Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Steve *may* have been using Quad P4

Steve *may* have been using Quad P4
Thread Tools
Krypton
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:33 PM
 
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:36 PM
 
That would explain

I feel bullsh!tted again...

-t
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:36 PM
 
Sounds like complete BS to me.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:37 PM
 
Does it really frickin' matter?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman
Does it really frickin' matter?
Well, in a sense, yes. It would mean that Apple is, again, trying to make us believe something that doesn't hold up in reality. It's just a little too much of that in such sort period of time...

-t
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:40 PM
 
I would be curious to see when someone breaks their NDA and posts the specs.
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by von starman
Does it really frickin' matter?
Multiply the photoshop load time by 4 and you might have the real speed in Rosseta.

That fricken matters.

-Owl
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
i thought you can't run multiple pentiums...
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OwlBoy
Multiply the photoshop load time by 4 and you might have the real speed in Rosseta.

That fricken matters.

-Owl
Who cares ? In two years time, do you not think that Adobe will have a working, native Mactel photoshop ?

I also heard a quad pentium 4 setup is not doable, but I'm not sure, since I'm no PC dude.
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Who cares ? In two years time, do you not think that Adobe will have a working, native Mactel photoshop ?
Remember how long it took them to have a decent PS release on OS X.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:47 PM
 
that's what someone else said. they said it would have to be xeons?

Until then i am sticking to a single p4. Otherwise all(?) the machines (pcs) at the WWDC would be 4 x Xeons?

or devs would be seeing the slowdowns by now.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by alphasubzero949
Remember how long it took them to have a decent PS release on OS X.
Yes, but according to what most people are saying, this is not like going from OS 9 to OS X.

I'm no programmer, so I have no idea. But it sure sounded not too difficult, at least at the keynote.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by alphasubzero949
Remember how long it took them to have a decent PS release on OS X.
you may me correct but to be fair the stevo said this was not like carbonizing (less work to intel it.) and the ceo of adobe seems to think they can do it ok. (of course he would not come on stage if he was going to say otherwise.)
     
Krypton  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:50 PM
 
Well to give you an idea of the emulation speed, xBench running in Rosetta on a 3.6Ghz P4 machine gave a score of 63.

My B&W G4 500Mhz gets a score of 63.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:50 PM
 
So what? Steve always runs souped-up Macs that normal people can't get. Why should this matter early on?

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Scotttheking
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: College Park, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:52 PM
 
Don't tell anyone, but the P4 can't run in a multi processor configuration.
And, he said the machine was a 3.6Ghz P4.
My website
Help me pay for college. Click for more info.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:54 PM
 
Quad P4s don't exist, he was runing the demo on a Chipacabra
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scotttheking
Don't tell anyone, but the P4 can't run in a multi processor configuration.
And, he said the machine was a 3.6Ghz P4.
The Xeon is a P4 cpu and can run in a multi processor configuration
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...571&l=en&s=hea
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/products/server/xeon/index.htm?ppc_cid=ggl|64bit_xeon|k1749|s
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:04 PM
 
Where do idiots come up with such stories anyhow ?

Anybody with 2 functioning eyes and half a brain could see that it said Intel Pentium 4 3.6 Ghz on the about this Mac box, when SJ showed it.

Wouldn't it say Quad or Dual, if there was more than one processor ?

     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:06 PM
 
The good news is, its been demonstrated that Tiger can run on an Intel Microprocessor. Also that it didn't crash like it did with Bill Gates.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Where do idiots come up with such stories anyhow ?

Anybody with 2 functioning eyes and half a brain could see that it said Intel Pentium 4 3.6 Ghz on the about this Mac box, when SJ showed it.
No, it was a Pentium 43.6 GHz machine!
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:06 PM
 
Yeah, now I'm convinced, too.

-t
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:07 PM
 
And now the article is gone.

tooki
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by wdlove
The good news is, its been demonstrated that Tiger can run on an Intel Microprocessor. Also that it didn't crash like it did with Bill Gates.


Bill Gates crashed when Steve ran Tiger on him ?

-t
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:09 PM
 
Haha, the idiots pulled the article. . . .

Quick - - Erase all evidence of looking like a fool.

     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:11 PM
 
Kasper
Administrator

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 266
From: posted 06-07-2005 07:08 PM
I am canning the discussion of this report as it is no longer deemed reliable. It was not based off a mis-read, but an analyst report that followed a couple of web reports. We apologize.

-K
     
joltguy
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
And now the article is gone.

tooki
Disturbing.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:14 PM
 
The "About..." screen he showed indicated a single P4 3.6Ghz w/ 2G RAM.

Considering how little he really demoed I find it totally reasonable to accept that. A single P4 rig with that much RAM should easily run a native build of OS X and the basic apps he showed off.

As for the Rosetta demo, notice he didn't do much more than launch the apps. Office loaded pretty well. PS took a while. Both are competely believable IMO.

It was a barebones demo to show things were running. He certainly wouldn't have needed a Quad Xeon machine to do that. Besides, there is no way a non-native version of PS would be taking advantage of 4 CPUs anyway so the elaborate ruse would have done Jobs no good.

Too much paranoia. Bottom line: when the first Mactel ships, you won't even be able to tell the difference. Unless, of course, you actually get a fast laptop.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:10 PM
 
PS took some time but it was still 5 seconds faster than my PB17, 1.5Ghz with 1.5GB of ram. Not the most powerful Mac but a competent one.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:19 PM
 
If Rosetta was that fast on a 3.6 P4 I see no problems using it for the little stuff I may need until it is coded

Obviously, I wont want to run Flash or Final Cut in emulation, but BBEdit? C'mon
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by alphasubzero949
Remember how long it took them to have a decent PS release on OS X.
Not too long after 10.1 was out?
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by zerostar
If Rosetta was that fast on a 3.6 P4 I see no problems using it for the little stuff I may need until it is coded

Obviously, I wont want to run Flash or Final Cut in emulation, but BBEdit? C'mon
Which was obviously the point of the demo.

We know that all the major apps will be ported. Hopefully they should easily be ported and be available right from the start.

Rosetta is there for the laggards and the shareware apps that fall through the cracks.

Besides, all the Linux apps will now be easier than ever to get on Mac. Whatever small hobbyist or one-horse developers drop Mac support will easily be overtaken by new *nix hackers.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by zerostar

Obviously, I wont want to run Flash or Final Cut in emulation, but BBEdit? C'mon
Well, since FCP is Apple, no need to run it in any emulation.

I can see why so many people are upset though. They'll be able to run their favorite apps with much more power, and get better performance, better rendering times, more plugins etc.

Who wouldn't be upset at that ?

     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
That would explain
Explain what?

Originally Posted by Krypton
Well to give you an idea of the emulation speed, xBench running in Rosetta on a 3.6Ghz P4 machine gave a score of 63.

My B&W G4 500Mhz gets a score of 63.
A blue & white G4? There's no such thing. (Not counting anyone that upgraded a blue & white to a G4.)
( Last edited by :XI:; Jun 7, 2005 at 03:42 PM. )
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 05:58 PM
 
As others have said, it's a P4 3.6. And apparently it's running on an Intel motherboard.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
As others have said, it's a P4 3.6. And apparently it's running on an Intel motherboard.

check this out:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007862.php

And Matt, I don't know what the developer NDA covers, so I won't go into too much detail on this, but I have a source who has provided me with some details on the IA-32 machines that are going to start shipping to ISVs in a couple of weeks. They're Power Mac G5s with almost totally stock system boards and new, air-cooled IA-32 PMUs. The U3H memory controller and bridge ASIC has been altered to match the bus timing of the IA-32 processor, but that's all. Everything else on the system board is exactly the same. The internal components are all still connected via Hyper Transport through the K2 ASIC and the PCI-X bridge chip. The PMUs have 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 processors on them, but these will definitely not be the processors that Apple ships next year. The processors will be IA-32-instruction-set-compatible, but they will not be Pentium chips. They're going to be specially designed processors that Intel delivers to Apple but to no other customers, binary compatible with the Pentium family but not identical to any off-the-shelf microprocessor. For lack of a better name, I've taken to calling them "G6," but that's totally my own invention and not meant to be in any way authentic. It's just my own shorthand.
     
effgee
Caffeinated Theme Master
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hell (says dakar)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker
... Rosetta is there for the laggards and the shareware apps that fall through the cracks. ...
**cough**, Quark, **cough**, XPress, **cough**

     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:18 PM
 


-t
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:21 PM
 
Not to miss out on the Quark bashing, but shouldn't the recompile for Intel be a total peice of cake compared to porting from OS 9? Even for the laggards at Quark?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:23 PM
 
Hey, don't overestimate their abilities, ok !

-t
     
E's Lil Theorem
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Theory - everything works in theory
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:30 PM
 
For lack of a better name, I've taken to calling them "G6," but that's totally my own invention and not meant to be in any way authentic. It's just my own shorthand.
     
Krypton  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
A blue & white G4? There's no such thing. (Not counting anyone that upgraded a blue & white to a G4.)
I don't see how you couldn't comprehend what I wrote when you answered your own bloody daft question!
     
Krypton  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by effgee
**cough**, Quark, **cough**, XPress, **cough**

Provided they have a Rob™ v1.0 Quark will have no problems.

Features of Rob™
• Ninja mac coding status
• Receding hairline
• Ability to keep hands in pockets the whole dang time whilst on stage...
     
Kenneth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:00 PM
 
Dead Link™. Move on.
     
Krypton  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kenneth
Dead Link™. Move on.
It's not dead, it just smells bad...
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
If the statement about the G5s designed so that the processor is essentially isolated from the rest of the box – the rest of the machine being CPU agnostic – that opens the enticing possibility of me dropping one of the new Intel CPUs in my G5 in two years. That would probably be the weirdest thing I can imagine in my long history with Apple, but I think it would be a good thing.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:22 PM
 
except for that timing oscialltor thing. that might be hard coded on your powermac and not changable?
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
except for that timing oscialltor thing. that might be hard coded on your powermac and not changable?
I don't know. I don't claim to have the technological expertise to answer that question.
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Krypton
I don't see how you couldn't comprehend what I wrote when you answered your own bloody daft question!
Watch it sunshine!
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:55 PM
 
Man, its quite obvious to what Steve was using. He was using a New Pentium Processor run by Squirrels, See, groups of them nest in a computer and do all the data processing themselves. Thus they run extremely cooler then traditional microprocessors, though the nut intake can get rather high during high processor loads.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,