A thought about Intel, Apple, Windows, and AMD -

[slooksterPSV]

TOTALLY MY OPINION KNOW THAT

Here's one little theory I have about all of this. The potential for Apple to move to Intel is for speed boost correct? Even with Rosetta in tact the main move to Intel is supposedly supposed to be for speed. Plus the PPC architecture is getting expensive to develop.

Now that we got that part out of the way let's start on the next part.

Windows Vista. Vista is going for some extreme hardware requirements and is using stuff that Mac OS X, Linux, and Unix have been doing for like ever. With those major hardware requirements comes at an expensive cost. Very expensive, for those specs right now, it'd cost you over $5000 (estimated) for everything you'd need. 2GB RAM 256+ MB VRAM at least 4GHz dual core processor. SATA2 HDD, the works.

Anyone see where this is going yet? Didn't think so. Apple is moving towards x86 hardware and is going to support it in their next version of their software.

Mac's aren't that much in cost reference compared to the cost of PC's when Microsoft Vista OS comes out.

Connect you people, damn you connect! Lol ok now I tie it all in.

With the support of Intel on Apple, it's more like a trade off. While High-end users will be able to use Microsoft Vista, people will have a backbone to use while they wait till PC costs come down. They can use Leopard and wait till their hardware is upgraded to use Vista in some sort of way. This is if and only if Microsoft supports Mactels.

I've always wondered if Apple and Microsoft haven't been working together secretly somewhere and this would prove, explain a lot of things if it is/were so true.

EDIT: I've stated a few of my idea's/opinions, and I have no support for them whatsoever, they are just thoughts I've thought about since Apple announced of it.

 

[angelneo]

Have you been watching too many episodes of x-files?

EDIT: you give them too much credit. Where is the moltivation for either of the company to do that?

 

[mcarnes]

Even with Rosetta in tact the main move to Intel is supposedly supposed to be for speed.

intact is one word not two

 

[slooksterPSV]

Ok ok, I'm not going to fix that, but seriously. I've found some things in Apple OS that make me believe that they've taken part in Intel for some while. It's like the iPod. I know why they use Intel processors, cause its a fat32 system. But thats iPod. There are a lot of things that are in Mac OS X that points towards x86 architecture. I'll try and find them again.

 

[dotdotdot]

Vista won't need 256 MB VRAM or a SATA2 HD... a decent video card (64 MB+) and HD (IDE) will work with Vista. The big thing is the processor, which is like minimum 3.2 GHz, and that to play DRM video files, Vista requires a whole new monitor.

 

[walkingmac]

WOAH... dude... slowdown, get off your sugar rush and look at this again. First, Jobs announced the Mac OS X has been living a secret double life since it's conception. Apple had a back up plan in the event that IBM's G5 didn't deliver or some other unforseen event (I think they knew it was inevitable and a good direction ulitmatly). So were Apple and M$ in cahoots? I don't think so. What it takes to run todays incarnation of Mac OS X Tiger is all you should need to run Leopard (should it's trend continue and it would be near suicide not to). On the M$ front however, as you pointed out it will take a machine with a lot more gusto to move it's prairie lovin' doggies along. If nothing it points to a lack of communication between the two and a great market read by Apple to make the move the way they did and are positioning themselves really well to take us into a new era of computing; all on the same platform… for now. So to recap, yes, Mac OS X has always been prepared to be compiled on both PPC and x86 platforms. While Apple and M$ are making great pains to point out they have a great working relationship, I doubt there is some grand conspiracy between them to rape the computing world.

 

[ravenvii]

Ok ok, I'm not going to fix that, but seriously. I've found some things in Apple OS that make me believe that they've taken part in Intel for some while. It's like the iPod. I know why they use Intel processors, cause its a fat32 system. But thats iPod. There are a lot of things that are in Mac OS X that points towards x86 architecture. I'll try and find them again.

Huh? You just discredited yourself there. Filesystems doesn't care what processor it is in the motherboard that the harddrive's connected to. The processor doesn't care what filesystem the harddrive that's connected to the motherboard that it's in is.

FAT32 is a filesystem, in case you didn't know that either.

 

[ReanimationLP]

Vista runs fine for me with all the eyecandy turned on on my 900 Mhz box. x_x

 

[slooksterPSV]

Huh? You just discredited yourself there. Filesystems doesn't care what processor it is in the motherboard that the harddrive's connected to. The processor doesn't care what filesystem the harddrive that's connected to the motherboard that it's in is.

FAT32 is a filesystem, in case you didn't know that either.

I know FAT32 is a file system just like FAT12, FAT16, HFS+, HFS, UFS, etc. and the list goes on. But I know why they chose intel processors for the iPods - cheaper and smaller to fit. That makes sense.

 

[iMeowbot]

Ok ok, I'm not going to fix that, but seriously. I've found some things in Apple OS that make me believe that they've taken part in Intel for some while. It's like the iPod. I know why they use Intel processors, cause its a fat32 system.

Huh? No iPod uses an Intel processor, and only the Shuffle models are hard-coded to use FAT32 (for which OS X already had full support on PowerPC).

ARM came from Acorn, and even the Xscale series is based on designs Intel bought from DEC.

 

[walkingmac]

Huh? No iPod uses an Intel processor, and only the Shuffle models are hard-coded to use FAT32 (for which OS X already had full support on PowerPC).

ARM came from Acorn, and even the Xscale series is based on designs Intel bought from DEC.

thanx, I wasn't sure where he was coming from with that. I knew it didn't make sense but didn't have all the facts. Honestly, this guy is talking about of his a$$. He doesn't seem to know what he talking about and at every turn is discrediting himself as everyone is pointing out.
Dude, get your facts straight, read a few articles about what you are trying to say and then start asking more informed questions.

 

[belvdr]

TOTALLY MY OPINION KNOW THAT

Here's one little theory I have about all of this. The potential for Apple to move to Intel is for speed boost correct? Even with Rosetta in tact the main move to Intel is supposedly supposed to be for speed. Plus the PPC architecture is getting expensive to develop.

Honestly I believe the whole reason to go x86 is because IBM can't get their G5 within specs for a mobile processor, such as heat, current, etc. The G4 is aging and the next logical step is the G5, but since IBM can't get that working, they have to turn somewhere. And since OS X has been working on Intel since it's inception, it's an easy move for Apple.

 

[walkingmac]

Honestly I believe the whole reason to go x86 is because IBM can't get their G5 within specs for a mobile processor, such as heat, current, etc. The G4 is aging and the next logical step is the G5, but since IBM can't get that working, they have to turn somewhere. And since OS X has been working on Intel since it's inception, it's an easy move for Apple.

Tru tru... not to mention IBM could not seem to get a faster processor for Apple, but they seemed to bend over backward for M$ new SuxBox. I'd say I would want to cut ties with them too.

 

[greatdevourer]

extreme hardware requirements and is using stuff that Mac OS X, Linux, and Unix have been doing for like ever

Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Tiger runs on a 120Mhz 604e and you can get BSD on 68030s (maybe even lower). Linux is almost as low. If this is extremely high, then wtf is low?

I know why they use Intel processors, cause its a fat32 system

1) My iPod is HFS
2) You really don't know very much, do you? Processor arch does not dicate what FSs it can use

ARM came from...

Just down the road, in Cherry Hinton

 

[BGil]

Vista won't need 256 MB VRAM or a SATA2 HD... a decent video card (64 MB+) and HD (IDE) will work with Vista. The big thing is the processor, which is like minimum 3.2 GHz, and that to play DRM video files, Vista requires a whole new monitor.

You don't need a 64mb video card to run Vista. It works just fine with old DX7 integrated graphics. Likewise, you don't need a proc that fast either. IIRC the recommended minimum (not minimum requirements) for Beta 1 was a 1ghz P3 class proc.

I bet Vista will actually be a lot faster than XP (and obviously OS X) because of it's win2k3 codebase and various improvements like superfetch.

 

[DeathChill]

See this is where all the horrible rumours start. Do you REALLY think Microsoft would cut off a WHOLE group of customers (mainly the non-upgrading types) for a group of customers who'll probably pirate it? I've seen no official requirements for Vista's final shipping version so let's not speculate. We already know that there's different levels of eye candy and if your PC doesn't support it then that eye candy is disabled (ala Core Image in Tiger).

 

[im_to_hyper]

I really don't forsee Windows Vista's hardware being that much. I use WindowsBlinds on my Toshiba and right now my computer looks identical to Vista... save for the fact my theme has no transparancy

Anyway, Vista vs. Leopard should be equal competitors graphically and hardware-requiremently.

Keep in mind, the Mac minis and iBooks will probably be using a Celeron processor --- nothing too fancy.

 

[slooksterPSV]

Wow I see a lot of errors in what I wrote, sorry guys. I was on a sugar high that night -- too much pepsi in the body --. Anyways an Admin can trash this post. OS X, I didn't mean had extreme hardware requirements
the reason I said Intel XScale on iPod is cause its cheaper than putting in a G3 or pre-G3 processor - considering voltage - at least that's what I'm getting out of it.
Like I said, I was on a way high sugar high. Sorry

 

[840quadra]

I bet Vista will actually be a lot faster than XP (and obviously OS X) because of it's win2k3 codebase and various improvements like superfetch.

Obviously?

Please explain.

 

[greatdevourer]

Obviously?

Please explain.

Hmm... yeah... Why would being faster than XP be faster than X? It's the same principle as "So what if the fat kid lost 3lbs? He's still fat"

 

[BGil]

Hmm... yeah... Why would being faster than XP be faster than X? It's the same principle as "So what if the fat kid lost 3lbs? He's still fat"

Because it's always been faster and the latest releases from Microsoft have only been getting faster. Scrolling, window resizing, and app launching has always been faster on Windows. There's not a single app on my Mac or any Mac I've ever seen that can launch as fast as Paint, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, or IE on my PC. Obviously games in DirectX are faster than their OpenGL OS X ports but even the OpenGL stuff runs far better on Windows. Look at the Cinebench scores, specifically the hardware accelerated scores. Even lowend PC's can beat the fastest Mac with the fastest video card.
Look at the Doom3 scores or any other openGL app (maya). Pretty much the only thing that runs as fast on Mac as it does on PC is Quake 3, a few handpicked Photoshop filters, Nightflight, and Bryce.

Now, Microsoft has 64-bit, NUMA, the Win2k3 codebase, superfetch, DX10, and a whole host of other improvements. Windows is getting faster and faster while the speed improvements in OS X seemed to have stopped with Panther. Not to mention that 64-bit supposedly slows OS X applications down.

 

[zap2]

what kind of Mac were u using G3 vs some super AMD?
plus IE is crap, i dont care how fast it is opening, it does not even have tab-broswing. Come On MS> in a year+ IE gets it

 

[greatdevourer]

what kind of Mac were u using G3 vs some super AMD?
plus IE is crap, i dont care how fast it is opening, it does not even have tab-broswing. Come On MS> in a year+ IE gets it

Heh, yeah. My Cube (450Mhz 7400) beats my bro's PC (2.8Ghz Prescott) in boot times, app loading and general responsiveness. Plus, my Cube keeps on chugging away without the need to stop for a crash-break every half hour

 

[BGil]

Heh, yeah. My Cube (450Mhz 7400) beats my bro's PC (2.8Ghz Prescott) in boot times, app loading and general responsiveness. Plus, my Cube keeps on chugging away without the need to stop for a crash-break every half hour

That's probably because his PC is loaded with so much addon crap that it takes forever too boot. That's why I hate Dell, HP, sony etc. they put so much stuff on the machine it runs like crap.

I guarentee you your machine doesn't boot or have the responsiveness or a well-made machine like the one in my sig or a Sager, Alienware, Falcon-NW, CyberPower, Asus, or Acer.

I can launch Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Paint, and IE before a dual processor G5 can load Safari and text edit. Those apps all load instantly on my PC.

And lets no even get into how much faster Macromedia programs launch.

 

[greatdevourer]

I guarentee you your machine doesn't boot or have the responsiveness or a well-made machine like the one in my sig or a Sager, Alienware, Falcon-NW, CyberPower, Asus, or Acer.

What's the boot time of your machine?