or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › First Intel Macs on track for January
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First Intel Macs on track for January - Page 4

post #121 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Actually I was just refering to installing Windows on an Intel Mac as if it were a PC in a dual boot configuration. There is no reason to worry about people doing that at all.

The Windows-in-a-VM thing might be... but I don't think so. The developers who are likely to drop Mac development because of it are going to be the ones doing a louzy job of Mac development in the first place, so it won't be too much of a loss. Hell, their software might even work better under a VM. There will still be a market for quality native Mac software, and this market is likely to grow over the next couple of years while the importance of supporting the PPC hardware is still foremost in developer's minds. Remember, it is likely to take 5 or more years before the x86 installed base outweighs the PPC installed base.

It's really hard to say what will happen. don't forget that for several years, Apple allowed booting into either 9 or X. Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot.

It's just not out of the question. The only question about is; how many will do it? That depends on who they are, where they're coming from. and how much it's worth to them.

Look, I hope that most of those people will be like me. I WILL get XP, and later Vista. If I can do an install, I will do it.

I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.

Everything else will be Mac hardware and software, just as it is now.

But that can't be guaranteed for those whom I don't know. I do know some PC users who have told me that they will buy some Mactel or other, but mostly for Windows. They want to try out the Mac, and they like the machines (though they think they cost too much), but they are Windows people. They will have the Mac for the same reason we will install Windows, for those programs they can't get on a PC. Interesting reversal.
post #122 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.

I didn't mean for the purpose of buying a Mac to run windows. Was that the question there? I though we were just talking about the reliability and lack of bugs that the first gen would be likely (or not) present.

but since you mention it...

I don't recall Vista reguiring 2GB RAM. 1 GB should be enough unless you use programs that do require it. That would be the same for OS X. 512MB is enough, but barely. If you run a program that needs more RAm, well?

All 64 bit OS's need more RAM. A few people don't sem to think so, but general agreement on that is pretty widespread. Whatever Vista needs, OS X will also. We really don't know how Leopard will up the requirements either.

You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.
post #123 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It depends on how far from the Intel platformisation product Apple have drifted. I can't see them being too different.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.

I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.

We'll see.
post #124 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by WelshDog
I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.

We'll see.

While they might change their minds, Schiller didn't just say that windows could run on these Macs, he said that Apple wouldn't do anything that would prevent it from running.

I do wonder if Apple will be using EFI from the beginning though. Someone here said that XP won't run with EFI. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then Windows won't run directly until it does support it, which might mean Vista.

As EFI is an Intel technology that Intel has unsucessfully been trying to get PC makers to standardize on, Apple using it wouldn't exactly qualify as doing something to prevent Windows from running. Right now it's used under IA-64.

But we'll see.
post #125 of 452
Go Apple Go!!!!!!!
post #126 of 452
Ok kids, here's one I'm sure you will all like to see.

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/...9235916,00.htm
post #127 of 452
I really can't see Apple shipping a machine that uses BIOS, and i don't think that they will be able to boot into windows. Of course, I could be wrong.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #128 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
We are, of course, ONLY talking about MP aware, ot mutliply threaded apps.

I wouldn't agree that X is better inthis area that Windows. I think it's a toss-up.

When Vista and Leopard arrive it will be more interesting. XP, at this point in time, is a lame duck. It should have gone two years ago.

Of course, the point I was making is still valid because the Opterons have a much better memory system than the G5's. The onboard controller gives them a big boost up over the Mac's well known memory latency problems. The fact that Apple is so conservative with its memory specs doesn't help.

If Apple had gone with DDR2 667 RAM instead of the 533, it would have made a big difference. The lack of advantage of DDR@ 533 over DDR 400 is well known. The best that can be said for it here is that in Apple's design, it would help "somewhat". IBM finally added to the caches. But it's been said that the 970 really needs 2MB per core, especcially in a system where two cores now share one memory bus. Cache adds little to power consumption, but helps reduce the effects of the poor latency problems we see.

So onboard controllers plus 4 channels to external RAM and bigger caches, will help a quad Opteron system to outperform the Mac Quad.

I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.

It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
link

Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.
post #129 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.

It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
link

Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.

Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.

DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.

The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.

Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.

What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.

The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.

We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.

And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.

but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!

That ratio is 1:1.

That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!

If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.

This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.

Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.

Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.
post #130 of 452
Yeah, what AppleInsider writes makes sense. I have blogged why, and the key lies in Apple's 64-bit Intel roadmap and how to get there .
post #131 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by tatle
Yeah, what AppleInsider writes makes sense. I have blogged why, and the key lies in Apple's 64-bit Intel roadmap and how to get there .

Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.

First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.

But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.

As the iMac is now a 64 bit machine, I don't see any advantage in Apple moving it over to x86 early if they;

1. have to go to a Pentium 4 or other current or just coming out chip, none of which is highly regarded, and is very power hungry and hot.

2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.

The last thing is that Intel does not want its laptop chips being used in full size and performance desktops. It's made that clear.
post #132 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.

First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.

But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.

2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.

My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.

To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.
post #133 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.

DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.

The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.

Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.

What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.

The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.

We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.

And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.

but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!

That ratio is 1:1.

That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!

If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.

This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.

Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.

Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.

So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.

For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.
post #134 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by tatle
My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.

To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.

Intel will never make a 64 bit Yonah. that is strictly a 32 bit design. It will be replaced mid to late 2006 with the Merom, which WILL be a 64 bit design.

2. The one problem with those thoughts, and you aren't the only one having them, is other than perhaps the iBook and the Mini, it can't be garranteed that people won't use pro apps on an iMac, or any other Mac. It's being done all the time now.
post #135 of 452
Looks like the database broke down again.
post #136 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.

For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.

It's not just for me. There are others who have said the same thing. I suppose that tomorrow, after I get some sleep, I can link to some of that, if you like.

The memory controller is spec'd for that. It's in the docs. It's supposed to be able to work up to 3GHz full bus speed. Unless the chip doesn't work as well as it should. But that is a whole 'nother story. If they really had to, they could always put a small fan on top. The machine, as a whole, has so much airflow that it could easily accommodate that. Look how third parties put two more HD's in the case - right in the flow of the cpu's and memory. so far, there have been no reports of overheating because of it. I would think that they could take care of the memory controller, if they had to.
post #137 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
I really can't see Apple shipping a machine that uses BIOS, and i don't think that they will be able to boot into windows. Of course, I could be wrong.

Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.
post #138 of 452
Windows is so primitive. It depends on its BIOS. Or does it?
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
post #139 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by french macuser
Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.

Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.

Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.

Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.

On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.

And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.
post #140 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Glamingo
Windows is so primitive. It depends on its BIOS. Or does it?

Of course not. IA-64 Windows has no BIOS and I'd guess the CE variants don't either, BUT, I bet you the X86 versions do to boot so getting it to boot without some kind of boot loader won't work.
post #141 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.

Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.

Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.

On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.

And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.

It just means, that it will not officialy support Windows. So if windows suck on it don't call Apple.
post #142 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
So if windows suck on it don't call Apple.



That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.
post #143 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by PB


That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.

Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running. However, they won't let legacy Windows support (e.g. BIOS) hold them back either.
post #144 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running.

I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).
post #145 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't recall Vista reguiring 2GB RAM. 1 GB should be enough unless you use programs that do require it. That would be the same for OS X. 512MB is enough, but barely. If you run a program that needs more RAm, well?

You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.

The system requirements were reported here. 1GB might be usable, but nobody wants a system that's just usable. That's on top of OS X, assuming Vista is run as a VM within OS X.

The other system requirements, especially the display card, may make Vista run like a slug on Mactels, since I doubt Apple hews to the Microsoft requirements. That basically could mean Vista, even on an Intel processor in a Mactel, would be hobbled like VPC on a PowerPC.
post #146 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).

The saving grace might be Apple's legendary tight-fisted control of hardware. With only a tiny number of Mactel configurations to support, hackers might be able to strip out all the unnecessary garbage Microsoft needs to include to support a zillion different configurations, producing a leaner, cleaner Windows for Macs.
post #147 of 452
I wouldn't load Windows in any shape or form on my brand new Intel Mac when i get one in about 3 years.

3 years eh? Imagine the jump up I'll get from this little ol' iBook to whatever is going at the time. When Leopard arrives I'll max out the RAM in this thing and let it take me on to my next big purchase.

I wonder what the PowerBooks will hold for me in 2008?

This is a very exciting time.





However I don't think the rumour is true, we'll just have to wait till iChristmas in January to find out.
iBook G4 1.2GHz 512MB 10.4.2
3G 15GB iPod
512MB iPod shuffle
Reply
iBook G4 1.2GHz 512MB 10.4.2
3G 15GB iPod
512MB iPod shuffle
Reply
post #148 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by ascii

Experience tells us (Virtual PC etc.) that emulators are no good for games. If Apple wants to release Intel Macs as early as January, they need to send an army of engineers over to the game companies to help them. [/B]

Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.
post #149 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by skat
Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.

Yes, with a virtual PC for intel mac OS X, will run at full speed windows game. Because unlike emulators, there is no need or translating a code to an another. Virtual PC already work on PC : it allow to have several Windows working in the same PC
post #150 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I do wonder if Apple will be using EFI from the beginning though. Someone here said that XP won't run with EFI. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then Windows won't run directly until it does support it, which might mean Vista.

Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #151 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.

We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.

And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.

but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!

That ratio is 1:1.

That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!

If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.

This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.

Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.

Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.

The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller
post #152 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by smalM
The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller

No the current ratio is only 1/2, but the memory controller of the G5 is 2 bidirectionnal 32 bit busses moving 4GB/sec in each direction for the G5 dual 2 ghz.

The 1/3 ratio is used for the Imac.
post #153 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.

I have feeling more people than you would expect. Some people truly believe Windows is better than MacOS X. As misguided as these people may be, some of them may like Apple's design and want to run their favorite OS. Just think, if you are a die-hard Windows user, wouldn't you like to have iMac with iSight running Windows? Apple should be happy to sell them the hardware (funny part will be, Windows running on Apple Computer may be more stable than Dell or HP computers).
post #154 of 452
There will be websites dedicated to running Windows on Apple's x86 hardware. While I think it will be possible, I don't think it will be easy to do. I think installing Windows on Apple hardware will kind of be like installing a new hard drive into Apple's current PowerBook line-up. It's a lot of work, and there are some risks, but most people will opt not to do it.
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 #155 of 452
I my self am a full round Apple Fanatic and my B-day is after January so i am very happy with the outcome. I would love to see a powerbook with i sight that would be so cool. And then it will come with ohoto booth for sure. When will the new operating system coming out any know? Awneser my Question.
post #156 of 452
The motherboard being EFI-only isn't going to stop Windows from being run. It may prevent Windows XP from launching natively off the hardware, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that if MacIntels are EFI-only, someone will write a compatibility box (VirtualPC-lite) that will load a BIOS on top of it, and Windows on top of that. (There are several x86 emulators that can run Windows for the PowerPC, and that sure doesn't have BIOS. And one for a MacIntel wouldn't even need to emulate the processor instructions, so would be pretty speedy.)

I'm still curious about the possibility of emulating a 64-bit EM64T instruction set on an IA32 chip. Write everything to the 64-bit API and ship it on a 32-bit chip with "emulation" until the hardware catches up. Many of the instructions are the same except for the extra room for 64-bit, so it would be a pretty shallow emulation.

Regardless, despite the fact that MacOS 10.4 is still largely a 32-bit OS, I think the 64-bit question is the biggest one in my mind blocking an early Intel migration. I'd be as happy as anyone to see it (even if they had to use a Pentium D,) but 1. Mac users have come to expect 64-bit, 2. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, 64-bit has performance advantages, 3. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, moving to 64-bit isn't binary compatible, so starting on 32-bit is setting yourself up for ANOTHER transition soon.
post #157 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
On Intel, unlike PowerPC, moving to 64-bit isn't binary compatible, so starting on 32-bit is setting yourself up for ANOTHER transition soon.

I think Apple has probably already planned for this. After all, they had been covertly running OS X on x86 all of its life.
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 #158 of 452
My $.02:

Personally, I can see no benefit to Apple for a Mac being able to run windows programs natively: development for the Mac will slow to a trickle, as developers cut costs and so forth. I just can't see an advantage. (Who was the mystery poster about David's stone and "Rosetta" in "Riddles from the past?" -- ah, those were the days.... )

I can also see very little advantage to making the casual user able to install a bootable Windows natively on a Mac; unless Apple is supremely confident that it's OS will win the battle of the comparisons inevitably seen by an end-user of such a monstrosity. Software will be the real kicker here; booting in and out of OS's would really be a pain, and the one with the most software will win... and Windows has that battle sewn up. Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?

Running Windows in a window seems the only plausible solution to me, one that has the advantage of winning the comparison war (when it inevitably gets annoying, the user can always just quit out and return to the safety and solace of their Mac). Yet still, I see peril for software development here.

Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.

In short, it seems to me that Apple has to be very, very, careful of the hand they play, and must guard its cards religiously. For it seems to me they will be entering a much larger arena with much larger stakes, and a much larger population of potential enemies.

Or for another metaphor:

Here there be monsters.

Hope springs eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #159 of 452
Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard
Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.

Neither have I. Which is why I think in, say, three years time, You'll be able to buy an OS X 10.6 box and install it on any retail or hand-built Intel or AMD beige-box.

They will be taking MS--the biggest, baddest monster of them all--head on. Apple can invent all sorts of silly, underhanded ways to keep itself in an isolated niche. If it does, I don't see much hope-->the iPod halo will fade and Apple will enter another period of crisis.

If it takes up the gauntlet, things will get very interesting. Apple has never been stronger, and MS has never been weaker. Vista is a ways off, its hardware requirements are mindboggling, and average users (in my experience) are really ticked off at the spyware, malware, adware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that plague their computers.

Apple on the other hand has a ton of good will right now. It's awash in more money than it's ever had. It is now an expert at making awkward transitions smooth and graceful (68000-->PPC; OS 9-->OS X; 32 bit-->64 bit; and now the mother of them all). And for nearly every "indispensible" MS app, there's an Apple alternative:

IE-->Safari
WMP-->Quicktime/iTunes
MS Messenger-->iChat AV
(Media Center-->Front Row)*
Outlook-->Mail/iCal/Address Book
Access-->Filemaker
PowerPoint-->Keynote
Word-->Pages (kind of...)**
Excel--> (nothing...yet?)**

*Ok. These are dispensible, but you get the idea.
** Yeah, I know. They need a spreadsheet program and Pages is an expensive beta release. But this is why Apple billed it as "Building a successor to AppleWorks" (emphasis on the "-ing") and not as "Delete MS Office now."

The writing is on the wall. Apple is preparing for what is probably a worst-case scenario: war with Microsoft. With the Intel transition, Apple will lose the protective hardware coccoon it has incubated in for decades. It was safe, but it couldn't grow too big either.
post #160 of 452
Originally posted by melgross
..... Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot......I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.



yes, definitely. spot on mate. if i get an iBook pentiumM or powerbook Yonah in 2006, dual booting into windoze will be for precisely the above reasons. i wouldn't care if i have to play quake4 on low settings at 800x600, at least i can roll a bit of quake4 every now and then. to satisfy my curiousity.

oh, in general, my feelings for 2006 is pentium Ms are a very capable mobile platform, i don't mind if its not Yonah for the first portable offerings ~ but anyway, apple is still finalising their strategy i'm sure. there are pentium M prototypes running full tilt in skunkworks, its just a matter now of hammering out the next-gen intel cpu pipeline and apple being total bastard pricks to make sure they don't get shafted ever again (ala their experience with moto, freescale, ibm)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › First Intel Macs on track for January