or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Hands on with the Intel p4 & OS X (merged)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hands on with the Intel p4 & OS X (merged) - Page 3

post #81 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
All we know at this time is that Apple announced publicly that they will
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.

This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.

But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.

Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?

I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
once again re-defining cutting edge performance.

Where did you hear that it would take two years to deploy Mac OS X for their pro configurations??
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #82 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
why buy a Mac to run Windows?

Windows users.

The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.
post #83 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
Where did you hear that it would take two years to deploy Mac OS X for their pro configurations??

The keynote speech indicated essentially that AI would be releasing their
replacements for the G4 based consumer products first in 2006
and then move on to professional solutions in 2007.

I'm just going on what I heard and "assume" the priority will be placed on
deployment of faster laptops prior to the major overhaul of their towers.
post #84 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
The keynote speech indicated essentially that AI would be releasing their
replacements for the G4 based consumer products first in 2006
and then move on to professional solutions in 2007.

I'm just going on what I heard and "assume" the priority will be placed on
deployment of faster laptops prior to the major overhaul of their towers.

I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps. I would figure that Apple would bump the Powerbook and the iBook and then begin to transition. It would be easy to see that the value of a PPC Mac is in doubt at least enough to affect sales. My guess is that Apple will get into the hardware ASAP, that is what rosette is for, it is only that Intel is not ready with the chips and Apple wants a large time window. Sometime in Q1 is when Yohna is set to appear, later Q2? the desktop version of that chip is set to appear. Watch for Apple to Mac these up. My guess was that the wait was for the hardware, the apps will have 8 to 9 months to get ready. I think that Steve was going off of the last transition when we all waited forever for Quark.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #85 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
I guess this is the part of communication that needs direct feedback. I watched that keynote as well and thought that what he was saying was that OSX is ready and so are the tools and the only thing missing is the apps.

It seemed that way, but he says

"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."

They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.
post #86 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
They also won't get anywhere near the volume discounts that Dell can pull off.

You can gaurantee that Apple havecut a good deal with Intel,

"When Intel really wants to promote something--as it did with its Centrino mobile processor platform - it can increase the ratio it pays to manufacturers. By some estimates, Intel paid out $3 or $4 on Centrino-related advertising for every dollar that manufacturers spent. Intel had said it was prepared to spend $300 million to promote the Centrino brand, and it turned out to be money well spent. Chips for mobile PCs now account for more than 30% of Intel's PC chip volume." -- The Register.

Imagine Apple being able to triple or quadruple its marketing budget. That'll really sell some machines.
post #87 of 175
I would love a dual boot Power Mac.


AUTOCAD

AUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADA UTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAU TOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUT OCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTO CADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOC ADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCA DAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCADAUTOCAD

If I could run AUTOCAD at work on a Mac, I could have a Mac at work! I would settle for a fast VPC with correct acting mouse cursor.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #88 of 175
As far as AutoCAD is concerned, what if this transition encourages them to port it to work natively on Intel-based Macs?
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #89 of 175
I believe AutoCad for OSX is coming anyway....
Posted in another thread but seems relevant here too.
Is there any chance that Apple have said to Intel, we'll take your latest and greatest stuff, advertise the hell out of it for you, showcase your new technology on the best platform, which we can completely control, AS LONG AS we can have it first, exculsively, for say 3-4 months. That would help keep Apple's Intel products ahead of the other x86 rabble, whom Apple cant really compete with on price anyway.
What do you think?
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
post #90 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
It seemed that way, but he says

"we are very far along on this, but were not done which is why we;re gonna put it in your hands real soon so you can help us finish it."

They may have had OSX running on Intel in the labs, but that is not really enough to snuff out bugs and such - they need a much larger testing base. There may even be issues they are not even aware of yet.

Well from watching the demonstration I would think that Apple has the OS on Intel that is a given they have had it running for years now. He demo'ed some of the apps, and they worked. Mathmatica is not a small app so if they could port that in 2 hours then the rest is easy stuff. I don't know how the compilier handles VMX but some of that could be auto mapped to MMX. My guess is that Apple is ready all they need are apps, and the hardware. Apple will be ready by mid 2006 with all of their apps or before, my guess is that they will need the chips to test against.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #91 of 175
HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?

"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.

Where do you people imagine/exaggerate these supposed volume prices on componentry?

I assure you that builders like Dell, Apple, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc etc... are all in the same league when it comes to volume pricing. Dell has been known to make special requests for high volume, low spec parts for the bottom rung machines, but basically ALL the first tier manufacturers can get virtually the same prices, what one manufacturer can do relative to another will never be more than $50-100 difference in components.

Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.

Put those components in lovingly crafted lucite/plastic/aluminium, spec slimmer power supplies and quieter fans, and a few extra "assembly" steps to ensure the look and feel, and then the machine will cost more to build. But the components didn't cost you more than what the other guy's did. This was even true in the days of PPC, and is absolutely above question now that a common architecture has arrived.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #92 of 175
This company Merlin says they already have their project management software ready. And I think they probably did it while at WWDC. READ THIS
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #93 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?

"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.

I totally agree. If we see any price difference, it will be so minor to not be noticeable. I highly doubt, however, that we will see any price differences. I will be surprised if there is any.

Once I opened up the case of my Power Mac a couple of weeks ago after getting it last month, I realized very quickly what I spent my money on.

The entire package, hardware, OS experience, etc., is well worth the price.
post #94 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
This company Merlin says they already have their project management software ready. And I think they probably did it while at WWDC. READ THIS

Actually, the company is ProjectWizards and the project is called Merlin. It is good to hear that a lot of companies are taking this in stride and are not having such a big deal with it. I was surprised to hear of the response from the developers, but then again, after hearing of the help they are getting from Apple with universal binaries in Xcode 2.1 and other stuff, it really is not a major issue.
post #95 of 175
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matsu
[B]HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?

"Apple won't compete on price." Note the difference.
Actually thats more what I meant, I suppose I should have been clearer Apple dont wish to get into the lowest common denominator market, that much is clear. I was talking about how Apple might be able to continue to justify their higher prices, even when they have the same hardware as other PC makers, by getting it to market first with Intels co-operation. No need to get so uptight
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
post #96 of 175
nice quote numb nuts,
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #97 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
nice quote numb nuts,

whatever

Is that better?
Some people here need a chill pill thats for sure
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
Idiot, slow down....

- The Tourist, Radiohead
Reply
post #98 of 175
post #99 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
HOLY CRAP, can we stop this "Apple can't compete on price" bullshit? Now, please?

Which is not to say that Apple's machines do not cost more to build. It just doesn't cost them any more to buy the parts. Do you all get the difference? It's all the same stuff, by and large. What can cost more, and has, and probably will, is the process employed to put it all together in a way that's suitable to Apple's consumer aesthetic and design criteria.

Could you provide some evidence here. I know that Apple designes their own MBs and designed the Apple chip. On the PC side they will not need to do this, dosen't mean that they won't though. Also I thought that they were working with IBM on CPU and bridge chip design. With Intel that is not needed, I think that Intel would like the suggestions, but they really have got this down. These are costs that Apple was shouldering and I think that the slowly improving revenue from software and services helped the margins. Not saying that Apple will become the low cost provider, just that the margins could improve or the prices drop some. These are a few items that Apple may not choose to pay for themselves, and thus realize the savings.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #100 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by iPeon
Windows users.

The biggest roadblock for most PC users to switch is this very reason: They would no longer be able to run their PC apps in a Mac, apps that they have invested $$ into, apps that they are accustomed to using. This is what is stopping them from switching, most of this reasoning we know is based on ignorance about what the Mac has to offer software wise. However most PC users are feed up with having to deal with viruses, spy-ware and whatnot from the PC. The Mac now being able to run Windows, even if this means a reboot from one OS to the other, makes it feel like you aren't giving up your "precious" PC apps. This makes a potential switcher feel safe about switching.

But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).
post #101 of 175
Blizzard about PPC support and Intel switch
« The PowerPC Mac customers are 100% of the Mac installed base now and for the next year or so, and it would be foolish to upset those users. This is in line of not obsoleting products or raising/changing system requirements for them after they have shipped, a policy we have very steadily followed »

The already have WoW working on Intel machine in 5-6 hours
« I ran WoW(PowerPC) on the pre-release dev kit machine today, under the Rosetta dynamic translator, and while very glad to see that it loaded up and ran with very minor rendering glitches here and there, the speed is not yet satisfactory. So, of all our titles we will give WoW the highest priority in going native on x86. This is still an exploratory effort and it is too early to commit to any kind of date or specific plans.
I can say we got the whole game compiled on x86/OSX and had its "first launch" this afternoon - it ran into a bug pretty early on, but now it's a debugging effort and beyond the "get it to compile and link" effort. »

Source http://www.macgamezone.com/reaction/?id=3024&type=news
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
post #102 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).

That's why things like VPC should do a good trade.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #103 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
That's why things like VPC should do a good trade.

Possibly - I only know one person who owns VPC. I know it's slow at the moment (so instead of Mac users buying PCs and Macs they could just run both). I can see this argument but... neh!
post #104 of 175
It's slow because it's emulating an entire architecture. The moment it runs on x86, it will stop emulating that architecture and the extra cycles will make it snappier. Hopefully.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #105 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's slow because it's emulating an entire architecture.

Yeah I know - i just think that people who are switching will want to get away from Windows as much as possible! My best friend wanted a Mac - got given a Dell (I think her Dad wanted to spite me!). The point is when she buys a Mac she will lose OneNote but wont want to buy MS Windows to run it. She's trying to leave the windows world. It would make no sense to switch and use both. It would be complicated for most users. Remember most users struggle with one computer - let alone two on the same hard disk!
post #106 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's slow because it's emulating an entire architecture. The moment it runs on x86, it will stop emulating that architecture and the extra cycles will make it snappier. Hopefully.

Exactly Gene.

Microsoft already makes Virtual PC for Windows. This allows Windows customers to run other OSes on their Intel machines WITHOUT dual-booting, which requires hard disk partitioning and other crap that non-techies don't want to deal with. The speed of VPC on a Windows machine is at least 90% of the primary OS, because it's already running on Intel with no PPC to Intel translation.

The average switcher to a MacIntel box from a WinTel box has no interest in true dual-boot functionality. They just want to be able to run Windows software on their new Mac. Virtual PC for Mac on Intel will let them do so from inside Mac OS X, at nearly full speed of what dual-boot would allow, without other dual-boot issues and hassles. If Microsoft wants to sell a lot more copies of VPC and Windows to Mac users, they will do their best to make sure VPC on MacIntel absolutely flies on performance. They don't care WHERE you run Windows or how, as long as they get your dollars.
post #107 of 175
If windows runs on the "new" mac, why wouldn't the "ported" osx run on a windows machine?

Why not buy a pc and run osx on it?

How are they going to solve that, when you see the price difference between apple and pc computers?
Shit Happens
Reply
Shit Happens
Reply
post #108 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by drazztikka
If windows runs on the "new" mac, why wouldn't the "ported" osx run on a windows machine?

Why not buy a pc and run osx on it?

How are they going to solve that, when you see the price difference between apple and pc computers?

windows don't make hardware so don't care what computer you run it on. Secondly Apple will put a restriction in the OS so that it can't be run (easily) on Intel PCs.
post #109 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Thereubster
I believe AutoCad for OSX is coming anyway....

I wouldn't hold your breath. I have spoke with AutoDesk about this many times and they have repeatedly said, they have no plans. Take that for what it is worth.

If they were to release a version of AutoCad for intel Mac's, I would completely trash my PPC Mac's and purchase 3 new intel mac's IMMEDIATELY.

I would probably camp out on Steve's driveway entrance until he provided me with a dual core power book, double dual-core power mac, and a sweet dual core imac (all of these intel of course).

Having a MAC that can do both OS's is a good thing, not a bad thing. They will be much easier to get into the work place.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #110 of 175
I totally agree. I don't really want a dual boot if I can run VPC.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ensoniq
Exactly Gene.

Microsoft already makes Virtual PC for Windows. This allows Windows customers to run other OSes on their Intel machines WITHOUT dual-booting, which requires hard disk partitioning and other crap that non-techies don't want to deal with. The speed of VPC on a Windows machine is at least 90% of the primary OS, because it's already running on Intel with no PPC to Intel translation.

The average switcher to a MacIntel box from a WinTel box has no interest in true dual-boot functionality. They just want to be able to run Windows software on their new Mac. Virtual PC for Mac on Intel will let them do so from inside Mac OS X, at nearly full speed of what dual-boot would allow, without other dual-boot issues and hassles. If Microsoft wants to sell a lot more copies of VPC and Windows to Mac users, they will do their best to make sure VPC on MacIntel absolutely flies on performance. They don't care WHERE you run Windows or how, as long as they get your dollars.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #111 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
My best friend wanted a Mac - got given a Dell (I think her Dad wanted to spite me!). The point is when she buys a Mac she will lose OneNote but wont want to buy MS Windows to run it.

Isn't OneNote a part of MS Office 2004 for Mac? If not, there are plenty of replacements in that category of software by now. There will be for IntelMac as well.

She won't ever have to dual boot unless she needs something far more specialized, but her father will have a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that she could boot into Windows if she wanted to...
post #112 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
Having a MAC that can do both OS's is a good thing, not a bad thing. They will be much easier to get into the work place.

Won't this open up the computer to viri? Having a Mac be bootable in Windows means that all the crap people want to switch away from will still be there. Here's a question - if someone has a dual-boot Mac with Windows on it, and in using Windows gets a virus; then reboots in Mac, will the Mac side be negatively affected at all?
post #113 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Engine Joe
Won't this open up the computer to viri? Having a Mac be bootable in Windows means that all the crap people want to switch away from will still be there. Here's a question - if someone has a dual-boot Mac with Windows on it, and in using Windows gets a virus; then reboots in Mac, will the Mac side be negatively affected at all?

If you partition it then you should be OK. The virus' shouldn't affect the Mac OS Extended Format. BUT I could be wrong. The best thing to do is to isolate the Windows OS so it doesn't have access to the Mac OS volume (and can't format it)or not run windows!
post #114 of 175
I repeat, why would anyone "want" to run Windows?!?!?
post #115 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I repeat, why would anyone "want" to run Windows?!?!?

That's what I've been saying. I try to avoid it.
post #116 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I repeat, why would anyone "want" to run Windows?!?!?

Personally, the front end control software to a lot of installed embedded processor equipment will only ever run on Windows. At present I use VPC running on my Powerbook to interface to these via a USB to RS232 interface. It works but feedback (meters etc.) is slow. A 'native' VPC would solve a lot of problems and I can't tell how many people in the Industrial/Installation/AV markets would by Powerbooks if they knew they could run Windows on those occasions that it is neccessary. Similarly I run Vectorworks for CAD which is a great program, but AutoCad is the lingua franca. Being able to check the .dwg output of Vectorworks in a native AutoCad lite would be a godsend.

I don't think I am alone in the area between design and industry where many people would prefer to use a Macintosh but have to use Windows for certain peocesses. I personally know about twenty.
post #117 of 175
Ooh, 400 posts.
post #118 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Personally, the front end control software to a lot of installed embedded processor equipment will only ever run on Windows. At present I use VPC running on my Powerbook to interface to these via a USB to RS232 interface. It works but feedback (meters etc.) is slow. A 'native' VPC would solve a lot of problems and I can't tell how many people in the Industrial/Installation/AV markets would by Powerbooks if they knew they could run Windows on those occasions that it is neccessary. Similarly I run Vectorworks for CAD which is a great program, but AutoCad is the lingua franca. Being able to check the .dwg output of Vectorworks in a native AutoCad lite would be a godsend.

I don't think I am alone in the area between design and industry where many people would prefer to use a Macintosh but have to use Windows for certain peocesses. I personally know about twenty.

BUT you still don't WANT to run Windows - just have to!
post #119 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
BUT you still don't WANT to run Windows - just have to!

Yeah but I WANT to do my job. Windows capability would help enormously.
post #120 of 175
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Yeah but I WANT to do my job. Windows capability would help enormously.

No-one's disputing the need for Windows. We were just commenting that no-one wants to run Windows. They would rather their apps worked on Macs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Hands on with the Intel p4 & OS X (merged)