I don't understand why anyone is concerned about being able to install Windows on their Mac hardware -- who cares? Nobody is going to use Apple hardware as a Windows box. The real worry is that a cheap or free virtual machine is provided which can run Windows at full speed inside of MacOS X... and that developers see this as a reason not to write Mac native versions of their software.
Well, you just answered the question.
Quote:
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least).
This may be true for developers that write software exclusively or mainly for the Macintosh. But the bigger ones who develop for MacOS and Windows, I am afraid that they will happily drop the Mac versions once they realize that their customers can run the Windows counterpart of their software in native (or near to that) speeds on an Intel Mac. And this is going to happen since many people have or can acquire Windows software at lower or, in some cases, not at all cost. You just cannot underestimate the corruption power of this fact for the Mac software.
Saying that this may not be a serious worry is, for the time being, just a wish and hope.
What kinks will there be? Theres nothing unusual about the intel processors, theres nothing really different.
It is not just the processor. It is going to be a completely new architecture. Apple needs to make sure that the OS plays well with all the system components. From the lowest to the highest level.
I don't think Apple has any idea how long third parties will take to transition to Intel. They're in a chicken-and-egg scenario where developers are waiting for a market for their apps and Apple can't release hardware without any software to run on them.
We won't know how this will play out until it does. All we know is the sooner its done and over with the better (especially to replace G4-based Mac models like the PowerBook and Mini).
If Apple couldn't release Intel Powerbooks until January and could release new PowerPC models before Christmas, then their course of action is easily understood. I fail to see any irony.
1) It seems smart (to me) for Apple to release MacTel's ASAP to spur developers to port their code. Why? Because now there will be tangable HW, no excuses left for foot dragging by developers who won't start UNTIL there is existing HW. It would at least seem to be prudent of Apple to invest heavily by deploying their SW engineers to various developers to insure a rapid transition.
2) In the past Apple has been very secretive about product releases (look at the quad G5 specs. (the actual model specs. (such as CPU/bus/GPU speeds, etcetera), which NO rumors site obtained (not even TS)). I've been thinking for some time now that with all the existing SW that must be recompiled for MacTel's, many, many 3rd party developers will be in the loop as HW products are developed. It's all about getting SW developers to port their codes ASAP. I don't think Apple can keep a lid on this one, and I don't think that Apple even wants to. I even think that this may be the one time when Apple wants people to know what their up to. Look, see, were making progress. Look, see, were 6 months ahead of schedule. No, I think there will be a steady release of "rumors" and maybe even that there are people within Apple specifically assigned to "leak" said "rumors."
They seem to be revising it based on actual scenarios people may be having issues with, and adding tips for helping the port go faster. Several of the new "tips" related to CodeWarrior developers, as well as revisions for XCode 2.2.
Judging by some of the additions to this document, a lot of developers have been giving them a lot of feedback while porting, which I take as a good sign.
"It seems smart (to me) for Apple to release MacTel's ASAP to spur developers to port their code"
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
Some people are saying that they are going to wait for the second wave of intel macs to work out all the kinks.
What kinks will there be? Theres nothing unusual about the intel processors, theres nothing really different.
and apple have been monitoring its os on intel for 5 years.
I think it's a waste of time to wait for the "second wave".
Apple just went over to the Express bus. This is quite a major change. I'm waiting until January to buy a Quad, because I want to see what small problems will arise in the first 25,000 or so. But I'm not thinking of waiting for the second wave, even, at this point, if there would be one.
When the Mactels come out, there will be some small niggling problems as well. Nothing major. Apple will have had plenty of time with the hardware and software. But any new technology a company is dealing with will have teething problems.
But those problems should be minor, and cleared up after a month or so, at the latest.
I don't think Apple has any idea how long third parties will take to transition to Intel. They're in a chicken-and-egg scenario where developers are waiting for a market for their apps and Apple can't release hardware without any software to run on them.
We won't know how this will play out until it does. All we know is the sooner its done and over with the better (especially to replace G4-based Mac models like the PowerBook and Mini).
If Apple couldn't release Intel Powerbooks until January and could release new PowerPC models before Christmas, then their course of action is easily understood. I fail to see any irony.
I think they have more than a fair idea about most. Avid just said that they will be moving their new software to Universal binaries. The new PPC software will be available mid 2006, and the Intel versions (MAC) will be ready when the machines are out.
I don't think Apple just guesses. They talk to their developers as well.
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
One sure way to do that is to drop some heavy cash on IBM's CPU development table. Apple does not seem very inclined to do so.
Quote:
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
"It seems smart (to me) for Apple to release MacTel's ASAP to spur developers to port their code"
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
I can't agree with that.
First of all, no chip maker has a roadmap for the next five years. What they have is a tentitive plan for the general direction as well as for the technology they would like to use.
The roadmap extends across 18 months to two years. Past that it becomes hazy. That's why the 90nm roadmap for all of the makers didn't work out. Unexpected problems hit all of them at once.
Intel's roadmap was completely washed out, as they depended most upon the technology that was most affected by 90 nm's (and beyond) problems.
But they made an amazing recovery. Their roadmap looks pretty good. They are even moving production of chips not expected until late next year into the March timeframe. No one else has the ability to do that.
Right now, we have no idea as to what IBM's roadmap is. Is that better for you? Can you tell us what IBM has planned for the G5, or for whatever comes after? What speed bumps is IBM planning, and when will we have them? How much more cache are they planning to use? When will they go to a consolidated cache for the dual chips? Will we see an L3? Are they planning an integrated memory controller? If so, when should we expect it? What are they planning about low power chips other than the one they announced? Both AMD and Intel have discussed plans for quad cores in 2007, will IBM be releasing quad cores then as well? What will they be like? How will their compilers take advantage of them? What about memory bus issues with quad cores?
I am a bit skeptical about the first macintel being an iMac. \
- Why was it updated only three months before MWSF then?
- Will the yonah be faster than the G5?
To me it's likely that these new iMacs (and powerbooks) will not replace their PPC counterparts.
They'll be replacements. This is a transition, not an addition. By replacing them, it drive developers to move to Xcode and port their apps to Intel. As long as developers stick with Xcode, their code portability will be comparatively very good.
In terms of performance per clock rate, in depends on the application. In integer apps, a Yonah core will be faster than a 970fx. In FPU apps, a 970fx will be faster than a Yonah core. For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
In general a Yonah iMac will feel faster than an iMac G5. These are things involving the GUI and filesystem. For compute bound apps, it'll breakdown like in the above paragraph: Yonah wins in integer, 970fx wins FPU, 970fx marginally wins SIMD. What trumps the 970fx is of course Yonah is a dual-core chip with less power consumption than a 970fx at the same clock rate. That's a very big win.
Intel will also make a few Yonah "derivatives":
1. "normal" for regular laptops (up to 2.2 GHz)
2. "low power" for more mobile laptops (likely <1.8 GHz)
3. "ultra low power" for small laptops and tablets (likely <1.6 GHz)
4. "extreme" or something like it for gaming (likely 2.4 GHz at 50W)
5. "Sossaman" for blade and 1U servers with multiprocessor (4-core) chipset support (probably identical to number 4)
6. "single core" versions for cheap <$900 laptops
7. "Celeron M" versions which may or may not be single core and may or may not have 2 MB cache in 2H 06 or later for <$900 laptops
My guess is that Apple will use the 1.8 GHz low power dual-core variant for Powerbook, if in fact they are ~20% thinner - that's a 0.8 inch or 20 mm thick laptop with all of the goodies, wowsers! - and the normal variant for a 2.2 GHz dual-core iMac. Both of these would be considerable upgrades from the previous PPC machines. Both of these would be able to play 1080p H.264 movies at full framerate. Well assuming the Powerbook has 2nd HD capable display and the iMac has an HD capable display.
They'll be replacements. This is a transition, not an addition. By replacing them, it drive developers to move to Xcode and port their apps to Intel. As long as developers stick with Xcode, their code portability will be comparatively very good.
In terms of performance per clock rate, in depends on the application. In integer apps, a Yonah core will be faster than a 970fx. In FPU apps, a 970fx will be faster than a Yonah core. For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
In general a Yonah iMac will feel faster than an iMac G5. These are things involving the GUI and filesystem. For compute bound apps, it'll breakdown like in the above paragraph: Yonah wins in integer, 970fx wins FPU, 970fx marginally wins SIMD. What trumps the 970fx is of course Yonah is a dual-core chip with less power consumption than a 970fx at the same clock rate. That's a very big win.
Intel will also make a few Yonah "derivatives":
1. "normal" for regular laptops (up to 2.2 GHz)
2. "low power" for more mobile laptops (likely <1.8 GHz)
3. "ultra low power" for small laptops and tablets (likely <1.6 GHz)
4. "extreme" or something like it for gaming (likely 2.4 GHz at 50W)
5. "Sossaman" for blade and 1U servers with multiprocessor (4-core) chipset support (probably identical to number 4)
6. "single core" versions for cheap <$900 laptops
7. "Celeron M" versions which may or may not be single core and may or may not have 2 MB cache in 2H 06 or later for <$900 laptops
My guess is that Apple will use the 1.8 GHz low power dual-core variant for Powerbook, if in fact they are ~20% thinner - that's a 0.8 inch or 20 mm thick laptop with all of the goodies, wowsers! - and the normal variant for a 2.2 GHz dual-core iMac. Both of these would be considerable upgrades from the previous PPC machines. Both of these would be able to play 1080p H.264 movies at full framerate. Well assuming the Powerbook has 2nd HD capable display and the iMac has an HD capable display.
That's pretty close.
The only things to add to that is that the Yonahs are planned for a max 2.33GHZ speed, and they have 2MB cache per core, as opposed to 512Kb for the 7447a, and 1MB for the so far imaginary 7448.
This may be true for developers that write software exclusively or mainly for the Macintosh. But the bigger ones who develop for MacOS and Windows, I am afraid that they will happily drop the Mac versions once they realize that their customers can run the Windows counterpart of their software in native (or near to that) speeds on an Intel Mac. And this is going to happen since many people have or can acquire Windows software at lower or, in some cases, not at all cost. You just cannot underestimate the corruption power of this fact for the Mac software.
Saying that this may not be a serious worry is, for the time being, just a wish and hope.
So you figure that software for the Mac will meet its demise? Or that it is a likely possibility? What will be the percentage in Apple doing this switch, to be able to sell more computers?
You are referring chiefly to Adobe, Macromedia(oh oh, no more) and Micosoft then, or to Avid too?
That would leave smaller companies who develop for the Apple platform, and Apple left to develop software for the Mac.
For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
That I disagree with -- Intel and AMD haven't shipped anything yet that has comparable throughput to the 970's VMX unit, even when at a notably higher clockrate (in the case of the P4). Between the small register set, lack of fused ops, and halved instruction through put, the SSE units just don't stand up to the VMX units unless the hardware you are looking at has significantly better bandwidth (and the G5s do pretty well in terms of achieveable bandwidth).
That's quite true, but Wine and Crossfire (I forget the exact name) can't run the full range of Windows programs. If a program doesn't fit within the API's they have already brought over, more work has to be done.
Actually I was just refering to installing Windows on an Intel Mac as if it were a PC in a dual boot configuration. There is no reason to worry about people doing that at all.
The Windows-in-a-VM thing might be... but I don't think so. The developers who are likely to drop Mac development because of it are going to be the ones doing a louzy job of Mac development in the first place, so it won't be too much of a loss. Hell, their software might even work better under a VM. There will still be a market for quality native Mac software, and this market is likely to grow over the next couple of years while the importance of supporting the PPC hardware is still foremost in developer's minds. Remember, it is likely to take 5 or more years before the x86 installed base outweighs the PPC installed base.
I think it's a waste of time to wait for the "second wave".
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
While that may be true, I wouldn't count XP out just yet. I know quite a few people (myself included) that still run Windows 2000 reliably and will for sometime to come. I'm sure if Vista doesn't work optimally, as you say, XP will more than suffice for a number of years. If you want to be bleeding edge as far as PC software/operating systems go, you can always build yourself a bleeding edge PC.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
Actually I was just refering to installing Windows on an Intel Mac as if it were a PC in a dual boot configuration. There is no reason to worry about people doing that at all.
The Windows-in-a-VM thing might be... but I don't think so. The developers who are likely to drop Mac development because of it are going to be the ones doing a louzy job of Mac development in the first place, so it won't be too much of a loss. Hell, their software might even work better under a VM. There will still be a market for quality native Mac software, and this market is likely to grow over the next couple of years while the importance of supporting the PPC hardware is still foremost in developer's minds. Remember, it is likely to take 5 or more years before the x86 installed base outweighs the PPC installed base.
It's really hard to say what will happen. don't forget that for several years, Apple allowed booting into either 9 or X. Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot.
It's just not out of the question. The only question about is; how many will do it? That depends on who they are, where they're coming from. and how much it's worth to them.
Look, I hope that most of those people will be like me. I WILL get XP, and later Vista. If I can do an install, I will do it.
I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
Everything else will be Mac hardware and software, just as it is now.
But that can't be guaranteed for those whom I don't know. I do know some PC users who have told me that they will buy some Mactel or other, but mostly for Windows. They want to try out the Mac, and they like the machines (though they think they cost too much), but they are Windows people. They will have the Mac for the same reason we will install Windows, for those programs they can't get on a PC. Interesting reversal.
Comments
What kinks will there be? Theres nothing unusual about the intel processors, theres nothing really different.
and apple have been monitoring its os on intel for 5 years.
Originally posted by Programmer
I don't understand why anyone is concerned about being able to install Windows on their Mac hardware -- who cares? Nobody is going to use Apple hardware as a Windows box. The real worry is that a cheap or free virtual machine is provided which can run Windows at full speed inside of MacOS X... and that developers see this as a reason not to write Mac native versions of their software.
Well, you just answered the question.
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least).
This may be true for developers that write software exclusively or mainly for the Macintosh. But the bigger ones who develop for MacOS and Windows, I am afraid that they will happily drop the Mac versions once they realize that their customers can run the Windows counterpart of their software in native (or near to that) speeds on an Intel Mac. And this is going to happen since many people have or can acquire Windows software at lower or, in some cases, not at all cost. You just cannot underestimate the corruption power of this fact for the Mac software.
Saying that this may not be a serious worry is, for the time being, just a wish and hope.
Originally posted by Glamingo
What kinks will there be? Theres nothing unusual about the intel processors, theres nothing really different.
It is not just the processor. It is going to be a completely new architecture. Apple needs to make sure that the OS plays well with all the system components. From the lowest to the highest level.
We won't know how this will play out until it does. All we know is the sooner its done and over with the better (especially to replace G4-based Mac models like the PowerBook and Mini).
If Apple couldn't release Intel Powerbooks until January and could release new PowerPC models before Christmas, then their course of action is easily understood. I fail to see any irony.
Two general comments,
1) It seems smart (to me) for Apple to release MacTel's ASAP to spur developers to port their code. Why? Because now there will be tangable HW, no excuses left for foot dragging by developers who won't start UNTIL there is existing HW. It would at least seem to be prudent of Apple to invest heavily by deploying their SW engineers to various developers to insure a rapid transition.
2) In the past Apple has been very secretive about product releases (look at the quad G5 specs. (the actual model specs. (such as CPU/bus/GPU speeds, etcetera), which NO rumors site obtained (not even TS)). I've been thinking for some time now that with all the existing SW that must be recompiled for MacTel's, many, many 3rd party developers will be in the loop as HW products are developed. It's all about getting SW developers to port their codes ASAP. I don't think Apple can keep a lid on this one, and I don't think that Apple even wants to. I even think that this may be the one time when Apple wants people to know what their up to. Look, see, were making progress. Look, see, were 6 months ahead of schedule. No, I think there will be a steady release of "rumors" and maybe even that there are people within Apple specifically assigned to "leak" said "rumors."
Do either of these "brain frats" make any sense?
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...ary/index.html
They seem to be revising it based on actual scenarios people may be having issues with, and adding tips for helping the port go faster. Several of the new "tips" related to CodeWarrior developers, as well as revisions for XCode 2.2.
Judging by some of the additions to this document, a lot of developers have been giving them a lot of feedback while porting, which I take as a good sign.
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
Originally posted by Glamingo
Some people are saying that they are going to wait for the second wave of intel macs to work out all the kinks.
What kinks will there be? Theres nothing unusual about the intel processors, theres nothing really different.
and apple have been monitoring its os on intel for 5 years.
I think it's a waste of time to wait for the "second wave".
Apple just went over to the Express bus. This is quite a major change. I'm waiting until January to buy a Quad, because I want to see what small problems will arise in the first 25,000 or so. But I'm not thinking of waiting for the second wave, even, at this point, if there would be one.
When the Mactels come out, there will be some small niggling problems as well. Nothing major. Apple will have had plenty of time with the hardware and software. But any new technology a company is dealing with will have teething problems.
But those problems should be minor, and cleared up after a month or so, at the latest.
It isn't something I would worry about.
Originally posted by strobe
I don't think Apple has any idea how long third parties will take to transition to Intel. They're in a chicken-and-egg scenario where developers are waiting for a market for their apps and Apple can't release hardware without any software to run on them.
We won't know how this will play out until it does. All we know is the sooner its done and over with the better (especially to replace G4-based Mac models like the PowerBook and Mini).
If Apple couldn't release Intel Powerbooks until January and could release new PowerPC models before Christmas, then their course of action is easily understood. I fail to see any irony.
I think they have more than a fair idea about most. Avid just said that they will be moving their new software to Universal binaries. The new PPC software will be available mid 2006, and the Intel versions (MAC) will be ready when the machines are out.
I don't think Apple just guesses. They talk to their developers as well.
Originally posted by melgross
I think it's a waste of time to wait for the "second wave".
It depends on how far from the Intel platformisation product Apple have drifted. I can't see them being too different.
Originally posted by Roadmap
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
One sure way to do that is to drop some heavy cash on IBM's CPU development table. Apple does not seem very inclined to do so.
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
Never heard of the Apple Curse(tm) before
Originally posted by Roadmap
"It seems smart (to me) for Apple to release MacTel's ASAP to spur developers to port their code"
With what a utter joke Intel's chip plans look like right now for the next five year and how fantastic the PPC systems are that Apple is shipping, Apple better be thinking of how do they get IBM to change their mind about not wanting Apple as a customer anymore.
And there is still plenty of time between now and next year for even more Intel cancelation and slippage. It's too depressing to even read x86 sites anymore about Intel and think that is what Apple is going to be stuck with for the next five years.
I can't agree with that.
First of all, no chip maker has a roadmap for the next five years. What they have is a tentitive plan for the general direction as well as for the technology they would like to use.
The roadmap extends across 18 months to two years. Past that it becomes hazy. That's why the 90nm roadmap for all of the makers didn't work out. Unexpected problems hit all of them at once.
Intel's roadmap was completely washed out, as they depended most upon the technology that was most affected by 90 nm's (and beyond) problems.
But they made an amazing recovery. Their roadmap looks pretty good. They are even moving production of chips not expected until late next year into the March timeframe. No one else has the ability to do that.
Right now, we have no idea as to what IBM's roadmap is. Is that better for you? Can you tell us what IBM has planned for the G5, or for whatever comes after? What speed bumps is IBM planning, and when will we have them? How much more cache are they planning to use? When will they go to a consolidated cache for the dual chips? Will we see an L3? Are they planning an integrated memory controller? If so, when should we expect it? What are they planning about low power chips other than the one they announced? Both AMD and Intel have discussed plans for quad cores in 2007, will IBM be releasing quad cores then as well? What will they be like? How will their compilers take advantage of them? What about memory bus issues with quad cores?
Etc., etc,.
Originally posted by french macuser
I am a bit skeptical about the first macintel being an iMac.
- Why was it updated only three months before MWSF then?
- Will the yonah be faster than the G5?
To me it's likely that these new iMacs (and powerbooks) will not replace their PPC counterparts.
They'll be replacements. This is a transition, not an addition. By replacing them, it drive developers to move to Xcode and port their apps to Intel. As long as developers stick with Xcode, their code portability will be comparatively very good.
In terms of performance per clock rate, in depends on the application. In integer apps, a Yonah core will be faster than a 970fx. In FPU apps, a 970fx will be faster than a Yonah core. For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
In general a Yonah iMac will feel faster than an iMac G5. These are things involving the GUI and filesystem. For compute bound apps, it'll breakdown like in the above paragraph: Yonah wins in integer, 970fx wins FPU, 970fx marginally wins SIMD. What trumps the 970fx is of course Yonah is a dual-core chip with less power consumption than a 970fx at the same clock rate. That's a very big win.
Intel will also make a few Yonah "derivatives":
1. "normal" for regular laptops (up to 2.2 GHz)
2. "low power" for more mobile laptops (likely <1.8 GHz)
3. "ultra low power" for small laptops and tablets (likely <1.6 GHz)
4. "extreme" or something like it for gaming (likely 2.4 GHz at 50W)
5. "Sossaman" for blade and 1U servers with multiprocessor (4-core) chipset support (probably identical to number 4)
6. "single core" versions for cheap <$900 laptops
7. "Celeron M" versions which may or may not be single core and may or may not have 2 MB cache in 2H 06 or later for <$900 laptops
My guess is that Apple will use the 1.8 GHz low power dual-core variant for Powerbook, if in fact they are ~20% thinner - that's a 0.8 inch or 20 mm thick laptop with all of the goodies, wowsers! - and the normal variant for a 2.2 GHz dual-core iMac. Both of these would be considerable upgrades from the previous PPC machines. Both of these would be able to play 1080p H.264 movies at full framerate. Well assuming the Powerbook has 2nd HD capable display and the iMac has an HD capable display.
Originally posted by THT
They'll be replacements. This is a transition, not an addition. By replacing them, it drive developers to move to Xcode and port their apps to Intel. As long as developers stick with Xcode, their code portability will be comparatively very good.
In terms of performance per clock rate, in depends on the application. In integer apps, a Yonah core will be faster than a 970fx. In FPU apps, a 970fx will be faster than a Yonah core. For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
In general a Yonah iMac will feel faster than an iMac G5. These are things involving the GUI and filesystem. For compute bound apps, it'll breakdown like in the above paragraph: Yonah wins in integer, 970fx wins FPU, 970fx marginally wins SIMD. What trumps the 970fx is of course Yonah is a dual-core chip with less power consumption than a 970fx at the same clock rate. That's a very big win.
Intel will also make a few Yonah "derivatives":
1. "normal" for regular laptops (up to 2.2 GHz)
2. "low power" for more mobile laptops (likely <1.8 GHz)
3. "ultra low power" for small laptops and tablets (likely <1.6 GHz)
4. "extreme" or something like it for gaming (likely 2.4 GHz at 50W)
5. "Sossaman" for blade and 1U servers with multiprocessor (4-core) chipset support (probably identical to number 4)
6. "single core" versions for cheap <$900 laptops
7. "Celeron M" versions which may or may not be single core and may or may not have 2 MB cache in 2H 06 or later for <$900 laptops
My guess is that Apple will use the 1.8 GHz low power dual-core variant for Powerbook, if in fact they are ~20% thinner - that's a 0.8 inch or 20 mm thick laptop with all of the goodies, wowsers! - and the normal variant for a 2.2 GHz dual-core iMac. Both of these would be considerable upgrades from the previous PPC machines. Both of these would be able to play 1080p H.264 movies at full framerate. Well assuming the Powerbook has 2nd HD capable display and the iMac has an HD capable display.
That's pretty close.
The only things to add to that is that the Yonahs are planned for a max 2.33GHZ speed, and they have 2MB cache per core, as opposed to 512Kb for the 7447a, and 1MB for the so far imaginary 7448.
Originally posted by PB
Well, you just answered the question.
This may be true for developers that write software exclusively or mainly for the Macintosh. But the bigger ones who develop for MacOS and Windows, I am afraid that they will happily drop the Mac versions once they realize that their customers can run the Windows counterpart of their software in native (or near to that) speeds on an Intel Mac. And this is going to happen since many people have or can acquire Windows software at lower or, in some cases, not at all cost. You just cannot underestimate the corruption power of this fact for the Mac software.
Saying that this may not be a serious worry is, for the time being, just a wish and hope.
So you figure that software for the Mac will meet its demise? Or that it is a likely possibility? What will be the percentage in Apple doing this switch, to be able to sell more computers?
You are referring chiefly to Adobe, Macromedia(oh oh, no more) and Micosoft then, or to Avid too?
That would leave smaller companies who develop for the Apple platform, and Apple left to develop software for the Mac.
Originally posted by THT
For SIMD, any thing permute related, the 970fx will be better, otherwise about the same.
That I disagree with -- Intel and AMD haven't shipped anything yet that has comparable throughput to the 970's VMX unit, even when at a notably higher clockrate (in the case of the P4). Between the small register set, lack of fused ops, and halved instruction through put, the SSE units just don't stand up to the VMX units unless the hardware you are looking at has significantly better bandwidth (and the G5s do pretty well in terms of achieveable bandwidth).
Originally posted by melgross
That's quite true, but Wine and Crossfire (I forget the exact name) can't run the full range of Windows programs. If a program doesn't fit within the API's they have already brought over, more work has to be done.
Actually I was just refering to installing Windows on an Intel Mac as if it were a PC in a dual boot configuration. There is no reason to worry about people doing that at all.
The Windows-in-a-VM thing might be... but I don't think so. The developers who are likely to drop Mac development because of it are going to be the ones doing a louzy job of Mac development in the first place, so it won't be too much of a loss. Hell, their software might even work better under a VM. There will still be a market for quality native Mac software, and this market is likely to grow over the next couple of years while the importance of supporting the PPC hardware is still foremost in developer's minds. Remember, it is likely to take 5 or more years before the x86 installed base outweighs the PPC installed base.
Originally posted by melgross
I think it's a waste of time to wait for the "second wave".
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
Originally posted by Kolchak
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
Originally posted by Programmer
Actually I was just refering to installing Windows on an Intel Mac as if it were a PC in a dual boot configuration. There is no reason to worry about people doing that at all.
The Windows-in-a-VM thing might be... but I don't think so. The developers who are likely to drop Mac development because of it are going to be the ones doing a louzy job of Mac development in the first place, so it won't be too much of a loss. Hell, their software might even work better under a VM. There will still be a market for quality native Mac software, and this market is likely to grow over the next couple of years while the importance of supporting the PPC hardware is still foremost in developer's minds. Remember, it is likely to take 5 or more years before the x86 installed base outweighs the PPC installed base.
It's really hard to say what will happen. don't forget that for several years, Apple allowed booting into either 9 or X. Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot.
It's just not out of the question. The only question about is; how many will do it? That depends on who they are, where they're coming from. and how much it's worth to them.
Look, I hope that most of those people will be like me. I WILL get XP, and later Vista. If I can do an install, I will do it.
I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
Everything else will be Mac hardware and software, just as it is now.
But that can't be guaranteed for those whom I don't know. I do know some PC users who have told me that they will buy some Mactel or other, but mostly for Windows. They want to try out the Mac, and they like the machines (though they think they cost too much), but they are Windows people. They will have the Mac for the same reason we will install Windows, for those programs they can't get on a PC. Interesting reversal.