Topic: Is the RevOlution based of the Mac Mini and if so ...

[ShyGuy]

I'm writing this message from OS/2 right now! Well, eComStation which is an OS/2 distro. Viva la OS/2!

BTW, OS/2 had the first GUI that standardized using the right mouse button. Win95 later copied this.

[KDR_11k]

I'm better for usability Photoshop benefits a lot more from that scrollball than it would from a 5th, 6th, and 7th button.

1. You don't use a mouse for Photoshop, you use a pen.
2. Holding the spacebar enters grab mode which is a lot faster than a wheel or ball.

MacOS-X is light years ahead of Windows.

Except in the one important area of application support. I use Windows for the same reason I use a PS2, superior systems are nice and all but if you can't run what you want to run on them all that superiority is worth nothing.

Viva la OS/2!

No, Rest in Peace, OS/2.

[Rhoq]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
MacOS-X is light years ahead of Windows.

Except in the one important area of application support. I use Windows for the same reason I use a PS2, superior systems are nice and all but if you can't run what you want to run on them all that superiority is worth nothing.

That all depends on what applications you run. I produce music and find that a Mac is best suited for my production needs (aside from the fact that I'm a Mac guy anyways). There was a short period about 2 years ago when my old iMac G3 died (it was tragic, I still have nightmares - true story). Since MacWorld was right around the corner I decided to wait and see what new products Apple would be introducing before I bought a new machine. Since that turned out to be "the year of the laptop", I waited for nothing. In the mean-time, a friend had an extra PC lying around so I used that for about 4 months. I installed both Reason & Cubase on that machine (running Windows XP) and while the applications themselves ran fine, I found the performance to be questionable. There were terrible latency problems with the MIDI connection which really hindered my productivity.

I don't use my Mac to play games (that's my GameCube is for). I use it for music production, CD/DVD burning and surfing the web. I have MS Office X, but rarely use anything other than Entourage and I also have Photoshop, which aside from resizing pix doesn't get much use. There is only 1 non-Mac application which I use frequently, but is not critical - DVDProfiler. For that, I have VirtualPC with Windows 2000 (my favorite version of Windows...ever).

As far as the PS2 goes - I hear what you're saying. Yes there are plenty of games that I would love to play but missed because they never made it to the GameCube, but honestly - I barely have time to play games any more (I had to set an hour aside over the weekend for Killer 7) and buying a PS2 or X-Box just to play the other games just means another system that I won't have time to play.

[stevey]

"Is this going to turn into an Apple vs MS thread?"

No they both suck balls but window suck less.

"Boy Stevey, that post is so satin, satin I say."

You insulated my honnor! I challenge you to a duel to the death! Pistol or sword at the next dawn! ¤_¤

[KDR_11k]

Eh, whatever advantages the PPC architecture gave Apple back then will be nullified with the switch to Intel, anyway. Stupid marketing guys thinking MHz is the only measure for performance (they totally bought into Intel's old hype and even Intel wisened up some time ago!) and that they absolutely NEED 3GHz. I have 1.8GHz in my machine and it's as fast as Intel's 3GHz ones. So, in other words, it'll be down to Windows vs. OSX aka app support vs. user interface. And with Apple supplying basically PCs there will be even less justification for their outrageous pricing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
Boy Stevey, that post is so satin, satin I say.

and the new slang spreads!!

[Rhoq]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Eh, whatever advantages the PPC architecture gave Apple back then will be nullified with the switch to Intel, anyway. Stupid marketing guys thinking MHz is the only measure for performance (they totally bought into Intel's old hype and even Intel wisened up some time ago!) and that they absolutely NEED 3GHz. I have 1.8GHz in my machine and it's as fast as Intel's 3GHz ones. So, in other words, it'll be down to Windows vs. OSX aka app support vs. user interface. And with Apple supplying basically PCs there will be even less justification for their outrageous pricing.

The more I read the comments from Apple's Development Community about the MacTel kits they are using the more comfortable I am with the switch over the x86 architecture. It's about time "Marklar" was unleashed, I'm glad to see it happening in some form. I still think going Intel is a mistake, but IBM did screw them in a way. You can’t claim that the PPC970 is stuck at 2.7GHz citing heat issues and then turn around and give Microsoft 970s running at 3.2GHz for the XBox 360. Did IBM honestly expect Steve to sit there and smile like he wasn't being "F'd in the A" without any lubrication? Motorola pulled the same sh*t a few years ago and look what happened there. Apple reduced them to their secondary chip maker and Steve publicly insulted Moto for a little while.

In that respect, I totally agree with Steve’s sudden change of heart. I also find it funny that IBM recently announced a low power 970 suitable for mobile devices (including PowerBooks)…It’s too late now.

I 110% agree with you about the "Megahertz myth" (now it would be Gigahertz)…It’s been that way for years. Unfortunately the PC community has been brainwashed into believing that system specs are the be all and end all of performance. Not taking into account that the PPC and x86 architecture are so different in the way they process information that the PPC pipeline is a hell of a lot shorter, accounting for the higher performance despite a "slower" clock speed. As a rule, whatever the clock speed is on a PPC chip, it is roughly the speed equivalent of an x86 processor running 75% faster. For example, the G5 1.8GHz machines are equally as fast as a P4 3.2GHz chip, etc.

The good news coming from the developers, aside from the fact that Tiger seems to be running flawlessly on the 3.2GHz Pentium 4s is that Rosetta seems be coming along very nicely and at this early stage in it’s development is running most apps at no less than 80% slower than they would if they were running natively on a PPC processor. Reports indicate that the 20% loss in speed only applies to larger applications and most applications run without any noticeable decreases in performance.

Like it or not, come 2Q2006, Apple is going Intel. I’m sure this means that prices will come down and Apple will be able to offer more competitive price points to consumers. Apple says that you will be able to dual boot into Windows, if you choose to install it on your MacTel machine, though they will not support it. It will be interesting to see what sort of technology will be used to prevent MacOS-X for Intel ("Marklar") from being installed on non-Apple PCs.
 

[Galford]

There's someone here using OS/2???

Ah, OS/2, the program that ran Windows applications better then Windows itself.
Too bad IBM didn't have the balls market it.

About Win95, I forgot that OS/2 Warp came out before Win95 did.
I'm not too familiar with OS/2's history.  Does anyone know what version
had pre-emptive multitasking and protective memory features first built in???

[jasonditz]

Its my understanding OS/2 had both built in from the beginning, though I never actually used it until 3.0.

[KDR_11k]

You can’t claim that the PPC970 is stuck at 2.7GHz citing heat issues and then turn around and give Microsoft 970s running at 3.2GHz for the XBox 360.

If Apple wants PPEs they can have them. But don't complain when your 3.2 GHz machine is as fast as a Pentium 90 in real world performance. IOW, Microsoft does NOT get 3.2GHz PPC970s, they get an embedded version with a vastly reduced feature set that runs much slower at the same clock rate but is more heat efficient and allows higher clock rates.

As a rule, whatever the clock speed is on a PPC chip, it is roughly the speed equivalent of an x86 processor running 75% faster.

Let's test your 1 GHz PPC vs. my 1.8GHz AMD 64 and see if you can uphold that statement. P4s have a vastly different performance scale, other x86s run faster at the same clock speed. My 1.8GHz AMD64 is as fast as a 3.2 GHz P4 (and I have a hunch a Pentum M would perform similar), give or take a few percent, that's not a feature of the PPC but a shortcoming of the P4.

[ShyGuy]

IIRC, Preemptive multitasking was introduced with OS/2 Warp 2.1 and the protective memory features (ring0, ring2, etc) were implemented with Warp 3.  OS/2 1.0 started out as a 16bit operating system and was migrated to 32bit code which MS ripped off. It's funny, you'll still see various files and registry entries labeled OS2 in Windows. They might have changed all the files names by now.

IBM Marketing: 2 guys, a phone, and a deck of playing cards.

[jasonditz]

Apple is abandoning the PPC for, unfortauntely (I'm a big fan of PPCs) very good reasons. The inability of IBM to get low power versions of the G5 going this far into their lifespan is absolutely ridiculous, and it's left Apple without any reasonable upgrade path for their powerbook line. That and the 2.7 Ghz heat issue point to a sign that the PPC line is probably just nearly at its limit.  

[Chris1]

I dont know if this has already been posted, but has anyone seen this http://meqon.com/future/
it says the Revolution will use meqon game dymanics,   whatever that means!  this all goes past my head, but it does mention the revolution in that pic http://meqon.com/future/roadmap.gif

[Nile Boogie]

Mac Vs. Windows/end

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Chris1
I dont know if this has already been posted, but has anyone seen this http://meqon.com/future/
it says the Revolution will use meqon game dymanics,   whatever that means!  this all goes past my head, but it does mention the revolution in that pic http://meqon.com/future/roadmap.gif

Looks like its a game physics SDK... I wouldn't bet on it being part of the developer's kit or anything, the site kind of screams "optional addon". It looks like a company trying to use buzzword-compliance to attract venture capital or something.

[nemo_83]

!!doctor satin!!!