Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Multiprocessor G4s @MacWorld

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the divide-in-conquer dept.

Apple 111

whostudios writes "According to this arricle at AppleInsider Apple will show their second generation 500Mhz dual G4 boxes at the MacWorld Expo this January. The same article also says that Apple is working on quad-processor boxes. " It'll be pretty sweet to have another SMP capable platform for Linux to run on. Update: 12/27 09:30 by CT : If you don't want to wait for Apple's solution, try this dual G4 board and roll your own.

cancel ×

111 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

show != sell (2)

imac.usr (58845) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443163)

Doesn't necessarily mean they'll be announced, though. The article indicates they'll be unveiled on stage, but it's also possible they may just be exhibited to a few select developers. Apple is already introducing (by all accounts) a new PowerBook along with updates on OS 9 and OS X. There's also the possibility of a new 17" iMac announcement, and the long-overdue G4/OS X Server machine will hopefully be ready at the same time. That's a lot for even a MacWorld Expo. The MP machines are more likely, IMO, to be announced later in the year at an Apple Event of some type. Unless Steve is looking for that perfect Columbo-esque "Oh, one more thing..." announcement for this Expo. Hey, it worked twice last year...

Mmmmmm...new PowerBook. (makes Homer-ish drool sound)


Linux on G4 (1)

bano (410) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443164)

AFAIK nothing but MacOS will run on a G4 as of yet.

If you don't want to wait... (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443165)

...build yourself a dual processor Celeron system. I just did this, and it's loads o' fun. Doesn't cost much, either. The ABIT BP6 motherboard will run you around $120-130, and the processors are around $45-50 each. I used 333s, and clocked 'em to 500 MHz. With the ABIT boards, you do all of the tweaking in the BIOS; no jumpers. Rock solid so far, even while crunching RC5 (around 2.4/2.5 Mkeys/sec).

I'm sure the Apple boxes will rock, but I suspect they'll cost a little more that this. :-)

However, if ABIT ever puts out a dual-processor PowerPC board...

Re:Linux on G4 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443166)

You should wake up and smell the coffee. Linuxppc and Yellowdog will run on it, and have since just after the G4's introduction.

check http://www.yellowdoglinux.net or http://www.linuxppx.org for details.


OS X Server Required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443167)

I don't imagine the current MacOS 9 supports SMP in any way - does anyone know what/if support for SMP is in OS X Server?

About time... (3)

chadmulligan (87873) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443168)

I'm writing this on a Genesis MP528. This is a 4-CPU multiprocessor box - a PPC 9500 clone with a Genesis-developed processor board. Four 132 MHz 604 CPUs... this was a top-of-the line system when I bought it several years ago.

At the time only Photoshop, Premiere, and a fractal-calculating demo could use the 4 CPUs, until I installed the BeOS on it. It was amazing what difference the added CPUs made...

After 2 of the CPUs burned out a couple of years ago, (the thermal paste wasn't tropics-proof, it seems) I installed a 300MHz G3 board - which at the time performed somewhat better than all 4 of the original CPUs.

The Mac OS has for some years supported extra CPUs strictly for number-crunching, but it wasn't symmetrical for other things. I'm looking forward to swapping my board for a dual or quad G4 in the near future, once full SMP support is in place.

Re:Linux on G4 (1)

fils (88044) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443169)

Actually yellow dog has linux running on G4's but it's still in early stage. However, you can get and run linux on G4's. Also, MP PPC Linux would be a kick ass platform for java servlets especially if the PPC JVM is SMP ready thread wise. Very fast. I use PPC Linux for my servlet development all the time.

Re:Linux on G4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443170)

Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com] and LinuxPPC [linuxppc.com] both have preliminary G4 support, though the G4 isn't "officialy supported" hardware yet. And SMP support for Linux on the PowerMac has been there for quite some time, on Apple's old dual processor 604e machines.

Re:show != sell (1)

kaputnik (26975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443171)

Hey, it is not just "a MacWorld Expo"...

It is the first MacWorld of the new millenium. Maybe, Jobs wants to play Santa, bearing many "gifts"...

Re:show != sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443172)

Interesting. I always thought "OS 9" was a realtime operating system for Motorola 680X.

Just my $0.02.

multi processors G4's (1)

jdonofrio99 (85809) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443173)

I've always wanted a multi-processor G4. Currently I'm writing this on a P166 w/128 megs of ram and a 7.2 gig hard drive. I think its time for an upgrade. This box runs rc5-64/csc/seti@home rather slowly...

Re:OS X Server Required? (4)

znu (31198) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443174)

Mac OS 9 has limited support for multiple processors, but not SMP. Apps need to be specifically coded for MP configurations. Fortunately, most of the apps that actually need MP (stuff like Photoshop) are already MP-enabled, because Apple has made a couple MP machines in the past.

Mac OS X Server does not currently have any kind of MP support at all, but the Server 1.2 update (which was originally just intended to add G4 support) has been taking longer than expected, and it's rumored that this is because it's going to be a rather major upgrade. If Apple really does introduce MP machines at Macworld, it doesn't seem so far fetched that a version of Server that supports SMP will be introduced as well.

SMP is an announced feature for the client version of Mac OS X as well (and all future versions of Server will be based on this client version), whenever that actually ships.

--

G4 vs Athlon (3)

cxreg (44671) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443175)

I for one cannot wait to see SMP Athlon vs SMP G4 benchmarks. Both are excellent CPUs, and should scale well. IIRC, both AMI and Tyan have SMP Athlon boards coming out in 1Q00. This stuff is getting more and more important as people start to wonder about the longevity of Moores Law...

Geee... (1)

jonr (1130) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443176)

We had dual and quad PowerMacs years ago, until Apple killed the cloners...
And we are supposed to be thankful? Try another one, Steve.
J.

Re:G4 vs Athlon (1)

gnarphlager (62988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443177)

Yeah, i'd love to too, but I haven't seen any SMP Athlons yet. Which isn't to say there won't be (and if anyone has any reviews/prices on a motherboard for such, post them!!!!). But that said, it would be interesting running a dual processer G4 against a K7-800 . . . or one of the Kryotech 1Ghz Athlons! I'm sure the G4 would win, but by how much?


God, it's such a good time to be a geek!

Re:show != sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443178)

Yes. Coded in assemply for it too.

Very powerful...

gotta wear shades... (1)

kuma (98937) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443179)

as a former next owner (attempting to escape the inanity of quickdraw quirks) and rabid macintosh enthusiast, mainstream multiprocessor systems running macosx are something of a holy grail (_especially_ since i recall discussing a sweet dual-processor prototype next machine with the nextstep crowd at mit _years_ ago)... where did those tissues go, i'm all misty ;) kuma

beowulf clusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443180)

these would rool with beowulf clusters :)

Re:Geee... (1)

jezzball (28743) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443181)

There were dual Apple supported Power Macs. The reason there were no SMP G3's is because the G3 does not support SMP (sounds familiar to another chipmaker, no?)

The G4 does, and Apple is taking advantage of that. So yes, you should be thankful.

Dan
So many things couldn't happen today
So many songs we forgot to play
So many dreams coming out of the blue

Apple to have 8-processor box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443182)

Just wait 'til later in the year when they unveil their machines than will support up to EIGHT (8) G4 processors. True.

Re:show != sell (1)

geek_77 (81265) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443183)

it is, apple uses Mac OS 9.

If G4 SMP boxes are announced, it's premature (2)

Markonen (56381) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443184)

Apple (and Mac OS clone manufacturers) have toyed with multiprocessor Macs in the past. Apple itself sold dual processor systems while some cloners went as far as to bring quad processor systems to market. The machines were mighty impressive, but unless BeOS was your bag, the only thing they were good for was accelerating Photoshop filters. And let's face it, most of us don't spend that much time waiting for Photoshop filters to finish.

Fast forward to 1999 and nothing has changed, except that Apple is now being led by a guy who actually understands that multiprocessor boxes are useless with classic Mac OS. That's why Apple isn't shipping any. The next major Apple OS release, Mac OS X, will feature decent SMP support, but could still be a year away. Shipping SMP hardware before that is ethically questionable at best, doomed to backfire at worst.

Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (1)

Hiawatha (13285) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443185)

I'm not a graphic artist type, but I didn't think SMP was of much use in the kinds of graphics apps used by so many Macophiles...Please correct my folly...

Re:G4 vs Athlon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443186)

Where are you getting that the G4 will beat an Athlon 800? In all of my searching I've only found the same Photoshop filter benchmarks and some pointless Byte benchmarks. All of the independent(non-mac site related benchmarks) suggest that a G4 450 will match a Intel 550 or so. Even John Carmack says the G4 is not even close to 2x as fast as a Intel cpu, and that it's just barily faster per clock cycle.

Re:G4 vs Athlon (1)

gnarphlager (62988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443187)

Didn't say a straight G4 would. But odds are a dual-G4 would beat a single Athlon

Re:If you don't want to wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443188)

About distributed.net, my single cpu G4 350 will do about 3.2k keys a sec, becuase of the altivec core.

Dual G4 with Viper south bridge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443189)

hehe. I just spotted this. It seems it's based on CHRP/POP design and uses the Athalons Viper south bridge. Ya think Apple will crush 'em. It looks even better specced out than Apples upcoming G4s. Siliconfruit [gxnetwork.com]

Re:G4 vs Athlon (1)

cxreg (44671) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443190)

Even if the G4 *is* faster than Athlon 1 on 1, I'd put money on Athlon in SMP due mainly to its EV6 architecture which gives a full 200MHz per CPU to the bus. Which is why I cant wait to see the benchmarks =) Vroom

what about multiple-core? (3)

mcc (14761) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443191)

back when the G4 was in development they talked a whole lot about "multiple-core" G4s. As opposed to normal multiprocessor setups, these were just a number of G4s that had been wired to act as if they were only one G4. The point is unlike SMP where you have to rewrite the software to take advantage of it, the multicored g4s would not-- they acted as if they were one processor and you treated them as such. (my apologies if this is not a totally accurate discription; if you care go browse appleinsider's back issues, or something)

Whatever happened to this? This sounded like a really good idea. Has apple just forgotten about it, or did they spend so much time on altivec they just never got around to developing the idea fully?

Re:G4 vs Athlon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443192)

Oh ok :-) I spent quite a while looking for performance benchmarks of G4's compared to other cpu's. Not that they are slow by any means, and they are definately the fastest cpu's for Photoshop(given that the cpu was designed with Photoshop performance as a primary goal, or so Jobs said). It is kind of funny though that Jobs claims it's two to three times as fast as the fastest Intel cpu, and everyone goes for it. And then you have the relatively unbiased John Carmack, who is definately pro-apple as a gaming platform, say right out to insidemacgames.com [insidemacgames.com] that Apples claims are nuts.

Re:what about multiple-core? (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443193)

Actually, it's more of a Motorola thing than an Apple thing.

Motorola is still on track to deliver a multiple core CPU in the G5, and I think also the G4II, which is due in 2000.

Re:Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (1)

larkost (79011) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443194)

In the desktop side of things (meaning not enterprise-class-servers), graphics and video apps are the apps that will benifit most from access to multiple processors. In fact they don't usually care if those processors are SMP or AMP (asymetric), they just want as many processor cycles as they can get!

Think about applying a complex filter to a large image (a poster sixed image at 1600 DPI for example.. an especialy good example as almost all movie posters are done on Macs...), what the computer is doing in this render is applying a algorithm repeatedly to each point in the picture. Usually the algorithm only involves a small number of pixels for each pass, but it has to pass over every single pixel (sometimes more than once). If you have one processor, then that one has to do the whole job, add more hands to the work, and each one can be working on its own piece of the picture, not interfering with the others.

Since the people you pay for this sort of creative work tend to be paid a lot per hour, any speed-up you can provie in their tools saves you money (and generally makes the creative types happier people). SMP specificly is only mildly important to them (maybe they can work on email on one processor while the other grinds away..), but the MP part is absolutely critical!

...and just to respond ot the "Macophiles" part of the post, for Apple's graphics arts consumers this is essential, and woth any price. For the rest of us, the fact that they are working on SMP rather than AMP (finally!) means that the beinifits of MP can be put in at the system level, so that any app will instantly benifit from having multiple processors in the system, even if that app can only run on one of those processors!

Re:Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443195)

Multiprocessors come in handy whenever large amount of numbers need to be crunched. All the graphic programs do is crunch numbers and put out pretty pictures. Photoshop is already MP aware, and photoshop filers also are number hungry. Also applying filters on DV, 3D animations, they all require things to be computed, so MP computers would help a lot.

Re:Geee... (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443196)

Yeah, but that was a hack, because the OS didn't support it very well. Now we have a very robust CPU, with a choice of either Linux or OS X, two OS's that should do a stellar job compared to Mac OS 7.x

Frankly, I'll be surprised if Be doesn't announce their support for G4's pretty soon....

Multiprocessor G4s - great, but Linux? (1)

michellem (110855) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443197)

As an avid fan of BOTH macs and Linux, I still have yet to bother trying out PPC linux. Really, I have yet to find a reason, except earning myself serious geek points. The Mac OS is great at what it does - but putting Linux on a Mac box seems to me just to waste more expensive hardware. I've got 4 Linux boxes running, none of them cost a whole wad of cash. Macs have certainly come down in price, but I'm not about to waste the $2,500 I just spent on a G4 to make a linux box that can't do nearly everything that a $500 box could do.

"from the but-who's-buying dept." (2)

LocalYokel (85558) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443198)

Considering the common notion that the G4 is fast, multiple G4's are obviously the next logical step. The problem becomes: what would I do with G4-MP???

The MacOS seems infinitely capable -- why must it do all of them so poorly and/or primitively? MP support on a Macintosh works out to be a few specific Adobe apps crudely hacked to run two parallel threads on separate CPU's. The OS doesn't natively support any kind of MP, and 90% of Mac apps simply 'stay at home' on CPU 0. If there were more than ten apps used on a Mac (Adobe software, M$ Office, Quark, and Nutscrape), I'm sure that percentage would be higher.

Linux SMP is coming along (but admit it, it's not even up to pace with NT, let alone BeOS), but Yellow Dog [yellowdoglinux.com] only has half-assed support for the G4. Then there is the problem of getting it from kernel 2.2 to 2.4 in the next couple of months...

Apple's OS X is a way off [arstechnica.com] , and given the hardware used in their systems since the introduction of the iMac, would you be able to find any other UN*X that supports bizarre foreign hardware like USB keyboards and mice?

Just imagine a bitchin' Beowulf cluster of MP G4's with a functional OS! =)
--

Re:Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443199)

Actually, the primary use was in graphic apps, i.e., Photoshop. There was a time (not too many years ago) when applying certain filters in most Photoshop documents could be measured in minutes rather than seconds. (On the 68k-series CPU's, it was even measured in hours.)

Photoshop is not the untamed beast it once was, of course, since all of the hardware got faster and bigger, but the basic needs of PS have grown relatively little.

The really demanding graphic apps these days are the 3D animation packages. A simple 5 minute animation can take many hours to render out, and I think the lack of dual and quad-processor support on the Mac (both in hardware and in the OS) is at least part of the reason why some of the big 3D apps stayed away. From what I've read, though, I think that Jobs is very interested in wooing the 3D community back to the Mac, and that dialogue can't even begin without a quad-CPU G4 running OS X.

Re:OS X Server Required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443200)

OS 9 has SMP support and the G4's are SMP compliant. Definotely want to see one run.

Re:what about multiple-core? (1)

arielb (5604) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443201)

both AMD and Motorola should have multi-core technology in their next gen cpus

Re:Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443202)

i'm sure apple wouldn't bother spending development money on SMP boxes and OS's if Adobe and Macromedia didn't already promise to utilize the power, and not all macs are used for 2D graphics. video, 3d graphics, flash, page layout, all could utilize the power, and there are still plenty of macs used in science and engineering applications.

WHY (1)

webslacker (15723) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443203)

Mac OSX will be coming in half a year, with better multiproc support. Until then, Adobe's products tend to work well with multiple processors.

Re:OS X Server Required? (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443204)

Certain Apps and plugins (like photoshop/Strata Studio Pro) can take advantage of the extra CPUs even if the OS does not.

LK

New open PowerPC platform from Silicon Fruit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443205)

Target PC [targetpc.com] has an article [gxnetwork.com] on a new open PowerPC platform from a company named Silicon Fruit [siliconfruit.com] . A motherboard codenamed RioRed is in development and has plenty of high-end features including dual G4s and 64 bit PCI slots. It will ship with Yellow Dog Linux, and they are negotiating to get BeOS ported over. In the middle of next year the company plans to ship a workstation based on this motherboard with some interesting features.

Re:"from the but-who's-buying dept." (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443206)

> Apple's OS X is a way off, and given the hardware used in their systems since
> the introduction of the iMac, would you be able to find any other UN*X that
> supports bizarre foreign hardware like USB keyboards and mice?

The Ars Technica article you reference is only speculating, based on the current DP of OS X, that it will be another year in the making.

However, it's widely believed that Apple is much farther along on OS X than what DP2 shows, because Apple doesn't want too much of the interface revealed just yet. As odd as that sounds, it's par for the course at Apple.

Also, I've been following Apple since the early 80's, and have seen them push back important dates at the last minute, only to infuriate a lot of people. However, since Jobs became iCEO, I've noticed that he is more sensitive to this. On the one hand, he doesn't want to give out any more info on products in development than he absolutely has to; but, OTOH, he seems to know how much it enrages people to show up at a convention and say "Oh, we won't be selling that that we promised today, it'll be at least another year or two."

Jobs has done a decent job of updating the OS X calendar, and I think we would have heard about another year-long delay by now.

Does linux run on it anyway? (1)

mplex (19482) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443207)


I don't think there is ppc smp support yet, but I am far from an expert. The last I heard was that i386 was the only stable smp arch and alpha was in development. I have heard nothing about ppc smp support yet, does anyone else know?

Re:Geee... (1)

PotPieMan (54815) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443208)

For Be to support G4s, at least those made by Apple, Apple would have to agree to release the hardware specs. I seem to remember Be bitching about this (rightfully so) after Apple ended the clone era and closed all the hardware specs. As far as I know, BeOS doesn't run on any PowerPCs from Apple after the 9600 (correct me if I'm wrong...it may be the 9500). That's why Be released their OS for Intel chips.

The LinuxPPC guys have to essentially reverse-engineer the hardware information to get Linux running on new Apple hardware.

This is why I don't like the fact that Apple killed the clone licenses. I don't mind the fact that it stopped clones from being sold; the action allowed Apple to concentrate on making better hardware.

Now, as for comparing Linux and Mac OS X to System 7.x...have you seen Mac OS 9? :)

Re:If G4 SMP boxes are announced, it's premature (1)

kuma (98937) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443209)

you are being rather conservative aren't you?

getting macos x server (serving in the field now) qualified for smp should not be too difficult, and developers are already using release 2 of macos x (haven't had time to install it myself though)

"ethically questionable" is somewhat overstated--without macosx, the machines would likely be marketed only for macos x server and/or the most well-funded-and-supported desktop publishing shops, i.e. not for consumers or even run-of-the-mill power users... kuma

Re:Linux on G4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443210)

Does anyone know if someone is working on gcc improvements to support the G4's Altivec? Before I run out and get a G4 to run Linux on I would want support for the vector processor.

Re:Dual G4 SiliconFruit (1)

bstadil (7110) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443211)

SiliconFruit [siliconfruit.com] is not using any technology of any kind from Apple, It would be very unwise of Apple to comtemplate anything along those lines.

I don't know about that third-party (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443212)

The site's Slashdotted, so I can't get in, but my bet is that they are selling multiprocessor-G3s, not G4s.

Why? Look at the URL. ...../QUAD750.html

"750" is the real name of the G3, "7400" is the name of the G4.

Also the real time when this is gonna matter is when OS X comes out, because that will include much better SMP support than MacOS 9.

I really don't give a damn about SMP though, all I want is for Apple to start selling some machines above G4/450MHz. That is just way too slow. I know it's more the fault of Motorola/IBM than Apple, but it's still gonna be Apple's head on a plate if the speeds don't start going up soon.

Re:If you don't want to wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443213)

I'm not going to be any more off topic than you were while ranting about a dual celeron system in a thread talking about dual G4's - like they even compare... But thanks for the info about the Abit board... I've been meaning to pick one up, but hadn't heard from anyone with first hand experience...

Re:Geee... (2)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443214)

Yes be thankful... Be thankful that Apple exists today to bring you multi-G4 Mac's... Be thankful that OS 9 is here, OS-X Server has been here for a while and OS-X consumer is due to arrive soon.... Be thankful for the little iMacs that could.... Be thankful they finally got USB to become popular enough that people decided to make USB devices... and be thankful that they've taken part in the development of firewrie... i'm sure there's others too...

Yes: Apple is (1)

BonzoDog (11608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443215)

Yes, Apple is working on [Alti-Vec/Velocity Engine/Mktg Name of the month] enhancements to GCC. That is the compiler they are using for MacOSX.

Re:Multiprocessor Macs? Why? (2)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443216)

Programs that wait on CPU's definetly benefit from added CPU's... For instance, yes, photoshop loved them... Then there's pretty much every 3-D application on the planet... RIPs - the programs/hardware that converts Quark files to bitmaps so they can be printed in the Boston Globe, also enjoy added CPU's...

I spend a huge amount of my time waiting and wating for my computer sometimes... just watching the bar crawl across the screen... Added CPU's would certainly help - so long as the programs were reworked to recognize them.

Please login. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443217)

Reading the mailing lists tech-kern [netbsd.org] , tech-smp [netbsd.org] , tech-userlevel [netbsd.org] , port-macppc [netbsd.org] seem to point that NetBSD/macppc [netbsd.org] is a suspect.

If you installed another OS and know how to close bugs you can report or query a bug [netbsd.org] . If you have not found how to get NetBSD CD-ROMs [netbsd.org] LinuxMall sells these three: NetBSD 2-CD Set [linuxmall.com] , NetBSD-current Snapshot CD [linuxmall.com] or an out of stock NetBSD T-Shirt XL [linuxmall.com] .

Re:G4 vs Athlon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443218)

Will linux support a MP Athalon box? Will any OS for that matter?

Maybe this is big news for Mac users... (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443219)

...but for BeOS this is really a gigantic "yawn", nothing more. The first Be boxes were running on 5 processrs, because Be was built from the ground up with multiprocessing in mind. It's amazing how just by adding a second processor you increase the performance of your applications by 100% flat.
NT has good multiprocessing, Solaris has great multiprocessing. MacOS seems to have problems with that.


(and BTW, I was a bit disappointed with the performance of kernel-threaded Linux apps running on the 2.2 kernel.)






Re:I know about that third-party (1)

webslacker (15723) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443220)

I got in earlier. They have G3's and G4's

What deity do I need to sell my soul to?? (1)

jormurgandr (128408) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443221)

Drool.... I could have some serious fun with a system like that. Dual G4's. Oh, can anybody say Quake3?? And firingsquad though it ran fast on a dual P!!!... That G4 would make mincemeat of anything intel could throw at it. And it would be BEAUTIFUL.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.

On track and scheduled for 2001 (1)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443222)

Multi-core technology is an IBM thang, and due out on later revs of their POWER4 64bit PPC chip. Since the first rev of POWER4 isn't due to hit the RS/6000 and AS/400 scene until summertime, I would expect the MC version to hit early '01. The consumer rev should be out shortly thereafter: most folks put it at summer 2001. Whether this will be the G5, or just multi-cored G4s remains to be seen.

SoupIsGood Food

Re:I don't know about that third-party (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443223)

the G3 doesn't support multiprocessing. That's one of the big differences between the G3 and G4. Altivec, SMP support, and higher clock speeds. At same speeds G4's benchmark(Norton) almost exactly the same as a G3. Add it altivec and the difference is much more(like 2.5x)

Re:About time... (1)

aaashby (129961) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443224)

Have you tried your two remaining CPU's with OS9? According to a post to XLR8yourmac.com, OS9 reinvigorates the old MPU boxes. I would be curious how the G3 compares to your two 604's. It might tell us something interesting about Apple's MPU designs... Ashby

Re:Geee... (1)

joshua_doesnt_know (17636) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443225)

Steve Jobs just happened to save apples collective ass, and don't forget that they were the ones to really put the gui in the laps of the world. Do you think microsoft would have came up with a GUI without apple trying to hard to put theirs out? Sure they both saw what was at xerox parc, but Jobs was the man to bring it to the table. Jobs is an artist *cough*pixar*cough*. Nuff said.

All that from someone who doesnt even use a mac on a regular basis... I guess I just have admiration for the man...

_joshua_

Great for desktop publishing/DV people (1)

Heisenbug (122836) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443226)

I am only in the desktop graphics/publishing world to the extent that I know a few people who do it and I have read a few magazines, but I think this will be great for them, and meaningless for the rest of us. Over 50 percent of desktop publishers use macs, and in fact they do spend quite a bit of time waiting for Photoshop filters to finish. The same goes times 30 fps for digital video people. So this will be worth the extra expense for those professionals, and their software will already support it. For the rest of us, even one 500 mhz G4 is probably more than we need.

Re:What deity do I need to sell my soul to?? (1)

WebDev511 (129967) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443227)

There is a serious MHz gap that the G4's need to close before it will be worth selling your soul.

AFAIK, an overclocked Celeron (366@550) may be about as fast or faster than a G4 450, for alot less money. By the time the Multi G4's are out, AMD and Intel are going to be seriously pushing the 1GHz barrier.

If Carmack was correct and the G4's say equal or a smig faster than Intel or AMD at the same clock speed, then the G4's will need to speed up in a hurry. The Upside to all of this is that we will have our choice of SMP machines, OS's, and CPU's. Once again, the consumer is the WINNER!!!!

Re:On track and scheduled for 2001 (1)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443228)

IBM has been playing the press game with the POWER4 specs. While I won't quote them as they are probably just 'hype' at this point, (And I believe the fellow who showed me the 'hard' specs is covered by a NDA) the sanest guess makes the current rev look like an old 962...

Re:G4 vs Athlon (1)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443229)

Dude, Linux already has SMP Athlon support, as do the BSD's and Windows NT 4.0 and Win2K.

It's not a change in arch, only a change in vendor and speed!

Re:"from the but-who's-buying dept." (1)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443230)

However, since Jobs became iCEO

'iCEO'?

That was the biggest laugh I've had in a while..

Thanks!

Re:Not all color/prepress on Macs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443231)

Think about applying a complex filter to a large image (a poster sixed image at 1600 DPI for example.. an especialy good example as almost all movie posters are done on Macs...),

I'm glad you qualified that with "almost all", since our bureau has been doing large movie posters (mostly MGM/UA) on _Windows_NT_ and Irix (Silicon Graphics) for the past two years...

I think this has been the trend for some time as more color professionals are becoming increasingly frustrated with the MacOS.

Even in the color/prepress world, NT and other OSes are slowly but surely becoming feasible alternatives to the current MacOS because other OSes are _sooo_ much more reliable. With the deadlines we're under, we cannot afford to reboot two, three, five times daily because of the cryptic 'Type #' errors are just plain freezing. Our Irix and NT boxes seldom ever require rebooting (once a week, if even that often).

We're still awaiting MacOS X as most Mac professionals are, but are not averse to running Linux / *BSDs especially if full ICC CMYK support ever comes to the Open Source world (our Appletalk fileservers are Linux, our web/mail servers are OpenBSD). Otherwise, we're going to stick to Irix and NT for apps that require CMYK for the time being...

Bud

Re:"from the but-who's-buying dept." (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443232)

Just a few graphics apps from Adobe? What about Metrowerks? Metrowerks CodeWarrior has been multiprocessor capable for many releases. This seems such an obvious and important observation for slashdot that I can't believe no one else has made it.

Re:OS X Server Required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443233)

SMP was built into MacOS X when Apple bought it from NEXT, apple TURNED it off (becuase they probably didn't write the correct support for their hardware into it), but making MacOSX run in an SMP system will be VERY easy. Look forward to MacOSX being SMP out of the box (Apple is not going to release a multiprocessor machine until there is an OS for it).

Re:Maybe this is big news for Mac users... (1)

thingfish (48958) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443234)

The only machines Be ever shipped were dual-603. They may have been planning a 5way box but it never even made out of the lab (if it was ever there to begin with). The dual-603 BeBox never even shipped for real as it never got FCC approval before it was killed. The only people that were able to get thier hands on them were developers.

http://www-classic.be.com/products/bebox/dual603 ds.html

Re:On track and scheduled for 2001 (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443235)

The G4 and G5 are Motorola chips. IBM is still pouring their development dollars into the G3.

linux on G4 (1)

karmalien (129660) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443236)

Keep in mind most of the people who have bought the latest macs probably bought the because there pretty.

Re:what about multiple-core? (2)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443237)

Multicore G4s are not multiple G4s tied together to act like one. The only place I can think of that stated otherwise would be MacOS Rumors, and that was based on an e-mail I sent them just to see if they would take the bait.

Multicore G4s are just two or four or however many G4s on a single chip. They still act like seperate processors, and still need an OS and programs to take advantage of it. The main reason for it would be cost and that since they're so close to each other, inter-processor communication is really fast.

G4 weenie (1)

k00ld00d (58836) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443238)

my single cpu G4 350 will do about 3.2k keys a sec, becuase of the altivec core.

please educate yourself and realize that rc5 cracking is a pure integer task. Altivec does not help the slightest little bit. rc5 cracking is also *completely* worthless as a cross platform benchmark.

Re:Geee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443239)

BeOS PPC support disappeared right after Intel invested. The "closed spec" argument was just a red herring, Be could have clean room documented (legally!) the g3 hardware from linuxppc or netbsd.

but its certainly not news that slashdotters are gullible when it comes to "alternative" vendors.

Re:G4 weenie (1)

mattreilly (33603) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443240)

please educate yourself and realize that rc5 cracking is a pure integer task. Altivec does not help the slightest little bit. rc5 cracking is also *completely* worthless as a cross platform benchmark.

Please educate yourself by heading over to distributed.net where you can find out that the macppc client is indeed AltiVec/Velocity engine accelerated. Maybe you should check your facts before posting in such a high-handed manner. OK?

cheers,

Matthew Reilly

Re:What deity do I need to sell my soul to?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443241)

and here was i thinking the power PC CPU was much faster than the X86 chips at the same Mhz shows u how wrong i can be!!

How about 2000mhz Althon systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443242)

A dual celeron is at least as fast as *a* G4 and costs *many* times less than craples closed platform $$$$$ solution. The x86 platform is still very useable and if your not a big intel fan (like myself) wait for dual athlon boards, imagine... 2000mhz boxes in for a few months... run that by your G4.

Mac SMP still not a smooth as NT 4.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443243)

NT performs much better at SMP tasks due to intensive multithreading. Now Mac OS X is a new beast but on other versions your still crypled by the OS becuase you always have one CPU that is handleing a smaller load due to uneven balenceing. I'm not saying it's not fast but the mac needs lots of SMP help and hope that OS X will do the job much better

Re:Maybe this is big news for Mac users... (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443244)

Sorry, but not all of what you said is correct.
First of all, the 5 way Be machines were built, but were not meant for selling. But they did exist, from the very start. Did I say they used PowerPC CPUs? In fact, they didn't, they used AT&T Hobbit processors. The first PowerPC-based BeBox had 7 CPUs! but I didn't mention it because I simply forgot. Yeah, I forgot that one, it never shipped and there are only the ones built for internal use in Be Inc. But still, and OS that can handle 7 (actually, they limited BeOS to handle up to 8) CPUs, for 60$, that's cheap, compared to, say, AIX. No, Yellow Dog won't cut it, the 2.2 kernel is still behind as for SMP.

As for the dual processor BeBoxen, I am surprised that you claim they were not shipped!? I know of many people using them, and they are far from being developers, or Be Inc. employees, just regular dudes (OK, maybe not completely regular: artists, ex Amigans and electrical engineers, as myself) that bought the computer. I don't have one, but sure I would like too. You should admit that the design of the BeBox, both estetical and technical, kicks butt. I would really love, for instance, to have something like the GeekPort, where I can easily connect my home-maid I/O cards and other experimental devices, directly to the system bus. Talk about open hardware specs! Also, the two load indicator running lights were really sexy and you won't find them anywhere else.





Re:I don't know about that third-party (1)

waterbug (12720) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443245)

the G3 doesn't support multiprocessing.

This issue was hashed out soon after the intro of the "G3" Power Macs. Macintouch posted a discussion with a Somerset (PPC) engineer [deja.com] about 603e/750 support for SMP. They will support SMP, just not always efficiently, since they don't implement all the necessary cache coherency protocols.

Whats your point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443246)

And a dual Pentium II/III would beat a single G4... so whats your point?

This fresh from the "press" (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443247)

Strange it didn't appear on Slashdot... yet.

New PowerPC Platform in Fruition [gxnetwork.com]




Thats like asking if an AMD K6 will work in Linux! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443248)

Duh... the answer would be YES!

Re:Geee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443249)

Perhaps this was becuase the clone makers were puting out much faster (and SMP) systems than apple could for less money... this is why apple killed them... so they could go back to cornering the market with inferior products. Competition is good (unless your apple).

Don't make me Laugh... Xerox Came up with the GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443250)

And Steve went and stole the idea because he liked it so much... Steve Jobs is no better than bill gates in this respect... I'm so sick of you fucking mac users getting the story worng ALL THE TIME! Shit... learn your history!

But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443251)

Why would a small company such as Be want to spend a shit load of money on platform that only has a small percentage of the market? It costs to much money to support two platforms and this is why devolopers have disconintued mac support.

This isn't the first... (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443252)

time Apple has gone the multi-processor route. Way back a while ago they came out with the 9600/200MP, running of dual 604e processors at 200mhz. It was a decent system from what I understand, except MacOS 7 was a bit of a pill to keep running on it. That was back in 97 though. I think dual G4s would be nice but a bit of overkill unless you had some software that could use the AltiVec stuff in multiple threads to really speed things up. Lets just hope the Mystic sells a bit more than the 9600/200MP did.

Re:Apple to have 8-processor box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443253)

Yha... it's called a server, I don't even want to know how much that would craple would charge for something like that... lets see.. more than most new homes? Yes, and you can get intel servers with 12 processors or running on a *real* OS (NT, much better as compared to anything apple, for the exception of OS X witch has no track record). So I ask... whats your point?

Re:If G4 SMP boxes are announced, it's premature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443254)

You idiot!! Whats does the "classic born in the stone age mac OS" have to do with OS X?

Re:How about 2000mhz Althon systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443255)

Bzzt. Use of the word 'craple'. Immediate disqualification. Please self terminate.

Re:Geee... (1)

Darchmare (5387) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443256)

But you fail to realize, Apple could have quite easily been dead had they not killed cloning. I didn't like it (I'm the proud owner of a PowerTower Pro 225), and the cloners at the time were putting out better hardware, but that makes little difference now.

Now, Apple is putting out decent hardware, and has improved OS stability greatly from the 7.5.5 days...

I hope that they allow for cloning again, but with better control over the spec. If they weren't careful, the clones could have eaten them alive. Just ask IBM.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com] )

Re:Geee... (1)

Darchmare (5387) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443257)

Given that:

1. Apple has open-sourced the relevent portions of their OS.

2. Intel invested in Be around the time they started going away from the PPC.

3. Hasn't stopped LinuxPPC/YDL/MkLinux much, has it?

4. Apple makes money on hardware - BeOS would be good for them.

At best, Be made a rational decision based on the dwindling marketshare of the Mac platform (given their target market, multimedia, I think this is bogus - but a possibility). At worst, this was due to obvious pressure from Intel and internal politics at Be. My guess is that it was partially a mixture of both.

Either way, Be's handling of the issue has been terrible. They should just get it done with and drop PPC support altogether.


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com] )

Re:But why? (1)

Darchmare (5387) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443258)

1. Compiling for both platforms on the BeOS is actually pretty easy.

2. The Mac hardware platform is much less of a moving target than the wild world of Wintel. Remember the lack of driver problem? That was never much of an issue on the PPC side of things.

3. Apple is very big in the graphics and multimedia markets. Be is aiming for a similar market. Meaning, Macs are very common in the areas Be wants to get into - piggybacking on the Mac seems logical to me (gaining more than just a 'few percent' of marketshare).

4. PPC support is already there. G3 and G4 support is reportedly very easy to add (ie. a single developer taking a couple of weeks). Everything Be writes runs on PPC already, and it doesn't seem to be hurting them too much. Now they just need to make a promise to retain support into the future, gaining back trust.

5. Mac marketshare has been improving drastically lately - far higher than when they first ported to the PPC. It's a good time to look at the PPC again.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com] )

Re:Don't make me Laugh... Xerox Came up with the G (1)

Darchmare (5387) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443259)

Coward -

Perhaps you should learn the history of which you speak?

The Xerox GUI research was indeed useful, and made a major impact on Apple. However:

1. Xerox was paid for the 'walkthrough', in the form of stock in Apple (assuming they've held on to it, they should be pretty happy right about now). When will Microsoft start sending their checks out to Apple?

2. Xerox rarely gets anything out the door, and if they do, it usually flops (not due to inferior technology, but for marketing reasons).

3. The previous poster said '...Sure they both saw what was at xerox parc, but Jobs was the man to bring it to the table.'. Reread that. Get a drink. Reread it again. Think about it for a minute or two. He's not saying Apple invented the entire concept of a graphical user interface, he said that Jobs (and Apple) brought it 'to the table'. They took the risk, and it more or less paid off.

Instead of polishing your insult/flaming technique, perhaps you can pay more attention the what a person says before replying?

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com] )

Not to mention... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1443260)

Bill Atkins, who was the principle developer behind MacOS, came up with the GUI idea back in 1968 in his doctoral thesis on QuickDraw.

Re:On track and scheduled for 2001 (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443261)

The G4 and G5 are Motorola chips. IBM is still pouring their development dollars into the G3.

No they aren't. The G3, like the 603e, was meant to be a cheap consumer processor, and you don't put those in high end servers.

IBM has and is working on the G4's and 5's, there's just been some confusion as to what a G4 is. In simplified terms, for Motorola it meant having Altivec, and for IBM it meant having the processors run at a higher clock speed.

two words: color calibration (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 14 years ago | (#1443262)

Colorsync is one reason why Macs have dominated and will continue to dominate the publishing market.

I think this has been the trend for some time as more color professionals are becoming increasingly frustrated with the MacOS.

Even in the color/prepress world, NT and other OSes are slowly but surely becoming feasible alternatives to the current MacOS because other OSes are _sooo_ much more reliable. With the deadlines we're under, we cannot afford to reboot two, three, five times daily because of the cryptic 'Type #' errors are just plain freezing. Our Irix and NT boxes seldom ever require rebooting (once a week, if even that often).


Um, no. When it comes to heavy memory use with graphic apps, NT is little better than the Mac OS as far stabitlity goes. And losing 20 mintutes a day to reboots is nothing compared to losing 4 hours because you can't get your output to match what you have on the screen.

There are a couple of other big reasons why Macs dominate the industry: Applescript and better support for multiple monitors than you'll find on any other platform.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>