Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel iBooks with Front Row?

Uhm, technically you have 8 cores total...

MacQuest said:
Get the bib and napkins ready 'cause I'm gonna say it one more time:

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

:D
Click to expand...
A quad-core duo almost sounds like an anachronism, but you're referring to a laptop with 2 quad-core CPUs, yes? Just imagine the battery life - even if it is 45nm. And I think they'd have to make it waterproof, so you could pour a tray of ice cubes on it every 20 minutes.
 
You can call me names, just don't slam my Pismo!

gnasher729 said:
... Compared to your 900 MHz iBook, a Core Solo has twice the clock speed, does more instructions per cycle on the average, has memory bandwidth that makes the G3 absolutely laughable, has a decent vector unit (not quite the same as Altivec, but still quite capable), and it has 2 Megabyte of L2 cache. It absolutely _kills_ a 900 MHz iBook. Of course, Core Duo kills it twice :)
...
If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?
Click to expand...
You know, talking about berating & slamming people in the forums - you triply-slammed my poor, beleaguered Pismo G3/400... I know how ancient it is. I know that it has a nasty reputation for killing DVD-ROM drives (3 of 'em!). And I know that it feels embarrassed when I drool over the MacBook Pro... And it knows that I wept for it when I installed Tiger - Leopard would give it an irretrievable-seizure.

Soon, very soon... Or at least when I get my tax return filed.
 
Yonah is a lame duck in Intel's roadmap...

Norse Son said:
Dual-core and 64bit?... It will be at least 3 years before consumer apps begin to cross that bridge.
Click to expand...
Because 64-bit will be faster in Intel chips (often 20% or more), there will be a lot of call for 64-bit products.

Once Merom ships, Yonah's days are numbered. Intel will push Merom-based 64-bit chips into all of the places where Yonah lives, although probably not into the very-low-power realm at first. (http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/)

Windows Vista is also going to push the 64-bit bandwagon, since high-end PCs and workstations will need the memory, and low-end ones will want 64-bit speed.

So, I agree that consumer apps won't need 64-bit addressing right away, and 3 years sounds reasonable - but people will want 64-bit speed as soon as Merom shows up.

But.... Apple has said nothing about plans for OSx64. For how long are they going to let Vista systems run 20% faster than OSx86 systems?
 
Blame Moto & IBM for closeness of G4 laptops

MrCrowbar said:
I can't see the ne iBook with a Core Solo. Besides, the Core Solo is only 20$ less than the Core Duo. The iBooks were close to the powerbooks in terms of processors in the G4 world. This tradition should be continued with the Core Duos. And as the new iBooks will probably get the iSight, the things that will differ from the MBP would be graphics, optical drive and the HDD, Bus etc. Given the new form factor, the screen should get better. MagSafe is a must.

Wow, we made it back to the thread topic. :)
Click to expand...
The only reason you saw the iBook creep up on the PowerBook G4 was because the PowerBook had nowhere else to go. The G4 was stagnating and the G5 was vaporware (maybe it still is?). The iBook hung out in G3 land as long as it could, but was finally forced to move to the G4. And since Moto stumbled along so impressively in failing to improve the G4, the PowerBook approached a zenith, a plateau. IBM kept making empty promises of the G5 for laptops, but by the time they announced it (finally) WWDC '05 and the Intel-shift announcement were already old news.

So the reasoning that the iBook-Intel should "continue a tradition", by keeping one step behind the MacBook Pro in cpu type & speed doesn't hold up now that Apple has Intel's vast, dedicated laptop-processor resources at its disposal. And that's why I don't see the iBook getting a Core Duo until the MacBook Pro has successfully transitioned from the 32bit Yonah to the 64bit Merom... Look to MWSF '07 for the iBook Core Duo.
 
Leopard-talk at WWDC '06 will feature 64bit

AidenShaw said:
Because 64-bit will be faster in Intel chips (often 20% or more), there will be a lot of call for 64-bit products.

Once Merom ships, Yonah's days are numbered. Intel will push Merom-based 64-bit chips into all of the places where Yonah lives...

Windows Vista is also going to push the 64-bit bandwagon, since high-end PCs and workstations will need the memory, and low-end ones will want 64-bit speed...

But.... Apple has said nothing about plans for OSx64. For how long are they going to let Vista systems run 20% faster than OSx86 systems?
Click to expand...
Interesting you should mention Vista. Over at MacWorld UK they have a story on Jim Allchin, the Vista development leader at Microsoft, saying that he'd delay Vista's release if it didn't measure up to a standard of quality he didn't approve of. http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=13716 I wonder if that's Microsoft's way of covering their... (you know), just in case this latest deadline slips.

And over at MacDailyNews they have some excerpts from the interview, including this gem: "Q: Are there any features you regret leaving out?
A: Well, that's a hard thing. There's nothing that comes to mind right now. At this point, literally, I just want to complete what we've got in there because it's so rich in terms of features."

The full interview is at the Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002770700_btallchinqa30.html

But getting back on topic; I expect that MacOS X and 64bit will feature prominently at WWDC '06. Thus far we've heard very little about Leopard, other than what Steve said at WWDC '05, which was overshadowed by the whole Intel thingymabobblesnick... Don't be surprised if rumors start to crop up in April-timeframe about more of the OS being written to take advantage of 64bit, though I suspect a majority of such work will take place on the x86 side of MacOS X.

Especially if Apple is now looking to ship their last PPC systems this year, instead of completing the transition by the end of 2007. Based on an average 3-4 year lifespan for a Mac - my Pismo G3/400 is subject to the PaleoMacic clause - there will be a... hmmm... "softening" of the work done to the PPC code over the next 4 years. For evidence, look at the shovel of dirt Apple just dumped on Classic's coffin with the new Intel machines...
 
Norse Son said:
...but you're referring to a laptop with 2 quad-core CPUs, yes?
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I know the name I originally used [Quad Core Duo] is confusing which is why I'm now just referring to it as the Core Duo 2x, meaning 2 Core Duo's for a total of 4 processors.

Not 2 chips with 4 cores/processors each [totaling 8 processors] which is what you're thinking that I mean. I would call that a Core Quad 2x [or Quattro, etc.]. Or to achieve 8 processors using Core Duo's, I'd say Core Duo 4x.

I would also call either one of those configurations "insane" as notebook solutions.
 
rhsgolfer33 said:
T1300 1.66ghz Solo w/ Intel 945 PM chipset and Intel wireless: $274
512 MB 667: $40
Ati X1600 w/ 128MB is $30, so by using an X1300 with 64MB you could get down to about $15-$20
160gb in the iMac is about $30, so an 80gb should be around $10-$20
Click to expand...

I think Apple should hire you as purchaser. I'd like to see where you find a 160 GB driver for $30 and an 80GB notebook drive for $10-$20.
 
MacinDoc said:
More likely "Core Quad" or "Core Quattro". The term "Quado" mixes 2 different languages.
Click to expand...

Um, it was a joke! Must remember to put [sarcasm] around everything....
 
Norse Son said:
But getting back on topic; I expect that MacOS X and 64bit will feature prominently at WWDC '06. Thus far we've heard very little about Leopard, other than what Steve said at WWDC '05, which was overshadowed by the whole Intel thingymabobblesnick...

Don't be surprised if rumors start to crop up in April-timeframe about more of the OS being written to take advantage of 64bit, though I suspect a majority of such work will take place on the x86 side of MacOS X.
Click to expand...
Apple has a problem with the x64 transition - but I agree that they must start to tell their developers how it will be solved.

My predictions for WWDC'06:
  • Apple will announce that PPC 64-bit work is frozen. Nothing more than the lame "32-bit O/S with 64-bit terminal-apps only" feature of 10.4 will be done on the PPC codebase.
  • Apple will annouce that x64 is coming, and it will be a true 64-bit O/S. The complete O/S will be 64-bit, all APIs will be 64-bit, all applications will be 64-bit, all libraries and frameworks will be 64-bit. Carbon, Cocoa, GUI - everything is 64-bit on x64.
    Jobs will say "Just 'check the box' in Xcode and you instantly have a true 64-bit app." ;)
  • Apple will talk about the "Even More Universal Binaries", with streams for PPC, x86 and x64 binaries in one file.
  • Apple will announce a WOW64-like environment similar to Windows x64 Edition to transparently run x86 universal binaries on x64. 32-bit application libraries will be used, and 32-bit calls to the O/S will go through transfer routines that will call the native 64-bit O/S APIs.
  • Will OSx64 be Leopard, or the next release after Leopard? IMO Apple will slip the Leopard date to make it true 64-bit. Otherwise, Apple will look bad running all those Merom, Conroe and other 64-bit chips in 32-bit only mode.

The new logo for the "Even More Universal Binaries" will be a striking three-lobed symbol

logo-bioworkenv.gif


replacing the yin-yang logo.
 
Nice one. I like the logo... implies there might be problems in making the apps 64 bit (check little boxes). You have a point I didn't really think of before and you are right. Apple will adopt the Merom as soon as they can, but running it on 32 bit doesn't make too much sense. I'd like to see mashines with a native 32 bit processor and a 64 bit one for a smooth transition. :)
 
MrCrowbar said:
Apple will adopt the Merom as soon as they can, but running it on 32 bit doesn't make too much sense.
Click to expand...
Agree, even the people who don't need 64-bit addressing would want to have the extra speed that comes from x64 mode.

MrCrowbar said:
I'd like to see mashines with a native 32 bit processor and a 64 bit one for a smooth transition. :)
Click to expand...
The x64 chips have native 32-bit mode - even native 16-bit mode!

Applications can be a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit applications - when a task is scheduled the core is put into the correct mode for that task.

Windows x64 Edition shows which processes are 32-bit jobs running in WOW64 by putting a "*32" by the name.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    42.1 KB · Views: 109
I know, but wouldn't it be nice not to bother the 64 bit cpu with 32 bit tasks? As far as I know, you can't run 2 different 32 bit threars on a 64 bit core simultaniusly, can you? I know putting 2 totally diferent chips in there is fairly unwise, but I just like the idea. The 32 bit cpu could do the dull things like handling the operating system while the 64 takes care of the hungry applications. Such a distinction already happened a long time ago when graphic cards were releiveing the cpu of the graphics stuff.

But i just can't picture a 2 (different) processor system in home computing right now. It's more likely to be many identical processor cores on one die. Makes it easier for the OS to handle, too.
 
AidenShaw said:
Apple has a problem with the x64 transition - but I agree that they must start to tell their developers how it will be solved.

My predictions for WWDC'06:
  • Apple will announce that PPC 64-bit work is frozen. Nothing more than the lame "32-bit O/S with 64-bit terminal-apps only" feature of 10.4 will be done on the PPC codebase.
  • Apple will annouce that x64 is coming, and it will be a true 64-bit O/S. The complete O/S will be 64-bit, all APIs will be 64-bit, all applications will be 64-bit, all libraries and frameworks will be 64-bit. Carbon, Cocoa, GUI - everything is 64-bit on x64.
    Jobs will say "Just 'check the box' in Xcode and you instantly have a true 64-bit app." ;)
  • Apple will talk about the "Even More Universal Binaries", with streams for PPC, x86 and x64 binaries in one file.
  • Apple will announce a WOW64-like environment similar to Windows x64 Edition to transparently run x86 universal binaries on x64. 32-bit application libraries will be used, and 32-bit calls to the O/S will go through transfer routines that will call the native 64-bit O/S APIs.
  • Will OSx64 be Leopard, or the next release after Leopard? IMO Apple will slip the Leopard date to make it true 64-bit. Otherwise, Apple will look bad running all those Merom, Conroe and other 64-bit chips in 32-bit only mode.

The new logo for the "Even More Universal Binaries" will be a striking three-lobed symbol

replacing the yin-yang logo.
Click to expand...

These would be multi-versal binaries? Or collapsed quantum probablity binaries (aka Schrodinger's [sic] Binaries)?

You know, when you have a binary on your hard-disk, is it targetted at any architecture until you click on it?
 
AidenShaw said:
The new logo for the "Even More Universal Binaries" will be a striking three-lobed symbol

replacing the yin-yang logo.
Click to expand...

i prefer the three-lobed "symbol" from that one alien on mars in "total recall"...
 
That's a thing I don't understand. You have a CD with universal binaries on it and let's say an Intel iMac. Do you reall install the universal binary on the Mac? I mean, you don't need the PPC-Code on the Intel Mac right? Or is it just in case your main HD is external, and you may want to switch computers (PPC and Intel)?

Wouldn't it be better to only have the codes on a system you can actually run? Why having the PPC-Code on an Intel Mashine when you have the native Intel Code? Or having Intel Code on a G5 mashine...

I don't want 3 different codes (PPC, 32bit intel and 64bit intel) on my Mac when 2 of them are useless. I'd like to be asked at the installation of a new app if I want the code for my specific mashine or if I need the full universal binary (for advanced users).
 
You said it - "I know putting 2 totally diferent chips in there is fairly unwise"

MrCrowbar said:
I know, but wouldn't it be nice not to bother the 64 bit cpu with 32 bit tasks? As far as I know, you can't run 2 different 32 bit threars on a 64 bit core simultaniusly, can you? I know putting 2 totally diferent chips in there is fairly unwise, but I just like the idea. The 32 bit cpu could do the dull things like handling the operating system while the 64 takes care of the hungry applications. Such a distinction already happened a long time ago when graphic cards were releiveing the cpu of the graphics stuff.

But i just can't picture a 2 (different) processor system in home computing right now. It's more likely to be many identical processor cores on one die. Makes it easier for the OS to handle, too.
Click to expand...
But, Merom will have 2 cores that can do both 32-bit and 64-bit - this is much better.

If you put a 32-bit chip in there, it will be idle when you have two 64-bit tasks trying to run. Put in two 32/64-bit cores, and both 64-bit tasks can run.

Also, the biggest problem with 10.4's "64-bit" support is that the operating system is only 32-bit. That's why GUI apps can't be 64-bit, why Cocoa apps can't be 64-bit, etc.

(To most people, the "Mac OSX Operating System" is everything that they see - the finder, the dock, Quartz, ... Some geek/nerd types will say that the OS is the Mach microkernel, or Darwin, or some set of kernel components - but to most "OSX" is everthing that's on the DVD.)

It's much better to have two processors that can instantly switch between 32-bit and 64-bit, than to have one 32-bit CPU and one 64-bit CPU.
 
AidenShaw said:
But, Merom will have 2 cores that can do both 32-bit and 64-bit - this is much better.

If you put a 32-bit chip in there, it will be idle when you have two 64-bit tasks trying to run. Put in two 32/64-bit cores, and both 64-bit tasks can run.

Also, the biggest problem with 10.4's "64-bit" support is that the operating system is only 32-bit. That's why GUI apps can't be 64-bit, why Cocoa apps can't be 64-bit, etc.

(To most people, the "Mac OSX Operating System" is everything that they see - the finder, the dock, Quartz, ... Some geek/nerd types will say that the OS is the Mach microkernel, or Darwin, or some set of kernel components - but to most "OSX" is everthing that's on the DVD.)

It's much better to have two processors that can instantly switch between 32-bit and 64-bit, than to have one 32-bit CPU and one 64-bit CPU.
Click to expand...

is darwin, as shipped with mac os x, fully 64-bit on the ppc970?
 
well, since there's some folks who know about 64 bit computing...

I've tried to keep up as best I can here, so pardon any errors or problematic assumptions. But...

What about 64 bit linux? 64 bit mobile processors are already available from AMD. While the intel dual core 64 bit sounds much more impressive, can't 64 bit linux already take advantage of this new technology? or is it like mac os x, which runs on 64bit systems but doesn't really take advantage?

stepping out of the "RDS" for a second, these days really seem like a horrible time to buy a mac. buy the same hardware that runs a really small time os with few native apps at price premium. then, in 18 months, jobs can roll out the "red box," and developers and consumers alike can s*#t themselves from anger for migrating to an os that, as it turns out, can run widows code anyway ( I know its not that simple, but apple really would do something that annoying).

any word on when ms office goes universal?
 
gnasher729 said:
I think Apple should hire you as purchaser. I'd like to see where you find a 160 GB driver for $30 and an 80GB notebook drive for $10-$20.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a wie bit of a misread off of the site I got the info from, I would estimate $40-$60 cost on a 60gb. My buddy works at a computer parts wholesaler and can get brand name 5400rpm 60gb notebook drives for $80(for one). Id imagine Apple gets their 4200 rpm 60gb drives for far less, considering the quantity they buy in and the fact that its 4200rpm.
 
typewriterchimp said:
What about 64 bit linux? 64 bit mobile processors are already available from AMD. While the intel dual core 64 bit sounds much more impressive, can't 64 bit linux already take advantage of this new technology? or is it like mac os x, which runs on 64bit systems but doesn't really take advantage?
Click to expand...
Windows XP x64 Edition runs in 64-bit on the Turion 64, as well as several Linux distros.

Unless an application is compiled for x64, however, it runs in 32-bit mode.

Few desktop apps are available for Linux, period. It's early on the adoption curve for Windows x64, so most Windows apps will run fine, but won't get the extra boost from 64-bit.


typewriterchimp said:
stepping out of the "RDS" for a second, these days really seem like a horrible time to buy a mac. buy the same hardware that runs a really small time os with few native apps at price premium. then, in 18 months, jobs can roll out the "red box,"...
Click to expand...
Actually, it might be worse than that.

Buy a 32-bit Apple, and then in 6 months it's replaced by a 64-bit Apple. There's a new 64-bit OSx64, so many applications move to x64 for the extra speed.

Those that didn't make "Universal Binary" versions for OSx86 in that 6-12 month window might decide to skip 32-bit OSx86 completely, and only make OSx64 version of the Intel binary.

Your new Apple is top of the line for 6 months, then it's a dead end.

Bummer.
 
egad!

sorry pismo, can't replace you yet. we're not on the right side of the new wave of technology yet.

pismo: "hmmmm....ghrrrrhhhh....what? tiger hurts"

as a grad student who doesn't like to buy new machines very often, well, let's just say I'll be holding off for a while. and why, on a separate note, does apple not wish to introduce a black ibook? wouldn't it sell like crazy? I might even be tempted (well, not quite).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back