Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Intel Move... Early Details and Notes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
sacear said:
I will bet anyone on this board $1 buck that they drop the Power monikor for the Intel powermacs/powerbooks but keep the iMac/eMac. Perhaps they'll call them ProMac.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
Platform said:
Apple has, at minimum, one more revision of every Mac on PowerPC before they go to Intel. My guess on processors for the next revision:
PowerMac G5 @ 3 GHz (970mp?)
PowerBook G4 @ 1.8 GHz
iBook G4 @ 1.67 GHz
iMac G5 @ G5 2.3 GHz
eMac G4 @ 1.67 GHz
After that, there's a lot of guessing. But here's a shot at Revision 2:
PowerMac - Dual Core Pentium / derivative (Pentium D?)
PowerBook - Single Core (Maybe Dual?) Pentium M
iBook - Single Core Pentium M clocked lower than PowerBook
iMac - Pentium D?
eMac - ??
tsk
macrumors 6502a
~Shard~ said:
Yes of course their will be negative opinion of them. As a matter of fact, the only thing I can find is negative opinions of them. I don't find anyone defending them. Yet this is how you described them: "one of the world's most renowned security and intelligence companies."
It seems fairly obvious to me at this juncture that you have no idea if these guys made up any of this information or if they have distorted facts to make a wild (and attention grabbing) claim. You haven't offered to defend it at all.
~Shard~ said:
How can we not simply dismiss their findings? We don't even know what they are? Most exploits in machines permanently connected to the internet? What does that mean? Does that mean that they took a sampling of web servers which were 90% Linux, 8% Windows, etc and found their results? They provide no breakdown of the exploit. What the hell is an "exploit"? How many of those exploits were from leaving in a bad root password? The only way I can find anything out is to pay them money which I won't do.
So my question is how can you continue to make your bold claim that "Linux is the least secure OS in the world?" when you can't back it up with a single cold hard fact. IMHO, it looks like you are just disseminating FUD. You have one source, you don't have a clue if the source is even reliable. Yet you make this claim as if it is fact.
If you want to make a claim in the future, how about saying "there was a study done by mi2g that found Linux the least secure OS" because as far as I can tell, you've read this article at one point and you like to toss out their claim to shock people.
Frobozz said:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08/pentiumm/index.php
Confirms Yonah/Pentium-M as first MacIntel product in 2006.
Edit: That sound you heard was current PowerBook sales falling off a cliff.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Just to chime in: MS has also comitted to an open source XML format for Word going forward. All new versions of Mac Office will support it, and third parties will be able to read and write it's format. This is a good PR move by MS, and could make an iWork migration doable if necessary. IMHO, people will not want to move off Office (sadly) but that's fine. As you point out, MS makes a ton of money off Office, and even more off Office for the Mac.
nagromme
macrumors G5
baruck said:
They already do, so I'm sure they won't stop just when Mac user base is climbing even faster!
Why do some now sell to Mac users more than Linux users? I can guess. Linux has a larger user base IF you count servers, and people who "also have Linux installed" on their Windows PC. It's free, so why not install it? That doesn't mean Linux is very many people's full-time productivity desktop for all purposes. Very few people can live like that. The ones that can, by definition have lower needs and run alternative apps like Office clones... they are not the best bets to sell products to! Very few people use Linux ONLY--or even primarily--as their computing "home."
Macs are a different story of course. That's a market they can sell to.
Don't forget massive ongoing cost to develop and debug OS X and all their apps from the lowest to the highest so they run on the full chaotic array of unpredictable Wintel hardware. Don't forget massive support costs to deal with those products after the sale. Don't forget how much more complex--and thus less reliable and easy to improve--parts of OS X would have to become. Don't forget that Apple would lose the ability to design the OS and apps and hardware as an integrated system. And don't forget that Apple would be asking all their developers to face those same complexity and support issues.GregA said:
It's something I don't see happening until/unless Apple had no other choice.
I doubt there will be a "G6" if that's what you mean, although Apple is free to apply the term to a dual-core G5 or something if they wish.tdewey said:
There WIL however, be new and faster PowerPC products coming between now and 2007! Steve said so several times. I agree with guesses the last will be Xserves released in 2007. Steve said by June '07 the transition would be "mostly" complete--and entirely complete by the end of 2007.
That was claimed here, but apparently in error. Someone ELSE posted a link in this thread where Apple DOES support SSE3 (and MMX, SSE, SSE2) in universal binaries. So, false alarm apparently.Frobozz said:
Sounds good--and I agree that the PowerBook is likely to be the first Mac to gain Intel chips. C-Net said "consumer Macs first," but Steve did not get that specific. Portables first makes more sense--even if C-Net is right about PowerMacs following last. (The desktop PPC chip--G5--is better than the laptop/consumer G4 anyway.)tdewey said:
"The first Apple systems in 2006 will use Intels Pentium M processor, according to sources familiar with the companies plans. The Pentium M uses the same x86 architecture as the Pentium 4, but consumes far less power than Pentium 4 chips and its design philosophy is expected to be the model for Intels future processors.?
"Industry analysts agreed that the Pentium M product Intel plans to launch in early 2006, the dual-core Yonah processor, could be an industry leader in performance per watt at that point."
And see the Intel story someone here posted too:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120772,00.asp
Pentium M sounds like the future for sure. Down with Pentium 4! May one never sully the insides of my Mac! 😉
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
tsk said:
OMG calm down. The guy is being very calm and collective about his point and you're jumping down his throat.
Linux's default install is NOT as secure as OS X. That's his point. And, as Linux is on a lot of servers it makes it susceptible to hackers. That's all he's saying.
Take a read from an excellent NSA document about OS X's security settings (via mirror):
http://asumac.asu.edu/documents/OSXSecurity.pdf
... and some discussion about the problems with a default Linux install (varies from distro to distro I'm sure):
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/communications/networks/0,39020427,2123512,00.htm
As a side note, the truth is that Linux is not as secure as people think. While the article that is mentioned is only one source, there are plenty of others. Linux isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's a great server OS and, when locked down properly, is very secure. But default configs are not as secure as a Mac. And, as we all know, a defualt install of Windows prior to SP2 is about as open as a 24 hour diner.
Frobozz said:
The gamers will just dual boot their Mac with Windows.....
No more buying 2 machines.
nagromme said:
Yeah it supports it in universal binaries, but it's off by default. The other rumour is that at WWDC developers are actively encouraged NOT to use SSE3 - has that been confirmed or denied?
Page 58 of universal_binary.pdf says
universal_binary.pdf said:
tsk
macrumors 6502a
Frobozz said:
Um, no this was his claim (with my bold face and it's the second time I've seen him make some variant of it):
~Shard~ said:
Now yes, I'm aware that Linux has vulnerabilities. But what I am kind af annoyed at is to blazenly toss out such a statement and then have one article that you read at some point to back it up (especially when that article has little substance). I just don't think he should be cavalierly tossing out such a claim if he can't back it up.
Edit: Corrected quotes.
"Alternatively, Windows could potentially be run in a window under Mac OS X in a Virtual PC-type environment (not emulated, at full speed)."
this is awesome, now i can do CAE and FEA on my mac! or run games and do no work at all! life might be getting better by the minute 😀
this is awesome, now i can do CAE and FEA on my mac! or run games and do no work at all! life might be getting better by the minute 😀
Azrel
macrumors regular
aegisdesign said:
http://developer.apple.com/document...l#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002217-CH239-283936
No, to install Windows on x86 you HAVE to have a BIOS. There's no two ways about it. So, if Apple annouces Windows should install on x86 Macs, then they will HAVE to use a BIOS.
First Post...
Hello everyone, I am a very long time reader but first time poster.
I was reading in previous posts that because Windows apps may be able to run in a window under the new Mactels and that many developers would just kill support for Mac version apps. I would say that is what is going to happen, but I don't see it being a long term problem. I believe that this will only be a short term problem, because since now Windows users can use their apps on the new Macs, a lot of Windows users will migrate over to Mac for security reasons. Once there is a large enough user base, then developers would start making Mac only apps. And hopefully, the user base for the two OSes would switch, so that Microsoft is where Apple was a few years ago (low market share). I honestly think that this is possible ONLY if two things hold true.
1. Windows programs can run practically full speed in a window under Tiger/Leopard.
2. OSX can stay virus free, spyware free, malware free, and STABLE.
What does everyone else think?
Hello everyone, I am a very long time reader but first time poster.
I was reading in previous posts that because Windows apps may be able to run in a window under the new Mactels and that many developers would just kill support for Mac version apps. I would say that is what is going to happen, but I don't see it being a long term problem. I believe that this will only be a short term problem, because since now Windows users can use their apps on the new Macs, a lot of Windows users will migrate over to Mac for security reasons. Once there is a large enough user base, then developers would start making Mac only apps. And hopefully, the user base for the two OSes would switch, so that Microsoft is where Apple was a few years ago (low market share). I honestly think that this is possible ONLY if two things hold true.
1. Windows programs can run practically full speed in a window under Tiger/Leopard.
2. OSX can stay virus free, spyware free, malware free, and STABLE.
What does everyone else think?
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
What this all means is that all Macs will have MMX/SSE/SSE2 , but some models (presumably the cheap ones) will be missing SSE3, so if you use it you have to make sure there is a way to fall back to SSE2 or earlier.GregA said:
This is exactly how life works under PowerPC. Not all models have Altivec, so if you use it you have to make sure there is a way to fall back to G3.
In other words, Apple are discouraging programmers from writing software that only runs on the newest or most expensive models, just as they have always done (apparently, only Apple are allowed to write programs that only work on high end Macs 😉 )
I wouldn't read any more into this than the likelihood that Apple want to make sure that if Yonah isn't ready to ship when Apple are ready, that there is still a Pentium M that will run everything.
(This business with hedging roadmap bets also explains perfectly the story that low end models will be the first to migrate.)
Macrumors said:
Erm... I just "bought" (according to the website) a "transition kit" off the website and there was no agreements to even "click through"... Am I missing something?..
New Intel Based Macs - Timeline
I think overall this is probably a good move for Apple, but the one year timeline for the new Intel models seems awfully conservative. Based on the keynote, it seems like a almost all of the OS work is done, dev kits are out and the actual conversion to mac binary code appears quick and relatively painless, so why wait a year to roll out the new macs? Why not 3-4 months from now?
I think overall this is probably a good move for Apple, but the one year timeline for the new Intel models seems awfully conservative. Based on the keynote, it seems like a almost all of the OS work is done, dev kits are out and the actual conversion to mac binary code appears quick and relatively painless, so why wait a year to roll out the new macs? Why not 3-4 months from now?
~Shard~
macrumors P6
Frobozz said:
Thank you for reinforcing the point I have been trying to make, perhaps I wasn't getting my message across. You are right, Linux isn't all it's cracked up to be, and when I see a study such as that from mi2g (as much as some people seem to think they're an irreputable organization of Linux-haters or some such variant) which comes out with the findings that it did, it reinforces this point. Is Linux insecure in every single way known to man, in every type of study and analysis? Of course not, you can twist numbers any which way you like, but the situation is enough to warrant my initial claims.
tsk said:
As I stated above, yes, you can get into all the details about "% installs" and "% user base" and "were they tesing x?" and "what about y?" and argue all these different aspects, and of course Linux isn't going to fare poorly in all of them, but the fact remains that as Frobozz states, Linux is a very vulnerable OS. I was simply making a broad initial statement encompassing this, as it is stated in the executive summary of the report itself. I didn't feel like getting into the nitty gritty details in my initial post, justifying things left and right, typing up a bibliography, and writing an essay on the specifics to annotize mi2g's multi-hundred page report on the subject - it was just easier to say "Linux is the least secure OS". I had no idea it would cause such a backlash. I was simply stating the facts from what I've read and researched, not trying to pick a fight or slam Linux.
So my apologizes if my general, high-level statement bothered you. I, in turn, feel you are somewhat overreacting and did not need to make some of the aggressive statements you made regarding my remarks, using the term FUD, etc. All that being said, I appreciate your points and where you're coming from. 😎
Someone above was talking about SIMD, and Apptel not wanting programmers use SIMD instruction.
I believe the reason Apptel does not want people programming in SIMD instruction is because of there two Programing guidlines:
1. Designs must be processor independent
2. Projects must be built for both PowerPC and Intel Processors
So if you were to use SIMD then the project would not be processor independent. This is probably why all the PowerPC software will work if you do not have Altivec. So I think what Apptel is really telling the programmers is keep the project software independent and then add instruction sets that can utilize processor specific features if you have the time.
I also think this means that Apple does not completly want to keep there eggs in one basket. If the guidlines above are correct what is to stop Apple from compiling OSX for cell? OSX may have many other secret lives that Apple is not telling us, this way they will be protected in the future. If you think about it, OSX is unix and unix runs on many other cpus (sparc, amd, intel, arm, geodes, ... you know anything a unix lover can hack and install unix on).
I believe the reason Apptel does not want people programming in SIMD instruction is because of there two Programing guidlines:
1. Designs must be processor independent
2. Projects must be built for both PowerPC and Intel Processors
So if you were to use SIMD then the project would not be processor independent. This is probably why all the PowerPC software will work if you do not have Altivec. So I think what Apptel is really telling the programmers is keep the project software independent and then add instruction sets that can utilize processor specific features if you have the time.
I also think this means that Apple does not completly want to keep there eggs in one basket. If the guidlines above are correct what is to stop Apple from compiling OSX for cell? OSX may have many other secret lives that Apple is not telling us, this way they will be protected in the future. If you think about it, OSX is unix and unix runs on many other cpus (sparc, amd, intel, arm, geodes, ... you know anything a unix lover can hack and install unix on).