Apple Releases Core 2 Duo iMac, Adds 24" Model

[AidenShaw]

I'll take this one

64-bit support in Leopard (not Tiger) is superior to Windows, for both users and developers, in the following ways:

1. 64-bit support is standard and non-optional with every Leopard installation. Vista is 32-bit normally, and only if you CHOOSE a different version to install will you get 64-bit support. (Same as with the old XP.)

Microsoft is currently packaging 32-bit and 64-bit installation kits as separate discs, true. The discs could be combined to make a dual-architecture installation, but that was not done.

Many applications for Windows, however, are including both x86 and x64 binaries in the same kit, and choosing the right one.

Apple's solution is cleaner, to be sure. But is it really that big a deal considering the pace of the 64-bit ramp up?

This means a Mac developer's 64-bit efforts will "just work" on any 64-bit Mac, while a Windows developer has to face that many people won't be able to run 64-bit software EVEN if they have 64-bit hardware!

For the applications that really need 64-bit, this is a concern. The installation program could simply give a message that "Your processor supports 64-bit, but you are running a 32-bit O/S. For better performance...".

2. On a 64-bit Mac, Leopard also runs 32-but apps at full speed and without emulation. Most apps don't need 64 bits, most apps are 32-bit, and so 32-bit apps should not be second-class citizens. In Vista, they are. Vista 64-bit requires emulation (a layer called Windows on Windows) to run 32-bit apps. That's right--this means MOST Windows apps will run in emulation under Vista. Unless you give up all 64-bit support.

Windows on Windows runs at full speed on Vista x64 as well - there is no emulation of the instruction set.

WoW64 emulation is performed natively (on the chip) by the x64 micro-architecture, which means WoW64 performance on x64 is similar to that of 32-bit Windows

http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/04/24/582091.aspx​

This "OMG it's emulated" is the biggest crock of FUD around. Note this picture from http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html :

Note that the "second-class" WOW run did 461 frames per second, and the "first-class" 32-bit on 32-bit run did 462 frames per second.

And worst of all:

3. 64-bit Vista can emulate only 32-bit apps--not 32-bit drivers. Their dual 64/32-bit support only goes so far.

Truly a bit of pain, but Vista will have much wider support for 64-bit drivers, and after a transition period the number of old devices will be few and far between. (Don't Apple fans always claim that PCs only last 2 years ?)

Leopard on the other hand supports 64-bit and 32-bit code as equal citizens from the ground up--as OS X has long been designed to do. That means current 32-bit drivers run fine in Leopard.

I've never seen Apple make this statement about Leopard. Can you please point me to public documents from Apple which say that they will be able to do this on Intel systems?

The reason I'm questioning this is that 32-bit mode on an x64 system is both a subset and a superset of 64-bit mode. You can't simply start executing 32-bit code while running in 64-bit mode.

 

[thedonga]

I agree. Because there is always a chance that Apple will update the iMac line ONE WEEK after they release new ones.

Of course my iMac wouldn't have shipped by then so I'd be automagically updated anyway.

maybe not an iMac.....but quite possibly something even cooler than the 24" everyone is drooling over now.

 

[tiramisu]

what 'bout pros?

i really wounder why apple does not update the flagships like macbook pro and mac pro first.

normaly this is a clever way. the pros are happy and get the latest stuff and the consumers have something to look up to.

the pros may not make apple directly rich, but keeps the brand up and make the differents to dell and the other craps.

while consumer products like imac and macbook pro are affordable,
which is good. on the other hand the quality aspect is going down pretty much, which is not ok for pros (as you might guess).

 

[~Shard~]

hey, i just realized that you're that dirty dell lover aren't you? why do you hang around here again?

Nope, not me - you have me confused with someone else. Never liked Dells, never will. My heart is Apple-shaped.

Now take back that insult!

 

[nagromme]

I've never seen Apple make this statement about Leopard. Can you please point me to public documents from Apple which say that they will be able to do this on Intel systems?

Absolutely, it has been reported from WWDC. Feel free to Google. Or choose to believe it is not so, and that 32-bit drivers will fail under 64-bit Leopard as they do with Vista

But in any case, thanks for the clarifications. Vista's 64-bit support is clearly still inferior to Leopard's in significant ways, affecting both users and developers, but with a little hassle and incompatibility, some of these problems can sometimes be worked around somewhat, as you describe

 

[singersongwrite]

I ordered my last night and I need to wait till the 15th for it to ship... I opted for faster shipping because of the long initial wait... all we do is wait... wait for announcements and then wait for new toys...

Good news for you and good luck too...

yesterday mine said it wouldn't ship til the 12th, then this morning i got a shipping notice---maybe yours will be sooner too---good luck!!!

 

[singersongwrite]

Nope, not me - you have me confused with someone else. Never liked Dells, never will. My heart is Apple-shaped.

Now take back that insult!

My deepest apologies! LONG LIVE APPLE!

 

[Richter]

I do a lot of 3D modling, how much of a difference will there be between the x1600 & the 7300gt?

is $250 for a faster CPU worth it?

 

[singersongwrite]

personally I think everyone is crazy for ordering something prior to next tuesday...

no worries, i'll use my new 24" imac to
order anything i HAVE to have on tuesday!

 

[DavidLeblond]

maybe not an iMac.....but quite possibly something even cooler than the 24" everyone is drooling over now.

Like...?

And don't say "Headless prosumer machine" because I think thats been beaten to death.

 

[thedonga]

Like...?

And don't say "Headless prosumer machine" because I think thats been beaten to death.

I don't know what is going to come out on tuesday, but if it's nothing I can still order the 24" then. If I order the 24" now I might be kicking myself in the ass come Tuesday afternoon....
Personally I am a little turned off by the pva panel in the iMac, I was hoping for the 23" ips. I know the pva is not a very good panel for photo work.

 

[balamw]

And don't say "Headless prosumer machine" because I think thats been beaten to death.

Powerbook G5? Tablet Mac?

B

 

[AidenShaw]

Absolutely, it has been reported from WWDC. Feel free to Google.

All the reports stem from the same bullet on the Powerpoint:

"Leopard takes 64-bit computing to the next level, while maintaining full performance and compatibility for your existing 32-bit applications and drivers."​

I was looking for something a bit more enlightening

 

[Bengt77]

Guru of 3D Nvidia 7X00 series GPU review.

If anyone wants to know how the BTO GeForce 7600GT in the 24" iMac stacks up against the X1600XT in the 17" and 20" models, Guru of 3D has done a really nice and extensive review. You can find the benchmark results beginning at this page. Seems that the Nvidia card is quite a step up from the ATI one. Especially if you consider that the ATI card in the iMacs is actually a downclocked mobile GPU. So yeah, I'd say the 24" iMac packs a whole lot more punch in the graphics department than the 17" and 20" models do.


Of note is this paragraph in the conclusion of the article/review:

But let's leave that for what it is, the mid-range GeForce 7600 GT is fighting against a class of cards that it should not be fighting as the card is often darn close to the Radeon X1800 XL and NVIDIA's own GeForce 7800 GT unless you start using AA and AF modes after which it'll drop back to GeForce 6800 GS and 6800 GT performance. But then again, Quake 4 at 34 frames per second at 1920x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF... for less than 200 bucks yeah, this is a b-e-autiful product for sure.

Nice!

Then, also of note, is this sentence in this review at TechSpot of the GeForce 7300GT:

But then, there is still the question, should you purchase two GeForce 7300GT cards to overclock and run them in SLI? The cost of two 7300GT cards or a single 7600GT is roughly the same, and the performance is close.

Well, that definitely answers the question of wether to go for the 7300GT or the 7600GT!

So... maybe that iMac in my sig was just hoping for too much. I'll definitely wait to see what Next Tuesday™ will bring us (still hoping for the Mac Pro mini), but if nothing interesting is released, then the 24" iMac will be my next computer. With the GeForce 7600GT, of course!

 

[blackstarliner]

I do a lot of 3D modling

sure you do....

 

[nagromme]

All the reports stem from the same bullet on the Powerpoint:

"Leopard takes 64-bit computing to the next level, while maintaining full performance and compatibility for your existing 32-bit applications and drivers."​

I was looking for something a bit more enlightening

Then you have already quoted "drivers"--thanks for the reference

Of course the other obvious evidence is the fact that no 32-bit-only version of Leopard exists Which means developers would already know first-hand if Apple was fibbing about driver support.

 

[flopticalcube]

If anyone wants to know how the BTO GeForce 7600GT in the 24" iMac stacks up against the X1600XT in the 17" and 20" models, Guru of 3D has done a really nice and extensive review. You can find the benchmark results beginning at this page. Seems that the Nvidia card is quite a step up from the ATI one. Especially if you consider that the ATI card in the iMacs is actually a downclocked mobile GPU. So yeah, I'd say the 24" iMac packs a whole lot more punch in the graphics department than the 17" and 20" models do.

Superb! So the XT1600 is about = to a 7300GT and about 1/2 perf of an XT1800/7600GT which is about half again of an XT1900 in real world gaming.

Does anyone know if the video memory is user upgradeable?

 

[Snide]

I have to confess that even though the new Intel iMacs are sorely tempting, I've never been happier with my G5 from last year and see no immediate reason to switch now versus waiting.

I hear ya brother. I have a 20" rev B G5 that I paid $1800 in May of '05.
I bought Applecare for it right before the 1st year was up ($120.00 on-line).
It still churns away dutifully and does its job quite well. The screen is still just
as gorgoeus as when new. While it's nice to know I can now get a 20" iMac that
can utterly clean my baby's clock in every regard––and is $300 less––I shall
remain faithful at least as long as the Applecare lasts.

Of course, that all might change in an instant when I see the 24" in person.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I've never seen Apple make this statement about Leopard. Can you please point me to public documents from Apple which say that they will be able to do this on Intel systems?

Well, I have heard from a personally-known developer source that HP scanner 32-bit PowerPC drivers run just fine in the Leopard Preview on a Mac Pro. So not only are they 32-bit, but they're emulated, at that. (32-bit Intel-native printer drivers work, too.)

The reason I'm questioning this is that 32-bit mode on an x64 system is both a subset and a superset of 64-bit mode. You can't simply start executing 32-bit code while running in 64-bit mode.

I fully understand your frustration. I wish I knew how Apple was doing this. They seem to be implying that they can have 32-bit code running alongside 64-bit code with no mode-switching, and no 'thunking' penalty to the 64-bit apps. But they haven't said outright that the 64-bit apps will continue to run full speed; or that there is no penalty at all.

The only theory I can come up with (I'm not a programmer, so I don't even know if this is possible; but I do know the hardware really well,) is that since all 64-bit Intel systems Apple ships will be dual-core or better, they will thunk ONE (or more, if you try to run multithreaded 32-bit apps on a 4 core system,) core to 32-bit mode as needed, while running the other core(s) at 64-bit.

 

[Snide]

The 20" is also upgradable to 256 ATI X1600 card for only $75 - not only the 23".

That's the 2nd time you've referred to the 24" as the 23"

 

[aswitcher]

Of course, that all might change in an instant when I see the 24" in person.

Selling with Applecare on it now would get you a fair bit more than without it in 2 years. But by then we will have 8 cores or more...

 

[50548]

I'll take this one

64-bit support in Leopard (not Tiger) is superior to Windows, for both users and developers, in the following ways:

1. 64-bit support is standard and non-optional with every Leopard installation. Vista is 32-bit normally, and only if you CHOOSE a different version to install will you get 64-bit support. (Same as with the old XP.) This means a Mac developer's 64-bit efforts will "just work" on any 64-bit Mac, while a Windows developer has to face that many people won't be able to run 64-bit software EVEN if they have 64-bit hardware! A huge barrier to adopting 64-bit computing in the Windows world. So, why would any Vista user NOT choose the 64-bit install? Well aside from people not understanding the difference between the installs and not bothering (an issue that doesn't exist for Macs), and aside from PCs shipping with the 32-bit version pre-installed despite the 64-bit chip inside, there are the following problems:

2. On a 64-bit Mac, Leopard also runs 32-but apps at full speed and without emulation. Most apps don't need 64 bits, most apps are 32-bit, and so 32-bit apps should not be second-class citizens. In Vista, they are. Vista 64-bit requires emulation (a layer called Windows on Windows) to run 32-bit apps. That's right--this means MOST Windows apps will run in emulation under Vista. Unless you give up all 64-bit support. And worst of all:

3. 64-bit Vista can emulate only 32-bit apps--not 32-bit drivers. Their dual 64/32-bit support only goes so far. Leopard on the other hand supports 64-bit and 32-bit code as equal citizens from the ground up--as OS X has long been designed to do. That means current 32-bit drivers run fine in Leopard. Not so with 64-bit Vista. If you choose the 64-bit install for Vista, you must give up any hardware that doesn't have re-written ("signed") 64-bit drivers. That's a lot of hardware headaches for users and developers alike. On a Mac, if a driver doesn't NEED 64-bit functionality, it can keep on running as it always has--at full speed and fully compatible.

Thus the benefits of a through ground-up 64-bit solution like Leopard vs. a halfway compromise like Vista.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33666

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Leopard-Quad-Universal-Vista-One-Trick-Pony-32912.shtml

"Note that the non-emulated support in OSX is for applications and drivers. 32-bit programs on Vista 64 need to work on WOW emulation to run in Vista, and 32-bit drivers are a no-no. Lack of driver support is the main reason Windows XP x64 hasn't been widely adopted, and why the Vista fudge will ensure hardware incompatibilities between the two Windows versions remain for sometime to come."


Also of note: UNLESS Vista users install the optional (and less compatible) 64-bit version, they will not be able to play high-definition movie discs:

http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne...other-feature-full-hd-playback-in-32bit-vista

"PC users will now have to choose between a PC that can play high definition content (64 bit) versus one that can potentially run older devices that only have unsigned drivers available (32 bit)."

Ouch.

EDIT: See next post for more clarification on the movie thing.

Thanks, Nagromme...I was going to post roughly the same stuff, but the wine I drunk tonight with friends blocked me from doing that...the funniest thing is to see Mr. Shaw and the Windows fanclub trying to debunk what cannot be debunked...64-bit support in Windows sucks, and will suck even more when the final version of Leopard is unveiled...thanks very much for adding this post...

 

[Butthead]

GAH!

Video memory alone does NOTHING to boost resolution any more. The highest resolution display currently on the market is a WQUXGA monitor, made by Viewsonic and Iiyama for IBM. At a resolution of 3840 x 2400, this has 9.2 million pixels, or FOUR times Apple's 23/24" monitors. At 32-bit color, this is 4 bytes per pixel, or 36,864,000 bytes of video memory needed. Even a 64 MB video card could run it just fine (assuming it had dual dual-link DVI ports.) In fact, the video card supplied with the monitor, a Matrox G200MMS-Quad, included specifically to run this monitor (because no other cards could at the time,) only came with 32 MB of RAM! (It ran in 24-bit color mode, which only requires 27,648,000 bytes of video RAM. Which, for the most part, is indistinguishable from 32-bit color mode.)

JVC has a 50in LCD annouced for $10k, that is 4k res., not sure what you use to drive it to full res though.

Anything beyond that is used for 3D functions, such as textures, double-buffering, and other 3D things. It doesn't even necessarily help with frame rate, it all depends on the game's texture needs. If a game doesn't load very many textures into video RAM, it won't help at all. For really complex texture games like Doom 3 or Quake 4 (which have 'super-extreme' settings made for 512 MB cards that didn't even exist when they were released!) it will help.

A 128 MB video card can run two 1980x1200 displays (the internal on the 24", plus an external) just fine out of the box. The memory buys you 3D extras. (Although, often, video cards with more memory are also faster clocked. But I haven't seen confirmation of this for the iMac.)

So by implication then- the 2.16Ghz 15in MBP (GPU underclocked on the 15 presumably for heat reasons, but not on the 17) & 17in MBP have 256MB of vid mem. for gameboys? ...seeing that the 128MB GPU has dual link support for the 30in CD. Bameboy xSTLx will be really happy to know that.
So then I could plug in my MBP to a 50in JVC 4k res, LCD; if I had deep pockets, and had the right adapter connectors...cool!

 

[kadajawi]

JVC has a 50in LCD annouced for $10k, that is 4k res., not sure what you use to drive it to full res though.

The RED Digital Cinema Camera has 4k res, so I guess with that one...

@ehurtley: I think I recall that under Gentoo Linux you could run a 64 bit system, with parts of the system compiled under 32 bit too, so you could run 32 bit apps? Don't know if that makes sense though.

Or maybe Apple uses emulation just like Rosetta?

That you're able to run PPC drivers would be great... sounds fine

 

[QCassidy352]

If anyone wants to know how the BTO GeForce 7600GT in the 24" iMac stacks up against the X1600XT in the 17" and 20" models, Guru of 3D has done a really nice and extensive review. You can find the benchmark results beginning at this page. Seems that the Nvidia card is quite a step up from the ATI one. Especially if you consider that the ATI card in the iMacs is actually a downclocked mobile GPU. So yeah, I'd say the 24" iMac packs a whole lot more punch in the graphics department than the 17" and 20" models do.

thanks for that. I'm now even more appalled that apple kept the x1600 in the 17" and 20" imacs. I mean, it gets killed.