Intel's Napa Platform with Yonah

[Randall]

Of course these tools slow the system. While you are correct that these items have an impact of a varying nature, the impact is still there. The effect is most pronounced when tools are utilized that perform "real time scanning", as these tools recheck system components each time a new process is started or a new file is installed. Amen to that. Real-time virus scanning can have significant impact on performance, yet it is necessary in the Windows world as you all know.

Deep pockets, heavy intellectual resources, and a solid processor roadmap are all good reasons to say, I think, that the "Mactel" decision was a very good one for the future of Apple. It was an excellent choice IMO as well. Hopefully all the PPC fanbois and nay-sayers will be on board after January too. Just because Apple is no longer using a unique architecture doesn't mean that innovation is dead. In fact I think this move to x86 gives new life to innovation.

[AidenShaw]

Of course these tools slow the system. While you are correct that these items have an impact of a varying nature, the impact is still there. The effect is most pronounced when tools are utilized that perform "real time scanning", as these tools recheck system components each time a new process is started or a new file is installed.
Sorry to disturb your myths with actual data, but note the following real-time scanning chart:

http://www.eset.us/compare/pics/2a.jpg
http://www.eset.us/compare/

This is pretty much a worst case test - opening and closing 200 different Excel spreadsheet files as quickly as possible.

The slowest case McAfee product slowed each access by 66 msec. Norton and others were less than 20 msec slowdown.

So, if the "most pronounced case" with Norton is 20 msec, I'll stand by my claim that it's "virtually unnoticeable". (Human perception can't discern below about 30-40 msec - anything faster is perceptually instantaneous.)

[backdraft]

Oh really?? Care to post some hard numbers to back up that claim?

Sure:

Here's a temperature test for the old dual PowerPC G5 @2.0 (130nm) couldn't find current. Temp are in degrees Celsius... (2 cpu's)

http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/E6EBD3C859FB49F785256ED8006A3F4A/$File/rc23276.pdf

And Check out the new P4 temps in Celsius (90nm) you'd think they would be considerable less... (1 cpu)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2026&p=3

And if u want to measure the temperature on your Mac here's an app: http://bresink.de/osx/HardwareMonitor.html

It uses the sensors on your mobo

-backdraft

[Sunrunner]

Note the following real-time scanning chart:

http://www.eset.us/compare/pics/2a.jpg
http://www.eset.us/compare/

This is pretty much a worst case test - opening and closing 200 different Excel spreadsheet files as quickly as possible.

The slowest case McAfee product slowed each access by 66 msec. Norton and others were less than 20 msec slowdown.

So, if the "most pronounced case" with Norton is 20 msec, I'll stand by my claim that it's "virtually unnoticeable". (Human perception can't discern below about 30-40 msec - anything faster is perceptually instantaneous.)


You missed the three key falacies to this test:

A) Older systems would have more pronounced result
B) Larger files would result in much larger scan times (the average excel file is only like 100k)
C) User time devoted to "helper" program installation/upgrade/configuration must also be computed and averaged over the specified timeframe.

[Sunrunner]

All this less watts/heat issue is BS, the X86 architecture is archaic. The PowerPC uses less watts/heat NOW. Stick 2 Intel chips in a tower and see how much heat they produce and how many watts they used. Once PPC goes 65nm you'll see. Face it Apple is TOO cheap to pay IBM to develop the PPC. They make billions and can't spare a couple million come on!
36942


Its apparent you dont understand the intricacies of the matter. PPC is NOT a very efficient chipset. Also, Apple was basically forced to switch as a result of IBMs decision to not develop the G5 into a laptop chip. Of course, if you WANT to carry around an 8lb, 2-inch thick G5 powerbook, be my guest. IBM lost interest in Apple's processor needs when they picked up the Xbox 360 contract.

[aegisdesign]

Amen to that. Real-time virus scanning can have significant impact on performance, yet it is necessary in the Windows world as you all know.

No it's not .Just keep it away from the internet. :)


It was an excellent choice IMO as well. Hopefully all the PPC fanbois and nay-sayers will be on board after January too. Just because Apple is no longer using a unique architecture doesn't mean that innovation is dead. In fact I think this move to x86 gives new life to innovation.

Sorry, but I find Yonah as just so-so and I'm disheartened that Apple went with yesterdays 32bit architecture instead of waiting to transition in one step to 64bit intel/amd.

The real deal is Merom/Conroe. Until then the G5 rules (and Opterons too or pretty much any AMD desktop/server chip) for real work. If they do a version of OSX for the OQO now though, I'm there. That's all I want in a 'laptop'.

[Randall]

Sorry to disturb your myths with actual data, but note the following real-time scanning chart:

http://www.eset.us/compare/pics/2a.jpg
http://www.eset.us/compare/

This is pretty much a worst case test - opening and closing 200 different Excel spreadsheet files as quickly as possible.

The slowest case McAfee product slowed each access by 66 msec. Norton and others were less than 20 msec slowdown.

So, if the "most pronounced case" with Norton is 20 msec, I'll stand by my claim that it's "virtually unnoticeable". (Human perception can't discern below about 30-40 msec - anything faster is perceptually instantaneous.)
You forgot about all the spyware running in the background stealing all the CPU time and memory. Sad to say, but spyware is a serious problem to the average windows user. Furthermore, that access time is in Seconds, and I see a HUGE performace hit in that chart with McAfee.

[Randall]

No it's not .Just keep it away from the internet. :)




Sorry, but I find Yonah as just so-so and I'm disheartened that Apple went with yesterdays 32bit architecture instead of waiting to transition in one step to 64bit intel/amd.

The real deal is Merom/Conroe. Until then the G5 rules (and Opterons too or pretty much any AMD desktop/server chip) for real work. If they do a version of OSX for the OQO now though, I'm there. That's all I want in a 'laptop'.

Apple couldn't wait any longer to transition. Another year of G4's could have sunk them. Yes the G4 sucks that much. As for the Intel insides, to quote National Lampoon's Vacation... "You hate it now, but wait 'til you drive it!"

[backdraft]

Its apparent you dont understand the intricacies of the matter. PPC is NOT a very efficient chipset. Also, Apple was basically forced to switch as a result of IBMs decision to not develop the G5 into a laptop chip. Of course, if you WANT to carry around an 8lb, 2-inch thick G5 powerbook, be my guest. IBM lost interest in Apple's processor needs when they picked up the Xbox 360 contract.

Pit an X86 with equivalent ghz against PPC and you'll see how the PPC is more efficient and outperforms X86. Not to mention the top ranking supercomputers use PPC chips. Research/Development and Military Applications require PPC not X86.

"IBMs decision to not develop the G5 into a laptop chip"

IBM decided not to develop the laptop version of the G5 because Apple didn't want to pay. They asked Apple for $$$ so they can give them the product, what's wrong with that? IBM contracts chip designs its how they make $$$. Besides IBM wanted a couple million, Apple would recover the $$$ in no time. Spend a millions to make billions.

What about 64bit support? Altivec vs SSE2? DRM garbage in Intel chips? Intel's bigger die size? X86 exploits that are non-existent on PPC?

[Randall]

Pit an X86 with equivalent ghz against PPC and you'll see how the PPC is more efficient and outperforms X86. Not to mention the top ranking supercomputers use PPC chips. Research/Development and Military Applications require PPC not X86.

"IBMs decision to not develop the G5 into a laptop chip"

IBM can decided not to develop the laptop version of the G5 because Apple didn't want to pay. They asked Apple for $$$ so they can give them the product, what's wrong with that? IDM contracts chip designs its how they make $$$. Besides IBM wanted a couple million, Apple would recover the $$$ in no time. Spend a millions to make billions.

What about 64bit support? Altivec vs SSE2? DRM garbage in Intel chips? Intel's bigger die size? X86 exploits that are non-existent on PPC?
People please. I am so sick on GHz being compaired as an actual performance test. IT MEANS NOTHING. The bottom line is that the G4 rocked in it's hayday, but that was years ago. Now the G4 sucks a$$. The move to x86 will be the best thing that's ever happened to Apple. This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options. I could care less about my laptop harware being the same architecture type as the Military uses. They probably want to switch to x86 too. And what about Altivec vs SSE3... That's what I thought.

P.S. 64 bit support for the laptop will be rolled out in Intel's next line of processors, due out at the end of 2006.

[backdraft]

People please. I am so sick on GHz being compaired as an actual performance test. IT MEANS NOTHING. The bottom line is that the G4 rocked in it's hayday, but that was years ago. Now the G4 sucks a$$. The move to x86 will be the best thing that's ever happened to Apple. This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options.

Who said anything about the G4? G5 is the way to go.

"This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options"

Give me the best hardware I don't need the rest, screw 3rd parties.

[SiliconAddict]

It's interesting to see the myth about how malware tools slow the system down turning into "accepted fact" on these boards....

Sure, the occasional full scan puts a load on a system, but the real-time stuff that's always on is virtually unnoticeable.

Depends on the software. Norton's consumer products are MASSIVE resource hogs. Their corp offerings (The only Symantec products I run.) are MUCH more refined and hardly touch the CPU or memory footprint.

[Randall]

Who said anything about the G4? G5 is the way to go.

"This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options"

Give me the best hardware I don't need the rest, screw 3rd parties.Yeah you're right, who needs top of the line ATi graphics cards for x86. :rolleyes: Use of COTS video cards is a major perk with the move to intel.


I was talking about the G4. We're concerned with Apple's laptop line. The desktop line with it's dual G5's are perfectly fine for the time being.

[SiliconAddict]

Who said anything about the G4? G5 is the way to go.

"This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options"

Give me the best hardware I don't need the rest, screw 3rd parties.

Unless you've figured out how to shoehorn a G5 into a PowerBook and still get 5 hours of battery life the G4 is very much is relevant.

[egsaxy]

Before people get carried away with dual core 2Ghz iBooks, a dose of reality.

Here's the Yonah pricing...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26062

The top end Yonah is almost ten times the price of a G4. A Yonah as fast as the current G4 is 2-3 times as expensive.


1) Everyone knows the intel chips are more expensive to a small degree.
2) These are dual core chips so the 1.6 and 1.8 ghz chips at (241 and 295) respectively are for 2 chips
3) With simple logical deduction (but not 100 percent acuracy) these individual chips really cost 120.5 and 147.5 respectively
4) compared to an outdated G4 chip at 75 dollars (from postings elsewhere in this forum) the faster intel chip is slightly under 2x a chip and the same speed chip is only 1.5x a chip
5) We'd be getting 2 chips inside instead of one. even at the same speed this will be a powerful improvement.

at same speed these chips aren't too much more expensive. asumming apple and our consumers understand they've crammed two chips into a machine and apple absorbs some (not all) of the cost we'll have a good situation.

my 2 cents.

[backdraft]

People please. I am so sick on GHz being compaired as an actual performance test. IT MEANS NOTHING. The bottom line is that the G4 rocked in it's hayday, but that was years ago. Now the G4 sucks a$$. The move to x86 will be the best thing that's ever happened to Apple. This opens up unlimitless 3rd party hardware options. I could care less about my laptop harware being the same architecture type as the Military uses. They probably want to switch to x86 too. And what about Altivec vs SSE3... That's what I thought.

P.S. 64 bit support for the laptop will be rolled out in Intel's next line of processors, due out at the end of 2006.

Altivec vs SSE3 u know what I mean... Altivec blows SSE[insert number here] away...

"I could care less about my laptop harware being the same architecture type as the Military uses."

You just want "good enough" I don't, and neither do most Mac users, else they would be using X86 and Windows.

[Randall]

1) Everyone knows the intel chips are more expensive to a small degree.
2) These are dual core chips so the 1.6 and 1.8 ghz chips at (241 and 295) respectively are for 2 chips
3) With simple logical deduction (but not 100 percent acuracy) these individual chips really cost 120.5 and 147.5 respectively
4) compared to an outdated G4 chip at 75 dollars (from postings elsewhere in this forum) the faster intel chip is slightly under 2x a chip and the same speed chip is only 1.5x a chip
5) We'd be getting 2 chips inside instead of one. even at the same speed this will be a powerful improvement.

at same speed these chips aren't too much more expensive. asumming apple and our consumers understand they've crammed two chips into a machine and apple absorbs some (not all) of the cost we'll have a good situation.

my 2 cents.Let's not forget the fact that the FSB on Yonah is 4x faster then the G4. That will make a HUGE difference.

Altivec vs SSE3 u know what I mean... Altivec blows SSE[insert number here] away...

"I could care less about my laptop harware being the same architecture type as the Military uses."

You just want "good enough" I don't, and neither do most Mac users, else they would be using X86 and Windows.LMAO of course I want top of the line, but you won't be getting it with G4. Don't worry buddy, you'll be using x86 soon enough...:D

[backdraft]

Yeah you're right, who needs top of the line ATi graphics cards for x86. :rolleyes: Use of COTS video cards is a major perk with the move to intel.


I was talking about the G4. We're concerned with Apple's laptop line. The desktop line with it's dual G5's are perfectly fine for the time being.

Go with NVIDIA... Plus I'd rather see the CELL CPU as a coprocessor to handle video.

Unless you've figured out how to shoehorn a G5 into a PowerBook and still get 5 hours of battery life the G4 is very much is relevant.

IBM can Apple has to cough up $$$ though. Oh, switch to Intel means bye bye Hypertransport. mobile dual core G5 + Hypertransport would smoke anything...

[Randall]

Go with NVIDIA... Plus I'd rather see the CELL CPU as a coprocessor to handle video. I don't think that the CELL CPU will be able to compare with high end GPUs

IBM can Apple has to cough up $$$ though. Oh, switch to Intel means bye bye Hypertransport.If that's the case, then Apple was planning the switch to x86 this whole time.

[SiliconAddict]

The Pentium M only really smokes a G4 in integer based benchmarks and anything very memory intensive that has to go through the CPU. That 2MB cache comes in handy. I've a 1.7Ghz Pentium M laptop and it's a lot slower at encoding in iTunes and transcoding video than a G4 and much slower than a G5. AltiVec makes a difference there and in some Photoshop filters at least until you get bandwidth bound instead of CPU bound.

It'd be interesting to see how the new Powerbooks do versus a Pentium M as they now run the Intrepid2 controller at 333Mhz instead of the previous 167Mhz direct FSB 1:1 lock. In theory since a lot of the time the CPU isn't involved with moving data about, the 333Mhz Intrepid2 has twice the memory access bandwidth available so is able for instance to DMA data off disk to memory twice as fast as the old controller.

Where the Pentium-M Windows laptops score well though is in graphics performance and in particular OpenGL. And that says more about Apple's slow OpenGL implementation than the processor. I'd be surprised if that changes with a MacIntel so expect us to still lose miserably in Cinebench. Dissing Windows performance is going to come back and haunt us if given the same hardware Windows is faster.

Of course the 1.67Ghz G4 v 1.7Ghz Pentium-M comparison is academic as there's a dual core 2.16Ghz Pentium-M in January and more to follow and no faster G4s or a laptop G5 on the horizon.

What about a 1.67 vs. a 2.26Ghz Pentium M? Or top of the line vs. top of the line? Its already been stated that the M's FP calculations ability is its weakest point. There is no contention on this. It doesn't suck but its not in the same class as the G5 or even the G4 AFAIK. (Could be wrong on that last point.)
In regards to overall benchmarks barefeats.com has shown (only once mind you.) that 2 years ago the G4 was trailing behind the Pentium M. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at further benchmarks of newer PowerBooks vs. older PowerBooks to see minimal progression then look at 2 year old M's vs. the latest and greatest seen the progress the've made both in the CPU and updated chipset and know the gap hasn't narrowed.

Everyone keeps bringing up the Intrepid2 controller. Again go to barefeats.com look at the benchmarks. (they have new PowerBook benchmarks from October.) There is virtually no difference. A memory controller update isn't going to make that big of a difference when you are hitting the CPU with, as the example you used, such things as iTunes encoding.

[backdraft]

Let's not forget the fact that the FSB on Yonah is 4x faster then the G4. That will make a HUGE difference.

LMAO of course I want top of the line, but you won't be getting it with G4. Don't worry buddy, you'll be using x86 soon enough...:D

yeah thats why I want a G5 in the powerbook.

[Randall]

yeah thats why I want a G5 in the powerbook.They have that, but it's not called a Powerbook, it's called a Space Heater. :p

[SiliconAddict]

IBM can Apple has to cough up $$$ though. Oh, switch to Intel means bye bye Hypertransport. mobile dual core G5 + Hypertransport would smoke anything...

Ahh the mythical mobile dual core G5. That must be the one that was to be released the month after they released the single core mobile G5. :rolleyes: Do you have any idea how much R&D for a single customer costs? I don't. But it has to be a [bleep] load. More then Apple could afford I'm willing to bet. It's been documented that IBM was not all that interested in the mobile G5 but was more interested in gaming consoles. A market that runs rings around Mac sales. http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051207073320.shtml

Face facts. The glorious IBM stopped being relevant after they couldn't deliver a 3Ghz G5. Not that I'm in the camp of people who were/are bitching and moaning about Jobs lying to them. But when you look at the advances from year to year. IBM wasn't exactly progressing at a blindingly fast rate.


PS- Hypertransport == SSE2\SSE3 (Maybe not as fast but its in the ballpark.)

[AidenShaw]

You forgot about all the spyware running in the background stealing all the CPU time and memory.
Hyperbole....

Grab the free antispyware tool from MS (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=321cd7a2-6a57-4c57-a8bd-dbf62eda9671&displaylang=en), and spyware be gone.

Furthermore, that access time is in Seconds, and I see a HUGE performace hit in that chart with McAfee.
If you would read the link, or even what I wrote - you'll see that this test did open/close as fast as possible on 200 individual files.

Even for McAfee, that's 67 msec per file....

[shawnce]

From osx86project.org, posted 11/21/2005:
If this is true (no reason to doubt it's not, considering the source is not a rumor site), then all the worries of AltiVec-enhanced applications "sucking" under Rosetta is no longer an issue. Even under emulation, the increased bus speed and processing power of a dual-core Yonah over a single-core G4 should provide more than enough horsepower for older PPC applications during the transition period.

Umm based on your beliefs of the magical power of Yonah? Seriously folks Rosetta _is_ going to _suck_ for any computationally intense application.

-Shawn

[toneloco2881]

yeah thats why I want a G5 in the powerbook.
You remind me of those people that like to be contrary for the sake of being err.....contrary? Your favorite band suddenly gets a video on MTV, and now their the worst band in existence. Your secret television show now gets a nod for an emmy, and their writers have all fell off. Just like people who hate the iPod blindly, just because it's popular! Admittedly, talent and "commercial" sucess are more often than not mutually exclusive terms, but sometimes the two do align.

Get off this David vs. Goliath BS, and think with your brain. The ppc architecture insofar as computers is dead. The manufacturers themselves have said as much. Intel is the best decision Apple has made in a long time, ,and I think they know this also. They probably wanted to switch at the advent of OS X and subsequently the g5, but figured it would be too much of a hassle. Once transitive(rosetta) technology came along, it was only a matter of time. Think different doesn't mean you ALWAYS have to go left when everyone else goes right.

[digitalbiker]

If that's the case, then Apple was planning the switch to x86 this whole time.

I think this may be closer to the truth than SJ cares to admit! Remember Next systems were x86 and Steve and the Intel CEO are very, very good friends.

I agree with backdraft that IBM is more than capable of producing Power4 and Power5 laptop chip versions (G5 & G6). The only thing that held back the progress was money.

Apple's market share is not enough for IBM to make the bucks neccessary to reinvest in product improvement. Therefore IBM wanted bucks directly from Apple. Steve didn't want to pay. IBM found another market (Game Consoles) and Steve gave the contract to one of his best friends company.

The mhz / watt calculation is a ruse! Give me a break!

Do you actually believe that the oversized, complicated mass of transistors that makes up the ancient x86 standard at 65 nm. would be more efficient than if Apple had payed the best minds at IBM ( The Foremost computer chip design company in the world) to move the Power4 (G5) chip to a 65 nm Low-voltage, laptop design. :eek:

[digitalbiker]

Where the Pentium-M Windows laptops score well though is in graphics performance and in particular OpenGL. And that says more about Apple's slow OpenGL implementation than the processor. I'd be surprised if that changes with a MacIntel so expect us to still lose miserably in Cinebench. Dissing Windows performance is going to come back and haunt us if given the same hardware Windows is faster.

I agree with you. I think way too many people are assuming that Windows is a slow, clug, holding back the Pentium-M. They may be REAL surprized when they see OS X on the exact same hardware.

Apple's implementation of OpenGL is pathetic and their choice of using the Mach 3 microkernel was also a performance mistake. Linus Torvals (sp?) had a great article about all the short comings of the Mach 3 microkernel and how Apple would have performance issues going into the future.

[Peace]

They may be REAL surprized when they see OS X on the exact same hardware.



Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

[SiliconAddict]

Hyperbole....

Grab the free antispyware tool from MS (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=321cd7a2-6a57-4c57-a8bd-dbf62eda9671&displaylang=en), and spyware be gone.

Umm bullcrap. I work in an office of 170ish systems. I know spyware intimately and I can tell you with complete and total authority that with the holy trinity installed: MS antispyware, spybot: search and destroy, and adware it doesn't catch all of the various versions out there and in some cases makes things worse after removing it. Think of spyware on Windows like cancer.
-If you don't get all of it it will come back to bit you.
-Even if you rid the patient of cancer they sometimes are never the same again.

[MacTruck]

I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel) :cool:


Pretty ironic that the name POWERBOOK would change once they finally get some power.

[digitalbiker]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.

[MacTruck]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.


Does it really matter what the benchmarks are on windows? I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows? I certainly would not, thats why I am still using my G4 powerbook and my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

[Peace]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about? Aren't we talking about OS X on x86?

It will be easy to get benchmarks on the same hardware.

Step 1) Run benchmark tests on OSX

Step 2) Reboot into XP and/or Vista

Step 3) Run benchmark tests on Windows.

Ahh...Gotcha! sorry..I didn't think about the dual-boot scenerio..

What folks will need is a benchmark tool that is truly universal.XBench right now is way off the mark in some things..

[SiliconAddict]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

Hehe. Don't bet on it. The day the first Macintel hardware is released expect ever computer site (zdnet, cnet, arstechnica, pc magazine, computer world, anandtech, etc.) on the planet to order one and start doing benchmarks of Windows vs. OS X. You thought the Mac vs. PC wars were bad before when the two lived across town. Wait until they are next-door neighbors. No matter who comes out in first place there is going to be the rough equivalent of a nuclear war of words on both sides. FYI get ready for a MASSIVE amount of trolling on Macrumors. Personally I’m scared *continues to build his bunker* http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/worried.gif

PS- Heck even I'm going to setup a dual boot scenario on my future PowerBook. Streets and Trips, a few proprietary company apps, MS Access, IE (*kicks the proprietary company website) necessitates it. So I wouldn’t say rarely. I fully expect to see Mac users throwing up in the streets as they start to see Windows XP and Vista running on computers with an Apple logo. Brace yourself folks. Stock up on pepto bismol NOW. Its going to be in short supply in 2006.

[tristan]

I agree that cross-platform OSX/Windows benchmarks will be all over the place, but they'll basically be meaningless. The feature sets and related overhead of the OSs are so different. One OS might save a file 38% faster than the other, while the other does a screen redraw 19% faster. So what? The only way to get a real comparison would be to use the application you want to use in the specific way you want to use it on both systems and then compare.

[Randall]

IBM ( The Foremost computer chip design company in the world) That may have been true a long time ago. I don't think it's the case anymore.

[digitalbiker]

Does it really matter what the benchmarks are on windows? I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows? I certainly would not, thats why I am still using my G4 powerbook and my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

I understand what you are saying but what about from the developers point of view?

Lets say benchmarks show that Adobe products run 20% faster under windows than under OS X (an exageration for effect).

Why would Adobe want to spend the extra money, time, and effort to make, test, and market an OS X native version when they can just tell users to use VPC, WINE, or dual boot into windows and run their software better?

Plus, why give more fuel to the fire for the Windows users to have another good reason to use Windows rather than switch to OS X?

[Randall]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate. I'm thinking he ment the same architecture, but you're right, that's way too much of a generalization.

Pretty ironic that the name POWERBOOK would change once they finally get some power.It won't. :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

I mean if its faster on windows it won't be much and if it is faster are you really going to stop using osx and move to windows?

*dawns a Microsoft fanboi tee-shirt and starts talking in a high pitched whinny voice* But it will prove that Microsoft Windows is superior to OS X and the communist open source software blows. See right there is the proof! Right there....crap.....*runs the anti-spyware scanner*.... see right there! Microsoft brings stability to the computing world with its vastly superior Windows XP OS.

*Removes the tee shirt, burns it, and goes and takes a shower* I scrub and scrub but I still feel dirty.

[SiliconAddict]

I agree that cross-platform OSX/Windows benchmarks will be all over the place, but they'll basically be meaningless. The feature sets and related overhead of the OSs are so different. One OS might save a file 38% faster than the other, while the other does a screen redraw 19% faster. So what? The only way to get a real comparison would be to use the application you want to use in the specific way you want to use it on both systems and then compare.

Yah http://www.xvsxp.com/ is going to have their work cut out for them on re-evaluating the platforms. Granted most of their stuff is GUI based and based on the OS's behavior not speed.
I think at the end of the day its going to be like comparing hardware specs on console machines. One system may have a better CPU, another may have a better GPU, someone may have a DVD drive, another has a Blue-ray drive, another has 802.11B, another has 802.11G. At the end of the day its going to be a moot point. Anyways just like consoles its the software dummy. :)

[Peace]

Hehe. Don't bet on it. The day the first Macintel hardware is released expect ever computer site (zdnet, cnet, arstechnica, pc magazine, computer world, anandtech, etc.) on the planet to order one and start doing benchmarks of Windows vs. OS X. You thought the Mac vs. PC wars were bad before when the two lived across town. Wait until they are next-door neighbors. No matter who comes out in first place there is going to be the rough equivalent of a nuclear war of words on both sides. FYI get ready for a MASSIVE amount of trolling on Macrumors. Personally I’m scared *continues to build his bunker* http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/worried.gif

PS- Heck even I'm going to setup a dual boot scenario on my future PowerBook. Streets and Trips, a few proprietary company apps, MS Access, IE (*kicks the proprietary company website) necessitates it. So I wouldn’t say rarely. I fully expect to see Mac users throwing up in the streets as they start to see Windows XP and Vista running on computers with an Apple logo. Brace yourself folks. Stock up in pepto bismol NOW. Its going to be in short supply in 2006.


I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

I do believe Apple doesn't care if anybody dual-boots and actually expect them to be very compatible for dual booting.
Unless of course Apple removes the BIOS set-up

;)

[Randall]

I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

I do believe Apple doesn't care if anybody dual-boots and actually expect them to be very compatible for dual booting.
Unless of course Apple removes the BIOS set-up

;)I am willing to bet money that Apple will remove BIOS, and have no need for the Windows API etc, so dual booting will NOT be trivial by any means. :p Any takers?

[SiliconAddict]

I am willing to bet money that Apple will remove BIOS, and have no need for the Windows API etc, so dual booting will NOT be trivial by any means. :p Any takers?

Yah me because Apple has gone on record by saying they won't keep people from installing Windows on Macs. And even if they get rid of the PC BIOS and implement their own version it will be a matter of weeks before someone figures out a way to boot windows from it if it doesn't just work right out of the box. The basics of what Open Firmware and the BIOS do are basically the same thing. Open Firmware just has a heck of a lot more bells and whistles to it.
Remember at the end of the day Apple gets their bread and butter from hardware sales. If someone wants to load Windows on it why do they care? They just sold a $2000 computer to someone who never had any intention of running OS X in the first place. Its still a sale with the money going into Apple coffers which goes towards making new OS's. I don't really see a problem here.

[Randall]

Yah me because Apple has gone on record by saying they won't keep people from installing Windows on Macs. And even if they get rid of the PC BIOS and implement their own version it will be a matter of weeks before someone figures out a way to boot windows from it if it doesn't just work right out of the box. The basics of what Open Firmware and the BIOS do are basically the same thing. Open Firmware just has a heck of a lot more bells and whistles to it.
Remember at the end of the day Apple gets their bread and butter from hardware sales. If someone wants to load Windows on it why do they care? They just sold a $2000 computer to someone who never had any intention of running OS X in the first place. Its still a sale with the money going into Apple coffers which goes towards making new OS's. I don't really see a problem here.I stand corrected. A sale is a sale that's for sure. I would get in line for a laptop that could dual boot OS X and Windows. That is sexy. That said, I hope that Apple releases a laptop with at least a two button touchpad. This Ctrl-click **** has got to go.

[dernhelm]

That said, I hope that Apple releases a laptop with at least a two button touchpad. This Ctrl-click **** has got to go.

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.

[Randall]

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.Maybe an option for a "touch sensitive" bar below the touchpad that you can program to be single or two button (left and right handed). That would be ideal IMO. The OS supports a three button mouse, so the hardware should too.

[SiliconAddict]

I am fully aware that ZDnet et.al. will be grabbin the new intel macs to compare and there will be front page stories all over the place.
What I meant was comparing a new intel ibook to a dell etc..

Are you talking from a hardware perspective? Speed perspective? Price perspective or all of the above?
Because I think all three are going to be different compared to a Dell. Dell’s will always be cheaper from a price standpoint. Apple doesn’t want to get into the commodities racket and I can see why. So from a simple price standpoint Dell will generally win out. Speed could be tricky. Apple optimizes their hardware for their OS. Dropping XP on the thing and then comparing Mac hardware vs. Dell hardware could be tricky if Apple does some funky things under the hood. So that could be a toss up. But from a purely hardware perspective I think Apple is, and always will, blow Dell out of the water. In the past Apple has left out features on their hardware. (PCI-X, 7200 laptop drives, etc.) I believe this is simple to allow them an upgrade path. Face facts the CPU hasn’t been upgraded in years. So they leave out this feature and that feature that they can add in later. With the transition to x86 Apple has a huge CPU future ahead of it. No need to hold back anymore. There can be differentiation in the hardware without the feeling that they are intentionally neutering the hardware between product lines to justify price points. So I fully expect, OK hope, that the floodgates are opened on the PowerBook lines.
SATA 100GB hard drives, GeForce 7800 with 128MB VRAM, support for up to 2GB of RAM, and part of me hopes for first gen blu-ray drive. (Don’t bet on it though.) and then there is Apple’s design which I expect will require Apple to hand out Huggies as people get seated for the keynote. Soil inducing hardware? Yah that sounds about right. So from the purely hardware standpoint I expect Apple to go nuclear on Dell butt. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/devil.gif

[Peace]

Are you talking from a hardware perspective? Speed perspective? Price perspective or all of the above?
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/devil.gif

All of the above.

Thats why I say it's going to be hard to compare Apples to Oranges even if their both in the same "basket".

[SiliconAddict]

I disagree. Ctrl-Click on the powerbook is much nicer than a 'right-click' button for me, and I am a long time windows and unix user. Now on a mouse, I want the right click, but above or below a touchpad give me a ctrl-click any day.

*cries* Not more of this....

[dernhelm]

Are you talking from a hardware perspective? Speed perspective? Price perspective or all of the above?

[snip]

So from the purely hardware standpoint I expect Apple to go nuclear on Dell butt.


Sure, so do I. But that won't be hard, since Dell hasn't produced anything but tinkertoys for the last few years. It's how they stack up against Toshiba, Sony, and their ilk that will matter.

I've still got my money on Apple.

[Peace]

Sure, so do I. But that won't be hard, since Dell hasn't produced anything but tinkertoys for the last few years. It's how they stack up against Toshiba, Sony, and their ilk that will matter.

I've still got my money on Apple.


As do I but one can't and shouldn't compare the low-end iBook to a top of the line Toshiba or Sony laptop.

[gnasher729]

Why would Adobe want to spend the extra money, time, and effort to make, test, and market an OS X native version when they can just tell users to use VPC, WINE, or dual boot into windows and run their software better?

Because if they don't, a significant amount of their potential customers will tell them "******* you". Quark had that attitude, and where are they now?

So, if the "most pronounced case" with Norton is 20 msec, I'll stand by my claim that it's "virtually unnoticeable". (Human perception can't discern below about 30-40 msec - anything faster is perceptually instantaneous.)

Whenever I tell my source code editor to compare two folders, each containing a few thousand files, I have to turn virusscanning on, because it takes five minutes instead of five seconds.

[Randall]

Whenever I tell my source code editor to compare two folders, each containing a few thousand files, I have to turn virusscanning on, because it takes five minutes instead of five seconds.You mean turn it off right? :p

[gnasher729]

Umm they aren't breaking any laws....so what they are doing isn't criminal. NDA's and EULA aren't law. You can bet that the MPAA and RIAA wish they were. Its amazing how some people miss that fact.

Copying software that you are not allowed to copy is illegal. Publishing trade secrets is illegal. There are no EULAs involved here. You are right when you say "NDAs are not law". The NDA only is there to keep something that Apple wants to be secret a secret, giving away secrets to developers without NDA would mean the cease to be trade secrets. However, since details of MacOS X for x86 _are_ trade secrets, a developer making them available to others is not only violating an NDA, but _also_ in breach of the law.

[minimax]

People please. I am so sick on GHz being compaired as an actual performance test. IT MEANS NOTHING. The bottom line is that the G4 rocked in it's hayday, but that was years ago. Now the G4 sucks a$$.

Although i admire your ability to substantiate your argument so eloquently you might want to reread backdrafts post. Perhaps you'll understand what he said about clock for clock performance on your second try.

[Randall]

Although i admire your ability to substantiate your argument so eloquently you might want to reread backdrafts post. Perhaps you'll understand what he said about clock for clock performance on your second try.You amuse me.

Here is backdraft's quality post...Pit an X86 with equivalent ghz against PPC and you'll see how the PPC is more efficient and outperforms X86.Again, he is comparing apples to oranges, but at the same clock speed. Shear brillance. :rolleyes:

[minimax]

You amuse me.

Here is backdraft's quality post...Again, he is comparing apples to oranges, but at the same clock speed. Shear brillance. :rolleyes:

So, exactly... on which infallible basis did you come to your verdict I might ask that allows you to claim the G4 sucks a$$?

Yes, on FP it is weak, but on application's like Photoshop and other integer and vector intensive applications it holds up to the pentium m quite well and beats the G5 with a clear margin. And yes, it still is apples to oranges but we only know how OS X performs to Windows after the switch. So your claims are just as moot untill then.

[Randall]

So, exactly... on which infallible basis did you come to your verdict I might ask that allows you to claim the G4 sucks a$$?

Yes, on FP it is weak, but on application's like Photoshop and other integer and vector intensive applications it holds up to the pentium m quite well and beats the G5 with a clear margin. And yes, it still is apples to oranges but we only know how OS X performs to Windows after the switch. So your claims are just as moot untill then.Alright fine we'll do that. The G4 sucks in three very specific ways: So Hard, So Bad and Wicked Bad.

[minimax]

Alright fine we'll do that. The G4 sucks in three very specific ways: So Hard, So Bad and Wicked Bad.

How old are you?

[Randall]

How old are you?Heh. You don't remember that SNL skit a few years back? I guess if you didn't see it then all humor is lost... Anyway I would say it's the fact that the G4 has not seen a major update in years that makes it too much of a dinosaur to be in the Powerbook. Or maybe it is the fact that it's running a pathetic 167MHz FSB. No matter how you slice it, the G4 is not good enough anymore. Hence my comments about it sucking.

[minimax]

Heh. You don't remember that SNL skit a few years back? I guess if you didn't see it then all humor is lost... Anyway I would say it's the fact that the G4 has not seen a major update in years that makes it too much of a dinosaur to be in the Powerbook. Or maybe it is the fact that it's running a pathetic 167MHz FSB. No matter how you slice it, the G4 is not good enough anymore. Hence my comments about it sucking.


I didnt see that (not from the States).
Just because apple keeps calling it the G4 doesnt mean nothing happened to it during the years. In fact, the original G4 and the present G4+ are totally different processors just with the same apple sticker on it. And also the G4+ has seen several revisions, with the latest one doubling the L2 cache and improvements on the vector engines. The Athlon main architecture (up to the present ones) is older then the G4+ architecture for that matter so that's a rather weak basis to build your opinion on. You might want to read up on Ars.
Nevertheless, your continuous and somewhat childish smut talk on the G4 isnt only annoying, it's also insulting to people, including professionals, that have one and are quite happy with it. You are only a few days on this forum now, perhaps you should consider adjusting your tune a bit.

[Randall]

I didnt see that (not from the States).
Just because apple keeps calling it the G4 doesnt mean nothing happened to it during the years. In fact, the original G4 and the present G4+ or totally different processors just with the same name on it. And also the G4+ has seen several revisions, with the latest one doubling the L2 cache and improvements on the vector engines. The Athlon core is older for that matter then the PPC7450 core so that's a rather weak basis to build your opinion on. You might want to read up on Ars.
Nevertheless, your continuous and somewhat childish smut talk on the G4 isnt only annoying, it's also insulting to people, including professionals, that have one and are quite happy with it. You are only a few days on this forum now, perhaps you should consider adjusting your tune a bit.You're right. I appoligize to all the G4 owners out there. I was unaware of the changes that went on behind the scenes for the G4, and it's evolution into the G4+. I still feel that it is at a distinct disadvantage compaired to some of the newer processors designed for the mobile platform, in particular the dual core Pentium M coming soon.

[The Red Wolf]

• Going from a 1.67GHz G4 on a 66MHz(?) bus, to a dual-core 1.8-2.1GHz Yonah on a 600MHz bus will ease a lot of Rosetta's lag.



It's 167MHz.

[tmornini]

Linus Torvals (sp?) had a great article about all the short comings of the Mach 3 microkernel and how Apple would have performance issues going into the future.

That article is *totally* misrepresenting what Linus said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/06/macos_x_is_crap_torvalds/

He was discussing the Mach kernel, which OS X's kernel, darwin (xnu) is *derived* from.

Linus has never liked micro kernels, which Mach is. Darwin is NOT a micro kernel. Apple chose to create a hybrid, for the very reasons that Linux states.

Get the facts straight before making wild statements.

[aegisdesign]

Man that is such a generalization..

People will rarely see OSX and Windows on "the exact same hardware" making it very hard to compare and dangerously inaccurate.

It'll be close enough to do comparisons. Same CPU, same memory technology, same system chips, same GPU, same bus, same bus speeds.

Or do you think Apple is going to create a chipset to beat Intel's Napa platform chipset?

Really, from this point on it's all about exterior design and software as the difference between buying an Apple or someone else's computer. If MacOSX is slower than Windows on essentially the same hardware then Apple will have a lot of people asking why.

[backdraft]

Just for the hell of it...

P4 vs G5 Watts
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/22/ibm_claims_massive_power_cut/

Intel claims 30% speed increase moving from 65nm to 90nm
IBM, AMD claim 50% speed increase

http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174901200

More watts:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578&p=4


Maybe the fact that IBM is going Opensource with the PowerPC design had something to do with the switch I mean PPC outperforms, produces less heat, and uses less watts than X86. Open the architecture up and remove DRM, no Apple wouldn't want that. Opensource = NO DRM

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3571216
http://www.power.org

[aegisdesign]

Yah me because Apple has gone on record by saying they won't keep people from installing Windows on Macs.

They didn't say how easy it would be to get Windows running on it, only that they wouldn't stop people from trying.

And even if they get rid of the PC BIOS and implement their own version it will be a matter of weeks before someone figures out a way to boot windows from it if it doesn't just work right out of the box. The basics of what Open Firmware and the BIOS do are basically the same thing. Open Firmware just has a heck of a lot more bells and whistles to it.

I'd bet on Apple using Intel's EFI - http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

Someone (ie. a hacker or Apple) would have to create a UNIX style bootloader which faked a BIOS implementation with all the needed old crufty PC INT 21's and crap like that or Microsoft would have to support EFI on IA32 just as they did on the Itanium.

Remember at the end of the day Apple gets their bread and butter from hardware sales. If someone wants to load Windows on it why do they care? They just sold a $2000 computer to someone who never had any intention of running OS X in the first place. Its still a sale with the money going into Apple coffers which goes towards making new OS's. I don't really see a problem here.

Because I'm sure they'd much rather sell them software and services than just the hardware. Once they've sold them the hardware, the profits are done. Selling them new versions of OSX, iLife, iWork, FCP, Aperture, Motion..... is profit that keeps on repeating.

[aegisdesign]

Yeah you're right, who needs top of the line ATi graphics cards for x86. :rolleyes: Use of COTS video cards is a major perk with the move to intel.


You'll still need MacOSX drivers for them so essentially you're still stuck with whatever drivers Apple support in the OS, just as now.

[aegisdesign]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Intrepid2 controller. Again go to barefeats.com look at the benchmarks. (they have new PowerBook benchmarks from October.) There is virtually no difference. A memory controller update isn't going to make that big of a difference when you are hitting the CPU with, as the example you used, such things as iTunes encoding.

Where? I've looked on barefeats and there's no tests of the new powerbook other than preliminary thoughts.

[Prom1]

Thank you 840Quadra your insight is always appreciated. Nevermind AidenShaw, man that guy doesnt make talking in the rumor/threads fun or easy anymore, sheesh:rolleyes: :p :D - jk glad to be as informed as he helps all of us, keeps the trolls away.

Aiden I agree with you about MS Beta AntiVirus app its SWEET! (mind you its because of 3 acquisitions of other experienced company's though). I'm suprised that you use it and have forgotten the unseen danger in the windows world - and often hard to troubleshoot.

Scripts! Ever troubleshoot a users laptop and bang just after the bios screen BEFORE WinXP splash screen you get strange text - very minimal and nothing short of a reinstall/reimage resolves it?

Man I hate scripts in Windows world, the bad ones that is. Very few spyware, antivirus apps protect against this.

[AidenShaw]

Nevermind AidenShaw, man that guy doesnt make talking in the rumor/threads fun or easy anymore.
I hope that this is a back-handed compliment - that I make it harder for people to simply BS their way through a post! :o

Scripts! Ever troubleshoot a users laptop and bang just after the bios screen BEFORE WinXP splash screen you get strange text - very minimal and nothing short of a reinstall/reimage resolves it?

Man I hate scripts in Windows world, the bad ones that is. Very few spyware, antivirus apps protect against this.
Actually, I've never seen a problem like that.

There have been a number of stories recently about how the bad guys (note that the prime source of malware these days is organized criminal networks - not script kiddies) are feeling the pressure from OS improvements - and are going after holes in applications as an easier entry point.

It's nice that OSX helps keep viruses and spyware out - but if Safari and Firefox have holes that let the criminals mine your credit card info does it really matter?

Longhorn ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Vista will finally tighten Windows security model - that will make it harder to crack the OS, and increase the hazard of application vulnerabilities.

[otter-boy]

PS- Hypertransport == SSE2\SSE3 (Maybe not as fast but its in the ballpark.)

I'm not sure what you were going for with this one :confused:

Did you mean that Hypertransport != SSE2\SSE3?

From Wikipedia:

"HyperTransport (HT), formerly known as Lightning Data Transport (LDT), is a bidirectional serial/parallel high-bandwidth, low-latency computer bus."

and

"SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) is a SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instruction set designed by Intel"

[shigzeo]

:eek:

Didn't you two know that Japan's Earth Simulator had been the world's fastest supercomputer for so long until the end of last year?

And it is for a peaceful purpose.

And no, the Japanese goverment didn't need any freaking help from anybody to build it.

I am really dismayed and appalled by both of you :mad:


I've got to agree here. it seems nowhere does this rumour site show its head more than in some of the purely ignorant comments that come up. Further, the us of a has a government that has basically written the Japanese constitution, and if it did place an embargo to not deliver a g4 (which was never held back from Japan, if anything, there are more mac sites in Japanese of people complaining on their slow g4's) it would be severe insult to injury. It could just be the tough guy american 'english tutors' who put g4's in their sweaty little pockets to substitute for a lack of international graces.

[digitalbiker]

That article is *totally* misrepresenting what Linus said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/06/macos_x_is_crap_torvalds/

He was discussing the Mach kernel, which OS X's kernel, darwin (xnu) is *derived* from.

Linus has never liked micro kernels, which Mach is. Darwin is NOT a micro kernel. Apple chose to create a hybrid, for the very reasons that Linux states.

Get the facts straight before making wild statements.

That is not the article I was referring to.

Yes, the register report did misrepresent Mr. Torvalds viewpoint on Darwin and the Mach 3 microkernel.

You and I will have to agree to disagree because Linus did not confine his comments to just the Mach 3.0 Microkernel. He specifically discussed the performance issue problems that Apple will have with Darwin and feels that the Mach 3.0 microkernel was a poor choice on which to base Darwin.

I made no "wild statements" and I do have the facts straight.

[shigzeo]

I didnt see that (not from the States).
Just because apple keeps calling it the G4 doesnt mean nothing happened to it during the years. In fact, the original G4 and the present G4+ are totally different processors just with the same apple sticker on it. And also the G4+ has seen several revisions, with the latest one doubling the L2 cache and improvements on the vector engines. The Athlon main architecture (up to the present ones) is older then the G4+ architecture for that matter so that's a rather weak basis to build your opinion on. You might want to read up on Ars.
Nevertheless, your continuous and somewhat childish smut talk on the G4 isnt only annoying, it's also insulting to people, including professionals, that have one and are quite happy with it. You are only a few days on this forum now, perhaps you should consider adjusting your tune a bit.

as clever as you sound and as long as you have been here lurking in the anals of macrumors, you too have to listen to what you say. we all do. i suck, so do my comments and so do yours. g4 is old. 167mhz bus isn't soo bad, but the fact that very few opensource projects are optimized for it is not intriguing. I love my ibook and find that altivec supported apps are bloody fast, making my p4 at 2.2 sometimes look pathetic... enter gimp. shower, shave, eat out and then come back to watch the g4 finally finish its round of filtering. as great as it was, it is outpaced as so are your completely un 'smut[y]' comments towards Randall. We are all intensely wrong on certain topics, but to call someone's comments smutty seems in reverse, childish.

[SiliconAddict]

Copying software that you are not allowed to copy is illegal. Publishing trade secrets is illegal. There are no EULAs involved here. You are right when you say "NDAs are not law". The NDA only is there to keep something that Apple wants to be secret a secret, giving away secrets to developers without NDA would mean the cease to be trade secrets. However, since details of MacOS X for x86 _are_ trade secrets, a developer making them available to others is not only violating an NDA, but _also_ in breach of the law.

Well first off the site in question doesn't provide the software. So forget that. Secondly trade secrets by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act is defined as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

the only thing that site does is explain how to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Its no more breaking trade secret laws then someone hacking a T-Mobile phone onto a Cingular network. Have you even read the site? It's basically a Wiki. Now if you are all for the borderline fascist DMCA that could be another matter.

[Val-kyrie]

You remind me of those people that like to be contrary for the sake of being err.....contrary?

The word you want is "polemical."

[Val-kyrie]

...my 2ghz centrino thinkpad is collecting dust.

Want to sell it?

[Photorun]

Longhorn ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Vista will finally tighten Windows security model - that will make it harder to crack the OS, and increase the hazard of application vulnerabilities.

Actually from some of my geek friends at Cornell, total Linuxheads who neither side with OS X or Microstuff, they'd totally disagree with your statement so I need to dissent on it, though usually you do make sense. Maybe you've been reading Microcraps press releases or talking to one of their overly optimist developers, but the Vista from the feedback I'm getting (including my old friends at my old job at Adobe Systems) your statement is far from the truth.

Vista is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sure the exploit holes aren't the exact same, but thanks to Microsuck's bloaty middle management, multiple teams, and groups more interested in protecting their fifedoms in Redmond, the same system of people there, if anything, even worse than before. They're already writing viruses for Vistas which from my vague understanding as it was explained by "let's break it" Linux geeks with too much time on their hands hacking away, it's not stuff Microcrap can just tighten up, it's stuff that can be exploited now, and later in the OS. It is, after all, Microsoft, same people who made Win95, Win98 was 1700 bug fixes for 95 (while adding 900+), then ME (more bug fixes, more new bugs), XP (lipstick on a pig at best) and so on.

Coding from the ground up (which, really Vista isn't) doesn't mean as an organization they've learned anything, if anything else the culture there (one I visited and saw firsthand in the 90s and it was arrogant then) is only getting worse, they honestly do not care that much, there's too much pressure to just get through the day, at the top they're dellusional about their dominance of the market to the point where an acquaintance who writes for PC Mag perhaps profetically claimed (about their mindsets by the out-of-touch people who are at the top) "the bigger they are the harder they fall." Not to say the entire company will just spiral down a rabbit hole (though that'd be nice) but companies that thought they were so big and untouchable they'd be kings forever have a funny way of crashing and burning, the history of business if full of them, usually often marked by their perceptions people will simply line up at their doors and they don't need to do anything that different. Welcome to history Microsoft, hope the door DOES hit you on the arse on your way out.

I use the words "championing mediocrity" way too much but it's never so apt as the group current at the MS campus, and it's only getting worse. Anyone thinking Vista is going to be a whole new era of Microsoft, free of viruses and loaded with stability and compatibility, are not only delusional but will shortly feel sadly mistaken.

[kjs862]

What do you think will be the first desktop to be replaced with intel and when do you think it will come out? I'm guessing the mac mini, but not sure of when.

[GregA]

Of course the 1.67Ghz G4 v 1.7Ghz Pentium-M comparison is academic as there's a dual core 2.16Ghz Pentium-M in January and more to follow and no faster G4s or a laptop G5 on the horizon.What ever happened to the Dual Core G4 that Freescale (nee Motorola) was making (MPC8641D). It had speeds starting at 1.67Ghz, a 667Mhz frontside bus, low power usage (lower than Pentium-M), built in ethernet and PCI-E interface, etc.

AFAIK, it was due for sampling 2nd half of 2005, and was on a similar timeframe to Yonah. If the PPC is a simpler architecture (as stated by some here) I assume the cost would be less. But perhaps Freescale didn't bother to make this after all (or ran into some other problem?).

I highly doubt that Apple will release any higher-performance G4 stuff - it's more likely to be removed from the range early in the switch (though Apple "is under contract to use Freescale chips to build its G4 PowerPC computers through the end of 2008" (http://tinyurl.com/7r8cv) and the Freescale CEO said: "Our only customer is Apple (for laptops), and they are switching to Intel sometime next year. We were not happy to lose a customer").

Nevertheless - anyone know what happened?

[JFreak]

You're right. I appoligize to all the G4 owners out there. I was unaware of the changes that went on behind the scenes for the G4, and it's evolution into the G4+. I still feel that it is at a distinct disadvantage compaired to some of the newer processors designed for the mobile platform, in particular the dual core Pentium M coming soon.

Pentium-M design is based on Pentium-3, which is essentially the same as Pentium-2 that is an evolution of Pentium Pro. I believe that basic design has been on market for over ten years, so declaring it "newer design" feels like marketing hype to me.

Granted, the mind set of customers wants to constantly see bigger numbers on boxes so they can justify the purchase; which basically means that most people buy most things without real purpose, only enjoying the idea of bigger number being better. But in real life computing power needs to double (!) before it has any real advantage, and that doubling real life performance the system needs to be 3X as powerful as the comparison -- naturally these are points nobody wants to advertise ;)

I fully expect to see Mac users throwing up in the streets as they start to see Windows XP and Vista running on computers with an Apple logo.

I think I will be one of those that even the idea feels sick; however, I doubt that the hardware Apple will be selling is not supported by Windows XP, so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).

I agree that cross-platform OSX/Windows benchmarks will be all over the place, but they'll basically be meaningless. The feature sets and related overhead of the OSs are so different.

That's exactly the point in such benchmarks. If you run it on the 100% same hardware, then you're not benchmarking hardware, are you? No. You're benchmarking the operating system and how the benchmarking software has been optimised to run. We might see very interesting results!

I understand what you are saying but what about from the developers point of view? Lets say benchmarks show that Adobe products run 20% faster under windows than under OS X (an exageration for effect).

Let's say there's a benchmarking software that is only benchmarking the OS and that benchmarking software shows that OSX is 50% more efficient (another exageration) than Windows. Then there's would be this Adobe app benchmark that shows their Windows version runs 20% faster (your number) than their OSX version -- wouldn't that mean Adobe is making crappy OSX software instead of benefiting from the possibility of 50% more efficient operating system? From the developers point of view that should drive development into OSX and into learning to code more efficient software on OSX over time.

The only bad situation for OSX would be if bencmarks would always show that Windows platform is more efficient than OSX; however I wouldn't be afraid ;)

[gnasher729]

Really, from this point on it's all about exterior design and software as the difference between buying an Apple or someone else's computer. If MacOSX is slower than Windows on essentially the same hardware then Apple will have a lot of people asking why.

Since MacOS X on my 733 MHz G4 at home runs at least as fast as XP on a 2.4 GHz Dell at work, I think there is not much danger of that. (The hardware itself is definitely slower, it just does things faster. )

[SiliconAddict]

I think I will be one of those that even the idea feels sick; however, I doubt that the hardware Apple will be selling is not supported by Windows XP, so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).

Keep in mind that the core components, at least for gen one of the x86 Power/iBooks, will probably be Intel chipsets along with standard off the shelf GPU's from ATI or Nvidia. XP is surprisingly flexible when it comes to the hardware it will run on. The most difficult piece of hardware I expect to find drivers for will be audio.
A generic driver for the HD, optical disk and USB should all “just be found” by XP. But this is all just speculation at this point. Apple said they wouldn’t keep anyone from installing Windows on a system. They never said anything about making it easy.

[Randall]

Pentium-M design is based on Pentium-3, which is essentially the same as Pentium-2 that is an evolution of Pentium Pro. I believe that basic design has been on market for over ten years, so declaring it "newer design" feels like marketing hype to me. You are reaching here a little bit. Granted that the Pentium-M design is partly based on the Pentium III (of which I have one... a Pentium III 866 MHz "Coppermine", and IMO it's a better design then the Pentium 4). The fact is that a dual core implimentation of the Pentium M line is a new design. I can't speak for the rest of the folks here, but I for one do not consider this to be marketing hype at all. You will notice an increase in performance and decrease in power consumption with Yonah, and that, I believe is the reason that techincally inclined people like us are interrested in it. Not because it has "bigger numbers", but generally speaking, you are correct in saying that the masses don't really understand the technology at all, and assume that more GHz = better, which is annoying.

That said, there is a reason that "that basic design" has been on market for over ten years. And it's because "it just works" heh :p

so the only Windows we might see running on Apple hardware should be the VI(rus)STA(tion).Bravo! Very cleaver there :rolleyes:

[JJTiger1]

You're right. I appoligize to all the G4 owners out there. I was unaware of the changes that went on behind the scenes for the G4, and it's evolution into the G4+. I still feel that it is at a distinct disadvantage compaired to some of the newer processors designed for the mobile platform, in particular the dual core Pentium M coming soon.

I'm a G4 owner. I was not offended.

I am in the market for a new laptop, my first laptop. I find any and all comments about the Mac laptops useful.

Yes, the G4's have evolved over the years. The G4 chip development was not static. However I have never heard of the term: G4+.

A little bit of history of the TowerMac G4 and why I waited:

Gigabit Ethernet model @ up to dual 500 mhz, PowerPC chip 7400 : I waited because it was not a leap from my then current OBM (Old Beige Mac) that was upgraded to G3/400.

Digital Audio model @ up to 733 mhz, PowerPC chip 7410 or 7450 : The 733 was a fantastic leap. I drooled, but I waited because of the cost.

QuickSilver 2001 model @ 733, 867, and dual 800, PowerPC chip 7450 : I drooled and foamed because of the huge price drop, but I waited until the QuickSilver 2002's came out.

In February of 2002, the left over older QuickSilver 2001's were Closeout Priced and put on the pile with other Obsolete hardware. I could not resist the price for the 733.

I thought that I was buying the older QuickSilver 2001 G4/733. What I got was the store's QuickSilver 2002ED Education Market demo-model. (It's the same thing as the 2001, but with a 2002 serial number.) Later Education market models were 800mhz with PowerPC chip 7455.

So, here it is, almost four years later. My QS G4/733 is still 733 mhz, but the chassis has been upgraded with all of the optional toys. Processor upgrades are reasonably priced, but I don't need one just yet.

Now, MacIntel is dawning upon us.

And it looks like I need a laptop for work purposes.

MacIntel laptop needs to interface via ethernet with the QS G4/733 before I get the Mac laptop.
MacIntel laptop needs to interface via FireWire with the camcorder before I get the Mac laptop.
MacIntel laptop needs to have universal wireless internet capability, just like the G4 laptop before I get the Mac laptop.

If the MacIntel can't meet all of those requirements, then it's a No-Sale.



All of the numbers on all of the sheets of paper that state the comparison of this versus that, are totally meaningless if the computer doesn't work in real life.

I can wait for the laptop. I can wait to pick up one of the MacIntels, or one of the castaway left-over obsolete G4's.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Cost.

Games? Children who need games need to get an X-Box 360. Keep that kid stuff off of the grown-up's computer. ;)
=-=-=
JJ Tiger

[Sunrunner]

Want to sell it?


Want to make video of it getting smashed to pieces and post it here? :p

[aegisdesign]

What ever happened to the Dual Core G4 that Freescale (nee Motorola) was making (MPC8641D). It had speeds starting at 1.67Ghz, a 667Mhz frontside bus, low power usage (lower than Pentium-M), built in ethernet and PCI-E interface, etc.

AFAIK, it was due for sampling 2nd half of 2005, and was on a similar timeframe to Yonah. If the PPC is a simpler architecture (as stated by some here) I assume the cost would be less. But perhaps Freescale didn't bother to make this after all (or ran into some other problem?).

I highly doubt that Apple will release any higher-performance G4 stuff - it's more likely to be removed from the range early in the switch (though Apple "is under contract to use Freescale chips to build its G4 PowerPC computers through the end of 2008" (http://tinyurl.com/7r8cv) and the Freescale CEO said: "Our only customer is Apple (for laptops), and they are switching to Intel sometime next year. We were not happy to lose a customer").

Nevertheless - anyone know what happened?

8641(D) are sampling now IIRC with a couple of customers in the embedded space announcing boards. 1H2006 is the supposed production date so it's not really due the same time as Yonah.

However, as a Yonah competitor it'd be almost there. Some things it does better - like built in memory controllers and direct Gig-ethernet and 1-8x PCIe direct, some worse - like power throttling and cache sharing and the fact it's only 1.5Ghz listed, at least at the 10 year MTBF mark the embedded guys are after.

Both Yonah and the 8641D would require Apple to produce completely new motherboards and this change isn't about CPUs anyway, it's about platforms. Intel provide everything. Apple would still have serious engineering to do with the 8641.

[aegisdesign]

Since MacOS X on my 733 MHz G4 at home runs at least as fast as XP on a 2.4 GHz Dell at work, I think there is not much danger of that. (The hardware itself is definitely slower, it just does things faster. )

It depends on what you're doing.

As I said earlier, Apple's OpenGL implementation is a bottleneck. That's why at some tasks, even if it's fully multithreaded, even the Quad PowerMac is slower than a Pentium4 single processor machine.

[Phoenix007]

Is that what that thing is supposed to be? heh :D It was an interresting choice over the generic hour glass I must admit.

Actually, the choice was made before the hourglass was 'generic' (or used). I happen to know one of the people who made the beachball.. I had no idea what it was (like most people), and was coming up with ideas when he told me "No, it's a beach ball."

After arguing with him for about 20 mins, it took about a year to remove my foot from my mouth =).

[qtip919]

Actually from some of my geek friends at Cornell, total Linuxheads who neither side with OS X or Microstuff, they'd totally disagree with your statement so I need to dissent on it, though usually you do make sense. Maybe you've been reading Microcraps press releases or talking to one of their overly optimist developers, but the Vista from the feedback I'm getting (including my old friends at my old job at Adobe Systems) your statement is far from the truth.

Vista is meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sure the exploit holes aren't the exact same, but thanks to Microsuck's bloaty middle management, multiple teams, and groups more interested in protecting their fifedoms in Redmond, the same system of people there, if anything, even worse than before. They're already writing viruses for Vistas which from my vague understanding as it was explained by "let's break it" Linux geeks with too much time on their hands hacking away, it's not stuff Microcrap can just tighten up, it's stuff that can be exploited now, and later in the OS. It is, after all, Microsoft, same people who made Win95, Win98 was 1700 bug fixes for 95 (while adding 900+), then ME (more bug fixes, more new bugs), XP (lipstick on a pig at best) and so on.

Coding from the ground up (which, really Vista isn't) doesn't mean as an organization they've learned anything, if anything else the culture there (one I visited and saw firsthand in the 90s and it was arrogant then) is only getting worse, they honestly do not care that much, there's too much pressure to just get through the day, at the top they're dellusional about their dominance of the market to the point where an acquaintance who writes for PC Mag perhaps profetically claimed (about their mindsets by the out-of-touch people who are at the top) "the bigger they are the harder they fall." Not to say the entire company will just spiral down a rabbit hole (though that'd be nice) but companies that thought they were so big and untouchable they'd be kings forever have a funny way of crashing and burning, the history of business if full of them, usually often marked by their perceptions people will simply line up at their doors and they don't need to do anything that different. Welcome to history Microsoft, hope the door DOES hit you on the arse on your way out.

I use the words "championing mediocrity" way too much but it's never so apt as the group current at the MS campus, and it's only getting worse. Anyone thinking Vista is going to be a whole new era of Microsoft, free of viruses and loaded with stability and compatibility, are not only delusional but will shortly feel sadly mistaken.


hmmm

Im not quite sure where to attack this rant, but Im going to give you some bait to chew on and I'll see if you bite.

Microsoft sales figures are getting better and better each year. The only competing product which they are seriously threatened by is their own previous versions.

Case in point: Exchange Server + Outlook 2003

This is the pinnacle of email functionality and the best product coupling that Microsoft has even provided. I specialize in r&d in this area, and I will go ahead and claim to be an expert ;)

Let me tell you this: I WISH there was a competing product for OS X in this arena. Combined with their pricing model (unlimted users for how much!?!) Apple could blow the doors off of the small-medium business and slowly erode the larger enterprise customers through sheer envy within the IT community.

Back to my point -

They are dominating this market, and its only about to get better for them as they solve everyone's migration problems case by case

Now, the OS is a funny story. How much can you realisticly upgrade an OS without spending too much money? The NT kernel is not as problematic as you are led to believe. You should understand that any operating system is riddled with inherent security issues for the comprimise of the ability to execute code. Windows is exploited in a way that simply makes this more extreme.

If I was interested at all in this sort of thing, I could write a virus for OS X without investing much intellectual horsepower, and believe me, it would be a snap.

Everyone around here that thinks that failure in the OS development game could take microsoft down is seriously underestimating the structure and power behind this organization. Their biggest problem is their sloppiness at how they attack any given market. However, given time, they have enough resources to simply bleed out the competition while innovating (I mean) "purchasing" the competition ;)

Watch the markets in which they are competing...Corporate markets, and tell me where you see their CURRENT failures.

Screw the home user, that's biggest loser market to be had...its rife with piracy and the real money in there provides little motivation to do anything truly great.

2nd point -

We need to stop acting like OS X has been fine crafted out of spun gold. This OS is largely a hack, and Jobs better seriously better get started on the next generation of Operating system for Apple because the day is coming what OS X and all of it's glory is going to be nothing but a memory...think waaaay back to the 90's...

By the way, just because you know some geeks at cornell doesnt mean they could do jack squat within Microsoft to improve on either their business or their code base...Do you know how many leading minds in the computing world are on the Microsoft dime? I know people within that r&d M$ group that could make you little buddies seem like they just graduated from the 2nd grade...and believe me, these guys invest alot into the future of this company...

[OSSfan]

Maybe an option for a "touch sensitive" bar below the touchpad that you can program to be single or two button (left and right handed). That would be ideal IMO. The OS supports a three button mouse, so the hardware should too.


I'm using iScoll2 on my powerbook, and if I put 2 fingers on the touchpad and click, it gives me the contectual menu. Works very nicely.

[Phoenix007]

I understand what you are saying but what about from the developers point of view?

Lets say benchmarks show that Adobe products run 20% faster under windows than under OS X (an exageration for effect).

Why would Adobe want to spend the extra money, time, and effort to make, test, and market an OS X native version when they can just tell users to use VPC, WINE, or dual boot into windows and run their software better?

Plus, why give more fuel to the fire for the Windows users to have another good reason to use Windows rather than switch to OS X?

I can see for a couple of reasons...

1) People want the choice.

I like OS X, that's why I want to use it. If I'm fine using whatever to get the job done, I can download GIMP and brute force my way through it. Adobe (in particular, but it applies generally) want sales. Long-term sales are generated by pleasing customers. Adobe thinks the market segment is significant to them, if not they would have dropped Apple a long time ago.

2) Can't blame the hardware.

If a given vendor's software runs at significantly different speeds on different OS'es, and not everything else does... well, let's just say that's not a position I want to be in. Customers will hold the software vendors accountable for the performance more on each platform, which is a good thing.

3) Lower cost to support.

Assuming any given company worth it's salt is writing good, portable code, the time/work to support the other platform will be much lower. Granted, it depends on what you are using (say DirectX and CoreImage calls instead of direct OpenGL calls), but having the same basic architecture means less work (e.g., I don't need to support another frigg'n byte order).


Additionally, you are forgetting that while Windows has the larger developer codebase right now, the Intel switch will most likely get more support. I know at our office, I've managed to get corporate commitment to the platform (because of item three above in particular).


Overall, it comes down to if you believe competiton and honest comparison (knowing of course "there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks") are good or not. I think it makes everyone better.

[tristan]

Let's say there's a benchmarking software that is only benchmarking the OS and that benchmarking software shows that OSX is 50% more efficient (another exageration) than Windows. Then there's would be this Adobe app benchmark that shows their Windows version runs 20% faster (your number) than their OSX version -- wouldn't that mean Adobe is making crappy OSX software instead of benefiting from the possibility of 50% more efficient operating system?
I doubt its going to be that cut and dry. You could probably build two Adobe test suites, one in which Windows crushes, one in which OSX crushes, just because you're using a mix of features that happen to be faster in one OS than another. Nobody runs the benchmark all day on their computer, they run random applications with random mixes of features.