G5 absolutely trampled by PCs

eden · Oct 19, 2003

Out of curiosity though, does the OS X have a quick self-config of hotswappable hardware like USB mice?
If it allows me to put mine in for example, and just work right off with even right-clicking, that'd rock.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

cdpage · Oct 20, 2003

I don't realy sure, but my fried used to use his at the school, but that was on OS 9.x, Another friend of mine uses a 4 button mouse and say he used all 4 buttons in PS and Illustrator. He is running OS X right now but he might have been doing that under 9 at the time he told me...

I take a look into that for you though...

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

cdpage · Oct 24, 2003

yes Eden it does, I asked asked around, could get a hold of my friend, but knew a guy that has a Mac and has a Forum (UgL) so i posted the Question there for you.

<A HREF="http://u-g-l.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?t=124" target="_new">As i susptected</A>

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
Edited by cdpage on 10/23/03 11:50 PM.

eden · Oct 25, 2003

Thanks!

I also have a similar mouse as his, an optical plus scroll Logitech 2-button.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 25, 2003

>Imgod2u even stated there shouldn't be any performance
>increases because the 64-bit technology in it isn't like
>AMD64 with the extra registers. So why am I the "troll"
>here?

Maybe not a troll, but clueless as usual. Its funny how everyone has to prove their claims to you, while you never provide half a shred of evidence of your points.

>Imgod2u even stated there shouldn't be any performance
>increases because the 64-bit technology in it isn't like
>AMD64 with the extra registers.

The extra registers in AMD64 have in se nothing to do with 64 bits. In theory, I think you should be able to write a 16 bit app under DOS that makes use of them, much like old DOS extenders (emm386 anyone ?) used 386 protected mode instructions on a 16 bit OS (Dos, windows 3.x) by switching back and forth between CPU modes. You could hardly call such a piece of software "64 bit", just like you couldnt call win 3.11 a 32 bit OS because it supported a "386 enhanced" VM feature on 386 class cpu's.

Now, the G5 is quite a different beast from the G4. Optimizing for the G5 *will* increase performance by better exploiting its enhanced altivec units, cache structure, better branchprediction and its revised µops dispatching, scheduling and issueing. You might not call these optimizations "64 bit" but who cares ? Its not like you'd call any K8 optimized libraries 64 bit either.

Finally, integer math code will simply speed up (up to 4x) by using 64 bit registers on any 64 bit cpu. So yes, you would increase performance by recompiling your apps for 64 bit operation, even though this will not make a huge difference in most cases (except things like encryption algorithms).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

eden · Oct 25, 2003

Wow BB, you are growing more and more with the desire to create scenarios to be able to accuse me of being clueless. When I question 64-bit performance strictly, I question THAT and THAT only. Where did you see me question the entire CPU optimization?
In fact, since when did I ever express that CPU-specific optimizations don't help?
I questionned Fugger like imgod2u, but then I get the usual reply grasping for attention: "Maybe not a troll, but clueless as usual. Its funny how everyone has to prove their claims to you, while you never provide half a shred of evidence of your points.
"
At least prove me that I did say something wrong.

Finally, integer math code will simply speed up (up to 4x) by using 64 bit registers on any 64 bit cpu. So yes, you would increase performance by recompiling your apps for 64 bit operation, even though this will not make a huge difference in most cases (except things like encryption algorithms).

I think I'll leave that to imgod2u to see how true that is.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 25, 2003

>At least prove me that I did say something wrong.

Oh dear.. havent I proved that often enough by now ? I mean, really, you *still* think NUMA speeds up a single CPU machine ? You still believe a process' memory footprint can grow up to 4 GB under windows ?

>I think I'll leave that to imgod2u to see how true that is.

It doesnt require a whole lot of knowledge to imagine 64 bit integers are faster to work with when you don't have to split them up. Not that 64 bit or even longer integers are common in anything but encryption, or things like folding, but still. here is a nice illustration:
<A HREF="http://www.intel.com/design/security/rsa2000/itanium.pdf" target="_new">http://www.intel.com/design/security/rsa2000/itanium.pdf</A>

Approximate number of CPU
instructions per decrypt: instructions per decrypt:
– 32-bit architecture 32-bit architecture
1.5 million multiplies 1.5 million multiplies
1.5 million adds 1.5 million adds
– IA-64 architecture IA-64 architecture
375K multiplies 375K multiplies
375K adds

4x less instructions, like I said, in theory up to 4x faster performance. BTW, this part has nothing to do with IA-64, it holds true for any 64 bit cpu. It was about the only type of bench intel could show during the Merced days

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

eden · Oct 25, 2003

It doesnt require a whole lot of knowledge to imagine 64 bit integers are faster to work with when you don't have to split them up. Not that 64 bit or even longer integers are common in anything but encryption, or things like folding, but still. here is a nice illustration:
http://www.intel.com/design/security/rsa2000/itanium.pdf

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximate number of CPU
instructions per decrypt: instructions per decrypt:
– 32-bit architecture 32-bit architecture
1.5 million multiplies 1.5 million multiplies
1.5 million adds 1.5 million adds
– IA-64 architecture IA-64 architecture
375K multiplies 375K multiplies
375K adds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4x less instructions, like I said, in theory up to 4x faster performance. BTW, this part has nothing to do with IA-64, it holds true for any 64 bit cpu. It was about the only type of bench intel could show during the Merced days

I find it funny you used THAT to prove a point. I know and wouldn't deny the facts that when you DO need the extra calculations, it would help, but if the apps don't need over 32-bit integers, where do you actually see a boost coming?
I don't deny whatsoever applications that utilize 64-bit will benefit, but to just claim "optimizing for 64-bit will make G5 go faster", when you don't prove us most apps on Macs need over 32-bit integers or consume too much memory, is what I want to see proof on. Again how is that cluelessness?

I mean, really, you *still* think NUMA speeds up a single CPU machine ?

Granted I made a small error on that, but if I recall correctly, to my defense, I did mention Opteron. I should have stated multiple CPU processors but I didn't, my bad. However I do know how Opteron does well in CPU scaling. That's not the subject though.

You still believe a process' memory footprint can grow up to 4 GB under windows ?

Again with the creating scenarios?

Look, I'm starting to think you have seen tons of things I said which were foolish. I can point my initial 64-bit claim, and this recent NUMA thing which was a mental crapout error, so now, where else did I screw up?
You make it seem as if every thing I say is absolute BS, and now, I calmly ask you to point it out.
In all of my time on THG, whenever I said something wrong, I was corrected with no insults, mainly because I can do errors and usually I try not to say foolish stuff, but you on the other hand have no respect whatsoever, are cynical and will go lengths on only ME above all, like an obsession, to make me sound like I am the most wrongful person here.
Christ drop it already, you're seriously getting annoying with your insults. You want to correct me, tell me I made an error and point it out.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

juin · Oct 26, 2003

Yup there a bunch of big scrap around the boards with good flame.I guess time for little explaintion again on data precison and 64 bitness stuff.

Again for IA-64,PPC970,K8 ,USIII.

64 bit precision or 64 data size are use if there a number that exceed 4 billion or 2 power 32 -1 as 0 count.If exceed 2 power 64 a even greater bit size will be use.Multiple instruction/multiple data can give you larger data precision if need.
In a case of opteron and PPC970 if encounter a 80 bit precision need from software RAX and RBX will be use for calculation and storage will need RAX and RBX.In 32 bit mode 3 register will be use.?4 bit is useful only when dealing with massive number as it reduce the number of reg use and instruction use as if you multiply 8*124 *6*15 will be split in many instruction if you split them by crunch of 64 bit thing will go faster that split them in 32 bit chunk.This case will happen rarely.Pointer now are allwayse 64 bit so they are bigger.In computer hardware bigger mean slower not faster a 16 bit cpu will been much faster for a ot of stuff, P4 ALU rapid excution engine work soly on 16 precision as they are smaller.Others concept 64 bit path vs 1 bit this exsemple is extreme but make thing clear.On a mothers trace the little ligne that cant be see bettween componant are never straight as clock delay have to be very close to each others for a syncronisation bettween ligne if not the clock will go wild for the rest.To get to the point a 1 ligne will allwayse straight having a smaller delay or faster as the data are smaller while the 64 bit will go slower.Inside a cpu is the same to prevent degradation of 32/16 bit performance mode are set as any 64 data will take more time to excute.The word ""mode"" should not as been use but i dont have find a better way to explain it.

64 bit give you a edge for large number FPU or ALU.Again there disaventage flag and pointer are moving to 64 that put extra pressure on systemes and resource also File allocation table must move to 64 bit also call FAT for windows 9X ntsc for NT kernel.SO memory adresse range will move to 64 bit and space will move to 64.That lead to larger code as there will be lose space many EXE have gain 2X or more
^^(do not take this as rule also read well EXE)^^
by the way some IA-64 have gain more that 4 time the size.

In short most software will lose from moving to 64 bit exception to sientific stuff that most of the time use number on float like 10/3=3.33333333333333333333333333 but precision is need.Or to save in number of instruction.

Approximate number of CPU
instructions per decrypt: instructions per decrypt:
– 32-bit architecture 32-bit architecture
1.5 million multiplies 1.5 million multiplies
1.5 million adds 1.5 million adds
– IA-64 architecture IA-64 architecture
375K multiplies 375K multiplies
375K adds

That marketing stuff comparing a IA-64 mpu to IA-32 mpu is no sense in any way.

when you don't prove us most apps on Macs need over 32-bit integers or consume too much memory, is what I want to see proof on. Again how is that clueless

They will increase from the lose space in the new FAT and bigger flag,pointer.

I dont like french testEdited by juin on 10/25/03 11:37 PM.

eden · Oct 26, 2003

Interesting read, but again, I ask you: Do you feel 64-bit optimization is possible for even regular applications which don't call for 32+ bit integers or over 32-bit addressing, for the G5? Or in general, where do you see 64-bit support on G5s standing?

They will increase from the lose space in the new FAT and bigger flag,pointer

What will increase? And it's supporting who's stance on the G5 64-bit technology?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 26, 2003

>it would help, but if the apps don't need over 32-bit
>integers, where do you actually see a boost coming?

If the app doesnt use large INTs, and doesnt use 64 bit memory addressing, how exactly could it be considered a 64 bit port ??

>I don't deny whatsoever applications that utilize 64-bit
>will benefit, but to just claim "optimizing for 64-bit will
>make G5 go faster",

So, its semantics again hu ? You agree pretty much *any* app can benefit from optimisations for the PPC970 renewed architecture, AND you agree that any app using large INTs or large memory addresses will benefit (substantially) from being ported to 64 bit. Yet your point is that "optimizing for 64-bit will make G5 go faster" is wrong. Good point Einstein.

>Granted I made a small error on that

Small ?? Well, maybe small given your track record, but its still a major blunder. What's worse though, is that I *really* can not understand why you would throw in the NUMA post in a discussion on the FX' clock scaling when you obviously don't (didn’t ?) know what NUMA is ! If you knew anything at all about NUMA, you'd know it can not possibly affect performance of a single CPU FX, and can never be the reason. So why post that then ? Why ?? Trying to show off or what ?

> but you on the other hand have no respect whatsoever, are
>cynical and will go lengths on only ME above all, like an
>obsession, to make me sound like I am the most wrongful
>person here.

I can not stand the "I don't know, but I'll just pretend" attitude. I can not stand people making opinions and posting them on just about any subject while mostly none of these are founded on even a superficial understanding of the matter at hand. And what makes it all worse, is your inability, or rather unwillingness to absorb knowledge handed to you by others (not just me) and change your POV. Nah, your typical response would be something like "its my POV and I’ll stick to it" or "I don't know a thing about this, but I won't take anyone's word for it without undeniable proof". And even then, if you don't understand the proof given, you'll just dismiss it. Its that attitude that will make me pull your pants down every chance I get. If nothing else, maybe it will make you think twice before posting about something you don't have a clue about

>where else did I screw up?
>You make it seem as if every thing I say is absolute BS,
>and now, I calmly ask you to point it out.

You really want this ? you sure ? Okay.. I just wasted some time going over 2 or 3 threads, and came up with the following quotes that show just how much you know about the topics you so much like to discuss. You probably won't realise the irony or silliness of all of them though:

Prove with a real link that the memory controller isn't the very same. (athlon FX and A64)

64 bit versus 128 and unregistered versus registered memory isn’t a difference apparently ? When someone else points this out you reply:

That's true, I knew about the differences, but essentially they are both the same on-die memory controllers with DDR400, in that they run very much at the same speeds. If it were DDR333 I'd give him credit

LOL. So it’s the speed that defines whether the controller is different then? Guess what, any K8 controller works at core frequency (anywhere from 1.4 to >2.2 GHz). So following your argument, the opteron 144 has a different MC as the opteron 146 ! and what you claims, the DDRxxx speed is just a divisor that only affects the modules, not the controller itself !!

Can you prove the Xeon's core is the same as the P4's, as in the server component circuits are intact and that the bridges on the chip are the same?

“Intact server components circuits” ?? bridges (that don’t even exist on P4’s) as a proof the core is the same ?

If 64-bit solves some address virtual memory limit, then that is far from because it's 64-bit integers, that's almost an indirect fix

An instant classic !

I simply don't grasp why a 32-bit register, and addressing, which entitles you to 4GB of addressing and 4 billions of integers (or was it milions?) to work with, cannot get around some virtual memory issue, and that a processor with extended register size suddenly can.

Let me tell you why: cause you don’t understand a thing about registers, addressing or virtual memory., hell you can’t even do binary math!

why hasn't Microsoft so far simply just made their OS to 3GB physical and 1GB virtual in the first place?

Yeah that would solve it LOL

Can't they properly manage the file sizes, optimize, compress and make sure the video RAM buffers are entirely used before RAM Aperture is used?

Mail Carmack ! You have some revolutionary ideas young Einstein !

I was indicating if texture loads and graphical loads were directly loaded from HDD into memory buffer and not on the RAM.

Mail nVidia and ATI ! Ignoring small details such as the fact that “buffer” is also RAM, and usually amounts to a enormous 64 or 128 Mb, surely making 64 bit addressing useless, its yet again a terrific and realistic idea ! All ATI and nVidia would have to do is add a SCSI, ATA and SATA controller interface with support for all known RAID setups and controllers on their gfx cards, add support for FAT, NTFS, EXT2, SFX,.. file systems, somehow bypass the driver, locate the files on disk and load them straight into VRAM ! Oh, don’t forget to put intel in CC:, so they can modify AGP and PCI express to allow this.

They must have changed something on the packaging die [of the Athlon MP] because otherwise it would always work on normal Athlon XP mainboards

Every Athlon MP works on any Athlon XP board… and a “packaging die” ?

As a dumb Joe sixpack back then, whenever I'd read MMX I'd tout it!
I was always reporting my P2 350 as 350MMX rather than 350MHZ MMX. It just sounded cooler.
Now I'm "just a tad bit" smarter.

No you’re not

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Guest · Oct 26, 2003

I have a hard time understanding most of what you are saying; however I think you are confusing floating point precission with the 32/64 bit discussion at hand. I think I already pointed this out to you.. floating point precission has nothing to do with 32 or 64 bit architectures. Even a 486DX had 80 bit VPR's. Neither Athlon 64 not PPC970 change anything relevant AFAIk to the FP units over their 32 bit predecedors.

>That marketing stuff comparing a IA-64 mpu to IA-32 mpu is
>no sense in any way.

Its comparing integer math on a 64 bit platform versus a 32 bit platform. It applies *exactly* as quoted on a G4 versus G5 running DES encryption software.

>In short most software will lose from moving to 64 bit
>exception to sientific stuff that most of the time use
>number on float like 10/3=3.33333333333333333333333333 but
>precision is need

This on the other hand has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. An opteron doesnt handle 10/3 any different than an Athlon, neither does a G5 versus a G4.

>File allocation table must move to 64 bit also call FAT for
>windows 9X ntsc for NT kernel.SO memory adresse range will
>move to 64 bit and space will move to 64

What are you trying to say here ? That a 64 bit cpu will gain susbstantially because it would be faster when using 64 file systems ? If so, you're out of your mind. Not even Apple is crazy enough to claim this.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

juin · Oct 26, 2003

On PPC 970 my guess is no there wont be gain neither for opteron or K8

I dont like french test

juin · Oct 26, 2003

What will increase? And it's supporting who's stance on the G5 64-bit technology?

Cache ligne or FAT use space adresse in 32 bit mode you use 32 fat on 64 bit 64 and so on.The same happen in cache ligne but cache must be close full or not.Someone might have a better explaination.

As pointer are the size of the fat they are now bigger and also they is totaly no need for larger pointer advantage 64 adressing 4+GB of ram.

I dont like french test

juin · Oct 26, 2003

If the app doesnt use large INTs, and doesnt use 64 bit memory addressing, how exactly could it be considered a 64 bit port ??

You just figure it out they wont be recompile.

So, its semantics again hu ? You agree pretty much *any* app can benefit from optimisations for the PPC970 renewed architecture, AND you agree that any app using large INTs or large memory addresses will benefit (substantially) from being ported to 64 bit. Yet your point is that "optimizing for 64-bit will make G5 go faster" is wrong. Good point Einstein.

Architecture yes 64 bitness no does there app that need more that 5GB of ram on MAC.If they need 4.4gb they will shrink the code not making it move to 6 GB with 64 bit mode.

Core from P4 XEON gallatin are the same.

MCH from all K8 are the same or might there are small change between opteron/athlonfx vs amd64 but when i see DDR 400 support on athlon FX it make me think they are the same

I dont like french test

juin · Oct 26, 2003

have a hard time understanding most of what you are saying; however I think you are confusing floating point precission with the 32/64 bit discussion at hand. I think I already pointed this out to you.. floating point precission has nothing to do with 32 or 64 bit architectures. Even a 486DX had 80 bit VPR's. Neither Athlon 64 not PPC970 change anything relevant AFAIk to the FP units over their 32 bit predecedors

What the differece between Int number with float number nothing.You mix SSE/2 reg have ability to run 64 bit precision in 1 pass.

Its comparing integer math on a 64 bit platform versus a 32 bit platform. It applies *exactly* as quoted on a G4 versus G5 running DES encryption software.

Comparing absolute performance of a Vliw big cache systemes low clock speed vs a P4 CISC low cache high clock speed is not significant at all.

This on the other hand has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. An opteron doesnt handle 10/3 any different than an Athlon, neither does a G5 versus a G4.

Handling nothing as that allwayse X86 opcode or Power pc code.The number of 3 that can be use without major performance drop will be seen after 32 bit on GPR/FPR on any 32 platform exception to SSE/2 DP again if you can use SSE-2.

What are you trying to say here ? That a 64 bit cpu will gain susbstantially because it would be faster when using 64 file systems ? If so, you're out of your mind. Not even Apple is crazy enough to claim this.

No gain will be see but Fat must move to 64 bit and adresse range to 64 bit that a thing you have no choice if you want to lift 4GB limitation.In short FAT or little square in the memory will to 64 bit.Ram are made in matrix with collumm and adresse to use 64 adressing you will need 64 case and 2 power 64 -1 possibility.

I dont like french test

varghesejim · Oct 26, 2003

Both the pc and apple (64)is in their small age,so the benchmarks results will change in future.One thing is clear ,spending big money for an apple is becoming not reasonable.there are very good things in apple but is it worth the price?Steve Jobs have to optimize his G5 so that it should show almost double perfomance compared to pcs in the graphics area if he wants some success(anybody can point out if the PPC is capable for that?).Or he can cut the price to half.

eden · Oct 26, 2003

What's worse though, is that I *really* can not understand why you would throw in the NUMA post in a discussion on the FX' clock scaling when you obviously don't (didn’t ?) know what NUMA is ! If you knew anything at all about NUMA, you'd know it can not possibly affect performance of a single CPU FX, and can never be the reason. So why post that then ? Why ?? Trying to show off or what ?

Considering I conceded to having made a small mind error, I think it's pretty low on your part Bobby, to actually use this to your advantage when I just accepted the error. I know what NUMA is, the basics, I don't need to spell it out. I made an error, conceded, but of course you will work on that to your advantage. You're low Bobby, very low.

And what makes it all worse, is your inability, or rather unwillingness to absorb knowledge handed to you by others (not just me) and change your POV.

Oh yeah I forgot, you had extremely convincing arguments why 2GB is going to be a limit for most apps next year. Slvr Phoenix disagreed, but hey, it's gotta be Eden who founded the error.

Furthermore, YOUR inability to dig anywhere else than where you were involved in a thread, shows that you don't know me very well to accuse me of not accepting proofs or good explanations from credible people. Congrats again, judgeman Bobby.

its my POV and I’ll stick to it

Ah so it's wrong to believe we as home users won't be needing 64-bit any soon, if not even next year until around the end?

“Intact server components circuits” ??

Xeon systems DO have extra features. The pin amount isn't there for nothing. It does have extra features for multiprocessor configs, often amounting to server purposes.
The latter, was, ok, an error. Whooptee do, we got now 3. Being reasonable, thanks for correcting me.

An instant classic !

You think you're that smart, to actually reuse once more a very low form of argumenting, where you take back a quote where it was explained afterwards it was a semantics issue. But you needed it to prove a point. Bobby, you're LOW, you have little to prove if you use things that have been cleared.

Mail Carmack ! You have some revolutionary ideas young Einstein !

How that is a blunder, I wouldn't know. Slvr as well agreed we don't have proper graphics programmers, but of course, you will use it against me.

and a “packaging die” ?

Once again reusing a cleared argument . My god you truly are grasping at straws.

It has occured to me you corrected me on 4 issues: Not knowing how the OS works with the 4GB it has and the 2GB limitation, thinking there were bridges on the Xeon core, 2 errors based on personal error and not misinformation (The NUMA reference, and the packaging die thing). If it's any consolation, I could include the memory controller thing. It may be different, but not THAT different.

Now what's even worse: you actually hold it against me things I clarified, or conceded to but used it again. You're the kid who will use a reason to protect his cause when the parent explained him what happened, but he'll use it the next time he's angry to actually think he has a point. You don't accept people do errors.

Cry me a river BB, you are a low form of human, you use the above methods, very low in any kind of case, to prove something. I did errors, learned them, but you will continue going lengths to try to ruin my pleasure here. Guess what, you didn't. I'm now actually turning the tide here, laughing at the fact you would be lower than I.

Get over it already and move on man. Because from now on, whenever in a thread you jump on me, I ain't replying.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 27, 2003

sorry, but you remind me very much of this:
<A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame80.html" target="_new">http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame80.html</A>

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =Edited by bbaeyens on 10/26/03 06:21 PM.

Guest · Oct 27, 2003

>Considering I conceded to having made a small mind error, I
>think it's pretty low on your part Bobby, to actually use
>this to your advantage when I just accepted the error.

The point is not that you made an error.. the point (or my question) is why you posted it in the first place. I can't see any other reason as pretending to know something, so showing off. Sorry for ruining that

>Oh yeah I forgot, you had extremely convincing arguments
>why 2GB is going to be a limit for most apps next year.

That wasnt exactly the only point that was discussed.

>Slvr Phoenix disagreed, but hey, it's gotta be Eden who
>founded the error.

Slvr Phoenix has everyright to disagree with me,just like anyone. But unlike you, I can only recall one factual error from him recently (his claim some collegue would have exceeded 3 GB on 32 bit windows). And unlike you, I've never seen him pretend to know something he didn't.

>Furthermore, YOUR inability to dig anywhere else than where
>you were involved in a thread, shows that you don't know me
>very well to accuse me of not accepting proofs or good
>explanations from credible people

A good proof or explanation stands on its own, no need to judge the people behind it. Furthermore, did you really expect me to read another gazillion posts of you to make up my mind ? I've wasted enough time as it is.

>Ah so it's wrong to believe we as home users won't be
>needing 64-bit any soon, if not even next year until around
>the end?

No, the "its my POV regardless" attitude applied to much more then that issue.

>Xeon systems DO have extra features.

This would be a good time to stop trying to prove you where right.. really. I don't think you want me to screen other threads for your posts as well. See, its not only about being "right" here, using a vocabulary like "Intact server components circuits" really does say something about the knowledge of the poster. Maybe not to you, but it does to me and countless others. Sorry if you can't see that, maybe you will in a few years.

>You think you're that smart, to actually reuse once more a
>very low form of argumenting, where you take back a quote
>where it was explained afterwards it was a semantics issue.

see comment above.

> you have little to prove if you use things that have been
> cleared.

Hey, you asked for it. Why should I now exclude errors on which I spent an ungodly ammount of time correcting you already ?

>You don't accept people do errors.

I sure do. read the threads again, I started out very politely and patiently correcting your errors. However, I already outlined what I don't accept, no need to repeat myself.

>you are a low form of human

Yeah I probably am, arent I. Ruining the pleasures of a kid that seems so desperate to get any form of respect around here, that had already achieved a "forum master title", that loves pretending to know something, and then I ruin all that by pointing out his errors. And then upon his own request, I regroup a small dozen of those in this post. I'll probably burn in hell for that, I mean I should really.

I'll grant you one point though; I have been focusing on you lately, for several reasons; before I came back here, I started reading for a while, and saw an enormous ammount of childish bickering, flame wars, tons of pseudo technical nonsense discussion that often only served as arguments in the fanboy arguments, not discussion about the technical issues themselves. Not everyone of course, but a large majority. So I gave myself the mission impossible of trying to talk at least some sense into these forums, and to pick a few balloons.

Since you seem to spend half your life on this forum, have some "resident forum fixture" or whatever title, craving for recognition and being right while at the same time displaying an astonishing level of cluelessness, you are an obvious and easy balloon to pick. And by never just accepting a correction, but instead desperatly trying to prove you where right in the first place while constantly making new factual errors in the process, you brought this upon yourself really.

a few illustrations to go along with that:
<A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html" target="_new">http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame38.html" target="_new">http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame38.html</A> (those shoes are obviously Omid's

To end with a positive note and to your credit, sometimes you also remind me of this:
<A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame64.html" target="_new">http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame64.html</A>

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

eden · Oct 27, 2003

This would be a good time to stop trying to prove you where right.. really. I don't think you want me to screen other threads for your posts as well. See, its not only about being "right" here, using a vocabulary like "Intact server components circuits" really does say something about the knowledge of the poster. Maybe not to you, but it does to me and countless others. Sorry if you can't see that, maybe you will in a few years.

Don't twist my words BB. I asked if the Xeon's server components therefore the circuits constituting them were intact transitioning to a P4 packaging. So now you twist words huh?

see comment above.

Yup, you didn't get what I meant indeed.

Hey, you asked for it. Why should I now exclude errors on which I spent an ungodly ammount of time correcting you already ?

So to prove that Spud doesn't deserve to come back to this forum, we will use 2 year old quotes from a time where he committed his own errors but learned from them, just to send it against him huh?
When I ask errors, I don't ask for little things I miswrote but knew what I meant. The packaging die was a result of a phrasing error. Using it against me doesn't prove I don't know what I was talking about, especially when I admitted I didn't write it right. Forgive me for not living up to your image BB, for I have sinned.

Yeah I probably am, arent I. Ruining the pleasures of a kid that seems so desperate to get any form of respect around here, that had already achieved a "forum master title", that loves pretending to know something, and then I ruin all that by pointing out his errors. And then upon his own request, I regroup a small dozen of those in this post. I'll probably burn in hell for that, I mean I should really.

I'll grant you one point though; I have been focusing on you lately, for several reasons; before I came back here, I started reading for a while, and saw an enormous ammount of childish bickering, flame wars, tons of pseudo technical nonsense discussion that often only served as arguments in the fanboy arguments, not discussion about the technical issues themselves. Not everyone of course, but a large majority. So I gave myself the mission impossible of trying to talk at least some sense into these forums, and to pick a few balloons.

Since you seem to spend half your life on this forum, have some "resident forum fixture" or whatever title, craving for recognition and being right while at the same time displaying an astonishing level of cluelessness, you are an obvious and easy balloon to pick. And by never just accepting a correction, but instead desperatly trying to prove you where right in the first place while constantly making new factual errors in the process, you brought this upon yourself really.

Ok this ends now, we're done here. I'm tired of an obsessed person, you're like a stalker here. You won't be proving anything to me as far as I am concerned. I can learn and be corrected by many others here, and can behave rightfully with others. Don't expect me to change for you, nor expect me to respond to you. When I make my own errors I'll notice and refine myself. As far as I am concerned, an obsessed freak on the other side doesn't bother me. I continue to hold respect for the good people here, and will convey my opinion on something, whether you find it misinformed or not. Others will be free to debate my point or point out a flaw in it, you won't. I'll be glad to change and learn from others, but certainly not from Bobby Bee who is obsessed.

C'est fini ici mon cher!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

cdpage · Oct 27, 2003

Ok... i hope that It HAS ended! Im not going to make any comments...only that i will try to get this Poll/topic back on track.

Optimizations on the G5 should be somewhat more previlant now. <A HREF="http://www.apple.com/macosx/" target="_new">Panther</A> is now available.

If anyone out there had a G5 I Highly recomend this Update!

Saw this once when the G5 was first anounced!
THIS HAS TO BE THE BEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!
<A HREF="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/#" target="_new">Exposé</A>
click on the TRY IT OUT! you have to see this

I am am curious however as to what perfomance improvments are noted, as i am sure there are many.(not neccessarily becasue of this 64/bit responsibility)

I will admit, i do not know very much about wether or not 64 bit will play a major roll in any perforamce increases or not at this time. However, it will in the future i am quite sure. as programs do inherently become more and more complex. this complexity is largely do to one thing, the user interface. This is important, because that is what Apple is all about...and having apple opening this up for themselfs, the user will likly reep the benifits, NOW and Later.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

eden · Oct 27, 2003

I have to admit, Exposé is pretty nice! Part of what I liked about OS X is just how the animation is smooth and not very cluttery. The dock's a nice idea, although I am not sure if it works well on Windows environments what with a Start bar. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel that if Apple had Windows' amount of software, the Dock idea would likely fail on account of having so many things. I think they really designed OS X around the idea that it's going to be limited. Just a wild guess hehe.

I am well aware however that there are add-on Dock-like programs for Windows, just in case you were to suggest it.

Not too sure if the complexity of a user interface is how they should shoot to convince people we need 64-bit though, that's a bit of an odd choice there.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

cdpage · Oct 27, 2003

About the Dock... i can't understand what you see wrong with it...you think it has limited space?

from what i remember the last machine i was on had about 15 programs all lined up along the bottom and they all fit very comfortalby( they shrink to fit)...you can add or remove any quick start program to... it is vertualy the same as the start bar in windows, just with out the start button.

you have your quick start programs(as many or as little as you want) and all you current running pragrams.

just as with the windows bar it can auto hide or not.

however unlike windows you can choose the size you want it and as well the zoom thing you can adjust that too(smaller or larger) not too sure if you can get rid of it all to gether though...

windows has the title of the document labled for each running program... can remember off hand if OSX does or not.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

Guest · Oct 27, 2003

>Don't twist my words BB

It was a straight quote, as where all the others, no need to twist anything.

>You won't be proving anything to me as far as I am
>concerned.

Yeah, yeah, you're pretty good at that already, just carry on.

>I'll be glad to change and learn from others,

Hey Juin, he's all yours now..

>but certainly
>not from Bobby Bee who is obsessed.

Oh, don't flatter yourself so much. Gee, I sure hurt your feelings, now didnt I ? Grow up kid, and get some fresh air from time to time.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

G5 absolutely trampled by PCs

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Champion

Guest

Guest

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Share this page