MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:33 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
macUser2007
Feb 22, 05:37 PM
The iPhone is great, IMO.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
BUT, Android 2+ is getting to be a real contender. Donut may just be the one to take it to the next level. Notably, the new Androids have not been cheap clones, but rather well-thought out, feature-rich sets, like the Nexus One. With AMOLED screens larger than the iPhone's and robust hardware (e.g. better on-board GPS than the iPhone), I wouldn't be surprised if they take market-share aware from the iPhone.
I also think the "killer app" for the general population will be Flash, when it becomes available on the new sets. Suddenly, the iPhone will be the only large screen smartphone without access to the the full web.
For the iPad the lack of Flash will be a much larger problem. There are a bunch of tablets coming out, some sporting Android 2.x, all of which will run full Flash, and be able to access the full web. On larger screens, mobile versions of major sites suck, and some do not work at all.
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
BriGuy20
Oct 8, 09:24 AM
The only reason I could see this happening is if Apple doesn't roll out the iPhone to other carriers or if it does so late in 2011 or something.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
I could also see Google making more unit sales but with lower revenue (i.e. more low-end units).
I think the point will be moot because of the gazillion different iterations of hardware manufacturers tacking on their individualized stuff.
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:51 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
EvilEvil
Apr 9, 07:31 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 07:38 PM
I just got off the phone with an Apple tech and had a long discussion with him about my "concerns" about apple Hardware Tech. He basically all but agreed, and told me to pass my comments to Customer Care, and that he would not my arguements.
I know that I'm basically pissing in the wind, but I had to get it off my chest.
Now, Give me a PB worth my $3500 damn it!
I know that I'm basically pissing in the wind, but I had to get it off my chest.
Now, Give me a PB worth my $3500 damn it!
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 03:20 PM
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
Most people run windows on their macs? are you high?
Most people run windows on their macs? are you high?
chaoticbear
Apr 12, 10:39 AM
I don't care for the difficulty involved in sharing files across OS X/Windows/Linux, but that's hardly the fault of the Mac.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
carlos700
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
And Fear.
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
RED WHITE BLUE STARS WALLPAPER
Blue amp; White Wallpaper Ring
Lime Green, Blue, Red and
patches diamond lue white
Blue abstract background, wavy
wallpapers white background.
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
edesignuk
Oct 8, 08:43 AM
That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:...but who has the market share?
eXan
Sep 26, 01:55 AM
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:23 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
bnerd
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
Hopefully this will lighten the strain on the network.
BrokenChairs
Apr 10, 07:34 AM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Blipp
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
I believe you. . . but do you have a link. I haven't dug around a lot for it yet. That's really my biggest concern with this update.
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
shawnce
Oct 26, 09:59 AM
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings.
Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.
XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.
8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.
XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.
8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 05:57 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
No comments:
Post a Comment