I'm very much looking forward to what Apple does on the IT track. Not only is this a great way to get business cred (and start leveraging the tendency of people to buy the platform they use at work, rather than suffering from it), but a great way to get back into the education market.
Also, if Apple can offer a credible end-to-end solution they're less likely to get crowded out by the corporate inclination to buy Windows servers and then figure that they'll work best with Windows clients...
So does this mean that the Xserve will get the 970 at WWDC to tke advantage of all this good 64-bit software. My little knowledge on the subject tells me that the best way to promote the 64-bit aspect of teh 970 is with these types of apps. correct?
Please, PLEASE let there be dual G5 Powermacs announced. It's fine if they don't ship at first, but for fsck's sake announce them! Going all single CPU would be an extremely bad idea IMO
Agreed 100%. Even with the increased performance of the 970, going from dual 1.4s to a single 1.8 just looks bad. Especially since there will be plenty of benchmarks where the dual G4 would be substantially faster (e.g. RC5). I don't think Apple has *not* had a dual in their lineup since 1999, and this would be an extremely poor time to change that policy.
Agreed 100%. Even with the increased performance of the 970, going from dual 1.4s to a single 1.8 just looks bad. Especially since there will be plenty of benchmarks where the dual G4 would be substantially faster (e.g. RC5). I don't think Apple has *not* had a dual in their lineup since 1999, and this would be an extremely poor time to change that policy.
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
I agree that in actual performance, the 1.8 970 would probably beat the pants off from the dual 1.4 G4. However, we are talking about perception and marketing here. Do the math... Which is more, 1.8 (970) or 2 x 1.4 = 2.8 (G4)?
Before anyone flames me for this, I know that simple multiplication is no measure of how it will work. However, I am a developer. I eat, drink, breathe computers; as such I know about these nuances. However, Bob at the local CompUSA (or Sears, Electric City, etc [insert retail store here]) is not going to know that, or will be told that simple multiplication IS an effective means...
Point is that Apple not only needs to deliver on performance, but also on PERCIEVED PERFORMANCE.
NETROMac was kind enough to make the pictures I have been posting. Unfortunately, he made a mistake with 12 days to go and it said 14. I had neither the time nor skill to correct it so I just listed the days.
NETROMac was kind enough to make the pictures I have been posting. Unfortunately, he made a mistake with 12 days to go and it said 14. I had neither the time nor skill to correct it so I just listed the days.
Ooops! Sorry 'bout that one. Could have fixed it, but my mac is "boxed" right now. Hope the rest of the pics are right though. Posting this from my brothers oh-so-boring pentium-III-box.
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
Two more relevant reasons for why Apple should keep a dual machine are:
A Dual PPC 970 can be benchmarked and be shown to completely destroy a Pentium. Duals are more common on the Mac side than the PC side, so this isn't quite as rigged as it really is. Such a machine makes for good benchmark scores.
Secondly, continuing with dual machines means that for a programmer to gain optimal performance, they must write their code to take advantage of multiple CPUs, meaning it must use threading. If you don't make programmers think this way, they generally do not think this way (because it involves more effort). Because Apple has been relying on dual CPUs to make up for the poor performance of the G4, I would guess that OS X code is more thread aware than most Win32 code out there. Apple should keep up the trend.
Therefore, since 1746>2.8, this proves the PowerMac 970 will be approximately 624 times faster than the G4.
Some people are SO literal.
Mike. compare the SpecInt and SpecFP for the two machines, then do the math. That's what sells, Mhz means nothing to consumers. They just judge by how impressed the sales people appear to be.
Two more relevant reasons for why Apple should keep a dual machine are:
Secondly, continuing with dual machines means that for a programmer to gain optimal performance, they must write their code to take advantage of multiple CPUs, meaning it must use threading. If you don't make programmers think this way, they generally do not think this way (because it involves more effort). Because Apple has been relying on dual CPUs to make up for the poor performance of the G4, I would guess that OS X code is more thread aware than most Win32 code out there. Apple should keep up the trend.
YES, YES, YES. If Apple keeps the duals coming then eventually in a few years (sarcasm) Adobe will begin to opimize their apps for duals. If its dual, then no duals, then duals again, then the developers will just give up on optimizing their code to take advantage of both processors. Its all about market share of duals versus monos.
Comments
Originally posted by Nitzer
Sybase is already shipping ASE 12.5 for Mac OS X.
Sybase
I think we can expect announcements of (planned?) native 64bit versions. Which would be a big deal to enterprise customers.
I'm very much looking forward to what Apple does on the IT track. Not only is this a great way to get business cred (and start leveraging the tendency of people to buy the platform they use at work, rather than suffering from it), but a great way to get back into the education market.
Also, if Apple can offer a credible end-to-end solution they're less likely to get crowded out by the corporate inclination to buy Windows servers and then figure that they'll work best with Windows clients...
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
I think we can expect announcements of (planned?) native 64bit versions. Which would be a big deal to enterprise customers.
True, it would be big news.
If i could run Domino Server and DB2 on OS X...
There's huge potential for OS X / xServe in server rooms.
Poeple are a bit affraid of linux, and M$ is expensive and pain to work with.
xServes would fit perfectly, both money-wise and performance-wise in many small to medium shops.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Please, PLEASE let there be dual G5 Powermacs announced. It's fine if they don't ship at first, but for fsck's sake announce them! Going all single CPU would be an extremely bad idea IMO
Agreed 100%. Even with the increased performance of the 970, going from dual 1.4s to a single 1.8 just looks bad. Especially since there will be plenty of benchmarks where the dual G4 would be substantially faster (e.g. RC5). I don't think Apple has *not* had a dual in their lineup since 1999, and this would be an extremely poor time to change that policy.
Originally posted by 3.1416
Agreed 100%. Even with the increased performance of the 970, going from dual 1.4s to a single 1.8 just looks bad. Especially since there will be plenty of benchmarks where the dual G4 would be substantially faster (e.g. RC5). I don't think Apple has *not* had a dual in their lineup since 1999, and this would be an extremely poor time to change that policy.
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
Originally posted by KidRed
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
I agree that in actual performance, the 1.8 970 would probably beat the pants off from the dual 1.4 G4. However, we are talking about perception and marketing here. Do the math... Which is more, 1.8 (970) or 2 x 1.4 = 2.8 (G4)?
Before anyone flames me for this, I know that simple multiplication is no measure of how it will work. However, I am a developer. I eat, drink, breathe computers; as such I know about these nuances. However, Bob at the local CompUSA (or Sears, Electric City, etc [insert retail store here]) is not going to know that, or will be told that simple multiplication IS an effective means...
Point is that Apple not only needs to deliver on performance, but also on PERCIEVED PERFORMANCE.
Originally posted by wfzelle
No Picture?
NETROMac was kind enough to make the pictures I have been posting. Unfortunately, he made a mistake with 12 days to go and it said 14. I had neither the time nor skill to correct it so I just listed the days.
Originally posted by Kurt
NETROMac was kind enough to make the pictures I have been posting. Unfortunately, he made a mistake with 12 days to go and it said 14. I had neither the time nor skill to correct it so I just listed the days.
Ooops! Sorry 'bout that one. Could have fixed it, but my mac is "boxed" right now. Hope the rest of the pics are right though. Posting this from my brothers oh-so-boring pentium-III-box.
Originally posted by KidRed
Disagree. Those who know the advantages of duals would be the same who should know that a dual 1.42 can't hold pee to a single 1.8ghz 970. So it doesn't matter right away. I'm almost positive that a single 1.8ghz will smoke my dual gig, and I'll be the first to go from dual to single.
Two more relevant reasons for why Apple should keep a dual machine are:
A Dual PPC 970 can be benchmarked and be shown to completely destroy a Pentium. Duals are more common on the Mac side than the PC side, so this isn't quite as rigged as it really is. Such a machine makes for good benchmark scores.
Secondly, continuing with dual machines means that for a programmer to gain optimal performance, they must write their code to take advantage of multiple CPUs, meaning it must use threading. If you don't make programmers think this way, they generally do not think this way (because it involves more effort). Because Apple has been relying on dual CPUs to make up for the poor performance of the G4, I would guess that OS X code is more thread aware than most Win32 code out there. Apple should keep up the trend.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Do the math... Which is more, 1.8 (970) or 2 x 1.4 = 2.8 (G4)?
Well, ok.
1.8(970)=1746, and
2.8(G4)=11.2G, and
G=.25, therefore
11.2G=2.8
Therefore, since 1746>2.8, this proves the PowerMac 970 will be approximately 624 times faster than the G4.
Originally posted by DCQ
Well, ok.
1.8(970)=1746, and
2.8(G4)=11.2G, and
G=.25, therefore
11.2G=2.8
Therefore, since 1746>2.8, this proves the PowerMac 970 will be approximately 624 times faster than the G4.
Some people are SO literal.
Mike. compare the SpecInt and SpecFP for the two machines, then do the math. That's what sells, Mhz means nothing to consumers. They just judge by how impressed the sales people appear to be.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Two more relevant reasons for why Apple should keep a dual machine are:
Secondly, continuing with dual machines means that for a programmer to gain optimal performance, they must write their code to take advantage of multiple CPUs, meaning it must use threading. If you don't make programmers think this way, they generally do not think this way (because it involves more effort). Because Apple has been relying on dual CPUs to make up for the poor performance of the G4, I would guess that OS X code is more thread aware than most Win32 code out there. Apple should keep up the trend.
YES, YES, YES. If Apple keeps the duals coming then eventually in a few years (sarcasm) Adobe will begin to opimize their apps for duals. If its dual, then no duals, then duals again, then the developers will just give up on optimizing their code to take advantage of both processors. Its all about market share of duals versus monos.
Rumors up....down....up.....down......up....down...
Man...can't take it anymore
Originally posted by Leonis
Yeah...Apple Turns now says there will be no PowerMac in WWDC.
Rumors up....down....up.....down......up....down...
Man...can't take it anymore
huh?
links?
Originally posted by Leonis
Yeah...Apple Turns now says there will be no PowerMac in WWDC.
Rumors up....down....up.....down......up....down...
Man...can't take it anymore
Yeh I'll be happy when WWDC is here for that reason alone. I just want to know either way.
---
I'll PayPal anyone $100 if they nude streak on stage during Jobs' keynote with something like "One more thing!" or "970 now!" painted on their chest.