misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Crims�n ...example? I'm thinking of an Imax projector, or some giant high res moniter. Fun Techy Facts with Raven. Should be a sticky :lol: look at any quality digital display. From Apple's own cinema displays, to current flat panel monitors and TV's from most major manufacturer's like Sony, Panasonic, etc. Most high-end DVD players, recorders, and Tivo now connect using DVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by LaCosaNostra I dunno, I mean if I had the money for it, I would probably get a Mac. But since I don't I have a PC. But, if you know your shit, like I said you can have a very nice PC for around half the price of a Mac. G5s are very very nice kid nice. "nice PC" is a relative statement. Try configuring one with a similar spec as a G5 and see what it'll cost. Then realize it won't have a dual independant system bus running at half the clockspeed of the processor (current top bus is at 1.25ghz). It probably won't have a great many things that are part of the default configuration on a Mac. Most importantly it certainly won't have the elegant marriage of hardware and software that Mac's have since PC's are made by many companies, and the OS is made by yet another. (Exception being some other Unix flavors... Sun/SunOS, HP/HP-UX, SGI/Irix, etc but not Linux). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Misteraven Besides how is getting stuck on x86 any better than getting stuck on Mac hardware? So really the "end" of this is found in speculating on a microprocessor's architecture. I believe there is more of a consumer market for Intel architecture based computers... which to me would mean that there are more companies out there with R&D teams working on i586 compatible solutions... Macintosh may have the ability to have many developers working on it's OS now that it's opensource, but the whole idea behind a mac is based on proprietaries... and I use the term "idea" loosely. I just find it hard to believe that a Mac can do anything better than any other computer is capable of video or audio wise... this is an ongoing debate that I'm not sure can ever be won. Linux is the best hands down IMHO for high power computing, networking, clustering, and whatever else, including being a desktop everyday use computer. It has an application nearly identical, if not, in many cases, alot better than it's windows counterparts. Tear that one down Misteravan. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_dowmagik Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Misteraven I'd love to see you back this up with specifics. Granted Windows has a tough time, Mac's handle memory at least as well for all intents and purposes. They also have far more system throughput than anything on x86 so besides handling memory exceptionally well, you don't get bottle necks once data hits the bus. i was speaking from my own personal experiences. ive been using linux for about 7 years and have found that applications crash MUCH less often on linux. the box im on right now runs on darwin and ive had more apps lock up on me than my old linux box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I'm sure Macs are great if you want to cut off that "extra second" for your Photoshop macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Teh0wnz So really the "end" of this is found in speculating on a microprocessor's architecture. I believe there is more of a consumer market for Intel architecture based computers... which to me would mean that there are more companies out there with R&D teams working on i586 compatible solutions... Macintosh may have the ability to have many developers working on it's OS now that it's opensource, but the whole idea behind a mac is based on proprietaries... and I use the term "idea" loosely. I just find it hard to believe that a Mac can do anything better than any other computer is capable of video or audio wise... this is an ongoing debate that I'm not sure can ever be won. Linux is the best hands down IMHO for high power computing, networking, clustering, and whatever else, including being a desktop everyday use computer. It has an application nearly identical, if not, in many cases, alot better than it's windows counterparts. Tear that one down Misteravan. :) There's no doubt that there's a bigger consumer market for x86 considering Windows can't run on anything else and they have a majority market share. Still doesn't make it the best choice for all applications. Also, it matters little how many apps are being developed for x86 if the ones you'll be using have been either develped for, or ported to the MacOS. In the case of a desktop or workstation, particularly in an education, scientific, and creative context, you'd be hard pressed not to find an equal, if not better solution for the MacOS. For servers - whether stand alone, or clustered, you'd also be hard pressed to not find an equal if not better solution on the MacOS. Try setting up a zero configuration, auto detecting cluster on another platform. (http://www.apple.com/acg/xgrid/). And since the scientific community has predominately used Unix for the last 25 years, and MacOS X is based upon FreeBSD unix, that means that virtually all apps can be ported to the MacOS by just simply recompiling them. And how exactly is a Mac more proprietary than a PC when (regardless of OS) considering virtually all software technologies Apple developed are either standardized and/or open-sourced: Darwin, CDSA, Quicktime, Rendezvous, WebCore, OpenDirectory. Further, the rest of the OS relies on open sourced/standardized projects by other developers for various services, scripting, and networking: OpenGL, Apache, MySQL, etc (http://www.apple.com/opensource/). Stating that, "Linux is best hands down IMHO for high power computing, networking, clustering, and whatever else, including being a desktop everyday use computer." is a broad statement considering how many distributions of Linux there are. You ever try using Debian on the Desktop, or Lindows for a server? Also, how much experience have you had running any OSX server, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD or any other unix box in a "high power computing, networking, clustering" environment? I agree that doing it with Windows is a real chore (not to mention a security risk, on top of being expensive), but to exclude Unix (which Linux is modeled after and most "high power computing, networking, clustering" environments are running on) is silly. The discussion is straying off topic considering dude is looking to replace his school computer and thought twice about getting another Windows box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by dowmagik i was speaking from my own personal experiences. ive been using linux for about 7 years and have found that applications crash MUCH less often on linux. the box im on right now runs on darwin and ive had more apps lock up on me than my old linux box. I doubt that has anything to do with memory. Darwin for x86 is also a new branch and main development is still for PowerPC. Also, apps crashing probably have more to do with the problems in the app, then problems in the OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I just like linux. There's nothing I can't do with linux, as far as computing goes. And this makes me happy.:dazed: edit: :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisPantalonesEstaEnfuega Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 this computer is going to be used strictly for visual apps, mostly adobe and macromedia programs. Basically; Photoshop, Premiere, Flash. Hi, I'm going to school for design and photography or as I like to tell people, "I'm currently majoring in poverty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr430n5_666 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/national/Cigar%2333.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 "I have no doubt that sooner or later someone, somewhere, regardless of Apple Legal's threats, will release an emulator--whether all-software or hardware-assisted--which will let me smoothly run OS 9 and let me run OS X as well as or a bit better than an older iMac could. I kinda hope for the hardware sol,ution myself, since it would unlock a much faster Mac emulation, with the ability to upgrade the PPC CPU--and it would just be plain cool to have a real PPC machine running inside and accessible from my PC. Imagine the possibilities that an 800MHz G4 PPC processor card (or even a slower one) for PCs, maybe with a RAM slot or 2 on-card, with software to emulate the rest of the Mac, could bring to the PC. x86 Linux, OS X, and Windows all on the same box, at native speeds. :-) That's an enthusiast's wetdream. Apple would sh*t a brick, and may well sue, but hey--there'd be a lot of happy customers to finance the defense. :-) All in due time, my friends... " link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 It's been long rumored that Apple has an internal build of OS X for x86. It's been maintained in the event that the PowerPC chip not be further developed, as was almost the case when Motorola was taking charge of most the development. According to the terms of the PowerPC alliance, if Motorola could ship the spec, Apple had to buy their processors first. That all changed with the G5 cause the design is based off IBM's Power4 chip. Between that and the fabrication, Motorola can't hang, so Apple now gets it's flagship G5 processor from IBM - a far more advanced and ambitious company. Regardless, since Apple only helps design the PowerPC and has got much invested in it's fabrication, it would be a logical assumption they'd leave a back door for themselves. It would obviously make sense for Intel and AMD to support Apple in this regard, as there would then be very little to compete with x86. Further Apple basing Darwin off FreeBSD and since FreeBSD is very commonly run on x86, it wasn't all that tough to port to a new architecture. I'd assume the largest problem would be porting all the optimizations made to take advantage of PowerPC and Altivech (velocity Engine). I wonder how Microsoft would react to MacOSX on x86. After Safari and Keynote, that only leaves MS Word and Excel for them to leverage against such a decision. Apple does currently depend on hardware sales, but with them selling more iPods than anything else these days, it won't take much longer before that to no longer be an issue. I'm sure Microsoft is threatened, or they wouldn't bescrambling for an XP update to make up for the retarded delays with their new OS, Longhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 why emulate, when you can run shit native? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferris Bueller Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Misteraven DVI = Digital Video Interface. It's the new standard for digital quality video. The adapter your referring to is DVI to VGA adapter for legacy CRT monitors. Naw naw, that's an ADC connector. It's similar to a DVI, except it has a ton of extra pins which supply power to the Apple displays and it's a rounded connector. Most LCD monitors on the market still use VGA and try to pass them off as "digital" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Misteraven It's been long rumored that Apple has an internal build of OS X for x86. It's been maintained in the event that the PowerPC chip not be further developed, as was almost the case when Motorola was taking charge of most the development. According to the terms of the PowerPC alliance, if Motorola could ship the spec, Apple had to buy their processors first. That all changed with the G5 cause the design is based off IBM's Power4 chip. Between that and the fabrication, Motorola can't hang, so Apple now gets it's flagship G5 processor from IBM - a far more advanced and ambitious company. Regardless, since Apple only helps design the PowerPC and has got much invested in it's fabrication, it would be a logical assumption they'd leave a back door for themselves. It would obviously make sense for Intel and AMD to support Apple in this regard, as there would then be very little to compete with x86. Further Apple basing Darwin off FreeBSD and since FreeBSD is very commonly run on x86, it wasn't all that tough to port to a new architecture. I'd assume the largest problem would be porting all the optimizations made to take advantage of PowerPC and Altivech (velocity Engine). I wonder how Microsoft would react to MacOSX on x86. After Safari and Keynote, that only leaves MS Word and Excel for them to leverage against such a decision. Apple does currently depend on hardware sales, but with them selling more iPods than anything else these days, it won't take much longer before that to no longer be an issue. I'm sure Microsoft is threatened, or they wouldn't bescrambling for an XP update to make up for the retarded delays with their new OS, Longhorn. Longhorn has been pushed back to 2k9 or 2k10.... or so I've heard... And the emulation for a PPC is difficult because the PPC has many more registers on the processor than x86 do.... so rather than emulating that at a very slow pace, the actual instructions are converted with a java program... JIT Compiler. Anyhow, to each their own, I most likely will never own a macintosh anything, they would have to do something truly amazing and innovative for me to justify spending that kind of money on a computer that I could get for less on x86 arch. There's still people out there today programming chiptunes on the c64 because it's their system of choice... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Ferris Bueller Naw naw, that's an ADC connector. It's similar to a DVI, except it has a ton of extra pins which supply power to the Apple displays and it's a rounded connector. Most LCD monitors on the market still use VGA and try to pass them off as "digital" Recent Powerbooks come with DVI. Powermacs come with both. Apple's display were ADC, until the recently announced aluminum ones (http://www.apple.com/displays) which are now DVI as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Teh0wnz they would have to do something truly amazing and innovative for me to justify spending that kind of money on a computer that I could get for less on x86 arch. There's still people out there today programming chiptunes on the c64 because it's their system of choice... :lol: Like dual independant busses to the processors clocked at half the speed of the processor? How about a point to point system controller so as data moves across subsystems, they don't need to add any extra cycles to the processor? Or what about a 64 bit RISC processor that can run 32 bit applications natively so you avoid any performance penalties whatsoever. How about the fact that the current G5 is manufactured using a 90nm copper SOI fab process with 70nm on the horizon? Virginia Tech's G5 cluster got 8.1 teraflops out of of 1100 nodes (2200 processors) making it the 5th fastest supercomputer in the world without the benefit of being fully optimized or using actual servers for the nodes. It did this using desktop machines (The G5 xServe wasn't out yet) only half filled with ram and did it for less than $5MM. Take look at how many x86's it took to perform that many calculations, and then take a look at how much it cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferris Bueller Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Misteraven Recent Powerbooks come with DVI. Powermacs come with both. Apple's display were ADC, until the recently announced aluminum ones (http://www.apple.com/displays) which are now DVI as well. Ah. I guess Apple wants PC customers to be able to use their monitors since they actually became popular (the first cinema displays) except everyone without a G4/G5 had to spend an arm and a leg to get a display to work with their system for the extra ADC adapter. I heard the new 30" job requires two DVI inputs...crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 my question is: How can I get those jerks (boss and clients) away form the new G5 tower with the 26" cinema display? They're having a meeting in there any they are using it for database work. damnit.... cant they run Filemaker on a shit system and let me get cracking on the FC4HD ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimsøn Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Originally posted by <KEY3> G5 tower with the 26" cinema display? they are using it for database work. :huh2: That sucks, how can they let something like that go to waste? You do video editing right? Just explain to them that's wasting money to use that on database work when you're doing video stuff...(at least the moniter, but I doubt he needs a new g5 for that) or just tell them make something up about resolution and how it would improve your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 you'd be surprised how much screen room database and coding needs. You often need to compare structures and codes, side by side. Not that thats what their doing, but it's possible. Also, the cinema display is 23". (I have one getting delivered on Friday. :) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I'm sorry, I still don't like them... it's still an Apple. I like oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 right... 23"... my mistake. The 30" isnt shipping yet but we'll be getting one. Yeah I do lots of video editing. I actually have about a dozen comps that I am responsible for, so it's hard to 'claim' the newest one for my personal shit. However.... this DVD isnt going to author itself. and as news: My co-workers roomate has a beta version of Tiger. He says that EVERYTHING can be searched immediately. sounds very cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.