• This forum is for posting news stories or links from rumor sites. When you start a thread, please include a link to the site you're referencing.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM TO ASK "WHAT IF?" TYPE QUESTIONS.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO USE YOUR MAC OR SOFTWARE.

    This is a NEWS and RUMORS forum as the name implies. If your thread is neither of those things, then please find the appropriate forum to ask your question.

    If you don't have a link to a news story, do not post the thread here.

    If you don't follow these rules, then your post may be deleted.

Processor

OP
M

MoltenLava

Guest
Win2000. :) There's your problem. I'm sure people will complain the same way trying to run Mac OS 9 on dual G5!!
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Location
Luxemburg, Europe
Your Mac's Specs
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB
I know that Win2000 is the biggest trouble in the setup...but unfortunately, our IT department doesn't want to hear about XP because of it's security holes :(

XP is a lot better, I agree... but still carries allong soem old flaws...
 
OP
M

Matt

Guest
Avalon. Windows 2000 is the second best Windows version ever. I think that the newer systems you are running are not designed for Windows 2000, so maybe thats why you have such a bad experience with it.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Location
Luxemburg, Europe
Your Mac's Specs
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB
Matt said:
Avalon. Windows 2000 is the second best Windows version ever. I think that the newer systems you are running are not designed for Windows 2000, so maybe thats why you have such a bad experience with it.

It is the stablest Windows, I agree... but definitely not the best...
It doesn't matter how old or new the hardware is, Windows 2000 in combination with the network just simply is way to slow...
 
OP
M

Matt

Guest
Oh, so its the network :) At school, the Windows 2000 network can take a while to log in, thats for sure. On the older computers, it takes like 5-10 minutes (no joke) to log in fully. On the newer P 3's, about 3 minutes, but still way too slow.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Location
Luxemburg, Europe
Your Mac's Specs
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB
Well, all servers are Linux...

The problem isn't logging in, it's more the behaviour of Windows itself (and some other software). Windows Explorer (not IE) might have some advantages compared to Finder, but it definitely is the program that slows down and doesn't respond the most on any Windows machine in our office (about 90 PCs). And it doesn't matter how new, fast or how much RAM the PC has, GUI reactions and program response are far worse then on Mac OS X running on a Titanium PowerBook (G4 667MHz, 512MB), the only Mac we have in the company.

Well, as nobody seems to believe me anyway, I'll just stop posting on this topic... ;-)
I am a longtime computer user and administrator, with some hardware expertise too, and really, Windows might have the biggest marketshare, but even with the security issues left aside, it's not well programmed...I agree that WinXP has done a lot of progress to Windows, and it is mainly not too bad...but if Microsoft finally would take a big leap in OS development (like Apple did from OS9 to OS X) instead of always trying to improve the old Windows and still keeping old burdens and flaws (the vulnerable registry for example), they surely would be able to create a very good and fast OS.
 
OP
M

Matt

Guest
I didn't say I didn't beliveible you :(

Didn't MS sort of take the plunge from 98 to 2000, since they based 2000 and XP on N.T kernel. Still, it isn't like basing it on UNIX though :). MS needs to base it on something as different from its current OS as OS 9 base is compared to OS X base.

Microsoft has the potential to create the best OS on the planet, but then little would up grade.

About the network: I don't have much of a comparison. Yes, they are fairly slow in many ways. The computers at my previous school were ALOT quicker, and they were on a network running mainly Windows 98. Remember though, the performance relise a darn lot on the speed of the server. Slower server(s)= slower computers. So it could be 2000 or the server.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Location
Luxemburg, Europe
Your Mac's Specs
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB
I was generally speaking, you're not the only "unbeliever"... ;-)

The step to NT-kernel was a step in the right direction, but what's above the Kernel is still same old Windows 9x (oversimplified, I know ;-) )

You're right about the network affecting computer speed...funny thing is, it does that on Windows only. Linux doesn't get slower when you connect it to a network, and neither does OS X (after login)
 
OP
O

Oblivion

Guest
WinXp is not designed to only run MS software. Because of this you will get alot of overhead and slow downs as well as security holes, stability issues and every other problem about it that I'm sure your all well aware of.

OSX is not designed to be universal and because of this it just will not have the problems mentioned above to the extent as XP. Even though the OS is Unix-Like holding 1-2% of the market, it still attracts the eyes of the hackers and it too also has holes which are just as updated when found as XP. With the Open Source of OSX, it can be rewritten to run on x86 systems and accept all third party software but, then it would be in the same class as XP with all the above issues. I seriously doubt that Jobbs will allow this just for competition or just the fact that he wants it to be strickly proprietary to MAC. There are also other issues like time and money that can be a huge expense.

Companies that are serious in networking that do use a MS OS, do not use retail or CE versons of Xp/Win2k3. They are sold the full source of 40GB+ from MS directly in which they optimize only for their needs that just can't be done through the kernel on any CE or Retail version. They also get special treament over the consumer market from MS as well.
 
OP
M

Mr.Guvernment

Guest
iSheep said:
Bot Intel and AMD have both decided to get into dual-processors now because they recon it'll be easier. Umm, guess who's been doing that for the last few years...

thery are not going "dual processor" they are going "dual core" as in 2 CPU's in one, so you put in 2 physical AMD Opterons into one system and you actually have 4 CPU;s and no this i not like hyperthreading on intel it is 2 PHYSICAL processor cores. - Apple has NOT been doing that as far as i know.

Intel and AMD have had "dual processor" systems for sometime!
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Microsoft could probably do it if they knew how. But apple would struggle because of the less amount of workers. Arent there like 10,000 ppl at MS and only 1000-2000 at Apple? I might be wrong. It would just take them to long and might cost alot more.
 
OP
M

Mr.Guvernment

Guest
i am thinking more then 10,000 people @ MS - if you consider worldwide - i would think but who knows!

I think Microsoft would get alot of pressure from the government / other compabies if it went into the CPU buisness - more monopolizing? (typo?)
 
OP
W

WilliS

Guest
lets keep microsoft out of the chip making side of things... last thing i want is hardware malfunctioning as well as os's
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
2,118
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Sunny So Cal
Your Mac's Specs
G5•2x1.8•1.5•320•8x+/-
lets see microsoft compete with this:

Source: [url]www.TechNewsWorld.com[/url]

A US$100 million supercomputer being built to analyze the U.S. nuclear stockpile has again set an unofficial performance record -- the second in just over a month.

IBM's (NYSE: IBM) still-incomplete Blue Gene/L system, which will be installed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory , achieved a sustained performance of 70.72 trillion calculations per second using a standard test program, the Department of Energy said on Thursday.

Beats NEC

The world's current official leader, NEC's (Nasdaq: NIPNY) Earth Simulator, can sustain 35.86 trillion calculations per second using the same software.

The announcement is the latest in a series of claims leading up to next Tuesday's unveiling in Pittsburgh of the official list of the world's top computers.

Since 2002, much to the chagrin of some U.S. technology companies, the Japanese system has topped the list, which is maintained by several university computer scientists who run the Top 500 project.

NASA's SGI Machine

In September, IBM announced that the Blue Gene/L prototype had sustained speeds of 36 trillion calculations per second.

Last week, NASA announced that a system built by Silicon Graphics (NYSE: SGI) had topped that by sustaining 42 trillion calculations per second.

Still Incomplete

Both Blue Gene and the NASA computers are still unfinished, and the performance of both is expected to improve as more microprocessors are added.

Blue Gene, for instance, is just a quarter of its final planned size. When finished, it will exceed Earth Simulator's performance by a factor of nine but require just a fraction of the electricity used by the Japanese machine.
 
OP
Z

Zach_C

Guest
To the earlier topic about optical computing. There was an article about that in the issue of Scientific American that was out about two months ago. If I recall correctly Intel is aiming at 20GHz in 2010. So, you do have a little bit of a wait. And the speed inscrease will seem slow due to the cost of optical connections. The optical connections will only come into play in longer connections for short distance switching copper is unparalleled in efficiency when cost is involved. Also technologically we are still a ways off from a fully optical computer.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
726
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM
By the way, going back to the part about Intel processors being "faster" simply because they have a higher GHz rating, this isn't true with all programs. At least not the important ones. When it comes to long and involved processes, Macs slaughter them. I was speaking to a long-time Mac using veteran who also had worked at the Apple Store for a few years the other day. He'd had a man come in that bought a Powermac G5 because his dual-P4 PC had taken two days to compile an immensely long chemistry equation. He figured he'd try the Mac since even the most powerful PCs had a difficult time processing it quickly enough. He was hoping for a decent increase, but here's what he got: He set the program up, set up the equation and set it to calculate. He left the Mac running the equation for two or three hours while he went out to run some errands. He came back and there was about a minute left on the clock. Case in point: with an Intel processor, a window might open quicker. Startup time might be a little faster. But the processors have failed to address what's really important.
 
OP
E

eeloo_guy

Guest
It would be really cool to have an Apple made proc in our computers, but I dont think that Apple would ever consider this. The reason is that there's just too much cost, complexity and hassle involved for very little return... It cost IBM X millions (possibly billions, go check the propaganda video) of dollars to set up the plant just to produce the PowerPC 970 chip, and Apple certainly does not have that kind of money to throw around on one chip, never mind setting up a whole new section of its company. Even if it did, what would the benefit be? IBM, AMD, Intel and Motorola certainly have not survived this long by sitting on their butts. Today's CPU industry is extremely cutthroat, and I doubt that Apple would be able to do much better in making speed advances when these four giants are having trouble. If it's to be able to say, "hey, come buy this computer, which was made entirely by us!", then why bother? 90% of the consumers that Apple is trying to attract right now (the iPod lovers, the new-to-the-Apple-experience, the old grannies who don't want viruses) wouldn't know the difference between a G5 and an iChip5 (By Apple!), and they wouldn't care if they did. I would love to see Apple do this and succeed, but people are right: past experience and the current computer industry environment all say that Apple would most likely fail in this kind of venture.

Hope nobody fell asleep.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top