Unix OSs tend to run faster, time will tell. Ask a few NeXTies, they are around here.
However, Microsoft has been writing for Intel for a very long time. I have serious doubts that Mac OS X will be faster than Windows on comparable hardware for throughput benchmarks. This is not to say that OS X will be a dog; however, honestly, benchmarks are mostly meaningless except particular application performance for those who use it (say Maya, etc.).
Anyhow, don't believe that Microsoft just compiles and says, "there you go." They optimize the hell out of particular aspects (mostly those that relate to server throughput and graphics with DirectX). In these aspects, Windows tends to beat Linux even (for database and web throughput), and Linux is probably the current king of x86 performance.
We all like to deride Windows (because it truly is a terrible environment to work in); however, once they had fully shed themselves of DOS (with the Win2k transition), they had a strong kernel to build from that will continue whenever Longhorn comes out. It is still fun to deride it though.
You have too much faith in the average user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
My take on the difference between OS/2, BeOS and NeXT compared to the current Mac OS X/Intel strategy is that Apple is making and selling boxes while IBM, Be and NeXT just sold operating systems for x86 systems.
That's probably the one thing Jobs learned from those failures. To be successful, Apple will need to continue to sell boxes, and the difference between Apple's boxes and x86 OEM boxes will be Mac OS X and Apple industrial design.
That's the primary difference.
Also, quite possibility the most important factor, we can't forget that in 2005, the killer app is the Internet while in 1995, the killer app was Microsoft Office. That means Apple just needs to maintain browser, IM, and media app parity to be able to compete and survive. Having Mac Office on x86 is also really important as well, but I don't think it is as important as it was in 1995.
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Apple will still be designing at least part of their motherboards. I'm pretty sure they will be MacCentric, and probably one of the failsafes on how they will keep OS X off any DELL, or other x86 Box.
Faster than 2.7 Duals in some apps, already. Wow. I am so happy Apple made this move.
Thats what I thought when I saw the demo that steve did. I've played around with the dual 2.7- and steve's demonstration of iPhoto and Spotlight seemed lightning fast. There was always a *tiny lag on the G5.
It is interesting some of the coments heard about performance. Since I'm not up to speed on what was implemented in the test systems I have to ask did they have SMT working?
SMT could account for some of the snappynest being talked about on all the MAC forums I've seen lately. The other consideration of course is the far superior intel integer performance.
It's not SMT that is giving the UI a more snappier feel. It is the better memory performance and OOOE, expecially on the integer code.
Quote:
SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
75% of the CPUs Intel will sell in 2006 will be dual-core processors, including the laptops.
OK which statement is the one that you are going to stick with.
To compete Apple will have to reduce their margins as they are the highest in the computer industry. I know the prices are competitive (but not competitive enough) but they still have high margins. The iPod also has high margins but manages to compete very well in the MP3 market. Where's the contradiction?
Thats what I thought when I saw the demo that steve did. I've played around with the dual 2.7- and steve's demonstration of iPhoto and Spotlight seemed lightning fast. There was always a *tiny lag on the G5.
IMO the Pentium Macs here are pretty nice, but they certainly don't perform better than the DP2.5GHz Power Mac I have. It's more on par with the 1.8GHz iMac G5 I have.
Keep in mind though that there aren't much other than the standard system loaded on the machines.
IMO the Pentium Macs here are pretty nice, but they certainly don't perform better than the DP2.5GHz Power Mac I have. It's more on par with the 1.8GHz iMac G5 I have.
Keep in mind though that there aren't much other than the standard system loaded on the machines.
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
We have no way of knowing at this time. However I believe OSX will be slightly faster than Longhorn. Unix base, smaller footprint, optimised Core technologies. OSX will only require optimising for probably only three or four different processors, Longhorn has to run on all of those existing PC platforms or everybody goes ballistic at having to buy new PC's (or they just don't upgrade, like most businesses of the past five years).
Remember the oportunity for brand differentiation has narrowed slightly and the opportunity for comparison has expanded greatly, so you can bet your ass Apple will ensure that OSX runs smooth as silk on Macintel.
theres no doubt Apple will do their damnedest to make sure OSX on Intel runs as fast or faster than Longhorn on the same PC, esp. with the Core technologies, I can see it happening. Core graphics is almost at the point of using the Graphics card as a co-processor, and I hope Core Audio will allow hardware acceleration using the Intel HD audio codecs. So theres everry reason to think OSX can be faster if Apple gets it right. thats a big IF of course.....
theres no doubt Apple will do their damnedest to make sure OSX on Intel runs as fast or faster than Longhorn on the same PC, esp. with the Core technologies, I can see it happening. Core graphics is almost at the point of using the Graphics card as a co-processor, and I hope Core Audio will allow hardware acceleration using the Intel HD audio codecs. So theres everry reason to think OSX can be faster if Apple gets it right. thats a big IF of course.....
But, I have no doubt that speed and optimization is Apple's big focus with this right now. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.
That is pretty much server performance related only. I'm not sure if it mentioned it in the article, but the PowerPC helped alot with those problems. Could be one reason it hasn't been fully resolved yet. It's going to be 2 1/2 years before the Xserve goes to Intel, so they certainly have time to iron out those issues.
All we know at this time is that Apple announced publicly that they will
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.
This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.
But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.
Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?
I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
The one thing that I have consistantly heard is that people won't want to by an Apple box because it is also x86. or that if it can run Windows, why have it run OS X.
Being a Mac Person myself, stuck with a piece of crap Windows box, I can tell you it is more of the other way around. Let me explain:
a) People won't want to buy because it has an Intel processor. Ok, I'll be nice with this one. For the vast majority of users out there, whether it has an Intel Processor or an IBM or even Motorola one is irrelevant. Most users don't care. Why should they?? All they want is for it to be fast, and for it to work doing email, on IM, browsing the internet, etc. All of this Windows talk really becomes irrelevant, because the assumption is people want to use Windows. This brings me to point 2.
b) If it can run Windows, why be on OS X? This one is very simple. The majority of people HATE Windows. It is poorly designed, hard to use, and sometimes very criptic on how to do something. The real question is "Why won't they run OS X?" Simple, OS X has the best integration out there for the end user. Install an application lately? Either you use a simple installer (in which it does almost everything for you), or you drag the folder to the location you want it to be. Similar with Windows, right?? Now, uninstall that application. For the Mac users, you throw it away, and you are done. Windows is another headache. And don't even get me started on Linux installs... (And I love Linux)
My point in this very long rant is that many feel that Apple is doomed. Apple is not doomed, and this wasn't a bad decision. For software porters, you have some valid concerns. However, even then the concerns are more fear than anything else. It is still stemming from the fact that people will WANT to switch to a crappy OS, or run one in emulation, instead of running it natively. That is just not the Apply way of simplicity and inegration.
This is what everyone needs to remember, Apple stands to gain more here because of the fact that hardware prices will go down, due to supply, and that they are now on the same level playing field as the rest of the PC industry. They won't lose because Windows can be ran on it, or that it is now an x86 processor.
The one thing that I have consistantly heard is that people won't want to by an Apple box because it is also x86. or that if it can run Windows, why have it run OS X.
...
This is what everyone needs to remember, Apple stands to gain more here because of the fact that hardware prices will go down, due to supply, and that they are now on the same level playing field as the rest of the PC industry. They won't lose because Windows can be ran on it, or that it is now an x86 processor.
I am a bit confuse by your post! I am positive about the move. Negative about the potential loss of interest from developers but as long as Creative Suite works I am happy! I am looking forward to getting my next PowerBook (probably 2008 - I bought one this year).
All we know at this time is that Apple announced publicly that they will
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.
This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.
But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.
Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?
I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
once again re-defining cutting edge performance.
Where did you hear that it would take two years to deploy Mac OS X for their pro configurations??
Comments
I know a few desks in my office that *would* install Macs - IF you could easily run Windows only Apps like Sage and Prism.
Originally posted by Brendon
Unix OSs tend to run faster, time will tell. Ask a few NeXTies, they are around here.
However, Microsoft has been writing for Intel for a very long time. I have serious doubts that Mac OS X will be faster than Windows on comparable hardware for throughput benchmarks. This is not to say that OS X will be a dog; however, honestly, benchmarks are mostly meaningless except particular application performance for those who use it (say Maya, etc.).
Anyhow, don't believe that Microsoft just compiles and says, "there you go." They optimize the hell out of particular aspects (mostly those that relate to server throughput and graphics with DirectX). In these aspects, Windows tends to beat Linux even (for database and web throughput), and Linux is probably the current king of x86 performance.
We all like to deride Windows (because it truly is a terrible environment to work in); however, once they had fully shed themselves of DOS (with the Win2k transition), they had a strong kernel to build from that will continue whenever Longhorn comes out. It is still fun to deride it though.
Originally posted by PB
You have too much faith in the average user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
My take on the difference between OS/2, BeOS and NeXT compared to the current Mac OS X/Intel strategy is that Apple is making and selling boxes while IBM, Be and NeXT just sold operating systems for x86 systems.
That's probably the one thing Jobs learned from those failures. To be successful, Apple will need to continue to sell boxes, and the difference between Apple's boxes and x86 OEM boxes will be Mac OS X and Apple industrial design.
That's the primary difference.
Also, quite possibility the most important factor, we can't forget that in 2005, the killer app is the Internet while in 1995, the killer app was Microsoft Office. That means Apple just needs to maintain browser, IM, and media app parity to be able to compete and survive. Having Mac Office on x86 is also really important as well, but I don't think it is as important as it was in 1995.
Originally posted by Brendon
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Apple will still be designing at least part of their motherboards. I'm pretty sure they will be MacCentric, and probably one of the failsafes on how they will keep OS X off any DELL, or other x86 Box.
Originally posted by Placebo
From xlr8yourmac
Faster than 2.7 Duals in some apps, already. Wow. I am so happy Apple made this move.
Thats what I thought when I saw the demo that steve did. I've played around with the dual 2.7- and steve's demonstration of iPhoto and Spotlight seemed lightning fast. There was always a *tiny lag on the G5.
Originally posted by wizard69
It is interesting some of the coments heard about performance. Since I'm not up to speed on what was implemented in the test systems I have to ask did they have SMT working?
Yes!
Source: MacBidouille
Originally posted by wizard69
SMT could account for some of the snappynest being talked about on all the MAC forums I've seen lately. The other consideration of course is the far superior intel integer performance.
It's not SMT that is giving the UI a more snappier feel. It is the better memory performance and OOOE, expecially on the integer code.
SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
75% of the CPUs Intel will sell in 2006 will be dual-core processors, including the laptops.
Originally posted by Brendon
OK which statement is the one that you are going to stick with.
To compete Apple will have to reduce their margins as they are the highest in the computer industry. I know the prices are competitive (but not competitive enough) but they still have high margins. The iPod also has high margins but manages to compete very well in the MP3 market. Where's the contradiction?
Originally posted by the cool gut
Thats what I thought when I saw the demo that steve did. I've played around with the dual 2.7- and steve's demonstration of iPhoto and Spotlight seemed lightning fast. There was always a *tiny lag on the G5.
IMO the Pentium Macs here are pretty nice, but they certainly don't perform better than the DP2.5GHz Power Mac I have. It's more on par with the 1.8GHz iMac G5 I have.
Keep in mind though that there aren't much other than the standard system loaded on the machines.
Originally posted by JLL
IMO the Pentium Macs here are pretty nice, but they certainly don't perform better than the DP2.5GHz Power Mac I have. It's more on par with the 1.8GHz iMac G5 I have.
Keep in mind though that there aren't much other than the standard system loaded on the machines.
We can't expect the Intel macs to be as fast yet.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
We have no way of knowing at this time. However I believe OSX will be slightly faster than Longhorn. Unix base, smaller footprint, optimised Core technologies. OSX will only require optimising for probably only three or four different processors, Longhorn has to run on all of those existing PC platforms or everybody goes ballistic at having to buy new PC's (or they just don't upgrade, like most businesses of the past five years).
Remember the oportunity for brand differentiation has narrowed slightly and the opportunity for comparison has expanded greatly, so you can bet your ass Apple will ensure that OSX runs smooth as silk on Macintel.
Originally posted by Thereubster
theres no doubt Apple will do their damnedest to make sure OSX on Intel runs as fast or faster than Longhorn on the same PC, esp. with the Core technologies, I can see it happening. Core graphics is almost at the point of using the Graphics card as a co-processor, and I hope Core Audio will allow hardware acceleration using the Intel HD audio codecs. So theres everry reason to think OSX can be faster if Apple gets it right. thats a big IF of course.....
How much control does Apple have over the kernal? I have some performance worries after reading this: http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=7
But, I have no doubt that speed and optimization is Apple's big focus with this right now. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
How much control does Apple have over the kernal? I have some performance worries after reading this: http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=7
But, I have no doubt that speed and optimization is Apple's big focus with this right now. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.
That is pretty much server performance related only. I'm not sure if it mentioned it in the article, but the PowerPC helped alot with those problems. Could be one reason it hasn't been fully resolved yet. It's going to be 2 1/2 years before the Xserve goes to Intel, so they certainly have time to iron out those issues.
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.
This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.
But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.
Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?
I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
once again re-defining cutting edge performance.
Being a Mac Person myself, stuck with a piece of crap Windows box, I can tell you it is more of the other way around. Let me explain:
a) People won't want to buy because it has an Intel processor. Ok, I'll be nice with this one. For the vast majority of users out there, whether it has an Intel Processor or an IBM or even Motorola one is irrelevant. Most users don't care. Why should they?? All they want is for it to be fast, and for it to work doing email, on IM, browsing the internet, etc. All of this Windows talk really becomes irrelevant, because the assumption is people want to use Windows. This brings me to point 2.
b) If it can run Windows, why be on OS X? This one is very simple. The majority of people HATE Windows. It is poorly designed, hard to use, and sometimes very criptic on how to do something. The real question is "Why won't they run OS X?" Simple, OS X has the best integration out there for the end user. Install an application lately? Either you use a simple installer (in which it does almost everything for you), or you drag the folder to the location you want it to be. Similar with Windows, right?? Now, uninstall that application. For the Mac users, you throw it away, and you are done. Windows is another headache. And don't even get me started on Linux installs... (And I love Linux)
My point in this very long rant is that many feel that Apple is doomed. Apple is not doomed, and this wasn't a bad decision. For software porters, you have some valid concerns. However, even then the concerns are more fear than anything else. It is still stemming from the fact that people will WANT to switch to a crappy OS, or run one in emulation, instead of running it natively. That is just not the Apply way of simplicity and inegration.
This is what everyone needs to remember, Apple stands to gain more here because of the fact that hardware prices will go down, due to supply, and that they are now on the same level playing field as the rest of the PC industry. They won't lose because Windows can be ran on it, or that it is now an x86 processor.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
The one thing that I have consistantly heard is that people won't want to by an Apple box because it is also x86. or that if it can run Windows, why have it run OS X.
...
This is what everyone needs to remember, Apple stands to gain more here because of the fact that hardware prices will go down, due to supply, and that they are now on the same level playing field as the rest of the PC industry. They won't lose because Windows can be ran on it, or that it is now an x86 processor.
I am a bit confuse by your post! I am positive about the move. Negative about the potential loss of interest from developers but as long as Creative Suite works I am happy! I am looking forward to getting my next PowerBook (probably 2008 - I bought one this year).
Does anyone know when Apple's license for Microsoft Office runs out?
Better yet, when does Microsoft's patent for Microsoft Office expire?
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
All we know at this time is that Apple announced publicly that they will
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.
This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.
But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.
Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?
I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
once again re-defining cutting edge performance.
Where did you hear that it would take two years to deploy Mac OS X for their pro configurations??