Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
gnasher729 said:
You are confusing a few things here: Logical address space available to one process, virtual address space available to the operating system, and addressable RAM.

The G4 processor supports up to 4 GB logical address space per process in theory, less in practice, for example 3 GB. The virtual address space is 2^52 bytes (4 million gigabytes), so the processor could in theory run one million processes of that size; your swap file wouldn't quite make it because your harddisk is too small. But you can run two or three apps, each using 2.5 GB of virtual memory, on a G4, and it will work; it will just be very slow. The G4 can address 64 GB of RAM. Not 4 GB, but 64 GB. Apple never built any G4 computers that would accept more than 4 GB, but the processor does actually support 64 GB of memory. (The G5 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM, which might become relevant ten years from now).

Theory meet reality..

"512MB of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 SDRAM expandable to 2GB"

I'm fairly positive, if you want more than 2gb of ram you should stick to the G5 until the new intel 64 bit cores become availible.

EDIT: More physical RAm may be possible, but Apple does not appear to publish the limitations of this current port of Darwin: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4009
 
nagromme said:
Why the early update on the iMac?

a) It's a top seller.

b) To keep up with the new MacBooks!

Now you can see why the low-end (iBook, Mac Mini) could NOT have transitioned first. But a new Mac Mini and low-end laptops can't be TOO far off :)

The quad G5 is still a great system, but it will be weird to see it stand alone on PPC (at least briefly) this year. I'm not surprised the transition started today--it's what I always expected. But I MIGHT be surprised by how quickly the transition finishes...

Wow. Mammals.org is totally bogged down. ("What's an Intel chip doing in a Mac? A whole lot more that it's ever done in a PC." Ouch. "Wishes do come true." Ha!)

C) more likely to be used with games and Professional Apps than the Mini, so it gives the developers more of a tranistion to get their Apps intel compatible.
 
aafuss1 said:
I'm suprised that Apple finally supports screen spanning on the iMac. A mini-DVI port is a nice touch, as is the X1600 GPU.

Probably uses the 945 Express chipset.

I would have expected Apple to use the 3945ABG for wireless, but we still have AE.

I wouldn't put it past Apple to still be using their own chipsets.
 
What happen to the 64bits Hype ?

With all the announcements, what happened with the 32bits - 64bits battle

I am just curious to see if the move to intel is an actual step backwards in term of performance as Intel seems to have issues with the 64bits transition...

G5 (64b) vs Intel ( ??? 32/64?)
 
Damn. I was really hoping the Mini would be one of the first to go intel, then I could pair it with one of those gorgeous 23" Cinema Displays. I am also somewhat disappointed that they didn't do anything to tweak the look of the iMac- ie bring the height down to make it look more like a picture frame. Is there some reason why they couldn't make the iMac still thinner and smaller now that they don't have the heat issues with the G5?

Now I'm torn between waiting still longer for my dream system which would include a 23" Cinema and an Intel based Mini (MacNano?) or buying one of those bulky 20" iMacs. But what if they dumb down the Mini too much with a single core Intel whatever, and a crappy video chip? Now if they would only release a 23" iMac....
 
lostit said:
With all the announcements, what happened with the 32bits - 64bits battle

I am just curious to see if the move to intel is an actual step backwards in term of performance as Intel seems to have issues with the 64bits transition...

G5 (64b) vs Intel ( ??? 32/64?)

The iMac can't carry enough RAM to make use of 64bits.
 
64bits intel mac ?

BenRoethig said:
The iMac can't carry enough RAM to make use of 64bits.

YEah! But what about the Pro-line and Xserve Line ? They would surely use it. Does that also means having pro-apps non compatible with user workstation like the imac ? I don't see the move here....

Are we going to live the 64 bits transition next year ? AS HDTV involves and apps hungry will come up , does intel has a smooth plan for migrating into the 64 bits world ?


:eek:
 
lostit said:
With all the announcements, what happened with the 32bits - 64bits battle

I am just curious to see if the move to intel is an actual step backwards in term of performance as Intel seems to have issues with the 64bits transition...

G5 (64b) vs Intel ( ??? 32/64?)


I think thats why you have seen the introduction of this processor in Macs that are not really in a position to leverage the 64 bit computing world anyways. The really telling factor will be when Apple releases their desktops and servers... hopefully they DO use a 64 bit chip in those lines going forward...
 
Yonah ? 32 or 64 in Pro-line ?

Sunrunner said:
I think thats why you have seen the introduction of this processor in Macs that are not really in a position to leverage the 64 bit computing world anyways. The really telling factor will be when Apple releases their desktops and servers... hopefully they DO use a 64 bit chip in those lines going forward...

YEah but do they have the binary compatibility ? Does that means that Developer will have to develop 64 AND 32bits versions ?

I think Apple will suffer in 3 to 4 years pretty badly. In the short term , yes, faster and maybe less heating machine. But they better have a plan for that transition soon...
 
step back carm down and look at the facts

Yestaday I was so happy to see the new machines, but I am so sad to see apple backwards step on it 64bit processor, I think a dual core g5 in the imac would still out perform the intel. The ppc is a great processor, just look at the supercomputers few g5 against amd and intel with higher clock speeds still did not come close. Shame IBM produced dual 3.2 Ghz for Microsoft for the xbox 360, with has 3 such cheaps (faster than any PC ever built, PS3 is even faster).

Apple had a great push into the science communtity with the G5 64bit, and the last year, it seems they have turned they back on them. xserve and powermac no longer being pushed as the flagship of die hard business macs. the quad was launch but has not in you face boast power, even though it is, apple seems that ipods are everything. I think the money is getting to the pockets then straight to the head.

I will wait until I see a 64bit dual core in a mac then I will spend my hard erned money. I my guess the time they come to market apple may be a blip in the past.

I seeing the future for home computers as HDTV/ large LCD for monitors with a games system, that not only out perform any PC every built, but can run and do all the apps for image and video, have the home enterainment (I am a retired speller so please no comments I know).

I am work around young americans which live for free on the government and have lots of cash to spend (military). they seem don't care about apple/microsoft, they care about games, internet, making movies and photos. This is the home future, they do all what apple want to do, but not on the mac or with the qualitity of a mac (most have ipods though), but they see the future, no PC it as games sytem that will replace it all, download movies, songs, sync with ipod / cell phone gps. surf web, load pictures, the new play hd dvds they new gerneration of game console includes a jump to the home media, wifi, hdtv, hddvd, blue tooth, usb, internet. The tv supports with hdtv enough resolution 1080i? 13XX by 768 resolution is enougth for the web and i see this tv moving to a high resolution in the future.

SO apple get with the game, you have IPOD, you have Microosft Office, you have lots of APPS which rule the digital hub(damm you created it). Top Games, so dump the imac what ever processor and push for a dam apple games HDTV all in one tv which is imac/TV mutliprocessor ( at least 6 cores) to compete in the new upcoming market which is heading to steal the your home market. Google see it, microsoft sees it and sony sees it. Apple you have such great partners to bring along which complete you like canon, even sony will help( it all money), and take this market.

Mark my words 10 years this it the future. I spent many years working in future technology, prototyping future device for a major cell phone company building phones which have features still not on the mark. I never thought I saw the end of the PC / home computer it seem to have the power that nothing else could compete with. yes you say low memory I say next gen of console will support more

that is enough of this book sorry, I will vent all other thoughts to my cats, or get a therpist:eek:
 
lostit said:
YEah! But what about the Pro-line and Xserve Line ? They would surely use it. Does that also means having pro-apps non compatible with user workstation like the imac ? I don't see the move here....

Are we going to live the 64 bits transition next year ? AS HDTV involves and apps hungry will come up , does intel has a smooth plan for migrating into the 64 bits world ?


:eek:

The "Pro" lineup of PowerMac's and XServes will probably go intel once the new intel chips are ready. The Merom will be the basis of all intel chips once they ramp up production later this year. They will support 64bits as well as pack the best perfocmance and performace per watt than any other general purpose processor to date.
 
munkees said:
Yestaday I was so happy to see the new machines, but I am so sad to see apple backwards step on it 64bit processor, I think a dual core g5 in the imac would still out perform the intel. The ppc is a great processor, just look at the supercomputers few g5 against amd and intel with higher clock speeds still did not come close. Shame IBM produced dual 3.2 Ghz for Microsoft for the xbox 360, with has 3 such cheaps (faster than any PC ever built, PS3 is even faster).
The Cell processor is great for gaming systems, but of no use in personal computers. That's why there is not a single company making a Cell-based PC, in spite of their low cost and high clock speeds. Remember, clock speed isn't everything; the number of instructions/processes per cycle is becoming more important, which is why lower-clocked chips are now outperforming higher-clocked chips.
 
Did the startup chime change?

I know this is trival. But has anyone who has seen the new Intel macs know if the startup chime has changed?
 
I feel bad for some of you. But for some of you who said you listened to Apple 'employees' -- aka crater faced teenagers at the Apple Stores -- you have no one to blame yourself. Seek your own information instead of from someone who goes home to World of Warcraft and reruns of Battlestar Gallatica every night.
 
RichP said:
Looks like Appleinsder was right months ago: (Nov '05)

~Shard~ said:
Even a blind chicken finds a kernel of corn now and then... :p ;) :cool:
I guess ThinkSecret is the blind chicken that got it's head cut off, because they didn't find a single piece of corn! Media Mac Mini? Intel iBooks? iPod shuffle even? That's it. from now on I'm subscribing to Steve's Super Secret rumor podcast. :D
 
I got to do a little speed test, sort of. At MacWorld they wouldn't let me physically touch the new iMac, but one of the employees tried what I asked.

One of the things I just went though a new iMac G5 w/isight is transcoding all my apple lossless files to 128k AAC so my wife could use them on her new nano. I had over 15,000 songs to transcord, so the idea that I could have done this 2-3 times faster, seemed upsetting. Well, the good news is that the new iMac transcoded at the exact same speed, if not slower.

On my iMac, I get anywhere from 16x - 24x for transcoding and their machine showed 16x - 19x. It's hard to tell from just one file and if anything else running could have slowed it down but I thought I'd see it transcode at 40x at the slowest.

I know this test doesn't show much, but I'm quite happy with my so called "outdated" machine and at least not everything is twice as fast like they claim.
 
whadya mean

Whadya mean they wouldn't let you touch them?

I was on them for about 20 minutes doing whatever I wanted. Converting, testing core temp, opening photoshop, converting music

making mp3's, ripping dvds, etc.

Browser seemed fine, iphoto seemed fast.
the only strange thing i noticed was that the iwork booth was populated ONLY with G4 powerbooks. No G5 imac, intel imac or macbooks.
 
tivoboy said:
Whadya mean they wouldn't let you touch them?

I was on them for about 20 minutes doing whatever I wanted. Converting, testing core temp, opening photoshop, converting music

making mp3's, ripping dvds, etc.

Browser seemed fine, iphoto seemed fast.
the only strange thing i noticed was that the iwork booth was populated ONLY with G4 powerbooks. No G5 imac, intel imac or macbooks.

Did they let you try to install Windows? :D
 
tivoboy said:
Whadya mean they wouldn't let you touch them?

I was on them for about 20 minutes doing whatever I wanted. Converting, testing core temp, opening photoshop, converting music

making mp3's, ripping dvds, etc.

Browser seemed fine, iphoto seemed fast.
the only strange thing i noticed was that the iwork booth was populated ONLY with G4 powerbooks. No G5 imac, intel imac or macbooks.


Yeah, I have no idea why he would let me play around with it. I noticed most of the iMacs had the people in black controlling them and telling people how great they were but there were a few machines with people on them.

I think when I mentioned I just bought one before the change he probably felt he needed to protect the machine and sensed a little bit of anger coming from me. He wanted to show me how snappy the new machine was without pissing me off too bad.

Testing iphoto would not be good since the 06 version is supposed to be quicker anyway and you wouldn't know if it's the machine or the program.

What I realy want to test is Aperture when it converts over. That's the only program I use on my iMac that could run faster. I'm sure some upgrades will improve it's performance anyway since I hear a lot of people complain it's a little slow even on the dual macs.

edit: They had iWork loaded on the iMac I was using (I'm mean the employee was using). I didn't have him try anything. I don't know much about the program.
 
Stupid apple, if they wanted to stay on top they should have included the 2.8 GHZ Core Duo chip Sossaman. It has a 800 Mhz FSB to boot. This would have been much better.
 
DVK916 said:
Stupid apple, if they wanted to stay on top they should have included the 2.8 GHZ Core Duo chip Sossaman. It has a 800 Mhz FSB to boot. This would have been much better.

Will you people stop complaning....Apple went from 1.67Ghz SC G4 to 1.83Ghz DC Yonah
 
Platform said:
Will you people stop complaning....Apple went from 1.67Ghz SC G4 to 1.83Ghz DC Yonah

But they could have went to the 2.8 Ghz Yonah/Sossaman
 
DVK916 said:
But they could have went to the 2.8 Ghz Yonah/Sossaman

Why can't everyone just be happy for Apple? They're making a big transition right now and I am pretty sure that it is not easy for them. A 2.0 GHz Yonah is pretty damn good as it is. Sure there are more powerful CPUs out there, but come on now. We're talking about a dual-core processor inside of an iMac. An iMac! This is something I expect for a Power Mac configuration, but having it in the iMac... you have to admit, that's pretty awesome of Apple.

Things are great right now, but give it time. Things will get even better in the coming months. After all, we did just begin the transition.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.