That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.
That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.
Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running. However, they won't let legacy Windows support (e.g. BIOS) hold them back either.
Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running.
I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).
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?
You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.
The system requirements were reported here. 1GB might be usable, but nobody wants a system that's just usable. That's on top of OS X, assuming Vista is run as a VM within OS X.
The other system requirements, especially the display card, may make Vista run like a slug on Mactels, since I doubt Apple hews to the Microsoft requirements. That basically could mean Vista, even on an Intel processor in a Mactel, would be hobbled like VPC on a PowerPC.
I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).
The saving grace might be Apple's legendary tight-fisted control of hardware. With only a tiny number of Mactel configurations to support, hackers might be able to strip out all the unnecessary garbage Microsoft needs to include to support a zillion different configurations, producing a leaner, cleaner Windows for Macs.
I wouldn't load Windows in any shape or form on my brand new Intel Mac when i get one in about 3 years.
3 years eh? Imagine the jump up I'll get from this little ol' iBook to whatever is going at the time. When Leopard arrives I'll max out the RAM in this thing and let it take me on to my next big purchase.
I wonder what the PowerBooks will hold for me in 2008?
This is a very exciting time.
However I don't think the rumour is true, we'll just have to wait till iChristmas in January to find out.
Experience tells us (Virtual PC etc.) that emulators are no good for games. If Apple wants to release Intel Macs as early as January, they need to send an army of engineers over to the game companies to help them. [/B]
Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.
Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.
Yes, with a virtual PC for intel mac OS X, will run at full speed windows game. Because unlike emulators, there is no need or translating a code to an another. Virtual PC already work on PC : it allow to have several Windows working in the same PC
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.
Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.
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.
The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller
The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller
No the current ratio is only 1/2, but the memory controller of the G5 is 2 bidirectionnal 32 bit busses moving 4GB/sec in each direction for the G5 dual 2 ghz.
Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.
I have feeling more people than you would expect. Some people truly believe Windows is better than MacOS X. As misguided as these people may be, some of them may like Apple's design and want to run their favorite OS. Just think, if you are a die-hard Windows user, wouldn't you like to have iMac with iSight running Windows? Apple should be happy to sell them the hardware (funny part will be, Windows running on Apple Computer may be more stable than Dell or HP computers).
There will be websites dedicated to running Windows on Apple's x86 hardware. While I think it will be possible, I don't think it will be easy to do. I think installing Windows on Apple hardware will kind of be like installing a new hard drive into Apple's current PowerBook line-up. It's a lot of work, and there are some risks, but most people will opt not to do it.
I my self am a full round Apple Fanatic and my B-day is after January so i am very happy with the outcome. I would love to see a powerbook with i sight that would be so cool. And then it will come with ohoto booth for sure. When will the new operating system coming out any know? Awneser my Question.
The motherboard being EFI-only isn't going to stop Windows from being run. It may prevent Windows XP from launching natively off the hardware, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that if MacIntels are EFI-only, someone will write a compatibility box (VirtualPC-lite) that will load a BIOS on top of it, and Windows on top of that. (There are several x86 emulators that can run Windows for the PowerPC, and that sure doesn't have BIOS. And one for a MacIntel wouldn't even need to emulate the processor instructions, so would be pretty speedy.)
I'm still curious about the possibility of emulating a 64-bit EM64T instruction set on an IA32 chip. Write everything to the 64-bit API and ship it on a 32-bit chip with "emulation" until the hardware catches up. Many of the instructions are the same except for the extra room for 64-bit, so it would be a pretty shallow emulation.
Regardless, despite the fact that MacOS 10.4 is still largely a 32-bit OS, I think the 64-bit question is the biggest one in my mind blocking an early Intel migration. I'd be as happy as anyone to see it (even if they had to use a Pentium D,) but 1. Mac users have come to expect 64-bit, 2. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, 64-bit has performance advantages, 3. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, moving to 64-bit isn't binary compatible, so starting on 32-bit is setting yourself up for ANOTHER transition soon.
Personally, I can see no benefit to Apple for a Mac being able to run windows programs natively: development for the Mac will slow to a trickle, as developers cut costs and so forth. I just can't see an advantage. (Who was the mystery poster about David's stone and "Rosetta" in "Riddles from the past?" -- ah, those were the days.... )
I can also see very little advantage to making the casual user able to install a bootable Windows natively on a Mac; unless Apple is supremely confident that it's OS will win the battle of the comparisons inevitably seen by an end-user of such a monstrosity. Software will be the real kicker here; booting in and out of OS's would really be a pain, and the one with the most software will win... and Windows has that battle sewn up. Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?
Running Windows in a window seems the only plausible solution to me, one that has the advantage of winning the comparison war (when it inevitably gets annoying, the user can always just quit out and return to the safety and solace of their Mac). Yet still, I see peril for software development here.
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
In short, it seems to me that Apple has to be very, very, careful of the hand they play, and must guard its cards religiously. For it seems to me they will be entering a much larger arena with much larger stakes, and a much larger population of potential enemies.
Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
Neither have I. Which is why I think in, say, three years time, You'll be able to buy an OS X 10.6 box and install it on any retail or hand-built Intel or AMD beige-box.
They will be taking MS--the biggest, baddest monster of them all--head on. Apple can invent all sorts of silly, underhanded ways to keep itself in an isolated niche. If it does, I don't see much hope-->the iPod halo will fade and Apple will enter another period of crisis.
If it takes up the gauntlet, things will get very interesting. Apple has never been stronger, and MS has never been weaker. Vista is a ways off, its hardware requirements are mindboggling, and average users (in my experience) are really ticked off at the spyware, malware, adware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that plague their computers.
Apple on the other hand has a ton of good will right now. It's awash in more money than it's ever had. It is now an expert at making awkward transitions smooth and graceful (68000-->PPC; OS 9-->OS X; 32 bit-->64 bit; and now the mother of them all). And for nearly every "indispensible" MS app, there's an Apple alternative:
IE-->Safari
WMP-->Quicktime/iTunes
MS Messenger-->iChat AV
(Media Center-->Front Row)*
Outlook-->Mail/iCal/Address Book
Access-->Filemaker
PowerPoint-->Keynote
Word-->Pages (kind of...)**
Excel--> (nothing...yet?)**
*Ok. These are dispensible, but you get the idea.
** Yeah, I know. They need a spreadsheet program and Pages is an expensive beta release. But this is why Apple billed it as "Building a successor to AppleWorks" (emphasis on the "-ing") and not as "Delete MS Office now."
The writing is on the wall. Apple is preparing for what is probably a worst-case scenario: war with Microsoft. With the Intel transition, Apple will lose the protective hardware coccoon it has incubated in for decades. It was safe, but it couldn't grow too big either.
..... Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot......I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
yes, definitely. spot on mate. if i get an iBook pentiumM or powerbook Yonah in 2006, dual booting into windoze will be for precisely the above reasons. i wouldn't care if i have to play quake4 on low settings at 800x600, at least i can roll a bit of quake4 every now and then. to satisfy my curiousity.
oh, in general, my feelings for 2006 is pentium Ms are a very capable mobile platform, i don't mind if its not Yonah for the first portable offerings ~ but anyway, apple is still finalising their strategy i'm sure. there are pentium M prototypes running full tilt in skunkworks, its just a matter now of hammering out the next-gen intel cpu pipeline and apple being total bastard pricks to make sure they don't get shafted ever again (ala their experience with moto, freescale, ibm)
Which future Intel CPUs are dual-processor friendly (besides the Xeon)?
What Intel quad (dual-dualcore) would likely have similar performance as the G5 2.5 GHz quad? I am trying to gauge how long until the MacIntel powermac will take to catch up to the present quad. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
So if windows suck on it don't call Apple.
That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.
Originally posted by PB
That's exactly the point. And it should be easy for Apple to do it and make the Windows experience less than ideal (read: nightmare) with each Mac OS X update. But will they do it? No one knows. The statement "Apple will do nothing to prevent users from installing Windows on their Macs" does not tell nothing more than that. That's why we should wait and see how the whole thing is implemented.
Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running. However, they won't let legacy Windows support (e.g. BIOS) hold them back either.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Apple won't do anything on purpose that would stop Windows from running.
I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).
Originally posted by melgross
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?
You're not stuck with XP, you can always upgrade later.
The system requirements were reported here. 1GB might be usable, but nobody wants a system that's just usable. That's on top of OS X, assuming Vista is run as a VM within OS X.
The other system requirements, especially the display card, may make Vista run like a slug on Mactels, since I doubt Apple hews to the Microsoft requirements. That basically could mean Vista, even on an Intel processor in a Mactel, would be hobbled like VPC on a PowerPC.
Originally posted by PB
I said nothing about stop it from running. Just make it not worth to install it on a Mac, or go through the hassle to install it and find out at the end that the installation is total garbage (driver issues, hardware compatibility, etc).
The saving grace might be Apple's legendary tight-fisted control of hardware. With only a tiny number of Mactel configurations to support, hackers might be able to strip out all the unnecessary garbage Microsoft needs to include to support a zillion different configurations, producing a leaner, cleaner Windows for Macs.
3 years eh? Imagine the jump up I'll get from this little ol' iBook to whatever is going at the time. When Leopard arrives I'll max out the RAM in this thing and let it take me on to my next big purchase.
I wonder what the PowerBooks will hold for me in 2008?
This is a very exciting time.
However I don't think the rumour is true, we'll just have to wait till iChristmas in January to find out.
Originally posted by ascii
Experience tells us (Virtual PC etc.) that emulators are no good for games. If Apple wants to release Intel Macs as early as January, they need to send an army of engineers over to the game companies to help them. [/B]
Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.
Originally posted by skat
Unless Intel Macs can run games written for Windows. WinAPI32 support in MacOSX for Intel.
Yes, with a virtual PC for intel mac OS X, will run at full speed windows game. Because unlike emulators, there is no need or translating a code to an another. Virtual PC already work on PC : it allow to have several Windows working in the same PC
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.
Originally posted by melgross
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.
The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller
Originally posted by smalM
The ratio CPU/Memory-Controller Apple uses is 4 for the PM and 6 for the iMac. We don't know the ratios the 970MP can use but the 970FX can use 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
A ratio of 3 already means a memory controller running at 833 MHz, ca. 5900 MB/s bandwidth in each direction and perhaps the need of watercooling for the controller
No the current ratio is only 1/2, but the memory controller of the G5 is 2 bidirectionnal 32 bit busses moving 4GB/sec in each direction for the G5 dual 2 ghz.
The 1/3 ratio is used for the Imac.
Originally posted by Programmer
Again, this is irrelevant. Who in their right mind is going to buy a Macintosh in order to run XP in an unsupported form? Instead people will use a VM under MacOS X.
I have feeling more people than you would expect. Some people truly believe Windows is better than MacOS X. As misguided as these people may be, some of them may like Apple's design and want to run their favorite OS. Just think, if you are a die-hard Windows user, wouldn't you like to have iMac with iSight running Windows? Apple should be happy to sell them the hardware (funny part will be, Windows running on Apple Computer may be more stable than Dell or HP computers).
I'm still curious about the possibility of emulating a 64-bit EM64T instruction set on an IA32 chip. Write everything to the 64-bit API and ship it on a 32-bit chip with "emulation" until the hardware catches up. Many of the instructions are the same except for the extra room for 64-bit, so it would be a pretty shallow emulation.
Regardless, despite the fact that MacOS 10.4 is still largely a 32-bit OS, I think the 64-bit question is the biggest one in my mind blocking an early Intel migration. I'd be as happy as anyone to see it (even if they had to use a Pentium D,) but 1. Mac users have come to expect 64-bit, 2. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, 64-bit has performance advantages, 3. On Intel, unlike PowerPC, moving to 64-bit isn't binary compatible, so starting on 32-bit is setting yourself up for ANOTHER transition soon.
Originally posted by Booga
On Intel, unlike PowerPC, moving to 64-bit isn't binary compatible, so starting on 32-bit is setting yourself up for ANOTHER transition soon.
I think Apple has probably already planned for this. After all, they had been covertly running OS X on x86 all of its life.
Personally, I can see no benefit to Apple for a Mac being able to run windows programs natively: development for the Mac will slow to a trickle, as developers cut costs and so forth. I just can't see an advantage. (Who was the mystery poster about David's stone and "Rosetta" in "Riddles from the past?" -- ah, those were the days....
I can also see very little advantage to making the casual user able to install a bootable Windows natively on a Mac; unless Apple is supremely confident that it's OS will win the battle of the comparisons inevitably seen by an end-user of such a monstrosity. Software will be the real kicker here; booting in and out of OS's would really be a pain, and the one with the most software will win... and Windows has that battle sewn up. Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?
Running Windows in a window seems the only plausible solution to me, one that has the advantage of winning the comparison war (when it inevitably gets annoying, the user can always just quit out and return to the safety and solace of their Mac). Yet still, I see peril for software development here.
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
In short, it seems to me that Apple has to be very, very, careful of the hand they play, and must guard its cards religiously. For it seems to me they will be entering a much larger arena with much larger stakes, and a much larger population of potential enemies.
Or for another metaphor:
Here there be monsters.
Hope springs eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Originally posted by Mandricard
Plus, couldn't the inherent security problems with Windows wreak havoc with the sturdiness of the Mac OS?
Yes.
Originally posted by Mandricard
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
Neither have I. Which is why I think in, say, three years time, You'll be able to buy an OS X 10.6 box and install it on any retail or hand-built Intel or AMD beige-box.
They will be taking MS--the biggest, baddest monster of them all--head on. Apple can invent all sorts of silly, underhanded ways to keep itself in an isolated niche. If it does, I don't see much hope-->the iPod halo will fade and Apple will enter another period of crisis.
If it takes up the gauntlet, things will get very interesting. Apple has never been stronger, and MS has never been weaker. Vista is a ways off, its hardware requirements are mindboggling, and average users (in my experience) are really ticked off at the spyware, malware, adware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that plague their computers.
Apple on the other hand has a ton of good will right now. It's awash in more money than it's ever had. It is now an expert at making awkward transitions smooth and graceful (68000-->PPC; OS 9-->OS X; 32 bit-->64 bit; and now the mother of them all). And for nearly every "indispensible" MS app, there's an Apple alternative:
IE-->Safari
WMP-->Quicktime/iTunes
MS Messenger-->iChat AV
(Media Center-->Front Row)*
Outlook-->Mail/iCal/Address Book
Access-->Filemaker
PowerPoint-->Keynote
Word-->Pages (kind of...)**
Excel--> (nothing...yet?)**
*Ok. These are dispensible, but you get the idea.
** Yeah, I know. They need a spreadsheet program and Pages is an expensive beta release. But this is why Apple billed it as "Building a successor to AppleWorks" (emphasis on the "-ing") and not as "Delete MS Office now."
The writing is on the wall. Apple is preparing for what is probably a worst-case scenario: war with Microsoft. With the Intel transition, Apple will lose the protective hardware coccoon it has incubated in for decades. It was safe, but it couldn't grow too big either.
..... Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot......I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
yes, definitely. spot on mate. if i get an iBook pentiumM or powerbook Yonah in 2006, dual booting into windoze will be for precisely the above reasons. i wouldn't care if i have to play quake4 on low settings at 800x600, at least i can roll a bit of quake4 every now and then. to satisfy my curiousity.
oh, in general, my feelings for 2006 is pentium Ms are a very capable mobile platform, i don't mind if its not Yonah for the first portable offerings ~ but anyway, apple is still finalising their strategy i'm sure. there are pentium M prototypes running full tilt in skunkworks, its just a matter now of hammering out the next-gen intel cpu pipeline and apple being total bastard pricks to make sure they don't get shafted ever again (ala their experience with moto, freescale, ibm)
What Intel quad (dual-dualcore) would likely have similar performance as the G5 2.5 GHz quad? I am trying to gauge how long until the MacIntel powermac will take to catch up to the present quad. Any guidance would be appreciated.