[Ti] A real world comparison

[Henry Kalir]

Chris Olson wrote:

> On Jun 9, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Kynan Shook wrote:
>
>> Why don't you consider adopting the wait-and-see attitude that so 
>> many others have adopted?  An Intel Mac will probably beat a PowerPC 
>> Mac at many tasks, and a PowerPC Mac will probably beat the Intel Mac 
>> at many tasks.  But as time wears on, the Intel Mac will improve more 
>> rapidly.
>
>
> Until we find out from Jordan Hubbard and his team what they've done 
> to improve kernel threading in Darwin, I'm going to remain quite 
> pessimistic as to the future of OS X on x86 hardware because of 
> fundamental differences in how threads and vector code is handled on 
> the two architectures.  x86 Darwin runs like a 3-legged dog compared 
> to PPC Darwin on comparable hardware.  x86 Darwin runs like a dog 
> gasping for air in its final moments of life compared to linux on the 
> same x86 hardware.  Slapping Aqua on top and calling it "Mac OS X" 
> doesn't make it magically run better.
>
OK - assuming you're right - Apple should take care of that.

> The problem with OS X is that Mach kernel threads are only available 
> for kernel level programs, not applications.  Apps have to make use of 
> a POSIX thread - slower user-level threads, and not fast kernel 
> threads like linux does for instance.

Ditto for this one - what's the problem here? Is the Mac OS X etched in 
stone or something?

>
> Those x86 dev boxes are not there to only make sure your app *runs* on 
> x86.  It has to be *optimized* or you're going to loose the battle.  
> If similar functionality (in your app) is available on Windows or 
> Linux, and either of those two blows your x86 Mac app away in 
> performance doing the same task, you won't be able to sell your app 
> because the mainstream media will benchmark it and label it a "dog".

So - the Mac OS is a "lame dog" that requires the wonders of the PPC 
chip to stand up to Windows and Linux?

>
> The performance comparisons between the dev boxes and current PowerPC 
> are very real folks, because you're dealing with current-production 
> hardware on both archs.  What ever performance increases come down the 
> pipeline on the x86 side will also be enjoyed by x86 linux and 
> Windows, making the idea that "shipping" boxes are going to perform 
> better than the dev boxes a moot point.
>
And Apple hasn't thought about all this (again - assuming your above 
contentions are true)?

Chris - I'm just an end user, 's all. I don't own stock in any computer 
company, nor have any financial interest in any. I only own and use the 
Ti and G3 at the moment. Now, at the various talks that I attend in my 
own profession, the speakers are required to disclose any potential 
conflict of interest - that is - if you're talking about  say Prozac's 
wonderful effects, you should reveal that you have been given a grant by 
Eli Lilly and Co (makers of Prozac, the patent for which has or is now 
expiring) so that people would be able to understand your possible lack 
of objectivity as regards this product. Can I ask you for something 
similar here? Where are you coming from? What products are you 
selling/developing? You seem to have an agenda that far transends a 
regular user's one (like myself). What gives, Chris???