I don't think my data computations are boring... \
It was really not my intent to disrespect your computations nor you or anyone else doing high end computations. I think it's great that you guys soon will have the opportunity to make those computations on our favourite platform.
It was really me reliving the math classes I took at the University of Gothenburg. It was so boring so I ended up founding what is now Scandinavias largest Mac community instead. So.. boring stuff leads to good things
Well hopefully the whole Mac speed issue will be boring real soon now (i.e., mac's will be so much faster than anything else there will no longer be any discussion of speed from any platform and of course AI Future Hardware will go the way of the dodo bird cause we won't need anymore speed)
and of course AI Future Hardware will go the way of the dodo bird cause we won't need anymore speed)
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Then along comes Clive saying that there'll never be anymore PowerMacs (or POWERmacs) ever again - never (and that your spelling is bad - sorry - poor).
That'll start a few hundred threads right there. I could go on.....
What you are describing is a badly written user interface. Whatever speed gains that computer realized from a fast processor were lost by the latency caused by interacting with the operator.
So you mean that 64-bit apps won't be at all limited by a 32-bit OS?
An OS is a large collection of software, not a single program. Each piece of the OS can be 32-bit or 64-bit, so there are many degrees of "64-bitness" to the OS. Stop thinking about it as an either/or situation.
An OS is a large collection of software, not a single program. Each piece of the OS can be 32-bit or 64-bit, so there are many degrees of "64-bitness" to the OS. Stop thinking about it as an either/or situation.
EXACTLY. The exact opposite can be said of the little product coming out of Redmond, Washington.
OSX gives each application 2 GBs of virtual memory (or so I've heard) and then swapps it's brains out trying to map this onto the physical memory hardware wich never growed beyond 2 GB. Wouldn't two apps get its share mapped using the same 32-bit adresses in OSXs virtual space? Wound't a 64-bit memory-mapping reduce much of this hassle as the hardware and the operating system are speaking the same language so to speak? The operating system's virtual memory manager will have more room to manouver in a 64 bit environment.
It doesn't swap its brains out. Each application has a dynamically sized address space that can grow up to 4GB. Go into the terminal and type top. The VSIZE column is the current size of the apps virtual address space. And the entire virtual address space is rarely actually ever used. For instance the Classic environment is given 1 or 2GB of virtual address space, most of this is empty. The virtual memory manager then keeps a listing for each app of which memory pages of it are actually in memory and which have been swapped out to disk. Not sure what you mean about hardware and OS speaking different languages. The VMM only has more room to "manouver" if you've got more memory. THe upper limit on your memory is just raised beyond 4GB now.
As to whoever said, "When will we finally have a 64-bit OS." Are you listening to yourself? If the G5 had been a 32-bit chip only with the same speed no one would give a rip whether MacOS was 32 or 64 bits. The question is can your run your apps and is your OS efficient. As has been mentioned MacOS X will allow 64-bit calls, that is all that matters. The OS isn't really going to gain much from itself being 64-bit.
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Then along comes Clive saying that there'll never be anymore PowerMacs (or POWERmacs) ever again - never (and that your spelling is bad - sorry - poor).
That'll start a few hundred threads right there. I could go on.....
Yep, I fear you're correct. But you left out that there will be the P5 at 6.37 GHz and Apple should switch to x86 because the PPC999 is only 5.67 GHz and my modem won't let me watch pron in real-time so the PPC999 must suck.
Wouldn't that statement mean, rather, that Intel is not now developing a more consumer-affordable 64 bit chip because it's biggest OS partner, Microsoft, does not currently have 64 bitness in the works...
Funny you should mention 64bit Windows XP. The Itanium, the CPU it runs on, was suposed to be the next big thing but from what I have seen, no one is really using it. (Even Intel's own 64bit CPU cannot compete against the x86!)
By the way, a 64bit HP 900Mhz Itanium2 workstation starts at $3300.00.
Funny you should mention 64bit Windows XP. The Itanium, the CPU it runs on, was suposed to be the next big thing but from what I have seen, no one is really using it. (Even Intel's own 64bit CPU cannot compete against the x86!)
By the way, a 64bit HP 900Mhz Itanium2 workstation starts at $3300.00.
Perhaps it's because Itanium2 is not a desktop CPU and doesn't compete with your average x86?
That said, its also not true that Panther won't support the 970's 64-bit capabilities. Developers will be able to write 64-bit code and use 64-bit address spaces, its just that not all the software Apple provides will be 64-bit... but that's not really a big deal.
Panther will be a 64-bit OS. The Register piece which said Apple confirmed it would not be a "full" 64 bit OS was based on a poorly written bit in PC World in which Joz basically repeated the Apple party line that Panther would continue to support 32 bit applications. Apple has "confirmed" nothing of the sort.
In other words, you will be able to run both 32 bit and 64 bit apps in Panther. What is unclear, is what size virtual memory space Panther will eventually support and what that will mean for 64-bit product development in Panther.
I don't know that I'd call the 970 a "desktop" CPU by traditional standards. First, being 64-bit. 2nd, its shear complexity. Third, IBM is using it in blade servers.
I don't know that I'd call the 970 a "desktop" CPU by traditional standards. First, being 64-bit. 2nd, its shear complexity. Third, IBM is using it in blade servers.
Justin
On the same standard of measure, a pentium pro wouldn;t have been called a desktop (the 486 to P Pro jump was FAR more drastic than the G4 to G5 jump). What is called a desktop is a moving target and so the real reason why a machine can be called a desktop is actually if it winds up on the desks of people other than engineers running mathmatica. The G5 is a desktop.
I don't know that I'd call the 970 a "desktop" CPU by traditional standards. First, being 64-bit. 2nd, its shear complexity. Third, IBM is using it in blade servers.
What the heck are "traditional" standards in the computer business? In 1983 a 16-bit processor at 10 MHz was way ahead of the current "desktops". About then Sun was building workstations like that. In 1987 a 32-bit processor at 16 MHz was formerly seen only in workstations. Etc, etc, etc.
The 970 isn't even terribly complex compared to Intel and AMD offerings which have been on the market for some time now (~50-60 million transistors, and not even 64-bit at that). AMD's 64-bit Althon is imminent. And this complexity level is half what consumer level GPUs are at these days. Blade servers don't make a processor any less "desktop" as they are usually the lower power, cooler, cheaper processors because a bunch of them are going to be housed in the same case.
You'd better drop your notions of "traditional standards" -- this is the computer business.
a 64Bit processor needs "a system, apps and advantages for the user"
The problem is that a lot of people think the 970 is fast primarily because it is 64-bit. That is simply not the case. The 970 is faster than previous PowerPC chips because it runs at a higher clock frequency, has a faster front end bus, can process more instructions in parallel, and has a wider data bus. Of all those things, only the wider data bus can be attributed to the 64-bitness of the chip. If IBM removed all the 64-bit instructions from the 970 chip it would continue to be as fast as it is today for almost all types of software.
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Wise guy, eh? Stay on topic!
There's not much point complaining about Apple's desktop line. Sales. Critics. Specs. Price. They speak for themselves. Cold facts.
Fred Anderson apologizes for sales.
Apple blames its cpu suppliers or software partners.
You tend to do that when you are trying to mask your own inaddequacies. Sales are bad because...fill in blank of your choice.
Since the debut of the 'Mac', Apple have only one person to blame for the insurmountable(?) economies of scale it finds itself in opposition against.
Apple had their chances against IBM, M$ etc. They blew it not once...but many times. They're lucky to be alive.
I like Apple alive. They're better from this position of adversity. The computer industry has seen nothing like Apple. They truly are remarkable. Would Apple be anything less than bland had they won and been M$? Nothing as exciting as they are now I'd bet.
Intel are doing what Apple did when they had a G4 instead of a G5 to boast about. Spout bullS***!
Musing over.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The 'nederlands'? What the hell is that? A town?
Comments
Originally posted by atomicham
I don't think my data computations are boring...
It was really not my intent to disrespect your computations nor you or anyone else doing high end computations. I think it's great that you guys soon will have the opportunity to make those computations on our favourite platform.
It was really me reliving the math classes I took at the University of Gothenburg. It was so boring so I ended up founding what is now Scandinavias largest Mac community instead. So.. boring stuff leads to good things
Originally posted by atomicham
I don't think my data computations are boring...
If you had to sit and watch them pass over your screen and hit OK for each computation I bet you would be bored after a while.
/me gets bored drawing AutoCAD - it's not drawing, it's computation
Originally posted by Bigc
<snip>
and of course AI Future Hardware will go the way of the dodo bird cause we won't need anymore speed)
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Then along comes Clive saying that there'll never be anymore PowerMacs (or POWERmacs) ever again - never (and that your spelling is bad - sorry - poor).
That'll start a few hundred threads right there. I could go on.....
Originally posted by kroehl
If you had to sit and watch them pass over your screen and hit OK for each computation I bet you would be bored after a while.
/me gets bored drawing AutoCAD - it's not drawing, it's computation
What you are describing is a badly written user interface. Whatever speed gains that computer realized from a fast processor were lost by the latency caused by interacting with the operator.
Originally posted by Placebo
So you mean that 64-bit apps won't be at all limited by a 32-bit OS?
An OS is a large collection of software, not a single program. Each piece of the OS can be 32-bit or 64-bit, so there are many degrees of "64-bitness" to the OS. Stop thinking about it as an either/or situation.
Originally posted by Programmer
An OS is a large collection of software, not a single program. Each piece of the OS can be 32-bit or 64-bit, so there are many degrees of "64-bitness" to the OS. Stop thinking about it as an either/or situation.
EXACTLY. The exact opposite can be said of the little product coming out of Redmond, Washington.
OSX gives each application 2 GBs of virtual memory (or so I've heard) and then swapps it's brains out trying to map this onto the physical memory hardware wich never growed beyond 2 GB. Wouldn't two apps get its share mapped using the same 32-bit adresses in OSXs virtual space? Wound't a 64-bit memory-mapping reduce much of this hassle as the hardware and the operating system are speaking the same language so to speak? The operating system's virtual memory manager will have more room to manouver in a 64 bit environment.
It doesn't swap its brains out. Each application has a dynamically sized address space that can grow up to 4GB. Go into the terminal and type top. The VSIZE column is the current size of the apps virtual address space. And the entire virtual address space is rarely actually ever used. For instance the Classic environment is given 1 or 2GB of virtual address space, most of this is empty. The virtual memory manager then keeps a listing for each app of which memory pages of it are actually in memory and which have been swapped out to disk. Not sure what you mean about hardware and OS speaking different languages. The VMM only has more room to "manouver" if you've got more memory. THe upper limit on your memory is just raised beyond 4GB now.
As to whoever said, "When will we finally have a 64-bit OS." Are you listening to yourself? If the G5 had been a 32-bit chip only with the same speed no one would give a rip whether MacOS was 32 or 64 bits. The question is can your run your apps and is your OS efficient. As has been mentioned MacOS X will allow 64-bit calls, that is all that matters. The OS isn't really going to gain much from itself being 64-bit.
Originally posted by kroehl
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Then along comes Clive saying that there'll never be anymore PowerMacs (or POWERmacs) ever again - never (and that your spelling is bad - sorry - poor).
That'll start a few hundred threads right there. I could go on.....
Yep, I fear you're correct. But you left out that there will be the P5 at 6.37 GHz and Apple should switch to x86 because the PPC999 is only 5.67 GHz and my modem won't let me watch pron in real-time so the PPC999 must suck.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Wouldn't that statement mean, rather, that Intel is not now developing a more consumer-affordable 64 bit chip because it's biggest OS partner, Microsoft, does not currently have 64 bitness in the works...
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/6...n/overview.asp
By the way, a 64bit HP 900Mhz Itanium2 workstation starts at $3300.00.
Originally posted by Agent69
Funny you should mention 64bit Windows XP. The Itanium, the CPU it runs on, was suposed to be the next big thing but from what I have seen, no one is really using it. (Even Intel's own 64bit CPU cannot compete against the x86!)
By the way, a 64bit HP 900Mhz Itanium2 workstation starts at $3300.00.
Perhaps it's because Itanium2 is not a desktop CPU and doesn't compete with your average x86?
Originally posted by Programmer
That said, its also not true that Panther won't support the 970's 64-bit capabilities. Developers will be able to write 64-bit code and use 64-bit address spaces, its just that not all the software Apple provides will be 64-bit... but that's not really a big deal.
Panther will be a 64-bit OS. The Register piece which said Apple confirmed it would not be a "full" 64 bit OS was based on a poorly written bit in PC World in which Joz basically repeated the Apple party line that Panther would continue to support 32 bit applications. Apple has "confirmed" nothing of the sort.
In other words, you will be able to run both 32 bit and 64 bit apps in Panther. What is unclear, is what size virtual memory space Panther will eventually support and what that will mean for 64-bit product development in Panther.
Justin
Originally posted by The Swan
I don't know that I'd call the 970 a "desktop" CPU by traditional standards. First, being 64-bit. 2nd, its shear complexity. Third, IBM is using it in blade servers.
Justin
On the same standard of measure, a pentium pro wouldn;t have been called a desktop (the 486 to P Pro jump was FAR more drastic than the G4 to G5 jump). What is called a desktop is a moving target and so the real reason why a machine can be called a desktop is actually if it winds up on the desks of people other than engineers running mathmatica. The G5 is a desktop.
Originally posted by The Swan
I don't know that I'd call the 970 a "desktop" CPU by traditional standards. First, being 64-bit. 2nd, its shear complexity. Third, IBM is using it in blade servers.
What the heck are "traditional" standards in the computer business? In 1983 a 16-bit processor at 10 MHz was way ahead of the current "desktops". About then Sun was building workstations like that. In 1987 a 32-bit processor at 16 MHz was formerly seen only in workstations. Etc, etc, etc.
The 970 isn't even terribly complex compared to Intel and AMD offerings which have been on the market for some time now (~50-60 million transistors, and not even 64-bit at that). AMD's 64-bit Althon is imminent. And this complexity level is half what consumer level GPUs are at these days. Blade servers don't make a processor any less "desktop" as they are usually the lower power, cooler, cheaper processors because a bunch of them are going to be housed in the same case.
You'd better drop your notions of "traditional standards" -- this is the computer business.
Originally posted by k_munic
a 64Bit processor needs "a system, apps and advantages for the user"
The problem is that a lot of people think the 970 is fast primarily because it is 64-bit. That is simply not the case. The 970 is faster than previous PowerPC chips because it runs at a higher clock frequency, has a faster front end bus, can process more instructions in parallel, and has a wider data bus. Of all those things, only the wider data bus can be attributed to the 64-bitness of the chip. If IBM removed all the 64-bit instructions from the 970 chip it would continue to be as fast as it is today for almost all types of software.
Yeah right! It'll be about half a year before Lemon Bon Bon and in particular JYD start complaining about price/performance.
Wise guy, eh? Stay on topic!
There's not much point complaining about Apple's desktop line. Sales. Critics. Specs. Price. They speak for themselves. Cold facts.
Fred Anderson apologizes for sales.
Apple blames its cpu suppliers or software partners.
You tend to do that when you are trying to mask your own inaddequacies. Sales are bad because...fill in blank of your choice.
Since the debut of the 'Mac', Apple have only one person to blame for the insurmountable(?) economies of scale it finds itself in opposition against.
Apple had their chances against IBM, M$ etc. They blew it not once...but many times. They're lucky to be alive.
I like Apple alive. They're better from this position of adversity. The computer industry has seen nothing like Apple. They truly are remarkable. Would Apple be anything less than bland had they won and been M$? Nothing as exciting as they are now I'd bet.
Intel are doing what Apple did when they had a G4 instead of a G5 to boast about. Spout bullS***!
Musing over.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The 'nederlands'? What the hell is that? A town?