or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by strobe

Hrm, you know one advantage of using x86 is you could easily port WINE, using XDarwin for display. Well, then again that may be a disadvantage... (as a side note I used to run some windows apps on WINE on Debian Linux/x86 VirtualPC using XDarwin to display. Yes, it was slow, although some of that seems to be due to the remote X11 session which seemed to be capped at 10Mb/sec (full duplex) for some reason)
Apparently this person had excellent results with VAST: http://gravity.psu.edu/~khanna/autovp.html I wonder if the AIM alliance has ever considered buying this company. I mean if all Mac OS X apps were optimized it might buy them a decent speed boost for the interim. I doubt trying to get gcc up to speed has been cheap.
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider: erm.. it's old news?
That's ancient news, and that's just the toolchain. It has nothing with Linux for PPC is getting more and more optimized for Altivec.
Maybe Apple should embed a projector so you can have a 10' screen. Hrm, actually that would be pretty damned cool...useful for presentations...and flight simulations...mmm In the end what we all want is the PowerHelmet or PowerGoggles, one monitor per eyeball with as high a resolution as the retina can discern.
All this talk about VMX units avoids the pivotal question: How many cycles does the PPC 970 need to execute X number of Y VMX operators. For example if I had four permute functions in a row, how many cycles would it take to execute? One of the advantages of VMX (and PowerPC in general) is the ability to predict in advance how long it will take to execute instructions in a particular order (excluding branch operators). One of the more interesting aspects I would be...
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider: It also helps that Linux for PPC is getting more and more optimized for Altivec.
erm... Where did you get that idea? Perhaps some video/audio codecs are using VMX for FFT, but I don't see this as anything to do with Linux/PPC.
[quote]Originally posted by ruthifren: This is correct. A lot can be learned from Apple's internal hardware roadmap. You used to see a lot of 4-way G4 multiprocessor prototypes with 1 main processor responsible for processing, 1 dedicated to sheets, 1 for the genie effect, and the remaining processor doing gaussian blur on text. This changed a bit with the advent of Quartz Extreme when it was realized that current state of the art 3D hardware was sufficient...
Are people clamoring for bluetooth? I'm not. What's the point? If cellular phones are becoming PDAs, I'd rather just have a USB or firewire port on the phone. The only thing which came to mind when Bluetooth is demonstrated is "damn, that was slow as a dead slug" and "what was the point of this again?"
New Posts  All Forums: