V.A.Toss
Sep 23, 06:45 PM
(3) What is the name of the PC troll, who:
>was proud of using a PC
>made only PC pro posts
>lived in the location of "buthole"
>and likes to have anal sex with chicken and other barnyard animals?
(This is all one person, as freaky as that sounds.)
ROFL, ive never read a post of his but that character sounds hilarious (in a worrying 'league of gentlemen' way). The idiot couldnt even spell butthole properly. Strange, from the sound of him thats probably where he hid his fingers.
Spikey got into arguments with 3-ish people, not one. He didnt leave, he got banned, he found the forum lacking in a sense of humour. So he went out in a blaze of flaming.
>was proud of using a PC
>made only PC pro posts
>lived in the location of "buthole"
>and likes to have anal sex with chicken and other barnyard animals?
(This is all one person, as freaky as that sounds.)
ROFL, ive never read a post of his but that character sounds hilarious (in a worrying 'league of gentlemen' way). The idiot couldnt even spell butthole properly. Strange, from the sound of him thats probably where he hid his fingers.
Spikey got into arguments with 3-ish people, not one. He didnt leave, he got banned, he found the forum lacking in a sense of humour. So he went out in a blaze of flaming.
Kid Red
Sep 17, 07:07 PM
Ok, I'll repeat the info I've received again. We will have power4 core macs by this time next year. Moto will have the last G4 in jan but doubt it will be called a G5 when everyone knows it's a G4. It should, however, be on a new mobo. The last bump was supposed to feature it but they had major heat issues which may explain the ports in front of the towers.
We WILL have this IBM power4 core mac nexy year according to a very creditable source.
We WILL have this IBM power4 core mac nexy year according to a very creditable source.
GeeYouEye
Oct 13, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Durandal7
I think it's just fine where it is.
In other news, MacRumors is not a democracy but is in fact a dictatorship run by arn.
Pity, ain't it? Of course, there's cases where it's better for forums to be totally dictatorially controlled, or completely democratic (or something similar, like democratic, but with admin veto).
Worst are those that attempt hybridization. Scary stuff. [off-topic mode]There was one board where the owner admin was/is a paranoid freak who couldn't stand to be wrong, twisting, lying and distorting facts to make himself right. Sneaky sonofagun too... gave his favorite (read: ass-kissing) posters influence and mod powers. Those... aristocrats is the only appropriate word... could then start polls about whether to ban other members. Worse, all it took to warrant a banning is proving one of the aristocrats wrong or even just pissing them off. And not even second-chance bans, but IP bans, and deletions of any references to you.
And this to say nothing of the board itself. Hell, their political etc. discussion forum is completely one-sided (and totally in accordance with the admin's POV), and anyone who dares so much as disagree with anything instantly becomes a target of mod-sanctioned flaming. Makes our Political and War discussion forum look like the model of civilized debate.
There's a reason I no longer have any desire to post there.
So, I'm quite happy with arn's control (despite our disagreements on just about every change he makes to the board).[/off-topic mode]
That said, I vote move it to the bottom of the section whose name escapes me with Community Discussion, etc.
I think it's just fine where it is.
In other news, MacRumors is not a democracy but is in fact a dictatorship run by arn.
Pity, ain't it? Of course, there's cases where it's better for forums to be totally dictatorially controlled, or completely democratic (or something similar, like democratic, but with admin veto).
Worst are those that attempt hybridization. Scary stuff. [off-topic mode]There was one board where the owner admin was/is a paranoid freak who couldn't stand to be wrong, twisting, lying and distorting facts to make himself right. Sneaky sonofagun too... gave his favorite (read: ass-kissing) posters influence and mod powers. Those... aristocrats is the only appropriate word... could then start polls about whether to ban other members. Worse, all it took to warrant a banning is proving one of the aristocrats wrong or even just pissing them off. And not even second-chance bans, but IP bans, and deletions of any references to you.
And this to say nothing of the board itself. Hell, their political etc. discussion forum is completely one-sided (and totally in accordance with the admin's POV), and anyone who dares so much as disagree with anything instantly becomes a target of mod-sanctioned flaming. Makes our Political and War discussion forum look like the model of civilized debate.
There's a reason I no longer have any desire to post there.
So, I'm quite happy with arn's control (despite our disagreements on just about every change he makes to the board).[/off-topic mode]
That said, I vote move it to the bottom of the section whose name escapes me with Community Discussion, etc.
SamIchi
Mar 17, 11:16 AM
Do you have to send your old straps in once you get the new ones?
medea
Oct 27, 04:48 PM
I think there is definitely a market that would buy these things, I mean some people do pay $15,000 for a TV right, and I think there are plenty of labs and such that use Apple's and could use a 30" screen. And as far as the current economy goes, this is rumored to be a year or more away so that isnt really an issue either, they also stated that it would have the same resoulion as the 23" one now. The digital lifestyle device is a tough one though, there are so many rumors about PDA's and phones that's it's almost impossible to say.
Personally if it was one of those two I think it would be the phone, Jobs has stated before that PDA's may be ancient and pointless now and "one day you won't even think about using a (cell?) phone without a computer...)
Personally if it was one of those two I think it would be the phone, Jobs has stated before that PDA's may be ancient and pointless now and "one day you won't even think about using a (cell?) phone without a computer...)
menziep
Jun 17, 01:58 PM
The Apple UK site has now listed the get a mac ads.
Link
http://www.apple.com/uk/getamac
Link
http://www.apple.com/uk/getamac
whooleytoo
May 15, 10:22 AM
Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=386136&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5%3Cbr%20/%3E)
Too funny. They interview a taxi driver about the Apple v Apple lawsuit, thinking he's a technology expert.
Too funny. They interview a taxi driver about the Apple v Apple lawsuit, thinking he's a technology expert.
rice_web
Oct 19, 09:04 PM
...that you didn't see my post about dual channel DDRII? That fills up the 800MHz that's useable on the bus quite nicely.
I'm amazed that I missed that post. You had a good point before I did.
Whatever the case, the 970 doesn't need an L3 cache to perform well (although, an L3 cache helps tremendously). Our 512K of L2 cache should be enough with the memory bandwidth at our disposal.
I'm amazed that I missed that post. You had a good point before I did.
Whatever the case, the 970 doesn't need an L3 cache to perform well (although, an L3 cache helps tremendously). Our 512K of L2 cache should be enough with the memory bandwidth at our disposal.
srobert
Mar 19, 12:33 PM
In a follow-up to the blog we posted on Friday regarding Take Two's
lawsuit against Jack Thompson, it appears that the Florida lawyer
has struck back with a response all his own. In the blog, you'll find
his full response, as well as my personal take on what he's
saying...that is, if we can figure it out. Here's the response, unedited
for your reading pleasure...
- - - - - - - - - -
"Dear Gamers and Gamer Publications on the Internet and Elsewhere:
I have been praying, literally, that Take-Two and its lawyers would
do something so stupid, so arrogant, so dumb, even dumber than
what they have to date done, that such a misstep would enable me
to destroy Take-Two.
With the filing of this SLAPP lawsuit last week, my prayers are
finally answered. This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest
thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of
practicing law -- while in continuous good standing to do so with
The Florida Bar, I might add, the shock radio and video game
industry's efforts notwithstanding. I encourage folks to read
Psalm 35, a Psalm of David, which is brilliant in its entirety (since
God Himself wrote it), but for those who don't own a Bible or who
think their hands will catch on fire if they touch one, here is the
salient portion that applies to this lawsuit:
7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which
without cause they have digged for my soul.
8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that
he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.
9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his
salvation.
The pit Take-Two has dug for itself will be patently clear next week
when I strike back. Oh, and by the way, the entire Take-Two
management and board will be gone on March 23, so this
pit-digging comes at a very bad time indeed. Amen, and Praise
be to God Almighty, maker of Heaven, Earth, and yes, the maker
even video games.
Jack Thompson"
Link (http://www.gamedailyxl.com/2007/03/18/jack-thompson-responds-to-take-two-hoo-boy?&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000019)
:eek:++
lawsuit against Jack Thompson, it appears that the Florida lawyer
has struck back with a response all his own. In the blog, you'll find
his full response, as well as my personal take on what he's
saying...that is, if we can figure it out. Here's the response, unedited
for your reading pleasure...
- - - - - - - - - -
"Dear Gamers and Gamer Publications on the Internet and Elsewhere:
I have been praying, literally, that Take-Two and its lawyers would
do something so stupid, so arrogant, so dumb, even dumber than
what they have to date done, that such a misstep would enable me
to destroy Take-Two.
With the filing of this SLAPP lawsuit last week, my prayers are
finally answered. This lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, is, without a doubt, the single dumbest
thing I have ever seen any lawyers do in my thirty years of
practicing law -- while in continuous good standing to do so with
The Florida Bar, I might add, the shock radio and video game
industry's efforts notwithstanding. I encourage folks to read
Psalm 35, a Psalm of David, which is brilliant in its entirety (since
God Himself wrote it), but for those who don't own a Bible or who
think their hands will catch on fire if they touch one, here is the
salient portion that applies to this lawsuit:
7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which
without cause they have digged for my soul.
8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that
he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.
9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his
salvation.
The pit Take-Two has dug for itself will be patently clear next week
when I strike back. Oh, and by the way, the entire Take-Two
management and board will be gone on March 23, so this
pit-digging comes at a very bad time indeed. Amen, and Praise
be to God Almighty, maker of Heaven, Earth, and yes, the maker
even video games.
Jack Thompson"
Link (http://www.gamedailyxl.com/2007/03/18/jack-thompson-responds-to-take-two-hoo-boy?&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000019)
:eek:++
mkrishnan
Mar 1, 11:39 AM
If you think that's great, the Versiontracker page says that it's going to be at version 0.11, 2nd edition, "within an hour." :D
Apparently all it does is burn AIFF files to a CD. And the developers don't even seem to have a homepage. :eek:
Well, if you know how to work the system, more power to you! :)
Apparently all it does is burn AIFF files to a CD. And the developers don't even seem to have a homepage. :eek:
Well, if you know how to work the system, more power to you! :)
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
primalman
Sep 12, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
Nope. The 64-bit IBM PPC has an SIMD engine, which is surely Altivec. IBM has rights to Altivec.
Actually, IBM has no rights to Altivec, they would have to liscence the tech and name from Motorola in order to build what is commonly refered to as the G4.
That is why IBM still makes 'G3' named chips, the 750 line.
I am sure that if Apple paid the liscencing fees to Motorloa for IBM, they may make the 'G4' for Apple then.
I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.
Hmmmmmm...
Nope. The 64-bit IBM PPC has an SIMD engine, which is surely Altivec. IBM has rights to Altivec.
Actually, IBM has no rights to Altivec, they would have to liscence the tech and name from Motorola in order to build what is commonly refered to as the G4.
That is why IBM still makes 'G3' named chips, the 750 line.
I am sure that if Apple paid the liscencing fees to Motorloa for IBM, they may make the 'G4' for Apple then.
I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.
Hmmmmmm...
nixd2001
Oct 15, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by zac4mac
I'm betting the date stated by IBM yesterday is a Red Herring.
The new fab at Fishkill began operation late Spring/early Summer
A few months ago, G5 rumors were way rampant.
A red MoBo with a SINGLE processor shows up on e-bay(cocked at a 45 degree angle, no less).
Stories abounded about "superfast" powermac protos.
I think IBM is already making the 970, has been for several months and Apple has a bunch of proto boxes, already debugging.
Notice they say the 970 will come out at .13micron, but the Fishkill fab goes to .09micron next Spring(hearsay).
Where there any numbers on the top of this chip? Can the sequence 970 be seen anywhere on it, or something identifying IBM?
I'm betting the date stated by IBM yesterday is a Red Herring.
The new fab at Fishkill began operation late Spring/early Summer
A few months ago, G5 rumors were way rampant.
A red MoBo with a SINGLE processor shows up on e-bay(cocked at a 45 degree angle, no less).
Stories abounded about "superfast" powermac protos.
I think IBM is already making the 970, has been for several months and Apple has a bunch of proto boxes, already debugging.
Notice they say the 970 will come out at .13micron, but the Fishkill fab goes to .09micron next Spring(hearsay).
Where there any numbers on the top of this chip? Can the sequence 970 be seen anywhere on it, or something identifying IBM?
javiercr
Jul 25, 12:41 PM
why do you use the PB for Seti? I would have HD cycles from the PB and use the eMac instead.
I have 3 P3s bought second hand from ebay for less that $40 each, they do different things like folding proteins and acting as file servers and edonkey clients) , 1 dual P3 server that processes RAW files or compresses movies overnight, a Dell D600 from work (which is the ugliest thing in my flat) and a PB12" which I used more that all the others together.
I have 3 P3s bought second hand from ebay for less that $40 each, they do different things like folding proteins and acting as file servers and edonkey clients) , 1 dual P3 server that processes RAW files or compresses movies overnight, a Dell D600 from work (which is the ugliest thing in my flat) and a PB12" which I used more that all the others together.
zap2
Mar 18, 11:29 AM
2 more points-
360- Rumble
PS3- TrueHD
Yes, 360 has rumble, but it also has 1080p, as does PS3's.
I'd go Xbox 360 for online
360- Rumble
PS3- TrueHD
Yes, 360 has rumble, but it also has 1080p, as does PS3's.
I'd go Xbox 360 for online
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
trainguy77
Sep 12, 09:35 PM
Voted again!
arn
Oct 7, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
harveypooka
Mar 21, 02:17 PM
I have a question for all of you World of Warcraft players.
When I play games, I don't like to have to interact with other players. I don't like to wait for games to start online. I don't like to be schooled by people who spend exponentially more time playing than I do. I like to play for whatever chunks of time I have and that's it. If I have 30 minutes to play, I want to spend it playing and enjoying myself. I don't want to spend 20 minutes waiting to get a group together.
With all this in mind, could I still play and enjoy World of Warcraft?
You could, but you'd be missing out on a lot of the WoW experience. WoW is the community and it all depends on what server you're on. Why not just try a RPG like Oblivion, I reckon you'd get more out of that.
When I play games, I don't like to have to interact with other players. I don't like to wait for games to start online. I don't like to be schooled by people who spend exponentially more time playing than I do. I like to play for whatever chunks of time I have and that's it. If I have 30 minutes to play, I want to spend it playing and enjoying myself. I don't want to spend 20 minutes waiting to get a group together.
With all this in mind, could I still play and enjoy World of Warcraft?
You could, but you'd be missing out on a lot of the WoW experience. WoW is the community and it all depends on what server you're on. Why not just try a RPG like Oblivion, I reckon you'd get more out of that.
joeboy_45101
Mar 19, 01:27 AM
It's this kind of crap that's going to scare the record companies into demanding a higher price for songs sold online. They are at this time still sceptical about the whole online business as is. DVD Jon has proved his points, yes he is a good hacker and DRM is not bulletproof. But, I wish he would get it into his head that MOST people don't mind DRM on digital music if it is designed to be flexible enough so that it doesn't stand in the way of enjoyment.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
MacsRgr8
Aug 13, 04:33 PM
WOW... I feel pretty much a newb compared to jefhatfield!
A member for nearly 2 years, averaging around 2.5 posts a day.
I love it here :)
A member for nearly 2 years, averaging around 2.5 posts a day.
I love it here :)
abc123
Feb 25, 06:46 PM
i use firefox after i had all sorts of safari problems, not connecting to any sites.
safari works fine now but i'm used to firefix with all my extentions now. the only thing that i miss is spell check in text but i guess that only promotes laziness anyway.
safari isn't a bad browser and firefox has its quirks too but i'm happy this way.
safari works fine now but i'm used to firefix with all my extentions now. the only thing that i miss is spell check in text but i guess that only promotes laziness anyway.
safari isn't a bad browser and firefox has its quirks too but i'm happy this way.
King Cobra
Oct 5, 07:04 PM
Pentium 4: Bad idea.
Someone back me up on this, but the P4:
(1) lacks a decent sized L1 Cache,
(2) lacks a L3 cache, and
(3) would fail to give decent support to the Velocity Engine instructions of the G4.
Apple significantly incorporates the VE with their Apps (iMovie, FCP, iTunes, DVD Studio Pro, iCanGoOn...) including Mac OS X. By giving up the necessary L1 Cache you really concede the speed. I do agree that 800MHz vs. 2.8GHz does not make for fair play in the general consumer world, meaning what the average person sees listed on the box, but I don't agree that 800MHz vs. 2.8GHz is a big difference. At most, it may only be a 2x difference, but usually that comes from ********* up your computer with useless crap you'll hardly use. I'd guess, most of the time, it's close competition, but Apple (or someone) has to do a better job of advertising how Mac and PCs truly stack up, and people have to want to look at the stats, not just see them.
Someone back me up on this, but the P4:
(1) lacks a decent sized L1 Cache,
(2) lacks a L3 cache, and
(3) would fail to give decent support to the Velocity Engine instructions of the G4.
Apple significantly incorporates the VE with their Apps (iMovie, FCP, iTunes, DVD Studio Pro, iCanGoOn...) including Mac OS X. By giving up the necessary L1 Cache you really concede the speed. I do agree that 800MHz vs. 2.8GHz does not make for fair play in the general consumer world, meaning what the average person sees listed on the box, but I don't agree that 800MHz vs. 2.8GHz is a big difference. At most, it may only be a 2x difference, but usually that comes from ********* up your computer with useless crap you'll hardly use. I'd guess, most of the time, it's close competition, but Apple (or someone) has to do a better job of advertising how Mac and PCs truly stack up, and people have to want to look at the stats, not just see them.
alex_ant
Oct 13, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
Processor.......Speed..SPECint200..SPECfp2000
Alpha 21264C,...1.01 GHz....561....585
Alpha 21264C,...1 GHz.......621....776
Alpha 21264B,...833 MHz.....518....621 _
Itanium,........800 MHz.....379....701
McKinley,.......1.0 GHz.....640*...???_
UltraSPARC III..1.05 GHz....537....701
UltraSPARC III..900 MHz.....470....629
UltraSPARC III..750 MHz.....363....312
Power4,.........1.3 GHz.....790....1098
* = Very preliminary simulations from Intel_
Processor.......Speed..SPECint200..SPECfp2000
Alpha 21264C,...1.01 GHz....561....585
Alpha 21264C,...1 GHz.......621....776
Alpha 21264B,...833 MHz.....518....621 _
Itanium,........800 MHz.....379....701
McKinley,.......1.0 GHz.....640*...???_
UltraSPARC III..1.05 GHz....537....701
UltraSPARC III..900 MHz.....470....629
UltraSPARC III..750 MHz.....363....312
Power4,.........1.3 GHz.....790....1098
* = Very preliminary simulations from Intel_
No comments:
Post a Comment