Dualies in an iMac are a bad idea. Too expensive. Look at what Apple charges for dual G4s at the Apple store...do you think they are miraculously going to forget about their margins and put dualies in a $1000 iMac? Or maybe this is why it's may cost $1800...dual CPUs.
I'd rather see a G4 in the iMac. It would be just what Apple needs to incite developers to put more effort into coding for altivec.
Here's a piece of worthless information to toy with. I read, I believe in an article about upgrade cards, that Dual G4's do not have to be the same MHz. To lower costs and still offload system requirements, one 1GHz cpu and one 500Mhz or whatever.
<strong>X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions</strong><hr></blockquote>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.
Anyway, whether a dual 800 is better than an 867 is an interesting question. But at many hundred dollars more? I doubt it. (And I say that as a dual-user). But I'd still much rather have a 1.6Ghz than a dual 800.
I've always felt like this is something that hasn't been entirely fleshed out by Mac-ers, but it's just taken as an article of faith that a dual is great. Perhaps a new thread on this sometime could get some of the experts to voice their opinion.
How many times have we done the dual vs single thing here? It comes out sounding like Spinal Tap, "Well you see it's got two" "Yes well two slow CPUs and no multi-threaded apps" "Right but it's got two, you see, two is more than one"
This is untrue when running X from what I've read. X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions like opening otehr apps, QT, itunes etc. (not a techie so I hope I got it right)</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is absolutely true. I have the CPU monitor open in the dock at all times, and both processors are frequently pegged on my dual 800. Quartz takes advantage of multiple processors, core audio uses both processors, using classic causes absolutely no system speed degradation whatsoever, and when the crappy Finder decides that it wants all of the processor to open my iDisk everything else speeds along without a hitch.
No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.
<strong>No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!
I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.
Comments
SdC
I'd rather see a G4 in the iMac. It would be just what Apple needs to incite developers to put more effort into coding for altivec.
<strong><a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/jun2001/tech-feat1.html"; target="_blank">Dual G3 mobo by</a>
here's the link</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, thanks. I wonder if this is applicable to Macs. I sure hope not.
<strong>X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions</strong><hr></blockquote>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.
<a href="http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/quick_733_vs_867.html"; target="_blank">Here's one example from MacSpeedZone.</a>
Anyway, whether a dual 800 is better than an 867 is an interesting question. But at many hundred dollars more? I doubt it. (And I say that as a dual-user). But I'd still much rather have a 1.6Ghz than a dual 800.
I've always felt like this is something that hasn't been entirely fleshed out by Mac-ers, but it's just taken as an article of faith that a dual is great. Perhaps a new thread on this sometime could get some of the experts to voice their opinion.
Sigh.
<strong>
This is untrue when running X from what I've read. X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions like opening otehr apps, QT, itunes etc. (not a techie so I hope I got it right)</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is absolutely true. I have the CPU monitor open in the dock at all times, and both processors are frequently pegged on my dual 800. Quartz takes advantage of multiple processors, core audio uses both processors, using classic causes absolutely no system speed degradation whatsoever, and when the crappy Finder decides that it wants all of the processor to open my iDisk everything else speeds along without a hitch.
No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.
<strong>No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!
<strong>2,048 x 1,280 display? I thought DVI was close to maxed out on bandwidth...anyone? stereoscopic displays?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
3D display links, one from eetimes of yesteryore:
<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990219S0003"; target="_blank">http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990219S0003</a>;
<a href="http://www.research.philips.com/generalinfo/special/3dlcd/"; target="_blank">http://www.research.philips.com/generalinfo/special/3dlcd/</a>;
<strong>
I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't you be working?
Oh-- the sig. I see. It's good to be el Rey.
[edit: never took Spanish]
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
<strong>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.
<a href="http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/quick_733_vs_867.html"; target="_blank">Here's one example from MacSpeedZone.</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, read that article you linked to, it explicitly mentions all testing has taken place in OS 9.2.1.
Bye,
RazzFazz