Macintosh Forums

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
since you tried to access the calculator from within a game that evidently couldn't minimize itself, I would think it's not an OS problem but a pretty big oversight in the coding. I can use a different program while running The Sims (summer 2000) on 8.6, so it's quake II's problem if 9.0.1 or whatever needs a reboot...

In Windows, you can force anything to minimize whether it's designed to or not. You can also kill any process you want for it to stop (we couldn't kill Quake II).

I need some links and proof, not what you think. what you just said has some pretty big weight in this arguement, please back it up.

Certainly. And I'll ask you to do the same from now on, the only link you've ever provided in this article was a trashy little comment thread by some inept Mac zealot.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=20000320

http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?pc/processors/Motorola/G4_plus/start

And I was wrong: It came out in early 2001. Which means that it's several months newer than the Pentium 4.

again, I can't be sure when the 867 came out (I'm still looking, but until then the best date I've gotten is mid 2000 for a 733). wasn't the 2.0 GHz P4 released this year?

Again, you can't seem to figure out a difference in a 'core' and a 'speed'.
The P4 2GHz was released this year, but the core for it was released a year ago.
The G4+ core was released in January 2001, after the P4.

Unlike how things tend to work in the Mac world, PC processors get faster over a period of time. They don't just release 5 different speeds and have that last them for 3 years like Motorola did with the G4. Every month or two a faster clocked P4 and Athlon come out.
But in January this year, a new Pentium 4 core will be out. It'll be much faster, and clock higher too.

[Wiglaf]

In Windows, you can force anything to minimize whether it's designed to or not. You can also kill any process you want for it to stop (we couldn't kill Quake II).

force quit?

Certainly. And I'll ask you to do the same from now on, the only link you've ever provided in this article was a trashy little comment thread by some inept Mac zealot.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=20000320

http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?pc...a/G4_plus/start

And I was wrong: It came out in early 2001. Which means that it's several months newer than the Pentium 4.

I still need a link for the release dates of the tested P4 core and tested processor speed (2.0 GHz).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
force quit?

Yeah, no kidding? It didn't work?
It kept running.

I still need a link for the release dates of the tested P4 core and tested processor speed (2.0 GHz).

Pentium 4 was released in November of 2000. 2.0GHz speed was released about a month or two ago.

I can't be bothered to find the dates, because I'm busy right now.
They're all over the web if you really want to know.
Or you can just trust my figures and be done with it.

[King_Of_Hearts]

The latest from the source who has brought us several previous anonymous reports on the G5 has sent in quite a whopper with details on numerous Apple fronts. Some of the details, particularly where they involve SGI, have been disputed by other sources, so as with all rumors, trust no one:
At Apple, we are quite pleased with the way the G5 has progressed. As of noon, we received version 0.7 of the G5. Altivec performance is now at par with equivalent clock speed 7460's. We spent a late night Friday night fitting prototypes with the new revision, and spent the day saturday doing various tests.
Yields are now just at the commercially acceptable level. Good news is that clock speeds have been improved to the point where 1.6 Ghz chips will be in adequate quantities. Another clock speed record was also set: 1 chip tested at 2.8 Ghz, 2 tested at 2.6 Ghz, 13 tested at 2.4 Ghz, 13 tested at 2.2Ghz, and 54 tested at 2Ghz. This shows that the G5 has tremendous potential at reaching high frequencies, being this early in its life. This is in sharp contrast to Intel's Itanium, which when I spoke to an Intel engineer at the semiconductor forum, they still are not getting sufficient yields above 800Mhz, an yields on current processors are very, very poor, hence the steep price of the Itanium. Mckinley is not faring too well either, progress has not been very good on increasing its clock speed for release sometime next year. The aim is to speed bump the G5 to between 2Ghz and 2.4 Ghz for Macworld New York. Above 1.6 Ghz, the G5 will be produced in 400Mhz increments.
Apple could theoretically sign off now, but Jon Rubinstein wants to go through one more revision. All the critical bugs have now been worked out, but there are a couple of minor optimizations that will go into revision 0.8, which is due within two weeks. Likely, these slight optimizations will result in version 0.8 being declared 1.0, and mass production will go on throughout December to get a critical volume of chips for a Mid-December production run of Power Mac G5's.
Anyone considering buying a G5 better be forwarned: the chip price may mean that Apple may not be able to offer G5 Power Macs for the same price as current G4 models. There has been talk between Steve Jobs, Jon Rubinstein, and Phil Schiller about possibly offering 7460 G4's at the low end in the professional models in two configurations, which would also appease Motorola. Apple would have five models of pro desktops until G5 prices fall low enough to warrant having them in the low-end pro models. There is talk of two 7460 G4 models, and 3 G5 models. Talk is that the low end G5 model will sell for slightly more than the current 867Mhz G4. The G5 towers will also sport the quicksilver enclosure initially, which will be changed at Macworld New York. People should understand that even though the G5 is considerably more expensive than the G4, it is a steal considering that we are getting at least 60% overall instructions per cycle than Intel's Itanium, and that it is a 64-bit processor. The 32 bit version of the G5 will be solely targeted towards embedded applications, as 32-bit addressing is no longer adequate for desktop applications.
The long awaited LCD iMac will also make its debut at Macworld San Francisco. It will be available at up to 1Ghz, 900Mhz being the scenario should yields of IBM's next generation G3's not be sufficient enough at 1Ghz.
Steve Jobs has very ambitious plans for Apple's processor strategy. He recently said "We've been stuck with the G4 for over two years, that's too long". His intentions are that the G5 have a life of 18 months in the Pro models. He wants the G6 to hit initial silicon between next December, and February 2003, and release it in mid-2003. Initially, the G6 will be fabbed with a 0.1 micron process moving to .07(.065) micron. It will be built upon the HIP 8.0 process, which is still not quite finalized. It will feature Altivec II, which promises to at least double performance of the current Altivec. Early estimates are that it will contain over 100 million gates. The G6 will be introduced at between 4.5 and 5Ghz and scale up to 10 Ghz.
This week Apple has committed itself to going beyond the G6 to build a G7, and maybe beyond. Apple is looking at Motorola's recently announced Gallium Arsenide technology to give this chip insanely high clock speeds. Talk is the G7 could go as high as 20 Ghz. The G7 would debut in early to mid 2005. This renewed hope with the PowerPc architecture is in light of the fact that Cisco Systems has committed to being a significant customer of G5's for their high-end routers, and Silicon Graphics being in the last stages of abandoning development on its R16000 and R18000 processors as a cost-cutting measure. It looks very likely it will sign a commitment with Apple, IBM and Motorola within a month. It has prototype G5 chips in a prototype workstation of theirs, and is hard at work developing Irix 7.0 for the G5.
In terms of future G5 development, work is well underway on the 8510, which is a low-power SOI LoK dielectric version of the G5. It is due out in late Q4 2002, and it will be an IBM product fabbed with its 0.1 micron process. Work is also progressing on the 8550, which is due out Q1 2003. It will be a 0.1 micron chip built upon SOI LO-K dielectric. It is a candidate to receive Altivec II if it is completed in time.
Relationships between Apple and Motorola as of late could very well be described as Jeckyll and Hyde. Just three weeks ago, Steve Jobs said "I am going to sue the ass of those guys at Motorola. At the last minute, they f*cked us up. They told us we would have 1Ghz G4's, and days before Macworld, the f*ckers told us there was a defect which would cause them to fail above 900Mhz." Days later, the relationship becomes cordial again when Motorola shows renewed interest when SGI and Cisco Systems start looking into the G5.
Very interesting....however, as we have mentioned previously, there have been several calls from the grapevine for us to be perhaps somewhat more conservative than this report might suggest with regard to G5 clock speeds in the year ahead, as well as with regard to a release date for the PowerMac G5. Whatever the case, time will no doubt tell the tale.

MAC RULES!!!!!

P.S. this is not a DL (thx for the explanation Wiglaf)

[Drake Tungsten]

Just three weeks ago, Steve Jobs said "I am going to sue the ass of those guys at Motorola. At the last minute, they f*cked us up. They told us we would have 1Ghz G4's, and days before Macworld, the f*ckers told us there was a defect which would cause them to fail above 900Mhz."

Man, Steve Jobs sure is a mean son of a *****.

[Wiglaf]

Yeah, no kidding? It didn't work?
It kept running.

download a patch, that's a very unusual software problem if force quit just...doesn't work...

Pentium 4 was released in November of 2000. 2.0GHz speed was released about a month or two ago.

I can't be bothered to find the dates, because I'm busy right now.
They're all over the web if you really want to know.
Or you can just trust my figures and be done with it.

all over the web?

[Asher]

Reading through the above spammy post, and I'm seeing some huge ironies develop.

It looks like Apple (Motorolla?) is playing a double standard here, because they seem to be mocking that the Itanium is "only" hitting 800MHz. They neglected to mention that the Itanium set records for floating point performance at 800MHz. Then they went on to say the McKinley isn't shaping up nicely either, but it's hitting nice yields at 1GHz+, and is ~1.7x faster than the Itanium per clock. In other words, they shouldn't be talking because I could just as easily say "It's a shame that the G5 is stuck at such low clockspeeds, while the P4 is currently at 2GHz and about to hit 2.2GHz within a month or so".

Originally posted by Wiglaf
download a patch, that's a very unusual software problem if force quit just...doesn't work...

all over the web?

You betcha.

[King_Of_Hearts]

I wonder how thick headed u r.... first of all Pentium processors and G4 processors r 2 TOTAL DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as some already said a G4 867Mhz is ALMOST just as fast as a P4 2.0 Ghz can u imagine how much faster the new G5 will be???? and even when 80% of the article is bull**** somethings in there must be true else it has no use to publish it is there...


P.S it was just a joke about the thick headed thing...

[Wiglaf]

It looks like Apple (Motorolla?) is playing a double standard here, because they seem to be mocking that the Itanium is "only" hitting 800MHz. They neglected to mention that the Itanium set records for floating point performance at 800MHz. Then they went on to say the McKinley isn't shaping up nicely either, but it's hitting nice yields at 1GHz+, and is ~1.7x faster than the Itanium per clock. In other words, they shouldn't be talking because I could just as easily say "It's a shame that the G5 is stuck at such low clockspeeds, while the P4 is currently at 2GHz and about to hit 2.2GHz within a month or so".

right, what's your point?

as for the 'all over the web' talk, I can't find anything about the P4 core's release date. btw, force quit usually works (although it can cause some problems later on in other applications) pretty well and fast on almost all my programs when I need to use it on OS8.6. good bet it's quake II screwing with you, not apple.

[Asher]

Originally posted by King_Of_Hearts
I wonder how thick headed u r.... first of all Pentium processors and G4 processors r 2 TOTAL DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as some already said a G4 867Mhz is ALMOST just as fast as a P4 2.0 Ghz can u imagine how much faster the new G5 will be???? and even when 80% of the article is bull**** somethings in there must be true else it has no use to publish it is there...


P.S it was just a joke about the thick headed thing...

Yeah, no kidding? Thanks.

I already stated that I've heard the G5 will be pretty fast.
I've also alreadly clearly stated my understandings on the design and implementation of microprocessors, way more than anyone else in this thread.

My comment comes because Apple was making a double standard -- er...nevermind, if you didn't comprehend it the first time you won't a second time.

as for the 'all over the web' talk, I can't find anything about the P4 core's release date. btw, force quit usually works (although it can cause some problems later on in other applications) pretty well and fast on almost all my programs when I need to use it on OS8.6. good bet it's quake II screwing with you, not apple.

Computers aren't really your bag, are they?

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/dp112000.htm

And I understand that force quit "usually works" and that it was probably Q2's problem, but there is a certain thing called a "fault tolerance" which should allow your OS to kill anything running for any reason. Force Quit is not that option (in Unix, it's called "kill -9", In Win2K/XP, it's the "End Process" button)

[Wiglaf]

And I understand that force quit "usually works" and that it was probably Q2's problem, but there is a certain thing called a "fault tolerance" which should allow your OS to kill anything running for any reason. Force Quit is not that option (in Unix, it's called "kill -9", In Win2K/XP, it's the "End Process" button)

OS8.6 has it's limitations, since it's, oh, about three years old.

[Drake Tungsten]

Asher is a stupid, stinky Canuck!!!

Sorry about that obvious troll, but the Mac forum needs some action. Flame away, boys!