I appreciate that very much, I try very hard to understand our user?s frustrations and not to be condescending to them or be little them in any way. I remember when I was trying to learn and how I was treated and do not want to thought of that way. You have to be patient with the end users they do not have your knowledge.
The way I look at it is I know how to work on my 1970 Pontiac GTO but I have to take it to the dealership for my 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. You can?t now everything so that?s why you seek help else where.
methinks you're too nice to be an IT manager for long
nah, it sounds like your company appreciates what you do, that's cool
all the best.
in any case, after a few years when the dust settles you'll have to do what you'll have to do, ie, evaluate the new options available then, who knows, maybe IBM came back and played ball... and apple has 20% market share
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I shut up mind my own business, damn?.
You don't have to shut up, you should always let your opinion let known if you find something different than everybody else. That is what the forum is for.
You stated the G5 is 10 min faster at something. So what time frame are we talking about? A couple of days? Hours? Was the G5 faster after running for 3 hours or what do you mean?
Also were the Intel and AMD systems also running on Unix? Or which OS?
You don't have to shut up, you should always let your opinion let known if you find something different than everybody else. That is what the forum is for.
You stated the G5 is 10 min faster at something. So what time frame are we talking about? A couple of days? Hours? Was the G5 faster after running for 3 hours or what do you mean?
Also were the Intel and AMD systems also running on Unix? Or which OS?
Thanks
On a 45 minute stock status report it processed the report in 35 minutes.
Update we just ran a customer listing by mfg products sold per year three max and on X86 systems they ran 1 hour 23 minutes and on the powermac it processed in 57 minutes.
the 2 X86 systems are running redhat(e) enterprise....
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
The same reason nobody switched to Itanium, inertia. I doubt there's a developer out there that wouldn't tell you they'd prefer Power over x86 if they had a choice but x86 is where the money is.
...anyway, technical details aside, hopefully Yonah will start to quieten down the unwashed masses and their 'my ghz is faster than yours and dual-core this and that'....
Quieten down the geeks, you mean. The unwashed masses -- on both sides -- have no idea who even makes their processors, let alone those processors' technical specs.
Quieten down the geeks, you mean. The unwashed masses -- on both sides -- have no idea who even makes their processors, let alone those processors' technical specs.
yes and no. i know many a target demographic that would jump on a apple powerbook marketed as
'g6'
'sextium'
'dual-core'
'2.5 ghz'
'1gb ram'
regardless if they were geeks or not... it's about perception of value for money, IMHO, that has a lot to do with it.
yes perhaps for those unwashed masses the fact there's Intel inside may make them compare it against a PC, but also the fact that there's intel inside could be used to market it as something familiar, but much better, no more 'some weird Mac thing i hear about'
yes and no. i know many a target demographic that would jump on a apple powerbook marketed as
'g6'
'sextium'
'dual-core'
'2.5 ghz'
'1gb ram'
regardless if they were geeks or not... it's about perception of value for money, IMHO, that has a lot to do with it.
Yeah, but that's just marketing. Tell 'em it'll wash whiter and think up a new name and you got sales.
I deal -- on a daily basis -- with people who just don't have a clue: they think all computers have Pentiums, they have no idea of their processor's speed, the amount of RAM they have, or their OS version. Seriously, I have a colleague who thinks IBM manufactures Pentiums! He prolly thinks a Front Side Bus is what takes you into town in the mornings....
My point is that they're gonna buy a computer for reasons not even closely related to who makes the CPU. And there are many more people like this -- even on the Mac side -- than posters here sometimes think.
Of course, you're right; Apple WILL sell whatever they term the G6 like crazy. But only because the majority of purchasers will believe the advertising. Watch Sony. They'll hype the PS3 based on the CELL, and it'll become a buzzword. But only a tiny fraction of purchasers will know what it really is.
How is the dual core Yonah based Powerbook due early 2006 expected to compare against the current Powermac Dual 2.7GHz?
It will be a little bit slower for the most part. A 2 GHz Yonah is probably equivalent to a 2.0, maybe 2.2, GHz 970mp all other things being equal. There will be somethings Yonah will be faster at than a 2.7 GHz PM G5 will be, a few integer codes, but FPU and SIMD likely not. I'll be very surprised if FPU and SIMD are better on Yonah, unless it has something to do with the relatively poorer memory performance of PPC systems compared to x86 systems.
Also, a Yonah-based Powerbook is not due in early 2006. We have no idea which Macintoshes will ship with Intel processors nor when they will ship.
Everyone is speculating that Powerbooks is a logical choice, but no one knows. In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
.....In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
a 1.8ghz dual core g4 (that's what your looking at with the 7448 IIRC) will be sweet. but anything beyond September 2005 and i'm going to be a spec whore and say i wanna something better than 167 system bus and 'just' 512mb ddr ram and something better than 'just' ati mobility 9700.
It will be a little bit slower for the most part. A 2 GHz Yonah is probably equivalent to a 2.0, maybe 2.2, GHz 970mp all other things being equal. There will be somethings Yonah will be faster at than a 2.7 GHz PM G5 will be, a few integer codes, but FPU and SIMD likely not. I'll be very surprised if FPU and SIMD are better on Yonah, unless it has something to do with the relatively poorer memory performance of PPC systems compared to x86 systems.
Also, a Yonah-based Powerbook is not due in early 2006. We have no idea which Macintoshes will ship with Intel processors nor when they will ship.
Everyone is speculating that Powerbooks is a logical choice, but no one knows. In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
we will have to wait for the first benchmarks. According to a site (sorry I remember wich one) the single 1,8 G5 equalled a P4 2,8. . According to Tom hardware benchmarks (on quake 3), the Dothan 1,8 ghz equal a pentium 4 3 ghz. So it seems that a Dothan 1,8 ghz equal a G5 2 ghz.
What will be the gain of the Yonah against the Dothan : difficult to say. We know that the Yonah will introduce an improved SSE, but we ignore what will be the gain in performance.
I think that we can say, that the Yonah 2 ghz will be faster than the dual G5 2 ghz and nearly on par with the dual 2,5 ghz (if we assume that the yonah is faster than the Dothan).
Technically speaking, the Desktop PPC will still be faster, but for laptop the Yonah will bring a big plus for laptop.
Technically speaking, the Desktop PPC will still be faster, but for laptop the Yonah will bring a big plus for laptop.
Inteldoc... oops i mean Powerdoc .... what is your (and others?) take on the absence of Altivec, that is, do you still feel confident about performance gains achieved by Yonah, given that say in Feb 2005, for most applications, they have to be delivered for PowerPC/Intel with all the Altivec instructions (whatever there was) all removed? for example photoshop and plugins, software synthesis like reason 3.0 ?
Inteldoc... oops i mean Powerdoc .... what is your (and others?) take on the absence of Altivec, that is, do you still feel confident about performance gains achieved by Yonah, given that say in Feb 2005, for most applications, they have to be delivered for PowerPC/Intel with all the Altivec instructions (whatever there was) all removed? for example photoshop and plugins, software synthesis like reason 3.0 ?
Apple introduced the Accelerate.framework in 10.3. It's a sort of API likes libraries, that use the Altivec or any other SIMD acceleration.
Basically if you want to have SIMD optimisation, you use this libraries, and it will deliver the custom SIMD code for each differents brand of chips. Any soft who use this feature, will benefit from Intel SSE and alike acceleration.
Of course, Altivec is better than SSE currently, but we don't know what will come with the Yonah. Perhaps Intel, will be happy to work closely with Apple on this subject : Intel knows that any SIMD enhancements created will be used by Apple, at the difference of the X86 world.
Apple introduced the Accelerate.framework in 10.3. It's a sort of API likes libraries, that use the Altivec or any other SIMD acceleration.
Basically if you want to have SIMD optimisation, you use this libraries, and it will deliver the custom SIMD code for each differents brand of chips. Any soft who use this feature, will benefit from Intel SSE and alike acceleration.
Of course, Altivec is better than SSE currently, but we don't know what will come with the Yonah. Perhaps Intel, will be happy to work closely with Apple on this subject : Intel knows that any SIMD enhancements created will be used by Apple, at the difference of the X86 world.
coolness. good abstraction happening there
however...
well, here's wishing all the best to the poor bastards that have to convert (abstract) all their altivec code to Accelerate.framework
maybe there should be some sort of global 'tip jar' for us mac fans to donate for smaller developers caught out by this... hmmm. \
It's not even a month and already the Mac community is relishing the excitement of an Intel-based Mac.
When was the last time we were this excited about a new PPC CPU? The PPC 970 was pretty cool, but it was only a one-time hit; we still don't know about IBM's roadmap, or if they can even fab what they say they will. Contrast the dark ages of the PPC with x86, where we know Intel's roadmap in exquisite detail, and furthermore we know that Intel can fab their chip designs at will! Reading about future Intel processors is like walking around a candy store with a hundred dollar bill you're pocket - you know you're going to walk out with exactly what you want, and then some.
My only concern is that Apple will go cheap on us and offer only midrange Pentium CPUs, basically preserving the "MHz Myth" gap between Macs and Wintels. Will Apple offer its hardware with the latest and greatest from Intel, or will Mac users get the shaft yet again?
My only concern is that Apple will go cheap on us and offer only midrange Pentium CPUs, basically preserving the "MHz Myth" gap between Macs and Wintels. Will Apple offer its hardware with the latest and greatest from Intel, or will Mac users get the shaft yet again?
whatever happens, be assured that whining, dissecting, investigation, bechmarking-up-the-wazooo will continue in full force
eg.
WTF? ONLY A MEASLY 700mhz FSB and 3GHZ? WTF? ONLY 2GB RAM? WHEN WILL APPLE F*KING START GIVING US SOME REAL RAM??!!! **
**an excerpt from a June 2006 post on AppleInsider.Com
Comments
Originally posted by DGNR8
I appreciate that very much, I try very hard to understand our user?s frustrations and not to be condescending to them or be little them in any way. I remember when I was trying to learn and how I was treated and do not want to thought of that way. You have to be patient with the end users they do not have your knowledge.
The way I look at it is I know how to work on my 1970 Pontiac GTO but I have to take it to the dealership for my 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. You can?t now everything so that?s why you seek help else where.
methinks you're too nice to be an IT manager for long
nah, it sounds like your company appreciates what you do, that's cool
all the best.
in any case, after a few years when the dust settles you'll have to do what you'll have to do, ie, evaluate the new options available then, who knows, maybe IBM came back and played ball... and apple has 20% market share
Originally posted by DGNR8
I am not bashing anything damn. I just put out what we were able to accomplish doing the same thing on three platforms and this is what I found.
I am sorry but I am not the one on the eval team, to get you all the technical info on each servers line by line performances. I how ever am the one who has to get every app up and running and get the input from local and remote employees as to how they able to complete there daily task.
I don?t get this, I just thru out a ?Real world test? that?s all, and from that I believe the G5(RISC) processor was the best performance-per-cost ratio. I didn?t mean to offend, I just thought it would be insightful. I realize every company is different and every scenario is not the same.
I shut up mind my own business, damn?.
You don't have to shut up, you should always let your opinion let known if you find something different than everybody else. That is what the forum is for.
You stated the G5 is 10 min faster at something. So what time frame are we talking about? A couple of days? Hours? Was the G5 faster after running for 3 hours or what do you mean?
Also were the Intel and AMD systems also running on Unix? Or which OS?
Thanks
Originally posted by punica888
You don't have to shut up, you should always let your opinion let known if you find something different than everybody else. That is what the forum is for.
You stated the G5 is 10 min faster at something. So what time frame are we talking about? A couple of days? Hours? Was the G5 faster after running for 3 hours or what do you mean?
Also were the Intel and AMD systems also running on Unix? Or which OS?
Thanks
On a 45 minute stock status report it processed the report in 35 minutes.
Update we just ran a customer listing by mfg products sold per year three max and on X86 systems they ran 1 hour 23 minutes and on the powermac it processed in 57 minutes.
the 2 X86 systems are running redhat(e) enterprise....
Originally posted by sillyfool
1) Why, if the G5 is so powerfull, why is it that no other computer vendor other than IBM and Apple used them? Is it your belief that the entire computer industry suffers from a nasty case of rectal-caranial inversion and it's only our heros at IBM/Moto/Apple that have the capacity to 'see the light'?
The same reason nobody switched to Itanium, inertia. I doubt there's a developer out there that wouldn't tell you they'd prefer Power over x86 if they had a choice but x86 is where the money is.
Originally posted by sunilraman
...anyway, technical details aside, hopefully Yonah will start to quieten down the unwashed masses and their 'my ghz is faster than yours and dual-core this and that'....
Quieten down the geeks, you mean. The unwashed masses -- on both sides -- have no idea who even makes their processors, let alone those processors' technical specs.
Originally posted by jouster
Quieten down the geeks, you mean. The unwashed masses -- on both sides -- have no idea who even makes their processors, let alone those processors' technical specs.
yes and no. i know many a target demographic that would jump on a apple powerbook marketed as
'g6'
'sextium'
'dual-core'
'2.5 ghz'
'1gb ram'
regardless if they were geeks or not... it's about perception of value for money, IMHO, that has a lot to do with it.
yes perhaps for those unwashed masses the fact there's Intel inside may make them compare it against a PC, but also the fact that there's intel inside could be used to market it as something familiar, but much better, no more 'some weird Mac thing i hear about'
Originally posted by sunilraman
yes and no. i know many a target demographic that would jump on a apple powerbook marketed as
'g6'
'sextium'
'dual-core'
'2.5 ghz'
'1gb ram'
regardless if they were geeks or not... it's about perception of value for money, IMHO, that has a lot to do with it.
Yeah, but that's just marketing. Tell 'em it'll wash whiter and think up a new name and you got sales.
I deal -- on a daily basis -- with people who just don't have a clue: they think all computers have Pentiums, they have no idea of their processor's speed, the amount of RAM they have, or their OS version. Seriously, I have a colleague who thinks IBM manufactures Pentiums! He prolly thinks a Front Side Bus is what takes you into town in the mornings....
My point is that they're gonna buy a computer for reasons not even closely related to who makes the CPU. And there are many more people like this -- even on the Mac side -- than posters here sometimes think.
Of course, you're right; Apple WILL sell whatever they term the G6 like crazy. But only because the majority of purchasers will believe the advertising. Watch Sony. They'll hype the PS3 based on the CELL, and it'll become a buzzword. But only a tiny fraction of purchasers will know what it really is.
Originally posted by jouster
.....He prolly thinks a Front Side Bus is what takes you into town in the mornings.........
ROFLMAO
Originally posted by BJNY
How is the dual core Yonah based Powerbook due early 2006 expected to compare against the current Powermac Dual 2.7GHz?
It will be a little bit slower for the most part. A 2 GHz Yonah is probably equivalent to a 2.0, maybe 2.2, GHz 970mp all other things being equal. There will be somethings Yonah will be faster at than a 2.7 GHz PM G5 will be, a few integer codes, but FPU and SIMD likely not. I'll be very surprised if FPU and SIMD are better on Yonah, unless it has something to do with the relatively poorer memory performance of PPC systems compared to x86 systems.
Also, a Yonah-based Powerbook is not due in early 2006. We have no idea which Macintoshes will ship with Intel processors nor when they will ship.
Everyone is speculating that Powerbooks is a logical choice, but no one knows. In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
Originally posted by THT
.....In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
a 1.8ghz dual core g4 (that's what your looking at with the 7448 IIRC) will be sweet. but anything beyond September 2005 and i'm going to be a spec whore and say i wanna something better than 167 system bus and 'just' 512mb ddr ram and something better than 'just' ati mobility 9700.
Originally posted by THT
It will be a little bit slower for the most part. A 2 GHz Yonah is probably equivalent to a 2.0, maybe 2.2, GHz 970mp all other things being equal. There will be somethings Yonah will be faster at than a 2.7 GHz PM G5 will be, a few integer codes, but FPU and SIMD likely not. I'll be very surprised if FPU and SIMD are better on Yonah, unless it has something to do with the relatively poorer memory performance of PPC systems compared to x86 systems.
Also, a Yonah-based Powerbook is not due in early 2006. We have no idea which Macintoshes will ship with Intel processors nor when they will ship.
Everyone is speculating that Powerbooks is a logical choice, but no one knows. In fact, Powerbooks could be updated with a 1.8 GHz 7448 in September or October and we may not see a Yonah-based Powerbook until June.
we will have to wait for the first benchmarks. According to a site (sorry I remember wich one) the single 1,8 G5 equalled a P4 2,8. . According to Tom hardware benchmarks (on quake 3), the Dothan 1,8 ghz equal a pentium 4 3 ghz. So it seems that a Dothan 1,8 ghz equal a G5 2 ghz.
What will be the gain of the Yonah against the Dothan : difficult to say. We know that the Yonah will introduce an improved SSE, but we ignore what will be the gain in performance.
I think that we can say, that the Yonah 2 ghz will be faster than the dual G5 2 ghz and nearly on par with the dual 2,5 ghz (if we assume that the yonah is faster than the Dothan).
Technically speaking, the Desktop PPC will still be faster, but for laptop the Yonah will bring a big plus for laptop.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
....
Technically speaking, the Desktop PPC will still be faster, but for laptop the Yonah will bring a big plus for laptop.
Inteldoc... oops i mean Powerdoc
Originally posted by sunilraman
Inteldoc... oops i mean Powerdoc
Apple introduced the Accelerate.framework in 10.3. It's a sort of API likes libraries, that use the Altivec or any other SIMD acceleration.
Basically if you want to have SIMD optimisation, you use this libraries, and it will deliver the custom SIMD code for each differents brand of chips. Any soft who use this feature, will benefit from Intel SSE and alike acceleration.
Of course, Altivec is better than SSE currently, but we don't know what will come with the Yonah. Perhaps Intel, will be happy to work closely with Apple on this subject : Intel knows that any SIMD enhancements created will be used by Apple, at the difference of the X86 world.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Apple introduced the Accelerate.framework in 10.3. It's a sort of API likes libraries, that use the Altivec or any other SIMD acceleration.
Basically if you want to have SIMD optimisation, you use this libraries, and it will deliver the custom SIMD code for each differents brand of chips. Any soft who use this feature, will benefit from Intel SSE and alike acceleration.
Of course, Altivec is better than SSE currently, but we don't know what will come with the Yonah. Perhaps Intel, will be happy to work closely with Apple on this subject : Intel knows that any SIMD enhancements created will be used by Apple, at the difference of the X86 world.
coolness. good abstraction happening there
however...
well, here's wishing all the best to the poor bastards that have to convert (abstract) all their altivec code to Accelerate.framework
maybe there should be some sort of global 'tip jar' for us mac fans to donate for smaller developers caught out by this... hmmm.
It's not even a month and already the Mac community is relishing the excitement of an Intel-based Mac.
When was the last time we were this excited about a new PPC CPU? The PPC 970 was pretty cool, but it was only a one-time hit; we still don't know about IBM's roadmap, or if they can even fab what they say they will. Contrast the dark ages of the PPC with x86, where we know Intel's roadmap in exquisite detail, and furthermore we know that Intel can fab their chip designs at will! Reading about future Intel processors is like walking around a candy store with a hundred dollar bill you're pocket - you know you're going to walk out with exactly what you want, and then some.
My only concern is that Apple will go cheap on us and offer only midrange Pentium CPUs, basically preserving the "MHz Myth" gap between Macs and Wintels. Will Apple offer its hardware with the latest and greatest from Intel, or will Mac users get the shaft yet again?
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
.....
My only concern is that Apple will go cheap on us and offer only midrange Pentium CPUs, basically preserving the "MHz Myth" gap between Macs and Wintels. Will Apple offer its hardware with the latest and greatest from Intel, or will Mac users get the shaft yet again?
whatever happens, be assured that whining, dissecting, investigation, bechmarking-up-the-wazooo will continue in full force
eg.
WTF? ONLY A MEASLY 700mhz FSB and 3GHZ? WTF? ONLY 2GB RAM? WHEN WILL APPLE F*KING START GIVING US SOME REAL RAM??!!!
**an excerpt from a June 2006 post on AppleInsider.Com
Originally posted by sunilraman
coolness. good abstraction happening there
however...
well, here's wishing all the best to the poor bastards that have to convert (abstract) all their altivec code to Accelerate.framework
maybe there should be some sort of global 'tip jar' for us mac fans to donate for smaller developers caught out by this... hmmm.
The developpers are not so poor, you know, in general we pay for the updates ...
Transitions and major switchs are good for the busisness, especially if the transition is not that difficult.