UltraSparc > 1GHz
- Thread starter macridah
- Start date
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
That is nice for Sun that they have reached that mark (which has little meaning out side of marketing). IBM has reach the same clock speed with their G3s (though Apple won't use them until after they have 1+ GHz G4 or G5 system for their high end models). And I would point out that MIPS-based processors are still in the 400 MHz range and the Intel Itanium currently tops out at 800 MHz. Out side of the x86-based systems, MHz/GHz doesn't make much difference when making speed comparisions, price would be a better way of telling. The faster the overall speed of the system, the more each system is going to cost. My guess is that the MIPS-based system at 400 MHz is the most expessive, and also the furthest from reaching 1 GHz.
marketing only eh? bleh.
I dare any of you to not froth at the mouth when Apple finally hits 1ghz. Or even better yet, when the g5 finally hits.
how about Apple do something to "unchoke" their processors/systems, and use DDR-RAM, SerialATA or internal Firewire hard drives, actually utilize the second CPU, use the HyperTransport bus (they are on the board of directors/contributors) to lessen the bottlenecks, among other newer hardware advances.
they got the OS (almost) perfect. time for the hardware.
anyway, megahertz myth. bleh. more marketing. nintendo did it too.
I dare any of you to not froth at the mouth when Apple finally hits 1ghz. Or even better yet, when the g5 finally hits.
how about Apple do something to "unchoke" their processors/systems, and use DDR-RAM, SerialATA or internal Firewire hard drives, actually utilize the second CPU, use the HyperTransport bus (they are on the board of directors/contributors) to lessen the bottlenecks, among other newer hardware advances.
they got the OS (almost) perfect. time for the hardware.
anyway, megahertz myth. bleh. more marketing. nintendo did it too.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
IMHO, both gerbick and RacerX are correct, except on one point. Megahertz may be "all marketing", but it still is nice to know that your platform has exceeded the GHz mark.. don't tell me that you guys won't be clucking about having GHz Macs once MWSF rolls around.
gerbick is right on in the fact that the OS is now close to perfect, and that the hardware bottlenecks need freeing up. The OS is now no longer the limiting factor -- it's the bus, the low-speed memory, the low-speed hard drives, etc.
As to the original question, I believe that we'll probably be breaking the GHz barrier at MWSF. Even though the PowerMacs just got an update in July, so did the iMacs, and the PowerBooks and iBooks got a refresh even more recently. So Apple has to upgrade something. And if the G5 rumors turn out to be true, we will have 1.2-1.6 GHz G5s at MWSF. If you're more realistic, Apple will probably release G4s with the Apollo processors which run at 1+ GHz anyway.
So expect to be clucking around after MWSF.
gerbick is right on in the fact that the OS is now close to perfect, and that the hardware bottlenecks need freeing up. The OS is now no longer the limiting factor -- it's the bus, the low-speed memory, the low-speed hard drives, etc.
As to the original question, I believe that we'll probably be breaking the GHz barrier at MWSF. Even though the PowerMacs just got an update in July, so did the iMacs, and the PowerBooks and iBooks got a refresh even more recently. So Apple has to upgrade something. And if the G5 rumors turn out to be true, we will have 1.2-1.6 GHz G5s at MWSF. If you're more realistic, Apple will probably release G4s with the Apollo processors which run at 1+ GHz anyway.
So expect to be clucking around after MWSF.
simX, thanks for the vote of confidence.
honestly, all of the mac-diehards that have been ringing out with the megahertz myth mantra... well, I want to see what the new mantra will be after any post-ghz announcements.
seriously. dare I say that the board risks turning into hypocrites
we'll see.....
honestly, all of the mac-diehards that have been ringing out with the megahertz myth mantra... well, I want to see what the new mantra will be after any post-ghz announcements.
seriously. dare I say that the board risks turning into hypocrites
we'll see.....
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
And now we can add Intel to the list. They are going to have to break people of the megahertz=speed idea if they are going to get anyone to buy the Itanium. Currently the only place I know who sells Itanium-based workstations is SGI. Are you going to tell us that the 2 GHz Pentium 4 is faster than the 800 MHz Itanium? The only people who swear by MHz are people who bought systems thinking that it made a difference (which 9 out of 10 times are PC owners... what kind of systems do you own again?).
As for utilizing cutting edge technologies, Apple has pushed the envelope more times than all other PC makers combined and at least as much as Sun and SGI combined. PCs are fine consumer systems, I'm sure that yours are great for your needs. But because 1 GHz is not the same speed for all makes of processors, it is a completely arbitrary mark. It has the same effect that hitting 1138 MHz would have (which is none at all, other than being the number that Lucas used for his film THX 1138, or Admiral's user ID number here at MacOSX.com). There is no "barrier" there other than being a nice round number. And we shouldn't forget that Apple doesn't make processors. They buy them just like Dell, Gateway (for a little while more), HP, and other PC makers. The only difference is that Apple buys their's from Motorola and IBM.
There is a running joke among computer techs (who are people who work on ALL types of systems, and shouldn't be confused with PC techs who don't realize that there ARE other types of systems) that people who buy based on megahertz must be compensating for something. But then again, maybe it is just great marketing.
But like you said, we'll see.
Compaq and HP delivers Itanium products with Linux preinstalled as well. You're right... Intel is definitely guilty of ramping up the megahertz, but nothing to show for it. The Itanium, and I have been playing around with WinXP 64-bit and some 64-bit tools as well, it's slower than the p4, which is slow - try creating and tracking a thread, and it's MUCH slower overall. The Itanium wins maybe in hype and... well, hype. I don't like it... and I've been on the CPU for almost 6 months testing.
To answer your question - I own a dual 800mhz g4, a dual USB iBook (what I'm using to post right now actually
), a dual 1ghz p3, a 1.4ghz (watercooled and overclocked to 1.8ghz) athlon, a 900mhz duron, and a dell laptop... I also run Win2k, WinXP, FreeBSD, Redhat 7.1, and of course, Mac OS X (by far my favorite). I, too, have to support multiple OS's on my contracts - including Solaris and IRIX, and honestly, I just want Apple to get their stuff together so I can finally go 100% Mac, preferably Mac OS X. As far as Apple pushing the envelope, if you mean the TiBook, yes, I agree. But the desktops, need to break free of the PC100/PC133 SDRAM bottleneck - my athlon and duron both use DDR-RAM. As far as other envelopes, SGI comes to mind with their CrossBar technology first in the Octanes, and the Unified Memory Architecture in the O2's. Apple strayed away from SCSI and went to UDMA-66/100. Just now are showing signs of support, in OS X, for RAID. Show me the newer technology that helps with the bottlenecks. It exists, use it.
where is the fault in that?
I'm personally tired of the marketing blitz that amounts to nothing... I am pleased with Mac OS X, and want Apple's hardware to be on the same level.
and let's be honest. at the moment, it's not.
any other questions?
btw, your tone could be taken as you were assuming that I was some PC only owner making a ruckus here. read my posts again. I want Apple, via newer/proven technology to improve the g4 - by far one of the more efficient CPU's to program for - by getting rid of the bottlenecks. where's the error in that?!
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Tone? I knew you owned macs. I also knew that you had (at least a couple weeks ago) 4 PCs, that you said that you used for Photoshop, Illustrator, Director and some other things that I can't remember at the moment. Apple has been fighting a two front battle. One against high prices, the other against slower (less expensive) standards. People compare the stability of an expensive, well made PCs to that of Apple's equipment, and then the low cost of ones that hardly even run to them as well.
As for the products by Compaq and HP, I don't recall them being sold as "workstations" (I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think so). And isn't Windows XP/64 designed as a server?
As for RAID support, Apple has yet to actually make a "server" operating system by the standards that I would use. They happen to have a strong client OS then can be used as a server, but really isn't. Mac OS X Server 1.x was just the Client version of Rhapsody with a suite of server apps on top. They were closer to real servers when they were using AIX. So, no, it is NOT surprising that Apple doesn't have RAID (software) support yet because client systems don't need it.
If we read our post again, I would point out that your "tone" (if we call it that) was strange considering that there were no errors in my original post, and it is still ALL marketing. Which I can't imaging you disagreeing with considering your last post. So where did your "bleh"s come from? You know as well as I that MHz mean very little a crossed different lines of processors, but yet you find the idea of the "megaherz-myth" so distasteful.
I should be very clear here, I think that 100% anything (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) would be bad. All I've ever seen from companies in the computing field (hardware or software) is that once they get a monopoly, we all pay for it. Prime examples would be QuarkXPress and Photoshop, no competition, very high prices.
Do you have anything else to add that is contrary to my original post? Because I'm having a hard time figuring out what problem you had with it the more you post. Or was it that you just need to get a few "bleh"s out of your system?
As for the products by Compaq and HP, I don't recall them being sold as "workstations" (I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think so). And isn't Windows XP/64 designed as a server?
As for RAID support, Apple has yet to actually make a "server" operating system by the standards that I would use. They happen to have a strong client OS then can be used as a server, but really isn't. Mac OS X Server 1.x was just the Client version of Rhapsody with a suite of server apps on top. They were closer to real servers when they were using AIX. So, no, it is NOT surprising that Apple doesn't have RAID (software) support yet because client systems don't need it.
If we read our post again, I would point out that your "tone" (if we call it that) was strange considering that there were no errors in my original post, and it is still ALL marketing. Which I can't imaging you disagreeing with considering your last post. So where did your "bleh"s come from? You know as well as I that MHz mean very little a crossed different lines of processors, but yet you find the idea of the "megaherz-myth" so distasteful.
I should be very clear here, I think that 100% anything (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) would be bad. All I've ever seen from companies in the computing field (hardware or software) is that once they get a monopoly, we all pay for it. Prime examples would be QuarkXPress and Photoshop, no competition, very high prices.
Do you have anything else to add that is contrary to my original post? Because I'm having a hard time figuring out what problem you had with it the more you post. Or was it that you just need to get a few "bleh"s out of your system?
my responses are inline.
As for the products by Compaq and HP, I don't recall them being sold as "workstations" (I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think so). And isn't Windows XP/64 designed as a server?
I said products, but you are correct, they are servers... however, my dual p3 machine runs Win2k server/Adv. server (dual partitioned).
As for RAID support, Apple has yet to actually make a "server" operating system by the standards that I would use. They happen to had a strong client OS then can be used as a server, but really isn't. Mac OS X Server 1.x was just the Client version of Rhapsody with a suite of server apps on top. They were closer to real servers when they were using AIX. So, no, it is NOT surprising that Apple doesn't have RAID (software) support yet because client systems don't need it.
then why call it "Server"? Misleading... well, to somebody that has never done the research (myself included) ahh, good ol' AIX, where I got started. 3.2.0 was the best version to me. 4.2.5 was a mistake.
If we read our post again, I would point out that you "tone" (if we call it that) was strange considering that there were no errors in my original post, and it is still ALL marketing. Which I can't imaging you disagreeing with considering your last post. So where did your "bleh"s come from? You know as well as I that MHz mean very little a crossed different line of processors, but yet you find the idea of the "megaherz-myth" so distasteful.
yes, I do call the megahertz myth a distasteful marketing tactic. true users, and people with eyes, can see that g4's beat out p4's just by using the product. I guess that's where marketing comes in... you have to get the people to try the product first. my bleh's are in response to the PC usage of marketing. moreso on the megahertz portion of "faster = better", as it is not entirely true. It seems like you and I both know that with working with MIPS processors, et al. the bleh's are also how sick and tired of the megahertz myth mantra by mac-o-philes. Just state it's better, and I'll respect that. things in the computer business has almost degraded to a "who's better: chevy or ford" type of Hatfield/McCoy fued... sad.
I should be very clear here, I think that 100% anything (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) would be bad. All I've ever seen from companies in the computing field (hardware or software) is that once they get a monopoly, we all pay for it. Prime examples would be QuarkXPress and Photoshop, no competition, very high prices.
amen.
Do you have anything else to add that is contrary to my original post? Because I'm having a hard time figuring out what problem you had with it the more you post. Or was it that you just need to get a few "bleh"s out of your system?
maybe so. bleh, there, one more I just think that Apple, albeit stated earlier fighting battles of high prices and R&D, they still can utilize some of the newer technologies. heck, I just paid 3400 for a machine And it's doesn't use RAID0, DDR? Oh well... it is tons faster with Illustrator 10. the rest are coming...
And my other machines... not expensive PC's. I built them all.
As for the products by Compaq and HP, I don't recall them being sold as "workstations" (I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think so). And isn't Windows XP/64 designed as a server?
I said products, but you are correct, they are servers... however, my dual p3 machine runs Win2k server/Adv. server (dual partitioned).
As for RAID support, Apple has yet to actually make a "server" operating system by the standards that I would use. They happen to had a strong client OS then can be used as a server, but really isn't. Mac OS X Server 1.x was just the Client version of Rhapsody with a suite of server apps on top. They were closer to real servers when they were using AIX. So, no, it is NOT surprising that Apple doesn't have RAID (software) support yet because client systems don't need it.
then why call it "Server"? Misleading... well, to somebody that has never done the research (myself included) ahh, good ol' AIX, where I got started. 3.2.0 was the best version to me. 4.2.5 was a mistake.
If we read our post again, I would point out that you "tone" (if we call it that) was strange considering that there were no errors in my original post, and it is still ALL marketing. Which I can't imaging you disagreeing with considering your last post. So where did your "bleh"s come from? You know as well as I that MHz mean very little a crossed different line of processors, but yet you find the idea of the "megaherz-myth" so distasteful.
yes, I do call the megahertz myth a distasteful marketing tactic. true users, and people with eyes, can see that g4's beat out p4's just by using the product. I guess that's where marketing comes in... you have to get the people to try the product first. my bleh's are in response to the PC usage of marketing. moreso on the megahertz portion of "faster = better", as it is not entirely true. It seems like you and I both know that with working with MIPS processors, et al. the bleh's are also how sick and tired of the megahertz myth mantra by mac-o-philes. Just state it's better, and I'll respect that. things in the computer business has almost degraded to a "who's better: chevy or ford" type of Hatfield/McCoy fued... sad.
I should be very clear here, I think that 100% anything (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) would be bad. All I've ever seen from companies in the computing field (hardware or software) is that once they get a monopoly, we all pay for it. Prime examples would be QuarkXPress and Photoshop, no competition, very high prices.
amen.
Do you have anything else to add that is contrary to my original post? Because I'm having a hard time figuring out what problem you had with it the more you post. Or was it that you just need to get a few "bleh"s out of your system?
maybe so. bleh, there, one more
I just think that Apple, albeit stated earlier fighting battles of high prices and R&D, they still can utilize some of the newer technologies. heck, I just paid 3400 for a machine And it's doesn't use RAID0, DDR? Oh well... it is tons faster with Illustrator 10. the rest are coming... And my other machines... not expensive PC's. I built them all.