You have it backwards. Apple doesn't need to have the chips optimized. The dev kits already show that the current chip works fine. Even better in some areas. The new lines of much better chips will only work better as well.
Screw AMD. They are getting a lot of press in the hobby forums, but the performance difference isn't that big. Do you seriously think that it will last? Amd is on a roll now as Intel put the ball down. But don't count on it for the long haul. AMD can go back to the old days and fail to deliver. That's been most of their history. This could be an abberation.
There's no evidence that the "war" with MS will be any hotter with Macintel then it is now. It could be just the opposite. If Apple continues to pick up marketshare with the PPC machines, MS loses. If Apple picks up marketshare with x86, and can run XP and Vista at full speed, MS might see more Macs being sold, but more of them might also be running MS OSes. Plus, Office sales won't suffer.
What make my PowerMacs gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop? Namely, compare the things that the PCs don't want, the real sell-buy point, as what Apple said. Because simply Apple is one of the boss of PPC, IBM and Freescale must do something Apple wants, and the trouble in between is simply a dog-fighting.
There will be a completely different story when Apple follow the millions to put the 'Intel inside' banner on the forehead and labor in Intel's camp -- You must follow their discipline: CPU (must), chip-set (better), MB (best), in order to edge the top-of-line PCs.
But you still can't equal the top-of-line PCs in terms of performance as long as you are running MacOX. The reason is straightforward: Bill Gate is the great boss who commands Intel as well, Intel must do what he wants -- as a smart guy had figured out when A-I-M made the first PPC.
And ...... and ...... and our poor Apple just can make the case for the MacTel?!
What make my PowerMacs gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop? Namely, compare the things that the PCs don't want, the real sell-buy point, as what Apple said. Because simply Apple is one of the boss of PPC, IBM and Freescale must do something Apple wants, and the trouble in between is simply a dog-fighting.
There will be a completely different story when Apple follow the millions to put the 'Intel inside' banner on the forehead and labor in Intel's camp -- You must follow their discipline: CPU (must), chip-set (better), MB (best), in order to edge the top-of-line PCs.
But you still can't equal the top-of-line PCs in terms of performance as long as you are running MacOX. The reason is straightforward: Bill Gate is the great boss who commands Intel as well, Intel must do what he wants -- as a smart guy had figured out when A-I-M made the first PPC.
And ...... and ...... and our poor Apple just can make the case for the MacTel?!
There is NO Powermac that will "gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop" Period.
I don't know why you are bothering to make up those numbers, but these days it's pretty much a draw.
Back in 1999 the Powermacs were about 40% faster than x86's on integer and about twice on floats more with Altivec. but that slowly disappeared as Moto failed to keep up with Intels blazing advances. The G5, at first caught up, but then failed to advance. So here we are today.
As far as the rest of your post goes; I don't know what you are talking about.
What was the name that kid Sebastian gave to the princess? That happened to
be on a couple of weeks ago & I caught that part where he screams the name
out the window. Even with Tivo, I can't make out what that kid said.
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
And melgross, that music is great.
Thanks. I'll relay that to him during the holidays.
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
And melgross, that music is great.
It's "Moonchild," iirc. I forget what it's significance is...been so long...
There is NO Powermac that will "gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop" Period.
I don't know why you are bothering to make up those numbers, but these days it's pretty much a draw.
Back in 1999 the Powermacs were about 40% faster than x86's on integer and about twice on floats more with Altivec. but that slowly disappeared as Moto failed to keep up with Intels blazing advances. The G5, at first caught up, but then failed to advance. So here we are today.
As far as the rest of your post goes; I don't know what you are talking about.
I think you just answered what you asked at the last.
As long as you are smart in organizing your force to strike back, you still have the chance to catch up and overtake.
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
That's one of the least intelligent analyses I have ever seen. All sideways ass extraction and no meat. Have your opinion, don't be surprised that most don't agree.
I think you just answered what you asked at the last.
As long as you are smart in organizing your force to strike back, you still have the chance to catch up and overtake.
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
That's nonsense. More companies are going to Linux, more companies are going to OS X. Intel wants to get out from the "WINTEL" straightjacket as much as anyone.
One of the reasons given as to why Intel was courting Apple for 20 years was to be able to do just that. The idea that Apple would use advanced features that MS doesn't support is something that Intel is interested in. Intel has been trying to get companies away from the BIOS and to use their EFI, which is their equivilent to Open Firmware. They haven't had any success. It's thought that Apple will use it. Then others might follow.
Think about the possibilities. This will benefit Intel as well as Apple. Those who think that just because Apple is not the biggest customer they will have no advantage. But that might be upside down. Intel might be looking for other advantages from this other than sheer sales numbers.
Apple's first Mactel offerings are going to require ZERO backwards compatibility, I think we are going to see some hot stuff.
Sure, Apple will be using chip lines that aren't even out yet.
Intel could put features in that might benefit only Apple at first. The point being that if Apple gets a benefit, then customers might demand those features as well. If that happens, MS might be forced to support them as well.
Intel wins back control of its future. It hasn't been able to do this in the past because MS refused to support Intel's initiatives, and there was nowhere else for Intel to go. So now they go to Apple first, then Linux, and MS will follow behind.
The interesting part here is that they would be offering Apple the same chips that they are offering everyone else. This is what they said that they would be doing. So this would fit right into that statement truthfully. The fact that only Apple, at first, would be able to use those features is a different story. No one could say that Intel is building special chips for Apple at a higher, possibly unprofitable expense, as IBM was hinting, because ALL the chips in that line would have the features.
Of course, I'm not saying that it will happen, but from everything I've been reading about Intel's eagerness to get Apple, and why, it does make sense.
As somebody else pointed out, they aren't in mass production right now. But, as many opther people pointed out, neither were the dual 2.5s when they were announced.
Sure, Apple will be using chip lines that aren't even out yet.
Intel could put features in that might benefit only Apple at first. The point being that if Apple gets a benefit, then customers might demand those features as well. If that happens, MS might be forced to support them as well.
Intel wins back control of its future. It hasn't been able to do this in the past because MS refused to support Intel's initiatives, and there was nowhere else for Intel to go. So now they go to Apple first, then Linux, and MS will follow behind.
The interesting part here is that they would be offering Apple the same chips that they are offering everyone else. This is what they said that they would be doing. So this would fit right into that statement truthfully. The fact that only Apple, at first, would be able to use those features is a different story. No one could say that Intel is building special chips for Apple at a higher, possibly unprofitable expense, as IBM was hinting, because ALL the chips in that line would have the features.
Of course, I'm not saying that it will happen, but from everything I've been reading about Intel's eagerness to get Apple, and why, it does make sense.
Yep, this exactly why the Intel deal makes sense for Apple, they dont have any x86 backward compatibility issues (sure they have plenty of software ones, but not hardware) so they can use anything and everything that Intel can offer them (except maybe itanium ) I see Intel Apple hardware being significantly different to a standard PC in the details.
...then Apple do the Intel switch which I always felt would and should happen for marketshare reasons.
Then we get dual core 2.5 chips announced. Disappointingly short of the 3 gig mark.
Intel are already driving the Pentium D into the mainstream.
It's far from the G4 debacle. But it is similar in that so much promise had gone unrealised. That seems to be the PPC: superior tech' without the will or muscle to make it succeed.
Never mind. PowerMacs have been out for five months now?
I wonder what the next update will bring?
Another almost 'non' update? Of the Mac Mini type?
I think I'm going to finally plump down for a tower of whatever they release next.
High end? Dual Dual Core 2.5?
Mid end? Dual Dual Core 2.0?
Low End? Dual Core 2.5?
...with PCI Express?
Given how abysmally PowerMacs perform at Open GL there barely any point putting in a decent card if Apple's GL implementation is so slack? Does anybody know when Open GL 2 will get off it's bacon and challenge Direct X?
I'd probably just get a low end tower to tide me over until an Intel G6 hits in 2007...
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
It's the "Never Ending Story".
Hey; My cousin wrote the music for that!
What was the name that kid Sebastian gave to the princess? That happened to
be on a couple of weeks ago & I caught that part where he screams the name
out the window. Even with Tivo, I can't make out what that kid said.
Originally posted by mello
What was the name that kid Sebastian gave to the princess? That happened to
be on a couple of weeks ago & I caught that part where he screams the name
out the window. Even with Tivo, I can't make out what that kid said.
You would have to ask Sunilraman. I haven't seen it for years.
Originally posted by Placebo
Why don't we have these chips in Powermacs yet, Apple?
Which chips?
Originally posted by melgross
You have it backwards. Apple doesn't need to have the chips optimized. The dev kits already show that the current chip works fine. Even better in some areas. The new lines of much better chips will only work better as well.
Screw AMD. They are getting a lot of press in the hobby forums, but the performance difference isn't that big. Do you seriously think that it will last? Amd is on a roll now as Intel put the ball down. But don't count on it for the long haul. AMD can go back to the old days and fail to deliver. That's been most of their history. This could be an abberation.
There's no evidence that the "war" with MS will be any hotter with Macintel then it is now. It could be just the opposite. If Apple continues to pick up marketshare with the PPC machines, MS loses. If Apple picks up marketshare with x86, and can run XP and Vista at full speed, MS might see more Macs being sold, but more of them might also be running MS OSes. Plus, Office sales won't suffer.
What make my PowerMacs gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop? Namely, compare the things that the PCs don't want, the real sell-buy point, as what Apple said. Because simply Apple is one of the boss of PPC, IBM and Freescale must do something Apple wants, and the trouble in between is simply a dog-fighting.
There will be a completely different story when Apple follow the millions to put the 'Intel inside' banner on the forehead and labor in Intel's camp -- You must follow their discipline: CPU (must), chip-set (better), MB (best), in order to edge the top-of-line PCs.
But you still can't equal the top-of-line PCs in terms of performance as long as you are running MacOX. The reason is straightforward: Bill Gate is the great boss who commands Intel as well, Intel must do what he wants -- as a smart guy had figured out when A-I-M made the first PPC.
And ...... and ...... and our poor Apple just can make the case for the MacTel?!
Originally posted by Placebo
Why don't we have these chips in Powermacs yet, Apple?
Introducing chips doesn't mean that they are actually ready.
Originally posted by nepy05
What make my PowerMacs gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop? Namely, compare the things that the PCs don't want, the real sell-buy point, as what Apple said. Because simply Apple is one of the boss of PPC, IBM and Freescale must do something Apple wants, and the trouble in between is simply a dog-fighting.
There will be a completely different story when Apple follow the millions to put the 'Intel inside' banner on the forehead and labor in Intel's camp -- You must follow their discipline: CPU (must), chip-set (better), MB (best), in order to edge the top-of-line PCs.
But you still can't equal the top-of-line PCs in terms of performance as long as you are running MacOX. The reason is straightforward: Bill Gate is the great boss who commands Intel as well, Intel must do what he wants -- as a smart guy had figured out when A-I-M made the first PPC.
And ...... and ...... and our poor Apple just can make the case for the MacTel?!
There is NO Powermac that will "gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop" Period.
I don't know why you are bothering to make up those numbers, but these days it's pretty much a draw.
Back in 1999 the Powermacs were about 40% faster than x86's on integer and about twice on floats more with Altivec. but that slowly disappeared as Moto failed to keep up with Intels blazing advances. The G5, at first caught up, but then failed to advance. So here we are today.
As far as the rest of your post goes; I don't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by mello
What was the name that kid Sebastian gave to the princess? That happened to
be on a couple of weeks ago & I caught that part where he screams the name
out the window. Even with Tivo, I can't make out what that kid said.
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
And melgross, that music is great.
Originally posted by cubist
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
And melgross, that music is great.
Thanks. I'll relay that to him during the holidays.
Originally posted by cubist
I'd like to know that too. Last time I watched it I got the impression he said "Katherine", but I think it's purposely obscured. It's supposed to be his (recently deceased) mother's name, IIRC.
And melgross, that music is great.
It's "Moonchild," iirc. I forget what it's significance is...been so long...
Originally posted by DCQ
It's "Moonchild," iirc. I forget what it's significance is...been so long...
Because the kid was a really big Cat Stevens fan...?!?
No, that was Moonshadow...
Nothing to see here, move along...
Originally posted by melgross
There is NO Powermac that will "gun down the Intels by 4 to 10 times faster on Photoshop" Period.
I don't know why you are bothering to make up those numbers, but these days it's pretty much a draw.
Back in 1999 the Powermacs were about 40% faster than x86's on integer and about twice on floats more with Altivec. but that slowly disappeared as Moto failed to keep up with Intels blazing advances. The G5, at first caught up, but then failed to advance. So here we are today.
As far as the rest of your post goes; I don't know what you are talking about.
I think you just answered what you asked at the last.
As long as you are smart in organizing your force to strike back, you still have the chance to catch up and overtake.
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
Originally posted by nepy05
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
That's one of the least intelligent analyses I have ever seen. All sideways ass extraction and no meat. Have your opinion, don't be surprised that most don't agree.
Originally posted by nepy05
I think you just answered what you asked at the last.
As long as you are smart in organizing your force to strike back, you still have the chance to catch up and overtake.
However, MacTels will never equal or outerperform top-of-line PCs for a single reason: Bill Gates is Intel's Boss full stop.
That's nonsense. More companies are going to Linux, more companies are going to OS X. Intel wants to get out from the "WINTEL" straightjacket as much as anyone.
One of the reasons given as to why Intel was courting Apple for 20 years was to be able to do just that. The idea that Apple would use advanced features that MS doesn't support is something that Intel is interested in. Intel has been trying to get companies away from the BIOS and to use their EFI, which is their equivilent to Open Firmware. They haven't had any success. It's thought that Apple will use it. Then others might follow.
Think about the possibilities. This will benefit Intel as well as Apple. Those who think that just because Apple is not the biggest customer they will have no advantage. But that might be upside down. Intel might be looking for other advantages from this other than sheer sales numbers.
Apple's first Mactel offerings are going to require ZERO backwards compatibility, I think we are going to see some hot stuff.
Originally posted by the cool gut
++
Apple's first Mactel offerings are going to require ZERO backwards compatibility, I think we are going to see some hot stuff.
Sure, Apple will be using chip lines that aren't even out yet.
Intel could put features in that might benefit only Apple at first. The point being that if Apple gets a benefit, then customers might demand those features as well. If that happens, MS might be forced to support them as well.
Intel wins back control of its future. It hasn't been able to do this in the past because MS refused to support Intel's initiatives, and there was nowhere else for Intel to go. So now they go to Apple first, then Linux, and MS will follow behind.
The interesting part here is that they would be offering Apple the same chips that they are offering everyone else. This is what they said that they would be doing. So this would fit right into that statement truthfully. The fact that only Apple, at first, would be able to use those features is a different story. No one could say that Intel is building special chips for Apple at a higher, possibly unprofitable expense, as IBM was hinting, because ALL the chips in that line would have the features.
Of course, I'm not saying that it will happen, but from everything I've been reading about Intel's eagerness to get Apple, and why, it does make sense.
Originally posted by melgross
Which chips?
The 970FX dual-cores.
As somebody else pointed out, they aren't in mass production right now. But, as many opther people pointed out, neither were the dual 2.5s when they were announced.
Heck, even when they shipped.
Originally posted by melgross
Sure, Apple will be using chip lines that aren't even out yet.
Intel could put features in that might benefit only Apple at first. The point being that if Apple gets a benefit, then customers might demand those features as well. If that happens, MS might be forced to support them as well.
Intel wins back control of its future. It hasn't been able to do this in the past because MS refused to support Intel's initiatives, and there was nowhere else for Intel to go. So now they go to Apple first, then Linux, and MS will follow behind.
The interesting part here is that they would be offering Apple the same chips that they are offering everyone else. This is what they said that they would be doing. So this would fit right into that statement truthfully. The fact that only Apple, at first, would be able to use those features is a different story. No one could say that Intel is building special chips for Apple at a higher, possibly unprofitable expense, as IBM was hinting, because ALL the chips in that line would have the features.
Of course, I'm not saying that it will happen, but from everything I've been reading about Intel's eagerness to get Apple, and why, it does make sense.
Yep, this exactly why the Intel deal makes sense for Apple, they dont have any x86 backward compatibility issues (sure they have plenty of software ones, but not hardware) so they can use anything and everything that Intel can offer them (except maybe itanium
A dual 2.7.
...then Apple do the Intel switch which I always felt would and should happen for marketshare reasons.
Then we get dual core 2.5 chips announced. Disappointingly short of the 3 gig mark.
Intel are already driving the Pentium D into the mainstream.
It's far from the G4 debacle. But it is similar in that so much promise had gone unrealised. That seems to be the PPC: superior tech' without the will or muscle to make it succeed.
Never mind. PowerMacs have been out for five months now?
I wonder what the next update will bring?
Another almost 'non' update? Of the Mac Mini type?
I think I'm going to finally plump down for a tower of whatever they release next.
High end? Dual Dual Core 2.5?
Mid end? Dual Dual Core 2.0?
Low End? Dual Core 2.5?
...with PCI Express?
Given how abysmally PowerMacs perform at Open GL there barely any point putting in a decent card if Apple's GL implementation is so slack? Does anybody know when Open GL 2 will get off it's bacon and challenge Direct X?
I'd probably just get a low end tower to tide me over until an Intel G6 hits in 2007...
Eternally waiting for 'that' PowerMac.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Who said it? 'Hope Springs Eternal...'