First Developer Intel Macs (Photos)

[mnemonix]

Well, actually, there is a difference between the media companies and Apple. There is a qualified "fair use" right to play CDs and DVDs you purchase on any hardware you like.

Without getting too deeply into this argument, "fair use" applies to traditional media, digital media offers new opportunities and associated problems such as the ability to easily create exact and lossless copies of the original and thus needs to be treated differently. My analogy was meant to extend to the fact Apple too is venturing on to a new platform.

On the other hand, Apple is not employing DRM to block customer's legal rights. It is using it to protect their Intellectual Property in a way that doesn't interfere with customers rights to use the product as intended

In no way is it protecting Apples IP, that is as secure as any other piece of software (or digital media for that matter). It is specifically interfering with the customers ability (i won't say "rights") to use the product in the way THEY want to - how Apple intend the product to be used is (academically at least) irrelevant.

If Apple did not do this it would be negligent. It has a duty to prevent its product from becoming open to all.

Thats 'open' as in used by all who might otherwise enjoy the benefits of a damn fine OS ? shame on Apple.

But, to say Apple is crippling its hardware is not a true statement. The chip only ensures its software can only be installed on its hardware. That is a legitimate use of DRM.

Sorry, Mac OS is as capable of running on a regular beige Intel box as Windows, to prevent it doing so is precisely "crippling" it.

I started my point by saying its "morally" no different than any other piece of DRM. That companies will use it to protect their interests in the way you describe, over the greater common good is inevitable and I expect this from the likes of Microsoft and the big media companies, but I am disappointed that a company such as Apple should stoop to debase its business model and i'll say it again, cripple its products, at the behest of the marketing department, rather than utilising its technological prowess to leverage a profit from the market. The legitimacy of Apples use of DRM is no different to anyone elses.

 

[AidenShaw]

code names confused?

Depends. The PowerMac (and Xserve) will probably use the P-M based Xenon when it transitions in 2007 as its a workstation. Whatever technology is available it'll use. I expect custom motherboards to fit the case.

Actually, "Xenon" is the code name for the Xbox 360, which is PPC-based.

"Xeon" is the Intel marketing name for the more expensive dual (or more) processor capable Pentium 4 chips.

Some of the price delta is real (the P4 chips are in smaller packages with fewer pins - since there's no need for the SMP circuitry to be connected to the mobo), and some is just higher margin on the SMP parts. Also, Xeons often have larger caches (up to 8 MiB on-chip today). (Note that the single-core Pentium 4 Extreme Editions were just large-cache Xeons in single processor Pentium 4 packages.)

Note that dual-core chips are SMP without needing the Xeon socket (and name and price) - the SMP circuitry is inside the chip package, not on the mobo.

Intel's roadmap shows that most future chips will be based on developing the Pentium M designs (P-M), true.

So, if Intel's product positioning and naming continues through the demise of the PPC Macs - you should expect to see dual chip (dual dual-core) PowerMacs based on Xeons, and the single chip (dual-core) iMacs and 'books based on Pentiums.

 

[PretendPCuser]

YUCK!

Looks like the inside of a HP.

I'm buying the bigest baddest G5 PM in the fall or early next year.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.

*throws up in mouth*

My premonitions of HP buying Apple have been solidified.

 

[BenRoethig]

Some of the price delta is real (the P4 chips are in smaller packages with fewer pins...

Not currently. The P4 uses a 775 pin socket, while the xeon uses a 620 pin socket.

 

[PretendPCuser]

Might i suggest this as an analogy?

If anything, The Mac is a Honda or Toyota sedan and Windows is a Pontiac Aztec. ARGGGGGGGGGG! Now I'm doing it. Analogies SUCK!!!!!

Except Pontiac never sold a gazillion Aztecs. Aztecs are, in actuality, more like Wang computers.

*braces for flames from pro-wangers*

Wait....did that come out right?

 

[Lacero]

I have never seen an actual Aztek on the roads, and what, they've been out for at least 4 years now? Anyway, they're pretty ugly.

 

[AidenShaw]

*buzzt* - Aiden's wrong

Not currently. The P4 uses a 775 pin socket, while the xeon uses a 620 pin socket.

Actually, isn't it 604 for the Xeon (http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=869908,867326&familyID=5&culture=en-US)?

Right now, however, the carriers aren't comparable. The Xeon is using a PGA (Pin Grid Array) connection, and the Pentium uses an LGA (Land Grid Array) package.

When the (P4) Xeon was first introduced it had more pins than the comparably packaged P4 - Pentium 4 had 423/478 pins, and the Xeon has always been 603/604. (Follow "Processor Spec Finder" links at both http://support.intel.com/support/processors/xeon/ and http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/).

In any event, clearly the count is now higher for the Pentium 4.

 

[whatever]

Get a life!

YUCK!

Looks like the inside of a HP.

I'm buying the bigest baddest G5 PM in the fall or early next year.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.

*throws up in mouth*

For starters, this is not the final product! Repeat this is development model. Thinking this is what the final product is going to look like is like thinking that the final X-Box 360 was going to have a cable running to a PowerMac G5 in the closet. Apple needed/wanted to get something out to developers quickly, so they stuck the Intel motherboard into an existing G5 enclosure. That's all. Sure they could have sent them out in a Dell box, but I'm sure people would get upset!

It will be nice to see what the new enclosure will look like, hopefully it will be smaller and nicer than what we have today. As for the motherboard itself, expect it to cut to fit into the new case.

And we all thought that the mini was small...

Whatever!

 

[fluidinclusion]

Really?

I have never seen an actual Aztek on the roads, and what, they've been out for at least 4 years now? Anyway, they're pretty ugly.

As much as I don't like them, I've seen dozens, if not hundreds of Aztecs on the roads. Open your eyes.

 

[iMeowbot]

Except Pontiac never sold a gazillion Aztecs. Aztecs are, in actuality, more like Wang computers.

Fred Pontiac took over and ruined the company?

 

[magi.sys]

EDID Chip problem

Well, I was just thinking. Since Darwin is opensource, and the EDID recognition is probably going to be in the kernel, it should be as simple as compiling your own kernel from Darwin and somehow make an installer for the rest of the OS X binaries to install OS X on non Apple Intel machines. Get it? Just an idea. By the way I will still be buying Apple hardware

 

[ailleur]

The virus won't know how to deal with the Mac OS X filesystem, so it couldn't do anything to the files. If it mucks with the partition table, or tries to write raw data to the Mac OS X partitions, there might be trouble. I don't know if there's any way to protect from that.

I have no idea what a Windows virus would do to an OS X volume on a firewire drive. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows virii just ignored such things, because they aren't common on Windows machines.

So that might be an option : set up a backup on a firewire disk, or even a RAID mirror.

The safest way to use Windows on an Intel Mac would be to run it inside VMWare or VirtualPC. With those, you can create the Windows volume as a disk image-type thing on your disk. This lets you run Windows in its own sandbox.

Windows cannot read hfs or ufs. A virus wouldnt know other volumes are on the physical drive.

 

[840quadra]

Well, I was just thinking. Since Darwin is opensource, and the EDID recognition is probably going to be in the kernel, it should be as simple as compiling your own kernel from Darwin and somehow make an installer for the rest of the OS X binaries to install OS X on non Apple Intel machines. Get it? Just an idea. By the way I will still be buying Apple hardware

Possible, but I do believe that they have thought of this. Since OS X has been co-developed for X86 and PPC for years, I think they have also figured out unique ways to make it hard to load on normal X86 PC hardware.

 

[flir67]

re: intel 925?

that motherboard looks close but doesn't .if thatis the 925 thats a very stripped down version . plus the mac version is green vs black. the intel black motherboards are usually the high end ones with all the gizmo's on it such as raid,etc...


edited: after viewing all the motherboards I think he maybe right, 925 looks closest

wonder if any one can install virtual pc on it. us apc bios ripper and copy off then, all the pc geeks would have tons of fun

 

[840quadra]

As much as I don't like them, I've seen dozens, if not hundreds of Aztecs on the roads. Open your eyes.

Some people are just able to tune them out, like a bad Country song playing in the car next to you.

I am a car guy, and I can honestly say I can't remember the last time I have spotted an az. I can however remember the last time I spotted a Touareg. I just block out the cars I don't like, no matter how big, or comon they are.

(yeah we are WAY off topic now)

 

[deputy_doofy]

Man, when is my P-M Powerbook coming out? Next Tuesday? Someone had to say it (for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th time).

Seriously, I look forward to the new Apple machines. I'm not concerned about the Intel processor. I just don't want the Pentium 4 when all is said and done. All info I've read about the P-M since it was created has been favorable and I'm interested to see where this all goes.

However, due to the architectural change, I'll be keeping my PB 12" instead of selling it down the line.

 

[peccles]

2. OF COURSE Apple isn't going to allow you to install Mac OS X on any old hardware. That would completely disable the tight hardware/software integration that has defined the Mac. Imagine for a moment your computer illeterate parents/grandparents buy a crappy Dell with Mac OS X on it. It constantly crashes and runs slow, and nothing works because Mac OS X was never designed to run on that particular hardware. You think they'll know or care that Mac OS X is designed to run on Apple hardware only? No. They'll just think "Macs are bad" and never buy another one again. That's what Apple is trying to avoid by not allowing OS X to boot on just any PC.

That's one way to look at it. I think an additional reason is Apple is afraid that their HW can't compete against the generic PC. If they really believe, their HW is better eventhough a little more expensive, then the consumers will buy Macs rather than generic PCs is they perceive a better overall value or features they need that a generic PC can't provide running Mac OS X. Jobs knows his HW won't survive in a more open playing field if Mac OS X is allowed to run on other PCs. He knows Apple HW on Intel couldn't compete if the consumer was given the choice to run Mac OS on other PCs.

 

[capran]

What about PC video cards and other expansions?

Will standard PC video cards and other PCI cards work? Are there drivers?

 

[flir67]

Will standard PC video cards and other PCI cards work? Are there drivers?

the video card is in the pci-express x16 , who know if its pc compitable or not.

some one can always take it out and try

 

[justytylor]

That's one way to look at it. I think an additional reason is Apple is afraid that their HW can't compete against the generic PC. If they really believe, their HW is better eventhough a little more expensive, then the consumers will buy Macs rather than generic PCs is they perceive a better overall value or features they need that a generic PC can't provide running Mac OS X. Jobs knows his HW won't survive in a more open playing field if Mac OS X is allowed to run on other PCs. He knows Apple HW on Intel couldn't compete if the consumer was given the choice to run Mac OS on other PCs.

Now, wait a minute. How exactly would running hardware on the same *platform* not competitive? If Apple hardware, starting in 2006, is using the same version of Pentium M and Centrino boards that Intel makes for everyone else, wouldn't that mean that for once there's a level playing field? We're two years from the G5 release, and we all know how many illusions were shattered there (it's a great chip, but it hasn't advanced like the rest of the industry). Now the emphasis is going to be on OS X as an OS. Will it actually be better than Windows *on the same hardware*? That's the question. And in that respect, OS X can *definitely* compete with Windows XP.

 

[wdlove]

The box that we have come to know and love, but it looks so empty inside. That means that Apple can make it smaller or add some additional goodies.

 

[wnurse]

Since when does Windows read HFS+ disks?

If it can't do that (and it can't) then it can't touch your files. It can touch the partition, but it can't read or alter individual files.

You do know that a virus can format a hard drive without being able to read the indivual files, right?. Also, a clever virus writer can create a virus to delete critical system files without even being able to read them (example, by erasing random sectors on disk, overwriting random sectors of the disk, etc). Would be a tough virus to write as it would have to be written in a low level language.

 

[llamatronique]

Actually, isn't it 604 for the Xeon (http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=869908,867326&familyID=5&culture=en-US)?

Right now, however, the carriers aren't comparable. The Xeon is using a PGA (Pin Grid Array) connection, and the Pentium uses an LGA (Land Grid Array) package.

Probably more interestingly... the pin spec for the Xeon and Itanium(2) will be compatible by 2007. The supposed release date for Tukwila is remarkably close to the release date for the high end Mactels, so will they be x86 or IA64, or both?

I image that the PB and low end Macs will be Pentium-M based... but the Desktop/Xserve/<insert silly spec> migt be scaleable from perhaps lower end x86 Xeons to IA64.

4 x quad core IA64 for FCP/Shake users.... mmmm.

If so, all the MHz myth zealots have a glimmer of hope.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Assuming Apple are going with BIOS instead of OperFirmware (as stated in the universal binary guide pdf Apple distributed),

The pdf says nothing of the sort. It only says there won't be OpenFirmware.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

You do know that a virus can format a hard drive without being able to read the indivual files, right?.

Yes, that's why I referred to a virus messing with the partition. You do know what a partition is, don't you?

Also, a clever virus writer can create a virus to delete critical system files without even being able to read them (example, by erasing random sectors on disk, overwriting random sectors of the disk, etc). Would be a tough virus to write as it would have to be written in a low level language.

And the virus writer would have to take the time to learn how HFS+ filesystems are arranged, to know where to write. (That is, assuming that the Mac puts files in predictable locations on disk.) Much easier to just mess with the partition table, which is already well-known.