Forget OpenGL on Macs

Apple is a loser company taken over and run by members of the Ku Klux Klan.
Don’t waste your time developing software for their crummy machines.
Even their G5 is a useless piece of garbage and it doesn’t make sense why a 64-bit G5 chip can barely keep up with a Pentium 4 or other similar 32 bit chips that are half the price and used by nearly computer user on the planet.


Barely keeps up? The G5 owns most PCs exept some PC server computers but those computers are for business networks!

Lets see…if there wasn’t Apple there would be no iPod, there wouldn’t be a decent recording studio computer cos nearly all studios use macs, there wouldn’t be Apple Shake 3 and Final Cut Pro 4, graphic, video composing and editing wouldn’t be as powerful, and computers wouldn’t be as user friendly.

Don’t feed the troll!

Why oh why can’t we have moderators on this board!

ho ho haa haa. do we detect a bigot in the ranks!

what a waste of effort. Probably frustrated at the unpteenth crash of his PC. Or perhaps just unsucesfull and cant afford a mac at $700

would rumsfeld please look at the IBM G5 whitepaper.

what about the IBM g5 whitepapers?
The criticism is of Apple’s PowerMac G5 which happens to use that chip…as usual Apple has littered it’s software, asics, firmware and motherboard with countless bottlenecks which effectively make the G5 self defeating.
Reminds me of the early Powermacs which had PowerPC 601’s which ran SLOWER than the old Motorola 68040’s which preceded them!

Well, if you would have read the White Paper on the IBM PowerPC 970 processor, aka G5, then you would have realized that there are virtually no bottlenecks in either the system, or the software. In fact, to meet the demands of the 64-bit processor, Apple released an update to their latest system, 10.2.7, dubbed Smeagol, to handle the new 64-bit processors. Also, other software manufacturers, such as Adobe, have released updates to accomodate the new 64-bit processors. Furthermore, Apple’s new system software, 10.3, code-named Panther, offers support for both 32- and 64-bit processors. To my knowledge, all Windows software supports right now are 32-bit processors, which, if you were going to use a 64-bit processor with Windows, would create a serious bottle-neck in the performance. There are other implementations that Apple has put into the new G5 computers, such as a 1 GHz bandwidth to each processor in the dual-2 GHz model, and a controller that regulates flow to ensure both processors get a fair load (last time i recall most if not all Wintel boxes use controllers :wink: ). Thus, what you are going to get from the G5 is only the best performance it has to offer without any bottlenecks to the system. If you are still having problems believing that a G5 processor is a whole lot faster than a P4 or Xeon processor, then check out the SPEC CPU 2000 benchmark, or better yet, the DNA sequence matching or genome sequence matching tests done against both a P4 3 GHz and dual-3 GHz Xeon =)

And the cheese said moo…

rb4havoc, I suggest you learn something before you spout…

Any system has bottlenecks.

My recollection is that Apple is using slower-clocked buses than the chip can use in various places in the design.

Neither 10.2.7 nor 10.3 really allow applications to take advantage of the major benefit of 64-bit-ness (the ability to address more than 4GiB of RAM). Whilst the system as a whole can use more than 4GiB, still only 4GiB is available to any individual application.

The uses for 64-bit integer math are severely limited beyond larger address spaces…

The G5 is fast, but only faster than a P4 or Opteron if Altivec code is written, which is a lot easier said than done.

Well, that’s funny. I happen to have an 80MHz 68040 and an 80MHz PPC601 Mac sitting next to each other here. The PowerMac is about 5 times as fast as the older Quadra.

Sorry, stupid trolls aren’t welcome here.

Speaking of stupid trolls, when did apple ever come up with a 80 Mhz 68040? Sounds like you were dumb enough to get tricked into one of those upgrade cards. Now it’s time to start saving your pennies for a G5… it sounds like you are dumb enough to buy one of those as well.

OneSadCookie, i suggest you look at apple’s website and IBM’s website for the white paper specs before you even try to rip apart my statement…First off…There are not any bottlenecks in the bus at all. What Apple has done is provided sufficient bandwidth to each bus to handle the amount of information that each hardware component can handle, as does every PC manufacturer on the face of the earth! It makes absolutely no sense for a computer manufacturer to run a bus to hardware faster than it can do to components such as the RAM, hard drive, and PCI controllers…this is not called a “bottleneck”, it is called hardware limitation, and it would only be called a bottleneck if it was on the processor’s end, e.g. sending a 256-bit data stream to a 64-bit processor. That would create a bottleneck. OneSadCookie, instead of opening your mouth and showing the world what a fool you are, you should consider being reserved for once and examine what someone says. I’ll repeat it again, since it seems you are a slow learner. Bottlenecks occur in the PROCESSOR, not the buses to each of the hardware components, because the hardware components are simply incapable of filling a 1 GHz bus. Also, for the sad individual who had no faith in upgrade cards…we’re talking about computers that only had 33 MHz buses!!! I mean, really, if you put an upgrade card into a slot, you will see a performance boost in the overall unit’s power, and there are plenty of tests that even prove this. So, considering at the time, you were looking at about $400 to $500 for an upgrade card, or $2000 to $3000 for a new computer, it made sense to just buy an upgrade card and settle for less than best at the time, unless you had money to burn for the best thing on the market…

And the cheese said moo…

One more thing…About the software support for 64-bit processors, if you s-l-o-w-l-y and c-l-e-a-r-l-y read what I put, Apple designs their software around their chips, so of course they would support their own processor (hence that 10.2.7 is ONLY distributed on G5’s only), and Adobe has already introduced an update for Photoshop that supports the 64-bit processor…

Please, OneSadCookie, take an introductory course on how computers work so you understand all the buses on a machine are usually slower than the processor itself…You had a PC-lover siding with me against your comment in my Computer Graphics class today because of the seriously inane comment you posted…

And the cheese said moo…

[This message has been edited by rb4havoc (edited 09-02-2003).]

Neither Mac OS X 10.2.7 nor Mac OS X 10.3 include support for a 64-bit ABI. Applications can still only use the existing 32-bit ABI. This means that pointers are still only 32 bits, which means that an individual application’s address space is still limited to 4GiB.

Yes, the system as a whole can use more than 4GiB of RAM, but current 32-bit Intel systems can use more than 4GiB of RAM, so whilst that may be a benefit of the G5 it’s not a benefit of 64-bit-ness.

The number of times you need to do integer math with a range of more than +/- 2billion is very small, so very few applications can even be rewritten to take advantage of 64-bit math.

The G5’s extra bandwidth is very welcome, and I’m sure the chip will perform very nicely, but at this stage, it being 64-bit is almost completely wasted.

I’ll concede the technical definition of “bottleneck” as data flow from a fast component to a slow one to a fast one, and that the G5 doesn’t have bottlenecks in that sense.

It can (of course) not feed data to the CPU as fast as the CPU can consume it, but that’s true of all modern computer systems.

OneSadCookie, 10.2.7 has support for 64-bit ABI…if you don’t believe it, then do a search on 10.2.7 and Smeagol and pull up the relative reports. There you’ll see that OS X does have support for the 64-bit Application Binary Interface. That is the WHOLE reason that Apple even made 10.2.7…not because they needed an update, but because they wanted to make the current OS capable of running 64-bit applications natively!!! And the latest implementation of this is from Adobe Photoshop. Adobe has released an update to Photoshop that allows it to run natively on the G5. If you still don’t believe it, then go to versiontracker and in the MacOS X search, type in “photoshop G5”. I do know what I’m talking about, and it’s obvious you have done very, very, VERY little research on the G5 processor, or 10.2.7 or 10.3 in general. Please don’t make another post of your ignorance again. I feel like I’m actually getting dumber from your posts.

[This message has been edited by rb4havoc (edited 09-02-2003).]

To: “rb4havoc”
“rb4havoc”, for someone who has absolutely NO idea what he is talking about, you sure have alot to say!
I would have guessed that you are an Apple employee…, but even they aren’t so stupid and full of ****… or are they??

bewildered, all of my statements have come from validated websites…It’s too bad I can’t list them since this is a forum, but anyways, I do know what I’m talking about, and your ignorance is proof that people don’t listen

Puh-leeze. The very first thing in a Google search backs me up. Gimme a break:

Let me spell this out slowly for you:

  • No recompilation is required for an application to run natively on a G5.

  • Any application which already uses 64-bit integer math (emulated) can simply be recompiled to use native 64-bit integer math. Such a recompiled application will crash on anything less than a G5.

  • No application running under Mac OS X 10.2.7 or 10.3 can address more than 4GiB of memory under any circumstances (though the system as a whole can).

  • No other application will gain anything from the G5 being a 64-bit system unless it is first rewritten to take advantage of 64-bit integer math, which few applications can be.

  • At some point in the future, Apple may decide to implement a 64-bit ABI. This will require new (64-bit) versions of all system frameworks (possibly coexisting with the 32-bit versions), and recompilation of all applications that wish to take advantage of it. Such applications will be able to address more than 4GiB of RAM. Whether they take advantage of 64-bit integer math by default will be up to the exact details of the ABI.

  • Linux already has a 64-bit ABI for PowerPC. Details can be found here: . Notice that some of the type sizes are different from Apple’s 32-bit ABI (…_abi/index.html ). It’s not clear whether Apple will choose to follow the type sizes in Linux’s 64-bit ABI or not, but it seems likely.

[This message has been edited by OneSadCookie (edited 09-02-2003).]

Proof that there is a 64-bit library out to implement use of the new features of the G5. There are 64-bit libraries to build 64-bit applications, however, the only people that have the library are Apple, and Apple’s more prominent developers, such as Adobe. Now, my question to you, OneSadCookie…Why don’t you just relent? You have said that there is nothing out there to build a 64-bit application. However, If Adobe released an update for Photoshop specifically for the G5 and it will ONLY run on G5s, then something there must tell you that this is a 64-bit application, because a pre-G5 Apple cannot handle this update. Now I will agree that they probably don’t have any libraries to implement 64-bit builds on applications in 10.2.7, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t run 64-bit applications! The implementation is in the system, so as long as the application can still communicate with the OS, then there is not a problem. I guarantee though, whenever Apple does ship 10.3, it will eventually have implementation for programming 64-bit applications. If you noticed earlier, whenever OS X first shipped, there wasn’t anything to build with it, and no one could really take advantage of building applications until 10.2.

Again though, let me reiterate this to you. Adobe Photoshop uses 64-bit processes in its latest update only for the G5. This makes it a 64-bit application…maybe not a clean 64-bit app, but 64-bit nonetheless, because it uses those libraries that supposedly “do not exist”. Which brings me to another point, OneSadCookie. If there are no libraries to build in 64-bit, then how come the OS uses the 64-bit-ness to the G5? I know they just didn’t pull the code out from oblivion. I believe you’re smarter than this though, so why don’t you stop referring to PC websites that do nothing but discriminate and salivate after the the power of OS X and believe the rumors that there is going to be a build of OS X for Wintel boxes?

And the cheese said moo…

[This message has been edited by rb4havoc (edited 09-04-2003).]

Please read my posts before responding to them. Thanks.

Yes, Adobe have released a version of Photoshop that uses 64-bit integer math for certain things. They may also have optimized their altivec code to work better with the G5. Nowhere did I say this wasn’t possible, just not possible for the majority of applications.

They did not use any additional libraries, and they can’t address more than 4GiB of RAM.

[This message has been edited by OneSadCookie (edited 09-04-2003).]