http://www.osnews.com/story/4009/Thoughts_on_Mac_OS_X_10_3_Counting_the_Bits_of_a_Panther Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2012, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:54:18 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? 32-bit Linux splits its 4GB of virtual address space per application into 3GB for the application and 1GB for the OS.

By default, yes, but you can change this with patches on the Net. For example, I can choose the splitting I want (well, 1, 2, 3 or 3.5GB) with Gentoo's custom kernel. However, I must admit that I never used that feature, so I don't know if it's safe or not, and I don't know if you can change the contiguous address space. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The hacks the article refers to are the addressing window extensions. You can create a "window" of virtual memory and map in parts of a > 4GB chunk into that window. If you need to access memory outside the window, you move the window to where you need it. Its just like bank switching or segmentation for you old fogies that remember that. Its not pretty, but its hardly only suitable for large companies as the author suggests. Heck, anybody who wrote 16-bit code in DOS could handle it without problems. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Gee, in the 1970's I was told a word length is the OS's natural language size. A 64 bit word length OS is the only measure of what would run on a 64 bit computer is it not? In other words, can the OS understand a single 64 bit command? Not a hacked or doubled command. The instruction set of the processor must be 64 bit even it only the ability to use the total command is there. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "It's 64-bit." "No, it's 32-bit!"

So Panther is the Windows 95 of OSX? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Mac OS 10.2.7 and 10.3 are not "true" 64-bit OSes"...


whoopdie do. Apple has a fast chip now. I am happy. I don't care if the OS is a "true" 64-bit OS or not. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Unfortunately I do care about whether Panther is 64-bit or not. I have a cube that is plenty fast enough for my daily operations, but I had planned on buying a new G5 to begin doing 64-bit scientific computing development. It would have been a very cost effective alternative to the Itanium platforms running Windows. I'm profoundly disappointed. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Right now, in HP/UX 11i, it is a jumble of 32/64-bit APIs, some are 32-bit data vs. 64-bit data, others are 32-bit addressing vs. 64-bit addressing, others use large files (>2G), etc. Every single combination of "bit-ness" requires a separate library and corresponding set of compiler switches. Once you roll in 3rd-party libraries, the mish-mash of ABI's is a pain in the ass. Because of this, an HP/UX programmer using 3rd-party libraries is safer using 32/32-bit versions.

Does it really freaking matter if every single program used on the Mac is bound to a 4G barrier that no one approaches, as opposed to breaking every application, increasing the development and QA cycle, just for a single Fortran programmer?

Give me a break. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? For those of you who are not aware OS X enforces that all applications run prebound.

During installation of an application, the final stage is "Optimizing System Performance" at which point the entire filesystem is scanned by a process called update_prebinding and all applications found on the system are pre-assigned a portion of the address space in which to run.

Unfortunately, this can be somewhat of a problem on a 32-bit architecture, considering that there's only 4GB of address space available. I have no idea what OS X does if the virtual image size of all applications and libraries on the system exceeds 4GB, and this has always worried me.

So, my question would be what is the size of the virtual address space accessable by the kernel and the userland prebinding applications? Will all applications be prebound to a portion of a 64-bit address space?

With the number of people running Panther betas, I am surprised that more of this information isn't available. Most of the information available as to which portions of Panther (if any) have gone 64-bit seems to be hearsay and speculation.

The most likely scenario I can see is a 64-bit kernel and (almost exclusively) 32-bit userland when operating on a PPC970 system.

One would hope that Apple would soon take the Solaris approach and start shipping 64-bit counterparts to all 32-bit userland libraries. From this article though, it seems dubious if this will happen in Panther as Apple doesn't seem to have implemented a 64-bit ABI yet. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I Don't see why they will not move XServers and OS X server over to True 64 bit server systems. there is little reason not to realy since a server can realy benifit from this.

so Hank....what do you think about buying a 64 bit Server for scientific programming? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? so Hank....what do you think about buying a 64 bit Server for scientific programming?

As a back end processor that would be fine. Offline visualization with 32-bit program would be possible, but I would rather have a full 64 bit solution. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? > whoopdie do. Apple has a fast chip now. I am happy. I
> don't care if the OS is a "true" 64-bit OS or not.

Well, for that matter neither do I (not much anyway). It'll mean that we won't have to worry about application compatibility woes for some time, at least until apple switches to 64bit fully (which they WILL have to do at some time).

The main plus from all of this is that the processor wars look to be over. The MHz myth is now history and pc-buyers can buy computers based on software merit rather than superiority of hardware. Not to say PPC has ever been inferior technically, only speed wise.

But anyway, those wanting 64bit computational ability can use NetBSD, OpenBSD or Linux. I'm confident that these O.S.S OSses will soon have PPC970 ports available. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? isn't this all just speculation? won't we have to wait and see what apple adds to gcc?

-hugh Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? RAM prices are going to deter all but the most determined from using the full capabilities of the G5.

A 2GB DDR RAM stick costs US$1300 or $10,000 for the full 16GB complement (8x2GB sticks) for a dual G5.

$US10,000 for RAM - That's a lot of money. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "If you want a 64-bit OS on the desktop, use the appropriate versions of Windows or Linux on an Itanium or AMD64 (Opteron, Athlon64) machine."

...in which case, you will still be running 32-bit applications under unless they've been recompiled, or you're compiling it yourself.

From what I'm reading, G5 programs can be compiled to use PowerPC64 instructions but retain 32-bit addressing and object modes. Is it disappointing that they won't do true 64-bit addressing in OS X 10.3? Sure. But what makes a CPU "X-bit" is not the amount of memory it can address without using segments. If address lines were what this was judged by, we would be talking about the PPC970 as a 42-bit processor--and even more absurdly, we would be talking about Apple IIs, TRS-80s and Commodore 64's as 16-bit computers, not 8-bit, since they could all address 64K of contiguous memory (instead of the 256 bytes 8-bit addressing would allow). Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >> If you want a 64-bit OS on the desktop, use the
>> appropriate versions of Windows or Linux on an
>> Itanium or AMD64 (Opteron, Athlon64) machine.

> ...in which case, you will still be running 32-bit
> applications under unless they've been recompiled,
> or you're compiling it yourself.

This is particularly true on WINDOWS. However, on O.S.S operating systems available for the powerpc such as Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD have most if not all of the applications compiled from scratch *FOR* their appropriate archicture. This goes without saying for OpenBSD and NetBSD, particularly because of their ports system. Linux will be available on PowerPC 970 with Yellowdog (I know) and Debian (I believe). Both of these distros are more than likely to compile everything with 64bit instructions.

Admittedly, closed source applications such as Opera and Oracle will have to have their respective companies recompile them for us. Oracle will most likely be one of the first vendors to make such a move.

Most typical Mac users won't even notice this. But, I acknoledge that some -such as you and I - will. Those that do are free to use one of the *BSDs, Linux or Fink to bring full 64bit applications to our desktops. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? hehe, at those prices I definitely will never stress panther to its limits. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? $US10,000 for RAM - That's a lot of money.
Particularly since, even after currency conversion, RAM is about 2/3 - 1/2 the price in the US as it is everywhere else. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? If one really wanted 64-bit applications on a G5 and wanted to address > 4GB of memory, could one use a 64-bit PPC Linux? Does such a thing exist? Is it stable? Do 64-bit Linux applications such as gcc exist for PPC? That could be an answer for some people in the short term if they really need 64-bit addressing. Then again, that wouldn't work for people who depend on mac applications or proprietary applications that are compiled for specific archetectures (like Linux x86). However, if you are developing your own apps using gcc or whatnot Linux could be a solution for you. I am not suggesting this for the long term, but, if you need 64-bit NOW, Linux could be a viable option.

As an aside, if you really expected Panther to be fully 64-bit, I think that you were deluding yourself. It takes time to make a 64-bit kernel and userland, and I am glad that Apple is taking the time to get it right rather than releasing something half-baked just to get it out. You wouldn't want to be stuck with some crappy 64-bit ABI that you had to live with because Apple took shortcuts early on. Windows 95 wasn't fully 32-bit at first, OS/2 wasn't fully 32-bit at first, Solaris wasn't fully 64-bit until Solaris 8 and Solaris was running on 64-bit hardware for years. I could go on with examples, but, to sum it up, while this news is disapointing, it is not unexpected.

Oh, one final last note. If you really really need 64-bit now in MacOS X, and you have some kernel hacking knowledge, perhaps you could hack something together in Open Darwin, the source is available.

Skipp Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >> If you want a 64-bit OS on the desktop, use the
>> appropriate versions of Windows or Linux on an
>> Itanium or AMD64 (Opteron, Athlon64) machine.

> ...in which case, you will still be running 32-bit
> applications under unless they've been recompiled,
> or you're compiling it yourself.

The reason for using a 64 bit OS is either to use 64bit applications or program 64bit programs yourself. I don't see the problem here. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? here's a link that will answer your question
http://www.linuxppc64.org/

Linux at this moment can run natively on Power 4 systems from IBM, if yeah go looking through the workstation section of their site yeah notice that when you order a Power 4 system you can either have AIX or Linux installed on it. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/news/2003-06-24.shtml

Yes, Linux has been ported to the Power4 for a while, the 970 is its little brother (less cache, added AltiVec - dunno what else is significantly different) so a port to the G5 should be no sweat. YellowDog apparently expects to have it done by the time Apple ships, spiffy keen. I'll be buying my PowerMac G5 from YellowDog, gotta love 'em. Oh, it should be noted that much of the PPC64 Linux work is done by IBM engineers themselves, internally not some outside enthusiast (ala Ultra/Sparc Linux, which Sun doesn't pitch in). I'm sure that makes a difference. After all, it is their hardware. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Not sure if I'm jumping into the PowerPC or 64-bit desktop computing anytime soon. Maybe in 5 years when all these nonsense is not experimental and their is complete support for application tools, drivers and hardware. It's too risky right now and I don't intend to be anyones guinea pig.

Regards,

Mystilleef Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? IBM is going to release PPC970 Servers running Linux, so yes, Linux will be available in a 64bit version for the PPC970. That's a fact.
But I don't know how long it will take to adapt that Linux to the PowerMac G5. For example its 9 fans are dynamically controlled by the OS. Without support for these special fans, Linux won't run on the G5. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Look at the WWDC keynote on http://www.apple.com/quicktime

Watch the Wolfram Research guy talk about Mathematica on the G5.

The interesting part is from 1:43:20 to 1:43:40

He talks of 6GB of accessible memory if I understand that correctly and I'm quite sure that I do. He specifically mentions that the Dual Xeon does NOT support that.

Why would he say that if Panther did only support 2.25GB or 4GB of RAM? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The PowerMac G5 they used for their presentation had 8GB RAM. Let's assume the OS still uses about 2GB of memory for shared libraries etc. What would remain if Panther DID allow applications to use 64bit pointers? About 6GB. And the Mathematica guy says 6GB.
I don't believe that Apple implemented 64bit versions of all their libraries, but nevertheless there seems to be a way for applications to use 64bit pointers. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >Gee, in the 1970's I was told a word length is the OS's
>natural language size. A 64 bit word length OS is the only
>measure of what would run on a 64 bit computer is it not?
>In other words, can the OS understand a single 64 bit
>command? Not a hacked or doubled command. The instruction
>set of the processor must be 64 bit even it only the
>ability to use the total command is there.

Nope, the bit-ness of an OS is the size of the memory pointers it uses, your getting confused with the bit-ness of the CPU itself.

Example, AgigaOS was a 32-bit OS running (initially) on 16-bit hardware (which in fact also only had a 24-bit address bus, so some badly coded apps were actually only 24-bit..). The C64 had a 16-bit 'OS' running on 8-bit hardware. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? It's the original author here. My guess is that the Mathematica code is using the special hack discussed in The Register article. I have not denied the existance of this hack, although I admit my commentary at the end of the article (about the lack of need for more than 4GB of memory on the Mac and the lack of Terminal Services) downplays the importance of the hack. The experience on 32-bit Windows seems to be that very few programs that I am aware of use its version of the hack. Perhaps Apple has implemented its version better than Microsoft's version.

My guess is that only companies with a very close relationship to Apple will implement its memory hack. Mathematica has been presented at previous Mac keynote presentations and spends a lot of effort on AltiVec optimizations. The Register mentions Photoshop as a candidate for the hack, while my best guess would be that Apple's own Final Cut Pro gets the hack.

Companies will try to simiplify cross-platform support costs, such as MathWorks, the makers of Matlab, will be pretty unlikley to support this hack, and will presumably instead focus on true 64-bit OSes which require only recompiles with an additional compiler flag. Also, Quark, a big driver of professional system sales for the Mac, has had problems with a slow changeover to Mac OS X, and the CEO of that company made disparaging comments about Apple. I would expect little support there, although I am willing to be surprised.

Still, if Apple can get Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Mathematica to support more than 4GB of RAM per application, they might just be able to generate a few very high end G5 sales. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The real question is when is IBM going to bring out PPC 970 Linux workstations and desktops so one doesn't have to pay the Apple OSX tax to get a real 64 bit workstation on the PPC 970.

Sorry for the troll but I couldn't resist it. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "The real question is when is IBM going to bring out PPC 970 Linux workstations and desktops so one doesn't have to pay the Apple OSX tax to get a real 64 bit workstation on the PPC 970."

It would be very bad for apple if they did. Just buy a retail copy of OSX and install it...against the EULA of course but so what!

Corps. have a lot fewer issues with Big Blue than Apple. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I suspect it does what Linux prebinding does, and calculate the most frequently linked to libraries using a topo sort and dropping any that can't fit into the 4gig address space. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? No it would be worse for MS and wintel than for Apple. The aim would be for different markets - the corporate market that isn't buying Apple.

The people who buy Apple because it just works and because OS X has the smoothest desktop environment aren't going to buy a copy of OS X and put it on an IBM box (even if it is cheaper which it may not necessarily be) because it won't be guaranteed to just work - driver problems etc. A few Unix cross platform geeks may well try it for fun but thats not going to be significant for the market.

It might whowever hit Sun's remaining workstation market quite hard though. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Mac OS X native object format is Mach-O. One of its features is that it supports storage of various architecture objects within a single file. So having a framework available for both G4 and G5 should be possible.

You can find more information on the Mach-O Runtime Architecture book, available at the Apple Developer Connection site has more information. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Today, most mac users don't need to have a 64 bit processor.

They need a processor that goes faster. From their point a view, the PPC970 is a better (if not good) 32 bits proc ;-).

For the next months, it will be the real value of the PPC 970.
And within one or two years, the version of OS X at that time will resolve this 64 bits point.

Apple also says they use some code from FreeBSD 5, so the power users should be abble to do something soon.

Also it doesn't resolve evrything, peoples using Cocoa can already use the Distributed Object systems to make some apps running and talking between each other to use as much RAM as needed. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I remember when I bought my Mac IIci that 16 MB ram cost me like $5000 - more than the computer - and when i bought a 7100/80, 32 MB cost me $2000. Nowadays, $100 for 512 MB DDR sticks seems like a sweet deal. Even $1300 for superfast 2GB sticks Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I see Mac users on the forum, settling down, and encouraging each other by saying that thye "don't need 64bit". And that is fair. The question is why buy an expensive 64bit Computer to run 32bit MacOSX and apps? I personally think that it is not worth it, plus Apple is using the consumer to transition much later to a more powerful OS. This again was done with the 68K Macs and PowerPC migration. Its fine, as long as Apple is up front about it. But they are not [not surprising since many corp aren't forward either]. Instead Apple flashes the hardware specs [high profile, keynote and all] but falls back to eye candy on the 32bit MacOSX.

I think Apple figure its users are not that sharp, they meainly want eye candy, an Apple will always trade power and efficiency and performance, for usability and eye candy. And for some people that's ok.

Now, if you are a regular user, DON"T buy a G5, is hardware that you can't fully utilize with 32bit MacOSX, in other words, overpriced over kill.

Now, if you are a power use, then do what I am planing to do, to buy a G5 asnd put either Linux or AIX on it, I would love to buy a 64bit PPC box backed by IBM! :-) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I would think there would be a pretty long transition to all 64 bit apps. In fact, I understand the classic Environment is still going to be there in Panther. I'd hate to try and juggle all of that :-) Despite all of that, we will have really fast Macs, which still excites me to no end after living through the G4 era. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The one killer app for a 64 bit desktop is video edititing. Here the massive address space can be used to advantage. It is also the sort of creative area that Apple has targeted. If some one can produce a 64 bit video editing software program that runs on the the hybrid 64/32 bit version of OS X then both Apple and the program developers could make a killing.

If they don't do it quickly then they might find this niche filled by Linux or Windows on IA64. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Anyone know when that is going to be released or will it co-incide with the first shipments of the PowerMac g5? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? By Jay (IP: ---.neo.rr.com) - Posted on 2003-07-11 14:52:39
>I would think there would be a pretty long transition to all >64 bit apps. In fact, I understand the classic Environment is >still going to be there in Panther. I'd hate to try and >juggle all of that :-)
I agree. Also you bring up a good point. Makes me wander, if all this "juggling" has had an impact on Adobe, or the others. Is so much transition at Apple, hurting software maturity and developers in general? We hear from the users, some of them would buy a Mac no matter what. But are developers being affected by all this Apple transitions? One wonders.


>Despite all of that, we will have >really fast Macs, which >still excites me to no end after >living through the G4 >era.
That's the good part. But I would still recomend to "regular" user to hold off and not buy the G5 until we get a MacOSX that is 64bit, with apps. If enough people would do that, it would send the signal to Apple, that they need to "OPTIMIZE" their OS as opposed to bringing Advance Hardware to compensated for their ineffiecient code. Funny that M$ does the same, apparently Apple has learned from them.

So instead of Mac users being exited about a new Zebra pattern buble theme, how about getting the OS to be more responsive and the apps to be faster? It won't happen though with so many transitions. As someone who has use BeOS, MKLinux, AIX, and yellow dog on PPC and 68K machines [not to mention Amiga and TOS] I can tell you that Apple already has Great hardware, the OS is not written to take better advantage of it. Optimization, could bring Apple a winner on the desktop, that appeal to a wider audince, not just people who paint their faces with flowers.

I know many bussinesses that run Apple, and they certainly could use a boost from a *really* tweaked MacOSX. Even know someone that switched to YellowDog after trying it, he couldn't beleive the same hardware was running so fast. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I wouldn't mind having a PPC970 workstation with AIX on it, i've never used AIX, my *nix experiences are solely from Tru64, Irix, and Linux. What do people think of it as a system as oppose to other Unix's? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I use, Irix, Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, some Solaris, and Tru64.
AIX is a very good Unix, you will find that some people hate it, but I happen to like it a lot. In my experience is more reliable than the others, I mean it needs less baby sitting. I usually set my AIX boxes and off they go, not much intervention is required after initial settings, with the others I am always adjusting stuff here and there, which is ok, as it provides employment. Just MHO. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Jeremy, nice article.
(You, doing your homework shows.)

Everyone else ... don't get your panties in a wad.
These things take time (to get right), quit being spoiled brats, (some of you) this is tough stuff.
I can't tell you the times I've been floored by what these coders (from ALL the major OS houses) pull out of the hat and how quickly they truly can pull off the "merely" impossible.

Patience.

:-) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Now, if you are a regular user, DON"T buy a G5, is hardware that you can't fully utilize with 32bit MacOSX, in other words, overpriced over kill.

You're missing one thing: if the G5 were a 32-bit machine the new G5 Macs would still be damn fast at a decent price.

And while you can't utilize the 64-bit chip yet to access more memory I assume you will be able to write apps that do 64-bit math. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >You're missing one thing: if the G5 were a 32-bit machine the >new G5 Macs would still be damn fast at a decent price.

Well, I don't want to open that can of worms, but no is overpriced for a 32bitOS runing on it. You can do better with x86 Linux, or even with G4 linux.

It could be cheaper for the user if Apple stops the eye candy factory and Optimizes 32Bit MacOSX to run faster. Apple seems to shift the burden of their slow code onto higher end hardware. IMHO not worth it.

Now, if you buy a G5 with AIX, or to put Linux on it, and you have the computational requirements to do so, then go ahead. But Joe Eye-candy Panther, doesn't need the machine, the price point and the inefficiency on top is brutal, IMO. Then again if someone wants to blow money on Apple, they can certainly do so.

So when do get a snappy, efficient MacOSX when Gn that is 128bit is introduced? No, Apple needs to face the music and fix MacOSX, instead of pumping flowers through people's pupils. Don't get me wrong, that is why I don use M$ either, they play the same game with Windoze, they always claims that you need more Ram and faster processor for their crappy OS to work better, although true for every OS, is still no excuse to shift the burden on hardware for their bad code. Look at BeOS and others, they run way better with less hardware. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Panther in beta has more eye candy than Jaguar and is dramatically faster than its predecessor. So they're focussing on feature-set expansion and optimization - not one or the other. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >By Anonymous (IP: ---.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) - Posted on >2003-07-11 15:48:44
>Panther in beta has more eye candy than Jaguar and is >dramatically faster than its predecessor. So they're >focussing on feature-set expansion and optimization - not one >or the other.

Well, historically eye candy affects performance, are you saying that Panther IS the exception? Do you use Panther? Do you run YellowDog on the same box?

Of course, Apple claims improvements, I am sure programmers are assigned to this, but clearly eye candy and not performance is Apple priority. So I could not say that Apple doesn't work on performance, but I can say that they don't do enough on that area, and do more on eye candy, as the beta Panther prooves.

Granted is a safe bet for Apple, becuase their user base, seem to be willing to sacrifice power for looks, but one could hope that Apple will break into other markets, they insinuated a Scientific market with the hardware [G5] but believe me it takes more than hardware, a powerful OS must go with it, and so far is not there. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "If they don't do it quickly then they might find this niche filled by Linux or Windows on IA64."

Note to self: Windows is not evan close to having a sub $1000, 64 bit Video Editing Application (period)

Longhorn is a 32-bit OS non-the-less (period)

64 bit Operating Systems are not truely defined yet (period)

What about Mac OS X 10.4 that will have an install base before Longhorn gets off the ground? Will it be 64 bit hands down? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >Longhorn is a 32-bit OS non-the-less (period)
I actually don't care about M$ bloated ware.

>64 bit Operating Systems are not truely defined yet (period)
Nonsense! You are kidding right? Ever heard of Tru64 and the other 64bit gang, including Linux and AIX(when IBM ports it)?
64bit was not invented by Apple, and MacOSwhatever [if it ever gets there] is not going to be the first 64bit OS, live with it!

>What about Mac OS X 10.4 that will have an install base >before Longhorn gets off the ground? Will it be 64 bit >hands down?

Well on that one I don't know, it seems that Apple concentrates or attracts a different market than M$. M$ tends to be more bussiness office oriented and MAcs more Artsyfartsy. Was hoping that Apple would take a different direction but for the most part it hasn't happen yet, though there are exceptions to this on the Mac side. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "I see Mac users on the forum, settling down, and encouraging each other by saying that thye "don't need 64bit". And that is fair. The question is why buy an expensive 64bit Computer to run 32bit MacOSX and apps?"

Because this computer is significantly faster, and Apple's power user base will definately make use of the speed


"I personally think that it is not worth it"

By that notion, you would suggest that they revert back to hardware which was slower. If this is the case you must be among those that believes that P4 users should revert to a slower pricessor....


"Apple is using the consumer to transition much later to a more powerful OS."

Huh? Apple has encouraged all their user to update to new operating systems as released. I don't follow your logic here.


"Apple flashes the hardware specs [high profile, keynote and all] but falls back to eye candy on the 32bit MacOSX."

No, Apple is showing that they have powerful hardware, a powerful OS AND an aesthetically pleasing user interface which will will use a 64 bit OS in Mac OS X.


"I think Apple figure its users are not that sharp"

Nothing they've done would suggest that.


"they meainly want eye candy"

Not at all. We want powerful hardware, a powerful OS AND an aesthetically pleasing user interface which will will use a 64 bit OS in Mac OS X


"an Apple will always trade power and efficiency and performance for usability and eye candy.

Are you saying that because OS X incorporates a user interface that was initially slow that they swapped Aesthetics for performance? It's important to keep in mind that the origional OS X release was very new and that the UI would later be optomized... as it was. Now, with Quartz extreme (which ofsets UI rendering to the GPU) Apple can have the same aesthetically pleasing UI, have efficiency AND performance. No tradeoff required.


"Now, if you are a regular user, DON"T buy a G5"

A better way to phrase that, "if you are a user that doesn't need more speed, don;t buy any new computer... be it a pentium 4 or a G5.


, is hardware that you can't fully utilize with 32bit MacOSX, in other words, overpriced over kill.


"if you are a power use, then do what I am planing to do, to buy a G5 asnd put either Linux or AIX on it, I would love to buy a 64bit PPC box backed by IBM!"

If you plan on using an alternate OS, that's fine... but don;t give others reasons for not using OS X that aren't legit... that's irresponsible. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Regarding the eye candy vs. speed argument. What they (Mac proponents) are pointing out is the fact that there is no noticable slow down in responsiveness which is due to all the eye candy being shifted off to the GPU, and with the 8x AGP slot on the G5, it should be very interesting.

As for the over performance, the question I want to know is this. Apple has just updated/upgraded their PowerMac line, when will the unwashed masses see a speed increase in the consumer line of Apple desktops? is Apple quietly giving up and instead focusing on the professional line of workstations?

I've just had a look at IBM's new (well, new to me) ThinkCentre series, and after having a look at the price, how can Apple justify charging $1899 for an eMac when I can pick up a ThinkCentre A Desktop for $1550 then add $400 or so for the screen. For an extra $50 one gets a 2.6Ghz P4 + 256MB + 17inch screen + 64MB DDR graphics card.

If Apple was selling the low end eMac with a 1.25Mhz PowerPC G4 + 64 DDR Graphics Card + 256MB memory, then the idea of purchasing one would be very tempting, however, I can't see why one would purchase something of that lack luster performance?

Sure, their pro workstations are a bargin, but their desktop range is a bit of a ripoff in comparison to what is available. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "I personally think that it is not worth it"

>By that notion, you would suggest that they revert back to >hardware which was slower. If this is the case you must be >among those that believes that P4 users should revert to a >slower pricessor....

Nonsense! I never said that. Besides older hardware doesn't have the price point of newer MAcs, which are expensive and bloated. Try running YDL on a MAc and compare it with Apple OS runing the same box: eye opening!


"Apple is using the consumer to transition much later to a more powerful OS."

>Huh? Apple has encouraged all their user to update to new >operating systems as released. I don't follow your logic >here.
No, you are lost as usual. The consumer is fooled to pay for expensive 64but hardware to run bloated 32bit software, so that they get a downpayment for future development at the users expense. Ok for hobbyist or Maczealot but not for responsible users. A responsible users should wait, until a G5 ships with a 64bit OS, whihc Panther is not, as any expert will tell you. I mean IBM build the chip and they stated that they are providing 32bit mode for Apple. I take IBM's word over your propaganda any day.


"Apple flashes the hardware specs [high profile, keynote and all] but falls back to eye candy on the 32bit MacOSX."

>No, Apple is showing that they have powerful hardware, a p>owerful OS AND an aesthetically pleasing user interface >which will will use a 64 bit OS in Mac OS X.

BS Panther is 32bit. The UI might please you, along with fancies of Steve speaches, but IT IS NOT powerful 64bit, it is bloated 32bit.

If you have not run YDL in the same box as MacOSX you're pulling staments out of your rectum. Enough with propaganda already! Go Back to the eye candy and the flavors: grape, orange, etc. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Which goes RIGHT BACK to a post I made earlier that Apple should have licensed AIX core off IBM and worked their GUI magic on it. Too bad they had to go what they have now. Having run it several times (I was actually keen at one stage to buying one), I really see no advantage to Windows XP, 2000 or what ever mainstream operating system you can point out.

As for Windows 2000/XP stability, as a desktop I have been running it for a good 5 months with out a BSOD. The only reboot I did make was because of SP4 installation.

I can now actually see what Gil Bates was going on about previously, which I agresively flamed. Btw, sorry about that Gil. The fact remains, where is the justification for paying extra for Mac hardware and software? I've looked at it form both a Holistic point of view and individual components and I still can't see an advantage.

Holistically, yes, there is greater chance of system stability because all the parts are chosen and the operating system is tweaked so that the hardware and software work well together. However, on closer inspection, how is that any different to the programmes that run between IBM and Microsoft? or infact, any vendor and Microsoft.

I then looked at the individual components. The operating system in itself is nice, however, it lacks a sufficient based of applications to select off for it to become more mainstream. Hardware wise, no matter how you slice it, they are way behind in terms of speed. The G5 has matched it, however, they're focused on the high end. What is happening with the consumer end of the market.

If Apple is leaving the consumer market, why not just say so? IMHO, Apple would be alot better of focusing on the processional market where the premiums are better, the clients are willing to pay those premiums and that benchmarks are not always the deciding factor for purchasing something. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Is this in stone that Panther won't be 64 bit? Is it from Apples own mouth? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "I would still recomend to "regular" user to hold off and not buy the G5 until we get a MacOSX that is 64bit, with apps."

Not me. I would recomend to all users to go ahead and upgrade if they need the speed.

"If enough people would do that, it would send the signal to Apple, that they need to "OPTIMIZE" their OS as opposed to bringing Advance Hardware to compensated for their ineffiecient code."

Ineffiecient code? Where do you get that? Jaguar is very efficient... especially with Quartz Extreme.


"So instead of Mac users being exited about a new Zebra pattern buble theme, how about getting the OS to be more responsive and the apps to be faster?"

I don;t know any Mac users getting excited about themes, and Jaguar is very responsive and the apps are definately fast will certinly be faster.


"It won't happen though with so many transitions."

Sure it will. The transition to OS X was the only major transition. Upgrading apps to take advantage of OS X's 64 bit technology is somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of things.



"I can tell you that Apple already has Great hardware, the OS is not written to take better advantage of it."

Sure it is. Why would you say that?


"Optimization, could bring Apple a winner on the desktop, that appeal to a wider audince,"

The OS is already optomized, and is getting even more optomized with ever release. Apple is already a winner on the desktop and is appealing to a wider audience.


"not just people who paint their faces with flowers."

What?!


"I know many bussinesses that run Apple, and they certainly could use a boost from a *really* tweaked MacOSX."

Well certinly, and business would benefit from increased productivity and performance. Thankfully, OS X already offeers a great deal of both.


"Even know someone that switched to YellowDog after trying it, he couldn't beleive the same hardware was running so fast."

he must have been using an earlier version of OS X, because it is already very fast. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Blah blah blah.... Linux rules! Blah blah blah... Apple's bloated OS! Blah blah blah... So is Microsoft! Blah blah blah... Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Just because the kernel only uses 32 bits for its address space does that preclude other programs running on the hardware from doing so?

A kernel is just a program running on bare metal. The kernel doesn't need a 64 bit address space to do its work but does that preclude the kernel from assisting user space programs that might use 64 bit address space?

I know this probably sounds weird but if the kernel can set up stupid MMU tricks for user mode programs but use different tricks for itself then, in theory, one could have a 64 bit address space in use by a program but the kernel only using a smaller 32 bit address space subset.

This might be quicker/cheaper than having to convert the kernel to full 64bit from the get go. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? If you don't really *use* 64 bit addressing, extending all core OS functions to 64 bits only makes *everything* slower. If the upper 32bits of the registers can survive context switching under 10.3 and if you don't need to address >2GB memory, you have best of both worlds.

BTW, all *BSDs are already 64 bit clean. I wonder why OS-X need more than a recompilation to be a 64bit OS - at least for kernel stuff. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "[the G5] overpriced for a 32bitOS runing on it."

Not at all. As a matter of fact, its a sweet bargain.


"You can do better with x86 Linux, or even with G4 linux."

The comparitive tests have shown otherwise.


"It could be cheaper for the user if Apple stops the eye candy factory and Optimizes 32Bit MacOSX to run faster."

OS X has no eye candy, but it certinly has a lot of Aesthetically pleasing qualities all of which take advantage of Quartz extreme which means that there is no speed degridation. As a Matter of fact, Quartz extreme is overkill, so Apple could theoretically afford to add more Aesthetically pleasing qualities that might have otherwise slowed down the OS without it.


"Apple seems to shift the burden of their slow code onto higher end hardware. IMHO not worth it."

This assumption assumes that Apple is not incorporating Quartz extreme which allows their aesthetically pleasing qualities to not happer processor speed in any way.


"Now, if you buy a G5 with AIX, or to put Linux on it, and you have the computational requirements to do so, then go ahead. But Joe Eye-candy Panther, doesn't need the machine"

Who is joe eye candy and why would he buy OS X? It has no eye candy?


"the price point and the inefficiency on top is brutal, IMO."

OS X is very efficient and the price point is EXCELLENT for those that could use the increased power.


"Then again if someone wants to blow money on Apple, they can certainly do so."

The same is true for any computer. Thankfully, buying an Apple is a wise purchase.



"So when do get a snappy, efficient MacOSX when Gn that is 128bit is introduced?"

Nope. It's sold right now. its called jaguar.



"Apple needs to face the music and fix MacOSX"

Face what music? OS X isn't broken.


"[Apple needs to stop] pumping flowers through people's pupils.",/i>

What flowers are you talking about?


"Don't get me wrong, that is why I don use M$ either"

What flowers does microsoft use?


"[Microsoft] play[s] the same game with Windoze, they always claims that you need more Ram and faster processor for their crappy OS to work better"

Because Microsoft doesn;t not incorporate technology similar to Quartz Extreme, you may have a point there.



it is still no excuse to shift the burden on hardware for their bad code."

What bad code are you talking about? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Overhyped + overpriced, that is Apple == exaggerated.


Let's see next year. If the current situation doesn't change much on Apple, well, most likely my money will be on AMD Athlon64. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Apple does not offer a Terminal Services solution, instead letting you log on remotely via ssh or telnet to a command line or X-Windows environment, where you are pretty much limited to using ported open source programs."

This is only partly true. Apple does have a product called Apple Remote Desktop which I've used very successfully to manage Macs without physical access. I think Apple is very aggressively developing remote user and multiple user environments. We'll see a lot more of this technology as we move forward.

http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/ Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "historically eye candy affects performance, are you saying that Panther IS the exception?"

Historically speaking you are correct, but previously, nobody ofset UI rendering to the GPU which allows for lots of UI improvement without a drag on the processor.


"clearly eye candy and not performance is Apple priority."

Clearly? Where do you get that? Apple has performance AND aesthetics as a high priority (as it should be)



"[Apple doesn't] do enough on that area [of performance], and do more on eye candy, as the beta Panther prooves."

I don;t see where you get this. Pather is both aesthetically pleasing AND extremely efficient as was the case with Jaguar. Panther is simply more so... in both areas.


"Granted is a safe bet for Apple, becuase their user base, seem to be willing to sacrifice power for looks"

Not at all. Instead, we demand both.


"but one could hope that Apple will break into other markets, they insinuated a Scientific market with the hardware [G5]"

Apple has had a large presence in scientific fields for many years (even before the G5)


"but believe me it takes more than hardware"

Thankfully, Apple has the powerful hardware and much more.


"a powerful OS must go with it"

Thankfully, they have such an OS.


"and so far is not there."

it certinly is Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Well on that one I don't know, it seems that Apple concentrates or attracts a different market than M$. M$ tends to be more bussiness office oriented and MAcs more Artsyfartsy. Was hoping that Apple would take a different direction but for the most part it hasn't happen yet, though there are exceptions to this on the Mac side."

Apple's current direction appears to appeal to Artsy Fartsy types and those in many other fields. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Which goes RIGHT BACK to a post I made earlier that Apple should have licensed AIX core off IBM and worked their GUI magic on it.

The reason Apple managed to produce OS X as quickly as they did is because they were starting from the NeXT codebase. Perhaps you haven't examined Cocoa and CoreFoundation in-depth but the Cocoa event model is based around Mach message ports.

Why would Apple use a kernel which isn't their own IP and doesn't support Mach messaging? Does that make any sense from a business or technical perspective? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? >Which goes RIGHT BACK to a post I made earlier that Apple >should have licensed AIX core off IBM and worked their GUI >magic on it. Too bad they had to go what they have now. >Having run it several times (I was actually keen at one stage >to buying one), I really see no advantage to Windows XP, 2000 >or what ever mainstream operating system you can point out.

I hear ya!

I wish that was the case too. You would be interested to know that I had an Apple AIX Server once, it was an RS6000 from IBM boxed in an Apple case, sold by Apple. This was before Apple made a deal with Steve Jobs, and before they rejected BeOS [big mistake].

The probl;em was that Apple knew nothing of AIX and they couldn't not support the box. They tried, maybe if they had being more serious about it, history would be different.

The machine was a powerhorse. As it was a real server with 64bit JFS file system, with hot swapable drives. Solid compare to the flimsy G5 desktop design. [A desktop can't compare with a real hardware server, this is the design, not the processor]. It could also take more than 2 processors, the G5 motherboard can't do that today or a few months doan teh road.

Apple backed out of the AIX and went into the flower power thang. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "I've just had a look at IBM's new (well, new to me) ThinkCentre series, and after having a look at the price, how can Apple justify charging $1899 for an eMac when I can pick up a ThinkCentre A Desktop for $1550 then add $400 or so for the screen."

The eMac costs $799.


"If Apple was selling the low end eMac with a 1.25Mhz PowerPC G4 + 64 DDR Graphics Card + 256MB memory, then the idea of purchasing one would be very tempting, however, I can't see why one would purchase something of that lack luster performance?"

The price to performance ration on the emac is very good.


"Sure, their pro workstations are a bargin, but their desktop range is a bit of a ripoff in comparison to what is available."

Not at all.

Of you compare Apple's consumer line of products in both hardware and software Apple's products tend to be slightly more expensive, the same price or slightly less expensive. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? My experience with older SPARC systems in the transition of Solaris is that even in 32bit address space mode, using the 64bit processor + "cheater" versions of the system librarys DID improve performance of applications.

Put another way, the 64 bit instructions and features didn't need a 64bit address space to work so you could make use of performance gains in the CPU; cache, block instructions, 64bit math and stupid MMU/window tricks. I'd be real surprised if Apple didn't have some form of "cheater" librarys in panther,
and maybe 10.2.7, to allow user mode gains from the new chip while the address space remains 32 bit.

As far as library pre-loading: Why preload when demand-paged VM should have already loaded in the most common shared librarys by the time the login: prompt appears on a UNIX(tm) box? Is this a MACH induced weirdness? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Historically speaking you are correct, but previously, nobody ofset UI rendering to the GPU which allows for lots of UI improvement without a drag on the processor.

Bullshit. If you have access to a windows or a linux machine,

- turn off video card accelaration under windows and see what happens.
- use vesa driver instead of your card's driver under X and observe the performance

I remember co-processor enhanced GUI performance on a sub 2000$ computer back in 1984. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Its not really preloading, but prelinking. OS X relinks all programs at install time so they each load to a different chunk of virtual memory. This way, there are no address-conflicts at load time. This means no relocations have to be processed at load time (which saves a great deal of CPU for large C++ applications) and also means that relocations don't cause pages of otherwise sharable memory to become unshared (which saves a lot of memory). Read up on the problems KDE has had with load-time relocations, and about the Linux prelinking mechanism. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Here is a picture and some information about this product, this was circa 1996 or so.

http://mirror.apple.com/server/serverview.html

Now at the time this was a different direction for Apple than the flimsy imacs. Different market as well, in all fairness.

Only a Maczealot would believe that Apples are cheaper than PCs and that MacOSX is an efficient use of PPC hardware.

Experience versus allucinations. Try YDL on a PPC, or even on a MKlinux on the older Macs, still show that through time Apple has produce slow OS, considering the excellent hardware that they use. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "newer MAcs, which are expensive and bloated."

Not at all.


"Try running YDL on a MAc and compare it with Apple OS runing the same box: eye opening!"

I don't understand what you're getting at. Both are really great operating systems.


"The consumer is fooled to pay for expensive 64but hardware to run bloated 32bit software"

First of all, we don't have any confirmation that OS X wont be 64bit, but even if it weren't the Applications would be able to take advantage of 64 bits, but if for some unknwon reason that even THAT couldn;t happen (There's no reason to think otherwise but lets play devil's advocate) the G5 is INCREDIBLY faster than the G4 and P4, and is roughly on Par with XEON processors. So is the speed there? Absolutely. Does that speed cost less than an equally equipped PC... absolutely.

Also, What about OS X makes you think its bloated?



"Ok for hobbyist or Maczealot but not for responsible users."

For ANYBODY that can use the increased power and performance that the G5 and Panther will give.



"A responsible users should wait, until a G5 ships with a 64bit OS"

Why would you say that? Even if the G5 isn't 64 bit, the computer is INCREDIBLY faster. Anyone that can use that extra speed ought to consider a G5 purcahse.



"which Panther is not"

Its not even out yet!



"I mean IBM build the chip and they stated that they are providing 32bit mode for Apple. I take IBM's word over your propaganda any day."

No, they said that the 970 will retain full 32 bit compatibility without a hit in speed which can't be said for alternative processors of the same calibar.



"BS Panther is 32bit."

As far as we know, OS X will be able to take advantage of 32 bit and 64 bit technology.



"The UI might please you, along with fancies of Steve speaches, but IT IS NOT powerful 64bit, it is bloated 32bit."

OS X is not bloated, and we don't know if OS X will be one way or another it hasn;t shipped. We do know that it will be able to run 64 bit applications in 64 bit mode.


"Enough with propaganda already!" Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The eMac costs $799.
...US. CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? " By goo.. (IP: ---.adsl.ttnet.net.tr) - Posted on 2003-07-11 17:33:36
Historically speaking you are correct, but previously, nobody ofset UI rendering to the GPU which allows for lots of UI improvement without a drag on the processor.

Bullshit. If you have access to a windows or a linux machine,

- turn off video card accelaration under windows and see what happens.
- use vesa driver instead of your card's driver under X and observe the performance

I remember co-processor enhanced GUI performance on a sub 2000$ computer back in 1984."
* * *

Of course you are right. I do not have the time to correct all the propaganda and BS that that guy keeps putting in this forum. He will make you think that Apple invented evewrything, first 64bit OS, Specific hardware and what not.

If Apple was so good at creating OS, why did they went shopping for a diferent OS? AS they did with Next?

That guy only runs interferance, he will take every opposite position insinuating that macs are the best thing since slice bread. They are not, Apple concentrated in easy of use, to this day, hence a 1-botton mouse, never in performance or power usage. They always claim that PPC is superior, and I think PPC is great hardware, but I take exception with their slow OS. MacOSX is still slooooow, compared with other OS in the same box (period).

Now, a UI doesn't have to be ugly to be fast as BeOS shows, Macos at the time never looked that good and could not compare in spped. I miss those 15 seconds boot up times. :-)

That guy can go back to his kool-aid drinking fantasies. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Solid compare to the flimsy G5 desktop design."

Flimsy? That's a new one.


"It could also take more than 2 processors, the G5 motherboard can't do that today or a few months doan teh road."

Assuming Apple retains the G5 naming convention what it uses the dirivitive of the Power 5, it will be able to utilize more than 2 processors.


"Apple backed out of the AIX and went into the flower power thang."

Apple didn;t back out of an AIX deal to create the flower Power iMac. Where would you get that idea? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "a different direction for Apple than the flimsy imacs."

That's a new one. I've never heared anyone suggest that the iMacs were flimsy. As a matter of fact, they seem to be built rather solidly.


"Only a Maczealot would believe that Apples are cheaper than PCs and that MacOSX is an efficient use of PPC hardware."

A Maczealot might as well as those that understand that when you compare both hardware and software the Mac tends to be either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive.


Try YDL on a PPC, or even on a MKlinux on the older Macs, still show that through time Apple has produce slow OS, considering the excellent hardware that they use."

Apple has definately made some slow hardware in the past. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live?"

As would be the case with other products... in this case a PC. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Assuming Apple retains the G5 naming convention what it uses the dirivitive of the Power 5, it will be able to utilize more than 2 processors."

BS, show were Apple has anounced a Quad G5? Current Mobo wont take more than 2. They can do one but they havent, all I hear is an idiot answering for them, after gulping kool-aid.

-"Apple backed out of the AIX and went into the flower power -thang."

"Apple didn;t back out of an AIX deal to create the flower Power iMac. Where would you get that idea?"

Can you buy an Apple server running AIX? No, so they went the flower power route after that experiment.
Read again! And google for it. You just run BS, propaganda and interferance. Your are intellectually dishonest, your posts are prove of that. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Of course, Apple claims improvements, I am sure programmers are assigned to this, but clearly eye candy and not performance is Apple priority. So I could not say that Apple doesn't work on performance, but I can say that they don't do enough on that area, and do more on eye candy, as the beta Panther prooves.

Of course they are going to put a high priority on features. People just don't pay for speed increases. But OS X has gotten significantly faster (on the same hardware) with each new release. It appears that Panther will be no exception.

It's nice to see that the range of usable hardware is increasing with each new version. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "If Apple was so good at creating OS, why did they went shopping for a diferent OS? AS they did with Next?"

because at that time, they were trying to do too much with a legacy OS. When they finally realized that it would take too long, they were in to deep. They needed to buy their way out of the hole they dug. Thankfully, the end result turned out to be a nice choice.


"Apple always claim that PPC is superior"

Considering the advancements that are coming from IBM, i think they were right.. even if Motorola didn't help PPC.


"MacOSX is still slooooow, compared with other OS in the same box (period)."

That's not the experience that I've had at all. Rather, they are roughly the same speed 9depending on the task at hand) Early on, the UI was sluggish giving the illusion that the OS was slow, but that has since been fixed with Quartz extreme. (Thankfully) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "BS, show were Apple has anounced a Quad G5?"

What does that have to do with it. IBM is the primary driving force behind the chips that Apple uses and they have said that the Power5 can be scaled up to multiple processors. So, like i said, assuming that Apple retains the same naming convention (G5) when transitioning to the Power5 derivitive


"Can you buy an Apple server running AIX? No, so they went the flower power route after that experiment."

Again, Apple didn't choose to not adopt AIX so that they could create flower Power iMacs. That's rediculious.



"You just run BS, propaganda. Your are intellectually dishonest, your posts are prove of that."

Look in the mirrior when you make that statement next time. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "That's not the experience that I've had at all. Rather, they are roughly the same speed 9depending on the task at hand) Early on, the UI was sluggish giving the illusion that the OS was slow, but that has since been fixed with Quartz extreme. (Thankfully)"

More BS, try running the lates MacOSX on an older Powerbook and see how bloated it is. Not even usable. Again showing that the code is bloated as compare to BeOS, Linux, MKLinux, the REAL BSD, even NExt etc.

What box are you running MacOSX on? What version? What are the Specs? Have you run YDL on the same box? What Version? What Apps have you use to test the speed on both OS? BS won't do. Care to post benchmarks? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Of course, but the PC doesn't necessarily follow the same raise. I'll take an example. Intel and AMD CPUs are pretty much the same price in the US. However, in Canada, Intel CPUs tend to be more expensive. Now, Macs tend to follow the currency exchange here (so a 799$ eMac is 1199$ CDN, according to The Apple Store *website*). However, a 799$ PC isn't necessarily 1199$ CDN here. They can be cheaper (or more expensive, depending on the brand). I don't want to start a price debate again, but I hope you understand what I mean. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Eugenia,

I would like to request that you get a little more involved here in the moderation of these forums.

Mistik jogelour (IP: 209.11.79.---) is an OBVIOUS troll.

I respectfully request that you mod-down any further correspondence made by him that follow the current trend of posting that he has made. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? 15 second boot-up times? I don't know about you, but I'm more than willing to wait a while longer for my box to boot. For my desktop I only do this once a day, my everyday fileserver has been up since I moved into this office a year and a half ago.

Boot-up time is hardly an indicator for OS speed. Frankly, I don't care about raw speed of the OS. I have work that I need to get done and I can get it done faster on OSX than on Win2K. YDL isn't an option for everyone. I need apps that are only available on OSX and Windows, and in my opinion OSX is clearly the better of the two.

What you refer to as eye candy is what regular desktop users prefer to call usability features. If I wanted blistering performance I'd install YDL+Blackbox on my system and I'll be the last to stop you from doing this but some people actually ARE willing to sacrifice raw performance for usability. A desktop machine after all doesn't sit in its closet untouched like a server, it gets used interactively, and for that purpose the OS better be as unobstrusive as possible.

Apple has done a great job in this respect. If you don't like it, get a workstation from SGI but don't forget to bring an extra wallet! Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Anyone who uses MacOSX versus just READING about it will tell you that speed wise it is fine, not blistering but it hasn't stopped millions of people from using it on a daily basis to do production level and professional work.

This garbage of MacOSX being slow is just that, garbage. Run MacOSX on a slow machine and it will be slow, run it on a decent machine and its fast. How hard is that? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Why should I get censored, when Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.---) is the obvious troll?

Why don't you put down the benchmark of MacOSX versus YDL and prove that they perform the same instead of crying to Eugenia? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Why don't you put down the benchmark of MacOSX versus YDL and prove that they perform the same instead of crying to Eugenia?


Performance isn't the be-all end-all.. I prefer the devices that I use for my everyday work to be usable too. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "try running the lates MacOSX on an older Powerbook and see how bloated it is."

Considering the fact that that older powerboox probably doesn't have one of the support Graphics processors you may see some degridation in performace.

Lest you misunderstand, that does not mean that OS X is bloated. Rather, it means that it is benefited by a GPU.


"Not even usable."

That's not the case at all. I have an older Mac that doesn;t have supported graphics card and yet installed Panther on it, and I was using it as a productivity machine for a few months.



"Again showing that the code is bloated as compare to BeOS, Linux, MKLinux, the REAL BSD, even NExt etc."

All these OSes are very nice. I use some of them on ocation, but comparing them to OS X doesn't suggest that OS X is bloated.


"What box are you running MacOSX on?"

I have a few. A G4 1GHz Tower, An 833 G4 iMac, a 12" Powerbook and a second generation iMac.


"Have you run YDL on the same box?"

I've run YDL and LinuxPPC on both iMacs.


"What Apps have you use to test the speed on both OS?"

Pretty much standard fare stuff. Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Golive, MS Office, BBEdit etc...


"Care to post benchmarks?"

Not really. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Mistik pizza? What planet are you from? We run Jag, and 10.1 on 233 iMacs at work! The helpdesk PowerBook is a Pismo that is running Jag so that we can ditch TunnelBuilder and its funky VPN settings.

I've ran MkLinux on a 6100 and its slow, who are you trying to kid??? Drop MacOS7.5.5 to 8.6 on there and its fine.

Yellow Dog is hardly impressive compared to MacOSX. Why would you buy expensive Mac hardware to install an OS that was reverse engineered to run on it?

Your talking out of your azz! Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? " By Bas (IP: ---.adsl.xs4all.nl) - Posted on 2003-07-11 18:19:57

Performance isn't the be-all end-all.. I prefer the devices that I use for my everyday work to be usable too."

Fair statement. Which proves that Apple is into a different market, not in the power computing, but of usability, which I have said all along.

I bet Apple is the right product for you. That's ok. What I object to is outrageous claims of performance [not the HW] but MacOSX. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? To paraphrase Obi-wan
"Who's the more trollish - the troll, or the troll who responds to him?"

LOL

Being a stubborn fool doesn't make on a troll (not saying who - just a general comment

Seriously, though. Comparing YDL to OS X isn't exactly even. OS X has more "built in stuff" and has a better (and OO) development environment. That OO stuff typically doesn't come free ya know. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Why should I get censored"

Because every comment you've made thus far has been an outright troll, or has been a semi-cliverly disquised troll


"Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.---) is the obvious troll?"

So says the troll.


"Why don't you put down the benchmark of MacOSX versus YDL and prove that they perform the same instead of crying to Eugenia?"

Because I don;t need to prove to myself that OS X isn't slow. Everybody here that has used OS X already knows that. I'm calling on Eugina because she's the only one that can fix this problematic situation. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Fair statement. Which proves that Apple is into a different market, not in the power computing, but of usability, which I have said all along."

You are misconstruing what he said. he said that performace isn't the the be-all end-all. It isn't, yet nothing in that statement said that Apple's computers were slower, or slow or bloated... which means you are wrong. it doesn;t prove anything.


"What I object to is outrageous claims of performance [not the HW] but MacOSX."

Nothing autrageous about it. OS X is a good performer. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "You are misconstruing what he said. he said that performace isn't the the be-all end-all. It isn't, yet nothing in that statement said that Apple's computers were slower, or slow or bloated... which means you are wrong. it doesn;t prove anything. "

STOP TROLLING! Stop running interferance.

Apple's market IS NOT power computing(period). That's SGI. SUn, AIX, Tru64, HP-UX and to an extent Linux. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? so the pro PPC guy who wrote an article the other day got reamed by readers despite a ton of research, and this guy quotes anon from /. and we accept his say? funny stuff indeed! Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? But I am sure a 128Bit machine will show that it wasn't MacOSX fault, it was slow hardware, eh?

My argument about lack of power is as it applies to serious scientific computing. I don't care how fast MacOSX can spin lilies and throw flowers, that alright but it is a different market.


This argument is similar to M$ argument for Windows 3.11, 95 and 98 performance. Although now with XP [which is based on NT] they have a better product.

Bet you MorphOS[if they ever get there] will be faster on a G5 than MacOSloowX. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? How can 8GB ram cost over 10.000$? The 1.8 and 2.0 G5 mac does have 8 ram sockets, and it should be posible to buy 8x1GB ram for something like 2500$ (or less, but theese are the prices in Denmark).

Martin Tilsted Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "My argument about lack of power is as it applies to serious scientific computing."

So far, The scientific comparisons that have been completed thus far only confirm the reports made by each of the demonstrators at MWDC and by Veritest.


"I don't care how fast MacOSX can spin lilies and throw flowers, that alright but it is a different market."

That's wierd. I've never seen OS X spin lilies or throw flowers. That would be mere "eye candy".


"This argument is similar to M$ argument for Windows 3.11, 95 and 98 performance."

Not at all. Microsoft incorporated bloat into their OS which demanded greater hardware albeit without much increased functionality.

Jaguar, doesn't require much newer hardware and yet offers much more features and increased speed.


"Although now with XP [which is based on NT] they have a better product."

Agreed.


"Bet you MorphOS[if they ever get there] will be faster on a G5 than MacOSloowX."

We'll see if its faster, but OS X cerinly isn't slow... Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "so the pro PPC guy who wrote an article the other day got reamed by readers despite a ton of research, and this guy quotes anon from /. and we accept his say? funny stuff indeed!"

Am I the only one that caught a slight sense of Anti Apple bias in the article... (unlike the overt FUD by Mistik jogelour) the article was a thinly veiled attempt at FUD. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Bet you MorphOS[if they ever get there] will be faster on a G5 than MacOSloowX."

We'll see if its faster, but OS X cerinly isn't slow..."

Agreed.

MacOSX is not simply slow, it is slower than other OS on a similar platform, plus bloated.

PPC is a great processor that Apple doesn't fully exploits, maybe Apple should drop the eye candy budget, sin't there enough already, and hire IBM engineers to step up their code. Everybody would win. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? You don't even own or use a Mac, how can you even know that its slow? Your a troll, aren't you supposed to be under a bridge somewhere?

Almost a quarter of the 100 or so comments on this article are from you talking about some flour stuff and how MacOSX is slow because you read aboout it somewhere or saw some screenshots and the screenshots weren't moving. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Power5 can be scaled up to multiple processors."
--Anonymous

Boom! Gotcha, are you sure what you talking about? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Am I the only one that caught a slight sense of Anti Apple bias in the article... (unlike the overt FUD by Mistik jogelour) the article was a thinly veiled attempt at FUD.

no, you weren't. i saw it, but just like the "OS X is sooooo slow" comments, i ignored it.

apple is a company, and though they do a lot i don't like, they build a lot of hardware and an OS that i do. FUD away. i am still buying the stuff i like.

OS X is not the fastest way to do things, and i can use (and own) a nice fast box with a linux system that is plenty fast. from CLI. so why does the ibook (yes, that slow old G3 running that slow old OS X!) get used 95% of the time? it still does everything i want it to do, it does it fast enough (except video conversion and the other box is too slow for that too) and it is, wait for it, _a_joy_to_use_this_machine. end of story. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Final word: if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON'T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.

And if to increase so little you need to double the Bits on the hw [from 32 to 64] and the OS still at 32, is not worth it. Don't get suckered by Apple, wait until MacOSX is 64bit on a 64Bit HW. Which is not yet, although the PPC is good chip, you are paying to much for nothing if you think that MacOSX(Jaguar) performs well now.

Later folks...

PS Thanks to Eugenia for seeing through the crying baby trick! :-) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Final word: if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON'T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view."

That statement suggests that a normal user may not benefit from increased speed. A better way to have phrased that would have been, "If you are a normal use and don't need the added speed that the G5 and OS X will bring, consider other options."


"And if to increase so little you need to double the Bits on the hw [from 32 to 64] and the OS still at 32, is not worth it."

Moving from 32 to 64 does not double speed. Assuming that this is what you were implying, there is a minomer there. However, as far as we know, Panther will be able to run 64 bit software and take advantage of all its 64 bit capabilities, even if the Finder cannot.


"Don't get suckered by Apple, wait until MacOSX is 64bit on a 64Bit HW."

Nobody would be suckered by Apple if they were to adopt OS X and a G5 right away. They would be able to take advantage of its 64 bit capabilities with the software that utilizes it.


"Which is not yet"

Ofcourse. Its not even out yet.



"you are paying to much for nothing if you think that MacOSX(Jaguar) performs well now."

Not at all. A G5 running panther will be a very good value.


"PS Thanks to Eugenia for seeing through the crying baby trick! :-)"

She must not be reading or is feeling especially lenient today. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? > DON'T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.

yeah, i expect that a much faster CPU, at a faster clock rate, with a massively faster bus and huge floating point numbers will make no difference to my video work. in fact, i am sure those demos they ran on the G5 at the release were faked.

hell i bet they cut the video alla microsoft on trial. no, don't waste your money.

subtle hint, there is a difference between the OS being fast enough, and the processing of huge chunks of raw data being fast enough. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Hey shane.

Curious... what city do you live in? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? if you are a general user, and you think MacOSX is fast enough and looks good, DON'T buy a G5, as the performance increase is negligible from your point of view.

Here's something to chew on:

maybe the OS is fast enough but we would like our applications to run faster. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Perhaps it would be helpful if Mr. Mistik decided to define what he means by power computing. He seems to be suggesting high-end workstations, not anything close to the desktop market. And, I find myself agreeing that Apple's core market is *not* these high-end workstations. That said, I think it's kind of rude of him to go off on so many wild rants -- it's easy to make a contrary case without being derogatory, and to do so contradicts the whole point of having a forum in general, which should be to foster debate in a constructive manner (not that that ever actually happens.

The more interesting point in this article is simply that Apple is trying to push into this high end market -- dominated by those, er, high-end unices, and Mr. Mistik is castigating anyone that says that the performance of current macs running OS X is acceptable for those markets. Considering that no one in the general marketplace has used a G5 (and this is really the first time Apple will have hardware capable of running in this market (the AIX network server aside)), it's a bit stupid to do more than speculate on what the performance will be until people have the freakin' machines in hand with an actual (read: not pre-release version) of Panther installed. I think, at that point, we can start discussing whether Mac OS X is unable to perform in those markets.

And, considering the fact that a lot of unix stuff is getting ported to run under os x, I think it's probably a good idea for Apple to make an end-run at getting themselves a higher profile in this market. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? ...saying, verbatim, "the Mac tends to be either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive" in every single post on every thread? That would simply be glorious... Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? What I think people are failing to recognize is that Apple *has* distributed a 23-bit version of Panther, to run on our 32-bit systems. A version of Panther compiled for the G5 will not run on a G4.

In conclusion, Panther will be a 32-bit OS on a 32-bit system, and a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit system. Simple. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Guys,

There is no way to win. You are talking democracy vs communism.
Islam vs Buddism.

There is a group of people here who are "Super- geeks" pardon my french. The kind of people who wants to read the code, "touch" the center of the machine etc etc.
Then we have a group of people who just wants their damn machines to work, and frankly doesn't really care if a program opens in 3 seconds or 6 seconds.

You are not going to agree. Fighting is futile.
(Now i know everyone here likes to P' each other off. Try to show supirior knowledge or useage and that is 90% of the reason you come here. To pick a fight).

Well know let me show my arrogance and supirior knowledge.

You are all boneheads, you will never win an argument. Because you are all right and wrong from you own and others viewpoint. You are wasting valuable time, that you could spend doing 64bit calculations and video editing.

Fact of the matter is that each person will use or want the kind of machine and OS that appeals to them. And for some that will be something they can tweak and for others it will be something that is easy to use and works.

Face it people you are wasting valuable typing time. With you 64bit OS you could probably already have found the cure for cancer and if you are still using a 32bit OS 'shame on you, you are a hobby user'.

:) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Can we stop saying, verbatim, "the Mac tends to be either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive" in every single post on every thread? That would simply be glorious..."

I will be happy to as long as people incorrectly say Mac's are expensive when what they mean to say, PC's are more expandible. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? well my recorded ip says ph.cox.net, and i know that cox has an azizona branch, and that ph could be phoenix, and that it is hotter than hades outside....... so i will go with phoenix. why? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I live in Peoria... I have the same IP for my home computer.

Howdie neighbor. =) Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? well hello! i am glad there is at least one geek with more than 2 brain cells in the area. makes we feel all warm inside. matches the outside. maybe you are used to this weather, but i have been here 6 weeks, and damn it is hot! even the iBook fan comes on!

i don't even want to get into the heat coming off the 17" monitor on the x86 machine. time to get a flat panel. hot!

i hope i adjust...... Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Ok, here's my take hoping it would help to clear things up.

I'm throwing a link to a PowerPC Manual so others can take a look at it and compare them to what has been posted.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/852569B2005...

On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.

I don't know. Maybe they want to maximize margins, though. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "i hope i adjust......"

Just stay indoors. That's all you can do. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.

Perhaps it's for compatibility with older add-on cards? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? What box are you running MacOSX on? What version? What are the Specs? Have you run YDL on the same box? What Version? What Apps have you use to test the speed on both OS? BS won't do. Care to post benchmarks?

Let's do some application performance benchmarks on my 500MHz iBook, running OS X 10.2.6 and YDL 3.0:

Painter 8 on OS X
Load time: 8 seconds

Painter 8 on YDL 3.0
Load time: ...

Reason 2.0 on OS X
Load time: 12 seconds

Reason 2.0 on YDL 3.0
Load time: ...

Final Cut Pro 4 on OS X
Load time: 15 seconds

Final Cut Pro 4 on YDL 3.0
Load time: ...

Adobe Illustrator 10 on OS X
Load time: 10 seconds

Adobe Illustrator 10 on YDL 3.0
Load time: ...

Need I continue? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? On another note, it is true that the G5 has a 64-bit brain installed on a PCI subsystem. The only thing questionable there is why Apple chose PCI instead of the better workstation class subsystems.

A "64-bit brain"? A PCI subsystem?

A G5 system contains one or two PPC970 processors linked with a 6.4-7.2GB/s front side bus to a controller sporting a dual channel DDR400 memory controller with a combined memory bandwidth of 6.4GB/s and a HyperTransport controller which also sports 6.4GB/s bandwidth. This connects via a PCI-X I/O hub to a 64-bit 133MHz PCI-X bus which sports up to 2GB/s of bandwidth, versus 266MB/s for regular PCI.

You'd like to suggest some other bus standard for Apple to have used besides PCI-X? By all means, go ahead Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Need I continue?"

Er, no you don't. Please don't hurt yourself. I'm sorry I didn't explain. I assumed you will figure it out. You need to run a similar task on both, say a raytracer, or something similar. Get it? Ok. Glad to help. I see why Mac are easier to use, they have appeal to certain market, eh? Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I see why Mac are easier to use, they have appeal to certain market, eh?

Yes, a market of people who actually do things with their computers... Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "You'd like to suggest some other bus standard for Apple to have used besides PCI-X? By all means, go ahead"

What do you think about the G5, is it a workstation class or a desktop PC class machine? Given the specs you cited.

Will it crunch numbers like any workstations (WSs) given PPC floating point and other numeric processing units? Will it deliver the bits needed to throw that vertex buffer out to the screen faster than any WSs?

You tell me. Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The G5 Macs may not be in the league of machines like the SGI Octane 2. Sadly I haven't been able to find a price for a new Octane 2, but a used one with 2x 360MHz. CPU's comes at around 6000 euro's. I can almost get two new G5's of the dual 2GHz. kind for that money.

All in all I think that the performance/$$$ ratio works out very favorably for the Apples. You pay for performance, and with the big WS manufacturers you usually pay A LOT for it.

I'll admit that I've never had the privilege of actually using one of those big iron workstations, but I'll be very surprised if a dual G5 at 2GHz. gets beaten by a dual 360MHz. MIPS box. That's not counting specialized custom graphics boards in the WS, just plain number crunching on the CPU (raytracing and the like). Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Wouldn't the AIX be the best current OS for that system? How could one spend that kind of hardware money and not purchase AIX? It really is native to the PPC platform. Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? If you define power computing under the limited context of "crunching #", then OSX may not be the optimal performer. There are a few things you apparently aren't aware of:

1) The are other contexts of power computing. I make my living in information security. Trust me, deep calc computing is a different complexity, not a greater one (except when doing crypto analysis... then it's pretty much the same). OSX is an extremely powerful platform for my discipline to work on. BTW, hardcore music and video work is also a different complexity then your deep calc work, not more or less, just different.

2) Most personal/workstation computers are used for multiple functions (otherwise you are really talking about an appliance or a dedicated system). The fact that I can work on my home system, EASILY, make a movie of the kids (to torture our friends or to send to the grandparents on dvd), EASILY maintain an incredibly functional music library, and EASILY do a billion other things typical "end users" do is a huge + in the "power" column.

3) Potential power and Real Power are very different items. Since you are defining power as the ability to get something done quickly (more then evident by every post you have made), which is a more powerful system? The one that allows you to sit down and begin working on the task at hand, or the one that you must spend significant amount of time "preping" so you can perform the task at hand (which may only execute a few % points faster the the machine that didn't require the "preping"). Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? The eMac costs $799.

WOW! look at my IP address! isn't that fabulous. I am located in Australia and guess what currency I quoted the price in? you guessed wrong, it isn't in US$ but in AUS$ hence the reason why $1899 was quoted. Jump over to http://www.apple.com.au/store to get a clue.


The price to performance ration on the emac is very good.

Price performance? An iMac costs 3.4K in Australia for the middle range 17 Inch jobby. I've had a look at the IBM pricing. $2250 for a 3Ghz P4 A50p Desktop + $899 for an LCD display. Pretty good value on IBM's part if you ask me.


Not at all.

Of you compare Apple's consumer line of products in both hardware and software Apple's products tend to be slightly more expensive, the same price or slightly less expensive.

Based on what?

http://commerce-29.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prr...

Is a bargin. Look at the software bundle:

Software[23]
Operating system provided Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Productivity applications Lotus Notes Standalone Client License, Lotus SmartSuite Millennium license
Communication / networking applications[13] Access Support Connected Client
Device drivers / utilities Norton AntiVirus 2003 OEM Version, PC Doctor Diagnostics, Update Connector, IBM Director Agent (web deliverable), IBM Rapid Restore Ultra, Access IBM 4.0

As I have said, it is a bloody bargin compared to Apples consumer line of desktops. Sat, 12 Jul 2003 05:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live?"

As would be the case with other products... in this case a PC."

Absolutely false....Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA.

This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629...AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)
(www.ascension.net.au current price today)

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533FSB
Corsair 512MB PC-2700 DDR
V9520 MAGIC - GeForce FX 5200 - TV Out 128Mb - DVI
ATX Midi Tower Case with Front USB, 350W
Sony 1.44 FDD
Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))
Benq 17" V772 CRT Monitor
Asus P4SGL-VM SIS650GLX, 6 Channel Sound, Video, 10/100 Network
250W Speaker
Ascension System Build
Asus 52x24x52 CDRW Retail box
Windows XP Home OEM
Liteon 166S 16X DVD/48X CDROM



iMac AUD$1499 (todays price)

800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive


Yep that iMac is sure price competitive! Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor..and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17" CRT monitor) Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "CooCooCaChoo seems to be from Australia. Remember when I said that Mac computers can be more expensive depending where you live?"

As would be the case with other products... in this case a PC."

Absolutely false....Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA.

This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629...AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)
(www.ascension.net.au current price today)

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533FSB
Corsair 512MB PC-2700 DDR
V9520 MAGIC - GeForce FX 5200 - TV Out 128Mb - DVI
ATX Midi Tower Case with Front USB, 350W
Sony 1.44 FDD
Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))
Benq 17" V772 CRT Monitor
Asus P4SGL-VM SIS650GLX, 6 Channel Sound, Video, 10/100 Network
250W Speaker
Ascension System Build
Asus 52x24x52 CDRW Retail box
Windows XP Home OEM
Liteon 166S 16X DVD/48X CDROM



iMac AUD$1499 (todays price)

800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive


Yep that iMac is sure price competitive! Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor..and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17" CRT monitor)"



The Apple I qouted is a base model eMac for AUD$1499 not an iMac!!!!!!!!! Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "WOW! look at my IP address! isn't that fabulous. I am located in Australia and guess what currency I quoted the price in? you guessed wrong, it isn't in US$ but in AUS$ hence the reason why $1899 was quoted. Jump over to http://www.apple.com.au/store to get a clue."

I made a simple mistake about where you cam from. Who the hostility?


>>>"The price to performance ration on the emac is very good." Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Macs are far more expensive and PCs are as cheap or cheaper than in the USA."

That's not true. A Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive that a Mac when you compare it against a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same hardware and software configuration.


"This is what you get for the price of a base model iMac in Australia AUD $1629...AUD$130 (~US$100) more than an iMac)"

First of all, you are comparing an AIO against a tower.

Second, you significantly understanded the. You said that the AUD$1499 iMac only has:

800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive

You forgot to add:
15-inch LCD flat screen
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
32MB DDR video memory
256MB SDRAM
(You misquoted the hard drive): It has a 60GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K V.92 internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
Mac OS X
iPhoto
iMovie
iCal
iSync
AppleWorks
Mail App
Quicken 2003 Deluxe
World Book 2003 Edition
Mac OS X Chess
Otto Matic, Deimos Rising
Sound Studio


"Yep that iMac is sure price competitive!"

It sure is.


"Especially since the PC is built with much better quality components than the iMac (the Benq 772 monitor is about as bad as the iMac monitor.."

The iMac monitor is one of the best available. You're wrong about that.


"and an extra AUD$25 will buy a much better Samsung 753DFX 17" CRT monitor)"

Hence the reason why comparisons between AIO and desktops aren't a fair comparison. I mean, its not as if Apple only sells AIO computers are anything. Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? One more thing... you misquoted the drive as well. You said that it has a only has a CDRom drive when it has a DVD-R/CD-RW Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "The Apple I qouted is a base model eMac for AUD$1499 not an iMac!!!!!!!!!"

Okay... lets do this again.

You mentioned that the base model eMac only had:

800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive

You forgot to mention:

•17-inch (16-inch viewable) flat CRT
•ATI Radeon 7500 with AGP 4x support; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM graphics memory
•You mentioned a case so I'll do the same...
•Two FireWire 400 ports, five USB ports (three on system, two on keyboard), mini-VGA output port, headphone jack, audio line in jack VGA video mirroring
•S-video and composite video output
•10/100BASE-T Ethernet
•56K V.92 modem
•Integrated stereo speakers
•QuickTime
•iCal
•iChat
•iTunes
•iPhoto
•iMovie
•iSync
•DVD Player
•AppleWorks
•Mac OS X Mail
•Microsoft Internet Explorer
•Apple Safari
•Quicken 2003 Deluxe
•World Book 2003 Edition
•Mac OS X Chess
•Otto Matic
•Deimos Rising
•Microsoft Office v. X Test Drive
•Sound Studio
•FAXstf
•90 days of free telephone support and one-year limited warranty
•and mac OS X


Now, the comparison is more balanced, but (again) you're comparing an AIO against a desktop computer. That in itself is not a fair comparison.

Regardless, the eMac help up pretty nicely. Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? It seems that I forgot top add VGA video mirroring as well. Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Oh, and since you mentioned, "Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))"I should probably add the baseline eMac's:

•Apple Keyboard
•Apple Mouse
•modem cable Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? When you make your logically wrong arguments, can you make them at least correct in spelling and grammar?

Maybe you think that correctness in spelling and grammar is just eye candy. But it somehow shows your ignorance. I know it's impossible to get you to admire Mac software and hareware's elegance, so I don't even want to try it... Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? If it isn't Steve Jobs pompom girl striking again.
Macs are more expensive than PCs. You are intellectually dishonest. Go back to drinking your translucent blue kool-aid!

You must be a cheap, loser Apple salesman [perhaps former as Apple can not be so dumb as to keep a dellusional jackass like you on their staff. You keep turning tricks all over this forums, eh?

You can repeat the lie as much as you want, but the consumer KNOWS and SHOWS that Apple ARE more expensive than PC's, and subpar for that matter as the majority of consumers clearly chooses a computer other than Apple everyday. Majority uses PC's, only a few are suckered by APple and even fewer are Maczealots cultist idiots like you. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? Luckily you're not a Mac user. The last post from you just demonstrates how low class you're. It's a shame. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I had figured that a 64 bit processor would mean some added processing power.

Like a 64 bit processor would be able to handle bigger chunks of data than a 32 bit processor. Is that true?

Would, for example Final Cut Pro made for 64 bit have more data processing power or not, beyond the size of the memory it can address. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I find it amazing that some of you people find ways to criticize apple no matter what. There are a great number of computer users who would like to actually USE their computer rather than sit around a tweak it and brag about their set up. Apple allows people to do so, seriously guys, is apple so bad? Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "One more thing... you misquoted the drive as well. You said that it has a only has a CDRom drive when it has a DVD-R/CD-RW"

Go to http://www.apple.com.au the AUD$1499 DOES NOT have a DVD-RW, it DOES NOT have a DVD-ROM it DOES NOT have a CR-RW. It is fitted with a plain CD-ROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? 1) What is kool-aide?

2) Where did I ever say that Apple was flat out more expensive? I have said that their CONSUMER line up are a rip off, however, their WORKSTATION line is VERY good value when compared to what Dell and IBM offers in their workstation line up.

I am not anti-Apple, I am a realist. If I was anti-Apple, I would NEVER had taken the time to compliment Apple on their great G5 PowerMac line up.

4) eMac http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/80605/...

A$ 1,499.00
800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I believe your quote for the eMac is correct, because Apple sell the same model for SGD1,488 in Singapore and SGD is slightly higher that AUD currently.

But I think the comparison you made is somehow misleading. You can accuse Apple for not having a wider spectrum of offering in their consumer line, but comparing all-in-one (AIO) model with general desktop model is not fair. AIO models are more expensive than similar spec'd desktops in most cases. While AIOs have some disadvantages such as limited upgrading options and no PCI slot, they also have some advantages such as saving desktop space (which is very precious sometime), easy to moving around and easy maintenance. Due to AIOs' casing limitation, they take more effort to design and the components inside are more expensive (due to smaller volume).

A better comparison might be between eMac and Dell's OptiPlex SX260 line (Dell's Ultra Small Form desktop model). With the similar spec, the Dell model will cost SGD1,726 which is more expensive than the base eMac model. And the Dell model has no dedicated graphic card (it uses Intel integrated graphic which we all know how poor it means), and no firewire port.

I'm not saying Dell's offering is poor. My point is that when you make any comparison, the products you choose from both sides must be comparable. I own 3 Macs and 3 PCs, so I know their advantages and shortcomings for both sides from my own point. I admit myself prefer Mac more, but I always recommend people to buy computer according to their needs which include their current needs and the things they plan to do in near future. I can say the base model eMac certainly worth its money if you can fully utilize its power. But I'd recommend people go for the middle range model which presents more value.

Recently before I bought my Sony digital camcorder, I visited a few popular Websites dedicated to DV users. I found (with no surprise) so many people had struggled or were struggling to make their camcorder working with their Windows XP or 2000 machines. Such a task is so simple if you have a Mac. There are no software installation and no hardware fine-tuning, you just connect the camcorder and iMove will start to work. Same thing with the new released iChat AV beta. This kind of ease of use and plug-n-play is a dream for Windows users. Of course in order to enjoy such a convenience, you need to pay a little more sometimes. But that "a little more" is a wise investment, in my opinion. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "If it isn't Steve Jobs pompom girl striking again."

Who are you talking about?

"Macs are more expensive than PCs."

They most certinly are not. Macs are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when comparing a PC of the exact same (or as close as possible) hardware and software.


"You are intellectually dishonest."

What have I been dishonest about? I've asked before and yet you refuse to give an answer.


"Go back to drinking your translucent blue kool-aid!"

I don't even like koolaid. What are you talking about?


"You must be a cheap, loser Apple salesman"

No. Actually my friends tell me I'm quite generous and am considered Quite sucessful and no, I've never been a salesman for Apple.


"[perhaps former as Apple can not be so dumb as to keep a dellusional jackass like you on their staff."

You chastize people for insulting you yet you insult others? I would suggest that this gives others a license to insult you with out an argument from you.


"You keep turning tricks all over this forums, eh?"

You mean busting your FUD? If so, yes... I do.


"You can repeat the lie as much as you want"

Which lie is that?



"but the consumer KNOWS and SHOWS that Apple ARE more expensive than PC's"

Well, the numbers surely suggest otherwise. As the old saying goes... numbers don't lie, unfortunately the same can't be said for you.


"and subpar for that matter as the majority of consumers clearly chooses a computer other than Apple everyday."

Perhaps people are just as misquided about Apple's prices as you are.


"only a few are suckered by APple"

Who got suckered by Apple?


"and even fewer are Maczealots cultist idiots like you."

I'm not a Maczealout. Where would you get that idea? Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "Go to http://www.apple.com.au the AUD$1499 DOES NOT have a DVD-RW, it DOES NOT have a DVD-ROM it DOES NOT have a CR-RW. It is fitted with a plain CD-ROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Look back over his origional post... He mistyped iMac when he mean eMac. I was right he was wrong. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "I am not anti-Apple"

Some of your comments suggest otherwise.


"I am a realist."

If so, then who so much fakery? Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? "They most certinly are not. Macs are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when comparing a PC of the exact same (or as close as possible) hardware and software. "

On Planet Mescaline maybe.... Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I'd like to comment on one of the secrets of Apples' survival: giving users what they don't want, today.

Comparisons showing less expensive models from reputable high-volume desktop vendors frequently do not include items such as FireWire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, and the like. When prompted, you typically get the response "I don't need that, why would I spend on it?". And of course, that's a valid point; your computer is your computer, no need to get items you don't want.

But ironically, it's in part because of this practice that Apple is still here, and is still making Macintosh computers. You don't buy the part later when you feel the need, you buy it now, and are in effect making an investment in the future. FireWire800, Gigabit Ethernet, 64-bit Computing... it's the same. Some takers now, more takers later.

Whether or not this is a good practice, or whether or not it suits your needs, is up to each of us to decide individually. Of course, the OS pieces are not yet in place to take advantage of 64-bit Computing, so this whole question should be postponed until they are.

The whole strength of computing is task automation at speed. Different configurations will give you different results, for different prices. And that is as it should be. For me, a Macintosh gave me the results I wanted at a reasonable price, after doing comparisons with other vendors.

Don't want to use a Macintosh? Hate Apple? Suits me fine; ignore them. But please don't try and tell me that I'm a "sucker" or a "fool" for wanting a Macintosh, and please don't try and suggest that my choice to use a Macintosh should be taken away to satisfy your needs. If the existance of the platform irritates you, tough. All you can do is live with it. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.ph.ph.cox.net)

"I am not anti-Apple"

Some of your comments suggest otherwise.

Explain to my WHY I complimented Apple on their PowerMac G5 line? Again, please answer the bloody question. If I am so anti-Apple, why then did I compliment Apple on their PowerMac G5 line up?

RE: digitaleon (IP: ---.nsw.bigpond.net.au)

I'd like to comment on one of the secrets of Apples' survival: giving users what they don't want, today.

What users want is a desktop with decent specs sold at a reasonable price. Users don't want the bleeding edge but the certainly don't want to be utilising 2 year old technology or worse still, as with the case of the iMac, bundling DDR memory with it even though the front side bus remains 133Mhz.

Comparisons showing less expensive models from reputable high-volume desktop vendors frequently do not include items such as FireWire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, and the like. When prompted, you typically get the response "I don't need that, why would I spend on it?". And of course, that's a valid point; your computer is your computer, no need to get items you don't want.

Again, I was comparing like with like. I made a comparision between IBM's ThinkCentre Line up vs. the Apple iMac and eMac. I have made NO comparision between the PowerMac and the PC vendor because as I have stated again and again and again (like a parrot), the PowerMac G5 line is VERY good value for money. My bone of contention is the lack of any drive to push their consumer line to something close to the performance of what is available in PC land.

But ironically, it's in part because of this practice that Apple is still here, and is still making Macintosh computers. You don't buy the part later when you feel the need, you buy it now, and are in effect making an investment in the future. FireWire800, Gigabit Ethernet, 64-bit Computing... it's the same. Some takers now, more takers later.

Which is why I haven't made a comparision between the PowerMac and G5. The issue is comparing a ThinkCentre PC with an eMac and iMac. The only thing missing from the IBM ThinkCentre PC is a firewire port which can be added on later. Apart from that, on the IBM PC, you get USB 2.0, hyperthreading, Serial ATA, 64MB GeForce MX graphics card sitting on an 8x AGP bus with the option to upgrade to Nvidias workstation class graphics card.

Whether or not this is a good practice, or whether or not it suits your needs, is up to each of us to decide individually. Of course, the OS pieces are not yet in place to take advantage of 64-bit Computing, so this whole question should be postponed until they are.

The question is also whether there is significant demand both from end users and developers for these features.

The whole strength of computing is task automation at speed. Different configurations will give you different results, for different prices. And that is as it should be. For me, a Macintosh gave me the results I wanted at a reasonable price, after doing comparisons with other vendors.

Don't want to use a Macintosh? Hate Apple? Suits me fine; ignore them. But please don't try and tell me that I'm a "sucker" or a "fool" for wanting a Macintosh, and please don't try and suggest that my choice to use a Macintosh should be taken away to satisfy your needs. If the existance of the platform irritates you, tough. All you can do is live with it.

I am certainly not saying that you or anyone else should move to a PC or some other platform, what I am simply relaying is what I see out there in the market. Apple need to ask themselves this, are they a consumer orientated company, a professional orientated company, or both. IMHO, their consumer line isn't up the scratch and until they get a G5 down into their consumer line, their position in the consumer market will dwindle to nothingness, HOWEVER, in terms of professional workstations, they do a VERY good job at it. They provide a quality product with great speed and reliability. Instead of trying to beat it out in the consumer market, why not concerntrate on their tradition strengths, namely, the professional graphics market. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? This forum started off in a very good discussion of the topic at hand. It has, as always, deteriorated into a garbage fight.

Apple overcharges: Let's use that same argument for Dell, H-P, Gateway, etc.). Since they sell models below $600 then all of the other offerings of that company are grossly overpriced.

I can get them cheaper: Yes, and I can build a tool shed cheaper than I can pay for someone else to build it. The same is true of my audio equipement (yes I built my stereo), etc. Therefore, anyone who can't, or doesn't wish, to build their own is an idiot. They are dupes of big business.

Logic of this sort clearly indicates the lack of critical thinking. I rarely read such rantings by such individuals. I think that the best policy is to simply ignore their utterances by no longer responding to the incomprehensible mantras. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? How about actually read what the discussion is about. The point I raised isn't the raw price, but the price vs. features vs. speed vs and other possible variable.

I said it again, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

"the PowerMac G5 line is VERY good value for money"

How many times must I repeat myself until it gets through your anti-any-that-isn't-your-particular-dogma brain? Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread? http://www.osnews.com/thread? I hate to say it but if the shoe fits, wear it. I am a Mac user and I happen to also think that the G5 is a good buy. I believe that you and many others jump to conclusions.

It would have been nice to have received a better answer by having you ask a few questions. I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, if you go back and actually read what I wrote you should discover that it was not anti against any particular computer system. It was about the constant bickering that clutters up these forums. (Oh, by the way, I have read the forum comments and contrary to your opinion I do comprehend what is being said. )

I hate to be redundant but I find this senseless bickering a waste of time. It is almost as bad as many of the chat rooms that rant about nothing with great vigor. Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments