toggle

AAPL Stock: 428.88 ( -2.89 )

MacNN News

http://www.macnn.com/articles/01/04/04/cancer.distributed/

Cancer distributed computing for Windows only

updated 01:40 am EDT, Wed April 4, 2001

", 0, 0);

Several readers have noted that The National Foundation for Cancer Research has a program similar to SETI's distributed computing application, but does not yet support Macs: "Computer users from all over the world will be able to help beat cancer by running calculations using their computers idle computer power. But Mac Users are apparently not welcome. This project is funded by Intel and the program only supports Wintel systems. It's too bad. Imagine the speed and power of a DP G4 running crunching numbers in an OS X terminal window."

by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

industry

toggle

Comments

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 02:25am | report spam | close Reply | delete
This is Sad

What would appear to be a great thing just leaves me saddened. You can only help the casue if you bought an Intel processor. "This cure brought to you by Intel". The corporatization of America is complete. We cannot even volunteer, unless we have the right corporate brand.

I honestly feel sick.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 02:52am | report spam | close Reply | delete
This is Odd, too

This is really odd, since most genetics research is done on Macs. :-)

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 03:41am | report spam | close Reply | delete
pcs are faster anyway ...

so no great loss. As i pointed out a few days ago with a link to the Mathematica speed comparison site, PCs are 2-3 times faster than macs for number crunching. Except for photoshop which probably is better optimized for the mac, the PC is faster. In terms of crunching numbers, there is simply no argument.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 03:53am | report spam | close Reply | delete
troll

hey "pcs are faster anyway" troll person, since that is what it obviously was:

BLOW ME!!!

my altivec can kick the living c*** out of your PIII

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 04:29am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Request a Mac version

Hang on, this article doesn't tell the full story. The web site says "We are actively working on Linux* and Apple MacOS* support at this time. Prioritization for additional operating systems is based on your feedback and market research."

To this end I've started a forum thread to request Mac support.

Go to the web site, choose 'Help', then 'Forums', then 'Mac OS version?'. Or, click here. Then add your support. And pass this on.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 05:47am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Just imagine....

"Imagine the speed and power of a DP G4 running crunching numbers in an OS X terminal window"

Yeah, just imagine how slow aqua would run then.....ooh, I can't wait to try it!

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 07:03am | report spam | close Reply | delete
More lies from big corps.

mmm.. well apart from Intel's curiously dodgy definition of "peer-to-peer" this is not as charitable an endeavour as you may have been led to believe.

Slashdot has the gen:
http://slashdot.org/science/01/04/03/1634259.shtml

-wulf

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 07:50am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Just imagine....

I can readily imagine a SETI-like program under OS X. It involves lots of freezes and lockups, 'cause that's what I get with SETI@home under OS X. It seems that driving the cpu to 100% for even a few minutes brings thins on with all the certainty of the sunrise in the morning. Didn't work this way under OS X PB, but it did run at about half the speed of SETI under 9.1. I'm becoming increasingly sad about the poor outlook for OS X.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 07:50am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Macs are faster...

I have a 400MHz G3 and a 400MHz PII in my office. Each is running SETI@home now. The PeeCee typically crunches a number block for about 24-26 hours, while the Mac only takes about 5-7 hours.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 07:50am | report spam | close Reply | delete
RE: pcs are faster anyway

You said it right in your statement: "Except for photoshop which probably is better OPTIMIZED for the mac..." That's why you mathematica probable runs faster, They just directly ported it to the mac without any altivec support...So that doesn't mean either computer is "Faster" than the other, its all in the code.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 07:58am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Stop the insanity!!!

Here's the bottomline on mhz

1) PC's are twice as fast mhz wise (1.3-1.5ghz vs. 733mhz)
2) Macs mhz are faster than pc's (733G4 vs. 733 Athlon)
3) Pc's mhz are cheaper.

I have a 1070mhz Duron (60$) that is kicking the holy c*** out of my G4/400 for just about every computing task out there.

Is it a better computer? Not really. I still like the Mac better.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:07am | report spam | close Reply | delete
SETI on X

"Imagine the speed and power of a DP G4 running crunching numbers in an OS X terminal window"

Well, SETI�Home on OSX fails to impress me: on a G3/400, I get an average of 45 hours per unit, against 25-30 hours under OS 9.x...

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:16am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Cancer Research

While a Mac user myself, I feel that the software should be available for other OS's/platforms as well: Unix, Linus, BSD, etc.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:23am | report spam | close Reply | delete
IS PC vs Mac a cancer?

It really does not matter if PC or macs are faster for this project. Surely the more computing power thrown at it the better.

If I had a truck and a car to carry grain to starving people - I'd send both, I don't care if the car could only carry 1/20th the load.

Positive feedback is best.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:24am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Research & Success

If a Mac can help improve the cure rate than go for it. Other than doing a deal with the devil, research using anyone's computer is more important than the self interest some folks exhibit. I have been a Mac since the mid 80's and my wife is being cured by Cancer reseach from USF and M.D. Anderson (a.k.a California and Texas).

If my Mac can help fine but get off of this if the basic mission of research is being done to save live. If you want to gripe at someone, go to Apple and Motorola and ask why are they supporting this like Intel. Also ask why don't they write a FREE MAC port for this.

In closing look at the end game, this is about life, not Mac's.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:46am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Re: troll dude

Note the guy claiming PCs are faster referred us to an older, non-Altivec enhanced Mathmatica - things change, dufus!

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 08:59am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Trolls as THICK

Holy smokes, where did all these trolls come from? And why do they have so much time to write bashes on Mac sites? I don't waste MY time on PC centric sites ruining their days...Geez

Seti@Home rocks under the terminal..Faster than OS 9! I'm really disappointed in all the X bashing. It has been out for a weeks for christ sake! Do you judge a book by its' first draft? Give them until the July main rollout, then decide!

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 09:00am | report spam | close Reply | delete
re: re: troll

"I have 7 macs you f******..."

And once again, another sterling example of how some people's children shouldn't be allowed to play online...

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 09:06am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Slashdot = Read It!

As "Wulf" pointed out, this is not as noble as it sounds. Please read the full story at:

http://slashdot.org/science/01/04/03/1634259.shtml

I'm glad they didn't port it. I have a G3 and I don't have enough power as it is. I don't need some company selling my spare processor-cycles to the highest bidder! I'll leave it to the Wintel-users...

Mac

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 09:41am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Pentium vs. G4

Maybe this distributed computing is Intel - only, but I'm using 4 different computers to run in the .rc5 contest at distributed.net. Here's what i get from my boxen:
P2/400 (win2k) 932 kkeys/sec
Starmax 4000 (MacOS 8.6) 630kkeys/sec
G3/233 (MacOS 9.1) 739 kkeys/sec
G4/400 (MacOS 9.1) 2.3 Mkeys/sec

When I asked some of my teammates about the disparity, I was told that the coder of the Mac version included altivec acceleration. So in this example, it proves a) it may be the quality of the port that contributes to processing speed, and b) it may not ;-). It's nice having real-world numbers and not Photoshop tests to point out to my PC brethren.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 09:54am | report spam | close Reply | delete
mathematica result page

I looked at the numbers on the mathematica page. They were slower, but they were also terribly out of date. Not a single dual processor G4, not a single G4 processor over 500 MHz. If you're going to troll try to do a better job.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 10:40am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Pentium vs. G4

Maybe this distributed computing is Intel - only, but I'm using 4 different computers to run in the .rc5 contest at distributed.net. Here's what i get from my boxen:
P2/400 (win2k) 932 kkeys/sec
Starmax 4000 (MacOS 8.6) 630kkeys/sec
G3/233 (MacOS 9.1) 739 kkeys/sec
G4/400 (MacOS 9.1) 2.3 Mkeys/sec

When I asked some of my teammates about the disparity, I was told that the coder of the Mac version included altivec acceleration. So in this example, it proves a) it may be the quality of the port that contributes to processing speed, and b) it may not ;-). It's nice having real-world numbers and not Photoshop tests to point out to my PC brethren.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 11:27am | report spam | close Reply | delete
Biased reporting

Macnn is assuming that because Intel is involved that they must be s******* over Mac users which simply isn't the case. They clearly point out on their web site that a Macintosh version will be available in the near future. They should change the story immediately to reflect reality.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 11:28am | report spam | close Reply | delete
seti

I�m looking forward to a Mac version... I could care less about G4 vs. P4 c***. Both are fast! (G4 has Mac OS = luxury). I'm just glad CPU cycles will be going towards something useful instead of the SETI waist of time...

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 01:10pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Quick, bash em!

Why do people overreact with things like this? Do all Mac users believe in bashing first, the logicially looking at things second?

Someone already dug up evidence a Mac client is in the pipe, so chill.

Looking at other projects, no matter what individual platform is faster, Windows users get more work processed because of the pure numbers. Check
http://stats.distributed.net/ogr-25/platformlist.php3?view=tco
for proof of this.

In a distributing project with limited programming resources, you go from the top producing platforms to the bottom if you want the most good done.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 01:31pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Yeah but what if???

What if the Seti program discovered aliens that had the cure for cancer?

Would the Wintel people insist that the aliens buy their machines as compensation since they are being put out of a very profitable cancer research (vs. cancer curing) business?

Just a thought.

Ace.

P.S. Good luck to the guy who's wife is being cured of Cancer. I find that inspiring.

P.S.S. About the trolls. Is there a special name to a person who pretends to be two people and ends up haveing an arguement with themselves? Something like a schizophrenic but virutally? Just curious.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 02:38pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Bad email address

If you ask nicely at the Charity website about the lack of Mac version (at the moment it seems), the email address to which your comments are sent is not recognised.

Oh well. That's wintel for you.

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 03:48pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Enough bickering

The real question people should be asking is whether this client can take advantage of Altivec. If so, then getting out something that runs on Mac OS should be their top priority at the moment (no offense, Linux people).

Does it use single-precision floats or integer operations? If so, then it likely can take advantage of Altivec -- this would be an immense benefit (e.g., in RC5, which is Altivec aware, a lowly G4/350 can easily keep pace with a 1+ Ghz PIII). Double-precision arithmetic is a no-go, however (this is why SETI isn't Altivec aware). I went to their website, but it wasn't clear what type of calculations they were doing. Does anyone know?

0

Joined:

0

04/04, 05:14pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
Serious number crunching

I'm a Mac fanatic since 1984 (I still have my $11000 SE30 and the Mac Plus 512k). Howver, I work with software that does quantum mechanical calculations for molecules for a living, and the truth is, the Macs are losers, compared even to PCs (as much as I hate to admit it). As someone earlier mentioned, Altivec is useless with double precision (64 bit) integers, etc. This was a major mistake by Motorola. Especially since the G4 can handle 128 bits at a time. Not optimizing Altivec for longs leaves Macs out of high performance computing, especially since there isn't a Fortran compiler for the Mac with Altivec support (all serious number crunching uses Fortran). What a waste.

On the other hand, for a project such as this one, where people are donating spare processor time, this doesn't matter. More computers means more crunching. The real issue, I'm sure, comes down to writing the code. Will the number of Mac owner who contribute to the project justify the expense of porting the client? Apparently not, in the eyes of those running the project.

Pablo

0

Joined:

0

04/05, 01:47pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
I dont trust them

Don't I remember PII's and PIII's having a problem with their maths? Did they sort it out, or don't we care anymore?
And do I really trust a processor which can't add to make any sense of doing hideously complex calculations, especially in medicine?

0

Joined:

0

04/05, 06:57pm | report spam | close Reply | delete
cancer

hey, cancer its a serious thing, let the macs handle it

0

Joined:

0

04/06, 04:26am | report spam | close Reply | delete
for the record

If someone wants to compare macs to pc's please do a comparison vs athlon thunderbirds or durons (budget version). amd processors are far better than intel.

I'm drooling over MAC's right now and can't wait to get one, but not because they're faster. The fact is that I can put together a kick a** 1.3 Ghz Athlon machine for under $700 bucks (w/out monitor). Check out www.pricewatch.com if you doubt my math.

If you want sheer processing power you build a beowolf cluster of pc's (parallel processing). Why though?

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

06/19	Schematics allegedly show dimensions...
06/19	LinkedIn integration could be coming...
06/19	A closer look: iOS 7 Siri and iOS in...
06/18	Steve Jobs video from 1994 unearthed...
06/18	Apple unveils major update to iOS mass...

Show All

06/19	Dish gives up on Sprint merger attempt...
06/19	Schematics allegedly show dimensions...
06/19	LinkedIn integration could be coming...
06/19	A closer look: iOS 7 Siri and iOS in...
06/18	Sony Xperia Z shipping in US within...

Show All

toggle

Cancer distributed computing for Windows only

updated 01:40 am EDT, Wed April 4, 2001

Related Articles

Recent Articles

This is Sad

This is Odd, too

pcs are faster anyway ...

troll

Request a Mac version

Just imagine....

More lies from big corps.

Just imagine....

Macs are faster...

RE: pcs are faster anyway

Stop the insanity!!!

SETI on X

Cancer Research

IS PC vs Mac a cancer?

Research & Success

Re: troll dude

Trolls as THICK

re: re: troll

Slashdot = Read It!

Pentium vs. G4

mathematica result page

Pentium vs. G4

Biased reporting

seti

Quick, bash em!

Yeah but what if???

Bad email address

Enough bickering

Serious number crunching

I dont trust them

cancer

for the record

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace