Why can't an OS based on BSD address more than 2 gigs of ram? Or is this another G4 shortcoming?
k</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
[quote]Yes, but my point was that there can be big leaps in performance. It isn't always just incremental upgrades, one processor a little faster than the last. <hr></blockquote>
After the 68040 came the 601, then the 603, the 604 and the 604e
Then came the G3.
You've jumped 2 generations of processors, like going from the pentium to the PIV...
<strong> I only need two things from Apple right now
1. - USB 2.0 support (USB Raid system would be nice)
2. - Rack mountable cases (Make it an after purchase option)
All of the speculation is nice, but what will any of us do with this extra power. I'm working with Maya on the Mac, and it's powerful (Dual G4 1GB). Some of you sound like PC geeks, we're Mac people aren't we? It's not the machine, but what you do with it...well that's what my girlfriend said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB 2.0 RAID seems like a horrible idea.
Since its not a true Peer-to-peer device setup, the controller would $hit itself trying to read all over multiple drives and such.
I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. And also, I meant a desktop, tower..or what ever you want to call it system in a rackmount version. This would be in addition to the xserve. I also want world peace.
<strong>I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I don't think it would be nice. Most of your USB devices are version 1, so every time any of those devices hit the bus it would slow down to USB 1 speeds (yes, this is how it works). Imagine your RAID bandwidth dropping from ~50 MB/sec to 1.5 MB/sec every time you typed a keystroke or moved the mouse.
I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. And also, I meant a desktop, tower..or what ever you want to call it system in a rackmount version. This would be in addition to the xserve. I also want world peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Programmer. I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. USB is fantastic for keyboards, mice, printers, etc, that do not require that much speed or sustained data rate, but Firewire is much better for HDs, CDRW, scanners, etc etc. Once again an inferior technology threatens to wipe out the superior one (remember Beta vs VHS? Beta was the better technology, but VHS won...)
Don't get your hopes up about the rack-mountable "desktop" because well....it won't happen. Apple's position will be if you want a rack-mount, buy an Xserve. Why would they introduce a tower that would be as fast/faster than the Server and allow people to easily rackmount them? They want Xserve to thrive, so they are pushing the rack market there.
I agree with Programmer. I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. USB is fantastic for keyboards, mice, printers, etc, that do not require that much speed or sustained data rate, but Firewire is much better for HDs, CDRW, scanners, etc etc. Once again an inferior technology threatens to wipe out the superior one (remember Beta vs VHS? Beta was the better technology, but VHS won...)
Don't get your hopes up about the rack-mountable "desktop" because well....it won't happen. Apple's position will be if you want a rack-mount, buy an Xserve. Why would they introduce a tower that would be as fast/faster than the Server and allow people to easily rackmount them? They want Xserve to thrive, so they are pushing the rack market there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] Why you ask? Because Apple can simply drop a G5 in the MB when it comes out (ala Yosemite -> Yikes!). <hr></blockquote>
No, Apple likely won't be able to drop a G5 into a G4 motherboard when it comes out. The only reason the Yikes motherboard worked was because the G4 (at least the 7400) supported the 60x bus-- the same bus the G3 supports. Unless Moto comes out with a G5 with an MPX bus, they won't be able to "drop it into" an existing G4 motherboard. Everything we've seen indicates that the G5 is going to solely use RapidIO for connecting to the chipset. The G5 is going to require an entirely new motherboard. No way around it.
[quote] Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <hr></blockquote>
Yeah-- no one needs more than 640k, right? If you're a heavy 3D or Photoshop user, 2GB of memory can get kinda tight.
[quote] I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. <hr></blockquote>
Firewire is a serial bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok parallel was the wrong word here. I forgot how sensitive people here are about such things. I don't know the right word for it, actually...but USB has but 4 wires, 1 power, 1 ground, then a send and a receive. Firewire has power, ground, 2 send, 2 receive. What is this? redundancy? no....larger bandwidth? I don't know. SHouldn't have said parallel (as in parallel port) but I guess I meant parallel wires. Heh.
[quote] I don't know the right word for it, actually...but USB has but 4 wires, 1 power, 1 ground, then a send and a receive. Firewire has power, ground, 2 send, 2 receive. What is this? redundancy? no....larger bandwidth? I don't know. <hr></blockquote>
Firewire uses differential signaling, which requires two wires for each signal. The two pairs aren't strictly "send" and "receive", they differ depending on what the device is doing (arbitrating, sending, or receiving).
At any rate, Firewire is a serial bus. Just check any of the technical PDF files at <a href="http://www.1394ta.org"; target="_blank">www.1394ta.org</a>. They all refer to it as a "High Performance Serial Bus".
Actually I don't think it would be nice. Most of your USB devices are version 1, so every time any of those devices hit the bus it would slow down to USB 1 speeds (yes, this is how it works). Imagine your RAID bandwidth dropping from ~50 MB/sec to 1.5 MB/sec every time you typed a keystroke or moved the mouse.
A FireWire RAID is a much better idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
theoretically, as long as all usb 1 devices are downstream from a usb 2 hub this is not a problem.
<strong>theoretically, as long as all usb 1 devices are downstream from a usb 2 hub this is not a problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Theory is the first victim when confronted by a user plugging in cables.
Are you saying that a USB2 hub will accumulate a slow device's data packet until it can retransmit it at high speed? That might be true of some hubs, is it true of all? I know that in some configurations each USB1 packet takes an inordinately large amount of USB2 bandwidth.
[quote] Are you saying that a USB2 hub will accumulate a slow device's data packet until it can retransmit it at high speed? That might be true of some hubs, is it true of all? <hr></blockquote>
IIRC, such buffering is apart of the USB2 spec for hubs. It's one of the reasons USB2 was so late getting to market.
Comments
<strong>6 pci slots but only 4 Dimm slots?
Why can't an OS based on BSD address more than 2 gigs of ram? Or is this another G4 shortcoming?
k</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
After the 68040 came the 601, then the 603, the 604 and the 604e
Then came the G3.
You've jumped 2 generations of processors, like going from the pentium to the PIV...
<strong>
1. - USB 2.0 support (USB Raid system would be nice)
2. - Rack mountable cases (Make it an after purchase option)
All of the speculation is nice, but what will any of us do with this extra power. I'm working with Maya on the Mac, and it's powerful (Dual G4 1GB). Some of you sound like PC geeks, we're Mac people aren't we? It's not the machine, but what you do with it...well that's what my girlfriend said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB 2.0 RAID seems like a horrible idea.
Since its not a true Peer-to-peer device setup, the controller would $hit itself trying to read all over multiple drives and such.
As for rackmount:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/xserve/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/xserve/</a>;
<strong>
USB 2.0 RAID seems like a horrible idea.
Since its not a true Peer-to-peer device setup, the controller would $hit itself trying to read all over multiple drives and such.
As for rackmount:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/xserve/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/xserve/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. And also, I meant a desktop, tower..or what ever you want to call it system in a rackmount version. This would be in addition to the xserve. I also want world peace.
<strong>I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I don't think it would be nice. Most of your USB devices are version 1, so every time any of those devices hit the bus it would slow down to USB 1 speeds (yes, this is how it works). Imagine your RAID bandwidth dropping from ~50 MB/sec to 1.5 MB/sec every time you typed a keystroke or moved the mouse.
A FireWire RAID is a much better idea.
<strong>
I'm sorry, I forgot to be more detailed. I meant to say USB "Hardware" Raid system would be nice. And also, I meant a desktop, tower..or what ever you want to call it system in a rackmount version. This would be in addition to the xserve. I also want world peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Programmer. I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. USB is fantastic for keyboards, mice, printers, etc, that do not require that much speed or sustained data rate, but Firewire is much better for HDs, CDRW, scanners, etc etc. Once again an inferior technology threatens to wipe out the superior one (remember Beta vs VHS? Beta was the better technology, but VHS won...)
Don't get your hopes up about the rack-mountable "desktop" because well....it won't happen. Apple's position will be if you want a rack-mount, buy an Xserve. Why would they introduce a tower that would be as fast/faster than the Server and allow people to easily rackmount them? They want Xserve to thrive, so they are pushing the rack market there.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I agree with Programmer. I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. USB is fantastic for keyboards, mice, printers, etc, that do not require that much speed or sustained data rate, but Firewire is much better for HDs, CDRW, scanners, etc etc. Once again an inferior technology threatens to wipe out the superior one (remember Beta vs VHS? Beta was the better technology, but VHS won...)
Don't get your hopes up about the rack-mountable "desktop" because well....it won't happen. Apple's position will be if you want a rack-mount, buy an Xserve. Why would they introduce a tower that would be as fast/faster than the Server and allow people to easily rackmount them? They want Xserve to thrive, so they are pushing the rack market there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the knowledge... I must concede
<hr></blockquote>
Mine says, "It's not the machine, buy what you....AHHHHHHH!!! That will NEVER fit, be CAREFUL honey!!!"
[quote] Why you ask? Because Apple can simply drop a G5 in the MB when it comes out (ala Yosemite -> Yikes!). <hr></blockquote>
No, Apple likely won't be able to drop a G5 into a G4 motherboard when it comes out. The only reason the Yikes motherboard worked was because the G4 (at least the 7400) supported the 60x bus-- the same bus the G3 supports. Unless Moto comes out with a G5 with an MPX bus, they won't be able to "drop it into" an existing G4 motherboard. Everything we've seen indicates that the G5 is going to solely use RapidIO for connecting to the chipset. The G5 is going to require an entirely new motherboard. No way around it.
[quote] Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <hr></blockquote>
Yeah-- no one needs more than 640k, right?
[quote] I am under the tent that believes USB 2.0 should not even exist as such. Its serial status cannot compare to even the "slower" Firewire's parallel structure. <hr></blockquote>
Firewire is a serial bus.
<strong>Misconceptions abound...
Firewire is a serial bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A small misconception, but I believe the point of USB vs FireWire is that:
a) A device on the FireWire chain can reserve a slice of bandwidth so it can continue to operate uninterrupted (say... a CD-RW or a DVD-R).
b) Two FireWire devices can talk directly to each other, bypassing the computer.
c) Multiple FireWire devices can talk at the same time.
d) FireWire devices can also stream data (i.e. write verification). This is vital for DV cams.
<strong>Misconceptions abound...
Firewire is a serial bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok parallel was the wrong word here. I forgot how sensitive people here are about such things. I don't know the right word for it, actually...but USB has but 4 wires, 1 power, 1 ground, then a send and a receive. Firewire has power, ground, 2 send, 2 receive. What is this? redundancy? no....larger bandwidth? I don't know. SHouldn't have said parallel (as in parallel port) but I guess I meant parallel wires. Heh.
Firewire uses differential signaling, which requires two wires for each signal. The two pairs aren't strictly "send" and "receive", they differ depending on what the device is doing (arbitrating, sending, or receiving).
At any rate, Firewire is a serial bus. Just check any of the technical PDF files at <a href="http://www.1394ta.org"; target="_blank">www.1394ta.org</a>. They all refer to it as a "High Performance Serial Bus".
<strong>
Actually I don't think it would be nice. Most of your USB devices are version 1, so every time any of those devices hit the bus it would slow down to USB 1 speeds (yes, this is how it works). Imagine your RAID bandwidth dropping from ~50 MB/sec to 1.5 MB/sec every time you typed a keystroke or moved the mouse.
A FireWire RAID is a much better idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
theoretically, as long as all usb 1 devices are downstream from a usb 2 hub this is not a problem.
<strong>Thanks for the knowledge... I must concede</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I must acknowledge your sensiblity, and the grace with which you respect informed-yet-contrary arguments.
You set an example others would do well to observe & learn from - and follow.
Thanks - and welcome!
<strong>theoretically, as long as all usb 1 devices are downstream from a usb 2 hub this is not a problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Theory is the first victim when confronted by a user plugging in cables.
Are you saying that a USB2 hub will accumulate a slow device's data packet until it can retransmit it at high speed? That might be true of some hubs, is it true of all? I know that in some configurations each USB1 packet takes an inordinately large amount of USB2 bandwidth.
IIRC, such buffering is apart of the USB2 spec for hubs. It's one of the reasons USB2 was so late getting to market.
<a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf</a>;
Hope it's not true.
Lemon Bon Bon
On the other hand...it's great if you're the patient type...and don't mind Apple being 'competitive' for the next year or so...
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>