samy85114> Geek.com is working on old information. They have no greater
insight into Apple's processor plans than we do. It isn't official by any
stretch of the imagination. Still, don't be surprised should Apple unveil
G5s in a week's time
marco114> Who needs 4 G5s in one server? Serving isn't limited by
processing horsepower.
Lathi> size != resolution. In any case I can't see why people need
insanely high resolutions on laptops, but there must be something to it if
enough complain, perhaps some like miniature icons? *shrug*
At this point I had a thought: If one's predicting G4s or G5s in the next
quarter, present an argument for why Apple will ship G4s, or your take on
why the G5 isn't ready, etc. Seeing "i don't think that G5s will come out"
is as annoying as "the G5 is due at SF", both being irritatingly
unsubstantiated. At least make a _case_ for your opinion, sheesh.
SPG> I would like to hear your opinion on precisely how a version of OS X
on the x86 will 1) give apple any revenue (people aren't going to buy a
$600+ OS) or 2) make any sort of dent on MS's x86 dominance (it's not
happening, unless you can see holes that I can't in the applications'
barrier to entry).
... and at this point I asked myself, what's with all the predictions of a
PB revision? I think that an iBook revision would be more likely than a PB
revision at this point. (elgruga: I won't discount a gigahertz PB in the
next revision, although it's far from definite, and it's far from likely
that it will be in the next three months).
DannyZR2> There's a case to be made either way with your assertion that
Apple-generated hype == G5. On one hand, `big' to Steve isn't faster
boxes, that's so passe in the age of lightspeed computers. To him, `big'
is consumer solutions. OTOH, Apple would know that the MWSF audience are
tech-savvy by and large, and `big' to the tech-savvy crowd will include
major speed bumps. Personally I agree with you, big == speed, be it much
faster G4s or G5s. Probably G5s, the G4 won't reach the clockspeeds
required of the hype
dantec> Even a G4 at 1.6 GHz would outperform an equally clocked XP in my
estimation. The fastest XP is the 2000+ (just released as I hear), which
runs at 1664 Mhz as I recall. A 1.6 GHz G4 would compare very favourably.
Onyxx> You preempted me here with the argument that hype == G5 (excuse the
oversimplification, see above reply to Dannyzr2). I doubt dual G5s would
be here any time soon, but then again, the HPMOS7 process could be minting
G5s to perfection -- we can't compare the G4 fabrication fiasco to the new
process.
Mister880> The G3 has plenty of life in it as an iBook processor, even as
an iMac processor it would be passable, with an Altivec-compatible SIMD
implementation (although a G4 would be preferable, naturally). I agree
with you that Altivec needs broader reach, keeping it to the pro lines
isn't going to help it any.
dantec> It is true your premise that OS X balances all of its separate
tasks between two processors, but your conclusion "that no software has to
be coded anymore to use dual processors" is false.
It is true that Mach will balance tasks between processors, but apps have
to be written with multithreading in mind, so that the OS has (relatively)
bite-sized threads to distribute in the first place. Have a look at:
http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/multitasking.html
for a easily digestible explanation.
insight into Apple's processor plans than we do. It isn't official by any
stretch of the imagination. Still, don't be surprised should Apple unveil
G5s in a week's time
marco114> Who needs 4 G5s in one server? Serving isn't limited by
processing horsepower.
Lathi> size != resolution. In any case I can't see why people need
insanely high resolutions on laptops, but there must be something to it if
enough complain, perhaps some like miniature icons? *shrug*
At this point I had a thought: If one's predicting G4s or G5s in the next
quarter, present an argument for why Apple will ship G4s, or your take on
why the G5 isn't ready, etc. Seeing "i don't think that G5s will come out"
is as annoying as "the G5 is due at SF", both being irritatingly
unsubstantiated. At least make a _case_ for your opinion, sheesh.
SPG> I would like to hear your opinion on precisely how a version of OS X
on the x86 will 1) give apple any revenue (people aren't going to buy a
$600+ OS) or 2) make any sort of dent on MS's x86 dominance (it's not
happening, unless you can see holes that I can't in the applications'
barrier to entry).
... and at this point I asked myself, what's with all the predictions of a
PB revision? I think that an iBook revision would be more likely than a PB
revision at this point. (elgruga: I won't discount a gigahertz PB in the
next revision, although it's far from definite, and it's far from likely
that it will be in the next three months).
DannyZR2> There's a case to be made either way with your assertion that
Apple-generated hype == G5. On one hand, `big' to Steve isn't faster
boxes, that's so passe in the age of lightspeed computers. To him, `big'
is consumer solutions. OTOH, Apple would know that the MWSF audience are
tech-savvy by and large, and `big' to the tech-savvy crowd will include
major speed bumps. Personally I agree with you, big == speed, be it much
faster G4s or G5s. Probably G5s, the G4 won't reach the clockspeeds
required of the hype
dantec> Even a G4 at 1.6 GHz would outperform an equally clocked XP in my
estimation. The fastest XP is the 2000+ (just released as I hear), which
runs at 1664 Mhz as I recall. A 1.6 GHz G4 would compare very favourably.
Onyxx> You preempted me here with the argument that hype == G5 (excuse the
oversimplification, see above reply to Dannyzr2). I doubt dual G5s would
be here any time soon, but then again, the HPMOS7 process could be minting
G5s to perfection -- we can't compare the G4 fabrication fiasco to the new
process.
Mister880> The G3 has plenty of life in it as an iBook processor, even as
an iMac processor it would be passable, with an Altivec-compatible SIMD
implementation (although a G4 would be preferable, naturally
). I agreewith you that Altivec needs broader reach, keeping it to the pro lines
isn't going to help it any.
dantec> It is true your premise that OS X balances all of its separate
tasks between two processors, but your conclusion "that no software has to
be coded anymore to use dual processors" is false.
It is true that Mach will balance tasks between processors, but apps have
to be written with multithreading in mind, so that the OS has (relatively)
bite-sized threads to distribute in the first place. Have a look at:
http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/multitasking.html
for a easily digestible explanation.
