Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 23 April 2002, 01:07

Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Zombie9920 on 23 April 2002, 01:07: Here is a nice little read that I just came across.

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html)
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: psyjax on 23 April 2002, 02:03: quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Here is a nice little read that I just came across.

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html)

Yep, I agree.

The language of the article is a bit sensational, but Apple fans have been fed up with Mototola's crap for years. This sort of thing has never been a secret.

Thank god Apple is rumerd to be looking for another chip manufacturer. I hope it's true.

EDIT:

Reading thrugh the headlines on this site strikes me that the whole thing is a bit sensational! Every title to an article reads like something out of a tabloid. Wierd.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Zombie9920 on 23 April 2002, 02:10: quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:

Yep, I agree.

The language of the article is a bit sensational, but Apple fans have been fed up with Mototola's crap for years. This sort of thing has never been a secret.

Thank god Apple is rumerd to be looking for another chip manufacturer. I hope it's true.

I saw a rumour article on the net somewhere claiming that Apple is going to port OSX over to run on the AMD Hammer architecture and if all goes well they will use the 64-bit architecture in future OS releases. If this happens I don't know if it will work with the Intel Itanium or not(It really wouldn't matter if it did or not cause the Itanium is way too expensive for the home consumer). Heck, if I can dig up that article I'll post it for ya'll to read.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: ravuya on 23 April 2002, 06:29: Scuse me, but the PowerPC class of microprocessors are already 64-bit.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Zombie9920 on 23 April 2002, 06:50: No they aren't. They are 32bit. G4's can process 128bit chunks of data when Altivec is being used, under normal circumstances they are 32 bit.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: cahult on 23 April 2002, 07:08: Still people believe in Megahertz = speed.

Why should someone go after megahertz alone when it comes to work on their computer? It is what you can do with the computer that counts in the real world. Someone said just a few months ago that even a 150 MHz computer is 80 % faster than the average user needs for his/her daily work! And daily work for most people isn
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: psyjax on 23 April 2002, 07:43: quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
No they aren't. They are 32bit. G4's can process 128bit chunks of data when Altivec is being used, under normal circumstances they are 32 bit.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

Even so, it processes 4 streams of 32-bits each cicle, which adds up to more than one 64 bit chunk processed at a time. Plus, programs that are vectorized, run faster than anything else out there.

But as cahult said. Who really gives a shit?

When is the last time you picked up a box at the store and seen the system spciffications read like this:

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

2Ghz Processor or better
1.5GB of RAM
80GB Hard Drive
Display capable of 256-bit color
50x DVD-ROM

Didn't think so.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: ravuya on 23 April 2002, 18:20: quote:
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

2Ghz Processor or better
1.5GB of RAM
80GB Hard Drive
Display capable of 256-bit color
50x DVD-ROM[/QB]

Hm, betcha that's what the next home release of Winders will require or recommend.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Calum on 23 April 2002, 19:26: quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
Even so, it processes 4 streams of 32-bits each cicle, which adds up to more than one 64 bit chunk processed at a time. Plus, programs that are vectorized, run faster than anything else out there.
What arithmetic are you using for that calculation? 4 streams of 32 bits sounds like a total effect of 36 bits to me. Is there some sort of extra processing going on that i don't know about?
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: psyjax on 23 April 2002, 21:47: quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
What arithmetic are you using for that calculation? 4 streams of 32 bits sounds like a total effect of 36 bits to me. Is there some sort of extra processing going on that i don't know about?

Maybe Im understanding the specs wrong, but the way it was explained to me was that each cycle, 4 packets of 32-bits each, were processesed, instead of a 64-bit chunck like x86. Maybe Im wrong on that.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Kintaro on 24 April 2002, 16:35: I prefer Intel CPU's than Motarola...
Personally, i dont use them so i dont deserve and opinion. If mac release OS X for PC, i would be happppppppy
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Master of Reality on 25 April 2002, 07:22: i prefer AMD.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: cahult on 25 April 2002, 07:26: I prefer sandwiches and hot cocoa.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Master of Reality on 25 April 2002, 07:27: quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
I prefer sandwiches and hot cocoa.

as long as you put in some kahlua
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Gonusto on 25 April 2002, 11:23: And a couple of those little marshmallows . . . Mmmmm, good!

-Gonusto
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: The Czar on 8 June 2002, 06:22: I prefer a nice steak and ABBA.

Gotta have my ABBA, right Rav?
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Ctrl Alt Del 123 on 11 June 2002, 06:00: I'm a AMD dude. Although every Pentium I've had has never failed me. It's just P's cost more money for the same power AMD's have (my AMD cooks me breakfast)
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: choasforages on 12 June 2002, 07:51: well, i herd a rumor that ibm might be the chipmaker, and one that note, isn't ppc a 64 bit chip to begin with and x86 32 bit/*not counting x86-64*/
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: slave on 13 June 2002, 05:31: quote:
If mac release OS X for PC, i would be happppppppy

They won't, because Apple's business is selling hardware, and not having an absolute grip on the Mac hardware market would spell their doom. Unless they dramatically change their business strategy, this will never happen.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: ravuya on 13 June 2002, 18:36: quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
well, i herd a rumor that ibm might be the chipmaker, and one that note, isn't ppc a 64 bit chip to begin with and x86 32 bit/*not counting x86-64*/

Yes, the PowerPC is a 64-bit microprocessor, twice that of today's Intel x86-derived chips.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Ravuya ]
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: The Czar on 16 June 2002, 19:46: This whole mhz thing is way over rated. As most of you probably already know, Mhz is just cycles per second. While the x86 may make more cycles per second, the PPC pushes twice as much data through per clock cycle. It's like saying that a Honda Civic can beat a Corvette because its engine revvs faster. While you can wind a Civic up to about 8500 rpm and a Corvette to about 5000rpm, you're gonna get way more power out of the Corvette because it makes more power per revolution than the Civic does.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 22 June 2002, 19:40: First of comparing the clock speed of processor with different architectures just shows peoples ignorance. The PPC processors use RISC, and the X86 processors use CISC.

take a look at this page its a bit old but it has a nice comparison on it. (http://smile.gif)
http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/ (http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/)

what matters is how fast an application will run, what you want to do wih that machine.

A true way to compare machines would be to see how many gigaflops they can do, not their clock speeds.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: psyjax on 22 June 2002, 21:46: Actually, the true messure of how well a machine performes is to get spec's on which performes better using the specific software you plan to use on it.

Software code is a HUGE bottleneck. I find that now adays with these mega fast processors and large amounts of RAM that programmers are getting sloppy. They don't optamize their code and make sure things are clean and neat cuz they figure the CPU will pick up the slack.

It dosn't matter if youre running 90Mhz or 2Ghz, if your software is badly written, it won't make much diffrence.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: NJDevils on 23 June 2002, 10:29: Wow this topic is right up my alley.

Yes the PPC is designed to be a 64-bit machine, but it really isnt. The architecture allows that headroom though, unlike the crapola x86, where the address lines are reserved. Note that IBM ships the 64-bit version if the ISA in the Power line(which WILL run PPC code minus Altivec). This architecture is still bar none the fastest for the desktop. It runs with a 7 CYCLE pipeline! It takes an instruction 7 cycles to complete, versus 22 for the P4, and 9 for the Athlon. That is why Mac-faithful can get away with unoptimized code and underclocked chips and still not be embarassed.

x86, I have explained my woes of this processor in another post. It is probably the SINGLE worst example of microprocessor design available today. Originally introduced in 1979 as the next generation 8-bit architecture, its longevity can only be attributed to that same stinking vat that M$ has come from, more programs are written for it. And so, more engineers are employed to eek more performance out this undisposed garbage. Imagine if this many engineers actually worked on a architecture with headroom, like the IBM 360. 1Ghz would have been achieved long long ago.

And why the hell would anyone other than the sci-comp guys need 64-bit computing? To address a terabyte of RAM? Besides, the common folk couldnt hope to afford a memory subsystem to saturate a processor like that, and winblows wont run any better with 64 bits. (but your local weather forecaster may benefit).

Alas, as the morons who bought windows have spoken with their spending dollars, x86 will live on. While computing's best hope has been quietly killed off. RIP Alpha, we hardle knew ye.

one more note to choa, though the SPARC may be reliable because of Solaris' excellent programmers, that rotating regfile will forever relegate it to the ass end of computing. It may break 2Ghz next century though on a .00001 micron process grown by microbes.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: choasforages on 23 June 2002, 13:02: im thinking or buying an alpha based machine/*an old one*/ i heard that they were going to come out with the 21364,/*i might be spiting numbers out my ass, be carful now*/ probably not becuase of the merger, woo-fucking hoo, we get stuck with pa-risc. and the sparc being relageted for the ass end of computeing. it sure as hell won't go as fast as the mips processor will but its better for servers then anything else. and for my opoinoins of x86 read my sig, theres some other pretty funny stuff in it/*if you know what it means*/
edit, im a dumb ass that stays up too late and doesn't read what peoples last posts are really about i looked through and you *were* talking about my sig DOH!!! :D

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 24 June 2002, 05:10: Question: Does AMD use CISC because i have heard a couple of rumours that it uses a mixture of CISC and RISC? i don't know how. Also could you explain Alpha a bit? I don't know much about these
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: choasforages on 24 June 2002, 05:59: most current implamentations of x86 i think actaully translate x86 code to rops/*risc operations*/ and about the dec alpha. it is a true 64 bit cpu that was made to either run openvms or tru64 unix/*formaly called digital unix*/ it is a very badd ass processor. some current models can crunch a seti packet in less then an hour/*remeber each seti packet consists of 3-5 teraflops of work that needs doing from what iv read*/ go on the seti at home website and look it up. if it wasn't soo expensive it could have replaced the x86. one thing to rember is that there integer math isn't really good, intel wins on the integer side, however when working with floating point math/*not funny office suites, stuff like supercomputing and alot of other stuff*/ it is one of the fastest processors out there/*don't know about mips though, im pretty sure its fast as hell to*/

note people who have worked with this stuff correct me if im rong
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 24 June 2002, 08:23: So is the Alpha fast at applications or is it just good if you give it a big chunk of info to sort through? what OS's run on it? x86? sounds interesting how expensive are they?
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: choasforages on 24 June 2002, 21:00: off of ebay one can pick up a 500 mhz dec machine for about 300 bucks. youd probably have to add things to it to make it cooler. and for the os's it can run heres a pretty goot list. /*takes in a deep breath*/

openvms, dec unix, tru64, linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows NT 3.5/*only certian versions, the disks are rare now*/ , windows NT 4.0 /*i actally have a winnt disk that will support a dec alpha ;) */

and for the last question, x86 os's won't run becuase the alpha is an entirely different archititure then x86.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: voidmain on 24 June 2002, 21:07: Sure you might have an old copy of NT that will run on it, but don't expect the applications to run. Remember the apps are compiled for x86. Good thing you have the source code (oh wait, that's Linux).

[ edit] you might find this link interesting: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1028 (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1028)

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 24 June 2002, 21:29: ok had a look on ebay.com.au and there are no Alpha machines in there - im in australia if you didn't guess. Not that many Aplhas over here :( oh well just have to stick with my g4 (http://tongue.gif) (its almost 2 years old now 350mhz) i want to get a couple of other cheap machines to fuck around with, UNIX, BSD, Linux. Just need some cheap machines. anyone got some

Do they make new Alphas, what are they used for?
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: voidmain on 24 June 2002, 21:34: They made great UNIX web servers.
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 24 June 2002, 21:51: don't need one of those really so i guess i will pass. if i do set up a server i will be useing MacOS X (http://smile.gif)
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: Refalm on 24 June 2002, 18:43: Is the Mac OS X server good? I heard some bad things about it (inefficient security)
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: the_black_angel on 24 June 2002, 19:07: Where did you hear this? I have had no problems with it - out of the box it is almost as secure as a true BSD.

True it does not ask you for a root password but then again there is no root until you create it (http://tongue.gif)

You have an extremely nice utility called netinfo manager where you can turn off or delete entirely any protocol or service (including http as i found out :( ), view all users on your computer (finger - i know) All from one location, a utility i find very useful
Title: Motorola's MHz = Mega Hurts
Post by: psyjax on 24 June 2002, 22:34: Refelm, OSX Server is excellent. It uses Apache, Kereberos and plenty of other UNIX standards. It also has a nifty GUI for quick acccess and display.

Esentially it is as secure as freeBSD (http://smile.gif)

I don't know what security issues may have been found, but the US army seems to think it's the most secure OS to put their computers on.