Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
I didn't mean for the purpose of buying a Mac to run windows. Was that the question there? I though we were just talking about the reliability and lack of bugs that the first gen would be likely (or not) present.
but since you mention it...
I don't recall Vista reguiring 2GB RAM. 1 GB should be enough unless you use programs that do require it. That would be the same for OS X. 512MB is enough, but barely. If you run a program that needs more RAm, well?
All 64 bit OS's need more RAM. A few people don't sem to think so, but general agreement on that is pretty widespread. Whatever Vista needs, OS X will also. We really don't know how Leopard will up the requirements either.
You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.
It depends on how far from the Intel platformisation product Apple have drifted. I can't see them being too different.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.
I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.
We'll see.
While they might change their minds, Schiller didn't just say that windows could run on these Macs, he said that Apple wouldn't do anything that would prevent it from running.
I do wonder if Apple will be using EFI from the beginning though. Someone here said that XP won't run with EFI. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then Windows won't run directly until it does support it, which might mean Vista.
As EFI is an Intel technology that Intel has unsucessfully been trying to get PC makers to standardize on, Apple using it wouldn't exactly qualify as doing something to prevent Windows from running. Right now it's used under IA-64.
I really can't see Apple shipping a machine that uses BIOS, and i don't think that they will be able to boot into windows. Of course, I could be wrong.
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.
I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.
It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.
I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.
It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.
Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.
DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.
The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.
Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.
What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.
The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.
We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.
And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.
but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!
That ratio is 1:1.
That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!
If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.
This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.
Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.
Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.
Yeah, what AppleInsider writes makes sense. I have blogged why, and the key lies in Apple's 64-bit Intel roadmap and how to get there .
Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.
First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.
But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.
As the iMac is now a 64 bit machine, I don't see any advantage in Apple moving it over to x86 early if they;
1. have to go to a Pentium 4 or other current or just coming out chip, none of which is highly regarded, and is very power hungry and hot.
2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.
The last thing is that Intel does not want its laptop chips being used in full size and performance desktops. It's made that clear.
Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.
First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.
But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.
2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.
My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you ? does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.
To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.
Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.
DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.
The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.
Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.
What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.
The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.
We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.
And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.
but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!
That ratio is 1:1.
That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!
If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.
This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.
Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.
Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.
So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.
For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.
My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you ? does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.
To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.
Intel will never make a 64 bit Yonah. that is strictly a 32 bit design. It will be replaced mid to late 2006 with the Merom, which WILL be a 64 bit design.
2. The one problem with those thoughts, and you aren't the only one having them, is other than perhaps the iBook and the Mini, it can't be garranteed that people won't use pro apps on an iMac, or any other Mac. It's being done all the time now.
So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.
For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.
It's not just for me. There are others who have said the same thing. I suppose that tomorrow, after I get some sleep, I can link to some of that, if you like.
The memory controller is spec'd for that. It's in the docs. It's supposed to be able to work up to 3GHz full bus speed. Unless the chip doesn't work as well as it should. But that is a whole 'nother story. If they really had to, they could always put a small fan on top. The machine, as a whole, has so much airflow that it could easily accommodate that. Look how third parties put two more HD's in the case - right in the flow of the cpu's and memory. so far, there have been no reports of overheating because of it. I would think that they could take care of the memory controller, if they had to.
I really can't see Apple shipping a machine that uses BIOS, and i don't think that they will be able to boot into windows. Of course, I could be wrong.
Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.
Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.
Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.
Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.
Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.
On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.
And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.
Windows is so primitive. It depends on its BIOS. Or does it?
Of course not. IA-64 Windows has no BIOS and I'd guess the CE variants don't either, BUT, I bet you the X86 versions do to boot so getting it to boot without some kind of boot loader won't work.
Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.
Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.
Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.
On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.
And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.
It just means, that it will not officialy support Windows. So if windows suck on it don't call Apple.
Comments
Originally posted by Kolchak
Would it really be a waste of time? Seems to me there's quite a bit of interest in this thread for running Windows on a Mactel. But the discussion seems to focus on current Windows, i.e. XP. It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
I didn't mean for the purpose of buying a Mac to run windows. Was that the question there? I though we were just talking about the reliability and lack of bugs that the first gen would be likely (or not) present.
but since you mention it...
I don't recall Vista reguiring 2GB RAM. 1 GB should be enough unless you use programs that do require it. That would be the same for OS X. 512MB is enough, but barely. If you run a program that needs more RAm, well?
All 64 bit OS's need more RAM. A few people don't sem to think so, but general agreement on that is pretty widespread. Whatever Vista needs, OS X will also. We really don't know how Leopard will up the requirements either.
You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It depends on how far from the Intel platformisation product Apple have drifted. I can't see them being too different.
Originally posted by Kolchak
It's a fair bet that the 2006 model Mactels won't be able to run Vista optimally. The massive 2GB RAM requirement for 64-bit Vista doesn't help there. So early adopters will likely be limited to XP, which I guess isn't bad, but I would expect the bleeding edge wouldn't like to be trapped with an EOL OS.
I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.
We'll see.
Originally posted by WelshDog
I have been wondering about this. One of the things us Mac folk like to throw out there is the amount of variation can be in PC hardware. Unlike Macs there was no unified hardware standard. We love that tight integration between the OS and the hard stuff. Obviously MacIntel boxes will still have that Apple unification, but won't Apple be tempted to configure the machines to suit their unique needs? Could this mean that Windows or certain apps might not really work all that well on a MacIntel? Couldn't Apple really go out on a limb and build a chipset that is unique and optimized for the needs of their OS and exclude Widnows entirely? I realize they have stated that people *could* run Windows on a MacIntel but that it would not be supported. I think we can read more into that. Plus Apple might change their minds about that statement.
We'll see.
While they might change their minds, Schiller didn't just say that windows could run on these Macs, he said that Apple wouldn't do anything that would prevent it from running.
I do wonder if Apple will be using EFI from the beginning though. Someone here said that XP won't run with EFI. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then Windows won't run directly until it does support it, which might mean Vista.
As EFI is an Intel technology that Intel has unsucessfully been trying to get PC makers to standardize on, Apple using it wouldn't exactly qualify as doing something to prevent Windows from running. Right now it's used under IA-64.
But we'll see.
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/...9235916,00.htm
Originally posted by melgross
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.
I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.
It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
link
Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I agree that the Opteron, has the best memory systems, but there is also bottlenecks : the Ram, who cannot feed 4 channels simultaneously at full speed.
It's well known that the DDR 2 is no better than DDR 400, because the former one has a higher latency.
That's said, the new memory system of the G5 is better than the older one.
link
Is it related to the memory controller or the larger L2 cache ? I don't know. But it's a good suprise here.
Now I am not sure, that in practice, DDR 667 will bring a huge improvement on the G5 design, if we consider that the bottleneck here is the shared bus between the two cores.
I think a faster RAM, will bring more to an opteron system, than a G5 system, but of course it's only conjectures.
Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.
DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.
The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.
Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.
What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.
The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.
We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.
And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.
but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!
That ratio is 1:1.
That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!
If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.
This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.
Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.
Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.
Originally posted by tatle
Yeah, what AppleInsider writes makes sense. I have blogged why, and the key lies in Apple's 64-bit Intel roadmap and how to get there .
Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.
First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.
But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.
As the iMac is now a 64 bit machine, I don't see any advantage in Apple moving it over to x86 early if they;
1. have to go to a Pentium 4 or other current or just coming out chip, none of which is highly regarded, and is very power hungry and hot.
2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.
The last thing is that Intel does not want its laptop chips being used in full size and performance desktops. It's made that clear.
Originally posted by melgross
Interesting, but I don't understand quite what you're saying.
First, you state that Apple should go straight to a 64 bit chip.
But then you say that they should start by going to the Yonah, which is a 32 bit chip.
2. have to go to a laptop chip such as the Yonah, which is 32 bit, and has a performance level that is no better overall than the 1.9 -2.1 G5's now being used, if not worse. They would HAVE to go to a dual core to get that performance increase, but it wouldn't be seen on most programs, and would run much slower under Rosetta. We don't know yet if Rosetta will work well, or at all under two cpu's.
My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you ? does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.
To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, the faster the RAM, the better it can feed the cpus.
DDR2 533 is not better than DDR 400, but DDR2 667 is. The speed of the RAM makes up for the increased latency. It's been shown that with 533 parts the speed increase is cancelled by the latency. not so with the 667 parts. The Mac memory design does benefit slightly from the 533 part, but not very much. The 667 part would give more gain.
The memory controller is pretty much the same. The difference is due to the larger cache. The chip doesn't have to go to main memory as often.
Faster RAM will help the Opteron system as well.
What is interesting here is something that most have not caught.
The specs for the memory controller for the G5, and therefor, the Mac, allows different speeds vis a vis the cpu speeds.
We are familiar with the half speeds in the PM's - 2GHz cpu = 1GHz bus. 2.5GHz cpu =1.25GHz bus.
And the iMacs - 2GHz cpu =667MHz bus.
but what most people aren't aware of is that there is another ratio Apple could use - if it wanted to!
That ratio is 1:1.
That's right. A dual core 2.5GHz chip could have a 2.5GHz bus!!!
If Apple were to be smart and a bit daring, it could have systems using dual core chips with the same bus bandwidth as dual chip systems.
This would eliminate major objections to dual core chips and memory subsystems.
Unfortunately, Apple hasn't gone that way. Maybe there will be another upgrade to these machines and it will include that.
Actually, I'm surprised that Apple didn't take advantage of this ability now. For various reasons, it didn't really need it before, but it does now.
So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.
For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.
Originally posted by tatle
My understanding is that Intel have the capability of making a 64-bit version of the Yonah, so I have made an update to the article to make that clear.
Otherwise I would agree with you ? does not make sense to put a 32-bit chip into the now current 64-bit G5 iMac.
To point 2, most applications in a media center focused iMac would be native Intel as they would be written by Apple, and the performance hit of Rosetta would not be felt to the same extent as a machine primarily running PhotoShop or Office.
Intel will never make a 64 bit Yonah. that is strictly a 32 bit design. It will be replaced mid to late 2006 with the Merom, which WILL be a 64 bit design.
2. The one problem with those thoughts, and you aren't the only one having them, is other than perhaps the iBook and the Mini, it can't be garranteed that people won't use pro apps on an iMac, or any other Mac. It's being done all the time now.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
So for you the better memory results of the next generation is related only 1 MB L2 cache.
It may be true, but it need further investigations to back this point.
For the full speed bus, I think that it's very difficult to achieve for heat issue. I dont know if the memory controller is able to run at such high clock speed. Currently there is a small heatsink on it, at 2,5 ghz it will recquiere watercooling.
It's not just for me. There are others who have said the same thing. I suppose that tomorrow, after I get some sleep, I can link to some of that, if you like.
The memory controller is spec'd for that. It's in the docs. It's supposed to be able to work up to 3GHz full bus speed. Unless the chip doesn't work as well as it should. But that is a whole 'nother story. If they really had to, they could always put a small fan on top. The machine, as a whole, has so much airflow that it could easily accommodate that. Look how third parties put two more HD's in the case - right in the flow of the cpu's and memory. so far, there have been no reports of overheating because of it. I would think that they could take care of the memory controller, if they had to.
Originally posted by Res
I really can't see Apple shipping a machine that uses BIOS, and i don't think that they will be able to boot into windows. Of course, I could be wrong.
Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.
Originally posted by french macuser
Not putting a BIOS in intel Macs would "prevent users from installing windows" on them so according to Schiller, Apple should not do it.
Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.
Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.
Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.
On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.
And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.
Originally posted by Glamingo
Windows is so primitive. It depends on its BIOS. Or does it?
Of course not. IA-64 Windows has no BIOS and I'd guess the CE variants don't either, BUT, I bet you the X86 versions do to boot so getting it to boot without some kind of boot loader won't work.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Actually I took Schiller's comment to mean that Apple weren't going to stop people installing windows in a legal sense, not a technical one.
Ie. They are going to build Macs any way they want but they aren't going to prevent people from hacking Windows so that it runs on the new Macs or prevent Microsoft from producing a new version that runs on Mac hardware.
Personally, I think this talk of dual booting straight into an unaltered copy of Windows is premature and in 6 months time we'll be discussing various boot-loader hacks and when Microsoft will release a native Intel VPC or how to get Bochs running full speed.
On Slashdot there'll be uproar at Apple's protectionism and going back on a flippant promise from Schiller on a show floor that could be read any way.
And there'll likely be a class action lawsuit from some jerk who thinks he's been lied to.
It just means, that it will not officialy support Windows. So if windows suck on it don't call Apple.