I agree...why would they wait this long? And how would these awesome new products affect Q3 margins if they don't come out until the end of September? I think they have to come out in August.
I can't believe after the major FUBAR that was the MobileMe and iPhone 3G rollout, that people are actually asking Apple to rush something to market!
I generally understand the differences between the CPU and chipset but I do not have a technical understanding like many of you, so this is all pure speculation as I don't know if it's possible or even plausible, given battery considerations, heat dissipation, etc.
But my understanding is that by Apple providing their own chipset, they can basically reconfigure the motherboard, yes?
So is it possible that they might create a motherboard that can handle dual processors like their Mac Pro? Running dual Centrino 2's would be a major benefit unmatched by their competition.
Or how about a substantially faster front-side bus? Expanded Ram maximum?
Also, I remember some patents that Apple filed a while back describing a portable device much like a notebook with a removable keyboard, that you could then plug other interfaces into for controlling specific tasks in different programs.....such as:
Let's say your editing video on your mac laptop....pull the keyboard off, and plug&play a video interface with full dedicated keys and "scrubbing" shuttle wheels.
Or, your running any number of audio applications, but let's say Logic, and you can plug & play a midi keyboard interface directly onto your laptop, or an equalizer, or a loop-based editor with touch capability.
Or, your running your fav graphics software and you can pull your keyboard and plug in a tablet interface directly on your laptop....
Really, the sky is the limit here and it would be untouchable by any other computer maker.
Wouldn't you need a new type of motherboard for such a system?
I can't believe after the major FUBAR that was the MobileMe and iPhone 3G rollout, that people are actually asking Apple to rush something to market!
Not to mention that Montevina is having it's own issues that are causing delays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G520incher
So is it possible that they might create a motherboard that can handle dual processors like their Mac Pro? Running dual Centrino 2's would be a major benefit unmatched by their competition, yes?
It's possible, but not viable. First, there are very few apps that can really benefit from multiple CPUs/cores. Secondly, it would increase the cost by several hundred dollars, increase the space needed and wouldn't improve performance in many areas. It's just not an ideal solution for a notebook.
Quote:
Or how about a substantially faster front-side bus? Expanded Ram maximum?
The FSB has been getting faster, but I believe in Montevina (or maybe it's Nehalem) the FSB is going away. It is being replaced with Intel's QuickPath Interconnect.
The RAM will increase, but only when the RAM density increases.There is little need for Apple to have 3 or 4 memory slots like there are in many desktops.
Yeah, the new QuickPath Interconnect is in Nehalem and newer processors. I'm pretty sure Montevina still uses a FSB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The FSB has been getting faster, but I believe in Montevina (or maybe it's Nehalem) the FSB is going away. It is being replaced with Intel's QuickPath Interconnect.
A hardware authentication chip for OSX, now, that's believable. Although I don't know why TPM wouldn't be sufficient for this.
TPM is a hash key so any software spoofing of the key after a hack will allow the OS to be installed, but if the OS relies on certain HW to be used to process data then wouldn't the SW hackers have to rewrite the core OS in order to get it to work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon
The macs out right now don't have one and locking out 10.6 to them will be a bad move.eo
But the chip has to come before the OS for HW authentication to work. So Apple might quietly release this chips now and make them active for 10.7 while updating 10.6. for a longer timeframe to support the Intel machines without the chip (like they are probably going to do with PPC Macs and 10.5).
Seems to me that a hardware verification chip would be recieved poorly, and also probably be a waste of resources for that goal alone. Now on the other hand, if they use a carrot approach and have additional processors for specific purposes (or even extra general CPU's), then they'd have one great carrot. Instead of Apple being ogres for adding security, consumers would ask "Why?" when thinking about building their own macs, they'd lose benefits if they did so.
In this way OS X could be noticably faster, yet still run windows at native speed. Non-techies won't know why, they'll just say OS X is faster. Or hell, they may write custom drivers so that Mac hardware runs Windows the fastest natively on Apple hardware, thus selling more and more.
Plus there's probably some touch screen magic in there somewhere.
1) Doesn't Youtube for AppleTV run on H.264, though?
2) I agree the Grand Central thing is vague
3) Lastly,
Of course nothing is impossible to hack I suppose, but the idea was: constrain the supply of the chip by making it proprietary, ie using something that isn't available, which is harder to bypass.
SJ has publicly concurred with the idea that people who make their own software should make their own hardware. The move to Intel CPUs & chipsets, though highly marketable in the eyes of the hardware specification duped general public, has robbed Apple of unique hardware that, marketability aside, produced a better product. I can't help but feel the reliability gap between my 'solid' iMac G4 and my 'wobbly' iMac C2D isn't software alone - I almost empathise with Windows users - almost.
I reckon the Intel transition was purely to show how much nobody really needs x86 in the first place - most users don't. It would make sense to maintain the marketability of x86 (until the apron strings can be completely severed) either by keeping the CPU or licensing the core(s) to incorporate into a more power/performance efficient PA package. Wasn't it PA that came up with the low power PPC variant a bit too late?
All that aside, Steve was the man who replaced the iPod mini with the Nano purely in the name of progress so my money would be on a wholesale (because that's the price they'd have to sell them at) transition to SSDs.
That seems reasonable, but I didn't think tech from working with P.A. Semi would have occurred this quickly. Of course, I have no idea what they are doing or when they started, I just assumed we wouldn't see any fruits of that labour until 2009.
They use their acquisitions quickly. Very quickly.
The individuals they bought away from Fingerworks, as far as any known information is concerned (date of buyout/fingerworks website closing/known beginnings of iPhone+Multi-Touch development), began working their asses off immediately.
On a less hardcore note - does anyone remember downloading that neat app that turned your iTunes library into a slick, rendered jukebox that allowed you to flip through album covers...whose website went disappeared fewer than two weeks before the redesign of iTunes?
Apple is fun to follow because shit happens rapidly and with minimal stagnation for a 150b mkt cap corporation.
TPM is a hash key so any software spoofing of the key after a hack will allow the OS to be installed, but if the OS relies on certain HW to be used to process data then wouldn't the SW hackers have to rewrite the core OS in order to get it to work?
But the chip has to come before the OS for HW authentication to work. So Apple might quietly release this chips now and make them active for 10.7 while updating 10.6. for a longer timeframe to support the Intel machines without the chip (like they are probably going to do with PPC Macs and 10.5).
Why do they need to do any of this, again?
Their hardware design and the benefits of buying their machines are fucking competitors up already. Some sort of crazy gains from their supposed customized chipsets cancel out the necessity of even tighter OS/rig ties.
[Perceived] quality and features attracts more revenue growth than an activation system, than serious hardware lock-in, than spending ANY man-hours at all for contrived rights management for their own products.
Respect, pedigree, advancement and sexiness are most of what translates into 30% of Leopard sales being Family Pack SKUs. My techie dad knows there is no activation, serials or evil play with a single-license copy of OS X but still buys the family pack for our house.
edit: We've had Universal OS X for almost three years now and osx86 is still not at all a solution to be relied upon. The notion that Apple rolls out their regular updates that happen to break your hackintosh simply because they don't give hardware consideration to any units but their own is strong enough and shows no signs of weakening.
Briefly as this has been covered. CPUs and Chipsets ARE different. Apple won't change either as chipsets are very complex, have a tendency to underperform expectations, and they are not sexy. Logic boards can change without a chipset change. Many, many redesigns happen before finals. Custom H.264 seems to be nothing (on its own) as this would not send competition scrambling in the least, nor would HW authentication.
What would send other vendors (Windows) scrambling? Some kind of SSD for instant boot. This could be a custom drive just to handle the OS and Apple apps; say 20GB max! This could also be a protected drive so no one could easily get at the kernel or other files. Custom Co-Processor for image/video/sound editing, but this is not mainstream. Custom GPU for graphic intensive GUI and for GAMES. Something Apple can't touch right now and is more mainstream.
First, we would have to identify what competition? Home Windows market; therefore games as the internet and eMail are already fast enough. Or the Media competition whereby a custom chip for image/video/ and sound editing would wet it apart. Or the mobile market where battery life is key.
H.264 could be included in a MPU (Media Processing Unit), but i don't see this as the main function. The MPU is more likely when you move to Quad-core as there isn't much going on that should not be handled by these cores. But what isn't handled is GPU tasks which a MPU would make sense. This, as well as the instant on Flash, would go the entire range of Macs and not just the books.
Then you have the dedicated I/O chip that handles Voice and/or Touch inputs. This would take a huge burden off the CPU when processing voice commands and touch inputs, while also giving you real life vocal feedback. As we know, Macs already use voice commands, but having dedicated voice input would set it apart. However, i put this AFTER Snow Leopard as this would most likely require some OS changes as well to make it really shine.
[Perceived] quality and features attracts more revenue growth than an activation system, than serious hardware lock-in, than spending ANY man-hours at all for contrived rights management for their own products.
If that were true they wouldn't be spending ANY man-hours trying to shut down Psystar, much less the costly hourly rates of lawyers. This wasn't an issue when Apple was the only one not selling an x86 OS, but now they have only two viable choices as they move ahead: they can require an activation key like MS or they can use HW authentication. Neither is unbreakable, but one is known to be a far less reliable form of protection.
SJ has publicly concurred with the idea that people who make their own software should make their own hardware. The move to Intel CPUs & chipsets, though highly marketable in the eyes of the hardware specification duped general public, has robbed Apple of unique hardware that, marketability aside, produced a better product. I can't help but feel the reliability gap between my 'solid' iMac G4 and my 'wobbly' iMac C2D isn't software alone - I almost empathise with Windows users - almost.
I reckon the Intel transition was purely to show how much nobody really needs x86 in the first place - most users don't. It would make sense to maintain the marketability of x86 (until the apron strings can be completely severed) either by keeping the CPU or licensing the core(s) to incorporate into a more power/performance efficient PA package. Wasn't it PA that came up with the low power PPC variant a bit too late?
All that aside, Steve was the man who replaced the iPod mini with the Nano purely in the name of progress so my money would be on a wholesale (because that's the price they'd have to sell them at) transition to SSDs.
McD
True on the x86 front, but i don't see this until after Snow Leopard. I agree on the SSD, but i'm thinking a more custom package. More of a small boot drive to handle core OS and Apple software code for instant on computing.
4) If only books, then something to boost battery life.
Montevina has H.264 on the chipset. I assume Apple will use it. Anand's review of Intel's Turbo Memory showed very poor results. The new 35W Montevinas are a nice drop in power from Santa Rosa.
Montevina has H.264 on the chipset. I assume Apple will use it. Anand's review of Intel's Turbo Memory showed very poor results. The new 35W Montevinas are a nice drop in power from Santa Rosa.
This is why i don't see a chip JUST to handle H.264 as stated. A custom MPU could also handle H.264, but why create one just for this? Seems a bit redundant and not what would send the competition scrambling.
Comments
I agree...why would they wait this long? And how would these awesome new products affect Q3 margins if they don't come out until the end of September? I think they have to come out in August.
I can't believe after the major FUBAR that was the MobileMe and iPhone 3G rollout, that people are actually asking Apple to rush something to market!
But my understanding is that by Apple providing their own chipset, they can basically reconfigure the motherboard, yes?
So is it possible that they might create a motherboard that can handle dual processors like their Mac Pro? Running dual Centrino 2's would be a major benefit unmatched by their competition.
Or how about a substantially faster front-side bus? Expanded Ram maximum?
Also, I remember some patents that Apple filed a while back describing a portable device much like a notebook with a removable keyboard, that you could then plug other interfaces into for controlling specific tasks in different programs.....such as:
Let's say your editing video on your mac laptop....pull the keyboard off, and plug&play a video interface with full dedicated keys and "scrubbing" shuttle wheels.
Or, your running any number of audio applications, but let's say Logic, and you can plug & play a midi keyboard interface directly onto your laptop, or an equalizer, or a loop-based editor with touch capability.
Or, your running your fav graphics software and you can pull your keyboard and plug in a tablet interface directly on your laptop....
Really, the sky is the limit here and it would be untouchable by any other computer maker.
Wouldn't you need a new type of motherboard for such a system?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...interface.html
I can't believe after the major FUBAR that was the MobileMe and iPhone 3G rollout, that people are actually asking Apple to rush something to market!
Not to mention that Montevina is having it's own issues that are causing delays.
So is it possible that they might create a motherboard that can handle dual processors like their Mac Pro? Running dual Centrino 2's would be a major benefit unmatched by their competition, yes?
It's possible, but not viable. First, there are very few apps that can really benefit from multiple CPUs/cores. Secondly, it would increase the cost by several hundred dollars, increase the space needed and wouldn't improve performance in many areas. It's just not an ideal solution for a notebook.
Or how about a substantially faster front-side bus? Expanded Ram maximum?
The FSB has been getting faster, but I believe in Montevina (or maybe it's Nehalem) the FSB is going away. It is being replaced with Intel's QuickPath Interconnect.
The RAM will increase, but only when the RAM density increases.There is little need for Apple to have 3 or 4 memory slots like there are in many desktops.
The FSB has been getting faster, but I believe in Montevina (or maybe it's Nehalem) the FSB is going away. It is being replaced with Intel's QuickPath Interconnect.
Yeah, the new QuickPath Interconnect is in Nehalem and newer processors. I'm pretty sure Montevina still uses a FSB.
Yeah Montevina uses 1066MHz FSB.
Apple should use the better amd or nvidia on board video
A hardware authentication chip for OSX, now, that's believable. Although I don't know why TPM wouldn't be sufficient for this.
TPM is a hash key so any software spoofing of the key after a hack will allow the OS to be installed, but if the OS relies on certain HW to be used to process data then wouldn't the SW hackers have to rewrite the core OS in order to get it to work?
The macs out right now don't have one and locking out 10.6 to them will be a bad move.eo
But the chip has to come before the OS for HW authentication to work. So Apple might quietly release this chips now and make them active for 10.7 while updating 10.6. for a longer timeframe to support the Intel machines without the chip (like they are probably going to do with PPC Macs and 10.5).
In this way OS X could be noticably faster, yet still run windows at native speed. Non-techies won't know why, they'll just say OS X is faster. Or hell, they may write custom drivers so that Mac hardware runs Windows the fastest natively on Apple hardware, thus selling more and more.
Plus there's probably some touch screen magic in there somewhere.
1) "sheesh"..."stupid"..."Damn I hate fanboys..."
Sebastian
Maybe I'm mistaken,
1) Doesn't Youtube for AppleTV run on H.264, though?
2) I agree the Grand Central thing is vague
3) Lastly,
Of course nothing is impossible to hack I suppose, but the idea was: constrain the supply of the chip by making it proprietary, ie using something that isn't available, which is harder to bypass.
Keep it positive, bro
I reckon the Intel transition was purely to show how much nobody really needs x86 in the first place - most users don't. It would make sense to maintain the marketability of x86 (until the apron strings can be completely severed) either by keeping the CPU or licensing the core(s) to incorporate into a more power/performance efficient PA package. Wasn't it PA that came up with the low power PPC variant a bit too late?
All that aside, Steve was the man who replaced the iPod mini with the Nano purely in the name of progress so my money would be on a wholesale (because that's the price they'd have to sell them at) transition to SSDs.
McD
That seems reasonable, but I didn't think tech from working with P.A. Semi would have occurred this quickly. Of course, I have no idea what they are doing or when they started, I just assumed we wouldn't see any fruits of that labour until 2009.
They use their acquisitions quickly. Very quickly.
The individuals they bought away from Fingerworks, as far as any known information is concerned (date of buyout/fingerworks website closing/known beginnings of iPhone+Multi-Touch development), began working their asses off immediately.
On a less hardcore note - does anyone remember downloading that neat app that turned your iTunes library into a slick, rendered jukebox that allowed you to flip through album covers...whose website went disappeared fewer than two weeks before the redesign of iTunes?
Apple is fun to follow because shit happens rapidly and with minimal stagnation for a 150b mkt cap corporation.
TPM is a hash key so any software spoofing of the key after a hack will allow the OS to be installed, but if the OS relies on certain HW to be used to process data then wouldn't the SW hackers have to rewrite the core OS in order to get it to work?
But the chip has to come before the OS for HW authentication to work. So Apple might quietly release this chips now and make them active for 10.7 while updating 10.6. for a longer timeframe to support the Intel machines without the chip (like they are probably going to do with PPC Macs and 10.5).
Why do they need to do any of this, again?
Their hardware design and the benefits of buying their machines are fucking competitors up already. Some sort of crazy gains from their supposed customized chipsets cancel out the necessity of even tighter OS/rig ties.
[Perceived] quality and features attracts more revenue growth than an activation system, than serious hardware lock-in, than spending ANY man-hours at all for contrived rights management for their own products.
Respect, pedigree, advancement and sexiness are most of what translates into 30% of Leopard sales being Family Pack SKUs. My techie dad knows there is no activation, serials or evil play with a single-license copy of OS X but still buys the family pack for our house.
edit: We've had Universal OS X for almost three years now and osx86 is still not at all a solution to be relied upon. The notion that Apple rolls out their regular updates that happen to break your hackintosh simply because they don't give hardware consideration to any units but their own is strong enough and shows no signs of weakening.
What would send other vendors (Windows) scrambling? Some kind of SSD for instant boot. This could be a custom drive just to handle the OS and Apple apps; say 20GB max! This could also be a protected drive so no one could easily get at the kernel or other files. Custom Co-Processor for image/video/sound editing, but this is not mainstream. Custom GPU for graphic intensive GUI and for GAMES. Something Apple can't touch right now and is more mainstream.
First, we would have to identify what competition? Home Windows market; therefore games as the internet and eMail are already fast enough. Or the Media competition whereby a custom chip for image/video/ and sound editing would wet it apart. Or the mobile market where battery life is key.
H.264 could be included in a MPU (Media Processing Unit), but i don't see this as the main function. The MPU is more likely when you move to Quad-core as there isn't much going on that should not be handled by these cores. But what isn't handled is GPU tasks which a MPU would make sense. This, as well as the instant on Flash, would go the entire range of Macs and not just the books.
Then you have the dedicated I/O chip that handles Voice and/or Touch inputs. This would take a huge burden off the CPU when processing voice commands and touch inputs, while also giving you real life vocal feedback. As we know, Macs already use voice commands, but having dedicated voice input would set it apart. However, i put this AFTER Snow Leopard as this would most likely require some OS changes as well to make it really shine.
So put me down for:
1) MPU
2) P.A. Semi chip handling image/video/audio editing
3) SSD for instant boot.
4) If only books, then something to boost battery life.
(._.)
[Perceived] quality and features attracts more revenue growth than an activation system, than serious hardware lock-in, than spending ANY man-hours at all for contrived rights management for their own products.
If that were true they wouldn't be spending ANY man-hours trying to shut down Psystar, much less the costly hourly rates of lawyers. This wasn't an issue when Apple was the only one not selling an x86 OS, but now they have only two viable choices as they move ahead: they can require an activation key like MS or they can use HW authentication. Neither is unbreakable, but one is known to be a far less reliable form of protection.
SJ has publicly concurred with the idea that people who make their own software should make their own hardware. The move to Intel CPUs & chipsets, though highly marketable in the eyes of the hardware specification duped general public, has robbed Apple of unique hardware that, marketability aside, produced a better product. I can't help but feel the reliability gap between my 'solid' iMac G4 and my 'wobbly' iMac C2D isn't software alone - I almost empathise with Windows users - almost.
I reckon the Intel transition was purely to show how much nobody really needs x86 in the first place - most users don't. It would make sense to maintain the marketability of x86 (until the apron strings can be completely severed) either by keeping the CPU or licensing the core(s) to incorporate into a more power/performance efficient PA package. Wasn't it PA that came up with the low power PPC variant a bit too late?
All that aside, Steve was the man who replaced the iPod mini with the Nano purely in the name of progress so my money would be on a wholesale (because that's the price they'd have to sell them at) transition to SSDs.
McD
True on the x86 front, but i don't see this until after Snow Leopard. I agree on the SSD, but i'm thinking a more custom package. More of a small boot drive to handle core OS and Apple software code for instant on computing.
So put me down for:
1) MPU
2) P.A. Semi chip handling image/video/audio editing
3) Instant on Flash
4) If only books, then something to boost battery life.
Montevina has H.264 on the chipset. I assume Apple will use it. Anand's review of Intel's Turbo Memory showed very poor results. The new 35W Montevinas are a nice drop in power from Santa Rosa.
Montevina has H.264 on the chipset. I assume Apple will use it. Anand's review of Intel's Turbo Memory showed very poor results. The new 35W Montevinas are a nice drop in power from Santa Rosa.
This is why i don't see a chip JUST to handle H.264 as stated. A custom MPU could also handle H.264, but why create one just for this? Seems a bit redundant and not what would send the competition scrambling.