Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple - Page 7

While I would sell a kidney for a quad core intel PB, I doubt it'll come with Yonah, unless Apple wanted to make considerably larger PBs. If I recall, the top end Yonahs are what, 25-30W a chip? 50-60W of heat output seems a bit high for an ~ 0.75-1.1 inch thick laptop to me.

hence the flight of fancy i mentioned. i was flying quite high.... yeah, the only way it would be possible is some sort of 30W max power three- or four- cores on one die :: a secret not yet revealed anywhere yet except in a "i'll show you mine, you show me yours" session between iSteve and Paul Intelollini

look, it was just mainly for the graphic mockups yeah, you know, it flowed well, iBook CoreSolo iBook CoreDuo, PowerBook CoreQuad...........

Hey, man, I can dig it. If only it were true.

no worries... i'd like to have both my kidneys though at the moment

To me, it seems to look behave a lot more like the WordPerfect Suite of the very late 90's. I use WP Suite 8 and I adapted to OO.o easily. My sister is familiar with the Microsoft Office family and had a hard time with it.

I won't use Microsoft's Office product simply because I have better things to do with my money than spend $300 per computer to do something that I already can easily do that's already paid for.


Does the flexibility of the various Linux UIs make the system easier to use and easier to maintain? So far, it doesn't seem so, even with the latest iterations. Last time, with the latest Fedora Core, I upped the screen resolution limit for a new panel and the control panel applet suggested that I log out or restart the X server to see the changes. WTF? I had similar arcane experiences with recent SuSe. I'm rooting for Linux, I use it for a server, but for desktop use, they need serious usability improvements, IMO.

I know we shouldn't crosspost, but I thought this article from Infoworld was interesting enough to make it worthwhile.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8030/

Yay i'm steering the thread even further off into space. But I wanted to say I agree with how you stated of linux being used for desktop use. Unfortunately you are completely correct. IMO they need to rewrite X in order to have it compete with windows / apple in a mainstream way. But then again who is they =). I like linux. I'd rather use it than windows to be honest. But it is just lacking in certain compartments. This is why I have to have a mac. The CLI in windows is not strong enough to use full time. You can't easily cut / paste. You can't resize it easily, You can't have process apps like tail constantly running (glad they made a GUI app that works like tail in windows). All these things just make my job harder. Linux can do everything the mac can except 2 things.... Fireworks / Photoshop. I think it would be in Adobe's Best interest to sell these apps for Linux. But for now... an apple desktop (preferably an intel) will do. And I say preferably intel because the intel desktop I have from ADC is working like a charm. It does what I need it to for being a backend web dev.

The fundamental problem with Linux is the programming methodology of its users. Don't design, just hack.

Amusing book on the subject of how UNIX went wrong:

http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

who said irony is dead?

those guys had no idea what was to become of mac os...

Huh?

I don't think even perl could parse that last sentence. In case you're suggesting UNIX evolved beyond its past faults, think again.

Instead of writing a 360 page handbook, they could have started work on a new OS.

To be used by as many people who use NewOS, Hurd, BeOS, and NiftyOS combined--namely no-one.

BeOS Had potential... just not enough backing :-/

But OS X has obviously been the strongest UNIX so far... and you say faults... compared to what? What faults?

Potential to do what?

Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.


I take it you haven't read the book.

Everything has strengths and faults.

The question is; which predominates? And for whom?

Considering those purchasing mainframes were managers who didn't need to use the machines, the answer is: Whatever is cheapest and can get out the door soonest, working or not.

Not when it comes to mainframes it isn't.

That's the pc business you're talking about.

True. While Windows has a maintainability issue, and Linux has a usability issue, I think there are significant defficiencies in OS X that need to be handled.

The network code in OS X could use help, same goes for the task handling, and there's memory use, on all counts I would say that OS X is third place of three contenders.

As for the network issue, if a program like iTunes tries to do a podcast update, it can easily peg the CPU even if the response hasn't come back yet. So the computer is blowing cycles as load instead of idlling to wait for a server response. The Windows version of iTunes does not have this problem.

For task handling, I see the spining disc far too often when switching between tasks. The computer seems to sit there before following through with the requested operation. I do have plenty of memory, about three times what I typically need on a Windows or Linux computer, with some free, but I still get the spinning wheel. Even simple things like widgets waste memory, a single widget usually takes 15-30MB of memory despite being what should be a much smaller program.

I would agree somewhat on the first, more on the second, but very little on the third.

Networking on the Mac has been pretty good. Most of the efficiency issues have been fixed. The main problems are indirectly related, such as Windows shares, etc.

Task switching has been, and still is to some extent, a problem. A lot of these are finder related. Until Apple rewrites the Finder these problems will remain. There are other issues as well, but mostly they aren't much of a problem.

As far as memory goes; this is something that isn't always an OS problem. Widgets, Safari, etc., are program related. Sometimes they are the result of memory leaks. So, I guess you could say that it is memory related, but not OS related.

Windows also pounds the HD pretty hard. They have more memory problems than the Mac does. Opening too many programs or windows can freeze the machine. The more programs open, the slower it goes. We don't have those problems. There are others as well.

Both OS's need a lot of memory, and Vista will need more.

Windows also gets slower each version, while X gets faster. While some say (and in some cases correctly) that X was slow to begin with, the fact is that the two are going in different directions.

As far as Linux goes, it doesn't have nearly as many services to begin with. The proposals for the new kernel have been so negative, that so far it hasn't gone anywhere. The fear is that the services being proposed will slow it down such a great extent that it will feel bloated.

By the way, Linux these days already feels bloated. It's become a more common complaint.

Welcome to the world of the "modern" OS.

The book is an outdated rant by a bunch of gents from the MIT AI lab and the long defunct (deservedly so) and terribly over the top Thinking Machines Corp. At the time it had it's place and was valid. And you can take that seriously about after about 8 computing generations? Now it's about relevant to OS X as a Model T owners manual is to a Lotus Elise.

It's got to be bad! It still has a steering wheel and internal combustion engine! I hate it!

The fundamental design of the UNIX toolchain, administration, security design (or lack thereof), file system, and design philosophy are unchanged (run until it breaks then hack it to the next iteration).

You make it sound like UNIX has fundamentally changed since 1969. The only thing which has changed has been the number of bug fixes.

You could make Windows bug-free and it would still suck.

I have as much of a problem or more so with OS X doing this than I do with Windows. I do agree that Finder needs serious work. I think it sucks and blows, even Window's File Explorer is more useful and responsive to me.

To add another issue, I get a hard system crash maybe every other month with OS X, I have not experienced a BSOD in Windows that wasn't because of faulty hardware, I think I get one every other year.




Dashboard is part of the OS, as is Safari, or at least Apple promotes it that way. It is on the OS install CD. The memory use of widgets I state is for widgets included with the OS. The way it looks, there aren't any small Dashboard widgets, I think likely because the Dashboard system is inherently inefficient.

Interesting that of the 5 HW systems InfoWorld lists, only the ProLiant uses AMD (Opteron) CPU"S, yet the corresponding text (7 paragraphs) NEVER mentions Apple (PowerPC) or IBM (Power5), mentions Sun (UltraSPARC) once, Intel 12 (P4/Xeon) times, and mentions AMD (Opteron) 18 times (you can count yourself and correct me if I'm wrong). Did I miss something at InfoWorld?

It does appear that Yager will be writing a full review of the Quad G5 in the not to distant future (based on an InfoWorld blurb dated 12/20/05).

strobe = trollie?

So if *NIX sux, and if *doZ sux, and the rest of the *OS sux, I guess were left with Strobe's OS (nee SOS)? Please strobe, give us the Cliff's Notes on that piece of crap (circa 1994 for dog's sake). Written by the fine folks at MIT (read that as, I don't care one bit what some ivory tower academics (partircularly from MIT) think (IDCOBWSITAT), thank you)? If so, then WTF is MIT doing promoting the hand cranked GreenPC lappy, which runs *NIX? Now don't that sux?

EVERY OTHER MONTH!!! You sure that's not an exaggeration?

That sounds like a serious problem. My last hard system crash in OS X was two years ago.

If I had the problem you're having I would be on Apple until they either fixed it or replaced it.


Dashboard and Safari come loaded in the OS. But I would say they are not appart of the OS in the sense that they can be trashed or turned off without affecting functionality in the rest of the OS.

Dashboard is not as efficient as it could be, but Dashboard is a great deal better than Konfabulator in hoarding memory.

I didn't say I read the book. Thats why I ASKED YOU to tell me what hte book said the faults were. I know a lot of about the history of unix. Short of going into the whole story, the main reason its not THE mainstream OS is because no one had rights to it and everyone rewrote it... therefor there wasn't ever a solid release that all software would work with. That doesn't mean there can't be one now.

Far as BeOS... it was a solid system for its time. If it had the backing it could have been a contender of today.

So I repeat... why don't you enlighten me and tell me what hte book said the faults were.

So what is your point here? If everything sucks then why use a computer?


Starting to think that mahself...

I don't think strobe is a troll. He does have a critical eye out as regards computer OS design and human interaction.

Oh great, just what we need -- another OS. Besides, step 1 of creating a new OS should be to understand what is wrong with the existing one(s), which is what they did.

I recommend reading that PDF to anyone who thinks that Unix (or any of its derivatives) are perfect. Or to anyone who likes to evangelize a particular Unix-based OS. If there is an equivalent document for Windows, I'd recommend that to anyone who likes to evangelize it.

It is useful to remember that these complex systems contain many tradeoffs, good decisions, bad decisions, out-dated decisions, etc etc etc. Nothing is perfect, and if you went out and created a theoretically perfect OS it wouldn't be perfect in practice because it would be yet another OS in a world that already has too many of them. Not to mention that each individual has a different interpretation of perfection.

Wouldn't step 0 be to understand what is RIGHT with the existing code(s)?

Writing a new OS with any market potential would be very difficult due to the lack of any native software. It would need a 'Grey Box' to run a UNIX environment.

Writing a new OS from scratch would be an enormous undertaking, and would only be worth it, IMO, if some fundamentals were changed.

For example I think the UNIX toolchain ought to be done away with and instead a new one written which incorporates the source, debugger, and runtime/binary in one unified environment.

I would also build the new interface from this IDE-ish platform. This would scrap the application/program metaphor in favour of writing middleware which works with other code at an API and IPC level as opposed to a file format or char stream. This leads to my third suggestion:

Scrap the file metaphor and the filesystem along with it.

Yes, this is a very non-UNIX way of doing everything, and I'll defend each one of these design decisions in as non-troll a manner as possible.

I reserve the right to use the term 'UNIX weenie' however

All I have to tell you, party peeps is that it would be awesome if Intel themselves designs and builds the boards for powermacs.
I've been building PCs for at least 10 years and all of these 10 years, Intel has built the most reliable, stable, and compatible boards bar none, IMHO. When I want to fool around and overclock then I'll go with Abit, DFI, ASUS... but when I want high performance, and rock solid stability, I always go with Intel and I've never been disappointed.

I'm sorry, but criticism for the sake of criticism does no one any good! It needs to be constructive, if it's to have ANY purpose. Sorry, but this isn't the same as your opinion on the movie Catwoman, these tools are much more than just for entertainment value. Last time I checked, NONE of these modern OS's are (or were) written by ONE person. They are all just TOO BIG.

Design by committee, try it, it takes a lot longer, but the results are always much better than any one person can ever approach. And think about a single individual taking on the task of actually writing a modern OS from scratch. With the existing pace of HW evolution, it will never happen, it'll just take too long, and in the mean time the HW playing field has changed dramitcally.

Which leads into the thorny subject of code modification, do you patch existing code or rewrite large sections (or the entire thing) from scratch? The usual path is the one of (apparent) least resistance (i. e. patch versus complete rewrite). Thus the state of *NIX (and *OS's) to date.

Maybe that's what has taken Vista so long to get out of the gate, who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.? things WILL be much improved over what we see today?

I prefer to see the OS glass as half full, and not as half empty as a certain individual! Its one thing to talk-the-talk, its a WHOLE 'nother thing to walk-the-walk!

WTF, are you trying to steer this thread back on topic? Please read the AI FAQ, once a thread goes off topic, it STAYS off topic .

Oops!

If you want to defend ANY of YOUR opinions, please provide suitable links (by established authorities (AKA peer reviewed literature))? Otherwise, please don't waste our time on YOUR opinions!

Yes, well all those things you said, I believe also about the undertaking of an operating system.

For the strobe, I could but wonder what all was on his mind, given his various comments on such things. But now he has said several things that were on his mind about an operating system, and so I would not say that he is just trolling along at all, rather has things about an OS on his mind, however keen his critical sense.

Last time I checked, this was a news/discussion/rumour site, and so if one has thoughts about the Mac, and its OS, then that someone is free to express them.

just wanted to say, it kind of sucks cause intel is more win made, and amd and powerpc are for unix

Sure, just as we can give our feedback on his views, that he posted here himself. I don't think anyone here is saying the UNIX layer under OS X is the be-all end-all of perfect software. But the PDF he loves was written for one reason and one reason only - to get folks to not use UNIX because the authors HATE it. And not only that but it was published in 1994 indicating it was written (along with the LispM/Sun references) over a period starting in the mid 80's.

UNIX does still have those ugly tools available if you wish to flog yourself with them, Linux does too, but I haven't needed them in 5 years of OS X and I am a Computer Scientist/AI researcher. Sounds like a whole lot of long-OBE noise to me.

OBE == overcome by events for those not familiar

Actually, I'm quite curious about what all strobe is talking about in his most recent post (the 3 OS rewrite items), seeing as most of his rants are COMPLETELY over my head! However, as my sig suggests, "Nature abhors a vacuum," meaning his ideas HAD to come from somewhere. Is he the only one in existance to come to some earth shattering conclusions on OS design, I don't think so! And since he "seems" to be so knowledgeable on the subject of OS design, one would think that he could give a few links on said subject. And IF strobe were truely knowledgeable on the subject, then strobe should already be in one or several refereed journals! So like I said, its put up or shut up time, walk-the-walk NOT talk-the-talk!