Posted: 2007-04-05 01:28am
Not in this thread; and RThurmont clearly has memory problems.Stark wrote:Praxis, I'm certain the lack of TPM chips in newer Macs has already been mentioned to RThurmont by either you or Durandal.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Not in this thread; and RThurmont clearly has memory problems.Stark wrote:Praxis, I'm certain the lack of TPM chips in newer Macs has already been mentioned to RThurmont by either you or Durandal.
The 20 million or so Mac users out there? The people who are switching?RThurmont wrote:But that's my point, who would want to legally run OS X?
No, it's not.It's basically BSD,
No, there's one layer (called Quartz), and according to most reviews, it's very well-designed. Much better than the trash coming out of Redmond or the Linux distros these days.but retarded with layers and layers of unneccessary, poorly designed GUI,
Why does this matter?no built-in virtualization capability
So?(though this is rumored for Leopard), and proprietary APIs.
That benchmark is essentially a test of how fast you allocate and free 35 kB blocks of memory. Since Mac OS X's malloc() switches to the kernel's allocator for allocations above 15 kB. No one just allocates and immediately frees memory without doing something with it. And keeping memory around can lead to it being paged to disk.BTW, my source for saying OS X is slow is my own experience. However, here is some benchmarking to back it up. In my experience though, whenever I have more than five tabs open in Safari, the system will slow to an absolute crawl.
Yes it had been, but my suggestion is that Apple might well resume shipping Macs with them, and additionally have the new version potentially use them, out of the box.Praxis, I'm certain the lack of TPM chips in newer Macs has already been mentioned to RThurmont by either you or Durandal.
Woah hold it for a minute. Nowhere did I imply that Mac OS X would take up the entire hard disk. What I intended to convey was that it would be dumb to waste the entire HD on the OS X operating system, as opposed to, at a minimum, creating another partition, and installing Linux to it.Dang, the stupidity continues. Where does this even come from?
Mac OS X is about 2 GB. It comes with about 13 GB of extra software (iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, GarageBand, etc, etc, etc).
That's MINISCULE compared to the stock 250 GB hard drive and the maxed-out 3 TB of space that system can have.
Enjoy the benefits of open source software, get hardware virtualization out of the box (assuming the Xeon supports that, and I'd assume it does, considering that a fair number of lower end Intels also have that feature), and get an overall improvement in system performance.Yeah great idea. Then you could do ... um, what, with it, exactly?
To be clear, I did not literally mean that there were multiple layers, I meant layers and layers in a metaphorical sense, however, I admit that looked vague, and I concede that point. However, I do not concede that the OS X GUI is well designed, and I am of the opinion that the KDE UI, at the very least, is vastly superior to that of OS X in most respects. GNOME is superior, I would argue, if for no other reason than it's quite a bit faster.No, there's one layer (called Quartz), and according to most reviews, it's very well-designed. Much better than the trash coming out of Redmond or the Linux distros these days.
Then why doesn't OS X use that malloc by default??? Could it be, gasp, bad design?By the way, if you compile that test with the optimized malloc() that Linux uses, the performance gap basically disappears.
ROFL, are you even serious?Yes it had been, but my suggestion is that Apple might well resume shipping Macs with them, and additionally have the new version potentially use them, out of the box.
You would be REALLY SURPRISED if Apple didn't do this? You would be SURPRISED if Apple did not lock out every single Mac Pro or Core 2 Duo Mac owner from upgrading to Leopard?
I would be really suprised if Leopard in fact does not in fact utilize Apple's trusted platform module to ensure that it only is used on Apple hardware.
Why?Woah hold it for a minute. Nowhere did I imply that Mac OS X would take up the entire hard disk. What I intended to convey was that it would be dumb to waste the entire HD on the OS X operating system, as opposed to, at a minimum, creating another partition, and installing Linux to it.
Open source software is availabe for OS X and Linux can run in a VM. So who cares if virtualization isn't out of the box? There's multiple products to do it (like VMWare Fusion, Parallels, etc). And the system performance improvement bit has already been refuted.Enjoy the benefits of open source software, get hardware virtualization out of the box (assuming the Xeon supports that, and I'd assume it does, considering that a fair number of lower end Intels also have that feature), and get an overall improvement in system performance.
Yes, and the aforementioned products are proprietary, and at least in the case of Parallels, expensive (I don't know if VMWare is going to give away Fusion or not, but somehow, I doubt it). KVM ships with the Linux 2.6.20 Kernel, and is fully open source.So who cares if virtualization isn't out of the box? There's multiple products to do it (like VMWare Fusion, Parallels, etc)
No it hasn't.And the system performance improvement bit has already been refuted.
Okay, if that memory allocation benchmark wasn't your source, then I guess I should say that your system performance claim hasn't been substantiated. You've provided no source.Then what is the logic in Apple removing TPM?RThurmont wrote:Nowhere, Praxis, in the above post, did I state that I thought that Apple would prevent people with Macs lacking the TPM to upgrade. However, what I did say is that I would not be suprised if Apple enabled the feature, for the Macs that had it. Assuming they did enable this feature, they would probably include code to detect Macs that didn't have the TPM, and supply some alternative DRM scheme (perhaps analogous to the Windows activation feature) for those systems. If you attempted to install on a machine lacking a TPM, the specifications of which were not the same as a Mac known to not have the TPM, then it would of course refuse to install.
No, you're just grasping at straws.There are open-source virtualization software for Mac too, such as Q.Yes, and the aforementioned products are proprietary, and at least in the case of Parallels, expensive (I don't know if VMWare is going to give away Fusion or not, but somehow, I doubt it). KVM ships with the Linux 2.6.20 Kernel, and is fully open source.So who cares if virtualization isn't out of the box? There's multiple products to do it (like VMWare Fusion, Parallels, etc)
Nothing has the polish of Parallels though. Parallels installs special drivers, + Kaperski antivirus, if you're running Windows that streamlines interface with the virtual machine...much better than anything else I've used.No it hasn't.And the system performance improvement bit has already been refuted.
What's not well designed about the OS X GUI? What's better-designed about Gnome and KDE?RThurmont wrote:To be clear, I did not literally mean that there were multiple layers, I meant layers and layers in a metaphorical sense, however, I admit that looked vague, and I concede that point. However, I do not concede that the OS X GUI is well designed, and I am of the opinion that the KDE UI, at the very least, is vastly superior to that of OS X in most respects. GNOME is superior, I would argue, if for no other reason than it's quite a bit faster.
I could easily make the argument that Spotlight is poised to be a general application launcher. Anyone who's used QuickSilver on OS X can tell you how much easier it is to launch by typing what you want than digging through a Start menu or running around in a file browser.Also, in my opinion, you're taking an unjustified dump on the massive amounts of UI research Microsoft conducted in the early 1990s, that lead to such innovations as the task bar and start menu, which IMO are one heck of a lot better than the messy kludge known as the "Dock" that OS X uses for program launching/switching.
Why? Are you unfamiliar with capitalism?One of my biggest gripes with Apple is a company is its continual, unwarranted bashing of its competitors, which, in my opinion, is unethical,
Awwww. Did Apple offend you with the "Get a Mac" ads? Poor widduw baby.obnoxious, and in some cases, downright offensive.
Their mass-advertising doesn't target their competitors. Microsoft's approach is not even acknowledge their competition exists.Microsoft is also guilty of this, although to a much lesser degree in my opinion.
Did you read anything I wrote? It's a malloc() optimized for that test. And that test isn't a useful test because it doesn't simulate any realistic allocation patterns.Then why doesn't OS X use that malloc by default??? Could it be, gasp, bad design?
Bull. Shit. You said:RThurmont wrote:Nowhere, Praxis, in the above post, did I state that I thought that Apple would prevent people with Macs lacking the TPM to upgrade. However, what I did say is that I would not be suprised if Apple enabled the feature, for the Macs that had it. Assuming they did enable this feature, they would probably include code to detect Macs that didn't have the TPM, and supply some alternative DRM scheme (perhaps analogous to the Windows activation feature) for those systems. If you attempted to install on a machine lacking a TPM, the specifications of which were not the same as a Mac known to not have the TPM, then it would of course refuse to install.
No refererence then to 'on macs that have it (TPM)', no reference to using something like Windows activation. You've heavily implied that Macs use TPM and only pulled the other crap out your arse when you were called on it.I would be really suprised if Leopard in fact does not in fact utilize Apple's trusted platform module to ensure that it only is used on Apple hardware.
1. Who gives a shit if its proprietary or not if it does the job it is needed for?Yes, and the aforementioned products are proprietary, and at least in the case of Parallels, expensive (I don't know if VMWare is going to give away Fusion or not, but somehow, I doubt it). KVM ships with the Linux 2.6.20 Kernel, and is fully open source.
Q is nice, but it's an emulator, and as a result can't compete with KVM or other hardware virtualization systems in terms of performance. I do really applaud the efforts of the Q team though in bringing open source software into the OS X virtualization market, which is, IMO, sorely in need of more of the same.There are open-source virtualization software for Mac too, such as Q.
No. However, I do consider bashing competitors to be unethical, and certainly also lacking in class. The FTC actually used to prohibit comparative advertising like Apple's, so every company's advertising was Microsoft-style, in that it did not acknowledge the existence of competition. I think that this was a much better approach all around, as it forced companies to focus on the actual reasons to buy their product, as opposed to allowing them to spread (in many cases false) FUD about their competitors.Why? Are you unfamiliar with capitalism?
Open source according to the OSI, but not Free Software according to the FSF. The APSL requires that all changes be submitted upstream to Apple, which, in my opinion, is obnoxious.Ignoring that OSX has an open source kernel.
RThurmont wrote:Open source according to the OSI, but not Free Software according to the FSF. The APSL requires that all changes be submitted upstream to Apple, which, in my opinion, is obnoxious.Ignoring that OSX has an open source kernel.
Richard Stallman and the FSF can blow me. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard mindless GPL wankers say that Free Software and Open Source Software are different things. Nice dodge there, asshole.RThurmont wrote:Open source according to the OSI, but not Free Software according to the FSF. The APSL requires that all changes be submitted upstream to Apple, which, in my opinion, is obnoxious.Ignoring that OSX has an open source kernel.
Note, however, that I did not deny that it was Open Source. Also, to be clear, I also think that RMS is rather annoying, but that does not get around the fact that the APSL is one of the lamest Open Source licenses around. In fact, I would argue that it's lamer than most of the Microsoft Shared Source licenses (except for the MS-lCL, which restricts development to the Windows platform, although IMO an equivalent license for open source OSes would be a great idea), and is only mildly less annoying than "badgeware" licenses like SugarCRM's.EDIT: Just because Darwin isn't in your RMS <censored> doesn't mean you can arbitrarily exclude it from being Open Source. When the OSI, the body that SAYS what the <censored> is and isn't OSS, says that the APSL is an Open Source license, that means it's Open <censored> Source.
Maybe I'm reading this a little too critically, but it seems to imply that any random person is equally likely to prefer either a Linux GUI or Aqua, which I disagree with.Destructionator XIII wrote:Linux GUIs can suck sheep dick (GNOME comes to mind), but they can be pretty ok too, and pretty consistant if you take the right collection of apps. Depends on your own preferences and needs. But certainly not for everyone.Praxis wrote:The GUI is certainly better than Linux's inconsistency.
Of course, the Mac isn't for everyone either. I personally can't stand it, and would pick Linux over it any time, any dayy.
For example, Windows is stable
AFAIK, this isn't applicable to the current APSL.RThurmont wrote:Open source according to the OSI, but not Free Software according to the FSF. The APSL requires that all changes be submitted upstream to Apple, which, in my opinion, is obnoxious.Ignoring that OSX has an open source kernel.
Wah wah everything that is not 100% open source is teh suxx0rs wah wahRThurmont wrote:I do have a number of gripes with it in terms of licensing,
Wah wah I hate the dock wah wahinteraction design,
I'm going to complain about performance despite having failed to provide any evidence for such a complaint outside of a quickly-refuted completely invalid optimized memory allocation test.performance,
And now I'm going to complain that Mac OS X doesn't have built in virtualization software, something every commercial OS lacks and only Linux has, and can be quickly found open source and free online or commercially at the nearest CompUSA.and features,
teh rofl. Intel must be ecstatic to have Apple as a partner.Praxis wrote:EDIT: Interestingly, Intel doesn't sell quad-core 3 GHz Xeons; Cloverton is 2.66. Does Apple have early release chips, or are they overclocking?
Apple's new Mac Pro uses special-run Xeon
Apple's updated Mac Pro uses a special version of Intel's Xeon workstation-class processor, the semiconductor company said in an e-mail note. The 3GHz quad-core CPU at the heart of the fastest system is currently an unannounced model that sits at the top of the company's performance range and is presently used only by Apple.
"We are indeed shipping a 3.0GHz Xeon version [and] expect to see faster gigahertz speeds for our high-end [Core 2] Extreme PCs very soon, too," said Intel's Bill Kircos. "For now, the product is in limited production and Apple has chosen to adopt it. We will introduce another 3.0GHz Xeon SKU later on as well."
The model in question is the Xeon X5365, according to additional comments by Intel's Italian PR director Ruben Simpliciano. The chip currently outpaces the official fastest quad-core processor from Intel, the 2.66GHz Xeon 5355, while maintaining the 8MB of total level 2 cache and 1333MHz system bus of its predecessors.
Apple has recently been found using special Intel processors in some of its devices, such as the 1GHz Pentium M modified to run at lower power levels inside the Apple TV media hub.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to this...Praxis wrote: I'm going to complain about performance despite having failed to provide any evidence for such a complaint outside of a quickly-refuted completely invalid optimized memory allocation test.
And before anyone tries to shoot the author, I should remind everyone that Johan De Gelas (formerly of Ace's Hardware) is as good as they come.Johan De Gelas wrote: "Mac OS X Server starts with Darwin, the same open source foundation used in Mac OS X, Apple's operating system for desktop and mobile computers. Darwin is built around the Mach 3.0 microkernel, which provides features critical to server operations, such as fine-grained multi-threading, symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), protected memory, a unified buffer cache (UBC), 64-bit kernel services and system notifications. Darwin also includes the latest innovations from the open source BSD community, particularly the FreeBSD development community."
While there are many very good ideas in Mac OS X, it reminds me a lot of fusion cooking, where you make a hotch-potch of very different ingredients. Let me explain.
Darwin is indeed the open Source project around the Mach kernel 3.0. This operating system is based around the idea of a microkernel, a kernel that only contains the essence of the operating system, such as protected memory, fine-grained multithreading and symmetric multiprocessing support. This in contrast to "monolithic" operating systems, which have all of the code in a single large kernel.
Everything else is located in smaller programs, servers, which communicate with each other via ports and an IPC (Inter Process Communication) system. Explaining this in detail is beyond the scope of this article (read more here). But in a nutshell, a Mach microkernel should be more elegant, easier to debug and better at keeping different processes from writing in eachother's protected memory areas than our typical "monolithic" operating systems such as Linux and Windows NT/XP/2000. The Mach microkernel was believed to be the future of all operating systems.
However, you must know that applications (in the userspace) need, of course, access to the services of the kernel. In Unix, this is done with a Syscall, and it results in two context switches (the CPU has to swap out one process for another): from the application to the kernel and back.
The relatively complicated memory management (especially if the server process runs in user mode instead of kernel) and IPC messaging makes a call to the Mach kernel a lot slower, up to 6 times slower than the monolithic ones!
It also must be remarked that, for example, Linux is not completely a monolithic OS. You can choose whether you like to incorporate a driver in the kernel (faster, but more complex) or in userspace (slower, but the kernel remains slimmer).
Now, while Mac OS X is based on Mach 3, it is still a monolithic OS. The Mach microkernel is fused into a traditional FreeBSD "system call" interface. In fact, Darwin is a complete FreeBSD 4.4 alike UNIX and thus monolithic kernel, derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open Source distribution.
The current Mac OS X has evolved a bit and consists of a FreeBSD 5.0 kernel (with a Mach 3 multithreaded microkernel inside) with a proprietary, but superb graphical user interface (GUI) called Aqua.
Performance problems
As the mach kernel is hidden away deep in the FreeBSD kernel, Mach (kernel) threads are only available for kernel level programs, not applications such as MySQL. Applications can make use of a POSIX thread (a " pthread"), a wrapper around a Mach thread.
This means that applications use slower user-level threads like in FreeBSD and not fast kernel threads like in Linux. It seems that FreeBSD 5.x has somewhat solved the performance problems that were typical for user-level threads, but we are not sure if Mac OS X has been able to take advantage of this.
In order to maintain binary compatibility, Apple might not have been able to implement some of the performance improvements found in the newer BSD kernels.
Another problem is the way threads could/can get access to the kernel. In the early versions of Mac OS X, only one thread could lock onto the kernel at once. This doesn't mean only one thread can run, but that only one thread could access the kernel at a given time. So, a rendering calculation (no kernel interaction) together with a network access (kernel access) could run well. But many threads demanding access to the memory or network subsystem would result in one thread getting access, and all others waiting.
This "kernel locked bottleneck" situation has improved in Tiger, but kernel locking is still very coarse. So, while there is a very fine grained multi-threading system (The Mach kernel) inside that monolithic kernel, it is not available to the outside world.
So, is Mac OS X the real reason why MySQL and Apache run so slow on the Mac Platform? Let us find out... with benchmarks, of course!
........
Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads.
........
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
The nice thing about Apple for Intel is that they can launch with them with limited quantities and show off a new high end chip without having to worry about keeping Apple stocked up (the number of Mac Pros shipped will always be low).Xisiqomelir wrote:Intel must be ecstatic to have Apple as a partner.