Intel has been frustrated by its new technologies being ignored by MS. This was famously shown ages ago when Intel came out with its own multimedia extentions which were not supported by MS. The ones that did come out were initiated BY MS.
It's been said that Apple won't use a BIOS in its shipping machines, but will use Intel's EFI instead. It's interesting to note that Intel has been pushing that for a while but hasn't been sucsessful with it. At this time the only machines that I know of that are using it are Itanium machines.
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
It's also possible that Intel might finally be able to come out with innovations for its chips that again aren't supported by MS, but would be supported by Apple.
Intel would, of course, offer those chips to everyone, and they would no doubt work in every machine - but wthout those features enabled because of lack of support from MS. If the fearures add substantial value to Apple's machines, I would imagine that PC customers would clamor for them, and that MS would have to give it.
Again Intel takes control back.
This was hinted to by Intel. Not something specific, but the concept of Apple being innovative as being one of the reasons why Intel was persuing them.
Thank you for this observant post, it provided a stimulant for the ensuing interesting discussion.
Now you just failed Computer Architecture too. Different processor, different binary; same code but run the appropriate compiler on the appropriate architecture. That has absolutely nothing to do with the OS's capabilities. I do like the gloves on the floor challenge to provide something which does not exist though. It gives you the mental hope to claim I am avoiding your point when I don't provide it.
Biology and Physics backgrounds are great ways to tell us you know computer science, thanks for straightening that one out.
Existence proof -- I touch the mouse and keyboard, therefore I know they exist. It's not the thing you publish in a journal. It's the metaphorical example that convinces you that following a certain line of research has a high probability of paying off because a working solution actually exists in some other system. Very useful in my field - Cognitive science/autonomous robotics.
Beware, I only do a "little" bit of customized OS work for the critters. The rest of my time is trying to make them as smart as retarded mice.
You have GOT to be joking!
First of all, it's not Existence proof. You are talking about Existentialism, which is completely different. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And it's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical.
And I first learned how to program in 1965, in high school, where I learned Fortran IV.
Why don't you got to Apple, and check this out. It will help you to understand some of the issues:
One particular assumption everyone seems to make in their thinking of Apple going to x86. Everyone assumes Apple?s competition will stand idle and do little to nothing while Apple competes directly in the x86 market. Which in not true competitors will compete fiercely.
Jobs has said it himself. "We have world-class competitors trying to kill us."
And they won?t stand still.
Dell has its XPS laptop which is encased in metal. Lenovo has a white laptop with translucent keyboards and 13.3-inch diagonal color screens. MP3 players are taking on more the function and the feel of the various iPods.
I don?t think Vista is an exact copy of OS X, but its certainly more OS X like than previous versions of Windows.
While the onus is on Apple is to be excellent. The onus on its competitors is to be cheap and good enough.
Looking at the possibility of Intel placing technology in all of its chips that only Apple is able to support. Which is a highly likely scenario.
Looking at Microsoft?s recent history its not likely they will off handedly follow what Apple and Intel are doing. Especially if the certain features are set to be incorporated and used by everyone. Microsoft has shown a penchant for more the proprietary.
If Apple and Intel were to follow this course new innovative features and functions on the chip would need to add substantially to the usability or performance of OS X. These improvements would need to prove too technically or logistically difficult for MS to engineer themselves.
If these functions provided some slight improvement or convenience it would be easy for MS to dismiss and ignore. Or MS could work with AMD to engineer their own version of these features and functions in accordance with the x64 architecture that would be supported by Windows and MS would then dictate and control.
So, what's the current possibility of Intel's Merom processor appearing in the PowerBook by the end of Summer 2006? Is it more likely that we'll see the Yonah chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2006, and the Merom chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2007?
YFirst of all, it's not Existence proof. You are talking about Existentialism, which is completely different. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And it's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical.
You make me giggle! metaphysical
Continually misdirecting the issues still doesn't change anything. What does "Scoping your Transition" have to do with the fact you think Apple is screwing the pooch and making a backwards step if they ever use a 32-bit Intel processor? Absolutely nothing.
And the OS coding issues are already abstracted fully for OS X if you are trying to imply any difficulties there. Non-Altivec/VMX code already exists for G3 platforms, Altivec/VMX code is exceptionally rare in the kernel anyway due to context switch penalties. And the kernel/kernel extensions are the only place we are worried about hardware dependencies. A very focused area that is already running. It's not your 18-month to 2 year gloom and doom scenario.
So, what's the current possibility of Intel's Merom processor appearing in the PowerBook by the end of Summer 2006? Is it more likely that we'll see the Yonah chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2006, and the Merom chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2007?
It's expected that Merom will be out in the second half of 2006.
Despite Hiro's lack of understanding of what I've been saying, Apple should be getting a 64 bit Merom on that time period, by the end of the year, perhaps a bit earlier.
Continually misdirecting the issues still doesn't change anything. What does "Scoping your Transition" have to do with the fact you think Apple is screwing the pooch and making a backwards step if they ever use a 32-bit Intel processor? Absolutely nothing.
And the OS coding issues are already abstracted fully for OS X if you are trying to imply any difficulties there. Non-Altivec/VMX code already exists for G3 platforms, Altivec/VMX code is exceptionally rare in the kernel anyway due to context switch penalties. And the kernel/kernel extensions are the only place we are worried about hardware dependencies. A very focused area that is already running. It's not your 18-month to 2 year gloom and doom scenario.
You're the one mis-directing the issues. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And, by the way, I'm not the only one saying this. You seem to disregard everything relevant to the issue.What you are saying are half truths at best.
And I don't know where you get this 18 month to 2 year nonsense. I said end of 2006 quite clearly several times. That puts us at 15 months outside if Apple comes out with Leopard by the end of next year, which, so far, is what is expected.
You're the one mis-directing the issues. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And, by the way, I'm not the only one saying this. ...
I agree with Mel. Mel's posts are sensible and I agree with them; I've read all of Hiro's posts and none of them make any sense. If he has a position, he hasn't defined it clearly. You may think you're having a debate of sorts, but you're just shouting past each other.
We can sum up this topic by saying this: Apple wants Intel's low-power, dual-core chips earlier, and Intel says "you'll get 'em when we say they're ready and no sooner than anybody else." That's all, nothing more to see here.
I agree with Mel. Mel's posts are sensible and I agree with them; I've read all of Hiro's posts and none of them make any sense. If he has a position, he hasn't defined it clearly. You may think you're having a debate of sorts, but you're just shouting past each other.
We can sum up this topic by saying this: Apple wants Intel's low-power, dual-core chips earlier, and Intel says "you'll get 'em when we say they're ready and no sooner than anybody else." That's all, nothing more to see here.
I hate to give up on a "good" argument, but I've considered it in this case. He's just not listening, and I really have no idea what he's talking about.
I hate to give up on a "good" argument, but I've considered it in this case. He's just not listening, and I really have no idea what he's talking about.
After reading through this I think that you two are not even in the same book let alone on the same page. So yea' Apple wants the chips as early as possible, I just think that Steve is getting his ducks lined up just incase Dell ends up getting their chips early. So what does Intel know from all of the posturing? That they will get one of the famous Steve calls if they ship to Apple later than Dell or anyother. Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
After reading through this I think that you two are not even in the same book let alone on the same page. So yea' Apple wants the chips as early as possible, I just think that Steve is getting his ducks lined up just incase Dell ends up getting their chips early. So what does Intel know from all of the posturing? That they will get one of the famous Steve calls if they ship to Apple later than Dell or anyother. Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
haha great stuff.
i just want a fast powerbook damnit.
i'm really in the market for a new one and well i dont know if i should wait? i'm itching for one
i'm really in the market for a new one and well i dont know if i should wait? i'm itching for one
It's the old question of how badly do you need it? An Intel PB might not be out for 8 to 10 months. And will the software you need be out for Intel at that time? I'm assuming that you're a pro and need the programs that will take the longest to move over.
It's the old question of how badly do you need it? An Intel PB might not be out for 8 to 10 months. And will the software you need be out for Intel at that time? I'm assuming that you're a pro and need the programs that will take the longest to move over.
And if you're not a pro then the current models are faster than you need, so buy now, or at least after the 12th.
Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
I bet he can spell vegetarian though, unlike stupid thick dead animal eaters.
Computers have been faster than most people need since we went past 500Mhz IMHO.
This afternoon I was sorting through some junk and found my old Z88 - 3.2Mhz Z80. Wrote a 3 page presentation on it just for retro kicks. If only it had better transfer hardware (it's only got a 9 pin serial port) I'd use it more. I had to dig up a PC as well to get my presentation off it. Ugh.
I'd forgotten how nice it is to lounge on the sofa and just type on something that weighs only 900g, doesn't get hot and has a 20 hour battery life from 4 AAs.
Not that I still don't lust after a dual 970MP for video transcoding and DVD creation. ;-)
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
What we might see though is something else.
Intel has been frustrated by its new technologies being ignored by MS. This was famously shown ages ago when Intel came out with its own multimedia extentions which were not supported by MS. The ones that did come out were initiated BY MS.
It's been said that Apple won't use a BIOS in its shipping machines, but will use Intel's EFI instead. It's interesting to note that Intel has been pushing that for a while but hasn't been sucsessful with it. At this time the only machines that I know of that are using it are Itanium machines.
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
It's also possible that Intel might finally be able to come out with innovations for its chips that again aren't supported by MS, but would be supported by Apple.
Intel would, of course, offer those chips to everyone, and they would no doubt work in every machine - but wthout those features enabled because of lack of support from MS. If the fearures add substantial value to Apple's machines, I would imagine that PC customers would clamor for them, and that MS would have to give it.
Again Intel takes control back.
This was hinted to by Intel. Not something specific, but the concept of Apple being innovative as being one of the reasons why Intel was persuing them.
Thank you for this observant post, it provided a stimulant for the ensuing interesting discussion.
Originally posted by Hiro
Now you just failed Computer Architecture too. Different processor, different binary; same code but run the appropriate compiler on the appropriate architecture. That has absolutely nothing to do with the OS's capabilities. I do like the gloves on the floor challenge to provide something which does not exist though. It gives you the mental hope to claim I am avoiding your point when I don't provide it.
Biology and Physics backgrounds are great ways to tell us you know computer science, thanks for straightening that one out.
Existence proof -- I touch the mouse and keyboard, therefore I know they exist. It's not the thing you publish in a journal. It's the metaphorical example that convinces you that following a certain line of research has a high probability of paying off because a working solution actually exists in some other system. Very useful in my field - Cognitive science/autonomous robotics.
Beware, I only do a "little" bit of customized OS work for the critters. The rest of my time is trying to make them as smart as retarded mice.
You have GOT to be joking!
First of all, it's not Existence proof. You are talking about Existentialism, which is completely different. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And it's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical.
And I first learned how to program in 1965, in high school, where I learned Fortran IV.
Why don't you got to Apple, and check this out. It will help you to understand some of the issues:
http://developer.apple.com/transition/projectscope.html
Actually, no one here would be hurt by looking at this.
Jobs has said it himself. "We have world-class competitors trying to kill us."
And they won?t stand still.
Dell has its XPS laptop which is encased in metal. Lenovo has a white laptop with translucent keyboards and 13.3-inch diagonal color screens. MP3 players are taking on more the function and the feel of the various iPods.
I don?t think Vista is an exact copy of OS X, but its certainly more OS X like than previous versions of Windows.
While the onus is on Apple is to be excellent. The onus on its competitors is to be cheap and good enough.
Looking at Microsoft?s recent history its not likely they will off handedly follow what Apple and Intel are doing. Especially if the certain features are set to be incorporated and used by everyone. Microsoft has shown a penchant for more the proprietary.
If Apple and Intel were to follow this course new innovative features and functions on the chip would need to add substantially to the usability or performance of OS X. These improvements would need to prove too technically or logistically difficult for MS to engineer themselves.
If these functions provided some slight improvement or convenience it would be easy for MS to dismiss and ignore. Or MS could work with AMD to engineer their own version of these features and functions in accordance with the x64 architecture that would be supported by Windows and MS would then dictate and control.
Originally posted by melgross
YFirst of all, it's not Existence proof. You are talking about Existentialism, which is completely different. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And it's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical.
You make me giggle!
Continually misdirecting the issues still doesn't change anything. What does "Scoping your Transition" have to do with the fact you think Apple is screwing the pooch and making a backwards step if they ever use a 32-bit Intel processor? Absolutely nothing.
And the OS coding issues are already abstracted fully for OS X if you are trying to imply any difficulties there. Non-Altivec/VMX code already exists for G3 platforms, Altivec/VMX code is exceptionally rare in the kernel anyway due to context switch penalties. And the kernel/kernel extensions are the only place we are worried about hardware dependencies. A very focused area that is already running. It's not your 18-month to 2 year gloom and doom scenario.
Originally posted by 00100011
So, what's the current possibility of Intel's Merom processor appearing in the PowerBook by the end of Summer 2006? Is it more likely that we'll see the Yonah chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2006, and the Merom chip in the PowerBook in Summer 2007?
It's expected that Merom will be out in the second half of 2006.
Despite Hiro's lack of understanding of what I've been saying, Apple should be getting a 64 bit Merom on that time period, by the end of the year, perhaps a bit earlier.
Originally posted by Hiro
You make me giggle!
Continually misdirecting the issues still doesn't change anything. What does "Scoping your Transition" have to do with the fact you think Apple is screwing the pooch and making a backwards step if they ever use a 32-bit Intel processor? Absolutely nothing.
And the OS coding issues are already abstracted fully for OS X if you are trying to imply any difficulties there. Non-Altivec/VMX code already exists for G3 platforms, Altivec/VMX code is exceptionally rare in the kernel anyway due to context switch penalties. And the kernel/kernel extensions are the only place we are worried about hardware dependencies. A very focused area that is already running. It's not your 18-month to 2 year gloom and doom scenario.
You're the one mis-directing the issues. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And, by the way, I'm not the only one saying this. You seem to disregard everything relevant to the issue.What you are saying are half truths at best.
And I don't know where you get this 18 month to 2 year nonsense. I said end of 2006 quite clearly several times. That puts us at 15 months outside if Apple comes out with Leopard by the end of next year, which, so far, is what is expected.
Originally posted by melgross
You're the one mis-directing the issues. you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And, by the way, I'm not the only one saying this. ...
I agree with Mel. Mel's posts are sensible and I agree with them; I've read all of Hiro's posts and none of them make any sense. If he has a position, he hasn't defined it clearly. You may think you're having a debate of sorts, but you're just shouting past each other.
We can sum up this topic by saying this: Apple wants Intel's low-power, dual-core chips earlier, and Intel says "you'll get 'em when we say they're ready and no sooner than anybody else." That's all, nothing more to see here.
Originally posted by cubist
I agree with Mel. Mel's posts are sensible and I agree with them; I've read all of Hiro's posts and none of them make any sense. If he has a position, he hasn't defined it clearly. You may think you're having a debate of sorts, but you're just shouting past each other.
We can sum up this topic by saying this: Apple wants Intel's low-power, dual-core chips earlier, and Intel says "you'll get 'em when we say they're ready and no sooner than anybody else." That's all, nothing more to see here.
I hate to give up on a "good" argument, but I've considered it in this case. He's just not listening, and I really have no idea what he's talking about.
Originally posted by melgross
I hate to give up on a "good" argument, but I've considered it in this case. He's just not listening, and I really have no idea what he's talking about.
After reading through this I think that you two are not even in the same book let alone on the same page. So yea' Apple wants the chips as early as possible, I just think that Steve is getting his ducks lined up just incase Dell ends up getting their chips early. So what does Intel know from all of the posturing? That they will get one of the famous Steve calls if they ship to Apple later than Dell or anyother. Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
Originally posted by Brendon
After reading through this I think that you two are not even in the same book let alone on the same page. So yea' Apple wants the chips as early as possible, I just think that Steve is getting his ducks lined up just incase Dell ends up getting their chips early. So what does Intel know from all of the posturing? That they will get one of the famous Steve calls if they ship to Apple later than Dell or anyother. Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
haha great stuff.
i just want a fast powerbook damnit.
i'm really in the market for a new one and well i dont know if i should wait? i'm itching for one
Originally posted by Elixir
haha great stuff.
i just want a fast powerbook damnit.
i'm really in the market for a new one and well i dont know if i should wait? i'm itching for one
It's the old question of how badly do you need it? An Intel PB might not be out for 8 to 10 months. And will the software you need be out for Intel at that time? I'm assuming that you're a pro and need the programs that will take the longest to move over.
Originally posted by melgross
It's the old question of how badly do you need it? An Intel PB might not be out for 8 to 10 months. And will the software you need be out for Intel at that time? I'm assuming that you're a pro and need the programs that will take the longest to move over.
And if you're not a pro then the current models are faster than you need, so buy now, or at least after the 12th.
Originally posted by Brendon
Nothing worse than an angry vegitarian, it is like been sooo long since he has had meat that it may appear that he has a genuine blood lust behind all of that anger
I bet he can spell vegetarian though, unlike stupid thick dead animal eaters.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And if you're not a pro then the current models are faster than you need, so buy now, or at least after the 12th.
I wish more people would understand that.
Originally posted by melgross
I wish more people would understand that.
Computers have been faster than most people need since we went past 500Mhz IMHO.
This afternoon I was sorting through some junk and found my old Z88 - 3.2Mhz Z80. Wrote a 3 page presentation on it just for retro kicks. If only it had better transfer hardware (it's only got a 9 pin serial port) I'd use it more. I had to dig up a PC as well to get my presentation off it. Ugh.
I'd forgotten how nice it is to lounge on the sofa and just type on something that weighs only 900g, doesn't get hot and has a 20 hour battery life from 4 AAs.
Not that I still don't lust after a dual 970MP for video transcoding and DVD creation. ;-)
Jobs' often quoted maxim: "Its better to be a pirate than join the navy."
there are significant changes besides the numbers that Intel chips will bring to macs.
however if the projected time frame is another 8 to 10 months theres no way i can wait that long.
i'll see what this announcement brings, if it happens to be an upgrade to the current PB then i'll have to snatch one up.
Originally posted by Elixir
ok yes i can understand pro vs casual notebook user but how about battery life? weight? size?
there are significant changes besides the numbers that Intel chips will bring to macs.
however if the projected time frame is another 8 to 10 months theres no way i can wait that long.
i'll see what this announcement brings, if it happens to be an upgrade to the current PB then i'll have to snatch one up.
The Centrino's are more efficient than the G4's. They get more battery life.I don't know that the 7448 is going to change this for us though.