I guess including dual processors across the board was one of the few remaining options left for Apple. The increased bus speed may be more important than the increased processor speed, but PCs already have both anyway. Its a shame we still haven't managed to "shatter the gigahertz barrier". With the release of the 1GHz PowerMac last time, we had our noses pressed firmly against it. This time, we're half way through, but our legs are still trailing behind. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Ok, so for the first time (IIRC) the whole pro desktop lineup is dual. Regarding this, I have a question for you guys: if price were not an issue, woulk it make more sense to opt for Mac OS X Server instead of the regular "client"?
I know this might sound like a stupid question, but I remember reading on some PC site a couple of years ago that in dual-CPU systems is better to run Windows Server instead of the Pro/Workstation version because is more multi-threaded (or something like that) and thus more likely to benefit from a second processor in general tasks and overall performance.
Is this true on OS X too? Is OS X Server the best choice for dual-CPU systems? Or are the additional server apps and tools the only real difference between it and the "client"?
<strong>Ok, so for the first time (IIRC) the whole pro desktop lineup is dual. Regarding this, I have a question for you guys: if price were not an issue, woulk it make more sense to opt for Mac OS X Server instead of the regular "client"?
I know this might sound like a stupid question, but I remember reading on some PC site a couple of years ago that in dual-CPU systems is better to run Windows Server instead of the Pro/Workstation version because is more multi-threaded (or something like that) and thus more likely to benefit from a second processor in general tasks and overall performance.
Is this true on OS X too? Is OS X Server the best choice for dual-CPU systems? Or are the additional server apps and tools the only real difference between it and the "client"?
Thanks for shedding some light on the topic...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
what's true for windows in not true of osx. that's one way ms likes to stick it to its customers.
the only really major difference between osx client and server are the included admin tools in server. there may be a few other tweaks here and there, but the cores are the same.
Unlike Windows XP Home edition, Mac OS X Client supports full multiprocessing just like Mac OS X Server, Windows 2000, XP Professional, and XP Advanced Server.
OS X Server is no faster or slower than OS X Client. Server just has additional functionality when it comes to performing server duties.
Also, MS server prioritizes tasks or processes using a different algorithm than the cient models. You can hack your system to change a Pro box to a server and your system will actually appear slower for some tasks while faster for others. Think of the client versions as trying to keep the user happy by presenting an image of everything occuring rather smoothly and always presenting the ongoing work, while the server focuses on the actual work and tells you to screw yourself until it's good and ready. Don't know is OSX is that way, but I wouldn't be surprised.
The main difference that is obvious with Server is the inclusion of various things like PHP4, MySQL, and other things you can freely download and install yourself if you want to. It seems mostly like a time and headache saving package than anything else, but there might be some differences deep down as well.
<strong>Just what the hell is wrong with a 250 MHz jump for Motorola. That's a 25% increase. Compared to the 8% increase AMD has gotten since January.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. While not breathtaking, it's nothing to sneeze at. Over all this is a tidy speedbump and think of the direction Apple wants to take with introducing all dual line-up. This will encourage developers to write more multi-threaded apps in anticipation of a Cell type or dual core processor they may have their eye on.
Anyone else think that the inside looks much more pro..that huge heat sink looks amazing. Much better. What sort of noise levels these things going to be kicking out?
In some few days we will know if the new dual GHz model blows the old dual GHz out of the water. In that case all those nagging about bus speed have been right.
Between the 8100/80 (Mar 94)and the G3/450 (Jan99) Apple kept it up with Wintel and sometimes was even ahead. The current 1.25 GHz does nothing to close that gap it mearly keeps up with half the clock speed of the other side.
On the positive side the added internal bay and the widened front bay is a good thing and the more modern bus etc might come in handy for the IBM cpu in the future
Still I would like to have like the SONY VAIO: room for two optical drives and a ZIP drive and also have USB & FW port in the front
Comments
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
I know this might sound like a stupid question, but I remember reading on some PC site a couple of years ago that in dual-CPU systems is better to run Windows Server instead of the Pro/Workstation version because is more multi-threaded (or something like that) and thus more likely to benefit from a second processor in general tasks and overall performance.
Is this true on OS X too? Is OS X Server the best choice for dual-CPU systems? Or are the additional server apps and tools the only real difference between it and the "client"?
Thanks for shedding some light on the topic...
ZoSo
<strong>Ok, so for the first time (IIRC) the whole pro desktop lineup is dual. Regarding this, I have a question for you guys: if price were not an issue, woulk it make more sense to opt for Mac OS X Server instead of the regular "client"?
I know this might sound like a stupid question, but I remember reading on some PC site a couple of years ago that in dual-CPU systems is better to run Windows Server instead of the Pro/Workstation version because is more multi-threaded (or something like that) and thus more likely to benefit from a second processor in general tasks and overall performance.
Is this true on OS X too? Is OS X Server the best choice for dual-CPU systems? Or are the additional server apps and tools the only real difference between it and the "client"?
Thanks for shedding some light on the topic...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
what's true for windows in not true of osx. that's one way ms likes to stick it to its customers.
the only really major difference between osx client and server are the included admin tools in server. there may be a few other tweaks here and there, but the cores are the same.
OS X Server is no faster or slower than OS X Client. Server just has additional functionality when it comes to performing server duties.
<strong>Just what the hell is wrong with a 250 MHz jump for Motorola. That's a 25% increase. Compared to the 8% increase AMD has gotten since January.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. While not breathtaking, it's nothing to sneeze at. Over all this is a tidy speedbump and think of the direction Apple wants to take with introducing all dual line-up. This will encourage developers to write more multi-threaded apps in anticipation of a Cell type or dual core processor they may have their eye on.
do they boot into OS9?
In some few days we will know if the new dual GHz model blows the old dual GHz out of the water. In that case all those nagging about bus speed have been right.
Between the 8100/80 (Mar 94)and the G3/450 (Jan99) Apple kept it up with Wintel and sometimes was even ahead. The current 1.25 GHz does nothing to close that gap it mearly keeps up with half the clock speed of the other side.
On the positive side the added internal bay and the widened front bay is a good thing and the more modern bus etc might come in handy for the IBM cpu in the future
Still I would like to have like the SONY VAIO: room for two optical drives and a ZIP drive and also have USB & FW port in the front