Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: Lando on January 17, 2006, 05:41:39 PM
-
I noticed a very interesting article on SpyMac regarding the new Intel iMac versus the G4 and G5 Macs. Seems the Intel Core Duo isn't all it's cracked up to be. The thread can be found here (http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=207351).
Actually, it felt clunky and more like being on a PC the way that it seemed to hesitate for just a moment when doing things. But I was the most disappointed with the render speeds, which were only slightly faster than single processor iMac G5 1.8 Ghz on most test, and half the speed on anything with h264.
-
The question ist was the renderer on the intelmac x86 native, or was it the PPC-version running in emulation. If it was the later it is quite impressive that the machine came up with that good result
I guess we are facing the same problems like back in the old 68k/PPC switch days, when an 040 quadra was actually faster then the brand new PowerMac when running old software (emulation on the first 601 machines generated about 030@25MHz Power)
-
Lemmink wrote:
The question ist was the renderer on the intelmac x86 native, or was it the PPC-version running in emulation. If it was the later it is quite impressive that the machine came up with that good result
The benxhmarks used iLife 06, which I believe uses Universal Binaries, so they should have been running natively.
-
Lando wrote:
I noticed a very interesting article on SpyMac regarding the new Intel iMac versus the G4 and G5 Macs. Seems the Intel Core Duo isn't all it's cracked up to be. The thread can be found here (http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=207351).
Actually, it felt clunky and more like being on a PC the way that it seemed to hesitate for just a moment when doing things. But I was the most disappointed with the render speeds, which were only slightly faster than single processor iMac G5 1.8 Ghz on most test, and half the speed on anything with h264.
The personal Reviews on ars technica and macnn.com have actually been rather favourable... the system feels faster, the native apps (iLife) are much faster, and the Rosetta seems to give 1Ghz G4 speeds... not bad all in all.
I'll give my own feelings when I get my hands on one.
-Edit- New builds of Handbreak H.264 encoder appeared last night, which were getting 30fps on the new intel iMac, where it only gets 10fps for the G5.
Also note that the new iMacs are being reported as much quieter and a bit cooler than the G5.
-
More and more reviews are poping up now... looks like the new macs are delivering as promised... same price, less heat, less power used, better performance than the G5... The new MacBook is getting very exciting for those who are going from G4!
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php etc...
-
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282752
Some Photoshop tests showing that the new Core Duo is able to out perform a 1.6Ghz G4, when running Photoshop in rosetta PPC emulation.
-
Old PPC vs x86 arguement...
...nail in coffin?
-
I could care less what chip is in the machine, as long as the performance is good. The intel deal basically saved their portable line of products. I'd like to see a new 12" notebook with the intel stuff in it. This 12" pb 867MHz system i got is the perfect size and weight for me, but i havnt bought the new 1.4Ghz or what ever g4 12" because it's not worth the money when i compare what ive got to whats new. When they stick a 2.0Ghz p whatever in a 12" mac notebook for 2k i'll write a check.
-
I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.
-
Good grief, that is seriously impressive (photoshop on rosetta benchmarking). An emulated binary being that much faster than the native?
One word: wow.
-
Ok, I've had a play with a 1.8Ghz and 2.0Ghz Core Duo iMac.
(My attention was focused on the 1.8Ghz iMac as I plan to get a MacBook Pro)
First off, the 1.8Ghz generally runs PPC aps about as fast as my 1.5Ghz G4. I tested all the PPC software I regularly use. This was a huge surprise for me, as I had previously tried rosetta (an old developer release of MacOS 10.4.1) on my Athlon64 3200 and found it slow and not compatible with my G4 apps. So that was a big plus.
The native apps on the 1.8Ghz really fly! As a user I could see no difference between this machine an the dual core 2Ghz G5 PowerMac sitting next to it.
The 2Ghz Core Duo was just faster, I didn't really spend much time testing it. But, the CPU usage graphs were smaller under load. I also never once managed to max out the dual cores, usage rarely went above 60% on either machines.
As a user I couldn't tell that the machine didn't have a G5 in it... all apps ran without problems (Though I wasn't able to test VirtualPC :-( ) regardless of what CPU they were compiled for. Frankly, Apple could have released these machines and not told anyone that they had changed the CPU...
The iMac Core Duos are noticably cooler and quieter than their G5 siblings, but the iSight does make me look rather fat :getmad: .
P.S. Darwine works really well, and I was able to run several Windows apps using it :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
Ok, I've had a play with a 1.8Ghz and 2.0Ghz Core Duo iMac.
(My attention was focused on the 1.8Ghz iMac as I plan to get a MacBook Pro)
First off, the 1.8Ghz generally runs PPC aps about as fast as my 1.5Ghz G4. I tested all the PPC software I regularly use. This was a huge surprise for me, as I had previously tried rosetta (and old developer MacOS 10.4.1) on my Athlon64 3200 and found it slow and not compatible with my G4 apps. So that was a big plus.
The native apps on the 1.8Ghz really fly! As a user I could see no difference between this machine an the dual core 2Ghz G5 PowerMac sitting next to it.
The 2Ghz Core Duo was just faster, I didn't really spend much time testing it. But, the CPU usage graphs were smaller under load. I also never once managed to max out the dual cores, usage rarely went above 60% on either machines.
As a user I couldn't tell that the machine didn't have a G5 in it... all apps ran without problems (Though I wasn't able to test VirtualPC :-( ) regardless of what CPU they were compiled for. Frankly, Apple could have released these machines and not told anyone that they had changed the CPU...
The iMac Core Duos are noticably cooler and quieter than their G5 siblings, but the iSight does make me look rather fat :getmad: .
P.S. Darwine works really well, and I was able to run several Windows apps using it :-D
Excellent news. My parents wanted a new computer because their PC keeps breaking down. I'm sick of always having to fix it for them so told them they had to buy a Mac or I wouldn't ever help them out again. :-)
They orded this on saturday from apple.com
IMAC 17/1.83/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-128MB SDRAM
1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-1x1GB
250GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X-B
Country Kit-B
I'm glad to know it's a decent machine. We had a play with the 20" G5 iMac in pcworld, and it was very responsive.
Can't wait for this to arrive. :-)
-
Tripitaka wrote:
I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give
it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.
I've only bought AMD CPU's for years, but would never not buy a product just because it has an Intel CPU inside it.
That's the same mentality that the BAF's have. :-/
-
Turns out it is possible to install Tiger on most modern PC's with a little jiggery pokery. Must have sse2 to run, and sse3 for rosetta. Not sure of the legality though. I think it's worth checking out. I want to try more OS's.
-
Oliver wrote:
Turns out it is possible to install Tiger on most modern PC's with a little jiggery pokery. Must have sse2 to run, and sse3 for rosetta. Not sure of the legality though. I think it's worth checking out. I want to try more OS's.
With the Maxxus patch rosetta works fine on an SSE2 CPU. I have done this myself, but then I own a Mac (PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz) and plan to get MacBook Pro... I was just trying to find out how compatible my software would be with the new Macs... :-D
-
Oh, thanks. That's worth knowing.
Do you know if there are any issues with legality, in using Tiger on a non Apple x86 machine?
-
mdma wrote:
Tripitaka wrote:
I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give
it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.
I've only bought AMD CPU's for years, but would never not buy a product just because it has an Intel CPU inside it.
That's the same mentality that the BAF's have. :-/
Exactly! I always buy best performance for my money... which has meant that I've only generally bought Athlon CPU's... Had to get a Mac to run Logic Audio 7.0 though :-) and it turns out they MacOS X is really good, and the Laptops are vastly superior to any other maker!
-
Oliver wrote:
Oh, thanks. That's worth knowing.
Do you know if there are any issues with legality, in using Tiger on a non Apple x86 machine?
I expect it's highly illegal... But if you try it, I strongly suspect that your next computer purchace will be an Apple one ;-) (Their laptops are amazing)
http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/40718/
-
Yeah, when I can afford a laptop, I'll most likely get an x86 Apple, and stick a few OS's on it. I have to say, all my Apple products to date have been extremely reliable.
Thanks bloodline.
-
A Quick note, to say that the new MacBooks are actually shipping with faster processors than previously advertised... the original 1.65Ghz Model now ships with a 1.85Ghz CPU and the original 1.8Ghz Model now ships with a 2.0Ghz CPU (with a BTO option of a 2.2Ghz CPU).
Very exciting stuff!!!!
-
I have now had the pleasure of using a 17" iMac Core Duo with 1GB DDR2 RAM for the last week.
It is the fastest, most responsive computer I have ever personally used.
-
I did an in-store comparison of the iMac G4 and the iMac intel. The iNtel (new official Apple spelling) Mac was much faster running the native iPhoto and had the same photo libraries. There really was no comparison...it smoked the PPC with similar specs.
My dual 1.8 G5 is only 2 years old but I'm starting to wonder when the iNtel Mac towers will arrive!
Bob
-
I'd like to know how the cooling is on the machine. I'm thankful that on my powerbooks, all the heat is radiated away from the battery. My 876MHz 12" power book still gets 2 hours on a battery, and the machine gets up upfront where the ram is, but the battery stays cool. I'm assuming if the battery gets mad hot, i will not last as long.
-
koaftder wrote:
I'd like to know how the cooling is on the machine. I'm thankful that on my powerbooks, all the heat is radiated away from the battery. My 876MHz 12" power book still gets 2 hours on a battery, and the machine gets up upfront where the ram is, but the battery stays cool. I'm assuming if the battery gets mad hot, i will not last as long.
On the desktop iMac that I have, you cannot ever hear the fans yet to the touch the computer casing isn't warm anywhere.
It's on all day everyday, and surfing, emailing, compiling, and playing MP3's is what it's used for.
-
koaftder wrote:
I'd like to know how the cooling is on the machine. I'm thankful that on my powerbooks, all the heat is radiated away from the battery. My 876MHz 12" power book still gets 2 hours on a battery, and the machine gets up upfront where the ram is, but the battery stays cool. I'm assuming if the battery gets mad hot, i will not last as long.
A G5 iMac gets much hotter than an iNtel iMac... after a days constant useage at the Apple Store (on Regents Street here in London), the iNtel iMac back slightly warm to touch, with a gentle "breeze" from the top vent... the G5 is Very hot (I guestimate about 50C).
-
iNtel :lol:
Somebody in apple's marketing department needs brutally murdering and their tattered remains stringing up along the main corridor along with a sign, forged from the entrails, reading: "Use the fricking 'i' prefix one more time, you motherf***ers, I dare you! I double dare you!"
...
sorry, I dunno what came over me there...
-
Karlos wrote:
iNtel :lol:
Somebody in apple's marketing department needs brutally murdering and their tattered remains stringing up along the main corridor along with a sign, forged from the entrails, reading: "Use the fricking 'i' prefix one more time, you motherf***ers, I dare you! I double dare you!"
...
sorry, I dunno what came over me there...
Perhaps we should ask the iProphet (iPBUH) ;-)
-
Just a quickie to note that the new MacBooks started shipping yesterday!
I've already earmarked funds for a MacBook and Logic 7.2! My GF isn't happy, for some reason she wants to waste my money on a house :-?
-
Stick to your guns !!
buy the house and she will expect you to decorate it ....
And so on and so forth.. Never ending expense !!
-
The_Editor wrote:
Stick to your guns !!
buy the house and she will expect you to decorate it ....
And so on and so forth.. Never ending expense !!
:lol: Why doesn't she understand the value of a MacBook Pro?
I love the ironic title of this thread :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
Somebody in apple's marketing department needs brutally murdering and their tattered remains stringing up along the main corridor along with a sign, forged from the entrails, reading: "Use the fricking 'i' prefix one more time, you motherf***ers, I dare you! I double dare you!"
You mean they should be hanged by that guy's iNtestines? That's iNhumane!
-
@Seehund
Seriously, am I the only person that totally cringes whenever they lowercase "i" prefix something?
-
i... I mean aye :-)
Personally i find iT an iNnovation... iT makes perfect sense... like the "qu" rule.
-
It seems apple have used a cheap DC-DC board in the new MacBook Pro causing the typical "cheap laptop" whine that some of us are all too familiar with, when the laptop is under no (or low power) load!
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=374397&tstart=0
Very embarrassing, I hope the Rev B machines fix this issue.
Click here (http://gmh-sol.home.comcast.net/macbook_whine.au) if you haven't heard a DC-DC whine before!
-
check it out the mac minis can be found with dual core now way cool and even 2gig mem i think i want a new one
-
adonay wrote:
check it out the mac minis can be found with dual core now way cool and even 2gig mem i think i want a new one
Be warned though, that the new mini's do use the integraded iNtel graphics rather than the old ATI gfx chip... I personally think the iMac is a better deal.
-
OMG I read this thread and can't believe what I am reading.. I have sat with a Mac G5 and an Intel Mac G5 side-by-side at CompUSA here in Michigan in the USA.. The things you guys are complaining about with the Intel CoreDuo is all in your MINDS (can we say anti-intel bias still get OVER IT!). It almost smacks of being computer processor religious.
Sure things that run in emulation are runnning in emulation and are SLOWER (it's emulation DUH!), but things that aren't are about 2-3x faster. I could notice things like load times, processing a wave audio file and editing it. I could also notice serious speed in one of the native rendered demos.
The thing of it is, the Apple machines are middle of the road PCs they aren't the fastest and best. So far Apple has released machines that are in the middle of the curve for performance and that people can actually afford to buy, so yeah they could be faster, but they are just fine. It's arrogent to assume that these machine would be a "top of the heap" PC..
I have used Intel Darwin before and it's DAMN fast, so the things that you are making these silly judgements on don't really apply. Plus I don't see many apps that are native that are optimized for more than 1 cpu yet either..
-Don
PS to quote a famous guy's saying "There are lies, Damn Lies, and Benchmarks"
-
Don't worry Donny, the facts are laid bare in this thread and it is clear that the Core Duo is vastly superior to the G4 and quite a bit better than the G5.
I rather like the "ironic" title to the thread, it appeals to my sense of humour :-D
-
Well, the CoreDuo is a brand new dual-core CPU with four times the level 2 cache and a higher clock rate on an efficient core (comparable ISP to AMD64). It BETTER be faster! If it can't beat a four year-old single-core processor with one fourth the level 2 cache and a lower clock rate, it'd be mighty sad indeed. :lol:
You'd have to compare the CoreDuo with a 970MP based system to do a fair comparison... not that Apple is likely to release anymore 970MP systems. Suffice it to say that the new CoreDuo systems are better, but you expect newer systems to be better. It's the way the computer industry works (unlike many other industries). Always giving you more for less money.
-
WOW!
It's a dual core and it's dual the speed!
Intel, you have excelled yet again!
-
Beller: I did an in-store comparison of the iMac G4 and the iMac intel. The iNtel (new official Apple spelling) Mac was much faster running the native iPhoto and had the same photo libraries. There really was no comparison...it smoked the PPC with similar specs.
People need to keep in mind that the CPU alone isn't the only issue. Like them or not, Intel still makes the finest chipsets in the world, and that is often the bottleneck in a PC. Even notice how slow a budget 3GHZ PC feels? Yeah, the CPU is fine, but those VIA/Ali chipsets suck. Intel chips don't siphon everything off the PCI bus.
Amigans should've kept this in mind before bounding towards PPC and keeping their hopes up for Cell. A rotten chipset brings the most powerful CPU to a screeching halt, and ArticaS was hardly decent even by PPC standards. PPC isn't likely to get any good chipsets anymore, and Cell almost certainly will not.
I'm glad Apple went to x86, but I'm really disappointed that they're still using native code when they could've done what Amiga Inc wanted to do: VP code. Not a lot of stuff really needs native code these days, especially when it comes to GUI code, which means almost everything on a Mac. Then again, Mac Java is the biggest pile of filth I've ever been forced to use. It is SOOOOOOOOO damn slow. Maybe using VP code isn't what Apple should be doing, after all.
I'm also glad Intel has put serious effort into making their CPUs cooler -- it's about damn time! Of course, I still prefer AMD. I'd love to see Athlon64/nForce4 in an Amiga. I'd buy it instantly.
-
Intel make the finest chipsets in the world?
A friend of mine has a Pentium 3 with onboard Intel graphics and it's a 600MHz machine with 2MB of ChipMem if you look at it in Amiga terms.
Yes, that's right - a 2MB Intel graphics chipset. It can barely do 800x600 without flickering.
Personally I was delighted when Apple announced the Dual-G5 was the World's most powerful computer. It meant for a brief time that Intel's strangle-hold on the market was loosing grip and that diversity could spring forth.
Innovative things like the Transmeta Crusoe couldn't compete, it was Intel this, AMD that.
For God's sake people. Buy something interesting. It's like everyone in the world buying a Mercedes when we could be driving minis, Smart cars, scooters, Quads and stuff.
We have to double our CPU power every 18 months! So what if we wanted to triple it... would Intel break their own Daddy's "Law"?
-
JLF65 wrote:
You'd have to compare the CoreDuo with a 970MP based system to do a fair comparison... not that Apple is likely to release anymore 970MP systems. Suffice it to say that the new CoreDuo systems are better, but you expect newer systems to be better. It's the way the computer industry works (unlike many other industries). Always giving you more for less money.
If you were to compare the Core Duo to the 970MP, then the Core Duo would be vastly superior... the reason being that the 970MP dumps out something like 70Watts of heat, the Duo is rated at 32Watts (under full load). I'm not just interested in performance, performance per watt is very important to me. :-)
-
Waccoon wrote:
Beller: I did an in-store comparison of the iMac G4 and the iMac intel. The iNtel (new official Apple spelling) Mac was much faster running the native iPhoto and had the same photo libraries. There really was no comparison...it smoked the PPC with similar specs.
People need to keep in mind that the CPU alone isn't the only issue. Like them or not, Intel still makes the finest chipsets in the world, and that is often the bottleneck in a PC. Even notice how slow a budget 3GHZ PC feels? Yeah, the CPU is fine, but those VIA/Ali chipsets suck. Intel chips don't siphon everything off the PCI bus.
I'd pesonally prefer an nForce4 chipset :-)
I'm glad Apple went to x86, but I'm really disappointed that they're still using native code when they could've done what Amiga Inc wanted to do: VP code. Not a lot of stuff really needs native code these days, especially when it comes to GUI code, which means almost everything on a Mac. Then again, Mac Java is the biggest pile of filth I've ever been forced to use. It is SOOOOOOOOO damn slow. Maybe using VP code isn't what Apple should be doing, after all.
I really don't think VP code is a good idea... Also Java is MUCH faster on the Core Duo than on the PPC, there have been quite a few threads about it on the Mac forums.
I'm also glad Intel has put serious effort into making their CPUs cooler -- it's about damn time! Of course, I still prefer AMD. I'd love to see Athlon64/nForce4 in an Amiga. I'd buy it instantly.
Uh, me too :-D
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Intel make the finest chipsets in the world?
A friend of mine has a Pentium 3 with onboard Intel graphics and it's a 600MHz machine with 2MB of ChipMem if you look at it in Amiga terms.
That machine is 7 years old... And what do you mean by 2MB of chip ram?
Yes, that's right - a 2MB Intel graphics chipset. It can barely do 800x600 without flickering.
Even 7 yars ago you would have used a nVidia TNT2 gfx card, not an integrated gfx chip :roll:
Personally I was delighted when Apple announced the Dual-G5 was the World's most powerful computer. It meant for a brief time that Intel's strangle-hold on the market was loosing grip and that diversity could spring forth.
Apple had no choice...IBM weren't serious about pushing the 970 against the Athlon and P4.
Innovative things like the Transmeta Crusoe couldn't compete, it was Intel this, AMD that.
The Crusoe wasn't that innovative, it basicly pushed the CPU's microcode into main ram, which would have been great if you could afford to use SRAM... at full CPU speed.
For God's sake people. Buy something interesting. It's like everyone in the world buying a Mercedes when we could be driving minis, Smart cars, scooters, Quads and stuff.
eh?
We have to double our CPU power every 18 months! So what if we wanted to triple it... would Intel break their own Daddy's "Law"?
It's not a law it was an observation of the semiconductor industry in the 70's which has held true as a general trend ever since (but it's basicly slowing).
-
If you ever need a huge pile of excrement, for your roses or something, just visit an Amiga forum thread about Macs or CPUs.
There's plenty to spare!!!!
-
Hyperspeed: Yes, that's right - a 2MB Intel graphics chipset. It can barely do 800x600 without flickering.
OK, OK, I conceed that their graphics sucks.
Hyperspeed: Personally I was delighted when Apple announced the Dual-G5 was the World's most powerful computer.
Hard to vailidate, given that there were plenty of dual-CPU x86 solutions available at the time. Of course, whether a computer is defined as a "PC" or a "Workstation" is just as fuzzy.
That dual G5 cost as much as a good x86 server, too -- with liquid cooling to boot. ;-)
Hyperspeed: Innovative things like the Transmeta Crusoe couldn't compete, it was Intel this, AMD that.
Duh. Crusoe was slow. x86 chips at Crusoe speeds don't make a lot of heat. People don't seem to realize that the releationship between performance and heat is exponential. If you pull back performance a little bit, heat goes down a lot, thus, low-end PPC chips run cool compared to scorching-hot x86 chips, and haphazardly overclocked G5 processors in high-end Macs need liquid cooling compared to one of the new x86 mobile processors.
It's not about technilogical supiriority. It's about what the customer wants. If people are willing to put up with heat to get killer performance, that's what they get. Crusoe aimed for a niche market and just didn't strike it big. Now that heat is a major problem in portable computers, the big dogs are changing their priorities.
Crusoe was a good idea that didn't perform well in real-world situations, and probably got its inspiration from the FPU bug in the Pentium ("fix it in software"). Sony thought the Cell would be a kickass general-purpose chip that would allow them complete independence from any graphics partners. But, when they realized a dedicated GPU still does the job better, they changed their plans. No, they're not using four Cell processors in the PS3, they're using a CPU with muticored DSPs. Gee wiz. It's almost a throwback to the times when we had to buy FPUs seperately. These days, we call then "PPUs", or physics processors. :-)
Hyperspeed: For God's sake people. Buy something interesting. It's like everyone in the world buying a Mercedes when we could be driving minis, Smart cars, scooters, Quads and stuff.
I'd take this (http://www.carver-europe.com/) over a motorcycle, anyday. God, I wish the US government would stop pushing SUVs up our butts.
Hyperspeed: We have to double our CPU power every 18 months! So what if we wanted to triple it... would Intel break their own Daddy's "Law"?
GPUs were doing that for a while. Of course, they're highly vectorized processors and generate about as much heat as a CPU, these days. Also, once people realized that a dedicated coproccessor could do a better job than a CPU (imagine that!), the market grew REAL fast. I'm sure Intel didn't see 3DFX coming at all while they were spending several years developing MMX.
When there's a sudden burst of innovation, usually it's because what we're using now isn't that good. Hence, my belief that if PPC is sooooooo technologicly supirior to x86, why don't PPC chips run circles around x86, instead of just keep-up?
Bloodline: I really don't think VP code is a good idea... Also Java is MUCH faster on the Core Duo than on the PPC, there have been quite a few threads about it on the Mac forums.
Why not VP? It's stupid for time-critical code, but would be great for GUI stuff instead of using interpreted languages like Perl. Also, Virtual Processing is a bit different than a Virtual Machine, like Java. I do not see VP as a way of making things more portable. Write-Once, Run-Everywhere is a pipe dream when everyone wants their hardware to stand out. Coding for the lowest common denominator is dumb.
If there's one thing I've learned as a web programmer, is that things are portable because the developers are familiar with each platform they want to support, and WANT to support them all. If a developer doesn't give a damn about a platform, their code not going to work on it. Period.
I see using VP with native low-level code sort of like using a CISC front-end on a RISC core. It has its uses, so long as it's not abused.
I also find it funny that Java would run faster on an x86 given that it, technically, is big-endian native.
Bloodline: Apple had no choice...IBM weren't serious about pushing the 970 against the Athlon and P4.
Yeah, with the console market sewn-up, they have no reason to dabble with desktop computers, anymore. And since consoles and purpose-build devices don't need robust chipsets with lots of expandability, I don't think Cell et al are going to have any place in the desktop market. A CPU is no good without a decent chipset, no matter how much vector "supercomputer" power it has.
-
Waccoon wrote:
Bloodline: I really don't think VP code is a good idea... Also Java is MUCH faster on the Core Duo than on the PPC, there have been quite a few threads about it on the Mac forums.
Why not VP? It's stupid for time-critical code, but would be great for GUI stuff instead of using interpreted languages like Perl. Also, Virtual Processing is a bit different than a Virtual Machine, like Java. I do not see VP as a way of making things more portable. Write-Once, Run-Everywhere is a pipe dream when everyone wants their hardware to stand out. Coding for the lowest common denominator is dumb.
If there's one thing I've learned as a web programmer, is that things are portable because the developers are familiar with each platform they want to support, and WANT to support them all. If a developer doesn't give a damn about a platform, their code not going to work on it. Period.
I see using VP with native low-level code sort of like using a CISC front-end on a RISC core. It has its uses, so long as it's not abused.
Yeah, I've always found the idea of VP a facinating one, but there isn't really any need for it any more, as it's only useful when trying to run code on different CPU's within a single area of the computing market (i.e. the same operating system, different CPU). If you want to go between the different areas, then you need a VM, like java... all the major desktop systems use x86... Servers are drifting toward x86... supercomputing is dominated by IBM Power... and personal devices are all ARM.
Each area of computing is now basicly dominated by a single CPU architecture... and I expect to see some/most of them merge over time. Probably a subset of the x86-64 architecture :-)
I also find it funny that Java would run faster on an x86 given that it, technically, is big-endian native.
Endianess issues do not impact on the performance of a JIT compiler, byte swaps can be accounted for and hidden in the JIT output.
I think far more development has gone into Java->x86 translation, and the JIT is able to make better use of the pipelines and instruction scheduling... Also I believe the Java VM is stack based which means that the x86 is better designed to handle that type of code... where the PPC is optimised for register operations.
-
Im with pc all the way, macs are ugly slabs and why go for a pc that isnt as compatible and advanced as a proper PC? And yet often more expencive. Bit like the late acorns verses Wind. 95. Much the same story aparently.
-
tokyoracer wrote:
Im with pc all the way, macs are ugly slabs and why go for a pc that isnt as compatible and advanced as a proper PC? And yet often more expencive.
Well, if you want to run Logic Pro... then you have to have a mac... If you want a decent laptop then you have to buy a macbook... if you want a laptop that has a 6wire firewire plug, then you have to buy from Apple. If you like a decent supported OS, then Apple is your best option.
Bit like the late acorns verses Wind. 95. Much the same story aparently.
What? You do know that Acorn used the ARM CPU right?
Yeah, seriously why bother not running windows :roll:
-
The_Editor wrote:
Stick to your guns !!
buy the house and she will expect you to decorate it ....
And so on and so forth.. Never ending expense !!
or if you MUST buy the house, buy it on the proviso that a) you have a room for all your stuff, and if any decorating is to be done, she does it. I also find it helps to be a right mardy sod when going round DIY stores, but YMMV.
but make sure you get the Mac 1st !
I had to ditch a Mac IIci when we moved, but managed to get away with keeping the CPU box.
that reminds me - I need an ADB keyboard and mouse, and a Mac to VGA adaptor... ;-)
-
Like the video link, okay very simple changes but effective...
-
People need to keep in mind that the CPU alone isn't the only issue. Like them or not, Intel still makes the finest chipsets in the world, and that is often the bottleneck in a PC. Even notice how slow a budget 3GHZ PC feels? Yeah, the CPU is fine, but those VIA/Ali chipsets suck. Intel chips don't siphon everything off the PCI bus.
2002 called, they want their chipsets back.
I take it you haven't seen a list of 'errata' for the average Intel chipset. It is just as bad as the list for VIA, ULi, ATI, nVidia ...
ULi currently make one of the best chipsets, should you ever bother to read a review. As they use a standard PCIe interconnect their southbridge also works with ATI northbridges (which is a blessing, as ATI haven't quite got with the chipset making yet, their current southbridge is rather average).
-
ARS Technica has published a new article of PPC vs Intel Macs, here (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macmini.ars).
Dammy
-
Intel's chip designers probably design the bodywork for the Porsche range of cars - i.e. nothing ever really changes but it's packaged as a revolutionary new thing.
I kinda like dat compoota known as teh OMEGA!
Neat chipset inside this machine no?
EDIT:
Dammy: Appropriate company name there... 'ARS'
-
Hey, even if the new macs arent as powerful as steve jobs reality distortion field would have you beleive, it's still a lot more fun than smoking MS Crack.
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Intel's chip designers probably design the bodywork for the Porsche range of cars - i.e. nothing ever really changes but it's packaged as a revolutionary new thing.
I kinda like dat compoota known as teh OMEGA!
Neat chipset inside this machine no?
Err... quite...
EDIT:
Dammy: Appropriate company name there... 'ARS'
ArsTechnica is one of the greatest technical resources on the internet... I suggest you read the CPU articles.
-
Can't remember who told me about Ars Technica, but it is a great site and I visit it often to read their "not so canned and predictable" reviews and reporting.
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Intel's chip designers probably design the bodywork for the Porsche range of cars - i.e. nothing ever really changes but it's packaged as a revolutionary new thing.
I kinda like dat compoota known as teh OMEGA!
Neat chipset inside this machine no?
EDIT:
Dammy: Appropriate company name there... 'ARS'
Er, were you ever dropped on your head as a baby?
-
I'm sorry, I was merely attempting to sabotage the thread.
Forgive me.
:-D
-
I'd pesonally prefer an nForce4 chipset
I just got myself a brand new amd64 and mobo using the nforce4 chipset and i must say i am dissapointed in it. The main problem with the nforce4, is that the PCI perfomance of it sucks. It was for example impossible to get my hardware mpeg2 dvb-s "nexus-s" card to work because of these issues. Whenever there is slight movement, the picture gets completly corrupted unless you resize the picture to a tiny window. I first thought it was my particular mobo "gigabyte" that was the problem, but it happens to be that any mobo using the nforce4 chipset has this issue. :-( Adjusting the pci latency wont solve this issue either and the corruption is worse than i experienced on my old k6-2 with a {bleep}ty via chipset.
The same board worked just fine on my old via kt133a and the kt333 and even my really old compaq pentium 3.
I can use the card somewhat when using software decoding instead of the built in hardware decoder of the card.
I think this will affect any similar cards like tvtuners and other dvb cards as well.
-
I've already earmarked funds for a MacBook and Logic 7.2!
I'd wait until later in the year, looks like Intel's next gen are going to give AMD something of a problem...
Also looks like they should do fairly well on vectorised stuff (e.g. audio), the current gen isn't, if you look at the vector benchmarks it's the single area the G4 is ahead of the Core duo.
My GF isn't happy, for some reason she wants to waste my money on a house
In London? -shudder-
-
by Hyperspeed:
We have to double our CPU power every 18 months! So what if we wanted to triple it... would Intel break their own Daddy's "Law"?
by bloodline:
It's not a law it was an observation of the semiconductor industry in the 70's which has held true as a general trend ever since (but it's basicly slowing).
http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/mooreslaw/
Here's another interesting URL:
http://www.fatfree.com/recipes/salads/coleslaw
Arse Technica is pretty interesting but a little shambolic. It mixes science, videogames and tech info onto pages designed by Mr.Boring, Greysville.
One of the articles was interesting about China using secret chips to control information in public PCs (and noone knew exactly what they did).
I then accidentally stumbled across this URL:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1950.html
... it made me think about the Pentium 3's serial registration... and the Centrino.
!
-
The first Intel Macs aren't as fast as the last PowerPC macs. Didn't people complain about the same thing back during the 68K->PPC switch? Did they fall apart because of transistion the first time?
I think they'll survive and things will improve. When they do and prices come down, I'd love a Mac laptop, especially if it can run all my OSes, Windows, Linux, and even Amihon? Still haven't got that last one running on my AMD64 laptop though so the fancy new stuff might prevent it. :/ I'd have loved an iBook G4 for OS4, but alas it isn't meant to be and I'm left pondering other platforms for convenient portability. :(
-
billt wrote:
The first Intel Macs aren't as fast as the last PowerPC macs. Didn't people complain about the same thing back during the 68K->PPC switch? Did they fall apart because of transistion the first time?
The Intel Mac are rather fast actually. G4 apps running under Rosetta on the new iMac Core Duos are generally FASTER than running native on G4 Macs. (Complex 3D games a notable exception.)
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=112
My 2.0GHz MacBook Pro (Core Duo) feels almost as fast as my dual G5 2.5 Power Mac. Good stuff.
bp
-
Joke:
What's the difference between an Apple laptop and a PC laptop...
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Joke:
What's the difference between an Apple laptop and a PC laptop...
I don't get it?
What's the difference between an iMac G3 and an AmigaOne?
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Joke:
What's the difference between an Apple laptop and a PC laptop...
That makes about as much sense and jamming my testicles into a blender :roll:
-
adz wrote:
Hyperspeed wrote:
Joke:
What's the difference between an Apple laptop and a PC laptop...
That makes about as much sense and jamming my testicles into a blender :roll:
> ouch! <
-
On topic:
From the reviews, is clear that they are faster. 4 times... not in everything, but multithreaded applications get really bumped.
Sadly they raised the price for the minis... 649 Euro is a bit too much, and 84 Euro for a keyboard and a mouse is just plain absurd (there is no insert key !, how I'm supposed to use mc ?!?.
Off topic:
Someone mentioned the development of mmx from intel. I heard almost 10 years ago, that Intel came up with some software-multimedia package/routines and moco$oft told them, that with that software there was no need for win95 (there was no need, I used OS/2 at the time) and they will not sell it, so they would not allow that software to happen, so the Intel people came up with this "mm-software" inside the processor.
Anybody know how all that was ?
(I heard it one Intel conference for new resellers for their new Intel processors integrator programme).
-
hppacito wrote:
On topic:
From the reviews, is clear that they are faster. 4 times... not in everything, but multithreaded applications get really bumped.
My tests have shown a massive speed increase over the G4... no surprise there, but the fact that the Core Duo is also able to edge out the single core 970, and use much less power is a really nice feature... :-)
Sadly they raised the price for the minis... 649 Euro is a bit too much, and 84 Euro for a keyboard and a mouse is just plain absurd (there is no insert key !, how I'm supposed to use mc ?!?.
The Price increase of the Mini is a bit hard to swallow... but it does have a better feature set than the G4 machine it replaces (more RAM, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Digital Audio, more USB...). for it to be really attractive to me, It would have to be under the £300 mark... then I'd be a Mac Mini owner :-)
Off topic:
Someone mentioned the development of mmx from intel. I heard almost 10 years ago, that Intel came up with some software-multimedia package/routines and moco$oft told them, that with that software there was no need for win95 (there was no need, I used OS/2 at the time) and they will not sell it, so they would not allow that software to happen, so the Intel people came up with this "mm-software" inside the processor.
Anybody know how all that was ?
(I heard it one Intel conference for new resellers for their new Intel processors integrator programme).
I have no idea what you are talking about, but when MMX was introduced 3D games were becoming common, and GFX cards were little better than the Amiga Chipset. There was a need for vector processing, and most high end workstations were being given Vector units... I think it was logical for intel try and get in on the act... They didn't really implement it very well (they did a better job with SSE +), and GFX cards started to grow vector units, and have become the powerhouses we now take for granted.
-
From the reviews, is clear that they are faster. 4 times... not in everything, but multithreaded applications get really bumped.
funny that ! hmm - lets take a ganders at the raw hardware spec for a moment, particular note paid to the speed of the CPU's interface to things like RAM...
Mac Mini G4 (1.67GHz CPU) 167MHz FSB.
Mac Mini Intel (1.50GHz CPU) 667 MHz FSB.
667/167 is 4 - the intel can talk to RAM 4 times more frequently than the G4.
I know its utterly pointless, but I wonder how things would look if the intel was handicapped to a 167MHz FSB ?
we could really do with a more modern FSB on our PPCs !
-
billt wrote:
The first Intel Macs aren't as fast as the last PowerPC macs. Didn't people complain about the same thing back during the 68K->PPC switch? Did they fall apart because of transistion the first time?
This transition is nothing like the previous one. OS X has been running on x86 before it was even called OS X. Already a number of applications I use are Universal (I'm still running on PPC BTW). I did a comparison of the Core Du and G5 iMacs at an Apple store, and the intel one was noticably faster in general use.
I think they'll survive and things will improve. When they do and prices come down, I'd love a Mac laptop, especially if it can run all my OSes, Windows, Linux, and even Amihon? Still haven't got that last one running on my AMD64 laptop though so the fancy new stuff might prevent it. :/ I'd have loved an iBook G4 for OS4, but alas it isn't meant to be and I'm left pondering other platforms for convenient portability. :(
The iBook is indeed a nice laptop, best I've ever owned. IMHO running OS4 on it would be a waste.
-
bloodline wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about, but when MMX was introduced 3D games were becoming common, and GFX cards were little better than the Amiga Chipset.
I distinctly remember going into HMV and seeing that game that was the first to take advantage of MMX, that really crap racing game, can't remember it's name though. That must of been nearly 9 years ago. Man, i'm getting old :-(
-
Someone mentioned the development of mmx from intel. I heard almost 10 years ago, that Intel came up with some software-multimedia package/routines and moco$oft told them, that with that software there was no need for win95 (there was no need, I used OS/2 at the time) and they will not sell it, so they would not allow that software to happen, so the Intel people came up with this "mm-software" inside the processor.
Intel put a lot of effort into producing a DSP library, Microsoft managed to talk Intel into killing it.
-
Ok, I've had a chance to play with a MacBook Pro!!!
It's really fast, really light, really hot, and the battery was happy to claim 4:02 hours with the bightness at minimum... 3:23 hours with the screen at full brightness. I didn't experience any problems with going to sleep and waking up... reboot took about 20 seconds (amazing!), I even did an "apple-v" boot and the console was just like the PPC version. The Screen did exhibit a strange pulse in brightness, which was noticeable, but not distracting... I have a feeling it was related to the ambient light sensor... But I would need to test it for longer to prove it. The audio seemed a little quiet on the side speakers...
The magsafe connector was brilliant, I wasn't expecting much, and it was really good, much better than I could ever have imagined.
The build quality was superior to my 12" PowerBook, but the keyboard felt less professional... though it has a better response... The shop floor was too noisy to hear how noisy the machine was :-( .
It's a Mac... it's fast, it's expensive. I have an odd ambivalence towards it... I want one :-)
-Edit- I don't know why, but the power button on the MacBook seems very slightly oversized... I guess I'm used to the 12" Powerbook :-?
-
The iBook is indeed a nice laptop, best I've ever owned. IMHO running OS4 on it would be a waste.
In what way would it be a waste? I'd like a convenient and usable portable platform for when I'm not home and have nothing better to do than work on OS4 stuff. Hauling my AmigaOne, monitor, keyboard, etc. isn't suitable for on the plane or sitting around at the airport or on a bus or whatever...
-
bloodline wrote:
The Price increase of the Mini is a bit hard to swallow... but it does have a better feature set than the G4 machine it replaces (more RAM, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Digital Audio, more USB...). for it to be really attractive to me, It would have to be under the £300 mark... then I'd be a Mac Mini owner :-)
The graphics are better too. OpenGL is over twice as fast with the new (yes, integrated) Intel GMA950 vs. the previous G4 mini, running Xbench - a Universal (PPC / Intel native) application. It supports Core Image, too, unlike the Radeon 9200-based mini chipset of yore.
More here:
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=140
blakespot
-
There's been a lot of questions lately such as "What makes an Amiga what it is?" and the answers have ranged from Workbench to the custom chips.
Since Apple Macintosh has been supported by Microsoft with Word etc. and Microsoft/Gates has shares in Apple... and Intel now make the CPUs...
Could someone tell me what the hell makes a Mac?
I've tried MacOS 7.5.5 on Shapeshifter and it seemed like AtariTOS. I imagine it being used with a 1-button mouse by an affected hairdresser.
Someone enlighten me what makes OSX special and why everyone is ecstatic about iBooks...
-
"What makes an Amiga what it is?"
Commodore.
Hence no Amigas ever again since 1994.
I beleive Chuck D once said "Don't believe the hype".
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Someone enlighten me what makes OSX special and why everyone is ecstatic about iBooks...
Ever used OS X? And I don't mean clicking around the screen for 5 minutes at your local Apple dealer. Because IMHO, it's the closest to a modern Amiga you're ever going to get.
-
Ever used OS X? And I don't mean clicking around the screen for 5 minutes at your local Apple dealer. Because IMHO, it's the closest to a modern Amiga you're ever going to get.
I dont think it does... Both BeOS and QNX came closer then...
OSX is pretty damn resource hungry compared to AmigaOS and crawls even on current hardware.
-
Didn't they port Quark Express to PC?
I used to think that was a good reason to buy a Mac, like buying Lightwave was a good reason to buy an Amiga.
The world has gone so cross-platform it's hard to find anything distinct. And guess who makes money ALL the time...
Microsoft, Intel and IBM!
Who'd have thought it:
* Microsoft using IBM G5 for X-Box 360
* Apple using iNtel CPUs for new Macs
It would be nice to have a computer format made in Europe by Europeans so we not only support our own economies but cater for our own creative needs and don't have to lap up technology that panders to US visions of the future (internet enabled fridges and 'bigger and more is better!' philosophy).
We're making a start with the Galileo GPS system, maybe if we applied German precision and British inventiveness to the processor market it'd evolve in areas outside raw horsepower, legacy support and gimmicky features.
-
Tomas wrote:
I dont think it does... Both BeOS and QNX came closer then...
OSX is pretty damn resource hungry compared to AmigaOS and crawls even on current hardware.
But niether of those have the same support base that MacOS has, as for the AmigaOS4 scenario, that has already been covered by Lando.
As for OS X being a resource hog and bringing modern systems to a crawl, I'm yet to see my G4 Mac mini grind to a crawl, or my kids eMac, or hang on, how about the 6 year old G4 PowerMac at work. Nope, they all run very well.
-
As for OS X being a resource hog and bringing modern systems to a crawl, I'm yet to see my G4 Mac mini grind to a crawl, or my kids eMac, or hang on, how about the 6 year old G4 PowerMac at work. Nope, they all run very well.
You must have upgraded these machines then?? OSX dosent even run smoothly on systems with 512meg ram...
-
Tomas wrote:
You must have upgraded these machines then?? OSX dosent even run smoothly on systems with 512meg ram...
Both the eMac and the mini have G4 1.42's, the mini has 1GB and the eMac has 512MB. The PowerMac has a G4 733 and 768MB RAM. I use the mini for photo manip and capturing video, the kids use the eMac for school work, internet and playing games, the PowerMac is used for video editing. All three are running OS 10.4 and I enjoy using them all. A friend is even using 10.4 on an old G3 iBook, now that is a tad slow, but the machine is even older than the PowerMac and is still quite usable. Food for thought.
-
Tomas wrote:
Ever used OS X? And I don't mean clicking around the screen for 5 minutes at your local Apple dealer. Because IMHO, it's the closest to a modern Amiga you're ever going to get.
I dont think it does... Both BeOS and QNX came closer then...
OSX is pretty damn resource hungry compared to AmigaOS and crawls even on current hardware.
Crawls even on current hardware? Come try it on my dual G5 2.5, MacBook Pro, or G5 Mac mini. Extremely responsive.
bp
-
Indeed, I wondered what kind of dilemma the Mac mini would put people saving $$ for a near $1000 PPC "Amiga" board. For $499 you could get a 1.25GHz G4 with OS X. Quite a complete OS and decent hardware. Did many jump to OS X?
The current Intel mini's are $100/$200 more, but offer 4x the CPU power, or so. Still an interesting situation.
blakespot
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
There's been a lot of questions lately such as "What makes an Amiga what it is?" and the answers have ranged from Workbench to the custom chips.
Since Apple Macintosh has been supported by Microsoft with Word etc. and Microsoft/Gates has shares in Apple... and Intel now make the CPUs...
Could someone tell me what the hell makes a Mac?
Inventive enclosure designs (I've not used a more robust laptop) and the best consumer grade Unix operating system available.
I've tried MacOS 7.5.5 on Shapeshifter and it seemed like AtariTOS. I imagine it being used with a 1-button mouse by an affected hairdresser.
I totally agree... MacOS pre OSX was worse than AtariTOS. I had to use MacOS9 on a ProTools system and from that moment I declared that I would never be a Mac owner. Then I got to try MacOS X (on PearPC) and started to fall in love with it!
Someone enlighten me what makes OSX special and why everyone is ecstatic about iBooks...
The one advantage that Windows has is the vast amount of comercial software support it has... It is that one thing that actually makes Windows "better" than all other OSes... As the second best comercially supported operating System, MacOS X takes second place... but MacOSX has things that Windows doesn't... like:
1) Total Hardware/Software integration, the OS designers know exactly what Hardware the OS is going to run on, and you can feel it... very similar to AmigaOS in that respect.
2) Proper user accounts, I can have separate accounts optimised and set up for different uses... these are totally secure and are essentially separate machines!
3) Not running the machine in Administrator mode, and requiring a password to access the system files keeps nasties out of the system.
4) The Audio subsystem has been logically thought out, to allow application independant effects and transparent distributed network audio, with very low latency... Windows audio sybsystem is a mess... Steinberg had to save the day with ASIO.
5) It has a title bar, with the menus at the top of the screen which I enjoy as I grew up with AmigaOS.
6) The File system is much better than FAT32... and bit better than NTFS, with a cool resource fork feature, based around special directories called bundles. This feature allows drag and drop installation, as we are used to with AmigaOS.
The list goes on...
-
Uncharted: I distinctly remember going into HMV and seeing that game that was the first to take advantage of MMX, that really crap racing game, can't remember it's name though. That must of been nearly 9 years ago. Man, i'm getting old
P.O.D., I believe.
Hyperspeed: Could someone tell me what the hell makes a Mac?
The pretty packaging. It really bugs me that iMacs still don't have any real expandability, but Apple is a hardware company, so of course they encourage people to throw their old machines to get brand new ones. I was Amazed that Apple finally released a budget machine without a Mandatory Display Attached(TM).
Hyperspeed: Someone enlighten me what makes OSX special and why everyone is ecstatic about iBooks...
I don't understand the iBook thing. I've used plenty of good PC laptops, though they're usually all black. iBooks do at least look better.
The thing I like about OSX is that it has a lot more tools built-in than a Windows machine. Windows doesn't come with anything, really. Of course, OSX weighs in at over 12GB, and sucks up a hell of a lot more memory than WindowsXP, which I didn't think was possible.
Tomas: I dont think it does... Both BeOS and QNX came closer then...
QNX? Absolutely. I was so mad when QNX got turned down as the foundation of the new Amiga.
I didn't think BeOS was all that interesting, and I hated the toolbar and context menus.
Tomas: As for OS X being a resource hog and bringing modern systems to a crawl, I'm yet to see my G4 Mac mini grind to a crawl, or my kids eMac, or hang on, how about the 6 year old G4 PowerMac at work. Nope, they all run very well.
My mini was a snail with 256MB of memory. I put 1GB into it and it's a whole new computer. Apple is famous for mis-matching hardware in ways that makes any experienced PC builder cringe. Funny how they'd happily applaud the mini with the faster CPU, but still give you 256MB of memory. Though the price is now rediculous thanks to the system's popularity, at least the new minis have more memory.
I wouldn't say OSX is responsive, though. I still get the pinwheel cursor far too often and OSX has a nasty habit of thinking for a long time before putting a window or something on the screen. Just because something bounces on the dock doesn't mean the OS is giving appropriate feedback as to what's going on.
My Win2000 system likes to think every now and then, but since I keep it clean of spam, it boots in 20 seconds and windows pop-up like lightning -- far faster than my mini... and that's with Apache and MySQL in the background.
They're both good OSes. I prefer OSX technology, but I think Windows still feels much better. The OS doesn't try to put all my files into places where I don't want them.
Bloodline: The File system is much better than FAT32... and bit better than NTFS, with a cool resource fork feature, based and around special directories called bundles. This feature allows drag and drop installation, as we are used to with AmigaOS.
Bundles rock. I've been wanting that for Windows for years, although integrated ZIP files are about the only thing Microsoft seems interested in offering, and not very well, either. I still prefer WinZIP.
Still, I do miss having the quickstart links like on my Windows machine. On the dock, everything is the same size, and it's hard to tell applications from folders. I tend to move files around a lot and the new Finder has its issues if you want lots of folders open at once. Though different from Windows, OSX is still very much an application-centric system, rather than document-centric. Apple's obsession with brand-awareness ensures that, unfortunately.
-
Waccoon wrote:
Bloodline: The File system is much better than FAT32... and bit better than NTFS, with a cool resource fork feature, based and around special directories called bundles. This feature allows drag and drop installation, as we are used to with AmigaOS.
Bundles rock. I've been wanting that for Windows for years, although integrated ZIP files are about the only thing Microsoft seems interested in offering, and not very well, either. I still prefer WinZIP.
Still, I do miss having the quickstart links like on my Windows machine. On the dock, everything is the same size, and it's hard to tell applications from folders. I tend to move files around a lot and the new Finder has its issues if you want lots of folders open at once. Though different from Windows, OSX is still very much an application-centric system, rather than document-centric. Apple's obsession with brand-awareness ensures that, unfortunately.
That's a good point! One thing I couldn't get to grips with when I first used Windows98 (The first version of Windows I owned) was the document centric approach... I've since become very accustomed to it, by using Windows for the last 5 years.
Using MacOSX felt more comfortable to me (as a user who grew up with the Amiga) because of its application centric system... I hadn't realised that until you mentioned it!
As to which approach is better, I have no opinion (I'm used to both now)... But I think most people find document based to be more comfortable...
-
mdma wrote:
"What makes an Amiga what it is?"
Commodore.
Hence no Amigas ever again since 1994.
I beleive Chuck D once said "Don't believe the hype".
B:-ollocks. I use OS4 most days, on an AmigaOne and it definitely feels like an Amiga to me. especially now I can drag down the (for example) Aweb screen, to check (for instance) a URL in an email on the YAM screen.
actually, your statement is doubly incorrect: Amiga was invented before Commodore got their grubby paws on it.
-
blakespot wrote:
bloodline wrote:
The Price increase of the Mini is a bit hard to swallow... but it does have a better feature set than the G4 machine it replaces (more RAM, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Digital Audio, more USB...). for it to be really attractive to me, It would have to be under the £300 mark... then I'd be a Mac Mini owner :-)
The graphics are better too. OpenGL is over twice as fast with the new (yes, integrated) Intel GMA950 vs. the previous G4 mini, running Xbench - a Universal (PPC / Intel native) application. It supports Core Image, too, unlike the Radeon 9200-based mini chipset of yore.
blakespot
But the GMA950 doesn't have T&L, the ATI9200 does. So the GMA950 is more powerful (higher bandwidth, Shader Model 2.0, etc), and will handle eye candy better, but it won't perform so well in 3D games.
-
Tomas wrote:
OSX dosent even run smoothly on systems with 512meg ram...
Complete and utter unadulterated bollocks.
Typing this on an old eMac 700MHz G4 with only 256MB, and it's running absolutely fine with 6 apps open. I'm not having any performance issues.
-
uncharted wrote:
Tomas wrote:
OSX dosent even run smoothly on systems with 512meg ram...
Complete and utter unadulterated bollocks.
Typing this on an old eMac 700MHz G4 with only 256MB, and it's running absolutely fine with 6 apps open. I'm not having any performance issues.
Good point, my PowerBook G4 ran fine on 512Mb, I certainly didn't notice any performacny difference when I upgraded to 1.2Gig (which was to allow me to do more in Logic 7).
-
heres a (slightly OT !) question, peeps:
how does OSX run on MoL ?
if you've tried it, state OSX version, Linux version, and hardware setup.
obviously the closest to my setup the better !
(which is A1XE, 800MHz 750Fx, 512MB 133MHz RAM, debian, kernel 2.4.26, Radeon 7000 32MB.)
-
Bllocks. I use OS4 most days,
So do I.
I fail to see what that has to with with what or who make Amiga's.
on an AmigaOne and it definitely feels like an Amiga
Doesn't mean it is though, just coz it feels like one. MorphOS and AROS feel like Amiga too, but all three are only Operating Systems, the OS does not define what an Amiga is.
I can run NetBSD on my 1200, but it's still an Amiga.
The only companies to actually ever make Amiga's were Commodore and Escom. No one has since.
to me. especially now I can drag down the (for example) Aweb screen, to check (for instance) a URL in an email on the YAM screen.
Again, I fail to see the relevance of your statement.
actually, your statement is doubly incorrect: Amiga was invented before Commodore got their grubby paws on it.
Invented yes, manufactured no. :roll:
-
but it won't perform so well in 3D games.
Of which the Mac market is saturated with eh Matt? ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
but it won't perform so well in 3D games.
Of which the Mac market is saturated with eh Matt? ;-)
:-P
-
Strictly speaking, since the AmigaOne
has 'the name' its an Amiga - it does after all have the sanction (FWIW ;-)) of the
parent company - such as they are :-P
if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
but I think its best (for the thread !!) that we should agree to differ! ;-)
-
if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
.....then it's probably not a duck. ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
.....then it's probably not a duck. ;-)
I was going to say:-
Then don't stand near to it if you're on a hunting trip with the Vice President :lol:
-
What do you mean by Application/Document based?
Okay, so MacOSX does sound interesting but if it eats more resources than WinXP then isn't this cheating?
... being more like Amiga by being more like Windows!?
I must admit that the statement about Mac programmers knowing what they were coding for is similar to Amiga. And I do like the way a Macintosh has a recognisable, quality case design.
It puzzles me though why in this day and age we use earplugs (on the iPod for example) but not eyeplugs.
Even the PSP takes the boring old approach of a tiny little screen you have to squint at. Why not design a headset for portables that would incorporate an i-Glasses style visual display and earphones. This would do away with the need for a massive 15"+ laptop LCD screen and it's associated fragility/battery hunger.
Someone got MacOSX screenshot links?
:-)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
What do you mean by Application/Document based?
It relates to how one deals with data on the system. In a document centric system one doesn't really care about the application used to manipulate the data. You think of the Data as an entity in it's own right, which is essentially self contained. In an application centric, it's the application which you use and the data is sort of "hidden" from user view.
Okay, so MacOSX does sound interesting but if it eats more resources than WinXP then isn't this cheating?
... being more like Amiga by being more like Windows!?
I must admit that the statement about Mac programmers knowing what they were coding for is similar to Amiga. And I do like the way a Macintosh has a recognisable, quality case design.
Yes.
It puzzles me though why in this day and age we use earplugs (on the iPod for example) but not eyeplugs.
Try walking around the streets with wearing plugs... then try the same wearing a blindfold... Vision is your primary sense.
Someone got MacOSX screenshot links?
:-)
Apple's MacOS X page is a good place to start:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
-
Bloodline: That's a good point! One thing I couldn't get to grips with when I first used Windows98 (The first version of Windows I owned) was the document centric approach... I've since become very accustomed to it, by using Windows for the last 5 years.
The hardest thing about going back to my 1200 is having to change Default Tools all the time when I download new software. It's especially painful if something is a Tool instead of a Document, as double-clicking doesn't allow me to type in an app to use. That annoyed the hell out of me even when I got my A1000. The old Macs had the same problem, and Macs also wouldn't even ask what app you wanted to use to open the file. Given that people insist on putting file extentions before the filenames (especially "mod"), this really shows how app-central the Amiga was in its day. What's more important: the fact that the file is music, or that it's made in SoundTracker? Many people still sort their music by filetype, than by genre. What happens if you get a few OGG files?
I also hate tabbed browsing, for many of the same reasons. I have a multimedia keyboard with keys mapped to Back/Forward/Close/Undo/Redo, and these keys make it ten times easier to control my browser than using the mouse to click tabs. When a browser opens new tabs in the same window, I have a tendency to close the browser, and thus lose all my websites in one go, with no way to get them all back. Of course, this also brings up the issue of persistence, which is really getting off topic. :-)
It's a sticky situation, though, as power users tend to be app-centric, and normal people are document centric. Which system does an OS support? Finding a good balance is difficult. Most OSes, including Windows, Amiga, and MacOS, don't really get it right, despite the patriotism expressed by each platforms' fans.
Agafaster: actually, your statement is doubly incorrect: Amiga was invented before Commodore got their grubby paws on it.
Yeah, but OS2 was a hell of an improvement over OS1.x. I'm shocked looking back on how I used my A1000, and that I actually managed to get anything done at all. I was so mad when I found OS2 wouldn't run on my A1000, and I couldn't afford to get a 500 with a new ROM. The 1200 was a brilliant upgrade in terms of usability, even though AGA was a huge disappointment.
Of course, to me, Workbench is the Amiga. From a high-level view, not being a serious coder at the time, the Amiga's hardware features didn't really seem to set it far apart from other machines in terms of games (yes, really). PC games were slower, less smooth, and sometimes uglier, but they played much the same way. The desktop, on the other hand, was simply amazing. MS-DOS and Win3.1 couldn't touch it. That's why I want Amiga on x86 so bad, and want it based on practically any modern UNIX-like OS. I just want a new Workbench. That's my fondest memory.
But then, I want to be an interface designer. So long as it handles vector graphics, hardware doesn't really involve me. I care little about what's under the hood.
Uncharted: Typing this on an old eMac 700MHz G4 with only 256MB, and it's running absolutely fine with 6 apps open. I'm not having any performance issues.
It's possible OSX scales back automatically for older Macs. My mini was a performance slug before I put in more memory, even for simple things like e-mail. I had to wait minutes for the OS9 version of Graphing Calculator to start! I hear, though, that 10.4 is much, much more resource hungry than 10.3. My mini came with 10.4.
The mini is also the first real Mac I've used since my OS8/G3 days, so I can't comment on older versions of OSX. When I got it with the stock memory, though, the mini seemed a hell of a lot slower than OS8 on the old G3. OSX can be a real memory hog at times.
-
Waccoon wrote:
It's possible OSX scales back automatically for older Macs.
Perhaps I should of added that my brand new stock 12" iBook also does not have performance issues either.
I had to wait minutes for the OS9 version of Graphing Calculator to start!
Erm, that is probably because it had to load OS9 first :-)
I'm not an expert on Graphing (my wife is the Mathematician in the family), but on my 10.4 system there is a program in Utilities called Grapher that seems to do the same job.
I don't run Classic on either of my Macs.
I hear, though, that 10.4 is much, much more resource hungry than 10.3. My mini came with 10.4.
I haven't noticed that TBH, I know that 10.2 (which I run on my eMac) was not very well optimised. 10.3 was apparently much better resource wise than 10.2
-
Waccoon wrote:
Uncharted: Typing this on an old eMac 700MHz G4 with only 256MB, and it's running absolutely fine with 6 apps open. I'm not having any performance issues.
It's possible OSX scales back automatically for older Macs. My mini was a performance slug before I put in more memory, even for simple things like e-mail. I had to wait minutes for the OS9 version of Graphing Calculator to start! I hear, though, that 10.4 is much, much more resource hungry than 10.3. My mini came with 10.4.
That explains it!! Yeah if you run classic programs in MacOS X, you have to wait for OS9 to boot up and then run inside an OSX task... No wonder it worked better when you put more ram in it... you were running two OSes at the same time.
I won't touch MacOS Classic... I've never liked it, and I still don't, it was crap from day one. Killing it was the Best thing apple ever did!
-
PPC design is inherently superior to INTEL.
At the same clock speed it will annhilate the intel chip.
IBM developed it. Motorola has done a lot with low power design. Go to freescale.com. They announced a new partnership between Motorola aka freescale and ibm. Collaberation on design, etc. Go to power.org to check out the details. The xbox 360 is a 970 or g5 core based design. With 3 cores.
Enuff said.
-
Mac osx is just freebsd unix with a few add ons and a pretty face.
It doesn't scale back for anything. They just used carbon library to run old apps which is integrated into bsd free unix. Even the new apps depend on carbon to some degree.
I haven't looked at Tiger internals. I am a developer for mac os x. I used to develop for amiga os.
I run osx 10.3.9 and will upgrade soon. Don't want no intel processor, though. Apple gave up on the rhapsody project.
They couldn't get the os right. They used next step code to build os x. Remember NEXT os?
Jobs is a genius, but osx is too monolithic just like linux.
It doesn't scale well. OS4 and other Microkernal based preemptive multitasking cores like qnx are superior.
It is posix or unix compliant and similar, but much much smaller and faster.
-
ppc 64 is better than intel. Intel is using a 60 nm board die size because they can afford it. The smallest ppc die is 90nm. But the design of the ppc is superior. Look at freescale roadmap. The e600 goes up to 1.5 ghz. The e700 will go to 3ghz with 64 bit instuction set available but with low power. The athlon runs hot. The core duo is the only energy efficent chip they have. The freescale chip is very thermally sound.
With the ibm freescale alliance, They will get the chip and make it economically advantageous to use.
The PPC will triumph.
-
Kathyone wrote:
PPC design is inherently superior to INTEL.
That sentense makes as much sense as saying: The French language is inherently superior to Tampax.
At the same clock speed it will annhilate the intel chip.
IBM developed it.
"The Intel Chip"... intel only make one chip? Ahhh, yes the 4004... :roll:
Motorola has done a lot with low power design. Go to freescale.com.
By alot, you mean nothing for the past six years...
The xbox 360 is a 970 or g5 core based design. With 3 cores.
Enuff said.
The xenon cpu (i.e. the chip in the xbox 360), is nothing of the sort. It uses three in order PPC compatible cores, not related to the 970 other than being built by IBM.
You clearly have no understanding of CPU design, I suggest you read up on the subject or stop posting.
I notice you don't plan to upgrade your Mac... never mind, you were probably one of those people who was happy with their A500 and saw no reason to get any of the newer amigas...
-
Kathyone wrote:
Mac osx is just freebsd unix with a few add ons and a pretty face.
No it's not. It's Mach 3.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel) with a few BSD/Carbon/Cocoa add ons and a pretty face.
It doesn't scale back for anything. They just used carbon library to run old apps which is integrated into bsd free unix. Even the new apps depend on carbon to some degree.
MacOS X presents the developer with Mach,BSD,Carbon and Cocoa interfaces, the developer uses the parts of each interface best suited to the task he/she has in mind.
I haven't looked at Tiger internals.
You can't, everything above Darwin is close source.
I am a developer for mac os x. I used to develop for amiga os.
I don't believe you.
I run osx 10.3.9 and will upgrade soon. Don't want no intel processor, though.
Are you afraid of better performance, lower power use, more advanced manufacturing processes, greater supply and clear achievable road maps?
Apple gave up on the rhapsody project.
They couldn't get the os right. They used next step code to build os x. Remember NEXT os?
MacOS X is NeXT Step (The NEXT operating system). Rhapsody was the code name for a poject to port NeXT Step to the PPC, and to add a new user interface to it (+the Blue Box... ie classic environment). The fruit of this project was shipped as MacOS X Server... later the Carbon API was added and it was shipped as MacOS X 10.0.
Jobs is a genius, but osx is too monolithic just like linux.
Jobs takes great risks, has clear bold vision and is a very good sales man... but probably not a genius.
Explain the monolithic nature of MacOS X then. Also in what was does MacOS X have anything to do with Linux?
It doesn't scale well.
OS4 and other Microkernal based preemptive multitasking cores like qnx are superior.
Microkernels? MacOSX is built on one of the first ever microkernels... Mach!!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel)
It is posix or unix compliant and similar, but much much smaller and faster.
You have no idea what you say...
-
Listen to bloodline. Kathyone has no idea what she/he is talking about.
For a good history of NEXTSTEP/OpenStep to OS X, see this wonderful piece:
http://www.objectfarm.org/Activities/Publications/TheMerger/index.html
I have long been a NeXT fan. I ran NEXTSTEP for Intel v3.2 back in 1994 on my 486 66 - a powerful machine then. Finally acquired my own NeXTStation (http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns1.jpg) and a HP to run NEXTSTEP (http://www.bytecellar.com/archives/000040.php).
NEXTSTEP was years ahead of its time, both as a user friendly, *NIX OS and also as a development platform. Hell, the developer tools that can be found on a 1989-era (http://www.thejagcompany.com/jtfolden/NeXTVIEW/NEXTSTEP1_0.jpg) NeXT box are ahead of most traditional development platforms today. Mac OS X, an evolution of NEXTSTEP, is a notable exception, of course.
I am a big Amiga fan. I've had many (http://www.blakespot.com/list/) Amigas and currently enjoy my Amiga 2000 (http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/a2000_inside.jpg) and Amiga 1200 060 (http://homepage.mac.com/blakespot/PhotoAlbum15.html). But I must say, there is no operating system I am aware of that combines power, stability, ease of use, and application range that OS X does.
(Not to say that I don't spend plenty of time with the old guys (http://www.bytecellar.com/qtvr.html)....)
And I am also happy to say that my new 2.0GHz MacBook Pro (http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=132) feels about as fast as my dual G5 2.5GHz tower (http://www.blakespot.com/images/g5_2560.jpg) (note the top-left logo in the picture on the wall in that pic...). With this move, Apple really has a chance to double its market share, or better.
Laptops are Apple's biggest Mac sellers. Look - now we have a dual core laptop. Many times faster than the G4 it replaced. How is this not all good? And don't lament Rosetta for legacy apps during the transition - I can play a smooth game of HALO under Rosetta on that laptop!
I run a website concerning the switch, have a look:
http://www.maconintel.com
blakespot
-
http://www.barefeats.com/ real mac benchmarks here.
intels perform very well
-
Kathyone wrote:
The PPC will triumph.
Where? Macs no longer use them. I know the fastest Amigas have PPC accelerators, but I don't think that's going to turn the world around to embrace the PPC for desktop computing.
It's used all over the place in embedded applications. In that capacity, it has triumphed.
Is that what you meant?
blakespot
-
Kathyone wrote:
The xbox 360 is a 970 or g5 core based design. With 3 cores.
Enuff said.
I love my liqiud-cooled, dual G5 2.5GHz Power Mac. Don't get me wrong. However, if Sony or Microsoft went with a modern Pentium, their new consoles would have much more horesepower.
See this article: "Why not the Cell?" Here's why.... (http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=25)
From the piece - an AnandTech quote:
In the end, you get what you pay for, and with such a small core, it's no surprise that performance isn't anywhere near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class. The Cell processor doesn't get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of die space.
The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer (Sony or Microsoft) had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.
blakespot
-
What happened to the other 68k machines like the Ataris and Acorns? From what I remember the Acorns went PPC too and an old Amiga company was selling the boards...
Did the Hitachi SH.x range of CPUs ever get used in the computing market?
-
Listen to bloodline. Kathyone has no idea what she/he is talking about.
It does look more and more like Kathyone is just a PPC fanboy coming over here to troll.
dammy
-
That sentense makes as much sense as saying: The French language is inherently superior to Tampax.
Ahhh.... but a woman with a tampax in can communicate more in one look than a whole dictionary full of French words could! ;-)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
What happened to the other 68k machines like the Ataris and Acorns? From what I remember the Acorns went PPC too and an old Amiga company was selling the boards...
Did the Hitachi SH.x range of CPUs ever get used in the computing market?
The Acorns have never used 68k or PPC.
Try 6502 and ARM (Acorn RISC Machine) CPU's.
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
What happened to the other 68k machines like the Ataris and Acorns? From what I remember the Acorns went PPC too and an old Amiga company was selling the boards...
Did the Hitachi SH.x range of CPUs ever get used in the computing market?
Acorn went ARM. StrongARM in the high end. RISC.
blakespot
-
That explains it!! Yeah if you run classic programs in MacOS X, you have to wait for OS9 to boot up and then run inside an OSX task... No wonder it worked better when you put more ram in it... you were running two OSes at the same time.
I should point out that with 1GB of memory, it starts in about 3 seconds.
Viola.
At the same clock speed it will annhilate the intel chip.
So will other x86 chips.
ppc 64 is better than intel.
So? x86 is widely available and easily holds its own against the best PPC chips available at the same cost. One thing Amigans still haven't learned yet is that the supiriority of an architecture is irrelevant if it isn't practical. I don't care about the technical supiriority of a particular chip if I have to pay $800 for an obsolete motherboard, with the constant concern if a next-gen chip or motherboard is even going to be made. Ah, the old Beta vs VHS arguement surfaces again. We should all jump off cliffs, right?
There's a ton of reasons why Apple went to x86, and the future of desktop PPC processors is very questionable. That's not supiriority.
The athlon runs hot. The core duo is the only energy efficent chip they have. The freescale chip is very thermally sound.
x86 runs hot because that's what the market demands. Performance vs power consumtion is logarithmic, so to get a small boost in performance, you need to pump in lots of power. Macs had PowerPC chips for years that had heatsinks large enough to smother a forrest fire, and they still burned your fingers. Ramp up the speed of a PPC chip, and it'll pump out lots of heat, too.
Funny how when people applaud PPC, they always compare something like a Prescott to an embedded Freescale chip. Those processors are for different markets, people. PowerPC chips run pretty damn hot, too, once you really push them. XBox 360, anyone?
OS4 and other Microkernal based preemptive multitasking cores like qnx are superior.
Microkernal design isn't really supirior. There are lots of reasons why most OSes don't use them. Low-level interface complexity comes to mind.
See this article: "Why not the Cell?" Here's why....
Cell is a bunch of DSPs attached to a single core CPU. It's good for programmable DSP stuff and not much else. Scalar performace isn't very good at all.
Don't dare say that on a gaming forum, though. ;-)
Did the Hitachi SH.x range of CPUs ever get used in the computing market?
They were used in CGI renderfarms a lot, though these days x86 dominates that field.
-
Ok, I accidentally bought 2.0Ghz MacBook Pro... It's pretty good. :-D
I haven't anything add to what I spoke about from the one I played with in the Apple Store.
But I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has!
-
What's it like fan/noise wise? Much different to the PPC PB?
What's the battery life like on it?
-
uncharted wrote:
What's it like fan/noise wise?
No fan noise. The DC-DC board makes a highpitch noise when the machine is totally idle, this problem is well documented, and can be resolved by simply putting it under a larger load. For example: Turing the iSight on, plugging a USB device in or simply running a program.
Much different to the PPC PB?
Feels exactly like my PowerBook... bit more solid feeling, like the 17inch... the old 15inch felt a bit more delicate, though it was actually built like a tank :-)
MUCH faster than any Powerbook... since I am also able to run MacOS X on my 2.0Ghz Athlon64, I have compared them. The Macbook is about 50% faster in most tasks and more responsive... some tasks (effects and synth plug in in Logic Pro) it is twice as fast!... but then it does have 2 cpu cores. :-D
What's the battery life like on it?
I've not tried to run it on batteries yet... stay tuned! -Edit- After pulling the plug, The machine estimates 4 hours 38 min... that seems reasonable... I'll perform a more in depth test over the next few days. -Edit2- Watched a DVD and did some surfing, got just over 4hours... battry life is about the same as a PowerBook.
But the bottom get REALLY hot (measured with a thermometer, it's only 3 degrees hotter than my powerbook, feels hotter)... nice on cold winter days, less so during the summer.
I've not run any PPC apps yet either... -Edit- Ran a few PPC apps, run about the same speed as on my 1.5Ghz Powerbook.
It's also very light... as in, not heavy in any way!
-
bloodline wrote:
uncharted wrote:
What's it like fan/noise wise?
No fan noise. The DC-DC board makes a highpitch noise when the machine is totally idle, this problem is well documented, and can be resolved by simply putting it under a larger load. For example: Turing the iSight on, plugging a USB device in or simply running a program.
I have discovered a more elegant solution to this problem! Since the noise is only present when using the laptop in low power situations, it's simple enough to switch off one of the CPU cores and the noise is gone (uses less power too, so a bonus all round... Hopefull Apple will release an OS update to do this automagically).
-Edit- It should be noted that the noise isn't present when running WinXP on the machine... so it looks like an OS update should fix the problem :-)
-
mdma wrote:
Tripitaka wrote:
I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give
it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.
I've only bought AMD CPU's for years, but would never not buy a product just because it has an Intel CPU inside it.
That's the same mentality that the BAF's have. :-/
HOLD UP RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Damn I'm :pissed: :pissed: :pissed: ,Talk about assumption, all I said in my post is that I would not go and buy an Intel box just to run a Mac OS when I own an AMD, I did not say I was "ANTI-INTEL". I have owned several Intel machines and still do, I just don't have anything Intel based available for playing with Mac-OS with enough power. I buy AMD now as they give me the most cost effective solutions to my needs. So let me put this simple like:
I will not go out and buy an Intel based Mac because it's Intel based, I would try the OS out of interest BUT AS IT IS NOT ON AN AMD I CANNOT. ...f.c.o.l. :madashell:
-
Tripitaka wrote:
Damn I'm :pissed: :pissed: :pissed: ,Talk about assumption, all I said in my post is that I would not go and buy an Intel box just to run a Mac OS when I own an AMD, I did not say I was "ANTI-INTEL". I have owned several Intel machines and still do, I just don't have anything Intel based available for playing with Mac-OS with enough power. I buy AMD now as they give me the most cost effective solutions to my needs. So let me put this simple like:
I will not go out and buy an Intel based Mac because it's Intel based, I would try the OS out of interest BUT AS IT IS NOT ON AN AMD I CANNOT. ...f.c.o.l. :madashell:
MacOS X runs fine on Athlon CPU's (as long as they have at least SSE2)... It's great :-)
Apple will never make the mistake of locking themselves into one CPU vendor again... both Motorola and IBM nearly killed them twice!
-
Thanx bloodline, I might just try it out then. :-D
-
The battery on the MacBook charges much faster than on the Powerbook... interesting... maybe something to do with the larger PSU and the new Li-Poly battery technology :-?
-
I will not go out and buy an Intel based Mac because it's Intel based, I would try the OS out of interest BUT AS IT IS NOT ON AN AMD I CANNOT. ...f.c.o.l.
So if Apple released a Dual Core Athlon64 based iMac tommorow you would buy one?
-
I think Apple need to sort out their batty life calculator... It's much too sensitive, although I managed to get about 4hours on the MacBook's battery, the indicator would wildly swing from 2:14 to 3:38... depending upon what I was doing... it would then proceed to stay at one of the above values for a considerable period.
A new noise has emerged, a strange, distant and very haunting sound... it's clearly a fan starting up and then powering down. This sound is very subtle and oddly reassuring. Some describe it as a quiet "moo", quite a nice description :-)
-
mdma wrote:
I will not go out and buy an Intel based Mac because it's Intel based, I would try the OS out of interest BUT AS IT IS NOT ON AN AMD I CANNOT. ...f.c.o.l.
So if Apple released a Dual Core Athlon64 based iMac tommorow you would buy one?
Sure he didn't say it as clearly as he could, but if you read the whole thing and put that last bit into context, you 'll see that:-
Macs going Intel (x86) are not enough justification to buy one.
He's only got an AMD box and he (mistakenly) thought that MacOS X will only run on Intel CPUs. He wasn't going to go out and buy an Intel box just to run OS X.
No Zealotry going on.
-
bloodline wrote:
I think Apple need to sort out their batty life calculator... It's much too sensitive, although I managed to get about 4hours on the MacBook's battery, the indicator would wildly swing from 2:14 to 3:38... depending upon what I was doing... it would then proceed to stay at one of the above values for a considerable period.
I've noticed that with my iBook, I now don't get it to display the time remaining on the Menubar (this is also partly because I'm only running 1024x768, so space is tight).
I've always wondered how much battery power is used up calculating the batterypoer remaining :-)
-
I've always wondered how much battery power is used up calculating the batterypoer remaining
well, I know you only asked this in jest, but I'm gonna answer anyway:
fsck all: its just a quick lookup on a power curve based on the potential difference measured across the battery indicating the estimated Amp-hours left in the battery: big loads on the battery cause a voltage drop, partially discharged batteries also exhibit this. hurrah for voltage regulators, eh !
-
I was so busy looking for problems, forgot to mention the Screen on the MacBook is FANTASIC!!! It's brighter than my desktop LCD! The quality is great.
The Magsafe is brilliant.
The isight works fine... but I've yet to find anyone else with an iSight to chat with :-(
The speakers are loud and clear, with above average frequency response.
The Keyboard lighting is a wonder to behold and the keys have a lovely (adjustable brightness) blue-white glow.
-
Thanks for the info Agafaster.
Matt, have you had chance to play with FrontRow yet? It seemed a bit gimmicky to me.
What kind of res pics does the iSight take?
-
Sure he didn't say it as clearly as he could, but if you read the whole thing and put that last bit into context, you 'll see that:-
Hey I have been looking at these machines, I am probably going to go out and buy a Mac Mini (x86) single core. It's only a pawltry $500US and comes with a bunch of native software. If I need office I will just download open office.
As far as this Intel vs AMD things goes (which I see as a separate issue). I have a Dual Core Windows Vista Box (just for testing software I write) and I have to say in my humble opinion it's the fastest thing on this earth (LOL yeah I am biased).
:crazy:
With both SLI and two 6800GS nVidia PCI-Express cards in the machine, it certainly is a DIFFERENT world.
What a difference two CPUs make, well let me tell you WHAT A DIFFERENCE two GPUs make, Screen redraw/repaint/compositing never suffers and the cards cost me less than $200 a piece..
I look forward to to seeing Macintels suporting SLI and CROSSFIRE...
You guys are supposed to like Multimedia stuff. FrontRow and Windows Media Center both are really great multimedia librarians/jukeboxes. Now if FrontRow just supported uPnP 802.11x wireless players.. I have my media center box also servicing the whole house, but not a computer everywhere..
-
All,
I can't help but wonder if Apple pays reviewers. I mean all of their products seem to get glowing reviews and I don't understand why. Maybe it is just me.
The screen on the Macbook Pro is average. Sony, HP, and Toshiba laptops all have better screens. The screens on Apple notebooks are always about one generation behind the PC laptops.
Has anyone sued Apple for being burned by the bottom of the laptop? The bottom of the laptop is very hot. I cannot believe that management let the product ship this way. I would think it would open them up to a potential lawsuit. In any event it is way too hot.
Those are two things I observed from messing with the thing for 5 minutes in the Apple store. How can these reviewers not be making major issues of these things when they have units to use for days before a review?
The iPod is another big mystery to me. There are much better players out there. I bought one for my wife and was so ticked off. It looks like new and is dead 1 year and 1 month after purchase. I had to replace the screen on it myself once as well. The design is horrible.
There was a quote from Bill Gates saying that there are much better MP3 players on the market. I laughed because I always figure Bill is telling a story. This was one time he wasn't telling a tall tale. Bought the wife a Creative Nano to replace her iPod. She love it and so do I. Putting songs on it is so much easier. I don't have to mess with iTunes at all. I can just drag and drop songs to it like a memory stick. It has an FM tuner on it so I didn't have to pay money for an add on like I did on the iPod.
I just don't get it. Is the Apple marketing department really that good?
Regards,
Ocriss
-
Has anyone sued Apple for being burned by the bottom of the laptop?
Why do you thik they are called "notebooks" now instead of "laptop"?
Because the pathetic and greedy, money-obsessed, litigious American public would sue.
Pathetic.
-
uncharted wrote:
Thanks for the info Agafaster.
Matt, have you had chance to play with FrontRow yet? It seemed a bit gimmicky to me.
Yup, before I bought the machine I made a concious decision to never use FrontRow and its stupid little remote... so far I've found it brilliant, I can pop the macbook on any available surface and with a simple click of the remote It becomes a Movie/Song jukebox and DVD player... not found much use for the picture viewer though. Never though I would say this, but I rather like my new entertainment centre ;-)
What kind of res pics does the iSight take?
The resolution of the iSight is a rather lame 640*480, with the obvious quality issues assoiciated with the tiny (Hi-Res ;-) ) resolution. But the CCD sensor is rather good by VGA standards and doesn't introduce too much noise into the picture/movie.
-
Ocriss wrote:
All,
I can't help but wonder if Apple pays reviewers. I mean all of their products seem to get glowing reviews and I don't understand why. Maybe it is just me.
I think it must be to do with the way Apple address human issues rather than technical ones.
The screen on the Macbook Pro is average. Sony, HP, and Toshiba laptops all have better screens. The screens on Apple notebooks are always about one generation behind the PC laptops.
I guess it's a matter of taste, but the screens on both my PowerBook and my MacBook are much better than The Sony and Toshiba laptops I also use... the Sony one has some kind of glossy/reflective coating that make it imposible to use in a normal environment. The Toshiba is a higher resolution than the apple, but much dimmer.
Has anyone sued Apple for being burned by the bottom of the laptop? The bottom of the laptop is very hot. I cannot believe that management let the product ship this way. I would think it would open them up to a potential lawsuit. In any event it is way too hot.
Yeah, they get hot! But, if that is the price to pay for a metal laptop without any bloody cooling vents on the bottom (stupid place to put fans!!) then so be it!
Those are two things I observed from messing with the thing for 5 minutes in the Apple store. How can these reviewers not be making major issues of these things when they have units to use for days before a review?
The reviews seemed pretty good to me... I have tried to be honest (and as impartial as possible) in my descriptions of the MacBook I have here.
The iPod is another big mystery to me. There are much better players out there. I bought one for my wife and was so ticked off. It looks like new and is dead 1 year and 1 month after purchase. I had to replace the screen on it myself once as well. The design is horrible.
I agree the older iPods were pretty lame... but the iPod nano is perfect for my needs.
There was a quote from Bill Gates saying that there are much better MP3 players on the market. I laughed because I always figure Bill is telling a story. This was one time he wasn't telling a tall tale. Bought the wife a Creative Nano to replace her iPod. She love it and so do I. Putting songs on it is so much easier. I don't have to mess with iTunes at all.
I rather like the iRiver mp3 players (they have loads of great features), but once you get to try them all, you soon get bored of them and realise you want one that just works and has a nice simple interface... enter the iPod.
I will never forget the nightmare I had with a Sony mp3 player...
I can just drag and drop songs to it like a memory stick. It has an FM tuner on it so I didn't have to pay money for an add on like I did on the iPod.
Radio? What's that?
I just don't get it. Is the Apple marketing department really that good?
Regards,
Ocriss
As I said earlier, I think apple have (since Jobs got back involved in '97) made a large effort to design devices that will appeal to "people" rather than to technophile (who want (x*y)^3 features, rather than elegant design). This is quite a good gimmick/strategy when trying to survive in the faceless technological market... if only Amiga Inc. had figured it out...
Apple also made a great decision by buying Emagic's "Logic Audio" and canceling the Windows version... thus any musician who wants to make quality music now has to by a Mac :-)
Also Apple are the only laptop maker to put a REAL FULL 6Wire Firewire port on their machines... As I use bus powered Firewire Music hardware, I need that very feature...
-
Ocriss wrote:
Has anyone sued Apple for being burned by the bottom of the laptop?
I hope the guy in this report (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/22/man_burns_penis_with_laptop/) sued whoever made his laptop.
Dunno about the new iNtel Macs, but my 1.3Ghz G4 iBook is perfectly usable on my lap. Sure it gets warm, but not even close to becoming uncomfortable.
I just don't get it. Is the Apple marketing department really that good?
Yup.. although I think Microsoft's current offerings(and delayed replacements) have helped them a lot too ;-)
-
bloodline wrote:
Ocriss wrote:
I can just drag and drop songs to it like a memory stick. It has an FM tuner on it so I didn't have to pay money for an add on like I did on the iPod.
Radio? What's that?
Simple.. get an iPod Shuffle and just upload 15 songs and stick it on autorepeat for the next 6 hours..Voila, instant UK radio. (OK, so it's missing the inane gibberings between tracks, but I'd call that a bonus)
-
I've just spent the day working on this MacBook, using Logic Pro 7.2... all I can say is.. WOW! This is the most powerfull notebook computer I've ever used... it pisses on the 2.0Ghz dual Processor G5 tower PowerMac we were using at the studio... Which simply can't handle the amount of processing that this thing can take! I can now work on a song in real time, without having to bounce/freeze the complex tracks!
I can't wait to see what the new MacDesktop machines will be like!
-
by blakespot:
However, if Sony or Microsoft went with a modern Pentium, their new consoles would have much more horesepower.
ATi vs nVidia, IBM vs Intel... the Geforce GPU was the best, then the Radeon... etc. etc.
With PC hardware superseded in 3 months the scales will tip in both sides quite frequently, however the console market takes 5 years to become obsolete and as far as I can see, Microsoft chose the IBM G5 over an Intel CPU for the XBox 360.
This means Intel aren't in the next gen console wars and since they're getting a kicking from AMD in the PC side of things they must be feeling the heat (aren't they considering a server only strategy?).
Down with Intel. They've strangled the market for too long. Next I want to see Microsoft and Hewlett Packard get a beating from Google and Epson.
Maybe then smaller, more innovative companies can germinate...
[/end fanboy rant]