or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 348
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...
post #42 of 348
Quote:
...custom microprocessor chip-set that would appear only in Apple systems...

I wonder if this is another way that Apple will prevent other x86 boxes from running OS X while still maintaining compatibility with a base x86.

Hey, if they convinced IBM to graft a Velocity Engine on to a POWER chip, why not convince Intel to do something custom for them?
post #43 of 348
Electrostatic plastic stickers. Pull off and discard with no residue.
post #44 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
We've had a big thread about this on ARs. It's amazing how something this unimportant can garner so much chatter.

So true. Just look what replies you got here.
post #45 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by sc_markt
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...

Since when Motorola AND IBM dropped the desktop and laptop ball, Apple had hardly any choice to do otherwise.
post #46 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
PPC's have instructions that are used in OpenFirmware. x86 chips do not. Therefore OF can't be used on the new machines.

This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.
post #47 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Actually if Apple wants to include firewire it won't be a problem. Intel has their own chipset for firewire, or they can use Apple's. Intel's chipset for firewire is top rate, just like Apple's.

I wasn't aware that Intel had integrated firewire into its Pentium chipsets ?
post #48 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by sc_markt
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...

Well, in reality...it is all shades of gray. Is Apple a hardware company? Software company? Both?

First...Apple doesn't (really) build computers. They design, package and market them. Apple has outsourced manufacturing for some time now. Recently they got out of the business of designing (or at least co-designing) CPUs. This latest news suggests that Apple is experimenting with outsourcing the design of motherboards, etc. If it goes well, what would stop Apple from contracting Intel to design even more of their boards? Probably nothing. So, then...Apple isn't doing anything but specing the hardware design, creating the packaging (nice looking cases) and creating the software (OS, et al).

Second...hardware is worthless without software. So, from a certain point of view (and not really a "tortured" one either), Apple is a software company that simply packages and sells their software (primarily an OS) differently than Microsoft does.

Third, it is not unheard of for Microsoft to "dictate" (or at least strongly suggest) a base level of PC (hardware) features and functions. You could say that Microsoft has outsourced everything (below the OS).

So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.

Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:

- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy

Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).
post #49 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.

Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:

- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy

Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).

YES...This is what I have been saying for a long time, and it is only a matter of time before the OS is sold without hardware, Yes, you will still be able to get the great hardware that Apple designs, but for those of us who arent fucking millionairs, we will be able to spend $1500 and a weekend and have a system that likely would smoke apples $3000 unit out of the box (considering Apple ships their units with the bare minimum HDD and ram.)

Apple will have deals with the vendors, but they will come out a year later and say "well, our deal with dell/lenovo/hp is going just great, but the OS image is all over the internet and there are many people using it illegitimitly that would gladly pay for it were it not tied to hardware, so here it is, OSX shrinkwrapped for any x86 box...and it is $249, with subsequent updates being $129"
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #50 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.

I meant x86 machines, and the rest follows below. I should have been clearer.
Actually, it's the device tree. The Intel Macs don't supply a complete device tree. (From Apple's developers' Guide, pg 52).

If you can find any reference to any cpu other than ARM, PPC, or SPARC, I would be interested to know, as would the OFWG.

Now, here's the interesting part. While in theory, any cpu or bus can work, in reality, it can't.

"The architecture is independent of the underlying instruction set, bus, operating system, and so on. However, the core requirements and practices specified by the standard are augmented by platform-specific requirements. For example, processors such as PowerPC and SPARC, or buses such as PCI and Sun's SBus, have their own requirements and bindings. The union of the core and platform-specific requirements provides a complete firmware specification for that platform."

This is the reality.

EDIT: Sorry, the area between quotes is from:

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/

Bolding is mine.
post #51 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by troberts
I do not know how reliable "The Inquirer" is but they are running a story that Intel is going to drop the "Intel Inside" logo for a new one. If this is true then maybe we will see it during start up when the hardware is getting checked and then the Apple logo will appear while the OS is starting. Doing this could keep stickers off the case while still advertising Intel and it would have the benefit of only being seen when booting.

Their new identity is already done.




The new branding system that goes along with it in addition to the new logo will be launched to the public in an ad campaign early in the new year.

the new logo is a really nice refinement.
post #52 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Nine-Seventy
Please please please no 'Intel Inside' stickers

I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.

<ducks>
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #53 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by cinder
Their new identity is already done.




The new branding system that goes along with it in addition to the new logo will be launched to the public in an ad campaign early in the new year.

the new logo is a really nice refinement.

It's said to be released January.

Hmm, just in time for the new Mac's?
post #54 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.

<ducks>

The only ditty I got was my Amazon page.
post #55 of 348
Quote:
lets not also forget that Intel also offers marketing dollars (several hundred million, if Im not mistaken) to [computer manufacturers] who display the 'Intel Inside,' 'Pentium,' and 'Centrino' logos on their hardware," Margevicius added. "I would expect Apple to do the same."

HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #56 of 348
Check the bottom of your ibook or powerbook now. Apple has logos for the FCC, CE, VCI and another logo etched into the case. I assume that the "intel inside" logo will just be alongside these on the case. Nothing to worry about. Anyway, if they do put stickers on - theyre just stickers! They peel off
post #57 of 348
I don't think a lot of the article is reliable in the first place. It doesn't make much sense when PowerMacs are the Apple flagship workstation. The processors suggested would not be in a position to compete with other workstation class computers using a pair of some form of dual core XEON. Unless I missed something, and BOXX, and Alienware do not intend on using the most powerful processors possible in their next generation workstations then I wouldn't expect to see anything less in a PowerMac.
My 2¢.
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 #58 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
When do I get my Quad Woodcrest Powermac?


Unless intel is doing something drastic to the XEON that would make it obselete for high performance systems I just wouldn't expect see a Woodcrest, or even a Clovertown in PowerMacs. After Apple, and Nvidia finally made a quadro available I can't imagining Apple trying to go to market with a workstation that was second tear performance rated compared to BOXX, and Alienware.
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 #59 of 348
Of course Apple is a software company!

While it may be nice to visit the days of the 1980s and the early 1990s, when keying hardware to software was a process that demanded years of preparation and planning, the process is just not that difficult these days.

So, we have processors that are several orders of magnitude more powerful than those of a few years ago and can easily perform, in software, what once took specialized hardware. Remember the intro of MPEG2 encoding on software a few years ago. How we went from it taking 24X the time to only 2x the time? Note how Apple had the chip designed to do certain maths very, very well, and had the details of what that math did in software. Create some chips with some very powerful built-in functions, then create softwware to supply data to those functions. Not perfect, but a very good way of pushing the processing into the realm that you can change on a moment's notice: software.

Your Mac is almost a PC now, anyway, except for the cpu and the mobo and the chips required for them to work.

Remember Jobs' comments months before Apple bought NExT: that he would ride the Mac for all it was worth until the next big thing came around.

It is not at all out of possibility that Apple may move out of computer hardware completely.

What was the path taken by NExT before Apple snapped it up? I think you'll see similarities.

This is Jobs last chance to really compete against Windows, to show that the Mac OS really is superior and have the marketplace agree. Don't, not even for a moment, think that Jobs is above such an in-your-face fight. Hell, he doesn't even have to win. Just getting 7-10% of the market would be enough to get Apple-compatible software, etc on store shelves alongside Win stuff.

And, don't think for a moment, that Jobs wouldn't take Intel with him on that journey. Intel hates being captive to MSFT. Linux is a joke for mass appeal. Apple's competition on the same platform would make MSFT easier to bargain with and give Intel room to move the platform forward at their pace, not MSFTs.

just my 2 cents tho
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #60 of 348
I thought this was going to be something new. We've been saying this was possible for months.

I take all of these reports from reliable sources with a grain of salt. Until Steve stands on stage and declares them the truth.

As far as the Intel stickers. Come on Jobs is not going to allow Intel stickers.

But being over looked is the fact that the processor is already prominently displayed on Apple laptops. Embossed under the screen is displayed PowerBook G4 or iBook G4.

The future is likely to see embossed in the same place PowerBook Intel Duo or iBook Intel Solo. In a clean font with a neutral color.
post #61 of 348
All of our "production" boxes run Linux. Most employees use a Dell Laptop running Go Global to access them. With its Unix foundation, Mac OS X integrates seamlessly into this environment.

Over the next 3 years, Apple must continue to improve Mac OS X and make it an attractive platform for developers and end users. It certainly is today.

Some of my favorites are the little things the ease at which photos move from Mail to iPhoto, hooking up a new digital camera and importing photos without a hitch, not having to deal with Norton Anti-virus. Im spending this holiday with my wifes relatives mostly PC users. It seems like everyday theres a new crisis on somebodys PC laptop.

It doesnt really matter how Intel-based PowerMacs come into existence as long as they continue to advance the same value-proposition that previous generation Macs offered. It probably makes sense to put the Intel sticker on the box if it comes with marketing dollars and lower prices. Dell is all over cable advertising its PCs.
post #62 of 348
Quote:
This transition is all about Apple joining the mainstream. Apple hardware will be just like everyone else's.

Quote:
This is Jobs last chance to really compete against Windows, to show that the Mac OS really is superior and have the marketplace agree.

These are HUGE risks. Don't take Microsoft so lightly. Apple won't grow marketshare just because it tried.

Microsoft has the size, resources, and patience to dominate which ever market it chooses. Microsoft has defeated companies which had a better position in a particular market which MS has entered late. Microsoft has defeated companies in their own markets with inferior software.

Because of Microsoft's size and resources it is able to refine mediocre software until it is good enough to overwhelm and take over a market. This has just happened recently with Palm.

The operating system is even more daunting because it is a market that Microsoft overwhelming owns. MS will fight tooth and nail to hold its dominance.

Apple has to exocute its Intel transition near flawlessly. Any misstep could cost Apple marketshare. Any weakness Dell, HP, Microsoft will be able to easily exploit.

Apple needs to stack the deck in its favor as much as possible. Macintosh and OSX have to be widely percieved as better than Dell and Vista. Apple cannot be the same as everyone else - it has to be better.
post #63 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Unless intel is doing something drastic to the XEON that would make it obselete for high performance systems I just wouldn't expect see a Woodcrest, or even a Clovertown in PowerMacs. After Apple, and Nvidia finally made a quadro available I can't imagining Apple trying to go to market with a workstation that was second tear performance rated compared to BOXX, and Alienware.

How about the fact that all of the Xeons are being phased out? Do you want another Netburst chip? Around the middlw of next year the Netburst chips will be gone.

The performance of the Xeons is nothing to write home about. They are outclassed by the Opterons. The replacements are supposed to be better. The Conroe is the first of these replacements, as it is coming out earlier than expected (as is Merom). Woodcrest is just the lower power rack mount server version.

Of course if guys want to wait for both the Silverthorne and the Hapertown, be my guest.

You're syill living in the PPC dreamworld. Two G5's still don't equal two Xeons, but they're close. They fall further behind two Opterons.

Conroe will better this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/17/intel/index.html
post #64 of 348
Unless you are a member of Apple Hardware assigned to the industrial specs for the motherboard up to the chassis this article is a waste of time.

Apple will design the prototype with manufacturing aide from Intel.

Apple will Quality Test with aide from Intel.

Apple will certify motherboard stamp out with Intel doing the manufacturing.

Apple will contract their case they design and certify, along-side cooling systems (with aide from Intel) and finally Apple will contract another company to assemble the necessary parts once they have passed all hardware stress tests, heat tests, power dissipation tests etc.

Intel will prosper having cutting edge systems they have never been able to produce that are aesthetically appealing (something else Intel really has never been concerned with) and continue to make their margins on chipsets and now a specific line of motherboard exclusively manufactured with the joint efforts of Apple and Intel.

Bottom line: Intel suggests, Apple has final decision and Steve goes through iteration after iteration until they are no longer, "Shit." When Steve is satisfied along with the rest of the Industrial Design, Hardware and Software Engineering teams then the last hurdle is Marketing.

Steve knows this and will, in parallel, work with Marketing to nail down a campaign that isn't, "Shit."

When all ducks are in a row, "Steve will present."

END OF SPECULATION.
post #65 of 348
I should have added this one as well.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051011-5416.html

Clicking the Woodcrest link at the bottom:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050823-5232.html

Explains this further.

also, clicking the "bizarre speculation" link on the top of THIS page gets to what some here have been arguing with me about.
post #66 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Unless you are a member of Apple Hardware assigned to the industrial specs for the motherboard up to the chassis this article is a waste of time.

Apple will design the prototype with manufacturing aide from Intel.

Apple will Quality Test with aide from Intel.

Apple will certify motherboard stamp out with Intel doing the manufacturing.

Apple will contract their case they design and certify, along-side cooling systems (with aide from Intel) and finally Apple will contract another company to assemble the necessary parts once they have passed all hardware stress tests, heat tests, power dissipation tests etc.

Intel will prosper having cutting edge systems they have never been able to produce that are aesthetically appealing (something else Intel really has never been concerned with) and continue to make their margins on chipsets and now a specific line of motherboard exclusively manufactured with the joint efforts of Apple and Intel.

Bottom line: Intel suggests, Apple has final decision and Steve goes through iteration after iteration until they are no longer, "Shit." When Steve is satisfied along with the rest of the Industrial Design, Hardware and Software Engineering teams then the last hurdle is Marketing.

Steve knows this and will, in parallel, work with Marketing to nail down a campaign that isn't, "Shit."

When all ducks are in a row, "Steve will present."

END OF SPECULATION.

And, this is new information, because?
post #67 of 348
I think the whole point is that NONE of this is new information. This thread is just so much panty-wringing.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #68 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by zunx

Unfortunately Nothing you mentioned below has anything to do with Intel designing the motherboard. We are very likely to suffer through the same old stupid Apple design tricks that make their professional hardware a bit of a joke.
Quote:
Great news:

- Cheap Mactels.

- Mactels with great PC features like double DVD drives & more VRAM.

- Quiet Mactels.

- Frontal connectors.

- Virtualization to switch from Mac to Linux to Windows. Wow! That alone will sell many Mactels and boost market share!!!

As for the Intel sticker, it does not matter at all. It is absolutely irrelevant to me. A want a great OS inside a great cheap feature-rich hardware.

Don't get me wrong folks I think there is potentially some good to come from this. As has already been mentioned Intel designs some of the better motherboards out in the real world. The BIG BUT in this case though is that they are contractors to Apple here. This prety much means that Apple will have a hand in the feature set. Hopefully we will see innovation beyond the standard intel chips set, but even there I think it is a stretch.

Dave
post #69 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I meant x86 machines, and the rest follows below. I should have been clearer.
Actually, it's the device tree. The Intel Macs don't supply a complete device tree. (From Apple's developers' Guide, pg 52).

If you can find any reference to any cpu other than ARM, PPC, or SPARC, I would be interested to know, as would the OFWG.

Now, here's the interesting part. While in theory, any cpu or bus can work, in reality, it can't.

"The architecture is independent of the underlying instruction set, bus, operating system, and so on. However, the core requirements and practices specified by the standard are augmented by platform-specific requirements. For example, processors such as PowerPC and SPARC, or buses such as PCI and Sun's SBus, have their own requirements and bindings. The union of the core and platform-specific requirements provides a complete firmware specification for that platform."

This is the reality.

EDIT: Sorry, the area between quotes is from:

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/

Bolding is mine.

The "reality", as the documentation you reference suggests, is that Open Firmware for x86 would need some amount of chip and chipset-specific code to run, not that it's impossible to use Open Firmware at all. At some level every abstraction needs to be grounded to its specific environment. The paragraph you quotes COULD have just as easily stated "processors such as the PowerPC, SPARC, or x86, or busses such as PCI, SBus, or PCI-Express, have their own requirements and bindings." It's just that no one's ever put Open Firmware on x86 yet.

This debate is irrelevant, of course, because it's pretty apparent that EFI is the way to go here.
post #70 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
I think the whole point is that NONE of this is new information. This thread is just so much panty-wringing.


You're right about that. But until Stevie gives his speech, we're going to be doing a lot of it.

And in the years to come, with the confusing nature of x86 cpu and supporting chip lines, not to speak of the "AMD Question", we'll be doing more of it than we ever have in the past.
post #71 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
The "reality", as the documentation you reference suggests, is that Open Firmware for x86 would need some amount of chip and chipset-specific code to run, not that it's impossible to use Open Firmware at all. At some level every abstraction needs to be grounded to its specific environment. The paragraph you quotes COULD have just as easily stated "processors such as the PowerPC, SPARC, or x86, or busses such as PCI, SBus, or PCI-Express, have their own requirements and bindings." It's just that no one's ever put Open Firmware on x86 yet.

This debate is irrelevant, of course, because it's pretty apparent that EFI is the way to go here.

Not impossible, but highly improbable, given that Intel and MS would have had to support it, and there was simply no way that they would have. And now, it would have to be Apple and Intel.

I've been saying that Apple will likely use EFI for months now. So I certainly agree with that.

And, yes, it is irrelevent. But my post was in response to a question.
post #72 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
Actually, the last official news I heard was that it hadn't been decided. The current transition docs state that a developer cannot depend on OpenFirmware being there, but developer mailing list have stated that: 1. No one wants BIOS, 2. People who aren't familiar with EFI prefer OpenFirmware, 3. People who are familiar with EFI prefer EFI. That makes it sound like EFI will, barring any major engineering obstacles, be the likely winner.

I don't think there's any fundamental limitation in EFI that would prevent target-disk mode. (In fact, I think the capabilities of EFI are more or less a superset of OpenFirmware.)

Well, EFI has, from what I understand, all the features of OpenBoot, but without any of the draw backs of BIOS or OpenBoot.

As for verification - there are many things one can do, in regards to the motherboard, to make life difficult for Joe Hacker; EFI is flexible enough to make life difficult, and couple that with a piece of hardware or two on the motherboard, I don't see installations occuring without massive hoop leeping involved in the installation with buggy/dodgy reliability to follow.
post #73 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Unless intel is doing something drastic to the XEON that would make it obselete for high performance systems I just wouldn't expect see a Woodcrest, or even a Clovertown in PowerMacs. After Apple, and Nvidia finally made a quadro available I can't imagining Apple trying to go to market with a workstation that was second tear performance rated compared to BOXX, and Alienware.

Your post seems self-contradictory. I'm not sure what point you are alluding to, something is missing somewhere.

If a computer is going to be sold as a legit workstation with Intel chips, it is pretty much accepted that it has to have Xeon chips. Woodcrest and Clovertown are codenames for future Xeon chips. The way your first line is written, its logic seems to claim that the only way Xeons would be used in Macs is when they are obsolete. That doesn't make sense.

If you are intending to suggest that AMD be the supplier of chips for Powermacs, I don't think that is a likely option for any of the first generation of x86 Macs. The Intel chips are currently lagging a bit in the high end, so it appears that Apple may have gone with the "loser" if it wanted the fastest chips available. That determination still depends on the performance of the new microarchitecture, as I don't expect to see Netburst based chips in Macs. On the up side, it wouldn't be running into supplier problems as it appears that AMD simply can't make enough chips to fill demand.

Also, for anywhere other than the emblem, only the first letter in Xeon is capitalized.
post #74 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by heaven or las vegas
I wasn't aware that Intel had integrated firewire into its Pentium chipsets ?

Firewire is NOT 'Integrated' into the Chipset!!! BUT, Intel DO put Firewire chips on their motherboards these chips are connected to the PCI bus. There is a distinct difference here.
post #75 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Your post seems self-contradictory. I'm not sure what point you are alluding to, something is missing somewhere.

If a computer is going to be sold as a legit workstation with Intel chips, it is pretty much accepted that it has to have Xeon chips. Woodcrest and Clovertown are codenames for future Xeon chips. The way your first line is written, its logic seems to claim that the only way Xeons would be used in Macs is when they are obsolete. That doesn't make sense.

Just to get my 2¢ in on this conversation I googled the woodcrest to see what I would find, and all I read was that Woodcrest was not a P4, but a PM like processor. The article I read never said it was going to be a replacement processor for the Xeon systems.
All I keep seeing/reading in here, and at the AI main page, and post is that these are desktop processors. Which in turn lead me to believe they were typical desktop processors. Like maybe an iMac level processor at some point. But if this is the new powerhouse from intel I'll be first to praise them when I see it in a PowerMac.

But now I'm wondering about the Dual core XEON that is due in first quarter of 2006 that isn't using the Lindenhurst server chipset? They will be using a new chipset called Twin Castle. I think the Dual core MP XEON processor is code named Tulsa, (based on a processor that was codenamed "Potomac") and has hyper-threading which makes a dual core processor look like 4 processors. Being that it's an MP processor two of them (like workstation powerMacs have) would seemingly appear as eight processors.
It doesn't look like they are phasing them too far out. And AFAIK those (Woodcrest and Clovertown) are not new XEON codenames.
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 #76 of 348
Originally posted by heaven or las vegas
How will this impact support for firewire ?


don't go there. (as in i am saddened by news of lack of firewire400 in mainstream apples, and loss of firewire on all the ipods even and especially ipod video 30gb and 60gb)
ps. can i have heaven AND las vegas?
post #77 of 348
Originally posted by melgross
You're right about that. But until Stevie gives his speech, we're going to be doing a lot of it.....And in the years to come, with the confusing nature of x86 cpu and supporting chip lines, not to speak of the "AMD Question", we'll be doing more of it than we ever have in the past.



yonah has put to rest any AMD Questions we might have for first half of 2006 \ let me know if you need me to elaborate...
and if intel starts sampling 45nm before the end of 2006, well, lets say 2006 and 2007 will be non-AMD years for apple...

PS.
<total sidetrack>anybody tried 64bit Source: Lost Coast yet?</total sidetrack>
post #78 of 348


Great news! Apple can definitely compete at the high end, high volume purchase of CPU's from Intel (lower costs versus the likes of Boxx, VooDooPC, et. al.), lower MB R & D and MB HW costs. Price a Boxx or a BYOB using a high end MB (Tyan) and 2 Opteron 285's, plus the rest of the system, compare this to a Quad G5, guess who wins?

Of course it will run Vista, of course it'll have some kind of Apple proprietary IC's (Intel designed).

How it boots, I don't care, how it looks, I don't care! It'll still be a Mac, inside AND outside!

But I would like it to look more like this,



than this,



Memo from Apple to Intel:



Reply from Intel to Apple:



Memo from Jobs to Gates:



Reply from Gates to Jobs:



Big Show (nee Gates) versus Mysterio (nee Jobs), winner TBD!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 348
holy f**** i want what you are smoking mate
post #80 of 348
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
holy f**** i want what you are smoking mate



Just havin' a LITTLE fun with the image button, that's all!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple