Posted on 06/10/2008 6:23:21 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
So again why are you bringing it up in a thread about Apple's new Snow Leopard operating system? This chip was too good for Apple you say? Which IBM workstations are using this chip and are better than Apple's new Intel based workstations? Or are there any IBM workstations using it, at all? And what IBM servers are better than Apple's because of this chip? Who's selling more? If you know.
a new Mini can process a 1080p HD video stream. A Cell can easily process six simultaneously, including doing transformations on each stream.
Based on your gushing over this chip you seem to think Apple and Jobs made a mistake by not sticking with IBM? Supposedly IBM made the Cell processor pitch to Jobs as part of their final presentation to him, but he walked, and switched to Intel the next day. I think it was a good move by Apple, look at how the two companies have gone in opposite directions since then, but you seem so enamored with this chip you must wonder about it.
Why _wouldn't_ it??
You DO realize, don't you, that the core of OS X, that is to say Unix, is two generations old already (39 years), and is not only going strong, but expanding?
And that the so-called "Unix Year-2038 Problem" only has meaning because of the general assumption that Unix operating systems will be around for ANOTHER 30 years?? Your statement suggests that you could review the history of operating systems a little more, or at least acknowledge that OS X is a great modern GUI over an already mature OS foundation.
My personal opinion is that OS X, as the most widespread version of Unix in current use, might last two generations all by itself, if Steve Jobs or his successor lets it. OS X is far and away the most successful and complete Unix OS developed to date, and its numbers continue to grow at a prodigious rate. So it could do so.
OTOH, will it overtake Windows? Nah, I doubt it. But Windows carries the seeds of its own destruction, and is already beginning to fall after one generation. OS X (or whatever grows from it) only needs to still be there when Windows eventually crumbles on its own, which incidentally I think is no more than 5-6 years ahead, well within OS X's likely lifespan.
Read the thread. The discussion led there.
This chip was too good for Apple you say?
Learn to read. The Cell is not appropriate for Apple's needs, which were for a lower-power, higher-speed general purpose computing chip.
Which IBM workstations are using this chip and are better than Apple's new Intel based workstations?
None, because it is not a workstation (general purpose computing) chip. However, it may show up as a coprocessor in AMD systems to accelerate certain tasks (AMD and Intel have a technology sharing agreement). Think 3DNow! on steroids.
And what IBM servers are better than Apple's because of this chip?
IBM is packaging these into blades with about a 2:1 ratio of Cells to Opterons to achieve their 1.5 petaflop supercomputer. This is a different market than Apple's servers, which is general purpose computing. Although an XServe could certainly use a Cell if it's set up as a streaming media server, as it would probably quadruple the number of streams one server could handle.
Who's selling more? If you know.
Good question, but mostly different markets.
Based on your gushing over this chip you seem to think Apple and Jobs made a mistake by not sticking with IBM?
Not at all. The Intels were the right choice at the right time, especially since Jobs knew things about Intel's roadmap that the general public didn't at the time.
Supposedly IBM made the Cell processor pitch to Jobs as part of their final presentation to him, but he walked, and switched to Intel the next day.
I would like evidence for that since it sounds ridiculous. The Cell is no replacement for PowerPC or Intel chips in general purpose computing, so it would never be pitched as such. It is only an average-performing general purpose chip with its one PowerPC core (you're welcome for that bit of education). Half the die would be sitting idle most of the time for most people, making half the money spent for the chip a waste.
Your entire post and the previous one show an absolute ignorance about the Cell processor, its architecture, and its applications.
You took it there, I'm just wondering why.
The Cell is not appropriate for Apple's needs, which were for a lower-power, higher-speed general purpose computing chip.
Actually the Cell is used in a game console, so you're claiming the Sony game console is more advanced than Apple's workstations or servers?
it may show up as a coprocessor in AMD systems to accelerate certain tasks
So that's IBM's plan for Cell on the desktop? These 2 combined will surely outdo the Intels in the Apple systems then, right? Who's going to be marketing these?
Although an XServe could certainly use a Cell if it's set up as a streaming media server, as it would probably quadruple the number of streams one server could handle.
So the Cell processor is just far too much technology for Apple to handle. Sony can handle it in a game console, but Apple can't in their servers. Got it.
I would like evidence for that since it sounds ridiculous.
So you don't believe Jobs knew about the Cell processor even though he dumped IBM as his CPU provider? They didn't mention it at all, even though it was debuting at the exact time he was hitting the IBM exit? Your support of IBM seems pretty blind.
Here’s one link for you, any search engine will give you dozens more:
http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_Not_Impressed_with_the_Cell_Processor
So? That link is to a DIGG discussion that seemed to me to be a group of ignorant people pooling their ignorance. Intelligence is not additive, but ignorance is.
Obviously because we were on the subject of vector/matrix processing engines and how powerful they can be, and the Cell is a very good example.
Actually the Cell is used in a game console, so you're claiming the Sony game console is more advanced than Apple's workstations or servers?
Define "advanced." I can say it is more powerful for some jobs, and it does that at a fraction of the cost. The reason it's not in such servers is that it can't do the rest of the jobs you expect a server to do.
So that's IBM's plan for Cell on the desktop?
More like rumor and possibility given all the facts, with AMD's new coprocessor architecture and the power of the Cell for anything multimedia.
These 2 combined will surely outdo the Intels in the Apple systems then, right?
Of course it would. There's no way a simple Core 2 Duo or Xeon can match an Opteron plus a dedicated 8-core SIMD unit with that much bandwidth for certain tasks.
A bit of computing knowledge for you: The more specialized the processor, the faster it can do the job. But the more specialized it is, the the fewer jobs there are that it can do well. You can have your CPU try to break crypto, and it'll take forever. Build a chip that is hardcoded and optimized to only break that one crypto algorithm, and it'll run orders of magnitude faster. But it's useless for anything else. Two real-world extremes, with many levels of real-world examples in between.
So the Cell processor is just far too much technology for Apple to handle. Sony can handle it in a game console, but Apple can't in their servers.
Technology appropriate for Sony's purpose, but not appropriate for Apple's purpose. That simple, you can quit the paranoia.
So you don't believe Jobs knew about the Cell processor even though he dumped IBM as his CPU provider?
Of course he did. But in case you haven't been listening, the Cell is not competitive for general-purpose computing. Everybody with even a basic knowledge of the Cell knows that. Apparently you don't. Educate yourself before you write again.
Sony, not IBM. Yes, it would have been idiotic for Apple to use the Cell in its general-purpose computers. They would have been extremely fast for some things, but slow for everything else that people want computers to do. Not a good idea.
The PS3 doesn’t have to do general purpose computing with any decent level of performance, it only has to have high-performance for games and media, which is a perfect place for the Cell.
I really don't see voice becoming the primary input mechanism for most computer users unless there are a whole lot of advances in AI under the hood. Speech between two humans is an efficient mode of communication only because humans are able to infer what should fill in the gaps. Even then, it's easily misunderstood; without miscommunication and wrong conclusions, we would have no basis for sitcoms.
Nice example; I take your point - but I do expect to see AI make a comeback at some point, exactly because of the high value implicit in it.If speech control of computers is based on crisp, sharply articulated commands issued in a consistent and logical temporal order every time, I don't see it replacing the keyboard (or mouse, or even handwriting) without a change in the programming philosophy behind it, not just the application of more computing horsepower under the hood, however impressive that horsepower may be.
I would cast the situation this way: people communicate by a combination of verbal speech, inarticulate grunts, eye contact, body language, and hand gestures. The mouse/keyboard system is strictly one of hand gestures - and IMHO that is a highly restrictive and blinkered way of doing it. Naturally Speaking takes a whack at pure verbal communication, and guess what - humans have experience at strictly verbal communication, too. Telephone conversation is one such model, and that would still be quite an AI challenge for a computer. Naturally Speaking tries for a different model - one which puts me in mind, not of a free-form phone chat but of military/aviation radio comm. Including the ability to use The NATO phonetic alphabet:Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel IndiaIt goes so far as to enable verbal mouse position commands and clicks. Obviously an able-bodied person will prefer typing to verbalizing "Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo." Naturally Speaking falls short, precisely because it needs more (if indeed it has any) AI. But for the seriously disabled, it's better than nothing. The application I set it up for showed that using an IR tracker to follow head movement was vastly superior to verbal articulation of mouse pointer position.
Juliet Kilo Lima Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo
Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey Xray Yankee ZuluBut the capability Naturally Speaking does exhibit strongly suggests that its outputs would be adequate inputs to an AI program which actually could parse dictation efficiently. I do not consider that user input should be limited to verbal comm - but it certainly could be an improvement to the system if it included it. Very few of us type as fast as we speak. And very few of us speak as precisely as we type - because we use the backspace key. At least, I do . . .
IMHO an interface which exploits both verbal dictation and digital gesturing via one or two small "keyboards" will one day supplant the keyboard/mouse paradigm. And I think it will be a big deal when it hits the market. You mentioned "handwriting" - and that is the very last thing I would try - it has the worst features of verbal and of gesture communication, and the best features of neither.
Why _wouldn't_ it??> Why would OS X necessarily last two human generations?
Possibly because Steve Jobs might not be immortal? AAPL has proved that it can tank; it did so before and it could do so again - taking OS X with it.the core of OS X, that is to say Unix, is two generations old
. . . and it was designed from the ground up to run on real computers, rather than the (comparative) toys which were the PCs of the 1980s. It was designed for multiple users, so its programmers didn't assume that anyone who had access to it would behave responsibly towards it - thus, they made it inherently less trivial a problem to infect Unix with malicious code. That is a Good Thing.I have invested in some AAPL stock. I just like to have an understanding of what I'm betting on when I continue to hold it. I had a G4, upgraded to Panther, and would still be using it if I had been able to upgrade it to Leopard. I've handed it down, and now use a 20" iMac. From the sound of things, Snow Leopard will be a consolidation, and a development of things for business. From an investor's POV that could be a good thing. But just as I skipped Tiger, I might omit upgrading to Snow Leopard next year - unless they announce something that arouses an eager want. Such as a new killer app not operable under 10.5.
There’s many other sources out there starting with the NY Times that reported Jobs dislike of the Cell chip. As I said use any search engine, here’s another link that has links to others including the Times report:
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1423
Behind the Apple-Intel Deal: IBM Was Surprised and Jobs Trashed The Cell Processor
I understand it better than you since I've been asking why you keep gushing over it on a thread about Apple's new O/S when Apple already dumped IBM and one of the reasons was the Cell chip isn't a good fit for most computers. Now that you've finally admitted it maybe we can get back to discussing Apple's new O/S.
Obviously not since you did not know it was PowerPC compatible ("and the Cell isn’t x86 or PPC compatible either"), something I wrote on this thread in #39 before you posted to me. You could have avoided that show of ignorance if you had just read the thread.
on a thread about Apple's new O/S
You would also understand that if you had read the thread.
when Apple already dumped IBM and one of the reasons was the Cell chip isn't a good fit for most computers
Its low utility in general purpose computing is something you learned from me in my first response to you, so I obviously understand the situation better. The Cell was NOT designed to run desktop computers, so it can't be a reason for Apple dumping IBM when Apple was looking for general purpose CPUs. It's like you deciding to not buy Ford because none of their heavy duty trucks are good enough for you, then some idiot says you stopped buying Ford because the Mustang can't haul your bricks very well. Different market, no relevance.
Now that you've finally admitted it
As was said, I wrote that to you in my first response, so where does this "finally admitted" come from? You really are so desperate for a win that you'll create conflict where none exists, expose your ignorance in the process, then claim victory where there is none.
Now you’re really confused. Apple ditched IBM over the mainstream CPU lines. Apple only talked to Sony and found the Cell not suitable (obviously). You don’t seem to know that there are three players in the Cell: Sony, Toshiba and IBM (the STI alliance). IBM is pushing it for servers and, with an agreement through another company, professional equipment. Sony is pushing it for gaming. Toshiba is pushing it for their HDTVs.
I’m not confused at all, per the NY Times article Jobs “was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.” Even if the Cell is actually based on PPC, Apple’s not using it, it was a smart decision to dump IBM, and your fawning all over the Cell now isn’t going to change it.
The Cell does not replace the PowerPC, as the latter is still being manufactured for various applications: The high-end PPC970 (Apple's G5) is used in servers, blades and high-power embedded applications, older PPCs are used mainly in other embedded applications (especially networking/routers, and in military).
Even if the Cell is actually based on PPC
So you admit I'm right and you didn't know what you were talking about? Actually, the PowerPC, IBM's POWER server/workstation line and the PPE of the Cell are all POWER architecture. There are nuances, but the Cell PPE is best referred to as a PowerPC, and it runs PowerPC code, making it PPC compatible contrary to your statement. There are even more applications, as each of the three cores of an XBox 360 are variants of the PPE of a Cell (time for you to bitch about Microsoft, I won't hold my breath) and the Wii uses a single-core variant.
It appears you are Googling at straw to save your futile argument, not arguing out of actual knowledge.
Not now it doesn't, but it didn't stop you from endlessly going ga ga over it in an unrelated thread about Apple's new O/S.
So now you're the thread police, oh master of tangential discussions (ready to go on another "commie Linux" rant?).
At least this little outing of yours led to yet another absolutely confirmed and documented case of you arguing from a position of complete ignorance while denigrating the other party who actually did know what he was talking about.
Actually it’s been fun watching you be reduced from Cell processor cheerleader #1 to having to admit it isn’t a good CPU for standard processes and that Apple was right to dump it along with all IBM CPU chips completely.
Again, you show you are divorced from reality. My FIRST post to you in this thread stated it isn't a good general purpose CPU. My first post mentioning it said only that it was an extremely good vector/matrix processor, which it is.
This one stays bookmarked, goes on record as another time you didn't know what the hell you were talking about and became abusive when exposed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.