Well we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. I think they should wait until there's more software.
It's a chicken and egg deal ascii. If Apple doesn't release an Intel machine, there's no reason to release Intel software for a machine that in the "real world" doesn't exist and currently has no market. Not to mention while developers can test the software on their Intel Mac developer hardware, that *DOES NOT* guarantee a stable release on whatever product Apple elects to ship. Apple launching an Intel machine will lead to early adopters who then clamor for <product name here> to be released for their new purchase. It lights a candle under developer's buttocks to get the deal done rather than sit there with their thumb up their butt. Many are already ready, just waiting for Apple to ship machines so they can run some beta tests, go GM, and ship via either update or new boxes of product.
Buying an Intel Mac early-on is not a bad deal, nor is buying the last gen. of a PowerPC Mac, it depends on what your focus is. The reason Pro machines can wait is Pro apps. are likely the last to be revealed, that is unless Apple reveals them, themselves. Many businesses can go a few years between new machines and software, and they have such $ invested in software and hardware that it's a huge transitional strategy for them. For one consumer who buys a machine and a copy of Photoshop it's not that big, but when you're talking a design department with 30 workstations and 30 copies of the Creative Suite and Macromedia Studio, Maya, et al., it becomes a much bigger investment. I expect many design houses running on G4 or even more current G5 hardware to upgrade to Dual-Dual Core machines en masse prior to the Intel announcements in the coming year and have the best of the last generation of hardware in terms of performance. That way they can eek more life out of their previous software investments and wait for the Intel releases of Adobe CS and the Adobe/Macromedia Studio to iron themselves out before going Intel.
Games will happen when they happen, they're not the big deal breaker and they'll come over time (rest assured). My bet is soon after the first Intel machine rolls out, you'll see a site like MacCentral.com posted with news items on how <game name here> was updated to Intel Mac compatibility. We've seen them have a ton of red news items before hinged on "one" products release on there as being something paramount. I think it's a safe presumption. I'd still wager on a few days afterwards before we see "final releases" but I'd not be completely dumbfounded if you see a ton of "Public Betas" of universal binary installers for a whole horde of apps. and games. I doubt if I bought a new machine that I'd jump on a beta software, but... then again you're a guinea pig for the first gen. of a new Mac hardware platform so, it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other no matter how you look at it.
Well, parallel buss's have been on the way out for several years now.
How is this relevant when the PPC970 FSB is still a parallel bus?
Quote:
anyway, it doesn't matter if it's parallel or not, all major bus systems that have been coming in are working in the GHz range. iSCSI, SATA, Express, etc.
All of these are serial buses, which makes things a lot easier physically -- which is the whole point of everyone going serial in the first place.
Quote:
cell and portable phones both digital and analog, work in the multiple GHz range.
Not the base-band parts, though, which is where all the digital stuff happens. You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
Quote:
One of the scopes I was using has a clock in the 5GHz range. Signal analysers also run at that speed.
... and they have been for a while. They're also huge, expensive, don't use off-the-shelf PCBs and jsut generally don't have a whole lot in common with the problem in question (i.e., the PPC970's FSB).
Quote:
The point is that the technology is well understood and implemented. The difficult range is now 10GHz and above.
Way to generalize. "The difficult range" depends a lot on what exactly you want to do. There's a tiny bit of a difference between getting a microwave oven to emit a multi-GHz signal and getting a 32bit bus on a PCB to transfer data reliably at GHz speeds. Similarly, transistors with switching frequencies in the tens or hundreds of GHz have been available for a while, but that doesn't mean you can just build a CMOS chip out of them.
You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
I am glad there are more than just a few people in the world that understand this.
They move frequency's to get into undisturbed bands without air spam.
How is this relevant when the PPC970 FSB is still a parallel bus?
All of these are serial buses, which makes things a lot easier physically -- which is the whole point of everyone going serial in the first place.
Not the base-band parts, though, which is where all the digital stuff happens. You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
... and they have been for a while. They're also huge, expensive, don't use off-the-shelf PCBs and jsut generally don't have a whole lot in common with the problem in question (i.e., the PPC970's FSB).
Way to generalize. "The difficult range" depends a lot on what exactly you want to do. There's a tiny bit of a difference between getting a microwave oven to emit a multi-GHz signal and getting a 32bit bus on a PCB to transfer data reliably at GHz speeds. Similarly, transistors with switching frequencies in the tens or hundreds of GHz have been available for a while, but that doesn't mean you can just build a CMOS chip out of them.
You're missing the point here.
The design of a hi frequency circuit is similar whether it is analog or digital, serial or parallel.
The same problems exist. Whether it's a cell or a computer. Don't think that because one circuit is different from another, there is no convergence between them, because if you do, you'd be wrong.
All hi frequency circuitry has capacitance problems, parasitic interference, length of line problems, etc. A %10,000 scope has more in common with a computer than you think.
A microwave oven has nothing to do with what we're talking about and will just confuse the issue.
This doesn't sound or smell fishy at all. It has been common practice fo ryearas for Apple to introduce new hardware after the holiday season in Janurary. I know this because it has been a frustration of mine for years.
In reality it makes sense that Apple will go this route as it fits previous patterns. Frankly though I'm still up in the air as far as which product will actually be introduced. It seems to me that the Mac Mini would be very high on everybodies list as Intel ought to have a very nice chip set available for that possibly with integrated video. Not htat integrated video is all that great but for the Mini could actually increase performance over what it currently has.
The other reality and possibly a motivation for the foucus on portables is that a dual core portable will be a hot item at the begining of the year. A VERY HOT item and I believe Apple wants to be on the uphill curve here.
At this opint I think it is a mistake to think that games or apps even matter for this first release. Early adopters, developers and others won't really care at all about the availability of Apps and especially games.
Considering that the rumors focus on just one laptop and one desktop this might be why Apple is taking this route. That is get REAL hardware into the hands of the people it most matters. See at first it makes no sense at all that the iMac would be targetted but then you think about it a bit and you realize that it is the ideal desktop machine to go Intel first.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by belzebuth
how do you know that no apps or game are ready for intel?
I gess apple will anounce new macintel in january, along with "more than a thousand recompiled apps"...
Apple need to push intel mac on the market in order to hurry up the "slow" developers...
So they will come in january, I'm pretty sure of it!
At this opint I think it is a mistake to think that games or apps even matter for this first release. Early adopters, developers and others won't really care at all about the availability of Apps and especially games.
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
Here's some info about Crossover and wine. This is about the Linux versions, but it's likely that what he says can apply to a great extent to Mac's as well.
Steven says that he will either get back to me, or do a column on them for the Mactels. I just asked him to do that today after reading his article.
He's one of those well known Linux promoters who have, during the last year or two, moved over to OS X as well. He, therefore, has an interest in both.
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
I agree about the consumer situation. That's what I think Apple should be concentrating on first.
What's interesting here is that I've been questioning PC people about this for months now, and have gotten some interesting answers.
First. People who know about the switch don't seem to care, or think it's going to be a big deal.
Second. Many people still don't know that Apple is making the switch ( though they do since I've told them).
Third. And this is the really interesting part. Many PC people think that Apple is using Intel's chips NOW!
I think developers will continue to make app's for Mac OS X, because I think that apple will allow all PC makers to use Mac OS X in the near future. That is the next big transition. It is the right time (when Vista will be launched), as PC users will have the choice of either buy a new PC to run Vista, or simply buy Mac OS X.5 to run on their PC.
In 5 to 7 years from now, apple will probably have around 5-10% of computer market share, and 20-25% of OS marketshare, more than Linux.
I'm not to sure about that as I've heard the opposite.
There is also the bit about the iMac, just why would Apple want to go backwards with respect to 64 bit capability on the machine. The laptops 32 bit only is not a big deal especially for a first go around. However on the desk top alot of system capability exists that would be hardw for many to give up just to use a 32 bit processor.
If the iMac scoop is true I suspect that there will be 64 bit capability there. Intel could very well be keeping a few features close ot the chest with respect to Yonah or a variant. Or "Merom' could simply be moved up for early release.
Then the possibility that the whole thing wiht the iMac is wrong and another 64 bit processor is being used. I certainly don't know my self but I just see a huge marketing issue if Apple drops back to 32 bit here.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
Hey we agree on something!!!!!
Really thouhg the people whining about software are just silly. I gave up on commercial software years ago due to issues with MS and now run Linux exclusively, Much of the concern about software just isn't sane. No one with specific software needs is going to run out and buy the first Intel Mac that comes out. Just won't happen.
In case you are wondering the interest in Apple is directly related to OS/X and a laptop. If it wasn't for the transisiton thing and then the very good things I've been hearing about future Intel hardware I would have ditched the thought of an apple PPC machine. Instead I'm still interested. So maybe Steve's Intel switch is a good thing.
Quote:
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
That and a few other tools. I would love for Apple to get with RedHat and to offer up a native Eclipse platform like Redhat has for Linux on OS/X. But that is a special interest request. I'm sure that Apple will release the Intel machines with everything that an early adopter or developer would need as Intel code. i.e. The important stuff that makes a diffference will be Intel objectcode.
Quote:
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
This is how I see it, good native tools for the developers and good native tools for early adopters. Now I'm not going to say that everything will be native but the things that matter to these groups will be.
In any event I hope to be in a position to buy soon. That is a way bigger frustration as the local economy has took a huge dump.
I haven't gone bak and verified this but I think the original poster was technically correct. The clock rate on the bus is (on some machines) one quater the clock rate of the CPU. The actually data transfer rate being higher due to transfers on the leading and trailing edges of the clocks.
Or so I seem to recall. It would be a considerable engineering feat to get a 1.5 or 3 GHz bus to work on a standard PC board. Not that there hasn't been considerable gains made here just that the PIE bus isn't one of them.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.
I haven't gone bak and verified this but I think the original poster was technically correct. The clock rate on the bus is (on some machines) one quater the clock rate of the CPU. The actually data transfer rate being higher due to transfers on the leading and trailing edges of the clocks.
Or so I seem to recall. It would be a considerable engineering feat to get a 1.5 or 3 GHz bus to work on a standard PC board. Not that there hasn't been considerable gains made here just that the PIE bus isn't one of them.
Dave
The mechanical clock (for want of a better way of saying it) is 1/4 speed. The bus is then double pumped to 1/2 speed. Then each directions' traffic is 1/4 speed. Add them together and you again have 1/2 speed.
There is also the bit about the iMac, just why would Apple want to go backwards with respect to 64 bit capability on the machine. The laptops 32 bit only is not a big deal especially for a first go around. However on the desk top alot of system capability exists that would be hardw for many to give up just to use a 32 bit processor.
If the iMac scoop is true I suspect that there will be 64 bit capability there. Intel could very well be keeping a few features close ot the chest with respect to Yonah or a variant. Or "Merom' could simply be moved up for early release.
Then the possibility that the whole thing wiht the iMac is wrong and another 64 bit processor is being used. I certainly don't know my self but I just see a huge marketing issue if Apple drops back to 32 bit here.
I've heard this argument a lot on this board, but I don't think it really applies at this stage in the game. Where is 64-bit required? I know Mathematica has libraries that use it, etc. but looking at Apple's Pro apps, like Aperture and Final Cut Pro 5, both of those can be used on the 32-bit G4 processor. In addition, as I understand it, Mac OS X is not a "64-bit OS" in the sense that the UI layer, etc. is 64-bit. My understanding is that it's a 32-bit OS with 64-bit libraries that can be used on the proper CPU.
I might be mistaken, but (if I'm not) I don't see any problem with Apple releasing a 32-bit iMac, at least until Merom comes out. I doubt there would even be a marketing issue, as most users who would buy the iMac probably don't have any concept of 64-bit versus 32-bit...
64-bit support in an iMac with 1 memory slot is silly. Large memory access is a staple of 64-bit computing. The extra bits have to go somewhere and without fast memory 64-bit support is there to placate some geek who wants to brag about his/her computer.
Comments
Originally posted by ascii
Well we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. I think they should wait until there's more software.
It's a chicken and egg deal ascii. If Apple doesn't release an Intel machine, there's no reason to release Intel software for a machine that in the "real world" doesn't exist and currently has no market. Not to mention while developers can test the software on their Intel Mac developer hardware, that *DOES NOT* guarantee a stable release on whatever product Apple elects to ship. Apple launching an Intel machine will lead to early adopters who then clamor for <product name here> to be released for their new purchase. It lights a candle under developer's buttocks to get the deal done rather than sit there with their thumb up their butt. Many are already ready, just waiting for Apple to ship machines so they can run some beta tests, go GM, and ship via either update or new boxes of product.
Buying an Intel Mac early-on is not a bad deal, nor is buying the last gen. of a PowerPC Mac, it depends on what your focus is. The reason Pro machines can wait is Pro apps. are likely the last to be revealed, that is unless Apple reveals them, themselves. Many businesses can go a few years between new machines and software, and they have such $ invested in software and hardware that it's a huge transitional strategy for them. For one consumer who buys a machine and a copy of Photoshop it's not that big, but when you're talking a design department with 30 workstations and 30 copies of the Creative Suite and Macromedia Studio, Maya, et al., it becomes a much bigger investment. I expect many design houses running on G4 or even more current G5 hardware to upgrade to Dual-Dual Core machines en masse prior to the Intel announcements in the coming year and have the best of the last generation of hardware in terms of performance. That way they can eek more life out of their previous software investments and wait for the Intel releases of Adobe CS and the Adobe/Macromedia Studio to iron themselves out before going Intel.
Games will happen when they happen, they're not the big deal breaker and they'll come over time (rest assured). My bet is soon after the first Intel machine rolls out, you'll see a site like MacCentral.com posted with news items on how <game name here> was updated to Intel Mac compatibility. We've seen them have a ton of red news items before hinged on "one" products release on there as being something paramount. I think it's a safe presumption. I'd still wager on a few days afterwards before we see "final releases" but I'd not be completely dumbfounded if you see a ton of "Public Betas" of universal binary installers for a whole horde of apps. and games. I doubt if I bought a new machine that I'd jump on a beta software, but... then again you're a guinea pig for the first gen. of a new Mac hardware platform so, it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other no matter how you look at it.
Originally posted by smalM
No!
The ratio CPU to memory controller is 4:1.
What you mean is the ratio CPU to bus data rate which is 1:2 as the bus is DDR.
And bandwidth on the bus is raw transfer rate minus overhead for the packeges. IBM claimed 8:9 for throughput:raw transfer rate.
I was speaking of the ratio CPU to bus data rate. It's the spec given by Apple, the famous 1,25 ghz bus for the 2,5 gh powermac (quad or dual).
It's two 32 bits uni directional busses, unlike the 64 bit multidirectionnal bus of P4 chips.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, parallel buss's have been on the way out for several years now.
How is this relevant when the PPC970 FSB is still a parallel bus?
anyway, it doesn't matter if it's parallel or not, all major bus systems that have been coming in are working in the GHz range. iSCSI, SATA, Express, etc.
All of these are serial buses, which makes things a lot easier physically -- which is the whole point of everyone going serial in the first place.
cell and portable phones both digital and analog, work in the multiple GHz range.
Not the base-band parts, though, which is where all the digital stuff happens. You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
One of the scopes I was using has a clock in the 5GHz range. Signal analysers also run at that speed.
... and they have been for a while. They're also huge, expensive, don't use off-the-shelf PCBs and jsut generally don't have a whole lot in common with the problem in question (i.e., the PPC970's FSB).
The point is that the technology is well understood and implemented. The difficult range is now 10GHz and above.
Way to generalize. "The difficult range" depends a lot on what exactly you want to do. There's a tiny bit of a difference between getting a microwave oven to emit a multi-GHz signal and getting a 32bit bus on a PCB to transfer data reliably at GHz speeds. Similarly, transistors with switching frequencies in the tens or hundreds of GHz have been available for a while, but that doesn't mean you can just build a CMOS chip out of them.
Originally posted by RazzFazz
You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
I am glad there are more than just a few people in the world that understand this.
They move frequency's to get into undisturbed bands without air spam.
Originally posted by RazzFazz
How is this relevant when the PPC970 FSB is still a parallel bus?
All of these are serial buses, which makes things a lot easier physically -- which is the whole point of everyone going serial in the first place.
Not the base-band parts, though, which is where all the digital stuff happens. You're confusing carrier frequency and symbol rate -- note that the 2.4GHz in 802.11b/g are absolutely unrelated to the 11/54 MBps data rate, and also note that 802.11a's running at "5 GHz" does not somehow automagically make it twice as fast as 802.11g.
... and they have been for a while. They're also huge, expensive, don't use off-the-shelf PCBs and jsut generally don't have a whole lot in common with the problem in question (i.e., the PPC970's FSB).
Way to generalize. "The difficult range" depends a lot on what exactly you want to do. There's a tiny bit of a difference between getting a microwave oven to emit a multi-GHz signal and getting a 32bit bus on a PCB to transfer data reliably at GHz speeds. Similarly, transistors with switching frequencies in the tens or hundreds of GHz have been available for a while, but that doesn't mean you can just build a CMOS chip out of them.
You're missing the point here.
The design of a hi frequency circuit is similar whether it is analog or digital, serial or parallel.
The same problems exist. Whether it's a cell or a computer. Don't think that because one circuit is different from another, there is no convergence between them, because if you do, you'd be wrong.
All hi frequency circuitry has capacitance problems, parasitic interference, length of line problems, etc. A %10,000 scope has more in common with a computer than you think.
A microwave oven has nothing to do with what we're talking about and will just confuse the issue.
In reality it makes sense that Apple will go this route as it fits previous patterns. Frankly though I'm still up in the air as far as which product will actually be introduced. It seems to me that the Mac Mini would be very high on everybodies list as Intel ought to have a very nice chip set available for that possibly with integrated video. Not htat integrated video is all that great but for the Mini could actually increase performance over what it currently has.
The other reality and possibly a motivation for the foucus on portables is that a dual core portable will be a hot item at the begining of the year. A VERY HOT item and I believe Apple wants to be on the uphill curve here.
Dave
Originally posted by AquaMac
It dose sound a little fishy.
Considering that the rumors focus on just one laptop and one desktop this might be why Apple is taking this route. That is get REAL hardware into the hands of the people it most matters. See at first it makes no sense at all that the iMac would be targetted but then you think about it a bit and you realize that it is the ideal desktop machine to go Intel first.
Dave
Originally posted by belzebuth
how do you know that no apps or game are ready for intel?
I gess apple will anounce new macintel in january, along with "more than a thousand recompiled apps"...
Apple need to push intel mac on the market in order to hurry up the "slow" developers...
So they will come in january, I'm pretty sure of it!
http://www.matbe.com/actualites/1177...os-chez-intel/
And wizard's right, for the early adopters, give 'em Safari, iLife and iWork and they should be good to go.
Originally posted by wizard69
At this opint I think it is a mistake to think that games or apps even matter for this first release. Early adopters, developers and others won't really care at all about the availability of Apps and especially games.
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
Steven says that he will either get back to me, or do a column on them for the Mactels. I just asked him to do that today after reading his article.
He's one of those well known Linux promoters who have, during the last year or two, moved over to OS X as well. He, therefore, has an interest in both.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1886920,00.asp
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
I agree about the consumer situation. That's what I think Apple should be concentrating on first.
What's interesting here is that I've been questioning PC people about this for months now, and have gotten some interesting answers.
First. People who know about the switch don't seem to care, or think it's going to be a big deal.
Second. Many people still don't know that Apple is making the switch ( though they do since I've told them).
Third. And this is the really interesting part. Many PC people think that Apple is using Intel's chips NOW!
In 5 to 7 years from now, apple will probably have around 5-10% of computer market share, and 20-25% of OS marketshare, more than Linux.
That's my thought!!
There is also the bit about the iMac, just why would Apple want to go backwards with respect to 64 bit capability on the machine. The laptops 32 bit only is not a big deal especially for a first go around. However on the desk top alot of system capability exists that would be hardw for many to give up just to use a 32 bit processor.
If the iMac scoop is true I suspect that there will be 64 bit capability there. Intel could very well be keeping a few features close ot the chest with respect to Yonah or a variant. Or "Merom' could simply be moved up for early release.
Then the possibility that the whole thing wiht the iMac is wrong and another 64 bit processor is being used. I certainly don't know my self but I just see a huge marketing issue if Apple drops back to 32 bit here.
Dave
Originally posted by melgross
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 kim kap sol
Precisely...it's best Intel Macs show up as soon as possible to show Apple is serious about the transition. Once the Intel Macs show up (especially on the consumer lineups) developers will start writing for it (if they hadn't started already)...
The lack of native software during the first months won't be a huge problem...especially to consumers. The software will shortly follow.
Hey we agree on something!!!!!
Really thouhg the people whining about software are just silly. I gave up on commercial software years ago due to issues with MS and now run Linux exclusively, Much of the concern about software just isn't sane. No one with specific software needs is going to run out and buy the first Intel Mac that comes out. Just won't happen.
In case you are wondering the interest in Apple is directly related to OS/X and a laptop. If it wasn't for the transisiton thing and then the very good things I've been hearing about future Intel hardware I would have ditched the thought of an apple PPC machine. Instead I'm still interested. So maybe Steve's Intel switch is a good thing.
Quote:
edit: like Cubist said, as long as consumers have Safari and iLife, they should be good to go.
That and a few other tools. I would love for Apple to get with RedHat and to offer up a native Eclipse platform like Redhat has for Linux on OS/X. But that is a special interest request. I'm sure that Apple will release the Intel machines with everything that an early adopter or developer would need as Intel code. i.e. The important stuff that makes a diffference will be Intel objectcode.
Quote:
Apple will probably release universal binaries of updated iLife apps this January as well as iWork. Give 'em a few games and they're set...and developers will be more serious about porting.
This is how I see it, good native tools for the developers and good native tools for early adopters. Now I'm not going to say that everything will be native but the things that matter to these groups will be.
In any event I hope to be in a position to buy soon. That is a way bigger frustration as the local economy has took a huge dump.
Dave
Originally posted by Gene Clean
There are only Linux versions. CrossOver Office is WINE in steroids. It's an implementation of WINE that has a nice GUI.
http://darwine.opendarwin.org//
Or so I seem to recall. It would be a considerable engineering feat to get a 1.5 or 3 GHz bus to work on a standard PC board. Not that there hasn't been considerable gains made here just that the PIE bus isn't one of them.
Dave
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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 wizard69
I haven't gone bak and verified this but I think the original poster was technically correct. The clock rate on the bus is (on some machines) one quater the clock rate of the CPU. The actually data transfer rate being higher due to transfers on the leading and trailing edges of the clocks.
Or so I seem to recall. It would be a considerable engineering feat to get a 1.5 or 3 GHz bus to work on a standard PC board. Not that there hasn't been considerable gains made here just that the PIE bus isn't one of them.
Dave
The mechanical clock (for want of a better way of saying it) is 1/4 speed. The bus is then double pumped to 1/2 speed. Then each directions' traffic is 1/4 speed. Add them together and you again have 1/2 speed.
Originally posted by wizard69
There is also the bit about the iMac, just why would Apple want to go backwards with respect to 64 bit capability on the machine. The laptops 32 bit only is not a big deal especially for a first go around. However on the desk top alot of system capability exists that would be hardw for many to give up just to use a 32 bit processor.
If the iMac scoop is true I suspect that there will be 64 bit capability there. Intel could very well be keeping a few features close ot the chest with respect to Yonah or a variant. Or "Merom' could simply be moved up for early release.
Then the possibility that the whole thing wiht the iMac is wrong and another 64 bit processor is being used. I certainly don't know my self but I just see a huge marketing issue if Apple drops back to 32 bit here.
I've heard this argument a lot on this board, but I don't think it really applies at this stage in the game. Where is 64-bit required? I know Mathematica has libraries that use it, etc. but looking at Apple's Pro apps, like Aperture and Final Cut Pro 5, both of those can be used on the 32-bit G4 processor. In addition, as I understand it, Mac OS X is not a "64-bit OS" in the sense that the UI layer, etc. is 64-bit. My understanding is that it's a 32-bit OS with 64-bit libraries that can be used on the proper CPU.
I might be mistaken, but (if I'm not) I don't see any problem with Apple releasing a 32-bit iMac, at least until Merom comes out. I doubt there would even be a marketing issue, as most users who would buy the iMac probably don't have any concept of 64-bit versus 32-bit...
Mr. Dirk