[rescue] OS X and dual CPU machines?
vraptor at promessage.com
Sun Jun 8 23:30:47 CDT 2003
On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 08:02 AM, Michael Schiller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hi All.
> I've been wondering, would OS X run better on a dual G4 500mhz machine
> with 1mb cache per CPU, than on an 800mhz iMac with a single G4 CPU
> with only 256k cache?
IIRC, any "Aqua" application has to use the Cocoa libraries to take
advantage of the multiple CPUs (which was why everyone was waiting
w/baited breath for the "native" version of Photoshop, etc).
I can't honestly tell you if the BSD sub-system is set up to take
advantage of the multi-cpu facility or not, but I would expect so
(seems kind of dumb if it isn't, but hell, that isn't beyond Apple).
As to the example comments about running single-threaded game someone
mentioned--just make sure that you have a good graphics card. My G4
400(1MB cache)/512MB/IDE (toughing it out, Dave, on a meager budget ;-)
that I just got is a lot snappier than the G3 550(1MB
cache)/512MB/UWSCSI that I used at my last job--I think mostly due to
the beefier video card.
I would not consider the iMac--definitely go with the dual. With the
dual proc, you can do much more by way of upgrades if you decide you
like it (like get faster processors! :-). The iMac is very restrictive
as to potential upgrades. The nice thing about Mac desktops is that
they are very upgradeable. I had a 7600 (at least an 8 yo computer)
running OS 9 very happily. G3 daughter card + Voodoo 3 PCI. Maybe
$300 in it (two years ago).
Make sure you have at least 256MB RAM for which ever Mac you get--the
dang thing will swap horribly on anything less. Here's a memory
summary from top, with Netscape, Mail, and terminal (two windows)
running: 223M used, 289M free
Ugly, huh? Netscape (7.02) has 118MB footprint with one window open.
Terminal takes up 113MB or so with the default scroll back of 10K
More information about the rescue