Re: I hate Linux -- Apple is leading the standards charge on the

[Mike Connor <mikec@silug.org>]

Were you around in the early '90s ?

On 31 Jan 2004, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 10:34, Mike Connor wrote:
> > ** From my casual observation, Apple doesn't adopt PC buses and
> > components until it's clear that the bus will be a standard
> 
> Yes, once PCI was standardized, Apple _quickly_ moved to it.
> 
> > and that the public will no longer buy a $100 mouse and such.
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> BTW, Apple's serial bus wasn't really any worse than what USB is.
> 
> > ** FireWire seems to be their only bus that was adopted by the PC
> > world-- definitely the other way around on PCI and I think USB and
> > CardBus/PCMCIA (I think I saw a Mac laptop with it once).
> 
> PCMCIA is ISA.  No way is Apple going to adopt ISA!
> PCCard/CardBus is PCI, but still PC-centric.
> 
> USB and FireWire _were_ supposed to complement each other.  USB was
> designed as a simple host-to-device Programmed I/O (PIO) interconnect,
> and FireWire was the intelligent device-to-device bus.
> 
> Unfortunately, Intel barked at Apple's licensing, even though the IEEE
> had no issue with it.  So Intel prevented FireWire's widespread adoption
> throughout the PC world, by blocking it at the 1st tier PC OEM on its
> mainboards.
> 
> Internal engineering memos leaked from Intel show that even Intel
> engineers feel the marketing gain from this was a huge mistake, because
> of USB's lack of protocol standards.  USB was designed for one thing,
> to make Intel (host IC) and Microsoft (OS host driver) jobs easy.
> 
> That's why it took 3 years for USB devices to hit the market.
> That's why if you have more than 1-2 USB devices on a bus, they
> start to conflict (because the "brains" is in the device driver, not
> the host driver).
> That's why USB2.0 is much slower than FireWire between devices (because
> it must go to the system's main memory, not directly device to device
> like FireWire).
> 
> > ** If you buy a laptop based on what you're seeing in the linux laptop
> > compatibility lists, you'll be fine.  True, it'll probably take a driver
> > patch here and there.
> 
> Microsoft is trying to make laptops as incompatible with Linux as
> possible.  The PC OEMs -- or, more specificaly, their Tawainese
> manufacturers -- are more than happy to accommodate this as Microsoft is
> willing to pay them to do so.
> 
> Luckily Microsoft underestimated the number of Linux enthusiasts (let
> alone paid Linux developers) out there willing to hack and reverse
> engineer the specs.  But it's still a PITA.
> 
> But it's still 10x easier with a Mac portable, no contest.  I like to
> do _real_ "plug'n play."
> 
> > ** If Linux is your main OS, you don't have to pay anything at all :)
> 
> If MacOS X is your main OS, you pay for a solid BSD implementation --
> one that has _more_standards_support_ of the _latest_IETF_ (among other)
> capabilities.  I'm willing to pay for that, but you may not be.
> 
> > ** I imagine if you're on this list, you'd be using the unix features of
> > OS X all the time anyway, so there's not much point in buying OS X and a
> > $2500 (for something with a screen) one button laptop to run it on.  The
> > new Apple laptops don't seem as rugged as the old ones either.
> 
> Okay, the "one button" thing has to go.  I agree.  Jobs is just stupid,
> we need 3 buttons as _standard_.
> 
> But as far as "price," get off the $2,500 crap.  You can get a
> _comparable_ MacOS X notebook to a PC one these days.  Most Apples are
> ultra-lightweights, so compare them to PC ultra-lightweights.  And you
> _can_ get a sub-$1,000 Apple notebook.  The G5 will start to change
> all this too (see below).
> 
> And let's compare _peripherials_!  A _lot_ of PC OEMs are charging an
> arm and a leg, some are using proprietary upgrade components (even
> memory still!), whereas Apple has gone standard -- more than even select
> PC OEMs.  Port replicators and docking stations are rediculous!  PC OEMs
> design their USB to be purposely incompatible with many of the
> "universal USB" ones out there.
> 
> Lastly, let's talk about "power v. performance."
> 
> With the G5 (IBM PowerPC 970), it was _built_ for low-power -- *UNLIKE*
> the AMD Athlon32/64 and Intel P4!  While everyone drooled at the fact
> that IBM's original 0.13um PowerPC970 only used 42W at 2GHz -- most
> didn't stop to realize that it only used 19W at 1.2GHz!  Deaaammmnnn! 
> Now that 0.09um PowerPC970s are shipping, it's even better!
> 
> With AMD Athlon32/64, you have to "slow it down" to 800MHz to get
> sub-20W operation.  With Intel, the P4 has the same problem.  The Intel
> alternative is to use the Centrino, which is a P3 core, which is about
> the same, ~800MHz performance for sub-20W operation.
> 
> I'm sick and tired of seeing benchmarks of a PC notebook running at
> "full power" wasting away 60W+ compared to a G3/G4 using less than 30W.
> 
> With the G5, 1.5GHz of 64-bit IBM PowerPC performance is sub-20W.
> So my next notebook will be a PowerBook G5.
> 
> > **  The cheapest laptop PC is ~2.5GHz+
> 
> Which runs at only 800MHz when your on battery power.
> 
> > and the top-dog Mac laptop is 1.3GHz.
> 
> The G3/G4, yes.  Motorola has done a piss-poor job of performance.
> 
> That now changes with the IBM PowerPC970 -- aka Apple G5.
> 
> > I have yet to see a case where a processor could make up for a
> > 100% difference in clock speed,
> 
> Bull!  The P4 is 1/2-2/3rds the speed of a P3, MHz for MHz.
> 
> AMD's Athlon32/64 now use a "speed rating" because the Athlon
> benches "equivalent" against the P3, _unlike_ the P4 which is
> _slower_ than the P3, MHz for MHz.
> 
> That's just talking x86.  When you move away from x86, it all
> changes.  IBM's PowerPC970 is twice as simple to design for
> equivalent performance.
> 
> Furthermore, you don't even need a clock!  Clocks are the _worst_thing_
> introduced into ICs.  CPUs will be losing clocks very soon, because
> it's a massive source of EMF and suseptible to EMI, let alone the
> fact that the speed of light is too slow to travel even 1/50th of
> the length of a chip in a clock cycle now.
> 
> That's not me talking.  The semiconductor trade associations have
> _repeatedly_stated_ that clocks _must_ be removed by 2006, or design
> failures will occur everywhere.  Timing closure in IC design due to
> clocks are the #1 issue right now for IC designers.
> 
> > regardless of it being CISC/RISC/32bit/64bit.
> 
> Don't compare Motorola's lackluster G3/G4 designs to IBM's new
> PowerPC970 (Apple G5).  It is an awesome design.
> 
> > Actually, I've never seen a >30% difference made
> > up for; perhaps if you do broadcast grade video / extreme number
> > crunching would a 2GHz G5 catch a 32bit 3GHz+ AMD/Intel.
> 
> You just wait as the 64-bit OSes and apps come out.
> 
> Maybe you should see some of the benchmarks IBM has on PowerPC970
> running _Linux_ versus P4 running Linux.
> 
> You see, PowerPC970 isn't just for Apple.  It's for AIX workstations,
> Linux workstations and servers as well as embedded systems.
> 
> As "economies of scale" of the PowerPC970 increases, the price will
> start to be competitive.  Just wait another 12 months.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.