The G5 iMac didn't need replacing with an Intel as it was fast enough already. The G5 is clock for clock faster than the Pentium-M in all the practical benchmarks I've seen and they both top out at 2.1Ghz (in the iMac anyway). Sometimes it's a lot faster than the Pentium-M. The only way a Yonah based iMac would be faster would be if it were Dual Core. But then you've got Rosetta to contend with if you've no Intel native software.
I wouldn't be so worried about the quad purchase melgross either. The photoshop shootout they've just had on macrumors showed it to completely toast even dual core Opterons. I think it'll continue to toast them for some time to come too. Which makes me wonder about Apple saying they'll transition completely by the end of 2007 to Intel. Unless Intel picks up it's legs and starts competing, they'll be in third place behind AMD and IBM all of 2007.
I'm not impressed with that test. Very few people are.
Is it so surprising that a Quad Mac should beat a dual chip Opteron system?
Does that tell us anything interesting? Or useful?
How about comparison with quad Opteron systems as they begin to appear shortly?
Unless the Quad beat the dual opteron by 100% in every area (go back and check those tests again), it will certainly be slower.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
This has been a huge concern. While there seems to be a few on these threads who insist that it isn't the case, there is a VERY great possibility that this could happen.
The analysts that track Apple, and there are a lot of them these days, have all brought up this concern.
The problem is that if one, just one, prominent software house succeeds in dropping its Mac version, and has success selling its PC version to those Mac customers, the whole thing might snowball.
Apple has the problem of realizing that the best Windows compatibility is to have Windows running on their machine . This might make the Mac more palatable to business.
They have the nightmare of that compatibility diminishing the importance of OS X on those same machines.
Most PC people I know tell me that they get Office from work. For free.
If they buy a Mac, and can get their PC programs from work, or other places, they might feel little need do go out and buy those programs for X.
They might feel that the programs that Apple includes are enough.
Software piracy is no stranger to the Mac community, unfortunately, but it's much worse in the PC community.
Those who say that dual, or triple booting is simply too much trouble are wrong. For many people, saving hundreds of dollars trumps the extra 20 seconds or so that a multiple boot system will require.
Look at how much trouble it is to use VPC. Look at how badly it works. But a fair number of us use it when we haft to. Double booting will be much easier ,and the payback will be much greater.
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
Joe Shmo might not have to do much. MS makes VPC, if they want to, they can write a smaller program that will do the work for you.
Remember that most partitioning software allows you to do it without removing everything from you HD first. Apple's own software is about the only one left that doesn't.
If MS won't do this, there are plenty of shareware and freeware authors who will.
I app apart, I doubt that all the majors Mac applications will be Universal binaries ready, when the first Intel mac will be released in january.
People will have to wait a little, to take advantage of the full potential of the newcomings intel macs.
It's highly unlikely that many apps will be ready for January. Many of those apps won't be ready in March, or April, or May, or even June.
Adobe won't make CS2 Mactel ready, for example. They've stated that. When CS3 comes out, it will be Mactel ready. That won't be until the later part of 2006. I haven't gotten any betas from Adobe yet. If anything, this is going to slow development, as both binaries have to be equivalent in features, function, and performance. By performance I mean the best they can do on their respective technologies.
I'm sure that other companies such as MS will be doing the same.
Can anyone here say that they KNOW that Apple's own pro apps will all be ready for a January launch of a PB?
This has been a huge concern. While there seems to be a few on these threads who insist that it isn't the case, there is a VERY great possibility that this could happen.
The analysts that track Apple, and there are a lot of them these days, have all brought up this concern.
The problem is that if one, just one, prominent software house succeeds in dropping its Mac version, and has success selling its PC version to those Mac customers, the whole thing might snowball.
One thing to keep in mind in this discussion is that Apple in recent years has dramatically increased the number of apps they make in-house, from all the content apps like Final Cut and DVD Studio and Logic, to iWork and the iLife apps to Safari and iChat and cetera. Apple no longer relies on Mac developers very much, and may be perfectly happy to sell their own software to Mac users.
It's highly unlikely that many apps will be ready for January. Many of those apps won't be ready in March, or April, or May, or even June.
Adobe won't make CS2 Mactel ready, for example. They've stated that. When CS3 comes out, it will be Mactel ready. That won't be until the later part of 2006. I haven't gotten any betas from Adobe yet. If anything, this is going to slow development, as both binaries have to be equivalent in features, function, and performance. By performance I mean the best they can do on their respective technologies.
I'm sure that other companies such as MS will be doing the same.
Can anyone here say that they KNOW that Apple's own pro apps will all be ready for a January launch of a PB?
I doubt it.
Yes that's the point. Any advantage in term of performance over the old ppc line, will be counterbalanced by the poverty of intelmac software.
The fastest computer on earth will be useless, if you have no software to run on it.
Unless the Quad beat the dual opteron by 100% in every area (go back and check those tests again), it will certainly be slower.
PIE was quoting 19 seconds for something that dual opterons were doing in 45 seconds but yes, that's just one filter and more tests are needed. Quad opterons/xeons are REALLY expensive compared to a PowerMac though and I can't see Apple using the current Xeons and unless Intel change policy and allow dual desktop chips, we're waiting for Woodcrest to get quads.
I'm really tempted with a Quad PowerMac myself now (well January at least) and even the new iMacs are looking quite tasty now they've sorted out the memory bandwidth and PCIe graphics. Core graphics run about twice as fast in some apps over the previous iMac. Dual Yonahs would be nice though if the software is available and Intel allow laptop chips in a desktop.
PIE was quoting 19 seconds for something that dual opterons were doing in 45 seconds but yes, that's just one filter and more tests are needed. Quad opterons/xeons are REALLY expensive compared to a PowerMac though and I can't see Apple using the current Xeons and unless Intel change policy and allow dual desktop chips, we're waiting for Woodcrest to get quads.
I'm really tempted with a Quad PowerMac myself now (well January at least) and even the new iMacs are looking quite tasty now they've sorted out the memory bandwidth and PCIe graphics. Core graphics run about twice as fast in some apps over the previous iMac. Dual Yonahs would be nice though if the software is available and Intel allow laptop chips in a desktop.
I commented about those tests on that thread.
I can tell you that in more controlled tests, of both PS and video editing, that Opteron systems have smashed PM's. Of course we're talking about dual machines vs other dual machines. But isn't that more meaningful?
Opteron systems have beaten an equivelent PM by over 50% in certain rendering tasks.
The timing of the first release is related to the timing of Intel's release. Apple cannot release a Mactel before Intel releases the chip that will go in it.
Because Intel is going with the dual core Yonah first the first Mactels will be related to the dual core line and the PB and iMac are perfect for these chips. When Intel releases a single core chip then the Mac mini and iBook will follow.
As for software houses dropping OS X apps, I don't see that happening. Their Mac customer base is currently on PPC and the software houses will want to continue to sell to them - that requires they keep current with both PPC and Mactel lines. Think Adobe will want to tell their PPC customer base to stuff it? No way. Same with MS - they want to keep selling Office updates to PPC users, plus VPC.
In terms of dual boot, someone has to buy a Mac before they can dual boot. That is one good way to keep Apple a computer company. All dual boot does is make the Mac computers more attractive to business. I have to use VPC to demo one small PC app - it was the only way I could make the switch. What I learned from using VPC is that you install it and the apps and then turn off internet access. Sort of like putting a condom on Windows - it can't get infected.
I can tell you that in more controlled tests, of both PS and video editing, that Opteron systems have smashed PM's. Of course we're talking about dual machines vs other dual machines. But isn't that more meaningful?
Oh of course. But if you can buy a quad PowerMac for about the same or just a little more than a Dual Opteron, and more importantly - it runs the right software - then why slum it with the duals. ;-)
I've 4 dual opteron PCs now running as web servers. Best bits of kit I've bought in years. Completely toast my Xeons as servers. Looking at Intel's problems on the higher end roadmap it's not encouraging for new PowerMacs so I've no problem really with a PPC PowerMac purchase. Particularly as I've an investment in PPC software already.
I don't understand why anyone is concerned about being able to install Windows on their Mac hardware -- who cares? Nobody is going to use Apple hardware as a Windows box. The real worry is that a cheap or free virtual machine is provided which can run Windows at full speed inside of MacOS X... and that developers see this as a reason not to write Mac native versions of their software.
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least). Second, Windows software is Windows software and Mac users have always demanded better. Third, Mac software will always be better integrated on the Mac platform (less overhead, smoother interaction with file system & devices, other apps, etc). And finally fourth, developing on the Mac has been transformed into a fairly nice (and cheap) experience with Cocoa and Xcode and for smaller developers this an important plus. The Mac software community has been growing quickly since OSX arrived.
Its not like Apple could do anything to stop virtual machines from being created for OSX anyhow. With an x86 processor and Darwin being open source, a Windows VM is inevitable. The real question is: how cheap will it be? My guess is that it'll be free, you just need to buy a copy of Windows.
I agree that the quad opteron will be on par or slighty above the quad powermac G5.
However I disagree with your last point. There is very few, software or part of software, who fully take advantage of MP.
A quad G5 isn't two time faster than a dual 2,5, even if you consider the Apple benchmark (who pick up very carefully their tests ...) .
Same will apply for the quad (dual dual)core opteron vs dual core opteron.
I will add, that in general, mac os X is more MP aware, than window XP.
We are, of course, ONLY talking about MP aware, ot mutliply threaded apps.
I wouldn't agree that X is better inthis area that Windows. I think it's a toss-up.
When Vista and Leopard arrive it will be more interesting. XP, at this point in time, is a lame duck. It should have gone two years ago.
Of course, the point I was making is still valid because the Opterons have a much better memory system than the G5's. The onboard controller gives them a big boost up over the Mac's well known memory latency problems. The fact that Apple is so conservative with its memory specs doesn't help.
If Apple had gone with DDR2 667 RAM instead of the 533, it would have made a big difference. The lack of advantage of DDR@ 533 over DDR 400 is well known. The best that can be said for it here is that in Apple's design, it would help "somewhat". IBM finally added to the caches. But it's been said that the 970 really needs 2MB per core, especcially in a system where two cores now share one memory bus. Cache adds little to power consumption, but helps reduce the effects of the poor latency problems we see.
So onboard controllers plus 4 channels to external RAM and bigger caches, will help a quad Opteron system to outperform the Mac Quad.
in terms of software apple should make the transition as long as possible...
if half of the macs are PPC and half intel, the developpers will have to go to universal binaries.
Once they have launched their software in universal binaries, most of the work is done and they will continue to develop for OSX.
And the best think would be PM/iMac stay in PPC G5 for at least 2 years from now, and the other go to intel. so even pro apps (PS, Quark Xpress, etc..) will have to switch to UB..
In terms of dual boot, someone has to buy a Mac before they can dual boot. That is one good way to keep Apple a computer company.
Not that great for 3rd parties or future software sales though.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
All dual boot does is make the Mac computers more attractive to business. I have to use VPC to demo one small PC app - it was the only way I could make the switch. What I learned from using VPC is that you install it and the apps and then turn off internet access. Sort of like putting a condom on Windows - it can't get infected.
Fine if the app you need isn't an internet based app. Unfortunately for me it's Internet Explorer I need VPC for - perhaps the worst internet app I could possibly need to test. However, it's pretty well contained though. If you do get infected you just delete the VPC session and create a new one. I've a Windows2000 disk image I mount and install from so it takes no time at all.
I am very interested to see what will happen to Mac gaming once the transition has started. Or more specifically once Intel Macs will run Windows games at native speeds either through VPC/VM Ware or dual-booting.
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
Thanks
dave
are games really THAT important? maybe i'm missing something here
I don't understand why anyone is concerned about being able to install Windows on their Mac hardware -- who cares? Nobody is going to use Apple hardware as a Windows box. The real worry is that a cheap or free virtual machine is provided which can run Windows at full speed inside of MacOS X... and that developers see this as a reason not to write Mac native versions of their software.
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least). Second, Windows software is Windows software and Mac users have always demanded better. Third, Mac software will always be better integrated on the Mac platform (less overhead, smoother interaction with file system & devices, other apps, etc). And finally fourth, developing on the Mac has been transformed into a fairly nice (and cheap) experience with Cocoa and Xcode and for smaller developers this an important plus. The Mac software community has been growing quickly since OSX arrived.
Its not like Apple could do anything to stop virtual machines from being created for OSX anyhow. With an x86 processor and Darwin being open source, a Windows VM is inevitable. The real question is: how cheap will it be? My guess is that it'll be free, you just need to buy a copy of Windows.
That's quite true, but Wine and Crossfire (I forget the exact name) can't run the full range of Windows programs. If a program doesn't fit within the API's they have already brought over, more work has to be done.
While this is fine, as many programs will already work, it's not seamless. You have to check first.
That's what I meant. For people like you, it doesn't make sense, but the average user is not a web developer, or application tester or what have you. There are many, many more gamers out there, and I see dual booting as a solution for them. Then you get the best of both worlds. I had a gaming PC until recently that I'd switch back and forth from. I got rid of it because it was too loud and I'm not much of a gamer anymore. But if I could game on the same machine that runs Mac OS X, I certainly would, as long as the performance of said machine is somewhat comparable to a standalone PC. That may not be a possibility.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It makes no sense to me.
The one windows application I have to use is internet explorer. I'm not going to design a website in MacOSX, then boot into Windows to test, then back to OSX to develop and read my mail, then back to Windows to test my change, then back again.
That's why VPC is good for me.
The alternative for IE testing/development is to boot into Windows and stay there for the duration of my work. I'd need all my email and tools there too. I hope you can see why that's bad for MacOSX expansion.
Dual booting only makes sense for gamers where you shut off for a few hours. It makes no sense for application usage. If you rely on one particular application you must use, you'll just stay in that environment.
VPC also lets me have 3 installs of Windows in virtual partitions (and Linux partitions too for that matter). The three separate installs have different versions of IE configured. You can also wipe them out and start again in no time when they become full of guff or infested.
Also, unless Apple improves it's OpenGL implementation then I can see gamers just booting into Windows for games anyway.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Me too.
The G5 iMac didn't need replacing with an Intel as it was fast enough already. The G5 is clock for clock faster than the Pentium-M in all the practical benchmarks I've seen and they both top out at 2.1Ghz (in the iMac anyway). Sometimes it's a lot faster than the Pentium-M. The only way a Yonah based iMac would be faster would be if it were Dual Core. But then you've got Rosetta to contend with if you've no Intel native software.
I wouldn't be so worried about the quad purchase melgross either. The photoshop shootout they've just had on macrumors showed it to completely toast even dual core Opterons. I think it'll continue to toast them for some time to come too. Which makes me wonder about Apple saying they'll transition completely by the end of 2007 to Intel. Unless Intel picks up it's legs and starts competing, they'll be in third place behind AMD and IBM all of 2007.
I'm not impressed with that test. Very few people are.
Is it so surprising that a Quad Mac should beat a dual chip Opteron system?
Does that tell us anything interesting? Or useful?
How about comparison with quad Opteron systems as they begin to appear shortly?
Unless the Quad beat the dual opteron by 100% in every area (go back and check those tests again), it will certainly be slower.
Originally posted by PB
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Maybe this is Steve's five year strategy....
Originally posted by PB
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
This has been a huge concern. While there seems to be a few on these threads who insist that it isn't the case, there is a VERY great possibility that this could happen.
The analysts that track Apple, and there are a lot of them these days, have all brought up this concern.
The problem is that if one, just one, prominent software house succeeds in dropping its Mac version, and has success selling its PC version to those Mac customers, the whole thing might snowball.
Apple has the problem of realizing that the best Windows compatibility is to have Windows running on their machine . This might make the Mac more palatable to business.
They have the nightmare of that compatibility diminishing the importance of OS X on those same machines.
Most PC people I know tell me that they get Office from work. For free.
If they buy a Mac, and can get their PC programs from work, or other places, they might feel little need do go out and buy those programs for X.
They might feel that the programs that Apple includes are enough.
Software piracy is no stranger to the Mac community, unfortunately, but it's much worse in the PC community.
Those who say that dual, or triple booting is simply too much trouble are wrong. For many people, saving hundreds of dollars trumps the extra 20 seconds or so that a multiple boot system will require.
Look at how much trouble it is to use VPC. Look at how badly it works. But a fair number of us use it when we haft to. Double booting will be much easier ,and the payback will be much greater.
Originally posted by mynamehere
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
Joe Shmo might not have to do much. MS makes VPC, if they want to, they can write a smaller program that will do the work for you.
Remember that most partitioning software allows you to do it without removing everything from you HD first. Apple's own software is about the only one left that doesn't.
If MS won't do this, there are plenty of shareware and freeware authors who will.
It won't be a problem.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I app apart, I doubt that all the majors Mac applications will be Universal binaries ready, when the first Intel mac will be released in january.
People will have to wait a little, to take advantage of the full potential of the newcomings intel macs.
It's highly unlikely that many apps will be ready for January. Many of those apps won't be ready in March, or April, or May, or even June.
Adobe won't make CS2 Mactel ready, for example. They've stated that. When CS3 comes out, it will be Mactel ready. That won't be until the later part of 2006. I haven't gotten any betas from Adobe yet. If anything, this is going to slow development, as both binaries have to be equivalent in features, function, and performance. By performance I mean the best they can do on their respective technologies.
I'm sure that other companies such as MS will be doing the same.
Can anyone here say that they KNOW that Apple's own pro apps will all be ready for a January launch of a PB?
I doubt it.
Originally posted by melgross
This has been a huge concern. While there seems to be a few on these threads who insist that it isn't the case, there is a VERY great possibility that this could happen.
The analysts that track Apple, and there are a lot of them these days, have all brought up this concern.
The problem is that if one, just one, prominent software house succeeds in dropping its Mac version, and has success selling its PC version to those Mac customers, the whole thing might snowball.
One thing to keep in mind in this discussion is that Apple in recent years has dramatically increased the number of apps they make in-house, from all the content apps like Final Cut and DVD Studio and Logic, to iWork and the iLife apps to Safari and iChat and cetera. Apple no longer relies on Mac developers very much, and may be perfectly happy to sell their own software to Mac users.
Originally posted by melgross
It's highly unlikely that many apps will be ready for January. Many of those apps won't be ready in March, or April, or May, or even June.
Adobe won't make CS2 Mactel ready, for example. They've stated that. When CS3 comes out, it will be Mactel ready. That won't be until the later part of 2006. I haven't gotten any betas from Adobe yet. If anything, this is going to slow development, as both binaries have to be equivalent in features, function, and performance. By performance I mean the best they can do on their respective technologies.
I'm sure that other companies such as MS will be doing the same.
Can anyone here say that they KNOW that Apple's own pro apps will all be ready for a January launch of a PB?
I doubt it.
Yes that's the point. Any advantage in term of performance over the old ppc line, will be counterbalanced by the poverty of intelmac software.
The fastest computer on earth will be useless, if you have no software to run on it.
Originally posted by melgross
Unless the Quad beat the dual opteron by 100% in every area (go back and check those tests again), it will certainly be slower.
PIE was quoting 19 seconds for something that dual opterons were doing in 45 seconds but yes, that's just one filter and more tests are needed. Quad opterons/xeons are REALLY expensive compared to a PowerMac though and I can't see Apple using the current Xeons and unless Intel change policy and allow dual desktop chips, we're waiting for Woodcrest to get quads.
I'm really tempted with a Quad PowerMac myself now (well January at least) and even the new iMacs are looking quite tasty now they've sorted out the memory bandwidth and PCIe graphics. Core graphics run about twice as fast in some apps over the previous iMac. Dual Yonahs would be nice though if the software is available and Intel allow laptop chips in a desktop.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not impressed with that test. Very few people are.
Is it so surprising that a Quad Mac should beat a dual chip Opteron system?
Does that tell us anything interesting? Or useful?
How about comparison with quad Opteron systems as they begin to appear shortly?
Unless the Quad beat the dual opteron by 100% in every area (go back and check those tests again), it will certainly be slower.
I agree that the quad opteron will be on par or slighty above the quad powermac G5.
However I disagree with your last point. There is very few, software or part of software, who fully take advantage of MP.
A quad G5 isn't two time faster than a dual 2,5, even if you consider the Apple benchmark (who pick up very carefully their tests ...) .
Same will apply for the quad (dual dual)core opteron vs dual core opteron.
I will add, that in general, mac os X is more MP aware, than window XP.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
PIE was quoting 19 seconds for something that dual opterons were doing in 45 seconds but yes, that's just one filter and more tests are needed. Quad opterons/xeons are REALLY expensive compared to a PowerMac though and I can't see Apple using the current Xeons and unless Intel change policy and allow dual desktop chips, we're waiting for Woodcrest to get quads.
I'm really tempted with a Quad PowerMac myself now (well January at least) and even the new iMacs are looking quite tasty now they've sorted out the memory bandwidth and PCIe graphics. Core graphics run about twice as fast in some apps over the previous iMac. Dual Yonahs would be nice though if the software is available and Intel allow laptop chips in a desktop.
I commented about those tests on that thread.
I can tell you that in more controlled tests, of both PS and video editing, that Opteron systems have smashed PM's. Of course we're talking about dual machines vs other dual machines. But isn't that more meaningful?
Opteron systems have beaten an equivelent PM by over 50% in certain rendering tasks.
Because Intel is going with the dual core Yonah first the first Mactels will be related to the dual core line and the PB and iMac are perfect for these chips. When Intel releases a single core chip then the Mac mini and iBook will follow.
As for software houses dropping OS X apps, I don't see that happening. Their Mac customer base is currently on PPC and the software houses will want to continue to sell to them - that requires they keep current with both PPC and Mactel lines. Think Adobe will want to tell their PPC customer base to stuff it? No way. Same with MS - they want to keep selling Office updates to PPC users, plus VPC.
In terms of dual boot, someone has to buy a Mac before they can dual boot. That is one good way to keep Apple a computer company. All dual boot does is make the Mac computers more attractive to business. I have to use VPC to demo one small PC app - it was the only way I could make the switch. What I learned from using VPC is that you install it and the apps and then turn off internet access. Sort of like putting a condom on Windows - it can't get infected.
Originally posted by melgross
I can tell you that in more controlled tests, of both PS and video editing, that Opteron systems have smashed PM's. Of course we're talking about dual machines vs other dual machines. But isn't that more meaningful?
Oh of course. But if you can buy a quad PowerMac for about the same or just a little more than a Dual Opteron, and more importantly - it runs the right software - then why slum it with the duals. ;-)
I've 4 dual opteron PCs now running as web servers. Best bits of kit I've bought in years. Completely toast my Xeons as servers. Looking at Intel's problems on the higher end roadmap it's not encouraging for new PowerMacs so I've no problem really with a PPC PowerMac purchase. Particularly as I've an investment in PPC software already.
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least). Second, Windows software is Windows software and Mac users have always demanded better. Third, Mac software will always be better integrated on the Mac platform (less overhead, smoother interaction with file system & devices, other apps, etc). And finally fourth, developing on the Mac has been transformed into a fairly nice (and cheap) experience with Cocoa and Xcode and for smaller developers this an important plus. The Mac software community has been growing quickly since OSX arrived.
Its not like Apple could do anything to stop virtual machines from being created for OSX anyhow. With an x86 processor and Darwin being open source, a Windows VM is inevitable. The real question is: how cheap will it be? My guess is that it'll be free, you just need to buy a copy of Windows.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I agree that the quad opteron will be on par or slighty above the quad powermac G5.
However I disagree with your last point. There is very few, software or part of software, who fully take advantage of MP.
A quad G5 isn't two time faster than a dual 2,5, even if you consider the Apple benchmark (who pick up very carefully their tests ...) .
Same will apply for the quad (dual dual)core opteron vs dual core opteron.
I will add, that in general, mac os X is more MP aware, than window XP.
We are, of course, ONLY talking about MP aware, ot mutliply threaded apps.
I wouldn't agree that X is better inthis area that Windows. I think it's a toss-up.
When Vista and Leopard arrive it will be more interesting. XP, at this point in time, is a lame duck. It should have gone two years ago.
Of course, the point I was making is still valid because the Opterons have a much better memory system than the G5's. The onboard controller gives them a big boost up over the Mac's well known memory latency problems. The fact that Apple is so conservative with its memory specs doesn't help.
If Apple had gone with DDR2 667 RAM instead of the 533, it would have made a big difference. The lack of advantage of DDR@ 533 over DDR 400 is well known. The best that can be said for it here is that in Apple's design, it would help "somewhat". IBM finally added to the caches. But it's been said that the 970 really needs 2MB per core, especcially in a system where two cores now share one memory bus. Cache adds little to power consumption, but helps reduce the effects of the poor latency problems we see.
So onboard controllers plus 4 channels to external RAM and bigger caches, will help a quad Opteron system to outperform the Mac Quad.
if half of the macs are PPC and half intel, the developpers will have to go to universal binaries.
Once they have launched their software in universal binaries, most of the work is done and they will continue to develop for OSX.
And the best think would be PM/iMac stay in PPC G5 for at least 2 years from now, and the other go to intel. so even pro apps (PS, Quark Xpress, etc..) will have to switch to UB..
Originally posted by kenaustus
In terms of dual boot, someone has to buy a Mac before they can dual boot. That is one good way to keep Apple a computer company.
Not that great for 3rd parties or future software sales though.
Originally posted by kenaustus
All dual boot does is make the Mac computers more attractive to business. I have to use VPC to demo one small PC app - it was the only way I could make the switch. What I learned from using VPC is that you install it and the apps and then turn off internet access. Sort of like putting a condom on Windows - it can't get infected.
Fine if the app you need isn't an internet based app. Unfortunately for me it's Internet Explorer I need VPC for - perhaps the worst internet app I could possibly need to test. However, it's pretty well contained though. If you do get infected you just delete the VPC session and create a new one. I've a Windows2000 disk image I mount and install from so it takes no time at all.
Originally posted by Dave K.
I am very interested to see what will happen to Mac gaming once the transition has started. Or more specifically once Intel Macs will run Windows games at native speeds either through VPC/VM Ware or dual-booting.
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
Thanks
dave
are games really THAT important? maybe i'm missing something here
Originally posted by Programmer
I don't understand why anyone is concerned about being able to install Windows on their Mac hardware -- who cares? Nobody is going to use Apple hardware as a Windows box. The real worry is that a cheap or free virtual machine is provided which can run Windows at full speed inside of MacOS X... and that developers see this as a reason not to write Mac native versions of their software.
This may not actually be a serious worry. First of all, existing Mac developers will still want to sell to the installed base for quite some time (several years at least). Second, Windows software is Windows software and Mac users have always demanded better. Third, Mac software will always be better integrated on the Mac platform (less overhead, smoother interaction with file system & devices, other apps, etc). And finally fourth, developing on the Mac has been transformed into a fairly nice (and cheap) experience with Cocoa and Xcode and for smaller developers this an important plus. The Mac software community has been growing quickly since OSX arrived.
Its not like Apple could do anything to stop virtual machines from being created for OSX anyhow. With an x86 processor and Darwin being open source, a Windows VM is inevitable. The real question is: how cheap will it be? My guess is that it'll be free, you just need to buy a copy of Windows.
That's quite true, but Wine and Crossfire (I forget the exact name) can't run the full range of Windows programs. If a program doesn't fit within the API's they have already brought over, more work has to be done.
While this is fine, as many programs will already work, it's not seamless. You have to check first.
And as you say; "this MAY to be a worry".
I'm hoping that it won't be. But it might.
Originally posted by exactopposite
are games really THAT important? maybe i'm missing something here
me to. haha i didn't even know there was a "mac" gaming community.
how many people does that refer to? a few hundred thousand? if even.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It makes no sense to me.
The one windows application I have to use is internet explorer. I'm not going to design a website in MacOSX, then boot into Windows to test, then back to OSX to develop and read my mail, then back to Windows to test my change, then back again.
That's why VPC is good for me.
The alternative for IE testing/development is to boot into Windows and stay there for the duration of my work. I'd need all my email and tools there too. I hope you can see why that's bad for MacOSX expansion.
Dual booting only makes sense for gamers where you shut off for a few hours. It makes no sense for application usage. If you rely on one particular application you must use, you'll just stay in that environment.
VPC also lets me have 3 installs of Windows in virtual partitions (and Linux partitions too for that matter). The three separate installs have different versions of IE configured. You can also wipe them out and start again in no time when they become full of guff or infested.
Also, unless Apple improves it's OpenGL implementation then I can see gamers just booting into Windows for games anyway.