It is EFI based according to the Dev docs... didn't realize that before... kinda surpised that Yohan wasn't 64bit tho... wasn't really following the development but it's kinda dissapointing.
It is EFI based according to the Dev docs... didn't realize that before... kinda surpised that Yohan wasn't 64bit tho... wasn't really following the development but it's kinda dissapointing.
It's 32bit because it's based on the previous generation Pentium M 'Dothan' whereas the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest chips due later this year are 64bit and based on the next generation architecture. I'm not sure how Intel gets away with calling both 'Core' since they are different architectures.
I've just noticed they've updated the dev docs too. EFI it is.
I mean it makes NO sense to fret over 64-bit if your computer can't even install and recognize more than 4GB of RAM.
In a couple of years we'll have extremely large memory modules and we'll need that extra head room.
It's not just that.
IA64 has more registers and instructions. On AMD at least it's faster. On Intel, not. It's a cleaner architecture and it's the future. It'll be less of a hurdle for Apple to move from 32bit to 64bit Intel than Microsoft had but none-the-less we've another transition to go that might have been avoided.
On the new Macs, they boot using EFI. Only Windows XP 64bit edition supports EFI, not the 32bit version.
So, there are reasons why 64bit would be better other than just memory. They're not immediately important ones but we've extra issues to deal with at some point because of the choice Apple made.
So, there are reasons why 64bit would be better other than just memory. They're not immediately important ones but we've extra issues to deal with at some point because of the choice Apple made.
Agreed. However without support for more than 4GB of RAM it's kind of hard to load HUGE datasets into large amounts of memory. Plus the CPU really has to be architected so that it doesn't have bottlenecks. It makes no sense to have double the lanes of traffic in one area funneling down to half the lanes later on down the pipe.
I had someone at work ask for XP 64-bit for a $599 Acer desktop thinking the 64-bit would be twice as fast. Wrong idea.
Er, in theory, it could come close. (In theory, communism works. In theory...)
Let me explain:
Two gravediggers should be able to dig a grave twice as fast as one, right?
Right?
What if only one fits in the grave? Then the other's just standing around doing nothing.
The effectiveness of the dual core system depends on the software. In software that isn't designed for it, I doubt the difference would be that great.
Windows notebooks use the same CPU's as Apple now. The Asus I mentioned uses a 2.33Ghz Core Duo. The fastest MacBook Pro is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo.
Explain how you think the Apple is faster. Try not to use gravediggers as an allegory as it's totally irrelevant and makes you look rather stupid.
My point was simply that there are slim and small Core Duo laptops announced at > 2Ghz, just not from Apple. This I find surprising. It wasn't intended as a Windows v Mac thing but I'd forgot that the zealotry jumps to the defence of Apple in times of strong RDF.
It is EFI based according to the Dev docs... didn't realize that before... kinda surpised that Yohan wasn't 64bit tho... wasn't really following the development but it's kinda dissapointing.
Here's a link to the developer document that confirms they use EFI.
Do many ppl. actually use DL disks (?). Too expensive for me + obvious absence of DL media players..
DL media players? What are they? Provided they work right, all DVD drives and players can read dual layer DVD discs.
I hadn't been paying attention, but I thought the cost of dual layer writable discs were down to $1-$2 each, in packs of five. That didn't seem too bad. I don't use dual layer writables, but I only rarely write DVDs and usually they only need to be single layer discs.
Windows notebooks use the same CPU's as Apple now. The Asus I mentioned uses a 2.33Ghz Core Duo. The fastest MacBook Pro is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo.
Explain how you think the Apple is faster. Try not to use gravediggers as an allegory as it's totally irrelevant and makes you look rather stupid.
My point was simply that there are slim and small Core Duo laptops announced at > 2Ghz, just not from Apple. This I find surprising. It wasn't intended as a Windows v Mac thing but I'd forgot that the zealotry jumps to the defence of Apple in times of strong RDF.
Did I say they're faster? Could you show me where I said the MacBook Pro is faster than the Asus?
With the gravediggers analogy, I was explaining something you seemed to object to (in calling me an ass), that dual core machines are a great great great deal faster than single core processors labelled with the same number next to 'Ghz'.
Makes me look stupid? Zealotry? Why are you being so aggressive about this? If you'd rather run with a PC, go with it. I personally am quite ready to give up my Windows/GNU Linux PC in favor of an OS X Mac. I may be able to get faster PCs than Macs, but after 10 years of Windows, I want out. Linux is nice, but I need an OS that works with the apps I use most often, all of which are commercial.
Having used a 1.33Ghz iBook w/512 Mb RAM running the same apps in OS X as my current Toshiba 2Ghz in Windows and having witnessed a low-spec Mac notebook outstrip a higher-spec PC notebook in terms of performance, I would like to point out one thing: don't confuse 'tech specs' with performance. As well as numbers, consider architecture and OS.
No one here can say absolutely why the MacBook is not using 2.33Ghz chip. Heat and space sound like a good reason.
The Asus is smaller. 13.3" screen.
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
If you really want to build the case that Apple just wants to rip its customers off, no one can debate that because none of us know.
I'm not. I was simply wondering why they topped out at 1.83Ghz. The Asus is also quite horrible looking. I could have suggested Acer for a similarly sized 2+Ghz laptop but again, horrible looks, cheap plastic case. The point was, where's the 2Ghz? It can be done in small cases judging by other manufacturers laptops.
Lord, if everytime someone mentions a competing Intel based laptop from someone other than Apple as a comparison now, are we all going to get tetchy and defend Apple?
Did I say they're faster? Could you show me where I said the MacBook Pro is faster than the Asus?
With the gravediggers analogy, I was explaining something you seemed to object to (in calling me an ass), that dual core machines are a great great great deal faster than single core processors labelled with the same number next to 'Ghz'.
Makes me look stupid?
Of course it does. Your analogy was pointless. BOTH laptops have dual core processors so arguing two gravediggers are better than one, or only one can fit in a hole is pointless. Both laptops have the same issues.
The original poster claimed that the 1.83Ghz MacBook was effectively 3ghz+ which by the same reasoning the 2.33Ghz Asus is 4.66Ghz. Either way, since both are using the same technology, your analogy makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Zealotry? Why are you being so aggressive about this?
I'm British. We call it humour.
Quote:
Originally posted by jdbartlett
If you'd rather run with a PC, go with it. I personally am quite ready to give up my Windows/GNU Linux PC in favor of an OS X Mac. I may be able to get faster PCs than Macs, but after 10 years of Windows, I want out. Linux is nice, but I need an OS that works with the apps I use most often, all of which are commercial.
Having used a 1.33Ghz iBook w/512 Mb RAM running the same apps in OS X as my current Toshiba 2Ghz in Windows and having witnessed a low-spec Mac notebook outstrip a higher-spec PC notebook in terms of performance, I would like to point out one thing: don't confuse 'tech specs' with performance. As well as numbers, consider architecture and OS.
That's great n'all but I got out of the Windows world 5 years ago as my main OSs so you're preaching to the converted here. I'd also point out that there's flaws in the architecture of all the main three OSs but you'll find that out soon enough.
Methinks Apple may be reserving the 2.33Ghz Core Duo chip for a yet-to-come 17" MacBook Pro, priced around $2,999 with lots of bells and whistles standard. If that's the case, they probably don't want to introduce and start taking pre-orders for such a beast until the other MacBook Pro's are shipping in quantities, as quantities of 2.33Ghz chips will surely be tighter than the chips we're already waiting until February for. That being said, the fact that $2,500 gets you a MacBook Pro with the processors other PC manufacturers use in their $2,000 products shows Apple will continue to play by their own rules regarding price and specs. If you want a 2.33Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro, they're going to upsell you to a $3k 17" model that includes all kinds of other things to justify the cost, like more RAM, Hard Drive, USB Ports, etc.
Methinks Apple may be reserving the 2.33Ghz Core Duo chip for a yet-to-come 17" MacBook Pro, priced around $2,999 with lots of bells and whistles standard. If that's the case, they probably don't want to introduce and start taking pre-orders for such a beast until the other MacBook Pro's are shipping in quantities, as quantities of 2.33Ghz chips will surely be tighter than the chips we're already waiting until February for. That being said, the fact that $2,500 gets you a MacBook Pro with the processors other PC manufacturers use in their $2,000 products shows Apple will continue to play by their own rules regarding price and specs. If you want a 2.33Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro, they're going to upsell you to a $3k 17" model that includes all kinds of other things to justify the cost, like more RAM, Hard Drive, USB Ports, etc.
The laptops that cost $500 less generally have plastic cases, look ugly and weight more. If you compare Apple to other premium brand laptops they aren't really more expensive. Sometimes cheaper even.
eg.
IBM T60 - $2049 for a Core Duo 1.83Ghz with 60GB hard disk, crappy 1024x768 14" screen and 512MB RAM/Combo drive and get this - Intel Integrated graphics!
Even Dell's equivalent is $2300 once you add in all the features in the Mac and that gets you a behemoth of grey plastic.
I thought Yonah topped out at 2.16 GHz? Do you have a link to this 2.33 GHz Asus?
Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The laptops that cost $500 less generally have plastic cases, look ugly and weight more. If you compare Apple to other premium brand laptops they aren't really more expensive. Sometimes cheaper even.
No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.
I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.
Comments
Originally posted by b3nj
can't believe they called it the MacBook Pro... sounds kinda strange/lame... i know they had to get rid of the Power stuff... but... i liked that name
oh well... i'll have to get used to it
but... wait a sec... if the powerbook is now the MacBook Pro, what will be the name of the PowerMac?
MacMac or MacTower, but XServes will stay the same.
Originally posted by scavanger
It is EFI based according to the Dev docs... didn't realize that before... kinda surpised that Yohan wasn't 64bit tho... wasn't really following the development but it's kinda dissapointing.
It's 32bit because it's based on the previous generation Pentium M 'Dothan' whereas the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest chips due later this year are 64bit and based on the next generation architecture. I'm not sure how Intel gets away with calling both 'Core' since they are different architectures.
I've just noticed they've updated the dev docs too. EFI it is.
I mean it makes NO sense to fret over 64-bit if your computer can't even install and recognize more than 4GB of RAM.
In a couple of years we'll have extremely large memory modules and we'll need that extra head room.
Originally posted by hmurchison
64-bit is the most misunderstood tech going.
I mean it makes NO sense to fret over 64-bit if your computer can't even install and recognize more than 4GB of RAM.
In a couple of years we'll have extremely large memory modules and we'll need that extra head room.
It's not just that.
IA64 has more registers and instructions. On AMD at least it's faster. On Intel, not. It's a cleaner architecture and it's the future. It'll be less of a hurdle for Apple to move from 32bit to 64bit Intel than Microsoft had but none-the-less we've another transition to go that might have been avoided.
On the new Macs, they boot using EFI. Only Windows XP 64bit edition supports EFI, not the 32bit version.
So, there are reasons why 64bit would be better other than just memory. They're not immediately important ones but we've extra issues to deal with at some point because of the choice Apple made.
So, there are reasons why 64bit would be better other than just memory. They're not immediately important ones but we've extra issues to deal with at some point because of the choice Apple made.
Agreed. However without support for more than 4GB of RAM it's kind of hard to load HUGE datasets into large amounts of memory. Plus the CPU really has to be architected so that it doesn't have bottlenecks. It makes no sense to have double the lanes of traffic in one area funneling down to half the lanes later on down the pipe.
I had someone at work ask for XP 64-bit for a $599 Acer desktop thinking the 64-bit would be twice as fast. Wrong idea.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
ok, so effectively that Asus laptop is effectively 4.66Ghz.
Don't be an ass.
Er, in theory, it could come close. (In theory, communism works. In theory...)
Let me explain:
Two gravediggers should be able to dig a grave twice as fast as one, right?
Right?
What if only one fits in the grave? Then the other's just standing around doing nothing.
The effectiveness of the dual core system depends on the software. In software that isn't designed for it, I doubt the difference would be that great.
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Er, in theory, it could come close. (In theory, communism works. In theory...)
Let me explain:
Two gravediggers should be able to dig a grave twice as fast as one, right?
Right?
What if only one fits in the grave? Then the other's just standing around doing nothing.
The effectiveness of the dual core system depends on the software. In software that isn't designed for it, I doubt the difference would be that great.
Windows notebooks use the same CPU's as Apple now. The Asus I mentioned uses a 2.33Ghz Core Duo. The fastest MacBook Pro is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo.
Explain how you think the Apple is faster. Try not to use gravediggers as an allegory as it's totally irrelevant and makes you look rather stupid.
My point was simply that there are slim and small Core Duo laptops announced at > 2Ghz, just not from Apple. This I find surprising. It wasn't intended as a Windows v Mac thing but I'd forgot that the zealotry jumps to the defence of Apple in times of strong RDF.
The Asus I mentioned uses a 2.33Ghz Core Duo. The fastest MacBook Pro is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo.
No one here can say absolutely why the MacBook is not using 2.33Ghz chip. Heat and space sound like a good reason.
If you really want to build the case that Apple just wants to rip its customers off, no one can debate that because none of us know.
Originally posted by scavanger
It is EFI based according to the Dev docs... didn't realize that before... kinda surpised that Yohan wasn't 64bit tho... wasn't really following the development but it's kinda dissapointing.
Here's a link to the developer document that confirms they use EFI.
Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Do many ppl. actually use DL disks (?). Too expensive for me + obvious absence of DL media players..
DL media players? What are they? Provided they work right, all DVD drives and players can read dual layer DVD discs.
I hadn't been paying attention, but I thought the cost of dual layer writable discs were down to $1-$2 each, in packs of five. That didn't seem too bad. I don't use dual layer writables, but I only rarely write DVDs and usually they only need to be single layer discs.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Windows notebooks use the same CPU's as Apple now. The Asus I mentioned uses a 2.33Ghz Core Duo. The fastest MacBook Pro is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo.
Explain how you think the Apple is faster. Try not to use gravediggers as an allegory as it's totally irrelevant and makes you look rather stupid.
My point was simply that there are slim and small Core Duo laptops announced at > 2Ghz, just not from Apple. This I find surprising. It wasn't intended as a Windows v Mac thing but I'd forgot that the zealotry jumps to the defence of Apple in times of strong RDF.
Did I say they're faster? Could you show me where I said the MacBook Pro is faster than the Asus?
With the gravediggers analogy, I was explaining something you seemed to object to (in calling me an ass), that dual core machines are a great great great deal faster than single core processors labelled with the same number next to 'Ghz'.
Makes me look stupid? Zealotry? Why are you being so aggressive about this? If you'd rather run with a PC, go with it. I personally am quite ready to give up my Windows/GNU Linux PC in favor of an OS X Mac. I may be able to get faster PCs than Macs, but after 10 years of Windows, I want out. Linux is nice, but I need an OS that works with the apps I use most often, all of which are commercial.
Having used a 1.33Ghz iBook w/512 Mb RAM running the same apps in OS X as my current Toshiba 2Ghz in Windows and having witnessed a low-spec Mac notebook outstrip a higher-spec PC notebook in terms of performance, I would like to point out one thing: don't confuse 'tech specs' with performance. As well as numbers, consider architecture and OS.
Originally posted by TenoBell
No one here can say absolutely why the MacBook is not using 2.33Ghz chip. Heat and space sound like a good reason.
The Asus is smaller. 13.3" screen.
Originally posted by TenoBell
If you really want to build the case that Apple just wants to rip its customers off, no one can debate that because none of us know.
I'm not. I was simply wondering why they topped out at 1.83Ghz. The Asus is also quite horrible looking. I could have suggested Acer for a similarly sized 2+Ghz laptop but again, horrible looks, cheap plastic case. The point was, where's the 2Ghz? It can be done in small cases judging by other manufacturers laptops.
Lord, if everytime someone mentions a competing Intel based laptop from someone other than Apple as a comparison now, are we all going to get tetchy and defend Apple?
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Did I say they're faster? Could you show me where I said the MacBook Pro is faster than the Asus?
With the gravediggers analogy, I was explaining something you seemed to object to (in calling me an ass), that dual core machines are a great great great deal faster than single core processors labelled with the same number next to 'Ghz'.
Makes me look stupid?
Of course it does. Your analogy was pointless. BOTH laptops have dual core processors so arguing two gravediggers are better than one, or only one can fit in a hole is pointless. Both laptops have the same issues.
The original poster claimed that the 1.83Ghz MacBook was effectively 3ghz+ which by the same reasoning the 2.33Ghz Asus is 4.66Ghz. Either way, since both are using the same technology, your analogy makes no sense.
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Zealotry? Why are you being so aggressive about this?
I'm British. We call it humour.
Originally posted by jdbartlett
If you'd rather run with a PC, go with it. I personally am quite ready to give up my Windows/GNU Linux PC in favor of an OS X Mac. I may be able to get faster PCs than Macs, but after 10 years of Windows, I want out. Linux is nice, but I need an OS that works with the apps I use most often, all of which are commercial.
Having used a 1.33Ghz iBook w/512 Mb RAM running the same apps in OS X as my current Toshiba 2Ghz in Windows and having witnessed a low-spec Mac notebook outstrip a higher-spec PC notebook in terms of performance, I would like to point out one thing: don't confuse 'tech specs' with performance. As well as numbers, consider architecture and OS.
That's great n'all but I got out of the Windows world 5 years ago as my main OSs so you're preaching to the converted here. I'd also point out that there's flaws in the architecture of all the main three OSs but you'll find that out soon enough.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Methinks Apple may be reserving the 2.33Ghz Core Duo chip for a yet-to-come 17" MacBook Pro, priced around $2,999 with lots of bells and whistles standard. If that's the case, they probably don't want to introduce and start taking pre-orders for such a beast until the other MacBook Pro's are shipping in quantities, as quantities of 2.33Ghz chips will surely be tighter than the chips we're already waiting until February for. That being said, the fact that $2,500 gets you a MacBook Pro with the processors other PC manufacturers use in their $2,000 products shows Apple will continue to play by their own rules regarding price and specs. If you want a 2.33Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro, they're going to upsell you to a $3k 17" model that includes all kinds of other things to justify the cost, like more RAM, Hard Drive, USB Ports, etc.
The laptops that cost $500 less generally have plastic cases, look ugly and weight more. If you compare Apple to other premium brand laptops they aren't really more expensive. Sometimes cheaper even.
eg.
IBM T60 - $2049 for a Core Duo 1.83Ghz with 60GB hard disk, crappy 1024x768 14" screen and 512MB RAM/Combo drive and get this - Intel Integrated graphics!
Even Dell's equivalent is $2300 once you add in all the features in the Mac and that gets you a behemoth of grey plastic.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I thought Yonah topped out at 2.16 GHz? Do you have a link to this 2.33 GHz Asus?
I thought so too though a couple of places have mentioned it a while back in the Yonah roadmap.
Anyway - it's ugly, it's black, it's plastic, it's the ASUS R1F
http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/10/a...-it-on-the-dl/
And here's some more, including a 12.1" white iBook style laptop with camera a core duo.
ASUS build some of Apple's laptops btw.
http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/a...echnology.html
Originally posted by Mr. H
I thought Yonah topped out at 2.16 GHz? Do you have a link to this 2.33 GHz Asus?
Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The laptops that cost $500 less generally have plastic cases, look ugly and weight more. If you compare Apple to other premium brand laptops they aren't really more expensive. Sometimes cheaper even.
No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.
I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought so too though a couple of places have mentioned it a while back in the Yonah roadmap.
Anyway - it's ugly, it's black, it's plastic, it's the ASUS R1F
http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/10/a...-it-on-the-dl/
Yonah tops out at 2.16 GHz and this product is still not released in any way shape or form. It was a concept model for CES.