iBook boots Linux 181
robat writes "
You might be interested in the fact that an iBook booted Linux.
" Another machine brought into the fold. The first set of patches with a binary kernel are online already.
Over the shoulder supervision is more a need of the manager than the programming task.
Re:sigh (Score:1)
Re:sigh (Score:1)
When they changed from M68K processors to POwerPC processers, they just changed the processor and didnd't redesign the boards.
Re:Mac toilets... (Score:1)
PPC notebook with 3 mouse buttons? (Score:1)
(low power usage and heat)
but X is a bitch with only one mouse button!
if apple or anyone made a PPC based notebook with 3 mouse buttons to use with Xfree86, id buy it.
the current ibm thinkpads have 3 mouse buttons, so
im looking at those...
i also dont like the track pad, but thats
just my preference.
anyone know of a linux dists that fits under
200megs and can be installed over pcmcia
ethernet?
that dont quite work (Score:1)
notebook.
Re:that dont quite work (Score:1)
them. the wacky power adapter you only need a
plug, which does not have to be that close to
you, and you dont always need. isnt long
battery life one of the things these have
going for them?
Re:598 BogoMIPS on an iBook... (Score:1)
--
Re:Well (Score:1)
--
Re:598 BogoMIPS on an iBook... (Score:1)
--
Apple design portable design innovations (Score:1)
Re:Apple design portable design innovations (Score:1)
Re:sigh (Score:1)
I beg to differ. iBooks (never used one, I can't stop retching when I look at one) are UGLY. Gawd are they ugly.... Beaten with a very large ugly stick and beaten till it just couldn't get any uglier... I'm sorry... Yes it's personal opinion but so was your statement.
IBM's are nice if they'd just get RID of that farking wiggle-dick... Gimme a touch pad any day.
Right now I'm typing on a Hyperdata notebook and it's pretty keen... Had a Compaq Armada 1500DMT before that and the only thing I liked about the Compaq was that the wristrests were sloped and didn't have "corners", where this one is a little 'boxier'. However this one runs ice cold (well... maybe bagel warm, but you get the idea) and is nice and tough... Hyperdata brand-labels for many, MANY manufacturers so I know they've got a well-desgined system.
Anyway, just thought I would stomp on the iBook from a VISUAL standpoint. I've never USED one, but god are they ugly... *shivers at the sight of them*
Re:sigh (Score:1)
By the way, the reason so few companies use the stubby-eraser thingy is that IBM has a patent on it. They don't want to pay the licensing fees. :(
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:So why is it... (Score:1)
Re:It's a great exercise in novelty, but... (Score:1)
first Macintosh hardware, among a family of PCs,
alphas, a NeXT, a PDP-11, yaddayadda. I just
didn't understand what he was saying.
Not ready for primetime (Score:1)
rather experimental. He just got it to boot
within the last few days. So... I don't think
that sticking it up as a supported platform on
linuxppc.org is a good idea yet.
Re:LinuxPPC will not create a linux graphics marke (Score:1)
Anyhow, there are ways to use MacOS fonts
under linux...
Re:It's a great exercise in novelty, but... (Score:1)
After all, my Alpha or any of my PCs arn't
inherently more or less stable or secure than
the others. Why would Linux/PPC be any different
than Linux/Alpha or Linux/x86 WRT security
or stability?
USB mice (Score:1)
could hook up to the iBook somewhere...
Re:that dont quite work (Score:1)
portability, right? I'm sure it'd be smaller
than the wacky power adapter that comes with
the iBook, and I carry that around with me
SheepShaver (Score:1)
SheepShaver [sheepshaver.com] will take care of that for you.
Re:mac_on_linux (free sheepshaver alternative) (Score:1)
Don't tempt me.. ;) (Score:1)
I mean, it's never been a graphics platform, and that's not the point. You gotta know your limitations..
Re:Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:1)
Fortunately, there's Open Firmware which contains a few more details available to who can read Forth, and parts of those new ASICs are similar enough to the old ones so that extrapolating was not difficult enough.
Also, those new machines are closer to CHRP than any other previous Mac
What about AirPort? (Score:1)
701.24 on my K6-2 350 (Score:1)
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
More importantly.... (Score:1)
Cheers,
Your Working Boy,
Re:mac_on_linux just resolved my biggest complaint (Score:1)
But, the newest version fixes this problem, so perhaps it's time to look at MOL seriously again... hmm..
-----
Apple *is* a software company (Score:1)
This is why Apple could have been Microsoft had "Star Trek" (the ill-fated x86 port of MacOS) been released prior to Windows 3.0. The Mac hardware has indeed often been spiffy, but it's also often had fiascos (the Mac IIci's unified memory slowing it to a crawl vs. the otherwise similar IIcx, f'rinstance). And their major hardware innovations have generally been asthetic rather than technical (the iMac, the curvy-tower PowerMacs, the G3/G4 slide-open side panel). Even their apparent technical achievements have frequently actually been cribbed (the Quadra AVs? 030/040 plus a DSP? Sounds a lot like NeXTStations.)
As far as the clone thing, yes all their revenues come from selling hardware. But again, why does that hardware sell? Becuase it's the only place you can get MacOS. Mac hardware would be a nonfactor if MacOS were on more platforms.
-Ian, another occasionally bitter former IIgs user
(listen to IIgs music on Win32, Linux, and FreeBSD with MTP/MTPlug at http://home.twcf.rr.com/ischmidt/warez.html)
So why is it... (Score:1)
Re:g4/altivec (Score:1)
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
oh my..
balls-out Linux advocacy meets Archie-Bunker-style, patronizing chauvenism. just what the community needs.
condescention on this order doesn't do anything good for the public perception of Linux/OSS. it just reinforces the idea that we're children in a sandbox, playing at being grown-up.
the first rule of respect is that to get it, you have to be willing give it. if people associate Linux advocacy with a continual barrage of "you-suck-we're-better" dribbling, they won't respect Linux. what they'll do is decide Linux *needs* to measure itself against weak and pathetic opponents, and can't stand up to anything else.
the sentiment above is pro-Linux FUD. pure and simple. its goal is to kick the legs out from under something that steals limelight from Linux.
FUD is bad. its goal is to suppress one type of information by drowning it out with another. FUD is the antithesis of what OSS/Linux is all about. OSS/Linux doesn't need FUD. FUD hurts OSS/Linux, no matter who it's directed at, or who benefits from it. a Linux that needs FUD is a Linux that will follow in the footsteps of DOS/Windows, relying on hype and disdain rather than working to make itself better.
stop it.
John Carmack and his iBook (Score:1)
Give ya'll a reason to use that "finger" command =)
Re:Questions (Score:1)
FCR = FIFO Control Register
LinuxPPC will not create a linux graphics market:) (Score:1)
There are reasons too numerous to mention, but it has to do with many tiny and tightly integrated applications that only really run correctly under macOS. It'd take years.
Also fonts -- there are essentially no designer type foundaries (other than Adobe and other mega-foundaries) that produce fonts for *nix systems (even windows is incredibly behind)
The Design market isn't going anywhere methinks...
cheers,
.3jane[ltk]
g4/altivec (Score:1)
they don't seem to have heard about it yet.
http://www.linuxppc.org/hardware/
now we just have to wait for G4 support to show up.
question: there isn't an altivec-enhanced gcc out yet, is there? why not? isn't apple using egcs for mac os x? won't they have to release the version they're using to the public? is there even an altivec-enhanced version of mac os x server out yet?
mac_on_linux (free sheepshaver alternative) (Score:1)
http://www.ibrium.se/linux/mac_on_linux.html
it's hardware support isn't that wide-ranging though, i don't think. i doubt it will work on an ibook at this moment, although they'd probably be happy if someone would make it work on an ibook (hint, hint).
Re:g4/altivec (Score:1)
Either way Apple has been working to use altivec in the OS whenever possible, particularly in system API calls and things like graphics routines. Copybits is AV-enhanced in OS 9, for the only specific example i've heard yet outside of quicktime. the purpose is to make it so that even if you don't enhance for altivec you wind up getting some small altivec boost through the system so that altivec doesn't turn into a big joke the way MMX did.
I dunno what besides Quicktime and display routines would make use of altivec, but then again i've never written, say, a preemptive multitasking thread manager, so i wouldn't be very knowledgable about whether such things involve vector math.
but like i said the main point of asking about an altivec-enhanced mac os x server was not anything involving actual mac os x server itself, but that they would almost certainly wind up making whatever egcs compiler they used to build it publicly available. whatever
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/prog.html (copybits is your friend)
Re:Well (Score:1)
Airport, and other trade secrets posted. (Score:1)
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
Airport, and other trade secrets posted. (Score:1)
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
not just ibook, but UMA (Score:1)
The original iMacs were packed, the new ones are extremely open inside. the tranparent plastic and lack of fan is thus appropriate.
This is a change from the past systems. The difference between the black and bronze keyboard pbG3 systems was enough to annoy a few. like the backlight controls were changed. that made it hard to work with in the begining. With the new Unified Motherboard Archetecure (i think thats what it means), it is no longer a question of getting it booting, but a question of supporting the daughter boards. Since the iBook is booting (mostly), this means that it will be that much easier to make the new iMacs boot.
long live PowerPC.
Re:sigh (Score:1)
Um, that's a link to the OLD M68K Linux. We're talking 10 year old machines (my SE/30 turns 10 in December). That stuff wasn't so great, but considering that Apple was getting a very responsive GUI working on a machine with less horsepower than my Palm IIIx, I'm impressed.
New Mac hardware is much cleaner. And getting the iBook to boot Linux means that the new iMac and the high-end G4 should be pretty easy; they all use virtually the same motherboard (Apple's new Unified Motherboard Architecure or UMA). The only difference between models is FireWire support, the speed/bus width/RAM on the RAGE 128, and ATA/33 or ATA/66 support.
From what I can tell, the current Mac architecture kicks some serious butt.
-jon
Re:Well (Score:1)
Sure, CD's boot, but it's not an easy to task to make yourself a boot disk (read: rescue disk, on hand for the day you fsck your kernel). Which is easier to make? A CD-R that's bootable, or a floppy disk? They make a nice fallback =)
Obviously you've never used a Mac.
All Macs can boot off of CD-ROMs, Zip Disks, Jaz disks, etc. The only current limitation is you can't boot from a FireWire drive (USB booting support has recently been added), and that should be ready pretty soon.
My emergency boot disk is a Zip disk. Iomega Tools for the Mac comes with a big button that says "CREATE RESCUE DISK." It copies the parts of your system that you need to a Zip disk, and puts on a copy of Disk First Aid (or whatever recovery program you like). It's hard to make it any easier to build a boot disk than (1) Insert Zip disk and (2) press button in Zip Tools.
So, bootability is a non-issue.
-jon
Re:Seriously hoping they perfect the installations (Score:1)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
Re:what's tablets (Score:1)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
Re:Well (Score:1)
Sure, CD's boot, but it's not an easy to task to make yourself a boot disk (read: rescue disk, on hand for the day you fsck your kernel). Which is easier to make? A CD-R that's bootable, or a floppy disk? They make a nice fallback =)
Mostly because there are more systems with floppy drives that can make boot disks then there are systems with CD-R's that can make bootable CD's.
Re:Well (Score:1)
Re:598 BogoMIPS on an iBook... (Score:1)
"Don't take our word for how fast an iBook is. The new 300MHz G3 iBook's are over 66% faster than a 400MHz Alpha using Linus Torvalds own benchmarks!"
See, if Apple weren't so much fun to abuse no one would do it.
Re:Why I bought an iBook. (Score:1)
You can pick a decent Toshiba laptop for ~1500 plus add amore RAM and PCMCIA card. that'll cost you less than $2000.
And yes they run linux very well. iBook does not really run linux, some kernel hacker got kernel to boot on it, but there is no a working Linux distribution that'd run on it
Re:Seriously hoping they perfect the installations (Score:1)
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
run both MacOS and Linux why buy two seperate laptops? I remember when the iBook was first
announced. The first
Analytical Engine, the first comment on
"FreeBSD would make it more secure."
..... no, the first post would read something like
"f1rST POsT! B1FF RU13Z!"
and would be quickly moderated out of existence.
The next post after "when will it run Linux?" would be "hey, a Beowulf cluster of these would be k00l", while Jon Katz would write an overlong and unnecessary essay asking whether American society was ready to deal with this new technological phenomenon.
Sorry, it's been a long day.
Also, didn't someone build the AE from the plans not too long ago?
Re:g4/altivec (Score:1)
Re:It's a great exercise in novelty, but... (Score:1)
Re:598 BogoMIPS on an iBook... (Score:1)
No, its how R&D works. (Score:1)
Re:Thats Spiffy (Score:1)
Re:sigh (Score:1)
itachi
Hmmm . . . airport?? (Score:1)
Honestly though, other than as a pure toy, and interesting application, I don't see that this will have too much of an impact on Linux. Now if a G4 with the Apple Cinema Display on it was working in Linux, we'd really be able to break into some new markets (like graphics). Maybe support for tablets.
Joey
Re:Wow. (Score:1)
Which, of course, happens to be a much better argument for NOT buying an iMac than that which you replied too. I mean, something that is ugly still has novelty value (or. at least that is what I try to convince women).
-
Re:Can you give me what is cheaper and outperforms (Score:1)
"Tons and tons and tons," and yet you can't cite a single example?
Would you prefer a different target? A military target? Then name the system!
Closest thing I could turn up for an actual supported, brand-name system would be last year's Sony VAIO 505's and IBM's low-end i-series Thinkpads...both being blown out now for nearly the same price as the iBook. Both are great basic systems for the money (and look better than the iBook, IMHO)...but neither quite meets the "cheaper" or "outperform" criteria specified.
Re:Well (Score:1)
I'm no Apple worshipper...and I think the iBook looks like a toilet seat...but I do try to be objective in evaluating the substantive capabilities of a system...and I for one applaud Apple's recent efforts to trim legacy interfaces that aren't so much "features" anymore as they are "nuisances," with most everything now covered by much simpler USB, Ethernet and/or FireWire. Yes, I do have quite an investment in SCSI, parallel and serial peripherals...but I will be GLAD when it comes time to replace them and not have to deal with all that black magic anymore.
Floppies were neat at one time. Critical, even. But they've long since passed to the "nuisance" stage. Not even good for sneakernet anymore. I'll be glad to see them dead and buried too. Only problem, unlike the other legacy crap, is that there's no definitive established standard to take their place. Zip? CD-RW? Something else? This remains to be seen.
Re:Linux iBook boots? (Score:1)
Re:Seriously hoping they perfect the installations (Score:1)
Hopefully, the iBook boots consistantly. More mac support for Linux (and vice versa) is good for both platforms, IMHO. Course, I think the iBook would look damn cool in that new iMac graphite.
Congrats to the experimenter for proof of concept. Hopefully the modem issue will be easier to work around than WinModems appear to be on Wintel designed laptops.
Re:Linux on iBook (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Seriously hoping they perfect the installations (Score:1)
But Airport IS an open standard.... (Score:1)
I forget the IEEE number tho, perhaps someone can fill me in...
But there ARE PCMCIA cards available that let non-iBooks communicate on an Airport network.
Of course, in these cases, the antenna's external, not built in to the lid, and the cards are more expensive than the $99 Airport, but they DO exist. I think Falleron makes the one I've heard about.
More exciting to me than Airport is the prospect of third party add-ons to the Airport slot. Since the Antenna's already built in, I'm hoping that a third party will build a cellular modem card that fits in the Airport slot and uses the built in antenna. Such a thing would be more useful to ME than wireless ethernet, and it would be way cool....
(pssst, hardware developers.... you listining?)
john
They erren't that packed... (Score:1)
But inside that sheilding, there's nearly as much open space as in the current iMac.
In the new iMacs Apple figured out how to incorperate that shieldind into the plastic, so you can see through the whole thing.
Net result: the new iMac LOOKS less crowded, but is not less crowded by too large a margin.
john
I want an iBook (Score:1)
Re:g4/altivec (Score:2)
MMX is not limited to graphics, either. For instance, one of the RAID drivers in the linux kernel uses MMX instructions for speed. MMX, 3DNow, and SSE are all SIMD units, just like AltiVec, which is what I said. AltiVec has some interesting features in it, yes, but for general purpose computing it provides little to no benefit. For 3D, yes. For large matrix manipulation, yes. But for booting your computer, no.
Re:g4/altivec (Score:2)
This is untrue. AltiVec only helps when you are dealing with several pieces of data that you want to do the same operation on. It would not help to figure out the subnet rule, as you're not dealing with that many instructions using the same operation (two ANDs with 0xFFFFFF00 and a subtract, on PPC, iirc, this can be done with 5 instructions total which is less than the setup overhead for the AltiVec Unit). Malloc doesn't involve that many repetitive calculations, either. And a lot of the instructions have dependencies... which would prohibit the use of SIMD. 3D Vector math is also rather trivial... algorithms for finding intersecting lines in 3D are rather trivial and would not benefit from AltiVec.
Where AltiVec helps are when you want to do things like: I have 300,000 points in 3D, and I want to rotate them about a point. I'm going to be running the same damn operation on every point, and no point affects the other one. So I can run the same instruction on multiple pieces of data at the same time... load up, say, 4 32bit FP numbers and 4 more 32 bit angles, and run A*sin(B) or something.
Actually, your missile problem could be done with fixed point on a 1Mhz 8 bit PIC microcontroller with time to spare -- I know, I just did that sort of thing in lab.
How much code would benefit? (Score:2)
The very first thing that comes to mind is not anything graphics related, but simply block moves. MacOS makes heavy use of double indirection, 'handles' to blocks that are moved by the Memory Manager. This API is widely used by applications and changes to the system's implementation would speed up most applications across the board, so long as they used Memory Manager calls. Asking the MacOS to allocate memory in a situation where it has to compact the application zone and move 60M of relocatable blocks could become quite radically faster if it could be done 128 bytes at a time. I think that sums it up, don't you?
I hope linux geeks know what relocatable blocks are. Maybe that is something only systems hackers have to know about, or not even then. It's basically a way of defragging and optimising memory like you defrag and optimize disk
Re:Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:2)
Which, I'm sure, are guaranteed to ported perfectly...
Of course, I'm extremely interested in seeing Office/Photoshop on a BSD based machine. It could completely rule. It might not. It's all vapor right now.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This is my first Mac (Score:2)
Let's see... it's joining a family of:
a NeXT running NeXTStep 4.2
2 Alphas running Linux
2 relatively modern x86s running Linux
a PDP-11 running RSX-11
a Newton that I'm going to give to one of my
sisters for college (running NewtonOS 2.1)
2 ancient x86s (pre386) running CP/M and DOS
a Nintendo64 running
Anyhow, why the iBook? Well, I got an eMate some
time ago to replace a laptop that died, and it
was really great (long battery life), but it
was too slow. It didn't keep up with my typing,
and I wanted a machine I could compile stuff on,
run Perl, and have nice networking built-in.
So... I looked at all the laptops I could get
a good price on, and the iBook pretty much
ended up at the head of the list. It's fast,
it's fairly cheap, it has a nice display, it has
built-in 100Mbps ethernet, and I thought it would
run OSX until Linux got ported.
Alas, OSX doesn't run on the iBook yet, so I'm
dealing with MacOS currently (Thank goodness
someone ported vim to MacOS). I've written a
Unixlike shell in Perl to help me manage files
(well, am writing, rather), but at least I can
play Bolo
Anyhow, once Linux understands the iBook's
ethernet hardware, I'll be very very quickly
running Linux on it. One of the nicest things
about Linux is you can be hardware agnostic
Wow. (Score:2)
A toilet that runs Linux! And, didn't someone say that Linux doesn't work well in embedded systems? This'll show them.
Justin
598 BogoMIPS on an iBook... (Score:2)
Here's the thing that really freaked me out though, when I booted it up: the dmesg output reports 598.02 BogoMIPS. My Dell PII-400 only reports around 390, and I'm getting 598 from a 300 MHz Mac. Even the 400 MHz Alphas I use only report 360.
I have two speculations - either a) the iBook is a serious powerhouse crippled by a bloated MacOS, or b) the G3 has some optimization in it that throws off the numbers.
Can anyone shed some light on this? I know BogoMIPS isn't an absolute indicator of performance, but how does one account for a 200 point difference from a machine 100 MHz slower? If the G3'S really are this fast, I will never buy another x86 box again.
Why I bought an iBook. (Score:2)
Since everyone out here is bashing the iBook, let me play devils advocate and say why I bought one.
1) Everything is integrated. I have no need to go out and buy PC cards for modem & network, it's all built into the same box at one price.
2) AirPort. You gotta love the AirPort. CompUSA was giving away free AirPort cards w/ iBooks the weekend I bought mine, so that made it even better.
3) Strength. As a college student, I already have enough junk to carry around with me, much less a bulky laptop bag. Since the iBook's case is so strong, I can just shove it in my backpack along with my books and not worry about it getting hurt. Plus, since the battery lasts so long, I don't even need to carry around a power adapter.
4) Price. I picked up an iBook and a 128 MB memory module for less than $2000. A comparable x86 laptop would cost much more. And since I knew I'd run Linux on it, no matter whether I bought Apple or x86, the cheaper one wins.
5) Design. This really is a great-looking notebook (at least the blue one is... the orange is pretty ugly).
6) No M$ tax. I refuse to give Microsoft any more money, and if I buy an x86 machine from a reputable manufacturer, I'd probably end up buying a machine subject to the M$ tax.
I bought a Dell Inspiron 7000 over the summer and sent it back a week later. It weighed 10 pounds, but felt flimsy and fragile. The iBook is nothing like that - it feels like a tank.
Yellow Dog Linux runs great on it despite the lack of support for a lot of the hardware. I can't wait until it's fully supported...
Re:No, it IS how open source works (Score:2)
This is a tribute to the productivity of the Linux initiative, i think, and not purely an open source thing.
Cheap G3s (Score:2)
I know, it sounds like a shameless plug but I thought it'll be useful to some.
Hasdi
Re:Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:2)
Trust is nice but I think many more people are going to like versions of Microsoft Office and Photoshop that run on top of a BSD based OS.
Re:Seriously hoping they perfect the installations (Score:2)
I wish people here would get over the misleading headlines on some of the stories here. The FACT of the matter is that there are already two companies that have workarounds for Apple's firmware G4 cripple, with more coming.
See http://www.powerlogix.com/ for more details.
Re:Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:2)
So just what is the benefit of running Linux on a Mac after Mac OS X is out, anyway???
The thought that Apple's software interests(OSX) are causing specifications to be hidden about their hardware products(mmm...G4...) is mildly disturbing, to say the least.
What a load of crap. Just because Apple hasn't released the Technotes on the G4 hardware yet doesn't mean they won't. Nor does it have anything to do with OS X - all the G3s, iMac and iBook tech notes are out - these machines are just as likely to run OS X as the G4s.
Complaining about Microsoft becomes much more disturbing when you realize what any number of other software companies would do in their place...
What pipe were you smoking when you came up with that one? Apple is not a software company. Apple is in fact, a hardware company. If they were a software company they wouldn't care about clones and in fact would encourage them. But they can't because almost all their revenues and profits come from selling - hardware.
Re:g4/altivec (Score:2)
I am not sure what an Altivec enhanced version of Mac OS X server would do any differently than a non-enhaced version.
How much code that would benefit from a vector processor is there in an OS anyway?
there isn't an altivec-enhanced gcc out yet, is there? why not? isn't apple using egcs for mac os x?
See my first comment.
now we just have to wait for G4 support to show up
There were a number of posting here a couple of weeks ago indicating that Linux was up and running on the G4 Macs.
As far as applications that take advantage of Altivec, (Photoshop, Halo, Quicktime) I imagine that they are being compiled with either a Motorola or Metrowerks compiler. If gcc/egcs support for Alitvec is going to come from someplace I imagine it would come from Motorola rather than Apple. AFAIK Apple hasn't done any compiler writing in a while.
It would be interesting to ask Moto if they have a gcc/ecgs compiler that supports Alitvec.
..lookin' forward to getting a mac. (Score:2)
Re:Thats Spiffy (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Apple is helping! (Score:2)
Please don't automatically assume that Apple is on the wrong side on this.
It's no secret... (Score:2)
Remember, that IBM overclocked a PPC to 1 gig, a good year or so ago.
OS X is supposed to change all this by placing the finder on top of a BSD Unix system.
You might check out the stats for SETI @home. There's a guy on an plder Mac there, running a developer release of Rhapsody, who churns out data units about six hours faster than MacOS. Also note the times of the various *BSD implementations. They pretty much ALL smoke bth MacOS AND windoze.
Also worth noting ae the "CPU Types" statistics. Here, PPC finishs data blocks about 8 hours faster than x86. It's important to note, tho, that this includes IBM's AIX PPC workstations which, accouding to the OS Stats page, finishes data units about twice as fast as MacOS. So it stands to reason that the MacOS IS holding the PPC back in the CPU stats area.
Now, I know that SETI @home is not the best test for benchmarking a CPU out there. But face it, any benchmark one could choose (Byte, spec, Photoshop, Q3 Test Framerate, etc.) is going to piss off SOMEONE, and promptly be declared invalid by users of the system that loses.
But what I think the SETI @home numbers DO demonstrate is that the PPC really IS an excellent chip, that DOES smoke its opponents. It, in most cases, is being slowed down by an outdated and inefficent operating ststem (although it performs quite well even after overcoming the overhead of the MacOS).
I know from first hand expierence that my G3's performance is quite righteous running LinuxPPC. I don't have any benchmarks, but it just *feels* twice as fast when running in its Linux partion vs. the MacOS partition. Granted, that's not at all scientific, but what the hell....
So, yeah, if you want an awesome Linux box, PPC IS a REALLY good choice. And since IBM's released the MB specs, you won't even HAVE to go with Apple in the near future. I plan to tho, I'm keeping my hopes up that they'll do a good job of integrating the MacOS GUI with BSD UNIX in OS X. I've had a chance to play with both Darwin, and OS X Server, and somehow, I think they WILL get it right.
But only time will tell.
john
Re:sigh (Score:2)
And on another note... The speed and useability of MacOS and Wintel systems are pretty comparable now, each platform had advantages over the other but for a lot of people, either platform would be suitable. Because of that, there has to be some other way for companies to distinguish their products from others... and the nest way to do that is through the style. I consider myself to be a pretty technical guy but I also appreciate stylish-looking computers. I get sick of sitting at my desk and staring at a beige box that looks like every other computer ever made.
I'll confess to being a Mac Guy... but I have owned a couple of PCs in the past. Also, I have a 450 Mhx PIII from HP as well as an HP C3000 Workstation on my desk at the office. At home I've got a B&W G3 and a Wallstreet model PowerBook. The last PC i owned was a "home built" system with a cool-looking case and one of those Black & green Acer monitors- primarily becuase it was interesting to look at and caused people to comment when they saw it.
I'm glad that Apple has moved to these radical new machine designs.
Now, to comment on this thread, so that this comment will not be completely off-topic.... I think that the guy who got Linux to boot on an iBook should be commended. He took the time to work through all of the technical details and spent his time programming to solve a problem- and he got it to work.
Re:Airport, and other trade secrets posted. (Score:2)
The G4 PowerMac specifications are conspicuously absent.
- Apple Hardware Developer Documentation [apple.com]
- Apple Spec Database [apple.com]
You can see for yourself. These are very good resources.
Re:Thats Spiffy (Score:2)
Re:g4/altivec (Score:3)
AltiVec helps a very few things. It ends up that a lot of the instructions are like a lot of other SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) instrcutions that have abbreviations we know and love... MMX, 3DNow, SSE... as it tuns out, it can help some things, such as graphical processing, but isn't so useful for general-purpose stuff.
So, AltiVec might be able to improve a certain 3D render or a certain photoshop transform by xxx%, but as far as doing a compile or booting your operating system AltiVec (and MMX and 3DNow and SSE) don't help that much.
Re:Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:3)
So just what is the benefit of running Linux on a Mac after Mac OS X is out, anyway???
Trust.
I'll be blunt, I don't know how much I trust OSX to be a mature and fully functional Unix. It might rule. It might not. For the same reason I've become fascinated with *BSD, I've got alot of respect for Linux on the Mac platform.
Having recently taken SparcLinux off of a bunch of cheap IPC's and put on Solaris 2.7, I can tell you that while it's impressive that Sun's latest OS works on ANCIENT hardware, it doesn't work all that fast. Linux did.
Anyway, I look forward to Beowulf clusters w/ G4's, and I don't think Beowulf works cross-platform.
What a load of crap. Just because Apple hasn't released the Technotes on the G4 hardware yet doesn't mean they won't. Nor does it have anything to do with OS X - all the G3s, iMac and iBook tech notes are out - these machines are just as likely to run OS X as the G4s.
I stand corrected, then. I based my assumption on the fact that the iBook coder talked heavily of having to reverse engineer entire chunks of the iBook architecture.
(Yup, every once in a while some guy on Slashdot actually admits he fucked up. It happens.)
Complaining about Microsoft becomes much more disturbing when you realize what any number of other software companies would do in their place...
What pipe were you smoking when you came up with that one? Apple is not a software company. Apple is in fact, a hardware company. If they were a software company they wouldn't care about clones and in fact would encourage them. But they can't because almost all their revenues and profits come from selling - hardware.
That doesn't change the fact that if information is withheld from Linux developers but delivered to OSX people, Apple is ignoring the needs and desires of customers. I was unaware about the tech spec releases for the older macs--therefore, yup, I was wrong when I implied that Apple did alot of this.
Of course, when Apple banned MpegTV from supporting the codec that the Star Wars
Re:I just don't get it (Score:3)
(NOTE: I am a big Mac fan, though I try to be open-minded about stuff. Be forewarned.)
First of all, it's very stylish. Now, I know a lot of people either don't like how it looks or don't care, but I like it. A lot. It's a far cry from those ugly boxes that PCs (even the notebooks) come in. Now, I'm not going to spend sixteen hundred bucks just because it looks cool, but it's a definate plus.
The design also goes far beyond looks. First, it has a nifty handle. Now this may sound like a marketing gimmick, but the handle is really, really nice. It's most definately not cheap (quality-wise, not price), and it's very solid and feels useful. It makes it very easy to carry around. Also, the things opens and closes without a latch, just a very well-designed spring. It feels right. It also looks like you could really bang it around without damaging it. The curves make for better support, and the material is solid. There's also a large amount of space between the outside and the components inside (except, obviously, for the CD-ROM drive and such things).
As far as price goes, it seems reasonable to me. It may be somewhat more expensive than a PC portable with the same features, but the iBook makes up for thta in some ways. First of all, the battery life is far beyond what you'll find on a PC. I'm sure Apple is being optimistic with 6 hours, but reports from early purchasers say it goes 4-5 hours without recharging. Also, the screen on it is really a beauty to look at. A bit small, perhaps, but it is definately of very high quality.
The final, and probably most important reason, is that the machine just feels perfect. I don't know how to explain it, but I got to handle it at the local Sears, and it's just right.
Another reason for an iBook: I wouldn't run Windows to save my soul, and Linux just isn't friendly enough for my tastes yet. Nothing against Linux, but I just can't stand to use it for too long, and I don't have the patience to learn.
Re:I just don't get it (Score:3)
Not everybody needs 20 GB of hard disk space, a 15" LCD, a CPU that requires 3 fans, asbestos pants and a fuel cell to keep going more than 20 minutes. Not to mention the hassle of dealing with Winwhatever or GeekOS-es like Linux.
These things are competitively priced with hardware you would get from other major vendors, have plenty of horsepower for what most people use a computer for, have interesting styling, and are much easier to setup and use than the Wintel equivalents. They also have some very nice features that you won't find anywhere else, like a 6 hour battery life, and the Airport.
The fact that most slashdotters don't 'get it' as far as the iBook and iMac is concerned is no surprise. These machines aren't intended for the slashdot market.
What amazes me is how chauvanistic the response here is. Many people here can't seem to grasp the idea that because a computer doesn't statisfy their needs, it can't POSSIBLY be a good choice for anyone else, either.
The iMac and iBook are popular for the simple reason that they fit the needs of a lot of people. And don't listen to that BS about only Mac loyalists buying these things. Something over 50% of iMac buyers are first time Apple owners. I would expect for the iBook that percentage would even be higher.
Will I buy one? No. They don't fit my needs. But I am in the asbestos pants crowd. I'm one of the people who doesn't mind doing a Linux install on a state-of the art laptop, and all that implies - hacked X-Server+twiddling VGA modes in LILO.conf to get framebuffers to work, no sound support, kludging my way around BIOS and CardBus/PCMCIA compatability problems, etc. But is Jill the English major going to do this? No. She is going to buy an iBook.
Neat, but neads work (Score:3)
Super, and keep up the good work.
Seriously hoping they perfect the installations.. (Score:3)
Maybe it's just me, but I'd really get a kick out of people snickering, maybe even laughing at me until they came over and saw KDE running in X. (Or even better, came over and saw the linux CLI on the screen. I can imagine it, "whoah, is that a screensaver?")
Sad thing is that many folks are completly set against Apple & Macintoshes in general, that they forget that they can be a very useful computing system. Ask most who does computer graphics or animation for a living, and if they're not using Be (they could EASILY overtake Macintosh if they pushed their OS to software developers more), they're using a Mac.
...And I'd much rather have Mac OS X on my computer than Windows.
Re:I just don't get it (Score:3)
I played with one yesterday at a CompUSA, so perhaps I can help answer this with a short review. I guess the best way is point by point:
- Overpriced. Not that I can see. I have been pricing comparably spec-ed consumer laptops lately. Most fall between US$1300 and US$2000, so the iBook is right in the middle at $1600. Also, it has some unique and appealing features: a tough rounded case, latchless clamshell lid, built-in handle, open port cover (no more broken or snagged covers), easy access to upgrading memory via the liftoff keyboard, and the AirPort wireless LAN option.
- Underperforming. This one is harder to judge. It depends on what you plan to use it for and whose performance measurements you use. One quick criticism is that Apple should ship these things with a minimum of 64MB of RAM. Subjectively, it was quick and responsive. Bugdom (Mac only 3D game) looked and felt smoother than on a 233Mhz desktop G3 with a RAGE ORION card. Various applications launched quickly. I noticed no glitches or hiccups when simultaneously running several quicktime movies. The sound from its single speaker stunk. Ergonomically, the combination of the active matrix LCD plus the white screen border and light case cover made the screen seem even brighter and crisper than a regular active matrix screen. The trackpad is the best, bar none, I have ever used. The keyboard was a comfortable size. The keys seemed a bit small in size and had a short clicky throw that I thought could feel better. My wife, who is a Unix sysadmin that regularly uses a Dell laptop 15+ hours per day for her job, said the keyboard felt normal to her.
- Oversized & Heavy. It did seem large compared to other laptops I have used. It was not near any others, so I could not do a direct size comparison. It is heavy. As a consequence, I think they need to reshape the handle to make it easier to get a good palm grip versus a finger grip. Smaller hands probably can easily palm grip the handle, though. Unlike other laptops I have used, the iBook feels sturdy. Close the case, flip up the handle and it feels like you could batter down a door with it. The springloaded latchless closing works well and feels solid. The rounded case feels very comfortable when holding in both hands. The case is lightly textured and is easy to hold without slipping. When closed, it has a frisbee-esque feel to it. The salesman literally lunged when I mimed a frisbee throw motion with it.
- Looks like a toilet seat. Maybe it does on TV. In person, it looked like a truncated teardrop. I think this is a personal taste issue for most people. Besides who owns a two tone, aqua on white toilet seat?
- Why run Linux on iBook. Because you can. The Universe is infinitely perverse. Seriously, if you run both MacOS and Linux why buy two seperate laptops? I remember when the iBook was first announced. The first
- Can someone explain why they are so popular. Because it is fun. Because its simple. Because they like the colors. Because it sets you apart from the rest of the pack. Because it is a conversation piece. Because it does the jobs people want done. Because it is different.
A last bit. I went to look at the iBook because both my USMC daughter and soon to be high school graduate son both called me long distance ON THE SAME DAY to beg for their own iBooks. After looking at one for 20 minutes, my unix-guru wife turned to me and said "I want one too!". Sigh.
I hope that helps.
IV
Consistency: Where's The Specs? (Score:5)
MS ties their OS and their Applications together. Apple ties the OS and the Hardware together, which if you really think about it is really quite a bit more exclusionary than MS could even dream about. Linux has long since become enough of a force that companies that choose not to open their specifications to it have long since implicitly ignored the needs of their customers.
I'm a former Apple IIgs user, so the concept of me wanting a Mac is...a foreign concept. LinuxPPC is the first thing that's ever made me interested in owning a Mac again. The thought that Apple's software interests(OSX) are causing specifications to be hidden about their hardware products(mmm...G4...) is mildly disturbing, to say the least.
Of course, the whole CHRP(Common Hardware Reference Platform) fiasco does make all of this at least mildly expected. Complaining about Microsoft becomes much more disturbing when you realize what any number of other software companies would do in their place...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
sigh (Score:5)
Having gotten that out of the way, I think it's pretty slick. I'd much rather have an iBook (blue, the tangerine looks awful) that is dual boot than a PC laptop of the same price, regardless of the OS(s) on the PC. It's all about style, and let's face it, there isn't a single major laptop manufacturer out there with interesting industrial design, except for IBM and Apple. Now both IBM and Apple don't necessarily make the perfect laptop at any given point in time, but they make very slick laptops that are interestingly designed, and they both have a pretty solid track record for that. The clincher is that there's no way that you can find a ThinkPad that competes with the iBook for the same price. Though the stubby-eraser dealie is still a nicer design than a pad, imho.
itachi, who still wants an iBook running Linux