First Intel Macs on track for January - Page 6

It all sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?

Don't forget though that virtualization doesn't come without cost. It's like partitioning your cpu. There's a question of how efficient it will be. How powerful each partition will be.

So we could have a virtual OS X partition, and a Vista partition. Each will occupy perhaps 40% of the cpu's power. Whoop de do.

There are times when that might work well, and times when it won't.

Darwine is also great, but it doesn't run all programs, and even less games. It's a long way to all of the Windows API's, and they will have to do more for Vista. If your program needs an API that hasn't been brought over, you're out of luck. You have to write in, and hope that they will work on it. The Crossover project that coming over to OS X from Linux is great too, but it suffers from the same problems.

A VPC will work better than any of those other schemes. With the Mac on the same type of cpu, the speed loss is minimal, and graphics and sound drivers are fairly easy. Pretty close to full speed can be attained, as the other OS (X) is mostly running on idle when this is working ( I mean that it doesn't see this as a heavy workload, just another program). With a dual cpu machine, you may hardly notice the difference, while still retaining the advantages.

Dual booting, which was a very easy thing to do in X is not so onerous. If Windows will run on these machines without any schannigans, then you might get a full speed experience, with all drivers.

Each one has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Several different methods could be used on one machine. They are not mutually exclusive. Depending on what you want to do and the level of convenience for the task.

You might want to run Office on Darwine or Crossover. Games on a dual booted Windows. Drag and drop Access files from Windows Office into inDesign on the Mac OS in a VPC.

And then there's Linux.

It could be interesting.

It's a chicken and egg deal ascii. If Apple doesn't release an Intel machine, there's no reason to release Intel software for a machine that in the "real world" doesn't exist and currently has no market. Not to mention while developers can test the software on their Intel Mac developer hardware, that *DOES NOT* guarantee a stable release on whatever product Apple elects to ship. Apple launching an Intel machine will lead to early adopters who then clamor for <product name here> to be released for their new purchase. It lights a candle under developer's buttocks to get the deal done rather than sit there with their thumb up their butt. Many are already ready, just waiting for Apple to ship machines so they can run some beta tests, go GM, and ship via either update or new boxes of product.

Buying an Intel Mac early-on is not a bad deal, nor is buying the last gen. of a PowerPC Mac, it depends on what your focus is. The reason Pro machines can wait is Pro apps. are likely the last to be revealed, that is unless Apple reveals them, themselves. Many businesses can go a few years between new machines and software, and they have such $ invested in software and hardware that it's a huge transitional strategy for them. For one consumer who buys a machine and a copy of Photoshop it's not that big, but when you're talking a design department with 30 workstations and 30 copies of the Creative Suite and Macromedia Studio, Maya, et al., it becomes a much bigger investment. I expect many design houses running on G4 or even more current G5 hardware to upgrade to Dual-Dual Core machines en masse prior to the Intel announcements in the coming year and have the best of the last generation of hardware in terms of performance. That way they can eek more life out of their previous software investments and wait for the Intel releases of Adobe CS and the Adobe/Macromedia Studio to iron themselves out before going Intel.

Games will happen when they happen, they're not the big deal breaker and they'll come over time (rest assured). My bet is soon after the first Intel machine rolls out, you'll see a site like MacCentral.com posted with news items on how <game name here> was updated to Intel Mac compatibility. We've seen them have a ton of red news items before hinged on "one" products release on there as being something paramount. I think it's a safe presumption. I'd still wager on a few days afterwards before we see "final releases" but I'd not be completely dumbfounded if you see a ton of "Public Betas" of universal binary installers for a whole horde of apps. and games. I doubt if I bought a new machine that I'd jump on a beta software, but... then again you're a guinea pig for the first gen. of a new Mac hardware platform so, it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other no matter how you look at it.

I was speaking of the ratio CPU to bus data rate. It's the spec given by Apple, the famous 1,25 ghz bus for the 2,5 gh powermac (quad or dual).

It's two 32 bits uni directional busses, unlike the 64 bit multidirectionnal bus of P4 chips.

How is this relevant when the PPC970 FSB is still a parallel bus?



All of these are serial buses, which makes things a lot easier physically -- which is the whole point of everyone going serial in the first place.



Not the base-band parts, though, which is where all the digital stuff happens. You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.



... and they have been for a while. They're also huge, expensive, don't use off-the-shelf PCBs and jsut generally don't have a whole lot in common with the problem in question (i.e., the PPC970's FSB).



Way to generalize. "The difficult range" depends a lot on what exactly you want to do. There's a tiny bit of a difference between getting a microwave oven to emit a multi-GHz signal and getting a 32bit bus on a PCB to transfer data reliably at GHz speeds. Similarly, transistors with switching frequencies in the tens or hundreds of GHz have been available for a while, but that doesn't mean you can just build a CMOS chip out of them.

I am glad there are more than just a few people in the world that understand this.

They move frequency's to get into undisturbed bands without air spam.

You're missing the point here.

The design of a hi frequency circuit is similar whether it is analog or digital, serial or parallel.

The same problems exist. Whether it's a cell or a computer. Don't think that because one circuit is different from another, there is no convergence between them, because if you do, you'd be wrong.

All hi frequency circuitry has capacitance problems, parasitic interference, length of line problems, etc. A %10,000 scope has more in common with a computer than you think.

A microwave oven has nothing to do with what we're talking about and will just confuse the issue.

This doesn't sound or smell fishy at all. It has been common practice fo ryearas for Apple to introduce new hardware after the holiday season in Janurary. I know this because it has been a frustration of mine for years.

In reality it makes sense that Apple will go this route as it fits previous patterns. Frankly though I'm still up in the air as far as which product will actually be introduced. It seems to me that the Mac Mini would be very high on everybodies list as Intel ought to have a very nice chip set available for that possibly with integrated video. Not htat integrated video is all that great but for the Mini could actually increase performance over what it currently has.

The other reality and possibly a motivation for the foucus on portables is that a dual core portable will be a hot item at the begining of the year. A VERY HOT item and I believe Apple wants to be on the uphill curve here.

Dave

At this opint I think it is a mistake to think that games or apps even matter for this first release. Early adopters, developers and others won't really care at all about the availability of Apps and especially games.

Considering that the rumors focus on just one laptop and one desktop this might be why Apple is taking this route. That is get REAL hardware into the hands of the people it most matters. See at first it makes no sense at all that the iMac would be targetted but then you think about it a bit and you realize that it is the ideal desktop machine to go Intel first.

Dave

Here's what the stickers on your new macs will look like...

http://www.matbe.com/actualites/1177...os-chez-intel/

And wizard's right, for the early adopters, give 'em Safari, iLife and iWork and they should be good to go.

Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...

The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.

edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.

Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.

Here's some info about Crossover and wine. This is about the Linux versions, but it's likely that what he says can apply to a great extent to Mac's as well.

Steven says that he will either get back to me, or do a column on them for the Mactels. I just asked him to do that today after reading his article.

He's one of those well known Linux promoters who have, during the last year or two, moved over to OS X as well. He, therefore, has an interest in both.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1886920,00.asp

I agree about the consumer situation. That's what I think Apple should be concentrating on first.

What's interesting here is that I've been questioning PC people about this for months now, and have gotten some interesting answers.

First. People who know about the switch don't seem to care, or think it's going to be a big deal.

Second. Many people still don't know that Apple is making the switch ( though they do since I've told them).

Third. And this is the really interesting part. Many PC people think that Apple is using Intel's chips NOW!

There are only Linux versions. CrossOver Office is WINE in steroids. It's an implementation of WINE that has a nice GUI.

I think developers will continue to make app's for Mac OS X, because I think that apple will allow all PC makers to use Mac OS X in the near future. That is the next big transition. It is the right time (when Vista will be launched), as PC users will have the choice of either buy a new PC to run Vista, or simply buy Mac OS X.5 to run on their PC.
In 5 to 7 years from now, apple will probably have around 5-10% of computer market share, and 20-25% of OS marketshare, more than Linux.
That's my thought!!

I'm not to sure about that as I've heard the opposite.

There is also the bit about the iMac, just why would Apple want to go backwards with respect to 64 bit capability on the machine. The laptops 32 bit only is not a big deal especially for a first go around. However on the desk top alot of system capability exists that would be hardw for many to give up just to use a 32 bit processor.

If the iMac scoop is true I suspect that there will be 64 bit capability there. Intel could very well be keeping a few features close ot the chest with respect to Yonah or a variant. Or "Merom' could simply be moved up for early release.

Then the possibility that the whole thing wiht the iMac is wrong and another 64 bit processor is being used. I certainly don't know my self but I just see a huge marketing issue if Apple drops back to 32 bit here.

Dave

Hey we agree on something!!!!!

Really thouhg the people whining about software are just silly. I gave up on commercial software years ago due to issues with MS and now run Linux exclusively, Much of the concern about software just isn't sane. No one with specific software needs is going to run out and buy the first Intel Mac that comes out. Just won't happen.

In case you are wondering the interest in Apple is directly related to OS/X and a laptop. If it wasn't for the transisiton thing and then the very good things I've been hearing about future Intel hardware I would have ditched the thought of an apple PPC machine. Instead I'm still interested. So maybe Steve's Intel switch is a good thing.

That and a few other tools. I would love for Apple to get with RedHat and to offer up a native Eclipse platform like Redhat has for Linux on OS/X. But that is a special interest request. I'm sure that Apple will release the Intel machines with everything that an early adopter or developer would need as Intel code. i.e. The important stuff that makes a diffference will be Intel objectcode.

This is how I see it, good native tools for the developers and good native tools for early adopters. Now I'm not going to say that everything will be native but the things that matter to these groups will be.

In any event I hope to be in a position to buy soon. That is a way bigger frustration as the local economy has took a huge dump.

Dave

http://darwine.opendarwin.org//

I haven't gone bak and verified this but I think the original poster was technically correct. The clock rate on the bus is (on some machines) one quater the clock rate of the CPU. The actually data transfer rate being higher due to transfers on the leading and trailing edges of the clocks.

Or so I seem to recall. It would be a considerable engineering feat to get a 1.5 or 3 GHz bus to work on a standard PC board. Not that there hasn't been considerable gains made here just that the PIE bus isn't one of them.

Dave

The mechanical clock (for want of a better way of saying it) is 1/4 speed. The bus is then double pumped to 1/2 speed. Then each directions' traffic is 1/4 speed. Add them together and you again have 1/2 speed.

I've heard this argument a lot on this board, but I don't think it really applies at this stage in the game. Where is 64-bit required? I know Mathematica has libraries that use it, etc. but looking at Apple's Pro apps, like Aperture and Final Cut Pro 5, both of those can be used on the 32-bit G4 processor. In addition, as I understand it, Mac OS X is not a "64-bit OS" in the sense that the UI layer, etc. is 64-bit. My understanding is that it's a 32-bit OS with 64-bit libraries that can be used on the proper CPU.

I might be mistaken, but (if I'm not) I don't see any problem with Apple releasing a 32-bit iMac, at least until Merom comes out. I doubt there would even be a marketing issue, as most users who would buy the iMac probably don't have any concept of 64-bit versus 32-bit...

Mr. Dirk

64-bit support in an iMac with 1 memory slot is silly. Large memory access is a staple of 64-bit computing. The extra bits have to go somewhere and without fast memory 64-bit support is there to placate some geek who wants to brag about his/her computer.

What apple say :
From the Apple Technical overview PDF file :

So for me 1,25 ghz compared to 2,5 is 1/2 ratio.
Note that Apple do not say that the bus is double pumped here. The DDR is double pumped, but the memory bus is between the CPU and the memory controller, not between the CPU and the RAM (in this case : direct link, the dual pumped thing will be mandatory).

64 bit in an iMac is good PR, and the processor is doing better Mhz-wise than the G4. And the chip is probably just as cheap.

(Sorry if this was Intel plabber, too lazy to read the thread)

"Intends to port" and "WINE is here for OS X" are not the same thing.

Darwine has yet to have a "nice GUI", at least as I would define it. Currently it uses X11, thus you have to deal with an extra layer of ancient display server protocols if you want to do rudimentary tasks such as copy/paste or even input control. I know this because I wrote what is currently the quartz driver for Darwine, a project that got stalled because of poor documentation for Win32 and WINE. I may resume development if I get some coding support.

Darwine already runs on OSx86 and can run some simple windows apps.

Darwine poses a risk that windows developers will use it to port their crappy windows apps instead of using Carbon or Cocoa, or not bother porting at all. This matters less for apps which aren't meant to interact with anything else like games, but it is worth mentioning. I don't want the Windows API to become even more entrenched, and I certainly don't want people to believe it is a viable multi-platform API. Incidentally, I would say the same thing about Qt and GTK.

Darwine, which is, of course, based on WINE, will also have the same crappy compatibility level as WINE does, so don't expect miracles. WINE is a constantly evolving beast where most users have to debug their apps to make them run, often using nightly WINE builds. The "stable" version of WINE is merely there for kicks and giggles.

I never said that "it was here".

I said that it will be here. Crossover, which will be here as well, will be more useful.

Don't forget that Wine for Linux will always be in a perpetual state of beta. at least 75% of all Windows programs don't run. They are only interested in getting some of the big names to work. If others can piggyback theirs onto that, fine.

Read the link to eWeek I posted.

I agree with that. Linux users love the problems they have getting things to work. It's part of the bragging rights.

Well, no offense, but after the whole "my cordless phone works at several GHz" argument, I tend to think that that statement actually applies to you...



Similar maybe, but the complexity differs by orders of magnitude.



Of course the basic issues are the same; we're talking about physics, after all. It's just that the complexity of coping with them varies enormously depending on what exactly you try to do.

As an example, your typical run-of-the-mill serial bus uses LVDS with embedded clocks. As such, you can by definition never have bits coming in early or late, and don't have to worry about piecing them back together in the proper way -- which just so happens to be a huge deal for high-speed parallel buses.



Yeah. But just because it's feasible to hand-tune every trace on a simple MMIC doesn't mean the same applies to the complex, multi-layer PCBs found in computers. It's a totally different order of complexity.

In any case, whether you believe me or not, the point that nobody in the industry uses GHz-speed off-chip parallel buses should kinda tip you off to the fact that it's a lot less trivial than you seem to think.



Well, if I'm not mistaken, it was you who brought up the "my phone runs at GHz speeds" point...

This is just the writer's being sloppy (which does seem to be rather common these days). As is clearly stated in the PPC 970MP user manual, the processor bus is double-pumped.

You mentioned different versions, which implied that there are non-Linux versions. There aren't.


Hardly, seeing as Crossover is just an implementation of WINE with a GUI.


Of course they are, as the benefit of getting thousands of small Windows apps to run would be minimal. People want IE to test their pages on, Word for that file OpenOffice can't open (rarely) and they want to run Photoshop and perhaps iTunes (in Linux). Nobody cares for the entire library of Windows-compatible apps because there are very good replacements for them.

And CrossOver = WINE with a GUI slapped on it. I don't see how that is "more useful" in running those 75% of other applications, unless you mean that people can use a mouse now instead of typing words for programs to start. Yep, useful as hell.

Oh, so you helped develope Darwine, which is based on WINE, but don't seem to know that there is no "stable" version of WINE yet. It's in Beta, and the version is 0.9.

Yep. For kicks and giggles alright.

Most linux distributions have a 'stable' fork with a copy of WINE.

There's a huge difference between having a 'beta' copy which runs, and a nightly build which may not run depending how good a day you're having. I wouldn't say WINE is even in a beta stage, not even those "fc" copies you're invited to download from the official web site.

yes... we must come to terms that a lot of tech specs advertised is pretty much stupid and irrelevant for joe schmoe. but if you want your mac to sell against a Dull, you have to have some numbers so that joe schmoe can look at it and say, oh, okay, it has what Dull has and it looks a bit nicer...

remember that a big part of apple's target market is joe and jane schmoe, not it managers, not gamers for example, which have a cult following view of AMD (and rightly so, i say!! )

That doesn't make WINE itself "stable" - as you claimed.


Totally irrelevant. You claimed WINE has a "stable" release and that it isn't stable at all, and then you admitted it's in Beta and "not even in a beta stage". WINE just got out of Alpha, been there for several years, and now it's in Beta. But as with any Beta software, it may crash, stop running or kill your dog.

But you should know that already, being a developer and all.

I'm not going to get into a pedantic argument with some obtuse schmuck lawyer when any reasonable person would have realized my point was how unstable and incompatible it is.

Oh no! I meant WINE as found in 'stable' distributions and not a stable WINE fork! SEND THE HOUNDS!!!

Speak of the devil: PC Magazine details a columnist's experience building and booting a Mac OS X, Intel system.

"Interestingly, iTunes 4.9 asked us to update to version 5.0so we did, and that ran correctly as well. We took things too far when we plugged in a Motorola ROKR E1 phone (what can we say? It was lying around) and attempted to transfer music to it. The developer build doesn't have drivers for the E1, unfortunately. This makes sense, of course, since the build was completed before the E1 was released to the public. We probably tested this combo even before the folks at Apple."

hahahahahahahah yeah, PC Magazine iss waaaayyyy ahead of apple and all the other osx86'ers

Yeah, it's just going to be SO easy to run OS X on generic PC's. By the time the MacTel's do come out, imagine how much more difficult (if not in fact impossible) it will be to get generic PC HW to work with OS X (i. e. I think this is also part of Apple's strategy to negate generic PC OS X'es, release, revise, repeat as necessary). Imagine, arguably the leading PC trade pub, with their inhouse guru's, needing how many outside people, how many man hours? Finally, isn't this arguably ILLEGAL?

Now if I were a l33t piratez, I just might keep my mouth shut UNTIL the production MacTel's are released, then and only then would I get the word out. Basic human nature, people talk, loose lips sink ships!

I just can't imagine a scenario where a HW vendor (i. e. MB vendor) constantly releases new MB's for each update to OS X (wherein each new OS X release breaks all previous generic PC HW). Apple legal would be all over this one! So even if a few thousand hackerz get OS X to work, so what, Apple's done their job, they've limited the damage to a VERY small fraction of the potental market. And arguably, those hackerz weren't going to PAY for ANY SW to begin with in the first place!

Yeah, the OS X hackerz, they are really FREE OS X beta testers! It's the "Crack OS X" contest, Apple pays ZERO dollars for you to troubleshoot their SW. Given Apple's proprietary nature and de facto history, all I can say is that I'm ROTFLMAO!

No, if anything the article just shows how difficult it's going to be to get OS X to run on one specific HW platform, let alone ANY HW platform. Maybe that's their point?

heh. maybe its the old-skoolers at pcMag tryin to get some madd rezpectz yo.... even though, yes, as you pointed out, they are a few light-years behind the 8 ball and the bit about "someone handed us an [Os X86] Tiger build on an external drive" made me crack up with laughter. to which i say, WTF? well somebody just violated their NDA big time by handing Os X86 to a major magazine that then published their testing or maybe pcMag got it off some pansy that got it from bitTorrent who's set up to take the fall if apple comes knocking, lawyers in tow.

"ive installed tiger on an inspiron 6000

no wifi, no scrolling, no power managemnt, no external mouse, overall pretty bad and useless.

as for osx itself, totally not worth the hassle of getting it installed. functionally provides nothing over xp, and wont be compatible with many of your apps."

This was a post at a message board I frequent from a PC user. This is exactly why Apple needs to provide a stable supported version for non-Apple computers. An unstable pirated version is exactly what the PC industry will see. They will tell everyone they know about their experiences with the hacked version and expect it to work just as badly on Apple's own computers. Casual Mac buyers will hear this and not buy the Mactels as a result. Apple cannot enjoy the same proprietary advantages on x86. They either need to go all the way or stay with an ISA where this is not a problem.