Assuming a Yank Tank, er SUV is safer because it's huge is just ignorant. SUVs are NOT safe(you might feel safer because you feel like you're driving a tank).....do a Google and get informed.
When I first saw the Cayenne I thought it was ugly....I saw one in person and it looked alright(provided you ignored it's a Porsche!). In fact today I was driving down the 405 when I saw a chick driving one going the opposite way. Minutes later I get passed by a chick on a Cayenne that I could've sworn was the same one I had just seen going the opposite way...."man those things ARE fast!"
I don't know, when I think "SUV--Porsche", something just doesn't feel right. It's like if Pedigree started making
"tv dinners" or something. \
I'll tell that to the next guy I see that plowed into a cow with a truck. Oh, I see because you can read what someone else says that makes you informed. Get out in the world and inform yourself.
I'll tell that to the next guy I see that plowed into a cow with a truck. Oh, I see because you can read what someone else says that makes you informed. Get out in the world and inform yourself.
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Where I live, Wisconsin, it is a big problem, not so much with cows, although I've nearly done it on several occasions, but rather with deer, raccoons, and other vermin.
But it's all relative; there could be problems with people running over aligators/armadillo in Florida or Texas, for example. I guess we need to fly more, huh?
Anyhow, I don't see a good reason to spend nearly $100k on a car. I'd rather spend some of it on a 970 PB.
Way back when I first got married (obviously before the recent divorce), my new bride & myself went to Yellowstone National Park for the summer (kind of a working honeymoon)...
Any of you who have been there know, the roads are treacherous (not just dangerous...!), and the drivers on them suck...
Well, most folks went 'into town' once a week, just to get off the reservation for a bit and shake any cabin fever...
Most folks would then try and drive back into the park a bit snockered, and some would hit wildlife...
One such incident involved some sort of mid-size Oldsmobile and a full-grown American Bison...!
The hood was crushed, the car still ran & drove, but the bison (which was totally uninjured) was put down by the Park Rangers (who are Federal officers by the way...)
So it just shows that it doesn't really matter what you are driving when you hit something, but what your luck factor is for the day...
For the record, I never hit anything whilst driving back from Eno's, usually 1 1/2 or 2 sheets to the wind... But then those crappy roads seemed like my own personal road rally, much to the dismay of my passengers...!
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Well when you work in the Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Northern California in the middle of nowhere you don't really care what someone in the Big City thinks about trucks or what they are for. Nor what age population drives what. The cow at night time on a dirt road does not enter into the picture when my life is concerned. Number one thing you don't do is whip the wheel and slam on the brakes, you just manuever around the obstacle if possible, not drive off the road.
My opinion: Get the machines out the door as fast as possible.
The speed difference between the 970s and G4s should be noticeable enough in Jaguar, and just that much better with Panther.
So get them out now, and give people a free upgrade to Panther later this summer.
Sweet and simple. If they're introduced at WWDC or New York, put a month to ship on them and you're into early August. 'Smeagol'? Well...by then...if Panther is due in September then...Apple need only wait another month-ish to ship 970s with Panther. I'm confused by Moki's 'disappointed' references. The time seems to be ripe for intro' at WWDC. Steve aint keynoting New York...unless IBM is keynoting there...as a 'surprise speaker' and all. All the 'smoke' suggests that 970s are 'imminent'. To me, that's anytime in the next 10 weeks. Hardly a disappointment. Just the 'famine' before the glutton that is Apple. Don't we have this with nigh on every release?
alright, i'll give you that. Although I think combined desktop sales now are still below beige g3 sales then.
I still think we may be in for a wait on the 970 until Panther can ship on it. Shipping a 970 with an OS designed for it will make the greatest impression even if it means waiting 2-3 more months
OK, in a probably vain attempt to get this thread away from SUVs...
What we really need to know before answering your thread question is what is the difference in performance on the 970s with smeagol vs Panther.
My impression is that there should be very little difference. As has been stated here frequently, 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit. And the whole point of the 970's 32/64 bit operation is that 32 bit is native and unemulated, and should theoretically run just as fast as a 32-bit-only 970 chip.
So I just don't see the benefit to waiting. Sure, Panther will probably have cool additional features, and it may even be faster (though I doubt it), but I don't think it will magically unlock the 970's speed. It may be required for running 64-bit apps (though I don't know for sure if that's true), but I doubt there are any 64-bit apps right now anyway.
Sure, Panther will probably have cool additional features, and it may even be faster (though I doubt it), but I don't think it will magically unlock the 970's speed.
As has been said before, compiling with a version of GCC that knows about how to optimise for the 970 will result in speed gains.
So will finding other bottlenecks -- inefficient algorithms can reduce performance more than unoptimised code. Since folks seem to learn best from weird car analogies: Imagine you have to go to the grocery store, the salon, and the drug store. They're all within a kilometre of each other. Your house is 20K away from them. Let's say you go to the grocery store, then back to your house, then to the salon, and then back to your house, then to the drug store and back to your house. You're annoyed at how long this takes. Not going to your house until you're done is going to help you a lot more, speed-wise, than just driving faster. Stuff like that happens in code sometimes, and fixing it can really speed things up.
releasing with "Smeagol" could also really hurt their marketing plans. I'm sure a major marketing push is going o be made about the new PowerMacs being 64-Bit. How are they suppose to market this when the OS shipping on them can't take advantage of it yet. It'll just be another black eye for Apple. At least, in my opinion.
So will finding other bottlenecks -- inefficient algorithms can reduce performance more than unoptimised code. Since folks seem to learn best from weird car analogies: Imagine you have to go to the grocery store, the salon, and the drug store. They're all within a kilometre of each other. Your house is 20K away from them. Let's say you go to the grocery store, then back to your house, then to the salon, and then back to your house, then to the drug store and back to your house. You're annoyed at how long this takes. Not going to your house until you're done is going to help you a lot more, speed-wise, than just driving faster. Stuff like that happens in code sometimes, and fixing it can really speed things up.
There are currently a number of bottlenecks like this in Quartz, actually, the elimination of which could really goose things forward.
The most obvious bottleneck Smeagol could introduce on a 970 platform is an inability to deal with more than one bus to the CPU - and if Apple is in fact going NUMA for multiprocessing, that only makes things worse from the point of view of adapting the 10.2.x codebase.
So it seems increasingly likely that we might only see single processor machines until Panther ships, whenever Panther ships.
releasing with "Smeagol" could also really hurt their marketing plans. I'm sure a major marketing push is going o be made about the new PowerMacs being 64-Bit. How are they suppose to market this when the OS shipping on them can't take advantage of it yet. It'll just be another black eye for Apple. At least, in my opinion.
No problem, Apple doesn't market their OS much anyway-so no problem ; )
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
Assuming a Yank Tank, er SUV is safer because it's huge is just ignorant. SUVs are NOT safe(you might feel safer because you feel like you're driving a tank).....do a Google and get informed.
When I first saw the Cayenne I thought it was ugly....I saw one in person and it looked alright(provided you ignored it's a Porsche!). In fact today I was driving down the 405 when I saw a chick driving one going the opposite way. Minutes later I get passed by a chick on a Cayenne that I could've sworn was the same one I had just seen going the opposite way...."man those things ARE fast!"
I don't know, when I think "SUV--Porsche", something just doesn't feel right. It's like if Pedigree started making
"tv dinners" or something.
I'll tell that to the next guy I see that plowed into a cow with a truck. Oh, I see because you can read what someone else says that makes you informed. Get out in the world and inform yourself.
Originally posted by Bigc
I'll tell that to the next guy I see that plowed into a cow with a truck. Oh, I see because you can read what someone else says that makes you informed. Get out in the world and inform yourself.
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Originally posted by Programmer
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Where I live, Wisconsin, it is a big problem, not so much with cows, although I've nearly done it on several occasions, but rather with deer, raccoons, and other vermin.
But it's all relative; there could be problems with people running over aligators/armadillo in Florida or Texas, for example. I guess we need to fly more, huh?
Anyhow, I don't see a good reason to spend nearly $100k on a car. I'd rather spend some of it on a 970 PB.
Any of you who have been there know, the roads are treacherous (not just dangerous...!), and the drivers on them suck...
Well, most folks went 'into town' once a week, just to get off the reservation for a bit and shake any cabin fever...
Most folks would then try and drive back into the park a bit snockered, and some would hit wildlife...
One such incident involved some sort of mid-size Oldsmobile and a full-grown American Bison...!
The hood was crushed, the car still ran & drove, but the bison (which was totally uninjured) was put down by the Park Rangers (who are Federal officers by the way...)
So it just shows that it doesn't really matter what you are driving when you hit something, but what your luck factor is for the day...
For the record, I never hit anything whilst driving back from Eno's, usually 1 1/2 or 2 sheets to the wind... But then those crappy roads seemed like my own personal road rally, much to the dismay of my passengers...!
Cheers!
;^p
Originally posted by Programmer
Right, and for what %age of the population is running into a cow going to be a problem? Not to mention that a car might have been able to stop in time or maneuver to avoid. And think about it from the poor cow's perspective. A couple of counter-example anecdotes does not invalidate actual research (which can often be found by Googling).
Well when you work in the Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Northern California in the middle of nowhere you don't really care what someone in the Big City thinks about trucks or what they are for. Nor what age population drives what. The cow at night time on a dirt road does not enter into the picture when my life is concerned. Number one thing you don't do is whip the wheel and slam on the brakes, you just manuever around the obstacle if possible, not drive off the road.
Just thought I would throw that in.
How does this link back to the 970 again?
Lemon Bon Bon
My opinion: Get the machines out the door as fast as possible.
The speed difference between the 970s and G4s should be noticeable enough in Jaguar, and just that much better with Panther.
So get them out now, and give people a free upgrade to Panther later this summer.
Sweet and simple. If they're introduced at WWDC or New York, put a month to ship on them and you're into early August. 'Smeagol'? Well...by then...if Panther is due in September then...Apple need only wait another month-ish to ship 970s with Panther. I'm confused by Moki's 'disappointed' references. The time seems to be ripe for intro' at WWDC. Steve aint keynoting New York...unless IBM is keynoting there...as a 'surprise speaker' and all. All the 'smoke' suggests that 970s are 'imminent'. To me, that's anytime in the next 10 weeks. Hardly a disappointment. Just the 'famine' before the glutton that is Apple. Don't we have this with nigh on every release?
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Cows?
How does this link back to the 970 again?
I can see Steve during his Stevenote...
"And today I am announcing the brand new G5 PowerMac 970. Its code name was 'Cow Killer'."
Originally posted by applenut
alright, i'll give you that. Although I think combined desktop sales now are still below beige g3 sales then.
I still think we may be in for a wait on the 970 until Panther can ship on it. Shipping a 970 with an OS designed for it will make the greatest impression even if it means waiting 2-3 more months
OK, in a probably vain attempt to get this thread away from SUVs...
What we really need to know before answering your thread question is what is the difference in performance on the 970s with smeagol vs Panther.
My impression is that there should be very little difference. As has been stated here frequently, 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit. And the whole point of the 970's 32/64 bit operation is that 32 bit is native and unemulated, and should theoretically run just as fast as a 32-bit-only 970 chip.
So I just don't see the benefit to waiting. Sure, Panther will probably have cool additional features, and it may even be faster (though I doubt it), but I don't think it will magically unlock the 970's speed. It may be required for running 64-bit apps (though I don't know for sure if that's true), but I doubt there are any 64-bit apps right now anyway.
Maybe in time for a showdown in the Siggraph corral this year...?!?
Would love to see Maya/Shake/RenderMan cranking on workstation-class dual (quad!?!) PPC970 Apple machines at Siggraph this year...!
Screw you SGI! Screw you PC wankers! Long live the Mac!
;^p
RenderMan a possible Apple acquisition...?!?
(it really picks up the Apple acquisition theme around pages 3 & 4...)
Sure, Panther will probably have cool additional features, and it may even be faster (though I doubt it), but I don't think it will magically unlock the 970's speed.
As has been said before, compiling with a version of GCC that knows about how to optimise for the 970 will result in speed gains.
So will finding other bottlenecks -- inefficient algorithms can reduce performance more than unoptimised code. Since folks seem to learn best from weird car analogies: Imagine you have to go to the grocery store, the salon, and the drug store. They're all within a kilometre of each other. Your house is 20K away from them. Let's say you go to the grocery store, then back to your house, then to the salon, and then back to your house, then to the drug store and back to your house. You're annoyed at how long this takes. Not going to your house until you're done is going to help you a lot more, speed-wise, than just driving faster. Stuff like that happens in code sometimes, and fixing it can really speed things up.
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
So will finding other bottlenecks -- inefficient algorithms can reduce performance more than unoptimised code. Since folks seem to learn best from weird car analogies: Imagine you have to go to the grocery store, the salon, and the drug store. They're all within a kilometre of each other. Your house is 20K away from them. Let's say you go to the grocery store, then back to your house, then to the salon, and then back to your house, then to the drug store and back to your house. You're annoyed at how long this takes. Not going to your house until you're done is going to help you a lot more, speed-wise, than just driving faster. Stuff like that happens in code sometimes, and fixing it can really speed things up.
There are currently a number of bottlenecks like this in Quartz, actually, the elimination of which could really goose things forward.
The most obvious bottleneck Smeagol could introduce on a 970 platform is an inability to deal with more than one bus to the CPU - and if Apple is in fact going NUMA for multiprocessing, that only makes things worse from the point of view of adapting the 10.2.x codebase.
So it seems increasingly likely that we might only see single processor machines until Panther ships, whenever Panther ships.
Originally posted by applenut
releasing with "Smeagol" could also really hurt their marketing plans. I'm sure a major marketing push is going o be made about the new PowerMacs being 64-Bit. How are they suppose to market this when the OS shipping on them can't take advantage of it yet. It'll just be another black eye for Apple. At least, in my opinion.
No problem, Apple doesn't market their OS much anyway-so no problem ; )