Doesn't matter, since Apple doesn't employ that technique, and on newer Macs doesn't even leave the option open.
No, that's just you being a kid.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Hating intel is quite common actually so I dont consider it childish. Many people really dislike them for their cost and how they pay people to write better reviews for their products than they really are.
I'm wondering if it's possible for a Mac to use EFI, and BIOS, or choose one depending on the card you have in your computer.
I remember when I said what if a the Mac Pro could configure the PCI-E lanes on the fly with a software utility, and everybody thought I was an idiot, and said that was impossible. What happened...??? Apple released the intel Mac Pro's 6 days later and they did it just like I described.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Because most Intel Macs since fall 2006 don't have a TPM, so even if Apple were to ever actually make use of that capability on older Intel Macs, they couldn't on the newer ones. This strongly suggests that they don't intend to use it at all.
Because most Intel Macs since fall 2006 don't have a TPM, so even if Apple were to ever actually make use of that capability on older Intel Macs, they couldn't on the newer ones. This strongly suggests that they don't intend to use it at all.
Another important thing to realize about EFI is that it also contemplates enabling chipset features that will trap certain OS operations to an EFI-based control system running in System Management Mode. In other words, under EFI, there is no guarantee that the OS owns the platform. Accesses to IDE I/O addresses, or certain memory addresses, can be trapped to EFI code and potentially examined and modified or aborted. Many see this as an effort to build a "DRM BIOS". I am not sure what the real intent of this design is, but is is a real concern in secure environments (such as those found in governments, banks, and large search engine companies). A number of vendors and users have told me that they are not sure they can ship an EFI system they are willing to trust in a secure environment.
Enjoy... or lack there of.
This is one of the reasons I will never buy a Intel Mac.
I will continue to use my G5 iMac and Linux if they dont open up OSX or there is not a simple way to install OSX on non mac hardware "IE I buy the CD insert it then patch it simply" I wont be moving beyond my G5 sorry Apple besides I am a AMD fan.
Hey now I am not being paranoid.. There is enough going on out there trying to clamp down what you can and cannot do with computers there is enough reason to be concerned if you are not you are stupid. And I am not going to buy into things that are inherently evil.
Call me crazy if you want I dont expect mac users to understand the side of somebody who prefer's linux over mac but still owns a mac cause I can get things done on it "turbo tax" etc.
I truly do like OSX but I hate the Mac. Or at least what it has become.
So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using EFI or BIOS (aside form the fact that the latest cards are only available for systems using BIOS)? Also, do you think micosoft will make the BIOS-to-EFI transition, and if so, when?
M$ wanted to go to EFI for windows vista but there was very less EFI hardware so that did not put it in vista.
Apple should revert to BIOS, or have a BIOS/EFI capable system. Because it's getting ridiculous.
IMO M$ did not use EFI because they new Apple were planning on it, and that would hurt Apple sales if Microsoft didn't use it. M$ has 97% of all purchases and they can dictate what card manufactures have to do to sell cards with that 97%. If M$ went EFI like the manufacturers wanted them to, everything would be EFI right now. Most new cards wouldn't have a BIOS equivalent, but there would still be a decent percentage of BIOS capable new cards made for legacy machines.
Apple is behind in graphics. It tends to take them a little while to get boards and drivers ready, and unfortunately with the new generation of graphics cards from nVidia (and soon AMD/ATi) supporting these completely programmable shaders, even Vista is not getting decent drivers on time. In fact nVidia just recently brought out a 32 bit vista SLI driver, and I think the 64 bit one is still in the lab being tinkered with for stability reasons.
I'd expect AMD/ATi to make a STRONG play for supporting Apple at this time because Apple is still picking up steam, and if they can get a good foot in the door in the graphics market, they always have an avenue to discuss cpus and platform, but if they get behind in the graphics support areas, there isn't a lot of reason for Apple to keep them around at any rate as both nVidia and AMD/ATi's graphics cards are generally relatively close each generation (since the 9700 clobbered the 5 month late 5800, after a long run against the 4 series).
I'd expect to see Apple shipping R600 based mac pro's this summer, with the 8800 not too far behind, despite the fact that it was to market a LONG time before the R600.
There's also a chance the Mac Pros will sport the Barcelona quad core CPUs. That's my next upgrade if it happens.
Really? An how would you know that? Do you seriously think Apple will stay Intel forever?
No, but certainly for the next few years. The amount of collaboration between the two companies is something AMD doesn't have the resources to pull off.
No, but certainly for the next few years. The amount of collaboration between the two companies is something AMD doesn't have the resources to pull off.
Sorry, but I have to laugh! What has Intel done for Apple that AMD can't do? Do you know anything about AMD that tells you Apple can't use AMD processors?
Sorry, but I have to laugh! What has Intel done for Apple that AMD can't do? Do you know anything about AMD that tells you Apple can't use AMD processors?
For one thing (and a very important one) Apple makes huge demands on it's partners. Partly because they can, but mostly to protect the "Mac'ness", "iPod'ness" (or what have you) of the Apple Product Experience. Some are willing and capable (Intel, Cingular/ATT, etc.). Some are capable but not willing (Verizon). Some are willing but not capable (AMD?). AMD has all it can do right now to keep ATI going and compete in the WinTel box world. Right now they've not the resources to devote to an Apple partnership. I feel that if AMD were to try, they'd be unable to properly execute in either relm... for now. That could easily change over the next couple of years though.
For one thing (and a very important one) Apple makes huge demands on it's partners. Partly because they can, but mostly to protect the "Mac'ness", "iPod'ness" (or what have you) of the Apple Product Experience. Some are willing and capable (Intel, Cingular/ATT, etc.). Some are capable but not willing (Verizon). Some are willing but not capable (AMD?). AMD has all it can do right now to keep ATI going and compete in the WinTel box world. Right now they've not the resources to devote to an Apple partnership. I feel that if AMD were to try, they'd be unable to properly execute in either relm... for now. That could easily change over the next couple of years though.
Sorry, but that's just your opinion/impression with no facts to substantiate. You will be proven wrong.
Did you know that a large majority of super computers use AMD processors? More AMD than Intel!
Rumor has it that ATI R600 will be unveiled on the next Mac Pro. If that's so, there's nothing stopping Apple from using AMD. Unless Apple signed a multi-year agreement with Intel (typically something Jobs wouldn't do), it is Apple's advantage to have a second supplier for CPUs and avoid being gouged by Intel.
Sorry, but that's just your opinion/impression with no facts to substantiate. You will be proven wrong.
Did you know that a large majority of super computers use AMD processors? More AMD than Intel!
Rumor has it that ATI R600 will be unveiled on the next Mac Pro. If that's so, there's nothing stopping Apple from using AMD. Unless Apple signed a multi-year agreement with Intel (typically something Jobs wouldn't do), it is Apple's advantage to have a second supplier for CPUs and avoid being gouged by Intel.
JMHO of course.
True, perhaps, but even the (arguably) mighty IBM tired of playing Apple games after a while.... who knows. Honestly, I'd love it if AMD was a player, but for the time being, the Core processor design of Intel outstrips anything AMD has to offer and it remains to be seen how long it'll take AMD to respond with CPUs let alone the R600. Rumors are just that, rumors. Apples with Crossfire is such a foreign sounding beast, so far removed from the course Apple has been on for so long, I'll believe it when I see it (and be first, or second assuming you beat me , in line to buy one).
True, perhaps, but even the (arguably) mighty IBM tired of playing Apple games after a while.... who knows. Honestly, I'd love it if AMD was a player, but for the time being, the Core processor design of Intel outstrips anything AMD has to offer and it remains to be seen how long it'll take AMD to respond with CPUs let alone the R600. Rumors are just that, rumors. Apples with Crossfire is such a foreign sounding beast, so far removed from the course Apple has been on for so long, I'll believe it when I see it (and be first, or second assuming you beat me , in line to buy one).
core2 is nice for now but the chip set still suck next the nvidia and ati ones and amd is much better at 4 way systems then intel is.
Also if the mac pro where to go AMD then apple can use cheaper and faster ddr 2 or ddr 2 ecc ram.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Hating intel is quite common actually so I dont consider it childish. Many people really dislike them for their cost and how they pay people to write better reviews for their products than they really are.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
Ignorance is not something you should flaunt!
Many posters, including myself have been on this board for a longtime and never has AMD been brought up as a point of discussion till now and only because Apple has finally gone away from the PPC chips. One doesn't need to be fan boy to realize that AMD has set the trend with multi-cores and continues to do so with quads.
Frankly, this is not a discussion about Intel vs AMD but about Apple putting in products that provide value and performance. Btw, I hope Apple's not one of those companies that took cash paybacks for using Intel processors like Dell and others are being accused of doing.
Comments
Doesn't matter, since Apple doesn't employ that technique, and on newer Macs doesn't even leave the option open.
No, that's just you being a kid.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Hating intel is quite common actually so I dont consider it childish. Many people really dislike them for their cost and how they pay people to write better reviews for their products than they really are.
I remember when I said what if a the Mac Pro could configure the PCI-E lanes on the fly with a software utility, and everybody thought I was an idiot, and said that was impossible. What happened...??? Apple released the intel Mac Pro's 6 days later and they did it just like I described.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Because most Intel Macs since fall 2006 don't have a TPM, so even if Apple were to ever actually make use of that capability on older Intel Macs, they couldn't on the newer ones. This strongly suggests that they don't intend to use it at all.
Because most Intel Macs since fall 2006 don't have a TPM, so even if Apple were to ever actually make use of that capability on older Intel Macs, they couldn't on the newer ones. This strongly suggests that they don't intend to use it at all.
TPM means nothing in the scope of things.
http://lwn.net/Articles/220956/
Another important thing to realize about EFI is that it also contemplates enabling chipset features that will trap certain OS operations to an EFI-based control system running in System Management Mode. In other words, under EFI, there is no guarantee that the OS owns the platform. Accesses to IDE I/O addresses, or certain memory addresses, can be trapped to EFI code and potentially examined and modified or aborted. Many see this as an effort to build a "DRM BIOS". I am not sure what the real intent of this design is, but is is a real concern in secure environments (such as those found in governments, banks, and large search engine companies). A number of vendors and users have told me that they are not sure they can ship an EFI system they are willing to trust in a secure environment.
Enjoy... or lack there of.
This is one of the reasons I will never buy a Intel Mac.
I will continue to use my G5 iMac and Linux if they dont open up OSX or there is not a simple way to install OSX on non mac hardware "IE I buy the CD insert it then patch it simply" I wont be moving beyond my G5 sorry Apple besides I am a AMD fan.
Enjoy your tinfoil hattery.
Oh jeez.
Enjoy your tinfoil hattery.
Hey now I am not being paranoid.. There is enough going on out there trying to clamp down what you can and cannot do with computers there is enough reason to be concerned if you are not you are stupid. And I am not going to buy into things that are inherently evil.
Call me crazy if you want I dont expect mac users to understand the side of somebody who prefer's linux over mac but still owns a mac cause I can get things done on it "turbo tax" etc.
I truly do like OSX but I hate the Mac. Or at least what it has become.
So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using EFI or BIOS (aside form the fact that the latest cards are only available for systems using BIOS)? Also, do you think micosoft will make the BIOS-to-EFI transition, and if so, when?
M$ wanted to go to EFI for windows vista but there was very less EFI hardware so that did not put it in vista.
IMO M$ did not use EFI because they new Apple were planning on it, and that would hurt Apple sales if Microsoft didn't use it. M$ has 97% of all purchases and they can dictate what card manufactures have to do to sell cards with that 97%. If M$ went EFI like the manufacturers wanted them to, everything would be EFI right now. Most new cards wouldn't have a BIOS equivalent, but there would still be a decent percentage of BIOS capable new cards made for legacy machines.
That's my 2¢
Apple is behind in graphics. It tends to take them a little while to get boards and drivers ready, and unfortunately with the new generation of graphics cards from nVidia (and soon AMD/ATi) supporting these completely programmable shaders, even Vista is not getting decent drivers on time. In fact nVidia just recently brought out a 32 bit vista SLI driver, and I think the 64 bit one is still in the lab being tinkered with for stability reasons.
I'd expect AMD/ATi to make a STRONG play for supporting Apple at this time because Apple is still picking up steam, and if they can get a good foot in the door in the graphics market, they always have an avenue to discuss cpus and platform, but if they get behind in the graphics support areas, there isn't a lot of reason for Apple to keep them around at any rate as both nVidia and AMD/ATi's graphics cards are generally relatively close each generation (since the 9700 clobbered the 5 month late 5800, after a long run against the 4 series).
I'd expect to see Apple shipping R600 based mac pro's this summer, with the 8800 not too far behind, despite the fact that it was to market a LONG time before the R600.
There's also a chance the Mac Pros will sport the Barcelona quad core CPUs. That's my next upgrade if it happens.
There's also a chance the Mac Pros will sport the Barcelona quad core CPUs.
No, there isn't.
No, there isn't.
Really? An how would you know that? Do you seriously think Apple will stay Intel forever?
Really? An how would you know that? Do you seriously think Apple will stay Intel forever?
No, but certainly for the next few years. The amount of collaboration between the two companies is something AMD doesn't have the resources to pull off.
No, but certainly for the next few years. The amount of collaboration between the two companies is something AMD doesn't have the resources to pull off.
Sorry, but I have to laugh! What has Intel done for Apple that AMD can't do? Do you know anything about AMD that tells you Apple can't use AMD processors?
Sorry, but I have to laugh! What has Intel done for Apple that AMD can't do? Do you know anything about AMD that tells you Apple can't use AMD processors?
For one thing (and a very important one) Apple makes huge demands on it's partners. Partly because they can, but mostly to protect the "Mac'ness", "iPod'ness" (or what have you) of the Apple Product Experience. Some are willing and capable (Intel, Cingular/ATT, etc.). Some are capable but not willing (Verizon). Some are willing but not capable (AMD?). AMD has all it can do right now to keep ATI going and compete in the WinTel box world. Right now they've not the resources to devote to an Apple partnership. I feel that if AMD were to try, they'd be unable to properly execute in either relm... for now. That could easily change over the next couple of years though.
For one thing (and a very important one) Apple makes huge demands on it's partners. Partly because they can, but mostly to protect the "Mac'ness", "iPod'ness" (or what have you) of the Apple Product Experience. Some are willing and capable (Intel, Cingular/ATT, etc.). Some are capable but not willing (Verizon). Some are willing but not capable (AMD?). AMD has all it can do right now to keep ATI going and compete in the WinTel box world. Right now they've not the resources to devote to an Apple partnership. I feel that if AMD were to try, they'd be unable to properly execute in either relm... for now. That could easily change over the next couple of years though.
Sorry, but that's just your opinion/impression with no facts to substantiate. You will be proven wrong.
Did you know that a large majority of super computers use AMD processors? More AMD than Intel!
Rumor has it that ATI R600 will be unveiled on the next Mac Pro. If that's so, there's nothing stopping Apple from using AMD. Unless Apple signed a multi-year agreement with Intel (typically something Jobs wouldn't do), it is Apple's advantage to have a second supplier for CPUs and avoid being gouged by Intel.
JMHO of course.
Sorry, but that's just your opinion/impression with no facts to substantiate. You will be proven wrong.
Did you know that a large majority of super computers use AMD processors? More AMD than Intel!
Rumor has it that ATI R600 will be unveiled on the next Mac Pro. If that's so, there's nothing stopping Apple from using AMD. Unless Apple signed a multi-year agreement with Intel (typically something Jobs wouldn't do), it is Apple's advantage to have a second supplier for CPUs and avoid being gouged by Intel.
JMHO of course.
True, perhaps, but even the (arguably) mighty IBM tired of playing Apple games after a while.... who knows. Honestly, I'd love it if AMD was a player, but for the time being, the Core processor design of Intel outstrips anything AMD has to offer and it remains to be seen how long it'll take AMD to respond with CPUs let alone the R600. Rumors are just that, rumors. Apples with Crossfire is such a foreign sounding beast, so far removed from the course Apple has been on for so long, I'll believe it when I see it (and be first, or second assuming you beat me
True, perhaps, but even the (arguably) mighty IBM tired of playing Apple games after a while.... who knows. Honestly, I'd love it if AMD was a player, but for the time being, the Core processor design of Intel outstrips anything AMD has to offer and it remains to be seen how long it'll take AMD to respond with CPUs let alone the R600. Rumors are just that, rumors. Apples with Crossfire is such a foreign sounding beast, so far removed from the course Apple has been on for so long, I'll believe it when I see it (and be first, or second assuming you beat me
core2 is nice for now but the chip set still suck next the nvidia and ati ones and amd is much better at 4 way systems then intel is.
Also if the mac pro where to go AMD then apple can use cheaper and faster ddr 2 or ddr 2 ecc ram.
How does the newer mac not leave that option open? Care to explain?
Hating intel is quite common actually so I dont consider it childish. Many people really dislike them for their cost and how they pay people to write better reviews for their products than they really are.
Their cost? Check this out.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
Their cost? Check this out.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
Amen Brother.
Their cost? Check this out.
AMD must really be desperate. Now they have their fanboys invading Apple discussion groups, since they're getting pummeled by Intel users in the PC groups. They obviously think Apple users don't know better so they come here to keep up their typical, childish bullying. Intel has the best laptop chips, the best desktop chips and are competitive in the server space.
Ignorance is not something you should flaunt!
Many posters, including myself have been on this board for a longtime and never has AMD been brought up as a point of discussion till now and only because Apple has finally gone away from the PPC chips. One doesn't need to be fan boy to realize that AMD has set the trend with multi-cores and continues to do so with quads.
Frankly, this is not a discussion about Intel vs AMD but about Apple putting in products that provide value and performance. Btw, I hope Apple's not one of those companies that took cash paybacks for using Intel processors like Dell and others are being accused of doing.