Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Did I waste my time with ppc?[solved]
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo on PPC
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gnufreax
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:02 pm    Post subject: Did I waste my time with ppc?[solved] Reply with quote

Since Apple said they will prefer x86 CPU´s I am a little disapointed... I am using Macs for nearly 6 years now and ran all kinds of BSD and Linux on them because i believed in the Power PC archicture... Now i am asking me if i wasted all my time with Linux on PPC.... I will never buy an x86 based Mac... but what should i buy in future?... An PS3 based Cluster for example? Or should I switch to x86... Right now i am sitting in front of my IBook G4 next to th Xserver of our Company being very frustrated... Will the Power PC die like the Alpha did? What do you think because Apple is no longer thinking different?:cry:
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates


Last edited by gnufreax on Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:03 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nixnut
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 10974
Location: the dutch mountains

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There will be ppc machines around for years, so why worry about something that is still years off?
Look at the alpha. That processor has been declared dead years ago, but it is still being sold, there's a Gentoo arch for it, there's even talk of resurrecting it. New ppc processors are still being developed so the platform is far from extinct or dying out.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered

talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gnufreax
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:17 pm    Post subject: But i fell cheated... Reply with quote

Okay the Alpha is still there but not in the it was when it first came out and i think the PPC will have the future...
The Cell Processor is the only light these days but you can not write programs for it like on the PPC or x86 assembly language and even if Frescale and IBM Processor are put on Pegasosboards it will never be the same i think...
And if Apple switches to x86 look how "well" this worked for NeXT....
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patchoulol
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Did I waste my time with ppc? Reply with quote

gnufreax wrote:
I will never buy an x86 based Mac...


Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gnufreax
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:04 pm    Post subject: I wont use x86.. Reply with quote

I only use Mac OSX for Multimedia,Excel etc but Linux for work and i like Linux on PPC its the best operating system on the best platform. I worked with Alpha , Sun Sparc , x86 from 286 to Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 and i still think x86 is not great...
The CPU´s have more Megahertz but they have longer Pipelines consume much more power and their SIMD´s are rarely used... and even if you use them you get only a little more speed... They are not really RISC CPU´s and there is no real true 64 Bit CPU in the x86 world expect the Itanium wich 64 Bit Architecture is meanly based on the Alpha... in other worlds i think the x86 are cheap but that´s all....
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pilla
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7694
Location: Pelotas, BR

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFAIK, Intel IA-64 architecture (EPIC) is not derived nor like the Alpha architecture. EPIC is an example of a VLIW (Very Large Instruction Word) architecture, while Alphas are RISC.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlphaBetaGamma
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't the Pegasos sold as a motherboard with a PowerPC processor? What's wrong with using that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gnufreax
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:12 am    Post subject: The Itanium.... Reply with quote

The Itanium is a processor with Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC) in it´s ISA...okay
the Itanium was designed by HP and Intel at the beginning....
but today the Itanium 2 was also designed with Alpha engineers, future Intel Chips based upon the Intel P6 Architecture like Itanium will use very much Alpha technology from the EV8. I like the idea behind Pegasosboards but for the features they offer they are still not as cheap as macs... I think the next computers/consoles which i buy will be amd64 and cell based...
Apple only choose Intel because IBM couldn´t offer what they wanted...like a 3 Ghz G5 in Summer 2004...and Apple wants to make more in multimedia i think which is a great market if you think about the next gameconsoles which are all more or less Power PC based. So Apple can only compete against them with cheaper Processors, Steve also said it´s a business not an technology problem with IBM. And if Apple would use Cell or Power PC it couldn´t compete with Microsoft and Sony i think because both have more money than Apple. So what do you think tell me your ideas and thoughts please...
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pilla
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7694
Location: Pelotas, BR

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Architecture and technology are two different things.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gnufreax
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:49 pm    Post subject: You are right Reply with quote

Architecture and technology are two different things...but what does a architecture do when new technologys are put in it...? So i think this discussion has to come to an end if there is anything else post it perhaps i had to write clearer what i mean, i am very sorry if anyone misunderstood me...the alpha is not the point in this discussion, it´s a dream cpu but i am a little bit afraid with Power PC´s on Desktop use...i think time will tell us what will come and go and i hope to see more than just on architecture in the future...and by the way SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY for my really bad english..:oops:
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KB7OEB
n00b
n00b


Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Posts: 58
Location: Phoenix,Arizona

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Other than being a pain to install what benefit is there to running linux on a ppc mac? I do it at work because I have a g4 that would otherwise go to waste since my employer is switching to dell.

Its great that gentoo runs on ppc and I have a couple old macs that are still usefull because of it but I would never go out and buy a new mac, x86 is just cheaper and thats why apple is switching.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gnufreax: why do you have a problem with the architecture that your OS is running on? Do you work on that level and are exposed to it? I mean, if it's more of a religious thing -- get over it. The x86 is an architecture just like any other, with advantages and disadvantages. Unless you're "down there" why bother with the hardware, if it gets the job done?

As for Apple: I think it is a clever and strategic move. Personally, I love my TiBook and the PowerPC architecture (yes, because I work down at that level). I think it's sad that Apple made that move, but I do understand the necessity of it. The Intel CPU is probably cheaper, it is faster (and now they can exploit the "GHz" buzz). It's a more wide spread architecture, thus they'd sell their OS to a wider range of customers. If they settle the deal with Dell then they have great cards, especially if they manage to release the new OS-X before Windows Vista. And then look at all those people who (for whatever weird reason) wish to run Windows software on their Macs: it will be much more performant to get that running (a la Wine) instead of emulating an entire x86 architecture using VPC.

Apple may leave the PowerPC world, but I don't think that matters much to IBM. Many of the next generation game consoles will run on variations of the Power architecture, and Sony even announced to support Linux on Cell. There's still IBM selling Power servers, there are the Pegasos boards. So if you're after an architecture to host Linux and which is not an Intel based architecture, I think you'll be safe for the next few years ;-)
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nokilli
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 195

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know enough about the architectures to comment on that aspect of it, only that x86 just has better support for Linux, so that would be my preferred platform for running it.

Just look at everything here at Gentoo that still has ~ppc defined, even things like tintin! Or games like Unreal Tournament or DOOM III or Neverwinter Nights that won't ever be available on Linux PPC.

Then there's x86 as a superior development platform to PPC. For instance, you can't do hardware watch points in gdb on PPC.

Less LiveCD's on PPC. Way more endianness issues with PPC (why ALSA has been such a bear for so long). Much more difficult to build your own PPC box from the ground up (is it even practical?)

Don't get me wrong, I love my Pismo, but a big reason for that is that is can also run MacOS 9 and OS X. Take that consideration away and I'd be much happier on a Pentium Centrino laptop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hehe...

nokilli wrote:
I don't know enough about the architectures to comment on that aspect of it, only that x86 just has better support for Linux, so that would be my preferred platform for running it.


I think it's the other way around: Linux supports the x86 architecture better, including the many third party components... because it's a so much more common hardware.

nokilli wrote:
Way more endianness issues with PPC (why ALSA has been such a bear for so long).


Endianess becomes only an issue when you're porting software that was written closely to the hardware. Like drivers. Little endian is more of a legacy than a necessity, and it's a pain. It's unfortunate that Intel just doesn't make a clean cut (they tried with Itanium) with their aged x86 architecture. Motorola did that when they laid M68k to rest and moved to PPC. But I guess considering how many people own an x86 based machine, it'd be pretty hard to just stop supporting it. *shrug* Bummer...

nokilli wrote:
Take that consideration away and I'd be much happier on a Pentium Centrino laptop.


I am sure soon you'll have your Apple Centrino laptop :-D
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nokilli
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 195

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

_savage wrote:
I think it's the other way around: Linux supports the x86 architecture better, including the many third party components... because it's a so much more common hardware.


Yes, you're right, it is better stated that way.

_savage wrote:
I am sure soon you'll have your Apple Centrino laptop :-D


I don't know. It won't boot MacOS 9, and MOL will no longer be a solution, so really, the only thing the Apple laptops will have is OS X, and the only thing I like about OS X is that it's *NIX which I'm getting free with Gentoo. :)

I'll probably end up buying what the best hardware is. And if that decision were to be made today, I hate saying it but I'd have to go with one of these new Dell gaming laptops. Both the display and the GPU are superior to what Apple is offering today.

If it's a tie, Apple wins. Otherwise...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nokilli wrote:
I don't know. It won't boot MacOS 9, and MOL will no longer be a solution, so really, the only thing the Apple laptops will have is OS X, and the only thing I like about OS X is that it's *NIX which I'm getting free with Gentoo. :)

I'll probably end up buying what the best hardware is. And if that decision were to be made today, I hate saying it but I'd have to go with one of these new Dell gaming laptops. Both the display and the GPU are superior to what Apple is offering today.


You still use OS9? I agree with MOL though: it's just a virtualizer, not an emulator. But maybe it will then be called MOW - Mac on Windows ;)

I bought my TiBook because I needed a laptop for traveling, and I needed a PPC architecture for testing my project on. And admitted, Apple manages to design some really sexy laptops. I didn't know though that Dell makes cute laptops as well? I thought, like Gateway, they produce only those impressingly ugly bricks?!

Anyway.... :-)
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elenyon
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 44
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
Will the Power PC die like the Alpha did? What do you think because Apple is no longer thinking different?:cry:


Well i don't think this will happen any time soon ,POWER is in many more things then Macs. There is a whole generation of Consoles that are POWER based. There are servers by IBM , Computers by people like Pegosos and there are lots of embedded POWER processors. While they might no longer be packaged all nice and pretty like apple did they will still be around.
_________________
Visit the Lug DUGLUG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian.Cohen
n00b
n00b


Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:45 pm    Post subject: Linux on Power Reply with quote

What's the ... deal ?

1. PowerPC is superior to x86 and will still be in 30 years or whatever timeframe you consider !
2. Intel does a very dirty job in stealing technology like MS did with their DOS. (realise that MS hacked their own OS from one release to the next)
3. If every game console on the market in 2 years is based on PowerPC programmers are about to start thinking Power instead of thinking x86 !?
3.1 remember that MS won the race against a superior Product (Warp) 10 years ago the moment the Game Developers Conference announced
Win95 as the Game development Platform for the next decade.
4. Apple did at no time really support the PPC.
4.1 Mac OS classic was an OS based on common Code for 68k and PPC they only dropped the 68 initialization code by V8.5.
4.2 MacOSX is based and developed on x86 and Apple made sure it is not too PPC/Altuvec optimized to keep it compatible with P4!
4.3 Apple's compilers did not really support or optimize for Altivec at any time. (yes there are really Altivectorizing compilers : GHS, VAST)
4.4 Apple did hold inovation back to promote their P4 based machines (their init system does the magick trick of booting so fast not the P4's)
5. Intel's CEO Paul Ottelini is known to have said that the CPU-Market of the future is dominated by the right politics not the better technology and so
does he.

Result: I own a P4-2.0Ghz-512MB. I have never owned a mac nor anything based on CHRP, CHRP2, SURGE or PREP.
The truth has to stay the truth ! ! !

Stay tuned,

B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Linux on Power Reply with quote

Brian.Cohen wrote:
1. PowerPC is superior to x86 and will still be in 30 years or whatever timeframe you consider !


What makes you think that PPC is superior? Personally, I sure hope that in 30 years time we aren't stuck with energy munching silicons anymore...

Brian.Cohen wrote:
2. Intel does a very dirty job in stealing technology like MS did with their DOS. (realise that MS hacked their own OS from one release to the next)


Where does Intel steal technology, do you have some concrete examples? The x86 architecture has been around for decades, and is considerably older than PPC. It's only natural that PPC has some more modern approaches than x86 because it is .. what .. only 10 years or so old. And what's got that to do with MS and MS/DOS which is about 20 years old?

Brian.Cohen wrote:
3. If every game console on the market in 2 years is based on PowerPC programmers are about to start thinking Power instead of thinking x86 !?


No sane programmer will write applications or games in assembly or machine language. Perhaps some small critical sections, but that's about it. Most of the programmers don't even see (or care for) the architecture they're working on. (They should though, IMHO, the compiler isn't allmighty.) And because game consoles move towards a POWER based architecture that doesn't imply a general movement of programmers. x86 is well established (and I am not saying that this is good) and to break that monopoly it will take more than game consoles.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
4. Apple did at no time really support the PPC.


Duh?

Brian.Cohen wrote:
4.2 MacOSX is based and developed on x86 and Apple made sure it is not too PPC/Altivec optimized to keep it compatible with P4!
4.3 Apple's compilers did not really support or optimize for Altivec at any time. (yes there are really Altivectorizing compilers : GHS, VAST)


They wouldn't have such a snappy GUI with shadows if they wouldn't have support from the hardware. And without PPC support the OS wouldn't even run. As you may have noticed, gcc is used to compile many of the applications and it has a very good PPC and Altivec support. Linux was initially developed on an x386 and it has been ported to a wide range of architectures; likewise the OS-X kernel (based on Mach) was ported to PPC and hence must support the hardware. Only because the layers above are friggin' slow doesn't mean the kernel does a bad job handling the hardware underneith.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
4.4 Apple did hold inovation back to promote their P4 based machines (their init system does the magick trick of booting so fast not the P4's)


Maybe that is because a P4 simply IS faster?!

I haven't quite figured out what your post is about other than pointless flaming. What are you trying to contribute? And if you make statements such as those above, then please give us the facts also. I am sure everybody here would appreciate that.

Jens
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian.Cohen
n00b
n00b


Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:30 pm    Post subject: PowerPC Reply with quote

You are from Gremany _savage, right ?
Did you cover the news ? Did you notice that Intel is fined millions every month for stealing technology ?
You are asking for evidence ! Did you ever work with PowerPC or even have seen one in reality ?
you germanians are asking for evidence when faced with the truth but need no evidence for claiming things
and take them for true.
Did you ever notice that the FPU of a PPC970@2.5Ghz has the power of a 3.5Ghz Pentium system ?
Did you ever compare EEMBC results of PowerPC to Intel systems ?
Lets stay in Germany and your neighbourhood and face the fact that the PPC based Dreambox (Dreammultimedia, Lünen/Germany)
is a top selling product and the x86 based Reelbox (Austria based Company) never saw the light of day (not mentioning the Beta phase of 3 month production)
In an Era of computing where PhysX and AI-Accelerator chips clebrate their debut there has to be a good reason for MS and co to buy PPC chips without the need of such expensive s**t as these chips.
Apple did not at any point support PPC ! To have a fancy GUI is based on OpenGL programming and thats GPU not CPU ! To compile a kernel on PPC is not the trick to make it use the characteristics of a particular Arch' is the big deal !
It is true and a blessing that the Era of Intel and Co. is dying ! But you germanians are following the philosophy of what you call "Realitätsverdrängung" !

B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: PowerPC Reply with quote

:lol:

This is starting to amuse me. Although I would appreciate you staying on topic rather than getting personal.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
You are from Gremany _savage, right ?


I am not sure what that's got to do with this thread, and it's none of your business where I come from.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Did you cover the news ? Did you notice that Intel is fined millions every month for stealing technology ?


Well, when I was working for Intel I had the chance to talk to quite a few people from various fields. And none of them told me any of these things. But then, I don't care very much for the financial aspects of companies, I'm not a business person. Can you give me concrete pointers to where you get that from?

Brian.Cohen wrote:
You are asking for evidence ! Did you ever work with PowerPC or even have seen one in reality ?


As a matter of fact I see the various members of both families (Power and x86) every day, in quite much architectural detail. And to be honest: all are simply black squared blobs with fat noisy fans. Inside they're very different though, but I am sure you know that all....

Brian.Cohen wrote:
you germanians are asking for evidence when faced with the truth but need no evidence for claiming things and take them for true.


See above: don't get personal and insulting. If you want to discuss these matters, then we can do that in a mature way, but stop wasting everybody's time with stupid flaming.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Did you ever notice that the FPU of a PPC970@2.5Ghz has the power of a 3.5Ghz Pentium system ?


Did you ever notice that the concept of virtual memory they both implement are completely different? And what is your definition of "power" in this context anyway? How do you measure the "power" of an FPU? Again, show me concrete data.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Did you ever compare EEMBC results of PowerPC to Intel systems ?


No I haven't, and so far I only found the benchmarks for some Power processors. (I didn't search thoroughly though.) Have you? Let me know the results, but since those results are often biased I am a little reluctant to take benchmarks as an absolute scale. Again: these are two completely different architectures which implement different approaches to the same problem, and therefore it's their nature to deliver different results in different areas.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Lets stay in Germany and your neighbourhood and face the fact that the PPC based Dreambox (Dreammultimedia, Lünen/Germany) is a top selling product and the x86 based Reelbox (Austria based Company) never saw the light of day (not mentioning the Beta phase of 3 month production)


Let's stay in our all neighbourhood and look at the number of processors that Intel sells each year. Does that make it a better product? That a product sells well (or not) is not much of an indication for its quality, whatsoever. And maybe they don't sell the Reelbox because they've figured that it simply sucks. The Pegasos board isn't a big seller either, and runs on a Freescale PowerPC. There are Sparc and ARM boards which don't sell much for various reasons, but that doesn't make them a better or worse product.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
In an Era of computing where PhysX and AI-Accelerator chips clebrate their debut there has to be a good reason for MS and co to buy PPC chips without the need of such expensive s**t as these chips.


Yes, the reason is very simple: money.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Apple did not at any point support PPC ! To have a fancy GUI is based on OpenGL programming and thats GPU not CPU ! To compile a kernel on PPC is not the trick to make it use the characteristics of a particular Arch' is the big deal !


You can't say that. For one, there are many layers in an OS which require strict hardware support without which the OS would be far from functioning. Perhaps go talk with BenH, the maintainer of the PPC kernel of Linux, and he'll tell you how much work it actually is. I agree that a fancy GUI requires a powerful GPU, but it also requires the CPU to feed the GPU. Take a step back and look at the MacOS as a whole, not only bits and pieces that suit your argument.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
It is true and a blessing that the Era of Intel and Co. is dying ! But you germanians are following the philosophy of what you call "Realitätsverdrängung" !


It strikes me as funny that this discussion started off as an attempt to find differences between two computing architectures, and the impact on the end user thereof. I'm very happy to discuss these matter in a normal way, perhaps learn something new, but if you have nothing to contribute than rather lame insults and opinions without facts, then please don't bother posting. The reason why I asked for "evidence" (or data) is very simple: they matter more than the opinion of a random person.

Touche.
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian.Cohen
n00b
n00b


Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:03 pm    Post subject: MS Linux98 Reply with quote

Hi Jens,

you are right. it is very funny I could throw myself out of the window so funny it is !

Imagine following story: Someone asks a question. Someone gives him an answer, some other people participate in the discussion.
Then someone gives some points to think about, some little facts everyone could see if they do the needed research on some topics
on the internet. Then someone comes and claims that theese are all lies and turns this discussion personal. Someone who worked for
intel in the past and works for Microsoft at the present.

Back in the reality what do you think ? Is this person paid by Microsoft and/or Intel to claim such things, or is he an idiot ? :oops:

Some words of wisdom : www.intergraph.com/ip/documents/journal/11203.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/intel_64bit/
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33255.html
http://www.eembc.com/Benchmark/digital_entertainment.asp <--- let us not forget, theese are real world benchmarks and not Intel optimized benchmarks like Spec95 or whatever it is.


B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_savage
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Redmond, WA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:27 pm    Post subject: Re: MS Linux98 Reply with quote

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Imagine following story: Someone asks a question. Someone gives him an answer, some other people participate in the discussion. Then someone gives some points to think about, some little facts everyone could see if they do the needed research on some topics on the internet. Then someone comes and claims that theese are all lies and turns this discussion personal. Someone who worked for
intel in the past and works for Microsoft at the present.

Back in the reality what do you think ? Is this person paid by Microsoft and/or Intel to claim such things, or is he an idiot ? :oops:


Listen kid, I try to have a normal conversation here but you seem to be incapable of participating and contributing on a respectful level. If you want to continue to be a fuckwit then knock yourself out, but don't expect me to respond to your paranoid conspiracy crap any further. I have more important things to do with my time.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
Some words of wisdom : www.intergraph.com/ip/documents/journal/11203.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/intel_64bit/
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33255.html


:-) Good job of digging up three (old) lawsuits against Intel. Now go back to your computer and search for all the successful lawsuits against Apple. And IBM. And Microsoft. And AMD. And eBay. And Google. And all the other big companies that make a huge revenue each year. There will always be somebody who's trying to get a piece of the cake, who sees their rights violated, who sometimes might be actually correct.

Brian.Cohen wrote:
http://www.eembc.com/Benchmark/digital_entertainment.asp <--- let us not forget, theese are real world benchmarks and not Intel optimized benchmarks like Spec95 or whatever it is.


Great, a benchmark where they test a 1.0G AMD chip against 1.7G PPC. Where the code is compiled by gcc3 (which doesn't mean a thing) versus a complete different (customized) compiler. No further details are given: neither about the actual architecture (memory, caches, latencies, ISA extensions) nor compiler switches. This is really convincing... (FYI, do some homework on the Spec benchmarks: http://www.spec.org/.)

This is the end of discussion for me, I don't need to listen to your insults. Plus, by now the thread is way off its original topic anyway.
_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo on PPC All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum