Longhorn’s woes may open a door for Linux—a very tiny door—but Linux just isn’t a good choice for desktops. Instead, desktop Linux proponents should wake up and switch to the Mac OS.
Longhorn’s woes may open a door for Linux—a very tiny door—but Linux just isn’t a good choice for desktops. Instead, desktop Linux proponents should wake up and switch to the Mac OS.
Wel people : take a look at the apple subjects:
number of comments: 247, 117, 79, 200
Now you have to admit this: it may be that apple has only 5% of the market but it looks like 95% likes to talk about it.
Or we have some maniaks over here. 🙂
but for you to say this is quite off the mark:
“Sorry to say but your are confused and absolutely clueless.”
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_88…
opteron:
Front Side Bus frequency
1.4 – 2.4 GHz
(The front side bus (interface to memory) of the AMD Opteron™ processor runs at the speed of the processor)
Front Side Bus bandwidth
11.2 – 19.2 GB/s
Maximum Inter-processor bandwidth
6.4 GB/s
Memory Bandwidth 2P System
10.6 GB/s
Memory Bandwidth 4P System
21.2 GB/s
Maximum I/O bandwidth 2P System
12.8 GB/s
Maximum I/O bandwidth 4P System
25.6 GB/s
rock on with those figures. are you clued in yet?
It’s obvious you are no engineer.
rock on with those figures. are you clued in yet?
You are even more confused than I thought. Can you explain how you came up with the 1600 Mhz for the 3400+ and 2000 Mhz for 939 socket then?
The 1.4 Ghz and 2.4Ghz are processor clockspeed numbers since the memory controller is intergrated into the chip, AMD claims to have a FSB at cpu speed. Sorry but that is just marketting speak and there is not FSB inside the CPU.
You still aren’t clued in, are you?!!!!
“OK. I would just remark that KHTML is a part of KDE and has in fact nothing to do with Linux.”
KDE has a lot to do with Linux:
* One of the primary DE’s for the Linux desktop.
* The first user-friendy DE for the Linux desktop.
* Linux is one of its primary platforms.
..but not in that sense indeed. Which is what we’ve already addressed.
“What was the point already?”
The point is that it is vary obvious OSS benefits Apple in certain ways (you named another one in your post) whereas our friend $author_of_article appears to claim different as i’ve addressed in my comment here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8190&limit=no#278082
I don’t see how your post, albeit it addresses the point more accurate, puts any discredit on the aspect i raised in my earlier post. It supports it rather, IMO.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_94…
AMD Athlon™ 64 FX
System Bus Technology
HyperTransport™ technology
Full duplex, independent
Integrated DDR Memory Controller (MCT)
Yes,
128-bit + 16-bit ECC
PC3200, PC 2700, PC 2100, or PC1600 for both socket 940 and 939
Total Processor-to-System Bandwidth
socket 940
HyperTransport: up to 6.4 GB/s @ 1.6GHz
MCT: up to 6.4 GB/s @ 400MHz
Total: up to 12.8 GB/s
socket 939
HyperTransport: up to 8.0 GB/s @ 2.0GHz
MCT: up to 6.4 GB/s @ 400MHz
Total: up to 14.4 GB/s
Integrated Northbridge
Yes,
128-bit data path @ CPU core frequency
does that help?
does that help?
Yes it helps tremendously in exposing that you have no clue about and just pick the biggest or smallest number and post comparisons. All that data you posted just reaffirms what AR said and the fact that you truly are clueless and confused.
Yes the Memory controller is integrated into the chip, other than imporving latency, there is nothing the core frequency does to imporve the Processor-to-System bandwidth. Also Hypertransport has nothing to do with memory bandwidth, it is an I/O only bus.
Also, I can safely bet that the memory latency doesn’t change with the Cpu core frequency either, it may be, I doubt it.
So all your MHz postings are meaningless. The fact is the G5s have higher system bandwidth. The athlon lowerlatency on memory access.
from apple:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
“Two 900MHz, 1GHz or 1.25GHz 64-bit DDR frontside busses supporting up to 10GBps data throughput
# 128-bit data paths for up to 6.4GBps memory throughput”
from amd for opteron:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_88…
opteron:
Front Side Bus frequency
1.4 – 2.4 GHz
(The front side bus (interface to memory) of the AMD Opteron™ processor runs at the speed of the processor)
Front Side Bus bandwidth
11.2 – 19.2 GB/s
Maximum Inter-processor bandwidth
6.4 GB/s
Memory Bandwidth 2P System
10.6 GB/s
Maximum I/O bandwidth 2P System
12.8 GB/s
so tell me where in those dual g5 systems that they have a higher data throughput than the dual opteron?
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
“Each G5 processor has its own dedicated bidirectional interface to the system controller. That’s a mind-boggling 20GB per second of total bandwidth on dual 2.5GHz systems ”
The memory interface is exactly same.
The opteron numbers are just the single cpu numbers x 2. Since the G5 uses independant point-to-point buses you can almost do the same.
Also the G5 uses the same exact Hypertransport links that the opteron uses.
This thread would be long dead before I’ve completed reading it, so I thought I throw this in anyway, if it hasn’t been said.
1. Apple has OS X running on x86, its great for debugging, they don’t need to port anything.
2. Thay can’t release OS X for x86 as it would kill the Macintosh trademark, and put them out of buissiness. Apple isn’t a OS company, they are a computing service company. They are to workstations what IBM are to servers.
hey I know this is a dead thread but I had to add this little point.
When people talk about 5% market share they are not talking total # of users they are talking about total # of purchased computers in that year.
no one really ever talks about total user base, because it’s really really hard to track, although some #’s are thrown out there all of the time.
one important thing is that many have multiple computers that they use, and people use different computers at home/at school/at work.
And lastly, Mac users tend to stick to their computers a lot longer then PC users; that there are less people purchasing Macs every year is more attributable to the fact that Mac users don’t see the need to upgrade as much; and generally are not forced to do so as much.
(This has changed a bit recently since Jobs is trying to accelerate upgrades).
I currently use daily a B&W G3 running 10.3 just fine.
Most of my software running the latest versions. (exceptions being newest FCP, DSP, Motion which require newest processors/graphics cards to run)
This is a computer that I bought in 1998.
I have a PC from 2000 and it is running xp but doesn’t seem to run xp2 so great.
I will probably Upgrade to a G5 sometime later this year or early next, and get a PBG5 when that comes out.
i will also upgrade my PC as well.
What is interesting about that is that the PC I will have to upgrade way sooner than the Mac, which has payed for itself in jobs and then some.
the PC was cheaper but has had a slew of problems I’ve had to fix, and in the end I’ve spent many many man hours fixing.
I’ve also run linux (suse) on both the mac and the pc and it is generally speaking faster on the older 400Mghz G3 then on the 1.5Ghz PIII.
but that is all unscientific.
anyway, my point was only that you can’t compare market percentage of this year with user base, and that there are way way more mac users then the 5% user base commonly misquoted.
peace out… ok whatever.
<– piss competition in –>
by the way to those who wrote back that MS netmeeting was way before iChat, I have to tell you that NetMeeting came out on the Mac and PC equally, at first just like Exploder.
furthermore my point was that iChat was the first AIM video client (Video on the AOL network) something that even AOL couldn’t do because of legal antitrust legislation, which was just lifted.
and if we are talking about Video on computers Amigas where way way way earlier and they did full screen 640 by 480 video with a 4MGHZ processor.
in the 1986-87 timeframe. way way way before anyone else. (not counting propriatery solutions from high end vendors)
Furthermore there where a bunch of other h267 video conferencing solutions before netmeeting which ran on the mac and the pc, and you could use CeeUceeme on both the Mac and the PC in 93.
further more quicktime came out on the mac on Dec1, 1991; and Apple released Quicktime for Win in 1994, the first version of Windows Media player that could play .AVI and have the basic functionality found in Quicktime 1.0 from 1991 was released by microsoft in 1995.
You could use quicktime on windows a full 2 years before that.
AVI, was an intel video solution which could synch audio till way way later, which is why Avid and other video companies didn’t come out with PC editors till 1997-98 timeframe.
pps: the guy who thinks he has a fighting chance trying to out argue people about processor architecture.
please oh please read all of this site over and over until you get it.
you just sound really really silly.
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html
read all of it every single one of those papers, and then come back to it.
otherwise don’t even try.
in fact everyone should read these articles.
anyway , whatever. to each his own ignorance
<– piss competition out –>
Ciao.
netmeeting on mac did not do voice and video chat as it did on windows. they did not have feature parity.
for that matter ms messenger did video and voice chat before ichat as well.
as for
“This is a computer that I bought in 1998” for you b & w g3, sorry, but if you cant even get your dates right, why would take half your post as being accurate?
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/g3c.shtml
“G3/300 introduced 1999.01.05 at US$1,599; discontinued 1999.06.
G3/350 introduced 1999.01.05 at US$1,999; discontinued 1999.08.31.
G3/400 introduced 1999.01.05 at US$2,999; discontinued 1999.08.31.
G3/450 introduced 1999.06 at $2,519; discontinued 1999.08.31.”
introduced, they shipped later.
Point 1: I am a professional Mac user – I am biased
Point 2: Quit with the Mac hardware is to expensive – when did you actually compare a “like for like” setup. Don’t you really mean “the cost of ditching my current (large) investment in hardware/software for “ANOTHER” system might be prohibitive”? This is known as “industrial inertia”.
Point 3: Linux/BSD distros are fine for those that handle them – for Joe Average if it ain’t as easy as his TV then forget it!
Point 4: Mac OS X Rocks, get over it!
Point 5: Flame on (LIGAF)
8-)_oo00 (Man in glasses smoking cigarette)
😛
I wish people on this board would consider what they use a computer for – to perform a job. Not to have stupidly fast busses or be capable of producing enough heat to warm a small swimming pool.
Both Linux and OSX are very different with different people in mind. This is not like ‘Lord of the Rings’ – One OS to rule them all! If you cannot get over that then your using a computer for the wrong reason.
As much as many of you feel Linux is ready to make inroads it just is not. People like choice but general computer users also want things to just work. As great as Linux is (I have run it for several years) as a desktop machine setting it up is not easy and upgrading can be very hairy. On the other hand OSX *does* give a complete package (have any of you actually used the OS or installed it yourselves?). Things do work the majority of the time and much more often than Linux. You loose the flexibility but gain simplicity.
Right let the continued bitching continue…