted by SoonToGetAMac
Did anyone else notice the irony that on the Apple.com main page, the LCD is shown with a Space Shuttle taking off, and that today is the 17th anniversary of the explosion of a Space Shuttle as it was taking off.
Did you remember that off the top of your head? If you did, then you have one hell of a memory.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.