14 Aug
2002
14 Aug
'02
12:48 p.m.
Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an Intel marketing gimmick... From my
experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the general populace
using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
Just my 2 cent piece worth
Will J
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
14 Aug
14 Aug
12:53 p.m.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Will Jennings wrote:
Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an Intel
marketing gimmick...
From my experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the
general populace using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be
on them.
Or if you NEXTSTEP^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X on them.
-brian.
1:32 p.m.
... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
That's my current project. My BeBox has a ROM issue that is
keeping it from even beginning to boot so I'm building up a PM7600 to
run it on, complete with dual-604e CPU board.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
9:59 p.m.
on 8/14/02 4:47 PM, Will Jennings at xds_sigma7(a)hotmail.com wrote:
Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an Intel
marketing gimmick... From my
experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the general populace
using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
I run Be on a crappy Intel system. Be is a good OS, but not very useful.
Thank you thank you THANK YOU Steve for telling them NOT to buy Be!!!
Anyway, I prefer going months without a crash with Mac OS X (10.1) than
having post 95 versions of Windows crash every couple of hours.
Plus I like being able to run text-based UNIX programs, X based apps,
Windows programs, Mac OS Classic, and Mac OS X programs, all on the screen
at the same time, and all of them feeling pretty snappy. On a G4, anyway.
Wouldn't try it on a G3. Would any PC users out there like to take the
Photoshop benchmark test against my 800Mhz TiBook? Hmm... Anyone? :-)
--
Owen Robertson
10:22 p.m.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Owen Robertson wrote:
on 8/14/02 4:47 PM, Will Jennings at
xds_sigma7(a)hotmail.com wrote:
Assuming that Photoshop for the PC is dual-proc capable, I'm sure my Dual
1.466GHz athlon could beat it hands-down. Maybe I just have too much
faith or just know how crappy the PowerPC Price/Performance ratio really
is.
Who has a copy of the benchmark?
-- Pat
Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an
Intel marketing gimmick... From my
experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the general populace
using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
I run Be on a crappy Intel system. Be is a good OS, but not very useful.
Thank you thank you THANK YOU Steve for telling them NOT to buy Be!!!
Anyway, I prefer going months without a crash with Mac OS X (10.1) than
having post 95 versions of Windows crash every couple of hours.
Plus I like being able to run text-based UNIX programs, X based apps,
Windows programs, Mac OS Classic, and Mac OS X programs, all on the screen
at the same time, and all of them feeling pretty snappy. On a G4, anyway.
Wouldn't try it on a G3. Would any PC users out there like to take the
Photoshop benchmark test against my 800Mhz TiBook? Hmm... Anyone? :-)
10:39 p.m.
on 8/15/02 2:22 AM, Patrick Finnegan at pat(a)purdueriots.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Owen Robertson wrote:
But you're overlooking one important thing here. Photoshop is optimized for
AltiVec (Velocity Engine, as Apple calls it). That gives it a tremendous
speed boost on G4 systems. And if you run it on a dual processor G4, it
really screams. No matter how many platforms Adobe ports it to, Photoshop
is, and will always be a Mac application. Processor performance and
everything else aside, Photoshop is deisgned from the ground up for the Mac,
and adapted to run on Windows.
on 8/14/02 4:47 PM, Will Jennings at
xds_sigma7(a)hotmail.com wrote:
Assuming that Photoshop for the PC is dual-proc capable, I'm sure my Dual
1.466GHz athlon could beat it hands-down. Maybe I just have too much
faith or just know how crappy the PowerPC Price/Performance ratio really
is. Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an
Intel marketing gimmick... From my
experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the general populace
using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
I run Be on a crappy Intel system. Be is a good OS, but not very useful.
Thank you thank you THANK YOU Steve for telling them NOT to buy Be!!!
Anyway, I prefer going months without a crash with Mac OS X (10.1) than
having post 95 versions of Windows crash every couple of hours.
Plus I like being able to run text-based UNIX programs, X based apps,
Windows programs, Mac OS Classic, and Mac OS X programs, all on the screen
at the same time, and all of them feeling pretty snappy. On a G4, anyway.
Wouldn't try it on a G3. Would any PC users out there like to take the
Photoshop benchmark test against my 800Mhz TiBook? Hmm... Anyone? :-) Who has a copy of the benchmark?
Oh it's easy to come buy. Apple uses it frequently to promote the G4. Mac
publications, Adobe, etc, all use it. According to MacAddict:
A 2-pixel Gaussian Blur, using a 95MB image, with Photoshop 7 and Mac OS X
on an 800Mhz TiBook (Titanium PowerBook G4) takes 14 seconds.
Not bad for a portable. But even if you system outperforms mine, which being
DP it might, mine is much more stable, and looks infinitely cooler. :-)
--
Owen Robertson
10:55 p.m.
By the way - I'm dropping out of this discussion now. After years of being a
loyal Windows, Linux, Be, OS/2, and DOS user, I finally found a platform I'm
proud to be loyal to. I avidly defend Apple and the Macintosh, but sometimes
I get extremely worked up about it. Believe me, there are people out there
who would not *dare* say anything the least bit negative about Apple around
me. I do *not* want to get into a flamewar here, which I am very prone to do
when the reputation of my platform is at stake.
--
Owen Robertson
on 8/15/02 2:39 AM, Owen Robertson at univac2(a)earthlink.net wrote:
on 8/15/02 2:22 AM, Patrick Finnegan at
pat(a)purdueriots.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Owen Robertson wrote:
But you're overlooking one important thing here. Photoshop is optimized for
AltiVec (Velocity Engine, as Apple calls it). That gives it a tremendous
speed boost on G4 systems. And if you run it on a dual processor G4, it
really screams. No matter how many platforms Adobe ports it to, Photoshop
is, and will always be a Mac application. Processor performance and
everything else aside, Photoshop is deisgned from the ground up for the Mac,
and adapted to run on Windows.
on 8/14/02 4:47 PM, Will Jennings at
xds_sigma7(a)hotmail.com wrote:
Assuming that Photoshop for the PC is dual-proc capable, I'm sure my Dual
1.466GHz athlon could beat it hands-down. Maybe I just have too much
faith or just know how crappy the PowerPC Price/Performance ratio really
is. Who says a PC is a computer? It's just an
Intel marketing gimmick... From
my
experiences doing tech support, I shudder to imagine the general populace
using real computers... And macs are OK if you run Be on them.
I run Be on a crappy Intel system. Be is a good OS, but not very useful.
Thank you thank you THANK YOU Steve for telling them NOT to buy Be!!!
Anyway, I prefer going months without a crash with Mac OS X (10.1) than
having post 95 versions of Windows crash every couple of hours.
Plus I like being able to run text-based UNIX programs, X based apps,
Windows programs, Mac OS Classic, and Mac OS X programs, all on the screen
at the same time, and all of them feeling pretty snappy. On a G4, anyway.
Wouldn't try it on a G3. Would any PC users out there like to take the
Photoshop benchmark test against my 800Mhz TiBook? Hmm... Anyone? :-) Who has a copy of the benchmark?
Oh it's easy to come buy. Apple uses it frequently to promote the G4. Mac
publications, Adobe, etc, all use it. According to MacAddict:
A 2-pixel Gaussian Blur, using a 95MB image, with Photoshop 7 and Mac OS X
on an 800Mhz TiBook (Titanium PowerBook G4) takes 14 seconds.
Not bad for a portable. But even if you system outperforms mine, which being
DP it might, mine is much more stable, and looks infinitely cooler. :-)
15 Aug
15 Aug
4:59 a.m.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Owen Robertson wrote:
on 8/15/02 2:22 AM, Patrick Finnegan at
pat(a)purdueriots.com wrote:
Ahh, A G4. Yea, forgot about the vector processor. Of coures, in real
life most things *I* do don't anything that'd use it. Otherwise, I think
I'd win.
This is the same reason an Astronautics ZS-1 at 25 or 33MHz could
outperform a P-IV 1GHz for some vector ops... But most 'real-life'
non-graphical or simulation/calculator type applications can't make
advantage of it.
If you're looking for REALLY bad Price/Performance ratios for "standard
stuff," look at Sun's Blade 100s. I swear that an 300MHz Sun Ultra 5 is
just as fast (and a helluva lot cheaper).
-- Pat
Assuming that Photoshop for the PC is dual-proc
capable, I'm sure my Dual
1.466GHz athlon could beat it hands-down. Maybe I just have too much
faith or just know how crappy the PowerPC Price/Performance ratio really
is.
But you're overlooking one important thing here. Photoshop is optimized for
AltiVec (Velocity Engine, as Apple calls it). That gives it a tremendous
speed boost on G4 systems. And if you run it on a dual processor G4, it
really screams. No matter how many platforms Adobe ports it to, Photoshop
is, and will always be a Mac application. Processor performance and
everything else aside, Photoshop is deisgned from the ground up for the Mac,
and adapted to run on Windows. 
5:27 a.m.
Patrick Finnegan said:
If you're looking for REALLY bad Price/Performance ratios for "standard
stuff," look at Sun's Blade 100s. I swear that an 300MHz Sun Ultra 5 is
just as fast (and a helluva lot cheaper).
Huh? The Blade 100 is dirt cheap! Cheaper then a new Ultra 5! unless you're
talking about getting a used U5, and then well, I guess you have a point...
Not that I'd buy either one anyway... the UltraSparc III workstations are the
way to go. Sunblade 1000 or better for sure for my money :)
-- Pat
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
5:49 a.m.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Patrick Finnegan said:
Well, would it suprise you that in CPU/memory performance, my friend's
PIII-600MHz Dell beat the Blade 100 in performance? Well, in one or two
tests, the Blade 100 edged out the P-III by at best 1%. What annoys me is
that Purdue is buying loads of them to replace the U5's in computer
labs...
I should have the benchmark results here:
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~finnegpt/benchmarks/
-- Pat
If you're looking for REALLY bad Price/Performance ratios for "standard
stuff," look at Sun's Blade 100s. I swear that an 300MHz Sun Ultra 5 is
just as fast (and a helluva lot cheaper).
Huh? The Blade 100 is dirt cheap! Cheaper then a new Ultra 5! unless you're
talking about getting a used U5, and then well, I guess you have a point...
Not that I'd buy either one anyway... the UltraSparc III workstations are the
way to go. Sunblade 1000 or better for sure for my money :)
5:58 a.m.
Patrick Finnegan said:
Well, would it suprise you that in CPU/memory performance, my friend's
PIII-600MHz Dell beat the Blade 100 in performance? Well, in one or two
tests, the Blade 100 edged out the P-III by at best 1%. What annoys me is
that Purdue is buying loads of them to replace the U5's in computer
labs...
No, that doesn't suprise me. Well, I suppose it depends on what you're
doing... Here, we've found that 450Mhz US-III's beat PIII-800Mhz hands down
(price/performance wise, even), but that's doing quantum chemistry
calculations that do 64-bit FP math almost exclusively. For more normal
things, a PC will almost always give you better price/performace...
"C'mon, the Blade is NEWER! it MUST be better!" bah... if they're
going to
bother, they should buy US-III workstations, where you really are getting
something better...the blade 100 is just a cheapened U5, which is really an
OLD workstation...4 years old at best. blah...
I should have the benchmark results here:
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~finnegpt/benchmarks/
-- Pat
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
9:38 a.m.
on 8/15/02 8:58 AM, Patrick Finnegan at pat(a)purdueriots.com wrote:
Ahh, A G4. Yea, forgot about the vector processor.
Of coures, in real
life most things *I* do don't anything that'd use it. Otherwise, I think
I'd win.
This is the same reason an Astronautics ZS-1 at 25 or 33MHz could
outperform a P-IV 1GHz for some vector ops... But most 'real-life'
non-graphical or simulation/calculator type applications can't make
advantage of it.
Actually, Mac OS X itself makes good use of it. Later this month, when the
latest version is released, the graphics system (Quartz) will push all
graphics tasks onto AltiVec or, if possible, the graphics processor. It
makes pretty good use AltiVec now. Which is why with all the eye-candy like
transparency and pulsating controls and such, the interface always responds
perfectly, even when the system is busy. And a lot of Mac OS X apps are
optimized for AltiVec, if they have any use for it.
--
Owen Robertson
8084
days inactive
8085
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
pat＠purdueriots.com -
univac2＠earthlink.net -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org -
xds_sigma7＠hotmail.com