mac jones
Mar 12, 04:19 AM
It's true. You see the video, you have doubts. And if someone says "You didn't see what you just saw",
Its not a great comfort.
Its not a great comfort.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
MisterMe
May 2, 08:56 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
No1451
Oct 7, 11:53 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
Nuvi
Apr 13, 05:13 AM
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite. Unfortunately it seems that Apple is incapable of serving both media creators and media consumers at the same time. If Final Cut Pro X will truly be a single app then I wish they had separated the Pro apps division from Apple Inc. just like the they did with Claris / FileMaker Inc.
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite. Unfortunately it seems that Apple is incapable of serving both media creators and media consumers at the same time. If Final Cut Pro X will truly be a single app then I wish they had separated the Pro apps division from Apple Inc. just like the they did with Claris / FileMaker Inc.
jaguarx
Oct 30, 06:11 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
portishead
Apr 13, 12:07 AM
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
LOL. 4000 editors are gonna be pissed.
LOL. 4000 editors are gonna be pissed.
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
dante@sisna.com
Sep 28, 04:59 AM
Surprised to see this thread come to a grinding hault after only 145 posts. I pledge right here and now to be one of the first to buy a NEW 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it becomes available. I will not wait for them to go refrub although I will probably wait for them to come with iLife '07 if they are added to the BTO page before the January 9th SteveNote.
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
Okay, I will jump onboard and be the second.
Clovertown Power -- bring it on.
Dante
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
Okay, I will jump onboard and be the second.
Clovertown Power -- bring it on.
Dante
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 03:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
Shivetya
Apr 6, 05:15 AM
Things you might find odd.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 09:59 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 12:33 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 01:00 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
And it still won't work.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 11:48 AM
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Roy
Oct 21, 12:32 PM
Anyone know anything about these suppliers, other than Crucial Technology?
eXan
Sep 26, 01:32 AM
Play WoW and CoD...... :confused:
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
And UT2007 and Q4 and render video. All at the same time :confused:
Do we need that?
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:00 AM
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,
Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,
No comments:
Post a Comment