The rumour obviously isn't real but an extrapolation of a likely scenario. Intel better get used to 'Steve World' where Apple naturally gets preferential treatment because... well its Apple.
When the first MacIntels are released there's going to be a frenzy of press comparison to existing Wintels and Apple HAS to have some tech differentiation out of the gate (apart from design and OS of course)
First off, its Apple who better get used to Intel's business, rather then intel getting used to Apple. Intel doesn't NEED Apple. They like the added sales, but Apple's sales are a drop in the bucket compared to all the other PC makers. Intel's not going to kiss Apple's ass anymore then they have to. IBM and Motorola used to do that, and then they realized it wasn't worth it. You think Intel doesn't see this up-front?
Second, what exactly HAS to be different between Macs and Wintels besides design and OS? Reviewers aren't going to go "Yeah, but Dell sells the same box, so who cares?" or "Wow, Apple included this fancy new port and technology that no one else has. Sure, its of no use until peripherals come about, but why wait. Get your mac now!".
To put it another way, what exactly is different between a Windows/Dell box and an OS X/Apple box right now? Well, design and the OS. That's about it. And people keep saying "I don't care what chip is inside, its the OS that matters", or even "I don't even know what processor is in my computer, its the OS and performance, stupid!". So the fact that its a G5 vs a P4 is only important now to the lame few who get geeked up over hardware specs. So why does the new Mac-Intel boxes all of a sudden need some great 'extra' feature?
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I can't see Dell being very impressed with Intel if they gave the new chips to anyone ahead of themselves. Might even make them think about using Opterons.
Right now, Intel gives its chips out to EVERYONE at the same time. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc, all have products waiting to sell when Intel announces a new chip. Dell doesn't get preferential treatment (because if they did, then the other big players could all go AMD, making things worse for Intel if just Dell went AMD). And Dell would only go Opteron if they could get as good a deal and the volumes that intel offers.
But, conversely, this is also why Apple WON'T get preferential treatment or early chips. They'll get chips when everyone else does, and release them when Intel allows it (hell, if Apple can tell Motorola when and how to show off a cell phone, Intel can tell Apple when to sell a new computer).
In an effort to bolster its first Intel-based Macintosh systems, Apple Computer has asked Intel to make an exception and deliver its next-generation microprocessors in advance of their planned release...
Oh, and the Pentium-M is really a crappy chip-set. It certainly doesn't have the power that people seem to think it does (whenever I use a P-M laptop, esp. on battery, it feels like sloshing through molasses trying to get the OS to respond to anything - but, hey, I'm sure that's the OS, OS X is soooo much better optimized!)
I use both a top-end 15" PB and a top-end Thinkpad T43p and I have to disagree with your comments.
The Pentium M is one of the fastest mobile chips I've ever used and coupled with the very good battery life (about 3.5 hours with the 6-cell battery), it's a very decent notebook chip. In all honesty, it is NOTICEABLY faster than my 15" PB (1.67) with it's poor battery life of 2.5 hours.
Intel has been frustrated by its new technologies being ignored by MS. This was famously shown ages ago when Intel came out with its own multimedia extentions which were not supported by MS. The ones that did come out were initiated BY MS.
It's been said that Apple won't use a BIOS in its shipping machines, but will use Intel's EFI instead. It's interesting to note that Intel has been pushing that for a while but hasn't been sucsessful with it. At this time the only machines that I know of that are using it are Itanium machines.
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
It's also possible that Intel might finally be able to come out with innovations for its chips that again aren't supported by MS, but would be supported by Apple.
Intel would, of course, offer those chips to everyone, and they would no doubt work in every machine - but wthout those features enabled because of lack of support from MS. If the fearures add substantial value to Apple's machines, I would imagine that PC customers would clamor for them, and that MS would have to give it.
Again Intel takes control back.
This was hinted to by Intel. Not something specific, but the concept of Apple being innovative as being one of the reasons why Intel was persuing them.
I use both a top-end 15" PB and a top-end Thinkpad T43p and I have to disagree with your comments.
The Pentium M is one of the fastest mobile chips I've ever used and coupled with the very good battery life (about 3.5 hours with the 6-cell battery), it's a very decent notebook chip. In all honesty, it is NOTICEABLY faster than my 15" PB (1.67) with it's poor battery life of 2.5 hours.
I think OS X on ANY Intel chip will be great!
The "M" Dothan has been recieved very well. It will beat the 7448 if it ever comes out in time.
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
Yup, just take a look at the explosion of USB devices after Apple integrated USB into the original iMac.
Not necessarily. Intel wants to start using new technologies that only Apple is in a position to take advantage of.
I agree with this too - that's the whole point of the family slide show during the big Mactel keynote.
Apple and Intel could both do well if each was pushing the other.
However I am in the market now for a desktop and I am getting to the point where I would rather buy a speedbumped PowerMac G5 and deal with it than early adopt a Mactel box in June. I'd buy a Mactel in 2007 and not feel too behind the curve.
I think others are like me, especially in business and creative shops who need things to work more than need things to be the "latest" and Apple would do well to say, "Okay, we'll do Mactels in Sept 2006, but until then here are the dual G5 dual cores that smoke until then."
With that I'd be very happy and as we have seen so far, the market would be buying them as well. You just eat a little crow with your developers for 3 months...big deal.
This would mean Apple doesn't have a cohesive development plan in place and that they don't know what Intel's schedule is.
Sure, they may have asked for chips early (what can it hurt?) but they will certainly have a Yonah-based machine ready to ship Q206 or there will be pitchforks at WWDC.
If I were a betting man, I'd place a wager on iBooks and Minis on Yonah sooner and Powerbooks and iMacs with the newer chips. No clue on PowerMacs.
If you were in charge at apple, wouldn't you at least attempt to get chips at the earliest possible moment?
I'm not saying we'll get intel macs soon, but talks between the companies are definately on going.
Another interesting thing to take into consideration, apple's relatively small order quantities and uniform products might make them a good place to send chips while ramping up production.
Intel might find it appealing to have a buyer for chips that first start trickling off of the line. Manufacturers frequently sit on the first few runs until they have a significant number to ship. It's always a game, release now and have shortages or release later and lose out on sales.
One more thought - Intel could have two shipment schedules. One for "anybody" willing to implement their new "showcase" technologies "the early adopter program". "Switch to EFI BIOS and get the first shipments of X." "Implement our DRM chipset and get preferred status on Y".
Of course only Apple has the ability to do this. But in theory it's not discriminatory.
[BI think others are like me, especially in business and creative shops who need things to work more than need things to be the "latest" and Apple would do well to say, "Okay, we'll do Mactels in Sept 2006, but until then here are the dual G5 dual cores that smoke until then."
[/B]
This has always been the case as I've seen it. Shops don't want to change horses mid-race.
During a production season it can be difficult to get a customer to accept ANY change at all. If Kodak came out with a new paper the AD agencies we dealt with wouldn't let us use use it until after the present campaign was over.
I never buy the first iteration of a new complex device. I can just tell of my own method with my business. We would buy one new machine, test it until the next run, 3 or six months later, and then buy into them. I imagine that most companies will be doing that as well.
But, of course, most of Apple's customers are home and school buyers. Home buyers won't care what's inside. Also, the PC market is much more used to change than we are here in MacLand. If anything, Apple going to x86's will be comforting, and seem to be LESS of a risk.
Schools can go either way. They are conservative. The 400+ Macs in my friends school, where is the computer person, are mostly on OS 8-9. Only the latest 100 or so machines run X. Though that is slowly changing.
WRT having features in chips not used by MS the Intel move actually makes sense.
One advantage Apple has over MS is rapid OS development and a comparable high adaption rate on new OS´es. So even if Apple can´t direct the development of the chip (they have never been able to do that to IBM or Mot either) they are able to adopt new features more quickly. And perhaps a more willing playmate will make Intel prefer Apples game.
This rumor sounds bogus (or highly exaggerated) to me.
I'll be VERY happy with Yonah in my next PowerBook. Laptops are where Apple needs Intel chips the most.
One Yonah core is faster than current Pentium M's, which are already faster than G4s. And Yonah has TWO cores.
I don't see Apple waiting for Merom and skipping Yonah.
And for desktops--NetBurst may not be power-efficient, but it will be fine if needed in the first Intel desktop Macs. And what about Sossamer? Might be nice in an iMac where NetBurst would run too hot.
Apple and Intel actually have a common enemy. Coming next year they both will compete with Windows Vista based on the AMD64 architecture.
Even though most PC?s will use Intel processors the reason Intel competes with this arrangement is because Microsoft largely dictates what the arraignment will be. Intel does not support AMD x86-64 as its choice for a long term future architecture. But Microsoft has chosen AMD x86-64 as its 64 bit architecture.
The pressure is on Intel to provide a superior and viable alternative to AMD x86-64. Intel needs the means to stage and present this alternative.
At this point OS X in its look and use is very different from Windows XP. With the coming of Vista the breach in the difference should be closed considerably. Possibly even to the point where most people say Vista is good enough not to switch to OS X.
It is incumbent on Apple to stay far ahead of the curve. There is no room for OS X to even be perceived as on par with Windows. While a great deal of this is in the software development an important aspect of it is in the hardware also.
With this reality I believe Apple and Intel should have some interesting details going on in the background. Jobs has time and again acknowledged he will not divulge future Apple products. He has not confirmed what chips he will use from Intel. Most people are quick to point out Intel does not work in shadowy secret. But seeing Microsoft now sets much of the agenda in the PC world. Intel should be willing to make some adjustments to its normal way of development to gain what it wants.
The "M" Dothan has been recieved very well. It will beat the 7448 if it ever comes out in time.
The Yonah is better.
Swings and roundabouts really.
Dothan has faster integer and memory access. 7448 has faster floating point and vector code.
It's only really when you go dual core that Yonah adds any appeal to make up for the losses from PPC IMHO. Merom fixes more of the shortcomings in the Yonah design.
IMHO what's of more interest is the support chips around the CPU that Intel bring as Apple's have sucked of late. That's also where Intel gets a lot of it's power savings.
Dothan has faster integer and memory access. 7448 has faster floating point and vector code.
It's only really when you go dual core that Yonah adds any appeal to make up for the losses from PPC IMHO. Merom fixes more of the shortcomings in the Yonah design.
IMHO what's of more interest is the support chips around the CPU that Intel bring as Apple's have sucked of late. That's also where Intel gets a lot of it's power savings.
With Intel it's more like buying into the whole ecosystem. If Apple can save money by not developing its own support chips as it does now, then that could also save Apple time to market. A problem for them if there ever was one.
It's interesting to note that while even small 3rd party Mobo makers can come out with brand new boards with all the latest tech every 4 to 6 months or so, it takes Apple 2 years to design a new board (other than minor changes).
For example; Why are we still waiting for Express? It's been at least a year now since it's been appearing on PC's?
CRIPES! Even Gateway has just come out with a line of Express machines starting at $650! That's an insult!!!
At this point OS X in its look and use is very different from Windows XP. With the coming of Vista the breach in the difference should be closed considerably. Possibly even to the point where most people say Vista is good enough not to switch to OS X.
It is incumbent on Apple to stay far ahead of the curve. There is no room for OS X to even be perceived as on par with Windows. While a great deal of this is in the software development an important aspect of it is in the hardware also.
There's two factors working here against Apple.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years. The word going around is that if Apple doesn't at least match this they will start to disappear from the imaging and publishing markets. I can't understand why Apple hasn't already done this.
Comments
Originally posted by vinney57
The rumour obviously isn't real but an extrapolation of a likely scenario. Intel better get used to 'Steve World' where Apple naturally gets preferential treatment because... well its Apple.
When the first MacIntels are released there's going to be a frenzy of press comparison to existing Wintels and Apple HAS to have some tech differentiation out of the gate (apart from design and OS of course)
First off, its Apple who better get used to Intel's business, rather then intel getting used to Apple. Intel doesn't NEED Apple. They like the added sales, but Apple's sales are a drop in the bucket compared to all the other PC makers. Intel's not going to kiss Apple's ass anymore then they have to. IBM and Motorola used to do that, and then they realized it wasn't worth it. You think Intel doesn't see this up-front?
Second, what exactly HAS to be different between Macs and Wintels besides design and OS? Reviewers aren't going to go "Yeah, but Dell sells the same box, so who cares?" or "Wow, Apple included this fancy new port and technology that no one else has. Sure, its of no use until peripherals come about, but why wait. Get your mac now!".
To put it another way, what exactly is different between a Windows/Dell box and an OS X/Apple box right now? Well, design and the OS. That's about it. And people keep saying "I don't care what chip is inside, its the OS that matters", or even "I don't even know what processor is in my computer, its the OS and performance, stupid!". So the fact that its a G5 vs a P4 is only important now to the lame few who get geeked up over hardware specs. So why does the new Mac-Intel boxes all of a sudden need some great 'extra' feature?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I can't see Dell being very impressed with Intel if they gave the new chips to anyone ahead of themselves. Might even make them think about using Opterons.
Right now, Intel gives its chips out to EVERYONE at the same time. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc, all have products waiting to sell when Intel announces a new chip. Dell doesn't get preferential treatment (because if they did, then the other big players could all go AMD, making things worse for Intel if just Dell went AMD). And Dell would only go Opteron if they could get as good a deal and the volumes that intel offers.
But, conversely, this is also why Apple WON'T get preferential treatment or early chips. They'll get chips when everyone else does, and release them when Intel allows it (hell, if Apple can tell Motorola when and how to show off a cell phone, Intel can tell Apple when to sell a new computer).
Originally posted by AppleInsider
In an effort to bolster its first Intel-based Macintosh systems, Apple Computer has asked Intel to make an exception and deliver its next-generation microprocessors in advance of their planned release...
Intel beware, The Apple Curse© is here
Originally posted by Louzer
Oh, and the Pentium-M is really a crappy chip-set. It certainly doesn't have the power that people seem to think it does (whenever I use a P-M laptop, esp. on battery, it feels like sloshing through molasses trying to get the OS to respond to anything - but, hey, I'm sure that's the OS, OS X is soooo much better optimized!)
I use both a top-end 15" PB and a top-end Thinkpad T43p and I have to disagree with your comments.
The Pentium M is one of the fastest mobile chips I've ever used and coupled with the very good battery life (about 3.5 hours with the 6-cell battery), it's a very decent notebook chip. In all honesty, it is NOTICEABLY faster than my 15" PB (1.67) with it's poor battery life of 2.5 hours.
I think OS X on ANY Intel chip will be great!
Intel has been frustrated by its new technologies being ignored by MS. This was famously shown ages ago when Intel came out with its own multimedia extentions which were not supported by MS. The ones that did come out were initiated BY MS.
It's been said that Apple won't use a BIOS in its shipping machines, but will use Intel's EFI instead. It's interesting to note that Intel has been pushing that for a while but hasn't been sucsessful with it. At this time the only machines that I know of that are using it are Itanium machines.
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
It's also possible that Intel might finally be able to come out with innovations for its chips that again aren't supported by MS, but would be supported by Apple.
Intel would, of course, offer those chips to everyone, and they would no doubt work in every machine - but wthout those features enabled because of lack of support from MS. If the fearures add substantial value to Apple's machines, I would imagine that PC customers would clamor for them, and that MS would have to give it.
Again Intel takes control back.
This was hinted to by Intel. Not something specific, but the concept of Apple being innovative as being one of the reasons why Intel was persuing them.
Originally posted by PB
Intel beware, The Apple Curse© is here
I hope Intel hasn't floated any GHz numbers on these new chips!
Originally posted by cj3209
I use both a top-end 15" PB and a top-end Thinkpad T43p and I have to disagree with your comments.
The Pentium M is one of the fastest mobile chips I've ever used and coupled with the very good battery life (about 3.5 hours with the 6-cell battery), it's a very decent notebook chip. In all honesty, it is NOTICEABLY faster than my 15" PB (1.67) with it's poor battery life of 2.5 hours.
I think OS X on ANY Intel chip will be great!
The "M" Dothan has been recieved very well. It will beat the 7448 if it ever comes out in time.
The Yonah is better.
Originally posted by melgross
If Apple uses it, the rest of the industry might follow. That would be a big Intel win. For the first time the PC platform would have a unified start-up mode like Apple does with Open Firmware (which doesn't work on x86 machines). One that Intel could use to its advantage. It would increase the stability of all machines using it.
Yup, just take a look at the explosion of USB devices after Apple integrated USB into the original iMac.
Intel pursued Apple.
There are some clear and distinct advantages in Intel teaming with Apple. Most namely the fact that Apple does not use Windows.
What advantage would it be to Intel to treat Apple like another Windows based OEM?
The part I'm waiting to see is what happens between AMD64 and IA-64.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Not necessarily. Intel wants to start using new technologies that only Apple is in a position to take advantage of.
I agree with this too - that's the whole point of the family slide show during the big Mactel keynote.
Apple and Intel could both do well if each was pushing the other.
However I am in the market now for a desktop and I am getting to the point where I would rather buy a speedbumped PowerMac G5 and deal with it than early adopt a Mactel box in June. I'd buy a Mactel in 2007 and not feel too behind the curve.
I think others are like me, especially in business and creative shops who need things to work more than need things to be the "latest" and Apple would do well to say, "Okay, we'll do Mactels in Sept 2006, but until then here are the dual G5 dual cores that smoke until then."
With that I'd be very happy and as we have seen so far, the market would be buying them as well. You just eat a little crow with your developers for 3 months...big deal.
This would mean Apple doesn't have a cohesive development plan in place and that they don't know what Intel's schedule is.
Sure, they may have asked for chips early (what can it hurt?) but they will certainly have a Yonah-based machine ready to ship Q206 or there will be pitchforks at WWDC.
If I were a betting man, I'd place a wager on iBooks and Minis on Yonah sooner and Powerbooks and iMacs with the newer chips. No clue on PowerMacs.
If you were in charge at apple, wouldn't you at least attempt to get chips at the earliest possible moment?
I'm not saying we'll get intel macs soon, but talks between the companies are definately on going.
Another interesting thing to take into consideration, apple's relatively small order quantities and uniform products might make them a good place to send chips while ramping up production.
Intel might find it appealing to have a buyer for chips that first start trickling off of the line. Manufacturers frequently sit on the first few runs until they have a significant number to ship. It's always a game, release now and have shortages or release later and lose out on sales.
Of course only Apple has the ability to do this. But in theory it's not discriminatory.
Originally posted by MacGregor
[BI think others are like me, especially in business and creative shops who need things to work more than need things to be the "latest" and Apple would do well to say, "Okay, we'll do Mactels in Sept 2006, but until then here are the dual G5 dual cores that smoke until then."
[/B]
This has always been the case as I've seen it. Shops don't want to change horses mid-race.
During a production season it can be difficult to get a customer to accept ANY change at all. If Kodak came out with a new paper the AD agencies we dealt with wouldn't let us use use it until after the present campaign was over.
I never buy the first iteration of a new complex device. I can just tell of my own method with my business. We would buy one new machine, test it until the next run, 3 or six months later, and then buy into them. I imagine that most companies will be doing that as well.
But, of course, most of Apple's customers are home and school buyers. Home buyers won't care what's inside. Also, the PC market is much more used to change than we are here in MacLand. If anything, Apple going to x86's will be comforting, and seem to be LESS of a risk.
Schools can go either way. They are conservative. The 400+ Macs in my friends school, where is the computer person, are mostly on OS 8-9. Only the latest 100 or so machines run X. Though that is slowly changing.
One advantage Apple has over MS is rapid OS development and a comparable high adaption rate on new OS´es. So even if Apple can´t direct the development of the chip (they have never been able to do that to IBM or Mot either) they are able to adopt new features more quickly. And perhaps a more willing playmate will make Intel prefer Apples game.
This rumor sounds bogus (or highly exaggerated) to me.
I'll be VERY happy with Yonah in my next PowerBook. Laptops are where Apple needs Intel chips the most.
One Yonah core is faster than current Pentium M's, which are already faster than G4s. And Yonah has TWO cores.
I don't see Apple waiting for Merom and skipping Yonah.
And for desktops--NetBurst may not be power-efficient, but it will be fine if needed in the first Intel desktop Macs. And what about Sossamer? Might be nice in an iMac where NetBurst would run too hot.
Even though most PC?s will use Intel processors the reason Intel competes with this arrangement is because Microsoft largely dictates what the arraignment will be. Intel does not support AMD x86-64 as its choice for a long term future architecture. But Microsoft has chosen AMD x86-64 as its 64 bit architecture.
The pressure is on Intel to provide a superior and viable alternative to AMD x86-64. Intel needs the means to stage and present this alternative.
At this point OS X in its look and use is very different from Windows XP. With the coming of Vista the breach in the difference should be closed considerably. Possibly even to the point where most people say Vista is good enough not to switch to OS X.
It is incumbent on Apple to stay far ahead of the curve. There is no room for OS X to even be perceived as on par with Windows. While a great deal of this is in the software development an important aspect of it is in the hardware also.
With this reality I believe Apple and Intel should have some interesting details going on in the background. Jobs has time and again acknowledged he will not divulge future Apple products. He has not confirmed what chips he will use from Intel. Most people are quick to point out Intel does not work in shadowy secret. But seeing Microsoft now sets much of the agenda in the PC world. Intel should be willing to make some adjustments to its normal way of development to gain what it wants.
Originally posted by melgross
The "M" Dothan has been recieved very well. It will beat the 7448 if it ever comes out in time.
The Yonah is better.
Swings and roundabouts really.
Dothan has faster integer and memory access. 7448 has faster floating point and vector code.
It's only really when you go dual core that Yonah adds any appeal to make up for the losses from PPC IMHO. Merom fixes more of the shortcomings in the Yonah design.
IMHO what's of more interest is the support chips around the CPU that Intel bring as Apple's have sucked of late. That's also where Intel gets a lot of it's power savings.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Swings and roundabouts really.
Dothan has faster integer and memory access. 7448 has faster floating point and vector code.
It's only really when you go dual core that Yonah adds any appeal to make up for the losses from PPC IMHO. Merom fixes more of the shortcomings in the Yonah design.
IMHO what's of more interest is the support chips around the CPU that Intel bring as Apple's have sucked of late. That's also where Intel gets a lot of it's power savings.
With Intel it's more like buying into the whole ecosystem. If Apple can save money by not developing its own support chips as it does now, then that could also save Apple time to market. A problem for them if there ever was one.
It's interesting to note that while even small 3rd party Mobo makers can come out with brand new boards with all the latest tech every 4 to 6 months or so, it takes Apple 2 years to design a new board (other than minor changes).
For example; Why are we still waiting for Express? It's been at least a year now since it's been appearing on PC's?
CRIPES! Even Gateway has just come out with a line of Express machines starting at $650! That's an insult!!!
Originally posted by TenoBell
At this point OS X in its look and use is very different from Windows XP. With the coming of Vista the breach in the difference should be closed considerably. Possibly even to the point where most people say Vista is good enough not to switch to OS X.
It is incumbent on Apple to stay far ahead of the curve. There is no room for OS X to even be perceived as on par with Windows. While a great deal of this is in the software development an important aspect of it is in the hardware also.
There's two factors working here against Apple.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
There's two factors working here against Apple.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years. The word going around is that if Apple doesn't at least match this they will start to disappear from the imaging and publishing markets. I can't understand why Apple hasn't already done this.