First Developer Intel Macs (Photos)

[Mac-Xpert]

Like the movie, "The Graduate" tells us, the future is one word - "plastic".

Plastic, as in 25 cent OSX DVD's that ring up $129 at the register. It doesn't matter what the Intel parts inside look like. It's what is on the plastic disc that counts.

Hmm, well in Apples case I think the future is metal. A couple of years ago most of their hardware had a plastic enclosure, but in the last few years a lot of products got a metal case, even the iPod mini. So I think the future is metal. Looks good, feels good

 

[rpsmith]

Who cares about market share

Well, you were going fine until this. Marketshare is more important in a computer than a car, because it affects the availability of 3rd party software and hardware.

As someone else said, car/computer analogies suck.

However as always people using Windows (FORD) will always wish they could afford an Apple (BMW)

Not really. There are the enthusiasts (us) and normal users (everyone else). The latter don't care. For the former, Apple is making MacOS require this EDID chip on the board, so until someone hacks that requirement away Apple hardware will probably *still* be more expensive and slower than the DIY stuff you can get on the PC side. It's a shame really, but I guess at this stage such a move is necessary for the survival of Apple. They know they've "lost" the OS war, and therefore can't compete directly with MS on the OS front. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) XP+cygwin is almost on par with OSX, other than some frills.

 

[BillHarrison]

Not really. There are the enthusiasts (us) and normal users (everyone else). The latter don't care. For the former, Apple is making MacOS require this EDID chip on the board, so until someone hacks that requirement away Apple hardware will probably *still* be more expensive and slower than the DIY stuff you can get on the PC side. It's a shame really, but I guess at this stage such a move is necessary for the survival of Apple. They know they've "lost" the OS war, and therefore can't compete directly with MS on the OS front. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) XP+cygwin is almost on par with OSX, other than some frills.

I have yet to see any proof apple is using this chip. I have seen several articles saying "could" and "nothing is stopping them from using it". None that have said "will" or "has"

Anyone know otherwise?

 

[Flynnstone]

Windows <-> Ford ?

Isn't Windows more like a turbo charged Scoda with a roll of duct tape

 

[LGRW3919]

Not really. There are the enthusiasts (us) and normal users (everyone else). The latter don't care. For the former, Apple is making MacOS require this EDID chip on the board, so until someone hacks that requirement away Apple hardware will probably *still* be more expensive and slower than the DIY stuff you can get on the PC side. It's a shame really, but I guess at this stage such a move is necessary for the survival of Apple. They know they've "lost" the OS war, and therefore can't compete directly with MS on the OS front. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) XP+cygwin is almost on par with OSX, other than some frills.

do you mean to say in volume apple has lost the OS war? because OS X kicks some major Windows ass on so many (seemingly innumerous ) levels.

 

[Mass Hysteria]

do you mean to say in volume apple has lost the OS war? because OS X kicks some major Windows ass on so many (seemingly innumerous ) levels.

hey, if the OS was that good, everyone would have it. Dont get me wrong, I like macs . . . they're just like real computers

 

[Jo-Kun]

I would expect the Apple will make improvements other that just an Intel inside. So I would imagine that the price will stay about the same. We can always hope that there might be a decrease though.

because intel processors are build in more quantities I think prices are lower than for instance a G5... so my guess is that prices might drop a bit or they just add more prowerfull extra's wich will make the price equal but the machine more attractive to pay that price

will the move to intel allso make it possible that graphics cards don't need to be apple specific? that technology that comes to pc's first will be added in the same timeframe on an apple (PCI express etc) if that would be the case everybody who is complaining that they want some pc graphics card inside would be able to buy one and install it and stop talking about the fact that mac's aren't so good in Game graphics (and I think only the gamers are the one's that really complain all the time about these cards... but for me a mac is a working tool, for gaming I have my old Nintendo64 )

I have the basic 5200 in my G5 and for me its perfect... it does the job on 2 monitors but then I don't need 3D since photoshop is 2D :d

 

[AidenShaw]

do you mean to say in volume apple has lost the OS war? because OS X kicks some major Windows ass on so many (seemingly innumerous ) levels.

Sure, if you're comparing OSX to Windows 95 - like many people here seem to do.

Comparing OSX to XP.sp2, it's clear that OSX wins the eye-candy award.

On substance, though, not so clear. Both systems are useful tools. There's lots of criticism of Spotlight on the web, though not from the fanbois. Most here claim that Windows BSODs constantly, but XP users know that it's pretty rare unless you've got bad hardware.

Viruses on Windows are real, but it's pretty simple to turn on automatic updating, and install Norton. Those two things (plus not being stupid and clicking "Yes" when the porn site asks if you want to download some free software) keep your system pretty safe.

I was at a conference recently, and someone nearby said "Damn! idiotic one-button Powerbook!". PC systems are clearly far superior in the mouse button department - easily proven to be at least twice as good as a Mac.

Personal computers are tools, not religions. Nobody is "stupid" because of computer preference. Each system has real advantages, and real problems.

 

[rpsmith]

do you mean to say in volume apple has lost the OS war? because OS X kicks some major Windows ass on so many (seemingly innumerous ) levels.

Wellll...... This certainly used to be true in the Mac Classic days (because of the GUI) and in the early OSX days (because of the integrated unix). Nowadays the gap has narrowed IMO, to the point that the differences are (almost) a matter of what you are used to on the GUI side. And on the unix side, now that cygwin for XP has matured, the differences there are pretty nonexistent there as well.

There was probably a sweet spot sometime in the past where the Mac could have gotten a lot of traction and competed directly with MS by running on PC platforms. That would have been cool, to have real competition in the desktop OS market. Seems like it's too late now.

 

[rpsmith]

because intel processors are build in more quantities I think prices are lower than for instance a G5... so my guess is that prices might drop a bit or they just add more prowerfull extra's wich will make the price equal but the machine more attractive to pay that price

I don't think this will happen. The price of the chip doesn't matter; Apple has a locked-in closed hardware market (that EDID chip will see to that), so they will charge whatever the demand will handle-- as they always have.

will the move to intel allso make it possible that graphics cards don't need to be apple specific?

No, the chip isn't the problem there. You will still need MacOS-specific drivers. So we will still get delays for video cards, just like today.

but for me a mac is a working tool, for gaming I have my old Nintendo64

IMO PC/Mac games are better than console games, but that's just me.

 

[rpsmith]

I was at a conference recently, and someone nearby said "Damn! idiotic one-button Powerbook!". PC systems are clearly far superior in the mouse button department - easily proven to be at least twice as good as a Mac.

Yeah, I've never understood this. They already have contextual menus--why not two button mice? Or better yet, 3 button scrollers. On a desktop you can get a 3rd party mouse, but this is definitely a problem on powerbooks. I have this (work-supplied) IBM thinkpad with a 3-button trackpad, and it is so useful to be able to finally middle click with firefox.

 

[rpsmith]

Comparing OSX to XP.sp2, it's clear that OSX wins the eye-candy award.

Actually, you know I'm not sure of that anymore. Mac classic used to look extremely good; subtle, classy, tasteful, and very functional--the opposite of Win95/98 which looked crude and obtuse. But OSX has always been a bit too in-your-face for me, and not as smooth and efficient as Mac classic. That's better than XP's default look, which is both in-your-face and Fisher-Price fugly. But I think the "Windows Classic" mode in XP is fine--it's more refined and subdued, and reminds me a little of the old Mac in those ways.

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually, you know I'm not sure of that anymore. Mac classic used to look extremely good; subtle, classy, tasteful, and very functional--the opposite of Win95/98 which looked crude and obtuse. But OSX has always been a bit too in-your-face for me, and not as smooth and efficient as Mac classic. That's better than XP's default look, which is both in-your-face and Fisher-Price fugly. But I think the "Windows Classic" mode in XP is fine--it's more refined and subdued, and reminds me a little of the old Mac in those ways.

I always use the XP "Silver" theme (guess they couldn't call it "Platinum") - the cartoon blues are replaced by 3D silver shades. The cartoon feeling is gone, but you still get the 3D and transparency effects that can give useful feedback.

(Context click on the desktop -> "Properties" -> "Appearance" -> "Color Scheme" = "Silver" -> "Apply")

You are right, though, the blue is too "in your face" for my tastes as well.

 

[Platform]

As someone else said, car/computer analogies suck.

Well not really.........you dont really care if your Porche has the same commputer as your FIAT has.......it is what is does and what is made aound that computer that makes the car.......chip does not = computer only a part, depend on what you build around that chip and how you use it

 

[Platform]

Sure, if you're comparing OSX to Windows 95 - like many people here seem to do.

Comparing OSX to XP.sp2, it's clear that OSX wins the eye-candy award.

On substance, though, not so clear. Both systems are useful tools. There's lots of criticism of Spotlight on the web, though not from the fanbois. Most here claim that Windows BSODs constantly, but XP users know that it's pretty rare unless you've got bad hardware.

Viruses on Windows are real, but it's pretty simple to turn on automatic updating, and install Norton. Those two things (plus not being stupid and clicking "Yes" when the porn site asks if you want to download some free software) keep your system pretty safe.

I was at a conference recently, and someone nearby said "Damn! idiotic one-button Powerbook!". PC systems are clearly far superior in the mouse button department - easily proven to be at least twice as good as a Mac.

Personal computers are tools, not religions. Nobody is "stupid" because of computer preference. Each system has real advantages, and real problems.

Very good post

 

[Scottgfx]

Well not really.........you dont really care if your Porche has the same commputer as your FIAT has.......it is what is does and what is made aound that computer that makes the car.......chip does not = computer only a part, depend on what you build around that chip and how you use it

Nope, I think you've proven it for me: Car analogies suck!

 

[SmileyDude]

Assuming Apple are going with BIOS instead of OperFirmware (as stated in the universal binary guide pdf Apple distributed), then how many partitions per disk can you have? As I understand things, in a standard BIOS a disk can only have a maximum of four partitions. Can anyone with experience of BIOS confirm or deny?

The BIOS on an x86 doesn't determine how many partitions you can have. All the BIOS does is load the first sector off the boot drive, and run that code. It's up to that code to boot the selected partition. More advanced boot loaders can present a menu of partitions to boot from.

Anyway, back to partitions -- the standard partition scheme that is used on the x86 only allows 4 partitions in the table. But, you can chain them in the form of extended partitions. So, partitions 1-3 could be 3 separate OS installs. Partition 4 would point to a large partition that could be further sub-divided into smaller partitions.

But -- there is no reason why Apple has to use this format. They could continue to use their existing partition format -- as long as the first sector is free to put the boot code into, that is. The only reason why Apple would want to stick with the existing scheme is that it's easier to work with other x86 operating systems that way. Though, really, we're talking about Windows here... no big loss Linux already can support the Mac partition scheme