Cable wrote:
also; randonguy; it sounds like you havnt used a mac in about 4 years.. NO ONE uses OS9 except some recording artists, and grandmas, and trust me they are booting directly into OS9 not trying to emulate it.
No, you moron, OSX has OS9 built into it for backwards compatibility with applications that run on OS9. It starts WITHIN OSX. Our entire digital academy of upwards of 2400 students use OS9 applications. So don't tell me "NO ONE uses OS9" because that's being ignorant.
In addition, the modems built-in to the Mac's are so damn fragile it's not even funny. Hook them to a splitter, phone, ANYTHING, and they're instantly fried. #1 reason why we swap computers.
Quote:
The intel core duo is the worlds most efficient / powerful cpu.
I sincerely hope you were joking because an Athalon 64 X2 or a dual core Opteron will kick the living @!#$ out of it.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Cable wrote:New Macs do NOT come with OS9.. watch out with the name calling or you will be banned.
when were you made a mod? just curious...
R.I.P. Brian St.Germain
MS Walk April 21 - I HIT MY GOAL!!! thanks to those of you who have supported me!
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
Quote:
The intel core duo is the worlds most efficient / powerful cpu.
I sincerely hope you were joking because an Athalon 64 X2 or a dual core Opteron will kick the living @!#$ out of it.
Sorry man, you are entirely wrong on that point. Of course the Core Duo is not the chip the poster meant, He must have meant the desktop version being the Dual Core (certainly not the end of the story). The core Duo is the most efficient MOBILE chip on the market, intended for use in notebooks.
The Opteron has it's advantages (FP math for one) but in overall performance the Intel lineup is superior. Anyone here tested the 900 series yet? I have and they are very good chips. Then there's the stuff qued up for release this year. Don't think that Intel will just accept a 4% market share losss last year. They intend to get that back this year and then some and they have the weapons. I cannot give specifics because I'm covered by a NDA but I can tell you this. Intel has been supporting AMD with innovation through a "Technology Sharing Agreement" that agreement is over. Intel spends more on R&D in a year than AMD's total revenues. It doesn't take a genious to see where this is going.
PAX
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
Quote:
The intel core duo is the worlds most efficient / powerful cpu.
I sincerely hope you were joking because an Athalon 64 X2 or a dual core Opteron will kick the living @!#$ out of it.
I am not talking about the crappy ole netburst P4, the core duo series is head to head with the X2s, but at about ˝ of the power consumption.
My iMac and iBook are white.... but my iPod Nano is BLACK.....
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!!!!
No, they won't. i'm talking here-and-now. MHz for MHz (or rather GHz nowadays) AMD seems to do more (if a 2.2 GHz Athalon 64 can keep up with a 3.8 p4...then yes, my statement is true). Now, the pendulum is swinging back towards intel's court. See also the ATi/Nvidia war. Intel won't go quietly, but AMD won't either.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Cable shut the @!#$ up. You wernt given warning simply for calling me and jimmy names. Its because your an ass hole period. You come into every@!#$ thread about PCs and try to convert people. And then you start an argumernt and because us PC users dont know our heads from our asses you call us names because we defied you. You are a @!#$ baby dude...
Quote:
Also the benchmarks; I am so tired of doing google searches for people... do your own.. I'll give you some hints, PCmag, gearlog, and zdnet did some tests / reviews, and in 2 out of 3 tests the Apple hardware is beating the lenovo, dell, acer, etc hardware. on in the 1/3 test it is dead on head to head with the competition.
Your so tired of doing google searchs for people. HELLO you tryed to make the point, its not our job to prove you wrong its your job to prove your own point. However i did a search and everything that came up was Whos your daddy mac g5? The opteron thats who. Or why PC owns the latest mac once again....sorry buddy but im not finding that many reviews in favor of your little @!#$ buddy macs
Cable wrote:New Macs do NOT come with OS9.. watch out with the name calling or you will be banned.
OH NO DONT BAN ME PLZ I IS SRY I WILL NEVAR CALL U NAM AGIN JUS DNT BAN ME!!11!!!!11! Oh wait...
Cable wrote:SAY IT AGAIN!.. SAY IT AGAIN BITCH!
Cable wrote:Its like you guys are mentally handicapped or somehting.
Anyways, Mac OSX version 10.3.9 which is the exact version we use here DOES have OS9 built in to it. I can provide you with a screenshot if you are so biased and stuck in your ways that you need proof.
it's got the classic environment, but i don't think it's the full version of OS9, like there would be in a dual boot system from older generations.
R.I.P. Brian St.Germain
MS Walk April 21 - I HIT MY GOAL!!! thanks to those of you who have supported me!
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]No, they won't. i'm talking here-and-now. MHz for MHz (or rather GHz nowadays) AMD seems to do more (if a 2.2 GHz Athalon 64 can keep up with a 3.8 p4...then yes, my statement is true). Now, the pendulum is swinging back towards intel's court. See also the ATi/Nvidia war. Intel won't go quietly, but AMD won't either.
Here and now intel's 2.2Ghz core series IS keeping up with AMD's best 2.2Ghz... at ~˝ the power consumption to boot.
I love AMD but PAX is right, they are going to be in a world of hurt very soon, they cant keep the chips on the shelve, but they also cant keep the shelve stocked.. intel can, and with them getting ready to beat them in the next gen efficiency wars AMD is goign to have a hard time.. the Core Quads should be out soon, and intel is on track to have a 12 core cpu out within 12 months.
Roscoe; Who's talking about G5s? - Try to find articles written in the last couple weeks; Also try to find articles that are relivant to the subject at hand; you may want to consider revising your search.
Random Guy; thank you for clarifying. now we know that you are a couple versions behind on OSX, yes you can run OS9 apps within OSX, and yes you can dual boot; I never said you couldnt
I am however trying to emphasize that most people dont need to run OS9 or windows. OSX is all you need.
What we should be concentrating on here is the current Hardware and Software configuration set. ie; Intel's Core series CPUs running the latest version of OSX - Unfortunatly it seems not many people are at all familiar to either of these so they like to compare things they recall from things they have been told about and then compare it to soemthing in the PC world that they still dont fully comprehend or understand.
Why is everyone so afraid? are you afraid your friends wont like you anymore? are you afraid you will be stuck and wont ever be able to buy windows again?? afraid you will turn homo??? I just dont see it.. For those that are saying its not worth it, how can you when you havnt tried the latest and greatest?
Its like saying BMWs suck if you havnt ever driven one.
Or its like a Honda driver saying ecotecs dont have any potential.
Its just a different OS, you dont have to be gay I promise. ??
Quote:
Its like saying BMWs suck if you havnt ever driven one.
See that doesnt work because well..I USED MACS FOR YEARS!!!
Roscoe wrote:Quote:
Its like saying BMWs suck if you havnt ever driven one.
See that doesnt work because well..I USED MACS FOR YEARS!!!
See that doesnt work becuase well... WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OLD MACS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NEW ONES.
!!!
hey Cable, i'd still like to know how you're able to ban people...
or were you just throwing your e-pen0r around a little?
R.I.P. Brian St.Germain
MS Walk April 21 - I HIT MY GOAL!!! thanks to those of you who have supported me!
lilbit01 wrote:hey Cable, i'd still like to know how you're able to ban people...
or were you just throwing your e-pen0r around a little?
hehehe... Dave gave me sysop access..
ehhe
I didnt say I would ban him, just that if he kept it up he would be banned. - cant have double standards on teh org.
I miss being a sysop.. I used to run a BBS before there was the intranets. I had the BIGGEST e-pen0r on my board. - man those were the days....
Cable let me just say that 90% of all posts i read of yours has in someway been about MACS....and for this, i dont like you.
I will not join your cult please leave me alone.
Ex wrote:Cable let me just say that 90% of all posts i read of yours has in someway been about MACS....and for this, i dont like you.
I will not join your cult please leave me alone.
I'll take a large vanilla cone please.
Your opinion is important to us; thats why we just ignored it.
Cable (Nick@USOL
), ignoring one's opinion for the facts? sound familliar?
I do recall you said at one point that Intel Based processors were running as RISC, but after about 10 minutes of research on my part, we found out that the RISC set had been incorporated into the new CISC set?
Would you like a cookie now?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Cable (Nick@USOL ), ignoring one's opinion for the facts? sound familliar?
I do recall you said at one point that Intel Based processors were running as RISC, but after about 10 minutes of research on my part, we found out that the RISC set had been incorporated into the new CISC set?
Would you like a cookie now?
here we go again....
the Pentium Pro was all RISC
the Pentium Pro is known as the 'P6'
the Pentium II and Pentium III and core series CPUs are all based on the P6.
at their 'core' the ppro, p2, p3 etc are ALL RISC based with a CISC layer
Basically the comptuer / OS etc sees a CISC cpu because thats what it is reporting its self as, but all internal computations once received by the CISC module are converted to RISC for the actual raw processing to take place.
Advantages: Simpler processor design, easier to ramp up clock cycles, easier to expand instruction sets into the future the sets are basically held in the equivelent of a ROM on the cpu die.
Disadvantages: We will never know because developement of true hardware based CISC with DEDICATED HARDWARE REGISTERS FOR EACH INSTRUCTION SET WAS ABANDONED BY THE INDUSTRY. not because it was inefficient, but it was too expensive; therefore in effect it WAS not as efficient after they weighed what it would take to keep the instructions where they would in theory be more efficient.
Kind of a catch 22..
jesus its impossible to argue with you. No matter what the whole @!#$ forum says..you are right. Yep i have no clue about macs. I only used them till june of 2004 and i only contiune to see them everyday and i have used mac osx or whatever the new one is. My mom uses it at there school which is all macs...which is now being forced to switch to PCs because OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY SAVE
The PentiumPro was a CISC core, 100% x86 compatable.
Streaming SIMD came along with the PII adding some RISC-like capabilities.
Since then Streaming SIMD (originally referred to as "MMX") has been expanded and enhanced.
Intel has a couple full RISC chips including "StrongeArm" and "Itanium" but those are not in desktop PCs (yet).
Intel has avoided going full RISC in the consumer market because of a few things; backward compatability being a big one and the marketability of high clocks rates being the other. Recently AMD has gone to deeper pipes limiting their ability to up the clock rate while Intel actually moved from deep pipes (Pentium III) to shallower pipes in the Pentium 4, Pentium D, and other recent releases. They found that the Math unit could run at double the core clock rate (and it does in all P4 and later) and having a higher clock rate at the core was advantagous for math performance (something AMD still has a good grip on). Interestingly a Pentium III will outperform a Pentium 4 at the same clock rate.
Keep in mind... It takes a few years to go from lab to sales floor. The technology sharing agreement ended a couple years ago. Intel spends more on research than AMD makes in a year. Intel's market share dropped from 85% to 78% last year and they don't like it. Apple just gave Intel a potential 3% market. Intel intends to have 84% at year end. Intel has a lot of tricks up it's sleeve, so far I'm not hearing that from AMD though they did just launch a new initiative with NVidia, granted I don't have the same relationship with AMD as I do with Intel so there's lot's I don't know about them. I do know that our business sells about 200 Intel machines for every AMD. AMD server sales are picking up, very, very slowly. We do sell it, we don't promote it hence the differential from normal market figures. Also, Intel does not want a monopoly so AMD will never be pushed out of business by Intel. I have heard their reps say "It helps keep us honest" which is exactly what I hear educated customers saying. Intel definately has their fingure on the pulse.
My name is not PAX, I do wish it upon you.
PAX VOBISCUM
Nick:
Read
Quote:
It introduced several unique architectural features that had never been seen in a PC processor before. The Pentium Pro was the first mainstream CPU to radically change how it executes instructions, by translating them into RISC-like microinstructions
and executing these on a highly advanced internal core.
Trust me, if you tried to use RISC instructions or operands on P-PRO in a RISC environment assembler, the CPU would jump out of the socket, point and laugh at you in CISC.
The P-Pro recieved instructions from an Intel Assembler code, deconstructed it into near-RISC instruction sets, but they did away with a lot of the Antiquated CISC Register moves.
The P II - Current P IV have been iterations on that theme, but the old instructions are still kept for backwards compatibility. It's the reason you can basically (albeit excrutiatingly slowly) use Windows XP on a 386, and use the original Berkley Unix on a brand new P4.
Try putting OSX onto a Quadra and see what you get.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
