But what I said about that was Crossover is doing exactly the same but it doesn't work because they have to reverse engineer Microsoft's proprietary APIs. Microsoft are not going to easily give up one of their strongest methods of maintaining a monopoly. Even if they did, as soon as they saw a problem, they would reserve the right to revoke it.
If Apple try to build alternate Microsoft APIs like Crossover, they face massive incompatibility issues and so the effort becomes useless.
The fantasy is that Apple has the Win32 source code as part of the settlement to the Quicktime lawsuit. No reverse engineering required if it is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
But that only works for future software if you mean a developer API. You also have to remember that people explicitly stop Mac support even if they have a product because of low sales. Remember Bryce?
So we need Windows apps and it would be nice to have a compatibility layer but as Crossover has shown, it just doesn't work well enough.
CoreWindows reduces the barrier to entry by not forcing the developer into maintaining and developing entirely separate code bases. It's encouragement to have native applications. Doing the Parallels, OS/2 DOS virtual machine discourages native application development while CoreWindows encourages native app development, at least to within the bounds of the API.
This is really a war of who will take ownership of the Win32/.NET/FX API, same sort of deal between AMD and Intel on x86. It's war of who will take majority stake in x86 CPUs. CPU with different ISAs. PPC, MIPS, Alpha, etc., have already lost and will never compete in the personal computing market again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin
I don't know what the deal is with Carbon. You can build a 100% C/C++ program using Cocoa so I don't know why the whole thing isn't deprecated.
Cocoa applications need to at least have the UI in Obj-C while the backend code can be C++/C/Obj-C or any other plethora of languages that have bindings to the Obj-C runtime.
Carbon will never be deprecated as long as Adobe CS and Microsoft Office exist on Macs. It will simply cost too much for them to change, especially for a <10% marketshare OS.
The fantasy is that Apple has the Win32 source code as part of the settlement to the Quicktime lawsuit. No reverse engineering required if it is so.
I never heard about that. Do you have a link? Does this allow them to use the code or just look at it? Also, does it guarantee future operating systems? This would solve any compatibility and even performance issues faced by Crossover. In fact, Windows apps may end up running faster in a Mac API.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
CoreWindows reduces the barrier to entry by not forcing the developer into maintaining and developing entirely separate code bases. It's encouragement to have native applications. Doing the Parallels, OS/2 DOS virtual machine discourages native application development while CoreWindows encourages native app development, at least to within the bounds of the API.
Good point. I agree that the other things just encourage the use of Windows. Even when I used Bootcamp I felt that I was being drawn away. Then I booted up Windows and realised all was well with my Mac side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Carbon will never be deprecated as long as Adobe CS and Microsoft Office exist on Macs. It will simply cost too much for them to change, especially for a <10% marketshare OS.
The overall OS marketshare is not as important as their customer marketshare. Adobe has a large percentage of sales from Mac users. I read 40% at one point. I believe Office for Mac does well too but I'll be damned if I know why.
MWSF is for consumer stuff. Since the Octo is aimed at professionals, I would think a regular Tuesday announcement at Apple's website will be all we are going to get.
I never heard about that. Do you have a link? Does this allow them to use the code or just look at it? Also, does it guarantee future operating systems? This would solve any compatibility and even performance issues faced by Crossover. In fact, Windows apps may end up running faster in a Mac API.
This is just a fantasy that Bob Cringely, of "Triumph of the Nerds" TV show fame, made up:
"Now for the interesting part: I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.
Huh?
Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in. The wonder is, of course, that Apple could even dare to do such a thing?
Oh they can dare. Not only that, this is one dare Apple can probably get away with.
Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.
That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.
I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me."
The patent infringment suit was Quicktime. This is a fantasy I think. If they had the Win32 source code, they could provide an environment to support binary Windows apps unchanged, but that would be a losing strategy without having the primary component of it being app vendors maintaining a low-cost, compilable Mac OS X/Win32 version of their apps.
Oh, and to stay on topic, MWSF is a public event, not necessarily a consumer event. Apple would have no problem announcing a Mac Pro with Xeon 53XXs. The keynote is a very public and media intensive event afterall. Jobs can spend all of 5 minutes on it and move on to bigger things like "iTV".
"Now for the interesting part: I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.
Huh?
Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in. The wonder is, of course, that Apple could even dare to do such a thing?
Oh they can dare. Not only that, this is one dare Apple can probably get away with.
Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.
That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.
I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me."
The patent infringment suit was Quicktime. This is a fantasy I think. If they had the Win32 source code, they could provide an environment to support binary Windows apps unchanged, but that would be a losing strategy without having the primary component of it being app vendors maintaining a low-cost, compilable Mac OS X/Win32 version of their apps.
Oh, and to stay on topic, MWSF is a public event, not necessarily a consumer event. Apple would have no problem announcing a Mac Pro with Xeon 53XXs. The keynote is a very public and media intensive event afterall. Jobs can spend all of 5 minutes on it and move on to bigger things like "iTV".
so they may have the pre sp1 and sp2 code and the dx 8? code.
not that Macosrumors is realiable at all. They posted this article about the Mac Pro Octo.
Have fun and Merry Christmas!
Quad-core/dual-chip (8-way) Mac Pros due at MWSF? And if so, will they have SLI for multiple GPU gaming? The latest Pro desktop dirt is here!
Of all the new "Macintel" systems that Apple has brought to market in its first full year working with the x86 platform, the Mac Pro was probably the least dramatic leap forward over its predecessor -- and has also fallen further short of its full potential than any other "Macintel" model.
Despite the various "timing" arguments used to project when Apple will update its hardware product lines, which would put the Mac Pro close to the rear of the pack in terms of which Mac will be updated next....many rumormongers appear quite confident that the Pro will be revamped with a surprisingly rich set of feature enhancements & additions -- as soon as next month's Macworld Expo in San Francisco.
MOSR does not have much confidence in the handful of reports that place the Mac Pro update firmly at MWSF.....in fact, there are reports with stronger supporting evidence, and from more well-established sources, indicating that the update will take place in February when a new version of the quad-core Xeon is expected to ship.
However, regardless of the exact timing -- the Mac Pro update is expected to come a lot sooner than historical hardware-update trends would indicate; and in fact, historical timings (long used to predict how long Apple will go between product updates) are next to useless in the Macintel era because they are a product of very different CPU & component suppliers and an entirely different hardware development process -- the rumored feature set is much the same across all of the different reports.
To wit:
Three basic models: Good (two dual core Xeons at 2.66GHz), Better (two dual core Xeons at 3.0GHz) and Best (two quad-core Xeons at 2.66GHz).
Dual-core models will sport 4MB of L2 cache per chip; the quad-core versions, 8MB per chip.
Motherboard chipset is similar to today's Pro but includes several key changes: a modified PCI controller chip with support for two x16 PCI-e slots which can be paired to support SLI (a technology which allows twin GPUs to act as one, but with twice the performance), two dynamically allocated PCI-e slots (when one is used, it offers x8; when both are used, only x4 each), and a new fifth slot which is 133MHz PCI-X -- allowing non-PCI Express cards to be added to the system without reducing the number of PCI-e lanes available to the first four slots. Altogether, a major enhancement for the Pro's expansion capabilities and includes two key customer requests made regarding the current model.
No word yet on whether Apple's new PCI controller will support ATi's CrossFire technology or just "standard" SLI.
New power supply with upgraded capacity and features borrowed from the Xserve (details embargoed by source; suffice to say this is intended to allow Mac Pros to be mixed with Xserves in a rackmount environment).
1GB of RAM standard on Good model, 2GB on Better & Best.
Standard graphics bumped to nVIDIA 7600GT; high end options include ATi X1950 XT, nVIDIA QuadroFX 4500, and a new high-end professional card from ATi as yet unnamed.
SLI and CrossFire supported cards will also be included, presuming both technologies are actually supported. A build to order SLI configuration based around the nVIDIA 7950 GX2 has been previewed to Apple partners but it is not known exactly what cards will be offered in the final product.
Other than the above, specs are expected to be similar to current models.
The addition of SLI support alone is a big deal.....but the added PCI-X slot and larger number of dynamically assignable lanes in the four PCIe slots (total of at least 40 lanes, as compared to the PowerMac G5 Quad's 32 and the current Mac Pro's 24) really make for a much more expandable machine.
We think it's going to be a real hit.....and soon, we should have a clearer idea of when the announcement/ship dates will be -- so stay tuned!
not that Macosrumors is realiable at all. They posted this article about the Mac Pro Octo.
Have fun and Merry Christmas!
Quad-core/dual-chip (8-way) Mac Pros due at MWSF? And if so, will they have SLI for multiple GPU gaming? The latest Pro desktop dirt is here!
Of all the new "Macintel" systems that Apple has brought to market in its first full year working with the x86 platform, the Mac Pro was probably the least dramatic leap forward over its predecessor -- and has also fallen further short of its full potential than any other "Macintel" model.
Despite the various "timing" arguments used to project when Apple will update its hardware product lines, which would put the Mac Pro close to the rear of the pack in terms of which Mac will be updated next....many rumormongers appear quite confident that the Pro will be revamped with a surprisingly rich set of feature enhancements & additions -- as soon as next month's Macworld Expo in San Francisco.
MOSR does not have much confidence in the handful of reports that place the Mac Pro update firmly at MWSF.....in fact, there are reports with stronger supporting evidence, and from more well-established sources, indicating that the update will take place in February when a new version of the quad-core Xeon is expected to ship.
However, regardless of the exact timing -- the Mac Pro update is expected to come a lot sooner than historical hardware-update trends would indicate; and in fact, historical timings (long used to predict how long Apple will go between product updates) are next to useless in the Macintel era because they are a product of very different CPU & component suppliers and an entirely different hardware development process -- the rumored feature set is much the same across all of the different reports.
To wit:
Three basic models: Good (two dual core Xeons at 2.66GHz), Better (two dual core Xeons at 3.0GHz) and Best (two quad-core Xeons at 2.66GHz).
Dual-core models will sport 4MB of L2 cache per chip; the quad-core versions, 8MB per chip.
Motherboard chipset is similar to today's Pro but includes several key changes: a modified PCI controller chip with support for two x16 PCI-e slots which can be paired to support SLI (a technology which allows twin GPUs to act as one, but with twice the performance), two dynamically allocated PCI-e slots (when one is used, it offers x8; when both are used, only x4 each), and a new fifth slot which is 133MHz PCI-X -- allowing non-PCI Express cards to be added to the system without reducing the number of PCI-e lanes available to the first four slots. Altogether, a major enhancement for the Pro's expansion capabilities and includes two key customer requests made regarding the current model.
No word yet on whether Apple's new PCI controller will support ATi's CrossFire technology or just "standard" SLI.
New power supply with upgraded capacity and features borrowed from the Xserve (details embargoed by source; suffice to say this is intended to allow Mac Pros to be mixed with Xserves in a rackmount environment).
1GB of RAM standard on Good model, 2GB on Better & Best.
Standard graphics bumped to nVIDIA 7600GT; high end options include ATi X1950 XT, nVIDIA QuadroFX 4500, and a new high-end professional card from ATi as yet unnamed.
SLI and CrossFire supported cards will also be included, presuming both technologies are actually supported. A build to order SLI configuration based around the nVIDIA 7950 GX2 has been previewed to Apple partners but it is not known exactly what cards will be offered in the final product.
Other than the above, specs are expected to be similar to current models.
The addition of SLI support alone is a big deal.....but the added PCI-X slot and larger number of dynamically assignable lanes in the four PCIe slots (total of at least 40 lanes, as compared to the PowerMac G5 Quad's 32 and the current Mac Pro's 24) really make for a much more expandable machine.
We think it's going to be a real hit.....and soon, we should have a clearer idea of when the announcement/ship dates will be -- so stay tuned!
apple's new PCI-e controller may be nforce pro for intel exon but there is not a nforce chip for exon. There are nforce pro chips for Opteron.
Apple may be working on amd 4x4 systems as they will have duel qaud-cores next year and they use DESKTOP RAM.
apple's new PCI-e controller may be nforce pro for intel exon but there is not a nforce chip for exon. There are nforce pro chips for Opteron.
I think mean Xeon, and it's fully possible that such a chipset (dual Xeon and SLI) is forthcoming, either in the form of an Nforce Pro set or an Intel solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon
Apple may be working on amd 4x4 systems as they will have duel qaud-cores next year and they use DESKTOP RAM.
You make it sound like that's a major factor whether one uses FB-DIMMs or regular DDR2. FB-DIMMs cost you in terms of latency, but it's nice to have the bandwidth at times.
I agree that I'd rather have a dual-quad 4x4 system with SLI than my current Mac Pro if it could run OS X, but there are a fair few problems with your logic:
FB-DIMMs help with Intel's major weakness: bandwidth. They hurt AMD in its weak spot: latency. AMD on FB-DIMMs would lose the latency advantages it gains with a built-in memory controller, but it doesn't matter as much on Intel.
Additionally, AMD generally lags to Intel on SIMD performance, which is something that OS X will live or die by (since that's the best thing the G4 had by far, the whole set-up is heavily SIMD oriented). That's less of an issue now though.
I think mean Xeon, and it's fully possible that such a chipset (dual Xeon and SLI) is forthcoming, either in the form of an Nforce Pro set or an Intel solution.
You make it sound like that's a major factor whether one uses FB-DIMMs or regular DDR2. FB-DIMMs cost you in terms of latency, but it's nice to have the bandwidth at times.
I agree that I'd rather have a dual-quad 4x4 system with SLI than my current Mac Pro if it could run OS X, but there are a fair few problems with your logic:
FB-DIMMs help with Intel's major weakness: bandwidth. They hurt AMD in its weak spot: latency. AMD on FB-DIMMs would lose the latency advantages it gains with a built-in memory controller, but it doesn't matter as much on Intel.
Additionally, AMD generally lags to Intel on SIMD performance, which is something that OS X will live or die by (since that's the best thing the G4 had by far, the whole set-up is heavily SIMD oriented). That's less of an issue now though.
FB-DIMM's may help with bandwidth but there cost is a lot higher then ddr ram and that latency is bad in gameing setups.
Apple does need a desktop with 1 desktop cpu, desktop ram, desktop hd, and desktop video card. They can also add sli / crossfire to that system.
Nforce Pro set for intel may hard to do as it uses the extra links that amd cpus have.
aka
setup 1
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 go the other cpu as link 1, 2, or 3 if 2 links for other things open.
setup 2
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to a pci-x chip link 3 goes to cpu 2.
link 1 goes to cpu 1 link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 goes to a htx slot.
you can also use 4 of the pci-e lanes form the nforce chip set for pci-x. also you can put a hardware raid chip on the some of them as well
FB-DIMM's may help with bandwidth but there cost is a lot higher then ddr ram and that latency is bad in gameing setups.
Apple does need a desktop with 1 desktop cpu, desktop ram, desktop hd, and desktop video card. They can also add sli / crossfire to that system.
Nforce Pro set for intel may hard to do as it uses the extra links that amd cpus have.
aka
setup 1
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 go the other cpu as link 1, 2, or 3 if 2 links for other things open.
setup 2
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to a pci-x chip link 3 goes to cpu 2.
link 1 goes to cpu 1 link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 goes to a htx slot.
you can also use 4 of the pci-e lanes form the nforce chip set for pci-x. also you can put a hardware raid chip on the some of them as well
See, see - look I don't care for all of this trickery. I know it means a lot for some out there.
I suspect for many Mac users who just want the fastest machine we can buy, that much of this can just fly straight over top ... wheeee
I want grunt <full freakn stop> - configure how you want - flexibilty.
If Apple give you guys all this sli, crossfire stuff, great. So long as it doesn't come at a cost to what I want.
Comments
But what I said about that was Crossover is doing exactly the same but it doesn't work because they have to reverse engineer Microsoft's proprietary APIs. Microsoft are not going to easily give up one of their strongest methods of maintaining a monopoly. Even if they did, as soon as they saw a problem, they would reserve the right to revoke it.
If Apple try to build alternate Microsoft APIs like Crossover, they face massive incompatibility issues and so the effort becomes useless.
The fantasy is that Apple has the Win32 source code as part of the settlement to the Quicktime lawsuit. No reverse engineering required if it is so.
But that only works for future software if you mean a developer API. You also have to remember that people explicitly stop Mac support even if they have a product because of low sales. Remember Bryce?
So we need Windows apps and it would be nice to have a compatibility layer but as Crossover has shown, it just doesn't work well enough.
CoreWindows reduces the barrier to entry by not forcing the developer into maintaining and developing entirely separate code bases. It's encouragement to have native applications. Doing the Parallels, OS/2 DOS virtual machine discourages native application development while CoreWindows encourages native app development, at least to within the bounds of the API.
This is really a war of who will take ownership of the Win32/.NET/FX API, same sort of deal between AMD and Intel on x86. It's war of who will take majority stake in x86 CPUs. CPU with different ISAs. PPC, MIPS, Alpha, etc., have already lost and will never compete in the personal computing market again.
I don't know what the deal is with Carbon. You can build a 100% C/C++ program using Cocoa so I don't know why the whole thing isn't deprecated.
Cocoa applications need to at least have the UI in Obj-C while the backend code can be C++/C/Obj-C or any other plethora of languages that have bindings to the Obj-C runtime.
Carbon will never be deprecated as long as Adobe CS and Microsoft Office exist on Macs. It will simply cost too much for them to change, especially for a <10% marketshare OS.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/12/feat...nds1/index.php
The fantasy is that Apple has the Win32 source code as part of the settlement to the Quicktime lawsuit. No reverse engineering required if it is so.
I never heard about that. Do you have a link? Does this allow them to use the code or just look at it? Also, does it guarantee future operating systems? This would solve any compatibility and even performance issues faced by Crossover. In fact, Windows apps may end up running faster in a Mac API.
CoreWindows reduces the barrier to entry by not forcing the developer into maintaining and developing entirely separate code bases. It's encouragement to have native applications. Doing the Parallels, OS/2 DOS virtual machine discourages native application development while CoreWindows encourages native app development, at least to within the bounds of the API.
Good point. I agree that the other things just encourage the use of Windows. Even when I used Bootcamp I felt that I was being drawn away. Then I booted up Windows and realised all was well with my Mac side.
Carbon will never be deprecated as long as Adobe CS and Microsoft Office exist on Macs. It will simply cost too much for them to change, especially for a <10% marketshare OS.
The overall OS marketshare is not as important as their customer marketshare. Adobe has a large percentage of sales from Mac users. I read 40% at one point. I believe Office for Mac does well too but I'll be damned if I know why.
MWSF is for consumer stuff. Since the Octo is aimed at professionals, I would think a regular Tuesday announcement at Apple's website will be all we are going to get.
I never heard about that. Do you have a link? Does this allow them to use the code or just look at it? Also, does it guarantee future operating systems? This would solve any compatibility and even performance issues faced by Crossover. In fact, Windows apps may end up running faster in a Mac API.
This is just a fantasy that Bob Cringely, of "Triumph of the Nerds" TV show fame, made up:
Native Speaker: There May Be an End-run for Apple Around Windows After All
"Now for the interesting part: I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.
Huh?
Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in. The wonder is, of course, that Apple could even dare to do such a thing?
Oh they can dare. Not only that, this is one dare Apple can probably get away with.
Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.
That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.
I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me."
The patent infringment suit was Quicktime. This is a fantasy I think. If they had the Win32 source code, they could provide an environment to support binary Windows apps unchanged, but that would be a losing strategy without having the primary component of it being app vendors maintaining a low-cost, compilable Mac OS X/Win32 version of their apps.
Oh, and to stay on topic, MWSF is a public event, not necessarily a consumer event. Apple would have no problem announcing a Mac Pro with Xeon 53XXs. The keynote is a very public and media intensive event afterall. Jobs can spend all of 5 minutes on it and move on to bigger things like "iTV".
This is just a fantasy that Bob Cringely, of "Triumph of the Nerds" TV show fame, made up:
Native Speaker: There May Be an End-run for Apple Around Windows After All
"Now for the interesting part: I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.
Huh?
Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in. The wonder is, of course, that Apple could even dare to do such a thing?
Oh they can dare. Not only that, this is one dare Apple can probably get away with.
Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.
That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.
I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me."
The patent infringment suit was Quicktime. This is a fantasy I think. If they had the Win32 source code, they could provide an environment to support binary Windows apps unchanged, but that would be a losing strategy without having the primary component of it being app vendors maintaining a low-cost, compilable Mac OS X/Win32 version of their apps.
Oh, and to stay on topic, MWSF is a public event, not necessarily a consumer event. Apple would have no problem announcing a Mac Pro with Xeon 53XXs. The keynote is a very public and media intensive event afterall. Jobs can spend all of 5 minutes on it and move on to bigger things like "iTV".
so they may have the pre sp1 and sp2 code and the dx 8? code.
By that I mean when Macs run both Windows and OSX simultaneously.
If you dont think its possible look for yourself.
Have fun and Merry Christmas!
Quad-core/dual-chip (8-way) Mac Pros due at MWSF? And if so, will they have SLI for multiple GPU gaming? The latest Pro desktop dirt is here!
Of all the new "Macintel" systems that Apple has brought to market in its first full year working with the x86 platform, the Mac Pro was probably the least dramatic leap forward over its predecessor -- and has also fallen further short of its full potential than any other "Macintel" model.
Despite the various "timing" arguments used to project when Apple will update its hardware product lines, which would put the Mac Pro close to the rear of the pack in terms of which Mac will be updated next....many rumormongers appear quite confident that the Pro will be revamped with a surprisingly rich set of feature enhancements & additions -- as soon as next month's Macworld Expo in San Francisco.
MOSR does not have much confidence in the handful of reports that place the Mac Pro update firmly at MWSF.....in fact, there are reports with stronger supporting evidence, and from more well-established sources, indicating that the update will take place in February when a new version of the quad-core Xeon is expected to ship.
However, regardless of the exact timing -- the Mac Pro update is expected to come a lot sooner than historical hardware-update trends would indicate; and in fact, historical timings (long used to predict how long Apple will go between product updates) are next to useless in the Macintel era because they are a product of very different CPU & component suppliers and an entirely different hardware development process -- the rumored feature set is much the same across all of the different reports.
To wit:
Three basic models: Good (two dual core Xeons at 2.66GHz), Better (two dual core Xeons at 3.0GHz) and Best (two quad-core Xeons at 2.66GHz).
Dual-core models will sport 4MB of L2 cache per chip; the quad-core versions, 8MB per chip.
Motherboard chipset is similar to today's Pro but includes several key changes: a modified PCI controller chip with support for two x16 PCI-e slots which can be paired to support SLI (a technology which allows twin GPUs to act as one, but with twice the performance), two dynamically allocated PCI-e slots (when one is used, it offers x8; when both are used, only x4 each), and a new fifth slot which is 133MHz PCI-X -- allowing non-PCI Express cards to be added to the system without reducing the number of PCI-e lanes available to the first four slots. Altogether, a major enhancement for the Pro's expansion capabilities and includes two key customer requests made regarding the current model.
No word yet on whether Apple's new PCI controller will support ATi's CrossFire technology or just "standard" SLI.
New power supply with upgraded capacity and features borrowed from the Xserve (details embargoed by source; suffice to say this is intended to allow Mac Pros to be mixed with Xserves in a rackmount environment).
1GB of RAM standard on Good model, 2GB on Better & Best.
Standard graphics bumped to nVIDIA 7600GT; high end options include ATi X1950 XT, nVIDIA QuadroFX 4500, and a new high-end professional card from ATi as yet unnamed.
SLI and CrossFire supported cards will also be included, presuming both technologies are actually supported. A build to order SLI configuration based around the nVIDIA 7950 GX2 has been previewed to Apple partners but it is not known exactly what cards will be offered in the final product.
Other than the above, specs are expected to be similar to current models.
The addition of SLI support alone is a big deal.....but the added PCI-X slot and larger number of dynamically assignable lanes in the four PCIe slots (total of at least 40 lanes, as compared to the PowerMac G5 Quad's 32 and the current Mac Pro's 24) really make for a much more expandable machine.
We think it's going to be a real hit.....and soon, we should have a clearer idea of when the announcement/ship dates will be -- so stay tuned!
not that Macosrumors is realiable at all. They posted this article about the Mac Pro Octo.
Have fun and Merry Christmas!
Quad-core/dual-chip (8-way) Mac Pros due at MWSF? And if so, will they have SLI for multiple GPU gaming? The latest Pro desktop dirt is here!
Of all the new "Macintel" systems that Apple has brought to market in its first full year working with the x86 platform, the Mac Pro was probably the least dramatic leap forward over its predecessor -- and has also fallen further short of its full potential than any other "Macintel" model.
Despite the various "timing" arguments used to project when Apple will update its hardware product lines, which would put the Mac Pro close to the rear of the pack in terms of which Mac will be updated next....many rumormongers appear quite confident that the Pro will be revamped with a surprisingly rich set of feature enhancements & additions -- as soon as next month's Macworld Expo in San Francisco.
MOSR does not have much confidence in the handful of reports that place the Mac Pro update firmly at MWSF.....in fact, there are reports with stronger supporting evidence, and from more well-established sources, indicating that the update will take place in February when a new version of the quad-core Xeon is expected to ship.
However, regardless of the exact timing -- the Mac Pro update is expected to come a lot sooner than historical hardware-update trends would indicate; and in fact, historical timings (long used to predict how long Apple will go between product updates) are next to useless in the Macintel era because they are a product of very different CPU & component suppliers and an entirely different hardware development process -- the rumored feature set is much the same across all of the different reports.
To wit:
Three basic models: Good (two dual core Xeons at 2.66GHz), Better (two dual core Xeons at 3.0GHz) and Best (two quad-core Xeons at 2.66GHz).
Dual-core models will sport 4MB of L2 cache per chip; the quad-core versions, 8MB per chip.
Motherboard chipset is similar to today's Pro but includes several key changes: a modified PCI controller chip with support for two x16 PCI-e slots which can be paired to support SLI (a technology which allows twin GPUs to act as one, but with twice the performance), two dynamically allocated PCI-e slots (when one is used, it offers x8; when both are used, only x4 each), and a new fifth slot which is 133MHz PCI-X -- allowing non-PCI Express cards to be added to the system without reducing the number of PCI-e lanes available to the first four slots. Altogether, a major enhancement for the Pro's expansion capabilities and includes two key customer requests made regarding the current model.
No word yet on whether Apple's new PCI controller will support ATi's CrossFire technology or just "standard" SLI.
New power supply with upgraded capacity and features borrowed from the Xserve (details embargoed by source; suffice to say this is intended to allow Mac Pros to be mixed with Xserves in a rackmount environment).
1GB of RAM standard on Good model, 2GB on Better & Best.
Standard graphics bumped to nVIDIA 7600GT; high end options include ATi X1950 XT, nVIDIA QuadroFX 4500, and a new high-end professional card from ATi as yet unnamed.
SLI and CrossFire supported cards will also be included, presuming both technologies are actually supported. A build to order SLI configuration based around the nVIDIA 7950 GX2 has been previewed to Apple partners but it is not known exactly what cards will be offered in the final product.
Other than the above, specs are expected to be similar to current models.
The addition of SLI support alone is a big deal.....but the added PCI-X slot and larger number of dynamically assignable lanes in the four PCIe slots (total of at least 40 lanes, as compared to the PowerMac G5 Quad's 32 and the current Mac Pro's 24) really make for a much more expandable machine.
We think it's going to be a real hit.....and soon, we should have a clearer idea of when the announcement/ship dates will be -- so stay tuned!
apple's new PCI-e controller may be nforce pro for intel exon but there is not a nforce chip for exon. There are nforce pro chips for Opteron.
Apple may be working on amd 4x4 systems as they will have duel qaud-cores next year and they use DESKTOP RAM.
apple's new PCI-e controller may be nforce pro for intel exon but there is not a nforce chip for exon. There are nforce pro chips for Opteron.
I think mean Xeon, and it's fully possible that such a chipset (dual Xeon and SLI) is forthcoming, either in the form of an Nforce Pro set or an Intel solution.
Apple may be working on amd 4x4 systems as they will have duel qaud-cores next year and they use DESKTOP RAM.
You make it sound like that's a major factor whether one uses FB-DIMMs or regular DDR2. FB-DIMMs cost you in terms of latency, but it's nice to have the bandwidth at times.
I agree that I'd rather have a dual-quad 4x4 system with SLI than my current Mac Pro if it could run OS X, but there are a fair few problems with your logic:
FB-DIMMs help with Intel's major weakness: bandwidth. They hurt AMD in its weak spot: latency. AMD on FB-DIMMs would lose the latency advantages it gains with a built-in memory controller, but it doesn't matter as much on Intel.
Additionally, AMD generally lags to Intel on SIMD performance, which is something that OS X will live or die by (since that's the best thing the G4 had by far, the whole set-up is heavily SIMD oriented). That's less of an issue now though.
I think mean Xeon, and it's fully possible that such a chipset (dual Xeon and SLI) is forthcoming, either in the form of an Nforce Pro set or an Intel solution.
You make it sound like that's a major factor whether one uses FB-DIMMs or regular DDR2. FB-DIMMs cost you in terms of latency, but it's nice to have the bandwidth at times.
I agree that I'd rather have a dual-quad 4x4 system with SLI than my current Mac Pro if it could run OS X, but there are a fair few problems with your logic:
FB-DIMMs help with Intel's major weakness: bandwidth. They hurt AMD in its weak spot: latency. AMD on FB-DIMMs would lose the latency advantages it gains with a built-in memory controller, but it doesn't matter as much on Intel.
Additionally, AMD generally lags to Intel on SIMD performance, which is something that OS X will live or die by (since that's the best thing the G4 had by far, the whole set-up is heavily SIMD oriented). That's less of an issue now though.
FB-DIMM's may help with bandwidth but there cost is a lot higher then ddr ram and that latency is bad in gameing setups.
Apple does need a desktop with 1 desktop cpu, desktop ram, desktop hd, and desktop video card. They can also add sli / crossfire to that system.
Nforce Pro set for intel may hard to do as it uses the extra links that amd cpus have.
aka
setup 1
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 go the other cpu as link 1, 2, or 3 if 2 links for other things open.
setup 2
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to a pci-x chip link 3 goes to cpu 2.
link 1 goes to cpu 1 link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 goes to a htx slot.
you can also use 4 of the pci-e lanes form the nforce chip set for pci-x. also you can put a hardware raid chip on the some of them as well
FB-DIMM's may help with bandwidth but there cost is a lot higher then ddr ram and that latency is bad in gameing setups.
Apple does need a desktop with 1 desktop cpu, desktop ram, desktop hd, and desktop video card. They can also add sli / crossfire to that system.
Nforce Pro set for intel may hard to do as it uses the extra links that amd cpus have.
aka
setup 1
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 go the other cpu as link 1, 2, or 3 if 2 links for other things open.
setup 2
link 1 goes to one part of the chip set. link 2 goes to a pci-x chip link 3 goes to cpu 2.
link 1 goes to cpu 1 link 2 goes to the other part of the chip set link 3 goes to a htx slot.
you can also use 4 of the pci-e lanes form the nforce chip set for pci-x. also you can put a hardware raid chip on the some of them as well
See, see - look I don't care for all of this trickery. I know it means a lot for some out there.
I suspect for many Mac users who just want the fastest machine we can buy, that much of this can just fly straight over top ... wheeee
I want grunt <full freakn stop> - configure how you want - flexibilty.
If Apple give you guys all this sli, crossfire stuff, great. So long as it doesn't come at a cost to what I want.
<rant off> apologies ... well a little anyhooo
cheers and the best over the holidays, r